If the Term Fascism Accurately Applies to Anyone Today, It Applies Foremost to the Media.

If the term Fascism accurately applies to anyone today, it applies first and foremost to the Media.

The great irony of a media that calls anyone else fascist while themselves being a perfect example of it.

JUPPLANDIA

Fascism is one of those terms rendered almost entirely redundant by over-use and by inaccurate use.

It joins the catalogue of Instant Bullshit Markers, which includes a vast array of discredited words.

Racism, racist, xenophobe, white nationalist, white supremacist, chauvinist, misogynist, imperialism, imperialist, Islamophobia, Islamophobe, settler, coloniser, colonialism, dictator, tyrant, terrorist, freedom fighter, hope, change, empathy, compassion, refugee, genocide, asylum seeker, homophobic, peace, love, kindness, hate speech, social justice, equality, diversity, discrimination, equity and no doubt many others you can also think of.

All of these are words that have been been deliberately distorted, used as weapons, or had their original meaning utterly twisted. Many are simply labels pinned on any right wing position by Marxists and Cultural Marxists and by traitors towards and enemies of the western world. They are the tired cliches of Soviet trained propaganda, and the selective dishonesties of contemporary leftist Globalism and Progressivism.

But the remarkable phenomenon of modern times is that everything once exposed and mocked a generation ago has resurfaced. Student anti-capitalism, radical support for terrorists, Noble Savage idiocies which pretend that modernity, civilisation and white people are inferior to everything else, 1960s style street protest movements, youth support for Communism, and a list of sexual and gender absurdities demanding respect and status, recall the days of Hippy revolt and Charles Manson murders. The Communism defeated with the end of the Cold War has come back with a vengeance, this time perversely funded by and allied with some of the most influential billionaires on the planet. The clarity of Soviet defeat has given way to a society that hates itself and loves its enemies, exactly as predicted by KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov’s description of the stages of demoralisation.

Fascist is now deployed towards everything not just by the student and street protestors, but by the glossy magazines and their editors, as if it’s a serious and real term. Trump has been called a fascist more times than any US President in history, and this ridiculous slur comes from leading politicians, news anchors and ‘experts’ while their capacity to do so directly attests the inaccuracy of the sentiment. Apparently, anyone who opposes mass immigration and open borders, anyone who doesn’t like networks of fraudulent corruption (both financial and electoral), anyone who sees some wars as unnecessary and some as necessary, anyone who resents having their own history and race trashed, replaced and demonised, anyone who notices Islamic terrorism, is now routinely described as a ‘fascist’ as if every element of sensible self protection and accurate rightwing policy is now to be considered a full recreation of Mussolini’s Italy.

The modern use exactly mirrors the Soviet use and the Wolfie Smith use: a label applied to any opponent of Marxism, leftism and its modern inheritors (Globalism and Progressivism).

The rational use of ‘fascism’ would of course restrict it to identifying modern actions, policies and groups that behave in the same ways Mussolini behaved, or that enact the same structural and organisational elements that deny individual freedom, liberty and choice. To understand what these would be is to return to Mussolini’s own definition of fascism, which can be adequately summarised in just two quotes:

“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state,”

And:

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

One should note what is missing from both of these most frequently expressed definitions of fascism by its own founder. There is no mention of nationalism, race, Italian identity, or ethno-nationalism in these core descriptions of what fascism is. There is no mention of any traditional rightwing concept (patriotism, monarchism, social conservatism). And there is direct opposition to the core rightwing attitudes towards the relationship between the citizen and the State (small government, low taxation, individual liberty, and property rights).

In other words both the oldest and most emotive appeals of national loyalty and ethnic identity in rightwing thinking aren’t fascism and neither are the core principles of rightwing governance fascistic. In fact, they are inherently the things that fascism destroys by incorporating everything within the State.

The political systems closest to Mussolini’s definition of fascism are other totalitarian systems that demand complete State control of everything and see no private sphere of conscience, no individualist autonomy, and no traditional inherited rights limiting the State. These close related systems include Communism, from which much of Mussolini’s training and thinking derived, and Islam, which religiously demands the same level of political authority over the individual.

What these quotes expose is that the elements of Mussolini’s rule that seemed rightwing (Italian patriotism and exceptionalism, the adoption of Roman Empire references and imagery) were propaganda tools rather than core features of what fascism is. These were simply the things which Mussolini decided would best sell the core of fascism (total State control) to an Italian audience of the 1920s. The nationalism was insincere tool, while the Communist style total authority was core identity and core definition.

Mussolini’s actual aim, and the actual definition of fascism, is close to identical to Communism. The only distinction comes in a more nuanced and cunning relationship with capitalism. Rather than pure adversarial destruction of capitalism, fascism advocates the harnessing of capitalism to the needs of the Party and of total control. You don’t destroy it and kill all the owners of property. You force or cajole or indoctrinate them into service of the Party and offer the deal that their individual greed and status can be accommodated so long as they are totally loyal to the Party.

This is the same accommodation that Hitler made with Big Business. It’s the same accommodation that the Chinese Communist Party eventually learned to make when it switched pure Maoism out and adopted its current form which combines continuing total Party control with private billionaires and powerful corporations who ALSO serve the Party (and China was advised by the Globalist WEF in doing so).

This fascist corporatism is also the model being enacted in the West to replace competitive and free capitalism. Genuine capitalism requires constant competition and a level playing field for small enterprises to replace or offer alternatives to large ones, and it requires that none of these business interests are acting in political collusion with the State.

Fascist corporatism offers State approval and support to the largest corporate entities, especially in crushing any emergent or independent business that would replace them, and especially in also crushing any individual right, choice or private sphere that denies them access.

And the place where it already exists, more than any other, is in Media.

It is in the media that capitalist competition has given way most fully to corporatist collusion and the concentration of power serving the interests of ‘total State’ authority. By allowing a handful of corporate entities to control legacy media, and by allowing them to operate as adjuncts of a particular vision of the State and a specific Party with totalitarian attitudes, independent thought has been crushed alongside independent commentary.

We are the effects of this during COVID. State political lies, propaganda and censorship served corporate interests, and corporate interests in turn served the expansion of State power and acted as the outsourced agents of free speech suppression. This was pure fascist collusion between the State and corporations as envisaged by Mussolini, and as also perfected by the modern CCP within China. Media excluded and demonised dissenting voices and demanded MORE State oppression for ‘public safety’. State-Media conformity delivered united propaganda while silencing critical voices, including credentialed and expert ones.

Let’s look at just how centralised and concentrated Media power is.

First, the AI response to the frequently cited fact that 90% of the US media is controlled by just six companies:

“The claim that six corporations control 90% of U.S. media is a widely circulated statistic that is considered misleading or inaccurate when applied to the entire modern media landscape, though it reflects a real trend of consolidation in specific sectors.

Origin and Validity
The statistic originates from a 1983 observation that media ownership had concentrated from 50 companies to six, a figure popularized by journalist Ben Bagdikian and later viral memes. While media consolidation has significantly increased, the “90% by six” figure is now viewed as an oversimplification that fails to account for the vast diversity of digital platforms, local outlets, and independent publishers that exist today.

Current Landscape

• Consolidation Exists: A small number of major conglomerates (such as Comcast, Disney, Paramount Global, Warner Bros. Discovery, News Corp, and AT&T) dominate national broadcast networks, cable channels, and major film studios.
• Digital Disruption: The rise of the internet, social media, and streaming has fragmented the market, with Google, Meta, Amazon, and Apple now controlling the majority of online advertising revenue and digital distribution, rather than traditional legacy media companies.
• Local and Independent Media: Thousands of independent newspapers, radio stations, and local TV outlets remain in operation, often owned by smaller chains, non-profits, or individuals, meaning the “Big Six” do not control the entirety of media consumption.

In summary, while a small oligopoly controls a significant portion of mass-market, traditional media, the assertion that six companies control 90% of all media is not accurate for the current, highly diversified digital ecosystem.”

AI summary therefore begins by admitting that the 90% claim is accurate of most of the media landscape, but then using the smaller exceptions (independent commentary in the ‘digital ecosystem’) to pretend otherwise.

This refers to alternative media and individual comment for example on social media, but ignores major limiting factors:

• State censorship and suppression of individual comment, including criminalisation of dissent, which occurred during COVID and has continued with modern legislation on so called hate speech, so called misinformation, and prosecution of individuals for truthful statements or rhetorical and non literal statements. Versions of ‘Online Harms Acts’ and Canada’s blocking of social media sources or the EU’s fining and threats towards X, as well as UK mass imprisonments for social media posts or bodies like the UK’s Ofcom or Australia’s equivalents extending their powers are all part of this.
• Social media company collusion, such as that admitted by Mark Zuckerberg as active during 2020 on electoral fraud and on COVID under pressure from the Biden administration.
• The relatively small number of large scale Alt Media major sources, meaning that these can be prone to the same coordination of messaging and the same subversion towards pure propaganda campaigns that legacy media (simply by malign interests creating these accounts, or paying them to ultimately say the same things as legacy media).

When you distinguish between well funded media and simply individual comment, and ask how much of corporate media is uniformly controlled, the picture is clearer. Take TV and streaming Media for example:

when limited to traditional mainstream media outlets—such as major TV networks, national newspapers, film studios, and broadcast/cable companies—the claim of extreme ownership concentration becomes much more accurate, though the number of controlling entities has evolved.

As of 2026, six major conglomerates dominate the vast majority of traditional U.S. media content and distribution:

1. Comcast (via NBCUniversal) – Owns NBC, Telemundo, MSNBC, CNBC, USA Network, Bravo, Universal Pictures, and 26 local TV stations.
2. The Walt Disney Company – Owns ABC, ESPN, Disney Channel, FX, A&E (partial), National Geographic, and film studios like Marvel, Pixar, and 20th Century Studios.
3. Warner Bros. Discovery – Owns CNN, HBO, TNT, TBS, Cartoon Network, Discovery Channel, and Warner Bros. Pictures.
4. Paramount Global (formerly ViacomCBS) – Owns CBS, The CW (partial), MTV, Nickelodeon, BET, Comedy Central, Showtime, and Paramount Pictures.
5. Sony Group Corporation – Owns Sony Pictures and Columbia Pictures (major film studios), and significant TV production assets.
6. Amazon – Through Amazon MGM Studios and Prime Video, it has become a dominant force in film and television production and distribution.”

And the situation in print media is worse:

“Yes, print media—specifically newspapers and magazines—exhibits significant ownership concentration, though the degree varies by country and sector.

United States

• Newspapers: Ownership is highly consolidated, dominated by a few major chains.
  • Gannett owns USA Today and over 260 local papers.
  • Alden Global Capital controls The Denver Post, New York Daily News, and numerous others through its “Digital First Media” group.
  • Lee Enterprises and Hearst Communications also own dozens of regional papers.
• Magazines & Book Publishing: Concentration is also high.
  • Magazines: Major publishers include Hearst, Bonnier (via licensing), and Future plc (which acquired TI Media, owner of Country Life, Wallpaper, and Cycling Weekly).
  • Book Publishing: The “Big Five” (Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, Hachette) control the vast majority of the market, with Penguin Random House alone holding a dominant share.

United Kingdom

The UK shows even sharper concentration:

• National Newspapers: Just three companies—DMG Media (Daily Mail), News UK (The Sun, The Times), and Reach (Daily Mirror, Express titles)—control 90% of national newspaper circulation.
• Local Newspapers: Two companies, Newsquest and National World, control 51% of all local newspapers.
• Magazines: The market is more diverse but still consolidated among Bauer Media, Future plc, Immediate Media, and Hearst UK.”

So what should we conclude from these summaries?

We should conclude that control of nearly all media (well over 90%) effectively requires influence over just 6 companies, a handful of State funded regulatory bodies, and another handful of the most influential Alt Media podcasters and ‘independent’ voices (who many others will blindly follow).

When all of these are saying the same things in slightly different ways (for example on Trump, or on Iran, or on borders, or on social attitudes) what you have is a perfect example of what Mussolini said fascism is.

The use of ‘fascism’ as an all pervasive label to dismiss dissent, is itself a proof of modern media being, ironically, the most fascist enterprise currently extant (even more-so than transnational bodies who want power without accountability). It demands total conformity of attitudes, it delivers State propaganda, it colludes with State censorship, omission and suppression, and it denies individual freedom, liberty, and political choice.

---

This article (If the term Fascism accurately applies to anyone today, it applies first and foremost to the Media.) was created and published by Jupplandia and is republished here under “Fair Use”

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.