>>807654>What do you do when someone calls themselves a fascist, but is clearly unfamiliar with the basic tenets of fascism Excellent question - it applies in the same case as the Marxist who has never read Marx. To analyse this, we must look at fellowship in general. So, churches have (i) Scripture (e.g. Theory). Scripture has an (ii) "official" hermeneutic (e.g. Dogma), and an (iii) "unofficial" one (e.g. Heresy). In each case, scripture is appealed to, and so theory is the grounding. In the matter of Faith, one has "initiation" (e.g. Baptism, Eucharist, etc.) which is given by the acceptance of scripture, however implicit. A Church without a doctrine makes no sense. When one is Faithful in his Church, he may not even read scripture, yet he must be confirmed in it. Now, a Church cannot be merely theoretical, but also practical, and so the legacy of the Catholic Church has a difference from the words of Christ, say. Upon this, heretics start their own church to fulfill the "true" Faith (e.g. "not real communism", etc.) and so practice again appeals to theory, which seeks to align itself with less contradiction upon it. In any case, followers depend upon doctrine, which is my point. So, if someone calls themself a Marxist, but have a false idea of what Marx wrote, are they a true believer in the faith? We must remember that Fascist revision also exists, such as Strasserism, which sought to be a true National Socialism. ᴉuᴉlossnW also praises the Republic of Salo as "true" Fascism (while ᴉuᴉlossnW similarly regarded both Roosevelt and Stalin as Fascists - indeed, Keynes praised Hitler's economic policy in 1936). So, when one asks whether another is a "Fascist", it is probably good to ask "which kind?" the same as Marxists/Christians.
>just expressing that they're a nasty person with stupid prejudicesWell, there was a recent schism I saw between white nationalists and Hitlerians, since Hitler wanted to kill whites such as Slavs, and so Hitler was not pro-white. The nihilistic, transgressive sorts don't have theory like this, they just have vibes entirely determined by taboo. This is why you get the school shooter types who are everything at once - but this is not politics, still; it is the identity of a misanthrope. Hitler would kill these people.
>Almost nobody who identifies with any given ideology (save Post-Keynesians) actually reads theoryRight, the same way nobody read the Bible for over a milennia except priests. If Faith is based in ignorance, can it really be justified? That is the larger question. Is there such a thing as "true" and "false" Faith? An atheist who reads the Bible can be more familiar with the text yet be less willing to believe. If I have to explain Fascism to Fascists, where is the logic in this kind of absurdity?
>Fascists just like the vibe of the NazisBut we are again dealing with self-identity. The point of OP is to see how identifying others must be justified by an understanding of the terms we use. A self-described Fascist has their reasons, but what of the accuser? As I see it, "Fascist" is simply a synonym for "bad person", and so is incorrect. It's like how Marxoids on this site call everything they don't like "idealism" or "liberal". This is a false use of language, since words mean things.
>nobody has any politics at allYou mean that "most" people don't. I am not swayed by vibes - I could enjoy Nazi or Communist things without being swallowed by irrationality, and so once I am free from the post-war taboo, I am at liberty to discuss truth.
>It is all identityIf all is identity then you are just positing a war of all against all, like the intersectionalists who want a race war. All identity is individual. You see how this type of discourse is not political, but is post-political gossip? One's race, sexual orientation or gender identity are not political categories; they are attributes of civil society.