- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

Jason Stanley’s How Fascism Works

[1]6,325 words

Jason Stanley
How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them
New York: Random House, 2018

Jason Stanley, a Jew who is a professor of philosophy at Yale, has recently published a book in which he seeks to explain how fascism takes root in society. With the conceptual complexity and intellectual depth of an MSNBC talk show, the author finds that–surprise!–the precursors to fascism are to be found everywhere in Trump’s America, and–surprise!–they are the same things that Jews have been saying about fascism (real and imagined) for about a century.

It is quite obvious that this book was written specifically for the moderately literate pussy-hat and male feminist crowd, and so the author kept it simple out of necessity. On one hand, the reader is almost embarrassed for him, because this simplicity leaves his banal arguments and blindingly obvious deceptions nowhere to hide; on the other hand, it is helpful because it strips bare the actual beliefs of Leftist academics. Free of jargon and Continental affectations, the obvious anti-white hatred upon which their worldview is based is clear.

It would be easy to read this book and declare it stupid and dismissible, but that would be a grave mistake. Yale professors, whatever their moral worth, however much they lie, are not stupid people. Every word in this book is deliberately placed in order to elicit a reaction in the reader, in order to push him down a particular emotional and intellectual path carefully designed by the author in accordance with his own racial goals. There can be no doubt that Stanley is fully aware that his arguments are weak, but he simply doesn’t care: the shekels will fill his bank account, the social validation will come, and his ignorant white readers will be a few steps further down the road to accepting their annihilation.

In typical fashion, the reader is first treated in the Introduction to the tale of Stanley’s father, who had to flee Germany in 1939 and who was allowed into the United States by charitable whites. The author credits this act of generosity to a “miracle” due to the relatively restrictive immigration policies at the time (he notes that “both nonwhites and Jews” [italics mine] were purposely kept out) (pp. xii-xiii). But, as seems to be the case with most non-whites who have been granted the privilege of residency in this country, instead of appreciation for white generosity, he feels nothing but bitterness toward the native stock. Because white Americans provided his father a new home away from the mess his people had created in Germany, whites must accept the world’s biological trash until they are a tiny, embattled minority in the land they carved out of nothingness.

For the author, “America First” and “Make America Great Again” are both terribly ominous slogans. He wants his readers to be afraid of these words. And he wouldn’t be a good Jew if he didn’t suggest that America was never great, and that those who suggest it be made great again should be interrogated about the specifics: he wonders, for example, if by “again” they mean the Jim Crow era (ouch!). This reviewer would suggest that, for the professor, a good answer to that question might be 1939, when America provided shelter to his father, who in turn thanked us in predictable fashion–by raising a subversive rat.

Before we get into the main points of the book, we must first understand his definition of fascism. Surely a book entitled How Fascism Works will provide a definition and a brief intellectual history of its subject before giving it a sound thrashing. Stanley writes:

I have chosen the label “fascism” for ultranationalism of some variety (ethnic, religious, cultural), with the nation represented in the person of an authoritarian leader who speaks on its behalf. As Donald Trump declared in his Republican National Convention speech in July 2016, “I am your voice” (p. xiv).

Oh. While not quite worthy of an intellectual, this definition is sure to be conveniently adaptable to the daily needs of the latest model of liberal–and of the Jew professor who needs to conflate the featherweight civic nationalism of Donald Trump with fascism.

Stanley begins his exploration of the operating principles of fascism in the first chapter, entitled “The Mythic Past,” in which he suggests that “fascist politics invokes a pure mythic past tragically destroyed” (p. 3) by “globalism, liberal cosmopolitanism, and respect for ‘universal values’ such as equality” (p. 4). He notes that this mythic past is often centered around an idea of purity of some sort and is quick to add that such purity (racial, for example) was “generally based on fantasies” (p. 4). He is, of course, suggesting that because a particular country or region might not have been 100% racially or ethnically pure at all times throughout its history, it is “fascist” for the indigenous or majority population to even desire to remain a majority.

Borders have not been static throughout history and ethnic groups sometimes relocate; therefore, Somalis should be allowed to move to Minnesota (it should surprise no one that this is actually the logic behind much academic anti-nationalist literature). But this is indicative of the level of argumentation in this book. A history without clearly-defined borders and clearly documented genealogies going back two thousand years is no history at all, say the people who want to eradicate borders and believe that women can have penises.

A myth can be nothing but a lie to Stanley. His use of the word is not open to nuance, and so no one else’s is, either. When Mussolini spoke of subordinating everything to the myth, the author believes he was referring to chronological time, to a history falsified, like a Fascist CNN broadcast or New York Times article instead of as a spiritual understanding of the Fascist’s role in Italy’s rebirth, as a movement that would transcend time and history. He writes that “[t]he fascist mythic past exists to aid in changing the present” (p. 6), which is ultimately his attempt to create an emotional rift between his readership and their own histories. He wants them to fear the past as a primordial space bubbling with latent barbarism waiting to be unleashed. Perhaps Stanley knows of some political ideology that does not seek to change the present but, regardless, those italics sure make fascism seem scary. One imagines his readers dropping their books in horror upon realizing that Donald Trump wants to change things, too.

Stanley, like other Jews who have written on fascism, is also intrigued and worried by its possible connection to sex and gender roles. The fascist leader is analogous to the patriarch of the household which, without further explanation, is problematic because this means that inequality is present. One quickly realizes that reading this book is just like talking to a liberal: certain things are unacceptable, no evidence is needed to justify the claim of unacceptability, and that’s that. Stanley presents the “bad thing,” and provides a few examples meant to alarm the reader, but provides little else in the way of analysis. For example, the social conservatism of and traditional gender roles valued in Poland and Hungary are juxtaposed with Rwanda because, prior to the genocide of the Tutsis, the Hutus wrote about tribal intermarriage as being a pollution of the bloodline (p. 9). Opposing feminism leads to genocide, implies Stanley. But treating women as equals doesn’t strike the author as proper, either: he calls out Trump for making sexual comments about women. Although one must be careful not to show women too much respect, either, as we see from his reaction to Paul Ryan’s suggestion that “women are to be championed and revered, not objectified” (p. 10). He argues that both attitudes “reveal an underlying patriarchal ideology that is typical of much of U.S. Republican Party policy” (p. 10). What, then, might be Stanley’s goal? Simply, to get white men to say nothing at all because, ultimately, men as men are inherently fascist.

He ends the chapter by arguing that “[t]he strategic aim of these hierarchical constructions of history is to displace truth, and the invention of a glorious past includes the erasure of inconvenient realities . . . These invented histories also diminish or entirely extinguish the nation’s past sins” (p. 15). One would be hard-pressed to find a group of people more willing to deal with inconvenient realities–even at times paying with their lives, their social standing, their jobs, their personal relationships–than the people the author would call fascists. Nor is there a group of people who looks more closely, even relentlessly, at past national sins. Any objective observer who has spent time reading White Nationalist literature can attest to this. Stanley’s problem is that “fascist” critiques of history find “sin” in radically different places than standard liberal and Leftist critiques. As for erasing the past, perhaps he has not seen who has been tearing down monuments, changing street names, demanding the removal of artworks, and otherwise sanitizing and reshaping history. And a few paragraphs later, he has the nerve to write of Jean-Marie Le Pen and mention that he was convicted of Holocaust denial (p. 17). Is the criminalization of historical inquiry and debate not the ultimate form of historical erasure? With equal chutzpah, he quotes Marine Le Pen: “I don’t think France is responsible for the Vel’ d’ Hiv . . . I think that, generally speaking, if there are people responsible it’s those who were in power at the time. It’s not France” (p. 18). Immediately following this he writes: “In Germany, where laws prevent similar, public denials of the Holocaust . . .” (p. 18). Yes, that was Marine Le Pen denying the Holocaust, according to Stanley. But this comes from a man who writes that “[i]n the United States, the history of the South is continually mythologized to whitewash slavery” (p. 21), so we know that he is just an outright liar. Fittingly, the next chapter is entitled “Propaganda.”

He opens the chapter with this line, the smirk on his face almost visible from the page: “It’s hard to advance a policy that will harm a large group of people in straightforward terms” (p. 24). Fascists, he argues, conceal their political goals behind seemingly positive efforts like law and order, anti-corruption campaigns, and freedom of speech. Richard Nixon’s war on crime was really a war on blacks not because blacks commit more crime, but because Nixon hated blacks (pp. 24-25). Conservatives hated Barack Obama not because he was politically corrupt, but because he was racially corrupt (p. 27). Freedom of speech “opens the door for a demagogue to exploit the people’s need for a strongman; the strongman will use this freedom to prey on the people’s resentments and fears” (p. 33). He is adamant about restricting free speech, because the speech of fascists “destroys the possibility of, rather that facilitates, public discourse” (p. 35). Never mind that needs and fears are real whether they are convenient for everyone or not. Stanley is here providing cover for the entirety of the liberal, globalist establishment: one cannot complain about crime or one is a racist; one cannot complain about corruption or one is a fascist; and one cannot complain about anything at all in unapproved ways without justifiably being censored. His position is now becoming even more clear: he wants whites to simply shut up and accept the future Jews and the collaborator class have in store for us.

Chapter three, entitled “Anti-Intellectual,” contains the dull and debunked criticism of fascism as being by and for the uneducated. This notion is espoused because it is necessary for the establishment. If people were to realize that great minds were and are involved in Fascist, National Socialist, and every other form of Rightist (“fascist”) thought, they might actually start reading the literature. But let us for now just focus on Stanley’s hypocrisy. The man who spent much of chapter two arguing against free speech now writes that access to different perspectives is crucial to intelligent debate and, even more bizarrely, “[w]here speech is a right, propagandists cannot attack dissent head-on” (pp. 36-37). He continues: “Fascist politics seeks to undermine the credibility of institutions that harbor independent voices of dissent until they can be replaced by media and universities that reject those voices. One typical method is to level accusations of hypocrisy” (p. 38). To accuse liberals of hypocrisy is fascist as well. It therefore must be very fascist to point out that, at one point Stanley writes that “[i]n private workplaces in the United States, free speech is fantasy” (p. 41), after having written earlier that the National Football League players’ kneeling protests were “an exercise of First Amendment rights if ever there was one” (p. 34).

Those who reject the utility of programs such as gender studies are fascist as well. Even those who don’t want to eliminate such courses, but would suggest that universities merely expand their curriculum to include more than Leftist garbage, are fascist. He writes:

I do not need to have a colleague who defends the view that Jewish people are genetically predisposed to greed in order to justifiably reject such anti-Semitic nonsense. Nor is it even remotely plausible that adding such voices to the faculty lounge would aid arguments against such toxic ideologies. More likely, so doing would undermine intelligent debate by leading to breakdowns of communication and shouting matches (p. 47).

Beyond questions of who determines what is toxic and what is not, and who determines why gender studies is a valid field of study but Jewish subversion studies is not, it seems that Stanley is confessing to being emotionally unstable, and one must wonder whether students are safe in the philosophy department at Yale. This concern is heightened when later reading that he is bothered that Hungarian schools under Viktor Orbán encouraged “activities evocative of a glorious mythic Hungarian national past, such as horseback riding and the singing of Hungarian folk songs” (p. 50). Would a student find himself involved in a shouting match with the professor for asking him the wrong question, or perhaps for singing a Hungarian folk song in the quad?

Stanley is a modern, progressive man, though, and so in addition to gender studies, he also wants to defend science, which, for liberals, only means climate science and, within that category, only means one particular view of the matter. There is a fascist war on science, he argues, which is a part of the larger fascist war on expertise designed to stifle debate about important issues. Fascists, he states, “mock and sneer at robust and complex public debate about policy” in order “to eliminate its possibility” (p. 54). As usual, no actual evidence is provided, and ample evidence exists to the contrary (the list of fired and ostracized “fascist” scientists is very long), but nevertheless, he makes this claim unabashedly, although without this cunning technique, the book could not have been written. By valorizing expertise, he is, of course, also legitimizing his own positions by virtue of his credentials only. He knows that only average minds will be taken in by his nonsense, and by posing as an expert on fascism, he will allow these people to more easily justify retreating from the discomfort of actual thought through his sanctioning of the improper use of the word “fascism.”

Chapter four is called “Unreality.” In it, he suggests that fascist politics ignores reality entirely and “replace[s] truth with power” (p. 57), which enables the fascist to “destroy information spaces and break down reality” (p. 58). And here enters the concept of the conspiracy theory, a term used with abandon to discredit without discussion any claim that portrays the existing power structure or any of its components in an unfavorable light. As he did with Poland and Rwanda, he uses juxtaposition to manipulate his reader: right after discussing Pizzagate, birtherism, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, he brings up George Soros and the contention by those on the Right that he is behind many of the organizations that are currently destabilizing the West. Regardless of what one thinks about any of the former issues, the Soros issue is not up for debate. Soros-deniers are liars. But Stanley’s readers do not know this, nor will they be interested in fact-checking him: he states clearly that there is no evidence of this and that such statements are anti-Semitic. Questioning the motives of foreigners who meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations is fascist (with some obvious exceptions, presumably).

The idea of conspiracy theories brings him back to his fear of free speech and, ultimately, to the question of authenticity. He is terribly bothered that Donald Trump “openly flouted long-sacrosanct liberal norms” of political discourse, and yet was seen as the more authentic candidate in 2016 (p. 72). How was this possible? Stanley argues that American politicians have been so insincere and so hypocritical for so long that any politician who appears to speak honestly will receive support. Furthermore, in order to assure the voter that he is not being hypocritical, risky public statements such as those that Trump made on the campaign trail are used to “signal authenticity” (p. 75). This is the first and only interesting point that Stanley makes in the entire book, but he goes nowhere interesting with it. The idea that this authenticity could be legitimate, and that the concerns raised by “fascist” politicians could be valid, is not even considered. As a champion of democracy, he simply dismisses half the country. In the author’s America, everyone has a voice and everyone deserves a fair hearing except whites and the handful of others who voiced their opposition to the globalist steamroller by voting for Trump.

In chapter five, “Hierarchy,” Stanley informs his readers that liberal thinkers now (yes, only now) acknowledge that all humans are able to physically suffer, feel emotions, and express identity and empathy, but that fascists don’t believe this because they reject the “equality of respect presupposed by liberal democratic theory” due to their belief in hierarchy, which is a “mass delusion” (p. 79). It is a mass delusion that is found everywhere in human societies throughout history, but fascism “takes advantage” of this rather than simply acknowledges it as fact. Stanley notes that fascists often write of nature, which then leads him to the question of race science, which, because it is not climate science, is not real science. Stephen Pinker and Charles Murray come under attack for suggesting that there are racial differences: “[t]he concern about this kind of writing is that it presents those who seek a natural source for inequality as brave truth-seekers, driven by reason to reject the heart’s plea for equality” (p. 83). He notes, unsurprisingly, that this type of research “has proven to be suspect, at best” (p. 83). Of course, it has not, and those who engage in it are indeed brave truth-seekers, but Stanley’s only goal is to stop his readers from learning the truth about race and to help maintain–and, ideally, enhance–the mechanisms by which such men are silenced. Science ends where Stanley’s big heart of gold begins.

“Equality, according to the fascist,” he writes, “is the Trojan horse of liberalism” (p. 88). The equality proposed by Stanley is one in which white Americans’ interests are subordinate to foreign populations and foreign ideologies. That is not equality at all. Benito Mussolini wrote, “Fascism was not the protector of any one class, but a supreme regulator of the relations between all citizens of the state” and “the citizen is valuable because of his productivity, his work and his thought, and not merely because he is twenty-one years old and has the right to vote!”[1] [2] In only two short lines picked randomly from his autobiography, Mussolini demonstrated a deeper concern for actual equality than anything Stanley has hinted at so far. So, yes, Stanley’s equality is indeed a Trojan horse–but not for liberalism, exactly. He quotes Alfred Rosenberg, who explains it quite well: “it is well known that Jews of all kinds pretend to fight for freedom and peace day after day; their speakers drip with humanity and love for mankind, as long as Jewish interests are thereby promoted” (p. 88). One really does get the sense at times that Stanley is just mocking the reader and his goyishe Kopf. He is practically daring the reader to notice.

“Victimhood” is the title of chapter six, and in it, as one might guess, he rejects the notion that whites should be concerned about their rapidly diminishing numbers. But this demographic transformation has certainly prompted an increase in “fascism” and feelings of victimhood, and this is troubling to him. He charitably acknowledges that no majority groups want to be replaced, but sensing that he has left himself open to fascist attacks of hypocrisy, he quickly clarifies his position: non-white nationalism is good; white nationalism is bad. Zionism, Black Nationalism, the Mau Mau rebellion, and Gandhi’s version of Indian nationalism were responses to oppression, and were not opposed to equality, and thus were not fascist.

If Stanley were acting in good faith, it would be interesting to inquire as to what point he would consider White Nationalism acceptable: would whites have be to be reduced to a certain percentage of the population, or would a certain level of violence against them by non-whites have to be attained? Is it moral to try to prevent the destruction of white communities, or is it only moral to try to save what is left of the white population once their communities are already destroyed? For the author, legal discrimination against whites is perfectly acceptable: fascists “falsely [present] affirmative action as uncoupled from individual merit” and “recast advocates of affirmative action as pursuing their own race- or gender-based ‘nationalism’ to the detriment of hardworking white Americans, regardless of evidence” (p. 100). Falsely? Regardless of evidence? Show your work, professor.

The chapter ends with the claim that at the root of fascism is nationalism (p. 106). He turns again to Hungary. Orbán’s insistence that immigration of non-Christians into Hungary threatens to destroy its culture is apparently “irrational” (p. 107). For Stanley, this type of thinking has “all the elements of the victimology of fascist politics” (p. 107). But this is all he says about the matter. Is he aware of some method by which a country can accept large groups of foreigners and manage to maintain its culture, especially in today’s climate of minority empowerment and majority disempowerment (often legally sanctioned)? Is he aware of some method by which a country with a low native birth rate can accept large numbers of foreigners with high birth rates and maintain its racial and cultural homogeneity? Is he aware of some method by which ethnic Hungarians could become a minority in their own country without Hungary really existing as anything but a legal entity? Or is what Orbán stated entirely rational, and is it only that Stanley and other Jews simply feel threatened by such beliefs?

Chapter seven is entitled “Law and Order.” Here, Stanley seeks to show that fascists want to control crime–not because they hate being shot, robbed, raped, blown up, and mugged, but because they want “to divide citizens into two classes: those of the chosen nation, who are lawful by nature, and those who are not, who are inherently lawless” (p. 110). Fascists, he argues, are the reason whites view blacks in the United States as a threat to safety–(surprise!) in the same way National Socialists viewed Jews. He manages to plug his grandmother’s book about her life in Germany (she supposedly rescued Jews from concentration camps while disguised as a Nazi), while warning of the dangers of viewing groups of people as criminals (pp. 111-12).

In fact, he objects even to the use of the word criminal, especially Donald Trump’s use of the words “criminal alien,” because it “has a resonant meaning–people who by their nature are insensitive to society’s norms, drawn to violate the law by self-interest or malice” (p. 113). He continues: “Someone who runs to catch a bus is not thereby a runner; someone who commits a crime is not thereby a criminal. The word ‘criminal’ attributes a certain type of character to someone” (p. 113). This would be an excellent point if it weren’t spectacularly and obviously wrong: someone who runs to catch a bus is a runner and someone who commits a crime is a criminal. There are different levels of severity to crime, just as there are different styles of running (a short jog to the car on a rainy day versus a marathon), but engaging in either act causes one to rightly be labeled as someone who has engaged in that act. Stanley’s only goal with this Talmudic logic is to make the criticism of black and immigrant crime “fascist.”

After raising objections to the characterizations of the various riots revolving around Black Lives Matter as riots, he dares to enter the world of crime statistics. He informs his readers that there are more blacks in American prisons than whites, even though they only make up 13% of the population, and suggests that anyone who still thinks that the legal system is color-blind must also believe that “black Americans are among the most dangerous groups in the multi-thousand-year history of human civilization” (p. 118). Of course, this is probably true. Regardless, they are incredibly dangerous now, and we have overwhelming evidence showing this. And not just in America. The same is true for black populations across the globe.

Stanley goes on and on for pages about the American legacy of linking blacks to criminality as if this is somehow a fascist conspiracy instead of lived experience combined with empirical data. He also mentions that whites are more sympathetic to white criminals and want harsher sentences for black criminals, which is an arguably rational position considering rampant black criminality and low white criminality, black public behavior versus white public behavior, and so on. But even if rational, this conclusion seems suspect (no citation is provided for his assertion). Most whites value blind justice and wouldn’t hesitate to punish a wrongdoer of their own race to the fullest extent of the law–a quality decidedly not found among blacks, as numerous criminal trials of black criminals with heavily black juries have demonstrated.

Sex, gender, and patriarchy return in chapter eight, entitled “Sexual Anxiety.” Fascists, we are informed, “[sexualize] the threat of the other” (p. 127). Opposition to race-mixing and rape are indicative, according to Stanley, of the fascist’s fear of an undermined patriarchy (pp. 127-28). Just as Germans were horrified by reports of black soldiers raping German women in the occupied Rhineland, which the author calls a myth, the white fear of black rapists in America is an invention, he claims, based on a desire by the Ku Klux Klan to terrorize the black community. He quotes Angela Davis: “In the history of the United States, the fraudulent rape charge stands out as one of the most formidable artifices invented by racism” (p. 129). In both cases, the author adds, whites blamed Jews for encouraging this type of black behavior.

But we know that blacks actually do engage in a substantial degree of rape, including interracial rape, and that there is almost no white-on-black rape. This is not at all a fraudulent claim. As for Jews being responsible, there is certainly a case to be made that they are, but that is well beyond the scope of this review. It is worth noting, however, that Stanley, a Jew, is engaged right here in black rape denial, a position that contradicts all available evidence and could potentially put his readers–and students–at risk by giving them a false picture of reality.

It should be noted also that there is no mention of the #MeToo movement in this recently-published book, and so one can only guess whether he “believes all women” or not. Also worth noting is that he actually calls rapes by Middle Eastern immigrants in Europe “fake news” (p. 134) and thinks that the increase in “rhetorical attacks on trans women” is a result of fascists, and not trans women themselves, as if prior to the recent transgender propaganda blitzkrieg, anyone, fascist or otherwise, thought much about these ill individuals at all (p. 136).

According to Stanley, sexual anxiety (it is important to remember that he is mostly referring to the desire to prevent rape) is used by fascists to erode freedom and equality. In order to capitalize on this fear of violence, politicians must turn their attention towards the source of the violence, which, he admits, is cosmopolitan urban centers (p. 139). Who lives in such places, professor?

Chapter nine is entitled “Sodom and Gomorrah.” He begins with Adolf Hitler’s observations of Vienna as a discordant mixture of ethnicities (how quaint in retrospect) and transitions into the claim that Jews run Hollywood, which is dismissed in direct contradiction of the entirety of the history of the Los Angeles film and entertainment industry, and then finally gets to his target, Donald Trump.

When Trump spoke on the campaign trail about the state of black communities and urban life as being dangerous, he was echoing Hitler by demonizing urban life and romanticizing the purity of the countryside. For Stanley, facts do not matter. Camden, St. Louis, and Oakland are only plagued by language. This might come as a shock even to the non-white residents of these cities, but the author, a resident of New Haven, Connecticut, is not really concerned with them, either.

His concern here is for the growth of racial clutter only, which always benefits diaspora Jews. He quotes the Jew and historian Richard Grunberger on life in pre-war Germany: “Country areas generally tended to be more anti-Semitic than urban ones” (p. 151). He then writes, “In fascist politics, everyone in the chosen nation shares a religion and a way of life, a set of customs. The diversity, with its concomitant tolerance of difference, in large urban centers is therefore a threat to fascist ideology” (p. 151).

So, whereas no reasonable person could argue that Trump’s comments about urban life resemble anything close to the characterization described by the author, Stanley’s own comments fit a reverse of his formula quite well: he is demonizing the country and romanticizing cities as wonderlands of inclusion and morality. Additionally, fascist critiques of city life involve the disconnect between man and nature which is precisely that space of society in which the Jew thrives: the middleman, the non-producer, the usurer, the professional critic. Stanley ends the chapter by quoting from an unnamed text, presumably from a National Socialist publication, which describes this phenomenon–“Jews are not seen in the occupations of factory worker, bricklayer, blacksmith, locksmith, miner, farmer, plasterer . . .” (p. 155)–but he expands its meaning to include all non-whites so he can begin his next chapter, “Arbeit Macht Frei,” in which he suggests to his readers that fascists hate the working class, particularly non-whites.

Stanley begins this chapter by discussing Jews once again. For a man so committed to racial diversity, he really is concerned with the history of one particular racial group. Specifically, he mentions a Washington Post article in which it is claimed that Trump supporters who received FEMA aid after Hurricane Harvey did not think that Puerto Ricans should be given the same degree of federal aid following Hurricane Maria. Though this is doubtful based on the source alone, there are perfectly reasonable arguments to be made in defense of such an opinion.

Like clockwork, this particular article reminds the author of National Socialists who had the gall to believe that Jews were different from Germans. He writes, “In fascist ideology, in times of crisis and need, the state reserves support for members of the chosen nation, for ‘us’ and not ‘them.’ The justification is invariably because ‘they’ are lazy, lack a worth ethic, and cannot be trusted with state funds and because ‘they’ are criminal . . . “ (p. 157). As usual, he never mentions whether or not the justification is true, only that it is the justification.

This type of thinking, he suggests, is also used by fascists in discussions of welfare, which he is happy to remind his readers mostly benefits whites (yet another elite who counts on his readers’ ignorance of the concept of per capita). “Traumatized, penniless refugees,” he argues, who are subjected to “brutal treatment” when they cross borders, are easily characterized by fascists as lazy and criminal, and thus fascist statements about their laziness and criminality seem “more plausible,” which then serve as a “prelude to ethnic cleansing or genocide” (pp. 161-62).

The admission that some of these immigrants are indeed committing crimes will be controversial in his social circles, and will likely not make it into the second edition. No mention is made of the trauma inflicted upon native populations by the presence of the immigrants, either short-term or long-term, nor what criteria are used in his determination of refugee status. Nor is any mention made of the extent to which his belief system is intertwined with foreign policies that produce the vast majority of whatever legitimate refugees can be counted among the hordes of grifters. And, most obviously, the sole necessary condition of all genocides is the presence of two or more competing groups in the same territory, and so anyone concerned with preventing such atrocities would logically seek to minimize racial and ethnic diversity, not maximize it. And yet Stanley wants to keep moving these poor, traumatized, and penniless refugees into places filled with fascists who want to exterminate them. How very strange.

As part of the fascist effort to depict the “other” as a lazy criminal in order to justify his extermination, blacks get imprisoned more than whites. Though he offers his readers no crime statistics or recidivism rates, he does provide data regarding job interviews that suggest blacks get fewer callbacks than whites ,which proves not that whites have powers of observation, are able to recognize patterns, and have had a lot of negative interactions with black people throughout their lives, but that they don’t like the color of Negro skin. Hiring John instead of JaMarcus is fascist.

Fascists also want to destroy “unity and empathy along class lines, exemplified in labor unions” (p. 170). He writes that fascists believe that “unions must be smashed so that individual laborers are left to fend for themselves on the sea of global capitalism, ready to become dependent instead on a party or leader” (p. 171). Also: “In the United States, racial division has always countered the unifying force of the labor movement which historically has threatened the owners of corporations, factories, and those with substantial investments in them” (p. 173). This is pure fiction designed to instill an aura of meaning to the “resistance” of which his readers believe themselves to be a part. To the extent that class is rejected as a category of analysis by the Right, it is done so because it deliberately undermines unity and empathy, and is invariably used as little more than a tool against whites (and other majority populations who have powerful, subversive racial or political minorities in their midst). As for fascists wanting laborers to fend for themselves on the sea of global capitalism, this can only be one of his little, smirking troll comments. The people he refers to as fascists are the only ones today who are offering any opposition whatsoever to global capitalism. Only a few pages prior, the author had been advocating the importation of large numbers of low-skilled laborers as if he were a new breed of Pinkerton. And it hardly needs to be pointed out that the labor movement in the United States was never race-blind. Stanley must be very confident in his readers’ ignorance of, for example, the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Human institutions, he notes, are imperfect, and tensions are inevitable. The problem of fascism, he argues, is that is seeks to eliminate the sources of those tensions instead of . . . instead of what? Why choose to manage a painful disease when there is a cure available? Because one group of powerful people has a lot of capital invested in disease management. The book is a plea to his readers to reject–without any contemplation of the consequences–their natural human instincts towards in-group cohesion, desire for social order, respect for traditional family structures, concerns for physical safety, comfort in voicing honest opinions, any basic understanding of labor markets, and even the street smarts they developed over the course of their lives. But he cannot come right out and say these things, although he spends most of the book coming very close to it. Instead, he urges his readers to:

go global and expand [their] understanding of “us” by wandering the world and appreciating its cultures and wonders, considering both the people living in the refugee camps of the world and the residents of small towns in Iowa to be [their] neighbors, while maintaining a connection with [their] own local traditions and duties (p. 184).

After having demonized the traditions and the people of the small towns of Iowa since page one, all of a sudden Stanley wants his readers to appreciate them. But, of course, he doesn’t really mean this at all. He is just wrapping up the book and doing his part to destroy the last traces of a cohesive white racial identity while appearing to be virtuous, compassionate, and humane.

There is not a single serious argument in this book. It is a collection of simple assertions surrounded by lies and ornamental absurdities, and yet it is a serious book because it will be taken seriously by the white victims of Stanley’s tribe’s swill who do not know any better. For him, a fascist is just a white person who doesn’t hate himself. This book is about silencing whites and ensuring the continuation of America as the largest outpost of international Jewry, a land to be used and abused at will with no regard for those who have nowhere else to go if it falls apart.


[1] [3] Benito Mussolini, My Rise and Fall (New York: Da Capo, 1998), pp. 280-81.