Thread by @NGrossman81

The accusation "fascist" gets thrown around too easily these days, and I've argued that defining fascism down is an analytical and political mistake.
But that Adrian Vermeule article in the Atlantic is fairly labeled, at minimum, fascist compatible.
That's because
1/x

Vermeule denounces "individualist autonomy" and calls for "respect for the authority of rule and rulers" and "hierarchies" that, he argues, should show a "candid willingness to 'legislate morality.'"
Fascist theorist Alfredo Rocco called this subservience "organicism."
2/x

As @ethanbdm notes, an authoritative state paradoxically creating "freedom" is a key component of fascism.
Vermeule's "common good" vision is explicitly religious, with the state forcing people to adhere to his version of traditional Catholic morality.
3/x

https://twitter.com/ethanbdm/status/1245017274681036803

The main component of fascism that isn't central to Vermeule's vision is nationalism.
But as I argue in this article, nationalism abounds today--in politicians, and in intellectuals wrongly claiming nationalism can be separated from nationalist leaders
4/x
arcdigital.media/cant-do-nation…

Organicism + nationalism were the main pillars of Rocco and Mussolini's Italian version of fascism.
Vermeule + Steve Bannon make for an uncomfortably similar vision for America.
There's danger in excessive alarmism, but it's also a mistake to ignore that the seeds are there
(END)