Dr. Laurence W. Britt in his article, Fascism Anyone? in Free Inquiry Magazine, Volume 23 Number 2 has assembled 14 tell-tale signs of fascism for our benefit by compiling a list of fascist all-stars and all-star regimes and comparing their and their governments' common traits to those of the current President (coincidentally, George W. Bush) and his policies. In the light of casual examination, perfunctory fairness and common sense, Dr. Britt's "scholarship" fails to shine.

You can find the original Britt article here and an exciting video of the same naked truth here.

My counterpoints to "fascist giveaway number one" may be found here, to number two, here and to number three, here.

Now to points four and five. (Two this session because they're so easy.) Britt's point four. "The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

George W. Bush wears a business suit to work each day. One landing on a carrier deck, in uniform, no more makes a militarist than one drink makes an alcoholic. The fascist regimes with which Doctor Larry tries to equate George W. Bush were military dictatorships. Their leaders wore their soldier gear to bed each night. Does the president of the United States have a right to support the military? No. It is his duty. He is commander and chief of our armed forces. As far as disproportionate military budgets, I ask Larry, disproportionate to what? Britain nearly went bankrupt defending itself during World War II. Help us here, doctor, was their investment in defense large enough to throw Churchill on your suspected fascist list? As the fuzzy thinking continues, Dr. Britt's comparisons, especially here, are ludicrous.

Point five. "Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses"

I say we'll just have to forgive GWB for not keeping sweet Madeleine Albright on. We concede that Bush's administration lacks the active, nimble feminine participation of the Clinton administration--all the way down to the intern level--but all in all "male-dominated" clearly does not apply. As for the anti-abortion position, is Dr. Larry suggesting that this is an exclusively fascist position? I think he is!

Now, because we always take scholars seriously, we'll have to take a closer look at fascism vis-a-vis the Pope.

As far as homophobic-fascism, where in the US are the "Draconian laws" against homosexuals (required to "perfect" the analogy) ramrodded through congress with support of the "orthodox religion of the country." While we're at it, what is the orthodox religion of the United States? Apparently, only Doctor L. knows.

Through five "analytical" points, if, above the level of fifth grade, my child handed in a homework assignment as flawed, superficial and illogical as Dr. Britt's, I would expect him to fail the assignment and also schedule the poor kid for an intense session of counseling.