This Is How Quiet Fascism Works

So my little-visited Wikipedia entry was minding its own business, not bothering anyone, until I dared to criticize the Clinton Foundation. The next day, my Wikipedia entry was taken out and shot by a mysterious “editor.” It was just coincidence, right, that my Wikipedia entry had been available for years without offending anyone, and then suddenly it’s deleted the day after I dared to criticize the Clinton Foundation.

Actually, I criticized all foundations, but that doesn’t matter; what mattered is that I criticized what cannot be criticized.

I guess that drone strike on my car was coincidence, too. I called a contact in DoD (Department of Defense) and he said it was logged as a “targeting error.” Of course.

Ok, so the drone strike is a “joke,” meaning it’s no joke to the thousands of people who are murdered by U.S. drone strikes outside the U.S. It’s a “joke” like Hillary Clinton asking if Wikileaks honcho Julian Assange could be eliminated by a drone strike so he could no longer release data that might embarrass her or her campaign.

Though it’s not yet illegal to ask questions, it’s certainly dangerous to do so. But let’s take a chance and ask: how do we know that drone strikes haven’t targeted critics of U.S. policy?

Do you really think the DoD, White House, CIA, NSA or State Department would admit that drones liquidated a “threat” whose “crime” was criticizing U.S. policies? I hope you’re not so naive as to believe official assurances that drones only kill people who were just about to blow up Baltimore, only we nailed them just in time.

With “threat” being defined by those in authority, what’s to stop those with power from rewarding their cronies and punishing their critics? This is the essence of quiet fascism.

Quiet fascism has no party affiliation; it is a mindset shared by both parties that views power as a tool to reward friends and punish enemies. It has no moral foundation or indeed, no purpose other than to aggregate more power, maintain its secrets and lay waste to anyone who questions its Imperial authority.

This is the mindset of the Clinton machine. Intimidate, threaten, bribe, do whatever it takes to silence those who ask questions or release answers to unwanted questions.

The entire Establishment has been bought off, seduced or intimidated into silence. I wonder what was said to FBI Director Comey to persuade him to soil himself and the legitimacy of the FBI. It must have been a doozy.

Is quiet fascism so petty as to delete a critic’s Wikipedia entry? The depressing answer is yes, it is; the pettiness of quiet fascism knows no bounds. Recall what Amy Sterling Casil said about the Clinton Foundation’s penchant for revenge: “Any nonprofit professional in the U.S. can look at the Foundation’s own statements, tax filings and financial reports and see there is something wrong. No one who works for a nonprofit right now should do so because of the Clinton penchant for revenge…”

In other words, critics pay a steep price for questioning authority. Your grant is mysteriously denied, your promotion deep-sixed, your security clearance cancelled, your name is besmirched by rumors, your tax records are audited, your servers hacked, and so on.

The weapons of quiet fascism are always plausibly deniable.

The Jack Ruby Gambit is a classic tool of quiet fascism. It wasn’t us who did those nasty things to you; it was a loyal cadre who took it upon himself to destroy your files, reputation, career, etc. on his own.

Quiet fascism erodes the legitimacy of critics and snuffs out inquiries that threaten those in authority. So we have the FBI debasing itself, the White House lending its authority to cover up what needs covering up, mainstream media ignoring inquiries and leaked documents, and so on.

Hillary Clinton is not an aberration; she is the perfection of quiet fascism:authority’s sole source of legitimacy is its power to reward toadies and punish critics.

Many people are voting against someone in this election, generally Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Rather than vote against a person, vote against quiet fascism, which means voting against both parties, which are after all two sides of the same coin.

There aren’t many places you can question authority and not pay a price for doing so.The voting booth is still confidential (so far as we know). A vote for the Green Party or the Libertarian Party is not wasted; it’s a vote against the quiet fascism of the American Establishment.

Speaking of quiet fascism, here’s a question for Wikipedia: what safeguards do you have in place to stop quiet fascists from pursuing their penchant for revenge on Wikipedia?What’s to stop quiet fascism from using Wikipedia as their playground?

I have contributed money to Wikipedia for many years, and as a contributor and user, I think my readers and I deserve an answer. Who is this “editor” who deleted my entry? What’s the foundation of his authority? Can he be investigated and his “editor” rights deleted? If not, why not?

It’s a fair question and deserves a fair answer.

If you have to censor other citizens to “win,” what exactly have you “won”?

UPDATE: according to a reader who is a Wikipedia editor, my entry was deleted long before yesterday. Nonetheless, There are a lot of issues raised by this experience that I want to explore in future posts.

UPDATE #2: I just received an email from Wikipedia stating the entry has been restored– thanks to you, dear readers! Many thanks, I am blessed and humbled by your quick support.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • tom

    Plus ca change…

    “In our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either”.

    – Mark Twain (over a century ago)

  • Robert McMaster

    The thing is it takes a commitment of labour to undertake such acts of censorship. Somebody, with some skills and operating under someone’s else’s direction had to undertake whatever to have this work done. I’m thinking that costs a lot of money. You’d have to have an ongoing apparatus in place, systems, policies etc., etc. Let’s bankrupt them. Burn them out chasing shadows. Simulated texts, calls. “Bad Clinton Foundation, Bad Clinton Foundation…” Insert annoying lines in screeds of crap. Make them read the stuff. They can’t keep it up. There’s too many of us. Their budget will never be enough.

  • Macon Richardson

    You ask “what was said to FBI Director Comey to persuade him to soil himself and the legitimacy of the FBI.” The FBI (originally the BI or Bureau of Investigation and founded by Napoleon Bonaparte’s grand nephew) was founded as a political police. It’s continuation has thrived on massive public relations efforts. I can’t imagine anything has changed. Mr. Comey never soiled himself in the Clinton investigation; he came soiled from the beginning. As to the legitimacy of the FBI, if you believe that it is a “legitimate” entity, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I wants to sell you cheap.

    Why propound such lies? Just yesterday the “news” was that “unemployment” was five percent. The same article stated that just under one hundred million Americans of work force age were unemployed. What kind of metric is that? And in the same headline! And by a dissident and dissonant economist who knows better than to use such spurious (actually, lying) figures as 5%.

    Our survival critically depends on rigorous honesty, with ourselves as well as with others, with personal as well as with public utterances. Today, rigorous honesty requires perpetual vigilance. Otherwise we fall into the lazy person’s trap of asking what made Mr. Comey soil himself or of speaking of the FBI as having legitimacy or of proclaiming a 5% unemployment rate when 50% of the work force doesn’t work.

    • rpdiplock

      Touché to you Macon.
      I live in an alleged ‘democracy’ but have to apply to a corruptible government beaurocracy for me and my like minded teacher-union peers to be able to withhold our labour because of an interminable pay/award dispute, which has been going on for more than eighteen months.

    • ICFubar

      Yes, Comey is still I believe a director on the board of HSBC and during HSBC’s criminal trial for laundering illicit drug profits Comey was the head over seeing the legal defense of HSBC in that case. One can easily imagine all the connections here. Even his mother thinks he is a slime ball, er weasel.

  • Brabantian

    See the EU police & prosecutor report on the total corruption of Wikipedia, run by an ex-pornographer & close friend of Israeli Presidents who works for the CIA & Mossad, & involved in spreading false information on crimes such as child rape, extortion & terrorism involving US political donors … and yes indeed the Bush & Clinton family ‘foundations’
    EU police agency report on CIA’s corrupt Wikipedia

    And very much related – what can drive home to people the total corruption of media with government, is when they see how they were sold the biggest media hoax of this decade, the fraud of the fake ‘dissidents’, liars & intel agents, mega-frauds Edward Snowden & Julian Assange

    This duo of fakers has been totally successfully debunked on Veterans Today with a pair of recent VT articles:

    Also see

    Here, a short key VT excerpt: “Nearly six years ago, Wikileaks was ‘outed’ [by Zbigniew Brzezinski] as an intelligence operation … Running background on Sarah Harrison, supposed editor of Wikileaks credited with spiriting Edward Snowden to Moscow leads us, not only into the middle of Britain’s MI6 – Harrison has been repeatedly tied to Mossad press assets in the US & Britain & has a clear association with destabilisation efforts against both Iran & Russia

    “The Wikileaks organisation, when rosters are checked, is made up entirely of former employees of Radio Liberty & Radio Free Europe, organisations that work under an advisory board which includes former Bush cabinet members Donald Rumsfeld & Condoleezza Rice … Wikileaks has never leaked a single document or email involving Israel, a nation central to global controversy”

    • Macon Richardson

      Your characterization of Assange and Snowden as fake dissidents is perhaps true. . .as far as it goes. But underlying this accusation is the belief that the US Government or the US intelligence community is a monolithic entity.

      While it serves government interests to present itself as a monolith, that is certainly not the case in fact. Both the government and it’s intelligence community is rather a seething hotbed of factions Just as Daniel Ellsberg was probably front man for a dissident faction in the US government when he released the Pentagon Papers, so Assange and Snowden may be front men for dissident factions in the US government, dissidents who see that current government trends are leading to a massive pile-up.

      By characterizing Assange and Snowden as merely front men, one implies that the documentation they present is false and somehow designed to further official policy. That is not necessarily so. They could equally be front men for people of good faith who wish to change government policy in more wholesome directions.

      Note also that citing Veterans Today is like citing Alex Jones or Matt Drudge. While their hearts may be pure, sometimes their own zealotry overpowers objective truth. Of course, such may be said of any news or opinion source, including this one.

  • Michael Sarro

    Over 8 years obama has placed his operatives in the FBI, DOJ, IRS, and the State Department. He has weaponized them to destroy any opposition and cover any treason committed under the old Constitution.
    There’s been a coup. And nobody has done a thing about it.
    Trump is the only one standing in the way of obama and his international leftists. Illiar traded jail for the duty of becoming Obama’s third term.

    • Macon Richardson

      Michael, you personalize the issue by blaming it on Obama and by blaming it on international leftists. The problem is far more inclusive than that and by so personalizing it, one misses the point.

      What’s the point? The point is that be it Obama or Clinton or one of the Bushes, the results are the same. International leftists? Are they substantively different from international rightists? Is the Bush baby any different than Obongo? Than Clinton? Than Bush senior?

      While the rhetoric may sound different, the substance is the same. While their pet projects may “appear” different, in fact operationally they’re much the same. This is why both Democrats and mainline Republicans hate Trump so much: He is not part of the bipartisan ongoing criminal cartel called American politics.

      Three cheers for Donald! But don’t confuse what’s really going on with false dichotomies like Democrat/Republican or Left/Right. Those are merely pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain diversions. Trump’s quality is that he’s neither part of that cabal. His quality is that he’s rich enough and egotistical enough that he has no need to join that cabal.

      • It’s too bad Trump is such a dunce and a lowlife. It would be great to throw the Trump brick through the window.

        • Macon Richardson

          Dex, why would you think Trump a dunce. He’s got a billion or more dollars than you do. As to lowlifes (lowlives?), may I remind you of Bill Clinton, George Bush, John McCain. Washington, DC is lowlife city. The only difference with Trump is that he hasn’t tried to hide his lowlife activities. Let’s hear it for candor.

          • I say dunce because he could easily wipe the floor with Clinton if he had an even marginally competent campaign. But that may be the point. He’s the terrible monster that we can’t possibly elect, so we can elect this slightly different monster instead.

          • Macon Richardson

            What do you mean “we”, paleface?

          • The royal we, of course ! ☺

  • thedingo8

    Quiet fascism describes the cbc perfectly…tax payer funded to the tune of $3+ million per day.. censor any liberal criticism while allowing a small flock of mindless “toadies ” to continually lick slurp and drool…CBC is the most heavily censored site in any democracy

  • Katrina Groom

    A few years ago, I was shocked to hear a NYT journalist state on NPR that Obama has denied more FOIA requests than any other President since it’s inception. I recently heard another journalist trying to conduct research say the same thing. Astounding that he was supposed to be the President of transparency.

  • Joel W

    One thing, a vote for the Libertarian party is absolutely wasted. That retard pretending to be a presidential candidate has come out in favor of vaccinations at gun point, and the ever more retarded VP they put up apparently does not believe in the 2nd Amendment. Very libertarian of them.