Taxi's Articles

American Fascism

American fascism 12132015_b3moorelgfacism8201_c0-216-1600-1148_s885x516

We have arrived.  Teeming, huddled.  We have arrived to the edge and our shadows are now cast over the precipice.  We have arrived at the threshold of mass American fascism.  It is a discriminatory ideology as well as a state of mind and we as a nation have collectively arrived at that grim station.  Unmistakably, we have arrived as evidenced by the very fabric and sinews of the divisive policies and personalities of the presidential forerunners: Clinton and Trump.

But let us here first define the term ‘fascism’.  Let us look at the founder of modern fascism and how he defined it.  No, the originator was not Hitler, nor was it Stalin or Mussolini; it was in fact another Italian by the name of Gabriele d’Annunzio, a popular poet and libertine who lived at the turn of the 20th century (1863 – 1938).  His infamous manifesto was adopted thereafter by Hitler and Mussolini, adding their own brushstroke to the diabolical canvas.

Political history informs us that d’Annunzio’s fascist ideology was conceived to strictly adhere to three principles:  “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”.  (“Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato.“).

Let us briefly look at what these three maxims mean and how American fascism has adopted them:

1.”Everything in the State”.  Here, d’Annunzio declares the Government is supreme and all within it must conform to the ruling head.

Needless to say, the “ruling head” is often an overt dictator. But in American politics, the dictator is covert.  With the merging of the Democrat and Republican parties through their consistent support of the same corporations (to the detriment of the voter, I may add) , both parties have now blended into the same single so-called ‘Establishment’.  Here, this Establishment entity has replaced d’Annunzio’s “State”.  In other words,  the phrase “Everything in the State” has become ‘Everything in the Establishment”.  Important to note at this juncture that this bipartisan ‘Establishment’ is fundamentally Zionist, not patriotic – and it demands obedience from all.  It is a covert dictatorship by design and in practice.

2.”Nothing outside the State”.  Meaning, all emotional sympathies and monetary investments must be cultivated only internally, never externally.  d’Annunzio expounded claiming that a nation that practiced “Nothing outside the State’ would soon grow to fantastic proportions of wealth and power; with the implied goal of  eventually expanding and ruling the world, with every human submitting to a sole autocratic government – thus world peace would descend upon humanity as a whole.

Tangible racial tensions in America, divisive immigration policies and Islamophobia – all these and more are a reflection or a symptom of the above tenet.  The socio-political tensions and hostilities America is experiencing have presently reached the absurd point where even minorities who have suffered discrimination have themselves now become advocates of racism against the perpetrators.  We can sum it up by saying that some Americans are aggressively demanding the building of walls while their opposition is threatening to break the wrists of wall builders.

3.”Nothing against the State”.  Here, the meaning is clear:  any type of questioning the Government is not to be tolerated.  d’Annunzio declared that ff you do not agree with the Government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the  good citizens.

Here, we have multiple religious factions in America subscribing to the above tenet but with a ‘God’ angle instead of a ‘State’ one.  We have some American presidential candidates and millions of religious fanatics at raging odds with the individualistic freedoms of non-conforming citizens.  The political ‘Establishment’ too has adopted this tenet and is ,more than ready to discard traditional, civilized political discourse and dignity, opting instead to slander and bully and ruin the lives of any anti-Establishment dissenters it deems a threat to its power monopoly.

Records show that d’Annunzio  believed that fascist countries would be able to live in desirable harmony for the lack of internal political or economic strife.  That’s how he packaged his anti-democracy and xenophobic manifesto combined.  And people bought it because they were suffering acutely from two burning fevers:  economic insecurity and effulgent ignorance.  Begs the observation here that indeed there is a parallelism between the Italian collective zeitgeist back in the 1930’s and today’s American voting environment.

We recognize the three fascist tenets above because we all know too well that Israel , the self-proclaimed ‘Jewish’ state wears that glove perfectly.  We also know that both Trump and Clinton support the Israeli political system 100% – neither ever speaks of Israel’s lengthy list of Human Rights violations and war crimes, and both have publicly and proudly declared their love of Israel.  But do Clinton and Trump espouse such abhorrent policies and desire the same for our nation?  Do either of them politically live by at least one of the aforementioned fascist tenets?  Indeed, we can glean from behavior patterns and policy that both candidates are following at least one of the Fascist tenets.  Clinton fits tenet number 1; and Trump fits tenet number 2.  Moreover, psychologically speaking, both would incline towards tenet number 3, as opposed to Obama who, despite his many abysmal failures, exhibited genuine interest in consultative governance – analysts would often criticize him for being too open and too soft on the opposition, especially during his first term at the White House.

Since the advent of the internet and the (mostly) uncensored flow of information to the masses, modern politicians have learned to hide their shadowland from the public in more sophisticated ways.   They will distract from their own deficiencies and dark intent by wasting millions on attacking the opposition, for instance, instead of spending it on paramount projects in their constituencies to demonstrate their policies and their genuine care for the well being of  voters – which would in return positively earn them new admiration, loyalties and votes.  To garner votes, they are indulging and advocating the politics of hate instead of the politics of compassion.  They are regressives, not progressives.  They will use PC language to appeal to a collective of powerful minorities; or they will use un-PC language to appeal to the mob.  Either way, they are not using their natural language where truths out of their mouths are clear and evident for public inspection.   They have substituted the “State” with their Brand Name on the campaign trail. They have become befuddlement masters and political shape-shifters.  They have perfected the art of the facade while the nation’s foundation is cracking.

That politicians do actually fit the fascist profile in varying degrees is no surprise – it’s in the nature of the beast.  But that the masses from both sides of the political divide should demonstrate such a high degree of hostility to their opposition is really what is so shocking about the 2016 presidential race.  That so many would rush blindly to the edge of the fascist precipice is what is truly mortifying.

Of course, this collective outburst did not occur in a vacuum or overnight.  It has been several decades in the making, unraveling before discerning eyes while the Main Stream Media has either unhelpfully ignored it, or poured gasoline on the fire by taking sides in this slow-brew civil war – relentlessly  playing up the politics of fear and loathing, in cahoots with their pet politician.

And by now so many citizens are dissatisfied, disaffected, disenfranchised  and blaming the other; so many are furious and intending verbal or bodily harm onto the other; so many are so utterly suspicious of the other that we now have all the right ingredients for the wrong future.

Obama’s false prophethood has turned many voters into sour cynics.  And the tragedy today is that there is not a single leader in the whole country who can stop this approaching train wreck.  There is not a single budding leader in sight nor an elder who is widely respected to even curtail the divisions.  There is nobody to steer us safely away from the magnetized precipice.

The country looks likely to elect Trump above Clinton in Novermber.  But even if Clinton wins, it will make no difference.  We are rapidly going from freedom to fascism.

But this is no time to beat our chests and weep.  What is imperative here is to step out of the whirlwind of the nation’s political nihilism.  Our saving grace will be in adhering to our responsibility as patriots and individuals and fully resisting,  and I mean fully resisting supporting divisive leaders.

We are faced with choosing between an establishment fascist and an anti-establishment fascist.  These are our sad choices.  This is our grim present and I for one am keeping my conscience clear and not voting for either candidate.  Our nation’s sickness does not need my toxic vote.

Really, there should be an added box to tick at the voting booth:  Dissatisfied with Selection, it should read.  And I bet you more people would tick this box than any other.

Standard

8 comments:

  1. Strenuously disagree with your analysis, Taxi.

    You fail to take account of Italy's decades-long efforts to unify and organize itself as a prosperous nation for all its people.

    Your analysis is fundamentally flawed because your starting point is totally off-target; it's apples – to – oranges.

    My Italian grandparents and mother came to the USA from Italy because American agricultural over-abundance made it impossible for Italians to live off the produce of their land, as they had done before, however meagerly.  My and my siblings' bodies still carry the epigenetic traits associated with famine and/or poor nutrition; one of my sibs died of the genetic effects of famine.  I know only a very little of what my Mother's and grandparents' lives were like in Italy; they loved their homeland but had to leave, including losing their homes and farms, in order to survive. All people do not migrate because they are eager to abandon what had been their home for generations; they leave out of necessity. (This is an important concept to grasp in view of the present goal of US agriculturalists to sell American agricultural commodities to Cuba.  This will only further impoverish the Cuban people, a tragedy in the making.  The economic hit man cometh.)

    Italian theorists like d’Annunzio (my late uncle was Mario d’Annunzio) may not have conceived a means of unifying and achieving prosperity for the Italian people that was the equal of Madison and Jefferson, but neither did the Italians have the vast lands and resources of the American continent (by the way — it should be noted that the American Midwestern land on which that surplus grain was grown, that caused the destruction of Italian agriculture, was basically stolen land; ask an Indian).  

    The Italian social and political heritage was also vastly different from that of US founders.  Over their several-thousand year history the Italian people had been conquered, occupied, exploited and divided by almost every other European and some African and Asian forces.  I don't know about d'Annunzio but Mussolini certainly drew heavily upon Machiavelli, and The Prince counseled that the only way to restore a demoralized state to its essential virtu was by installing a (temporary) dictator who would administer the harsh medicine necessary to cure an ailing polity.

    Don't mess with Italy.

    Rather, if you're going to use Italy for an example, get it right, get the context right.

     

    BTW, pretty much the same goes for Germany, even under Hitler and the NSDAP.  Get the context right, and don't fall into the trap of incorporating the propagandized version of Hitler-NSDAP into what is intended for an historically based analysis.  Such an effort is doomed to fail since it starts out on the shifting sands of lies and demonization.  

    Zionists did not just start the practice of demonizing the enemy du jour with the Palestinians, or Muslims, or terrorists. Zionists are so good at propaganda and enforcing a narrative because they've had a lot of:  Czarist Russia as well as Germany under Bismarck as well as Hitler, of course, all have been the target of the zionist hate propaganda machine.  

     

    • Taxi says:

      Chas.  This article is not about Italy.  I am using Gabriel d’Annunzio's own words to illustrate a point about where America's heading to.

      I don't think I've written anything offensive towards the country of Italy or Italian people (whom I love-love-love, btw).  Plus, I did mention at the beginning of the article that I am "briefly" touching on the subject of the founder of modern fascism – I did not say that I would be talking about the contextual history of the Italian fascist party or the Italian populations of the 1920's – this would take me much study and volumes of writings.   Again, my article is not about Italy, it's about American fascism.  And I'm earnestly sorry that reading it made you feel indignant.

      Very sad too to read about the maternal side of your family – your words made me feel their strife and suffering.  I wish them all wellness and good health.

       

      • Thank you for your generous reply, Taxi.

        Although my comment was heavily laced with my own, personal narrative, the core of the argument is not personal– I hope not to criticize you but to criticize the argument.

        On that level, I suggest that the analogy is not appropriate: fascism is often slung about with little comprehension.  Your argument overcame that defect — you explained the roots of fascism.

        But I think what USA is experiencing/headed to does not fit that pattern.  What USA is about is either sui generis (and incorporating elements of Hebrew chosenness and right-to-rule (imperialism), as well as Protestant- Calvinist greed + evangelical missionizing/proselytizing); or more closely related to Bolshevism.  

        One crucial distinction: Italian fascism was, for the most part, a nationalist movement; it did not have the same expansionist/imperialist goals as did Bolshevik Communism.  USA certainly has ambitions of cultural and economic expansionism and dominance.

      • Taxi says:

        Chas,

        Authoritarianism comes under many names.  I see the zionist control of our congress as a form of authoritarian rule, a dictatorship.  I see our representatives as operating from behind the mask of democracy.

        My main concern is not so much the level of anger expressed by the electorate, but the intense prejudice imbibed in this anger.  I fear the masses are turning authoritarian themselves.  If the majority voters are themselves authoritarian, then they will elect a like-minded leader.  Which they're sort of doing right now.

  2. chu says:

    How Donald Trump Exposed AIPAC
    BY MITCHELL PLITNICK March 24, 2016
    https://newrepublic.com/article/131994/donald-trump-exposed-aipac
     

    But when Trump did speak earlier this week, there was no protest, and the respectful applause gradually rose to roaring cheers instead. By the end of his speech, Trump had clearly won the AIPAC crowd over.

    AIPAC itself recognized that the imagery here was disastrous. It was especially perturbed that Trump had gotten a huge ovation for saying that President Barack Obama “may be the worst thing to ever happen to Israel, believe me, believe me.” So much so, in fact, that the group made a statementrebuking Trump and its own audience for egging him on.

    But while the boorish Trump was obviously offensive, the substance of his remarks was not terribly different from what the other candidates at the convention had to say…

Leave a Reply