Are we Heading Towards Fascism?

Or finally, and at long last, moving away from it?

…what once was a formal description of a reality around us has become an amorphous, pejorative label.

We thereby easily mistake “fascism” for it’s accidental and historical accretions; imagining that it would come, if at all, jackbooted and goose stepping back into history.

But what if it came sauntering with a smile and a handshake?

“Men do not long continue to think what they have forgotten how to say.”

C.S. Lewis, “The Death of Words”¹

The art of defining words is the keystone of all logic; which, in turn, is the heart of all clear thinking. This is why Aristotle (and Socrates, and Plato) were so focused upon defining words, particularly key technical words. For how can we know what we’re talking about—whether our words correspond to things as they really are—if our words are not clearly defined?

Now, when we define anything, we are endeavoring to pare away incidentals and accidents of usage and history; and thereby isolate the essence of what the word “points to,” or means².

And when a word is allowed to lose it’s objective referent—that is, when it ceases to point to some objective thing in the world—it usually degrades into a description of one’s own subjective feelings or perceptions of a thing, and not the thing itself. And in a sense, depending upon the person using the word, it comes to mean almost anything.

So, for example, when the word “fascist” is used to describe people as various as Obama, a school teacher, Trump, a librarian, C.S. Lewis, and so on³ it clearly has lost some hold on reality.⁴

What is really being said when someone says “x is a fascist” is more or less “I don’t like x.”

Even as early as 1946, Orwell lamented that ““Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable.”⁵

In short, what was once a formal description of a reality around us has simply become an amorphous, pejorative label.

But we already have bucketfuls of nearly-synonymous words to describe our feelings and perceptions, especially when we simply don’t like someone, be it Trump or Obama or even C.S. Lewis.

Far worse, if a word formerly enabled a common grasp of an objective thing in the world, which we could discuss and dispute over, and if this word now only refers to our subjective feelings about such things, we have thereby lost a corresponding understanding and connection to things as they are.

That is an enormous if not incalculable loss, at least potentially. As I argue here, when words are so unanchored from reality, chaos in the intellect—and in the world itself—is all-but inevitable.

Moreover, if we no longer have a common understanding of what “fascism” refers to, how shall we know it when it comes into our midst?

We thereby easily mistake “fascism” for it’s accidental and historical accretions; imagining that it would come, if at all, jackbooted and goose stepping back into history.

But what if it came sauntering with a smile and a handshake?

Once again: “Men do not long continue to think what they have forgotten how to say.”

So what is the core meaning of the word “fascism” and are we moving towards, or away, from it?

I. So What is Fascism? It’s the “Third Way”

As I argued in an April 2022 essay on the nature of fascism:

Fascism was and is indisputably the brainchild of the marxist Left; of the “intellectuals” around “Il Duce”, who proffered it in the 1930s as a “third way.”

Why did they call fascism the “third way”?  Because instead of Communism (total state ownership and control of the “means of production”), or free market capitalism (privately owned and controlled), the fascists envisioned a so-called “third way,” whereby enterprises remained ostensibly “private;” however, these would be publicly controlled.

But how were private companies to be “publicly controlled” in a fascist system?

From the same essay…

The essence of Fascism can be captured in three principles

1. Interlocking board membership between private companies and the State; achieved in part by rotating officials in and out of these public/private positions, including and especially board seats. Sound familiar? Does, say, the FDA come to mind? Does this sound like the political Right? Or the Left?

2. This interlocking board membership makes possible very fine and immediate control over the private sphere, including the media, so that directives coming from the State—even if unconstitutional or otherwise illegal—can be implemented by the private sphere without a single law having to be passed. Sound familiar? Do the non-existent “vaccine mandates” come to mind? Does that sound like the political Right, or the Left?

3. The subordination of the person to the group: collectivism. Look at the very symbol of Fascism: it’s a bundle of sticks (fascis) bound together and unified for the purpose of making an axe handle. In other words, the person (a single rod)—and his or her purpose and value—is subordinated to that of the group; and in nearly every way, the group is prior to the person. (And, moreover, the State itself is imbued with a fraudulent religiosity; and reified as a kind of ersatz deity.) Sound familiar? Does that sound like the political Right? Or the Left?

By this a kind of unity is forged, whereby private-public partnerships are united in purpose and policy.

Which is precisely what we have currently in US, especially in the “fourth”—and perhaps most powerful—”branch” of our government: the Administrative State.

Now, many people will argue is that this definition of fascism is too narrow: it does not include militarism, hyper-nationalism, racism, suppression of dissent, and mass death.

But while their argument is specious, it is both predictable and flat wrong. For example, Communism has historically been associated with:

• militarism,

• hyper-nationalism,

• racism,

• suppression of dissent,

• and mass death (hundreds of millions).

Do we include those elements in a technical definition of Communism? Nope.

Why not?

Again, what is the point of a definition? As I said above: when we define anything, we are endeavoring to pare away incidentals and accidents of usage and history; and thereby isolate the essence of what the word “points to,” or means.

The whole point of an apt definition is to pare away what is held in common and isolate what makes a thing unique; unless, of course, one has motives other than rigorously and usefully defining a word.

After all, think about it: why make those elements part of the definition of one word (fascism) but not another (communism)? The answer is obvious.

Or course, the issue is that “progressive” liberals don’t like acknowledging what “fascism” actually means because…well because it looks an awful lot like the ideology they espouse.

On the other hand, since they seem to have a habit of appending the word to all sorts of people whom they don’t like, it’s worth asking what they mean by this label exactly.

II. Okay, so why call Trump a “fascist”?

It’s hard to imagine that anyone means that Trump is a “corporatist” who advocates precisely what his critics value: public/private interlocking unity of policy and purpose.

And after all, the entire “maga” movement is, at least in part, about dismantling fascist “corporatism” in both its national and now global manifestation.⁶

Nor can they mean to associate him with the more banal historical accretions the word has acquired (at least in some minds, not mine).

For example, they do not mean, I imagine, a kind of moral rectitude that seems vaguely associated with historical fascists; nor, presumably, can they mean the Nazi party’s emphasis on the nuclear family and bodily health; nor can they possibly mean a penchant for rules, laws and order. Surely one can be for these things—and really, what sort of person would stand against them?—and not be “fascist.”

What about “military aggression”? After all, fascism is indeed vaguely associated, at least historically, with military aggression.

But there’s a curious problem here: while “military aggression” might apply very aptly to many 20th-21st century Democrats and 21st century Neo-Cons, it doesn’t even remotely apply to Trump.

What about the “meta” elements of fascism? Such as totalitarianism (nothing exists outside the State) and authoritarianism (the State imposes its will upon its members)? But how can these elements possibly apply to Trump? If it applies to anyone in the US at the moment, it applies to the far left.

So again, why call Trump a “fascist”?

In part, they mean something like the following when they call Trump a “fascist”

A. Trump is a “fascist” = Trump is a racist. And perhaps even advocates ethnic or racial purity or intends to engage in ethnic cleansing.

• For Trump’s entire adult life he was celebrated by, awarded, and loved by the various ethnic groups in NYC, including especially the black community. But the moment he ran for for the Presidency on the GOP ticket, he was suddenly found by the media to be “racist.” The charge is absurd as is any interest in “racial purity.” If anything, it’s the left’s obsession with “race”—and the condescension with which they treat what they call “underprivileged communities”—that might be called “racist.”

• The suggestion that he is interested in “ethnic cleansing” is equally absurd; nevertheless, in the popular mind it will gain traction when (and if) deportations of illegal immigrants start. Reels showing Nazis putting Jews on trains will be put side by side, as if there is any corresponding reality.

• Obama said much of the same things about illegal immigration and even deportation as Trump has, see here. Is Obama also a fascist for saying these things?

B. Trump is a “fascist” = Trump advocates some kind of hyper-nationalism

I don’t know what anyone means by “hyper-nationalism.”

Perhaps they mean the assertion of national sovereignty? Which, at this particular historical moment, is an expression of resisting fascism.

After all, most Americans do not wish to submit to international organizations and laws that we had no part in voting for, and for which the people have not given consent. (I thought Democrats cared so much about “democracy”?)

And since these laws and organizations are characterized by a unity of policy and purpose achieved through interlocking boards and whatnot, thereby circumventing the legislative process, then the assertion of national sovereignty looks an awful lot like resisting fascism.

C. Trump is a “fascist” = Trump is going to jail political opponents.

But there’s a problem here too: in the US, the only example I can think of anyone doing so is the Democratic party.

For example, what was Steve Bannon’s actual charge for which he was imprisoned?

Here is what happened: the J6 Committee issued him a subpoena; and Bannon, under the advice of his attorneys, argued that executive privilege applied. For this, they held him in "contempt of Congress" and threw him in prison for it with a 4-year sentence.

And how many J6 protesters have ended up in prison (and solitary confinement, some of whom have by now committed suicide) for merely walking around the Capitol building, having been invited and escorted into the building by the Capital police?

And prison for resisting a subpoena is unusual:

• Eric holder, Obama's AG was held in contempt of Congress and received no prison time.

• Merrick Garland isn’t in prison. See H.Res.1344 - Finding that Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, is in contempt of the House of Representatives for disobeying a certain subpoena.

• And so on…

So to sum up: neither the technical definition of “fascist,” nor the popular understanding via the historical associations, applies whatsoever to Trump.

Moreover, historical associations do not form any part of a formal definition

For example, “Communism” has historically been militaristic and nationalistic; it has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. Do we therefore include “militarism” and “nationalism” and even “mass murder”—whether through direct violence and oppression or via orchestrated mass starvation—as part of the definition of Communism? No, it would be absurd; and merely serve to obscure the meaning of the word.

Now, one may argue that collectivist-style societies are more likely to emphasize the nation as a community, even as a kind of family-writ-large that emphasizes a definite group identity; and thereby, collectivist-style societies are more likely to be not only tribal but xenophobic and/or “racist”— which can and has lead to “racial/ethnic cleansing”; and are more than likely to be militarily aggressive. And so on.

Indeed, historically these connections do seem to hold true. Which ought to give pause to anyone advocating collectivism, including the variant in question : fascism.

But these things are the effects, perhaps, of fascism, not part of what it is.

The point is that these historical associations and accretions form no part of a definition in a formal sense.⁷

Furthermore, one might wonder about all of this: why not just call Trump these things directly? Why use the word “fascism" at all?

Which brings us to our main point…

III. Calling Trump a fascist is really about by-passing reason and thereby “cancelling” him. It’s the ultimate “shut up” label.

The translation goes something like the following:

Trump is a “fascist” = Trump is somehow a Nazi or is something like Hitler

Of course, putting it this way is plainly absurd. And I think people know this.

Which is why “fascist” works better. It’s vague enough to by-pass reason; and it suggests and associates Trump, or any recipient of the label, with something or someone both vaguely threatening and evil. And how does anyone refute such a thing?

It is rather akin to how people use suggestive images meant to by-pass reason. For example, since the 2024 election, the below is a commonly seen photograph on social media, often captioned: “This is not Germany 1930s, this is Ohio 2024.“

This is supposed to mean: because Trump was elected, the fascists are in power.

But since there is no reasoned argument, there is nothing to refute.

When was this taken? By whom? Where exactly are they?

Does anyone know who these people are? For all I know they could be Antifa—the nominally “antifascist” group who, wearing masks to conceal their identity, bully and terrorize those who don’t go along with far-left politics—either protesting Trump’s election or pretending to be Trump supporters.

And even if they are Trump people, which I seriously doubt, what of it? That says absolutely nothing about Trump.

Nevertheless, most people are highly susceptible to the power of images, whether rooted in reality or not, precisely because they by-pass reason.

Just as with the word “racist,” and so many other amorphous if not empty pejoratives, “fascist” has become a “cancel” word that is easy to append and difficult to refute. At bottom, it’s really used to silence and shut people up.

“Fascist” is perhaps the ultimate “shut up” word

And “shut up” words are used instead of evidence and carefully-marshaled arguments. Perhaps because those who use “shut up” words hold political postures that aren’t based in reason?

It’s almost proverbially true: when words and reason fail; or, are simply absent, what can one do but cast aspersions—and even employ force and violence—to “win” the argument in the public square?

And, sadly, if history and even recent events are reliable, this approach to “disputation” seems to me to be the overall modus operandi of the left.

For example, I have mentioned in a previous essay how my lovely niece, having attended the Youth International UN Assembly a few years ago, afterwards announced proudly that:

“the conservatives came with all these facts and arguments and stuff - but, don’t worry, we shouted them down!”

The only thing unusual about her announcement is her candor.

In short, calling Trump a “fascist” is not about accusing or critiquing him in a reasoned way. It is only about mindlessly smearing him and canceling him.

The only problem is, as we have explored, none of the technical or popular meanings of the word even remotely fit him.

Okay, so then: whom do they fit?

IV. The “fascism” label and the “Mirror Trick”

We have all experienced this at a personal level: someone accuses you of doing precisely what they are doing at that very moment. It’s deeply unsettling, confusing and disorienting. It has almost a magical, if not diabolical, effect upon its victim. One might even call it a trance or a spell.

And it has the same effect when used politically in the public arena.

The word “fascist”—at least in its core technical meaning—fits quite exactly the very people calling Trump a fascist.

Consider these three arguments:

First, fascism, properly understood, is exactly what we have now. (Which is precisely why the word is no longer “properly understood.”)

The Administrative State, a prime example of modern fascism, is the status quo that “progressive liberals” have created and defended—and conservatives have fought against and resisted—over the past 100 years.⁸

Now, it is often argued that we are actually in a socialist system. But reality is not so diagrammatically simple. The three “ways” described above are overlapping; and socialism in practice tends towards at least some (communist) state ownership of private enterprises, as well as (fascist) unity between the State and the remaining ostensibly-private corporations.

Even at the conceptual level the fascists embraced elements of socialism. Mussolini, for example, was a life-long socialist; and while he carefully distanced himself from socialism as an overall doctrine, he embraced many elements of it even in his writing.⁹

Indeed, one would would be hard pressed to find a historical example of a nation that was fascist without being socialist, and vice versa. For example, it simply isn’t debatable that Nazism—Nationalsozialismus, “National Socialism”—was deeply socialist. If you don’t believe me, read this short series of excerpts on the topic.

Moreover, it is well-known that the Nazis and the Italian Fascists openly admired both the New Deal and FDR. And that admiration was mutual: the architects of the New Deal, including FDR, expressed almost unbridled enthusiasm especially for Mussolini's fascism. As "Rex" Tugwell, a leading adviser to FDR, remarked: “It’s the cleanest … most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious.”¹⁰

In short, I would argue that here in the US we are fundamentally fascist with socialist elements.¹¹

And this system has its main roots in the mobilization for WWII; and it has grown to monstrous proportions, albeit now under the label “progressive liberalism.” From my same 2022 essay cited above:

Throughout WWII, Fascism was rapidly becoming the de facto mode of government in the west; in the US, for example, the mobilization of the nation for WWII meant the creation of an immense administrative state that—rather than seizing and controlling industries directly—worked through a complex of board membership to achieve proxy public control.  This was even touted at the time as the future and ideal model of all governance; and as it was staffed by “experts” from academia, it was celebrated in universities and taught to generations of students.

That sprawling and complex Administrative State—and the praxis of public control by proxy—became the permanent reality of post-WWII government in the US.  Which also meant erroneously and radically “reinterpreting” the Constitution in accordance with these changes.

And the Administrative State is a prime example of modern fascism:

• Interlocking boards with officials rotating back and forth from the regulator to the regulated “private” company;

• An ever-growing class of permanent class of employees who are immune from recessions; they have jobs for life and pensions that few taxpayers can dream to have—and none of this depends upon their performance;

• And most importantly, it is the Administrative State, not Congress, that “creates” most of our laws and regulations, thereby circumventing legislative process.

Second, fascism never had—and really cannot have—anything essential to do with the political Right. Fascism represents nearly everything that conservatives oppose.

For example, conservatives believe in the primacy of the person over the community; conversely, the left believes in the primacy of the community over the person, which is collectivism. And Fascism is a variant of collectivism (with the added interlocking of private corporations and the state to create unity of policy and purpose between the State and the private sector.)

However, in creating the American Administrative State in the post-war era, liberal progressives had a problem: they were advocating a mode of government that was technically fascist, a word and system that had acquired, to put it mildly, unwelcome connotations.

To create distance from the horrors attendant upon historical fascism, “liberal progressives” made up a fiction—taught in universities ever since—that somehow fascism was a “far right” political worldview¹²; and that at the extremes the “far right” and the “far left” somehow merge. But this fiction was simply an absurd and arbitrary invention. And the label has been appended arbitrarily to the “right”—especially the populist “right”—ever since here in the US.

And conversely, they dubbed their fascist system “progressivism.” Thus the post-war phrase “progressive liberalism.” Voilà, eh?

Third, think about it: in our current world, which group is closer to fascism?

• Those who want a return to constitutional governance? The rue of law?

  • Or those who not only want to maintain but extend the power of the State, curtail personal sovereignty and liberty, and circumvent the legislative process?

• Those who want to protect and practice free speech?

  • Or those who want to curtail it on every single platform in the name of curbing (what they call) “misinformation”?

  • Or those (FBI) who declared parents as terrorists when they angrily denounced transgender teaching to minors?

  • Or those (FBI) who declared anyone who publicly questioned the election a “domestic terrorist”? Remember these warnings appended to Twitter users who dared to question the election? Good times, eh?

  

• Those who resisted the outrageous “pandemic” measures and refused the untested “vaccine"?

  • Or those who made up a pandemic, locked down the world, and coerced millions of people to inject a substance that was never demonstrated to be necessary, safe or effective?

• Those who peacefully protested what they believed was a stolen election?

  • Or those who imprisoned their political opponents over the past 4 years?

• Those who want to maintain our rights and freedoms? And who demand Consent for any laws and institutions under which we live?

  • Or those who push DEI hiring “equity and inclusion” policies, as well as ESG climate-change “mandates,” upon us? None of which have the “consent of the governed,” all of which have emerged from pseudo-science and the “new world order” creeps.

The world is upside down. And totally confused. Almost like it’s in a trance.

And this is what happens when words are deracinated—that is, pulled from their roots and made into arbitrary and emotionally-laden labels.

This is what happens when words cease to be a common hold on reality; by which we can discuss and dispute and teach and learn.

In short, the world is under a spell.¹³

V. Conclusion: apparently I’m a “fascist” too

A few weeks ago, I began post on a new social media platform. My posts, while varied, were somewhat controversial; I would often obtain nearly half a million reads, and thousands of shares, and so on. Which for this forum was highly unusual.

Then I made the above argument (obviously abridged) about the nature and meaning of “fascism.” In doing so, I didn’t break a single rule of the forum.

And yet I was summarily banned. For life.

Not a warning, not the usual “time out” period.

Just banned. With a brief sentence: “We don’t allow fascists and nazi sympathizers to post here.”

At first I thought the “mods” were being cleverly ironic.

Nope.

Was I just being cancelled? Told to shut up?

Or Is it that a fascist is anyone who disagrees with a progressive liberal? Is that it?

I just want to know: is censorship, intolerance of disagreement, and the banning of free speech…are these things elements of fascism? Yes or no?

Who are the actual fascists? I wonder if they are the same people who seem so unwilling to understand or acknowledge the real meaning of the word?

Mirrors are wondrous things, no?

David

1. An early mentor of mine gave me this essay when I was a teenager; and along with so much else he shared with me, it transformed my life forever. It can be found in various collections, and online here: https://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/22nd-september-1944/9/the-death-of-words

2. Distinctions between essence, concept and words will have to be dispensed with for simplicity’s sake. Also, just incidentally: conversely, in poetry we are using words in such a way that these accretions resonate with one another.

3. The list is long; it almost seems as if everyone has been called a “fascist” at one point or another.

4. Extra-mental reality; or said another way, reality as distinct from our thoughts about reality.

5. Politics and the English Language, 1946

6. At least in theory; we’ll see how things work out. An essay on this is forthcoming.

7. As Aristotle teaches in his Organon, when we isolate the essence of a concept/word, this often means isolating (often the formal) cause from effect. Common definitions often confuse the effect, including historical accretions, with the essence of the thing. And the definition—as we’ll be exploring with the word “inflation” in a forthcoming piece—becomes either vague or outright misleading.

8. I would argue that ultimately the origins of the Administrative State can be found in the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

9. See Mussolini’s essay on fascism: The Doctrine of Fascism, 1932.

10. See here and here.

11. Interestingly, when we have so-called “market failures,” suddenly we are told that we live in a “free market system.” These fictional “free markets” are to blame for the “market failure,” and we need more of the same fascist-socialism that brought about the failures in the first place. It’s like clockwork.

12. The only possible argument for this, as far as I can tell, is that fascist politicians have historically expressed a hatred for communism, particularly for its atheist materialism. However, to conclude that this makes fascism “far right” is misleading and logically incoherent: first, politicians say many things that are more about moving emotions than articulating an actual position, particularly things that their supporters want to hear; second, both communists and fascists are fundamentally collectivists and statists, so whatever fascists reject in communism (for example, atheist materialism), what they share is nevertheless deeply leftist; and third, this argument conceals a logical fallacy: opposition or even hatred of something something isn’t tantamount to preferring its diametric opposite, or anthesis.

13. See this essay: