From the Mississippifarian's blogsite , Dr. Britt's 14 characteristics of fascism.
(On the site are links illustrating these characteristics.)

Fuller definitions can be found on the Free Inquiry site, where Dr. Lawrence Britt has studied carefully the fascist regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, etc., and traced out these 14 key elements.

Check it out: Britt's 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism

I appreciate you posting this Fantomas. I have said a few times in the past months that we are seeing some things happen in our country that were precursors to the fascist regimes of the previous century. Not a popular thing to throw out there, but oh so true.

Now as you look through the list, it becomes much more black and white. There is not one thing on the list that we have not seen in the past 2+ years. In particular, the general control of the media and rampant play on nationalism/national security are very important to note. These two components were the hallmarks of both the Nazi regime and Mussolini's dictatorship.

It is not just what we see today that should get people to pay attention. It is where what is happening today has historically led the world that is truly troubling. Any regime that is given great power is going to sprial out-of-control, no matter what the circumstances. People have to put the checks and balances back into place and get the freight train stopped.

Without 9/11, this administration is seen for the ineffective group of leaders it is. With the 9/11 hysteria, and the administration's ability to leverage it, we get where we are. Amazing how one day can so dramatically change the landscape.

Google for "Dr. Lawrence Britt", and you'll get (as of right now) 53 hits. All of them are for this article and nothing else. He is described as a political scientist. OK, where does he teach?

My bet is that this is an urban legend.

Edited to add:

I went to the Free Inquiry website. The author is actually one Laurence W. Britt. The only academic mention of someone by this name is that there is a Laurence W. Britt who went to business school at Northwestern.

Nearly every reference goes back to this single article of his: http://www.sonomavalleyvoice.com/articles.php?id=262 , for example.

Shouldn't a political scientist have at least one mention on the web of his affiliation?

[ May 27, 2003, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

We don't live in times where popularity can be considered, if you think you have something true to share.

Well, I wrote Paul Kurtz at Free Inquiry inquiring about Britt. I don't think it's a hoax or urban legend as the article does appear in the Volume 2003 index, and despite Britt's low profile (perhaps this is a pseudonym), the material appears to be quite valid intellectually. Also, notable high-profile intellectuals like Nat Hentoff, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Singer, Susan Haack and others appear in its pages, so the publication isn't bogus.

I heard from the editor of Free Inquiry, Tom Flynn. He confirmed that Britt is a real person, and that the article has really garnered quite a bit of attention. The mainstream media haven't touched (any surprise, they're still trying to convince or fool Americans that those two trucks in Iraq were biochem factories even though not a TRACE of biochem weapons were found in or on them) it, but they really should. (Oh, but that's right, cf. number 6--)

[ May 28, 2003, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I thought I'd resurrect this thread since so much of what Britt laid out is coming to pass (and back in 2003 a number of us were saying the WMDs were nonexistent well in advance of their non-discovery):

14 CHARACTERISTICS OF FASCISM:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism (key images on the right, of course)
(cf. pseudopatriotism and jingoism of war hawks on right, belief in American exceptionalism, etc.)

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
(cf. Abu Ghraib, rationalization of torture, torture stories out of Iraq, extraordinary renditions, etc.)

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
(cf. W's and GOP's calling critics anti-American, working with the enemy, etc.)

4. Supremacy of the Military
(cf. valorization of military over other professions, W's new act of speaking primarily to military audiences, politicization of the military, W's fake interview with soldiers, etc.)

5. Rampant Sexism
(Not so sure about this one, except among crackpot Christian Rightwingers, who want to deny women their right to safe and legal abortions, RU-486 and other contraceptive and abortifacient medicines, HPV vaccine, etc.)

6. Controlled Mass Media
(cf. Too numerous to name, from Fox to Clear Channel, though should add in the propaganda furores involving Armstrong Williams and others, the Lincoln Group in Iraq, the recent revelations about buying off Iraqi journalists and now Sunni clerics, etc.)

7. Obsession with National Security
(Cf. too numerous to name, though W's recent illegal wiretapping scandal--when his deputies Gonzales and Card had to CONVINCE the ill, extremely right-wing attorney general on his SICKBED to go along with this plan!!!--is yet another example of this)

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
(Cf. too many examples to name)

9. Corporate Power is Protected
(Cf. too many examples to name)

10. Labor Power is Suppressed
(Cf. too many examples to name, from the flap surrounding the Dept. of Homeland Security in 2002 through W's order suspending labor protections in the New Orleans reconstruction process, etc., though the TWU strike offers one rare counterexample)

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
(Cf. Multiple examples, from the Intelligent Design nutcases to the recent examples by right-wingers like David Horrorowitz to push through legislation to hamper free speech in universities is a perfect example)

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
(Cf. This is a feature of US life from the colonial era on!)

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
(Cf. Miers, Brownie "You've done a heck of a job," etc.)

14. Fraudulent Elections
(Cf. Diebold's deep throat, 2000, 2002, 2004, Iraq in 2005, at least according to Iyad Allawi, secular Shiites, the Sunnis and everyone but the independist Kurds, the Islamicist Shiites and Iran...)

You've seen it happen here, folks, and it isn't going to end without voting these criminals out of office and prosecuting them.

[ January 03, 2006, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Oh well, here's another step: W & Hastert secretly inserted religious schools voucher program in Defense Bill....

And good old Milton Friedman, who must have been tipped off, even called to congratulation W on his nasty handiwork!

We just watched the movie La Historia Official which poignantly captures how a seemingly sophisticated and modern stable society can sink to torture and oppression.

I dread to think what is happening to the participants in some of the atrocities possibly perpetrated by our fellow citizens in Abu Graibh, Guantanamo and countless foreign hosts to our own desaparecidos.

This movie shows how they may come home to roost in the most personal way.

I'm actually glad you resurrected this thread, because the more I look over Dr. Lawrence Britt's list, the more chilling it is. I originally posted that in 2003, right? And 5 years later, things have only gotten worse.

Just repeat that to yourself: things have only gotten worse.

What on earth is the next president going to do to turn this horrible situation around? That should be one of the questions in a debate, though I doubt that any moderator, especially ones from the corporate media (cf. #6), would dare do so.

I think the 14 things apply to all right-wing governments really rather than being specific to fascism. Some national variations obviously (in the UK less about religion, more about immigrants) but basically you could say Mrs Thatcher's government exhibited all those 14 characteristics. They reflect a view of the world based on the fear and loathing of all those who are different from "people like me". Millions of people are brought up to have that attitude in their personal lives and its not surprising some of them get elected and govern accordingly. But in Anglo-Saxon countries although they may use state power to keep the "enemy within" under control they are too (genuinely) attached to the idea of individualism to ever really go all the way down the fascist route.

Hmm, I'm not so sure it's all right-wing governments. The conservative governments of Canada now, under Steven Harper, say, or the right-wing government of Mexico's current president, or the right-wing government under José María Aznar in Spain, have all exhibited *some* of these tendencies, but none have gone as far as the National Socialists, Mussolini, or General Francisco Franco. Britt, the original author, suggested that these were commonalities and scholars of fascism have pointed out that no one government fits all these or any characteristics, but I'm not so sure that in countries deriving from English rule and colonialism the "idea of individualism" can always counter the creeping authoritarianism and fear that some of these nations' governments have fostered. Look at Britain, which is now a surveillance society, under successive "Labour" government. Or the US, where people have for the most part passively accepted vast, criminal wiretapping, datamining and surveillance. At least Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have gone over the cliff; let's hope they never do.

For sure national governments vary in their authoritarianism, depending on who's in power, over time. And the circumstances of the behavior are not irrelevant.

Routine pernicious intrusions into the lives of their citizens may be only to maintain power for a specific small elite or they may have legitimate need. For instance the pervasive control of his people by North Korea's dictator Kim Jong Il could be considered to serve no purpose other than to maintain his corrupt rule. But a similarly meticulous vigilance by a nation like Israel is almost necessary for its survival, since it has a large domestic arab muslim population, and bordering neighbors, that could conceivably be radicalized against the Jewish government.

And considering the history of this country, it is soft fascism if you will, that has been the tool of the plutocracies who are interested in maintaining wealth.

An interesting case of that history was brought to mind by this article which was written on the occassion of George W. Bush's recent visit to Israel.

His grandfather was certainly not the only US citizen who was willing to profit from, and support politically, the Nazi regime. And the "hindsight is 20-20" excuse hardly holds. We are still propping up corrupt regimes.

Fantomas, I didnt make myself clear obviously. I mean all right-wing governments have the same mindset and even nice, cuddly ones share the 14 characteristics (do you think no IRA suspects were ever tortured or no trade union leaders ever listened in on under Edward Heath or John Major?). I was actually arguing (from a safe distance admittedly!) that George Bush is still on the right side of the line. He's picking on the people right-wing governments always pick on but hasnt crossed the line and become a Mussolini or a Franco with routine harrassment (or actual violence) against troublesome political opponents, lawyers, journalists, etc, etc. Is what is happening now in America really worse than what happened with McCarthyism? I'm asking, I dont know.

As for the surveillance issue, in the good old days M15 used to keep files on about 400,000 people in Britain (thats the equivalent of over two million people in the US) and they have evidently decided that that isnt enough. In a sense maybe 9/11 has allowed the US authorities to play catch up and increase surveillance to a level which has long existed in other democracies. IMO its a response to changes in society. Was it Dick Cheney who said that the only thing that keeps him awake at night is the way radical ideas can be disseminated via the internet nowadays? I doubt he was just thinking of Islamist propaganda, I expect he was just as worried about ordinary Americans suddenly being able to by-pass the mainstream media and having access to all sorts of other off-message radical ideas too.

sportinlife (BTW is it sport in life or sportin' life, I've always wondered), the problem is presidents and prime ministers arenot very good at making the distinction you mention. They believe their own propaganda and genuinely think it would be a disaster for the country if they ever lost power!

Don't know how fan would answer that but I would give an emphatic YES. McCarthy didn't have the internet and couldn't torture anyone that we know of, though I don't know whether he would have given the opportunity.
To the former: both - pun squarely intended. As for the second, I don't think many of them actually believe their propaganda any more than every candidate for the presidential office believes his/her candidacy is "the best and only" way for the nation to survive.

Several candidates have already dropped out and some of those still in it are exchanging fire about non-issues like race and gender. Surely neither believes either issue is truly relevant to their ability to serve. But they use it as necessary to get elected. This does not make either one a potential authoritarian leader. So I am not sure how believing thier own advertisement is, in itself, a problem.

I do believe the willingness to use fackery of any kind to get elected does not bode well for future leadership. And that disturbs me most about the current presidential race. Still fascism is not at issue there.

The US has a long history of violating rights of it's own citizens and of violating (or manipulating) international law and treaty to it's own end. There is nothing new about revolving-door or cronyist influence in American political decision making. John foster Dulles involvement in United Fruit and the Guatemalan intervention in 1954 is an obvious early example. The Winona project, anyone? How about the complete fabrication of Thompkins Bay? Obviously the above were all committed in a slightly different geo-political framework; i.e. they were done under the auspices of combating the spread of communism and ensuring the safety and security of America, but the precedent for unilateral action such as those taken in Iraq are there.

As far as the 14 characteristics of Fascism, I would argue that they were always there and that the only two things to have changed are extent and the ability of the government to covertly interfere. Very few would argue that the US has successfully headed Eisenhower's warning in his farewell address. The result is that the military industrial complex's role in US political decision making has vastly increased. In addition technology and the internet provide new ways for the US government to pry into the lives of American citizens.