A reminder that neofascism is alive and well in the U.S.

www.jphilll.com

Substack Boys: I hope you're Proud

The worst came after dark, of course. Swarms of Proud Boys roamed the streets, looking for the anti-fascists, who were much more likely to actually be from D.C., and who didn’t want violent mobs terrorizing their home. The police often tried to stand between the groups, sometimes whole-heartedly and sometime half-heartedly, but regardless it didn’t always work.
Fights broke out, and dozens of people, such as myself, were maced and pepper sprayed by the roving [neo]fascists, who are never really interested in a fair fight but rather in doing as much violence as possible. There’s probably a lesson there.
Four churches were attacked that night. They were vandalized, and one had a Black Lives Matter flag ripped off. It’s hard to miss the symbolism of white men marching through the streets burning that flag, which is exactly what they did. And when they couldn’t find “Antifa” or BLM flags, the Proud Boys found a Black man unaffiliated with any of the counter-protests. They cornered him and harassed him, and then when they began to assault him he pulled out his knife and stabbed one of them.
This is the very, very real violence perpetrated by [neo]fascists in this country. And it’s just one example out of hundreds. Across the United States these men are rallying, waving Nazi flags, assaulting, shooting, and hitting people with their cars. None of this is hypothetical.
[…]
So no, I do not place the idealized virtue of universal free speech ahead of preventing all-out fascism and the violence that entails. I do not think anyone should be able to espouse [neofascism] without consequence, let alone be able to profit from it.
I’m sure you’ve heard about the paradox of tolerance recently, but if you haven’t the 101 is that if we tolerate those who would, if they could, enact all-out [neo]fascism and squash all of us who object, we could soon find that our tolerance of [neofascists] has opened the door to a deeply intolerant society. This too is not simply theoretical, we know that the [neo]fascists who rallied in D.C., the Proud Boys and the even more overt Neo-Nazis, would readily dismantle any semblance of a liberal society and of a left if they could, and we should not allow that world to come into existence.
Just as the violence of the far-right is real, so too is the alliance of capital and [neo]fascism. More specifically, we are currently witnessing how, from Elon Musk to Mark Zuckerberg to the owners of Substack, several billionaires and other assorted tech capitalists want to allow and enable the right.
Musk is no doubt the clearest, with his constant promotion of once fringe fascist influencers. Every day he interacts with them and every day he makes Twitter more of an engine for the promotion of their ideas. I turned to Substack partially to escape him and his embrace of the far-right, and now I find the owners here being explicit about their hospitality to [neofascist] ideas, propagandists, and profits.
[…]
So, whatever I do next, it will be guided by a desire to meaningfully combat this [neo]fascist surge in our country, both online and in three dimensions. It will be guided by a desire to be a little freer and more independent from the whims of this platform’s owners, and from the owners of other platforms. When I’m ready and that plan is hatched, you’ll be the first to know. But in the meantime, I hope we can agree that we are not dealing with hypotheticals. We are dealing with men profiting from and enabling very real violence.

And I trust many within the lower classes to defend against that violence, Joshua. It is important to remember that defense against neofascism within bourgeois society is merely a temporary solution, because neofascism is a symptom of bourgeois society and we can’t abolish one without the other. That said, I also recognize the historic inevitability of lower‐class individuals resisting neofascism directly as our options are limited (for now), so I don’t blame others for treating the symptoms.

2 comments

excellent article and great post. thank you.

Unfortunately it's a development that can be seen al around the world.
Here in The Netherlands the (mostly likely) future prime minister Geert Wilders recalled some motion's that would make Islam illigal (as in going to a mosque/Islamic school and owning a Koran).
The news outlet said that the needed majority isn't there, but that is just a matter of time.
And there are still some motion's that he didn't recall, one of which would make it illigal to wear a headscarf.
So many people don't realise how close so many are to fascism. If he could get a majority than he most probably would enact such law.
The relevant news article: https://nos.nl/artikel/2504149-pvv-trekt-drie-anti-islamwetsvoorstellen-in
Translation to English
PVV withdraws three anti-Islam legislative proposals
PVV leader Wilders is withdrawing three private member's bills, including a plan to ban Islamic expressions. He wrote this without further explanation to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. These are legislative proposals that the PVV had previously submitted in the House of Representatives, such as punishing the possession of a Quran or the attendance of an Islamic school. The plans received significant criticism, and there was never a majority in the House for them.
During the parliamentary debate on the election results, the PVV leader had already stated that he would moderate his tone. By withdrawing these legislative proposals, he is sending a signal to the other parties discussing the formation of a new government. The discussions between BBB, NSC, PVV, and VVD will continue tomorrow morning at Landgoed Zwaluwenberg in Hilversum.
Prison sentences for mosque visits
The first proposal that the PVV is withdrawing concerns a ban on Islamic expressions, including a ban on mosques and the Quran. According to the proposal, people who possess a Quran or attend an Islamic school could face up to five years in prison. Visiting a mosque could result in a few months of imprisonment.
The Council of State commented on this legislative proposal, stating that it "aims to portray Islam not as a religion but as a violent totalitarian ideology" and deemed it inconsistent with "fundamental principles of the democratic constitutional state."
The second withdrawn proposal relates to a ban on multiple nationalities for officeholders and the removal of voting rights for people with dual citizenship. The explanation for this proposal indicates that it would affect 1.3 million people who hold not only Dutch nationality but also Turkish or Moroccan nationality. The PVV is concerned about influence from those countries.
The PVV is also withdrawing a proposal for 'administrative detention,' which would mean that suspected jihadists could be detained for up to six months without involving a judge and before their conviction. The Council of State ruled that this plan "exceeds the limits of acceptability in a constitutional state."
Political reporter Marleen de Rooy:
"These far-reaching private member's bills from Wilders and his party would likely never have gained a majority. They have been on the shelf for years, yet the PVV can send a signal by withdrawing them. As long as these proposals are still somewhere on a shelf, they continue to hover over the political landscape. Wilders is now removing that pressure. Remarkably, as Wilders has always stated that he would never retract anything he said before.
This aligns with the promise Wilders made earlier, according to BBB. The party considers it a positive step forward. However, this is just a first step. Moreover, these legislative proposals once again reveal how far the PVV would like to go in combating Islam.
In particular, NSC, the party of Pieter Omtzigt, keeps emphasizing the importance of not infringing on people's rights. According to the Council of State, these proposals do just that. This demonstrates how far apart these parties are on this issue. A step towards coming closer together has been taken, but there is still a long way to go."
Wilders is not withdrawing all controversial private member's bills from recent years. There are still proposals from PVV members to prioritize Dutch nationals in the allocation of housing and to introduce minimum sentences for serious offenses.
Currently, judges have the freedom to impose a lower sentence if they believe the circumstances justify it. If the PVV's proposals for minimum sentences are implemented, it would restrict this freedom for judges.
There are also proposals for a burqa ban and the removal of the prohibition on group insult. Wilders was convicted of this offense after his remarks about "fewer Moroccans."