No longer a Stalinist, am I?
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Edward S. May, Baron Bodissey as he calls himself, over at Gates of Vienna, has now followed up on his post claiming that I am a Stalinist. For those who are interested: He allegedly âfiskedâ my claim that Peder (Fjordman) Jensen espouses a fascist ideology, a âfiskingâ which mostly consisted of claiming that I am a Stalinist, and that my claim was unfounded.
Sadly for the Baron, I actually read his blogpost, and I have even read most of Fjordmanâs writings and compared them with a scholarly definition of fascism, that of Roger Griffin. And thus his âfiskingâ fell woefully short.
The follow-up post is not written by the Right Honourable Lord himself, but by one of his friends, who claims that I have chosen Roger Griffinâs definition because, and I quote, âit fits his purposesâ. A tacit admission, of course, that I am entirely right. Fjordmanâs writings does place him squarely within the definition of fascism proposed by Griffin, who is - incidentally - not a Stalinist, but a political theorist at Oxford Brookes University, and one of the leading scholars within fascism studies.
And then, of course, the problem is no longer that - to quote the Right Honourable Lordâs original post - I cannot âjustify [my] assertionâ; the problem lies in the definition. Elegant.
To be honest, however, this is a much more interesting discussion than my alleged Stalinism, and I will gladly admit that Roger Griffinâs definition of fascism does fit my purposes. However, while the Baron and his minions surely believes otherwise, my purpose has little to do with Peder (Fjordman) Jensen. This should be rather obvious, since one does not have to realize that Jensen is espousing fascist ideas to realize that his ideas, which I have exposed many times, are both utterly disgusting, based on conspiracy thinking, anti-Western in their very nature and indeed promoting a dangerous Utopian world-view; a world-view where millions of people currently residing in Europe (many of them with roots going back hundreds of years) must somehow be removed to achieve Fjordmanâs goal of âlarge territories specifically dedicated for people who are overwhelmingly of demographic European stockâ, something which - â[i]n those cases where this has been lost it needs to be reestablishedâ.
One does not have to identify Jensen as a fascist to realize that his claim that âWestern leadersâ are âconducting demographic and judicial warfare against the white majority populationâ, all of it âin order to break them down, all to the benefit of an authoritarian, post-democratic world order with themselves at the topâ is an idea which may very well lead someone to pick up a gun and attack those who are allegedly to be blamed for âthe largest betrayal throughout world historyâ. If we are merely to evaluate Fjordmanâs idea that feminism - or, in fact, increased equality between men and women - have somehow weakened the defense mechanismâs of a European âtribeâ, we do not need to know whether he is a fascist or not.
So, why do I use Griffinâs definition? Well, to quote âThe fascism readerâ, edited by Aristotle A. Kallis; a decent introductory book published on the rather non-Stalinist publishin house Routledge, I use it because Griffinâs work is âthe most conceptually sophisticated and methodologically consistent attempt to devise a model for accomodating generic fascismâ, and because his definition - unlike for instance the definition of Ernst Nolte - âextends the chronological and geographical scope of the âtermâ to the post-1945 period and to other continents besides Europeâ.
Or, to quote Griffin himself, I use it because the term fascism has undergone an âunacceptable loss of precisionâ, and Griffinâs definition is infinitely more precise than the slurs of the hard left or - for that matter - of Johan Goldberg. That is, I do not use Griffinâs definition because it includes Peder (Fjordman) Jensen, I use it because it - unlike the slurs of the far left - excludes nationalist, right-wing political parties which are obviously not fascist, such as the Norwegian Fremskrittspartiet or the Flemish Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie.
Importantly, and unlike some understandings - such as the one proposed by Gilbert Allardyce, which reduces fascism to a purely Italian movement (not even an ideology) active in a short period of time - Griffinâs definition will not leave us with the false impression that fascism somehow magically vanished after Mussolini was executed or after Hitler committed suicide.
As I have pointed out in a recent article in Dagbladet, as well as in my book âDet mĂ¸rke nettetâ [The Dark Web], I consider that idea seriously misguided. Consider, for instance, the fact that the Swedish politician Per Engdahl, an open supporter of both Mussolini and Hitler, played a central role in establishing the socalled European Social Movement - a âblack internationalâ - in 1951. Consider, for that matter, that one of his allies in this endeavour was Maurice Bardeche, a former writer in the collaborationist French newspaper Je Suis Partout, a Holocaust denialist, a self-declared fascist writer (per 1961) and a lifelong friend - also ideologically - of Karel Dillen. Consider, if you are not tired by now, that the very same Dillen were one of the cofounders of Vlaams Blok, later Vlaams Belang, a party so strongly supported by Peder (Fjordman) Jensen. And, indeed, by the Baron himself.
Although the Baron probably would not like me bringing it up again, Dillen was hardly alone, as I have pointed out in a large number of articles (see for instance: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Now, I understand if the Right Honourable Lord has never bothered to actually read these articles - they might shake his world-view, after all - and at least he has never bothered trying to refute them, instead spending his time on tarring me as a hard leftist. Ah, the beauty of the counterjihadist blogosphere, so full of projections.
And here we are: Griffinâs definition does suit my purposes, as it is a valuable tool when one wants to track the continuation and development of fascist ideology post-WWII, and as it is equally valuable in avoiding the stupid slurs of fascism against anyone and anything one does not like, such as - for instance - the term âIslamofascismâ so heartily embraced by the Baron himself (to be sure, there are fascists in the Muslim world, but not every disgusting, totalitarian ideology can simply be reduced to being fascism; and salafi-jihadism, with itsâ mostly anti-nationalist focus, surely can not). And yes, the definition also leads one to conclude that Peder (Fjordman) Jensen espouses a fascist ideology. After all, if you look like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like a duck, hang out with ducks and - on top of it all - fit a very solid scholarly definition of a duck, chances are pretty decent that you are a duck.