"I late spoke to art historian Vanni Scheiwiler, who publishes in Milan. But Mr Scheiwiler is simply a pessimist; he claims that, under the influence of fresh conformism, the city, which is after all the cultural centre of Italy, is experiencing a decline in intellectual vitality. Anyone who comes up with something that doesn't fit the canon is immediately branded by calling him a fascist. The word “fascist” appears so frequently that 1 can wonder if it has lost its meaning! This reminded me of the words of Ignazio Silone of 1945, shortly after returning to Italy from exile in Zurich: “Fascism of next day will never say, “I am fascism”. He will say: “I am anti-fascism”.’
François Bondy 1952.
The words of a Swiss intellectual who quoted the Italian “comunist without party” more than 7 decades ago are imposed on himself after reading a book published by Political Critics Jason Stanley “How Does Fascism Work? We versus them.” So we are dealing with a phenomenon that, more profoundly and independently, Western intellectuals noticed and predicted immediately after the end of planet War II, but which is only now gaining authentically disturbing proportions. This indicates deeper, more long-term and fundamental sources of totalitarianism, this time dressed in robes of “anti-fascism”.
Additional peculiarity of the Polish edition is the introduction by Sławomir Sierakowski, from which we can learn that Poland under the Law and Justice was almost fascist, just as Hungary under Viktor Orban and the US under Trump during the first term. (The first edition of Stanley's book was published in 2018) I'm afraid to think what's going on out there right now. At first glance, however, these bizarre statements work well with the content of J. Stanley's appropriate essay, in which he informs us that Fascism besides prevails in India and Brazil (where, as in Poland, he has already been “opposed” as a consequence of elections). Despite this strangeness, we request to read because, as the “history and sociologist” Jan Tomasz Gross assures, “it is mandatory for all who take their civic duties seriously.”
However, the book, although very chaotic and inconsistent, allows to identify any of the most crucial objects of fear and hatred of “anti-fascists”, and besides to figure out how they specify the title “we”. It is hard adequate that as quoted with approval by Sierakowski Primo Levi “Every era has its fascism.” In this sense, it brings the “anti-fascist” closer to the message attributed to 1 of the 3rd Reich dignitaries, who was to say, “I decide who is Jewish.” However, in order to avoid accusations of specified open arbitrariness, Stanley tries to point out any circumstantial elements exposing possible fascists.
The first is the “mythical past” which the “fascists” present in their propaganda as a lost paradise. In Stanley's narration, it is by “fascist” falsified, and is intended on the 1 hand to induce pride from its own past, and on the another hand to hide and dispel its darker sides. Nostalgia for what has passed or the past of longing for the golden age prove not noble but dangerous. Its household component is peculiarly dangerous according to the “antifascists” due to the fact that “every fascist mythical past includes the primacy of the extremist variant of the patriarchal family... The patriarchal household is 1 of the ideas that fascist politicians are trying to make real in society – to return, they say. But why is the patriarchate so crucial to fascist politics? In fascist society, the leader of the nation corresponds to the figure of the father in the conventional patriarchal family."
In this context, Stanley quotes a “history” Charu Gupta“The oppression of women in Nazi Germany is indeed the most extremist case of anti-feminism in the past of the 20th century.” In the same context, and in 1 line, Stanley is banned from having an abortion of the PiS, sexist Donald Trump and the genocide of the African Hutu tribe. However, in the area of mythologization of his past, the act on penalization of work for the Holocaust should be withdrawn in a panic. In another passage, Stanley describes how his parent born in east Poland, erstwhile she returned from Siberia to the Vistula River in 1945, “she experienced violent post-war anti-Semitism.” In this context, the reader is asked about the judaic nation and myths about its past; both the ancient 1 and the 1 much closer, as an example that should be deluded by the explanation of myths justifying Stanley's own uniqueness, but this example is not addressed by the author.
The Patriarchal, arrogant of his past, the household has another features to exposure her fascist inclinations: she lives in the countryside, or in a tiny town, she has children (According to Stanley, "fascists" have an obsession on this point) and tries to be self-sufficient. This is simply a dangerous combination, due to the fact that according to Stanley: “According to fascist ideology, life in the countryside is subject to the ethos of self-sufficiency that builds strength.” Moreover, as quoted by Stanley, another investigator found that the Nazis had achieved “a unique success in areas dominated by smaller farms, with a alternatively homogeneous social structure, a strong sense of local solidarity and social control” and Stanley himself puts a dot over and writing that “valorizing self-sufficiency is the core of fascist ideology, inextricably linked to hostility towards any minorities”. In this anti-rural theme, there is besides an astonishing message that “in fascism the enemy is the state; fascism wants to replace them with a nation of self-sufficient individuals.” How's that for a declaration? Benito Mussolini: “Everything for you, nothing but you, and nothing above all against you,” the author explains, and he is silent about the mass support of German women for Hitler. In another place, he states that "talking about the defence of women by men allows to discredit the ideals of liberal democracy, while protecting against catching it."
Further dangerous signals to “catch” fascist tendencies are designation for hierarchy, industriousness, law and order.
In addition, “fascists” are guided by a more or little conscious fear of losing their existing social position or wanting to regain it. In particular, universities and experts are reluctant to believe "conspiracy theories" and feel "sexual anxiety" about homosexuals, trans people, etc.
Part of Stanley's work is much more modest, which would clarify what they value the title “we”, or modern “anti-fascists”.
Universities are a mathematician or even 1 of the bases for “antifascism”. How easy it is to know that “fascist” attacks are peculiarly susceptible to “gender studies” that “fascist” accuse cultural Marxism. Russia and Hungary are exceptionally active in this field, which have eliminated universities sponsored by George Soros and Turkey. Attempts by conservatives to rebuild universities and to let different viewpoints to debate concern “anti-fascist” due to the fact that “everyone who taught doctrine knows that it is frequently worth confronting convincing lines of defence of conflicting positions (...) but in specified cases the general regulation on second thought seems unlikely.” In the following paragraph, there is simply a favourite argument of “anti-fascist” about the nonsense of the debate with “the supporters of flat ground”. "Fascists" besides have a dangerous condition, which is skepticism towards the authority of experts and modern institutions, which are based on it. Stanley quotes here another very accurate assessment made by Rush Limbaugh, revealing “four pages of lies: government, universities, discipline and media. These institutions are corrupt and be through fraud.”
According to Stanley, Limbaugh gives this message an example of how “fascist politicians attack expertise, (distinguishing J. Stanley) mocking and devaluationing them.” However, if we applied Stanley himself's explanation of fascism feeding on the fear of a stratum privileged to groups aspiring to equal status, then after the erstwhile decades mentioned by R. Limbaugh of the institutions, it would be their defence with censorship, the alleged technological consensus and a full series of insults posing as sociological terms would be a typical example of fascism and it would be without quotation. We experienced this during the "pandemic", we experience it in the case of climateism and defining the causes of the war in Ukraine, erstwhile it was learned experts with university titles, governments and the media who told people that the king was dressed although alleged simple people saw and increasingly have the courage to say that he is naked. All propaganda that Stanley attributes in his book to “fascists” is present utilized by “anti-fascists”.
"Antifascist" Stanley declares himself a supporter of liberal democracy, while all another forms he throws into 1 bag as "fascist" or aimed at fascism. Why is he doing this? Is he not motivated by the fear of losing the monopoly to proclaim only legitimate views from the position of the inhabitants of cosmopolitan metropolises, not burdened with the household and dependent on the sponsors of the "antifascism" oligarchs. Or is it a resentive to owners of happy, multi-children families and owners of tiny and medium-sized companies or farms who effort to keep self-sufficiency along with a combined independency from the state and globalist molocs? This is simply a question that J. Stanley should ask himself, even then, or possibly due to the fact that he is simply a prof. of doctrine at the prestigious Yale University.
Olaf Swolkień
Jason Stanley, “How does Fascism work? We or them.” Political Critics, Warsaw 2024, p. 256.
Think Poland, No. 3-4 (18-25.01.2026)
