WHERE WE ARE AND HOW WE GOT HERE

by Robert H. Ballan
November 30, 2004

"And it's just a box of rain. I don't know who put it there.
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare."
- The Grateful Dead

Introduction
This work presents an analysis of the present state of the United States government. The ideas
contained in this essay will be too radical for some to accept. I hesitate to criticize such individuals, as I
was, until late in life, unable to mentally grasp the outside-the-box views that I present in this piece.
Hopefully, there are sufficient numbers of people with critical thinking skills, unencumbered by doctrinaire
systems of thought, to permit the formation of philosophies and plans of action that can defeat the forces
of tyranny that I describe.

Aldous Huxley, in his little known but exquisite exposition on the subject of freedom and its enemies,
Brave New World Revisited (1958), pointed out that "[t]he soul of wit may become the very body of
untruth" because "brevity can never, in the nature of things, do justice to all the facts of a complex
situation." Therefore, "we are forced to choose between an unduly brief exposition and no exposition at
all." That which is true for the reader is more true for this author. Unfortunately, omission and
simplification are the necessary price of conciseness.

My goal is to spread the seeds of ideas that may or may not fall on fertile ground. If any of the thoughts
expressed in this piece have the ring of truth and resonate with the reader, I hope that these
ideas find acceptance, grow and spread. Hopefully, with acceptance of the analysis will come
understanding, and ultimately, change.

The Fractal Nature of History and Political Structure

"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious
fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will
against all others."
- Adolph Hitler (German chancellor, leader of the Nazi party, 1889-1945)

"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe-I believe what I
believe is right."
- George W. Bush: 43rd President of the United States

Because we see only what we know, if a goose-stepping, book-burning political party seized the reins of
government and gave each other Roman salutes at torchlight rallies, held in swastika-bedecked venues,
most people would have little difficulty identifying Nazism -- a uniquely German brand of
Fascism. However, there were other examples of fascist states in twentieth century history: Argentina,
Spain, Japan and Italy, among others. Each had its own unique symbols and patriotic rituals. Would
Americans recognize the fascism of the Argentinean Peronistas or the Lebanese Falangists? Not likely.

George Santayana was correct when he observed that those that do not know history are doomed to
repeat it. However, the notion that history repeats itself is the sort of oversimplification imbedded in a
clever soundbite that Huxley warned against. History cannot repeat itself. There are too many variables
for historical events to be precisely duplicated. The permutations of reality, even on a small planet, are
almost infinite. History is more like the weather than a scratched phonograph record with respect to
repetition. For example, monsoon rain is a repeating pattern in the weather, yet every monsoon rain
storm is different. The storms come at about the same time of year and have certain general
characteristics, but the particular days on which storms of a certain intensity occur cannot be predicted a
year in advance. The amounts of rainfall on a particular day is also not subject to prediction based on last
year's weather statistics. In the same way, history does not repeat exactly. Nonetheless, there are major
recurring patterns that, like monsoon rains, can be identified once the observer realizes that complex
events do not occur repeatedly with a deterministic one-to-one correspondence of detail.

The flow of human events does not indulge our simplistic expectations of exact repetition. The patterns of
history resemble the self-similarity characteristic of fractals. The picture above [graphic omitted] is a
graphical representation of the results of an iterated mathematical expression called the "Mandelbrot
Set," probably the best known fractal system. For purposes of this exposition, we can safely ignore the
rigorous mathematical analysis and merely take note that * graphic shows a series of budlike growths on
a much larger bud, and each "bud" contains smaller buds and each smaller bud contains yet smaller
buds, ad infinitum. Careful examination of the graphic reveals that each "bud" is different than, but similar
to, the next. So it is with history. Even the contemporaneous fascist states of the twentieth century were
not identical, in spite of their fundamental similarities. It is unreasonable to assume that the absence of
goose-stepping storm troopers, extermination camps and endemic governmental sponsored persecution
of ethnic (and religious) minorities is adequate assurance of the absence of a fascist system of
governance.

Behold The Body of The Beast

When a new creature is discovered, the first reports concern the easily observable physical
characteristics of the beast. It is not until much later -- after painstaking study -- that the details of the
nature and functioning of the creature become known. However, the term "Fascism" has been with us for
more than eighty years. We should have ready access to the essential nature of this political and social
system. Yet the published definitions of the term exhibit a curious deficiency. For example, consider the
following from Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

fas•cism ... noun [It fascismo, fr. fascio bundle, fasces, group, fr. L fascis bundle & fasces fasces]
(1921)

1 often cap : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti)
that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a
centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe
economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial

control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>

This definition describes some features of the governments of Nazi Germany and Italy under
Mussolini but it also describes Soviet Communism, some medieval European fiefdoms,
modern theocracies with predominantly Muslim populations and others.

Lawrence Britt, in his article "Fascism Anyone?" (Free Inquiry Magazine, Volume 23, No.
2, Spring 2003), available on the web at
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm#1, argued that the all protofascist and
Fascist states shared common characteristics. These are as follows:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.

Britt's article (in its entirety) is recommended reading for anyone who wants to achieve a deeper
understanding of the United States of America in the twenty-first century. Nonetheless, a
checklist of characteristics is not the same as a definition.

The Italians coined the term "Fascism" and, therefore, it is fitting that we look to that nation for
a definition of this political system. The Fascist dictator of Italy, Benito Mussolini (1883-1945),
said:

"The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a
merger of state and corporate power."

It would be difficult to overstate the importance of this revelation. It is the key to understanding
recent events in the United States.

The Growth of The Cancer

Identifying the moment in time when fascism took hold in the United States of America is
difficult, if not impossible, to determine. However, some benchmarks on the road to fascism
stand out. If the condition precedent for the emergence of fascism is the merger of the power of
corporations and the federal government, a reasonable analysis would start by tracing the nature
of both classes of organization and the events that led to the blurring of the lines between them.

Corporations existed in 18th century England. The corporate form of business came to the
United States with the English colonists. A business corporation is an entity that has the
advantage of limiting the liability of its owners who are called "stockholders." This is an
advantage to stockholders because, except under extraordinary circumstances, the potential loss,
should the corporation fail, is limited to the partial or complete loss of value of their stock, i.e.,
ownership shares of the corporation.

Initially, corporations were merely a form of business organization. However, in the United
States, something extraordinary happened in 1886, when the Supreme Court of The United
States took up the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, Company.
[http://www.ratical.com/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html] A California County wanted to tax a
railroad. The company attacked the tax plan, claiming it violated the United States Constitution
because it discriminated against it in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment states in relevant part: " ... nor shall any State ... deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/]

At first, it appears that this claim could be dismissed by the Court out-of-hand because a business
organization that the law treats as an entity is not a "person" for purposes of the Constitution.
However, to do so ignores the preceding years of effort on the part corporate lawyers in lower
courts. In an action reminiscent of the recent case of Bush v. Gore, the Court's Chief Justice
announced prior to commencement of the attorneys' arguments on the case that "The court does
not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does." It is
unusual for an appellate court to announce the decision of any part of a case before the parties
have that the opportunity to argue the merits of their respective positions -- particularly when the
implications of the decision are far reaching. Nonetheless, the Court Clerk, duly noted the
decision from the bench in his summary of the proceedings. The Court's ultimate decision on the
equal protection issues of the case was presaged by its declaration of corporate personage.

That the provisions of the constitution and laws of California, in respect to the assessment
for taxation of the property of railway corporations operating railroads in more than one
county, are in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in so far as they
require the assessment of their property at its full money value, without making
deduction, as in the case of railroads operated in one county, and of other corporations,
and of natural persons, for the value of the mortgages covering the property assessed;
thus imposing upon the [railroad corporation] unequal burdens, and to that extent denying
to it the equal protection of the laws ...

The grant of personhood to corporations operating in the United States was to have far-reaching
consequences. The constitutional rights of corporate entities continue to expand to include, for
example, constitutionally protected freedom to engage in "commercial speech." See, e.g., Central
Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557,
100 S.Ct. 2343, (1980). More recently, in Nike, Inc. v. Kasky, 537 U.S. 1099, 123 S.Ct. 817
(2003), the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that it regards a corporation's broad claim of
entitlement to freedom of speech to be worthy of serious consideration.

The day-to-day operations of corporations are managed by corporate officers. The policies of
the corporation are formulated by its board of directors. The shareholders merely provide money
to the corporation by purchasing fractions of its ownership called "shares" or "stock." The
Court's have uniformly held that corporate officers and directors have a duty to ensure that the
owners (i.e., shareholders) of the corporations get their money's worth, i.e., maximize the profit
from their investment. This legal doctrine follows logically from the corporate form itself.

This maxim was tested in 1916 when Henry Ford, the majority shareholder and president of the
Ford Motor Company decided to reduce dividend to payments shareholders in order to offset the
lost profits he anticipated as a result of his plan to increase production and wages. Although
Ford's goals could have been proposed as a long-term business necessity, Ford (who was
probably mindful of Russia's incipient Bolshevik revolution) claimed that the plan was inspired
by social goals “to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the
greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes.” In any event,
minority shareholders, John and Horace Dodge (who probably needed the dividend money more
than Henry Ford) sued. With the stage thus set, the Michigan Supreme Court decided the case
of Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 204 Mich. 459, 507, 170 N.W. 668, 684 (1919). Although the court
recognized the laudable nature of Ford's social agenda, it found for the Dodge brothers,
stating: “A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the
stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end.” The court indicated
that corporate charity was permissible so long as such contributions were rationally related
to maintaining or enhancing profits.

More recently, influential economist, Milton Friedman, opined that "... in a free society...there is
one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities
designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say,
engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."
[http://www.du.edu/~dwittmer/csr_hp/friedman.htm;
http://ca.geocities.com/busa2100/miltonfriedman.htm]

The corporation's single minded focus on profit, to the exclusion of all else, understandably leads
to reprehensible social behavior.

The operational principles of the corporation give it a highly anti-social “personality”:

It is self-interested, inherently amoral, callous and deceitful; it breaches social and legal
standards to get its way; it does not suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human
qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. [http://www.thecorporation.tv/about/]

The makers of "The Corporation," a documentary movie, make the case that if corporations were
truly persons, they fit the criteria contained in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual, IV (i.e., DSM--IV) for sociopathy. Suffice it to say that corporate
business organizations are not human beings, even if the courts have declared them to be
persons. To the extent that DSM-IV criteria can be applied to a fictitious person, the relevant
criteria are as follows:

"... anti-social personality disorder ... a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of
the rights of others occurring ... as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms.

2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for
personal profit.
3. consistent irresponsibility.
4. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt,
mistreated, or stolen from another."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath#Diagnostic_criteria_.28DSM-IV-TR.29]
Although some argue that the non-human nature of corporations makes the applicability of the
DSM-IV criteria to corporate functioning questionable, I contend that if a human business owner
functioned as do corporations, she or he would be a sociopath. If corporations are legally
considered to persons and afforded the rights of natural persons then it behooves us to analyze
their social behaviors and pathologies using standards applicable to human beings. Once this
concept is integrated into a world view, the actions of IBM (which sold information systems to
Nazi Germany to systematically track the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, the disabled,
homosexuals, eastern Europeans and political dissidents), as well as those of other large United
States based corporations [http://www.wealth4freedom.com/Elkhorn2.html], become readily
comprehensible. Corporate protocol requires amoral decision-making, motivated solely by the
opportunity for profit. Moral, decent and humanitarian acts are not forbidden so long as the
ultimate objective of such acts is to reap profits.

It is readily apparent that in the run-up to World War II and even during the war, corporations
were functioning as transnational entities. The connections of management and directors
interlocked as there was money to be made. After Nazi Germany was defeated, the United
States imported Nazi War criminals
[http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/05/03/nazi/index.html], scientists
[http://home.earthlink.net/~brucensara/US-Nazi.html] and industrialists to further the strategic
aims of the United States with respect to the Soviet Union. These efforts were given the name
"Operation Paperclip." [http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/project_paperclip.htm] See
also: [http://www.media-criticism.com/CIA_Whiteout_1999.html]. Shortly after World War II,
there was a corps of individuals in the United States with connections to a network of Nazis and
German business corporations operating within or with ties to the government of the United
States and American corporations.

Unfortunately, it would be a mistake to believe that the importation of Nazi industrialists,

scientists and intelligence assets polluted a previously politically pristine United States. There
has always been an authoritarian strain participating in U.S. politics. For a good review of the
history of the homegrown fascist influences in U.S. politics see: The Nazi Hydra, on the web at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/noon.html. Consider some of the prominent people in
government today: Arnold Schwartzenegger, who said he admires Adolph Hitler, Karl Rove,
whose father was a member and official of the German National Socialist Party and George W.
Bush, whose grandfather, Prescott Bush, was an early supporter of Hitler and continued to trade
with Germany even after the U.S. was at war with Nazi Germany. See, e.g.,
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031017/ap_on_re_us/prescott_bush_na
zis_1; and http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1006-08.htm.

It is significant that since the 1970s and possibly prior to that, the so-called "conservative"
elements in U.S. politics have successfully pushed to eliminate regulatory controls aimed at
civilizing the behavior of U.S. corporations. This effort continues to seek the elimination of all
government regulation of corporate activities. This is (not surprisingly) referred to as
"deregulation." There are some that believe that "... left on its own, unregulated, capitalism
instinctively morphs into fascism, which, in turn, by its very nature, IS a conspiracy--one
zealously aimed at annihilating its primary enemy: democracy and rule of the people." Tina
Staik, 3-26-03, http://www.realnews247.com/fascism_disguised_at_democracy.htm.

It is no secret that large corporations contribute to both the Democratic and Republican parties.
In general, such entities give more to the Republicans than to the Democrats. I suggest that the
reason for this seemingly unbridled generosity is not to hedge their bets as some have suggested.
Because corporate donations must be in furtherance of the pursuit of enhanced profits,
contributions to the Republican party are given to further the agenda of that party. This agenda,
which includes corporate cronyism and favored treatment, has become abundantly clear under
the Bush administration. On the other hand, contributions to the Democratic Party are smaller
and more carefully targeted. Examine the list of the elected top Democratic fund-raisers which
include the likes of Joseph Lieberman. It is a Who's Who of the most conservative elements of
that party and a list of those Democratic Party officeholders most likely to avoid a confrontation
with the Republican agenda. Without belaboring the point, Vladimir I. Lenin, the infamous
Russian dictator, tipped his hand when he stated that "The best way to control the opposition is to
lead it ourselves." This candid remark explains much of what we see happening in U.S. politics.
The influx of corporate money ensures that the Democratic Party will remain a flaccid,
ineffectual, non-confrontational and passive alternative to the Republicans.

The confluence of state and corporate power explains why TV news readers pant orgasmically
over Scott Peterson's death sentence and fail to mention voter fraud in Florida and Ohio. It is the
reason why so many seemingly important stories go unreported and underreported. It suggests
that the multitude of right-wing threats around which progressive voters organize are merely the
various heads or tentacles of a body of fascist power that has assumed power in our nation.

The Iraqi war is a windfall for corporations with government ties. The Reagan "defense" buildup
was a windfall for the aircraft and weapons industries. Most of the societal illnesses we fret over
can be traced to the merger of government and corporations. Consider a November 28, 2004,
article published in the New York Times, entitled "Lockheed and the Future of Warfare."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/28/business/yourmoney/28lock.html. This article pointed out
that defense contractor, Lockheed-Martin had gained the ability to influence U.S. policy. The
following is an extended quotation from the article.

Lockheed Martin doesn't run the United States. But it does help run a breathtakingly big
part of it.

Over the last decade, Lockheed, the nation's largest military contractor, has built a
formidable information-technology empire that now stretches from the Pentagon to the
post office. It sorts your mail and totals your taxes. It cuts Social Security checks and
counts the United States census. It runs space flights and monitors air traffic. To make all
that happen, Lockheed writes more computer code than Microsoft.

* * *

It builds most of the nation's warplanes. It creates rockets for nuclear missiles, sensors
for spy satellites and scores of other military and intelligence systems. The Pentagon and
the Central Intelligence Agency might have difficulty functioning without the contractor's
 expertise.

But in the post-9/11 world, Lockheed has become more than just the biggest corporate
cog in what Dwight D. Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex. It is
increasingly putting its stamp on the nation's military policies, too.

Lockheed stands at "the intersection of policy and technology," and that "is really a very
interesting place to me," said its new chief executive, Robert J. Stevens, a tightly wound
former Marine. "We are deployed entirely in developing daunting technology," he said,
and that requires "thinking through the policy dimensions of national security as well as
technological dimensions."

To critics, however, Lockheed's deep ties with the Pentagon raise some questions. "It's
impossible to tell where the government ends and Lockheed begins," said Danielle Brian
of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit group in Washington that monitors
government contracts. "The fox isn't guarding the henhouse. He lives there."

Interestingly, the article recalls the warning of President Eisenhower, gained some notice by
successfully planning the military defeat the European fascists in World War II, regarding the
danger posed by the nation's "military-industrial complex."

Conclusion

It is important to realize that fascism is shorthand for a political system that is anathema to
democracy and individual liberty. As I noted earlier, it will be largely futile to look for
the trappings of Nazi Germany in the U.S. Although similarities will inevitably emerge, don't
delude yourself into believing that the absence of some details means that there has not been a
fascist coup.

In this regard, consider some advice given long ago -- before there was a United States of
America or a Nazi Germany.

One must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people
that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely
different from the old ones. Niccolo Machiavelli, 1517, Discourses on Livy.

Although much has been written about the code words of the United States right wing, I don't
believe that any writer has previously decoded the following: PRIVATIZATION =
CORPORATISM = FASCISM. The significance of this equivalence cannot be emphasized
enough. Government, in this country, is accountable to the people. Corporations are not. The
danger posed to a constitutional democracy by the transfer of governmental functions to profit-
making corporations should be stunningly obvious if you have worked your way through this
article. Franklin D. Roosevelt had this danger in mind when he said that "The liberty of a
democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it
becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of
government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
 Fascism is here. It not in the future. It is now. It affects, and will more profoundly affect, every
aspect of our lives. This work is a start toward understanding the radical changes we have seen in
the past thirty years and the stunning acceleration of the demise of democracy in the past
four. By itself, it accomplishes nothing. The rest is up to you, me and us. Fighting for the life of
constitutional democracy in the United States in not strictly a left, right, Democratic or
Republican issue. It is a patriotic duty.

-----------------------------------

This work is donated to the public domain. It may be (and, hopefully, will be) reproduced and
distributed without limitation. It may be quoted with or without attribution. I offer my
sincere thanks to all those who provided criticism, suggestions, inspiration and encouragement to
me.

Attachment
Mandelpart2.jpg
Type:
image/jpeg