We're Back, Baby!(under new management)
Welcome to /fbc/
As a wise man once said, in a roundabout way, books are tools. They exist to inspire the coming man and other revolutionaries, and to aid the process of iteration. We, therefore, would be fools not to take advantage of them.
Fascist Book Club plans to meet on a weekly to biweekly basis to share well-written insights on books chosen by /fbc/ members. The book of the week will be chosen in the thread, and after an allotted time period, anons will return to discuss their reading. Posts related to the chosen book should be high quality, and anons are expected to keep discussion civil and productive. Lastly, and most importantly, have fun with it! While the topics being discussed can be serious, there is no reason why you can't enjoy it. So, let's get started.
Our first book is:
Impeachment of Man
>Written by Savitri Devi
Discussion starts on 9/23
Archive.org link for Impeachment of Man:
Sorry to be a beggar but could you post the file here, please?
My bad, bad etiquette.
I'm wondering, if the first discussion goes well, what everyone wants to read next? I was thinking that we could do something by Nietzsche or Gottfried Feder, but suggestions are more than welcome.
Beyond Good and Evil would be a good choice. One of Spengler's lesser talked about works like Man and Technics or Prussianism and Socialism could also give some good discussion, but they're rather short.
I think Feder's pretty much already read by everyone here. I think one of his influences like Othmar Spann might be a better choice.
>Beyond Good and Evil
I've read it before, but I could probably benefit from a rereading. All the discussion I hear around Nietzsche is usually pretty good, but all I got from Beyond Good and Evil was a rootless cosmopolitan whining about post-modernism while following a philosophy steeped in it and praising the people who brought it about.
>Man and Technics or Prussianism and Socialism
> Othmar Spann
These all sound like good ideas. I've also shilled the american transcendentalist movement for a while, but that might be a little too abrahamic for /fascist/.
I suppose I'll start. This book was prophetic and way ahead of its time. Mass extinction caused by humans, problems with vaccinations, and even social causes like loggers replanting trees are all things that have only relatively recently made it into mainstream discourse. One thing I always love about national socialist literature is how it seems like it could have been written yesterday. The evils they fought against then are the same ones we fight against today. In Chapter 1 Devi discusses how ideological minorities will spring up in civilizations throughout history and set the stage for moral judgements, just as we see fellow travelers of national socialism and fascism spring up regardless of time or place, already awakened to a national socialist worldview.
I'm usually not into the ecofascist or metaphysical stuff and never would have read this if not for this thread. My only experience with Devi is The Lightning and the Sun, which I enjoyed immensely, so it was nice to experience her writing style again. She has a way with words that really pulls one in. I won't say much about the things I agree with because I don't think that fosters discussion, so I'll post some of the thoughts I had while reading that put me in opposition with Devi's vision.
Her discussion of valuing animal life as equal to or even above human life is usually based on a critique of religion (eg. Jesus died for the sins of Man, not animals), but it's also possible to take a more secular viewpoint. That man is a rising beast using his ability to reason to rise above animals and plants while still existing within his role in nature is briefly addressed by Devi, but she boils everything down to the "usefulness" of an animal species to man. She creates an all-or-nothing argument where if one values the ability to reason, then one also has to value every human life regardless of that individual's circumstances or if he can even reason at all. This is wrong because if Man is lifted above beasts by his ability to reason, then a man who cannot reason is nothing more than a beast and would be subject to similar treatment. It seems Devi may have agreed somewhat with this viewpoint as one of her main critiques of man-centered worldviews was that of hypocrisy. For example, she frequently highlights the inconsistency with people who support testing on animals, yet oppose "war crimes." Devi also claims it is not in nature to be omnivorous, and man has only picked up meat as an acquired taste, but we know of multiple species that are omnivorous in nature. This claim and her claim that domesticated dogs and cats could live on bread and milk in a meatless world might be a product of the time it was written, since these are obviously incorrect with our current knowledge of animal species and nutrition. Based on that, the argument that humans are naturally omnivorous still stands. One thing Devi does not address at all is the killing of animals to maintain fruit and vegetable farms. The number of mice, birds, and other "vermin" that are exterminated to maintain a field of fresh vegetables is no small number, so I was hoping to see how she would reconcile that in her vision of a meat free, cruelty free society.
Ultimately, one doesn't need an animal to be "useful" to value its existence nor does one need to completely abstain from consumption of meat, rather the focus should be on avoiding unnecessary harm to any living thing. One also does not need to see even the worst humans as superior to animals or having some sort of divine soul. While I can fully support the abolition of factory farms, it wouldn't do to also shut down a small time farmer or homesteader raising animals with kindness in a clean environment for the purpose of feeding their family or community.
I can't really disagree with any of your post, so I guess I'll expand on it.
Devi talks a lot about the morality of eating meat, and I agree with most of her points. Reducing and eliminating cruelty wherever possible should be a primary concern of a post-establishment Aryan society, as kindness to animals and nature is a defining trait of the Aryan psyche. The consumption of meats like veal is wrong, as it deprives the animal of a fulfilling life and a mother of her children, as well as callous exploitation of animals in slaughterhouse and factory farm conditions. Where I start to disagree with her, like (you) said, is the notion that the Aryan man can reach his full potential eating only plants. The nutrients found in offal and other meats, which have been systematically demonized and eliminated from modern diets for the express purpose of harming Aryan men and women, are essential to the proper development of Aryan children. If the fairer races are needed healthy and in their prime to establish a perfect world, as Devi says, then the consumption of meat is necessary.
She also relies too much on examples of situations involving feral cats, and this reveals the somewhat limited scope of her understanding of the love for all living creatures, unless she is using this to make the arguments she uses more appealing to the common person. Cats and dogs in most places are invasive species. When people feed them, they only cause their populations to multiply further. They cause untold havoc on local ecosystem, like in examples of the cat's colonization of islands in the Pacific. When one steps back and truly sees the situation, they realize that the most humane thing to do would to be to remove invasive cat populations in the least cruel way possible. By this, I mean that sometimes traditional kindness to all animals (feeding stray cats), although it makes us feel good, might not always be the best thing to do. The greater good is not always what would look "right" to the common man.
Also, I do not agree with Devi's praise of the concept of the universalist soul. Just because all beings are imbued with the fire of life, does not mean that they are inherently the same. They are united by one principle, not equal in power or importance (they do all have some purpose though). The idea that a man can reincarnate as an animal seems like a dangerous slipping point into ideas of equality of other kinds. The Aryan is an Aryan because his soul could be nothing else but that. To reject his purpose would be adharmic, which is why it is used as a punishment in many myths like those mentioned by Devi, and others, like the Bacchae.
Keep in mind, I do not think that Savitri Devi wrote any of this maliciously, but only that she had deficient information about nutrition and that she did not properly analyze the rule of Eternal Struggle. Most of the problems Devi has with meat consumption could be solved by relying more on dairy consumption for protein intake, and only eating livestock that are old or already dying. She also fails to acknowledge the harmful effects of modern agriculture, like the repeated harvest of fast growing plants as opposed to more permaculture related plantings, the loss of soil, and the incompatibility with unmanaged ecosystems. Still, the book was a very engaging read.
So first of all I'd like to thank you all, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today with you.
Since I am from a land where free speech is basically nonexistent today, I do not take this opportunity lightheartedly.
Thank you all.
So first of all what a book...
Even though written some 80 years ago it reads as if written yesterday, as you said >>457.
The writing style is impeccable and I would even consider this a Whitepill.
Why? Because even if written as a critique there shines a glorious light out of these sentences.
>Ultimately, one doesn't need an animal to be "useful" to value its existence nor does one need to completely abstain from consumption of meat, rather the >focus should be on avoiding unnecessary harm to any living thing.
And this positive outlook on life is what completely distinguishes her from the modern times, the modern socalled elites and even the modern ecologists I would argue.
The fighting of "climate change" is solely based on the fear of life itself.
And this does not stop at the human level, as can be seen with people arguing not to procreate for the sake of modern "ecology".
So this is actually anti-life.
Which brings me to the main thing this book provided.
Which is: Distortion. Or rather the conciousness of distortion.
It is not so, that the ecologist "masses" are all "anti-life" even if that is what is being preached.
To the contrary, most of them are actually pro life and actually hold beliefs that are absolutely aligned with Devi's, even if not so profoundly developed.
But the idea got distorted.
A true aryan idea that many if not most of us hold somewhere in our hearts got distorted in such a way as to turn it against us.
Distorting it in such a way that forces some of us us to oppose it.
Thereby effectively turning us against ourselves.
This can be seen with many things that got somehow distorted:
((( Ecology ))) = anti natural life.
((( Healthcare ))) = anti health.
((( Feminism ))) = anti feminine.
True male rolemodels = the ((( glowing ))) nigger andrew tate.
You name it.
The good thing in all this is that we can now be sure that below these distortions there always was and is something good.
The most difficult task now is achieving "perfect balance".
Because nothing less than "perfect balance" is needed.
Is needed to hold your balance between being opposed to the distortion and embracing the aryan truth.
Is needed to walk the path across the drahtseil.
To the other side.
>Even though written some 80 years ago it reads as if written yesterday
I think most authors who have a firm grasp on the truths of the universe end up writing in this way, like Hitler, for example. A lot of his writings about the political climate of Germany, and his view of the future geopolitical climate still rings true today. Once you see the general motion of history, you get where everything is going.
> Distortion. Or rather the conciousness of distortion.
This is a really interesting topic, and I'm glad you understand it so well. One of the biggest example of this "distortion" concept is the molding of the figure of Jesus to match the Germanic conception of the archetype of Baldr. With figures like Baldr already being associated with Mirth and Fidelity, and the Aryan compassion for all life, it was not much of a stretch to push the figure of christ onto the germanic people, as the Arian Christian of the Goths shows.
Andrew Tate, who is essentially PUA for the zoomer generation, accomplished the same thing by pointing out the truth of the degeneration of modern women. Most Gen Z young men are acutely aware of the state of women, but, being the most negrified and atomized generation to date, in the US at least, they either are not present enough to act on it, have no interest or desire to change the situation, or are too embarrassed to speak out. Now, having the Zoomer's attention, Tate provides a false solution. He tells the young man that it is the woman's fault for being a whore, and that he must exploit women's psychology in order to pump and dump as many of them as possible. He is providing a cheap imitation of true masculinity to kids that don't know any better. The only real way to solve the woman question would be to take personal responsibility for the actions of women and stop them from being whores.
One of the worst examples of distortion I've seen is with the "literally me" media phenomena. Hollywood has created characters, which, on the surface, appear to be in agreement with a sane viewer's ideals, but in fact are neurotic weirdos. Characters like Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver, William Foster from Falling down, Daniel Balint from The Believer, and Holden Caulfield from the book Catcher In The Rye and all characters dreamt up by jews to subvert the viewer into adopting neurotic, alienating traits, and to associate National Socialist adjacent ideas with insane people in the popular mind. I might make a more in-depth poster about this later.
>Cats and dogs in most places are invasive species. When people feed them, they only cause their populations to multiply further. They cause untold havoc on local ecosystem, like in examples of the cat's colonization of islands in the Pacific. When one steps back and truly sees the situation, they realize that the most humane thing to do would to be to remove invasive cat populations in the least cruel way possible. By this, I mean that sometimes traditional kindness to all animals (feeding stray cats), although it makes us feel good, might not always be the best thing to do. The greater good is not always what would look "right" to the common man.
I agree with you here. This and her rejection of the idea of natural omnivorousness are my main (admittedly small) critiques of this book. She also later presents an argument against spay and neuter of pets as destruction of that animal's ability to play its part in the natural order. This seems asinine to me, not only because of the aforementioned issue of overpopulation of strays, but also because of it's probably THE most humane way to eliminate suffering of the unwanted pets. It would be one thing if she objected to the keeping of pets entirely, but she insists that the general human population actively care for animals and to avoid the idea that "do no harm" is enough.
Oftentimes, "do no harm" is exactly what should occur. Any interference by man shows preference to one species or another, and Devi seems keen to reject that notion.
Has anybody here read For My Legionaries yet?
>molding of the figure of Jesus to match the Germanic conception of the archetype of Baldr
Having personally experienced jewish behaviour the concept of Jesus being one of them is just totally and utterly laughable to me. Anyway that's a most interesting subject. So if you could recommend me some books that aren't ((( distorted ))) I'd be most grateful. Maybe we could read something of the mythological sort next.
>Hollywood has created characters, which, on the surface, appear to be in agreement with a sane viewer's ideals, but in fact are neurotic weirdos.
I really liked reading your take on that "literally me" media phenomena. They really love those "weird" characters don't they. The thing is that this "weirdness" is becoming more and more blatant in newer movies. At the same time forums like the kiwifarms are getting censored, where actual "weird" real/internet personalities are being called out. Makes one wonder. But that one is an entirely new topic in itself.
Years ago, yes. Main takeaways were:
>Embrace masculinity, embrace fraternity
>Traitors are worse than enemies
>Jews can't Jew you if your society is healthy
He had a Christian take on this last one, but it's a fair point irrespective of religious affiliation.
A lot of the rest was autobiographical if I remember correctly. Let me know if I've forgotten anything - it might be worth a revisit.
Our next selections will be:
>Written by Tacitus
>Written by Unknown
With all of Savitri Devi's talk of the life affirming attributes of ancient Germanic civilizations, what better way would there be to further our discussion of this but to analyze the ancient Germanics. This week, you will read a selection of two texts, "Germania", a text written on the germanic tribes in the Roman Imperial Era by Tacitus, and "The Nibelungenlied", a germanic epic which finds it's origins near the time of the fall of the Roman Empire.
Discussion begins on 10/3
>the ability to reason, then one also has to value every human life regardless of that individual's circumstances
>Also, I do not agree with Devi's praise of the concept of the universalist soul.
This just further proves my point I made on 8chan on how Dharmists and Abrahamics are all the same and both have a universalist perspective on how everything is ultimately equal. I will never understand why NatSocs are trying to adopt Santana Dharma, especially the Gita, which are incompatible with many of the beliefs and nature of National Socialism. Himmler reading it means little to nothing and I doubt he blindly absorbed all of its contents. The true face and brains of the NSDAP was Hitler anyway. I still like Devi though, she was one of a kind and her books were all on point.
>the only way to solve the woman question is to personally absolve women of agency/guilt like the government already does; that will certainly not inflate their ego even further!
The absolute state of tradcucks.
<Dharmists and Abrahamics are all the same and both have a universalist perspective on how everything is ultimately equal
>this poor of an exegesis
You guys might as well be atheists; soon enough you'll find that even your "pagan" heroes were ""universalists"" (i.e. the Greeks and Romans were notorious for their religious syncretism, and some gods in the Norse pantheon were originally confined to certain regions in Scandinavia only); actually, many members of the NSDAP were atheists (even if covertly so) and scientificists, and only adopted religion for the symbolism (kind of like Varg's quasi-Epicurean understanding of "paganism"), so I think you'll fit right in.
>The absolute state of tradcucks
The current state of women is a reflection of the current state of men. Most of our women are whores and mentally ill because men of the past and of present day have submitted to a system that is not heathy for the minds or souls of white people. Women did not choose this, because women cannot choose. They lack agency, and most of their non-essential desires are reflections of what they perceive society to want. They are whores because you have allowed your society to be dominated by Jewish ethics and structures. Take some responsibility and be a man, its your problem, not their's.
> You guys might as well be atheists
No, we just aren't people who value the things the dominant religions of the modern world value. Modern buddhism and abrahamism in all of it's forms value pleasure of the self above all, which leads to societal collapse, and eventually the collapse of the universe itself if left unchecked. In the same way that buddhism rejects life by focusing on the obliteration of the self, abrahamism focuses on the "reforming of the vessels of light", which is essentially eternal void. The ancient Greeks and Romans saw their gods in other people's gods because the gods are human perceptions of the traits of higher archetypes. They exist, sure, but not in the same sense we do.
You need to lurk moar.
Also, this thread is for civil discussion. Refrain from insulting the people you are replying to, an keep the tone respectful. I admit I got a little aggressive in my post, and I apologize for that