Inching or Barrelling Towards Fascism ??

www.oldamericancentury.org...

This is an abbreviated quote; it just got in the essentials, and left out the indicators that this is somehow true. But it's a good thought-piece with which to begin.

1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4.) Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5.) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

So, now, of course, the question becomes : GIVEN this situation, with NO outs apparent, what do we do? All the doors back to representative government appear to be slammed shut. Leave? Go somewhere? Go underground? Organize?

mod edit to fix link

mod edit to use external quote code, please review this link


[edit on 21-7-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

I presume you mean to be pointing that America is becoming a fascist nation? First off, some of those things are not true in America such as disdain for intellectuals. Actually it is the opposite. Every country around the world has the very patriotic (ever seen Russia Soldier?? or the people posting Chinese propaganda on here??). We are very much a secular nation, some politicans use religion to sway a part of the people, but the majority are not swayed by such things and want to remain secular. Our news is not censored, I would like to see some instances that it is. New York Times rings a bell? Not to mention we have access to other news sources, and they seem to be reporting the same things. I know many who do not want to join the military even if it is glamourized because they do not agree with the government. We have domestic problems, but not because we are spending so much on defense, it is because our government is incompetent.

EDIT: I do not know if you meant that for America or not as I said...

[edit on 21-7-2006 by RetinoidReceptor]

Well, it really just depends on how you look at it. We were more fascist (excluding the white men) before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than we are now. If anything we have barrelled toward Socialism since that time. Present day, I believe what you are seeing is mainly circumstantial to the events in the world. However, I do believe an intense effort is underway to bring us back to the Pre Civil Rights days and I don't believe that effort is currently within our government. I don't even think that half of the people who support this particular movement even realize that they are supporting the 'wolf in sheeps clothing' ideology. That's all i'm going to say about that.

Have a nice night!

I'm sorry but that's just partisan dribble. America isn't becoming fascist because of it has somewhat outdated social norms in terms of sexual orientation and gender roles, nor because the nearly universal phenomenon of lip-service patriotism being exploited by politicians (on both sides mind you).


America is become fascist because it has a secret police force, an executive branch which is rapidly growing more powerful at the expense of the legislative branch which is meant to be the voice of the people, and because corporate and state interests are being treated as one in the same.


I'm not saying that America doesn't have a problem to deal with, I'm just saying that it is ridiculous to attempt to equate social conservatism with a broader authoritarian ideology simply on the basis of sociological comparissons between fascist countries in the 1930s (which were not in all sociological regards unlike the rest of the world) and the social agenda of the Republican party in modern America. You must consider common non-fascist causes such as religion, and of course the backlash effect; prosperity brings excess and the end of it brings a feeling of chastisement and a call from fundementalists to take a step backwards. In my mind that explains the parallels beween the 1930s and the 2000s better than an obtuse fascism argument which lacks attribution of cause and effect.

Fact: the 1920s were very prosperous and saw some rebellion against social norms.
Fact: When the boom ended and gave way to war, religious fundementalists were more effectively able to be heard in their message that God will punish excess, and weree aided by the fact that some of the luxury excesses simply could not be afforded.

Fact: the 1990s were very prosperous and saw not only rebellion but political advances for movements that 30 years prior had been considered radical.
Fact: The 2000s brought a faltering of the US economy and a war, and with this the religious right has continued to grow more powerful (though I grant they reared their head substantially as early as the 1996 Republican primaries)

I agree with The Vagabond regarding the Corporate world. However, I do want to stress that I think our government shows signs of more than one particular ideology. As diverse as it is, it would only be natural.

I wouldn't label fighting Israel's wars, natural.

I wouldn't classify a jihad against Islam as natural--that's what medieval people did a thousand years ago. There's NO "Enlightenment" logic in these events. I thought we as a civilization had evolved away from this sort of barbarism.

Israel isn't even Jewish; it's Zionist, and they hate religion. I hear they're targeting and pounding the Christian settlements in Lebanon--only.

www.adnki.com...

What is the point of destroying the world over ideas? Looney tunes?

Hmmm... the US media are not censored?

In McChesney's Rich Media, Poor Democracy the author demonstrates that concentration of the media into a few corporate hands has had dire consequences for the free flow of information - the life blood of a true democracy. The result of, for example, Roger Ailes, being made the head of the Fox News Network, was a purge of all the 'liberals' (a term I detest but I use it in a way the Americans on this board will understand) and an ingrained bias towards the statist and Republican right. The best fictional treatment of this is still to be found in Sidney Lumet's superb Network, which shows the kind of self-censorship so ably elucidated in Chomsky's The Manufacture of Consent.

Matters have got far, far worse since then, of course.

There's always Project Censored as a good first step in finding the stories the Mass Media Don't Want You To Hear. And The Corporation is an excellent (if a bit bum-numbing at around 3 hours) documentary that details an egregious example of corporate censorship in its section on the three people signed as investigative reporters on Fox, whose very first story was spiked because it dealt with Monsanto's use of Bovine Growth Hormone and its effect on cows and their milk.

Originally posted by joshai2334
I wouldn't label fighting Israel's wars, natural.

I wouldn't classify a jihad against Islam as natural--that's what medieval people did a thousand years ago. There's NO "Enlightenment" logic in these events. I thought we as a civilization had evolved away from this sort of barbarism.

#1. We don't generally "fight Israel's wars". We arm them to the teeth, pour money into their country and look the other way no matter what they do because we have decided that there is no promising future for a relationship between our government and those of their neighbors. It's not the US that kicks the crap out of Syria and an average of once ever decade since 1949.

#2. It's not a jihad against Islam. The war on terror can easily be misunderstood as such and may even be one on a semantic level, however since the war on terror is merely for public consumption, not the actual objective (as evidenced by our failure to get Bin Laden, the return of the morality police in Afghanistan, the decision to let al Sadr off the hook, etc), one can hardly argue that our government is making such a illogical move, much less argue that it is a sign of fascism. We're doing what nations do when they either can't or don't feel like working out a better answer to geopolitical problems; we're waging a series of wars to consolidate our grip on the region in question and telling whatever lies we have to tell to get away with it. It's not an entirely good idea, but it's not fascism either. It's definately an abuse of democracy, and there is a slight shade of a peripheral fascist agenda in the way that we've sacrificed state interests (diplomatic relations and international support) for corporate interests (monopolizing contracts in the attacked nations) but there doesn't seem to be a bigger fascist picture.

Zenlover is quite right that we show signs of multiple ideologies.
Overall, we're moving away from liberal democracy and we'll end up with something that's an obvious cousin of fascism but with differences both in means and ends which can't entirely be ignored. This ought to be resisted, but that resistance should not be bogged down in politically motivated agendas such as trying to paint all social conservatism as fascism.

Again, i'm in agreement with The Vagabond. All Social Conservatism should not be labelled as Fascism, just as all Social Liberalism should not be labelled as Socialism. However, there are clear movements on both ends of the spectrum within American Society that can be labelled as Fascism or Socialism.

Here is a link to a good article I read once regarding Fascism. Or at least I think it's a good description of the ideology. Perhaps it may provide more of an understanding about how Conservatism in moderate doses does not equal Fascism.

www.publiceye.org...

Edited to add the friggin link

[edit on 22-7-2006 by zenlover28]

Where do the laws fit into your schema that control the masses by coercion?

Federal deceptions & secrecy, at-will employment, corporate personhood, dual-track citizenship, a Federal Reserve that is neither Federal nor a reserve; fiat (debt) currency--all these tactics have come down to us as leashes, harnesses and strait-jackets on individual liberty and initiatives. They come down as either Conservative or Liberal; but they are massive restraints nonetheless.

Where did "governance by consent of the governed" go, in all of this? Obsolete, because the economy won't run on Freedom, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness--is that it?

Sorry. I see no optimism in either Socialistic controls nor Fascist controls. I want them offa me and offa my kids. I will consent to what I will consent to; and the rest of it is nothing but slavery that is imposed upon me, as if I were chattel--which I am--in the minds of our presumed leaders.

Phooey.

I'm sorry, but I clearly don't understand your post. Could you perhaps take the rhetoric out for me so I can distinguish between fact and fiction? Thanks.

Speaking from principles and legal concepts apparently is no longer stylish. I'm sorry I cannot enlighten you. Perhaps a legal dictionary would be a good place for you to begin.

Maybe you are not aware that since the American Civil War, the legal tide has turned against autonomy of the individual and toward a two-tiered legal society in which the people who merely presume on their citizenship will get penalized every time ... ??

The list of legal concepts I have provided here can all be Googled; but if you don't know about these issues, you are being victimized and penalized and you don't even know it.

Add: "strawman " to the list.

Originally posted by joshai2334
Speaking from principles and legal concepts apparently is no longer stylish.

Ditto for brief rants which lack application to the real world. Zenlover was kind to call it rhetoric. She forgot hollow rhetoric. You need to fill it in for it to mean anything. I'm not saying that none of the bones you have to pick are legitimate, I'm only saying that you have done nothing to show them as legitimate and you are out of line to jump on somebody for not having the same greivances as you and therefore being unable to offer a full response to a series of 2 and 3 word indictments against secrecy, the ability of employers to terminate on a whim, legal classifications of entities, and our economic system, all based on the unsupported statement that there has been no consent. Maybe not your consent. Care to prove that there was no constitutionally substantial consent now, or do you stand by your hollow rhetoric?

The list of legal concepts I have provided here can all be Googled

So can the Flat Earth Society. You don't come to a discussion, make half a point, and then say "hit the books and prove my point for me". It's your contention, you back it up.

Add: "strawman " to the list.

You already did. Perhaps it is you who should hit the books. You are supposed to present an oversimplified version of your opponent's argument to be knocked down. You've done it to your own argument.

Sorry to be the bad guy but hey, you jumped on someone who has proven herself to me in the debate forum and tried to make a fool out of her by virtue of your inability to articulate your own points and I'm not gonna let that stand uncontested.

Come on back now, ya hear. Or will I go unchallenged for a 3rd time?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
#1. We don't generally "fight Israel's wars". We arm them to the teeth, pour money into their country and look the other way no matter what they do because we have decided that there is no promising future for a relationship between our government and those of their neighbors. It's not the US that kicks the crap out of Syria and an average of once ever decade since 1949.

Thing is...

Legally, there's no difference between the person who pulls the trigger and if someone helps them do it. If I go buy a gun, give it to someone, give them money and point at who to kill - I am just as guilty. This is what the United State's does and it turns its hands up as innocent people get mowed down in the wake.

Originally posted by Odium
Thing is...

Legally, there's no difference between the person who pulls the trigger and if someone helps them do it. If I go buy a gun, give it to someone, give them money and point at who to kill - I am just as guilty. This is what the United State's does and it turns its hands up as innocent people get mowed down in the wake.

First I want to point out that now we're talking about legality as opposed to "natural". The initial challenge that we were "fighting Israel's wars" and that it was unnatural does not seem redeemable to me since by whatever means we do not incur the same consequences we would from actually fighting those wars, but instead play a small role consistent with our small national interest in Israel prevailing over our common foes.

As for legality though, you're very close, in fact quite possibly true (although the Pentagon doesn't tell me these things for sure). The catch is primarily one of technicality which basically goes back to the fact that life isn't fair and that where that comes up you just make sure it's not unfair against you.

So the technicality: We run into a false analogy here if we can't prove that the US "pointed at who to kill".

The alternative analogy IF (and I stress IF because it could be either way) the US hasn't ordered a "hit" is that you've got a friend (more accurately your business partner) who has run afoul of several very violent people so you give him a gun and some money and tell him to take care of himself, and you simply choose not to make yourself a party to the actual fight.

It's legal to sell a gun, it's legal to defend yourself, it's legal to give someone money. If your friend decides to preempt and you don't do anything about it the best you've got is obstruction of justice.

That leaves us with the question of whether or not civilian laws do/should have any bearing on the formation of international law.

That gets us into the issue of sovereignty, which might be argued to distinguish individuals from nations since individuals can be argued to be party to the social contract by virtue of exercising the benefits of their citizenship.

So are nations signatory to a social contract of some kind? UN Membership is the best argument there. The UN's laws are exceptionally flawed however. They are not automatically enforced and therefore not equally enforced. What's more they are overseen primarily be a clique of 5 leaders who ascended to power by force after WWII.

This brings us to ideological questions about the authority of corrupt government and the right of the individual to exempt himself from unjust laws.

If the UN is legit, then security council members have a defacto right to break the law by virtue of their veto power over the strongest mechanisms of enforcement and the first scenario (US putting a hit on Israel's enemies) is like any other institutional injustice which everyone gripes about and nobody sees fit to take action against.

If the UN is not legit, then both scenarios represent legally innocent exercises of soveriegn rights.

Anyway, I would like to rework this and think this through better, but I just got some outstanding news and I've got to go celebrate. Suffice it to say that sometimes there really is a cop there when you need one.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by joshai2334
Speaking from principles and legal concepts apparently is no longer stylish.

Ditto for brief rants which lack application to the real world. Zenlover was kind to call it rhetoric. She forgot hollow rhetoric. You need to fill it in for it to mean anything. I'm not saying that none of the bones you have to pick are legitimate,

The list of legal concepts I have provided here can all be Googled

So can the Flat Earth Society. You don't come to a discussion, make half a point, and then say "hit the books and prove my point for me". It's your contention, you back it up.

Add: "strawman " to the list.

Vagabond, I read your comments; and then I came back to talk to you.

Realize, this Forum is where political topics get articulated; legal issues are off-topic here. This is not the place for a course in practical law.

Now, I did provide a shopping list of legal problems that we are not dealing with due to the non-alignment of politics with Law Education. Yes, it is a political problem, that neither we nor our children are being taught the Laws of the land that bear on autonomy and liberty. But the political side of it is a mish-mash right now, with "consent of the governed" having been repudiated by both parties on both sides of the aisle.

What's wrong with providing a shopping list? I thought (here in the political forum) that would be better than no mention at all. Issues that need our attention come screaming at us from all sides. I was just hoping that this little shopping list would give some people a clue, that they are (as I am) ignorant of the Laws that govern our lives, behind our backs.

I wasn't trying to be either trite nor holier-than-thou. I don't know enough about any of these legal doctrines, either, to speak about them intelligently. Maybe we can bring all this back up in the Forum where legal matters are discussed--but that's not here, and I don't know where that is, here at ATS.

Know what I mean?

Originally posted by joshai2334But the political side of it is a mish-mash right now, with "consent of the governed" having been repudiated by both parties on both sides of the aisle.

I share your distrust of both parties but where's your beef. I would in all likelihood laud you copiously for an articulate explanation of what precisely what they've done and precisely the nature of its repugnance to the constitution.

I have come down hard on you, perhaps only because of a misunderstanding because I did indeed read a holier-than-though subtext into your message, and that is a dangerous thing to do in the text medium, so my bad.

Don't assume that I'm only asking you to elaborate so that I may take exception. It seems likely that you could articulate these greivances very well and stimulate a great deal of discussion by so doing and in as much as you did that I would be inclined to encourage you even if I disagreed on certain points.

Do not assume that you are not intelligent enough to speak on these subjects. If anyone was not intelligent enough to speak on these subjects then #1. We would have cause to oppose universal suffrage and #2. PTS would have a membership test. Seeing as we have neither of these things, if you feel inclined to discuss these matters I sincerely encourage you to do so.


Also, I believe that US Politics is an acceptible venue for this discussion since it falls under this topic of the direction taken by the evolution of the US Government. The fact that laws factor in is perfectly OK because laws are both a product of and an influence upon our political process. We must keep in mind that the distinction between legislation and constitution is not universal and that though we do have a unified written constitution (unlike Britain for example which has what some would call "an unwritten constitution of a thousand written parts") we also derive some of the legal precedents which affect our government from times and from nations that did not have such a constitution. For lack of an independent forum for judicial issues, I believe the relevance of your shopping list to the political process in America makes this the correct forum.

I encourage you to elaborate to the extent you are comfortable with on your shopping list, and given a better understanding of where you are coming from you may actually find myself and others in agreement on some points and willing to help substantiate them. I do have a certain tallent for googling, but it would help me if you could elaborate.

Anyway, if I mistook your intentions, my appologies. What say we momentarily forget our lack of education (hell, I'm only a sophmore myself) get in depth anyway. Ametuers built the Ark you know.

[edit on 28-7-2006 by The Vagabond]

Start here : www.thecorporation.com...

Corporate law began changing with "corporate personhood" starting right after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment and the "strawman" concept.

That's where all power is now--IN influence peddlers with deep pockets . Let's do this one-bite-at-a-time, okay?

I'll find good resources for each area of legislation that has vandalized and victimized labor and civil rights -- that is to say, the rights of workers at large and families at large.

Originally posted by joshai2334
Corporate law began changing with "corporate personhood" starting right after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment and the "strawman" concept.

That's where all power is now--IN influence peddlers with deep pockets . Let's do this one-bite-at-a-time, okay?

Come on now, just as with any U.S. Citizen you have the good and the bad....same goes with corporations. They're no different than you and me. They are out to make a buck. But, the one thing that gets me about people is that they are always lumping Corporations into one category...like they are some concerted effort to take over the world. LOL I have my own beef with Corporate America...mainly because of places like Wal-Mart that have taken out the little guy. But, we wanted cheaper goods didn't we? So, welcome to Greed, Inc..... AMERICAN SOCIETY. And, to say Corporations have all the power is not true. Coporations are in constant competition with each other...they are not a concerted effort for power. The customers have all the power...we can shut them down by refusing to buy their goods, but we'd much rather fuss about them than actually stop buying their goods...again...welcome to Greed, Inc.

And you know what, if you think about it really hard and with an open mind...it is the Capitalist system itself that protects the customer....because there is always a competitor ready to make that customer happy.

But, again though I have my beef with them. I think Corporate responsibility is needed, but to say that Corporations have all the power is not really true. If they have power it's because we give it to them.