What is the hallmark of fascism? I Googled this, locating several lists of identifying features. The authors of such lists appeared educated and earnest, but they all approached the problem from a defined political binary. Consequently, the resulting discussions fit into a model of “what does fascism on that side of the political aisle look like from this side?”
Because of this, the descriptive writing I found about the identifying characteristics of fascist governance all seems to have not only a directional bias, it’s over-complicated. Many authors, whether purposefully or not, find it necessary to couch their preferred identifiers of fascism in long lists of qualifiers. Of course, all of this is unnecessary.
I have a simple criterion. The reliance on censorship is the strongest signifier of fascism. I don’t much care whether anybody spells it with a big or a small letter F. Nor do I care whether it finds a home in the conventionally recognized corridors of government, nor an academic environment, or even within the realm of social media. It further does not matter one whit whether censorship is practiced openly, or behind the obfuscation of Orwellian word games.
“Hate speech” is an example of this. So what is hate speech? You can Google a definition if you want, but my definition will be more honest. It’s any form of expression given a label so that it can conveniently be silenced.
For example, the writing of an individual, novelist Pam O’Shaughnessy, advocating for the genetic modification of the male half of the human race into a more pliable and feminism-friendly model of masculinity was not, even from my MHRA point of view “hate speech”. Of course, it was never the intent of the editors at AVFM to silence or censor Perilous Pam or her comrades on the now-underground RadFemHub.
Hello Pamela.
Rather than employ censorship, we did our level best to expose the writing of those eugenics and child-murder enthusiasts on RadicalFemHub to the widest possible audience.
Now, however, three gender ideologues have launched an apparently-successful campaign to coerce facebook into censoring anyone or anything on that site deemed by ideological fiat as “hate speech”.
Three individuals are listed as the principal authors of an “open letter” to facebook, demanding the company tow their ideological line. A craven, and naked dismissal of the most basic principal of free expression, as well as willful dismissal of the humanity of half the human race.
Laura Bates, Soraya Chemaly, Jaclyn Friedman began their letter as follows.
An Open Letter to Facebook:
We, the undersigned, are writing to demand swift, comprehensive and effective action addressing the representation of rape and domestic violence on Facebook. Specifically, we call on you, Facebook, to take three actions:
1. Recognize speech that trivializes or glorifies violence against girls and women as hate speech and make a commitment that you will not tolerate this content.”
The limiting clause; “ against girls and women” in this demand informs almost every statement within the open letter. Only violence impacting women is objectionable. That is to say, the minority of violence in the world. Violence, or its ideations against men, boys, or children not clearly identified as female gets a pass. The only people who matter are women. Indeed, one of the most basic and fundamental of all human rights, that of free speech can be tossed right out the window as long as the ideologue’s label of sex-selective “hate speech” can be pasted to any commentary or utterance.
2. Effectively train moderators to recognize and remove gender-based hate speech. In other words, train moderators to devalue free expression, and to recognize the superior right of one group to protection from unkind words. Indeed, treat the members of that group as mental and emotional toddlers who cannot deal with such things as trolls, assholes and the occasional genuinely violent misanthrope. Now, there certainly is ugly, violent, and threatening commentary and content on face book which specifically targets women.
But guess what, the same statement is true for men. In fact, there is violent, ugly, and threatening commentary against every single identifiable demographic, whether it be religious, ethnic, or otherwise. This is the price free expression in a society borne out of the enlightenment. It is a small small price to pay, compared to a totalitarian, fascist society without a social contract including a high value attached to free expression.
3. Effectively train moderators to understand how online harassment differently affects women and men, in part due to the real-world pandemic of violence against women.
Lets all be clear on the difference between reality and fantasy. Violence, both within the area of domestic relationships, and in the wider criminal context – is tracked by law enforcement agencies around the world. If the rates of victimization are examined by sex, women and girls are the LEAST targeted demographic in comparison to men and boys.
The most recent US DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics criminal victimization survey confirms what every previous BJS CVS report shows.[1] Women are the minority of the victims of violence. Even limiting the discussion to domestic violence shows a parity of victimization between men and women.[2][3] The claim by Bates, Chemaly and Friedman of a “real-world pandemic of violence against women” is fraud. It’s nothing more dignified than a disgusting lie, cultivated to justify censorship and the continued abrogation of human rights of men and women.
Bates, Chemaly and Friedman further claim, without even a citation of advocacy research to support it that domestic violence is a leading cause of death to women world wide. This is more fantasy and threat-narrative fabrication.
The top ten causes of death are all diseases. According to the World Health Organization[4][5], death from Violent causes is the 16th most most common cause of death, listed after 15 more common causes all of which are diseases. For women, the rate is 14.9 deaths per 100,000 women, per year attributable to intentional injuries, including “suicide, violence, war, etc”. For men, the death rate attributed to the same causes is 37 per 100,000 men. That’s 2.5 times higher.
The claim by Bates, Chemaly and Friedman that “that domestic violence is a leading cause of death to women world wide “ is not just fantasy and threat-narrative fabrication. It is the polar opposite of the truth, and a disgusting lie, calculated to cultivate hatred and fear of half the human race.
However, rather than make any move towards censorship, I would shine a light onto the public claims by Laura Bates, Soraya Chemaly, Jaclyn Friedman, and every their signatory to their open letter.
It is a letter calling on the largest social networking site in the world to institute a program of demographically selective censorship; to institute the practice that is the strongest signifier of fascism.
Bates, Chemaly, and Friedman are not merely endorsing violence against those most impacted by it. They are not merely ignorant or indifferent to the foundational nature of free speech to the establishment of all other human rights. They are not merely content to propagate false, fraudulent models of domestic violence which continue the conditions and causes of domestic violence. They are not simply adherents of an ideology of hatred and violence, wrapping itself in the increasingly transparent veneer of false and pious humanism. Laura Bates, Soraya Chemaly, Jaclyn Friedman are successfully promoting the signifying feature of fascism. They are fascists, and if you support their cause, that of censorship, you may be a fascist as well.
Thank you for your kind attention.
The identifying feature of fascism
