 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Amos Date: 27 Jan 04 - 11:13 AM There are two interesting pieces on this subject that have surfaced of late. One of them is an early theorem from the Usenet called Godwin's law, which in various forms, describes the mechanism of calling on Nazism or Fascism as an analogy for current events: Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to the Jargon File: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. See http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/godwin.html The second, more serious analysis comes from a history teacher in Cape Cod and I am attaching it since there is no website on which it is posted. It is long but intelligent and worth thinking about: The author teaches history and sociology at Cape Cod Academy, a mid-cape private high school. He writes a column for the Cape Cod Times editorial page. It appears on Fridays. The future of Freedom in America I'm not sure exactly when it was that someone sent me my first reprint of an article comparing George Bush to Hitler. It bothered me a lot, not because I'm a Republican but because it simply wasn't a fair attack. Read Mein Kampf for yourself, then ask if you think George Bush is the next Hitler. Had Bill Clinton the wit to get Bush named Commissioner of Baseball soon enough, the man would never have entered politics - and wouldn't have wanted to. No. George Bush is no Hitler, and the Left does him a slander to suggest it, and squanders its credibility by doing so. Having said all that, another question remains - one worth asking: How safe is America from Fascism today? It took a world war, a fortune in American blood and treasure and 70 million lives around the world to wrestle fascism to the ground last time. It is to honor our fathers and grandfathers - and the world's teeming dead - that we take a look around and inquire about the future of freedom in America. A patriot should worry about fascism like a religious devotee worries about sin, because both have to be confronted every day. Both arise from perennial temptations. What is fascism? Fascism is what happens when concentrations of wealth and power join forces to consolidate their advantages and advance their interests. "Modern fascism should properly be called 'corporatism', since it is a merger of the state, military and corporate power." said Benito Mussolini, Italy's tyrant in WW2. There may be neo-Nazis in America today, but they're not really going anywhere because they're still in love with German fascism, its heroes and symbols. We have to consider something different. We have to watch for things as American as apple pie - things that won't feel foreign at all. Mussolini spoke of a "merger". This concept is the key to understanding fascism. Fascism is an unholy alliance of potentially good things: our government in Washington, the people we send there and those they appoint-the media who can reach us everywhere - in our cars, living rooms, online - our most successful corporations and the powerful men who run them - our military and the police and our dominant religions. Those are the main ingredients - and taken one by one, they are good things. They are ours, and we're proud of them. But what happens when they begin to cooperate - not in meeting the needs of the American people - but in consolidating their own advantages? Is it not the proper business of enterprises to succeed and do they not see their growing success as a good thing? Indeed they do - and therein lies the temptation. Fortunately, we have lots of history to look at now. The German people elected Hitler, for example. The Serbs loved Milosovitch, the Italians loved Mussolini. But for all the patriotic rhetoric, did their champions love them back? No. Their leaders were elitist snobs, convinced they could hoodwink their people into surrendering their liberties one by one. We have the advantage of historical hindsight; we have their papers and communications. They wrote the book on conquering their own nations from within. It should be required reading in every school. What I'd like to do is review with you what we know about fascism and then you can decide whether it's anything patriotic Americans should be worried about. We've made a start: we've identified the key players. They are the ones who always stand to benefit the most from fascism, however much of it they can get. And, however difficult this might be in an election year, let's proceed in the understanding that both our political parties face the same temptations here. Founding father James Madison gave us fair warning: "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by sudden and violent usurpations." More to come on this next time. Recognizing a matrix of temptations There is a risk that we might keep our eyes trained on the horizon for some foreign enemy while we are quietly looted and disenfranchised from within. This is what Ben Franklin had in mind as he left a session of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. A woman approached him on the street. "So, do we have a king?" she asked. "No madam," Franklin said. "You have a republic - if you can keep it." Fascism arises out of a matrix of temptations. The corporation may wish to maximize profits by reducing workers' wages and benefits. At some point, they run afoul of worker-protection laws and must secure the cooperation of elected officials to remove the obstacles to further profits. They offer campaign contributions and other amenities to those politicians most responsive to their needs. Needless to say, the newspapers and other media could raise the alarm. That problem is best solved by purchasing as many of them as possible and gradually weaning them (and the public) away from investigative reporting. Short attention-spans get even shorter. What if striking workers need a little physical instruction from police batons and, in extremis, army bayonets? These things have been arranged in America's past. Later on, as modern history reminds us, inconvenient intellectuals can be silenced -along with uncooperative media - until eventually we have more enforcement than law. History even illustrates how religious institutions can be tempted with the chance to see their values made compulsory by the silencing of rival sects and faiths or in harsher conditions, protection in return for silence. "In short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess." Adolf Hitler. How ironic: Hitler offers to improve the morals of his countrymen and defend them from the evil of liberal impulses. You don't attack fascism by attacking or demonizing any of its constituent parts. This is what the Left hasn't understood. Corporations are not villainous things, nor are cops on the beat or our own kinsmen who make up the military. Our churches are clear forces for good. But all institutions are subject to the temptations to advance their wealth and influence at the expense of ordinary people, even while declaring themselves to be the people's protector and friend. We've seen it all before, both here and abroad. So this is a good time to offer our first weapon against fascism. We vigilantly protect the political and economic interests of ordinary people against encroachment by any of the concentrated power interests we've been talking about. With every policy question that comes up, we ask, "Will this new suggestion put more money in the workers' pockets - or less? Will Americans be more free - or less so? Is our government more secret, or more open?" Then we vote. Why, after all, did we go to war against Hitler and Mussolini and Tojo? Why did we hold the line against the Soviet Union all those years but to protect our liberty and the chance ordinary people have here for a decent life. That being the case, we have to ask how a free and prosperous people can be tricked into surrendering their freedom and prosperity to fascists. How that happens is next. Extracting the freedom from a free people There is a science to this. The assault on the freedom of free people is as old as freedom itself. We see it in ancient Athens and Rome, but the most instructive lessons come after the Industrial Revolution and the creation of the mass media. The clearest lessons are offered by Hitler's rise to power, overthrowing the existing democracy in Germany. How shall a free people be persuaded to yield their freedoms up to a central government? In America, this should be a non-partisan (or a multi-partisan) question. Nobody owns this. First, you need an emergency. You can always make one up, but usually there's something scary going on you can point to. Top Nazi Hermann Goering put it this way: "It is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship,. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." So you need a climate of fear. Put a steady diet of fear into a man and soon a steady stream of anger comes out the other end. Fascism loves anger, encourages it as a form of civic righteousness, then uses its political steam to do the new work of the state. We can recognize fear and anger as spiritual toxins. Fascism depends on those. Citizens are encouraged to think of themselves as victims whose desperate plight excuses them from moral restraints. The fascist enthusiasm for manly action prefers polarization to reconciliation, war-making to peace-making. This preference wins fascism the allegiance of defense contractors and many in the military, especially \the senior officer corps. Those who don't go along are replaced with new, enthusiastic recruits. Fascism distrusts intellectuals not already on board, and seeks to crush dissent from any defenders of civil rights and freedom. So fascism makes war on ambiguity. Problems are distilled to childlike simplicity; all questions are reduced to yes or no. Fascism glorifies decisive action and the masculine. "Whenever anyone says the word "culture," said propaganda genius Goebbels, "it makes me want to reach for my pistol." Fascism identifies with a fixed set of national symbols and narrowly defines what it means to be a true member of the country. Those who can't or won't conform, either for reasons of faith or conscience or intellectual scruples, are denounced as unpatriotic and enemies of the state. In the name of country, citizens are encouraged to despise their fellow countrymen if they fail to conform. Ironically, the interests of God and faith can be invoked in the midst of the most immoral projects. We saw this in the medieval inquisitions. The faithful were threatened with hidden evils only a trained elite could detect and save them from. As always, extreme measures were called for. They always are. Fascist leaders will appear blasé and arrogant. Their usurpation of civil liberties must be justified by their superior knowledge and foresight. Here's where a subservient media is vital, so inconsistencies and mistakes can't be pointed out in public. When cornered, national security can always be cited, as Goering suggested over a half-century ago. If we have a color-coded system of national alert for terrorism, we should have one for fascism too. Watch for the signs; then vote against anyone whose behavior suggests fascism to you. Such patriotic vigilance transcends political party concerns. I know lots of people in both parties. None of them want fascism for America. Love of country is a good thing, but it has to translate - as love always must - into actual benefit for the beloved. Democracy is safest when economic and political power is not concentrated in too few hands. Such concentration cannot be justified as a defense of democracy. It is, in fact, democracy's executioner. The character of freedom We are Americans who love our country. We love our freedom. We love the land we live in and we're grateful for the quality of life it gives us. We also know that freedom always has its enemies. In today's world, those enemies come at us from two main fronts: they are religious extremists bent on terrorizing us into conversion or they are powerful persons intent on tightening their grip on wealth - and their advantage over those whose work produces it. If we do what citizens in a democracy are expected to do, faced with a threat, we'll ask ourselves what we need to do to counter the threats that face us. At the moment, I'm not talking about the things somebody else is supposed to do to protect us. I'm talking about what we ourselves can do. (I can feel Jefferson clearing his throat impatiently behind me.) We must perfect ourselves as best we can as citizens. We must embody - each one of us - the character of freedom. How, you ask, can traits of character - any character - detect a nuclear device being smuggled into Detroit? Obviously, it can't. We have the FBI for that. What possessing the character of freedom will do is equip us to respond appropriately to whatever happens to us next that whatever casualties our enemies inflict on us, our liberty itself will not be among the missing. So what would a democratic character look like? It would be the character of fascism turned inside out. If fascism stokes fear and anger, democracy responds with courage and forbearance. We have people shouting at us and telling us every day why we deserve to be angry and who we're supposed to be angry at. If we're going to think straight, we need to calm down. Keeping a clear head under pressure is the stuff of heroism. The democratic character expects every human being to be capable of self-transcendence when it counts. If fascism promotes a punitive intolerance of non-conformity, freedom asks for proof of injury before judging others. A free society can be defined as diversity thriving in an atmosphere of tolerance. We have our civil law to regulate our public lives, and the democratic character demands the law be applied equally to all. About religion and other private matters, democracy requires a respectful silence and a respect of others' privacy. If fascism distrusts the life of the mind and champions violent action instead, democracy requires critical intelligence from all its citizens - and an understanding of history. At the opening of our history, John Adams reminded us, "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people." In a democracy, the construction of a library is a patriotic act. If fascism glorifies war and its war leaders, democracy calls its citizens to it with extreme reluctance. The democratic character knows that the best way to support our troops is not to send them into danger unnecessarily. When we have no choice, we expect honor and valor from our warriors, but we also recognize the threat any permanently armed force poses to our own freedom. This ambivalence about armed force can be traced right back to the founding fathers. Most of all, the democratic character continually seeks to expand the fortunes of the common man and woman. There is, in that hope of expansion, an innate distrust of power and privilege. "He mocks the people," said Grover Cleveland, "who proposes that the government shall protect the rich and that they, in turn, will care for the laboring poor." Any charlatan can burst into tears at an unfurled flag. American fascism, if it ever comes, will be as American as half-time at the Super Bowl. So it won't be on their expressions of patriotism that we should choose our leaders but for their protection of liberty and the lack of secrecy with which they do the public's business. At the beginning of our history, the founding fathers had to justify, in an age of autocracy, the vesting of ordinary people with political power. To do so, they had to insist that ordinary people can have the wisdom to know what is right and the moral courage to do it. No institution can be better than its members. Nothing has changed. While freedom occasionally requires us to fight for it, we defend it best, and daily, by living in it. Lawrence Brown, 508-771-5096 Proposed series of columns for the Cape Cod Times Regards, A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: mack/misophist Date: 28 Jan 04 - 09:03 AM Sounds correct to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Amos Date: 25 Aug 04 - 07:28 PM Another vector that stinks like mackerel in the moonlight is the gradual stupidification and dumbing of the press. See this article on the Abrasion of the Fourth Estate in Wired for an example. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: GUEST Date: 25 Aug 04 - 09:04 PM Will someone please tattle on Amos for that bloody cut and paste? Jaysus, Amos what the hell was the necessity for that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Once Famous Date: 25 Aug 04 - 09:22 PM I was considering doing a cut and paste of an article of the best hot dog joints in Chicago, but we can start with a list right here: Jimmy's Poochie's Hot Dog Island Wolfy's Portillo's Big Herm's Gene & Jude's Gold Coast Dogs Anybody been to any of those while in this great city? Amos, feel free to reply. Any Intelligent Assessment is welcome! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Don Firth Date: 25 Aug 04 - 09:27 PM Printed off to read at my leisure. Thanks, Amos. It looks like something I've been screeching about for some time, but everybody gets on my case for being so nasty as to mention "the f-word" in relation to what might be going on in this country. The "It can't happen here!" attitude strikes me as frightenly naive. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Aug 04 - 09:27 PM Well, Amos says the article isn't available on any Website, and I couldn't find it. That being the case, I guess I'll let it slide. The main purpose of the rule is to prevent posting of lengthy stuff that appears at multiple other locations on the Internet. Still, it sure is pushing the rule a good deal. It's an interesting article, but I sure wish he had edited it down a bit. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: pdq Date: 25 Aug 04 - 09:31 PM Is this crap thread going to be revived daily by Amos? He already has the "Amos's Cut-and-Paste Bashing of the Bush Administration" with 250 posts, 99.47% by Amos. BURP!!! Pass the pickle relish if you would, Martin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: GUEST Date: 25 Aug 04 - 09:49 PM "How safe is America from Fascism today? It took a world war, a fortune in American blood and treasure and 70 million lives around the world to wrestle fascism to the ground last time." That pretty much sums the sucker up in a nutshell, though. Two bloody sentences. Couldn't you have used some editorial judgment, Amos? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Amos Date: 25 Aug 04 - 09:58 PM Gee -- lookit all these cocoanuts being thrown my way!! Please note, Joe and PDQ, that long cut and paste was done back in January. Rather than "daily", this is eight months later. I agree I should have cut it down judiciously -- I guess I was pressed for time at the time. Aside from some minor distortions in time-measurement I would also mention that the slippery slide toward fascism is a tad more important than whether someone thinks I talk too much. But never mind -- it isn't blues or folk music so, Joe, I leave it in your capable hands to delete the whole thing, or the thread, as you deem fit. A
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: robomatic Date: 25 Aug 04 - 10:19 PM With all due respect, the article is twaddle, and long winded twaddle at that. It's a rehash of the same kind of thing the left said about the right and if you re-word it to read liberals instead of fascists, and change the freedom bit to values, you will have a standing rant of Limbaugh. And I don't respect a cut and paste job of that length when the originating person should express it first in his or her own words and perhaps come to the same conclusion and save us a spot of bother. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Bobert Date: 25 Aug 04 - 10:49 PM Well, true enough. Bush is no Hitler. But neither was Hitler Bush! Bush is a lot more powerful than Hitler. But let me back up here. Bush isn't really Bush. He is nuthin' more than a manipulated small time manipultive frat boy. Nothin' more. This is what we get when we get average frat boys runiin' the world's only super power. Like what did anyone expect, fir gosh sakes? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Once Famous Date: 25 Aug 04 - 10:58 PM I expected more expectorate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Bobert Date: 25 Aug 04 - 11:22 PM You been 'round the boy when he's on the prezels, Martin? Didn't think so... Bobert p.s. But seriously fir one minute. There was a guy who attempted to ask Bush some questions from the floor of a recent political event in Martinsburg, WV, who was not only removed, threatened with arrest but showed up to work the following morning only to be told he was fired. In another situation a professor wore a Kerry tee-shirt to a Bush rally and was harrassed verablly and told he would have to remove it. The same professor wore a Bush tee-shirt to a Kerry rally and was not ahrrasssed or even confronted. Now no one go getting thinking that this ol' hillbilly from these two reports that I'm votin' fir Kerry 'cause I prolly ain't but it does suggest that the "culture" within the Bush camp is a little further down the line toward fascism... Fascism is a culture more than a form of governemnt. Once you get the peanut gallery on board, the rest is easy. It almost doesn't matter what kind of governemnt you *say* you have... That's what is so very dangerous in the US today. It is becominf less tolerant and more nationalistic by the minite... That's what I mean by culture... Hard to change that stuff... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Bev and Jerry Date: 26 Aug 04 - 01:50 AM Well,we, at least, are happy that you posted this, Amos. It says what we've been saying for some time but better. In the last four years we have been moving rapidly toward a fascist form of government and are now in a dangerous position. Bev and Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: rich-joy Date: 26 Aug 04 - 04:56 AM For what it's worth, I agree with Bev and Jerry, Amos - I found it very interesting and I appreciate you posting this - ALL of it!! I'm not American - but it certainly has uncomfortable echoes in my own fair country of Oz ... Cheers! R-J (who always said she was never gonna get caught up in the non-music threads, ESP. the political ones!!!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Amos Date: 26 Aug 04 - 10:26 AM Thanks, Bev, Jerry and RJ. Doing what I can.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: The Shambles Date: 26 Aug 04 - 10:55 AM Aside from some minor distortions in time-measurement I would also mention that the slippery slide toward fascism is a tad more important than whether someone thinks I talk too much. Did YOU say that Amos *Smiles* If it matters at all, we are in total agreement for once, but the air here is rather thick with an irony that not many seem to be aware of. To quote from the cut and paste - that Joe has so kindly not deleted, although I am sure that it would have filled-up his PC screen, which is supposed to be the hard and fast rule on cut and paste contributions - There is a risk that we might keep our eyes trained on the horizon for some foreign enemy while we are quietly looted and disenfranchised from within. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: mack/misophist Date: 26 Aug 04 - 11:14 AM I endorse the post also. I also recommend that robomatic refer back to Bobert's comment on 'culture'. Historically, it's common for a percentage of Americans to dislike the government. Hating or fearing the government is pathological, a sign of significant internal problems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Aug 04 - 12:02 PM Missed this first time around. Good article, avoided hysteria, and identified the things that matter, not the superficial bits which people seem to focus on most times. The obvious repression and the swaggering and the uniforms and that are stage-dressing. Since it's not an article that can be linked to, I can't see that the cut and paste convention really applies. As a post it's long, but as an article it's fairly short, and I think it deserved to be read in full. I think cutting something which can't be accessed in full isn't really a good thing to do. Maybe in a case like this, whether it's an article by someone else, or a piece by a member, the answer is for the member to put it on a website themself, and then put a link and a quote here. That way the post is still fairly short, and the article might well be easier to read. Thanks Amos. Don't worry about the blowflies buzzing around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Don Firth Date: 26 Aug 04 - 12:09 PM mack/misophist, fear of government in not pathological or a sign of "significant internal problems." Fear of government was one of the reasons for drafting the United States Constitution in the first place. It is the major reason for the Bill of Rights. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Aug 04 - 02:40 PM "...significant internal problems" What does internal mean there? Inside the people who are worried about how far they can trust their government, or inside the country where people feel like that? I read it the second way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Once Famous Date: 26 Aug 04 - 02:49 PM Hot dogs should not be eaten with ketchup. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: pdq Date: 26 Aug 04 - 02:57 PM OK, as long as it isn't Heinz. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Once Famous Date: 26 Aug 04 - 03:03 PM But Heinz does make the best ketchup. good for your fries. It's just not proper hot dog etiquette to eat a hot dog with ketchp, especially in chicago. You can be refused service in many top joints for ordering one that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: PoppaGator Date: 26 Aug 04 - 04:08 PM I'm glad that the *entire* article was posted. The author seems to have already edited it sufficiently; it's quite eloquent, all meat, no filler. As for you crybabies who don't want to see your favorite corporate patsy (er, oops, I mean president) being "bashed," perhaps you didn't notice that the article takes great pains *not* to identify the danger of fascism with any particular individual, but on the contrary, warns us that the threat to our freedoms could easily come from any corner, any party. On the other hand, of course, if the shoe fits, wear it! The most readily identifiable potential villians, naturally, are the group we were warned against by that great Republican, Dwight D. Eisenhower; he coined the term "Miltary-Industrial Complex" to identify them in his farewell address. It's too bad that today's Republican insiders show no understanding of what that great general and president was trying to tell us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Wesley S Date: 26 Aug 04 - 04:26 PM Now Martin - Here's something worth having a flame war over. Anybody who would tell me that I can't put Ketchup { yes - Heinz Ketchup } on a hot dog IS A BLOODY FASCIST !!!!. I demand that all of your posts reguarding hot dogs be deleited right now. Next thing you know you'll be telling this Texas guy that you can't put chili on a hot dog either. Shame on you !! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Wesley S Date: 26 Aug 04 - 04:28 PM And shame on the horses you Yankees use to make hot dogs too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Once Famous Date: 26 Aug 04 - 04:37 PM First of all, Wesley, it is apparent that you do not know a hot dog from what is between your legs. Chicago is world famous for it's Kosher hot dogs, eaten and enjoyed by it's citizens from all walks of life. For the great unwashed like yourself, Kosher hot dogs are made from all beef under the best of conditions. Hot dog stands in Chicago, many of them one of a kind small businesses, out number the fast food chains and most have loyal followings with much competiton amonst themselves which, in our good old fashioned capitalistic way, promotes a better product. I'm not telling you that you can't put heinz ketchup on your "bloody" hot dog or on a bloody head wound either. I'm just telling you, plain and simple that your knowledge about such a simple subject is extremely limited, and that in this great city by the lake, you would be ridiculed, laughed at, and scorned as someone who is totally clueless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: GUEST Date: 26 Aug 04 - 04:43 PM How do we stand on mustard and onions? Just want to get it right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Wesley S Date: 26 Aug 04 - 04:58 PM Marin - First of all I have a firm grip on what's between my legs. And it's not unwashed. Second - I can discount anything you have to say because you're a yankee. Your brain is frozen like your hot dogs. You can't help it. Third - If you need to know about beef - come to Texas - we have a little bit of it down here. Who do you think kept your packing plants open and busy all these years ? Texas beef. Fourth - Of course all of your hot dog stands are small businesses. When they start making any money somebody named "Al" will come by and offer some "protection" - and I'm not talking about sheep parts wrapped in plastic. Fifth - Granted - you have more of a grasp of simple subjects. And - Sixth - Try to keep up - you'll have to move onto your other hand - I would consider being "ridiculed, laughed at, and scorned" by the unjailed people of Chicago as a badge of honor. PS - The "great city by the lake" is Duluth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: robomatic Date: 26 Aug 04 - 05:08 PM In the interests of learning more about fascism I was looking up an English translation to the Horst Wessel song, and landed on a site which is ostensibly a Communist empire of the internet based on Elmo (yes, THAT Elmo). Anyhow, they had a very nice Saddam rap and while I suppose it could go to the music thread I spend so much of my time 'below the line' and thought i'd insert it here: Saddam Rap |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 26 Aug 04 - 05:18 PM It's a good article and well worth posting. I'm glad to see it. Bush is unlike Hitler in several ways, but if he and the boys lead us into fascism -- and that appears to be the direction they're going -- he may be about as good. 'Fascism is what happens when concentrations of wealth and power join forces to consolidate their advantages and advance their interests. "Modern fascism should properly be called 'corporatism', since it is a merger of the state, military and corporate power." said Benito Mussolini, Italy's tyrant in WW2.' clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Once Famous Date: 26 Aug 04 - 05:59 PM Wesley I only agree with your first point. You do have a firm grip on what's between your legs. Be careful.. You might want to use some ketchup as a lubricant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: M.Ted Date: 26 Aug 04 - 06:56 PM Obiviously, Martin and PDQ do not want this discussion to take place, and will do whatever they need to do to disrupt it--just like the Brown Shirts used to do-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: pdq Date: 26 Aug 04 - 07:13 PM Gee, M.Ted, you'd think someone had accused you of being a Kraut Dog. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: mack/misophist Date: 26 Aug 04 - 08:07 PM Note to Don Firth and McGrath of Harlow: I agree with both of you. I read somewhere that many chat programs include an option to "ignore this person". Perhaps such a thing could be added here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 26 Aug 04 - 08:24 PM The article's OK, but I can't see much new in it. Most of the ideas have been well aired in Europe - not least the bit about how easily populations can be manipulated, which should be a real concern in the US right now, and to some extent in the UK too. (Certainly instructive to quote Goering on this.) I notice the author complains about latter-day politicians being compared with Hitler, then goes on to put Milosevic right up there with Hitler and Mussolini. Milosevic was no Hitler, and certainly never a fascist - fascism being a fairly specific idealogy, summed up in some degree by the quote attributed to Mussolini. In suggesting that he was, the author - to quote his words back at him - slanders Milosevic and squanders his own credibility. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Once Famous Date: 26 Aug 04 - 10:41 PM Mted, I could give a crap about brown shirts. Pay more attention to your brown shorts. Phew. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Aug 04 - 04:29 AM As I read it the point about Milosevic on the article wasn't so much that he was a fascist, but a reminder that murderous dictators can have widespread popular support. People often seem to assume that this isn't the case. The truth is, to be an effective dictator you have to have pupular backing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 27 Aug 04 - 08:26 AM So in what sense was Milosevic a dictator, McG? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Mark Ross Date: 27 Aug 04 - 10:33 AM The difference between George W.Bush and Adolf Hitler? Hitler was democratically elected! Mark Ross |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Bev and Jerry Date: 27 Aug 04 - 07:23 PM Actually, Hitler wasn't elected - at least not in the sense we use the term. In two elections held in 1932, Hitler was soundly defeated in his run for president by Hindenburg. In the third 1932 election, this time because the Reichstag had been dissolved, his party received a plurality - about 31% of the votes. So, the president, Hindenburg, named Hitler Chancellor. When Hindenburg died in 1934, Hitler assumed the presidency without an election. So Hitler became president without ever getting a majority of the popular vote. Sound familiar? Bev and Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Aug 04 - 08:27 PM Milisevic was a dictator in the sense that any opponents were effectively silenced, by whatever means necessary, and the power of the state was used in order to ensure that there was no prospect of a change of regime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 28 Aug 04 - 09:34 AM It can't be so, McG, if only because there WAS regime change, as a direct result of the elections in 2000. Certainly Milosevic then tried to cling to power, but I would put that crime little higher than Heath's in February 1974 or Bush's in 2000-01. Until then he had always been elected to the offices he held. Anyway, in 2000 the army would not support him, and he handed over power with (a show of) good grace, shaking hands with his successor Kostunica and wishing him well. Whatever the sincerity of that, it was clear he was not going to be raging from the sidelines like an embittered pretender, and the tone of such handovers is not insignificant in terms of the bearing they have on future stability. Remember that the line you are defending, or explaining, is that Milosevic was on a par with Hitler when it came to conquering his own people from within. In fact he only ever sought to deliver what his own people wanted - what many of them still do want, incidentally. The Socialist Party of Serbia, of which he is still the nominal leader, still polls strongly, to the great annoyance of Washington and its allies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: The Shambles Date: 28 Aug 04 - 10:47 AM Does it really matter if these people are referred to as being fascist, murderous dictators or the saviour of the land? If you are forced from your home (and worse) by the their crimes (or policy) - which is designed to enable them to grab, maintain or increase their personal power - does the exact term matter? I can think of many general terms of abuse that will suffice. Remember that the line you are defending, or explaining, is that Milosevic was on a par with Hitler when it came to conquering his own people from within. In fact he only ever sought to deliver what his own people wanted - what many of them still do want, incidentally. The Socialist Party of Serbia, of which he is still the nominal leader, still polls strongly, to the great annoyance of Washington and its allies. When you are in power - some of your people always want to murder and steal from some others of your people. The former are usually thought of as criminals...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Aug 04 - 11:22 AM "On a par with Hitler" - I didn't say that. Just because a regime isn't on a par with Hitler doesn't mean it isn't dictators. Though you could have said of Hitler too that "In fact he only ever sought to deliver what his own people wanted". That's the point. Dictators only stay in power while they can somehow manage to deliver what people want, or make people want what they deliver. Or at least a significant section of the people. In the end, when Milosevic wasn't delivering what people wanted, they got rid of him. Since the army had abandoned him the coup was a relatively bllodless one, in this case. And while Milosevic used the Socialist label, he had long abandoned Socialism in any real sense. The label doesn't mean much - after all Hitler used it as well. The only thing is, it does keep some good people on side long than they otherwise would be the case. And the collapse of dictatorships that exploited the label doesn't mean that there still aren't a lot of people who are going to work to bring about a genuinely socialist society, in Serbia and in other countries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 28 Aug 04 - 01:33 PM I didn't imply that you did say it, McG. I was reminding you what it was in that article at the top of the thread to which I took exception and which you defended. The suggestion that "Dictators only stay in power while they can somehow manage to deliver what people want" is one you might prefer to have deleted when you did your preview routine. And why do you call the coup "relatively" bloodless? Why do you say "coup" at all? I'd have thought the stuff about socialism was wholly irrelevant. Not sure what point Shambles is making, but he may recall that Franjo Tudjman in Croatia and Milosevic both attempted to rid Bosnia of muslims when the intention was to carve up the territory between them. Tudjman, who reinstated the insignia of the fascist Ustasha - the regime that murdered Serbs in their hundreds of thousands in WW2 -was supported by Washington. Milosevic was not. Maybe because of that word "socialist" attached to the name of the party he led. By the way, it's only lately that "ethnic cleansing" has become unfashionable. The world hardly batted an eyelid when the Brits did it a generation or two earlier. Even now it may have a role in resolving some of the world's more intractable problems. But it depends how it's done of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Aug 04 - 02:02 PM Tudjman's was also a loathsome regime, and also had popular support, and that just underlines the point that dictators need to be in some sense popular. (In this case relatively popular with powerful people in foreign countries, which is a fairly common state of affairs for dictators, until they tread on someone's toes.) That's a generalisation, but I think it's as true as most generalisations. There are some repressive regimes where it isn't true, typically colonialist regimes and puppet regimes, but, aside from that situation, the idea that in all dictatorships the vast majority are seething with a longing to overthrow their rulers is very hard to sustain. That doesn't make the regimes any less repressive for the unfortunate minority that gets pushed around or even murdered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Intelligent Assessment On Fascism From: The Shambles Date: 28 Aug 04 - 03:01 PM I thought my pont was fairly simple. If your people want to steal from and murder others, these are crimes. If you deliver this you are also a criminal. It does not matter what else you are called nor if your crimes are greater or lesser than those of other nor what other countries may support you. |
