I am not trying to start a blog war. Yes, I know that means I’ve lost some of the fire in the belly. But look you, I’m recovering from severe illness, and we’re probably looking at another move this year, plus there’s a bunch of family stuff going on and…. I’m swamped. Also judging from the tone of this article, it would amount to wrestling with a pig. You just get muddy and the pig — being a stupid animal — likes it.

Anyway, since I don’t want to start a blog war, I’m not going to link the offending article, (UPDATE: After sleeping I realized I can do this (derp) with archive link. So if you want to enjoy the nonsense in its full glory https://archive.is/DSSRB) just quote bits of it. However, I daresay if you wish to find it, you can search. I mean, it’s called: Five Ways Fascist Culture Appears in Our Stories. Do you know how fascists see the world?

I actually DO know how fascists see the world. Fascism, classically, is a form of national socialism that relies on “state capitalism.” Which is to say, it relies on the state controlling every commercial and industrial concern in the country for the state’s business. However, since no one has made much of a paen to fascism in the modern world, at least since the Portuguese ancien regime (notably called Estado Novo) stopped cribbing FDR’s speeches and notes, this post seemed a little odd. What were they doing, really? The closest thing to a fascist regime (please don’t remind me we have a bit of that state/industry thing going on please. It’s mostly “environmental” regulations.) in the modern world is the PRC. Were they going to do a tour of Chinese real-politik writing? Sounded interesting.

So, I clicked through. Almost right away, I got a feeling the person writing this might not know fascism from a hole in the ground.

To someone on the left, fascist culture may seem bizarre. Why do they keep supporting a man who has violated all of their moral rules? Fascists don’t view this situation like we do; they have cultural propaganda that repackages repugnant things as attractive. If we want to push back against these ideas rather than spread them, we need to know what they are.

Wait what? Is this person under the impression that people not on the left are … fascists? And then he alludes to crazy ass stuff that implies he’s talking about America. We’ll leave aside the fact that he apparently shoots PBS straight into his veins bypassing his brain, and ask what in the effing hell he thinks the American right — mostly leave-me-alone freedom lovers — has to do with fascists, but the ride gets more bizarre. So put on your helmets, buckle your seat belts, keep hands and feet inside this flaming handbasket to hell at all times, and for the love of heaven stop giggling. We’re not responsible for damage done to your psyche by encounters with a parallel — ahem — differently-logical reality.

But What Is Fascist Culture?

Before we dig in, let’s examine what we’re looking for on a more conceptual level. What do fascists believe? To answer this, I’ve consulted good ol’ Wikipedia and the work of late psychologist Bob Altemeyer.

Altemeyer studied authoritarians for about 60 years before his death in 2023. His 2006 book The Authoritarians* predicted the rise of a fascist authoritarian leader in the US. I also gleaned information from his more recent book, written with John W Dean: Authoritarian Nightmare: Trump and His Followers.

Face-paw. In which we learn the late psychologist Bob Altemeyer was tripping balls and took his Columbian marching powder with no cutting, straight up. Children, babies and short tailed marmots: if you’re living in a totalitarian nightmare, you’re not publishing cutsey books about the totalitarians. At least not in that country. So to the qualifications of the late Bob and the author of this article we must add: Completely virgin of any even vague nodding acquaintance with historical totalitarianism. Or perhaps more germane: busy posturing for an audience even more clueless than they are, and capable of smarmy and bottomless self-delusion.

Blah blah blah about a group of “Trump followers” who are called “social dominators” (rolls eyes) who have made a conscious choice to work against equality and embrace bigotry. No support for how anyone on the right side of the aisle is actually a bigot or against equality (before the law) but I guess when you’re speaking to delusional ignoramuses, you can just make sh*t up. And they’ve been making sh*t up by the bucketful in the social “sciences” since Margaret Meade was hoaxed by a bunch of teens.

Then we get to the good part, where he examines the intellectual characteristics of what he thinks is the majority on our side. Cough. A moment please while I fetch and excerpt. I am sure all of you who know me and have read me for years will look at these characteristics and…. I won’t spoil it for you. Here:

Submissiveness towards authority. RWAs believe it is a moral duty not just to obey, but also to respect leaders and authority figures that they believe are legitimate. Conversely, they are extremely lenient about the behavior of authorities, believing it is a leader’s right to break the rules.

Conventionalism and conformity. RWAs believe that conforming to traditional social norms is a moral imperative. They want everyone to be the same and do not see value in diversity, bucking trends, or free thinking.

Aggression toward non-conformists and outsiders. RWAs are driven by fear that others will cause the “proper” social order to break down, and this makes them xenophobic and aggressive. In particular, they like to punch down at people who break norms. However, RWAs will show higher aggression toward any group when it is encouraged by their leaders.

Stop laughing! I can’t hear myself thinking for your guffaws. Decorum in the pews.
Look, it’s absolutely hilarious, I get that, to hear someone from what has been not only the dominant, but the overwhelmingly dominant and controlling side of the aisle for the last 100 years imagining that anyone who disagrees with them, that is anyone who has gone against schooling, indoctrination, “expert opinion” the industrial information/entertainment complex, is the “conformist” who hates free thinking. As for the hostility against outsiders, we recommend this fine gentleman buy a mirror. And the soonest the best. And let’s not get into the whole submissiveness to leaders when it comes to a leader who was supposed to be “a kind of god.” PFUI.

I’m running incredibly long, so I’ll just quote the title of his “characteristics” of what I must presume he thinks is OUR fiction.
1. Glorifying Loyalty to an Alpha Male

I have no clue what he’s talking about. Is Alpha Male a furry thing? Anyway, judging by what has gone before, I’m going to assume in his conception an “alpha male” is any man who doesn’t need mommy to tie his shoes, isn’t rendered impotent by the thought that all penetration is violation. If that’s the case, I must admit I often have alpha males in my stories, both villains and protagonists. Even my men who are… ahem fond of the company of men tend to be indeed more than piles of goo in the fetal position on the floor. (Even those who logically should be.) As for glorifying loyalty? What???? Look, my characters PRIZE loyalty to those who deserve it. That can be yes, male leaders, but also female leaders and much more often the weaker people — male, female, alien, raccoons — under their protection. I don’t know what the hell “glorifying” is this context, but I can tell you I’d rather fight by the side of people who prize loyalty than beside weasels who’ll betray you for the next hotness in critical theory.

2. Villainizing Rabble-Rousers

All I have to say is, of course, anyone who has read my books knows I villanize the rabble rousers. In fact, I’m sorry to tell you this everyone in this blog who writes, both commenters and main writers are guilty of this.

This is absolutely true if by “Rabble rousers” this speshul flower means “people who bellyache, smarm and whine about how others are better off while doing nothing to improve or fix the problems.”

At this point one begins to wonder if this wise poster has ever read a book by one of the people he villifies and, shall we say, villanizes.

3. The Man Who Does What It Takes

In which I find out that MacGyver, Simon Templar, and in fact Gilgamesh were all characters in fascist literature.

I don’t feel like reading, much less transcribing the pseudo-intellectual drivel in packed under this heading, but seriously…

Again, face-paw. Let me explain, very carefully how fiction-for-entertainment (as opposed to fiction for preaching, which no one reads, but every politically correct person claims to have read) works: the reader likes reading about a character who can get out of difficult situations in ways the reader himself isn’t sure he could. It’s called a vicarious cathartic experience and also fun. I’m not going to explain the concept of fun, though I think the gentleman poster would do well to study it.

Oh this also makes Captain Kirk a fascist character, something that would shock the heck out Roddenberry.

4. Stranger Danger

The what? No seriously, what the actual, what? I don’t read much on the left. I used to. But I really haven’t since I’ve had a lot more of the indie stuff to read. And this rubric leaves me utterly confused.

Oh, wait, I do read some leftist stuff, mostly young chicks writing JAFF. They’re more likely to have “stranger danger” than anyone else, in that anyone who doesn’t fit the in group they’re portraying as good is bad-evil.

Most of the stuff I read does not portray people who are not in the in-group as dangerous or evil. And in fact, in science fiction, the stranger tends to be far more interesting.

5. Poor Representation

Yes, here he is absolutely correct. Most of us do not represent!

On the serious side, I have to confess that I don’t go out of my way to have one each of any race, ethnicity or other minority I can think of.
This is on account of the fact that, unlike fascists or other leftists, I don’t think of people — and most of my characters are people — as broad categories of groups. I don’t lay awake at night wondering if I have enough pacific islanders in my Regency England romance, for instance.

As for the future, I have serious doubts they will still consider the same categories as categories or obsess about current issues. (Particularly since most of those issues are being kept issues by ideologues mostly interested in power.)

I don’t talk a lot about what color each character is because that absolutely doesn’t matter to me.

You know who was race obsessed? Fascists.

On the other hand we’ve already established the poster is not really cognizant of history or philosophy or much of anything.

I am very disappointed to find this article twaddle wrapped in pretentious academic speech.

I would caution any of you to ignore this stuff and write about real people living in the real world and not the phantasmagoria conjured by the minds of those who live in such an ideologically sealed bubble that they have no idea what is going on in the minds — or books! — of those they would claim as opponents.

NOW: Remember this is a writer’s blog, so confine your discussion to the writerly aspects. If you wish to discuss politics, go to accordingtohoyt.com, where you can pound on the politics to your heart’s content.