"fascistic disposition" paragraph

[jbor]

>> 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.

on 12/5/03 1:12 AM, Otto wrote:

> 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.

It can be generally applied to many past, present or future situations where
a government has implemented strict civil controls in a situation where the
homeland is under attack. My point is that it is unlikely that there is any
*specific* reference to 9/11 or the Patriot Act or Bush in the paragraph.

> He's talking about "the moment enemy bombs begin to fall on one's homeland
> (...)." 

As I've said before, I don't believe the events of 9/11 are even remotely
indicated by that phrase. If he had wished to address that particular day
specifically, or even as part of the general allusion, then something like
"the moment one's homeland comes under air attack" would have served the
purpose. Unless you're arguing he's a "shitty" writer who doesn't know how
to communicate his meaning effectively, I think this part of your argument
is a weak one. 

>We're talking about truth, lies & propaganda

In this particular paragraph, only in a very general way.

> and wartime necessities
> in general.

Yes. Or, more accurately, what the government has "defined" as necessities.

>> 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? 

    "Blitz" ... The name was derived from the German word
    *blizkreig" (lightning war), which in World War II
    was applied to the German strategy of making a rapid
    advance after initial strikes by aircraft, tanks, etc.
    The tactic was hugely successful in the invasion of
    Poland, France, and the Low Countries. The Blitz on
    London, however, never achieved its prime objective of
    terrifying the population into submission. In fact, it
    hardened the resolve of those subjected to its nightly
    harassment to destroy Nazi Germany. "London can take it"
    and "business as usual" were the slogans commonly
    chalked up on the walls of buildings damaged in the
    bombing of the previous night. (Brewer's)

> How can we rule out that Ground Zero is meant here?

It's unlikely in my opinion, as I've said, because *all* of the descriptive
phrases in the paragraph do apply to the Blitz but very few apply to 9/11,
and even to make two or three of them fit you need to do quite a bit of
stretching and distortion. Some of the descriptive phrases quite obviously
*don't* refer to 9/11 and its aftermath at all.

>> 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?

It's the context of the piece of writing. Pynchon isn't writing a polemical
piece about current events. He's writing a Foreword to a classic novel which
is meant to be read in 10, 30, 50, or 100 years from now. He knows this. The
paragraph refers specifically to Churchill's coalition govt and the Blitz
during WW II, and to Orwell's responses to these in his essays and reviews
of the time. The generalisations which Pynchon makes, about people's
attitudes to what govts do when one's homeland is under attack, can be
applied beyond the specific reference to situations from before WW II, after
it, recently, currently, and, potentially, on into the future.
 
>> 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".
>> 
> 
> 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.

Please. All I'm saying is that some of the "measures" which Churchill's govt
introduced were wise and necessary. Pynchon does not acknowledge this.
 
Further, Pynchon misuses the term "fascism", "fascistic" etc. In my opinion.

> 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

Well it seems as though you're disagreeing with Pynchon on this point. He
presents his version of Orwell's attitude towards the measures introduced by
Churchill's govt during WW II, and he seems to be tacitly agreeing with it,
though there's quite a bit of hedging, and a seeming unwillingness on his
part to say much of anything straight out.

As to the rest, I'm a bit suspicious of your uncritical endorsement of
those, often self-defined, "critical Brainy Smurfs" - what Pynchon wants to
define as "the 'dissident Left'". There's a whole lot of zealots and
malcontents amongst that particularly lobby, and while they're generally
strong on criticism and polemical rants they're pretty light on when it
comes to constructive and practical alternatives. In real terms, this "left
of the Left" category which Pynchon invents, in the period from WW II to
now, has generated some of the most destructive and heinously cruel
totalitarian regimes the world has ever seen, and some of the most
despicable tyrants: Stalin, Pol Pot, the Gang of Four, the Ceausescus,
Saddam, Mugabe, Kim Il-Jong ... The list is a long one.

Further, isn't this whole Left (= "good") versus Right (= "evil") one of
those constructed binaries which you're always banging on about? It's so
often used (not by you, please note) by these self-defined "dissidents" as a
rhetorical tactic to discredit and dismiss opposing points of view without
engaging with them, and likewise to label and marginalise the opponents of
their, similarly self-defined, "party line", that it seems little different
from the sort of propaganda and attempted coercion which they're always
accusing elected governments and the media of indulging in. Opportunities to
consider and debate every case, every issue, on its independent merits, and
for elected officials to offer a "conscience vote" when one is warranted,
are far more likely to occur in a liberal democracy and within an elected
parliament than under any other political system.

best 

> (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
>