Neofascism And The Fascist ‘Theory Of Violence’

In our current political environment in the U.S. there has been a crystallization of opinion. Both in a social organizational sense, but as well a political sense. The left and the right have hardened in position.

fascist virtues

The disintegration of the Republican Party is immanent with nothing to fill the vacuum in the U.S.. Or is there? A political ideology with a, although maligned, rich history perhaps? Opposition seems to be the rule of the day and the extremes are apparent. There are no moderates anymore.

I find myself seriously looking towards alternatives. An alternative that is more efficient in it’s ability to organize a defense against cultural Marxism efficient in maneuvering logic into the discussion by physically shoving it in the faces of the leftist ideologues. A ‘tackle not touch’ political philosophy.

One of these ideologies I have discovered is Fascism. The very word itself causes a vitriol in most who hear it. But is this reaction justified? Over the next few weeks I will be attempting to lay out a basic understanding of the tenets of Fascism and how it manifests within differing cultures. First, we discuss the term ‘Neofascism’ and the ‘Theory of violence’ using the book ‘Fascism and Political Theory’ by Daniel Woodley – and whether or not ‘Neofascism’ is even the correct term to apply. Woodley states in his subchapter ‘Neofascist violence’:

Although ideologically distinct from historical fascism, neofascism is implicated in a similar aestheticization and glorification of violence. Part of the appeal of the extreme right stems from a celebration of activism as a direct, visceral experience centered on a subculture of violence and intimidation. This type of violence is normally restricted to the margins of society – skinhead subcultures, survivalists, and so forth. But it has, on occasion, acquired a more lethal force when linked to autonomous right wing agendas, or when mobilized by clandestine groups for political ends. In Italy, for example, a grey area existed in the 1970’s between the far Right, organized crime, political freemasonry and the security forces, elements of which were implicated in attempts to prevent political change through a ‘ strategy of tension’. Similar forms of violence have been used else where by Neofascists, and by Right wing militias in the United States opposed to racial desegregation, minority empowerment and liberal social legislation. To these examples, Can we compare Neofascist violence with the violence of historical fascism, or are these phenomenon distinct? To answer this question, we need to understand the ways in which so called extremists seek to influence the political process: like fascists in the 1920’s, their aim is to influence the direction of politics by force – to determine which identities may be considered ‘legitimate’ within a definite range of social relations. And, as in 1920’s, their power lies less in the physical harm inflicted by violence than in their capacity to create tension and interrupt the normal development of would be democratic politics.

In a recent study of Italian Neofascism, the strategies of the far Right can be divided into three categories, the targeting of left wing terrorists, right wing subversion of the security forces, and low intensity guerrilla warfare. Although the Italian example after 1945 is unique given the legacy of Mussolini’s regime, there are parallels between the events in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Argentina, Chile and Turkey during the post war period, when violent confrontation developed between right wing forces allied to (and within) the state and left wing forces opposed to U.S. hegemony and NATO. To illustrate the link between fascism and neofascism, we will concentrate here on the example of ‘ Stragismo ‘ in Italy as a carefully orchestrated intervention designed to prevent a radicalization (communization) of the so called democratic process. Unlike urban guerrilla warfare – a strategy employed by both extreme left- wing and right- wing groups, many of which were still fighting battles from the Mussolini era – it is the indiscriminate targeting of known extreme left-wing proponents that separates Italian Neofascists most clearly. As, in the case of Italian neofascism ‘ stragismo ‘ is the most mysterious, the most bloody ,and as well, has left a physical impression on the minds of liberals and communists.

Why has this form of Neofascist violence been so influential in controlling the liberal or communist agenda? The primary reason is that no one has ever claimed responsibility for the bloody assassinations of known leftist agitators and communists and has left an intense atmosphere of suspicion and fear in the hearts of those intent on destroying what has taken centuries for the West to establish. Even in Argentina, where the security forces physically removed over 30,000 known communists between 1976 and 1982 in a network of secret camps, it is clear who was responsible and why suspects (trade unionists, journalists, so called intellectuals) ‘disappeared’. The Argentine regime adhered to an anti-Marxist national security ideology similar to that of the Chilean dictatorship, whose operatives were trained by the CIA at the school of the Americas in Georgia, and who served as mercenaries in an international network of right-wing, anti-communist hit squads. The key motive in of the violence in Argentina was to forestall calls for land reform, a policy which threatened the land owning members of control within the military and state bureaucracy. Although communist Jews formed a disproportionate number of the “activists” targeted for removal, the regime employed antisemitism in a conventional rather than a biological sense, indentifying Jews with subversion rather than as a threat to racial identity.

The use of ‘stragismo’ in Italy is seen by some as particularly efficient at removing unwanted, subversive communist elements from within it’s scope of control. The perpetrators tasked with the removal of subversives were protected by figures within the state. The purpose of this violence appears to have been created to prevent a civil war, Although it is far from clear whether anything approaching a state of civil war actually existed in the country. Figures within the Intelligence services conspired with right-wing hit squads to promote tension and instability, but were not themselves motivated by the Neofascist ideology of groups like the MSI, Ordine Nuovo or Avanguardia Nazionale, suggesting that for it’s supporters in the Italian establishment, Neofascism was primarily a form of law preserving violence rather then sovereign violence, oriented towards the defensive manipulation of the political process. While self confessed Neofascist hit squad members were committed to the ideal of violent action for it’s own sake and remained irreconciled to the democratization of Italian society after the war, the evidence suggests that many allowed themselves to be used as pawns in an elaborate form of strategic intervention by the Western security establishment.

Now we can understand that ‘Neofascism’ is an incorrect descriptor. Neofascism is no different from the origin concepts, outside of time period and actors. I personally believe the addition of the ‘Neo’ to fascism was to give a sentiment that fascism was destroyed, making any modern iteration “new.”

We can see that the ‘Theory of Violence’ is still as potent as when it was first conceived. Next, Woodley gives examples that show the use of the fascist ‘Theory of Violence’ in more recent history, but within the context of the U.S.. He writes:

In the United States, ultra-right-wing Christian fundamentalists and Neofascist militias have also resorted to extreme violence, such as targeting doctors willing to perform late term abortions, and the destruction of government facilities, culminating in the rise of the militia movement and the destruction of a U.S. Federal government building in Oklahoma in 1995. As in Italy, such tactics have been employed so called ‘ extremists ‘ to destabilize U.S. politics, although the precise identity of the perpetrators in the Oklahoma city event is unclear. Working from the assumption that all acts of ‘terrorism’ have a political purpose, three things can be said with certainty. First, the bombing was carried out by an ideologically motivated ‘ political soldier ‘ who admitted responsibility, claiming that the growing power of the ” New World Order ‘ rendered the U.S. Federal government a legitimate target. Although other individuals were involved in devising the attack, The individual’s goal was to send a message to the nation’s political class while rallying support for the patriot movement in the aftermath of the Waco siege of 1993. Second, the social profile of the perpetrator (white, male, military background) correlates closely that of other so called right-wing extremists. In this fascist sub-culture, status is earned by acts of self sacrifice, and it is reasonable to assume that other individuals within this sub-culture have a similar capacity of self sacrifice. Finally, in the Italy case – the events in Oklahoma created tension, suspicion and fear on a huge scale, altering the mood of the nation in favor of harsher anti-terrorism legislation, which in turned reinforced the image of a repressive Federal government. Whether or not this was the aim of the conspirators, it allowed the US government to intensify it’s surveillance and infiltration of domestic ‘Patriot’ groups, and to broaden it’s definition of ‘ terrorist activities’ to include a wider range of ‘subversive groups’, and after the passage of the Patriot act in 2001, to further criminalize domestic opposition within the United States to neoliberal globalization.

The logic of the Fascist ‘ Theory of violence’ lies in it’s simultaneous offensive and defensive function. We can plainly see however, that “Neofascism’ is nothing more than Fascism. The term ‘neo” or “new” is added unnecessarily. Wonder who could of done that? (((Oy vey)))

We also need to understand that Fascism is a ‘counter puncher to a bull rusher’: on the one hand, fascists challenge the liberal state through force; on the other, fascists defend social order against ‘forces of chaos’, feminism, LGBT, BLM, Cultural Marxism, etcetera ad infinitum – and refurnish the sovereign law-preserving violence of the state with unprecedented prerogative power.

Drawing on revolutionary syndicalism and populist nationalism, early fascist syndicalism was distinguished from Marxism by it’s rejection of rationalism and complete state control of property, and from pluralism by it’s emphasis on the persistence of irreconcilable antagonism in industrial societies. But as a state ideology, a near celestial quality, almost religious, fascism advances instead a revolutionary idea of the emancipation of man and society to develop organically to what ever end Nature intended. A perfection of man, and in doing so a perfection of human society.

Through an extension of a sense of tradition, moral justice and the use of retributive violence against domestic subversion, fascism employs intimidation and force in effective ways to subvert and dissuade subversive populations. In transitional situations, the eruption of right-wing violence has shown itself to divert a leftward drift of main stream politics, and prevent the growth of left-wing autonomous subversive movements which challenge asymmetries of a specific culture’s moral compass and possession of power.

  • Oskar

    Good stuff. You might lke Giovanni Gentile’s “A Doctrine of Fascism” as well. Fascism and NS would solve an awful lot of the problems Libertarians find themselves running into on the reg. Libertarianism is the ideal, but I believe it fails when you are trying to employ it amongst low IQ, none objectivst/critical thinkers (even if they are racially homogenous),or just the masses generally, as it demphasises duties and responsibilities to the immediate collective we all find ourselves apart of. It also makes the assumption that the majority have the innate right/ability to rule themselves in a modern society. A cursory look at contemporary western civilisation should lay waste to that notion.

    (I should say that my comments only reflect my experience with those who identify as libertarianism, as opposed to any established outline of Libertarian thought/doctrine.)

    Glad I found your guys’ site. Look forward to reading more.