I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation’s.
The Nazi state was created by the same oligarchic financial and political interests who today control what we call the mass media and television. At the root of this experiment was the desire to create a New World Order based on reversing a fundamental premise of western Christian civilization: that man is created as a higher and distinct species from animals, created in the image of the living God and by Divine grace, imparted the Divine Spark of reason.
==Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (The Institution for Social and Policy St) (Scott, James C.)
Luther and Thomas Hobbes (the one of whom elaborated a religious and the other a secular version of a purely pessimistic analysis of man’s nature) human desires are regarded as inherently inordinate, and human character is believed to be practically devoid of inner checks upon expansive desires. In their opinion the business of government is to maintain order by repression.
==Reinhold Niebuhr: Major Works on Religion and Politics
The following quotes are from what I consider to be one of the most prescient of books, Bertram Gross’s, Friendly Fascism, published in 1980, ten years prior to the fall of communism. It is must reading for any student of the global, transnational fascism that is unfolding with increasing speed and openness. Gross expresses a deep understanding of the evolutionary imperatives of capitalism, the rise of the transnational capitalist class and its necessary supportive marriage with the transnationalist State and the almost…. almost inevitable end point. First a somewhat benign, covert form of a modern, post nationalist fascism to be more than likely followed by a far less “friendly” fascist persona bestriding America and the world.
It makes for good headlines and it may be a turn of a phrase into an appropriate epigram that makes the process seem smaller than it really is, but also, perhaps, easier to pillory and defeat. “Obamatrade”, as it is now being called, is not remotely the progeny of the Obama administration, but its embrace by his administration should dispel those who have labeled this President “liberal” in either its progressive or classical sense, for he is not.
From nation diluting immigration, to the continued, now once again more visible, support for the military industrial complex and the total disregard for the law by capitalist power and so many other examples, this administration has proven itself to be nothing more than the political arm of the transnational capitalist elites and the supporting global NGO’s such as the IMF, World Bank, OECD and yes, even the United Nations that are, in essence, the elites enforcers for the establishment of the reign of transnational crony finance capitalism. The curtain is being pulled back as the machinations of the corporate powers are revealed through the bumbling incompetence of Obama and his minions at affecting the plans that have been prepared long before his duplicitous, Trojan horse of a Presidency.
Is there hope? For a time, perhaps. The world-wide revolt against Monsanto, GMO seeds and Roundup, a long simmering populist movement, has been increasingly successful. There is now a worldwide, still relatively minor but growing rapidly, push back by the people against the corporatist fascism of the two major trade deals that American and foreign governments are attempting to cram down our collective throats. Derailing these efforts, both here in American and in Europe is critical.
If successful at burying the “free trade” process now it would be a huge and potentially contagious event that empowers the only force that can end the migration to a global corporate fascism, “friendly” or not so friendly. But it cannot die with what will likely be only a temporary setback to the transnational capitalist class. “Davos” man and all of the supporting characters will not roll over. They will fight and we will likely lose in the end. But the seeds of revolution will build under the coming tyranny of the 21st Century globalized fascist system.
A win here will likely be only of a battle in a long war, a war that has been going on for generations. Like the recent setback on Obama’s and the entire corporate complexes immigration, open border agenda, as well as the courts refutation of the totally unconstitutional destruction of the American citizens privacy rights there system will keep trying and will obviate restraints legally or not, these trade bills will not go away. The money and power behind them, as well as the full machinery of the all powerful corporate and state propaganda system, will gear up for a more concerted assault, now or sometime in the not too distant future. Clearly, they underestimated the response. That will not happen again.
I would anticipate significant diversions going forward to enhance the ease at which what is left of any pretenses of democracy in American and the EU will be distracted or, for national security and economic reasons the goals of all of these three major potential setbacks are overcome. From racial civil unrest, false flag terrorist attacks here and in Europe, war with Russia or more significant battles erupting in the Middle East there are plenty of avenues for what could be called a globalized, transnational Cloward-Piven program of chaos, distraction and fear.
We are in the end game of an evolutionary process of capital and the State and the powers against freedom, nationalism, and even the modest, squeaky democratic voice now being heard are far too powerful and will not lose without a fight, likely one of the very unfriendly fascist kind. The coming financial and economic implosion, or course, will provide more than enough fuel for the justification of the tyranny that unfortunately lies ahead. But protests today may lead to the needed revolutionary changes coming sooner, but first the collapse, the elites battle to retain power, tyranny and then, and then hopefully freedom once again.
HOW ARE THE LEADERS of the “Free World,” the Golden International, and the U.S.Establishment responding to the challenges that face them?
If one looks at any particular area, the prompt reply may be: “With cautious confusion.” When one looks at this or that part of the U.S. Establishment, one can see reactionaries trying to “turn back the clock of history,” conservatives who seem to favor the status quo and liberals who seek some system-strengthening reforms.
But as I survey the entire panorama of contending forces, I can readily detect something more important: the outline of a powerful logic of events. This logic points toward tighter integration of every First World Establishment. In the United States it points toward more concentrated, unscrupulous, repressive, and militaristic control by a Big Business-Big Government partnership that-to preserve the privileges of the ultra-rich, the corporate overseers, and the brass in the military and civilian order-squelches the rights and liberties of other people both at home and abroad. That is friendly fascism.
There is, of course, no master plan, no coordinated conspiracy. There is no predestined path, leading step by step to a sudden seizure of power by friendly fascists. I emphasize these points, if only because it is easy for a confusion to arise. By trying to make my analysis systematic and explicit, I may give the impression that the reality will be equally system atic and explicit.
On the contrary, the powerful leaders of the capitalist world have no single secret flight plan. In fact, the major navigators are in constant dispute among themselves about both the direction and the speed of flight, while their most redoubtable experts display their expertise by nitpicking at each other over an infinity of potentially significant details.
At any particular moment First World leaders may respond to crisis like people in a crowded night club when smoke and flames suddenly billow forth. They do not set up a committee to plan their response. Neither do they act in a random or haphazard fashion. Rather, the logic of the situation prevails. Everyone runs to where they think the exits are. In the ensuing melee some may be trampled to death. Those who know where the exits really are, who are most favorably situated, and have the most strength will save themselves.
Thus it was in Italy, Japan, and Germany when the classic fascists came to power. The crisis of depression, inflation, and class conflict pro vided an ideal opportunity for the cartels, warmongers, right-wing extremists, and rowdy street fighters to rush toward power. The fascist response was not worked out by some central cabal of secret conspirators. Nor was it a random or accidental development. The dominant logic of the situation prevailed.
Thus too it was after World War II. Neither First World unity nor the Golden International was the product of any central planners in the banking, industrial, political, or military community. Indeed, there was then-as there still is-considerable conflict among competing groups at the pinnacle of the major capitalist establishments.
But there was a broad unfolding logic about the way these conflicts were adjusted and the “Free World” empire came into being. This logic involved hundreds of separate plans and planning committees-some highly visible, some less so, some secret. It encompassed the values and pressures of reactionaries, conservatives, and liberals. In some cases, it was a logic of response to anti-capitalist movements and offensives that forced them into certain measures-like the expanded welfare state-which helped themselves despite themselves.
Although the friendly fascists are subversive elements, they rarely see themselves as such. Some are merely out to make money under conditions of stagflation. Some are merely concerned with keeping or expanding their power and privileges.Many use the rhetoric of freedom, liberty, democracy, human values, or even human rights. In pursuing their mutual interests through a new coalition of concentrated oligarchic power, people may be hurt-whether through pollution, shortages, unemployment, inflation, or war. But that is not part of their central purpose. It is the product of invisible hands that are not theirs.
For every dominant logic, there is an alternative or subordinate logic. Indeed, a dominant logic may even contribute to its own undoing. This has certainly been the case with many strong anticommunist drives-as in both China and Indochina-that tended to accelerate the triumph of communism. If friendly fascism emerges on a full scale in the United, or even if the tendencies in that direction become still stronger, countervailing forces may here too be created. Thus the unfolding logic of friendly fascism-to borrow a term from Marx- sows the seeds of its destruction or prevention.
In the name of “full employment,” job creation, and “supply side” economics, promote new forms of open or hidden payments to big business. In the name of combating inflation, cut social expenditures and promote recessions that lower real wages and weaken labor unions. Hold forth the promise of greater profitability in the future. Dampen class conflicts by sharing the spoils of Third World exploitation with parts of the home population.
If exploitation of the Third World is less successful, resort to firmer treatment at home. In either case, “divide and conquer” by co-opting the leaders of potential opposition and nurturing class fragmentation and ethnic conflicts. Try to keep actual warfare limited to small geographical areas and non-nuclear weapons. While calling for a balanced budget, expand arms exports (including the nuclear power plants that enable the pro liferation of nuclear war capabilities) and the stockpiling of overkill while striving for “first strike” superiority. Reap the benefits from arms production as a factor in overcoming economic stagnation and a guarantee of profitable growth in the industrial-scientific-military complex. Seek larger armed forces, draft registration and conscription as instruments of military intervention, relief of unemployment, and promotion of militarist discipline in society.
Lippmann: The breakdown of forms of authority is a much deeper and wider process in modern history than the Vietnam War … The destruction of that threatens to produce the chaos of modem times.
Steel: You see this as leading to authoritarianism or fascism?
Lippmann: It’s absolutely one of the things that will occur . . .
RONALD STEEL Washington post, 1973
Writing in the National Review toward the end of that decade (1960’s) , Donald Zoll provided an example of the possible rationalizations. Responding to the turmoil of the antiwar and civil rights movements, Zoll argued in a spirit of rueful advocacy that in the face of truly serious crisis, conservatives must consider expediential fascism. They should contemplate abandoning the “traditional rules of the game” by “candidly facing the necessity of employing techniques generally ignored or rejected by contemporary Western conservatives.” He therefore urged “political approaches that are totalitarian in nature [though] not quite in the original fascist sense that puts all aspects of life under political authority, at least in the general sense that political theory can no longer restrict itself to general conditions and procedural rules.” His alternative to “totalitarian radicalism” would be a totalitarian conservatism uninhibited by “liberal proprieties as to method.” Zoll confessed that this “might imply common cause with the Radical Right or even some form of expedential fascism-hardly an appealing association.” s But if the alternative to expedential fascism is to “let America die,” then-according to Zoll’s logic-better fascist than dead.
A similar note of urgency is trumpeted by General Maxwell Taylor who, in contrast with Zoll’s response to internal dangers, warns mainly against external dangers. “How can a democracy such as ours,” he asks, “defend its interests at acceptable costs and continue to enjoy the freedom of speech and behavior to which we are accustomed in time of peace?” Although his answer is not as candid as Zoll’s, he replies that such traditional and liberal properties must be dispensed with: “We must advance concurrently on both foreign and domestic fronts by means of integrated national power responsive to a unified national will.” Here is a distressing echo of Adolf Hilter’s pleas for “integration” (Gleichschaltung) and unified national will.
It is hard to grasp the unfolding logic of modem capitalism if one’s head is addled by nightmares of spectacular seizures of power. The combined influence of institutional rigidities, traditional concepts of constitutional democracy, and rifts among powerful elites is so great that friendly fascism could hardly emerge other than by gradual and silent encroachments. Like the tyranny referred to in a New York Times edi torial, it “can come silently, slowly, like fog creeping in ‘on little cat feet.’
Many of the most important changes would be subtle shifts imperceptible to the majority of the population. Even those most alert to the dangers would be able to see clearly, and document neatly, only a few of these changes. Indeed, some important social and economic innovations in manipulation or exploitation (coming in response to liberal or radical demands) might well be hailed as “progress.” In other cases, dramatic exposure, attack, and hullabaloo could have smokescreen consequences, blurring and sidetracking any effort to uncover root evils.
I deliberately avoid the high-charged attention-attracting drama of predicting the decade, year or circumstances of a sudden seizure of power by the friendly fascists. Like Oliver Wendell Holmes, I have almost no faith in “sudden ruin.” Although friendly fascism would mean total ruin of the American dream, it could hardly come suddenly let alone in any precisely predictable year. This is one of the reasons I cannot go along with the old-fashioned Marxist picture of capitalism or imperialism dropping the fig leaf or the mask. This imagery suggests a process not much longer than a striptease. It reinforces the apocalyptic vision of a quick collapse of capitalist democracy-whether “not with a bang but a whimper,” as T. S. Eliot put it, or with “dancing to a frenzied drum” as in the words of William Butler Yeats. In my judgment, rather, one of the greatest dangers is the slow process through which friendly fascism would come into being.
For a large part of the population the changes would be unnoticed. Even those most alive to the danger may see only part of the picture-until it is too late. For most people, as with historians and social scientists, 20-20 vision on fundamental change comes only with hindsight. And by that time, with the evidence at last clearly visible, the new serfdom might have long since arrived.
It would be easier to grasp the unfolding logic of modern capitalism if the most powerful leaders in capitalist society could readily agree on the flight plan toward a still more perfect capitalism. As it is, the major navigators are in constant dispute among themselves about both the direction and speed of flight, while their most redoubtable experts prove their expertise by nitpicking at each other on an infinity of potentially significant details.
Besides, with weather conditions often turbulent and changing, forward motion sometimes creates more turbulence, and these are situations in which delays or even crashes may occur. Thus, in the movement toward friendly fascism, any sudden forward thrust at one level could be followed by a consolidating pause or temporary withdrawal at another level. Every step toward greater repression might be accompanied by some superficial reform, every expansionist step abroad by some new payoff at home, every well-publicized shocker (like the massacres at Jackson State, Kent State, and Attica, the Watergate scandals or the revelations of illegal deals by the FBI or CIA) by other steps of less visibility but equal or possibly greater significance, such as large welfare payments to multinational banks and industrial conglomerates.
At all stages the fundamental directions of change would be obscured by a series of Robson’s choices, of public issues defined in terms of clear-cut crossroads-one leading to the frying pan and the other to the fire. Opportunities would thus be provided for learned debate and earnest conflict over the choice among alternative roads to serfdom . . .
The unifying element in this unfolding logic is the capital-accumulation imperative of the world’s leading capitalist forces, creatively adjusted to meet the challenges of the many crises I have outlined. This is quite different from the catch-up imperatives of the Italian, German, and Japanese leaders after World War I. Nor would its working out necessarily require a charismatic dictator, one-party rule, glorification of the State, dissolution of legislatures, termination of multiparty elections, ultra-nationalism, or attacks on rationality.
As illustrated in the following oversimplified outline, which also points up the difference between classic fascism and friendly fascism, the following eight chapters summarize the many levels of change at which the trends toward friendly fascism are already visible.
Despite the sharp differences from classic fascism, there are also some basic similarities. In each, a powerful oligarchy operates outside of, as well as through, the state. Each subverts constitutional government. Each suppresses rising demands for wider participation in decision making, the enforcement and enlargement of human rights, and genuine democracy. Each uses informational control and ideological flimflam to get lower and middle-class support for plans to expand the capital and power of the oligarchy and provide suitable rewards for political, professional, scientific, and cultural supporters.
A major difference is that under friendly fascism Big Government would do less pillaging of, and more pillaging for, Big Business. With much more integration than ever before among transnational corporations, Big Business would run less risk of control by any one state and enjoy more subservience by many states. In tum, stronger government support of transnational corporations, such as the large group of American companies with major holdings in South Africa, requires the active fostering of all latent conflicts among those segments of the American population that may object to this kind of foreign venture.
It requires an Establishment with lower levels so extensive that few people or groups can attain significant power outside it, so flexible that many (perhaps most) dissenters and would-be revolutionaries can be incorporated within it. Above all, friendly fascism in any First World country today would use sophisticated control technologies far beyond the ken of the classic fascists.
While the term “friendly” is useful (indeed invaluable) in distinguishing between the old-fashioned and the modern forms of repressive Big Business-Big Government partnerships, the word should not be stretched too far. The total picture provided by the following eight chapters may be thought of as a cinematic holograph of horror-all the more horrifying if the reader finds himself or herself entranced, if not captured, by its compelling logic.
Despite my emphasis on the United States, this unfolding logic is not strictly American. It may be discerned in the other “Trilateral” countries (Canada, Western Europe, and Japan) and in the closely related capitalist societies of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel. In all the more developed capitalist societies, corporate oligarchies tend to transcend the nation-state, while in the less developed ones-often with the rhetoric of socialism-State control plays a more decisive role in fostering the growth of big capital and its entry into the larger world of the Golden International.
Moreover, the emergence of neofascism in the First World will often continue to be blurred by denunciation of old-style autocracies and military dictatorships as “fascist” in accordance with the colloquial identification of fascism with simple brutality or oppression. Often, the germ of truth in such denunciations is that under dependent fascism old-style dictatorship may often serve to nurture the growth of big capital. On the other hand, when genuine neofascism emerges it may be associated with a relaxation of crude terror and the maturation of more sophisticated, effective, and ruthless controls.
—Friendly Fascism-Bertram Gross
President Obama is on the verge of creating the New World Order. He is using Trade Promotion Authority — otherwise known as “fast track” — to pass his globalist dream: the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a sweeping 12-nation trade pact.The TPP, however, is much more than about “free trade.” It is a deliberate attempt to create a new Pacific Union — a supranational entity modeled on the European Union. It is an embryonic political and economic union that, if implemented, would destroy U.S. sovereignty, flood America with unlimited immigration and subordinate the Constitution to an unelected, unaccountable international tribunal.In short, it is a monster, an evil corporatist infant, which must be strangled in its crib.Yet, Republicans in Congress, who were swept into office to curb Obama’s imperial presidency, are betraying their voters — and their country.