"fascistic disposition" paragraph

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: "fascistic disposition" paragraph


> >> 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?
>

"This" goes back to the democratic socialist complaint in the preceding
paragraph that "The masses were only there to be used for their idealism,
their class resentments, their willingness to work cheap and to be sold out,
again and again."

> 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.
>

I agree that we're all included, and that it's timeless and thus not
restricted to WWII, including the post-9/11 situation in the US.

> > 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.

He's talking about "the moment enemy bombs begin to fall on one's homeland
(...)." We're talking about truth, lies & propaganda and wartime necessities
in general.

> 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 disagree, how does "altering the landscape" relate specifically to the
Blitz? How can we rule out that Ground Zero is meant here?

> 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.
>

But the USA are at war right now, we're all part of the war against terror,
paying for it with our tax money. So why apply the generalisations to wars
that are over and not to the actual one still going on?

> 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

I think this is very important: you say that you disagree with Pynchon here.

You cannot take the most harmless of those "measures" to demonstrate that
this wasn't exactly what fascism is about. Pynchon speaks about a number of
measures, and he is very precise in this: "censoring news, controlling wages
and prices, restricting travel, subordinating civil liberties to
self-defined wartime necessity." Given what I know about the "Battle of
Britain" from history books and movies, plus from oral history as a
descendent of the aggressor I really do believe that all this together has
been absolutely inevitable for Britain in 1940 to survive (and I've said
this in a previous post already) but I have my doubts that it's justified
today.

This "self-defined" is still worrying me 'cause it gives me the impression
that Pynchon is critical about this. There can be no doubt about that in the
USA today civil liberties are subordinated to self-defined necessities in
the war on terror. This doesn't mean in my opinion that Pynchon says that
the Bush-gov. is fascist but as I understand it it's a clear warning that
these things are exactly some of the positive values liberal democracies are
standing for, that are defended in justified wars against totalitarianism.
We have a saying I cannot translate: Wehret den Anfängen. And who else, if
not critical Brainy Smurfs in a liberal democracy should be the ones to
raise their voices.

I guess I have more understanding for Churchill's measures than for those of
the current US-government. Compared to Saddam's Kasper-army the
Wehrmacht has been a real threat to Europe. The Republican Guardes weren't
like the SS as asserted.

Churchill never had supported Hitler but the West has supported people like
Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein for a long time.

Otto