It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is America turning into a Facist State?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   


posted by Soulstice

I'm afraid you are also wrong 5a. Marx wrote it, and the correct quote is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." My understanding is that Andrew Jackson did what he did because he was primarily an excellent soldier and not a politician and certainly a most reluctant President. [Edited by Don W]



I love history. Americans have always loved successful generals and made them president, sort of a final accolade. See list below. Jackson became famous in the Battle of New Orleans, 1815. Jackson was the first president of LOW birth. In a classless society. In 1817, Jackson led an American army into Spanish Florida chasing Creek Indians - say hello Cambodia - who had forayed into Georgia. Jackson found the 2 British agents provocateur who had incited the Creeks, and he promptly strung them up without benefit of clergy or trial. This rash incident almost provoked a 3rd war with Great Britain, which was averted only by Pres. Monroe's careful handing.

The US pushed Spain out of Florida, and took it. We later paid Spain for a clear title. Jackson ran for president in 1824 but failed to get a majority in the electoral college. The House chose John Quincy Adams who had finished number 2 to Jackson in both the popular vote and the electoral vote. Which angered Jackson no small amount. He came roaring back in 1828 and won his first of 2 terms. He is considered the co-founder of the current Democratic Party along with T. Jefferson. Can you think of two more dissimilar men?




I doubt that Bush's actions are less authoritarian in terms of his time compared to the other Pres you mention. Not under Dem's or Rep's. Better to be a peaceful anarchist!



I can’t concede that Bush43 has faced anything remotely as serious as A. Lincoln faced. The violations of civil liberties ascribed to Lincoln fail to take into account that if Maryland had seceded, the capital would have had to be moved and in a hurry. The fate of the nation hung on that. No one decried Lincoln’s actions after the War was won. It is only Bush43 apologists who even dream Bush43 faces such momentous challenges. Bush43 will not be joining a triune of demi-gods, Washington, Lincoln and Bush43. He’s on the sauce again. Washington created the Union, Lincoln saved the Union, but Bush43 is destroying the Union.

Nor can honest people find succor in FDR. He, unlike Bush43, made every move to soften and fix the Great Depression through Congress. Even those laws that the SC stuck down were passed by Congress. FDR did not invoke “emergency powers.” FDR is a good example of a president who respected the Constitution and the separation of powers. Unlike Bush43.




JO wrote "Don may get his wish for a Constitutional convention by the end of this century." By that time, after 20 odd more elections we'll all be dead and the only party will be the Demopublicans. Ralph Nader Jr will plead with people to vote with their biochipped backsides! Would a fascist leader allow free journalism? You can bet your last dollar Bush43 and his Dept of Justification people are plotting around it The very moment that dispassionate law interpreting judges go against Bush43 and even minimally toward the illegalized combatant what happens? Where's the yellow brick road?

Perhaps a new definition of fascism is in order to match this new terrorized vision of the still new millennium. Maybe a new term altogether. How about Western Elite versus Eastern Fanatic? How about hyper-techno-arrogation? Too wordy? Not cliquey enough for the work bound driver flashing past on the blooded expressway? I look forward to the Senate elections. Does Bush? [Edited by Don W]



Well said.

PS. Generals who became president.
1. George Washington, Revolutionary War
2. Andrew Jackson, War of 1812
3. William Henry Harrison, War of 1812
4. Zachary Taylor, Mexican War
5. Franklin Pierce, Mexican War
6. Andrew Johnson, Civil War
7. Ulysses S. Grant, Civil War
8. Rutherford B. Hayes, Civil War
9. James Abram Garfield, Civil War
10. Chester A. Arthur, Civil War
11. Benjamin Harrison, Civil War
12. Dwight D. Eisenhower, World War II



[edit on 7/12/2006 by donwhite]




posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I sincerely hope that we can avoid second a civil war. I'm doubtful that we can avoid it at this point in our history, but there you have it. It's my hope and I'm clinging to it.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Excuse me for not being an honest person, Donwhite.

You are right, of course, Lincoln's troubles are far greater than today's world with thermonuclear weapons, suicidal Jihadis and potential global pandemics.

FDR trying to pack the Supreme Court to allow his socialist, unconstitutional New Deal policies to be realized could not be objected to.

Or his putting Japanese Americans into concentration camps and ordering the firebombing of civilian populations.

BushieMcHitlerswine staged 9/11 so he could exercise dictatorial powers.

I'm so happy now that I'm on the right side of history.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

I sincerely hope that we can avoid a second civil war. I'm doubtful that we can avoid it at this point in our history, but there you have it. It's my hope and I'm clinging to it.
[Edited by Don W]



An all volunteer Army frightens me. In the crunch, the Army will be subjected to propaganda, to the Rules of War which make it a capital offense to disobey a lawful order in the face of the enemy, and the super training they have had in urban warfare. Soldiers in the field are neither encouraged to have thoughts of their own on strategic or tactical issues, nor are they allowed to “opt out” in tough situations. Recall how the National Guard at Little Rock responded when Ike nationalized them over the school desegregation issue. They did their Federal duty. The Army may be more loyal to the person who signs their check more so than to an abstraction or principle about the Constitution and Bill or Rights. I rank the all volunteer Army a hazard to our liberty equal to the privatization of traditional governmental functions.

Any rebel forces in the US will have to operate as the guerillas in Vietnam did or the insurgents in Iraq seem to be doing now. With the tacit if not overt support of the local populace as a bare minimum. That means, frankly, that American Blacks and persons of Mexican descent may be the best source of a resistance movement. They will have to operate in small units - 5 or 6 men and women at the most. Battalion size rebel forces will be impossible, what with government USVs and satellites, night vision capability and infrared equipment. Rebel coordination will be a monumental task. The Government can jam all cell phones and cut land lines. Knocking out or shutting down the 300-500 largest ISPs would cripple the internet. Electric power, city water and sewer service would be shut off in any hotbed of rebel activity. No food or fuels coming into the area. Warsaw ghettoes around the country. And etc.

I foresee a coup d’etat in W-DC as the more likely scenario for a fascist takeover. The “inside the beltway” types as opposed to all the “outside the beltway” types which the former do not think the latter count for much. Well, let’s both hope it never does come down to that. We’d see thousands of murders committed by the empowered to coerce the general population, as in the Katyn Forest Massacre. We’d say, Lenin, where are you when we need you?



[edit on 7/12/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
An all volunteer Army frightens me. In the crunch, the Army will be subjected to propaganda, to the Rules of War which make it a capital offense to disobey a lawful order in the face of the enemy, and the super training they have had in urban warfare. Soldiers in the field are neither encouraged to have thoughts of their own on strategic or tactical issues, nor are they allowed to “opt out” in tough situations. Recall how the National Guard at Little Rock responded when Ike nationalized them over the school desegregation issue. They did their Federal duty. The Army may be more loyal to the person who signs their check more so than to an abstraction or principle about the Constitution and Bill or Rights. I rank the all volunteer Army a hazard to our liberty equal to the privatization of traditional governmental functions.


Hm. Well, now. This goes right to the core of an issue that I addiressed in my book. In this scenario, the all volunteer force is our only hope. It's the only way patriots can desert from or infiltrate in to the organized forces the will face in this hypothetical civil war.

Over the last 30 years, the U.S. Army in particular has been slowly transformed in to a more politically motivated force. The soldier's profession is being corrupted by political indoctrination and dogmatization of the warrior's creed. It's only a matter of time 'til we see Soviet-like political officers in the ranks. Anyone who wants more on this should read my book. Within 18 years, 3 Presidents, we will likely see a State-ist army.


Originally posted by donwhite
Any rebel forces in the US will have to operate as the guerillas in Vietnam did or the insurgents in Iraq seem to be doing now. With the tacit if not overt support of the local populace as a bare minimum. That means, frankly, that American Blacks and persons of Mexican descent may be the best source of a resistance movement. They will have to operate in small units - 5 or 6 men and women at the most. Battalion size rebel forces will be impossible, what with government USVs and satellites, night vision capability and infrared equipment. Rebel coordination will be a monumental task. The Government can jam all cell phones and cut land lines. Knocking out or shutting down the 300-500 largest ISPs would cripple the internet. Electric power, city water and sewer service would be shut off in any hotbed of rebel activity. No food or fuels coming into the area. Warsaw ghettoes around the country. And etc.


I don't have enough room in this post to be as detailed as you were just now, but I would beg to differ on the composition of the rebel force. Throughout history, most rebel elements have not operated in larger than company size. The American rebel elements will have their own twist, just as the Iraqi insurgents do. As I am already on record in regards to these things, I reference my book again.

There will be an informational component to the American insurgency that will do more damage to the Fascist regime than any rebel bullet. Sheesh, but I'm trying to stay general.


Originally posted by donwhite
I foresee a coup d’etat in W-DC as the more likely scenario for a fascist takeover. The “inside the beltway” types as opposed to all the “outside the beltway” types which the former do not think the latter count for much. Well, let’s both hope it never does come down to that. We’d see thousands of murders committed by the empowered to coerce the general population, as in the Katyn Forest Massacre. We’d say, Lenin, where are you when we need you?


I'm with you there. Although...I do see the grab for power coming from inside the beltway. Seveal scenarios come to mind, including the one I outlined in my book. Let me try to get back to your point. If the government can re-invent the military as a conscripted force, it really would be harder for anti-government forces to develope, evolve, and stay in the field. If the all-volunteer force remains in effect, I say we have a brighter future than we might have without it.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   
First let me congratulate just about everyone here on impressing one of the most self-absorbed members on this board, namely The Vagabond. Very well informed and insightful discussion here, and what's more, it's ongoing. I beam with joy for PTS.
Now that I've kissed your butts I think I'll attempt to join you.

There seems to me to be very little question that the basic ends of fascism are being sought here in America, though it definately is a new breed of fascism as compared to the Italian/German example as I understand it.

They were authoritarians, ethnic/Romantic nationalists, and corporatists of a sort. Furthermore these were not independent planks in their ideology but were interrelated means to a single end (at least as far as I can tell from what sense I could make of Mein Kampf, which draws a rather haphazard series of links between international commerce, foreigners, and the woes of the common people, proposing a self-contradictory approach to corporatism in which an ethnically defined, hegemonic state forcibly consolidates corporate power on a near-global scale).

The American approach has been more a more traditional form of corporatism- originating with a self-organized corporate power base for the government as opposed to the state-organized corporatism that Mein Kampf seems to advocate. It's certainly coming to a high boil now, with the military-industrial complex in the vanguard, but its not a wholly new thing for the United States.

"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!" may be written off as proud American bluster, but when preceeded by George Washington ordering troops against American citizens to put down a revolt against a regressive tax and followed by none other than Thomas Jefferson putting our money where our mouth was to fight a war over commerce, one has to stop and think about just how old our government's favor for big business is. Granted the Barbary War enjoys a fair reputation with those who know it happened at all, but would that be the case if the war had not gone reasonably well? The wars you win always seem justified.

I hesitate to blame it on democracy precisely, but perhaps I would agree to blame it on an unequivocally capitalist democracy. Laissez faire capitalism is suspect in my mind mainly because of the company it keeps. If you own and use an AM Radio you probably don't need an explanation of that statement. The osstensible way of things in America is that the government is to be kept under the thumb of the people where it can be no threat, and through that government other threats to our liberty are warded off. But when it is customary for the government to leave business alone, and the people are dependent upon business for their welfare, the people can be exploited into giving up their government to business and then they have no defense against anything at all.

The commerce clause should be our defense against big business as it limits laissez faire to smaller enterprises, but insufficent exercise of the govenments power to check big business gave business a prominent place in American politics (helped considerably when the Australian ballot system nailed us down to two options) and before you know it, the commerce clause was corrupted for use by a business-coopted government against our interests.

That happened to begin on FDR's watch, and though I have my bones to pick with the Roosevelts, I don't think the Business Plot and WWII bode to well for the idea that Roosevelt was a fascist. He was doing what he could.

In so many words, with regard to Techsnow's point, I'd say that Democracy does not lead to fascism nor is communism our only recourse. Instead I'd say that democracy could have harnessed capitalism if it had assumed more authority and regulated potential attacks on the individual more closely. (Though I also realize that virtually any idea that seeks to defeat the tendency towards the growth of power is at least slightly Utopian. At the end of the day we need a little revolution every now and then to take us back to square one.)

Back to fascism, beyond the corporatism there are disturbing tendencies towards authoritarianism in play that lead into an economically more fascist endgame for establishing corporatism. The good news is that theoretically we could respond to signing statements and executive orders the same way the House responds to the Senate's attempts to unconstitutionally originate budget proposals- just ignore them. The problem is that this only works so long as the executive branch is not willing to go as far as an autocoup, because despite its basic lack of serious power, the executive does control the men with the guns, and nothing the other branches do matters if men with guns don't back it up.
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."
(Whether or not Jackson really said it, he got his phony treaty and the Indians were removed. Never get between a president and gold.)

And we've even got a bit of a cultural nationalist movement beginning to show up in response to the immigration issue, and that's extremely important because as DonW noted, minorities do represent a significant portion of the likely resistance if the earlier mentioned autocoup comes about. You always need foreigners for your domestic opponents to be in bed with, and since we're a little light on Jews around here, the Mexicans will make a good stand-in. An immigrant component to the resistance would rile people up against the whole lot of us, regardless of national origin. How convenient that liberals are already becoming "those kooks who don't want a secure border" as far as some are concerned.

As a Marine I've got a pretty good idea that in most scenarios a coup would mean a schism in the military, but if opposition throws the first punch then there's a good foreign threat "hiding amongst them" that becomes more questionable. I also note that the pro-Israeli stance seemingly mandated by Christianity poses a certain threat in this regard. In discussions with fellow Marines I found that a remarkable number of them would refuse to fight Israel. Now what happens in a national power struggle if comrade commissar puts the word out that the opposition is going to take us away from Israel's side when they need us?


Then there's the Lincoln thing. There's absolutely no denying that Bush 43, while he represents a new stage in a trend that extends through much of our history, does represent a certain acceleration of the problem. Unlike the war in Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security, signing statements, etc, the violations committed by FDR and Lincoln were clear products of the external factors they had to confront. Our economy is bleeding to death, take greater control over it. There's danger of Maryland secceeding, clamp down on them. That follows.

The Bush administration's offenses have been completely non-sequitur. When a Saudi who is hiding in Pakistan attacks us, we retaliate against Iraq. When people who our FBI was able to observe carried out a terrorist attack despite being on our radar, instead of kicking the FBI in the butt we opened up all kinds of new police surviellance powers which aren't even related to the things that might have been done to catch the terrorists. How does monitoring my phone calls improve the fact that the FBI doesn't do anything when they find a guy who wants to fly but not land?
Then there is the most egregious offense- the whittling away of due process. HELLO! Our problem isn't that we didn't punish them fast enough, it's that we didn't CATCH them.

The difference is clear. Lincoln saw a problem and responded. Bush sees a problem and asks Alberto Gonzalez to use it as an excuse to start getting everything on his little police-state wish list, preferably without solving the problem. Don't forget that; it's an important detail. None of this stuff has solved the problem. I was blown away just the other day to hear that the TSA and FBI found a guy in an airport whose shoes set off the bomb detector. They confiscated his shoes, let him go, and then called the bomb squad.
I would have bought that in Passenger 57 but not in real life. Where the hell is Wesley Snipes when you need him?

Anyway this feels pretty windy now and I kind of wish I'd been more to the point in some ways, but now that I've typed it I sure as heck ain't throwing it away.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 12:51 AM
link   
its my opinion that too many people today blame bush for everything that occurs on a daily basis..

Bush did not cause 9/11 come on now that is just ridiculous
Bush caused the hurricane that took out Louisiana too i guess.
he also put a bomb in that train in India and killed 200 people in India
he also send Israels troops into Gaza to get their soldier back

come on some of you people are ridiculous with accusations



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   
every New York times article on Bush is a negative one.... i want to see a Democrat get into office and do something horrible wrong and see what the new york times says.. what was that? oh they will say nothing



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   
As the Vagabond says, "The difference is clear. Lincoln saw a problem and responded. Bush sees a problem and asks Alberto Gonzalez to use it as an excuse to start getting everything on his little police-state wish list, preferably without solving the problem."

This has been central to my thesis from the start:

1st Example

2nd Example

3rd Example

The trend is obvious if and only if you are looking for it. The real question here is not "if" but "when." I do like a good discussion, but I felt strongly enough bout all this to put my thoughts and findings on paper. As more of us come to understand what's in our future, I find myself becoming more hopeful.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Okay,then. I think we're done here. This was fun and informative. I think we've all got some interesting moments to look forward to during the remainder of 2006.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   
People Should Not Be Afraid of Their Governments.



Governments Should be Afraid of Their People.


DENY IGNORANCE!!! wake up!


We still have time to take action to avoid the worse!

[edit on 18-7-2006 by Amon_Ra]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join