I do actually remember the days when I’d say, “The Government should stop people from doing X” and think, you know, the people who want to do X? They’re scum, aren’t they? Who cares what they think? Sure a lot of people won’t like it, but the greater good will be served.

I used to think like that. Over time, however, as I found myself more and more in the ‘X’ category at the hands of this Government, I began to become more and more uneasy about this sort of thing. Who am I to impose anything on anyone? What if I’m wrong? The reasoning that you had to be a bit fascist if you wanted to be properly liberal stopped making sense. The best way to fight fascism is to promote liberalism, and that means using liberalism as your weapon of choice.

Fascism isn’t killing Jews, although fascists have killed Jews. Fascism isn’t racism, although fascists can be racist. Fascism, at it’s heart, is the principle that what’s good for the group is good for everyone in the group, irrespective of the needs or concerns of individuals within the group. That’s what fascism is, in a nutshell – and while it’s got different names and nicer branding, fascism was and still is a hugely popular idea across Europe and the rest of the world, encapsulating as it does both Socialist and Christian Dogma about Collectivism.

Thanks to a hat tip from Martin on twitter, I came across this horrible little piece of fascism from the Guardian:

The internet requires regulation, just as film, television and computer games do. If companies such as Facebook abdicate that responsibility, it suggests government intervention is needed to prevent an internet-powered surge in racial hatred. The spread of racism and hate is not something that can be left to chance or the whims of the private sector. Working against hate, bullying and racism must be part of the price companies pay when they offer an online social environment as their product.

Requires? Surely it is not the internet that requires the regulation. It is politicians and idiots like Andre Oboler, the article’s author, that demand and ‘require’ these things to be regulated. It’s a subtle distinction, but it’s always worth remembering who benefits?

It’s not even worth debating this moron’s specific argument. The point is he wants to use fascist tools against fascists he doesn’t like, as a way of trying to stem the tide of fascism on the internet. Anti-Fascism FAIL.

Free Speech is a wonderful, wonderful thing Andre. You brush it aside too easily.