What do you think?
Rate this book


304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2024

I think disaster nationalist leaders are pathfinders for a new type of fascism, because in a manner of speaking we are always pre-fascist as long as the conditions for fascism have not been abolished. But whatever emerges will not be cosplay of the 1920s and 1930s. Apart from anything else, the fascist experience did not begin and end with the interwar crisis. According to Rick Saull, the distinctive far-right model of politics, combining paramilitarism and charismatic leadership, can be traced to 1848 and the backlash against the revolutions that swept Europe in that year. The popularisation of irrationalist, anti-democratic nationalism can likewise be traced to the latter half of the nineteenth century. Arthur Rosenberg, writing shortly after Hitler took power, observed that before fascism became a party-state it had to be a ‘mass movement’ rooted in the feelings of millions. Before it was a mass movement, millions had to be infected with völkisch, racial-nationalist ideas. If interwar fascism is to be the historical benchmark against which we are measuring the new nationalism, then it would be appropriate to begin where fascism begins. It begins, in the words of philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guatarri, as a ‘molecular’ uprising, with microfascisms fizzing away in masses of people. We are, today, in the early days of a new fascism. The appropriate model for analysing the current phase of nationalist politics is not, therefore, the ‘strongman’, the military dictatorship or the party-state. It is the contagious outbreak: the ‘brown plague’, as Daniel Guérin called it.If Seymour makes much of Freudian psychoanalysis in his argument, it matters less if this is because of his own prior intellectual commitments (or not) than that the times themselves do yield such analysis, and which always provides the patient reader with explanatory insight in these pages—via arguments which never feel superimposed upon current trends and events. When in his Introduction he writes, therefore, of our current crisis arising from “a pervasive ambivalence about civilization which necessarily includes a hatred for all that is civilized, and a submerged desire for it to fall apart, as well as a need to be reassured that the disaster will all be made good in the end”—a recipe which, if it seems straight out of Hollywood, is also therefore as ripe for capital accumulation at the macro-level as it is for careerist grifter-influencers harvesting shrimp in the weeds of the swamplands which are supplanting what used to pass for political discourse, where those tuning in to right-wing 24/7 cable news, say, or doom-scrolling on X (or Truth Social!) can be fed their daily dose of fear, loathing, and apolcaplytic (“apocalypse in the sense of an ‘unveiling’”) redemption...
The apocalyptic fantasies of disaster nationalism ... tap into a pervasive ambivalence about civilization which necessarily includes a hatred for all that is civilized, and a submerged desire for it to fall apart, as well as a need to be reassured that the disaster will all be made good in the end. This, as catastrophe novels, apocalypse movies, 'end times' infotainment and now disaster nationalism suggest, is highly profitable.To what end, one might ask?
Disaster nationalism today harnesses the insecurity, humiliation and miseries of heterogeneous classes and social groups, including some of the poorest [but, as Seymour discerns, mostly the downwardly mobile middle class], to a revolt against liberal civilization, with its pluralist and democratic norms. It offers the balm of vengeance, the promise of national self-love and the cure of restoring society to a more pristine, harmoniously hierarchical state through condign violence. A cosmic reset, one might say. It seeks to restore the traditional consolations of nationalism for the threatened and downwardly mobile. The obsession with seemingly trivial expressive norms, such as the use of correct gender pronouns, is in fact fundamentally about how much violence and humiliation are socially permissable.It's stark, it's accurate, and it is more than agitating.