Thursday, October 19, 2006
Ok, there was a comment left regarding my post on the 14 tenets of fascism. In responding to that post, I got rather long winded. So, instead of replying in the comments section, I just decided to make a full blog post.
First, this is the comment that I am responding to:
Though I agree with you, I'm not sure you can actually prove some of it:
6 -- depends on who you ask
7 -- it is conceivable that they're just telling the truth
8 -- if this were provable I would think that the "Liberals" would be more vehement about it.
9 -- the word "put" is quite vague
13 -- it is conceivable that Hallibuton was just the company that would do the job for the least money, right?
14 -- i doubt you can prove election theft thus far. They tried.
And this is my response:
What? This, from you? Oh come on, I expect better from you man.
First, it's not about proving, it's just about showing some glaring similarities and pointing out the hypocrisy of our current regime labeling something else as Fascist.
But let's take your comments point-by-point:
6. It does not require that all the media is directly controlled. The regime has been caught, and has admitted to, paying reporters and columnistas (i typoed that at first, but i think it's a cool word) to write pieces sympathetic to the government in general or to specific legislation or policy.
As to the "sympathetic media spokespeople and executives", one needs look no further than FoxNews. It's the most watched news channel in the US, and it is demonstrably biased toward the current administration.
7. You can not honestly believe that the level of fear-mongering used by this regime is at all based on reality, can you? Seriously man, I know you. This regime has used fear as its principal tool in manipulating the populace. Habeas Corpus was just signed out of law a couple of days ago. The only argument that was used for this “Military Commissions Act Of 2006” and other such drek, simply uses fear. “Let us do xxx, or else the terrorists will kill you”. The vox populi is thus surpressed to silence under the suffocating warm soft blanket of comfort in the form of the Unitary Executive
This type of coersive “discourse” is called an argumentum ad baculum (Latin: argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion. One participates in this type of argument when one points out the dire consequences of holding a contrary position. This is, as you know, a logical fallacy.
8. I don’t know what you’re listening to, but there are many, many people “making a big deal out of this.” Randi Rhodes, did her entire show on the subject yesterday. There are many people, including me, who fear the fanatical brand of “Christianity” that infects our current administration. Further, there have been a number of books written on the subject. Here are a few of those books and some links that rebut your assumption:
If you need more, please let me know.
9. Put could easily have multiple meanings in this context. Obviously, corporations don’t directly hand-pick the candidates and place them into office without votes. However, the lobbying power of corporate America is wholly unmatched. They basically do everything but put people directly into office.
13. Halliburton isn’t even half of it, though it is a very well-known example. I would agree that, with H. in particular, there are many jobs the USGOV has contracted out that H could do best and at the best price. However, in some of those jobs, we’ll never know if that was true because Halliburton, or other ‘friendly’ companies, were given no-bid contracts.
As for the rest of the cronyism, some links for your pleasure:
14. For this to apply to what was our country, outright election theft is not necessary. It is not even requisite that elections are proven to have been rigged. It is only necessary to show that some elections were engineered to be biased, had severe irregularities outside the bounds of statistically acceptable error. Again, some links:
Let me close with a disclaimer:
I can not vouch for the accuracy of everything in every link I posted. Nor do I necessarily agree with everything found at the links I posted. I used the links only inasmuch as they are useful to back up my opinion in this matter. However, having said that, I would not have used a link to a page that I knew or expected to contain complete fabrications.
And finally, in googling around today, I found that someone else had done a post similar to the one this post is defending. I haven’t read this person’s work yet, but I’m about to. Here’s the link:
Thank you for your time.