PDA

View Full Version : Fascism



ducknwork
10-09-2009, 10:58 AM
This term is thrown around a lot on political forums and in the general public. Then, lefties accuse everyone else of not knowing the true meaning and saying it's not true. Let's get this settled.

Post concrete reasons/examples why or why not this term applies to our current government.
________
Hawaii Marijuana Dispensary (http://hawaii.dispensaries.org/)

TXduckdog
10-10-2009, 09:01 AM
A simple check of Webster's sheds a lot of light on this term.( Parenthetical statements are mine.)

1. A political philosophy, movement or regime(NOTE THE PROGRESSION); that exhalts nation and often race above the individual(redistribution of wealth...Joe the Plumber...illegal amnesty), and that stands for a CENTRALIZED, AUTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT headed by a dictatorial leader(Congress);

2. Severe economic and social regimentation(Auto industry, healthcare, etc)

3. Forcible suppression of opposition. (Dems not allowing Repubs in caucus).

****A TENDANCY TOWARD or actual excercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.

ducknwork
10-10-2009, 03:04 PM
I'm glad that someone answered one of these finally. I was beginning to think that nobody has any way to back up what they are saying.

So, where's the rebuttal? Why are these things not fascist? Or are they undefendable?
________
SMALL DICK (http://www.fucktube.com/video/43062/cute-chick-gets-fucked-by-small-dick)

zeus3925
10-10-2009, 04:08 PM
A simple check of Webster's sheds a lot of light on this term.( Parenthetical statements are mine.)

1. A political philosophy, movement or regime(NOTE THE PROGRESSION); that exhalts nation and often race above the individual(redistribution of wealth...Joe the Plumber...illegal amnesty), and that stands for a CENTRALIZED, AUTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT headed by a dictatorial leader(Congress);

2. Severe economic and social regimentation(Auto industry, healthcare, etc)

3. Forcible suppression of opposition. (Dems not allowing Repubs in caucus).

****A TENDANCY TOWARD or actual excercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.

Your parenthetical remarks are a bit off the mark. Fascism vests all it power in a single individual (ex. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Peron)who as supreme ruler has autocratic control. With Fascism the legislature is a sham. Often it serves at the pleasure of the autocrat.

There is an elevation of the "ideal ,true citizen" of the country to the disadvantage of those who are from a different or minority group. A racially pure populace is often the goal of a Fascist state.

The Fascist social regimentation makes everyone a cog of the state (who is in effect the supreme leader). All are expected to follow authority without question. In Fascism the economy is diverted to serve the state but the enterprises stay largely in the hands and the day to day control of the ownership (as opposed to communism where all production is owned by the state). The regimentation in Fascism is meant to serve the state where in present day America the economic stimulus is meant to shore up stressed industries and return them to full private control. The health reform is aimed at getting all Americans covered by a health plan so the rest of us who are covered don't have to carry those that don't. Health care was not a hot topic for Fascist regimes. The money usually was earmarked for the military.

Forcible suppression of the opposition is usually by jack booted thugs or paramilitary that carry off the opposition enmasse and then imprison, torture and/or execute them. I haven't seen a mass round up of Republicans by jack booted Liberals, yet. Nor have I seen a plan where Republicans will have to display a little pink elephant patch over their hearts in public.

Suppression of the opposition does not include things like excluding Republicans from caucuses. The parties in Congress have always excluded members of the opposite party from caucuses, which are in effect strategy meeting or meetings to choose the party leaders. They always have been private clubs.

TXduckdog
10-11-2009, 09:00 AM
Sarge.....historically the forms of fascism have been as you say...an individual, paramilitary, etc. You don't have to widen the definition hardly at all to catch what is going on today.

But if you look at what's going on right now....the basic elements of fascism are in place.....the methods are different.....HC is a perfect example because it represents government control which by nature is always autocratic. The socialistic "redistribution fo income" is absolutely social regimentation...ot it's goal anyway as is the "public option". So is the proposed level of taxation.

When one party excludes the other from involvement in actual legislative interaction, it most certainly is suppression of the opposition.....one step further....the townhall meetings.....the Dems don't want to hear from the people and if they could... AND DID exclude, or made it damn hard to get in to those meetings. The pervasive attitude of many dems, especially the leadership...Reid and Pelosi....they'd shut down the opposition TODAY if they could get away with it.

zeus3925
10-11-2009, 10:00 AM
Marxism is extreme left wing ideology run amok. Fascism is extreme right wing ideology run amok. Some time their manifestations are somewhat similar to the effect that some observers see the political spectrum as circular.

Fascism is less about redistribution of wealth. It, however, savagely seeks to control public discourse to its own set of values that will again lead the country to a new golden age.

In the 50's the parties differed more by nuance--Democrats to side for labor, Republicans for business. It has always been a challenge for the minority party to "get its oar in the water". Congress in recent years has chosen the route of antagonism rather than dialog. Democrats complained bitterly they had no input during the Ginrich reign as the Republicans now complain under the Pelosi reign.

The country has become so polarized that it is hard to express a political opinion without "Marxist" or "Fascist" being hurled back at the opponent.

blind ambition
10-11-2009, 11:12 AM
The fact that these labels are being thrown about so fequently are proof that we are in the grip of the greatest shell game in our political history. Manufactured discontent keeps all us sheeple from asking the right questions. I don't care how well read you are or what your source material is. If you are looking for answers to the questions raised in any mainstream media you are a pawn...but then, what else could we be?

Noam sane

YardleyLabs
10-11-2009, 02:07 PM
Sarge.....historically the forms of fascism have been as you say...an individual, paramilitary, etc. You don't have to widen the definition hardly at all to catch what is going on today.

But if you look at what's going on right now....the basic elements of fascism are in place.....the methods are different.....HC is a perfect example because it represents government control which by nature is always autocratic. The socialistic "redistribution fo income" is absolutely social regimentation...ot it's goal anyway as is the "public option". So is the proposed level of taxation.

When one party excludes the other from involvement in actual legislative interaction, it most certainly is suppression of the opposition.....one step further....the townhall meetings.....the Dems don't want to hear from the people and if they could... AND DID exclude, or made it damn hard to get in to those meetings. The pervasive attitude of many dems, especially the leadership...Reid and Pelosi....they'd shut down the opposition TODAY if they could get away with it.
Actually, it's not even close.

How can Congress be considered dictatorial when control and and does shift in any election. Exercising legislative power in accordance with the Constitution, subject to judicial review, and with the possibility of being thrown out by the next election cannot be termed a dictatorship. In the absence of laws permitting prosecution based on opposition, or legislation outlawing opposing parties, or other similar activities limiting free speech and the people's rights to vote, it cannot even be term authoritarian.

Social regimentation has nothing to do with ownership or control of businesses, it has to do with control of public behavior and activities. The closest we come as a nation to such action are activities such as morning recitals of the Pledge of Allegiance, pep squad assemblies at high schools, and the playing of the national anthem at sporting events. During the McCarthy period we pushed this further, forcing people to prove their allegiance through conformance to narrowly defined standards of patriotic behavior while proving that they did not support or participate in activities that were completely legal but deemed unpatriotic for the McCarthyites. We have no such regimentation now even if one throws in isolated incident such as the Obama song on one elementary school class.

luvmylabs23139
10-11-2009, 05:02 PM
The fact that these labels are being thrown about so fequently are proof that we are in the grip of the greatest shell game in our political history. Manufactured discontent

Noam sane


What manufactured discontent? I am disgusted with this gov't as are most of my friends.

You don't even live in the US!

TXduckdog
10-11-2009, 08:06 PM
Actually, it's not even close.

How can Congress be considered dictatorial when control and and does shift in any election. Exercising legislative power in accordance with the Constitution, subject to judicial review, and with the possibility of being thrown out by the next election cannot be termed a dictatorship. In the absence of laws permitting prosecution based on opposition, or legislation outlawing opposing parties, or other similar activities limiting free speech and the people's rights to vote, it cannot even be term authoritarian.

Social regimentation has nothing to do with ownership or control of businesses, it has to do with control of public behavior and activities. The closest we come as a nation to such action are activities such as morning recitals of the Pledge of Allegiance, pep squad assemblies at high schools, and the playing of the national anthem at sporting events. During the McCarthy period we pushed this further, forcing people to prove their allegiance through conformance to narrowly defined standards of patriotic behavior while proving that they did not support or participate in activities that were completely legal but deemed unpatriotic for the McCarthyites. We have no such regimentation now even if one throws in isolated incident such as the Obama song on one elementary school class.


So you think the Pledge of Allegiance, pep squad assemblies and playing the national anthem are social regimentation?

YardleyLabs
10-11-2009, 09:03 PM
So you think the Pledge of Allegiance, pep squad assemblies and playing the national anthem are social regimentation?
Regimented efforts to build group identity and stimulate loyalty to country are definite examples of social regimentation. The fact that you may support the values being instilled doesn't change their nature. Having these things done within an institutionally mandated group environment is an effort to bring both the power of the institution and peer pressure to encourage group identification and allegiance and to subsume individual identity within the group. The boundary between this and Fascism is one of degree. Russian classrooms under Khrushchev did similar things which were reinforced in their version of the boy and girl scouts (called the Young Pioneers - I attended a few meetings as part of a school trip around 1963). On the Kibbutzim in Israel, when I was there (mid-60's), there were similar programs for inculcating group values among teenagers. Children lived apart from their parents, seeing them on a scheduled daily basis but only for 1-2 hours. At other times, children lived in dormitories which maintained their own social structure under the leadership of individuals appointed by the kibbutz. Every week there were group meetings for patriotic presentation, singing of patriotic songs, and dancing of group dances. Upon graduation from high school all students were then required to join the army for two years where similar techniques were used to maintain group identity. Obviously, in this country and in Israel, these social regimentation efforts were not accompanied with dictatorial government structures, while in Russia they were. However, in Israel, a lot of work went into planning these activities specifically because of their value in forging nationalist values in the youth to overcome the disparate national identities reflected among the adult population as a whole. The youth were called sabras, the Hebrew term for a prickly pear, to distinguish them from the wartime refugees that made up the bulk of the population. In America. many churches organize similar programs to vitalize the faith and inspire allegiance to a common set of moral standards among youth. How is all of that anything except social regimentation?

TXduckdog
10-11-2009, 10:35 PM
I hardly see the activities you mention, including church activites as regimentation.

For one, they are not instituted or controlled by an autocratic controller....such as congress....who just because they are elected officials and may well be unelected in the near future can still and do act in an autocratic or fascist manner.

Regimentation has the notion of a systematic plan of control or governmental rule.

You speak of a mandated group environment.

I see none of the mentioned activities as being a mandated group environment. But rather a loosely formed group of people with common interests and values. I also don't see taught values whether in a school or civic setting and certainly in a church setting as "a program of inculcating group values" and I certainly don't see efforts to "subsume individual identity within the group".

The 2 groups you mention...the Russian example is political brain washing. The Kibbutzim is definitely social engineering.

The aforementioned activities are neither and don't come close in comparison.

Which takes me back to my original point....there is tremendous movement in this country that we've not ever seen to create governmental control...intrusion if you will into areas never before attempted. These are heavy handed attempts to extend governmental control.....regimentation via government mandate....over everything from the cars we drive, to the amount of fat content in our food, to how big of bonuses we get, to where to set our thermostats,
to being forced to have health insurance.....and the type of medical treatment we will be allowed to have.

If the American people would just roll over and let it happen.....those currently in political power would turn this country into a fascist/socialist state in no time at all....including the stripping of constitutional rights such as gun ownership.

I don't care how you want to intellectualize it....the Dems and this administration have played their hand.....it's plain to see that they are out to radically alter our free society as we know it. From what I have seen so far, I believe that there is NOTHING off the table for these people...up to and including voting rights.

zeus3925
10-12-2009, 07:26 AM
In response to TXduckdog's post above:

Legislatures in a democratic republic, such as ours, are the ones that get to set the rules for the society. Governments are meant to govern-- that is to act as a control. The framers of the Constitution set the reelection of the House because they recognized that public opinion can change on a dime. It is designed to reflect the mind of the people in a current mode.

Society is quite a bit different in the 21st century than in the 18th when the republic was established. With the advances in society, new legislation is needed over time to address new issues as they arise. It often requires that the Congress moves into areas where it has not trod before. Moving into new areas of itself is not autocratic intrusion. However, most regulation will meet with some disapproval somewhere because it imposes a rule of conduct that forces change. Humans as a rule do not like change.

My longtime mantra has been that population density is the greatest threat to freedom and liberty. In the late 18th century, you could take your wife , kids and dogs through the Cumberland Gap to homestead far away from nagging neighbors. If your dog howled at the full moon the only ones offended would be kids and sweet spouse. You could hunt all year without a license. Throw your dishwater into a stream. No one downstream to care.

Fast forward to today's urban environment, where if your dog wishes to serenade the moon, the animal control officer will respond to the calls of your sleepless neighbors and you will get a ticket to go see the judge. If it happens repeatedly, the government may even confiscate your pooch. Then there are dog licenses, containment laws and leash ordinances. Regulations on the number of dogs you can own. Why? Enough of your sleepless neighbors sought government regulation to protect them from your pooch.

There are six billion people on the planet. All of them want to at least be able to feed their families. Most aspire to our standard of living. That means more people polluting on their drive to work and making products. The resources of the earth are finite. Competition for those finite resources is going to invite more regulation.

The solution is simple but unpopular: Stop reproducing!

TXduckdog
10-12-2009, 08:49 AM
VERRY interesting, Sarge.

ducknwork
10-12-2009, 11:05 AM
The solution is simple but unpopular: Stop reproducing!

You first.;-)



:D
________
Free Whole Foods Gift Cards (http://bestfreegiftcard.com/whole-foods-gift-cards/)