Why Vitalism Isn't Enough: Hamburger-Spencer

A recent bit of excitement on Twitter this last winter, I was inspired to critically examine the limits of Vitalism. This is the long-form of what I am releasing simultaneously on youtube, a video that pairs with the article to discuss Fascism specifically as a political ideology. And it’s intersection with vitalist theology.

Consider subscribing to my youtube channel with this link.

Vitalism is a core aspect of 21st-century philosophy. Necessarily so. The boomer-Christianity of the post-war era has collapsed under its own weight1; the liberalism that glorifies the weak, the poor, and the retarded, means nothing in the face of serious foreign threats. AI systems are wiping out the white-collar class with a dangerous enthusiasm, frumpy middle-management bugman types are mostly realizing that their days are numbered2.

The world is no longer a place to coddle weak men, nor is it a place to produce make-work jobs for incompetent women in the form of adult-daycare. We have begun the hard times that create strong men, so to speak. The digital revolution is developing in new ways, creating an entirely new philosophical paradigm3.

Core to these new ideas is a fundamental vitalism.

Vitalism is the doctrine that organisms and cultures are distinguished by evolutionary forces. -That is, Social Darwinism. The strong rule, and the weak suffer what they must. In the context of a highly feminized society of self-flagellation and elevation of the weak, helpless, and stupid, vitalism has a strong appeal. Particularly for young men who do not see for themselves a happy future as cultural doormats. Particularly young White men who would rather go down fighting for their homelands than live as slaves beneath a state that hates us.

This is why Fascism has become popular among such broad demographics. Not the fake “everything I don’t like is fascism” from the psychologically cucked libleft, but real, honest-to-god fascism. The nation and people above all else, to the detriment of all others as need be. The form of fascism where our relationships to others defines who we are as individuals. Where to form a strong nation is to embed oneself in a higher body politic and fight for a higher cause. The Ethical State as described by Giovanni Gentile, and as enacted by figures like Benito Mussolini.

During the 20th century, each of the materialist religions came to represent different aspects of the human condition: Fascism is the masculine vitalist tradition, communism the feminine managerial tradition, and liberalism was the Christian individualist tradition.

I certainly agree that modernity requires vitalism, perhaps a Christian Vitalism as described by The Otter in his excellent article on the subject4. With that said, this does not place vitalism above reproach. To understand vitalism and integrate it, we must discuss the inherent flaws and weaknesses of vitalism.

There has been very little work on critiquing vitalism as a social principle5.

Ideologies that center on vitalism are going to reach peak popularity over the next five to ten years. At the same time, the original leaders of these traditions were mostly in their late twenties in 2014 or 2016 when the modern Western culture-war properly kicked off. While the New Right is in ascendancy for the foreseeable future, the leadership caste is beginning to demonstrate the inherent flaws in living their ideals.

Fascist ideologies, and more broadly speaking, all ideologies that focus heavily on masculine vitality as a centerpiece, often engage in what is my favorite appeal in debate. One might describe it as a “Platonic” debate tactic, or an appeal to physiognomy6. For those of you who don’t know, Plato was his wrestling fight-name, and he would often literally flex on his opposition during debate to prove his point.

Imagine if 3000 years in the future, venerable old academics were debating the philosophy of a man known only as “Mr. T.”

While Appeal to Physiognomy is an excellent method of annihilating to cinders the modern disgusting, pudgy, weak, and ugly political Left, there is an underlying weakness to vitalism when it becomes generally accepted.

Humans age.

Individuals like Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulos, The Golden One, Curtis Yarvin, Bronze Age Pervert , and J.D. Vance do not live forever. As much as I appreciate the work that these wise individuals have done, many are getting old. Many of these individuals have entered their 40s.

Historically, a vitalist movement, such as Fascism, in seizing control of national institutions, accomplished the goal over an extremely short period of time. Ten to twenty years at most. One of the reasons why that time limit exists is inherent in Vitalism. The leaders of these movements, to embody a strong ideal, to embody the collective spirits of their people, had to remain vigorous in life.

Mussolini was born in July 1883 and died at the age of 63 in 1945. He became a member of the National Directorate in 1912 and engaged in his “March on Rome” in 1922, functionally cementing his position as dictator. He was 39 years old.

Hitler was born in April 1889, completed his tour in WWI in 1919 at the age of 20, and was declared “dictator” of Germany in 1933. At the time, he was 44 years old.

Granted, that we are in an aged society now far more than the world was in the early 1900s, with the average age in the United States now being 38.5 years old. In 1930, (the data I can most easily get), the average age in the United States was 27.7. 7 It seems likely that for success to appear in these types of political movements, it must be achieved while the leadership caste is still “young” by modern political standards.

It is very easy for the leaders to “age out” of a vitalist movement, along with the full cult of personality they’ve formed. It’s an inherent weakness of such ideological systems. If the leaders do not successfully seize power and transition from “Spirited Hero” to “Wise Patriarch” before they age out, then the political movements quickly lose key figures with years of experience. Not because those people acted in bad faith, but because aging out of a masculine vibrancy produces a crisis of legitimacy. Even in the form of a patriarch, the leaders must still demonstrate vitality or through some sort of heroic praetorian guard.

This is a reason why Christianity prevailed over traditional pagan theologies8. The old and infirm, though not physically capable, can still make wise leaders. Leaders should be challenged on an intellectual and social battlefield rather than a physical one most of the time. By holding raw social Darwinism and Metaphysical Might as the predominant determining factors in victory, vitalism is unable to act on multigenerational timelines.

Hamburger-Spencer notwithstanding9

We need to be capable of acting on an intergenerational timeline to preserve our homelands against threats, foreign and domestic. We need a political movement capable of maintaining wise leaders, even as they age. I wholly reject the anti-vitalist “blessed are the meek” bullshit. My Christianity is much more akin to the philosophy of Ragnar Redbeard.

Still, we need to preserve a place for the Wise Priest, the Old Shaman, or the Retired Warrior. We can accept vitalism as a metaphysical goal for our society, but in service to that goal, there can be the support of wisdom and experience. Not every individual has to embody the model SS officer to produce positive results. There is a metaphysics at play. Respected warriors are often advised by wizards, all the way back to the original King Arthur myths that built English (and by proxy American) cultural institutions. The inspiration is that in service to a higher good, every individual can make some use of themselves in achieving a better nation for our people.

As many in our circles deride the Boomers, to the point where “boomer” has veritably become a slur meaning “old and out of touch,” there is clear wisdom in ages past. Wisdom that is found particularly among those who kicked off this monumental cultural project of reengineering the West. To throw them under the bus merely because they have shown the early signs of very human decrepitude is unwise. Let them guide the next generation, but without tolerating or accepting weakness.

The culture-war is a rebellion against the errors of the old, particularly those born in the post-war period. That does not mean that the wisdom of our own should be likewise summarily ignored. They’ve been through the wringer, particularly those who fought tooth and nail to build for us this habitus of the New Right.

We must balance listening to those who begin to age out in the next 5 to 10 years with testing their advice against reality. We’re in a transitional period in this cultural shift. We’re constructing a habitus for future generations. We as the New Right is in political ascendancy; we can afford to tread with some care to what the knock-on effects of our choices will be.

Leave a comment

Share

I brought you a few more Hamburger Spencer memes below, because I know you want to see them.