The Cure for Fascism is Almost Always More Fascism

Accusing people of fascism seems to be all the rage nowadays.  A popular jingle puts it this way:

No Trump!  No K.K.K!  No fascist U.S.A!

Getting the meter right is a little tricky at first, but as this jingle is almost always a mob chant, newbies seldom have to go it alone.  If you try it at home, I suggest that it is most fun to really dig into the three K’s, so that they sound like the rat-tat-tat of a pistol firing, and then stress the first syllable of the word Fascist in what the poet Gerard Manley Hopkins called sprung rhythm.  Don’t repeat the rat-tat-tat effect with the U, S, and A., though, since this trips up the meter.

No Trump!  No K.K.K!  No fa-scist  U.-S.-A!

Moving from the sound to the sense of this chant, you can see it is an incantation that conjures up what Thomas Bertonneau (following Eric Voegelin) calls a gnostic “dreamworld,” or “second reality” (see here).  The first two lines are, more specifically, anathemas or death hexes.   Unless we read the first line as meaning “no (to) Trump”—which to my ear would scan better—we must read it as a hex that aims to abolish the reality of Trump and the Trump presidency.  As Voegelin explained, this sort of verbal “sorcery” is the means whereby the proponents of a gnostic second reality negate unwelcome facts in the “first,” which is to say actual, reality (see here).

We see the same negation of reality, and the same verbal conjuring of a dreamworld, in the popular slogan “Not My President.”  This can only be taken as an expression of what psychologists call “denial,” for outside of the gnostic dreamworld, Trump undoubtedly is the sloganeer’s President (unless he (the sloganeer) is an undocumented citizen, of course).  That this first line is an incantation of a dreamworld is also clear from the fact that a person who simply opposes Trump, but is determined to live in the world that actually exists, and in which Trump actually is president, could with the exact same meter chant “Trump Sucks!” or (if literary) “Fie Trump!”  or (if an elderly pop singer) “F*#@ Trump!”

A person who is simply unhappy with the reality that Trump is president is still living in reality; a person struggling to sustain the fantasy that Trump is somehow not really president, is living in a dreamworld.  The difference is like that between the man who wishes he were a woman, and is therefore unhappy that he is, in fact, a man, and the man who wishes he were a woman, and therefore falls into a dreamworld where he is, in the dream, a woman.

The second line of the chant also reflects a gnostic dreamworld, since there already is, in reality, no K.K.K.  This assertion is not disproven by the existence, here and there, of rag-tag covens that use the name and symbols of the Klan, because these rag-tag covens in no way constitute the fearsome “Invisible Empire” that the chant invokes in order to anathematize.  Nowadays the “Invisible Empire” of the K.K.K is, for all practical purposes, nothing but a boogyman in this gnostic dreamworld.    The irony is that these imaginary Klansmen of the gnostic dreamworld serve, like their corporeal, night-riding prototypes, as a means to frighten and control Blacks.  The old Klan was made up of men pretending to be ghosts.  The Klan of our day is made up of ghosts pretending to be men.


My real concern today is, however, the last two lines of the chant: “No fa-scist U.S.A.!”  This is of a piece with the overall incantation of a dreamworld, since Fascists (upper case) of the sort who roister and plot in the subterranean beerhalls of that dreamworld scarcely exist to roister and plot in the subterranean beerhalls of the world we actually inhabit. To the extent they do exist, it is in numbers so limited, and with intellects so modest, and with aspects so repulsive, as to pose no threat to the political order.

There are, however, in this and every other country, a great many potential fascists (lower case), by which I mean more or less normal people who would come to favor what might be called fascist policies under the right conditions.  In fact, I submit that almost all people have the potential to become this sort of conditional fascist, and that what we might call absolute Fascists are so rare as to be inconsiderable.

It is, I trust, sufficiently obvious that all humans do not possess the same level of tolerance for disorder, diversity, and novelty (DDN).  They are, instead, ranged on a scale, with those to the left side of the scale having relatively lower levels of tolerance for DDN, and those to the right side, relatively higher levels.  It is reasonable to suppose that populations show a normal distribution on this scale, with the extremists (i.e. absolutists) at both ends forming small minorities.  Now virtually everyone on this scale is a potential fascist, because almost everyone has some limit to their tolerance for DDN; and as a first approximation we may define a conditional fascist as a person whose tolerance for DDN has been exceeded.  Persons to the left side of the scale, who have the lowest tolerance for DDN, will be the first to complain about DDN, and therefore the first to be accused of fascism by those whose limit of tolerance has yet to be reached; but even these early complainers to the left side of the scale are conditional fascistsUnlike a communist, who advocates communist policies under all conditions, and who is therefore an absolutist, the conditional fascist supports fascist policies only when, and only so long as, such policies are necessary to return DDN to a tolerable level.

We can see the truth of this way of understanding fascism if we consider the casual and half-serious use of the word to describe a person who complains about some level of disorder in a house.  If this person complains about the endless pile of dirty dishes in the sink, or tacks up a scheduled rotation for cleaning the bathroom, his more relaxed housemates may very well grumble about his “fascism,” or call him a “nazi.”  What should be obvious is that this relatively fastidious person is not attempting to impose a new rule on the house, such as that everyone in it shall henceforth attend church every Sunday, but only to impose stricter enforcement of an existing rule.   Presumably everyone in the house agrees that there must be some level of order, but as their level of tolerance for disorder has yet to be reached, they as yet feel no need to call for stricter enforcement.  Presumably the “fascist” for neatness will himself tolerate some level of disorder, and would stop complaining and “bossing others around,” if only disorder were held below that level.  The “neatness nazi” of the house is, in other words, what I have called a conditional fascist.  His attitude towards housekeeping might be “liberal” under different conditions.

The same may be said of almost everyone who is nowadays branded with the label of “fascist.”  Very, very few of them are absolute Fascists who would seek to dominate other people under any conditions.  Almost all of them are simply people with a relatively low limit of tolerance for DDN.  And DDN is something for which very few if any people have limitless tolerance.  A man who opposes the novelty of same-sex marriage is not, for instance, opposed to all novelty.  The man who calls him a “fascist” for opposing the novelty of same-sex marriage is not himself (most probably) open to every imaginable novelty.  A man who believes that the population is growing “too diverse” is not thereby guilty of opposing any amount of diversity, but only the amount of diversity that has actually come to be.  The man who calls him a “fascist” for discomfort with the existing level of diversity almost certainly has his own limit to tolerance of diversity, whether or not he admits it.

Because there are very few if any people for whom there is no limit to the amount of DDN they will tolerate, almost everyone is a potential fascist, by which I mean a person who will support fascist policies under the right conditions.  Whether they are tipped into the “basket” of conditional fascist will depend on their perception of DDN.


With this normal distribution of tolerance for DDN in mind, we can see why a “fascist mood” can seem to “come from nowhere” and then appear to grow at an “alarming rate.”  As the perceived level of DDN increases, or slides rightwards across the normal distribution of tolerance for DDN, it converts potential fascists into conditional fascists at an exponential rate.  Until the level of DDN reaches the limit of tolerance of half the population, this means that each marginal increase in the number of conditional fascists will be larger than the previous marginal increase.

This model also helps us to understand why hysterical outcries against a “fa-cist U.S.A.” are likely counterproductive.  Such outcries mostly serve to raise consciousness of DDN, and therefore tip potential fascists on the margins into the “basket” of conditional fascists.  I would add that berating these conditional fascists as if they were the absolute Fascists of liberal nightmares most likely hardens those conditional fascists in the opinion that things are really getting out of hand.

Finally, this model shows why the cure for fascism is actually fascist policies that reduce the perceived level of DDN, and thereby reduce the number of people whose limit of tolerance for DDN has been exceeded.  When this occurs, conditional fascists on the margin revert back to merely potential fascists

Thus, the cure for fascism is almost always more fascism.


It may well be objected that there remains a higher fascism that cannot be reduced to the grumbling and political agitation of persons whose relatively low tolerance for DDN has been exceeded, and that the cure for this higher fascism is not more fascism.  I agree that there is a higher fascism, but believe that the cure may once again be more fascist policies.  Widespread alarm over DDN is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the appearance of this higher fascism.  But for this disquiet to coalesce into higher fascism, there must also be a perception that this DDN constitutes or contributes to an existential crisis for the society at large.  We may imagine a room in which the temperature is rising, and the occupants of which, one by one, join the party that is clamoring that the thermostat should be returned to a tolerable level.  This is a party of conditional thermostat fascists in the simple sense described above.  For this group to become a high fascist movement, they must begin to clamor that, failing the return of room temperature to a tolerable level, everyone in the room is going to die.

It is this sense of existential crisis that gives high fascist political movements their unique energy, ruthlessness, and attraction to the Führerprinzep.  This is evident in the way that the enemies of incipient high fascist political movements attempt to belittle the perception of existential crisis with mockery of “fear,” “scares,” “paranoia,” and “phobias.”  We can admit that such mockery is sometimes justified, and that existential crises are indeed sometimes “manufactured” by designing and unscrupulous men, but only if our interlocutors also admit that a society can enter upon a real existential crisis.  I submit that any healthy society (indeed any healthy social organization) that perceives itself to have entered upon an existential crisis will naturally take on a high fascist character, since a high fascist society is nothing more than a society on a war footing, a society organized to survive an existential crisis.

Consider a family relaxing at home on a Friday evening.  No one’s limit of tolerance for DDN has been exceeded (or at least not greatly exceeded).  There is no horrible music blasting from the children’s wing, no horrible boyfriend lounging on the sofa, and no horrible parlor games being proposed.  Within these limits the order is, we might say, liberal.  Family members are free to do more or less as they please: to ransack the refrigerator for snacks, to withdraw into a sulk, to provoke an argument, to taunt and tease.  None of these things threaten the existence of the family, and it is of the essence in relaxing at home on a Friday evening that more distant threats are, for the moment, forgotten.

Now imagine that this picture of tranquility is shattered by a home invasion—indeed a home invasion that is announced by a flaming Molotov cocktail crashing through the front window.  Suddenly there are armed men at the door, flames in the living room, and choking smoke throughout the house.  Suddenly there is an existential crisis.

If the family is to survive this crisis, it must immediately become a high fascist organization.  The father must, for instance, immediately assume dictatorial power and issue commands.  There is no time for polite requests in an existential crisis.  Should one of the children prove refractory—by, for instance, questioning why it is that he, rather than his sister, who must run and fetch a bucket of water—the father’s emergency powers would justify enforcement of the command with a ruthless blow.  Ruthless blows would be likewise justified to rouse any laggard child who continued to fiddle with her phone.   Such blows would be unnecessary in any functioning family, however, since a family that comes under attack naturally assumes a war footing and becomes a fascist family.

That this is the nature of high fascism should be obvious from the symbol of the fasces, from which the word fascism is derived.  The fasces is a symbol of unification in which sticks are bound round the handle of an ax to maximize the strength of that handle.  My imaginary family in its relaxed and liberal mode is like an an ax carelessly tossed on top of a pile of sticks, but that naturally binds itself together like a fasces under the stimulus of the existential crisis of the home invasion.  A society in a relaxed and liberal mode is like the family relaxing at home on a Friday evening—few members’ limits of tolerance for DDN have been exceeded, and everyone is more or less at liberty to do as he or she pleases, because there is no existential crisis.  If this society enters upon an existential crisis, however, it will (if functional) naturally bind itself like a fasces and take the form of a fascist society.


A society (or social organization) puts itself on a war footing by organizing itself around the single purpose of surviving the existential crisis, since failure in this single purpose would be failure in all subordinate purposes.  If we look at historical examples, we see that this organization often involves control over the financial and industrial sectors, control over the press, control over dissidents, and control over unassimilated minority populations.  These controls are often ruthless, and no doubt they are sometimes excessive, but it is not at all clear that they are altogether avoidable.  This is what people mean when they say liberalism is not a suicide pact.  If the existential crisis is, indeed, an existential crisis, and not a phony “panic” manufactured by unscrupulous and designing men, it would seem that there is only one way through it, and that is by the fascist road.


There are, so far as I can see, three basic arguments against a society passing through an existential crisis taking the fascist road.  The first is the argument of the absolute liberal who believes that a free or open society is always stronger than a fascist society, and that men should therefore resist their natural impulse to band together in the face of an existential crisis.  The absolute liberal holds that full parliamentary debate is always more effective than emergency executive powers, that public support for government policies is strengthened by a critical and dissenting press, that unharnessed free enterprise is the surest staff of public order, and that there is in the midst of society no “fifth column” that cannot be coopted by flattery, toleration, and good will.  He will almost certainly point to the outcome of the Second World War, omitting to mention that the Soviet Union had an extremely fascist character, and that the United States and Great Britain both became more fascist under duress.

The second argument is that of the conditional liberal who denies that the crisis is existential, who keeps denying that it is existential until it is too late, and who then rationalizes the disaster with evolutionary talk of “transformation” and “change.”

The third argument, which almost always comes disguised as the first or second argument, is that the society should be defeated by the existential crisis, and then swept from the earth in a tsunami of DDN.  Men who make the third argument against taking the fascist road are, needless to say, in complete agreement with everything I have written here.  That’s why they want to “smash fascism.”  That’s why there’s one chant in which bankers join with communists, and deviants join with the disaffected:

No Trump!  No K.K.K!  No fa-scist U.-S.-A!

24 thoughts on “The Cure for Fascism is Almost Always More Fascism

  1. Pingback: The Cure for Fascism is Almost Always more Fascism | @the_arv

  2. And of course the concept of DDN triggering fascism explains why it is the elites that catch it last. Since as their selfish policies create ever more Disorder Diversity and Novelty they retreat ever further from those consequences.

    • I think you are right about the elite’s ability to buffer itself, but would add that most elites are probably towards the right side of the DDN tolerance curve. They are less likely to have had bad experiences with DDN, and may well have become elite because they are natural risk takers.

      • True that. Though it’s hard for me to believe that elites like Disorder all that much. Liking Disorder seems to me something that people locked out of the current power structure like, because they can advance themselves in the chaos.

        Maybe having power & money allows them to separate the elements out for themselves… to have Diversity & Novelty while pushing the Disorder elsewhere. Like importing millions of foreigners to a country, but filtering only the smartest Diversity into their institutions to interact with. And eating at the Novel exotic restaurants.

        Meanwhile the native born rabble has to live with the Disorder the rest of the newcomers bring with them.

  3. Pingback: The Cure for Fascism is Almost Always more Fascism | Reaction Times

  4. PS this is an extremely powerful & explanatory article. A lot of things really clicked into place for me while reading (and re-reading) it.

  5. By my way of understanding (as I articulated in Thought Prison and Addicted to Distraction) – original fascism (including National Socialism) was secular anti-communism; modern ‘fascism’ is secular anti-New Leftism (aka ‘Political Correctness’ or the ideology of Social Justice Warriors – it deosn’t have an accepted name because it encompasses the whole of modern mainstream public discourse, wealth and power).

    Both original and modern fascisms are actually a type of Leftism because they are secular.

    That is why such discussions of politics as the above are so profoundly despair-inducing – because they see life as nothing but rival arrangements of power, economics, status etc. However these things are arranged, Life is seen as miserable, empty, purposeless – and politics merely a temporary fight over who gets to be a temporary ‘winner’ (in the end, everybody equally loses).

    Only if life is seen as *primarily* being a spiritual and religious matter, can Life be seen as anything more or better than this farmyard brawl.

    • I really don’t aim to induce despair, or nihilism, or the to encourage the view that men and women are nothing but swine fighting over a trough of swill. Cynicism is not the truth. But I do think the path to truth leads through cynicism. For instance, for me to appreciate my fellow men and women as being made in the image of God, I find I must first divest them of all the sentimental hokum they have been gifted since the eighteenth century, and see them as savage beasts. This is not the truth, but its on the way to the truth.

      More specifically, this article, like many I have published recently, is meant to express anger over the vilification of ordinary people. Ordinary people express anxiety over DDN, or over rapid “transformation” of their society, and some hired gun in the press or the government jumps on their throat.

      • I agree with you, Prof. Smith. You express it a lot better than I generally do in the article, but I have had this exact conversation many, many times with many, many people (inluding my wife and children) wherein I invariably point out that ‘everyone has his or her tolerance threshold.’ And by “everyone” I mean everyone. No exceptions.

      • Yes, and I’m tired of people who happen to have a somewhat higher tolerance limit turning that into a virtue and point of pride. The actual road of compassion would be to arrange the world in such a way that those with low tolerance could inhabit environments with low DDN, and not be called vile names for doing so. My wife is naturally cold and I am naturally warm (I’m talking physically; emotionally its reversed). What a blessing separate driver- and passenger-side temperature controls have been! She gets a warm place, I get a cool place, and neither of us think we are superior for preferring the temperature we do.

  6. From Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered (1931) by Oswald Mosley —

    “What about Freedom?”

    “At present the mass of people have no freedom. Under fascism for the first time they will have freedom. What is the use of a vote if the people never get what they vote for? How can they get what they vote for when only two big Bills can be carried through Parliament in a whole year on account of obstruction? The beginning of freedom for the people is that the programme for which they vote should be carried out. It cannot be carried out until the Government has the power to act. By giving the Government power to act, Fascism brings not the end of freedom but the beginning of freedom. Real freedom is economic freedom. Economic freedom cannot come until economic chaos ends; and it cannot end until a Government has the power to act.

    “Real freedom means good wages, short hours, security in employment, good houses, opportunity for leisure and recreation with family and friends. Modern science enables us to build such a civilization. It is not built, because Democracy prefers talk to action. We have to choose between the freedom of a few professional politicians to talk and the freedom of the people to live. In choosing the latter, Fascism makes freedom possible and releases the people from economic slavery riveted upon them by the Democracy of talk.”

    • I don’t believe that people are nowadays frustrated at the inaction of their governments. Rather it is that governments are doing far too much. People in the US seemed far more annoyed by what Obama did than what he didn’t do. Mosley was wrong. Freedom is much more likely to exist in the presence of a weak government.

      • I don’t think it is possible to talk about freedom without specifying its content. Freedom to do some particular thing always extinguishes the freedom to be free of that particular thing being done, and very often the freedom to do many other things. If one simply removes the power of the state, freedom of action simply passes to the powers that remain. Withdrawing police from the streets increases the freedom of criminals, and possibly of persons who are not bothered by criminals, but it doesn’t increase an abstraction called “freedom.” I think you are right to be wary of the power of the state, but simply reducing it does not solve the problem of power.

  7. J.M. — I’ve been thinking about the scansion of: “No Trump! No K.K.K! No fascist U.S.A!” And it won’t scan. I propose a scanning modification: “No to Trump! No K.K.K! No to fascist U.S.A!” This modification rolls from the tongue rhythm-wise much more smoothly than the limping original. (Italicized letters represent accent marks.)

    On another topic: I have come to the conclusion that freedom, whatever its content, might best be guarded by a minimal federal government that is, despite its minimal character, super-competent within that limitation. Trump seems to me to be imposing such a government. No one, I would wager, has accurately estimated the revolutionary nature of Trump’s victory, nor of his administration in practice. What to call it? Maybe “apolitical radicalism.”

    Call him a fascist, he won’t even frown.
    He’s taking back sovereignty from the top down.

    And the sovereignty of the republic is the guarantee of our rights.

    • No one, I would wager, has accurately estimated the revolutionary nature of Trump’s victory, nor of his administration in practice.

      Dr. Bertonneau, I personally wouldn’t have guessed it in a million years. It has been nice to see an authority, well, act like one. I mean, challenging (among other things) the constitutional legitimacy of automatic ‘birthright citizenship’ granted to American-born children of foreigners, aliens, or persons otherwise subject to a foreign jurisdiction?


  8. The sloppy meter of modern poetry has infected even tribal chants. Don’t people suppose that tribal chants are the source of poetry? If that is true, the pollution has somehow flowed upstream to foul the wellhead.

    I think incompetence in one’s proper sphere leads to mission creep. This is true of individuals and institutions, and may be relevant to what you’ve written about Upstate Consolation University. It seems to be the rule at the university, that a professor (or department) that can’t teach his (its) subject will start teaching something else. Maybe this also explains meter-less modern poetry!

    • I would scan the chant (and I, mercifully, haven’t heard it live) as:

      no TRUMP —
      no K K K,
      no FA —
      scist U S A

      where the stress is on individual capitalised letters, and on capitalised words or part-words. With that scansion, it functions as an effective street-marching chant. The triple stresses are quite effective with mobs.

      • Hearing it live (and loud) last December got me thinking about the meter. Not everyone in the may was, as they say, on the same page (so far as the meter was concerned), and it made the chant less menacing than it might have been. I expect we’ll see quite a bit of refinement in the years ahead.

  9. Lovely article, Professor Smith. I was briefly caught by my programmed response to the occurrence of “left” and “right” in the same sentence, before I visualised the graph you were describing.

  10. It’s actually rather amusing you’d compare the chanting to some kind of sorcery since the left post-Trump has now slipped into the delusion of thinking they live in the world of Harry Potter (no, that isn’t a joke. there are signs reading ‘Dumbledore would not allow this!’) ‘Gnostic Dreamworld’ definitely has to be entered into the Reactionary lexicon.

    By the way, my blog has moved to WordPress, so feel free to update the link in your blogroll when you get a moment. I can now be found at:

  11. The problem I find with using communism and facism originates in how they happen to be so easily used in a very loose interchangeable manner. Not only in politiciacal discourse but within historical discussions. I know the Nazi Party had socialist in its name even though Hitler and the communist Stalin almost annihilated each other. We should just save the file with certain discussions such as the ones pertaining to my post by just saying they fit into the labels of totalitarianism/ authoritarianism.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.