Worse Than Silence: Part I

[Pamela Troy]

The fruits of irresponsible and bigoted language are ripening in this country. Some have graduated from rhetoric to action. In addition to the stabling of a Muslim cabbie in New York, there have been a series of crimes committed against mosques and Islamic centers. These include:

The defacing of a Nashville Islamic Center last February with the words “Muslims Go Home.” A threatening note was left on the site that included “Every Moslem nation needs to be eradicated that surrounds the Holy Land.:

The explosion of a pipe bomb at a Florida Islamic Center in Florida in May. At the time, 60 people were in the building, praying. Though the bomb shook the building and blackened a wall, nobody was hurt.

Obscene graffiti spray-painted in the parking lot of an Arlington Texas mosque in June. That same weekend, a fire destroyed playground equipment at the site, and some copper tubing was cut, possibly because the vandal thought it was a natural gas line. (Fortunately it was not.)

The threatening signs set up last week at a Madera California mosque, reading “"Wake up America, the enemy is here,” and “No temple for god of terrorism at Ground Zero.”

And there’s the recent case in Murfreesboro Tennessee, on the site of a future Islamic Center and mosque. Federal agents were called in after someone doused construction equipment with flammable liquid and tossed a match.

One of the myths that Americans seem to treasure about America -- in utter defiance of history -- is that, in the face of prejudice, the conscience of Americans as a whole will intervene before serious damage is done. After all, it’s pointed out most Americans don’t commit these crimes.

That’s certainly true. It’s also true that (depending on the level of violence) there are almost always some Americans of conscience and good will who will come forward and offer their support to the victims.

The problem is that the people of conscience who step up to the plate and denounce hate crimes are frequently in the minority, and do so at risk to themselves. The problem is that the vast majority of Americans are, either because they are afraid, because they are uncaring, or because they are sympathetic to the criminals, likely to be silent.

Or worse, when they do speak, it’s to deny, to minimize, or to directly or indirectly blame the victims.

Sometimes it’s done obliquely. Consider, for a moment, this local TV news coverage of the recent vandalism in Murfreesboro.

Arson in Murfreesboro

I’m not sure who’s responsible for the various telling “clunks” in the copy. It could be the writer. It could be a nervous editor who waded in and altered it. But those “clunks” trend in a consistent direction, one avoids directly acknowledging the crime and focuses attention on the victimized Muslims. For instance:

Narrator: The scene? The site of the future mosque, say Muslims who’ve existed here twenty some years…

That’s a bit odd. Not just “the site of the future mosque” but “the site of the future mosque say Muslims… It’s not an objective fact that it’s the site of a future Mosque? That’s just something the local Muslims tell everyone?

This could be shrugged off as a slight blip in the writing, but the reporter goes on:

There’s strong opposition. The site’s sign’s even been destroyed twice. But this takes it to a whole new level, local Muslims proclaim…

Surely setting a fire and destroying construction equipment can objectively be described as kicking it up a notch from simply breaking a sign. And the “local Muslims proclaim?”

Writers of copy will certainly, late in a story, start casting around for synonyms for “say,” but when the writer chooses a loaded word like “proclaim” over more colorless terms like “observe,” “state,” “aver,” etc. suspicion is warranted. “Proclaim” is a term generally used to subtly denigrate what someone is saying. The implication is that the “proclaimer” is exaggerating, making a big deal out of nothing. It’s just a couple of notches below the word “whine.”

And finally:

Narrator

Spokeswoman Camie Ayash says it’s another violent act in which Muslims haven’t been the villain.

Camie Ayash: this is definitely something we do not deserve” -

Narrator: in her words -- they are the victim.

God forbid it should be in the reporter’s words that the Muslim community is the victim when someone sets fire to construction equipment on their building site.

Taken as a whole, this sounds as though some paranoid news writer or editor was afraid to say outright and simply, “Local Muslims were the victim of an apparent hate crime when someone escalated the vandalism of a planned Islamic center by setting fire to construction equipment.’ Instead, the thumb is repeatedly jerked at the Muslims themselves. “Hey,” the local station seems to be saying “We’re not the one’s saying it! It’s those Muslims!”

(To be continued)

[CoffeeCat]

1. Call me crazy...

...but I feel like the neocons are desperately seeking a group of people that they can
objectify and reduce to hated objects. They tried desperately to do this with Hispanics,
in the form of positioning illegal immigrants as dirty, slovenly, criminals and leeches
who steal American jobs and spread disease.

I listened to talk radio two years ago, and the campaign against Hispanics was truly
Hitler like. I don't say that lightly. Right-wing radio actually tried to spread the
meme that illegal immigrants were spreading disease in this country.

The neocon plan didn't really take hold with the entire country. Sure, you'll always
have your rabid, right-wing contingent that is just looking for a group to demonize.
But the neocons needed more mainstreamers on board.

I think they're targeting Muslims. You can just feel the campaign. Remember how the
neocons convinced America that Saddam had ties to Al Queda? They are proficient at
spreading lies, to get their way. That Saddam/Al Queda lie opened the door to the Iraq
war. Now, they're attempting to blur the line between Al Queda/terrorists and all
Muslims. It's obvious.

This entire mosque controversy was so contrived. They tried to whip America into
a frenzy and fuel hate for Muslims. America didn't buy it. They'll be back again
with more theater, you can bet on that.

The question is why? What are they doing and what is their goal? What is their plan?

I think we all need to be asking this.

[NYC_SKP]

2. They are disappointed, the Neocon and the teabaggers, that there hasn't been another 9/11.

It's been like anticlimactic, I think, for them since all the "patriotism" that came with the twin towers collapsing and the "shock and awe" that followed in Iraq.

What's worse, we got a 'muslin' dark-skinned president who hasn't been sounding the drumbeat against terr'ism and war.

So, it's got them on edge, they're itchin' for a fight.

And when bullies can't find someone who is "asking for it" they go and make shit up.

:hi:

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Scapegoating..pure and simple. Hate mongers stirring the shit for their own personal

agenda. See #3

14 POINTS OF FASCISM


1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

NOTE: The above 14 Points was written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile).

Does any of this sound familiar? As America sinks deeper and deeper into corporate greed will this country continue to be a democracy by the people and for the people or will it be ruled by the few? Will the trinity of money, power and greed over come one of the greatest countries in the world? Only we, the people, can keep it free. SPEAK OUT AND LET YOUR THOUGHTS BE KNOWN...ONLY BY SILENCE WILL WE BE DEFEATED!

http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html