RIGHT AS ‘FASHIST’
The "fascist" is not only contaminated with its genesis, that is, being a product of communist propaganda, ordering all non-communist to specify it that way, not only compromised by the widespread occurrence of in leftist publications for reasons specified as the perception in the opponent of a patriot or a supporter of a restrictive migration policy. It is besides absurd, considering what the “real” fascism was and that in Polce he never found fertile dirt to make – let us remind that the leader of 1 of the more extremist nationalist organizations in the Second Polish Republic, Jan Mosdorf from the National and extremist Camp, died in the German Auschwitz-Birkenau camp saving a Jew.
The absurdity of the epithet “fascist” completes the inclusion in a set of attributes attributed to the individual named racism, although Italian racial fascism was not. Of course, the usage of this word is accompanied by quite a few manipulations and perversions, which we can consider insignificant if we consider the degree of lying to the epithet itself. For example, suggesting fascism is accompanied by portraying people with right-wing views as the bakers of a nation in cultural terms, even if many identify with the concept of a cultural nation. This is to be served most frequently by the appearance of a right-wing or nationalist as an perfect origin of German national socialists. The merytorical arguments are defenseless against propaganda of mud plugging – it is not unreasonable for a condemning-moralistic typhoon to sweep distant all material attempts at translation.
The curiosity of being a "fascist" has become so obvious, and the blade of those who usage specified stigmatisation is so blunt that any of the right-wing representatives began to specify themselves. This serves as a mockery of the propaganda of changing this word by all cases by opponents, and it follows from the cognition that it has come from being a concept of strict meaning to becoming a sterile and empty slogan. Of course, the ironic auto-deconspiration of the "fascist" besides helps to knock the saber out of the hands of any left-wingers, after all, since individual himself calls himself a "fascist" it is hard to number on depreciating it, calling it that.
In the case of a "fascist", there are 3 interesting consequences of utilizing this word in situations which are completely inadequate. In this regard, there is simply a parallel to the consequences of abuse of the concept of “the utmost right”.
Firstly, the consequence of striving to origin horror by constantly reaching for the concept describing the phenomena of fear is not what is intended to consequence in – that is, the viewer's fear. On the contrary, abuse of the concept removes the fear from it. If Fascism is everywhere and you don't live well, then what's there to be afraid of...
Secondly, "fascists" from giving the left may be those who preach completely different views – from supporters of the ubiquitous state to people about the convictions close to libertarianism, who consider the state a threat, specified as Janusz Korwin-Mikke. So – this concept has not only much to do with what fascism was, but besides does not stay in connection with any coherent, redefined in modern times term. Suffice to say that erstwhile a leftist writer wants to describe individual in fact referring to Mussolini's or Hitler's heritage, he uses the word "neofashist" – this in itself undermines the credibility of his declared belief that his political opponents are actually fascists. The co-opting of further properties to the definition of “fascism” should actually take place each time, after the sharp eye of the left-winger has seen the disturbing phenomenon.
Thirdly, the overzealous pursuit of Fascism frequently ends with a similarity to the imagined object of its hunt. "Fascist" is not made due to the act of violence, the drafting of regulations limiting certain cultural groups to certain places or reaching for totalitarian symbolism. The "fascist" is known by words, or, in fact, after the overzealous huntsman interprets them—the basic charge against the "fascist" is that he has different views. After all, tolerance does not let us to have another views – the fact that people have different views leads to fascism. Or something like that.
For me, the alleged Brunat Book of “Never More” magazine was always an unsurpassed model of fascist “antifascism”. Its authors regularly study on people who have different views from them, even if the link of these views to fascism (even erstwhile identifying it with Nazism or racism – which is evidently a mistake) is like the village dweller through whom Wehrmacht soldiers marched with Nazism.
RIGHT AS ‘POPULEIST’
Populism was fundamentally defined in 2 ways. It either meant appealing to the will of the people or reaching for simple slogans that described hard problems and offering easy solutions to complicated matters. Of course, these definitions are alternatively vague, as politicians' proposals are necessarily not aimed at walls or trees, and the media message must be designed to convince, not necessarily peculiarly absorbing. However, there was consensus that it was symptomatic of populism that the areas of social assistance, called the distribution of public money, were diametrically enlarged.
Today, erstwhile we hear the word "populist", they are most frequently written by the same people who erstwhile hunted "fascists", and the subject of the description is about those who were late "fascists". Of course, there is simply a final laundering of the "populist" from the vague content – due to the fact that since most likely the "populists" can be politicians of the only 1 that would request a simplification in the social assistance of the parliamentary party, that is, the Confederation is "and you will become a populist".
At the same time, populism has no unambiguously negative connotations, and populist politicians are referred to as not a dose of ridicule. Neither the past of the concept nor the meaning nor the etymology make it the most convenient tool to hit opponents. It is interesting that as part of a debate in which everyone chooses the intent of their sighs of “the average man” so many want to make another charge of listening to “the voice of the people.”
One paradox lies in the fact that the users of the cepa of "populism" point out as 1 of its characteristics the opposition of the people to elites, namely the affirmation of "ordinary people" and the revenge of the "sold" elites – and at the same time, possibly unconsciously, their very existences show the existence of precisely the other situation, that is, the dislike of the elites (or simply those who are accustomed to mention to higher social position or educational level) to anyone who looks at them with criticism (by which they are given – the "populist").
From the position of these considerations, a short conclusion should be drawn – both cepes, or "fascist" and "populist" are not peculiarly dangerous, although for other, in a sense even opposing reasons.
The force of the first is akin to the power of the revolver brought to the archery competition – but that the revolver is plastic. The second cep can be compared to a man who moves around the working territory in a suit and reprisals everyone around under-sleek clothes – these look at him with confusion of surprise with dislike. The first cep is weak with its force pushed to the limits of absurdity, and the second is weak due to the fact that it hits the protective armor.
Jacek Tomczak
