I know it's Wrong to hate!

[GQ-MarkDawg]

I know it's wrong to hate. I hate though I can't help it. I hate Republicans. I know I am supposed to be an open mined liberal and see both sides of the issue. I used to be able to do that. I find it so hard to do that these days. I realize that the USA is a diverse place with many different view points that is what makes our country great. I just can't handle today’s Republican. The Republican of yesteryear would have some things I could agree with, like not wasting money and having a strong military and having the government stay out of people’s lives. I just don't see them doing any of those things now. This is what I see. I see a party that claims fiscal responsibility but has none. I see a party that claims moral values but has none with all of the profiteering and corruption and hypocrisy. The bush administration has some many things wrong with it in so many directions that I could type till my fingers fell off. I will do that. All that read this post I will do a favor I will boil it down and make it real easy for every one. WE WERE ATTACKED ON 9/11 AND WE FIRED NO ONE...THE BRITS FOUND THE ATTACKERS IN A WEEK. AS MY BRIT FREINDS WOULD SAY WTF MATE!

[Shady_B_206]

Yes it is wrong to hate, and you should be open minded. Also remember, that you just might be wrong....

[Johnny Slick]

But it is right to love and you might be right!!!

[Gomezticator]

We didn't find any 9-11 attackers to indict because they were laying dead in the rubble with the victims.

As tragic as they were, the London bombings were executed in Mickey Mouse fashion compared to 9-11-01, and thus tracking down the 'master'minds (more like a scapegoat) of THAT attack was far easier.

Oh, and honestly, they didn't track down crap, as it just happened again this morning.

[Lucius Bolivar]

Sounds like everyone just keeps looking in the wrong places for all of these different individuals that cannot be found.

[One Of Many]

It is OK to hate those who hate you, namely the Republinazis. Anyway, we have never been in a full democracy. But now, we are drifting into something else, like......

Fascism Anyone?

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Looks like Idiot King George is aiming to do something similar maybe?

[GQ-MarkDawg]

Well done, you know the thing that worries me is now the people that are in the cross hairs are people like you and people like me and many of the people on these forums.

[One Of Many]

I'm with you, guys!!!

Check this out! Makes me sick to my stomach.

http://chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/business/3335685

Halliburton hired for storm cleanup

The Navy has hired Houston-based Halliburton Co. to restore electric power, repair roofs and remove debris at three naval facilities in Mississippi damaged by Hurricane Katrina.


Halliburton subsidiary KBR will also perform damage assessments at other naval installations in New Orleans as soon as it is safe to do so.

KBR was assigned the work under a "construction capabilities" contract awarded in 2004 after a competitive bidding process. The company is not involved in the Army Corps of Engineers' effort to repair New Orleans' levees.

{ I would say that this is "unbelievable", but it isn't. Not at all. I knew that Cheney was busy counting pennies. Disgusting!
I just wonder how much bloodletting that the idiots of this nation are going to continue to support, until their veins run dry.}

[wrongo]

Those who fight for the Republic and those who fight for the Democracy are both fighting for the United States of America. Do not allow yourselves to be divided.

[Abulafia]

He's the guy who originally penned the 'Fourteen Points of Fascism' thing OoM posted below. The article in its entirety is an interesting one (even if the points alone are worth reading). Here's a link to the article:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2

This site does an interesting job of expanding on Britt's points with specific points of evidence from recent gov't activity. If, you know, you still can't figure it out after Britt--himself not especially obtuse. But if you really need it spelled out:

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

Fun reading. Happy time.

[scourge]

The Brits were aided in finding their terrorists by the ubiquitous cameras all over London. Something you'd likely to find as "Big Brotherish".

I think you wasted your time writing that huge diatribe. I'm sure it makes you feel smart, but its really quite insane. Unless you're describing Cuba - or Venezuela - or North Korea - or Iran.

[Abulafia]

Was that the OP (OoM) didn't even write it. Lawrence Britt did.

I think Britt's article is an ok one, if you read it in full.

[scourge]

I understand the point of your post. It looks very much like the earlier post "borrowed" those ideas from the sites you posted.

My point is that the ideas are ludicrous. We may not be at odds here, you and I, but I take issue with the contents of the post (and the articles you mentioned). The websites you point to and those linking from them hardly seem like fair and balanced sources.

I'm not going to go point-to-point and refute these ideas. I don't have the time. I am sick and tired of this inane propaganda.

[Abulafia]

plagiarizing, then yes. That's what the OP did. The ideas aren't borrowed; it's a cut and plaste plagiarism. And maybe people are thinking "what's the big freaking deal," but it's bullshit. Sorry. That's really all that pissed me off this morning.

The first website I posted just gave Britt's original article in full, just so it was made perfectly clear whence the OP had cut and pasted the post. The second was how I found the first; it's actually a little silly, but I thought that if anyone wanted to see how some people (yes, it's a very liberal website, one representing an ideology I may agree with in part, but I'll go not further than that as I only stumbled on it this morning) are applying Britt's article to the Bush admin, this was a reasonable source. Not an unbiased one. Never said that.

Britt's article, if read in its entirety (and not just the '14 points' bit posted by the OP), makes some sense. Then again, it also doesn't make some sense. The 14 points have been widely adopted by liberals who like to adopt things widely (I'm a liberal, but chintzy with my adoption of cute foamy mouthed rants and platitudes produced by people of suspect credibility), but while it *does* offer some interesting (if fairly subjectively gathered and presented) characteristics of fascist regimes (though also many characteristics of non fascist ones as well), it was written not by someone studying fascist regimes per se, but someone (Britt) writing with the specific goal of tacitly (his article makes is tacit; clear, but tacitly so) comparing Bush's America to, e.g., Hitler's Germany, Franco's Spain, and Mussolini's Italy.

Britt notes that fascist regimes try to identify scapegoats or enemies as a unifying cause, and-- Oh, hell. Here:

"The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective."

Ok, so that's supposedly what the Bush Admin. has done. In fact, I'd say it *is* what the Bush Admin. has done. I also think it is what the liberal opposition to the Bush Admin. has done by way of opposing the Bush Admin. Lots of disinformation on the side of the Admin.; lots of disinformation (sorry, liberals, it's true--I'm a lib., so it pisses me off with the best of 'em) on the side of the liberal opponents.

So, the point is not that this is specifically a sign of impending fascism; merely that is is a characteristic of many fascist regimes of the past. I'll buy that; but the important thing here is that it is also a characteristic of much political action altogether. It's what people do when they want to rally support against an enemy--whether it's Osama or George.

I was just about to go through Britt point by point and argue its many weaknesses (flags and slogans do not equal fascism; even non-fascist states have tended to view women as second class citizens, and so on), but I have better things to do (like try to kill Christmas. Oh, wait. Wait. That wasn't an original post either).

Listen, I do think Britt's article, in its original form, is an interesting read. I also think it's been too widely adopted as some sort of poli-sci 'truth' that is now being tattooed like so much "our commandments go to fourteen" on the collective hinterquarters of liberals who, themselves, like to find scapegoats and slogans. No depth. No depth at all.

I still detest this Admin, and I still want to kill Christmas with my cabal and such. But (1) I don't like plagiarism (I wonder if rampant plagiarism is a sign of a fascist regime. Anyone know?) and (2) I don't like sloppy work. I don't necessarily think Britt's work is sloppy (though it might be; I'd have to spend more time thinking about it than I shall), but I think that what has been done with it certainly has been.

Now. Excuse me. I have a tree to go hug.

[scourge]

I was being tongue-in-cheek about the borrowing part. I agree its plagiarism.

I also agree with your point that the original article tries to define fascist (and Socialist/Communist, IMO) tendencies in general before comparing these tendencies to the Bush administration. Its the rest that's a stretch for me.

I admire your open-mindedness and critical-thinking skills as well as your sense of humor.

Rock on.

[Abulafia]

I know. It's just that plagiarism puts my unmentionables in such a big old fucking knot I find myself incapable of using euphemisms. I have no self control that way.

The other thing that beknots my delicates is sloppy workmanship, and the more I have been thinking about the Britt piece, the more full of the sort of vapid political rhetoric we'd all (liberals or not so much) do well to avoid: avoid producing it, and avoid plagiarizing it (oops. Did it again) as your own on a public forum. It's just really pointless posturing; very annoying.

The Britt piece isn't, in the end, really worth commenting on. And I'd not have done it it all. If it weren't for the plagiarism bit.

ETA: As you noted, and as I'll reiterate, there is still some value in the Britt piece; some of his points are fairly compelling (just in terms of shared characteristics of fascist regimes), and some are not. It's merely that though he doesn't really state it up front (though anyone who knows his politics--he's a political guy, not an academic), he writes the whole thing with the end goal--Bush Admin. is slipping toward fascism--and that skews some of his decisions as re collecting and presenting his "evidence." If he were simply a scholar outlining what he saw as the most compelling traits of fascism and then--lo and behold!--many such traits seemed strangely Bushist, that would be one thing. As it stands, he's a politically-motivated individual, and in my view (even if I might agree with some of his politics) this has provided an obvious (and damaging) skew to his piece as a whole.

In short, many of his "14 points" are interesting ones; I'd find it amusing to be able to apply them all exclusively to the Bush Admin. (exclusively, that is: to the B.A. but not almost every other Admin. I can think of), but realistically I do not believe this is remotely valid.

ETA redux, in order to attempt to express myself in something more closely resembling English.

[Ballard Pimp]

I also agree with your point that the original article tries to define fascist (and Socialist/Communist, IMO) tendencies in general before comparing these tendencies to the Bush administration. Its the rest that's a stretch for me.


One of the reasons that folks on the left become frustrated with those on the right is the sloppy thinking that the right wallows in. This is a great example.

Sweden is a socialist country. Britain is a socialist country. Cuba is a communist country. North Korea is a communist country. Aside from temperature and precipitation, a bozo like Scourge says there is no difference.

The point of Britt's article is that fascism, which is a collection of biases and has no internal integrity, is something that can be slipped into. Communism is not. One day a country has a revolution. Before then it is not communist; after that it is.

But the entire discussion ignores the central point of America in 2006: Bush is evil. He may be stupid and negligent and selfish, but there can be no doubt that he is evil and all who sail in him are evil.

[Abulafia]

By Britain, I know you mean the UK ('Britain' is not a political entity; 'Great Britain' is Engl, Scotl., Wales--the UK includes Ireland, and I think this is what you meant); the UK is not socialist; it is a constitutional monarchy. There are socialist parties in the UK (and boy are they ragers), and maybe you are thinking of the whole NHS (socialized medicine--you know what socialized medicine means? Lights out in the pediatric ward and plugs in the bath tubs of high end NHS hospitals "as patients knick 'em." But my beef with the NHS is something else entirely), but socialized medicine does not a socialist gov't make.

Sweden is also a constitutional monarchy. I can't speak of their healthcare, but the people sure are tall and blond, aren't they?

There aren't actually any pure socialist countries right now; all the ones that had existed in Eastern Europe have slowly made the transition (well or not) into free enterprise. Sometimes N. Korea is called socialist, though it is classified as a communist state one-man dictatorship. Ditto Cuba.

Of course, the Socialist party says there aren't any 'real' socialist countries anymore, and the Communist party says there aren't any 'real' communist countries anymore (and Abulafia would argue that there haven't ever been any). But they're hoping. They're hoping. The socialists and communists are very spunky, optimistic groups. And usually pretty young. And most of them have never lived in a socialist or communist country, I'll bet.

The main problem with clumping fascism together with socialism and communism is that while all three are political philosophies situated at various points along the "not a good idea" continuum, one (fascism) is a political philosophy focusing on nationalism and autocracy, with stiff resultant economic and social controls, while the others (socialism and communism) are political philosophies that focus almost exclusively on the economy and distribution of property and goods.

In socialism, of course, the gov't controls the ownership and administration of how goods are produced and distributed. Unequal distribution of pay and goods. Marx saw this as a transitional system between capitalism and communism. That's probably because he saw it as inherently instable, as it has been proven to be. Nice idea until you have to live in one. And no, I have not. But I've enough friends who have lived in Eastern Europe long enough to know I wouldn't want to.

In pure Marxian communism (and this was really a pure philosophy, never meant to be attempted--anyone read Das Kapital?), the state withers away completely, and all goods are distributed equally. Yes, some eastern countries adopted a Marxist-Leninist form of communism, much to everyone's general woe and yet-resounding social shockwaves. That is because Karl Marx was a philosopher--and an excellent one--and Das Kapital was mainly a critique of capitalism (which has many things about it that may be critiqued but more, in my opinion, that cannot be), not a proposition of a new, perfect government. Christ on a bike; yes, Marx was also a political economist; he's not a hack. But he was a philosopher and a revolutionary, and his writings reacted to early mid 19th century German class struggles. I honestly can't believe anyone is still taking this philosophy seriously in terms of something that would be either ideal or functional.

But that's just me. I don't think philosophers should be put in charge of politics. Of course, Plato would disagree. He had the whole philosopher king thing going. That's why I did my first degree in philosophy. I just wanted a fancy crown. No crown. No crown. Plato lied.

ETA: wrote the first bit while not exactly literally but you know I'll say "literally" anyway running out the door, but wanted to apologize to BP for sounding as though I am giving a primer on socialism and capitalism. It wasn't aimed at you, BP; it was just by way of getting at some of the differences and the inherent problems therein. I agree that too many people weave together "fascism, socialism, communism, and all of that crap" without really understanding the distinctions (I'm not now referring to scourge; his comment was a mild one), and it's quite a problem. It's sloppy--as you note.

But the lefties are sloppy too; the conservs don't have a monopoly on it. But BP, you're right in that the article was really only talking about fascism, not either communism or socialism; it focused on the nationalistic and autocratic facets of fascism, and was not addressing the economic and production / distribution concerns around with soc. and com. are constructed. These philosophies should not be lumped together (and of course socialism is not a 'single philosophy' at all, but a general term to describe various sorts of economic / philosophical stances).

Finally, I'm not sure Bush is smart enough to be evil. You must be giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[scourge]

When I say Socialist, I mean true socialism as described by Abulafia and epitomized by North Korea and Cuba. I'm not talking about "socialized" countries like Sweden.

I think in order to have a socialist country you have to have an authoritarian style of government. At least to keep socialism going. That was my point in comparing to fascism.

There never has been a truly communist country, but I said communist because so many people think countries that are socialist are really communist. Turns out I needed to do that for people like BP.

And to the point of socialist countries only coming by way of revolution, we'll just have to wait and see about Venezuela.

[Abulafia]

I think in order to have a socialist country you have to have an authoritarian style of government. At least to keep socialism going. That was my point in comparing to fascism.

Ah, right. I agree, and I think this is one of the things a lot of young starry eyed socialists don't realize. Socialism sounds pretty nifty, and awfully darned nice, but I've studied enough history to feel it is also pretty darned incompatible human nature. Socialist elements within a society? I think these can work (I'd really like to find a good example--not an adequate one, but a really really successful one--of socialized medicine; I'm not convinced even by Canada), but an overarching socialism? I think it is counterintuitive to human nature.

I'm a pretty nice manatee, all for social action and reform and the whole tree huggin' deal, but at the end of the day I want to get paid for what I do, and if I do more, I want more money for it. I don't need a lot of money (and don't worry, dear readers, I don't get it), but the bottom line is that I like to feel I have some control over how much income I have coming in, and that it is in some way tied to the time and effort I put out. Pure socialism (not to mention pure communism) erase this equation. I would find it annoying in the extreme. I would be seriously chuffed. And then, you know, I'd probably just drink all day.

No, just kidding. The real bottom line is that I just think that capitalism, in theory, is a more strongly social and economic ameliorative force when it is working well. People do, actually, tend to work harder when income is tied to output. Even if the income isn't a fair representative of the effort (or education, or risk, or creativity, or sweat) involved, the sense that there is some correlation generally gets people moving.

Hesiod, Works and Days, line 11 and following: the two Strifes. One Strife is bad, and that's the Strife that fosters war; the other is good; she's the one that stirs up lazy people because you look over and see that the guy next to you has more than you do. So you are pissed at him, but you work hard and go get yourself some of what he has. As Hesiod wrote, and as I would agree "agathê d'Eris hêde brotoisin" --this Strife is good for mortals.

Socialism and communism remove this. No opportunity to better yourself through your own work, and creative impulse and drive are removed. Competition is not a bad thing. Lots of innovation comes about through the competitive drive.

No, no. That's not the bottom line. The bottom line is that manatees should be paid more than they are. We need to eat a lot. Have you looked at us lately? No way you are going to find any socialist manatee. Mark my words.