The Hard Way - and the Truth about Fascism

Fascism, or what I understand Fascism to be, is adverse to Gnosis. And if You were to try to envision a "Gnostic Fascist", You'd probably get a Hipster.
Someone who tries to appear 'Gnostic' (Enlightened, Friendly, Open-Minded, Compassionate, etc.) to the outside; But harbors an ideology that is innately antithetical to a proper proliferation of those terms; At least one that isn't merely the appearance thereof. In a weird way, it's "political correctness" taken to the extreme. The extreme of social decorum, appearances, loudmouthing, etc. - so much so that the act of producing the impression consumes the mental effort of everyone involved such that the actual political developments take a backseat and possibly regress.

Some try to argue, that Hitler was a leftist. And when confronted with the situation, that everyone on the left practically despises Hitler, while everyone on the right practically worships him, they'd probably say that "Yea, he did some good stuff and I'm not beyond admitting it"; Arguably taking the moral high-ground while doing so.
And sure enough, counter to the opening statement, is the idea that around some axis, Fascism and Gnosticism (or so: Theocracy) are identical. And while true - to some extent - the problem here is the flexible nature of the term 'Fascism' that in this case bends to "shed itself" from the accusations of being adverse to Gnosis; To then eventually loop back around as to establish itself as the dominant ideology.

Where Fascism intersects with Gnosis is around the etymology and the implied ideas. Fascism is derived from "Bundle of Sticks" (similar to the other Bundle of Sticks) and is to speak to a bond and togetherness. "Brotherhood" as it were. Or so: Any other "conspiratorial organization" would meet the same criteria. Any form of organized movement could be described in the same way; And when coupled with even an ounce of militancy one might call it 'Fascism'. Or "basically Fascism".
But this, I should say, is also as far as the similarities go. Beyond that we have a wide area of 'implicit truths' - such that when one ideology is in conflict with the other, there must inevitably be attempts to resolve the issues; Where the solutions would be expected to come from the dominant side; Regardless of either side trying to throw their own five cents into the pot.
That's not fascism, that's just the way of things.

One way in which Fascism is then different, is that it is virtually the one outlier that cannot play ball. Every other ideology (well, ignoring - for the time being - any active form of governance) will (maybe I'm overgeneralizing, but the facts of the matter remain) fit nicely into this process to be regarded by its own specified terms. Fascism will however always stick out because its demands are inherently totalitarian. It might try to dress up, wear a hat and "play by the rules" in appearance, but it does not win by providing reasonable arguments, but by accumulating a cultish following around an authoritarian idea.

The "Leader" of this - we might with some leeway say: invisible agenda - gets to dictate terms while the cult maintains an identity through the primal bonds that the ideology promotes; Which are generally forms of hate and fear. Whether the Leader ultimately holds the absolute authority in those terms or not is beside the point as they yet remain as the benefactor of a vastly self-regulating hate engine. Thus however the 'bridge' for open minded discussion is 'practically' non-existent as the entire ideology is by definition "sitting beyond the burned bridges" or is otherwise busy spiking them with Dynamite.


Any similarities between this and Gnosis; And I'm not entirely sure if I'm using the word properly here; Are 'apparitions'. Let's say ... "narrative apparitions". You might say that we too have a Leader and an interest in Unity ... "therefore Gatcha!". It does not change the fact that Fascism is a self-isolating ideology; That by virtue of that is effectively insulated from the discussion at large - and thus must insist on being given a podium to speak from; For it cannot exist as anything other than what it is at heart: A hate cult.

When not given that platform it will continue to remain "docile", until eventually the movement is large enough to then cry foul. At that point then the teeth start to show; And yet it will continue to develop as outside of "the general discussion"; Since within the general discussion they must be rightfully treated as a malignant outside influence.


However; By this definition it stands to reason, that anything that starts "Cultlike" and grows to enough prominence to have political influence is Fascism. Or at least "fascistic". Neat, but it would yet need to be seen, whether the Cult can engage open-mindedly with the exchange of ideas or not.

Or ... well. One must be careful to avoid over-generalization. What I can show You here, is that virtually everything can be called Fascism if we just abstract it far enough; And boil everything down to the rudimentary functions of any form of organized society. Here Fascism will generally stick out by requiring an extra set of words to describe the way in which these functions operate. Like 'vile' or 'evil'.

This way, ironically, the term 'Fascism' has become a bit of an entrapment; But that is because Fascism, or what we would generally identify as such, as gained enough traction to be a public mainstay that we have to somehow "accommodate" within our worldview. And while all the vile and evil stuff happens 'elsewhere', the term eventually loses its meaning.


Therefore: Regarding Fascism as adverse to Gnosis is to toss all these "generalistic" terms aside; And focus on the moralistic aspects at play and on display. And this is not only possible but also prudent because the matters of good and evil are real enough to that effect. Here, at first, neither needs to be any one specific group that calls themselves this or that. We have the "general discussion", so: The general attempt to find unity within reason; To bridge the divides, to bring people together as to ultimately achieve Peace. And then we have, for some "godforsaken reason", those who would sabotage this process. Reasons to do so might be primitive such as hate and fear; Or more evolved such as greed and megalomania.

And by some twist of fate ... I find myself struggling; And quite possibly because the purpose of my work has preceeded me so far; That there is some kind of eschatological power struggle at play to determine whether or not I might even be known to the public. That it is some kind of foregone conclusion that I would rule; Solemnly bearing all authority and privilege that could possibly be given to one individual; That the entire process is virtually skipped and therefore non-existent. And therefore ... no conclusion has followed just yet and I'm about to take myself out of the equation because WHAT IN THE ACTUAL FUCK?!

And should I pull through with it; Yay, it would all be lost but maybe it would give people enough pause to sit down and rethink their actions and choices. Yes it would suck if the Gospel were linked to a Prophet that eventually killed themselves; But let's then not forget WHY. And maybe it would all be futile then. Thus I suppose it's reasonable to suggest that the world would just keep spinning and the power struggles would continue; Possibly You'd have a World War followed by a post-apocalypse ... and throughout that process the Priesthood would get lost because ultimately it didn't work out and there would be no other way to move past this. I might then at some point fancy myself into the form of a Q just to pester "Mon Capitan" - whoever that might be. But before You can enjoy the privileges of Space Communism; You have to consider that You might as well just be an NPC in a Colony under Cardassian Rule while WE play Space Communism.


...