America 2005 is Germany 1930

[GhostSoldier]

http://www.new-enlightenment.com/bushsupport.jpghttp://www.new-enlightenment.com/bush_nazi.jpg



We who live in the post-World War II period possess an immensely valuable symbol, even if we don't understand it or use it effectively: the example of Nazi Germany.

[...]

The 2004 election revealed that many American citizens are as intellectually and morally incompetent as the Germans in 1930. Such incompetence and ignorance always lead to tyranny. The United States is exactly at the same point in national degradation as the German nation in the 1930s when Hitler assumed absolute power and began his regime of mass murder and war crimes against the people of the world.

[...]

We've been conditioned to see Germany under Hitler as an unquestionably horrible example of dictatorial tyranny and inhuman barbarity--and to see our present American culture as completely opposite to that of Nazi Germany. And we like to think that if a tyranny such as that in Germany under the Nazi regime were present and growing in America we'd unquestionably be able to see it.

So it's a shock when we realize: most people living in Nazi Germany didn't see the tyranny! They thought it was the best time of their lives!

[...]

To the Germans in Mayer's study, each occasion of Nazi violence was worse than the last, but only a little worse. So they waited for the one shocking event, thinking that they would join with others if or when it happened. But as the violence escalated, no one rose up to condemn the concentration camps and general oppression. No one wanted to act alone, and when a mass uprising failed to occur, the common people just let events take their course. They progressively lost the ability to understand the horror of Nazism and the will to oppose it.

Similarly, we don't see the growing fascism in America and the world because we don't want to see it and because it happens somewhat gradually, which makes it almost imperceptible to those who don't think critically. Everything in your society--Nazi Germany or twenty-first century America--seems so ordinary.

[...]

Hitler was able to brand anyone he considered an enemy and see that that person was summarily executed. How long will it be before President Bush begins to brand as "terrorist" any US citizen who disagrees with him?

America 2005 is Germany 1930 (http://www.new-enlightenment.com/germany1930.htm)


The mass media system plays the biggest role in this endevour, that and the education system...

I have heard someone describe the US as a sleeping giant! I agree they are a giant, however I beleive the giant is wide awake and is slowly taking over the world like a giant game of risk... The thing is 99% of the American public is so brainwashed they cant see it happening under their noses...

Just because their houses aren't getting bombed they think everything is OK... The US is not a sleeping giant, merely a giant who plays the best game of chess in the world... They learnt from Nazi Germany and have vowed not to make the same mistake, instead they are biding their time, peice by peice, little by little, they ARE taking over the world, all under the disguise of spreading FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY... This surely is a great world we live in, and surely the American Fore-Fathers would be DISGUSTED

Wake up, and take the power back Americans!



Rage Against the Machine
-- Take the Power Back!

So called facts are fraud
They want us to allege and pledge
And bow down to their God
Lost the culture, the culture lost
Spun our minds and through time
Ignorance has taken over
Yo, we gotta take the power back!
Bam! Here's the plan
Motherfuck Uncle Sam
Step back, I know who I am
Raise up your ear, I'll drop the style and clear
It's the beats and the lyrics they fear
The rage is relentless
We need a movement with a quickness
You are the witness of change
And to counteract
We gotta take the power back

Yeah, we gotta take the power back
Come on, come on!
We gotta take the power back

[Severian]

Why it's a serious mistake to call things fascist or Nazi which ain't. (http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/fascism.html) Bush is not a fascist.

Is current U.S. situation like Germany 1930, i.e. before the Nazi takeover? I don't think so.

For one thing, at that time in Germany, there'd been a number of massive working-class upsurges which were defeated.
The working class was partly disillusioned and demoralized; those in the middle class who might have looked to the working class as a force for change were disappointed.

This was important in helping create the conditions where so many middle-class people, falling on hard times, joined the Nazi Party and the Brownshirts in a radical, seemingly anticapitalist mass movement...to smash the workers' organizations.

This has not happened here....the last major, bloody defeat of the U.S. working class was the end of Radical Reconstruction in 1877 or so.

Now if we have our chance and miss it, as in Germany.....

[Jersey Devil]

The political atmosphere was completely different in Germany then in the U.S. The Spartacist uprisinging of 1919 where Ebert had the Freikorps take them down, and later the Beer Hall Putsch led by Hitler and extreme right-wingers in the 1920's created a completely different political atmosphere. Not to mention the hyperinflation and the Weimar parliment that was filled with 30 competing parties that could not agree with each other. Quite frankly, these "comparisons" are not just historically inaccurate but also seems to me to be offensive to Jews that actually died in Nazi Germany.

[Edelweiss]

total agreement to Severian and Jersey Devil. Please just stop that inaccurate, unhistorical, stupid US-Nazi, Bush-Hitler comparisons. It's a slap in the face of all victims of Nazi Germany.

[viva le revolution]

Well, let's see....
Hitler was a right winger, Bush is a right winger.
Hitler used germany's defeat in ww1 to justify extreme shifts in national policy, Bush is using 9/11.
Hitler waged wars against nations that posed no threat to it, so did Bush.
Hitler believed Germany was superior to all other nations and races, Bush believes the same about America.
Hitler used false propaganda to solidify his support iin Germany, so does Bush in America.
Hitler used Jews as scapegoats, Bush uses "terrorism".
Hitler had concentration camps, Bush has Guantanamo bay and Abu ghraib.
Hitler ignored the plight of the worker in general, so does Bush.
Hitler used nationalism to attract support, so does Bush.
need more similarities? America is Fascist it doesn't realise it yet.

[Jersey Devil]

I made concrete claims about the extreme difference between the two situations. Such as the aforementioned failed "revolutions" by Hitler and by the Spartacists, and furthermore the hyperinflation and the failed Weimar coalition government. Then you meet this with ludicrous claims, some of which have no factual basis.

[Severian]

Yes there are commonalities...because both Hitler and Bush are imperialists. Representatives of finance capital in a major capitalist power.

Bush is not especially right-wing in the context of U.S. capitalist politics. Nor has he carried out an "extreme shift in national policy." On the contrary, many of his most anti-democratic policies are the continuation of Clinton administration policy...from Ashcroft's immigrant roundups to the military command covering North America.

"Preemptive war" which the liberal imperialists represent as an extreme policy change, is not; most U.S. wars in the 20th century were "preemptive" not a response to an actual attack. Similarly, torture of prisoners is not new: Korea, Vietnam....the domestic prison system.

This is capitalist democracy.

Fascism is worse.

[Cal]

Hitler had concentration camps, Bush has Guantanamo bay and Abu ghraib.


Are you having a laugh!

Go and read some books mate, before you spout that crap off again.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:24 PM

Hitler had concentration camps, Bush has Guantanamo bay and Abu ghraib.


Are you having a laugh!

Go and read some books mate, before you spout that crap off again.
I don't see what i said wrong, or do you think that demeaning and humiliating treatment is okay and bears no resemblance whatsoever to the humiliating torture the occupied countries in worldwar2 suffered?
I guess you basically agree with the media that the goingson in that camp did not reflect the general attitude of the soldier's. Afterall in the nuremburg trials after worldwar2 even the nazi's said that the atrocities committed in the camps were carried out by just a few disgruntled soldiers and did not reflect the attitude of the regime.
Before cracking off please give a solid arguement.

[Se7en]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 29 2005, 11:58 AM
[QUOTE=Cal,Apr 29 2005, 02:24 PM]

I don't see what i said wrong, or do you think that demeaning and humiliating treatment is okay and bears no resemblance whatsoever to the humiliating torture the occupied countries in worldwar2 suffered?
I guess you basically agree with the media that the goingson in that camp did not reflect the general attitude of the soldier's. Afterall in the nuremburg trials after worldwar2 even the nazi's said that the atrocities committed in the camps were carried out by just a few disgruntled soldiers and did not reflect the attitude of the regime.
Before cracking off please give a solid arguement.
what i think he's saying is that no one has been gassed and burned in gitmo or iraq.

[viva le revolution]

It's the principle of the thing. The very principle of capitalism is the humiliation of one entire class by another. This was played out in the camps of Germany since fascism is nothing but an overly authoritative form of capitalism. The inmates were held without charge implying that the imperialists felt a sense of superiority over them, racial if not moral. The same is the case in Gitmo and Abu ghraib. the imperialists are basically saying we are superior and can do whatever the fuck we want with you without charges or explanation!
In abu Ghraib and Gitmo, the inmates are humiliated using sexual harrassment and fulfilling the wierd sexual fantasies of the guards there. This is as grave a crime as any murder as you are not physically but mentally crippling them, making them ashamed of their lives and making them unfit to adjust into society normally, a rather cruel form of persecution. These people will be scarred for the rest of their lives! you are stripping those people of any dignity or sense of national pride.
To me at least, this is equal to anything the Nazi's could ever come up with.

[viva le revolution]

I respect what Severian and jersey devil said and i think that they have some very solid arguements, however i never said that the US and Nazi germany were identical, i was merely pointing out a trend that US imperialism is gradually shifting along that line.
I would also like to clarify that when we make these arguements no disrespect is intended to the victims of Nazi germany, indeed, it is out of respect for them that we find these trends worriying!!

[JazzRemington]

I would say Bush is more like Benito Mussolini than Hitler. I mean, Hitler could actually lead and had one hell of a speaking voice whereas while Mussolini COULD speak properly, he was miserable at just about everything else. I mean, I think we could draw parallels with Mussolini in Ethiopia and Bush in Iraq. Plus, Bush and his buddypalls are anti-worker and pro-corporations. Fascism is anti-worker and pro-corporations and even pushes for corporatism.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by viva le revolution+Apr 29 2005, 04:58 PM--> (viva le revolution @ Apr 29 2005, 04:58 PM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 02:24 PM

Hitler had concentration camps, Bush has Guantanamo bay and Abu ghraib.


Are you having a laugh!

Go and read some books mate, before you spout that crap off again.
I don't see what i said wrong, or do you think that demeaning and humiliating treatment is okay and bears no resemblance whatsoever to the humiliating torture the occupied countries in worldwar2 suffered?
I guess you basically agree with the media that the goingson in that camp did not reflect the general attitude of the soldier's. Afterall in the nuremburg trials after worldwar2 even the nazi's said that the atrocities committed in the camps were carried out by just a few disgruntled soldiers and did not reflect the attitude of the regime.
Before cracking off please give a solid arguement. [/b]
The treatment of Iraqi citizens at Abu Ghraib and the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were shameful, disgusting and outraging. However, do you remember the My Lai massacre? Some 350 people were brutally killed. America has done much worse. The US army likes to believe that it is still a 'moral' based organization.

But to compare Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib to the Concentration camps is just bullshit. Humiliating treatment is much different than to be stripped naked along with your family, sent into a room with the guards kicking and spitting on you, and gassed. Many were also bludgeoned to death, shot to death and cremated. So don't fucking talk about principle. US troops are fucks, but NOONE can compare the atrocities committed by the Nazis to the atrocities of the Americans. It disgusts me that people can actually compare the two.

[Totalitarian Militant]

Hitler:
Took over several countries
Attacked without notice
Killed innocent civilians.........on purpose
Killed 6 million + jews
He got power, he wasnt elected
He had absolute rule
He had no end of term

Anyone who compares the two, or the people for that matter, is a complete idiot, and should have been aborted by their parents.

Fuckin children.................... :angry:



Originally posted by Piece of shit idiot
Well, let's see....
1-Hitler was a right winger, Bush is a right winger.
2-Hitler used germany's defeat in ww1 to justify extreme shifts in national policy, Bush is using 9/11.
3-Hitler waged wars against nations that posed no threat to it, so did Bush.
4-Hitler believed Germany was superior to all other nations and races, Bush believes the same about America.
5-Hitler used false propaganda to solidify his support iin Germany, so does Bush in America.
6-Hitler used Jews as scapegoats, Bush uses "terrorism".
7-Hitler had concentration camps, Bush has Guantanamo bay and Abu ghraib.
8-Hitler ignored the plight of the worker in general, so does Bush.
9-Hitler used nationalism to attract support, so does Bush.
need more similarities? America is Fascist it doesn't realise it yet.

1-Hitler was way more to the right jackass. In addition, there are millions of right wingers. Should we label them all mini hitlers?
2-World War one, was a world war. 9/11 was one of 3 attacks in history on American soil. There is a major difference.
3-Hitler waged war against nations, bush did, against one nation, who killed over 300,000 civlians(thats the # known!)
4- First off, why would a leader not believe his nation is the greatest? I think its too politically correct to not. Second, you retard, America is made up of dozens of races. How many races did hitler support? 1. Bush supports the country, not the fuckin white race.
5-Every country on earth uses or has used major propaganda...............asshole.
6-Let me think about this one............jews, innocent to everyone, terrorists, killed thousands of people out of their own country. You fail again.
7-Not even close. Go to school for a history class...........
8-Thats why labor unions still exist and are fighting now.......................
9-Every country should be proud...........every modern civilized country that is....

Stop with your 8 year old anti-current system mentality, cause thats all it is.

By the way, to help all the toddlers here, here is a map of what the germans and their allies did:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...s/occupymap.jpg (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/occupymap.jpg)

They took over by force without a declaration, more than 10 times Iraqs land space, and they were all good people unlike Saddam and his cronies roaming the countryside.


And even more:
(facist characteristics)
Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

Im not sure if you are aware of Condoleeza Rice..........

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.

Thats why there is non stop anti Bush propaganda................

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by Totalitarian [email protected] 30 2005, 12:30 AM
Anyone who compares the two, or the people for that matter, is a complete idiot, and should have been aborted by their parents.

Fuckin children.................... :angry:
I completely agree.

[Jersey Devil]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 29 2005, 09:16 PM
I respect what Severian and jersey devil said and i think that they have some very solid arguements, however i never said that the US and Nazi germany were identical, i was merely pointing out a trend that US imperialism is gradually shifting along that line.
Let's take one example of the "United States gradually shifting along that line" argument. I continously hear people compare the Patriot Act to the German Enabling Act after the Reichstag fire. The two are not comparable as we still have an independent judicary with judicial review power that can declare any of the provisions made by the act unconstitutional and thus void. As a matter of fact this has already happened, two federal judges have declared two different provisions of the act unconstitutional. Indeed, your assertions are simply incorrect in both the political and economic context.



I mean, I think we could draw parallels with Mussolini in Ethiopia and Bush in Iraq.
I take it that you mean in the context that both the League of Nations and the United Nations failed to enforce international law.

[rice349]

even if you want to look at them (hitler and bush) at the most basic level: economics. Bush is a very laissez-faire capitalists, Hitler for the most part displayed a more keynsian approach to the free-market.

The comparison doesn't exist; Bush is a cocksucker, yes, but a fascist he is not.

[Jersey Devil]

Actually that is quite a fair analysis. Hitler did indeed place an emphasis on public works and government spending while Bush favors a free-market approach.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Totalitarian Militant+Apr 30 2005, 12:30 AM--> (Totalitarian Militant @ Apr 30 2005, 12:30 AM) Hitler
Killed 6 million jews
He got power, he wasnt elected
He had absolute rule
He had no end of term

Anyone who compares the two, or the people for that matter, is a complete idiot, and should have been aborted by their parents.

Fuckin children.................... :angry:



Piece of shit idiot
Well, let's see....
1-Hitler was a right winger, Bush is a right winger.
2-Hitler used germany's defeat in ww1 to justify extreme shifts in national policy, Bush is using 9/11.
3-Hitler waged wars against nations that posed no threat to it, so did Bush.
4-Hitler believed Germany was superior to all other nations and races, Bush believes the same about America.
5-Hitler used false propaganda to solidify his support iin Germany, so does Bush in America.
6-Hitler used Jews as scapegoats, Bush uses "terrorism".
7-Hitler had concentration camps, Bush has Guantanamo bay and Abu ghraib.
8-Hitler ignored the plight of the worker in general, so does Bush.
9-Hitler used nationalism to attract support, so does Bush.
need more similarities? America is Fascist it doesn't realise it yet.

1-Hitler was way more to the right jackass. In addition, there are millions of right wingers. Should we label them all mini hitlers?
2-World War one, was a world war. 9/11 was one of 3 attacks in history on American soil. There is a major difference.
3-Hitler waged war against nations, bush did, against one nation, who killed over 300,000 civlians(thats the # known!)
4- First off, why would a leader not believe his nation is the greatest? I think its too politically correct to not. Second, you retard, America is made up of dozens of races. How many races did hitler support? 1. Bush supports the country, not the fuckin white race.
5-Every country on earth uses or has used major propaganda...............asshole.
6-Let me think about this one............jews, innocent to everyone, terrorists, killed thousands of people out of their own country. You fail again.
7-Not even close. Go to school for a history class...........
8-Thats why labor unions still exist and are fighting now.......................
9-Every country should be proud...........every modern civilized country that is....

Stop with your 8 year old anti-current system mentality, cause thats all it is.

By the way, to help all the toddlers here, here is a map of what the germans and their allies did:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...s/occupymap.jpg (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/occupymap.jpg)

They took over by force without a declaration, more than 10 times Iraqs land space, and they were all good people unlike Saddam and his cronies roaming the countryside.


And even more:
(facist characteristics)
Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

Im not sure if you are aware of Condoleeza Rice..........

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.

Thats why there is non stop anti Bush propaganda................ [/b]
WELL... first of all, al gore won the popular vote, ie, the majority.both candidates could not get the majority needed in the electoral college. So Bush uses his brother's(jeb bush overnor in florida) to steal the election. end result, he wasn't elected either!
Okay, world war one was a world war, hitler used scapegoatism to blame the jews for it thus legitimizing his treatment of the jews. Bush used 9/11 to attack Afghanistan! even though the afghanregime wasn't the nicest in the world, you tell me how that pariah regime posed any threat to the world's sole superpower!
You seem to be forgetting Afghanistan my friend!you know...the one before Iraq! now the drums are beating against Syria and Iran, the pre-emptive doctrine of america gives it authority to attak any nation it "percieves" to be a threat! not that this doctrine wasn't followed before, now it's out in the open and official!
True america has many races, tell me, what proportion of blacks constitutes the upper class hmmm?Has there ever been a black president my friend? Bush disenfranchised countless numbers of black voters who voted for Gore in 2000.Bush is seeking to abolish affirmative action that reserves seats for members of minorities in colleges across America!
I guess you're right propaganda has been used by every country... But do any have the propaganda machine on the scale of CNN or Fox news that is broadcast all across the globe?
Okay so you label them terrorists as well, so you agree with fox news...one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter!They even labelled Che Guevara terrorist would you agree with that too?
Tell me how many advances has america made to eleminate class differences? What policies has the Bush reime followed... Tax cut's for the rich don't qualify in case you were confused!
A true marxist does not believe in borders. He works for the betterment of the working class the world over!...open borders...that's why they call it the WORLD REVOLUTION!
No, i am not proud of my or any country that supports the suppression of one class by the other! I am not proud of any country where the bourgeois still exist to bleed the workers dry!
Okay.... you label the Iraqi resistance as saddam's cronies...what would you have, greeting the occupiers of your country with rose petals?and by the way, it's not only the sunni faction that saddam represented that opposes the occupation but the shias as well. The kurds have their own de-facto government in the north that Baghdad has little or no authority over.
WELL.... fascist-inclined nations are homophobic and sexist, hmmm.... if memory serves me, didn't Bush OPPOSE gay marriages and unions.
Okay...you ever hear any criticism of Bush on Fox news?
Oh...another thing.....in Nazi germany the blame for all the atrocities was dumped on the grunts of the wehrmacht, sargeants and such, the officers were not held accountable for anything. WHAT A SURPRISE....IN GITMO AND ABU GHARAIB, the common grunts were also blamed while the officers overseeing them were held unaccountable. again...the principle of the thing. not the same thing, but following the same pattern!
A little advice comrade... using profanities won't get your point across. it's not like i'll see the light by you calling me a retard. It's a debate son, you give your points i give my points, we all learn something. i'm sure we're all able to understand intelligent conversation. or do you like to call everybody who disagrees with you, retards?

[GhostSoldier]

Totalitarian Militant:
Took over several countries
Iraq, Afghanistan, Diego Garcia, - Not mention all the other puppet governments...

Killed innocent civilians.........on purpose
*cough* Nicaragua *cough*

Killed 6 million + jews
What about Vietnam!!! "Terminate with extreme Prejudice"

He got power, he wasnt elected
2000 Elections... Do some research!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would also like to make clear that I am not comparing Bush to Hitler... I am comparing 2005 (Brainwashed and Controlled bt Corporations) America to 1930 (Brainwashed and Controlled by the Nazi) Germany...

Bush is only a small part of the problem - Almost insignificant, Bush is merely a puppet with no intergrity - The corporations are what control America!

Totalitarian Militant, Reverting back to name calling merely proves that you are most likely a child, either that or you cant formulate a legitimate argument... Reading your post made me wonder on whos side you are... Are you an extreme right-wing bigamist by any chance?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hitler was way more to the right jackass. In addition, there are millions of right wingers. Should we label them all mini hitlers?
You have taken everything out of context... The only difference between Bush and Hitler, is the fact that Hitler was smart enough to know what he was doing - Bush is just along for the ride...

World War one, was a world war. 9/11 was one of 3 attacks in history on American soil. There is a major difference.
Your point being? They were both used as scape-goats - Just because it was the first attack on American soil in modern times makes it okay to go to war? - You are just another brainwashed American who things terrorism is the answer to terrorism...

Hitler waged war against nations, bush did, against one nation, who killed over 300,000 civlians
AMERICA (not Bush) AMERICA - Has done equally disgusting and terrible things as Nazi Germany... Modern History is filled with things they have done... (Im starting another post about that)

First off, why would a leader not believe his nation is the greatest? I think its too politically correct to not. Second, you retard, America is made up of dozens of races. How many races did hitler support? 1. Bush supports the country, not the fuckin white race.
Why SHOULD Bush feel America is the greatest... I would rather move to Iran than live in America... Look at the under-current of racism in your country... Look at how many Blacks end up in prison, look at how many upper-class black people there are in America, look at how the government still allows the KKK to exist...

Totalitarian Militant, you are squabbling over petty details... America LEARNT FROM NAZI GERMANY... They understood that blatant racism wouldn't work, so instead they did it more subtly...

Tell Malcome X that the American government wasn't racist, and see what kinda answer you'd get... Oh thats right HES DEAD! - KILLED BY THE GOVERNMENT

Every country on earth uses or has used major propaganda...
Not everyone does so to the extent of the USA, FoxNews may aswell be offically owned by the government...

Let me think about this one............jews, innocent to everyone, terrorists, killed thousands of people out of their own country
First of all - It was never even proven that Al Quaeda was behind 9/11, and it was definately never proven that Al Quaeda had ties to Saddam. So what justified that war?

What is your definition of a "terrorist" anyway... What about asking yourself, What causes "terrorism" ... Because I think when you find out, you should probably label that as the TRUE terrorism...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

Im not sure if you are aware of Condoleeza Rice..........

How many multi-national Trillionares are women and/or gay? Rice is a figure head...

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.

Thats why there is non stop anti Bush propaganda................

Where do you hear this Anti-Bush propoganda - because I would like to see some - Other than small independant websites and newspapers... You are proving yourself wrong by listing these facts...

Your government is owned by huge corporations, your media systems are owned by huge corporations, and most of thwe worlds resources are owned by huge corporations... This is what REALLY owns and controls America...

And with that it mind I would like finish by saying that America is basically Facist now... And the only thing alowing it to be that way is public lathargy, which is brought about by the education system, law and order systems, media systems, parents, figure-heads, role-models - Society in general...

[Jersey Devil]

I see that this thread has been murdered by irrelevant comments based on opinion and not fact. Why doesn't anyone address the points that I brought up instead of saying "Bu$h=Hitler" or "no you commies are teh dumb". Seriously, the rhetoric is quite pointless if it has no factual basis.

[Severian]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 29 2005, 03:16 PM
I respect what Severian and jersey devil said and i think that they have some very solid arguements, however i never said that the US and Nazi germany were identical, i was merely pointing out a trend that US imperialism is gradually shifting along that line.
Yes, capitalism is creating the conditions for fascism. All capitalist politicians have been drifting right steadily for a couple decades now, and the farther they go, the better the atmosphere is for scapegoating and ultraright demagogy.

But bourgeois democracy does not just gradually become fascism. There is a sharp break. A fascist mass movement arises in the streets, Blackshirts or Stormtroopers or what have you. It takes power forcibly...and often jails the bourgeois-democratic politicians who prepared the way for them.

This can and must be fought. But if you go around calling everything fascist...it's like the boy who cried wolf. Nobody's going to take you seriously when it's necessary to point to a real danger of fascism.

The German CP made this mistake, calling everybody under the sun fascist, and in fact they failed to put up any serious fight against Hitler.

There are potential fuhrers out there organizing right now: Patrick Buchanan in the USA, LePen in France, etc.

[LSD]

*cough* Nicaragua *cough*

What about Vietnam!!! "Terminate with extreme Prejudice"

If you can't see the difference between allowing civilian deaths in the furtherance of a political agenda (defeating communism, dominoe effect...) and killing civilians as an aim in itself then there is something deeply wrong with you.

If Nixon could have won Vietnam without killing civilians, he would have.
If Raegan could have won Nicaragua without killing civilians, he owuld have.

Their crime was that they didn't care either way. They were willing to tolerate civilian deaths because they felt that their cause was "just" enough. Hitler didn't tolerate innocent death, it was his entire purpose. Their death was his cause.


The only difference between Bush and Hitler, is the fact that Hitler was smart enough to know what he was doing

um...and about 11 million deaths.


Not everyone does so to the extent of the USA, FoxNews may aswell be offically owned by the government...

FoxNews is a political channel. It has an oppinion which is shared by parts of the government and some of the administration. If you don't like it, tune in AirAmerica.

...or read a book.

The point is that American propaganda doesn't even compare with that of National Socialist Germany or the USSR.


Iraq, Afghanistan, Diego Garcia, - Not mention all the other puppet governments...

National Socialist Germany invaded Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Albania, Ethiopia, Greece, Egypt, France, Denmark, Norway, Russia, the Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Holland, Belgium, Britain, Italy, Austria, Czechloslovakia, and the League of Nations free city of Danzig.

It did all of this without warning, notification, or justification. Once these countries were occupied, their civilian populations were massacred, terrorized and oppressed. Their leadership was executed.

The US has invaded several small countries, all with some degree of multinational support, all with prior notice of some sort, all with at least an attempt at a reason. More importantly, the people in these countries were not massacred, their civilians were not subject to expulsion and genocide, and their leadership was, for the most part, humanely treated.

Comparing the war in Iraq or Afghanistan to the invasion of Russia is appaling and a disgrace to the 20 millions who died defending their families from fascist barbarism.

Germany killed more civilians than soldiers in their invasion of Russia. It was the single most brutal act in human history. That you could possible dare to make a comparison to the invasion of Iraq or Nicaragua is absolutely disgusting.

Fuck you.



AMERICA (not Bush) AMERICA - Has done equally disgusting and terrible things as Nazi Germany...

OK, it's settled, you're a moron.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 30 2005, 08:15 PM
Hitler didn't tolerate innocent death, it was his entire purpose. Their death was his cause.
I'm not sure if that's true; one could make a case that the Holocaust was a means to advancing the strategic interests of the regime and the German capitalist class, and a pretty effective one...if they'd won the war. Anti-Jewish scapegoating was essential to building the kind of mass movement that was needed to totally smash the workers' organizations. The physical extermination campaign later grew out of the war on the Eastern Front, the desperate struggle to destroy the USSR; Soviet POWs were the first inmates of Auschwitz. The Holocaust was also effective at intimidating domestic opposition. And it provided some slave labor that was profitable for some companies and helpful to the war effort. Though I wouldn't argue it was directly "cost-effective."

But who can know for sure what was in Hitler's head anyway? I understand the distinction you're making, but I'm not sure why it's that incredibly important. Dead is dead, regardless of motive.

Really, willingness to commit mass murder of groups perceived as subhuman is a feature fascism and democratic imperialism have in common. It's just that democratic imperialism has traditionally committed genocide against nonwhite peoples overseas, while the Third Reich extended this treatment to Jews, Romany, Slavs -- European groups. Probably because British naval superiority cut off the possibility of a German overseas empire, causing them to "Drang nach Osten" instead, into the historically underdeveloped and semi-colonial nations of eastern Europe.

In fact, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, genocide against Native Americans, the "Bloody Congo", and other democratic genocides killed far more people than the Nazi holocaust. Probably the IMF's killed more people than the Third Reich...tens of thousands die every day of malnutrition and readily preventable diseases.

There are important differences between fascism and bourgeois democracy, as I've posted earlier in this thread, but I'm just not convinced this is one of them.

[Shevek]

Is America going the way of Germany in the 30's? I don't know. There have been one too many instances of the US coming within an inch of dictatorship, like the McCarthyism of the 1950's. Sometimes I feel lucky that I'm not in a concentration camp. And then I look at the world around me and take a glimpse of Patriot Acts 1 and 2, and I wonder if Dachau isn't just over the hill.

In the past we were allowed to come within an inch of totalitarianism because we thought it would make us safer, the same goes for today. The question is, is this the time that the United States crosses the line. Is it even possible not to? I don't know, only time shall give me a few of the answers.

Until then, the line between republicanism and totalitarianism shall always be paper thin.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Malte
Please just stop that inaccurate, unhistorical, stupid US-Nazi, Bush-Hitler comparisons. It's a slap in the face of all victims of Nazi Germany.

I have to agree with this; the simple-minded equation Bush=Hitler is clearly wrong.

I'm not as sanguine, however, as those in this thread who seem to be rather complacent about the marked similarities between American public opinion now and public opinion in many countries that later succumbed to fascism.

The Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. -- a.k.a. Christian fascists -- are a mass movement. They claim the active support of some 130 members of the House of Representatives and a number of senators as well. The Bush administration seems prepared to throw them some significant "bones"...most particularly, appointing some of their supporters to the federal judiciary.

In return, the Christian fascists are quite comfortable with the secular neo-conservative agenda -- more imperial wars, more wealth for the ruling class, etc.

So we have no "brown-shirts" marching in the streets here. But I think that it's significant that the left in America has yet to oppose Christian fascism in any notable fashion...except by making jokes about them.

(That is a parallel with Germany; quite a few people did regard Hitler and the Nazis as a joke.)

Remember that fascism of any kind does not need an actual majority; all it really required in most countries was a solid core -- say 1/3rd of the population -- and enough conservative "floaters" to attain power.

And the acquiescence of the army, of course.

I would not be so bold, at this point, to predict the "imminent triumph" of fascism in the U.S.

But it's beginning to strike me that a lot of the pre-conditions are "in place" and "ready for use".

The latest (May 2005) issue of Harper's Magazine has two long articles on the rise and present situation of the Christian fascists in the U.S. (pp. 41-61).

Things do not "look good".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Totalitarian Militant]

The stupidity in here is overwhelming.

Ill respond to you all later.

But for now

Hitler brought World War 2.

What did Bush do even close?

Fucking morons.

Bush is stupid, but comparing him and Hitler makes you guys look like idiots and him like Einstein.

[Jersey Devil]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 04:02 AM
And then I look at the world around me and take a glimpse of Patriot Acts 1 and 2, and I wonder if Dachau isn't just over the hill.
I just made an argument about comparing the Patriot Act to the German Enabling Act. Can't any of you actually respond to my arguments instead of just spewing out rhetoric.


Let's take one example of the "United States gradually shifting along that line" argument. I continously hear people compare the Patriot Act to the German Enabling Act after the Reichstag fire. The two are not comparable as we still have an independent judicary with judicial review power that can declare any of the provisions made by the act unconstitutional and thus void. As a matter of fact this has already happened, two federal judges have declared two different provisions of the act unconstitutional. Indeed, your assertions are simply incorrect in both the political and economic context.

[Shevek]

Jersey Devil, expecting the Judiciary to protect us is naive, the Judiciary GAVE Bush the Presidency in 2000. And as I've said before the line between republicanism and totalitarianism is paper thin. What I was referring to was the Constitution.

Like all laws the Constitution is only as strong as people make it to be. If the people of the United States considered it secondary to "national security" then our leaders would use the constitution to wipe thier asses. If the people thought that the Judicial branch was interfering with national security then goodbye Justices, I'll see you at the Juneau concentration camp.

You want protection from totalitarianism in america, let me give you a hint, look at the people. If there are "patriots" and fanatics who populate the states that play a large role in the electoral college and two branches of government are held in the vice grip of imperialist neocons then I would say that our only real protection against fascism, the people, is either failing or has failed us.

[Jersey Devil]

Indeed, I was not expecting a real response. Good bye.

[codyvo]

Here is a nice quote.

We need to get over it and stop calling republicans nazis, republicans aren't like nazis, even neo-nazis aren't like nazis, no one is like the nazis... except for Wal-Mart.~Bill Maher

[Shevek]

What do you mean by a "real response", Jersey Devil.

And codyvo's right. Ideologically, neocons have some major differences in thier ideology from Nazi's. They don't pretend to be socialist, they aren't Keynesian at all, they aren't racist, and they aren't (yet) totalitarian. Still neo-Nazi's do act like Nazi's, except with more bravdo, less actual acts of thuggery, and some VERY small shifts towards the left.

That isn't to say that neocons aren't dangerous to democracy. On the contrary, they are the largest real threat to democracy since Joseph McCarthy. They have taken away the rights to a lawyer, trial by jury, freedom of privacy, and the right to face one's accusers if it is percieved to be in the intrests of national security. Proto-totalitarianist, thy name is neocon.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 10:39 PM
The Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. -- a.k.a. Christian fascists -- are a mass movement.
Equating fundamentalists with fascists is just as stupid as equating Bush with Hitler. And the phrase "Christian fascist" seems tailor-made to muddy things up; if they really were fascists, it would be sufficient to label them, simply, "fascist."

Fundamentalists, (aka evangelicals, aka born-again Christians) are a religious group dating back to the 1920s and emphasizing literal interpretation of the bible. It's often associated with reactionary politics...but it's not identical with any one political trend. I might point out that Jimmy Carter, for example, was a born-again Christian. I'd like to point out that there is nothing communist about singling out one religious sect, labelling it the fount of all evil, and assuming that all its believers are irredeemably reactionary in politics.

The right wing of the Republican Party, which Redstar seems to be referring to ("they claim the active support of some 130 members of the House of Representatives and a number of senators as well") is not fascist either, simply more reactionary than some other capitalist politicians.

The main representative of fascism in this country, Patrick Buchanan, has broken from the Republican Party and run two independent presidential campaigns. Incidentally, he's not a fundamentalist, religiously, rather a Catholic.

****

There's a lot of nonsense out there about neoconservatism, BTW; it does not equal Republicans or the Bush administration, nor is it the sole promoter of the accelerated rightward trend of post-9/11 bourgeois politics...a lot of this anti-neoconservative stuff comes from the so-called antiwar right. They use it to claim 1. Bush administration policies are not true, old-fashioned conservatism, 2. Those policies are somehow leftist in underlying content, 3. Bush is crusading for international democratic revolution like Trotsky crusading for world communist revolution, not looking out for "American national interests" 4. the Bush administration is run by people whose real loyalty is to Israel, not America, and sometimes 5. a buch of 'em are Jewish. an example (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j010904.html)

Various liberals and leftists have adopted parts of this, or just use "neocon" as a catchall term for warmonger without being aware of the implication. I would comment that this approach is actually a lot more fascist-like, in its scapegoating and "America First" nationalism, than anything actual neoconservatives are putting out.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Equating fundamentalists with fascists is just as stupid as equating Bush with Hitler.[/b]

The reader is invited, as always, to decide for himself/herself what is "stupid" and what is a clear and present danger...

Building a Christian GOP (http://harpers.org/1993-01BuildingAChristianGOP.html)

Stations of the Boss (http://harpers.org/StationsOfTheBoss.html)

Jesus Plus Nothing (http://harpers.org/JesusPlusNothing.html)

Fla. Agency Gets Teen's Abortion Blocked (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/04/27/national/a190439D61.DTL)

House OKs Bill Toughening Abortion Consent (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/04/27/national/w160736D99.DTL)


Severian
I'd like to point out that there is nothing communist about singling out one religious sect, labeling it the fount of all evil, and assuming that all its believers are irredeemably reactionary in politics.

Your "communism" and mine are very different. And "sect" seems an inappropriate choice of words to describe a movement of tens of millions of people.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

"n 1: a subdivision of a larger religious group [syn: religious sect, religious order] 2: a dissenting clique [syn: faction]"

Fundamentalism is a subdivision of Christianity, of Protestantism specifically; the main problem finding a better term than "sect" is that fundamentalism is organizationally loose and includes various organized denominations and nondenominational churches.

Whatever, the point is that fundamentalism = fascism is as wrongheaded and, frankly, bigoted as Catholicism = fascism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Whatever, the point is that fundamentalism = fascism is as wrongheaded and, frankly, bigoted as Catholicism = fascism.

The Catholic Church in the last century played a major role in the rise of European fascism.

Spain and Italy are perhaps the most spectacular examples, but its consistent support of reaction was also evident in Austria, Poland, Hungary, France, Croatia...and likely a number of other countries that I have forgotten.

The votes from the Catholic Center Party were crucial in passing the Nazi "enabling act" of 1933 in the German Reichstag.

The Catholic hierarchy was silent during the holocaust -- even though they knew it was happening. After the fall of the Third Reich, the Church actively smuggled prominent Nazis (as long as they were Catholics) to Latin America to avoid trials for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The collaboration of the Catholic hierarchy (with a few minor exceptions) with quasi-fascist military dictatorships in Latin America is well known.

The great darling of the present-day church is Opus Dei -- a fascist sect (and here, sect would be the correct word...I think they have about 300,000 members world-wide).

So yeah...I have no problem regarding the Catholic Church as pro-fascist at the very least.

At the moment, they publicly disagree (or pretend to) with the more far-reaching imperial ambitions of the secular neo-conservatives...but I don't think they'd have any problems at all with the "social agenda" of the Christian fascists. Ban abortion? Teach creationism in all schools? Make atheism a crime? Outlaw contraception? Allow only a Christian media? Punish severely adolescent sexuality or drug use? Amend the U.S. Constitution to declare that America is "a Christian nation"?

The Catholic Church would eat that shit up and ask for seconds.

So if you wish to label me a "bigot" -- I'm ok with that.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Maybe you could get together with Ian Paisley.

[redstar2000]

I'm sure everyone is totally fascinated by the question of who Severian is linking me with. :lol:

Here is Ian Paisley's site...

European Institute of Protestant Studies (http://www.ianpaisley.org/)

Note carefully the "many similarities" between his site and the redstar2000 papers site.

Decide for yourself who is making "stupid comparisons". :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[redstar2000]

A Christian fascist judge...


Originally posted by Los Angeles Times
Faith 'War' Rages in U.S., Judge Says

WASHINGTON -- Just days after a bitterly divided Senate committee voted along party lines to approve her nomination as a federal appellate court judge, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown told an audience Sunday that people of faith were embroiled in a "war" against secular humanists who threatened to divorce America from its religious roots, according to a newspaper account of the speech.

"These are perilous times for people of faith," she said, "not in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud."

She added that atheism "handed human destiny over to the great god, autonomy, and this is quite a different idea of freedom…. Freedom then becomes willfulness."

Brown's remarks drew praise Monday from one of the nation's most prominent evangelical leaders, Gary Bauer, president of the socially conservative advocacy group American Values.

"No wonder the radical left opposes her," Bauer wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "Janice Rogers Brown understands the great culture war raging in America. That is why the abortion crowd, the homosexual rights movement and the radical secularists are all demanding that Senate liberals block her confirmation."

Democrats have questioned speeches in which she called the New Deal the "triumph of our socialist revolution." She has described herself as a "true conservative" who believes that "where the government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates…. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."

http://ktla.trb.com/news/nationworld/natio...oll=ktla-news-1 (http://ktla.trb.com/news/nationworld/nation/ktla-na-brown26apr26-lat%2C0%2C1219073.story?coll=ktla-news-1)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Guerrilla22]

I won't argue that certain elements within the US and its government are facist, but I wouldn't compare the US to Nazi Germany, the two aren't even close.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 03:42 AM
Maybe you could get together with Ian Paisley.
what a pitifully pathetic line of argument

[cormacobear]

There are thousands of comparisons no-one has mentioned just do a search. Just because many of Bush's endeavers began generations ago doesn't change their motivations or outcomes. For those denying the similairities, you should perhaps be wary of your certainty. Winston Churchill was freequently mocked for his opposition to the Nazi's untill all he had predicted came to pass. It's better to note the similairities and act on them than to dismiss them and end up being wrong.

[bushdog]

quite right cormacobear, i think it is rediculous to say they are the same, but comparisons can be made. The united states is showing tendencies that early nazi germany did such as curtailing civil liberties, use of propaganda, and basic pro-corporate stance. the united states is doing so in a much more smooth controlled way though. Though bush is not a nazi and it is an exaggeration to say so we must recognize the that what the neo-cons want may not be fascism but will ultimitly not be much better.

[Guerrilla22]

The US has been doing all these things for years, there's nothing new about the use of pro-US propaganda, its pro-corporate stances and what have you. The fact is, all these things were done on an even greater level during the Cold War. Kennedy was just as bad as Bush if not worst. Still the US hasn't engaged in genocide or half of the atrocities that NAzi germany did.

[Mad Scottsman]

One of the stupidest posts ever made here. What a moron. I don't know where to begin.

The greatest problem with calling President Bush a fascist is that: 1) he is not; 2) the United States Constitution and the 22nd Amendment prevents fascism; 3) unlike Germany or Italy in there heyday, there are Republican party members who are critical of some of President Bush's ideas; 4) while many on the left do not like the right leaning media, or capital based media would be more accurate, President Bush and/or the federal government does not control the media. THE LIST GOES ON.

THE MAIN REASON WHY PRESIDENT BUSH IS NOT A FASCIST:

JANUARY 20, 2009.

On this day. at noon, George W. Bush will become a private citizen. Period. PERIOD!!!

The nature of fascism is that you could not make such a similar statement with Hitler, et. al.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Mad Scottsman
One of the stupidest posts ever made here. What a moron. I don't know where to begin.

You might start with a somewhat more comradely tone. I daresay we have our fair share of "morons" on this board (I could name a few!)...but little is gained by identifying them. They usually know who they are. :D


...the United States Constitution and the 22nd Amendment prevents fascism.

That's a very foolish illusion. Should the American capitalist class decide that Christian fascism is "the way to go", they will brush aside the constitution without a second's thought.

You should not think a piece of paper, no matter what happens to be written on it, will "protect" you or any of us from fascism.


...unlike Germany or Italy in their heyday, there are Republican party members who are critical of some of President Bush's ideas

That doesn't mean very much; there were Nazis who were critical of Hitler and I'm sure there were probably Italian fascists who were critical of Mussolini.

Anyway, I think we all agree that Bush is not "Hitler" -- they are entirely different personalities who play very different public roles.

What concerns us is not Bush the public figure, but the present political climate in the United States and what may happen over the next decade or so.


JANUARY 20, 2009.

On this day. at noon, George W. Bush will become a private citizen. Period. PERIOD!!!

Yes, that's the schedule. That's what's "supposed to happen".

We'll see if it does...and how things look then.

Right now, they look pretty grim.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[cormacobear]

I f Bush succedes in acheiving a constitutional amendmant that prevents the defenition of marriage from including gays, it will be the first constitutional amendmant in the history of the United States that restricts freedoms rather than enhancing them. There goes your constitution. But of coursenone of this is new it's been in the works for more than a century, before the second world war the American right worked with Nazi's just as they did after the war, learning and applying many similair techniques mostly abroad but occasionally at home. When we say Bush is a fascist we mean the Neo-cons are fascists, because whether Bush is a puppet or a key player the inner circle he represents have been at work on moving america into the authoritarian Capitalist corner of the Political grid.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:21 AM
I f Bush succedes in acheiving a constitutional amendmant that prevents the defenition of marriage from including gays, it will be the first constitutional amendmant in the history of the United States that restricts freedoms rather than enhancing them.
Well, there was the 18th Amendment (Prohibition.) But the general trend for most of U.S. history has been expansion of democratic rights, yes. And since gay marriage has been illegal, and the attempt is to change that....it's another attempt to expand rights.

The anti-gay marriage amendment has approximately a snowball's chance in hell of passing, like the anti-flag burning amendment and similar excercises in demagogy, and Bush knows that perfectly well.


There goes your constitution.

Quite a leap! Equating one restriction of democratic rights to the complete abolition of all rights.


But of coursenone of this is new it's been in the works for more than a century, before the second world war the American right worked with Nazi's just as they did after the war,

Were Roosevelt and Truman part of the "American right"? Seems to me they were liberals.

Not a minor point....both parties of big business are part of chipping away at democratic rights, which does prepare the ground for actual fascists.

[cormacobear]

By Globall standards yes they were the right. the U.S. Democratic party has far more in common with the Canadian Conservative party than it does with the liberals.

And the loss of one right is one too many it all has to start somewhere.

The words of nazi concentration camp survivor Pastor Martin Niemoller seem apt here.

"First the came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
Beacause I was not a jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
Beacause I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for Me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."

That was meant as a warning to be ever vigilant against moves to the Authoritarian Right.

[Jersey Devil]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 08:21 AM
I f Bush succedes in acheiving a constitutional amendmant that prevents the defenition of marriage from including gays, it will be the first constitutional amendmant in the history of the United States that restricts freedoms rather than enhancing them.
What are you talking about? This "amendment" has never been discussed in Congress. It was just typical political rhetoric to get votes.


There goes your constitution.
What?



But of coursenone of this is new it's been in the works for more than a century, before the second world war the American right worked with Nazi's just as they did after the war,
Someone has been googling Prescott Bush hasn't he. The HUAC was originally created to hunt down Nazi's and German-Americans were detained during the WW2. Yes, Operation Paperclip existed and the U.S took in Nationalist Socialists as did the Soviet Union and Argentina. What is sad is that you seem to think this is some recent news that only a small group of individuals are aware of.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Jersey [email protected] 5 2005, 04:38 AM
What are you talking about? This "amendment" has never been discussed in Congress. It was just typical political rhetoric to get votes.

Someone has been googling Prescott Bush hasn't he. What is sad is that you seem to think this is some recent news that only a small group of individuals are aware of.
The fact that he suggested it is part of the public record and therefore open to criticism.

I've never heard of Prescott Bush but I'll have a look if you suggest. There was nothing in my statement to suggest I thought this was new information. In fact I've seen it mentioned hundreds of times on the forum. it doesn't change the fact that Nazi's were brought to America and hired to collaberate with American Intelligence Agency's. Try Reading some Chomsky. he may not be the most political savvy individual but he is one of the finest American history researchers. Or william Blum or a dozen more I can think of the connection isn't new only the events and players are.

[Man of the Century]

Redstar, please get real...

All Americans are raised on the notion that the peaceful transfer of executive power from one individual to another is a cornerstone of America, and has made us the envy of the world in this regard (regardless of recent loathing of Bush worldwide.)

Since March, 1797, no person has ever tried to prevent this. There were discussions to my knowledge on three occasions:

In the summer of 1796, after President Washington was determined not to seak a thrid term, Secretary of the Treasury Hammilton suggested to him not to step down, that the Army would follow any of his orders, and that it was too great a humiliation to return to private citizenship. President Washington declined the suggestion. (He died during the Adams term.)

President Lincoln toyed with the idea of postponing the election of 1864, due to the national crisis, far deeper than we face today. Yet Lincoln held that election (and went to bed believing that the Democrats under the MacLellan peace platform, would beat him. Lincoln won soundly.)

There is a story that President Nixon, faced with having to comply with the federal court's order to turn over various documents to the special prosecutor, turned to Elichman or Halderman and asked them what to do, and one of them said, "Well, there's always the Army." (Perhaps tongue in cheek, we'll never know.)

Redstar, YOU KNOW President Bush will not try and violate the 22nd Amendment. How absurd. That's why I use harsh language on the origin of this post's thesis. Recently, the USSC has ruled against Bush on a number of issues dealing with detention of persons at Cuba, etc. A fascist ruler would not stand for such a thing, and the army would have arrested members of the USSC by now.

If President Bush is a fascist, then all U.S. Presidents were so, and Lincoln and F.D. Roosevelt both held far greater force of power than Bush, as did Andrew Jackson and U.S. Grant for the matter of that.

Bush has about 3 1/2 years left in office, and you couldn't say that about ANY fascist at ANY time.

Scott

[Vallegrande]

For some reason the Bush lineage, i.e. Prescott Bush and so on, were in cahoots with the German regime from the first world war to who know when. I just remember hearing it was Prescott Bush who sold war supplies to Germany, and it was after him that the US made the Trading Under The Enemy Act of 1917. Im just saying there was a connection between these two groups.


One of the most famous applications of the law was the seizure of the Union Banking Corporation by the American government in October 1942, on the basis that it was a Nazi "front group". The Union Banking Corporation was operated by Prescott Bush. Wikipedia (http://www.mintruth.com/wiki/index.php?Trading%20with%20the%20Enemy%20Act)

So I can safely say that Prescott Bush was in suspicion of being a Nazi cooperative.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Man of the Century
Redstar, please get real...

I do the best I can...admittedly not to everyone's satisfaction. :)


All Americans are raised on the notion that the peaceful transfer of executive power from one individual to another is a cornerstone of America...

So...?

What you describe is a custom...not a natural law. It was invented by people and can be overturned or abolished by people.

It's nowhere been the custom of people to remove the heads of kings...but it has happened nonetheless.


Redstar, YOU KNOW President Bush will not try and violate the 22nd Amendment.

I "know" no such thing. I know only what I expressly said: Bush is "scheduled" to leave office on January 20, 2009 -- that is what is "supposed" to happen.

If another supporter of Christian fascism is "elected" in 2008, that certainly increases the probability of Bush leaving office "on schedule"...even to near certainty.

If, on the other hand, there is wide-spread revulsion at Christian fascism and the Republicans suffer a dramatic defeat in 2008, well...who knows?


The question is really one of the threat of Christian fascism: is it a clear and present danger to the "normal" functioning of bourgeois "democracy" or is it not?

Most people, at this point, don't think it is...and expect "business as usual" as a consequence.

The Avakianist RCP thinks that it very definitely is a clear and present danger that we in the left had better start fighting now.

When the RCP first raised this, I was pretty skeptical myself...

Next: Christian Fascism? (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1103420300&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Now, I am...uneasy. Christian fascism is beginning to look rather serious to me.

Protesting Christian Fascism (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1114524630&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

In addition to the links in the latter collection, you might wish to consult the May 2005 issue of Harper's Magazine...there's a 20-page report on the rise of Christian fascism and how it's happened.

The present situation is not good...and it would be folly to think that it couldn't get much worse.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Son of the Revolution]

Bush won't violate the 22nd amendment. His masters don't need him to. The U.S. is a doctatorship, but bush is not the dictator. The dictator is the corporate elite. The only parties who stand a chance in the U.S. elections are both in bed with the big businessmen.

And what the nazis did during the war is irrelevant(to this discussion). The original post was comparing the mood in the U.S. nowadays to the mood before the war. At that stage, the nazis hadn't yet commited the vast majority of their atrocities.


The comparison doesn't exist; Bush is a cocksucker, yes, but a fascist he is not.

Whats wrong with sucking cocks? :P

[Vallegrande]

Maybe bush did suck on something, but thats only known to the Skull and Bones. But see, Bush is ashamed of his past, so blackmail is his solution to keep the secret. I just know that the skull society uses blackmail to keep the participants in check, because of the sexual "taboos" they all have to participate in. I dont know much about skull & bone, but it seems like thats the case.
And another program, the COINTELPRO, also tried to blackmail Martin L King, Jr, but he spoke out anyways, and so they had to murk him as their only solution. And wasn't that during Hoover's time? People suspected him of having homosexual relationships as well, but that was kept under wraps.
Not that homosexuality is bad, but the people who use it to shame or blackmail others are evil fuckers, and I think Bush is among those.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Mad [email protected] 5 2005, 01:27 AM


3) unlike Germany or Italy in there heyday, there are Republican party members who are critical of some of President Bush's ideas.





What about Admiral Canaris and Niedermayer of nazi germany?

[Man of the Century]

Son of the Revolution,

What youare describing is an oligarchy, which is what Cuba, the old Soviet Union or China is: a small group of leaders who pass on executive power to those with their point of view.

The United States is not a dictatorship. That would be Cuba also, to a degree, the old Iraq and other countries where one person embodies both the legislative and executive power.

[red_che]

QUOTE

We who live in the post-World War II period possess an immensely valuable symbol, even if we don't understand it or use it effectively: the example of Nazi Germany.

[...]

The 2004 election revealed that many American citizens are as intellectually and morally incompetent as the Germans in 1930. Such incompetence and ignorance always lead to tyranny. The United States is exactly at the same point in national degradation as the German nation in the 1930s when Hitler assumed absolute power and began his regime of mass murder and war crimes against the people of the world.

[...]

We've been conditioned to see Germany under Hitler as an unquestionably horrible example of dictatorial tyranny and inhuman barbarity--and to see our present American culture as completely opposite to that of Nazi Germany. And we like to think that if a tyranny such as that in Germany under the Nazi regime were present and growing in America we'd unquestionably be able to see it.

So it's a shock when we realize: most people living in Nazi Germany didn't see the tyranny! They thought it was the best time of their lives!

[...]

To the Germans in Mayer's study, each occasion of Nazi violence was worse than the last, but only a little worse. So they waited for the one shocking event, thinking that they would join with others if or when it happened. But as the violence escalated, no one rose up to condemn the concentration camps and general oppression. No one wanted to act alone, and when a mass uprising failed to occur, the common people just let events take their course. They progressively lost the ability to understand the horror of Nazism and the will to oppose it.

Similarly, we don't see the growing fascism in America and the world because we don't want to see it and because it happens somewhat gradually, which makes it almost imperceptible to those who don't think critically. Everything in your society--Nazi Germany or twenty-first century America--seems so ordinary.

[...]

Hitler was able to brand anyone he considered an enemy and see that that person was summarily executed. How long will it be before President Bush begins to brand as "terrorist" any US citizen who disagrees with him?

America 2005 is Germany 1930





Yes. But not only Germany 1930. We may may also say the Roman Empire and Germany 1930 combined is America 2005. US imperialism has more atrocities to human race today than the two countries/empires combined.

American Imperialism is not just a media-influenced thing. It is a socio-economic-political condition. In the US Imperialist hierarchy, there stand on the top the big Monopoly Bourgeoisie being represented by the their President (whoever it is sitting in the White House). It is being protected and defended by the State machineries consisting primarily of its army, its legislature, its judiciary and all governmental agencies which can be called at any time to crush its enemies or those who pose to threaten it. Around it are its other protective wallings consist of the media, educational system, church and all other cultural aspects used to brainwash its people.

[Son of the Revolution]

What you are describing is an oligarchy, which is what Cuba, the old Soviet Union, or China is: a small group of leaders who pass on executive power to those with their point of view.

The United States is not a dictatorship. That would be Cuba also, to a lesser degree, the old Iraq and other countries where one person embodies both the legislative and executive power.

An oligarchy can also be called an oligarchical dictatorship

[986Boobop424]

Yes, so America is being "oppressed," turning into a "dictatorship."

But do I see any of you douchebags out there doing something about it? No, you're just going to hang around here until you're 35 years old and then you'll get a job at a corporate office in a cubicle. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Son of the Revolution]

What do you suggest we do? Bomb the white house?

[bunk]

it would be a start...

[Son of the Revolution]

it would be a start...

True, but nuking an IMF summit (or FTAA or or World Bank or G7 or G8...) would be an even better one

[viva le revolution]

He's right, some action must be taken. Any form of protest or something. There has already been one in Lahore, Pakistan by the marxist movement here.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Man of the [email protected] 5 2005, 11:23 AM
Redstar, please get real...

All Americans are raised on the notion that the peaceful transfer of executive power from one individual to another is a cornerstone of America, and has made us the envy of the world in this regard (regardless of recent loathing of Bush worldwide.)

Since March, 1797, no person has ever tried to prevent this.
There's a first time for everything. The U.S. is not so unique - older than most bourgeois democracies (maybe all but Holland and Britain), but frankly 200 years is nothing to brag about in the long view of history. Other bourgeois democracies have become fascist.

All kinds of people in 1930s Europe argued along the same lines as you are. It's patriotic mythology, nothing more.

But contrary to Redstar's post, there's no special reason to think Bush would refuse to acknowledge an electoral loss. The ruling class can continue with its current course just as well under Democrats as under Republicans, and none of Bush's actions so far are outside the framework of imperialist "democracy".

The function of the RCP's rhetoric - and perhaps Redstar's - about "Christian fascism" is to cover up a drift towards backhanded support to the Democratic Party. "Widespread revulsion towards Christian fascism"? Is that a way of putting a positive spin on voting for Democrats, or what?

[Fair_Female_Tribe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 05:16 AM
Why it's a serious mistake to call things fascist or Nazi which ain't. (http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/fascism.html) Bush is not a fascist.


Well, he is a descent christian man, right?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
The function of the RCP's rhetoric - and perhaps Redstar's - about "Christian fascism" is to cover up a drift towards backhanded support to the Democratic Party. "Widespread revulsion towards Christian fascism"? Is that a way of putting a positive spin on voting for Democrats, or what?

Well, I've argued that Christian fascists should be met with large and hostile demonstrations by the left.

I think you are familiar with my position on bourgeois electoral "politics".

As to whether or not the RCP will "back into" supporting the Democrats, I think, in all fairness, that remains to be seen.

It's certainly a possibility...but at this point, that's all it is -- a possibility.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[encephalon]

you know.. in all the arguments over the misuse of the term, I've never actually seen anyone who had a problem with the use of fascist actually give a concrete definition. They simply point to Hitler and say "see? That's a fascist."

Hitler, however, was more than a mere fascist (mere used ironically, btw). A better example of a fascist is Mussolini, who codified much of the fascist doctrine. Both may have been fascists, but only in the same manner that Enver Hoxha and Rosa Luxemburg were both communists. The truth is that Hitler and the Nazi party added a lot to the mixture that automatically became identified with fascism, and though falsely identified as fascism alone (eg without the particular additions of nazi warmongering), it is understandable nonetheless.

Trotsky argued that in times of crisis, the petit bourgeoisie will flock to fascist policies, led by large-scale capitalists. Many workers, disillusioned with a movement smashed by the state, will also seek refuge in the rampantly nationalistic, anti-socialist, anti-union rhetoric of fascism.

So the best way to really consider the question of "how fascist is Bush?" is to simply read the documents pertaining to fascism by the founder thereof: Mussolini; then compare Bush's policies, overt as well as covert alike, with that of mussolini.

The Doctrine of Fascism, by Benito Mussolini, 1932 (http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm)

For the sake of clarity, I'm going to largely ignore the more theoretical, spiritual statements and rhetoric. Be aware that they exist, however.


1. "Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts"

While Bush does not overtly express anti-individualistic sentiment, he sure as hell watches out for anyone not waving a flag. Need I remind anyone of his "with us or against us" mentality? That does not apply externally alone. It is an internal policy within the US as well. And although I know quite well "liberal" meant something entirely different to Mussolini, it's a rather interesting coincidence that both demonized the same word.


2. The rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.

I would argue that once again Bush denies carrying this view yet confirms it in his actions in a rather 1984 manner. While he waves the banner of democracy, he supports in every way the usurpation of a citizen's private life by the state. Nor does he and the Neo-cons respect opposition to their goals, and will do everything within their own power to supress or destroy that opposition, even when it differs little from their own. Filibuster? Bah. We'll see about that. UN condemnation? You think. Bankruptcy? How 'bout debtor's prison instead? The truth is, the neo-cons in the US are not out to cooperate in a democratic fashion. They want nothing less of total control.


3. No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.

unity. unity. unity. That's the mantra repeated daily by the US ruling class. How dare someone oppose? That's treason. And I don't think it's a secret that Bush is against trade unions. In fact, long ago labor unions in the united states were forced to be regulated by the State--as the AFL-CIO. All others are not recognized as "official" unions, and not legally allowed to "negotiate" on behalf of workers (in quotes because the AFL-CIO does little negotiation). This is disturbingly similar to what the Italian fascists did: crush all unions, create a single union run by the State. That alone scares me more than much of US history.


4. Grouped according to their several interests, individuals form classes; they form trade-unions when organized according to their several economic activities; but first and foremost they form the State, which is no mere matter of numbers, the suns of the individuals forming the majority. Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number; but it is the purest form of democracy if the nation be considered as it should be from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one, and ending to express itself in the conscience and the will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically molded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing, as one conscience and one will, along the self same line of development and spiritual formation. Not a race, nor a geographically defined region, but a people, historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality.

Note the "not a race, but a people" part. This is a core aspect of neocon propaganda (for those outside the US.. try looking for some of the commercials put forth by the state inside the US). A big part of the rhetoric, in fact, has increasingly been what they're calling "cultural warfare." And I don't think they're hiding much with that, unlike most other terms used here. The far right, of course, is the protagonist in the war. Guess who's the enemy? Even worse, a great many working class people suck this all up and spew it out word for word. Don't be so quick to dismiss the mentality of the american public vs. that of 1930s germany. Although I don't think a wholly totalitarian regime is yet possible in the United State, it is stirring. And much of the working class is eager to follow. While they're unified with blind rhetoric of "freedom and democracy," all opposition is systematically destroyed. Is it no wonder that big business supports the neocons as much as they did fascist Italy?


5. Grouped according to their several interests, individuals form classes; they form trade-unions when organized according to their several economic activities; but first and foremost they form the State, which is no mere matter of numbers, the suns of the individuals forming the majority. Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number; but it is the purest form of democracy if the nation be considered as it should be from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one, and ending to express itself in the conscience and the will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically molded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing, as one conscience and one will, along the self same line of development and spiritual formation. Not a race, nor a geographically defined region, but a people, historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality.

Do I truly need to make the connection here? Those of you outside the US live with this US policy far more directly than I.


6. Fascism, in short, is not only a law-giver and a founder of institutions, but an educator and a promoter of spiritual life. It aims at refashioning not only the forms of life but their content - man, his character, and his faith. To achieve this propose it enforces discipline and uses authority, entering into the soul and ruling with undisputed sway. Therefore it has chosen as its emblem the Lictor’s rods, the symbol of unity, strength, and justice.

Aside from the Lictor's rods, I would say that not only is the US slowly making its way towards an end as this, but that it isn't much hidden either. While financial life should be unregulated (sic), personal life is increasingly under control of the State. The media, in turn, further pushes this goal: conformity, obedience, nationalism.

--------------------------------------------

I'm not going to go on. That's only the first section of the document; about 25% of it. The truth is that a fascist movement, perhaps not in name but deed, is in fact growing remarkably fast in the United States as the class gap once again becomes strikingly apparent. In a very simplistic description, fascism can perhaps be described as the pairing of the extreme right with powerful capitalists in the government, leading the sway of the masses with nationalist rhetoric and religious appeal. It is anti-socialist, anti-labor, anti-communist, anti-opposition.

I would not go as far as saying Bush is purely a fascist; the movement, however, is growing at an alarming rate. To fight it, that has to be acknowledged. And I agree, leftists tend to use the term "fascist" all too loosely when convenient as a blanket term in much the same way conservatives use "liberal." This does not invalidate the statement, however. Bush does support very fascist policies in action, although he denies it in speech. In much the same way some want to find another name for communism, a friendly face has been put onto what would otherwise be known as borderline fascist policy.

I most definitely would not call Bush a Nazi. He is most certainly not a Nazi, nor a hitler. Yet I hesitate to dismiss the notion that he is at least cousin to fascism. The actions of the neocon movement overall--as well as statements of their principles--slowly but surely reflects a genuine push towards a fascist system.

If you fail to recognize it the second time around (as a historical era, not the second regime), then we will lose our movement again and again repeatedly. As disheartening as it is, fascism feeds upon the insecurity of the petit bourgeoisie, the power of the capitalists and the utter disillusionment of the working class. We cannot let anything like it happen again. But sure enough, it grows and many deny it. As it happened in Germany, communists won't do anything of substance about it until its too late.. perhaps because they didn't recognize it at face value.

The rise of fascism is an inevitable force in class conflict; at least according to Trotsky's analysis. Inevitable or not, we simply cannot let it once again take hold, whether it's called fascism or freedom.