<nettime> Fascist "trolls," meta

As briefly as possible, responses to various threads/remarks bundled up below:

I've been on this list since, I think, 2003. This was the first time I've ever suggested someone be thrown off. As someone else noted, times have changed; but also, I can spot a fascist set of talking points because I've learned how to do that. It's a skill, learn it, it might save someone's life in a context where fascist trolling is also about inciting and legitimating violence against Jews, black people, women, transpeople, migrants. https://medium.com/@DeoTasDevil/the-rhetoric-tricks-traps-and-tactics-of-white-nationalism-b0bca3caeb84

I do not need to debate fascists to know that they exist, to understand how they think, or to fight their influence. Including them in online spaces has the effect of undermining the involvement of critical voices in those spaces.

I think it's an egotistical indulgence to believe one can "debunk" fascism. It isn't just an innocuous or discomforting idea in a "marketplace of ideas," but--as an idea regarding the purported fundamental inferiority of groups of people--an idea that pushes toward restructuring the space and terms of involvement in debate by destroying the assumption of equality.

This is the reason why antifascists have insisted on a policy of no-platforming. Not all trolls are fascists, but all fascists are trolls. Everyone lies, but fascists lie as a matter of course because it feeds their sense of supremacy. So, fascists will of course whisper in your ear about Marx, "identity politics," and "the white working class," as Bannon has done (this is playbook). They are all sleaze and bullshit, like Trump, even if it comes wrapped in faux-high theory to flatter the Nettime set. On the problem of dismissing fascists as just trolls: https://www.vox.com/2016/11/23/13659634/alt-right-trolling

I think anyone who invokes Marx's name in support of a 'class first' position is a charlatan. I am confident in saying this because I've done a lot of work to be able to say it with confidence. Put another way, I'm prepared to wager than of the 4k subscribers to this list, I've read more Marx more often over many years. Those who wave Marx's name over reactionary positions are performing a deference to a mystical patriarchal authority, while at the same treating Marx's writings with utter disdain. I have criticisms of Marx, sure, because I treat him as a writer, not a cult figure.

The practice of using black women as deflector shields to defend from possible criticism of racism and misogyny is a media strategy loved by the far Right. Ironically, it trades on the crudest kind of 'identity politics' by implying that if x (Candace Owens, whatever) hold a position then it could not possibly be racist or sexist. It's a version of "but I have a black female friend" defense. It is an ad hominem in reverse, not an argument about anything.

I wrote this some time ago on the media's fascination with Nazi profile pieces: https://s0metim3s.com/2017/12/05/arendt-banality-nazism/

This is a concise account of why you cannot "debunk" fascism:

https://lithub.com/fascism-is-not-an-idea-to-be-debated-its-a-set-of-actions-to-fight/

This is on fascist creeping, a handy term imo: https://truthout.org/articles/exposing-and-defeating-the-fascist-creep/

Another handy term is "red-brown," which refers to a reactionary impulse on what passes for the Left to align with fascists, and people who presumably think that this time around they won't be murdered in a Night of the Long Knives after they've served their purpose of consolidating support for fascism.

I wanted to just thank some people for weighing in with clear eyes: Alice Yang, Flick Harrison, Ana Ulin, Ian Alan Paul, Dan Wang, Alessandra Renzi, Sean Smith, Ryan Griffis, Julia Röder, David Garcia, Nina Temporär, Frank, bronac ferran. (I may have missed some people, too many threads etc, apologies if I have)

And, Ted, finally, thanks for moving on it.

best,

Angela