Thread: Fascism in America

I'm sure you may have heard the growing claims that the course of events in motion in the United States offer excellent premises for the installation of a Fascist rule and a police state. In this piece, I will not attempt to persuade anyone that this is or is not the case, but provide a view of status-quo from a legal perspective.

A comparison between the new and old America may perhaps also be in order. Again, the goal is not to offend, but to provide a few bases for events that some people already construe as worrying, and detrimental to their freedoms.

A few definitions

According to Oxford University Press' A Dictionary of World History, “The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.”

The general definition of a totalitarian regime states that it maintains itself in political power by means of an official ideology, as well as through propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media. Other features include a single party that controls the state (usually), personality cults, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of state terrorism.

In its modern use, the word tyrant refers to a person in a position of power who tends to put his or her personal interests, or that of a small oligarchy, over the interests of the general population. In seemingly democratic states, this happens even if that person was selected in his or her position following free elections. In classical political sciences, the word also refers to a person who has taken a position of power outside of hereditary (no longer applicable except for monarchies) or constitutional frameworks.

One of the two main definitions associated with the concept of dictatorship refers to a single person, or a small group of people, controlling the government of a country. The second definition refers to an autocratic form of rule, in which the people, or person, in charge do(es) not abide by, or simply dismantle, laws, constitutions, as well as social and political factors in the state.

Propaganda, in its most basic form of acceptance, refers to using speeches, media channels, and other means for disseminating information to the general public. The general purpose of propaganda is to influence the masses so as they rally to a cause, or a point of view, established by the ones who engage in this type of action. Propaganda is regularly used by powerful groups, such as those of religious people around the world, governments, and their leaders.

Fascism

Obtaining total control on a state without raising the suspicions of the general public is something that is incredibly difficult to do. As one who has studied the world's political systems, doctrines and ideologies, I can tell you that a Fascist-type, totalitarian state is extremely difficult to construct. There are two possible ways to go about it. One is the direct path, such as the one taken by Adolf Hitler when he became the ruler of Germany, in 1933. The other one takes longer, but creates the proper conditions for the people seizing control, in the sense that their take-over will not be hostile, and will be met with minimal resistance. This carries the advantage that fewer opponents can be more easily silenced.

Hitler did something that was actually pretty smart in taking over Germany. After his first failed attempt at glory, which landed him in jail, he set out to conquer political power by taking over the state via democratic means. As proof of this, consider the fact that his party won the 1933 race in free elections. The thing the to-be Fuhrer did was use the mechanisms of propaganda, and fear, to instill the desire in the masses to vote for him. Once he was in a position of power, he cleverly manipulated President Hindenburg into granting him emergency, executive powers, which he never gave up until his death.

The thing that you need to keep in mind from this is the fact that these powers were given to him in response to the social turmoil that permeated Germany at the time. But the unrest was caused by Hitler's paramilitary groups, the SA, themselves. In other words, the Fuhrer set his own stage, and managed to play everyone so cunningly that he became the absolute ruler of Nazi Germany. Just six years later, in 1939, the Second World War began.

Some concerned groups are saying that this is not the way employed by the US elites today. They argue that these people move much more slowly, taking their time to build control. They slowly undermine the people's basic freedoms and rights, and all while arguing that they boost them. For example, the Patriot Act was touted by then-president George W. Bush as being a document that enabled government agencies to communicate with each other more efficiently. However, critics have pointed out that the law also enabled the state to gain more control over people's lives.

This was done by allowing the government easier, and unconstitutional access, to people's homes and private affairs. Intercepting e-mails and tapping telephones can indeed be a good measure in fighting terrorism, but the warrants that were required in order for these actions to be legal had their role. They were supposed to protect citizens from abuse by authorities. A judge had to be presented with facts, or at least founded suspicions, before he or she released authorizations to intercept private communications. But, at this point, the government is free to do this at its whim.

US authorities can also now search people's houses without their knowledge, and without them being present at the inspection. In other words, while you are out working for some corporation, government agents are at your house, searching for any signs of suspicious activity. This type of behavior is unconstitutional, illegal, and against the most basic human rights. But, as some have correctly pointed out, people tend to put their security first. Under the pretext that they are enhancing security, officials can pass and enact laws that strip away people's rights. The thing to keep in mind here is that they do so with the express permission of the people.

Another thing that the US piece of legislation did was define what a terrorist was. One of the definitions in the Patriot Act (sec. 411) is “a political, social or other similar group whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities.” This means that the power of decision falls under the Secretary of State. What if this Act was put into force when Martin Luther King Jr. was speaking to the crowds? We would have had him, Rosa Parks, and other activists labeled as domestic terrorists.

Under the same document “Engage in terrorist activity” means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization, to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity; to prepare or plan a terrorist activity; to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity; to solicit funds or other things of value for a terrorist group.

Additionally, as per the same document, “An alien [foreign national] detained solely under paragraph (1) who has not been removed under section 241(a)(1)(A), and whose removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future, may be detained for additional periods of up to six months only if the release of the alien will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person.” Again, we see the use of the term national security, which is one of the most ambiguous terms in the world today.

Just like the word terrorism, the words national security can hardly be defined, and it's precisely this fact that allows for abuses to be carried out in their cover. The Patriot Act has many provisions that are frightening to me, at least, as one who has read a little bit of history. It puts unprecedented powers in the hands of fewer individuals, and claims to enhance freedoms, while at the same time reducing them considerably. I will remind you that Nazi Germany also applied the same method of keeping people in check. The only difference is that they did it upfront.

But one of the major achievements of the US legislation that was released after the 9/11 attacks was the creation of “patriots.”.From a political standpoint, I am not a nationalist. This means that I have studied the issue of patriots closely, as a potential threat for social orders. These people take their love of the country to heights where they are willing to throw out other citizens, who tend to disagree with them. This is seen today in the excessive use of the term “unpatriotic” and “unAmerican,” especially by people who are fanatics about the position, power and role in the world of the US. It is very often used against groups who tend to disagree with them on government policies.

Unfortunately, this is becoming increasingly common in the US today, as people who dissent their government's decisions, or dare question some of the laws in effect, are deemed unAmerican. This is a very dangerous course of events, I believe, simply because the freedom of speech appears not to matter anymore. When confronted with a question related to this issue, any “patriot” will tell you that this is unimportant, when considering the greatness of the country.

This amazes me when thinking about the reaction that conservative people had when President Obama wanted to introduce a new healthcare reform. All over Fox, the entertainment channel, TV show hosts and their guests called the president and his measures Socialist, which is hardly the case. My bachelor degree work was focused entirely on Socialism and its influence on wars around the world. As such, I studied the differences between Socialism, Communism and Capitalism closely, and I can honestly tell you that Obama is not moving for instating a Socialist approach.

Doing so would imply making the healthcare system public in the true sense of the word. Each person would need to pay yearly contributions, there would be little to no private health-insurance companies, healthcare would be free for all, the state would own the hospitals, and so on. Obama is trying to extend coverage to include more people, which makes a certain amount of sense considering that about 50 million Americans are currently uninsured. So, as I was saying, why do some people oppose this type of measures, while at the same time behaving in a nationalistic manner. Let me remind you that the Nazi Party was called the National-Socialist Labor Party of Germany.

The Traits of Fascism

Here are the defining characteristics of fascism, as evidenced by political analyst Dr. Lawrence Britt, who has studied this doctrine in the case of Germany, Italy, Spain, Indonesia and Chile. See for yourselves how many of them apply to the US right now.

1. powerful and continuing nationalism
2. disdain for the recognition of human rights/usurping human rights
3. identification of enemies/scapegoats as unifying causes for the population
4. supremacy of the military (or mercenary groups in the case of the modern US)
5. controlled mass-media
6. obsession with national security
7. religion and government are interwined (bulls eye!)
8. corporate power is protected
9. the government is male dominated (sexism)
10. labor power and unions are suppressed
11. disdain for the intellectuals and the arts
12. obsession with crimes and punishment
13. rampant cronyism and corruption (most leaders are related to each other)
14. fraudulent elections (made easier by electronic voting machines)

While some of these traits can easily be identified in the United States today, some require a bit of explaining. The first three points are clear enough, but the fourth is a bit tricky. To get the main idea, know that there are currently more than 100,000 mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan, all working alongside the US military, and sometimes even offering protection for its commanders. These groups operate outside of military law, and are ran by private corporations, such as Blackwater USA.

The media is not as much controlled, as it rallies to the stated objectives of the government. In the US, there is a long history of the media having ties with the establishment, for the simple reason that the major newspaper and TV owners have a lot of high-placed friends. No one would want to have their friends talk badly about them, and the same holds true here. Independent media is hard to come by these days, mostly because many sites and stations advocate wild conspiracy theories. Therefore, most free media is discredited, and people really believe when large networks ridicule some people's honest attempts at making some things public.

Points six to nine are also clear, and there are many people in the US, especially those in ultra-conservative, White, highly religious, and far-right groups who believe that this is the way things are supposed to be. They are currently lobbying for a greater influence of religion in the way America is run, which is naturally troublesome. The freedom of belief is stomped on, as these individuals believe they know what is best for everyone under their own beliefs.

Let me end this section by quoting Benito Mussolini, the leader of the Italian Fascist Party in World War II. He said that fascism was, “the merger of corporate and government powers.” Now, what is the difference between what this implies, and the Republican-promoted K Street Project?

Freedom or security?

In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither.” He makes an excellent point with this statement. It would appear that, historically speaking, the two don't go well together, if they need to be fulfilled under a government or authority figure. There is a very clear mechanism for promoting security, which is the main interest of people in powerful positions. As the old saying goes, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It has become clear throughout history that people in charge tend to devise means of remaining in charge for as long as possible. This can be achieved through responsible policies that win the support of the population, but that is rather difficult, and requires actual leaders.

More often, it is done subversively, by enacting measures that chip away slowly but surely at individual and group freedoms, while at the same time getting people to go along. You become a master at manipulation when you do not impose regulations that are detrimental to the people, but make the people ask for these regulations themselves. Who would have imagined ten years ago, in 2000, that the US would look and feel as it does today? If you had told the people of the time that they would have their houses searched and their conversations recorded arbitrarily, that they would be kept in arrest without charges or lawyers, and that they would be considered domestic terrorists if they protested, they wouldn't have believed a word of it.

However, history has a way of erasing principles and opinions, especially if change comes progressively. With all my sympathies to the innocent people lost on 9/11, I have to say this. Their deaths offered the US government an excellent opportunity to implement a set of measures with far-reaching implications. Even at the time, at the end of 2001 and the beginning of 2002, many analysts said that we were witnessing a paradigm shift in the way governments acted and exercised their power. Many people expected change to come to America, but no one (other than politicians) was ready for what actually came, and continues to come periodically.

In this line of policy, one can easily identify point three from the Fascist agenda, the unification of the people in the face of a single threat, and a single enemy. In addition to bringing justification for the government's actions, this also allows authorities to enjoy a massive popularity capital, and the public approval in implementing policies to eliminate the threat. But this avenue is very dangerous, as it opens the way for considerable abuse.

In many ways, this was the case with the Patriot Act, and the Homeland Security Act. They were advertised to the population as a means of boosting inter-agency cooperation, and as a way of increasing the public security. But they also offered a path to increase the number of things falling under the umbrella of patriotism and national security, allowing more actions by the government to be kept from the public. Transparency went down the drain, as new legislation bared certain subjects from being debated in a court of law, attended by witnesses and a jury.

But, in their bid to enhance security, the two Acts, intentionally or not, managed to chip away considerably at the freedoms the US Constitution guaranteed, such as the freedoms of expression, of assembly, of protest, of free speech, of dissent, of privacy, and so on. As the government gets more and more involved in its citizens’ daily lives, the line between the US and the famous Big Brother government in Orwell's book 1984 gets thinner and thinner. Rather than turning to authorities for explanations, a large number of Americans prefer calling themselves patriots, and oppress those who have the spirit to ask questions.

Also, there is a sociological factor to the names Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act. Even unconsciously, they hint at the fact that anyone who opposes them is unpatriotic and against the country. I know there are many people who doubt that these documents are legal and constitutional, and who at the same time love their country as much as the “patriots” do, It is precisely because of this that they tend to ask the questions in the first place.

It could be argued that they identify themselves more with the nation itself, whereas the patriots identify themselves with their leaders, which is a spectacular mistake. This sets the scene for violent confrontations, which a Fascist government would consider as opportunities. I hope that this will not be the case in the US, but, if things degenerate, the possibility of clashes between the two factions is fairly high. If we take history as an indicator, then any self-respecting Fascist authority would use these incidents as a pretext to put more police on the streets, and to tighten regulations even further. Remember the Oxford definition: “the inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, […] which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement.”

Black, white, gray, it's still propaganda

Undoubtedly, the most invaluable tool that any government in the world, regardless of orientation, has is the media, or what has been termed the modern propaganda machine. What makes propaganda in the United States so dangerous is the fact that the information being presented is treated just like a Public Relations (PR) company would treat a product it needs to create an ad for. What they do in these instances is put a “spin” on it, as in present it from a certain point of view. Absolutely all forms of media (articles, editorials, TV shows, news programs, radio programs, newspapers, and so on), including this very piece, abide by this rule.

The problems occur when the government gives the “spin,” and when it sets it against the public interest. However, it is very difficult to figure out when this happens, or what the underlying interests are. Most people, when hearing these words, “underlying interest,” start thinking of conspiracy theories, but only because they have been conditioned to do so automatically, by being constantly bombarded with propaganda against independent news sources. It is childish and ignorant of anyone to think that the stories being presented on any news outlet are unbiased, and that they serve the public good.

This is almost never true, and is especially false in the case of major media corporations, such as the ones in the United States, which have been proven time and time again to follow political agendas. Another issue is that no one can honestly ask people to search for all angles on a news story upon hearing it. This is tremendous work, and involves scanning the Internet for alternative sources and information, and then sorting them out for the propaganda contained within, and eliminating it. This takes a lot of time and energy to do, and, most of the time, people just want to see what happened in their country, or in the world, while they were at work.

In the US, the propaganda machine is terribly effective at what it does for the simple reason that it does not go about its business in a very obvious way. This is partially because the machine has been doing it for a long time, and has a lot of experience in this field. As opposed to the poorly constructed propaganda in the Soviet Union and the former Communist Block (of which my country was also a part, so I am in the know), where terms such as “Capitalist pigs” automatically tell you that everything served is propaganda, in the US things are a lot smoother.

The fact that the “spin” is promoted covertly is the real danger. Having studied propaganda in World War II, I can tell you that those in charge of it today know very well what they are doing. They have recorded significant progress in constructing speeches, and in including the information they wish to pass on as the truth in a very innocuous way. Also, they mastered the technique of repetition, which proves to be extremely efficient at getting the point across.

This was most obvious after 9/11, when all major news outlets entered a frenzy. The words terrorist, terrorism and national security were on everybody's lips, politicians and media alike. This means that the public, wherever it turned, heard these words, which even unwillingly sunk in their consciousness. Now, because of this conditioning, every time a politician says one of these “catch phrases,” people remember automatically the disaster that was 9/11. This makes it easier for authorities to again rally support for various policies, creating a vicious circle of sorts. All these types of manipulation are thoroughly described in psychology books, but people are unfamiliar with them, so they fall for them.

The key to successful propaganda is instilling emotions in the hearts of those it's aimed at. Good propaganda doesn't appeal to reason, logic or the conscious mind, but to naked, unadulterated emotions. This is well-known in ad agencies, whose employees often say that the keys to selling products are the seven capital sins – sloth, anger, greed, lust, gluttony, envy and pride. But the top of them all, the emotion that leads people in blind submission, and begging for protection, is the fear.

Fear, in the hands of those who know how to use it, is the most powerful weapon in the world. There are many who say that words are the most powerful, but that is not entirely accurate. When words are used to create fear, then no other words can extinguish it. By appealing to people's most basic fears, those behind such efforts can control the masses. As Fulton Oursler puts it, “Many of us crucify ourselves between two thieves - regret for the past and fear of the future.” Looking back on how the US government treated the post-9/11 period, it begins to become clear that they were aiming at people's fear of the future with their propaganda.

To draw a parallel to Hitler's reign again, the most important tool that the Nazis had was not the Wehrmacht, or the feared SS, or the paramilitary SA, but its tremendously effective propaganda machine. All of it fell under the rule of one man, and that was the Fuhrer's close companion and long-time friend Joseph Goebbels. He was so good at what he did that all of Germany, except for the Communists, were ecstatic when they heard the country declared war to Poland. Goebbels was also the only one of Hitler's staff to commit suicide with the Nazi leader, when the war was lost.

The same technique applied by Hitler in the case of Poland was applied by Bush in the case of the American invasion in Afghanistan and Iraq. There was, Bush said at the time, an imperative for the US to invade these countries. The reasons were to annihilate a dictatorship, to free the people there, to kill off the terrorists, disarm the weapons of mass destruction Saddam had, and install peace in the region. However, the US failed miserably. The “terrorists” are still there, the two countries are still in disarray, no WMD were found, but Saddam was killed and the oil reserves are now under US control.

In the process, American corporations made billions in government contracts. Historically, wars are known for being the most profitable times for a country, except if the nation is on the losing side. The economy is boosted to unprecedented heights. In the case of the US however, not everyone benefits from the wealth, outside of the few corporations with the right connections. In addition, wars also justify the passing of emergency, executive powers to the leadership, in an attempt to facilitate the decision-making process. In doing so, the democratic process is also bypassed, and the foundations for other, more authoritarian forms of government are set.

In the end

As I promised, I will not attempt to make you change your mind about anything you know, or suspect to be true. I simply find these issues interesting, and believe they are of great importance, both for the future of the United States, and for that of the entire world. I will leave you with a few quotes that I believe express what should be done better than I ever could.

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, pull back the curtains, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.” (Frank Zappa)

“I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat for 23 years and I don't like them now in my own country.” (Joe Wilson, retired American diplomat)

“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.” (Abraham Lincoln)

“In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved.” (Franklin D. Roosevelt)

“Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance.” (Woodrow Wilson)

“We have enjoyed so much freedom for so long that we are perhaps in danger of forgetting how much blood it cost to establish the Bill of Rights.” (Felix Frankfurter)

“Fascism is Capitalism in decay.” (Vladimir Lenin)

"The soldier does not wish to appear a coward, disloyal, or un-American. The situation has been so defined that he can see himself as patriotic, courageous, and manly only through compliance." (Stanley Milgram)


softpedia