[North-NV-Greens] Fwd: [usgp-dx] Fascism, anyone? (Laurence Britt, Free Inquiry)

Wed Jun 15 23:42:24 PDT 2005

>A must read. Why isn't this carried by the 
>"free" press? Unfortunatly there is no mention of
Preston Bush and his grandson.

"The truth shall set you free?"   Paul Etx

>
>Fascism Anyone?
>Laurence W. Britt
>
>Free Inquiry, Spring, 2003, Volume 23, Number 2
>http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm
>
>
>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.
>
>
>Note
>
>1. Defined as a “political movement or regime
>tending toward or imitating Fascism”—Webster’s
>Unabridged Dictionary.
>
>References
>
>Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam:
>Hakkert, 1980.
>Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism.
>London: Weidenfeld, 1963.
>Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso,
>2001.
>Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking,
>1999.
>de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of
>Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976.
>Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York:
>Penguin, 1995.
>Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New
>York: Pantheon, 1970.
>Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York:
>MacMillan, 1973.
>Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York:
>Norton, 1999.
>Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and
>Future. New York: Oxford, 1996.
>Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New
>York: Penguin Books, 1971.
>Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of
>Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001.
>Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk,
>1999.
>Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the
>Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida:
>North-South Center Press, 2001.
>Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis:
>Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Discover Yahoo!
>Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out!
>http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html
>_______________________________________________
>Natlcomaffairs mailing list
>To send a message to the list, write to:
>Natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org
>To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to:
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomaffairs
>
>You must know your password to do this.
>
>If you can't figure out how to
>unsubscribe, as a last resort only,
>send a message OFF LIST to
>steveh at wagreens.us
>
>If your state delegation changes, please see:
>http://gp.org/committees/cc/documents/delegate_change.html
>
>For other information about the Coordinating Committee, see:
>http://gp.org/committees/cc/


-- 
Paul Etxeberri

"Forests precede civilizations and deserts follow"   ---Chateaubriand