The Splendid Failure of Occupation
Part 11: American Modified and Accepted Hitlerism: Elaboration
By B.J. Sabri
Online Journal Contributing Writer

May 24, 2004, 16:01

The American philosophy of colonialist imperialism under George W. Bush has reached such low standards of consistency and comprehension that trying to guess its logic is futile.

While the British love to brag about their experience in the details of colonialism, and the French love to reminisce about their former �mission to civilize,� U.S. crusading imperialists love to scramble all conventional terminologies of conquest with contradictory statements for the obvious purpose to confound and deceit. The latest of which is �Handling sovereignty to the Iraqis,� followed by �But, with limited authority.� This is equivalent to saying to a prisoner, �You are free to go, but you cannot leave the prison.�

This apparent contradiction to explain what the U.S. wants to do with Iraq is not contradiction at all. It is a shrewd strategy with a defined audience in mind�the American people�who, once commence to interact with the slogan of �Iraqi sovereignty� without considering its hidden meaning, could approve of it, thus acclaiming the good intentions of the Bush administration. While planners and spin-doctors are waiting to see if the strategy will work, the true motives behind the statement remain obscure to many. Chief among these motives are presenting a fake sovereignty transfer as an �accomplishment� of Bush in the coming presidential elections, buying time to remedy errors in the physical application of conquest, inventing new ruses for new emerging situations in the fight between invaders and Iraqis, and last, giving time to deceptive policy to settle and then to spread by repetition.

While we know that the invasion is about oil, Israel, Zionism, Armageddonists, and imperialist world domination, Bush and his entourage are telling us that their war is about �weapons of mass destruction,� �opposing tyranny,� �installing democracy,� �spreading human rights,� and �fighting terrorism.� Sure, these are great slogans, except that great pretenders pronounced them. As all pieces of the scheme that led to invasion fell one by one: no WMD; Saddam is in American custody, but conveniently not in Abu Ghraib; no democracy of any type has taken any root and that is by design; no human rights for those whom the U.S. went to Iraq to �liberate,� and no links to �terrorism.� Instead, the U.S. unleashed its own time-tested terrorism where we ended up with more destruction of Iraq, more Iraqis and invaders dead. We also ended up with nervous occupiers that now shoot at a tree because its leaves rustle, kill people because they dare to look in their direction, destroy people and lands that are resisting unprecedented fascist occupation, and forcing prisoners to masturbate with hoods covering their heads while joyful soldiers are watching the bestial degradation of their humanity. Maybe Iraq is not Vietnam, but the U.S. is definitely repeating in Iraq the abominable horrors that it inflicted on Vietnam in that war, but this time with added Zionist incentives to humiliate Arabs and Muslims.

Therefore, one might ask, �what magic is the U.S. using domestically to stay afloat in an ocean of blatant deception, lies, and atrocities?� To borrow a stock phrase from George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, how do U.S. imperialists manage to �stay the course� of destructive interference in the world?

There are three related mechanisms inherent to this management: 1) power of the state through rigid institutions that on the surface appear normal (see for example the difficult procedures to repeal a law, and the undemocratic mechanism of popular vote versus electoral vote), 2) indoctrination, and 3) thought contagion. I tend to believe that while rigid institutions and indoctrination play a principle role in the matter, thought contagion is the one dynamic method where ideas reproduce themselves like bacteria, thus allowing the crowd to parrot ideas and consecrate their entrenchment, and consequently allowing both, institutions and indoctrination to proceed undisturbed. If you can remember the widespread, insidious slogan, �I oppose the war, but support the troops,� then you surely know how contagion works.

Thought contagion and propagation of ideas in human societies, however, are universal and ageless. They are not limited to specific epochs, societies, or regions. The four things that distinguish them among diverse societies are grade, speed, depth of transmission, and settling. In the case of industrial and advanced societies, in particular, the American society, thought contagion and propagation are essential tools of indirect political control. The means by which both actions materialize are countless. They include exposure to relentless propaganda, deception, lies, manipulation of news, secrecy over the state�s internal deliberations, exclusion of informative news, exploitation of ignorance, adroit perpetuation of ignorance, and selective individual detachment from all realities except personal, entertainment, and business realities.

Example of indirect thought control is when CNN proposes (late February 2004) to its Internet site readers that they respond to an opinion poll under the title: �One year later, has the war in Iraq been successful?� [1] First, CNN omits the fact that there is a war of aggression, and that there is as an imperialist conquest in progress. Second, CNN confounded the identity of who is waging war by dropping the U.S. from the phrase, �War in Iraq� that should have been, �U.S. War against Iraq��there was no war in Iraq until the U.S. invaded it. Third, to manipulate thought to lead to an expected response between two technical choices, CNN chose only one enquiring phrase, as in �Has the war been successful?� CNN did not give a choice between success and failure that normally qualifies an enterprise, but left it to viewers with no yardstick to measure success or failure to select the vague �yes� or �no� based on personal impressions and media perceptions. Fourth, by limiting the poll to one item only, CNN had practically eliminated all critical data related to the subject of U.S. war and the people who made it happen.

CNN, for the sake of minimum objectivity, could have proposed the following questions for example, �was the war justified?� and, �if so, explain why, and based on what.� Other questions could have been, �do you accept the killing of Americans and Iraqis based on deception?� or, �do you accept that the U.S. colonize Iraq?� etc. It is more than probable that whatever response the readers will give to the preceding questions, it would be at least more balanced and informative.

Of course, these questions cannot find their way onto CNN or other controlled media outlets; I formulated them to demonstrate the public mechanism of how thought contagion and manipulation propagate. The most interesting aspect of thought control is when, for curiosity, you decide to vote, you will find at the bottom of the poll a disclaimer (most people will not read) that reads like this:

 �This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein.�

Well, even the name given to this moronic voting mechanism (QuickVote) is an indication of insipid indoctrination, as if the conquest of a distraught but rich country, such as Iraq, is a pastime at a coffee break where a CNN reader can have some fun by clicking on an icon. We know that the poll is rubbish and has no scientific or statistical value; however, the people who wrote and put it on CNN site achieved their purpose: they preempted critical participation of CNN readers and allowed manipulation to set in the mind of those pliable to manipulation.

Paradoxically, the three things that facilitate thought manipulation are specific mechanisms of democracy: freedom of thought, elections, and nominal change of personalities controlling power. In a culture dominated by a one-dimensional structure where critical thought moves on a flat plane, and cannot find space to expand, revise, or elaborate difficult information, these mechanisms act as a powerful eliminator of true democracy, hence, of free thought. While democracy is about freewill, free thought, responsibility, and accountability, no such things exist, in a significant way, in the so-called, �leader of the free world.� This is because now societal structures heavily and maybe exclusively rely on perceptions, polls, brief news, political spins, and periodic elections to sanction the system and its biological-like reproduction.

In the end, the entire debate of American �democracy� rotates on who can win an election based on how many children�s faces a candidate can caress in a given day, and on his ability to manipulate a population overdosed with propaganda and sedated with untruth and one-liners. If the contention that elections are the core of democracy, then even a criminal organization can hold its own election and choose a leader. The comparison is appropriate as in both cases freewill is under control. On one hand, and in a democracy, freewill, as based on expectation of progress, is under control through organized manipulation. An example: U.S. rulers accentuate the need for tight security, the people respond on the premises of that need, but without debating why personal or national security is under attack in the first place. In a criminal organization, on the other hand, freewill, based on fear and momentary personal coalitions and allegiances, normally drive members to elect a new leader through heart-palpitating plebiscite.

As for freedom of thought, this is the most abused phrase in the universe. For instance, from the cradle to the grave, human societies are nothing but a continuous reproduction of generations receiving their elementary and inherited cultures from the preceding ones, and with food culture, language, and social habits being the first three items on the indoctrination menu. It is normal, therefore, that manipulated thought patterns can reproduce and multiply as if by genetic code. In a society that is prone to extreme manipulation, such as the American society that tends to accept most things at face value, thought manipulation could be persuasive and genuinely accepted as a symbol of deliberation and freewill.

Pat Robertson, an insidious Zionist Christian minister and a passionate Muslim hater, is a perfect example on the propagation of manipulated ideas. From the podium of his TV program, the 700 Club, Robertson proclaimed on March 13, 2004, that the �violence in Iraq has nothing to do with us� (meaning the Americans). He continues, �What is happening over there is merely an �inter-Islamic� struggle for power between violent factions of Islam.� Of course, he skipped the most important elements: U.S. colonial invasion, occupation, the American destruction of and dissolution of Iraqi civilian and security structures, and the armed resistance against the pestilent imperialist conquest and its expressions. This is in addition to the fact that the violence in Iraq has only one origin: a war of aggression and occupation. It is obvious that Robertson�s proclamation was a refined amalgam of deception. His manipulation of facts, however, has probably reached the minds of millions of his predisposed and misinformed viewers who are not only ready to absorb his message, but to relay it to those who may have missed the opportunity to see the program.

Pat Robertson is only a minute example in the culture of deception that animates the moves of American Hitlerism. Generally, if an idea can propagate through contagion, imitation, and uncritical acceptance�all seemingly based on freewill�then would that not generate contradictory behavioral dualism? In other words, how is it possible that the entire ruling class and society can become embroiled in performing interventions and atrocities throughout their history, while presenting the same as if they were the exact opposite of what they are? The newest examples: a war of conquest becomes pre-emptive defense, and the killing of civilians is fighting insurgency . . .

The answer lies in the incessant amplification of disparate ideological or cultural manipulations. Situation A creates situation B; situation B creates situation C; situation C creates situation D; situation D reproduces parts of situation A and B, and introduces new part E; and situation ABE reproduces situation ABCDE while, at the same time, minimizes and/or aggrandizes partial traits of each, and so on. In this guise, interminable cycles of acceptance, rejection, adaptation, and reproduction of all themes that the initial cycle started, finally consolidate to perpetuate the system and guarantee its basic nature.

How does this relate to American Hitlerism? When I previously discussed the use of depleted uranium in U.S. wars of aggression, my purpose was to frame that use, find its ideological rationalization, and channel it in the wider subject of Hitlerism of which the American Empire shares all active ingredients. What the U.S. ruling class has been trying to achieve since time immemorial, however, is to make us believe that a �democracy� such as the U.S. cannot but be good, and that any adjective that could denote its violence is not applicable to a beatified, pacifist, and a romantic republic-empire.

This is not going to work for two reasons. First, our time is the time of alternative mass communications where we can test information and motive. Second, because of how history works. History is a stern lecturer without tenure, an impartial judge without a court, and an omnipresent witness to the passing of events. History, in its authoritative ways, has dedicated many chapters on U.S. imperialism where acts of Hitlerian violence have become the most prominent aspect of U.S. existence. To mention just a few: Indian Holocaust, slavery, nuclear experiments in New Mexico and in the Bikini Atoll, without considering consequences on local populations [2], the nuclear holocaust of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, chemical weapons experiments on U.S. population, [3], and [4], Agent Orange in Vietnam [5], depleted uranium in Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Kosovo, and in Iraq again. The other act of brazen Hitlerian violence was the mass destruction in Iraq through economic sanctions. [6], [7], and [8]

To seal the charge of Hitlerism, we can cite, for the umpteenth time, the case of Madeleine Albright. Albright who, when asked on CBS program 60 minutes (5/11/1996) if the killing of over 500,000 Iraqi children because of sanctions is worth the price for containing Saddam Hussein, she replied, "It's a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it's worth it." [Italics added] In replying so, �Madam Secretary,� did not only beat Hitler�s fascism, but she, the so-called escapee, with her family, from Nazism, confirmed that AMAH goes beyond Hitlerian Nazism. Why should anyone proclaim he or she despised Hitler�s violence, but then condones his or her own equal violence? At this point, I must postulate that when one tries to emulate someone else on a given practice or quality, the ultimate intent then is not emulation but surpassing.

Can we argue that AMAH includes a premeditated will to inflict mass murder of a genocidal nature upon nations that the U.S. chooses to attack? The answer is yes with capital letters, and I shall give you examples of this intentionality during my elaboration of the subject. From the very inception of the U.S., there appears to be definitive inclinations to cosmic cruelty in its thinking. The engine of this thinking has been always the awareness of disposing of both military power and unaccountability. In turn, both of these factors promote supremacist racism where a gelid indifference to mass killing conclusively lead to the formation of beliefs that make hidden or patent racism the perfect alibi for imperialistic wars of conquest. Consequently, mass killing resulting from the application of these beliefs is only of a marginal significance to those who exercise power within the auspices of empire. In the ongoing hyper-imperialist phase, you can see this attitude so distinctly when you hear U.S. imperialists refer to war scheduling as, �Time of our choosing.�

In further analysis, the concept of �American Modified and Accepted Hitlerism� is also a key to the understanding of extent, entrenchment, reach, and durability of both political and/or military powers. This is especially true, when this power has an exclusive and unhindered access to exercise violence as a means for a wider purpose and, of course, without impunity. There could be, however, historical circumstances, were forces external to that power could interrupt that access. For example, had Hitler just occupied Austria, but did not invade Czechoslovakia, and Poland, but opted to kill the last innocent Jew, Gypsy, or communist in Germany and in Austria, his power base would have remained intact, as Britain and France would have never declared war against him. In this retrospective historical hypothesis, Hitler�s domestic crimes would have not urged Britain or France to declare war against Germany, as these two countries, accustomed to the killing of colonial nations, would have not given a damn about the fate of the innocent people that he was killing.

Decidedly, the Anglo-French declaration of war against Germany did not happen because Hitler was committing heinous crimes; and it did not happen because Hitler was an imperialist, racist, and supremacist leader, at par with British and French leaders. It happened, because Hitler threatened the colonial power bases of Britain and France. Hitler, indeed, reclaimed the African colonies that Germany lost consequent to WW I, and actively wanted to institute a new European order based on what he called the accommodation of Germany�s vital space. Speculatively, had Hitler, after taking Austria, offered to attack only the Soviet Union and no one else, but still wanted to kill all Jews, the U.S., Britain, and France would have blessed Germany, showered her with flowers and rice, and run to supply Hitler with unlimited war needs, including the offer of an adjunct Anglo-French invasion force under his command.

The European scenario where external forces can deny access to power by a specific state is not applicable, so far, to the U.S. when it decides to go to war for any invented imperialistic reason. The U.S. is capable now of two things at once. On one hand, it can exercise its brands of extreme Hitlerism undisturbed, as if in the hypothetical case of Germany with or without a war. On the other, after declaring Latin America its backyard, it now added the entire world as a playground for its troops, and waged war after war against weak nations. The reason for this state of affairs is not complicated to explain: momentary imbalance of military powers among imperialist and non-imperialist states makes direct military confrontation with the U.S. an enormously difficult enterprise.

One might ask a pertinent question as to why do I keep indicting America and its wars, while many other nations go to war and commit atrocities as well. This is very true; but most wars in developing countries are always between adjacent states vying for control of claimed territory or national boundaries. Alternatively, all colonialist powers, including the U.S., European, Japanese, and Israeli, have committed atrocities, made wars, and traveled thousands of miles to consume their aggressions (Israel is now acting only on a regional level). However, among all modern colonialist-imperialist empires the U.S. is the only power that attacked everyone else, no matter where they were situated on the globe. (With the exceptions of the Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, and the attack on the continental USA in New York and in Washington, DC, attributed to al-Qaida, the U.S. has never been a victim of external attack since the end of the Civil War in 1865. Further, the participation of the U.S. in WW I and WW II are special cases that require different treatment and go beyond the scope of this work.)

Decisively, the charge that the U.S. is a relentless user of Hitlerian or Nazi methods (examples: the premeditation in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Eisenhower�s fascist treatment of German prisoners of war, and the very recent bombing of Falluja, Iraq) is a verifiable charge. As I articulated before, many other significant events in U.S. history can substantiate that charge. Still, analyzing these methods is a prerequisite to the understanding of how the U.S. has transformed from its early �visionary� republic to a viciously criminal hyper-empire. Further, the nature, mentality, and military interventionism of the U.S. have not changed despite the passing of time or the ruling party. In short, the U.S. has been a repeat international offender that unceremoniously trampled on the natural rights of almost every nation on earth with arrogance, and without revision, recoil, apology, or regret.

Indicting U.S. supremacist ideology, culture of war, and ingrained violence that produced such a strange anomaly in history is, therefore, mandatory. The anomaly being: a country that could have become the greatest in history, despite its immense atrocities and dark origins, has become a synonym with virulent fascist aggressiveness. There have been many empires in history, but none of them killed so many people and destroyed so many nations as the U.S. did. As for U.S. social achievements and scientific advancement, those no one can ever detract or minimize, but that is another subject and has no relevance or connection to the nature of the American super-state externally, which is the focus of this study.

Because the scope of this work is debating the failure of hyper-imperialism in cowing Iraq to the ideas of Bush�s brand of colonialism, discussing the ideological mechanisms that guided U.S. colonialist enterprise was inevitable. From comparing hegemonic and imperialistic movement through out history, I came to understand that similarities, albeit with diversity, unify these movements despite their origins. For example, the crimes against humanity of the Croatian Ustashi, Stalinism, Nazism, Zionism, and Japanese fascism in China and in Korea, French fascist colonialism in Vietnam, British fascism everywhere, Saddam�s fascism against Iraqis, and American global fascism are all identical in the ultimate result.

Consequently, my position regarding the definition of American Hitlerism in relation to classical fascism and Nazism is unequivocal, linear, unidirectional, and irreversible. I base the strength of this position on the simple law of mathematical equivalence:

If action A and its consequences AA are equal to action B and its consequences BB in all attributes except by the ideology, philosophy, and the circumstance that originated them, then the intrinsic value of both actions is equivalent and interchangeable regardless of the ideology, structure, motivation, epoch, personalities involved, and everything between. Accordingly, AA is equal to and coincides with BB.

For example, the ultimate value of the Mongolian invasion and destruction of Baghdad in 1258 (spoils, pillage, and change of order) is equal and interchangeable with the American invasion and destruction of Iraq (spoils, pillage, and change of order) in two wars�1991 and 2003�regardless of the set of historical circumstances.

A question: where is the specific role of ideology in each of the aforementioned invasions? Further, how did the concept of �AMAH� become the prevalent way of thinking of U.S. ruling classes and society? There is no specific answer to these questions, as the role of ideology alone is debatable. As I stated previously, imperialism needs ideology, but only as an alibi. For example, Zionist America�s war against Iraq did not spring up from the presumed �danger� that Saddam posed for America and Israel, but from a specific predatory agenda. As for the role of ideology in war, it is instructive to look at the following situation. For instance, the Macedonian Alexander and the Mongol Genghis Khan did not write any essay or deliver any speech about their motivations for invading and conquering other tribes and lands. From history, we know, however, that their exploits were about predation. By comparing both, we can deduce that while Genghis Khan may have had an undefined ideology of conquest, Alexander, although he preceded him by over a millennium, reportedly, was more defined in his imperialist outlook, as he was looking for �empires to conquer.�

On the recent and modern side of colonialism as an instrument of pillage, the ideological bent of Andrew Jackson, Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, Mendes-France, Ben Gurion, and Sharon share aplenty with established historical precedents. In fact, U.S. hyper-imperialism follows in the same footsteps, but in addition, Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Perle, have ideological manifestos that openly rely on supremacist hegemonic agendas such as �A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm� [9], �Project For The New American Century� [10], and �.The National Security Strategy of the United States of America� [11]. Invariably, all recent headings and subtexts of U.S. manifestoes point to global imperialism, recycled colonialism, and projected post-Zionist imperialism via U.S. military domination over the world.

Let us recapitulate by posing more questions on Hitlerism and violence: does formulating a concept make it valid? Is Hitlerism a monstrous accusation, and since Hitlerism is now only a mild euphemism for racist violence as advocated by its founder, Hitler, is there a term that can go beyond it? Why Hitlerism, and is Hitlerism equivalent to Nazism; in addition, is there anything wrong with either one? Are there other criteria by which we can describe a super-militarized and ideological state that sings melodic hymns to its "democracy on the shinning hill," to the "Founding Fathers" and to its uniqueness in history, while unleashing its firepower to massacre defenseless people? Can a term such as "Democratic" Hitlerism serve our purpose of nomination? In the end, was the passage from the idealism of American "democracy" to the American brand of Hitlerism so smooth that successive American generations could not notice it was happening?

Although each of the preceding questions requires its own answer, I am going to answer them collectively by their common denominator: conquest and its requirements. I can explain this as follows: the ideology of conquest, primitive or advanced, is only a qualifier for violence as a means to an end�without violence there can be no conquest. The U.S. tried but failed to affect the first bloodless colonialist-imperialist conquest in history, as when it gave Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq before the Anglo-American hordes could conquer his country without firing a shot!

In the end, to push my argument to a climax, I shall repeat my previous assertion: if consequence AA and consequence BB are similar, then the ideologies that produced them must be equivalent regardless of dissimilarities and contents. Accordingly, I submit that although the ideologies of Nazism, Stalinism, Churchillism, American imperialism, and Zionism are all dissimilar in philosophy and aim, they are similar in the means applied to achieve those aims and share one fundamental denominator: cosmic violence to impose an order.

Having addressed, thus far, the general mechanisms of �AMAH,� I shall discuss next, the specific domestic mechanisms that enable the U.S. to practice its �American Modified and Accepted Hitlerism� outside its borders with ease and glamour.


[1] (Note: copy of vote no longer available on CNN site.)











Next, Part 12: American Modified and Accepted Hitlerism: Domestic Considerations

B. J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American anti-war activist. He can be reached at:

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor