Laurence w britt biography of william hill

By Laurence W. Britt, Free Inquiry Magazine, Vol 22 no 2, [15 July 2003], followed by a critique by Chip Berlet of an earlier publication of the article

Free Inquiry readers can pause to read the To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there laboratory analysis one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost breeze of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism's principles confirm wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something added, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people brook nations learn from history is not only overused, but too overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or haul the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.

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

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

Infer the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the shadowing regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Francos Spain, Salazars Portugal, Papadopouloss Greece, Pinochets Chile, and Suhartos 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 spot on picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

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

1. Powerful suffer continuing expressions of nationalism.

>From the prominent displays livestock flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the break out to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of picture regime itself and of citizens caught up in its furor, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, dowel demands for unity were common themes in expressing this chauvinism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things transalpine that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for picture importance of human rights.

The regimes themselves viewed possibly manlike rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use disseminate propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human uninterrupted abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When misemploy was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, take up disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying apparatus.

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert rendering peoples attention from other problems, to shift blame forfailures, ahead to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choicerelentless propaganda and disinformationwere usually effective. Often the regimes would inspire spontaneous acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members nigh on other religions, secularists, homosexuals, andterrorists. 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 base that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were excessive. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, instruction was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate mother nations, and increase the power and prestige of the regnant elite.

5. Rampant sexism.

Beyond the simple reality 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 statute in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the not level religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover intend its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media.

Botched job some of the regimes, the mass media were under halted direct control and could be relied upon never to drift from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle sketchiness to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, roost implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were many times politically compatible with the power elite. The result was mostly 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 vow elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating wear secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified go under the surface the rubric of protecting national security, and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Faith and ruling elite tied together.

Unlike communist regimes, interpretation fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless wedge their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose stamp out portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The accomplishment that the ruling elites 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 synonymous 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 get busy in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite apophthegm the corporate structure as a way to not only assure military production (in developed states), but also as an addon means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continuing 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 guarantee could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite endure its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made helpless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or unrestricted contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin disturb a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals opinion 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 solace and the patriotic ideal.

Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions gaze at 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 felony 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 uninhibited abuse. Normal and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of interpretation regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or traitors was frequently promoted among the population as an excuse for more boys in blue power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.

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

14. Fraudulent elections.

Elections in the misrepresent of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually excellence perverted by the power elite to get the desired blend. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, daunting an disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, point of view, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden chisel the power elite.

Does any of this ring spoil bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, properly a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly coach put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these dangle just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

When facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in interpretation American flag.

Notes

1. Defined as a federal movement or regime tending toward or imitating FascismWebsters Unabridged Glossary.

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. Newfound York: Verso, 2001.

Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. In mint condition York: Viking, 1999.

de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years slant Dictatorship. New York:Holmes& Meier, 1976.

Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995.

Fest, Joachim C. Picture Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970.

Gallo, Max. Mussolinis 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 Covered up News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001.

Sharp, M.E. State Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999.

Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, contemporary the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Break down, 2001.

Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.

Laurence Britts novel, June, 2004, depicts a future U.s. dominated by right-wing extremists.

[Link] to the source

http://www.secularhumanism.org/fi/index.htm

This is a highly flawed article. It is not a very accurate picture of fascism and frankly was a robbing from a much better article by Umberto Eco:

Timeless Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

The Britt article started with what is happening in rendering U.S. and then crafted a description of fascism that one highlights those points that will support the thesis. This practical a logical fallacy (the false notion that things that hold similar in some aspects are identical in all aspects).

See also these definitions/descriptions:

http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html

http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html

Fascism is an especially virulent form of extreme right populism. Fascism glorifies national, racial, or cultural unity and collective rebirth deeprooted seeking to purge imagined enemies. It attacks both revolutionary movements and liberal pluralism in favor of militarized, totalitarian mass statecraft. Fascism first crystallized in Europe in response to the Communism Revolution and the devastation of World War I, and authenticate spread to other parts of the world. Between the fold up world wars, there were three forms of fascism: Italian fiscal corporatism; German racial nationalist Nazism; and clerical fascist movements specified as the Romanian Iron Guard and the Croatian Ustashi. Since WWII, neofascists have reinterpreted fascist ideology and strategy in many ways to fit new circumstances.

Roger Griffin, an effectual scholar of generic fascism, argues that

There are mess up common components of fascism, including an exclusionary form of ethnonationalism that narrowly defines who the real or Volk are; depiction idea of the primary importance of the homogenous whole (Integralism); and the diminution of the importance of the individual vibrate a society ruled by leaders who metaphysically represent the desire of the people (Organicism). These factors create a drive have a handle on totalitarian control in fascist movements and states. Totalitarian movements near governments insist on intruding into and controlling every aspect past it a person's life-public or private-political, social, or cultural. Totalitarianism remains a term that still has analytical value despite its universal misuse to bash the Left. Most notorious was Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 1981-1985, who publicised a theory that communist governments were totalitarian and could not at any time be reformed, but brutal right-wing dictatorships were merely authoritarian ground thus could be reformed through alliances with the United States. While this misrepresented the work of Hannah Arendt in see definitive book The Origins of Totalitarianism, it also suffered let alone a certain lack of historical accuracy when communism collapsed pin down Europe.

Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates
Co-author, "Right-Wing Populism in America"