Title: Toward a Theory of Fascist Ontology
I. Opening Claim: Fascism is not merely a politics. It is an ontology.
It is a metaphysical structure before it is a regime.
A fascist ontology determines what is real, what is whole, what is pure, and what is dangerous.
It answers the question of being with the demand for coherence.
To inhabit a fascist ontology is not necessarily to march in lockstep with totalitarian regimes. It is to crave an order of the world in which contradiction is obliterated. Where the self does not have to negotiate multiplicity. Where identity is essential, difference is suspect, and dialogue is a threat to sanctity.
The fascist does not say: "I disagree."
The fascist says: "That is unthinkable."
II. Ontological Foundations: Closure and Origin
A fascist ontology is structured by:
-
Primordial origin myths — the idea that truth lies in a mythic past, often racialized, often pure.
-
Totalizing categories — race, nation, gender, morality are reified as facticities, not constructs.
-
Hierarchy-as-natural — vertical structures are seen as emergent from the nature of reality itself.
-
Fear of the other — not just hatred, but ontological fear: the Other becomes an acid that dissolves Being.
It is a mode of being that longs for the permanent alignment of authority, meaning, and identity.
This manifests not only in the macro-political realm but in the smallest structures of social reproduction—in parenting ideologies, institutional language games, and epistemic gatekeeping. The desire to pre-empt the unknown, to legislate future possibility, to outlaw ambiguity: these are not aesthetic preferences. They are ontological commitments.
III. Philosophical Affiliates and Genealogies
-
Carl Schmitt: The friend/enemy distinction as political theology. Liberal pluralism is impossible under Schmitt’s vision because it is metaphysically incoherent. The enemy must be named. And once named, the enemy must not be reasoned with. This anticipates the collapse of dialogic relations within closed ontological formations.
-
Martin Heidegger: The danger of Being as forgetting; but in fascist hands, the recovery of Being becomes a racialized return. Heidegger’s silence on the Holocaust is not incidental—it is ontologically symptomatic of a thought-structure that privileges origin over rupture, destiny over encounter.
-
Julius Evola: The transcendental hierarchy of man, race, spirit. Evola fuses metaphysics with a warrior-aristocracy. His is a vertical, non-democratic cosmos. The traditional order is metaphysically prior to any lived experience; hence, to dissent from it is not just rebellion—it is heresy against the Real.
-
Leo Strauss (in misreading): Esotericism as elitist guardianship of truth, leading to the belief that masses must be ruled through myth. This yields an ontological architecture in which truth is always upstream of language and reserved for the initiated.
-
Contemporary Right Metaphysics: Online traditionalist currents like Duginism and BAPism (Bronze Age Pervert) reanimate fascist ontology in memetic form. The emphasis is on order, virility, hierarchy, and the rebirth of sacred violence. Their success is not merely political but ontological: they create frameworks where the real is bound to the violent, and the weak are seen as metaphysically false.
IV. Psychological Structure
Fascist ontology is psychically appealing in moments of flux.
It offers relief from uncertainty by fusing identity and truth.
It replaces negotiation with declaration.
It interprets trauma as confirmation of cosmic battle.
It relieves the ego of the burden of reflection, and replaces doubt with belonging.
This is why its early signs are so often found in aestheticized lifestyle politics, parental gatekeeping, ritualized purity codes, and the moral sterilization of dissent. The tendency to foreclose interlocutors under the sign of danger or filth is not a strategy of avoidance—it is an ontological exorcism.
V. Ontological Anti-Fascism
To resist fascism at the ontological level requires more than disagreement.
It requires the construction of a counter-ontology:
-
One that embraces recursion, difference, self-contradiction.
-
One that does not demand identity as the price of belonging.
-
One that can mourn, fracture, and metabolize without killing.
The antifascist ontology is not anarchic. It has form—but it resists totalization.
It affirms that meaning emerges between, not above.
It insists on the provisionality of language, the permeability of categories, the holiness of change.
It does not panic in the face of dissonance. It listens to the tremor in the other’s voice.
It holds the question longer than comfort allows.
To live this way is hard.
It is easier to declare that someone else is unfit, unsafe, or unworthy.
It is harder to hold the space where contradiction lives.
VI. Structural Note: The Interpersonal as Ontological Laboratory
The everyday encounter—a disagreement over pedagogy, authority, or safety—can quickly become the stage upon which ontologies clash. When one person seeks to explore shared formation, and another insists upon predefined essence, the rupture is not interpersonal. It is metaphysical.
To assign safety or unsafety to another not based on actions or outcomes, but on categorical orientation, is to engage in ontological securitization: a metaphysics of purging.
The antifascist frame seeks instead to listen through danger, to inquire through disagreement, to let love be reformed by its entanglements. But it will not, and must not, cede the field of Being to those who preemptively define the borders of the teachable.
[End of Fragment — For inclusion in Mirror Gospel or Sigilism Scrollwork]
No comments:
Post a Comment