Includes commentary from Authorsden Roundtable Knight Lawrance Lux RIP
AMERICAN FASCISM AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
BY
DAVID ARTHUR WALTERS
There is an overall similarity in the hierarchical distribution of power and therefore resources everywhere, but there are wide variances over time and space. For instance, consider the statistics on Kansas, whose residents enjoy a relatively flat or equitable distribution in comparison to other states. During our Authorsden Roundtable discussion of fascism, we have considered Frederick the Great, who was reputedly liberal to the poor, but not really, for the lion's share went to the military machine during his rule, with a mere pittance going to the poor class that supplied cannon meat. Visitors to Prussia observed firsthand that his 'liberal' and "Enlightened" system was a caste system that included virtual slavery.
We have compared the underlying ideology of U.S. President George W. Bush to the German go-it-alone, to hell with leagues, world power politics that evolved from the dialectic between particularism and universalism or imperialism. It is ironic, is it not, how a rugged individualist wants to be emperor? We traced back to the north/south division in Europe; the Franks played a big part in the evolution of that dynamic.
Ideologically, right “is” might (not "makes" might). We found the early controversy in the Platonic dialogues; it ascended to a new height in 19th century Germany, was expressed at length by Heinrich von Treitschke, a German national liberal who was basically a nationalist propagandist, and was made most popular by Max Weber's rationalizations. Weber, whose main influence was Thomas Hobbes, the father of the English Enlightenment, formulated “might is right” and urged German youth to unite as Germans and place German interests ahead of all others. So Germans did formulate the fundamentally immoral concept. Yet they were representative of the barbaric struggle with Rome, a conflict wherein enemy becoming like enemy, German becoming Roman, and particularism raising one particular emperor over all particular princes.
The infamous paper ‘Defense Planning Guidance 1994-1999’ attributed to Paul Wolfowitz, the academic wolf in the Bush administration, and his deputy Scooter Libby, clarified this movement in its current context. The policy taken up, especially by Bush II, was a clear break from the Enlightenment principles that were also repudiated by the last two German Empires. The imperial ideologists strive to identify the new policy with Wilsonian Internationalism, but the special identification is contrary to the basically internationalist, peace-league, and world-court approach of Woodrow Wilson. President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Paul Wolfowitz & Co were prominent Germanophilic fascists.
Military historian and economist Lawrance G. Lux, in a 2003 contribution to the Roundtable entitled ‘On Messianism and Bushism,’ designated President Bush as an irrational, charismatic savior, a messiah of sorts, arising in response to a crisis made worse by the fabrications of his colleagues.
“All political movements must stand on the 'Messiah complex'. They are a call to action, and action which is not based on rational evaluation by the membership. Proselytizing demands that membership use not reason lest the nature of the program or its evoked response be corrupted from the reaction desired by the leadership.
“It is true that the state has a religious nature, and all actions have political implications. Notice all political movements have their basis in a generation of humanity, which contains both supporters and opponents of the political movement involved. These political movements only have support from other generations when the political movement is in its youth. Loss of support of other generations means that political movements possess a minima composed solely of the support within the native generation, and a maxima with support of all generations in their youth.
“I sincerely believe that Bushism and Corporatism is on its way down, as the Generation Y reaches puberty, and does escape from the domination of Generation X. Many will think this statement strange, but in a decade; Bushism will be ranked beside McCarthyism in American history.”
“Who are the New American Imperialists? The New American Imperialists are Imperialists in the true sense of the word; expansion done only to increase the wealth and position of the Imperialists. Pakistani nuclear weapons opposed to Indian nuclear weapons are a far greater threat than any Iraqi nuclear armament could ever be. North Korea is a nuclear threat from a Country whom we are still technically at war with. Iraq could not have been a real threat even to Israel.
“Why did we go to war with Iraq? The answer is simple: World oil concerns wanted Iraq production eliminated, so inflated World oil prices could be maintained. Did you notice even American military engineers can't seem to get Iraqi oil production back on line?
“American Imperialism is only the old American Colonialism where American business interests direct the American military machine to forestall Competition. Some Roundtable participants see a German 'Universalism' concept behind the Bush policy; I cannot see that at all. President Bush can see and understand oil pricing in the United States and the world; he has little understanding or care for foreign policy considerations. You could ask him for a long-range foreign policy commitment, and realize he does not have a clue about direction or policy development. This is completely contrary to the old German nationalism, which was continuous discussion of the position Germany should represent in the world.
“By the way, some remarks made on the Roundtable about Calvin Weber are true , but the complex of Weber’s writings express a religious fanatic personality turning to secular politics. Any secular regime of his imagination had to include moral standards, a divine-right authority, and a religious adherence to leadership. Calvin and Weber sought to turn religion into a political dynamic, with plan of theocracy. Calvin did not want the secular State in reality, but Weber certainly did. That is, if we choose to split hairs to differentiate 'religion' from 'politics.' The leading theologians associated with the world state power politick, popularized by Weber, and based on his admiration of Hobbes, were in fact atheists. But the question of atheism v. theism is moot when we peel off the covers to observe the naked truth.
“The representation of George W. Bush as a 'rugged Individual' needs revision. He could be a template stereotype for the corporate executive personality. They work only along lines of consensus between themselves, based upon the God of 'highest profits obtainable.' George W. Bush would get on his knees and provide Monica Lewinsky style sex before he would go against the special Herd.
“The loss of particularism was mainly the result of military technology, i.e., the development of artillery. The castle wall with moat, and the breastwork, was no longer self-defense. Immediate self-defense became impossible. The armies had to be pushed back; this coming only by developing distant national borders and boundaries. The prince could no longer defend by the American Civil War; it took a Kaiser.
“I precaution students of history that studies must not be limited only to the writings of the historical figures of the time. They often do not understand the historical propulsion of the period, and would not honestly write of it if they did. This is due to the political reactions of the matrix in which they lived.”
XYX
|
interesting perspective
This article seems to have been written during the Bush administration because it doesn't mention the great fear of Iranian nuclear power.
Some of the article about political topics and history does not resonate with me because in a long time since I read some of those mentioned.
Ron