DescentBB

[quote="Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004"]"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."[/quote]

Robert Paxton (born 1932) is an American historian specializing in Vichy France and Europe during the World War II era.



I'm pulling a Thunder bunny with this one. but by the definition it does seem as if we are heading that direction

Sure, but we'll be ok with it. As long as we're buying goods and trapped in our homes with our super fast entertainment computing systems, there won't be any problems. \"Buy more goods and have more kids!\" Americans are a debt machine, that's paid to consume.

uh, no?

hyperbole for the lose

What's funny, in 1855, 'Capitalists' was as dirty of a word as 'speculator'. While going through old family photos, I found an old land grant, signed by President James Buchanan, with (I think) my great, great, grandfather's name on it who must have fought in the War with Mexico and was deeded land by the government for his service.

The got me curious what the Bounty Land and Warrants Act was. It is: An Act in addition to certain Acts granting Bounty Land to certain Officers and Soldiers who have engaged in the military Service of the United States Mar 3, 1855.

So I found an old NY Times Archive copy of an article about how this land that was meant for soldiers of past wars was being taken by speculators, \"Capitalists\" (their word) and other greedy people and not the intended service members. It's an old newspaper scan in PDF format that's weirdly placed and the beginning of the article is on the left side of the page down lower than the the end of the section that's on the top of the right side. Scroll it down to start reading.

Bounty Land

If people back then could see how our government has been taken over by 'Capitalists' now, what would they think? Personally, I think that our government is more a 'Corporate Entity' than 'Democratic Entity' now and I think that definition of 'Fascism' listed above more accurately describes the Conservative reaction to the Obama Administration's policies at the moment. They're calling Obama a 'Socialist' that needs to be stopped at all costs when I really think that he is just as wired to corporate interests as any other recent president. Money and power control our government, not the people.

I think Tunnelcat is right with the corporate connection but I think Obama is trying hard to make sure his administration takes control of as many powerful facets of the corporate world as possible so he can force his brand of social engineering on everyone. The problem is he is consistently very short sighted so even if he succeeds he will just be passing along that control to a republican administration in 2 or 6 years....
Coming soon republican social engineering brought to you by the short sighted efforts of Obama and his \"Never let a serious crisis go to waste.\" policy.

Soon around the world the lesson on \"be careful what you wish for\" will be synonymous with numerous events that make up Obama's legacy. People will simply say 'Careful, don't pull an Obama' and everyone will know what they mean!

Going by dictionary definition, socialism is the most relevant word to be put to the direction our government is going with its recent actions.

After all, two thirds of General Motors is owned by the government and through the feds to the people; socialism consists of state ownership of industry and corporations. The Federal Reserve runs our banking system, and that's worse than state control because it's in the hands of an elite few. Obama is pushing for government-run health insurance, and that's another example of state ownership. I wonder what will be next.

I do not want to open a can of worms; I am just putting in my two cents.

Zan, the Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank, not a branch of the government. Just like the Postal service.

Duper wrote:Zan, the Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank, not a branch of the government. Just like the Postal service.

I know that full well, Duper. It's the fact that it's privately owned that is a bad thing.

ah, Reading again, i see that you're not assuming that it's a case of \"The 'Feds' power grabbing through their reserve system\". Sorry.

And yes, that's not a good thing at all, but in light of the recent slant in what Washington is doing, I'm not sure it matters any more.

I forget when that power was lost. .. 1928 in an \"emergancy\" vote during Christmas Eve or some such?

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 created the Federal Reserve System, a private bank owned by the oligarchs of the world. It was passed in Congress over the winter while most of Congress was away on Christmas vacation.

The oligarchs pressured President Woodrow Wilson into signing the bill into law, and at the end of his presidency, he publicly apologized for what he had been forced to do.

This can be verified by sources found on the Internet using search engines.

Over time, the Federal Reserve has reduced the value of our money; comparing our dollar to a gold standard, it's worth 4 cents, and probably less in the recent rampant spending of Congress.

Thanks. I was at work when I posted and didn't really have time to look it up.

Bastards.. they killed Kenny!

\"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is 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 duress of a small group of dominant men.\" -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

wow, if THAT isn't timely.

Thank you Very much flip.

Will Robinson wrote:I think Tunnelcat is right with the corporate connection but I think Obama is trying hard to make sure his administration takes control of as many powerful facets of the corporate world as possible so he can force his brand of social engineering on everyone.

I'm curious Will, what type of social engineering do you think Obama is trying to force on this country? With all those promises of change during the campaign he has taken back lately, it's my opinion he's just being a mercenary politician, sucking up to corporate lobbyists and power brokers and making sure he's setting himself up for re-election in 2012. It's just more of the same Washington politics as usual.

If he was serious about his 'change' mantra, he would have pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, closed Guantanamo, gotten rid of military tribunals, reregulated Wall Street and the Banks and gotten rid of the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy. Change my a$$!

tunnelcat wrote: Change my a$$!

Well you Voted for him

Oh there IS change. We're now sucking up to the Arab states and apologizing for kicking their butts when it was needed.

well we got the change allright. I'll bet it wasnt the change those that voted for him thought they were going to get. \"Change we can believe in\" ROFL

tunnelcat wrote: I'm curious Will, what type of social engineering do you think Obama is trying to force on this country?

He's trying to tell us how much salary is too much to earn before we need to be punished or have to return it outright!
He's dictating what kind of car is too selfish to allow us to drive..or even let the American companies build.

He's told investors who put up their own cash to buy an interest in private corporations that they have to take a loss because the assets and value of the corporation when it goes to bankruptcy must be given to the Labor Union (read:his supporters) first, even though they were not investors and had no legal claim to a place in front of real investors in the bankruptcy court.

People in corporations can't fly their own private planes to Washington if they want to borrow money from the government because it shows they are out of touch with the countries dire economic situation...but he can fly free on 100% tax money to take his wife on a date....he's apparently in touch on a totally different level than us mere mortals are.

Off the top of my head that's enough to get started...

And as he warned/boasted in a speech in Hollywierd recently talking about his plans "You haven't seen anything yet"!

He's actually every bit as bad as the foaming at the mouth partisan rhetoric that Sean Hannity was spewing before the election!! That's pretty damn bad!!

What I could perceive to be the worst case scenario from the current situation is the government telling everyone what to do, which I do not like at all.

I do not want the government telling me where to spend my money, where I will work, what car I will buy, where I will live, and so on. I like to call my own shots. I like being able to choose of my own free will where I will live, where I will work, what career I will work in, and what car I want. I don't want the government saying \"you must buy a Ford Focus because of x reason. You can't have the Mazda RX8 you've always wanted.\"

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote: I'm curious Will, what type of social engineering do you think Obama is trying to force on this country?

He's trying to tell us how much salary is too much to earn before we need to be punished or have to return it outright!
He's dictating what kind of car is too selfish to allow us to drive..or even let the American companies build.

He's told investors who put up their own cash to buy an interest in private corporations that they have to take a loss because the assets and value of the corporation when it goes to bankruptcy must be given to the Labor Union (read:his supporters) first, even though they were not investors and had no legal claim to a place in front of real investors in the bankruptcy court.

People in corporations can't fly their own private planes to Washington if they want to borrow money from the government because it shows they are out of touch with the countries dire economic situation...but he can fly free on 100% tax money to take his wife on a date....he's apparently in touch on a totally different level than us mere mortals are.

Off the top of my head that's enough to get started...

And as he warned/boasted in a speech in Hollywierd recently talking about his plans "You haven't seen anything yet"!

He's actually every bit as bad as the foaming at the mouth partisan rhetoric that Sean Hannity was spewing before the election!! That's pretty damn bad!!

WOW Will I think you just desribed fascism

Websters wrote:fas⋅cism
  /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

YEp he sure did didn't he. I just wonder how the workers of Government Motors are going to strike against the labor unions when they think they are being missed treated.

I'll have to do a little reading up on Wilson.

But hey, Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism is now out in paperback.

intersting read

Jonah Goldberg wrote:If you look at how most liberals think about economics, they want big corporations and big government working in tandem with labor, universities (think industrial policy), and progressive organizations to come up with “inclusive” policies set at the national or international level. That’s not necessarily socialism — it’s corporatism. When you listen to how Obama is making economic policy with “everyone at the table,” he’s describing corporatism, the economic philosophy of fascism. Government is the senior partner, but all of the other institutions are on board — so long as they agree with the government’s agenda. The people left out of this coordinated effort — the Nazis called it the Gleichschaltung — are the small businessmen, the entrepreneurs, the ideological, social, or economic mavericks who don’t want to play along. When you listen to Obama demonize Chrysler’s bondholders simply because they want their contracts enforced and the rule of law sustained, you get a sense of what I’m talking about.

I don’t think Obama wants a brutal tyranny any more than Hillary Clinton does (which is to say I don’t think he wants anything of the sort). But I do think they honestly believe that progress is best served if everyone falls in line with a national agenda, a unifying purpose, a “village” mentality expanded to include all of society. That sentiment drips from almost every liberal exhortation about everything from global warming to national service. But to point it out earns you the label of crank. As I said a minute ago about that “We’re All Fascists Now” chapter, I think people fail to understand that tyrannies — including soft, Huxleyan tyrannies — aren’t born from criminal conspiracies by evil men; they’re born by progressive groupthink. I have an abiding faith in the liberty-loving nature of the American people. But I think we are laying down the foundation for a challenge to that nature the likes of which we haven’t seen since Wilson was in office.

LOL just saw this on a reader board:

The New GM- \"Government Motors\"

\"The people left out of this coordinated effort — the Nazis called it the Gleichschaltung — are the small businessmen, the entrepreneurs, the ideological, social, or economic mavericks who don’t want to play along.\"

There is one teensy weensy thing wrong with this...these people who don't want to play along are the ones who provide 80-90% of the jobs.

woodchip wrote:"The people left out of this coordinated effort — the Nazis called it the Gleichschaltung — are the small businessmen, the entrepreneurs, the ideological, social, or economic mavericks who don’t want to play along."

There is one teensy weensy thing wrong with this...these people who don't want to play along are the ones who provide 80-90% of the jobs.

that may be right but those small business's are still controlled by what the Big Business does, by controlling the supply they can dictate to the small businesses. point in case the auto Dealerships. my boss is Ed Tonkin, you've probably seen him on TV lately. He is Co-chair of the National Auto Dealers association (NADA)and he's been meeting with congress and the big 3 alot latley.
GM and Chrysler have cut off several thousand dealerships as cost cutting measures. in reality the corp make $$ of the individual dealerships. they have NO financial stake in the dealership what so ever. so in doing so they are controlling the market. you don't need to control all the business, just the major ones like the Rails, Airlines, Auto, Real-estate and Banking and you control EVERYTHING. seems like the government already controls everyone of those today

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote: Change my a$$!

Well you Voted for him

Better than the airhead bimbo and senile old man we would have gotten. The choices just weren't very good.

Will, you've got things backwards. It's not Obama that's controlling the government, it's the corporations controlling Obama. We have corporate fascism in the U.S.! They want to vilify and break the unions to get CHEAP slave labor or just shift manufacturing overseas to make new tax havens and low-wage slaves, get every U.S. citizen to become indentured servants to health insurance companies by forcing everyone to work for LIFE in order for people to be able to PAY for skyrocketing health care, work out ways to pay almost NO taxes to our government to help support our country and it's society or infrastructure and be able to profit from war, necessary or not, after all, killing and destroying things is profitable and good for business.

Struggling companies that screwed up their business go whining to the government for a bailout money from the taxpayer and GET IT because the government is wired to the corporations and Wall Street. But oops, it looks bad that the CEO's have the money to fly in their expensive private jets when their companies are tanking, so the government tells them to tone it down since the common peon in this country sees these machinations and throws a fit, for good reason! By the way, Bush gave GM and Chrysler billions in loans right BEFORE the election in order to shift the inevitable downturn to the next administration. And yes I agree, Obama shouldn't be flying around on HIS little private jet on the taxpayer dime to see a stupid play with his wife either! At least he had the common sense not to use the 747, but it doesn't make it right. This just shows that this elected (pbbbffffffffft!) government has become rich, power drunk and elitist and this country is slowing turning into an Aristocracy by their actions.

The investors in all this mess need to take a hit too, poor babies! Investing is like gambling, you can either win big or lose big, it's NOT a guaranteed money maker, so they need to pony up and experience the same pain like a lot of us have. Same with the Stock Market. Don't put your money in if you don't want to take the risk of losing it! As for the CEO pay issue, shareholders are the ones who need to take a serious look at CEO pay when these guys take big risks and drive their companies into the ground, all the while the workers who ARE trying to make a good living and keep their jobs, keep giving up more and more benefits and wages and lowering their standard of living. Why aren't these CEO's taking big cuts for the company's survival? If the government doesn't address the problem for the stability of society, who will? The market sure hasn't so far!

As for the government dictating what car to drive, maybe that'll be necessary in order to save resources for own national security. American's sure aren't willing to make the change to give up their gas-guzzling pig cars and big trucks to extend our world's oil supply, at least until we run out. By then we'll have a mad scramble at the last minute to find alternative forms of transportation, instead of planning ahead and avoiding all the mess and economic catastrophe that will ensue. I don't blame the car companies for their short-sighted business decisions, but the American consumer they catered to, who kept demanding fast and powerful gas hogs. By the way, government already has had a say in car building already. It's not the market that brought us safer cars to drive over the years because it's just not profitable to build 'safe' cars, at least until so many people get killed or maimed that pressure finally gets applied. How many have to die before the market will respond? It's their business to sell cars, not keep us safe when we have an accident!

I've figured out what's wrong with conservatives. Everything is all about themselves, extreme individualism, never any concern about benefiting society as a whole. They're xenophobic and greedy, every man for himself, kill or be killed, grab what you can, to hell with the other guy. To be fair, what's wrong with liberals is they can't stand up in a fight, they like to spread other people's wealth around a little too much and love and trust their fellow man to the extreme without looking for the flaws and worts they all have.

tunnelcat wrote:ITS ALL BUSH'S FAULT

TC do you know what the difference between you and a Puppy is???







After 6 weeks a Puppy stops whinning

what's wrong with liberals is they can't stand up in a fight, they like to spread other people's wealth around a little too much and love and trust their fellow man to the extreme without looking for the flaws and worts they all have.

so all Liberals are Buddists????

you've got a very high opinion of yourself there TC. I think maybe you should take an objective look at the Daily Kos, or the Huffington Post just for starters and see how much "love" they have for people or maybe ask Prez hilton how much love he had for Carrie Prejean with his disgusting chidlish blog rants. the left is everybit as hatefull and self centered as you claim the right to be. your just too blinded by your hate for conservatives to see it. hell go back and read some of your own posts for proof.

The market was doing just fine fixing the problem. The companies were going banktrupt!! But political hacks stepped in and told us taxpayers we need to cough up a trillion dollars to help them from going under....
so we did...
and now the government hacks have decided the companies need to go under anyway.....
so while they go under Obama takes the ownership and hands it to his supporters.....
and TC says \"he had to do it because there was some sneaky greedy stuff going on\"
Like Team Obama's \"solution\" isn't sneaky greedy x1000?!?

Attention DNC your missing KoolAid has been located! It's in TC's kitchen.....

Obama and bush are just different faces on the same coin. At some point in time the presidency became a diversion tactic, a way to misdirect blame, so the real culprits are never found. Bush's job was to frustrate, Obama's to integrate. Democrat and republican is a good way to divide this country, to keep us from realizing what the real power structure in this country is.

\"Politics is just like wrestling. In the public we act like we hate each other, but after the show we all go out to eat. Republicans and democrats are not opposed to each other.\" Jesse Ventura Governor of Minnesota.

Another political figure pointing out the obvious, while we the people fight over who had the best dog. All the while both dogs belonged to the same owner.

\"But oops, it looks bad that the CEO's have the money to fly in their expensive private jets when their companies are tanking, so the government tells them to tone it down since the common peon in this country sees these machinations and throws a fit, for good reason!\"

Yet Alfred E. takes his wife out to dinner and a show in New York City at the cost to the govt. of around $250,000. Let the self same peons eat cake eh? Do as I say, not as I do is the Obama motto.

woodchip wrote:Yet Alfred E. takes his wife out to dinner and a show in New York City at the cost to the govt. of around $250,000. Let the self same peons eat cake eh? Do as I say, not as I do is the Obama motto.

this sounds unbelievable. do you have a link for that?

It was 25K of Tax payer money not 250K.

while I do agree the timing was unbelieveably poor, I do believe that there has to be some perks to being POTUS. hell it probably would cost Tax payers 5K if he wanted to run down the the Local Burger King for a whopper

ah thanks, Cuda --- that makes much more sense.

flip wrote:"Politics is just like wrestling. In the public we act like we hate each other, but after the show we all go out to eat. Republicans and democrats are not opposed to each other." Jesse Ventura Governor of Montana.

iirc that was Minnesota.

HEH my mistake, thanks dissent

are we headed for a fascist govt?


well, the co-opting of the press is telling.
The Power and The Story

Michael Wolff at VF wrote:It’s some perfect re-creation of a relationship between president and news media that has not been seen since the White House pressroom was a clubby place with reporters invited into the press secretary’s office for whiskey and cigars. It’s cozy. Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, who would have been, in previous administrations, the highest and most exclusive White House sources, have become almost casual quotes for the Times.

It is, curiously, a return to a time when the press was so much more dependent on the goodwill, and susceptible to the care and feeding, of the president. Indeed, The New York Times, and the rest of the established press, needs Barack Obama a lot more than he needs them.

(emphasis mine)


everybody keep your bibs on; you're gonna be spoon fed from here on out. The world is upside down.

CUDA wrote:you've got a very high opinion of yourself there TC. I think maybe you should take an objective look at the Daily Kos, or the Huffington Post just for starters and see how much "love" they have for people or maybe ask Prez hilton how much love he had for Carrie Prejean with his disgusting chidlish blog rants. the left is everybit as hatefull and self centered as you claim the right to be. your just too blinded by your hate for conservatives to see it. hell go back and read some 'of your own posts for proof.

Actually, I wasn't trying to do a 'nice' description of liberals. My point was that they won't stand up in a fight or in other words "they have no backbone" and they are way too willing to give away the farm, so to speak, 'in the name of helping our fellow man' to any poor slob they think needs one, not a good way to encourage the betterment and work ethic in people. I was being derogatory, sheeeeeh!

Ick! I don't read the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. Too leftie even for me most of the time.

Also, I used the wrong term in my definition of conservatives. I should have inserted "Republican Party" in it's present form instead of "conservatives". My above definition still stands for the party at this moment in time. Most of the old time Eisenhower conservatives had much better values than 'Republicans' who claim to be 'conservatives' do now. At the present, they have an extreme anti-government, anti-tax, greedy, paternalistic, overly religion influenced, 'to hell with the individual', 'the free market can do no wrong' and 'preemptive war is necessary' view of the world now. Just as the present Democrats are overspending, spineless, corporate lobbyist butt kissing, not adhering to their ideals or base, wussies! That's not hatred, it's reality!

OK Will, so you think the free market works just fine on it's own without government intervention and it isn't subject to the vagrancies of human frailty like greed and corruption. Here's a simple comparison. Take a football or basketball game and remove all rules and regulations. What do you get? A FREE FOR ALL, the winner takes all based on cheating and shear aggression, not based on sportsmanship, skill and timing anymore. What's the point if the players can't win fairly? You just get Cage Fighting 101, it's pointless, it ain't pretty and people usually get hurt.

That's what our unregulated free market has become, Cage Fighting. So when financial institutions can gamble with other people's investments because all regulation went out the window with a stroke of a pen and large, important manufacturing companies are allowed to 'just go bankrupt' because of greed, bad gambling, poor business decisions or mistakes, the fallout is this nation, real people and their families get shafted. Where's the humanity with that.

And do all you 'conservatives' or should I say, 'Republicans' like your fire and police protection you receive now through taxation districts or would you rather that EVERYTHING be up to the 'free market', where individuals have to pay for separate fire protection, police protection, infrastructure maintenance, etc. out of their own pockets? Hmmmm, I see that working about as well as our present health care system is working out now. One serious illness and you're bankrupt. The rich are getting richer at the expense of the dwindling middle class.

tunnelcat wrote:...
OK Will, so you think the free market works just fine on it's own without government intervention and it isn't subject to the vagrancies of human frailty like greed and corruption. Here's a simple comparison. Take a football or basketball game and remove all rules and regulations. What do you get? A FREE FOR ALL, the winner takes all based on cheating and shear aggression, not based on sportsmanship, skill and timing anymore....

I never said the free market doesn't need some government involvement...you seem to be creating a strawman argument there. I said the market was working fine in the case of the car companies because they were spending too much money and turning out inferior product so they were losing their ass to the competition.
You are trying to equate the Obama plan of taking over the company, handing a majority ownership position to the labor unions (an obvious political ally to his party), with helpful needed government regulation of industry. That is a really piss poor rationalization on your part!
I wonder, do you really believe that? Or is it the best you can do to give cover to the democrat power play?

Obama hasn't helped the car companies stay out of financial trouble, they are still going bankrupt but before they could do that he "intervened" as you say and made sure his political ally was protected at the expense of the investors! There is no good explanation for it as we see by your weak attempt to cover it up and change the subject to typical democrat rhetoric like 'regulation being wiped out' etc. Show me where regulation being wiped out brought on an automotive company failure to make profit?!? More likely you'll find excessive regulation has contributed to it!

We will see how well the unions fare as the bond holders are taking the Chrysler Fiat deal to a higher court. At stake is the time honored issue of first secured creditors being paid first, not entities like the unions who had no secured interest in Chrysler. It will be interesting to see the higher courts decision.