|
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_s___060125_fascism_doesn_92t_alwa.htmJanuary 25, 2006 Fascism Doesn’t Always Roar... ...Sometimes, It Creeps on Cat’s Feet by Mark S. Tucker Lexicographers to the side, a word can, in certain instances, be best defined by its most ardent supporters. Catholics are not the wise choice in consulting a description of zen, History teachers are ill-equipped to define the vocabulary of quantum physicists, and one would not repair to the hut of a palm reader for technical terms in the building of 747s, so to whom might we go for a reliable working understanding of ‘fascism’? Why, to a fascist, of course! And who better than Il Duce Benito Mussolini, a figure who once extolled it as the marriage of corporations and the State. One of the most faithful of its practitioners, we can trust this gentleman’s insight, I think, seeing as how he yet stands as a reliable yardstick, heels kicking in the air though they may have for his pains. The definition itself, though, reveals the insanity of the condition a little more lucidly when one understands the idea of ‘corporation’, a word drawn from the latin ‘corpore’, meaning ‘body’. ‘Corpore’, in latin, referred to an actual, physically verifiable, biological unit, and perhaps a non-biological one, but certainly to a tangible form in nature. Simple, yes? Well, no. Somewhere along the way, in the land that mothered us - and got bit for her pains - some lawyerly weasel decided that a ‘corpore’ could also be entirely fictional...yet...still be a “body”! This was done in service to business and intended to provide a way to shed liability, which it did quite nicely, once the insane concept was forced down the throats of the British. Here in America, Jefferson and any number of lawyers and others decried the practice, so the idea of creating invisible “bodies” was verboten. How, then, did it come to be the business standard in America? Through law, right? Right? Ahhh, so glad you asked. Actually, a corporation has always been competely illegal in America, as Prof. Morton J. Horowitz clearly and irrefutably showed in his landmark The Transformation of American Law, 1870 - 1960: The Crisis of Legal Orthodoxy, in the chapter “Santa Clara Revisited: The Development of Corporate Theory”. That section inspects the Santa Clara V. Southern Pacific Railroad (118 U.S. 394 <1886>) case, in which, completely irrelevant to the question before the court, the sentiment was rendered that “ he 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.”
As the good professor points out, there was no precedent in law to support any part of that statement, nor was counsel for either side allowed to comment on it. It was, speaking of that which the conservative (read: business) element in the society decries: an outrageously egregious example of legislation from the bench. Mostly, nowadays, this stand-out bizarre occurrence is assiduously avoided, but one will occasionally catch a gaggle of esquired monkeys battling over how many angels can fit on the head of the period closing it. How appropriate. A point of law that would never have withstood populist inspection, probably not even broad legal community scrutiny, became standing law through the witting sabotage of a set of justices colluding to birth it. After all, the opinion reads “we are all”, not “some of us” or even “a 5-to-4 decision”.
So, should you wish to take the opposite stance, you mean to tell me that a group of uberlawyers, what has been called “nine scorpions in a bottle”, well past law school, into a long career of diverse cases, did not know to quote law when stating that the law says “such and such”? All those averring in the affirmative, please address me through the e-address below; I have a bridge I think you’re going to like.
In case you didn't catch it, that sentiment, for it was not an opinion, in Santa Clara was an act of fascism. The business community, represented by the railroads here, persuaded justices to fiat something strange that never became law. It also managed to keep them shut afterwards somehow. Prof. Horowitz goes so far as to say this was not even unusual but represented a disturbing growing trend in American jurisprudence: (I’ll say it, so he won’t have to have words shoved in his mouth that he might not want to elucidate so plainly) law and its minions as servants of business. Nice. Yet, there it was, and I’m willing to bet that some have tried to bring a question on it to the Court and the Court has chosen not to entertain it, as is it’s ill-gotten right. Maybe not, but what are the odds? Hence, some weasel, or some outfit of weasels, slipped a little bomb into the public register, and the interested parties thereafter went nuts. Sound like something we’re looking at right now?
Governo-corporate toad-eater Samuel Alito has invented a theory of, now get this, “unitary executive”, a more meaningless phrase as could never be concocted, and is trying to pull another Santa Clara on the public. The irony is that if he is admitted to the Supreme Court, he’ll be his own facilitator and abettor!. Neat trick, Sammy. This will not to be, as you may infer, a one-time farrago, as Santa Clara was, but now stands as a signal of subservience to the ruling class, a bid to join the nobles as a useful courtier.
Look at Alito. Another Il Duce? Hardly. He’s a poster boy for the Christian Far Right, an Ivory Soap Miltowner with a Pepsodent smile, a faceless body in the multitude, the better to escape suspicion as much as is humanly possible. Ever wonder why so many commercials feature kindly mothers, soft-spoken well-intentioned grandfathers, and burblingly cute little kids trying to sell you on some damn commodity you’re going to regret buying? It’s for the same reason we’re now seeing geeks dominate the political scene. They’re playing on your psychological paradigms. You’re already a bit too wary of roughnecks like Uncle Joe Stalin and and Benny Mussolini, so you’re getting, instead, gents you’d never suspect otherwise.
“Unitary executive” is indeed another “corporation” Santa Clara ploy, but with a far deadlier effect. It’s well camouflaged, carefully kept from inspection, and intended to be a flashpoint “fact” that will herald the sort of legislatve nightmare Prof. Horowitz would never have imagined. It will be, as the idiotic phrase itself clearly intimates, the ingress by which dictatorship finally gains a firm and irremovable foot in the threshold of the country.
So, don’t look to wild-eyed Gadaffis, bearded Husseins, or flaming-faced bin Ladens for fascism in America; those are CIA creations and that’s not how it will come. Look for the well-scrubbed, kissy-faced, prayerful hands class president for our own proud mutation of the hoary tradition. We do nothing quite like anyone else and this will be no exception. The new facilitator will beam and quote scripture as he reveals his horns and tail. The Repuglicans will rejoiceth in his presence, yea, even while the Dimocrats bow and scrape, begging for a crust of the royal bread...and thus fascism will have decended upon America, not roaring and fierce, not raking the air with bloody claws, not squalling and preening, but softly, quietly, unnoticed, on cat’s feet.
--------------------
Mark S. Tucker, a critic, has written for numerous magazines and presently writes for Perfect Sound Forever on-line, as well as this forum. He can be reached at progdawg@hotmail.com. This article is originally published at opednews.com. Copyright Mark S. Tucker, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
