Fire, Hatred, and Speed.


 Sintesi Fascista (1935) by Alessandro Bruschetti. Photo courtesy the Wolfsonian-Florida International University, Miami Beach, Florida, The Mitchell Wolfson, Jr Collection.

Sintesi Fascista (1935) by Alessandro Bruschetti. Photo courtesy the Wolfsonian-Florida International University, Miami Beach, Florida, The Mitchell Wolfson, Jr Collection.

There’s a very interesting and excellent article at Aeon making the argument that while it’s quite easy to see the Nazi based fascism popping up everywhere, what we are actually facing is a more insidious fascism, one more aligned with the Futurists of Mussolini’s Italy, and its name is libertarian. Highly recommended reading.

Fascism begins as something in the air. Stealthy as smoke in the darkness, easier to smell than to see. Fascism sets out an ethos, not a set of policies; appeals to emotion, not fact. It begins as a pose, often a deceptive one. It likes propaganda, dislikes truth, and invests heavily in performance. Untroubled by its own incoherence, it is anti-intellectual and yet contemptuous of the populace even as it exploits the crowd mentality. Fascism is accented differently in different countries, and uses the materials – and the media – of the times.

Facism is hostile to egalitarianism and loathes liberalism. It champions ‘might is right’, a Darwinian survival of the nastiest, and detests vulnerability: the sight of weakness brings out the jackboot in the fascist mind, which then blames the victim for encouraging the kick. Fascism not only promotes violence but relishes it, viscerally so. It cherishes audacity, bravado and superbia, promotes charismatic leaders, demagogues and ‘strong men’, and seeks to flood or control the media. Even as it pretends to speak for the people, it creates the rule of the elite, a cult of violent chauvinism and a nationalism that serves racism.

The fascism of Thomas Mair (who killed the British Labour MP Jo Cox) or the now proscribed neo-Nazi National Action youth movement in the UK is so obvious; you can see it coming a mile away. The more insidious kind is the type being nourished across today’s libertarian movement. Its precursors are in Italy, not Germany, in the Italian Futurism that bolstered Benito Mussolini, in the poet Gabriele D’Annunzio, and in the mythic Roman figure of Deus Sol Invictus.

In the Futurist manifesto of 1909, Filippo Marinetti, the movement’s poster-boy, articulated the emotional fascism from which political fascism stems: ‘[O]ur hearts are not in the least tired. For they are nourished by fire, hatred and speed!’ Steel was the archetypal material for Futurist sculpture, but there are materials of the mind, too: the steel of cruelty, the gunmetal of hatred: ‘We want to exalt aggressive action, the racing foot, the fatal leap, the smack and the punch.’

In contemporary libertarianism, there is a similar love of hatred, from the alt-Right libertarian news site Breitbart proudly publishing the UK libertarian writer James Delingpole’s paean ‘In Praise of “Hate Speech”’, to Sean Gabb who, as director of the Libertarian Alliance in 2006, said: ‘[W]e believe in the right to promote hatred by any means that do not fall within the Common Law definition of assault.’ (Gabb said this as he stepped forward to defend David Irving’s expression of Holocaust denialism.)  When Breitbart’s CEO Steve Bannon moved to become Trump’s chief strategist, his appointment was cheered by the former head of the Ku Klux Klan, and approved by the American Nazi party.

The character traits applauded by today’s libertarians – ambition, superbia, speed, drive, spin, success and spikiness – are the qualities the Futurists valued. There is fire here but never warmth; appetite but never food. If conviviality has an opposite, it is this: anti-vivial, anti-genial and, in its treatment of the future, anti-generative. UK libertarians call their online magazine Spiked, recalling both date-rape drugs and weaponry (as well as poor journalism that deserves to be spiked rather than published.)

Libertarians’ bullyboy mentality detests the sensibility of liberalism, and torments those they call ‘SJWs’ (social justice warriors). There should be no regulations to protect the weak, they say, and they loathe the vulnerable: the British journalist Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart’s star writer, having encouraged the racist and sexist abuse of the American actress Leslie Jones on Twitter, then mocked her, saying: ‘If at first you don’t succeed … play the victim.’ This attitude is proto-fascistic, to despise the victim for being vulnerable, using that weakness as a reason to treat them with contempt. The UK libertarian writer Claire Fox, though supportive of an open-border policy on migration, scorns individual or cultural sensitivity by promulgating the term ‘Generation Snowflake’ to describe people who might ‘melt’ in the heat of hate-speech or who want ‘trigger alerts’ to be issued over material that might traumatise survivors of sexual abuse.

[…]

In the decadent days of the late Roman Empire, Deus Invictus, as patron of soldiers, was shown with a whip and a globe to emphasise dominance and invincibility; his solar rays were spiked. Deus Invictus is a ruthless enemy, the god unchained to scorch the earth. Deus Invictus is typified in libertarianism and personified in Trump’s solar solipsism, with his backdrop of gold curtains, Twitter-roaring against the unbearable restraints of respect or social justice. An ideology of monoism without plurality or otherness furious for its own freedom. An idiot divinity unleashed upon the world.

The full article is here. Highly recommended!

Comments

  1. says

    Cubist, yes, you’re right. One thing about libertarians, it’s always the same old song. I am already so fuckin’ tired of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” How can you even have a conversation with anyone who uses that seriously?

  2. Kengi says

    Though a bit scattershot, it was an interesting article.

    One of the things that always annoys me about libertarians is their tendency to over-simplify the world to make their views shoe-horn into place. Yes, in an ideal (perfectly spherical friction-less) world the only necessary response to bad speech is good speech. But in the real world there are biases, power differentials, resource differences, etc. Yet the libertarian ignores the “messy” real world in favor of their imagined ideal so their preconceived ideal vision of free speech can survive even a cursory rebuttal.

    This would seem to stem largely from a position of privilege. If your free speech is never in jeopardy from the flying monkey squads of the alt-right, you have the privilege of being able to defend free speech on a higher, more abstract level while pretending those without the same privileges technically have the same rights. You just have to ignore the messy real world to do so.

  3. says

    Kengi, I don’t know that it’s that complex on their side. I believe they think they are entitled to say whatever they want, and everyone else should just shut the fuck up. So yeah, privilege.

  4. says

    Marcus:

    “now that I’ve got mine, fuck you.”

    Or the corollary: “I’m the right person to get shit, I’m entitled, you aren’t.” As stated in the essay, they have no use for fettered emotions.

  5. says

    I Have Forgiven Jesus, unfortunately not. I couldn’t stomach much to see if there were any differing comments, I got out pretty quick.

  6. rq says

    In the interests of #notalllibertarians,

    This would seem to stem largely from a position of privilege. If your free speech is never in jeopardy from the flying monkey squads of the alt-right, you have the privilege of being able to defend free speech on a higher, more abstract level while pretending those without the same privileges technically have the same rights. You just have to ignore the messy real world to do so.

    I have a friend to whom exactly the previous would apply. He’s not stupid and he’s not selfish, he’s just totally in love with the handwaving magic of libertarianism -- he’s been slowly adjusting his views, but at heart, he still believes in the idea behind it all. I’ve always found it to be the naive, ignorant view, because it pretends that all people will want to share equally and that everyone will be willing to participate to make the system work, completely ignoring the fact that there will always be people who take advantage of the system, and that it is, in fact, extremely difficult to have everyone be completely thoughtful and selfless. (We almost lost our friendship over Molyneux, but he listened and learned.)
    But I think he’s more the exception rather than the rule. Because most other libertarian believers that I’ve come into contact with over the internet, or read about, they’re about as assholish as you can get. Not going to prove that statement by checking out the comments. :P

  7. AlexanderZ says

    I agree with Kengi #4 and think that the article could use more focus. Some of the more coherent comments used that weakness to attack the article by claiming that it supposedly equates fascists and libertarians simply because of superficial similarities.
    The article should have stressed out that the only difference between a fascist and a libertarian is that a fascist wants to actively harm the weak, while the libertarian wants to watch the weak harmed and cry “c’est la vie”, while they themselves are comfortably being shielded by their privilege.

Leave a Reply