1
   

Dirty tricks of the USA: bug the phones/emails of UN members

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2003 03:39 pm
and i don't. Terrorism: deadly violence against humans and other living things, usually conducted by government against its own people.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2003 04:29 pm
This government caters to the needs of businesses and the rich - it is a Fascist government - the Fascist Right!
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2003 04:32 pm
Fascist? Well, Fascism and National-Socialism are derivatives of good old socialism rather than of the political conservatism.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2003 04:44 pm
Quote:
"National Socialism attempted to reconcile conservative, nationalist ideology with socially radical doctrine. In so doing, it became a profoundly revolutionary movement, mostly in a negative sense. It rejected rationalism, liberalism and democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and all movements of international cooperation and peace. It stressed instead instinct, the subordination of the individual to the state, and the necessity of blind and unswerving obedience to leaders appointed from above. It also stressed the inequality of men and races and the right of the strong to rule the weak. It sought to purge or suppress competing political, religious, and social institutions and advanced an ethic of hardness and ferocity; it partly destroyed class distinctions by drawing into the movement misfits and failures from all social classes."

"Fascists made no secret of their hatred of Marxists of all stripes, from totalitarian communists to democratic socialists. Fascists promised to deal more "firmly" with Marxists than had earlier, more democratic rightist parties. Mussolini first made his reputation as a fascist by unleashing armed squads of Blackshirts on striking workersand peasants in 1920-21. Many early Nazis had served in the Freikorps, the paramilitary groups formed by ex-soldiers to suppress leftist activism in Germany at theend of World War I. The Nazi SA (Sturmabteilung ["Assault Division"], or Brownshirts) clashed regularly with German leftists in the streets before 1933, and when Hitler cameto power he sent hundreds of Marxists to concentration camps and intimidated "red" neighbourhoods with police raids and beatings."

©britannica.encyclopædia 2003
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2003 04:46 pm
Sure doesn't sound like the United States has a facist government.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2003 06:00 pm
The Right claims to be concerned about the rights of individuals (they just don't mention that they only care about individuals with wealth). As representatives of capital, they have always been suspicious of democracy. In fact, they believe that democratic government represents a threat to freedom -that is, the freedom to pursue individual economic interests. Of course, when the wealthy get together and vote on policy, that is a kind of democracy-democracy of the few, or oligarchy.
Removing power from its traditional roots in the aristocracy meant granting some to small property holders, and over time to those with no property. But this extension of the franchise (and democracy) threatened the freedom of capital. And so, these days we hear that the problem is big government. As it's always done, the Right says that the government is a threat, that it ruins things and controls us.
In fact, government is the compromise the ruling class makes with the working class. The ruling class retains power, but gives up some freedom, like the freedom to pollute, use child labor, or make dangerous products. Mainly, however, the Right claims that the market will sort all this out, and that government just gets in the way. Some working people and small farmers have been persuaded to agree.
The Right, which in modern history is known as fascism, advocates a system in which those with wealth are free to do as they please and the functions of government are limited to policing and war. Some self-described conservatives reject the term fascism, claiming that the fascists were actually statists who believed in retaining the power of government. But that just suggests an ignorance of history.
Fascism has always been about ensuring the rights of capital. The police and army are necessary to protect corporations, human services aren't. Thus, the Right-in all its forms, regardless of what it calls itself- wants less government in areas that serve human beings, but just as much or more in areas that protect capital and the pursuit of private profit.
Ironically, the political philosophy of the Right, fascism, has been so discredited by history that contemporary so-called conservatives refuse to identify their politics with its roots in European history. Even 70 years ago, the leading German exponent of conservatism, Adolf Hitler, called his fascist party the National Socialist German Workers Party. It was national in the sense that the Nazis were ultimately protecting large German corporations from those of other nations. But the word socialist was used only because Hitler felt he could appeal to working people by appropriating the language of the Left.

Richard Curtis

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Public_Relations/Defining_Terms.html
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2003 06:18 pm
In '20s-'30s the Soviet authorities suppressed resistance of the peasants in the same way Mussolini did it. In 1962 Khruschev ordered to shoot at the workers' demonstration in Novocherkassk.
All this did not change regime from Communist to Fascist or Nazi.
There are many similarities between Communist and Nazi regimes; but I fail to find any signs of Fascism in the current U.S. political system. When the government supports business, this is in favor of all the citizens, since flourishing businesses create jobs for everybody.
Both Nazism and Stalin's (Mao's, Pol Pot's, etc.) version of Socialism are based on irrational hatred: in the first case on ethnic grounds, in the second on the "class" grounds.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2003 06:25 pm
Mr. Curtis sounds a whole lot like many of the Marxists we used to know.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2003 06:28 pm
My view of the political paradigm is that there is very little difference between the far left and the far right political factions. The arena is not a flat line, it is a circle where the far left and the far right move back and forth towards their desired polemic as their political whims dictate. Today in America, IMHO, the political spectrum has moved dangerously into the Right Wing sphere with the advent of Bush and his ultra dangerous regime. These Right Wing regents are in control of the last remaining super power. The Right Wing is Facist - the Left Wing is Communist. They don't care which side they are on as long as they can get into power!
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2003 06:30 pm
Oh, well, Mr. Curtis is a member of the Communist Party... Now I understand why his sermon resembles the ones I heard from the Political Officers in the Soviet Army when I had my primary training course...
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2003 06:38 pm
Put it out as a definition steissd. It is accurate from that regards. It matters not if the antagonist is Socialist or Fascist - they will keep going back and for across the Right/Left continuum. I am not communist - I am centrist down around 5 o'clock on the basis of what I laid out!
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2003 06:49 pm
The current government of the USA is Right, but it is not extreme Right (just as administration of President Clinton was not extreme Left). It is just right-to-center, and this is quite legitimate.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2003 06:52 pm
I think not!! Not even close!!!!!!!! IMHO, 10 o'clock approaching 11.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2003 06:57 pm
And what are the signs? IMHO, there is nothing that permits supposition that the administration is going to abolish the Constitution and to impose Nürnberg Racial Laws. IMHO, it has intentions to protect the U.S. democracy against attempts of terrorists to modify it by means of intimidation.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2003 08:07 pm
Those are Nazi and American democracy facts steissd, Fascism is the form of regime that Bush has created as his basis. To get to where you are arguing, Bush will have still a long way to go. We have protections but they are slowly being peeled away!
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 04:00 am
Asherman wrote:
Who are these people you claim are being beaten up by the U.S. government? I don't know of any repressive measures taken agains anyone in this country.


e.g.
American regulations to register people from selected Arab and Muslim countries on arrival in the US. The US Justice Department has also issued a directive that anyone who has frequently visited the Middle East, North Africa, Cuba or North Korea can be taken aside too, if they do not have what it calls "a credible explanation for their trip".

Thus, because of the acts of a few people, the whole Muslim world seems to have been labelled. due to these new rules and regulations, there is a lot of discrimination against especially Muslims. Other visitors are not subject to registration. If all visitors were required to register, it might not be objectionable. But to target one group of people as potentially dangerous based solely on their religion furthers stereotyping and leads to further prejudice and discrimination.

It is difficult to believe that Ashcroft's directive is truly for national security reasons. People like Zacarias Moussaoui, a French national, and shoe bomber" Richard Reid, Citizen of G.B., still would be able to enter the US.

Smart people learn from the past. During World War II Americans of Japanese descent were forced to move to camps(relocation centers).
Most Americans stood by. Like the recent measures concerning the Muslims, this measure also was a result of racial stereotyping, not real evidence that Japanese Americans were dangerous.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 09:19 am
Requiring people traveling between this country and those countries where terrorism is rife is not "bullying", but prudent. The country has tens of thousands of people illegally in the country, and some of those are almost certainly terrorists. They must be found, and either prosecuted or deported.

The statement was that Americans are "beating up" other people, and the inferrence was that Americans are "beating up" pacifist Americans.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/23/2024 at 03:48:27