Okay, this is hilarious. A critical review of Dawkins’s latest book The Fascism Delusion. Why can’t he just accept that Fascism fills a deep-seated need in people?

Okay, it’s a bit mean too, but seriously, I hate this “counter” argument that we see to often:

… [Dawkins’s] sense of ‘Fascism’ is lamentably error-strewn. Dawkins has only a superficial knowledge of Mein Kampf, or the poetry of Marinetti; and he seems entirely ignorant of the much more subtle and intellectually stimulating work of Fascist philosophers such as Hermann Graf Keyserling, Alfred Baeumler, Martin Heidegger, Giovanni Gentile, Rafael Sánchez Mazas, Alain de Benoist and many others. Only somebody who has mastered the complete works of all these thinkers could even conceivably be in a position to advance an anti-Fascist argument. The lack of that necessary body of knowledge fatally undermines Dawkins’s right to attack Fascism in the first place.

Right from the get-go he makes the mistake of talking about ‘Fascism’ as if it were some unified quality. Of course the truth is that there are a great many varieties and flavours of Fascism. Do his generalisations refer to Italian Fascism? Hitlerian fascism? Islamofascism? Falangism? Crypto-Fascism? Brazilian Integralism? It is meaningless to extract an idealised, monolithic ‘fascism’ from this myriad patchwork of human practices, even for polemical purposes. Nor is it right to call Fascism ‘right-wing’ (what about the career of Otto Johann Maximilian Strasser?) or ‘militaristic’ (many Fascists are wholly peaceable).

If you reject the principle axiom, the rest of the deduced theorems are meaningless. The fact that there are so many sub-divisions in an ideology only demonstrates how deeply flawed the premise is – whether it’s communism, fascism, religion, or any other -ism. If it includes anything, it means nothing.

And please don’t cite the poets, the artists, and the “philosophers”. Long-winded nuance is stupid.