ORIGINALLY POSTED FEBRUARY 2024, UPDATED TODAY
The NATIONAL REVIEW article Dennis Prager is reading from can be found here: “Biden White House Pressured Amazon to Censor Vaccine-Skeptical Books, Internal Emails Reveal” The PRAGER U video mentioned (and the excerpt I included) can be found here: “Big Business & Big Brother”. And the other THOMAS SOWELL video is via this YouTube Channel. Must read JIM JORDAN’S Twitter thread as well.
How biased are these pushes? Mollie Hemingway and Laura Ingraham explain:
‘The Federalist’ editor-in-chief Mollie Hemingway discusses NewsGuard’s global disinformation index categorizing right-leading media outlets as ‘risky’ and left-leaning outlets as ‘least risky’ for disinformation on ‘The Ingraham Angle.’
UPDATE!
Remember, Fascism is the marriage of the corporation with Government to suppress freedom of thought, speech, movement. It is a corporate attempt to curb freedom, broadly.
Here is Thomas Sowell showing the clash of views as perpetrated by Democrats and leftists:
Although the free market is clearly the antithesis of state control of the economy, such as fascists advocate, the left-right dichotomy makes it seem as if fascists are just more extreme versions of “conservatives,” in the same sense in which socialism is a more extreme version of the welfare state. But this vision of a symmetrical political spectrum corresponds to no empirical reality. Those who advocate the free market typically do so as just one aspect of a more general vision in which government’s role in the lives of individuals is to be minimized, within limits set by a need to avoid anarchy and a need to maintain military defense against other nations. In no sense is fascism a further extension of that idea. It is in fact the antithesis of that whole line of thinking. Yet much talk in terms of left and right suggests that there is a political spectrum which proceeds from the center to conservatives to “far right” neo-fascism to fascism itself.
The only logic to such a conception is that it allows disparate opponents of the vision of the anointed to be lumped together and dismissed through guilt by association.
(A chapter from his book, The Thomas Sowell Reader)
And this is the “dummy” report of a much larger Committee finding:
… After reviewing tens of thousands of emails and nonpublic documents between the Biden White House and Big Tech, the Committee’s report reveals:
- Big Tech changed their content moderation policies because of the Biden White House
- The Biden White House’s censorship targeted true information, satire, and other content that did not violate the platforms’ policies
- The Biden White House’s censorship campaign had a chilling effect on other speech
- The White House had leverage because the companies had other policy concerns involving the Biden Administration
- The Biden White House pushed censorship of books, not just social media
While the Biden White House’s pressure campaign largely succeeded, its effects were devastating. By suppressing free speech and intentionally distorting public debate in the modern town square, ideas and policies were no longer fairly tested and debated on their merits.
The First Amendment prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech.” Thus, “any law or government policy that reduces that freedom on the [social media] platforms . . . violates the First Amendment.” ….
In an Atlantic article (ARCHIVED) I somewhat agree with, in conversation with CHAT-GPT, the breakdown of the article is thus:
… The article does not give a single dictionary-style sentence definition, but it strongly implies a working definition something like this:
Fascism is an authoritarian political system or movement characterized by extreme nationalism, suppression of dissent, centralized power, coercive social control, and the subordination of individual rights to the state or national collective.
Hamid’s broader point is that:
- fascism is more than just “politics I dislike,”
- it involves actual systems of domination and repression,
- and the term loses meaning when used casually.
The article also leans on the idea that fascism historically involved:
- one-party or highly centralized rule,
- mass propaganda,
- enforced ideological conformity,
- state repression,
and aggressive nationalism.
It contrasts this with modern American political rhetoric, where “fascist” is often used as a generalized insult rather than a historically grounded category. …
One useful way to summarize the article’s implied distinction is:
The article is basically warning against “definition drift” — where fascism becomes so broadly applied that the word stops distinguishing between ordinary democratic conflict and genuinely authoritarian systems. …
Democrats tic all the boxes except nationalism. They have a proclivity to substitute the ill-gotten idea of the World Worker or other ideals their allegiance is proffered to. In continuing discussion with AI, I got these two worthwhile paragraphs as well as the attached graphic:
- A modern left-leaning progressive often shifts allegiance away from nationalism understood as a shared historical, cultural, or civic nation-state identity and toward a more universal moral framework centered on humanity, equity, and transnational justice. In this view, the highest loyalty is not primarily to a particular nation, people, heritage, or constitutional tradition, but to principles such as inclusion, human rights, anti-discrimination, environmental stewardship, global cooperation, and protection of marginalized groups. The moral community becomes broader than the nation itself — sometimes described as cosmopolitan, multicultural, or internationalist. As a result, solidarity is increasingly organized around shared ethical commitments and identity categories rather than solely around citizenship, ancestry, or national continuity. Critics like Hayek and Sowell argue that this shift can weaken civic cohesion by replacing a common national identity with competing ideological or group-based loyalties, while progressives generally argue the opposite: that universal human dignity and inclusive pluralism create a more just and humane basis for solidarity than older forms of nationalism rooted in ethnicity, tradition, or exclusion.
- Many 20th-century totalitarian movements also presented themselves not as naked quests for domination, but as moral projects aimed at building a better, fairer, more unified society. Whether framed in terms of class equality, national renewal, social harmony, liberation from oppression, or protection of the common good, these systems frequently justified the expansion of state power through utopian promises. Mao’s Great Leap Forward was promoted as a path toward collective prosperity and equality; Soviet communism claimed to emancipate workers and eliminate exploitation; fascist movements often promised national unity, social coordination, and an end to corruption, decadence, or class conflict. In each case, the state portrayed itself as acting on behalf of a higher moral vision that transcended ordinary individual interests. Critics such as Hayek and Sowell argue that this is precisely where danger emerges: when political systems claim moral authority to engineer society toward an ideal future, dissent increasingly becomes treated not merely as disagreement, but as obstruction to justice, progress, or humanity itself. The result, they argue, is that utopian goals can gradually justify coercion, centralized authority, censorship, and the subordination of individual liberty in the name of achieving a supposedly higher collective good.
RESOURCES FOR THE DISCUSSION:
- Affirmative Action Around the World
- The left and nationalism: from the French Revolution to the Anthropocene
- Nationalism And Populism on the Left: The Case of Podemos
- The Paradox of Nationalism: The Common Denominator of Radical Right and Radical Left Euroscepticism
- Identity Politics and Left Wing Populism
- 3.4 Nationalism, Communism, Fascism, and Authoritarianism
As well as some books:
- The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (Thomas Sowell)
- The Nazi War Against Capitalism (Nevin Gussack, PDF)
- The Road to Sefdom (F.A. Hayek)
In finishing the conversation, I asked:
So, this should be the final question comparing the above: what is fascism?
Taking the full conversation together — the historical material, Hayek, Sowell, the nationalism papers, and the OpenStax distinctions — a careful working definition of fascism would probably look something like this:
Fascism is a totalitarian form of collectivist politics that subordinates the individual to a centralized state organized around a myth of national, cultural, or civilizational unity and rebirth, enforced through authoritarian power, mass mobilization, suppression of dissent, and state-directed social coordination.
More simply:
Fascism is collectivism organized around nation and identity rather than class.
That distinction matters because:
- communism typically organizes society around class struggle and economic equality, while
- fascism organizes society around national destiny, unity, strength, or ethnic/cultural identity.
But your broader conversation also uncovered why Hayek believed these systems could converge structurally.
Despite their different moral narratives, both fascist and communist systems historically tended toward:
- centralized authority,
- weakened constitutional restraints,
- suppression of opposition,
- mass propaganda,
- state direction of economic life,
- ideological conformity,
- and subordination of individual liberty to collective goals.
So fascism is not merely:
- “strong nationalism,”
- “authoritarian conservatism,”
- or “politics people dislike.”
Nor is it adequately defined simply as:
“the merger of corporations and the state.”
Historically, fascism was a revolutionary mass movement that sought:
- total social coordination,
- national regeneration,
- and political unity through centralized power and collective identity.
This is why fascist movements often spoke in utopian language:
- overcoming division,
- transcending selfishness,
- ending decadence,
- unifying society,
- protecting the vulnerable national community,
- and creating a “new man” or renewed civilization.
In practice, however, critics like Hayek and Sowell would argue that such movements became dangerous precisely because:
- they treated the collective mission as morally supreme,
- viewed dissent as sabotage,
- and justified expanding coercive power in pursuit of an idealized social future.
So the deepest synthesis from all the material might be:
Fascism is not defined merely by being “right-wing” or “left-wing,” but by the elevation of collective political destiny above the liberty of the individual, combined with centralized power claiming authority to morally organize society.
… AND ….
Whether recent Democratic lawmakers or Biden administration officials “fit a definition of fascism” depends heavily on how narrowly or broadly the term is defined.
There is evidence that some federal officials pressured or significantly encouraged social media companies to suppress certain categories of speech, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that several agencies and officials likely violated the First Amendment through coercion or significant encouragement of censorship. (Reason.com)
That is a serious civil-liberties concern.
However, calling that “fascism” requires another step — and historically, fascism means more than government-private sector cooperation or censorship alone.
Historically, fascism involved:
- one-party or near one-party domination,
- mass nationalist mobilization,
- cults of leadership,
- suppression of political opposition,
- centralized state coordination of society,
- ideological conformity,
- and subordination of the individual to a collective national mission.
So the stronger and more precise argument would probably be:
Some recent actions by government officials reflected authoritarian or illiberal tendencies — particularly attempts to pressure private corporations to suppress protected speech — and these tendencies resemble mechanisms historically present in totalitarian systems.
That is historically defensible.
But:
“Democrats are fascists”
is a much broader and less precise claim.
The comparison becomes more plausible in one specific sense discussed earlier:
- when governments coordinate with large corporations,
- media platforms,
- NGOs,
- or financial institutions
to shape permissible speech or public participation,
critics argue this resembles corporatist or soft-authoritarian arrangements historically associated with fascist or totalitarian systems.
Hayek’s concern is relevant here:
centralized moral or political management tends to expand beyond formal state power into quasi-public institutions.
And Sowell’s critique also fits:
elite institutions often justify speech control as necessary for protecting society, combating misinformation, or advancing moral goals.
Still, there are important differences between modern American politics and classical fascism:
- competitive elections still exist,
- opposition parties operate openly,
- courts sometimes rule against the government,
- dissent remains widespread,
- independent media still function,
- and political power regularly changes hands.
Those distinctions matter historically.
A more careful formulation might be:
Certain censorship pressures and government-corporate coordination in recent years exhibited authoritarian characteristics that critics argue are structurally similar to tactics used in historical collectivist or totalizing systems — even if they do not fully constitute fascism in the classical historical sense. (Reason.com)
I added these articles to the mix in order to aske some questions:
- Southern Poverty Law Center Indictment
- Biden DOJ Was In Cahoots With SPLC As It Funded Extremist Groups, Former Official Admits
- Tech Firms’ Reliance On Biased Southern Poverty Law Center Is Eroding
I asked for a paragraph summery of them:
Taken together, these articles present a growing critique of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as an institution that has moved beyond merely monitoring extremism into exercising significant influence over government agencies, tech platforms, and public discourse. The Off the Press article argues that major technology firms increasingly relied on SPLC classifications to guide moderation and deplatforming decisions, leading critics to accuse the organization of ideological bias and of labeling mainstream conservative or religious groups as “extremist.” (Off The Press) The Federalist piece goes further, alleging close coordination between the Biden DOJ and SPLC leadership even as federal prosecutors accused the organization of secretly funding informants embedded within extremist groups. (The Federalist) Meanwhile, the Reason/Volokh article focuses more narrowly on the legal dimensions of the federal indictment, outlining allegations that SPLC paid more than $3 million to informants tied to extremist organizations while allegedly obscuring aspects of those operations from donors and financial institutions. (Reason.com) At the same time, multiple counterarguments appear in coverage from AP, The Guardian, and legal commentators, who note that the SPLC claims these informants were part of longstanding intelligence-gathering efforts against violent groups and that the prosecution may itself be politically motivated. (The Guardian) In the broader context of your earlier questions, these articles reinforce concerns about the concentration of moral and informational authority in interconnected networks of government agencies, NGOs, media organizations, and technology companies — especially when those institutions participate in defining extremism, regulating speech, and shaping public legitimacy.
Then I asked this:
- Doesn’t that fit well with Hayek’s and Sowell’s critiques?
This is the response:
Yes — at least conceptually, these controversies align quite closely with several of Hayek’s and Sowell’s central concerns about concentrated moral authority, elite institutional coordination, and the expansion of informal systems of social control.
Hayek warned that modern societies could drift toward soft forms of coercion not only through direct government force, but through interconnected institutions that collectively shape what is permissible to say, believe, publish, or economically support. His concern was that when political and moral goals become centralized, formal state power often extends outward into quasi-private institutions:
- universities,
- media,
- corporations,
- advocacy groups,
- and administrative bureaucracies.
From a Hayekian perspective, the troubling issue is not merely censorship itself, but:
the emergence of coordinated systems of influence that narrow acceptable discourse while claiming moral necessity.
That concern maps fairly directly onto allegations that:
- government officials,
- major tech firms,
- NGOs like SPLC,
- and financial/payment systems
worked in overlapping ways to classify, suppress, or delegitimize certain viewpoints.
Sowell’s critique fits even more directly.
In The Vision of the Anointed, Sowell argued that elite institutions often:
- assume moral superiority,
- frame opponents as socially dangerous,
- treat disagreement as evidence of ignorance or malice,
- and become insulated from meaningful accountability.
One of his deepest themes is that intellectual and bureaucratic classes frequently justify expanded control through claims of protecting society from harm:
- misinformation,
- extremism,
- hate,
- instability,
- inequality,
- or social disorder.
Critics of SPLC’s influence are making a structurally similar argument:
that moral labeling systems can evolve into mechanisms for institutional exclusion rather than neutral public safety tools.
And importantly, both Hayek and Sowell would likely focus less on whether the intentions were sincere and more on:
- incentives,
- institutional power,
- feedback loops,
- and unintended consequences.
That said, there’s also an important caution consistent with their thinking:
- not every coordination between government and private institutions equals fascism,
- not every anti-extremism effort is authoritarian,
- and democratic societies still legitimately attempt to counter violence and criminal activity.
The real Hayek/Sowell concern emerges when:
- dissenting but lawful viewpoints become conflated with extremism,
- moral gatekeeping becomes centralized,
- and institutional power becomes difficult to challenge because it is dispersed across mutually reinforcing elites rather than concentrated in one obvious authority.
