cj#279> RESEND cj-4/24> Re: Nazi rise to power


Richard Moore

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 19:02:42 -0500 (CDT)
Sender: •••@••.•••
Subject: Letter: Nazism & America

>I have taken some heat on that particular piece, as you can guess.  People
>like Reagan & Gingrich look so clean, seem to talk reasonably, and don't
>seem to advocate violence -- how could they have anything in common with
>what we think of as fascism or nazism?

I would very much like to see the original article, if that's possible.

David L. Allwardt
WWW: http://www.execpc.com/~allwardt
"If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not
 due to the thing itself but to your estimate of it; and this
 you have the power to revoke at any moment." -- Marcus Aurlieus


Since it's been six months, and we have a lot of new subscribers, the
original posting is repeated below.  It went out soon after the Oklahoma
bombing.  Here's the worst example of "heat" I've received:

        Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 03:30:34 0400
        From: Ryan Wilson <•••@••.•••>
        Organization: ALPHA
        To: •••@••.•••
        Subject: Die liberal scum!
        X-URL: http://paul.spu.edu/~sinnfein/nazi.html

         I grow oh so tired of yet another crying liberal pice of shit.
         The liberals day is over. The movement that was started will be
         crushed under the heels of our boots.
         Gay rights, Human rights, Civil rights?
         We will see.
         Aryan man has awaken.


Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 05:02:47 -0700
From: •••@••.••• (Richard K. Moore)
To: Multiple recipients of list <•••@••.•••>
Subject: cj-4/24> Re: Nazi rise to power

Nazism, Militias, and the Abuse of History
Richard K. Moore
24 April 1995

It always fascinates me how absolutely any postition can be "substantiated"
by selective quotes from history, just as you can justify anything you
might want to do by finding some particular isolated quote from the Bible
(or the Koran, or the Junior Woodchuck Guidebook.)  I find much of the
recent revisionist thinking about Nazism disturbing, especially the
blurring of distinctions among different varieties of totalianarism.
Hitler & Stalin may have been equally reprehensible, but their ways of
seizing and maintaining power were very different.

I've lived in Germany, and over the years have read many books and articles
about the rise of nazism, from diverse perspectives, and I believe one has
to very careful in trying to unravel what it was all about.

>>From what I've seen, I think one of the clearest central thruths about
Hitler is that he was anti-liberal.  He despised the democratic process,
despised diversity of opinion, and built his constituency by lying about
history and by inciting hatred and mistrust of government, labor unions,
liberals, subtleties of political thought, intellectuals, gays, and nearly
all minorities.  He appealed to a simplistic, jingoistic version of
"traditional German" values, and referred selectively to religion when it
suited his propagandistic puposes.  The core of his enemies-lists was what
is today mis-called the "liberal elite".  Yes he hated Jews, and he
exploited native German anti-semitism, but he rounded up labor leaders and
democratic spokesman long before he launched the formal holocaust.  When he
invaded Poland, his first act was to round up and shoot liberal political
leaders and activists, even before the smoke had cleared from his Luftwaffe
bombs.  The Warsaw ghetto pogrom came much later.

Hitler's rhetoric was at core indistinguishable from what we now hear from
the Limbaugh's and the right-wing talk radio hosts, and in a more disguised
form, from the Gingrich's.  He then, and they now, try to blame society's
ills on those dis-empowered groups which have the least say in public
policy.  They blame the victims, and the public then and now seems to revel
in those kinds of easy answers.

Stephen Brown wrote:
        "The Nazis actually did not ignore government infrastructure to
take power.  They used to democratic process to dismantle it and grant
absolute power to Hitler.  The Weimar constitution, unlike ours, was filled
with exceptions to every single rule.  The government could infringe on
individual freedoms without worry."

In this regard, I invite you to recognize that these same "exceptions to
every single rule" are being systematically introduced into our own legal
system.  This has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats -- it's been
happening on a fully bi-partisian basis.  The "war on drugs" and
"anti-terrorism" are being used as an excuse to suspend the Bill of Rights.

Protection against illegal search and seizure? -- Goodbye.  You may think
drug dealers are the only victims (houses confiscated for minor drug
offenses), and not give a damn, but once the constitutional protection is
gone, anyone in disfavor with the government can have their property
confiscated, without benefit of judicial process.  Right to freedom of
speech and assembly? -- Goodybe.  You may think Moslem fundamentalists are
the only victims, and not give a damn, but once the government can
prosecute anyone associated with anyone who later commits a violent act (as
with the World Trade Center prosecutions), meaningful political activity is
a thing of the past.  Especially when the government is willing to sponsor
illegal acts by agent provocateurs, as it has done for decades, so it can
then arrest legitimate political leaders.

Now with the Oklahoma bombing, one of the first things we hear is that the
intelligence agencies should be beefed up and given a freer reign -- hardly
a surprise, but hardly an appropriate response.  Does anyone really believe
the militia orgnaizations are not already thoroughly infiltrated by
government informers?  Is anyone that naive?  White House Chief of Staff
Leon Panetta said Sunday that "Federal undercover agents have been
infiltrating paramilitary groups suspected of planning crimes but got no
warning of the devastating bombing in Oklahoma City."  But who decides
which warnings percolate up to the White House?  Many books by former CIA
agents reveal that the agency passes on exactly what it chooses to, based
on what spin they want policy makers to be exposed to.  We then have former
FBI agent Oliver "Buck" Revel saying on CBS's "Face the Nation" that "Mr.
Panetta's statement that some of these groups are being monitored is
inaccurate.  I only left six months ago and we had no investigations on any
of the militias."  Maybe and maybe not.  The last thing we'd expect in a
public statment by a still-in-favor ex-FBI agent is the truth.  Such
statements are made for their poltiical effect, not to reveal the true
extent of intelligence activity.

The US government itself funds terrorist organizations, as is a matter of
public record in the case of Iran-based organizations (to name one example
already published in Newsweek).  The CIA protects drug cartels all over the
globe.  When Reagan sent Perot on a fact finding mission to Vietnam to look
into the POW situation, Perot reported that our intelligence agents were
too busy dealing drugs to help him with the investigation.  Reagan relieved
him of his assignment at that point.  When Noriega was arrested in Panama,
supposedly to stop his drug dealing, the drug-bankers were put right back
in power, and Panama remains the banking center for the international drug
trade.  This is not unknown the US government.

In a backhanded sort of way, the Michigan Militia is right -- the
government _is_ undermining our freedoms and selling out to international
organizations -- but it's multinationals who are taking over, not the UN.
The militia's error is not so much in their political analysis, which has
elements of truth -- their error is in thinking the answer lies in
stockpiling rifles and launching their own conspiratorial movement.  Their
enemy is not liberalism, it's corporate-sponsored authoritarianism.  If
they want to preserve the Constitution, they should put their guns away and
build coaltions with all the millions of other folks who value freedom and
democracy and the Constitution.  By their strategy, they're helping to
bring about the very dictatorship they rightly fear.



 Posted by      Richard K. Moore <•••@••.•••>
                Wexford, Ireland (USA citizen)
                Editor: The Cyberjournal (@CPSR.ORG)

    World Wide Web (shared with cyber-rights):

You are encouraged to forward and cross-post messages and online materials,
pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions.  For
commercial re-use, contact the appropriate author.