Denial

After some heated exchanges I have come to a sad conclussion

Many Americans, yes even some here, are in deep denial of what precisely is happening in this country, which is so out the norm of our historical experience that it should be raising way, and I mean WAAYYY too many alarms

It couldn't happen here,

It can't be happening here

No matter how much evidence

It can't be happening here

"So this is how Republics die, in thunderous applause."

And I will have to add this line from They Thought they were Free

It applies

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

Hell, I am almost shocked that the awareness at DU had reached 30% and the awareness of the Imperial Subjects of Amerika has reached a whopping 2%.

I imagine, if we could go back in time to 1937 Germany, awareness would be at similar levels in both the Demnocratic opposition and the general German populace.

Not much changes, the least of which being people's inherent clawing desperation to deny and ignore inconvenient truths and embrace big, comforting lies.

That hasn't changed much, either, in the past 5000 years.

Even now, with the Royal Bushies having so blatantly revealed what they are and where they are taking us, people STILL won't see.

Only some effect in their personal lives will wake some of them, some not even then.

and at this point I am wiling to just throw my hands up, and wait for the innevitable curtain to come down

At least I can say I tried.

And I don't expect some of these folks to wake up ever... some in police states never do...

DENIAL that is a comfortable narcotic actually

I have taken a course in psychology and I remember Kubler-Ross taking about the stages of death and dying. Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. Funny how people in this country never seem to leave that first stage....

:-(

Is defined as a "false personal belief" and I suppose one could be in that state perpetually...

It seems to me that many have jumped right from denial to acceptance.

Maybe we have reached acceptance.

At least I am pretty sure that I have been through anger and depression.

at this point Congress is really little more than a ceremonial organ, meant to give some air of legitimacy to the executive branch, and that branch serves Wall Street or an element thereof. I'm frankly sure many Romans thought the Senate would never be reduced into a ceremonial rubber-stamp until Octavian managed to do it and crown himself Augustus Caesar.

and the fall of the republic was done in steps

Because the messenger happened to be Ralph Nader, of all people. That kind of stupidity is what undoes democracy. That kind of blind, rank, and boorish partisan zealotry only helps to destroy democracy by driving out people who would be good leaders but for the fact that they can't tolerate dealing with the ideologically blind on top of dealing with obviously corrupt politicians. So it ends up becoming a vice: On one side you have partisan hacks, and on the other you have corrupt thugs of special interest groups.

my take on that was...

If he is correct and he has never lied... we are in deep shit

And that is all I can say about it

But the form up ranks and march up is present

"...is what undoes democracy. That kind of blind, rank, and boorish partisan zealotry only helps to destroy democracy by driving out people who would be good leaders but for the fact that they can't tolerate dealing with the ideologically blind on top of dealing with obviously corrupt politicians."

Every method of confronting our wayward and AWOL leaders has proven ineffective, and the methods for reaching our wayward fellow citizens is even more so.

The old poem comes to mind

Someday it will be me who they come for, and nobody will be there to speak for me

but the debacle was mostly blamed on inept leadership. I yell 'till I am blue in the face, yet people are still walking very slowly into the proverbial cattle car while chattering, "it can't happen here."

I had a horrible premonition over a decade ago while staring into a gas spigot inside a Nazi gas chamber: it will happen again someday. Suddenly I felt nude, cold, and... the rest cannot be put into words.

So, I make "funny" pictures to pass the time until then.

but after tonight... a deep sense of anomie has come to me

Kind of ... why bother? and we are truly alone

you can lead the horse to water but you can't force the horse to drink that water

Then again feeling that cold and naked may be the feeling of anomie

As to New Orleans, it was by design...

It was...

And I know that in my gut

And it was to check if we would accept it... we mostly did.. it has become the new normal

Interview in Göring's cell (3 January 1946):

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hermann_Göring

------------

Fuck! There it is, plainly spoken by one of the original Nazis, a historical lesson very easily accessed at any time of the day or night via the Internet.

My only answer at this time is: willful ignorance, because "ignorance is bliss." ...... until the Zyklon B fills the lungs.

folks get their panties in a wad, This is America, and we are exceptional

And if you use any other example across hostory... most folks don't know them

I could use Stalin... and his Gulag system (and he was that plainly spokne a few times)

Or I could use many others across history

But if you do people don't get the necessary horror

And if you use Nazis... they get their panties in a wad and how dare I do that?

Truly a catch 22

Truly

And I fear my fifty relatives who died at Treblinka have died in vain

And every other victim of genocide has died in vain

A shout out to all my brothers and sisters from New Orleans, who now wander parts unknown. :grouphug:

the ones with the APCs I never saw in the US Press

happen here because we knew better. I was wrong.

It is a quite special secret pleasure how the people around us
fail to realize what is really happening to them."
-- Adolf Hitler


Those two quotes pretty much spell it out.

Time to wake up and smell the gas, America!

I well try to remember those quotes.

nice picture SR!

We`re like the abused spouse who, after suffering two black eyes and a broken collar bone, thanks her abuser for the pretty flowers and the American beauty rose pin.

They may watch the evening news, but because of stress from job (or whatever), they really could not say what stories were on the news. These people are just pre-occupied with other matters. Until something personal happens to affect them, then they will wake up.

Education and awareness is our only weapon. We must use it.

is probably the only thing left where we still are Number One in the world.

who have challenged you on some of your fallacious examples and "facts" have said it couldn't.

And you know how I see this THIRD thread that you've started on the same topic? As petulance at having been challenged on some of what you claimed, and an attempt to keep a flame war going.

chickadee, but I'll post where I feel like posting. Don't like it? There's that nifty little function known as ignore.

My DU experience is so much more enjoyable since I put that one on ignore.

geeeeeeez.

From a post of yours on thread 1:

"And the papers were still critical of the regime until '38".

And my response.

This is just embarrassing. You actually believe that Germany
had anything remotely resembling a free press under the Reich?

From Max Amann's speech at Nurenberg in 1936:

<snip>
I am happy to say that in my areas of endeavor in the party and state, a few National Socialist principles have given me the sure foundation for the many difficult decisions I have made. I am also convinced that the German people and the world public, insofar as it is ready to evaluate the situation objectively, will agree that developments in the German press give daily proof of the correctness and value of our National Socialist principles.

A look back before our seizure of power reminds us how numerou

s the problems of the press once were. Our few newspapers with their limited circulations fought heroically in the front lines to gain power. They stood against several thousands newspapers that represented other ideas and interests. There were many differences between the leading newspapers back then, but there was one thing they all lacked when compared to the National Socialist press: they had lost their connection to the people. They were responsible not to the people, but to some other group, be it parties, churches, economic interests or corporations, or they looked to their own good without considering the general good of the people. Such a press promoted class struggle, the confusion of social standing, religious incitement or moral decay. They did not promote the good of the individual and the strengthening of the community, rather collapse and decay. These newspapers that appealed to people's lowest instincts had lost their national and moral sense of responsibility, and had little influence.
<snip>
Max Amann was the man in charge of shutting down the news media in Germany under Hitler. This is as important a PRIMARY SOURCE as you could find. It directly contradicts your claims.

And unbelievably you respond with this:

It wasn't free, but wasn't fully closed
from primary sources, until '38... until Kristalnacht

Theirs was as free as ours is right now.

Ask Greg Palast just how far he can go in publishing his exposes in the NYT... or the WAPO

That is how free theirs and ours is. He simply can't... period.

And if you don't get it that totalitarian societies don't close down overnight, it is not my fault

Of course there are exceptions to that rule, and Chile comes to mind... as it was closed down under a year.

But Germany.... it took eight years of slowly changing the normal and making it a new normal.

Yeah because Greg Palast not being printed in the NYT means....... Well, nothing.

And the utter absurdity of claiming that fascism was a slow process in Germany. Two years after Hitler was elected, the Nuremberg Laws were passed. Hard to think of a more Draconian piece of legislation.

And you continue making unsupported claims and comparisons that don't hold up to scrutiny.

As I've said repeatedly, I don't disagree that there's a method to shutting down open societies. I don't object to ACCURATE comparisons to the third reich. I object to BAD comparisons, and bad history without anything to back it up.

But don't worry....just vote for Hillary and everything will be just Peachy.

thinking it is just silt stirred by the ebbing tide.

But your point is WELL made! We are at a crossroads now.

We need Portman hearing something more like what she heard here!



"People should not be afraid of their governments! Governments should be afraid of their people!"

Amen, which tells the true story of an ss officer who tried to stop the killing in the concentration camps:

"The camps were the climax of a string of acceptances. Millions of people giving in and accepting. Indifference is just a softer version of complicity."
"Passivity is a crime. A question is asked to every one of us at every moment of our lies; at what moment must one become an ethical being again? This is a question for every century and for every day of our lives. Things happen with friendly indifference."

and one example he gave, in both the interview and in the film was how the US refused to bomb the infrastructure of the concentration camps. Had we destroyed the trains, we could have prevented millions of deaths.

and finally:
"ultimately complicity is fear. Indifference is fear."

I don't see how correctly disputing that inevitability means giving this administration a pass on its fascistic policies. Making a dishonest argument to warn people actually is worse, because it allows people to dismiss an important warning about the dangers of those policies.

and echos in history into saying that the arguments are saying the US will inevitably become Nazi Germany is dishonest.

So while it is right to fiercely fight against Gauntanamo for -what it is-, inflating its already horrible reality by making these false comparisons allows people to dismiss your argument out of hand. Which is something no one should want, or need to do. Reality in this case is bad enough--it doesn't need false historical spin.

When I make comparisons concerning our torture sites, I too compare them to the Soviet Gulags. The arguments are usually concerning paths. In other words, how democracies are attacked within the country that eventually leads to breakdowns such as Gulags and concentration camps. Also, how constitutions can be watered down and laws changed. To always have Nazi Germany as a set aside to never be involved in comparisaons because of its particular brutality I believe is a mistake. It should be remembered and studied in all its phases.

The OP has been quite clear on her belief that Gitmo is the equivalent of Dachau, and that anyone who feels otherwise is in denial.

No one, absolutely NO ONE, has denied that there are elements of a police state, and that to continue on the road we are on is to move toward fascism.

is to move otwards fascism, then you are in agreement with the rest of us. no need to fight the OP.

Fact is, it doesn't. The difference between our examples of the ten steps and Germany's is astronomical, and crucial. While dangerous, our examples of the ten steps are not as indicative of a slide into total fascism as were Germany's.

Both the OP and Wolf say that we are already there.

The OP posted a list of attributes and said that govts that display these attributes are fascist.The OP also claimed that the US fulfilled all of those attributes.

One does not wake up one morning in a working democracy with checks on power and the next morning wake up in a fascist state unless there is a coup.

Under FDR and Lincoln, for example, all Wolf's conditions were met. Yet we did not descend wholly into fascism.

of torture nor was torture a directive of the executive branch. The Supreme court disagreed, I believe with Lincoln.

all the steps leading up to them. They didn't happen overnight. But the inability to stop the process allowed it to get stronger and stronger. which is what is happening here.

Ignorance of the difference that magnitude makes is why Wolf's steps aren't effective predictors of fascism.

we're on is similar to the road germany was on. And that there are red flags going up as we go down this path. And that this path can lead to terrors. Remember, the germans never thought their government would go "that far". People did not believe people were being killed in the camps. They were told first that the jews were only being deported, and they were fine with that. Then that the camps were labor camps, and they were fine with that too. The German govt, just like our gov't today, was always several steps ahead of the peoples' awareness. While we argue about torturing at guantanamo, we may be completely unaware of worse things that are already happening.

both of whom have argued that we are already a fascist nation

At all. Different economic conditions, different political conditions. Every German family was affected by endemic unemployment, leftists were killed in the streets by the Freikorps--the institutions and their context were just completely, utterly different.

If the OP really want to demonstrate a pattern, then why did the OP refuse to discuss similar situations? Why did the OP insist on limiting the discussion to Dachau and the Nazis?

and you have yet to post anything that contradicts this fact.

democracy here? What would you call this government? you seem to be fighting over semantics. When did nazi germany become fascist? on what date?

or maybe, just maybe, fascism is an ideology, a process, as is democracy?

Edited to add: ideology isn't the best term here, since fascism is actually defined in economic terms, as when corporations, or rpivate interests, take control of the government.

as read and write. After all, just because you keep insisting that we base our arguments on what is said in the book, that doesn't mean that you should practice what you preach

As far as our govt goes, IMO we have a constitutional republic that has been hijacked by a bunch of criminals.

1) I specifically said I am going to read it
2) I never said I dont need to read the book.
3) I said I don't need to read the book to know that Wolf thinks we are already a fascist nation
4) That's because I saw her say it.
5) I never said I know more than the author

Please stop posting untruths about me

Not in some big bang event.

story ended, and we don't know that here yet.

Do you see any of those things here? No. Yet they were critical elements in Germany's road to fascism.

oh, but germany had their own 9-11 just like us, whoops that's the same too.

and, amazing that it was so much easier to dupe the american people, don't you think? Yes our economy was doing quite well in 2000. Guess that means the neocons worked faster and harder than the nazis.

not about what the country looked like beforehand.

In Argentina, the government was about to fall, millions of people were in the streets calling for the overthrow of the govt, so they created the Malvina's war. Immediately everyone started waving flags and sent their sons off to war. This is similar to 9-11, i.e. how a perceived enemy/ external threat creates blinding nationalism. The situations pre 9-11 and pre Falklands are nothing alike. But the actions taken by each government were the same. and both resulted in the same changes in their countries. The pre-conditions do not have to be similar.

The government under Noske -ordered- the deaths of leftist leaders. What the country was like is absolutely crucial in understanding what led both the government and the people to this horrifying pass. We have nothing comparable in this country to either the government reaction, the public reaction or the context that caused both. Doesn't mean that what we have isn't incredibly dangerous, it means comparisons of the two are inherently overhasty and invalid.

.

.

there too.

and you think it is irrelevant.

There's nothing wrong with looking for similarities. However, you should let that lead you into ignoring the differences, which is what you are doing when you dismiss this violence.

It's an important difference, and you won't address it.

If you fight for a good cause with a bad argument, people will ridicule and belittle your errors even though your goal is noble. Witness PETA putting up a billboard attacking Al Gore--perhaps hunter/energy cutthroat DICK CHENEY would be a better and more fitting choice? Why undermine your message with an easily assailable argument? The argument that we are in a dangerous place right now doesn't need gussying up with false comparisons. It's real enough to be compelling without disingenuous analogies.

shocked, silent, thoughtful, then a light goes on. or it ratifies the way they already feel.

People want to believe the argument because they believe in the conclusion--that we live in very dangerous times. However, if you want to -convince- people who don't believe the conclusion as readily, you need a solid argument. This is not a solid argument.

would-be dictators take. They are...

We've also heard about the 14 steps of fascism. There are a number of historians who have made similar lists. Please don't assume we are not familiar with this argument.

Her book looked at different authoritarian countries and noted the ten steps to get there. We have completed the 10 steps in this country. The ten steps concern what parts of democracy you change.

Unlike the OP, you are willing to demonstrate a pattern by discussing the NUMEROUS examples of fascist police states. The OP is aware of these other examples but has explicitely refused to discuss them. I find it odd that the OP is unwilling to strengthen her own arguement with additional examples.

that our economy had been doing so well

By the way almost done with her book... in a couple days will go get Kleins

I wonder, should I keep my copy or just ahem "forget it" at the local coffee shop and let it spread virally?

that our economy had been doing so well

By the way almost done with her book... in a couple days will go get Kleins

I wonder, should I keep my copy or just ahem "forget it" at the local coffee shop and let it spread virally?

Whoops, that the same as us too. The similarities are striking!!!

Nevermind that Hitler started with a Germany in economic chaos and proceeded to rescue the economy thereby gaining the support of the population compared to the way that * started with a sound economy and proceeded to destroy it.

Oh wait, that's a difference!!! We better ignore it (while accusing others of being in denial)

Hitler was undone by his aggressive wars that turned out badly. The support he had gained by rescuing the nation's economy dissapated in the face of the disaster Hitler's military adventures created. Now contrast that with *

Unlike Hitler, who came into office when the German economy was in shred and then built it up, * took a vibrant economy and destroyed it. But like Hitler,*'s military adventures are going badly and *'s support has dropped into 20%-30% range.

IOW, Hitler was able to increase his powers only because he had the support of a large portion of population. * no longer enjoys such support and so is unable to continue on this path.

whose who refuse to learn form history are condemned to repeat it

And you sir have refused to learn the METHOD to the madness

At no point has any of us sounding the alarms said that these methods will LEAD to Nazi Germany

That Sir is your READYING

In fact what we are saying is that the methods that lead to an authoritarian state are the same, THE METHODS used to close a society

Nor are any of us saying that this automatically leads to Auschwitz..

That IS YOUR INTERPRETATION

It is dishonest and quite frankly driven by fear... and fear is a powerful narcotic

Have a good life in the ignore list

I hope you learn someday that discussion is an important aspect of critical thinking, because your theories could certainly use a healthy dose of that.

so why did you refuse to discuss other examples besides Dachau?

You are mistaking scale with form and function.

look at the studies of what fascism is, we are going right down the same road. It is undeniable. There are vast differences between nazi german, stalinist russia, and present day US. But the similarities are stunning and are flashing red lights. Especially the similarities in people's reactions: what is "normal" is changing day by day. Look at one small detail: the telecommunication spying. We have been discussing it for years now. Almost half of our nation doesn't mind it. They are considering passing laws which retroactively make it legal. And we just find out, that not only is it happening to a much larger degree than imagined, it started two weeks after Bush took office! the plans were drawn a year beforehand. It is much bigger and worse than anyone knew. And yet, we are already accepting it as a nation. Would you have imagined 10 years ago, that that could happen in a "democracy"?

The OP's argument was that we were already a fascist nation which is why she referenced Wolf's book. Wolf believes we are already a fascist nation. The OP disagreed with those of us who argued we were still not a fascist nation.

And 9 of the ten have happened here. You really should read it before you argue about it without any knowledge.

Yet we did not descend into fascism. Her system for predicting fascism is a bit too generalized to be effective.

It's not accurate as a test for predicting or identifying fascism. The reason? It ignores substantial differences of magnitude in meeting the ten steps in order to make its argument. And for that reason, you can pull up demonstrably non-fascist societies that meet all her requirements.

Instead of presenting an argument from the book, she hides behind it proclaiming that only people who have read the book can comment.

There are 10 steps to fascism. These are the steps all would be dictators put into place.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Declare all dissent to be treason.
10. Suspend the rule of law.

In this country, we can already see all except for number 10.

fascism being one of them

even though I do not necesarily agree with everything she says. The OP is a different matter. The OP has said that Gitmo and Dachau are equivalents, and that Wolf's book supports that equivalency. I have yet to see anyone quote Wolf saying anything that supports the OP's claim.

It seems obvious to me that Wolf has examined several authoritarian police states, and pointed out their common elements. Wolf demonstrates that there is a method to the madness.

Unlike Wolf, the OP only examines Gitmo and Dachau. Two similar events, at best, demonstrate nothing more than a coincidence. If you want to show a pattern, you need to use more than two examples. Yet, unlike Wolf, the OP refuses to go beyond the Gitmo/Dachau equivalency.

I think you have confused my position. My quarrel is not with Wolf. Though I may have my disagreements with her, I believe/assume that she has taken a reasonable position, because she has done so in the past. However, I can not believe that Wolf and the OP are making the same argument when one is willing to discuss any of the many examples, while the OP is not.

I read the OP, and her argument is not that we are one the road to fascism but that we are already there. And I don't need to read Wolf's book (though I will) to know that Wolf also thinks we are already there because I saw her say that. So I stand by my "100% wrong" post

Here is the OPS quote: "To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

Unless you get so generalized that your comparison becomes meaningless anyway--which is why hers defines both FDR and Lincoln era America as fascist states.

and you want me to believe that Wolf thinks we are not already a fascist state?

Nothing in the quote you posted refutes my claim that Wolf thinks we are already a fascist state. It merely states that the closing of society happens bit by bit and so many people don't notice.

Bill Maher asked her if she thought we had a fascist govt and she said "Yes"

And the latter doesn't always lead to the former, though that doesn't make it any less deplorable.

"it" and "there" and "fascism"

Noone is saying we have concentration camps killing millions here. Is that what you want to hear?

Everyone is saying. shit look at the parallels. This is how the nazis did it. And by god, this government is doing the very same things all over again. If we don't stop it (the process) we might end up in the same situation.

why is that so hard to understand?

the muslims are now playing the part of the jews. even that is being repeated. everything is being repeated. the opposition being silenced in so many ways. the complicity, the denial, even the people saying "it isn't happening, or it can't happen here, or "they wouldn't do that".

history repeats itself unless we learn.

Unless you take such a general view that comparison becomes meaningless anyway. The -specifics- of Germany's road to fascism are crucial, not the most facile generalities. Our path down the road of authoritarianism and civil liberty attacks does not resemble that of Germany in many very important ways. You can ignore those differences, but in doing your comparison loses all validity.

the Bush government and that of argentina 20 years ago, when they stayed in power by creating a war. These games are not so new.

what do you think of naomi klein's the shock doctrine?

Every family would be in the grip of a crushing economic depression, and political riots would be breaking out daily, meeting -lethal- responses from state organized gangs and militias. None of this is happening, and -all- of these elements were absolutely crucial to Germany's decline towards fascism. This all happened before the Nazis gained any power at all.

and the riots may yet happen.

-That- was the reality of pre-fascist Germany. The magnitude at which 1910s-20s Germany met Wolf's ten steps is so far greater than the magnitude at which we meet them, that comparison of the two starts to lose any real meaning. Again, this is why non-fascist states in history meet her ten general steps. You can make an argument that what we have is incredibly dangerous -without- saying it's just like pre-fascist Germany.

around with private armies, spying, secret prisons, etc.

which is the opposite of fascism. Fascism implies corporate control over government.
I dont know much about Lincoln, but you need to explain if you wnat us to believe that those 2 eras repeated the same 10 steps.
secret prisons
etc.

So by your own logic, her step system has failed with regard to FDR? The internment of the Japanese, the constant surveillance with regard to suspected sedition, the ugly dehumanizing caricatures of the Japanese--by Naomi's standard of ignoring magnitude and focusing on the general behavior, it would meet all ten.

Neither is "secret," but what goes on there violates basic Constitutional rights and the process is hidden from the American people. Worse, FDR did it extensively among citizens of this country.

Fewer were killed by sentries. Is that torture? Would you tell a formerly interned Japanese American that it wasn't torture? But here you are recognizing that -magnitude- is important, and that's nice to see.

in our recent history.

several countries. Gitmo isn't secret, but we have been flying people off to prisons in poland, middle east, etc.
FDR had no secret prisons.
nor did he round up his dissenters.

I gave the OP the opportunity to go further than one mere example and she refused. Why would the OP refuse to strengthen her argument with additional examples?

use gitmo, use poland, use whatever you want to use. It IS BAD NEWS! Yes we have torture. Yes we have secret prisons.

She accuses anyone and everyone who disagrees with her of being in denial.

"use gitmo, use poland, use whatever you want to use. It IS BAD NEWS! Yes we have torture. Yes we have secret prisons. "


EXACTLY!!!!

So why do you defend the OP's refusal to use other examples?

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Declare all dissent to be treason.
10. Suspend the rule of law.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place. NO
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.NO
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.NO
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.NO (MCCarthy did that.)
7. Target key individuals.again, McCarthy did that, not FDR.
8. Control the press. NO
9. Declare all dissent to be treason. NO
10. Suspend the rule of law. NO

2 would be as well, if you consider the treatment of the inmates to be torture.

Another for 5 and one for 7 and 9 are easy enough: Take a look at how the Hatch act was interpreted to deny communists the right to serve as civil servants, and how association with the Communist party was attached to treason. This predates McCarthy, incidentally.

But again, if you argue that the -magnitude- is also important, you can dismiss some of these as being truly fascist exemplars. Which is my whole argument--we need to pay attention to context, and to magnitude.

it's about people who apply critical thinking skills to an arguement and others who don't and buy an argument in its entirety because it fits neatly with a pre-conceived world view. And I'm not saying that one is more intelligent than the other, though obviously I prefer the former.

There's quite a bit of irony in it, however.

It is irrational to ignore the differences.

Since when is it that the ones who only look at one side of an issue (ie the similarities) are being "open-minded" while the ones who look at both sides (the similarities AND the differences) are the ones in denial?

there were a group of arabs outside, talking soflty.. I assumed they were arabs since they were speaking Arabic

I start towards my car... and a gentleman had parked and started for the door with his six year old son

He starts screaming at them filthy names and demands they go back to where they came

I had a choice

I tured around and screamed back at him that he could lead by example and go back to where HIS family came

He turned and met my eyes... hate in them.

He said nothing

He didn't expect to be challenged by a five two slightly overweight woman.

I added... you are a racist SIr.

He turned, his body posture told me he was pissed...

At least for one day somebody refused to see the other in a fellow human being

And yes I remember similar scenes from the stories my father told me from before the war... in poland

That I hope makes an impression on the kid.

when I read your claim that "the muslims are now playing the part of the jews. even that is being repeated. everything is being repeated."

In that case, if everything is being repeated, where's the equivalent of the Nuremberg Laws? Why does bushie issue statements praising Islam and Muslims, and have a dinner at the White House celebrating the end of Ramadan? Why is the Empire State building lit up green in support of Eid?
Why does Congress pass a resolution honoring Ramadan?

but paying attention to both the similarities and the differences means that you're in denial

out the window.

Also, we still have an ability if recognized to turn things back around.

evidently not quite right. I've read several serious reviews and it does not seem as if she's claiming that we are currently a fascist nation.

You're substantially correct about the OP, at least in thread 1. She seems to have somewhat changed her stance in later posts.

Wolf most certainly thinks we are already a fascist state. If you're referring to the OP, it's possible I'm wrong. The OP has shifted her arguments so many times, it's possible I mixed them up

I know you said you heard her say that the admin is fascist, but I don't think that's neccessarily the same as saying the nation is under fascist rule.

Maher phrased the question in a way that made the question clear. In her explanation, she didn't give any indication that this was simply a description of the * admins predilictions. She was discussing the actual structure and strategies our govt uses.

I guess I could be wrong, but I really doubt it. My recollection is that she and Maher were both very clear about what was being discussed.

In any case I've concluded that there are a lot of people getting their collective rocks off over the thrilling idea that we really live in a police state.

Hey, have you ever read E.M. Forester's "Two Cheers For Democracy"? It's incredibly prescient about what was to come in Europe. The essays in it cover about twenty years.

There are a lot of posters who hide their reactionary tendencies behind a revolutionary pose. Lots of talk about "taking it to the man" and lots of demanding that others make sacrifices. They're just itching to see the violence (on TV)

No, I haven't read that. ISTR reading something by Forester, but I could be wrong.

The challenge is to create an environment where other better strategies can be used.

Community is a good counter to denial. And apropos of community, I was watching LinkTv last night and heard Peter Coyote say that the internet is not a community. He said, community is taking soup to a sick neighbor and, he said other similar things.

I submit that here at DU, we're getting good at using the net to foster community that results in taking soup to our neighbors. Real soup and metaphysical soup.

Let's keep moving. :)

but are far from community

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a university professor at Columbia, was awarded the Nobel in economic science in 2001. His latest book is "Making Globalization Work."

By Joseph E. Stiglitz

The Shock DoctrineThe Rise of Disaster Capitalism. By Naomi Klein. 558 pages. $28, Metropolitan Books; £25.00, Allen Lane.

There are no accidents in the world as seen by Naomi Klein. The destruction of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina expelled many poor black residents and allowed most of the city's public schools to be replaced by privately run charter schools. The torture and killings under Gen. Augusto Pinochet in Chile and during Argentina's military dictatorship were a way of breaking down resistance to the free market. The instability in Poland and Russia after the collapse of Communism and in Bolivia after the hyperinflation of the 1980s allowed the governments there to foist unpopular economic "shock therapy" on a resistant population. And then there is "Washington's game plan for Iraq": "Shock and terrorize the entire country, deliberately ruin its infrastructure, do nothing while its culture and history are ransacked, then make it all O.K. with an unlimited supply of cheap household appliances and imported junk food," not to mention a strong stock market and private sector.

"The Shock Doctrine" is Klein's ambitious look at the economic history of the last 50 years and the rise of free-market fundamentalism around the world. "Disaster capitalism," as she calls it, is a violent system that sometimes requires terror to do its job. Like Pol Pot proclaiming that Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge was in Year Zero, extreme capitalism loves a blank slate, often finding its opening after crises or "shocks." For example, Klein argues, the Asian crisis of 1997 paved the way for the International Monetary Fund to establish programs in the region and for a sell-off of many state-owned enterprises to Western banks and multinationals. The 2004 tsunami enabled the government of Sri Lanka to force the fishermen off beachfront property so it could be sold to hotel developers. The destruction of 9/11 allowed George W. Bush to launch a war aimed at producing a free-market Iraq.

Today in Culture

The Society of Antiquaries: Reshaping the way history is recorded

'Elizabeth: The Golden Age': A cloak-and-dagger thriller brimming with wild energy

Robert Irwin: Still at play with the powers of perception

In an early chapter, Klein compares radical capitalist economic policy to shock therapy administered by psychiatrists. She interviews Gail Kastner, a victim of covert C.I.A. experiments in interrogation techniques that were carried out by the scientist Ewen Cameron in the 1950s. His idea was to use electroshock therapy to break down patients. Once "complete depatterning" had been achieved, the patients could be reprogrammed. But after breaking down his "patients," Cameron was never able to build them back up again. The connection with a rogue C.I.A. scientist is overdramatic and unconvincing, but for Klein the larger lessons are clear: "Countries are shocked - by wars, terror attacks, coups d'{-I}tat and natural disasters." Then "they are shocked again - by corporations and politicians who exploit the fear and disorientation of this first shock to push through economic shock therapy." People who "dare to resist" are shocked for a third time, "by police, soldiers and prison interrogators."In another introductory chapter, Klein offers an account of Milton Friedman - she calls him "the other doctor shock" - and his battle for the hearts and minds of Latin American economists and economies. In the 1950s, as Cameron was conducting his experiments, the Chicago School was developing the ideas that would eclipse the theories of Raul Prebisch, an advocate of what today would be called the third way, and of other economists fashionable in Latin America at the time. She quotes the Chilean economist Orlando Letelier on the "inner harmony" between the terror of the Pinochet regime and its free-market policies. Letelier said that Milton Friedman shared responsibility for the regime's crimes, rejecting his argument that he was only offering "technical" advice. Letelier was killed in 1976 by a car bomb planted in Washington by Pinochet's secret police. For Klein, he was another victim of the "Chicago Boys" who wanted to impose free-market capitalism on the region. "In the Southern Cone, where contemporary capitalism was born, the 'war on terror' was a war against all obstacles to the new order,"
she writes.

<snip>
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/28/arts/idbriefs29D.php

The circumstances, the means, the scale, the sheer variety of its manifestations are all different. The name by which it will be called historically has yet to be determined (I think "corporate feudalism of a globalized gangster class" describes many of its essentials but that obviously won't be the name, either).

We can see its outlines as an actively pursued devolution into privatized power and authoritarian barbarism, regardless of the many features it does not share with Nazi Germany, or ways in which Germany may or may not have been "worse."

It's certainly a demolition of anything that can be called either - a republic or a democracy - increasingly even in a formal sense as unconstitutional, undemocratic and unrepublican institutions are codified into law and practice.

Arguing that it's not like Hitler ignores that it's a large-scale, high-momentum, systemic movement to a new totalitarian order in which freedom, rights and justice are moot for the 99 percent, unconditioned opaque and arbitrary power lies entirely with a vanishingly small number of owners and elites, and a state of war in all things large and small becomes the new natural.

At the same time, the main obstacles in that direction seem to lie only in the chaos and self-generated collapses this system generates, not any form of organized political opposition. There's the worst of it, as you say: the denial.

But as to our -different- decline into authoritarianism being incredibly dangerous, I'm right there with you. That is why I feel making dishonest comparisons to warn people is not a good idea, because the warning too often gets dismissed along with the lazy history, and the warning is an important one.

It's practically the only way to make any argument in the social sciences.

Ibn Khaldun on the subject:



When you ignore those major contextual differences that have a major impact on all the particulars in a society, and then proceed to compare past particulars to modern particulars, you're going to easily be led far astray.

On making comparisons: It is the most practical way to make an argument in the social sciences.

There are other ways of making an argument, like using inductive reasoning based on ethnographic narrative, and then using grounded theory derived from the data. Nevertheless, the researcher will eventually fall back to making comparisons in one way or or another. Then it becomes a matter of scale or degree to which one relies upon comparative analysis in order to make significant (or valid) conclusions.

:pals: :evilgrin:

but comparing means taking note of the similarities AND the differences; not just the similarities.

For some reason, the OP argues that those who look at only the similarities are open-minded while those who look at both the similarities and the differences are "in denial"

Those who emphasize the (many) differences as a way of downplaying the gravity of the present situation are in denial. We have something different and more complicated and in relative slow-motion and far more anonymous and institutional (it can continue without Bush) but it is comparably grave or, given the stakes, perhaps even worse: global ecocide and economic catastrophe and the end of republican and democratic institutions, without an effective opposition or even widespread understanding (in the U.S.) of what is going on and why.

and it's what you describe in your first paragraph that I see as the true threat. Not enough emphasis gets placed on this threat in these discussions.

But arguing specifically that bush=hitler, that Guantanamo=Dachau, and that the state of the American press today=Germany's circa 1936, ignores the points you bring up in that opening paragraph.

such an argument's premise is flawed from the start and easily dismissable. i would quit wasting time with deliberately obtuse discussions filled with red herrings.

in essence, i agree with you.

:hug:

The fascists must LOVE that.

Do the people arguing with you feel better about their own complicity, their own comfy pot of slowly heating water?

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head."


That quote is bullshit that reassures the spoiled and sleepwalking that they have no responsibility and are merely pawns in a game. How lame is that?

:thumbsdown:


again, it seems, to avoid their own responsibility and feel snug in their smug putdowns

And no need for your bad arguing

You criticize others for being mean?

The OP accuses everyone that disagrees with her of being "in denial"

That's not a putdown?

Talk about BS

they see what is happening

But even aknowledging what is happening means that perhaps the alarmist amomgst us are right.

Fear and denial is a natural thing

And for the record, after the advise of a fellow DU'er, those who are driven by fear are now in my ignore list

:-(

I tried... and somebody else has taken the baton for me.

As to the quote, it comes from they thought they were free..

people will change as soon as they accept that they are responsible

to live a moral live in an amoral system

Niemuller should be required readying as well

but it is...

Fear...

Rejection

Admitance of one's complicity by staying silence

Psychologically it is a hard step to take

And fear is the chief driving factor, remember that

Fear that by remaining silent or fighitng what is now so obvious, one will remain part of the community and one can ignore

I remember interviewing refugees from central america

And that was a constant...

FEAR... and they said the same thing others have said across history...

Neighboors didn't do a thing or say a thing out of fear.

Having spoken to my dad, the few times he actually broached the issue, his neighbors were also afraid

Less one family that saved them from the Nazis and risked all... those are rare

they KNOW what governments are capable of.

the echoes just scare them...

;-(

And my mom and dad have admonished me to shut up for me own safety

I tell them, sorry, I look at my Nephews and cannot stand to be quiet

something about it! DEnying it says it's really ok, it's not at all like Germany. Germany was much worse. We're cool. let's just keep waiting for 60 votes.

pay attention

"Accepting this thesis means that we have to do something about it!"

like crazy against the things going on in the country. I had no thesis when i opposed Gulf War I. I had no thesis when I opposed the Iraq war. I had no thesis when I opposed the building of high tension towers in my community. I had no thesis when I fought for civil unions 10 years ago. You don't need a fucking unified neat little theory, to oppose what's wrong and fight for what's right. All the rest is just trimming. The important thing is simply standing up.

Facts count. Making germane comparisons is important. Misrepresenting history is something worth challenging.

Please point out who is denying the movement towards a police state. I have a message for that poster.

neat little package. Way to try and marginalize people who disagree with certain elements of an argument, or object to facts being twisted and ahistorical comparisons. Good job. Real totalitarian thinking. Congratulations.

And some of us haven't waited for anything. Like you, we've marched in DC and written letters and called our reps, and worked for progressive candidates.

I'll quote someone who was truly prescient about the encroaching darkness in Europe:

"Only hypocrites cannot forgive hypocrisy".

:thumbsdown:

about facts and what I believe is the truth. It's about standing up for what I believe even when I overwhelmingly outnumbered. It's about not going along to get along.

This OP starts off by saying that anyone who dares not to buy into her thesis in its entirety is simply scared and in denial- that's the title of the OP, denial. That's a mean rhetorical trick meant to marginalize and discredit people who don't agree with her, but you won't acknowledge that, I'm sure. Do I hit it back? Yeah, at this point. You bet I do.

reading with an open mind and considering what's being said, without getting you back up?

and when I presented primary source material repudiating a central point she made, she was unable to even acknowledge that she'd made an error and went into the whole denial thing. That's just not critical thinking. And it's not honest either. As far as reading this OP with an open mind, it's simply part 3 of the same thing.

How is ignoring the differences "open-minded"?

you are really pitiful. All you have is hate

:puke:

we aim to please

frighteningly easy to fall into it, isn't it?

And especially not to make the same excuses, as in:
"I didn't know voting that way would permit Bush to declare war".
"We need secret surveillance or else America will be attacked", etc.

i think you misread it

argue even when the arguments made are being ignored

Oh I expect plenty of very scared people to continue to follow and post... and claim that what is going on right now does not follow a method

If it makes them feel better, and chiefly LESS AFRAID, ok, not everybody has the internal fortitude to look at our present reality and accept it for what it is... nine out of the ten steps to close down a society have been taken... and the tenth is being implemented as we speak

This truly prevents me from sleeping at night, since I know this descent into that dark night will have its own special, shall we say American, characteristics

Nevertheless, I choose to live a moral life in the midst of a moral crisis and speak against this...

Never mind that consequences for resistance in any of these totalitarian states can be severe... especially if you attract too much attention to yourself

But if fear drives you to silence, I cannot do more than actually pity you... even if ultimately I understand.

Oh and I expect the black IGNORE list to follow... and for accusations I will never see to be levied

But we tried to engage in civilized debate... and fear drove the debate... if this can be called a debate

Oh and lastly.. I hope this can be turned around... and that all the screams of yes, it is THIS bad will be proven wrong... for none of us truly wants to experience the full force of a police state... of tyranny, to use the ancient term.

:popcorn:

but there are some folks here, driven by fear, who are racking quite the post count

That are afriad and will not allow any civilized discusion

Fear does strange things to people who otherwise have a solid moral compass

And I am not saying I am better than them... or you, or anybody else

Truly, nobody knows how they will react until they are in the middle of a situation...

I can understand them... but they will be as responsible for the dark night comming as citizens across time who refused to fight when they still had time... becuase they were afraid

Time is short

In my worst nightmares I fear we will not have to worry about elections... but that is my worst fear right now

by branding anyone who didn't agree with you 100% "in denial"

welcome to DU :evilfrown:

You seem awfully upset that people keep calling bullshit on your Nazi comparisons.

and descent onto that kind of a system

It is not just me that they have tried to silence

Surely, you're aware that disagreeing is not the same as an attempt at "silencing". You understand that, don't you?

not even remotely. and if you disagree with her you are a troll. Really, it's that black and white to that poster.

have been engaged in (not only me)

Any time the subject is brought up they go to them like I don't flies to shit

And the way they are high jacking threads raises the question

WHY

I offered one explanation above

They are afraid

There are others... that are also starting to make sense

If it was only me... you'd have a point

But they are present in every thread, not discussing, not presenting an alternate point of view, but engaging in trollish behaviors

This is the closest you come to trying to silence the message... in a message board, by disrupting the message

Does not matter who delivers it

They hope that if they do this enough we will get tired and just surrender

I don't feed the trolls, they are on the ignore list, and they will remain there.

And as I said in a post addressing this... we need to ask why?

:-)

And I could be talking of mother russia, it would take them a little longer but I can bet they would engage in the same exact behavior