• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

And just what was it about "Letter of Warning" that you didn't understand?

What I don't undestand is what makes such a "Letter or Warning" different than simply being an impressive-sounding but empty tautology, saying in effect nothing more than "either America will be fascist or it will not".

The word "warning" in her claims served exactly the same purpose the words "maybe", "possibly", "I feel like", etc. serve in psychic cold reading. It makes her "warning" true no matter what happens -- but also makes her claim unfalsifiable and therefore worthless.

If America becomes fascist it's a "hit". If it doesn't, but some of the things she said occur, that too is a "hit" because it proves America is "on the road" (another weasel-word expression) to fascism. If virtually nothing she says in her warning comes true (which is more or less what happened), she just WARNED us against fascism, she didn't say America IS becoming fascist, so it's at least not a miss. Besides, America can always become fascist at some later time, so the warning is still true; and, what's more, surely the only reason America did not become fascist is because her warning alerted people to the danger. So that, too, is a "hit", after all.

In short, the numerous weasel words she used (a "warning", "on the road to", etc.) made her claims totally unfalsifiable tuatology. It was simply psychic cold reading disguised as a political commentary.
 
Your post was 100% free of meaningful content.

Feel free to try again.


Thank You. Since you have a hard time reading, let me throw out an example. I was watching the history channel the last three days (sick in bed) and my favorite comedic shows came on. That would be "The Anti-christ" and "Nostradamus". A bunch of experts come out and fill in the blanks to match what has been predicted. They have a "list". They then fill that "list" with random crap that, when you add it all together, looks like "OMG the anti-christ is coming". Unfortunately, most of the "list" has happened multiple times throughout history in various forms or even identical. That's not too different than this thread.

Try taking each one on the list and assign an overall % toward fascism. I'm assuming Nazi Germany is 100%? Add them all up and divide by 10 to give yourself an avg %. Then we can discuss the % of fascism that we have become, devolving into an even dumber argument. In the meantime, the system in place is reversing the pendelum and we can make a thread on 10 easy steps to Communism which will be equally as brain damaging.
 
Sorry this is a bit off topic, but would sceptic mind adding link and correct text to your sig.
I know you are a nice guy, but please, people will not be that concused by context or correct quoting. They can take it.
 
"The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe."
- attributed to Jean-François Revel
Argument by famous (?) quote is a fallacy. But the first thing to consider is that Europe consists of aproximately 30 nations. Which, all things equal, makes it about 10 times more likely for a European nation than a North American nation to become fascist.

Second, war and its aftermath increases the chance of a fascist revolution. In this regard the US has always benefitted from its geographical isolation, giving it the ability to enter conflicts only on its own terms and allowing it to withdraw if necessary to avoid a political breakdown.

On the other hand, political cooperation within the EU has dramatically reduced the likelyhood of war between its member states to virtually zero. That same cooperation includes legal obligations towards human rights which makes it practically impossible for an EU-member to become fascist.
At the other side of the Atlantic the WTC attacks nudged US politics slightly in the direction of fascism. That would be worrisome, had Al Qaeda been able to lauch more attacks of comparable or greater effect.
 
I'd have to agree -- for like the past 40-50 years. It's not good, and certainly not what our Founding Fathers had in mind.
Actually I would make that the past 80 years, at least. During the 30's US prominents like Ford and Lindbergh were quite taken in by Nazism. And more important, the executive branch of government has gradually increased its power for a long time now.
 
The US handleded their reichdagsfeur* much better than germany.

Well, they do not have street fighting between facist and communists. I have just visited the berlin museum on german history between 1917 and now. The democratic parties were pretty marginaliced.


*My german sucks
 
The US handleded their reichdagsfeur* much better than germany.

Well, they do not have street fighting between facist and communists. I have just visited the berlin museum on german history between 1917 and now. The democratic parties were pretty marginaliced.
Like I pointed out, war and its aftermath can have devasting effects on a country's political stability. The US hasn't gone through anything comparable with what Germany went through during WWI since the American Civil War.
 
Umberto eco said something around they will come with the cross and the flag.

Heard something like "liberty is where jesus is". How does that differ from iranian priests?
 
Argument by famous (?) quote is a fallacy.

I'm using a quote for proper attribution. I think it's a powerful statement not because it's famous, but because it's true.

But the first thing to consider is that Europe consists of aproximately 30 nations. Which, all things equal, makes it about 10 times more likely for a European nation than a North American nation to become fascist.

Except it wasn't one nation which went fascist. Nor was it simply some tiny little nation like Luxembourg.

Second, war and its aftermath increases the chance of a fascist revolution. In this regard the US has always benefitted from its geographical isolation,

That may help explain why the quote is true, but it's irrelevant to whether it's true.

On the other hand, political cooperation within the EU has dramatically reduced the likelyhood of war between its member states to virtually zero.

And at the same time, created more government and less accountability. And while inter-state war is highly unlikely, domestic turmoil is not exactly out of the question. External wars may help set the conditions for domestic turmoil, but it is ultimately domestic turmoil which has the direct impact in allowing the emergence of fascism.

That same cooperation includes legal obligations towards human rights which makes it practically impossible for an EU-member to become fascist.

Legal obligations will mean nothing if the government chooses to ignore them. Which a fascist government would. The real protection against fascism comes from a populace unwilling to tolerate such things, and able to stand up to government. On the latter point in particular, the EU has NOT been beneficial. In fact, our second ammendment provides far more protection from fascism than any EU-based treaty obligations ever could. A disarmed population is an easily controlled population.

At the other side of the Atlantic the WTC attacks nudged US politics slightly in the direction of fascism.

As has already been pointed out, this is essentially meaningless without any sort of scale. You could just as easily say that we've been nudged away from Anarchy. Anarchy is bad, so it's a good thing to move away from it, right?

That would be worrisome, had Al Qaeda been able to lauch more attacks of comparable or greater effect.

I find it strange that what you worry about in regards to the possibility of more Al Qaeda attacks is the effect on our government, rather than the tragedies that such attacks would themselves create.
 
The US has had more fascist tendencies than other western democracies for a long time. Examples include more flagwaving, more authoritarian behaviour by law enforcement officers . . . .

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/35426189.html

Scene 1: Frankfurt, Germany, 1 October 2002, early morning
In the frankfurt police headquarters, the atmosphere is tense. Deputy Police Chief Wolfgang Daschner is losing patience. On the previous day, his officers arrested one Magnus Gäfgen, a 27-year-old law student. Gäfgen is suspected of having kidnapped 11-year-old Jakob von Metzler, son of the banker Friedrich von Metzler.

* * *

Daschner decides to act. He dispatches police inspector Ortwin Ennigkeit to the office in which Gäfgen is being held for interrogation. Ennigkeit’s assignment: to make Gäfgen talk — if necessary by threat of torture. Indeed, Daschner has resolved not only to threaten Gäfgen with pain, but to carry out the threat if his prisoner is not otherwise forthcoming. A doctor has been found to supervise the proceedings.

In the interrogation room, Ennigkeit tells Gäfgen that a “special officer” is on his way. If Gäfgen does not tell Ennigkeit where the boy is, the “special officer” will “make him feel pain that he will not forget.” On Gäfgen’s own account, the formula is still more menacing: the officer “will make you feel pain like you have never felt before.” “Nobody can help you here,” Ennigkeit tells him, according to Gäfgen’s testimony. “We can do whatever we want with you.” On Gäfgen’s account, moreover, Ennigkeit already begins to rough him up: shaking him so violently that his head bangs against the wall and hitting him in the chest hard enough to leave a bruise over his collarbone.

On June 30, 2008, the European Court of Human Rights rejected Gäfgen’s complaint and cleared Germany of the charge of tolerating torture.3 The Court found that the treatment to which Daschner and Ennigkeit subjected Gäfgen did not reach the threshold required to be considered as torture (§69). On the Court’s assessment, it did, however, constitute “inhuman treatment” (§70), which is likewise prohibited by Article 3. Nonetheless, the Court found that German judicial institutions had acted in such a way as to provide Gäfgen sufficient “redress” for the offense suffered and thereby, in effect, to nullify any violation of the Convention. According to the somewhat surreal reasoning of the Court, Gäfgen had been, but was no longer, a victim of “inhuman treatment” (§82). He had “lost” his “victim status.”

The second element of “redress” identified by the Court is equally spurious and equally obviously so: The majority of the court found that Gäfgen had been afforded redress by virtue of the fact that a German court tried and convicted Daschner and Ennigkeit for their acts (§80). In December 2004, the District Court of Frankfurt am Main found Ennigkeit guilty of having “coerced” Gäfgen (i.e., by threat of violence) and Daschner of having incited his subordinate to do so.

But the verdict was purely theoretical: for while the court did indeed find the two men guilty, it refused to apply sanction. Daschner and Ennigkeit were merely “warned” and given “suspended” fines: or, in plainer language, they were not even fined. The European Court of Human Rights gingerly describes this as a “comparatively lenient” sentence (§78).
 
I read of that case but did not get the conclusion.
What I read was mostly making helicopter noises at him to get him to reveal the location of the boy.

It is one of the nasty cases where I start considerating the merrits of torture.
 
Thank You. Since you have a hard time reading, let me throw out an example. I was watching the history channel the last three days (sick in bed) and my favorite comedic shows came on. That would be "The Anti-christ" and "Nostradamus". A bunch of experts come out and fill in the blanks to match what has been predicted. They have a "list". They then fill that "list" with random crap that, when you add it all together, looks like "OMG the anti-christ is coming". Unfortunately, most of the "list" has happened multiple times throughout history in various forms or even identical. That's not too different than this thread.

Try taking each one on the list and assign an overall % toward fascism. I'm assuming Nazi Germany is 100%? Add them all up and divide by 10 to give yourself an avg %. Then we can discuss the % of fascism that we have become, devolving into an even dumber argument. In the meantime, the system in place is reversing the pendelum and we can make a thread on 10 easy steps to Communism which will be equally as brain damaging.

Same problem: nothing but your empty handwaving.

Saying "Oh, I'm sure I could make up a similar list about anything", or "Oh, that has happened before and therefore is of no concern if it happens again" is meaningless.

Why don't you actually try your hand at providing a similar list for a peacetime US President, rather than just asserting that you could do so if you felt like it?
 
Same problem: nothing but your empty handwaving.

Saying "Oh, I'm sure I could make up a similar list about anything", or "Oh, that has happened before and therefore is of no concern if it happens again" is meaningless.

Why don't you actually try your hand at providing a similar list for a peacetime US President, rather than just asserting that you could do so if you felt like it?
Well I have a list of 10 items that proves that America is a communist nation and it has been around a lot longer than Wolfe's. In fact she should be sued for plagiarism

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils in Government/Communism/manifesto.htm
In 1848, Carl Marx, at the age of 30, entered a competition sponsored by the International Socialist Union of Paris, France. His submission was the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto, which won. The rest, as they say, is history.

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. Property tax paid annually prevents the outright ownership of property, because if property can be confiscated for taxes owed, it can never truly be owned. The application of our rents of land (property taxes) are used for public purposes as envisioned by Karl Marx.


A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. The income tax was imposed upon the people briefly after the War Between The Southern States and The dictatorial Federal Government. In 1895, The US Supreme Court abolished it with the words, "The income tax is indeed a direct tax and therefore unconstitutional". The Court understood that, "No capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid,..." Art. 1, Sec. 9, of the US Constitution, means exactly what it says. However, in 1913 there were enough socialist in Congress to again foist the income tax upon the people with the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. The income tax is not designed just to raise taxes, which could be accomplished very easily with a national sales tax. Instead, its goal is to punish achievement, invade privacy, and control the people through fear and intimidation from the most Gestapo-like arm of our government, the I.R.S.


Abolition of all right of inheritance. Our inheritance tax puts all rights of inheritance in jeopardy. Property tax, income tax, and inheritance tax, should be abolished because they are all direct taxes and they all violate our God-given property rights. They could be replaced with indirect taxes like sales tax, tobacco tax, alcohol tax, or gasoline tax. Some advantages of indirect taxes are:

They are indeed Constitutional.
Our privacy would be protected.
Everyone who spends money participates including the super-wealthy, foreign visitors, illegal aliens, drug dealers, and others now in the underground economy.
It is a pay as you go system - no April 15th.
The IRS and all associated collection cost would be eliminated.
Lower production cost will allow business to compete internationally.
Prices would come down more than enough to cover the sales tax increase.
Business would expand creating new jobs.
The money now in off-shore tax-havens would flood back into this country stimulating the economy.
Manufacturing would come back home absent the over-taxation and over-regulation that drove them to foreign countries.


Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Our government does not normally confiscate property of emigrants, however, many laws and regulations have been passed in recent years which allow many government agencies such as the I.R.S., O.S.H.A., E.P.A., B.L.M., and drug enforcement agencies to confiscate property from citizens that are considered rebels. Much of this confiscation is achieved without due process of law.


Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. The Federal Reserve System was created in 1913. It is not federally owned and nothing is in reserve. It is a private corporation with the power to increase or decrease the money supply by changing the interest rates and the reserve requirements of its member banks. It can create money out of thin air, lend it to the government and then collect the principal and interest from the taxpayers. That is why its owners always have and always will promote war and socialism to create inextinguishable government debt.
"Permit me to control the currency of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." -Baron De Rothschild, brainchild of the Federal Reserve Bank.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." -Thomas Jefferson



Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. Communication and transportation are controlled by a number of government agencies, e.g., The Federal Communication Commission (FCC), The Dept. of Transportation (DOT), The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Public Television is also a good example of state control of communication for the indoctrination of the concepts of socialism and humanism.


Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvements of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. Dan Smoot's book, "The Business End of Government" revealed that, the federal government owned 1165 different businesses like AMTRAC. The Bureau of land Management, The Department of Agriculture, The Department of Commerce, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), etc., all promote a common plan of more and more regulation and control from government with less and less freedom enjoyed by the people.


Equal liability of all to labor and the establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Heavy taxation, over-regulation, and other economic problems caused by our government's adoption of socialism has forced women to labor equally with men. Our industrial army is the Social Security System which requires membership at birth.


Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. We are not living under this plank totally. However, we do have many large agriculture corporations who have combined all levels of production from the farm to the consumer. It appears that the goal of this plank is to reduce the number of family farms making it easier to gain control of all food and fiber production. This goal is fast becoming reality.


Free education for all children in public schools.... Communist and socialist have long recognized the value of indoctrination through a free educational system. And, it has produced a people with no understanding of the vast differences between the Free Enterprise System and socialism. During our Bicentennial celebrations (1986), a national poll of school children revealed that 46% of them believed that "From him with the most ability - to him with the most need" was part of our Constitution. Today all socialist, all liberals and most democrats believe the same thing.
 
Is that actually a quote from Cheney?

Did you miss the Cheney interview

I'm sure I miss thousands of interviews every year. I didn't miss that one. I even watched it again via your link. Apparently I was expecting too much when I thought you'd give an honest answer.

Did you miss the part of English class where they explained the correct use of quotation marks?

or can you not add 2 & 2?

I simply asked if that was an actual quote from Cheney. But to answer your question, yes, I can add 2 + 2. And my question was not "do you think Cheney is in favor of letting the president break the law.

But I can look at a quote you attempted to imply was actually said by one person, then look at your answer asking if that was an actual quote. When I add them together I find out that 4 = you're more concerned with pushing an agenda than they are with being honest about it even when it comes to answering a very simple yes or no question.

So you can't figure out this one either?

Oh, I have it (and you) pretty much figured out now.

What? Scooter just had a grudge against pretty blonds? Care to tell us what your version is?

I don't have a version. I can only go by the facts as reported in the news. I never saw anything reported specifying exactly what law was broken. And I never saw anything reported that explained why Fitzpatrick didn't file charges if someone did violate that law.
 
If those policies were all enacted in one President's term then I'd be happy to say that, under than President, the USA moved significantly closer to Communism.
So because they were passed under multiple presidents we are not communist? Do you hold the same view of Wolfe's list? We are either moving towards Communism or Fascism according to those lists. Why is one more accurate than the other?
 
Last edited:
So because they were passed under multiple presidents we are not communist?

You're closer to communism than you would be without those policies, sure. They're just not indicative of a sharp, recent trend if they weren't all passed in one President's time in office recently.

Do you hold the same view of Wolfe's list?

Of course not, I'm not stupid.

We are either moving towards Communism or Fascism according to those lists.

I don't buy into a simple-minded continuum with communism at one end and fascism at the other, nor do I buy in to the idea that the policies in the "communist" list demonstrate a move towards a communist end-point as opposed to a move towards a socialism. So that's a false dichotomy.

Why is one more accurate than the other?

As I said just now, Wolfe makes a list of recent changes made in one President's term. Maybe you want to argue that the USA has been moving towards fascism for years so further changes in that direction are unremarkable, and if so you can try to make that case. Or alternatively if you think that you could make an equally substantial list of moves away from fascism under Bush's watch you could try that.
 
Since the USA has a two-party system, it is ALWAYS either "on the road" to something or other. More precisely:

1). If the Republicans win one election, the country is "on the road" to fascism.
2). If the Republicans win TWO elections in a row, the country is no longer "on the road" to fascism -- it has practically BECOME fascist.
3). If the Democrats win one election, the country is "on the road" to socialism / communism.
4). If the Democrats win TWO elections in a row, the country is no long "on the road" to socialism / communism -- it has practically BECOME a communist state.

It took me over a decade to figure out that the above list summarizes, more or less, 95% of all political commentary written about the American political system.

Shows you what a genius *I* am, I guess.
 
Last edited:
Remember America has been on the cusp of Fascism since the Nixon years. Before that it was on the cusp of Communism. Before that it was in danger of becoming a Monarchy.

With that in mind I predict that the next thing America is in danger of becoming is a cybernetic hive collective ala The Borg.

We'll have to wait for the first cybenetic hive member president to be elected for THAT.

Currently, with a black democratic president, America is only "on the road" to a race war and/or socialism, and "on the road" to total surrender to the Islamist menace.
 
I don't buy into a simple-minded continuum with communism at one end and fascism at the other, nor do I buy in to the idea that the policies in the "communist" list demonstrate a move towards a communist end-point as opposed to a move towards a socialism. So that's a false dichotomy.



.
So you can be a little pregnant then. I see. You left out a piece of the "continuum" that is called Capitalism. Wolfe doesn't even know what fascism is. What she describes in her 10 points is totalitarianism. And in a totalitarian system there are no checks and balances on the head of state and there are NEVER peaceful transfers of power. You also don't know what Communism is. Communism like Fascism is a governing philosophy, socialism is an economic philosophy that can be implemented in most any governmental system just as capitalism can be implemented in Communist China. Bush did everything as president under the same constitutional checks and balances that every president in our history has operated under. He did not rule by decree as Totalitarian regimes do. Wolfe's list just as the one I posted are just hysterical hand waving that have absolutely nothing to do with the reality of how this country functions.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom