Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Schneibster]

I don't generally expect Ion to get references. YMMV.

 

[stilicho]

And why should we listen to Naomi Wolf?

From her Wiki biography she doesn't seem to have much credentials... in anything relevant.

ETA: does she even have any authority and knowledge in politics or history to be making such a list?

That list reminds me very much of Scott Peck's list (q.v. The Road Less Travelled guy) that defined an "authoritarian" political structure--something like one person at the top, subdued criticism only allowable, claims of infallibility, stuff like that--and then went on in the book to explain that this was the definition of the Roman Catholic Church.

I know rather a few people who profess to be Roman Catholics and some of them are more "liberal" than I am. Regardless of what they think the "authoritarian" structure entails, they tend to act and react according to their own interests. Perhaps that's modified by their faith but not by much.

That said, there definitely seems to be a more rigid structure in American politics that tends to marginalise opposition. But the fact is that American electors don't vote in droves (as they say they did in Iraq, for example) because they don't actually care who runs the country as long as their better interests are served. Women's and minority rights are guaranteed there in a way that would make a Saudi prince or a Chinese bureaucrat shiver in contempt.

I maintain to this day that most of the criticism leveled against the USA is borne of jealousy that they have been so successful and not because they are innately "fascist" or exclusive. It's the same as I see Scott Peck's partisan Protestantism against the Roman Catholic Church. Success begs, somehow, an unrealistic comparison to Hitler.

 

[gumboot]

Let's gummy? You are not in U.S., you are in New Zealand and you brown nose U.S..

I'm not that big a fan of the US, or France. Actually I like France less, but that's because they attacked us. I don't overly like any large countries, because none of you give a fig for us small countries.

What are you doing in a skeptics forum since for you banning religious display in government places is "...freedom crap!" -in your words-?

Go to a religious forum, preferably in New Zealand.

You're the one who admires a politician for banning religious practises in public, not me.

Personally I despise all religion. But I also think anyone and everyone should be free to practise (or not practise) whatever religion they see fit. In public or private.

The benefit of freedom is you get to protect the things you like. But the responsibility of freedom is protecting the things you don't like. And freedom is defined more by its reponsibilities than its benefits.

-Gumboot

 

[Travis]

Your diversion won't escape you.

Republicans oppose Democrats in Congress so that Democrats can't over ride Bush in retreating U.S. soldiers from Iraq, in covering 6 million of children with government healthcare.

Yeah, that's a little thing called politics. It can be a pain when policies you support aren't adopted but what are you going to do?

There are too many Republicans, and not enough majority of Democrats in Congress in order to over ride Bush.

So you want to what? Abolish the Republicans? Have the Democrats lead some sort of Coup and seize power absolutely?

I may not agree with Republicans but, if elected, they have the right to their offices.

As for you being Democrat, big deal:

Well you stated that I was a right winger. Should I have produced a leather bound issue of The Communist Manifesto instead?

Democrats Kennedy and Johnson started the war in Vietnam, Democrat Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq and is chummy with the weapon industry lobby -whose companies I listed above- and is corrupted.

So your point, if I were to acknowledge all those listed items as mistakes, is that both sides can make mistakes. So what? Are you advocating anarchy now?

By European standards, U.S. Democrats are right wingers like the U.S. Republicans.

I'm for Gay Rights, for universal health care, for protecting the environment, for drug legalization and against religion in government. Are you saying in Europe I'd be a conservative? That is interesting.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

With all due respect...while our opinions on Bush are pretty much the same, if this is the kind of material that you think constitutes a thoughtful or substantive examination of the issues, I'd entirely disagree. And if this constitutes the kind of posts that you would typically make, I can understand why some people would stop taking a serious look at what you say.

I shouldn't have started this thread when I didn't have time to reply to all the issues, so I apologize. But then the topic was started by latent aaaack, I just wanted a more clear discussion and was confused by his poll questions.

I have already said I wasn't aware the author of the reference in my OP was not what I had thought, but let me reiterate that point. This woman was very logical and made coherent arguments in her radio interview. I never posted the citation as some expert in the field and never said I fully supported her views. I merely posted the material as a question for discussion. I have mixed feelings about where this country might be on the continuum of fascist or not fascist.

On the one hand, the public has grown tired of the fear mongering and has begun to speak up. On the other hand there seems to be simply no outrage whatsoever (in the mainstream public) to secret renditions, suspension of habeas corpus, widespread domestic spying, legalized torture, outright refusal by the President to respect Constitutional checks and balances and other government actions which should outrage any person with common sense of democracy. It is similar to the McCarthy era when the general public didn't at first stand up to the outrages of that time.

And that is my reason for the thread.

There is no balance...where is the discussion of the significantly greater freedoms that Americans have than did the Germans under Hitler or the Italians under Mussolini? Where is the point that Hitler and Mussolini had no restrictions on how long they could remain in power, and were thus able to enact long-term policies that would be virtually impossible for an American president to enact?

Groups like the Aryan Nations have been around long before all this recent stuff. But there does seem to be a growing trend of acceptable right wing hate speech in the mainstream broadcast media. The Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report notes a worrisome trend in radical right wing groups. The report states in an an editorial:

Scattered throughout this issue of the Intelligence Report are numerous reminders of how radical-right ideas and personalities continue to make their way from the political margins to the mainstream. Too often, they are aided by self-interested politicians and pundits who ignore well-known evidence of the extremism of those they embrace.

There haven't yet been thugs at the anti-war rallies I've been to, just a lot of filming and photo taking by men in black. I have seen a few of those men in black at the rallies wearing uniforms which were not recognizable other than they were some official government department and they were police of some kind. I talked to one who refused to say which government department he was with. At the time I looked into it and thought they were a new police group out of the Office of Homeland Security. Now I think they could have even been Blackwater or some other private security contractor. It bothered me they refused to say who they were.

And while the "thugs" weren't there, a return to the Nixon era attack on dissent certainly is: Criminalizing dissent : left wing groups put on terrorist watchlist.

And what of the very obvious -- and terribly lame -- attempts to make points in issues such as the "thug caste" thing? She seriously tries to draw a correlation between corporate bodyguards and mercenaries hired to protect industries in Iraq (which are under direct and immediate threat of attack) with Hitler's use of Brownshirts to suppress the populace in Germany...give me a freakin' break!!

While I agree with you in regards to the reference, there is a little more to Blackwater than simply guarding diplomats. Did you see the Bill Moyers' interview with Jeremy Scahill last Friday about the reaches of Blackwater and the ties to radical right wing causes and connections to government officials the owner of the company, Erik Prince, has?

A topic which simply discussed some of the losses of freedoms in the U.S., and some of the repressive/abusive policies that have been instituted under Bush Jr....that, I would have no problem with. But starting a topic by using such a terrible and anti-intellectual example as Wolf...its hardly surprising what peoples' responses are. Those who disagree with you politically will dismiss you entirely -- as they should (I would likewise dismiss entirely the argument of a pro-Bush apologist who used similar arguments to support their beliefs); the only ones who will find merit in it are the people who already agree with you, and who have no problem with distorting or ignoring facts in order to prove they are "right".

I imagine most of the responses wouldn't be that much different had I posted no reference material and my experience is a lot of people post their opinions without ever considering (and usually not even reading) the citations I post anyway. I get tired sometimes of the thread clutter with posts from people who have nothing to say except I'm a radical leftist. It is an anti-intellectual level discussion and a complete waste of time. However, it is the thoughtful replies and discussion such as yours I seek. If only the people with nothing but ad homs to post would just go away it would be nice.

I like ya', skeptigirl; but I cannot really find any redeeming feature in this post.

The reference was not meant to be the focus of the discussion. I was interested in historical parallels, but not necessarily unsubstantiated ones. We are in a different historical time. I imagine some of the parallels might not be that obvious without hindsight.

And with that, I will try to get up to speed in the thread tomorrow, my first whole day off in the last 14.

 

[brodski]

I'm for Gay Rights, for universal health care, for protecting the environment, for drug legalization and against religion in government. Are you saying in Europe I'd be a conservative? That is interesting.

In the UK you could, just about, fit into the Conservative party with those views, it would depend on how you wished to see them implemented as policy and to what degree.

Although "religion in government" isn't really a political issue in the UK (outside of NI).

 

[Elizabeth I]

Nominated for this paragraph:

The benefit of freedom is you get to protect the things you like. But the responsibility of freedom is protecting the things you don't like. And freedom is defined more by its reponsibilities than its benefits.

-Gumboot

 

[Chaos]

In the UK you could, just about, fit into the Conservative party with those views, it would depend on how you wished to see them implemented as policy and to what degree.

Although "religion in government" isn't really a political issue in the UK (outside of NI).

That same position would probably land him in the Green Party (Die Grünen) in Germany, which are considered left-wing.

Weird, isn´t it, how such things differ from country to country?

 

[Dorian Gray]

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law

Compare that list to what Goering said:

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

 

[danielk]

That same position would probably land him in the Green Party (Die Grünen) in Germany, which are considered left-wing.

Weird, isn´t it, how such things differ from country to country?

True, to some extent. I think the example with the Tories is a bit of a stretch, though. I mean, he would still fit in, but I think it would be an unlikely choice of party if these were his main rallying points.

It's true, however, that religion doesn't play much of a political role in many European countries. There are exceptions, though -- like Poland for instance, where catholicism is a matter of national identity to some extent. However, I'm not Polish and thus don't really know how much it matters in daily life.

 

[danielk]

Compare that list to what Goering said:

It should be noted that he said this to a reporter in an interview in his jail cell in Nuremberg. He's trying to pass off his crimes as business as usual. Of course, real-world democracies are unfortunately far from perfect. But when it comes to equating the US with fascism, we aren't going to take Hermann Göring's word on the matter, are we?

 

[Travis]

Growing up, it is a bit weird, as I was always denounced as a Liberal. The guys I went to school with would travel into the city to find a gay bar, lure someone out to their truck, and beat the crap out of him. They were gay-bashers, pure and simple. They wanted me to join them I refused and eventually placed a tip to the cops who ended their "recreation." The Klan used to recruit at my school. We had four bible study clubs but the one attempt at an Atheist club (which I was a part of) got shut down after the school got some threating mail and then an actual bomb threat. The environmental club went well for me until I suggested nuclear power as an alternative to coal and gas power plants they just told me I probably shouldn't return. I didn't return but I still helped another group set a local nature reserve with and interpretive trail through it.

Whether one wants to label me Liberal, Conservative, a Tory or a Green it doesn't really matter to me. Those are just labels. Ultimately I've seen extremists of all types on both sides of these issues and formulated my own opinions, independent of peer pressure, through good old critical thinking.

 

[Ion]

To correct you, once again, before I bow out:

It was not intended to be a democracy...

Tokyo,

when Jefferson draw "We the people..." in the Constitution, the intend was to make U.S. ruled by a government elected from majority's will like in a democracy.

Bush thinks U.S. is a democracy.
He stated that Muslims "...envy our democracy.".

Condi Rice thinks U.S. is a democracy.
A few days ago, in Russia he gave the example of U.S. 'democracy'.

So, Tokyo,

U.S. was intended to be a democracy.

But it is not.

Bush lying in order to get the war in Iraq going, then waring Iraq against the will of the majority of U.S. citizens -and many such examples- show that U.S. failed as a democracy.

 

[Ion]

...YMMV.

YVIG.

 

[Ion]

Ayatollah gummy has spoken:

...
You're the one who admires a politician for banning religious practises in public, not me.
...
-Gumboot

Religious practices and displays in taxpayer's funded public buildings, that's mixing church with state.

Banning this like Chirac (France) did, that's separation of church and state.

Bush the religious doesn't do this with the U.S. Christian Fascist right-wing (see his Faith-based policies), but then he wars Iraq and threatens to war Iran (including their religions) for greedy Capitalism.

By all means take your beliefs out of a skeptics forum, and into a religious forum.

 

[Ion]

...
So your point, if I were to acknowledge all those listed items as mistakes, is that both sides can make mistakes. So what? Are you advocating anarchy now?
...

Like someone said in infidels.org, choosing between U.S. Democrats and Republicans, is like choosing between thiefs and rapists.

Dean and Obama in the Democrat party might change it a little, but Dean got corrupt too, and Obama probably will.

The one Democrat who is not yet corrupt too much is Kucinich.

Outside these two parties, there are the Greens and Nader, and Chomsky.

There should be more choices than two parties corrupt by lobbies of special interests of the few rich.

Albeit, the emergency now is to slam the Republicans though.

 

[Ion]

Too ealry for this:

Nominated for this paragraph:

gumboot
The benefit of freedom is you get to protect the things you like. But the responsibility of freedom is protecting the things you don't like. And freedom is defined more by its reponsibilities than its benefits.

-Gumboot

Pompous grandstanding won't cut.

For example to counter "...But the responsibility of freedom is protecting the things you don't like..." I posted in What's the Iraq War about anyway? that Bush had a censorship book written to become U.S. policy.

For example again, to counter "...And freedom is defined more by its reponsibilities than its benefits...", Bush and the Americans started a war based on lies and lack of responsability.


Freedom is what I fight for.

Not what Bush, gummy, Lizzy do.

 

[Ion]

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law

Compare that list to what Goering said:

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Good analogy 'Dorian'.

There was also the quote by a U.S. General at the beginning of the 20th. century where the concept that war is racket for a few rich while the poor suffer was shown.

 

[dudalb]

Well you stated that I was a right winger. Should I have produced a leather bound issue of The Communist Manifesto instead?

In Ion's world view,Yes.
And I have to echo the comments on the incredible hypocrisy of Ion's eternal badmouthing of America and it's economy,while staying here and reaping the benefits thereof.

By all means take your beliefs out of a skeptics forum, and into a religious forum.

Apparently you did not read Randi's statement that JREF is NOT a organization to promote Atheism. And it is possible to be a skeptic about the Paranormal and still beleive in a supreme being or force of some sort.
You are just as intolerent of other's opinions as the worse Religious Fundy.

 

[Ion]

In Ion's world view,Yes.
And I have to echo the comments on the incredible hypocrisy of Ion's eternal badmouthing of America and it's economy,while staying here and reaping the benefits thereof.
...

Is it hypocrysy duddy?

Or rather courage to fight.

...
Apparently you did not read Randi's statement that JREF is NOT a organization to promote Atheism. And it is possible to be a skeptic about the Paranormal and still beleive in a supreme being or force of some sort.
You are just as intolerent of other's opinions as the worse Religious Fundy.

Is it possible, duddy?

By all means believe in a supreme being after it is proved in a scientific setting (like FREF's challenge) first.

Otherwise you are full of baloney.