Shownotes
It's here. It's been here for a while.
Fascism is a dominant ideology in the West that requires us to be constantly resisting. The problem is, it's not always obvious in appearance.
Fascism rarely presents itself through swastikas and tiki torches, though that, too, is on the rise. More often it is disguised as democratic and hides in plain view of the Overton window.
The question is, how do we resist the rise of Fascism?
Hosts Jessa McLean and Santiago Helou Quintero explore this and more.
All of our content is free - made possible by the generous sponsorships of our Patrons. If you would like to support us: Patreon
Resources:
Transcripts
There is so much out there to get mad about. Social injustices, class warfare, continued
Speaker:colonization, the act of destruction of our planet by those focused on prophets and not
Speaker:people. We can find it overwhelming at times. The good news is there are equally as many,
Speaker:if not more, stories of people coming together and rising up against the forces at play. So
Speaker:the creators of Blueprints of Disruption have added a new weekly segment, Ravel Rants, where
Speaker:we will unpack the stories that have us most riled up, share calls to action, and most importantly,
Speaker:celebrate resistance. Canada's Parliament gave a standing ovation to a Nazi. The Canadian
Speaker:state is sponsoring an ongoing genocide. Members of the targeted group in Canada are being silenced
Speaker:and fired. Provincial governments are introducing explicitly anti-communist school curricula.
Speaker:It's here. This tweet really caught my attention. It was a tweet by Prabhagandha, who everyone
Speaker:should follow because one of the most entertaining accounts on Twitter, or should I say X? No,
Speaker:I'm saying Twitter. And it stuck with me. I've been thinking of... I mean, this tweet was
Speaker:November 29th, so it's not recent. Well, I guess, you know how things move. You've been chewing
Speaker:on it. It stuck with me because, yeah, the it's here. We're talking fascism. And I would argue.
Speaker:It's been here for a while, bubbling beneath the surface. It's just getting a lot more comfortable
Speaker:being honest about what it is. The rise of fascism. Should be. of genuine, urgent concern to all
Speaker:of us, because it is rising a hell of a lot faster than any counter movement to it is rising.
Speaker:Fascism, I would argue, is the dominant Western ideology at the moment. And we have some serious
Speaker:work to do when it comes to dismantling it. And so we're going to talk about that. See,
Speaker:a lot of people would mock you for that. You know, I'm on, obviously we're going to have
Speaker:a discussion here. We're going to lay out an argument to demonstrate what Santiago just
Speaker:said and what you heard in that tweet, because I wholeheartedly agree with you. But you can't
Speaker:tweet about fascism. And I'm sure if you read the comments or the replies there to propaganda,
Speaker:there's going to be a lot of folks seemingly on your side telling you not to just throw
Speaker:that term around there. You know, that we can't minimalize actual fascism by talking about
Speaker:Stephen Lecce in the sense of being a fascist. That it waters down the term, that it's not
Speaker:helpful. You know, a political scientist would perhaps suggest there's certain check boxes
Speaker:that need to be done, like certain legislations that need to be passed in order to declare
Speaker:a regime fascist. But you know, I think a large part of our argument will be centered around
Speaker:like, that is too late. Once it gets to that point where the courts have been legislated
Speaker:and you're already seeing police being used to crack down on dissent and those who oppose
Speaker:what the head honcho says, what Trudeau's position, anything counter to Trudeau's position right
Speaker:now is being sold as un-Canadian, a danger, a threat to society even. And that's absolutely
Speaker:essential in fascism. So you can't just wait until it's like got a swastika band on its
Speaker:arm and it closely resembles what your textbook showed you fascism was. Right. There's, there's,
Speaker:and there's so many more definitions. Like I think, I think we've got to open up on that.
Speaker:There's one that I want to talk about specifically, and it's not a fascism that has a swastika,
Speaker:it's a fascism that has a cross. And it's a fascism that has been growing for a while.
Speaker:And I'm going to quote the words of a very interesting individual for a variety of reasons. Frank
Speaker:Zappa, back in 1986, had this to say. The biggest threat to America today is not communism. It's
Speaker:moving America towards a fascist theocracy. And everything that has happened during the
Speaker:Reagan administration is steering us right down that pipeline. When you have a government that
Speaker:prefers a certain moral code, derived from a certain religion and that moral code turns
Speaker:into legislation to suit one certain religious point of view. And if that code happens to
Speaker:be very, very right wing, almost towards Attila the Hun, what do you call that? Fascism. It's
Speaker:fascism. And we need to talk about this because when you look at the biggest figures on the
Speaker:right now, it's textbook theocratic fascism. When we're talking about Jordan Peterson when
Speaker:he talks about Judeo-Christian values, or we talk about Ben Shapiro who does the same. When
Speaker:we see the moral panics that have been attacking anything to do with the LGBTQ movement or with
Speaker:various rights for various minorities, that has been growing in the past few years. It's
Speaker:textbook. theocratic fascism or to talk about what's happening today Zionism is textbook
Speaker:theocratic fascism It's the two words are essentially interchangeable to me. It is exactly the perfect
Speaker:example of Theocratic fascism and it's happening right now and we can see Who is aligned with
Speaker:it? And there's an old kind of saying about how liberals will always align themselves with
Speaker:fascism over actually embracing anything remotely, truly progressive, socialist, Marxist, whatever
Speaker:word you want to use. Well, we can see our federal government being liberal. They have no problem
Speaker:with. embracing the fascism that is currently happening in Israel. They have no problem with
Speaker:applauding a fascist in an OG fascist, you know, like a actual swastika fascist. There's no
Speaker:issue there, whether or not it's through putting up memorials, honoring those fascists, welcoming
Speaker:them into parliament, or having one of them sit as your deputy prime minister. Putting
Speaker:them into government in Latin America, in South America? Yeah, whether or not it's overthrowing
Speaker:democratically elected indigenous leaders to install fascist puppets, whether or not it's
Speaker:supporting fascists in Brazil, whether or not it's supporting fascists in Chile or so-called
Speaker:libertarians in Argentina who have more in common with fascists than they do with anything even
Speaker:remotely. libertarian or right here at home because the fascism is happening both internationally
Speaker:in our foreign policy but it's also happening domestically. It's happening on so many levels
Speaker:that we can't quite see it and it's not always going to be so obvious as having a swastika,
Speaker:having some simple or being ultra white nationalists. I mean, there's, we can identify certain elements
Speaker:as obviously fascist, but the liberal party, they're not going to be as easily to identify.
Speaker:No, they do a really good job, especially domestically. Like if you look at their foreign policy with
Speaker:any kind of lens, it becomes obvious, right? We are not the good guys, and we absolutely
Speaker:support far right regimes, right? Fascist regimes. regimes. But here in Canada, the liberals do
Speaker:a particularly good job in not even allowing themselves to frame that in the religious sense,
Speaker:because the conservatives are less skilled at doing that. In fact, oh, you can probably hear
Speaker:yelling on my end. In fact, there's one interview where Maxime Bernier is interviewing one of
Speaker:the PPC candidates and she tells him to his face, you're fulfilling an ancient biblical
Speaker:prophecy, basically frames him as the second coming of Jesus. And he replies, I'm doing
Speaker:my best. Playing into that trope of having the moral high ground, right, based in family values,
Speaker:I think. Conservatives here in Canada, they use the family values framing narrative, but
Speaker:really we know what that means. That means Christian values. And we see it, especially now that
Speaker:they pop their head up on the LGBTQ issues and other things that are real dog whistles for
Speaker:white Christian nationalists. And you talk about like liberals historically cozying up to fascists.
Speaker:Organized religion is another. example, I was reading an article and the author was careful
Speaker:to say, you know, inherently religion isn't fascist, but historically they've played a
Speaker:huge role in establishing fascist regimes. And I would argue that inherently they are mostly
Speaker:fascist. They do require sticking to an ethics, a moral code, that moral code provides you
Speaker:with some sort of superiority over those not following that code. It really normalizes an
Speaker:authoritarian regime, an unquestionable regime that then everyone kind of fits into that image
Speaker:or they do not. And the alternative is death and purgatory and all that awful stuff. So
Speaker:they always walk side by side. So in Canada, I think that's why it's harder for people to
Speaker:identify this as fascism, because it doesn't traditionally resemble the really hyper religious
Speaker:fascists or nationalist regimes that we've seen. What is fascism? It depends on who you ask.
Speaker:It does, because it's inherently an incoherent ideology that's not very well laid out at all.
Speaker:And that's part of the problem. And I want to take a moment to acknowledge the fact. It's
Speaker:very like we as a society were raised on the idea that fascism is bad. You know, you ask
Speaker:people is fascism bad? And I'd say 19 out of 20, probably more than 19 out of 20 times.
Speaker:I don't know. The vast, vast majority of the times you're going to get the answer. Fascism
Speaker:is bad, because that that's what we were raised with. If you use the F word. Fascism is inherent,
Speaker:like we associate fascism with the ultimate evil, just like we associate the term genocide
Speaker:with the ultimate evil. So when leftists who are the historical enemies of fascism, when
Speaker:we use the word fascism, it gets laughed off easily because we are, we're, what's the word,
Speaker:we're invoking the ultimate evil, or like invoking the, yeah, what we identify as being the ultimate
Speaker:evil. So it gets laughed off, it gets dismissed. And so sometimes like, it's both useful and
Speaker:not useful, because what's happening is fascism, and we can define the ways that it is fascism.
Speaker:But fascism is an ideology that evolves, just like all ideologies evolve. The ideologies
Speaker:of the early 20th century are not the ideologies of today. They may share the same words, but
Speaker:they are very, very different things. Tactics change. Ways of going about things change.
Speaker:And fascism has become very, very good at disguising itself. And this is something that was predicted.
Speaker:And a very good example of something that everybody read in school, or at least I hope that everybody
Speaker:read in school. 1984, George Orwell, famous socialist, he was talking about... the way
Speaker:that fascism would evolve, that it would change, that it would be harder to identify. And so
Speaker:many of his predictions have played out in modern society. And it has become very difficult because
Speaker:if it doesn't have that swastika, if it doesn't have that easily identifiable thing, we don't
Speaker:know what's going on. I know, I wonder if people knowing the Nazis look back and think that
Speaker:Hitler and that ideology just appeared kind of overnight and were installed undemocratically,
Speaker:you know, under the cloak of night. And it wasn't, it was slowly accepted, it became part of the
Speaker:ideology. And like to my earlier comments and then yours, it's not inherently that it is
Speaker:religious, that I think it was Chris Hedges said, what it does is it's catering to the
Speaker:emotional needs of the moment, right? And that's part of the evolution. So if religion is the
Speaker:poison of the day, if that's what will sway the most amount of people in the nation that
Speaker:you are trying to adopt fascism in. then of course you adopt that language, you adopt that
Speaker:ideology. Netanyahu isn't even all that religious. We know that. He's pretty much an atheist or
Speaker:has been framed as such earlier on in his political career, but he adopts this language because
Speaker:it's going to work. Not only will it give you the moral superiority, it will sway people
Speaker:who are already drinking that Kool-Aid. They are already buying into that, so why not just
Speaker:saddle up to it? And so the United States, that populism also that we're seeing here, the anti-migrant
Speaker:scapegoating and the narratives that go around that are catering to the emotional needs of
Speaker:the moment, which are economic devastation. Because that's another absolute need for fascism
Speaker:is an exploited populace. There needs to be a populace that is looking for a way out. They
Speaker:need to be riled up like that base needs to be angry and then pointed in a direction that
Speaker:is not up but down. And so whoever the easiest targets are at the moment that people are already
Speaker:kind of targeting are just then amplified by leaders. It's kind of like this organic relationship
Speaker:that they use what's already on the ground. And then it's top down as well. I want to maybe
Speaker:take an opportunity to offer a potential definition for. what fascism often looks like. And I would
Speaker:use the, I would say it's opportunistic authoritarianism. Yeah. Is what, it seizes whatever is, it seizes
Speaker:whatever is happening at the extremes of the Overton window and seeks to push the Overton
Speaker:window further right, is how I would say. But it operates within that Overton window as much
Speaker:as possible. as much as possible within what is acceptable within society, and then seeks
Speaker:then to change it. And that's why you see these moral arguments being used. So many of the
Speaker:arguments that are dominating right-wing ideology right now are moral arguments. And it's bringing
Speaker:back all kinds of things. Like we're seeing misogyny on the rise, and that misogyny is
Speaker:on the rise through moral arguments. That's why figures like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro
Speaker:are so large. That's how they center their arguments. They're appealing to that. And it's what makes
Speaker:it so difficult to argue against for people who have embraced it, because it's absolute.
Speaker:These principles are absolute. And when it's linked to a higher power such as you know a
Speaker:god of whatever flavor there's no logical argument that overrules the absolute power of the universe
Speaker:which is why fascism has such a strong grip when it takes hold and it's very difficult
Speaker:to defeat and it's applicable to all religions because all religions can be manipulated often
Speaker:bring up the famous example of how Buddhism was warped in imperialist Japan to be compatible
Speaker:with imperialist Japan, right? The whole idea of Zen murder, of disconnect from your body
Speaker:to be able to murder others was a corruption of Buddhism. And Buddhism, we... typically
Speaker:associate with being one of the more peaceful spiritual religious beliefs. But that's to
Speaker:say that all beliefs are can lend themselves to this if manipulated by the proper authoritarian
Speaker:figure. And anyway let's talk about Canada for a second because fascism is often associated
Speaker:with dictators and that's true a lot of the time but I would say Not all of the time. I'd
Speaker:say, like what I said earlier about the opportunistic nature of it, if the opportunity presents itself
Speaker:to have a dictator, it will have a dictator, but it doesn't need one. But I think then you're
Speaker:stretching the definition. I think a charismatic point person is one of the essential factors
Speaker:for fascism. And although they may not fit like the
Speaker:I think it's the same with fascism, is they can take many forms. Because if you even look
Speaker:at the way the Canadian parliament is structured, in a majority government in particular, I know
Speaker:we don't have that federally, but the prime minister or the premier in a majority government
Speaker:province can act as a dictator. The way that our checks and balances are and the way that
Speaker:the Senate is appointed and whatnot, and the way that the decisions come strictly from the
Speaker:cabinet, who is essentially then ruled by the prime minister, you know, they're not dictators,
Speaker:but they can play that role. I would say though that in many ways, dictators are just bad at
Speaker:being fascists, in a way. Like I would say that fascist dictatorships are... so inherently
Speaker:unstable that it's they bitten off more than they can chew and often they will eventually
Speaker:be overthrown. I mean, what fascist dictatorship has actually provided stability for fascism?
Speaker:That is my point, though, you know, even though they've goes back to our earlier point how
Speaker:liberals are just much better at it. It doesn't mean they're not. It doesn't mean he's not
Speaker:ruling with an iron fist in what one person says goes and everyone will enforce that and
Speaker:that becomes the norm. It just means he won't absorb that label. He never will. And if you
Speaker:use it, you'll look silly. But operationally, it ends up with a very similar result. Right.
Speaker:Obviously, once you take it too far, thankfully all fascist regimes fall. Yeah. Fascism is
Speaker:really bad at existing long-term because in the words of Charlie Chaplin, like as long
Speaker:as dictators die, you know, liberty will always be possible or something along those lines.
Speaker:I think, yeah. Yeah. I think when you're talking about the definition that you had and you talked
Speaker:about authoritarianism and, and what it does, I think that's more to how it gains power.
Speaker:So it's definitely part of what you look for, how you define it and how it gets there. But
Speaker:the reason that they fall, is more to do with the purpose of fascism. And I think sometimes
Speaker:we look at fascism and how we've been taught and it looks like just death and destruction.
Speaker:Like we can't really understand it because it's been framed in the sense of the Holocaust or
Speaker:other like atrocities that really just don't make sense, right, from a human perspective.
Speaker:And so until it's as obscene as that, we don't feel comfortable giving it a label, but its
Speaker:purpose. isn't necessarily death and destruction like that, right? Even if you're looking at
Speaker:the Zionist regime and what they are doing right now to Gaza, although it looks like it's to
Speaker:ethnically cleanse, like some sort of biblical revenge or whatnot, it has nothing really to
Speaker:do with that. It's about industry, capital and wealth. And in a fascist regime, that is completely
Speaker:unchecked. And so the masses that you got worked up and had punching down soon realize when
Speaker:you take all of that from them, when it gets worse for them, because it will under fascist
Speaker:regimes, right? A very small circle will benefit like it does in hyper capitalism. And so that
Speaker:is untenable. And the populace quickly realize their mistake and often turn the other way,
Speaker:which is why anti-communism is such a huge tenant of fascism, right? Because it is the alternative
Speaker:to it. It's also what people will turn to when it falls. It's what will organize people to
Speaker:stop it. And if you're looking from the Canadian perspective and the way that we've become focused
Speaker:on anti-communist monument and we'll talk about education, that's really not... That's based
Speaker:in propping up capitalism, right? And inherently that is what fascism is for.
Speaker:I'm thinking of what I want to say next because there's so much to say. Well, let's get into
Speaker:the anti-communist fervor that exists in Canada, because I think it is evidence of the rise
Speaker:of fascism. You can't judge fascism alone just on electoral success either. It's the ideas
Speaker:behind it, right? That's important, right? Those have to take hold. Those have to be widespread
Speaker:because once they are, the electoral successes will come quick, fast and furious, and we won't
Speaker:be able to stop them. There'll be majority and it'll be lost. And so we're seeing real efforts
Speaker:to lay the groundwork for that ideology. And I think a lot of it is not only based in like
Speaker:propping up fascism around the world and adopting some of their tactics to a degree. I think
Speaker:Canadians do it quite well in rooting it in anti-communism. That's where their battleground
Speaker:seems to lie. And so, you know, we see the monument being built. And one of the big reasons that,
Speaker:you know, this thing started getting funding in 2013. So we've had liberals and conservatives
Speaker:just determined to build this thing for 10 years. And the reason it's fallen so flat kind of
Speaker:bolsters by argument, it's because it wasn't really an anti-communist monument.
Speaker:fascism to wash it. The same way we applauded the Nazi in the House of Commons wasn't because
Speaker:it was a Nazi, not so much even propping up Ukraine, right, or celebrating Ukrainian resistance.
Speaker:It was based in anti-Russian sentiment and building that up. And so that's what this monument is.
Speaker:That's what Lecce's curriculum changes are for. It's a real Cold War. tactic to seize an enemy,
Speaker:right? And that enemy being communist in general. And it's interesting because that use of, you
Speaker:know, Russia, the Soviet Union as the center for opposing, like for providing a definition
Speaker:of communism to oppose, I think is, it's very intentional. in trying to discredit what are
Speaker:the movements that are actually a concern to those in power. I would argue that the Soviet
Speaker:Union was one of every poor example of communism. I would argue that it was very authoritarian.
Speaker:And I would argue that is the reason why they're rooting
Speaker:The real threat that they're concerned about in Canada today, the threat to Canadian values
Speaker:that they're worried about, the reason that they're talking about this, is not because
Speaker:a Soviet-style communism is on the rise. That's not what they're concerned about. It's not.
Speaker:They're concerned more with, you know, the actual people organizing for change. who are not particularly
Speaker:rooted in that at all. It's not very authoritarian at all. And... That is the reason why they
Speaker:always must bring it back to something that is unpopular. And it's unpopular for a reason.
Speaker:And we also have to not fall into the trap of then trying to defend something that doesn't
Speaker:align with our values. I don't feel a kinship to authoritarian regimes of any color. I...
Speaker:feel a kinship to people who struggle against authoritarianism wherever they might be in
Speaker:the world. That is who I have a kinship with. Those are the people who are my comrades. And
Speaker:that is vastly more popular. And that is what they're worried about because they're seeing,
Speaker:well, we've kind of pushed things pretty far. every single social service, every single essential
Speaker:good and service, sorry, is in disarray. They're seeing that while people can't afford their
Speaker:food and people can't afford their rent and inevitably that it's not quite stable. That's
Speaker:not stable at all. People can only take so much before they rise up and overthrow in whatever
Speaker:form overthrowing might look like. And they are, right? We're seeing those workers organize
Speaker:and unionize and tenants organize and unionize at alarming rates, especially if you're a capitalist.
Speaker:So this is a very preventative move, what they're doing here. They know that we can only take
Speaker:so much before our movements really start to grow at a rate that will actually present to
Speaker:them. Because I would say right now we're a threat, but we're not winning the ultimate
Speaker:battle anytime soon, but they're concerned that we might get there because they fucked up society
Speaker:so much. So they're prevent preemptively. Starting to increase the propaganda against anything
Speaker:resembling socialism. Because they know that is the response. And it will be. Yeah. I think
Speaker:it's kind of ironic that the anti-communist narrative that will be taught in Ontario schools,
Speaker:it's really easy to come back at folks who object to this and say, oh, you know, you don't want
Speaker:history being taught. the man-made famine that killed Ukrainians? Do you want to just hide
Speaker:that from history? And of course not, right? But I think it's just so ironic they're using
Speaker:famine as an example of deaths caused by communism and not by war, particularly when we're watching
Speaker:Israel. starve out 1.2 million Gazans at this point. And so we know that it's not communism
Speaker:alone that's caused famines worldwide. In fact, I would say capitalism. Not, I would say, I'm
Speaker:sure most people could acknowledge that capitalism has actually caused far more famines intentionally.
Speaker:Shit, look at our bread lines. We always use the bread lines in the USSR as examples of
Speaker:why you don't want communism or the rationing that happens in Cuba. Yet we have food banks
Speaker:giving out expired food. You don't even get what you need from these food banks. You aren't
Speaker:getting staples even. You're getting people's castaways. That exists in our capitalist society.
Speaker:And I imagine when you try to teach youth. from this lack of nuanced position that Leche's
Speaker:taken, that communism is bad because it caused a famine, that the youth are gonna look at
Speaker:this and be like, are you serious? Like, is this the only famine? Like, you just can't
Speaker:teach kids this way anymore. So I don't think it's gonna stick in the way that they want
Speaker:because- Absolutely. The resources are out there to understand that is a tool of oppression,
Speaker:regardless of who wields it. It's not a communist tenant to starve people. It happened. It's
Speaker:awful. It shouldn't have ever. But yeah, it's like if you don't have anything to actually
Speaker:tear it down from, then you do something ridiculous like that. And I think that's why they really
Speaker:latched on to Fred Hahn and his position on Palestine, because it was a real opportunity
Speaker:to just kind of bring down union leaders, right, to frame them as extremists and dangerous.
Speaker:And there was a lot of people who took his same position, right. But they weren't. kind of
Speaker:the hype against them wasn't amplified in the way it was there because it wasn't just a blow
Speaker:for Zionism and the occupation, but it was a way to tear down commies as well. It's the
Speaker:reason why they have to go so far back in history to find things to complain about, right? That's
Speaker:why they use... Why are we talking about the Soviet Union and not Bolivia? Bolivia. Why
Speaker:not talk about Bolivia in your anti-communist propaganda? Maybe it's because under a socialist
Speaker:government, Bolivia saw extreme poverty reduced by half and poverty reduced by half. I think
Speaker:it was something like poverty went from 60% to 30% and extreme poverty went from like 30%
Speaker:to like 10%, something like that. Some ridiculous numbers under Evo Morales. And then we had
Speaker:a hand in overthrowing that government. Why? Ask yourself that. Why would we install a fascist
Speaker:puppet dictator in Bolivia when that government was so successful in reducing misery for their
Speaker:people and providing the indigenous people a voice in representing the workers? We have
Speaker:much more contemporary examples that we can base ourselves off. Because like I said, ideologies
Speaker:evolve. And there are many, many success stories in Latin America of how socialists have won
Speaker:real victories for the people, real victories for workers. And it's typically only interventions
Speaker:by other state powers that allow fascists... I can't say that word anymore. to allow these
Speaker:authoritarian regimes to succeed after the populace has installed. And you see in Brazil is the
Speaker:best example of the tactics that need to be used to remove Lula from the first place, install
Speaker:Bolsonaro, and then when I think that pressure was just too much worldwide, globally, that
Speaker:was just one of those two obvious moments that the liberals stepped in and we see a reversal
Speaker:there. but not short of any efforts from Western nations trying to, you know, overdo that knowledge
Speaker:that people gain when they experience fascism and don't want it to repeat itself. I don't
Speaker:think it's so much, especially in South America, that it is that folks have this like short-term
Speaker:memory. It's so much mass global intervention in these moments where populists gain power
Speaker:and then it's taken away from them. We've come so normalized to that we don't see it as fascism
Speaker:at all. you know, as being hand in hand with it. It's just bringing stability and all this
Speaker:other nonsense, economic stability and whatnot. And we totally buy into that. But there's a
Speaker:lot more modern ways to define fascism as well, you know? One of the telltale signs that you
Speaker:can see easily in North America is the disdain for democracy and its institutions, its procedures.
Speaker:I mean, it starts as mundane as red tape, right? You hear that on the municipal level, you can
Speaker:really get that out. Nobody bats an eye. It's it's safeguards usually that they're talking
Speaker:about. There is bad red tape. I know some municipalities are freaking awful, but that's really not what
Speaker:that's where it starts. And like Premier Ford, he openly talks about his disdain for the courts,
Speaker:for judges. And we then see it in his legislation that a lot of people don't pay attention to.
Speaker:you know, where he has lessened their power, he's lessened the ability for you to use the
Speaker:courts to challenge him or to hold him accountable. And that is part of the tenets of fascism,
Speaker:right? Not only an open disdain for these institutions, but dismantling them, weakening them, right?
Speaker:To allow for a more authoritarian regime to exist within something that still resembles
Speaker:democracy, right? Because we don't have time to really pay attention to how the courts actually
Speaker:work. And that's what I mean when I say fascism has been here for a while. It's not new. How
Speaker:long have we been taught? I mean, as long as this show has been going on, we've been talking
Speaker:about how we don't live in a democracy. Nothing even close to resembling a democracy. But it
Speaker:calls itself one. It dresses up like one. Right. It likes to pretend that it is so we don't
Speaker:see it. But we're not in a democratic society. Our system is the farthest thing possible.
Speaker:We know the ways that the parties control. who's even allowed to get their name on a ballot.
Speaker:We see how they control, how little public will in elections actually influences policy. How
Speaker:you can say whatever the fuck you want, but if there is private interest, that overrules
Speaker:everything. I mean, look at what's going on right now. Look at what happened with the green
Speaker:belt. Look what is happening right now with Ontario place, right? Is this public will?
Speaker:No, but- Legislation is being introduced to overrule any sort of democratic check that
Speaker:could possibly hold them accountable. Whatever systems we've had that we hold on to as evidence
Speaker:of a democratic system, all of it is eroded so quickly through a legislative vote from
Speaker:a party that is operating without the approval of the majority of the people. Environmental
Speaker:checks? Forget about it. We don't need that. we can just introduce legislation against it.
Speaker:Right? So my point, and that's a very tame example, I would say. Like, it's just what's on the
Speaker:top of my mind because it's happening right now before our eyes, but it's with everything.
Speaker:It's with absolutely everything. And so...
Speaker:I guess the question I have now is like, because I want to focus on what we can control because
Speaker:we can't control everything. These fights have to take place all around the world and you
Speaker:know, that's going to take a lot of us. But what can we do here in Canada? What's happening
Speaker:here at home? And what should we be doing against this? Because it's on us, right? It's on us
Speaker:to do something about it. So what do we have to do and what are the battles that need fighting,
Speaker:I guess is my question. Well, I think part of it goes back to the question you had for me
Speaker:before we started recording, which we should always record. But it was in response to the
Speaker:police violence that we saw in Toronto earlier this week. And a protester knocked to the ground,
Speaker:punched repeatedly, need A knee from a police officer just like ground this guy's face this
Speaker:person's face into the ground over and over again this was from a pro-palestinian rally
Speaker:and Either way, that's what the discussion was Santiago wanted to know I don't know if you're
Speaker:gonna like me why we don't fight back more Against police officers and I know some people are
Speaker:gonna be like because they'll shoot you I get it Like I understand your knee-jerk reaction
Speaker:to that. But you know The person who was beat by police, the reasoning is they retaliated
Speaker:when the police knocked a woman off of their bike or knocked them over, you know, unprovoked
Speaker:and they fought back. And Santiago is like, why don't we do that more? Why do we allow
Speaker:them to evict our neighbors? Why do we allow them to push our lines back the way that we
Speaker:do? And I guess a lot of things. can feed into that and I think maybe that's like another
Speaker:episode kind of question that part of it. But I think part of the answer of why the right
Speaker:has done such a good job of mobilizing folks and why fascism takes hold, I kind of go back
Speaker:to this interview with Chris Hedges and
Speaker:Jeff Charlotte, and they're talking about how Trump and other heads and other fascists normalize
Speaker:violence in protests from police, but sometimes just like in their language, like that locker
Speaker:room shit that a lot of people chalk it down to, you know, and I'd beat that guy up, throw
Speaker:him out of here, you know, make that guy pay for disrupting my rally. You know, if I met
Speaker:that guy on the street and what that does, it appeals to a certain part of our emotions,
Speaker:right? Like a real... deep, powerful, passionate, even though we're talking about violence, it's
Speaker:still a real passionate trigger for people, especially when you're really struggling, especially
Speaker:when people have you riled up looking for scapegoats and stuff like that. And what the right has
Speaker:done is they have sparked that and they've pointed it at migrants. They've pointed it at trans
Speaker:people. They've pointed it at us, you know, the left in general. And it's not that we should
Speaker:adopt violence as a mantra, but in terms of fighting, sometimes we even lack that language.
Speaker:Like people aren't willing to use class war, right? Our leaders aren't willing to declare
Speaker:class war or resisting police in that way, right? Fighting. It's always framed as defending ourselves,
Speaker:defending our human rights and securing that as opposed to going on the offensive. And that
Speaker:doesn't spark the same kind of push, fervor, passion in people. And so in a time where,
Speaker:especially after COVID hit us at a time where you could already argue we were in end-stage
Speaker:capitalism, that it hit us in this awful moment. And The Right captured that. They captured
Speaker:that anger. Quite often it was pointed into violence and unfortunately that really did
Speaker:appeal to people because they knew they were in a time where you needed to fight, fight
Speaker:or flight and fleeing isn't an option. And we didn't point them into a fight, the left I
Speaker:mean, you know, especially our leaders who we look to. They tried to appear like liberals,
Speaker:really passive, really just in a real gentle way. And that isn't doing us any good. and
Speaker:I'm gonna get labeled a tanky, that's a favorite term folks like to throw at me online, I'm
Speaker:never happy, you know, because of this, like all's I want is revolution, and that's true.
Speaker:I'm sorry, that is true, because this piecemeal shit that we're getting is garbage, and it's
Speaker:gonna end in fascism. And so absolutely you have to push for the extreme opposite of that
Speaker:and hold to it, right? Or folks will water it down, but. You know, the left has just been
Speaker:afraid to really get people fired up in that way, not the entire left, because I think the
Speaker:Palestinian youth movement is a great example of people absolutely unapologetic in their
Speaker:language. Like their use of the term, certain terms that they use within their campaign are
Speaker:of war and resistance, and because that's what it is. Right? So meanwhile, you know, the NDP
Speaker:is supposed to... We're supposed to be getting excited about means tested dental care when
Speaker:the right is offering really transformative visions to people. They're awful. It's like
Speaker:a world without migrants or something. You know, I don't know what their vision is, but it's
Speaker:really different than what we have. Right. And, and that's, that's not anything that we've
Speaker:provided. And I think what concerns me is that I have no doubts in my mind. that we will get
Speaker:to the stage where we will be resisting much more aggressively than we are today. No doubt
Speaker:in my mind that will come because like we said like fascism is inherently quite unstable and
Speaker:the people will always rise up against it eventually. My concern is how far do we let it get before
Speaker:we do that? How long are we willing to wait? How many rights are we willing be stripped
Speaker:away. How strong are we willing to let fascism grow before we say enough is enough? And that's
Speaker:the danger of liberalism, is that liberalism dulls the senses, it dulls the mind, it gets
Speaker:you into this very like, oh well, you know, we must piece by piece, slowly, you know, ask
Speaker:nicely for change and hope that it comes. and That lends itself so much to the growth of
Speaker:authoritarianism and fascism. And so, like, just to be clear, like, I'm not, I'm not calling,
Speaker:like, we need to be con- like, we cannot- my values are rooted in anti-authoritarianism,
Speaker:and so any resistance must be anti-authoritarian. That is foundation to my belief system. So
Speaker:the question of what we do, I don't know. I don't fully, like, I think that, like, there's
Speaker:a lot of good work going on right now. I think. What I think my concern isn't so much tactics
Speaker:right now, it's how many people are actually getting involved and are actually aware of
Speaker:this and actually talking about this and identifying it for what it is. I don't think we're aware
Speaker:of the threat. I don't think we're aware of how bad it is and how bad it's gonna get. I
Speaker:think people are very hopeless right now. And that was intentional. Our hope, taking away
Speaker:our hope is a very intentional thing. And I... am as guilty as anybody else of... those falling
Speaker:into despair quite often. I think. Yeah, I think that is very, very intentional. And so I think
Speaker:building hope, building our communities, bringing us closer together. I mean, these are the things
Speaker:we always talk about, but that is exactly what we need. You know, I just thought of like a,
Speaker:a stupid line, but like it's, it's fun to hunger games, but you know. Where Snow said something
Speaker:along the lines of, hope is the only thing stronger than fear. And Hunger Games comes in handy
Speaker:sometimes, I think. And I think that was one of the things that I think really does come
Speaker:in handy. But like we live in a society that's trying to push us apart, we need to come together.
Speaker:I think... I think part of the answer, part of the hope unfortunately lies within the despair.
Speaker:What I mean is when you see these fascist regimes masks falling away, when it becomes easier
Speaker:to have and make the argument that fascism is rising around us, it means they are losing
Speaker:grip. and they're worried and they're only ever going to be worried when they see resistance
Speaker:otherwise they're in cruise control. But that is not what we are seeing right now. And it's
Speaker:because of the organizing that is happening worldwide and the resistance that is happening
Speaker:to climate change, to genocide, to capitalism and that is why you're seeing this response.
Speaker:So although it always has to get worse before it gets better, that is a sign that the things
Speaker:that are happening on the ground are worrying the people at the top. But I think we've normalized
Speaker:what fascism looks like or doesn't look like for too long that we don't recognize a lot
Speaker:of the regimes that exist in Europe, in South America as fascist because we're not living
Speaker:it. We only know really what we see, which is why the ins and outs of what's happening in
Speaker:Germany and Poland and Hungary, or the political unrest even in France, and the rise of the
Speaker:far right throughout Europe. They're sometimes hidden within coalitions, but still evidence
Speaker:that the ideology as a whole is really gaining traction. When they start scoring these electoral
Speaker:victories, like in Argentina and whatnot, then... That is the point where you have to stop going,
Speaker:you know, is it coming? That it's evident that it is very much present in people's lives.
Speaker:Like even by the textbook definition of it, people are experiencing that right now around
Speaker:the world. And we are not that far behind. No, no, it's we're not even far behind. We're just
Speaker:in a very smart, evolved version of it, a very, a version of it that's just so good at, at
Speaker:pretending to be something it's not, you know, at having that illusion of choice, that illusion
Speaker:of control, that illusion of democracy. It's like not just that, but the image of the tolerant
Speaker:left, too, I think is not a good one. You know, the way that some people feel the need to distance
Speaker:themselves from Antifa and what the implications are and worrying about image and whatnot. There's
Speaker:just so much of that playing in here, especially in North America. And perception is such a
Speaker:huge, big part of that. I think we need to let go of that, that there is no space for hate.
Speaker:There is. Like, this is war. And I'm not, this isn't a call to arms, because like, again,
Speaker:this is just the language that we're using, but you have to be in that mindset. You know,
Speaker:this makes me kind of realize how sanitized our movement has become over the last few years,
Speaker:you know? Like, it wasn't long ago that ACAB was a much louder slogan than it is now, you
Speaker:know? That... defund the police was a louder slogan. Now we have Olivia Chau as mayor in
Speaker:Toronto. And when was the last time you heard someone talk about defunding the police? Because
Speaker:I don't hear it. And as long as the police are being careful about their brutality and are
Speaker:not, because I think they've gotten more careful about it. I think that they recognize the very
Speaker:real threat to their institution that this movement posed. So I think they have gotten more careful.
Speaker:I think they're more hesitant. It's the reason why encampment evictions don't have a line
Speaker:of cops today. They have private security overseeing and they bring out the claw in the night, but
Speaker:they don't have the line of cops anymore. And I think that's intentional because they've
Speaker:gotten, they were afraid of the movement, but now that they've gotten so good at that, where
Speaker:are the calls to defund the police? Because that was not to do just with like, recent examples
Speaker:of police brutality is not the reason to defund the police alone. It's about the monopoly of
Speaker:state violence. It's about how that threat is ever present because if we ever push too far
Speaker:that's what we get. That's what we will be met with and how those resources are better gone
Speaker:to actual services for the community. But we seem to have forgotten that. Our person, our
Speaker:person quote unquote won. And now do we actually do it? Do we actually defund the police? No,
Speaker:that's not what's happening. No one's talking about that. And this is true, not just in that
Speaker:movement, but in all of our movements. I feel like we've become sanitized. We've become so
Speaker:careful with image that we have taken out the radical nature that we need to actually be
Speaker:effective in bringing about change. Because let me ask you, what change have we actually
Speaker:won in the last few years? Nothing. nothing. And we were a lot, we were a lot closer a few
Speaker:years ago than we are today. Because, and the people in power have become a lot better at
Speaker:taking the fuel out of our fire. Meanwhile, on the right, you watch them nurture those
Speaker:extremists, right? Whereas on the left, we are isolated, I would call myself the extreme left,
Speaker:Lord knows other people do, right? And, but they're not ostracized in the same way. They're
Speaker:given platforms. They're celebrated. Sometimes a little bit distant, so I did, I take a photo.
Speaker:Oh, I didn't know who they were, but you took the photo. It made its rounds on social media.
Speaker:The dog whistle was sounded. And those personalities and those ideas, those radical ideas, like
Speaker:the idea of outing. trans kids to their parents. That is a radical idea. That's an extremist
Speaker:viewpoint. That is open business. Right? But talking about revolution, talking about more
Speaker:far left ideas is purposely curtailed, silenced in environments like conventions or where it
Speaker:could get some air and debate. the House of Commons, you know? And so it's like we've taken
Speaker:everything the right is doing politically and try to apply the opposite to it as a reaction,
Speaker:as though we would just be so obviously the other guys. And the other guys were just nothing
Speaker:to inspire, right? They were a non-entity for people who were absolutely struggling.
Speaker:those political choices quite quickly. I think the, the linguistics behind this all is really
Speaker:important. And it goes kind of on scene, but the words that we use are so, so powerful subconsciously,
Speaker:and we need to like, when we use the word extremist, right? Well, extremist relates to fanaticism,
Speaker:right? And fanaticism is ignorant, right? Fanaticism. by definition is, you know, like this excessive,
Speaker:like by that, it's excessive, single minded zeal, right? But radical. Radical is about.
Speaker:The fun affecting the fundamental nature of something about thorough and complete political
Speaker:and societal change, that's what we're advocating for. So when they call us extremists, I'm not.
Speaker:Extremism. We're not, we're radicals is what we are. And we need to embrace being radicals.
Speaker:And there's a reason why these words are used, even if we're not thinking of the definitions,
Speaker:there's so many ways that these things affect our subconscious, right? And I feel like that's
Speaker:what I'm trying to get at too, is just like that radical nature is gone. Not gone, but
Speaker:it's definitely been subdued, it's missing. We're not comfortable being radical in public.
Speaker:We're not comfortable owning up. to being radical and we need to be radical. The time is right
Speaker:now to be radical. We need complete fundamental change. This system is deeply hateful, deeply
Speaker:flawed. Look at the state of our society. It's bad and it's only going to get worse. Every
Speaker:trend right now is to our society getting worse and worse. How long do we have to wait? to
Speaker:do something about it? Are we like, do we have to wait until we're so uncomfortable that we
Speaker:have no other choice to risk something? Because there are those of us here we're risking something
Speaker:constantly. No, because it'll only get harder even though times will get worse. That idea
Speaker:of fighting back in that world we so entrenched amongst activists that it will be impossible.
Speaker:to flip that switch. So I think you've kind of answered your own question is where do we
Speaker:go? How do you fight fascism? Is you make as much room as possible for radical socialism?
Speaker:Or the like. I know labels sometimes cut people out and it's just a way of describing the alternative
Speaker:to top-down rule. It's worker-led, people-led, owning the means of production. controlling
Speaker:the places that they live, right? Like tenant organizations, workplace unions. Those obviously
Speaker:are the answer, but in radical forms, unapologetic forms. And we need to start making the people
Speaker:who speak this way our heroes, not in the way that we have a leadership cult, but that they
Speaker:can speak for us. That they have a platform where they use this language. And it's not
Speaker:just the radical elements. amongst the left that are using this language and taking to
Speaker:the streets in this way. It's absolutely imperative that the leaders are doing it. That's why you
Speaker:see Jeremy Corbyn at rallies, speaking on marches, not just holding the banner when it's politically
Speaker:convenient, not just when you're marching for free healthcare or something really easy like
Speaker:that, when it really counts, when it's really uncomfortable, when the police are facing you
Speaker:down on the other side of the line. And yeah, I think that... you really hit on that, that
Speaker:sanitized, controlled image needs to go across the spectrum. Because I think you're seeing
Speaker:a lot of people on the ground doing what you're talking about. Being radical. And we will tell
Speaker:their stories. We will make sure you hear about other people being radical because you will
Speaker:find courage in the incredible acts. that are happening across the globe right now, the acts
Speaker:of resistance. So part of wanting and being able to fight is seeing a victory first too.
Speaker:So that you don't think it's for naught. Like a lot of people are willing to make that sacrifice
Speaker:to risk their body, risk their job, risk their freedom in whatever sense that you see that.
Speaker:But they need to know it'll be worth something. So, and there are victories. We just don't
Speaker:hear enough about them. You just got to listen to our show more. I need to use right now the
Speaker:example of Israel and Palestine to kind of show you what we're talking about, because for a
Speaker:long time, many of us were talking about the conditions we were talking about, the oppression
Speaker:in, in Palestine from Israel. We were talking about Israel, Israeli fascism. We have been
Speaker:talking about this for years and very little happened. It took a very public. active genocide
Speaker:for people en masse to rise up and oppose it. Do not let that be what it takes to do something.
Speaker:Do not wait that long. We cannot keep repeating the same mistakes. Like that, like, and we
Speaker:saw how, what were the narratives around those who spoke of Palestinian liberation? What were
Speaker:the narratives that they were faced with constantly? We saw exactly what it was. Oh, you're anti-Semitic.
Speaker:Oh, you're like, you know, you're an extremist. No, and now we know better. We do. And I think
Speaker:now it becomes more obvious why it had been so important to do by some, obviously not all,
Speaker:but to take that language of resistance, the right to resist and fighting. the right to
Speaker:return, you know, asking for what's owed and using the language of war and fighting and
Speaker:that right to resist. And when you placated that, when human rights advocates and amnesty
Speaker:always couched this in legal mechanisms and defending rights and using the UN and not of
Speaker:Palestinian resistance. It really opened up those attacks post October 7th, where it hadn't
Speaker:been globally established that Palestinians can absolutely pick up a gun and try to resist
Speaker:this by any means possible because it's unjust and we think the Ukrainians have the right
Speaker:to do that. But that hadn't been fully established. It was safer to use the other language. But
Speaker:in hindsight, if that had been firm, if it had all been known in all of our heads that was
Speaker:a legal right that they had, and in fact that would be the natural thing that one would do
Speaker:instead of signing petitions and doing resisting in the ways that we think are acceptable, then
Speaker:that's when you saw so much, so many people fall silent. They didn't recognize that as
Speaker:a legitimate form of resistance because it had never been sold to them as such. It had always
Speaker:been framed as... absolute evil. And if you're ever going to study the likes of Che Guevara
Speaker:and understand how some revolutions happen, how some resistance movements happen, they
Speaker:are violent.
Speaker:You can't overthrow an imperialist regime with your words. So look at what happened to the
Speaker:Black Panthers, right? Look what happens when you represent a real threat. That's right,
Speaker:because they will respond with absolute violence before you get the chance. So again, no one
Speaker:wants to get to that point. It's important that we see fascism in all its forms, in all its
Speaker:evolutions, and not be required to check off boxes of the fascists that have been used as
Speaker:an example. And I think being able to have these discussions and pointing out the obvious to
Speaker:people is one of the steps to... Allowing people to frame themselves as in a legitimate fight,
Speaker:not just a ballot box battle. You know, things that have really dire consequences and require
Speaker:radical action. That is a wrap on another episode of Blueprints of Disruption. Thank you for
Speaker:joining us. Also a very big thank you to the producer of our show, Santiago Helu-Quintero.
Speaker:Blueprints of Disruption is an independent production operated cooperatively. You can follow us on
Speaker:Twitter at BPofDisruption. If you'd like to help us continue disrupting the status quo,
Speaker:please share our content. And if you have the means, consider becoming a patron. Not only
Speaker:does our support come from the progressive community, so does our content. So reach out to us and
Speaker:let us know what or who we should be amplifying. So until next time, keep disrupting.
