In our ongoing struggle to define fascism, several of this week’s readings broach the question of which model is more appropriate, the fascist minimum (what characteristics something must have in order to be fascist) or the fascist repertoire (a selection of qualities from which fascists can choose). As a case study, Benjamin Bland considers Britain’s National Front (NF) which was an old-fashioned neo-Nazi organization in the 1970’s with a focus on racially-motivated anti-immigration policies. However, the NF found itself outmaneuvered by Margaret Thatcher who co-opted its anti-immigrant rhetoric into her own successful election campaigns. With its formerly radical position now mainstream, the NF had to change course and, in the 1980’s, it began to pursue a Third Way. The Third Way presented itself as an alternative to both capitalism and communism, and as providing a spirituality that preserved both individual and national identity. This approach was transnational in nature as all national identities, as long as they were kept separate from each other and distinct, were deemed worthwhile, even non-white ones. Within the Third Way formulation, immigration was blamed upon capitalism, so racism was channelled into anti-globalization, a position consonant with support for non-white separatisms. However, transnationalism ultimately worked to problematize racism, the raison d’être of the NF in the first place, and the party imploded. Bland’s article serves to illustrates that, while the fascist repertoire can allow for variety and negotiation (as evidenced by the NF and the Third Way), whatever variety and negotiation there is can come into conflict with core tenants of fascism like white supremacy. This potentiality is also evidenced by the article from “The Guardian” on how the far right has made more of an effort to appeal to women. The strategy is to channel concern for the maintenance of women’s rights into anti-immigration sentiments and Islamophobia. This is successfully increasing the popularity of fascism amongst women, but, as was the case in the Bland article, at the cost of creating tension with a core fascist tenant, this time that of male supremacy. Taken together, then, these two articles seem to demonstrate that neither the minimum nor the repertoire can be entirely discarded as a model. Like many things related to fascism, they exist in tension with each other.
Differences between Neofascism and Fascism-Fascism
Frank
Reflecting on the question of how neofascism differed from fascist movements of the early-20th century, I found Bland’s discussion of the UK National Front’s “Third Way” interesting. In particular, that their worldview was not a blend of communism and capitalism, but rather rejected them outright (Bland 112). This anti-materialism is also echoed in Julius Evola’s ideas of spiritual ethnonationalism. This lack of materialist focus could have also been a product of French and Italian far-right groups, who as Mammone points were building cultural hegemony projects to counter liberal-leftist hegemony, one built on the foundation of Evola’s (and other fascist thinkers) ideas. Overall, these authors suggest that new right thinkers and leaders were building an ideology and identity which centered less around economic models.
There are a few more areas where neofascists differ from their forebearers, and I am really interested in discussing them during Thursday’s facilitation. However, I believe that is it vital to stress that these differences should not fool us into thinking that these movements are not dangerous or destructive because they don’t mimic Mussolini or the Nazis. Antisemitism is still a core value for these parties. While NF issued a statement that they were explicitly opposed to antisemitism (Bland 121), they were essentially Neo-Nazis in their fetishistic faith in and adherence to Hitler’s political program and antisemitic conspiracy theory (Bland 109). Moreover, the “bludgeon and double-breasted suit” approach adopted by MSI reflects early-20th century Fascist tactics of pairing paramilitary street violence with parliamentary politics.
The Reluctance of a Fascist
Megan MacRae
I found Charlie Jarvis’ article extremely interesting and telling of fascism in past and present Italy. Jarvis explains that after the 1969 bombing in Milan, neofascist units waged terror in Milan through massacres. Often, Italian authorities were aware of the actions of these neofascist groups. However, the museum established to commemorate the violence that occured does not make reference to the state’s involvement in this period. This is yet another instance in which a fascist state refuses to admit their part in the actions of fascist groups.
I feel that thus far in our course, we have been continuously discussing the fact that most often, fascist’s refuse to recognize that they are fascist’s. We have seen it in Italy, Germany, the United States etc. Despite the fact that individuals and groups will exhibit the core beliefs of fascism, they will vehemently deny that they are fascists. Jarvis’ article seems to echo this continuous theme. Jarvis explains that not only was Italy aware of the role neofascist’s played in the terror of 1969, but currently, the country is closer than it has been since World War II to a fascist regime. At the time in which this article was produced, the leader of Fratelli d’Italia, Giorgia Melino had yet to be elected as Italy’s first woman Prime Minister. However, she recently did secure victory and this made Italians and other democratic nations around the world quite concerned. Despite the fact that Meloni and Fratelli d’Italia descended from a fascist party, Meloni refuses to admit that her party has inherited fascist views. Perhaps this is because she knows that admitting that she and her party are fascists will cause those apart of the moderate right-wing to hesitate on voting for her. Regardless, Jarvis’ article and the current leadership of Meloni both remind me of a common theme present throughout this course; fascists are reluctant to admit their political beliefs, but their actions prove what they truly believe.
“Women-as-Other” and Popular Memory of Female Perpetrators
By Kaileigh La Belle
Ruth Glynn’s “Writing the Terrorist Self: The Unspeakable Alterity of Italy’s Female Perpetrators” applies the concept of “Women-as-other” to narratives of violence committed by female perpetrators. For Glynn, these women used recognized socio-cultural discourses to navigate both victimhood and guilt in ways unique from their male peers. While Glynn focuses on how these discourses enabled women to publically express their role in political violence, I found myself wondering if the use of established socio-cultural gender discourses lends itself to the erasure of women from our popular memory of violent politics. As Glynn highlights, many of these representations present women as “token terrorists” or “unnatural killers”, and thus as somewhat enigmatic. Meanwhile, Chrisafris also writes about women’s connection to extreme politics. Chrisafris points to numerous examples of far-right female politicians attempting to legitimize their positions in these misogynistic movements by presenting themselves as “tough-skined warriors”, taking on traditionally masculinized traits. Additionally, Chrisafris points to several examples far-right women presenting themselves as protectors of women who were “pushed” to join movements because inadequacies in the current system. As such, it became apparent to me that this continuation of gendered discourses allowed women to situate themselves in these movements, both as “natural” and “unnatural” political figures. As such, the use of established socio-cultural discourses on gender present both victimhood (particularly associating femininity with vulnerability) and guilt (by presenting women as masculinized warriors), distancing femininity from blame for these actions. Furthermore, I feel that it becomes easier to erase women perpetrators from our popular memory of extreme political violence as the naunce it requires questions the gender binary, which prefers to associate masculinity with violence and femininity with vulnerability. Overall, Glynn’s use of the “women-as-other” concept was quite thought-provoking for me as it can simultaneously be used by perpetrators to situate themselves in popular memory but also encourage us to exclude women from popular memory of these events.
Right VS. Left: Neofascism in Italy
By: Nicole Beswitherick
One thing that really stuck out to me in the readings for this week was the Guardian article, by Angelique Chrisafis in Paris, Kate Connolly in Berlin, and Angela Giuffrida in Rome; as well as the Hyperallergenic one by Charlie Jarvis. Perhaps this is because my major is journalism, but reading more recent examples of a fascist-leaning movement than older ones brings a more meaningful understanding as it is happening in real time.
In the Guardian reading, it really struck me how more women are moving towards a nationalist populism that was once so dominated by patriarchal ideology. Perhaps it is suggested that they are moving away from feminism as the article says. However, Le Pen rejects the term “feminism” because they associate it with an instrument of leftwing nonsense, replacing it with what the definition is, “women’s rights”. The Italian rightwing populist parties are targeting women as well with controversial messages that immigration brings misogynistic cultures that threaten freedom in Europe. These immigrants are mostly from countries with high Muslim populations. It all seems like a very manipulative scheme which we have seen in the west too, particularly in the United States.
Jarvis talks in his article about a massacre at Piazza Fontana in Milan, Italy. He also touches on how far-left groups (yes, left. Not right) like the Brigate Rosse waged war against the state through kidnapping and targeted assassination. However, the neofascist cells also sowed terror with massacres such as the one at Piazza Fontana. I liked how one journalist worded it, “the bombs that changed Italy.” Jarvis makes a connection with these relationships in regard to a museum. He explains that remembrance enables reconciliation between victims and perpetrators and also between the far left and extreme right.
Of course other articles this week also touched on Italy and its fascist past and present. But these two went really well together in explaining not only what has happened previously between the left and rightwing parties and supporters in Italy, but also what has been going on recently as a “look forward” type of ideal.
Dungeons, Dragons and Biological Determinism – How to Overcome White Supremacy in your Favourite RPG
By Lauren McCoy
Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) has officially outgrown its basement origins. Selling more copies in 2018 alone than in its previous 44 years of print, the once fringe hobby has amassed a global player base of over 50 million and cemented itself into the mainstream.
With this D&D renaissance, the stereotypical image of the anti-social cis-hetero white guy is no longer reflective of its diverse fanbase. Yet, despite the company’s commitment to inclusivity, players remains doubtful that the game may ever reconcile the harmful beliefs that underlie its core mechanics; namely, how themes of biological determinism reinforce White Supremacy in Dungeons and Dragons.
Biological Determinism
Biological determinism refers to the belief that human characteristics are determined by hereditary factors, reducing fluid social identities into strictly biological characteristics. The dangers of this type of thinking should not be understated. Biological determinism is often linked to racist and misogynistic stereotypes, where race and gender are understood not as social constructs but as biological realities that determine someone’s behaviours and overall “character”.
At its most extreme, biological determinism can fuel ethnocentrism and xenophobia. Since behaviour is understood as a heritable quality, biological determinists believe that it is imperative to prevent the proliferation of “bad genes” that occurs when “undesirables” reproduce. Eugenic policies become enforced in the name of strengthening the nation or preventing social collapse, ranging from restrictive immigration to forced sterilization and genocidal extermination.
So when co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons, Gary Gygax, self-identifies as a biological determinist, there are reasons to raise concern.
Not All Races Created Equal – Racial Essentialism
The biological deterministic foundations of D&D are most visible in the blatant racial essentialism that underlines character creation. The fantasy “races” that populate D&D are ascribed with fixed a set of behavioural and physical traits, represented in the form of “racial abilities” and “ability score increases” that shape character’s personality and skillset.
This situation is made worse by the game’s heavy reliance on racially coded language that reaffirms historical narratives of white supremacy. As many have pointed out, fantasy races act as the vessel to reproduce racial stereotypes, where the physical and behavioural descriptions echo the harmful rhetoric used to demonize non-European cultures and People of Colour. The concept of moral alignment within D&D makes these values judgments explicit – dehumanizing “primitive” races like Orcs while justifying the moral supremacy of white-coded races like Elves. Concerns have also been raised over how combat as a core mechanic allows players to enact racialized violence. With entire races classified as “evil”, the game encourages slaughter-without-empathy as part of the player’s crusade to defend an idealized, white-washed, medieval fantasy.
Looking Backwards – Misogyny and Gender Essentialism
Lacklustre attempts to address race essentialism within D&D have left many concerned that the game may never overcome its biological deterministic foundations. However, these critiques fail to consider how biological determinism has been previously dismantled – this time, in the form of gender essentialism.
In very real terms, D&D was not designed for female players. The biological deterministic perspective of D&D creators conceived of the game as a “boys club”, citing that women could never truly appreciate the game like men, who had evolved to enjoy simulated fantasy combat. It’s for this reason that the earliest editions of the D&D playbook exclusively use male pronouns, failing to even consider the possibility of serious female players.
While not meaningfully included as playable characters, essentialist representations of female bodies remained present within the game’s monsters. Female monsters often reproduced misogynistic tropes of women as animalistic and emotionally irrational, unable to control their bodily urges and requiring rational male heroes to tamed them. The monstrous representation made clear that the source of women’s evil was rooted in their hyper-sexualized physicality – a dehumanizing condition that was impossible to overcome and justified violent intervention.
When considering how to manage playable female characters, concerns revolved around how to appropriately quantify women’s physical differences from men. One early solution involved capping the abilities of female fighters’ by reducing their strength modifier and preventing them from surpassing level 10. This ensured that female fighters always fought at a disadvantage that reflected their “natural” weakness and created a sense of “realism” within the game. The appeal to a supposed “biological reality” that made it inconceivable for women to be as strong as men within a fantasy setting underlines exactly how gender essentialism served to reinforce misogynistic and patriarchal ideas about women.
Possibilities for the Future
Examining the evolution of D&D from its 1974 origins to the most recent 2014 release, scholar Antero Garcia traced the shift towards empowering images of female heroes over the course of multiple editions. This change is paralleled by the increasing use of gender-neutral language – going from justifying male exclusive language as “neutral”, to more frequent references towards female players, to eventually vetoing gendered language all together. The result was that by the 5th Edition, D&D has erased the gender essentialist rules and representations that plagued early versions of the game, encouraging an understanding of gender grounded in identity and not biological fact.
Garcia argues that this gradual shift was the result of the changing social context. Just as much as D&D is influenced by its prior editions, it is also informed by cultural forces that shape how the game is understood. However, this explanation fails to highlight the active role of community protest in re-defining the rules of D&D, who’s efforts are visible as early as the 1970s. Dismantling gender essentialism wasn’t achieved passively, but through resistance among female and male players alike. With women making up only 10% of the playerbase in 1979, this solidarity among fans was vital to removing misogynistic rules within D&D.
These protests were strengthened by the presence of Homebrewed content. While the official Players Handbook acts as a starting point for gameplay, it only holds as much power as the adventuring party allows. In a game predicated on imagination, Homebrewing can act as a vital space for resistance and experimentation against the distasteful elements of biological determinism.
Just as meaningful change was implemented to address gender essentialism, similar possibilities exist for dismantling White Supremacy within D&D. Vocal disapproval and solidarity among the fanbase is vital to ensure official rules are inclusive and reflect the needs of modern players. In the meantime, Homebrewed content offer alternatives paths to dismantle White Supremacy within personal campaigns – a process already underway by the community.
While there is no mistaking the harmful rhetoric that underlined the game’s creation, it is ultimately up to the players to determine for themselves the future of Dungeons and Dragons.
Life in the interregnum
Jim Dagg
For me, this week’s readings worked well to show us how the neo-fascist actors in three countries operated in the midst of their wilderness years. The connection with the idea of an interregnum period was clear.
I was surprised to see the term “deep state” used for a phenomenon that actually seemed appropriate (unlike its reuse in the US in recent years). Embedded fascist sentiment among “leading members of the armed forces, the security services, and the bureaucracy” was poisonous in Italy during the “First Republic” – and likely beyond. They were involved in terror attacks – and due to their positions in the state were often able to falsely implicate leftist actors.
During this time, the MSI – in spite of its transparent neo-fascist nature – was able to participate in legislative elections and was actively concerned about increasing its support.
Britain’s National Front dreamed of transnational links with dictatorial regimes in Libya and Iran as well as the Nation of Islam in the US. The link seemed necessary to the establishment of a Third Way (between capitalism and communism) which had to be on a global scale. The fact they were not taken seriously by any of these makes them seem rather comical.
The Mammone reading highlighted for me the lack of a coherent doctrine among neo-fascists in Italy. This was not actually a surprise given our discussion in recent weeks of the “whatever works” nature of fascist politics. To the rescue came Benoist, with his ND (Nouvelle Droite) structure and Gramscian ideas about building an altered culture to the right’s benefit. This was immediately embraced by Italians who cloned their own ND (Nuova Destra). This was the way out of the interregnum.
Reconciling with the Past Revisited: Italian Edition
The Jarvis article for this week very much reminds me of many of our discussions in previous weeks about German reconciliation with their past. The article describes the terrorist style killings that occurred within Milan, Italy from the 60’s-80’s, which would become notoriously known as the “years of lead”. “The city of Milan’s new “diffuse urban museum” is an attempt to reckon with the violence of the years of lead” (Jarvis). It is undeniably a noble undertaking to commemorate the past, and as the article states, “Confrontation with the past enables us to heal in the present, it claims. Remembrance enables reconciliation between victims and perpetrators, between far left and extreme right, between communities whose own memories have long been fiercely opposed” (Jarvis). Though it isn’t all sunshine and rainbows here, the museum may reconcile with the past, but what it needs to look for what still remains here in the present. Fascist violence is here and now, and you do not need to look very far. The article literally mentions how a far-right Italian politician shot and killed a Moroccan man recently. On this note, the Glynn reading on page 2 talks a bit a bit about how in the immediate aftermath of the “years of lead” in Italy no-one wanted to take part in any kind of wide-spread discussion on what had happened. While it’s understanding that mass killings will obviously be hard to talk about, if discussions aren’t had, and if understandings cannot be created between differing parties as to how and why these things happened, then what is stopping the violence from continuing? As we can see with the aforementioned recent killing of the Moroccan man apparently nothing.
Sources:
Charlie Jarvis, “Milan Museum Commemorates Fascist Past at Expense of the Present” Hyperallergic (August 2, 2021), https://hyperallergic.com/667010/milan-museum-commemorates-fascist-past-at-the-expense-of-the-present/
Ruth Glynn, “Writing the terrorist self: the unspeakable alterity of Italy’s female perpetrators” Feminist Review (Jul 2009): 2.
France’s National Rally Drawing on Environmentalism’s Racist History
By Melyssa Clark
The far-right, traditionally, has been characterized as climate denialists; however, there has been a shift amongst some far-right parties to adapt their messaging on climate change as a means to appeal to a broader range of voters, who are concerned by and feel the effects of climate change. Attempts to address environmental policy within the far-right’s political platform has been met with criticism, namely for being nationalist and ineffective. The approach that has been taken by the far-right to the environment is not novel and can be seen as a re-emergence of previous and was already widely accepted solutions posed to environmental concerns.
In how it is understood today, the field of environmentalism has been considered to be left leaning with international efforts that focus on cooperative solutions. However, the earlier developments on solutions to environmental issues were perceived had to have strong racist underpinnings.
Scholars such as Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich were two influential figures in the environmental space both of whom framed impacts on the environment as stemming from the overpopulation occurring in the global south. Solutions to the perceived issues of overpopulation was framed as a call for depopulation and was an idea that was widely embraced by prominent environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club. This approach overlooked the impact of consumption and how developed countries have a greater contribution to environmental degradation than those with larger populations and that populations within the global south will be impacted the most by climate change. Consequently, the ideas promoted by Ehrlich were used to promote anti-immigration agendas.
The re-emergence of these racist and anti-immigrant responses to address environmental concerns can be illustrated through France’s far-right party’s, the National Rally, inclusion of environmental policy in their platform. This shift most notably occurs between the leadership of Jean-Marie Le Pen and Marine Le Pen.
As previously discussed, Jean-Marie Le Pen falls into the traditional category of far-right leaders’ response to the environmental politics, which consists of denying the human contributions to climate change. Even with his dismissiveness towards climate change, Le Pen echoed Ehrlich’s concern to overpopulation and stated that Ebola could serve as a solution to the population explosion and Europe’s immigration problem.
When Marine Le Pen took over as President for the National Rally in 2011, she sought to broaden the scope of the party in order to attract more voters. This included the development of an environmental policy called the ‘New Ecology’. The push for including environmental policies into the National Rally’s platform became important most notably of which was in the most recent 2022 national French elections. Both Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron fought to attract Jean-Luc Melenchon’s environmentally conscious voters in the second round of elections.
Although Le Pen has incorporated the environment into the National Rally’s platform, it has been met with a wide variety of criticism for being nationalistic and a form of greenwashing. Additionally, Le Pen has also tied the environment to anti-immigration rhetoric in stating that migrants “do not care about the environment [because they] have no homeland”.
In turn, the far-right’s approach to environmental policy has gone beyond being simply denialist and has rather drawn from previous widespread and racist interpretations of environmental solutions. This can be exemplified through France’s National Rally’s nationalist, xenophobic, and anti-immigrant solutions to environmental problems. However, these approaches to the environment are concerning as they can lead to larger implications than just ineffective policy. Ehrlic’s framing of overpopulation as being an environmental issue is still fairly recent and the recirculation of these ideas into public discourse can lead to racist environmental policies being considered as an acceptable solution.
Left and Right Populist Interactions
What stood out to me again in this week’s reading is the simultaneous hatred and overlap between far right populism and far left populism. The Mammon article notes that both groups sought to end the neoliberal capitalist order, and in that respect they had common goals and actions. From last week’s readings we also know that some members switched sides. At the same time, the Amyot and Glynn articles discuss Italy’s Years of Lead where the common enemy was the Italian Communist Party rather than neoliberalism, and the fascists and (neoliberal?) conservative sides worked together against them. Yet when the Italian conservatives (Christian Democratic Party) accepted the socialists into the governing coalition, they aggravated the right and a fascist coup started brewing. What all of this tells me is that, probably throughout Western Europe, all three sides generally hated each other and only worked together if they perceived one side as growing too strong.
Somewhat separate from this was the British National Front, which vehemently opposed both neoliberalism and communism, perceiving them as being the same. Rather than trying to balance out the aforementioned sides, they instead worked with islamists and black nationalists. Another, less bizarre alliance is that of the populist far right and the women who join it. The Chrisafis article says that the populist far right has a sexism problem but women still join it (primarily, but not necessarily) because they fear immigrant cultures. On the other side, there were also women active on the communist side in the Years of Lead, which might be less surprising but it should be noted that the Italian communists were also heavily male-dominated. Perhaps the common theme, then, is that populist groups will make alliances with just about anybody if they feel it’s in their mutual interest or if they feel some sort of kinship.
Hate 2.0 
You must be logged in to post a comment.