How to Fight New Fascism

The growth of the extreme right is something that should disturb any civilized society. Even before the terrible terrorist act in Christmas, New Zealand, there have been signs that racist extremists are becoming more active.

In the United Kingdom, 4 of the 18 terrorist attacks, prevented by intelligence agencies since March 2017, have come from far right. Though fortunately, extreme right is still a peripheral phenomenon, it is futile to deny that the influence of these groups is growing steadily.

Hence, it is sad when the debate over how this disturbing tendency should be best hit is reduced to ignoring or denying the phenomenon. It is often seen as a <x0-cyxident for the serious business of governance” (as a result of the restoration of tribal lines into politics) that have become known as “

This week, we saw David Lamita comparing the European Research Group with the Nazi party, or Chris Kayin calling to prevent participation in U representatives' television debates. KIP, and the newly created Brex party. It is clear that both of them do not have a clear understanding of what is actually the extreme right “, and their strategy only serves to create the kind of dissatisfaction on which the extreme right is based.

The debate over who was to blame after the massacre in Christchrich was similar. Australian Senator Frayzer Ening blamed Muslim immigration. A student in New York City told Chelsea Clinton that the attack was triggered by “people like you”. Some bookstores in New Zealand refused to sell the book of Jordan Peterson, “12 rules for life”, with the assumption that he had inspired the killer.

Although there may be no excuses for such divisive answers at an emotional time. Immediately after the attack, New Zealand Prime Minister Jakinda Ardern called for a joint global war against racism.

The appeal is undoubtedly commendable, but its government has begun to exercise a major censorship on the Internet, which extends to the debate over the killings. This constitutes a relief to the extreme right, which will no doubt exploit complaints of citizens who feel that their freedoms are being restricted.

The extreme right without advocates of free speech is thus able to denounce politicians' increasingly censorship tactics to expose them as martyrs. Those who are aiming to narrow the window of displaying acceptable thoughts, restricting freedom of speech as a tool to prevent “abnormalisation” and” legality” of some formats, are doing more harm than benefit.

But the cultural nature of this movement with the combination of total self-security, reluctance to debate, and belief among the most vocal supporters, that they represent the most discriminated against means that the momentum that has taken over today's extreme right will be difficult to contain.

Perhaps the most harmful aspect of today's activism on social justice is the militarized form of identity policy - a feature that is in common with the extreme right. In both camps, we've seen the promotion of the mentality “we vs Ata”, always favoured throughout history by those who wish to reduce complex situations to an easily chewing slogan by the masses.

Moreover, supporters of identity theory both on the left and on the right see human beings only through the prism of race, gender, or sexuality, and do not count the importance of the individual in the first place. As such, they are directly opposed to the principles of Martin Luther King, who valued the character content of someone's skin color.

While collective rhetoric from the extremist racial right, it is quite easy to dismiss, it becomes much harder when it comes from those who claim to advance a progressive agenda. The instinct to share the blame with anyone other than the author is understandable, but it actually comes only to ease his responsibility.

All of us are open to obedience and influence, and the effects of propaganda are well-documented, but we also have an individual autonomy, and we have to take responsibility for our elections. Clearly, extremism thrives in divided cultures.

Racism is according to its divisive definition, and its supporters are generally unsuitable to reason. Speaking as someone who is in favour of immigration, I was often shocked, when I discovered that those who support my arguments reject the valid concerns of their opponents just like “fascism”.

This approach is unlikely to persuade anyone to change their mind. We need to clarify these terms. Because using this wrong tactic, activists are operating as PR for the extreme right, able to seek a much larger degree of support than it should be in reality.

The best solution for cultural war would be to end the identity policy, and a non-party consensus on non-sponsibility of free speech, in any civilized democracy.

“Spectacular Review” World.al