cj-4/24> Re: Nazi rise to power
David Sternlight
Richard K. Moore <cyberj...@cpsr.org> wrote:
>
>Nazism, Militias, and the Abuse of History
>Richard K. Moore
>24 April 1995
>
This seemingly super-rational, super cool post has at its core some
irrationalities big enough to cast serious doubt on the writer's basic
argument:
>
>It always fascinates me how absolutely any postition can be "substantiated"
>by selective quotes from history,
But see your own use of this technique in this very message (below)
> just as you can justify anything you
>might want to do by finding some particular isolated quote from the Bible
>(or the Koran, or the Junior Woodchuck Guidebook.
We're beginning to see the propaganda tactics already. Apparently something
the writer doesn't agree with is "an isolated quote".
>>From what I've seen, I think one of the clearest central thruths about
>Hitler is that he was anti-liberal.
REALLY! And we all thought he would have belonged to the ACLU! Discovering
the obvious, eh?
> He despised the democratic process,
>despised diversity of opinion, and built his constituency by lying about
>history and by inciting hatred and mistrust of government, labor unions,
>liberals, subtleties of political thought, intellectuals, gays, and nearly
>all minorities. He appealed to a simplistic, jingoistic version of
>"traditional German" values, and referred selectively to religion when it
>suited his propagandistic puposes. The core of his enemies-lists was what
>is today mis-called the "liberal elite". Yes he hated Jews, and he
>exploited native German anti-semitism, but he rounded up labor leaders and
>democratic spokesman long before he launched the formal holocaust. When he
>invaded Poland, his first act was to round up and shoot liberal political
>leaders and activists, even before the smoke had cleared from his Luftwaffe
>bombs. The Warsaw ghetto pogrom came much later.
Uh-huh. So if we throw enough variables in there we can include some which
people we don't like have in common with Hitler, and then use that to smear
them. You forgot brown eyes.
>Hitler's rhetoric was at core indistinguishable from what we now hear from
>the Limbaugh's and the right-wing talk radio hosts, and in a more disguised
>form, from the Gingrich's. He then, and they now, try to blame society's
>ills on those dis-empowered groups which have the least say in public
>policy. They blame the victims, and the public then and now seems to revel
>in those kinds of easy answers.
Boy, that didn't take long. In the very next paragraph we see the smear of
those the writer finds ideologically dissonant to his own views.
It's a narrow and inaccurate caricature that Limbaugh or Gingrich's main
ideological basis is "blaming the victims". It's also a false
overgeneralization. If anything, it's the liberals who have been using
"blame the victim" in their persecution of the white middle-class mainstream
via affirmative action and its' logic. When the unfortunate truth that many
of the white middle class mainstream had nothing to do with slavery and
their ancestors weren't even in this country at the time but were victims
themselves in, say, Europe is pointed out, people the writer seem more
comfortable with have an answer for that, too: "Well, they benefitted from
slavery because they're white." Peculiar, divisive, and racist logic indeed.
>
>In this regard, I invite you to recognize that these same "exceptions to
>every single rule" are being systematically introduced into our own legal
>system. This has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats -- it's been
>happening on a fully bi-partisian basis. The "war on drugs" and
>"anti-terrorism" are being used as an excuse to suspend the Bill of Rights.
The writer seems to think things are black and white. They never have been,
as any examination of the history of the Supreme Court will show. We have
always been searching for and making distinctions between absolute liberty
and the public good. As one Justice put it succinctly, "The Constitution is
not a suicide pact."
>
>
>Protection against illegal search and seizure? -- Goodbye. You may think
>drug dealers are the only victims (houses confiscated for minor drug
>offenses), and not give a damn, but once the constitutional protection is
>gone, anyone in disfavor with the government can have their property
>confiscated, without benefit of judicial process.
This "nose of the camel" argument is one I'm well familiar with. It's a
great favorite of six-year-olds, along with "But you said....". The checks
and balances in the law and the judicial process, as well as even the most
cursory study of American history gives the lie to the notion. If it were
correct we'd all be living in an "alien and sedition laws" totalitarian
McCarthyite state. We are not, despite the paranoia of this kind of
argumentation.
Why do I think it is the writer's style of argumentation that is illiberal,
totalitarian, black-and-white right wing? The writer seems to lack the basic
capability of the rational man--the ability to make distinctions rather than
seeing everything in black and white--in this case the ability to
distinguish warranted protection of public safety within the laws and
Constitution from a fascist takeover of power.
The ultimate example was the argument of the head of the Michigan militia on
60 Minutes--the government is the danger and may have to be overthrown.
Listen, I and hundreds of millions of other Americans voted for that
government, and it is MY government. A few sickos who attempt to cancel my
vote by using force and violence to overthrow the government are what?
Patriots? No way! Constitutionalists? Don't make me laugh! Lovers of
liberty? Like the people who cry 'Power to the people' when they really mean
'Power to me and my friends."!
> Right to freedom of
>speech and assembly? -- Goodybe. You may think Moslem fundamentalists are
>the only victims, and not give a damn, but once the government can
>prosecute anyone associated with anyone who later commits a violent act (as
>with the World Trade Center prosecutions), meaningful political activity is
>a thing of the past. Especially when the government is willing to sponsor
>illegal acts by agent provocateurs, as it has done for decades, so it can
>then arrest legitimate political leaders.
This is more baloney. It is well established that free speech does not, as
one Justice said, extend to falsely crying "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. But
it does extend to those who use speech within the law.
>Now with the Oklahoma bombing, one of the first things we hear is that the
>intelligence agencies should be beefed up and given a freer reign -- hardly
>a surprise, but hardly an appropriate response. Does anyone really believe
>the militia orgnaizations are not already thoroughly infiltrated by
>government informers? Is anyone that naive? White House Chief of Staff
>Leon Panetta said Sunday that "Federal undercover agents have been
>infiltrating paramilitary groups suspected of planning crimes but got no
>warning of the devastating
>bombing in Oklahoma City." But who decides which warnings pecolate up to
>the White House? Many books by former CIA agents reveal that the agency
>passes on exactly what it chooses to, based on what spin they want policy
>makers to be exposed to. We then have former FBI agent Oliver "Buck" Revel
>saying on CBS's "Face the Nation" that "Mr. Panetta's statement that some
>of these groups are being monitored is inaccurate. I only left six months
>ago and we had no
>investigations on any of the militias." Maybe and maybe not. The last
>thing we'd expect in a public statment by a still-in-favor ex-FBI agent is
>the truth. Such statements are made for their poltiical effect, not to
>reveal the true extent of intelligence activity.
Here we see the tactic of the propagandist I mentioned at the start. Panetta
is given credibility because his statement supports the writer's case.
Suspicion is cast on Revel because his statement goes against the writer's
propaganda. That's both irrational and a bit paranoid, in my view.
>
>The US government itself funds terrorist organizations, as is a matter of
>public record in the case of Iran-based organizations (to name one example
>already published in Newsweek). The CIA protects drug cartels all over the
>globe. When Reagan sent Perot on a fact finding mission to Vietnam to look
>into the POW situation, Perot reported that our intelligence agents were
>too busy dealing drugs to help him with the investigation. Reagan relieved
>him of his assignment at that point. When Noriega was arrested in Panama,
>supposedly to stop his drug dealing, the drug-bankers were put right back
>in power, and Panama remains the banking center for the international drug
>trade. This is not unknown the US government.
Two wrongs don't make a right, assuming the writer's accusation is both
accurate and reflects official policy. Chances are it does neither.
>In a backhanded sort of way, the Michigan Militia is right -- the
>government _is_ undermining our freedoms and selling out to international
>organizations -- but it's multinationals who are taking over, not the UN.
>The militia's error is not so much in their political analysis, which has
>elements of truth -- their error is in thinking the answer lies in
>stockpiling rifles and launching their own conspiratorial movement. Their
>enemy is not liberalism, it's corporate-sponsored authoritarianism. If
>they want to preserve the Constitution, they should put their guns away and
>build coaltions with all the millions of other folks who value freedom and
>democracy and the Constitution. By their strategy, they're helping to
>bring about the very dictatorship they rightly fear.
Now it comes out. Conspiracies everywhere. If it's not the government, it's
them multinationals. If not them, what? I have it--it's really the Council
on Foreign Relations. Oh no, it's the Bilderbergers. H'mmm--maybe they are
in cahoots. And what about that evil, conspiratorial United Nations
Association?
The writer seems to me to prefer subtly presented paranoid ideation to
evidence. The slightest study of multinationals, and there have been volumes
written about them, shows they are in a polite but vicious competition to do
each other in in the marketplace and elsewhere. Industrial espionage is rife
in some industries. Use of national, rather than multinational ideology is
often the basis of massive unfair trade practices by multinationals acting
through the political system in their home country. The only thing
multinational about multinationals is the individual multinational's attempt
to maximize profits across national boundaries. This leads, if anything, to
attempts to do in the multinational competition, not some conspiratorial
world order.
Just about the only thing the multinationals seem to have in common is their
desire for a rule of law so they can plan rationally. But it is not an
"internationalist" rule of law, but a rule of law which favors them in their
own country and turns a blind eye to them in other countries. In the large
such an advocacy produces nationalism, not internationalism, as we have seen
from the behavior of some of the biggest multinationals.
Only the Americans have permitted this tilting of the playing field to our
disadvantage to the degree we have, on some wooly-headed fuzzy liberal
notion that since the doctrine of comparative advantage is, on average, best
for all, others would abide by the international rules inherent in that
economic theory. But they've ignored the lesson of the "Prisoner's
Dilemma"--that violating the rules can be to one's individual advantage as
long as one doesn't get called on the consequences.
Well the logic of the writer IS going to be called into question. The body
politic--that's the vast majority of the citizenry--is not going to permit
cheating on the rules (of elected governments) masked by shrill cries of
"Liberty!" and "Defend the Constitution". Fascism is fascism in any guise,
and it is not going to be permitted for a few to attempt to cancel the votes
of the vast majority by force of arms. We don't have kings to be overthrown
here, but elected governments. If you don't like them, the solution is the
ballot box and the courts, and if you don't like them, tough. Move to your
own island country and set up your own regime. But don't be surprised if you
soon find right wing nuts in your own island country organizing their own
"militias".
I'll conclude with an exercise for the student:
Compare the behavior, advocacy, and ideology of current U.S. militias with
Hitler and his Brown Shirts before the overthrow of the Weimar Republic. Pay
particular attention to militarism, uniforms, weapons, drills, propaganda,
and persecution of minorities, and a desire to overthrow the democratically
elected government.
David
Richard K. Moore
Nazism, Militias, and the Abuse of History
Richard K. Moore
24 April 1995
It always fascinates me how absolutely any postition can be "substantiated"
by selective quotes from history, just as you can justify anything you
might want to do by finding some particular isolated quote from the Bible
(or the Koran, or the Junior Woodchuck Guidebook.) I find much of the
recent revisionist thinking about Nazism disturbing, especially the
blurring of distinctions among different varieties of totalianarism.
Hitler & Stalin may have been equally reprehensible, but their ways of
seizing and maintaining power were very different.
I've lived in Germany, and over the years have read many books and articles
about the rise of nazism, from diverse perspectives, and I believe one has
to very careful in trying to unravel what it was all about.
>From what I've seen, I think one of the clearest central thruths about
Hitler is that he was anti-liberal. He despised the democratic process,
despised diversity of opinion, and built his constituency by lying about
history and by inciting hatred and mistrust of government, labor unions,
liberals, subtleties of political thought, intellectuals, gays, and nearly
all minorities. He appealed to a simplistic, jingoistic version of
"traditional German" values, and referred selectively to religion when it
suited his propagandistic puposes. The core of his enemies-lists was what
is today mis-called the "liberal elite". Yes he hated Jews, and he
exploited native German anti-semitism, but he rounded up labor leaders and
democratic spokesman long before he launched the formal holocaust. When he
invaded Poland, his first act was to round up and shoot liberal political
leaders and activists, even before the smoke had cleared from his Luftwaffe
bombs. The Warsaw ghetto pogrom came much later.
Hitler's rhetoric was at core indistinguishable from what we now hear from
the Limbaugh's and the right-wing talk radio hosts, and in a more disguised
form, from the Gingrich's. He then, and they now, try to blame society's
ills on those dis-empowered groups which have the least say in public
policy. They blame the victims, and the public then and now seems to revel
in those kinds of easy answers.
Stephen Brown wrote:
"The Nazis actually did not ignore government infrastructure to
take power. They used to democratic process to dismantle it and grant
absolute power
to Hitler. The Weimar constitution, unlike ours, was filled with exceptions
to every single rule. The government could infringe on individual freedoms
without worry."
In this regard, I invite you to recognize that these same "exceptions to
every single rule" are being systematically introduced into our own legal
system. This has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats -- it's been
happening on a fully bi-partisian basis. The "war on drugs" and
"anti-terrorism" are being used as an excuse to suspend the Bill of Rights.
Protection against illegal search and seizure? -- Goodbye. You may think
drug dealers are the only victims (houses confiscated for minor drug
offenses), and not give a damn, but once the constitutional protection is
gone, anyone in disfavor with the government can have their property
confiscated, without benefit of judicial process. Right to freedom of
speech and assembly? -- Goodybe. You may think Moslem fundamentalists are
the only victims, and not give a damn, but once the government can
prosecute anyone associated with anyone who later commits a violent act (as
with the World Trade Center prosecutions), meaningful political activity is
a thing of the past. Especially when the government is willing to sponsor
illegal acts by agent provocateurs, as it has done for decades, so it can
then arrest legitimate political leaders.
Now with the Oklahoma bombing, one of the first things we hear is that the
intelligence agencies should be beefed up and given a freer reign -- hardly
a surprise, but hardly an appropriate response. Does anyone really believe
the militia orgnaizations are not already thoroughly infiltrated by
government informers? Is anyone that naive? White House Chief of Staff
Leon Panetta said Sunday that "Federal undercover agents have been
infiltrating paramilitary groups suspected of planning crimes but got no
warning of the devastating
bombing in Oklahoma City." But who decides which warnings pecolate up to
the White House? Many books by former CIA agents reveal that the agency
passes on exactly what it chooses to, based on what spin they want policy
makers to be exposed to. We then have former FBI agent Oliver "Buck" Revel
saying on CBS's "Face the Nation" that "Mr. Panetta's statement that some
of these groups are being monitored is inaccurate. I only left six months
ago and we had no
investigations on any of the militias." Maybe and maybe not. The last
thing we'd expect in a public statment by a still-in-favor ex-FBI agent is
the truth. Such statements are made for their poltiical effect, not to
reveal the true extent of intelligence activity.
The US government itself funds terrorist organizations, as is a matter of
public record in the case of Iran-based organizations (to name one example
already published in Newsweek). The CIA protects drug cartels all over the
globe. When Reagan sent Perot on a fact finding mission to Vietnam to look
into the POW situation, Perot reported that our intelligence agents were
too busy dealing drugs to help him with the investigation. Reagan relieved
him of his assignment at that point. When Noriega was arrested in Panama,
supposedly to stop his drug dealing, the drug-bankers were put right back
in power, and Panama remains the banking center for the international drug
trade. This is not unknown the US government.
In a backhanded sort of way, the Michigan Militia is right -- the
government _is_ undermining our freedoms and selling out to international
organizations -- but it's multinationals who are taking over, not the UN.
The militia's error is not so much in their political analysis, which has
elements of truth -- their error is in thinking the answer lies in
stockpiling rifles and launching their own conspiratorial movement. Their
enemy is not liberalism, it's corporate-sponsored authoritarianism. If
they want to preserve the Constitution, they should put their guns away and
build coaltions with all the millions of other folks who value freedom and
democracy and the Constitution. By their strategy, they're helping to
bring about the very dictatorship they rightly fear.
Richard