’You Know me Al:’ On the German Reichstag Fire of Feb. 27, 1933 and the 9/11/01 Bombing of the World Trade Center, Part II

Prologue (from TPJ): “If men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us!  But passion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives is a lantern on the stern, which shines only on the waves behind us!”  Samuel Taylor Coleridge, 1832

Dr. Steven Jonas posts his regular Thursday contribution to TPJ, the second part of his comparisons the German Reichstag Fire and the attack on the World Trade Center.  Dr. Jonas’s article invokes a simple proposition, will we learn from the lessons of history or will we be condemned to Coleridge’s lantern on the stern.

Fair warning to readers, Dr. Jonas’ article makes a point that few have considered, lighting the bow of our ship of state.

’You Know me Al:’ On the German Reichstag Fire of Feb. 27, 1933 and the 9/11/01

Bombing of the World Trade Center, Part II

Column No. 18

By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH -  June 24, 2004

On June 3, I published Part I of this two-part series. – “’You Know Me Al:’ On The Reichstag Fire Of Feb. 27, 1933 And The 9/11/01 Bombing Of The World Trade Center, Part I” As noted then, most of the material that you read under my by-line is mine.  But as I have done on occasion in the past, I presented there some thoughts from a political historian friend of mine, sent privately to me over time.  I obviously thought them worthy of note.  It happens that my friend wants to remain anonymous in The Political Junkies context.  The material was used with his permission. His initials are “A.L.,” and his thoughts, with apologies to Ring Lardner (Sr.), appear in this column from time to time under the title “You Know Me, Al.”  In this column, I continue the analysis stimulated by his original work. But before getting to that, let me review briefly the history of the German Reichstag Fire, and add a bit more detail.

The Fire occurred on February 27, 1933, just about one month after Hitler became Chancellor (Prime Minister) of Germany.  The fire was set, most historians now agree, by a Dutch former Communist turned anarchist acting entirely alone, one Marinus van der Lubbe. Within hours, Hitler, Goering, and Goebbels, et al had proclaimed the fire to be the result of a German Communist Party (KPD) plot.  That the KPD knew nothing of it and that the “incriminating documents” quickly produced by the Nazis were later proved to be forgeries meant nothing at the time. The Nazis rapidly shut down all opposition press. They did this usually by simply sending in one of the Nazi Party’s private armies, the SA  (“Brownshirts”) to destroy the facilities and beat up the staff.  Thus within a matter of days they had gained full control of the German media of the time.

I did not note in Part I --- and I thank the friend who brought that fact to my attention --- that at Hitler’s request when he became Chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933 a national election in Germany had already been scheduled to take place on the 7th of March.  This turned out to be just about a week after the Reichstag fire occurred. Those who believed at the time that the Nazis were the real incendiaries had good grounds to think so. For in the final run-up to those elections, the Nazis exploited the Fire for all it was worth, including unleashing a reign of terror, especially against Communists, Socialists, and left-wing labor leaders, carried out by the SA and the SS (at that time Hitler’s private bodyguard) under the guise of 'defending the state against terrorism'.

And so, the Nazis quickly created a national hysteria over the “threat of the Communists and Socialists (SPD),” lumped together as “the Marxists,” to the “peace and tranquility of the German nation,” to the “security of the German volk.”  To deal with “the Marxist threat,” on Feb 28 all of the civil liberties protections of the post-World War I Weimar Republic Constitution were suspended.  It is hardly surprising that in such a state of hysteria, the Nazis achieved their largest vote total ever.  Nevertheless, it was still only 43.9% of the total.  In no democratic election were the Nazis ever to achieve even a simple majority (sound familiar?)  The subsequent “total support” of the Nazis by the German people as a whole as perceived by the outside world was achieved as much through continuing terror continually unleashed against any real or perceived opponents as it was by true love of Hitler and his way.

Following the election, on March 24, 1933, a Reichstag from which all the elected Communist deputies had been purged along with a number of the Socialist deputies, in which many of the Centrist Deputies were totally intimidated, and in which an artificially small quorum requirement has been created by the manipulations of its presiding officer, who happened to be Herman Goering, passed a Constitutional Amendment.  It gave virtual dictatorial power to Hitler and his cabinet for a four-year period.  Regularly renewed during the Nazi Era, it was called the Enabling Act. In practice, that turned out to mean that Hitler became Dictator of Germany, with absolute power.

In the part of  Al’s memo that was published in this space on June 3, he examined some of the reasons how a similar episode of sorts in the United States at this time could have helped the Georgites get through a series of political tight spots --- tight spots that their policies and programs were getting them into at the time: their Leader was a minority President; with the Jeffords defection they had just lost control of the Senate; there was a recession underway; their Leader was being perceived as a weakling (because he was); pushing through the social-control agenda of the Religious Right (essential to keeping their base happy) was becoming more and more difficult.  Further, there was a semi-secret grand foreign policy design as developed in the 90s by the neo-con Project for a New American Century (PNAC) that would be just about impossible to implement in ordinary times.  It was centered on invading and taking over Iraq as part of a grand design to gain for US control of the whole of the Middle East, and to gain control of vast oil reserves especially in the Kurdish region of Iraq, projected to possibly outstrip those of Saudi Arabia.

And so, there was this terrorist organization based in Afghanistan called “Al Qaeda” led by a shadowy figure named Osama bin Laden.  They have already carried several relatively small-scale attacks on US targets abroad over the years, but the Clinton Administration had foiled two major ones: a 1998 plot to blow up 11 airliners over the Atlantic at the same time and a “Millennium Bomb Plot.”  But these guys are still hanging around.  And during the spring and summer of 2001 substantial intelligence “noise” indicates that they are going to try something big again.  My friend Al speculated at the time (November, 2001), not that the Georgites would be directly or even indirectly involved in one way or another themselves (I reviewed current possibilities for a direct, active or passive, Georgite involvement in my column of May 6), but that there was a US Far Right-Wing cabal that was. Al was obviously engaging in some pretty far-out speculation and conspiracy theory mongering here.

Now, while the Nazis apparently had nothing to do with setting the Reichstag Fire, within hours of its occurrence they were able to come up with a plan to use it to achieve previously designed political and Constitutional ends. (Hitler had actually hatched an idea for something like the Enabling Act back in the 1920s.)  Physically arriving on the scene of the Fire a few hours after it started Hitler immediately began demanding evidence that it was the result of a KPD plot.  (There being no equivalent of the White House Situation Room in those days, with security being provided by the SA and the SS, Hitler, unlike Bush, went directly to the site.)  Hitler was immediately told by the investigators that there was absolutely no such evidence and that indeed the most likely suspect, van der Lubbe, had already been captured. He was also told that most likely he had acted completely on his own,

The Nazis, the other German Right-Wing parties, and their financial backers, major elements of the German power elite, had every reason to want to go after their principal political opponents, the Communists (KPD) and the Socialists (SPD), using all available means.  However, the civil liberties provisions of the Weimar Constitution stood in their way.  Beginning the previous November, even before Hitler took power, proposals had been made in the Reichstag by the ruling Right-Wing coalition, to legislate the suspension of the Weimar Constitution’s provisions for protecting civil liberties.  But there was no way that such a plan could command the two-thirds majority needed in the Reichstag for its passage. What an opportunity was presented to Hitler and the Nazi Party by the Fire.

As noted above, very quickly, within days in fact, the Nazi propaganda machinery under Goebbels had whipped major portions of the German population into frenzy about the dangers of a “Marxist” takeover and “blood running in the streets.”  As Goebbels once said: “Propaganda has only one object - to conquer the masses. Every means that furthers this aim is good; every means that hinders it is bad.”  Given that there was no genuine evidence of KPD involvement in the Fire, one can say one this for the Nazis: they were certainly better at producing evidence of a KPD plot than the Georgites have been about producing any kind of evidence concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Saddam/Al Qaeda connection in Iraq.

What are the Georgite 9/11 parallels to Hitler on the scene ignoring the fact of the capture of van der Lubbe and immediately demanding evidence of a non-existent KPD Reichstag Fire plot?  Information that has come out since the time of the 9-11 Tragedy, especially since the publication of Richard Clarke’s and (former Sec. of the Treasury) Paul O’Neill’s books, the Georgites very quickly began to use 9/11 in ways that are eerily similar to how the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire.  As Richard Clarke told us, once in the White House Situation Room, Bush immediately demanded evidence of direct Iraqi involvement in 9/11.  O’Neill told us that Bush had been obsessed with Iraq from the time he took office.  Richard Perle and the neo-con clique had first hatched the plan for an invasion of Iraq in the mid-90s.  Despite the fact, that their leadership from Paul Wolfowitz on down (or up, depending upon one’s perspective) occupied major positions of power in the Regime, in the summer of 2001, those invasion plans were no closer to implementation than it had been when Bush as elected. What happened to those plans post-9/11 we know all too well.

As for parallels on the civil liberties front, as noted above, for months the Nazis and their Right-Wing allies had been itching to go after the KPD and to a lesser extent the SPD and eliminate them from the domestic political scene. On Feb. 27, 1933, those plans were no closer to fruition than they had been when Hitler took power on Jan. 30, 1933.  But by March 24, 1933, they were fully in place.  And so we come to the matter of the “USA Patriot Act.”  It is about 340 pages long, filled with dense legal language.  It provides for major changes in many aspects the US criminal justice system, especially in the way it gives the President to suspend any individual’s Constitutional Rights on his own authority, simply by declaring someone an “enemy combatant” or a “material witness” in the War Against Terrorism, U.S. citizen or not.

Under the Act, the President is empowered, for example, to deprive such a person of: the protection against unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the right to an open jury trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.  Thus the Act effectively repeals these provisions of the Constitution without even going through the formality of the Amendment process. At least when Hitler wanted to get the Weimar Constitution amended in order to eliminate similar civil liberties protections, he went through the formality of the amendment process (although, as noted, he did rig the Reichstag membership and quorum rules to assure himself of the two-thirds majority required to amend the Constitution).

The Patriot Act was introduced into Congress within two weeks of the 9/11 Tragedy.  It was brought to a vote before few if any members had time to much more than glance at it.  Due to its length and complexity, it is virtually impossible that it was actually written between 9/11 and when it was introduced.  That means of course that it was written before the latter date.  And that means that the Georgites, who knew that there was no way of getting such an Act through Congress in the absence of a 9/11 disaster, were at the least waiting, if not prepared, for one to happen.

Then there are the recently revealed Justice Department (2002) and Pentagon (2003) memos in which groups of lawyers came up with ways that Bush could, according to them, legally authorize the infliction of torture.  “To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture,” the Dept. of Defense memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws in question is “inherent in the president.”

However, it happens that there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that could be interpreted to provide such "inherency" in the Presidency.  In fact the Presidential powers that are spelled out in Article II are quite limited.  The Commander in Chief clause refers specifically to the Army and the Navy and nothing else. These lawyers have written their own Enabling Act without even bothering to go through the process of amending the Constitution.  At least Hitler did the latter, on paper at least.  Under this Pentagon reasoning, the President could theoretically declare virtually any occurrence he didn’t like “an act of terrorism,” or “aiding and abetting terrorism” and then invoke his “inherent powers as Commander in Chief” to do anything he wanted to those individuals involved, up to and including indefinite detention and torture. And no one would access to anything other than the will of the President.  This Pentagon proposal provides for nothing less than a bloodless coup d'etat to establish a Presidential dictatorship.

The Reichstag Fire led directly to the Nazi dictatorship and all of its horrible outcomes for the World and Germany itself.  9/11 lead directly to the Iraq Invasion abroad and the USA Patriot Act and the vetting of the “inherent powers” theory at home.  As the readers of this column know well, we in the United States still have the chance to stop the possible further progression towards out-and out fascism (as defined in my column of May 27) here.  Although the parallels are not exact, I think that bearing them in mind may well assist in the campaign to achieve the goal of preventing that progression from happening, and protecting, indeed strengthening, US Constitutional Democracy.

One last note, on what the Kerry Campaign should begin to consider focusing on.  The two major issues at this time are Iraq and the economy.  The former, with the new transitional government in place, under the authority of a UN resolution, might just begin to settle down.  Both the violence and US casualties might decline.  Although the country would remain a terrible mess physically, as it is now, Americans would be exposed to little of that, as they are now.  The long-term prospects for bringing the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, who have been at each other’s throats for centuries together peacefully are not good.  And long-term, the Georgites still want to figure out a way (certainly Kurdish autonomy in some kind of Federal state would do it) to get their hands on all of that oil.  But from now through Election Day, with the UN now standing behind it just as many Bush opponents have been asking for, the US might be able, again for domestic consumption at least, to fashion some sort of temporary peace.  As for the economy, the recent modest improvements in it might just continue.  Whatever improvements there are would certainly be trumpeted by the Georgites as the outcome of their economic policies.

What would the Kerry Campaign be left with?  If those two primary issues swing in the Georgites’ favor, the old standbys of the environment, health care, education, and etc. aren’t going to do the trick.  The one major Georgite policy that will not, indeed cannot, change is that in order to achieve its major goals they must repeal traditional US Constitutional Democracy.  This is because of the way they think, as revealed by the Justice and Defense Dept. memos written by their lawyers, and because of their dependence on the votes of the Christian Right.  For it to achieve its stated long-term goal of establishing a theocracy in the United States, of course the Constitution must essentially be repealed. The Constitution is remote and abstruse for many Americans.  But there are ways and means to make it up close and personal for the American electorate.

I hope the Kerry Campaign will begin to take serious look at how to do just that.

TPJ MAG

‘The Ralph Nader Problem’ --- A Re-run plus

Column No. 17 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH -  June 17, 2004

“The Ralph Nader Problem” is well-known to most readers of The Political Junkies.  I considered it in one of my first columns in this series, No. 3, published on March 11, 2004.  TPJ, “A Word (or two) on Ralph Nader”

In the course of this Spring, Mr. Nader seems to have mellowed somewhat, politically.  He still will not recognize, publicly at least, that he bears any responsibility for the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election.  However, he does seem to recognize that the re-election of George Bush would be a catastrophe for our nation, to say nothing of the world as a whole, that Sen. Kerry is truly different from Bush, and that he, Ralph Nader, has a positive role to play in the prevention of that occurrence.  .

Mr. Nader has met with Sen. Kerry on at least one occasion.  They have had kind words to say about each other.  Mr. Nader has recognized their mutual interest in the defeat of George Bush.  At present, it is unclear as to how many states will have Mr. Nader’s name on the ballot.  Nevertheless, unlike Dennis Kucinich who is still running for the Democratic nomination, Nader is still running for President.  Thus, his candidacy still may, in the end, constitute a major obstacle to achieving the objective of sending the Georgites home in November.

Among Bush opponents an increasing amount of attention is being paid to “The Nader Problem.”  In fact, there is now a website devoted entirely to dealing with it.  In this column, I am first revisiting the analysis and recommendations that I made in March.  Then I will introduce you to “TheNaderFactor.com.” In my view, its website is very well worth visiting.

As I said back in March, how should progressive Democrats react to the continuing Nader candidacy?  Yes, we could talk about why, if one is really interested in changing the Democratic Party, one didn’t do what Governor Dean and Rep. Kucinich did, enter the Democratic primaries?   Yes, we could engage in an analysis of Nader’s ego needs. We could ask if, regardless of any other considerations, is it really helpful for progressive politics and policies for Nader to be doing what he is doing?  Apparently he really, really, deep down thinks that it is, and so that is that.

It should be noted that Nader hardly gives one the impression that he is easy to negotiate with.  However, he at least is talking with Sen. Kerry, and that kind of personal reaching out is new for him.  One still has to wonder how much change in the Democratic Party, in the current historical context, would be enough for him?  It has already changed a great deal in the last nine months, due in large part to the early efforts of Dean and Kucinich, and the more recent ones of Kennedy, Gore, and even McAuliffe.  As one observer of the latest Nader raid said, the Democratic Party “needs to grow up.”  Well, yes, if “grow up” is taken to mean really differentiate itself from the Republicans, shed the DLC, return to its 20th century, Progressive Era/New Deal roots, and focus firmly on its fundamental differences with Bush on everything from what Constitutional Democracy really is to the role of government in ours.  That process is, finally, underway.

In my view, trying to change Ralph Nader’s behavior is a truly difficult task.  This man is totally convinced of his own rightness.  He finds it hard to listen to leading Democrats who agree with him on many of the issues, and even to a number of his own advisors, former and possibly even present.  He marches to his own drummer, whose drumbeat is so loud in his ears that other sounds seem to have difficulty getting through.  In my view, that task is best left to Sen. Kerry and his advisors, in private conversations with Mr. Nader and his advisors.  So, as I said back in March, what we on the outside need to do now is ignore Ralph and aim rather at getting through to the Nader voter, past and potential.  Here are a few suggestions for how to do that.

1.    Don’t run guilt trips.  Don’t focus on the 2000 election.  Focus on the 2004 election.  Focus on what happens if the Georgites (as I like to call them) get re-elected.  Focus on the need, therefore, for every possible Democratic vote, in every single election district no matter Democratic it is.

2.    Point out that while neither the Democratic candidate (whomever it might be, most likely Kerry) nor the Democratic platform is or will be perfect, on many of the major issues, both are and will be certainly a lot closer to the interests of the potential Nader voter than are those of the Georgites.  And on some of them, like the principles on which health care and environmental policies should be based, it is virtually the same (unless I have missed something and please, don’t swamp me with detailed differences).

3.    Point out that if Nader voters and especially activists get involved in the Democratic primaries and the Democratic platform-building process now, they will have much more influence than they could have as outside voices, which many Democratic voters and most of the Democratic leadership would look upon with scorn.

4.    Point out that (as mentioned above) because of the efforts especially of Gov. Dean and Rep. Kucinich, both of whom have pledged to support the eventual Democratic nominee even though they won’t agree with him on every issue, the Democratic Party has changed, significantly.  As late as last fall, the message coming from both the DNC and the Congressional leadership, to say nothing of certain prominent candidates, was a primarily DLC-accomodationist, “let’s-not-offend the [supposed] ‘center’” one.  It has now become a full-throated roar from virtually all sectors of the Party (note the absence of the DLC from the chorus) to throw out the Georgites and replace them with radically different people and policies.

5.    Please, please, please, we should say to these folks, if nothing else, don’t ignore what has happened to the Federal judiciary under the Georgites, how that process would be compounded many fold should they be re-elected, and what impact that outcome would have on so many interests that progressives have in this country.

And so.  Let’s focus on the Georgites, let’s focus on the issues, let’s focus on potential Nader voters and what their concerns are, and let’s just forget about Ralph.  If you happen to be interested in payback (not an interest of mine), the worst thing that could happen to him personally is to be finally ignored, and to go down in the history of Presidential campaigns as just another Ralph Stassen/Lyndon LaRouche.

In aid of focusing on the Nader voter, there is this new website, brought to my attention by Democrats.com.  The web address is TheNaderFactor.com.  Here is what they have to say about themselves at the beginning of their Home Page:

What is TheNaderFactor.com? Karl Rave’s greatest dream is for Democrats and progressives to be divided. Let's give Karl Rove his greatest nightmare - a united front of progressive Democrats, former Nader voters and Nader supporters ready to take on the right wing in Washington and put an end to the destructive policies of the Bush agenda. The Nader Factor is dedicated to building a dynamic grassroots community of former Nader voters, Nader supporters, progressive Democrats and others who understand what's at stake and are uniting to change the Democratic Party and take this country back from the right-wing in Washington.

As Bob Fertik, founder of Democrats.com, said in endorsing TheNaderFactor.com:

Every poll shows the race between John Kerry and George W. Bush is neck-and-neck. As in 2000, the election of 2004 could be decided by Ralph Nader, and this would be a catastrophe in every way imaginable.  While many of us - and many of his 2000 supporters - have tried to persuade Nader to pull out of the Presidential race, these efforts have failed. We therefore believe we must reach out to Nader's supporters, in an effort to persuade them to vote for Kerry.  By working together, we hope to build a relationship of trust that will make it possible for Nader supporters to feel good about voting for John Kerry in November.

Couldn’t have said it better myself!

TPJ MAG

Ronald Reagan’s Legacy

Column No. 16 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - June 10, 2004

Ronald Reagan is gone, but as for long as the history of the Untied States is written, he will never be forgotten.  For he (or if you believe some historians, his handlers and script-writers) changed the U.S. and its politics in fundamental ways.  Reagan left behind many admirers, some of whom admired him for what he seemed to be, and some, particularly among the U.S. power elite, who admired him for what he really was.  He also left behind numerous critics.  I count my self among them.

From my perspective, the changes that Reagan and the Reaganites wrought upon our country and indeed the world have brought, are bringing, and will be bringing for the foreseeable future, many, many negative outcomes.  I list those that are to my mind the most important below. Of that list, in my view the single most important one was the change that the Reaganites brought to American politics.  They made what before them had been considered the Far Right respectable.  They firmly placed what before Reagan had been viewed as an agenda well to the Right of the mainstream of American politics at the center of those politics.  That agenda was that of the Goldwater Republicans, considered so far-out only back in 1964, combined with a heavy dose of rising Christian Rightist religious fundamentalism.

Thus, they made Goldwaterism, which had been crushed in the Johnson landslide of 1964, the touchstone of modern American politics.  They made a right-wing Democrat like Bill Clinton seem like a far-leftist.  (Bill Clinton a right-wing Democrat?  Well, consider that among his major achievements were the bringing of the New Deal’s aid for mothers with dependent children program to an end and the announcement in a State of the Union Address that “the era of big government” [the only kind of government that can deal with big problems] was over.)  The Reaganites made “liberal” a dirty word.  They created the atmosphere in which, eventually, a woman (Ann Coulter) who, in ordinary times, would not have much more to offer than long-blond hair and legs that look good in the short skirts she always seems to wear, a political “authority” who could go much further than that: pronounce all liberals as “traitors.”  In short, it was the Reaganites who gave us George W. Bush.

Last Sunday in the Junkies Speak section of The Political Junkies, European Editor Michael Carmichael presented a beautiful critique that in the guise of a conventional obituary highlighted Reagan’s major negative achievements.  But he did it with gentle elegance.  If you want to read a sharp attack, take a look at the column by the journalist Greg Palast entitled “Killer, Coward, Conman --- Good Riddance Ronnie Reagan: More Proof that Only the Good Die Young”

My comment, more of a simple listing of Reagan’s major negative achievements, falls somewhere between the stools of gentle and harsh.  For those readers who would like my columns to be shorter, well, this is one.  For those readers who would like me to stop speculating about possible conspiracies that have possibly occurred and possibly are ongoing in the Georgite Regime, well, I am going to do that (except when I am really sorely tempted to).

However, in this column, the grandest conspiracy ever hatched by a sitting American Administration is going to be mentioned.  Sorry folks, but Iran/Contra really did occur, it really was a conspiracy, it really would not have come to light had that ill-fated pilot who ran guns for it one way and drugs the other not been shot down, and it is really documented at great length in the long-forgotten Final Report of the Republican Special Prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh.

And so, on to the list. “AOL News, June 6, 2002.  ‘Leaders Say Reagan Left His Mark on the World.’ “He sure did.  Here are some of the things most of the mainstream media won't be putting on the list anytime soon.

1.         He firmly established racism as the center of the modern Republican electoral strategy, confirming that the Nixon “Southern Strategy” of 1968 would be permanently ensconced there.  This initiative was symbolized exquisitely when he began his 1980 Presidential campaign at Philadelphia, MI, the site of the Cheney-Goodman-Schwerner civil rights murders of 1964.  Reagan, the master of the “wink and the nod” means of communicating, did not have to say anything more.

2.        Reagan firmly established anti-choice as the Republican position of choice in the matter of belief as to when life begins.  This was something new for mainstream Republicans who up until then had made much about keeping government out of private matters to the extent possible. In fact, Reagan’s choice for Vice-President, George H.W. Bush and his wife had been long-time members of the Board of Directors of the Texas branch of Planned Parenthood.  Of course, that highly principled mainstream Republican, and his wife, quickly resigned their positions to take an openly anti-choice stance during the election.  Paul Erich and other leading Christian Rightists frequently complained that Reagan “didn’t do anything” about their agenda, “he only talked about it.”  Well, now they’ve got someone who is “doing something about it,” and Reagan paved the way for George Bush, II.

3.         The Reaganites introduced ahistoricity into American politics for good.  The Right-Wing has made much hay out of this trend over the years, by frequently referring to the period of “American decline since the 60s,” tracing it back to the “outbreak” of feminism and the anti-Vietnam War movement.  They of course do not note that for all except 12 years since that time, the President has been a Republican and when it has been a Democrat, it has been one of the right-wing variety (sorry, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton fans, but that is what the Democratic Leadership Council is all about, openly).

4.         "Reaganomics" created the myth that tax-cuts can lead to prosperity and reduced Federal deficits.  Reaganite tax-cuts, which went to the same folks who are benefiting sop much from the Bush tax cuts, lead to massive Federal deficits, to a mini-recession in the mid-80s that the Reaganites managed to ignore, and eventually to the Bush I recession that lead to his defeat.

5.         Related to “4,” Reaganite electoral strategy built upon the success of the anti-tax Proposition 13 in California in 1978.  That strategy succeeded in changing the political discussions about what government should be doing with tax revenues, in other words about government programs, to the amounts of the revenues themselves without reference to what the money was paying for.  Goldwater himself had realized that when he talked about government programs he wanted to get rid of he always lost.  The Reaganites figured out how to do it by making the focus tax cuts not government revenues and their purposes.  The Democrats still have not come up with an effective means of dealing with that one.

6.         Related to “5,” he established the modern Republican approach to Federal spending: cutting it on everything they possibly can except the military, prisons, and favors for wealthy contributors, while reducing tax revenues to the greatest extent possible with tax cuts for the rich.  This leads to the creation of massive deficits that would force any future Democratic Administration to, if it could, raise taxes again only to deal with deficits (see Clinton).

7.         He created the first initiative for the totally wasteful weapons system "Star-Wars."  Back in the days of the Cold War, it was designed as a first-strike weapon, of course.  Now it is just designed as a revenue builder for Georgite supporters in the aerospace industry.

8.         Reagan established mean-ness, every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost, as an acceptable attribute.  Did people get it?  They sure did.  I remember listening to a selection of person-on-the-street interviews in Washington, DC, after the John Hinckley attack.  A woman, with what sounded to me like an Afro-American accent, in response to the question “what was wrong with John Hinckley,” said, “he missed.”

9.         With Iran/Contra, Reagan established the precedent that (Republican) Presidents can break Federal law and they will get away with it.  The Iran/Contra scheme directly violated a piece of Federal legislation called the “Boland Amendment.”  It prohibited any US-government direct or indirect interference with the democratically elected Sandanista government of Nicaragua.  The Congressional hearings were a sham.  Reagan clearly committed or at least clearly presided over the commission of an impeachable offense.  But when it came time to form the Joint Committee to investigate the mess, the then-obscure junior Senator from Massachusetts who had gotten the ball rolling, John Kerry, along with Kennedy, Leahy and any other progressive Democrats in the House and Senate, were kept of the Committee by agreement of the Democratic leadership.  “Couldn’t have another impeachment, coming so soon,” they said.

And so, Democrats like then-Congressman Lee Hamilton, made sure that the hearings were relatively benign, and, by giving Oliver North immunity from any prosecution based on his testimony, provided him with a nation-wide platform on which to make speeches justifying the whole action (that just happened to violate the law).  By the way, that’s the same Lee Hamilton who is the Democratic co-chair of the so far pretty mild 9/11 Investigating Committee.

10.        One of Reagan’s first acts when he became President was to cancel, to the extent he could, all Federal government contracts for the development of energy sources alternative to fossil fuels.  Thus the Untied States is now about 25 years behind where it could have been if this top extractive industry policy matter were not at the top of Reagan’s action list.  Did anybody say Cheney’s energy task force?

11.        As to personal attributes, Reagan showed that a not-very-smart, mildly educated, and generally ignorant man can become an Acting President if he is a Right-Winger who command big campaign contributions from corporate special interests, telegenic, speaks well from cue cards, and has the right agents, managers, and promoters.  He also showed that a man with a serious mental illness can be maintained in the Presidency if he is a Republican and has the right agents, managers, and promoters.

12.               Oh yes, he did win what will someday be called “The 75 Years War (1918-1993) Against the Soviet Union by Western Capitalism,” spending into the ground an arteriosclerotic governmental system that was well on its way to collapse anyway, while creating massive Federal deficits at home to do it.

What a record!  What a man!

TPJ MAG

’You Know Me Al:’ On the Reichstag Fire of Feb. 27, 1933 and the 9/11/01 Bombing of the World Trade Center. Part I

Column No. 15 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH – June 3, 2004 (reformatted, 10-16-07)

Note To Readers

A note for the reader. Most of the material that you read under my by-line is mine.  But as I have done on occasion in the past, I present here some thoughts from a political historian friend of mine, sent privately to me over time, that I think are worthy of note.  It happens that he wants to remain anonymous in The Political Junkies context.  The material is used with his permission. His initials are “A.L.,” and his thoughts, with apologies to Ring Lardner, appear in this column under the title “You Know Me, Al.”

The particular piece with which I begin this two-part column was written in November of 2001, in response to an article by a political observer whose identity I also choose not to reveal.  I do not agree with every observation in it, and certain of his/her surmises/conclusions do not bear the scrutiny of time well.  Nevertheless, these observations bear some serious attention.  Part II, which will also include a few thoughts of my own on the subject, will follow next week.

Prelude

For those who may not be au courant with the history of Nazi Germany, let me lay out the bare facts of the Period.  The President of the German Weimar Republic, the World War I hero Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, as part of a deal with the non-Nazi Right-Wing political parties, appoints Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.  On February 27, the German Parliament building in Berlin, the Reichstag burns down.  The fire was set, most historians now agree (although “Al” himself thought differently as you will see below), by a Dutch former Communist turned anarchist acting entirely alone, one Marinus van der Lubbe.  (The Reichstag conveniently happened to be decorated with highly flammable furniture, drapes, and wall-coverings.  Apparently, a few matches did the trick.)  Within hours, Hitler, Goering, and Goebbels, et al had proclaimed the fire to be the result of a German Communist Party (KPD) plot.  That the KPD knew nothing of it and that the “incriminating documents” quickly produced by the Nazis were later proved to be forgeries meant nothing at the time.

The Nazis quickly created a national hysteria over the “threat of the Communists and Socialists (SPD),” lumped together as “the Marxists,” to the “peace and tranquility of the German nation,” to the “security of the German volk.”  The fact that one of the reasons that Hitler came to power in the first place was that often in the pre-Nazi period the KPD and the SPD were more at each other’s throats than they were together defending the Republic against the Nazi threat.  (Stalin bore a major responsibility for the KPD’s posture at the time.)

To deal with “the Marxist threat,” on Feb 28, with Pres. Hindenburg’s approval, all of the civil liberties protections of the post-World War I Weimar Republic Constitution were suspended.  On March 24, 1933, a Reichstag from which all the elected Communist deputies had purged along with a number of the Socialist deputies, and in which many of the Centrist Deputies were totally intimidated, passed a Constitutional Amendment giving virtual dictatorial power to Hitler and his cabinet for a four-year period.  It was called the Enabling Act. In practice, that turned out to mean Hitler.  It is fascinating to note that the sticklers for the “law” that they were, the Nazis, in what passed for the “Reichstag,” dutifully renewed the Act every four years of the Hitlerite period.  With this as a brief introduction, let us now turn to the first part my friend’s piece, written, you will recall, in response to an article by a third party.

A.L.

In preparation for laying out the "grand design," let's briefly review the history of the Reichstag fire, which you mention in one of your two most recent emails, and then try some thoughts on for size.  A month into his reign, things are not going so well for Hitler.  He has already made his first roundups, of known Communists and left-wing labor leaders.  But, the Depression is still on, he still has Pres. Hindenburg to deal with, the army is on the fence (in fact, many of the Old Prussians can't stand the "Little Corporal," an enlisted man and an Austrian to boot), and there is still a functioning Reichstag to deal with, without the Communist elected deputies, but with enough Socialists and other Nazi-opponents to deny him the two-thirds majority he needs to change the Constitution.  What to do?

He gets a half-wit to either really set the fire or let himself get set up as the scapegoat, but it his troops who either really do it, or get the scapegoat to, blames everything on the "Communists terrorists," manipulates the remaining membership of the Reichstag in his favor by scaring off some of the Socialists who are still there and intimidating a few other opponents, and gets the Enabling Act passed by the two-thirds vote it needs, since it is a Constitutional amendment. The rest is history.

Okay.  So what's the possible parallel in the US?  How about the following?  In 2000, the Right-Wing and their industrial partners such Big Oil and the military-industrial complex, succeed in getting a President in place, very important for them for if Gore had won, he might, just might have been there for eight years and he would not have been as easy a target as Clinton. On things like energy policy and the environment he might, just might, have gotten things done.  So, they avoided that horrible prospect (horrible for Big Oil, at least), BUT:

A)  They know that their man didn't really win, and further, is a minority President (a fact the media have completely ignored). (Interesting: the Nazis never got more than 37% of the vote in any open election in pre-Nazi Germany.)

B)  Their guy is a weakling (just like Hindenburg was).

C)  There is a recession underway.

D)  They have lost control of the Congress through the defection of Jeffords.  Since that happened, none of their programs, from energy/environmental policy to more tax-cuts for the wealthy and the large corporations, are going through.

E)  They had been able to fend off the implementation of a moderate Democratic agenda during the Clinton years (and even such a moderate agenda is thoroughly inimitable to their goals) because of the never-ending War on Clinton.  But the country liked his program and his politics, and there is no guarantee that the next Democratic President would be so uniquely attackable, because of his/her personal foibles, as was Clinton.

What to do?  Meet their needs, of course.  At what cost?  At whatever cost, just as long the whole thing is kept secret.

The needs to be met included the following:

A)  Replacing a weak chief executive with a strong one, either literally or functionally.

B)  Finding an excuse for the recession, so that this doesn't get blamed on this Bush and the Republicans, as was the last one.

C)  Bypassing or having a compliant Congress on important measures (since they couldn't possibly win votes on stuff like invading Afghanistan to secure a route for the oil pipeline from the Caspian to the Arabian Sea through Pakistan, or securing major, retroactive tax cuts for the large corporations, or trashing the environment).

D)  Being able to ignore the judiciary (which, despite their efforts since the Reagan years, still has some judges who know what the Constitution is, e.g., the one who has put a stay on Ashcroft's repeal-by-decree of the Oregon law permitting people control over the end of their lives).

E)  Eliminating Constitutional rights by Presidential decree, but even more important, establishing that the President could commit such a revolutionary act by decree.

F)  Giving the President the possibility of presiding over a "permanent war" against terrorism.

But, the Right-Wing-Republican/religious-fundamentalist cabal being postulated here couldn't accomplish that agenda with a finger snap.  Just as Hitler could not have gotten anything like the Enabling Act through the Reichstag with the Communists and Socialists in place, so the cabal had no chance as things stood to achieve their principal goals. In fact at the time of the 9/11 horror the political tide was beginning to turn against them, especially with the economy going into recession and the Senate in the hands of a functional Democratic majority that was proving not-too-pliable.

How nice would it be in terms both of politics and policy to have an excuse to get their program going in such a way that could withstand criticism from most people and most countries around the world too. For just one example, being able to invade Afghanistan, establish a military presence in Central Asia, and bring Pakistan back into the fold of the "acceptable" nations (so that after the shooting stops, the pipeline can be built).  How else could they establish what will likely become a permanent military presence in the Central Asian Republics?

And then, if the same event that could do those could open up the possibility of beginning the destruction of Constitutional democracy at home.  As noted above, we are not talking here simply about the invasion of individual rights, but also the end of "checks and balances:" the bypassing of the independent judiciary, the bypassing of the legislature, and the substitution of rule by Presidential Decree. And then to top it all off, to be able to sneak through their right-wing domestic agenda under the cover of "fighting terrorism" (a ploy that Paul Krugman of the New York Times has eloquently written about more than once).  What better than a grand "terrorist" event, like the destruction of the WTC?

Endnote

And that’s it for the first part of “Al’s” piece.  Rather conspiratorial, even given the knowledge that the US government itself has engaged in numerous conspiracies over the years, from the destruction of democratic government in Iran in 1953 through the Iran/Contra plot of the 1980s.  But then again, hey, you never know. And for those conspiracy theorists among you, just wait until you see Part II next week!

TPJ MAG

On Fascism ---- and the Georgites

Column No. 14 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH- May 27, 2004

Increasingly, in dealing with the Georgite Regime’s actions, programs, and policies the words "fascist" and "fas­cism" are being used to describe them.  However, the terms are most often used without definition.  Since they then become nothing more than epithets, I think that this is not particularly useful in serious politics and for serious historical analysis.  In this column, I take a different approach to the subject.

I came across the following comprehensive definition of the term”fascism” in Appendix II of the rather obscure book The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2002, first published in 1996.  (I have been told that this book, written by the pseudononymous “Jonathan Westminster,” is shortly to be re-released, with a New Introduction, prepared by the print-on-demand publisher Xlibris.  It will be available though their website, http://www.Xlibris.com, as well as Amazon and Barnes and Noble.) According to the book’s author, this definition (admittedly quite lengthy) was not drawn out of thin air.  It was based on Westminster’s analysis of the historical experience in those countries that have acknowledged themselves as fascist, especially Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

I think that this definition is a very useful one.  I present it here.  For most of its 14 elements, I also present one or more those actions, policies, and programs of the Georgite Regime that happen to be entirely consistent with it.  The reader is left to make his/her own judgment as to whether the “shoe fits” the Georgite foot that is if, walking and quacking like a duck, it’s a duck.

A Definition of Fascism (with the major elements of the Georgite profile that fit following each):

Fascism is a political, social, and economic system that has the following baker's dozen plus one of major defining charac­teristics:

1.    There is complete executive branch control of government policy and action. There is no independent judicial or legisla­tive branch of govern­ment.

Examples of Georgite fascism: Taking over the judiciary and making it subservient to the executive branch, through appointments, the use of the law and rule-making, and selective refusal to abide by the present judiciary’s decisions.  Limiting Congressional authority to the extent possible; while through admonition and political threats and bribery, making Congressional Republicans as subservient to the White House as feasible.

2.    There is no constitution to which government is subject and that is recognized by all political forces as having an au­thority beyond that claimed by the regime in power, to which that regime is subject.  The rule of men, not law, is supreme.

Example: The increasingly frequent referral by George Bush to his dependence on his belief in a “higher power,” one that, as Scalia and Thomas have said for years, stands above the Constitution in authority.  Since there is no possibility of independent determination of what this “higher power” has to say, its/his/her word, of course consequently is whatever George Bush says it is.  Ergo, the rule of man, not law.

3.    There is only one political party, and no mass organizations of any kind other than those approved by the government are permitted.

Example:  As of now, with the unprecedented moves to redistrict in non-census years, the DeLay/Cheney/Bush Republicans are certainly moving to establish at least the first element of a single party system in our country.

4.    Government establishes and enforces the rules of "right" thinking, "right" action, and "right" religious devotion.

Examples: take your pick from among illegalization of the right to freedom of belief, for all persons regardless of age or sex, on the matter of when life begins, to the campaign to remove homosexuals from the purview of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, to the drive to retroactively put “God” (the Christian Rightist concept of “God,” of course) into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (preferably above it).

5.    Racism, homophobia, misogynism, and national chauvinism are major factors in national politics and policy-making.

Examples: I don’t need to spell out this one.

6.    There is no recognition of inherent personal rights.  Only the government can grant "rights." Any "rights" granted by the government may be di­min­ished or removed by it from any individual or group at any time with­out prior notice, explana­tion, or judicial review.  Thus, there is no pre­sumed freedom of speech, press, religion, or even belief, automatically accom­panying citizenship.  There are no inherent or presumed protections against any violations of person­al liberty committed by law-enforcement or other government agencies.

Examples: the “Patriot Act” has demolished the Fourth Amendment (protection against arbitrary search and seizure), the Fifth Amendment (guarantee of due process of law), and the Sixth Amendment  (guarantee of a jury trial in criminal cases) for, if the Georgites get their way, US citizens as well as all others.  Just wait for “Patriot Act” II. Then there is the claim that whatever rights we do have are granted by “God,” rather than being inherent.  As in (2) above, that of course means that both the rights and whoever may be their beneficiaries are whatever and whoever the Georgites say that “God” says they are.

7.    Official and unofficial force, internal terror, and routine torture of cap­tured opponents are major means of governmental control.

Examples:  Hey, if foreigners can be routinely tortured, why not American citizens labeled as “enemy combatants by George and John?

8.   There are few or no employee rights or protections, including the right of workers to bargain collectively.  Only government-approved labor unions or associations are permitted to exist, and that approval may be removed at any time, without prior notice.

Examples:  Trying to end guaranteed overtime for certain groups of workers is only the beginning on this one.

9.    All communications media are government-owned or otherwise government-controlled.

Examples: Fox “News” and Right-Wing talk radio are certainly openers on this pathway.

10.   All entertainment, music, art, and organized sport are controlled by the gov­ernment.

Examples: Hey, nobody’s perfect (but once upon a time George was of course part-owner of a baseball team).

11.   There may or may not be a single charismatic leader in charge of the gov­ernment, i.e., a "Dictator."

Examples:  Both President Bushes have expressed interest in this idea.

12.   The economy is based on state supported and subsidized capitalism, with tight central control of the dis­tri­bution of resources among the producers, and strict limitations on the free market for labor (as noted above).

Examples:  Again, hey, nobody’s perfect (yet).  But again, the Georgites are moving in that direction with, for example the extraordinary care and attention they lavish on the extractive industries.

13.   The fascist takeover of the government of a major power always leads to foreign war and adventurism sooner or later.

Examples: No comment necessary.

14.    Built as it is on terror, repression, and an ultimately fictional/self-delusional representation of historical, political, and economic reality [emphasis added to the original Westminster definition], fascism is inherent­ly unstable and always carries with it the seeds of its own destruc­tion.  To date, such seeds have always sprouted within a relatively short historical peri­od of time.

Examples: Well, they got the “fictional/self-delusional” stuff right.

The book from which this set of history-based definitions is quoted was published in 1996.  So my question is this: did the Georgites read it first, or are they just coming to it naturally?

To conclude, if you don’t like long definitions, here is my own short definition of fascism for our era (which I think fits the Georgites pretty well too): “Fascism is a political system that, standing on a base of an unfettered, oligolopic, expansionist, capitalist economy the creed of which is greed, through the use of State power and force establishes the ultimate denial of the rule of law, the existence of inherent human rights, and human free will and autonomy.”

TPJ MAG

On Fascism ---- and the Georgites

Column No. 14 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH- May 27, 2004

 

Increasingly, in dealing with the Georgite Regime’s actions, programs, and policies the words "fascist" and "fas­cism" are being used to describe them.  However, the terms are most often used without definition.  Since they then become nothing more than epithets, I think that this is not particularly useful in serious politics and for serious historical analysis.  In this column, I take a different approach to the subject.

I came across the following comprehensive definition of the term”fascism” in Appendix II of the rather obscure book The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2002, first published in 1996.  (I have been told that this book, written by the pseudononymous “Jonathan Westminster,” is shortly to be re-released, with a New Introduction, prepared by the print-on-demand publisher Xlibris.  It will be available though their website, http://www.Xlibris.com, as well as Amazon and Barnes and Noble.) According to the book’s author, this definition (admittedly quite lengthy) was not drawn out of thin air.  It was based on Westminster’s analysis of the historical experience in those countries that have acknowledged themselves as fascist, especially Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

I think that this definition is a very useful one.  I present it here.  For most of its 14 elements, I also present one or more those actions, policies, and programs of the Georgite Regime that happen to be entirely consistent with it.  The reader is left to make his/her own judgment as to whether the “shoe fits” the Georgite foot that is if, walking and quacking like a duck, it’s a duck.

A Definition of Fascism (with the major elements of the Georgite profile that fit following each):

Fascism is a political, social, and economic system that has the following baker's dozen plus one of major defining charac­teristics:

1.    There is complete executive branch control of government policy and action. There is no independent judicial or legisla­tive branch of govern­ment.

Examples of Georgite fascism: Taking over the judiciary and making it subservient to the executive branch, through appointments, the use of the law and rule-making, and selective refusal to abide by the present judiciary’s decisions.  Limiting Congressional authority to the extent possible; while through admonition and political threats and bribery, making Congressional Republicans as subservient to the White House as feasible.

2.    There is no constitution to which government is subject and that is recognized by all political forces as having an au­thority beyond that claimed by the regime in power, to which that regime is subject.  The rule of men, not law, is supreme.

Example: The increasingly frequent referral by George Bush to his dependence on his belief in a “higher power,” one that, as Scalia and Thomas have said for years, stands above the Constitution in authority.  Since there is no possibility of independent determination of what this “higher power” has to say, its/his/her word, of course consequently is whatever George Bush says it is.  Ergo, the rule of man, not law.

3.    There is only one political party, and no mass organizations of any kind other than those approved by the government are permitted.

Example:  As of now, with the unprecedented moves to redistrict in non-census years, the DeLay/Cheney/Bush Republicans are certainly moving to establish at least the first element of a single party system in our country.

4.    Government establishes and enforces the rules of "right" thinking, "right" action, and "right" religious devotion.

Examples: take your pick from among illegalization of the right to freedom of belief, for all persons regardless of age or sex, on the matter of when life begins, to the campaign to remove homosexuals from the purview of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, to the drive to retroactively put “God” (the Christian Rightist concept of “God,” of course) into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (preferably above it).

5.    Racism, homophobia, misogynism, and national chauvinism are major factors in national politics and policy-making.

Examples: I don’t need to spell out this one.

6.    There is no recognition of inherent personal rights.  Only the government can grant "rights." Any "rights" granted by the government may be di­min­ished or removed by it from any individual or group at any time with­out prior notice, explana­tion, or judicial review.  Thus, there is no pre­sumed freedom of speech, press, religion, or even belief, automatically accom­panying citizenship.  There are no inherent or presumed protections against any violations of person­al liberty committed by law-enforcement or other government agencies.

Examples: the “Patriot Act” has demolished the Fourth Amendment (protection against arbitrary search and seizure), the Fifth Amendment (guarantee of due process of law), and the Sixth Amendment  (guarantee of a jury trial in criminal cases) for, if the Georgites get their way, US citizens as well as all others.  Just wait for “Patriot Act” II. Then there is the claim that whatever rights we do have are granted by “God,” rather than being inherent.  As in (2) above, that of course means that both the rights and whoever may be their beneficiaries are whatever and whoever the Georgites say that “God” says they are.

7.    Official and unofficial force, internal terror, and routine torture of cap­tured opponents are major means of governmental control.

Examples:  Hey, if foreigners can be routinely tortured, why not American citizens labeled as “enemy combatants by George and John?

8.   There are few or no employee rights or protections, including the right of workers to bargain collectively.  Only government-approved labor unions or associations are permitted to exist, and that approval may be removed at any time, without prior notice.

Examples:  Trying to end guaranteed overtime for certain groups of workers is only the beginning on this one.

9.    All communications media are government-owned or otherwise government-controlled.

Examples: Fox “News” and Right-Wing talk radio are certainly openers on this pathway.

10.   All entertainment, music, art, and organized sport are controlled by the gov­ernment.

Examples: Hey, nobody’s perfect (but once upon a time George was of course part-owner of a baseball team).

11.   There may or may not be a single charismatic leader in charge of the gov­ernment, i.e., a "Dictator."

Examples:  Both President Bushes have expressed interest in this idea.

12.   The economy is based on state supported and subsidized capitalism, with tight central control of the dis­tri­bution of resources among the producers, and strict limitations on the free market for labor (as noted above).

Examples:  Again, hey, nobody’s perfect (yet).  But again, the Georgites are moving in that direction with, for example the extraordinary care and attention they lavish on the extractive industries.

13.   The fascist takeover of the government of a major power always leads to foreign war and adventurism sooner or later.

Examples: No comment necessary.

14.    Built as it is on terror, repression, and an ultimately fictional/self-delusional representation of historical, political, and economic reality [emphasis added to the original Westminster definition], fascism is inherent­ly unstable and always carries with it the seeds of its own destruc­tion.  To date, such seeds have always sprouted within a relatively short historical peri­od of time.

Examples: Well, they got the “fictional/self-delusional” stuff right.

The book from which this set of history-based definitions is quoted was published in 1996.  So my question is this: did the Georgites read it first, or are they just coming to it naturally?

To conclude, if you don’t like long definitions, here is my own short definition of fascism for our era (which I think fits the Georgites pretty well too): “Fascism is a political system that, standing on a base of an unfettered, oligolopic, expansionist, capitalist economy the creed of which is greed, through the use of State power and force establishes the ultimate denial of the rule of law, the existence of inherent human rights, and human free will and autonomy.”

TPJ MAG