The Fascist

The struggle against 'fascism' - usually just perceived - which takes on a specialised form, is an exclusive preserve of liberalism.

Mainstream capitalist ideology is responsible for and compatible with a high degree of anti-fascism. This has very little to do with 'fascism,' that might not even be present, and more to do with the role of fascism in the self-vindicating mythology of modern liberal democracy.

It belongs to liberalism, or that part of capitalism which merely wishes for 'class-collaborationism' and to safeguard capitalism by ensuring mutual consent of its members. It necessarily serves to 'dilute' or oppose radical political trends that partake of it, or dilute the 'negativity' and 'hate' in a movement, such as to preserve the given social coherence. Positive sentiment and relations are encouraged in the present, a barricade against radical opposition to the present system of relations. Hence, if the movement against 'fascism ' is to be characterised, it is in these terms. However, it can often merely chase shadows, as, like a capitalist corporation that is forced relentlessly to produce new content even without a spur, it tends to 'manufacture' fascism even when it isn't there in order to maintain its empty sense of relevance and urgency. This is because it is selling a product, one that aims to dilute or undermine radical opposition to the system and which hence has to be kept going compulsively after some perceived 'fascism.' Nonetheless, this merely furthers its liberal nature, and gives it no other real basis.

In any case, what about 'fascist' movements? Fascism was not always a simply 'racist' movement. 'Racism' at the time characterised many nations. Further, the desire for a 'racial' nation is not one unique to whites - it is also a property of Judaism, known also for its racial warfare and belief in a 'chosen people,' and exists in many forms. Hence, racial nationalism is not by itself fascist. Fascism is an ill-defined term in some ways restricted to a 'concrete movement' or period, and hence is often reduced to something simplistic like 'racism.' It would be difficult to have a coherent movement against it. 'Anti-fascism' lives on because the capitalist establishment has declared Nazism the ultimate embodiment of its own fears, and so-called 'revolutionaries' have risen to the task of opposing what the system tells them is most evil. Of course, the system also considers revolution to be evil - but then, modern anarcho-communists don't really care about revolution, so long as transsexual people are given the appropriate gender pronoun and nobody seriously criticises Israel.

However, the spectre of 'fascism' nonetheless represents a force resistant to 'liberal democracy' and 'anarcho-communism,' a vision of nation with a sense of direction that unifies it. If one makes a dichotomy of anarchist and 'non-socialist' fascist, there is no room left for the Marxist or for socialism; the socialist aim of a guided society is wholly attributed to the 'non-socialist' fascist, or in any case is ignored structurally. Hence, such 'anarchism' is highly reactionary, in the end, and it is ultimately just a variant of liberalism. The more that liberalism is allowed to proclaim its ultimate emptiness and lack of direction as if this is substantial and benevolent, the more is conceded. The leftist panic over Trump, to which the obvious corollary was supporting Clinton, is one example of 'anti-fascist' panic being obviously used to undermine radicals and incorporate them into liberalism. Nonetheless, fascism is mainstream capitalism's very own vision of the devil, and opposition to it is nothing notably striking - further, this opposition generally cites the same reasons as the capitalist establishment. Mainstream capitalism is responsible for and compatible with a high degree of anti-fascism. This has very little to do with 'fascism,' that might not even be present, and more to do with the role of fascism in the self-vindicating mythology of modern liberal democracy.

Hence, caution is advised around this subject, for, 'the worst product of fascism is anti-fascism.'

A Poem

What lies within

In the wren-like standing grass
where light gathers slowly,
the flowers watch us walk past,
passing quietly.
Your sigh says we rest,
and we sit restlessly,
watching the flowers softly wave
past, the distant trees lapping quietly:
echoing the light.
As we watch, your shadow in light
takes on the shades of evening,
as you lean like a flower.
The path leads like a stem.

On a recently-troubled website

Wanderer Astray

The field in sunlight
whitely embroidered
with flowers,

the field abandoned
shining alone,

guarded by light like fire,
circling in fearsome angelic halo.

The field in celebration,
like a white widow
screaming alone:

The field in sunlight,
whitely embroidered
with flowers.

Real News

Death is all that is real.

The Novel: Some pointers

1. Do not attempt to deal with politics, explicitly. Novels have only the illusion of politics. Their 'people' and 'nations' are merely authorial whim, pretending to be otherwise and hence engaging in illusions.

2. The novelist should always reduce 'situations' to poetry, or diverge from the historical and so on. A great novel will do this on its own momentum.

3. The novelist, qua novelist, does not have people, etc., in their book. They hence should not make points about people, in a psychological sense or such. How much this is a problem varies. In any case, the 'psychological' novel is a fraud.

4. The novel cannot summon up any beings, or things. Yet it must. Hence, it is a problematic form.

5. As we have noted, the historical novel is a forgery. The novelist does not, by virtue of merely being such, have exclusive power over a given historical period. The novel cannot, therefore, be 'historical' without undervaluing itself.

6. The novelist, if a 'character' in a novel, would be positing themselves as a non-entity. This is hence empty. Novels should not have an 'authorial voice.'

7. Hence, novels should not start. If they do, they must seek to approximate the 'poetic,' or reduce their figures to merely means of poetic expression. The historical or 'exact' must be anathema and ostracised.

8. The summary of most novels is ultimately a false realisation.

The Law

When people are involved in a capitalistic economy, they should never be expected to be generous to others while the others are engaging in economic activity.

In general, struggle against prominent people is not something that capitalism's economy can fully discourage. It is encouraged. If the opposite is to be primary, it is not only to substitute an imagined economy for the real one, but also must accompany some forgery in the economy. It is to have the image or airs of these people, without any actual need for such people. Indeed, capital sets all people a given task, there is no reason why any should 'succeed.' To posit capitalists a priori as a part of the economy, is to have a fictitious economy.

The economic hence seems in some ways a treacherous terrain, and often reduces 'religions' and so on to subservience. They often veer into liberal or 'reformist' terrain, the most absurd element in capitalism and indeed fitting to them.

Regardless of building a church on a 'firm' foundation, it is important that such a formation toe the line of capitalism. If not, mutual animosity would harm and undermine a group foreign to it. Their unified 'cause' could not be maintained.

While people are in a capitalistic economy, they should not be expected to have any necessary pity for or aversion to others' death. Insofar as they are economic actors, this may benefit them in a competitive atmosphere of mutual animosity. Given the 'bellum omn

A capitalistic situation is averse to many. They will therefore stay at a slight distance from it. Hence, part of people's relation to capitalism is always imaginative. As Christian conservatism and liberalism can attest. This is also a part of capitalism. To relate in this manner is to vacillate, to claim to 'enter' and then immediately recant this for milder terrain when called upon. It is hence to 'enter,' or engage with, then vacillate to an opposite thing due to mildness. In the end, it is 'imaginative,' or strays from its apparent place so much that it is barely there. Nonetheless, this kind of activity is also a necessary part of 'capitalism.'

It cannot truly invalidate that which you have heard of old.

Reptilian Poetry

Prefect

Like the autumn season
the stars light us,
as we walk, alone,
apart,
and the stars will not guide us
together in their dark quiet.

The weeping willow
turns its face upwards
in the cold wind.

Mistflower

Lying in silence
as if to speak,
softly,
in some way.

Lying in silence,
as if to speak,
softly,
in some way.

Lying in silence,
as if to speak,
softly,
in some way.

Path

In the mist,
the wind blows softly as if listening,
the wind blows, though none
ask where.

Silene

Does it speak
if you do not?

Process

The morning star
whispers softly,
then fades out,
to nothing,

as the process of art
should.

Tail

Pretentiously (?), the tail
is left.

The reptile moves away,
you find this.

Like a starlit crucifix, like Rome in years BC,
the tail is left here,
quietly.