1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

[Paul Mackin]

On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 20:38, Mutualcode at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/30/2003 2:16:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> keithsz at concentric.net writes:
> 
> 
> > So he is saying, that during war, what looks like totalitarianism is
> > necessary, but should not be used to justify totalitarianism in
> > times of
> > peace?
> > 
> 
> 
> Close, but no. He's suggesting why bin Laden is Bushy boy's best
> friend- he (O.B. Laden) provides the excuse for the movement against 
> civil liberty, the justification for short-cuts.


This is what you say, not what Pynchon says in the paragraph.

The closest Bush comes to anyone Pynchon mentions is Churchill, which
isn't very close.

P only says it MIGHT be argued that C behaved no differently than a
fascist regime. However the fascist-like actions cited were simply the
usual ones taken when a country is in mortal danger, which Britain was.
There is nothing said about Churchill's intending to permanently do away
with civil liberties and such. Add to that the fact that American's
situation at present is trivial danger-wise compared to Britain's in WW
II. Osama is a threat of a sort to America but certainly no mortal
danger to her survival, as the Axis powers were to Britain's.

>  As list behavior bears out,
> the role of victim- attackee- is coveted. No one can call out the
> cavalry
> with more righteous indignation than the crucified christ. Can you
> say "cluster bomb?" It's a wonderful day in the neighborhood...
> 
> Most of Bush's policies put in place in the name of 9/11 were
> described by various members of his junta prior to 9/11, as a
> wish list. OSB is the ultimate Santa.
> 
> If you can't justify what you want during peace, well, the solution's
> obvious, isn't it?
> 
> respectfully