Episode Transcript
Antifascist Dad Podcast — Episode 3 (Part 2, Patreon Edition)
“You Can’t Exile Antifascism” with Mark Bray
Host: Matthew Remski
Guest: Mark Bray
[00:00:10] Matthew Remski (Host):
Welcome, Patreons, to the temporarily paywalled continuation of the main-feed interview from Episode Three, You Can’t Exile Antifascism with Mark Bray.
I’m really grateful for your support, and I hope this project brings you some joy, some hope, and some utility—for your ears, your work, and your days.
Just to review Part One: Mark described how he tries to keep his public antifascist work and his private parenting life somewhat separate. Of course, his values inevitably shape how he raises his children—and that’ll continue to be the case as the years go on.
He spoke about receiving threats and enduring intense media scrutiny seven years ago, while there was a newborn at home. That led us into a discussion of the painful trade-offs between parenting, resistance, and endangerment.
He also added some nuance to my idea that you can understand everything about fascism through a schoolyard bullying analogy. We talked about early cultural conditioning and streams of propaganda in education—especially the liberal digestion of history that says, “Well, colonialism was bad, but...”
Here’s Part Two. When I come back at the end, I’ll give some thoughts about the crucial distinction Mark makes between conservative or right-wing histories of the world and fascist histories.
Spoiler: the content isn’t all that different—it’s the technique that marks the threshold.
So, let’s pick it up after I ask a question about how liberal histories of social change often rely on individualistic, psychological analyses of heroic figures—like MLK Jr.—rather than on accounts of long-term struggles over class, power, and resources. Does that reflect a misdiagnosis of fascism as a constellation of personal failings, rather than as the consequence of structural pressures and injustices?
[00:02:23] Mark Bray:
This kind of Western individualism shapes how we understand history. We think of MLK, for example, as this lone moral hero who just had enough and put his foot down—or Rosa Parks, who just decided one day to sit in the front of the bus. But she was part of a campaign. These people were part of organizations. They learned from elders who had been doing this for years.
So when we think of politics in terms of individual moral conscience, that flips into how we view fascists—as individuals with bad moral consciences. We don’t see things in terms of struggle, power, movements, or interests.
That’s also reflected in how Americans see politicians. It would blow most Americans’ minds to understand parliamentary systems where you vote for a slate of candidates, not just personalities.
[00:03:20] Matthew Remski:
I’m sitting here in Canada, so that’s how we do it—and yes, it’s completely different. Power feels much more fluid. Maybe not fully collective, but there are more moving parts and fewer celebrities.
[00:03:37] Mark Bray:
Exactly. I don’t think a parliament is a cure-all, but it’s an example of how Americans think of political actors as individuals with opinions—not as members of organizations or, God forbid, classes.
[00:03:56] Matthew Remski:
Classes, right. Exactly. Where do you think fascist propaganda becomes explicit in education?
[00:04:08] Mark Bray:
Well, I come from the view that there are continuities between what we’d call “straightforwardly fascist” propaganda and the broader ocean of right-wing or centrist reactionary ideas. There’s a lot of overlap.
I think it becomes fascist when it’s completely divorced from sources—when the question of whether information is real no longer matters. That leads to fake news, AI, deepfakes: anything critical of Trump is said to be made up.
Because fascism rejects rationality at its foundation. That’s hard for some people to grasp. But fascism emerged as a self-consciously “virile,” “masculine” rejection of what Mussolini, for example, considered “effeminate” or “Jewish” rationalism. He said, “I contradict myself? I don’t give a damn.”
In an educational context, fascism begins when truth no longer needs justification. When authority is unquestionable. When it excludes entire groups by identity or by thought.
You can imagine the spectrum here: from the conservative claim that colonization was good because of X, Y, and Z—to the fascist version, where you no longer need to justify it at all. It’s just good. And if you question it, you’re the enemy.
[00:06:39] Matthew Remski:
So to make this concrete: I’m a 14-year-old boy in Catholic school in Toronto, being taught that colonization was just something that happened—no big deal. You’re saying that’s pre-fascist if it’s still trying to persuade me with facts and evidence?
[00:07:01] Mark Bray:
Right. You could have a version of history that justifies colonization and erases genocide—but still cites legitimate sources. That’s not fascist yet. The line gets crossed when persuasion gives way to power—when truth no longer needs sources, only authority.
[00:08:42] Matthew Remski:
It seems like one of the biggest challenges for parents and caregivers is recognizing how mainstream society responds to fascist threats with liberal or centrist defenses. The advice becomes: “Just keep working hard, get good SAT scores, vote Democrat, and everything will work out.”
[00:09:16] Mark Bray:
Exactly. That’s the centrist or liberal argument: reinforce democratic institutions, have faith in rational discourse, trust the courts and police. The radical—or sincerely leftist—view sees fascism as an extreme symptom of what’s already wrong with society.
The liberal antifascist approach—“just follow the rules”—has failed before. Hitler and Mussolini came to power legally, then used the liberal state to entrench fascism.
Today, the American state is more powerful than either of those—militarily, technologically, and in surveillance. Trump inherited a weapon unparalleled in human history.
So no, abiding by the rules isn’t enough. The only real counterweight is popular resistance.
[00:13:53] Matthew Remski:
I want to turn now to protest and direct action. A lot of young antifascists—especially in the US and UK—are asking how to protest under intensifying police states.
At Glastonbury this summer, the punk-rap duo Bob Vylan led a chant of “Death to the IDF” during an anti-imperialist speech. It went viral. Is that kind of provocation part of making antifascism more visible or “cool”? And what are the risks?
[00:15:02] Mark Bray:
First, I love Bob Vylan. I appreciate them speaking out. I think antifascism and Palestine solidarity belong in the same conversation.
What’s happening in Gaza is horrific. The so-called “Palestine exception” in Western politics means Israel can do almost anything to Palestinians and still be considered beyond criticism.
“Death to the IDF” was read as extreme, but if you interpret it as condemning an organization that engineers genocide, it makes sense. Resistance to occupation and genocide is legitimate.
[00:17:27] Matthew Remski:
Let’s extend that to other slogans people might chant without fully thinking them through—like “Abolish ICE,” “All Cops Are Bastards,” or “Globalize the Intifada.”
[00:17:57] Mark Bray:
People should know what they’re saying. The right loves to find confused protestors and film them for cheap propaganda. But that’s inevitable in any mass movement—people come with different levels of understanding.
Personally, I support all three slogans. “Abolish ICE” makes sense if you believe, as I do, in open borders. “All Cops Are Bastards” aligns with a vision of a post-capitalist world without carceral policing. And “Intifada,” meaning “uprising” or “resistance,” encompasses many forms—strikes, boycotts, protests, even armed struggle.
Resistance to colonialism is always legitimate.
[00:20:31] Matthew Remski:
Some argue that you have to worry about the fence-sitters—that radical slogans alienate people you might want to recruit. They say: tone it down, make it palatable. How do you respond to that?
[00:21:20] Mark Bray:
Polls during the Civil Rights Movement showed that most white Americans disapproved of sit-ins. So if activists had based strategy on polling, they wouldn’t have sat down.
The tactics at the cutting edge of resistance are never popular when they emerge. Their goal isn’t always to persuade—it’s often to force the issue so that society must respond.
Movements need a diversity of tactics and messages. If you focus only on pleasing the fence-sitters, you erase radical politics altogether and neuter the movement.
[00:25:16] Matthew Remski:
Last question: What makes you hopeful when you think about your kids in the context of all this?
[00:25:24] Mark Bray:
That’s hard. After twenty-plus years in radical politics, it can feel like a roller coaster—you see how much people have given, and how far we still are from where we want to be.
But over the past decade, I’ve seen incredible movements and gains. I want to give my kids the same sense of hope and possibility I had at seventeen. I don’t want my own burnout to cloud that.
At Occupy Wall Street, I thought the younger organizers were naïve. But their lack of baggage let them try something bold—and it worked.
So my hope lies in that: the wisdom of experience paired with the courage of youth. The future isn’t written. Struggle continues. I hope my kids live to see the outcomes we’ve dreamed of.
[00:27:41] Matthew Remski:
Mark Bray, thank you so much.
[00:27:42] Mark Bray:
Thank you.
[00:27:47] Matthew Remski (Closing Reflection):
The longer I’ve sat with this interview, the more one part stands out. Mark said the dividing line between conservative or right-wing knowledge production and fascist propaganda is the orientation toward sources and truth.
You can build a respectable, well-sourced narrative of Canada or the U.S. that glorifies colonization. You’ll get good grades, maybe a degree, even a career. But those “reasonable” histories still erase genocide.
Fast-forward to today: the same habit produces pundits who say the situation in Gaza is “complicated.” They cite experts—but never Palestinians. In both cases, liberal centrists and fascists share the same core analysis: the global order is how it must be.
The difference? The fascist no longer pretends to care about truth.
This is why watching Ezra Klein invite Ben Shapiro on to find “common ground” is so maddening. They already have it: capitalism as the unchangeable base of human life. One side argues with data; the other just wields power.
In the end, both sustain the same system.
For those of us in the disinformation trenches, that’s the hardest realization: that “respectable” liberal discourse and fascist propaganda often mirror each other in content—just not in tone.
And as I think about Mark’s kids—and all the kids of antifascists, exiles, and oppressed people—I think about how their parents have to make adventure out of hardship. How love becomes the bridge between innocence and awareness.
Thanks for listening. Peace and courage to you and yours.
