Analytical Fascist Folly

A poor analysis. Emphasis added, reference footnote markers deleted.

See this.

Fascism believes in the superiority of the nation.

Is that it?  Nothing else?

“The nation” refers to a collection of people bound together by race, ethnicity, or culture. 

See below for my critical analysis of a nation based on religion. This idiot contradicts herself on these matters, as we shall see.

Germans and Italians are examples of nations. 

Tell that to the Left.

The way to achieve national superiority is through the state. The ultimate goal of the major fascist regimes that have existed, like the regimes of the Italian Fascist Party and the German Nazi Party, was to pursue national greatness. 

Since Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were the only fascist regimes that ever existed, the word “like” wasn’t necessary. Is pursuing “national greatness” the only aim of fascism? If that’s the case, then the majority of nations throughout history have been fascist. Trump’s MAGA agenda is therefore fascist, China is fascist, Singapore is fascist; most colored nations today are fascist. That is absurd. Roger Griffin’s definition of fascism as “palingenetic ultra-nationalism” is more realistic. “National greatness” is a superficial definition.

Mussolini intended to “guide the material and moral progress of the [Italian] community.” Hitler planned to return the German nation to its position as “the culture-founder of this earth.” Hitler and Mussolini wanted to place the nation above all other bases of loyalty, including class relations and religion.

That’s more than just run-of-the-mill “national greatness.”

The type of state needed to fulfill this goal is anti-democratic and totalitarian. 

Sounds more and more like today’s America.

Such a state is anti-democratic because it eliminates democratic institutions, like the electoral, parliamentary, and multiparty systems, that frustrate this goal of national greatness. Democratic elections are problematic because the masses elect candidates who appeal to the masses’ self-interest. 

The naiveté here is amazing. Democracies to a large extent have become elitist oligarchies where self-interested elites control the electoral process, and when the “masses” elect someone, like Trump, who are not to the elite's taste, then the elites sabotage the candidate's agenda and prevent the “self-interest” of the masses from being actualized.

This does not guarantee that the candidates have the nation’s interest in mind. 

When do they ever?  Again, it are the interests of oligarchic elites that the candidates have in mind.

This weakens the state and, ultimately, the nation.

Indeed.

Parliament is problematic because the parties in it spend more time arguing than implementing policies. Indeed, Hitler referred to Parliament as a “twaddling shop” for this reason. Other parties are problematic because, by competing with fascist parties to gain power, they prevent fascist parties from pursuing the ultranationalist goal. The state is totalitarian because it controls aspects of citizens’ lives, such as their leisure time, education, and political activity, to ensure that the citizens support the regime’s goal. Fascism, as defined in this paper, is the ideology of nationalism upheld by an anti-democratic and totalitarian state.

Again – is today’s China fascist?  The definition given here is inferior to that of Griffin.

Some Enabling Conditions for Fascism

Fascism generally flourishes in countries with strong nationalism and weak democracies. 

Did Italy have “strong nationalism” before fascism?

Strong nationalism attracts people to fascism’s ultranationalist goals. “Weak democracy” has two meanings, both of which enable fascism to flourish. A democracy is weak in that it is incompetent and unresponsive. 

Hello, America! 

Consequently, citizens become disenchanted with it and are willing to abandon it for another regime type. 

Sounds a lot like today's America.

A weak democracy also refers to a democratic tradition that is fairly new and not strongly entrenched. This also enables fascism to flourish because it is easier to replace this type of democracy with another regime.

There may be some truth here, but in my opinion it is not a major issue.

Enabling Conditions Applied to Italy and Germany

All these conditions apply to the political and social situations in post- World War One Germany and Italy. Nationalism, in the form of national resentment, was potent. Italians and Germans believed that their national pride had been humiliated. Italians felt this way because they believed their country had not been awarded the amount of territory it should have been awarded after World War One ended.

So?  I don’t think that’s sufficient for “strong nationalism.”

Germans felt this way because their government had accepted the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty required Germany to accept the blame for starting World War One and imposed harsh reparations, as well as substantial territorial concessions, on Germany. The Fascist and Nazi parties were appealing because they promised to restore the national greatness that citizens felt was lacking.

Appealing?  Isn’t “appealing” to the people something “democrats” would support?  See below for the author being contradictory when she claims that extant rightist parties cannot be fascist if they appeal to citizens' interests (as if the interests of citizens and that of the nation never overlap), yet here we see that the Fascist and Nazi parties were doing just that.  After all, why can't citizens have a strong interest in the greatness of their nation?

Italian and German democracies, and democratic traditions, were weak. Both countries had unified and become democracies relatively late. Italy unified between 1860 and 1870, and Germany unified around 1870.

Yet they had “strong nationalism?” Really?

Their parliaments were rather unresponsive to citizens’ needs. For example, neither the German nor Italian parliament was able to stem the post-World War One economic crises, and rises in unemployment, in their countries. As a consequence of all these factors, Italian and German citizens were willing to support fascism.

Well, then, the desires of the masses were actualized.  Democracy in action!

Extreme Right Parties and Fascism

Extreme right parties in Europe share ideological aspects with fascism. For this reason, they are sometimes considered neofascist parties: parties that are the contemporary incarnation of fascism. For instance, the extreme right parties desire to advance the nation by getting rid of all immigrants. The parties believe that immigration ruins the nation. The parties contend that immigrants cause citizens of the host country to become unemployed. 

All true.

As Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the FN (Front National) in France, once said, “1 million unemployed- this means 1 million foreigners too many.” Immigrants also allegedly ruin national culture by preserving their own customs instead of adopting those of their host country. Ridding the country of immigrants will stop these problems and ultimately benefit the nation.

Note that in this analysis there is no mention of demographic replacement. See why you can’t trust leftist analysts?

Immigration engenders a condition that enables fascism to arise: national resentment. The extreme right parties’ unfavorable views regarding immigrants reflect the citizens’. 

Again – democracy in action. Why shouldn’t the citizens’ views be respected? Why should so-called democracies support oligarchic elite interests over those of citizens? Note that the author admits a convergence of national interests, as perceived by Far Right political parties, with the interests of citizens, with respect to immigration..

In addition, many citizens believe that immigrants appropriate welfare benefits that should go to citizens instead. Immigrants are also commonly believed to commit crimes against citizens. 

All true.

Indeed, the national resentment directed towards immigrants is a combination of indignation and fear. It should be noted, however, that the condition of national resentment by itself is not sufficient to engender fascism. The combination of national resentment and weak democracy offer a better opportunity for fascism to rise.

This analysis reads like a middle school term paper written the night before it was due.

The democratic conditions within which these parties operate ultimately do not allow fascism to flourish. 

Well, sure, if “democratic” nations ban free speech, imprison dissidents, actually arrest and imprison elected officials, enable gangs of leftist thugs to attack rightists with impunity and then arrest rightists who defend themselves, and in some cases, openly ban “fascist” parties, then I suppose that these “democratic conditions” won’t allow dissident politics “to flourish.”

Democracy is more deeply entrenched during the contemporary era than it was in the post-World War One era. 

See my preceding comment.

While Nazis and Fascists managed to overthrow the democratic regimes in their countries, there are now supranational and national barriers that discourage this from happening. 

So - "supranational and national barriers," in other words, coercion based on state power. And then we are supposed to be surprised that "democratic conditions" prevent the rise of Far Right dissident politics?

Many extreme right parties operate in countries that are part of the European Union: the FN of France, the AN (Alleanza Nationale) of Italy, the BNP (British National Party) of the United Kingdom, and the FPO (Austrian Freedom Party) of Austria (among others). As members of the European Union, these countries are required to have, and maintain, a democratic regime.

In other words, repression of dissent and oppression of the interests of the native majority population.

Moreover, the general mindset within many of these countries is democratically predisposed.

Yes, which is why they require state power and coercion to maintain being “democratically predisposed.”

Indeed, the extreme right has “sought to render [itself] acceptable in an age assumed to be democratic.” The extreme right parties have had to conform to citizens’ expectations of their governments in order to gain electoral support.

Excuse me, you mendacious retard, the parties would be banned and/or otherwise forcibly suppressed if they acted otherwise.

Democracy prevents fascism. In order to implement fascism, a state needs to be anti-democratic. 

These sorts of childishly simplistic statements do not benefit serious analysis.

However, given supranational and national conditions, the state in European countries is democratic. 

And if you disagree, you’ll be fined or jailed, you Nazi!

If fascism were to adapt to these democratic conditions, it would cease to exist. 

How about that dissidents try to evade authoritarian state coercion?

Indeed, it would become a new ideology: national-populism. National-populism results from “a conscious effort to update fascism and render it viable in changed [democratic] conditions.” The AN exemplifies this transformation. Before it became the AN, this party was called the MSI (Movimento Sociale Italiano). The MSI was considered neofascist because it was a descendant of an earlier, quasi-fascist party. However, once the MSI “accepted democracy as a system of values,” it morphed into the AN, a national-populist party.

That is one example. We all know about mainstreaming and we all know it always fails.  In any case, if being openly “fascist” means that the party will be banned and its leaders and members jailed, then what do you expect?  And then, if the fascists respond by forming an illegal underground movement, that’s considered “evidence” of “violent tendencies” and used to justify more anti-democratic repression.

The extreme right parties, which are often called neofascist, are actually national-populist.

Do they have a choice?

Moreover, democracy changes the nature of the goal that national-populist parties and fascism share in common. According to fascism, the way to advance the nation is to have a leader who embodies the will of the people. This person, not the people themselves, knows best what is in the nation’s interest.

Didn’t this idiot earlier write that Italian Fascists and German Nazis appealed to the desires of the people?

National-populist parties do not take this approach. Instead, they advocate direct democracy initiatives, such as the referendum, because such initiatives enable citizens’ preferences to be heard.

And because if they advocated otherwise their parties would be banned and their leaders and members jailed, you mendacious moron. And didn't Italian Fascists and German Nazis also "enable citizen preferences," which you suggested above?

However, from a fascist perspective, these preferences only take into account the citizens’ individual interests, not the collective interests of the nation.

That statement is made after the she wrote that historical fascists appealed to citizens’ desires and interests, and after she wrote that the anti-immigration views of extant “nationalist-populist” parties - that would be in “the collective interests of the nation" - are shared by many citizens..

Individual interests are different from the national interest.  

All the time? What about immigration? That statement contradicts what she already suggested.

So national-populists are not advancing the nation when they advocate direct democracy. Ultimately, then, they are not fascist in practice or in theory.

Read all of the above, including my critiques. The analysis here is pitifully flawed. This “analyst” doesn’t understand the protean nature of fascism and its ability to manifest palingenetic ultra-nationalism in different ways in different environments. That’s not to say that I believe that the nationalist-populist parties of Europe are fascist.  However, the author’s reasoning and argumentation are flawed to the point of delusion (or extreme mendacity).

Radical Islam and Fascism

The conditions within which the extreme right/national-populist parties operate are not identical to those in which the Fascist and Nazi parties operated. However, the conditions are at least comparable. 

This statement in my opinion essentially seriously weakens, if not invalidates, some of the major arguments made by the author above. It is unrealistic in the extreme to expect identical conditions between eras and nations; by that standard, reproducing almost any political movement would be impossible. Identical conditions never exist. However, comparable conditions can exist and that is the most that can be reasonably expected.  Therefore, if “the conditions are at least comparable,” then that is sufficient to allow for the possibility of similar political developments.

This is not the case for radical Islamic movements and the Fascist and Nazi parties. Religion was not a significantly important issue during the time the Fascist and Nazi parties of Italy and Germany were active. 

So?

Although the Nazi Party’s extermination of Jewish people appears to be religious persecution, being Jewish was considered a racial, rather than a religious, trait. 

That’s so obvious to any student of Nazism, what is the point of writing “the Nazi Party’s extermination of Jewish people appears to be religious persecution?” This entire piece reads as if it was written by a cognitively deficient middle school student.

To determine whether radical Islam is a manifestation of fascism, one must analyze its ideology.

No kidding.

Radical Islam is similar to fascism in terms of the type of state it envisions.

Really?

The radical Islamic state is anti-democratic. 

That’s the definition of a fascist state? 

I’m going to skip some of the more unimportant discussion of Islam and fascism as it is not of significant interest to the Sallis Groupuscule. The key points for this section are as follows.

Another way to understand fascism and radical Islam’s beliefs on what takes ultimate precedence is to look at what they think is the most important quality in an individual or group. Since the nation takes ultimate precedence for fascists, national origin is the defining quality of an individual. 

Or race. But then, White nationalism should mean Our Race Is Our Nation, so then race and and nation can mean the same thing.

Fascism led people to believe that their job position or social rank was not fundamentally important. Whether or not they were German or Italian, however, was crucial.

The racial aspects of German National Socialism complicates this. Germanic foreigners, particularly Nordics, were not really in the “alien” category.

The same pattern applies to radical Islamic groups. Since Islam is paramount, Muslim identity is the defining quality. Hamas, for example, claims to welcome “every Muslim who embraces its faith, ideology, [and] follows its program.” The Muslim Brotherhood works “to achieve unification among the Islamic countries and states.” The fact that the nationality of Muslims who can join Hamas, or of the countries the Muslim Brotherhood wants to unite, is not specified suggests that it is not as important as the religion. Given the goal of the radical Islamic movements, as well as the relative unimportance of national origin, radical Islamic movements are not fascist.

That is such a laughably simplistic and childish argument I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.  How does one define a nation?  If Fascism is “palingenetic ultra-nationalism” (or even taking this author's definition about "national greatness") and if some Muslims define a worldwide faith-based Islamic nation, then why are “radical Islamic movements” not fascist by this “national origin” criterion? I’m not saying that these movements are fascist, just that the author’s argument is stupid. 

Note what the author wrote above: “The nation’ refers to a collection of people bound together by race, ethnicity, or culture.” Religion is part of culture. So, this author completely contradicts herself.  

Basically:

• She says a nation can be based on culture.
• Any reasonable person will consider religion as part of culture.
• She suggests that radical Islamic movements typically consider every faithful Muslim to be part of the group – a culture (religion)-based group membership – thus, a culture-based nation.
• The author then says that these movements are not fascist because they are not based on national origin.
• Thus, the original assertion that a nation can be based on culture is contradicted by the idea that a religion-based grouping is not a nation and hence, not fascist.

I understand that women are irrational and illogical, but this rises to laughable levels.

However, there is a subset of fascism called clerical fascism. Clerical fascist movements are as religious as they are nationalistic. The Hungarian Arrow Cross, which was active during the 1930’s, can be considered a clerical fascist group, in that it believed religion and nationalism were equally important. 

OK.

Indeed, the Arrow Cross believed that religion was a pillar of the nation. Ferencz Szalasi, the leader of the Arrow Cross, explained that “when the Army sees that in the nation the three pillars of Religion, Patriotism, and Discipline have been shaken, then it is the duty of the Army to force the nation back on to these pillars.”The Iron Guard, a Romanian group that operated around the 1930’s, is also thought to be clerical fascist. The Iron Guard “saw the Romanian Orthodox religion as coterminous with Romanian nationality….”

My readers know that I am a strong supporter of the Legionary Movement (which this ignorant author summarizes as merely “The Iron Guard, a Romanian group that operated around the 1930’s”), even though I an anti-religion and anti-Christianity. That’s because the main foundation of that movement was not the Romanian Orthodox religion but The New Man.  Yes, religion was one fundamental pillar of the movement, and, yes, The New Man was to be a Christian in their worldview, but, still, the (religious) characteristics of The New Man are secondary to the concept itself, which can be adopted to other, including non-religious, contexts.

Although these groups gave equal priority to both nationalism and religion, they are still generally considered fascist. Are radical Islamic movements examples of clerical fascism?

A balance between nation and religion in radical Islamic movements is difficult to discern. Religion is paramount for the radical Islamic movements. For example, although the Muslim Brotherhood operates in Egypt, its mission statement hardly ever refers to Egyptians. When it does implicate Egyptians, it refers to them as Muslims, not as Egyptians. The mission statement says, “Indeed, the present atmosphere of suppression, instability, and anxiety has forced many of the young men of [Egypt] to commit acts of terrorism….we request all Muslims to abandon such actions and return to the right way.” Moreover, some radical Islamic movements operate in different states simultaneously. Al Qaeda, for example, is active in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. It is difficult for such a widespread movement to claim that its religion, like the Romanian Orthodox religion, is uniquely coterminous with a particular nationality. Ultimately, then, these radical Islamic movements are neither fascist nor clerical fascist.

See my critiques above. This argument by the author is based on confusion between nation and state and is also based on a strictly ethnic basis of a nation. Now, I agree that such an ethnic (broadly defined as "ethny") basis is historically typical and is desirable from an EGI standpoint, but, again, I see no reason why nation, and, hence, nationality, cannot be based on a religious identity. Consider the Jews. Does the author agree with the Far Right standpoint of Jewish ethnic-racial identity?  If not, then are Jews not a nation? And can't the definition of “Jew” include both ethnic identity as well as religious belief?  What is the basis of Israel?  Note that Israel accepts Jews who are racially alien to the core Ashkenazi-Sephardi-Middle Eastern core ethny. So, if a “Jewish nation” exists that has an Ashkenazi-Sephardi-Middle Eastern core ethny but accepts others who share the same Jewish religious identity as the ethnic core, then why can’t Islam similarly be a nation with an non-European Caucasian (NEC) core ethny with associated non-NEC groups that share the same the faith?  Once again: “The nation’ refers to a collection of people bound together by race, ethnicity, or culture.”

Conclusion

Neither extreme right parties, nor radical Islamic groups, are fascist. Indeed, in regards to the extreme right, or nation-populist, parties, democracy appears to be an effective antidote to fascism. 

Imbecilic analysis. If democracy is just an “effective antidote to fascism” then why do such “democratic” states need to use de jure (“state power” so beloved by Griffin) – as in Europe – and/or de facto (social pricing, violent attacks by groups implicitly supported by the System) – as in America – approaches to suppress fascism? If fascism is so weak and impossible against the “effective antidote” of democracy, then why does the vaunted democracy need to use coercive, anti-democratic (“fascistic?) methods to prevent the growth and popularity of fascist movements? Why not just have a free marketplace of ideas and let fascism fail because of its alleged weaknesses against resurgent liberal democracy? What are liberal democrats so afraid of?

However, just because democracy has proven to be successful against fascism in this particular situation, it does not guarantee that democracy will always be successful. One cannot predict with certainty what democratic conditions will be like in the future or what types of political parties will exist. 

So, here the author essentially backtracks on the major points of this essay. What a mess. What’s the point of this “analysis” then?  Yes, at the current moment in time, the situation is not propitious for overt fascism. So?

Similarly, while the ideology of radical Islamic groups is not currently compatible with fascism, or even clerical fascism, there is always a possibility that the radical Islamic paradigm will evolve so that it does become fascist in some way.

Huh?  After telling us – in an incoherent illogical fashion – that radical Islam cannot be fascist, now we are told it could be “in some way” if it “evolves” to do so. How? To become associated with particular racial or ethnic groups?  But the author has told us that cultural national groups are sufficient for fascism, and if religion is part of culture, and I think most people would say it is, then the conditions exist for Islamic fascism today, even without a need to “evolve.”

Ultimately, just because fascism does not presently exist in these scenarios does not mean it never will.

Then the point of this essay is what exactly? The essay makes a number of (sometimes self-contradictory) arguments, and then ends by saying, well, everything concluded from these arguments may change and it all could no longer be valid.  Female analysis at its finest.

The real conclusion is that genuine fascists should take comfort that they are so poorly understood by anti-fascist analysts, including academics. These analysists are so blinded by their ideological biases that they cannot analyze objectively, and they are so emotionally invested in liberal democracy, and so repulsed by authentic manifestations of fascism, that they cannot approach the subject with the intense, up-close (objective) scrutiny required, and they cannot effectively approach and interface with genuine fascists (at most, they interview moronic Quota Queens who leverage publicity for money and power within the “movement”). That the analysts are personally inept – and in some cases are women – further damages their ability to effectively dissect real extant fascism. 

And that’s all for the good.