FASCISM THEN AND NOW
by John Pilger
 

 

Check out this Znet Sustainer article.

I think it's a shame that the essential idea of this Blog subject is being incarcerated by this superfluous argument over the use of various terms and ideologies. We all understand what Mr Paul Street is trying to say when he mentions the term Fascism and if one tries to undulate this meaning, they are only doing so because they disapprove with the blog – and if you think the Bush administration is doing the right thing with Habeas Corpus and the rest then please put forward a constructive and decent argument as to why you think such attacks on Liberty are justified. The evolution of words has been going on since the dawn of time – and in the discipline of social science terms and ideological perspectives change for good or bad continually. Communism – text book theory and ideology  - very different to how term is used and has been in China – Russia.  There are numerous example of this – in fact in my homeland country England; Mr Blair with his Labour party were historically meant to be part of the progressive left – but as soon as they gained power they evolved further and further to the right. Until truly power had corrupted them completely – and all the hallmarks of an authoritarian (Dare I say…perhaps Fascist) state are becoming all too evident. The point here is that discourse has become almost irrelevant – our politicians talk on and on about protecting our Freedoms – while almost continually eroding them – in a policy to protect them and us….. The world is full of contradiction – some of it has become too much to tolerate. The meanings of the words will change, but the people will continue to die – and our rights will continue to be eroded. That is unless we start to rise against the powers that be.

Upon what information do you support this "fact"? You are the first person, outside of a few nuts and cranks and argumentative assholes, I have heard make such an association. Please give me some references. And please, don't quote Wikipedia - it's already been trashed for it's reliability. I would prefer the reference to an actual, legitimate source. No "Anonymousae" accepted please.

The world knows the real name for the Dept of Homeland Security.

This has been a really great discussion. I have been thinking about this issue for some 22 years. Corruption rules the world, especially A-Mare-Ika. 

We watch as our government continually developes a Fascist nation as we waive the flag and recite the "Pledge of Allegiance" - the greatest lie ever told to the  world.  Our government has used our national ignorance ( caused by a corrupt educational system which is focused on lies and not truth or developing critical thinkers) and fear to get the common man to focus on the Trees (B.S. Social Issues) so that we would not see the Forest (Who is getting the Money). Everything we argue about from a social perspective has little to do with the real focus of all governments, and what is really issue #1.  All government throughout recorded history has been about one thing and one thing only, "Who Gets The Money". A-Mari-Ika will kill anyone who stands in the way of the personal wealth of its $Billionaires or any $Billionaire were ever they may reside.  The curent election and falling price of Oil prove the point beyond Question. Oil is being manipulated for political advandage worldwide, 911 was the catalyst.

911 was masterminded to put the fear of God/ Government into us all. It worked and worked beyond all expectations. 911 was funded by the corruption of huge Oil profits from OPEC nations and US Oil which directly benefited. New Orleans should have scared us even more. But I did not.

We kill as a nation in support of Oil wealth - all wealth. Governments all over the world could care less how many people die. The 2,985 people who died on 911, became one big show and battle cry, "They hate us and our way of life".  Must be true - our "President" said it -and he's a "Christian" who cannot tell a lie. Great who do will kill.  http://www.ourcivilisation.com/usa/toll.htm The dead can't hate us anymore, nor can they kill us. But our government bet your life that their parents and family and friends would gracefully forgive us, you kow like the Christians - an eye for an eye.

Saving face has tragically caused our irrational society led by a corrupt government to kill many many times more innocent Iraqis - 45,000 approx. Plus 3,000 young fools who would die for corruption. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Every year in America roughly 8/10 of 1% of the population dies - in 2004 that was 2,398,343 of our fellow Americans. Most were over 65 years old (1,717,218 -1996 data) and died from naturally occurring conditions of old age, old worn out bodies. Lets wage a war on God and when we find the prick kill him, a rational mind would come to the conclusion that he must hate us too. http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/ http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

Why don't we wage a war on our neighbors who manufacture cars and trucks and ladders and tall buildings and boats and swimming pools and drugs and chemicals and surgeons and guns and pillows and food and take 15 times the lives of our own population. God knows they all must hate us too or they wouldn't manufacture products that kill people in "accidents'.  http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/toptens/accidents/accidentsFULL.html

Finally, I would like to point out that the countries in the Arab world which hate us so much, actually must have a greater respect for life of their own citizens because they all beat A-Mare-Ika's Mortality rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate

Thomas Jefferson once said "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." Today's conspirators against a civil society, be they politicians or corporate CEO's, are rarely prosecuted for their stone-cold, heartless, inhumane actions. Systemic socially witnessed corruption permeates our institutions. Everything, even those in power, is sacrificed at the altar of the true god, money.

Wow Paul, you're great at missing the important detail of "coordinated central planning" and the elimination of "private initiative."  The fact is, fascism is a leftist ideology, both politically and economically. 

Anonymous , you should do your readings a bit, none over here espouse the old soviet union style of system. I understand you would like to re-animate a Stalin ghost when portraying the left but if you do your reading you know you are lying to yourself by claiming a resurgence of something that should stay buried. 22 millions people died during WWII , a lot of them fighting against fascim..and as Street and Peterson pointed out, americans are continuing free fall into fascim with the rise of neocons If it walks like hitler and talks like hitler, its sure is not a duck but is a GW Bush to me.. And what is this all the legalized torture and secret prisons, isnt this a resurgence of the Ges.. err Bushtapo? and my dear anonymous, most people compared Hitler to an anti-Christ.. I am sorry my friend, Hitler Ghost is ruling over the US. Heil your TV..

"That sounds like communist China, Vietnam, Cuba, USSR, Serbia under Millosevic, the entire Arab world sans Jordan, Iran, and Zimbabwae to name a few. (Which begs the question, why isn't the left against those goverments?" STREET: Left anarchists and libertarian socialists(a ZNet is significantly linked historically and otherwise affiliated with a left anarch position)have long talked about and worked against aspects of what some of them have called "red fascism" (as in the old Soviet state). Rosa Luxembourg's critique of Lenninism was quite sharp and pronounced and Bakunin made some remarkably prescient warnings about statist-authoritarian Marxism ala the old East Bloc. The radical-democratic left (ie, much of ZNet) is against Saudi state authoritarianism, the old Soviet state, and the rest. The fascism of which I am thinking emerges in core capitalist states; it has some real parallels with authoritarian regimes in other parts of the world system but those are different formations that often lack an electoral-democratic legacy to be degraded and overthrown. "Paul seems rather found of pointing out that under fascist economic policy private property remains sacrosanct." STREET: This is rather odd and needlessly antagonistic. I point something out - I make a factual observation - and this means that I am especially "proud" to be pointing it out? Please. And it's about more than private property staying sacrosanct. The record of fascism is that private capitalist power is enhanced by fascism's role in disciplinng labor, the left, and anyone else who dares to question authoritarian social hiearchy. "What Paul repeatedly fails to state, however, is that the State, i.e., 'the collective, or the central planning comittee (paracon?), not only determines WHAT is to be produced, but at what cost it is sold and how much profit can be had. Simply put 'Fascist economic planning seeks to coordinate the economy to serve the what is held to be in the interests of the "common good" rather than allowing "private initiative" seek its own course." That my friends, is exactly what the economy of the left seeks to do. STREET: Every dominant economic system claims to serve the interests of the common good: capitalism in its different variants has always generated leading propagandists claiming it does that; this was a core claim of state-socialism. Of course classic fascism and contemporary post-WWII American capitalism privilege private wealth and military production and are so far from serving the common good that the claim is laughable. State socialism ala USSR clearly served elite class interests in numerous ways and it has been interesting to see how easily it moved (with some very disastrous consequences for Russian people however) into the capitalist system. This "anonymous (not verified)" seems to think the very effort to genuinely act on egalitarian and common good principles (as I think Parecon tries/promises)is inherently fascist because socialist. What's more he says that "progressivism" is fairly much indistuigishable from "communism"...so apparently left-liberals like say...I don't know, John Conyers (D-Michigan) are really for all intents and purposes communists and are therefore fascists. How's that for a scary world view. That's part of how real life American far right authoritarians (I won't say [even proto-] "fascists"....it just causes too much craziness) think. At the very least we see here some good old American McCarthyism-(J.Edgar)Hooverism. I have the distinct impression that this "anonymous" is in fact the return of the previously banned "yakov bok" (who incidentally made all kinds of Chicago references before his banning). Old-timers on this blog will readily observe the similarities.

Again, read the bill.  

People named Victor will not arbitrarly be rounded up (sadly) because enemy combatant is defined.  Hence, when someone questioned the possibility of "innocent foreign fighters" being caught in a legal web, if they are fighting against the U.S., they are enemy combatants and that is whom the bill targets.  Thus, the bill effects domestic U.S. life in that it provides the a legal means of recourse against those who fight against the U.S.  I suppose the general sentiment on Znet is that there should be no recourse against those who fight against the U.S.  Just let them fight.

As for lumping all people on the left together, the difference between the manifestations of communism, socialism, and progressivism appear so slight that it boils down to nothing more than semantics.  Whether it be Paracon or collectivism, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

 

A point I would like to add, is whenever a Bush military appointed Judge pre-decides a guilty verdict before a hearing ( like an hypocrite) and some time later justifies his verdict along and say the detainee received due process.. Our north american legal system have flaws that are really detrimental to citizens, suggesting worst than the existing one seem over board.

I might add to JD's statement here that this kind of political bigotry is precisely the psychology that will eventually prevail when those in authority decide that these leftist pinkos are in fact acting against the interests of the USA during war, by their consistent disagreement with a War Administration are thereby aiding terrorists and therefore should be placed under containment. Bush is solely responsible for defining "enemy combatant". The military's responsibility is to make certain his definition is adhered to. So if Bush defines enemy combatant as all people named Victor, I get arrested and the military confirms that they have arrested me with good cause ; i.e., my name is truly Victor. As for Judicial Review, there is none except where a trial takes place. If there is no trial, there is no judicial review. And the defendant explicitly cannot appeal to the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, people can rot in jail forever if the Administration takes no action against them, as has happened at Guantanamo, illegally according to the Supreme Court, but under this law legally since Congress has authorised the president to take such action. But what concerns me most about Anonymous is his apparent total lack of concern that anything could possibly go pear-shaped with all this. The simple trust in Congress and the President to "do what is right", and the almost flagrant disregard for those in foreign lands who might be caught up innocently in this web. The Administration does not have a good record here. Detainees are still wasting away in Guantanamo after years who have yet to be charged with anything. Is this the how we want to be known for treating people, citizen or not? Is this the spirit of America? Is this what Americans are fighting today to protect? God help America if it is filled with people like Anonymous.

Anonymous— You “wonder if any of you actually bothered to read the text of the bill you are condemning.” Being one of the “you,” (but not one equating the Bush administration with “Fascism”—I think that word usage is strategic, with holocaustic implications, but I do see a problem with the Bush administration's beefing up the power of the executive office, etc. (I've commented on Paul's blog before that he seems to imply we have a “figurehead dictator”))—I'll respond a bit. I think your bias is exposed by your will “not effect domestic life” comment. The key word being “domestic.” As if it doesn't matter, as long as the law doesn't pertain to “US.” What about the possibility of some innocent foreigner falling into this new legal web? And doesn't the US posture towards foreigners have effects on the domestic “US” too? My comments above (“Truth Control”), about secret interrogation methods established by the president being anti-democratic is worrisome, if not fascistic. Maybe you would agree that, with increased surveillance, less legal rights, and international yet less multilateral “policing,” such as with the war in Iraq, the US is becoming more Authoritarian: TO THE REST OF THE WORLD! Although neither left nor right myself, I think you lump all the left together, with a sort of political bigotry (“They all look alike”)—some at ZNet are into participatory economics, for example, which I believe tries to avoid central planning and economic hegemony, with decentralized group efforts (I have problems with it too, but it is something different than re-packaged socialism—and is aimed at countering the central planning that many have come to see as impossibly complex, corrupting, and disproportionately empowering to a “coordinator class”). Possibly, like some who lean towards the left calling elements of the right fascist, you hint that those on the left are all communists—can you see the hint of hypocrisy implied? The real political scene, IMO, is more subtle than classic fascism vs. communism, even if the rhetoric is not.

First, I have to wonder if any of you actually bothered to read the text of the bill you are condemning.  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109y6n7gG

The bill specifically targets enemy combatants and will have not effect domestic life.  The bill creates military courts to review the status of those declared to be enemy combatants.  That is exactly what critics of Gitmo wanted.  Now that the critics got what they wanted, they still aren't happy?  It makes no sense.  Also, judicial review does exist in the bill under the appeals section.  For those criticizing the bill, and calling the government fascist, or proto-fascist (whatever that is), please read the bill. 

 

Paul's charatersitcs of fascism: "extreme militarism, heavy intolerance of dissent, trashing of civil liberties,the collapsing of a weakened twilight democracy concentration of state power, severe degradation of substantive electoral democracy/parlamentarianism, the drastic shrinking of public democratic space, centralized control of information and culture, heavily propagandized communication structures, suppression of unions, a strong alliance between concentrated capital and a repressive state, mass imprisonment, disdain for reason/the Enlightenment, concentration of state power (but not a state-command economy: private ownership and private remains sacrosanct), racism/racial demonization, imperialist foreign policy, hyper-nationalism, extreme male chauvinism, and extreme blood-and-soil nationalism. "

That sounds like communist China, Vietnam, Cuba, USSR, Serbia under Millosevic, the entire Arab world sans Jordan, Iran, and Zimbabwae to name a few.  (Which begs the question, why isn't the left against those goverments?)

Paul seems rather found of pointing out that under fascist economic policy private property remains sacrosanct.  What Paul repeatedly fails to state, however, is that the State, i.e., "the collective," or the central planning comittee (paracon?), not only determines WHAT is to be produced, but at what cost it is sold and how much profit can be had.  Simply put "Fascist economic planning seeks to coordinate the economy to serve the what is held to be in the interests of the "common good" rather than allowing "private initiative" seek its own course."  That my friends, is exactly what the economy of the left seeks to do. 

Two links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Fascism.html

So Paul, yes, you are using fascist or proto-fascist broadly. So broadly in fact, that you are incorporating liberal ideology that has nothing to do with the collective central planning that is essential to leftist ideology.

 

 

 

Not much better, but according to Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, US citizens can get picked up but retain habeus corpus.

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, I think Senator Leahy really got it right. I mean, what this bill authorizes is really the authority of an authoritarian despot to the president. I mean, what it gives him is the power, as the senator said, to detain any person anywhere in the world, citizen or non-citizen, whether living in the United States or anywhere else. I mean, what kind of authority is that? No checks and balances. Nothing. Now, if you're a citizen, you still get your right of habeas corpus. If you're a non-citizen, as the senator pointed out, you're completely finished. Picked up, legal permanent resident in the United States, detained forever, no writ of habeas corpus.

Full interview on Democracy Now! with Michael Ratner and Senator Patrick Leahy: 

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/29/150254

I admit to following some others (especially the prolific Giroux) in using the term "fascism" and (the one I use more often) "proto-fascism" in a fairly broad way. There's a literature (I'll try to link some pieces of later...and I have pasted in a Sheldon Wolin article at the bottom of this comment) on a bigger uber-fascism that is not restricted to the brownshirts of interwar and wartime Europe and involves such standard interrelated charecteristics as extreme militarism, heavy intolerance of dissent, trashing of civil liberties,the collapsing of a weakened twilight democracy concentration of state power, severe degradation of substantive electoral democracy/parlamentarianism, the drastic shrinking of public democratic space, centralized control of information and culture, heavily propagandized communication structures, suppression of unions, a strong alliance between concentrated capital and a repressive state, mass imprisonment, disdain for reason/the Enlightenment, concentration of state power (but not a state-command economy: private ownership and private remains sacrosanct), racism/racial demonization, imperialist foreign policy, hyper-nationalism, extreme male chauvinism, and extreme blood-and-soil nationalism. For me a lot these things can and do happen without mass mobilized petit-bourgeois brownshirts/blackshirts rioting in the streets and targeting dissenters under the cold direction of Mussolini et al. In some other essay or post  (can't remember where) I said that classic European interwar fascism ala Hitler and Mussolini would be unnecessary and oddly redundant in the U.S. where the basic ruling-class objectives are achieved in a de facto sort of way and more through popular de-mobilization than through mobilization....if that makes any sense.  In the U.S. there's a role for infantilizing mass media and another oddly related one for evangelical pseudo-Christianity that would have to be factored in.  Maybe the term is too loaded to be employed in a politically useful way...I don't know. On that note:  

 

 

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
	Published on Friday, July 18, 2003 by Long Island NY Newsday A Kind of Fascism Is Replacing Our Democracy by Sheldon S. Wolin   Sept. 11, 2001, hastened a significant shift in our nation's self-understanding. It became commonplace to refer to an "American empire" and to the United States as "the world's only superpower." Instead of those formulations, try to conceive of ones like "superpower democracy" or "imperial democracy," and they seem not only contradictory but opposed to basic assumptions that Americans hold about their political system and their place within it. Supposedly ours is a government of constitutionally limited powers in which equal citizens can take part in power. But one can no more assume that a superpower welcomes legal limits than believe that an empire finds democratic participation congenial. No administration before George W. Bush's ever claimed such sweeping powers for an enterprise as vaguely defined as the "war against terrorism" and the "axis of evil." Nor has one begun to consume such an enormous amount of the nation's resources for a mission whose end would be difficult to recognize even if achieved. Like previous forms of totalitarianism, the Bush administration boasts a reckless unilateralism that believes the United States can demand unquestioning support, on terms it dictates; ignores treaties and violates international law at will; invades other countries without provocation; and incarcerates persons indefinitely without charging them with a crime or allowing access to counsel. The drive toward total power can take different forms, as Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union suggest. The American system is evolving its own form: "inverted totalitarianism." This has no official doctrine of racism or extermination camps but, as described above, it displays similar contempt for restraints. It also has an upside-down character. For instance, the Nazis focused upon mobilizing and unifying the society, maintaining a continuous state of war preparations and demanding enthusiastic participation from the populace. In contrast, inverted totalitarianism exploits political apathy and encourages divisiveness. The turnout for a Nazi plebiscite was typically 90 percent or higher; in a good election year in the United States, participation is about 50 percent. Another example: The Nazis abolished the parliamentary system, instituted single-party rule and controlled all forms of public communication. It is possible, however, to reach a similar result without seeming to suppress. An elected legislature is retained but a system of corruption (lobbyists, campaign contributions, payoffs to powerful interests) short-circuits the connection between voters and their representatives. The system responds primarily to corporate interests; voters become cynical, resigned; and opposition seems futile. While Nazi control of the media meant that only the "official story" was communicated, that result is approximated by encouraging concentrated ownership of the media and thereby narrowing the range of permissible opinions. This can be augmented by having "homeland security" envelop the entire nation with a maze of restrictions and by instilling fear among the general population by periodic alerts raised against a background of economic uncertainty, unemployment, downsizing and cutbacks in basic services. Further, instead of outlawing all but one party, transform the two-party system. Have one, the Republican, radically change its identity: From a moderately conservative party to a radically conservative one. From a party of isolationism, skeptical of foreign adventures and viscerally opposed to deficit spending, to a party zealous for foreign wars. From a party skeptical of ideologies and eggheads into an ideologically driven party nurturing its own intellectuals and supporting a network that transforms the national ideology from mildly liberal to predominantly conservative, while forcing the Democrats to the right and and enfeebling opposition. From one that maintains space between business and government to one that merges governmental and corporate power and exploits the power-potential of scientific advances and technological innovation. (This would differ from the Nazi warfare organization, which subordinated "big business" to party leadership.) The resulting dynamic unfolded spectacularly in the technology unleashed against Iraq and predictably in the corporate feeding frenzy over postwar contracts for Iraq's reconstruction. In institutionalizing the "war on terrorism" the Bush administration acquired a rationale for expanding its powers and furthering its domestic agenda. While the nation's resources are directed toward endless war, the White House promoted tax cuts in the midst of recession, leaving scant resources available for domestic programs. The effect is to render the citizenry more dependent on government, and to empty the cash-box in case a reformist administration comes to power. Americans are now facing a grim situation with no easy solution. Perhaps the just-passed anniversary of the Declaration of Independence might remind us that "whenever any form of Government becomes destructive ..." it must be challenged. Sheldon S. Wolin is emeritus professor of politics at Princeton University and the author of "Politics and Vision: The Presence of the Past" and "Alexis de Tocqueville: Between Two Worlds."

 

 

david wrote: My point, however, about the use of the label 'facism' for contemporary American institutions and conduct is simply that everyone needs to remember that we are now talking about Americans. To me, it would make no more sense to attribute the rise of Mussolini and Hitler and Tojo et al. to the spread of Americanism in these countries, than it does to attribute what we observe taking place in the United States today to the spread of fascism.

David, I see your point across the Board, fascism and this american phenomenon fascism is so alike , its confuzzling
as to differentiate whom was the father of whom..

 

Someone once said ( I dont know who..)That the greatest trick the devil would pulled out was to make believe that he did not exist.
It does seem that americans cannot recognizes that the US is doing a free fall into fascism , it might take time but slowly, hopefully americans will awaken before too many pay the price to evil.

 

David, the wikipedia is somwhat general on many issues, it is very helpful on technical stuff.

I though Richard Lion Heart prompted the third crusade..

 

----------------------

Hey , mr Brown-Shirt, why don't go Heil your TV..

Thanks to Truthout: Gonzales Cautions Judges on Interfering By Michael J. Sniffen The Associated Press Friday 29 September 2006 Washington - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is defending President Bush's anti-terrorism tactics in multiple court battles, said Friday that federal judges should not substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime. See full story - http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/093006Y.shtml So now the Bush Administration is getting so confident over their newly won powers that they are openly threatening sitting Federal Judges! This is an incredible age we live in.

Paul:

Every honest analysis of phenomena such as fascism, Nazism, and the like, is valuable.  As one of several examples, you've mentioned Giroux's The Terror of Neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the Eclipse of Democracy (Garamond Press, 2004).  Our "Anonymous" interlocutor (2006-10-01 16:13) has pointed us toward a Wikipedia entry.  And even as compromised a source as Wikipedia itself archives some very helpful material: 'Fascism' and 'Definitions of fascism'.  

Among my own favorite discussions are Robert Brady's The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism (1937, reprinted by Howard Fertig Inc., 1969), and Brady's Business as a System of Power (Columbia University Press, 1943).  (Though the system of power established in the States on account of managing the war-time effort during World War II has metastasized uncontrollably since the early days.)     

My point, however, about the use of the label 'facism' for contemporary American institutions and conduct is simply that everyone needs to remember that we are now talking about Americans.  To me, it would make no more sense to attribute the rise of Mussolini and Hitler and Tojo et al. to the spread of Americanism in these countries, than it does to attribute what we observe taking place in the United States today to the spread of fascism.  Even if they're perfectly homologous phenomena.  So that when the system of power headquarted in places such as Washington, New York, Cambridge Mass., and elsewhere (e.g., 10 Downing Street, West Jerusalem, and at the helm of aircraft carriers, Guantanamo Bay, wherever) carries out its purposes and functions, to me there seems less to be gained and more to be lost by labeling it 'fascism', than by labeling it 'American'.  A critical, consciousness-raising problem lies in bringing contemporary thought more into line with contemporary fact.  In our age, a state that can militarily invade other countries, in violation of the UN Charter, treaty-based and customary international law, can disable the UN Security Council from taking any measures to counter it, and then on top of this, can use both the Security Council and the Secretary-General to help it place the stamp of pseudo-legitimacy upon the whole of its criminal conduct, isn't fascist.  Rather it's American.  Only the Americans can pull off something like this. 

Etc.  Etc.  Etc.  Across the board.

Thus the "conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry," with "total influence--economic, political, even spiritual--[that] is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government," and possessing "unwarranted influence" over the lives of everybody on the planet (Dwight D. Eisenhower, January, 1961), is not a fascist phenomenon, ultimately.  Rather it is an American phenomenon.

In this respect, compare the Wikipedia entries for 'Fascism' and for 'American'.  On the one hand, immediate recognition of a violent and dangerous historical phenomenon dating from 70 years ago.  And on the other, utter intellectual demobilization about a comparable though far more dangerous phenomenon in our day.

 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Postscript. Just to show everybody a snapshot of how biased Wikipedia can be, Wikipedia's Main Page this morning (Monday, Oct. 2) contains an entry under the category "On this day..." titled:

1187 - The Siege of Jerusalem: Ayyubid forces led by Saladin captured Jerusalem, prompting the Third Crusade.   

Prompting the so-called "Third Crusade," my friends? 

 

For those persons deemed to be "enemy combatants" (as defined by the Dark One ONLY and those who are deemed to be in support of "terrorist" (again, as defined by the Emperor or His Appointed Minions) organisations and activities which in turn support terrorists, the following human and citizen rights have been removed by Act of the Congress of the United States at the request of the Dark One:

1. Habeas Corpus has been suspended, an ancient right that goes back to the Magna Carta

2. The right to protection against illegal search and seizure - even illegally obtained evidence can now be used in a court (military of course) in "terrorist" cases

3. The right to Judicial Review - Courts would have no right to review the new system of Presidential reforms except where a military trial has been held (see below under "Lock-em Up and Throw Away the Key")

4. Again, the right to protection against illegal search and seizure - a bill is now before Congress at the Dark One's request to remove the restrictions recently imposed by the Courts concerning the NSA Wiretapping of US Citizens. Such folks will no longer be protected if this bill is passed.

5. Lock-em Up and Throw Away the Key - Anyone deemed an enemy combatant by the Dark One (under His definition ONLY, wherever he or she lives (in the US or outside) can be summarilly arrested without warrant and held forever if the Emperor pleases. It's possible that people could just....disappear.

6. Coerced evidence is now admissible if a judge (military) considers it reliable and relevant. Coercion already determined before the 2005 Detainee Treament Act is exempted from procescution - so Bush and all below him are exempt.

7. Protection from secret evidence is removed. All evidence presented against an enemy combatant defendant does not need to be disclosed to him, even hearsay.

8. Torture as defined by the Geneva Conventions is now modified to being torture as defined by the Emperor.

9. If you are one of those misfortunates to have been arrested as an enemy combatant AND you are lucky enough to be brought to trial, it will not be a trial of your peers, but instead a military trial under military law, and you will have only limited ability to appeal.

People, these are not changes to the law that will only affect proven enemies of the United States. They are laws passed by YOUR Congress and demanded by YOUR President to protect YOU from anyone, anywhere who HE deems as an enemy or in support of enemies. So if you think a person must be guilty if the authorities arrest him. And if you think that he deserves whatever treatment given and whatever rights are taken from him because of that, then think again. It could easily happen to you or one of your loved ones. It might be noted that of the 700 detainees sent to Guantanamo only 10 have actually been charged with anything. There are at least 2 folks today who have been sent overseas and tortured for up to a year secretly until it was determined that they were innocent in the first place, one a Canadian. This gives you an indication of the reliability by which arrests are made and what this country can expect.

Is this now a country we want protected? Are these the laws our sons and daughters sign up to defend? Is this the really society we want, that we work for and struggle for and want our children to inherit? Is this the country our forefathers fought for? It's got the stench of death about it. My nose is filled with disgust. We have given our precious freedoms over to tyranny in the name of security. And the ironic thing about it all is that we, and the world, are less secure today than we have ever been. Apologies for being so long-winded (as usual), but I'm afraid all this is beginning to wear on me.

The use of secret interrogation techniques does not smell like the “transparent” democracy that President Bush himself has advocated publicly. What does he advocate privately? » What and what else does he advocate privately? IMO, Bush could not keep torture and secret prisons for too long.. The beszt appraoch was to try make it permissible. Heil your TVs..

This is my take on it (hardly authoritative):

Yes, indeed, there are similarities between fascism and the bolshevik (sp.?) form of socialism that was sweeping through Russia and floating around Europe before world war II. Both entail state co-ordinated economies, with a different set of political and social ideologies to justify the control. Both are dictatorial, heirarchical, top down societies that observe few or no limits on their power over citizen's lives, either individually or in groups.

Both were essentially competing alternative systems to laissez-faire post-mercantilist capitalism, which was seen to have driven the world into a deep depression by the 1930s. A third constellation of systems, those of a social democratic caste, are essentially mixed responses to the problems of modern economic management - also not without their authoritarian tendencies. My belief is that there are other possible arrangements as well, linked to libertarian socialism.

But to clear things up for you, anon, I think a lot of people use it pejoratively in a general sense that roughty translates to an ugly, militarist, repressive authoritarianism. This is because of the resonance fascism has with people in the western hemisphere. In the parts of the world that suffered under the Soviet empire, people probably use the term "socialist" in the same way, to mean the same thing. Once you can sort of wrap yourself around this idea, I think you'll be able to get at the intended meaning instead of getting distracted with the choice of terms. Every ideological framework has it's nomenclature, and this non-specific use of fascism is hardly limited to the political left.

One more thing: the U.S. government HAS explicitly moved in the direction of an ugly, militarist, repressive authoritarianism with alarming speed since 9/11. So too have other governments, such as mine (Canada). Whatever you want to call it, it represents a perilous roll-back of freedoms and social justice. Complacency, (like waiting for the Supreme Court to knock stuff down) is not advisable for any of us, lest history moves to teach us lessons we already paid a heavy price learning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 - StudioBendib (Khalil Bendib, September 30, 2006)

 

Although I'm tempted I think I'll leave it to Paul, David, and Victor to ably respond to anonymous comments which only demonstrate how very exasperating the work ahead of us is. I just want to respond to Paul's mention of how "it could happen here". It did, it did, it did happen here. I'm never worried about the apocalypse the "militant militarists" pray for because I think in one big sense it already occurred, we're on the other side of it, and feeling like I have nothing to lose makes it that much easier to do something meaningful. To echo the last line of Paul's original post: authority is always granted. . . which is a wonderful thing to think about. It means that we can show our backs to inane and (yes I also do think) fascist laws and flip the bird to would-be captors and prison guards. As long as we're doing relevant book recommendations, I read Nabokov's Invitation to a Beheading this summer and though I didn't like so much his little dig at Orwell in the foreword, I found the last page incredibly inspiring with regard to what we can and should do since it has "happened here". Keir The Hague

Oh Paul, classic propaganda.  You bolster your view of fascism by linking to communists/socialists/anarchist authors who of course are going to distance themselves from their black sheep cousins, the fascists.  How about reading something from a non-lefty? Someone, say, who isn't going to be as tainted in his view? 

Here's a link to the good ol' peoples encyclopedia Wikipedia.  Read what some of these economists say about the fascist economy and socialism. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

I can't keep track of all the Anonymous (Anomynatti?)though there appears to be one ("not verified") who is childishly confused in equating fascism with socialism and then has the temerity to lecture progressives on their alleged ignorance of history and the meaning of words. That equation would have been a big surprise to the masses of socialists and communists and other radicals who were beaten and often slaughtered by classic European fascism (1918-1945) and later by U.S.-sponsored Third World fascism.

Private ownership of the means of production and distribution remained very much intact under classic German Nazism and indeed profit rates were increased by fascist war production and fascist smashing of the working-class and the left.

As a history professor once said to me when I was an undergraduate: "go read a book, you might learn something." 

For a spellbinding introduction to the merging of business interests and the Nazi agenda one can start with William Manchester's classic history The Arms of Krupp but there's much more. Another corrective might be Daniel Guerin's Fascism and Big Business.  Leon Trotsky's The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany is also worth a read. Hitler's famous testament Mein Kampf probably contained more spite towards Marxism than towards any religious or ethno-cultural group.    

While I agree with David that we are dealing with homegrown (United States of) American authoritarianism/imperialism/racism etc. I guess I don't agree with his application of the term fascism only to the classic interwar European strain or with the notion that the terms fascism or proto-fascism have no relevant applicability to U.S. circumstances. For some suggestive reflections of a different nature (suggesting a broader use of the term fascism), see the first chapter of Henry A. Giroux's book The Terror of Neoliberalism.  

To (I think it was) Victor: no,sadly I do not think you are "being too paranoid."  These sorts of laws and this sort of rhetoric (which I am seeing in Republican Party campaign commercials trying to link an Iowa Democratic Congressional candidate's [Bruce Braley's] anti-war position to "the Communist Party") are part of the early processes of how it could happen here. The long term and savage degradation of democracy and basic civil libertiies are potentially part of the prelude to the rise and victory of yes a very American version of fascism.  Martin Luther King, Jr. used to warn audiences about the possibility of an American fascist police state. 

In any event, I say Americans worried about fascism should spend less time focusing on the alleged Islamo-version ("Islamofascism")and more on the potential American strain, which is richly tied up with business and Evangelgical "Christian" agendas and institutions.  

Finally, one "anonynomous" (who appears to be from Chicago) repeats an earlier charge by challenging "Paul and David" to "go into the Englewood and Austin neighborhoods and try to recruit to your point of view. Good luck. (for those of you who don't know, those neighborhoods are why Chicago has been the murder capital or runner up for the past few years)."

I've spoken in both deeply poor and heavily segregated neighborhoods and find if anything that people there are more radical than many ostendibly left intellectuals. The conditions in those neighborhoods (themselves just two of the 22 90-percent-or-more black neighborhoods in Chicago...why did this "anonymous" leave out North Lawndale or Oakland or East Garfield Park or Riverdale or Grand Boulevard or Greater Grand Crossing?) give rise to excessive violence as a completely predictable matter of course.  See my project study The Vicious Circle: Race, Prison, Jobs and Community in Chicago, Illinois, and the Nation by linking here. I loathe right-wing authoritarians' racist insistence on  confusing causes with consequences as a routine default mechanism to blame the victims of savage social/racial hiearchy for their own position at the bottom of the nation's gigantic pyramids of inequality.  

 

 

Think globally, act locally.  There seems to be very little of that.

Less talk, more action Mr. Peterson.

Why are you so concerned with the identity of a blogger while ignoring the message? 

But I don't play with punks who hide behind anonymity.  Fake usernames.  And the like.  Cases in which the evidence of one's punkhood is to be found in the fact that one chooses to remain "Anonymous." 

On the substantive issues: Mussolini et al. long ago having been dispatched from the global scene, I myself believe that usage of the term 'fascism' (and its cognates) is largely (i.e., 90-some-percent) anachronistic.  Therefore, when on a serial basis the Americans commit aggression, terrorism, torture, and the like, I see very little point in labeling them fascists--any more that Mussolini's crowd ought to have been labeled Romans or Caesar.  Instead, we should label the Americans who kill, terrorize and torture what they are: Americans.

 

Abu Ghraib, ca. late 2003. Mussolini was not responsible for this scene.

Also, we should stop pretending that the world's preeminent Super Aggressor, Super Terrorist, and Super Torturer runs contrary to traditions that in fact have never existed in the state in question. (Except marginally, of course.)  In other words, we should stop pretending that Americans suddenly became Super Aggressors, Super Terrorists, and Super Torturers in recent years--and then only thanks to the rise of a group called Neoconservatives. 

Last point.  "Anonymous" ought to take a closer look at the reason why he'd/she'd suggest that Soandso "go into the Englewood and Austin neighborhoods and try to recruit to your point of view"--adding by way of clarification "for those of you who don't know, those neighborhoods are why Chicago has been the murder capital or runner up for the past few years."

Were what this kind of comment betrays not so transparent--coming from "Anonymous," let us not forget--I'd also bother to point out that not one of the architects of the aggression, terrorism, and torture for which the U.S. Government stands head-and-shoulders above the rest of the world happens to be a resident of Chicago's Englewood or Austin areas.

 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

On the subject of the new law and American Fascism, let me quote from the "de-classified" NIE Report, as I do not want to mis-inform or to risk mis-interpreting these important words: "Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint. • We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support." Key Words: ANTI-US, ANTI-GLOBALIZATION, LEFTISTS, INTERNET. All these are now being associated with terrorism and its support, if I read this correctly. And as the Emperor now has it within His authority to arrest such subverts and imprison them without limit, then anyone on this contributing to this site (outside of Rudy and Anonymous) is at risk. Or am I being too paranoid?

Yes, I know how to use a dictionary. By any chance have you ever tried? It's awfully difficult to speak with any kind of credibility if one is constantly placing one's feet in one's mouth by attempting to speak or criticize others with authority using terms he doesn't understand. Wouldn't you agree? A lot of senseless arguments come out of such talk. For me, I have come to have little patience with such exchanges as they are useless both to me who gains nothing from an exchange with ignorance and for the other party who obviously neither takes care over the words she uses nor is likely to correctly understand the reply. I'm sure you understand and have been engaged many times in such exchanges.

How did our country come to this? We now have a president who has almost limitless power over individual citizens of the Dark Empire. He now has the right to determine what is and what is not torture, and neither has to disclose that list nor explain it. He has the right to arrest and imprison anyone who is a terrorist or engaged in terrorist activities or supporting terrorist causes without recourse to trial. He now has the right to decide whether to give those folks a trial or not. If he does not give them a trial, he has the right to hold them indefinitely. If he does offer them a trial, it is in the form of a military trial, with only limited right of appeal. The Judicial system cannot touch him because actions he carries out under the anti-terrorist banner have been made immune from legal review. And the coupe d'etat, it is the Emperor himself who gets to define what is a terrorist and what isn't, who is engaging in terrorist activities, and who is supporting terrorist activities. Bottom line - Der Furhrer has the power to arrest anyone he wants (yes, even l'il ole me right here, right now, for saying these things) without explanation or fear of intervention by the courts and keep keep them locked up for as long as he wants with no communication to the outside world. And in the process, he can treat them anyway he wants as long as he follows HIS interpretation of the Geneva Agreement. For the Anonymous's and the Rudy's of this country, welcome to the true meaning of American-style "fascism" - I don't need to resot to a dictionary for this one. Anyone who has the money (big Corporations and others) can buy the influence, and if people or organisations don't like it, they can be branded terrorists, and quietly removed and you might never hear from them again. Militaristic agression will remain in place and be subject to more and more "unilateral" action as the Emperor and his cronies (read "Corporations") demand. And if you now disagree, be very very careful......

Ok Vic, you know how to use a dictionary. Congrats.  How about explaining the system?

Way to avoid the topic David.

Friends:

Happened to be in both Englewood and Austin in recent days.  Also happened to be carrying a flashlight with me.  Kept telling everyone I met that I was searching for "Anonymous." 

"Have you ever met 'Anonymous'?" I'd ask them.  "Can anybody direct me to 'Anonymous'?"

But nobody had ever heard of "Anonymous" before.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

 

I can see we need a definition here. Fascism has nothing to do with socialism. Don't confuse the name of a political party with the principles it operates under. Oxford Dictionary - FAscism - system of extreme right wing dictatorship American Heritage dictionary - A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merger of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism. Sound like any country you know today?... ;-)

the sheer lack of historical knowledge held by progressives, communists, socialists, leftist, choskyites, or whatever you're calling yourselves is astonishing. Knowing what things are, e.g. fascism, is important because it allows us know what is good and what is bad and why.  Simply, the fascist economy can be said to be: "Fascist economic planning seeks to coordinate the economy to serve what is held to be in the interests of the "common good" rather than allowing "private initiative" seek its own course."  Therefore, fascism as its very essence is socialist. 

Politically, fascism differs from socialism because it limits the "common good" to the nation rather than to all men.  Thus, the socialists purged from Nazi Germany would be against the extermination of the "undesirables,"  thus remove those in the way of the national goal.  The fact that there was a socialist purge by the Nazi's does not take away the very core "common good" element of national socialism. 

David, while you are correct is saying "leave the fascists out of this," the truth is, the majority of people in your political camp choose to use "fascist" as a common pejorative rather than knowing why it is a pejorative and how it should be used.  It is easier to call someone a fascist to then to intellectually debate the ideas put forth, e.g. exactly what Paul did in the title of his post. 

By the way, Paul and David, how about less talk and more action. I invite you to go into the Englewood and Austin neighborhoods and try to recruit to your point of view.  Good luck. (for those of you who don't know, those neighborhoods are why Chicago has been the murder capital or runner up for the past few years. It should be, by theory, a "rich" recruiting ground for the struggle of the working class philosophy.)

 

 

besides they mainly did theire social thingie to undermine the communists and social democrats strong platform. This is allso why Hitler got support from USA and Britain. He was a good anti-communist !

"Fascism is national SOCIALISM."

That is only a truth if modified like PIMPED.

Franco and Mussolini both would turn in their graves. As well, one of Hitlers first actions after gaining power was to assasinate Ernst Roehm. Leader of the socialistically inclined racists in the party. What was left was racist and capitalist with a strong state controll. ( And no ! State controll does not equal socialism ). 

 

 

Friends:

So that we all can keep better track of the members of the American Congress who are either fit or unfit for holding public office in anything but a terror and torture state:

September 27 House vote on H.R. 6166: 253 to 168
September 28 Senate vote on S. 3930: 65 to 34 

And by the way: To Anonymous (2006-09-30 12:22), who takes issue with the use of the term 'fascism' as in "creeping Homeland fascism," on the grounds that its use in the present context does a "great disservice to history and those who have actually suffered under the yoke of national sociaslist oppression," a quick response.

You are right.  There is no reason to drag the fascists into this.  The historical monstrosity that we are dealing with in the here and now is simply an American monstrosity.  Plain and simple.  

Thanks for the clarification.  

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Paul, when are you going to start using the term "fascism" and "fascist" correctly? 

Fascism is national SOCIALISM.  That means it is a socialist economy, with a socialist goverment structure, applied to the principle that only those who are members of the nation benefit.  I suspect you refuse to use "fascist" correctly because it more closely applies to your belief system than to that of a liberal representative democracy. If you mean to use "totalitarianism", then do so.  Otherwise, you are doing a great disservice to history and those who have actually suffered under the yoke of national sociaslist oppression.

Perhaps, but in the meantime how much pain will come of it? How many innocent victims will be unfairly incarcerated in the name of "national Security" or the "War on Terrorism"? 2 am police raids? Lives and jobs lost? Families torn and traumatised? I say "perhaps" because in the end "constitutionality" comes down to the opinion of a few well-placed political appointees who once in the saddle serve for life. The Supreme Court does not have a sqeaky clean record here. Witness the recent eminent domain issue. This American climate of fear and paranoia must end somehow or Freedom will truly be lost to Security. And Security will be lost to Tyranny.

Friends:

Thursday evening's (Sept. 28) late-night fare over the BBC's TV News in the States included an interview with one of the U.S. military's Judge Advocate General's Corps personnel who has defended the Yemeni national Salim Ahmed Hamdan before various incarnations of so-called military commissions while held at the prisoner of war camp run by the Americans at their Guantanamo Bay facility.  (For the U.S. Supreme Court's latest, see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (June 29, 2006).)

Sorry that I can't recall the JAG - defense attorney's name.  But the BBC's interviewer was asking him questions about the bill adopted this week by majorities in both chambers of the American Congress that would decriminalize (or at least attempts to) the American President's systematic disregard for Geneva Conventions-type protections for any prisoner he designates a "terrorist" (quote-unquote) in the so-called "War on Terror" (quote-unquote).

(See, e.g., "Senate Approves Broad New Rules To Try Detainees," Kate Zernike, New York Times, Sept. 29; "Senate Approves Detainee Bill Backed by Bush," Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post, Sept. 29; and "Many Rights in U.S. Legal System Absent in New Bill," R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, Sept. 29.)

At one point, the BBC interviewer asked the JAG officer a question that was was so loaded with biases against his client, the POW Hamdan, that the JAG officer interrupted the interviewer, and informed him, in no uncertain terms, what he really thought about the question.

As I recall--my apologies for not being able to quote the exact words--the BBC interviewer had referred to Hamdan and the other POWs as "these people" or "this kind of people," betraying the fact that the interviewer sees them through pretty much the same pair of eyes as the American President or one of their torturers does.Unfortunately, public-opinion sampling in the States is an extremely corrupt enterprise, and, of course, it's awfully hard to estimate what percentage of Americans really does affirm the vast spectrum of barbarisms carried out in their names.

(I wonder whether we can use something like the spread of the "Sports Utility Vehicle" throughout the population as an index for the spread of authoritarianism and barbarism?  Or maybe the use of "performance-enhancing" drugs?  Including erectile-related enhancers?)

In the very American mind of the Weekly Standard editor William Kristol ("The Trap," Sept. 25), the "key political fact" behind the President's legislation is this: "A GOP candidate can say he will vote to authorize interrogations that CIA director [Michael] Hayden (no partisan gunslinger) says are important. The Democrats, by contrast, support legislation that would bring such interrogations to a stop. It looks as if the 2006 campaign will be, at least in part, about national security."

"President Discusses Global War on Erectile Dysfunction," White House Office of the Press Secretary, September 29, 2006 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Update (later the same day): Have now had the chance to check.  And the JAG officer that I mentioned above was Lt. Commander Charles Swift, with the Office of Military Commissions at the U.S. Department of Defense.  In hearings chaired by Senator Arlen Specter this past Monday (Sept. 25), Lt. Swift delivered a powerful statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee against the adoption of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.  In Lt. Swift's exact words: "Section 6 of the Military Commissions Act permits the government to do exactly what I was able to prevent [from happening to Salim Ahmed Hamdan]--coerce a guilty plea in an unlawful forum." (Emphasis added.  For a copy, see "Habeas Corpus Review for Prisoners of War," September 25, 2006.) 
 

This law will be thrown out by the Supreme Court, the congress can only suspend Habius corpus during invasions or upheavals. I know, some rightwingers will argue that we have been invaded but it simply is not true. Our govenment is not in any danger from these aleged invading forces (unless you count the Bush Admin.). If the court does not throw this out immediately it will be thrown out later during suits against the former pres. Bush for war crimes. I agree it is sad that congress would pass such a law even though we know it will not stand. Peace

AN APPRAISAL OF THE TECHNOLOGY OF POLITICAL CONTROL I've linked to this document elsewhere on ZNet, but I link to it again, because I think it especially relevant to Paul's blog posting here; and it has been instructive to myself, concerning the attitudes of some about a certain aspect of the relationship between governments and people. I imagine that short of some promised utopia, societies are bound to include militaries & police forces that use to a more or less severe extent: (1) surveillance, (2) crowd control, (3) prisons, & (4) interrogation possibly including torture (besides the obvious use of deadly weapons). In the above linked European Parliament study, there is a discussion of “the continuum of control which stretches from modem law enforcement to advanced state suppression, the difference being the level of democratic accountability in the manner in which such technologies are applied.” Contrast this with Paul's quote about the legislation which “shits all over the Geneva Conventions by ‘allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods [should be] considered permissible.'” With the Times quote continuing: “'And his decision could stay secret — there's no requirement that this list be published.'” I recall President Bush claiming that he wants to protect CIA officials, etc., from being prosecuted for their “interrogation” techniques. If these techniques are so benign, why would the courts take up the cases in the first place? Is there a fear that a jury from the public, or “Impartial” judges wouldn't be able to discern what is acceptable, and what not? That a few in secret can better determine how far to go with interrogation/torture of an unfortunate few than the general democratic public? This is not a case of the government protecting a (possibly guilty) minority from the will of the masses: it's something of the opposite—the inverse of a public lynching. Now, I believe there will in most cases have to be a line drawn somewhere on policing practices. There is the general line given in crowd control that you jab your baton, rather than lifting it over your head—not because it's a gentler technique, but because lifting a baton over your head makes for incriminating photography—it makes one LOOK like they're being domineering, and such might cause resentment in the public that doesn't want to feel like they're being beaten into submission by the government. The above link to the study on Political Control Technology doesn't talk extensively about propaganda as a control technique. Although I believe that with modern diverse information sources, such is limited in its long term effectiveness (such long term effects are a matter of largely unconscious indoctrination, not propaganda)—such propaganda may be effective long enough to last for an election (where only about 10% of the races are really in play due to “gerrymandering”). Unfortunately, not everyone is as informed from a plurality of sources as they might be, to compare points of view. To bring these points together, what could the Bush administration, etc., be thinking, so close to an election, that Political Control Techniques are at the top of the agenda? Possibly it is unconscious, possibly conscious—probably a bit of both: the will of those in power to maintain that power—the power to control. And in this case, to instill fear that the government can torture, with secret techniques, those who radically question the status quo. Now, I don't believe in questioning the status quo to the point of terrorism—quite the opposite; as a radical moderate, I appreciate a status quo of gradual global democratic change—but I think I can see a definite connection in tightening control on the fringe violent elements, not to make the center feel safe, but to keep that center under control as well: squeezing the perimeter to keep the “herd” in line. The use of secret interrogation techniques does not smell like the “transparent” democracy that President Bush himself has advocated publicly. What does he advocate privately?

And now Musharrafs memoires come as well. Most of the worlds population fear USA and few see it as a beacon of democray. But numbers arent all that important. Reminds me of the Mahabaratha. With the five brothers vanquishing a hundred. As Armitage put it to Musharraf. Either you are with us, or we will bomb you back to the stoneage. The "alliance of the willing", Bush called it.

And now Musharrafs memoires come as well. Most of the worlds population fear USA and few see it as a beacon of democray. But numbers arent all that important. Reminds me of the Mahabaratha. With the five brothers vanquishing a hundred. As Armitage put it to Musharraf. Either you are with us, or we will bomb you back to the stoneage. The "alliance of the willing", Bush called it.