d.086@hotmail.com wrote:




Fascism Anyone?
Laurence W. Britt

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.

Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the "Affirmations of Humanism: A
Statement of Principles" on the inside cover of the magazine. To a
secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so
crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is
anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism's
principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as
something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that
people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also
overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong
conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.

We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi
Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and
Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted
political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and
the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1
regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original
German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show
remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any
direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual
similarities.

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and
protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of
their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the
informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests
of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed
light on current circumstances.

For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following
regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's
Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's
Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national
identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all
followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and
maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a
more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses
is possible.

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that
link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of
power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in
some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of
similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the
prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins,
the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime
itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious.
Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common
themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a
suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves
viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the
objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the
population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by
marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was
egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most
significant common thread among these regimes was the use of
scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from other
problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in
controlled directions. The methods of choice-relentless propaganda and
disinformation-were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite
"spontaneous" acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists,
socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional
national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals,
and "terrorists." Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably
labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always
identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure
that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was
allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The
military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever
possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and
increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and
the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably
viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion
and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian
laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the
country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media
were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray
from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure
media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to
resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied
threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible
with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the
general public unaware of the regimes' excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security
apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually
an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any
constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting
"national security," and questioning its activities was portrayed as
unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes,
the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by
their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the
predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as
militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's
behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was
generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the
ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the
"godless." A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite
was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of
ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large
corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The
ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure
military production (in developed states), but also as an additional
means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often
pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of
interests, especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was
seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony
of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed
or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion
or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin
to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals
and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them
were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were
considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal.
Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty
harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were
strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and
literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes
maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison
populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked
power, leading to rampant abuse. "Normal" and political crime were often
merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against
political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or
"traitors" was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more
police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close
to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This
corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial
gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the
benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a
position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example,
by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus
under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely
unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public
opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates
were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the
desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the
election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters,
destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to
a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells?

Of course not. After all, this is
America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a
free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly
being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are
just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
chria

In a letter to to The Age newspaper, Kininmonth wrote that "Greenhouse
gases emit more radiation than they absorb and their direct impact is
to cool the atmosphere." [5]

A subsequent letter went further, appealing to Einstein's laws of
nuclear physics (only applicable to nuclear reactions) to explain his
controversial theories: "The laws of physics . . . allow for energy to
be transformed between different modes. Remember Einstein and E =
MC2?". [6] "