The Toxic Motives Behind Radical Right-Wing Ideology

[Time for change]

“Ideologue” is defined by Webster as “an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology.” The key word in that definition is “blindly”. There is generally nothing wrong with ideology per se, which is defined simply as “a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture”.

But a more ominous potential for ideology is suggested by Wikipedia, which describes it as “a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of that society.”

Thus ideologies, like most things, can be good or bad for society, and they can be utilized for good or for evil purposes. It all depends on how the particular ideology was formed, as well as the motives behind it. If the formation of an ideology is based on a careful and valid assessment of a comprehensive body of research, and if the motive behind it is the benefit of humankind, then it can be quite useful in facilitating the creation of a better society.

On the other hand, in the hands of ideologues, ideologies can be quite harmful. And actually, the definition of ideologue as a blindly partisan advocate does not provide enough discredit to most ideologues. It seems highly doubtful that ideologues choose their ideologies blindly. What they do is choose their ideologies with wanton disregard for evidence. But their choice is not blind. To the contrary, the choice of ideology by an ideologue is rarely without motive. And their motives (whether conscious or not) usually serve to rationalize – or justify – particular behaviors or policies.

Therefore, a fuller and more accurate definition of an ideologue would be a person who creates or advocates a particular ideology, without regard for evidence to support the purported purpose of the ideology, with the real purpose of justifying his/her behavior or policies that are meant to advance his/her interests.

The purpose of this post is to discuss the motives behind such ideologies, and how they can produce disastrous effects upon our society. I believe that this is an especially important issue today, since many of our right wing leaders have infused our society with toxic ideologies which have had and which are likely to continue to have catastrophic effects on us unless we the American people learn to recognize those ideologies for what they are and take the necessary measures to combat them, and to regard them with the contempt that they deserve. I will give four examples of these ideologies.

But first I wish to thank and acknowledge Jackpine Radical for inspiring this post with his comment to my recent post, where he argued that George W. Bush is driven by self-aggrandizement and greed rather than by any ideology. Unable to argue that Bush is not a “self-aggrandizing greed-head”, as Jackpine Radical put it, I gave the matter much thought before I figured out how to conceptualize the strong relationship between self-aggrandizing greed and various right-wing ideologies.


The ideology of White Supremacy

I’ll start with a very obvious example. Racism has many causes, but I will discuss just one here: One very prominent initial cause of the ideology of White Supremacy in the United States was the justification of slavery. The wealth of southern plantation owners in the original British colonies and pre-Civil War 18th and 19th Century United States of America depended greatly on the institution of slavery.

How could slave owners justify their ownership of slaves in a nation that was purportedly committed to the idea that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, (and) that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”? And worse yet from the point of view of the slave owners, the nation which they joined stipulated that governments derive their powers “from the consent of the governed” and that whenever government becomes destructive of the unalienable Rights that we proclaimed, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” In other words, the founding document of our nation contained an open invitation to our slaves to abolish their government if they believed that their condition as slaves was destructive of their unalienable Rights…. UNLESS it could be successfully argued that they were not fully human.

Consequently, the Southern slave owners put a tremendous amount of time and energy into justifying the ideology of White Supremacy – which essentially meant the dehumanization of their African slaves, as well as of all other members of that race. And worse yet, dehumanization served to justify not only slavery itself, but cruel and abusive treatment of the slaves.

Recognizing that any discussion of their cause would serve to discredit it, in 1836 the Southern slaveholders instituted the infamous “gag rule” in the U.S. House of Representatives, stipulating that “Petitions involving slavery would be automatically tabled, without any reference to committee, without any printing, without any member’s having to make a tabling motion, and without any response”. But, as described by William Lee Miller in his wonderful book, “Arguing About Slavery – John Quincy Adams and the Great Battle in the United States Congress”, there was great opposition to the gag rule in the U.S. House, led primarily by ex-President and then current U.S. Congressman from Massachusetts, John Quincy Adams, who took every opportunity to challenge the doctrine of White Supremacy on the House floor:

Gentlemen of the South… Why will you not discuss this question?... If you are so firm, so confident, so immovably resolute, why will you not speak?... Show us the blessings of this institution. Give us your reasons…. Perhaps we shall come round…

If this House decides that it will not receive petitions from slaves, under any circumstances, it will cause the name of this country to be enrolled among the first of the barbarous nations… When you establish the doctrine that a slave shall not petition because he is a slave, that he shall not be permitted to raise the cry for mercy, you let in a principle subversive of every foundation of liberty, and you cannot tell where it will stop.

John Adams and his fellow Congressmen devoted to fighting the doctrine of White Supremacy eventually prevailed. Miller sums up why and how they prevailed, as I describe in this post:

The slave-holders saw all that petitioning and arguing as a potentially dangerous enemy, and they … over-responded, and by that revealing over-response, they inadvertently strengthened the position they opposed. They gave Adams and others the evidence and the occasion to dramatize the conflict between slavery and the core American ideals of civil liberty; they provided Adams the opportunity to show both the intransigence and the imperialism – that is, the willingness to reach an imperious hand into…. what a public would begin to see and fear as the slave power.

I believe that there is a great lesson to be learned from this story: The toxic ideologies of the ideologues cannot withstand the light of day. The best way to expose it and defeat it is to force them to talk about it.

Our nation has come a long ways since John Quincy Adams’ time towards discrediting the toxic ideology of White Supremacy. But lest anyone believe that it has been totally discredited in this country, consider the large bronze markers at Fort Jackson, Louisiana, which honor Leander Perez for his “dedicated service to the people of Plaque-mines Parish, the State and the Nation, all marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude”. In fact, Leander Perez was a White Supremacist, whose plaque should have described him as (as noted by James W. Loewen in his recent book, “Lies Across America – What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong”):

A proponent of white supremacy, he helped keep public schools… segregated and unequal until court orders forced their desegregation… He blighted the lives of African Americans in the parish by keeping them from voting and enjoying equal rights…

Loewen describes in his book misleading monuments of this sort all across the Southern U.S. landscape and notes that “no anti-racist white is honored today anywhere on public land in Mississippi.”


Radical free market ideology

A less obvious example is the radical free market ideologues, who argue that government has no right to intervene in the economic life of our nation – that instead, all economic transactions should be determined by the so-called “free market”. Consequently, they are against any government services for the poor or middle class, any progressive taxation, and any government regulation that impinges upon their own unfettered efforts to accumulate profits. However, they have no objection to the promulgation by the U.S. government of a monetary system, infrastructure, laws, institutions, and subsidies, which promote a system that safeguards private property, facilitates business transactions, and enables corporations to make their profits.

Their rationale for their complete faith in their version of a “free market” system is that it is completely fair and it works out best for everyone because the wealth accumulation that the system facilitates eventually “trickles down” to everyone – or at least to everyone who deserves it. In point of fact, there is no evidence for either of those assertions. This is just another ideology created by the wealthy to justify their aggressive efforts to develop and maintain a legal framework that serves to increase their own wealth at the expense of everyone else, while severely limiting the opportunity of the vast majority of their fellow countrymen to similarly improve their economic status. In order to believe that the right wing ideologues have it right, you’d have to believe that the following are fair or beneficial to most Americans:

 Corporations http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dcorporation%2Bpollute%2Band%2Bfail%2Bto%2Bclean%2Bup%26btnG%3DSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=3#PPA67,M1">polluting our environment and then leaving it to the taxpayers to pay for the clean-up
 Allowing a few wealthy corporation to monopolize the “public” airways
 The unfettered persistence of monopolies in general
 Private corporations contracting with government to manage our nation’s public health for profit
 Private corporations contracting with government to manage our prison system for profit
 Private corporations contracting with government to manage our national elections for profit
 No government “meddling” with unemployment by creating jobs
 No government efforts to help the poor afford an education
 No government efforts to alleviate childhood hunger, illness or homelessness
 No restrictions on the “free market” use of campaign contributions to influence the decisions of our elected officials
 A 431 to 1 income ratio between the average CEO and the average employee

Our second greatest President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, recognized the game that these ideologues played and the harm they did to our national life, and he spoke about them in a speech at the 1936 Democratic National Convention, referring to them as “economic royalists”. Here is a brief excerpt from his classic speech:

Out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties…. The privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

“Neoconservative” ideology

Neoconservative ideology is specified in a document titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, sponsored by the “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC). The ideology specified in that document is that United States of America has the right to and must use its vastly superior military to promote its “interests” and “principles” – not as a last resort, but preemptively, whenever we believe that another nation might emerge as a “competitor”. Historically, that ideology is called imperialism. Consider the following:

The primary theme of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” is that our military must be much stronger than the militaries of any nation or combination of nations that might oppose our ambitions. Why is that so important? Because we need to “shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests”; we need to “boldly and purposefully promote American principles abroad”; without such a military we might lack the capability to maintain an “order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity”; and more specifically, we now have new “missions” which require “defending American interests in the Persian Gulf and Middle East” (This was written before the Bush administration publicly expressed any interest in invading Iraq and even before the 9-11 attacks on our country).

And how are we to protect and defend all those interests? Well, the document notes that “there are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it….” Therefore, we must “deter the rise of a new great-power competitor”. And we must do this by “deterring or, when needed, by compelling regional foes to act in ways that protect American interests and principles…” Therefore, “The Pentagon needs to begin to calculate the force necessary to protect, independently, US interests in Europe, East Asia and the Gulf at all times.” And we better make some changes because the current extent of our military bases in the region do not allow for us to do that.

In short, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” is a blueprint for imperialist (though that term in not used) conquest through perpetual threat of war, or actual war “when needed”. There is not the slightest hint in the whole document of any need to concern ourselves with international law OR with the “principles” or “interests” of any other country. The interests and rights of the people of other nations must be subservient to the principles and interests of the United States.

With their constant reference to American “principles”, the Neocons attempt to invoke a benevolent rationalization for their imperialistic ambitions. Who could argue against the preservation and spread of good old American principles? What could be more “patriotic” or benevolent than that? But their writings and actions make clear that the Neocons don’t have the slightest interest in real American principles. When our Founding Fathers incorporated the original American principles into our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution with its Bill of Rights, they would have been horrified to know that future generations would claim defense of those principles as an excuse for imperialistic conquest and perpetual war.


The “War on Terrorism” as an ideology

George W. Bush stated the ideology of his “War on Terrorism” at a meeting on the evening of September 11th, 2001:

I want you all to understand that we are at war and we will stay at war until this is done. Nothing else matters. Everything is available for the pursuit of this war. Any barriers in your way, they’re gone. Any money you need, you have it. This is our only agenda.

In essence, this ideology says that nothing is important other than the so-called “War on Terror”, and therefore anything is justified in pursuit of that war: holding suspects in secret prisons for years or indefinitely, without any right to a trial or to challenge their detention, is justified; daily torture of those prisoners is justified. In essence, international law, our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and the laws of our land are out the window.

The first example of right-wing ideology that I discussed in this post was “White Supremacy”, an ideology that has by now been so discredited in this country that national politicians dare not admit to adhering to it. The ideology of George Bush’s “War on Terrorism” is actually very similar to the White Supremacy ideology, though it is carefully disguised so as not to appear so. The main difference is that “White Supremacy” is a racist ideology, whereas the “War on Terrorism” is an ultra nationalist ideology.

In fact, there is little difference. “White Supremacy” ideology says that black people are less than human and should not have the human rights that white people take for granted; whereas “War on Terrorism” ideology says that Muslims are less than human and should not have the human rights that Americans (unless they’re Muslim) take for granted.

The only other substantive difference is that the “War on Terrorism” ideology is disguised in a manner that makes it somewhat difficult to recognize for what it is. The White Supremacists of the Ante-Bellum American South were very straight forward concerning their opinions of the African race. In contrast, George Bush and his compatriots wouldn’t dare state out loud the opinion that Muslims are less than human and should have no rights. Instead, they justify their actions by proclaiming the dire need to protect the safety of Americans. In essence, their motivation is the accumulation of unprecedented power into their own hands; and their ideology is that in pursuit of their proclaimed goal, anything is justified, especially the torture and total deprivation of the rights of Muslims.


Right-wing ideology as a justification for dark motives

To sum up what the four examples in this post have in common:

The primary motive of the White Supremacists was the ownership of slaves to increase their wealth and power. To justify their building their fortunes on the backs of other human beings they developed an ideology that proclaimed their slaves to be less than human.

The primary motive of the free market ideologues is to maintain and increase their wealth and power. To justify their continued accumulation of more wealth in the face of their apparent lack of concern for the well-being of their fellow countrymen, they developed a radical free-market ideology. That ideology proclaims that their continued accumulation of additional wealth at the expense of the vast majority of other people is both fair and good for society because their wealth will uplift everyone – or at least those who deserve it.

The primary motive of the Neocons is imperial conquest, through war, in order to increase their wealth and power and glory. To justify this they pretend that their imperialist ambitions are motivated by “American principles”, and they assert that military build-up and war are justified in the protection and promotion of so-called “American principles”. The largely unspoken belief that makes this ideology acceptable to too many Americans is that Americans are better and more deserving than anyone else.

The primary motive of the creators of the “War on Terrorism” ideology is the accumulation of unprecedented amounts of power into the hands of the sponsors of that “War”. To justify this they try to make us believe that our nation is in constant and dire peril. The almost entirely unspoken belief that fuels this ideology is that Muslims are evil and are our mortal enemy, and thus not deserving of the human rights that we accord to other people.

All of these radical right-wing ideologies are dehumanizing and destructive of the rights guaranteed to us by our Founding Fathers in the documents they created to found our nation. Between them, these and other radical right-wing ideologies threaten to destroy our nation and to plunge our world into war and chaos. Too many Americans have bought into these destructive ideologies. Americans must better learn to recognize the dark motives behind these ideologies and the fraudulent rationalizations that are used to justify and sell them. If they fail to do this in time they will lose their democracy and allow their country to be destroyed by power hungry right-wing ideologues.

[upi402]

1. Campaign election reform, and remove rights as if a human being

from corporations and there might be some hope. Right now they run the game with immunity from punishment

[Time for change]

6. I agree that calling a corporation a "person" and giving them the same rights as a person --

but without many of the responsibilities is a terrible idea and fostered by a right-wing ideology that puts the wealthy and powerful ahead of the rest of us. The motivations are obvious :mad:

[truth2power]

9. I continue to post, here and elsewhere, that there are

three tasks before us in order to reclaim Democracy in this country:

1. Revisit the concept of corporate personhood re: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/118/394.html|here>

2. Get the money out of the system i.e. federally funded elections.

3. Institute Instant Runoff Voting in order that 3rd parties would not be shut out of the electoral process.

I realize that this is a daunting task but no better time to start than now. The corporations, of course, would throw billions of $$$ into seeing that #1, especially, doesn't happen. IMHO, that's because relieving them of their personhood would be substantive change and they know it. They would rather we, the people, squander our meager resources by litigating, in perpetuity, each individual corporate atrocity. With their deep, and one might say bottomless, pockets they can insure that their interests continue to be protected.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. I happily recommend this thread.

And thanks for the acknowledgment. You are developing some really strong thinking here. I hop you have plans for it beyond the world of DU.

On the topic of corporate personhood, I am always reminded of Milton Friedman's dictum (since incorporated into law, I believe) that the only moral function or purpose for a corporation is to maximize profits for its owners, and that any ultimately altruistic behavior, that is, behavior which does not work to maximixe profits on the part of the corporation, is wrong (and now by statute illegal).

By this standard, every corporation in the world is mandated to be a psychopath, and can only be judged successful in the degree to which it attains this condition.

[Time for change]

19. Thank you -- I like your story about Milton Friedman's dictum

Feeling bad about being psychopath? No problem. Just invent an ideology that says that it's really good to be a pyshcopath. I'll bet they give courses in that kind of crap -- and charge a fortune.

[Jackpine Radical]

21. The wonderful thing about being a psychopath

is that you never feel bad about it.

Sincerity is the most important thing there is. Once you learn to fake it, you've got it made.

[Time for change]

16. I fully agree with your three tasks, and I would add two:

4. Break up the corporate monopoly on our news media.

5. Ensure transparency in our elections, and stop privatization of our elections.

[Richard Steele]

2. K&R

[starroute]

3. Ideologies are always belief systems gone toxic

Ideologies are typically the product of the hijacking of a popular belief system by the elite and its distortion into a propaganda vehicle to reinforce their rule. Early Christianity got hijacked that way to prop up the declining Roman Empire -- with horrendous results all round. In a similar way, at the start of every ancient civilization can be seen signs in art and architecture that the cults of local gods and nature spirits were being twisted to consolidate and legitimize the rule by absolute monarchs.

It's a characteristic of ideologies that, in contrast with the more genuine belief systems they pervert, they lay claim to infallible truth and demand blind adherence, enforced by penalties ranging from ostracism to incineration. The enforcement part is essential, since whereas open belief systems always display a wrestling with current knowledge and its limits, closed ideologies invariably demand an abandonment of critical thought -- and thereby fatally undermine themselves to the eyes of anyone who is prepared to entertain such thoughts.

[Time for change]

23. Ideology

You seem to be using a different definition of ideology than Webster, who defines it as:

1. Visionary theorizing
2.a. A systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
2.b. A manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
2.c. The integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

In other words, according to this -- and other definitions I found -- ideology is not necessarily delegitimate -- though you may be right that some people define it like that.

[Raksha]

26. This discussion seems to focus on definition 2.c.

2.c. The integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program.

It's a partial definition but not "different." It also focuses on the negative manifestations of "the integrated assertions, theories and aims" that currently dominate the political landscape, but that's what we're here on DU to discuss (and hopefully challenge), after all.

[Time for change]

27. What I meant to say was that not all ideologies are illigitimate

For example, the need for environmental protection is an ideology. There is a large body of scientific evidence that shows us a number of bad consequences that will result if we destroy our environment in various ways. That constitutes an ideology, but it's a legitimate ideology IMO, unlike White Supremacy, which was invented largely to justify slavery.

[hfojvt]

4. one thing about ideologies and blindness

Reminds me of an example that I used to explain reality and models. It was a game of boggle, and it was a rigged set up that included the word 'eugenics'.

Boggle is a game with 16 dice in a 4 by 4 grid. The dice have letters on them instead of numbers and the object is to make as many words and as long of a word as possible given a random shake of the dice. In standard rules, letters must be contiguous and can only be used once in each word.

My point, in this exercise, is that there are hundreds of words in a single 4 by 4 grid. Often people look at the evidence - their list of words that they take from a grid, and ignore the other words that are in the same grid. Each side accuses the other of ignoring evidence or reality. And people cannot, simply cannot, see words that are not in their vocabulary. I did not know that guipure and brucine were real words until I pored over my artificial grid.

The grid in the real world is much larger and more complex than 4 by 4 and the fairly simmple rules of boggle. Nor are the rules known with absolute certainty. With the boggle example, you get different results if you change the rules. What if letters did not have to be contiguous? What if you could use the same letter twice in a word? Then you would get different answers. What if you changed the language? A German or Spanish speaker would get a different list from the same 4 by 4 grid.

Given the endemic of hostility to different opinions here, it is hard to say that only they are BLINDLY following their ideologies. If we have evidence, some here are reticent to present it, but quick to present their hostility to 'heretics' of our conventional wisdom.

[Time for change]

8. I think I see your point

I considered adding a section to this OP that speculated about the possibility of blindness in ideologies other than right-wing ones, including left wing ideologies and even my own. I decided against including such a discussion, partly because my post was already plenty long enough.

You point out some of the difficulties in interpreting scientific evidence. It is of course true that, even among highly competent and reasonably objective scientists, there will be honest disagreements on various issues.

The examples I used in this post, however (IMO), were extreme examples of people using an ideology to justify their actions or advocate policies, with virtually no attempt to assess the evidence in arriving at their ideologies. There is a big difference between that and honest differences of opinion. As noted in the Downing Street memos, what the right wing zealots usually do is fix the evidence to justify the policy that has already been decided upon.

I recognize the possibility that I could fall into the same trap. Compared to the general population (but probably not compared to most DUers) I am very far out left wing. Yet I do not believe that I arrive at my opinions blindly or that I arrive at them in order to justify the policies that I favor. I try hard to consider the evidence and arrive at positions that are supported by it. I believe that for most issues (but not all), when people do that they will arrive at reasonably similar opinions. Examples include the existence of evolution and the existence of the role of human activities in producing global warming. Though there is disagreement in the general population, there is not disagreement on those issues among scientists who are thoroughly familiar with them.

[LeftHander]

5. Key point missing in the post that is exploited by those mentioned...

The willingness of the mass-public to go along with what ever those in power do because they are stupefied by television and a false consumer culture.

Television has badly damaged our society. It has ruined the public's perception of "art" and has made entertainment more of a ghoulish act of voyuerism.

We went from a nation of creators that entertained one another in small localized formats to mass consumers fed a endless supply of advertising and propaganda from a centralized source. Despite what we assume to be "choice" is a ruse. As a culture to allow television to tell us that to think, what is funny what is important and it all has little to do with making our communities stronger or our lives richer.

If television had not existed. There would be no "War on Terror", Neocons would be a marginal group of crazies in the wilderness. And the Radical Free Market would not be able to function on a global scale as it does without a vehicle to reach into everyone's homes. Local economies would still thrive and food production, manufacturing and entertainment would be much more decentralized.

What will turn this country around is to first deregulate and return television and radio to the people. Remove it from the clutches of big money...and then we need to educate everyone that watching television 40 hours per week is counter-productive to society and our culture.

You post was thoughtful and I highly recommend everyone read....more than once.

A big K&R!!

[comtec]

10. There would still be a war on terror w/o TV

"Remember the Maine!"
That was the war cry of the Spanish American war, which is generally accepted as a successfully manufactured press war. "You get me the pictures, and Ill give you a war." was said by the Editor of the paper that brought us the Spanish American war.

Remember Helen of Greece!!! Was probably the war cry for the TEN YEAR LONG Trojan wars! Keep in mind we KNOW that war happened, and that the Iliad, is in fact an amazingly accurate picture of that war (gods, et al excepted).

The media bears a great responsibility for this abortion of liberty that has been going on since Regan. Even more since Cable and $hrub was installed in office.

However we have something no other generation in ALL of human history has had.,.. the internet!

We need to use this tool, like we are, to truly spread the American ideals of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

[Time for change]

25. Thank God for the internet!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=356095

[Time for change]

11. Thank you much Lefthander

I certainly agree with you that the monopoly that a few big corporations have on our television viewing is greatly destructive of our democracy, and breaking that monopoly should be a major priority.

My concnern on this subject has centered mainly around television news per se, rather than on other aspects of television. I do believe that your concern with those other aspects of television are justified, but I haven't thought about that as much, and it's difficult for me to evaluate how it has affected us.

[annabanana]

7. bookmarked for reference. . . n/t

[silverweb]

13. Bookmarked.

For later, when there's time to thoughtfully read and properly absorb all of this most excellent essay.

[Larry Ogg]

14. Is it safe to say ideology is the tool the ‘Economic Royalists’ use too control the masses,

as if the more Ideology’s an ideologue seems to support, even if they really don’t, their following will increase exponentially. The right wing conservatives are a mixture of ideologies working for things that serve just a few while deceiving its source of power i.e. those that give them power, their electorate… I’m working on as essay ware I discuss; an unholy alliance of Corporate Elitists, Robber Barons, Warmongers and Christian Fundamentalist Extremist, how and ware are they tied together. The biggest thing they have in common is that the leaders of each one of these groups are wrapped in the flag and have nothing but disdain for the first amendment, and it is quite obvious why they would want to abolish it along with the entire Constitution, they get their power from the deceived masses that could stop them.

[Time for change]

18. Ideology as a tool to control the masses

Yes, it is my considered opinion that ideology is used as a tool to control the masses.

I'm not saying that it's the only tool -- though I believe it is a very important one.

I believe that you are correct that one thing that ties all these various right wing groups together is that they have contempt for our Constitution, especially our First Amendment. They wrap themselves in the flag, as you say, but they don't really believe in what the flag represents. As long as they can control other peoples' right to free speech, their own ideologies are likely to prevail, thereby increasing their own wealth and power. I do believe that's what it's all about.

Good luck with your essay. It sounds very interesting!

[DemoTex]

15. Radical right-wing ZEALOTRY. It doesn't get any more toxic than that.

K&R

:kick:

[Senator]

17. Fascism -- Authoritarianism -- Monarchism -- Theocracy -- (Bushcheneyism) -- it's all the same thing

Fascism -- Authoritarianism -- Monarchism -- Theocracy -- (Bushcheneyism) -- it's all the same thing.

A belief that some minority has the right to rule the majority. It matters little if it's the true believers, a master race, a family dynasty, the chosen people, a ruling class, or the current DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy.

It's all anti-democratic, thus Anti-American*.

This nation now lives under an appointed ruler (not an elected leader) who rules by signing statement. You can call it "technical" or "virtual" or "Urinary Authoritarian Executive"** -- but it's still fascism.

This is what the stolen election of 2000 was all about (THE watershed event). There was zero attention paid to the Will of the People of Florida and the nation. The result of the vote (not the vote count***) was well known shortly after the election when the uncounted ballots were extrapolated by precinct, and Gore won FL by tens of thousands. Any ethical, moral, real American would have conceded to Gore at that point.

Thus, the contract generally known as the US Constitution was put into breach on January 6th, 2001. This is the "original sin" that must be remedied. It is the essence of our ongoing nightmare. It was this deliberate overruling of the Will of the American People that left us open to the 9-11 attack, which was a far less important event compared with the election theft. It simply allowed the 21st Century Neo-Fascists to have their "Reichstag fire" to consolitdate (hopefully temporary) control.

The more important part was that the only global force for good in the past several decades -- the public opinion of the American People -- was taken out of the global, moral equation. Which is why prior to the election theft we could stop plane-crashing over the Pacific at the Millenium with help from Jordanian Intelligence, and after... well, not so much. We had lost our moral ascendency, our place as the court of last resort. And global violence has metastacized, as a result of the world losing its most effective "honest broker" for peace.

Certainly this is a "kinder, gentler" fascism. But did you expect goose-stepping, tanks in the streets and racial hate speech? It's much more efficient to simply scream "Mushroom clouds in 45 minutes!!" through every Euphemedia outlet in order to terrorize a population into compliance (20 guys with boxcutters pales in comparision, doesn't it?).

But make no mistake, it is fascism pure and simple.

It demands active opposition. Unlike their agents in congress, the American People are not impotent. We can still refuse to be complicit with the atrocities committed in our name. We must demand impeachment. But we must do so loudly -- at every opportunity, in large and small ways -- and in ways that make others uncomfortable.

We need impeachment to Redeem Our National Soul.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

How do we get it? "Violence" is the answer.

_________
*"After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society" - Benito Mussolini 1932

**Based on the newly-discovered, "inherent" (i.e., faith-based) Constitutional Authority for an appointed ruler (as opposed to elected leader) to piss down the back of the American People and tell them it's raining.

***"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decided everything." -- Josef Stalin (echoed by Pol Pot, Bushes, Scalia, Rehnquist, Baker, Rove, Harris, Blackwell, etc...)

-----

[bonito]

20. Most Excellent! also the link to your journal as well

It should be a op in itself I think allot of folks need to see this.

[Time for change]

22. I know what you mean Senator

I'm really tired of all the pussyfooting around.

That's one reason why I so much appreciate Dennis Kucinich. We don't have many elected representatives who are willing to talk straight about the real reasons for the Iraq War.

[gollygee]

24. K&R

and a link emailed to a few people as well. Thanks!