Fascism as Secular Religion: The Thesis That Revives the Debate

Fascism as Secular Religion: Farrerons's Thesis on Heidegger

A doctoral thesis of more than 600 pages has put an uncomfortable idea back on the table: fascism would not be just a political regime or an economic phenomenon, but a secular religion. The work, titled «Verdad y gloria. Filosofía frente a cosmovisión en el primer Heidegger (1919-1929)», signed by Jaume Farrerons and available in the TDX repository, interprets Martin Heidegger's ontology as a kind of religious substitute. The paradox is not minor: the German thinker went from denouncing metaphysics to building a "fundamental ontology" that, in the author's view, ends up functioning as a secularized cult. And from there to fascism there is only one step.

From Science to the "Lgtb Science"

The thesis traces Heidegger's evolution between 1919 and 1929. In that period, the philosopher went from seeking an "originary science" to vindicating a "spiritual rigor" (Geist) that Farrerons links to death and finitude. Dasein - the Heideggerian "being-there" - is not a fixed essence, but a process: being-toward-death. That experience of finitude, elevated to ultimate truth, would have a structure analogous to religious experience. It is no coincidence that the author of the thesis speaks of "lgtb science", rescuing the Nietzschean term to describe a philosophy that has abandoned scientific objectivity and immerses itself in the terrain of art, mysticism, and life.

One of the most striking details is the emphasis on the military context. The work situates the early Heidegger in the atmosphere of World War I, although it is worth remembering that the philosopher did not go through the trenches: he worked in the postal service. That distance between the "war experience" and bureaucratic reality does not diminish the interest of the Farreronian reading, but it forces us to qualify the heroic aura of some of its passages. The text itself suggests that death is the truth of existence, and that this truth can only be reached in confrontation with finitude. The leap from there to politics is, at the very least, dizzying.

Political Religion and Its Roots

The idea that fascism is born as a political religion has run through historiography for decades. The novelty of the thesis is the path: it does not start from myth or liturgy, but from ontology. If death is the truth of existence, then politics can no longer be a simple administration of resources; it has to be a total response to the question of being. In that framework, the nation, the leader, or the revolution are not instruments, but epiphanies.

The comparison with other totalizing experiences appears immediately. In the French Revolution, an attempt was already made to worship the goddess Reason; the USSR elevated science and dialectical materialism to the category of dogma; liberalism itself has generated its liturgy around the market and pogre. The question is not whether fascism has religious elements, but whether those elements are constitutive or merely functional. Here the waters divide: while some consider that "secular religion" is the core of the phenomenon, others see it as a mobilization tool at the service of much more prosaic interests.

Fascism: Religion or Technique of Power?

The thesis did not convince everyone. One of the most repeated objections is that historical fascism had little of the metaphysical and much of the corporate pact. Mussolini's regime ended up recognizing the Vatican in 1929, in an agreement where "religion" was used as an instrument of legitimation, not as a foundation. National Socialism, for its part, promoted a showcase paganism while keeping economic power structures intact. In that alternative reading, fascism would be a capitalism of crisis: protectionist, statist, and corporatist, but not a religion.

Uncomfortable electoral data have also been cited. In 1933, Goebbels's supporters did not win unanimously: there were at least six million votes against. That memory serves to underline that fascism imposed itself through violence and the calculation of elites, not through a spiritual conversion of the masses. "Religion" would not have been the origin, but the disguise.

The Danger of the Closed System

Beyond the label, what hovers over the discussion is the suspicion that the Farreronian thesis itself falls into what it denounces. A recurring analysis in the exchange pointed out that any "complete" ideology - whether Marxism-Leninism, dogmatic neoliberalism, or aestheticized Heideggerianism - functions as a closed axiomatic system. Starting premises are fixed (Dasein, class struggle, the market) and everything else is interpreted within that framework, with no possibility of falsification.

The maneuver is classic: define "truth" in such a way that one is always outside. If you protest against the system, you have already been placed in a box. If you argue from reason, you are accused of "self-deception". That structure, denounced with irony in the analysis, is the same one attributed to totalitarian thought. The uncomfortable question is whether a radical critique of fascism can escape that mechanism without reproducing it.

The Drift Toward Conspiracy

As the discussion pogre, the exchange became entangled in less recommendable drifts. Farrerons's thesis ends up pointing toward a Puritan matrix critical of modern capitalism, and the critique of Jürgen Habermas becomes an indictment against supposed "lies" of the Jewish tradition. This is the point where academic analysis degenerates into conspiracy. There is no need to reproduce the passages; it is enough to note that the terminology employed dangerously skirts the clichés of classical antisemitism. It is difficult to maintain that a reflection on fascism as a secular religion needs to resort to that arsenal.

There was also room for the grotesque: comparisons between bullfighting and Dasein, the question of whether theme parks are "totalitarian", or the attempt to link the musical scale with the colors of the rainbow. The mixture of erudition and broad strokes is, in the end, what gives texture to the exchange.

A Question That Remains Open

After 67 days and a couple of thousand interventions, the initial question still has no unanimous answer. Is fascism a secular religion? Farrerons's thesis has the merit of placing the question on philosophical ground, but its drift toward esoteric readings and its totalizing zeal leave it in no man's land. What remains is a useful warning: fascism is not just a political regime, and any simplification - whether economic, mythological, or ontological - risks falling short.

The next time someone defines fascism in a nutshell, it is worth remembering that those who have thought most about the problem do not quite agree. And that sometimes, the very tool of analysis becomes a cult.