Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

From Freedom to Fascism starts playing in Theatres TODAY!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 07:47 AM
Original message
From Freedom to Fascism starts playing in Theatres TODAY!
Edited on Fri Jul-28-06 08:11 AM by Joanne98

AMERICA: FROM FREEDOM TO FASCISM
DEBUTS ACROSS THE NATION THIS WEEKEND!

NEW YORK, CHICAGO, KANSAS CITY, TAMPA, AUSTIN

Tickets on sale now! Details below.

AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM "FOUR STARS” (Highest Rating). The scariest damn film you'll see this year. It will leave you staggering out of the theatre, slack-jawed and trembling. Makes 'Fahrenheit 9/11' look like 'Bambi.' After watching this movie, your comfy, secure notions about America -- and about what it means to be an American -- will be forever shattered. Producer/director Aaron Russo and the folks at Cinema Libre Studio deserve to be heralded as heroes of a post-modern New American Revolution. This is shocking stuff. You'll be angry, you'll be disgusted, but you may actually break out in a cold sweat and feel a sickness deep in your gut; I would advise movie theatre managers to hand out vomit bags. You may end up needing one." --- Todd David Schwartz, CBS

AMERICA: FROM FREEDOM TO FASCISM
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/


New York

City Cinemas Village East
181 2nd Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 529-6998
Purchase tickets at: www.moviefone.com

*Friday 28th - Special Q & A with Filmmaker Aaron Russo at the Village East Cinemas after the 7:30 show.

Loews 72nd St 1
1230 Third Ave. at 72nd St.
New York, NY 10021
800-FANDANGO #772
Purchase tickets at: www.fandango.com


Chicago Area

Landmark Century Centre Cinema
Century Shopping Centre
2828 N. Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60657
(773) 509-4949
Purchase Tickets: www.landmarktheatres.com

* Friday 28th - Special Q & A with Mayoral Candidate Bill Dock Walls at the Landmark Century Centre Cinema after the 7:05 show.

* Saturday 29th - Special Q & A with Filmmaker Aaron Russo, Mayoral Candidate, Bill Dock Walls and Activist and Radio Talk Show Host Cliff Kelly at the Landmark Century Centre Cinema after the 7:05 show.

AMC Loews Esquire 6
58 East Oak Street
Chicago, IL 60611
800-FANDANGO #719
Purchase tickets: www.fandango.com

AMC Cantera 30
28250 Diehl Rd.
Warrenville, IL 60555
(847) 765-7AMC
Purchase tickets: www.fandango.com

AMC Loews Streets Of Woodfield 20
601 North Martingale Road
Suite 105 in the Streets of Woodfield Mall
Schaumburg, IL 60173
800-FANDANGO #727
Purchase tickets: www.fandango.com

Kansas City Area

AMC Studio 30
119 St. at I-35
Olathe 12075 So Strang Line Rd
Olathe, KS 66062
(816) 363-4AMC
Purchase tickets: www.fandango.com

Austin Area
AMC Barton Creek Square 14
2901 Capital Of Texas Hwy.
Austin, TX 78746
(512) 306-9190
www.fandango.com

Tampa Area

AMC Woodlands 20
3128 Tampa Road
Oldsmar, FL 34677
(727) 771-2883
Purchase tickets: www.amctheatres.com

AMC Veterans 24
9302 Anderson Road
Tampa, FL 33634
(813) 243-4955
Purchase tickets: www.amctheatres.com

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. What really caused the great depression........
Edited on Fri Jul-28-06 08:49 AM by Joanne98
I stole this from the "Marketeers" thread. Thankyou to 54anickel and OZY!

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Fekete/jul262006.html

snip>

Condoning the violation of the law

This is a rejoinder to the paper of Richard H.Timberlake of the same title dated August 2005. For the sake of argument I shall adopt Timberlake's own division of the economic collapse into two distinct events: the 1929-1933 Great Contraction and the 1933-1941 Great Depression. They were preceeded by the inflationary monetary regime under the domineering leadership of Benjamin Strong, Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, between 1922 and 1928. Although Timberlake characterizes it as one animated by a high-minded "stable price level policy," it was an unlawful regime continuously violating the law. Strong introduced illegal "open market operations" for the first time. He established the Open Market Investment Committee of the New York Federal Reserve Bank in 1922 under his own chairmanship. It conducted buying and selling, mostly buying, of Treasury bonds for the account of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York as well as some other Federal Reserve banks. The bonds purchased in the open market were paid for in the form of Federal Reserve notes and deposits created out of nothing for this specific purpose. The advent of open market operations of central banks has changed the landscape of world finance beyond recognition. It made official manipulation of bond and stock prices possible. It turned traditional virtues and vices upside down: thrift into vice, sharp trade practices into virtue.

The monetization of Treasury debt was illegal according to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. It was not authorized. As a matter of fact, the use of government bonds for the purpose of backing Federal Reserve notes and deposits was explicitly ruled out. Stiff penalties were prescribed in case, and to the extent, the liabilities of a Federal Reserve bank could only be balanced through its portfolio of Treasury paper. Of course, Strong and his cohorts were aware that they were breaking the law. They argued that this policy was not official; that it was designed to meet an emergency; and it would be terminated as soon as the emergency has passed and the international gold standard was made operational once more. No doubt, this was one of those 'emergencies' that was invented to become permanent. Strong himself was instrumental in preventing the gold standard from becoming operational again by sterilizing gold that had come to the United States from European belligerents in payment for war supplies. It would be closer to the truth to say that central bankers have tasted the elixir of power, and liked it. They have become addicted to it. Never mind that it was forbidden fruit for them. They wanted to exhaust the entire cup. They knew that they could manipulate Congress to legalize retroactively the power they had illegally grabbed.

The violation of the law as a substitute for changing it whenever its efficacy is brought into question is a serious matter in any case. But it is especially serious and pernicious when it affects the processes whereby money is created. Legal ends cannot justify illegal means under the law. If an officer of the Federal Reserve can take liberties with the law, then so can anybody else, and the bottom line is counterfeiting the currency. Timberlake passes over the blatant violation of the law in silence, presumably because of his sympathies with the hidden monetary inflation that he (in unison with Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz) admiringly calls "the Fed's stable price-level policy". Hardly did he notice that what he admired was not monetary policy under Strong, but a mere coincidence: the knack of the speculators who for reasons of their own put the newly created money to work, not in the commodity market where inflation would have been noticed immediately, but in the real estate and the stock markets where it could remain hidden for a longer period of time. In the event the Strong-inflation could not be swept or kept under the rug for too long. It soon showed up in the shape of the Florida real estate bubble (1924) and the stock-market orgy (1929). In addition, it kept interest rates artificially low (and bond prices artificially high) with the effect that the investment-decisions of businessmen became distorted. Again, the concomitant misallocation of economic resources could not be detected immediately. But the writing was on the wall that the chickens would eventually come home to roost, as indeed they did during the Great Depression. To sing a song of praise of the Strong-inflation is not fitting to a monetary economist.

Condoning the violation of the law and blaming the consequences: the Great Contraction of 1929-1933 and the Great Depression of 1933-1941 on the Real Bills Doctrine (RBD) is, to say the least, disingenious. This is not to suggest that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a good law. Most likely it was not, and the United States could have managed, thank you very much, without a central bank in the 20th century, as it did in the 19th. But this is another issue to be investigated separately. Here I want to condemn a procedure whereby the law is violated in order to create a fait accompli, forcing the hands of lawmakers to change it so that, in the end, the violation be justified, nay, rewarded. Once the Strong-inflation induced stock-market speculation was under way, money from abroad was sucked in causing a serious deflation in Europe and elsewhere. Central bankers from around the world started making their regular pilgrimages to New York begging Strong for even more inflation. They had hoped that lower interest rates in America would bail them out. Strong was delighted to comply with their pleading. Thus the violation of the law created international complications and ultimately Congress had to amend the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 so as to legalize the practice of open market operations -- euphemism for monetizing the the public debt. The cure for the ill effects caused by an illegal monetary inflation was to be more monetary inflation, not less, making sure that this time around it was fully licensed and legalized.

Today no economist would think of open market operations as being originally conceived and introduced as an illegal practice, or would dream of suggesting that the explanation for the Great Contraction that followed it can be found in the violation of the law. I hereby take the task upon myself to make this revelation. It has to be stated in unambiguous terms that the Strong-inflation of 1922-1928 celebrated by Irving Fisher, Milton Friedman, Anna Schwartz, Richard Timberlake, and other devotees of the QTM, was illegal. I am of course aware that the grant departments of the Federal Reserve banks will never support research to explore this episode more fully to confirm my accusations. I still hope that incorruptible economists, especially the younger generation, are motivated by the truth rather than bribe money, and will rise to my challenge in doing the necessary research.

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
2. 14 POINTS OF FASCISM!
Edited on Fri Jul-28-06 09:11 AM by Joanne98
14 POINTS OF FASCISM

http://ellensplace.net/fascism.html
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

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 for failures, 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 and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.



NOTE: The above 14 Points was written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile).


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

Does any of this sound familiar? As America sinks deeper and deeper into corporate greed will this country continue to be a democracy by the people and for the people or will it be ruled by the few? Will the trinity of money, power and greed over come one of the greatest countries in the world? Only we, the people, can keep it free. SPEAK OUT AND LET YOUR THOUGHTS BE KNOWN...ONLY BY SILENCE WILL WE BE DEFEATED!


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

"What no one seemed to notice. . . was the ever widening gap. . .between the government and the people. . . And it became always wider. . . the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting, it provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway . . . (it) gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about . . .and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated . . . by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. . .

Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures'. . . 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. . . .Each act. . . is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow.

You don't want to act, or even talk, alone. . . you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' . . .But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves, when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. . . .You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father. . . could never have imagined." :

From Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1938-45 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955)




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
3. THE PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!
Edited on Fri Jul-28-06 09:25 AM by Joanne98
Take a good look America. Your children may live and work here someday!
http://www.prisonactivist.org/prison-labor/

Prison Labor Links
What's here?

Links to all of the state-owned prison industry operations in the U.S., state by state - see what they are saying! Also, compiled here are direct links to all of the state Department of Corrections that have an on-line presence. Finally, there is a valuable collection of links to other information banks and articles investigating the role of prison industry in the prison industrial complex.


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

State-Owned Prison Industries

Information provided by the state agencies themselves.
UNICOR - Federal Prison Industries, Inc.
Alabama Correctional Industries
Alaska Correctional Industries - contact info only
Arizona Correctional Industries
Arkansas Correctional Industries
California Prison Industry Authority
California Joint Ventures Program - private corporations purchasing prison labor from the state
Colorado: Juniper Valley Products
Connecticut Prison Industries
Florida Prison Industry Enhancement program
Florida: PRIDE Enterprises
Georgia
Idaho Correctional Industries - empty page as of 4/14/99
Illinois Correctional Industries
Iowa
Kentucky Correctional Industries - "Kentucky's Best Kept Secret"
Maryland State Use Industries
Massachusetts Correctional Industries - MassCor
Michigan State Industries
Minnesota MINNCOR
Mississippi Prison Industries Corp.
Missou ri Vocational Enterprises
Montana Correctional Enterprises
New Hampshire Correctional Industries
New Jersey DEPTCOR - "And you thought we only made license plates."
New Mexico Correctional Industries
New York Corcraft
Nevada Silver State Industries
North Carolina Correction Enterprices
North Dakota Rough Rider Industries
Ohio Prison Industries
Oklahoma State Industries
Oregon Corrections Industries Programs
Pennsylvania Correctional Industries
Rhode Island Correctional Industries
South Carolina Prison Industries
South Dakota Prison Industries
Tennessee TRICOR
Texas Correctional Industries
Utah Correctional Industries
Virginia Correctional Enterprises
Washington State Correctional Industries

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

Profitting from Prisons
Corrections.com
National Correctional Industries Association, Inc.
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center
Oklahoma Private Prison Administration - with contract information and more
Texas Operational Support Department - private prisons used by Texas, including an FAQ
Mississippi Private Industries - private facilities


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

Information Banks
Private Corrections Project - well-maintained information source
National Institute of Justice - specific page for Freedom of Information Act
National Institute of Corrections - very good database for information sources; also maintains a library in Boulder, CO
CA Prison Industrial Complex - PARC's summary web page on the PIC



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

Prison Industry Articles

Reforming the Prison Industry Authority - by the Legislative Analysts Office of California, 1996.
Working for Nothing: The Failure of Prison Industry Programs by Lucia Hwang
The Economic Impact of Production in California's Prison Industries - Goldman, George, Bruce McWilliams, and Vijay Pradhan. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley, March 1998.
Wyoming Corrections Facilities Task Force Initial Report - very interesting focus on prison industries as an area for development; reference to a law (?) that prohibits direct competition with private industry
NC - "Prisoners work more than 18 million hours in 1998" - March 31, 1999 press release with data table
Tennessee Community Work program
CA PIA - article by Willie Wyley
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #3
34. whoa! . . . prisoners in New York State are building furniture . . .
and other merchandise for sale back to the prison system AND to the general public . . . and here's the astounding part . . .

INMATE WAGES AND "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT:

"Every effort is made to replicate conditions in the outside working world. Inmates employed by Corcraft punch time clocks and are paid hourly wages ranging from $.16 to $.45 (depending on the job title and time in grade) with the additional possibility of productivity bonuses. (By contrast, inmates in non-industrial institution assignments are paid an average of $.17/hour.) An inmate's work shift is typically seven hours per day, five days per week. In extraordinary circumstances, overtime may be authorized to meet deadlines."

there is something very, very wrong about this . . .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. You didn't know this. Maybe I should make it it's own thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-30-06 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #38
41. good idea . . . I'd never heard of it . .. n/t
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
4. American Methods by Kristian Williams
Edited on Fri Jul-28-06 09:32 AM by Joanne98
Synopses & Reviews
Publisher Comments:
When the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke in April 2004, many American commentators expressed shock. But, as The Progressive's Anne-Marie Cusac observed, Abu Ghraib shocks us because our soldiers abroad seem to have acted out behaviors that we condone, yet don't face up to, at home. On the heels of Our Enemies in Blue, Kristian Williams' controversial chronicle of policing, the writer/activist gives us American Methods, once again upsetting the notion that the use of excessive force by the state is aberrant rather than altogether American.
American Methods reveals torture not as a recent or rogue phenomenon, but a veteran tool of the American state. As Williams suggests, torture is not, as claimed, a means of interrogation used only by others, elsewhere. Instead, it is a tried-and-true weapon of social control and terror, right here in the US.

Unlike other recent books, American Methods locates war on terror scandals in the systems of inequities and dominance that nurture them. Williams pays close attention to the distinct character of American torture and its gender and racial contours-particularly its emphasis on sexual violence, emasculation, and spectacle. His discussion ranges over much of the globe and a quarter-century: from US support of torture-regimes in Central America in the 1980s to today's more favored approach-outsourcing torture to friendly governments. Returning to our shores, Williams observes the banality of violence in American prisons, precincts, and society. Ultimately, he offers devastating conclusions about the centrality of rape, racism, and conquest to both the state and our national culture.


Review:
"Kristian Williams peels away the mythic veneer of American Innocence with an eloquence, power, and precision that stands largely unrivaled. The result is a book which not only deserves, but quite literally demands inclusion among the handful of works essential to understanding where it is we find ourselves at this awful moment in history. Read it if you dare, and especially if you don't." Ward Churchill, author of A Little Matter of Genocide and On the Justice of Roosting Chickens
Review:
"American Methods shines an unmediated light on this country's use of torture as an essential component of social control, both at home and abroad. Williams's exhaustive analysis exposes a history of routine brutality in US police, military, and prison interrogation practices. He deftly makes the case that the Abu Ghraib scandal was not an aberrant experiment conducted by a handful of rogue soldiers but part of a long-standing national tradition. An important, thoroughly well-researched and superbly written critique." Tara Herivel, Seattle-based prisoners' attorney and editor of Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor
Review:
"Kristian Williams has done it again. As in his previous work, Our Enemies in Blue, Williams brings a wealth of research to bear on his thinking, his analysis, and his writing....He deftly demonstrates the links between torture abroad and torture at home — and the American way of sensationalizing separate events, which blinds us to the ubiquity of this practice, every day, all across the nation....American Methods isn't pretty. It isn't for the faint-hearted. But this is not a time for the faint-hearted. It is a time of trial, a time of strife, a time of near-apocalyptic danger. It is time for American Methods." Mumia Abu-Jamal, author of We Want Freedom
back to top
About the Author
Kristian Williams' writings haveappeared in CounterPunch, Columbia Journalism Review, and We Are Everywhere: The Irresistible Rise of Global Anti-Capitalism. A member of Rose City Copwatch in Portland, Oregon, Williams also authored Our Enemies in Blue.
back to top

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-0896087530-0

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
5. Police abuse videos........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
6. The " war on drugs" by Noam Chomsky
Edited on Fri Jul-28-06 09:56 AM by Joanne98
The war on (certain) drugs

Noam Chomsky in What Uncle Sam Really Wants
http://deoxy.org/usdrugs.htm

One substitute for the disappearing Evil Empire has been the threat of drug traffickers from Latin America. In early September 1989, a major government-media blitz was launched by the President. That month the AP wires carried more stories about drugs than about Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa combined. If you looked at television, every news program had a big section on how drugs were destroying our society, becoming the greatest threat to our existence, etc.

The effect on public opinion was immediate. When Bush won the 1988 election, people said the budget deficit was the biggest problem facing the country. Only about 3% named drugs. After the media blitz, concern over the budget was way down and drugs had soared to about 40% to 45%, which is highly unusual for an open question (where no specific answers are suggested).

Now, when some client state complains that the US government isn't sending it enough money, they no longer say, "we need it to stop the Russians" - rather, "we need it to stop drug trafficking." Like the Soviet threat, this enemy provides a good excuse for a US military presence where there's rebel activity or other unrest.

So internationally, "the war on drugs" provides a cover for intervention. Domestically, it has little to do with drugs but a lot to do with distracting the population, increasing repression in the inner cities, and building support for the attack on civil liberties.

That's not to say that "substance abuse" isn't a serious problem. At the time the drug war was launched, deaths from tobacco were estimated at about 300,000 a year, with perhaps another 100,000 from alcohol. But these aren't the drugs the Bush administration targeted. It went after illegal drugs, which had caused many fewer deaths - over 3500 a year - according to official figures. One reason for going after these drugs was that their use had been declining for some years, so the Bush administration could safely predict that its drug war would "succeed" in lowering drug use.

The Administration also targeted marijuana, which hadn't caused any known deaths among some 60 million users. In fact, the crackdown has exacerbated the drug problem - many marijuana users have turned from this relatively harmless drug to more dangerous drugs like cocaine, which are easier to conceal.

Just as the drug war was launched with great fanfare in September 1989, the US Trade Representative (USTR) panel held a hearing in Washington to consider a tobacco industry request that the US impose sanctions on Thailand in retaliation for its efforts to restrict US tobacco imports and advertising. Such US government actions had already rammed this lethal addictive narcotic down the throats of consumers in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, with human costs of the kind already indicated.

The US Surgeon General, Everett Koop, testified at the USTR panel that "when we are pleading with foreign governments to stop the flow of cocaine, it is the height of hypocrisy for the United States to export tobacco." He added, "years from now, our nation will look back on this application of free trade policy and find it scandalous."

Thai witnesses also protested, predicting that the consequence of US sanctions would be to reverse a decline in smoking achieved by their government's campaign against tobacco use. Responding to the US tobacco companies' claim that their product is the best in the world, a Thai witness said, "Certainly in the Golden Triangle we have some of the best products, but we never ask the principle of free trade to govern such products. In fact we suppressed ." Critics recalled the Opium War 150 years earlier, when the British government compelled China to open its doors to opium from British India, sanctimoniously pleading the virtues of free trade as they forcefully imposed large-scale drug addiction on China.

Here we have the biggest drug story of the day. Imagine the screaming headlines: "U.S. Government The World's Leading Drug Peddler." It would surely sell papers. But the story passed virtually unreported, and with not a hint of the obvious conclusions.

Another aspect of the drug problem, which also received little attention, is the leading role of the US government in stimulating drug trafficking since World War II. This happened in part when the US began its postwar task of undermining the anti-fascist resistance and the labor movement became an important target.

In France, the threat of political power and influence of the labor movement was enhanced by its steps to impede the flow of arms to French forces seeking to reconquer their former colony of Vietnam with US aid. So the CIA undertook to weaken and split the French labor movement - with the aid of top American labor leaders, who were quite proud of their role.

The task required strikebreakers and goons. There was an obvious supplier: the Mafia. Of course, they didn't take on this work just for the fun of it. They wanted a return for their efforts. And it was given to them: they were authorized to reestablish the heroin racket that had been suppressed by the fascist governments - the famous "French connection" that dominated the drug trade until the 1960s.

By then, the center of the drug trade shifted to Indochina, particularly Laos and Thailand. The shift was again a by-product of a CIA operation - the "secret war" fought in those countries during the Vietnam War by a CIA mercenary army. They also wanted a payoff for their contributions. Later, as the CIA shifted its activities to Pakistan and Afghanistan, the drug racket boomed there.

The clandestine war against Nicaragua also provided a shot in the arm to drug traffickers in the region, as illegal CIA arms flights to the US mercenary forces offered an easy way to ship drugs back to the US, sometimes through US Air Force bases, traffickers report.

The close correlation between the drug racket and international terrorism (sometimes called "counterinsurgency," "low intensity conflict" or some other euphemism) is not surprising. Clandestine operations need plenty of money, which should be undetectable. And they need criminal operatives as well. The rest follows.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
7. Weird.
He wants to shut down the federal reserve. I guess we've all got our odd crusades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Why? It's a private bank owned by fascists.
That's what the movie's about. Fighting fascism. The Fed, the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO, it's all part of a global network of evil.

Who do you think PRIVATIZED OUR VOTE? It's all got to come down if we want to survive. We might as well start talking about it because it's just going to get worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. The Federal Reserve Bank is not fascism.
That's patent nonsense. And to compare it to the IMF or the WTO makes no sense. Those organisations have very little in common.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Then why do they raise interests rates everytime wages go up.
Why do ONLY wages and commodity prices (sometimes) cause inflation, why not stock prices? Why not mortgages or RENTS? Because CAPITAL GAINS RULES!

But the worker, Gawd forbid, can't get so much as a little bone without the FED acting like the sky is falling. What the Fed does in reality is protect the wealthy and screw everybody else. Quite frankly I don't know why Republicans hate the Fed. That's probably from the old days when the Fed wasn't REPUBLICAN. But it is now, thank you Allen Greenspan, so why save it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
8. Friendly Fascism....
Edited on Fri Jul-28-06 10:17 AM by Joanne98
The Rise and Fall of Friendly Fascism

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/RiseFall_Friend_Fascism_FF.html

Looking at the present, I see a more probable future: a new despotism creeping slowly across America. Faceless oligarchs sit at command posts of a corporate-government complex that has been slowly evolving over many decades. In efforts to enlarge their own powers and privileges, they are willing to have others suffer the intended or unintended consequences of their institutional or personal greed. For Americans, these consequences include chronic inflation, recurring recession, open and hidden unemployment, the poisoning of air, water, soil and bodies, and, more important, the subversion of our constitution. More broadly, consequences include widespread intervention in international politics through economic manipulation, covert action, or military invasion...
I see at present members of the Establishment or people on its fringes who, in the name of Americanism, betray the interests of most Americans by fomenting militarism, applauding rat-race individualism, protecting undeserved privilege, or stirring up nationalistic and ethnic hatreds. I see pretended patriots who desecrate the American flag by waving it while waiving the law.
In this present, many highly intelligent people look with but one eye and see only one part of the emerging Leviathan. From the right, we are warned against the danger of state capitalism or state socialism, in which Big Business is dominated by Big Government. From the left, we hear that the future danger (or present reality) is monopoly capitalism, with finance capitalists dominating the state. I am prepared to offer a cheer and a half for each view; together, they make enough sense for a full three cheers. Big Business and Big Government have been learning how to live in bed together and despite arguments between them, enjoy the cohabitation. Who may be on top at any particular moment is a minor matter-and in any case can be determined only by those with privileged access to a well-positioned keyhole.
I am uneasy with those who still adhere strictly to President Eisenhower's warning in his farewell address against the potential for the disastrous rise of power in the hands of the military-industrial complex. Nearly two decades later, it should be clear to the opponents of militarism that the military-industrial complex does not walk alone. It has many partners: the nuclear-power complex, the technology-science complex, the energy-auto-highway complex, the banking-investment-housing complex, the city-planning-development-land-speculation complex, the agribusiness complex, the communications complex, and the enormous tangle of public bureaucracies and universities whose overt and secret services provide the foregoing with financial sustenance and a nurturing environment. Equally important, the emerging Big Business-Big Government partnership has a global reach. It is rooted in colossal transnational corporations and complexes that help knit together a "Free World" on which the sun never sets. These are elements of the new despotism.
A few years ago a fine political scientist, Kenneth Dolbeare, conducted a series of in-depth interviews totaling twenty to twenty-five hours per person. He found that most respondents were deeply afraid of some future despotism. "The most striking thing about inquiring into expectations for the future," he reported, "is the rapidity with which the concept of fascism (with or without the label) enters the conversation." But not all knowledge serves the cause of freedom... the tendency is to suppress fears of the future, just as most people have learned to repress fears of a nuclear holocaust. It is easier to repress well-justified fears than to control the dangers giving rise to them.
p3
In 1935 Sinclair Lewis wrote a popular novel in which a racist, anti-Semitic, flag-waving, army-backed demagogue wins the 1936 presidential election and proceeds to establish an Americanized version of Nazi Germany. The title, It Can't Happen Here, was a tongue-in-cheek warning that it might. But the "it" Lewis referred to is unlikely to happen again any place. Even in today's Germany, Italy or Japan, a modern-style corporate state or society would be far different from the old regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, and the Japanese oligarchs. Anyone looking for black shirts, mass parties, or men on horseback will miss the telltale clues of creeping fascism. In any First World country of advanced capitalism, the new fascism will be colored by national and cultural heritage, ethnic and religious composition, formal political structure, and geopolitical environment. The Japanese or German versions would be quite different from the Italian variety-and still more different from the British, French, Belgian, Dutch, Australian, Canadian, or Israeli versions. In America, it would be supermodern and multi-ethnic-as American as Madison Avenue, executive luncheons, credit cards, and apple pie. It would be fascism with a smile. As a warning against its cosmetic facade, subtle manipulation, and velvet gloves, I call it friendly fascism. What scares me most is its subtle appeal.
I am worried by those who fail to remember-or have never learned -that Big Business-Big Government partnerships, backed up by other elements, were the central facts behind the power structures of old fascism in the days of Mussolini, Hitler, and the Japanese empire builders.
I am worried by those who quibble about labels. Some of my friends seem transfixed by the idea that if it is fascism, it must appear in the classic, unfriendly form of their youth. "Why, oh why," they retrospectively moan, "didn't people see what was happening during the 1920s and the 1930s?" But in their own blindness they are willing to use the terms invented by the fascist ideologists, "corporate state" or "corporatism," but not fascism.
I am upset with those who prefer to remain spectators until it may be too late. I am shocked by those who seem to believe in Anne Morrow Lindbergh's words of 1940-that "there is no fighting the wave of the future" and all you can do is "leap with it." I am appalled by those who stiffly maintain that nothing can be done until things get worse or the system has been changed.
I am afraid of inaction. I am afraid of those who will heed no warnings and who wait for some revelation, research, or technology to offer a perfect solution. I am afraid of those who do not see that some of the best in America has been the product of promises and that the promises of the past are not enough for the future. I am dismayed by those who will not hope, who will not commit themselves to something larger than themselves, of those who are afraid of true democracy or even its pursuit.
p5
I suspect that many people underestimate both the dangers that lie ahead and the potential strength of those who seem weak and powerless. Either underestimation stems, I think, from fear of bucking the Establishment ... a deep and well-hidden fear ...
p5
...the fanfare of elections and "participatory" democracy usually disguises business- government control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Friendly Fascism Stanford University Paper pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
11. BTW, Todd David Schwartz is from CBS RADIO, not CBS News
Unless CBS News does reviews of "National Lampoon's Mr. Wong"

"FOUR STARS (Highest Rating). This is the most politically incorrect, gut-bustingly hysterical and spitting-out-your-drink hilarious DVD I have seen in a long, long time. Thank you, Maverick Entertainment! Thank you, Mr. Wong!"

--- Todd David Schwartz, CBS Radio

http://www.maverickentertainment.cc/filmdetail.php?ProductID=73

And "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Todd David Schwartz, CBS Radio: "The most wondrously original, most outrageously entertaining cinematic spectacle of the year!"

http://www.gelfmagazine.com/mt/archives/blurb_racket_5905.html

Or a comic book called "The Wang"

Todd David Schwartz - CBS Radio 9/2004
"FOUR STARS" "If you're looking for a highly unique, imaginative, screamingly funny graphic novel intended for mature audiences, get your hands on 'The Wang'!"

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=mHu1SowvwW&isbn=0975504118&itm=1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
12. WHY WE FIGHT a must see documentary....
Watch the trailer here......

It's all tied together folks....

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/whywefight/trailer/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
13. Christo-Fascism "Fighting for the work of the Lord".....
Edited on Fri Jul-28-06 10:46 AM by Joanne98
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp01132005.html
January 12, 2005

"Fighting for the Work of the Lord"
Everybody's Talkin' About Christian Fascism
By GARY LEUPP

Commentators right and left are talking about fascism in the U.S. of A. Libertarian conservative Lew Rockwell, in a recent article entitled "The Reality of Red-State Fascism," declares, "what we have alive in the US is an updated and Americanized fascism."

Fellow libertarian Justin Raimondo, in a piece called "Today's Conservatives are Fascists," calls the neocons shaping U.S. foreign policy "fascists, pure and simple." United Methodist minister Rev. William E. Alberts accuses some of Bush's followers of upholding a "super religion displaying tendencies similar to Hitler's super race with its fascist ideology of superiority."

Meanwhile the Revolutionary Communist Party circulates in the tens of thousands a statement declaring that "Bush and his people" are "Christian Fascists---dangerous fanatics who aim to make the U.S. a religious dictatorship and to force this upon the world." This is quite a wide spectrum of anti-fascist opinion.

I think it's good the f-word is out there, and the issue on the table. Fascism needs to be discussed. I thought so in October 2002, when I wrote an essay posted on CounterPunch, "Talking to Your Kids About Fascism." It was a presented as a quiet talk one might have with preteens, delivered with the simple clarity and sobriety one might assume when talking with one's young about drug use or sex or any serious issue. My point at the time was fascism's not just a phenomenon unique to 1930s and 40s and defeated in 1945 but something that can recrudesce. One should be alert for warning signs.

That was over two years ago, before the criminal invasion of Iraq, based on lies, and the cynical exploitation of racist-based fear. It was before British officers complained that their U.S. counterparts in Iraq were treating the Iraqis like Untermensch (subhumans, a term the Nazis applied to various non-Aryan groups). It was before the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo torture revelations, and the reorganization of the "intelligence community" to better disseminate disinformation in the service of ongoing war. It was before the Bush campaign to amend the constitution, for the first time to specifically prevent the expansion of liberties. It was before persons in and around the administration defended Japanese-American wartime concentration camps with an eye towards new camps for other groups in the future. The fascist tide has surged in the interim, as I thought, back in 2002, was very likely.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
15. Sounds like we've covered all 14 points!
We're there already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. I'm trying kentuck!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
16. Damn JoAnne98!
You've been busy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. I'm not done yet either.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. Bookmarking!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Put it in the "Give them Hell" file.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
20. High tech Fascism.... Meet MATRIX (not the movie)
Edited on Fri Jul-28-06 12:57 PM by Joanne98
This program has not been dismantled, it's only changed form...
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/15701res20050308.html

MATRIX

The MATRIX (Multistate Anti-TeRrorism Information eXchange) surveillance system combined information about individuals from government databases and private-sector data companies. It then made those dossiers available for search by government officials and combed through the millions of files in a search for "anomalies" that may be indicative of terrorist or other criminal activity. It was terminated in April 2005, though components continued to be made available to police in individual states. More. . .



Matrix Snoop Program Dismantled
(April 15, 2005)


Issue Briefs

ACLU White Paper: New Matrix Documents Raise Troubling Questions (5/20/04)
MATRIX: Myths and Reality (2/10/04)
Data Mining Moves into the States (10/30/03)
General Links

State-by-State breakdown of the ACLU's attempt to find out more information on MATRIX
FEATURE: Total Information Awareness
FEATURE: Surveillance
FEATURE: ACLU privacy page
Documents Received through FOIA Requests by the ACLU
(state that supplied the information in parentheses)
New! Documents posted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Choicepoint.....
Edited on Fri Jul-28-06 01:07 PM by Joanne98
The Spies Who Shag Us
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/05/con06189.html
The Times and USA Today have Missed the Bigger Story -- Again

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Greg Palast

I know you're shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that George Bush is listening in on all your phone calls. Without a warrant. That's nothing. And it's not news.

This is: the snooping into your phone bill is just the snout of the pig of a strange, lucrative link-up between the Administration's Homeland Security spy network and private companies operating beyond the reach of the laws meant to protect us from our government. You can call it the privatization of the FBI -- though it is better described as the creation of a private KGB.

********************
For the full story, see "Double Cheese With Fear," in "Armed Madhouse: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf and Other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War."
********************

The leader in the field of what is called "data mining," is a company, formed in 1997, called, "ChoicePoint, Inc," which has sucked up over a billion dollars in national security contracts.

Worried about Dick Cheney listening in Sunday on your call to Mom? That ain't nothing. You should be more concerned that they are linking this info to your medical records, your bill purchases and your entire personal profile including, not incidentally, your voting registration. Five years ago, I discovered that ChoicePoint had already gathered 16 billion data files on Americans -- and I know they've expanded their ops at an explosive rate.

They are paid to keep an eye on you -- because the FBI can't. For the government to collect this stuff is against the law unless you're suspected of a crime. (The law in question is the Constitution.) But ChoicePoint can collect it for "commercial" purchases -- and under the Bush Administration's suspect reading of the Patriot Act -- our domestic spying apparatchiks can then BUY the info from ChoicePoint.

Who ARE these guys selling George Bush a piece of you?

ChoicePoint's board has more Republicans than a Palm Beach country club. It was funded, and its board stocked, by such Republican sugar daddies as billionaires Bernie Marcus and Ken Langone -- even after Langone was charged by the Securities Exchange Commission with abuse of inside information.

I first ran across these guys in 2000 in Florida when our Guardian/BBC team discovered the list of 94,000 "felons" that Katherine Harris had ordered removed from Florida's voter rolls before the election. Virtually every voter purged was innocent of any crime except, in most cases, Voting While Black. Who came up with this electoral hit list that gave Bush the White House? ChoicePoint, Inc.

And worse, they KNEW the racially-tainted list of felons was bogus. And when we caught them, they lied about it. While they've since apologized to the NAACP, ChoicePoint's ethnic cleansing of voter rolls has been amply rewarded by the man the company elected.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/05/con06189.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
22. The Fascist voter: Conservatives without conscience: by John Dean
Edited on Fri Jul-28-06 02:01 PM by Joanne98
THE AUTHORITARIANS:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_50_year_study_says_conservatives_0711.html

Video: 50 year study says conservatives 'followers'

RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday July 11, 2006


In an interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, former Nixon counsel John Dean explained a largely unknown 50 year academic study. The data shows that conservatives are much more likely to follow authoritarian leaders.

Dean discovered the ongoing study while researching his new book, "Conservative Without Conscience."

Dean believes that the study helps to explain why the Republican party has been driven further right.


Rush Transcript

DEAN: Goldwater Republicanism is really R.I.P. It's been put to rest by most of the people who are now active in moving the movement further to the right than it's ever been. I think that Senator , before he departed, was very distressed with Conservatism. In fact, it was our conversations back in 1994 that started this book. That's really where I began. We wanted to find answers to the question, "Why were Republicans acting as they were?" -- Why Conservatives had taken over the party and were being followed as easily as they were in taking the party where didn't want it to go.

OLBERMANN: What did you find? -- In less than the 200 pages that the book goes into.

DEAN: I ran into a massive study that has really been going on 50 years now by academics. They've never really shared this with the general public. It's a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality. Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality.

OLBERMANN: Did the studies indicate that this really has anything to do with the political point of view? Would it be easier to impose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Is it theoretically possible that it could have gone in either direction and it's just a question of people who like to follow other people?

DEAN: They have found, really, maybe a small, 1%, of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation.

OLBERMANN: There is an extraordinary amount of academic work that you quote in the book. A lot of it is very unsettling. It deals with psychological principles that are frightening and may have faced other nations at other times. In German and Italy in the 30's, come into mind in particular. But, how does it apply now? To what degree should it scare us and to what degree is it something that might be forestalled?

DEAN: To me, it was something of an epiphany to run into this information. First, I'd never read about it before. I sort of worked my way into it until I found it. It's not generally known out there, what's going on. I think, from the best we can tell, these people -- the followers -- a few of them will change their ways when the realize that they are doing -- not even aware of what they are doing. The leaders, those inclined to dominate, they're not going to change for a second. They're going to be what they are. So, by and large, the reason I write about this is, I think we need to understand it. We need to realize that when you take a certain step of vote a certain way, heading in a certain direction, where this can end up. So, it's sort of a cautionary note. It's a warning as to where this can go. Other countries have gone there.

OLBERMANN: And the idea of leaders and followers going down this path or perhaps taking a country down this path requires -- this whole edifice requires and enemy. Communism, al Qaeda, Democrats, me... whoever for the two-minutes hate. I overuse the Orwellian analogies to nauseating proportions. But it really was, in reading what you wrote about, especially what the academics talked about. There was that two-minutes hate. There has to be an opponent, an enemy, to coalesce around or the whole thing falls apart. Is that the gist of it?

DEAN: It is one of the things, believe it or not, that still holds conservatism together. There is many factions in conservatism and their dislike or hatred of those they betray as liberal, who will basically be anybody who disagrees with them, is one of the cohesive factors. There are a few others but that's certainly one of the basics. There's no question that, particularly the followers, they're very aggressive in their effort to pursue and help their authority figure out or authority beliefs out. They will do what ever needs to be done in many regards. They will blindly follow. They stay loyal too long and this is the frightening part of it.

OLBERMANN: Let me read something from the book. Let me read this one quote then I have a question about it. "Many people believe that neoconservatives and many Republicans appreciate that they are more likely to maintain influence and control of the presidency if the nation remains under ever-increasing threats of terrorism, so they have no hesitation in pursuing policies that can provoke the potential terrorists throughout the world." That's ominous, not just in the sense that authoritarians involved in conservatism and now Republicanism would politicize counter-terror here which we've already argued that point on many occasions. Are you actually saying that they would set up -- encourage terrorism from other countries to set them up as a boogey man to have, again, that group to hate here -- more importantly, afraid of?

DEAN: What I'm saying is that there has been fear mongering, the likes of which we have not seen in a long time in this country. It happened early in the cold war. We got accustomed to it. We learned to live with it. We learned to understand what it was about and get it in proportion. We haven't done that yet with terrorism. And this administration is really capitalizing on it and using it for its' political advantage. No question, the academic testing show -- the empirical evidence shows -- when people are frightened, they tend to go to these authority figures. They tend to become more conservative. So, it's paid off for them politically to do this.

OLBERMANN: This all seems to require, not merely, venality or immorality but a kind of amorality where morals don't enter into it at all. "We're right. So anything we do to preserve our process, our power -- even if it by itself is wrong -- it's right in the greater sense." It's that wonderful rationalization that everybody uses in small doses throughout their lives. But, is this idea, this sort of psychological sort of review of the whole thing, does it apply to Dick Cheney? Does it apply to George Bush? Does it apply to Bill Frist? Who are the names on these authoritarian figures?

DEAN: You just named three that I discuss at some length in the book. I focused in the book, not on the Bush Administration and Cheney and The President because they had really been there done that, but what I wanted to understand is what they have done is made it legitimate to have authoritarianism. It was already operating on Capitol Hill after the '94 control by the Republicans in Congress. It recreated the mood. It restructured Congress itself in a very authoritarian style, in the House in particular. The Senate hasn't gone there yet but it's going there because more House members are moving over. This atmosphere is what Bush and Cheney walked into. They are authoritarian personalities. Cheney much more so than Bush. They have made it legitimate and they have taken way past where anybody's ever taken it in the United States.

OLBERMANN: Our society's best defense against that is what? Do we have to hope, as you suggested, the people that follow, wise up and break away from this sort of lockstep salute to, "of course, they're right, of course there are WMDs, of course there are terrorists, of course there is al Qaeda, of course everything is the way the president says it." Or do we rely on the hope that these are fanatics and fanatics always screw up because they would rather believe in their own cause than double-check their own math.

DEAN: The lead researcher in this field told me, he said, "I look at the numbers of the United States and I see about 23% of the population who are pure right-wing authoritarian followers." They're not going to change. They're going to march over the cliff. The best thing to deal with them -- and they're growing, and they have a tremendous influence on Republican politics -- The best defense is understanding them, to realize what they are doing, how they're doing it and how they operate. Then it can be kept in perspective and they can be seen for what they are.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
23. FASCISTS THINK TANKS!
Edited on Fri Jul-28-06 02:11 PM by Joanne98
Right Wing Organizations
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=3147

For over 20 years, People For the American Way Foundation (PFAWF) has countered the Right Wing’s efforts to roll back, or stop, social justice progress and to reshape government and society to its liking. Our research center monitors the power of right-wing groups, documenting their connections, funding, and reporting on their political influence.

Right-wing organizations come in all shapes and sizes, from think tanks to legal groups, local and national lobbying organizations, foundations and media forums. At any given moment, the Right is at work in our public school systems, courthouses, in Congress and state assemblies. At the same time, right-wing groups are reaching huge audiences through media outlets they own or influence—promoting regressive policies that seek to drive wedges between and among Americans.

These often single-issue groups have the ability to create multi-issue networks that can respond on a wide range of issues. People For the American Way Foundation’s library has files on over 800 groups and almost 300 individuals documenting their activities and providing information about their efforts to reshape society. This section presents a small portion of that information.


Accuracy in Academia
Alliance Defense Fund
American Center for Law and Justice
American Conservative Union
American Enterprise Institute
American Family Association
American Legislative Exchange Council
American Life League
Americans for Tax Reform
Bradley Foundation, Lynde and Harry
Campaign for Working Families PAC
Cato Institute
Center for the Study of Popular Culture
Christian Coalition of America
Club for Growth
Collegiate Network
Concerned Women for America
Eagle Forum
Eagle Forum Collegians
Family Research Council
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
Focus on the Family
FRCAction
Free Congress Research and Education Foundation
Heritage Foundation
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace
Independent Women's Forum
Institute for Justice
Intercollegiate Studies Institute
Leadership Institute
Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research
Madison Project
National Association of Scholars
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Right to Life Committee
National Taxpayers Union
State Policy Network
Students for Academic Freedom
Traditional Values Coalition
Young America's Foundation





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
24. FASCIST MEDIA
Edited on Fri Jul-28-06 02:21 PM by Joanne98
THE REPUBLICAN NOISE MACHINE!

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

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
The author, once notorious as a conservative attack-journalist trashing the likes of Anita Hill and the Clintons, repudiated his past in the confessional Blinded by the Right. In this blistering j'accuse, Brock mounts a less gossipy and more systematic assault on the right-wing media juggernaut of think tanks, publishers, talk radio shows, Web sites and cable networks. He treats it as a disciplined political movement, inspired by Communist subversion techniques, bankrolled by a handful of right-wing zillionaires through corporate and foundation spigots, tightly yoked to the Republican policy agenda and masterminded by arch-conservative Grover Norquist at weekly strategy meetings. By Brock's account, it constitutes a seamless propaganda machine conveying dubious scholarship, Republican talking points and antiliberal smear campaigns from think tanks and Internet rumor mills to the FOX News and talk radio echo chambers and thence through a network of conservative pundits into the quality press. Meanwhile, Brock charges, the mainstream media, cowed by spurious charges of "liberal bias," have abandoned their role as objective arbiters of truth in favor of an uncritical airing of partisan ideology in the name of "balance." The result, he says, is a public discourse in which the line between fact and opinion is blurred, poorly funded liberal voices get shouted down, "no issue can be honestly debated and no election can be fairly decided." Brock's critique echoes that of other liberal media critics like Eric Alterman and Al Franken, and cannot be accused of nonpartisanship. He is dismissive of the conservative nostrums whose purveyors he pillories, and his biting takedowns of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and their ilk show he hasn't lost his taste for blood. But Brock's incisive, well-supported analysis and his street cred as an apostate from the conservative press make this a spirited challenge to the contemporary mediascape
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From AudioFile
Reformed right-winger Brock intones his careful dissection and indictment of the Republicans' militant, vociferous, and manipulative media dominance with the dispassionate voice of a tired physician delivering a dire prognosis. While the content is scandalizing and persuasive, Brock remains a tired voice in the wilderness, erudite and mild as he exposes propaganda, fraud, and a vicious media regime that only recently has seen a backlash. Brock's scholarly, fiery screed is made more palatable to listeners--and more credible--by his lack of vocal heat. This contemporary civics lesson should shake up more than a few ivory towers. D.J.B. © AudioFile 2006, Portland, Maine-- Copyright © AudioFile, Portland, Maine --This text refers to the Audio CD edition.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400048753/104-5680715-8194330?v=glance&n=283155
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. The "Commies" fight back!
Edited on Fri Jul-28-06 02:33 PM by Joanne98
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
many a good man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
26. This movie is right wing anti-government BS
They're just taking advantage of the fact that we are currently governed by a pack of actual fascists to attract gullible lefties to their anti-government cause.

Abolish the IRS! Abolish the Federal Reserve!! Gun control = totalitarianism!!! These are the same old nuts who have been around for years who are now capitalizing on the destructiveness of this government to smear the concept of government as a whole.

They offer a lot of veritable facts but their analysis is skewed. They want to abolish government and we want it to succeed. I would join with these people (like Ron Paul) to end Bushism but no further.

We want to crush fascism, too, but we know that it requires a smart, honest, and strong government of the people, by the people, and for the people.


Stop the shadow government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. The fascists ARE the government. Haven't you noticed?
We are now paying taxes to fund right-wing socialists. Except for FICA (which is an insurance program they are stealing from) ALL the taxes are going to fund the WAR ON TERRA, HOMELAND FASCIST SECURITY or the POLICE STATE!

I was always for the progressive income tax BUT...the only people paying taxes anymore are DEMOCRATS!

Go check out your local county office. The workers. ALL REPUBLICANS. You can't even get hired anymore UNLESS you are a registered Republican. They know. They check the county records.

It didn't used to be like this. It's the religious right. They got a fucking fifth column running in this country.

The good news is! They CAN BE DEFUNDED!

Put social security in a LOCK BOX and can the income tax.

If you need money, bring back the death tax. Raise capital gains and dividends.

And NATIONAL the big corporations. Who says this isn't LEFIST friendly!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
28. FASCIST HAIR!
War On Terror Requires Proper Haircut
by Michael A. Locke
posted March 31, 2004

"The only way we're gonna get through this in one piece is with a sense of discipline, a sense of purpose, and wherever possible, a sensible haircut." - Arnold Rimmer

War is hair. Such was the view of amateur war historian Arnold Rimmer, whose brief comments on the subject were first aired on the BBC-TV program Red Dwarf in 1993.

Mr. Rimmer, now deceased, was speaking in the context of a response to an unprovoked rocket attack on a mining company vehicle, but his views about the history of hairstyles in armed conflict are relevant to the current war on terror.

"Perhaps you'd like to explain to me why it is that every major battle in history has been won by the side with the shortest haircuts," Mr. Rimmer asked.

"Think about it - why did the US Cavalry beat the Indian Nation? Short back and sides versus girly hippie locks."

There were exceptions in the Indian wars, but they tended to prove the rule. General Custer broke with US military custom with his long flowing mane, which was eventually separated from his head by the Indians at Little Big Horn.

During the English Civil War, which lasted from 1642 to 1649, Oliver Cromwell's Roundheads defeated the Cavaliers of the king. The Cavaliers had long hair, fought on horseback and wore fancy clothes. The Roundheads had very short hair (thus the nickname) and wore plain and simple clothes.

Going back farther in time, the introduction of shaving by the Greeks coincided with the military conquests of Alexander the Great.

Barbers from the Greek colonies of Magna Graecia in southern Italy introduced the practice of shaving to the Romans in the third century BC. Until then the Romans were mostly ungroomed.

The short haired, clean shaven Romans then ran roughshod over the unkempt masses of Europe and Asia. The practice of shaving the head clean arose during the reign of Marcus Aurelius.

When Roman hairstyles became lax the empire began to deteriorate. Longer hair became fashionable again under the emperor Hadrian, who grew a beard to hide his disfigured face and wore a wig of curly hair to conceal his baldness.

Roman hairstyles reached their most flamboyant stage under the Flavian emperors Titus, Vespasian and Domitian. By then the writing was on the wall and the decay of the military was ensured.

In 1571 the spread of Islam into Europe was arrested by the crushing defeat of the Ottomans at the battle of Lepanto. The fleet of the Holy League led by the short-haired John of Austria destroyed the Ottoman navy and freed 10,000 Christian galley slaves.

Ottoman commander Uluc Ali Pasha escaped with 40 galleys, although some accounts say his flagship was boarded by the Spaniards, who beheaded the turbaned leader, relieving him of his head, and his hair.

Hair length has played a seminal role in European military history. The Netherlands never solidified its brief rise as a merchant power because nobody was intimidated by the army's Dutch Boy haircuts.

Then there are the French, who haven't won a war, or even a major battle, since the Napoleonic era. Napoleon brought military glory to France but squandered it with typical French hubris.

At first the dapper army of Napoleon scored victory after victory over the shaggy militias of Europe's scattered provinces. Eventually the Franco penchant for preening prevailed over the disciplined military sense of Napoleon. The fancy curls and flowing plumes of the French officers were a needless distraction amid the mud and snow of the Russia invasion.

In the modern era democracies have generally proved superior in conflicts where neither side had a haircut advantage. The resolve and virtue of the Allies in World War II ultimately prevailed over the weirdness and depravity of the Nazis and Japanese.

The notable exception was southeast Asia, where the fussy French gave up and went home early. The Americans fared better, but fell short of victory. Mr. Rimmer attributed the stalemate to haircut parity. "Vietnam? Crew cuts both sides, no score, draw," he said.

The short hair theory has held true during the recent Western retaliations against Islamic extremists. In Afghanistan the U.S. armed forces easily crushed the Taliban, who were hampered by their thick hair and long beards. The unshaven Iraqis also fell back quickly before the well groomed British and American armies.

Yet amid these Middle Eastern conflicts are signs that the long era of the haircut rule is coming to an end. Short haircuts are easily adopted by individual terrorists, who can blend in with the local population.

The leading suspects in the Madrid bombing are thought to be followers of a doctrine known as Takfir wal Hijra, which advocates a sneaking, Trojan horse form of jihad. Takfiris adopt the dress and hairstyles of their host communities, making their presence hard to detect.

With armed conflict shifting from the battlefield to the back street, hairstyles may be less of a deciding factor in the War Against Terror.

But probably not. Having an enemy with a butch nap doesn't negate the psychological boost of having your own sensible coif.

As Arnold Rimmer once said, "Shiny clean boots and a spanking short haircut and you can cope with anything."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #28
36. hmm, when I think of hair
I think of the Spartans, who would groom their long hair before going into battle. Then, there are the Celts, who wore their hair long with beads and jewels. They were as clean as the Romans--to a Celt having dirty, bad nails was the worst insult--yet, the victors write history and the Celts come out being those animal skin wearing barbarians--even though they made the finest woven products--one Roman Senator attempted to persuade Ceasar to trade with the Celts because of their fine craftsmanship in weaving and metallurgy. Their woven coats were sought after by the Romans--yet Rome wrote the history. If it wasn't for Rome stealing the grappling hook idea, maybe the Celts would be here and we wouldn't be hearing how great was the Roman Empire-even though the Celts beat them twice and brokered treaties instead of completely annihilating them!!!! I'll give Rome credit, they sure knew how to steal other cultures' ideas and people. And, those long haired Indians who accepted the White Man's treaties, everyone of them broken--maybe certain cultures had more of a since of honor and truth then others. Of course, the ultimate long hair was SAMSON-----maybe it's not just the hair, ya think??????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Were the Spartans really gay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
29. HAIR PEACE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
32. A SHOT ACROSS THE BOW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
37. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmunchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
40. I cannot wait to see it myself.
Here is a link to what I had posted last month about this. It is really frightening stuff. I just wish that the DU would give it more attention.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madmunchie/18
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 03:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC