A Squire's Trial Read online

  - So what you’ve told me so far then, is that Fascism seeks to know and uphold the truth, regardless of what it is, while the rest, who are only minding their own interests, reject anything that doesn’t satisfy their desires.

  - Indeed. You can look around at all the “truth” preachers in the world, I guarantee you that they all fall to the second category and only fascism stands aside — and that’s how you know it upholds the Truth.

  - Well, this is all certainly different from what I ever heard of fascism or even seen of it on the news.

  - There are those who misrepresent fascism, and they, too, fall to that second category. This is precisely why it is so hard for us — even a small deviation from the truth already puts you on the side of lies and falsehoods. However, it should come as no surprise that superiors seem to be naturally inclined to supporting fascism, seeing as how if you are already born with things as they are supposed to be, you find it easier to come into the fold completely — but modern education and socialization of children muddle everything. This is why our opponents’ claim that Fascism is just looking out for the interests of the superiors falls flat - if it is in your nature to be superior, then you are supposed to be superior, thus it lacks the aspect of having an interest. Yet, as I just mentioned, due to modern socialization, a lot of fascists make a point of how they defend the interests of their race, but this is only so because they have no other way of expressing what is a much deeper instinct.

  - Because of how socialization today teaches everyone the ‘equality’ myth?

  - Yes. It is truly like the world is in a deep dream, or illusion; even if you realize something is wrong, there are still subtle strings attached to you which are that much harder to shake off. One other reason why you hear wrong things of fascism is that our opponents can only think in terms of interests, abstract concepts and materialism — their limited vision cannot grasp the full, broader scope of fascism, and so they try to explain what fascism is by their means. As a result, you get a disfigured representation. Yet another irony arises: can you guess what it may be, this time?

  - Well, based on what you said... is it that they have created a different kind of fascism?

  - Absolutely right. They themselves conjured up an image of fascism that was picked up by the ignorant as their mantle, and thus in turn feed the misrepresented image of fascism — which is only fascism in name, and some rudimentary aspects, missing its core that I’ve laid out before you in our discussion.

  Finally something that somewhat clarified the situation, even if not completely. And the notion of people essentially fighting something of their own creation without realizing it, while remaining completely ignorant of what it was they intended to combat in the first place, was almost as if from some myth or dramatic theater. This helped me finally, somewhat, reconcile my conflicted feelings about this man, as I now knew that trying to apply to him the image I was so familiar with was futile and simply wrong. Suddenly, a thought occurred to me: - So essentially, this other fascism — the one your opponents made up — if they all judge you, or try to measure you from their own position of falsehood, does that mean they all create different images of fascism? Making fascism rather just something that they imagine opposes their views?

  He slightly raised his eyebrows and gave me the first broad smile I had seen since he first approached me on this day.

  - Yes, that is a keen observation you made. The definition of fascism, thus, also depends on whom you ask, and they’ll describe it to you in terms of what they are afraid it’ll do to interfere with their petty interests. You’ll hear all about how fascism is corporatist, capitalist, totalitarian and etc., but they will never be able to explain to you what is the real core of our views — upholding truth. Everyone is taught to view fascism as something political, and thus subject to such categorization, but in reality we hate politics. We just lead a struggle to make truth manifest in human life, thus this struggle inevitably touches all areas of human life, and obviously the primary system of influencing that is politics.

  - But you still believe in some sort of social structure and some kind of political system, right?

  - Good question. I’ll need to reiterate, though, some key points we have already established — namely that truth affects everything in life, so much so that you can say that life is truth, because nature is truth and so on. Thus, it also includes human nature, where, as I pointed out, there must exist inequality: with superiors and inferiors. So there must be someone at the very top, a leader, but not because it is a politically pragmatic move, or an economically and socially pragmatic move; there must be a leader because it can’t be otherwise, if your pursuit is establishing truth in human life.

  - So you’re saying that your system is in no way political, as it’s not based in abstract musings of how things should be for certain people.

  - Exactly. We are defending something that is born in truth, but has over time become corrupted due to the rise of inferiority and interests. This was well known by ancient Greeks, who explained this corruption in the “Anacyclosis”, where the noble Monarch — who degenerates into a Tyrant — is replaced with the noble aristocracy, which in turn degenerates into an oligarchy, only to be replaced by a democracy that degenerates into ochlocracy - the rule of the mob. At that point, the noble Monarch must again rise, leading everyone back to the ordained order of things. It is simply truth that there must be a leader, as opposed to the opinion that there must be a democracy. “Democracy is in hell, Heaven is a Czardom.”, as a man had once said.

  - So, is totalitarianism something that is truly your goal? Do you view it as a noble system, or as a degenerated version of something else?

  - This question has an answer that I’m sure you’ll respect now. Fascism is not totalitarian, but it can be — not because that is its nature, but because totalitarianism can be used as a tool. Fascism can also be, in this same sense, anarchistic, because it can likewise use anarchy as a tool. Trying to classify fascism as totalitarian is, once again, abstract classification. The “system” that fascism offers society is no system, which denotes the artificial, fabricated nature of that organization, but rather the Organic State, one that is fully compliant to truth and thus is as nature itself: organic, where everything works in harmony.

  - So how does fascism use totalitarianism as a tool?

  - It is used to socialize a new generation of people that would then be able to carry on in the Organic Society, with no need for a totalitarian structure. Until that new generation is ready, it is also used to protect that process from forces, both internal and external, that would stop this new generation from arising.

  He then gave a short sigh, and with a kind of exasperated smirk, shook his head before he continued:

  - When you think about it, all modern states are totalitarian — they do not allow deviation from the myth of equality. They attempt to perpetuate it indefinitely, suppress dissent and don’t allow proponents of dismantling this system to enter even its electoral process, let alone the halls of governance. What is this, if not self-preservation? But what I try to point out for you here is the hypocrisy of it all, the lie that rules over all of us.

  - So you’re essentially saying that we’ve been conditioned by tyrants to think that it is, in fact, fascism that is tyrannical in nature, while keeping us oblivious as to the lie of democracy and making us believe in the equality myth.

  - Indeed, for equality, as any ideology, demands totality, and as any lie it requires constant enforcement by totalitarian means. Fascism, on the other hand, can require totality because the truth prevails in all things, but it does not necessarily require totalitarian means, and totalitarianism is never the end goal or even desirable to us. What we want is something Organic, something that exists because that is how things must be — it is not an enforced falsehood. In this state, people will be able to discover who it is they truly are, what their innate nature is, and then take their appropriate place in this order. In doing so
, having accepted who they are, they can then work on what they were meant to work on, delivering them to real happiness, rather than chasing interests and unrealistic dreams. Then they will act: both as individuals, and as a part of a bigger organism.

  - How’s that, exactly?

  - As individuals, they will be capable of self-exploration to discover their innate nature, self-determination by accepting their innate nature and striving to reach their ultimate potential, and self-expression by working on what they love and what they were meant to be doing. When you do any kind of job because that is what you enjoy doing, you turn that job into art. As parts of an organism, where everything is doing what it is meant to — in its proper place — they create a state of harmony that needs no artificial enforcement.

  - So if everyone follows their innate truth, they follow a greater truth.

  - Which will manifest as the Organic State, exactly so, for if you accept truth then what is there to enforce? Truth is organic, everything in its place and working: that’s how nature is, and that’s how human life can be manifested in social form. The human organism works in the same fashion. The liver doesn’t aspire to be the heart or the brain, it just is, fulfilling the function it was meant to fulfill, yet we both know that the body needs it all the same, making it a part of something greater. This is, by the way, what we call Destiny — to us, destiny is one’s potential. The caterpillar’s destiny is to become a butterfly, though not every caterpillar does, obviously. But that is its potential, and the same is true for people.

  The caterpillar analogy he gave made this interpretation of destiny quite clear, and the whole notion of organic society was slowly becoming more and more appealing. I still held my reservations as there were still issues unanswered, though I was all but certain he’d have no trouble explaining them. I had thought several times in the conversation if maybe I’m falling for propaganda and being pulled into something sinister. But curiosity always won out, and no matter what, I couldn’t come up with a real argument against his reasoning — whether it was because I had simply never encountered such reasoning before, or because I just wasn’t smart enough, I don’t know. But I sat in silence, and listened to him go on.

  - So you can see that totalitarianism is a good tool, but a temporary tool. Our opponents, on the other hand, are completely reliant on it — even if they can’t admit to that fact, since they themselves are slaves to their delusions. Totalitarianism for fascism is a means to an end, because, nowadays, practically the whole world has been conditioned by the totality of the equality myth. We need an initial system of our own to enforce the truth — it would be our instrument of Justice.

  - Okay, so if I get you right, you’d like for people to do what they were meant to do: what’s in their nature. So in the end, it ends up being some sort of meritocracy, right?

  - In a way, you could say that, yes, everyone gets the place in the world that belongs to him by virtue of his nature.

  - Since this whole idea of fascists as genocidal maniacs who want to rule the world is concocted by your enemies, I imagine the other bad things they say about you are false as well?

  - Indeed.

  - So it’s not true you’re out to get Jews either, right?

  The stranger seemed surprised at the question for a second, then burst out laughing.

  - Ha ha ha, of course we’re out to get Jews! We hate the slimy bastards!

  He said this as innocently as a child might, which struck me as strange, when discussing such a heavy topic. I was mildly offended by his laughter, which I felt in part was directed at me.

  - How can you say something like that? My opinion of you was getting better!

  - What, you’re serious? Don’t you hate Jews? What do you like about them, exactly?

  I was taken by surprise by him reversing the question back to me, and didn’t know how to answer.

  - Erm, why would I hate them? I’ve never even met a Jew, so I don’t see why I should be concerned about them. Besides, it’s wrong to generalize about people; just because a person is a Jew, doesn’t mean they’re bad people.

  - Ah, I understand, you just don’t know anything about them, so you don’t see the problem. Okay. Let’s first address your theory that it’s wrong to generalize about people.

  - What do you mean, “my theory”? It’s definitely wrong! What if you misjudge people based on your prejudice? No one deserves to be treated badly because of what others have done!

  - You’re right that not all Jews — or all members of any group — will conform to stereotypes 100% of the time — or even most of the time. But imagine you’re in the jungle, and come across a tiger. Would you be scared? Of course! Most tigers, most of the time, won’t attack you: either because they’re scared of humans, or because they’re not hungry at the time, or for a myriad of other reasons. But isn’t it the right reaction to be careful around it? Isn’t that the right choice, to protect yourself, and others you care about?

  - Yes, of course, that makes sense. But Jews aren’t tigers! They won’t attack you for no reason, so it’s silly to be suspicious and discriminate against them.

  - No, you’re wrong, it’s perfectly normal and healthy to discriminate. In fact, it’s the greatest tool we have to help us survive and prosper. We learn from experience what to expect from people who look a certain way, and react accordingly. This allows us to avoid the worst-case scenarios for our lives. Why should you increase the risk factors in your life to spare the feelings of certain groups?

  - Maybe it’s fine to discriminate in our personal lives, then, but to base government policies on it is totally unjust. You can’t make me swallow that pill.

  - The basic fact of life is this: whenever two groups exist within the same territory, they will always end up fighting to get the resources and political power. This is nature. If you want to avoid conflict, then the only solution is to make sure every group has its own territory. So in a way, you’re right that it’s wrong to have one government discriminating against a foreign group in its midst — the correct solution is to eject them, instead.

  - But Jews aren’t even that different from us. We’ve been coexisting for so long, why would they cause problems? I can’t even tell a Jew apart from our people, so you’re making a mountain out of a molehill.

  - That’s where you’re wrong. Jews are the most different group from our people there is on this planet. They are creatures that fester and willfully, knowingly indulge in falsehoods. While we strive for truth, they are truth’s sworn enemy.

  - This seems far-fetched...

  - Remember the point we discussed earlier, how humans can have different natures?

  - Yes, but it’s obvious that this applies to individuals, not groups. I mean, there are tall Jews, short Jews, smart Jews and stupid Jews, right? So we can’t put them all in the same basket. I’m sure there’s plenty of scumbags among them, but what you’re saying just doesn’t seem believable at all.

  - Let me ask you this: do you think some groups tend to excel at certain things, or to have different traits, as a group?

  - I don’t know...

  - How about the Olympics, then? What type of people tend to win foot races?

  - Blacks seem to win almost all racing events.

  - What kind of people tend to win weightlifting events?

  - It seems it’s almost always whites or Asians.

  - And swimming?

  - Mmmh... never seen a black win or do well at water sports…

  - The jumping events?

  - I see where you’re going with this, but this is only athletics. Those things are secondary.

  - No, you’re wrong. If you search your memory honestly, you’ll see that in every domain, some types excel more often than others, whether it’s school, chess, ping pong, artistic merit, you name it.

  I became conflicted... on one hand, I hated the point he was making, and I was certain he was wrong... but as my mind raced to find counter examples, all I could come up with
were more confirmations, almost as if my mind had already done the job of putting people in categories along the lines that he was suggesting.

  - Look, it’s one thing to say that groups are better at something or another, but it’s another thing to accuse them of being evil liars!

  - What’s the difference, why do you draw that line?

  - We can all choose to do good or evil, no one is forcing anyone to commit theft or rape kids! No group has a monopoly on being a scumbag — there’s plenty of terrible criminals among our people, as well.

  - How we act is a reflection of our nature. Good and evil, as you call them, are judgments you make according to your nature and your interests. But some people, as a part of their very being, have different tendencies and interests. They will have a tendency to act in a way you would consider “criminal”. And some groups are more likely than others to have many of these individuals.

  - I still can’t cross that bridge.

  - This all seems abstract to you, because you know nothing of Jews. But I’m sure you have experience with gypsies, on the other hand, so let’s talk about them.

  I suddenly had a sinking feeling at the mention of gypsies. While I like to think of myself as being free of prejudice, I’ve had so many bad experiences with gypsies at the capitol that I couldn’t help feeling hostile towards them. Now whenever I see one, I look around for his friends and keep my left hand on my wallet.

  - Ugh... I’d rather not think about gypsies, let’s talk about something else…

  - Hit a nerve now, have I? Since everyone can do both “good and evil”, according to you, how about you find me some gypsy families who aren’t full of criminals and leeches?

  - Seems like... an impossible challenge.

  - Ha ha ha, well you’re right, of course. Do you still want to argue that no group can exhibit marked tendencies towards what you’d consider “evil” behavior?