What a cute article! You seem to have a good handle on the textbook definition of fascism. Might I encourage you to look into the definition of narcissism, because it's about all i could see from your writing, as well as your notes :) Best of luck on that!
Thanks for stalking my writing and my notes. Sorry you're so tethered to an ideology that you're unable to think for yourself and feel like you have to reduce me to a personality disorder because you don't agree with what I have to say. Best of luck on that! :)
Actually, I never said I didn’t agree with some of what you had to say. I’m speaking about your obvious desire to prove yourself as superior by the way you write, and put other people down, to try and make your points. You claim to be unbothered, but it’s obvious by the way you speak to others, that you’re just seeking some sort of moral high ground or educational superiority. So whether that come from narcissism or just plain insecurity, it’s kind of sad. Because you probably could be a great writer….and my observation has nothing to do with ideas you’re claiming, it has to do with the fact that your writing and responses come across as snobby, and therefore small, bitch. 😊 And you’ve clearly crafted that false superiority, into some sort of supposed to be cute attitude of not caring. You think this will come across as relatable, but for people with legitimate education and skills, you simply appear to write and react like an angry teenager, who thinks it’s impressive to be snarky. And you clearly get the validation you’re desiring but it’s at the cost of being predictable and unserious. You think what you’re doing is debating, but you’re just arguing for argument sake, nothing more. Your responses to people aren’t articulate, they’re childish. Your points, while maybe valid, are just masked by your own need to be told you’re right. Just like I’m sure you’re crafting some uncouth remarks in response to this that you think will sound cunning lol But I’m actually someone who is unbothered, so I can’t be emotionally baited by a stranger.
The ultimate fascist argument, and the original one, was the dialectic structure of thinking. We need urgently a Great Reset of our Philosophical Structures. Sooner than later we are all gonna need that.
You have crossed the rubicon and will now be subjected to irrational and incoherent discourse from the indoctrinated jacobins that cannot tolerate any dissent or apostates. Unsubscribing is a gift. Your accurate revelation brings an important clarity to a failed narrative. May your influence win new followers. Thank you for the courage to be honest.
It really is self-filtering. I just hate the idea of building another echo chamber, but I can't control what other people do. Such is life, I suppose. Thanks for your note.
"Fascism is a political ideology rooted in AUTHORITARIAN ULTRANATIONALISM, CENTRALIZED STATE CONTROL, MILITARIZATION OF SOCIETY, and SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT. It demands CONFORMITY, ELEVATES THE STATE OVER THE INDIVIDUAL, and ERADICATES POLITICAL OPPOSITION."
Then you say "If everyone's a fascist, no one is — The word has lost its teeth. And not because it's outdated, but because people like this author have turned it into a catchall insult for "anyone who disagrees with me. But the ugly truth these people don’t seem to want to face is that fascism thrives on forced conformity."
I understand what you're saying. Fascist! Grammar Nazi! Everything I don't like is Hitler! These type of terms get thrown around a lot. But a word "losing teeth" doesn't change its set definition. It simply means people have been over-applying or misapplying it.
The essay you’re critiquing might do this, but you also do it throughout your piece:
"The insistence that silence is violence, that neutrality is complicity, that individual sovereignty is fascist, and that failing to speak your language of politics makes you a threat to democracy, is not resistance. That’s called tyranny (cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control)."
Insistence itself is not tyranny. Tyranny is defined as “government by a ruler or small group of people who have unlimited power over the people in their country or state and use it unfairly and cruelly". You have bent the word "tyranny" here to describe someone saying things you don't agree with.
You then categorise the type of writing you're critiquing is “structurally fascist”, which is physically impossible according to your own definition of fascism because no essay could ever enact "authoritarian ultranationalism, centralized state control, militarization of society, and suppression of dissent." An essay might PROMOTE the ideas of fascism or work towards fascistic ends but it cannot execute them. Another example of calling the author's work “fascist” because you disagree with it.
Later, you say:
"The real threat to democracy is the one you can’t see. It isn’t pilates moms. It isn’t green juice. It isn’t people who didn’t share your infographic on social media. It’s the erosion of meaning. The cheapening of words like "fascism" and "genocide" and “white supremacist” until they mean nothing at all. The normalization of emotional coercion as discourse. The ritual shaming of people who choose silence over virtue signaling."
Unfortunately, you participate in the erosion and cheapening of every word you hold as an example and others:
- You misused the term fascism multiple times according to your own, set definition in ways I’ve described intimately already.
- You state, “identity politics isn’t about truth. It’s about emotional leverage.” You are aware that identity politics is a lens in which analyse structural injustice and figure out to how to exist in a society where people have different experiences. You are cheapening it by suggesting that, because some people might use it for “emotional leverage”, that identity politics itself is about emotional leverage. This is like me saying “free speech is about the right to insult people” just because people use their free speech to insult people.
- You’ve cheapened the term “white supremacist” by reducing people who have grievances with Kirk’s history of dog-whistle racism, overt racist comments and promotion of White Replacement Theory as “Mourning a white man becomes white supremacy”. That does both him and the attempt to properly categorise his conduct a disservice.
- The UN Commission of Inquiry announced that Israel is committing a genocide. You identify that “conformity” is a tenet of fascism but you call the author a hypocrite for not condemning Hamas, which reads like a selective outrage of your own but not only that, suggests she must conform to your condemnations if she wants to speak about global violence. Unlike the author, YOUR suggestion of conformity is in support of a MILITARIZED SOCIETY (Israel requires all its citizens to serve in the IDF) that SUPPRESSES OF DISSENT (Pro-Palestinian voices across the world have been deported, fired, and expelled and jailed for their support) and ERADICATES POLITICAL OPPOSITION (the UN and ICC confirmed genocide of Indigenous Palestinian community).
To summarise: you betray the title of your “essay” throughout or perhaps the title is simply autobiographical. You dictate the terms of what “fascism” is then you abandon those terms whenever you want to condemn the author for acting in a manner you dislike or writes something you don’t agree with. You undermine your own credibility by suggesting that fighting fascism means that you should “stop redefining words to fit your narrative” while, at the same time, you redefine words like “insistence” in an essay as “tyranny” or certain types of writing as “structurally fascist” or that identity politics as “emotional leverage”. You cheapen words like “fascism” and “genocide” and, by your own admission, this makes you “the real threat to democracy”. I don’t want to be wholly negative, so I’d like to conclude by pointing out one final thing you’ve only got sort-of right. Fascism is allergic to open dialogue... But only once it is realised. In order to establish itself and grow, fascism adores open dialogue. It revels in the ability to spread its tenets, capitalising from off the fear, hate, shame, nihilism, selfishness, lack of empathy, and general confusion that permeates through public life. And once its sewn enough discord in the stage of “open dialogue”, once it gets to a place where it can take its mask off—it closes ranks. It militarises its society–dispatching soldiers to keep the peace in the streets. It fans the flames of ultranationalism and demonises immigrants and foreigners. It suppresses dissent in schools, college campuses. It demands conformity from its citizens through government-mandated acts of coercion. It strips people of their freedoms. Silence might not be violence, but those leading the fascistic charge find silence useful because silence is not resistance. So yes, fascism is allergic to open dialogue. But fascism doesn’t look like fascism straight away. There's a slow march towards it.
Thanks for taking a shot at this, maybe the person who you’re responding to doesn’t understand what facism is, and made a poor argument. But by your own definition, this country is currently under facism. And your comment about “identity politics” while passionate is a response to someone who clearly doesn’t understand it.
I would encourage you to check out the combahee river collectives definition of intersectionality. That’s where the origin of “identity politics” comes from, and it was an argument that your experiences based on your identities impacted your life.
As for whether we are currently in a facist country? Our president is currently deploying troops to states and cities, using government agencies to bully companies into firing people who’s opinions they don’t like, and investigating organizations with different opinions for being “terrorist”
I also learned all about it in "women's and gender studies" which is what my degree is in. I'm very familiar with its origins and intentions.
As for whether or not we're "in a fascist country" as you say. I disagree. But that's not the point. I was responding to a very specific article—one in which the author reduces wellness influencers and seekers to fascists and pilates moms to white supremacists.
Those unsubs are your literal and moral badges of honor, for standing on logic and truth.
I try never to do drop someone else's post in comments section, but this one from Dr. Spier, is the complimentary sauce to the meal you've prepared here.
The left is a cult, and it always has been.
In the past this wasn't so clear, because the cultural waters were muddied. Holly-weird factored enormously into that obfuscation. However, just as in any radical movement, group or cult, escalation is unavoidable and always reaches a point where the majority of the masses can't avoid seeing the manipulation, capture and destruction, staring them in the face.
Dr. Hannah Spier, does a great job of explaining the mechanisms at work, that we (those not captured by this derangement) can see quite clearly.
Reading this gives me a bit of a nostalgic feeling for when I really believed we could maintain a liberal society. I have a similar history to yours, believing what I was told until the insanity of it was too much to hold together in my head anymore. Now I'm definitely what most people would consider a far right maniac, because I think the only solutions we have realistically available to us are pretty drastic and ugly. Hope I'm wrong, I appreciate what you're doing.
Seems like many of us have woken up recently—it started for at the end of 2017/early 2018 but lately I’ve just been pushed to the brink. I guess we can only hope more people open their eyes soon too…
What a thoughtful piece, and it's earned at least one subscriber back. I'm looking forward to reading more of your wild bare thoughts. I don't believe we'll necessarily agree about everything, but then again, I know I learn best when I talk to real people who have taken time to develop an opinion through insight into their own bias.
Thanks Linda. I don’t think there’s anyone on earth who I agree with 100% of the time, but I hope we can explore similar ideas and find middle ground. Welcome :)
“Fascism is a political ideology rooted in authoritarian ultranationalism, centralized state control, militarization of society, and suppression of dissent. It demands conformity, elevates the state over the individual, and eradicates political opposition.”
Sorry, what aspect of this do you think is currently not happening?
I mean, I could spend hours collating all the instances of Trump et all calling for arrests up to executions of people who spoke truth to him; mention how he has outlawed a concept that isn’t even an organisation; and cite the 1200 people who have been disappeared by ice so far, lost in the system, nobody knows where they went. But really that stuff is right there in front of you so if you’re pretending not to see it, you’re in bad faith and there’s no point wasting time on you, you lying fascist.
Stay independent, Stephanie. Keep questioning. Keep creating your work. And let your work stand on its own. We Sapiens constantly get in our own way despite having so much potential. Hamlet said it better: “What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, in form and moving how express and admirable…”
And Giovanni Gentile was the philosopher behind fascism. And by the way, in the book of Revelation Satan is called the Accuser, which in the original Koine Greek is the word Kategoria, which is where we get the word Category. The atrocities of the 20th century were largely due to categorizing large groups of people, defining the categories by their enemies, and thereby justifying wholesale death by virtue of their categorical status. It reduces individual sovereignty to something lesser and imparts group guilt regardless of individual culpability. This is why the left is so insistent on identity politics, and now I’m seeing the right do the same thing. We all need to remember that everyone transcends our created categories in their individualism, which is what the west already figured out and that’s why everyone is entitled to their rights and privileges and protections without regard to belonging to any category other than being a citizen.
Great essay highlighting (for me) the moral narcissism of the author who mistakes passion for truth. I tell people that the biggest red flag to ideological capture is nodding along to someone’s impassioned post/essay, buying into the message because of the energy the writer gives off. People who are high on their own supply want to control others to think and believe as they do, and are more prone to the socialism- fascism pipeline. Assimilation is some kind of drug!
Thanks for preserving the precision of words that have been subjected to postmodernist erosion.
What a cute article! You seem to have a good handle on the textbook definition of fascism. Might I encourage you to look into the definition of narcissism, because it's about all i could see from your writing, as well as your notes :) Best of luck on that!
Here's a post on narcissism—enjoy. 🤍
https://www.wildbarethoughts.com/p/the-narcissism-of-identity-politics?r=44ancl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Thanks for stalking my writing and my notes. Sorry you're so tethered to an ideology that you're unable to think for yourself and feel like you have to reduce me to a personality disorder because you don't agree with what I have to say. Best of luck on that! :)
Actually, I never said I didn’t agree with some of what you had to say. I’m speaking about your obvious desire to prove yourself as superior by the way you write, and put other people down, to try and make your points. You claim to be unbothered, but it’s obvious by the way you speak to others, that you’re just seeking some sort of moral high ground or educational superiority. So whether that come from narcissism or just plain insecurity, it’s kind of sad. Because you probably could be a great writer….and my observation has nothing to do with ideas you’re claiming, it has to do with the fact that your writing and responses come across as snobby, and therefore small, bitch. 😊 And you’ve clearly crafted that false superiority, into some sort of supposed to be cute attitude of not caring. You think this will come across as relatable, but for people with legitimate education and skills, you simply appear to write and react like an angry teenager, who thinks it’s impressive to be snarky. And you clearly get the validation you’re desiring but it’s at the cost of being predictable and unserious. You think what you’re doing is debating, but you’re just arguing for argument sake, nothing more. Your responses to people aren’t articulate, they’re childish. Your points, while maybe valid, are just masked by your own need to be told you’re right. Just like I’m sure you’re crafting some uncouth remarks in response to this that you think will sound cunning lol But I’m actually someone who is unbothered, so I can’t be emotionally baited by a stranger.
“aCkTshUaLly” lmfao I ain’t reading all that
The ultimate fascist argument, and the original one, was the dialectic structure of thinking. We need urgently a Great Reset of our Philosophical Structures. Sooner than later we are all gonna need that.
You have crossed the rubicon and will now be subjected to irrational and incoherent discourse from the indoctrinated jacobins that cannot tolerate any dissent or apostates. Unsubscribing is a gift. Your accurate revelation brings an important clarity to a failed narrative. May your influence win new followers. Thank you for the courage to be honest.
It really is self-filtering. I just hate the idea of building another echo chamber, but I can't control what other people do. Such is life, I suppose. Thanks for your note.
Yes! Girl!
You set the definition of fascism:
"Fascism is a political ideology rooted in AUTHORITARIAN ULTRANATIONALISM, CENTRALIZED STATE CONTROL, MILITARIZATION OF SOCIETY, and SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT. It demands CONFORMITY, ELEVATES THE STATE OVER THE INDIVIDUAL, and ERADICATES POLITICAL OPPOSITION."
Then you say "If everyone's a fascist, no one is — The word has lost its teeth. And not because it's outdated, but because people like this author have turned it into a catchall insult for "anyone who disagrees with me. But the ugly truth these people don’t seem to want to face is that fascism thrives on forced conformity."
I understand what you're saying. Fascist! Grammar Nazi! Everything I don't like is Hitler! These type of terms get thrown around a lot. But a word "losing teeth" doesn't change its set definition. It simply means people have been over-applying or misapplying it.
The essay you’re critiquing might do this, but you also do it throughout your piece:
"The insistence that silence is violence, that neutrality is complicity, that individual sovereignty is fascist, and that failing to speak your language of politics makes you a threat to democracy, is not resistance. That’s called tyranny (cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control)."
Insistence itself is not tyranny. Tyranny is defined as “government by a ruler or small group of people who have unlimited power over the people in their country or state and use it unfairly and cruelly". You have bent the word "tyranny" here to describe someone saying things you don't agree with.
You then categorise the type of writing you're critiquing is “structurally fascist”, which is physically impossible according to your own definition of fascism because no essay could ever enact "authoritarian ultranationalism, centralized state control, militarization of society, and suppression of dissent." An essay might PROMOTE the ideas of fascism or work towards fascistic ends but it cannot execute them. Another example of calling the author's work “fascist” because you disagree with it.
Later, you say:
"The real threat to democracy is the one you can’t see. It isn’t pilates moms. It isn’t green juice. It isn’t people who didn’t share your infographic on social media. It’s the erosion of meaning. The cheapening of words like "fascism" and "genocide" and “white supremacist” until they mean nothing at all. The normalization of emotional coercion as discourse. The ritual shaming of people who choose silence over virtue signaling."
Unfortunately, you participate in the erosion and cheapening of every word you hold as an example and others:
- You misused the term fascism multiple times according to your own, set definition in ways I’ve described intimately already.
- You state, “identity politics isn’t about truth. It’s about emotional leverage.” You are aware that identity politics is a lens in which analyse structural injustice and figure out to how to exist in a society where people have different experiences. You are cheapening it by suggesting that, because some people might use it for “emotional leverage”, that identity politics itself is about emotional leverage. This is like me saying “free speech is about the right to insult people” just because people use their free speech to insult people.
- You’ve cheapened the term “white supremacist” by reducing people who have grievances with Kirk’s history of dog-whistle racism, overt racist comments and promotion of White Replacement Theory as “Mourning a white man becomes white supremacy”. That does both him and the attempt to properly categorise his conduct a disservice.
- The UN Commission of Inquiry announced that Israel is committing a genocide. You identify that “conformity” is a tenet of fascism but you call the author a hypocrite for not condemning Hamas, which reads like a selective outrage of your own but not only that, suggests she must conform to your condemnations if she wants to speak about global violence. Unlike the author, YOUR suggestion of conformity is in support of a MILITARIZED SOCIETY (Israel requires all its citizens to serve in the IDF) that SUPPRESSES OF DISSENT (Pro-Palestinian voices across the world have been deported, fired, and expelled and jailed for their support) and ERADICATES POLITICAL OPPOSITION (the UN and ICC confirmed genocide of Indigenous Palestinian community).
To summarise: you betray the title of your “essay” throughout or perhaps the title is simply autobiographical. You dictate the terms of what “fascism” is then you abandon those terms whenever you want to condemn the author for acting in a manner you dislike or writes something you don’t agree with. You undermine your own credibility by suggesting that fighting fascism means that you should “stop redefining words to fit your narrative” while, at the same time, you redefine words like “insistence” in an essay as “tyranny” or certain types of writing as “structurally fascist” or that identity politics as “emotional leverage”. You cheapen words like “fascism” and “genocide” and, by your own admission, this makes you “the real threat to democracy”. I don’t want to be wholly negative, so I’d like to conclude by pointing out one final thing you’ve only got sort-of right. Fascism is allergic to open dialogue... But only once it is realised. In order to establish itself and grow, fascism adores open dialogue. It revels in the ability to spread its tenets, capitalising from off the fear, hate, shame, nihilism, selfishness, lack of empathy, and general confusion that permeates through public life. And once its sewn enough discord in the stage of “open dialogue”, once it gets to a place where it can take its mask off—it closes ranks. It militarises its society–dispatching soldiers to keep the peace in the streets. It fans the flames of ultranationalism and demonises immigrants and foreigners. It suppresses dissent in schools, college campuses. It demands conformity from its citizens through government-mandated acts of coercion. It strips people of their freedoms. Silence might not be violence, but those leading the fascistic charge find silence useful because silence is not resistance. So yes, fascism is allergic to open dialogue. But fascism doesn’t look like fascism straight away. There's a slow march towards it.
Thanks for taking a shot at this, maybe the person who you’re responding to doesn’t understand what facism is, and made a poor argument. But by your own definition, this country is currently under facism. And your comment about “identity politics” while passionate is a response to someone who clearly doesn’t understand it.
I would encourage you to check out the combahee river collectives definition of intersectionality. That’s where the origin of “identity politics” comes from, and it was an argument that your experiences based on your identities impacted your life.
As for whether we are currently in a facist country? Our president is currently deploying troops to states and cities, using government agencies to bully companies into firing people who’s opinions they don’t like, and investigating organizations with different opinions for being “terrorist”
Politics aside. That’s facism.
I am aware of where the term comes from—I wrote an entire piece about it here: https://www.wildbarethoughts.com/p/the-narcissism-of-identity-politics?r=44ancl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
I also learned all about it in "women's and gender studies" which is what my degree is in. I'm very familiar with its origins and intentions.
As for whether or not we're "in a fascist country" as you say. I disagree. But that's not the point. I was responding to a very specific article—one in which the author reduces wellness influencers and seekers to fascists and pilates moms to white supremacists.
Thanks for responding
Hell ya girl this was bomb
🤜🤛
So very well done!
Those unsubs are your literal and moral badges of honor, for standing on logic and truth.
I try never to do drop someone else's post in comments section, but this one from Dr. Spier, is the complimentary sauce to the meal you've prepared here.
The left is a cult, and it always has been.
In the past this wasn't so clear, because the cultural waters were muddied. Holly-weird factored enormously into that obfuscation. However, just as in any radical movement, group or cult, escalation is unavoidable and always reaches a point where the majority of the masses can't avoid seeing the manipulation, capture and destruction, staring them in the face.
Dr. Hannah Spier, does a great job of explaining the mechanisms at work, that we (those not captured by this derangement) can see quite clearly.
https://substack.com/@psychobabblewithspier/p-173846188
Thanks for this. I’ll definitely check out Hannah’s piece!
Reading this gives me a bit of a nostalgic feeling for when I really believed we could maintain a liberal society. I have a similar history to yours, believing what I was told until the insanity of it was too much to hold together in my head anymore. Now I'm definitely what most people would consider a far right maniac, because I think the only solutions we have realistically available to us are pretty drastic and ugly. Hope I'm wrong, I appreciate what you're doing.
Seems like many of us have woken up recently—it started for at the end of 2017/early 2018 but lately I’ve just been pushed to the brink. I guess we can only hope more people open their eyes soon too…
What a thoughtful piece, and it's earned at least one subscriber back. I'm looking forward to reading more of your wild bare thoughts. I don't believe we'll necessarily agree about everything, but then again, I know I learn best when I talk to real people who have taken time to develop an opinion through insight into their own bias.
Thanks Linda. I don’t think there’s anyone on earth who I agree with 100% of the time, but I hope we can explore similar ideas and find middle ground. Welcome :)
“Fascism is a political ideology rooted in authoritarian ultranationalism, centralized state control, militarization of society, and suppression of dissent. It demands conformity, elevates the state over the individual, and eradicates political opposition.”
Sorry, what aspect of this do you think is currently not happening?
I mean, I could spend hours collating all the instances of Trump et all calling for arrests up to executions of people who spoke truth to him; mention how he has outlawed a concept that isn’t even an organisation; and cite the 1200 people who have been disappeared by ice so far, lost in the system, nobody knows where they went. But really that stuff is right there in front of you so if you’re pretending not to see it, you’re in bad faith and there’s no point wasting time on you, you lying fascist.
I just wrote an entire piece outlining my thoughts on that question. So the better one is, what aspect of this do you think IS currently happening?
Well all of them, obviously, because they are.
Insightful. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Hey thank you for righting this. You explained extremism in the best way possible.
Because whether the beliefs are left or right, it doesn’t matter if they are forced upon people.
That’s why putting labels makes us based, because we are just creating division. Instead we should let our genuine values define us as people.
Anyways I’m digressing, but yes I loved the way you articulated this piece of writing.
There’s so much I could add and say, but I think you said it best.
Anyways, i have this one article on my page called “Not so— brave new world.” It’s disguised and more about society. You might like it.
Stay independent, Stephanie. Keep questioning. Keep creating your work. And let your work stand on its own. We Sapiens constantly get in our own way despite having so much potential. Hamlet said it better: “What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, in form and moving how express and admirable…”
And Giovanni Gentile was the philosopher behind fascism. And by the way, in the book of Revelation Satan is called the Accuser, which in the original Koine Greek is the word Kategoria, which is where we get the word Category. The atrocities of the 20th century were largely due to categorizing large groups of people, defining the categories by their enemies, and thereby justifying wholesale death by virtue of their categorical status. It reduces individual sovereignty to something lesser and imparts group guilt regardless of individual culpability. This is why the left is so insistent on identity politics, and now I’m seeing the right do the same thing. We all need to remember that everyone transcends our created categories in their individualism, which is what the west already figured out and that’s why everyone is entitled to their rights and privileges and protections without regard to belonging to any category other than being a citizen.
You give me hope as well. Yes the delusion is so grand with this fascist rhetoric is exhausting. Thankful for you.
Great essay highlighting (for me) the moral narcissism of the author who mistakes passion for truth. I tell people that the biggest red flag to ideological capture is nodding along to someone’s impassioned post/essay, buying into the message because of the energy the writer gives off. People who are high on their own supply want to control others to think and believe as they do, and are more prone to the socialism- fascism pipeline. Assimilation is some kind of drug!
Thanks for preserving the precision of words that have been subjected to postmodernist erosion.