The rise of fascism.

[MikeW]

...Many people, myself included, are starting to feel this sense of complete political alienation since there are two opposing sides that usually condemn everyone in-between.

I'm in this boat but perhaps for different reasons than Humble. Back in the '90s I began looking into what goes on beneath the surface of politics. By 'surface' I mean the information streamed to us by corporate owned media. Noam Chomsky summed up 'the surface' this way:

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

The "presuppositions of the system" include the notion that corporate owned news media is not biased, is truly free to report what is actually going on and to do so fairly. It includes the notion that 'politics in a democratic society' actually give 'the people' a voice and that they can, therefore, directly affect the fundamental structures of power that govern the system itself.

I underscore "the fundamental structures of power" because what these are isn't obvious and that is the problem. One way of looking at it is in terms of "Deep Politics," and "Parapolitics' phrases coined by author Peter Dale Scott, someone I have the pleasure of knowing personally. From wiki:

Deep politics is a phrase coined by researcher and academic Peter Dale Scott, which he describes thus;

“My notion of deep politics… posits that in every culture and society there are facts which tend to be suppressed collectively, because of the social and psychological costs of not doing so. Like all other observers, I too have involuntarily suppressed facts and even memories about the drug traffic that were too provocative to be retained with equanimity.”

Scott has extensively researched political processes that fly under the radar of conscious political activity, are omitted from discourse on the right and the left, and are many times intertwined with global drug traffic. Here is Scott’s definition of “parapolitics”;

par a pol i tics (pa˘r ə po˘l ə tı˘ks), n. 1. a system or practice of politics in which accountability is consciously diminished. 2. generally, covert politics, the conduct of public affairs not by rational debate and responsible decision-making but by indirection, collusion, and deceit… 3. the political exploitation of irresponsible agencies or parastructures, such as intelligence agencies… Ex. 1. ‘The Nixon doctrine, viewed in retrospect, represented the application of parapolitics on a hitherto unprecedented scale.’ 2. ‘Democracy and parapolitics, even in foreign affairs, are ultimately incompatible.’"

Although valuable, Scott ultimately found the label of parapolitics too limiting;

“…the investigation of parapolitics, which I defined (with the CIA in mind) as a ‘system or practice of politics in which accountability is consciously diminished.’ . . . I still see value in this definition and mode of analysis. But parapolitics as thus defined is itself too narrowly conscious and intentional . . . it describes at best only an intervening layer of the irrationality under our political culture’s rational surface. Thus I now refer to parapolitics as only one manifestation of deep politics, all those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged.”

In other words, there is a realm of covert activity--where covert agencies, corporate interests, international finance and commerce, and global organized crime--interface in a way that has direct political consequences. All this "flies under the radar" of corporate news and consequently people don't really see it or think about it, much less have any direct affect on it through superficial political means.

I bring this up because any discussion of the rise of Fascism that does not include this deep political awareness will inevitably be inaccurate and futile. Political factionalism obviously has roots in and appeals to historical precedents (such as nationalism, bigotry and racism); but we aren't shown the underlying influence that deep politics and parapolitics has in fomenting political conflict. As Chomsky is pointing out, there appears to be "free-thinking going on" because we are shown disparate political positions regarding myriad social and economic issues. But NONE of them are capable of directly affecting these underlying structures of power (and wealth). This is the point. Politically we are kept informed and arguing about all these issues but it doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum 'wins' the debate. The 'function' of the debate is to keep our attention focused on issues that do not and cannot directly affect these deeper (and often chaotic) structures of power. (to be continued)

[Uneunsae]

The most important thing I learned in Business school is that most people cannot think for themselves but those in power do a very good job at making people feel intelligent and independent. "The dumbing down of America" is not some weird conspiracy theory - it's real. However, many people think they are intellectual individuals (two examples is the current hipster and nerd trends - they are actually into niche consumerism). As long as they think they are behind some great cause they will justify themselves.

That is why a single person, or group of people, can sway the public so easily; even towards a hateful or completely absurd doctrine.

And that's my rant for the day. lol

[MikeW]

(continued…

In 2004, journalist and activist, Michael hasty, wrote an essay entitled "Paranoid Shift". In it he describes his personal transition from a leftist radical who, "nevertheless held faith in the basic integrity of a system where power ultimately resided in the people, and whereby if enough people got together and voted, real and fundamental change could happen," to a "paranoid" who no longer holds that view. Although it is somewhat dated (having been written in the midst of the George Bush era), I encourage all who have an interest and the time, to read the article linked (which has many supporting links emanating from it), but I'll quote the core of it below:

Perhaps the biggest hidden reason people don't make the paranoid shift is that knowledge brings responsibility. If we acknowledge that an inner circle of ruling elites controls the world's most powerful military and intelligence system; controls the international banking system; controls the most effective and far-reaching propaganda network in history; controls all three branches of government in the world's only superpower; and controls the technology that counts the people's votes, we might be then forced to conclude that we don't live in a particularly democratic system. And then voting and making contributions and trying to stay informed wouldn't be enough. Because then the duty of citizenship would go beyond serving as a loyal opposition, to serving as a "loyal resistance"—like the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, except that in this case the resistance to fascism would be on the side of the national ideals, rather than the government; and a violent insurgency would not only play into the empire's hands, it would be doomed from the start.

Forming a nonviolent resistance movement, on the other hand, might mean forsaking some middle class comfort, and it would doubtless require a lot of work. It would mean educating ourselves and others about the nature of the truly apocalyptic beast we face. It would mean organizing at the most basic neighborhood level, face to face. (We cannot put our trust in the empire's technology.) It would mean reaching across turf lines and transcending single-issue politics, forming coalitions and sharing data and names and strategies, and applying energy at every level of government, local to global. It would also probably mean civil disobedience, at a time when the Bush regime is starting to classify that action as "terrorism." In the end, it may mean organizing a progressive confederacy to govern ourselves, just as our revolutionary founders formed the Continental Congress. It would mean being wise as serpents, and gentle as doves.

It would be a lot of work. It would also require critical mass. A paradigm shift.

Hasty is suggesting that what is needed is a grass roots movement that sets itself up as a "loyal resistance" to the increasingly fascistic tendencies of the national security state, aligning itself with the (US) "national ideals" as outlined in the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution. In this context it is worth quoting the second paragraph of the Declaration which makes these "national ideals" quite clear and stipulates the conditions under which people have not only the right but the obligation to abolish "absolute Despotism" (aka fascist regimes):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security….

The problem here is that the underlying structures of power, covert and criminal in their essence, will not allow such "radical" thinking to take root. Never mind that it is inshrined within one of our most cherished historical documents. The focus of political attention is kept on the superficial systems of power where people are led to believe that their votes matter. For sure they do but only in the limited sense that whatever their political opinions may be, they don't include, much less confront, these underlying structures.

For these reasons I have little hope of significant change occurring through any form of political redress, including some grass-roots movement, such as the the 99% Movement that produced a bit of media flurry a few years ago. Their analysis is more accurate (it isn't a left/right issue but an 'us' (99% of us) against a (1%) them, who hold the vast majority of wealth and power on this planet) than superficial politics but, nevertheless, such movements are invariably doomed. I often say, "The best way to thwart a revolution is to lead it." That is to say, covert agencies often infiltrate, distort, and in some cases foment "revolutions" that, in the final analysis, serve the interests of the very structures of power they were meant to eradicate. Movements become co-opted and misdirected.

So, what to do? This is the question I have been pondering now for many years. I'm generally of the opinion that, for all its faults (and there are many) the Zeitgeist movement is the closest philosophical perspective that could, conceivably, show humankind that "government" (even democratic government) is now beyond irrelevant; it is in fact a liability and potential threat to the survival of our species and this planet. They are right to discern that the most fundamental changes occurring in society now are beyond direct governmental control (except after the fact). Our technology, engineering and industry are now moving at such a rapid pace that "government" (for the most part an institution established in the 1700s) has become antiquated, primarily serving only the interests of a powerful elite (which, for the most part, it always has--just at times more obviously so than others).

But whether or not it is possible for us to make the transition from a financial based economy to what Zeitgeist's call a (global) "resource based" economy is a question only history can answer. I believe the *potential* is there but to think that the 1% that controls the worlds finances and resources currently will willingly let them go is beyond naive.

In some mysterious, yet to be understood way (if at all), it is going to be up to us to transition our thinking about what is humanly possible to a completely new paradigm. Personally I'm not optimistic about that short of a tremendous upheaval that could make the previous two world wars look like cake walks by comparison. But, on the other hand, all it would really take is a relatively rapid shift away from international banking controlled currency to bring the 1% down. If 'we the people' can find a way of interacting economically that is outside of that structure (and I hear rumors there are efforts within the Dark Web to do just that), the whole dog and pony show of national and international politics could be made to appear as irrelevant as it already is.

[Bowyn Aerrow]

Bigotry: Um like segregation of Black and white?

Police state? Like umm....



Extremism: Like what, World War I? World War II? How about that little thing called the Cold War with nuclear proliferation and the Mutually Assured Destruction policies of the USSR/USA?

More at home for you I the UK - Recall the Bold IRA who resorted to bombing people in order to get independents or Ireland? That was sorta justified owing to the history that England/Brittan had with the emerald isle. For instance that whole potato famine thing - that was due to the use of the Irish as mere slaves forcing them to eat potatoes while the good crops were shipped across the Irish Sea to the larger island.

More homophobic.... Seriously, And how many eras in British History were gays allowed to marry?

And the hatred of Islam... really how new is that exactly? In the 20th century no western appeared to mind how the middle east was being used to wage the Cold War. Bin Laden is a product of the CIA, the Iran Hostage Crises and The Shaw of Iran lead to the 'strained' relationship between Iran and the West. Saddam Husein was an American Puppet in Iraq - well before the Gulf War One and Gulf War Two.

The only difference between 1950's western world and today's western world is that the people no longer trust their government. All of this crappy shit that governments are doing openly was being done back then, it was just on the down low in order to keep the sheep happy and trusting.

Hatred, bigotry, Governments being police states, agendas to wipe out other nations, politicians preying on the fears of the voters to get bills passed into law... Nothing new under the sun.

You are, however, more aware of it than we were back in the 80's and 90's - but then now you have instant news and 24/7 round the clock live news stations. We had newspapers and the 6' O'clock news hour and telegraphs and smoke signals - no internet.

[Virge]

Guys, I'm new here so I can't post links, images or email addys.

You guys are barely touching on the tip top of the iceberg on this subject. It's going to take me a bit to put together a FACT BASED post on this to inform you and, I hate to say it, show you things you really want to wish you don't have to know about.

I'm don't believe any of you are paranoid conspiracy goons and I'm definitely not a conspiracy nut. I'm not even a party oriented political activist but I have a vested interest in all matter relating directly and indirectly to gay people in the USA as well as other nations.

In the meantime while I work on a post go ahead to youtube and search for this
Bryan Fischer American Family Association declared a hate group.
it's a nine minute video with some really startling stuff.

Then watch for me to post in a few days.

[Aike]

I just disagree with the notion that fascist/nationalist extremism needs to be battled with left-wing extremism, which many people over here seem to think. Some voters will always be perpetually too ignorant to be persuaded by reason, but most people can be set on the right path once the right information is presented in the right way.

Science and reason can debunk prejudiced myths about ethnicity, gender and sexuality, and if the radical left in my country spent less time attacking political parties and stabbing nazis to death, and more time spreading information and a message of serenity I think we'd be on our way towards a better society.

There seems to be this strange preconception that since fascism is usually perceived as a right-wing ideology (even if the reality is more ambiguous), only left-wing ideologies can work as antidotes. As a result, left-wing radicals aim their contempt and violence at not only fascists and nationalists, but also liberals and conservatives, due to their right-wing associations. Many people, myself included, are starting to feel this sense of complete political alienation since there are two opposing sides that usually condemn everyone in-between.

Two points:

I don't think the idea of educating people with facts, reason and science necessarily works. But not because people are too ignorant or stupid but because the fields of reason and science are themselves contested terrains. Take for example the social science of economics, which presents itself as a scientific and rational support for economic policy. Although what is called the neoclassical school of economics could be said to be today the hegemonic paradigm it is by no means the only one (it is opposed today mainly by keynesianism). It is therefore impossible to find THE rational economic policy. What we have is rather a range of various forms of economic reasoning contesting against each other. There is no neutral voice of science to tell us what to do.

As for the disappearance of centrist politics - one should first remark that the view of politics as divided between the center and extremes is not an objective view. In fact, it is mostly associated with the right wing, who, precisely, do not necessarily present themselves as right wingers but as rational centrist moderates trying to maintain social harmony by excluding the extremes and/or getting rid of alien subjects (immigrants, jews, etc.) trying to infiltrate the social fabric. Against this center/extremes view of politics we have the view associated with the left, from whose perspective the society appears not as a social harmony disturbed by extremists or alien intruders but as an inequal society radically divided between classes (and race, gender, etc.). From this perspective the idea of a moderate center is something like an illusion (therefore we usually have the radical left associating "centrist" parties with the right wing: you are either left or right - there's no neutral middle. You either endorse inequality or you do not.).

My second point is this: one can read the recent rise of fascist and right wing movements as a response to the failure of the centrist (whether center-left or center-right) parties to respond to the economic crisis. More particularly: it is due to the failure of the mainstream left (or center-left) to counter the politics of austerity (for this would imply a radical departure from capitalism, something that the social democrats aren't capable of). This is why I'm keenly following Greek politics. The mainstream media made a big deal out of the popularity of the fascist Golden Dawn in recent European elections. Much less was said of the most popular party in Greece right now, Syriza, which won I think 5 or 6 seats in the European parliament. Syriza presents itself as a party of the radical left and it is thanks to the radicalization of the leftist movement in Greece right now that the country hasn't already resigned to fascism.

[East]

But NONE of them are capable of directly affecting these underlying structures of power (and wealth). This is the point. Politically we are kept informed and arguing about all these issues but it doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum 'wins' the debate. The 'function' of the debate is to keep our attention focused on issues that do not and cannot directly affect these deeper (and often chaotic) structures of power. (to be continued)

^^^THIS^^^ is the bottom line...absolutely