UK and Europe · Public discussion

Re: What would the Devil have driven?

Started by Amy Blankenship · · Last activity · 26 posts · 594 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
9 January 2008
Last activity
22 January 2008
Original author
Amy Blankenship
Posts
26
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
594
Views / 30 days
18

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 21–26 of 26
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Ron Wallenfang said:
    Stephen Harding said:
    Tom Sherman said:

    Yep, advocating a political/economic system such as is used in
    Scandinavia could well earn one a trip to the detention camps
    Halliburton is building that Blackwater will guard.

    Quoted message said:

    Heck, even advocating the system used in countries such as England,
    Canada and New Zealand makes one an Anti-American Communist by the
    standards of Faux News, the Heritage Foundation and American
    Enterprise Institute and the shouting heads of talk radio.

    Quoted message said:

    It is questionable if the remaining freedom of speech, travel, etc.
    in the US could withstand another Reichstag Fire, er 9/11/2001
    incident. Such an incident would be easy to arrange with the
    "assets" on the payroll of the CIA, not to mention the covert
    services of several countries friendly to the neocon agenda.

    Looks like you've got it all figured out.

    Wish I could be so confident with my political beliefs.

    SMH

    An alternative conspiracy theory holds that the CIA is principally
    battling the Bush administration

    Along with some in the State Dept.

  2. Mr. Robert Hunt said:

    On Jan 12, 8:33 am, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Stephen Harding said:

    Tom Sherman wrote:
    > donquijote1954 ??? wrote:
    >> ...
    >> Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling
    >> from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the
    >> tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the
    >> authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic,
    >> non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with
    >> social and ecological awareness.
    >> However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning
    >> out of the darkness....
    > Bah. We have arrived at a point where a fascist government can come
    > into being, while the citizens still believe that they are living in a
    > democracy.
    With the Patriot Act and such, aren't you afraid
    of a knock on the door at midnight for speaking so
    openly in public?
    You're obviously a very brave person.


    Yep, advocating a political/economic system such as is used in
    Scandinavia could well earn one a trip to the detention camps
    Halliburton is building that Blackwater will guard.

    I believe you missed the sarcasm in SH's comment.


    No, I ignored it.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    Heck, even advocating the system used in countries such as England,
    Canada and New Zealand makes one an Anti-American Communist by the
    standards of Faux News, the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise
    Institute and the shouting heads of talk radio.

    Are you implying that those you name shouldn't have the same freedom
    of speech you exercise to to hurl insults at them to throw names back
    at you?


    I was, of course, implying nothing of the sort. I was, of course, not
    even addressing the issue Mr. Hunt brings up.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    It is questionable if the remaining freedom of speech, travel, etc. in
    the US could withstand another Reichstag Fire, er 9/11/2001 incident.
    Such an incident would be easy to arrange with the "assets" on the
    payroll of the CIA, not to mention the covert services of several
    countries friendly to the neocon agenda.

    Unfortunately for your implication of a government-sponsored
    conspiracy responsible for the 9/11 WTC attack, there isn't a shred of
    evidence of any such conspiracy.


    Note that the Reichstag Fire was likely NOT set by the Nazis, but they
    took full advantage of its occurrence politically.

    Note how the Cheney/Bush administration took political advantage of
    9/11/2001, irregardless of who the perpetrators actually worked for.

    I was not making the implication Mr. Hunt claims, and for him to say so
    indicates either poor comprehension or the even poorer debating tactic
    of introducing a "strawman".

    Quoted message said:


    Let me guess- the conspiracy was *so*
    good that it left no evidence, right?


    Guess what you want about the strawman.

    Quoted message said:


    BTW, why not stop hiding behind
    the not-so-subtle hints and mere intimations in your posts ("...a
    fascist government *can* come..." and "...*could* well earn one a trip
    to the detention camps..." [emphasis added], and say exactly what you
    mean?


    Read it again. For all practical purposes a fascist (merging or
    corporate power with political power) government has come into power,
    with only the candidates pre-selected by the ruling elite to be
    overseers of the people having a chance at being "elected". The
    "representatives" of the people only represent those who stuff their
    campaign coffers with money. Meanwhile, the general population still
    thinks they live in a democracy that offers real choices in elections.

    --
    Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
    "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
    - A. Derleth

  3. Bob Hunt said:

    On Jan 15, 9:54 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Mr. Robert Hunt said:

    On Jan 12, 8:33 am, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>
    wrote:
    > Stephen Harding wrote:
    >> Tom Sherman wrote:
    >>> donquijote1954 ??? wrote:
    >>>> ...
    >>>> Observing evolution of human mind, one can notice humanity traveling
    >>>> from MONOLOG into DIALOGUE. Human beings are traveling from the
    >>>> tyranny of the command, out of the slavery to the word, out of the
    >>>> authoritarian, hierarchic order of ancient times, into a democratic,
    >>>> non-authoritarian, non-violent, horizontal, classless society with
    >>>> social and ecological awareness.
    >>>> However, we have not arrived yet, although the end is already shinning
    >>>> out of the darkness....
    >>> Bah. We have arrived at a point where a fascist government can come
    >>> into being, while the citizens still believe that they are living in a
    >>> democracy.
    >> With the Patriot Act and such, aren't you afraid
    >> of a knock on the door at midnight for speaking so
    >> openly in public?
    >> You're obviously a very brave person.
    > Yep, advocating a political/economic system such as is used in
    > Scandinavia could well earn one a trip to the detention camps
    > Halliburton is building that Blackwater will guard.
    I believe you missed the sarcasm in SH's comment.


    No, I ignored it.

    Quoted message said:

    >> Heck, even advocating the system used in countries such as England,
    > Canada and New Zealand makes one an Anti-American Communist by the
    > standards of Faux News, the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise
    > Institute and the shouting heads of talk radio.
    Are you implying that those you name shouldn't have the same freedom
    of speech you exercise to to hurl insults at them to throw names back
    at you?


    I was, of course, implying nothing of the sort. I was, of course, not
    even addressing the issue Mr. Hunt brings up.

    Quoted message said:

    >> It is questionable if the remaining freedom of speech, travel, etc. in
    > the US could withstand another Reichstag Fire, er 9/11/2001 incident.
    > Such an incident would be easy to arrange with the "assets" on the
    > payroll of the CIA, not to mention the covert services of several
    > countries friendly to the neocon agenda.
    Unfortunately for your implication of a government-sponsored
    conspiracy responsible for the 9/11 WTC attack, there isn't a shred of
    evidence of any such conspiracy.


    Note that the Reichstag Fire was likely NOT set by the Nazis, but they
    took full advantage of its occurrence politically.

    Note how the Cheney/Bush administration took political advantage of
    9/11/2001, irregardless of who the perpetrators actually worked for.

    I was not making the implication Mr. Hunt claims, and for him to say so
    indicates either poor comprehension or the even poorer debating tactic
    of introducing a "strawman".

    Quoted message said:

    > Let me guess- the conspiracy was *so*
    good that it left no evidence, right?


    Guess what you want about the strawman.

    Quoted message said:

    > BTW, why not stop hiding behind
    the not-so-subtle hints and mere intimations in your posts ("...a
    fascist government *can* come..." and "...*could* well earn one a trip
    to the detention camps..." [emphasis added], and say exactly what you
    mean?


    Read it again. For all practical purposes a fascist (merging or
    corporate power with political power) government has come into power,
    with only the candidates pre-selected by the ruling elite to be
    overseers of the people having a chance at being "elected". The
    "representatives" of the people only represent those who stuff their
    campaign coffers with money. Meanwhile, the general population still
    thinks they live in a democracy that offers real choices in elections.

    Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling!
    Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't
    the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude
    that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private
    enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or
    "a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and
    extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition
    is not allowed"😉 or you might even have a point. The last I looked
    there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your
    definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy,
    not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least
    stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs
    oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly.


    That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of
    a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal
    repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance,
    they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they
    are more likely to stay in power.

    The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of
    democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people
    are kept too small to have any real influence.

    The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured
    things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office;
    but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment
    posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows.

    --
    Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
    "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
    - A. Derleth

  4. Bob said:

    On Jan 16, 9:36 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Bob Hunt wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling!
    Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't
    the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude
    that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private
    enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism"
    or "a political system based on a very powerful leader, state
    control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which
    political opposition is not allowed"😉 or you might even have a
    point. The last I looked there were no death squads roaming the
    streets. Based on your definition, you seem to be alleging that
    we're living in an oligarchy, not a fascist state. I disagree but
    I'll give you credit for at least stating a position even if you
    did define your terms (fascism vs oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs
    *do*) incorrectly.

    That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the
    appearance of a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the
    brutal repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds
    resistance, they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class,
    as it means they are more likely to stay in power.

    The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion
    of democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the
    people are kept too small to have any real influence.

    The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured
    things out to vote real representatives from third parties into
    office; but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with
    entertainment posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions
    shows.

    --
    Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
    "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
    - A. Derleth- Hide quoted text -

    Q- What does the "cleverness of the system" have to do with you not
    knowing the difference between fascism and an oligarchy?
    A- None.
    Conclusion- You're just a gasbag that likes to avoid direct answers
    while pretending to think deep political thoughts. In reality your
    critiques of political affairs are on the same level as the, "Two legs
    good. Four legs bad", slogan from "Animal Farm". The pig was one up on
    you though because unlike your pretentious posts barbecued pork
    doesn't leave a bad aftertaste.

    LOL There *IS* hope! LOL

    Bill "Bob for Prez" S.

  5. Mr. Robert Hunt said:

    On Jan 16, 9:36 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Bob Hunt wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling!
    Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't
    the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude
    that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private
    enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or
    "a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and
    extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition
    is not allowed"😉 or you might even have a point. The last I looked
    there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your
    definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy,
    not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least
    stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs
    oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly.


    That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of
    a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal
    repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance,
    they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they
    are more likely to stay in power.

    The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of
    democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people
    are kept too small to have any real influence.

    The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured
    things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office;
    but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment
    posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows.

    Q- What does the "cleverness of the system" have to do with you not
    knowing the difference between fascism and an oligarchy?
    A- None.
    Conclusion- You're just a gasbag that likes to avoid direct answers
    while pretending to think deep political thoughts. In reality your
    critiques of political affairs are on the same level as the, "Two legs
    good. Four legs bad", slogan from "Animal Farm". The pig was one up on
    you though because unlike your pretentious posts barbecued pork
    doesn't leave a bad aftertaste.


    Mr. Hunt misses the de facto merger of government and corporations that
    is essential to fascism, but not oligarchy.

    Mr. Hunt then resorts to insults, since he has nothing better to contribute.

    --
    Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
    "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
    - A. Derleth

  6. Mr. Robert Hunt said:

    On Jan 19, 11:15 am, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Mr. Robert Hunt said:

    On Jan 16, 9:36 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>
    wrote:
    > Bob Hunt wrote:
    >> Hey, you've finally stated a position positively without weaselling!
    >> Congratulations. It's a shame that your definition of fascism isn't
    >> the widely accepted definition ("any movement, ideology, or attitude
    >> that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private
    >> enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism" or
    >> "a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and
    >> extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition
    >> is not allowed"😉 or you might even have a point. The last I looked
    >> there were no death squads roaming the streets. Based on your
    >> definition, you seem to be alleging that we're living in an oligarchy,
    >> not a fascist state. I disagree but I'll give you credit for at least
    >> stating a position even if you did define your terms (fascism vs
    >> oligarchy, "can" and "could" vs *do*) incorrectly.
    > That is the cleverness of the current system. Maintain the appearance of
    > a democracy, which fools enough of the people that the brutal
    > repression is not necessary. Since violent repression breeds resistance,
    > they US system is more beneficial to the ruling class, as it means they
    > are more likely to stay in power.
    > The token opposition of a few members of Congress helps the illusion of
    > democracy; but the numbers of such true representatives of the people
    > are kept too small to have any real influence.
    > The only real danger to the system would be if enough people figured
    > things out to vote real representatives from third parties into office;
    > but the population is kept ignorant and stupefied with entertainment
    > posing as news, sitcoms and "reality" televisions shows.
    Q- What does the "cleverness of the system" have to do with you not
    knowing the difference between fascism and an oligarchy?
    A- None.
    Conclusion- You're just a gasbag that likes to avoid direct answers
    while pretending to think deep political thoughts. In reality your
    critiques of political affairs are on the same level as the, "Two legs
    good. Four legs bad", slogan from "Animal Farm". The pig was one up on
    you though because unlike your pretentious posts barbecued pork
    doesn't leave a bad aftertaste.


    Mr. Hunt misses the de facto merger of government and corporations that
    is essential to fascism, but not oligarchy.

    Mr. Hunt then resorts to insults, since he has nothing better to contribute.

    --
    Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
    "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
    - A. Derleth- Hide quoted text -

    - Show quoted text -



    Will someone at Google fix this!!! Ignoring the signature separator and
    "Hide quoted text" and "Show quoted text" in the reply. Sheesh!!!

    Quoted message said:

    The short definition of oligarchy is rule by the privileged few. The
    short definition of fascism is a totalitarian form of government that
    suppresses all dissent while fostering an extreme militaristic
    national pride. You've argued here many times that real power in the
    US is reserved to corporation fatcats and their lackeys. That would
    fit the definition of oligarchy perfectly. OTOH, since you are still
    posting here I think it is safe to assume that no government agents
    have knocked down your door and dragged you off to the camps. The only
    conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from that is that either the
    totalitarian government you say exists is totally incompetent at
    suppressing dissent or you are far too unimportant for them to bother
    arresting or the totalitarian state doesn't exist.


    Not everybody will fit in a concentration camp. Only those who mobilize
    others to a point that threatens the establishment are disposed of,
    whether in prisons (through false charges), mental institutions or
    assassination (e.g. Martin Luther King Jr. - highly appropriate example
    for today's posting).

    Quoted message said:

    As for my "resort(ing) to insults" I guess you don't consider your
    implications upthread that I'm either- A) a liar or B) "less than half
    attentive" to be insulting. Okay. I don't consider calling you a
    pretentious gasbag insulting so I guess we're even because apparently
    only the writer gets to define what is or is not an insult. Or is it
    only an insult if the writer states their opinion clearly without
    relying on implication and innuendo?
    You may now have the last word and thus believe you have "won" the
    argument. I'm comfortable letting others decide who, if anyone, has
    "won".


    ----
    The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
    by Dr. Lawrence Britt

    Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of [censored] (Germany),
    Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin
    American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

    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.

    2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -
    Because of fear of enemies and the need for 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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 [censored]-sexuality are suppressed and the
    state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

    6. 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.

    7. Obsession with National Security -
    Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

    8. 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.

    9. Corporate Power is Protected -
    The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the
    ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually
    beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

    10. Labor Power is Suppressed -
    Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist
    government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely
    suppressed.

    11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
    Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher
    education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and
    other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts
    and letters is openly attacked.

    12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -
    Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to
    enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses
    and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a
    national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

    13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -
    Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and
    associates who appoint each other to government positions and
    use governmental power and authority to protect their friends
    from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national
    resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by
    government leaders.

    14. Fraudulent Elections -
    Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times
    elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even
    assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control
    voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of
    the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries
    to manipulate or control elections.
    ----
    The US currently meets criteria numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and
    14 to near full extent, and numbers 10 to 12 to a partial extent.

    Number 5 is in the agenda of many of the politicians and judges
    currently in power.

    --
    Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
    "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
    - A. Derleth

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.