When did fascism actually take hold in the US?

[cumplidor 0]

Hope this turns interesting

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Hope this turns interesting

Using the term "actually took hold" I'd have to say right after the attack on the Reichstag buil......ummmm I mean the world trade center.
How's that for starting the thread with a bomb?

[hairyjuan 0]

deny the truth all you want, it's here for the sheep who've been led to the water. drink or not, it is your CHOICE.

Every symbol on the back of a US dime represent it,DUH.





hermes-press.com

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[cumplidor 0]

your right.

I should have worded it 'actually begin to take hold?"

[billvon 2,476]

Every government has degrees of fascism. To completely eliminate it you'd have to eliminate the president/premier/prime minister (i.e. the executive authority) and have a representative body make all the decisions. You'd also have to eliminate government economic controls like anti-monopoly laws and control of the federal reserve.

That being said, we're certainly sliding more in that direction. What are some characteristics of fascism?


1) Centralization of authority under a single leader. We're definitely seeing more of that lately.

2) Government control over the economy. Nowadays every time gas prices go up there are new calls for the government to step in.

3) A policy of aggressive nationalism. No question there.

4) Widespread supression of opposition. This is happening now to a minor degree, although it's a lot better now than it was during the 1950's and 1960's, where supporting communism could actually get you arrested and blacklisted. Nowadays the opposition is just called names.

One unique characteristic of the US is that we're being convinced that we NEED a more fascist government to "take care of us." How many times have you heard "we have to stand up to terrorism" used as a reason for additional government control/intervention/surveillance? It's a way to give government more control through stirring up fear. Machiavelli gives a good outline of how to do this in The Prince.

To answer the original question - I think the date that it became more fascist than the founding fathers ever imagined was the date Woodrow Wilson got us involved in World War 1. Up until that date we were an insular country effectively minding our own business (and doing pretty well at it.) He convinced us that we needed to get involved in a war on the other side of the globe for questionable reasons, and we did, without a second thought.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

4) Widespread supression of opposition. This is happening now to a minor degree, although it's a lot better now than it was during the 1950's and 1960's, where supporting communism could actually get you arrested and blacklisted. Nowadays the opposition is just called names.

And have their freedom of movement restricted. Peace activists, civil libertarians, and even Democratic senators have been added to the no fly list.

And have their freedom of speech restricted. We now have "Free Speech Zones" and "Designated Protest Areas" which keep dissidents away from the media covering the other side. Reporters who cover the dissent sometimes have their access to officials limited. Media owners limit the prominence of opposition coverage to avoid problems.

[billvon 2,476]

I agree with some of that, but:

>Media owners limit the prominence of opposition coverage to avoid problems.

is not an example of government supression of opposition. It's an example of a free press deciding to add their own tilt to the news they provide people.

[SkyDekker 1,155]

Quote

is not an example of government supression of opposition. It's an example of a free press deciding to add their own tilt to the news they provide people.

That depends. If "the government" makes it clear that if you report negatively about them or if you give the opposition too much "air time" you will never get an interview with a senior government official again, or you will never be given a scoop again, then it would fall udner a form of government supression.

(I am not saying this is what is happening, just debating the point raised.)

[cumplidor 0]

Quote

One unique characteristic of the US is that we're being convinced that we NEED a more fascist government to "take care of us." How many times have you heard "we have to stand up to terrorism" used as a reason for additional government control/intervention/surveillance?

Ah, and you are either "with us or against us" to help further widen the chasm between the black and white, thus making compromise much more difficult, and the truth harder to see, because the truth is not black and white.

But as a population, aren't we constantly being told we NEED (or SOLD) something many times daily, whether it is more government, help with erections, bigger house than my neighbor, the need for whiter teeth or whatever?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

But as a population, aren't we constantly being told we NEED (or SOLD) something many times daily, whether it is more government, help with erections, bigger house than my neighbor, the need for whiter teeth or whatever?

that's a hell of a stretch of the word "fascism"

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

1) Centralization of authority under a single leader. We're definitely seeing more of that lately.

The greatest jumps in the past 100 years with this were made by FDR. Back until the early 1900s, the states had the greatest authority. Then, the "New Deal" came along. Welcome to a large federal government.

Quote

2) Government control over the economy. Nowadays every time gas prices go up there are new calls for the government to step in.

Once again, the bastard child of the New Deal.

Quote

3) A policy of aggressive nationalism.

Yep. The interred Japanese knew that all too well.

Quote

4) Widespread supression of opposition.

Google a "switch in time saves nine."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,476]

>The greatest jumps in the past 100 years with this were made by FDR.

Yeah, I can see that. I think Wilson had more to do with growth of presidential power, but you could make an argument that FDR did more to expand federal government than anyone before him.

[SpeedRacer 1]

In 1919 the 18th amendment, Prohibition of Alcohol, was ratified.

I believe this was the most blatant example of the Federal Government as Nanny State up until that time.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>The greatest jumps in the past 100 years with this were made by FDR.

Yeah, I can see that. I think Wilson had more to do with growth of presidential power, but you could make an argument that FDR did more to expand federal government than anyone before him.

Well, Wilson DID urge passing of the Sedition Act of 1918. That was the law that banned Americans from using disloyal or abusive language about the government during a time of war. Plenty of American citizens, the most famous of whch was Eugene Debs, were tossed into the clink for protesting the war.

While we have talk by government officials about the dangers of speaking out against the war, I think it's instructive to look at past history. Neither Bush nor Cheney seem to suggest passing a law against protesting it.

I think it indicates that we are still moving forward...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

I agree with some of that, but:

>Media owners limit the prominence of opposition coverage to avoid problems.

is not an example of government supression of opposition. It's an example of a free press deciding to add their own tilt to the news they provide people.

That which I highlighted in bold seems to be a contradiction in terms

[billvon 2,476]

>That which I highlighted in bold seems to be a contradiction in terms

Free press = they can do whatever they want, including limiting the prominence of opposition coverage to get what they want (more advertisers etc)

Not a free press = they operate under government regulations as to how much time they have to spend on opposition coverage, pro-US coverage etc. (As an example of how this can backfire google Great White North.)

[warpedskydiver 0]

You trust media to be unbiased?

Reporters as well as editors are just as sneaky as Goebels, free press my ass.

[warpedskydiver 0]

***We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times,
Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended
our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.
It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had
been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years. But, the world
is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The
supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable
to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.
- Brother David Rockefeller -
C.F.R. and Trilateral Commission Founder

Quote

Is it possible that the above will never be attempted again?

• Quote

[billvon 2,476]

>You trust media to be unbiased?

Where did I say that? A free media is free to be as biased as they like. Just check out Newsmax.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I agree with some of that, but:

>Media owners limit the prominence of opposition coverage to avoid problems.

is not an example of government supression of opposition. It's an example of a free press deciding to add their own tilt to the news they provide people.

Blaming government is reasonable when its treatment of the press is the likely root cause of coverage and editorial policy.

Legally speaking the press is free to do what they want.

Practically speaking, media conglomerates are responsible to their share holders. Local newspaper companies are in turn responsible for their contribution to the corporation's bottom line. That used to mean maximizing advertising and paper sales within their target markets by catering to the local population. You'd get a "liberal" slant places like Boulder, CO and "conservative" in towns like Crawford, TX.

Scripps Howard told Boulder's Daily Camera that they couldn't do things like put protestor's photographs on the front page with the president.

The move wouldn't have made financial sense unless wholy-owned papers' editoral decisions were going to affect Scripps' access to the politicians in power (the way the administration controls individual reporters) and therefore their ability to cover the same news stories as their competition across the nation.

[quade 3]

Quote

4) Widespread supression of opposition. This is happening now to a minor degree, although it's a lot better now than it was during the 1950's and 1960's, where supporting communism could actually get you arrested and blacklisted. Nowadays the opposition is just called names.

Or outed as a CIA agent?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

4) Widespread supression of opposition. This is happening now to a minor degree, although it's a lot better now than it was during the 1950's and 1960's, where supporting communism could actually get you arrested and blacklisted. Nowadays the opposition is just called names.

Or outed as a CIA agent?

Or punished when they attempt to communicate with a former employer, regarding non public a issue.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Nowadays the opposition is just called names.

*cough*

Free speech zones?

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[rickjump1 0]

Didn't Lincoln shut down newspapers and imprison political opponents? Seems I read that somewhere......

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Not that I know of and I am pretty well read in Lincoln history as well as having visited nearly every Lincoln exhibit in Illinois, at one time or another.

I don't know for sure but I highly doubt it.