No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hello! I am heavily inspired by Sorel's conception of the myth and his ethics of violence. Sorel put forward a fascinating conception of myths which I think can be easily appropriated for the national, civilizational and spiritual cause of | Hello! I am heavily inspired by Sorel's conception of the myth and his ethics of violence. Sorel put forward a fascinating conception of myths which I think can be easily appropriated for the national, civilizational and spiritual cause of Fascism. When it comes to Dugin, I am heavily influenced by his geopolitical views as well as his rather elegant synthesis of Fascism and Marxism-Leninism into his own National Bolshevist perspective. Paetel performs an excellent critique of internationalist socialism and appraisal of the merits of Stalin's Eurasia, and I think all National Bolshevists owe him a great debt of gratitude, so-to-speak(although his critique of corporative economics is rather rudimentary and poorly executed). Debord, of course, was a overly materialistic thinker. However, his analysis of spectacle-society and consumerism are quite correct, and reinterpreting them through a nationalistic lens(as De Benoist did) may yet yield fruit. Nietzsche, is, on the other hand, influential to me through his aristocratic perspectives. I do, however, engage in a somewhat critical reading of Nietzsche, as I somewhat favor the 'apollonian' over the 'dionysian'. I also am positively influenced by Nietzsche's critique of christianity. | ||
Latest revision as of 03:54, 24 February 2024
Hello! I am heavily inspired by Sorel's conception of the myth and his ethics of violence. Sorel put forward a fascinating conception of myths which I think can be easily appropriated for the national, civilizational and spiritual cause of Fascism. When it comes to Dugin, I am heavily influenced by his geopolitical views as well as his rather elegant synthesis of Fascism and Marxism-Leninism into his own National Bolshevist perspective. Paetel performs an excellent critique of internationalist socialism and appraisal of the merits of Stalin's Eurasia, and I think all National Bolshevists owe him a great debt of gratitude, so-to-speak(although his critique of corporative economics is rather rudimentary and poorly executed). Debord, of course, was a overly materialistic thinker. However, his analysis of spectacle-society and consumerism are quite correct, and reinterpreting them through a nationalistic lens(as De Benoist did) may yet yield fruit. Nietzsche, is, on the other hand, influential to me through his aristocratic perspectives. I do, however, engage in a somewhat critical reading of Nietzsche, as I somewhat favor the 'apollonian' over the 'dionysian'. I also am positively influenced by Nietzsche's critique of christianity.