Fascism, American Style

Matthew R. Gamel   

There is nothing that stirs up more controversial conversation among so-called “Conservative Christians” than to make the argument that Emperor Bush in no way resembles any type of conservative whether it be socially, economically, or politically. In fact, it quite often fuels hostile discourse to even go as far to suggest that Dubya is some type of tyrant. But let us at this point remind ourselves what the Republican Party is and what it has always fundamentally stood for. Remember that this is the party of Emperor Lincoln and that most self-described Republicans have, with some notable exceptions, followed in his footsteps. Dubya is no different. Of course, Emperor Lincoln not only set the precedent for the Republican Party but also for the modern touchy-feely Democrat Party.

Christians today don’t seem to think critically about the issues at hand not only in matters of doctrine but in the secular and political realms as well. It would be redundant and needless of me to point out that this has led to disaster in our nation and in our churches. This is rather unfortunate; what’s more unfortunate is the fact that much of this might very well be due to government “education” (or more appropriately, government indoctrination). If one is to confront your average self-professed Christian with evidence concerning Mr. Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility, blatant usurpations, and evidence of failing to honor God’s law in office, one of the arguments frequently thrown out is the fact that Mr. Bush is a “man of prayer” and a “man of God” and God will honor this. Basically, this translates to: if you profess to be a Christian, then God will honor that, which is obviously faux logic.

I don’t claim to know Mr. Bush personally, but these arguments seem incredibly shallow to me. If this were the case, then God would be required to honor Bill Clinton since he made a profession (albeit a shallow one) of faith. And, just like Bill Clinton, Bush has nullified his words with his actions in an attempt to please everyone with his pompous political rhetoric.

The point is simply that profession of faith cannot nullify responsibility for one’s actions. It reminds me of the old cliché, “talk is cheap.” This might be likened to one who professes to love in word but fails to love in deed, which is what the apostle John commands us to do. The same thing may be applied to a profession of faith without any fruit – the fact that Mr. Bush, for example, would even have anything to do with the so-called Log Cabin Republicans should indicate this massive lack of virtue. As a side note, the very existence of this group should cause Christians to (gasp) think about their blind allegiance to the state and the Republicans.

Contrary to popular opinion, Bush has not necessarily restored virtue back into the White House. Restoring virtue would seem to imply that he has engaged in virtuous deeds but, in reality, he simply has done nothing, which, by definition, cannot be considered virtue by any liberal definition of the word. OK, so perhaps the Emperor has paid some lip service to virtue, but virtue is demonstrated through consistent action rather than consistent appeasement of political allies and cheap talk. How can it be possible to conceive of the restoration of virtue from one’s predecessor when one does absolutely nothing to counter that which was previously abhorrent in the sight of many?

Interestingly enough, even when confronted with evidence, it is becoming a rather frequent occurrence for one to “kindly” point out the differences between King George II and his challenger to the throne, John Kerry, or more generally, the differences between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. Knowing how thoroughly my esteemed colleagues have pondered this conundrum has consequently caused me to ponder these differences as well. Eventually, the difference dawned upon me. George W. Bush is a national socialist while John Kerry is an international socialist.

As you can see, the differences in the long run are rather congruent – both lead to totalitarian police states. I suppose to choose one or the other (not including third party candidates) would be like choosing what type of police state one desires. That is, does one desire a fascist state or a communist state? Needless to say, such a response to the average citizen (and even more scary, to your average Christian) tends to generate some tension, and so I would like to clarify what I mean by this.

First, I should point out that I don’t dislike or hate Bush – I don’t know the guy personally and so I cannot judge him based on anything other than his actions. I do, however, hate his policy and I do think he is a belligerent usurper, just like the other two branches of the Imperial state. He is merely following the footsteps of the High Demigod of the Republican Party, Emperor Lincoln. Although I believe that this Empire now has much in common with the major totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, I probably should make it clear that I have not called Bush a Nazi; I certainly have no desire to be associated with the plethora of liberals who call anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi simply for the sake of name-calling. What I have called Bush, however, is a national socialist. Nazism is a type of National Socialism but the converse is untrue. National Socialism is broad and may encapsulate an excess of diverse things. Here in America, for example, we have a different type of National Socialism. It’s called neo-conservatism or “compassionate” conservatism. The neocon perception of capitalism and central government conservatism (as they call it – I call it a contradiction in terms) is nothing more than a national socialistic form of fascism. To those who disagree, I would like to submit the following questions:

Question 1: How do a handful of corporate monopolies facilitate a free market? Or, more specifically, how does a small group of individuals controlling the entire market facilitate a free market? Is this not a form of elitism? Moreover, why does corporate interest almost always outweigh constitutional and libertarian principle (especially with regards to property rights and such issues as eminent domain)? Why are mega-corporations allowed to use deceit to manipulate the populace (i.e., Eckerd and CVS are now owned by the same company thus giving the illusion that consumers actually do have a choice)? Even more interesting, why does it always appear that corporate and government interests are intertwined (other than the obvious answer that they are)?

Question 2: How does government regulation of business (namely small businesses, since the Empire usually has corporate interest at heart) promote freedom? I don’t doubt that it promotes the perverse tenets of democracy, but how can one be free and at the same time be required to conform one’s business to an almost unreal amount of government regulations (i.e., Title IX, OSHA, EPA, etc)?

Question 3: How is welfare, government education (i.e., indoctrination), corrosion of property rights, social security and social security numbers as a means of identification, equity laws, and a host of similar things not socialism? How has our nation not fulfilled the tenets listed in the Communist Manifesto under both Republican and Democrat administrations? Perhaps this is just me, but they seem just as doctrinaire as the liberals they claim to despise.

Question 4: How does anti-terrorist/911 propaganda not promote a dangerous level of nationalism? Interestingly enough (this may be a bit off topic but I found this rather interesting), I have recently seen a campaign advertisement from the Bush administration that said something along the lines of “9 out of 10 terrorists say don’t vote for Bush.” This is a museum specimen of neocon propaganda – equate political enemies as terrorists.

Question 5: How does erosion of gun rights (Emperor Bush vowed to sign the Clinton semi-auto ban back into effect in September), government monopolies on automatic weapons, expanded police powers, Gestapo-like federal/state police agencies  (FBI, ATF, IRS, CPS, etc) that operate almost exclusively in secret, and the (Un) Patriot Act not make us some type of police state? I mean, responsible government agencies like Cheka, KGB, Stassi, Gestapo, FBI, and ATF can be trusted, ja?

Question 6a: If government is required to be accountable to its citizens, why does the vast majority of the Empire operate in secret? Do we honestly expect bureaucrats to keep other bureaucrats in line? Other than control of its citizens, why must a government maintain copious amounts of information on its citizens or be allowed to spy on them (and yes, this does happen but will be accelerated by the Patriot Act – my personal belief is that this has been happening in secret for decades; the Patriot Act will only legitimize and expand such things). Why does the Empire metaphorically tattoo everyone with a social security number? I thought social security was optional.

Question 6b: What is national security other than an excuse to expand the police state? Security of what? Perhaps such is the vast repertoire of Imperial usurpations that have not been made public. Or, perhaps, such is security of Imperial interests to keep our puppet masters in power. After all, a breach in “national security” can often mean a bureaucrat’s job so I can’t help but wonder if “national security” is like job security plus a 401k for the ruling elite. Everything is secret and classified save that which our puppet masters deem we should know.  This is the favorite excuse that neocons use to expand the police state. Heck, it’s not just the neocons that use this excuse!

Question 6c: What is the purpose of the Imperial contractor Seisint and the assigning of a “terrorist quotient” to citizens? How is this not tyranny? Depending on one’s response to Question 1, it may be necessary to reconcile one’s answer with topics of interest here. Moreover, what types of algorithms are used to construct such a “terrorist quotient” or would release of this information constitute a breach in “national security” (see Question 6b)? Are we speaking of random number generators to generate a match (this would be my guess) or unconstitutional prying into personal information without just cause? How does this not lead to “thought crimes” since everyone assigned a “TQ” may not have ever committed a crime, save the unpardonable sin of resisting the tyrannical Empire? Does habeas corpus ring a bell to anyone or does that no longer exist? How does the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange (MATRIX) facilitate freedom? I’m all ears on this question.

Ask these questions (or ones that are similar) to a neocon and you will receive one or a combination of several of the following responses (this is merely a sampling of what to expect seeing as how neocons are always on the lookout for other arguments to support their totalitarian dream land):

“We just have to trust Dubya on this one.”

“Dubya’s gonna give back the power he has tak– er I mean borrowed for a short time.”

“Are you unpatriotic? Hmmm, are you a terrorist? Do I have to report you?”

“Dubya is a man of God – why would he ever usurp power?”

“This isn’t socialism – it’s being compassionate to our fellow members of the human family.”

“Karl Marx? He used to crack me up in those old movies, him and his brother Groucho. Now what was it you were saying about the Communist Manifesto?”

“Habeas corpus? What on earth does Thai food have to do with anything? You paleoconservatives are always getting off topic.”

“Das Kapital? Oh yes, something every business should know. Wasn’t El-Rushbo talking about this the other day?”

“Come on man, this is national security we’re talking about. I mean, we have to keep everyone safe from the terrorists” [Consequently, I couldn’t agree more here – why don’t we impeach Bush, Rumsfeld, the rest of the warmongers in Babylon on the Potomac, and the Supreme Court and permanently disband 3/4 of the Imperial bureaucracy. Ok, now I’m dreaming…]

Folks, how is this not some form of fascism? I’m sure I don’t need to explain how a Kerry presidency wouldn’t be any better, but honestly I can’t see how it could be much worse. I mean, really, to prefer fascism to communism is sort of like preferring peanuts to almonds – they are both nuts with some differences in texture and flavor.  At least if Kerry were president, the Republicans in office would oppose all of his unconstitutional agenda so that they can push the same agenda through when they have direct access to the crown again. I mean, both Bush and Kerry are members of Skull and Bones, both Bush and Kerry grovel at the feet of the New World Order, both Bush and Kerry favor civil unions but not gay “marriage” (and many Christians, being the wonderful discerning believers they are, don’t seem to get that “civil unions” and gay “marriage” are the SAME THING with minor syntax changes), both Bush and Kerry have never read and/or understood the U.S. Constitution, both Bush and Kerry have no clue what the terms “surplus,” “deficit,” or “inflation” mean, both Bush and Kerry are touchy-feely bureaucrats that supposedly feel everyone’s pain, both Bush and Kerry are despots that desire absolute power, both Bush and Kerry use the mass murder of millions of unborn children for political gain, and the list goes on.

We, as Americans and Christians, have become fat, lazy, indolent slobs concerning issues of politics, history, and religion versus secularism. So many Christians seem to place a limitation on when or where one’s religious life ends and secular life begins. As a Christian, there is no difference. You will either love the world or hate it. As A. W. Tozer once put it, you either accept Christ as Savior and Lord or you accept none of Him. Christ can’t be 100% Savior yet 55% Lord of one’s life. Thus, I am forced to obey my Lord no matter what I am doing, whether it be voting for Godly candidates or deciding whether to go see that questionable movie.

The persecution we are seeing in this nation may, in part, be attributed to disobedience on behalf of the people of God – this is not good. Peter said that if anyone suffers, let him suffer for the sake of righteousness, not because we have been blatantly disobedient like Israel was. As a result of this disobedience the Church is not only a carbon copy of the world; the world has absolutely no respect for the Church.

I almost cannot believe my ears when I hear this lesser of two evils argument that is often made by Christians because it demonstrates two attributes possessed by those who make such an argument: ignorance and cowardice. Ignorance follows inasmuch as those who do not know history are bound to repeat it; and cowardice follows from the unwillingness to stand up for the sake of righteousness regardless of whether or not it is popular, regardless of whether or not one will stand alone – look at Jesus, for crying out loud! Almost everyone deserted Him in His final hour!

Besides, how does one define the lesser of two evils? Is the Republican Party the lesser of two evils because it is advancing the agenda of the New World Order more slowly than the Democrats? Or is it because they are socialists as opposed to being outright communists like Comrade Kerry? Or is it because they have implicitly supported the homosexual movement as opposed to explicitly stating their support as the Democrats have done? They have certainly given government (i.e., taxpayer) subsidies to these sodomites. How much socialism will it take before God’s people wake up? How many murdered babies will it take? How many more incidents like Waco or Ruby Ridge will it take? How many more children does the Empire have to sacrifice to Molech before Christians will obey God? Oh, that’s right, I keep forgetting that obedience to God is “legalism” (and yes, I have heard this argument before). How many more Christians will continue to send their children to Imperial indoctrination camps thus legitimizing the very system they claim to despise? We cannot expect to have reaction without first exercising action in every aspect of life: from raising Godly children to voting. Would Nero be the lesser of two evils if compared with Caligula? Would Hitler be the lesser of two evils compared with Stalin because he killed less people? I mean, if you had to vote for Hitler or Stalin, whom would you vote for? In fact, abortion has killed more people than Russian Communism or Nazism but does anyone seem to care?

This “lesser of two evils” argument assumes that one has absolutely no principles and is willing to cowardly concede if one perceives that the situation is “grave” enough. Yet, these defectors to the enemy in their ignorance have absolutely no clue what’s going on – they have been propagandized by the talking heads on television and talk radio. In fact, modern Christendom has been influenced more by the world than by the Word of God. All you have to do to control a Christian these days is get a guy with a Ph.D. in some Satanic, worldly pseudo-science like psychology or a seminary degree from some watered-down seminary to make a moral or supposedly Biblical statement. Christians flock to these kinds of folks because that means they don’t have to think for themselves. The Imperial puppet masters of both parties engage in sophistry so well that I am sure they would easily and readily elicit the envy of Joseph Goebbels, were he here today. Now, if only a handful of Christians would actually see this. The Empire doesn’t worry about this though – they’ve got the majority of Christendom on a leash and they know it full and well.

Speaking of Goebbels, this reminds me of something interesting that was said by him. He said:

Nothing is easier than leading the people on a leash. I just hold up a dazzling campaign poster and they jump through it.

It appears that the Empire and the talking heads at Fox News, CNN, PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, and NPR have learned something valuable from 20th century propaganda to advance their police state and the New World Order. Consequently, I’m not sure whether the neocons or liberals scare me more. Way to go neocons! Sieg Heil!

July 9, 2004

Matt Gamel is a graduate student at Texas A&M and eventually desires to go to seminary to study to be a biblical scholar. He may be reached for comment here.

Back to daveblackonline