I'm sure you may have heard the growing claims that the course of events in motion in the United States offer excellent premises for the installation of a Fascist rule and a police state. In this piece, I will not attempt to persuade anyone that this is or is not the case, but provide a view of status-quo from a legal perspective. A comparison between the new and old America may perhaps also be in order. Again, the goal is not to offend, but to provide a few bases for events that some people already construe as worrying, and detrimental to their freedoms.

A few definitions

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

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

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classical political sciences, the word also refers to a person who has taken a position of power outside of hereditary (no longer applicable except for monarchies) or constitutional frameworks.

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

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

Fascism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Traits of Fascism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continues in Part 2.