Fascism: Good or Bad?

[shostakovich]

I recently heard Bush being called a fascist. Naw, I thought, till I looked up the definition.

Fascism: a philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.

Bush a would-be dictator? You bet. He is assuming as much individual power for himself and his administration as he possibly can, illegally(?) and certainly with lies. He justifies all with wartime necessity. Hence, ending the war in Iraq may not be a goal, certainly not during his tenure.

Merging of state and business interests? Can anyone question this?

Belligerent nationalism? Patriotism (a major facet of nationalism) is defined by Bush as agreement with him. In his state-of-the-union he again said he was open to ideas from both sides of the aisle. Yet, people who disagree disappear. The most prominent was Colin Powell. A Newsweek article last week listed several non-obvious cases.

So, fascist he is. Good or bad for us? Your pick.

His speech writers have him saying many right things. But when he is opposed to those right things, talk is all we get. (real education reform, real health care reform, real environmental protection, real shift to renewable enrgy sources, real good advice in general)

He is so blatantly and obscenely pro-rich and anti-poor it's incredible to me that he is our president or that his approval rating now may be as high as 40%.

I had taken comfort in Barfle's comment that the country would survive any president, but considering the damage he's done here and abroad in 5 years and the damage he will do in the next 3, I'm not sure we will ever recover completely. In 50 years (or less) American historians will have another break point at 2001, the others being 1776, 1860, 1914, 1941.

I would hope for another break point at 2006, the year the democrats and republicans splintered and independents started to make headway in politics.
Wishful thinking by a disgusted
Shos

<small>[ 02-03-2006, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: shostakovich ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

Hi Shos,

Good to hear from you!

After reading this, I thought, with a little tweaking, you could write it up as a bio for us to guess, like "Fascist 'X'", or "Dictator 'X'".

NSA = Geheimstaatpolizei?!

It would be politically healthful if both parties would implode - get some fresh meat in there....

<small>[ 02-03-2006, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Shapley]

RE:Patriotism (a major facet of nationalism) is defined by Bush as agreement with him.

Can you cite me an example where he has given this as a definition?

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Shapley:
RE:[b]Patriotism (a major facet of nationalism) is defined by Bush as agreement with him.

Can you cite me an example where he has given this as a definition? [/b]

How about, "You are either with us or with the terrorists"?

GWB speech from Sep 20, 2001

That meme has been chanted over and over so many times bt GWB and his crime family it sounds like a mantra anymore.

If that doesn't exclude dissent in any form, I don't know what does.

:sheesh:

[Shapley]

OT,

Won't work. Here is the quote from the speech:

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

He was speaking to nations, not to individuals, and he was speaking about the harbouring and coddling of terrorists, not about patriotism.

You would do well to read what the President says, not what the Democrats say about what the President says.

:Sheesh:

[OperaTenor]

That's right, and GWB never made any connection between the 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda and Iraq either. Must be some tasty Kool-Aid they give you.....

That line has been used over and over since GWB uttered it to counter any form of dissent to the Iraq invasion.

Okay, you can interpret that one however you want, how about this:

"It's one thing to have a philosophical difference," but people should "remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's way and the effect that rhetoric can have in emboldening or weakening an enemy."

In the context of this particular speech, anything said to criticize GWB's bungling of the war on terrorism can hurt our troops and help the emeny. To me, that stops just short of calling dissenters traitors.

Bush on Iraq: 'We're doing the right thing'

<small>[ 02-06-2006, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[lliam]

Hi Shos, ow ya keepin buddy?
RE: Fascism:

One of our greatest facists was: Sir Oswald Mosley.


Mosley was amongst the most evil Britons in a top ten shortlist, as always the evil that men do lives after them and the good is often buried with them.

In my opinion Mosley had a gift of looking into the future.
He loved his country and fought in WW1 where he was injured and walked with a limp thereafter.

As Michael Foot, M.P. once said about Mosley: "No rising star in the political firmament ever shone more brightly than Sir Oswald Mosley. Since by general assent he could have become the leader of either the Labour or the Conservative Party. What Mosley so valiantly stood for could have saved this country from the Hungry Thirties and the Second World War"

There are lots of quotes like that about Moseley from fellow MP’s for example:

"The greatest comet of British politics in the twentieth century . . . an orator of the highest rank. He produced, almost unaided, a programme of economic reconstruction, which surpassed anything, offered by Lloyd George or, in the United States,
by F. D. Roosevelt...

He has continued fertile in ideas. These ideas came to him by inspiration . . . Interned quite absurdly under Regulation 18B during the Second World War . . . He was never anti-Semitic - only opposed to a Second World War for the sake of Jews elsewhere. He was never unpatriotic - only indifferent to German conquests in Eastern Europe... A superb political thinker, the best of our age".
- A.J.P.Taylor

"A man who had aimed throughout his life at what he might describe as a Greek idea of excellence. He is anxious to synthesise the impulses of religion and science ... In the field of ideas he was a creative force... His tremendous talents as a platform speaker and parliamentary debater were available to give maximum effect. If events had so decided and awarded him the supreme office he would not have lacked the dedication nor the courage"
- Earl of Longford

"He had an impeccable record in the First World War. It was silly to intern Mosley during the Second World War. He was not in the least unpatriotic, any more than he was anti-Semitic or in favour of revolution by force. . He had, I think, greater natural political talent than any survivor of his generation from the First World War"
- Sir Cohn Coote

"Attentive, considerate and infinitely courteous . . . he talks like a statesman who may be in the wilderness but who knows he is not finished yet... Sir Oswald believes in a consensus government, with people from the parties, the universities, public life and the army. . Would go to the stake for Britain and her people"
- Geoffrey Moorhouse

"A man of powerful will and bold intelligence, self-disciplined, by no means lacking in shrewdness or even humour, a spell-binding speaker, a truly formidable figure".
- Cohn Welch

"In his extraordinary career as a soldier, politician, socialite, international sportsman, he had known most of the prominent people of his time. a spectacular career".
- George Murray

"He might have been able to lead either the Conservative or the Labour Party and in either case . . . I should have joined him. I discerned in him . . . this kind of quality of leadership that I discerned in only two other men during all my period of political life. One is Lloyd George and the other is Churchill".
- Lord Boothby

"The stuff of greatness - more than a spark of genius". - John Blake

History Magazine have now voted Jack the Ripper worst and Mosley the least worst – or, to put it another way, the best.

[Serenity]

Originally posted by Shapley:
......
You would do well to read what the President says, not what the Democrats say about what the President says.

:Sheesh:

...or what the writers and consultants tell the President to say or not to say.....

Sorry, my lunch is over, gotta run...

[Shapley]

OT,

RE:To me, that stops just short of calling dissenters traitors.

Yes, to you, it says that. The point is the President has never defined Patriotism thus, nor, as far as I can tell, has he ever defined Patriotism at all. You can interpret his speeches however you wish, but that does not make it so.

I am reminded of last week's disrespect for Mr. Gonzales at Gerogetown University. He was invited to speak to the students concerning his opinions on the legality of the wiretapping issue. When he stood to speak, many in the assembly turned their backs on him and refused to listen, while raising a banner to face the cameras in the back of the room (not to face Mr. Gonzales). I believe that episode said more about the left's position than they intended. Their minds are made up, and they'll not hear anything to the contrary. They are disrespectful and disreputable. If they didn't want to hear Mr. Gonzales, they could have stayed home, or perhaps not invited him, but that was not enough for their satisfaction. Was it unpatriotic? No. It had nothing to do with patriotism. It was rude, disrepectful, and typical of the left.


The saddest part, these are future lawyers. Will they open their ears to opposing views in the courtroom? I doubt it.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
That's right, and GWB never made any connection between the 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda and Iraq either.

While I certainly agree with you about Iraq, he clearly said al qaeda was responsible for 9/11.

Who attacked our country? The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda.

[OperaTenor]

Let me rephrase that: ...never intimated ties between Iraq and al Qaeda/the 9/11 attacks.

Better?

[OperaTenor]

Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co
5-28-3


Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (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 homosexuality 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.

From Liberty Forum http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_constitution&Number=642 109&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=-1

We don't meet all fourteen of those characteristics................................yet.

<small>[ 02-06-2006, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Shapley]

OT,

The Fascists were an Italian political party, which came to power under Mussolini. Hitler was, political, a Nazi, or National Socialist. The term Fascist is often applied to Hitler and to other dictators, as well as to Republican Presidents of the United States, but the only reliable definition of Fascist would be the party platform established by them.

Liberals, such as your Dr. Lawrence Britt, who created his "fourteen points" in 2003 specifically to refer to President Bush rather than to historically accurate definitions, ignore the true origins and goals of Fascism. They are able to do so in the internet age because bloggers will take their nonsense and mass-mail it to willing recipients until it assumes an air of authenticity. If you really want to know how to define a Fascist, Google "Mussolini" and take it from there. The Daily Kos knows about as much about the true origins of Fascism as my dog does.

V/R
Shapley

BTW, I should point out that most popular definitions of Fascism include government control of private enterprise, which is why it is often associated with the National Socialist movement. I believe the general complaint about President Bush is that he advocates private enterprise having control over government, so I would have to say he is not a Fascist.

<small>[ 02-06-2006, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

I have heard that Mussolini made the trains run on time.

[OperaTenor]

Here's the dictionary definition. You may interpret it as you see fit.

fas·cism Pronunciation (fshzm)
n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
[Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.]
fas·cistic (f-shstk) adj.
Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, "bundle, (political) group," but also refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.

...

The Italians may have coined the term, but they don't have sole proprietorship. I realize you reside on that river in Egypt when it comes to the truth about your president and his henchmen, but those 14 points do have relevance to the textbook definition, and the GWB administration fits the mold in more ways than they don't.

...

Oh, and you need to brush up on your Nazi history. Hitler did not control German big business; he was beholden to them. Barons such as Krupp were moral and material backers of the Nazis, but tied to that support was the promise of government money in the form of business in return. Most of the big business barons could barely tolerate having Hitler in their presence, especially being as he was low-born.

PS. You probably read the Daily Kos more than I do.

<small>[ 02-06-2006, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[shostakovich]

RE:Patriotism (a major facet of nationalism) is defined by Bush as agreement with him.

Can you cite me an example where he has given this as a definition?

---------------------------------------------------------

Hi Shap. I see you actually still listen to his speeches. How quaint! His speech writers would never allow him to verbalize the definition. I don't have before me any list of administration personnel who have disagreed with him and are no longer in his administration. I have, however, read many accounts of dissenters who are gone during the last 5 years. It seems clear, to me, that success in the administration is agreement with his policies. The Bush bubble is real. He lives within Planet Admin, but he is screwing up the real world --- except for the rich.

Hi Lliam. Your catalog of quotes on Moseley indicates how highly he was regarded by peers. At the beginning you say he was one of the most evil Britons. At the end you have History Magazine laudind him as the best. I'm confused. And what was it that made him a fascist?

----------------------------------------------------------
BTW, I should point out that most popular definitions of Fascism include government control of private enterprise, which is why it is often associated with the National Socialist movement. I believe the general complaint about President Bush is that he advocates private enterprise having control over government, so I would have to say he is not a Fascist.

Hi again, Shap. Mussolini was A fascist, not the definig fascist. I have seen some definitions of abstract "fascism". The government is in cahoots (not in control) with (of) business. In this case, Bush IS a fascist. I guess we select our definitions in order to reach our conclusions.

Bush can not convert us to complete fascism so quickly ---------- even some Republicans have noticed he's heading that way (but would never use the word --- heck, they can't even use the word "liar" for the liar).

I doubt that Bush imagines he might be fascistic. That's because he doesn't read, and probably can't even spell "dictionary".

A joke once circulated about his personal library burning. Both books were consumed. He hadn't even finished coloring in the second one.

While there is comfort in poking fun at him, it obscures the danger he poses for the country and the world. We are getting deeper into shit.
Shos

[Shapley]

Shos,

So it is my understanding then that you view the President as an uneducated moron who is cleverly heading a grand conspiracy to move this nation toward a while skirting the edge of legality just enough to keep him clear of impeachment. Pretty clever for a moron.

And OT thinks my view is hard to defend.

:Sheesh:

I'm actually still waiting for someone to identify provable lies that he has told. I think I asked for those a year or so ago, and disproved the ones that were posted.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

Shos and OT,

The definition of Fascism is constantly being revised and rewritten to fit the mode of the day. I seem to recall a list similar to the 'fourteen points' that was written during the riegn of Ronaldus Maximus that used the events of the day to label him a fascist, but I couldn't find it in a Google search (too many articles to wade through), so I could be mistaken. I'm sure some right-leaning writers fabricated such a list to define it so that Clinton also fit the bill. My point is, the 'fourteen point' would have had a lot more credibility if they had been written prior to 2003.

I suppose we could take a dictionary defintion written in the '60s or '70s, and see if the President will fit a more traditional definition, but the point would still be moot.


Shos: RE:His speech writers would never allow him to verbalize the definition. I take it this means the listener or, since you admit that you don't listen to his speeches, the interpretor has to extract the definition from what is said. Similarly, I suppose, his writers will not allow him to verbalize his lies, so it is up to the interpretor to identify the lies. I seem to recall the argument was that the moron was too smart to actually say that Saddam had ties to 9/11, so he 'inferred' it, leading those who presumably are smarter than the moron to accept that it was true and vote to give him the authority to invade Iraq. Sort of makes you wonder about the defintion of moron, doesn't it?

V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 02-07-2006, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[Shapley]

Shos and OT,

My apologies if I got a bit hot-headed in my posts on this topic yesterday. I get rather tired of the constant attacks against the President, whom I consider to be doing a decent job at a difficult time.

Nonetheless, my posts here seem to deviate from my usual calm manner, and I apologize for this lapse. I think I'll stay out of the barracks for a while, and just have beer. Or rather, since it's snowing here, perhaps a hot toddy.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Hey Shap,

No worries! If you weren't passionate in your convictions I wouldn't bother taking the time to spar.

Since you're supportive of GWB, you ought to get your hackles up, given the verbal abuse I, if no one else, hurl his way. JFYI, whatever I say here I'd say looking him in the eye, given the chance and SS permitting.

Just remember, the first round's always on me...

(currently listening to Lucia's insane musical ranting....)

<small>[ 02-08-2006, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>