The Real Reason America Is Drifting Towards Fascism
by George Washington
Why Is American
Drifting Towards Tyranny?
War is always
sold by artificially demonizing the enemy.
to lie about their enemies in order to demonize them sufficiently
so that the people will support the war.
is the first casualty of war“.
As Tom Brokaw
are based on propaganda.
in foreign countries demonizing Americans are an obvious form of
propaganda. For example, here are samples from Nazi Germany:
is supposed to be the guy on the left)
These are disturbing
images, because we as Americans know that they falsely depict who
have demonized our enemies as well. For example, in World War II,
anti-Japanese posters such as the following were used to whip up
hatred of the enemy:
posters such as this were also widely used:
And, at times,
Americans have even demonized other Americans, such as during the
Unique Form of Authoritarianism
modern strain of American fascism can be traced through Leo Strauss
and the University of Chicago.
is the father
of the Neo-Conservative movement, including many leaders of
recent American administrations.
of the main neocon players – including Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle,
Stephen Cambone, Elliot Abrams, and Adam Shulsky – were students
of Strauss at the University of Chicago, where he taught for
pushing for war against Iran are the same neocons who pushed for
war against Iraq. See this
(They planned both wars at
least 20 years ago.)
Shulsky was the director of the Office of Special Plans – the Pentagon
unit responsible for selling false
intelligence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. He
is now a member
of the equivalent organization targeting Iran: the Iranian Directorate.
in Germany, was an admirer of Nazi
philosophers such as Carl Schmitt and of Machiavelli (more on
that a stable political order required an external threat and that
if an external threat did not exist, one should be manufactured.
Specifically, Strauss thought
order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat
. . . . Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no
external threat exists then one has to be manufactured.
is by one of Strauss’ main
used the analogy of Gulliver’s Travels to show what a Neocon-run
society would look like:
[the town] was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including
the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe,
but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show
of disrespect.” (this quote also from the
Only a great
fool would call the new political science diabolic . . . Nevertheless
one may say of it that it fiddles while Rome burns. It
is excused by two facts: it does not know that it fiddles, and
it does not know that Rome burns.
seems to have advocated governments letting terrorizing
catastrophes happen on one’s own soil to one’s own people of “pissing”
on one’s own people, to use his Gulliver’s travel analogy. And he
advocates that government’s should pretend that they did
not know about such acts of mayhem: to intentionally “not know”
that Rome is burning. He advocates messing with one’s own people
in order to save them from some artificial “catastrophe”.
the Meme: Carl Schmitt
But to really
understand Strauss – and thus the Neocons – one must
understand his main influence: Carl Schmitt, the leading Nazi legal
scholar and philosopher who created the justification for “total
war” to destroy those labeled the “enemy” of the
Nazi state. Strauss was a life-long follower of Schmitt, and Schmitt
helped Strauss get a scholarship which let him escape from Germany
and come to America.
Not only was
Strauss heavily influenced by Schmitt, but Strauss and Schmitt were
so close that – when Strauss criticized Schmitt for being
too soft and not going far enough – Schmitt agreed:
recommended Strauss’s commentary [on Schmitt's writing] to his
friends as one that he believed saw right through him like an
philosophy argued that the sovereign was all-powerful in being able
a state of emergency:
is the name of that person (legal or actual) who decides not only
that the situation is a state of exception but also what needs
to be done to eliminate the state of exception and thus preserve
the state and restore order. Note the circularity of the definitions:
the sovereign is the one who decides that there is a state of
exception; a state of exception is that which the sovereign deems
to be so.
Indeed, a continuous
“state of emergency” is required for the type of leadership
advocated by Schmitt and Strauss. As Slavoj Žižek noted
precursor in this field of para-legal ‘biopolitics’, in which
administrative measures are gradually replacing the rule of law,
was Alfredo Stroessner’s regime in Paraguay in the 1960s and 1970s,
which took the logic of the state of exception to an absurd, still
unsurpassed extreme. Under Stroessner, Paraguay was – with regard
to its Constitutional order – a ‘normal’ parliamentary democracy
with all freedoms guaranteed; however, since, as Stroessner claimed,
we were all living in a state of emergency because of the worldwide
struggle between freedom and Communism, the full implementation
of the Constitution was forever postponed and a permanent state
of emergency obtained. This state of emergency was suspended every
four years for one day only, election day, to legitimise the rule
of Stroessner’s Colorado Party with a 90 per cent majority worthy
of his Communist opponents. The paradox is that the state of emergency
was the normal state, while ‘normal’ democratic freedom was the
briefly enacted exception. This weird regime anticipated some
clearly perceptible trends in our liberal-democratic societies
in the aftermath of 11 September. Is today’s rhetoric not that
of a global emergency in the fight against terrorism, legitimising
more and more suspensions of legal and other rights? The ominous
aspect of John Ashcroft’s recent claim that ‘terrorists use America’s
freedom as a weapon against us’ carries the obvious implication
that we should limit our freedom in order to defend ourselves.
Such statements from top American officials, especially Rumsfeld
and Ashcroft, together with the explosive display of ‘American
patriotism’ after 11 September, create the climate for what amounts
to a state of emergency, with the occasion it supplies for a potential
suspension of rule of law, and the state’s assertion of its sovereignty
without ‘excessive’ legal constraints. America is, after all,
as President Bush said immediately after 11 September, in a state
of war. The problem is that America is, precisely, not in a state
of war, at least not in the conventional sense of the term (for
the large majority, daily life goes on, and war remains the exclusive
business of state agencies). With the distinction between a state
of war and a state of peace thus effectively blurred, we are entering
a time in which a state of peace can at the same time be a state
that war against one’s enemy is total – lacking any
legal constraints – but the sovereign can use ever-shifting
definitions of who one’s enemy is:
War is the
existential negation of the enemy.
As with the
state of exception, there are not rational criteria for distinguishing
friend from enemy. All conflict is situational conflict.
Al Qaeda has been our “mortal enemy” since 9/11 …
they are our close ally.
eliminates the state of exception to restore order, but the content
of this order is historically contingent, because it is dependent
on the sovereign’s will. All that matters to Schmitt is, as Slavoj
Žižek puts it, “the decision for the formal principle of order
as such.” Similarly, Schmitt says nothing, can say nothing, about
what it is that makes a Lebens form worth defending with one’s
life, what substance and concrete content could or should compel
one to make such a commitment to preserve this form.
that “politics” is not the process of debate, making
trade-offs, building consensus or letting the best ideas win. Instead,
the sovereign – through an act of will – makes a decision,
and then the political system should carry it out, and the military
George W. Bush’s
statement that he was the “decider” fits in nicely with
the rest of the article
Washington blogs at Washington's
© 2012 Washington's