• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Fascist USA?

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
Fascism Anyone?
Laurence W. Britt

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 protofascist 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.
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.
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
Awhile back I pulled this from somewhere (sorry, cannot remember where) and it seems to fit well in this thread:

In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?


Vice President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan. See how much you think his statements apply to our society today.

The really dangerous American fascist,Wallace wrote, & is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.

In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism he saw rising in America, Wallace added, They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.

Gee....sound like anyone we know?

 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
None of these apply.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
No. To equate the United States with fascism dilutes the term and trivializes the experiences of those who, in fact, lived under and dealt with facist regimes. Furthermore, to blur the distinction between a fascist regime and a seriously flawed democracy has both strategic and tactical repercussions:
  • How many of you would condemn the terrorism of the resistance or the open military activity of the Lincoln Battalion?
  • How many of you would consider anything remotely similar to be appropriate now?
Hyperbole serves no one. Bush is not Hitler. The USA is not Fascist.
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
Deut. 32.8 said:
No. To equate the United States with fascism dilutes the term and trivializes the experiences of those who, in fact, lived under and dealt with facist regimes. Furthermore, to blur the distinction between a fascist regime and a seriously flawed democracy has both strategic and tactical repercussions:
  • How many of you would condemn the terrorism of the resistance or the open military activity of the Lincoln Battalion?
  • How many of you would consider anything remotely similar to be appropriate now?
Hyperbole serves no one. Bush is not Hitler. The USA is not Fascist.
I don't think it trivializes at all. However, to ignore the signs of fascism just because they haven't gotten around to extermination camps is foolish. Hitler didn't start out with the camps either.

A "seriously flawed democracy"?? So where does it stop being seriously flawed and become something entirely different. I think when our government begins locking up U.S. citizens and shuffling them off to military prisons where they are held incommunicado and without benefit of attorney and believes that civil liberties should be suspended goes past "seriously flawed".

You are entitled to your opinion. I do believe the U.S. is becoming fascist.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Melody said:
I don't think it trivializes at all. However, to ignore the signs ...
How dare you suggest such a thing. I've been active in the Civil Rights movement since my first arrest in 1963, and there is very little that I "ignore". But I would bet a good deal of money that you went to the polls a while back with a good deal of enthusiasm, and perhaps even hope. And I'm damn sure that you weren't looking over your sholders for the Blackshirts when you did so.

We desparately need a broad coalition to combat the domestic and international civil rights violations perpretated by this country, and progressive religious organizations will play a critical role in this movement. It is a movement in need of clear and cogent leadership. What it does not need is Chicken Little Fascist Mongers.
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
Ceridwen018 said:
None of these apply.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
And yet, we still do not see anyone at the top taking the blame or responsibility for the abuse and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners. The silence is deafening.

5. Rampant sexism.
I suppose it depends on what you consider "rampant".

6. A controlled mass media.
The conservative right has a stranglehold on the media. Check out where the media donated their political dollars and if you don't believe they also used their ownership of the media to tilt the political balance further you're naive. Even journalists are beginning to speak up about how they're gagged by the conservative right owners of the papers, radio stations, etc.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
Funny...I've been reading on a few other threads were people feel threatened by bush and others who are openly combining their political stance with their religious beliefs. Weren't the higher ups of many religions telling their congregations that they had a duty to vote for Bush? Doesn't matter the reason...the fact is that they're tied together.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
It's only ok to be an intellectual if you remain politically correct. Talk to the university professors who were taken to task, denied tenure or outright fired for not being politically correct. I consider this suppression.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
You're joking, right? The Bush government has elevated this to an art.
14. Fraudulent elections.
Well, there are some who would say our last elections were fraudulent...and some who still believe fraud was involved in florida in our last election.
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
Deut. 32.8 said:
How dare you suggest such a thing. I've been active in the Civil Rights movement since my first arrest in 1963, and there is very little that I "ignore". But I would bet a good deal of money that you went to the polls a while back with a good deal of enthusiasm, and perhaps even hope. And I'm damn sure that you weren't looking over your sholders for the Blackshirts when you did so.

We desparately need a broad coalition to combat the domestic and international civil rights violations perpretated by this country, and progressive religious organizations will play a critical role in this movement. It is a movement in need of clear and cogent leadership. What it does not need is Chicken Little Fascist Mongers.
So, you've been active in Civil Rights and yet I am not entitled to my opinion about what a fascist government is? It's ok for you to belittle what I believe? So whose civil rights were/are you fighting for? How dare I? I dare because I want to continue to live in a country where I can speak my mind without fear of being put on someone's "list". Waiting until I can't before I speak out seems a bit stupid.

Don't presume to bet what I did at the last election. As for blackshirts? No, no blackshirts, but plenty of Republican watchdogs trying to find some reason to make my vote ineligible.
 

CJW

Member
I'll only take on two of these. If you'll notice the distinct lack of any historical documentation for this idiotic comparison? Lol....

"8. Religion and ruling elite tied together."

Actually,
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/nazism.html

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
The Nazis were the elites, doctors,
See: (The Nazi
Doctors, Lifton.)

the scientists,
(The Nazi Scientists, Cornwell)

the intellectuals, etc.
(Hitler's Professor's, Weinreich)

"Nothing makes me more certain of our ideas
than their success in the Universities."
--Adolf Hitler (cf. Die Deutsche Universität im
Dritten Reich, ed. H. Kuhn (Munich, 1966) :5)

Many "intellectuals" (perhaps most European "intellectuals") still believe
in much of the philosophy behind fascism and are dead set against the
"Jewish influence" of transcendence. But it's a self-refuting philosophy
that will ultimately refute the Self.

E.g.
"Within the system of the concentration
camp something very strange took place.
The first to give in, the first to collaborate--to
save their lives--were the intellectuals, the
liberals, the humanists, the professors
of sociology, and the like. Because suddenly
their whole concept of the universe broke down. They
had nothing to lean on."
(Elie Wiesel, "Talking and Writing
and Keeping Silent," in The German Church
Struggle and the Holocaust, ed. Franklin H. Littell and
Hubert G. Locke (Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1974) :271
see also: Richard L. Rubenstein "Some Perspectives
on Religious Faith After Auschwitz. Ibid: 256-268): 273)

But some turn back to the "Jewish influence" in religion.

E.g.
"Having always been an ardent partisan
of freedom, I turned to the Universities,
as soon as the revolution broke out in
Germany, to find the Universities took
refuge in silence. I then turned to the
editors of powerful newspapers, who,
but lately in flowing articles, had
claimed to be champions of liberty. These
men, as well as the Universities,
were reduced to silence in a few weeks. I
then addressed myself to the authors
individually, to those who passed
themselves off as the intellectual guides
of Germany, and among whom many had
frequently discussed the question of freedom
and its place in modern life. They
are in their turn very dumb. Only the
Church opposed the fight which Hitler was
waging against liberty. Till then I had
no interest in the Church, but now I
feel great admiration and am truly
attracted to the Church which had the
persistent courage to fight for spiritual
truth and moral freedom. I feel
obliged to confess that I now admire
what I used to consider of little value."
--Albert Einstein
(quoted in Ernst Christian Helmreich,
The German Churches Under Hitler:
Backround, Struggle, and Epilogue (Detriot:
Wayne State Univ. Press, 1979) :345)

A whole book about it:

"Our whole cultural life for decades has been more or less
under the influence of biological thinking, as it was begun
particularly around the middle of the last century, by the
teachings of Darwin, Mendel, and Galton and afterwards
has been advanced by the studies of Ploetz, Schallmeyer,
Correns, de Vries, Tschermak, Baur, Riidin, Fischer,
Lenz, and others. Though it took decades before the
courage was found, on the basis of the initial findings of
the natural sciences, to carry on a systematic study of
heredity, the progress of the teaching and its application
to man could not be delayed any more. It was recognized
that the natural laws discovered for plants and animals
ought also to be valid for man, and this could fully
and completely be confirmed during the last three
decades both through family research (Familienforschung)
and through the study of ******** and twins."
(Hitler's Professors : The Part of
Scholarship in Germany's Crimes
Against the Jewish People
by Max Weinreich :33)


"The Christian churches build on the
ignorance of people and are anxious
so far as possible to preserve this
ignorance in as large a part of the
populance as possible; only in this way can
the Christian churches retain their
power. In contrast, national
socialism rests on scientific foundations."
(Ernst Helmreich, The German Churches Under
Hitler: Backround, Struggle, and Epilogue
(Detriot: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1979) :303)

Evolutionism, one could write a book on this alone:

"‘ … in their political system, with nothing left out ….
Their political dictionary was replete with words like space, struggle,
selection, and extinction (Ausmerzen). The
syllogism of their logic was clearly stated:
The world is a jungle in which different nations
struggle for space. The stronger win,
the weaker die or are killed …"
(The Nuremberg Trials, Vol. 14, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., :279)
"In the long run nature eliminates the noxious
elements. One may be repelled by this law of nature
which demands that all living things should mutually
devour one another. The fly is snapped up by a dragon-fly, which
itself is swallowed by a bird, which itself falls victim
to a larger bird … to know the laws of nature … enables us to obey
them."
(Hitler, A., Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941–1944,
With an introductory essay on The Mind of Adolf Hitler by H.R.
Trevor-Roper, Farrar, Straus and Young, New York, 1953 :116)


In short, you have no idea what you're talking about. You have a list of regimes, that you ignorant about. Then you come on here with some pretentious nonsense when you actually have no idea what you're talking about historically nor philosophically.

These forums are often a joke, subpagans, just your average ignorant morons of the MTVeee generation who see a picture and feeeel they know something.

Your brains are conditioned.

http://mynym.blogspot.com/
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
CJW said:
In short, you have no idea what you're talking about. You have a list of regimes, that you ignorant about. Then you come on here with some pretentious nonsense when you actually have no idea what you're talking about historically nor philosophically.

These forums are often a joke, subpagans, just your average ignorant morons of the MTVeee generation who see a picture and feeeel they know something.

Your brains are conditioned.

In case you didn't notice, nobody on this forum wrote the article.

And 'subpagans'? Are you insinuating something?
 

CJW

Member
In case you didn't notice, nobody on this forum wrote the article.

And 'subpagans'? Are you insinuating something?
And no one on this forum supports it? Hmmm?

I'm not insinuating anything. I am saying that subpagans are fascists and perhaps some people on these forums are subpagans.

Thus, the projections of fascism...
 

CJW

Member
I hope you're not expecting me to be all nicey nice when people are spouting off ignorant opinions.
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
CJW said:
In short, you have no idea what you're talking about. You have a list of regimes, that you ignorant about. Then you come on here with some pretentious nonsense when you actually have no idea what you're talking about historically nor philosophically.

These forums are often a joke, subpagans, just your average ignorant morons of the MTVeee generation who see a picture and feeeel they know something.

Your brains are conditioned.

http://mynym.blogspot.com/
I'm sorry but I have difficulty really caring what rude people, who resort to ridicule and name calling, have to say. Is it so difficult to treat people respectfully even when you disagree with them?
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
CJW said:
I hope you're not expecting me to be all nicey nice when people are spouting off ignorant opinions.
No, I think you've made it quite clear that you are a rude and ignorant individual who, instead of trying to educate people, prefers to ridicule them. A lack of intelligence in my book and not worth wasting my time on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pah

Mimesis

New Member
"I think you've made it quite clear that you are a rude and ignorant individual..."

Ignorant of what? Rude how?

I am calling ignorant and stupid opinions, ignorant and stupid.

But these forums are censored. Censored for your side. There are ways around it, of course. But it is probably not worth my time dealing with censored subpagan forums. So you can all enjoy your ignorance here. Ignorance is a claim that can be proven. It is not some buzzword to throw around to suit your feelings.
 

Rex

Founder
Mimesis said:
"I think you've made it quite clear that you are a rude and ignorant individual..."

Ignorant of what? Rude how?

I am calling ignorant and stupid opinions, ignorant and stupid.

But these forums are censored. Censored for your side. There are ways around it, of course. But it is probably not worth my time dealing with censored subpagan forums. So you can all enjoy your ignorance here. Ignorance is a claim that can be proven. It is not some buzzword to throw around to suit your feelings.
Censored? subpagan?

I think you will find our rules rather lienent.

Perhaps having respect for the forum would be in order?
 
Top