A Squire's Trial

by Alisher Mukhitdinov

  - I suppose so, though I’m no good at philosophy, so I can’t really be the judge here.

  - Well, let me give you one example straight out of antique philosophy. There was a Greek man, Zeno, and he wanted to show other philosophers the absurdity of their abstract thinking, so he put to them several paradoxes that showed a conflict between their reasoning and reality. One of them was that of the mythological hero, Achilles, and a simple tortoise. He told them simply, that Achilles would never catch the tortoise, because by the time Achilles catches up to where the tortoise was, the tortoise would have already made its way to a new point. And by the time Achilles got to that point, the tortoise would already be elsewhere again, and thus Achilles will never catch the tortoise. It certainly does sound reasonable, but we both know that it just isn’t true.

  - Yeah, I get it now. Seems rather obvious, though, that a man can catch up to a tortoise.

  - But in the abstract world detached from reality, you can come up with many such seemingly sensible formulas.

  - Right, I see now what you mean in general, all lies are from people, but truth comes from nature.

  - Well, we could indeed leave it at that, but nature is also a manifestation of truth, rather than its source.

  - So, you mean truth comes from some higher power that created everything, like God?

  - Something along those lines.

  This was certainly an interesting conversation as I’d never heard these arguments before, even in college. However, once again, I had to remind myself that this man is a self-proclaimed fascist, and that none of this was really related to what I know of Fascism and Nazism. The Toreros weren’t some lofty discussions club, they were violent thugs, and apparently he and they are in the same boat. He even mentioned that the other fascists he was with were “pirates” who left immigrants stranded in the sea. What of the racism, the warmongering, the atrocities and violence, the totalitarianism — all that anyone I’ve ever known associated with fascism? How does any of this ‘truth and lies’ philosophy connect with something so vile?

  - But wait, we’ve gone very far off track; I’m still no closer to understanding why you are a fascist, and it feels like all of this has little or nothing to do with fascism.

  - And had I tried to tell you what fascism is without all that we have discussed up to this point, you wouldn’t have understood me. I had told you that Truth is my master. I do not wish to comply with man-made ideas, instead I stand as someone who champions truth. That is what Fascism is all about. One great man once said: “You either believe in the truth, and apply it to yourself without egotism, otherwise you don't believe in it and you’re kidding yourself.” This is precisely what makes fascism different from everything else — it seeks to apply truth to human life, regardless of what that means for any individual or group: no egotism, no shallow interests, no entitlement. Everything else, all the ideologies and systems, are nothing more than the products of men lying to themselves for the sake of those petty interests.

  - Sure, but how could that justify the terrible things that fascists are doing? How can you use the supposed “truth” to make it OK to let people drown like your pirate friends are doing, or to set some race above another? If truth means living in some hellish world, then I’d rather have justice.

  - Hmm, justice, you say? Well, what IS justice to you?

  - Isn’t it obvious? Justice means not hurting other people, keeping the peace, making sure people who do bad things get punished.

  - What do you mean, by “hurting other people”? Do you only mean killing, or injuring? What about emotional distress? Insults? Making fun of people? What about making people unhappy, unsatisfied with their lot? What about exploiting them?

  - I don’t know... I haven’t thought about it.

  - The fact is that our whole existence is filled with suffering, with pain. No matter what we do, we can’t change that fact, no matter what laws we make or what social order we adopt. The only thing we can change, is WHO suffers, and in WHAT way.

  Justice can’t be about “preventing suffering”.

  - Then what? Just kill everyone you don’t like? Let the world burn?

  - No. But think about this. Would you describe the world of animals, and nature in general, as being “unjust”?

  - It’s just nature, the way things are.

  - Is it unfair that the lion eats the gazelle, yet the gazelle never gets to eat the lion?

  - Ha, no, it’s just their nature. But you’re using a false analogy. All humans are equal, we’re not differing species of animals, so we should all be treated equally. If one person is always ahead of others, it’s unfair; you can’t justify THAT with nature.

  - Is that so? Would you say that all humans are the same height?

  - Of course not.

  - Do they all have the same strength?

  - No, there’s big variations in strength.

  - Have you ever met anyone who was clearly more stupid than you?

  - Yeah, but I’ve also met people who were smarter, too.

  - How can someone who’s bigger, stronger and more intelligent be perfectly equal to someone who’s smaller, weaker and dumber?

  - It just seems like they should be equal.

  - If two people apply for a job, what does JUSTICE call for?

  Should the more competent and experienced person get the job, or the lesser one?

  - I think it would be unfair to give the job to the lesser man.

  - So justice calls for INEQUALITY, not equality. Because the TRUTH of the human condition, is that we’re not equal at all.

  - Well, I can’t really argue with that, though it seems wrong somehow. It seems like it’s really unfair to people who are less gifted by nature. They keep being told to succeed, yet they can’t perform, failing at everything they do.

  - Yes, there’s the problem. If people accepted the reality of their nature, and if society was organized in such a way that each person was carefully placed where they belong, then such “unfairness” wouldn’t be a problem, would it?

  - It seems like it would be an improvement, at least.

  - Let me posit this to you: the point of justice is to restore Truth within society, which is to say it seeks the implementation of the natural order in human affairs. In this sense, rectifying a “wrong doing” is a form of correcting a lie, and replacing it with Truth.

  - And according to you, justice, and thus truth, call for in-equality.

  - Indeed. The whole world today, as we know it, is built on the premise that people are equal; another prevailing thought is that the ruling elites never like equality, because it’s in their interest to stay on top, as I’m sure you’ve heard from certain people.

  - You’re referring to the...

  - Exactly. But note the irony, that in the prevailing spirit of all opinions being equally valid, the powers that be never allow people to consider the other premise. Tell me, can you identify in whose interests is ‘equality’?

  - Those who are on the bottom?

  - Precisely, but allow me to take this one step further: the inferior.

  Even though I was keeping up with his argument and I knew his position better, hearing him say “inferior” had once again perturbed my mind. I immediately thought back to the Nazi doctrine of exterminating those they believed to be inferior. I must have made an unappealing face then that marked my distaste for the word.

  - Don’t look so upset. People place too much emotional baggage on these terms of ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’. They are surely of qualitative nature, but they do not presume any kind of attitude, or that the inferior are bad; it is simply that they are less than certain others. In relative comparison, you will get people superior to some, and inferior to others. I do not hate those who are inferior to me.

  - It’s hard to disassociate that word from these implications.

  - Very true, and even people like me sometimes forget that, though not without good reason, as they are filled with fury at t
he injustices that exist today. And so, I come back to you with our topic: when you consider equality to be an interest, it gains a no-less sinister appearance as one you normally get from the idea of those superior having an interest in maintaining their power. From the fascist point of view, all interests are wrong, be it the interest of someone coveting a position of power which he may very well not deserve, or the interest of those who are unhappy with their lot to gain leverage or a status that they do not deserve.

  - So what you claim is that equality is not, as everyone believes today, an essential truth, so much as it is an interest?

  - Correct, although our opponents could of course claim the same of us, but our principled position is to, once again, — accept the truth, no matter what it is or what it means for us. Thus, one of the most essential divides between fascism and virtually everyone else is that we hold inequality to be an expression of truth, and Justice calls for inequality. This is the dichotomy that matters to us, not some abstract, intellectual classification like Right or Left, but Superior and Inferior.

  - Well, there is certainly something inspiring, I suppose, in how you want to follow what you believe to be the truth, regardless of what that may mean for you, personally.

  - I am glad that you think so, but it is not entirely something that you are not familiar with. Acts of selfless heroism and sacrifice also contain that noble element that pushes one to dispense with their own well-being for what is right. And if there is anything at all that you will take away from our encounter this day, let it be this: if someone is selling you something that was dreamt up in the vacuum of abstract thought, or built on a solely material premise, then it is already a lie and most likely involves the interests of the person trying to sell you that lie, because he is unhappy with his lot in life and will want you to believe his lie to get what he wants, regardless of whether he, in fact, deserves it or not. And such people are abound in today’s world as a result of the equality myth; they feel entitled, and everyone assumes they can be anything they want, no matter how ill-equipped they are to be that thing. Most people can’t get what they want, because they don’t even put the work in to get it.

  This also rang true as I thought back to my own co-workers, some of whom believed they deserved to get a promotion or even entertained fantasies of becoming celebrities or big shots when they were barely competent to organize a picnic. And of course they had their excuses: “Well yeah, but I probably could if I tried harder.” I thought of some of the foreign talk shows that I watched, and could recall similar complaining: “I’d be rich if it weren’t for those democrats and their liberal agenda!” So I expressed my thoughts to him:

  - Everything is up to ourselves really, I can understand that. But are you saying that those who fail in their attempts, fail because they are “inferior”?

  - Not exactly, I was actually saying that maybe if someone fails at something, it is because it is just not their lot to begin with and they are lying to themselves. Obviously, this is not the case a hundred percent of the time, but the old formula is true: might makes right. The greatest people came into their own because they overcame obstacles no matter what because they were superior, they had the might to do these things, an inherent quality that made them capable. Compare that to people who get all the support, boosts and hands up in the world, yet still fail — because it is simply not their lot to aspire to great things.

  - I do see what you are saying, but I don’t think it can really be so cut and dry.

  - Allow me then to illustrate this point as well — it should reveal to you the actual nature of inferiority, and why inferior people are as they are. Consider fat people: do you think the human body is supposed to be fat?

  - Well, certainly not supposed to be, but it can grow fat.

  - Indeed it can, which means the human body can change in certain ways up to a certain point; it has its limitations. Consider the human body on its own, devoid of personality, just a biological structure, a tool through which you interact with the world. In this sense, the human body is universally the same for all people; what is true of the human body is true for any person’s body, barring some deformities and hereditary diseases. The only particular variations that exist in the body are of small consequence, such as height, for example. Any body can be fit. But not anyone can be fit.

  - How do you mean?

  - Well, if you’ve ever heard the excuses of some fat people, I’m sure you’re familiar with their claim that they are just born that way: that they are supposed to be fat because their bodies are fat. No, the real issue is that they are fat — not because of their bodies, but because of what makes up their personality and their character — which is weak, and gives in to temptations and pleasures. They are not fat because their bodies are supposed to be fat, they are fat because they are weak in spirit, and it is that spirit that determines their physical appearance. Once again, an ironic situation: they truly are “born that way”, which is to say that they are born weak, and in that lies their inferiority. Thus, they are not weak because they are fat, they are fat because they are weak and cannot change their innate nature, while the potential for the body to change is always there.

  - I don’t really believe that... I’ve heard of instances when fat people lost their weight, without surgery, mind you.

  - If these people had done it by their own will, then it means they always were of strong character, but fell into depravity.

  Their victory over the temptations that led them to being fat in the first place should indeed be celebrated. But it is pointless to try and tell those of weak character that they can lose weight, and the promise that “anyone can get fit” is but another myth of ‘equality’. Not everyone is strong enough to be in charge of their own body and reject its urges and desires. Moreover, if the choice was out of their hands, say, if they were bound to forced labor, slavery or forced exercising, they would get into shape. That is, until you let them off the leash once more.

  - Because in such forced conditions, it would no longer be a matter of their will, but rather of someone else’s will being imposed on them, right?

  - Absolutely.

  - Very well, I suppose I would have to consider your argument for inferiority.

  - Then please consider the following as well: inferior people always turn to falsehoods because they are discontent with what their reality is, and refuse to accept it, driving them to act out against reality by in the only way possible — delusions and lies.

  - And what of the superior people, then?

  - The superior people are so by nature. All they need to do is be themselves, and in doing so, they are standing closer to the truth. Just how nature simply is, so they must simply be.

  - I’m not sure what you mean by this. Sounds like superior people have it easy, too.

  - I suppose it may look that way to some, but in ancient times, certain societies built themselves on a structure that reflected the Superiority-Inferiority dichotomy. And one of their principal rules was that everyone must be true to their nature: so when an inferior person tried to reach beyond his station, he was shunned — not just by the Superior, but also by his equals and the inferior. They became pariahs. However, if a Superior person attempted to engage in the duties or actions of the inferior he was all the same shunned, not just by his equals and the superior, but also by the inferior. They, too, became pariahs.

  - So there are certain limitations for the superior as well, then.

  - Yes. And again, mind you, that we are talking about innate human nature and not merely social structure. You can regard the world around us today as literally a revolt of the inferior, and they rule today from the top of the social structure, yet they still are not content and complain about inequality — be it between the races, sexes, or anyone else. Inferiors gaining power did not actually change their innate nature; it did not change the truth.

  - The inferior are still inferior, despite being given benefits and positions they shouldn’t even
have in the first place.

  - Very accurately put, my friend! I see you’re becoming more adept yourself at this reasoning.

  He was right, besides, I was no fool by any means, and he spoke convincingly. At this point, I was certain that prodding him again about things like racism and totalitarianism will not lead me to a direct answer — but if I wait and follow his reasoning, he will eventually reveal all the pieces of the puzzle for me to solve. It was rather engaging, and certainly nothing like what I heard about fascism or, frankly, anything of what we talked about. Sure, the topics were all well and familiar now, from the news and my own daily life and encounters, but he now presented them all to me in a completely different light. However, I was no longer sure how I felt about anything anymore, so I was resolved to hear him through to the end, and so prodded him to continue.

  - Having been socially put on equal footing with the superiors, the inferiors still feel wronged because the real issue is innate: unchangeable human nature. They then felt that the inferior were at the bottom too long, and now just needed a boost and then they’d be equal to the superiors. “Give the Negro a leg up — he’s been oppressed for so long he needs a lil’ starting boost”. But that failed all the same. So now they are finally, slowly realizing that the issue is with human nature, though they can’t really fathom it to its full extent, thinking of it mostly in terms of abstract thinking and materialism. What do you think is there left to do to realize equality, if the inferiors can’t climb up to the level of the superiors?

  - The opposite? To bring down the superiors to the level of the inferiors?

  - Exactly. And so they try to shame the superiors and blame them for all ills of the world. But this will have about as much success as their previous approach, because innate nature remains the same. They will inevitably come to the only logical conclusion: the only way to realize the myth of equality is if there are no superiors. This was already manifested once before in history, when some claimed that nobody will be poor, if nobody is rich.