The 14 Points of Facism

[Mephisto]

In "Fascism Anyone?," Laurence Britt identifies 14 characteristics common to fascist regimes. His comparisons of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet yielded this list of 14 "identifying characteristics of fascism."

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
____________

Pass out the hobnail boots and Praise the Lord!

[Art Vandelay]

Fourteen indentifying characteristics of someone who hasn't figured out yet that comparing Bush to Hitler shows that you have absolutely no credibility:

1. Your name is Mephisto.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Fourteen indentifying characteristics of someone who hasn't figured out yet that comparing Bush to Hitler shows that you have absolutely no credibility:

1. Your name is Mephisto.

Laurence Britt made the comparison, I merely passed on the site, but then distinctions like that often seem to escape the conservative crowd who are still hoping that WMD will be found in Iraq!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Fourteen indentifying characteristics of someone who hasn't figured out yet that comparing Bush to Hitler shows that you have absolutely no credibility:

1. Your name is Mephisto. :D

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Fourteen indentifying characteristics of someone who hasn't figured out yet that comparing Bush to Hitler shows that you have absolutely no credibility:

1. Your name is Mephisto. Don't you just love a thread that starts out validating Godwyn's law in the first post?

[demon]

Godwyn`s Law is the last refuge of the soundrel:p

[normdoering]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Fourteen indentifying characteristics of someone who hasn't figured out yet that comparing Bush to Hitler shows that you have absolutely no credibility:


What do you expect from someone who hasn't figured out what facism is yet?

Hitler wasn't the only facist. In fact, I think that Italian guy Adolf used to call Moose defined the term... go figure what his definition means.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually, this is a beautiful demonstration of Godwin's Law.

Godwin's Law states that once Nazis have been brought up, useful discussion has ended and you might as well go home. The Nazis were mentioned in the first post, and indeed there has been absolutely no worthwhile discussion since.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Fourteen indentifying characteristics of someone who hasn't figured out yet that comparing Bush to Hitler shows that you have absolutely no credibility:

1. Your name is Mephisto.
Nice ad hom, Art.

How 'bout speaking to the 14 points in an objective, useful manner for those of us who like the conflict of ideas, not pissing contests? Thanks.

[normdoering]

Originally posted by SezMe
Nice ad hom, Art.

How 'bout speaking to the 14 points in an objective, useful manner ....

How about we list the points first?

1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
...constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

That seems to be true of all governments and it is a matter of degree. Is a little symbolism okay? When does it start to get pathological? I don't think American use of symbols is as bad as a facist state would be... yet.

2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need."

Hmmm... Gitmo, "patriot" act... maybe we really have crossed that line?

3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

Terrorists aren't just a scapegoat.

They then list some books by Ann Coulter. But isn't the extreme left also scapegoating Republicans in a similar manner?

4.) Supremacy of the Military

Well, whatever the neocons may have wanted, they ain't going to get that. The Army is now having a hard time recruiting.

5.) Rampant Sexism

Why can't there be a non-sexist facism?

6.) Controlled Mass Media

What's a journalist to do? The left claims the media is controlled by the right-wing and the right thinks it's controlled by the left-wing. If you present both sides, you present not just alternate opinions, you present alternate realities where the facts are different on each side and truth itself seems an illusion.

7.) Obsession with National Security

Well, the idea of sleeper cells training in your own country to fly your own planes into your own buildings and dying when they do it has got to make anyone paranoid.

8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined

Facism would then be the oldest form of government on this planet.

9.) Corporate Power is Protected

Again, a matter of degree. Some corporate power must be protected or else you have no corporations.

10.) Labor Power is Suppressed

Modern neo-conservatives, like their old conservative counter-parts, are "cheap labor conservatives" and ultimately not friends of the middle class.

11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

Again, isn't this a matter of degree?

12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment

Another matter of degree?

13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

That's always been the case in American politics... hasn't it?

14. Fraudulent Elections

Are our elections frauds?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by RandFan
Don't you just love a thread that starts out validating Godwyn's law in the first post?

I once saw a Usenet post by a guy whose name actually was Hitler. The thread was over before it began.

Jeremy

[Random]

Out of idle curiosity, just when can we start comparing people to Hitler? I mean, if someone is using media manipulation techniques that were used by the Nazis in the mid-thirties, can we mention it? Or do they have to change their name to Adolph, grow a tiny moustache, and start shipping out Jews in boxcars to concentration camps?

I just notice that someone on the left or right will do something, someone else will point out that it is similar to something that Hitler did, and everyone says that it is over the line to make the comparison regardless of whether or not it is factually accurate.

My concern is that by taking all discussion of the rise of the Nazi regime (or the lesser mentioned Stalin regime) off the table, we leave ourselves open for a new disaster. Not because we didn't recognize the warning signs, but because we refused to discuss them.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Random
Out of idle curiosity, just when can we start comparing people to Hitler? I mean, if someone is using media manipulation techniques that were used by the Nazis in the mid-thirties, can we mention it? Or do they have to change their name to Adolph, grow a tiny moustache, and start shipping out Jews in boxcars to concentration camps?

I just notice that someone on the left or right will do something, someone else will point out that it is similar to something that Hitler did, and everyone says that it is over the line to make the comparison regardless of whether or not it is factually accurate.

My concern is that by taking all discussion of the rise of the Nazi regime (or the lesser mentioned Stalin regime) off the table, we leave ourselves open for a new disaster. Not because we didn't recognize the warning signs, but because we refused to discuss them.

Thank you! I'm sure most of the objection to using Hitler's regime as an example wouldn't have raised so many hackles had I been talking about Saddam.

You're right, at what point CAN we compare someone to Hitler (or Stalin)? Godwyn's Law aside, it seems the biggest objection to compatible elements in facist regimes comes only when the comparison includes the U.S.

For the record, I wasn't necessarily comparing Bush to Hitler, I just happen to agree with some of the comparisons. Of course, many here may be blind to all the magnetic "Support Our Troops" stickers on the back of vehicles, all the "God Bless America" bumperstickers, the flags everywhere with the saying, "United We Stand" (I'm considering printing one that says, "Divided We Sit") and John Ashcroft singing the beautiful "The Eagle Flies" song. Perhaps those who objected most to my OP hold these slogans close to their heart.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
Godwyn`s Law is the last refuge of the soundrel:p No, baseless comparisons to Hitler are.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mephisto
Of course, many here may be blind to all the magnetic "Support Our Troops" stickers on the back of vehicles, all the "God Bless America" bumperstickers, the flags everywhere with the saying, "United We Stand" (I'm considering printing one that says, "Divided We Sit") and John Ashcroft singing the beautiful "The Eagle Flies" song. Perhaps those who objected most to my OP hold these slogans close to their heart.

The problem with that is that it would also imply that the United States were in a similar situation during WWII. We saw the exact same things happening then.

Well, except perhaps Ashcroft singing. That is a warning sign, I agree. I'm just not sure of what...

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Random
Out of idle curiosity, just when can we start comparing people to Hitler?

Godwin's Law is not a moral rule, it is just an observation.

According to Godwin's Law you can compare people to Hitler at any time you want to, it is just that afterwards there will be zero intelligent discussion in that thread or subthread. I mean, look at this mess.

[demon]

Mephisto:
"Thank you! I'm sure most of the objection to using Hitler's regime as an example wouldn't have raised so many hackles had I been talking about Saddam."

True.
Von Rumsfeld and Bush do it regularly. Who calls Godwyn`s law on them?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Random
Out of idle curiosity, just when can we start comparing people to Hitler? I mean, if someone is using media manipulation techniques that were used by the Nazis in the mid-thirties, can we mention it? Or do they have to change their name to Adolph, grow a tiny moustache, and start shipping out Jews in boxcars to concentration camps?

I just notice that someone on the left or right will do something, someone else will point out that it is similar to something that Hitler did, and everyone says that it is over the line to make the comparison regardless of whether or not it is factually accurate. I think one should ask what is the prupose of the comparison and what is the agenda of the person making the comparisons? Are the comparisons justified? It would be relatively easy to compare FDR to Hitler. FDR trampled on Civil rights and locked up an entire group of people because of their race (Japanese internment camps). FDR's regime stoked the nations patriotism and used propaganda to further his cause. I would not make such a comparison because such a comparison is not warranted.

Most people want to score political points by tying their opponents to a regime that most of us agree was extremly bad. But as we see with FDR such comparisons are simply choosing which part of the elephant you want to look at to define the elephant. Such comparisons are often idiotic because their agenda is transparent. The lack of objectivity is transparent.

My concern is that by taking all discussion of the rise of the Nazi regime (or the lesser mentioned Stalin regime) off the table, we leave ourselves open for a new disaster. Not because we didn't recognize the warning signs, but because we refused to discuss them. Uh oh, sky is falling again. I've discussed Hitler and the Nazi party plenty on this forum. I've even made comparisons. I so find this type of slipery slope argument sad and disapointing. Not to mention stupid. Google Hitler and you get 7,440,000 posts. Google Nazi and you get 9,010,000. A search of Hitler on this forum yields 4338 posts (show results as posts).

So stop it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
True.
Von Rumsfeld and Bush do it regularly. Who calls Godwyn`s law on them? Tu Quoque. If and when Bush and company does so to play on people's fears and score political points then he is an *********.

[Skeptic]

Laurence Britt made the comparison, I merely passed on the site

Oh. So you didn't SAY Chimp Bushitler, the world's dumbest fascist, is evil. You just QUOTED someone who says Chimp Bushitler, the world's dumbest fascist, is evil.

Enormous difference there, I admit.

Well, except perhaps Ashcroft singing. That is a warning sign, I agree. I'm just not sure of what...

The apocalypse?

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by normdoering
How about we list the points first?

1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
...constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

That seems to be true of all governments and it is a matter of degree. Is a little symbolism okay? When does it start to get pathological? I don't think American use of symbols is as bad as a facist state would be... yet.

Ah, but you're forgetting that the majority of the symbols that have gained popularity since the Bush administration took charge are those that directly or indirectly remind us of 9/11 (or the subsequent non sequitur war in Iraq). It behooves them to keep the fear-factor high. Until then, the majority of American flag bumperstickers were limited to pickup trucks with multiple assault weapons in the rifle rack.

Originally posted by normdoering
2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need."

Hmmm... Gitmo, "patriot" act... maybe we really have crossed that line?

Thank you. I'm sure you won't be labeled by your friends as a liberal reactionary.

Originally posted by normdoering
3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

Terrorists aren't just a scapegoat.

They then list some books by Ann Coulter. But isn't the extreme left also scapegoating Republicans in a similar manner?

I'm probably as far left as you could ever imagine, but I still don't equate Republicans with terrorists. You'll notice in that segment the word LIBERAL is italicized. When did the word "liberal" become synonymous with anti-American? I've heard that word tossed about with such disdain it's as though they mean to say goat-fu*ker, or pedophile.

Originally posted by normdoering
4.) Supremacy of the Military

Well, whatever the neocons may have wanted, they ain't going to get that. The Army is now having a hard time recruiting.

That's true, but before the Iraq debacle, we were very confident that our military wouldn't suffer casualties, and the liberating the Iraqi people wouldn't take long (which it didn't, but we're currently mired in our last excuse for being in Iraq). I think the 1,600 deaths may have put a slight dent in the belief of the supremacy of our military.

Originally posted by normdoering
5.) Rampant Sexism

Why can't there be a non-sexist facism?

There's nothing that says there couldn't be a non-sexist facist regime, but since women apparently lack the ambitions necessary to start a facist regime it probably won't happen soon. If you consider the mindset necessary to be non-sexist (considerate of the feelings of others) you'd realize that a non-sexist facist regime might not work.

Originally posted by normdoering
6.) Controlled Mass Media

What's a journalist to do? The left claims the media is controlled by the right-wing and the right thinks it's controlled by the left-wing. If you present both sides, you present not just alternate opinions, you present alternate realities where the facts are different on each side and truth itself seems an illusion.

Very well said, but what I can't understand is where the undeniable facts (no WMD, we haven't been welcomed as liberators in Iraq [no flowers, no cheering Iraqis, etc.], we ARE involved in torture scandals, the economy is a mess, environmental protection is non-existant, corporations with ties to the White House are currently involved in financial scandals involving millions of dollars in a country we invaded, etc.) are hidden to those who support Der Bush (:D , I did that just for you)? As far as the media, it would be interesting to give them free rein to see who would take up the challenge (I'm Bill O'Reilly here in Fallujah where we're talking to some very happy and liberated . . . BOOM!)

Originally posted by normdoering
7.) Obsession with National Security

Well, the idea of sleeper cells training in your own country to fly your own planes into your own buildings and dying when they do it has got to make anyone paranoid.

Maybe, but not as paranoid as people who use this excuse in light of the war we're in. In my passionately, judgemental manner, I always thought it was either slack-jawed idiots or government spin-meisters who perpetuated this myth. Supposedly 70% of the American people believe that we're in Iraq because they attacked us on 9/11, a belief statements like yours tend to support.


Originally posted by normdoering
8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined

Facism would then be the oldest form of government on this planet.

And so perhaps it is! Maybe that's what the Constitution was deliberately trying to prevent? Maybe that's why it was a problem that the forefathers tried to address directly. I'll give you one guess whose base voter in the last election would support A. bringing prayer back into the schools, B. banning abortion, C. planting the Ten Commandments all over public buildings, D. standing to recite the Lord's Prayer before a high school football game? E. censoring the flm industry, F. teaching creationism in schools, . . . Had enough?

Originally posted by normdoering
9.) Corporate Power is Protected

Again, a matter of degree. Some corporate power must be protected or else you have no corporations.

Sure, it's good for the economy right? But what about lessening the profit margin a bit to keep American jobs in America? This administration has simultaneously put the country in the greatest debt ever, lessened the job security of the average American by outsourcing jobs, and engaged us in a needless war that is costing the taxpayers billions of dollars. How much corporate power "must be protected?" Enough to buy the CEO's son a BMW, or should he just settle for the Ford Escort this year?

Originally posted by normdoering
10.) Labor Power is Suppressed

Modern neo-conservatives, like their old conservative counter-parts, are "cheap labor conservatives" and ultimately not friends of the middle class.

We agree here 100%. And what percentage of the middle class backed Bush in the last election? As I said in #10 above, the average American worker no longer has a stable job market (service jobs NOT included). Because of outsourcing factory workers are no longer safe, and neither are those with careers requiring college degrees, yet the American worker is being asked to shoulder more and more debt and responsibility for the actions of the Bush administration. In the midst of this bleak outlook, the rich are given tax breaks. Go figure!

Originally posted by normdoering
11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

Again, isn't this a matter of degree?

As a artist, I definitely feel the disdain. Being a anti-organized religion/anti-conservative surrealist has been a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing in that I have beaucoup material, and a curse because I live in a SW red state, and if it don't have cactus, horses, an Injun or two, or it don't match the drapes they don't unnerstand it. Do you realize that the fact that you participate in this forum would draw guffaws from some in the current government and immediately associate you with the "Massachusetts Librals?" Dubya has proven (to some) that it's cool to be a fool.

Originally posted by normdoering
12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment

Another matter of degree?

"In his five years as governor of Texas, the state has executed 131 prisoners -- far more than any other state."

http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm

http://www.bushkills.com/

Care to talk about degree now?


Originally posted by normdoering
13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

That's always been the case in American politics... hasn't it?

Pretty much, but Bush's nominations for nearly anything have drawn protests. It seems as though most of his nominiations make about as much sense as putting R. Kelley in charge of the Department of Teen Virginity. Unfortunately, the frequency of these controversial appointments seems an intelligent misdirection, for what purpose I can only imagine

Originally posted by normdoering
14. Fraudulent Elections

Are our elections frauds?

Maybe, a lot of people certainly think so. I can't understand how this question can be asked in the U.S? What has become of us?

"1 million black votes didn't count in the 2000 presidential election
It's not too hard to get your vote lost -- if some politicians want it to be lost"

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/20/ING2976LG61.DTL
________

Now let's see what I know about Fascism . . .

fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.1. often Fascism, 1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. 2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.


[Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.]fas·cistic (f-shstk) adj.
Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, “bundle, (political) group,� but also refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Fascism
Of course there are those on the right who suggest this is a myth, but then there are people on the extreme right who suggest that the holocaust was also a myth.
_______

If there aren't similarities there, then I'll go to church to say a prayer for "our boys" and a prayer that our President won't falter during these difficult (but historic) times, AND I'll donate a dollar to the RNC.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mephisto
If there aren't similarities there, then I'll go to church to say a prayer for "our boys" and a prayer that our President won't falter during these difficult (but historic) times, and I'll donate a dollar to the RNC. Oh, so now it is just similarities. :rolleyes:

[RandFan]

I'm probably as far left as you could ever imagine, but I still don't equate Republicans with terrorists. :i:

No but you DO compare them to Nazis and the Holocaust. Do you really not get the irony. Isn't Nazism antithetical to American values?

[RandFan]

I started to respond to your post mephisto. But your argument is so poor and lacking in objectivity and substance that I think it insulting to have to respond. Largely rhetorical you don't make a case. You mostly make quips and offer anecdotes. Is this really the level of debate that we have come to expect at JREF?

I've seen much better strung together non sequiturs at conspiracy theory sites. Do you really stand behind your 14 points?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by RandFan
Oh, so now it is just similarities. :rolleyes:

The logic: fascists are patriots (or whatever), Bush is a patriot, therefore Bush is a fascist. And they laugh at my free energy machine, they laughed at Galileo, therefore I am like Gallileo.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by RandFan
:i:

No but you DO compare them to Nazis and the Holocaust. Do you really not get the irony. Isn't Nazism antithetical to American values?

Yes, I do. Terrorists are rarely as organized or as well-equipped as an army. We didn't invade Iraq with a group of guys in hijacked airplanes. Yes, as a matter of fact, Nazism IS antithetical to American values, I'm surprised your irony meter didn't detect that.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by RandFan
Oh, so now it is just similarities. :rolleyes:

I don't know where I indicated that the 14 characteristics of fascism were solidly entrenched in our government, only that there are similarities between the 14 characteristics and things I've seen in our government.

Please keep in mind that I didn't write these characteristics (I'd be interested in what characteristics YOU think make up a fascist government), I just happen to agree that they exist to some degree in our current administration.

I'm also sorry if I can't provide more solid evidence for my beliefs. I dont' have access to a source I can blame for faulty intelligence.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mephisto
Yes, I do. Terrorists are rarely as organized or as well-equipped as an army. We didn't invade Iraq with a group of guys in hijacked airplanes. Yes, as a matter of fact, Nazism IS antithetical to American values, I'm surprised your irony meter didn't detect that. I don't unerstand your point or your position in this post. Are you saying that it is ok to compare Republicans to Nazis but not to terrorists?

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by RandFan
I've discussed Hitler and the Nazi party plenty on this forum. I've even made comparisons. I so find this type of slipery slope argument sad and disapointing.

Well that explains it. I was raised in a primarily oral tradition, and the nuances of English sometimes escape me. I'm still not clear at what point I can admit to bringing up an unpopular subject, and use that subject in support of an assertion then chastize someone else for doing it. I can understand why you must find this type of slippery slope argument so sad and disappointing . . . I mean, it must remind you of the days when YOU used to discuss Hitler and the Nazi party on this forum.

[normdoering]

Originally posted by Skeptic
... they laugh at my free energy machine, they laughed at Galileo, therefore I am like Gallileo.

Yea, but they only laughed at Galileo when he was doing his sardonic impersonation of Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino. They laugh at you for other reasons.

[normdoering]

Originally posted by RandFan
:i: Isn't Nazism antithetical to American values?

Is it? What American values, exactly, are antithetical to Nazism and facism? And what Republican values are antithetical to Nazism and facism?

Please explain.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mephisto
Well that explains it. I was raised in a primarily oral tradition, and the nuances of English sometimes escape me. I'm still not clear at what point I can admit to bringing up an unpopular subject, and use that subject in support of an assertion then chastize someone else for doing it. I can understand why you must find this type of slippery slope argument so sad and disappointing . . . I mean, it must remind you of the days when YOU used to discuss Hitler and the Nazi party on this forum. What is so difficult to understand? Read my post {sigh}

RandFan
I think one should ask what is the prupose of the comparison and what is the agenda of the person making the comparisons? Are the comparisons justified? It would be relatively easy to compare FDR to Hitler. FDR trampled on Civil rights and locked up an entire group of people because of their race (Japanese internment camps). FDR's regime stoked the nations patriotism and used propaganda to further his cause. I would not make such a comparison because such a comparison is not warranted.

Most people want to score political points by tying their opponents to a regime that most of us agree was extremly bad. But as we see with FDR such comparisons are simply choosing which part of the elephant you want to look at to define the elephant. Such comparisons are often idiotic because their agenda is transparent. The lack of objectivity is transparent. emphasis added

I'm not saying that comparisons can never be made. I'm saying that comparisons that are so transparently political are stupid.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by normdoering
Is it? What American values, exactly, are antithetical to Nazism and facism? And what Republican values are antithetical to Nazism and facism?

Please explain. I'm not certain I can take you seriously? Are you kidding? You don't know?

ETA: Arrogance on my part, please to forgive. Where do you live and are you familiar with American history its constitution and its founding?

[normdoering]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm not certain I can take you seriously? Are you kidding? You don't know?

What I think I know isn't relevant to what you think you know. I don't see deeper American values being all that antithetical to Nazism and facism. I only see surface posturing about values that are supposedly antithetical to Nazism and facism but really aren't.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by normdoering
What I think I know isn't relevant to what you think you know. I don't see deeper American values being all that antithetical to Nazism and facism. I only see surface posturing about values that are supposedly antithetical to Nazism and facism but really aren't. You "see"? What do you "see"? Your sight seems awfully narrow if not downright blind. Perhaps it would be best to take of your blinders of bias and but on glasses of objectivity.

We are a nation that has been tested on Civil rights. Blacks marched in the streets to demand the promises of the Constitution. They fought in the courts of law. Women to, as well as other minorities. Separation of church and state has been challenged as has other such instances. Each of these has by and large yielded to our better nature as Lincoln held that they someday would. We stand as a nation that has fought for freedom and had the willingness to face our sins and errors and correct them though it often took enforcement of the law first.
Freedom of speech.

The right of redress.

The right to protest.

Freedom of association.

Freedom to assemble.

Protection of civil rights.

These are not just words on paper. These are rights protected and enjoyed every single day. Yes, there are problems. FDR did use nationalism during WWII. He did intern thousands of Japanese Americans. McCarthy wrongly destroyed the reputations of many simply based on associations. We DO make mistakes. We don't claim to be perfect. But we hold the above rights to be inviolate. The Nazis did not.

You've made a claim. You've said these rights don't really exist if I understand you correctly. Please demonstrate your claim.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by normdoering
What I think I know isn't relevant to what you think you know. I don't see deeper American values being all that antithetical to Nazism and facism. I only see surface posturing about values that are supposedly antithetical to Nazism and facism but really aren't.

This is an interesting thread but unless you relent and explain your points more clearly as to how our system is enought like that of Nazism for the stated comparision to be valid in the context of the discussion, then I don't think any progress is going to be made. We can always make comparisions: Hitler liked peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and so do I! Ergo, I am like Hitler? I'm sure your points are more in context but unless they really add to the debate, rather than distract from it, they make for very disinterested lurkers, such as myself.

It's ALL about the lurkers.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by RandFan
These are not just words on paper. These are rights protected and enjoyed every single day. Yes, there are problems. FDR did use nationalism during WWII. He did intern thousands of Japanese Americans. McCarthy wrongly destroyed the reputations of many simply based on associations. We DO make mistakes. We don't claim to be perfect. But we hold the above rights to be inviolate. The Nazis did not. It should be noted that McCarthy was discredited and his ideals rejected, though to be honest,not before much damage was done. It should also be noted that the Japanese that were interred or their descendants were compensated. While this cannot erase the terrible wrong it does show that we do hold dear such values even if we go off track from time to time.

[curi0us]

Originally posted by RandFan 6-01-04
Many feminists are Fascist in their thinking. Many right-wingers are Fascist in their thinking. Yes I realize that there are differences between Nazism and Fascism but where those ideas overlap is where you will find feminazi.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41355&highlight=feminazi

^That's from a thread about Rush Limbugah, it's worth looking at Limbaugh's own specific words on feminazis:

I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. The term describes any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion.

A feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed. Their unspoken reasoning is quite simple. Abortion is the single greatest avenue for militant women to exercise their quest for power and advance their belief that men aren�t necessary. Nothing matter but me, says the feminazi; the is an unviable tissue mass. Feminazis have adopted abortion as a kind of sacrament for their religion/politics of alienation and bitterness.
Source: The Way Things Ought To Be, p.192-93 Jul 2, 1992
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671751506/002-9577112-9830429?v=glance

Originally posted by RandFan
:i:

No but you DO compare them to Nazis and the Holocaust. Do you really not get the irony. Isn't Nazism antithetical to American values?

Either abortion in America is a "holocaust" and Limbaugh's Nazi comparisons are vaild and we are antithetical to our own values . . . or Limbaugh's nazi comparisons are form of demonization propoganda that actually are an aspect of fascism, and his HUGE popularity is indicative that fascism can be quite successful in America.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by normdoering

1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
...constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.


When the first point is this naive........

This one reveals the bias of the author. The whole streets lined with american flags thing died down long ago. It was simply a solidarity showing but the main point is it was done by _people_ and not _government_. There isn't an excessive nationalistic symbol campaign being done by the government.

Honestly, this wreaks of high school wanna-be intellectualism. Keep this kind of crap off the forum. Bush is Hitler and here's how in 14 points! geez

[RandFan]

Originally posted by curi0us
Either abortion in America is a "holocaust" and Limbaugh's Nazi comparisons are vaild and we are antithetical to our own values . . . or Limbaugh's nazi comparisons are form of demonization propoganda that actually are an aspect of fascism, and his HUGE popularity is indicative that fascism can be quite successful in America. No, bad logic. How do you get that from my statement?

Originally posted by RandFan 6-01-04
Many feminists are Fascist in their thinking. Many right-wingers are Fascist in their thinking. Yes I realize that there are differences between Nazism and Fascism but where those ideas overlap is where you will find feminazi. I stand by this statement.

ETA: Thank you for finding examples where I make comparisons.

[corplinx]

That site is a laugh riot.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm

On that page that go out of their way to insinuate that PNAC infiltrated the government to make it easier for 911 to happen so they could start the neo-con agenda.

However, corplinx's law (which was invented to negate this sort of crap during the F-911 fiasco) says that if you intentionally go out of your way to lead people to think something without directly making the insinuation or innuendo, then it should it should be noted that this is exactly what you meant you big weasel.

In other words, its a woo conspiracy site hiding under a thin veil of satire.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by normdoering
What do you expect from someone who hasn't figured out what facism is yet?

Hitler wasn't the only facist. In fact, I think that Italian guy Adolf used to call Moose defined the term... go figure what his definition means. Nobody has worked out what fascism means. It was a catch-all term used to refer to various anti-democratic, anti-socialist movements that emerged after the Great War. Mussolini was the first to name his ideology, so fascism was the word chosen. Had Nazism emerged first we'd probably use the term volkisch rather than fascist.

When I saw the thread-title I was dubious about there being 14 commonalities to be found. No 8 - Religion and Government are Intertwined - doesn't really apply to Nazism, despite its origins in Austria and Catholic Germany. Nos 1 and 7 - Nationalism and Nation Security - are hardly distinct. No 5 - Rampant Sexism - is as about as distinctive as breathing air and eating food. Apart from the election issue, these points could apply to almost any absolute monarchy.

Methinks this list has been constructed more with an eye to dissing the Bush Administration than a philosophical analysis of fascism. All the same, he misses out Reactionary, which is the most obvious common feature of fascism to my mind and clearly applies to the Bushies.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Mephisto
There's nothing that says there couldn't be a non-sexist facist regime, but since women apparently lack the ambitions necessary to start a facist regime it probably won't happen soon. If you consider the mindset necessary to be non-sexist (considerate of the feelings of others) you'd realize that a non-sexist facist regime might not work. In fascist societies, the individual is devalued and the nation/race/religion is magnified. People are meant to have their roles in society, and gender is a very obvious basis for assigning roles. Kinder, Kirch und Kuche is the usual role assigned to women, but generally in a fascist state there will be separate gender roles (not to ignore the possibility of a female-dominated fascism aka my family) so a non-sexist fascism is highly improbable.

[Roadtoad]

Much of the cited article in the OP is crap. Frankly, until the Democrats wake up and realize the "Selected, Not Elected" line does not work, (and is simply not true), many of the things they're citing as evidence of creeping fascism in the US will either continue or worsen.

I have to agree, there's an obsession with National Security, one which makes me uneasy as hell. You don't have to go overboard to stay relatively safe. Bush himself even pointed this out. I also don't read Ann Coulter, I don't waste my time with Rush Limbaugh, I don't read or listen to Sean Hannity, or Michael Savage. I don't enjoy reading ad hom attacks on anyone, from anyone, regardless of the political views of the victim. And while I don't agree with what some on either side of the political spectrum say, I'll be damned if I'm going to declare someone is a traitor simply because they question the how and why of our fight against terrorists.

Frankly, I'm coming to view sites like this as contributing the very problem they seek to warn us of.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by RandFan
It should be noted that McCarthy was discredited and his ideals rejected, though to be honest,not before much damage was done. It should also be noted that the Japanese that were interred or their descendants were compensated. While this cannot erase the terrible wrong it does show that we do hold dear such values even if we go off track from time to time.

You hold up so many examples of instances where the U.S. was wrong, but are apparently positive that our foray into Iraq is not one of those times that we occasionally go "off track."

Bringing up the Nazis in comparison is apparently wrong because it questions the absolute (in most minds) in evil empires. Yet, at some point, the Nazis (and Hitler) were not viewed as quite so evil. In his own country before the war, Hitler was viewed as a true patriot, and one with a mission. He whipped up nationalistic pride to gain support for his world vision - unless I'm mistaken, Bush is doing the same thing.

It may be non sequitur to compare the two, and certainly there are comparisons that make no difference (Hitler may have like peanut butter, and so may Bush), but when I see Americans lining up with excuses when our "values go off track" and I see them defending the man who took those values off track, I make comparisons. Sorry if you don't like them, and I'm sorry if I appear stupid or ignorant, but maybe when I have 6,000 posts, I'll know WHY it's wrong to compare the blatant invasion of a country for a lie.

[Skeptic]

What I think I know isn't relevant to what you think you know. I don't see deeper American values being all that antithetical to Nazism and facism

Which is why, when my relatives were freed by the Americans from a concentration camp, their first reaction was, "Big deal! There isn't any REAL difference between the Americans and the nazis, is there?"

Well, no. They considered it the greatest, happiest day of their lives. If only you were there to explain the awful truth to them, you little prick.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by curi0us
^That's from a thread about Rush Limbugah, it's worth looking at Limbaugh's own specific words on feminazis:

Either abortion in America is a "holocaust" and Limbaugh's Nazi comparisons are vaild and we are antithetical to our own values . . . or Limbaugh's nazi comparisons are form of demonization propoganda that actually are an aspect of fascism, and his HUGE popularity is indicative that fascism can be quite successful in America.

Pssst . . . just don't say the "H" word, they quit listening after that. For some reason a lot of people here believe fascist = Nazi = Hitler.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mephisto
You hold up so many examples of instances where the U.S. was wrong, but are apparently positive that our foray into Iraq is not one of those times that we occasionally go "off track." No, I'm not postitive at all. On the contrary. I have expressed much concern about this foray. I have said that it is likely that Bush over played his hand. I have said that Bush has stoked and exploited nationalism and has used our fears to rally the country.

Bringing up the Nazis in comparison is apparently wrong because it questions the absolute (in most minds) in evil empires. Yet, at some point, the Nazis (and Hitler) were not viewed as quite so evil. In his own country before the war, Hitler was viewed as a true patriot, and one with a mission. He whipped up nationalistic pride to gain support for his world vision - unless I'm mistaken, Bush is doing the same thing. He is doing SOME of the same things. FDR did also. Many presidents share these behaviors, your point?

It may be non sequitur to compare the two, and certainly there are comparisons that make no difference (Hitler may have like peanut butter, and so may Bush), but when I see Americans lining up with excuses when our "values go off track" and I see them defending the man who took those values off track, I make comparisons. Sorry if you don't like them, and I'm sorry if I appear stupid or ignorant, but maybe when I have 6,000 posts, I'll know WHY it's wrong to compare the blatant invasion of a country for a lie. I can't help it if you only see the world in stark black and white. I have labored a long time to disabuse many of such thinking. It's obvious that such thought is deeply engrained in most people's psyche.

"Evil"? Hitler is easy. He was a socio-path with delusions of grandeur. He killed millions, he attempted to wipe out an entire group of humans based on their race/religion. He wrongly consolidated power and made himself supreme leader. He openly preached hatred and racism. His viciousness and malice where naked and carried out without any considerations for those with whom he endangered or killed. I don't see that at all in Bush or his advisors. Further no one has proffered any evidence to suggest that Bush or his administration has done anything of the sort. The Patriot Act is troubling and worthy of debate but no one has yet, adequately, equated that with Nazism or Mussolini's regime.

In times of crisis politicians are often pressured to act in ways to protect national security. Rightly or wrongly Bush is so acting. We can debate whether there is any danger. We can debate if this is the appropriate actions. We can even debate whether or not Bush's motives are honorable. However, as yet no one has demonstrated why we should equate George Bush's administration to Nazism.

If you want to make comparisons then fine but if those comparisons are unwarranted and illogical then I'm going to call you on them. Your comparisons are unwarranted, illogical and are unmeasured. They serve only as a rhetorical device to spread fear as part of a political agenda and are as wrong as Bush's attempt to use 9/11 to spread fear for his agenda.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Frankly, I'm coming to view sites like this as contributing the very problem they seek to warn us of. What should be argued is what might actually happen in the US rather than picking some bad example from the past and saying "It'll be like that". The US becoming like Nazi Germany is not credible, but the US becoming less like the country people want is credible if you have a good argument. That requires imagination, a good understanding of US society and societies in general, a grasp of history and, very importantly, no ideological baggage.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mephisto
Pssst . . . just don't say the "H" word, they quit listening after that. For some reason a lot of people here believe fascist = Nazi = Hitler. No, they examine whether the comparison is valid. If it is not then they are going to point that fact out. Sorry Mephisto, thems the breaks. If you want to debate on this forum using fallacy or specious reasoning then you run the risk of being called on it. Whining about it won't help your case.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
What should be argued is what might actually happen in the US rather than picking some bad example from the past and saying "It'll be like that". The US becoming like Nazi Germany is not credible, but the US becoming less like the country people want is credible if you have a good argument. That requires imagination, a good understanding of US society and societies in general, a grasp of history and, very importantly, no ideological baggage. emphasis mine

:)

ETA: I wanted to let the response stand with just a smilie but I have to say that there IS a good argument that we are in danger of becoming less like the country that many of us want and less like the country that was intended by our framers. There is real danger from jingoism.

I have to say for the umpteenth time, I welcome those who say "all is not well". Our system works best when we speak up and speak out. I'm damn glad that there are those who challenge this administration. I'm damn glad there is dialog. I'm damn glad that there are people who are not asleep at the wheel. If you want to awake those that are I champion your cause. But don't do it with cheap rhetorical devices.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by RandFan
"Evil"? Hitler is easy. He was a socio-path with delusions of grandeur. He killed millions, he attempted to wipe out an entire group of humans based on their race/religion. You underestimate Nazism. They were going to eliminate all non-Germanic humans, while culling "genetically-weak" Germans. Once Germans occupied the whole planet they would fight amongst themselves constantly to select the best Germans, by definition the best of the best, until they took on the rest of the Galaxy. They started on Jews and Roma (remember them?) because they were feasible at the time, but they culled massive numbers of Slavs to create Lebensraum in Poland.

[curi0us]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, bad logic. How do you get that from my statement? I principally got that from Limbaugh's statement that I highlighted in red. I’ll try to explain a little more. Rush on feminazis:

I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion.

A feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed. ^Limbuagh's own words in his own 1992 book.

As was argued unchallenged in the earlier thread Limbaugh's description of a feminazi as someone who "the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible" doesn't describe actually describe even extreme feminsists so his own definition is dishonest/propagdnada. He also compares abortion ("holocaust"} to the genocide committed by Nazi's which really reinforces the more sinister interpretations of the word feminazi. If someone really thinks it's fair to compare abortions in America to the holocaust I could see why they would maybe support Limbaugh BUT then you have to recognize that "American values" have allowed our own holocaust which by default means we actually have something common with Nazi germany. If not , then Rush was wrongly labeling people as nazis committing a "holocaust" in which case it's mighty damn disturbing that he's become so hugely popular because in some ways he could be labeled as fascist himself.



I stand by this statement.

ETA: Thank you for finding examples where I make comparisons. Np. :) Good, so we agree, "Many right-wingers are Fascist in their thinking," and I'll add so our many left-wingers. From that place a discussion about how much fascism there is in America seems like a completely reasonable one.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
What should be argued is what might actually happen in the US rather than picking some bad example from the past and saying "It'll be like that". The US becoming like Nazi Germany is not credible, but the US becoming less like the country people want is credible if you have a good argument. That requires imagination, a good understanding of US society and societies in general, a grasp of history and, very importantly, no ideological baggage.


BINGO!



Meaning, of course, that I wanted to point out the dog avatar looks a bit like I've always pictured Bingo, from the songs.


No, wait. Although that's true, what I really meant was -- great post.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Meaning, of course, that I wanted to point out the dog avatar looks a bit like I've always pictured Bingo, from the songs. That went about this much past me, I'm afraid. Judas looks equally bemused, but something I've learnt from him is not to worry my head about things I don't understand.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by curi0us
I principally got that from Limbaugh's statement that I highlighted in red. I’ll try to explain a little more. Rush on feminazis: No, I know what Limbaugh had to say about Feminazis. I'm just not certain how you go from my statement to your conclusion?

For the record, here is what I said in context.

While the word certainly carries lots of negative baggage and is unlikely to have any value except to those who accept that there are in fact feminists who are anti-male, anti-free speech and seek to further their agenda through intimidation and a demand of conformity by women, I do think the word feminazi has practical value. Odd that many on the left respond so vociferously to the use of the word but sit by mute when equally pejorative terms are used to paint a broad brush against many on the right.

Many feminists are Fascist in their thinking. Many right-wingers are Fascist in their thinking. Yes I realize that there are differences between Nazism and Fascism but where those ideas overlap is where you will find feminazi.

Being a feminist does not make one Fascist or even a Nazi. Trying to stop free speech and pushing an extreme agenda that narrowly focuses on the needs of women to the exclusion of men is Fascist.

Let me be clear. For decades women did not enjoy many of the privileges that men did. It was the women's movement in America that genuinely liberated millions of women and has had an impact on the entire world. Its force for good will be felt for generations. My point wasn't to justify Limbaugh's use of the word feminazi or his view of abortion. My point was and is that the word feminazi has value. Likewise comparisons to Nazis or Hitler has value. Those comparisons MUST be justified.

Now, how do you go from my statement, reposted above, to your dichotomy?

Here let's repost it in its constituent parts.

abortion in America is a "holocaust" and Limbaugh's Nazi comparisons are vaild and we are antithetical to our own values.

Limbaugh's nazi comparisons are form of demonization propoganda that actually are an aspect of fascism, and his HUGE popularity is indicative that fascism can be quite successful in America. Neither of these points follow from what I said. They are both non sequiturs. Further your dichotomy is false but it is not my intention to argue it since it is entirely irrelevant to the thread as I understand it.

[normdoering]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Nobody has worked out what fascism means.

Don't project your ignorance on to others.

Fascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, refers to the right-wing authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. The word fascism (uncapitalized) has come to mean any political stance or system of government resembling Mussolini's, as further discussed below.

For more -- go here:

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

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by curi0us
ILimbuagh's own words in his own 1992 book ... The weird thing about these Great Americans is that their claim to be Great Americans is based on their hatred of much of America. Dissing foreigners is a sideline. They are definitively Reactionary - they hate the things that make the modern world modern. Their Golden Age is way before FDR, I'm thinking way before the Civil War and before the Constitution itself. Before the Salem Witch Trials? I'm open-minded on that.

[RandFan]

FWIW, I would welcome a discussion of the merits of the use of the word "feminazi" and comparisons of the Bush administration to the Nazi regime.

I will go on record to say that even though I think that the word "feminazi" has some value for SOME circumstances it is simply to loaded and is more likely to cause controversy than elucidate. I would be for the elimination of the use of the word. I'm wondering if those who are offended by its use would also be offended by comparing Bush to Hitler or Nazis.

Further, I don't have as much problem with "fascist" thinking or fascist tendencies. These terms seem the better to make a point.

If anyone would prefer or object we could start a different thread.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by RandFan
If you want to make comparisons then fine but if those comparisons are unwarranted and illogical then I'm going to call you on them. Your comparisons are unwarranted, illogical and are unmeasured. They serve only as a rhetorical device to spread fear as part of a political agenda and are as wrong as Bush's attempt to use 9/11 to spread fear for his agenda.

Are you talking about stuff like this (http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/)?

:D

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Orwell
Are you talking about stuff like this (http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/)?

:D You're ok Orwell. I hope Friday Night went well. BTW, I'm not going to admit that I was wrong even though now I think I was.

[normdoering]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
This is an interesting thread but unless you relent and explain your points more clearly as to how our system is enought like that of Nazism for the stated comparision to be valid in the context of the discussion, then I don't think any progress is going to be made.

People keep thinking "it can't happen here because we're different than the German people." I don't think human beings are that different from each other any where and all values are ultimately human values -- the same every where. Hitler may have been one of the worst examples -- but there was also Stalin, Pol Pot, the Spanish Inquisition... Human beings regularly go off on murderous conquests -- almost like clock work.

Remember Stanley Milgram's experiment?
http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by normdoering
Don't project your ignorance on to others.[/url] I've got three books on the shelf that try to define Fascism, and I've read more. They all disagree on a lot of points. Italian Fascism was a specific, if vague, ideology given that name, and the name was later applied to other regimes "resembling Mussolini's". "Resembling" is exactly the sort of word that gives rise to multiple interpretations when Fascism is used, as it is on this thread, to refer to more than simply Italian Fascism. Ignorance is demonstrated more by the failure to recognise the complexity of a subject than by not having looked something up on Wikipedia.

Fascism as a term is essentially worthless. It was conscripted by inter-war European academia to give the impression that they had some sort of handle on diverse unpredicted anti-democratic post-war movements. Nazism derives from a variety of late 19thCE German philosophies given the name volkisch(sp?) by German academia to give the impression ... It long predates Italian Fascism and has little of substance in common with it. Franco's thinking had little in common with Mussolini's, nor did the Croatians', the Romanians', the Greeks' or any of the other states described as Fascist during the 1930's and 40's. Or since.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by RandFan
You're ok Orwell. I hope Friday Night went well. BTW, I'm not going to admit that I was wrong even though now I think I was.

Oh man, now I'll have to do something to make you change that!

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by RandFan
I will go on record to say that even though I think that the word "feminazi" has some value for SOME circumstances ... Almost every statement should contain a degree of equivocation. That one does, so I can agree with it. "Islamofascist" is equally pointless, IMO, as is "Fascist" in general. (I've endured three and a half decades of irritation from people throwing the term around willy-nilly.) "Racist" still has a role to play, used judiciously. "Funky" will never go entirely out of fashion or into the lexicon of casus belli. "Terrorist" is the new "Fascist". Move on, people. What are the 14 points of Terrorism?

[normdoering]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I've got three books on the shelf that try to define Fascism, and I've read more. They all disagree on a lot of points. Italian Fascism was a specific, if vague, ideology given that name, and the name was later applied to other regimes "resembling Mussolini's". "Resembling" is exactly the sort of word that gives rise to multiple interpretations when Fascism is used, as it is on this thread, to refer to more than simply Italian Fascism. Ignorance is demonstrated more by the failure to recognise the complexity of a subject than by not having looked something up on Wikipedia.

Fascism as a term is essentially worthless. It was conscripted by inter-war European academia to give the impression that they had some sort of handle on diverse unpredicted anti-democratic post-war movements. Nazism derives from a variety of late 19thCE German philosophies given the name volkisch(sp?) by German academia to give the impression ... It long predates Italian Fascism and has little of substance in common with it. Franco's thinking had little in common with Mussolini's, nor did the Croatians', the Romanians', the Greeks' or any of the other states described as Fascist during the 1930's and 40's. Or since.

From the wikipedia web site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism

In an article in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana, written by Giovanni Gentile and attributed to Benito Mussolini, fascism is described as a system in which "The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad.... For the Fascist, everything is within the State and... neither individuals nor groups are outside the State.... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative...."
...

Besides totalitarianism, a key distinguishing feature of fascism is that it uses a mass movement to attack the organizations of the working class: parties of the left and trade unions. Thus Fritzsche and others describe fascism as a militant form of right-wing populism. This mobilization strategy involves Corporatism, Corporativism, or the Corporative State [1] (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/bus/A0813636.html),

...
The term "fascist" or "Nazi" is often ascribed to individuals or groups who are perceived to behave in an authoritarian manner; by silencing opposition, judging personal behavior, or otherwise attempting to concentrate power. More particularly, "Fascist" is sometimes used by members of the Left to characterize some group or persons of the Right. This usage receded much following the 1970s, but has enjoyed a strong resurgence in connection with Anti-globalization activism.


It's vague stuff indeed, but the 14 points do seem to apply somewhat. War-like nationalists movements do continue to happen.

The authoritarian feature does stand out.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by normdoering
It's vague stuff indeed, but the 14 points do seem to apply somewhat. War-like nationalists movements do continue to happen.

The authoritarian feature does stand out. But couldn't the 14 points apply somewhat to just about any regime? This is woo-woo stuff. Conspiracy theory quality arguments.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by normdoering
People keep thinking "it can't happen here because we're different than the German people." I don't think human beings are that different from each other any where ... And, I would add, at any time. During the inter-war years people in democratic countries allowed their democracies to get away from them. Other democracies - there weren't many in those days - trembled. To prevent that happening again we need to understand how that can happen, which is what that period can teach us. The process was very different in Italy, Germany and Spain, and failed in other places. If the process happens in the US today it will be very different, and might look, in the early stages, very much like what we see today ...

Democracy survived in the US, with a four-term President that some still call a Communist. If a ********* like the Depression hit the US today, is there likely to be an FDR waiting in the wings?

Be afraid. Fear is good. Fear keeps you alert. :)

[normdoering]

Originally posted by RandFan
But couldn't the 14 points apply somewhat to just about any regime? This is woo-woo stuff. Conspiracy theory quality arguments.

It's a matter of degree. Degree isn't just woo-woo.

Are we facist yet? Depends on who you ask.

I Think this Corporative State is a pretty solid facist-like indicator:

- a key distinguishing feature of fascism is that it uses a mass movement to attack the organizations of the working class: parties of the left and trade unions. Thus Fritzsche and others describe fascism as a militant form of right-wing populism. This mobilization strategy involves Corporatism, Corporativism, or the Corporative State [1] (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/bus/A0813636.html),

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by normdoering
It's vague stuff indeed, but the 14 points do seem to apply somewhat. War-like nationalists movements do continue to happen.As do war-like religious or ideological movements. We are a warlike species, especially young males with time on their hands, and there are always people who will see a war as advantageous to themselves. The trick is to not let them dictate policy.

The authoritarian feature does stand out. It does, but that's another general human characteristic. Socialism was also authoritarian; fascism basically means anti-democratic but not socialist. Academia had socialism thoroughly tucked-up, it was this other, unexpected kind of authoritarianism they were flapping their hands over and calling "Fascist".

[RandFan]

Originally posted by normdoering
It's a matter of degree. Degree isn't just woo-woo.

Are we facist yet? Depends on who you ask. So there are no objective standards?

I Think this Corporative State is a pretty solid facist-like indicator:

- a key distinguishing feature of fascism is that it uses a mass movement to attack the organizations of the working class: parties of the left and trade unions. Thus Fritzsche and others describe fascism as a militant form of right-wing populism. This mobilization strategy involves Corporatism, Corporativism, or the Corporative State [1] (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/bus/A0813636.html), I'm not overly impressed. Yes an argument can be made. But then there has always been a mass movement to attack the organization of the working class (see American history or just about any hitory). The definition in and of itself becomes useless. Trade unions have lawyers and are very adept at protecting their rights and using thier influence. It is true their influance waxes and wanes due to union busting efforts and their own attempts to shoot themselves in the foot.

[normdoering]

Originally posted by RandFan
So there are no objective standards?

Not as far as I know, but that doesn't make the term useless. There are a lot of fuzzy words in the English language. What does "consciousness" mean? What does "love" mean? We all think we know what we're talking about until we try to give those words a clear definition.

I think it's prudent to watch for a rise in militarism, nationalism, fundamentalist morality and the 14 points and say, "hey, that seems rather facist." Does it really fail to communicate the intended idea?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by normdoering
Not as far as I know, but that doesn't make the term useless. There are a lot of fuzzy words in the English language. What does "consciousness" mean? What does "love" mean? We all think we know what we're talking about until we try to give those words a clear definition. There are objective standards for consciousness. Being in a persistent vegetative state is not conscious neither is being dead.

I think it's prudent to watch for a rise in militarism, nationalism, fundamentalist morality and the 14 points and say, "hey, that seems rather fascist." Does it really fail to communicate the intended idea? I would say that is a waste of time. I would recommend that if you don't like the events that are transpiring or the direction that the country is moving in then do something about it now. I guess the boogey men that were once Communist are now being replaced by fascists. Perhaps we should heed McCarthy's advice and check under our beds.

[Orwell]

I prefer the word "authoritarian" myself, which I think is more accurate. But I occasionally slip into "fascist" when I get angry.

[Orwell]

Although stuff like this (http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=28) (if true) tends to make me think that "fascist" might be an appropriate term...

I'm gonna put this on a separate thread.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Orwell
Although stuff like this (http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=28) (if true) tends to make me think that "fascist" might be an appropriate term...

I'm gonna put this on a separate thread. If true it is BS legislation and a giant waste of time and effort. Not to mention downright stupid.

Though I do think the word is problematic. I think the word "fascist" is appropriate when used for certain behaviors. Expecting everyone to march lock step in agreement and labeling those who disagree with any particular administration as unpatriotic is a "fascist" thing to do.

We are served well by dissent and it should not be discouraged using such tactics. There is nothing wrong however with a politician trying to get people on board with his or her agenda.

[Luke T.]

I suppose one could construct 14 points to make Bush look like Hugh Hefner if one wanted to.

1. Lives in a mansion.

2. Doesn't let his critics get to him one bit.

And so on.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mephisto
Ah, but you're forgetting that the majority of the symbols that have gained popularity since the Bush administration took charge are those that directly or indirectly remind us of 9/11 (or the subsequent non sequitur war in Iraq). It behooves them to keep the fear-factor high. Until then, the majority of American flag bumperstickers were limited to pickup trucks with multiple assault weapons in the rifle rack.

When do you think it would be appropriate for most Americans to forget about what happened on 9/11? Over 3,000 people started their day and ended up being incinerated by a few of the most dangerous woo-woos on the planet. That is a fact, it's a fact worth remembering unless you would like to see it repeated. There are alot more violent Islamic woos out there you know, and they aren't forgetting.
(snip)


I'm probably as far left as you could ever imagine, but I still don't equate Republicans with terrorists. You'll notice in that segment the word LIBERAL is italicized. When did the word "liberal" become synonymous with anti-American? I've heard that word tossed about with such disdain it's as though they mean to say goat-fu*ker, or pedophile.

IIRC the answer is 1972 and Jane Fonda.


That's true, but before the Iraq debacle, we were very confident that our military wouldn't suffer casualties, and the liberating the Iraqi people wouldn't take long (which it didn't, but we're currently mired in our last excuse for being in Iraq). I think the 1,600 deaths may have put a slight dent in the belief of the supremacy of our military.

Not likely. You are forgetting Saddam's supposed "Red line of death" around Baghdad. We thought there were WMD's there, so it's not likely that we would have thought that "our military wouldn't suffer casualties".
Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a division commander in the first Iraq war, this week predicted 3,000 coalition casualties in a Baghdad battle.

The Link (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030326-battle-of-baghdad01.htm)


There's nothing that says there couldn't be a non-sexist facist regime, but since women apparently lack the ambitions necessary to start a facist regime it probably won't happen soon. If you consider the mindset necessary to be non-sexist (considerate of the feelings of others) you'd realize that a non-sexist facist regime might not work.

eh? That's sexist!! :eek:



Very well said, but what I can't understand is where the undeniable facts (no WMD, we haven't been welcomed as liberators in Iraq [no flowers, no cheering Iraqis, etc.], we ARE involved in torture scandals, the economy is a mess, environmental protection is non-existant, corporations with ties to the White House are currently involved in financial scandals involving millions of dollars in a country we invaded, etc.) are hidden to those who support Der Bush (:D , I did that just for you)? As far as the media, it would be interesting to give them free rein to see who would take up the challenge (I'm Bill O'Reilly here in Fallujah where we're talking to some very happy and liberated . . . BOOM!)

The only "undeniable" fact in your little disjointed rant above is that there were no WMD's. Some Iraqis did welcome us as liberators. Only some troops were implicated in torture scandals, the economy is doing very well in most areas; real estate, commodities, employment ....all looking very good. Financial scandals? Gee, didn't Worldcom and Enron actually do their evil deeds during the previous administration?? Corporations with ties to the White House??? Making money off a war??????:hit: Hello! What planet are you from? This has happened since antiquity.


Maybe, but not as paranoid as people who use this excuse in light of the war we're in. In my passionately, judgemental manner, I always thought it was either slack-jawed idiots or government spin-meisters who perpetuated this myth. Supposedly 70% of the American people believe that we're in Iraq because they attacked us on 9/11, a belief statements like yours tend to support.

http://www.fahs.org/our-troops/Saddam%20Pict.jpg

I wonder how they got that idea? I wonder why the only place I've seen pics like this is on military friends websites?? Spin meisters indeed!


And so perhaps it is! Maybe that's what the Constitution was deliberately trying to prevent? Maybe that's why it was a problem that the forefathers tried to address directly. I'll give you one guess whose base voter in the last election would support A. bringing prayer back into the schools, B. banning abortion, C. planting the Ten Commandments all over public buildings, D. standing to recite the Lord's Prayer before a high school football game? E. censoring the flm industry, F. teaching creationism in schools, . . . Had enough?

Whaddaya know? We finally agree on something!



Sure, it's good for the economy right? But what about lessening the profit margin a bit to keep American jobs in America? This administration has simultaneously put the country in the greatest debt ever, lessened the job security of the average American by outsourcing jobs, and engaged us in a needless war that is costing the taxpayers billions of dollars. How much corporate power "must be protected?" Enough to buy the CEO's son a BMW, or should he just settle for the Ford Escort this year?

Now you're back to non-sensical ranting again.... :rolleyes:

(snip)


As a artist, I definitely feel the disdain. Being a anti-organized religion/anti-conservative surrealist has been a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing in that I have beaucoup material, and a curse because I live in a SW red state, and if it don't have cactus, horses, an Injun or two, or it don't match the drapes they don't unnerstand it. Do you realize that the fact that you participate in this forum would draw guffaws from some in the current government and immediately associate you with the "Massachusetts Librals?" Dubya has proven (to some) that it's cool to be a fool.

Yeah? Do we really all look like Mass. liberals to you?? Sure, we're outnumbered...but we are here just the same! Hell, us neo-cons have even run off some of the more loony liberals.....



"In his five years as governor of Texas, the state has executed 131 prisoners -- far more than any other state."

http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm

http://www.bushkills.com/

Care to talk about degree now?

Are you saying that these executed criminals did not get due process? Because if you are not saying that, then there is no point to your complaint. Upholding the laws of the state of Texas is not exactly against the job description of the Governor of said state! :hit:




Pretty much, but Bush's nominations for nearly anything have drawn protests. It seems as though most of his nominiations make about as much sense as putting R. Kelley in charge of the Department of Teen Virginity. Unfortunately, the frequency of these controversial appointments seems an intelligent misdirection, for what purpose I can only imagine

The 108th Congress has confirmed over 20 judicial nominees already. Yet all the news focus is on Pricilla Owen and Janice Brown due to the Dems long standing fillibuster. I personally don't like either of these judges either, but I dislike political obstructionism even more.

There are to date 33 confirmed Bush judges....there are 2 that have been filibustered. That's hardly a large percentage of controversy. Besides, if R. Kelley gets offered a high office in government....it sure wouldn't be a Republican president making such an offer. :rolleyes:




Maybe, a lot of people certainly think so. I can't understand how this question can be asked in the U.S? What has become of us?

"1 million black votes didn't count in the 2000 presidential election
It's not too hard to get your vote lost -- if some politicians want it to be lost"

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/20/ING2976LG61.DTL
________

Now let's see what I know about Fascism . . .

fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.1. often Fascism, 1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. 2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.


fas·cistic (f-shstk) adj.
Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, “bundle, (political) group,� but also refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Fascism
Of course there are those on the right who suggest this is a myth, but then there are people on the extreme right who suggest that the holocaust was also a myth.
_______

If there aren't similarities there, then I'll go to church to say a prayer for "our boys" and a prayer that our President won't falter during these difficult (but historic) times, AND I'll donate a dollar to the RNC.

Look up "confirmation bias" while you're at it. Here, I'll help you out:
Confirmation bias (http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html) [i]"It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives." --Francis Bacon



-z

[curi0us]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, I know what Limbaugh had to say about Feminazis. I'm just not certain how you go from my statement to your conclusion? Looking at what you wrote further down it looks to me like you just misread my post and are not seeing the statement by you quoted directly above my conclusion. Here it is again:
Originally posted by RandFan
:i:

No but you DO compare them to Nazis and the Holocaust. Do you really not get the irony. Isn't Nazism antithetical to American values? I’m hoping that will clear up your confusion on my dichotomy but if it doesn’t I can clarify further.

For the record, here is what I said in context.

My point wasn't to justify Limbaugh's use of the word feminazi or his view of abortion. My point was and is that the word feminazi has value. Likewise comparisons to Nazis or Hitler has value. Those comparisons MUST be justified.
Greater context doesn’t alter the fact that you said “many feminists are fascists� and also compared them to nazi’s. Using your own standards, was that “justified�? Do you think you (or anyone else ever) honestly presented a justification for comparing feminists to nazis that is more reasonable then the 14 points?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by curi0us
I’m hoping that will clear up your confusion on my dichotomy but if it doesn’t I can clarify further. No, not at all. Sorry.

Greater context doesn’t alter the fact that you said “many feminists are fascists� and also compared them to nazi's. Using your own standards, was that “justified�? As I used it, YES. It is qualified and I was quite deliberate in that qualification. I did not at all label anyone fascist. I did label fascist behavior as being fascist, is there something wrong with that? I said that some right-wingers have fascist thinking.

Do you think you (or anyone else ever) honestly presented a justification for comparing feminists to Nazis that is more reasonable then the 14 points? Yes, I was talking about fascist thinking and fascist behavior. I don't target anyone specifically and I note that feminism is a GOOD thing and being a feminist does make one a fascist or a Nazi.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by curi0us

Greater context doesn’t alter the fact that you said “many feminists are fascists� and also compared them to nazi’s. Using your own standards, was that “justified�? Do you think you (or anyone else ever) honestly presented a justification for comparing feminists to nazis that is more reasonable then the 14 points?

Apparently these comparisons are justified on occasions when they support one's own views (or the views of a friend). It's amusing how comparing our invasion of a sovereign country to a fascist regime is inappropriate because A. Bush isn't a danger to his neighbors, B. Bush never committed genocide, and C. there is no comparison to the absolute evil of the Nazi empire, BUT . . .

you can compare women who are aggressive about equal rights to Nazis. Is that a double standard, or am I missing something here?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by normdoering
People keep thinking "it can't happen here because we're different than the German people." I don't personally believe that at all. I think it is unlikely to happen here because of the separation of powers. No president can simply do what Hitler did.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mephisto
Apparently these comparisons are justified on occasions when they support one's own views (or the views of a friend). It's amusing how comparing our invasion of a sovereign country to a fascist regime is inappropriate because A. Bush isn't a danger to his neighbors, B. Bush never committed genocide, and C. there is no comparison to the absolute evil of the Nazi empire, BUT . . .

you can compare women who are aggressive about equal rights to Nazis. Is that a double standard, or am I missing something here? Yes, you are missing something. Of course that is easy to do when you refuse to look at the truth.

Being a feminist does not make one Fascist or even a Nazi. Trying to stop free speech and pushing an extreme agenda that narrowly focuses on the needs of women to the exclusion of men is Fascist.

Let me be clear. For decades women did not enjoy many of the privileges that men did. It was the women's movement in America that genuinely liberated millions of women and has had an impact on the entire world. Its force for good will be felt for generations. Please read that again.

Also;

I will go on record to say that even though I think that the word "feminazi" has some value for SOME circumstances it is simply to[o] loaded and is more likely to cause controversy than elucidate. I would be for the elimination of the use of the word. I'm wondering if those who are offended by its use would also be offended by comparing Bush to Hitler or Nazis. I note that you don't respond to this quote. In fact I note that you don't even quote me. I'm curious, do you even read what I write?

[curi0us]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, not at all. Sorry.Really? OK, then rephrase your question using the actual statement that I quoted instead of the one you inserted and I’ll clarify further.
As I used it, YES. It is qualified and I was quite deliberate in that qualification. I’ll agree your definition for feminazi was deliberate and qualified, the question is was it “justified�?
Originally posted by RandFan
It has been stated over and over that the word is not meant to mean all feminists. Only those who are against freedom of speech (making porn illegal) and anti-male. That's the definition is of a sexist prude, not a nazi or a fascist.

I did not at all label anyone fascist.You said, “Many feminists are fascist in their thinking.� That comes across as labeling to me. Feminazi is another label.

I did label fascist behavior as being fascist, is there something wrong with that?Don’t be stupid, of course A=A, but the issue is about your double standards with the use of the word fascist.
I said that some right-wingers have fascist thinking.Yeah, I consciously quoted that. It seem to me if you really thought that then you could see where Mephisto was coming from, but I guess those right wingers were just fascists cause they don’t want you to look at porn?

Yes, I was talking about fascist thinking and fascist behavior.I’m going to reapeat what that statement was a response to:
Originally posted by curi0us
Do you think you (or anyone else ever) honestly presented a justification for comparing feminists to nazis that is more reasonable then the 14 points? You answered “yes�. Show me the evidence/justification then. (Your own words, a linked article, whatever.)

I don't target anyone specifically Why not? If you think someone is actually behaving so poorly they should be labeled as a feminazi why not target them? Why not give actual examples? Not targeting is something you do when you are lacking in good targets.

and I note that feminism is a GOOD thing and being a feminist does make one a fascist or a Nazi. [/B]I never said you said being a feminist made one a fascist or nazi, but you did say “Many feminists are Fascist in their thinking� which seems at odds with the notion that feminism is “GOOD�.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't personally believe that at all. I think it is unlikely to happen here because of the separation of powers. No president can simply do what Hitler did.

Oh no? Hitler gained most of his power by democratic means. The Presidential Empowerment Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz) was passed with the votes of ALL parties (except for the Communists, who had already been abolished, and the Social Democrats, who paid dearly for that afterwards). Believe me, it can happen everywhere.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Chaos
Oh no? Hitler gained most of his power by democratic means. The Presidential Empowerment Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz) was passed with the votes of ALL parties (except for the Communists, who had already been abolished, and the Social Democrats, who paid dearly for that afterwards). Believe me, it can happen everywhere.

Different system. The laws our congress can pass are restricted by our constitutional framework. The powers of the president are stated therein as well as the powers of both houses of the congress, the courts, and the states.

They could still pass such an act (unlikely as that might be) but the Supreme court would rule it unconstitutional.

The "yea but. . ." argument can still be used but it's not very effective in this case.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Chaos
Oh no? Hitler gained most of his power by democratic means. The Presidential Empowerment Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz) was passed with the votes of ALL parties (except for the Communists, who had already been abolished, and the Social Democrats, who paid dearly for that afterwards). Believe me, it can happen everywhere. There is no mechanism for it to happen here. Give me a scenario of how it would happen.

[Ed]

Originally posted by RandFan
There is no mechanism for it to happen here. Give me a scenario of how it would happen.

A realistic one? Can't but congress has dicked around with the idea of passing legislation that is SCOUs proof. That would be interesting. I suppose there could be an "Executive Powers Act" that could become a Constitutional Amendment that could give vast powers to the executive "temporarily" that would be legal. The point is if folks agree to theior own enslavement I don't see how that result can be avoided.

It would not surprise me particularly if something very bad happened (our fault, natch) like NY being Nuked that there would be something reflexive (like the patriot act but more). Remember that that act was passed virtually unanimously and most of the goat abusers never read it. That was in response to a relatively mild (tho' theatrical) loss of 3000 lives. Imagine what would happen with 1,000,000 dead.

Sure, it could happen.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by curi0us
Really? OK, then rephrase your question using the actual statement that I quoted instead of the one you inserted and I’ll clarify further. I did use the actual statement. You are being ridiculous. Your dichotomy is false. You are wrong.

I’ll agree your definition for feminazi was deliberate and qualified, the question is was it “justified�? IMO YES! How many times must I answer you? It is an opinion. You keep asking and I keep answering and you refuse to accept my answer, why?

That's the definition is of a sexist prude, not a nazi or a fascist. That is your opinion.

You said, “Many feminists are fascist in their thinking.� That comes across as labeling to me. Feminazi is another label. I'm not trying to make an argument that certain individuals are nazis. The word is directed at behavior.

Don’t be stupid, of course A=A, but the issue is about your double standards with the use of the word fascist. If there were a double standard I would agree. But I am not calling any individual a fascist. I'm saying that if someone is fascist in their thinking then that is fascist. I'm saying that there exists people who exhibit certain behaviors that I think are worthy of being associated with Fascism or Nazism. I have never, as far as I can remember, used the word to label any single individual but rather used it to label behaviors that I think deserve the label.

Yeah, I consciously quoted that. It seem to me if you really thought that then you could see where Mephisto was coming from, but I guess those right wingers were just fascists cause they don’t want you to look at porn? Straw man.

You answered “yes�. Show me the evidence/justification then. (Your own words, a linked article, whatever.) It's an opinion! You are asking me what I think. I'm telling you what I think and why. If you don't think it is justified then that is your prerogative.

Why not? If you think someone is actually behaving so poorly they should be labeled as a feminazi why not target them? Why not give actual examples? Not targeting is something you do when you are lacking in good targets. Can you give me an example of such a feminist so I can label her?

I never said you said being a feminist made one a fascist or nazi, but you did say “Many feminists are Fascist in their thinking� which seems at odds with the notion that feminism is “GOOD�. Not at all. I'd be happy to modify "many" to some. I don't know how "many". I think feminism that seeks equality for women is "GOOD"! I think feminism that seeks to lift women up and better their lives is "GOOD"! I think feminism that seeks to give women choices and opportunity is "GOOD"! I think this is what feminism stands for and that it works and that it IS GOOD!

I think there exists feminists that are anti-male and are anti-free speech. I think this is destructive and NOT good.

I note that you ignore that I have said that the word Feminazi is a loaded word. I don't think it should be used in serious debate and I won't. I would have no problem with someone mocking bush as Hitler. Put Will Farell in a hitler moustache and swastika on his arm as he plays Hitler and I won't complain. Likewise I think many Feminists can also be so mocked.

Are you and others like Mephisto willing to stop comparing Bush to Hitler. For the record this IS ABOUT COMPARING BUSH TO HITLER. I love how you turn the thread on its head. I note also that you don't take a position on the use of Nazi as it is used against those on the right only as it is used against feminists.

For the record. [list=1] I don't use the word Feninazi to label any individual. You are unlikely to find an instance where I ever call anyone a Feminazi. I have used it mockingly and to deride behaviors that I think are wrong. I will continue to do so. I WON'T start any threads seriously trying to compare any individual or group to Nazi's the way Mephisto has. I will call right wing thought and behavior fascist as well as behavior from people on the left as fascist.

I think words have meaning and I think the word Feminazi conveys a particular meaning for certain particular behaviors that are fascist in nature (IMO).

I'm willing to concede that the use of the word is provocative and polemic and likely to cause more controversy than anything else and I would not use the word in serious debate.[/list=1] Do you think Mephisto and those like him will be just as willing to do the same as it applies to the point of this thread?

What are your views? Is comparing Bush to Hitler justified?

[Random]

I for one have never compared Bush to Hitler. Hitler was an ideologically driven madman who wanted to rule the world. Bush is an empty suit.

I believe that there are individuals and groups on the right today that use tactics similar to those used by the National Socialist Party in the late twenties and early thirties. Labeling any criticism of the president as unpatriotic or treasonous, using police and government officials to keep protesters out of public view or to make their activities illegal, shifting the terms of the debate to the right, various claims of religious superiority, etc.

It’s not really surprising, since these are very effective political tactics as the Nazis and various other groups have shown throughout history. As long as these tactics are effective, people will continue to use them, regardless of whether they share the Nazi ideology or not.

Where people start to get twitchy is that we know where the Nazi party went. Seventy-odd years ago, someone said Jews were traitors, and sixty-odd years ago Jews were sent off in boxcars to die. So when someone on the right starts saying liberals are traitors, I start to get real uncomfortable, real fast.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Random
Where people start to get twitchy is that we know where the Nazi party went. And I think this is the point. If you say that the Republicans are using some of the same tactics or exhibit certain behaviors then that is fine. If you say ergo America is likely to end up just like Nazi Germany then you have a problem.

[Random]

Originally posted by RandFan
And I think this is the point. If you say that the Republicans are using some of the same tactics or exhibit certain behaviors then that is fine. If you say ergo America is likely to end up just like Nazi Germany then you have a problem.
True, but remember that just because the GOP is not leading us to the same place as the Nazis, doesn’t mean we’ll like the destination when we get there. I’m not a big fan of massive tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class, the dismantling of the social safety net, and the elimination of the separation of church and state. They might not send me to the gas chambers, but wage slavery is no great shakes either.:p

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by RandFan
And I think this is the point. If you say that the Republicans are using some of the same tactics or exhibit certain behaviors then that is fine. If you say ergo America is likely to end up just like Nazi Germany then you have a problem.

This is the entire text of my original post:
____________
The 14 Points of Facism

In "Fascism Anyone?," Laurence Britt identifies 14 characteristics common to fascist regimes. His comparisons of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet yielded this list of 14 "identifying characteristics of fascism."

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
____________

Pass out the hobnail boots and Praise the Lord!

Maybe you think the reference to hobnail boots was uncalled for, but I was trying to be humorous. However, I don't think I deserved the vehemence I got from many who disagreed with my posts.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Different system. The laws our congress can pass are restricted by our constitutional framework. The powers of the president are stated therein as well as the powers of both houses of the congress, the courts, and the states.

They could still pass such an act (unlikely as that might be) but the Supreme court would rule it unconstitutional.

The "yea but. . ." argument can still be used but it's not very effective in this case.

We all know that the Supreme Court is not some infallibly objective entity. It is made up of people - people who call be wrong, and who have their own opinions. And, I might add, people who are appointed by presidents, who, no doubt, will pick people who represent their political views.
Given enough time to replace dying/retiring judges with his candidates, and given a credible enough scare tactic, it is, at the very least, not impossible that Bush or one of his successors might pull through an Empowerment Act, especially if the crucial bits at hidden within enough legalese and/or feel-good patriotic drivel.
I don´t say that it is likely, or that Bush is going to try this, but it sure as hell isn´t impossible.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Chaos
We all know that the Supreme Court is not some infallibly objective entity. It is made up of people - people who call be wrong, and who have their own opinions. And, I might add, people who are appointed by presidents, who, no doubt, will pick people who represent their political views.
Given enough time to replace dying/retiring judges with his candidates, and given a credible enough scare tactic, it is, at the very least, not impossible that Bush or one of his successors might pull through an Empowerment Act, especially if the crucial bits at hidden within enough legalese and/or feel-good patriotic drivel.
I don´t say that it is likely, or that Bush is going to try this, but it sure as hell isn´t impossible.

You provided a "yea but. . ." argument and, to be honest, you didn't do it very well. You're right, the supremes can be totally screwy (re: interstate commerce and pot) but this was long/long in the wings. A president, if he's very, very lucky, may get to fill three of the nine seats on the bench. And even those must enjoy a majority of the support of the whole congress.

No, not impossible, but almost nothing is. It is so unlikely/difficult as to be not worth worrying about. I'll worry about more-direct coup instead. Now THAT'S possible. Start with a congressional declaration of martial law and move from there.

ETA: And even Hitler couldn't have done it without using 'illegal' and non-democratic tactics so that makes the comparision poor, IMO. The fact that he used 'mostly' democratic tactics doesn't matter.

[curi0us]

Originally posted by RandFan
I did use the actual statement. You are being ridiculous. Your dichotomy is false. You are wrong. You did not use the "actual" statement.* If you can’t admit or see such a 100% clear mistake on your part then you’ve got serious problems because I’ve already shown you the actual statement which you could easily double check just by re-reading my post. At this point if you are not a liar/troll then you are a pathetically arrogant moron.

*You seem to have an amazing ability to misread things so I’m going to explain this in more detail. You did “use� a statement of yours that I had quoted in my post, but it was the wrong statement. It wasn’t the statement of yours that was directly above my dichotomy that had a question that my dichotomy was specifically answering. Nor did my dichotomy rely upon the statement you’ve chosen to focus upon to the exclusion of all others. When you said, “No, bad logic. How do you get that from my statement?� I responded, �I principally got that from Limbaugh's statement that I highlighted in red.� It should be really easy for you to see that of the three quoted statements in my post the only one you focused upon is also the only one not directly related to my dichotomy. What you are effectively doing is like quoting random sections of my post that don't relate to my conclusion and then saying I’m committing "non sequiturs" while ignoring the parts that did support my conclusion.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by curi0us
You did not use the "actual" statement.* If you can’t admit or see such a 100% clear mistake on your part then you’ve got serious problems because I’ve already shown you the actual statement which you could easily double check just by re-reading my post. At this point if you are not a liar/troll then you are a pathetically arrogant moron. You are really beginning to piss me off. You edited me out of context!

I posted my entire post. WHICH STATEMENT! I really don't know what the hell you are talking about. Look, if I have made a mistake I will admit it and apologize. I don't see where I have. There is no justification for you to behave this way. You are being an *********.

You seem to have an amazing ability to misread things so I’m going to explain this in more detail. You did “use� a statement of yours that I had quoted in my post, but it was the wrong statement. ??? What? It was the right one but it was also the wrong one? What?

It wasn’t the statement of yours that was directly above my dichotomy that had a question that my dichotomy was specifically answering. THE STATEMENT WAS QUOTED OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!!!!!

Are you paying attention? It was quoted out of context!

Nor did my dichotomy rely upon the statement you’ve chosen to focus upon to the exclusion of all others. When, WHEN did I ever say to the exclusion of all others? On the contrary, I'm asking you to not quote me out of context. Is that a problem for you?

When you said, “No, bad logic. How do you get that from my statement?� I responded, �I principally got that from Limbaugh's statement that I highlighted in red.� My statement ISN'T ABOUT LIMBAUGH!!!!! Can't you get that through your thick skull? Nor can my words be shoehorned into Limbaugh's to make an unwarranted conclusion.


What you are effectively doing is like quoting random sections of my post that don't relate to my conclusion and then saying I’m committing "non sequiturs" while ignoring the parts that did support my conclusion. NO! That is what YOU are doing!

Ok, curi0us let's go back to the beginning and hash the whole damn thing out. {sigh}

In response to #3 of the 14 points normdoering said:

But isn't the extreme left also scapegoating Republicans in a similar manner? To whit Mephisto said:

I'm probably as far left as you could ever imagine, but I still don't equate Republicans with terrorists. It was here that I pointed out the irony of Mephisto's statement. As far left as he is he doesn't sink so low as to equate Republicans as terrorists but he does equate them as Nazis.

You then repost the following quote from me:

Originally posted by RandFan 6-01-04
Many feminists are Fascist in their thinking. Many right-wingers are Fascist in their thinking. Yes I realize that there are differences between Nazism and Fascism but where those ideas overlap is where you will find feminazi. THIS IS OUT OF CONTEXT! {sheesh} Are you getting this?

You then post some drivel from Rush Limbaugh.

prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. The term describes any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion.

A feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed. Their unspoken reasoning is quite simple. Abortion is the single greatest avenue for militant women to exercise their quest for power and advance their belief that men aren�t necessary. Nothing matter but me, says the feminazi; the is an unviable tissue mass. Feminazis have adopted abortion as a kind of sacrament for their religion/politics of alienation and bitterness.
Source: The Way Things Ought To Be, p.192-93 Jul 2, 1992

It has nothing whatsoever to do with my position about fascism. I DON'T share his opinions!

I DON'T SHARE LIMBAUGH'S OPINIONS!!!!!!!!

Are you getting this? Just because his words are the subject for which I'm posting does not mean I share his opinions! Got it?

You then post the quote that is the apparent reason for all of this nonsense:

No but you DO compare them to Nazis and the Holocaust. Do you really not get the irony. Isn't Nazism antithetical to American values? You then conclude:

curi0s
Either abortion in America is a "holocaust" and Limbaugh's Nazi comparisons are vaild and we are antithetical to our own values . . . or Limbaugh's nazi comparisons are form of demonization propoganda that actually are an aspect of fascism, and his HUGE popularity is indicative that fascism can be quite successful in America. Now, This does not follow from anything that I have written.
This is not my position.
This is a non sequitur.
This a false dichotomy.Ok, let's look at your moronic dichotomy. It consists of two statements. I'm going to number them and separate them. I'm NOT going to otherwise edit them to change their meaning.

Abortion in America is a "holocaust" and Limbaugh's Nazi comparisons are vaild and we are antithetical to our own values. OR

Limbaugh's nazi comparisons are form of demonization propoganda that actually are an aspect of fascism, and his HUGE popularity is indicative that fascism can be quite successful in America.[/list=1]Please note I did not delete or add any words. Also note that the statement is in it's entirety.

Statement #1
If we assume that Abortion is a holocaust then it would be antithetical to our values. However,[list] I don't think abortion is a holocaust.
I don't agree with everything Rush says concerning the word Feminazi.
I don't defend Limbaugh's use of the word.
I don't agree with Limbaugh's motivations for using the word.
My purpose is simply to explore the use of the word Feminazi and why and when I think the usage appropriate.

Statement #2
Just because I don't agree with Limbaugh would not force me to conclude that Limbaugh's comparisons are in and of themselves a form of fascism. Hell, I'm not even saying that mephisto's comparisons are in and of themselves a form of fascism. This is NOT my position, this is not my argument. I have not concluded nor have I stated that Mephisto's argument is a form of fascism. I do note however that his comparisons are ironic.

Finally there are more than the two options that you have proposed. It IS a false dichotomy.

You are out of gas. Your statement is idiotic, fallacious and downright wrong. It doesn't follow from anything that I have written. You have intentionally edited my words and tried to force Limbaugh's position and my words to together to construct a conclusion that is silly and wrong.

Final note: You could have simply argued that Limbaugh's comparisons of Abortion to the Holocaust are wrong and as Ironic as Mephisto's. I would have agreed with you.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Random
It’s not really surprising, since these are very effective political tactics as the Nazis and various other groups have shown throughout history. As long as these tactics are effective, people will continue to use them, regardless of whether they share the Nazi ideology or not. The common feature that matters is that people with democracy surrendered it, and lots of people toyed with the idea. I'm thinking of the 1920's-40's. There was a loss of faith in democracy across the West, including the US. Under stress and in a climate of fear where faith in a better future is not automatic, people will be open to the idea that strong leadership, continuity and a national focus (meaning on them) are needed. Roosevelt was pretty dictatorial, and a four-term President that some still toast the death of. Let's hope George II isn't being groomed to outdo him.

Whatever happens in the US won't be like the Nazi progress or Mussolini's, but it could be similar, by the giving up of bits of the democratic system which are regarded as weaknesses in a scary world. And that's scary in an economic sense as well as a physical one. Perhaps the most important question is whether another Great Depression could occur. If it did, how would the US cope today? Where's the Roosevelt to act as lightning-rod? I'm not optimistic. I don't think US politics/society would allow another FDR to emerge.

The common tactics are what we have to look out for, and one of those is polarisation. Strip away the middle ground. With us, or against your god/country/national destiny/sincerely-held beliefs you've had fed to you since childhood. And I see a lot of that in the US today. Another tactic is fractionating (a perfectly cromulent word), since the enemy and the threat must be amongst you. Self-hating Americans burning the flag (you can piss on the Bible but don't you burn that flag!) have to be all around. Listening to PBS and encouraging their kids to do IB courses.

Then there's your illegal immigrants, nobody knows how many of them there are. you know. :eek: They could be anywhere you don't go, which is pretty much everywhere in scary times. They could be at the bottom of your garden with the fairies, and that's another thing ... :)

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Different system. The laws our congress can pass are restricted by our constitutional framework. The powers of the president are stated therein as well as the powers of both houses of the congress, the courts, and the states.

They could still pass such an act (unlikely as that might be) but the Supreme court would rule it unconstitutional.

The "yea but. . ." argument can still be used but it's not very effective in this case. Congress did bestow its own right to declare war on the President, voluntarily. That was an act that empowered the President, even if it wasn't exactly equivalent to the Presidential Empowerment Act of Hitler. The Constitution does allow for dictatorial powers in an emergency. Don't ask me exactly how, I'm confident it's in there. It wouldn't have got the signatures in an uncertain world otherwise.

[peptoabysmal]

I looked at the 14 points and by the time I got to the section on rigged elections I just said pfffffffft! Gimme a break.

At it's best it is bad science, bad political science that is. It starts with the desired objective and then seeks the data to fit the objective.

By the time you finished scrutinizing the points how many valid ones would have left? 5? 10? How many of those could just as easily describe another condition besides facism?

That being said:
I admit that the thought of the US moving towards a fascist government is scary and something we have to be ever watchful for. The checks and balances are built into our Constitution to prevent this sort of thing happening, which is one of the reasons I think that it is dangerous to give carte blanche to the Supreme Court as the highest authority on the Constitution. If we are moving towards facism, did it all happen on GW's watch?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Congress did bestow its own right to declare war on the President, voluntarily.

No they didn't. At best, they signed off on a particular invasion of a particular country with no declaration of war.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I looked at the 14 points and by the time I got to the section on rigged elections I just said pfffffffft! Gimme a break.

At it's best it is bad science, bad political science that is. It starts with the desired objective and then seeks the data to fit the objective.

By the time you finished scrutinizing the points how many valid ones would have left? 5? 10? How many of those could just as easily describe another condition besides facism?

That being said:
I admit that the thought of the US moving towards a fascist government is scary and something we have to be ever watchful for. The checks and balances are built into our Constitution to prevent this sort of thing happening, which is one of the reasons I think that it is dangerous to give carte blanche to the Supreme Court as the highest authority on the Constitution. If we are moving towards facism, did it all happen on GW's watch?

This is one of the greater fallacies in all of this. The idea that fascism happens suddenly is a crock, at best, and a damned lie told by damned liars at its worst. Bush cannot and should not bear the total blame for fascism's appearance if and when it happens.

Frankly, if you want to start looking for who to blame for it, you might go back to Kennedy's jingoism, which was echoed by Johnson, and amplified through Nixon. We could also add in overzealous "protection" from those who argued with and against this nation by the FBI and CIA, which happened at the behest of Nixon, and a whole host of others.

Frankly, and this needs to be said, a lot of the "protection" came down on the order of Reagan, and we ought to be grateful for the Freedom of Information Act which made access possible, so we could find out about the abuses of power. (Though FOIA predates Reagan, much of what we know came out during his administration.)

If you want to find the real culprit, though, for America beginning to lean toward fascism, you might take a look at the fact that over half of all eligible voters in America don't even bother to show up for most elections. As long as we sit on our lazy @$$es, it remains a very real danger.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
No they didn't. At best, they signed off on a particular invasion of a particular country with no declaration of war.

Not exactly.

SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.



http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Ed
Not exactly.




http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

Yes exactly.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

I was speaking specifically of the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"

I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that this is what CapelDodger was referring to as well. The War Powers Act is a somewhat different animal, the constitutionality of which has yet to be tested.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
If you want to find the real culprit, though, for America beginning to lean toward fascism, you might take a look at the fact that over half of all eligible voters in America don't even bother to show up for most elections. As long as we sit on our lazy @$$es, it remains a very real danger.

I don't think I agree with this. If we're honest, we will admit that a lot of those people who don't vote but could are idiots anyway. When some popular idea does motivate them to show up and cast their ballots, that's probably when we're in trouble.

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I don't think I agree with this. If we're honest, we will admit that a lot of those people who don't vote but could are idiots anyway. When some popular idea does motivate them to show up and cast their ballots, that's probably when we're in trouble.

Well, using this link, it looks like more than 50% of registerted votes have voted regularly since 1964. I could have mis-read the data though. There are some nice spreadsheets, someone please double check.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting.html

If my memory of all those history classes I took isn't wrong. Historically, USA hasn't never had a very high voter turnout, I don't think it's ever exceed 75% for any election at the national level.

Please, correct me if that's not true.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
It starts with the desired objective and then seeks the data to fit the objective.

Hmmm, I'll believe that when you have a British memo to prove it!

;)

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
No they didn't. At best, they signed off on a particular invasion of a particular country with no declaration of war. Who'd be a lawyer? What Congress did was to pre-ratify whatever decision the President took on this issue. The fact that it was one particular issue doesn't stop it establishing the principle. Congress voluntarily surrendered its authority to declare war itself. The action is provided for in the War Powers Act (sections 5(b) and 8(a)), but has it been done before?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Who'd be a lawyer? What Congress did was to pre-ratify whatever decision the President took on this issue. The fact that it was one particular issue doesn't stop it establishing the principle. Congress voluntarily surrendered its authority to declare war itself. The action is provided for in the War Powers Act (sections 5(b) and 8(a)), but has it been done before?

I'm pretty sure if I was sitting on your couch drinking imported beer, or you were sitting on mine drinking Milwaukee's Best Light, we'd come to a reasonable agreement pretty shortly. This format takes away little of the understanding short spoken sentences enjoy.

Who'd be the lawyer for what? That would be my interrupting question to you as we gazed with glazed eyes at VH1 or MTV.

I don't think congress so much 'pre-ratified' whatever decision the president took as they authorized the action they knew perfectly well he (and they) intended to take anyway. Opportunities such as those (almost the whole of the nation seeking far more retribution than Afg could ever provide) are very few and far between. Congress hasn't 'declared' war since WWII. There are probably very good reasons for that which are better left explained to/by someone with feet well-rested on your/my coffee table. I don't think the act was too, too unprecedented. Maybe a little but not much. I think it was more in tune with preparing the American people than anything else. Plus it gave congress the warm fuzzy they needed in further establishing the War Power's act as legal precedent -- given that presidents of the past have disputed its legitimacy for some reason. I hope I answered your questions. I'm going to pop the tab on one of my cheap beers and leave it here by the monitor for you to enjoy if you want.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Who'd be the lawyer for what?Not for love nor money, that's what. You have to read all that stuff for a living. And then there's the social disgarce, of course. ;)

I don't think congress so much 'pre-ratified' whatever decision the president took as they authorized the action they knew perfectly well he (and they) intended to take anyway.Thereby calling Kerry a liar. Cute. As I recall, he said he didn't vote for war (as had been claimed), but to give the President the option and strengthen his hand in negotiations. That negated the declaration of war by Congress option in 5(b)(1) by being a "specific authorisation" and stating that it was intended to be, as required in 8(a)(1). That's pre-ratification in my book. I don't think the act was too, too unprecedented. Maybe a little but not much.You can't get a little bit pregnant. It was precedented or it wasn't.

The danger is that this might become the normal procedure whenever a potential conflict emerges. The next step could be a much more general authorisation, against a more shadowy threat such as terrorism. Eternal viglance, remember.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The danger is that this might become the normal procedure whenever a potential conflict emerges. The next step could be a much more general authorisation, against a more shadowy threat such as terrorism. Eternal viglance, remember.

All else aside, because I might actually get to leave the house in the next few minutes, it already HAS become normal procedure. The only difference is that this time we were better informed beforehand. Probably a lot of reasons for that too.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

If you want to find the real culprit, though, for America beginning to lean toward fascism, you might take a look at the fact that over half of all eligible voters in America don't even bother to show up for most elections. As long as we sit on our lazy @$$es, it remains a very real danger.

Amen to that. Is apathy one of the 14 signs, I forget...

[normdoering]

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't personally believe that at all. I think it is unlikely to happen here because of the separation of powers. No president can simply do what Hitler did.

Are you sure? Here's a newsflash:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24:
`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'

If it passes President Bush may be re-elected indefinitly.

[Ed]

Originally posted by normdoering
Are you sure? Here's a newsflash:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24:
`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'

If it passes President Bush may be re-elected indefinitly.

News flash. It ain't that easy.

[Drooper]

From my reading, the 14 points of fascism are equally valid as 14 points of communism.

Does that mean the US has a Communist administration?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by normdoering
If it passes President Bush may be re-elected indefinitly. My point isn't about re-election. My point was about consolidating power. How will bush sieze power from congress? How will Bush force the Judiciary to relinquish their power and rule the way he says they must?

[curi0us]

Sorry for the slow response, pretty frustrating the level of miscommunication between us, but I guess I’ll just continue where I left off:

Originally posted by RandFan
IMO YES! How many times must I answer you? It is an opinion. You keep asking and I keep answering and you refuse to accept my answer, why? I asked once and your answer wasn’t that clear so I asked for clarification, nothing to freak out over. I was hoping you would expand upon it a little since it’s actually key to the discussion, but if you don’t want to fine. I suppose there’s a little disbelief on my part at your hypocrisy but we can just leave it at that.
That is your opinion. Sure.

I'm not trying to make an argument that certain individuals are nazis. The word is directed at behavior.

If there were a double standard I would agree. But I am not calling any individual a fascist. I'm saying that if someone is fascist in their thinking then that is fascist. I'm saying that there exists people who exhibit certain behaviors that I think are worthy of being associated with Fascism or Nazism.Isn't a fascist someone who behaves like a fascist? I don’t see the distinction you are making as being very significant.


I have never, as far as I can remember, used the word to label any single individual but rather used it to label behaviors that I think deserve the label.Feminazi is a noun, not an adjective.

Straw man.Well, there was a “?� on the end of that, but I admit it was a somewhat snarky comment. But I was also a little serious in that you seem to bring up the porn thing a lot in regards to the feminazi’s and that seems unfair to me since the religious right is diametrically opposed to feminism and is also far more opposed to porn.

It's an opinion! You are asking me what I think.I'm telling you what I think and why. If you don't think it is justified then that is your prerogative. I thought you could provide a better justification than you had previously, and I even explicitly stated it didn’t have to be your own words. I was actually trying to give you the opportunity to look more reasonable.
Can you give me an example of such a feminist so I can label her? Why can’t you? If the word that has “value�, give some specific examples of when you actually use it.

All the examples I can think of femninazi being used were when the target was nothing like nazi’s and when those feminists also had traits that were also far more antithetical to Nazism then America is in general. That’s why I’m asking for clairifcation/justification.
If feminists (and their behaviors) can be compared to nazi’s even when they they have traits that are antithetical to Nazi’s doesn’t that mean a Nazi or fascist comparison/reference can be used for only very limited similarities that are even contradicted by other traits.

Not at all. I'd be happy to modify "many" to some. I don't know how "many". Noted.

I think feminism that seeks equality for women is "GOOD"! I think feminism that seeks to lift women up and better their lives is "GOOD"! I think feminism that seeks to give women choices and opportunity is "GOOD"! I think this is what feminism stands for and that it works and that it IS GOOD!

I think there exists feminists that are anti-male and are anti-free speech. I think this is destructive and NOT good. My point had nothing to do with whether or not feminism is good or bad. My point has been that you clearly have different standards for use of the word fascism that align with your political biases.

I note that you ignore that I have said that the word Feminazi is a loaded word. I don't think it should be used in serious debate and I won't. I note that despite you saying it was a loaded word you still say you are going to use it!!!

I would have no problem with someone mocking bush as Hitler. Put Will Farell in a hitler moustache and swastika on his arm as he plays Hitler and I won't complain. Likewise I think many Feminists can also be so mocked.I don’t see us having a disagreement over the use of nazi references in comedic context.

Are you and others like Mephisto willing to stop comparing Bush to Hitler. Where did I do that Randfan? I’ve never compared Bush to Hitler! Are you willing to stop making stuff up about me?

For the record this IS ABOUT COMPARING BUSH TO HITLER.
No, I’ve never compared Bush to Hitler yet here we are arguing. Perhaps instead of imagining what we are discussing you should actually read and focus on what I’ve written.

I love how you turn the thread on its head. I note also that you don't take a position on the use of Nazi as it is used against those on the right only as it is used against feminists.
As far as calling people on the left or right (or whatever) fascists I did take a position on the matter that was very clear and a direct response to you early in this thread. Here it is again:
Originally posted by curi0us
Np. :) Good, so we agree, "Many right-wingers are Fascist in their thinking," and I'll add so our many left-wingers. From that place a discussion about how much fascism there is in America seems like a completely reasonable one.

I think you should really think about that a little before you decide you know where I’m coming from.


For the record. I don't use the word Feninazi to label any individual. You are unlikely to find an instance where I ever call anyone a Feminazi. I have used it mockingly and to deride behaviors that I think are wrong. I will continue to do so. You “will continue to do so�. “Mockingly�, “Deride�.


I WON'T start any threads seriously trying to compare any individual or group to Nazi's the way Mephisto has.But you’ll effectively do that in other settings? Is the issue really about starting threads? I enjoy internet discussions because people can be more open about what they really think and believe. I’d much rather you started a thread where you presented your case for why feminazi is legitimate term as opposed to refraining from doing that here but still “mocking� and “deriding� others with it in more private settings.

I will call right wing thought and behavior fascist as well as behavior from people on the left as fascist. So what’s your problem with others doing that?

I think words have meaning and I think the word Feminazi conveys a particular meaning for certain particular behaviors that are fascist in nature (IMO).Why not just use the word fascist then? Also note, if you examine the feminist behaviors you are calling fascist I think you will consistently find they stem from beliefs that are actually more antithetical to Nazism (and historical fascism) then American values in general are.


I'm willing to concede that the use of the word is provocative and polemic and likely to cause more controversy than anything else and I would not use the word in serious debate.[/list=1]That isn’t much of a concession if you think about it. The real question is do you recognize that your past use of the word required you to be less judgmental when others made fascist/nazi comparisons?

Do you think Mephisto and those like him will be just as willing to do the same as it applies to the point of this thread?I’m not sure. I can’t really speak for him and I don’t think the “point of this thread� is completely clear. But are saying that you don’t have a problem with people comparing Bush to Hitler as long as they don’t do it in serious debate?

What are your views? Is comparing Bush to Hitler justified?No. Or more specifically, only if the comparison shows some of the massive differences between them and/or doesn’t attempt to actually equate them.

Next post:

Originally posted by RandFan
You are really beginning to piss me off. [list] You edited me out of context!No, you imagined a context in my post that wasn’t intended by me. I consciously chose a statement by you that had you calling femninsts and right wingers fascist in part to make it so you weren’t just criticizing feminists, going much further into it didn’t seem necessary. It’s important to note that even if I had posted your entire post that wouldn’t have provided the complete context either, since the actual context was the entire thread not just your one post and there was a lot of back and forth between you and others that included you defending Limbaugh’s and your own use of the word feminazi.

I posted my entire post. WHICH STATEMENT! I really don't know what the hell you are talking about. I’ve repeatedly explained this to you but I guess I’ll try again. The statement that you posted the entirety of was irrelevant to my dichotomy, I didn’t draw a conclusion from it in my dichotomy at all.

Look, if I have made a mistake I will admit it and apologize. I don't see where I have. There is no justification for you to behave this way. You are being an *********.Classic Randfan.

??? What? It was the right one but it was also the wrong one? What?Sigh, I included that clarification in order to try to pre-empt your confusion. I was just acknowleding that you did expand upon a statement of yours that I had quoted, BUT that it wasn’t the statement of yours that related to my dichotomy in any way. (Note I didn’t use the word “right� at all.)


THE STATEMENT WAS QUOTED OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!!!!!

Are you paying attention? It was quoted out of context! Umm, you asked a question and I responded to it. It was directed at some else in the thread but the question was still valid in general wasn’t it? Your complaint here seems completely irrational, at least with the other statement I could see how you wanted to add greater context to clarify your position, but with the second statement of yours there is nothing to get worked up over. Sure, it was reply to someone else just a little higher on the page but why is it a problem that I quoted it (in it’s entirety) and responded to a question in it.



When, WHEN did I ever say to the exclusion of all others? “WHEN� did I say you did? My exact words were, “Nor did my dichotomy rely upon the statement you’ve chosen to focus upon to the exclusion of all others.� Notice my word “focus�, notice that I never say you said “exclusion of all others�. I’ve already explained to you that my dichotomy was a response to a question in your second statement that principally came from Limbaugh’s statement. The statement you insisted was the “actual� statement (even after I told you it wasn’t) was 100% irrelevant to the dichotomy. I told you this yet you still said it was the “actual� statement and until your most recent post didn’t even seem to acknowledge that their were multiple statements in my post. That’s why I said “focus upon to the exclusion of all others�.

On the contrary, I'm asking you to not quote me out of context. Is that a problem for you?I’m asking you not to beat your wife. Is that a problem for you?

sigh

It’s a completely reasonable to want people to not quote you out of context, however it’s debatable what proper context is. Perhaps more importantly, you are flat out making stuff up about me, I wish what you were doing was as minor quoting me out of context cause then it would be far easier to deal with.

My statement ISN'T ABOUT LIMBAUGH!!!!! Can't you get that through your thick skull? Can you get it through your thick skull that I never stated that it was!!!

Nor can my words be shoehorned into Limbaugh's to make an unwarranted conclusion..Exactly, they can’t be. And that’s why it didn’t happen. You imagined the whole thing.




Ok, curi0us let's go back to the beginning and hash the whole damn thing out. {sigh}

In response to #3 of the 14 points normdoering said:

To whit Mephisto said:

It was here that I pointed out the irony of Mephisto's statement. As far left as he is he doesn't sink so low as to equate Republicans as terrorists but he does equate them as Nazis. I don’t really see where Mephisto “equated� Republicans with Nazis. He said there “some� comparisons he agreed with but explicitly backed off a direct Bush = Hitler comparison.
You then repost the following quote from me:
THIS IS OUT OF CONTEXT! {sheesh} Are you getting this? As I’ve already explained, greater context doesn’t alter that you said “many feminists were fascist in their thinking� and right wingers also. Do you deny that in a thread where you are getting pissed off at someone else for suggesting our government is fascist that your past use of the word fascist is a fair subject to bring up?

You then post some drivel from Rush Limbaugh. You missed the irony (and you had an irony graphic in your quote too). Despite you specifically using the word holocaust the only person in this thread who has actually equated anyones actions with the genocide of the holocaust is Limbaugh.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with my position about fascism. I DON'T share his opinions!

I DON'T SHARE LIMBAUGH'S OPINIONS!!!!!!!! I didn’t say you do. I did link to the old thread where it can be easily seem that you weren’t hostile to his opinions and that you even defended his use of the word feminazi.

Are you getting this? Just because his words are the subject for which I'm posting does not mean I share his opinions! Got it? There’s nothing to get. I reread a lot of that old thread before I posted, it was completely clear to me that your opinions weren’t the same as Limbaugh. Nothing I have said in this thread has been dependent upon you and Rush having the exact same opinions or definitions for words. However, I do think it’s noteworthy that feminazi is a word that Rush popularized and that you were shown his definition for and you still choose to use it.

You then post the quote that is the apparent reason for all of this nonsense: Actually, I was just answering your question. Since Ive failed to to communicate this effectively to you many times now I’m going to try a new approach. Imagine my dichotomy if it had been included in a post with zero statements from you:

*****************************************
Some people think America is antithetical to Nazism, let me suggest a reason why I think maybe we aren’t. In 1992 Rush Limbaugh wrote:

I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. The term describes any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion.

A feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed. Their unspoken reasoning is quite simple. Abortion is the single greatest avenue for militant women to exercise their quest for power and advance their belief that men aren�t necessary. Nothing matter but me, says the feminazi; the is an unviable tissue mass. Feminazis have adopted abortion as a kind of sacrament for their religion/politics of alienation and bitterness.

(my dichotomy verbatim from before)
Either abortion in America is a "holocaust" and Limbaugh's Nazi comparisons are vaild and we are antithetical to our own values . . . or Limbaugh's nazi comparisons are form of demonization propoganda that actually are an aspect of fascism, and his HUGE popularity is indicative that fascism can be quite successful in America.
*************************

I am hoping you can now finally see above how my dichotomy wasn’t a conclusion drawn from your statements. I’ll continue responding to your comments about my dichotomy though:

Now, This does not follow from anything that I have written. Now, I’m hoping with your statements subtracted from my post this will be clear to you. My dichotomy only answered your question “Isn't Nazism antithetical to American values? “ This is not my position.I never said it was. Note that my dichotomy is about 1) Limbaugh’s statement that abortion = holocaust and also about his huge popularity. Your position is irrelevant.
This is a non sequitur.No, it’s answer to the question is “Isn't Nazism antithetical to American values?� This a false dichotomy.Ok, let's look at your moronic dichotomy. It consists of two statements. I'm going to number them and separate them. I'm NOT going to otherwise edit them to change their meaning.

Abortion in America is a "holocaust" and Limbaugh's Nazi comparisons are vaild and we are antithetical to our own values. OR

Limbaugh's nazi comparisons are form of demonization propoganda that actually are an aspect of fascism, and his HUGE popularity is indicative that fascism can be quite successful in America.[/list=1]Please note I did not delete or add any words. Also note that the statement is in it's entirety.

Statement #1
If we assume that Abortion is a holocaust then it would be antithetical to our values. That’s my point exactly in the dichotomy! If Rush is correct then this part of my dichotomy is flawless and you in your own words agree with me. But then you confuse yourself by adding yourself into the dichotomy in a way that doesn’t make sense.
However,[list] I don't think abortion is a holocaust. So? How does that refute this part of the dichotomy?
I don't agree with everything Rush says concerning the word Feminazi.I recognize that, but what’s that have to do in any form with this part of the dichotomy?
I don't defend Limbaugh's use of the word. Again, what’s that have to do with my dichotomy? I don't agree with Limbaugh's motivations for using the word. Irrelevant. My purpose is simply to explore the use of the word Feminazi and why and when I think the usage appropriate. That has nothing to do with the dichotomy either. All your points trying to find a flaw in the first part are wrong. I’m seriously baffled by your lack of critical thinking.

Next part.


Statement #2
Just because I don't agree with Limbaugh would not force me to conclude that Limbaugh's comparisons are in and of themselves a form of fascism.A reasonable objection, in what has mostly been a stupid fight between us I want to recognize that this point is 110% reasonable on your part. I realized it was the weak part of my statement at the time but I was prepared to defend it as I think it’s a philosophical point point worth exploring even if I’m wrong. I am making the debatable claim that dishonest demonizing propaganda is an indication of fascism. My claim comes from my own attempts at understanding what would let people accept fascism along with personal experiences with people (mostly leftist) who seemed really idealist, yet were willing to completely dishonor those ideals in the fight for their cause. My definition is more focused upon what forces create and sustain fascism in individuals, as opposed to what does a fascist nation state look like. My perspective may also be skewed towards addressing what has gone wrong with the War on Drugs, which I think is disturbingly fascist.
Hell, I'm not even saying that mephisto's comparisons are in and of themselves a form of fascism. This is NOT my position, this is not my argument. I have not concluded nor have I stated that Mephisto's argument is a form of fascism.I never said you did.
I do note however that his comparisons are ironic.The irony was intended, there was after all an :i: in the quote above my dichotomy.


Finally there are more than the two options that you have proposed. It IS a false dichotomy. I thought false dichotomy is the name of the fallacy you invoke in the second part . . . You can of course come up with more fallacies if want, I’ll try to respond to them. I’m not at all attached to the notion that my dichotomy is flawless.

Your out of gas. Yeah, I’m tired of this.


Your statement is idiotic, fallacious and downright wrong. It doesn't follow from anything that I have written.Sigh.



You have intentionally edited my words and tried to force Limbaugh's position and my words to together to construct a conclusion that is silly and wrong.No, you just assumed connections to your words that I didn’t intend. Final note: you could have simply argued that Limbaugh's comparisons of Abortion to the Holocaust are wrong and as Ironic as Mephisto's. I would have agreed with you. :i:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by curi0us
Feminazi is a noun, not an adjective. Sure but it can give a mental image of behavior. Ax killer is a noun also but we understand very clearly what the specific behavior is don't we?

Well, there was a “?� on the end of that, but I admit it was a somewhat snarky comment. But I was also a little serious in that you seem to bring up the porn thing a lot in regards to the feminazi’s and that seems unfair to me since the religious right is diametrically opposed to feminism and is also far more opposed to porn. Unfair? I label them the same.

Why can’t you? If the word that has “value�, give some specific examples of when you actually use it. I don't know any. I have largely used the word in the abstract.

If feminists (and their behaviors) can be compared to nazi’s even when they they have traits that are antithetical to Nazi’s doesn’t that mean a Nazi or fascist comparison/reference can be used for only very limited similarities that are even contradicted by other traits. So the Bush references are wrong?

My point had nothing to do with whether or not feminism is good or bad. My point has been that you clearly have different standards for use of the word fascism that align with your political biases. That is just your opinion based on your own bias.

I note that despite you saying it was a loaded word you still say you are going to use it!!! In SOME cases. Not to label any person except in comedic situation or satire.

I don’t see us having a disagreement over the use of nazi references in comedic context. Cool.

Where did I do that Randfan? I’ve never compared Bush to Hitler! Are you willing to stop making stuff up about me? My apologies.

You “will continue to do so�. “Mockingly�, “Deride�. Yes, where I think it appropriate. If called on it and a reasonable argument made I'm prepared to apologize.

But you’ll effectively do that in other settings? Is the issue really about starting threads? I enjoy internet discussions because people can be more open about what they really think and believe. I’d much rather you started a thread where you presented your case for why feminazi is legitimate term as opposed to refraining from doing that here but still “mocking� and “deriding� others with it in more private settings. I would have no problem mocking someone in a thread.

So what’s your problem with others doing that? Thank you for asking, my problem is with those who suggest that we are in danger of suffering the same fate that the Germans did under Hitler. The sky is NOT falling, Bush is not Hitler, we are not Nazi Germany and it is unlikely that we will become Nazi Germany. I don't care for demagoguery.

Why not just use the word fascist then? Also note, if you examine the feminist behaviors you are calling fascist I think you will consistently find they stem from beliefs that are actually more antithetical to Nazism (and historical fascism) then American values in general are. It's effective in its own way. But note that I have conceded that the word is loaded and not a good one in serious discussion or debate.

That isn’t much of a concession if you think about it. The real question is do you recognize that your past use of the word required you to be less judgmental when others made fascist/nazi comparisons? It's a great comparison! My problem is with the suggestion that we are going to suffer the same fate as Nazi Germany.

I’m not sure. I can’t really speak for him and I don’t think the “point of this thread� is completely clear. But are saying that you don’t have a problem with people comparing Bush to Hitler as long as they don’t do it in serious debate? I have done just that, on more than one occasion. I have even labeled Bush's behavior fascist in serious debate. I think Bush's actions towards protestors was down right fascists.

Classic Randfan. I think it deserved based on your behavior.

“WHEN� did I say you did? My exact words were, “Nor did my dichotomy rely upon the statement you’ve chosen to focus upon to the exclusion of all others.� Notice my word “focus�, notice that I never say you said “exclusion of all others�. I’ve already explained to you that my dichotomy was a response to a question in your second statement that principally came from Limbaugh’s statement. The statement you insisted was the “actual� statement (even after I told you it wasn’t) was 100% irrelevant to the dichotomy. I told you this yet you still said it was the “actual� statement and until your most recent post didn’t even seem to acknowledge that their were multiple statements in my post. That’s why I said “focus upon to the exclusion of all others�. Not getting this. I don't understand why you can't be clear. Your arguments are disjointed and obscure. Why not be direct?

I’m asking you not to beat your wife. Is that a problem for you? Fair enough. I apologize.

I don’t really see where Mephisto “equated� Republicans with Nazis. He said there “some� comparisons he agreed with but explicitly backed off a direct Bush = Hitler comparison. Riiiight!

You missed the irony (and you had an irony graphic in your quote too). Despite you specifically using the word holocaust the only person in this thread who has actually equated anyones actions with the genocide of the holocaust is Limbaugh. When did "I" use the word holocaust?

I didn’t say you do. I did link to the old thread where it can be easily seem that you weren’t hostile to his opinions and that you even defended his use of the word feminazi. I was arguing that the word can have some value. That is all. You are trying to make fallacious and unwarranted conclusions.

Actually, I was just answering your question. Since Ive failed to to communicate this effectively to you many times now I’m going to try a new approach. Imagine my dichotomy if it had been included in a post with zero statements from you: Cool

Some people think America is antithetical to Nazism, let me suggest a reason why I think maybe we aren’t. In 1992 Rush Limbaugh wrote: Ok, ...

(my dichotomy verbatim from before)
Either abortion in America is a "holocaust" and Limbaugh's Nazi comparisons are vaild and we are antithetical to our own values . . . or Limbaugh's nazi comparisons are form of demonization propoganda that actually are an aspect of fascism, and his HUGE popularity is indicative that fascism can be quite successful in America. False dichotomy.

Non sequitur.

[b]I am hoping you can now finally see above how my dichotomy wasn’t a conclusion drawn from your statements. I’ll continue responding to your comments about my dichotomy though: You used my words about feminism and edited them with Limbaughs to make an argument. That you can also make an argument without my words does not change that.

Now, I’m hoping with your statements subtracted from my post this will be clear to you. My dichotomy only answered your question “Isn't Nazism antithetical to American values? I could buy this if you hadn't quoted my words on Feminazi.

“I never said it was. Note that my dichotomy is about 1) Limbaugh’s statement that abortion = holocaust and also about his huge popularity. Your position is irrelevant. If it was SO irrelevant then why post my words about feminism at all?

No, it’s answer to the question is “Isn't Nazism antithetical to American values?� No, it attempts to make an argument "A" or "B". Neither of which follow from my question. Neither of which are necessarily exclusive or the only options.

I never said you did. But that is the point. It would follow based on your logic.

Yeah, I’m tired of this. I share your fatigue.