One Little Hitler

I haven't been able to determine who drew the editorial cartoon gracing this post, but it was apparently made in 1942.  I think we're safe in believing that it isn't, in fact, a self-portrait.

It presents an interesting take on Hitler's popularity with the German people at that time.  The slavish figure genuflecting to Der Fuhrer gives thanks that Hitler has saved him from democracy, which is called a scourge.

The belief that democracy is if not a scourge then a decadent failure as a form of government which should be discarded was a popular one among the intelligentsia of the time, including that disgusting Nazi toady, Heidegger.  It continues to be the belief of various right-wing intellectuals in Europe currently, for much the same reasons.  Those reasons seem to have their bases in nationalism, the preservation of cultural if not biological purity, resentment and the desire to be safe and secure followers of a national or cultural hero-figure.  Democracy is seen as chaotic and too favorable to opposing and unusual views and people.

One can't help but wonder if that's how many feel about it here and now.  Not that our Great Republic has ever been a democracy, properly speaking.  But such as it is, it may be that we have come to a point where a significant number of us are not comfortable with it, for reasons similar to those supporters of fascism in the past.  

Others have already wondered whether our Glorious Union is becoming similar to the version of America in Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here, published in 1936.  Comparisons have been made between current political figures (one in particular) and Buzz Windrip, the American dictator in the novel.  Buzz was probably modeled on Huey Long, but his personality traits are similar to those of other men better known now than the Kingfish, a Louisiana populist.  Buzz incarcerated political opponents, denigrated women and minorities, was anti-immigrant; he was vulgar, vain, outlandish, and a prolific liar, and very popular.  The American fascism described in the novel was a great friend to big business.  It had more in common with Mussolini's version of corporate fascism than with Hitler's Nazis.  Hitler wasn't all that well known in America at that time.

In these times when political figures declaim, to acclaim, that immigrants are poisoning our blood and are vermin, as are political opponents, the assertion that what took place a hundred years or so ago in Europe can't take place here is less than credible.  It's apparent that elections and the rule of law mean nothing to many here in God's Favorite Country.  What's next?

It's interesting that in Lewis' novel, the opponents of Windrip and his regime took refuge in Canada.  We hear Canada being praised often in these dark times, for a number of reasons.  Was Lewis prescient in that respect as well?

Zombie Apocalypse: Coming November, 2024

Perhaps it won't happen, but we should be prepared for the possibility.  There are political and social zombies.  It seems they have no will, nor it seems do they have much in the way of brains, being hungry for them and resentful of those that possess them.  They seem incapable of reason, are easily led, and have no thought of the consequences of their fantastically limited view of reality, of the world, of the universe for that matter, being eager to consume the source of intelligence itself.  They stagger towards the future, voracious and fierce in the pursuit of sameness.  

The Walking Dead aren't creatures of fiction.  They walk among us.  They haven't died physically, but spiritually and mentally, to be regenerated in the service of dark magic.  They vote.  They run for office.  They're elected.  They have no agenda to speak of; they don't like agendas, thinking them to be what they're pleased to call "liberal."  They merely wish to be zombies, answering to the voodoo that created them, unquestioning, unthinking, remorseless, relentless.  It's not surprising that the Nazis were associated with zombies, even during WWII.  They are of a type, just following orders embedded in them by something, a leader for political zombies, aliens or some kind of plague for others.

They've shown that they pay no attention to what has been said or done in the past, especially if it's contrary to and critical of what and who they are zombies for.  While they may be lacking in brains, those they possess have been thoroughly washed.  What they believe they believe without question.  What they are willing to do they will do without conscience.  They're true believers in what is demonstrably untrue, the worst kind of fanatics.

Does their existence have anything to do with the popularity of zombie movies, books, graphic novels and TV?  It's an interesting question.  But generally, the zombies are the enemy in those media.  They're fought against, and they must be killed.  One of my favorite zombie movies is an older one--The Last Man on Earth, starring Vincent Price.  It might be argued that those raised from the dead by a plague in that movie were more vampires than zombies, loving blood and coming out at night, but I think they have most of the characteristics of fictional zombies so many, it seems, know and love.  Vincent Price as Dr. Morgan travels about the city in the day, gathering corpses while they're inert and burning them.  At night they assail him in his house while he drinks and plays records.  The zombies I write of are deplored by some, enjoyed and exploited by others.

Those who deplore them are amazed, as they should be, by their dull wits and gullibility but have no plan to combat them.  There is something novel about them.  Our Great Republic has always had its share of suckers and snake oil salesmen gracing its elections.  But in general the salesmen have been merely venal.  Now it seems they have something more dire in mind than the acquisition of money needed to retain power; at least their chief spokesman does.

Let's hope Sinclair Lewis wasn't prescient.

The Only Thing That Will Make You See Sense

The bigoted, elitist, but nonetheless incisive Sage of Baltimore comes to mind more and more as the horror of the mid-term elections looms larger and larger before us.  If I wanted merely to comment on the preposterous hypocrisy and venality of the election process, I'd be content to quote his assertion that elections are an advance auction sale of stolen goods.  But these are dark times, and dark times engender dark thoughts.  And so the quote which graces this post, above.

Was Mott the Hoople right when it sang all too long ago that Violence is the only thing that will make us see sense?  Yes, I mean Violence with a capital "V."  If it is, it's likely that it will only make us see sense in the short term, but that may suffice to resuscitate our dwindling civilization until the next time it's required to jolt us into remediative action.  Our history repeats itself in certain respects.  Think of the statement heard in movies featuring the Mafia, that a war is good for business now and then. Human society may not be significantly different from that of organized crime.  Fascists were destroyed in the Second World War but arise once more, in Europe and even here.  Read Sinclair Lewis; read George Orwell.

We've had many wars, but the war being spoken of by some now is war of a particular kind.  Political war within a political unit; that is to say, a civil war.  We've flirted with the idea of one lately, it seems. It may be that the thought of a civil war pleases some of us.  Those it pleases most are probably lovers of fantasies in which they figure heroically, brandishing weapons in defense of whatever they find important.

We had a real civil war during the 1860s, of course, but our capacity to forget is such that it's more or less a romantic memory now, even another fantasy, perhaps.  Some of us dress up and pretend to  be soldiers in that war (and other wars as well, unfortunately).  One of the memories of that war we should hold is that it was remarkably bloody; another is that we fight our best (that is to say, do the most harm) when we fight among ourselves.  And it seems clear to me, at least, that we're eager to fight among ourselves once more.

The internal war we may face is different from that civil war, though.  No great casus belli is available.  What causes there are seem mean, petty things taken in themselves--whether we think of sex the same way, or certain people the same way, or agree that certain books shouldn't be read, certain things shouldn't be said, or certain people shouldn't be here or whose love for our Great Republic is seemingly inadequate, or certain religions shouldn't be allowed or followed.  Most important, though, is the fear that others may have what we have or take what we have, especially if those others are different than we are.  

I suspect that if there is such a war it will be more similar to the internal wars of the French Revolution.  There's a kind of regime running this country, a regime born of and sustained by money.  Those who have the money despise or are at best indifferent to those who don't, and take great pains to appear as though they have the interests of those they despise or are indifferent to in mind when those of the regime act to foster their own interests.  Why it's thought that the regime seeks to benefit anyone but its own members is beyond me.  It should be obvious it does not, but suckers must indeed be born every minute.

Still, I can't help but feel that this enchantment will wear off, eventually.  And when it does, mere anarchy will be loosed upon the world in a way far more real than the aristocratic Yeats thought it had been all those years ago.  Every normal person will not only want to hoist the black flag and start cutting throats (some already do, I think) but will begin the work of slashing. If the kind of hate we see displayed in our society is any indication, many long for a new guillontine already, and there are wannabe Marats and Robespierres standing ready.

There's only so much hypocrisy, venality, sanctimony, arrogance, fraud and contempt one can take.  Some day, someone or many someones will notice that things don't change, no matter what is said or done by those with power.  They don't change because those in power won't gain, but will rather lose, if change takes place.  What will the reaction be when we realize, collectively, that we've been bamboozled?

On the Threshold of a Scream

Sinclair Lewis wrote that when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.  Pictures of supporters of Donald Trump, their right hands raised in response to his surprising request that they swear to support him, tend to bring fascism to mind.  And references to the fact that it can happen here are being made in the media, some pundits also echoing Lewis in doing so.

I suppose that it's inevitable that fascism be contemplated during this freakish presidential election.  The electorate of our Great Republic seems determined to raise hell this time around, and is doing so with considerable success.  It's hard not to be disappointed and frustrated given the venality and dullness of our political elite, but there are signs that more than disgust in our politics is involved.  Anger, hatred and fear are pervasive, and on such things demagogues--and fascists--have thrived.

It's difficult to say whether fears of fascism are justified.  It's understandable to fear the worst when the worst of us is so much on display.  If what we see is or will develop into fascism, I doubt it will be of the ostensibly militaristic kind which thrived in the 20th century.   I doubt the U.S. will engage in wars of conquest.  We're already involved in military action around the world in any case.  Wars of retribution would be more likely, but those wars would probably only involve an increase in the actions we're already taking; more bombings, more drones, perhaps more "boots on the ground" but no great military actions.

Lewis' prediction of what fascism would look like here is more likely.  Americanism and naive Christianity, certainly.  But the factors of money and race will be involved as well, I hazard to guess.  Money simply because it's needed to accomplish anything, race because the America that many and the supporters of Trump particularly envision is very white (like his supporters, I suppose).  No peculiar peoples live there, or if they do they're quiet, undemanding and certainly not as well off as white folks.  They pose no threat, in other words, to those white.

The American form of fascism may not be racist strictly speaking, however.  I think the long struggle against racism here has had such success that it will be difficult for government to openly prefer one race to another on a national scale.  The whiteness of it would be more cultural than racist.  People would for the most part like the same sort of things, do the same sort of things, and those who do not would not be welcome.  People would learn American English and use it exclusively, go to church, be patriotic in a righteous and simple way, mind there own business, distrust foreigners, not ask questions about the American Way of Life.

Still, though the Republican Party may be descending into chaos, I don't think our nation is quite as chaotic as I think would be necessary in order for fascism to prevail.  Nor do I think we've reached the point where a person or group would be able to make the unilateral decisions required to dominate the federal government or the states.  We have something of a commitment to democracy here; certainly more of a commitment than Germany had before Hitler, or Italy had before Mussolini.  Also, we're jealous of our rights.  We hate to see others share them, of course, but also hate to see them restricted.

We've probably become too diverse too accept even a culture of whiteness on a large scale, however, if we define that as WASP or working-class whiteness. 

Unless fear overwhelms us and we're willing to waive our rights and the law for the sake of security, we should be safe from fascism of the 20th century variety.  Perhaps a kinder, gentler fascism might take hold, gradually.  Just what that would be is unclear.