The Nazi Parallel:
The National Security State and the Churches
excerpted from the book
The Washington Connection
and Third World Fascism
by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman
published by South End Press, 1979
The two statements quoted above bring out some central features
of modern Latin America. A close study of recent trends-including
the specific totalitarian ideology of the generals, the system
of ideological manipulation and terror, the diaspora, and the
defensive response of the churches (and their harassment by the
military juntas)-reveals startling similarities with patterns
of thought and behavior under European fascism, especially under
Nazism. Fascist ideology has flowed into Latin American directly
and indirectly. Large numbers of Nazi refugees came to Latin America
during and after World War II, and important ingredients of fascist
ideology have been indirectly routed into that area through the
U.S. military and intelligence establishment. Whatever the source,
however, it has met a need of the local and foreign elites that
dominate the area, and has been modified to meet their special
requirements.
The ideology designated the "National Security Doctrine"
(NSD) now prevails among the military elites that rule at least
eight Latin American states-Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile,
Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay. The doctrine has three main
elements: (1) that the state is absolute and the individual is
nothing; (2) that every state is involved in permanent warfare,
its present form being Communism versus the Free World; and (3)
that control over "subversion" is possible only through
domination by the natural leadership in the struggle against subversion,
namely the armed forces. The first two elements of the NSD closely
parallel Nazi ideology, which laid great stress on the organic
Volkstaat and the deadly combat in process between the forces
of good and evil (Bolshevism, Jewry). Geopolitics is also a favorite
source of ideological nourishment to the Latin military elite,
as it was for the Nazis. Nazi doctrine did not give primacy to
the armed forces, although they were assigned an important place,
but the Leader and the Party played an elite role. The special
place of the' armed forces in the NSD reflects in part the self-interested
rationalization of the privileged and dominant military elite;
it also represents the choice of vehicle by the colossus of the
north, which has long invested in the military establishment as
potentially "a major force for constructive social change
in the American republics" (Nelson Rockefeller).
An important ingredient of Nazi ideology, anti-Semitism, is
absent from the NSD, although it has found a home with the military
of certain countries (specifically, Argentina, where there has
been a long anti-Semitic tradition). But the NSD also lacks any
element of egalitarianism or notion of human community, both present
in grotesquely perverted form in Nazi ideology, so that the Latin
American version has been well adapted to justifying and institutionalizing
extreme inequality and domination by a small elite. The NSD is
not a doctrine with ugly potential consequences for specific minorities;
it is one that fits the need for disregard and spoliation of the
majority. The special place of army and police merely assures
that the military elite will share in the spoliation along with
the traditional elite group. It is, therefore, an appropriate
doctrine for what we have been calling "subfascism."
Since the generals sponsoring the National Security Doctrine
have been nurtured by and dependent on the U.S. military intelligence
establishment, and look to the United States as the heartland
of anti-Communism and Freedom, it is little wonder that the economic
doctrinal counterpart to the NSD is quite congenial to the interests
of multinational business. The military juntas have adopted a
"free enterprise-blind growth" model on the alleged
geopolitical rationale that growth means power, disregarding the
fact that dependent growth means foreign power. Since profits
equal investment equal growth equal power, it works out that state
support for large interests-domestic and foreign- and neglect
of the masses, is sound policy. We saw earlier that in the economics
of client fascism, that is, National Security Economics, the welfare
of the masses is no longer a system objective-the masses become
a cost of goods sold, something to be minimized-so that although
the military juntas sometimes speak of long run benefits trickling
down to the lower orders, this is really an after-thought and
is not to be taken too seriously.
Furthermore, since the world is one of good and evil, with
"no room for comfortable neutralism" (Pinochet, echoing
a familiar refrain of his U.S. mentor), and since free enterprise-growth
profits-USA are good, anybody challenging these concepts or their
consequences is ipso facto a Communist-subversive-enemy. This
is a logical deduction from NSD principles, and it is also clearly
just what General Maxwell Taylor had in mind in telling the students
of the police academy of the lessons of Vietnam and the need for
anticipatory counter-subversion. It also means that any resistance
to business power and privilege in the interests of equity, or
on the basis of an alternative view of desirable social ends or
means, is a National Security and police problem. This applies
to such organizations as peasant leagues, unions, student organizations
or community or political groupings that might afford protection
to the weak or threaten to become a political counterforce to
elite domination. From the standpoint of the multinationals and
latifundists, this is superb doctrine; reform is equated with
subversion, the work force is kept in disarray by state power,
and nothing stands in the way of organizing economic life in MNC-latifundist
interests that can not be taken care of by a few well-placed bribes.
As Nelson Rockefeller has said, in dealing with Latin American
countries, for whom democracy "is a very subtle and difficult
problem," we must be prepared to sacrifice some of our philosophical
principles in the interest of helping meet the basic needs of
the people of the hemisphere."
In Nazi Germany too, as in other totalitarian societies, a
primary aim of the controlling leadership was the destruction
of any organizational threat that might challenge the attainment
of "state" ends; and unions, students and professional
organizations, and community groups and political parties were
infiltrated, harassed, destroyed, or brought under state control.
The most powerful bases of organized resistance in Nazi Germany
were the churches, which provided the "most active, most
effective, and most consistent" opposition to Nazi terror.
The churches were so deeply rooted in their communities that it
was difficult to attack them openly, although the Nazis tried
from the beginning to undermine and destroy church authority.
The churches were not only the first large organizations left
intact that began to resist Hitlerism as organizations, "they
also remained unique in this respect throughout the period from
1933 to 1945, although their resistance remained limited to certain
issues and methods. Throughout World War II one important segment
of the Protestant Church (the Confessing Church) refused to pray
for military victory, and by the war's end many hundreds of clergymen
had died in concentration camps.
The analogy here with Latin American experience is striking,
although it has been diligently avoided in the mass media of the
United States. The National Security States, like Hitler, have
used informers and force to destroy or bring under state control
all protective organizations of the working class, peasants, rural
workers and sub-proletariat: a church group's description of Paraguay,
where "the government's objective is to suppress any person
or organization that strives to help those living in miserable
poverty, that is to say 80/ho of the population, is widely applicable
in the NSD world. This repression is not undertaken out of sadistic
impulses. Rather, as the church throughout the empire now recognizes,
"this whole universe of atomized workers, powerless and obliged
to humiliate themselves," are kept in that condition for
sound economic reasons, given the ends sought and the model of
economic development employed by the military juntas.
From the inception of this process, and especially since the
Brazilian coup of 1964, the churches have been pressed into opposition
to subfascism, just as under Nazism, as the last institutional
refuge of the population against state terror and state-protected
and state-sponsored exploitation. Initially, again in close analogy
with Nazi experience, the coming into power of the National Security
State was greeted by the church in a country like Brazil with
mixed feelings, and some positive expectations on the part of
the more conservative church leaders. But subfascist processes
steadily drove the church into a position of increasingly unified
hostility, despite efforts by the military junta to alternatively
threaten and attempt to bribe the church leaders into quiescence,
if not support. Church opposition has been bothersome to the Brazilian
junta, in part because the church remains a competing institutional
power still providing a base of opposition and some protective
cover for the pack animals (the 80% plus). Furthermore, the church
and religion are part of the ceremonial apparatus of the Christian-West-Free
World, and however little the generals may regard Christian principles,
the symbols should be available for manipulation of the lower
orders. But they have not been readily available, and the conflict
between the churches and military juntas has escalated in Brazil
and throughout the empire.
The reasons for the scope and strength of church resistance
in Latin America and elsewhere include certain features of the
churches themselves, such as the post-Vatican II internal discussions
and subsequent democratization, and the institutional shift in
church constituency and support. With the middle and upper classes-the
traditional basis of support and personnel- gradually abandoning
the church after World War II, the constituency of the church
has gradually shifted to the 80% plus that is voiceless, powerless
and outside the orbit of interest under subfascism. As the church
has reached into the communities of the poor it has been obliged
to see and feel the problems of this exploited mass, and the result
has been a further democratization of the church, expressions
of remorse at its elite supportive role in the past, and a new
concern for meeting the needs of all people now: "The Holy
Spirit is no longer a privilege of the hierarchy or of the religious;
the Spirit does not only teach piety and obedience in the teaching
of the church. The Spirit shows itself in the new martyrs, in
the daring of the communities and their ministers, in the testimony
given to the world by the humble and poor people."
It is important to recognize that the dominant elements of
the Catholic Church of Latin America were, and in important respects
still are, quite conservative. It has been pushed into relatively
unified and vigorous opposition against its desires and traditions,
in large part by brutalities and injustice of a scale and severity
that gave it no alternative. The quality of the New Brazil that
has evoked this church response can be illustrated by its treatment
of abandoned children, vast numbers of whom wander and forage
in the cities. These children are regarded strictly as a police
problem. Nothing is done for them, but they are periodically rounded
up, put into police trucks, and transported to other Brazilian
states, with a warning to stay away. If something positive is
done for them, this is regarded as a menace. Lernoux reports that
"in a recent typical case, a young teenager was arrested
in Vitoria for trying to organize the city's abandoned children
into a work cooperative. After he was beaten and tortured, the
boy was sodomized in the local jail."
The treatment of the mass of rural poor has been on the same
humanistic plane. The military regime has encouraged and subsidized
the shift to export crops such as soybeans and cattle, without
the slightest concern, provision, or consideration for the (non-existent)
opportunities for the millions of dispossessed:
"Their lands, houses and crops are wiped out by the savage
growth of latifundia and big agribusiness. Their living and working
conditions are becoming more difficult. In a tragic contradiction,
in which the government economic favors multiply herds of cattle
and enlarge plantations, the small laborer sees his family's food
supply diminishing. "
Volkswagen, Tio Tinto Zinc, Swift Meat Packing, and others
have been receiving tax write-offs to develop cattle ranches,
while the indigenous people are written off in the process by
their government. Italy's Liquigas was allowed to buy six million
acres of land in the heart of the territory of the Xavantas Indians,
with 60 Indians killed in the eviction process.
The state functions to prevent by force any defense of the
rural majority and to allow the powerful to violate the already
feeble law with impunity. A great many clergy have been brutalized
for making the most elemental defenses of maltreated individuals.
Although under Brazil's legal code peasants who have worked the
land for 10 years or more are entitled to ownership rights, those
rights are widely ignored and in any conflict are usually resolved
by the force of the strong. In one contested case a land development
company "simply bulldozed the village of Santa Teresinha
off the map. When Father Francisco Jentel protested against the
destruction of a health clinic built by the peasants, he was jailed
and later sentenced to ten years in prison for 'incising the people
to revolt'."
The Catholic Church has not been able to swallow passively
the intensified post-1964 day-by-day spoliation of the Indians
and peasantry. Bishop Dom Pedro Casadaliga has kept up a steady
flow of denunciations of the policies of force, fraud and subsidization
of rural dispossession by the military regime. He has exasperated
the ranchers and military of Sao Felix by organizing peasant cooperatives,
schools and health units and urging the peasants to "unite
and know your legal rights." The Bishop points out that there
is only one private doctor in the prefecture of Sao Felix, which
covers 150,000 square kilometers, but the military regime still
discourages church medical assistance efforts: "There used
to be a nun nurse who worked in the hospital [the Santa Izabel
Indian Hospital]. However, she was expelled and prohibited from
taking care of Indians or posseiros. We opened a mobile health
unit in Sao Felix which was closed by the Secretary of Health
of Mato Grosso. Of the four mobile units of the region three are
closed and the other is open only sporadically when a doctor of
the army or air force is passing through." Efforts to organize
the peasantry, even for limited self-help activities, have been
viewed with the deepest suspicion by the leaders of subfascism,
and this form of subversion has led to the arrest, harassment
and exile of numerous clergy in Brazil and elsewhere in the empire.
Bishop Casadaliga was the first of many Brazilian bishops
to be subject to military interrogation. Many have suffered more
severely. Dom Adriano Hipolito, the Bishop of Nova Iguazu, who
has often denounced the Brazilian Anti-Communist Alliance (AAB)
as a "bunch of thugs directed and protected by the police"
was kidnapped by the AAB, beaten, stripped, painted red, and left
Iying on a deserted road. And in October, 1976, Father Joao Brunier,
who had gone to the police station with Bishop Casadaliga to protest
the torture of two peasant women, was simply shot dead by a policeman
(who was eventually "apprehended" and then "escaped").
Hundreds of priests and higher officials of the Latin American
churches have been tortured, murdered or driven into exile. Six
aides of Archbishop Camara have been murdered, and he is quite
aware that only his international reputation has so far saved
him from a similar fate.
The Latin American churches have been unified and radicalized
by subfascist terror and exploitation. They have learned by bitter
experience the roots and consequences of these processes. The
Church in Brazil now points out frequently and with great clarity
and courage that the National Security Doctrine is a cover for
totalitarian violence against ordinary people and is a means of
class warfare. It is interesting to see the church preaching with
passion for the rights of the individual against a state created
and supported by the heartland of "freedom"-"On
the level of purpose, the State exists for persons. The person,
as a subject of natural inalienable rights, is the origin, center
and end of society...It is in this right that the power of authority
of the state is based. All force practiced beyond and outside
of this right is violence." The church has also become more
clear-eyed and explicit on the class bias and massive inhumanity
of the development model of growth, and on the role of the U.S.
and its military and economic interests in bringing into existence
and sustaining the subfascist state. On the benefits of the Brazilian
"miracle," one church document notes that
"Five percent (5 million out of 100 million) do attain
something. But those who really have the advantage are the ones
who are financing our "growth," those from abroad, the
foreigners. If a bank will not extend credit without a guarantee
of profit, much less will the foreigners finance our development
and dispense with their profits. Our external debt amounts to
about $10 billion."
External interests not only sustain oppression by their support
of the military governments; they are more directly in the picture
as developers, expropriators and strike-breakers. Bishop Casadaliga
claims that in Sao Felix where latifundias are frequently owned
by MNCs, the foreign entities have fought his mild efforts more
aggressively than the locals: "Of the attacks I have suffered
the majority have been ordered by the administrators and technocrats
of the multinational latifundios." The Open Letter quoted
at the beginning of this section is more passionate still in describing
the sorrowful reality that has "demolished the image of 'the
great democracy of the North'," including "the scandalous
intervention of the United States in the installation and maintenance
of military regimes" throughout Latin America; "the
shameful Panamanian enclave with its military training centers"
in which the murderers receive their higher education from U.S.
instructors in techniques of "systematic persecution"
and "scientifically perfected torture"; the activities
of "the CIA and other agencies of penetration and espionage";
"the sometimes subtle and other times brazen domination and
colonization practices" which have gradually eliminated the
possibilities of independent economic development; and the "silent
genocide, killing with hunger, with malnutrition, with tuberculosis
the children of working families without resources."
The church-state struggle has become general in varying degrees
throughout the expanding subfascist component of the empire. In
Latin America, only in the few countries that retain a democratic
order has an open conflict failed to emerge. In the now dominant
terror states, including South Korea and the Philippines, the
clergy is under attack and is fighting back with the non-violent
weapons at its disposal. It cannot be over stressed that while
the church increasingly calls for major social changes, the vast
bulk of its efforts have been directed toward the protection of
the most elemental human rights-to vote, to have the laws enforced
without favor, to be free from physical abuse, and to be able
to organize, assemble, and petition for betterment. Most sinister
for the leaders of subfascism is any sponsorship of organizational
or self-help efforts that might give the underclasses not only
a sense of personal dignity but also some notion that they have
rights and might exercise some small modicum of power.
The hostility of the National Security States to church support
for the majority has reached the level of cooperative efforts
at intimidation. In the summer of 1976 a major church meeting
in Ecuador was interrupted when "40 barbarians armed with
machine guns, revolvers, and tear gas bombs burst in on us. None
of us was allowed to touch any of our personal belongings, not
even to put on a pair of socks. We were pushed at gun point into
a waiting bus-80 of us crammed into a space meant for 50. We had
no idea what was happening, and it was useless to ask those gangsters
for an explanation." The group, which included 15 foreign
bishops and two foreign archbishops, was imprisoned overnight,
and the foreign contingent was expelled the next day on the ground
that it had been a "subversive meeting" (on subfascist
principles, no doubt correct). One factor explaining the incident
may have been the hostility to the host, Bishop Leonidas Proano,
who had long been in conflict with the local ranchers over his
defense of the ownership rights of the Indians. Church sources
claim that a more potent factor was the increasingly close relations
between Ecuador and the other subfascist states, particularly
Brazil and Chile. At the time of the meeting 10 Chilean secret
police were in Ecuador helping set up an intelligence and "security"
network. The Chilean secret police arranged for a rock-throwing
reception for the three Chilean bishops at the Santiago airport
upon their return from Ecuador, and the Chilean press used the
incident to demonstrate the Communist-subversive qualities of
the bishops. The Chilean bishops concluded from their investigation
of the episode that it had been a response to the pressures of
"friendly governments" which had been applied to Ecuador.
The conflict between the church and the state intensifies
as subfascist abuse becomes a more integral component of the reigning
system, the church responds, and the National Security State brooks
no opposition: "If we don't subscribe to 'their Church,'
we are subversive. But how can we accept a mentality that endorses
torture and murder, that is so totally unchristian?" And
a Paraguayan priest says that "the bishops are arriving at
a point where they must choose between their people and the military...It
isn't a political choice between right and left but a humanitarian
one. In Paraguay, for example, conservative and liberal bishops
are united in their opposition to Alfredo Stroessner's regime.
Even the military vicar signed the last pastoral letter denouncing
government repression." But the churches resist without the
huge resources of the state, without access to the government
controlled media, and without the power of physical coercion.
On the international plane the churches also face the most formidable
obstacle of all-namely, United States sponsorship and support
for the National Security State. Thus economic and military aid
flows to the military juntas and the United States protects them
diplomatically, economically and militarily-militarily, of course,
mainly against their own populations via counterinsurgency and
police aid. The United States has actively cooperated in overthrowing
reformers or radicals in democratic systems (Brazil, Chile), but
it has never quite been able to throw its weight towards democracy
and away from subfascist gangsters even when the gangsters have
stood alone with their U.S.-trained militias and weapons against
a unified population, as we witness in Nicaragua at the time of
writing.
Because the National Security State is U.S.-sponsored and
supported and meets U.S. criteria on the fundamentals, there is
another important international consequence: the mass media in
the United States play down and essentially suppress the evidence
of the enormous inhumanities and institutionalized violence of
these U.S. satellites. The trial of a single Soviet dissident,
Anatol Shcharansky, received more newspaper space in 1978 than
the several thousand official murders in Latin America during
the same year, not to speak of the vast number of lesser events
such as tortures and massive dispossession. Information on Latin
American horrors is readily available from church and other sources
eager to tell the ghastly story, but-to put the matter baldly-the
sponsors of class warfare under subfascism are hardly eager to
focus attention on its victims. Just as in the case of warfare
in Vietnam, both killing and ruthless exploitation at a distance
are best done by proxy or through impersonal machinery, with eyes
averted. The Free World establishment wisely chooses to focus
on movements of the "gross national product" of Brazil,
without too much attention to who gets what and how. The Free
World media also concentrate on "terror," defined as
we have seen so as to exclude official violence by definition;
and the media allow the world of subfascism to be viewed largely
through the eyes of the torturers and U.S. officials and businessmen.
U.S. power and interest have put a communications lid on the fate
of the great majority of the population of Latin America under
U.S.-sponsored subfascism. Thus the churches fight a lonely battle
as the last institutional protection of the mass of the population,
with the primary enemy an absentee ownership interest supported
by a super-power. In Latin America it is widely recognized that
the origin and preservation of the National Security State rests
on U.S. support. It is the ultimate Orwellism that this same superpower
is thought in the West to be fighting a noble battle for "human
rights."
*****
Washington
Connection and Third World Fascism