None dare call it 'fascism'. I ask, why not?

[Stinky The Clown]

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism):

"Merriam-Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

and

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

We're all familiar by now with the 14 points of fascism (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm)

Why is it wrong to suggest that the US government has become fascist? Is the term too close to the 'N' word (Nazi)? Do we look silly or tin foily when we do?

For virtually *every* reason you dislike (dare I say hate?) this regime, you can make a very credible and very direct connection to fascism's underlying characteristics.

The only thing we lack is a dictator ...... oh wait ..... never mind.

I say we're already there. The US today *is* fascist.

And fascism has *always* fallen and the failed society's bones picked over by outsiders. And I also fear that our bones may already be on the verge of being exposed ... if they're not already so. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2682117

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. I have no problem

with fascism, but I think Nazi is over the top.

We do appear to meet the dictionary definition of fascim rather well.

[Jed Dilligan]

2. What with Prescott Bush and all

why is "Nazi" so over the top? Nothing indicates that this family have changed their minds on racial and social-control issues.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

8. Because "Nazi"

means Holocaust to me. I have seen nothing that comes close to even the shadow of that blight on humanity.

Nazi needs to mean Nazi. They earned that notariety.

[Jed Dilligan]

9. Bush family supported the Holocaust

And they supported everything in post-WWII times that started to look like a holocaust, be it America's racist War on Drugs or the secret torture camps in Poland. Just because it's a little less sudden doesn't reduce the moral equivalency.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

11. Okay, let me get this straight

you really, really, honestly believe there is moral equivalency between the Bush administration and the Holocaust?

(And I'm not including his grandfather in this...)

It's a numbers thing to me. When we get in the neighborhood of Sixty million I'm with you.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Grannie, I got your back on this one

Making the link from Bush to Naziism is *exactly* what gets into tin foilyness. The case simply cannot be made. And while I truly believe they are guilty of both war crimes and crimes against humanity, I am equally firm in believing they are neither guilty of or contemplating mass genocide.

[Jed Dilligan]

15. So what made them stop, and when?

Contemplating genocide, that is.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

20. Elaborate

Who is "them"?

Did you mean what made the Nazis stop? I guess defeat in 1945.

If you meant this administration, I'm not following you.

[Jed Dilligan]

23. No, I mean the Bush crime family

They supported Hitler from the gate until Roosevelt shut them down in '42. Prescott was big into eugenics and a final solution to our own "negro problem." My question is, how much of this did his son and grandson let go of, and when did they let go of it? Was it after the crack and machine guns showed up in the inner cities at, mysteriously, the same time, or was it before that, for instance?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

29. Wow, Jed...

you are really extrapolating a bit there. Big Daddy Bush wasn't the only person who thought Hitler was kind of cool. So did the British Royal Family for a white, Walt Disney, Joseph Kennedy. They all backed off quickly when they saw what a madman he became.

Crack and machine guns? Well, machine guns were all over Chicago during Prohibition and the gangster years. Bonnie and Clyde...the Roaring Twenties.

I could be persuaded, however, that crack was kind of a LIHOP "plot" if you will, aimed at the inner cities. But I think it was a multi-faceted plot that included organized crime and perhaps the FBI.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. I don't think they've started

[Jed Dilligan]

25. Look up Prescott Bush

and trading with the enemy

[papau]

64. A few of us have your back on this one. Indeed while George W's GOP

fits today's simple definition of fascism as the giving of a huge role to business corporations in government decision-making at the expense of the public, albeit that today's GOP have other traditional fascist characteristics like centralization of authority under a "dictator" like office, certain unelected bodies having a critical role in the decision-making process. advocating a meritocracy while maintaining a (more or less inherited) class structure, and suppression of the opposition through smear and censorship, it is not the Mussolini construct of the state ultimately subordinating both business and labor, again with certain unelected bodies having a critical role in the decision-making process, and with the economic goal of the greatest possible prosperity the state as a whole (but with no goal of sharing that prosperity with all classes) at the expense of all else with centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, and suppression of the opposition through both terror and censorship.

Now the Nazis that Prescott Bush did, unlike Kennedy, finance, were their own variation of "fascism" with some parts of Mussolini's fascism missing, and with the additional characteristics that make the word Nazi much more of a swear word than fascist.

By the way, one should remember that while Joe Kennedy Sr. did not finance the Nazis like Prescott Bush did (Joe only bought some of the stock of Nazi companies from Prescott Bush - and that is not a financing unless the stock is bought directly from the company as in a IPO), Joe was a Nazi sympathizer (the Nazi's fascist corporate controlled economy that the rich have always liked having the additional attraction of the Nazi's saying they advocated not having a class-based society - the old meritocracy con job).

[Jed Dilligan]

14. It's a numbers thing to you?

Wow, I'll have to process that for a while and get back to you.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

18. Yes, numbers

when you compare and contrast heinous regimes, at some point you have to refer to the data.

[Jed Dilligan]

19. So how many deaths through racist and piratical warfare

are acceptable within the parameters of Democracy?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

27. Now, now

I did not say any were "acceptable within the parameters of Democracy."

I said you can't compare one with the other. There is a continuum. And when you are comparing this sort of evil, numbers do count.

Comparing Bush to Hitler is counterproductive. This is now, that was then. This is Bush. That level of hyperbole takes all the onus off the Bush regime and makes whomever exhibits it look ignorant at best and slightly deranged at worst.

And I don't think you are deranged. Just take a deep breath and look at the facts without emotion. There is no comparison.

[Jed Dilligan]

28. Well, I heartily disagree.

I see both comparisons and a continuum. If you are trying to police the message of the Democratic party, I wish you luck trying to do that here... I am speaking what I believe to be the truth, which is that the only thing keeping Bush from being Hitler is the tattered shred of democracy we have left. It would be nice to believe otherwise, but nothing supports such a view.

[The Magistrate]

33. You May Believe It To Be The Truth, Sir, But That Does Not Make It So

To draw a valid comparison, one must demonstrate serious knowledge of the items being compared. It is hard to discern such knowledge in the comments you have made thus far on this matter.

[Jed Dilligan]

35. Well, come on over to my place

and give me a history test. Or, maybe not--you talk funny and kind of creep me out.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

39. LOL

I think you'd both have a good time. It's a nice afternoon to tip a few.

[The Magistrate]

47. If You Wish An Examination, Sir

One can be readily contrived here and now....

Nazism arose from a particular time and place, greatly conditioned by existing trends in the political and social life of the country where it arose, as well as the personal characteristics of its leadership and its focal figure.

Which of these trends in German political and social life, and which elements of the personal characteristics of the Nazi leadership, and Adolph Hitler himself, would you view as the most important ones?

[Jed Dilligan]

90. You know, I would like to have a lengthy discussion with you

But the pompous way you write is really grating. It doesn't seem like a real person who's doing the writing. Can you agree to drop some of the fluorishes and get, well, real? Because I can't get into this with you if you don't.

[The Magistrate]

94. That, Sir, Is An Interesting Way To Avoid Giving An Answer To The Question

It remains up to you whether you wish to demonstrate your knowledge of the developement of Nazism by identifying which trends in German political and social life, and which elements of the personal characteristics of the Nazi leadership, and Adolph Hitler himself, you view as the most important ones in its course.

[Jed Dilligan]

95. I'm not dodging anything

I just can't talk to you if you keep calling me "sir" (for instance.) It really makes me feel sick.

[Jed Dilligan]

96. PS

You have asked for my answer to an opinion question. No historian would claim that such a broad topic is not open to different interpretations. So I will answer, presumably have a different opinion from yours, and thus prove that you are smarter than me... which as far as I can see is your only reason for existing.

[The Magistrate]

99. Of Course There May Be Different Opinions, Sir

All that interests me here is discovering yours, and seeing how you support them. That would provide some indication of the depth of your knowledge of the msatter.

"Explain World War Two; use both sides of the page if necessary."

[Jed Dilligan]

106. Really, I won't talk to you if you call me "sir"

It feels like you're calling me "boy." I really don't like it, and if you can't drop the affectation for even one conversation, I really don't want to talk to you at all.

[inthebrain]

97. Do you really belive that Hitler didnt have inspiration

from the American model of capitalism? His ideas from the final solution came from our Native American Genocide. In order to maintian his war economy he was looking at the American Plantations in the south. He admired America for its "keeping with white purity".

As far as militarization against labor we've seen plenty of that here as well. You might want to have a look at the Homestead Strike and the Ludlow Massacre.

Our government has never been bashfull when it come to forcing Americans to work when they refuse. Recently we had the NY transit workers strike and in the 80's the Air Traffic Contollers.

[The Magistrate]

98. He Certainly Liked 'Old Shatterhand' Sir

You have heard of Herr May?

But the United States is not the center of history, and certainly not the center of German political thought. Influences much closer to hand, and more immediate in their impact on the man's life, abound....

[TallahasseeGrannie]

36. Then we will have to agree to disagree

and I'm fine with that.

My children have virtually no relatives left on their German/Jewish side, so I tend to think of the Holocaust in personal terms. My husband's father was a Nazi Jew, which is actually not an oxymoron. His father's name (Jewish) was not on his birth certificate because of machinations by his maternal grandfather. He was able to hide for most of the war until he was captured in Poland in '45. The charade destroyed his life.

Could Bush go that far? I don't see it. But I wouldn't say it couldn't ever happen. But the situation with Hitler was far different. The German people had been humiliated and destroyed by the loss of WWII, and 9/11 is just a mere blip compared to that. We don't have a population of people as traditionally despised as the Jews were in Germany. Bush is a corporate fascist, but I don't believe he is insane.

[Jed Dilligan]

41. There's a thread I just saw that says, on the contrary

he IS insane, according to a psychiatrist who appeared on Randi Rhodes. I'll find the link again if you're interested.

I think there's an argument to be made that the loss of the Vietnam war and the cultural upheavals surrounding it were as devastating to America (at least on a psychological level) as the loss of WWI was to the Germans.

I'm not going to sit around and argue the semantics of it with you, but thanks for being relatively open-minded to my views.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

44. I could be convinced that he has

a personality disorder. But not insane. I'm "insane" and he and I have very little in common.

I hear your point about Vietnam. It was humiliating, BUT it did not destroy our homeland. Germany was not quite as rubblelized in WWI as II, but they were hurting and starving. They were READY for a savior.

We have those in our country who are also ready for a savior and think GWB is that person, but I think the biggest difference is that we have far, far fewer blind followers than Hitler did.

[The Magistrate]

50. Oh My Goodness, Mr. Dilligan

The statement that "...the loss of the Vietnam war and the cultural upheavals surrounding it were as devastating to America (at least on a psychological level) as the loss of WWI was to the Germans" is priceless, and you have a dour old man's hearty thanks for brightness it has provided the day.

Pschological impact alone never has anything approaching the effect of material impact, and the phychological effects obtaining from it. Roughly a fifth of all men of military age in Germany during the Great War were killed or maimed in its course. The Great War produced by its end open revolution, in what had been by common appreciation the most orderly and tractable society in Europe. It was followed not only by upheaval in private social mores, but substitution of armed chaos for political order, and the absolute destruction of money value, the faith in which the greatest anchor of social order resides. To pretend that events of the sixties and early seventies in this country approximate this is to claim a man who finds he has a hangnail is in about the same state as a man who has lost his arm in a threshing machine.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

54. Thank you for bringing up

an element of WWI I had not considered. (the upheaval of social mores, etc.)

I know that my father in law squirrels gold away because he is convinced in the end it is the only thing that can be bartered. He was a jeweler so he has sources.

[The Magistrate]

56. You Are Most Welcome, Ma'am

It is impossible to read the literature of the era without bringing away the understanding that the shattering of a way of life that had been accepted without much question by all, whatever their place in it had been, was the most profound effect of that calamatous violence. The only two events in Western history that stand comparison to the Great War, and its resumption two decades later, taken as they ought to be as a single event, are the Thirty Years War and the Black Death.

[Jed Dilligan]

89. I still think German culture, 1939

would be more recognizable to a German time traveller from 1913, than American culture today would be to a time traveller from 1963. That was my only point re Vietnam and its era.

[The Magistrate]

93. And You Would Be Wrong, Sir

Nor would that trifling test capture anything relating to the factors at play during the course of the war and its aftermath, which are the nub of the matter.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

70. What makes today scarier than 1941

is that we have people on both sides who would love it if the world, or large portions thereof, were destroyed. I'm talking, of course, of the religious fundamentalists. What is sad is that what the fundamentalist Christians say only bolsters the arguments of the fundamentalist Muslims, and vice versa. And caught in the middle are moderates and progressives. Religion was not a pivotal driving force in WWII, if I have read my history correctly.

[Vincardog]

30. Granny are the estimated 300,000 dead Iraqi civilians a big enough

number to start the comparison? little george's Grandfather was Hitler's BANKER during the war.

Do you want to wait until he kills 6 Million before we stop him?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

42. You gave numbers to my argument

600K vs. 60 million. (I'm including the total loss of life from WWII)

Maintaining that Bush is NOT Hitler is not the same as giving him a pass on what he is doing. Of course I want to see him stopped.

And according to the church you can go to hell for just one murder, so he's in big trouble with his God. But to historians (of which I am not one) numbers count.

Bush is, at present, small potatoes compared to the big guys: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

[Vincardog]

45. Can we agree that the most important thing is to stop his crazy agenda?

We have to take control of our country and stop the madness.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

46. Yes, we are in total agreement on that.

[treestar]

81. What about comparisons of America today with Germany just

as Hitler came to power?

There's nothing wrong with that.

Bushco doesn't have to kill 6 million people to be "like Hitler" in 1933. That's the point of the warning. Stop him before it gets that bad.

[DIKB]

76. Just as a

point in fact, it needs to be stated that Dubya's "Talibornagains" are responsible for more death in the first 5 years of rule, than the Nazis did in 6 years.

With Afghanistan, and Iraq still being occupied meatgrinders, and repukes chomping at the bit to go after Iran and Venezuela, when is the comparison valid ?

After 1 million deaths, or will you still make the distinction then ?

I don't intend sarcasm, I truly want to understand at what point is it okay.

If they are ultimately responsible for far more deaths than the Nazis, say 12+ million, from DU rounds, and "acceptable" collateral damage. Is it justifiable to make a distinction because we don't have "concentration camps" ?

If you're arguing numbers, than quite honestly you have no real argument at all, eventually we'll reach their numbers. Aside from the number of dead, every other comparison is valid. People see the term Nazi as inflammatory and extreme. If you approach it logically, and without the emotional appeal, it's a valid comparison.

*Added on Edit* Oh yes, I forgot the environmental impact, and possible repercussions. In so far as outright ruthlessness, shrub falls short of the "infamous ones". With his careless greed, he may be responsible for far more, and may affect the world more than Hitler EVER could have.

[tavalon]

82. So, Hitler wasn't evil before he killed 6 million?

Just because we happen to be ahead of the curve, as some were in Nazi Germany?

I'm not an advocate of calling this regime Nazi, but I'm bothered by your reason for not. The signs of where we are headed are just too obviously there to be ignored. I'm here because in 2001-2002 I saw signs of nationalism that were too much like Nazi Germany for me to ignore. I didn't know too much about fascism back then, do now and see that it is a better fit, but not because of numbers.

[Benhurst]

16. Yeah, Dubya isn't a Hitler.

But then he's plotted thousands of times more murders than Charles Manson.

If we're playing the numbers game, the United States is led by a man thousands of times worse than Charles Manson.

But I'm a bit uneasy reducing morality to a numbers game. At some point a line is crossed, and I fear this society has already crossed it.

[FiveGoodMen]

34. Is morality really based on a head-count?

I don't think we have to let BushCo have any final solution in order to see where they're headed (or, at the very least, where they're willing to go).

The deaths of the 300,000 or so -- civilians -- in Iraq where probably just as awful, individually, as the deaths of people during WWII. And they were carried out with the full knowledge that these people were not really a threat to us.

I definitely don't think we should give Bush a partial pass just because he hasn't topped Hitler's score so far.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

48. No, we should not give him a pass

but we can't compare him to Hitler.

[FiveGoodMen]

59. I can.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

67. Well, that's true

You can compare him to anyone you like!

[Clark2008]

38. Six million - not 60 - if you're talking about Jewish deaths.

Just throwing that in... go on with your discussion.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

52. I was referring to the total

of WWII, because we're holding Bush accountable for war deaths, so I thought that was fair.

62 million died overall in WWII, and six million Jews in the camps, but there were also five million non-Jews killed in the camps...handicapped, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.

[truedelphi]

84. Mike Malloy devoted a program to discussing Holocaust matters

And after taking a lot of calls from the audience, what he and the audience
pretty much came up with is that ONCE A SOCIETY AGREES THAT IT IS OKAY TO VIOLATE
mutilate and torture even one human, then you are on the road to fascism - because
after that it is just a matter of degree...

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I agree with you on use of the word "Nazi"

That was, if anything, a branch of fascism. But more to the point, it was specifically Hitler and specifically 1930s and 1940s Germany. It isn't a generic term.

[rman]

103. "fascism" is just Italian for "nazism"

same thing

[BrklynLiberal]

3. If it isn't Fascism, what the hell is it??????

:shrug:

[Vincardog]

5. K & R you have to name the beast in order to defeat it

[ShockediSay]

6. don't leave out 'corporative state'

an integral part of the fascist state

economic system inaugurated by the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini in Italy. It was adapted in modified form under other European dictatorships, among them Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist regime in Germany and the Spanish regime of Francisco Franco. Although the Italian system was based upon unlimited government control of economic life, it still preserved the framework of capitalism.

Legislation of 1926 and later years set up 22 guilds, or associations, of employees and employers to administer various sectors of the national economy.

These were represented in the national council of corporations. The corporations were generally weighted by the state in favor of the wealthy classes, and they served to combat socialism and syndicalism by absorbing the trade union movement. The Italian corporative state aimed in general at reduced consumption in the interest of militarization.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. That goes without saying

Corporatism and Fascism are nearly synonyms.

[Totally Committed]

21. AMEN, brother!

Resist corporatism and its proponents and the candidates they try to ram down your throats every election!

TC

[EstimatedProphet]

7. Why? Because we're Americans!

America can do no wrong. We're the good guys. We're the guys in the white hats. since we're the guys in the white hats, whatever we do is right, because we do it. Fascism is bad, therefore we aren't fascist.

[Dhalgren]

12. Fascist governments have never fallen from within -

only from outside assault. That's what we are faced with, and what we have to come to grips with. If we are to make history, here, it won't be at the ballot box. It will be in city streets and rural expanses and it won't be pretty...

[kenny blankenship]

26. One exception being Spain

Franco's Fascist "National Movement" did not survive him, but it did not disappear because of external correction, as was necessary in Axis countries, Germany, Italy, and Japan. (And even in being the exception the example of Franco is testimony in another way to the troubling durability of repressive rightwing regimes: maybe people do get sick of them in time, but as long as the principle leaders are alive there is not much that can be done, short of a general bloodbath, to dislodge their monopoly on power) The exception being noted, the general rule stands, and it's a rule that should give everyone a lot to think worry about.

[Stinky The Clown]

37. .... hence my final link in the OP.

[democrank]

17. Call a spade a spade.

It`s fascism.

[The Magistrate]

24. There Are Two Points, Sir, That Make The Identification Difficult To Sell

First, the situation today lacks the visual characteristics of fascism. The classic fascist movements were all characterized by such items as uniformed political militias daily encountered in the streets, and massive rallies focused on adulation of the leader. For most people, it is these elements that serve as the diagnostic of a fascist society, not the underlying characteristics of a political body and style of rule.

Second, the situation in the country today falls far short of the degree of repressive violence most people picture when they hear the word fascism, and conspicuously lacks the sort of militia mob violence that was emblematic of the historical fascist movements. There is simply no present equivalent to the gangs of black-shirts and brown-shirts brutalizing opponents on the streets in our country today.

Thus, for most people, what they see in our country's daily political and social life simply will not register as fascism, even though there certainly is a political bloc active in our country that does fit well many of the underlying motivations and attitutes of a fascist party. Further resistance is present also, owing to the unfortunate, decades' long habit on the left of using "fascist" as a hyperbolic term of abuse for the opponent of the moment, which has greatly denatured the term and robbed it of any real impact. For most people by now, hearing something called "fascist" communicates to them only that the utterer of the word is shrill and hysterical, not that the thing being called "fascist" by the utterer of the term is any real oppression or danger that they had better be damned wary of.

A good case could be made that the present Republican Party, deriving its mass strength from religious extremists, bewildered traditionalists, and persons capable of saying in all seriousness that the most oppressed element of our society is the middle aged white man, boasts enough elements of a fascist movement's emotional and social underpinnings to deserve the description on technical grounds, and certainly meets enough of them to be properly regarded at least as the breeding ground from which a full-bore fascist movement might spring to life. But this is not enough to rally a mass of people to repugnance against it on that ground. For there is, indeed, a further and deeper problem: many elements of fascist thought are genuinely and widely popular. One of the greatest mistakes of the left's view of fascism is to dismiss its genuine character as a mass movement, and view it as a mere product of manipulation by elites that is somehow forced upon the populace. Fascism appeals to some very deep elements of human character, and in all instances where it has risen to predominate in a country's political life, had wide and genuine popularity among the people as it did so. That it generally lost this mass appeal over the course of its predominance does not alter this characteristic of its early phase, and it is precisely this real appeal to the masses the orientation has that makes it dangerous.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Those are actually good points.

I tried to disagree with your post, hoping to find you asserting that what we have here is not fascism, but instead you are quite correctly asserting that while it may very well be fascism, 'most people' would not see it that way.

In that the cartoonish militarism of the classic fascist movements of the 30's - Italy, Germany and Spain - is not happening here, this is not that sort of fascism, and so the use of the word does not work. We have, as the saying goes, a kinder gentler fascism. A fascism that has a system of control as sophisticated and subliminal as the mass marketing engineers of our media industry can construct, it is a state of the art fascism.

I think if we look closely at the organizations of the theocratic wing of the ruling party we can see the outlines of their 'mob' that they are building and organizing for use if and when we descend into civil disorder. I think if we look carefully at the many motivations for outsourcing military units to private industry, once again we can see the outlines of a structure being created for imposing brute force control over the domestic population.

Perhaps it is all paranoia and they are not thinking that far ahead. Perhaps they believe their own bullshit and do not realize that they are driving this nation off a cliff with their insane economic, environmental, and military policies. Then again, perhaps that is exactly what they are doing.

[Stinky The Clown]

43. "it is a state of the art fascism"

An excellent turn of a phrase.

[The Magistrate]

55. Thank You, Mr. Warren

You make yourself some excellent points. It is, indeed, posible to discern some real groundwork being laid. The most important item you raise id the notion of a "state of the art" fascism. It must never be forgoten that the rulers learn, and may attempt to improve their performance by utilizing new tools and styles. It is doubtless quite posible to contrive an order that would have all the benefits for a ruling elite of fascism without all its conventional and discredited trappings.

[alvarezadams]

58. Zactly

Less visceral than my way of saying things... but I'm glad you see the point!

:toast:

[Stinky The Clown]

32. I come away from reading your reply with a feeling that you and I could

agree on the term 'nascent American fascism'.

With respect to the daily encounters with the brown shirts, to be sure we have no daily equivalent. To be equally sure, we have had organized bands lacking only the garb which have become active as needed to effect some result. I submit into evidence the 'mob' at the vote counters' doors in Florida, a mod comprised of political operatives including our current UN ambassador, if I am not mistaken.

I would also point to the screened and vetted assemblages of fawning supplicants at our own Il Dunce's 'public' appearances.

Surely, in your own words you can find equal examples of fascist nascence.

I will accept in whole your argument, but only with the proviso that I am accepting it as to the degree to which the cabal has moved along the path to fascism, not to the cabal's intent.

Your point about the distillation of the term - and its resulting ineffectiveness - that has root in its overuse is a good one. I agree.

[The Magistrate]

40. We Could Certainly Agree On That Term, Sir

And the danger is, in my view, very real. That it is a subtle danger only increases the peril.

[alvarezadams]

57. Danger yet...

the underlying forces behind the "nascent fascism" are accepted on this very board in the guise of the DLC.

Olin, Bradley, AEI, PNAC...

These are potentially worse than the assorted assembly of capitalists that Hitler was able to put together in order to gain power (the Krupps et al). Hitler USED those folks but ended up creating a symbiotic relationship in which he ruled and they prospered. The CURRENT situation is that of a group of Krupps getting together and actually creating a "movement" that gives them precisely the same, without having to deal with a charismatic leader.

Olin, Bradley, AEI - they support the DLC because they recognize the DLC as being just as valid a tool as the GOP to achieve their goals. They don't care about the minutia regarding abortion, etc. - they're concerned about perpetuating a neoliberal economic ideology that guarantees that government is the tool of corporations.

Ever since the right wing, under the greatest possible coercion, allowed universal suffrage, it has attempted to manipulate the electorate in order to perpetuate its privileges... and for the electorate to actually vote against what should be considered its "best interests". This is manipulation.

And given that both the neoliberals and the neocons are acolytes of Leo Strauss - a believer in manipulation as not only being licit but NECESSARY - I identify the whole bunch as the basis of the problem.

The American right is not "classical fascist"? Of course not - their love affair with that group ended when WWII turned it into treason. They've just changed the visage.

[The Magistrate]

63. So It Is Your Serious Belief, Sir

That the Democratic Leadership represents the same danger to humanity as did Nazism? And further, that members of this forum who speak in support of that organization are apologists and agents for fascism?

If, Sir, you ever wonder why it is that the left finds itself somewhat marginalized in the political life of the United States, there is little need to look further....

[alvarezadams]

66. Please do not be disingenuous

" So It Is Your Serious Belief, Sir, That the Democratic Leadership represents the same danger to humanity as did Nazism?"

Of course not. At worst the Democratic leadership represents the same danger as did the compendium of democratic parties in the 1930's that didn't recognize the dangers of fascism and that embraced it as a tool for "short-term political expediency".

If you're refering to the DLC, however, I indeed believe that its core "values" with regards to economics and foreign policy are very similar and suppose similar dangers. The support of the illegal war of choice in Iraq should be a major red flag in this respect.

"And further, that members of this forum who speak in support of that organization are apologists and agents for fascism?"

I've come across this sort of logical fallacies quite often in the past, mostly from the right. The emotional appeal, the willing misinterpretation of one's words... I realize that you're a moderator and I appeal to you to take into consideration that I live abroad and am the product of a different environment - one very much aware of how fascism works. I would hate to think that I'm being bated for some ulterior motive (such as my being banned from the board) through such a crass maneuver as to try to elicit such an egregious statement such as the one that you seem to put into my mouth.

I would never consider claiming that ANYONE is an apologist for fascism unless he actually made it clear that he was one. By definition an apologist is one who "argues to defend or justify some policy or institution" - and to date I've run across very few Americans who would dare do so with regards to fascism.

The problem is that this implies a -knowing- acknowledgement. In the 1930's many people gave unwitting support for fascism, which helped it come along. They had no way of knowing the ultimate consequences of their votes. Yet today we SHOULD know, given our supposed knowledge of history. Thus the dangers of a circumstantial movement that has become very savy with regards to the framing of arguments, etc.

"If, Sir, you ever wonder why it is that the left finds itself somewhat marginalized in the political life of the United States, there is little need to look further...."

Than the way you've interpreted my words or put words into my mouth? I couldn't agree with you more. The $1 billion/year indoctrination machine has indeed done its work.

[The Magistrate]

69. My Curiousity Is Quite Genuine, Sir

Whenever speaking, and particularly when speaking in political debate, it is wise to maintain some awareness of all the various possible constructions that could be put on what one says, and all the meanings that could possibly be extracted from one's words, most particularly by those with a hostile attitude to one's views. These things are not conducted by Marquis of Queensbury rules; fairness is no more to be expected than it is in a street fight. Any expression that depends on being regarded fairly is useless, just as any lunge that leaves oneself open to a riposte is dangerous. There is nothing peculiar to the right about this, though it may be that in the present situation rightists are somewhat better at it than leftists. We need to get that knack....

[alvarezadams]

72. Given recent circumstance

you will understand why I felt that I was being "baited" and that my words were being changed in order to .... whatever.

I am a veteran of OPEN boards and was initially very reticent to post on DU. The very concept of a board that disallows the participation of non-Dems seemed to be "anti-democratic" to me. Yet my concern for the developement of politics in my country and the direction that the DNC seems to be taking made me swallow my initial distaste and make a go of it.

I was indeed surprised to see that some antagonistic debate actually took place - with regards to the DLC. Since I had used the GOP's coopting of the neocons as a debating tool against a party with an actual liberal tradition and a continuing isolationist tradition, I was very awestruck to see them defended (in the guise of the DLC) here. The funding base, the PNAC contacts - made it abundantly clear to me that the DLC is to the DNC as the neocons are to traditional GOPers.

But nay - they are accepted by at least a minority of the DU. And in slugging matches I have found myself having posts deleted while similarly inflamatory posts by DLC supporters, posted in threads obviously designed to foster disunity -- to remain in place. I can deal with conflict and with debate - but I'd expect at LEAST an even playing field.

You baited me, "sir". You tried to have me say that the DNC is fascist or fascist-supporting. This is McCarthyesque - or you're giving me a chance to clarify. I'll stick with the latter because I refuse to believe that anyone from my party would (again, remembering the Kennedy's) stoop to such.

Aw hell - I'm a latin, quick to anger, quick to forgive.

But please remember that I see things from afar - from a place (called "anywhere outside the US") where the political spectrum actually ranges from the left to the right and not from the center-right to the extreme-right.

[The Magistrate]

75. You Can Find Antagonistic Debate Here, Sir

On many more subjects than that. Factionalism is the abiding curse of the left: we could, and doubtless would, have dandy civil wars among ourselves if there were not a reactonary left to draw breath.

We recieve complaints from all quarters that comments by those they disagree with that they consider imflammatory and devisive remain up, and protestations that a post of their's was not nearly so bad as someone else's. We discuss matters before taking any action, and take no action if no agreement on a matter clearly emerges. It is true that the volume of posts is so great we cannot examine everything put up, and are to some degree dependent on the alerts we receive from members to direct us to items that might require us to act. A certain amount of uneveness is unavoidable, though we make the best effort humanly possible to avoid it.

[alvarezadams]

51. Disingenuous

Not only have I lived under a bona fide fascist (falangist) regime, but I have family members who are card-carrying falangists and a grandad who was the chief of one of the falangists' "vertical unions". So let me tell you a thing or two about fascism.

Fascism was never more than a tool. It was an alternative to what had been considered discredited political ideologies of the left, and particularly of the right. Thus it took/takes many forms depending on where it is being applied.

While the 1930's movements were primarily based on charsimatic personalities that took advantage of the fascist movements in order to gain PERSONAL control... just as the Stalins and Pol Pots did the same with communistic movements... fascism as an ideology has certain traits that cannot be ignored. Especially today when the closest things to "charismatic leadership" in such movements are Le Pen and Haider, which is tantamount to next-to-nothing.

You seem to identify the cosmetic as being primordial parts of the beast. If fascists in the 1930's could have been successful without brownshirts/blackshirts, massive prep rallies or whatnot, they surely would have done so. The trappings of power and power itself are easily distinguished by... those with real power. You say "For most people, it is these elements that serve as the diagnostic of a fascist society, not the underlying characteristics of a political body and style of rule" - which shows either disdain for "most people" or ignorance of what fascism really is.

"Second, the situation in the country today falls far short of the degree of repressive violence most people picture when they hear the word fascism, and conspicuously lacks the sort of militia mob violence that was emblematic of the historical fascist movements."

Again you fall to confusion of symbol and referent.

"Further resistance is present also, owing to the unfortunate, decades' long habit on the left of using "fascist" as a hyperbolic term of abuse for the opponent of the moment, which has greatly denatured the term and robbed it of any real impact."

I often run up against people who consider that perspective is all. If the F word has been used for decades, consider that in the 1930's the US right was in love with fascism and even its charismatic leaders. The question shouldn't be that "the word has been robbed of its impact" but that "the concept has become acceptable", which is far worse.

"But this is not enough to rally a mass of people to repugnance against it on that ground. "

For it to be repugnant it needs to be recognized for what it is. It isn't and thus fascistic policies and ideals are EMBRACED - and through ignorance those who embrace it are shocked when a spade is called a spade.

"One of the greatest mistakes of the left's view of fascism is to dismiss its genuine character as a mass movement, and view it as a mere product of manipulation by elites that is somehow forced upon the populace. Fascism appeals to some very deep elements of human character, and in all instances where it has risen to predominate in a country's political life, had wide and genuine popularity among the people as it did so."

I cannot disagree more. The fact that some fascist movements had to adopt "socialist" as part of their very name in order to gain support shows the manipulative nature of these movements. Jingoistic nationalism is another.

I'm sorry to be so visceral on this subject- but then again my family has been bloodily divided by it. I still receive Xmas cards from those of my family unaware of my political values - with "baby Guardia Civil" angels escorting a baby Jesus under the shining light of the yoke and arrows. Meanwhile my father is scarred from bullets from the self-same Guardia Civil.

My business partner is a big fan of Franco, BTW. Yet he (a lawyer) reads the newspapers (right wing) and sees the GOP as being further to the right even than Fuerza Nueva. He is awestruck by the US' rw extremist tendencies and recognizes that the DNC would fit well within the right wing of Europe's assorted Popular Parties.

[The Magistrate]

61. If You Say So, Sir

But there does seem to be some confusion in categories in several of the objections you make. Neither the trappings of power nor the realities of power are the same as the means by which power is exercised. The uniformed militia and the mass rally were means to gain and exercise power, and the most important benefit they offered was cementig the identity of the follower into the whole, so that the follower experienced the glory and power of the whole as an element of his own personality. There are no tools so excellent for this purpose as submergence in a vast crowd of enthusiastic fellows, or bonding of shared violence with fellows at your shoulder amid the blows.

You seem to be maintaining the the general run of people are deeply conversant with questions of political theory, and that to describe them as not so is somehow a disparagement of them. My experience of life is that most people's interest in political thought is about the same as my interest in stock-car racing or women's tennis, things from which a handful of personalities have emerged to my distracted conciousness over the years by name, and a few events of which have forced themselves onto my notice in the course of informing myself on other matters. That politics is of great interest to me does not lead me to the belief it is great interest to everyone, for it has long been apparent to me much that fascinates me will draw at best a mild, "Oh, really...?" from a great many other people.

The most important element you still shy from recognizing is that the appeal of fascism is genuine; that it is has a real appeal for many people. Nationalism, violence, the comfort of being told in no uncertain terms what to do, the thrill of being part of a thing far greater than oneself, all make a powerful appeal to a great many people, and indeed, are raw elements of almost any political movement. That they leave you cold does not mean they do not set others panting with eagerness, nor does it make their response false and your's authentic and superior to their delusion. It is an unfortunate fact that a great deal of politics is really little more than a census of personality types....

[alvarezadams]

68. Clarification?

"But there does seem to be some confusion in categories in several of the objections you make."

Let's be specific.

"the trappings of power nor the realities of power are the same as the means by which power is exercised"

A point that I endeavoured to make. Yet you seem to interpret the trappings and the means as being the important aspect, while I point out that it is the power itself that is important. The ends do not justify the means and the means do not frame the ends.

"The uniformed militia and the mass rally were means to gain and exercise power, and the most important benefit they offered was cementig the identity of the follower into the whole, so that the follower experienced the glory and power of the whole as an element of his own personality."

And today's rw doesn't do the same, albeit in a more subtle manner? "Love it or leave it" (ca 1960's) or "you don't support our troops if you're against the war" (ca 2000's) are virtually the same, as are the townhall meetings, etc.

"There are no tools so excellent for this purpose as submergence in a vast crowd of enthusiastic fellows, or bonding of shared violence with fellows at your shoulder amid the blows."

See Townhall, Coulter, et al.

"You seem to be maintaining the the general run of people are deeply conversant with questions of political theory, and that to describe them as not so is somehow a disparagement of them."

Of course not. What I DO expect is that our leadership (of any party) would be a bit more responsible. The masses have always been fodder for manipulation and if the left/DNC has failed it has been because it has not been as adept at manipulating as the right has been. This is a painful virtue that needs to be overcome through the application of other virtues, most notably a strength of spine and a degree of confidence in the electorate - giving them more than the empty rhetoric that appears on the webs and going out and embracing the electorate and giving them the lowdown.

"My experience of life is that most people's interest in political thought is about the same as my interest in stock-car racing or women's tennis, things from which a handful of personalities have emerged to my distracted conciousness over the years by name, and a few events of which have forced themselves onto my notice in the course of informing myself on other matters."

This shows a singular lack of confidence in the concept of democracy. If interests wanes it is because interest has not been engaged - or worse still, expectations have been let down.

I've noted in the past that if there is any single guiding "philosophy" amongst Americans it can be found within the admittedly wide range that comprises libertarianism. And by this I don't mean the freepers but the values outlined in the Constitution, the DoI and the frontier tradition. From my experience most libs could be described as social libertarians or left-libertarians while the cons are wont to attack liberals because of a misguided belief in that liberals are somehow under the influence of collective ideals. The DNC has been woefully inadequate in representing social libertarians - just as it has been very unsuccessful in reacting to the varied and manipulative attacks that it has received ever since it pushed for overtime in the late 1930's.

Framing is the question.

"The most important element you still shy from recognizing is that the appeal of fascism is genuine; that it is has a real appeal for many people."

Of course it has an appeal. Its very success over the years has been its maniuplation or abuse of certain "buttons" - as you point out, nationalism, absolutism, etc.

"That they leave you cold does not mean they do not set others panting with eagerness, nor does it make their response false and your's authentic and superior to their delusion. It is an unfortunate fact that a great deal of politics is really little more than a census of personality types...."

While on one side I agree, perhaps I am too consequent or moral to be able to accept this without much distaste. At the same time I am aware of the machinations of a well-funded movement that has endeavoured to destroy liberal ideals, that has been active ever since the begining of the New Deal. I most strongly rebel against such manipulation and demand that the opposition - if it indeed IS an opposition - should go back to defending itself against such maneuvers. As it did during the times of Ike (a repub that would be a liberal dem nowadays) or Fulbright.

[The Magistrate]

74. Power, Sir

Does not exist without the means by which it is obtained and exercised. These will always be of importance, and worthy of consideration.

What you seem to missing in appreciating these matters is a feel for real experience of some of these phenomena. There are things that cannot really be done "in a more subtle manner", because the quality of the experience of the thing itself, and of the attenuated version being claimed to be "just like it" are so very different. Being part of a mob is different than belonging to an electronic community, so different as to bear no sensible comparison whatever. Being in genuine fear that a verbal mistep may well land you in a torture cell is different than hearing a mindless catch-phrase to which you cannot summon a ready reply, so different as to bear no sensible comparison. To insist that these things are "really" identical is to lose the respect and attention of just about anyone so addressed who is not already in complete agreement with your view.

That most persons are not consumed by interest in politics is an observable fact, and to point it out reflects nothing on the character of a student of the human scene. The reason for it, aside from the normal considerations of taste and temperament, is that people do not pay much attention to anything they do not have to, and most people do not perceive that politics bears directly upon their lives, so that they feel they do not need to have an interest in it. They are certainly mistaken in this view, but since most of the real connections are not readily apparent, these are easily and generally overlooked, and it is hard to convince people who have done so such an interest is to their benefit. Interest in politics typically becomes widespread only when social arrangements are clearly breaking down, to a point where it is impossible to live one's daily life without encountering demonstrations that things are seriously and dangerously out of order.

Your analysis of the root political character of this country, Sir, is an excellent one. We are libertarians at heart: there is no more genuinely American phrase than "None of yer damn business what I do!" Politically, this is both a blessing and a curse. The exhaltation of the individual is as a matter of practical fact false: society is a collective organism, a human without companions is almost certainly a faulty example of the species. But the exaltation of the individual is the basis for all conceptions of human rights and dignity, for these things are necessarily exercised by individuals, and have no collective existance, nor can have any.

[Dhalgren]

62. I tend to agree with you quite strongly.

Fascism, as a ruling ideology, is not dependent upon any trappings, whatsoever. I understand the Magistrate as saying that because our 21st century American Fascism doesn't look and act exactly like mid-20th century European Fascism, the people will have a difficult time grasping it. But we should remember that fascism really began with the "Action Francaise", of late 19th and early 20th century France. That movement had almost none of the "trappings" of the later European forms of fascism. It was almost purely civilian and political. It had its thugs and gangsters (just as American Fascism does), but not the overt paramilitary organizations. The French managed to keep the Action Francaise from taking complete control of their government (of course the Christian Democrats were plenty "militaristic", on their on). The point is that on any subject as "academic" as the recognition of fascism, there will be a large part of the population that doesn't get it. But we must fight through the lack of awareness and the smokescreens of the fascists and continue to pound the message home: George W. Bush is a fascist leader, even if an inept one...

[kenny blankenship]

60. As soon as the "The Left" aka Democrats find a way

to get around their exclusion from the political arena, when they at last prevail against their co-optation, and disenfranchisement you will see the violent face of American Fascism emerge from the shadows once again. The "high tech lynching" of Bill Clinton through malicious prosecution and the (s)Election of Bush through more legalistic flimflammery constitute a very real coup d'etat. The Old Republic is dead (again). But when those methods no longer suffice to hijack the state for elite fun'n'games the current non-violence of rightwing extremism will vanish before you can say John Birch Society.

Timothy McVeigh wasn't a card carrying Fascist w/ a sworn allegiance to some foreign-based political party, he was a bombmaking All-American fascist.
That guy who flew his plane into the whitehouse trying to kill Clinton was of the same Bund.
So was that guy with the AK-47 who fired at the whitehouse from the gates, also with the goal of killing that terrible, terrible man Bill Clinton or his terrible wife. So was Eric Robert Rudolph.
Oh yeah, we've got fascists like you're talking about in this country.

They're here already. They never went away. They just don't feel the need to do anything at this hour, nor will they, as long as democracy and Democrats are successfully "preempted" by privatized, technologized, hollowed out, national-security-first democKracy. But nothing works forever, and when their Matrix machine finally hangs on a Signal 11 and the swap device runs out of room, they're going to need all the violence you've read about in histories of Germany and Spain to maintain control.

Ann Coulter speaks for a solid 30% of the country, the so-called "backwash" of Bush supporters. She speaks for them not so much in any particular position she takes on any particular issue, but because she loudly and persistently gives voice to their desire to dispose of the "political debate" with America's liberals altogether, abandoning argument for truncheons, teargas, head shots, and too short lengths of rope. They agree about one thing above all, they believe in the role of violence as the Supreme argument closer, and in the justice of suppressing Liberals/Democrats/Leftists by shutting them up by force, forever if necessary. Viva La Muerte! as the Spanish Fascists used to say. As long as that dreaded debate is kept non-existent --deterred, deferred, and preempted into a purely virtual realm seen (hallucinated?) on spectaculars like Hannity and Colmes--and as long as Democrats are excluded from power by media freeze-out and voter registration legerdemain, that backwash 30% are content to speak through their champion, Ms. Ann, about their inmost drives and desires and to remain in a passive state themselves.
They appear more or less quiet now, but that's because they've won. They have achieved the monopoly on power, and as the recent House vote to approve the Iraq War policy demonstrates, they still have no problem scaring the shit out of the "opposition" with implied accusations of treason.

[PADemD]

78. Brown Shirts

Try going to a town hall meeting and disagreeing with the
"Decider".  They may not have brown shirts, but
they'll grab you and march you out.  And what about the
"thought" brown shirts on the radio and in print?

[The Magistrate]

79. Being Marched Out, Ma'am

Is somewhat different from being kicked about a while, then tipped down a sewer drain.

[PADemD]

88. Delete

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truedelphi]

86. Fascism arise whenever an entire grooup of people

Desire inclusion with one another through an over-simplification
of reality - "Four legs good, Two legs bad" "Jews bad - Gentiles
Good"

The scary thing about June 2006 is that so many of those seeking inclusion
by accepting an unjust war and supporting an incompetent and illegal President
is that they are beginning to be more and more shrill. They do not want
reasonable debate, they want total blind acceptance and loyalty to the leader.

[The Magistrate]

87. Actually, Ma'am

Fascism arose in all instances from societies in states of chaotic disorder, wracked by external shocks to their social and political arrangements of profound depth. The key element in the two most classic examples was tremendous suffering in war that brought no gain, or utter defeat, to the country, and the presence of great numbers of demobilized and demoralized and brutalized soldiery without any regular means available of getting a living.

People always and everywhere desire inclusion in a group, and so while this appeal is certainly one of the means by which fascism gains its following, it can hardly be the cause.

[truedelphi]

110. When the governing institutions align themselves

With corporate interests, you have fascism. Our democracy is now an oligarchy - the Congress
is beholden to those who offer them money, or even better because it seems less unseemly, the revolving door.
(Vote for this bill for my Pharmaceutical Company, and you will be promised a VP at the Pharmaceutical once you get out of Congress)

Our society is tremendously demoralized. We have not won a war since 1945 - and many economists believe that much of the economic "down" trends in the 1970's were due to the debt carried by this country over Vietnam.

The "givens" of just one generation are no longer achievable by the working and middle classes.
I work a lot harder than my dad did - I have yet to have a two week paid vacation.

Many if not most Americans, on all levels, (even the young executives who are a bit beyond middle class status)
wonder about health care.

Americans find it hard to put gas in their gas tanks, pay their heating and cooling bills, compete with
the "globalized" work force, deal with the health care and health insurance crisis, somehow protest the fact that our voting system does not work anymore, deal with a corporatized press that gives the administration almost everything it wants, etc. If they have a mind to examine the overall economic status, they realize that this Administration has created a huge deficit, and while the American dollar shrinks, the Euro expands.

Excluding the 1% at the very top, the people supporting Bush with Sheeple-like behavior fall solidly into the working and lower middle classes. I guess that what they are offered in exchange for their allegiance is fitting in with their local community, especially at their born-again revivalist churches. And if today they can allow themselves to fall in line with Ann Coulter denouncing the 9/11 widows, who is to say that tomorrow they won't kick in more door and send me off to the camps. (Right now, all that stands between them doing that is the NRA, never a group I was fond of until Bush stole office.)

[malikstein]

49. Fascism is about class war.

All the rest is perks and tools to jerk people around. Sure the Bush administration is fascist. They are engaged in class war against America's middle and working classes.

[Blue_Tires]

53. welcome to the site!

[Vincardog]

65. That is true. don't ya think it is time for America's middle and working

classes to join the fight?

[Odin2005]

109. Not neccissarily.

The corporate elite often use Fascism to thier advantage once it's there, but to consider ALL fascist regimes a result of a capitalist conspiracy is to beilieve rubbish based on a strict adhearence to the Marxist interpretation of history. In realily the causes are much more complex.

[reprehensor]

71. Well, they certainly had their Reichstag Fire: 9/11

Also, the Neocons derive some of their ideology directly from a bona fide Nazi, Carl Schmitt;

...Treating 9/11 as an institutional problem has given them a license to expand executive power and to employ these previously prescribed methods. Neoconservative foreign policy centers on a fear of world government and the international institutions that might lead to it, most notably the United Nations. A rejection of multilateralism, and, as they say, above all, the ability to distinguish friends from enemies.

Neoconservatives are wont to describe this particular ability to distinguish friends from enemies to Thucydides but it belongs to Carl Schmitt, often called, ‘the Crown Jurist’ of the Third Reich.

Schmitt regarded the distinction between friend and enemy as the foundation of politics, and along with this he argued that sovereignty came not from the people but from the decision, that is to say, the capacity of the ruler to decide matters. And that that arbitrary power was the foundation for sovereignty.

These ideas came to neoconservatism both directly through Carl Schmitt and through Leo Strauss who has taught many of the most prominent neoconservatives in the present administration and indeed in neoconservative think-tanks throughout the city, and indeed, throughout the country.... - Ann Norton.

The 9/11 Commission failed us.

[carl_pwccaman]

73. IF certain Republicans are fascist their fascism is not yet in full flower

I.e., you can make a case that some of these folks may have this ideology/intention/plan, or that things are evolving in a Fascist direction somehow or other, BUT the abuse of power at home through such authoritarianism, has not reached typical Fascist-level extremes, when compared to Mussolini and Franco.

So what's holding them back, might be a good question to ask? I suppose we could speculate about a number of possible reasons.

How might people make for more reasons for quazi-fascists or neo-fascists, whatever label you want to give them, to hold themselves back, or get them out of positions of power?

That seems to me some practical ways to address this.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tavalon]

80. Been calling it Fascist for about two years now

I quit calling it Nazi around that same time frame because that is divisive. But Nazi's were fascist, so was Mussolini and a number of other past and present regimes, including, sadly and terrifyingly, ours at this present moment.

[bobthedrummer]

85. I concur, it is getting close to totalitarian-this form of fascism. eom.

[Senator]

91. Fascism -- monarchism -- theocracy -- it's all the same thing.

Fascism -- monarchism -- theocracy -- it's all the same thing.

A belief that some minority has the right to rule the majority. It matters little if it's the true believers, a master race, a family dynasty, a ruling class, or the current DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy. It's all anti-democratic, thus Anti-American*.

This is what the stolen election of 2000 was all about. There was zero attention paid to the Will of the People of Florida and the nation. The result of the vote (not the vote count**) was well known shortly after the election when the uncounted ballots were extrapolated by precinct, and Gore won FL by tens of thousands. Any ethical, moral, real American would have conceded to Gore at that point. (Note: It is at this point that many of you have been trained by fascist propaganda to think "electoral college" and/or "close election" and that somehow some quirk in the system makes what was perpetrated legal or constitutional or something not as disturbing as the truth.)

The contract generally known as the US Constitution was put into breach on January 6th, 2001. This is the "original sin" that must be remedied.

It was this overruling of the will of the (former) American People that left us open to the 9-11 attack, which was a far less important event compared with the election theft. It simply allowed the 21st Century Neo-Fascists to have their "Reichstag fire" to consolitdate control.

The more important part was that the only global force for good in the past several decades -- the public opinion of the American People -- was taken out of the global, moral equation. Which is why prior to the election theft we could stop plane-crashing over the Pacific at the Millenium with help from Jordanian Intelligence, and after... well, not so much. We had lost our moral ascendency, our place as the court of last resort.

And with no reaction, the neofascists just repeated their crime in 2004. The only thing they learned from 2000 was to steal bigger, so that no one could whine about a "popular vote" problem or force them to defecate on the formerly-supreme court.

Certainly this is a "kinder, gentler" fascism. But did you expect goose-stepping, tanks in the streets and racial hate speech? It's much more efficient to simply scream "Mushroom clouds in 45 minutes!!" through every Euphemedia outlet in order to terrorize a population into compliance (20 guys with boxcutters pales in comparision, doesn't it?).

But make no mistake, it is fascism pure and simple.

_________
*"After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society" - Benito Mussolini 1932

**"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decided everything." -- Josef Stalin (echoed by Pol Pot, Bushes, Scalia, Rehnquist, etc...)

--
www.january6th.org

[carl_pwccaman]

111. No it is not all the same thing

People who can't stop their reacting to THINK about what's going on, are just REACTIONARIES.

I.e., you, like many Republicans, are REACTIONARY about politics, it's all about the action, the feeling, the verve of rhetoric and the gut for you, isn't it?

Reactionary Culture, Fascism, etc.

The culture that screams "fascist" without thought, is just as mucha menace to America as Faux news. If only ideology and rhetoric matters to you, you aren't helping, so please move out of the friggin way while serious Democrats try to work out some real strategies.

[reprehensor]

92. Fascism and America Today by Aldo Vidali

(An oldie but a goodie.)

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20010312fascism.html

Monday, March 12, 2001 (gore2004us.com via APJP) -- I was raised in fascist Italy until age 17 and will never forget the ugliness of totalitarian control over people's lives. After two years in Brazil, I came to America in 1949 and wept when I saw the Statue of Liberty.

Today, in horror, I see all the unmistakable signs of a new wave of fascism, cleverly concealed behind pseudo-patriotic, Christian rhetoric.

To believe that the separation of powers will always protect the American people from tyranny or to deny the very possibility of fascism coming to power in the United States amounts politically to one and the same thing. By ignoring the covert nature of fascism, the will to fight against it is inevitably undermined.

Fascism came to power first in Italy in 1922 and soon Hitler, in great admiration of Mussolini, established Nazism in Germany. The Republican Florida coup used methods remarkably similar to both, including the corruption of the highest authorities in our nation...

continued at link...

[Reckon]

100. An Inconvenient Truth

I believe Al Gore was being cryptic about this very point when he said...

"Put a frog in boiling water, and he’ll hop out, the analogy goes, but put that same frog in cold water and slowly bring the water to a boil, and the frog will sit there and happily let himself be cooked to death."

[Reckon]

101. Good read. reprehensor.

"Aware of the power of religious faith, Mussolini made his first act "The Lateran Pacts," an historical agreement between the Church and the Italian fascist government which secured the Vatican State and perpetuated medieval pre-scientific concepts of unquestioning obedience to the party elite and Church authority. These Pacts caused the destruction of constitutional government"


From the same link
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20010312fascism.html

[rman]

102. We can just call it dictatorship,

it comes and various sizes and colors.

Whatever it is and whatever we call it, one thing is certain: it's not democracy.

[JNelson6563]

104. Use the word "fascism" liberally

It's the patriotic thing to do! :patriot:

[carl_pwccaman]

112. Why are words just a game to you?

Fascism is no game.

Neither is theocracy or other forms of authoritarian, dictatorships, etc.

Putting word games asside, there are potentials for authoritarian abuses, some of which are already manifest (Abu Ghraib, less oversight of policing agencies, etc.), some of which are still in potential form.

Authoritarianism can manifest in different forms. Depending on the form, different strategies may suggest themselves.

The big fight in America right now isn't against brown-shirts or black-shirts, and domestically it isn't a violent struggle. That makes a HUGE difference.

[otherlander]

105. I think it's because we haven't elected a permanent leader...

Also because we can still insult our leaders without getting pumped full of lead.

[Totally Committed]

107. I have posted a related thread at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2684891

TC

[Stinky The Clown]

108. TC, I just kicked your thread. It is a perfect mate for this thread

We can debate the degree to which fascism has taken root in our country, as has been done in this thread, but there can be no argument that it is, to some greater or lesser extent, a very part of today's 'American experience'.

[Dr Fate]

113. I dont like having that word "off limits" either.

Sometimes there really are facists- why pretend?