The phrase tied to last century's HITLER/MAO/STALIN/FRANCO far-right wing fascism FIRST THEY CAME FOR THIS POPULATION GROUP AND THEN THAT----is one public policy term all our 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE and our 99% new immigrants should remember as the GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM attack on our freedom. liberty, justice, pursuit of happiness, equal protection under law and REAL free market opportunity and access for all 99% black, white, and brown citizens.
REAL left social progressives recognized the election of REAGAN as just what we describe above ----it was REAGAN ----not TRUMP being that first far-right global banking 1% corporate FASCIST US President. REAGAN met every definition of what a politician advancing FASCISM does-----and our US national media worked hard to promote REAGAN as a hero of free world and worked hard to HIDE GOALS OF MOVING FORWARD.
FIRST US CITIZENS PUSHED INTO THE US PRISON PIPELINE WAS THE SICK, DISABLED.
Ronald Reagan’s shameful legacy: Violence, the homeless, mental illness
As president and governor of California, the GOP icon led the worst policies on mental illness in generations
Dr. E. Fuller Torrey
September 29, 2013 12:00pm (UTC)
Excerpted from “American Psychosis”In November 1980, Republican Ronald Reagan overwhelmingly defeated Jimmy Carter, who received less than 42% of the popular vote, for president. Republicans took control of the Senate (53 to 46), the first time they had dominated either chamber since 1954. Although the House remained under Democratic control (243 to 192), their margin was actually much slimmer, because many southern “boll weevil” Democrats voted with the Republicans.
One month prior to the election, President Carter had signed the Mental Health Systems Act, which had proposed to continue the federal community mental health centers program, although with some additional state involvement. Consistent with the report of the Carter Commission, the act also included a provision for federal grants “for projects for the prevention of mental illness and the promotion of positive mental health,” an indication of how little learning had taken place among the Carter Commission members and professionals at NIMH. With President Reagan and the Republicans taking over, the Mental Health Systems Act was discarded before the ink had dried and the CMHC funds were simply block granted to the states. The CMHC program had not only died but been buried as well. An autopsy could have listed the cause of death as naiveté complicated by grandiosity.
President Reagan never understood mental illness. Like Richard Nixon, he was a product of the Southern California culture that associated psychiatry with Communism. Two months after taking office, Reagan was shot by John Hinckley, a young man with untreated schizophrenia. Two years later, Reagan called Dr. Roger Peele, then director of St. Elizabeths Hospital, where Hinckley was being treated, and tried to arrange to meet with Hinckley, so that Reagan could forgive him. Peele tactfully told the president that this was not a good idea. Reagan was also exposed to the consequences of untreated mental illness through the two sons of Roy Miller, his personal tax advisor. Both sons developed schizophrenia; one committed suicide in 1981, and the other killed his mother in 1983. Despite such personal exposure, Reagan never exhibited any interest in the need for research or better treatment for serious mental illness.
* * *
California has traditionally been on the cutting edge of American cultural developments, with Anaheim and Modesto experiencing changes before Atlanta and Moline. This was also true in the exodus of patients from state psychiatric hospitals. Beginning in the late 1950s, California became the national leader in aggressively moving patients from state hospitals to nursing homes and board-and-care homes, known in other states by names such as group homes, boarding homes, adult care homes, family care homes, assisted living facilities, community residential facilities, adult foster homes, transitional living facilities, and residential care facilities. Hospital wards closed as the patients left. By the time Ronald Reagan assumed the governorship in 1967, California had already deinstitutionalized more than half of its state hospital patients. That same year, California passed the landmark Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, which virtually abolished involuntary hospitalization except in extreme cases. Thus, by the early 1970s California had moved most mentally ill patients out of its state hospitals and, by passing LPS, had made it very difficult to get them back into a hospital if they relapsed and needed additional care. California thus became a canary in the coal mine of deinstitutionalization.
The results were quickly apparent. As early as 1969, a study of California board-and-care homes described them as follows:
These facilities are in most respects like small long-term state hospital wards isolated from the community. One is overcome by the depressing atmosphere. . . . They maximize the state-hospital-like atmosphere. . . . The operator is being paid by the head, rather than being rewarded for rehabilitation efforts for her “guests.”
The study was done by Richard Lamb, a young psychiatrist working for San Mateo County; in the intervening years, he has continued to be the leading American psychiatrist pointing out the failures of deinstitutionalization.
By 1975 board-and-care homes had become big business in California. In Los Angeles alone, there were “approximately 11,000 ex-state-hospital patients living in board-and-care facilities.” Many of these homes were owned by for-profit chains, such as Beverly Enterprises, which owned 38 homes. Many homes were regarded by their owners “solely as a business, squeezing excessive profits out of it at the expense of residents.” Five members of Beverly Enterprises’ board of directors had ties to Governor Reagan; the chairman was vice chairman of a Reagan fundraising dinner, and “four others were either politically active in one or both of the Reagan [gubernatorial] campaigns and/or contributed large or undisclosed sums of money to the campaign.” Financial ties between the governor, who was emptying state hospitals, and business persons who were profiting from the process would also soon become apparent in other states.
Many of the board-and-care homes in California, as elsewhere, were clustered in city areas that were rundown and thus had low rents. In San Jose, for example, approximately 1,800 patients discharged from nearby Agnews State Hospital were placed in homes clustered near the campus of San Jose State University. As early as 1971 the local newspaper decried this “mass invasion of mental patients.” Some patients left their board-and-care homes because of the poor living conditions, whereas others were evicted when the symptoms of their illness recurred because they were not receiving medication, but both scenarios resulted in homelessness. By 1973 the San Jose area was described as having “discharged patients...living in skid row...wandering aimlessly in the streets . . . a ghetto for the mentally ill and mentally retarded.”
While national and international global banking media sold REAGAN as the BEACON OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY-----REAGAN was everything HITLER was as a politician. Why did 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE right wing and left wing not come out in mass protests in 1980s---90s as we KNEW MOVING FORWARD had these same goals?
The right wing Republicans back then convinced our 99% of white men that all those 1960s civil rights equal protection policies were what was leading to white men to lose their jobs. MOVING FORWARD global neo-liberalism moving all US corporations to overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES were what caused our 99% of white men to lose their jobs---not 1960s civil rights. Global banking 1% were able to convince our US voters that all those FDR NEW DEAL programs were behind ever-rising Federal,state,and local taxes as well. Taxes were rising because REAGAN era was preparing for ROBBER BARON sacking and looting of US treasuries and people's pockets.
As much as our US labor unions try to be those same as early 1900s-----it was US labor tied to our white men losing their jobs that led in supporting REAGAN/CLINTON global banking 1% neo-liberalism.
This is when those 5% freemason/Greeks turned out in force to control all our US left social progressive labor and justice organizations and pushed what they KNEW would be far-right global banking corporate fascism.
We notice in this article the reminder HITLER as all far-right global banking 1% fascism LOVE that sterilization-----eugenics as population control just as is MOVING FORWARD in CLINTON/OBAMA Affordable Care Act.
First they came for disabled people ... and no one took any notice
27th November 2012
As part of a series of features for Disability History Month, we present part one of Ian Malcolm-Walker’s harrowing look at the Nazis’ treatment of disabled people
Over 200,000 disabled people were the first victims of the Holocaust. The atrocities caused by Hitler and the Nazi regime are well known in the Jewish community. Most people think only of the great losses suffered by the Jews when the word “Holocaust” is mentioned.
But Hitler and the regime despised disabled people because an impairment of any kind was an abhorrent to the future of his dream of a perfect race. In his lunacy, Hitler believed by eradicating every disabled person, he could wipe out disability. Babies born deaf, blind or with even the slightest “imperfection” were immediately disposed of, and abortions were common if the parents’ genetic lineage was in question.
Hitler ordered the making of propaganda films to persuade the public of the necessity of eliminating people with genetic defects. The film “Victims of the Past” was made on Hitler’s explicit orders and he made sure the film was shown in Germany’s 5,300 cinemas. Special lighting effects distorted features so disabled people were portrayed as grotesque and could only survive at the expense of healthy people.
The Nazis also sterilised nearly 400,000 Germans believed to have genetic impurities. During the 1930’s, disabled people in Germany were referred to as “useless eaters”. Nazi Germany targeted disabled people and older people as a drain on public resources. Doctors, not soldiers, were put in charge of killing older people and disabled people, since they had first-hand knowledge of where they lived, and if their medical condition was temporary or not.
Those deemed “curable” were transferred to special hospitals for slave labour and experiments. Dr Josef Mengele was the most famous of these “researchers”, torturing hundreds of children, especially those of a multiple birth, i.e. twins. The lives of institutionalised children were further brutalized. Members of the SA, SS, Hitler Youth and League of German Maidens were taken on tours of institutions. The visitors regarded these tours as “freak shows” and there were many instances of nasty and brutal behaviour towards the children who lived in the institutions. More than 20,000 visitors came to the Eglfing-Haar institution. Dr Pfannmuller, the director, took his visitors to the wards and lectured them (in front of the children) about the necessity of killing disabled for the “good of the nation”. Pfannmuller advocated killing children long before the child euthanasia program was put into effect and used starvation as his preferred method.
The “sterilisation Law” explained the importance of weeding out so-called genetic defects from the total German gene pool:
“Since the National Revolution public opinion has become increasingly preoccupied with questions of demographic policy and the continuing decline in the birthrate. However, it is not only the decline in population which is a cause for serious concern but equally the increasingly evident genetic composition of our people. Whereas the hereditarily healthy families have for the most part adopted a policy of having only one or two children, countless numbers of inferiors and those suffering from hereditary conditions are reproducing unrestrainedly while their sick and asocial offspring burden the community.”
Some scientists and physicians opposed the involuntary aspect of the law while others pointed to possible flaws. But the designation of specific conditions as inherited, and the desire to eliminate such illnesses or handicaps from the population, generally reflected the scientific and medical thinking of the day in Germany and elsewhere.
Nazi Germany was not the first or only country to sterilise people considered “abnormal.” Before Hitler, the United States led the world in forced sterilisations. Between 1907 and 1939, more than 30,000 people in twenty-nine states were sterilised, many of them unknowingly or against their will, while they were incarcerated in prisons or institutions for the mentally ill. Nearly half the operations were carried out in California. Advocates of sterilisation policies in both Germany and the United States were influenced by eugenics. This sociobiological theory took Charles Darwin’s principle of natural selection and applied it to society. Eugenicists believed the human race could be improved by controlled breeding.
Still, no nation carried sterilisation as far as Hitler’s Germany. The forced sterilisations began in January 1934, and altogether an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 people were sterilised under the law. A diagnosis of “feeblemindedness” provided the grounds in the majority of cases, followed by schizophrenia and epilepsy. The usual method of sterilisation was vasectomy and ligation of ovarian tubes of women. Irradiation (x-rays or radium) was used in a small number of cases. Several thousand people died as a result of the operations, women disproportionately because of the greater risks of tubal ligation.
Most of the persons targeted by the law were patients in mental hospitals and other institutions. The majority of those sterilised were between the ages of twenty and forty, about equally divided between men and women. Most were “Aryan” Germans. The “Sterilisation Law” did not target so-called racial groups, such as Jews and Gypsies, although Gypsies were sterilised as deviant “asocials,” as were some homosexuals. Also, about 500 teenagers of mixed African and German parentage (the offspring of French colonial troops stationed in the Rhineland in the early 1920s) were sterilised because of their race, by secret order, outside the provisions of the law.
Although the “Sterilisation Law” sometimes functioned arbitrarily, the semblance of legality underpinning it was important to the Nazi regime. More than 200 Hereditary Health Courts were set up across Germany and, later, in annexed territories. Each was made up of two physicians and one district judge. Doctors were required to register with these courts every known case of hereditary illness. Appeals courts were also established, but few decisions were ever reversed. Exemptions were sometimes given artists or other talented persons afflicted with mental illnesses. The “Sterilisation Law” was followed by the Marriage Law of 1935, which required for all marriages proof that any offspring from the union would not be afflicted with a disabling hereditary disease.
Popular films such as Das Erbe (“Inheritance”) helped build public support for government policies by stigmatizing the mentally ill and disabled people and highlighting the costs of care. School mathematics books posed such questions as: “The construction of a lunatic asylum costs 6 million marks. How many houses at 15,000 marks each could have been built for that amount?”
Here is what REAGAN did-----global banking 1% at this point corrupted LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE LIBERALISM by attaching a FASCIST label to LIBERAL philosophy ----while REAGAN was a raging ------NEO-LIBERAL LAISSEZ FAIRE politician. Indeed, corporate fascism is tied to extreme wealth extreme power by GLOBAL BANKING AND GLOBAL CORPORATIONS capturing control of a sovereign government. This is REAGAN'S legacy and it was national media back in 1980s and those same 5% freemason/Greek players allowing these political corruptions in US politics MOVE FORWARD.
HITLER, STALIN, MAO, FRANCO-----all capturing those nations' government for global banking and OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
So, what had made the US the strongest in world history AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT---I AM MAN---REAL FREE MARKET OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS---social progressive capitalism was made the ENEMY of free market enterprise.
REAGAN/THATCHER MOVING FORWARD CRONY, CORRUPT CAPTURED TO EXTREME WEALTH NEO-LIBERAL LAISSEZ FAIRE ---INDEED LIBERTARIANISM IS JUST THAT.
Does anyone think a HITLER, MAO, STALIN, FRANCO was the centerfold of LIBERALISM? Of course not.
Ronald Reagan: Fascism is the Liberal Philosophy
I Bleed Red White and Blue YOU TUBE
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand the GOALS of remote-controlled microchip contraception tied to what REAGAN era started-----targeting population groups as a burden to society. Yes, this is MOVING FORWARD HITLER-style sterilization-----targeting this population group and that----but today the goals of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% sees depopulation across the board. The Chinese global 1% included all cultural groups---all income levels not tied to global 1% and their 2%----in those several decades of population control and is still doing so even as they pretend to end 1 CHILD policies.
What our 99% WE THE PEOPLE must consider is this-----today's MOVING FORWARD to far-right, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty global corporate fascism----has a depopulation goal that reaches all 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown-----all of this is PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY -----all of this is FAR-RIGHT WING FASCIST health policy.
All this ties to last week's discussion regarding BARBER SURGEON 3000 BC medicine vs modern US strong public health structures having FAMILY PHYSICIANS.
Why I’m Skeptical of the Remote-Controlled Birth Control Chip
Jul 16, 2014, 11:11am Abby Lippman
The device has the potential to remove control from women, since everything that can go wrong with remote-controlled devices could happen with this device.
If ever there was a dearth of really bad ideas, especially bad ideas masquerading as giving women “control” over their lives (dare I say, “empowering” them—a term on which I tend to choke), this one will fill the hole for many years.
What is this really bad idea?
A Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-funded “contraceptive implant with remote control” currently being developed, which is supposed to be ready for pre-clinical testing in the United States in 2015.
Referred to in the MIT Technology Review as a candidate for the elusive “perfect contraceptive,” this new wireless device will, once implanted under the skin, deliver via remote on/off control measured doses of levonorgestrel (an ingredient of birth control pills that are already on the market) daily for up to 16 years in the woman with the chip.
It’s hard to know where to start in enumerating all the imperfections of this device. But a couple of the problems include how it not only removes control from women, but places it in who-knows-who’s hands, since everything that can go wrong with remote-controlled devices could happen with this device. There really is no foolproof way to ensure that only “registered” people will have access to control the electric current needed to open the seal on the device to release the daily doses. Nor can there be guarantees that hackers won’t be able to access either the device itself or some interconnected computerized information or devices. And what about the potential mechanical failure of the device in the short or long term? What risks might there be from 16 years of use?
The device, which can be turned on and off without a doctor’s assistance, eliminates the need for a woman to visit a clinic to obtain contraceptives. While some have been touting this as a positive thing, saying it puts the power in the users hands, it also means there will be no visits to ensure the safety of the drug in the woman’s system, no opportunity to ensure she is aware of the need for condoms to protect against sexually transmitted infections, and no way to stop the drug delivery on her own. In other words, just as with earlier implanted forms of contraception (for example, Norplant and more recent implants referred to as LARCs, or long-acting reversible contraceptives),a health professional must remove the device; the patient herself cannot. And though small, there will be visible scars where the device is inserted.
We’ve already been down this hazardous route with earlier versions of long-lasting contraceptive implants--and their often coerced use, especially among individuals thought not able to manage their bodies themselves (for example, teens and marginalized women). Despite beliefs that technology is the answer to women’s health needs, it is too often the case that technologies create even more needs from the damage they can do, especially when drugs are involved (such as diethylstilbestrol, a synthetic estrogen, which caused serious damage to children whose mothers had taken this drug while pregnant, or hormone treatment of women experiencing minimal symptoms linked to menopause, which has been associated with an increased risk for the later development of breast cancer and heart disease).
Yes, women, especially those in the global south or living in remote regions worldwide, do need safe, effective ways to ensure that they truly have a choice in their decision to have or not have children and to raise them as they want. With thanks to Loretta Ross for giving us a term for this, we need reproductive justice.
But it seems to me that this remote-controlled implant may be more likely to deliver injustice along with the hormones it releases, to the extent that it is likely to be tested on and applied to women for whom authentic informed choices may be limited because of their age or the circumstances of their lives.
The Gates Foundation and its partners might be better off investing in developing abortion and maternity services that are safe and accessible in all ways and access to health workers (not just physicians) for women.
Keep in mind---it was CLINTON and OBAMA global banking neo-liberals who pushed these policies, funding, are building these structures all policies being the WORST OF FAR-RIGHT HITLER FASCISM. So, why are we allowing US national media suddenly reserve that title for TRUMP? Because CLINTON/OBAMA spent these few decades PRETENDING to be protecting our 99% labor and justice---protecting those women, disabled, families while being that same REAGAN----global banking FASCIST.
Here we see that same global banking media outlet selling what is the same far-right HITLER fascist policy of sterilization and eugenics telling 99% WE THE PEOPLE women are WINNERS-------telling our 99% of men they will be free from worrying about protected sex when the goals of these contraception policies will LITERALLY kill any ability of 99% of men and women from having children----planning their own families-----
WHAT POPULATION GROUP IS HIT WITH REMOTE-CONTROL MICROCHIP CONTRACEPTION?
===OUR 99% OF WOMEN.
Who is pushing these CLINTON/OBAMA policies as PRO-WOMEN? Those global banking 5% HILLARY NASTY LADIES.
3 ways Obamacare changed birth control
By Sam Petulla, CNN
Updated 3:51 PM ET, Sat October 7, 2017
(CNN)The Trump administration issued a rule Friday that makes it easier for more employers and organizations to drop coverage of contraceptive services from health insurance plans for religious reasons. Critics say that it is possible hundreds of employers could take advantage of the rule.
The rule comes after the administration issued an executive order in May calling for "regulatory relief" to organizations that object on religious grounds to Obamacare coverage requirements for certain health services, including contraception. The administration has argued Obamacare does not offer adequate workarounds for religious organizations.
The Obama administration made contraceptives a required preventive health service for women. This meant that they would require zero co-payment for services and their costs would not add to deductibles.
Here are three ways the Obamacare has changed contraceptive use.
1. It became more affordable for more women
The number of women with out-of-pocket expenditures on contraceptives has dropped from 21% pre-Obamacare to 3%, according to the most recently available data.
"For many women with coverage who faced out of pocket costs -- which could be in the range of a $1,000 upfront -- not having to pay that has made it more affordable," Usha Ranji, associate director for women's health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told CNN.
Oral contraceptives are the most popular but more expensive contraceptives, like IUDs, have seen more substantial declines in cost. A study of how the Affordable Care Act changed out-of-pocket spending on contraceptives found oral contraceptive costs declined 38% and IUD costs fell 68%.
"We estimate that the ACA is saving the average pill user $255 per year, and the average woman receiving an IUD is saving $248," lead author Nora V. Becker said in a press release. The authors had access to a prescription claims database to complete their analysis.
2. Contraception is a huge part of what women spend on health care. So contraception drug cost reductions have lowered average total out-of-pocket costs substantially
Oral contraceptive pills account for 63% of the overall drop in average out-of-pocket spending on retail drugs since 2012, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis. The analysis found that the increased prevalence of generic drugs also contributed significantly to the decline.
Overall, it is estimated that that contraceptives make up 30% to 44% of women's out-of-pocket health care spending for women using them.
3. While costs have gone down as a result of the ACA, contraceptive use has not increased significantly
Research has found small impacts from the preventive health services provision of the Affordable Care Act on the use of female contraceptives.
One study found that contraceptive use rose significantly following the passage of Obamacare but has since returned to nearly the same levels as before the law. Another study found that that the pill is being used more by women for its health benefits outside of preventive care. Past analyses have argued that the increase in contraception utilization is depressed because some states rejected an expansion of Medicaid under the law and lower-income women were left without insurance in those states.
Most of today's global banking media have tons of articles telling us yes, TRUMP is a FASCIST-----but not the HITLER kind-----they want our US 99% believe TRUMP is the MUSSOLINI FASCIST. Our US 99% right wing voters wax romantic over MUSSOLINI------we spent a week discussing in detail the FLIPPING OF EARTH'S ECONOMIC AXIS away from Western Hemisphere---the killing of ROMAN CATHOLIC bringing RUSSIAN ORTHODOX just so global banking media could not PRETEND MOVING FORWARD is MUSSOLINI and not HITLER, STALIN, MAO.
When our US 99% recognize fascism moving forward when it FIRST STARTS----we can act proactively to stop MOVING FORWARD. Today, our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE whether right wing or left must not be fooled in thinking one kind of FASCISM is better than another kind.
MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE BRINGING DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE SMART CITIES-----WILL NOT BE ANY KIND OF 'GOOD' FASCISM.
Below we see global banking 1% favorite freemason STAR---Umberto Eco no doubt waxing romantically over MUSSOLINI.
Donald Trump is not Adolf Hitler, but he is a Fascist: here are an Italian expert’s reasons why
10 Aug 2016 at 09:44 ET
For the past 25 years, Godwin’s Law has been useful for preventing careless headline writers, commenters in article threads, and other participants in discussions from recklessly invoking comparisons to Adolf Hitler when looking for the rhetorical ace to win an argument or make a point. But what happens when one of the major-party candidates makes speeches and proclaims policies that sound familiar in ways that are so disturbing that both the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party have proclaimed their support for him? Is it okay to break Godwin’s Law then?
Not necessarily. Donald Trump spouts Fascist rhetoric on a daily basis. Most people forget that mid-20th century Fascism was not invented by Adolf Hitler; he may have been its most infamous practitioner, but Fascism is a political philosophy that is based both on a set of rhetorical strategies and a belief system that celebrates the glory of tradition over the darkness of the present. Watching the Republican National Convention and its dirge-like invocation of everything that is currently wrong with America was an exercise in Fascist theatre, but there are a number of ways to show that Donald Trump is leading the current Republican party back toward a past that we had all sworn to “never forget.”
In February, 2016, one of Italy’s foremost public intellectuals -- Umberto Eco — died. Eco was best known in the United States for his novel The Name of the Rose, but in Italy, he was known for essays whose topics ranged from children’s toys and cooking to creeping anti-Muslim sentiment. He had begun his intellectual career as a scholar on the work of St. Thomas Aquinas, and he was a man of prodigious intellect.
He had also lived through Italy’s Fascist phase. Eco was born in 1932. Mussolini had been in power since 1922, and Eco was 13 when partisans regained power in Milan, where Eco lived. For Eco, listening to the first speech by the partisan leader was when he first realized that freedom from Fascism meant that there was a whole different way of speaking and thinking. “[F]reedom of speech means freedom from rhetoric,” Eco wrote. As an Italian schoolboy, part of his curriculum had been to memorize the speeches of Mussolini, and in listening to “free” speech, Eco realized that what he had been taught previously were empty words.
When Eco died, I wrote a literary tribute to him in which I took his most famous essay in English, “Ur-Fascism,” originally published in the New York Review of Books in 1995, and frequently referred to as “14 ways of looking at a Black Shirt (Fascist)” and used those 14 points to examine Donald Trump’s rhetorical style and campaign positions. Now, six months later, I grow more convinced that Eco has provided us with a blueprint for understanding that Donald Trump is a Fascist, and that a failure to recognize that connection downplays the danger that a Trump presidency would pose for a large number of Americans.
It is important to remember that Nazi Germany was a Fascist state that demonstrated the ultimate instance of the rational state. Hitler had a complete philosophy. Donald Trump, with his mish-mash of positions, is not Hitler. He more closely resembles the original Fascism, which originated with Mussolini.
“Mussolini did not have any philosophy; he had only rhetoric … [Fascism] was a fuzzy (original emphasis) totalitarianism, a collage of different philosophical and political ideas, a beehive of contradictions.” Eco also argued that the men who ran Mussolini’s movement did not have the intellectual chops to control the movement they led, but they had tapped into some “archetypal foundations” that allowed their rhetoric to resonate with an audience that was disenchanted with the modernity they found themselves living in.
Eco’s 14 ways of understanding Fascism are beautifully laid out in the 1995 article. For the purposes of this discussion, grouping some of these ways into general points are helpful. Eco’s first three points are about the rejection of modernity — which is crippled by too much intellectual thought — and the embracing of a traditional past. Trump has continually criticized a culture of “political correctness,” which he holds responsible for the decline of traditional values. At his website, he has posted articles that further criticize political correctness because it has been responsible for “declining educational standards, increasing secularism, the police not being allowed to do their job, an inability to secure her borders,” all the result of this: “The intellectual tyranny, self-loathing and choking conformity of this ideology has feminized and weakened a once great continent which now aspires to mediocrity.”
Notice that not only has intellectualism brought us political correctness, which causes us to loathe ourselves, but it also feminizes us. On more than one occasion, Trump has let fly with the word “pussy” or, when he has some filter working, the word “her whatever,” but his contempt for femininity — not women, this is not about sex — but gender, the “weakening” of the American character comes through in many of Trump’s speeches and policy pronouncements. His comments that John McCain is not a hero because he “allowed” himself to be captured, or his recent macho posturing about how he had always “wanted” a Purple Heart all continue to paint a portrait of a man with a skewed sense of masculinity.
We chose THE SPY and MATA HARI as the global banking 1% freemason LITERARY STAR book because it is this historical FICTION used to sell propaganda during early 1900s Europe as Germany's fascism was growing. WW 1 Weimer Germany mirrored CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA------early global banking 1% corporate fascism today looked the same last century. Mata Hari was that same global banking freemason STAR as our HOLLYWOOD STARS like Marilyn Monroe and Mae West------as with our US HOLLYWOOD STARS---those making it big lose their personal identity with PUBLIC RELATIONS managers creating fictitious pasts and renaming that STAR BRAND.
What THE SPY does well is describe the mechanisms of far-right authoritarianism that targets those dastardly 5% to the 1% global banking players----they always go under the bus-----as did MATA HARI
REAGAN was that pre-fascist Weimer GERMAN fascism------Trump is simply MOVING FORWARD what CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA as far-right global banking corporate fascism advanced these few decades.
Remember, these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA those dastardly 5% to the 1% global banking freemason/Greek players black, white, and brown citizens----have KNOWN this was to where MOVING FORWARD was going.
The spy game: “No men need apply”
Women helped nab Bin Laden and are surpassing men in the espionage realm. WW II spy Noor Inayat Khan paved the way
November 8, 2012 4:51pm (UTC)
“Skyfall,” the new Bond movie, is being hailed as the superannuated old franchise’s most feminist installment yet, thanks to its well-drawn female characters and only light sexism from Daniel Craig’s 007, as opposed to the ass-slapping, comically patronizing misogyny of yore. But next time around, the filmmakers might want to consider actually portraying modern reality by changing Bond’s gender. Women, the head of Mossad has proclaimed, are surpassing men in the espionage game, exhibiting markedly superior skills of endurance, perception and multitasking. It’s an appraisal with which Mike Scheuer, the first chief of the CIA’s dedicated al-Qaida tracking unit, would concur: The capture of al-Qaida higher-ups after 9/11 directly resulted from the efforts of his all-female investigation squad. “If I could have put out a sign on the door that said ‘No men need apply,’ I would have done it,” he remarked recently. And of course, it was the forensically detailed intelligence gathered by “Jen,” the agency analyst who spent years tracking Osama bin Laden, that finally led a team of Navy SEALs to his secret compound in Abbottabad.
Television, as usual, is more in tune with the zeitgeist than the big screen, and audiences’ obsession with “Homeland’s” brilliant, complicated Carrie Mathison, as well as the prevalence of her less compelling correlates on shows like ABC’s “Covert Affairs” and Cinemax’s “Hunted,” reflects the altered image of female secret agents in the public imagination. No longer stereotyped as seductresses in the Mata-Hari mold or Bond girl-ish sidekicks, in art and in life women are executing heart-stoppingly intrepid, high-octane intelligence operations — albeit sometimes “with men along as props,” as a Mossad agent named “Ella” has conceded — a cultural backdrop against which one of WWII’s most courageous and undersung spies is finally getting a fitting remembrance.
It was nearly 70 years ago that a beautiful Indian-American, Noor-un-nisa Inayat Khan, aka "Madeleine," worked undercover as a radio operator in Nazi-occupied France, transmitting life-or-death intelligence as the only link between London and Paris — until she was betrayed, captured and murdered. One of only three women to be awarded the George Cross award for bravery, Noor was also posthumously honored with the Croix de Guerre by France, where she is revered to this day as “Madeleine of the Resistance.”
Though Noor’s story has been told in two biographies — "Noor-un-nisa Inayat Khan: 'Madeleine'," by her friend Jean Overton Fuller (now out of print), and "Spy Princess: The Life of Noor Inayat Khan," by London-based journalist Shrabani Basu — she has remained a more or less forgotten figure in Britain. But following a long campaign led by Basu, who enlisted the support of film director Gurinder Chadha, Members of Parliament from different parties, and Prime Minister David Cameron, a permanent memorial to the Allied heroine has been built in her honor. Today, on Nov. 8, Princess Anne will unveil a bronze bust of Noor-un-isa Inayat Khan in Gordon Square, Bloomsbury, in London. “History is littered with all kinds of forgotten heroes,” said Chadha, “and Noor is one of them. Without Noor’s involvement and her espionage activities, many more British soldiers would have died. Her bravery is an inspiration. Even though she was captured by the Germans and she was tortured, she never revealed any secrets.”
Born in Moscow in 1914, Noor was the first-born child of an American mother, Ora Ray Baker, and an Indian father, Hazrat Inayat Khan, a Sufi priest and direct descendant of Tipu Sultan, the 18th-century ruler of Mysore. Noor spent her early life in London, but when she was 6 the family moved to France and eventually settled in a grand house in Suresnes, just outside of Paris. The atmosphere at the Inayat Khans was far from conventional: In the large living room Noor’s father, Hazrat, an impressive figure with flowing beard and golden robes, led ceremonies of Universal Worship, which honored all religions. He also held summer schools at home, lecturing on spirituality. Although he died when Noor was just 13, she deeply absorbed his Sufi principles of non-violence and peaceful protest. But when war broke out in Europe, she and her brother, Vilayat, decided that they couldn’t bear to stand on the sidelines as terror was wreaked on innocent people. They left for England on June 5, 1940, alongside hoards of people fleeing the Nazis.