We are alot of things. Nazis is not one of them.

[KarenAM]

Yes America has made mistakes. We try not to make them and I think we have made some improvements over the past. I am always amazed at the complete lack of patriotism from some in this country. I know you all love this country as much I do so please don't write back telling me that you do it is a waste of time. Your patriots just not very smart ones. We are not gods but I unlike many people I don't feel shame at being American. I am proud to be one. Most of you can't say the same. Far to many people live here but want no part of America. Most of the most patriotic people I know are immigrants. They know how great is and love it here. I have know more then a few they have served and bled for this country before becoming citizens because they wanted to live the dream.

You don't hurt from 9-11? I never said that but most would do nothing about it. Senator Kerry didn't even seem to take his duty serious when he was on the intelligence committee.

All I meant with this thread is that some of the comparrisons to the President are unfounded. Still most of you continue on with the insults.

The war is not as bad as the media would have us believe. I have talked to soldier after soldier who served in the threater and they often speak of grateful people and progress. These people are adapting slowly, but are moving in the right direction.


I am amazed ever day there are long lines of Iraqi men waiting to apply for a job as a police officer. They do that even after an explosion the day before at the same station. They don't sound committed do they? This country all you have to do is mail in a form to start the process. I don't think anybody ever gets killed during it.

Don't like the President stick to the issues. The insults only make you look pathetic.

Senator Kerry is a man I don't like because of his poor senate career. He is nothing special and frankly I think the Democrats could have done better. I have yet to hear what the Democrats would done on 9-11 in response. All I know is they say they can do better. If they win I hope they can. They won't but I have faith that the country will survive. If it does come to it I will give the same respect to President Kerry as I have given the the current President.

Can some of you say the same?

Once again you are making assumptions, Jagged, and are lacing these with insults for those who disagree with you.

Who defines patriotism? You? You have some special talent you would like to share with us? And how am I not smart? I've given you facts to support my position and you have failed to answer them with your own. Was it not a bad idea to support Saddam in the 1980's? Was it a good idea not to help the Iraqis depose him in 1991? Is the definition of "smart" simply someone who agrees with you?

And what makes you think I'm not proud to be an American? Because I think about political issues? Because I exercise my right to free speech and take my obligation to be an informed citizen seriously? Because I take the time and trouble to try and change things I feel my country has done wrong? If I didn't love this country as much as I do I wouldn't spend my time trying to fix it when it's broken.

And how do you know that only Bush would have done anything about 9-11? I seem to recall that the decision to destroy the Taliban was both bipartisan and supported by nations worldwide. How is it that, as you say, "most would do nothing about it"?

You make a lot of claims, Jagged, but rather than back them up you seem to prefer insults. Then you decry others for insulting you back.

And as to insults. Yes, I insulted you. I note, however, that you started this thread with: "Have listened to the childish and pathetic insults people have thrown at the President" and then you proceeded to stereotype us as "libs" and claim that we have "forgotten" what evil can do and that we sit around drinking Starbucks. Those are insults, Jagged, and if you're going to start a thread with insults, you ought to expect people to insult you back. Everything you said could have been said calmly and without recourse to questioning our patriotism or our intelligence, but you chose not to do so. Instead you called us "pathetic".

The issues? I laid out the total failing of American involvement in Iraq going back nearly a quarter century as to why I opposed the war, and you have responded to none of what I said. Instead you talk about how you and you alone get to define patriotism.

And as to your last point, you would do well to remember that the president works for the American people, not the other way around. It is both my right and patriotic duty to expect him to behave intelligently, and I will continue to do so whether it is Bush or Kerry in the White House.

 

[shereads]

There is no "we."

 

[Pure]

I was reading a book once by a Jewish historian, Katz** who was seeking to compare the holocaust to other exterminations. Both in numbers and % killed. For instance, wasn't about a third of European Jewry killed?

According to him, after examining several possible parallels, only the extermination of the North American Indians was equal or greater in scope. (As is known, some tribes were wiped out, so that no person remained--Beothuks in Canada.)

Well, on the thread topic. Who did this extermination. The North Americans.

Of course there is a problem comparing evils, esp. of different periods. In one period, people are herded into a church and it's burned; in another it might be a gas chamber. Transportation and its efficiency varies. There are a number of 'classical' exterminations that were rather complete, e.g., of Carthage; Ai, in the Bible; some of Genghiz Khan's conquests.

We also have to look at methods, say poison gas versus taking out a city's water supply. In Sher's column, we have a 'high' figure for excess 'dead' in Iraq. 100,000. The lower 'body count' is usually given as 10-20,000.

A common US method is the use of intermediaries, e.g., the secret police in, say El Salvador. Some of these fellows are *really* like Nazi's, though with lesser military power. They are funded by the US, and the police often trained by the US. So here the US is 'merely' funder and trainer of nazi-like groups.

According to the US, one must look at motives, primarily. The US ones are pure; others, like France and Russia, tainted with 'selfish' interests. Hence US killings have a better moral aroma.

Back to Bush. No, not a Hitler. A funder, supporter, and supplier, in the family tradition, of mini Hitlers like Saddam, Osama, and others, yes. (Where did Saddam get his poison gas and anthrax from?).

----
**
Title: The Holocaust in Historical Context: The Holocaust and Mass Death Before the Modern Age (Holocaust in Historical Context) (F)

Author: Steven T. Katz ISBN: 0195072200

Publisher: Oxford University Press Date published: May 1, 1994

 

[shereads]

Pure, you're trying to teach history to someone who thinks Fox News is fair and balanced.

Jagged, I'll tell you what I've told every other Bush fan who thinks only liberal Democrats think their boy is incompetent: My opinions of the Bush presidency are primarily based on books by Republicans who experienced it from the inside and all came away convinced of his incompetence and Cheney's scheming: former secretary of the treasury Paul O'Neill ("The Price of Loyalty"), former White House intelligence advisor Richard Clarke, ("Against All Enemies,") and ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose wife was "outed" as a CIA agent (a crime classified as treason, btw) by a White House source after Wilson publically disputed the president's claim about an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq.

Bush himself had sent Wilson to investigate the evidence and had been told it was not credible. Wilson was astonished when the president clung to this debunked evidence during a press conference; it was clear to him then that the president wanted his war, and would ignore evidence that didn't support it. He was concerned enough that he went to the New York Times with the truth of his investigation. As you are no doubt aware, his wife's career was destroyed and the lives of her informants were endangered. Like anyone who crosses Bush/Cheney, Wilson was punished.

That's the president you defend so vehemently. Everything you know about him, you know from news sources you don't feel threatened by. It's your ignorance, not mine, that puts this country in danger and has cost us our honor. Ignorance keeps you clinging to Bush/Cheney. Ignorance will reelect them.

You're right about one thing: I love my country. Yours is beneath contempt.

 

[Edward Teach]

Maybe this will simplify things a bit:

Bush lies about everything.

He has a "ranch" with no live stock.

He wears cowboy outfits to look macho for photo ops at his "ranch" and has his cabinet members dress in cowboy garb, looking very uncomfortable, to pose for the cameras.

They ride around his "ranch" in golf carts but ask the media not to report it. Have you ever seen them on TV riding anything at his ranch?

Were he on a horse, or in a truck or on a motorcycle or an ATV or even in a fucking convertable like LBJ, anything that looked macho, don't you know that it would be all over the TV.

They ride golf carts and pretend to be cutting timber.

Does that tell you anything about him?



Ed

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

George Bush is not an Adolf Hitler. Not even close. Any such comparison is disgraceful. Bush is just a Republican. That may not be a good thing, in the judgment of many; but it certainly does not make him a Nazi and despot.

 

[shereads]

George Bush is not an Adolf Hitler. Not even close. Any such comparison is disgraceful. Bush is just a Republican. That may not be a good thing, in the judgment of many; but it certainly does not make him a Nazi and despot.

You're absolutely right. Among other things, Bush lacks the ambition and organizational skills to become an effective despot.

I'd like to think he's not a typical Republican, either. But if you say so.

 

[Pure]

speaking of 'nazism', wouldn't it be fair to say something pretty close to it existed in the US deep south, from say 1870-1940?

Note to Joe: you're right; GWB merely has the *powers* of a despot, but has not extensively used them (e.g., for arbitrary imprisonment, no evidence given; to start wars when he chooses). He, and his daddy, of course, recruit, elevate to power, support, supply, and train despots and torturers, but they are indeed a 'cut above.'

 

[Boxlicker101]

speaking of 'nazism', wouldn't it be fair to say something pretty close to it existed in the US deep south, from say 1870-1940?

No, it would not be fair to say that. Although a large number of citizens were deprived of their rights, the governments doing the depriving were made up of elected officials, and the senators and representatives they sent to Washington were also elected by the people, or at least some of the people. The Jim Crow laws of the South were notorious and despicable but other states had certain similar laws, especially regarding co-habitation. The laws have all been repealed or superceded by other laws that have the effect of repealing them.

Note to Joe: you're right; GWB merely has the *powers* of a despot, but has not extensively used them (e.g., for arbitrary imprisonment, no evidence given; to start wars when he chooses). He, and his daddy, of course, recruit, elevate to power, support, supply, and train despots and torturers, but they are indeed a 'cut above.' [/B]

He does not have the powers of a despot. If he did, we would not be going to the polls tomorrow to, hopefully, throw him out of office. He has the powers that other US presidents have held and some more because of the PATRIOT act.

I don't honestly believe that any US president has ever recruited, elevated to power or trained despots although the US has sponsored the training of police officials who have used torture. We have supported and supplied despots, notably Stalin, when it was perceived as being in American interests to do so, as have all major countries throughout history. Usually, these actions were in order to to defeat the efforts of other despots, who were seen as the greater threat. This may not be something to be proud of, and sometimes it may have been a mistake, but it is a fact of history.

 

[Pure]

Box said,

I don't honestly believe that any US president has ever recruited, elevated to power or trained despots although the US has sponsored the training of police officials who have used torture.

OK, suppose the above, second clause, is true.

It's also true that the 'police' in question worked to support the despots in power. Right?

So, according to your fine nuance, the US only *indirectly* supports despots by training their police/torturers. Definitely the US folks are, as I said, a 'cut above'.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box said,

I don't honestly believe that any US president has ever recruited, elevated to power or trained despots although the US has sponsored the training of police officials who have used torture.

OK, suppose the above, second clause, is true.

It's also true that the 'police' in question worked to support the despots in power. Right?

So, according to your fine nuance, the US only *indirectly* supports despots by training their police/torturers. Definitely the US folks are, as I said, a 'cut above'.

I also said the US has supported and supplied despots. This is no secret. The US, like every major country in history, has supported despots when it is seen to be in their best interests. This even includes the monstrous Stalin, who was a US ally in WW2. This is nothing to be proud of but is a fact of life. Better to support OUR asshole who is opposed to THEIR asshole.

 

[Somme]

Oy!.....Pure - you forgot Guantanamo an' Abu Ghraib.

 

[oggbashan]

I also said the US has supported and supplied despots. This is no secret. The US, like every major country in history, has supported despots when it is seen to be in their best interests. This even includes the monstrous Stalin, who was a US ally in WW2. This is nothing to be proud of but is a fact of life. Better to support OUR asshole who is opposed to THEIR asshole.

During WWII Winston Churchill proposed thanks to the Soviet Union for joining the fight against Germany. Some Member of Parliament asked him "What would you say, Winston, if the devil was fighting against Nazism?"

Winston replied: "If he was on our side against Hitler the least I could do would be to make a complimentary remark about his Infernal Highness."

Og

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

During WWII Winston Churchill proposed thanks to the Soviet Union for joining the fight against Germany. Some Member of Parliament asked him "What would you say, Winston, if the devil was fighting against Nazism?"

Winston replied: "If he was on our side against Hitler the least I could do would be to make a complimentary remark about his Infernal Highness."

Og

I must thank him for that some day.

 

[TheEarl]

During WWII Winston Churchill proposed thanks to the Soviet Union for joining the fight against Germany. Some Member of Parliament asked him "What would you say, Winston, if the devil was fighting against Nazism?"

Winston replied: "If he was on our side against Hitler the least I could do would be to make a complimentary remark about his Infernal Highness."

Og

Further proof, if any more was needed, that Churchill is the greatest man to have ever lived.

Apart from maybe Johnny Ball.

The Earl

 

[Pure]

Ok, so we've agreed the US supports and supplies Nazi like regimes. Since they stopped hanging Blacks from trees for sport, they are definitely a 'cut above' true blue fascists.

As to the defence of 'necessity.'

It works for Stalin. Granted.

How about for Pinochet? the Salvadoran generals?

Incidentally Box, Pinochet, is a disproof of your statement as to recruiting and installing Nazi like dictators.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Ok, so we've agreed the US supports and supplies Nazi like regimes. Since they stopped hanging Blacks from trees for sport, they are definitely a 'cut above' true blue fascists.

As to the defence of 'necessity.'

It works for Stalin. Granted.

How about for Pinochet? the Salvadoran generals?

Incidentally Box, Pinochet, is a disproof of your statement as to recruiting and installing Nazi like dictators.

Allende was seen as a menace to the stability of South America so the US supported a revolution against him, even though he was the elected president of Chile. (Favored by about one third of the Clilean electorate, by the way) Pinochet was the incidental beneficiary of that; if it hadn't been him, it would have been somebody else.

The Salvadoran government was elected in an election monitored by international observors. The group rebelling against them was invited to participate in the election but they, knowing how little support they had, refused to do so. After the Sandanista government of Nicaraugua was voted out of office and stopped supporting the rebels, the revolution collapsed. The Sandanistas were pressured into holding those elections thrugh American support of a revolutionary movement against them, and they tried to rig the election by naming their opponents and preventing those opponents from campaigning. They still lost.

I regarded the Salvadoran rebels as terrorists because, during the election that they refused to participate in, they threatened to kill anybody who did have the temerity to vote and actually succeeded in murdering some people.

I used to read a lot about "Right wing death squads" and I often wondered how they were known to be right wing. They killed people; they didn't discuss politics with them. Most of the victims were rather left-leaning individuals and they could just as well have been murdered by the rebels. As Marxists, they would haved had no problem at all with killing lukewarm supporters in order to discredit those they saw as the enemy.

There have been other despots who were acknowledged by the US as the heads of government, but they were not so much supported as recognized. Marcos was one of these, and the Shah of Iran and Batista, and Saddam and others. Castro should be another one.

 

[KarenAM]

There have been other despots who were acknowledged by the US as the heads of government, but they were not so much supported as recognized. Marcos was one of these, and the Shah of Iran and Batista, and Saddam and others. Castro should be another one.

The Shah of Iran was run out of Iran but then reinstalled by a British and American coup over a democratically elected leader named Mossadeg. Iran was America's major ally in the Middle East after Israel throughout the Shah's reign, despite SAVAK and his blatant violations of human rights. Iran was equipped with the most modern American military hardware available as a deterrent against the Soviets getting a warm water port.

Saddam was supported by both the Reagan and senior Bush administrations, and as little as a week before Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 Bush Sr.'s administration was fighting for him against Congress, who were becoming concerned with his abuses of his people. The Americans turned a blind eye and impeded the UN from pursuing Saddam after he gassed Iraqi Kurds.

These are just two examples that sound like more than just recognition to me.

 

[Pure]

Ogg said,

During WWII Winston Churchill proposed thanks to the Soviet Union for joining the fight against Germany. Some Member of Parliament asked him "What would you say, Winston, if the devil was fighting against Nazism?"

Winston replied: "If he was on our side against Hitler the least I could do would be to make a complimentary remark about his Infernal Highness."

This WWII analogy applied to the US support of despots over the last 50 years is pretty laughable-- about the same as Bush's recent analogy of Japan in 1946 to Iraq now-- the US bringing freedom in both cases.

IF one is being attacked, and in mortal peril from greater Devil A (Hitler), and his deadly enemy lesser Devil B offers you a hand (and wants some help in return), of course you throw in with Devil B.

What the Brits and Americans did in Iraq is hardly comparable.
The Brit engineer, Gerald Bull was helping Saddam make a 'supergun.' The figures for British aid are cited in the article below. The US was supplying Saddam in the war against Iran (see below). That makes Iraq, devil B. So who is the greater devil A, and what danger was he to the Brits or the US?

Is it Iran? So are you saying that in the 1980s, Iran was to Britain and the US, like Hitler had been in the early 1940s? Utter nonsense.

Right now neither the US nor Britain are under attack by any state. There is no 'Devil A', in the form of a (neighboring) state. Hence propping up a despot and his state has no strong justification. To give an example, the US chooses to arm the Saudis and the Pakistanis, for various reasons, e.g., oil, in Saudi Arabia. But this doesn't make the Saudis like Stalin, for it's entirely unclear who the "Hitler" would be. Indeed, I hear the Saudis are now arming the insurgents in Iraq.

-----
http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-24647


http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/mbmeXiraq122898.pdf

den oprindelige pdf. fil fra Center for International & Strategic Studies (relev. tal s. 22)



Who Armed Iraq? Thanks to this letter to the Times of London I found the answer for some major countries:

Arms Sales to Iraq, 1973-1991

United States $5,000,000
Britain $330,000,000
Germany $995,000,000
China $5,500,000,000
France $9,240,000,000
Soviet Union $31,800,000,000

The data comes, by way of a man who works in a dermatology laboratory, from an expert on Iraqi arms, Anthony Cordesman. Here's a Cordesman paper with the data (page 22). And, here's a catalog of his organization's papers, if you want to explore further. (Thanks to Ken Hirsch for sending me these links.) It is not coincidence that those who now object to disarming Saddam are those who armed him in the past.

----

Letters to the Editor

March 14, 2003

Supplies of arms and oil revenues From Professor Andrew J. Hamilton



Sir, I have often heard the claim that "we armed Saddam". Thankfully A. H. Cordesman, in his 1998 report on the Iraqi military for the Center for Strategic & International Studies, has enlightened me. In the key period between 1973-91 the US exported a mere $5 million of weapons to Iraq; more reprehensibly the UK sold $330 million-worth of arms.

Of much greater interest are the arms export totals to Iraq of the four countries most against military action: Germany with $995 million, China $5,500 million, France $9,240 million, and the Russians a massive $31,800 million. So the claim that we armed Saddam has to be treated with a degree of care, particularly by those who would award the moral high ground in this debate to the leaders of nations such as Germany, France and Russia.

I remain your obedient servant, ANDREW HAMILTON, Dermatology Laboratory, Thomas Guy House, Guy's Hospital, St Thomas' Street, SE1 9RT. March 10.

 

[Huckleman2000]

No, you are not Nazis.

Nazi

adj 1: relating to or consistent with or typical of the ideology and practice of Nazism or the Nazis; "the total Nazi crime"; "the Nazi interpretation of history" [syn: Nazi] 2: relating to a form of socialism; "the national socialist party came to power in 1933" [syn: national socialist, Nazi] n : a German member of Adolf Hitler's political party [syn: Nazi, German Nazi]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

You are Fascists.

fascism

n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

 

[Pure]

Hi Huckleman,
good stuff.

That the US south was fascistic, and that the US itself is tending in that direction since WWII are not new ideas.

For instance:

http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm

What is
Fascism?

By Laura Dawn Lewis


This may surprise most educated people. One of the more common government strategies today, especially in developing regions is fascism. Fascism is commonly confused with Nazism. Nazism is a political party platform that embraces a combination of a military dictatorship, socialism and fascism. It is not a government structure. Fascism is a government structure. The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems.

Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin. It is possible to be both a republic and a fascist state. The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state.


Until the Civil Rights act of 1964, many parts of the US were Republic for whites and could be considered fascist for non-Caucasian residents. Fascism promotes legal segregation in housing, national resource allocation and employment. It provides legal justification for persecuting a specific segment of the population and operates behind a two tiered legal system.

These two tiers can be overt as it was within Nazi Germany where Jews, Homosexuals, Catholics, Communists, Clergy and the handicap were held to one set of rules and courts, while the rest of Germany enjoyed different laws.

Or it can be implied and held up by consensual conspiracy, (people know it is wrong but do nothing to stop it or change it. Through lack of action, they give consent), as it was in the deep South for African Americans and others of color. In Fascism, one segment of society is always considered less desirable, sub-human or second class.

(Note: no single government is pure anything. Most have elements of several structures with one dominant structure). Below is the political definition and general characteristics of a fascist country. TOP

general characteristics
of a fascist country:

1. Fascism is commonly defined as an open terror-based dictatorship which is:


Reactionary: makes policy based upon current circumstances rather than creating policies to prevent problems; piles lies and misnomers on top of more lies until the truth becomes indistinguishable, revised or forgotten.

Chauvinistic: Two or more tiered legal systems, varying rights based upon superficial characteristics such as race, creed and origin.

Imperialist elements of finance capital: Extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political domination of one state over its allies. Though a dictatorship is the most common association with fascism, a democracy or republic can also be fascist when it strays away from its tenants of sovereignty. In the 20th Century, many Fascist countries started out as republics. Through the use of fear, societies gave up their rights under the guise of security. Ultimately these republics morphed into Fascist states.

----
The 14 Defining

Characteristics Of Fascism
by Dr. Lawrence Britt

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:

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. TOP

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. TOP
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. TOP

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. TOP

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. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. TOP

6. Controlled Mass Media -
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. TOP

7. Obsession with National Security -
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. TOP

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. TOP

9. Corporate Power is Protected -
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. TOP

10. Labor Power is Suppressed -
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. TOP

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. TOP

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. TOP

14. Fraudulent Elections -
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. TOP________________________________

An interesting note to end this article: As of January 2004, the United States fulfills all fourteen points of fascism ....

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

What is
Fascism?
By Laura Dawn Lewis


This may surprise most educated people. One of the more common government strategies today, especially in developing regions is fascism. Fascism is commonly confused with Nazism. Nazism is a political party platform that embraces a combination of a military dictatorship, socialism and fascism. It is not a government structure. Fascism is a government structure. The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems.

Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin. It is possible to be both a republic and a fascist state. The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state.

Until the Civil Rights act of 1964, many parts of the US were Republic for whites and could be considered fascist for non-Caucasian residents. Fascism promotes legal segregation in housing, national resource allocation and employment. It provides legal justification for persecuting a specific segment of the population and operates behind a two tiered legal system. These two tiers can be overt as it was within Nazi Germany where Jews, Homosexuals, Catholics, Communists, Clergy and the handicap were held to one set of rules and courts, while the rest of Germany enjoyed different laws.

Or it can be implied and held up by consensual conspiracy, (people know it is wrong but do nothing to stop it or change it. Through lack of action, they give consent), as it was in the deep South for African Americans and others of color. In Fascism, one segment of society is always considered less desirable, sub-human or second class.

(Note: no single government is pure anything. Most have elements of several structures with one dominant structure). Below is the political definition and general characteristics of a fascist country. TOP

general characteristics
of a fascist country:

1. Fascism is commonly defined as an open terror-based dictatorship which is:

Reactionary: makes policy based upon current circumstances rather than creating policies to prevent problems; piles lies and misnomers on top of more lies until the truth becomes indistinguishable, revised or forgotten.
Chauvinistic: Two or more tiered legal systems, varying rights based upon superficial characteristics such as race, creed and origin.
Imperialist elements of finance capital: Extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political domination of one state over its allies.
Though a dictatorship is the most common association with fascism, a democracy or republic can also be fascist when it strays away from its tenants of sovereignty. In the 20th Century, many Fascist countries started out as republics. Through the use of fear, societies gave up their rights under the guise of security. Ultimately these republics morphed into Fascist states.

2. Fascism is an extreme measure taken by the middle classes to forestall lower-working class revolution; it thrives on the weakness of the middle classes. It accomplishes this by embracing the middle-class' love of the status-quo, its complacency and its fears of: TOP

Generating a united struggle within the working class

Revolution

Losing its own power and position within society

In a more simplistic term the people currently in control fear that if they allow equal rights and equal consideration to those being oppressed, they will become oppressed and lose everything. Generally those in power are of a smaller segment of society, but they hold the wealth and control of key systems like manufacturing, law, finance and government position, (i.e. the slave owners in the south prior to the civil war) and the oppressed vastly outnumber them, (the slaves during the same period).

In reality it is the oppressors' fear of retribution by the oppressed that perpetuates fascism; for justification they dehumanize, demonize, strip them of rights, add new laws, restrict movement and attempt to control them by whatever means possible to prevent an uprising. It is very common in a fascist system to have the oppressed referred to as sub-human, animals, terrorists, savages, barbarians, vermin or any other term designed to create justification for the acts of terror and fascism perpetrated on the oppressed. Via dehumanization society can then accept that the oppressed are incapable of thinking or acting in a peaceful manner or taking care of themselves, and thus society is exonerated from culpability in their own minds. Propaganda, not persuasion, logic or law, is the tool of fascism, though at times very difficult to spot. It specifically rides the fact that negative behavior is innate, (born with) rather than a logical behavior in response to oppression. Propaganda also empowers the oppressors with elitism racially, socially, intellectually and/or spiritually.

. . .. ... .....

It should be noted that while Dr. Britt's article is all over the internet in places low and high, reputable and quite intentionally not, the list of countries that actually met all fourteen pre-recs was quite long.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

It should be noted that while Dr. Britt's article is all over the internet in places low and high, reputable and quite intentionally not, the list of countries that actually met all fourteen pre-recs was quite long.

The real question is should we feel relieved or scared to death of that fact?

 

[shereads]

Nazis? Or fascists? A second opinion from an independent source

How timely! Sleepless with dread and loathing, I google up an interview with Hunter S. Thompson, the single information source who's crazy enough to be trusted at times like this.

Excerpts:

He's covered US politics for decades and knows both the President and the man who could take his place. And, for Hunter S Thompson, this week's election boils down to a simple choice - between a 'pathetic fascist stooge' and a 'smart and brave, decent man'

"Politically {Nixon} was adroit, and a sound analyst. Compared to these Nazis we have in the White House now, Richard Nixon was a liberal. And that's saying something, when I think what I wrote in his obituary."

Hunter S. seems equally accepting of either "nazi" or "fascist." It's worth noting that he isn't referring to all Americans here, just the Bush/Cheney administration. The rest of us aren't off the hook yet, of course. We're cursed with the right to choose.

Goodnight, pornsters. Remember, if you want to rid the world of pornography, reelect the people who gave us John Ashcroft.

 

[amicus]

Welcome to the 'Hardball' forum, Jagged...thanks for your concern about what most of this forum express in their opinions about the United States of America.

Like 'Hardball' and Chris Mathews on MSNBC, a little intelligence and a lot of fast and rude talk...can go a long way...until someone stands up and says, "Get Out Of My Face!" You have to do that here...or every time you bring your nose up out of the water, one or another will push your head under again from a different direction.

There are a couple on this forum, with very fine and quick minds, that have for whatever reason, been focused on finding aspects of world and american history that demean the existence of the United States of America.

Let me, from memory, list a bit of a chronological line...

Although the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States provided the first national basis for human liberty, those of this forum point out that women, blacks and indians were not included in Universal sufferage. Never mind that no where else in the world even considered those options.

But they point out not what this nation did accomplish...but what it did not...from hindsight...

Quite the same with the Civil War...a war not only about freeing the slaves, but the feudalistic south, and the relatively free north.

That a federal government would go to war to change the age old concept of slavery, is not acknowledged as a good thing, but rather that we now, 150 years later, should feel guilt...is where the brilliant minds of this forum come to rest.

While the industrial revolution lifted the burden of physical labor from the back of men to the machines and the generators of electricity, improved life for all, extended the life span and the health of all men, brought light and heat into the cold winter days and nights...was it...is it looked upon with favor?

No, the industrial revolution is seen as dehumanizing mankind, with sweat shops and child labor and corrupting the pastoral agrarian countryside.

And while this system of liberty, permitted a political means to enfranchise women, as had never been done, in wide scale, ever before in the world...seen as a good thing? Oh, no...too, little too, late...they claim...anti american all....

And world war one...the trench warfare stalemate between medieval european powers, still embarked upon empire, England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Low countries and the emerging russian bear....when finally the United States did, in the latter stages of that conflict, begin to exercise power on a world wide level....is this nation remembered for that?

The colonial empires of England, France, Germany and Russia, play a much larger part in the middle east, Iran, Irag, Saudi Arabia, by far than any American participation.

Hell bent for election seem those american detractors on this forum to show that this nation is elemental in disturbing world order...there is nothing farther from the truth.

The last two additions to the United States were Alaska, bought from Russia and Hawaii...in the last half of the 20th century. Where in all the involvements worldwide has america added land area, besides that, in the past hundred years...?

Where is the thrust for empire and colonlization? Only in the minds of a few posters on this woebegotten site.

So, Jagged, sorry to have gone on so long....there is no easy way to thwart a concerted assault from several directions, simultaneously coordinated(they pm each other) as it is on this site.

Welcome to the fray, hit the books, pick an area, and rip a new asshole here and there....they pretend to ignore...but they really do sit with a little more caution than before...

amicus the irrascible....