WE SURROUND THEM!

“Sure, common ground.... and BTW, here are the minimum requiremants to get in the club.”

“I never expected you to admit that you agree with me Tilt, even if you actually did.... left-o-facists are really nasty people when it comes down to it.....


I'm more interested in poeple who don't vote, because they think they can't make a difference. Or people who have been disappointed by the people they did vote for...

The point is that they work for us, we don't work for them”

“Then again, why would anyone want to agree with tilt on any thing?”

“there ya go.....”

“left-o-facists are really nasty people when it comes down to it.....

i thought we were calling for an end to the left-right clusterfuc k. i guess i misunderstood”

“I hear ya, Strat. But arguing for not arguing will get us nowhere.”

“quityerbichin.”

“"left-o-facists are really nasty people when it comes down to it...."

So now he's "in the middle" ??
(ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!)

Is that your final solution?

Ten seconds, Bob..................”

“Libbies tend to be hateful to individuals on a personal level. Conservatives put down large groups of people at once.”

“Need a reminder of what Fascism is.... again?”

“"Kool-Aid Drinkers" is such a retarded term. Seriously.

A year ago, those who didn't agree with Bush called those who agreed with him Kool-Aid Drinkers. Now, those who don't agree with Obama are calling those who agree with him the same thing. I think it's a term used by those who are butthurt that the country's leadership is contrary to their beliefs. Rather than take it as an insult, I find myself laughing at the absurd desparation of it.

I vote that it's time to retire the term. It's lost all meaning - now it's just an impotent barb used when one is attempting to enrage members of the side that's winning. Join me.”

“Sillies are so libbie.”

“How much a glass?”

“it depends...

if you're a fascist libbie then all you have to do is not work and sit on your ass, and the working people will have to pay extra taxes to provide you with the kool-aid for free

if you're a fascist conservative, then you just need to pal up with the rich people, and they'll steal the kool-aid from the poor.”

“That is a good desription of our surrounders.”

“This is funny. "Let's all get better together." What a load of crap. Consensus building doesn't ever work. Sure, everyone comes out of the rooms smiling for the cameras but when reality kicks in, everyone goes back to their corner to try and get what they think is theirs. This is the modern human condition.”

“
Yep! Somebody sounds a little mixed up.

This version of the "The Fascism Short Course" should put things into perspective. Go on! Take a peek! There'll be Plenty of time to fly off the handle afterward.


Fascism Anyone?

by Laurence W. Britt
Free Inquiry Magazine Volume 23, Number (Spring 2003)
The Council for Secular Humanism


Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles” on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.

We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.

For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.


Note

1. Defined as a “political movement or regime tending toward or imitating Fascism”—Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.


References

Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980.
Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963.
Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001.
Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999.
de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976.
Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995.
Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970.
Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973.
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999.
Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996.
Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.
Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001.
Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999.
Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001.
Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977

”

“I completely agree... "fascist" has joined "socialist" and "terrorist" as a term thrown around by politicians and their supporters often (dare I say always) without proper understanding of its definition”

“Man, Tilt. Looks like the Shrub Regime made a play by play based on that definition!”

“Alright.....WTF with the Nazi reference this early into the thread?”

“Fear must be maintained or the empire is doomed.

(I hereby secretly denounce roseymonster)

You can expect a knock on the door.”

“Heil Stratdood!     < WINK >”

“Yo, unless you got a pizza, go away!”

“Would you like a can of whoop ass with your pizza?”

“I'd rather a beer can, pleases...”

“gotchya!

You want regular or sissy beer?”

“We are surrounded by Chuck Norris!”

“gawd hep us.”

“Git hep!
last edited: 3/16/09 12:08:11 PM”

“Hepcat rocks!”

“
Let's kick that up a notch....


”

“Wouldn't you like a bit of Angelfood with that, Tilty?”

“oh nooooo”

“Is that Crumb?”

“Yes it is, ya Bum.”

“
--- the image is also a link ---

”

“Enough with the "He started it, they do it too, my sides right, your side cheats(even though they usually do)

We have to get away from politics and decide what we believe in...What do we believe in?”

“ROF   I just saw a clip of where the 'd00d got this routine:

It's Glen Beck's latest nervous breakdown. Now that he's on Fux he's letting his true feeeeelings out ---- and he rants and cries like his Mommy is dragging him out of the grocery store without his Fruit Loops.

I kid you not.


The election of Barack Obama appears to have driven him completely insane.

And this is what the D00d latches onto?
yikes.

”

“you say that like youre surprised”

“The part where Strat latches on?   noooo.   LOL

Beck was a surprise.   I saw him a couple of times on CNN and he was just your garden variety #&%!$.   But now he's completely lost it ---- think Peter Finch in Network.

He's Mad a as a Hatter and he's not going to take it anymore,   LOL”

“Glenn Beck Crying On-Air: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HWKzobeya4


Glenn Beck Continues His Fake Crying Act: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuV1XG517cc
last edited: 3/19/09 4:42:46 AM”

“Glenn Beck's "We Surround Them" Cult: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFFt0S-XApI”

“That dude and his good book's been towing too many trailers for way too long.”

“"We have to get away from politics and decide what we believe in...What do we believe in?"
Dood
stratd00d
3:17:05 PM
3/18/09

...after posting this

".... left-o-facists are really nasty people when it comes down to it...."
Dood
Stratd00d
8:59:04 PM
3/15/09

I have a better idea.
Take your ugliness and shove it.”

“marko, we surround you”

“Like that bacon ring around your neck?”

“come out with your hands up!”