Thread by @FascioLiftorio

Time for another thread ellaborating on Fascism as an ideology, as well as taking the chance to debunk to one of the main claims of famous Anti-Fascist thinker Umberto Eco.

Fascist Anti-Intellectualism

Online lefty discourse (Breadtubers to be specific) usually goes around quoting and using pseudo-historians and overall biased sources in order to understand Fascism. One of the most well known go to source is the 14 Points of Umberto Eco...

a lame """summary""" of Fascism that engages in intellectual dishonesty, historical misinterpretation, and overall claims that most likely happened on a wet dream of the author. One of his most important claims is that Fascism was an irrational, violent movement...

that rejected modernity and idolized traditions. For the average reader this can be just an attempt at interpreting Fascism, for fascists however, this is a laughable claim that exposes how easy it is to pull stuff out of your ass and pretend to know about the ideology.

Fascism was born out of a revolutionary sentiment across Italy; Using Red Terror as its declared enemy to get attraction from conservative forces across the country, along the usage of the post-war disappointment with the conditions in which Italy ended...

Italian Fascism launched a campaign that consisted of anarcho-syndicalists, national-syndicalists and war veterans with the goal of creating their own revolution, their own Mazzinian dream of the Italian "Risorgimento" through a revolutionary structure away from...

the chains of the past.

Fascism saw traditions as a mere instrument of unity that could either be kept or ditched, depending on the mood of the regime or the climate of the time.

Thread Related:

https://twitter.com/Timotero2/status/1413692952526864390?s=20

The initial violence of every Fascist movement, no matter where it appeared, was always a response to Red Violence, the glorifying violence was not for the sake of violence itself but for the merit and beauty of living in a constant struggle for life...

in a way, Fascism saw violence as a method to oppose Red Terror, to then use it across Italy as a way to consolidate power, be it against left or right wingers. Fascism always employed Violence as the method, not the goal.

Another laughable claim is that Fascism was Anti-Intellectual, that is, Anti-Science, Anti-Reason, Anti-Critical Thinking, Anti-Opposition, etc. When Fascism ever dealt with the concept of Intellectualism, it neither implied Reason nor le Being Smart...

Intellectualism as Fascism understands it, is the prevention of the synthesis between Thought and Action, it's removing Action and staying with Thoughts, never allowing for the dialectic to accomplish itself into the definitive synthesis. Intellectualism consists...

of remaining in a chair, tearing apart concepts and criticizing everything, as you never embody what you think nor actually push to establish it in real life. The silly idea that Fascists were just about blood and violence has been nothing but slander by the usual...

materialist dogmatists that refuse to believe in a Third Position that doesnt go along their wacky philosophical standpoint, thus we get to see armchair intellectuals claiming to understand the irrational nature of Fascism while ignoring the amount of...

intellectuals the ideology had. Counting with figures such as Giovanni Gentile, personality that would inspire a generation of philosophers and even historians, to intellectuals such as Alfredo Rocco, Sergio Panunzio, Ugo Spirito, Nicola Bombacci...

Fascism would produce Nobel Prize winners while building his intellectual base not on mere theory, but on the ideal of Thought and Action as a living, as embodying your philosophy and properly engaging in your environment.

Consisting of an intellectually modernist base (Such as the Futurists), Fascism would seek constant change in Italian Society, rejecting any ties to the past and embracing whatever change may happen due to the changing nature of humans. Fascism despite...

common beliefs, wanted a Modernity of its own, while rejecting Traditionalism as a way to go. Figures such as Julius Evola, that are usually attached to Fascism, were nothing but fervient opponents of the regime, despite their collaboration.

In the end, I suggest debunking the claims, and then laughing at the face of the person making them, due to the childish nature of the affirmations and the lack of actual sources they have to back their POV.

Since this is a special thread where I relied on several authors and writings I'll put sources over here:

Born out of the failure of Communists to actually improve the living standards of the working class, along the abuse of a decaying Capitalist system, we can safely say; Fascism was a sign of the Decay of Capitalism for the rise of the Totalitarian State.

The End.