‘It’s an evolved, altered version of fascism’, Pablo del Hierro answered, when asked to what extent politicians like Trump and Wilders can be called fascists. It was a nuanced answer – goodness knows we don’t encounter many of those anymore when it comes to topics like this – with which I wholeheartedly agree. I would like to add, however, that I believe the time has come to update the term ‘fascism’ to make it fit the 21st century.

One of the main characteristics of fascism seems to be a rejection, born out of fear and leading to hatred, of all human beings that do not fit the rather limited ‘ideal-type’ of the white, cis-gender, heterosexual Christian European or descendant thereof. This includes antisemitism (which still exists within right-wing groups!), which is historically seen as an integral part of fascism, but is not limited to this.

I started writing this blog on ‘Blue Monday’, which suddenly changed from a fictional thing into a real event because of the inauguration of a certain president who, as one of his first acts, announced nothing short of a crusade against gender ideology which apparently had a ‘corrosive impact […] on the validity of the American system’. Claiming to adhere to science, but simultaneously denying all scientific evidence available, he announced that henceforth only two biological sexes would be recognized, male and female and that the term ‘gender’ shall no longer be used. Apparently, the purpose of this decree is the protection of ‘biological women’ (the irony), which is ‘achieved’ (to be determined) by denying not only the rights but also the very existence of others. A significant number of fellow human beings is reduced to their genetics and subsequently dehumanized.

The rhetoric currently applied to (Dutch) Muslims unfortunately fits this scheme as well. ‘Many asylum migrants come from Islamic countries.* We know that there, hatred of Jews is almost part of the culture’, Mona Keijzer, then an intended Minister in the at the time still to be formed radical right-wing cabinet of the Netherlands, said in talk show Sophie & Jeroen on 17 May 2024. She said ‘culture’, not ‘genes’, but that only allows for a limited breath of relief. Because if culture equals religion, without any room for influences caused by societal and political circumstances, aren’t we then again talking about one of the fundamental characteristics of human beings? One’s adherence to a certain religion forms an integral part of one’s identity, which identity is subsequently rejected. Furthermore, although one’s religion forms an integral part of one’s identity, group convictions are not necessarily a part of that.

Aren’t we then – again – labeling a certain group of people as ‘undesired’ simply because of who they are? Aren’t yet again imaginary cultural characteristics forced upon people, which are then subsequently used to deny them certain human rights? Isn’t a carefully and opportunistically selected part of science not used again to tell people who they are and what they can and cannot do?

In The Crisis of German Ideology, George Mosse described how the Nazis attached the ‘essence’ of people (a Volk) to its ‘native landscape’, leading to the assumption that Germans were deep and mysterious people (because they originated from dark, misty forests) and Jews – originating from a desert landscape – were dry people, lacking creativity and spirituality. Using ‘historical truths’ to make it sound plausible, those imaginary cultural characteristics were subsequently used to stigmatize and dehumanize an entire group.

‘Not everyone’, Keijzer hastily added, and of course antisemitism wasn’t only reserved to Muslims, ‘because otherwise the Holocaust would never have happened’, followed by a snap to the interviewer: ‘Do you deny that antisemitism is often part of the culture of people who adhere to the Islamic faith?’ Back to square one and even more untrue than the original statement.

The form of the current perceived enemies of the Volk may be different now, the rhetoric may sound like ‘worries’ rather than threats, but the heart of the matter is very much fascist. After all, one does not have to step into the exact same footsteps to follow the same path.

* She literally said ‘landen met een islamitisch geloof’, but countries of course don’t have a religion.