The United Fascist States of American: Part 2

Strong Centralized Government

If the fascist state is in possession of a well oiled propaganda machine, then winning over the populace is made a much simpler task. This means to say, that when the populace is diverted from the strong arm tactics of the fascist government, the government is made more able to implement their policies without annoying intervention. 

Noam Chomsky related the parallels of propaganda during Hitler's Germany and modern America during an interview; “There it was the Jews. Here it will be the illegal immigrants and the blacks. We will be told that white males are a persecuted minority. We will be told we have to defend ourselves and the honor of the nation. Military force will be exalted. People will be beaten up. This could become an overwhelming force. And if it happens it will be more dangerous than Germany. The United States is the world power. Germany was powerful but had more powerful antagonists. I don’t think all this is very far away” (Rothschild, 2010).

These are the hallmarks of a nation with a socialized agenda. However, if these recepients don't contribute to the bellicose zeitgeist and efforts of the state they then are not to be taken care of by the fascist state. It's clear that leading American intellectuals see a shift towards historic fascism when one examines the propaganda machine and the injection of polarizing issues. This trend becomes more obvious and more entrenched when war appropriations and the military industrial complex converge.

Militaristic Tendencies and The Armaments Industry

In order for the fascist state to continue to advance its warring efforts two ingredients are need: money and manufacturing. Chris Hellman is communications liaison at the National Priorities Project, a military watchdog and think tank. He maintains that the United States government sets aside 20% of its GDP on military spending. The 20%, Hellman claims, is only the tip of the iceberg. According to Hellman the government funnels billions of dollars into the military using budgetary slight of hand;

“...you hear about the Pentagon budget and the war-fighting supplementary funds passed by Congress for our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.That already gets you into a startling price range -- close to $700 billion for 2012 -- but that’s barely more than half of it. If Americans were ever presented with the real bill for the total U.S. national security budget, it would actually add up to more than $1.2 trillion a year”(Hellman, 2011).

Obviously the money is on hand for financing the fascist American state, but where is the money going? Daniel Guerin more than 75 years ago clearly saw where the money was going; “...they (war industries) they eagerly pocket the fabulous profits from armament orders...”(Guerin, 1973). One of those companies in the United States is Lockheed Martin. The Lockheed company merged with Martin Marietta company to form a large aerospace design and manufacturing operation which has profited from government contracts. To illustrate the entwined nature of the American fascist states's collusion with the industrial military complex, investigative reporter Tim Weiner remarked; “it's impossible to tell where the government ends and Lockheed begins” (Weiner, 2004).

Once again it is straightforward enough to see that America manifests another of the three pillars of a fascist state. Solidifying the opposition by squelching out socialistic descenders is last lithimus test of whether or not a state is fascist.

Socialistic Ideals Quelled

Still continuing during the presidency of the Democrat Barack Obama, a combative congress has been swelled in ranks by a far right-wing faction of the Republican party. This political faction goes by the name Tea-Party in commemoration of the Boston Tea Party. This Tea Party seeks to emulate the recalcitrant nature of the protesting Bostonians of the 1770's by aggressively blocking, obfuscating or repealing many of the socialist tenets of modern America. Consider the vociferous dislike of a form of universal health care or the curtailing of food stamp subsidies or reduction in funding of state subsidized morning breakfasts for poor or underprivileged school children.

During the presidency of the Democrat Barack Obama, a combative congress has been swelled in ranks by a far right-wing faction of the Republican party. This political faction goes by the name Tea-Party in commemoration of the Boston Tea Party. This Tea Party seeks to emulate the recalcitrant nature of the protesting Bostonians of the 1770's by aggressively blocking, obfuscating or repealing many of the socialist tenets of modern America. Consider the vociferous dislike of a form of universal health care or the curtailing of food stamp subsidies or reduction in funding of state subsidized morning breakfasts for poor or underprivileged school children.

The emergence of the Nazi Party in Germany reveals a startling parallel to the evolution of the political landscape in the modern United States; “There was also tremendous disillusionment with the parliamentary system. The most striking fact about Weimar was not that the Nazis managed to destroy the Social Democrats and the Communists but that the traditional parties, the Conservative and Liberal parties, were hated and disappeared. It left a vacuum which the Nazis very cleverly and intelligently managed to take over” (Guerin, 1973).

Conclusion

The modern United States of America displays all three of the characteristics of a fascist nation state. The intense consolidation of power and money through ritualized propaganda is certainly evident in the modern US. An overabundance of monetary support is diverted from the government to favored war industries in order to finance its bellicose tendencies. Again, another characteristic of fascism has been met. Finally, the systematic belittlement of socialistic ideals has made its way to the forefront of the American psych. The combination of these elements is nearly indisputable proof of the modern United States of America fascist nation.

References

Eisenhower, Dwight D. (1961).Farewell Address.DDE’s Papers as President, Speech Series, Box 38, Final TV Talk. Retrieved from http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/farewell_address.html

Guerin, Daniel, Merrill,Frances. (1973). Fascism and Big Business. New York: Monad Press.

Hellman, Chris. (2011).$1.2 Trillion for National Security. Retrieved fromhttp://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175361

Rothschild, Matthew. (2010).Chomsky Warns of Risk of Fascism in America.Retrieved fromhttp://www.progressive.org/wx041210.html

Weiner, Tim. (2004).Lockheed and the Future of Warfare. New York: New York Times (November 28, 2004).

The United Fascist States of American: Part 1

Introduction

The modern statecraft of the United States of America a fascist nation state. The perpetual bellicose zeitgeist of the United States since World War II has been the handmaiden to fascism. The steadfast and often unnoticed veneration of a strong centralized nation state is the hallmark of fascist statecraft. A vociferous loathing of socialistic ideals is a key component of the fascist doctrine. Combine these two elements with aggressive militaristic tendencies, usually beneficial to the state and the state sanctioned industries, and the recipe for a totalitarian fascist nation is complete.

America has clandestinely undergone a transformation from a Democratic Republic to a Crypto-Democratic Fascist Nation. The telltale signs of this can be seen in public veneration to the national flag (the pledge of allegiance), the financial coddling of multinational industries geared toward military manufacturing and national agencies which clandestinely police the populace searching for descenders and then applying pressure to remain within party lines. Although this paper will support the thesis that the United States of America is fascist, an exhaustive documentation of such an assertion falls outside the scope of this paper.

Fascism Historically Defined

In order to determine if the United States of America is indeed fascist it is essential to have a clear definition of what is meant by fascism. During the the second and third decades of the 20th century the world was witnessed the assent to power of two iconic fascist regimes in Europe, Adolf Hilter's Germany and Benito Mussolini's Italy. Much of what is inferred about the nature of a fascist nation is gleaned from on of these two models. In an interview with Noam Chomsky, a leading American intellectual, told reporter Matthew Rothschild; “The Weimar Republic was the peak of Western civilization and was regarded as a model of democracy... (but) No analogy is perfect....but the echoes of fascism are “reverberating today” (Rothschild, 2010).

Daniel Guerin was a French Anarcho-communist and prolific writer of treatises which extolled the virtues of communism and anarchism while lambasting the fascism and fascist nations of most notably the German fascist nation under Hitler. In the year 1938, which corresponded with the fascist power grab in German, Guerin provides, in his book Fascism and Big Business, a simple and succinct definition of fascism. He writes; “...fascism is reduced to this: a strong state intended to prolong artificially an economic system based on profit and the private ownership of the means of production...”(Guerin, 1973). Guerin went on the explain what the cornerstone of that economic system was; “...big business approves of an aggressive policy that brings it new armament orders...”(Guerin, 1973). In other words, fascism is a powerful, centralized and militaristically combative state that overtly subsidizes war goods manufacturing all of which occurs within an anti-socialist public rhetoric.

Hitler and Mussolini's brand of statecraft were populist reactions to what they viewed as to rampant and financially destructive capitalism, monarchism and colonialism. Daniel Guerin explains; “The crisis of the capitalist system itself is what shook capitalism to its foundations by drying up the sources of profit. The working class, on the other hand, paralyzed by its organizations and its leaders in the hour of the decay of capitalist economy, did not know how to take power and replace dying capitalism with socialism” (Guerin, 1973).

Finally, President Dwight Eisenhower gave a harrowing and bleak cautionary note to the American people about the emerging dangers of fascism during his farewell address, January 17, 1961. It must be noted that the United States had fought and defeated, in the European theater during WWII, the fascist regimes of Hitler and Mussolini. However, the United States had never demilitarized to a peace time size of the armed forces after the conclusion of World War II. Eisenhower forewarned America; “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together” (Eisenhower, 1961).

Thusly, even then the tell tale signs of fascism were apparent in America: a strong centralized government with militaristic tendencies, a thriving war armaments industry and a distain for socialistic ideals.

References

Eisenhower, Dwight D. (1961). Farewell Address. DDE’s Papers as President, Speech Series, Box 38, Final TV Talk. Retrieved from http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/farewell_address.html

Guerin, Daniel, Merrill,Frances. (1973). Fascism and Big Business. New York: Monad Press.

Hellman, Chris. (2011). $1.2 Trillion for National Security. Retrieved from http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175361

Rothschild, Matthew. (2010). Chomsky Warns of Risk of Fascism in America. Retrieved from http://www.progressive.org/wx041210.html

Weiner, Tim. (2004). Lockheed and the Future of Warfare. New York: New York Times (November 28, 2004).

The Gods Must Be Stingy

Cargo Cults, Welfare and Political Drivel

     Libertarianism social policy fits snugly into the ideological framework of the American Constitution which the “Founding Fathers” seemingly intended. There is deep chasm of political philosophy between Libertarianism and the original intent of a “common good”, which runs like a thread through the Constitution. Libertarianism, I feel, will prove to be inadequate for effective statecraft on a federal, state, or local level. As an illustration of the inherent shortcomings, consider the implications of one of the basic tenets of it's political ideology; self-reliance. If you carry that to one of it's logical and pragmatic conclusions then there is scanty provision made for civil utilities like fire departments or police forces. Remember that until the end of the 19^th century and beginning of the 20^th century fire departments were privately owned and operated. This meant that if your home or business didn't bare the placard of one of the privately held fire departments then those companies would not respond to the fire. Fortunately, that civic mayhem has been rectified by cities incorporating the fire departments into their municipal jurisdiction. The evolution of political “common good” as it pertains to civil concepts has come to be accepted as a right of citizenship and residence and can't be easily reversed. When it comes to abject poverty and marginalization of economic, cultural and ethnic groups not only do the Libertarians receive a failing grade but so do the Republicans and the Democrats alike. I will attempt not to oversimplify but also refrain from getting mired down in the nuances of their respective ideologies. I will try to succinctly describe American's popular conception of the political parties stance on welfare as it refers to the “common good”.

     Republicans assume that the poor or needy, whether chronic or temporary, stick their hands out expecting a material or monetary freebie from the leaders without having to be concerned about self-reliance. This is their classic example of a welfare state kept on life support by the majority of hard working tax payers. The Democrats, in contrast, are portrayed as the weak bleeding heart handmaidens to this “nanny state”. The question arises, then, who has the moral and political high ground? Has striving for the “common good” devolved into a situation where an underclass has become so despondent that they have come to view the government as their earthly salvation? After the end of World War 2 curious quasi-religious movements sprang up on the islands of Melanesia which embodied that same despondency. Those movements yearning for an earthly salvation are what are known as Cargo Cults.

     The concept of the Cargo Cult has been erroneously linked to the culture of poverty in American society. Although many aspects are similar and one can understand the spurious conclusions drawn between them and the perception of a permanent American underclass. However, as will be shown, the idea of redemption by the government doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In order to do that we will have to tease out what constitutes a cargo cult by briefly describing the John Frum movement. After we have established our parameters of a cargo cult we will delve into a lingering sociological concept that continues to obscure an objective discourse on rampant poverty and its tenacious staying power in the United States. The outdated sociological concept of a culture of poverty is behind this ideological conundrum.

     Cargo Cults, like The John Frum movement of the island Vanuatu, emerged during World War 2. These small islands were used as weigh stations and springboards for thousands of American troops in the Pacific Theater. Anthropologists view Cargo Cults arising out of encounters with an outside culture which stand out in contrast to the indigenous culture as it relates to material wealth. There develops a mysterious reverence to the outsiders because the local population can't comprehend from where such a limitless supply of goods and resources originate. The local peoples assume it's the workings of magic which is perhaps summoned from the spirit world by veritable gods. While the war raged on in the Pacific these cargo cult built symbolic airstrips for the planes and erected statues of airplanes made from palm fronds and coconuts. They even built churches with coconut radio transmitters to contact these gods. Once the Americans had withdrawn from the Pacific Theater following the end of WW2 the Cargo Cults took an even greater mythical hold on the local population. They began venerating those symbols of the gods. They prayed for their return when they hoped the gods would bring with them the material wealth of the spiritual realm. As was told to Paul Raffaele of the Smithsonian Magazine on his visit in 2006 by a ranking member of the John Frum movement; “John promised he’ll bring planeloads and shiploads of cargo to us from America if we pray to him...(like) radios, TVs, trucks, boats, watches, iceboxes, medicine, Coca-Cola and many other wonderful things.” These pre-literate island cultures were in awe of the material wealth and benevolence of the gods who descended upon them. There were no precursors for grasping on an abstract level why the American soldiers were being supplied and from where these supplies came. It can easily be seen how these local populations could succumb to deifying those gods and in turn, on a deep cultural and religious level, expect the gods to care for them. They were inadvertently thrust into a cycle of subservience; a culture of poverty.

     The culture of poverty was a mid 20^th century (1959) sociology paradigm that was able to garner both wide spread acceptance within academia and coffee shop pundits. Originally it was conceived by social anthropologist Oscar Lewis in his book titled “Five Families: Mexican Case Studies in the Culture of Poverty.” Lewis' ethnographical study of this Mexican subculture delineated how exclusion from the overarching dominant culture tended to influence the subculture to modify and adapt. Due to the lack of resources, like second language acquisition, formal higher or skilled education and absence of community role models, subcultures manufacture aberrant value systems from the generally accepted social norms. As a side effect of this insular enculturation these value systems were in turn inherited by the children. This precipitated the generational adoption of these mores and norms and thusly, allowed them to be perpetuated. Furthermore, Lewis postulated that because these mechanisms of adaptation have been engrained so thoroughly in the members of these subcultures, notably children, they are inevitably held captive to those ideals and social conventions. This ultimately leads to a perceived continuum of an underclass; a culture of poverty. During President Lyndon B. Johnson's “new deal” the concept was used to describe the plight of the urban ghetto namely, the black communities. It has since lost most of it's preliminary luster because of the work of modern sociologists, like harvard professor William Julius Wilson, who turned the argument on its ear. He claims that many ethnic groups choose to isolate themselves from the homogenous American culture. The many China Towns found in American's urban settings is testament to this voluntary isolation. Asian immigrant populations tend to cluster together and in doing so establish networks of support for the newly arrived emigres. Of course, there are other ethnic groups who adhere to the same clustering after immigration; like Eastern Europeans or Caribbeans. Wilson asserts that the main reason for a perceived culture of poverty is the lack of social role models in the impoverished areas of America. A mixture of socio-economic classes are required to exist in close proximity to one another in order for them to interact on a meaningful level. Most notably the middle class has a pivotal role to play in this drama.

     The struggling underclass is not incapable of learning and adapting if given a fair and even chance to succeed. The fact that there is an exodus of the middle class from these areas proves the point that success is at least attainable. The real concern isn't a Cargo Cult mentality which is perpetuated from generation to generation. The focus shouldn't be on vilifying the underprivileged as gullible and lazy. The main thrust from all political parties should be eradicating the ghettoization of America. Mandating the “common good” is what being an America is all about.