Both the old and the new fascists do that, and the new fascists are cretins like you. Allow me to explain. First off, here’s something I wrote early August 2016:
‘Trump represents the side which supposedly hears the individual, the common man, the little man. But his victory, in turn, will represent the official statement of fact that Western democracy has degenerated into an ochlocracy, a mob rule. Again, the fact that it’s a neck-and-neck race tells us quite clearly that that is imminent. Hillary represents the voice of “democracy in practice”, which the Dutch Nietzschean Menno ter Braak defended against impending Nazism in 1930s Holland: failing and thereby succeeding democracy, democracy with its necessarily arising and arisen elites! For democracy is, in its conception, supposed to be the universal aristocracy, in which everyone is an aristocrat–that is, obliged by his freedom to treat everyone in a noble manner. But what is noble about the man in the street who votes for Trump, or Wilders in the Netherlands (see my “Nietzsche Contra Wilders” essay), Brexit in the UK, etc. etc.? […] Trump represents the logical consequence of the call for the ideal democracy: fascism as tyranny in the literal sense, empowered by an angry mob. Hillary represents the logical consequence of the conservation of imperfect democracy: fascism in the popular sense of the word as bureaucracy and elitism; “corporo-fascism”.’ (https://pathos-of-distance.forumotion.com/t23-my-high-writings#140)
Note that Wilders, whose party shows clear signs of the early stages of fascism, has often said things like “We are the antifascists!”…
The history of the modern West is essentially fascist, all the way back to early Christianity (which was a fascist uprising against the “fascist” Romans), but also including things like the French Revolution (against the “fascist” Old Regime). The Roman Republic was essentially an imperfect actualisation of Plato’s Republic, the ultimate antifascist regime.—
::
The manuscript of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil actually contains a very interesting second half of aphorism 257, which says:
“The ‘humanisation’ of such barbarians […] is essentially a process of weakening and mildening, and takes place precisely at the expense of those drives to which they owed their victory and their possessions; and while they acquire the ‘more humane’ virtues in this way, […] a reverse process takes place equally gradually on the part of the oppressed and enslaved. To the extent that these are kept milder, more humane, and consequently thrive more richly physically, the barbarian develops in them, the strengthened human being, the semi-animal with the cravings of the wilderness:—the barbarian who one day senses he is strong enough to resist his humanised, that is to say effeminate, masters. The game commences anew: the beginnings of a higher culture are once again in place.”
As recently as a year and half ago, this reconciled me with the rise of the alt-right. However, I now see that the Holocene simply doesn’t have the time to wait for the new barbarians to become “humane” enough to face the fact of man-made climate change (MMCC—2200?), and act accordingly.