NESSAholics.com
Other Topics => Completely Off-Topic => Topic started by: Jophess on November 16, 2004, 03:43:42 am
-
I swear, we're fucked.
Joey, back me up on this one!
Colin Powell was, like, the only republican that I liked. Why did he have to resign?
-
"um...I, that wasn't in my...I, I" "It's a yes or no question Miss Rice." "I, it's not in my notes, I um..."
Got to love that :)
But I didn't like Powell, either. I mean suuuuureeeee it was his job to go tell the UN that Iraq was a threat...but he lied.
I found this interesting, too:
Fascism Anyone?
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm
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.
Glad we live in America and that could never happen.... :roll:
-
Look up an Encyclopedia article on Facism. Compare that to the list you presented. Then stop posting such nonsense.
-
it's Condoleezza ...before you want to start bitching about how fucked up we are...look at your GOOD spelling...tell me now who is fucked up? :roll:
-
it's Condoleezza ...before you want to start bitching about how fucked up we are...look at your GOOD spelling...tell me now who is fucked up? :roll:
Jesus Christ! It was off the top of my head!
Condoleezza isn't an everyday name like Michael or Jessica, you know.
-
it's Condoleezza ...before you want to start bitching about how fucked up we are...look at your GOOD spelling...tell me now who is fucked up? :roll:
Jesus Christ! It was off the top of my head!
Condoleezza isn't an everyday name like Michael or Jessica, you know.
No, but the great thing about the internet is you can look up names easily to make youself look more intelligent. Sometimes it really does works.
-
it's Condoleezza ...before you want to start bitching about how fucked up we are...look at your GOOD spelling...tell me now who is fucked up? :roll:
Jesus Christ! It was off the top of my head!
Condoleezza isn't an everyday name like Michael or Jessica, you know.
No but the great thing about the internet is you can look up names easily to make youself look more intelligent. Sometimes it really does works.
Well, sometimes when it's 6:30 AM and I have to leave for school in 5 minutes, it's kind of hard for me to take the time to look up her name because I still have to brush my teeth, wash my face, and get prepared.
-
ummkay...lets keep on making excuses....I'll roll with them.
Honestly, I'm not looking for a fight. I wouldn't have said anything if you didn't say that we were fucked up. I thought it was a tad ironic that you called us fucked up and then spelt her name wrong. It was like oooh ok you just fucked up and you called us fucked up? That's all. Nothing to lose sleep, or forget brushing your teeth over.
-
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 6:43 am
It's a freaking typoe. Have a cow.
-
I = very happy :D Here's to a 2008 (http://www.rice2008.com) run for the most brilliant woman in the American government.
Four years from now, I look forward to pointing out how we are not at all "fucked up". :roll:
-
Look up an Encyclopedia article on Facism. Compare that to the list you presented. Then stop posting such nonsense.
they didn't use the direct definition of Fascism.
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.
-
I = very happy :D Here's to a 2008 (http://www.rice2008.com) run for the most brilliant woman in the American government.
Four years from now, I look forward to pointing out how we are not at all "fucked up". :roll:
knew you'd be happy. :)
-
they didn't use the direct definition of Fascism.
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.
You neglect to state, however, that most or all of those threads have been present in just about every country to varying degrees at one point in time or another, regardless of the prevaling ideology. I could say that Facist countries throughout history have tended to strongly control and regulate their own economy. That was certainly true with Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany. Yet, it happened in early England, France, and China, and you would certainly not brand those governments Facist. It happens today throughout Europe.
And this is ignoring the fact that Facism is an unfair slur. People think that Nazi = Facist. All Nazis are facists. Not all Facists are Nazi. Facism doesn't have to have to be racist or any of that jazz. Facism pretty much describes an authoritarian government similar to Mussolini's.
-
it's Condoleezza ...before you want to start bitching about how fucked up we are...look at your GOOD spelling...tell me now who is fucked up? :roll:
Jesus Christ! It was off the top of my head!
Condoleezza isn't an everyday name like Michael or Jessica, you know.
No, but the great thing about the internet is you can look up names easily to make youself look more intelligent. Sometimes it really does works.
um, not to be a bitch or anything, but you wrote "does works".
oh, and i forgot- yeah, we are definitely screwed.
-
You neglect to state, however, that most or all of those threads have been present in just about every country to varying degrees at one point in time or another, regardless of the prevaling ideology. I could say that Facist countries throughout history have tended to strongly control and regulate their own economy. That was certainly true with Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany. Yet, it happened in early England, France, and China, and you would certainly not brand those governments Facist. It happens today throughout Europe.
It was a list of things that joined the majority of the countries they used together. Taking one issue and saying that "England, France, and China" had this one issue...doesn't make them fascist. Is that what you're saying? Because that would be true, but the article doesn't imply that.
And this is ignoring the fact that Facism is an unfair slur. People think that Nazi = Facist. All Nazis are facists. Not all Facists are Nazi. Facism doesn't have to have to be racist or any of that jazz. Facism pretty much describes an authoritarian government similar to Mussolini's.
It doesn't say all Fascist were Nazis. The word "nazi" wasn't even in the list I posted. And racism was only one part of that list...there were 13 others to choose from. I am pretty sure there is a longer list somewhere. Some of the points, I am sure, are skewed. Like, for example, the Religion point. On one of the (web)encyclopedias I read it said that Italy allowed Catholicism, seeing how it was the main religion in the country. While, on the other hand, Germany didn't really allow religion. Hitler did use race and national security.
-
I'd rather watch Condi Rice whistle dixie through the gap in her teeth than read some of the tripe in this thread *walks off*
-
It was a list of things that joined the majority of the countries they used together. Taking one issue and saying that "England, France, and China" had this one issue...doesn't make them fascist. Is that what you're saying? Because that would be true, but the article doesn't imply that.
I do, however, contend that these factors have arisen together in countries that did not practice Facism. Let us look at early 19th century GB. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13. You wanna brand early 19th century GB Facist now? 10/14 is a pretty high score.
It doesn't say all Fascist were Nazis. The word "nazi" wasn't even in the list I posted.
Yes, but the use of the slur is related to the atrocites of the Nazi regime. Before WWII, many proudly called themselves Facist. Now, modern adherents of those same philosopies use different names for their beliefs because the name was tainted so much by Hitler. Some people like freedom from rather than freedom to. Not saying I agree with them, but the philosophy isn't as nearly bad as knee-jerk liberalism claims (c.f. right wing claims on socialism).
Like, for example, the Religion point. On one of the (web)encyclopedias I read it said that Italy allowed Catholicism, seeing how it was the main religion in the country.
Italy established the Church of Rome in exchange for soverignty of the Holy See under the Lateran Treaties of 1929. That's on the list. However, the move was largely political as it ended the Vatican's claims to the Papal Territories. It was more of a political move rather than an ideological one. A few years earlier, I believe the Facists in Italy published a platform advocating the seperation of church and state.
on the other hand, Germany didn't really allow religion.
He allowed it where it helped the state and banned it when it threatened the state.
Pretty much, I'm saying that you shouldn't use the term Facist unless you know what you're talking about. Today, it is almost exclusively misused by leftists to refer to conservatives and neo-conservatives. That, however, is just a display of ignorance of history and it is a pet peeve of mine. Please don't use it unless you seriously know what it means. You come off the same way as conservatives do when they refer to all leftists as Communists in an attempt to link the leftists with the atrocites and clusterfucks of Mao and Stalin.
-
Pretty much, I'm saying that you shouldn't use the term Facist unless you know what you're talking about. Today, it is almost exclusively misused by leftists to refer to conservatives and neo-conservatives. That, however, is just a display of ignorance of history and it is a pet peeve of mine. Please don't use it unless you seriously know what it means. You come off the same way as conservatives do when they refer to all leftists as Communists in an attempt to link the leftists with the atrocites and clusterfucks of Mao and Stalin.
Do you not find that with the word 'Liberal' too? I am FED UP of the word Liberal being thrown around as if its some sort of insult. In fact, The Economist published an article claiming that the English language needed to reclaim the word liberal and for the Neo-Conservatives to stop slinging it at everyone who doesn't automatically shout "I don't wanna kill babies!" when abortion is mentioned or who actually considers whether spending vast amounts on the military is right or not.
-
Do you not find that with the word 'Liberal' too? I am FED UP of the word Liberal being thrown around as if its some sort of insult. In fact, The Economist published an article claiming that the English language needed to reclaim the word liberal and for the Neo-Conservatives to stop slinging it at everyone who doesn't automatically shout "I don't wanna kill babies!" when abortion is mentioned or who actually considers whether spending vast amounts on the military is right or not.
People look at me funny when I say I'm a neoclassical liberal. Ha ha.
Yeah, liberalism is just a label. That value judgement that comes with it is unnecessary. We've gotten to the point where the labels matter more than the ideas. That's dangerous.
-
Do you not find that with the word 'Liberal' too? I am FED UP of the word Liberal being thrown around as if its some sort of insult. In fact, The Economist published an article claiming that the English language needed to reclaim the word liberal and for the Neo-Conservatives to stop slinging it at everyone who doesn't automatically shout "I don't wanna kill babies!" when abortion is mentioned or who actually considers whether spending vast amounts on the military is right or not.
People look at me funny when I say I'm a neoclassical liberal. Ha ha.
So your a Neo-Liberal (we don't say neo classical here), right? You believe in a return to free market economics and civil liberties such as Thatcher advocated, no? Do you believe in an atomistic view of society or a more communitarian approach?
-
I know it has been mentioned that her name was spelled wrong, but is there any hope for anyone changing that in the subject?
-
I know it has been mentioned that her name was spelled wrong, but is there any hope for anyone changing that in the subject?
Why does it matter if her name is mispelled? It's not like it's a common name, anyone who knows politics knows who this thread is about.
I'll spell it anyway I want to: Cunnalingus Rice
-
There.
It's not Condoleezza. I didn't think I could change it, but apparently I can.
-
I know it has been mentioned that her name was spelled wrong, but is there any hope for anyone changing that in the subject?
Why does it matter if her name is mispelled? It's not like it's a common name, anyone who knows politics knows who this thread is about.
Yeah, I know, but it was just a kind of OCD thing that annoyed me every time I went into the off topic forum. I'm sorry :cry:
-
So your a Neo-Liberal (we don't say neo classical here), right? You believe in a return to free market economics and civil liberties such as Thatcher advocated, no?
I'm tempted to say yes, but I don't know much beyond the very basics of what Thatcher did. All I know is that some have derided her economic policies as a rehash of Reaganomics (and I'm probably confusing you with that as much as you did me with the Thatcher reference).
We call them neoclassical liberals around here because we take our ideas from the classical liberals. Of course, our philosophy has changed in subtle ways throughout the years, so we use the neo prefix to distinguish more modern philosophies from those of the late 18th to early 19th centuries.
Do you believe in an atomistic view of society or a more communitarian approach?
By what is understood in the political climate of the US, communitarianism is anthetical to neoclassical liberalism. Where we place a great emphasis on the soverignty of the individual, communitarians place an emphasis on serving the interests of the majority, even at the expense of pissing on the minority.
As for an atomistic view, I don't even know what that is. Maybe we use another term for it over here.
Damn, all this international political terminology is incredibly inconsistant and irregular.
-
Would you say that certain ideas work in theory, but the leaders who use the theory get power-crazed and that's what damns the theory? Like Communist Russia?