Alright. ONE more thing. This is more re: my use of the word "fascism" than anything else, and its just to clear it up "once and for all" because thats what plans are for, right? This is something implicit when ever I use the word that I realized that most people aren't picking up on, and it hurts my ability to communicate.
I admit, using the word "fascist" to describe any sort of politics post-Franco seems to be used out of historical context. It might seem the equivalent of using the Holocaust as an example in debate: rhetorical overkill that limits the ability of good argument by using a galvanizing example that's relevance is metaphorical at best. And, fascist seems to have a common use slur-value that is equated with "Nazi", "Pig", or generally, "asshole". I for one always picture Jeff Bridges yelling it at the chief of police of Malibu after being hit in the head with a coffee mug, somewhere in the back of my head when I say it.
That said, I think the word has significant meaning apart from all this. I am a big fan of doing deep thinking regarding the meanings of words that we choose in the contexts in which we choose to use them, and then revising our usage based on new ideas of meaning. I wouldn't call myself an expert on Fascism, but I have done a good bit of research into the history of the movement called Fascism, and also of the later analyses that tried to figure out exactly what it was all about.
If I went into all of that, it could be really long, and you would get bored, because its not you that is interested in that sort of stuff, its me. Just to sum it up, I'm working with the idea that Fascism is a system of social control, under which individual are social constructed in relation to the system through certain mechanisms, institutions, and discourses in order to maintain that system, and thereby that control. Obviously there are social effects that may be similar (we all know that we are all individually and social constructed in various ways, etc...), but the main difference between and ordinary society and a Fascist society is that Fascism is a system of control, where certain individuals are explicitly controlled by others. (Also, the difference as I see it between totalitarianism and Fascism is that totalitarian systems are maintained by a system of mostly physical control, which while perhaps having correllaries in ones person psychology, does not attempt to construct the "individual" within that system of the "social," the system, of course, being one of control. I would say that while Stalinism is totalitarianism, and there certainly are Fascist elements to the propoganda and ideology of that brand of communism, ther attempts to redefine "man" in a controlled relationship with the "state" are much more archetypical in what are historically known as Fascist regimes.)
You could make the argument that then almost every society falls under my rubric of Fascism. This would be a valid argument which we could discuss, and I would argue against it, using various historical, political, and philosophical ideas.
What is NOT a legitimate argument is Fascism itself. I know this will really piss off the democratists out there, but there is no condition under which the argument in favor of social control should be heard, accepted, or considered legitimate. I do not stand by this proposition dogmatically. I stand by it rationally, because once you allow a discourse of control to be considered equivalent (and thereby arguable as an alternative or opposition) you have allowed your own discourse to be conjoined to a discourse that is controllable, and then your own words are subject to control by that conjunction of "democratic equality". To use a crude example, it would make no sense to "vote" for an all-powerful god creator, because it is not on the basis of democratic legitimation that such a god has the theological power it does. Likewise, a King is chosen by god, not by the people, so voting for King is illogical, and an affront to the concept of representative leadership.
The interesting thing about Fascism, and thus the reason I think the word is so useful, is that one doesn't have to be a Nazi to be Fascist. Certain authors use the concept of "micro-fascisms" which are not regimes, but instances of similarity to the methods of Fascism that exist within ordinary human life. These small instances, if exploited and alligned, create the systems that we could then call Fascism. The point is to always remember the lessons learned from Fascism, not just to bury the term in the past, in history. We can only hope that we are wise enough not to have humans casually sending each other to torturous mass-death again. Current events show us that humans all over the world still have alot to learn, and apparently we aren't thinking hard enough about what sort of society and what sort of individual would be able to do something like that.
This is why I think it is very important to call Fascism out when we see it, or see behavior that is representative of that sort of thinking and systematic behavior. I'm not talking about little "micro-fascisms" here, there is plenty of full Fascism going on every day.
Alot of people reacting to my use of the word (not counting those who like to make full of my polemical style, they are free to keep doing so) seem to think that this is a bad tactic to use to critique immigration policy because it doesn't reach out to those who disagree, or because a full condemnation is too idealistic, or just because they think that immigration feelings as they are are bad, but not that bad. This is mainly what I want to address.
Take a look at this picture. This was taken almost 50 years ago. Look at the woman with her mouth open, shouting slurs at the students that are making history by going to school. 50 years ago she was "one side of the debate". Now, she is a racist. We now recognize her opinion on public school policy as being equivalent to the thinking of these people. That is why troops had to be sent in to keep people like this woman only shouting.
Today, there are people with another "political opinion." Or these people. And those are just the people who "support" killing people who cross the border, not the ones who do it themselves (perhaps). And there are plenty of other people who believe that maybe they shouldn't be murdered outright, but it is "legal" to have to live in fear of being deported at any moment, losing their jobs, homes... and because it is legal, it is ok. And if you think that racist "opinions" are only held by far-right websites and groups like the John Birch Society, why don't you ask one of your minority friends what they think about race in this country?
So maybe it sounds a little funny to call people racist or Fascist now. But imagine what it will be like in 50 years, and what the racial population of this country will look like. Imagine how we will look back on the people who said, "well, you know its against the law for that person to be here". Maybe the same way that we look at people who stood in the path of desegregation?
My point is not that history will prove me right, because I don't know that. What I mean is that there are certain things that we do not realize until way after the fact. It is how historical mistakes like Fascism are made. Its because we don't fully look at what we are doing when we say, "legality equals truth," or "let's not offend the people we disagree with," or "every opinion is valid." Because later on we say, "shit, how did we let ourselves do that?" and "If only we had known the full extent of what was going on, we would have acted differently." It happens every day. Someone is building a wall, someone is murdered, someone is tortured while other idiots take digital pictures, someone is deciding to go to war, someone is making a law that takes away someone's house. Sometimes we just need a "What the fuck?" moment to realize what is actually going on.
So I'll say it again. Any support of laws that prevent people from moving from one place to another, which is a system of social control based upon an individual-in-the-social identification, IS FASCISM. Sorry if that offends you, that isn't the point. It doesn't mean that you aren't a good person, or that I don't like you. It means that you need to take a long hard look at what you think, why you think it, and how what you think is currently affecting other people.
So that's pretty much all I wanted to get across. Sorry if it sounded like a lecture, its really just more of what I was thinking as I thought it. Don't take me too seriously, take yourself seriously instead. Yeah but don't do that either.
5.06.2006
5.03.2006
Immigration 3
I would hope that this excerpt from Cooperative Research (find these entries under their dates in the sections titled, "Saudi Arabia" and "Soviet-Afghan War", respectively) will end all the idiotic coversations of the "status of illegal immigrants" in connection with "terrorism." It was simple for all of the hijackers of the 9/11 attacks to enter this country by fooling the bureaucracy into giving them LEGAL documents, never mind the relative ease of obtaining fake documents. Remember these are people who arrive at airports and must speak face to face with border control agents, not people who risk their lives running through the desert. And, whether or not you are willing to believe that the CIA actually was responsible for getting them into the country, I guess that is taking the discussion in another direction, but you can be sure the relavence of terrorism doesn't have anything to do with whether the guy who delivered your chinese takeout has a green card.
May 2001
The US introduces the “Visa Express” program in Saudi Arabia, which allows any Saudi Arabian to obtain a visa through his or her travel agent instead of appearing at a consulate in person. An official later states, “The issuing officer has no idea whether the person applying for the visa is actually the person in the documents and application.” [US News and World Report, 1/12/2002; US Congress, 10/20/2002] At the time, warnings of an attack against the US led by the Saudi Osama bin Laden are higher than they had ever been before— “off the charts” as one senator later puts it. [US Congress, 10/18/2002; Los Angeles Times, 6/18/2002] A terrorism conference had recently concluded that Saudi Arabia was one of four top nationalities in al-Qaeda. [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 6/19/2002] Five hijackers—Khalid Almihdhar, Abdulaziz Alomari, Salem Alhazmi, Saeed Alghamdi, and Fayez Ahmed Banihammad—use Visa Express over the next month to enter the US. [US Congress, 10/20/2002] Even 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed will successfully get a US Visa through this program in July (using a false name but real photograph), despite a posted $2 million reward for his capture. [Los Angeles Times, 2/27/2004] Only three percent of Saudi visa applicants are turned down by US consular officers in fiscal 2000 and 2001. In contrast, about 25 percent of US visa seekers worldwide are rejected. Acceptance is even more difficult for applicants from countries alleged to have ties to terrorism such as Iraq or Iran. [Washington Post, 12/1/2001] The widely criticized program is finally canceled in July 2002.
and:
Sept '87-Mar '89
Michael Springmann, head US consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, later claims that during this period he is “repeatedly told to issue visas to unqualified applicants.” He turns them down, but is repeatedly overruled by superiors. Springmann loudly complains to numerous government offices, but no action is taken. He is fired and his files on these applicants are destroyed. He later learns that recruits from many countries fighting for bin Laden against Russia in Afghanistan were funneled through the Jeddah office to get visas to come to the US, where the recruits would travel to train for the Afghan war. According to Springmann, the Jeddah consulate was run by the CIA and staffed almost entirely by intelligence agents. This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11, and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah, possibly as part of this program. [Fox News, 8/18/2002; Associated Press, 8/17/2002; BBC, 12/6/2001]
May 2001
The US introduces the “Visa Express” program in Saudi Arabia, which allows any Saudi Arabian to obtain a visa through his or her travel agent instead of appearing at a consulate in person. An official later states, “The issuing officer has no idea whether the person applying for the visa is actually the person in the documents and application.” [US News and World Report, 1/12/2002; US Congress, 10/20/2002] At the time, warnings of an attack against the US led by the Saudi Osama bin Laden are higher than they had ever been before— “off the charts” as one senator later puts it. [US Congress, 10/18/2002; Los Angeles Times, 6/18/2002] A terrorism conference had recently concluded that Saudi Arabia was one of four top nationalities in al-Qaeda. [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 6/19/2002] Five hijackers—Khalid Almihdhar, Abdulaziz Alomari, Salem Alhazmi, Saeed Alghamdi, and Fayez Ahmed Banihammad—use Visa Express over the next month to enter the US. [US Congress, 10/20/2002] Even 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed will successfully get a US Visa through this program in July (using a false name but real photograph), despite a posted $2 million reward for his capture. [Los Angeles Times, 2/27/2004] Only three percent of Saudi visa applicants are turned down by US consular officers in fiscal 2000 and 2001. In contrast, about 25 percent of US visa seekers worldwide are rejected. Acceptance is even more difficult for applicants from countries alleged to have ties to terrorism such as Iraq or Iran. [Washington Post, 12/1/2001] The widely criticized program is finally canceled in July 2002.
and:
Sept '87-Mar '89
Michael Springmann, head US consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, later claims that during this period he is “repeatedly told to issue visas to unqualified applicants.” He turns them down, but is repeatedly overruled by superiors. Springmann loudly complains to numerous government offices, but no action is taken. He is fired and his files on these applicants are destroyed. He later learns that recruits from many countries fighting for bin Laden against Russia in Afghanistan were funneled through the Jeddah office to get visas to come to the US, where the recruits would travel to train for the Afghan war. According to Springmann, the Jeddah consulate was run by the CIA and staffed almost entirely by intelligence agents. This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11, and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah, possibly as part of this program. [Fox News, 8/18/2002; Associated Press, 8/17/2002; BBC, 12/6/2001]
Etymology of Fascism
Fascist- L fasces, a bundle of authoritative rods, pl of fascis, a bundle, has s fasc-, prob akin to MIR basc, a neck-band, a collar, and therefore perh to BASKET.
L fascis has It derivative fascio, a bundle, hence a political group, whence both fascismo, hence Fascism, and Fascisti, hence Fascists.
Fascis has further derivative fascina (fasc- + -ina), a faggot.
Source: Origins, by Eric Partridge, Greenwich, 1983.
Bundle of rods, you know like the Roman symbol. Individuals may break, but the bundle is solid. Kind of like the arrows in the Great Seal of the United States. Gotta love symbols. Anyway, you see the resemblance to faggot, like what the old guy on the cover of Led Zepplin IV is holding.
L fascis has It derivative fascio, a bundle, hence a political group, whence both fascismo, hence Fascism, and Fascisti, hence Fascists.
Fascis has further derivative fascina (fasc- + -ina), a faggot.
Source: Origins, by Eric Partridge, Greenwich, 1983.
Bundle of rods, you know like the Roman symbol. Individuals may break, but the bundle is solid. Kind of like the arrows in the Great Seal of the United States. Gotta love symbols. Anyway, you see the resemblance to faggot, like what the old guy on the cover of Led Zepplin IV is holding.
Immigration 2
Response to question by [youngrox] :
As serious as plans, yo. Laws aren't "real". There is nothing good about law itself. Law only exists to protect people and society. I think is a pretty accurate summation of the general poltical philosophy under which this state was developed. That said, I would ask your question right back at you: "Why do you think that immigration into the US (or any other country) should be controlled by the state?" The typical answer is given in a mode that says that whatever benefit or lack thereof there might be from living on that or the other side of a national boundary should be given/denied/granted-on-limited-basis to people mostly on account of place of birth, and then this is flexible based on other things like race and class. How does this protect people? Given that there IS such a benefit/lack dynamic associated with a border that people are trying to get across, (why no one seems to care about canadians entering the country), it would stand to reason that a law designed to keep some people on one side of the line is not designed to protect all people, rather only SOME people. And that "SOME" is determined by place of birth, then class, then race. So why should a state seek to decide who can come in and who can leave? Because it has racist, classist, and generally elitist ideas about who can and cannot obtain certain protections of "rights granted by god" (a little contradictory, eh?). If the argument was about social welfare, the law would be about fixing our social welfare system, not about figuring out who we can justify ourselves in denying that welfare (notice Clinton didn't do anything different with his welfare reform other than finding ways to take it away from people, either.)
When I say fascism, its not about nazis, or WWII, or the enemy of communism. (the etymology of the word is actually kind of cool, did you know it is related to "faggot"?). Its about certain means of personal ideological control being applied to society to ensure the continuation of certain societal trends of elitism and subsequent oppression.
While I personally tend to be fairly anti-state (which is really anti-bureaucracy) I have no personal problem with people deciding that they want to live in or under a state. But if they use that state to oppress people in a fascist way, then that is bad, and should (and will) be fought. This has nothing to do with who gets to own a car, this is about people getting to live where they want. You can build a wall, you can imprison people, you can make mandatory paperwork for people to own things or earn money, or you can just let a hurricane knock certain people's houses down and then refuse to let them rebuild them, it all ammounts to the say thing, which is using your power to maintain your power at the expense of others.
I'm not being radical, I'm not trying to be extreme, I'm just pointing out how the system works when "what is actually happening" seems to be fairly far out of the scope of most people's interest.
As serious as plans, yo. Laws aren't "real". There is nothing good about law itself. Law only exists to protect people and society. I think is a pretty accurate summation of the general poltical philosophy under which this state was developed. That said, I would ask your question right back at you: "Why do you think that immigration into the US (or any other country) should be controlled by the state?" The typical answer is given in a mode that says that whatever benefit or lack thereof there might be from living on that or the other side of a national boundary should be given/denied/granted-on-limited-basis to people mostly on account of place of birth, and then this is flexible based on other things like race and class. How does this protect people? Given that there IS such a benefit/lack dynamic associated with a border that people are trying to get across, (why no one seems to care about canadians entering the country), it would stand to reason that a law designed to keep some people on one side of the line is not designed to protect all people, rather only SOME people. And that "SOME" is determined by place of birth, then class, then race. So why should a state seek to decide who can come in and who can leave? Because it has racist, classist, and generally elitist ideas about who can and cannot obtain certain protections of "rights granted by god" (a little contradictory, eh?). If the argument was about social welfare, the law would be about fixing our social welfare system, not about figuring out who we can justify ourselves in denying that welfare (notice Clinton didn't do anything different with his welfare reform other than finding ways to take it away from people, either.)
When I say fascism, its not about nazis, or WWII, or the enemy of communism. (the etymology of the word is actually kind of cool, did you know it is related to "faggot"?). Its about certain means of personal ideological control being applied to society to ensure the continuation of certain societal trends of elitism and subsequent oppression.
While I personally tend to be fairly anti-state (which is really anti-bureaucracy) I have no personal problem with people deciding that they want to live in or under a state. But if they use that state to oppress people in a fascist way, then that is bad, and should (and will) be fought. This has nothing to do with who gets to own a car, this is about people getting to live where they want. You can build a wall, you can imprison people, you can make mandatory paperwork for people to own things or earn money, or you can just let a hurricane knock certain people's houses down and then refuse to let them rebuild them, it all ammounts to the say thing, which is using your power to maintain your power at the expense of others.
I'm not being radical, I'm not trying to be extreme, I'm just pointing out how the system works when "what is actually happening" seems to be fairly far out of the scope of most people's interest.
Immigration 1
I agree with [jungesam] about immigration. If you are in any way opposed to the free flow of people from one region to another, you are a fascist. It is not a matter of legality. All laws (or nationality) have done is to provide a juridical transference of racism, classism, and general good-old-fashioned elitism based on just about any category we can write into law and find borders between. If you think it is about legality then you are fucking blind or a fucking fascist. What does where you were born matter to anything about anything? If you want to find some sort of haven and social "rights" underneath the wing of a state, you should be allowed to sign that social contract. If you want to take advantage of some institutional bureaucratic provisions, then you will, whether you are what or the other. If you want to try and take advantage of other people economically by creating and supporting arbitrary social and individual boundaries and distinctions, then you are a fascist, and do not have a point of view, but only an abusive authoritarian psychology which I will personally make my business to subvert, malign, dissuade, or destroy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
