Article: How the USA became a Fascist State

[Back]

A fellow poster here sent me this. (Thanks! ::smooches::)

What struck me more than anything about this article is that it hits on three heavily debated topics currently on these boards.

Make of it what you will.


===============================================

How the USA became a Fascist State
By Chris Herz,
Posted on Sat Jan 22nd, 2005 at 11:48:58 AM EST
Our own opposition people, and the citizens of other lands whose lives are threatened, whose families are immiserated, owe it to themselves to examine the born again Fascism which has replaced liberal democracy in the USA. For this nation and its mendacious and nihilistic misleadership promise humanity catastrophe, war and sufferings beyond the wildest imaginings of the German, Italian or Japanese Fascists of past times.


Fascism is a system of melded corporate and state power. It is based upon the authority of the "Fuehrerprinzip"; The leader principle: The husband is unquestioned head of his household, the boss of his enterprise and the prince, whatever his title, of the whole nation.

Those who don't fit in this hierarchic paradigm: Women, racial or national minorities, and free-thinking artists or intellectuals are to be made subject to ever-tightening social controls.

Workers have no rights their employers are bound to respect and should be grateful for whatever pittance they recieve. Certainly they enjoy no right, and nor do the other excluded grougs, to democratically organise, for such would threaten the basic nature of the State.

Other nations, especially when they are smaller and weaker, are populated by inferior peoples of inferior moral fibre. These should have no expectation other than to labour for or to provide resources to their betters.

We will field the largest possible military, police, propaganda and corporate organisations to enforce this design.

And God is on our side.

In our American society there has always been an irreducible number of individuals who cannot handle freedom. Who fear it, who do really believe such stuff as that first toke will make of one an helpless addict. But only now, in an economically decadent nation, has the number of such persons become so large that authoritiarianism must triumph. And there are other historical convergences which have come together to re-inforce, to guarantee this result.

Foremost of all; the destruction of our once-great middle class -- "the Centre cannot hold" -- by the economic excesses of the past generation. The Warfare State and corporate globalisation. To say nothing of drug wars, colonial war and a stubborn refusal to abandon whatever is the latest manifestation of the gas-guzzler.

This group, cast loose from all their moral and social certainties by their economic orphaning, by inflation or outsourcing votes first conservative, and then as their condition deteriorates still further, Fascist. Their peers did so in Fascist Europe and in Japan they were the salarymen of the zaibatsu, displaced by depression and protectionism, and all sent their children to hopeless war. Today they do so all over the West, but nowhere as yet in such numbers as in the USA. For no other "advanced" nation has yet dared expose its people so cruelly to all the rigours of untrammelled economic liberalism. It is not just the peoples of the Third World whose prospects have been blighted by corporate globalisation.

Other factors converge: In Germany the Jews were despised as the core of liberalism; even of radicalism. For they had never forgotten their liberation at the hands of the invading forces of the French Revolution. But to every German conservative, the mere sight of emancipated Jews was a reminder of defeat and foreign ideology. And in the USA it is the Blacks who occupy this unenviable position.

To mamy a true American, the sight of Blacks not under the tightest of police surveillance and control is disquieting, to say the least. Our modern conservative movement is founded specifically and explicitly by Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon to reign in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. And with the criminalisation, under the drug laws, of half the Black male population of Baltimore, the largest city in my State of Maryland, they have certainly succeeded.

What comes next, as American Fascism faces defeat and the possible dismemberment of its homeland, I shudder to contemplate.

We see an historic social stratification. We who have read and studied these matters are all aware that at no time in the past, not during slavery, not in the days of the great monopolies has there been such concentration of wealth at the top. The all-powerful Internal Revenue themselves dare not include incomes above $600,000 in our national data, out of the certain knowledge that this would hopelessly skew all databases.

There is the utter sycophancy of corporate media. A presstitution truly yellow in more ways than one.

And a debased educational and intellectual class. One all too willing, as Chomsky shows us to prostitute itself to the goals of the perverted and ghastly sciences of the warfare state. One willing to train the next generation in full knowledge of the damage done by propagandisation and false interpretations of history.

In 1938, just after the rape of Czechoslovakia, Dr Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, Harvard-trained economist and director of the Reichsbank, sought audience with Hitler.

He told his Leader that within a year Germany would have exhausted all her foreign exchange, and would face national bankruptcy. Years later, at Nuremberg (where he was the only senior Nazi aquitted!) Schacht said he had hoped to persuade Hitler to slow down or abandon his plans for re-armament and war. But whatever, this news did not have that effect upon the Dictator.

Hitler had always wanted war. But in 1944 or 45 when the German Reich would have had hundreds, rather than only a few dozen U-boats. When the Luftwaffe would have been flying jet aircraft. But instead, the spectre of economic collapse caused the acceleration of the war. For Hitler knew that only in a military command economy could he and his irrational followers survive.

The dynamic was much the same in the other Fascist countries of that day. And while we are a corporate oligarchy, rather than a dictatorial state, perhaps more similar to the Japan than to the Germany of those times, do we not face similar economic challenges? Our massive state and federal deficits, our disasterous foreign trade imbalances, and the credit card, educational and mortgage indebtedness of households, which all combine to produce a negative national rate of savings.

Let us not forget the role of religion. Today it is Pastor Niemoeller or Pastor Bonhoeffer, who provided the theological justification of tyranicide who are remembered as the torch-bearers of German Protestantism. But at the time, they were considered as traitorous at worst and criminally insane at best. The one was imprisoned, the other executed. Every Nazi soldier wore on his belt-buckle: "Gott mit uns." Mussolini was the darling of the Pope. And the highest destiny of any good Japanese soldier was to guard the Emperor or to become a kami in the eternal Yasukuni Shrine.

For such people and their state, war is perhaps the only option presenting itself to the conventional wisdom. Certainly it was so in those past times. For in each of the Axis partners war was waged right down to the very end with the full participation and support of their populations.

I believe that those classes at home, and those peoples abroad who will face their shared destruction at the hands of this born-again Corporate State must arm themselves. Morally, economically and, yes, perhaps even militarily, to face the gathering storm. Perhaps above all else, to know the Opponant; his strengths and his weaknesses.

For Fascism loses, not wins, the world war it starts. For what can it offer anyone not of its favored few? Only blood, sweat, toil and tears.

From the Imperial Capital
Chris Herz

[StrayRogue]

*awaits the usual "its Bullshit" remarks by Republicans and Bush-ites.*

While I may or may not agree that most of the bigger "super" countries are becoming like the above (with such things as the Patriot Act, Surveilance equipment everywhere etc), I think you made a great point a few weeks ago Backlash, regardless of this article, about how the Terrorist across the globe have won, simply because of our increased feeling of dread and the increasing levels of security we are needing to employ so we might stop them. I'm sure that, and the article are linked in some way.

[Parkbandit]

"its Bullshit"

or to use the synonym:

"its Backlash"

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
While I may or may not agree that most of the bigger "super" countries are becoming like the above (with such things as the Patriot Act, Surveilance equipment everywhere etc), I think you made a great point a few weeks ago Backlash, regardless of this article, about how the Terrorist across the globe have won, simply because of our increased feeling of dread and the increasing levels of security we are needing to employ so we might stop them. I'm sure that, and the article are linked in some way.

So let me guess.. in Stay's happy go lucky, let's all sit around the campfire and hold hands fantasy world.. we should have just gone about our lives and accepted that terrorism is here and there is nothing we can do about it?

[Back]

Heh, I didn’ t write it. But its a shame you would reject it just because I posted it.

So I’m going to never post anything like it again.







Not

[HarmNone]

I think the article Backlash posted has a great deal of thought-provoking ideas that could give food for pondering to people from all sides of the political arena. When you begin to reject things out of hand, you close the door to learning.

[StrayRogue]

Well for one PB, I wouldn't invade a country and promote more people to commit such acts against me. But if you don't feel safe at home anymore, then how can you say the terrorists have not won?

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
"its Backlash"

http://members.cox.net/legendwezas/backlash.jpg

</helping>

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Heh, I didn’ t write it. But its a shame you would reject it just because I posted it.

So I’m going to never post anything like it again.







Not

When someone is writing an "article".. give them a call and advise them to use big words THAT ARE SPELLED CORRECTLY. I have very little respect for someone posting bullshit like that.. but I have NO respect for him if he can't even fucking use a spell check program.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Well for one PB, I wouldn't invade a country and promote more people to commit such acts against me. But if you don't feel safe at home anymore, then how can you say the terrorists have not won?

Let's see.. 9-11 happened.. then the WORST thing Bin Laden could do to try and sway our elections was to send us a -insert scary music here- A BIG FAT VIDEO TAPE!!!!!

Sorry, I feel more safe than ever.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Parkbandit
"its Backlash"
</helping>

So NOT helping. Fucker.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm curious why you live in America Backlash, being as how much you hate what it represents so much. Why not move to Iraq or something where things are so much better?

[DeV]

Originally posted by HarmNone
I think the article Backlash posted has a great deal of thought-provoking ideas that could give food for pondering to people from all sides of the political arena. When you begin to reject things out of hand, you close the door to learning. :yeahthat: I found it though-provoking as well. Interesting set of ideas to say the least.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by HarmNone
I think the article Backlash posted has a great deal of thought-provoking ideas that could give food for pondering to people from all sides of the political arena. When you begin to reject things out of hand, you close the door to learning. :yeahthat: I found it though-provoking as well. Interesting set of ideas to say the least.

See... I didn't bother reading it because of the poster. Much like I never read anything from Dave. There is such thing as too anti-establishment.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV:yeahthat: I found it though-provoking as well. Interesting set of ideas to say the least.

I'll go pop over to RushLimbaugh.com and Glenbeck.com if you really want interesting set of ideas to say the least. I'm sure you will respond to them in much the same manner as you responded to this steaming pile of misspelled shit.

Or.. could it be that because you dislike the current administration, you find it so interesting?

[Back]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I'm curious why you live in America Backlash, being as how much you hate what it represents so much. Why not move to Iraq or something where things are so much better?

What makes you think I hate America?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I'm curious why you live in America Backlash, being as how much you hate what it represents so much. Why not move to Iraq or something where things are so much better?

What makes you think I hate America? BECAUSE YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US!!

Er.. sorry.. not sure where that came from.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by DeV:yeahthat: I found it though-provoking as well. Interesting set of ideas to say the least.

I'll go pop over to RushLimbaugh.com and Glenbeck.com if you really want interesting set of ideas to say the least. I'm sure you will respond to them in much the same manner as you responded to this steaming pile of misspelled shit.

Or.. could it be that because you dislike the current administration, you find it so interesting? Possibly.. go find some articles and post them and I'll let you know how I feel. That is, if you care to, if not :shrug:

It's not so much that I dislike the administration as a whole its more along the lines of me disliking where I feel this country is heading at the present time. Define that as you will.

I also did not say I agreed with everything stated or his ideas about America. I found the article thought-provoking, much like I find most of the things you post from time to time. That can be good or bad.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
See... I didn't bother reading it because of the poster. Much like I never read anything from Dave. There is such thing as too anti-establishment. Thanks for letting me know.

[HarmNone]

I've read Rush Limbaugh's books "See I Told You So", and "The Way Things Ought to Be". While I do not agree with Mr. Limbaugh on just about all issues, that does not mean I cannot gain by learning something about his perspective on things. To do otherwise would indicate my mind is closed to all thoughts that are not identical to my own. That is not a habit in which I wish to indulge.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I'm curious why you live in America Backlash, being as how much you hate what it represents so much. Why not move to Iraq or something where things are so much better?

What makes you think I hate America?

All your posts about how much you hate <whatever> here in the US. Like, saying the US is a fascist state. Or how the administration is a den of liars. Gotta roll to lunch or I'd elaborate. I just a sense you hate it here.

[Back]

Actually, this thread isn’t about me, so I’ll explain it to him in U2Us.

Article up there to read. ^

Carry on.

[Tsa`ah]

I believe a dissenting voice loves their nation just as much as an agreeable voice.

The need for change, the need for improvement is always there. The dissenting voice is often the one to point it out and raise a few eyebrows.

It's not about hate, it's about love and need.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by DeV:yeahthat: I found it though-provoking as well. Interesting set of ideas to say the least.

I'll go pop over to RushLimbaugh.com ... if you really want interesting set of ideas to say the least.

Hey PB while you're over there could you get me some oxycotton my supply is running low.

[xtc]

[i]Originally posted by Parkbandit BECAUSE YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US!!

Er.. sorry.. not sure where that came from. [/quote]

George Bush speech writer alert!.....

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I believe a dissenting voice loves their nation just as much as an agreeable voice.

The need for change, the need for improvement is always there. The dissenting voice is often the one to point it out and raise a few eyebrows.

It's not about hate, it's about love and need.

I actually agree.. as long as it's not done at every turn and every opportunity JUST to be dissenting. Many Republicans did this when Clinton was in the office and it's become the norm for the Democrats over the past 5 years.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
*awaits the usual "its Bullshit" remarks by Republicans and Bush-ites.* Sorry, I was at class.
Originally posted by Chris Herz
To mamy a true American, the sight of Blacks not under the tightest of police surveillance and control is disquieting, to say the least.And I thought Stray was an uninformed Brit. ;) Seriously though, that's not America.
my State of MarylandNice try, Mr. Herz.
rigours
criminalisation

Just because Backlash hates Bush, he hates America? I'm hoping SHM is joking.

edit: The article would be much better if it wasn't clearly written by a British guy masquerading as American and if it didn't hugely overexaggerate racial and societal tensions.

[Edited on 1-28-2005 by Latrinsorm]

[HarmNone]

Just to play devil's advocate, Latrinsorm, is it not possible that Mr. Herz was born outside of this country but is now making his home in Maryland, and perhaps a citizen of the United States.

This lesson in how not to jump to conclusions brought to you by HarmNone

[Latrinsorm]

I don't consider people who don't speak/write American English Americans. There are a number of other, non-topical criteria that I use, but that one will suffice for now.

[HarmNone]

Just because a person misuses a word, or misspells a word does not mean that person does not speak/write American English correctly, Latrinsorm. If that were true, a goodly portion of the born and bred American posters here would have to be ousted as invaders from a foreign land.

Additionally, if the United States Government has deemed a person fit for citizenship, I will summarily place your opinion as to whether or not that person deserves that distinction where it belongs...in the round file. :)

[Warriorbird]

"I don't consider people who don't speak/write American English Americans. There are a number of other, non-topical criteria that I use, but that one will suffice for now."

I've seen you use incomplete sentences on this very forum! Get into the boat!

[HarmNone]

Heh. I wasn't going to say it, Warriorbird. :whistle:

[Back]

Yeah, for some reason I thought it was a brit who wrote that, as I was reading it... using an “an” before a word starting with an “h” is another cue aside from the mispellings.

Regardless who wrote it, and how well it was executed (I agree it was poorly written from a technical standpoint), its still interesting and as I said in the very first post, it interested me more because it sort of encompasses the three main topics on this board right now. US Govt., Racism, and WWII.

[HarmNone]

Heh. I use "an" before certain words beginning with "h", and I'm most certainly American. Just goes to show how assumptions can lead one down the garden path to dead wrong. ;)

[Latrinsorm]

Uh, ok. I wasn't suggesting that poor use of English made a person un-American. If I was, I would have put "well" or "correctly" after this statement:
I don't consider people who don't speak/write American EnglishI was suggesting that purposefully un-American English made a person un-American. The idea that a person could happen to misspell two words exactly the same way a British speller would spell them by chance reminds me of the time you were arguing over what the word "wife" meant, Harmnone.

My feelings on overgeneralized, understaffed testing have been expressed before, but I'll do so again: it's stupid, it's ineffective, and it should go away. The United States Government also decided that Mohammad Atta was an officer in the Air Force. I hope the distastefulness of this example conveys how angry I get when people rely on a quiz as their proof of anything from intelligence to driving ability to American-ness.

[HarmNone]

I guess I'm pretty un-American then, Latrinsorm, because I have been known to use European spellings and other such in my writing and my speaking. Personally, I find your viewpoint very narrow and highly judgemental; however, it is your right to think, write, speak and believe as you please. It is also your right to get just as angry as you wish. Ain't no skin off my nose.

[Valthissa]

It is beyond my comprehension that anyone can believe the U.S. is headed for facism. We just had an election where almost half of the electorate voted for a a fairly liberal democrat. We are only 4 years away from another presidential election. Most people are far more affected by their local government than by congress or the executive branch - and last time I checked, state politics were still pretty competitve.

I couldn't find one serious argument in the whole post - it's an emotion filled letter that reveals only the author's feelings. it isn't even an attempt at persuasion - it's the kind of post that makes people that agree with the writer feel good about themselves without having to think about whether it even makes any sense.

C/Valth

[Ralimar]

I like this board! =D People like Harmnone and Tsa point out poor reasoning and fallacies before I the chance! Kudos to you guys! So, since they took away what I had in response...

Vote 3rd Party!!!!

[Neildo]

Heh. I use "an" before certain words beginning with "h", and I'm most certainly American. Just goes to show how assumptions can lead one down the garden path to dead wrong.

It's such an honor to see someone admit to sometimes using "an" before an "h". ;)

Since this whole topic of American Fascism is getting under a few peoples skins, here's another one for ya'll. :p

- N

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

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4113.htm

Fascism Anyone?

Fascism's principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for.

By Laurence W. Britt

The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.
We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.

For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from other problems, to shift blame forfailures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice-relentless propaganda and disinformation-were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite "spontaneous" acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and"terrorists." Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes' excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting "national security," and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the "godless." A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. "Normal" and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or "traitors" was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating an disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.


"When facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the American flag." - Huey Long

[HarmNone]

Heh! Well said, Mr. Britt! Thanks for sharing that, Nieldo! It, too, offers much to ponder. :)

[Back]

Great article and interesting site. Thanks.