Understanding Bush and Blair’s "way of life"

0
39

As we hear from Bush, Blair and an unlimited number of media GIs and prostitutes, we are now in the midst of a conflict which involves the deepest and dearest interest of every individual of the human race: “Our way of life.” Upon its result depends the misery or happiness of the present and future generations.

It is a contest between the few in power in the US, Israel, UK and a few other allied countries, who believe, that it is for their individual and corporate interest that man should continue to be kept in ignorance, and be governed, as heretofore, by lies, force and fraud; and those who are convinced, that for real happiness and satisfaction, human beings should be henceforward governed by truth and justice only.

A new global revolution is in the making. This is the revolution which the progress of knowledge and information sharing now requires from the totalitarians a fundamental shift in the arrangement of society and treatment of other nations, which will essentially promote the interest and happiness of all, not just the former and present colonial masters. Are these totalitarians ready for the change? Their statements suggest, not.

The modern means of communication have rendered the main organ for the promotion of lies and deception –” the “mainstream” media –” ineffective. This development also renders a revolution of the masses so irresistible that no earthly power can prevent, or much retard its course. Irrespective of the coming oppression to silence all critics, the impending revolution will be effected either by reason, or by force.

None of the “enemies” has claimed that that he is against Bush or Blair’s way of life. Bush and company, however, have nothing other than saying that this is a war on our way or life. The “way of life” which Bush and Blair refer to is derived solely from the imperial instincts, a sense of absolutism and prejudices for or against religious beliefs, parties and countries. This way of life is destined by the common consent of all to die its natural death.

Twentieth century manifestation of such a way of life was called "Fascism." In 21st century, it is the same thing but the fascists call it “freedom and democracy.” The original fasces were bundles of thin rods bound together with an ax among them; they were carried before the highest magistrates of imperial Rome as a symbol of authority and of the strength that comes from tight unity. Recent fascism is distinguished not by the novelty of its elements or the profundity of its thought but by the flair and efficiency with which these elements have been interwoven and presented as the most humane ideology and civilized way of life.

Although not especially complex intrinsically, 21st century fascism as a political philosophy is difficult to define or explicate because of its eclectic and irrational character. Fascist thinkers in media, academic and politics borrowed freely from both ancients and moderns and emerged with a potpourri of ways and means to impose their will on the world in the name of promoting freedom and democracy that these can hardly be called a doctrine, possible to present as a coherent system.

Within this mixture of past and present, of principles and dogmas and expedients, three dominant streams of thought may be distinguished. Modern day fascism may perhaps be best understood as a contemporary blend of these three religio-philosophical traditions.

The first is the absolutist tradition. Since the total focus of 21st century fascism is domination of the Muslim world, for which control at home is also a necessary element, on this view, the powers of government in the Muslim world must lie entirely in the hands of one powerful person –” the prince, or a general, or a sheikh, mini-Il Duce or mini-Der Fuhrer. To hell with democracy in places such Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, etc. At home winning through Supreme Court or rigging is of little concern as long as the tyrant in chief comes to power.

Such absolutism has many ramifications. It largely determines the principles of organization within the state, which are authoritarian and generally patterned on military lines. Irrespective of the title, democracy or otherwise, all authority exercised by or in behalf of the state stems from the person at the top, and rights enjoyed in every sphere are owed to him; while on every subordinate echelon the principal duties are those of obedience and responsibility to superiors.

Again, the person at the top is above the law. It hardly matters if he lied through his teeth and killed more than 128,000 people along with close to 2000 of his own. The standards of conduct that apply to him, therefore, are not those that apply to the private citizen; he may be judged, as leader, only by his success in maintaining and extending his power and the power of his state. The result is rightly called Machiavellianism, for fascist dictators have generally acted under Machiavelli’s principal that "if the act accuse him, the result will excuse him."

The second leading element in 21st century fascism is organicism. According to this theory not only a nation, but the whole West, is properly understood to be an organic unity, like a human being, with a larger interest, or general will, that is necessarily superior to the interest or will of others, particularly the Muslims. Carried to its extremes, organicism has lead to the conclusion that the Western States have not only an organic reality but a super-reality, so awesome that their apparent will is the true will of subordinate citizens, whether they think so or not. Nothing may then obstruct this super-organism from liquidating all elements within and outside it that interfere with the achievement of its totalitarian objectives.

Some have gone so far as to elevate the xenophobic state approach to an object of worship or a way of life, having supernatural or divine attributes. One serious problem for this approach is that of determining what this way of life really is and how it is to be known because a constant rant of human rights and democracy and freedom means nothing compared to their barbarism on open display.

This problem is resolved, sometimes painfully, when the theories of organicism and absolutism are combined. The general way of life and will of the people is identified with the will of its leader, whose character and physical person is taken to represent the essence of the nation. This identification was one of the distinguishing marks of twentieth-century fascism, especially as manifested in Italy and Germany.

Serving as catalyst in combining the two elements already mentioned is a third, no less important element: deliberate ir-rationalism. Sometimes an attitude, sometimes a manipulative device, sometimes a seriously proposed methodology, the express denial of the competence of reason to guide human life opens the door to acts, claims and outright lies immune to effective criticism. From now onwards any word of criticism of Bush and Blair’s policies would be considered extremism and all those critics will be blacklisted, because their criticism could “indirectly” lead to “terrorism.”

Many varieties of philosophic irrationalism have achieved great popularity, from that of the early Christians (said Tertullian: "Credo, quia impossibile"-"I believe it because it is impossible") through its more sophisticated versions in Schopenhauer and Bergson and some contemporary existentialists. But the full-blooded application of irrationalism to politics develops only in the 21st century with the deliberate manufactured myths of racial, religious and social superiority embedded in deep nationalistic sentiments. Pages of the so-called liberal The New York Times are littered with such manufactured myths, not to speak of others who have turned outright lies into facts for consolidating these myths.

It is perhaps overly simple, but not incorrect, to describe 21st century fascism as the commingling of these traditions of absolutism, organicism, and irrationalism taken to an extreme by an invisible alliance of the neocons, Zionists and leading religious fanatics. Its roots go very deep, but its classical statement was not given until this century, when the hardest realities of its practice have become clear after the staged terrorist attacks and occupation of more Muslim countries.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.