We? If we compare the U.S. with descriptors of fascist states.
1 They are very nationalistic. Often display flags, pennants and pins, as well as repetitive popular slogan. They often show pride in the military. Their suspicions of foreign convictions often borders xenophobia.
We tend to nationalism, and do not consider extreme. Our idea of national exceptionalism dates all the way to the founders. Recently, Mr. Obamafor the criticism has come when a statement appeared to denigrate our unique location. It was quite exceptional is closely related to fascism, and I suppose that come from nature, all fascist states also assume the outstanding position as a natural. Although probably not on the scale of the original fascist states, we see that our flag (where I live, is not entirely uncommon to see the Confederate flag in front of houses). At the time of Operation Desert Storm, was unusualNOT see yellow ribbons everywhere to support our troops. Pins are common to politicians, but a sort of symbol on hats, shirts, or what ever so ubiquitous as to be little reason to notice. We do not want to exaggerate catchy slogans, but they are definitely a factor in our society, such as "America, Love It or Leave It", "Buy American", "Made in America by Americans," "You Can have My Gun When gently from my cold, dead fingers "," Support Our Troops ", and many others. ConsideringPride in the military already central to our culture, because certainly the Spanish-American War. It took a dip relatively mild during our misadventure in Vietnam, but most people blame the government puts a lot of "experts", but the support of the military is alive and well. Support for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is overwhelming, and our willingness to pay very high taxes to support all the military probably has passed all military spendingother great powers combined. Support for our military gets a strong YES. The demands for unity were probably more common a few decades (think America, Love It or Leave It), but we have so many different ethnic groups now that the feeling of unity and expression is likely to be relatively low compared to Average fascist society. Unit seems to be particularly high among ethnic Mexicans in the Southwest and particularly in Southern California. Usually root for the teams and not Mexicanas the home team in international sports competition. I think we are missing when it comes to suspicion of foreigners or xenophobia. Joint products have come a better chance from abroad, as a product in this country and do not consider ourselves very strong in this dimension. Overall, I rate this dimension 8
2 They play down human rights, which they see as an obstacle to achieving the objectives of the ruling class. Through the skillful use of propaganda, secrecy, denial,misinform the public and accepts almost all human rights violations.
We lost a lot of human rights. In fact, the government deprived us of our rights more quickly and completely after 9 / 11 that we need to describe our government as it exists today quite fascist, and I do not see a return of 9 / 11 Company cards for everyone. As presidential candidate Barack Obama promised to repeal the Patriot Act, but extends it. Obviously its controller than drivenit promises. There is expectation that our government is determined to walk fanatically us to our second amendment gun rights Strip, through the UN if it could not progress through its own mechanisms. Not only ordinary citizens lose their rights under the Patriot Act, quickly accepted, knowing that a large majority of deputies and law enforcement personnel do not even know what subject to such acts. Unfortunately I think many of our "guaranteed" the constitutional rights are gone forever.Overall, I think that such "civil" rights such as racial equality before the law, retain the right to access to public places and schools, but the relationship between government and governed is definitely back Fascist planes. The government must also be physically intrusive irrational in their search for safety. The use of propaganda to justify the loss of rights has been minimal or nonexistent, but the government has full use of the secret, made the denial, andDisinformation. I reluctantly to our society in the present and the rate for the near future, as a 9 on a scale of 1 to 10
3 The main similarity between these regimes is the use of scapegoating as a means to divert people's attention from more important issues to blame for the failure and frustration in controlled directions channel. Target scapegoats, usually include communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditionalnational enemies, members of other religions, lay people, homosexuals and "terrorists".
The Bush administration began with the words "Islamic terrorists", "Islamic fundamentalists", "Islamofascism" and similar expressions are almost the Twin Towers of the World hit the ground. The "War on Terrorism" is commonly understood as the terrorist "Islamic." The Obama administration is just as irrational to go to the opposite extreme, which removes all state agencies, the term "Islamic"from any connection to terrorism and the use of the term "war on terrorism" refrain. Probably by coincidence, rather than accurate information, Obama's actions were more properly the show, as recent data suggest that four Muslims were involved, two professional pilots at any level. Current theory suggests that the pilots were four Muslim converts to Islam in northern Europe, and could not resist surveillance tapes .. I would say are pretty cleanin this respect, about a 6.
4. The military and avid militarism is highly regarded. A disproportionate share of national resources is allocated to the military, even when domestic needs are acute. The military is an expression of nationalism, and is used extensively to reinforce national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
The United States has historically from the Founding on fit this description very closely. The general public has always been supportive and admiring of the military, but it was not until President Eisenhower warned about the danger of the power of the "military-industrial complex" that most Americans really became conscious of the close ties between 'big business" and big military. In short, the public does not seem to make a sharp distinction between military and non-military, but assumes that everyone will do his/her duty when called on. The military is regarded favorably but not especially worshiped. We definitely rank high on this facet, probably an 8.
5. Sexism is common, as the political elite and the national culture are male-dominated, and women are regarded as second-class citizens. These societies are adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. Draconian laws receive strong support by the orthodox religion, thus providing cover for the ruler's abuses.
Historically, women were not looked on as second class citizens but as a different type of citizens. Almost any change fosters resistance, but when women decided they wanted into the professions and more involvement in business and government they got it. The role of women was changing before World War II, but with the advent of the war and the loss of males from the workforce, women simply moved into where they were needed. The defining symbol was Rosie the Riveter, but women moved almost seamlessly into wherever they were needed. Perhaps the most symbolic example of their ability to do whatever was necessary was the military's dependence on female aircrews to ferry planes from the U.S to England across the north Atlantic. After the war many settled down with their new families, but many stayed in business and the professions. Women appeared in Congress in any force soon after the war and moved into important positions, especially in "feminine" areas such as health care, education, and social services. We have had several women governors, a female vice-presidential candidate who proved very popular with the public and a serious female presidential hopes for that lost support when a male "invisible forces" proved extremely popular with voters. Ironically, it has clearly been less successful than his opponent would be regulated. We had several women cabinet members and ambassadors. One of the largest newspapers has been led by a woman, and the fabulous success of e-Bay was founded by a woman. In a society like England thansuccessful Prime Ministers was a very formidable woman. Women have achieved general officer status in the military. If we ever were a truly sexist society, that time is long past. We obviously rank very low on this factor, about 2.
6. Under some of the regimes, the mass media are under strict direct control, and never stray from the party line. Other regimes exercise more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. The leaders of the mass media are often politically compatible with the power elite. The result is usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes' excesses.
We have traditionally prided ourselves on the freedom of the press, but in reality the government asserted the influence it wanted with a "velvet hand." On the more assertive side it controlled licensing and guidelines for content, but it managed the press most effectively by the granting or withholding "access" of the media to government sources. Most of the media people largely shared the political philosophy of those in government and tended to mirror the beliefs of those in power. This is especially true of Democrats, who at least from the Great Depression onward tended to be relatively liberal. Many in the media were very comfortable with this and were more than willing to reflect the views favored by Washington. Some of them are allowed to attend the annual meetings of the Bilderberers, the nearly invisible group of multi-billionaires who in reality govern all economically valuable portions of the world. They dominate the world's economies, and therefore the governments, so completely that they back both sides during elections. Either choice is their lackey. Ownership of the major media is so extensive that the mainstream media have willingly reflected the views of government, and we generally accept the slant our media put on events as though it were real news. That's not to say that government always managed to control the media. There are and always have been radio and TV stations, magazines, newspapers and other media with political orientations in opposition to Washington. At present they seem to be tolerated by government. However, if they seriously questioned the position of the elite's messages, they would quickly be taxed, over regulated, limited in their broadcast areas, and experience problems in renewing their licenses. As a result, our media comply pretty closely to the views of government and its shadow controllers, and I would rate us high, 9, on this factor.
7. Inevitably, a strong national security apparatus is under the direct control of the ruling elite. It usually enforces oppression, operates in secret and ignores any constraints. "National security" justifies anything. Questioning its activities is considered unpatriotic or even treasonous.
We rate very high regarding an obsession with national security, and have several national security organizations. Until lately, however, these Agencies have been just a little 'oppressive to the people. This relatively benign group of agencies now spread to almost aggressive, offensive, absolutely illegal operations of 9 / 11 disaster. U.S. citizens have been held in military jails without charge or the help of lawyers. Agents were "guaranteed general purpose" with almost everything that the organization would pursue delivered legalized. Almost everything that was out of the reach of governmentnow readily accessible. People were put on no fly lists with no explanation and no obvious way to get removed. In short, we now fit almost perfectly with the description of fascism given immediately above. At present we rate a 9.
8. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes ally with the predominant religion, and usually act as militant defenders of that religion. Propaganda keeps up the illusion that the ruling elites are defenders of the faith and opponents of the "godless." Opposing the power elite is tantamount to an attack on religion.
There are numerous talk radio, independent TV stations, web sites, and periodicals of a religious orientation that constantly lambaste various aspects of governments, but their audience is so small that the government generally ignores them. Government in the U.S. is not generally seen as the defenders of the faith. I'd say 4.
9. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens is under strict control, large corporations usually operate in relative freedom. The ruling elite sees the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production, but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite are often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.
Actually, it's nearly meaningless to speak of "government" and "big business," since the lines of demarcation are so loose and routinely ignored. Generals approve the purchase of 0 toilet seats, then retire to become a member of the board of at least one global corporation. Top executives at major defense corporations such as Boeing are appointed as Secretary of Defense, etc. The incest is to dominant that the people involved must have a hard time deciding which set of clothes to wear each morning. Although ordinary citizens are not usually under strict overt control, the government and huge corporations are constantly accumulating almost any information at all about the public. Departments of the government have tried repeatedly to force citizens to submit to ID cards that tells an official almost everything known about you, to implanted chips so you are monitored twenty four hours a day. On the other hand large corporations can operate in almost total freedom. In fact, the Obama government has been quite busy bailing out corporations from their own mismanagement at the expense of the general public. I would give us a 8 going toward 9 out of 10 on this one.
10. Since organized labor is seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it is usually crushed or made powerless. The poor are viewed with suspicion or outright contempt.
Government troops have maimed and killed striking workers as late as 1940. Until lately, special "futuristicly" equipped special "police" with helmets, plastic face shields, armor over critical body sites have attacked labor actions with Mace, tazers, cattle prods, clubs, and various other weapons. Under the Obama government, however, organized labor has had an almost totally free hand, and has gotten pretty much out of control. Some of the powers the Obama government seems prepared to give them seem totally illegal. I give this one a 5 out of 10 because of the temporary nature of the benevolence. This factor definitely does not fit current government-union relationships described above AT THE PRESENT TIME.
11. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them are rejected by these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom are considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. The government controls the universities, and politically unreliable faculty are harassed or dismissed. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent are strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. Under these regimes, art and literature are required to serve the national interest.
There is no noticeable effort on the part of government to suppress or denigrate intellectuals. There is no apparent government interest in intellectuals one way or the other. The picture changes markedly, however, if we expand intellectuals to include advanced sciences. While intelligent, scientists are not usually thought of as intellectuals such as historians, political science professors, and authors furthering the governments goals. In this case, government can be lavish with research funding, access to subjects (military, prisoners), and state of the art facilities. Since the focus here is on government action historically, I'd have to give this a 7.
12. Most of these regimes maintain Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police are highly regarded, have almost unchecked power, and practice rampant abuse. "Normal" and political crime is often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents. Fear and hatred of criminals or "traitors" is used as an excuse for more police power.
Historically there was a very strong culture of apprehending and punishing criminals on the part of law enforcement agencies, and abuse was "often" but not "common." The government seemed content with the activities of official law enforcement agencies. The FBI under Hoover approached or met this standard, especially concerning the detection of communists and organized crime. Law enforcement was very proactive during the prohibition era, and has been self motivated in the war on drugs (some claim that's because law enforcement agencies profit from it), but there is no need for motivation from government. The top levels of all three branches seem content to let law enforcement agencies continue without motivation from above. Since 9/11 law enforcement has been almost fanatical about "terrorists," even though civilian professionals say there is almost no chance of catching "professional terrorists" before they strike. The country is just too porous, police always have to be careful of minorities to avoid attention from the American Civil Liberties Union, and the sheer volume of material of all sorts coming into this country daily make detection of instruments of mass destruction almost impossible to stop. There is no need for extra motivation from top government levels. Congress has historically been very willing to criminalize various sorts of activities which goes back to the earliest days of the country, and has passed many laws concerning victimless crime or consensual crime, notably drug use, and has very harsh and excessive penalties. For example, growing marijuana almost always results in ten years in prison, clearly excessive. Sex crimes against children merit very harsh sentences, possibly death in some states. Our prisons are, in fact, seriously over crowded, even to the point in some states that prisoners are housed in tents. It's true that pre-9/11 police were seen in a favorable light, with very popular "cop" TV series. However, police did not receive unrestricted power although they often acted unlawfully in relatively minor ways, such as exceeding their authority in looking for drugs during a routine traffic stop. The public rarely made an issue of such minor infractions. However, post 9/11 law enforcement has become very highly aggressive and disrespectful of the public. For instance, in arresting a person accused of domestic violence, they often rough up the suspect and go to ridiculous lengths in searching and restraining the person, who would almost always obediently enter the police car without the tight restraints and harsh handling. Security regulations are now very strict, and the public associates all law enforcement with the over zealous action and hostile attitudes of airport screeners, etc. Except for the unduly harsh penalties meted out by Congress, most of the obsessive behavior occurs at lowers levels, not as a result of prodding from the highest levels of government. Since the basic motivation does not seem to come from the highest levels of government, I would give this a strong 7, but given the lack of control over law enforcement, I'll have to go 8.
13. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often use their position to enrich themselves. This corruption works both ways; the power elite receives financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite are in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well, such as by stealing national resources. With national security under control and the media muzzled, corruption is largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
This certainly applies to our government. Indirect proof of this is the fact that election campaigns often spend millions to elect a certain person to a job officially paying about 0,000. Obviously such an investment is made on the expectation that the politician will route huge funds to the donors once in office. Observers have for decades questioned the "revolving door" between the Pentagon and other government institutions and major corporations, but there is no effort to stop it because those who would have to take action expect to benefit from the system themselves in the future. The American practice differs slightly from the description above in that the public is well aware of the practice, but have no way to eliminate the system since the people involved ARE the system. Improper actions are sometimes undertaken right in the spotlight of the public. In a recent attempt to pass a major and unprecedented healthcare bill the U.S. president made major corrupt deals with lawmakers to back his program. For example, he publicly promised a senator one hundred million dollars for a hospital in return for his vote, and appointed the brother of one holdout to the Federal bench. The public knows full well that such corruption is rampant, but it usually occurs out of the public's view. Many people have run for public office on the "promise to clean things up." Much, if not most, of these promises were sincere. But newly elected politicians run smack up against the system which controls its members in a multitude of way. These include office and clerical assistance, appointment to committees (some are always in the limelight, some the public has never heard of), postage allowance, and on and on until the newcomer learns his or her place. There are no "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" any more. Toe the mark, or serve only one term. I originally gave this one a 9, but with the arrival of Obamacide on the scene, this one now definitely rates a strong 10.
14.Bogus elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls are common. When actual elections are held, the power elite always gets the desired result. Common methods include maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
Election fraud exists, and everybody knows it exists, but it is more prevalent, or rather blatant, in some parts of the country. For example, the fraud in Chicago is well known, and accusations of fraud seem to occur more frequently in the South than in the country at large, but the practice undoubtedly occurs nationwide. In a recent election, uniformed members of the New Black Panthers menaced prospective white voters and discouraged some people from voting at all. The Justice Department established the guilt of the persons involved, had the case wrapped up except for some final action, but our president openly blocked any punishment. Votes are destroyed or disallowed for some reason or another pretty much routinely. In the 2000 election mentioned above, one party attempted to disallow the absentee ballots of members of the military. In the same election votes were almost identical for the candidates but allegedly slightly in favor of the democrat. The republican, whose brother was governor of the state, managed to get the controversy in front of the state's attorney general, who ruled in favor of the republican. She happened to be republican. As I recall, the Constitution stipulates that the House of Representatives will resolve such disputed elections, but it wound up at the Supreme Court instead. It declared the republican the winner. Since fraudulent elections occur regularly in this country, I will give this factor a 9.
So, how do we rate overall? The calculator gives a 7. What does this tell us? Mathematically, a 7 would indicate that we are just barely above average on fascism. But that's a little misleading because we tend to be significantly higher or lower, not "between" mean as 7. Maintain self-knowledge in terms of trends, rather than a photograph seems to be very useful for us, so my opinion on the trend, and assuming the geopolitical aspects of their current trajectory, I would say that we have developed in a typically fascist state. Before Obama actually came into office, I would expect that we have a departure from a trend toward fascism, but in reality, Obama, Bush has maintained the trendtoward more fascism. The only outstanding difference is Obama's slavish stance toward Big Unionism. Obama's reign will slightly moderate a trend toward more fascism, but I definitely don't see this as the evolving trend.
The real purpose of the World Trade Center disaster was to allow the global elite to pretty much do away with the Constitution, at which they succeeded. The Patriot Acts, Military Commissions act, and countless other restrictions on us is becoming the de-facto constitution. The determination of Obama and Clinton to abolish gun ownership through the United Nations is absolutely necessary to defeat the popular uprising once the general populace realizes that 9/11 wasn't a project dreamed up by sick terrorists laying in caves in Afghanistan, but a government coups engineered by the global elite. The only Islamic terrorists involved were the four professional pilots who crashed the planes into the Towers. They did not look like terrorists because they had no middle eastern traits, which was because they were Northern European converts, who looked just like everybody on the planes. The planes were just to add drama to the production, they made a lot of fire and smoke but had nothing to do with the collapse.
And, speaking of the collapse, would terrorists out to do all the damage possible to the U.S. and the morale of Americans bother to rig the blasts so that the towers would fall into their own footprints, causing almost no collateral damage? Collateral damage would have been a blessing to real terrorists. So who were the real terrorists? According to my information there are only four or five organizations worldwide who could have engineered the collapse the way it did. One of them is Israel. Did they do it? Who knows? What possible motive could they have to do such a thing to friend? First, at the level of world governments there are no real allies, only temporarily useful "arrangements." Think of the "friends" who have deserted us lately. Turkey. Brazil. Iran (so its been a while.) I'd have to check on the rest. Think of the enemies who have become "friends." England. Mexico. Spain. Germany. Japan. Russia?? Italy.
Getting back to why Israel MIGHT have engineered 9/11. Without the United States backing them up, even ignoring gross atrocities, Israel would be history. It's not Israel's nukes that are keeping the Islamic world at bay. To Muslims, death fighting Israel is GOOD. The power of the United States keeps things under control. But there is growing evidence that some people are wondering why we give Israel Billions every year while Obama is driving us to bankruptcy. Others are reading more and more articles about the true relationship between the Israeli's and Islam. Reportedly, Palestinians have made several proposals that seemed reasonable enough, but something always blocked Israeli acceptance. Horror of horrors, more and more Americans are wondering just how long this constant bloodshed is going to last. More and more Americans are asking, "Why are Islamic countries our enemies? They seem OK to me." In other words, so the theory goes, the Israelis felt American unity with them was slowly drifting away. But why would America assent/assist in such a horror? I told you already. The eighty people, more or less, known as the Bilderbergers, who actually run the world largely through moving money here and there, got tired of waiting for us to collapse from our own stupidity and decided to move things forward towards a world government. Think that sounds crazy? So I. Then I started to read and read, and showed some videos in my classes that define how people like Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Rothschild, Morgan and perform other thigs. This is the hardest part. Their goal, their corporate governance is held every traditional governments and, therefore, rule the world. Note: I call it the corporate governance, instead of Big Businessbecause business just isn't sufficient to describe these money empires. It would be like saying a hang glider and a Boeing 757 are both airplanes. It would be true but meaningless. So they see their Corporate Government over all the world's regular governments, over their states, provinces, whatever. The states would actually deal with people! Do you really want to be officially under the thumb of the world's richest (and craziest) people?
What does this have to do with fascism? It means that THEY wouldn't have to deal with constitutions, rights, all that nonsense. So, in my somewhat informed opinion, 9/11 was the first step, and our government HAD to be in on it.
| Price : $221.00 | Post Date : Nov 05, 2011 13:21:43
