In 2000, America elected a monster as their Commander-in-Chief, one who will
prove every bit as destructive as Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Josef
Stalin and Mao-tse Tung, probably surpassing them all put together in
causing human lives to be lost. September 11 gave this man the perfect
opportunity he desperately sought to remodel the world to his own liking,
and the American people are gobbling it down whole, much as the German
public did with Hitler in the 1930's. It's amazing that an apparently
'enlightened' and 'educated' people such as the Americans, at least as they
deem themselves to be, can be taken in so easily by this fraud. As I've said
in these NG's before, "Who needs an Antichrist when we've got George W. Bush
acting as a self-appointed Saviour?"
The man must be stopped, and the sooner the better. Let he who has ears,
listen. He who has a brain, think. He who has a rifle, keep it steady as you
calmly pull the trigger.
Following are a few articles stating pretty much what ought to be obvious to
anyone with any semblance of wit and conscience.
A whiff of fascism
By Carla Binion
Online Journal Contributing Editor
April 7, 2003-During election 2000, Bush paid campaign operatives posing as
ordinary voters shoved people and banged on doors at the Miami-Dade
canvassing offices in an effort to stop the Florida vote recount.
Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said he detected "a whiff of fascism" in
their tactics.
Some people criticized Nadler for drawing the comparison, but, of course,
not all forms of fascism have to equate precisely to the classic form
represented by Hitler or Mussolini. Fascism doesn't have to involve mass
genocidal slaughter, nor does it have to be equal in degree to the fascism
practiced by members of the Axis powers. Traits of classic fascism include:
strong nationalism, expansionism, belligerent militarism, meshing of big
business and government with a corporate/government oligarchy, subversion of
democracy and human rights, disinformation spread by constant propaganda and
tight corporate/government control of the press.
Today all of those conditions exist in our country to a degree.
Let's focus on corporate/government control of the press-specifically
corporate control of U.S. television news networks. According to a March 24
article, "Protests Turn Off Viewers" by Harry A. Jessell, 45 percent of
Americans rely on cable channels as their primary source of news, and 22
percent get most of their news from broadcast networks' evening newscasts.
Only 11 percent rely on other forms of media as their principle source of
war news.
Our corporate controlled TV networks might as well be state controlled,
because they promote the war and Bush policies fairly consistently and have
virtually eliminated all dissenting voices. NBC fired Phil Donahue despite
his good ratings, saying in an internal network memo they didn't want to air
Donahue's antiwar views. Peter Arnett was fired for giving an interview to
Iraqi TV and merely stating the obvious on a number of issues. For example,
Arnett said media reports of civilian casualties had helped the "growing
challenge to President Bush about the conduct of the war."
According to William Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,
Ballantine Books, 1950), the Reich Press Law of October 4, 1933, ordered
editors not to publish (among other things) anything which "tends to weaken
the strength of the German Reich . . . or offends the honor and dignity of
Germany." The Nazis forced dissenting journalists out of business and
consolidated the press under party control.
U.S. television news networks have been consolidated under the control of a
handful of corporations. America doesn't need a "press law" prohibiting the
airing of anything which might weaken the strength of Bush's war policies,
because the corporate owners of today's television networks are in total
agreement with the state.
It is irrefutable that corporate owners of American television networks want
only pro-Bush, pro-war opinions aired, because those are virtually the only
views that are in fact aired. The Phil Donahue and Peter Arnett firings,
especially when coupled with the NBC internal memo explaining the Donahue
firing, also indicate this is true.
Do the various TV networks do a good job of informing the public, or do they
more often propagandize? Propaganda is aimed at the emotions, while news
sources that disseminate factual information aim toward reason.
In Nazi Germany: A New History (Continuum Publishing, 1995), Klaus P.
Fischer says Hitler promoted "a system of prejudices rather than a
philosophy based on well-warranted premises, objective truth-testing, and
logically derived conclusions. Since propaganda aims at persuasion rather
than instruction, it is far more effective to appeal to the emotions than to
the rational capacities of crowds."
If you've spent much time watching the pro-Bush, pro-war cable television
news programs, you can't help but notice they manipulate (whether
deliberately or not) the viewing audience's emotions rather than appealing
to viewers' logic.
That is, instead of providing the American public with a broad range of
necessary facts and varied viewpoints about the war, the TV networks exploit
emotions by urging the audience to focus on and identify with the day-to-day
plight of individual soldiers and their families.
There's nothing inherently wrong with empathizing with the troops. However,
when that aspect of war news is heavily emphasized at the expense of hard
facts and varied debate, the networks serve the purpose of managing the
public mood rather than informing the public mind.
According to Klaus Fisher, the Nazis eliminated from state media any ideas
that clashed with official views. He writes that permissible media topics
for public consumption included war itself and the Nazi movement; support of
Nazi soldiers; praise for Hitler and "celebrating the thrill of combat and
the sacredness of death when it is in the service of the fatherland."
Today's Bush-friendly TV networks have also deemed only certain subjects
"permissible," as evidenced by the irrefutable fact that they only cover a
narrow range of subjects. Coincidentally, the proverbial network "list"
would read virtually the same as the list in the paragraph above.
Permissible topics include praise for the "war;" praise for the
administration's policies; support for our soldiers; praise for Bush and the
"celebrating the thrill of combat and the sacredness of death when it is in
the service of" (in this case) the "homeland"-even though there is no
rational link between attacking Iraq and defending our soil.
Of course, who needs rationality or facts from TV news when the American
public already has enough information about world events? In a March 26
article for Editor and Publisher, "Polls Suggest Media Failure in Pre-War
Coverage," reporter Ari Berman refers to a Knight Ridder/Princeton Research
poll. This poll showed 44 percent of respondents believed "most" or "some"
of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqis. Only 17 percent gave the correct
answer: none.
In the same poll, 41 percent said they believed Iraq definitely has nuclear
weapons. As Berman points out, not even the Bush administration has claimed
that.
Berman also refers to a Pew Research Center/Council on Foreign Relations
survey showing that almost two-thirds of people polled believed U. N.
weapons inspectors had "found proof that Iraq is trying to hide weapons of
mass destruction." This claim was never made by Hans Blix or Mohammed
ElBaradei.
The same survey found 57 percent of those polled falsely believed Saddam
Hussein assisted the 9/11 terrorists, and a March 7-9 New York Times/CBS
News Poll revealed that 45 percent of respondents believed Saddam Hussein
was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.
TV news reporters have done little to correct the public's misconceptions.
On the contrary, network reporters and their guests have often helped
bolster the false impressions by mentioning September 11, or the threat of
terrorism by al Qaeda, and the "threat" posed by Saddam in the same breath.
Individual TV reporters aren't always free to choose the information they
pass along to the public. CNN now has a relatively new "script approval"
system, whereby journalists send their copy in to CNN chiefs for sanitizing.
In his article, "Guess who will be calling the shots at CNN," British
foreign correspondent Robert Fisk quotes a relatively new CNN document
(dated Jan. 27), "Reminder of Script Approval Policy."
The policy says, "All reporters preparing package scripts must submit the
scripts for approval . . . Packages may not be edited until the scripts are
approved . . . All packages originating outside Washington, LA or NY,
including all international bureaus, must come to the ROW [a group of script
editors] in Atlanta for approval."
William Shirer comments on the Nazi party's control of press, radio and
film, "Every morning the editors of the Berlin daily newspapers and the
correspondents of those published elsewhere in the Reich gathered at the
Propaganda Ministry to be told by Dr. Goebbels or by one of his aides what
news to print and suppress, how to write the news and headline it, what
campaigns to call off or institute and what editorials were desired for the
day. In case of any misunderstanding, a daily directive was furnished along
with the oral instructions."
In an interview with TomPaine.com, Janine Jackson of the media watchdog
group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), said that the group
examined two weeks of nightly television news coverage. FAIR found that 76
percent of all news sources or guests on ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS's NewsHour
were "current or former government officials," leaving little room for other
diverse voices.
In addition, FAIR found that only 6 percent of those sources were skeptical
about the war. Jackson noted that "on television news at night, there's
virtually no debate about the need to go to war." It would further public
understanding if the TV networks would offer substantial debate on the
following:
The Bush administration's invasion of Iraq has alienated many world leaders
and lost this country the respect of millions of citizens around the globe.
The Bush team has created instability in the Middle East and risked
retaliation. They've undercut the U.S. economy with the financial cost of
this endeavor. They've increased the likelihood that worldwide nuclear
weapons proliferation will increase. And, according to a recent Red Cross
report, they have likely helped create a horrifying number of human
casualties and a rapidly expanding humanitarian crisis in Iraq.
The content of television news lacks range and diversity, but the way the
news is presented is also disturbing. Television reporters often deliver
news of the "war" with apparent breathless excitement, as if they're giving
play-by-play descriptions of football games. People are dying in this
conflict. Civilians are caught in the middle, being blown to pieces or
losing loved ones. Children are left behind when their soldier-parents are
killed. Instead of presenting news of this "war" with giddiness, wouldn't it
be more appropriate, more human, for network reporters to take a somber,
respectful approach?
On TV, we see bombs dropping from a distance. Network commentators seldom
offer the public close-ups. In his article, "Military precision versus moral
precision," Robert Higgs, writes that the much-used JDAM bombs dropped in
Iraq kill most people within 120 meters of the blast. According to Higgs,
such a bomb "releases a crushing shock wave and showers jagged, white-hot
metal fragments at supersonic speed, shattering concrete, shredding flesh,
crushing cells, rupturing lungs, bursting sinus cavities and ripping away
limbs in a maelstrom of destruction."
Just yesterday I heard a TV reporter describe certain casualties with the
sterile phrase, "This is what war does." Well, it isn't "war" that bursts
sinus cavities and rips away limbs-nothing as nebulous as that. George W.
Bush and his administration have done these things. They have directly
ordered that these things be done. The bombs' shredding of flesh and
crushing of human cells didn't just passively "happen."
In an April 5 article for The Mirror, "The saddest story of all," reporter
Anton Antonowicz describes an Iraqi family's loss of their daughter. "Nadia
was lying on a stretcher beside the stone mortuary slab. Her heart lay on
her chest, ripped from her body by a missile which smashed through the
bedroom window of the family's flat nearby in Palestine Street."
Nadia's father said, "My daughter had just completed her PhD in psychology
and was waiting for her first job. She was born in 1970. She was 33. She was
very clever. Everyone said I have a fabulous daughter. She spent all her
time studying. Her head buried in books."
Nadia's sister Alia said, "I don't know what humanity Bush is calling for.
Is this the humanity which lost my sister? It is war which has done this.
And that war was started by Bush."
Today we're again getting a whiff of fascism from the Bush administration.
This isn't the equivalent of Hitler or Mussolini-just sort of a creeping
fascism light-and the corporate controlled television news networks are only
one example of the way even light fascism undermines American values.
With the Bush administration and television networks currently fixated on
the high melodrama of "winning" the "war" and sprucing up its aftermath,
they don't have much time to reflect on whether winning at any cost is a
good idea. Whether the slaughter in Iraq and its aftermath "go well," the
"war" has already destroyed many lives in Iraq and the U.S. and damaged the
American character and democracy at home. For thoughtful people in this
country, the question has never been "will we win," but "at what cost?"
Published on Tuesday, August 12, 2002 by CommonDreams.org
Psychic and Political Numbing in Preparations for War
by Fran Shor
While the Bush Administration prepares for war on Iraq with full-scale
weapons production and troop deployments, more insidious conditioning for
the public acceptance of war continues. In the face of repeated statements
by Bush and the hawkish members of his ruling clique of the need for "regime
change" in Iraq, international opinion has been forthright in its
condemnation of such proposed aggression. However, in the absence of the
mobilized outrage of the American people, the Washington power elite will be
emboldened to carry out their war plans. Why the American public, so far,
has been lackadaisical in its response to this saber rattling may be
reflective of the increase of psychic and political numbing
opportunistically manipulated by the Bush Administration since 9/11.
Psychic numbing, according to the psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, builds on
well-known defense mechanisms, such as repression, denial, and projection,
to create an exclusion of feeling and disconnectedness. Aided by the surfeit
of stimuli from televisual culture and media-manipulated images, people may
tune out those realities and possibilities that threaten their own sense of
connection to the world. In the case of 9/11, the Bush Administration
quickly exploited the anger of the American people without allowing a
grieving process to mature. Drowning out the voices of survivors and their
families who opposed retaliation, war on Afghanistan was initiated. Begun as
a campaign to seek and destroy Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network, a
network created by the CIA in the 1980's, the intervention in Afghanistan
quickly became an exercise in imperial politics and the lethal arrogance of
power.
In manufacturing consent for the war in Afghanistan, the corporate media
deliberately initially excluded scenes of civilian deaths. Now, however,
with additional reporting and investigation by world-wide news agencies and
the United Nations, the American public is being confronted with the
extensive violence visited upon the innocent Afghans. Nonetheless, the
desensitizing of the American public to the deaths of these differently
constituted others (by ethnicity, class, and nationality) is a form of
psychic numbing that may allow for the larger massacre of civilians in Iraq.
Of course, the American public has been bombarded with images and stories
about the evil policies of Saddam Hussein. While highlighting his use of
chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds and Iranians, one rarely finds any
mention of Washington's support for Saddam Hussein during the 1980's when
these events happened. Moreover, while the Bush Administration has been busy
undermining international treaties dealing with Chemical and Biological
weapons, it has hypocritically insisted on unfettered inspections of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction, weapons which many experts and former
inspectors, such as Scott Ritter, allege have been severely eroded.
Nonetheless, the targeting of the truly despicable Saddam Hussein is a
convenient propaganda device to exclude consideration of the death and
destruction already suffered by innocent Iraqis. A war on Iraq will only
further harm massive numbers of civilians without guaranteeing a democratic
and stabile post-Saddam regime and region. Since the Bush Administration is
more interested in seeking filial retribution and oil while sowing the seeds
of further war-making possibilities, it refuses to recognize the
catastrophic violent consequences of its intended intervention.
Part of the political numbing that the Bush Administration has visited on
the American public is intimately connected to the fear and intimidation
launched by the Ashcroft's jack-booted Department of Justice (sic). With
overwhelming Congressional support, the USA Patriot Act was passed,
establishing a wide variety of legal mechanisms to undermine the Bill of
Rights. Although still used against those swarthy others, legislation is in
place to deter real opposition to the policies of an increasingly
authoritarian government. Added to this is the recent FBI reorganization, a
reorganization that facilitates spying on the public without any court
orders or even evidence of wrong-doing. Moreover, the Bush Administration
has made clear its intent to deny constitutionally-mandated judicial
oversight in its refusal to turn over documents to the judge overseeing one
of the cases of a so-called "enemy combatant."
Perhaps it may be time to raise the whole matter of the "f" word. It
certainly seems reasonable to call this erosion of liberties and rights
creeping fascism, albeit a postmodern fascism that does not need to rely on
mass mobilization for realizing a proto-fascist agenda. In one of the most
brilliant analyses of everyday life in Nazi Germany, Detlev Peukert devoted
a whole chapter to "The Atomization of Everyday Life" (Inside Nazi Germany,
pp. 236-42). Combining a form of psychic numbing with political numbing,
many Germans just retreated from any public political life and took refuge
in their own isolation. Since there is much evidence to support the tendency
towards atomization and privatization of everyday life in the United States,
it may not require utilizing any reference to fascism, whether postmodern or
not. On the other hand, when an administrative authority relies on the
militarization of everyday life to pursue a repressive and aggressive
agenda, it may be necessary to raise the specter of fascism.
Promising a war without end and hiding behind a jingoistic veil of war
against terrorism, the Bush Administration is promoting its own narrow
interests in oil and order. War-making was as essential to Italian and
German fascism as it is to this illegal and illegitimate ruling clique in
Washington, DC. If we are to avoid being dragged into further fascistic
adventures, we need to throw off this psychic and political numbing and to
mobilize at every level to oppose the policies and plans of a war-mad power
elite.
Fran Shor teaches at Wayne State University in Detroit. He is an anti-war
activist and member of several human rights and peace and justice
organizations. E-mail:f.shor@wayne.edu
BuzzFlash Reader Commentary
December 5, 2002 CONTRIBUTOR ARCHIVES
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by Maureen Farrell
* * *
"Public health officials want to shut down roads and airports, herd people
into sports stadiums and, if needed, quarantine entire cities in the event
of a smallpox attack".- the Boston Herald, Nov. 8, 2001
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/
americas_new_war/pox11082001.htm
"Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he
deems to be 'enemy combatants' has moved him from merely being a political
embarrassment to being a constitutional menace." -the Los Angeles Times,
Aug. 14, 2002 http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.15B.ashcr.camps.htm
The Bush administration is developing a parallel legal system in which
terrorism suspects -- U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike -- may be
investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal
protections guaranteed by the ordinary system. . . . " - the Washington
Post, Dec. 1, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58308-2002Nov30.html
* * *
These days, it's hard to read anything without thinking, "this can't be
true." We're living in an age of secret bunker governments and stealth
legislation, however, and unlikely scenarios are tempered with the
realization our old reality is gone. This America differs drastically from
the country we knew two years ago, when tales of felons ogling our e-mail
would have been capped with a punch line. Yet here we are, scratching our
heads, while guardians of the public trust shill for the state. When Chris
Matthews responds to Christopher Hitchens' charges against Henry Kissinger
by braying about how "our very free notion of the first amendment," allows
Hitchens to say "anything he wants about somebody," (as if Hitchens were
making things up), our airways are either populated by the misinformed or by
those paid to propagandize.
Luckily, we can still count on some to deliver hard truths. In an October
2001 article entitled "Liberties Lost: Unintended Consequences of the
Anti-Terror Law," for example, former White House counsel John Dean lamented
that the "right to dissent" was in jeopardy. Charging that the USA PATRIOT
Act twisted the definition of domestic terrorism to include "home-grown
political activists," his concern was well-founded -- especially now that
no-fly lists target peacenik clergymen and any act "that appears to be
intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population," is considered
terrorism. But though the Patriot Act's sunset clause assured temporary
expanded powers, if our loss of liberty is unintended, why does Homeland
Secretary legislation permanently authorize 'data-mining' ala John
Poindexter's Total Information Awareness snoop shop? Is it unintentional? Or
is it something else? Consider, if you will, the history of America's
creeping fascism, from 1950 on:
1950: Congress approves the Security Act of 1950 which contains an emergency
civilian detention plan that remains in effect for more than 20 years; the
US government establishes the first program to develop human mind control
techniques. Known under a variety of codenames (most notably MKULTRA)
throughout its 23 year history, this program is designed to exert such
control, according to declassified documents, that an individual will do
another's bidding, "against his will and even against such fundamental laws
of nature such as self-preservation." 25 years later, the Rockefeller
Commission uncovers CIA plans for "programmed assassins" and says MKULTRA
led to American citizens being drugged, kidnapped and tortured on American
soil.
1954: The McCarthy hearings begin. Nearly 50 years later, McCarthyism is
revisited as assorted professors appear on assorted lists. "The simple
exercise of the First Amendment, of saying that we should be able to
criticize our government, is enough to put you on Lynne Cheney's list,"
historian Howard Zinn remarks.
Jan. 17, 1961: Dwight D. Eisenhower delivers his farewell address. "In the
councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex,"
he warns. "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists
and will persist."
March 13, 1962: Defense Secretary Robert McNamara receives Operation
Northwoods, a plan to wage terrorist attacks against American citizens and
blame Fidel Castro as a pretext for war with Cuba.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html "We
could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," the document
reads. "Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of
national indignation," it continues. All Joint Chiefs of Staff sign off on
the plan, but it's nixed by the civilian leadership. "The whole point of a
democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will," Body of Secrets
author James Bamford tells ABC News in May, 2001, "and here this is the
complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a
war that they want but that nobody else wants."
1967: President Johnson establishes the National Advisory Commission on
Civil Disorders, assisted by an Army task force and plans to use military
force to squelch civil disturbances take root. On May 4, 1970, four students
are killed at Kent State University when the Ohio National Guard fires at
unarmed protesters.
1971: Sen. Sam Ervin's Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights uncovers a
military intelligence surveillance system used against thousands of American
citizens, and stumbles upon Operation Garden Plot, the United States Civil
Disturbance Plan 55-2. According to information released under the Freedom
of Information Act in 1990, Plan 55-2 gives federal forces power to "put
down" "disruptive elements" and calls for "deadly force to be used against
any extremist or dissident perpetrating any and all forms of civil
disorder."
1975: Journalists Ron Ridenhour and Arthur Lublow investigate Operation
Cable Splicer, a subplan of Operation Garden Plot, designed to control
civilian populations and take over state and local governments. Bill Moyers
later lists Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot among examples of ways
"the secret government [has] waged war on the American people." Sen. Frank
Church's Committee to Study Government Operations sheds light on
government-sanctioned civil rights abuses, the CIA's Mafia connections and
the Nixon administration's role in Chile's 1973 coup.
1977: In a Rolling Stone article, Carl Bernstein estimates that "400
American journalists [have] been tied to the CIA at one point or another,"
giving credence to former CIA director William Colby's boast that "the
Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any major significance in the
major media."
1982-84: Col. Oliver North helps draft secret wartime contingency plans,
which, according to a 2002 report in the Sydney Morning Herald, provide for
"the imposition of martial law, internment camps, and the turning over of
government to the president and FEMA." Columnist Jack Anderson reports that
FEMA's emergency "standby legislation" is meant to "suspend the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights, effectively eliminate private property, abolish free
enterprise, and generally clamp Americans in a totalitarian vise."
1984: The Rex-84 "readiness exercise" program is conducted by 34 federal
departments and agencies under Ronald Reagan's directive. Reportedly
established to control illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/U.S. border, the
exercise tests military readiness to round up and detain citizens in case of
massive civil unrest.
1985: The Federal Communications Commission eliminates the Fairness
Doctrine, which required broadcasters to present balanced coverage of
controversial issues and kept their power to mold public opinion in check.
In Dec. 2002, the Daily Howler http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120402.shtml
chronicles ways the Republican National Committee relied on media propaganda
during the 2000 election, while a Dec. 3, 2002 Chicago Sun Times headline
reads, "Talk radio key to GOP victory."
July 5, 1987: The Miami Herald reports that while deputy director, John
Brinkerhoff modeled FEMA's martial law program after Louis Giuffrida's
proposal to squelch black militant uprisings by placing "at least 21 million
American Negroes" into "assembly centers or relocation camps." In Feb. 2002,
Brinkerhoff writes a paper for the Anser Institute for Homeland Security
defending the Pentagon's desire to deploy troops on American streets.
Aug. 1987: Though the Iran-Contra scandal involves criminal activity far
more serious than 1974's Watergate burglary, Ronald Reagan and George H.W.
Bush emerge from the hearings virtually unscathed. Several Iran-Contra
figures are awarded top jobs in George W. Bush's administration.
Summer, 1994: A memo leaked from the Director of Resource Management for the
Department of the Army discusses plans to "establish civilian prison camps
on [military] installations." Rep. Henry Gonzalez later admits that there
are "standby provisions" and "statutory emergency plans. . . whereby you
could, in the name of stopping terrorism, apprehend, invoke the military,
and arrest Americans and hold them in detention camps."
Dec. 13, 2000: Al Gore concedes the presidential election after the Supreme
Court installs George W. Bush President of the United States. Alan
Dershowitz later writes that this unprecedented decision "threatens to
undermine the moral authority of the high court for generations to come."
Sept. 11, 2001: President Bush activates a Cold-War era shadow government,
installing cabinet members in underground bunkers. When this plan is
uncovered months later, members of Congress claim they were not consulted.
Oct., 2001: The Patriot Act is railroaded through Congress and the Senate,
without the benefit of committee hearings or extended debate, shortly after
Democratic legislators are targeted in yet-to-be solved anthrax attacks.
Nov. 2001: The Bush administration issues executive orders allowing for the
use of special military courts and empowering Atty. General John Ashcroft to
detain non-citizens indefinitely; the Model State Emergency Health Powers
Act (MEHPA) is introduced to governors of all 50 states. MEHPA calls for
mandatory vaccinations and allows for confiscation of citizen's real estate,
food, medicine and other private property; and outlines plans to herd
afflicted citizens into stadiums.
Feb. 13, 2002: Iran-Contra criminal John Poindexter is chosen to head the
Pentagon's Total Information Awareness Program, giving this five-time felon
power to monitor citizens' internet use, e-mail, travel plans, credit-card
purchases and other personal data. On Feb. 18, London's Guardian newspaper
runs a story on the implications of Poindexter's appointment. The American
media follows suit nine months later.
April, 2002: The US military creates a Northern Command to assist in
homeland defense. Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge encounters
difficulties studying Reagan's national security plans for using the
military for law enforcement, since Bush #43 sealed Reagan's presidential
papers in Nov., 2001.
Summer, 2002: Former presidential counsel John Dean writes an article
asking, "Could terrorism result in a constitutional dictator?" A month
later, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Bush administration might
employ Reagan-era security initiatives, installing "internment camps and
martial law in the United States." The LA Times reports on Atty. Gen. John
Ashcroft's "desire for [detention] camps."
Fall, 2002: During the midterm elections, Vietnam veteran and triple amputee
Max Cleland is shamelessly depicted as "unpatriotic" for voicing concerns
over homeland security legislation. Questions regarding Paul Wellstone's
plane crash, voting machine irregularities or exit poll glitches remain
taboo.
Nov. 25, 2002: After the 32 page Homeland Security Bill ballooned to nearly
500 pages overnight, and was railroaded through the Senate and Congress, it
is signed into law. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says the bill "expands the federal
police state," Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) says it represents "the most
severe weakening of the Freedom of Information Act" in 36 years and Sen.
Robert Byrd worries amendments "expand the [administration's] culture of
secrecy." Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) claims that "the ability of a special
interest group to secretly insert provisions into law for its own narrow
benefit and to the detriment of the public interest raises fundamental
questions about the integrity of our government."
Nov. 27, 2002: Cover-up King Henry Kissinger is chosen to head the Sept. 11
independent Commission. Robert Sheer reports that "history puts credibility
at zero in the 9/11 probe."
Dec. 4, 2002: Solicitor General Theodore Olsen goes before the Supreme Court
in an attempt to overturn the Miranda decision, which has restrained police
interrogations for decades. "This is a case to be concerned about,''
University of California law professor Charles Weisselberg says. "To see the
solicitor general arguing that there's no right to be free from coercive
interrogation is pretty aggressive."
Thomas Jefferson warned, "When the government fears the people, there is
liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." It's
difficult to fathom what we're stuck with now, when we consider from whence
we came. As the Constitutional Convention came to a close, a woman asked
Benjamin Franklin what type of government had been formed. "A Republic, if
you can keep it," he replied.
Given our free fall within the last two years, and the fact that the morning
"news shows" are more concerned with J-Lo's wedding dress than with our
evolving police state, one can only imagine our founding fathers' reactions
to recent history -- and to the shaky condition of our Republic today.
Are We Seeing Fascism?
Nationalists Hijack Washington
We are pleased to bring you this essay about recent policy moves by the Bush
administration, made available by http://www.YellowTimes.org
by Ash Pulcifer
Anti-globalization protesters may soon be celebrating. Globalization --
often referred to as the theory of all countries adopting similar political,
economic and social platforms -- has stumbled in its seemingly unstoppable
march toward uniformity; moreover, it doesn't look to be recovering anytime
soon. While many agreed that the fast pace of globalization achieved in the
'90s could not be sustained, very few predicted that it would be the United
States that would inevitably halt its progress.
During the Clinton years, the success of globalization was thought to be
indisputable. Economic and political leaders spoke about an end to trade
barriers and a dawning of a new world, free from major political, economic
and social conflict due to the reasoning that when state economies are so
intertwined, all groups will have too much to lose in the case of war and
will prevent major conflicts from arising. Yet with the fall of the Twin
Towers, suddenly the idea of a "free world" disappeared behind the
protective barriers quickly built to shield the United States from both
foreign economic and military threats.
After it became clear that the attacks on September 11 created a damaging
ripple effect through the global economy, there was concern that a sustained
campaign of terrorism could ruin the chance for future economic integration.
With the world's economies so closely tied together, when an economic
powerhouse like the United States suffers economic setbacks, it is also felt
throughout the rest of the world. The danger was that terror attacks created
global consumer uncertainty, which acts as a major impetus against economic
growth. Yet the blows to globalization not only came from terror attacks,
but also from official U.S. policy.
After the attacks of September 11, the Bush administration acted to shield
the U.S. economy from global integration, putting the future of
globalization in doubt. In addition to increasing restrictions on foreign
tourists and immigrants, threatening the proposed borderless world of
globalization, Washington, to the ire of globalization proponents, imposed
trade restrictions on international trade. Along with boosting agricultural
subsidies to its agribusiness industry, Washington placed tariffs on steel
imports to protect its domestic steel industry from foreign competition.
Both of these moves ran counter to the theory of free trade and acted to
block temporarily the path toward globalization. [The Progress Report
adds -- don't forget the new US tariffs against lumber, too! In the Bush
administration, narrow protectionism is still called "free trade" but it has
clearly defeated anyone who actually favored free trade.]
By only focusing on national interests and not global interests, the United
States is beginning to abandon this once sacred ideal. Adding to these
trends, the Bush administration's public distaste for international
treaties -- shown through their withdrawal from the 1972 anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, refusal to participate in the International Criminal Court,
and rejecting the Kyoto protocol -- and its choice of unilateralism over
multilateralism have globalization proponents rightfully concerned.
The simple explanation for this change can be found in the theory of
nationalism, when states pursue national goals often at the expense of
international ones. The nationalist rhetoric coming out of Washington is
stunningly blunt. Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy
Board, closely tied with other members of the Bush administration through
their work with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and its spawn, the
Project for the New American Century (PNAC), both Washington based think
tanks, epitomizes the unilateral and nationalist bent of this
administration. Perle has claimed that "France is no longer the ally it once
was," and also stated: "It is now reasonable to ask whether the United
States should now or on any other occasion subordinate vital national
interests to a show of hands by nations who do not share our interests."
President Bush, in his 2003 State of the Union Address, also threatened to
eliminate America's history of multilateralism by announcing that the
"course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others."
In addition to nationalists in the Bush administration, members of the U.S.
Congress are also abandoning their global outlook. House Speaker J. Dennis
Hastert has called for restrictions on the imports of French water and wine.
France, being the top exporter of water to the United States, would be
notably angered by such an action and would react by creating trade barriers
of its own. To begin a cycle of various trade wars would obstruct free trade
and bring the return of nationalism along with what comes with it: a
receding of political, economic and social integration and a higher
probability of great military conflict.
That is the ultimate danger of emphasizing national goals at the expense of
international ones. If the United States stops taking into serious account
the views of other governments, these governments will no longer feel tied
to the United States and will also begin to follow nationalist policies.
When powerful governments follow nationalism, they always clash in their
undying pursuit of national objectives.
What is remarkable is that the United States -- which was the core of
globalization -- is the country that is bringing about this change. It is
abandoning the policies drafted after the fall of the Soviet Union when the
U.S. used persuasive pressure to rally the world behind the ideal of
internationalism and what is known as globalization. Now, the United States
is pushing a message that the U.S. will take actions based upon U.S.
interests alone in a definite diversion of policy.
The unremitting mission to invade Iraq is the most visible effect of U.S.
nationalism. With important regional powers -- and nearly the entire world
population -- against its invasion plans, the Bush administration is still
warning that the U.S. will take action regardless of lack of support from
regional powers; moreover, Washington has warned that it will even disregard
the United Nations if the organization does not endorse a U.S. invasion.
This will cause other states to feel powerless and they will develop their
own nationalist policies in response.
Already, Kim Jong-il in North Korea has deserted international agreements
protecting North Korea from foreign aggression and has instead decided that
the only way to protect against the United States is to develop a nuclear
arsenal that would make it difficult for the U.S. to attack Pyongyang. Iran,
too, has raised eyebrows in its insistence of managing every aspect of its
nuclear energy program, including the handling of nuclear waste that can be
used to create nuclear weapons. In addition to North Korea and Iran, other
countries have also begun to follow more nationalist and unilateralist
policies.
There is no doubt that France, Germany and Russia's stance against U.S. war
plans in Iraq are primarily founded on the fear of having to deal with an
American nation unrestrained by international agreements. These three
nations in particular do not want to have to deal with a country that
threatens to invade other states without achieving multilateral support. If
Washington chooses to go ahead and attack Iraq without their support, these
three states will reevaluate their foreign policy and may choose to distance
themselves from Washington and the rest of the world; nationalism will creep
in and what once were America's allies may end up being aggressive
competitors.
The dreams of a globalized future so prevalent during the Clinton years have
been temporarily halted. While the last decade was a time of strengthening
allies in an attempt to bring the world's economies closer together, the
beginning of this decade is radically different. The September 11 attacks
provided the radical elements of the Bush administration -- those members
who were part of the neo-conservative AEI and its various offspring such as
the PNAC -- just the justification they needed to divert the course of U.S.
foreign policy away from internationalism and toward nationalism. If these
policies continue, the chances of a new global polarization that could
easily break down into violence will be increased.
---------------------------------
Ash Pulcifer is a U.S. based analyst of international conflicts and is also
a human rights activist. He does not justify or accept the killing of
civilians in warfare, and attempts to understand why groups or governments
resort to such means in order to achieve their strategic objectives.
We Can No Longer Support the Democrats
by Richard Curtis (May 2003)
In the realm of electoral politics it has been common practice for some
progressive activists and organizations to emphasize the need to keep the
right wing at bay. This anti-fascist approach to politics has its roots in
the struggle to confront and defeat Nazism in the last century. This policy
provided the political space for cooperation between liberals and leftists
on issues of national politics important to both groups. This approach was
historically necessary, given the menacing threat to humanity posed by
Nazism and its allies. Some would say that this policy has served us well
even after the defeat of Nazism, a contention that may or may not be true
but is less important today than might seem.
Gore Vidal remarked once to a magazine editor that the thing the American
press gets wrong is its emphasis on the official representatives, i.e.
presidents and senators, when the real power is wielded behind the scenes by
General Motors, General Electric and so on. Ironically, when the question
involves elections these progressives reject an obviously Marxist analysis
in favor of the anti-fascist emphasis of the last century. I believe that to
repeat this policy would be a mistake.
Some will argue that the Bush administration~the unelected Bush
administration~has devolved into what I am comfortable calling White Gloved
Fascism, and that this new form of fascism is a dangerous threat to the
people of the world. Perhaps this threat is not as great as that posed by
the Nazis, perhaps it is greater (Bush has nuclear weapons, Hitler did not).
Further it will be argued that in the 2004 elections, the fascist threat
must be confronted as vigorously as ever. In short the argument will be made
that all other concerns must take a back seat to confronting this menace. I
believe that to do so would be a mistake.
Some will argue that the vanguard role of left activists (whether in or out
of the organized parties) requires that we keep in step with the mainstream
of the working class, in particular with organized labor. It is said that
organized labor is not ready for independent politics and for activists to
step out into that realm wholesale would alienate organized labor at a time
when labor desperately needs the long term vision provided by the organized
left. This may be true, but is not as significant as some would claim.
Let us be clear. The Bush administration is fascist and came to power in a
coup that involved the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters in
the state of Florida, approved by the Supreme Court. And whether or not the
Bush administration was complicit in the events of 9/11/01, they did
manipulate the public reaction to the attacks in a fashion that was
reminiscent of the way the Nazi Party manipulated reaction to the Reichstag
Fire. This White Gloved fascism plays less on domestic violence than the
Black Shirted variety, but attacks labor, human rights, and world peace with
the same vigor. Bush intends to roll this nation and the world back to the
19th Century at a time when the economy is in or near depression~what in
official circles is called deflation. The Bush administration is a serious
threat to peace and with its anti-environmentalism is perhaps a serious
threat to the future of human life on Earth.
However, history has proven conclusively that the Democratic Party cannot be
relied upon to protect labor, human rights, peace, or the environment. To
quote Gore Vidal again, we live in a one party state with two right wings.
We must be honest with ourselves: the Democratic Party enabled the
ascendancy and war mongering of the Bush administration. In the words of a
popular talk show host, the best predictor of future behavior is past
behavior. There is no reason to believe that the Democratic Party will not
respond to a rightward drift in American politics by drifting further to the
right itself. More disturbing yet, the policies of the fascist wing of the
Republican Party will predictably resurface even if a Democrat wins the
White House just has they have now after two terms of a Democrat in the
White House. It is only a matter of time, capitalism tends toward
imperialism internationally and fascism domestically~that is its nature.
I submit that to support the Democrats in the 2004 elections would be a
grave mistake, regardless of whether or not Bush ends up winning a second
term. This is a difficult conclusion, and we live in difficult times. Lives
are at stake, but not just in the short term. It is absolutely certain that
if Bush wins a second term a great many people will suffer and many will
die, either directly in wars or indirectly as a result of his anti-human
policies. But we cannot be blind to predictable misery in the long term by
the apparent urgency in the short term.
The only solution to the problems suffered by our class and by the masses of
humanity is socialism. The only path to socialism is through the development
of an independent political consciousness among the working class. This
independent political consciousness will develop, sooner or later, either
spontaneously or through sustained and concerted effort. If this independent
political consciousness were to develop spontaneously it would be the result
of great tragedy and would most likely involve great violence and loss of
life. In short, the revolution will come spontaneously, and with great
suffering if we do not prepare a more gentle transition. We cannot say when,
but we cannot support the status quo any longer either.
The only alternative is to work on developing this independent political
consciousness now. We cannot allow the fear of the near future to condemn us
to an even worse long term future. Labor and its allies have supported the
Democrats for decades, and as things stand today everything that has been
gained in the last century is being lost. The Democrats are not directly
responsible, but we must admit that they are not willing or capable of
protecting our future. The only possible better future is without them. It
will be hard but not preparing, not developing an independent political
consciousness among the masses, condemns us to an even worse fate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Posted to: Radical Philosophy Association <RPA-LIST@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
Tuesday, 27 May 2003.
May 12, 2003
A Roadmap to Resistance
How to Resist the Bush Administration's War on Liberty
By SAM HAMOD and ELAINE CASSEL
As frequent contributors of articles related to the Bush Administration's
war on liberty and sanity, you, our readers, often ask us, "But what can we
do about it?" Indeed, after all the hand wringing and dire prognostications,
we cannot let history repeat itself and sit idly by while Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft hijack our country. Make no mistake--the hijacking
has already occurred. They have co-opted patriotism for themselves, daring
those who oppose them--on any count--to speak up and be branded a traitor.
They have convinced 75 percent of the American people (although I personally
don't know one of them) that the invasion of Iraq and was necessary and
proper. They have convinced almost all of Congress that endless erosions of
civil liberties and respect for privacy must all be sacrificed in the name
of national security. They have convinced most federal judges that we are
"at war," and in a time of war, the judiciary cedes power to the executive
branch.
This is a "rhetoric of exclusion," wherein anyone who disagrees with the
Bush line is branded, as we said earlier, as a traitor, so the majority of
our nation is afraid to speak out--so that task, of preserving our First
Amendment rights and our democracy falls to all of us who have the vision to
see what must be done to preserve our nation.
All this began, not with September 11, but with the hijacking of the 2000
presidential election. But September 11 provided the spark the Bush needed
to take his presidency from mediocrity to mendacity. By now, everyone, even
the right-wing admits this, that the behavior of the Bush administration is
based on a document published years earlier, THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY (you
will find copies on various web sites). Every day new "threats," morphed
from half-truths and lies give rise to new terrors. The treat from Iraq of
weapons of mass destruction was but the most recent foray into fiction.
Phony or misinterpreted intelligence reports lie in the wake of the U.S.
giving up on finding those threats to our safety that supposedly led us to
invade Iraq in the first place.
How do you fight lies? How do you take back patriotism? What can you do to
save yourself and this country?
Here are several ideas.
Becoming Informed
1. Don't rely on the national newspapers or National Public Radio or Public
Broadcasting Service for your news. You can pay attention to these sources,
but seek verification and alternative viewpoints. The British Broadcasting
Company, the Canadian Broadcasting Company, as well as Arab world sources
like Al Ahram and Al Jazeera are sources of differing perspectives on
international news. If you listened to the BBC or CBC as well as CNN and CBS
you would have wondered if they were talking about the same war. Online
versions of UK's The Guardian, The Independent, and Times Online are
excellent sources of news. The U.S. magazine, The Progressive, has an
excellent web site that includes action alerts (see below).
2. Sign up for news services related to issues pertaining Bush's war against
America. For instance, the New York Times allows you to pick topics , such
as "civil liberties," "John Ashcroft," and the "war in Iraq." When these
topics are the focus of articles, you will receive a link to the article in
your email. Box.
3. When you read something you find useful, pass it on. If possible, make
copies and put them in public places where others may pick them up and pass
them further on.
4. Read history. We are finding it useful to read books on the Third Reich
and fascism. Others have suggested books on Andrew Jackson, whom Bush seems
to be emulating. Read about the treatment of Japanese Americans during World
War II. Read and weep how the U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned their internment
in prison camps and would do so again today, without question.
Effecting the Political Process
1. First, remember that all politics is local. Your most forceful
contribution will be at the level of your local town council or board of
supervisors. Run for office. Attend meetings. Introduce resolutions
condemning things like the USA Patriot Act and the war on Iraq. Dozens of
localities have done just that.
2. At the state level, watch what your legislators are doing. Most are
ignorant that many states are passing laws that mirror provisions of the
Patriot Act, to allow state officials to conduct what were once unlawful
searches of homes and computers. You would be amazed at how many people
don't know what the Patriot Act is, let alone what it does. And most people
are clueless about the laws their state legislatures are passing.
3. At the federal level, don't miss any opportunity to meet with your
congressional representatives when they are in their home district. Let them
know that you won't vote for them if they don't vote for America.
4. Don't wait to be told by someone else what laws are pending. Read a
national newspaper or check in at www.thomas.gov at least weekly to find out
what pending laws are. You probably know by now that some of the more
outrageous laws are hidden in appropriation bills. There is no substitute
for reading the legislation. It may be tedious, but not half a tedious as
having Ashcroft read your email.
5. Sign up for alerts from organizations that target congress when important
bills are pending. The ACLU, People for the American Way, and <moveon.org>
have places where you can sign up. You will receive emails instructing you
how to fax and email your congressional delegates. These may not get the
results you want, but you will hear from them. And don't be frightened just
because the USA Patriot Act suggests that lobbying to effect legislation may
itself be an act of terror (we told you to read the Patriot Act!).
6. Run for local, state, or federal office.
Community Level Action
1. Join, be active, and speak out in community and professional
organizations. Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions Clubs, are just a few of the
opportunities to be involved. These and other types of organizations are
always on the look out for speakers. You might be a speaker or you might get
someone who is knowledgeable about the topic, even a sympathetic
congressperson, to speak to your group.
2. Be active in your professional organizations--doctors, lawyers,
accountants, and other professionals all have local and state professional
organizations that have political clout. Help move your organization toward
activism in the name of liberty.
3. Write concise, impassioned letters to the editor of your local paper that
is responsive to articles (it goes without saying that you can do very
little to reclaim the country if you do not know what is going on). It may
take a few times to get a letter in, but you will eventually succeed.
Carefully follow the paper's protocol for submission of articles. Missing
one step will end your letter in the trash can or "deleted" file. If this
doesn't work, organize your group and make an appointment to see the Letters
to the Editor section of your local and/or regional newspapers so that you
may have an interactive learning and response situation that may lead to
more of your group's letters being published (your numbers will tell them
that you are a serious force in the community--and if your numbers are
small, just inflate them a bit, the way political organizations and
pollsters do all the time!)
4. Call in local and national talk shows. NPR's talk shows at least are
amenable to some type of dissenting viewpoint. If not, organize your group
and let them write and/or call in and say that if they don't balance things
out, you'll either picket and/or stop sending them funds and ask your
friends to do the same (some people are doing this in the San Diego area at
this time because of what they perceive to be a Republican bias in their
interviews on talk shows).
5. Attend marches and political rallies, and organize some of your own if
necessary; you'll find all kinds of anti-war, anti-fascism groups alive and
well in America in this time, the largest number since the Viet Nam war,
both in the cities and on the college campus'.
6. Respond to television, website, and radio stations that are taking polls
on issues; if necessary, call in or email in more than once so that you
compensate for the right-wing groups that are doing this regularly.
7. If you are good at writing, and recognized locally, write and submit
op-eds to the local newspapers. These need to be short (500-700 words),
factually accurate, precisely written, and devoid of diatribe. You can be
passionate with propriety.
These are just a few suggestions to get you going. We are sure you can think
of more, and as you do, please send email to us and we will compile your
suggestions and update the roadmap for resistance.
Sam Hamod is an expert on world affairs, especially the Arab and Muslim
worlds, former editor of THIRD WORLD NEWS (in Wash, DC), a former professor
at Princeton University, former Director of The National Islamic Center of
Washington, DC, an advisor to the US State Department and author of ISLAM IN
THE WORLD TODAY. He is the editor of www.todaysalternativenews.com, and may
be reached at
He is also a poet, nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in 1980 and the author
of 10 books of poems.
Elaine Cassel teaches law and psychology and practices law in the District
of Columbia and Virginia. She is a contributor to CounterPunch and
<Findlaw.com>'s Writ, and keeps a watch on the Bush Administration's
rewriting of the Bill of Rights on her Civil Liberties Watch site hosted by
Minneapolis, Minnesota's City Pages. Cassel can be reached at:
ecassel1@cox.net
.
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Yes, ARAFAT!!! Re: The perfect quintessential Fascist |
13 Jul 2003 02:10:20 AM |
|
|
prochristos36 a écrit :
[snip the pure anti-US propaganda lies]
The US keeps the world free despite assholes like you.
Why don't you drown yoursef, loser.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
The Quintessential Site on Bush's Military Service
Fascist Obnoxious Christians (FOX)
Germany was becoming Fascist in 1930. Now, America is becoming Fascist.
Reptilian Consciousness, Christo-Fascist Theology, and the Bogus 'War OnTerrorism'
Bush's Fascist Police State Riles Up Mt. Rushmore !!!
Fascist Canada
Re: Censorship, Apache Helicopters, and the Prosecution of a Racist, Judaeo-Fascist Theology
Russian Fascist Baboon makes strong comeback in elections
| Anti-Semitism, Censorship & Liberal Christo-Fascist Propaganda on NBC's"Dateline"
The American Fascist Movement
The fascist tendencies of Neocons and Bush
New Fascist Attorney General: Gonzales
Fascist Canadians
Re: Censorship, Apache Helicopters, and the Prosecution of a Racist, Judaeo-Fascist Theology
More Disturbing News About The Fascist USA
|
|
|
