A Brief Foreword on Perspective(s) and Argumentations
‘I am a historian before I am a Christian; my object is simply to find out how the things actually occurred.’
– Leopold von Ranke
This admittedly lengthy document is a dense compilation of shorter unpublished notes and unfinished essays written largely between October 2014 and October 2015 about the subject of international fascism. What began (for me) as a simple intellectual political inquiry soon grew into a larger, much more complicated story containing elements of mob power, personal greed, clan territory and generational xenophobia wrapped within a caul of historical verisimilitude.
In short, there was far, far more to the question than I had previously thought possible and the journey lead me in directions that I did not necessarily expect.
The intent of the initial essay I had in mind (I thought) was simple. It was an honest attempt to address three fundamental questions:
- What is fascism;
- Why does fascism continue to influence the post-World War Two/European Holocaust era;
- Why is so little done about it until long after it has become fatally destructive.
At the risk of sounding counter-productive, I was not as concerned here with ‘finding answers’ (per se) as much as I was with identifying causes. And, I do not believe in the mainstream social reliance upon using moral arguments as a means of self-defence against philosophies and organisations that are historically recognised as known killers of entire people(s) makes for credible logic either.
As investigators and as people we must look deeper than the lingering after-taste of Adolf Hitler’s sexed-up promotion of well-frocked fascism because he wasn’t the first. Even Benito Mussolini, who began building his private Fascisti Italia during the struggle of the Great War was, clearly, the first modern fascist, not the first fascist.
When Il Duce boastfully identified Imperial Rome as the original far-right corporatist state, he was right. But even then, he was still speaking as a Europocentric grounded xenophobe. It might never have occurred to him – or any other European for that matter – that the ancient (and not-so-ancient) empires in Greater Asia; The Americas; the Arab World or within Continental Africa might also have gone through periods of fascist upheaval within their own respective (and culturally relevant) ways.
Politically (as well as historically) speaking, why would this be out of the question? As an Indigenist analyst, I certainly viewed this as a distinct possibility. And, I wanted to see if my suspicions held any water from a confessedly partisan perspective of deconstructive objectivity.
What I mean by stating that is this: my analysis here seeks to factually address the dogged persistence of fascist ideologies within the international sociopolitic. But having said that, it would be very inaccurate (and dishonest) for me to not admit that my personal experiences – having been born and raised within an overwhelmingly racialist and punitive pro-Eurocentric environment – also have critical bearing upon the perspectives and conclusions manifested within these commentaries. As they should, since the perspective(s) of the victims of fascism are just as important to understanding the problem as is studying fascist actors themselves.
But this does not (or should not) stand to mean that my speaking on and against fascism is inherently negatively prejudiced simply because I am ‘of colour‘ and ‘Indigenous‘.
It is what it is. I am a victim of fascism, as are many other POC’s, socially marginalised persons and Original Peoples. And frankly, I make no apologies for this, or for the possibility that this history may lead to a particular bias – on my part – against the far-right. And because of this, I fully expect the bile-gnawing pseudo-intellectuals of the right-wing internet trolling lobby to lazily proclaim this (and the author) to be hopelessly racist against the poor, misunderstood Christian White man who only wanted to help-out the non-European World by enslaving and maiming everyone in sight in the name of G-d. (Praise Jesus)
They will (as they have in the past) argue that everything written here is auto-magically biased. If that is so, then virtually everything that has ever been written about the history of the world by Western European and Euro-Settler academics should be regarded as equally suspect. All of it. Rudyard Kipling (for instance) took it upon himself to define the moral characteristics of White Power for everybody and was taken seriously only because he was an Englishman who had by chance of birth, hatched in one of the more important provinces and not Britain proper. Nothing else.
Noting the Errors of Intellectual Impunity
I’ve already admitted to my own biases and why. Which is far more than I can about those I am writing about. And I also confess here, without any reservation, that I harbour a very special personal disfavour towards those who admire fascism’s chief historical personality, Adolf Hitler as a hero and what his German Nazi Party politically and morally represented, planned for and ultimately carried-out in the name of ‘Aryan‘ racial purity. Frankly, I hate such people as the heartless monsters they really are.
And my prejudice extends itself to the Mother Church for its historical observance (and promotion) of acceptable xenophobia and Providence-inspired ethnocide, (See: the ‘Cum Nimis Absurdum‘ [‘Since It Is Absurd…‘]1 and ‘The Final Solution‘ / ‘die Endlösung der Judenfrage‘)2 and for her wilful collaboration with Hitler and Mussolini, both confirmed Catholics who misused the influence of the Papacy to pacify their populations. Plus: both leaders enjoyed the quiet patronage of Pope Pius XII and the Central Intelligence Agency within their globally-stationed clergy network.3 Why am I so upset with the Catholics? Because their able assistance extended the treachery of the German Nazis by decades all across the world. And they should never be forgiven for it as an organisation. (See: ‘Nazi Ratlines‘)
I am inspired to stand squarely in opposition to the far-right because it needs to be done. Few people today are aware that the Nazis faced strong, internal opposition from intellectuals, artists and a politicised working-class who struggled clandestinely against the fascist politic within their own respective fields. One does not need to be anything special to know the difference between right and wrong.
However, there were some, a group of extremely brave university students, who were overtly unwilling to allow fascism to destroy their country without a fight. Founded by a former Hitler Youth member turned antifascismus activist, Sophia M. Scholl (a personal hero of the author) and her brother Hans F. Scholl (children of the anti-Nazi Liberal Democrat Robert Scholl) lead ‘die Weiße Rose‘, (the White Rose) began the first citizen effort within Nazi-era Germany to oppose the Hitler Regime. And without the use of bullets or bombs, the members of the White Rose simply handed out information leaflets to the public,4 using the power of words supported by facts to expose the dangers of the NSDAP to the country.
For these efforts, the Scholl family and their compatriots were beheaded by the state on charges of treason. And although fascism marched on, (with venture capitalist assistance) driving Germany into ruin, rubble and disgrace, the tragedy of what happened to the Scholl family divulges the innate power of their movement and the principles it was based on. The Scholl’s were right. The right-wing was wrong. And if the European Holocaust is a testimonial to fascism’s sense of inhumanity, then the actions of the White Rose and their commitment to Cartesian common-sense and basic social justice in trying to prevent it from happening is a testimony to the international antifascist resistance.
This is the ideal that I wish to defend. And this bias is clearly reflected within the text.
Again, I make no apologies for this position. Nor for my attitude. And in a logical and sane post-World War Two (WW2) world, I would not be obligated or expected to, by sensible people in an advanced, cosmopolitan society. However, the world (conceptually speaking) and the sometimes outlandish human activities that drive it, do not (always) operate logically. And fascism is not in any way a logical political philosophy. And fascists, by any measure, are not reasonable people.
The insular culture of the political far-right – whether the general public wishes to accept it or not – is self-centred, corporatist in nature and is buttressed by military interests who understand their historical relationship to the power structure. And while this is true, most of our focus (as the public) has been centred upon the aggressive tactics of visible hate rather than the working mechanics of ingrained disparity. Far-rightism and its variations have done irreparable damage to each and every society that has allowed it to develop into a viable political base.
And given this history, instead of meaningful dialogue on the subject, I see and hear quasi-moral excuses, accepted lies and outright legal permission given to opportunistic racists, professional right-wing terrorists and habitually abusive law enforcement authorities5 so long as they do not attack the ownership organs of the state. This should frighten the general population – especially those who incessantly complain of ‘government overreach’ – but it doesn’t. As long as Africans; Indigenous Peoples; Jews; Muslims and Homosexuals are their main targets, the Europocentrist does not and will not see this as an important problem. They, are not the primary victims. And when they are, you will then see government and civil action move in position to protect themselves, not the victims.
Fascism, like xenophobia and colonialism, is an all-or-none creature that eventually will consume itself whole. And like any other vampiristic organism, the fascist/right-wing mentality will do what it thinks it must do in order to survive as well as thrive. If this means knowingly manufacturing broad public consent through the promotion of fear and confusion, the ultra-conservatives will gleefully do so.6 Just as the Blair and Bush governments did to falsely go to war with Iraq. (See: ‘Downing Street memo‘)7 Without the threat of fear and the promotion of paranoid loathing, the far-right cannot function. Because they have nothing to offer the average person not obsessively interested in tribal warfare; misogyny; aimless amusement; pointless violence; individual political/social gain or the allure of short-term/high-profits.
Now, if it can be agreed that xenophobia; theological literalism and far-right, totalitarian opinions on social ‘harmony’ are not logical, scientifically coherent ideas or are (in any way) directed towards improving the quality of life for all humanity, why are we still discussing the possibility of extreme right-wing politics – at the internationalist level – in the 21st century?
And further, given the trail of misery and destruction wrought by fascism, why are there masses of people(s) around the world today using violence and hate-speech to impose these ideologies upon societies that do not want it?
This series of collected (unfinished) commentaries was my humble contribution towards addressing this most serious issue. May other anti-fascists find it (in some way) useful towards that effort.
1‘Cum nimis absurdum’ – Leges et ordinationes a iudaeis in Statu Ecclesiastico degentibus observandae Paulus episcopus servus servorum Dei, ad futuram rei memoriam. – Laws and ordinances to be observed by the Jews living in the Holy Paul, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for future memory of the matter. (via: ariberti.it – http://wp.me/p4b9PN-kn)
3‘The Roman Catholic Church’ – SpirituallySmart.Com [http://www.spirituallysmart.com/Catholic_CIA.pdf]