Posts Tagged ‘Immigration

16
Jan
11

Capitalism and Race

In an older post, I attempted to demonstrate how Capitalism spawns bigotry in terms of both class and race. For this post, I thought I might expound a bit on the latter issue.

 

First, a disclaimer. Capitalism is not inherently racist. It is exploitative, enslaving, and oppressive, but it is not inherently racist.

The key word here is inherently. While there’s nothing about in the tenets of Capitalism that embraces racism (just the opposite- Capitalism doesn’t care much who it exploits), the Capitalist system, once put into practice, adopts the bigotry of the Capitalists. Allow me to clarify.

 

Capitalism produces social classes, the rich, the middle class, and the poor and working class. The rich, often dubbed “the elite” or “the ruling class” by Communists, control society through politics, industry, disproportionate wealth and property, and so on. Now despite the growing multiculturalism we’re seeing across the globe, the ruling classes of various countries still tend be primarily from a single race or ethnicity. Look at America where, despite one of the highest levels of racial and cultural diversity, the upper and middle class remain almost entirely white and Protestant Christian. Now while there’s nothing racist about being white or Christian (though there’s been plenty of racism from whites and Christians), the problem is with human nature. We crave familiarity and are terrified of the strange or unknown. As a result the middle and upper-classes attempt, both consciously and unconsciously, to keep things the way they’ve always been, which often leads to cultural and racial tension.

 

For example, a couple years ago I was in a debate with a woman about the institution of English as the official language of the United States. She was decrying having to “press 1 for English, 2 for Spanish”, and the dire implications of having streets signs and forms written bilingually (though exactly what dire implications would arise she never did enumerate upon). Now as I talked with this woman, it became evident that she was not a racist. She did not believe that her ethnicity was in any way superior to anyone else’s. yet she passionately argued that immigrants must “learn English”. In short, she wasn’t afraid of racial mixing or other people groups, she was afraid of change and the unknown.

 

When you break it down into it’s most basic components, the race/class issue functions like this: the haves are race/ethnic group A, the have-nots are races/ethnic groups B, C, D, and so on. Those in power are race/ethnic group A, the powerless are races/ethnic groups B, C, D, etc. Again, the system is not inherently racist, however, the system almost always becomes racist. The ruling class becomes the ruling race- the lack of diversity spawns an atmosphere of xenophobia at best and blatant, unapologetic bigotry at worst. On the opposite end of the spectrum, resentment (understandably) foments. Again I have to state, even with a system that isn’t inherently racist and people who are, individually open-minded, any social structure that divides us up or separates us from each other will ultimately create racism.

22
Oct
10

Anti-Immigration Murders in Sweden

BBC article linked here.

16
Oct
10

Disturbing Anti-Immigrant Sentiments In Germany

BBC Article linked here.

18
Aug
10

A Communist Look at Immigration

For people to be against illegal immigration is understandable- not necessarily commendable, but certainly understandable. Illegal immigrants may enjoy certain benefits from a nation while avoiding the responsibilities of citizenship (taxes, jury duty, the unlikely event of a draft, and so on). Being in a country illegally means that “illegals” (‘Unregistered’, as they prefer to be called) are not protected by labor laws and may be hired by companies and individuals to work long hours in dangerous conditions with little pay and no medical benefits- resulting in immigrants being hired for unskilled/manual labor and citizens being laid off. Now ignoring the fact that most immigrants leave their families and homelands behind, travel hundreds of miles in often dangerous conditions, sneak across the border, and allow themselves to be exploited and abused just to send money home- it’s easy to see why some people would be upset at illegal immigration.

But what we are currently seeing in both the US and in Europe isn’t mere, misguided anger at illegal immigration but at immigrants- legal or otherwise. The explosion of paranoia concerning ‘anchor-babies’- a derogatory term for the practice of gaining citizenship through having a child born in the US, as ensured by the 14th amendment (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States… are citizens of the United States…”). Now this isn’t illegal immigration- this is legitimate, protected not by law by the foundation of US government- yet there’s still an outcry against it, some even advocating the repeal of the 14th amendment.

Why? A number of reasons are given. Michelle Malkin, a commentator primarily for Fox News, argues that granted citizenship to those born in the US is detrimental to the “…integrity of citizenship-not to mention national security.”

Exactly how granting citizenship to those born in the US undermines the integrity of citizenship is a little confusing- citizenship is automatically granted to the children born in the US (to American parents), why is this less [supposedly] harmful? As for the issue of national security, immigrants are flooding into this country to take advantage of the freedoms and opportunities offered here- to suppose that immigrants would, en masse, attempt to overthrow or harm the nation they’re trying to be a part of is- to be blunt- idiocy.

Others, such as Glenn Beck, have claimed that the 14th amendment was intended only to protect the rights of former slaves freed after the civil war, and the amendment should not be applied to immigrants, going so far as to state “Slavery is a long time ago.”. Now with immigrants working for well below the minimum wage in often dangerous conditions (to say nothing of the number of genuine slaves in the country) one could easily retort that the need to protect the rights of slaves (wage-slaves and actual slaves) is needed now more than ever! Just because slavery has moved to the fruit orchards of California from the cotton fields of South Carolina doesn’t mean that’s gone. Not for Sale, an abolitionist organization estimates that there are 30 million slaves around the world.

The simple fact is that what we’re witnessing isn’t anti-illegal immigrant sentiment, but anti-immigrant feelings- something with far more disturbing implications.

Anti-immigrant sentiment stems from a number of factors, the foremost (in the US, anyways) is that immigrants rob citizens of their jobs. But what is forgotten too often is that we are all immigrants, that at some point all of our ancestors struggled for a new life- competition can to rear its ugly head anywhere- if you have an issue with it, take it up with Capitalism, not immigrants stuck in the same position as your grandparents once found themselves.

The fear of change is another- changes in culture, changes in demographics, changes in language and religions and so on. This fear is perhaps best exemplified in Britain, where anti-immigrant fear is has resulted in the creation of such groups as the English Defense League (EDL) and the British Nationalist Party (BNP). According to the official website of the BNP “All these facts point inexorably to the overwhelming and extinguishing of Britain and British identity under a tsunami of immigration.”

The idea that somehow culture is meant to remain stagnant is, of course, ridiculous. Cultures are in a constant state of flux, old traditions are abolished, new customs arise, and the mix of various cultures is an integral part of that. Has immigration into the US destroyed culture? On the contrary, immigration has increased the variety of foods we eat, beverages we drink, holidays we celebrate, and the ways we look at the world around us.

But nevertheless the bias remains in spite of these truths. Why?

Racism.

It’s ugly, it’s difficult to accept, but it’s there. Whether we’re walking basing our political campaigns on the promise to “Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently.” (As the BNP does) or considering repealing the 14th amendment (as some in the US have suggested) or subconsciously conjuring up the image of a minority stereotype when we hear of a crime that’s been committed, we are basing our actions on the idea that some people are worse than others because of the color of their skin, the size of their noses, the width between their eyes and so on. It’s not all our fault- crime, drugs, illiteracy, and ignorance are highest among the poor and working class- the vast majority of whom are immigrants and/or minorities. It’s easy to fall into the habit of associating crime/drugs/etc. not with poverty but with those who are unfortunate enough to be poor, and from this stems racism.

It’s not all our fault- but a lot of it still is. We know that brown and blue eyes squint at the same sun. We know that curly and straight hair will eventually turn gray. We know that beneath black and white and brown skin there’s the same bones and organs. In short, we know better.

So fight fear and racism and put yourself in the shoes of immigrants, legal and illegal alike. If roles were reversed, you’d have as much motivation to travel wherever you wanted in the world to make a better life for yourself. You’d have as much of a rights.

Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently
20
Jul
10

A Communist Look Back (and Forward)

It’s been over a year since I first started this blog, and a lot has happened in the world- I think it only appropriate that I write a brief post reviewing the past year and making a few predictions for the next one.

We have the economic crisis (or rather, a series of crises) of such great proportions the public’s faith in Capitalism has been badly shaken. The bailouts, the BP oil spill, the revelation of corruption within the regulatory branches of government- none of these have done much to convince the people that Capitalism has their best interests at heart. Indeed, the loss of faith in the current system has led many to look into alternatives, such as Libertarianism, Socialism, and to an extent, Communism. Despite this, neocolonialism, economic and cultural imperialism continue to spread. The poor and working class of the third world remain largely oppressed. Slavery rates continue to rise. In xenophobic reaction to ever increasing immigration rates, the US and Western Europe has become more hostile to foreigners.

The controversial creation of public healthcare in the US- indicative of widespread dissatisfaction with healthcare under Capitalism (or the lack thereof)- has garnered both enthusiastic support and vehement opposition, most on the far-left have voiced support for the change, but maintain that free, universal healthcare is the only answer.

In short, to say that the past twelve months have brought forth dramatic change would be an exaggeration- at the same time, it is undeniable that have been significant developments in economics and the public views of Capitalism.

Predictions for next year:

1. Continued disillusionment with Capitalism- independent parties will probably gain in popularity.

2. Extreme right-wing reactions in the Republican and Conservative movements will ultimately alienate moderates and undecided voters, resulting in more harm to the GOP/Conservative movement than benefit.

3. Immigration into the US and Western Europe will result in greater hostility towards immigrants, possibly resulting in blatantly anti-immigrant legislation, violence, and the oppression of minorities. Fascists, racists, and extreme right-wing groups will probably be seeing some victories unless this xenophobia is immediately combated.

4.  Austerity measures in some European countries will result (or rather continue to result) in strikes by the working class- some potential for rioting, but no absolute certainty.

Looks like it’s gonna be fun…

25
Apr
10

Continued BNP Fascism

Linked here is a BBC article describing the BNP’s (British Nationalist Party) continued campaign against immigration. Like most Fascist and nationalist organizations, the BNP is attempting to gain public support through the vilification of a certain group (in this case, immigrants) and the propagation and proliferation of lies about how this group will upset the status quo (a popular BNP claim is that immigrants will somehow destroy British identity and culture). Now it would be remiss of us to immediately discount every theory a Capitalist or Fascist organization brings forward, so let us examine some of the positions held by the BNP.

Major BNP Positions (as stated in the BBC’s “At-a-glance: BNP general election manifesto):

Economics:

Cut public spending on immigration, asylum, EU membership and foreign aid, which the BNP claim accounts for more than £40bn.

Perhaps the only understandable point the BNP has here is its reluctance to be part of the EU. If group doesn’t feel that it is being adequately represented, there’s no reason it should be forced to participate. It’s there, however, that understanding ends. For an immensely wealthy and powerful first world country to wish to cut spending on immigration, asylum, and foreign to less fortunate countries is twisted and unjust- especially considering that many of these countries were once brutally colonized by the British.

Crime and Immigration:

Halt immigration – in particular from Muslim countries – and deport illegal immigrants. Allow legally settled and law-abiding minorities to remain but review citizenship grants awarded since 1997.

Again we have the issues of discrimination and bigotry. The BNP would have an end to immigration despite the fact that many of the countries immigrants originate from were once conquered, colonized, and exploited for centuries. The fact that immigrants are now streaming into the UK in search of better lives isn’t merely a natural phenomena, it’s poetic justice.

Deport foreigners convicted of crimes in Britain, regardless of immigration status, ban the burka and building of mosques. Deport radical Islamist preachers.

It is perhaps here that the Fascist reality of the BNP is most evident. Regulating a specific religion or community (in this case, Islam and the immigrant/Muslim community) Fascists attempt to maintain the traditional social order and status quot.

Review the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to remove unnecessary bureaucracy from police duties.

While there’s nothing wrong with wanting to remove unnecessary bureaucracy, keeping the BNP’s other political stances in mind, one can’t but help be suspicious of this proposal. Fascist and authoritarian regimes can only remain in power with an extensive police force- there’s a fine line between removing bureaucracy and removing accountability.


Social Aspects:

“British concepts” of civility and courteousness to be taught in schools, along with British history and English, Irish, Scots and Welsh culture and tradition.

Ah, what counts as a “British concept”? Do naturalized immigrants influence at all what counts as a cultural concept? Would this be the contemporary concept, or an earlier one? Should it even be the government’s role civility and courteousness?

Free university education to students who have completed community service.

This actually doesn’t sound like such a bad idea- depending on what the BNP defines as “community service”. Are we talking about a month of picking up litter from the sides of roads or years of backbreaking labor poor and proletariat youth will have to undergo as a result of being unable to afford university? Either way, considering the BNP’s other policies, it probably isn’t worth it.


Healthcare:

Cut waiting times and service difficulties by relieving immigration burden upon the NHS.

Last time I checked, a sick Anglo-Saxon’s life isn’t any more valuable than a sick Central Asian’s. The Hippocratic oath doesn’t have limits on race and nationality.


Politics:

Bill of Rights guaranteeing basic civil liberties, repeal 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.

Considering the attitudes of the BNP, you probably shouldn’t look forward to their concept of “basic civil liberties”.

Other Aspects:

Ensure National Lottery funding spent on projects enhancing British culture. Introduce formal bank holidays marking patron saints days of all UK nations.

Again, since culture is always in a state of flux, proposals that the government should be responsible for instituting a set, state culture seems dictatorial. As far as banks go, I’m sure the workers wouldn’t mind the days off but why should those days mark some saints? What’s that saying about non-Christian religions in Britain?

Please note that in the interests of space, I have not published every position held by the BNP. I do seriously recommend that you study their full list of proposals and positions or even visit their website. Know your enemy.

12
Dec
09

Classism, Poverty, and Racism

In recent posts, I have been describing how “classism” (the stratification of society according to wealth) has become a new kind of racism. However, I feel obligated to describe how classism, in turn, creates and perpetuates racism.

It all starts with immigration. Immigration is, most often, a result of people attempting to seek a better life economically. Having come from a country usually ravaged by poverty or war or disease, immigrants tend to be poor themselves, and therefore are filtered into the working class/poor class of the country they’ve moved to. This situation, while comparatively better than the lives the immigrant’s have left behind, is still less than ideal. Crime rates and drug and alcohol abuse are still highest among the poor, no matter what the nation.

The issue with this (besides the rates of crime, drugs, and alcoholism) is that upper classes confuse the issues of crime and race. If the majority of crimes are committed by immigrants and minorities, then some will doubtlessly assume that immigrants and minorities are naturally indolent and/or criminally minded. Of course the reality of the situation is that crime rates are high among immigrants because immigrants generally live in abject poverty. With the evils of racial profiling and generalization, it becomes assumed that all immigrants and minorities are thieves and drug dealers, and therefore should be treated with suspicion or even open hostility. Inversely, this ill-treatment creates among immigrants and minorities feelings of animosity to the native majority. Racism, after all, works both ways.

So begins a cycle of abuse and distrust that only perpetuates racism. An innocent person (from a minority) locks himself out of his own car and is forced to break into it, only to be shot by the police who assume he’s a thief. In retaliation, a police officer (who had nothing to do with the shooting) is stabbed by an angry minority group. In response to this, a pair of children from a minority are beat up in school by their classmates- and so on and so forth in a long, tragic, and utterly pointless spiral.

In short, anywhere that there’s Capitalism, there’s classism, anywhere there’s classism, there’s poverty, anywhere there’s poverty, there’s crime which in turn leads inevitably to racism and bigotry. The only way to abolish racism is to abolish both poverty and the class system. Granted, some might argue that all that is needed is understanding and respect, but the fact remains that no matter how many murals are painted of people of all races holding hands around a globe, the poor are poor, the wealthy are wealthy, and the social divide spawns fear, crime, and racism.

27
Oct
09

Continued Atrocities Committed Against Palestinians

Yet more atrocities are committed against the Palestinian people. Linked here.

24
Jul
09

The Many Faces of Capitalism

Throughout the blog I have been discussing various aspects of Capitalism, however, one must keep in mind that Capitalism isn’t so much an economic theory in and of itself but rather a general category of economic theories based around capital (money). For one to describe Capitalism without making note of the various schools of thought within the system would be the equivalent of describing Christianity without mentioned the beliefs of Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants, or describing warfare without noting the invention of gunpowder. So, in the interests of clarity, listed below are the descriptions of the major classes of Capitalism.

Classical Capitalism

While the actual term “Capitalism” was coined by Karl Marx, the first comprehensive work on the subject of Capitalism (or “commerce”, as it was simply known as) was penned by British economist Adam Smith, in his The Wealth of Nations (considered by many to be the “Bible of Capitalism”. Smith’s essential argument was that humans ought to work in their self-interests which would create a strong and healthy society. Smith stated that if one person owns a product and attempts to sell it, the purchaser will buy it for whatever he deems it to be worth, leaving both seller and buyer richer and happier than before their transaction. Throughout his work, Smith advocates this concept of self-interest as the foundation of commerce, stating that “We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.”. Additionally, Smith claimed that it is in the best interests of the economy and the government for the government to interfere as little as possible with the economy (see “Free Trade” below).  Today, Adam Smith is viewed by many as the founding father of Capitalism and one of the most important economic theorists in the history of the world.

Laisseiz-Faire

Laisseiz-faire (literally “Hands-off” or “Let-do”) can perhaps best be described as an aspect of Capitalism (Classical Capitalism, to be precise) rather than a school of Capitalism. Based on the works of Adam Smith, Laisseiz-faire is a philosophy that states that the government should never interfere or attempt to regulate the economy which- according to the advocates of Laisseiz-faire- functions best without outside influence. While developed separately from Adam Smith, the philosophy of Laisseiz-faire and Classical Capitalism are often combined or associated with each other. While Smith primarily objects to government tariffs, Laisseiz-faire has historically opposed government interference in the form of anti-monopoly laws, minimum wage, and unions.

Christian Capitalism

While the US and much of Europe has never had any theocratic rule since the end of the Renaissance, it is undeniable that in the West, a Christian concept of Capitalism has existed for some time. Of course, this “Christian Capitalism” by no means applies to all Christians, but the fact remains that this philosophy does indeed exist. Christian Capitalism attempts to reconcile the self-focused, competitive tenets of Classical Capitalism with the rather community-focused, anti-materialist teachings of the Christian religion. The end result is what one might call a “moralistic Capitalism”, where competition and materialism do exist, but are tempered by ethics. Those within the system are free to make a profit, but gouging the buyer, deceiving the competition, or tricking the seller is considered to be unacceptable. Charity is advocated but not mandated (as opposed to other religious economic theories to be discussed later). While this form of Capitalism is often considered to be the ideal, there are many split on issues of what is and is not moral (what are the limits when trying to outsell a competitor, for example).

Regulated Capitalism

Contrary to common belief, regulated Capitalism is not a form of Communism or Social but simple government interference. Regulated Capitalism, like Laisseiz-faire, isn’t so much a theory of Capitalism but an aspect of Capitalism. Teaching the very opposite of Laisseiz-faire, regulated Capitalism states that economies require some form of control in order to flourish. This “control” can range from basic laws on minimum wage and worker-safety (such as in post 1940s America) to major government control (as in 1920s and 1930s Italy). While regulation is often confused with Socialism, one must keep in mind that so long as the state does not own the company, the products it sells, and the revenue generated, it does not count as Socialism.

Keynesian Capitalism

British economist John Maynard Keynes could perhaps be described as the most anti-Capitalist Capitalist the world has ever known. Keynes held that Capitalism is “the astounding belief that the most wickedest [sic] of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”, and yet was himself a Capitalist. From a philosophical standpoint, Keynes despised Capitalism and yet saw it as the only option. As a result of this, his economic theory (known as “Keynesian economics”) attempts to protect the public from Capitalism’s costs while maximizing its benefits. Keynes advocates government regulation to protect the public while stating that the public, in order to prevent recessions and depressions, should spend their money without excessive investment or saving. Currently, Keynesian economics are often criticized by other schools of Capitalism as requiring too much collective and government interference.

Ayn Rand Capitalism

Also called “tooth-and-claw Capitalism” “Anarchist/Anarcho-Capitalism”, and “Social Darwinism”, this form of economics focuses on individualism to the point of egotism (or as Rand dubbed it, rational self-interest). Theorized by novelist Ayn Rand (most famously in her books The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged), this form of Capitalism is perhaps the most brutal. Rand’s philosophy vehemently opposes all forms of government interference, charitable aid, altruism, and religion. While never explicitly stated in her works, Rand’s economic theory holds that the wealthy and privileged are wealthy and privileged because they earned it, while the poor and proletariat are at the bottom of the economic food-chain because they are lazy or simply choose to be poor. In her book Atlas Shrugged, Rand submits that the wealthy and powerful are the most productive and useful members of society, capable of bringing the world to a sudden halt by going on strike. While Rand’s theories are essentially Capitalist, many other schools of Capitalism look down on Rand’s theories as barbaric, excessively anti-charity, and basically flawed. Despite public criticism, many hold that Rand’s Capitalism is by far the most pure form of Capitalism.

Free Trade

Free trade, like regulated Capitalism and Laisseiz-faire Capitalism, is a concept- not a theory. Free trade essentially is the belief that international trade should not be regulated or controlled by governments. Outsourcing, the import/export of resources and goods, multinational corporations, and international investment are all aspects of Free Trade that its advocates state will produce higher profits, lower production costs, more jobs, more demand, and generally stronger economy.

Protectionism

Protection (perhaps more of a political concept than an economic one) demands the very opposite of Free Trade. Protectionists believe that jobs should go to citizens of the country the company is in, that resources and products should be obtained and produced locally and that massive export and import tariffs should be maintained for the purpose of preserving jobs for the citizens of the country. Protectionists will often also oppose immigration for the same reason.

11
Jul
09

Fighting Facism

Nearly a century ago, Communist leader Leon Trotsky defined Fascism as “…Nothing but Capitalist reaction…”. A reaction to what? There are a number of factors that can result in the rise of Fascism but in order to understand the events that cause this reaction, we must first understand what Fascism is.

One’s might make the assumption that Fascism is the same as Nazism. This is only partly true. Nazism is a white supremacist ideology that originated in Germany, based roughly off of a twisted interpretation of the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. Nazism can perhaps best be described as a subdivision of Fascism (in other words, all Nazis are Fascists, not all Fascists are Nazis). Fascism itself could best be described as the polar opposite of Communism. While Communism demands the eventual abolition of the state, Fascism requires the existence of an almost all-powerful centralized government. While Communism calls for the abolition of private property and traditionalism, Fascism is based on conserving Capitalism and tradition. In short, Fascism can be described as a far-right Capitalist police state.

From this definition it’s easy to see why people turn to Fascism. Whenever people feel that their traditional values, social/economic standing, or status quo is facing the threat of change, there will be some who turn to Fascism as a form of defense. People, if sufficiently frightened, will trade freedom for safety (or at least, the illusion of safety). However, as Benjamin Franklin once said, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both…”. During the 1950s, the US was gripped by the idea that treacherous, subversive Communists were infiltrating the country’s government and infrastructure. Fascists, particularly Senator Joseph McCarthy and his following (though of course, they never indentified themselves with Fascism), exploited the public’s fear and used it to further their own ends, namely by removing political rivals and silencing media opposition by accusing them of having leftist sympathies. At the height of his power, Joseph McCarthy was one of the most powerful (and feared) men in the US, with the support of the FBI and various members of the US government. With promises of protecting the American way of life, exposing the disloyal and subversive, and defending Capitalism from Marxism (by any means possible, no matter how unethical), McCarthy fits all the criteria of a Fascist. Of course, one could argue that McCarthy wasn’t an actual Fascist but a simple megalomaniac who used Communist witch-hunts as a way of seizing power. That may or may not be true- no one is sure of how much McCarthy actually believed the things he said. That aside, it is undeniable that McCarthy led a massive following that actually did believe in the “threat of Communism” and supported and even took part in McCarthy’s Fascist actions.

Of course, the “red scare” of the 1950s is only one example of Fascism; in this case, a reaction to the perceived threat of Marxist infiltration. But people will turn to Fascism for many reasons- take immigration for example.

Throughout the 1870s, 80s, and 90s, America was flooded with immigrants. Millions from Italy, Russia, Poland, Hungary, Ireland, Scotland, Spain, etc. traveled to the US in search of a better life. Some, such as factory owners and industrialists, saw this as a good thing- a sudden (and seemingly endless) supply of cheap labor had become available. Some saw this as a testament to the superiority of American democracy and the liberties set down in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Others, however, saw this as a threat to the known balance of life. The sudden surge of new citizens had upset the previous social order, and in reaction to this, Fascism rose up in the form of the Klu Klux Klan. Granted, the KKK had existed since the end of the US civil war (a reaction to the massive social and cultural changes taking place due to both emancipation and rapid expansion) however, it was the massive immigration of the 1890s that turned the KKK from a mere white-supremacist group to a full-fledged Fascist organization. Before immigration, the KKK’s sphere of influence was limited primarily to the South and parts of the Midwest, the areas where the effects of the civil war were most pronounced. Immigration, however, affected the entire US and during this time, the KKK’s empire expanded across the country, fueled by the fires of racism, xenophobia, and hatred. By the 1920s, the KKK had well over five million members, and was capable of murdering anyone it wanted with no fear of action from the authorities (who often enough were members of the Klan themselves). “Why would any rational society not be horrified and disgusted enough by the actions of these Fascists to take action against them? Why would any reasonable and free society tolerate this?”. Quite simply, fear is neither rational nor reasonable. Even at their largest, the KKK never numbered at more than five and a half million members- a fraction of the general population. The only reason the Klu Klux Klan had the power it did was because the general populace tolerated and accepted them out of misdirected fear. The public, terrified of the thought that their way of life was being taken from them, reacted to the change immigration was bringing by turning to Fascist murderers and terrorists. The Klu Klux Klan, like every Fascist organization, has never admitted to the charges of racism and murder. What we would call racism, a Fascist would call “patriotism” or “nativism” (a word meaning “the rights of a native population [or at least, a group claiming to be native] superseding those of newcomers and immigrants [i.e. ethnocentric racism]). What we would call murder, a Fascist would call “the actions of a non-representative extremist group” (effectively shifting blame without condemning the crime) or even “self-defense” (of the imaginary attack on the traditional values of said group, of course). The admonition of American writer Sinclair Lewis have proven true, “When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross…”. Fascism- even in all its terrorizing, murdering, big-brother glory- will still attempt to pass itself off as the reasonable, patriotic, pious, tradition-oriented movement existing only to serve and protect. Take the words Thomas Robb, the national director of a Fascist group called the “Knights of the Klu Klux Klan”, for example. According to Robb “… Our people- my white brothers and sisters- will stay committed to a non-violent resolution… The hatred for our children and their future is growing and is being fueled every single day. Stay firm in your convictions. Keeping loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way- law and order- love of family- love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America!”. In this diatribe (for that is what it is, once you cut through the thinly veiled propaganda), key words and phrases stand out: “hatred for our children and their future”, “convictions”, “heritage”, “way”, “the Christian way”, “law and order”, “love of family”, “love of nation”, “principles”, and “loyalty”. All of these words fit with the Fascist creed- the “defense” of traditional values and ideals (in the case of the Klu Klux Klan, an America dominated by conservative, protestant Christian, pro-Capitalist  Caucasians) through any means necessary. Of course, Robb states that actions must be “non-violent”. Quite simply, this is a lie. Robb insists that there is “…a war to destroy these things…” yet insists that his organization is non-violent and based on the love of law, order, and family. When a man- any man- is woken up in the middle of the night and believes that someone is breaking into his house (whether this is true or not), he will get up, grab a baseball bat/fire poker/golf club/etc. and start prowling the house. How then are we expected to believe that such a group as the KKK (with a long history of violence), fully believing that there is a war against their very value system, will not react to this threat (whether it’s real or not). One might as well use that logic to argue that a bear won’t maul you if kick it’s cub, or that a snake won’t bite you if you try to tie it in a knot. To believe that the Klu Klux Klan, an organization responsible for hundreds of lynchings, beatings, hate crimes, and savage acts of intimidation, will suddenly stand back and passively allow their dreams (delusions, is perhaps a better word) of white-supremacy be destroyed is simply ridiculous. Where there is fear (particularly the fear of change), there are those who will turn to Fascism.

Of course the Klu Klux Klan still exists, as does racism and hate crime. Fortunately, however, the KKK is barely a shadow of its former self. No longer a unified group and having long since lost any credibility or respectability among the general populace, the Klan is- at most- a tiny (yet still toxic) fringe group and a sad reminder of a part of American history we’d rather (but cannot and should not) forget. Of course, one could argue that Fascism in the US didn’t die with the Klan but transferred to the industrial-military complex (an issue to be discussed in a later post), however one could just as easily counter that (like McCarthy) these groups themselves are not Fascist, but would merely benefit most from a Fascist or Fascist-style government.

“So what’s the point of all this?” one might ask, “The Nazis, Klansmen, McCarthyites, and Blackshirts are dead and gone and the Neo-Nazis and Skinheads are few in number and have most of the population turned against them!”. Now that is partly true. Yes, the KKK’s power is broken but there has been increased growth in their numbers, and while estimate believe that there are about eight thousand KKK members currently spread across the country (which is about eight thousand too many, if you think about it). Please, keep in mind that while the Klu Klux Klan is a nauseatingly racist and potentially dangerous organization, I am by no means advocating any physical attack (no need to lower ourselves to their level). According to US law, everyone has the right to peaceably assemble. To use the KKK’s own tactics would not help defeat Fascism but help lead it to victory. After all, if we violently attempt to preserve our value system from those who would change it, we ourselves become Fascist.

So why write a lengthy explanation (and condemnation) of a dead ideology? Because Fascism isn’t dead!

Yes, Hitler is dead, as is Mussolini, and Disney (yes, Walt Disney was a supporter of Nazism), and countless others. Fascism, however, survives and has recently taken hold in Europe, primarily Britain. Like America in the 1890s, Europe is currently experiencing a similar wave of immigration. And as the power of the KKK expanded in 1890s America, so has the support for various Fascist groups in Europe. Take the British Nationalist Party (BNP) for example.

The British Nationalist Party (founded 1982) is the quintessential Fascist organization. The BNP is unconditionally pro-Capitalist, nativist to the point of ethnocentrism (“Sink the [immigrant] boats!” has become a BNP slogan), violently anti-leftist (The Propaganda Director of the BNP was convicted for attempting to plant a nail-bomb in the headquarters of a British Communist party), and vehemently anti-Semitic, anti-Islamic, anti-racial mixing, and anti-Homosexual (while none of these last four are technically Fascist, they are traits commonly found in Fascist organizations). “So Britain’s got a Fascist party that actively spreads propaganda and in some cases, perpetrates acts of violence- America has the KKK and neo-Nazis groups, but that doesn’t mean they’re about to win seats in the Senate!”. In America, that is true. Not so in Britain. Earlier this year, two seats in the European Parliament were won by the BNP, and the party has made increasing strides in both popularity and elections (which are small victories, but victories nonetheless). Let the facts be faced, in Europe, Fascism is rising again.

So what’s to be done? How does one go about fighting Fascism?

Fascism, one must remember, is a social, economic, and political system based on fear. People turn to Fascism when they are afraid, trading freedom, rights, and privacy for security (or at least, the illusion of security). The easiest way to combat Fascism is to combat fear. If people are afraid that immigrants are changing their way of life, remind them that it’s the immigrants who have uprooted themselves to become part of the society they’re moving to. If people are afraid that Communism (or general leftism) is threatening them, explain that they will probably benefit from the socio-economic and political change. If people are afraid that they may lose some of their traditions as a result of change, instruct them that just because something is tradition it doesn’t mean it’s right, important, or useful. Attacking the roots of Fascism (fear, xenophobia, ignorance, and racism) essentially wipes Fascism out before it can take root, and keeps it from spreading if it already exists. Protests, anti-Fascist (also called “Antifa”) groups, and general participation in counter-Fascist movements also helps. Indeed, even having a basic education about Fascism helps in combating it.

Let there be no mistake, Fascism, while battered and broken, is far from dead and buried. The world is changing and many across the globe are turning to Fascism out of fear. I submit that FDR was right when he stated that “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.”. In short, it not we who should be afraid of the Fascists- it is the Fascists who should be afraid of us!