The Pattern of Fascism

Fascist governments follow a well-defined, oft-repeated trajectory. This is a dangerous path that is worth critical examination if we are following that path. I submit that fascist movements reach a dangerous critical mass when four fundamental factors are in place:

  1. A radical nationalistic movement, mixed with a hatred of “the other race”.
  2. A feeling of territorial loss or fear of loss
  3. Militarism
  4. Heretical religion mixed with Nationalism

Let me explain each, and then provide examples, By radical nationalism, I mean a toxic nationalism, as opposed to positive upliftment, that has defined an enemy racial or religious group and sees their victory in the destruction of the other. By loss of land, this means feeling that their historic land was lost and they must regain it. Militarism takes the previous and puts it into practice. This also means finding and rooting out dissedents against the rising radical nationalism. And last, by heretical religion I mean a type of religion that uses the language and iconography of religion, but is anything but on the normative tradition. For example, using a religion that is fundamentally for peace as a justification for war and death.


I’ll start with Godwin’s law, but appropriately so. Nazi Germany saw a rise in radical German nationalism. They had a feeling that not only was their historic land lost, which they sought to violently regain, they felt that their status in Europe was under threat. The militarism was obvious and needs no explanation. And finally, German nationalism was mixed with religious iconography, to produce this holy army against the infidels. This led to World War 2 and the genocide against the Jews.

We see this at the end of the Ottoman Empire, where Turkey felt that their former glorious nation was no more. The rise in militarism was a direct effect of the military coup by the three Pashas. They were able to expel the Caliph and religious leaders, and take the reigns of the country. The enemy were defined as the Armenians, who were not only infidels, but were said to be actively working against the Ottoman State. This led to the massacres, forced death marches and slaughter.

Serbia in the fall of Yugoslavia is another example. Serbia felt that their status among the Slavic nations was challenged, so they actively fought to take control of the region, along with non-Yugoslavia territories. The country militarized under Slobodan Milosevic, who fought to hate on “the other” races, who were Croats, Muslims, Albanians and Slovenians. We saw this in the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. He mixed Orthodox Christianity with Serbian Nationalism, with the iconography of King Stefan Lazarević, as if they were still resisting the Latin Church and Ottoman Empire (who, btw, historically were historic enemies). This led to the wars in the 90s and the genocide of the Bosniaks.

We see this in Israel, with Zionism, which is toxic Jewish nationalism. They see their land as what the indigenous Palestinians lived on. They mixed in heretical Judaism, initially opposed by all Rabbis, with their nationalistic aims. The iconography on their state flag is a sign of them mixing radical nationalism with the state. Their militarism and brutalization of the Palestinian people is collectively referred to as the Nakba, the slow-motion ethnic cleansing.

And finally, we see this in America… We see the rise of radical Patriotism, which is America’s form of Nationalism, mixing with militarism. But this is not a militarism against foreign countries, that largely died down since the wars of the 2000s, we see it coming back home with the police state, the armaments trade and the rise of “patriot” militia groups. The “other group” will be Muslims, immigrants and to a lesser degree immigrants, particularly Hispanics. The Christian-Right is self-evident, a violent, cruel, militaristic, modernistic strain of Christianity. Their spokesmen are people like Glenn Beck and other demagogues.

And one final point…. This pattern always comes into practice precisely when the country is in a state of terminal decline. The decline will be televised and horrific.

Differences between Mint and Ubuntu


I looked into the differences between Mint and Ubuntu to see which was best for me. I watched tons of videos, reviews, comparisons, ran them both for months, etc. Here’s what I learned…

They’re the same damn thing. No really, they are identical. The only differences are what software comes pre-installed and some user interface prettiness. Otherwise, no difference in the  underlying system at all. Literally no difference.

Next question?