NationStates Jolt Archive

So with the torture bill passing in the senate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501414) it seems the US is falling further and further away from Democracy. So what is going towards? Fascism.

Not Nazi Germany brand Fascism, the general authoritarianism, corporatism, nationalism, militarism, and anti-liberalism Fascism. Let's look at Laurence W. Britt Fascism checklist. (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2)

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

This speaks for itself. The American flag is getting to the point of being obnoxious.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

Abu Gharab prison? torture bill passing in the senate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501414)? Secret prisons and exporting prisoners to eastern European countries? The torture issue is touted by those who support it as necessary to fight the war on terror.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

Listen to any one of Bush's speeches and this will become clear as day.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

"You're either with us, or against us." [/url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States]Rampant spending on the military, Dick Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton), a company that holds a number of private contracts with the US military, and we have all heard of the connections between Cheney and Halliburton

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

maybe not sexism, but homosexuals are treated like second-class citizens.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, implied threats, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

This one is not currently the case, although it should be noted that the US media consists of a bunch of pansy little girls who cannot form opinions, say anything bad about anyone, or point out that anyone is an idiot.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

This is blatantly obvious.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

Faith-Based initiatives?

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

The Bush administration is proving to be more and more pro big business. The rewritting of the tax code, for instance.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

This hasn't really come up yet, but note that Bush's Big Social Security Fix is to cut benefits

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

Maybe not so much, but an informed public is a dangerous public. It is a common tactic of tolitalitarian regimes to limit higher education.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

Enron connections? Halliburton? Politicians seem to be above the law. Any one remember the incident in which a congressman had his office raided by the police, which uncovered large amounts of evidence of payoffs, but Bush later froze all the evidence taken in the raid?

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

There is very strong evidence that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were tampered with. Electronic voting machines are extremely unreliable, easy to tamper with, and lack a sufficient paper trail. Vote tampering may not have been conducted by the republican party directly, but most likely it was done independently by people in positions of power who support the right.

So while the current US government administration style may not meet every one of these attributes, it's on its way. If you have spent anytime at all studying fascism and compare the tactics fascism uses to the direction of the Bush administration, you'll see the simularities.

Yep, we're sliding into Mussolini land as we speak. Good job on the long, coherant post.

OMG your right. Next year will invade Canada cause we need breathing space.:rolleyes:

OMG your right. Next year will invade Canada cause we need breathing space.:rolleyes:

It's already begun. We are interfering in the Middle East because our corporations need lebensraum.

Now its official: Everyone and their cousin has posted that "Facism" list at least twice.

My own view on the current US Gov't: Oversized, Overpowered, Overindulged, and increasingly beligerent to its citizenry. I wish a revolution could happen, but what with the overabundance of cultures in the US, I hardly suspect anyone could predict the final result of such an endeavor.

It's already begun. We are interfering in the Middle East because our corporations need lebensraum.
You need to find your tinfoil hat my friend.

The legal protections of civil liberties have indeed been highly eroded - but the legal protections have never meant much.

The question is whether the Bush Administration can effectively use its legal power to begin a campaign of serious repression, and that I doubt.

Which is not to say that we should not be concerned, and not be prepared to act should it happen.

Now its official: Everyone and their cousin has posted that "Facism" list at least twice.

No kidding.

You need to find your tinfoil hat my friend.

Tin foil hats are so passe. Besides, I think you need to cut down on the goose stepping and book burning, it ruins your joints and fills your lungs with smoke.

Now its official: Everyone and their cousin has posted that "Facism" list at least twice.

That may be, but this has to be said. Eveyrone seems content with letting this happen. People should be more aware of what their government is turning into.

That may be, but this has to be said. Eveyrone seems content with letting this happen. People should be more aware of what their government is turning into.

It seems we're completely aware of what is going on. That's the problem. We're spending our time being more aware instead of spending time on actually solving the problem. We're completely impressed by what we're looking at but we'd rather not participate.

It seems we're completely aware of what is going on. That's the problem. We're spending our time being more aware instead of spending time on actually solving the problem. We're completely impressed by what we're looking at but we'd rather not participate.

Is "impressed" the right word, there? I tought it was more like "terrified".

Is "impressed" the right word, there? I tought it was more like "terrified".

Depends on who you are, I suppose. I get the feeling impressed is the most common. This sort of, "Wow, that's completely terrible. What's on tv tonight?"

So, how do you change things?

In a country where the majority of the govenrment system is designed to support encumbency and continues to be shaped to support that 'ideal', where a long line of Presidents has been expanding the ill defined powers of their Office until they over-bear all checks and balances, where there are only two parties and they are so desperate for the popular vote they follow the latest fad blindly (strong on the war against terror) regardless of the rights and wrongs, where the government disengages from external diplomacy, where it abandons its own people to disaster, disease and death, where it passes laws to allow it to circumvent many of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, where the gap between the rich and poor continues to widen, where dissent is termed disloyalty and fellow citizens post the details of where your kids go to school on internet hate sites if you try and point this out...

What do you intend to do to change things?

<snip>

What do you intend to do to change things?

Unfortionatly as a Canadian citizen I can only critisize :(

so what’s changed?

The thing I’m thinking is does this prove that the current system of one hyper power prove too unstable and will a civil war actually break out I wouldn’t think so unless the government tries to get rid of guns

where dissent is termed disloyalty and fellow citizens post the details of where your kids go to school on internet hate sites if you try and point this out...

:eek: does that really happen?

I think that in November we will see what direction America will end up in. If on election day voters choose to keep the status quo then I think we will know that there is no hope for people to see how distressing things are becoming right in front of them and they are blind to it.

I want to have more faith in people though. Democrats taking both houses would be great and anything to make Bush's horrid policies tough to get through would be a benefit for this country.

I want to have more faith in people though. Democrats taking both houses would be great and anything to make Bush's horrid policies tough to get through would be a benefit for this country.

I thought both parties were the same…

That may be, but this has to be said. Eveyrone seems content with letting this happen. People should be more aware of what their government is turning into.

Its been said. Do not equate making a "controversial" post with actual civil action. You are far more likely to affect people by throwing a one man rally than you are likely to deeply impact someone on a forum. Discussion has its great merits, but we are here because we consider politics and world relations important. Its not us that need convincing, Its the people who devote more time to their dental health than being involved in civics. They arent here.

The legal protections of civil liberties have indeed been highly eroded - but the legal protections have never meant much.

If I recall correctly, one of the Federalists' arguments against putting a Bill of Rights was that it simply wasn't necessary to write them down, as, if they're written down, you can narrowly interpret or deliberately misinterpret them to actually work to limit the citizen's rights. Case in point: The Second Amendment assaults, and the Geneva Convention "clarifications."


Of course, a problem is the "big government" mental state of some Americans these days, that stems back to the days of the New Deal. Now, I'm not going to say that the New Deal screwed us over, but it definitely changed the minds of Americans in thinking the government was in fact a good thing to keep close and expand. Unfortunately, save a small dip during the Reagan years, that mindset never left Americans.

But yes, this is extremely disturbing. Madison has a good bit to say about this:

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Basically, people are inherently bad, therefore need government to control the madness. However, the government is of men, therefore inherently corrupt at some stage, or prone to it. Therefore, the constant division of power and the checks of those power by, as Madison states, "using ambition to counteract ambition," the path to tyranny is ground to a halt.

However, the change of American mindset in the '30s and '60s towards a larger, more nanny-ish and father-ish government made the government inflate dramatically to where it's overbearing, creating new departments and programmes for everything.

But, when the government tries to do things, it is inefficient, as it's supposed to be. However, the people complain about inefficiency, so they don't lift a finger when the government centralizes power under one department.

Now, the people are so used to apathy, that they probably won't do anything about the constant encroachments everywhere that the government makes. Instead, they'll either sit back and do nothing, or run away.

I thought both parties were the same…

The prosecution of this war on terror is certainly a difference between parties. If Democrats can gain control perhaps our rights that are slipping can be preserved.

Revolt! Revolt, I say, revolt!

*runs around town to rally people to march onto Washington D.C.*

Both parties are equally worthless. If the Democrats attain power they wont roll back the invasions of your civil liberties one bit. they will revel in their new found abilities. In point of fact, they will probably take something else away from you, under the guise of undoing prior injustices.

This speaks for itself. The American flag is getting to the point of being obnoxious.

There is nothing wrong with displaying the love of one's country. Displaying a flag is patriotic -- not nationalistic. It's not our fault the US is the best country in the world, and we should flaunt that fact with pride.

Abu Gharab prison?

That act was not condoned by authorities -- those guilty were punished. That's like saying France has disdain for human rights because of a serial killer who murdered without compunction. It must be state-sponsored to mean anything.

torture bill passing in the senate? Secret prisons and exporting prisoners to eastern European countries?

It is precisely our sense of sanctity of human rights that we do that -- namely, the right to life. We value the life of one innocent civilian over the comfort of a terrorist. Thus, we will take measures to protect innocent civilians at the cost of terroirsts. Fair and definitely conforming with the spirit of human rights.

Listen to any one of Bush's speeches and this will become clear as day.

Yeah, because 9/11 was just a figment of our collective imagination, and there's no one out there who wants to kill us. There's no fundamentalist extremists who are willing to lay down their lives to slaughter as many of us as possible. Please. They are trying to kill us -- it's not a scapegoat, it's the real deal. 3000 people dead isn't something to pass off lightly.

Rampant spending on the military

What, do you want the US to become the next Costa Rica? In case you haven't noticed, there are people out there who really don't like us. We need to protect ourselves.

The Bush administration is proving to be more and more pro big business. The rewritting of the tax code, for instance.

Of course -- it's called the free market for a reason. I don't consider having a powerful economy a sin, and it should not be that way. We have such a high GDP per capita precisely because of our pro-business policies which benefit the consumers. I'm not anti-consumer; thus, I am pro-big-business.

There is very strong evidence that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were tampered with.

Yeah, and there's also "strong" evidence that we never landed on the moon, and there are tons of alien spacecraft at Roswell. Damning evidence, I must say.

This is nonsense. While I don't agree with the new torture bill passed, I am getting sick of people acting like the U.S. is one step away from a "1984" style regime.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

This speaks for itself. The American flag is getting to the point of being obnoxious.

The American flag is everywhere these days and there is much more nationalism present in the U.S than most other western countries, but the U.S. is far from xenophobic.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

Abu Gharab prison? torture bill passing in the senate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501414)? Secret prisons and exporting prisoners to eastern European countries? The torture issue is touted by those who support it as necessary to fight the war on terror.

The torture bill is coming under fire from pretty much every group in the country. Many Republicans are turning on Bush now because of it. The U.S. has done far worse than this before. Remember the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Japanese Internment during WWII? Those were horrible, but were quickly repealed. I don't see any reason to think that this will be different. Remember that the past two elections have shown that there almost exactly as many Democrats as Republicans. The Republicans will not be able to get away with this kind of stuff all the time.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

Listen to any one of Bush's speeches and this will become clear as day.

Bush has never called anyone within the U.S. who has opposed his policies a terrorist. The anti-terror hype that enabled the government to get away with several radical policies is beginning to die down now, since most people now do not believe that Iraq had WMDs or that Saddam Hussein had any links to terrorists or Al Qaeda. As far as scapegoats, the government has never blamed homosexuals or certain religions on the U.S.'s problems.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

"You're either with us, or against us." [/url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States]Rampant spending on the military, Dick Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton), a company that holds a number of private contracts with the US military, and we have all heard of the connections between Cheney and Halliburton

Fascism was always most popular among soldiers and the military, and most Fascist states had very large portions of their populations in the military. This is not the case with the U.S., where the amount of the total population in the military is around most other western countries. Yes, most people say that they support the troops, but many of those people do not support the reasons for the war. In a fascist state, the government would be able to draft and most people would be okay with it. In the U.S., however, a draft would be intolerable even among the majority of the right wing Republicans.

The defense budget is enormous, but the general population is not even close to the level of jingoism and militancy as in real fascist states. The only group that is close to this level are the fringe rednecks, who are very numerous.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

maybe not sexism, but homosexuals are treated like second-class citizens.

Only in small rural towns in the Bible Belt are homosexuals treated like second class citizens, and even then only by a few people. While many of the more religious Americans are cynical of homosexuals, they are not outspoken about it. Jerry Falwell is one of the more prominent figures in the U.S. that hates homosexuals, and he is widely ridiculed for it.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, implied threats, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

This one is not currently the case, although it should be noted that the US media consists of a bunch of pansy little girls who cannot form opinions, say anything bad about anyone, or point out that anyone is an idiot.

While the media usually does not come out and say that Bush is an idiot, they usually imply it through their choice of coverage. For example, most news segments about the war in Iraq focus on the mounting death toll or wondering why Osama bin Laden has not been captured yet.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

This is blatantly obvious.

Yes, this is mostly true. The U.S. has not, however, reached the level of a Fascist regime in this respect. The amount of people that have been imprisoned because of laws like the PATRIOT Act could be counted on one hand. Not exactly thousands of people being imprisoned and mass censoring of everything that references Islam like I would expect if it was truly a fascist state.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

Faith-Based initiatives?

While the actions of the Christian Right are drenched in hypocrisy, I have never heard anyone in the government proclaim that action against the U.S. is an attack on Christianity. While the U.S. is a very pro-Christian nation, it is not against any particular religion. Bush himself has publicly said stated that he respects other religions, such as Judaism and non-Radical Islam, something that a fascist dictator, who has religion as a key component of his regime, would never say.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

The Bush administration is proving to be more and more pro big business. The rewritting of the tax code, for instance.

Yes, this is true, although I believe that much of the reason that wealthy corporations are treated so good by the government is to serve individual interests of the politicians, not help with state problems such as war or control over the population.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

This hasn't really come up yet, but note that Bush's Big Social Security Fix is to cut benefits

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

Maybe not so much, but an informed public is a dangerous public. It is a common tactic of tolitalitarian regimes to limit higher education.

Alright.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

There is no "obsession" with crime and punishment in the U.S. In fact, it is completely the opposite. Most view the law with hatred and often break the law it out of spite. The fear of traitors is also nonexistant.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

Enron connections? Halliburton? Politicians seem to be above the law. Any one remember the incident in which a congressman had his office raided by the police, which uncovered large amounts of evidence of payoffs, but Bush later froze all the evidence taken in the raid?

I'll give you this one, as for some reason most people seem completely unaware of the corruption that is going on.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

There is very strong evidence that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were tampered with. Electronic voting machines are extremely unreliable, easy to tamper with, and lack a sufficient paper trail. Vote tampering may not have been conducted by the republican party directly, but most likely it was done independently by people in positions of power who support the right.

If the U.S. is a fascist regime that tampers with elections, then they are very incompetant at it. A good fascist regime would make sure that there was no question that Bush won the election in 2000. Independent tampering with election results also would not be a characteristic of fascism, since the fascist government would not be in control of the process and might not even know abou it.

So while the current US government administration style may not meet every one of these attributes, it's on its way. If you have spent anytime at all studying fascism and compare the tactics fascism uses to the direction of the Bush administration, you'll see the simularities.

No, I believe that the current administration is just another one of the phases in American History where the leaders push the boundaries a little, in this case because of their desire for international prestige and an overreaction to the threat of terrorism. This spasm is already showing signs of dying down, because most people are becoming increasingly intolerant of Bush and his antics.

:eek: does that really happen?

I am afraid so.

Oddly, it wasn't even about an article on the illegal acts that Bush was carrying out. It was a harmless travel piece.

Fortunately most of the stuff has been taking down or altered.

However, this account fits pretty closely with what I remember from the time...
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/conservative-pundits-reveal-murderous.html

If you are really bored, do a surf of sites like Malkins, Little green footballs, red state, etc.

It can be quite educational :(

I can't keep from thinking... that in past, in dictatorships or soon to be dictatorships....there were those that were aware and opposed to the obvious fortelling signs of the upcoming police state/dictatorship etc.

Now... I have decided that our current administration is going towards that. I see our unfalling support for Israel as a reckoning. It is blatently obvious to me the agenda that is taking precedence is NoT in the best interest of our countrymen. I am aware that it is unforseen in many. So what to do .. what to do..

Ditch the repubs and demos. They are all cut from the same cloth. They take differnet approaches, but all wind up on the same road. Realize these connivers for what they are, the whole lot of them.

Many outside the U.S. have done just so. But yet inside we are cutting our own throats. We are given what we are to choose. Either way we choose on their ballot will suit their agenda.

We need to them all to go to ****, stand up and take charge. Or else we're all going to hell in a hand basket.

-snip-

Look, I really can not stand it when the only real excuse people have to not treat people like human beings or to cut back on our civil liberties is: 9/11. We can not keep using that as an excuse to commit the acts that we do. Eventually it becomes hollow and cheapens that horrid event. There are indeed people out there who hate us and want to cause us harm but that does not mean I want to feel one bit less free to feel one bit more safe. As it is, I feel much more less free and only a little more safe. Frankly, I do not see why people are so afraid of terrorists. Do people actually think they have any real chance of actually dying in an attack? They should be more afraid of being mugged and shot, or being hit by a car then having a terrorist come after them. People need to calm the fuck down and stop letting fear run their lives and stop helping to take away what makes this country so special.

So, how do you change things?

In a country where the majority of the govenrment system is designed to support encumbency and continues to be shaped to support that 'ideal', where a long line of Presidents has been expanding the ill defined powers of their Office until they over-bear all checks and balances, where there are only two parties and they are so desperate for the popular vote they follow the latest fad blindly (strong on the war against terror) regardless of the rights and wrongs, where the government disengages from external diplomacy, where it abandons its own people to disaster, disease and death, where it passes laws to allow it to circumvent many of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, where the gap between the rich and poor continues to widen, where dissent is termed disloyalty and fellow citizens post the details of where your kids go to school on internet hate sites if you try and point this out...

What do you intend to do to change things?

That's also the problem. Realistically, nothing can be done until people begin to come together in a rational manner and in a way which doesn't seperate along party lines. Though, taking a look on Nationstates, we're so completely seperated on thought from taking points handed to us by Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken, that it is becoming harder than ever for a majority to say, "This is wrong, this must be stopped." For the most part, I don't see people all that loyal to Bush himself but people loyal to the Republican party.


I don't even know if I'm making sense. I'm trying to speak about things that I haven't put into words for myself in quite a long time.

That's also the problem. Realistically, nothing can be done until people begin to come together in a rational manner and in a way which doesn't seperate along party lines. Though, taking a look on Nationstates, we're so completely seperated on thought from taking points handed to us by Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken, that it is becoming harder than ever for a majority to say, "This is wrong, this must be stopped." For the most part, I don't see people all that loyal to Bush himself but people loyal to the Republican party.


I don't even know if I'm making sense. I'm trying to speak about things that I haven't put into words for myself in quite a long time.

You make plenty of sense. Its what I said earlier: Id love a revolution but I couldnt possibly predict the outcome, Im overcome by the sad feeling that if the US is ever seperated again, there can be no hope of unity. That the United States is a solid country now, is a modern marvel.

Both parties are equally worthless. If the Democrats attain power they wont roll back the invasions of your civil liberties one bit. they will revel in their new found abilities. In point of fact, they will probably take something else away from you, under the guise of undoing prior injustices.

Democrats take away economic freedom...

And freedom to get high. :(

Does this mean we get those cool fascist uniforms?

All true, except for #8. Mussolini hated religion and Hitler even more. It was only really a feature in Franco's dictatorship.

Even before I had read this thread, I could affirm with total conviction and absolute horror, that the amount of fascist elements in Bush's speeches and policies, and particularly the silent but unbreakable grip that neoconservative policy makers have over the GOP... is decidedly astonishing.

All true, except for #8. Mussolini hated religion and Hitler even more. It was only really a feature in Franco's dictatorship.

In Franco's... in Salazar's, in Dolfuss's regime the list goes on and on....

Mussolini used it too. Knowing the catholic devotion of Italians he utilized faith and religion to 'unite the people'.

We'll have to wait until 1.21.2009 to see whether fascism will come from Shrub.

A list of Reasons why US is sliding in the garbage:

1. Economys ruined/Bush we have negative one point 3 trillion in our treasury. Bush won't tax the rich one rich corperation friend of his paid $1.26 in taxes no typo.

2. All nations hate us/Bush The US is one of the top 5 most hated nations in the world.

3. U.N. presence refused/Bush Bush was the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations removed the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission. He withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law. He refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention. He was the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election.)

4. Our President Is not so Bright President Bushes IQ according to Republicans is 94 according to democrats 72 100 is average and 50 is mentally retarted. John Kerry's IQ was 276. Compare. He was the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view his presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

5. "War" in Iraq/Bush again He was the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. He did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community. He has cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families-in-wartime. In his State of the Union Address, He lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on
our British friends.

So our country is in ruin mostly thanks to President Bush:upyours: "The puppet of fascism. Any thoughts?

John Kerry's IQ was 276.
Where did you get this figure? :confused:

snip


::sigh:: another terror apologist liberal

Get out of denial and realize that Islamic terrorism is very dangerous and VERY REAL. The Bush administration is simply responding to this enemy (yes, not threat, after 9/11 and the prior attacks on U.S. and western targets, Bin Laden and radical Islam became U.S. and westrn enemies in a REAL war) by taking the offensive agains them, instead of sitting back in a liberal fantasy land where we can pretend that these Islamic extremists don't exist and that it's somehow the West's fault when they kill and butcher innocents. Get Real.

::sigh:: another terror apologist liberal

Get out of denial and realize that Islamic terrorism is very dangerous and VERY REAL...[snip]...Get Real.

Got anything fresh to add to the discussion, Greater Valinor?

Does this mean we get those cool fascist uniforms?

I hope so. The SS had some pretty neat stuff. Then again, Hitler committed a huge atrocity.

I mean, really, Hitler was an idiot. What was he thinking? The Sturmabteilung really wasn't very well dressed. The Braunhemd wasn't really...you know, an "I am power" thing. The Schutzstaffel, though... that was some good stuff.

We'll have to wait until 1.21.2009 to see whether fascism will come from Shrub.

I can see Dick having him taken out a couple of days before the election and then and declaring a state of federal emergency, and then invoke Amendment XXV.

Got anything fresh to add to the discussion, Greater Valinor?

Didn't really read anything other than the first post. The apologetic attitude towards murdering terrorists that kill in the name of G-d is despicable. How easy it is to act as if 9/11, 7/7, Spain bombings and the various other attacks on the west by Islamic extremists are more like fantasy than reality and that the west should submit to the will of radical Islam.


But we can always go back and see what the Torah says about the sons of Ishmael...


"An angel of Hashem (G-d) said to her [Hagar (Abrahams concubine and wife's servant as well as mother of Ishmael)], 'I will greatly increase your offspring, and they will not be counted for abundance.' And an angel of Hashem said to her, "Behold, you wil concieve, and give birth to a son; you shall name him Ishamel, for Hashem has heard your prayer. And he shall be a wild man: his hand against everyone, and everone's hand against him; and over all his brothers shall he dwell." Bereshit (Genesis) Lech Lecha 16:10-12

As I've said before. I call a really, really super big bullshit on that "fascism checklist." A more fitting name for it would be; "checklist of propaganda criteria for use in attacking and discrediting people and views disagreeable to the extremist neo-left."

It deceptively attempts to mix real criteria with the legitimate views, opinions and actions of which they disagree. All construed in a way which subtly leads to their preconceived, pre-planned conclusion.

I can see Dick having him taken out a couple of days before the election and then and declaring a state of federal emergency, and then invoke Amendment XXV.

I'm sure he'll call it executive order 66.

As I've said before. I call a really, really super big bullshit on that "fascism checklist." A more fitting name for it would be; "checklist of propaganda criteria for use in attacking and discrediting people and views disagreeable to the extremist neo-left."

It deceptively attempts to mix real criteria with the legitimate views, opinions and actions of which they disagree. All construed in a way which subtly leads to their preconceived, pre-planned conclusion.
ur 1 of tehm!

As I've said before. I call a really, really super big bullshit on that "fascism checklist." A more fitting name for it would be; "checklist of propaganda criteria for use in attacking and discrediting people and views disagreeable to the extremist neo-left."

It deceptively attempts to mix real criteria with the legitimate views, opinions and actions of which they disagree. All construed in a way which subtly leads to their preconceived, pre-planned conclusion.
Ok true the list is a well disguised ad hominem against the entire US government, however, it's valid points are still valid, and the US government is still scary. I agree that the list is contived, yet I also agree with it's implication (For valid reasons), so I guess I don't care. Also, what the fuck is the 'extremist neo-left'? You are joking, right? The left hasn't had a serious bout of extremism for half a century.

I refuse to believe that the country is in the worst state it’s ever been in. Look at the Jackson presidency or the Gilded Age.

You guys are fucking stupid, just because theres a republican president doesn't mean it's a fascist government retard. You're ideal of a fascist is anyone who disagrees with your viewpoints. So you better check yourself out before you judge others.

And once again, it is the people who elect representatives to represent the people. You can't ignore half of a nation who elected them, so stop bickering about oooh the republicans are rigging elections and shit. If it's anyone it's democrats! They're starting to find dead people who voted for them.

And let's see here all the people who approves of torture is inhumane AND MUST BE OPPRESSED OR OBLITERATED! THEIR VIEWS CAN'T INTERCEPT MINE!!!!! Okay first of all stop with this constant thinking okay. There are two sides of people. The first side of people think they can run a safe country without resulting a war, the other thinks they can run a safe country by going to war.

Okay heres the thing with torture you guys. Why should you care about people who want to kill you. When they come up and slaughter your family members will you still say " I forgive you and I want you to know I love you " right before you die? Do you really want your tombstone to read " Here lies stupid fuck" Do you honestly care about the people in those camps? Who they choose to keep secrets and be tortured or to tell all they know and save lives. It's their choice, since they know the risks involved theres no harm.

So all you peace lovers, I'll let you on a little secret of reality. If you went to a place called Iran. And say "yeah im all atheist and I hate George Bush" You'll probably be murdered within an hour. Theres no hiding, there is no escape from this foe. What will it take to make you understand this isn't a fucking debate on civil rights this is fucking war. And when nations go to war, we must sacrifice some civil rights in order to obtain peace and safety.

Human civil rights don't exist when you're already dead.

I refuse to believe that the country is in the worst state it’s ever been in. Look at the Jackson presidency or the Gilded Age.

Have you forgotten the pearl harbor conspiracy? He used pearl harbor to enter in WW2 because he didn't want to be aggressive. Fucking cripple piece of shit.

God bless you Truman!

Have you forgotten the pearl harbor conspiracy? He used pearl harbor to enter in WW2 because he didn't want to be aggressive. Fucking cripple piece of shit.

God bless you Truman!
My, you're warped.

You guys are fucking stupid, just because theres a republican president doesn't mean it's a fascist government retard. You're ideal of a fascist is anyone who disagrees with your viewpoints. So you better check yourself out before you judge others.

And once again, it is the people who elect representatives to represent the people. You can't ignore half of a nation who elected them, so stop bickering about oooh the republicans are rigging elections and shit. If it's anyone it's democrats! They're starting to find dead people who voted for them.

And let's see here all the people who approves of torture is inhumane AND MUST BE OPPRESSED OR OBLITERATED! THEIR VIEWS CAN'T INTERCEPT MINE!!!!! Okay first of all stop with this constant thinking okay. There are two sides of people. The first side of people think they can run a safe country without resulting a war, the other thinks they can run a safe country by going to war.

Okay heres the thing with torture you guys. Why should you care about people who want to kill you. When they come up and slaughter your family members will you still say " I forgive you and I want you to know I love you " right before you die? Do you really want your tombstone to read " Here lies stupid fuck" Do you honestly care about the people in those camps? Who they choose to keep secrets and be tortured or to tell all they know and save lives. It's their choice, since they know the risks involved theres no harm.

So all you peace lovers, I'll let you on a little secret of reality. If you went to a place called Iran. And say "yeah im all atheist and I hate George Bush" You'll probably be murdered within an hour. Theres no hiding, there is no escape from this foe. What will it take to make you understand this isn't a fucking debate on civil rights this is fucking war. And when nations go to war, we must sacrifice some civil rights in order to obtain peace and safety.

Human civil rights don't exist when you're already dead.

OK, just a little history about Iran for you. Iran once had a democratically elected government and then the USA decided they didn't like them because they were lefties. So they overthrew the Iranian government and put the Shah in charge. The Shah did all the nice things and made his people unhappy - and then the religous people got rid of him. That's why Iran is the way it is.

I'm sure he'll call it executive order 66.

Someone likes his Star Wars

You guys are fucking stupid, just because theres a republican president doesn't mean it's a fascist government retard. You're ideal of a fascist is anyone who disagrees with your viewpoints. So you better check yourself out before you judge others.

And once again, it is the people who elect representatives to represent the people. You can't ignore half of a nation who elected them, so stop bickering about oooh the republicans are rigging elections and shit. If it's anyone it's democrats! They're starting to find dead people who voted for them.
-Crap about torture and Iran-
Human civil rights don't exist when you're already dead.
You claim it's all in our warped little heads that they MUST have our best interests for passing a law that would allow them to arrest US citizens by claiming they might be "Terrorists" (Or they might just be gay\Liberal\Pinko\Protester)...


Then...
Have you forgotten the pearl harbor conspiracy? He used pearl harbor to enter in WW2 because he didn't want to be aggressive. Fucking cripple piece of shit.
God bless you Truman!
You toss out this pile of crap.

My deduction:

A: You are just a troll, either an independent bored troll or a puppet for a Right Wing NSGer.
or
B: You're an idiot.

There is a nice little group of buttons on your keyboard called Ctrl Alt and Delete.
Press them at the same time to reveal the secret Liberal plot to take over the world.

OK, just a little history about Iran for you. Iran once had a democratically elected government and then the USA decided they didn't like them because they were lefties.
Were they really lefties? I can’t recall. I think the main reason that the Prime Minister was deposed was because of his not hostile attitude towards the Soviets not his actual politics. Could be wrong.

Were they really lefties? I can’t recall. I think the main reason that the Prime Minister was deposed was because of his not hostile attitude towards the Soviets not his actual politics. Could be wrong.

I'll check again ... I think I kinda wrong about that bit. The Soviets got tangled in that mess too.

WIKI

In 1951, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, a nationalist, received the vote required from the parliament to nationalize the British-owned oil industry, in a situation known as the Abadan Crisis. Despite British pressure, including an economic blockade which caused real hardship, the nationalization continued. Mossadegh was briefly removed from power in 1952 but was quickly re-appointed by the shah, due to an overwhelming majority in parliament supporting him, and he, in turn, forced the Shah into a brief exile in August of 1953. A military coup headed by his former minister of the Interior and retired army general Fazlollah Zahedi, with the support of the intelligence services of the British and US governments, finally forced Mossadegh from office on August 19. Mossadegh was arrested and tried for treason by a military tribunal, while Zahedi succeeded him as prime minister.

A list of Reasons why US is sliding in the garbage:

<Bush>

So our country is in ruin mostly thanks to President Bush:upyours: "The puppet of fascism. Any thoughts?

Thank god Bush is one of the the least charasmatic presidents in the history of the U.S. A charasmatic/strong leader is one of the key components of a fascist/totalitarian regime.

So with the torture bill passing in the senate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501414) it seems the US is falling further and further away from Democracy. So what is going towards? Fascism.

Not Nazi Germany brand Fascism, the general authoritarianism, corporatism, nationalism, militarism, and anti-liberalism Fascism. Let's look at Laurence W. Britt Fascism checklist. (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2)


5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

maybe not sexism, but homosexuals are treated like second-class citizens.

There is a definite anti-feminist agenda in conservative politics. Anne Coulter even said that the reason that Abu Ghraib happened was because of women in the military. As though no prisoner abuse had ever happened in the US before Lindie England came along. Pat Robertson refered to feminism as "a plot to lure women away from a life of christianity and motherhood into a life of lesbiansim and communism." I'm not joking. That's what he said. Rush Limbaugh routinely refers to feminists as "feminazis." And just look at all the hatred that was piled on Hillary Clinton as soon as Bill became a public figure. Before anyone knew anything about her everyone was calling her a powerhungery bitch because she had the temerity to be a professional woman (she was still working as a lawyer when Clinton began his presidential bid.)

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, implied threats, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

This one is not currently the case, although it should be noted that the US media consists of a bunch of pansy little girls who cannot form opinions, say anything bad about anyone, or point out that anyone is an idiot.

Then how do you explain a FOX news anchorman becoming the White House press secretary? Or the way that the media hounded Clinton over trivial bullshit when there was zero public interest, but refuse to cover massive public outcry against the Republicans. You'd be astonished at the size and of of the anti-Bush protests in this country. To see them on the news you'd think that it was just the same 5 hippies with a poster.




9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

The Bush administration is proving to be more and more pro big business. The rewritting of the tax code, for instance.

Along with the new bankrupcy laws and the expansion of public domain.


10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

This hasn't really come up yet, but note that Bush's Big Social Security Fix is to cut benefits

The Republicans have been big on this since Nixon's day. Barry Goldwater got into politics to break the unions. Reagan dealt organized labor a crippling blow by firing all the air traffic controlers. Bush has refused to let the airport security workers unionize and suspended the prevailing wage laws for the reconstruction of New Orleans.


11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

Maybe not so much, but an informed public is a dangerous public. It is a common tactic of tolitalitarian regimes to limit higher education.

There is blatant anti-intellectualism in conservative politics these days. Usually the term used to denegrate them is "elitist." Which is retarded because there's no more elite group in this country that conservative politicians and their old-money millionaire base.

It's also what's going on when "cowboys" are championed as the "real" Americans instead of "those stuck up city folk who drink fancy coffee and drive fuel efficient sedans instead of a pick-up truck with a gun rack."


So while the current US government administration style may not meet every one of these attributes, it's on its way. If you have spent anytime at all studying fascism and compare the tactics fascism uses to the direction of the Bush administration, you'll see the simularities.

No, it meets all of them. You just overlooked some stuff.

Thank god Bush is one of the the least charasmatic presidents in the history of the U.S. A charasmatic/strong leader is one of the key components of a fascist/totalitarian regime.

He doesn't have to be Charismatic. The media calls him popular all the time and now people have forgotten that he was horribly unpopular before 9/11 and his popularity steadily declined afterwards. The media keeps touting "big boosts" in his popularity from 35% to 38% or sume such.

If your hypothetical kid came home with a 38 on a test and cheerfully said "hey look! I got 3 points higher on this one than on the last one" how happy would you be with his progress?

OK, just a little history about Iran for you. Iran once had a democratically elected government and then the USA decided they didn't like them because they were lefties. So they overthrew the Iranian government and put the Shah in charge. The Shah did all the nice things and made his people unhappy - and then the religous people got rid of him. That's why Iran is the way it is.

And if that wasn't bad enough. The guy who organized the overthrow was named Kermit.

Someone likes his Star Wars

No I just think Cheney looks WAYY too much like the Emperor to be a concidence.

All true, except for #8. Mussolini hated religion and Hitler even more. It was only really a feature in Franco's dictatorship.

No, they hated the Catholic church because it was a center of power. Fascists don't like centers of power that they can't control. Weak churches dependent on the good graces of the government are fine and dandy according to fascist governments. Including Hitler and Moussolini.

There is very strong evidence that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were tampered with. Electronic voting machines are extremely unreliable, easy to tamper with, and lack a sufficient paper trail. Vote tampering may not have been conducted by the republican party directly, but most likely it was done independently by people in positions of power who support the right.


yeah, hate to break it to you. There is strong evidence that every election in the past 100 years have been tampered with. Such as here in Texas, there was one election, where one candidate had some guys from a local cemetary voting for him, in alphabetical order. The guy still lost...I mean come on, cheating and still losing.

As my government professor John Forshee so eloquently put it "The question isn't if they cheat, but who cheats the best as to who wins the election"

Alot of times candidates aren't aware, alot of times they are, no way in really knowing. I would be up for a complete revamping of the United States government personally. I think a 1 term limit for everyone in every government position would be great, allowing for a greater general diversity type deal. Career politicians breed corruption.

Bul-Katho and Soviestan, your arguments - which is to say, mindless ranting dismissals - are weak and ineffective. Thanks for playing.

The legal protections of civil liberties have indeed been highly eroded - but the legal protections have never meant much.

The question is whether the Bush Administration can effectively use its legal power to begin a campaign of serious repression, and that I doubt.

Mm. And what about the next president? And the next?

The concept of legal precedent may prove very useful to later administrations. Precedents now being set.

::sigh:: another terror apologist liberal

Get out of denial and realize that Islamic terrorism is very dangerous and VERY REAL. The Bush administration is simply responding to this enemy (yes, not threat, after 9/11 and the prior attacks on U.S. and western targets, Bin Laden and radical Islam became U.S. and westrn enemies in a REAL war) by taking the offensive agains them, instead of sitting back in a liberal fantasy land where we can pretend that these Islamic extremists don't exist and that it's somehow the West's fault when they kill and butcher innocents. Get Real.

Yousa people gonna die? Seriously, get some thorazine.

Didn't really read anything other than the first post. The apologetic attitude towards murdering terrorists that kill in the name of G-d is despicable. How easy it is to act as if 9/11, 7/7, Spain bombings and the various other attacks on the west by Islamic extremists are more like fantasy than reality and that the west should submit to the will of radical Islam.

Pretty typical of conservatives. "I don't need to know what it said. I could feel its attitude. I read with my gut. Facts pass through my mighty digestive system and then the truth is sitting there lodged in one of my luminous turds of enlightenment awaiting my flushing of faithfulness. My turds do not lie! Hearken unto my turds!"

Does this mean we get those cool fascist uniforms?

When fascism comes to America it will not be wearing a Swastika. It will be waving the American flag and preaching from the Bible. And wearing a wife-beater shirt and dirty blue-jeans.

Didn't really read anything other than the first post. The apologetic attitude towards murdering terrorists that kill in the name of G-d is despicable.

An apologetic attitude that exists mostly in your mind.

You seem to think that criticizing the government equates to apologizing for terrorists. And of course that "liberals" are terrorist apologists. Why stop there? Why not just call "liberals" terrorists? Or, I know, Demons from Hell.

How easy it is to act as if 9/11, 7/7, Spain bombings and the various other attacks on the west by Islamic extremists are more like fantasy than reality and that the west should submit to the will of radical Islam.

The terrorists mostly want to frighten the US and the West into consuming themselves. Like you're trying to do, by hating on your fellow Americans, by hating Islam, by stumbling about like a drunken boxer unaware that his shorts are down and everyone can see how little there is to see.

But we can always go back and see what the Torah says about the sons of Ishmael...


"An angel of Hashem (G-d) said to her [Hagar (Abrahams concubine and wife's servant as well as mother of Ishmael)], 'I will greatly increase your offspring, and they will not be counted for abundance.' And an angel of Hashem said to her, "Behold, you wil concieve, and give birth to a son; you shall name him Ishamel, for Hashem has heard your prayer. And he shall be a wild man: his hand against everyone, and everone's hand against him; and over all his brothers shall he dwell." Bereshit (Genesis) Lech Lecha 16:10-12

Oh good, just what we need - more religious superstitious nonsense. That'll solve everything.

An apologetic attitude that exists mostly in your mind.

You seem to think that criticizing the government equates to apologizing for terrorists. And of course that "liberals" are terrorist apologists. Why stop there? Why not just call "liberals" terrorists? Or, I know, Demons from Hell.



Because there's no groundwork to enable Bush to banish demons from hell to Gitmo without trial.

Got anything fresh to add to the discussion, Greater Valinor?

Well considering he's whining like a cowardly bitch and named himself "Greater Valinor" I suppose that he's adding irony to the discussion.

As I've said before. I call a really, really super big bullshit on that "fascism checklist." A more fitting name for it would be; "checklist of propaganda criteria for use in attacking and discrediting people and views disagreeable to the extremist neo-left."

It deceptively attempts to mix real criteria with the legitimate views, opinions and actions of which they disagree. All construed in a way which subtly leads to their preconceived, pre-planned conclusion.

How are those checklist elements not indicative of Fascism.

You seem to have been pretty badly bullshitted yourself (or is the term Bullshat?) You're falling into the conservative propaganda trap of believing that if you come up with a different term for something, then it's not the same thing.

Government making your boss pay you more money? That's Big Government. :eek:

Government not letting gay people get married? That's defending traditional morality :)

The government might start to improve funding of medicare? That's stealing taxpayer money! :mad:

Government prohibiting the importation of Canadian drugs and treating medical marijuana patients like international drug-cartels? That's Ensuring consumer saftey. :)

Bill Clinton says he left a plan on how to combat terrorism. Condi says that he left "a set of ideas and a list of actionable items." THAT"S A FUCKING PLAN!

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but if something meets all the criteria for a thing and is not missing any of the principle characteristics of a thing then you know what thing it is. You sound like a closeted gay man who likes to argue that just because he has sex with men, that doesn't mean he's gay because he doesn't listen to house music.

[Edit]My mistake. It's not like that at all. The above hypothetical gay man has a rationale for his position. You're just lashing out at a well reasoned argument because it shows you for what you're afraid that you might be. Or for what you haven't come up with an excuse for being yet. At least one criticism of a single point that the checklist made would be nice. Can you give one?

[/LIST]I'm REALLY tired of debunking this, so let's go through it one more time:

Fascism is defined as "a radical political ideology that combines elements of:


corporatism--a political system in which legislative power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups;
authoritarianism--a form of government characterized by strict obedience to the authority of the state, which often maintains and enforces social control through the use of oppressive measures;
nationalism--an ideology that holds that a nation is the fundamental unit for human social life, and takes precedence over any other social and political principles;
militarism--the doctrinal view of a society as being best served (or more efficient) when it is governed or guided by concepts embodied in the culture, doctrine, system, or people of the military;
anti-anarchism--a rejection of the notion that all governments are inherently detrimental to the welfare of the people;
anti-communism--an ideology of opposition to communist organization, government and ideology; and
anti-liberalism--an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value."


All definitions from Wikipedia.

Now, I know it seems like we did this already with the original "Fascism Checklist," but let's go through, one by one, and see if we can identify the existence of these ideologies in America.

First, let us recognize that fascism is an inherently "radical" ideology. Nothing radical has ever gained major support in the United States because of the size of the population and the slow, convoluted bureaucratic processes of the federal government. In today's America, with 300 million well-educated, highly divided people, no radical movement can gain a foothold.

Now, on to the individual ideologies:

Is there corporatism in the federal government? Nope. Corporate groups do have lobbyists in Washington, D.C. to advance their ideas, but those lobbyists have no direct control over the legislative process. Nobody in Congress belongs to the "Coca-Cola Party" or the "Wal-Mart Party," and nobody votes on EVERY issue in a manner that would solely advance the agenda of a single company or industry.

How about authoritarianism? No way. The fact that we're having this discussion in the first place debunks the idea of "strict obedience to the authority of the state," and no oppressive measures have been put in place to maintain "social control." Social control does not exist in the United States--the government does not tell us where to work, what TV shows to watch, where to eat for lunch, etc., etc.

Nationalism? No. Nobody I know or know of thinks that the nation ranks above all else, or that it is "the fundamental unit for human social life." When I want the "fundamental unit of human social life", I go home to my family, and so do the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Militarism? One MIGHT be able to argue this one, but I don't think so. Supporting the military (which is done in abundance in the United States) is different from thinking we should be RULED by the government. And let's not forget that there are plenty of people out there who DON'T support the military.

Anti-anarchism? No. The government does not have an agenda, stated or implicit, of stamping out anti-governmental sentiment. If they did, I'd be languishing in a small cell at Guantanamo Bay right now, and so would most of my political compatriots--I'm a Libertarian, which is, by definition, an anti-governmental, near-anarchistic ideology.

Anti-communism? The PEOPLE mostly feel that way, but the GOVERNMENT doesn't. There are multiple communist political parties in the United States, which operate with no interference from the establishment. No political ideology is outlawed in the United States.

Anti-liberalism? This is the most laughable one of all. America is BUILT on liberalism--without it, we'd never have come to exist as a country. Every President (with the exception of Lincoln, who was forced to suspend basic rights as a matter of national security) holds preserving basic political rights among the most sacred duties of his office. If you think otherwise, keep in mind that nobody has ever gotten elected by saying, "Vote for me and I'll do away with that pesky right-to-trial-by-jury nonsense."

So there we have it--we now know that none (MAYBE one) of the elements of fascism exist in the United States.

Well considering he's whining like a cowardly bitch and named himself "Greater Valinor" I suppose that he's adding irony to the discussion.

Hey now, I named myself Greater Trostia and it has only to do with the size of my main NS. 7.8 billion, baby!

<snip>


Every fascist regime has had characteristics that it didn't share with the others. For example, Mussolini's fascist Italy did not round up jews and put them in camps, bu Hitlers fascism called for it. You should also know that unlike Communism, for example, Fascism has no core set of philosophers or writers who specialized on the subject. When you read fascism you must not automaticly think Nazi Germany policies. The fascism checklist is just a collection of characteristics that each fascist regime had in common with the other. The current direction the US government is taking going down the path of sharing some of these characerstics, more so than others.Like a previous poster has said, fascism in America will not come under swastikas.

::sigh:: another terror apologist liberal

Get out of denial and realize that Islamic terrorism is very dangerous and VERY REAL. The Bush administration is simply responding to this enemy (yes, not threat, after 9/11 and the prior attacks on U.S. and western targets, Bin Laden and radical Islam became U.S. and westrn enemies in a REAL war)

Blah blah... That would be true if you could come up with a way to explain Iraq. There is no explanation. It was the most idiotic war the US has ever gotten into.

Thank god Bush is one of the the least charasmatic presidents in the history of the U.S. A charasmatic/strong leader is one of the key components of a fascist/totalitarian regime.

Not exactly. Many fascists leaders were very unsympathetic to the public appearances and even the 'state press'. Antonio Salazar was textbook.

Not exactly. Many fascists leaders were very unsympathetic to the public appearances and even the 'state press'. Antonio Salazar was textbook.

true, but the charismatic ones last longer...

If you are an American and you don't like the way we're going...I say "Leave!"

Don't let the door hit you on the you know what.

If America is so bad and heading in the "wrong" direction. I ask, why are people from all the world both legal and illegal aliens pouring across into our Great Nation?

Ask the Mexicans and Cubans who make it to our shores and land what they think of America. Ask the Iraqi's who are in America what they think of us.

As for Canada, I can personally care less what the Hell they think. They're barely better then the French and that's not saying to much.

Why don't you Europeans stop your bitching about what America does wrong and look at how f*cked up you countries are.

I will NOT apologize for America's Greatness. I will NOT apologize to the terrorists and their supporters if they don't sleep to well at Gitmo. I will NOT apologize for us Americans sending billions and billions of us dollars across the globe. I will NOT apologize for the Americans seeing how poor the woman of Afghanstan and Iraq were being treated and how they were raped, tortured, and murdered simply for being women, and us Americans finally doing something about it with the help of several other nations, to the rest of you, you have no back bone, no morals, no hope, no common sense, etc...

For all those who cry "Human Rights" where the hell were you at when those women were being beaten, raped, tortured, and murdered. The UN had Saddam Hussein under resolutions for more than a decade and Saddam gave this to you, the UN.......:upyours:

As for the UN, they are a failed organization. I say ship them out to Paris. They have got to go. I'm tired of our hard worked for tax dollars pouring into that corrupt and failure of an organization.

NOTE: To all those who feed off of the constant bickering and whining over America and our policies......I say this to you.....:upyours:

To all those in support and for those who realize how much Good America does for people and nations, I thank you.

I am a firm believer that they're a heck of a lot more good out there then bad. I find it very unfortunate that the little bit of bad is a whole lot louder than the Good. Mock my words, the silent majority is getting closer and closer to awakening and when we do, you the bad best watch out.

Also, for the ones who are getting tired of seeing the American Flag flying high........You damn well better get used to it....For WE aren't going anywheres but Everywheres.

May God Bless America, our Troops, and all of YOU who support America!!

If you are an American and you don't like the way we're going...I say "Leave!"

One can be critical of the U.S. government and still love America.

snip!
Do you realize that you are a caricature?

Do you realize that you are a caricature?

I'm quite sure that's the point. Between his expressed support of a 1984 type society and threads like this I'm absolutely certain he's having us on.

King Bodacius=RealAmerica ?

That explains a lot.

KB, alias RA, alias BRA, please stop with all of the propoganda.

Facism is captailism in decay

so yea have fun amarica

Facism is captailism in decay

Bollocks.

New Domici added some good points to this list. There are a few more I would like to add, too.

So with the torture bill passing in the senate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501414) it seems the US is falling further and further away from Democracy. So what is going towards? Fascism.

Not Nazi Germany brand Fascism, the general authoritarianism, corporatism, nationalism, militarism, and anti-liberalism Fascism. Let's look at Laurence W. Britt Fascism checklist. (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2)

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

This speaks for itself. The American flag is getting to the point of being obnoxious.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

Abu Gharab prison? torture bill passing in the senate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501414)? Secret prisons and exporting prisoners to eastern European countries? The torture issue is touted by those who support it as necessary to fight the war on terror.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

Listen to any one of Bush's speeches and this will become clear as day.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

"You're either with us, or against us." [/url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States]Rampant spending on the military, Dick Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton), a company that holds a number of private contracts with the US military, and we have all heard of the connections between Cheney and Halliburton

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

maybe not sexism, but homosexuals are treated like second-class citizens.
In addition to ND's points, the anti-abortion movement and its aggressive self-politicization fits into this profile very nicely, I think.

Also, just last week my local edition of the Metro printed an article in its business & jobs section about Massachusetts companies going to increasing use of flex time arrangements as part of a trend towards keeping working moms in their jobs. Sounds good, right? Only the spokesperson for a Massachusetts state labor organization was quoted as saying that part of the reason this is important is that:

"The country needs women to have babies."

Nobody asked her why.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, implied threats, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

This one is not currently the case, although it should be noted that the US media consists of a bunch of pansy little girls who cannot form opinions, say anything bad about anyone, or point out that anyone is an idiot.
Actually, it most certainly is the case. The FCC is notorious for using threats to hold up licensing and license renewals as well as multi-million dollar fines for undefined "violations" of vaguely, often unwritten, and frequently changing rules, to intimidate broadcasters into self-censoring the content of their broadcasts. The current trend of prosecutions of journalists for protecting sources, when the rules of their profession require them to do just that, is another intimidation tactic to try to force compliance, or at least scare potential sources away from talking. I mean, hell, if Judith Miller, who is their friend and who didn't even publish the goddamned Plame story, can go to jail over it, well, then, who isn't at risk?

Also, I would point out that both Rupert Murdoch, head of Fox network and publisher of several newspapers with a strong rightwing slant, and the CEO of ClearChannel (can't remember his name) which is one of the biggest owners of radio stations in the country and owns more than half of all performance and concert venues in the US as well as many in other countries, are both active supporters of the neocon, rightwing political movement. Both have donated millions of dollars to rightwing political campaigns. Both have been accused, with good evidence, of giving preferential treatment to rightwing political ads while denying air time to opposition ads. ClearChannel is also notorious for denying performance venues to musicians and other performers who criticize the government. Both of their corporations are known to require political conformity, including donations of money, in their employees and have been accused, again with good evidence, of firing employees for holding non-rightwing political views. Both are the subject of current lawsuits because of such activities.

I think this qualifies both as government mouthpieces.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

This is blatantly obvious.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

Faith-Based initiatives?

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

The Bush administration is proving to be more and more pro big business. The rewritting of the tax code, for instance.
And rolling back industrial pollution laws. And giving away no-bid sweetheart contracts to campaign contributors who give away free golf trips.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

This hasn't really come up yet, but note that Bush's Big Social Security Fix is to cut benefits
What do you think this "comprehensive immigration reform" and "guest worker programs" and "jobs Americans won't do" bullshit is all about? It boils down to nothing more than flooding the job market with desperate people who are willing to work for next to nothing, and the tolerance of massive illegal immigration into the country has had no effect whatsoever except to significantly depress wages across the country. Regardless of what rightwingers claim, every reputable economist in the country acknowledges that real wages have decreased for the majority of middle class and working class Americans and that, in terms of purchasing power, Americans today are poorer than their grandparents were. Apparently, this is the first time this has occurred in our history.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

Maybe not so much, but an informed public is a dangerous public. It is a common tactic of tolitalitarian regimes to limit higher education.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

Enron connections? Halliburton? Politicians seem to be above the law. Any one remember the incident in which a congressman had his office raided by the police, which uncovered large amounts of evidence of payoffs, but Bush later froze all the evidence taken in the raid?

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

There is very strong evidence that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were tampered with. Electronic voting machines are extremely unreliable, easy to tamper with, and lack a sufficient paper trail. Vote tampering may not have been conducted by the republican party directly, but most likely it was done independently by people in positions of power who support the right.

So while the current US government administration style may not meet every one of these attributes, it's on its way. If you have spent anytime at all studying fascism and compare the tactics fascism uses to the direction of the Bush administration, you'll see the simularities.

So, as ND pointed out, the US today scores on every item on the list.

Bollocks.

Fascism has always been capitalisms last line of defence

::sigh:: another terror apologist liberal

Get out of denial and realize that Islamic terrorism is very dangerous and VERY REAL. The Bush administration is simply responding to this enemy (yes, not threat, after 9/11 and the prior attacks on U.S. and western targets, Bin Laden and radical Islam became U.S. and westrn enemies in a REAL war) by taking the offensive agains them, instead of sitting back in a liberal fantasy land where we can pretend that these Islamic extremists don't exist and that it's somehow the West's fault when they kill and butcher innocents. Get Real.

Please see item #3 on the fascism checklist, "Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause."

Didn't really read anything other than the first post. The apologetic attitude towards murdering terrorists that kill in the name of G-d is despicable. How easy it is to act as if 9/11, 7/7, Spain bombings and the various other attacks on the west by Islamic extremists are more like fantasy than reality and that the west should submit to the will of radical Islam.


But we can always go back and see what the Torah says about the sons of Ishmael...


"An angel of Hashem (G-d) said to her [Hagar (Abrahams concubine and wife's servant as well as mother of Ishmael)], 'I will greatly increase your offspring, and they will not be counted for abundance.' And an angel of Hashem said to her, "Behold, you wil concieve, and give birth to a son; you shall name him Ishamel, for Hashem has heard your prayer. And he shall be a wild man: his hand against everyone, and everone's hand against him; and over all his brothers shall he dwell." Bereshit (Genesis) Lech Lecha 16:10-12

Again, please see item #3 on the fascism checklist. (Wow, this thing is handy. :))

Thank you for providing a textbook example of demonization of the enemy/scapegoat and of incendiary propaganda including a fraudulent appeal to religion.

As I've said before. I call a really, really super big bullshit on that "fascism checklist." A more fitting name for it would be; "checklist of propaganda criteria for use in attacking and discrediting people and views disagreeable to the extremist neo-left."

It deceptively attempts to mix real criteria with the legitimate views, opinions and actions of which they disagree. All construed in a way which subtly leads to their preconceived, pre-planned conclusion.

Please see items #3 and #7 on the fascism checklist.

You know, if you guys want to debunk this checklist, you should really try not to exemplify it so completely.

Because there's no groundwork to enable Bush to banish demons from hell to Gitmo without trial.

Isn't that what his new Torture Bill is for?

Fascism has always been capitalisms last line of defence

Capitalism and fascism have nothing in common.

Please see items #3 and #7 on the fascism checklist.

You know, if you guys want to debunk this checklist, you should really try not to exemplify it so completely.

You're asking too much. ;)

You're asking too much. ;)

Gloating is one of my least endearing but favorite hobbies. ;)

Gloating is one of my least endearing but favorite hobbies. ;)

lol

true, but the charismatic ones last longer...

Their durability is corelated to their ability to maintain neutrality, isolationism and avoid creating enemies. Franco, Salazar lasted much longer then Hitler or Dolfuss.

Capitalism and fascism have nothing in common.

do a list of every facist state in the 20th century.

they were all capitalist states that were threatned, or percieved themselves to be threatned, by socialist movements. all of them. and all supported by business classes at the time

i repeat, fascism is capitalisms last line of defence.

Yeah.
I wonder how much a 1 way ticket to Zurich costs these days?

Torture bill ? This thread is your typical Nation states circle jerk .


Read the bill then post the part thats torture ..aside from reading it .


Go ahead READ it and show some ..ANY kind of torture...anything even foot tickling go ahead..

Then go back to your jerking .

Capitalism and fascism have nothing in common.

lol

A list of Reasons why US is sliding in the garbage:

1. Economys ruined/Bush we have negative one point 3 trillion in our treasury. Bush won't tax the rich one rich corperation friend of his paid $1.26 in taxes no typo.

Can't disagree with that.


2. All nations hate us/Bush The US is one of the top 5 most hated nations in the world.

I'm not sure that all nations hate Americans. I don't hate Americans, I don't hate America and I don't even hate George Bush. I do hate many of the things the Bush government is doing. IMO the main reason many people in the world hate the U.S. is:

a. They illegally interfere with/occupy/conquer/blackmail, or to put it simply "fuck with" other independent nations
b. They don't live up to their trade agreements
c. They never admit when they're wrong and desperately try to discredit anyone or any organization that tries to prove it.
d. They think they're better than everyone else.

Anyone looking objectively at the situation probably knows that the average American citizen is generally just as nice as any other person in the world.


3. U.N. presence refused/Bush Bush was the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations removed the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission. He withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law. He refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention. He was the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election.)


Yep, he's a bastard alright. Gotta protect your own no matter how bad they've been.


4. Our President Is not so Bright President Bushes IQ according to Republicans is 94 according to democrats 72 100 is average and 50 is mentally retarted. John Kerry's IQ was 276. Compare. He was the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view his presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.


Right... I can't see how this is possibly true. I've never seen any evidence that Kerry has an IQ of 276 or that Bush was halfway to moron. Show me the evidence.


5. "War" in Iraq/Bush again He was the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. He did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community. He has cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families-in-wartime. In his State of the Union Address, He lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on
our British friends.


Here's the part where things get REALLY dangerous. By attacking Iraq without provocation, Bush has now set a precedent that states:

If a country allegedly has weapons of mass destruction and may attack us, we have the legal right and moral authority to attack them first. Hmmm.... let me see. Which country has tonnes of WMDs and a proven history of attacking countries without provocation.

Basically Bush has given a green light to Iran, North Korea or any other country that feels threatened, to mount a justified pre-emptive nuclear attack on U.S. soil. That is freak'n terrifying.

Bottom line. American citizens shouldn't be blamed for the mistakes of their leaders... except that they voted them in. So why do good middle and lower-class people in the U.S. work hard, pay too many taxes (compared to the rich) and suffer under a tyranical leader?

Simple. Shit floats to the top. Gold sinks to the bottom.

There is nothing wrong with displaying the love of one's country. Displaying a flag is patriotic -- not nationalistic. It's not our fault the US is the best country in the world, and we should flaunt that fact with pride.

Although I would not us the word flaunt I actually agree with you on this.



Yeah, because 9/11 was just a figment of our collective imagination, and there's no one out there who wants to kill us. There's no fundamentalist extremists who are willing to lay down their lives to slaughter as many of us as possible. Please. They are trying to kill us -- it's not a scapegoat, it's the real deal. 3000 people dead isn't something to pass off lightly.


You seem to pass off very lightly the slaughter of Native Americans.
And I have yet to see you post anything but praise regarding the war in Iraq where our military has killed at least 10 times as many civilians as were killed on 9/11.


Of course -- it's called the free market for a reason. I don't consider having a powerful economy a sin, and it should not be that way. We have such a high GDP per capita precisely because of our pro-business policies which benefit the consumers. I'm not anti-consumer; thus, I am pro-big-business.


I work for a major telecommunications company so I am in no way anti-big business.
But this country needs to reign in the worst abuses of corporate power.
Also corporations are not human beings and should not share the same right that people do.


Yeah, and there's also "strong" evidence that we never landed on the moon, and there are tons of alien spacecraft at Roswell. Damning evidence, I must say.

Before you write off the fact that there was electoral fraud in the last two national elections you should ask yourself a few questions.
1) Why is it that something as important as elections are left to corporations who's bottom lines are to make money not to ensure that elections are free and accurate?

2) Why is it that companies like Diebold and ESS are using software that they will not allow anyone to check for accuracy or bugs that could cause the software to be altered by "hackers"?

3) Why does Diebold insist that it cannot make a voting machine that can produce a paper trail when the company manufactures ATM machines that give a paper reciept with every transaction?
4) Why is it that Diebold uses locks on their voting machines that can be opened with a key that anyone can buy on the Internet?
Don't take my word for it you can read all about it here (http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1064)
The access panel door on a Diebold AccuVote-TS voting machine — the door that protects the memory card that stores the votes, and is the main barrier to the injection of a virus — can be opened with a standard key that is widely available on the Internet.


5) Why are we allowing something as vital as our elections to be handled by a company that makes machines that can be easily hacked to change the votes?
Analysis finds e-voting machines vulnerable
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Most of the electronic voting machines widely adopted since the disputed 2000 presidential election "pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state and local elections," a report out Tuesday concludes.

There are more than 120 security threats to the three most commonly purchased electronic voting systems, the study by the Brennan Center for Justice says. For what it calls the most comprehensive review of its kind, the New York City-based non-partisan think tank convened a task force of election officials, computer scientists and security experts to study e-voting vulnerabilities.
Link to story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-26-e-voting_x.htm)

6)I will ask you one more time... Why are we allowing something as vital as our elections to be handled by a company that makes machines that can be easily hacked to change the votes?
Group identifies new flaws in Diebold evoting machines
The Open Voting Foundation, a California-based nonprofit organization that works to promote the adoption of "open source" technology to the nation's voting machines, has announced it has found what it calls the "worst ever security flow found in Diebold RS voting machines."

Link (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Voring_machine_grup_identifies_new_flaws_0731.html)

The evidence is pretty overwhelming.
The electronic voting machines were designed for one purpose.
To allow easy manipulation of votes in order to steal elections!

do a list of every facist state in the 20th century.

they were all capitalist states that were threatned, or percieved themselves to be threatned, by socialist movements. all of them. and all supported by business classes at the time

i repeat, fascism is capitalisms last line of defence.

They were not capitalist by any stretch of the imagination.

lol

I "lol," as well, at your lack of knowledge of economics.

Where did you get this figure? :confused: To answer your question it's just a figure probably way too high. My point was he was a whole lot smarter than Bush.

I "lol," as well, at your lack of knowledge of economics.

Spare me...

A common characteristic of fascist dictatorships and dictators such as Salazar, Dolfuss and Mussolini is an uncompromising attack on anti-capitalism and defence of the corporatist state. Now... if you say Fascism and free competitive markets have nothing to do with each other, save for Pinochet... yes you're right. Now saying Capitalism has nothing to do with Fascism is bogus.

Spare me...

A common characteristic of fascist dictatorships and dictators such as Salazar, Dolfuss and Mussolini is an uncompromising attack on anti-capitalism and defence of the corporatist state. Now... if you say Fascism and free competitive markets have nothing to do with each other, save for Pinochet... yes you're right. Now saying Capitalism has nothing to do with Fascism is bogus.

Pinochet was not a fascist. A right-wing tyrant, yes, but not a fascist.

Fascism is the collusion and merger of state and corporate power. Capitalism is the complete separation of the two. Fascists are just as anti-capitalist as they are anti-socialist.

Pinochet was not a fascist. A right-wing tyrant, yes, but not a fascist.Fascism has many different implementations. He is considered a fascist by Chileans.

Fascism is the collusion and merger of state and corporate power. Capitalism is the complete separation of the two. Fascists are just as anti-capitalist as they are anti-socialist.
And... State capitalism is still capitalism.

Wow. That is quite possibly the biggest load of leftie BS I ever heard.

(Note: I am talking about the original post.)

Now its official: Everyone and their cousin has posted that "Facism" list at least twice.

My own view on the current US Gov't: Oversized, Overpowered, Overindulged, and increasingly beligerent to its citizenry. I wish a revolution could happen, but what with the overabundance of cultures in the US, I hardly suspect anyone could predict the final result of such an endeavor.



you want a revolution. wow, thats completely insane. you want to overthrow the most influential body in the world today, amid all the problems we have?


im sure that'll work just great.

you want a revolution. wow, thats completely insane. you want to overthrow the most influential body in the world today, amid all the problems we have?


im sure that'll work just great.

Perhaps he meant a revolution as in The Enlightenment.

Not all revolutions involve politics, you know.
Maybe he only desires a change in governmental philosophy and.or ideology.

How are those checklist elements not indicative of Fascism.

You seem to have been pretty badly bullshitted yourself (or is the term Bullshat?) You're falling into the conservative propaganda trap of believing that if you come up with a different term for something, then it's not the same thing.

Government making your boss pay you more money? That's Big Government. :eek:

Government not letting gay people get married? That's defending traditional morality :)

The government might start to improve funding of medicare? That's stealing taxpayer money! :mad:

Government prohibiting the importation of Canadian drugs and treating medical marijuana patients like international drug-cartels? That's Ensuring consumer saftey. :)

Bill Clinton says he left a plan on how to combat terrorism. Condi says that he left "a set of ideas and a list of actionable items." THAT"S A FUCKING PLAN!

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but if something meets all the criteria for a thing and is not missing any of the principle characteristics of a thing then you know what thing it is. You sound like a closeted gay man who likes to argue that just because he has sex with men, that doesn't mean he's gay because he doesn't listen to house music.

[Edit]My mistake. It's not like that at all. The above hypothetical gay man has a rationale for his position. You're just lashing out at a well reasoned argument because it shows you for what you're afraid that you might be. Or for what you haven't come up with an excuse for being yet. At least one criticism of a single point that the checklist made would be nice. Can you give one?
Whoosh... :rolleyes:


Did you even read any of what I wrote?

As for the rest of the hyperbole well... don't think so.

In addition to ND's points, the anti-abortion movement and its aggressive self-politicization fits into this profile very nicely, I think.

Also, just last week my local edition of the Metro printed an article in its business & jobs section about Massachusetts companies going to increasing use of flex time arrangements as part of a trend towards keeping working moms in their jobs. Sounds good, right? Only the spokesperson for a Massachusetts state labor organization was quoted as saying that part of the reason this is important is that:

"The country needs women to have babies."

Nobody asked her why.
No, no don't even try that bullsh!t!

anti-abortion/pro-life =/= anti-women/anti-feminism
anti-women/anti-feminism =/= anti-abortion/pro-life

As for the second part....??



Actually, it most certainly is the case. The FCC is notorious for using threats to hold up licensing and license renewals as well as multi-million dollar fines for undefined "violations" of vaguely, often unwritten, and frequently changing rules, to intimidate broadcasters into self-censoring the content of their broadcasts. The current trend of prosecutions of journalists for protecting sources, when the rules of their profession require them to do just that, is another intimidation tactic to try to force compliance, or at least scare potential sources away from talking. I mean, hell, if Judith Miller, who is their friend and who didn't even publish the goddamned Plame story, can go to jail over it, well, then, who isn't at risk?
Do you have any proof of this, or that it goes beyond the normal decency crap in a malicious way?

Because it sounds a lot like grasping at straws to me.


Also, I would point out that both Rupert Murdoch, head of Fox network and publisher of several newspapers with a strong rightwing slant, and the CEO of ClearChannel (can't remember his name) which is one of the biggest owners of radio stations in the country and owns more than half of all performance and concert venues in the US as well as many in other countries, are both active supporters of the neocon, rightwing political movement. Both have donated millions of dollars to rightwing political campaigns. Both have been accused, with good evidence, of giving preferential treatment to rightwing political ads while denying air time to opposition ads. ClearChannel is also notorious for denying performance venues to musicians and other performers who criticize the government. Both of their corporations are known to require political conformity, including donations of money, in their employees and have been accused, again with good evidence, of firing employees for holding non-rightwing political views. Both are the subject of current lawsuits because of such activities.

I think this qualifies both as government mouthpieces.
1. No, it doesn't!

2. You're really grasping at straws now.

3. Irrelevant.

Try again.


And rolling back industrial pollution laws. And giving away no-bid sweetheart contracts to campaign contributors who give away free golf trips.
Again, straws anyone?


What do you think this "comprehensive immigration reform" and "guest worker programs" and "jobs Americans won't do" bullshit is all about? It boils down to nothing more than flooding the job market with desperate people who are willing to work for next to nothing, and the tolerance of massive illegal immigration into the country has had no effect whatsoever except to significantly depress wages across the country. Regardless of what rightwingers claim, every reputable economist in the country acknowledges that real wages have decreased for the majority of middle class and working class Americans and that, in terms of purchasing power, Americans today are poorer than their grandparents were. Apparently, this is the first time this has occurred in our history.
I do agree with this this part, but not necessarily as an argument for this topic.

You seem to have forgot about the Dems and people from the left who do the same type of things. Not to mention for votes.. *cough*

Once again, nothing new or exclusive.


So, as ND pointed out, the US today scores on every item on the list.
To bad the list is extremely bias and quite irrelevant.

No, no don't even try that bullsh!t!

anti-abortion/pro-life =/= anti-women/anti-feminism
anti-women/anti-feminism =/= anti-abortion/pro-life

As for the second part....??



Do you have any proof of this, or that it goes beyond the normal decency crap in a malicious way?

Because it sounds a lot like grasping at straws to me.



1. No, it doesn't!

2. You're really grasping at straws now.

3. Irrelevant.

Try again.



Again, straws anyone?



I do agree with this this part, but not necessarily as an argument for this topic.

You seem to have forgot about the Dems and people from the left who do the same type of things. Not to mention for votes.. *cough*

Once again, nothing new or exclusive.



To bad the list is extremely bias and quite irrelevant.

Hm. You did that very well -- just dismissing all my points without actually addressing any of them, like that. You have not shown that anything I have said is untrue. You have not shown how my points are not relevant. Towards the end there, you were even unclear as to what you think my argument is irrelevant to. There's really nothing for me to do with your post. Let me know when you have an actual counter argument to make and I'll be sure to address it.

Please see items #3 and #7 on the fascism checklist.

You know, if you guys want to debunk this checklist, you should really try not to exemplify it so completely.
The irony of this (^) is that he's referring to criteria from a list specifically created to do precisely what he's accusing me and others of... :rolleyes: x 100

I hope I'm not the only one to see this.

The irony of this (^) is that he's referring to criteria from a list specifically created to do precisely what he's accusing me and others of... :rolleyes: x 100

I hope I'm not the only one to see this.

Hey, man, you come up with a liberal checklist and see how many points I fulfill, why don't you?

If the shoe fits, Cinderella...




EDIT: Actually, I am surprised that you did get it.

So with the torture bill passing in the senate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501414) it seems the US is falling further and further away from Democracy. So what is going towards? Fascism.

Not Nazi Germany brand Fascism, the general authoritarianism, corporatism, nationalism, militarism, and anti-liberalism Fascism. Let's look at Laurence W. Britt Fascism checklist. (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2)

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

This speaks for itself. The American flag is getting to the point of being obnoxious.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

Abu Gharab prison? torture bill passing in the senate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501414)? Secret prisons and exporting prisoners to eastern European countries? The torture issue is touted by those who support it as necessary to fight the war on terror.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

Listen to any one of Bush's speeches and this will become clear as day.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

"You're either with us, or against us." [/url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States]Rampant spending on the military, Dick Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton), a company that holds a number of private contracts with the US military, and we have all heard of the connections between Cheney and Halliburton

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

maybe not sexism, but homosexuals are treated like second-class citizens.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, implied threats, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

This one is not currently the case, although it should be noted that the US media consists of a bunch of pansy little girls who cannot form opinions, say anything bad about anyone, or point out that anyone is an idiot.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

This is blatantly obvious.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

Faith-Based initiatives?

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

The Bush administration is proving to be more and more pro big business. The rewritting of the tax code, for instance.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

This hasn't really come up yet, but note that Bush's Big Social Security Fix is to cut benefits

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

Maybe not so much, but an informed public is a dangerous public. It is a common tactic of tolitalitarian regimes to limit higher education.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

Enron connections? Halliburton? Politicians seem to be above the law. Any one remember the incident in which a congressman had his office raided by the police, which uncovered large amounts of evidence of payoffs, but Bush later froze all the evidence taken in the raid?

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

There is very strong evidence that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were tampered with. Electronic voting machines are extremely unreliable, easy to tamper with, and lack a sufficient paper trail. Vote tampering may not have been conducted by the republican party directly, but most likely it was done independently by people in positions of power who support the right.

So while the current US government administration style may not meet every one of these attributes, it's on its way. If you have spent anytime at all studying fascism and compare the tactics fascism uses to the direction of the Bush administration, you'll see the simularities.


I call bull Sh!t!!! You are just a mad whiney, sissy liberal scum bag that wants to make America into a communist haven! :mad: :upyours: commie:sniper: :sniper: :gundge: :gundge:

Fascism has many different implementations. He is considered a fascist by Chileans.

So? Democrats are considered communists by some extreme right-wingers. Does that make it so?

And... State capitalism is still capitalism.

State capitalism is an oxymoron.

I call bull Sh!t!!! You are just a mad whiney, sissy liberal scum bag that wants to make America into a communist haven! :mad: :upyours: commie:sniper: :sniper: :gundge: :gundge:

I am *so* adding that to my sig.

Btw, whose puppet are you?

I am *so* adding that to my sig.

Btw, whose puppet are you?


whats a puppet?

He means that we think Neocon Pride is a fake account being used to parody the right. A puppet nation and puppet account.

He means that we think Neocon Pride is a fake account being used to parody the right. A puppet nation and puppet account.

Then trolling and flamebaiting.

Thank you for the nicely written post. It is refreshing to see a well written and interesting post which is not an advertisement for one party or demonisation of another. Some good points too. This is a debate forum though so Id better give that a try.




So with the torture bill passing in the senate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501414) it seems the US is falling further and further away from Democracy. So what is going towards? Fascism.

Not Nazi Germany brand Fascism, the general authoritarianism, corporatism, nationalism, militarism, and anti-liberalism Fascism. Let's look at Laurence W. Britt Fascism checklist. (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2)

The US may very well be headed towards fascism but only until the next Presidential election. One of the most notable things about all of your historical examples (and Britts) is that fascist regimes only last as long as a single popular dictator. One compelling man who unifies a country. Bushes speeches are not the most compelling things and he is hardly popular. Another notable point in each of the examples is that their respective dictators managed to take their economies out of the red and into the black. We werent in the red at the start of this but may be heading that way the way we are spending.

Since youve compared the US to Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy we've already jumped onboard the WWII train to draw comparisons so I believe I wont be too far out of bounds by comparing todays USof A to the US of A during WWII point by point to see if we are more or less down the road to being fascist than we were at that time. If we were more fascist then and did not go all the way down the path perhaps there is hope.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

This speaks for itself. The American flag is getting to the point of being obnoxious.

The flag is much less prevalent now than 5 years ago and certainly less than during WWII. In WWII we gathered up most Japanese American citizens and put them in detention camps. Today we gather some muslims (mostly not citizens) and put them in detention camps. We had cartoons made for children to promote hatred of Germans and Japanese during WWII.

Thisone ges to WWII US being more fascist.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.


Abu Gharab prison? torture bill passing in the senate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501414)? Secret prisons and exporting prisoners to eastern European countries? The torture issue is touted by those who support it as necessary to fight the war on terror.

We are just now learning about a torture and interrogation center in the US to interrogate captured Germans. We brought prisoners of interest here for special treatment and made all involved take an oath of secrecy. We even managed to torture our first real idea about German Cryptography machines out of one German there. During WWII we had a propaganda of "loose lips sink ships" and one of openly demonising the Japanese in every form of media. This one WWII


3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

Listen to any one of Bush's speeches and this will become clear as day.

WWII featured the sneak attack of the terrorist Japanese and the Day that will live in Infamy.The US was never so unified under a common cause and against a common enemy as in WWII. Shortages of various things like gasoline and rubber were faked in order to keep the population working for victory. Id say that more state sponsored spontaneous acts appear today however so Ill call this one a draw.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

"You're either with us, or against us." [/url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States]Rampant spending on the military, Dick Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton), a company that holds a number of private contracts with the US military, and we have all heard of the connections between Cheney and Halliburton

WWII wins both military and industrial buildup hands down.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

maybe not sexism, but homosexuals are treated like second-class citizens.

WWII featured less tolerance for homosexuals but much greater tolerance and equality for women in the workforce than ever before. Under the current administration I reckon that the women's rights and equality movements have stagnated while gay rights groups have become more evident (backlash at administration effect?) and the overall view of gay people has become better in that more people accept homosexuality as a norm or better still dont really seperate people primarily in this way. So Id say that current US of A is more fascist primarily due to Rosie the Riveter being a WWII phenom.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, implied threats, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

This one is not currently the case, although it should be noted that the US media consists of a bunch of pansy little girls who cannot form opinions, say anything bad about anyone, or point out that anyone is an idiot.


WWII was a propagandist and news censoris wet dream in the USA. WWII more fascist by a landslide.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

This is blatantly obvious.

WWII USA was more fascist by employment of Japanes detainment camps as well as air raid drills and home defense organisations and propaganda dissemination clubs organised and funded by gummint.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

Faith-Based initiatives?

In WWII the soldiers fought for God and Country against the Godless Japanese and the devil himself (Hitler) Much the same as now and always. Tie between present and WWII

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

The Bush administration is proving to be more and more pro big business. The rewritting of the tax code, for instance.

WWII US of A was more fascist in this one hands down

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

This hasn't really come up yet, but note that Bush's Big Social Security Fix is to cut benefits

WWII destroyed or crippled beyond resurrection a number of Trade Unions and ran roughshod over some bargained agreements in the name of public good and national security. WWII far more fascist.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

Maybe not so much, but an informed public is a dangerous public. It is a common tactic of tolitalitarian regimes to limit higher education.

Many more ivory towers were burnt down in WWII. Especially those which were strongholds of the anti war movement prior to Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor little dissent was tolerated at all.Just incidentally Hitler was a great patron of the arts, far moreso than FDR Bush or indeed most leaders of nations since...dunno...Louis the 14th? The arts seem like ab odd place to draw lines of distinction between fascism and other forms, but meh. WWII more fascist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

WWII saw an increased economy and with it a decreased perception of criminal behavior. Current US of A is more fascist here./B]

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

Enron connections? Halliburton? Politicians seem to be above the law. Any one remember the incident in which a congressman had his office raided by the police, which uncovered large amounts of evidence of payoffs, but Bush later froze all the evidence taken in the raid?

[B]WWII politicians hadno fear of their offices being raided on the first place. As far as outlandish growth rates which seem like cronyism goes here are a few facs from WWII merchant marine fleet.snippets from FACT SHEET ISSUED ON NATIONAL MARITIME DAY, MAY 22, 1945 (http://www.marad.dot.gov/Education/history/facts.html)

Propulsion machinery aggregating more than seven million horsepower was installed in seagoing merchant ships in 1944. This was almost twice the total power of the pre-Pearl Harbor merchant fleet of the United States. Twenty-eight oceangoing cargo ships were the total of construction by the Maritime Commission in 1939. Sixty-four times that many were built in 1943, in addition to more than 100 military vessels and numerous small craft. Strategic control of Allied shipping is vested in the American-British Combined Shipping Adjustment Board, which directs operations from Washington and London. Control of United Nations ocean shipping after VE-day will remain with the United Maritime Authority, composed of representatives of the United States, United Kingdom, Belgium, Greece, Norway, Canada, The Netherlands and Poland. Its authority extends to six months after the fall of Japan. The War Shipping Administration was created by Executive Order in February, 1942. It has complete control over United States ocean shipping for the duration of the war.Thirty-six thousand dwelling units have been built in congested shipbuilding centers by the Maritime Commission, at a cost of $40,000,000. They have been turned over to the control of the National Housing Agency
Two-thirds of the world's merchant fleet now flies the American flag.

WWII US of A was more fascist in this respect.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

There is very strong evidence that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were tampered with. Electronic voting machines are extremely unreliable, easy to tamper with, and lack a sufficient paper trail. Vote tampering may not have been conducted by the republican party directly, but most likely it was done independently by people in positions of power who support the right.

Dunno if there was any or much in the way of charges of impropriety regarding WW!! elections. Since the qappearance of impropriety is almost as bad as election rigging current US is more fascist in this regard.



So while the current US government administration style may not meet every one of these attributes, it's on its way. If you have spent anytime at all studying fascism and compare the tactics fascism uses to the direction of the Bush administration, you'll see the simularities.

As I read the results the current US is far less likely to become a fascist regime than we were at the end of WWII.

They were not capitalist by any stretch of the imagination.

germany, italy and spain were all capitalist economies that the ruling classes felt were under threat and turned to fascist forces to defend their position of power against the 'reds'.

name me one fascist state that was not capitalist before it became fascist

So? Democrats are considered communists by some extreme right-wingers. Does that make it so?



State capitalism is an oxymoron.

For Libertarians and Liberals who have very strong and well defined beliefs on how the capitalist system should work, yes it is oxymoron.

However, for Europeans in countries like Italy, Spain, Germany, Portugal, Austria, etc who saw the rise of Fascism happen first hand and had the chance to document it, have left more than enough evidence to show how the rise of fascism would have been IMPOSSIBLE if it did not have the support of the elite, the aristocracy, the military and also... the major capitalists.

Just because the state was embedded and intertwined with corporations (and vice versa) does not mean it wasn't capitalism. To say otherwise is revisionism. If fascism was not capitalism then there should be a documented history of mass exodus of capitalists and large businesses from these nations during the early 20th century. What history is the absolute contrary. Business was in most cases, booming.

The fascists enjoyed the support of political entrepreneurs, not market entrepreneurs. There is nothing capitalist about fascism, as capitalism means a free-market economy, and fascists don't tolerate "free" anything. They aren't satisfied unless every iota of society is in their iron grip.

name me one fascist state that was not capitalist before it became fascist

Irrelevant. Many of the Eastern European countries during WWII were fascist, and after WWII were Communist. Does that mean fascism is a part of Communism?

The fascists enjoyed the support of political entrepreneurs, not market entrepreneurs. There is nothing capitalist about fascism, as capitalism means a free-market economy, and fascists don't tolerate "free" anything. They aren't satisfied unless every iota of society is in their iron grip.
Thank you for confirming and cementing my point. Capitalism means a free-market economy to you or me. During the rise of the 3rd Reich the same capitalists who might have defended that position earlier did not see the problem with making billions in profits thanks to slave labour. For those capitalists and for the fascist rulers, it was the state giving the capitalists a hand and the capitalists giving the state a hand. The merging of the two that you spoke of earlier. Its simply capitalism in decay, where there are no longer any morals, and rights of workers or humans. Still capitalism.

Irrelevant. Many of the Eastern European countries during WWII were fascist, and after WWII were Communist. Does that mean fascism is a part of Communism?

Fascism is anti-communist. In rhetoric more than practice but nevertheless anti-communist. When we consider the soviet union and china however it is unmistakable that both are equal when it comes to authoritarian rule.

Irrelevant. Many of the Eastern European countries during WWII were fascist, and after WWII were Communist. Does that mean fascism is a part of Communism?

its not irrelvant. every fascist state of the 30's in europe moved to fascism when capital was threatned. and the business classes remained top of the pile. why are you even debating this established fact?

by trying to lump communism and fascism in the same bracket leads me to believe you arent really au fait with what fascism actually is.

by trying to lump communism and fascism in the same bracket

This is actually an extremely common political faux pas of those who are from the libertarian-anarchocapitalist-Hayek-Friedman-right-wing persuasion.

its not irrelvant. every fascist state of the 30's in europe moved to fascism when capital was threatned. and the business classes remained top of the pile. why are you even debating this established fact?

by trying to lump communism and fascism in the same bracket leads me to believe you arent really au fait with what fascism actually is.

I'm suggesting that lumping capitalism and fascism is as ridiculous as lumping communism and fascism together.

I'm suggesting that lumping capitalism and fascism is as ridiculous as lumping communism and fascism together.

I suppose pointing out that Stalin and Hitler didn't exactly get along and hardly alike will change the idea that communism and fascism are the same?

I'm suggesting that lumping capitalism and fascism is as ridiculous as lumping communism and fascism together.

Fascism is simply moderate capitalism gone mad. It is the merging of the interests of property and the interests of the State, often in reaction to popular left-wing movements. Fascism cannot exist without a capitalist economy. Its not lumping the two together, it is merely showing that the two have important similiarities.

Fascism is simply moderate capitalism gone mad. It is the merging of the interests of property and the interests of the State, often in reaction to popular left-wing movements. Fascism cannot exist without a capitalist economy. Its not lumping the two together, it is merely showing that the two have important similiarities.

Bravo. Well said.

He is nobody's man.
He is his own man.
Capitalists are thier own people.

Socialists are weak.
They cower behind slander and lies.
They demonize hard workers, and refuse to acknowledge basic facts.
Their arguements are based off of weak emotions and name calling.
Neocon, may I direct you to jolt's serious discussions thread?
It has a socialism thread that is firing up.

OMG your right. Next year will invade Canada cause we need breathing space.:rolleyes:

NEVER!!!!!1111 *holds up a knife and fork in defence*

He is nobody's man.
He is his own man.
Capitalists are thier own people.

Socialists are weak.
They cower behind slander and lies.
They demonize hard workers, and refuse to acknowledge basic facts.
Their arguements are based off of weak emotions and name calling.
Neocon, may I direct you to jolt's serious discussions thread?
It has a socialism thread that is firing up.
Not that I'm a a socialist or anything, but if anything has been demonised, its definitely socialism in America. The rest of what you said is also flatly false.

Not that I'm a a socialist or anything, but if anything has been demonised, its definitely socialism in America. The rest of what you said is also flatly false.

*spits out soda and laughs*

Wow, this is heating up.

Right... I can't see how this is possibly true. I've never seen any evidence that Kerry has an IQ of 276 or that Bush was halfway to moron. Show me the evidence.

Both technically could be correct. There are as many scales to test IQ as there are humans on this earth. Differing scales and they probably could be correct, although, assuming that data is technically correct, it's very dishonest to use the differing scales.