Facebook Facism

The identifying feature of fascism

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.

  • externalangst

    Fascism is an apt choice of term. I learnt the awful truth about gender feminism in the university environment 2 to 3 decades ago. Feminist’s propensity for censorship and silencing through intimidation, threats, harm and both proxy & direct violence then suggested the term ‘femofascism’. Thanks JtO for the analysis.

  • http://themrmglossary.blogspot.com/ dhanu

    I wonder how Facebook can comply with a random open letter so quickly without any kind of research into the claims made by its authors, while the company has previously been reluctant to comply with even the multiple court orders laden with heavy fines for respecting the privacy of the people. It looks like a plot. Things were already set up and this letter was just the public face of the feminist and corrupt action plan, not much different from how a recommendation from some random school girls is being turned into a nationwide policy of making the Women’s Studies courses mandatory for all the middle school boys and girls.

  • Correctrix

    isle →aisle
    it’s →its
    most most →most

    • JinnBottle

      I get the feeling that whoever downvoted this perfectly legitimate Comment is shooting the messenger. Like we don’t have a problem here with “it’s” vs “its”, for example.

      • Correctrix

        Oh well, at least there were six upvotes too. I do feel I get shot as the messenger here sometimes. People seem to see that it’s a woman commenting and therefore anything critical I say is seen as a feminist attack.

  • Michael

    Excellent article. Should be required reading for Facebook and for all politicians.

    It’s time the law was updated to underpin basic constitutional rights and to deal with all attempts to stifle free and legitimate democratic debate, particularly where they relate to modern internet platforms and to the sly, underhand, fraudulent schemings of fanatical groups such as these, which are as much a threat to democracy as any armed rebel conspiracy.

    If necessary they should be challenged in the Courts for libel, slander, defamation, denial of constitutional and human rights, etc..

  • http://j4mb.wordpress.com mikebuchanan1957

    John, an outstanding article, really getting to the heart of the issues with Facebook. I had the misfortune to ‘debate’ with Laura Bates on the BBC radio programme, ‘The Jeremy Vine Show’. Rarely have I come across someone so obviously driven by misandry. She had a blue fit after the end of the interview, saying some emails I’d sent her were offensive (or words to that effect) when they were nothing of the kind. They merely outlined our analysis of various issues, and the tone was very polite. But then I suppose in the minds of such women, evidence-based arguments are offensive. She stormed out of the studio, leaving Jeremy Vine looking bewildered.

    I’ll post a link to this on my blogs.

    Mike Buchanan

    JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
    (and the women who love them)

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com

    • JinnBottle

      Mike: Yes, hystericism is certainly a big part of it. But don’t forget to follow the money. These cynical, worse-than-worthless bloodsuckers start 2 of just 3 bulleted points with “Train moderators…” In other words, “Hire Feminists!” Leeches and beeches.

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)

    “I have a simple criterion. The reliance on censorship is the strongest signifier of fascism.”

    Thats an excellent example of how Occam’s Razaor can be applied to a topic to make it accessible.

    Based on that fine definition, the letter of demands from the three women to Facebook -if implimented- will constitute the biggest single fascist enterprise in history. i.e. by ‘biggest’ I mean it will reach more people than any other similar campaign in history, and will be the most highly networked and policed example of it’s kind.

    This constitutes the most ambitious attempt at feminist hegemony ever seen.

  • TMG

    On a lighter note, Jacklyn Friedman says that feminist men are super unsexy.

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/03/27/feminists-not-all-that-impressed-by-manginas/

  • Sasha

    I was very struck by the reaction of the media to the recent violent murder of a soldier in Woolwich, London. The soldier was murdered by two violent extremists in broad daylight, who then stood around and spoke to passers-by and local residents. Two women spoke to the men, and a women tried to help the dead soldier. The media was full of praise (rightly) for their actions.

    What few pointed out though, was that the two murderers loudly told everyone present that no man should approach them, because they would kill them. So only women could approach them.

    It really highlighted for me that men are disposable. The two male killers targeted another man for the crime of killing women and children in Muslim countries. The soldier concerned was accountable because he was another man, and the two killers were responsible for taking action because they were men.

  • DavidM

    I googled the individuals who authored the open letter.
    Laura Bates, Soraya Chemaly, and Jaclyn Friedman are all card-carrying members of the feminazi party. Once again feminists prove that they are fascists, bigots and man-hating supremacists.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Open and flagrant man haters.

  • http://gravatar.com/bulldogo67 bulldogo67

    Sites such as AVFM, Spearhead etc. can do their best work by simply exposing things like this. There is no need to rant & rave against the pro-female zeitgeist. Just expose it. Our adversaries are “Doing It For Themselves”
    Oh, the delightful irony.

    • Robert Crayle

      The Bulldogs? Seriously?

      Although they are doing a lot better than their AFL counterparts. The Footscray Bulldogs are beindg ground up for yet another season…

      • http://gravatar.com/bulldogo67 bulldogo67

        Check before criticising Mr Crayle,
        The true MRA always references before attacking, It’s why we are winning.
        Clearly the NRL Bulldogs.
        Robert Crayle?
        The Trainspotter?
        See there how it’s done?

        • Robert Crayle

          Not criticising, just observing the bulldog crest – I’ve had to worry about Footscray/Western Bulldogs fans for a long time, some of them can be really feral. I’ve never had any problems with Canterbury fans, and they are doing really well this year from what I’ve seen. As to the Trainspotter reference, I actually have no idea what you’re talking about. Could you explain that to me?

          • Robert Crayle

            Where you referring to Robert Carlyle, the Scottish actor? He was in Trainspotting as Francis Begbie – it’s the only thing I can think of.

          • http://gravatar.com/bulldogo67 bulldogo67

            Yes that’s it. I thought that it was a psuedonym.
            And some Canterbury fans can be pretty feral at times, though I am not ever.

  • Hieronymus Braintree (everybody's pal)

    The screaming irony here is that you have a trio of women playing poor oppressed victims demanding that they get their way in a tone which clearly suggests that they expect to get it and who assume that if others are not denied free speech rights at their command, then they are the victims of oppression.

    Male privilege is everywhere. Why do you bastards refuse to see it?

  • donzaloog

    So what happens next if Facebook is stupid enough to submit to the demands of the idiots. I see outrage from the men, but I also see Anonymous attacking them. I knew if I was a hacker and I saw this shit going on I would shut them down hard.

    • TMG

      It’s going to be interesting to watch, because if they follow the orders of the brown skirts they will probably lose users of their network (and $$$) and if they don’t follow orders, they will have said brown skirts screaming in their face and calling them misogynist.

      I don’t have any problem with them curbing overt racism, sexism, & calls to violence as long as it is applied equally. But to satisfy this bunch, they’re going to have to go much further and not in a balanced way.

      Facebook is rapidly losing users and interest. I’m not saying it is going to shut down but investors are increasingly troubled.

  • Stu

    Regarding the graphic depicting Hitler. It’s commonly agreed the Hitler was a facist, but I don’t believe this is true. The name of his political party as National Socialists. Socialists have disowned him because he is so politically incorrect, but back in the day, he was not disowned by socialists. There is a huge amount of evidence that he was a socialist, including his own writings, many of his speeches, and the writings and diaries of those closest to him.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

  • http://gravatar.com/jjrockmale El Bastardo

    JTO, you are an artisan wordsmith. It’s like art.

    Well said, and I hope it brings them to our shores of freed thought, enterprise, and speech sans feminism/fascism. If Facebook’s HQ read this and followed, they would at least have the moral and intellectual high ground to combat these detractors. Yet, considering they have largely been run by a feminist business woman for years, and that they make their money off the liberal debutantes status quo; they would rather conduct a two minute hate for Big Sista before they ever acknowledge us on the fringe. Let alone out in the open.

    The feminist ministry of truth is in full effect. they know we are here, and what we are after and like I have said for a year, they are hedging their bets hoping we fizzle out. They may never answer us directly. Considering their stock and holdings in government..they may never have to?

    I like to think that if we can get big enough to scare a national level politician into the fold (whether he/she is with us or just scared not to be is of no consequence), we could change the problems overnight. Relatively speaking of course. I just fear that is the problem. In order for government to back us like it does feminism, we have to become the male version of radical feminism and give them more control, and better soldiers both idealistically, and in real life combat (police, soldiers, agents).

    It starts in the education system. In college, and I fear it will take a long time, but it is already starting, and it is worth it.

  • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com Isaac T. Quill

    What I find most interesting is how Hate Speech is being made into gendered speech. In the UK hate Speech is modified – It can be Disability Hate Speech – Religious Hate Speech – but what Bates, Chemaly, Friedman and friends are up to is appropriating a legal idea and making it their lap dog.

    The self centred way that they have to make all language bow before them is such a give away. I know of Old that Chemaly is a linguistic coward and she lacks the ability to use language and other sources wisely. When challenged she runs away.

    Over on the Good Rape Project she tried to pull off academic fraud when she was called over her false peddling of rape culture – was it Pious Fraud on he part? What ever, she ran away and and blamed the nasty kids for holding her to account. Maybe she was just being lazy all over again and couldn’t be bothered to check if “mala fides” did in fact translate as “Bad Faith”.

    She loves her own image but lacks substance and reality.

    Never underestimate the demanding ways of a sociopathic media whore. They care nothing for reality and facts, only image and feeling. If they can get you feeling bad and worshipping the image they present to you all the better. Chemley and Friends – the new bad faith cult built upon purloined language.

  • ErnestoGuevara

    There is another trait of fascism that I think was skipped here, which is the promotion of conflicts with no factual basis, usually rooted in identities that are not necessarily opposite, many times identities that are not even chosen.

    National, religious, racial, cultural identities are always targets at which fascism aims in order to promote hatred among them. Racial supremacism is closely linked to fascism and nazism because it is a way of dividing humanity into opposite poles with no valid reason. In its most radical and insane version (nazism) even cultural issues are swept and the mere biological origin, the fact of being born a Semite, an African, or any other “inferior race” means that the individual is simply not viable as a human being. A zoologist criterion is applied to human beings, as if there were something intrinsecally wrong, evil factor in certain chromosome combinations.

    Radical feminism is exactly that, and “moderate” feminism falls not far from there.

    Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings… and men are not.

    • Kukla

      Actually, Fascism isn’t about racial supremacy at all, Benito Mussolini (and many other fascists) rejected that stuff up until Hitler came into the picture. Even so, Hitler wasn’t a fascist, he had fascist characteristics, but that’s about it. Nazism =/= Fascism.

      • ErnestoGuevara

        “rejected that stuff up until Hitler came into the picture”

        So, you mean they rejected that stuff until… they didn’t reject it any more and joined forces with the one who promoted that stuff. Nice point.

        It is an interesting discussion, I concede that if you want, to pose the differences between fascism in its different variants and nazism. I also could point out that Stalinism was in fact a defeat of Bolchevism.

        I have read Mosley, Quisling, Primo de Rivera, Keller / Von Marées, and some others. Also analyzed many contradictions between early fascism and the Nazis (you could point out that Mussolini was against the Anschluss in its beginning, or the murder of Dollfuss in Austria, etc), but in the end, fascism’s aim is to force the working class into submission when capitalism is falling, while promising some caricature of “socialist” regime that never takes place.

        Fascism, as Feminism, mimicks Marxism with a much more simplistic speech, a lot of contradictiory statements, poorly articulated ideology and a lot of myth, “feelings”, emocional crisis and zero hard facts.

        But this is a little off-topic I guess. We should discuss that somewhere else maybe.

  • Kukla

    I wouldn’t exactly call any of this ‘Fascism’, it is simply censorship, which existed in many different systems(soviet union for example), not just ‘fascist’ ones.

    If you want to really know what Fascism is I suggest you read actual literature from Fascists(Oswald Mosley, etc.), not just some moronic university professor’s definition.

  • re-construct

    Stripping American mens basic constitutional rights of due process, under the pretext of “Protecting women”, is a very serious over-reach from the dept of justice.

  • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

    Best Graphic.

    OT:
    Having some fun with the witches and narcissists, feel free to bemuse…
    https://www.facebook.com/sexisnotacontract/posts/321907014606785?comment_id=1595600&offset=0&total_comments=18&notif_t=share_reply

  • http://gravatar.com/jeremyrainman Jeremy

    …in part due to the real-world pandemic of violence against women.

    What pandemic? Where? In what cultures? Under who’s authority? Humans are violent to each other, and male humans have always been more violent to other males than they are against women. This presumption of a “pandemic” of violence specifically targeted against women is the most offensive lie I’ve ever seen. It is the ultimate victim card, a sure sign of the high-water-mark of the myth of female frailty. The U.S. is a right-to-own-weapons nation, meaning that any female who seeks to even their odds of deterring or preventing violence against them can simply and easily purchase a fine piece of lethal engineering. And yet still we have this call for specific laws and rules that give victim status to females.

    This is literally like coming home from work, your female SO begins to cry and sob about how mean everyone is to her, even though she took none of the obvious steps to protect herself, and you are now expected to punish everyone (including yourself) she interacts because of how horrible they made her feel.

    You can only push people so far before they literally start not-giving-a-sh*t… And when that happens its like the ending of the parable of the boy who cried wolf.

    • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com Isaac T. Quill

      The only reason they use pandemic is because they heard it in the media recently. They are also so poorly educated they can’t grasp the word endemic.

      There is no pandemic of Feminist Stupidity and Sexism – It’s endemic. Pandemic implies it’s an external agent – endemic leaves the responsibility with the person. Use of the word Pandemic is just a global demand to be damselled – and gross admission of denial of personal agency.

      Feminist don’t need anything but a quality dictionary.

  • Black Knight

    I would argue that sexual repression and a tendency toward censorship are two defining characteristics of authoritarianism… which can express itself as fascism, communism or that other ism they love so much over on Jezebel.

  • AltoidMuncher

    TMG – I can not disagree with your statement about curbing free speech more strongly.

    ANY restriction on free speech (outside of the clearly legally defined yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre) is abhorent and ignores three principal facets of the free expression of ideas.

    1. As JTO rightly points out, whoever ends up in charge as the thought/speech gatekeeper will ultimately shut down any thought/speech that they disagree with.
    2. Limiting speech in any format pre-supposes that what is accepted is somehow, “right” or “true.” What about the capacity for error? What if the speech that the gatekeepers outlaw is what is in fact “right” or “true?”
    3. If speech is moderated or supressed, then that implies that the counter perspective is so weak and fragile, that any attempt at dialogue would end the dichotomy. Assuming the participants are rational and truth-seeking, then that further implies that the speach being moderated must itself therefore be the truth.

    It has been my experience that EVERY institution that sought to shut down free speech or moderate expression is engaged in some propagandist myth-making activity to leverage people into their collective fantasy.

  • http://tphavfm.wordpress.com tphavfm

    A very good article JTO

  • Alphabeta Supe

    This misandric development should come as no surprise, none at all. It astounds me that anyone believes that Facebook was anything but Fascist to begin with. The whole concept is based on a mythological core surrounded by a re-creative form of populist ultranationalism, which is one of the more widely accepted definitions of Fascism.

    Here’s another one that fits remarkably well:

    “a totalitarian conception of the primacy of politics, conceived of as an integrating experience to carry out the fusion of the individual and the masses in the organic and mystical unity of the nation as an ethnic and moral community, adopting measures of discrimination and persecution against those considered to be outside this community either as enemies of the regime or members of races considered to be inferior or otherwise dangerous for the integrity of the nation”

    It’s uncanny how many of those Wikipedia definitions seem to fit.

  • http://gravatar.com/simpsonrankin simpsonrankin

    Is anybody here even vaguely interested in progressing Gender Equality? You know, as in a way forward which benefits everyone… so nobody suffers, because as far as I can see it is NEVER going to happen unless somebody makes it happen. Is anyone here interested in actually owning responsibility and making that happen? If you are truly interested in doing more than just getting dizzy on the hate merry-go-round, then I would like to hear from you! I am NOT interested in hearing from anyone who is not genuinely interested in progress for everyone, male and female. I AM interested in hearing from people who are caring individuals, capable of seeing the ‘big picture’. I am totally expecting to be shot down in flames but I hope to be proved wrong. We all have both genders in our families – mothers/fathers, brothers/sisters, daughters/sons, best friends.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      No idea what you’re talking about. If you haven’t figured out we’re about equality under the law, and those who lack it, and wanting equal respect and compassion for everybody and are opposed to those who make the impossible, you are not paying very close attention. Go to our Suggested Reading section and read and get back to us.

    • Bombay

      So are you using this forum for recruiting purposes? Your post seems out of context and you seem to lack an awareness of what happens here.

    • August Løvenskiolds

      She’s a wannabe spammer – get rich quick scams & such.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7EraaEd4wY

      Not worth our time.

      • scatmaster

        Ban her!!!!

        • August Løvenskiolds

          On any other post, I’d agree, but on a post about fascism and censorship, I prefer we just ignore the wallet-grabbing wench.

  • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com Isaac T. Quill

    Little Known Fact – If you google “Soraya Chemaly” + “Pious Fraud” you can find her being spanked publicly over her false claims of rape culture and trying to falsify her way out of it.

  • Strongbow

    men don’t hate feminist’s because they stand up for themselves. men hate feminists because feminists hate men. i swear to god every feminist is basically an 8 year old little girl who is like “EW!!! NO! boys have cooties!!! Don’t touch them they’re evil! EWWW” that ladies and gentleman is the ideology of a feminist male or female, fuck male feminism is fucking stupid. the only real feminist’s now a days are the muslim ones. 1st world feminism is non existent it’s just facism.

  • John Jack

    Its a good piece and I generally agree with the argument, but I am afraid I disagree with your definition of the word fascism. Yes the academic definitions of fascism are perhaps a bit needlessly complex, and there are a lot of conflicting ones that are out there, but the words you are looking for is less facism and more one of the following: censorship, repression suppression, thought control, silencing, bowdlerization, ect…

    To be sure any and all of these things are practically invariable traits of facism, but that is the point, you are looking for a trait of something rather then the something itself. I.e water is wet, but “water” is more complex then just being “wet” and has many other necessary defining features such that one cannot simply substitute some form of the word “water” for the word “wet” wherever the later occurs.

    Again this is just a little bit of a nit pick and over-all I thought this was a good piece though.