How to Spot a Dictator. Common Characteristics of World Dictators

I cam across this list yesterday, and I found it enlightening with regard to the current siuation in both US and UK.

It doesn't come as a surprise to me, I've been saying it for some time, but I thought it would be useful to post it on ATS. It seems very, very clear the direction in which we are heading.

We're not quite there yet on all the points in the article, but if you look at the facts of what's going on behind the smiling, hollywood-style front which is presented to the public, you might see that we are further down this road than most people realise.

Also this could be useful in talking with family and friends who aren't yet aware of the truth of what's going on in the back office.

Anyway, see what you think,

frankwarner.typepad.com...


Common characteristics of world dictators

It was hard to tell whether Hugo Chavez rigged the Venezuela recall vote in his favor. But Coyote Blog’s "How to spot a dictator" post has a point. Click here.

For the record, a dictator guarantees none of the following:

Freedom of speech.
Freedom of the press.
Free opposition political parties.
Independent courts.
Free and regular elections.

Degrees of repression. Some dictators see themselves as a transition to democracy, but, in general, few eventually subject themselves to an election. In Chile, Augusto Pinochet did allow two yes-no votes on his rule, and he left office after the second plebiscite, in which 56 percent of the people voted "no."

Some dictators allow limited freedom of expression, as long the expression -- written or spoken -- doesn’t directly challenge the dictator’s rule.

The restrictions vary. In some dictatorships, the people can call for free elections or criticize the dictator. In the more repressive tyrannies, such speech could be punished by imprisonment or worse. Under the most severe oppression, a society may appear calm, but only because the punishment for dissent is swift, harsh and certain.

Totalitarianism. Totalitarian dictatorships, the most repressive of regimes, strictly enforce the absence of freedom, and relentlessly apply the power of the press, the courts, the bureaucracy, the army and the police against individual liberties. Totalitarian means total dictatorial control.

Most totalitarian police states have some form of neighborhood block watches, requiring residents to inform on neighbors who exhibit any democratic tendencies. Secret police also watch for anti-dictatorship activity. Religions often are not permitted to operate without a government license; dictators fear that worshipers might plot against them during private religious activities. In totalitarian theocracies, one religion is central to the dictatorship, which relentlessly tells the people that oppression is God's will.

In totalitarian societies, gross abuses of human rights are common. Totalitarian dictatorships also tend to justify their abuses by claiming the total repression serves a higher cause, like material equality or superficial stability. Totalitarian dictators regularly educate both children and adults that freedom is a scary thing, or they redefine "freedom" as equality or stability. The arguments for totalitarian control become an "ideology," a system of principles that average citizens are never permitted to question.

No named successor. One oddly common trait among dictatorships: The dictator almost never has a named successor. Most democracies have something like a vice president, to take over if the president dies. Dictators don't want their opponents to know who would succeed them. The uncertainty discourages the opposition from assassinating the dictator. To the would-be assassin, the successor could be worse, or the chaos of choosing a successor too dangerous.

In dictatorships, the ruling political party either restricts the activities of opposition political parties or outlaws opposition parties altogether. (Each "party" simply is a group of people who agree on and organize around a collection of political ideas.) Dictatorships also allow the courts little or no independence; judges are expected to issue rulings based on what the dictator wants, even if the dictator's wishes contradict the truth or the law.

Dictatorships are much more inclined to begin wars. Their secrecy and unaccountability place few restrictions on a dictators' war-making decisions. The same lack of openness and accountability makes dictatorships much more prone to mass murders of outcasts, political opponents and even people simply suspected of opposing the government. With no free elections, no strong opposition parties, no free press and no independent courts to challenge them, dictators can order mass death at their whim.

Link to famine. Some political scientists argue that the lack of openness and accountability of dictatorships also is a major cause of mass famine. Democracies occasionally experience hunger and malnutrition, but democracies seldom experience the kind of famine that lets hundreds of thousands or even millions die of starvation. A government that faces a free press and free elections is much more likely to produce quick action to avoid famine.

A dictatorship is more inclined to cover up famine and look the other way. In fact, some dictators, including Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedung, intentionally have caused famines and let them linger. They cut off food to cities and provinces to punish people who called for freedom or independence.

A dictatorship commonly is thought of as one person, the dictator himself. Usually, there is one man at the top, but occasionally the top ruler answers to some extent to a dictatorial political party. Today's Chinese Communist Party is one example of this. It enjoys dictatorial power. It is not elected by the people, but it elects all of China's rulers.*

Hopeless oppression. The most common characteristic of a dictatorship: Hopelessness in the people -- no hope of a free election to change leaders, no hope of fairness in court, no hope of a life lived with the freedom to speak your mind or challenge a bad idea.

Frank Warner

* * *

*The Chinese Communist Party, embarrassed by Mao's deadly record and fearful of a repeat, has taken measures to prevent its top dictator from seizing all power to himself. They have calculated that by limiting the top dictator to 10 years in office, that leader won't become so popular that he'll get away with killing and abusing millions whenever he feels like it.

China's term limits have yet to be tested. It is still possible that China's president could demand total power and remove all who oppose him. It could take too much courage for his fellow Communists to demand he stop.

Mr. Harper I think they're talking about you again...

Yes we know these dictators in Canada

reply to post by wcitizen


On a side note, I think you also create a kind of dictatorship when it's common knowledge that money wins elections..
Gone is the dream of 'anyone can one day be president"..
Presidents are now bought and paid for with campaign contributions even BEFORE they win..
Favors MUST be paid back regardless of public opinion..

Now half a billion dollars will probably NOT get you elected..

Money talks and BS walks..

S&F

Here's another surefire way to spot one. If they take photos like this:




[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c09457c5786a.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by wcitizen

...In dictatorships, the ruling political party either restricts the activities of opposition political parties or outlaws opposition parties altogether. (Each "party" simply is a group of people who agree on and organize around a collection of political ideas.)

A more subtle method of this part is to have 2 parties whom appear different, but both have the same goals.
The people are of the mind that they have political choice and democracy, though they never seem to benefit from either party being in power.
A more politically enlightened public, may require a 3rd 'opposition' party to give the needed illusion of democracy.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wcitizen

 

On a side note, I think you also create a kind of dictatorship when it's common knowledge that money wins elections..
Gone is the dream of 'anyone can one day be president"..
Presidents are now bought and paid for with campaign contributions even BEFORE they win..
Favors MUST be paid back regardless of public opinion..

Now half a billion dollars will probably NOT get you elected..

Money talks and BS walks..

S&F

Yes, and I think the part of the article which says a dictatorship isn't always just one person relates to this. There's a 'collective dictatorship' going on, if you will. In fact, Obama is the public face of the dictatorship group, he's theirr stooge who pushes through the laws to support and protect that 'group dictatorship', and keeps the l 'public persona lie of democracy' alive for the masses through the MSM/

there's also other signs, the backdoor deals with IMF and the weapons for drugs CIA program.
dictators benefit the status quo, it gives them an excuse to tell us:
"you think you got it bad? look over there, now that's bad"

meanwhile we all get dictated around.

Originally posted by CitizenNum287119327
reply to post by wcitizen

 

...In dictatorships, the ruling political party either restricts the activities of opposition political parties or outlaws opposition parties altogether. (Each "party" simply is a group of people who agree on and organize around a collection of political ideas.)

A more subtle method of this part is to have 2 parties whom appear different, but both have the same goals.
The people are of the mind that they have political choice and democracy, though they never seem to benefit from either party being in power.
A more politically enlightened public, may require a 3rd 'opposition' party to give the needed illusion of democracy.

Yes exactly, it creates the illusion that there is a democratic process going on but both are controlled by the oligarchs. A real opposition party would not be allowed. This is alfeady the case in the US - have you noticed how many members of ATS are afraid Ron Paul will be 'dealt with'?

What bothers me is that many seem to accept this as normal now, something to be expected, when if fact, the fact that people expect those who speak out against the government to be murdered is outrageous and totally unacceptable.

Genuine whistleblowers - what are they but truth tellers and opponents of the status quo and vital in any healthy society. It's commonly accepted that they put their lives at risk by speaking out. That too is outrageous and it's sad that people now expect that these people will be 'taken out', and speak about it openly and glibly.

I guess it shows that the minds of many have alrealdy accepted dictatorship as the norm.

Originally posted by AnotherYOU
there's also other signs, the backdoor deals with IMF and the weapons for drugs CIA program.
dictators benefit the status quo, it gives them an excuse to tell us:
"you think you got it bad? look over there, now that's bad"

meanwhile we all get dictated around.

Yes, secrecy, black ops, the political power of the military and what is effectively the real government acting outside public awareness, behind the scenes, outside scrutiny and outside the law - all signs of a dictatorship.

Here's just one example from today's new topics:

Senators want to put people in jail for embedding videos.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Imo, this isn't about protecting copyright so much as it's about censoring and suppressing open debate.

I've decided to post more examples of current topics which fit the criteria for a dictatorship. I'll do it a bit later because I haven't got the time now.

Feel free to do the same.

Here's another one:

Illinois man faces 75 years in jail for filming cops
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by AdamsMurmur


I don't get it - can you explain?

Freedom of speech.
Freedom of the press.
Free opposition political parties.
Independent courts.
Free and regular elections.

I think we have lost at least 2 of those in the past 10 years here in the UK. Freedom of speech and freedom of press has gone imo.

Freedom of speech and freedom of press could both have gone down the pan when these super injunctions Went live. Allthough I think they had goen way before that.

Could even say that free opposition political party as gone too. You think if the BNP or EDL got the most votes in the England they would gain power?

Originally posted by ThePeopleParty
Freedom of speech.
Freedom of the press.
Free opposition political parties.
Independent courts.
Free and regular elections.

I think we have lost at least 3 of those in the past 10 years here in the UK. Freedom of speech and freedom of press has gone imo.

Freedom of speech and freedom of press could both have gone down the pan when these super injunctions came out. Allthough I think they had goen way before that.

Couldeven say that free opposition political party as gone too. You think if the BNP or EDL got the most votes in the England they would gain power?

Yes, and the main parties are all NWO controlled and funded - so no real opposition at all.

Maybe we should start the 'Freeman party' and see where it can go! It might get enough media coverage to expose to more people how corrupt the banking and judicial system is and what we can do about it.

reply to post by wcitizen


Thats a good idea and I for one would be on board if that party did get started.

Only problem is.. Who do we control when in power if we have told everyone they are free if they choose to be

Originally posted by wcitizen
Maybe we should start the 'Freeman party' and see where it can go! It might get enough media coverage to expose to more people how corrupt the banking and judicial system is and what we can do about it.

edit on 2-6-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

Great idea in theory but not practical..
The main parties, in most countries only two, have already been bought out with vast sums of money for campaigns from lobby groups that expect and get favorable laws past then benefit their profits and control..

Any new honest party has no chance..

The current system of party politics is a broken system that will not see change until it is totally replaced with a new system where EVERY elected politician actually represents the people that voted for them..

The two party system where those elected MUST vote along party lines has destroyed the true meaning of democracy and representative Government..

reply to post by backinblack


The internet is still a good place for now to organise support for something like this. Maybe we should use it before they have total controll over this media too?

Originally posted by wcitizen
Here's another one:

Illinois man faces 75 years in jail for filming cops
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And what kind of gov allow this:

Young Boy Strip Searched By TSA



S&F

reply to post by wcitizen


yeah, but how long until the status quo infiltrates and assimilates that new movement aswell?