From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

[jtabeb]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

Except for the ridiculous lying on the very nature of their own company.

They continuously rail against "the mainstream media" when *THEY* are one of the largest media companies in the world (NewsCorp). They have the largest number of viewers who eat up their "fair and balanced" hate-mongering shows and it's leading Americans to become dumber and dumber about what is really going on.

You can do a google search and find many many many contradicting statements from the pundits and idiots on FoxNews who appear woefully under-educated on even the most basic of realities. Their continued support for personalities and politicians who have the most bizarre beliefs infuriates me to no end.

These statements are not to endorse or condone the other actions of other networks, merely to point out that FoxNews is probably at the top of the list when it comes to fallacies in their content.

They enemies of "US" is "THEM". I classify "THEM" as those corporate entities that would seek a fascist form of governance to descend upon this country and those that do their bidding. Everyone else, is "US", including those that watch FOX NEWS, at least in my book.

[ricket]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

They enemies of "US" is "THEM". I classify "THEM" as those corporate entities that would seek a fascist form of governance to descend upon this country and those that do their bidding. Everyone else, is "US", including those that watch FOX NEWS, at least in my book.

I still don't want them on my side if they are too dumb to realize theyre the ones that ushered them into power...

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

You can do a google search and find many many many contradicting statements from the pundits and idiots on FoxNews who ..

No, I will not do a google search. I do not watch Fox (nor any TV). I will not attempt the futile task of persuading you to watch Fox.

I will only request that you don't suggest to newcomers that your views represents this sites views. Some here may agree with you, some not. I know for a fact at least one who doesn't agree -- myself.

Thanks, and have a good day.

[jtabeb]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

I still don't want them on my side if they are too dumb to realize theyre the ones that ushered them into power...

Well, that's sad then, because by your actions, you are allowing "THEM" to win.

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

They enemies of "US" is "THEM". I classify "THEM" as those corporate entities that would seek a fascist form of governance to descend upon this country and those that do their bidding. Everyone else, is "US", including those that watch FOX NEWS, at least in my book.

What precisely IS a fascist form of government?

The so-called fascist governments were able to rally relatively large segments of their population to wage war against the combined forces of the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and later the United States - political entities that controlled the vast majority of the world.

Truly, what does our corporate dominated democracy have to do with those nations?

I really am perplexed at all this talk of fascism. Fascist governments rose in direct response to the London-New York international banking powers that wrecked havoc on the world in the post-WWI era. If anything, the rise of fascism should give everyone pause as to how quickly the world can change as a result of corrupt banking practices.

We all talk about how this is the Second Great Depression. If that is so, then we should not discount the very real possibility desperate people will accept yet another Caesar to force rapid "change".

[metalman]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

how brilliant of forrest to post this to political abyss!

i'll add one to the list...

6. every day the name of every brave man or woman who gives a life or limb in defense of our nation must appear on the front page of every newspaper and web site to remind us of their sacrifice.

[doom&gloom]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

No, I will not do a google search. I do not watch Fox (nor any TV). I will not attempt the futile task of persuading you to watch Fox.

I will only request that you don't suggest to newcomers that your views represents this sites views. Some here may agree with you, some not. I know for a fact at least one who doesn't agree -- myself.

Thanks, and have a good day.

i'm with ya, and i DO watch Fox at times. The Amerikan Kleptocracy is in full
force, and we the people get 'divided' like sheeple following our selected party
while decrying the other guys as partisans.

rubbish.

we are being used. and abused. by BOTH sides. and those who think otherwise
have not learned to think for themselves.

[*T*]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

ACORN controls JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. ACORN decides who gets the bailouts and who doesn't.[/COLOR]

This is illustrating a fascist / corporatist system, not Marxism.

[*T*]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

Fascist governments rose in direct response to the London-New York international banking powers that wrecked havoc on the world in the post-WWI era. If anything, the rise of fascism should give everyone pause as to how quickly the world can change as a result of corrupt banking practices.

We all talk about how this is the Second Great Depression. If that is so, then we should not discount the very real possibility desperate people will accept yet another Caesar to force rapid "change".

It's rare I agree with Serge Tomiko, but take heed of this. I think the 'Caesar' point is also jtabeb's point. We are at risk of a 'strong leader'.

[ricket]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

Well, that's sad then, because by your actions, you are allowing "THEM" to win.

If they are easily persuaded by obvious lies, then does that not make them quite a liability when it comes to warfare?

[kartius919]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

He points to Caesar as almost a nostalgia for the beginning of the Roman Empire. I could easily point to Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc in which wide spread warfare was the prescription for the debilitated economy. Of course it only worked so far until you run out of easy prey. Then there is just death by lead or starvation.

[jtabeb]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

What precisely IS a fascist form of government?

The so-called fascist governments were able to rally relatively large segments of their population to wage war against the combined forces of the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and later the United States - political entities that controlled the vast majority of the world.

Truly, what does our corporate dominated democracy have to do with those nations?

I really am perplexed at all this talk of fascism. Fascist governments rose in direct response to the London-New York international banking powers that wrecked havoc on the world in the post-WWI era. If anything, the rise of fascism should give everyone pause as to how quickly the world can change as a result of corrupt banking practices.

We all talk about how this is the Second Great Depression. If that is so, then we should not discount the very real possibility desperate people will accept yet another Caesar to force rapid "change".

It's not Obama, but what COMES AFTER that is the source of my fears.

This type of political movement (see below)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=112683449

(Listen to the interview when it becomes available)

could possibly use the protection of corporate speech and the unlimited source of funds that this represents as a spring board to capturing the presidency or a majority of the congress. At which point they would be able to implement their radical agenda. Which is a totalitarian, non-constitutional religious theocracy.

You know the same thing we are fighting against the Islamic Jihaddi movement.

It's basically the same threat.

But the Jihaddi movement uses violence to achieve governmental power, and then implements their radical agenda.

A religious theocratic movement in the United States would much more likely use a political means of obtaining power, as a means of then being able to implement their agenda (which is just as radical in scope as the the Jihaddi movement). Of course the religious bases are completely different (Islamic vs Christian).

But in summary, Achieving governmental power as the means to then be able to implement a radical agenda are the same for both groups. (As I said, the means to initially achieve governmental power are different, as are the religious bases, but the overriding goal is the same).

Anyway, hope that clears up the issues I see as posing a major threat to our governance.

Did, that make sense?

V/R

JT

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

A religious theocratic movement in the United States would much more likely use a political means of obtaining power, as a means of then being able to implement their agenda (which is just as radical in scope as the the Jihaddi movement). Of course the religious bases are completely different (Islamic vs Christian).

...

Did, that make sense?

The "Christian" part doesn't make much sense to me. To the extent that Christians support such fascist tyranny, they are being used, just as so many others are used, in my view.

If I lived in an Islamic Middle Eastern country that was going through a more tyrannical phase, it would worry me substantially that I am in no way Islamic. But presently living in America, it worries me not at all whether I have the "proper" religion, other than perhaps it's a good idea not to be too outspoken for the occassional religion that gets scapegoated now and then, such as Islam after 9/11. But even then, the danger is far less than say for a Jew in Germany in 1940, or even a Japanese descendent in America in 1943.

So, no, your mention of "Christian" in your explanation doesn't make sense to me.

[jtabeb]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

The "Christian" part doesn't make much sense to me. To the extent that Christians support such fascist tyranny, they are being used, just as so many others are used, in my view.

If I lived in an Islamic Middle Eastern country that was going through a more tyrannical phase, it would worry me substantially that I am in no way Islamic. But presently living in America, it worries me not at all whether I have the "proper" religion, other than perhaps it's a good idea not to be too outspoken for the occassional religion that gets scapegoated now and then, such as Islam after 9/11. But even then, the danger is far less than say for a Jew in Germany in 1940, or even a Japanese descendent in America in 1943.

So, no, your mention of "Christian" in your explanation doesn't make sense to me.

Only as the goup of disaffected likely to be targeted. (The "patsy" group, if you will)

Stong collective identity, common morals, etc.

This is not "blame the christians", it's pointing out the group that is likely to be targeted by such efforts.

Very similar to fascist buisness interests in the '30s during the great depression.

If my remembrance of history is correct. The exact polarization that we are seeing today is very similar to what we saw at that time.

I'm not blaming the rape victem here, just pointing out who would be targeted as a "vehicle" to acheive these goals by a different group.

(The health care industry using the conservative right as a foil for healthcare reform, for example). Do they agree with the principles of the conservative right? Hell no. But it does acheive an objective of theirs, preserving the status quo.

The point is people end up THINKING that they serving their are serving their own agenda, when in reality they end up serving the agenda of another group, without being aware. "used" is an approprate term here, I think.

Make sense?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

Only as the goup of disaffected likely to be targeted. (The "patsy" group, if you will)
...
Make sense?

Ah, ok. That makes sense.

As I wrote back in August of 2002, still visible on the web at http://www.freerepublic.com/~thepythoniccow/:

Liberalism is a ploy by a few would be tyrants to gain the support of the masses by convincing them to work for some purpose, any purpose, that is not to one's own damn good, not subject to common sense.

If you're working for the obvious benefit of yourself, your family and your neighbors, doing something you can observe the benefits and costs of, and experience the results of, then you are the enemy of liberals. For you are in control of your own life.

If you can be persuaded, out of guilt or fear or whatever, to work to save the starving children in a faraway land (but not the kid next door), or the environment (but not the tree in your backyard) or the victims of genocide or the homeless or the elderly (in the abstract - not your actual mother) or world peace or whatever, then you are in the control of the spinmeisters who establish these "goals". They can get you to do anything, just by spinning it right.

For a few, such as Dr. Livingston or Mother Theresa, such faraway ills are immediate and personal, and something to be directly addressed from personal awareness. God bless them.

But do-gooders from a distance are a dangerous fuel for the liberal mischief of tyrants.