Rudy Giuliani - the face of American Fascism?

An increasing amount of people in the USA are calling Guiliani a Fascist. Often, they refer to his own infamous words:

“We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don’t see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.”

Does that really make him a Fascist? What is a Fascist to begin with?

Here is the wikipedia definition:

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests inferior to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism

Without entering into the endless debates about the nature of the various historical versions of Fascism, I think that any non-controversial wikipedia definition reflects the current usage of the word, and that this definition should be therefore accepted (some definition of Fascism by Benito Mussolini can be found here)

There can be little doubt that Giuliani-type Republicans are nationalists, that they favor a "unitary executive" (authoritarian presidential rule), that their policies are highly militaristic, that they are totally dedicated to the preservations of any and all corporate privileges in the USA and want to expand them. They are also collectivists (look at their record on civil rights), they have no issues with being allied with dictators (the house of Saud, Mubarak or Musharraf are just some current examples among many others) and they are not only anti-communist, but even virulently anti-socialist and anti-liberal. But do they really oppose economic liberalism? I would argue that yes, very much so.

The Guiliani type Republicans are always in favor of truly huge government spending on the military and on the bloated and inept US intelligence/security community, they also like multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts for the Carlyle Group, Bechtel, Halliburton, Lockheed, etc. and they are always the ones who make the US deficit skyrocket. None of that can be called "economic liberalism".

For all their rhetoric about freedom, market economy or democracy, it sure seems that Guiliani type Republicans are the real thing - Fascists in the exact definition of the word who match each and every criteria of the definition. But I think that it would be wrong to focus too much on the Guiliani type Republicans as pretty much the entire political elite in Washington shares their values. Guiliani is just cruder and more open about his views, but the rest of them read exactly from the same script.

The only place where this is openly discussed in the USA is the Internet which abounds in many articles on this issue, here are just some examples:

• Clues that your country might be turning into a Fascist state
• Are we there yet - Fascism in America
• Sowing the seeds of Fascism in America
• The dawning of Fascism in America
• Nazification of Germany vs Nazification of America
• War corporatism: the new Fascism
  
• Neo-fascism in America
• Fascism anyone?
• It's the corporate state, stupid
• The coming of US Fascism
• We now live in a Fascist state

This small sampling of articles (with very different level of quality) only shows that the idea of a new American Fascism is being discusssed in the USA outside the coroprate media.

I would add a number of small personal observations I have made since returning to the USA six years ago:

1) Anywhere you go in the USA "patriotic" flags and bumper stickers can be seen. On cars (some up to 7-8 flags), buildings, commercial buildings and, of course, on advertisements (hey - "patriotism" sells). My wife's aunt had to live under Hitler's rule for a while during WWII and, according to her, there are far more US flags in the USA then swastikas in Nazi Germany
2) In Russia there the expression "siloviki" or "silovye ministerstva" have been coined. Loosely translated, they refer to any government entity with firepower. Well, the US corporate media constantly glorifies the "American siloviki" in special TV shows ("Cops"), commericals, movies, commentaries, etc. Since an average American spends something like 4-6 hours each day watching the telescreen, he/she is constantly bombarded with such propaganda.
3) Nationalism ("America - love it or leave it!") is rampant, as is xenophobia towards the AYErabs, Ragheads, Eurotrash, Gooks, etc.
4) Paranoia is all over the public discourse with endless mantras about all sorts of horrible people out there which the public needs to be protected from. The list includes, but is not limited to, the following: terrorists of course, but also narco-terrorists, pedophiles, communists, hippies, pot-smokers, anti-Semites, sexual predators, Internet pornographers, hackers, cyber-terrorists, Islamo-fascists, Chinese spies, etc.
5) The President has now aquired a truly monarchical stature and in the minds of many the President is the Commander-in-Chief, the leader. He is not seen as the servant of the public anymore but rather as the embodiment of the nation and the protector of the people (take a look at the billboard pictured here, and read about its origin here)
6) Congress has turned into what can only be called the US Imperial Senate. With very few exception, US Congressmen and Senators are so totally subservient to the Neocon agenda that they would have made Caligula proud.
7) With the exception of the free and independent media (almost exclusively Internet-based), the US media would have made Goebbles blue with envy.

While Guiliani is no less Fascist than Mussolini was, he is no more Fascist than Hillary or Obama. In fact, only Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are, among the currently declared 2008 presidential candidates, the only ones which are not genuine Fascists. Since their chances of making it to the nomination of their parties are exactly zero, nevermind being elected President, I would say that US Fascism is alive and well, and it is here to stay for a while.

Nonetheless, and in the meanwhile,

Have a thoughtful Memorial Day!

Dissenting voices and delayed wars

Something very interesting is happening in the USA: two candidates for the next Presidential election (Ron Paul, R, and Mike Gravel, D) are running on an anti-war platfrom and they are speaking up in each debate (so far - soon they will be given the boot). They stand no chance whatsoever under the current political system. Just take a look the Washington Post's truly orwellian editorial complaining that "Too many candidates talking about too much" and which specifically singles out Ron Paul and Mike Gravel as "excess candidates". Presumably the Neocon editors of the Post would prefer a few, shall we say, "unanimous" candidates on the issues of the current wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia) and the one to come (Iran).

Unlike the Establishment press, the free and independent media is mostly expressing interest or even outright admiration for Paul's and Gravel's courage. Some in the blogosphere are even suggesting that the two only anti-war candidates should drop their current party affiliations and join forces on an anti-war & civil liberties platform.

What is becoming increasingly clear that both Paul and Gravel and not so much trying to win the nomination of their parties as they are trying to use the devates to educate the American electorate on the true reasons behind today's crisis. And in this lies a huge opportunity.

Ever since the Democrats took control of both chambers of the Imperial Senate it has become clear that there is simply nothing to be expected from either faction of the "Republicrat Party". Besides, can anyone still tell these two Parties and their candidate apart?! With Republicans like Guliani and Democrats like Hillary it is clear that the USA is about to enter a very ugly phase of its history as the former will most certainly brutally crack down on internal dissent (Guliani is for all intends and purposes a genuine Fascist) while the latter will do whatever it is AIPAC demands from her. Throw in Obama with his assurances that he does not want to nuke anybody "right now" and McCaine singing "bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran" and the picture is gloomy indeed: some "choice" given to the American people...

So why has the war with Iran not started yet?

First, it appears that there is a strong reaction of the "old Anglo" oil lobby against the Neocons and their plans for war. Simply put - the bosses of the likes of Baker or Brzezinski have too much to loose financially in such a folly and they have unleashed an strong anti-Neocon campaign involving such personalities as Jimmy Carter, General Odom, Scott Ritter, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, Michael Scheuer and many others. Second, there are persistent rumors of very strong opposition to these plans inside the US military brass. So that's two of the three most powerful lobbies in the USA (oil and military-industrial) opposing the war. Which leaves the Neocons alone in their designs of more war. That's the good news.

The bad news is that the Neocons don't care and that they are already firmly control all the Presidential candidates (except Paul and Gravel). They also have amnequally firm grip on the Imperial Senate and the corporate media. Which brings me to the role played by the free & independent media and the blogosphere as the sole and increasingly powerful, outlet for the anti-war movement to express its views: thanks to its very existence no matter which of the Neocons actually gets elected in 2008, the three pillars of power of the Establishment (the two factions of the war Party, the Imperial Senate, and the corporate media) will become even further discredited in the eyes of the American people once it becomes clear that there will be hell to pay for the Neocon's policies (what the CIA calls the "blowback effect") and that the only the free media consistently warned about that.

Alas, the Neocons have nothing more to loose politically and they are now looking at the very real possibility of facing various criminal indictment for war crimes, international aggression, perjury, obstruction of justice, espionage, fraud, civil rights violations, etc. It is thus clear that barring a miracle a war with Iran is still probably inevitable. The only good thing coming from that is that it will be the last war of the American Empire and that, as so many empires before, the USA will eventually become a "normal" nation (and the Neocons will be either in jail or hiding abroad). Sadly, the price to pay for this outcome in blood and money is likely to be staggering.