April 19, 2024

The mountain of shit theory

Uriel Fanelli's blog in English


The speech on the state of Italian politics.

Similar to the state of the system understood as a socioeconomic system, we would have to talk about the political system, in which it would be said that "fascism" or a "new fascism" or an "old fascism" is growing. BUT in an electoral sense, this speech is absurd. Thus, "fascism" must be denounced, just as I debunked the term "crisis", showing that in reality it is not a crisis, but a system.

Let's get to the point, and debunk a simple fact: that of being faced with a form of "fascism". Much has been written about fascism, but first of all the fascists themselves wrote, starting from minds like that of Gentile – who wrote the manifesto of fascism, an essential document for understanding fascism, but never mentioned – up to all the talk Evolian, Marinettian, and so on.

On the ideal level, the pedestals of fascism are of different types.

On the ideological level, there are three:

  • Hierarchy. The belief in occupying a specific place in a group of people, where “superiors” tell subordinates what to do.
  • Authority. In this hierarchy, the highest place is occupied by the "authorities", that is, those who do not take orders from anyone, but command over everyone.
  • Obedience. As a consequence, everyone obeys the orders that come from the Authority, and reach them through the hierarchy.

In terms of method, there are two:

  • Violence. The power to compel is preferred to the quality of convincing, that is, power before consensus.
  • Fideism. Nobody has their own opinion, everyone believes (as in believe, obey, fight)

There is then, due to the idealist philosophers, a layer of mysticism (fascist mysticism was part of the obligatory teachings of the GUF).

  • The belief in an indissoluble and spiritual bond between the men who make up the population and the land they inhabit, a bond called "nationality".
  • The belief in an indissoluble and spiritual bond between the men who make up the population, and their history, a bond called "tradition".
  • The belief in an indissoluble and spiritual bond between the men who make up the population and the symbols they use to describe themselves (the flag, the name of the nation, etc.).

Added to this is a final, belated burst of political racism:

  • The belief that the sum of "tradition" and "nation" (as defined by mysticism) makes a "race".
  • From which it can be deduced that race is a mystical concept, that is, the manifestation of both primordial mystical bonds – union with the soil – and archaic – the link with history, that is, tradition.
  • From which we deduce that biology is a political concept and race necessarily includes the symbols it uses to describe itself.

This is the political construction of fascism itself.

Obviously this is a load of rubbish, but the point is not that the left accuses people of being fascists. This is part of a left that initially shares several issues with fascism, with the sole exclusion of political racism: the left absorbed fascist mysticism through Pasolini, for example, who had been in the GUF.

So now we need to look at two things for a moment:

  • Are there fascists today?
  • Are those who call themselves fascists fascists?
  • Are those who DON'T call themselves fascists?

the first question, that is “do fascists exist today” is simple to answer: NO.

And in saying this I am not so much addressing the leftists who accuse anyone of fascism, simply because they don't think like them. I address the right-wingers who boast of being "fascist".

The truth is that there are pieces of fascism floating here and there, both on the right and on the left, but there is really no human group that REALLY embodies all the characteristics of fascism together. We cannot say that a group of hooligans who use the method of violence like fascists are fascists only for this reason: since they disobey the authorities to do so, they are not fascists.

If we look at the charlatans who declare themselves fascists, we observe that very little remains of the three pillars (Hierarchy, Authority and Obedience). These are people among whom we find the anti-vax, just as we find the taxi driver who fights to keep his privileges, as well as the beach worker who has an illegal establishment and does not want to follow the new laws.

Now, let's ask if such an attitude would have been possible with fascism in vogue. NO. If there had been an emergency like COVID in 1935, fighting and winning it would have become a patriotic battle. If they had then put, I don't know, Thaon de Revel, or I don't know Italo Balbo, at the head of the vaccination campaign (being military, they were the hierarchy incarnate), there would have been no chance that anyone would have come out saying "but my cousin told me that in hospitals people die when they are vaccinated." In the fast world you don't have an opinion, you believe the authorities and obey the hierarchy. End.

Just as taxi drivers, beach workers and company are not "fascists": when the fascist agrarian reforms were carried out, they couldn't tolerate anyone starting to make a fuss. I take away your land, give it to others, and you tell me how right I am. Because LVI says so, and LVI is never wrong. The authority is always right.

Instead, we immediately notice that the clown who calls himself a fascist today has very little to do with fascist obedience. The regime that asked you to enthusiastically donate your gold ring to the regime would NEVER have allowed you to evade taxes, for one, like taxi drivers do. Nor could the fascism that had resolved the strikes in Parma with gunfire let tractors block the streets and squares in protest.

Even the anti-vax story that with the vaccine they want to control and silence you would have been good for fascism. Controlling and silencing was not, in the fascist world, a bad thing. It was “order”. Fascism promised to eliminate social conflicts. Point.

And when the proto-fascist arrives and thunders against the strong powers and the lobbies, they should be reminded that the fascist economy was proudly corporate, but the corporations were nothing other than what today we call "lobbies" and "strong powers"; for fascism lobbies and strong powers were a GOOD. (I'm saying this in case Giambattista the idiot continues with his bullshit)

This is to make you understand the distance between those you see today called "fascists" and what the fascists were.

These are not "post-fascists", "ex-fascists" or "new fascists". I would define them as “anything but fascists”, if anything.

Another problem is that to see fascists today we must – unless we believe in resurrection – hypothesize continuity. And so the question arises spontaneously: but where were the fascists yesterday? How come they popped up at some point? Where they come from. Where were they hiding?

The classic answer was that they were in the “sewers”. Interesting, as a dialectical place. But these fascists are people, they are solid, they occupy a volume. They cannot fit in a dialectical container. What are they, WHERE are they, exactly, these “sewers”?

It might perhaps make you think that when the fascists gain a million votes, then the left loses a million votes. Some suspicions might arise.

The fact that, for example, political violence as a method was common to fascists, as well as to branches such as the autonomists, for example, might arouse some suspicion.

The fact that the "fascists" reproach the left for not having produced enough left wingers might arouse some suspicion, as if someone reproached the opposing team for not having won.

The fact that "fascists" grow in areas with devastated, proletarian economies, previously left-wing fiefdoms, might arouse some suspicion.

We could also note a certain fetishism that the historical left, including the PCI, has had for regimes with "hasty" methods. When the *Soviet Union sent its tanks to crush the Prague Spring, Napolitano himself wrote that

the Soviet intervention could only be justified in terms of the politics of the opposing blocs, almost leaving us to understand […] that the Soviet intervention was justified only from the point of view of the military and strategic needs of the Soviet Union; without seeing how the Soviet intervention in Hungary, preventing the creation of a hotbed of provocations in the heart of Europe and allowing the 'The USSR to intervene decisively and forcefully to stop imperialist aggression in the Middle East, has contributed, in addition to preventing Hungary from falling into chaos and counter-revolution, it has contributed in a decisive measure, not only to defending the interests military and strategic objectives of the USSR but to save world peace

In February 1974, a few days before the expulsion of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn from the USSR, Napolitano was the author of a confidential note from the PCI which attacked the writer because he would damage the Soviet state and détente, but at the same time invited the CPSU to tolerate him because the repression would have been an aid to the enemies of the Soviet state. After the expulsion, however, he wrote in L'Unità, and then in Rinascita, an article in which he refused any dialogue with the dissident disappointed by real socialism, defining the political judgments expressed as "aberrant" by Solzhenitsyn and maintaining an ambiguous judgment on the Kremlin's decision to exile him

We can continue to mention all the left-wing sympathies for dictators like Fidel Castro, Cossutta's travels to bless Milosevitch, and the sympathies for regimes with easy violence, including Saddam Hussein and others, are countless.

It doesn't take long to understand where the "sewers" referred to by the left were when they say that the fascists were hidden right there. They were the cellars of Botteghe Oscure.

And we can stop talking about suspicions, and say it as it should be said: it is obvious that the "sewers" that are talked about so much, in which the fascists hid, were nothing other than the most radical fringes of the Italian left.

In this case, we are not surprised to know that Salvini comes from the social centers, and that the most absurd claim of the right is that of being close to the poor people. They were hiding there.

Which should lead the left to question their past management of votes.

When we talk, therefore, about these "fascists" we are always talking about a specific fringe, which passes indifferently from the left to the right, depending on the opportunity.

But the opportunity to do what?

Here is the point, which allows us to notice that these are the same people. Excluding that these people are "fascists", and excluding that they are "anti-fascists", but then what are they?

My definition is "opportunist rebelism", which I associate with the "party of comfortable pigs". And this is because, in principle, there is not much difference between a tax amnesty and a "political six". In both cases, we forget that the person has not done his job, and we provide him with a "gift" that damages the community but allows the person to have what he wants.

These are people for whom it doesn't matter what the flag is: they can define themselves today as fascists as they once defined themselves as autonomous, or flower children, or the "seventy-seven movement", or "sixty-eighters", whose aim was to:

  1. Rename convenient pigs as "freedom" if not "rights"
  2. Saying you fight for "freedom" (rebellion)
  3. Make the rest of the community pay the price.

I repeat: between a building amnesty and a political six I don't see much difference in method or substance. I don't see any difference between occupying a community center and occupying Casa Pound. Between fighting for squatters who fight to use the state's beaches and fighting for people who illegally occupy state buildings such as schools and universities, I find no difference.

All this was simply used to transform one's own convenient pigs into freedom, or rights, to pretend to fight for them, and this opportunist rebelism, clearly, would have had advantages: first of all, that of being able to do one's own convenient pigs.

Between the brazenness of the fascists who do the Roman salute in the square and that of Toni Negri, and others, who have lived abroad despite having significant criminal charges, I see nothing but the same mentality.

“I am a fascist”, said by fascists, is just the umpteenth change of coat of tooth that has the membership card to the party of its own convenient pigs, a disguise that serves to make us forget that many times behind certain “rights” and certain freedom simply hides the desire to do one's own dirty work, often in a violent manner.

And it is for this reason that, faced with the sole statement "guy and fascist", I behave as follows:

  • if someone from the left says it, my response is “then it's a leftist rib”.
  • if someone on the right says it, my response is “but who are you kidding? “

And this is the state of Italian, and perhaps Western, politics: the farce of the usual opportunist rebelism, only this time instead of having people who said they were communists, we have people who say they are fascists.

A state of disconcerting baseness and absent political decency.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *