Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #268 Americans Thought They Were Free

MP3 Side 1 | Side 2

This broadcast analyzes the 2000 “election” as a right-wing/fascist coup. President Elect Bush has been said by associates to view his governing style as that of “a sort of corporate board chairman who will set broad goals and trust others to work out the details.” (“Bush Positions Himself as Chairman of the Board” by Steven Thomma; San Jose Mercury News; 1/6/2001; p. 10A.)

1. The program highlights the fundamentals of Mussolini’s fascist state—characterized by Il Duce as “the corporate state.”

“ON THE CORPORATE STATE: Resolution drafted by the Head of the Italian Government and read by him on November 13th 1933, before the Assembly of the National Council of Corporations, on the eve of his important speech. ‘The National council of Corporations: ‘defines Corporations as the instrument which, under the aegis of the State, carries out the complete organic and totalitarian regulation of production with a view to the expansion of the wealth, political power and well-being of the Italian people.”

(The Corporate State; by Benito Mussolini; Valecchi Publishing; copyright 1938 [SC]; p. 7. Mussolini believed that if a society were structured to benefit corporations and organized along the lines of power distribution within a corporation, the wealth would “trickle down” and everyone would live happily ever after. It didn’t work out that way, as shown by a comparison of Mussolini’s Italy to the U.S. under Reagan and George Bush, the elder.)


“[The National Council of Corporations] declares that the number of Corporations to be formed for the main branches of production should, on principle, be adequate to meet the real needs of national economy.”



“[The National Council of Corporations] establishes that the general staff of each Corporation shall include representatives of State administration, of the Fascist Party, of capital, of labor and of experts.”

(Ibid.; pp. 7-8.)


“[The National Council of Corporations] assigns to the Corporations as their specific tasks: conciliation, consultation (compulsory on problems of major importance) and the promulgation, through the National Council of Corporations, of laws regulating the economic activities of the country.”

(Ibid.; p. 8.)


“[The National Council of Corporations] leaves to the Grand Council of Fascism the decision on the further developments, of a constitutional and political order, which should result from the effective formation and practical working of the Corporations.”


6. Further developing the theme of the 2000 “election” as a coup from the right, the broadcast presents an article from the The Observer (of London) which discusses the fact that Al Gore was 140 votes ahead in Florida when the unofficial recount was suspended for Christmas.

(“Right-Wing Coup that Shames America” by Will Hutton; The Observer; 12/24/2000.)

7. In addition, this eloquently worded story details the tortured and conflicted legal reasoning used by the U.S. Supreme Court to justify their decision and the resultant coup.


8. Significantly, the results of the unofficial recount are not being reported in the mainstream American media. The program also sets forth projections by The Miami Herald that Gore is projected as (unofficially) winning Florida by 23,000 votes.

(“Now It’s Unofficial: Al Gore Did Win in Florida” by Ed Vulliamy; The Guardian; 12/24/2000.)

9. This program highlights the fact that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was upset at the prospect that Gore might win the election, because she and her husband planned to retire to Florida in the next four years and she didn’t want a Democrat to name her successor (Excerpt accessed from the Yahoo Daily News 12/17/2000.) Much of the broadcast sets forth information about the role in the 2000 electoral coup played by the CIA-linked, anti-Castro Cuban milieu in Florida.

10. The angry crowd that menaced (and consequently affected) the Miami-Dade election officials was summoned by Radio Mambi, closely connected to the Anti-Castro Cuban community in Miami.

(“Miami’s Cuban Americans May Get the Last Word” by Peter Dale Scott; Pacific News Service, 12/4/2000.)

11. The political milieu that generated the furor over Elian Gonzalez is identical to that involved with intimidating the Miami election officials, and has historical links to the Bush faction of the CIA.


12. Highlighting these connections in more detail, the broadcast sets forth the role of the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) and its founder Jorge Mas Canosa in setting up Radio Mambi.

(“Miami-Dade Reversal—A Cuban terrorist Payback to Bush Family?” by Peter Dale Scott; Pacific News Service, 12/7/2000.)

13. The program sets forth informed speculation that the CIA (under William Casey) precipitated the founding of CANF in 1981.


14. Two of Mas Canosa’s proteges in CANF were the brothers Guillermo and Ignacio Novo, both implicated in the assassination of former Chilean Ambassador Orlando Letelier. (Idem.)

15. The elder George Bush was closely connected to this milieu, and deflected inquiries into the Letelier assassination that led in the direction of the CIA supported coup in Chile. (Idem.)

16. The broadcast also details the connections of this milieu to Cuban-Americans involved in the Contra support effort in the 1980’s. (Idem.)

17. Next, the discussion illuminates the role of a Cuban-American splinter group (Vigilia Mambisa) in the agitation that forced the halting of the recount.

(Unpublished update by Professor Scott to “Miami’s Cuban Americans May Get the Last Word” by Peter Dale Scott; Pacific News Service, 12/4/2000; made available by a kind listener.)

18. The program also sets forth links between Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the CANF milieu, the Contra support effort, and the failure of the Broward Federal Savings & Loan Association.

(Unpublished update by Professor Scott to “Miami-Dade Reversal—A Cuban terrorist Payback to Bush Family?” by Peter Dale Scott; Pacific News Service; 12/7/2000; made available by a kind listener.)

19. An “ex” CIA officer (Charles Kane) allegedly participated in a scheme to deliver some of the fraudulent absentee ballots that helped tip Florida to Bush.

(“Absentee Ballot Fraud in 5 Florida Counties” by David E. Scheim; Associated Press; 12/7/2000.)

20. One certified felon who had his voting rights restored by Jeb Bush in time to vote was Nixon’s ruthless aide Charles Colson.

(St. Petersburg Times; 10/10/2000.)

21. The program concludes with an account of a German university professor’s account of what it was like to live during the rise of Hitler. Note the similarity to aspects of the contemporary political landscape. Consider George W. Bush (whom Mr. Emory views as a point element and front for the Underground Reich) and Hitler. “What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise, to receiving decisions deliberated in secret, to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand because of nationality security, so dangerous that even if the people the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him may have incidentally have reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it. Their trust in him made it easier to reassure others who might have worried about it. ”This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real crises and reforms too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of the Government growing remoter and remoter .”

(TheyThought they Were Free: The Germans 1933-1945; by Milton Mayer; copyright 1955 [SC]; University of Chicago Press; ISBN 0-226-51190-1; pp. 166-167.)


“‘The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was, above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?”

(Ibid.; pp. 167-168.)


“‘To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.'”

(Ibid.; p. 168.)


“‘How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated extraordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—’Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have changed here before they went as far as they did; they didn’t, but they might have. And everyone counts on that might.'”



“‘Your Little Men, your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better. Pastor Niemoller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke too modestly of himself) and said that when the Nazis attacked the communists he was a little uneasy but, after all he was not a communist, and so he did nothing and then the schools, the press, the Jews , and so on, and he was always uneasier but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something, but then it was too late. “Yes I said.”

(Ibid.; pp.168-169.)


“You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me this is true. Each act, each shocking occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for that one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?–Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.”

(Ibid.; p. 169.)


“Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy one hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences in Germany, outside the great cities perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in you own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or you’re an alarmist.”



“And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end and how do you know or even surmise the end? On the one hand your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally people who have always thought as you have.”

(Ibid.; p. 169-170.)


“But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to—to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are dong to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.” “But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in’43 had come immediately after the ‘German firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at step C. And so on to D.”

(Ibid.; p.170-171.)


“And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them all rush in upon you the burden of self deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying “Jew swine’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation hour people –is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed, because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility, even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.”

(Ibid.; p.171.)


“You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things that your father, even in Germany, could have imagined.”



“Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing).”

(Ibid.; pp. 171-172 This account is presented so that listeners may compare their own subjective reactions to the 2000 “electoral coup” with the professor’s reaction to the rise of Hitler.)

(Recorded on 1/29/2001)


No comments for “FTR #268 Americans Thought They Were Free”

Post a comment