Have you tried explaining to her what fascism is?

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.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The people. Now you answer my question.


Yes, the people have done very well in stopping the ills of government: war, hegemony, cronyism, etc. With a limited government and free markets, I can safely say the people can and will stop a corporate dictatorship, because they'll have direct control of the market run by, of and for the people. In your system, we elect representatives who then assign bureaucrats to manipulate the market which leads us back to mercantilism.

That's what we should change the Democratic Party to: The Mercantilist Party.

NetRunner, sorry but it's not that he thinks government can't get it to ever work. He thinks that THIS government, or more broadly, the very DNA of the current political system in the US today that would fail to do it rightly.

He frequently talks about how the system is bought and paid for by corporate interests, yes. And it is, both sides. But he's definitely not against the profit motive, I have to stress that. For example in fact he spoke against Michael Moore on his desire to get rid of capitalism, and he sees that the profit motive is what drives medical research in the US to be second to none. What he wants to see is that the rules are enforced and that regulation is obeyed. It's not capitalism we have now, it's corporate cronyism that sets its own boundaries by buying politicians.

The big thing he pushes for is campaign finance reform, for until the floodgates from big money are closed, government will NOT be for the people.

^ ^ Netrunner, there are some things about your example I don't understand. Why bring up an example that could turn out a hundred different ways depending on the contract in question? Do you mean whether you should have a right to make the tenants pay? How would you enforce it? Payment of common areas is up to the parties in question I guess?

Then there is the other specific example of current corporate culture, which is arguable very different from theoretical Capitalism, and succeeds largely because of political cronyism and going beyond voluntary action into coercion by government proxy (lobbying for legislative influence, bailouts, exclusive contracts etc).

I'd say that as soon as you do that, we're no longer talking about capitalism, but something akin to fascism (i.e. heavy governmental-industrial integration and protection of mutual interests by any means necessary).

And how can you be tired of the coercion argument ? It's totally central, and is one of the reasons why half of the US population keeps voting against your ideology. Shouldn't that be reason enough to understand it?

^rougy, I did say that it's not a pretty thing.
And does your description of the evils of a market correction imply that you were for the bailout?

Sorry, man, but a million bucks just ain't what it used to be. And like has been said before, what's the difference between that and paying for private fire protection, police protection, road usage, parks, etc, etc, etc.

Not to mention the fact that anybody who is ok with losing a third or half of their income to taxes probably wouldn't believe that a totally free society would even be sustainable without collapsing into some elitist oligarchy, which would take away your freedoms all over again.

I'd be thrilled if we could reduce government waste. But I'm really not interested in blanket statements about how we're taxed "too much", as if that has any meaning. Find some wasteful government programs you want to cut, and I'll support you all the way. Figure out a way to put an end to the government cronyism and you have my vote. But get specific or go away.

^ Domestic spending is a great idea.

Not at the federal level. Domestic federal programs are routine failures and outstrip military spending at a 4 to 1 ratio. Parenthetically, the US military budget partially subsidizes the DOMESTIC spending budgets of Europeans. I agree with US defense cuts, starting with Western Europe.

With domestic spending, we cook the steak, and actually get to eat it.

Government solutions are bureaucracies - insular, self-serving, rife with waste, riddled with cronyism, and ineffective in process. The first priority of a public program is the inflation of its own budget. Effective programs by definition reduce the budget of the program. Therefore, public spending has no incentive for excellence, or even basic competence. There are good people within such systems, but all too often the biggest obstacle to them doing a good job is the very program they work for. The 'military industrial complex' is a popular target, but the 'domestic public complex' does more damage to society.

Domestic issues are not 'public' issues. They are moral issues solved at the individual level. Such problems cannot be served effectively by amoral, disinterested, 3rd removed parties such as government programs. To really tackle the social needs of a people then there are only two known methods with proven track records... Personal morality and individual freedom. Neither solution is indemic to a government based approach. Government distances itself from personal morality, and is inherently in opposition to individual freedom. This is why public programs fail - for they attempt to address moral issue amorally, and restrict freedom where more freedom is needed.

huge areas of working and proven political policies

Such as? I know some people say that leftist policies are successful. I wouldn't call them that. Public programs cede freedom to a central authority and require massive taxation, regulation, and cost controls to exist. For example, "Public medicine" achieves its so-called universal coverage by taxation and denied/delayed care. It is not an improvement on a free system. It does not supply 'better' care. It is not 'less expensive'. For it to be a 'working, proven policy' it would need to be shown to be demonstrably superior at all levels to a free-market solution. I await with eagerness the proof of that claim. The only 'proofs' are the opinions of wonks. My position is that a free-market solution will always be superior because it returns freedom to people. The opportunity cost of lost freedom is a dirty, hidden cost of all left-wing policies that they never really like to discuss.

Once you know, you can't go back.

Here is a list of things, in my opinion, that they do not teach in public schools:

Ben Franklin's Interpretation of why the Revolutionary War took place

The refusal of King George to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the revolution.

To which some fools created the same monster bank, First Bank of the United States Thanks in part to one, Robert Morris a signer of The Declaration. Our nation's banking history is fraught with banking scams and controversy. Just take a gander at the Wikipedia pages above.

Even Woodrow Wilson would see the error of his ways in the end after singing the Glass Owen act into law. The FED is not a Government Agency if it were ththen our system of money would be Nationalized. We often here that word, "We can't nationalize the debt!" But we sure can socialize it!

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the Nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men... We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men."

The 1999 repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act. Thanks to a Democratic Presidency.

Throughout all of our history there is nothing but sleight of hand, cronyism, and corruption. I do my best to follow a strict code
of ethics why can't they? I know I'm not perfect and I often find myself but I always think "Am I doing the right thing?" If I can't answer yes to that question within moments then I know I'm not doing the right thing.

I leave you now with a few quotes:

Harry Truman once said there are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of other people, the hundred and fifty or sixty million, is the responsibility of the President of the United States. And I propose to fulfill it. - JFK

From a good man no matter how suspect:



In my opinion the best speech ever given:



Full Disclosure even if it damns you. Someone said, "The Truth will set you free," or something like that. Sure it will but who's truth is it?

My government spends LESS TAXPAYERS money than the US government spends on healthcare. Every single country with public healthcare does, and everyone is covered. Now explain that.

The U.S. currently spends 23% of its federal budget on Medicare and Medicaid which only covers 15% of the population. These two programs alone rack up 700+ billion a year. That's $2,333 for every man, woman & child. As a family of 4, I could get a peach insurance plan with that $9,300 in my pocket. For refernce, military spending is 21%.

So why indeed is not 'everyone covered'? Do you have to ask? Medicare & Medicaid are grossly inefficient, rampant with corruption, run by cronyism, and waste 65+ cents on the dollar. In exchange for this wonderful spending efficiency they are able to puke out substandard care. People on Medicare/aid routinely deal with long delays, denied coverage, and onerous bureaucracy. They are flawed, expensive, ineffective programs so of course they can't cover everyone. Obamacare is (essentially) nationalized Medicare. Why would any sane person want that as thier national plan? Now explain that.

Instead of raving on about how publicly run healthcare will be hundreds of times more expensive than the private ones, look at the numbers.

Looking at the numbers is WHY I am saying publicly run healthcare will be more expensive. Duh.

I just feel, that people should be able to go to the doctor without having to worry about if and how they are going to pay for it.

This simple statement should explain very clearly to everyone exactly why 'government' health care will not be affordable, sustainable, or feasible. I would very much like to hear just exactly the explanation of how the system will cost less when it is filled with 300+ million human beings who "don't worry about how they are going to pay for it." Because government is going to (ahem) aggressively negotiate costs? Just like how they aggressively negotiate costs with Medicare & Medicaid? Or with military spending $200 on a toilet seat and $75 for a lugnut? As with all government programs, such a system would quickly become rife with cronyism, corruption, waste, graft, and outright theft.

Meanwhile, average people who just want medical care would soon find that 'government' medicine is certainly not free. They'll have payments to make (and bankrupcy to suffer though) just as much as with the private system. The difference is it will cost more (in total with taxes and fees) and will provide much crappier service (since coverage & quality will inevitably be scaled back). And of course, grandpa would be denied coverage for his helicopter ride for neck surgery just as readily as if he had a private insurer.

So, with some bad luck, you can get sick and get yourself into a lot of debt, or you can choose the republican plan - TO DIE QUICKLY.

Hyperbole. No Republican has ever said so, nor even implied it. For you to say it is both false, and makes you seem like some sort of propoganda parrotting puppet. I'd suggest you divest yourself of such simplistic dictotimisms if you wish to be else but a political zombie. The solution is to PURCHASE some freaking catastropic medical coverage. It is not unaffordable. You can get catastrophic medical for a very reasonable price for any number of private insurers. Then you don't go bankrupt. Simple. Easy. So of course that is not the solution government wants.

^Profit from it? I think what this video is trying to do is be what the media should be, a watch dog. Granted, this is chop full of sensationalism and glances over things that are important, but it is at least making an effort to look out for "the man" and serve the interests of "the little guy". It seems like people who call shenanigans now are attacked with "loon" or "conspiracy nut" kind of ad hominem attacks.

While it isn't formal education, it is at least something to break the cycle of thought one normally is exposed to. A break from status que thinking that you would get at...say your local library. Established educational academia has a vested interests to not look "cooky" as it could detract from their attendance pool. They have a vested interest in not deviating from what you would expect. Being edgy or insightful goes against established academia and it is why a lot of real revolutionary thought comes from outside the university system.

Even well educated people on economics don't have any transparency into the fed. It is only partly a government organization, the business conducted in them is not a matter of public record. Recent attempts to make it so have been blocked and that is what the video is pointing out in the first 50mins or so. That massive cronyism and misconduct was and still is being conducted to rob the people of their savings to benefit a very small number of firms that generate no wealth.

I don't see why you would find it odd that the rich would conspire with other rich to protect their wealth and power. The history on this; mercantilism, cartels, feudalism, oligopolies, is just to clear to ignore. I think this video did a good job in capturing where these potential men in black coats could be, and if they are, offer a very interesting perspective into possible goals and means to archive those goals. I love war gaming. What I mean is to take a situation and map it out to its ends. Most people get ridiculed when they do this out in open air, which is a shame.

Any government that has a policy of solving social problems by using government funds or employment is operating on a Keynesian principle. Lets be fair though, John Maynard Keynes was a brilliant mathematician and economist. Notions of GDP and other such macroeconomics ideals are all his creation. However flawed and unrealistic they are, there is no doubt of its brilliants for what it was. Same could be said of Communism, however, practical realities and the evils they create to obtain those things rule them out if one wants to be free..that is for both Communism and Keynesian principles. Friedrich Engels and John Maynard Keynes were not idiots, just people trying to solve problems, however history shows they had the wrong answers.

Obama and pretty much every western government has been largely Keynesian for a good long time. Though, the term Keynesian need not be rigorously applied...this is just a forum conversation. The truth is that you can either have government making choices with yours and other peoples money making moral decisions (theocracy for all intents and purposes). Or you can have a system of liberties where we are free to make our own moral choices. The terrible things that come about because of freedoms are blatant and unhidden, in a way, that makes them better. Problems that are more insidious, like stagflation, inflation, corruption, cronyism , nepotism, the list goes on; (o hell, lets not forget high powered lobbyists) are all the results of highly powerful centrally planed governments.

I won't condone the way Garofalo put it because there are no rigorous scientific definitions of any of the adjectives she used, but there is something to it.

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Difference-Between-Democrats-and-Republicans-TED

As determined by psychological testing:

Liberal Concerns
Harm/Benefit (aka utility)
Fairness

Conservative Concerns
Authority (as an end in itself, not as a tool for benefit/fairness)
Purity (as an end in itself, not as a tool for benefit/fairness, hijacked by whatever notions of purity happen to occur in the location of their birth)
In-group Loyalty (as an end in itself, not as a tool for benefit/fairness). In various circumstances this is known as tribalism, nepotism, cronyism, nationalism, chauvinism, jingoism, xenophobia, racism, sexism, patriotism, speciesism, or ageism.

The latter three are a crude system of morals that might have suited humanity well before it developed a germ theory of disease, representative government, and global commerce.

George Bush's corrupt administration inspired many to educate themselves, become politically active and vote. He didn't have the acting chops that Reagan had, or the common sense of his father, in fact you get the feeling that he still sees nothing wrong with what he has done to this country. Cronyism, nepotism, class warfare, indifference to human death and suffering and greed have not only defined the Bush Administration, but our country itself.

Thanks GW, for illustrating so clearly all that is wrong with modern conservatism and American politics. Good riddance.

/\ Ill echo what SpeveO said. The events of before and after the buildings fell, and even the events transpiring today.

So how do you find the truth? Use justice to follow up on the reports of cronyism, and secret pacts inside the politics. Do not attempt to reason with the buildings. Those are gone. For now, the only thing left is the people that handled the situation. That is where the truth lies, and maybe there isn't any thing at the end of the rainbow after all except failure to be adequately prepared.

"Now is definitely not the time to be partisan or hold someone in contempt for not testifying. It is not the time to recall the past eight years (of cronyism, incompetence, and unconstitutional law), it is time to embrace the future. Now is not the time to go digging through erased emails and big oil donations. We want an end to partisan retribution. I think we all learned from Clinton's impeachment hearings, don't you?"
- Rove