It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from each other, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.
And understandably, people are frustrated and they're angry that Wall Street's mistakes have put their tax dollars at risk. And they should be. I'm frustrated and angry, too.
But while there's plenty of blame to go around -- and many in Washington and Wall Street who deserve it -- all of us -- all of us have a responsibility to solve this crisis, because it affects the financial well-being of every single American.
However, the economic programs of the great majority of fascist movements were extremely conservative, favouring the wealthy far more than the middle class and the working class. Their talk of national “socialism” was quite fraudulent in this respect.
And economic fascism reigns supreme in Barack Obama’s America. Just look at the recent government handling of Chrysler. In a series of press conferences this week announcing Chrysler’s bankruptcy, Obama hit on all of the four P’s.
First, Obama stated that Chrysler’s product had to be revamped -- and that he knew how best to do it. “For too long,” Obama said, “Chrysler moved too slowly to adapt to the future, designing and building cars that were less popular, less reliable, and less fuel efficient than foreign competitors. That’s part of what has brought us to a point where they sought taxpayer assistance.” It’s easy for Obama to criticize Chrysler -- he’s never run so much as a lemonade stand.
Second, Obama announced that he would be setting prices on senior debt. Obama’s proposed plan for Chrysler involved destroying senior debtholders, paying them a whopping $0.33 on the dollar for their loans. When the senior debtholders refused to abide by such a plan, Obama excluded them from the Chrysler bankruptcy negotiations altogether, then labeled them “speculators” and blamed them for Chrysler’s downfall -- all the while kowtowing to the interests of four large banks (Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley) that own 70 percent of Chryslers debt. All of them have taken government bailout cash.
Posing as a populist, Obama undermined the very basis of free enterprise in this country: the power of investors to lend money at return. Instead, he says he stands with employees, families, and communities -- all of whom would be bankrupt without the power of private investment. Preaching economic fascism in the guise of warfare on “speculators” -- this is how freedom dies.
Third, Obama stated that he would henceforth control the profit margin for Chrysler. He did this by putting the unions in control of Chrysler -- the new majority owner of Chrysler is the union retiree health fund, which has a 55 percent stake in the new company.
Fourth, and finally, Obama has decided that the government shall control the people who are hired and fired at America’s largest companies. After defenestrating the head of GM, Rick Wagoner, Obama forced out the head of Chrysler, Robert Nardelli. He then stacked the nine member board of the company with four government picks, three Fiat picks, one union pick, and one Canadian pick. Chrysler is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the federal government. And the same President who urged us to “buy American” in his Thursday speech handed over the levers of power to an Italian car company, Fiat.
The fascist economic theory corporatism called for organizing each of the major sectors of industry, agriculture, the professions, and the arts into state- or management-controlled trade unions and employer associations, or “corporations,” each of which would negotiate labour contracts and working conditions and represent the general interests of their professions in a larger assembly of corporations, or “corporatist parliament.” Corporatist institutions would replace all independent organizations of workers and employers, and the corporatist parliament would replace, or at least exist alongside, traditional representative and legislative bodies.
Although there have been some incidents of government exercising minor control over industry during wartime, this aggressive assault on American capitalism is unprecedented and should give all Americans who care about freedom pause.
Strict government control over businesses is the essence of Fascism, or more precisely, Mussolini-style corporatism. As Mussolini said, "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Corporatism boils down to this: government tells industry (and labor) what to do and they do it for the supposed good of the country. For the president of the United States to be able to, effectively, fire the head of a major corporation is not a road America has ever headed down before.
In October 1939, Nazi Leader Adolf Hitler issued an order, written in his own hand, ordering the extermination of those who were considered “unworthy of life.” The order, entitled “The Destruction of Lives Unworthy of Life,” stated that patients “considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health, be accorded a mercy death.”
Today, the Obama Administration is beginning to descend down that same road, promising to make the “tough choices” to cut entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security to save money—at precisely the time in which an increasing number of Americans are forced to depend on them as the economy slides deeper into Depression. Obama is willing to spend trillions of dollars to bail out the financial markets, and pay for it by slashing programs which keep ordinary Americans alive.
Think we’re exaggerating? Take the case of a paper entitled “What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?” It sounds like something that might have been written by Jeremy Bentham, or Aldous Huxley, or maybe Nazi doctor Karl Brandt, but it was actually co-authored in 1998 by “bio-ethicist” Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, a leading advisor to Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag, and a member of the 15-person Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, the group which has been designated to prepare the list of which medical procedures will henceforth be permitted, and which will not. Emanuel’s co-author, Margaret Battin, has written other papers promoting suicide and selective refusal of medical treatment.
Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
In answer to the OP, I dont think hes in disguise at all (after the election that is), i think hes been pretty blatant about what hes doing.