ran across an article that noted the characteristics of fascism. many of which seem to already be taking shape in the
United States
this article takes into acount the similarities b/t fourteen fascist regimes:
Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s
Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia.
these existed in defferent culteres/nations so they allow a mixed perspective of the characteristics that are common to all and were used as a means
to obtain, expandm, and maintain power.
So, in light of this i decided to list those here. I thought it would be interesting to see how these relate to the U.S. as it now stands and is
developing.
Enjoy!!!
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.
hmm, a recent event comes to mind, since which the ap has coined the term 'war on terror' to send the masses into a hell raising opposition to the
'radical muslims'. And you know what, i must just say that the terror alerts every week is really exciting.
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.
two words - Patriot Act - nuf said...
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 (cant highlight this
enough)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.
love this one, perhaps too much to even list. oh u know what they are
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.
how long have we been in iraq... and millions for this 'war on terror'
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.
it already says it for me, why reiterate
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.
lmao, umm i couldnt say it better myself if directly describing U.S.
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.
i give up, dont even need to make the corrilations ne-more
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.
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.
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.
