Is America playing with fire?

Locut0s

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
22,205
44
91
Is America skirting dangerously close to fascism or at least fascism ideology?

First I'd like to say I'm Canadian so maybe I get more of a skewed view living outside the US. Also I know this is potentially an inflaming topic, as I've learned on other boards, and I'd hate to start a flame war but I hope people will reframe from posting insults and post real discutions.

By fascist I do not mean the fascist dictatorship of Hitler's Germany and the specter of concentration camps and mass murder. Instead I mean the ideological aspects of fascism, in many ways more sinister for their lack of conspicuousness. As defined in the wikipedai fascism is the political ideology which:

-exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
-uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
-engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and
-espouses nationalism and sometimes racism (ethnic nationalism).

I would largely remove the racist aspects of fascism here when talking about the US. Not that racism is not of grave concern, indeed it is, but it plays less of a central role in US politics from the point of view of this topic. That aside though I have seen some disturbing aspects over the past few years that do indeed bring fascist ideals to mind. America has always been something of a nationalistic country but I haven't seen anything on this scale before. Zel Millers speech at the RNC is a prime example of the kind of thing I mean. A truly horrific piece if you care to take a read:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...itics/main640299.shtml

However this isn't just relegated to the republicans. The other day I heard Hillary Clinton say something to the affect of "America is the greatest country the world has ever seen". I'm not arguing that such statements can't or should not be held by members of the populous but it seems that this kind of speech is being increasingly enshrined in the halls of government by politicians. You can't even get elected unless you mention in just about every major speech, the greatness of the country. Failure to do so risks the other side, Republican or Democrat, pulling out the old "unpatriotic" accusations. Perhaps scarier still is that such accusations should carry any weight. But it's a much deeper problem than that. With very few exceptions, there are some notable ones though, the media seems to be playing the same tune. Since when did real political debates become two guys towing their respective party lines throwing sound bites and personal insults at each other. I can turn to just about any channel and hear "and from the right we have" "and on the left" followed by 20 minutes of insults, calls of treason, and material that could have been written by your average grade 8 social studies student. Often even the moderator of the discussion will get in on the argument and accuse one of the guests, usually the guy on the "left", of lying. Overlying all of this is a layer of right wing Christian fundamentalism that seems to have smothered all sense of reasoning from the white house on down. You have an attorney general who had himself anointed with Crisco on assuming his office. You have Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Pearl who have been planning the invasion of Iraq for years before September 11th, this is a fact and not a conspiracy theory. Then of course there is Bush who can't seem to help almost quoting scripture in every major speech. Always trying to connect the War on terror with elements of heaven and hell and Gods will. Here is a letter that Bush sent out to fellow employees when he was governor of Texas in 1995:

----------------------------------------------------------
---------------

I thought I would share with you a recent bit of Texas history which epitomizes our mission.

My very close personal friend from Midland, Joe. J. O'Neill, III, recently loaned me a portrait entitled "A Charge to Keep" by W.H.D. Koerner. This beautiful painting will hang on my wall for the next four years.

The reason I bring this up is that the painting is based upon the Charles Wesley hymn "A Charge to Keep I Have". I am particularly impressed by the second verse of this hymn. The second verse goes like this:

"To serve the present age, my calling to fulfill;
O may it all my powers engage to do my Master's will"

This is our mission. This verse captures our spirit.

Joe was inspired to make this generous loan during the church service preceding the inaugural ceremonies. It was in this church service when we sang the hymn "A Charge to Keep I Have".

When you come into my office, please take a look at the beautiful painting of a horseman determinedly charging up what appears to be a steep and rough trail. This is us. What adds complete life to the painting for me is the message of Charles Wesley that we serve One greater than ourselves.

Thank you for your hard work. Thank you for your service to our State. God Bless Texas!

----------------------------------------------------------
---------------

That's how these people think. They actually believe that the war on terror is Gods will and that they are just here to carry out his orders.

Now let me end this by saying this is NOT an "I hate ameria" thread. I do not hate ameria, I do indeed think it is a great country but some of the things I have seen in the past few years have been scarry. I also know that america is still an extremely free country, but it's not the only one.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Is America skirting dangerously close to fascism or at least fascism ideology?
Yes.

FYI, the conservatives on this board get in a huff when you draw a comparison. I haven't seen one address the issue substantively in the many threads on this topic.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: Locut0s
The other day I heard Hillary Clinton say something to the affect of "America is the greatest country the world has ever seen". I'm not arguing that such statements can't or should not be held by members of the populous but it seems that this kind of speech is being increasingly enshrined in the halls of government by politicians. You can't even get elected unless you mention in just about every major speech, the greatness of the country. Failure to do so risks the other side, Republican or Democrat, pulling out the old "unpatriotic" accusations.

People here in Canada make such statements all the time, including politicians.

As defined in the wikipedai fascism is the political ideology which:

-exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
-uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
-engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and
-espouses nationalism and sometimes racism (ethnic nationalism)

1. Individual rights and freedoms are very important in the US. I do agree that with the Patriot Act they are moving closer to Facism though.

2. Both the Democrats and Republicans do this, so I suppose I see your point.

3. Taxes are lower in the US than in Canada, plus they basically have the same freedoms that we do.

4. The only evidence I see in this is the profiling of Arabs and Muslims. In all honesty though, this type of thing is necessary to fight terrorism unfortunately.
 

Locut0s

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
22,205
44
91
Infohawk: Ineed I am expecting some rather harsh replies. I just wanted to air my feelings and see what others felt.

To make one thing clear to others reading this. I AM NOT SAYING THAT AMERIA IS FASCIST!!! I AM SAYING THAT IT SEEMS TO BE ON A SLIPERLY SLOPE.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
this is all nice and good, but for fascism etc. it needs the support of the (voting) people..otherwise a fascist might have a problem to become a leader.

The first step is always manipulation, creating FEAR, creating a enemy-stereotype picture...etc...and then the people (more or less brainwashed) support all this wioth their votes.

If they dont vote for a fascist...well....you see the problem ?

The problem is "us", the voting people...the stupidity and gullibleness of the voters.
 

Locut0s

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
22,205
44
91
Pliablemoose: Quite possibly. I'm not arguing from a moral high ground as a Canadian. However at the same time that doesn't mean that should be the natural outcome.
 

dchakrab

Senior member
Apr 25, 2001
493
0
0
I agree. When mass fear-mongering becomes the first step in consolidating an election that was questionable to begin with, and is now being used as a tactic to campaign for re-election, fascism seems like a threat we're altogether too close to.

I can draw no other conclusion when I hear things like "Bush has kept us safe for four years" as an argument for the effectiveness of our "War President". Or, in it's attempt-to-sound-like-a-fact form, "There have been no terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11 because of Bush / Afganistan / Iraq" etc, in all its various permutations. The conclusion that we are headed towards fascism is not based on the fearmongering; but on the fact that it appears, to a very large degree, to be succeeding.

-Dave.

 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
If Canada lost ~3K people you'd be having the same issues...

So you're admitting we're on a slippery slope to fascism...

Right again Infohawk.

We're actually already there. Your name is on the list of people to be drug out of their dorm/apt in the middle of the night & be imprisioned for daring to speak out about our beloved GWB.

I believe the plan is to start in Feb or so.



 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
" Is America skirting dangerously close to fascism or at least fascism ideology? "

I'm a farily liberal Democrat who has a lot of concerns about what has happened in the last four years, but it's preposterous to describe even the worst excesses as having anything to do with fascism.

 

Locut0s

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
22,205
44
91
Tom (and others): Well I don't know. First of all I posted a reply saying that I do not at all think America is fascist, but that it is playing with fire. The problem with the word fascism is that it's a word that causes such immediate gut reactions that a lot of people dismiss any topic that talks about it out of hand. You don't need people knocking down your door to haul you away in the middle of the night because you oppose GWB in order to have elements of fascist ideology present. And again like I said in my original post I'm not talking about racist concentration camp Nazism. However when you have the senate voting 99-1 to increase tenfold the amount that the FCC could fine broadcasters for airing "indecent or lewd content". Excuse me but "indecent or lewd content" is NOWHERE near a good enough definition. One persons "indecent or lewd content" is another persons art and freedom of expression. Also lets see what qualities do you need to be seriously considered as a candidate for president. Well no mater what qualities you have the following are required in the current atmosphere whether you are democratic or republican. You need to be white and of American heritage, second you need to make it clear you go to Church every Sunday, third you have to oppose gay marriage, fourth you must be pro military on many issues. This doesn't mean you can't run as a candidate without those "qualifications" but you aren't going to get very far without them. What's seen as "normal" and or "moral" is shrinking with each neocon Christian fundamentalist victory as they secure their hold on the government.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"Excuse me but "indecent or lewd content" is NOWHERE near a good enough definition. "

"indecent or lewd" is a legal term that is well defined in our legal system. It isn't just the dictionary use of those words. And the FCC doesn't use prior restraint, which wolud be required for it to amount to state censorship. And it is limited to regulation of public airwaves at various times of the day, which is based on the fact that the public airwaves belong to the public, not individuals. So regulating them is not regulating the free speech of individuals.

And I don't see where any of the criteria you list as needed to be a successful candidate, has anything to do with fascism ?


 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Locut0s
Well no mater what qualities you have the following are required in the current atmosphere whether you are democratic or republican. You need to be white and of American heritage, second you need to make it clear you go to Church every Sunday, third you have to oppose gay marriage, fourth you must be pro military on many issues. This doesn't mean you can't run as a candidate without those "qualifications" but you aren't going to get very far without them. What's seen as "normal" and or "moral" is shrinking with each neocon Christian fundamentalist victory as they secure their hold on the government.

These three are the ones that I see as being most "important" in mordern politics, particularly being an active christian and being 100% pro-military. An ape could run on this platform and win against even the most qualified candidate if the candidate did not abide by these pillars. I find that to be revolting.
 

Locut0s

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
22,205
44
91
Tom: The FCC seems to use the following guide lines:

http://www.mcvaymedia.com/info...04/intro_indecency.htm

You are correct that this is enforced only during "prime time hours" and does not regulate the free speech of individuals. However their definition is little better than "indecent or lewd content" and amounts mainly to a list of words and or images. This gives you little idea if a topic should be considered "indecent or lewd content". By their standards a documentary on Michaelangelo might be pulled because it has a closeup of David's privates while a pro neocon documentary would pass because it has no such content. Which one contains more indecent or lewd content? Personally I'd say the pro neocon documentary does, but that doesn't mean it should be blocked either. The point is when the airwaves are being censored, even for short periods of time, by a definition of "indecency" that comes down to a bulleted list of words we have a problem.
 

alexruiz

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2001
2,836
556
126
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Locut0s
Well no mater what qualities you have the following are required in the current atmosphere whether you are democratic or republican. You need to be white and of American heritage, second you need to make it clear you go to Church every Sunday, third you have to oppose gay marriage, fourth you must be pro military on many issues. This doesn't mean you can't run as a candidate without those "qualifications" but you aren't going to get very far without them. What's seen as "normal" and or "moral" is shrinking with each neocon Christian fundamentalist victory as they secure their hold on the government.

These three are the ones that I see as being most "important" in mordern politics, particularly being an active christian and being 100% pro-military. An ape could run on this platform and win against even the most qualified candidate if the candidate did not abide by these pillars. I find that to be revolting.

An ape is running and has quite a chance to win...... ;) :(
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"The point is when the airwaves are being censored.."

I see a distinction between censorship and fines for stuff that has aired. I don't know of cases where the FCC has "censored" something, or in other words used prior restraint to stop the airing of something.

Those cases might exist, but I can't think of one.

 

Locut0s

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
22,205
44
91
Tom: True but that also depends on your definition of censorship. Since all of the major TV networks are run by corporations with profit as their bottom line it doesn't take much to scare them into self-censorship. I don't think there's a major network left that doesn't have a "7 second" delay on all live events airing during prime time.
 

faiznne

Banned
Aug 29, 2004
140
0
0
Originally posted by: Locut0s
Tom: True but that also depends on your definition of censorship. Since all of the major TV networks are run by corporations with profit as their bottom line it doesn't take much to scare them into self-censorship. I don't think there's a major network left that doesn't have a "7 second" delay on all live events airing during prime time.

You guys want to know why we continue to support fascist Israel?
1. The Jewish-dominated U.S. media
2. AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee)
3. Neoconservatives and Evangelical Christians

A lot of Americans are misled by the media, the media portrays Muslims as "militant," "freedom-hating people," and "suicidal." It's not a surprise that Americans tend to favor the Israeli Jews over the Arab Muslims. I'm waiting for someone to say, "No one can criticize Israel or the Jews. Anyone that does is anti-Semitic." Judging by the fact that all of our major networks and media conglomerates are owned by American-Jews-- except for two (one of which, Gerald Levin-- a Jewish American-- just retired 2 years ago from AOL Time Warner).

FOX News and Time Warner are the only media comglomerates that are owned by Gentiles. It's not surprising that we would never see any news that is anti-Israeli covered on the front page. And America will continue to be biased in favor of Israel in the Middle East due to the neocons and Evangelical Christians for quite some time.

Source: http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/wra.pdf

And there's also the infamous "Jewish lobby" that influences American foreign policy in favor of the Israelis at the detriment of the Arabs. AIPAC-- American Israel Public Affairs Committee-- the 2nd strongest lobbying group in America, only after the NRA.

AIPAC-Influenced Pro-Israel PAC Contributions
http://www.washington-report.o.../Oct_2004/0410019.html

U.S. Aid to Israel 1948-Present
www.washington-report.org/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm

The reason Osama Bin LAden and his Muslim groupies hate us so much is cause of messed-up policy in the Middle East. Favoring the Israeli Jews over many Muslims. If I was president I would not go to war with Iraq. I don't think it's good that the USA fights Israel's wars by proxy:

Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Advisor
Emad Mekay


Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about ?the unstated threat? during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

?Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,? Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

?And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,? said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.

Source: Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=23078

General Anthony Zinni Blames Neoconservatives And Says Their Iraq Course 'Headed Over Niagara Falls'

But, don?t take what I say at face value. Listen to the words of retired General Anthony Zinni --- no nitwit he. From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command. He was in charge of all American troops in the Middle East.

Following Gen. Zinni?s retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush Administration thought so much of him that he was appointed their special envoy to the Middle East. In mid-March of 2002, President Bush said that he and Vice President D. Cheney ?both trust? Gen. Zinni. In this same month and year, Vice President Cheney called him ?a superb officer.? And in late May of this year, even after the interview I?m about to tell you about, White House press spokesman Scott McClellan said: ?We have great respect for General Zinni.?

?In one article--because I mentioned the neo-conservatives, who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy of those that propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested. I know what strategy they promoted, and openly, and for a number of years, and what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.?

For all of this, Gen. Zinni blames ?the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly? and others who are so-called neoconservatives. These individuals include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, former Defense policy board member Richard Perle, National Security Council member Eliot Abrams, and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Scooter Libby. He believes these persons are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq. And they advocated an invasion of Iraq to, among other things, strengthen the position of Israel.

Source: http://www.peroutka2004.com/sc...tview&event_id=234