Exorcising Left-Fascism

The following article by an old-fashioned leftist in Switzerland is refreshing for its unabashed “Islamophobia”. The leftism of Stefan Zenklusen seems quaint now, a relic of the Old Europe, from before the revolutions of the 1960s.

JLH, who translated the article, includes this prefatory note:

This article provides an interesting glimpse into what I would call a traditional leftist or liberal, who finds he has been lumped in with the “extreme right” because of his views on Islam.

Stefan Zenklusen is grimly consistent in his citing of “left-fascists” (emphasizing that all fascists are leftists) who mold public opinion, and of their emulators, the “neoliberals” — which term is eerily reminiscent of “neoconservative.” Is he seeing the same qualities of double-talk in his “neos” as we see in some of ours?

And he seems to have the same complaints of political Alzheimer’s to lodge against the Swiss leftist version of the “68ers” as do the Germans against the leading figures of the 1960s and 1970s.

The translated article from Hintergrund-Verlag:

A Different World Is Possible — If We Defeat Leftist Fascism

by Stefan Zenklusen
January 8, 2015

Anti-Semitic terrorism in France is only the vestige made public by the media of what the population must suffer daily from the violence of Islam. Again we hear of an assault with explicitly anti-Semitic characteristics in a Muslim-dominated area. There was a rape during a robbery. Even within the confines of the previously comparatively peaceful 19th district, anti-Semitic (and also anti-Chinese) attacks are the order of the day.

We must emphasize again: This attack and rape are completely legitimate from a Muslim point of view. Since Islam considers itself in a state of war with Jews, attacks, murders and rapes (of the enemy) are fully in the spirit of the Koran. These are the Prophet’s recommendations.

As is to be expected from the world’s most spineless and mendacious elite (which has in forty years retro-developed its own land in every respect into a third-world country), it sees the problem in republican patriots like the essayist Zemmour (a Jew), who has been warning for decades against an ethnic-religious communitarianism (i.e., a kind of ethno-fascism).

Let us take a look at the argument of the leftist-fascist/neoliberals (Raymond Aron[1] was a liberal, but would never have accepted such collective spiritual corruption — Today, he would be a dissident).

To be precise: The primary guilt for the increasing anti-Semitism and Islamophobia is on the rightist extremists (of the National Front — FN) They are guided by hatred. The content of what they offer is false and populist. Unaware, confused and seduced citizens vote for the FN and suddenly become anti-Semitic. We, the establishment, must be both repressive and pedagogic. Our schools and universities must become Islamophilic to fight against every kind of racism. We must — ceaselessly — emphasize in all media the equality of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. We must combat the Islamophobes (Islam critics), for they are right extremists. That is the only way to fight anti-Semitism. We must also fight everything that has to do with the construct “nation”. Anything to do with “nation” is fascist and reactionary. We must de-construct it, and eliminate anyone who resists.

Any intelligent young person can see the fantasy in such an ideology (which is shared in Paris by 90% of the members of the ruling classes). As I have preached for years, the ideology of this country is not far removed from totalitarian madness.

We must offer our own view of things — the explanation for why anti-Semitism is increasing in the European country with the most Jews. In France, as in all European countries, anti-Semitism is an old phenomenon. For a long time after the war, France was the Western country most favorable to Israel and with about 600,000 citizens (decreasing because of Islamic terrorism), has the largest Jewish community in Europe. Even under the latter-day de Gaulle, who introduced an Israel-critical policy, anti-Semitism played no relevant role. So using de Gaulle to legitimize anti-Semitism is completely fanciful. Speaking of the few fighters who came to support him in London, de Gaulle said: “At the beginning there were only Jews and Cagoules (royalist or right extremists).” History is not as simple as present-day left-fascists would like it to be.

Anti-Semitism in today’s customary, drastic and violent form, which may rise to the level of pogrom (Sarcelles, July, 2014), had its beginning in the massive immigration and Islamization demanded by leftist fascists and neoliberals. The work of the leftist fascists (“anti-racists” and the like) is well-enough known. Less known is the fact that the emphatically anti-Gaullist Sarkozy gathered some extremely conservative Islamic groups to create an official, purportedly representative Islamic organization, which never officially had to acknowledge the values of the Republic. Naturally, leftist fascists had nothing to say against that — that’s why they ARE leftist fascists.

In other words, anti-Semitism in France is decidedly NOT the product of the Front National and its policies (and even less, of the voters of the Front National). It is exactly the opposite. Anti-Semitism has become socially acceptable, because of the massive, largely Islamic immigration pushed by (Hamas-friendly) leftist fascists and liberal players and slave-drivers (but NOT the Gaullists or the nationalists).

This is easy to demonstrate geopolitically: in the proletarian, mainstream, peri-urban and rural areas where the FN is strong, anti-Semitism plays no role. The problem for these people is unemployment and Islamic violence. In regions that are Islamic and where leftist fascism reigns, a majority declare their hatred for Jews.

What can we learn from that? That we are not just “Islam critics,” but that — in our analytical consideration of the hegemonic claims of cultural relativism and deconstructionism,[2] which we have already identified with regression — we are in the process of becoming A REVOLUTIONARY FORCE. And indeed, it is proportionate to left fascism and neoliberalism mobilizing their most noxious powers of lying and propaganda — as they must, when faced with misery, perfidy, corruption and, above all, epoch-making intellectual and linguistic defeat — to again convince the gullible voters to believe them. That is especially evident in France, where school — impelled by psychagogy [3] — is increasingly being converted to a facility for Islam-compatible domestication, and dismantled as an agency for communicating knowledge.

It is common knowledge: Western and Central Europe have for decades been ruled alternately by the “Left” and the “Right.” Until recently, unchallenged. This relativistic situation was not in the least disturbed by rightist-populist/neoliberal parties like Forza Italia, Lega Nord, UKIP, SVP and the like, because these formulations, as neoliberal (and/or ethnic), did not affect the given order, but rather precipitated the present post-democratic situation, through their emphatically pro-capitalist and regional ideology.

But it is possible that — proceeding from a pluralist, anti-capitalist minority which is still loyal to the values of the Enlightenment, and pervaded by an enlightened, negative but non-regressive dialectic — there may be a nucleus of people who are showing the way to a break with the insanity of capitalist exploitation and the yoke of Islamic regression. They will have recognized the trending, reactionary and brutally pro-capitalist character of the dominant deconstructionism (what I call “paper democracy”); they represent a politics of opening up.

This view of things could be called true Marxianism, turned dialectical. The faith in work and productivity that resides in certain of Marx’s works must be cropped. Only this way is it possible — in the sense of Adorno or Debord[4] — to reveal “progress” as insanity, and protect and re-create lifestyles that do not function as an exploitation of values.

At the same time, the opposition must do something that the Left has not done since the 1970s (from an understandable sense of disappointment): namely, take the suffering of the dominated classes seriously. Islamization in innumerable territories in France (also in other European countries) has unleashed an unforeseen increase of violence and hatred: hatred of Jews, hatred of women, hatred of atheists, hatred of Christians — in short, hatred of anything that is not Islam. The left-fascists (there is no other way to refer to fascists) and the liberal media have been trying for years to conceal this. Their latest trick is to claim that hared and violence come from the Front National. The whole population has been laughing at such lies, which have taken on a totalitarian character worthy of a South American dictatorship. And the methods are the same as in a South American dictatorship — repression and enforced conformity. Anyone in France who aspires to be a teacher, a government employee, a politician, a scientist, a writer or whatever must memorize and act according to the following mantra: “Immigration brings cultural and economic wealth! Islam is an open and tolerant religion!” It is no wonder that the sociology of this wretched land no longer thinks about Islam — on the contrary, its thinking is straight out of Islam.

Add to this the insanity of doing away with national states. 99% of today’s pseudo-leftists are for that. In this respect, they are completely in accord with the neoliberal slave-drivers. But neither Europe nor its still dominated classes have contributed to the transfer of national prerogatives to the EU. Since Maastricht 1992, poor Europeans have been getting progressively poorer and the rich richer (and left-fascists more powerful). The EU is a tariff union with no identity. Who, outside of some Parisian globalists and left-fascists who are sabotaging their own country and bowing to Islam, cares to identify with such a misconstruction? The EU is de facto ethnic and, in the worst sense, petit bourgeois. It actively sponsors regionalism — acting and thinking only regionally (or alternatively Anglo-Saxon [5]). All the advances brought by the 19th century national states are not being expanded, but just the opposite: policy, culture, thinking can only be local and narrow-minded, or if not, global. The EU and the left-fascists intend to relegate the populace to the village, while they themselves lay hands on the levers of power and wealth.

I do not know what the future will bring. But I do know that time is running out for the left-fascists, the cultural relativists, the trans-Atlanticists and the anti-nationalist theoreticians who are stuck in the 1960s and will support any old crap as long as it is Anglo-Saxon, and for the neoliberals who are constantly shedding their old skins, and for the immigrationists who demand from nations what does not threaten them themselves while it does threaten the dominated classes.

For the first time in the history of humanity, a community is expected to allow itself to be inundated and turned fascist, in the name of “anti-racism.” In which case, not just nations, but also alternative projects like Longo Mai [6] would expire. The time for the deconstructionists, too, will end (even if they become more numerous), because the reactionary moment pre-ordained in deconstructionism has developed in unvarnished fashion as culturally relativistic, left fascist and Islamophilic and is operating openly in the service of the free trade of goods, capital and people. The radical constructivists in humanities and social sciences have made fools of themselves. If things are as they see them, it will not be the ideologically and historically demonstrable, totalitarian tendencies inherent in Islam which will be the problem. Rather, it is we, (the “right extremists”), who have managed to dream up those tendencies in Islam.

The powerful, the “cool” pseudo-leftists, the neoliberals who act “cool,” the “anti-racists” — all those who would like to bury the modern international, lively exchange of peoples, cultures and thoughts in favor of a localized, economically brain-dead globalism in which one may participate only if one regards that Three-Penny War Novel, the Koran, as a worthwhile cultural treasure — they will all of course cling to their not merely useless but harmful positions, to their money, to their hegemony. But reality has caught up with them.

As an example, I offer Georg Kreis, the Swiss historian. After decades of anti-communist and plastic conservative lies, after decades of Diskurs in der Enge (Paul Nizon [7]), we were happy that figures such as Kreis undertook a de-mythification of Swiss history and especially looked closely at the behavior of the Swiss during WWII.

Today Kreis is an old man. He is a historian, but is meddling in things he does not understand, e.g., Islamization. In the Basel weekly paper Tageswoche he performs an acrobatic exercise of euphemizing Islam and dhimmitude. It helps to know that the weekly paper in Basel is considered “alternative”. The Islamophile message of unity is considered alternative in Basel (not for nothing did Nietzsche speak of home-grown, petit bourgeois thinking)!!! It is even worse in Geneva. The philistines there find Islam so great that they would like to join France, if only the taxes were not…

Therefore, not just figures like Kreis, but all Islamophile “anti-racists,” deconstructionists, left-fascists, europhorians and globalists should be put out to pasture as soon as possible. As with the Nazi-friendly authoritarians, we do not begrudge them their retirement. We are very socially inclined. But their scribblings belong on the trash heap of history.

All this may seemed divorced from reality. But are we really so few? Think of France! How many there would declare for a break with the ideology of free trade, capitalist fetishism, europhoria and everyday Islamic terrorism?! Millions are on our side, but the repressive tolerance forbids them even to think of an afterlife to their present circumstances. The entire discursive and institutional mechanism is applied daily to tell these people that they are stupid, provincial, pickled, racist, fascist, dreamy, reactionary, Islamophobic, leftist radical, ideologues, anti-European.

Imagine that the French people, who have been paying the bill for the globalist-Isamophilic policy, would one last time, as avant-garde of the nation, take its fate in its hand, scrape the rust off the guillotines, march on Paris, fumigate the dwellings of the globalist-Islamophilic plague there and conduct those responsible for the misery and tyranny to a tribunal for human rights (not Islamic rights). I believe it would not just be the majority of the French who would be happy to see this dream fulfilled!


Stefan Zenklusen studied philosophy, linguistics and French literature in Zurich and Paris and sociology in Basel. He has been a magazine editor, journalist (working irregularly between 1999 and 2004 for Die Wochenzeitung in Zurich) and a lecturer at St. Gallen University.


1.   French philosopher and sociologist — main fields of interest: philosophy of history, critique of totalitarianism, epistemology.
2.   A phenomenon of post-modernism, created by Jacques Derrida, purporting to delve beneath the accepted meaning of words to reveal the hidden tensions between them and thus re-interpret meanings. What one colleague referred to as “Derrida Doo-Doo.”
3.   from Wikipedia: Psychagogy is a psycho-therapeutic method of influencing behavior by suggesting desirable life goals. In a more spiritual context, it can mean guidance of the soul. It is considered to be one of many predecessors to modern psychology.
4.   Adorno — member of the Frankfurt School; Debord — Marxist philosopher.
5.   May imply fast and efficient, stock market-oriented and/or globalist. In this context, it seems to mean globalist.
6.   Rural cooperatives set up to foster communal solidarity away from the cosmopolitan pressure of civilization. (Can you spell “hippie”?)
7.   Swiss art historian.

17 thoughts on “Exorcising Left-Fascism

  1. The euphemization of Islam and dhimmitude is referred to by the author as “Euphemisierung des Islam und des Dhimmitums” (4th-last paragraph). Shouldn’t the genitive form of “der Islam” be “des Islams”, not “des Islam”? Or does the Islam-Rabatt exempt Islam from obeying kafir rules of grammar?

  2. Wow. I get some of this, and I intuit that most French would have no trouble understanding it, but such processes are mostly foreign to American forms of thinking *about* these issues.

    I have been concerned about what seems to be an overt and growing anti-Semitism but I never did think it was coming from Le Pen or FN. Now I have a better sense of it…though, still, not its current origins. For example, a headline the other day about Israeli student groups not being permitted to visit the Louvre. I wondered fleetingly where *that* was coming from and decided we’d never be told the truth. Jews should leave France; it’s a dark place.

    In some ways this fellow sounds as if ideas are frozen at two points in time: the guillotines and the student uprisings of ’68. In both cases how does one ever go back to life before such events if one has lived thru them or has had them impressed on one’s psyche in the kind of psychagogy mentioned here. The temptation to sharpen the edges, to overturn the barricades appear to be the horrible and eternal heritage of the French.

    I wonder what Bat Ye’or would say about this. Does anyone know if she is writing essays lately?

    BTW, “psychagogy” by another name could be called parenting of very young children. In the way that Piaget described it.

  3. Mark Spahn: My impression is that dialect and personal choice play a role with the genitive in proper nouns. I would have been inclined to say “Islams,” which may be a bit sloppy, but I have also seen “des Islam” and “des Islams.” No matter how you slice it, it’s still that thing that is not mentioned in news reports of unpleasant activities.

  4. I think the confusion here is that although the author has recognized the ‘left fascism’ dynamic, he is still confusing ‘Capitalism’ with ‘Cartelism’ in a traditional Marxist manner.

    What we see around us, is corporatism, which is essentially a set of cartels manipulating politics for their own financial benefit. We only need to look tho the Georgia Guidestones to see their intentions. This author has seen through one side of the binoculars only he cannot see through the other side because his political religion dictates that ‘Capitalism’ is evil.

    A true capitalist market is open to everyone, a cartel is a closed market, if I cannot enter a market because I cannot afford to propagandise on TV, this is not capitalism.

    • I like that. As a fellow Chemical Engineer I am extremely fond of sharply accurate definitions.

    • “Capitalism” is essentially a useless Marxist term at this point. What we really have is marketism with varying degrees of cartelism and statism.

      People are unable to see this because simplistic Marxist thinking has abstracted away the details. This is done to set up a false dichotomy so the only choices appear to be a free market or an absolute command economy. And it’s pretty obvious which one everyone is supposed to pick.

      • “People are unable to see this because simplistic Marxist thinking has abstracted away the details.” — Nimrod

        It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. — Orwell’s 1984

        Is it not beyond sad Nimrod? We were warned that this would be the case yet we could do nothing about it. Just about everyone permitted the warning to be dismissed as paranoid claptrap even though the practice was in full swing.

        One wonders if in some possible future renaissance our posterity will be made wiser by the results of our foolishness.

      • Capitalism is a idealized spectre of Marxist intellectual origin that never really existed. The world’s first and greatest corporation the Dutch East India Company was a government-created monopoly with quasi-governmental powers as were the British and French copies. The USA’s transcontinental railway corporations all depended on government land grants and other government bestowed monopolistic advantages to even have a chance at being profitable.

        Marketism with varying degrees of cartelism and statism is a good description of what we have. And have had for at least a century.

        • A good point that the railroads were heavily subsidized by government. But wouldn’t that rather be an argument for infrastructure rather than corporatism?

    • I’m grateful for your making the distinction between capitalism and cartelism, MCin.

      The Trans Pacific Partnership has the goal of promoting free trade between the signatories. Is it a promotion of free trade or of cartelism. Milton Freeman remarked that it is very easy for a nation to promote free trade: just lower its tariffs. No agreement is necessary.

      I’ve read arguments that a certain amount of protectionism is desirable, just to protect the people in your culture and country, as opposed to throwing them out. In other words, like supporting the infrastructure, a certain amount of inefficiency is desirable or necessary, because the government is the most suitable body to build national roadways or to protect a national identity.

      But of course, the more resources are owned or controlled by the government, the less opportunity there is for independent development, initiative, or even contrary points of view to be disseminated.

      It seems trite for me to talk about the sensible mean, but it seems to me that that’s what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. The federal government would maintain security, foreign relations, and infrastructure. Within that framework, it would protect property and liberties. That leaves a lot of leeway. The government could not, at first, simply co-opt industries in the early Roosevelt administration, before the Supreme Court got bullied, but through the power of taxation, the government could eventually gain a controlling interest. So, the Constitution can’t filter out all bad ideas.

      I think it was Jefferson who said an informed electorate is necessary for the success of a republic. I think there’s no substitute for the ability of the electorate to act intelligently. If you have a country with a socialist majority, you’ll eventually get socialism.

  5. A different world is possible if we defeat the fascists of the left.

    So the Marxists went wrong again, first in the Soviet Union now in the Europen Union. Only this time it’s worse, there is no counterpole. We are Berliners, only now we are all east Berliners.
    Zenklusen is clear what he is against: globalisation, cultural relativism and Islam whitewashing. You could almost see him fit in at the next Pegida demo in Dresden if it was not for the convoluted language of Hegelian dielectism.
    What he is silent about is how the Left could have got it so wrong – again. Could there be an inherent problem in that ideological platform?

  6. There are many useful insights in this article and it is interesting to me that I read along in complete agreement with everything until just after the part about “Left” and the “Right.” Then for a little more than two paragraphs he went into a linguistic tunnel that was as dark as the preceding discussion had been bright. I am completely mystified by what the author thinks lifestyles are that “do not function as an exploitation of values.”

    It’s odd that the author speaks of lies worthy of a totalitarian S. American dictatorship. Personally, I think there was a much better example of a totalitarian dictatorship way off to the east he could have referred to that turned lying into an art form.

    In short, this leftist makes a signal contribution even though his thoughts are sprinkled with artifacts of left thinking from the ’30s. I’m surprised he didn’t work in an attack on “right deviationists” and “splitism.”

    My comments are friendly. It’s just strange that he can insert such archaic opacity into an otherwise lucid article. “Capitalist exploitation”? Please. That’s so yesterday.

    I’ve said we in the U.S. are reaching the end of the post-WWII paradigm of a ours as being a friendly, vigorous, generous, powerful, wealthy, honest nation blessed with a Constitution that limits government and protects liberty. Today I think the Supreme Court is corrupt and long, long ago abandoned any reflexive choice of liberty over statism. The right to keep and bear arms is a sacred attribute of a free people and a protection against tyrants. But the Court will parse the commas and fret over permits and mag capacity and, of course, we can’t have guns in government offices. Nothing automatic and bureaucrats just might be able to limit ammo sales and tag bullets. Oh, yes.

    The massive size of the federal government is a rebuke to a literate free people yet we acquiesce. To think of the U.S. as having in any way a representative government at the federal level today is to be seriously out of touch. The political class does what it chooses and selling out Americans – the dominated classes – is job no. 1.

    Mr. Zenklusen’s left fascism may be Europe’s version of our crony capitalism. Nigel Farage was onto something when he shone the spotlight on E.U. smugness. I’m not sure what European paradigm may be crumbling but Mr. Z clearly has called attention to the re-creation of fascism in Europe. Once one admits that, what is left of the house of cards?

    He is correct about the enormity of the lies and the left’s desperation at their exposure. On that score, perhaps he should have spoken of lies worthy of the American MSM. That’s so today.

    • I agree with a lot of what you said. The Supreme Court is partially corrupt, and is larding over the Constitution with constructs it never intended to support.

      But, to my mind, the most egregious injury to representative government and the Constitution..and to our liberties…was when the Supreme Court allowed manipulation of the electoral process itself. Without a truly neutral electoral system, you can’t have an effective representative government.

      Gerrymandering was the first offense the Supreme Court should never have allowed. Instead of altering his platform to reflect his constituents, a politician selects his constituents.

      Proportional representation is another idea whose time should never have come. By requiring ethnic or gender balance a priori, the electoral process is seriously degraded…not to mention, the emergence of truly vile legislators.

      Limiting the contributions made by a single individual directly to a politician not only served to suppress the freedom of expression, but made it necessary for politicians to spend all their time fund-raising rather than studying issues…and it shows. I think funding limits are an infringement of the freedom of expression, although complete openness can be constitutionally required. Also, a complete ban on foreign contributions is also constitutional.

      I think the steady deterioration of our understanding of Constitutional provisions has opened the door for our current government to literally make war on the interests of citizens of the United States.

  7. “Sarkozy gathered some extremely conservative Islamic groups to create an official, purportedly representative Islamic organization, which never officially had to acknowledge the values of the Republic. Naturally, leftist fascists had nothing to say against that — that’s why they ARE leftist fascists.”

    – While at the same time the political class keeps expressing that the FN, National Front, “is not republican”, that they cannot accept or legitimize the democratically – if elected – representatives, first and foremost, Marine Le Pen, of the FN.

    Which leads to, in short
    – Original French people and values of “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité” – not OK
    – Anti-French islam, totally against European and French values, making “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité” nothing but incomprehensible words from pre-islamic era – OK

  8. These figures quoted by Stephen Pollard in the Daily Telegraph, give perspective to the antisemitism in France;
    “Jews were the target of 40 per cent of all racist crimes in France in 2013 – even though they comprise less than 1 per cent of the population. Attacks on Jews have risen sevenfold since the 1990s.”
    “Almost of all these attacks have been carried out by Muslims.”
    It is a statistic to throw in the face of any deluded lefty who waffles on, about far-right antisemitism in France or Europe for that matter.

Comments are closed.