Nazism did not simply appear out of thin air and infect the minds of docile German people.
But due process appears to be making a comeback. By K.C. Johnson’s count as of Sepember 8, 59 accused students had received at least partially favorable rulings from judges after they sued their schools for gender-bias and denying due process. I believe this count is now over 60.
Some of these judges decried schools shifting the burden of proof onto accused students, some stated cross-examination was essential, others noted the potential ramifications for expelled students that activists seem to ignore, and others simply said the campus kangaroo courts were “unfair.” These are just four examples of due process wins for students, but there are dozens more.
Those are just the judicial wins. Accused students have been racking up settlements with their universities for years, with a seeming uptick in 2017. Some of the settlements came from high-profile cases, like Columbia University settling with the man accused by “Mattress Girl.”
With court wins in the background, DeVos rescinded the Obama-era guidance that led to this chaos and denial of civil rights for accused students. She promised to create guidance using the proper notice-and-comment period that Obama’s education department had ignored. She promised to hear from all parties with related interests, including victims and self-described victims, accused students, lawyers, schools, and others. The system she hopes to create will benefit both accusers and the accused, neither of whom are being served well now.
But “fascism” as it originated, and came to power, in Europe is gone, and there is no sign of contemporary revival. There has never been a viable fascist movement or party in the United States (any more than there has been a viable socialist party or movement).
Fascism was a revolutionary mass movement that originated in Italy after the First World War. Why revolutionary? Because, unlike the 19th century right-wing movements, it did not aim at the reestablishment of traditional monarchies. Nor was it class-bound; it acted in the name of the war-winning fighters (Italy), or the fighters betrayed by the political class (Germany) and the Jews. Thus the claim of fascist leaders to act in the name of “the nation.”
America has patriotism, not nationalism. Our loyalty, and our passions, are to a set of ideas, not to a country whose citizens share a common ethnic identity or religion, which is what nationalism is all about.
The fascist movements were part of a broad-based revolt against the liberal democratic state; revolts and then revolutions succeeded in Italy, Germany and Russia. First came the Russian revolution, then Italian fascism, then Hitler’s failed revolution, which triumphed a decade later.
Perhaps the most frightening aspect of fascism was its enormous popularity. By the time Hitler became German chancellor, had enormous mass appeal, both in Italy and beyond. In both Germany and Italy, there was no sign of an effective opposition or resistance. Had they not lost the war, the two tyrants could have looked forward to many years of stable rule.
There is, and has been, no comparable movement in the United States. Racist reactionaries on the right, or violent anti-capitalist groups on the left, are both miniscule. Both claim to speak in the name of failed movements and regimes, ranging from communism to racial slavery. Real fascism was revolutionary and claimed to represent a “new man.” Today’s violent Americans have no such concept.
The most politically interesting and potentially significant aspect in the current tumult is that both sides call the other “fascist.” That testifies to the sometimes perplexing success of “progressive” dogma in the Western left following the fall of the Soviet Union. You might have expected Western intellectuals to acknowledge communism’s failure, but instead “fascism” became the primary, at times seemingly the only, legitimate label for political evil. This practice started right after the Second World War, and was a major weapon in the Soviets’ campaign to bring communists to power in the West. The West European communists asserted that they alone were entitled to determine if a given person was “fascist” or “antifascist.” Post-war Italy, with Europe’s most powerful Communist party, was the classic example. This produced all manner of political blackmail, as many real fascists were recycled as “antifascists.” It all went well for them for two generations. It wasn’t until the end of the century that famous writers and scholars confessed to their dark past.
Something similar is happening today, in the United States. As the left dominates the selection of faculty, curricula and recommended or required reading material, intellectuals who want to survive and flourish have to pretend to be loyal leftists. They tell themselves that eventually they will come out of their ideological closet, but as the European examples show, that can be quite a long time, if indeed it ever happens.
The first step toward fixing the mess is to stop using “fascist” whenever you disagree with someone. Use it correctly: the name of a West European movement between the two world wars of the last century. That’s it.
George Weisman at the Mises Institute offers
My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.
The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.
Or, in Mises’ own words, Part Six: The Hampered Market Economy > Chapter XXVII. The Government and the Market
There are two patterns for the realization of socialism.
The second pattern (we may call it the Hindenburg or German pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers (Betriebsführer in the terminology of the Nazi legislation). These shop managers are seemingly instrumental in the conduct of the enterprises entrusted to them; they buy and sell, hire and discharge workers and remunerate their services, contract debts and pay interest and amortization. But in all their activities they are bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by the government’s supreme office of production management. This office (The Reichswirtschaftsministerium in Nazi Germany) tells the shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from [p. 718] whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. It assigns every worker to his job and fixes his wages. It decrees to whom and on what terms the capitalists must entrust their funds. Market exchange is merely a sham. All the wages, prices, and interest rates are fixed by the government; they are wages, prices, and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the government’s orders determining each citizen’s job, income, consumption, and standard of living. The government directs all production activities. The shop managers are subject to the government, not the consumers’ demand and the market’s price structure. This is socialism under the outward guise of the terminology of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.
As if to prove Cummings’s point, the antifa movement responded with jackboots and clubs — because their definition of “fascist” includes not just neo-Nazis but also anyone who opposes their totalitarian worldview.
And let’s be clear: Totalitarian is precisely what they are. Mark Bray, a Dartmouth lecturer who has defended antifa’s violent tactics, recently explained in The Post, “Its adherents are predominantly communists, socialists and anarchists” who believe that physical violence “is both ethically justifiable and strategically effective.” In other words, they are no different from neo-Nazis. Neo-Nazis are the violent advocates of a murderous ideology that killed 25 million people last century. Antifa members are the violent advocates of a murderous ideology that, according to “The Black Book of Communism,” killed between 85 million and 100 million people last century. Both practice violence and preach hate. They are morally indistinguishable. There is no difference between those who beat innocent people in the name of the ideology that gave us Hitler and Himmler and those who beat innocent people in the name of the ideology that gave us Stalin and Dzerzhinsky.
1. Google claims to strongly support the rights of employees to express themselves. And yet when one employee exercised those Google-given rights to express himself, he was fired.
2. How does the CEO know that the vast majority of employees disagree with Damore’s memo? Would they actually want to go on record agreeing and supporting Damore after seeing him be fired for exercising his Google-given rights?
3. It’s fair to debate what is in the memo per the CEO, and yet when Damore brought up what was fair to debate, he was fired.
4. It allegedly crossed the line by promoting harmful gender stereotypes, except that Damore simply suggested that innate differences between the sexes, to some degree, contribute to the low representation of women in tech, and then he provided options to work with that possibility to increase, or at least encourage a greater participation of women. He didn’t ridicule or threaten or harass anyone. This is what an intellectual challenge looks like.
5. James Damore, in exercising his Google-given rights to express himself, was directly attempting to “do his utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination”. He was attempting to open discussion, honestly and seemingly without fear of reprisal directly because of the words and assurances in Google’s own Code of Conduct.
6. In as much as some employees feel hurt and judged as a gender, it appeared that Damore was also feeling judged and possibly hurt for his non-leftist views and resistance to conforming to the prescribed political positions held by Google – even before he wrote the memo. Because his feelings of being judged were the result of the company’s political biases, and were in the minority, does that make them invalid?
7. While the CEO does not want employees to have to worry about opening their mouths, in retrospect, shouldn’t Damore have worried about opening his own mouth via a memo? Does that freedom from concern really extend to every employee and the positions and views they value and stand upon?
8. If employees holding minority views question whether they can really freely express their views (without fear of reprisal) because they already feel under threat, and they’ve just witnessed an employee holding similar minority views be fired for doing that very thing, why on earth would any concerned employees sharing similar views believe his claims?
The “author had a right express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions,” AND YET WE JUST TOOK MAJOR ACTION AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE FOR EXERCISING THOSE RIGHTS WHEN HE EXPRESSED HIS VIEWS.
At Evergreen State College in Washington, the dangerous authoritarian streak of college-aged, left-wing extremists is being exposed in disturbing detail. In recent weeks, social justice activists demanded that white students refrain from attending class or being present on campus on a predetermined day, in order to appropriately, from their perspective, observe the traditional “Day of Absence.” Evolutionary Biology Professor Bret Weinstein wrote an email objecting to this event, in part, saying that to force every white member of campus to leave would be “an act of oppression in and of itself,” Weeks later, when this email became public, it did not take long for a mob to assemble.
For his objection to “A Day Without White People,” Weinstein was speciously accused of being a racist. Additionally, a group of students cornered other white faculty and proceeded to viciously berate them. Footage of these confrontations are available online, bringing the incident to public attention and landing Weinstein in a media firestorm.
According to Weinstein, the college administration has done little to protect him and give him a platform to defend himself from utterly unfounded allegations of racism and calls for his ouster from the classroom. Police barely intervened when students organized into angry mobs and screamed insults and vulgarities at administrators, completely disregarding the notion that faculty and administration have any authority over students, who can apparently openly disrespect them with impunity.
The irony in all of this is that Weinstein himself is a liberal, having supported Bernie Sanders for president. There is no evidence that he is a racist and he has done nothing to these students but object to their authoritarian mentality and attempt to have an open dialogue. So why are these left-wing extremists attacking one of their own liberal comrades? The answer is simple: they are not liberals. They are illiberal, left-wing fascists.
These so called “activists” are not interested in dialogue — one of them said exactly that in a video of their confrontation. They are only interested in their political agenda being enacted at all costs, without any negotiation with dissenters. To me, that mentality is inherently illiberal and undemocratic. It is close enough to fascism to warrant use of the label “fascist” at this point.
We need a more functional word for these individuals. Up until now, they are usually ironically referred to as “social justice warriors” (SJW). That term intends to emphasize their self-serving thirst to signal personal virtue via “activism” in support of marginalized groups.
Again, I know that left-wing fascism is somewhat of an oxymoron. I’m trying to make a broader point about what we call the social justice mob when it arises and why we call them that. As a label, “social justice warrior” just doesn’t cut it. It has too much of a positive connotation and can be embraced all too easily as the cool, rebellious thing to be.
The majority of Americans who utterly reject the ridiculous behavior of this growing group must not let the extremists control the narrative by characterizing their behavior as being politically rebellious or “on the right side of history.” Instead, this behavior must be portrayed as it truly is, as a shameful and pedestrian surrender to authoritarian political doctrine and mob mentality.
Considering this, “fascist” works fairly well as a label for members of the social justice mob. It drives home their authoritarian, ideologically-possessed mindset and tactics which can only be described as systematic brainwashing followed by witch hunts for any who would even think to diverge from the social justice orthodoxy.
And for those who think I’m going a step too far and overreacting, watch the videos from Evergreen State, as well as the endless additional footage of ‘social justice warrior’ mobs and “protests” of college speakers available on YouTube. Witness the actions of these people and how no one steps up to correct them.
Watch as they hospitalize a female professor at Middlebury College and receive minimal consequences. Watch as they set University of California, Berkeley ablaze because of the presence of a dissenting political voice.
Now, you can watch as they physically and verbally intimidate faculty and students at their own institution, terrorizing them for the heinous crime of being present while white.
Additionally, I implore you to imagine what the university and police response would have been if conservative students had made similar demands in a similar manner. In this case, the students would have been ordered to disperse. They would have been disciplined or even arrested for not complying with school policy. This double standard starkly displays the danger of a far-left ideological mob that is exempt from otherwise enforced social and legal consequences.
To be frank, if this ordeal does not boil your blood and make you want to fight the regressive left and campus extremism, then you are either ideologically possessed or intellectually blind. For the rest of us, there is clearly fight on our hands for the heart of Western civilization which calls on all of us to speak up.
These fascists must be disempowered via the very right they fear most, freedom of speech, which manifests itself in open dialogue leading to the exposure of their ideas as inferior to the core values that make Western civilization the pinnacle of humanity.
Additionally, college administrators and police must hold students accountable for their actions, as they would with any other group. They must not do what Evergreen College administrators have done and be intimidated by a small, but extremely vocal, group of students who have terrorized their own campus community in an ideological conquest — not for truth, but for confirmation of a dogmatic narrative.
As with Professor Weinstein, I am no conservative. I am the former president of the College Democrats of Maryland. However, this insanity is unrepresentative of true liberalism. Liberals who don’t call out these illiberal fascists are complicit in their growing influence and impunity. We real liberals must wake up, we must stand up, and we must act.
Source: The Death of Facts
Heather Mac Donald is a conservative author, journalist and fellow of the Manhattan Institute in New York. Her work has appeared in some of the world’s most prestigious journals. Of course, none of that was enough to deter students at Claremont from libelling her as much as possible in advance of her speech and then preventing her speech from taking place. At Claremont McKenna College, where Mac Donald was due to speak about her recent book, The War on Cops, angry students surrounded the building, screamed obscene words and banged on the windows. Mac Donald ended up giving the speech to a mainly empty room via live video-streaming and then fleeing the university under the protection of campus security. As recent events, such as the hospitalisation of a professor at Charles Murray’s recent speech at Middlebury College have shown, intimidation and violence are clearly regarded by today’s North American students as legitimate means to stop people from speaking.
The reason, if any, may well come down to the possibility that facts have become diminished in importance on American campuses and have gradually lost out to the greater imperative of short-term political “narratives” and victories that come from thuggish intimidation. A letter sent to university authorities at Claremont ahead of Mac Donald’s speech is one of the most important recent documents chronicling the descent of this most crucial American value, freedom of speech.
The letter to university authorities from “We, few of the Black students here at Pomona College and the Claremont Colleges” loses no time in libelling their subject:
“If engaged, Heather Mac Donald would not be debating on mere difference of opinion, but the right of Black people to exist. Heather Mac Donald is a fascist, a white supremacist, a warhawk, a transphobe, a queerphobe, a classist, and ignorant of interlocking systems of domination that produce the lethal conditions under which oppressed peoples are forced to live.”
Needless to say, none of this is true. Nowhere has Mac Donald suggested that black people or any other type of person has “no right to exist”. The accusation is levelled without evidence. But as with all anti-free-speech activists today, the line is blurred not merely between actual words and violence, but between wholly imagined words and violence. Thus the students write:
“Advocating for white supremacy and giving white supremacists platforms wherefrom their toxic and deadly illogic may be disseminated is condoning violence against Black people. Heather Mac Donald does not have the right to an audience at the Athenaeum, a private venue wherefrom she received compensation. Dictating and condemning non-respectable forms of protest while parroting the phrase that ‘protest has a celebrated’ place on campus is contradictory at best and anti-Black at worst.”
Amid the semi-literacy, linguistic ostentation and intellectual dishonesty, it is hard to single out what is worst about this letter. But, against stiff competition, what is worst is that the whole thing is built on one massive misunderstanding which might also be described as a false premise.
“Historically, white supremacy has venerated the idea of objectivity, and wielded a dichotomy of ‘subjectivity vs. objectivity’ as a means of silencing oppressed peoples. The idea that there is a single truth–‘the Truth’–is a construct of the Euro-West that is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment, which was a movement that also described Black and Brown people as both subhuman and impervious to pain. This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny. The idea that the truth is an entity for which we must search, in matters that endanger our abilities to exist in open spaces, is an attempt to silence oppressed peoples.”
As the English philosopher Roger Scruton wrote in his book Modern Philosophy, “A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative,’ is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.”
Fascism is as fascism does.
The lie we were told as kids was this: The end of American liberty would come at the hands of the political right.
Conservatives would take away our right to speak our minds, and use the power of government to silence dissent. The right would intimidate our teachers and professors, and coerce the young.
And then, with the universities in thrall, with control of the apparatus of the state (and the education bureaucracy), the right would have dominion over a once-free people.
Some of us were taught this in school. Others, who couldn’t be bothered to read books, were fed a cartoon version of the diabolical conservative in endless movies and TV shows. The most entertaining of these were science fiction, sometimes with vague references to men in brown shirts and black boots goose-stepping in some future time.
Women would become handmaids, subjugated and turned into breeders. And men would be broken as well. The more lurid fantasies offered armies of Luddites in hooded robes, hunting down subversives for the greater good.
But the lie is obvious now, isn’t it?
Because it is not conservatives who coerced today’s young people or made them afraid of ideas that challenge them. Conservatives did not shame people into silence, or send thugs out on college campuses to beat down those who wanted to speak.
The left did all that.
It’s there in front of you, the thuggish mobs of the left killing free speech at American universities. The thugs call themselves antifas, for anti-fascists.
They beat people up and break things and set fires and intimidate. These are not anti-fascists. These are fascists. This is what fascists do.
Some wear masks to cover their faces, or hide bike locks in scarves and swing them at the heads of any who disagree. They’re all about intimidation. And intimidation on a national scale, so angry and violent, is a fascist thing of the left.
Many liberals — journalists, senators, television comedians and others — are properly appalled at what their political children, born of the hard left, have done. Many liberals have warned about this, and so many must wince as the fruits of their labor turn bitter in their mouths.
But they are also complicit, because they’ve taken advantage of the anger and energy of this hard left fascism to leverage their own politics. And Democratic operatives still hope to use this emotional frenzy and muscle for political gain in the next elections.
What is the cost for all this?
Free speech, without which there is no republic.
American universities were once thought to be the last great refuge of ideas, where ideas could flourish and be challenged and debated. But today, the university is the place where liberty and ideas go to die.
The American university is where intellectuals with dissenting views are silenced — even physically assaulted — by mobs. And administrators sit by and watch, afraid to anger those mobs.
What has been the general liberal response to Americans who insist on speaking after being threatened?
Annoyance. The response sounds like this: Hush. Go away. Come back later when it’s quiet. Why cause trouble? Shhh.
Right-wing provocateur Ann Coulter has been silenced at Berkeley, where the free speech movement was born. And other intellectuals, including Charles Murray and Heather Mac Donald, have been silenced at other colleges, attacked by mobs.
If the left agrees with your views, you may speak. If the left doesn’t agree, they will shut you down. This is America now.
Some liberals also have seen their careers ruined by mob rule. Those two professors at Yale, a husband and wife, come to mind. She told Yale students not to worry if some other student wore a sombrero as a Halloween costume, that there were more important things to worry about than political correctness and a student wearing a sombrero.
But a Yale student, a woman, a minority, screamed in response, weeping in hideous self-indulgent theatrics captured on video. And all of this caught fire on the internet and sparked the virtual mob on social media. The professors, the husband and wife, with decent records and obvious care for the intellectual development of their students, were shamed out of Yale.
And all educators across the country took note.
University administrators have made a show of wringing their hands. But they’re hypocrites. They’re part of this. They are of the same cloth. They allowed this seed to bloom. They watered it, by giving in to the young who demanded a safe space from intellectual challenge.
Safe spaces are not about learning or critical thinking. Safe spaces belong to education camps, where future bureaucrats are trained in the Orwellian shaping of language and the culling of threatening ideas.
The universities molded the federal education bureaucracy, which turned out teachers that shaped the minds of American children. And some of those children are in college now.
Surveys suggest that many young Americans think the First Amendment should be amended so as to not allow offensive speech. So the students have learned their lessons well.
All speech challenging the status quo is offensive — to the establishment. And free speech is what American liberty is about.
Unless, of course, you’re of the hard left, and can hunt free speech at American universities and crush it.
That’s not fiction. That’s not fantasy. And it is not a lie. It’s happening now, in the United States.
Our founding fathers were a bunch of obnoxious jerks – and I mean that in the most reverent way. They were fiercely opposed to blind obedience to authority and risked their lives to flip it the bird. Oh, how disappointingly – and dangerously – far we’ve fallen. Our constitutional rights are increasingly being eroded, and so many Americans are just standing around blinking like livestock.
This past March, I took a more civilly disobedient approach – which sometimes comes at a price. In my case, $500,000. That’s what a Transportation Security Administration agent’s lawyer demanded from me in a letter for “defaming” her client by saying she had sexually violated me while searching me, and then for “libeling” her by blogging about it.
On March 31, 2011, at the TSA checkpoint in LAX’s Terminal 6, I found that I had no choice but to get the pat-down. Tears welled in my eyes – for how we’ve allowed the Constitution to be torn up at the airport door and because I was powerless to stop a total stranger from groping my breasts and genitals as a condition of normal, ordinary business travel.
I can hold back the tears … hang tough … but as I was made to “assume the position” on a rubber mat like a criminal, I thought fast. I decided that these TSA “officers” violating our Fourth Amendment rights, searching us without reasonable suspicion we’ve committed a crime, do not deserve our quiet compliance. I let the tears come. In fact, I sobbed my guts out as the agent groped me. And then it happened: She jammed the side of her latex-gloved hand up into my genitals. Four times, with only the fabric of my pants as a barrier. I was shocked – utterly unprepared for how she got the side of her hand up there.
Powerless to stop her, but not to vigorously protest what she had done to me, I yelled afterward, “YOU RAPED ME.” I later blogged about it, naming her and urging others to name the agents who grope them (a constitutional violation even when done according to TSA procedure, which the search of me was not). We need to make it as uncomfortable as possible to earn a living violating our rights.
Some believe I’m wrong to suggest this – particularly those who believe that the TSA is keeping us safer. Unfortunately, it is not. Security expert Bruce Schneier notes that during the agency’s multibillion-dollar history, it has yet to thwart a single attempted terrorist attack. He calls the TSA’s efforts “security theater,” observing all the dangerous items it misses. For example, in Dallas last year, a TSA tester sneaked a gun through the body scanner. Not once. Five times! That happened just months after a TSA supervisor said I was “lucky” that he wasn’t confiscating my dull little drugstore tweezers. Confiscating my tweezers? Why? Because I might use them to break in to the cockpit and over-pluck the pilot’s eyebrows?
If the TSA’s actual mission were its stated one – “protect(ing) the Nation’s transportation systems” – checkpoints wouldn’t be staffed by low-wage, unskilled workers, and they wouldn’t be searching everyone. They certainly wouldn’t be waiting until terrorists get to the airport to root them out. Meaningful measures to thwart terrorist acts require highly trained law enforcement officers using targeted intelligence to identify suspects long before they launch their plots.
The TSA’s main accomplishment seems to be obedience training for the American public – priming us to be docile (and even polite) about giving up our civil liberties. The TSA not only violates our Fourth Amendment rights but also has posted signs effectively eradicating our First Amendment right to speak out about it. One such sign, in Denver International Airport, offers the vague warning that “verbal abuse” of agents will “not be tolerated.” Travelers are left to wonder whether it’s “verbal abuse” to inform the TSA agent probing their testicles that this isn’t making us safer, or are they only in trouble if they throw in an obscenity? Not surprisingly, few seem willing to speak out and risk arrest.
I believe I’ve found a less risky, more impactful way to protest, and it’s through sobbing. I’m calling on American women to follow my lead at TSA checkpoints: Opt for the pat-down, and sob your guts out.
Think about the power of it – in airports across America every day, mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters sobbing throughout their government-administered sexual molestation. As the 18th-century economist Adam Smith noted, sympathy for others is a potent human motivator. Because a bureaucracy’s first duty is protecting itself, I believe our best chance of abolishing the TSA’s pointless daily rights grab is evoking wide-scale sympathy through women’s tears. Helpfully, there’s plausible deniability for a sobbing woman. TSA supervisors can suspect she’s manufacturing her tears, but they can’t prove it.
Some find it an absurd contradiction that I write books on manners yet I’m encouraging people to sob at these checkpoints. The truth is, good manners don’t always involve going quietly. Sometimes, like when our civil liberties are violated, the most civil thing a person can do is be as loud and uncivil as possible.
Still, I’m a realist. I know that most people will not follow my lead. But, maybe, every day, at every TSA checkpoint, a few will bust out in tears. And maybe, through the spectacle, we can claw back some of the rights we’ve so docilely handed over.
We cannot ensure our complete physical safety – not even by throwing away all of our civil liberties. Trading our rights for security (or, in this case, “security”) is exceptionally dangerous. Every time we go all “We The Sheeple …,” every time we allow one more civil liberty to be yanked from us, it’s that much easier to take the next and the next, until we wake up one day wondering how we ended up living in a police state. Better that we do our sobbing now than then.
NOTE: Top First Amendment lawyer Marc J. Randazza called the TSA agent’s case “meritless” on First Amendment grounds (and SLAPP grounds, as well). Other lawyers and legal scholars have concurred.
Accordingly, there’s been no court filing and no contact since the initial letter in late July from the TSA agent’s lawyer, Vicki Roberts, a publicity seeker who hopes to have her own reality show. See Roberts’ site, RestMyCase.com, and press releases like this one Roberts sent out about herself.
The initial letter from Roberts and Randazza’s beautiful response detailing why the TSA agent has no case are at TechDirt.com
Source: What Is Fascism?
The problem with the word fascism is that it never had a clear definition. Every single resource I found that tried to define fascism has used a different set of standards and rules, meaning that no objective definition exists. It describes nothing and everything at the same time, meaning that it has no function in discourse but that of a rhetorical weapon, simply because of the World War 2 Axis Power connotation that is associated with it.
Let’s start with the simplest definition, offered by historian R.J.B. Bosworth.
…it might be argued that the quest for definition of fascism has become absurdly laboured. Why opt for a long list of factors or paragraph of rococo ornateness when Mussolini, on a number of occasions, informed people he regarded as converted to his cause that Fascism was a simple matter? All that was needed was a single party, a dopolavoro [“after work”, a social leisure time organization], and, he did not have to add, a Duce (with a Bocchini to repress dissent) and a will to exclude the foe (somehow defined). To be still more succinct, as Mussolini told Franco in October 1936, what the Spaniard should aim at was a regime that was simultaneously ‘authoritarian’, ‘social’, and ‘popular’. That amalgam, the Duce advised, was the basis of universal fascism.”
Donald Trump does not advocate for a single party, does not have a social leisure organization, and initially tried to reach across the aisle to include the foe (Democratic party) in advancing his pro-America agenda. From the mouth of Mussolini himself, the progenitor of fascism, we can easily conclude that Trump is not one.
This would seem like an open-and-shut case, but instead of taking Mussolini’s word for it, historians insist on endlessly analyzing the qualities and nature of his regime to produce an expanded definition of fascism. This is where we get into trouble, because their analysis becomes more subjective and mired in problems of definition.
All three authors agree that statism, nationalism, unity, authoritarianism, and vigor are essential elements of fascism.
Immediately you may be struck by how terms like “unity” and “vigor” are vague descriptors, especially the latter, which can be used to merely describe an alpha male. I’ve also seen the word “vitality” being used to describe fascism, as if the opposite is more preferable. These authors will also have different definitions of statism, nationalism, and authoritarianism, and those definitions will shift over time, becoming vague enough that they can be used as a means of attack on nearly anyone. “Fascism” becomes a system that is defined upon other systems, all of which have definitions that can be changed at a moment’s notice by any competent propaganda machine to make fascist what previously was not fascist.
For sake of historical accuracy, it should be noted that Jews were disproportionately represented in Italy’s fascist regime, just like they were in communism and Cultural Marxism.
[The authors] also note that the role of anti-Semitism in the rise of fascist movements was minor. In the Italian case, it played no role at all in the early days. Jews, indeed, were disproportionately likely to be party members: it is estimated that in the early 30’s, 25% of adult Jews were Fascist party members, compared to about 10% for the entire adult population.
George Orwell, author of Animal Farm and 1984, wrote an essay that points out the bendability of fascism.
Catholics: Outside its own ranks, the Catholic Church is almost universally regarded as pro-Fascist, both objectively and subjectively.
War resisters: Pacifists and others who are anti-war are frequently accused not only of making things easier for the Axis, but of becoming tinged with pro-Fascist feeling.
Nationalists: Nationalism is universally regarded as inherently Fascist, but this is held only to apply to such national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab nationalism, Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the I.R.A. are all described as Fascist but not by the same people.
Even in 1944, in the fresh aftermath of Mussolini, the term was already being abused.
It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
He concludes his piece by stating that “fascist” is merely an insult to mean “bully.”
…even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.
Even the word “bully” has had its definition change over the years, and has now come to mean anyone who is strong, capable, and mighty. In other words, an alpha male. In a society that actually believes masculinity is “toxic” and any man who pursues sex with women as a likely “rapist,” we’ve endured a full decade of relentless propaganda attacking anything that is male, meaning even a man of average assertiveness becomes a “bully.” Within ten years, any man who is not a cuckold will also be called a bully. Real bullies who prey on the weak do exist, and that should be discouraged, but the mainstream establishment has used the word bully to define anyone and anything with an essential masculine quality.
From the above analysis, we can now create a definition of fascism for modern usage: anyone to the right of me who possesses strength. If your political views are to the right of someone, and you believe that strength in leadership is necessary, and the year is current, you will be called a fascist. If you are a “conservative” who is fearful of strength because it is literally Hitler, you will not be called a fascist. If you are on the far left but use strength to assert your position, like militant Black Lives Matter groups, you will not be called a fascist. If you are a moderate homosexual Jew like Milo, who has leftist views but is still right of where most leftists reside, you will be called a fascist, and your supporters will be beaten with pipes. The term is therefore relative and emotional—it’s a feeling that someone who is more conservative than you believes in strength to aid in upholding societal stability and cultural values.
Since the nebulous textbook definition of fascism uses various other systems to define it, mostly for the use of labeling by historians to write books that justify their positions and salaries, anyone who genuinely fears fascism should instead levy specific accusations of wrongdoing if they intend to carry on an intellectual debate. For example, what specific feature of Trump’s nationalism is wrong on logical terms? What specific authoritarian act that does not follow due process has he encouraged?
I do not expect the fascist labelers to drill down to such a level of logic, so we must endure their endless use of the term, mostly because their previous labels of sexist, racist, and rapist have lost steam and are no longer effective at shutting down conversations and ideas that they view as dangerous to their globalist platform. Behold the era of the fascist bot, who utters a term merely out of emotion for a need to assert power, and nothing more.