Recently, there was talk about fascism and how it is too frivolous to consider it identical to communism, because it was created with the deliberate task of being its counterpoint. Then I quoted a statement by Churchill, which I will quote now:
“Fascism is a triumphant struggle against the bestial passions and appetites of Leninism and a remedy against the Russian poison. Fascism is a movement that has done a service to the whole world“.
If this statement sounds strange to you, it is because it was made in 1927 at a joint press conference with Mussolini. Look at how the meanings of words evolve! Today, when you say “fascism“, the feelings are completely different, but the reason for its emergence does not change. By the way, "liberalism" has nothing to do with its original meaning, and it has shifted its connotations strongly towards the pejorative part of the spectrum.
I remember that in the late 1980s, Zhelyu Zhelev's book "Fascism" became very popular. It described fascism, and the reader had to draw his own conclusion about how much it resembles the socialism we lived in. A brave book, a struggle. However, just because two things are similar does not mean that they are the same or that they are not in conflict with each other.
Let's take Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Admit that they are very similar, but they are still in fierce competition with each other. The situation is similar with Mercedes and BMW, as well as with many other pairs of brands in the same market niche. Take two brands of bottled water. They do not differ visibly in anything other than their brands. And yet they engage in fierce PR wars with each other. I remember one such (I was also involved then), in which one water said about the other that your children's teeth will turn yellow if they drink it, and the other said about the first that it springs from under the dump. It's the same with communism and fascism - they may be essentially the same, but they are still on opposite sides of the barricade.
It's paradoxical, but in order for two sides to be able to fight qualitatively, they must be similar or of the same order. In order to have something to share. In the case of fascism and communism, these are people's souls.
You're probably already wondering what the connection is with pink Christianity? Patience!
After World War II, a lot has been invested in the word “fascism“. It has been turned into a stigma that, once they put it on you, you no longer have the right to speak. "Bolshevism" is also a bad word, but it's nothing compared to "fascism". Now everyone can wear five-pointed stars, but try to put a swastika on it! It's acceptable and even cool to have a T-shirt with Che Guevara on it, but make one with Otto Skorzeny, for example (I chose him because an acquaintance did anyway)!
And how public speakers play with the word "fascism"! Oh, how they play! On both sides, there is no space. Here, Iskra Baeva put it brilliantly:
„By erasing the anti-fascist resistance, they returned Bulgaria to its time as an ally of the Third Reich“.
To which Ognyan Minchev, who not only in narrative technique but also in appearance increasingly resembles her, replied:
„It is a shame to relapse into this 80-year-old squinting! To portray communists as „anti-fascists“ is unlawful from the point of view of facts - not interpretations“.
Of course, communists are anti-fascists and fascists are anti-communists. And in fact, they need this so that some can call Putin a "fascist" and others can call him an "anti-fascist" without even the dogs laughing at them. That is, both sides want to make the most of the word's potential. But we know that Putin is bad! But we know that you hate him! But there are other words besides "fascist". Why don't you say that Stalin was a fascist too? Oh, that's right! He had a treaty with the Reich, so he couldn't be anyone else. Saying that Putin is a fascist is like saying that the Mamluk Sultan of Egypt Al-Malik az-Zahir Rukn ad-Din Baybars al-Bundukdari as-Salihi was a crusader. He is still a monster, he is still a destroyer, but he is not a crusader, quite the opposite.
But let everyone "judge" for themselves. I will only outline the undeniable similarities and differences between fascism and communism, and you decide for yourself.
Although in many, and even basic, indicators they are the same, you cannot call fascists communists and communists fascists. They are irreconcilable enemies. And they are irreconcilable enemies because:
1. They claim the same place – the soul of the table;
2. They are born from each other – one as a reaction against the other;
3. The mirror image is unbearable;
4. Their myths are mutually exclusive, although the structure is common;
5. They argue about who will inherit the dying liberal capitalism.
Hannah Arendt, the most influential researcher of totalitarianism, formulated it this way:
“Communism and Nazism are two versions of the same phenomenon - totalitarian rule - but that is precisely why they are mortal enemies. A world can contain many differences, but not two totalitarianisms at the same time“.
And now for “pink Christianity“. While the clash between fascism and communism is a clash between two varieties of evil, the clash between Christianity and “pink Christianity“ is a clash between good and evil. It is interesting (actually there is nothing interesting) that most of those who claim that all bad people are fascists are “pink Christians“.
The term (insofar as it is a term at all) dates back to the 19th century as a criticism of the attempt to adapt authentic Christianity to modern liberal social norms, so that the positions that today's people find strict, uncomfortable or condemnable would be removed from it. Back then “pink“ meant approximately “conflict-free“, “pleasant“, “without sharp edges“, Christianity reduced almost entirely to love, kindness, acceptance and spiritual comfort. “Pink Christianity“ is a sentimentalized, “softened“ Christianity. It is a kind of populism – to tell the people what they want and expect to hear, so that they will follow you. Today's "leaders of public opinion" do this with everything, including good and evil, fascism and communism.
“Pink Christianity“ talks about love, but avoids or ignores sin, Satan, repentance, asceticism, the Last Judgment, hell, sacrifice, the Cross, the spiritual struggle and the need for a person to change in order to fulfill the commandments of his own faith. Christ begins to appear primarily as a comforter and preacher of universal benevolence, and not as the One who says: “repent“, “take up your cross“ and “go and sin no more“. “Pink Christianity“ is Christianity without Calvary — comforting, sentimental and comfortable, but devoid of the tragedy and spiritual rigor of the Gospel
For “pink Christianity“ man is born ideal, not defiled by sin, and lives not to redeem himself through suffering, but for joy, delight and fun. For “pink Christianity“ happiness is a right.
Of course, many modern people with a peaceful life are tempted to join “pink Christianity“.
And the ideologists of “pink Christianity“ should be congratulated because they masterfully use a technique - instead of exposing the opponent, they present themselves as him. Here, we are the true Christians, because we care about social benefits and climate change, and the hierarchy, the clergy are State Security cops at the top and drunkards and debauchers in the lowlands. The same technique of substitution is used when using the word “fascism“, but there, as we said, it is not about a clash between good and evil, but about a clash between two varieties of evil. Or in other words: use your enemy's own energy against you - aerobatics in demagogy.
For me, the main battle, the war worth talking about, is Satan's war against God, and all other collisions can be reduced to this. Now “pink Christians“ will call me an illiterate and superstitious old woman, but I don't really care.
Besides, I think that Carthage should be destroyed.