It is now official: The USA is a terrorist fascist police state !!

[LeninistKing]

It Is Now Official: The U.S. Is a Police State


by Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures/17579.jpgGlobal Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/), February 13, 2010
Creator's Syndicate (http://www.creators.com/) - 2010-02-09

http://www.globalresearch.ca/site_images/emailfriend.gif Email this article to a friend (javascript:sendarticle('sendEmailLink', 'It Is Now Official: The U.S. Is a Police State');)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/site_images/printfriendly.gif Print this article (javascript:printarticle(17579);)

http://cdn.stumble-upon.com/images/32x32_su_round.gif (http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalresearch.ca%2Fin dex.php%3Fcontext%3Dva%26aid%3D17579)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17579

Americans have been losing the protection of law for years. In the 21st century the loss of legal protections accelerated with the Bush administration's "war on terror," which continues under the Obama administration and is essentially a war on the Constitution and U.S. civil liberties.

The Bush regime was determined to vitiate habeas corpus in order to hold people indefinitely without bringing charges. The regime had acquired hundreds of prisoners by paying a bounty for terrorists. Afghan warlords and thugs responded to the financial incentive by grabbing unprotected people and selling them to the Americans.

The Bush regime needed to hold the prisoners without charges because it had no evidence against the people and did not want to admit that the U.S. government had stupidly paid warlords and thugs to kidnap innocent people. In addition, the Bush regime needed "terrorists" prisoners in order to prove that there was a terrorist threat.

As there was no evidence against the "detainees" (most have been released without charges after years of detention and abuse), the U.S. government needed a way around U.S. and international laws against torture in order that the government could produce evidence via self-incrimination. The Bush regime found inhumane and totalitarian-minded lawyers and put them to work at the U.S. Department of Justice (sic) to invent arguments that the Bush regime did not need to obey the law.

The Bush regime created a new classification for its detainees that it used to justify denying legal protection and due process to the detainees. As the detainees were not U.S. citizens and were demonized by the regime as "the 760 most dangerous men on earth," there was little public outcry over the regime's unconstitutional and inhumane actions.

As our Founding Fathers and a long list of scholars warned, once civil liberties are breached, they are breached for all. Soon U.S. citizens were being held indefinitely in violation of their habeas corpus rights. Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, an American citizen of Pakistani origin, might have been the first.

Dr. Siddiqui, a scientist educated at MIT and Brandeis University, was seized in Pakistan for no known reason, sent to Afghanistan, and was held secretly for five years in the U.S. military's notorious Bagram prison in Afghanistan. Her three young children, one an 8-month-old baby, were with her at the time she was abducted. She has no idea what has become of her two youngest children. Her oldest child, 7 years old, was also incarcerated in Bagram and subjected to similar abuse and horrors.

Siddiqui has never been charged with any terrorism-related offense. A British journalist, hearing her piercing screams as she was being tortured, disclosed her presence. www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24605.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24605.htm).
An embarrassed U.S. government responded to the disclosure by sending Siddiqui to the U.S. for trial on the trumped-up charge that while a captive, she grabbed a U.S. soldier's rifle and fired two shots attempting to shoot him. The charge apparently originated as a U.S. soldier's excuse for shooting Dr. Siddiqui twice in the stomach resulting in her near death.

On Feb. 4, Dr. Siddiqui was convicted by a New York jury for attempted murder. The only evidence presented against her was the charge itself and an unsubstantiated claim that she had once taken a pistol-firing course at an American firing range.

No evidence was presented of her fingerprints on the rifle that this frail and broken 100-pound woman had allegedly seized from an American soldier. No evidence was presented that a weapon was fired, no bullets, no shell casings, no bullet holes. Just an accusation.

Wikipedia has this to say about the trial: "The trial took an unusual turn when an FBI official asserted that the fingerprints taken from the rifle, which was purportedly used by Aafia to shoot at the U.S. interrogators, did not match hers."

An ignorant and bigoted American jury convicted her for being a Muslim. This is the kind of "justice" that always results when the state hypes fear and demonizes a group.

The people who should have been on trial are the people who abducted her, disappeared her young children, shipped her across international borders, violated her civil liberties, tortured her apparently for the fun of it, raped her, and attempted to murder her with two gunshots to her stomach. Instead, the victim was put on trial and convicted.

This is the unmistakable hallmark of a police state. And this victim is an American citizen.

Anyone can be next. Indeed, on Feb. 3 Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence told the House Intelligence Committee that it was now "defined policy" that the U.S. government can murder its own citizens on the sole basis of someone in the government's judgment that an American is a threat. No arrest, no trial, no conviction, just execution on suspicion of being a threat.

This shows how far the police state has advanced. A presidential appointee in the Obama administration tells an important committee of Congress that the executive branch has decided that it can murder American citizens abroad if it thinks they are a threat.
I can hear readers saying the government might as well kill Americans abroad as it kills them at home—Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Black Panthers.

Yes, the U.S. government has murdered its citizens, but Dennis Blair's "defined policy" is a bold new development. The government, of course, denies that it intended to kill the Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver's wife and child, or the Black Panthers. The government says that Waco was a terrible tragedy, an unintended result brought on by the Branch Davidians themselves. The government says that Ruby Ridge was Randy Weaver's fault for not appearing in court on a day that had been miscommunicated to him. The Black Panthers, the government says, were dangerous criminals who insisted on a shoot-out.

In no previous death of a U.S. citizen by the hands of the U.S. government has the government claimed the right to kill Americans without arrest, trial, and conviction of a capital crime.

In contrast, Dennis Blair has told the U.S. Congress that the executive branch has assumed the right to murder Americans who it deems a "threat."

What defines "threat"? Who will make the decision? What it means is that the government will murder whomever it chooses.

There is no more complete or compelling evidence of a police state than the government announcing that it will murder its own citizens if it views them as a "threat."

Ironic, isn't it, that "the war on terror" to make us safe ends in a police state with the government declaring the right to murder American citizens whom it regards as a threat.

[The Vegan Marxist]

It Is Now Official: The U.S. Is a Police State


by Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures/17579.jpgGlobal Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/), February 13, 2010
Creator's Syndicate (http://www.creators.com/) - 2010-02-09

http://www.globalresearch.ca/site_images/emailfriend.gif Email this article to a friend (javascript:sendarticle('sendEmailLink', 'It Is Now Official: The U.S. Is a Police State');)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/site_images/printfriendly.gif Print this article (javascript:printarticle(17579);)

http://cdn.stumble-upon.com/images/32x32_su_round.gif (http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalresearch.ca%2Fin dex.php%3Fcontext%3Dva%26aid%3D17579)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17579

Americans have been losing the protection of law for years. In the 21st century the loss of legal protections accelerated with the Bush administration's "war on terror," which continues under the Obama administration and is essentially a war on the Constitution and U.S. civil liberties.

The Bush regime was determined to vitiate habeas corpus in order to hold people indefinitely without bringing charges. The regime had acquired hundreds of prisoners by paying a bounty for terrorists. Afghan warlords and thugs responded to the financial incentive by grabbing unprotected people and selling them to the Americans.

The Bush regime needed to hold the prisoners without charges because it had no evidence against the people and did not want to admit that the U.S. government had stupidly paid warlords and thugs to kidnap innocent people. In addition, the Bush regime needed "terrorists" prisoners in order to prove that there was a terrorist threat.

As there was no evidence against the "detainees" (most have been released without charges after years of detention and abuse), the U.S. government needed a way around U.S. and international laws against torture in order that the government could produce evidence via self-incrimination. The Bush regime found inhumane and totalitarian-minded lawyers and put them to work at the U.S. Department of Justice (sic) to invent arguments that the Bush regime did not need to obey the law.

The Bush regime created a new classification for its detainees that it used to justify denying legal protection and due process to the detainees. As the detainees were not U.S. citizens and were demonized by the regime as "the 760 most dangerous men on earth," there was little public outcry over the regime's unconstitutional and inhumane actions.

As our Founding Fathers and a long list of scholars warned, once civil liberties are breached, they are breached for all. Soon U.S. citizens were being held indefinitely in violation of their habeas corpus rights. Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, an American citizen of Pakistani origin, might have been the first.

Dr. Siddiqui, a scientist educated at MIT and Brandeis University, was seized in Pakistan for no known reason, sent to Afghanistan, and was held secretly for five years in the U.S. military's notorious Bagram prison in Afghanistan. Her three young children, one an 8-month-old baby, were with her at the time she was abducted. She has no idea what has become of her two youngest children. Her oldest child, 7 years old, was also incarcerated in Bagram and subjected to similar abuse and horrors.

Siddiqui has never been charged with any terrorism-related offense. A British journalist, hearing her piercing screams as she was being tortured, disclosed her presence. www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24605.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24605.htm).
An embarrassed U.S. government responded to the disclosure by sending Siddiqui to the U.S. for trial on the trumped-up charge that while a captive, she grabbed a U.S. soldier's rifle and fired two shots attempting to shoot him. The charge apparently originated as a U.S. soldier's excuse for shooting Dr. Siddiqui twice in the stomach resulting in her near death.

On Feb. 4, Dr. Siddiqui was convicted by a New York jury for attempted murder. The only evidence presented against her was the charge itself and an unsubstantiated claim that she had once taken a pistol-firing course at an American firing range.

No evidence was presented of her fingerprints on the rifle that this frail and broken 100-pound woman had allegedly seized from an American soldier. No evidence was presented that a weapon was fired, no bullets, no shell casings, no bullet holes. Just an accusation.

Wikipedia has this to say about the trial: "The trial took an unusual turn when an FBI official asserted that the fingerprints taken from the rifle, which was purportedly used by Aafia to shoot at the U.S. interrogators, did not match hers."

An ignorant and bigoted American jury convicted her for being a Muslim. This is the kind of "justice" that always results when the state hypes fear and demonizes a group.

The people who should have been on trial are the people who abducted her, disappeared her young children, shipped her across international borders, violated her civil liberties, tortured her apparently for the fun of it, raped her, and attempted to murder her with two gunshots to her stomach. Instead, the victim was put on trial and convicted.

This is the unmistakable hallmark of a police state. And this victim is an American citizen.

Anyone can be next. Indeed, on Feb. 3 Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence told the House Intelligence Committee that it was now "defined policy" that the U.S. government can murder its own citizens on the sole basis of someone in the government's judgment that an American is a threat. No arrest, no trial, no conviction, just execution on suspicion of being a threat.

This shows how far the police state has advanced. A presidential appointee in the Obama administration tells an important committee of Congress that the executive branch has decided that it can murder American citizens abroad if it thinks they are a threat.
I can hear readers saying the government might as well kill Americans abroad as it kills them at home—Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Black Panthers.

Yes, the U.S. government has murdered its citizens, but Dennis Blair's "defined policy" is a bold new development. The government, of course, denies that it intended to kill the Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver's wife and child, or the Black Panthers. The government says that Waco was a terrible tragedy, an unintended result brought on by the Branch Davidians themselves. The government says that Ruby Ridge was Randy Weaver's fault for not appearing in court on a day that had been miscommunicated to him. The Black Panthers, the government says, were dangerous criminals who insisted on a shoot-out.

In no previous death of a U.S. citizen by the hands of the U.S. government has the government claimed the right to kill Americans without arrest, trial, and conviction of a capital crime.

In contrast, Dennis Blair has told the U.S. Congress that the executive branch has assumed the right to murder Americans who it deems a "threat."

What defines "threat"? Who will make the decision? What it means is that the government will murder whomever it chooses.

There is no more complete or compelling evidence of a police state than the government announcing that it will murder its own citizens if it views them as a "threat."

Ironic, isn't it, that "the war on terror" to make us safe ends in a police state with the government declaring the right to murder American citizens whom it regards as a threat.

Although I agree with what he says in this article, I hope you don't get all your information from this guy, because if you didn't know, he's a conspiracy theorist who's supported people like David Ray Griffin on 9/11 being an inside job.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Thank you,

While the US working class has historically and continues to face a lot of political repression and police violence - more than most other major capitalist countries - luckily we in the US do not yet live in a police state and can protest police repression openly and try and build movements to reduce the free-hand given to cops, political repression, the prisons and death penalty.

This is something that the working class under Pinochet, for example, could not do openly and so I try and refrain from saying that the US is a police state or that bourgeois politicians are all fascist even if they are very repressive because there is a difference between a racist republican politician and the KKK even though both must be opposed and stopped.

[BOZG]

It Is Now Official: The U.S. Is a Police State


by Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures/17579.jpgGlobal Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/), February 13, 2010
Creator's Syndicate (http://www.creators.com/) - 2010-02-09

http://www.globalresearch.ca/site_images/emailfriend.gif Email this article to a friend (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:sendarticle%28%27sendEmailLink%27,%20%27It%20 Is%20Now%20Official:%20The%20U.S.%20Is%20a%20Polic e%20State%27%29;)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/site_images/printfriendly.gif Print this article (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:printarticle%2817579%29;)

http://cdn.stumble-upon.com/images/32x32_su_round.gif (http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalresearch.ca%2Fin dex.php%3Fcontext%3Dva%26aid%3D17579)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17579

Americans have been losing the protection of law for years. In the 21st century the loss of legal protections accelerated with the Bush administration's "war on terror," which continues under the Obama administration and is essentially a war on the Constitution and U.S. civil liberties.

The Bush regime was determined to vitiate habeas corpus in order to hold people indefinitely without bringing charges. The regime had acquired hundreds of prisoners by paying a bounty for terrorists. Afghan warlords and thugs responded to the financial incentive by grabbing unprotected people and selling them to the Americans.

The Bush regime needed to hold the prisoners without charges because it had no evidence against the people and did not want to admit that the U.S. government had stupidly paid warlords and thugs to kidnap innocent people. In addition, the Bush regime needed "terrorists" prisoners in order to prove that there was a terrorist threat.

As there was no evidence against the "detainees" (most have been released without charges after years of detention and abuse), the U.S. government needed a way around U.S. and international laws against torture in order that the government could produce evidence via self-incrimination. The Bush regime found inhumane and totalitarian-minded lawyers and put them to work at the U.S. Department of Justice (sic) to invent arguments that the Bush regime did not need to obey the law.

The Bush regime created a new classification for its detainees that it used to justify denying legal protection and due process to the detainees. As the detainees were not U.S. citizens and were demonized by the regime as "the 760 most dangerous men on earth," there was little public outcry over the regime's unconstitutional and inhumane actions.

As our Founding Fathers and a long list of scholars warned, once civil liberties are breached, they are breached for all. Soon U.S. citizens were being held indefinitely in violation of their habeas corpus rights. Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, an American citizen of Pakistani origin, might have been the first.

Dr. Siddiqui, a scientist educated at MIT and Brandeis University, was seized in Pakistan for no known reason, sent to Afghanistan, and was held secretly for five years in the U.S. military's notorious Bagram prison in Afghanistan. Her three young children, one an 8-month-old baby, were with her at the time she was abducted. She has no idea what has become of her two youngest children. Her oldest child, 7 years old, was also incarcerated in Bagram and subjected to similar abuse and horrors.

Siddiqui has never been charged with any terrorism-related offense. A British journalist, hearing her piercing screams as she was being tortured, disclosed her presence. www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24605.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24605.htm).
An embarrassed U.S. government responded to the disclosure by sending Siddiqui to the U.S. for trial on the trumped-up charge that while a captive, she grabbed a U.S. soldier's rifle and fired two shots attempting to shoot him. The charge apparently originated as a U.S. soldier's excuse for shooting Dr. Siddiqui twice in the stomach resulting in her near death.

On Feb. 4, Dr. Siddiqui was convicted by a New York jury for attempted murder. The only evidence presented against her was the charge itself and an unsubstantiated claim that she had once taken a pistol-firing course at an American firing range.

No evidence was presented of her fingerprints on the rifle that this frail and broken 100-pound woman had allegedly seized from an American soldier. No evidence was presented that a weapon was fired, no bullets, no shell casings, no bullet holes. Just an accusation.

Wikipedia has this to say about the trial: "The trial took an unusual turn when an FBI official asserted that the fingerprints taken from the rifle, which was purportedly used by Aafia to shoot at the U.S. interrogators, did not match hers."

An ignorant and bigoted American jury convicted her for being a Muslim. This is the kind of "justice" that always results when the state hypes fear and demonizes a group.

The people who should have been on trial are the people who abducted her, disappeared her young children, shipped her across international borders, violated her civil liberties, tortured her apparently for the fun of it, raped her, and attempted to murder her with two gunshots to her stomach. Instead, the victim was put on trial and convicted.

This is the unmistakable hallmark of a police state. And this victim is an American citizen.

Anyone can be next. Indeed, on Feb. 3 Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence told the House Intelligence Committee that it was now "defined policy" that the U.S. government can murder its own citizens on the sole basis of someone in the government's judgment that an American is a threat. No arrest, no trial, no conviction, just execution on suspicion of being a threat.

This shows how far the police state has advanced. A presidential appointee in the Obama administration tells an important committee of Congress that the executive branch has decided that it can murder American citizens abroad if it thinks they are a threat.
I can hear readers saying the government might as well kill Americans abroad as it kills them at home—Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Black Panthers.

Yes, the U.S. government has murdered its citizens, but Dennis Blair's "defined policy" is a bold new development. The government, of course, denies that it intended to kill the Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver's wife and child, or the Black Panthers. The government says that Waco was a terrible tragedy, an unintended result brought on by the Branch Davidians themselves. The government says that Ruby Ridge was Randy Weaver's fault for not appearing in court on a day that had been miscommunicated to him. The Black Panthers, the government says, were dangerous criminals who insisted on a shoot-out.

In no previous death of a U.S. citizen by the hands of the U.S. government has the government claimed the right to kill Americans without arrest, trial, and conviction of a capital crime.

In contrast, Dennis Blair has told the U.S. Congress that the executive branch has assumed the right to murder Americans who it deems a "threat."

What defines "threat"? Who will make the decision? What it means is that the government will murder whomever it chooses.

There is no more complete or compelling evidence of a police state than the government announcing that it will murder its own citizens if it views them as a "threat."

Ironic, isn't it, that "the war on terror" to make us safe ends in a police state with the government declaring the right to murder American citizens whom it regards as a threat.

What exactly is making the US a fascist state though? Fascism isn't just a slur for nasty or authoritarian people.

[Comrade_Stalin]

I was once ask to join the American Party of Labor, and I said no, not because I was against the American Party of Labor,...no I was very much for it. The problem to me is that it not a very smart ideal to be in a communist party, in a fascist state like the USA.


What exactly is making the US a fascist state though? Fascism isn't just a slur for nasty or authoritarian people.

To answer your question, I will turn to the 14 points of Fascism. Now how right these points are, are based on your p[point of view. This is the same as how people view the communist manifesto, as right or wrong, on a number of points.

14 points of fascism


1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame forfailures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and“terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating an disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

[RadioRaheem84]

Although I agree with what he says in this article, I hope you don't get all your information from this guy, because if you didn't know, he's a conspiracy theorist who's supported people like David Ray Griffin on 9/11 being an inside jobYes he does.

The thing that pisses me off about the right wing theories is that this type of stuff always happens when the free market is allowed to reign yet they enthusiastically support free markets. This is just the result of capitalist economics and the concentration of economic and political power into the hands of the few. It isn't a nefarious plot concocted by an elite few. I believe that thinking like this gives clear insight into how naive, nativist, and exceptional one thinks they are. That the third worldization of a great and mighty country like the US is so unlikely. That the only way this could've happened is through a conspiracy of sorts linking bankers, communists and one worlders together to bring down the US.

This is just business as usual. The right wingers just can't fathom that their system is inherently flawed and thus concoct 1001 stories to show it's being "taken down from within".

[BOZG]

I was once ask to join the American Party of Labor, and I said no, not because I was against the American Party of Labor,...no I was very much for it. The problem to me is that it not a very smart ideal to be in a communist party, in a fascist state like the USA.



To answer your question, I will turn to the 14 points of Fascism. Now how right these points are, are based on your p[point of view. This is the same as how people view the communist manifesto, as right or wrong, on a number of points.

14 points of fascism

But in reality, most of these points exist in most countries in greater or lesser form. Some of them are more particular to large, developed nations, such as militarism because it's difficult to be militaristic with a small army.

The 14 point programme was very much written from an academic, liberal position because it ignores the class force that exist behind capitalism. Fascism is a peculiar form of capitalism, it's not just authoritarian capitalism. it is based on a mass movement of the middle classes and lumpenised elements, which can drag workers behind it or at least suppress consciousness and activity for a period. Such a movement does not exist in the US.

[The Vegan Marxist]

But in reality, most of these points exist in most countries in greater or lesser form. Some of them are more particular to large, developed nations, such as militarism because it's difficult to be militaristic with a small army.

The 14 point programme was very much written from an academic, liberal position because it ignores the class force that exist behind capitalism. Fascism is a peculiar form of capitalism, it's not just authoritarian capitalism. it is based on a mass movement of the middle classes and lumpenised elements, which can drag workers behind it or at least suppress consciousness and activity for a period. Such a movement does not exist in the US.

Well, it was the workers that made the freedoms we have today, & it seems that the U.S. are either taking them back or are using it to their own advantage. That's close to what was going on in Nazi Germany. Though, Hitler was a lot more quick about it. The U.S. is going through a gradual down slope.

[pierrotlefou]

But in reality, most of these points exist in most countries in greater or lesser form. Some of them are more particular to large, developed nations, such as militarism because it's difficult to be militaristic with a small army.

The 14 point programme was very much written from an academic, liberal position because it ignores the class force that exist behind capitalism. Fascism is a peculiar form of capitalism, it's not just authoritarian capitalism. it is based on a mass movement of the middle classes and lumpenised elements, which can drag workers behind it or at least suppress consciousness and activity for a period. Such a movement does not exist in the US.
It exists on a subtle scale. But, you have to admit it's bad when every one of those points applies to the largest capitalist superpower in the world.

[Uppercut]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index


Out of 144 countries, Afghanistan and Iraq are the two most violent and disrupted countries in the world.

The United States is is the 83rd most peaceful. China is 74 and Cuba's at 68 (still not that great, but at least they're not as violent as America).

[The Vegan Marxist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index


Out of 144 countries, Afghanistan and Iraq are the two most violent and disrupted countries in the world.

The United States is is the 83rd most peaceful. China is 74 and Cuba's at 68 (still not that great, but at least they're not as violent as America).

But what exactly did they do to be put on that spot of how 'violent' they are? Shouldn't that matter more than whether they are violent or not, since there are times when one has to be violent, & then times when violence might not be the best answer at the moment.

[Uppercut]

But what exactly did they do to be put on that spot of how 'violent' they are? Shouldn't that matter more than whether they are violent or not, since there are times when one has to be violent, & then times when violence might not be the best answer at the moment.

I understand what you're saying. But I think a country's GPI is determined by the levels of crime, particularly homicide, along with the numbers of arrests made each year for violent crimes.

Ongoing wars and internal conflicts are obviously a huge hamper as well.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I understand what you're saying. But I think a country's GPI is determined by the levels of crime, particularly homicide, along with the numbers of arrests made each year for violent crimes.

Ongoing wars and internal conflicts are obviously a huge hamper as well.

ahhh, well if that's so, then I would expect Norway to be at #1, or at least close to it.

[Uppercut]

ahhh, well if that's so, then I would expect Norway to be at #1, or at least close to it.


Norway and Denmark are tied at second. New Zealand is number one.

[LeninistKing]

Anarchism and Vegetarianism are crazy ideologies. I think that Vegetarianism is making you dumb, i swear that vegetarianism is stupid, because it doesnt supply the body with complete amino acids. I fucking told you that 9-11 was an inside job, how many more *fucking times* do i have to repeat it to you? eat meat so you think better !!

Just because you saw on the Discovery Channel, CNN and BBC documentaries debunking 9-11 truth movement doesn't mean that they are 100% right.

There are no absolute truths in this world, just personal interpretations of those truths. But you debate here like a selfish closed-minded dictator who has 100% truths about 9-11.

Let's say that 9-11 was not an inside job, but we don't have 100% scientific-evidence to prove it. And lets say that 9-11 was an inside-job, but there are smoking guns to think that it was an inside job, like the NORAD stand down. There were no arabs on the Flight Manifesto Lists on that day, among many other motives like the "War on terror". Which is a war on behalf of Israel, not about catching terrorists.

The real terrorists are The Pentagon and Israel. Maybe you work for Pentagon, NSA or Israel, who knows, because you deffend The Pentagons version of 9-11 like a cult and religion.

.

.


Although I agree with what he says in this article, I hope you don't get all your information from this guy, because if you didn't know, he's a conspiracy theorist who's supported people like David Ray Griffin on 9/11 being an inside job.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Anarchism and Vegetarianism are crazy ideologies. I think that Vegetarianism is making you dumb, i swear that vegetarianism is stupid, because it doesnt supply the body with complete amino acids. I fucking told you that 9-11 was an inside job, how many more *fucking times* do i have to repeat it to you? eat meat so you think better !!

Just because you saw on the Discovery Channel, CNN and BBC documentaries debunking 9-11 truth movement doesn't mean that they are 100% right.

There are no absolute truths in this world, just personal interpretations of those truths. But you debate here like a selfish closed-minded dictator who has 100% truths about 9-11.

Let's say that 9-11 was not an inside job, but we don't have 100% scientific-evidence to prove it. And lets say that 9-11 was an inside-job, but there are smoking guns to think that it was an inside job, like the NORAD stand down. There were no arabs on the Flight Manifesto Lists on that day, among many other motives like the "War on terror". Which is a war on behalf of Israel, not about catching terrorists.

The real terrorists are The Pentagon and Israel. Maybe you work for Pentagon, NSA or Israel, who knows, because you deffend The Pentagons version of 9-11 like a cult and religion.

.

.

I've never based my information from BBC documentaries nor anything from mainstream media. Everything that I base my argument against the idea of 9/11 being an inside job is through all the peer reviewed articles that have been published through independent studies by professional engineers, architects, & scientists.

Oh, & nice attack against my belief in being a vegan. Really shows how professional you are in debating against someone. And I can't believe you just said that anarchist ideology is crazy when you support Communism. I hope you realize that anarchy is a basic element of Communism.

[Klaatu]

um... I don't mean to be a dick, but you guys don't have to quote the entire text (picture included)
you can edit out all but the sentence or one paragraph which you need to quote.

[BOZG]

It exists on a subtle scale. But, you have to admit it's bad when every one of those points applies to the largest capitalist superpower in the world.


No, of course it's worrying but the word fascism should be used scientifically, not as a slur word.

The social basis of fascism is very different than the social basis of a military dictatorship or a "normal" authoritarian regime and that's incredibly important in defeating either.

[chegitz guevara]

It Is Now Official: The U.S. Is a Terrorist Fascist Police State


So why haven't we been arrested, tortured, and thrown from a helicopter into the ocean yet? :rolleyes:

[chegitz guevara]

I think that Vegetarianism is making you dumb, i swear that vegetarianism is stupid, because it doesnt supply the body with complete amino acids.

I'm a hard core carnivore (Atkins Diet), and this simply isn't true. You can get complete nutrition on a vegetarian diet. You can even do so on a vegan diet, though it is a little more difficult.


I fucking told you that 9-11 was an inside job, how many more *fucking times* do i have to repeat it to you? eat meat so you think better !!

Oh, well, you told me. I guess that settles it then. Through science and facts out the window, cuz LK has told us the TRUTH™


There are no absolute truths in this world.

Actually, there are. Ever hear of math, logic, physics, etc.?


Let's say that 9-11 was not an inside job,

Smartest thing you written so far.


but we don't have 100% scientific-evidence to prove it.

Hmmm, just like evolution. God must have done it.


And lets say that 9-11 was an inside-job,

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God or an inside job.


but there are smoking guns to think that it was an inside job,

Let's not, since there aren't any.


like the NORAD stand down.

NORAD is to defend the U.S from external attack, not internal attack. There was no stand down. They simply were not designed to defend the United States from such an attack. In the decade before 9/11, NORAD only intercepted ONE civilian plane, and it took an hour and 22 minutes for an F-16 to do so. Rules in effect up to 9/11 prohibited supersonic intercepts in the U.S.


There were no arabs on the Flight Manifesto Lists on that day,

Oh reeeeeaaaaallllllllyyyyyy


http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/images/aa_flight_11_manifest.gif


among many other motives like the "War on terror". Which is a war on behalf of Israel, not about catching terrorists.

Fucking anti-Semite.


The real terrorists are The Pentagon and Israel.

That the US and Israel are both terrorist states does not mean they are the only terrorists in the world.

The 9/11 attack by al Qaeda worked because of hubris. The U.S. thought its dick swung the lowest in the world, and that no one would ever dare to attack the U.S. They were wrong.

[LeninistKing]

First for all what's wrong with being a conspiracy-theorist? You think all conspiracy-theories are wrong just because you said so? Who gives you the moral and intellectual authority to say so? Besides Paul Craig Roberts has money, he is famous, he is an economist, and an intellectual.

And what are you? you are just a tax-payer and a wage-slave, thats right, just accept the fact that you will die as a worthless nobody in America, a wage-slave in this capitalist system of America having contributted nothing worthwhile to this hypocritical shithole society.

So I would rather believe in David Ray Griffin or Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, than a loser slave saying that 9/11 was not an inside job. Yeah and i have the right to say that i am Bill Gates.

.



Although I agree with what he says in this article, I hope you don't get all your information from this guy, because if you didn't know, he's a conspiracy theorist who's supported people like David Ray Griffin on 9/11 being an inside job.

[The Vegan Marxist]

First for all what's wrong with being a conspiracy-theorist? You think all conspiracy-theories are wrong just because you said so? Who gives you the moral and intellectual authority to say so? Besides Paul Craig Roberts has money, he is famous, he is an economist, and an intellectual.

And what are you? you are just a tax-payer and a wage-slave, thats right, just accept the fact that you will die as a worthless nobody in America, a wage-slave in this capitalist system of America having contributted nothing worthwhile to this hypocritical shithole society.

So I would rather believe in David Ray Griffin or Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, than a loser slave saying that 9/11 was not an inside job. Yeah and i have the right to say that i am Bill Gates.

.

There's nothing really wrong with being a conspiracy theorist, to an extent, for I use to be one. But you've got to learn when to support them, & when not. And I never said that all conspiracy theories are wrong, because we're not too sure about that. I'm merely stating 9/11 being an inside job is wrong. The claim refuses to even look at real science & physics. And wow, I'm sorry, remind me never to question someone that has money! :rolleyes:

And wow, please someone just ban this kid from the site now. He's taken things too far by attacking members of the entire RevLeft forum with his illogical semantics & comments.

I'd rather believe in the thousands upon thousands of scientists, engineers, & architects that have, not only said, but proven that 9/11 was NOT an inside job. So go ahead. Believe in who you want. We're not here to judge who you listen to, but rather how far you take your belief. If you had just supported your belief in a fashionable manner, no one probably would've attacked you, but of course, you decided to attack all those that don't believe you & call them government agents & wage slaves.

[chegitz guevara]

It's fine to believe in conspiracies, as long as there is evidence to back them up. There was a conspiracy to cover up Watergate. There was a conspiracy called Iran/Contra. There have been others. The difference between the ones I believe in and what conspiracy theorists believe in is: mine can be proven.

Conspiracy theories are like alternative medicine. Alternative medicine is medicine that has either been proven not to work or has not been proven to work. You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work? Medicine. You know what they call conspiracy theories that have been proven to be true? Conspiracies.

[Uppercut]

The U.S. thought its dick swung the lowest in the world

You mean it doesn't...?:blink: