It is easy to understand that antifascism, on its own, is not an ideology rich of values or affirmative connotations – as it is actually only “anti”, that is opposition to something (fascism in this case). Hence, all its “system of values” is built in opposition. If there is not opposition, the system falls, it becomes useless. The prefix anti- gives one the certainty to posses what is most necessary and valuable to be, to exist, to justify their existence: it offers security in the existence of an enemy, Annie Kriegel correctly defined it.
However, here we have a paradox, or better, an absurd – if there is no opposition, i.e. if enemies do not exist in reality and in life, then “antifascists” produce them, in order to give sense to their lives and to socially justify their work (which implies financial support from like-minded, for instance like Soros % comp…). This is why such statements are claimed “antifascist”. But this is what remains of Stalin’s conception of antifascism. Hannah Arendt stated that political regimes are not divided between fascist and antifascist, but above all between liberal, democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian.
[…] But, on the other hand, contemporary antifascism actually reveals, above all, intellectual laziness. Professor Josip Jurcevic, commenting the “antifascist statements” of another high ranked Croatian politician on Statehood Day, stated that they are the concealment of (non)education, which politicians in a responsible position should not allow him/herself. […] In this context, it is important to recall a similar warning by the philosopher De Rougemont (in his work “The Devil’s Share”). Never a man is in greater danger than when he is deceived by where the danger comes from, when he invests his energy towards the void, while the Enemy approaches from behind.
The Blackhoods of Antifa, 5 October 2008