TOTALITARIAN governance offers NO feeling of 'US' and 'THEM'-----because it involves no one within that sovereign nation. This idea of ONE PERSON controlling in TOTALITARIANISM----is simply used by global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS to totally erase an existing civil society and its structures.
THERE IS NO 'US' AND 'THEM' IN TOTALITARIANISM AS THOSE IN CONTROL ARE UNSEEN ------
China is MOVING FORWARD to TOTALITARIANISM from GLOBAL CORPORATE FASCIST MAOISM ------as it returns to OLD WORLD KINGS format----only one KING -----being TOTALLY controlling.
FASCISM as a transitory stage of government necessarily identifies ONE POPULATION GROUP as ONE POLITICAL PARTY----as the NAZIS making them WINNERS-----'US' against 'THEM'.
China is well on it way to being one great big MEAN STATE -----because it never was a MODERN DEMOCRACY as our WESTERN NATIONS.
Our Western nations had a transitional stage of global corporate FASCISM---CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA-----before MOVING FORWARD could become TOTALITARIAN.
CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA now TRUMP are waxing romantic over CHINESE TOTALITARIANISM
How China Turned a City Into a Prison
Children are interrogated. Neighbors become informants. Mosques are…
What today's OLD WORLD KINGS want us to think this round of ROBBER BARON few decades will end like last century's -----with FDR creating a GREAT SOCIETY----with lots of REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRACY.
We will NOT be bouncing back to a DEMOCRACY in MOVING FORWARD-----we are leaving a period of GLOBAL CORPORATE FASCISM-----heading for TOTALITARIANISM
Now, remember the global trade routes and families were killed by FLIPPING THE EARTH'S ECONOMIC AXIS from Eastern to Western Hemisphere in AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT I AM MAN revolutions. Colonial American under the thumb of GLOBAL EAST INDIA CORPORATION saw the decline of these global DARK AGE TRADE CORPORATIONS. Modern corporations were SOVEREIGN to a NATION-STATE.
Between 1700s and 1900s ------OLD WORLD KINGS without global trade and slave routes needed to REBUILD those multi-national global corporations----which is what WW 1 AND WW2 started. The US FED installed in 1916----was the MOVING FORWARD of rebuilding OLD WORLD TRADE ROUTES AND GLOBAL CORPORATIONS.
HITLER/STALIN/MAO/MUSSOLINI/FRANCO were simply that machine towards building wealth and power for the return of GLOBAL OLD WORLD CORPORATIONS.
The 1900s CONTINUOUS WARS and growing global corporation/military complex was MOVING FORWARD this goal of global corporate FASCISM we saw under CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA------to be followed by TOTALITARIANISM in ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the GLOBAL 1% OLD WORLD KINGS.
The Rise of Fascism
Mussolini and Fascist Italy
After aligning itself with Italian conservatives, the fascist party rose to prominence using violence and intimidation, eventually seizing power in Rome in 1922 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini.
The rise of fascism in Italy began during World War I, when Benito Mussolini and other radicals formed a political group (called a fasci) supporting the war against Germany and Austria-Hungary.
The first meeting of Mussolini’s Fasci of Revolutionary Action was held on January 24, 1915.
For the next several years, the small group of fascists took part in political actions, taking advantage of worker strikes to incite violence.
Around 1921, the fascists began to align themselves with mainstream conservatives, increasing membership exponentially.
Beginning in 1922, Fascist paramilitaries escalated their strategy from attacking socialist offices and homes of socialist leadership figures to violent occupation of cities, eventually setting their sites on Rome.
During the so-called “March on Rome,” Mussolini was appointed Prime Minister of Italy.
From 1925 to 1929, Fascism steadily became entrenched in power. Opposition deputies were denied access to parliament, censorship was introduced, and a December 1925 decree made Mussolini solely responsible to the King.
Italian Fascism, also known simply as Fascism, is the original fascist ideology as developed in Italy. The ideology is associated with the Fascist Revolutionary Party (PFR), founded in 1915; the succeeding National Fascist Party (PNF) in 1921, which under Benito Mussolini ruled the Kingdom of Italy from 1922 until 1943; the Republican Fascist Party that ruled the Italian Social Republic from 1943 to 1945; and the post-war Italian Social Movement and subsequent Italian neo-fascist movements.
Italian Fascism was rooted in Italian nationalism and the desire to restore and expand Italian territories, deemed necessary for a nation to assert its superiority and strength and avoid succumbing to decay. Italian Fascists claimed that modern Italy is the heir to ancient Rome and its legacy, and historically supported the creation of an Italian Empire to provide spazio vitale (“living space”) for colonization by Italian settlers and to establish control over the Mediterranean Sea.
Italian Fascism promoted a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates were linked together in associations to collectively represent the nation’s economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy. This economic system intended to resolve class conflict through collaboration between the classes
The Rise of Fascism in Italy
The first meeting of the Fasci of Revolutionary Action was held on January 24, 1915, led by Benito Mussolini. In the next few years, the relatively small group was various political actions. In 1920, militant strike activity by industrial workers reached its peak in Italy. Mussolini and the Fascists took advantage of the situation by allying with industrial businesses and attacking workers and peasants in the name of preserving order and internal peace in Italy.
Fascists identified their primary opponents as the majority of socialists on the left who had opposed intervention in World War I. The Fascists and the Italian political right held common ground: both held Marxism in contempt, discounted class consciousness, and believed in the rule of elites. Fascism began to accommodate Italian conservatives by making major alterations to its political agenda—abandoning its previous populism, republicanism, and anticlericalism, adopting policies in support of free enterprise, and accepting the Roman Catholic Church and the monarchy as institutions in Italy.
To appeal to Italian conservatives, Fascism adopted policies such as promoting family values, including policies designed to reduce the number of women in the workforce by limiting the woman’s role to that of a mother. The fascists banned literature on birth control and increased penalties for abortion in 1926, declaring both crimes against the state. Though Fascism adopted a number of positions designed to appeal to reactionaries, the Fascists sought to maintain Fascism’s revolutionary character, with Angelo Oliviero Olivetti saying “Fascism would like to be conservative, but it will [be] by being revolutionary.” The Fascists supported revolutionary action and committed to secure law and order to appeal to both conservatives and syndicalists.
Prior to Fascism’s accommodation of the political right, Fascism was a small, urban, northern Italian movement that had about a thousand members. After Fascism’s accommodation of the political right, the Fascist movement’s membership soared to approximately 250,000 by 1921.
Fascists Seize Power
Beginning in 1922, Fascist paramilitaries escalated their strategy from attacking socialist offices and homes of socialist leadership figures to violent occupation of cities. The Fascists met little serious resistance from authorities and proceeded to take over several northern Italian cities. The Fascists attacked the headquarters of socialist and Catholic labor unions in Cremona and imposed forced Italianization upon the German-speaking population of Trent and Bolzano. After seizing these cities, the Fascists made plans to take Rome.
On October 24, 1922, the Fascist party held its annual congress in Naples, where Mussolini ordered Blackshirts to take control of public buildings and trains and converge on three points around Rome. The Fascists managed to seize control of several post offices and trains in northern Italy while the Italian government, led by a left-wing coalition, was internally divided and unable to respond to the Fascist advances. King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy thought the risk of bloodshed in Rome to disperse the Fascists was too high. Victor Emmanuel III decided to appoint Mussolini as Prime Minister of Italy, and Mussolini arrived in Rome on October 30 to accept the appointment. Fascist propaganda aggrandized this event, known as “March on Rome,” as a “seizure” of power because of Fascists’ heroic exploits.
A photo of a crowd of mostly men, with Mussolini and other fascist leaders in the center.
March on Rome: Benito Mussolini with three of the four quadrumvirs during the March on Rome: from left to right: unknown, de Bono, Mussolini, Balbo and de Vecchi.
Mussolini in Power
Upon becoming Prime Minister of Italy, Mussolini had to form a coalition government, because the Fascists did not have control over the Italian parliament. Mussolini’s coalition government initially pursued economically liberal policies under the direction of liberal finance minister Alberto De Stefani, a member of the Center Party, including balancing the budget through deep cuts to the civil service. Initially, little drastic change in government policy occurred and repressive police actions were limited.
The Fascists began their attempt to entrench Fascism in Italy with the Acerbo Law, which guaranteed a plurality of the seats in parliament to any party or coalition list in an election that received 25% or more of the vote. Through considerable Fascist violence and intimidation, the list won a majority of the vote, allowing many seats to go to the Fascists. In the aftermath of the election, a crisis and political scandal erupted after Socialist Party deputy Giacomo Matteoti was kidnapped and murdered by a Fascist. The liberals and the leftist minority in parliament walked out in protest in what became known as the Aventine Secession.
On January 3, 1925, Mussolini addressed the Fascist-dominated Italian parliament and declared that he was personally responsible for what happened, but insisted that he had done nothing wrong. He proclaimed himself dictator of Italy, assuming full responsibility over the government and announcing the dismissal of parliament. From 1925 to 1929, Fascism steadily became entrenched in power; opposition deputies were denied access to parliament, censorship was introduced, and a December 1925 decree made Mussolini solely responsible to the King.
In the 1920s, Fascist Italy pursued an aggressive foreign policy that included an attack on the Greek island of Corfu, aims to expand Italian territory in the Balkans, plans to wage war against Turkey and Yugoslavia, attempts to bring Yugoslavia into civil war by supporting Croat and Macedonian separatists to legitimize Italian intervention, and making Albania a de facto protectorate of Italy, achieved through diplomatic means by 1927. In response to revolt in the Italian colony of Libya, Fascist Italy abandoned previous liberal-era colonial policy of cooperation with local leaders. Instead, claiming that Italians were superior to African races and thereby had the right to colonize the “inferior” Africans, it sought to settle 10 to 15 million Italians in Libya. This resulted in an aggressive military campaign known as the Pacification of Libya against natives in Libya, including mass killings, the use of concentration camps, and the forced starvation of thousands of people. Italian authorities committed ethnic cleansing by forcibly expelling 100,000 Bedouin Cyrenaicans, half the population of Cyrenaica in Libya, from their settlements, slated to be given to Italian settlers.
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe, characterized by one-party totalitarian regimes run by charismatic dictators, glorification of violence, and racist ideology.
Fascism is a far-right authoritarian political ideology that emerged in the early 20th century and rose to prominence after World War I in several nations, notably Italy, Germany, and Japan.
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state, led by a dictator, as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and respond effectively to economic difficulties.
Fascist regimes are often preoccupied “with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity,” culminating in nationalistic and racist ideologies and practices, such as the Holocaust in Nazi Germany.
The term originated in Italy and is derived from fascio, meaning a bundle of rods, and is used to symbolize strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.
After the end of the World War I, fascism rose out of relative obscurity into international prominence, with fascist regimes forming most notably in Italy, Germany, and Japan, the three of which would be allied in World War II.
Fascist Benito Mussolini seized power in Italy in 1922 and Adolf Hitler had successfully consolidated his power in Germany by 1933.
fin-de-siècle: French for end of the century, a term which typically encompasses both the meaning of the similar English idiom turn of the century and also makes reference to the closing of one era and onset of another. The term is typically used to refer to the end of the 19th century. This was widely thought to be a period of degeneration, but at the same time one of hope for a new beginning. It often refers to the cultural hallmarks that were recognized as prominent in the 1880s and 1890s, including ennui, cynicism, pessimism, and “…a widespread belief that civilization leads to decadence.”
fascism: A form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. It holds that liberal democracy is obsolete and that the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state is necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.
Social Darwinism: A name given to various ideologies emerging in the second half of the 19th century, trying to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest in human society. It was largely developed by Herbert Spencer, who compared society to a living organism and argued that just as biological organisms evolve through natural selection, society evolves and increases in complexity through analogous processes.
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, then spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.
Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and the total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilians and combatants. A “military citizenship” arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war. The war resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy with the principal goal of achieving autarky (self-sufficiency) through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.
Historian Robert Paxton says that fascism is “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”
Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The terms neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideologies similar to or rooted in 20th century fascist movements.
The term fascist comes from the Italian word fascismo, derived from fascio meaning a bundle of rods, ultimately from the Latin word fasces. This was the name given to political organizations in Italy known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or syndicates. At first, it was applied mainly to organizations on the political left. In 1919, Benito Mussolini founded the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento in Milan, which became the Partito Nazionale Fascista (National Fascist Party) two years later. The Fascists came to associate the term with the ancient Roman fasces or fascio littorio—a bundle of rods tied around an axe, an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrate carried by his lictors, which could be used for corporal and capital punishment at his command. The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.
Early History of Fascism
The historian Zeev Sternhell has traced the ideological roots of fascism back to the 1880s, and in particular to the fin-de-siècle (French for “end of the century”) theme of that time. This ideology was based on a revolt against materialism, rationalism, positivism, bourgeois society, and democracy. The fin-de-siècle generation supported emotionalism, irrationalism, subjectivism, and vitalism. The fin-de-siècle mindset saw civilization as being in a crisis that required a massive and total solution. Its intellectual school considered the individual only one part of the larger collectivity, which should not be viewed as an atomized numerical sum of individuals. They condemned the rationalistic individualism of liberal society and the dissolution of social links in bourgeois society.
Social Darwinism, which gained widespread acceptance, made no distinction between physical and social life, and viewed the human condition as being an unceasing struggle to achieve the survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism challenged positivism’s claim of deliberate and rational choice as the determining behavior of humans, focusing on heredity, race, and environment. Its emphasis on biogroup identity and the role of organic relations within societies fostered legitimacy and appeal for nationalism. New theories of social and political psychology also rejected the notion of human behavior being governed by rational choice, and instead claimed that emotion was more influential in political issues than reason.
At the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, the Italian political left became severely split over its position on the war. The Italian Socialist Party (PSI) opposed the war but a number of Italian revolutionary syndicalists supported war against Germany and Austria-Hungary on the grounds that their reactionary regimes had to be defeated to ensure the success of socialism. Angelo Oliviero Olivetti formed a pro-interventionist fascio called the Fasci of International Action in October 1914. Benito Mussolini, upon expulsion from his position as chief editor of the PSI’s newspaper Avanti! for his anti-German stance, joined the interventionist cause in a separate fascio. The term “Fascism” was first used in 1915 by members of Mussolini’s movement, the Fasci of Revolutionary Action.
The first meeting of the Fasci of Revolutionary Action was held in January 1915 when Mussolini declared that it was necessary for Europe to resolve its national problems—including national borders—of Italy and elsewhere “for the ideals of justice and liberty for which oppressed peoples must acquire the right to belong to those national communities from which they descended.” Attempts to hold mass meetings were ineffective, and the organization was regularly harassed by government authorities and socialists.
Similar political ideas arose in Germany after the outbreak of the war. German sociologist Johann Plenge spoke of the rise of a “National Socialism” in Germany within what he termed the “ideas of 1914” that were a declaration of war against the “ideas of 1789” (the French Revolution). According to Plenge, the “ideas of 1789” that included rights of man, democracy, individualism and liberalism were being rejected in favor of “the ideas of 1914” that included “German values” of duty, discipline, law, and order. Plenge believed that racial solidarity (Volksgemeinschaft) would replace class division and that “racial comrades” would unite to create a socialist society in the struggle of “proletarian” Germany against “capitalist” Britain. He believed that the “Spirit of 1914” manifested itself in the concept of the “People’s League of National Socialism.”
After the end of the World War I, fascism rose out of relative obscurity into international prominence, with fascist regimes forming most notably in Italy, Germany, and Japan, the three of which would be allied in World War II. Fascist Benito Mussolini seized power in Italy in 1922 and Adolf Hitler had successfully consolidated his power in Germany by 1933.
Photo of Hitler and Mussolini in official military uniforms overlooking a crowd of people.
Hitler and Mussolini: Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were the two most prominent fascist dictators, rising to power in the decades after World War I.
Fascism in Japan
During the 1930s, Japan moved into political totalitarianism, ultranationalism, and fascism, culminating in its invasion of China in 1937.
Examine how fascism manifested itself in Japan
Similar to European nations like Italy and Germany, nationalism and aggressive expansionism began to rise to prominence in Japan after World War I.
The 1919 Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I did not recognize the Empire of Japan’s territorial claims, which angered the Japanese and led to a surge in nationalism.
Throughout the 1920s, various nationalistic and xenophobic ideologies emerged among right-wing Japanese intellectuals, but it was not until the early 1930s that these ideas gained full traction in the ruling regime.
During the Manchurian Incident of 1931, radical army officers bombed a small portion of the South Manchuria Railroad and, falsely attributing the attack to the Chinese, invaded Manchuria.
International criticism of Japan following the invasion led to Japan withdrawing from the League of Nations, which led to political isolation and a redoubling of ultranationalist and expansionist tendencies.
In 1932, a group of right-wing Army and Navy officers succeeded in assassinating the Prime Minister Inukai Tsuyoshi.
The plot fell short of staging a complete coup d’état, but it effectively ended rule by political parties in Japan and consolidated the power of the military elite under the dictatorship of Emperor Hirohito.
statism: The belief that the state should control either economic or social policy or both, sometimes taking the form of totalitarianism, but not necessarily. It is effectively the opposite of anarchism.
Shōwa period: The period of Japanese history corresponding to the reign of the Shōwa Emperor, Hirohito, from December 25, 1926, through January 7, 1989. This period was longer than the reign of any previous Japanese emperor. During the pre-1945 period, Japan moved into political totalitarianism, ultranationalism, and fascism culminating in Japan’s invasion of China in 1937. This was part of an overall global period of social upheavals and conflicts, such as the Great Depression and World War II. Defeat in World War II brought radical change to Japan.
Shinto: A Japanese ethnic religion that focuses on ritual practices carried out diligently to establish a connection between present-day Japan and its ancient past. Its practices were first recorded and codified in the written historical records of the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki in the 8th century. This term applies to the religion of public shrines devoted to the worship of a multitude of gods (kami), suited to various purposes such as war memorials and harvest festivals.
Meiji Restoration: An event that restored practical imperial rule to Japan in 1868 under Emperor Meiji, leading to enormous changes in Japan’s political and social structure and spanning both the late Edo period (often called the Late Tokugawa shogunate) and the beginning of the Meiji period. The period spanned from 1868 to 1912 and was responsible for the emergence of Japan as a modernized nation in the early 20th century, and its rapid rise to great power status in the international system.
Statism in Japan
Statism in Shōwa Japan was a right-wing political ideology developed over a period of time from the Meiji Restoration of the 1860s. It is sometimes also referred to as Shōwa nationalism or Japanese fascism.
This statist movement dominated Japanese politics during the first part of the Shōwa period (reign of Hirohito). It was a mixture of ideas such as Japanese nationalism and militarism and “state capitalism” proposed by contemporary political philosophers and thinkers.
Development of Statist Ideology
The 1919 Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I did not recognize the Empire of Japan’s territorial claims, and international naval treaties between Western powers and the Empire of Japan (Washington Naval Treaty and London Naval Treaty) imposed limitations on naval shipbuilding that limited the size of the Imperial Japanese Navy. These measures were considered by many in Japan as refusal by the Occidental powers to consider Japan an equal partner.
On the basis of national security, these events released a surge of Japanese nationalism and resulted in the end of collaboration diplomacy that supported peaceful economic expansion. The implementation of a military dictatorship and territorial expansionism were considered the best ways to protect Japan.
In the early 1930s, the Ministry of Home Affairs began arresting left-wing political dissidents, generally to exact a confession and renouncement of anti-state leanings. Over 30,000 such arrests were made between 1930 and 1933. In response, a large group of writers founded a Japanese branch of the International Popular Front Against Fascism and published articles in major literary journals warning of the dangers of statism.
Ikki Kita was an early 20th-century political theorist who advocated a hybrid of state socialism with “Asian nationalism,” which blended the early ultranationalist movement with Japanese militarism. Kita proposed a military coup d’état to replace the existing political structure of Japan with a military dictatorship. The new military leadership would rescind the Meiji Constitution, ban political parties, replace the Diet of Japan with an assembly free of corruption, and nationalize major industries. Kita also envisioned strict limits to private ownership of property and land reform to improve the lot of tenant farmers. Thus strengthened internally, Japan could then embark on a crusade to free all of Asia from Western imperialism.
Although his works were banned by the government almost immediately after publication, circulation was widespread, and his thesis proved popular not only with the younger officer class excited at the prospects of military rule and Japanese expansionism, but with the populist movement for its appeal to the agrarian classes and to the left wing of the socialist movement.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the supporters of Japanese statism used the slogan Showa Restoration, which implied that a new resolution was needed to replace the existing political order dominated by corrupt politicians and capitalists, with one which (in their eyes), would fulfill the original goals of the Meiji Restoration of direct Imperial rule via military proxies.
Early Shōwa statism is sometimes given the retrospective label “fascism,” but this was not a self-appellation and it is not entirely clear that the comparison is accurate. When authoritarian tools of the state such as the Kempeitai were put into use in the early Shōwa period, they were employed to protect the rule of law under the Meiji Constitution from perceived enemies on both the left and the right.
Nationalist Politics During the Shōwa Period
Emperor Hirohito’s 63-year reign from 1926 to 1989 is the longest in recorded Japanese history. The first 20 years were characterized by the rise of extreme nationalism and a series of expansionist wars. After suffering defeat in World War II, Japan was occupied by foreign powers for the first time in its history, then re-emerged as a major world economic power.
Left-wing groups had been subject to violent suppression by the end of the Taishō period, and radical right-wing groups, inspired by fascism and Japanese nationalism, rapidly grew in popularity. The extreme right became influential throughout the Japanese government and society, notably within the Kwantung Army, a Japanese army stationed in China along the Japanese-owned South Manchuria Railroad. During the Manchurian Incident of 1931, radical army officers bombed a small portion of the South Manchuria Railroad and, falsely attributing the attack to the Chinese, invaded Manchuria. The Kwantung Army conquered Manchuria and set up the puppet government of Manchukuo there without permission from the Japanese government. International criticism of Japan following the invasion led to Japan withdrawing from the League of Nations.
The withdrawal from the League of Nations meant that Japan was politically isolated. Japan had no strong allies and its actions had been internationally condemned, while internally popular nationalism was booming. Local leaders such as mayors, teachers, and Shinto priests were recruited by the various movements to indoctrinate the populace with ultra-nationalist ideals. They had little time for the pragmatic ideas of the business elite and party politicians. Their loyalty lay to the Emperor and the military. In March 1932 the “League of Blood” assassination plot and the chaos surrounding the trial of its conspirators further eroded the rule of democratic law in Shōwa Japan. In May of the same year, a group of right-wing Army and Navy officers succeeded in assassinating the Prime Minister Inukai Tsuyoshi. The plot fell short of staging a complete coup d’état, but effectively ended rule by political parties in Japan.
Japan’s expansionist vision grew increasingly bold. Many of Japan’s political elite aspired to have Japan acquire new territory for resource extraction and settlement of surplus population. These ambitions led to the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937. After their victory in the Chinese capital, the Japanese military committed the infamous Nanking Massacre. The Japanese military failed to defeat the Chinese government led by Chiang Kai-shek and the war descended into a bloody stalemate that lasted until 1945. Japan’s stated war aim was to establish the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, a vast pan-Asian union under Japanese domination. Hirohito’s role in Japan’s foreign wars remains a subject of controversy, with various historians portraying him as either a powerless figurehead or an enabler and supporter of Japanese militarism.
The United States opposed Japan’s invasion of China and responded with increasingly stringent economic sanctions intended to deprive Japan of the resources to continue its war in China. Japan reacted by forging an alliance with Germany and Italy in 1940, known as the Tripartite Pact, which worsened its relations with the U.S. In July 1941, the United States, Great Britain, and the Netherlands froze all Japanese assets when Japan completed its invasion of French Indochina by occupying the southern half of the country, further increasing tension in the Pacific.
Emperor Shōwa riding his stallion Shirayuki alongside other military officers riding horses during an Army inspection, August 1938.
Statism in Japan: Emperor Shōwa riding his stallion Shirayuki during an Army inspection, August 1938. By the 1930’s, Japan had essentially become a military dictatorship with increasingly bold expansionist aims.
Several historians believe that during the Spanish Civil War, General Francisco Franco’s goal was to turn Spain into a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, which he largely succeeded in doing.
Summarize the rise of the Franco regime in Spain
As in Germany and Italy, fascism gained prominence in Spain during the interwar period, especially from the 1930s through World War II.
Francisco Franco, a Spanish general, rose to prominence in the mid-1930s, but his right-wing party failed to gained power in the 1936 elections.
Franco and other military leaders staged a failed coup that led to the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, which lasted from 1936-1939.
Franco emerged victorious and established a one-party military dictatorship, naming himself the leader under the name El Caudillo, a term similar to Il Duce (Italian) for Benito Mussolini and Der Führer (German) for Adolf Hitler.
Franco’s regime committed a series of violent human rights abuses against the Spanish people, causing an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 deaths.
The consistent points in Franco’s ideology (termed Francoism) included authoritarianism, nationalism, national Catholicism, militarism, conservatism, anti-communism, and anti-liberalism.
Falangism: A Fascist movement founded in Spain in 1933 and the one legal party in Spain under the regime of Franco.
Spanish Civil War: A war from 1936 to 1939 between the Republicans, who were loyal to the democratic, left-leaning and relatively urban Second Spanish Republic in an alliance of convenience with the Anarchists, and the Nationalists, a falangist, Carlist, and a largely aristocratic conservative group led by General Francisco Franco.
personality cult: When an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods to create an idealized, heroic, and at times worshipful image, often through unquestioned flattery and praise.
Francisco Franco: A Spanish general who ruled over Spain as a dictator for 36 years from 1939 until his death. He took control of Spain from the government of the Second Spanish Republic after winning the Civil War, and was in power 1978, when the Spanish Constitution of 1978 went into effect.
Francisco Franco: El Caudillo
Francisco Franco (December 4, 1892 – November 20, 1975) was a Spanish general who ruled over Spain as a dictator for 36 years from 1939 until his death.
As a conservative and a monarchist, he opposed the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic in 1931. With the 1936 elections, the conservative Spanish Confederation of Autonomous Right-wing Groups lost by a narrow margin and the leftist Popular Front came to power. Intending to overthrow the republic, Franco followed other generals in attempting a failed coup that precipitated the Spanish Civil War. With the death of the other generals, Franco quickly became his faction’s only leader. In 1947, he declared Spain a monarchy with himself as regent.
Franco gained military support from various regimes and groups, especially Nazi Germany and the Kingdom of Italy, while the Republican side was supported by Spanish communists and anarchists as well as the Soviet Union, Mexico, and the International Brigades. Leaving half a million dead, the war was eventually won by Franco in 1939. He established a military dictatorship, which he defined as a totalitarian state. Franco proclaimed himself Head of State and Government under the title El Caudillo, a term similar to Il Duce (Italian) for Benito Mussolini and Der Führer (German) for Adolf Hitler. Under Franco, Spain became a one-party state, as the various conservative and royalist factions were merged into the fascist party and other political parties were outlawed.
Franco’s regime committed a series of violent human rights abuses against the Spanish people, which included the establishment of concentration camps and the use of forced labor and executions, mostly against political and ideological enemies, causing an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 deaths in more than 190 concentration camps. Spain’s entry into the war on the Axis side was prevented largely by, as was much later revealed, British Secret Intelligence Service (MI-6) efforts that included up to $200 million in bribes for Spanish officials to keep the regime from getting involved. Franco was also able to take advantage of the resources of the Axis Powers and chose to avoid becoming heavily involved in the Second World War.
A close-up photographic portrait of Francisco Franco in a military uniform.
Francisco Franco: A photo of Francisco Franco in 1964. Franco strove to establish a fascist dictatorship similar to that of Germany and Italy, but in the end did not join the Axis in WWII.
Ideology of Francoist Spain
The consistent points in Francoism included authoritarianism, nationalism, national Catholicism, militarism, conservatism, anti-communism, and anti-liberalism. The Spanish State was authoritarian: non-government trade unions and all political opponents across the political spectrum were either suppressed or controlled by all means, including police repression. Most country towns and rural areas were patrolled by pairs of Guardia Civil, a military police for civilians, which functioned as a chief means of social control. Larger cities and capitals were mostly under the heavily armed Policía Armada, commonly called grises due to their grey uniforms. Franco was also the focus of a personality cult which taught that he had been sent by Divine Providence to save the country from chaos and poverty.
Franco’s Spanish nationalism promoted a unitary national identity by repressing Spain’s cultural diversity. Bullfighting and flamenco were promoted as national traditions, while those traditions not considered Spanish were suppressed. Franco’s view of Spanish tradition was somewhat artificial and arbitrary: while some regional traditions were suppressed, Flamenco, an Andalusian tradition, was considered part of a larger, national identity. All cultural activities were subject to censorship, and many were forbidden entirely, often in an erratic manner.
Francoism professed a strong devotion to militarism, hypermasculinity, and the traditional role of women in society. A woman was to be loving to her parents and brothers and faithful to her husband, and reside with her family. Official propaganda confined women’s roles to family care and motherhood. Most progressive laws passed by the Second Republic were declared void. Women could not become judges, testify in trial, or become university professors.
The Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco’s victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated. Only black marketeers could enjoy an evident affluence. Up to 200,000 people died of starvation during the early years of Francoism, a period known as Los Años de Hambre (the Years of Hunger).
Falangism: Spanish Fascism
TITO and YUGOSLAVIA were often confused as TOTALITARIAN when they were simply continuing global corporate FASCISM. The difference we see has to do with whether there is a functioning capitalist business structure. TITO did allow a global 1% to operate capitalist economy in YUGOSLAVIA.
NORTH KOREA under GREAT LEADER -----was TOTALITARIAN. One man controlled all economy in that nation-state......but everyone understands that GREAT LEADER was simply a CHINESE GLOBAL 1% OLD WORLD KINGS-------PUPPET.
TOTALITARIANISM HAS A HISTORY OF EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POWER---TIED TO GLOBAL 1% OLD WORLD KINGS.
'Was Tito's Yugoslavia totalitarian?
In Yugoslavia, economic entities (enterprises) were structured, had autonomous competences and even in the 60s did not operate in the manner typical of totalitarian economies (on the basis of orders from a central bureaucratic instruction as to production and exchange, without inﬂuence from the money economy)'.
Let's look at the global history of OLD WORLD KINGS-------for thousands of years complete with GLOBAL TRADE ROUTES----as SILK AND SPICE TRADE ROUTES-----vs today modern CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY-----vs OLD WORLD KINGS' TOTALITARIANISM of CHINA and soon US and Europe.
OLD WORLD KINGS never had the ability to keep EVERYONE under his thumb. RULING A KINGDOM took lots of 'US' vs 'THEM'. A 99% of people made SERFS/PEASANTS with a global 1% as extremely rich. With these OLD WORLD KING economies -----there was necessarily a MERCHANT CLASS-----WORKING CLASS----PEASANTS. This created the idea of NOBILITY-----MERCHANTS often were relatives of OLD WORLD KINGS.
LAISSEZ FAIRE is NOT capitalism as we know it today-------this is why we shout CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA is NOT FAILED CAPITALISM----or FAILED LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE economics------LAISSEZ FAIRE is simply global banking 1% corporate FASCISM. No FREE TRADE need apply.
TODAY, MOVING FORWARD has these same global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----with what will remain a LAISSEZ FAIRE GLOBAL CORPORATE FASCISM----but, these SURVEILLANCE AND ONLINE TECHNOLOGY goals will make MOVING FORWARD ----TOTALITARIAN. Only the global 1% will access these global economies.
DEEP DEEP REALLY DEEP STATE IS CALLED TOTALITARIAN BECAUSE GLOBAL 1% WILL HAVE THE POWER OF KEEPING 99% WE THE PEOPLE UNDER THEIR BOOT!----NO THINKING, NO MOVING, NO LIVING UNLESS A .00014% SAY SO.
While GREEK AND FREEMASONRY secret societies thrived during the OLD SCHOOL OLD WORLD KINGS economy------there will be no need for these GREEK/FREEMASONRY societies-------the spying is total surveillance technology
Kings and Emperors Called "The Great"2205 BCE to 644 CE
by Kallie Szczepanski
Updated August 26, 2018Asia has seen thousands of kings and emperors over the past five thousand years, but fewer than thirty are usually honored with the title "the Great." Learn more about Ashoka, Cyrus, Gwanggaeto and the other great leaders of early Asian history.
Sargon the Great, ruled ca. 2270-2215 BCE
Sargon the Great founded the Akkadian Dynasty in Sumeria. He conquered a vast empire in the Middle East, including modern-day Iraq, Iran, Syria, as well as parts of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula. His exploits may have been the model for the biblical figure known as Nimrod, said to have ruled from the city of Akkad.
Yu the Great, r. ca. 2205-2107 BCE David Fundingsland / Getty ImagesYu the Great is a legendary figure in Chinese history, the purported founder of the Xia Dynasty (2205-1675 BCE). Whether or not the Emperor Yu ever really existed, he is famous for teaching the people of China how to control raging rivers and prevent flood damage.
Cyrus the Great, r. 559-530 BCE duncan1890 / Getty ImagesCyrus the Great was the founder of Persia's Achaemenid Dynasty and conqueror of a vast empire from the borders of Egypt in the southwest to the edge of India in the east.
Cyrus was known not only as a military leader, however. He is renowned for his emphasis on human rights, tolerance of different religions and peoples, and his statecraft.
Darius the Great, r. 550-486 BCEJennifer Lavoura / Getty ImagesDarius the Great was another successful Achaemenid ruler, who usurped the throne but nominally continued in the same dynasty. He also continued Cyrus the Great's policies of military expansion, religious tolerance, and crafty politics. Darius greatly increased tax collection and tribute, allowing him to fund massive construction projects around Persia and the empire.
Xerxes the Great, r. 485-465 BCEPaul Biris / Getty ImagesThe son of Darius the Great, and the grandson of Cyrus through his mother, Xerxes completed the conquest of Egypt and the reconquest of Babylon. His heavy-handed treatment of Babylonian religious beliefs led to two major revolts, in 484 and 482 BCE. Xerxes was assassinated in 465 by the commander of his royal bodyguard.
Ashoka the Great, r. 273-232 BCEuniquely india / Getty ImagesThe Mauryan Emperor of what is now India and Pakistan, Ashoka started life as a tyrant but went on to become one of the most beloved and enlightened rulers of all time. A devout Buddhist, Ashoka made rules to protect not just the people of his empire, but all living things. He also encouraged peace with neighboring peoples, conquering them through compassion rather than warfare.
Kanishka the Great, r. 127-151 CE Robert Alexander / Getty ImagesKanishka the Great ruled a vast Central Asian empire from his capital at what is now Peshawar, Pakistan. As king of the Kushan Empire, Kanishka controlled much of the Silk Road and helped to spread Buddhism in the region. He was able to defeat the army of Han China and drive them out of their western-most lands, today called Xinjiang. This eastward expansion by the Kushan coincides with the introduction of Buddhism to China, as well.
Shapur II, The Great, r. 309-379 ilbusca / Getty ImagesA great king of Persia's Sassanian Dynasty, Shapur supposedly was crowned before he was born. Shapur consolidated Persian power, fought off attacks by nomadic groups and extended the boundaries of his empire, and fended off the encroachment of Christianity from the newly-converted Roman Empire.
Gwanggaeto the Great, r. 391-413Dan Hontz / Getty ImagesAlthough he died at the age of 39, Korea's Gwanggaeto the Great is revered as the greatest leader in Korean history. King of Goguryeo, one of the Three Kingdoms, he subdued Baekje and Silla (the other two kingdoms), drove the Japanese out of Korea, and extended his empire northward to encompass Manchuria and parts of what is now Siberia.
Umar the Great, r. 634-644 Alex Lapuerta / Getty ImagesUmar the Great was the second Caliph of the Muslim Empire, renowned for his wisdom and jurisprudence. During his reign, the Muslim world expanded to include all of the Persian Empire and the majority of the Eastern Roman Empire. However, Umar played a key role in denying the caliphate to Muhammad's son-in-law and cousin, Ali. This act would lead to a schism in the Muslim world that continues to this day - the division between Sunni and Shi'a Islam.
'China has been accused of running internment camps in the guise of "re-education camps" in Xinjiang province, where nearly one million Uighur Muslims were reported to have been detained.
China has been accused of persecuting Uighur Muslims in the country'
China targeted several decades ago the HAN tribe of China along China's eastern and southern coasts. This was MAO'S GREAT LEAP FORWARD only affecting those 99% of citizens in areas where FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES were built---MADE IN CHINA global factories. The HAN people today are those devastated by toxic waste pollution----being enslaved in global factories---and those 5% HAN people able to be made affluent or rich are now being attacked by ASIAN global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS just as here in US.
THE HAN WERE WHIPPED INTO GLOBAL CORPORATE GROUP SPEAK ----BY MAO MARXISM.
MAO did not have today's surveillance technology----the best he could do is global corporate FASCISM.
GREAT LEAP FORWARD AS MARXISM KILLED ALL RELIGION HAN PEOPLE FOLLOWED--MOSTLY HINDI AND BUDDHISM.
Flash forward today----and the UIGHUR people are the HAN people ----this attack on northern and western Chinese regions is NOT RELIGIOUS-----the UIGHURS will simply be made the HAN----minus their religion with their land taken and made global corporate factories.
The UIGHUR are being 're-educated' today as the HAN people were during MAO GREAT LEAP FORWARD. Remember, global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS are NOT RELIGIOUS----these attacks are not against MUSLIMS---they are TAKING LAND AND SOCIETAL CONTROL.
It is a terrorism on our REAL 99% of religious people---but, we KNOW the UIGHUR leaders---are already being made BILLIONAIRES-----NOT RELIGIOUS---and they are front and center in installing these CHINESE totalitarian structures.
China has been accused of running internment camps in the guise of "re-education camps" in Xinjiang province, where nearly one million Uighur Muslims were reported to have been detained.
China has been accused of persecuting Uighur Muslims in the country
(Representative image/Twitter @ZaidZamanHamid) | Photo Credit: Twitter
China on Tuesday claimed that a majority of detainees at "re-education camps" have been released
China has come under international scrutiny over reports of harassment of Uighurs at these "re-education camps"
The decades-old conflict between Beijing and Uighur Muslims has stemmed from economic and cultural differences
Amid growing international pressure, China on Tuesday claimed that a majority of the people who had been detained in the controversial re-education centres for Muslim minorities in Xinjiang region have been released and have even signed "work contracts" with local companies.
The surprising announcement came weeks after human rights group Amnesty International released a report alleging that around one million people - mostly belonging to the region's Uighurs, Kazakhs and "other predominantly Muslim ethnic groups” had been held in the detention camps, which Beijing claimed were “re-education” camps.
However, the US, human rights activists, and ethnic Uighur Muslims settled abroad raised doubts over China's claim of the release of the detainees. They stated that no evidence of mass release from the camps in Xinjiang had been provided to verify China's claims.
Not just symbolic: How China is stepping up its efforts to 'Sinicize' its Muslim population
China, Xinjiang, Chinese Muslims, United States of america, Uighurs
US urges Muslim nations to condemn China's treatment of Uighurs, Muslim minorities in Xinjiang
Chinese Hui Muslims pray during Eid al-Fitr prayers at Niujie Mosque in Beijing (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File)
China's dark secret: 1 million ethnic Uighurs, Muslims held in prison in Xingjian
Reports have claimed in the past that Chinese authorities forced the detainees to undergo psychological indoctrination programmes at the "re-education centres", which included studying communist propaganda and chanting slogans praising Chinese President XI Jinping.
“Those who disobeyed the rules, refused to be on duty, engaged in fights or were late for studies were placed in handcuffs and ankle cuffs for up to 12 hours,” Kayrat Samarkand, who was detained in a "re-education camp" in China for three months, told an international daily.
Samarkand had also alleged that Chinese authorities would resort to the brutal tactic of waterboarding the inmates as a method of punishment.
The conflict in China’s western province of Xinjiang between the Chinese government and Uighurs has been brewing for several years, however, in the recent past, it has started garnering attention and subsequent criticism at international platforms, much to the displeasure of Beijing.
What is the China-Uighur conflict all about?
Who are the Uighurs?
Uighurs, also identified as Uygurs and Uyghurs, are Turkic Muslim minority ethnic group who form the largest group in the Xinjiang region in China.
They consider themselves culturally and ethnically linked to Central Asian nations such as Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Mongolia and speak a language which is similar to Turkish. Around 11 million Uighurs, or 45 per cent of Xinjiang's population, reside in the Chinese region.
“We don’t have any connection with the Chinese. We don’t look Chinese, we don’t speak the same language and we don’t eat the same food. And we are Muslims, we believe in Allah. The Chinese only believe in money," a Uighur was quoted as saying by a UK daily in 2009.
Officially, Xinjiang is an "autonomous region", meaning that technically it is supposed to have a greater degree of self-governance away from Beijing than other regions in the country. But just like China's other autonomous region Tibet, this is far from true. In reality, the Chinese government wields immense power in the region.
What is the root cause of the conflict?
At the heart of the showdown between Chinese authorities and the Uighurs are the cultural, ethnic and economic differences between the minority Muslim ethnic group and the Han Chinese from the mainland.
Uighur vs Han Chinese
Uighurs consider their ancestors to be indigenous to the area, while the government policy asserts that Xinjiang has always belonged to China since around 200 BC.
From the 1950s to the 1970s, the Chinese government encouraged mass migration of millions of Han Chinese in the resource-rich Xinjiang province. As a result, as per the current census, 40 per cent of the population in Xinjiang are Han while 45 per cent are Uighurs.
The Uighurs have accused the Chinese government of formulating policies that proved beneficial to the Han Chinese community in developing both economically and culturally in the region at the cost of the growth of the Uighur community.
The government's decisions to promote Chinese cultural unity while at the same time heavily restricting particular expressions of Uighur identities have also played a vital role in fanning tensions in the region.
According to Amnesty International, the Chinese government does not permit Uighur Muslims to grow a beard, wear a veil or headscarf, or observe fasts during Ramzan, which is the holy month of fasting for Muslims.
Reports have also blamed the Chinese government over carrying out state-sponsored surveillance in the region to keep a tab on activities of Uighur community.
Such instances of alleged oppression have also given rise to a militant separatist movement in the region, which if reports are to be believed, has met with a harsh response from Chinese authorities.
The Silk Road connection
Xinjiang happens to be a crucial logistical hub for Beijing's ambitious and humungous Belt and Road Initiative, which is a trillion-dollar infrastructure project meant to revive the old Silk Road trade route. For China, the Belt and Road Initiative is vital for the country to boost its economic and political power in the world.
“Xinjiang, China's northwest doorway to Central and West Asia, sits along the ancient Silk Road. Up to 3,600 tonnes of cargo are handled every day, making Urumqi (Xinjiang’s capital) one of the largest logistics centres among the countries along the Belt and Road,” read a report by a Chinese daily.
With Xinjiang attaining such a pivotal role in China's economic and political plans, experts believe that it could be one of the reasons why Beijing has tightened its control over the region.
China continues to deny any reports of state excess and persecution of the Uighur community in the Xianjing region.
However, it is imperative for the human rights platforms, international media and foreign powers to continue to hold Beijing accountable for its condemnable treatment of a minority community.
MAO was global banking 1% ASIAN OLD WORLD KINGS------and this article shows how HAN were those OLD WORLD RICH----MAO whipped them up to take over all of southern and Eastern coast tribes. At the same time, OLD WORLD EUROPEAN KINGS whipped up Western and Eastern European players to take our US sovereign lands---sacking and looting.
Today, Western and Eastern Europe are being taken down by same GLOBAL 1% OLD WORLD EUROPEAN KINGS ---same as US------while in China, those HAN are being taken down.
MAO'S revolution took a billion of China's citizens into the third industrial revolution. The UIGHURS AND MONGOLIANS were left as agrarian peasants---some landed----but now they are the target for MOVING FORWARD.
This is the same as global banking 1% taking our US major cities like CHICAGO, LA, SAN FRAN, MIAMI, NYC-----and now coming back for our US MID-SIZE cities like CINCINNATI, PITTSBURGH, SACRAMENTO, BALTIMORE, PHILADELPHIA.
The US is multicultural----we worked hard to get rid of TRIBALISM----so, these regions in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES are not exclusive to ONE POPULATION GROUP as with UIGHURS, HAN, MONGOLIA.
Today, the HAN are those being made EX-PATS-------as Chinese global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----move to TOTALITARIANISM and away from FASCISM.
CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA made those global banking 5% freemason/Greek players the HAN of US-----now they are going the under bus----likely to be made EX-PATS.
The vast majority of Han Chinese – over 1.2 billion – live in areas under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China (PRC), where they constitute about 92% of its population'.
Why are the Chinese people called Han Chinese? Why not Ming Chinese or Song Chinese?
Firstly, Han Chinese people refer to themselves by all sorts of different names, not just Han like you might think; in fact, throughout history and even today, there are Chinese who call themselves as 唐人 “Tang people” or even “Ming people” in the case of Ming dynasty loyalists in history. Let me explain:
The Han dynasty was the first dynasty to occupy all of China proper, well aside from the short-lived Qin dynasty that only ruled for a meager 15 years and only had two emperors, while the Han dynasty’s rule spanned the course of nearly four centuries, making it the longest lasting Chinese dynasty during the Imperial Era (the Shang dynasty did last longer, but was much smaller and is considered as part of the Ancient era). The Han dynasty was also the first dynasty in which China began to exert significant influence over its neighbors; China’s military campaigns against the nomadic Xiongnu led to the Chinese territory to stretch all the way to the Tarim Basin in Central Asia, located in the southern part of modern day Xinjiang (新疆), where it was administered under the Han as the “Protectorate of the Western Regions”, and would later help create part of a trade network known as the “Silk Road”, a trade route that reached as far as the Mediterranean world:
Han dynasty in 2 AD, the light blue colored region is the Tarim Basin, forming a crucial part of China’s historic Silk Road
The Han dynasty was also the first Chinese dynasty where the Chinese civilization began to spread into nearby regions, such as from the Han conquest of Nanyue (111 BC), which allowed Chinese influence to spread all the way to present day Northern Vietnam, and the Han conquest of Gojoseon (109 - 108 BC), which brought Han influence onto parts of the Korean peninsula. As such, the Han dynasty was the first Chinese dynasty to spread out of the area known as “China proper”, and began to exert its influence into other regions, which would later lead to many countries later adapting and following its culture, particularly the countries in the “East Asian Cultural Sphere”, though most of this cultural adoption would take place in the later Tang dynasty. Still, the Han established the groundwork for this, and was by far the largest Chinese dynasty by territory by that time, and was referred to as the first “golden age” of China, so many Chinese are very respect and proud of this dynasty, hence why the majority of ethnic Chinese people still refer to themselves as 汉人 “Han people” even today.
Aside from calling themselves as the “Han people” 汉人, some Chinese also refer to themselves as Tang people 唐人 in reference to the Tang dynasty, which was another golden age for China that re-established the Silk Road that was created during the Han dynasty. Often the people who refer to themselves as Tang people are the ones who live in the southern regions of China; why is that you ask? Because unlike the Tang dynasty where the southern regions was entire assimilated into what is now China proper, during the early years of the Han dynasty, from the 2nd-1st Century BC, southern China was occupied by people known as the “Bai Yue” 百越, or the Hundred Yue Tribes.
The Yue people, also referred to as the “Southern Barbarians” at the time due to being culturally different than the Han were indigenous non-Chinese people who initially inhabited a wide range of China, such as far north as the coastal regions of Shandong, and as far west as the Sichuan basin. By the time of the Han dynasty however, these many “non-sinicized” tribes were mostly located in southern China, and the Han dynasty, during the 2nd century BC were still fighting against the Yue states in the south and the Xiongnu in the north, as depicted by this map:
A map illustrating the Han dynasty’s military operations during 2nd century BC. As you can see, many offensive military campaigns to the north against the Xiongnu, and many campaigns against the Yue states of Nanyue, Minyue and Dian. Also interesting of note is the Han conquest of Joseon shown in the purple arrow
So as you can see, the southern people of China at the time had their own states that were separate from the Han dynasty, and were all only conquered by the Han by roughly around 1st Century BC. Perhaps the most well known of these Yue states was Nanyue (南越), which was the largest and most powerful of the Yue kingdoms, having annexed its neighbor Minyue under Nanyue Emperor Zhao Tuo 赵佗 from 183–135 BC before being annexed in 110 BC by the Han dynasty, a year after Nanyue itself was conquered by the Han:
Nanyue (204 BC - 111 BC), a historical Yue kingdom that, at its greatest expanse covered much of coastal region of Southeast China and a large part of Northern Vietnam
In addition to Southern China being occupied by foreign states during the 2nd and parts of the 1st Century BC, during the time of the Han dynasty, much of the population resided in the north or around the Central Plains, which was where the Chinese or “Han people” originated. Take a look at this population distribution frequency map from 2 AD in the Han dynasty:
As you can see, even after the Han conquered the Yue states, much of the Chinese population resided in the northern region of China, the south is barely inhabited
As such, Chinese influence did not fully or completely reach the Southern region until the Tang dynasty, so that is why many southern Chinese people in their various dialects often refer to themselves as “Tang people” rather than Han, likely due to this historical reason. As a matter of fact, most Overseas Chinese who are typically descendants of Southern Chinese immigrants still refer to themselves more often as “Tang people” rather than Han.
As for Song, many Chinese view the Song dynasty as a weak dynasty, even though the dynasty itself was technically the most prosperous out of all the Chinese dynasties, controlling 50% of the world’s economy at its height, but all that the Chinese people that I’ve personally spoken to see about the Song is this:
They see it as the dynasty that couldn’t even control all of the territory of China proper after the period of the Northern Song dynasty where the Jin dynasty seized all of China north of the Huai river in what became known as the Jingkang incident (靖康事變). Also that’s not to mention that the Song dynasty was eventually conquered by the Mongols as well in addition to their smaller territory compared to prior Chinese dynasties, so its likely the Chinese don’t feel as proud about the Song as they do about the Han or Tang, both of which didn’t get taken over by foreign powers. As such, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Chinese refer to themselves as a 宋人 or “Person of Song” except for in Chinese historical dramas that take place under the Song imperial rule for obvious reasons.
As for the Ming dynasty, surprisingly I can think of one incident where Chinese began to call themselves as 明乡, which roughly refers to that the Ming dynasty is the place of their ancestral home; this was when southern Chinese loyalists of the Southern Ming state fled China into Vietnam during the Manchu conquest of China, after which, in Vietnam, they referred to themselves as the 明乡 (Minh Huong in Vietnamese). This term was also used to later differentiate themselves from the later Chinese immigrants who migrated to Vietnam during the Qing dynasty, as of course the Chinese from the Ming and those from the Qing had different political or “dynastic” allegiances and loyalty, so hence the Ming people distinguished themselves from these newer Chinese immigrants by referring to them as 清人 (literally Qing person).
Eventually though, the term 明乡 or Minh Huong in Vietnam came to identify those who were of mixed Chinese-Vietnamese heritage later on, as the Chinese men who escaped into Vietnam from the Ming dynasty usually took Vietnamese or Khmer wives, forming a sort of hybrid-community so to speak, though their descendants apparently continued to strictly Chinese culture from their paternal parentage.
Picture of a Ming Dynasty Assembly Hall (明乡嘉盛会馆) in Saigon, Vietnam, established by the 明乡 or Ming loyalists in Vietnam.
As for the Qing dynasty, I think it is no surprise as to why Chinese don’t refer to themselves as “Qing people”, considering that the rulers of the dynasty were non-Han and were Manchu people instead. However, I’m not quite sure about the people from the Qing dynasty who migrated to other countries, such as Vietnam as mentioned above; while it is clear that the Ming people in Vietnam clearly distinguished these people as 清人, did these immigrants also refer to themselves as 清人? That would be interesting to know.
So why are Chinese people called Han Chinese? I believe that by this question you are limiting yourself to the question as to why the ethnicity of the majority people in China is called “Han Chinese” and not “Tang Chinese” or “Ming Chinese”. I think the simple answer to this is because Chinese people are simply proud of the Han dynasty, and because most of Chinese people refer to themselves as 汉人, while only some of those in the south refer to themselves as 唐人, and perhaps a scarce or non-existent few today still refer to themselves as 明乡 in Vietnam today, but majority rules I guess, so Chinese people are called Han Chinese instead of any other dynasty.
12.4k views · View 138 Upvoters · View Sharers
sponsored by Canny
What is the best way to track customer feedback?
Canny helps you collect and track customer feedback to make better product decisions. Free 14-day trial.
More Answers Below
Why are so many Chinese people atheists? What do they believe in instead of a god?
China often notes it has 5000 years of history. On what basis? Is this an internationally agreed claim and could the same be said of other pla...
What is Han Chinese?
Do Han Chinese people discriminate against non-Han Chinese people in China?
Do the people of Taiwan consider themselves Chinese?
Feng Xian, former Research Associate at Eurasian Center (2017-2018)
Answered Dec 7, 2018 · Author has 1.3k answers and 2.8m answer views
The term Han Chinese/汉人 actually didn’t become popular because of “Han Chinese” but Xianbei/鲜卑.
Here is what happened. Xianbei set up the Northern Wei Dynasty in the fourth century. They defeated the dynasties set up by Xiongnu and Jie (羯) and united Northern China.
But before the Emperor Xiaowen/孝文帝, the earliest rulers back then still believed the Jin Dynasty that retreated into Southern China was the Han Dynasty, though the Han Dynasty had been gone for more than 150 years due to the three kingdoms event. Similarly, some backward peasants in China would ask "who is the current Chairman Mao?" These peasants who isolate in the mountain consider the Chairman Mao as the title of the Emperor than a person.
Anyway, So Xianbei decided to call the people there in Jin Dynasty the Han people, though Jin Dynasty called themselves Jin people. In this case, Han became sort of like “Chinese” or “mainlanders”.
What happened, later on, was the Emperor 孝文帝 initiated the political reform by Hanlizing themselves in terms of names, dresses, hairstyles, ancestry tree, history, other parts of cultures, marriages and so on. Therefore, they started to call themselves Han as well, as same as Obama called himself American.
At that time in the North, it was impossible to differentiate “Han” and “Xianbei” without checking the names because Han was Xianbeilized (martial art fever) while Xian was Hanlized (Confucianism). These two groups were highly mixed by marriages and cultures. So it was kinda natural to just call everybody there “Han”, as same as getting Germanized, Americanized and so on.
This also influenced the Nomadic tribes in the North 柔然/Rouran who was a subgroup of Xianbei. Xianbei insulted Rouran as 蠕蠕/worms. Rouran bounced back as calling them Han. Since then, Han sort of became a term that every nomadic tribe in Northern Asia would use to refer to “Chinese”, regardless of the dynasty.
But the reform of the Emperor 孝文帝 was resisted such that later on there were again dramas and divisions between several dynasties and so on. So Xianbei vs Han somehow still existed but only in the political term and ruling class term rather than the “ethnic term” in society because those who rebelled against the reform included a lot of Xianbeilized “Han”, such as the nobles of the Sui Dynasty.
The setup of Sui Dynasty by the Emperor 隋文帝, later on, ended the Xianbei noble’s dominance and returned the power to the “Han Chinese”(keep in mind that this is a modern term). This led to a further Hanlized movement to a degree that Xianbei completely merged into the so-called Han.
Most of Xianbei names, due to the reforms and wars since the Emperor 孝文, were gradually converted into Han names, such as 独孤/Du Gu-刘/Liu, 宇文/Yu Wen-文/Wen, 拓跋/Tuo Ba- 长孙/Zhang Sun- 孙/Sun, 步六孤/Bu Liu Gu-陆/Lu, 贺兰/He Lan-贺/He, 乌洛兰/Wu Luo Lan-兰/Lan, 慕容/Mu Rong-慕/Mu and so on, though some kept the names. Some Han Chinese still have the family names of 独孤，拓跋，宇文，慕容.. nowadays. The Xianbei people became Han and brought their descendants to all over China by migration.
This culture of Han=everybody who lived in “China” and had the Han culture was kept in the Tang Dynasty. The Tang Dynasty was also a “Han Chinese Dynasty“, though the Emperor 李世民/Li Shi Ming’s grandmother in his mother side was a Xianbei (some also said it was 50 Xianbei and 50 Han for his grandmother) named 独孤. 李世民’s wife the queen 长孙 was also a Xianbei woman.
The Queen 长孙 has no painting so I will just post the actress who acts her here.
But again, these apparently didn’t contradict the fact that he was a “Han Chinese” because the paternal side was the determination here.
Get back to the topic, the new identity of Han based on “ the Han Dynasty’s descendants” and Xianbei was gradually formed, which was later on expanding when the Empire was expanding. Xiongnu, Turk, Shatuo (Western Turk), Goguryeo, Iranian, Korean, Yamato and so on were added up one by one when they merged into “Han Chinese”. But keep in mind that Xianbei was still the most influential “minority” that merged into Han. Their descendants directly or indirectly possibly made up 100 million Han Chinese. Some also said it 200–300 million Han Chinese.
During the Yuan Dynasty, the Mongolian conquering reinforced the idea of Han again on “Han Chinese” because they considered themselves the “foreign conquer” and didn’t fully assimilate into the Han culture (maybe 50–50 later on). Time wasn’t patient to Mongolian for Hanlization, though there were already certain movements and trends, because the Yuan Dynasty collapsed quickly such that the Ming Dynasty came into place.
Then Han was restored and emphasized again in the Ming Dynasty. Even a large percentage of Mongolian were also mixed into it during the Ming Dynasty because they refused to fight for the Mongolian tribes but stayed in China.
Then it’s Qing Dynasty. Again, the history didn’t give the Qing Dynasty enough time such that the nationalism from the West was introduced. Thus the idea of Han Chinese was “permanently” set up in the early 20th century, along with Manchurian and others under the birth of the “Chinese identity” because Han, in this case, didn’t have a chance to assimilate others unlike in previous dynasties. Again, this is just the political term but in reality, Manchurian is basically dead and a part of “Han Chinese” group. So are most of Mongolians today.
The Han Emperor Yuan Shikai
The Han Leader Sun Zhong Shan
Han KMT Commissioner Jiang Jie Shi and Han CCP Commissioner Mao Zedong
(Manchurian Noble’s descendant 关晓彤/Guan Xiaotong. 99 out of 100 Manchurians have adopted Han names and lived in Han way of life. If not for politics, they should be considered Han by the ancient standard).
(Mongolian in urban areas are also highly mixed and Hanlized. You can only find “true Mongolian” today by going to the banners in the grass, even if China has the largest Mongolian population in the world).
Thus, we start to have Han, Mongolian, Manchu… internally and then externally everybody is Chinese. But in the past for a long time, these so-called “ethnicities” were very dynamic.
If we wanna be absolutely academic correct, it is much more accurate to call the Han Chinese the Tang Chinese because that was the period when the ancestors of most of the modern Han Chinese were stabilized and determined.
Apparently, this old man (Han) preserves a lot more features of a subgroup of Xianbei than others. On principle, his family name should be 长孙/Zhang Sun or 孙/Sun, but instead, he has 拓/Tuo. It’s not a usual phenomenon because most of 拓跋/Tuo Ba had been changed into 长孙 than just 拓. Maybe it was because of Khitan (as the video points out) that his ancestor was Xianbei who merged into Khitan, who later on merged into Han, rather than Xianbei to Han directly. So his family name didn’t catch up the reform in the 5th Century by the Emperor 孝文 but in the Ming Dynasty by the Emperor 洪武/Hongwu.
Here is hypocrisy at its best-----here is global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA-----saying Chinese are going to kill UIGHUR MUSLIM religion with MARXISM---when here in US we are MOVING FORWARD to far-right wing global banking 1% extreme wealth extreme poverty, militaristic, authoritarian -------global corporate LIBERTARIAN MARXISM
The Catholic Church knew RUSSIA via TROTSKY AND STALIN was going MARXIST---ending religion.
What is different today from HITLER/STALIN/MAO/FRANCO/MUSSOLINI-----is no mention of FASCISM----but lots of TOTALITARIANISM
Remember, global corporate FASCISM creates ONE PARTY----being the 'US' not 'THEM' aka CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. TOTALITARIANISM creates ONE FAMILY as KING ------dictatorship where everyone is 'THEM
This is to where US is going-----we are still calling TRUMP a PRESIDENT but media is making TRUMP A SHAM----because we will not be a SOVEREIGN NATION-----we will be a colonial entity----same happening in China as XI takes on the cloak of KING..........................................................................................................
'Xi Jinping Unveils China’s New Leaders but No Clear Successor. ... “Now some people might call him the king of China. But he’s called president.”' ..
'US President Trump says he called Xi Jinping the "king" of ...
US President Donald Trump said he called Chinese President Xi Jinping a "king" during a state visit to Beijing in 2017 and that the Communist Party leader appeared to appreciate the remark.
Ignatius: China’s ‘king’ Xi may have gone too far – Boston Herald
WASHINGTON — President Xi Jinping’s command at this month’s Communist Party gathering was so complete that President Trump likened him to a “king.” But some China analysts are wondering whether Xi...'
Chinese Totalitarianism and Catholic WitnessThomas Farr
Saturday, September 21, 2019
“The current assault on religion in China under President Xi Jinping is the most comprehensive attempt to manipulate and control religious communities since the Cultural Revolution.” Or so I argued in congressional testimony last fall. Part of Xi’s plan is to force “fundamental alterations in Catholic doctrine and witness.”
The 2018 Sino-Vatican Provisional Agreement on nominating and ordaining bishops must be assessed in the harsh light of Xi’s policy. Bishops are critical to the well-being of Catholics and the Church. They are simultaneously shepherds and public witnesses to the truths taught by the Church. If they are deceivers, history and contemporary events make abundantly clear that everyone suffers except opponents of the Church. If they are holy and courageous men, willing to witness the truth as taught by the Church, Catholics and non-Catholics benefit. This is as true in China as it is in any other country.
The doctrines of apostolic succession and Petrine supremacy, and common sense, mandate that the pope choose Catholic bishops. Historically, some popes have made deals granting secular rulers a role in nominating bishops. As late as 1996, Pope John Paul II agreed to a process in which the Vatican forwards three bishop-candidates to the Vietnamese government, which then chooses one of the three. The critical step is the first – Hanoi can delay, but cannot substitute its own candidate.
The Chinese Communist regime under Xi Jinping presents a far greater challenge. The evidence for Xi’s malign intent is unarguable. He is targeting Catholics, Protestants, Uighur Muslims, and Tibetan Buddhists as internal fifth columns, loyal to something greater than the Communist state.
Unlike Mao Zedong in the Cultural Revolution, Xi understands he cannot simply eliminate religion. But he is heir to Mao’s belief, channeling Stalin, that religion in general, and some religions in particular, pose mortal threats to Communist authority, and must at all costs be harnessed to the state. His strategy is to terrorize, intimidate, and transform.
Accordingly, Xi employs DNA testing and facial recognition technologies to track religious and political opponents. He has installed video surveillance cameras in churches. He has imprisoned over a million Uighur Muslims in “reeducation camps,” which brainwash, terrorize, and threaten. He has pursued China’s goal of emasculating Tibetan Buddhism with population replacement and violence against Buddhist monks and nuns. He has continued the policy of murdering practitioners of Falun Gong and harvesting their organs for sale.
Protestants and Catholics who resist control by the state agencies established for that purpose (the Protestant Three-Self Movement and the Catholic Patriotic Association) suffer imprisonment, torture, and destruction of churches. Two Marian shrines were recently bulldozed. Catholic bishops and priests in the “underground” Church are increasingly targeted. Prior to the Agreement, these men were seen by at least some in the Vatican as the pope’s brigade, the loyal, courageous, suffering ecclesiastical vanguard of the Church’s witness in China, deserving of prayer and support. Such a view seems to have vanished from Rome.
Within the Chinese regime, however, there is a renewed appreciation of the dangers posed by unapproved bishops faithful to Catholic teachings on human rights and religious freedom. The Catholic Patriotic Association recently issued a detailed set of instructions to China’s bishops, priests, and lay Catholics that will render the Church little more than an arm of the Communist Party. Here’s one key passage:
The [Catholic] Church will regard promotion and education on core values of socialism as a basic requirement for adhering to the Sinicization of Catholicism. It will guide clerics and Catholics to foster and maintain correct views on history and the nation and strengthen community awareness.
Xi’s “Sinicization” policy deepens a perennial dilemma for the Church in China. The number of Chinese bishops is declining, especially those capable of speaking the truths about God and man, without which the Church is not the Church.
*Since the 1950s, priests and bishops loyal to the pope and the Magisterium have generally been ordained in the underground Church, often clandestinely to avoid arrest, imprisonment, or worse. Others were appointed only with the regime’s approval, and were placed under the Catholic Patriotic Association. As underground bishops aged and died faster than they were replaced, Pope John Paul II began to accept private letters of fealty from some bishops appointed by Beijing. But until the signing of the Provisional Agreement, the Vatican refrained from granting any authority to the Communist government in the appointment of bishops,
Unfortunately, because the text of the Agreement has not been made public, it isn’t entirely clear how much authority has actually been ceded. Some reports indicate the Vatican is allowing the regime a significant role: Candidate-bishops are presented to gatherings of diocesan priests, nuns, and lay Catholics, who then vote. The winner’s name is sent to officials who may accept or reject the elected candidate. If Beijing accepts, the candidate could still be vetoed by the pope.
Such a process raises serious questions. If the Chinese control the choice of candidates, they will inevitably prove harmful to the Church. The Xi regime will certainly nominate bishops who will “Sinicize” the Church, altering its teachings and eroding its influence. A right of papal veto would provide some protection, but vetoes would seem to frustrate the Vatican’s overarching goal of increasing the numbers of bishops, period.
Given that goal, would Pope Francis veto men who were little more than Communist apparatchiks and insist on the ordination solely of holy priests faithful to the teachings of the Church? It’s worth recalling that in signing the deal he acceded to Beijing’s demand that he accept seven official bishops, some of whom had been excommunicated by earlier popes. Some reportedly are sexually promiscuous, have fathered children, and are known for “excessive support for the ruling Communist party.” In addition, the pope agreed to require two underground bishops, loyal to the Magisterium, to step aside.
There are faint signs that the pope will retain authority to nominate bishops. Last month the first two bishops were ordained under the Agreement. Both were sanctioned by the Vatican in advance – one had secretly been approved by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010. In both cases, the voting procedure outlined above was followed. Asia News reports that the initial vote took place in a hotel “under the full control of the local civil authorities.” In one case, Catholic voters reportedly assembled under the supervision of 100 police and government officials were told there was only one candidate, and that they must vote for him.
One might quibble over Catholics “voting” for their bishops, and the coercive presence of Communist officials during the vote. If these two ordinations signal, however, that the pope, not the Communists, will nominate bishop candidates, that is a good sign. But that is probably not the case. Given his draconian efforts to harness the Church to his Communist designs, it seems unlikely that Xi would agree to choose among candidates provided by Rome. Only time, or the release of the text, will tell.
In the end, the Provisional Agreement may indicate a return to the Vatican’s failed Cold War “Ostpolitik” diplomacy of the 1960s, before Pope John Paul II changed it. That diplomacy failed from a want of realism about the evil of communism. It deeply harmed the Church in parts of Eastern Europe. The Vatican was not then, and is not now, a secular power capable of changing the behavior of Communist governments through diplomacy.
And yet, the Vatican is arguably the only authority in the world constituted precisely to address the root causes of totalitarian evil, just as Pope John Paul II did in the 1980s in cooperation with President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The Holy See’s role should be now, as it was then, to press for human rights and, especially, for religious freedom for all religious communities in China.
As for China’s Catholics, the Vatican should demand nothing less than libertas ecclesiae, the freedom of the Church to witness to its adherents, to the public, and to the regime its teachings on human dignity and the common good.
It is beyond dispute that the Chinese know what they are doing. The Vatican’s charism, on the other hand, is not diplomacy, but witness to the truth about God and man.
The difference between today's MOVING FORWARD TOTALITARIANISM and past political platforms lies in ONE WORLD ONE TECHNOLOGY GRID----ENERGY, TELCOM, ONLINE CORPORATION/MILITARY COMPLEX.
When all avenues of economy, government, military, communications, energy are taken into this TECHNOLOGY GRID with goals of ever-increasing ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE---GMO HUMANS-----envisioning AVATARS as replacing those dastardly global banking 5 % freemason/Greek players-----an ever smaller group of people become TOTALITARIAN-----that would be those .00014% of OLD WORLD KINGS minus those 5% corporate FASCIST players.
My case of NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG illegal surveillance video PORN cartel-----is simply that STEP-----using FREE PORN---making PORN MULES and PORN ADDICTS of our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE while installing this next round of TOTALITARIAN TECHNOLOGY.
We shout to our US 99% of WE THE RELIGIOUS people---whether MUSLIM, JEWISH, CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, HINDI------global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS---KNIGHTS OF MALTA---TRIBE OF JUDAH are NOT RELIGIOUS---they are killing our Western religions just as is happening in Asia to Eastern religions.
Mass Surveillance and “Smart Totalitarianism“By
February 18, 2017
Standing outside the Topography of Terror in Berlin, looking at its grey neutral exterior, it is hard to comprehend the magnitude of Nazi horrors that emanated from these grounds. Today’s hop-on, hop-off buses ferry tourists to and from the museum to visit Cold War graffitied remnants of the Berlin Wall, the nearby Checkpoint Charlie and the historic but modernized Bundestag building. On these grounds, however, stood institutions that were central to systems of Nazi persecution and terror.
From 1933 through 1945, before being destroyed and dismantled, buildings here housed the Secret State Police (Gestapo), the leadership of the SS (Protection Squad of the Nazi Party) and the Reich Security Main Office. These institutions used cold and brutal methods to serve cold and brutal purposes. Following World War II, Communist Party secret police in East Germany surveilled people’s mail, telephone calls and foreigners. With 500,000 professional and civilian informants — and estimates as high as 2 million (if occasional informants are included) — to monitor a population of 17 million, the Stasi have been described the most intrusive surveillance organizations in world history.
Totalitarian regimes in Germany made widespread use of mass surveillance in order to dominate freedom and carry out horrific crimes. It is no surprise then that Germany is today a top-ranking country globally for data privacy and protection laws, that Berlin has evolved to become one of the world capitals for hackers and data privacy advocates, and that one of the first peer-to-peer computational platforms to guarantee user privacy against unwanted electronic surveillance, Enigma, is named after the tool that the Nazis used to broadcast coded messages from. Yet, ironically, the power of today’s mass surveillance systems — like those of the NSA, brought to light by Edward Snowden’s revelations — far exceed what previous totalitarian regimes could have imagined. Surveillance has spread like a pandemic.
Mass surveillance, Privacy International explains, is the subjection of a population or significant component of a group to indiscriminate monitoring. “Any system that generates and collects data on individuals without attempting to limit the dataset to well-defined targeted individuals is a form of mass surveillance,” it writes.
The NSA, above all, has deployed egregious techniques for mass surveillance and cyber warfare. Thanks to Snowden we now know about the secretive “Five Eyes” alliance, a multilateral surveillance arrangement between the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand that enables each participating state to spy on its own citizens by farming out the task to other participating states. More recently, in August 2016, an entity known as the “Shadow Brokers” leaked controversial NSA cyber weapons that a former NSA staff member described as the “keys to the kingdom.” Through malware infections and security exploits the NSA used these tools for years to hack individuals, companies and governments. The agency exploited vulnerabilities in widely used corporate security software systems, such as Cisco, without ever informing the company about their security problems.
Widely used metaphors for understanding today’s mass surveillance — such as references to Nazi Germany, the Stasi or George Orwell’s Big Brother — run the risk of distracting attention from the horrors and crimes of past totalitarian regimes. But as measures against present abuses of power, like the fact that the NSA can collect 5 billion cell phone records per day, such comparisons can offer important insight. The Germany-based OpenDataCity compared the volume of records that the Stasi stored to the NSA’s capacity to store data. They determined that Stasi files would fill 48,000 filing cabinets, while just a single NSA server would fill 42 trillion filing cabinets. The organization concludes that the NSA can capture 1 billion times more data than the Stasi could.
Stasi files would fill 48,000 filing cabinets, while just a single NSA server would fill 42 trillion filing cabinets.
It is not just the NSA that snoops on ordinary citizens, however. In October 2016, the United Kingdom’s investigatory powers tribunal ruled that the country’s security services (GCHQ, MI5 and MI6) illegally collected huge quantities of communications data, “tracking individual phone and web use and other confidential personal information, without adequate safeguards or supervision for 17 years.” The security services no longer have to be concerned about the legality of their actions, however, because the very next month the Investigatory Powers Bill — also known as the “snooper’s charter” — was approved, thus legalizing mass digital surveillance in the country.
Controlling Critical Junctures
Today, governments and corporations control critical junctures of the web, including domain mapping, underwater cables, software and hardware, programming code, and data centers. This means that the web is now highly centralized, surveilled, studied, manipulated, and subject to damaging data breaches. Many are concerned that because of the emerging Internet of Things — including “smart homes”, “smart cities” and wearable technologies — there will soon be an explosion in collectable personal data, from your expired milk to your blood pressure, and more. This has opened doors to a plethora of ethical problems.
The collection and centralization of personal data has already enabled extraordinary social experiments. The US Department of Defense has studied extensively how to influence users on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and Kickstarter to understand social connections and how messages spread among networks. These messages included news relating to Occupy Wall Street and the “Arab Spring” uprisings. And separately, Facebook controversially sought to learn how to influence user emotions by manipulating its news feed.
The World Wide Web has entrenched systems of power by enabling them to strategically and surreptitiously influence networks and “nudge” populations in one direction or another. This is what Luciano Floridi, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics of Information, describes as the new “grey power.” Grey power is not ordinary socio-political power or military power, Floridi explains. It is not the power to directly influence others, but rather the power to influence those who influence power.
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the industrialists in grey suits were the ones who held grey power, Floridi argues. Today, it is those controlling the social networks, the search engines and the industries around digital technology who hold grey power. The Google Transparency Project, for instance, has identified 258 instances of “revolving door” activity between Google and the US Federal Government, Congress and national political campaigns during President Obama’s eight-year term in office. These revolving doors move between White House officials, former national security, intelligence and Pentagon officials who left the administration to work for top positions in Google, and Google executives who joined top echelons of power in the White House and the Department of Defense.
The dangerous power of mass surveillance therefore does not reside only with the totalitarian regimes of the past. Modern forms of surveillance are used by companies and governments alike, sometimes working ubiquitously together to exploit, manipulate and influence the general population. No matter the motivations behind these invasive systems, it is clear that they are always dangerous, especially if they fall into the wrong hands.
The Wrong Hands
The threat of a far-right white supremacist movement rising to the surface in the US has long been a possibility. But few could have imagined that billionaire businessman Donald Trump would actually win the US presidential election. That possibility alone was hard to accept. He had no prior experience holding public office. But the sobering reality is starting to sink in. As US “commander-in-chief,” this dangerous man will have his hands on the levers of power overseen by the previous administration of Barack Obama. This includes the powers of mass surveillance and weapons of mass destruction.
Writing in Time Magazine the day after Trump’s upsetting victory, transgender and digital rights activist Evan Greer observed that Obama has “a matter of weeks to do one thing that could help prevent the United States from veering into fascism: declassifying and dismantling as much of the federal government’s unaccountable, secretive, mass surveillance state as he can — before Trump is the one running it.” On November 10, Edward Snowden tweeted: “The powers of one government are inherited by the next. Reforming them is now the greatest responsibility of this president, long overdue.” Snowden continued: “To be clear, ‘this president’ means this president, right now. Not the next one. There is still time to act.” Insurgent publisher WikiLeaks tweeted a reminder to those in the US who “let Obama legalize” assassinating anyone, spying on everyone and prosecuting publishers and sources alike. “It’s all Trump’s in 69 days,” they warned.
During his election campaign, Trump shot off a litany of verbal missiles that should have sunk his own candidacy. Echoing darker periods in US history, such as the FBI’s COINTELPRO which carried out covert, violent and illegal actions against domestic groups, Trump called for surveillance of mosques, suggested he might direct his attorney general to investigate the Black Lives Matter movement, and threatened journalists and freedom of the press. These threats by Trump, as worrisome as they are, are not new. After the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, New York City police systematically surveilled Muslims. The FBI surveilled the Black Lives Matter movement in Baltimore following the death of Freddie Gray in April last year. And during his eight-year term, Obama has persecuted more whistleblowers under the archaic 1917 Espionage Act than all previous presidents combined.
Trump has promised to bring back waterboarding interrogation methods and even apply “unthinkable” torture techniques. He has expressed his wish to fill the Guantánamo Bay prison camp in Cuba with more prisoners. He demanded that Apple help the FBI unlock the iPhone belonging to a San Bernardino shooter. He will oversee Obama’s drone program. Trump’s list of vile promises and possibilities spans from the dark and macabre to the dark and comedic. Even those of Dr Strange Love proportions instil a macabre sobriety about the situation. Ten former US nuclear launch officers have expressed concern about Trump gaining access to nuclear weapons. These officers, who were responsible for executing nuclear launch orders, signed a letter warning that Trump should not have his “finger on the button” because of his volatile temperament.
There are good reasons to be deeply concerned about what Trump will do with his newfound presidential authority. He has, after all, vowed to take revenge on his adversaries. Whether he means this threat or was playing up the hatred of his xenophobic electoral base to whip up votes is unknown. But what we do know is that Trump’s election brings us into dangerous and uncharted territory.
First They Came for the Hashtags
Before the US presidential election, in April 2016, members of more than 90 Native American nations converged on Standing Rock in North Dakota to protect sacred tribal sites and their water supply. They gathered to protest the construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline threatening to run through the grounds. By November, there had been reports of direct monitoring including ground and air surveillance. Protesters reported low-flying helicopters frequently hovering over camps, sometimes shining bright spotlights in the middle of the night. Activists were concerned about invasions of privacy including conversations being recorded even when they were uncertain of being monitored at any given moment.
The concern about constant surveillance at Standing Rock continued to threaten protesters in late October, when a Facebook post emerged that the Morton County sheriff’s department was using Facebook check-ins to target people at the protest camp. A campaign started on the social networking platform calling on people to “check in” at Standing Rock, and to share this request with their networks, to overwhelm and confuse police. Just over 24 hours after the call more than one million people had checked in to the Standing Rock reservation. Some are concerned that police could use the check-in data to track networks of people sympathetic with the groups protesting.
Recent research confirms that police use of social media surveillance software to glean personal information that we publish on our networks is escalating. In September 2016, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) received thousands of public records revealing that law enforcement agencies across the state of California “are secretly acquiring social media spying software that can sweep activists into a web of digital surveillance.” The software monitored “threats to public safety” by tracking hashtags such as #BlackLivesMatter, #DontShoot, #PoliceBrutality and more.
The ACLU reports that, of 63 law enforcement agencies in the state, twenty have acquired powerful social networking surveillance tools such as MediaSonar, X1 Social Discovery and Geofeedia. Worse still, the ACLU notes that they found no evidence that these law enforcement agencies intend to give public notice, hold debate, gather community input or lawmaker votes about use of this invasive technology. No agency “produced a use policy that would limit how the tools were used and help protect civil rights and civil liberties.” It is seemingly and unfortunately common that police forces surveil communities without seeking public consent first. Perhaps they anticipate public objection.
Eyes Across the Skies
Standing outside the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in late June, two dozen people held signs demanding justice for Freddie Gray. Gray, a 25-year-old black man, died in police custody in April 2015. Inside the court, the prosecution argued that officer Caesar Goodson had driven his police van recklessly through the city deliberately tossing Gray’s body around in the back of the van. The reckless ride broke Gray’s neck.
Outside the court, a man standing with the protestors wondered why, with hundreds of street-level cameras around, Baltimore City police did not have video of the incident that led to Gray’s death. Not only were there many cameras that could have recorded something but the city’s police had been testing, without informing the public, an aerial surveillance system adapted from the US military surge in Iraq. An investigation by Bloomberg revealed that the surveillance system uses wide-angle cameras to capture about 30 square miles at any given moment, sending images in real-time to analysts on the ground. The footage is then stored and available for review, weeks later if necessary. The judge acquitted officer Goodson of all charges in the case of Gray. And yet the aerial surveillance system Baltimore police are testing hovered above those protesting outside.
While cameras were not reported to have captured the events that led to Gray’s death, the FBI has released their own video footage confirming surveillance of the Black Lives Matter movement. The FBI recordings date from April 29 to May 3, 2015, and were shot from piloted aircraft and drones. These and other reports, such as the FBI’s surveillance of earlier Black Lives Matter protests that erupted after the 2014 police shooting of 18-year-old black man Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri, contradicts claims by FBI officials who say that the Bureau does not use spy planes to monitor peaceful protests.
In fact, an investigation by the North Star Post in 2015 revealed that at least 100 aircraft are being used by US law enforcement to spy on citizens. These aircraft are equipped with advanced, very high-resolution imaging and video technology — specifically StingRay, the secretive bulk cellular phone-tracking technology, and likely infrared or other night-vision hardware. The Associated Press reported that over just a 30-day period it had traced at least fifty aircraft back to the FBI and had identified more than one hundreds flights in eleven states. But the FBI kept this secretive operation hidden from the US public by registering the aircraft to shell companies that do not exist.
Like the Greek mythological monster, Argos Panoptes, the FBI has placed its eyes across the skies of the nation to mass surveil the public and spy on protesters.
Like the Greek mythological monster, Argos Panoptes, the FBI has placed its eyes across the skies of the nation to mass surveil the public and spy on protesters. Panoptes — from the Greek “Παν” (all) and “οπτικος” (seeing) — was all-seeing because he had a hundred eyes covering his body from head to toes. This monster was the inspiration for utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s proposed correctional prison, the “Panopticon.” Using the model as a metaphor, French philosopher Michel Foucault argued that it illustrated defining power relations in everyday life. Authorities hope that if there is a spying camera overhead — via aircraft, drone, CCTV, any electronic device, or geolocation technology in your maps and social networks — that you will self-correct your behavior. Even if they are not actually spying on you, the threat of someone doing so will go a long way toward maintaining order.
The Economics of Surveillance Capitalism
In his 1964 book, One-Dimensional Man, philosopher Herbert Marcuse argued that in technologically advanced societies totalitarianism can be imposed without terror. This occurs through the transformation of private life into part of an overall system of domination. For Marcuse, the sphere of mass consumption, for instance, went beyond fulfilling basic needs to provide more comfort, luxury and affluence. These incentives not only mask the everyday oppressions that people experience, but they also act as a veneer that traps people’s imaginations from envisioning a different, possibly better way of living.
In today’s technologically advanced information and communications driven world, the process of transforming private life into an overarching system of domination occurs surreptitiously — even if the final product appears everywhere.
Yahoo, for example, is aiming to patent “smart billboards” that will be placed next to freeways, in airports, on ferries, in bars and hotels, public transit systems, intersections and in other public and private spaces. These digital billboards will rely on a range of invasive surveillance technologies such as cell towers, mobile apps, images, video cameras, vehicle navigation, satellites, drones, microphones, motion detectors and “biometric sensors” such as fingerprint, retinal and facial recognition devices. Yahoo’s smart billboards will aim to identify specific individuals, and those who are in the same place at the same time, to determine their demographic data and socio-economic status. They will build profiles on people in their surroundings before serving personalized ads to them. Yahoo has termed this process “grouplization.” Others have labeled this exploitation of personal data for corporate gain as “Stasi capitalism.” New social theories are rapidly emerging in this area.
The process through which technology responds to individuals and groups to surveil and modify human behavior in scalable and profitable ways has been described by Shoshana Zuboff, Professor Emerita at Harvard Business School, as a new sub-species of capitalism known as “surveillance capitalism.” Zuboff describes surveillance capitalism as “a new logic of accumulation.” It is “a novel economic mutation bred from the clandestine coupling of the vast powers of the digital with the radical indifference and intrinsic narcissism of financial capitalism and its neoliberal vision that have dominated commerce for at least three decades, especially in the Anglo economies.”
The incredible evolution of computer processing power, complex algorithms and leaps in data storage capabilities combine to make surveillance capitalism possible. It is the process of accumulation by dispossession of the data that people produce. It occurs in both profound and seemingly benign ways.
Beyond Virtual Reality to Real Liberation
Technologically advanced societies produce ever more personalized lifeworlds. Responsive algorithms suggest the next Netflix video series we can binge watch. Amazon Prime recommends products we might like delivered the next day. Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality games, which supplement and provide revolutionary digital possibilities, are on the rise. This drive towards personalization combines with the latest developments in technology to provide a sense of choice and life satisfaction in a world full of overwhelming inequality and injustice.
The appearance of affluence, the sensation that all knowledge and virtual possibilities are available on the web, at our fingertips, in the palm of our hand, surrounding us wherever we go, is a pixilated distraction from the structural oppression embedded in the totality of everyday life. It is an intoxicating distraction from those who struggle to protect their communities, such as the indigenous peoples at the Standing Rock occupation and the Black Lives Matter movement. It is a distraction from sexism, disempowerment, environmental decay, class rule and racism, while in many ways it also galvanizes these same problems.
What is required today is radical imagination to re-envision how powerful technological change could be repurposed to feed and house the poor, to provide health, education and culture to everyone, to decentralize societies and achieve self-governance, classlessness and democratic autonomy. The number of active virtual reality users is forecast to grow to 171 million by 2018. For people who imagine whole new worlds all the time, imagining just one new world — our own — in which there are ecologically friendly smart homes, smart cities, smart schools and smart hospitals for everyone should not be too difficult. The technology exists. Achieving “communal luxury” for everyone is now more possible than ever.
Yet large firms and state institutions have appropriated and transformed information and communications technologies into some of the most powerful tools for social control the world has ever known. Their networks, platforms and surveillance apparatuses have enabled a dangerous fusion of public and private power and are clearly designed to cement their own positions of privilege and domination. It is up to us, the people and communities most affected, to fight for the re-appropriation, decentralization and re-creation of these technologies in order to make possible new and better ways of living.