Dear Fake-Patriots,
POSTED BY: STDOUBT
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 11, 2025 02:40
VIEWED: 17112
PAGE 7 of 13
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Your points were actually quite dissimilar?
Yeah they were, but I think Fletch's point was a better response to that comment than mine.
Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, a discussion would be something like...
What is fascism? Well, it turns out there is a lively discussion on the definition of fascism and it's overlap with nazism, and whether it's being used in the historical or perjorative sense.
MY reading of fascism is the Benito Moussolini version of fascism: a melding of "the state" and corporatism... government in service to business. But STDOUBT got a list of fourteen points, so maybe if we looked at the one by one we could decide if they belonged on the list and whether the USA matches that description.
Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. Well, this is pretty specific. Does the USA use flags, songs, slogans more so than most other nations? I don't think so.
Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights Because of fear of enemies and the need or security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. Yes, the SUA practices this pretty regularly. It not even signed many of the international agreements on human rights, and has recently moved towards indefinite detention of citizens w/o charges. Personally, I think anyone who argues for suspension of civil and human rights is a fascist.
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. I think you can tell a lot about a nation's leadership by how much time and money they spend on "enemies", real or perceived. The "war on Terror" has turned into a war in Iraq, on which we've just spent $300 BILLION dollars. that's a significant chunk of change, and, looking at the USA military budget I'd say we spend far more on our "enemies" than any other nation.
Supremacy of the Military Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. See above. However, Bush actually listens very little to actual military advice and the money goes to Halliburton. I think there is more of a corporate interest involvld, not a military one.
Rampant Sexism The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. I'm not sure this is unique to fascism. Under the early Soviet experiment, divorce was made easy and sex roles were equalized. But they took a U-turn after a few years. The Mideast has the same problem.
Controlled Mass Media Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. Check.
Obsession with National Security Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. How many times is 9-11 used as the prod for everything?? Unless of course we're talking about WMD. Check!
Religion and Government are Intertwined Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. Check!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Straw manQuote:
If you want to overthrow the government, you can try, but then those of us who play by the rules really will try and stop you, instead of just disagreeing with you
Tsk, tsk. You just CAN'T turn off the propaganda machine, can you Geezer? But enough of this waltzing around. You've got nothing interesting to say on the topic of the thread. Let me know when you decide to have a substantive discussion.
No comment on the rest of that post? The part about how people do actually get things changed? I'd hate to think you were taking my phrases out of context just so you could toss of another insult.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's a point of historic fact. During the constitutional process the US considered pure democracy and rejected it. If you read the Federalist papers there are discussions as to why. They had the opertunity to implement true democracy and they didn't and they described themselves as a Republic as a consequence of that distinction.
The US system, and the British system come to that work on the premise that people elect representatives to rule for them for a fixed period. That is not the same as a democracy. In a democracy going to war would involve a poll of the electorate, ie explicit permision by the people rather than consent by their representatives as is the case in the US and UK.
As for what people choose to call themselves I'm reminded of thing a friend of mine pointed out back in the 80's -- that almost all countries with the word "democratic" in their official names were in fact dictatorships.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, a discussion would be something like...
I completely agree (my mini-satire of an one-sided discussion should have maybe had an emoticon next to it
). But have you ever seen a proper discussion in that vain here in RWED or anywhere else? There are maybe a couple of posts that say pretty much the same thing in the way you've presented your points there, but it won't last. Either the discussion ends because everyone agrees, or somebody disagrees and everybody pounces on that person. I can understand why it happens, but one has to careful not to be too judgemental of somebody that has a decent counter-point.
Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, a discussion would be something like...
What is fascism? Well, it turns out there is a lively discussion on the definition of fascism and it's overlap with nazism, and whether it's being used in the historical or perjorative sense.
MY reading of fascism is the Benito Moussolini version of fascism: a melding of "the state" and corporatism... government in service to business. But STDOUBT got a list of fourteen points, so maybe if we looked at the one by one we could decide if they belonged on the list and whether the USA matches that description.
Why don't we decide if the criteria belong on the list first, and then use the ones that remain to compare with the US.
A few things to consider here in how we go about evaluating the criteria. Do we look at each one individually and determine if only a fascist country might meet it, or do we assume that there is a certain "critical mass" for want of a better phrase, that accumulates as more criteria are met? Also, are all criteria of equal importance in reaching this critical mass.
Let's look at #1 for example, and see if we can actually develop a civilised discourse.
1.Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
Both fascist Nazi Germany and the Communist Soviet Union were big on flags, parades, monumental buildings and the other trappings of Nationalism. Various monarchies have also encouraged nationalism in this way. The US had a spate of massive building in Washington, D.C. and giant public works across the country in the FDR era. I'd say this criteria isn't a standalone marker for fascism. It seems pretty general across the political spectrum, and should probably not be weighted too high as a combined marker either.
Discussion?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know Kyron, I agree with you on the problems with having a discussion. I haven't contributed to this thread so far because I prefer to have this kind of conversation face to face. When you can have immediate response and counter point things either end very quickly or turn into a real discussion that can go on for hours with lots of info moving around.
In thins kind of forum, it's too easy to get caught up in your own little sub arguments (thats arguments not discussions)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost.
Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
It's a point of historic fact. During the constitutional process the US considered pure democracy and rejected it. If you read the Federalist papers there are discussions as to why. They had the opertunity to implement true democracy and they didn't and they described themselves as a Republic as a consequence of that distinction.
The US system, and the British system come to that work on the premise that people elect representatives to rule for them for a fixed period. That is not the same as a democracy. In a democracy going to war would involve a poll of the electorate, ie explicit permision by the people rather than consent by their representatives as is the case in the US and UK.
As for what people choose to call themselves I'm reminded of thing a friend of mine pointed out back in the 80's -- that almost all countries with the word "democratic" in their official names were in fact dictatorships.
You've pretty much rehashed everything I just said, Fletch.
Now I also said that the majority of people use the word Democracy as synomonous with a nation that has free elections, rightly or wrongly.
Since you understood what I meant, and democracy is used all the time in reference to the governments of the US and the UK I happen too think I'm right on that point.
A) It was a throw-away joke comment.
B) I was using the word Democracy as the word is commonly used, and since language can change (though not if one person, say DT, decides it means something different) I’d say that it is moving toward correct modern usage.
C) You knew what I meant, so why be pedantic for the sake of being pedantic
.D) You're starting to sound like DT.
I KNOW what democracy really means. It's a mangling of ancient Greek 'Demos' meaning 'the people' and 'Kratos' meaning 'force or power'. It's based largely on the Athenian City states ruling government that was what we now more commonly call Classical or Direct Democracy. I'm not disputing that. The term, however, is now more often used to describe a government that holds free elections NOT a government that is truly democratic. If Democracy was used commonly in the way you say why would we have terms like Direct or Classical Democracy?
Hell some Greek city-states were called democracies when they operated governments of 'enlightened' warrior kings.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Hmm, I don't know, the whims of the people are pretty much opposed to the current Bush administration (Bush is hovering around 30% is the polls), but it's still there. If anything, this administration has gone from one faux pas to another and it's still there. The only way the whims of the people can get them out is by revolution, and I think we can all agree that that won't happen.
All I have to say is people are responsible for whose name they put the cross against. This is my entire point.
You vote for and support a government then you share some of the responsibility for what that government does.
And no, revolution isn't the only way to get them out. NOT voting for them is a more widely accepted and less violent way.
Quote:
Okay, there's no way I can explain why both administrations are still there, because it still doesn't make sense to me. My two best arguments are: the majority of people are stupid, and the opposition candidates were hopeless.
People are as ignorant of political matters and as stupid as they want to be. It's their responsibility to educate themselves, not anyone else’s.
Quote:
In my quote, 'politically aware' is in italics because I emphasise that I think true democracy only works if the population is small (i.e. manageable) and politically aware. This ties in with what you said about the people's responsibility, namely that democracy can only really work if the people take responsibility for what their elected officials do (let me know if that's not what you meant, but that's how I saw it).
It's exactly what I meant. In a democracy people share the responsibility for the actions of their nation.
Quote:
However, one can't just say that democracy doesn't work so well because of the people, because any form of government doesn't work too well because of the people.
My point was that the people in a democracy share responsibility for the actions of that nation, irregardless of whether that is a true democracy or what we commonly call a Democracy.
It's like bringing up children, you don't teach them right from wrong and if you don't stop them from misbehaving then you share some of the responsibility for their behaviour. Likewise if you have a child who does wrong anyway and you continue to let them get away with it and don't hold them accountable then you also share some of the responsibility.
This statement has no relation to what I said, I merely said people as a whole in a democracy share the responsibility of their nation’s actions, and frankly that responsibility hangs heaviest on those who directly support that government and its actions.
Quote:
Communism would have many benefits, but it's been tried and it failed numerous times, and the reason is i) it's easily corruptable, and (more importantly) ii) because it goes against the people's natural way of doing things.
It's also worked extremely well in small communities. Though Democracy and Communism are not directly comparable. One is a societal system, one is a governmental system.
Quote:
So while I agree with your sentiment and have expressed similar concern myself, I don't think it's something that can be changed and the system has to adapt to the people and not the other way around.
I didn't say anything along those lines. It's natural behaviour for some people to steal but we still hold them accountable. People are responsible for their own actions or inactions; whether those actions or inactions are 'natural' human behaviour is totally irrelevant, and very much open to interpretation.
Frankly I think people should meet society half-way, otherwise there's absolutly no point to society in the first place.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
From my suprevisory experience, I can say that words like "powerful", "continuing", and "constant" are unquantifiable. One way to "test the test" is to determine if a question's answer is normally correlated with other test answers. For example, are there nations with relatively weak national identities that managed to suppress intellectuals, meld with corporations, suppress labor, commit genocide, and do most of the other things that "fascist" states are presumed to do? Examples: Afghanistan circa 1998? Cambodia? Sudan? Turkey circa 1915? If the answer to this question doesn't seem to correlate with the answers to the otehr questions, then the test may be culturally biased.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME