Interesting study: 14 tell-tale signs of a fascist regime

[Chacal Profile Website]

Those interested in history will find this intersesting: an analysis of 7 past fascist regimes reveals lots in common.

"[...] 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.

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi.

[...] 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."

Laurence W. Britt, in Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.

[King Profile]

15. No respect for Brett Hull when he retires from the game.

Although this is for the history buffs... i see a political undertone here;)

[rseven Profile]

im not a political minded person but all 14 sounds like the bush admin..lol

[Allister Fiend Profile Website]

Originally posted by rseven
im not a political minded person but all 14 sounds like the bush admin..lol

Why did I know this statement was coming


Allister Fiend


P.S. There is definitely a political undertone going on.

[deathBOB Profile]

Hmmm... I know a regime just like that!


Canada here I come!

[PraiseA||ah Profile]

You are not alone in seeing all of those points in the Bush administration. Be ever wary of any administration that does anything on that list. Unfortuntely at times, you CAN fool all of the people all of the time or fool enough and silence the rest. Me, I'm not fooled and I won't be silenced either.
Great post Chacal. I enjoyed the read.

[Allister Fiend Profile Website]

Originally posted by deathBOB
Hmmm... I know a regime just like that!


Canada here I come!

I'll buy you the one way ticket, let me know where to send it. Hopefully it will open a spot for someone who has been trying to get here legally and appreciates what we have here in the states.


Same people complaining about the U.S every time, I have a feeling you guys are the same people who would complain about something no matter what the U.S. did. It is a no win situation for the U.S. always someone bitching about what we are doing or what we are not doing. it is never enough or it is too much. well anyway, I'll let you guys get back to drinking your latte and playing your video games. (life has been too good for you guys for too long).

Allister Fiend

[King Profile]

Originally posted by Allister Fiend
I'll buy you the one way ticket, let me know where to send it. Hopefully it will open a spot for someone who has been trying to get here legally and appreciates what we have here in the states.


Same people complaining about the U.S every time, I have a feeling you guys are the same people who would complain about something no matter what the U.S. did. It is a no win situation for the U.S. always someone bitching about what we are doing or what we are not doing. it is never enough or it is too much. well anyway, I'll let you guys get back to drinking your latte and playing your video games. (life has been too good for you guys for too long).

Allister Fiend

This is EXACTLY why political posts are banned here.

[King Profile]

Originally posted by Allister Fiend
I'll buy you the one way ticket, let me know where to send it. Hopefully it will open a spot for someone who has been trying to get here legally and appreciates what we have here in the states.


Same people complaining about the U.S every time, I have a feeling you guys are the same people who would complain about something no matter what the U.S. did. It is a no win situation for the U.S. always someone bitching about what we are doing or what we are not doing. it is never enough or it is too much. well anyway, I'll let you guys get back to drinking your latte and playing your video games. (life has been too good for you guys for too long).

Allister Fiend

This is EXACTLY why political posts are banned here.

[PudriK Profile]

Saw these comments coming a mile away.

Let's be honest with ourselves, and break it down with respect to our good ol' US of A.

Originally posted by Chacal
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.

True about patriotic fervor. There are still strong currents of multiculturalism underlying American values. We have the advantage of being tied to a shared value system, not a shared heritage or culture. Perhaps, though, as America becomes older, we become more of a distinct culture.

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.

Not true. On left and right, there's still large concern for human rights. On the contrary, the administration must take great pains to say they are respecting the rights of prisoners, and the debate has been over what is permissible within that framework.

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.

Partially true. Yes, "Terrorists" have become the catchall enemy for foreign affairs. But domestically, we have yet to hear that job losses, crime, or political corruption are caused be terrorism. (With the execption of tying the drug trade to terrorist funding.) The political party in power has not resported to calling demotrats terrorists, although some of the more extreme say the democrats are weakening us to terrorism. ACtive opponents (Howard Dean?) have not been labelled terrorists or punished as such.

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.

Partially true. But also, identification with the troops is also being used by the peace movement (bring our boys home).

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.

Completely untrue. Yes, the religious right may not like gay marriage, but they aren't advocating the criminalization of homosexuality, just not gay marriage. That represents not so an increased restriction on gays but a removal of an existing restriction.

And in the main stream, you are demonized for even suggesting women are inferior (see Harvard dean's example).

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.

Completely untrue. Yeah, there's Fox News. But the party in power spends most of its time complaining that the media is not friendly. It certainly wasn't during Katrina.

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.

True. Of course, the details of the PATRIOT act are largely lost int he debate, but it can be pointed at as a clear example of more powersbeing given to the government in the name of security.

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.

Untrue. The increase in our administrations referrals to God do not represent a radical change in American politics, more a return to the norm. Read Kennedy's inaugural speech. God has always had a place in America, to some extent. The fact that Bush has to pay lip-service to all faiths shows that trying to establish a religious state is impossible in current American culture.

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.

True, but how long has this been so. Come on, every Republican administration has been accused of being in-line with big business. And note the other line, "the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control," far from true in our case.

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.

Unfortunately, this is as much an economic as political problem. Foreign competition is making it very hard for unions to keep their benefits high. I imagine the only solution, aside from protectionsist measures, is for unions to globalize. This may not heppen until Chinese and Indian workers catch up.

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.

The left loves to say conservatives are not intellectual, not nuanced. But, the right says the exact same thing. Bot sides have their intellectuals, their pragmatists, and their extremist nut-jobs. But, again except for some extremists, you have not heard anyone in office say that Democrats or dissidents should be silent. They say instead, well, it's America, they have the right to their opnion, even if it is wrong.

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.

It has been true for many years that American maintains a much larger prison population than the rest of the developed world. I don't think this is a symptom of nacent fascism so much as a sign of deeper economic imbalances that need to be corrected. I have yet to hear of any "turmped-up" charges, especially against the perty in power. If anytyhing, it is the Republican who are claiming "trumped-up" charges against Rove and Delay.

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.

Ture, cronyism is a problem, but "With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population." Far from it. We are all too aware of the corruption and cronyism in our government, and there is a lot of popular hand-wringing about it. One of the reasons's McCain is so popular.

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."

It always comes back to the 2000 election, heheheh. Sigh, let's not go there. But for the purposes of this anaylsis, I will say true 2000, not true 2004. And no signs of it in other regional elections.

It finally comes down to whether you view some of the recent political occurences as the first skid down the slippery slope, or a part of a natural ebb and swell in politics.

Personally, I think there is way too much main-stream cultural opposition to many of the things listed, and enough public discourse and opposition to ensure that America will not descend into fascism any time soon.

PS It is certainly very, very important to remain vigilant against a slow creep into fascism. Let's just not get ahead of ourselves.

[Allister Fiend Profile Website]

Originally posted by Kingofbeers
This is EXACTLY why political posts are banned here.

What are you talking about, this is a history lesson!


Allister Fiend


P.S. pudrik, very good and honest reponse, you my friend, have not been fooled.


Allister Fiend

[King Profile]

Originally posted by Allister Fiend


P.S. pudrik, very good and honest reponse, you my friend, have not been fooled.

MEANING: The FBI will NOT be sent to your house because you are not a terrorist or Pinko. Well Done!

Point is, every one of those 14 points are debatleable. The issue is that this "history" lesson can be easily manipulated into political lessons. And political around here is taboo.

Most of the posters here weren't around for the pre-election political posts where shit got completely out of hand. Thats why management at ECGN basically told us to shut our holes about political info and gave us links to forums where you can debate anything political. I admit i never went to those sites so i can't tell you much about them or which sites they are.

[Chacal Profile Website]

It should be possible to talk about historical or political matters without linking it to the current situation in the USA. There are other countries and there were other times, you know, and USA isn't the center of the universe.

Whether or not this study applies to your own place is a personal debate that can't be usefully made in public.

Back on topic: 7 regimes is a lot. I'm wondering if it is a natural tendency, or if there is a kind of recipe conscioulsy followed. Perhaps there's a hidden "Dictatorship for Dummies" book somewhere?

[PraiseA||ah Profile]

Quick! Quick! Someone photosho...er.. I mean FIND a picture of Bush reading 'Dictatorship for Dummies"

[Allister Fiend Profile Website]

Originally posted by Kingofbeers
MEANING: The FBI will NOT be sent to your house because you are not a terrorist or Pinko. Well Done!

Point is, every one of those 14 points are debatleable. The issue is that this "history" lesson can be easily manipulated into political lessons. And political around here is taboo.

What I simply meant was that he looked at the original HISTORY post and thought about it and responded with very thoughtful responses instead of the usual, "yea, I agree", "Well said" or "That rocks dude", like you normally get. I'm not even saying I agree with him, for all I know he is a "Pinko, red diaper doper baby", Sorry Pudrik if you are not .

The point is for someone who seems to hate these political threads I don't see you wasting any time throwing a jab in before you claim to not like them.

Allister Fiend

and now my closing statement...
(which means, I'm outta this thread!:P)

END OF LINE.