originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
... In fact they seem to carry an air of true fascism, though they try to hide it with their platitudes & virtue signalling. In truth, I believe that
we face an evolved, nuanced form of fascism, that by comparison the fascism of the 1930'-1940's was more fundamentally honest, a natural extension of
the science that was being explored in the decades immediately prior to its appearance. Don't get me wrong, I am not glorifying the fascism of the
Second World War - but I am saying that it was more fundamentally honest, and that in the rank & file it was even humble as an expression of
traditional values, though manipulated & taken to unfortunate extremes.
Sure sounds like you're trying to say
something positive about fascism. History testifies to the fact that fascist regimes have been anything
but "fundamentally honest" though. Propaganda (a form of deception and spreading falsehoods) has been one of their main tools to manipulate the people
they govern and ensure their obedience and worship of the state. Most of it nationalistic propaganda.
Fascism: Government by dictatorship, marked by State control of the economy, social regimentation, and an ideology of belligerent nationalism;
Nazism: Fascism as practiced by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party under Hitler.
The word “Fascism” generally conjures up images of black-shirted Italian military squads and of swastika-bearing, brown-uniformed German storm
troopers. But other countries have had their experiences with Fascism too.
During the 1930’s, Fascism gained prominence in Hungary, Romania, and Japan. During the Spanish Civil War, Fascist support helped Francisco Franco
gain control of Spain, although most historians do not view Franco’s dictatorship (1939-75) as having been genuinely Fascist in nature. The
Argentine dictatorship established by Juan D. Perón (1943-55), on the other hand, was.
Worshiping the State
“Fascism” comes from the Italian word
fascio and refers to an ancient Roman symbol of authority. Called fasces in Latin, it was a bundle of
rods from which the blade of an ax projected, an apt symbol of the unity of the people under the supreme authority of the State.
Although some of the roots of Fascism go back to the time of Niccolò Machiavelli, not until 1919, or 450 years after that one’s birth, did Benito
Mussolini use the word for the first time. The political corruption of his day, Machiavelli claimed, could only be overcome by an authoritarian ruler,
one who would exercise power ruthlessly but with prudence.
A Fascist government needs just such a strong, opportunistic, and charismatic leader if it is to be effective. Appropriately, both Mussolini and
Hitler were known simply as “the leader”—
Il Duce and
der Führer.
Fascism elevates the State above all other authority, both religious and civil. French jurist Jean Bodin of the 16th century, English philosopher
Thomas Hobbes of the 17th, as well as 18th- and 19th-century German philosophers Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and Heinrich
von Treitschke, all glorified the State. Hegel taught that the State occupies a position of supremacy and that the individual’s supreme duty is to
be its loyal supporter.
By their very nature, all governments must exercise authority. But Fascist states are designed to exercise it to the utmost, demanding blind
obedience. Viewing humans as little more than slaves of the State, Treitschke said: “It does not matter what you think, so long as you obey.”
Typically, Fascism replaced the cry, “Liberty, equality, fraternity,” heard during the French Revolution, with the Italian slogan, “To believe,
to obey, to fight.”
Fascism Glorifies War
To fight? Yes! “War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage
to meet it,” Mussolini once said, adding: “War is to the man what maternity is to the woman.” He called perpetual peace “depressing and a
negation of all the fundamental virtues of man.” In saying these words, Mussolini was simply mirroring the views of Treitschke, who contended that
war was a necessity and that banishing it from the world, besides being profoundly immoral, “would involve the atrophy of many of the essential and
sublime forces of the human soul.”
Against this background of war and dictatorship, we may not be surprised to learn that many historians trace the beginning of modern Fascism back to
Napoléon I of France. Dictator during the early 1800’s, he was admittedly no Fascist himself. Nevertheless, many of his policies, such as the
establishment of a secret-police system and the skillful use of propaganda and censorship to control the press, were later adopted by the Fascists.
And certainly his determination to restore the glory of France is typical of the obsession with national greatness for which Fascist leaders have
become known.
By 1922 the Fascists in Italy were powerful enough to install Mussolini as prime minister, a position he quickly used as a stepping-stone to being a
dictator. As far as wages, hours, and production goals were concerned, privately owned industry was subjected to rigid government control. In fact,
private enterprise was encouraged only to the extent that it served government interests. Political parties other than the Fascist were outlawed;
labor unions were banned. The government skillfully controlled the media, silencing opposers by means of censorship. Special attention was given to
indoctrinating the young, and personal liberty was seriously curtailed.
Fascism, German Style
“Despite the coincidence of their paths to power,” says the book
Fascism, by A. Cassels, “Italian Fascism and German Nazism were markedly
different in temperament and in their vision of the future.”
Besides the aforementioned German philosophers who served as forerunners of Fascist thought, others, like 19th-century German philosopher
Friedrich Nietzsche, helped create a brand of Fascism uniquely German. Not that Nietzsche was a Fascist, but he did call for a ruling elite, a race of
supermen. In doing so, however, he had no one race or nation in mind, least of all the Germans, for whom he had no particular liking. But some of his
ideas were close to what National Socialist ideologists considered ideally German. So these ideas were appropriated, while others, not agreeing with
Nazi doctrine, were discarded.
Hitler was also strongly influenced by German composer Richard Wagner. Extremely nationalistic and patriotic, Wagner viewed Germany as
destined to perform a great mission in the world. “For Hitler and Nazi ideologists Wagner was the perfect hero,” says the Encyclopedia of the
Third Reich. It explains: “The composer epitomized Germany’s greatness. In Hitler’s view Wagner’s music justified German
nationalism.”
Author William L. Shirer adds: “It was not his [Wagner’s] political writings, however, but his towering operas, recalling so vividly the
world of German antiquity with its heroic myths, its fighting pagan gods and heroes, its demons and dragons, its blood feuds and primitive tribal
codes, its sense of destiny, of the splendor of love and life and the nobility of death, which inspired the myths of modern Germany and gave it a
Germanic Weltanschauung [world view] which Hitler and the Nazis, with some justification, took over as their own.”
The thinking of both Nietzsche and Wagner was shaped by Comte Joseph Arthur de Gobineau, French diplomat and ethnologist, who, between 1853
and 1855, wrote Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines (Essay on the Inequality of Human Races). He argued that racial composition
determines the fate of civilizations. Diluting the racial character of Aryan societies would ultimately lead to their downfall, he warned.
The racism and anti-Semitism that developed from these ideas were characteristic of German-style Fascism. Both policies were less significant
in Italy. In fact, evidences of anti-Semitism in Italy were considered by many Italians to be an indication that Hitler was replacing Mussolini as the
dominating force behind Fascism. Indeed, as time passed, Hitler’s influence on the policies of Italian Fascism grew.
In striving to achieve national greatness, Italian Fascism and German Fascism looked in opposite directions. Author A. Cassels explains that
“where Mussolini might exhort his countrymen to emulate the deeds of the ancient Romans, the Nazi revolution of the spirit aimed at inciting the
Germans, not only to do what the distant Teutonic giants had done, but also to be those same tribal heroes reincarnated in the twentieth century.”
In other words, Italian Fascism sought to regain bygone glory, as it were, by dragging Italy, an industrially underdeveloped land, into the 20th
century. Germany, on the other hand, sought to regain former glory by retreating into a mythical past.
What Made It Possible
In most countries, Fascists have come to power after a national disaster, an economic collapse, or a military defeat. This was true in both
Italy and Germany. Although on opposing sides during World War I, they both emerged from the struggle greatly weakened. Nationalist discontent,
economic dislocation, and an intensification of the class war plagued both countries. Germany experienced runaway inflation, and unemployment soared.
The democratic principle was also weak, still hampered by the military and authoritarian tradition of Prussia. And everywhere loomed the specter of
the feared Soviet Bolshevism.
Charles Darwin’s idea of evolution and natural selection was another significant factor in the rise of Fascism. The book The Columbia
History of the World speaks about the “reawakening of Social Darwinism in the ideologies of the Fascists, expressed both by Mussolini and by
Hitler.”
The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich agrees with this appraisal, explaining that social Darwinism was “the ideology behind Hitler’s
policy of genocide.” In harmony with the teachings of Darwinian evolution, “German ideologists argued that the modern state, instead of devoting
its energy to protecting the weak, should reject its inferior population in favor of the strong, healthy elements.” They argued that war is normal
in the struggle for survival of the fittest, that “victory goes to the strong, and the weak must be eliminated.”
Has the Lesson Been Learned?
The days of black-shirted Italian military squads and of swastika-bearing, brown-uniformed German storm troopers are over. Yet
vestiges of Fascism still remain. In 1988 Newsweek magazine warned that in practically every Western
European nation, “the forces of the far right are proving once again that barely disguised racism and an appeal to nationalistic and authoritarian
values can still gather surprising support.” No doubt one of the most dynamic of these movements is Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front in France
with a message basically “the same as that of National Socialism.”
Is it sensible to place trust in neo-Fascist movements? Do the roots of Fascism—Darwinian evolution, racism, militarism, and
nationalism—form a sound foundation upon which to base good government? Or would you not agree that like all other kinds of human rule, Fascism
has been weighed in the balances and found wanting? (Dan 5:27)
Fascism—Is Its Foundation Sound?
Darwinian Evolution: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian
evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all.”—
New Scientist, June 25, 1981, Michael Ruse.
Racism: “The chasm between human races and peoples, where it exists, is psychological and sociological; it is not genetic!”—
Genes
and the Man, Professor Bentley Glass.
“Human beings of all races are . . . descended from the same first man.”—
Heredity and Humans, science writer Amram Scheinfeld.
Militarism: “The ingenuity, labor, and treasure poured out on this . . . insanity truly stun the mind. If nations did not learn war any more,
there would be nothing mankind could not do.”—American author and Pulitzer prize winner Herman Wouk.
Nationalism: “Nationalism divides humanity into mutually intolerant units. As a result, people think as Americans, Russians, Chinese,
Egyptians or Peruvians first, and human beings second—if at all.”—
Conflict and Cooperation Among Nations, Ivo Duchacek.
“So many of the problems that we face today are due to, or the result of, false attitudes—some of them have been adopted almost unconsciously.
Among these is the concept of narrow nationalism—‘my country, right or wrong.’”—Former UN Secretary-General U
Thant
.edit on 13-11-2022 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)