Fascism in America

[arisbe]

The Left has been denouncing American Fascism, indeed, denouncing America as Fascist, for so many years that we are deaf to the din of it. Lately, though, the warnings of an emerging Fascist mentality have been repeated from what some describe as the fringes of the Right, both the traditionalist (paleoconservative) and individualist (libertarian) wings. The American Conservative is seen as more moderate and mainstream, sceptical of big government, critical of the war, but willing to give both Republicans and Democrats the benefit of the doubt when they seem honest. It is therefore a milestone that even they are now insisting that we ought to take the threat very seriously indeed. Scott McConnell, a student of Fritz Stern, Columbia's great historian of the European Right, makes a sobering case, with the essential qualifications, in Hunger for Dictatorship: War to export democracy may wreck our own.

It is, I think, essential reading.

Comments

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Not at all, there are times to be isolationist and times not to be.

And our Founding Fathers were not isolationists. Some of them, notably President Washington, warned against getting involved in the intrigue that plagued Europe at the time.

Or have you forgotten our invasions of Canada?

What is not morally defensible about hunting down and killing the people who attack you?

Ahh, of course, it is all the fault of the "dirty Jews". How silly of me!

[marginaleye.livejournal.com]

What is not morally defensible about hunting down and killing the people who attack you?

So if Mr. Jones attacks you, you're entitled to kick down Mr. Smith's door and beat him up because they both live in the same neighborhood, and you're pretty sure you saw the two of them chatting together a couple of weeks ago? Yeah, right.

[arisbe.livejournal.com]

If only Mr. Bush would take some real interest in the criminals of 9/11 rather than his foolish scheme of "democratizing" Iraq, Iran, Syria, the whole Middle East in fact -- except for one country.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

President Bush is taking a real interest in Al Qaeda. He's also wise enough to know that the United States has foolishly looked the other way at growing threats to our nation in the name of "globalism" and "multiculturalism".

And the word has gotten out: if you are a threat to the United States, your days are numbered.

[arisbe.livejournal.com]

I hope it's not too late. In our eagerness to go after Saddam we failed to close the trap on Osama. Now his people are raising hell in Iraq.

[eru-illuvatar.livejournal.com]

What is not morally defensible about hunting down and killing the people who attack you?

Hunting down and killing those who attacked us on September 11th, 2001 is perfectly morally and is something I would support unqualifiedly. The trouble is that's not what we're doing. Perhaps you haven't been listening to Mr. Bush lately, but in his inaugural, he said nothing about 9-11, terrorism, or al-Qaeda. His mission is now to spread democracy throughout the world, toppling one "tyrannical regime" after another. This is an immoral mission for the United States military, whose job it is to protect and secure our liberty.

Ahh, of course, it is all the fault of the "dirty Jews". How silly of me!

It has nothing to do with being silly, just ignorant. I said nothing about Jews and meant nothing about Jews. You might wish to read my actually comments before you reply next time. What I actually said was that we ought not fight wars that are in Israel's interests and not our own. The war in Iraq was not in our national-security interest, but it was in Israel's. This is undeniable. For the neoconservatives, what is good for Israel is good for the United States; for the rest of us, however, when our interests diverge from Israel's, we should stand up for our own.

Oh Goy!

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

You have to admit it was in the US's economic interests to invade right?

Re: Oh Goy!

[arisbe.livejournal.com]

Well, not exactly. If so why did they have to mislead Congress?

The short answer is becuse they are dirty bastards...

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

I would say because most reasonable people don't believe that a sustainable economy is based off of war. More over, most people (including our politicians), do not/can not think about the world in those terms and would be appalled to have to do so.

None of this changes the idea that this was part of the neocon's economic agenda (http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/131523.asp), in our long term economic/geopolitical plan (http://www.odci.gov/nic/special_globaltrends2010.html#middleeast) as a nation, and something planned and accepted since Kissinger was in the White House (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565845684/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/002-0108589-4031224).

Most simply there is more oil there than most places.

Re: The short answer is becuse they are dirty bastards...

[arisbe.livejournal.com]

The peak oil theory. Which many of them accept. And the threat that Saddam would sell his oil for Euros rather than US dollars and the rest of OPEC might follow.

I'm afraid you have a point here.

Re: Oh Goy!

[eru-illuvatar.livejournal.com]

No, not at all. Perhaps it was the financial interests of some corporations, but the majority of the U.S. economy has suffered because of this war. War, in essence, is the vast transfer of capital and resources away from the productive economy into a non-productive entity: the U.S. military. Of course we need an army, and it is the legitimate and moral duty of the government to protect us, but war is not good for the general economy. That is a myth!

While I tend to agree with you,

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that the neo-con economic plan states differently. If we were to look at the deficit as a short term loss then we could see our current economic upswing as a mid to long term gain. The idea is that one makes perpetual war and therefore constantly increases the need to for the military-industrial complex and via that stimulates the economy for private interests which in turn is supposed to be an overall gain for the economic interest of our citizens.

We have done this at length for about half a century and many think it's the reason for our market dominance. The last time this happened to this extent was during the Regan Era.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

This is an immoral mission for the United States military, whose job it is to protect and secure our liberty.

I disagree. 9-11 showed that waiting for them to attack us could be fatal to our nation. Our enemies are our enemies, no matter where they are.

It has nothing to do with being silly, just ignorant. I said nothing about Jews and meant nothing about Jews. You might wish to read my actually comments before you reply next time.

So when you said "Israel" you meant...?

he war in Iraq was not in our national-security interest

I disagree. Saddam has been a continuing threat to our nation since 1990.

Israel is quite capable of taking care of Iraq as well, but has not done so at the request of the United States. They do not need us to fight their wars. They've proven they can handle anything any Arab nation sends against them.

You have yet to demonstrate that acting in our best interest is wrong, but what you have done is state that because it might align with the interest of the Jews Israel, we should ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

Can you read?

[eru-illuvatar.livejournal.com]

So when you said "Israel" you meant...?

Had you continued on to the next line of my post, you would have found the answer. I'm getting rather tired of explaining and re-explaining my posts to you, since you are totally incapable of reading them fully. Here is the next sentence in my post, which answers your needless question: "What I actually said was that we ought not fight wars that are in Israel's interests and not our own."

You keep trying to make this about Jews, and it is not. That Israel is a Jewish state is quite inconsequential to my objection of our uncritical support for their policies. I feel the same way about any other U.S. ally. We should not fight a war for the United Kingdom that is not in our security interests, and the same is true for any other U.S. ally. The United States should not fight any war unless it is morally defensible and in our own national-security interests. Plain and simple! Stop trying to make me out to be an anti-Semite. You're only making yourself look foolish.

Re: Can you read?

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Had you continued on to the next line of my post, you would have found the answer.

Oh, I did. I found nothing to convince me that you meant anything other than "the Jews".

I also addressed the line you claim I ignored:

srael is quite capable of taking care of Iraq as well, but has not done so at the request of the United States. They do not need us to fight their wars. They've proven they can handle anything any Arab nation sends against them.

So, obviously, I've proven that I can read.

Your turn!

You claim that we are fighting Israel's wars, but have yet to demonstrate that.

I'll wait....