It is unsettling to see how easily we have allowed our country to be gradually fascisized over the recent years. Is this how our country dies.. cheering on our American Idols while the shackles of tyranny- lined in fine velvet- are gently placed around our ankles?

Quote :

"Fascist America, in 10 easy steps From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all Tuesday April 24, 2007 The Guardian Last autumn, there was a military coup in Thailand. The leaders of the coup took a number of steps, rather systematically, as if they had a shopping list. In a sense, they did. Within a matter of days, democracy had been closed down: the coup leaders declared martial law, sent armed soldiers into residential areas, took over radio and TV stations, issued restrictions on the press, tightened some limits on travel, and took certain activists into custody. They were not figuring these things out as they went along. If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship. That blueprint has been used again and again in more and less bloody, more and less terrifying ways. But it is always effective. It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy - but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps. As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United States by the Bush administration. Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree - domestically - as many other nations. Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government - the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens' ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors - we scarcely recognise the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled. Because we don't learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of "homeland" security - remember who else was keen on the word "homeland" - didn't raise the alarm bells it might have. It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable - as the author and political journalist Joe Conason, has put it, that it can happen here. And that we are further along than we realise. Conason eloquently warned of the danger of American authoritarianism. I am arguing that we need also to look at the lessons of European and other kinds of fascism to understand the potential seriousness of the events we see unfolding in the US. 1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy 2. Create a gulag 3. Develop a thug caste 4. Set up an internal surveillance system 5. Harass citizens' groups 6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release 7. Target key individuals 8. Control the press 9. Dissent equals treason 10. Suspend the rule of law Of course, the United States is not vulnerable to the violent, total closing-down of the system that followed Mussolini's march on Rome or Hitler's roundup of political prisoners. Our democratic habits are too resilient, and our military and judiciary too independent, for any kind of scenario like that. Rather, as other critics are noting, our experiment in democracy could be closed down by a process of erosion. It is a mistake to think that early in a fascist shift you see the profile of barbed wire against the sky. In the early days, things look normal on the surface; peasants were celebrating harvest festivals in Calabria in 1922; people were shopping and going to the movies in Berlin in 1931. Early on, as WH Auden put it, the horror is always elsewhere - while someone is being tortured, children are skating, ships are sailing: "dogs go on with their doggy life ... How everything turns away/ Quite leisurely from the disaster." As Americans turn away quite leisurely, keeping tuned to internet shopping and American Idol, the foundations of democracy are being fatally corroded. Something has changed profoundly that weakens us unprecedentedly: our democratic traditions, independent judiciary and free press do their work today in a context in which we are "at war" in a "long war" - a war without end, on a battlefield described as the globe, in a context that gives the president - without US citizens realising it yet - the power over US citizens of freedom or long solitary incarceration, on his say-so alone. That means a hollowness has been expanding under the foundation of all these still- free-looking institutions - and this foundation can give way under certain kinds of pressure. To prevent such an outcome, we have to think about the "what ifs". What if, in a year and a half, there is another attack - say, God forbid, a dirty bomb? The executive can declare a state of emergency. History shows that any leader, of any party, will be tempted to maintain emergency powers after the crisis has passed. With the gutting of traditional checks and balances, we are no less endangered by a President Hillary than by a President Giuliani - because any executive will be tempted to enforce his or her will through edict rather than the arduous, uncertain process of democratic negotiation and compromise. What if the publisher of a major US newspaper were charged with treason or espionage, as a rightwing effort seemed to threaten Keller with last year? What if he or she got 10 years in jail? What would the newspapers look like the next day? Judging from history, they would not cease publishing; but they would suddenly be very polite. Right now, only a handful of patriots are trying to hold back the tide of tyranny for the rest of us - staff at the Center for Constitutional Rights, who faced death threats for representing the detainees yet persisted all the way to the Supreme Court; activists at the American Civil Liberties Union; and prominent conservatives trying to roll back the corrosive new laws, under the banner of a new group called the American Freedom Agenda. This small, disparate collection of people needs everybody's help, including that of Europeans and others internationally who are willing to put pressure on the administration because they can see what a US unrestrained by real democracy at home can mean for the rest of the world. We need to look at history and face the "what ifs". For if we keep going down this road, the "end of America" could come for each of us in a different way, at a different moment; each of us might have a different moment when we feel forced to look back and think: that is how it was before - and this is the way it is now. "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... is the definition of tyranny," wrote James Madison. We still have the choice to stop going down this road; we can stand our ground and fight for our nation, and take up the banner the founders asked us to carry."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

4/27/2007 11:42:53 AM

It's so 2 years ago to compare Bush to Hitler.

4/27/2007 11:45:53 AM

i.y.d.l.t.w.w.d.t.a.h.t.y.c.g.t.h.o.

[Edited on April 27, 2007 at 11:46 AM. Reason : y]

4/27/2007 11:46:12 AM

but velvet feels so good!

4/27/2007 11:49:11 AM

hahahahahahaha


i knew exactly what marko means by that




we all need to just RevoltNow

[Edited on April 27, 2007 at 11:50 AM. Reason : we can start on the intarnet!]

4/27/2007 11:49:37 AM

Well, just call "V."

4/27/2007 11:51:19 AM

viva la interwebs

4/27/2007 11:51:36 AM

It blows my own mind, that I can read this

i.y.d.l.t.w.w.d.t.a.h.t.y.c.g.t.h.o.

in the context of this thread, and figure out what each letter stands for.

4/27/2007 12:00:57 PM

Quote :

"Well, just call "V.""

I'd like to hope there's still a little "V" in all of us.

4/27/2007 12:15:15 PM

4/27/2007 12:24:42 PM

http://blogs.pinkelephant.com/images/uploads/pinklink/How_To_Create_A_Sense_Of_Urgency.pdf

4/27/2007 12:26:07 PM

Well, we've been economically fascist for decades, it's only fitting that we finally become politically fascist.

4/27/2007 1:45:20 PM

^ Really? Economical fascism must be very effective then, considering how awesome we are compared to most other places.

4/27/2007 1:46:38 PM

It is, that is why Germany was able to conquer all of mainland Europe. Economic fascism conbines the efficiency boosting effects of the free enterprise system with political control over product markets. In case you didn't realize, "free enterprise" and "free market" are two distinct features. For a conter example, today we have a free market for Oil but most firms producing for the market are state run.

4/27/2007 2:04:27 PM

Quote :

"i.y.d.l.t.w.w.d.t.a.h.t.y.c.g.t.h.o."

if you don't like the way we do things around here you can get the hell out

i feel smart

4/27/2007 2:56:32 PM

Quote :

"8. Control the press"

Unless the current administration is trying to pull a "reverse psychology" trick on us, I don't think number 8 is working.

4/27/2007 3:16:34 PM

I didn't realize salisburyboy wrote for The Guardian!

4/27/2007 5:00:46 PM

Quote :

"It's so 2 years ago to compare Bush to Hitler."

I second that. If the administration was seriously trying to establish a fascist regime in the United States, then they're proving incompetent even in that.

Quote :

"1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy"

Only if its the Democrats who are trying to create a fascist state and are using Dick Cheney and Halliburton as our great enemies.

Quote :

"2. Create a gulag"

The administration is trying to figure out a way to close down Guantanimo as we speak, but they've got the slight problem of other nations being either unwilling to take prisoners back or are guaranteeing to execute them the moment they step off the plane.

Quote :

"3. Develop a thug caste"

Seems to me that the Democrats have created a better attack machine than the Republicans at this point through the use of Internet blogs. So yeah, I don't think I'm worried about this.

Quote :

"4. Set up an internal surveillance system"

Tried and failed. SCOTUS and the Democrats were all over that.

Quote :

"5. Harass citizens' groups"

Only if its the Democrats kicking the Republican Party over and over again.

Quote :

"6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release"

Some, but again, Congress and SCOTUS are getting all over Bush for that.

Quote :

"7. Target key individuals"

Like who, the Dixie Chicks?! (And even that I would hardly dignify by calling state sponsored violence)

Quote :

"8. Control the press"

As mentioned before, unless this is some sort of amazing reverse psychology trick...

Quote :

"9. Dissent equals treason"

Seems to be all the rage to be railing against the government at this point.

Quote :

"10. Suspend the rule of law"

Maybe for all the illegals pouring over the border (though the morality of that is a different debate for a different topic).

While the situation is pretty messed up in the United States right now, its comforting to me that our system of government, including Congress and the Supreme Court, still work as a check on the Presidency. The executive bureaucracy pushed out, pushed hard, and are now paying the price.

4/27/2007 5:11:31 PM

Too many people in the world for everyone to be free.

4/27/2007 5:17:48 PM

With technology, anything is possible.

4/27/2007 5:38:20 PM

This thread is hilarious.

Quote :

"The administration is trying to figure out a way to close down Guantanimo as we speak"

And its also pretty hilarious how much we were raked across the coals for the "injustices" we did to our prisoners there when just across the bay you've got Cuba's Guantanimo Bay prison that is easily 10X worse. Where's the humanitarian outcry there?!?!

[Edited on April 27, 2007 at 6:48 PM. Reason : oh thats right, bashing America's in right now, not Cuba (so 60s)]

4/27/2007 6:48:06 PM

This author pins most of the tyrranical behavior on Bush and friends. The fascism, though, has been a slow-growth project undertaken by politicians from many administrations and congresess.

We have a fatal combination of self-serving politicians, aggressive special interest minorities and a mass populace which is too lazy, inattentive & brainwashed.

It seems we are just a couple more 9/11s away from pretty much complete tyranny.

4/27/2007 11:08:52 PM

Quote :

"[quote]Working for the Clampdown What might the president do with his new power to declare martial law? by James Bovard, author of Attention Deficit Democracy How many pipe bombs might it take to end American democracy? Far fewer than it would have taken a year ago. The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist “incident,” if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of “public order,” or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations. The media and most of Capitol Hill ignored or cheered on this grant of nearly boundless power. But now that the president’s arsenal of authority is swollen and consecrated, a few voices of complaint are being heard. Even the New York Times recently condemned the new law for “making martial law easier.” It only took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from “Insurrection Act” to “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” The new law expands the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition”—and such “condition” is not defined or limited. These new pretexts are even more expansive than they appear. FEMA proclaims the equivalent of a natural disaster when bad snowstorms occur, and Congress routinely proclaims a natural disaster (and awards more farm subsidies) when there is a shortfall of rain in states with upcoming elections. A terrorist “incident” could be something as stupid as the flashing toys scattered around Boston last fall. The new law also empowers the president to commandeer the National Guard of one state to send to another state for up to 365 days. Bush could send the Alabama National Guard to suppress antiwar protests in Boston. Or the next president could send the New York National Guard to disarm the residents of Mississippi if they resisted a federal law that prohibited private ownership of semiautomatic weapons. Governors’ control of the National Guard can be trumped with a simple presidential declaration. The Katrina debacle seems to have drowned Washington’s resistance to military rule. Bush declared, “I want there to be a robust discussion about the best way for the federal government, in certain extreme circumstances, to be able to rally assets for the good of the people.” His initial proposal generated a smattering of criticism and no groundswell of support. There was no “robust discussion.” On Aug. 29, 2006, the administration upped the ante, labeling the breached levees “the equivalent of a weapon of mass effect being used on the city of New Orleans.” Nobody ever defined a “weapon of mass effect,” but the term wasn’t challenged. Section 1076 was supported by both conservatives and liberals. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision along with committee chairman Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). Sen. Ted Kennedy openly endorsed it, and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), then-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was an avid proponent. Every governor in the country opposed the changes, and the National Governors Association repeatedly and loudly objected. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on Sept. 19 that “we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law,” but his alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record: “Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy.” Leahy further condemned the process, declaring that it “was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals.” ...the issue was not on the front page of the Washington Post within the 48 hours before the Senate voted on it. Surely no reasonable person can expect senators to know what they were doing when they voted 100 to 0 in favor of the bill? In reality, they were too busy to notice the latest coffin nails they hammered into the Constitution. “Martial law” is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. Perhaps some conservatives believe that the only change when martial law is declared is that people are no longer read their Miranda rights when they are locked away. “Martial law” means obey soldiers’ commands or be shot. The abuses of military rule in southern states during Reconstruction were legendary, but they have been swept under the historical rug. Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislation—something that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree. The Bush team is rarely remiss in stretching power beyond reasonable bounds. Bush talks as if any constraint on his war-making prerogative or budget is “aiding and abetting the enemy.” Can such a man be trusted to reasonably define insurrection or disorder? Can Hillary Clinton? Bush can commandeer a state’s National Guard any time he declares a “state has refused to enforce applicable laws.” Does this refer to the laws as they are commonly understood—or the laws after Bush fixes them with a signing statement? Some will consider concern about Bush or future presidents exploiting martial law to be alarmist. This is the same reflex many people have had to each administration proposal or power grab from the Patriot Act in October 2001 to the president’s enemy-combatant decree in November 2001 to the setting up the Guantanamo prison in early 2002 to the doctrine of preemptive war. The administration has perennially denied that its new powers pose any threat even after the evidence of abuses—illegal wiretapping, torture, a global network of secret prisons, Iraq in ruins—becomes overwhelming. If the administration does not hesitate to trample the First Amendment with “free speech zones,” why expect it to be diffident about powers that could stifle protests en masse? "

http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_04_23/article4.html[/quote]

4/28/2007 1:17:04 AM

Quote :

"It seems we are just a couple more 9/11s away from pretty much complete tyranny."

Yeah, and I'm just a couple of bullets away from being completely dead.

What's your point? When bad thing happen, bad things happen?

4/28/2007 12:08:33 PM

Quote :

"And its also pretty hilarious how much we were raked across the coals for the "injustices" we did to our prisoners there when just across the bay you've got Cuba's Guantanimo Bay prison that is easily 10X worse. Where's the humanitarian outcry there?!?!"

That's because Cuba isn't going around saying they are spreading democracy and freedom, whilst violating them at home.

I wish people would quit playing the classic game of "but they're worse"

4/28/2007 2:06:37 PM

Uh, dude, I don't know if you know this, but two wrongs make a right.

4/28/2007 2:14:09 PM

So are we communist or facist?

4/28/2007 2:27:14 PM

fascist; I've explained this to you before. Combining the free enterprise system with state-run markets produces a fascist economic system.

That said, I seriously doubt we are anywhere near a fascist political system. There just aren't enough politically motivated murders every year.

4/28/2007 5:24:29 PM

I suppose we've just reached the natural result of capitalism, corporatism.

4/28/2007 6:35:57 PM

Maybe. That said, we've never really had a capitalist economy. The only real difference between 1890 and 1990 is that today the state management is more federalized through lobbyists, usurping the output-directing activities performed previously by state and local governments through political machines.

4/29/2007 12:47:05 AM

Perhaps capitalism is just so much easier to corrupt than other economic systems

[Edited on April 29, 2007 at 1:16 AM. Reason : ]

4/29/2007 1:15:51 AM

At least you know when it is corrupt and can do something about it, if the people want to. In capitalism, corruption breeds victims eager to rally the populous against the corruptors. In communism, for example, corruption usually only harms the general populous, whom are unlikely to notice the individual among millions of pin-pricks.

4/29/2007 9:59:34 AM

how free are we anyways

4/29/2007 1:08:49 PM

Quote :

"In capitalism, corruption breeds victims eager to rally the populous against the corruptors."

Really? Where are they?

Quote :

"In communism, for example, corruption usually only harms the general populous, whom are unlikely to notice the individual among millions of pin-pricks."

Actually that sounds just like how corruption works here. Corporatism makes it a lot tougher to hold people accountable.

4/29/2007 11:12:02 PM

Well, in a capitalist society everything is owned. Eminent Domain abuse attracts the efforts of those relieved of their property. Theft, violence, and fraud attracts the efforts of either victims or victim's families. Regulation abuse attracts the efforts of those harmed by the regulation, such as competitors prevented from competing or customers prevented from buying certain products.

That the general population believes such cries and complaints should be ignored does not negate their existence.

Quote :

"Actually that sounds just like how corruption works here."

Like I said, America has a mixed economy, many elements of which are similar to communist institutions and it is these institutions which breed corruption without targeted victims. For example, the congressman or polit bureau chief that has a million dollars spent by the government on a pet project through corrupt means. Who was harmed? Why, everyone in the whole economy was made poorer by his actions; but no one by more than a few pennies.

4/30/2007 12:02:18 AM

Quote :

"Well, in a capitalist society everything is owned."

So there are no goods that are non-excludable? Who owns the air?

Quote :

"Eminent Domain abuse attracts the efforts of those relieved of their property. Theft, violence, and fraud attracts the efforts of either victims or victim's families. Regulation abuse attracts the efforts of those harmed by the regulation, such as competitors prevented from competing or customers prevented from buying certain products. That the general population believes such cries and complaints should be ignored does not negate their existence."

You implied that there was some huge rally encouraging the people to fight back, etc. It seems you actually meant that a few people might bitch and moan a little.

Quote :

"America has a mixed economy"

I thought you said we were fascist?

Quote :

"For example, the congressman or polit bureau chief that has a million dollars spent by the government on a pet project through corrupt means. Who was harmed? Why, everyone in the whole economy was made poorer by his actions; but no one by more than a few pennies."

The same kind of corruption happens in individual private firms, with the same effect, this isn't a problem exclusive to the government, it happens to any large firm.

4/30/2007 2:06:17 AM

Quote :

"You implied that there was some huge rally encouraging the people to fight back, etc. It seems you actually meant that a few people might bitch and moan a little."

No, I said "corruption breeds victims eager to rally the populous against the corruptors". So, it merely makes sure there is someone trying to bring the injustice to the attention of the populous; that they choose to ignore their cries does not negate its existance.

Quote :

"I thought you said we were fascist?"

Odd, you evidently don't understand the word 'mixed'. A fascist economy mixes a free enterprise system with government run product markets. The former is a feature of capitalism, the latter is a feature of communism, and the two are mixed together to form a mixed economy.

Quote :

"The same kind of corruption happens in individual private firms, with the same effect, this isn't a problem exclusive to the government, it happens to any large firm."

True; but instead of stealling a dollar from 150 million people they have stollen $10,000 dollars from 15,000 investors. It is not worth the effort for people to do anything about the former while it is worth at least $10,000 of effort from the investors, although both stole the same amount.

4/30/2007 8:44:46 AM

Quote :

"So, it merely makes sure there is someone trying to bring the injustice to the attention of the populous; that they choose to ignore their cries does not negate its existance."

There's going to be someone like that in any system. I mean look at salisbury boy, you could put him in any nation today and he'd be talking about some sort of conspiracy there.

Quote :

"True; but instead of stealling a dollar from 150 million people they have stollen $10,000 dollars from 15,000 investors."

Not neccesarily. There are more ways to steal than that.

4/30/2007 9:06:01 AM

Examples Kris; if your blank statements are to be accepted then you must put forth at least a reason why they are true.

4/30/2007 10:58:07 AM

I still want to hear you try to damage control my first statement. Additionally, you didn't provide any specific examples, why should I?

4/30/2007 12:09:57 PM

It always seems like Kris loses these arguments.

4/30/2007 12:15:58 PM

It always seems like you never understand these arguements.

[Edited on April 30, 2007 at 12:16 PM. Reason : ]

4/30/2007 12:16:33 PM

I don't understand fully the economics, but LoneSnark always seems to provide a better argument. You routinely post half statements like they are truth and comments that sorta apply, but not really.

4/30/2007 12:18:43 PM

I fail to see how you can speak so well with his penis so firmly lodged between your jaw.

4/30/2007 12:22:09 PM

Oh, don't cry Kris. You were trying so hard with your communist agenda!

4/30/2007 12:24:22 PM

I'm just saying that if you want to fellate Loneshark so badly, you could do it in the privacy of your own home as it has no relevance to what we are talking about.

4/30/2007 12:25:13 PM

I was just reiterating this point

Quote :

"Examples Kris; if your blank statements are to be accepted then you must put forth at least a reason why they are true."

So, feel free to ignore me and actually make a compelling argument other than half statements and things you think are true and valid, but aren't.

4/30/2007 12:32:25 PM

I'm just saying, your sexual attraction to Loneshark and your fantasies of felating him for days on end isn't really relevant to this thread, you can ride his nuts elsewhere.

4/30/2007 12:36:26 PM

Quote :

"feel free to ignore me and actually make a compelling argument other than half statements and things you think are true and valid, but aren't."

So what you are saying is you don't have a compelling argument?

4/30/2007 1:06:08 PM

I've presented my arguement earlier, and you've presented your arguement of "I like riding nuts".
Post an actual arguement to something I've posted, or take your e-cockgargling elsewhere.

4/30/2007 1:45:38 PM