Ultranationalism
| Sub-Ideology
(Name and Icon) |
Description | Followers |
|---|---|---|
 |
According to the more esoteric adherents of Nazism, prehistoric Europe was once dominated by an Aryan superculture that preserved their racial purity, built great works of art, and founded majestic cities. However, over time they were corrupted by deceitful Jewish interference, who manipulated them into intermarrying with lesser races and covered up their glorious heritage. Their descendants, who have fallen far but may regain their former glory, are now known as the German people.
Slavo-Aryanists would agree with everything above, but replace "German" with "Slavic." To them, it is the Russians who are the heirs of the all-powerful Aryan race, and the Germans are actually inferior Asiatics who occupied Aryan lands at the behest of the Jews. But beyond that, they quibble plenty over all the details. They disagree on the Aryan race's point of origin: some say the Russian heartlands, some say the far north, some say a lost landmass that inspired the story of Atlantis, and some say the Levant. They are solidly anticlerical and believe that Christianity is a tool of the Jew to undermine the soul of Russia, but they bicker about the proper spelling of Perun and the canonicity of Hindu Vedas. When it comes to coherent economic and political theory, they have none. The ancient Aryans did not need to know about GDP or postclassical realism to achieve their perfect society, so why should they bother learning it today? The only aspect that truly matters is war, a total war, one that will reinvigorate the Russian spirit and reawaken the blood of the Aryan that flows through the veins of every Slav. And when the last Jew is strangled with the guts of the last German, they claim, the Aryan race shall be restored once more. |
Valery Yemelyanov |
 |
A focused subset of ultranationalist thought, Eurasianism is defined by its relation to the proposed Eurasian 'super-ethnos,' the ideo-social concept that the Eurasian peoples, ranging from the Carpathian basin to the Mongolian steppes, must unite into a single social and political grouping in order to achieve national strength and protect against destructive influences from without. Through both preparing for and actually doing so, the 'passionarity,' or overall drive, of this ethnic grouping will be maximized, allowing for greatness to be achieved on a societal scale.
This concept naturally encourages an extremely militant approach towards its implementation, with maximal distrust of and aggression towards any ethnic grouping not considered Eurasian, whether that be foreign entities or domestic minorities that must, in time, be cleansed in some fashion in order to protect the super-ethnos. This approach also extends towards the forcible integration of Eurasian states into the proposed singular framework in order to realize the doctrine of cultural unity, whether those that live within them actually want to be included into this state-to-be, or not. |
Lev Gumilyov |
 |
Ultramilitarist regimes are, in general, little more than a military organization expending the minimal effort possible to provide civilian state institutions, in order to redirect all that possible towards the military and military-related interests. They are, in essence, an army with a state, with every decision of policy ultimately, in some fashion, supporting military endeavors, and with nearly all actions underlaid by an ideological doctrine of rabid and uncompromising nationalism.
To achieve this, they are often internally characterized by omnipresent propaganda and the active promotion of nationalist thought. In addition, and in order to sustain their military administration, such governments typically display extreme aggression on the world stage, towards both neighboring states as well as those considered state enemies, for reasons of history, political expediency, or others as determined. This often results in the nation being in near-eternal conflict, armed or otherwise, which to its leaders and people is often a desired goal in itself. |
Sylvester Stadler |
 |
Typically characterized by the twin pillars of a uniting religious authority or purpose and a rabid hatred of or mobilization against some external enemy, Fundamentalist governments tend to be defined by the narrative of their perceived national and ideo-religious struggle. Very often, their political structure is largely composed of religious or otherwise clerical figures, and their social and domestic policies are formed in close adherence to the tenets and scriptures of their organizing religion, whatever it may be.
The perception of this intrinsic national struggle often results in these governments acting to both dehumanize their foes and subsequently act aggressively against them, whether by military expansionism or more subversive means. Diplomacy, especially with those seen as sympathetic to their doctrinal enemies, is extremely difficult, when possible at all. Summarized, such governments are often synonymous with near-eternal conflict, overt or covert, against an almost ever-growing list of mortal enemies. |
Carlos Arias Navarro |
 |
It was Lord John Edward Acton who first said: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", and while it isn't unheard of for an absolute ruler to govern with justice and temperance, these examples are profoundly rare; tyrannical forms of government are as easily identifiable as the seasons, viciously snuffing out dissent, turning entire countries into proto-slave states, and governing through fear and intimidation, yet even these extreme measure are at least implied to have limits; a natural order that even the harshest of autocratic governments must abide by to validate and justify their rule.
The body politik falling broadly under the denomination "Esoteric Despotism" refutes this in just about every fashion, turning the state into something even more twisted and perverse than that of even traditionally totalitarian regimes; taking authoritarian ideals far beyond rational governance, these regimes tend to congregate around the abstract or idiosyncratic belief system of a particularly influential ruler or political party, societal and economic restructuring is done entirely at whims of said individual(s), implied disagreement with the state is tantamount to treason and reprisals are often so cruel and sadistic as to be functional, if not literally medieval in nature. |
Francisco Macías Nguema |
 |
"Reactionary Nationalism, like many other ideologies, emerged from the minds of the men who endured the industrial horrors of the twentieth century. When those men returned home, they could not reconcile the grand narratives for which they had fought with the reality of the world they had shaped. Modernity had conspired against them. They found no clarity of vision, they found no unity in strength. The romance of the soldier's return was a fiction. The romance of soldierly virtues was a fiction. Subjectivity usurped certitude. As time passed, there were more revolutionsand , more humiliations. More moralizing from materialistic creatures that could only breed in total vacuity. More traditionare s thrown to dogs. More suffering for it. More of the same, though without sameness.
Reactionary Nationalism proposes that nations must return to a past state of social organization in order to cast off the spiritual malaise enforced by twentieth-century modernity. This structure is typically picked from a narrow, romanticised slice of time in that nation's history, though it can also relate to methods for the violent transposition of antiquated moral norms onto colonies and other realms of empire. The policies born thereof are more frequently annihilationist than assimilationist, for Reactionary Nationalists believe that homogeneity is a prerequisite of nationhood. Reactionary Nationalism is warlike and exclusive by nature. It must be, in order to satisfy the perverted heroism it proselytizes. Reactionary Nationalists believe that they seek justice by making the world as it should be, informed by the inalienable truth that some men are superior, and some men are inferior. But the lot of these self-styled knights is to fit virtues that never existed, or to force people who only know modernity to mold themselves into figures in gilded paintings. Starved of defined ideology, Reactionary Nationalism attaches itself to a superficial aesthetic, or the image of a knight in armor, visor down, and sword upright, so that any statesman may imagine himself as an emissary of return. But the lie does not matter. The ideal unites. The romance unites. |
Momčilo Đujić |