XI: Obama as Social Fascist 399era of political authoritarianism that on the eve of World War II had in one form or another seized
control of the political institutions of most European countries. It would be grossly inaccurate to
argue that this process proceeded independent of fascism, but neither was it merely synonymous
with fascism.” (Payne 14-15) In other words, top-down dictatorship and fascist seizure of power by
a grass roots radical movement of street fighters are emphatically not the same thing and should not
be confused. Although Brit’s list was valuable is prodding many people to think about fascism in
relation to current US reality, we must stress here that any notion that the Bush regime already
represented fascism would be dangerously wrong. Bush has no mass movement and will never have
one. Imagine Bush attempting a Mussolini balcony speech to an oceanic crowd of millions of
screaming fanatics. It has not happened and will not happen. With Obama, by contrast, the mob
oration is the very essence of his agitation. His supporters are not asked to endorse a program of
government; they are required to surrender themselves to the will of the Perfect Master, and they are
rushing to do it by the millions.
OBAMA FULFULLS THE FASCIST MINIMUM
In 1992, the Italian writer Emilio Gentile formulated a list of 10 detailed points in an attempt to
arrive at an orientative definition of fascism.^220 He was working towards a minimum common
denominator of fascist movements across Europe and the world. Let us use these points as a kind of
scorecard to evaluate to what degree Obama and his movement can be fairly classified as fascist.
- “A mass movement with a multi-class membership in which prevail, among the leaders and
militants, the middle sectors, in large part in new to political activity, organized as a party
militia, that bases its identity not on social hierarchy or class origin, but on the sense of
comradeship, believes itself invested with a mission of national regeneration, considers
itself in a state of war against political adversaries and aims at conquering a monopoly of
political power by using terror, parliamentary tactics, and deals with leading groups, to
create a new regime that destroys parliamentary democracy.”
The Obama movement aims at seizing the presidency and does not speak of a total
seizure of power, but Obama hints at pervasive control of individual life, including the cars
people drive, the food people eat, and the setting of the thermostats in their homes. It is
generally understood that the motivation for these totalitarian interventions will be based on
the Malthusian demagogy of the Al Gore global warming-climate change fraud. As for a
state of war and violence against political adversaries, there has been little violence so far,
but the venom and inflammatory rhetoric directed against political adversaries, especially
Senator Clinton, represent an extraordinary phenomenon in American politics. Al Gore’s
Green Army and Obama’s own Green Corps and grandiose plans for volunteer
organizations substantially fulfill the party militia requirement. - “An ‘anti-ideological’ and pragmatic ideology that proclaims itself anti-materialist, anti-
individualist, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, is populist and anti-capitalist in
tendency, expresses itself aesthetically, more than theoretically, by means of a new political
style and by myths, rites, and symbols as a lay religion designed to acculturate, socialize,
and integrate the faith of the masses with the goal of creating a ‘new man.’“
Obama is certainly anti-democratic, since he wants to ignore the primary elections in
Michigan and in Florida. He is anti-materialist, as seen in his own and Michelle Obama’s
veiled calls for austerity and sacrifice. Michelle also refers to the need for people to
transform themselves as individuals under an Obama presidency, which raises the question