0
   

Letter to Steve41oo from Tony Blair. Truth on Iraq war.

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 01:37 pm
I love these taxonomies on just about anything.produced with such profligacy by academic pinheads. All it amounts to is relationships among words chosen by the author.

I'll give you some more characteristics of Facist states: people eat, work, sleep, lie a bit when it suits them, cheat if they can on their taxes, bicker about small things, and a thousand more attributes. Evidently we are all Fascists.

One would have to be utterly blind and deaf to have been ignorant of the obvious and oft-stated intent of the U.S. administration to bring about regime change in Iraq. That was from the beginning the clearly stated goal of our policy. The WMD and other arguments were emphasized only in an ill-advised attempt to persuade our "friends" and ""allies" on the Security Council to go along with what was an obviously necessary action.

This evidently was seen as a political necessity in Britain for PM Blair. We would have been wiser to just make Britain decide on its own - with us or against us. It will ultimately come to that anyway, and recent trends in the EU don't make that a particularly attractive long range prospect - at least for those who can observe and think for themselves..
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 02:00 pm
Hate to admit this George, but I agree with you.

Tony Blair understood the necessity for what had to be done, and did it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 02:04 pm
The most interesting thing about Lawrence Britt's list of 14 characteristics of Facism is that they have been posted on just about all left-leaning BLOGS on the Internet wherever the subject came up; however these 14 characteristics only marginally fit with any other definition of facism from verifiable sources. None of this identifies Britt in any way other than one site said he was a 'poltical scientist'.

So far, after a short search, I have been able to find absolutely nothing on Lawrence Britt, his background, his occupation, or whatever organization(s) with which he is affiliated. Unless somebody comes up with something to verify his credentials or even that he exists, I'm suspecting somebody made him up.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 02:19 pm
revel, Taken from the poll in your link:

.................Approve.........Disapprove
Republicans.. 73%................. 21%

The average including Democrats and Independents

.................Approve.........Disapprove
All Adults...... 38%................. 57%

And their going downhill faster than a kid's racecar.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 02:41 pm
Facism, well I don't know anything about Mr Britt and actually the only thing I do know about definitions and/or characteristics of facism is the study commissioned by the Pentagon in the late 40's-early 50's when the US was justifibly concerned about facism. Anyhoo this Pentagon commissioned study by various US University Sociologists came to the conclusion that the one remarkable attribute denoting a tendency towards facism was the "lack of tolerance towards ambiguity" The pentagon took the results of this study and had created a personality profile inventory that was named the "F-Scale" well what it all boils down to is that people that tend to confine their thinking to black and white analysis also tend towards facist ideologies (not unlike religious fundamentalists be they christian or muslim or whatever) I suupose peeps here on a2k can look inside their pea-pickin' brains and question themsleves re their own desire to lump guestions/answers into black/white boxes. I have already done an F-Scale inventory on the usual a2k posters.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 03:01 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The most interesting thing about Lawrence Britt's list of 14 characteristics of Facism is that they have been posted on just about all left-leaning BLOGS on the Internet wherever the subject came up; however these 14 characteristics only marginally fit with any other definition of facism from verifiable sources. None of this identifies Britt in any way other than one site said he was a 'poltical scientist'.

So far, after a short search, I have been able to find absolutely nothing on Lawrence Britt, his background, his occupation, or whatever organization(s) with which he is affiliated. Unless somebody comes up with something to verify his credentials or even that he exists, I'm suspecting somebody made him up.


Just using google, I found this:

Fascism in America?

But I agree, Foxfyre: that article can be made up or a hoax as well ... as anything on the web.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 03:43 pm
Thank you Walter. I'm not on a2k enough to keep up with the latest questions.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 07:47 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I love these taxonomies on just about anything.produced with such profligacy by academic pinheads. All it amounts to is relationships among words chosen by the author.

I'll give you some more characteristics of Facist states: people eat, work, sleep, lie a bit when it suits them, cheat if they can on their taxes, bicker about small things, and a thousand more attributes. Evidently we are all Fascists.

Quote:
Britt: I don't think it happened because we're the beacon of freedom and opportunity, which is what we heard from the president. It happened because America has been extremely aggressive in the last 50 or 60 years on the world stage and has caused a lot of suffering that most Americans have absolutely no clue about.

We've interfered in the internal affairs of 51 countries --- Lebanon, Syria, Cuba, El Salvador, Columbia, Bolivia, Angola, and many more --- since the end of World War II, putting agents on the ground, interfering with elections, things that, if done to us, would be absolutely outrageous.

Twenty-six countries we've attacked, bombed, invaded, without being asked in. Seventeen we've overthrown governments and in just about every case the result was very bad for the people involved. In virtually every case, the government installed was autocratic. We say we're trying to promote democracy, but that isn't happening. Of the seven fascist countries in the article, we set up three of them: Greece, Chile, and Indonesia.


One would have to be utterly blind and deaf to have been ignorant of the obvious and oft-stated intent of the U.S. administration to bring about regime change in Iraq. That was from the beginning the clearly stated goal of our policy. The WMD and other arguments were emphasized only in an ill-advised attempt to persuade our "friends" and ""allies" on the Security Council to go along with what was an obviously necessary action.

Is this a new defence? Did you just think it up, George? The "We were forced into lying to give cover for our own rapacious plans" defence. It clearly points to the US's own definition of terrorism. How can the world expect peace when the lead player won't follow the rules. [refer to Mr Britt's comments above.]

This evidently was seen as a political necessity in Britain for PM Blair. We would have been wiser to just make Britain decide on its own - with us or against us. It will ultimately come to that anyway, and recent trends in the EU don't make that a particularly attractive long range prospect - at least for those who can observe and think for themselves..

What unmitigated claptrap, George! "those who can observe and think for themselves" = "those who can spin with the best of them".

It was equally a "political necessity" to dupe both the people and Congress in the USA. What was the actual phrase, it escapes me now, oh yeah, "... the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".
If it was such an easy sell at home, why did it need a constant parade of lies bolstered by the same parade of lies time after time after time.

0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 05:47 am
Walter writes
Quote:
Just using google, I found this:

Fascism in America?

But I agree, Foxfyre: that article can be made up or a hoax as well ... as anything on the web.


It gets curiouser and curiouser. Lawrence Britt aka Lawrence W. Britt aka Dr. Lawrence W. Britt can be googled again and again and again, but always links to BLOGS which obviously copied the information from other BLOGS--none link to an original source. In the piece in alternate media that Walter linked, there is a full blown interview with Lawrence Britt but no biographical information whatsoever. The article cites Britt was an executive with several big corporations and the "Dr" implies a PhD, but I have found no other biographical information anywhere on the net for this man. He is reported to have written three novels but I can find only one title by a Lawrence W. Britt and it is offered only by private sellers.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 05:55 am
Yes I did locate a title on Barnes and Noble available through a private seller--I amended my previous quote to reflect that. But a 64-year-old writer is writing antique books? This is very odd. Is the man still living? Why aren't those '14 characteristics of Fascim' found anywhere but on the BLOGS? I remain unconvinced they are real. (And now the post by Walter I was responding to has disappeared Smile)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 05:57 am
A couple of his books are to get at various antique bookshops, to be read in several (international) college and university libraries ...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 06:50 am
Okay, I tracked down a series of articles by a Laurence W. Britt (not Lawrence) posted here:
http://www.rochester-citynews.com/gbase/Gyrosite/Archive?section=oid%3A1132

Again no vitae, biographical information, or credentials of any kind are offered for this person. The writings all appear to be the usual subjective left wing mantra with little or no supporting information to back it up.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 06:54 am
Obviously
a) your can't search for books online,
b) you have got a new focus.

(My father published several books, was publisher and editor-in-chief of a rather renomated history magazine - you won't find no vitae, biographical information, or credentials of any kind are offered for him.)

Btw: I didn't look for Laurence W. Britt.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 07:14 am
Walter, by what criteria do you conclude that "I can't search for books online" after I posted that I had located one and cited where I had located it? Why didn't you post links to the ones you found?

I am sure there are many published people (like myself for instance) who have no notable credentials or vitae published on the internet. But then your father and I are not cited as authorities on Fascism either are we?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 07:27 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Walter, by what criteria do you conclude that "I can't search for books online" after I posted that I had located one and cited where I had located it? Why didn't you post links to the ones you found?

I am sure there are many published people (like myself for instance) who have no notable credentials or vitae published on the internet. But then your father and I are not cited as authorities on Fascism either are we?


I don't think it's worth to dispute and/or discuss this point.

Therefor I didn't post my links (which were mostly in German by the way) and which I got just looking at the various library websites/library search maschines.

I don't think, Britt is an authority of Fascism.
I do think, however, he's quoted by various university blogs and got therefore some attraction.

I don't think that every authority of what-so-ever must have all infos online - especially, when retired like Britt (or dead as in case of my father).
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 07:32 am
The criticism of Laurence Britt is usually made that he copied his fascism essay from Umberto Eco. Anybody heard of him?

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 07:49 am
Umberto Eco is extremely well credentialed:
http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_biography.html

His 14-point description of Fascism bears no resemblance to those presented by Britt, but they are far closer to the conventional definition of Fascism by credible sources.

It is interesting though that Britt's book published in the late 1990's was titled Eco I.

Thanks for the link Piffka.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 07:56 am
You publish in a book, or in a magazine, or in a blog, there is a material difference?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 08:51 am
Stuff like Britt's 14 characteristics is hardly new. This has been a cornerstone of the left-right debate in the Western world since the Russian Revolution, and likely beyond. In the 1930s opposition to popular front governments in France was tarred with this brush, as also were the opponents of the New Deal in the United States. (I will refer doubters on this point to Sinclair Lewis' novel "It can't Happen Here", published during that period.).

The fact is these 14 characteristics do not uniquely and sufficiently distinguish what we would generally call tyrannical systems. Some are characteristic of some quite free and open societies at various phases of their history. Others are characteristic of tyrannies of both the right and the left. The key point is that evil and tyranny has many political possibilities and paths, although all lead to the same banal force and evil. This has been amply demonstrated by the grim history of the 20th century.

Indeed one could rather easily come up with a shorter list of the common traits of the indisputably worst tyrannies of the century - Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Maoist China. Each of these tyrannies violated some of Britts 14 points in decisive ways, most notably in the suppression of religion. (and they did so for good reason, arguing, as each did, that there was no power above that of the state or party.)

Protagonists of both the left and the right in politics tend to describe themselves as "moderates" and their opponents as "extremists", whether they are looking left or right. This is Britt's essential technique. When pressed for particulars, he retreats behind denials, saying (as he does in the interview cited above) that he is merely citing certain general characteristics and is making no claim about Fascism in this country. In the next breath he returns to non-specific inferences to the contrary.

This is propaganda for a particular political view. It is not dispassionate historical analysis.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 08:55 am
What I find interesting is that Britt's novel 'June 2004' is sold in the USA from $ 26.94 [special offer] onwards. while you can't it get from European and Japanese sellers cheaper than $ 110.75 :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 06:59:37