As per a dictionary I’m checking out now, crypto-fascism means ‘The holding of fascist views in private or secret’.
When an average person hear the word ‘fascism’, he most probably thinks of nazi Germany and other things related to that, although very typically, it was Mussolini’s Italian regime that used that term. Since then, the word ‘fascism’ has come to mean ‘authoritarianism’, or to put it in more common words, strong authority, inhibition of pluralism, forceful limitation of individual liberties.
Of course, in known history, nazi Germany is relatively new, and it’s far the first nation to have implemented authoritarian politics. There’s probably very few -if any- areas on Earth who haven’t -at one time or another- done that, to greater or lesser degrees, for shorter or longer periods of time. But I think the bringing up of nazism all the time, makes other sorts of authoritarianism seem smaller or even good. Like in the USA and Europe it is now considered very shameful -by most-to discriminate among races, but if you discriminate based on how ‘well endowed’ one is, that’s ‘normal’…
The most dangerous sort of authority, is the hidden one. It is more dangerous than the obvious sort, as it is not recognized as such, and thus it is given the chance to cause more damage. Obvious authority is -at least- a bit more honest than hidden authority.
Similarly, obvious influences lose their power once they are acknowledged to be that. If/when an individual is influenced by something and he does not recognize that it is somebody else’s thoughts, spoken words or other things that influence him, he thinks it’s his own thoughts.
At this point, I’d like to combine those political concepts with personal ones. We could assert that when one is forced or inhibited by another or others that is ‘fascism’. And when one is forced or inhibited by another or others without his knowledge that is ‘crypto-fascism’. And that’s the whistle I’d like to blow now.
There’s been much talk about ‘freedom’ nowdays, while simultaneously there have been efforts to apply crypto-fascism, in the name of freedom.
I’ve been following 9GAG on facebook, and I recently stumbled upon a few posts that I could classify as such. The most recent one shows a woman whose body is supposedly ‘objectively’, ‘scientifically’ perfect. I assume the millions of scientists that exist were not asked for their opinion. Moreover, one’s personal viewpoint, opinion, liking shouldn’t matter either. Moreover, all the billions of women who don’t look like her, should feel wrong, inferior as well. That’s the implication. I’m sure 9GAG didn’t intend that. But that guy or guys who announced that ‘science blah blah’ did intend that.
Now, that might seem small, and no big deal. And that’s the problem. That’s what it seems to be. I stumble upon various such ideas almost on a daily basis while communicating with others. If you summed up all those ‘objectively correct’ ideas, you could easily make an authoritarian sort of a Bible out of them, that would dictate what each individual outgh to be/not be like, think/not think, say/not say, occupy himself with or not, have or not, like or not and so on. You could make the perfect robot like that –a robot that wouldn’t even be aware of being one. And all that, in the name of ‘freedom’. I like how a friend of mine calls it ‘freedumb’, by the way.
Be wary of yourself when you think that a person -who obviously doesn’t harm others- is incorrect, wrong, insane or other labels that imply inferiority; for ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ are not the only sorts of inferiority that people use to make guilty/wrong and dominate each other. If one was to invent an -ism for each way that can be used to make another seem or even believe he is inferior, we would need to have a new dictionary, just for that. And just because there aren’t words for each one of those ways, it doesn’t mean they are less real than others.
I have my own sense of ethics, and so I don’t need to be told who to support and who to harm, and thus be used as a pawn that doesn’t even know that it is one. That is another problem, that the theory ‘all ethics bad/authoritarian’ leads to more authoritarianism, of the hidden sort, as there cannot be complete freedom in a game such as life. Complete freedom would mean complete everything or nothing, and untill you ‘get’ there, you’d better make your own rules, based on your own best judgement, instict, intuition. Otherwise, others will put the rules there for you. You will get the most freedom in life, by putting -and thus controlling- your own freedoms as well as unfreedoms.