"fascistic disposition" paragraph

[jbor]

>> From the actual language used in the paragraph, (...)
>> any actual reference to 9/11 (...)
>> in the paragraph in question seems highly unlikely.
>> 
on 11/5/03 6:04 AM, Otto wrote:

> For example: "(...) those among us who remain all too ready to justify any
> government action, whether right or wrong--will immediately point out that
> this is prewar thinking (...)." (ix-x)

Precisely. This is the first sentence in the paragraph. Have a think about
the demonstrative pronoun "this". What does it refer back to?

I read the "those among us" as inclusive of everybody, not just Americans,
and the present tense verbs he's using as the timeless present rather than
restricted to the present time.

> Well, when September 11 happened I remember people on this list, Americans,
> who claimed that from now on "America is at war" -- 9/11 has become our
> "Pearl Harbour." The war against terror is far from over, the Iraq-war has
> been repeatedly declared being part of it, so where's the "inherent
> absurdity" in comparing the two attacks on America?

But if we're still talking about the paragraph in Pynchon's Foreword then
it's not the attack on Pearl Harbour he's talking about but the Blitz, the
prolonged bombing of London and south-eastern England by the German
Luftwaffe in August-October 1940, which was meant to pave the way for a
German invasion of Britain, and which was a time in WW II when the Nazis
appeared to be on the verge of victory. All the descriptive terms and
phrases in the paragraph: "prewar thinking", "enemy bombs", "one's
homeland", "altering the landscape", "casualties among friends and
neighbors", "the homeland in danger", "strong leadership and effective
measures", "air raids", "the all clear", "emergency"; do relate specifically
to the Blitz, and to Churchill's Coalition government.

I agree that some of the generalisations might be applied to post 9/11
America, or to Israel during the 1991 Gulf War, or to Belgrade or Chechnya
more recently, or to Saddam's Baghdad in March-April 2003 for that matter,
what I don't agree with is that there is a specific reference to any of
these situations in the paragraph.

Furthermore, I don't know that I entirely agree with Pynchon's argument
here. One of the examples in the list of "effective measures" which
Churchill's govt adopted during the Blitz, and which Pynchon argues "could
be called fascist", is "restricting travel". It immediately brought to my
mind the opening scene in _GR_, where people are being forcibly evacuated
from London, and also the one where Roger and Jessica drive to a house in a
restricted zone in the south-east of England to spend the night together. To
my way of thinking, some of the homeland emergency measures enforced by the
British government in 1940 were entirely sensible and justified, and saved
lives, and I think the same can be said of the way the U.S. govt tightened
up airport and airline security in the wake of 9/11. I'd describe these
measures as wise and necessary rather than "fascist".

best