On antifascism

From Contra Info
These thoughts were submitted by an egoist-nihilist anarchist on Athens IMC.

“I would not even bother to participate in the ongoing debate, but some of the latest comments from an ‘antifascist comrade’ intrigued me.

First, to be able to get the features of antifascist action indexed, I believe one should determine the content of the very concept of fascism.

Fascism is primarily a loud and violent slap in the face of the ‘revolutionary’ who is recognizing revolutionary subjects in the face of phantoms such as the society and the class, and is longing for uprisings and revolutions. And how hypocritical indeed is the fact that social anarchists shriek about antifascism! Because, essentially, their war is nothing but a pauseless chase with shadows… They do not realize, of course, how hypocritical their proclamations on social antifascism are, since in fact this is a war on their very own substance. Because what else is the generative cause of fascism other than the mass?

Fascism is not an antisocial plague; it’s an intrinsic element of society. The massification and mob mentality, the need for ‘belonging’ are flesh of the flesh of the phantom that has chained up millions of lives, and its flesh of the flesh is also the idea of the superiority. And how does the ‘revolutionary’ really contribute towards this direction, that poor fellow who is burning from the flame of social uprising and the visions for justice and equality (chains that are unbearable even for frank ‘comrades’), and is thus grafting class consciousness and workerism onto the masses… Is this practice any different than the practice of the State, which is vaccinating its nationals with nationalism and homelands? Naturally, every nihilist cannot help but laugh out loud and unashamedly in front of this horrible nonsense.

Societists think that fascism got society in bed at the time that the latter was simply masturbating. And instead of attacking furiously against society, they use it as their own projectuality, as an identification of their own ‘struggle’.

And is it not the same societists who are yearning for socialist/communist societies? Much as you curse and turn a blind eye, the truth lies right in front of you. Fascism and communism (don’t get confused, I’m not talking only about the authoritarian kind) are equal at the level of moral values, except that the first puts forward the brute force and the second is governed by the servile spirit of Christianism. While fascism is the death of spirit, socialism is the death of strength.

And society does not take a stance, and that’s the reason why it is exactly what it is. A phantom, a corpus non-corpus, nothing more than a flock of stooges. And you expect some type of assistance from the social swamp… But you ask from society to rise up against its own self! Against its own nature, that deeply fascist nature.

Do you consider a mentality shift to be possible? But then what more are you looking for, if not only for the guidance of the flock (it doesn’t even matter whether it is a guidance in social, moral, values or strategy terms)? You seek to become social shepherds.

And as for the politofilakés (civil-guards, or militias), things are clear to me. It is not feasible to organize such schemes, since the word itself contains the term polítis (citizen, or civilian, or national), who having reached political consciousness is directly connected with the providers of this very same political consciousness, the State and the politics. Can there truly be an antifascist citizen? By extension, can there truly be an anarchist citizen?

There can be both, societists will answer, the same ones who are converting Anarchy into social alcohol seeking numerical superiority against the fascists —that is, the aggressive fascists, since every citizen is potentially such. But you forget that the social plebs lack quality, so your antifascist civil-guard will be nothing but a self-invalidated and self-destructive drove.

Quote: Fascism is every unjust, undemocratic and violent act, ideology, sentiment or habit in politics, society, family, and relationships.

Well, so many of us are fascists then! From the great rebels F.Nietzsche and M.Stirner, the rebellious philosopher R.Novatore, until the nihilists of today, the straightforward comrades who turn their eyes to the here and now, embrace the fire and unleash their unsacred attacks against the State, society, fatherland, order, morality, ideology and every other chain.

How much of a fascist am I then, how much of a fascist is the Antichrist who is born from Fire and Denial and heading towards the pagan altar of the Nihil? So, how fascist are Beauty and Strength, both values per se that were pushed aside by the ugly and weak ones, and were replaced by phantoms such as justice, equality and solidarity!

Is antifascism perhaps a case of the masses? Who could agree to this while bearing in mind that antifascism is profoundly antistate, antipolitics and antisocial? Now, all this must sound so silly to the societists! The depoliticization of the author: is it or is it not a prerequisite for antifascism —an effective antifascism, not an autistically stereotypical one? For, is it not the politics which shapes the citizens? Of course it is. To me, every human imbued with political consciousness ceases to be a person, a self-willed egoist and individualist, and becomes a citizen in the sense of the single individual, of the social kernel. Is it ever possible for the seedy harlequin, the landlord to act in an antifascist way? At the same time that s/he is not only a vector but also a source of fascism…?

The same applies to both leftists (as if they are any different, being citizens) and social anarchists, as elitist and razing as this may sound. Because when individualism is absent and —thus— the individual is being dominated by the need for social addressment or for ‘belonging’, then this also signals the birth of another -ism (in the sense of the system, the ideologized thinking) and by extension, the essence of fascism: the massificated flock.

I will get back on this topic…”



I enjoyed this and want to read more.

As long as I can still fuck up racists, neo-nazi's, nationalists, and homophobes. I don't care if it's called anti-fa, but if you're telling me I can't let my boots do the talking you're a fucking liberal.

If you think this post was telling people they "can't" or even "shouldn't" talk with their boots, then you didn't read the fucking article.

Letting your boots do the talking is the gentlest language fascists have ever understood.

This sucks. Plenty of quotation marks to connote tone and superiority. Justice and solidarity are phantoms. Descriptors like, autistically stereotypical or societists. What? If a truly anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian politics has any chance of influencing the social order positively, we're gonna have to jettison this habit of talking over everyone's heads and couching everything in impenetrable jargon. BOOOORRRRING!

I'll cheers to that....best fucking comment on this site yet.

While I also object to the use of quotation marks to denote irony, and while the tone of superiority in most nihilist and/or individualist rants can be obnoxious, you have totally missed a major point: even the most revolutionary social anarchist isn't really interested in "influencing the social order positively." Isn't the point of anarchist revolution to destroy the existing social order, and not just to have some kind of "influence" on making it nicer?

Yes but social anarchists have this ludicrous idea that "we" can rebuild society and live collectively as anarchists in peace and harmony, or some other stupid hippy bullshit. Essentially what they would hope to create is a replication of the society we currently inhabit. Except they would call it "anarchism."

Also, nihilists/individualists are superior to citizenists. Duh.

I think you missed that this is a translation.

Seriously? You found this to be "impenetrable jargon"? What the fuck? Normally I'm inclined to agree with comments like this, but, hell - maybe I'm a stuck-up pseudo-intellectual now.

It's probably hard for us to relate across the pond. Hereabouts, the commies are usually a half dozen hippy student kids or even fewer old men waving shitty newspapers. In greece they mobilize huge armed mobs of douchebags to back up the pigs and attack people in front of the parliament buildings so it's easier to see the parallels with fascism.

I know enough history to see how the extreme left and right can end up looking like the same shit but it IS about authoritarianism and you can't just write off socialism because of it. For as long as there's a state, all of us being extorted (taxes) should be trying to steal back every penny we can.

Since the alternative is champagne and caviar for yuppies or military spending and tax breaks for big corporate ... anyway, nihilists always sound like assholes who're only agreeing with themselves. What else is new?

I don't mind assholes dealing with assholes though.
I hate the cops, but I like seeing them beat up douchebags.
I would prefer if they didn't exist, but I do think this is a bigger problem in greece.
Fuck the Commie bastards.
Plus do Capital C commies even do anti-fa work in the states? I've never met one who does.

Nihilists sound like assholes who only agree with ourselves because everyone else is fucking wrong.


If you use this definition of fascism, then the argument makes sense...but...that's not really the proper usage of the word so the argument is bullshit.

I am an individual. I am also an existential being exploring the supposed chaos and patterns of the reality I perceive. I do no claim to be part of some collective entity, but why is me working together with people I know and love so terrible and why is allowing people to take advantage of others preferable? I guess the destructive nothing provides a solution for assholes. Egoists, you don't have to do anything you don't want to, but don't expect to be treated like any other than objectivists or might is right junkies.

so beauty and strength are less of a phantom than justice and solidarity? riiiiiiight. I hate workerism as much as the next "insu-wreck-tionary nihilist" (uh oh, scary quotes!) but come on.

I personal think solidarity and liberty are necessary fictions, but justice, beauty, and strength can fuck off.

i think the idea though is that beauty and strength are individually discerned and determined, whereas justice and solidarity have an unquestionable and specific value assigned them and a set of corresponding behaviors and other values attached to them, values that everyone who is "of like mind" is supposed to adhere to.

I'm a nihilist and through that an anarchist and I get the argument that all forms of cults and mobs are similar to the fascist national body, but they're not the same. I am still against them, but the definitions of fascism here are fleeting notions. Any centralized power will be corrupted but if it's a small affinity group of people who happen to be workerists and work together with other groups I don't see a problem with it. Liberals, arcane socialists, and Communists are the problem here not fighting fascism. Maybe attacking the current definition of fascism, but I digress. I don't see anything wrong with eliminating Golden Dawn with force, so long as we eliminate authoritarian Communist parties and Capitalist groups too. Even as I nihilist I try not to be a douche-fuck all the time and if I was and people gave me shit for it that's what I deserve. Not because I own their mir anything, but because I was being a douche-fuck. The stagnant idol worship of the egoist milieu has left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I heard one egoist say that he wouldn't have a problem with racism if he wasn't Mexican. Bigotries and chauvinisms are cancers to be purged from existence. They will always effect you unless you are a hermit. In which case tend to your desert and leave the world which you hate alone or set fire to it with us I don't really care either way. rant rant rant rant rant

alright. let's address the elephant in the room. historically, this kind of contempt for "the herd," "the masses," "the weak-willed" and this reversion to tropes of virility, strength, and will has been one and the same with the emergence of fascism and fascist groupings, especially the more left-wing groupings like the brownshirts. In fact, numerous egoist anarchists in Italy and France went on to join fascist organization. Can we talk about this? Can we talk about the proto-fascist character of much of this garbage?

"numerous" is a bit of an exaggeration. much of those who wrote about this (novatore, filippi, etc.) were influenced by Nietzsche and what he wrote about slave morailty. A lot of people dont really understand slave morality or the fact that it was devised by priests, and not the "slaves". the short version is: in societies that existed before the concept of morailty (civilized, but non-moral) there existed aristocrats, who had power, and a general set of values that held in high regard things like nobility, goodness (in a non moral sense), and power (ability to actualize desire) and held in low regard qualities like weakness, powerlessness, being poor and humble, etc. These aristocrats existed in a position of power in competition with the priestly class, but while aristocracy had power from money and the like, the priestly class relied on followers for power. So it goes, as nietzsche says, that the priests decided in order to rise to greater power, they had to change the values of society to suit their base in populism, so they created a morailty, a "slave morailty" that said, "the aristocrats think they are great because they are powerful and good and noble, but those are vices, and bad, for to be good is to be poor, and humble, show humility, and do what is good for the "community". and thus morality, a slave moraity, was devised by inverting the set of established values, and then placing them in a new form, which was moral, which did not exist in this way before. anyway you get the point. But it makes sense in an anarchist framework to reject those traits which are the slave morality: weakness, powerlessness, humility, submission to "common good". Also, i think that words like sheeple and the herd are sort of shorthands, accounting for everyone's individual subjectivities, but still recognizing the fact that in reality these people have made a choice in one way or another to engage with the world and other people, and these terms reflect the opinion that the choice is pathetic, that in the face of tyranny, people chose to be weak and submissive, and in turn be tiny tyrants to their family, friends, etc.

can you give examples of these numerous egoist anarchists that became fascists?

there's a book linked below.

I looked up the figures that the book focuses on and of the three I was able to find any information on, one of them was described as a socialist, another was described as a Anarcho-Syndicalist , and the remaining one is the only one to be described as an Individualist anarchist. Also all of them were friends with Mussolini. Even if at some point all of them all of them were Individualist-Anarchists, what does that even prove? not a connection to Egoist anarchism that's for sure, as Egoist anarchism are a type of Individualist-anarchism, not a synonym for it. nor does it prove that Fascism is the logical conclusion of Individualist anarchism in general, as we can point to way more individualist anarchists that didn't become fascists or authoritarians in general than those that did. There has always been an attempts by leftists to claim that Egoism is a proto-fascist philosophy and every attempt to say that has shown how full of shit those very leftists are. I mean, if you disagree with Egoism, fine, but then actually make arguments against it , instead of accusing it of being fascistic or capitalistic. Now, there might be aspects of individualism within fascism, but that has very little to do with Individualists anarchists.

well, the book says otherwise (about whether or not they were individualists). i'm going to believe the author over someone who spent 2 minutes googling sources, ok?

in other words, fascism emerges out of this contempt for the weak, degenerate masses, not out of the spirit of conformity with it. this is the reason why nietzscze is the source for both fascism and egoism both..

i dont think so, in fact, fascism has always derived power from populism, not elitism and contempt (of the people fascist politicians were attempting to rule). most fascists you meet (with fists and boots) actually tend not to really see themselves as the "next hitler" but more as footsoldiers for the ideology, race, whatever it is in a specific case. so i dont think that it really makes sense. If they see most people as weak or whatever, it is not because they reject the masses, but because they want to create their own. egoism rejects all massification. fascism is the embodiment of specfic and intentional massification

also, from one of nietzsche's notebooks:

"I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!"

also, again you are continuing to pass off the lies of past ideologists to support your own conclusions and ideologies. if you had ever actually read nietzsche, you might understand that the only way his writing constitutes the the fundamental theories of fascism is by wildly misreading it. At the end of his life, he suffered from a severe mental breakdown, at which point he was taken under the care of his sister, who was a national socialist. His writings for "the will to power" were in turn rewritten and manipulated by his sister to create emergent philosophical wriitings to justify fascism in germany. so either, you dont actually understand what nietzsche wrote, or you read what his fascist sister said he wrote at the end of his life and are ignoring the rest of the body of work he produced. how much longer will this pathetic parade of anarchist (or other) ideologists equating egoism and fascism continue? only by outward and self deception does any of this make any sense

i've read nearly everything nietzsche wrote, friend. the aristocratism and elitism, the contempt for "the rabble" and "the last men, is consistent throughout, and as many others have pointed out, bears strong connection to the theories of degeneration which form one of the essential bearings of fascism...look at max nordau, for instance. this doesn't mean that a)nietzsche is a fascist b)all nietzscheans are fascists. it means there are some connections worth thinking about and clarifying.

see for instance this book. do the egoists and nihilists ever acknowledge this loathsome history? http://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Individualist-Origins-Italian-Fascism-Eu...

you know mussolini was a writer for the socialist party newspaper for several years, not for any anarchist paper. you should check out "freedom my dream" by enrico arrigoni, he has a lot of really interesting and relevant anecdotes about being an anarchist before and during the rise of fascism and communism

the fact that mussolini wrote for a socialist paper proves what, exactly? that there's no connection between egoism and fascism? you have a pretty weak understanding of logic.

the point is that fascists came from everywhere, using mussolini, the emergent leader of the fascist party of italy, as an example, and because fascism was a new thing as a political ideology, its adherents came from those who were already ideologists, and it doesnt seem like it had much to do with where on the "spectrum" they came from. you can read about enrico arrigoni's (an individualist) dealings with emergent fascism in italy and it is quite insightful, as are the writings by Renzo Novatore (an egoist) about their direct experiences with the "egoists" who turned to fascism. from the writings of primary sources on the topic, theres really only 3 or 4 examples of individualists and egoists turned fascist, so to call that something like a serious trend is bit of an exaggeration. This claim is also highly contested, so to present it as something like truth or historical facts is also deceptive. Its not that hard to pull examples for any sort of person who formerly identified as or associated with "radicals" who turned out to be a fascist, or equally insidious, a democratic/socialist/communist/anarchist politician. the fact is, there is an overwhelming history (especially in italy) that indicates the opposite of what you claim is true, that individualists and egoists were at the forefront of combating fascism, even when those anarchists of the "red" variety joined up with communists and socialists for the sake of unity

Plenty of Italian syndicalists went over to the fascists too, so you can't blame individualism alone. The unionists were helped along by Sorel's ridiculous essay "On Violence," where he outlined the necessity of mythological constructs like the General Strike and a kind of vitalism as important emotional mobilizing techniques for The Masses.

well, right. but notice how the language of contemporary egoism is basically the same as those sorelian writings -- vitality, virtue, etc. it's yucky, not to mention ridiculously anachronistic, with its bad-poetry and old-timey formulations... what a fucking joke.

so if something talks about vitality or virtue, or is anachronistic and old-timey (all in your evaluation), then it is philosophically fascist? i think it is you who does not understand logic, my friend. this is a very thinly failed attempt at attempting to associate something you dont like (egoism), with something everyone hates (fascism) in order to discredit the former. lets start to hear some real arguments!

thinly veiled*

i wouldn't say it is philosophically fascist, per se. i would say it is open to fascism and shares elective affinities with it, unless otherwise specified.

i wouldn't say it is philosophically fascist, per se. i would say it is open to fascism and shares elective affinities with it, unless otherwise specified.

here's an argument: egoism has no conception of capitalism, and therefore no possibility of destroying. by insisting on the sovereignty of the individual it will not be able to help but reinforce market-based exchange and/or domination in a revolutionary situation. without communism, the best you will get is some kind of mutualism, which has no chance of working in the world we have today (no artisans, no individual farmers). it's only chance of working is in some fantastic settler state where each individual can go out and claim (uh, i mean colonize) their little plot of land.

also, the individual is a fucking fiction invented by a bunch of white capitalist dudes in the eighteenth century. most people are over it, but you clowns didn't get the memo.

Bad argument asserted without proofs. Also, very stupid. Everyone is dumber for reading it.

"also, the individual is a fucking fiction invented by a bunch of white capitalist dudes in the eighteenth century."

There's no such thing as an individual ? The individual is nothing but a series of intersecting discourses ? This isn't Libcom or marxists.org or postmodernism.org, etc.

Capitalism and Marxism both relegate to the individual to nothing but economic exchanges, making it seem like the individual doesn't exist...but I do.

I don't think I a conception of Capitalism means that you somehow avoid doing as you suggest "reinforce market-based exchange and/or domination in a revolutionary situation.". I mean look at that grand revolutionary failure that is Marxism, it had a conception of capitalism, and it has proven itself to produce only more Capitalism and domination, so to me your critique is a non-critique.

and what does the egoist critique of capitalism amount to --- society? please. egoism is absolutely incoherent as a theory of how to destroy capitalism, or what might come after it.

even novatore essentially admits that egoism without communism has no possibility of destroying capitalism -- that's why he writes about "communalizing material wealth" and "individualizing spiritual wealth." a formulation that's not that different than the one might find in anarchist and marxist communists. without communism, egoism is libertinism at best.

Don't forget the Vichy-supporting syndicalists in France.

Reflections on Violence is a good text Grumps.

If you read the abstract for that book on Individualist Anarchism and Fascism, it appears that a lot of those dudes jumped ship super early and became anti-fascists and were hunted by the secret police. One of them was eventually killed by the Italian Communist party right as the war ended (surprise!). I'm curious to read the book. I can't find a single thing about the author though that leads me to believe he's a scholar of any stripe.

yawn. another more-radical-than-thou masturbatory egoist piece. can we get some stuff on egoists actually doing anything instead of sitting around patting themselves on the back for criticizing what other people are doing?

it's usual either leave us alone we're not responsible for anything or look what your responsible for. shit is dumb

these nihilist types should put their money where their shitty poetry is and do some fucking terrorism.

They are. Nihilists are a tendency of praxis. Destroy what destroys you.

oh really? when was the last terrorist attack you heard of that wasn't carried out by either governments or crazy right wingers/vigilantes?

in the us or elsewhere? because elsewhere, its a pretty constant stream. perhaps terrorism aint that great tho, who knows. maybe os congaceiros were right when they said terrorism is the continuation of politics by other means

http://325.nostate.net/?p=6838 January 4th soon enough?

The other elephant in the room is the terrifying, common drift of antifascism in the US (even without a history of popular fronts, etc.) towards mindless violence, machismo, etc. Because non-anarchist antifa often hesitate to state what they are struggling for, they are left with a particularly facile negative goal -- beating up nazis. The physically strongest, or at least most loudest and most obnoxious, militants then predominate, because they push for the most "radical" path. This path isn't radical at all though, because it doesn't point towards the destruction of the existent, but instead reproduces existing intra-racket violence on a more petty level.

To true. Most of the cliques or crews that combat nazis's in the street are obviously SHARP's ( at least in my experience both on the east and west coast), and usually are a part of the local punk scene. However, when the nazi's are finally beaten off the streets and out of the venues, the violence it took to make it happen doesn't just disappear. SHARP's in the US tend to be really reactionary and even fuckin' nationalistic with all there patriotic bullshit, which makes apparent to me that they have no real idea what they are fighting, aside from some other ugly mother fucker with a shaved head. Time and time again, I have seen them turn on their former allies and on each other. Crusty's are always they first because they "hate america" and they have "no respect for the working class"...

All that aside, that's just my experience and its not to say that some bad ass actions have not taken place by antifa outside side of the crew vs. crew mentality. Those bad ass cats who went down for TInely Park come to mind.

not tryin to be a butt, but ive found that most of the people to face nazis in the street not to be sharps at all, and in fact they were often the ones who talked a lot but rarely ever did anything besides get drunk at shows

seems like this was posted by a sock-puppet...

this was pretty stupid

dont know and care if the discussion is finished, but: It's bullshit to say that fascism originated in individualist (of egoist or nihilist kind) Anarchism. its really funny to see that leftists really do not understand such writings as stirner or nietzsche. and it seems that it is because of this, that they do not understand fascism too. All what they see is the violence and aggression in the language of the "poetic" tendency that egoist-nihilist anarchism is. the democrats normally critisise fascism for its violence and aggressiveness, because democratic power has to repress aggressive power, to replace it with it's human, nice power. that there was a reflection about nietzsche (which himself stays always ambigous) in anarchism is something important, and that the fascist reflected too about nietzsche says nothing against an anarchist use of nietzsche. nietzsches critique of slave moral touches surely an important psychological question in anarchisms. that there is an elitist, archic answer to this problem is clear, but there is too an anarchist one. And that the egoist-nihilists talked about this problem, was something really important. because, otherwise there would have been only fascist talking about it, and the anarchists would have been just repeating optimistic humanitarian blah blah... Nietzsche was the first to talk about the problematic of freedom, about his own fear of freedom, his own weakness, overwhelmed by the confrontation with stirner, which stayed still really optimistic (not in a bad way). fascism answered: transform your complexes into a being a master, a ruler, a sadistic opressor. They answered: destroy the weak. (the leftists want to help the weak, victimising everything) the anarchists answered: destroy the masters, unite with comrades, flee the weak- critisising their weakness, but seeing the real enemys.
PS: there where several anarchist-individualists becoming fascists, as ther were syndicalist, communists, anarchists of all sorts. One reason: resignation (as for example georges michels), or pure adventurism. But, if we really want to understand what made fascism win (ideologically), it ist that he broke the taboo of beeing a proud authoritarian sadistic asshole, of beeing honest about the psychological problem that authority causes, and answering it with being proud of herd mentality, sadism, will to death etc. Fascism is really vulgar. But, it won too because of the weakness of anarchism, that didn't want to talk about this. That didnt wan't to talk about hate, about the crippled selfs of the slaves, that was merely moralising about it... expect the egoist-nihilists. They did talk about the problems, about resignation (propagating a pessimism without giving up), about being a criple (and taking revenge on the responsible, the system, instead of becoming a sadistic conformist), about death (with the answer love life in struggle, without fearing death), heroism (through critisising the soldier and the martyr) et cetera... As I see it, it seems that there was exactly from this side a fight against the fascists AND the whole system, while others started compromising, upholding the "unity front", which is always the reaction of those who don't understand fascism and fall because of this in a stupid antifascism that collaborates with everything and everybody...
PS2: sorry, my english is shit...

"Fascism — despite empty and contrary appearances — is something far too ephemeral and impotent to prevent the free, unbridled course of rebel thought that overflows and expands, impetuously bursting beyond every barrier, and furiously spreads beyond every limit — as a powerful, animating, driving force — drawing behind its gigantic steps the vigorous and titanic action of hard human muscle.

Fascism is impotent, because it is brute force.

It is matter without spirit.

It is body without mind.

It is night without dawn!

It — fascism — is the other face of socialism...

They are lightless mirrors. Two spent stars!

Socialism is the numerical — material — force that, by acting in the shadow of a dogma, resolves and dissolves itself in a miserable spiritual “no” that empties it of any unchained, willful, heroic, ideal resilience. Fascism is an epileptic child of the spiritual “no” that is brutalized by striving — vainly — toward a vulgar material “yes.”

In the field of moral values, they are equal. Fascism and socialism are two worthy brothers. Even if you call the latter Abel and you call the former Cain. A common Dream unites them. And that dream is called Power. "

Novatore Black Flags

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
2 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Subscribe to Comments for "On antifascism"