Fascism is now a reality in America
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/patriot_act

Fascism, as defined by Merriam Webster, is a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

The Grand Old Party wants to pass new "Patriot" laws which grants the FBI unlimited authority to wiretap and issue subpoenas without ANY court authority in the name of fighting "terrorism". This proposed law would start would terrorism but it sure wont end there.

As an attorney, I have never been as scared of the US government as i am right how. The loss of our constitutional guaranteed freedoms are being eroded a faster rate than anytime in the history of America. Personally, we will move to Canada as soon as our kids are out the house. I want out of george bush's america.

----------------------------------------
GOP Aides Say New Patriot Act Obliges Bush

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is working on a bill that would renew the Patriot Act and expand government powers in the name of fighting terrorism, letting the FBI subpoena records without permission from a judge or grand jury

Much of the debate in Congress has concerned possibly limiting some of the powers in the anti-terrorism law passed 45 days after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But the measure being written by Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., would give the FBI new power to issue administrative subpoenas, which are not reviewed by a judge or grand jury, for quickly obtaining records, electronic data or other evidence in terrorism investigations, according to aides for the GOP majority on the committee who briefed reporters Wednesday.

Recipients could challenge the subpoenas in court and the Bush administration would have to report to Congress twice a year exactly how it was using this investigatory power, the aides said.

The administration has sought this power for two years, but so far been rebuffed by lawmakers. It is far from certain that Congress will give the administration everything it wants this year.

Roberts' planned bill also would make it easier for prosecutors to use special court-approved warrants for secret wiretaps and searches of suspected terrorists and spies in criminal cases, the committee aides said.

Eight expiring sections of the law that deal with foreign intelligence investigations would become permanent, they said.

So, too, would a provision that authorizes wiretapping of suspected terrorists who operate without clear ties to a particular terrorist network.

The aides spokes on condition of anonymity because Roberts has yet to make public the bill's contents.

Opponents of expanding the Patriot Act said Roberts' proposal would amount to an expansive wish list for the administration.

"While we're fighting to bring provisions ... back into balance with the Bill of Rights, here we have the intelligence committee moving to give the government more power outside the judicial system to gain access to records of Americans," said former GOP Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, a critic of the law.

Lisa Graves, the American Civil Liberties Union's senior counsel for legislative strategy, said the new subpoena power would "be a dramatic expansion of secret search powers."

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other administration officials have been adamant that the expiring provisions become permanent, with few changes.

They also have pushed for the administrative subpoena power, which they say prosecutors already are using in health care fraud and other criminal cases.

Justice Department officials have been consulted on the legislation and offered technical advice, department spokesman Kevin Madden said.

"The Department of Justice appreciates that the Senate Intelligence Committee has signaled their intention to support provisions that enhance law enforcement's ability to combat terrorism effectively," Madden said.

Committee aides said the committee planned to meet in private when it considers the bill because the discussions would involve intelligence operations.

Barr said he was distressed that the committee "would do something like this in secret."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the panel's senior Democrat, has not said publicly whether he would support the entire bill that Roberts was working on or seek changes.

It's funny but I was listening to this song earlier today called Fatherland America:

Fatherland America
McDonald's land, America

Nazi scientists in US laboratories
paved the way for our democracy
Fascism and democracy
Now they go hand-in-hand
Yeah, now they go hand-in-hand--CHORUS

Fatherland America
Legoland America

For your freedom to be installed
They say that they'll take it away,
but only just for a little while
Yeah, only just for a little while
Only just for a little while



While I don't think America is a Facist state I do find it facinating how the political tactics of facist governments past can get adopted by democracies of today... In order for America or much of the West to go fully fascist there would have to be a civil war on a grand scale. It is much better to get your electorate to grant you increasing levels of power by legitimate means.

Is that Ramstein?

Kinda off topic, but not really.

I've been amazed lately at the pro gun crowd.

They always used to use the argument "the 2nd guarantees our right to guns, and it does that so that we can rise up against a tyrranical government if necessary."

Well, OK, I don't agree with that interpretation of the 2nd but presumably they do, so that begs the question, why aren't they shooting?

As our liberties erode faster than the east coast shoreline, it's amazing to see how few people actually realize it.

The same party that pretends to oppose this type of Orwellian legislation (the Democrats) are the ones who vote right along with it. People need to realize it's BOTH parties that are going along with the 9/11 commission reccomendations. We had a 100-0 vote in the senate to pass the REAL ID ACT btw.

Make no mistake... it doesn't matter who is in power. The Democrats are just as guilty of this slide to authoritarianism.

Honest Injun being covered by furnaceface....

IMHO, this government will eventually fail just like every other government that has existed on earth has in the past. I don't think we or our system are so superior to prevent this from happening.

Whether the breakup is peaceful or not depends on how much force the corrupt polititians use to try to stay in power. It hasn't gotten bad enough yet but the erosion of our liberty is certainly moving in the wrong direction. When (not if) it gets bad enough, people will revolt. We probably have a long way to go before that happens. Hopefully the breakup will be as peaceful as the Soviet Union's was.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...clown/pill.gif

Slay those Nasty Demons...Pronto!
:icare:

Because it's the liberals, not the conservatives, who have largely divested themselves of guns. Consequently, they don't have the necessary skills or equipment to do more than get arrested at a Starbucks for shouting their Stalinist slogans too loudly.

It's always the liberals. It's always the liberals.

Read between the lines a little instead of blaming someone else for your problems. The GOP supporters just don't want to admit that they've been bamboozled, swindled, taken, and had. Righties always claim that they want their guns so they can fight the government like shakran said. I find it ironic that the same group fails to realize that their party is responsible for the deterioration of our freedoms so that they WON'T be able to rise up with said guns.

They're affecting YOUR freedoms too righties. Liberals are bitching because we see through Dubya's wool. You all just have to wake up and admit it. Once you do, then change will happen.

Either that, or the GOP will fuck things up so badly that America will eventually destryoy itself from within.

I think it may be a case of, "it has to get much WORSE before it gets better".

I don't think people realize what's happening yet. People are reactive so it's gonna have to take a lot more than "passing of legislation" for the people to "rise up" etc. We need to feel the effects, the immediate effects and the ramifications.

I think we're still too comfortable in our lives, lifestyle to be willing to "do anything about anything". When peoples lives start to get really affected, then, maybe then you'll start to see, hear action.

You just touched on the true complexity of the current political situation in the United States. Real conservatives have been hijacked by the neo-cons and the liberals recognize this which is good. However, the Democratic party leaders are doing little or nothing to oppose what is going on. They are providing a false solution to the current problems. So in my opinion the they are contributing to this autocratic or dictatorial control.

I can't stand these new Republicans, but why should I put my faith in the Democrats? All I have to do is look at at their voting history, and their weak stance against this administration. Your Democratic leaders are going along with everything this administration is doing.

:thumbsup: Time passes but the politics board remains the same eh powerclown?

Long time, Ustwo...good to see you.
The more things change, eh?

Were you aware that Fascism is now a Reality in America? I just found out this morning!
COMMENCE WITH THE RALLIES!!!

:hmm:

You hit the nail on the head. The democratic party is filled with delusional wimps. Kerry's announced he'll be the democratic candidate in '08. Now, aside from the fact that I don't think even the democrats want to lose THAT badly, what the hell is wrong with him? He lost the last election - one in which a pet rock should have been able to defeat the incumbent. What makes him think he's winning material?

And you guys will note that in my other post in this thread, I didn't mention any party names. That's because while I despise what the Republicans are doing to the country, I also despise what the democrats are letting them do to the country.

We've frankly got a crowd of warmongering nutjobs running the place right now, and someone (ahem, maybe the opposing party?) should be standing up to it, but no one is. I'm a firm believer that it's just about as bad to watch wrongdoing without stopping it as it is to be the wrongdoer in the first place.

But I won't say the country's doomed just yet. Don't forget, we've had other winners in the whitehouse, and they didn't manage to kill off the country. Andy Jackson was certifiable, Nixon was a crook. Hell even John Adams, champion of liberty that he was pre-1776, went around as president having people arrested for treason and sedition just for speaking out against him.

Bush only has 3.5 years left. All the country has to do now is hunker down and hope he doesn't start world war 3 before someone with a little common sense can get in there and start us down the right path again.



Now before some in here start calling me a republican bashing liberal, I wanna make it clear that I think both sides have led the country in the wrong direction in the past. We as a country have gotten entirely too eager to mess around with other countries and their affairs. It's high time we figure out that the world does not want us to be their policeman, and even if they did, we don't have the resources. Clinton's little excursion to Somalia was no more justifiable than Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Our policy needs to be "we'll leave you alone if you leave us alone. But if you mess with us, we're gonna get even."

That's why I never criticized the attack on Afghanistan - -well. . I didn't until Bush got distracted by Iraq and forgot all about getting the guy that actually attacked us. Afghanistan was knowingly harboring terrorists that had directly hurt our country. There was no problem with going in there.

Iraq was not harboring terrorists, had no capability of harming us, and pretty much left us alone with the exception of the occasional childish insult hurled by Saddam. There was no reason to attack it other than Bush wanted to.

And not only did that damage our reputation in a BIG way world wide - - - now we're the country that invades and conquers people just because we're don't happen to like them - - -but it also brought sweeping consequences that Bush never considered - - or if he did consider them, he quickly pretended he hadn't so he could still have his little war.

Ever stop to wonder why the Pentagon wants to close all these bases? Some of 'em are really stupid bases to close - -the submarine base in connecticut for example. Have we not learned from Pearl Harbor? Don't put all your boats in one harbor unless you want to make them easier to destroy all at once. But the pentagon HAS to close them because they've run out of money - - and of course they're out of money because Bush & Co. forgot to consider that wars have to be paid for.

The short sightedness of this administration is appalling, but not surprising - - after all every company Bush ever touched wilted and died. Texas plunged into enormous debt when Bush took the reins. The man can't lead a kid to the crapper, and he's now in charge of the country.

And who's fault is that? The democrats. Sure, they were excused for his first term because for those four years we ceased being a constitutional republic, and instead became an oligarchy with a leader appointed by a council of judicial ministers. That wasn't their fault at all.

But this last election - - they threw it. Even staunch republicans admit that Kerry would have given Bush much more of a challenge if he'd just defended himself against Bush's attacks.

So the point of this long, drawn out post, is that both parties suck, but for different reasons. And until either a third party gets enough of a political foothold to count, or until the democrats wake up and start wanting to win again (hint, that means actually taking stands and saying what you believe in even if you think it might offend a few people. Hey, it worked for the republicans), it's gonna continue the way it's going now.

I'd love to go to the rally but I have a bund meeting to go to. :p

Does this mean that SS style boots will be coming back in fashion?

I will need to get me a pair of those suckas.
Then if the feds really do not believe I am on their side, I will need a phone scrambler/decoder and never answer the door again, (might be a process server).

I have a very good friend who listens into cell phone conversations for a living, and I have asked him how they decide who they are going to target, all he will tell me is that someone like myself should not be concerned.

Hey Ustwo, can I come to that bund meeting?

Sure, but bring snacks, we always are short of snacks! :thumbsup:

I like lighthearted banter.

Be sure it stays that way, folks :)

Man, chicks DIG Jackboots. Make sure they're shiny. Back after the Wall fell, I got a bunch of the high-polish East German Officer's riding boots that went above the calf. My wife tells me that's why she started dating me...

BTW, they aren't "SS Style" boots...the former ComBlock still uses them. They're also festive because you generally can stash stuff in them, and when being lightly frisked, they very rarely frisk your boots. I used to keep my "wire" in one boot, and a holdout .380 in the other, and they never caught on.

Does this mean that YOU are going to start shooting, or are you waiting for others to do it for you?

So far, so good.

Oopsie. Al Zarqawi wasn't training terrorists in explosives and poisoning techniques in Iraq?

NOW you're back on track.

I'm not talking about shooting anything at all. That's a completely separate issue. What I was pointing out was the hypocrisy of the right. They scream abut protecting our rights and limiting government but look what has happened. Exactly the opposite.
And I am in total agreement with what shakran said. The current dems need to grow a big pair of balls. They need to start defending themselves. We all know it. That’s one of the reasons why Dean was elected chair. Supposedly, he's supposed to put the "fire" back into the base. I'm still out on that one personally. But I like to be a little optimistic. It's not that they're letting the right walk all over them. Remember, they have total control of two of the three branches of government. Not much the dems can do to stop them. I agree that they still need to grow a pair and say what's on their mind. If someone's offended, then screw it. Let them be offended. Believe me, there are things about the left I don't like either but my main concern right now is the economy and I'm going with the dems on that one. After 4+ years, the right can't seem to get it right with our economy and IMHO they've got to go.

Some of us have a different viewpoint. As in, the left has been indoctrinating America's children, right up through college. I've seen studies that say 80% of college professors classify themselves as liberal. The reason college students are such easy pickings is that most don't have enough experience in the real world to realize what utter bullshit they're being fed.

After graduation, even though they're armed with a degree in art history, these "useful idiots" blame the right when nobody wants to hire them. "Greedy capitalists," are to blame, of course.

You want to know what's the saddest part? You think the Democrats actually care about you! The only thing 99% of elected officials care about is getting re-elected.

Bill Clinton never made a decision that wasn't designed to benefit his career, regardless of how much it hurt the country. How else do you explain his (and Jimmy Carter's) giving nukes to North Korea? Or missile technology to China?

Can anyone picture Bush doing either of those?

Then there's the economy. I wish more people reallized that politicians don't control it, no matter how much they want you to think that. What controls the economy is how competitive we are in the world market. And we're not competitive if we run out of oil, or shutter factories near a snail darter breeding area.

But back to the part about "protecting rights." There hasn't been a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11.

However, those on the left would be screaming the loudest about Bush "doing nothing" if there HAD been. In other words, if he'd reacted like Clinton did to the first WTC bombing, and the U.S.S. Cole (by doing nothing).

I detect hypocrisy, all right.

And what is it that makes up competitive in the world market? Would it be something called an education perhaps? Somthing that those "useful idiots" actually possess? Something that your current administration obviously doesn't believe in since Bush doesn't like to fund his own education programs? Unless it's the war college that is. The fact that China is kicking our asses right now has a lot to do with Bush and his "faith" that everything will be all right is you just pray in school. I don't give a damn if they got missile technology. They were going to get it anyway no matter who was in office because they stole it. Or did that happen to slip your mind? You think I don't know that politicians want to get reelected? I don't give a damn. That's all they're good for. But I'm also not going to sit here and think that Bush and Co is actually good for us when they pass legislation that obviously favors big business over the working class. Bankruptcy laws that allow companies to default on pensions, allowing limited awards on legitimate malpractice suits, the list could go on. Digging for more oil wells ain't gonna save us either bub. The stuff's running out and if we don't switch over to alternate fuels soon, South Korea and the rest of the far east will pass us by with a lot more than stem cells.


And you think that was all due to lord Bush?? Tell me, was it the felons that the gov't hired as airport screeners that did the trick to save us from the big bad terrorists? Was is the Patriot act that tramples all over my freedoms? Or was it that fake war that the war criminal Bush is still trying to sell us by sending his chrones over every other month on a "surprise visit" to try and reassure the masses that everything is going to plan?

I'm sure that starting a war on a band of thugs that moves from country to country by invading the country they happened to be in the week before those events would've solved it perfectly.

By the way on that note, Bush holding hands with one of the Saudi dictators (He hates dictators because they limit freedoms remember?) on the white house lawn begging him to turn up the oil spigot doesn't help his credibility either.

one problem with the thread is that the definition of fascism from miriam webster is simply too vague. because the word gets folk riled up, it pays to be more exact when you use it. of course, being more exact will not have any appreciable effect on the "dont worry be happy" tendencies within american conservatism. but then again, dont worry be happy is always a possibility--remember nero? he was happy, he didnt worry.

fascist regimes are hypernationalist. they use nationalism as a political mask behind which they do as they like. nationalism is good for them, because it enables folk who support such a regime viscerally to pretend to themselves that nothing bad or strange is going on. one effect of this style of nationalism on the features that articulate it as an ideology is that these features/signifiers tend to get elevated to a quasi-sacred status--for a good window onto this lunacy here, have a look a the thread concerning the descration of the koran story. you get to read parallels being made, in all seriousness, between the koran and the american flag.

this despite other features, like the preference for working in the context of a state of emergency (war on "terror'), which is linked to both contempt for normal types of legal parameters--(think the iraq war on this one)--and contempt for democratic process, even in its weaker forms (like the american system)--democracy is slow and sloppy and involves bad things like dissent--better to undercut or suppress it. dissent is bad because it indicates divisions within the nation---which in fascist-land is a singular term, united in some Historical Mission (like "spreading freedom" in the george w bush sense of the term). to suppress dissent, there are a range of options, from direct physical suppression (mercifully, "we" are not there--though i still remember pretty clearly how much fun it was to be in america for people close to me who happened to be muslim right after 9/11) to a process of undercutting the legitimacy of information sources, no matter how weak conceptually (newsweek?) with the idea of forcing the loyal footsoldier (dont worry be happy) back from information to faith as the basis for their politics.

clearly the problem is that folk who think about this stuff get overexcited. clearly the solution is valium. dont worry, be happy--it seems to require a drug or two.

Well, it isn't quite original, and Roachboy suggested it before I got back, but this seems appropriate

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RwCfAjYWVzKNedj2rrKrqFW6!t5*If0Kl0GIN*Ar4Vy7ob7MY31wPu6Gjw*P0oKUMy8hATJs*CEaqUaTjoadOy3LyBxLF0srM7iJOOAnjWw/valium.jpg?dc=4675523437964989327></img>

Or maybe

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SAAAAFQWzTx83q!FhdagVUoAxXvem!dQA1Avv95xoJAK8fxsJrDCDu9040H7RBylqNMRJcb9nWQR*vJKku34TdCWDyGl0GuAnGtPpt7S*7YAAAAAAAAAAA/viagra2.jpg?dc=4675523438030384181></img>


I always thought it had something to do with a massive supply of cheap labor and lack of the environmental regulations of the US, as well as unfair trade practices, but that's just me.

Nope. They BOUGHT it. Google John Hwang and Charlie Trie. And Loral.

I thought it was wiping out 75% of al Qaeda, and having the rest of it on the run. But that's just me.


I'm sure you were happy to ignore the widely published explanation of that. I'm sure you also ignored all of the pictures of Bill and Hillary smiling out in pictures with drug dealers.

I had a problem with that. But that's just me.

Well said. I agree 100%.

The extreme nature of the title of this thread is proof of just how careless words are thrown around. It's the same irresponsible ridiculousness as yelling fire in a theater, publishing (then retracting, which is worse imo) inflammatory political bombshells, or, say, trolling on the internet.

agreed. the english language has been raped.

i'm frustrated by the lack of real conservative policy coming out of the GOP... the patriot act and its ilk is just a single example of a wider phenomenon.

thanks to whoever pointed out that the patriot act passed overwhelming on both sides (99-1 if memory serves).

we are the only ones who can change this.

Also, remember that the patriot act passed at a time when tensions were high and everybody was "behind" the president.

In other words, before the lies came out.

But I agree, we are the only ones who can change this. Sadly though, no one seems to give a fuck.

powerclown, irate: it is interesting to find us in any kind of agreement--for this fleeting moment at least, good....

but the agreement seems to result from an edit of my post that avoids what i was actually saying. it seems that the rest of us are treated to a bit of semantic warfare from the right even on this level, over the usage of the term fascism. the tactics are obvious: try whenever possible to shortcircuit usage of the term, either by ruling it out altogether (the fatuous godwin's device) or making a great production out of claiming that it means nothing. fact is, folks, that the term fascism has meanings, these meanings refer to forms of conservative authoritarian types of governance, to patterns within those forms of conservative authoritarian governance, many of which in fact can and should be applied to the operations that i like to group together as bushworld. the second tactic seems to function as a plan b, should the first fail: try to focus on the most minute element of an argument and generate an illusion of movement around that. presumably the desired effect is to divert the conversation.

i use the term tactics and refer to the right as a political bloc in this simply because the same moves come form conservatives over and over and over--even from those who might not agree amongst themselves about many issues, but who for whatever reason choose to participate in the general culture of contemporary conservatism. i figure the participation has to explain the persistance of these moves. but the actual link, in this case, is speculative.


at any rate, i think there are definite parallels between the conservatism of george w bush and his administration and aspects of fascism. these parallels are troubling, to say the least. but this is not to say that bushworld is a rerun of nazism, of italian fascism, of franco, or peron, of salazar or anyone else...they are simply parallels. history does not repeat...but is is in the same tradition, it uses the same logic, form its fetishism of the military through its contempt for law and for the possibilities of democratic process to its particular usage of the collective mental disorder called nationalism. the list of parallels could be made quite long--there are features that would not fit into it, however. that fascism is a way to talk about some aspects of this sorry administrations ideology but not all of it does not mean that there fore the term fascism is a problem. you would think this kind of argument is too basic to even require being made. you would think adults would know this sort of thing already.

powerclown, the title of this thread is accurate and you are attempting to suppress discussion of this very real and timely threat to the remnants of our pre-Bush civil iberties that still remain. With parallels so easily observed in America today, to past fascist regimes, why are you so intent on minimizing what is an obvious trend, to many of us?
powerclown, you talk as if you are not keeping abreast of current events, or else your statement quoted above requires exclusion of the changes in law since 9/11 and the changes proposed in an effort by the Bush administration to permanently eliminate the rights that these officials swore on Jan. 20, 2001 to defend, protect, and to uphold.....not to compromise or to eliminate:

magictoy, what is the real point that you are trying to make with your "Oopsie" taunt, since it is common knowledge that Saddam was not even in control of the Kurdish area of northern Iraq where the US declared in Feb., 2003, to the UN assembly that Al Zarqawi was said to be operating in? If you were not aware of this inconsistancy in the logic of your statement, please retract it, if you meant to make another point than an inaccurate opinion that Saddam supported Al Zarqawi in training terrorists inside Iraq, please tell us what your other point is.
magictoy, the material you chose to use in your taunt is BS, disinformation, propaganda, one of a long parade of decpetions, misleading statements, and outright lies, broadcast by top officials of the Bush administration, in an attempt, as the May 1, 2005 disclosure of the "Downing Street Memo" clearly shows, to "fix the facts around the policy" of an illegal an unnecessary invasion of Iraq.

Yes, roachboy, I acknowledge that the term "Fascism" does have deeper meaning - so we are again in agreement. Where I disagree with both you and host is in your support of the projection of the concept of Fascism onto the current administration. What happens in 3.5 years, when your derisionally-named BushCo is constitutionally removed from power (a quite un-Fascist practice, no?)?

Does a once Fascist Amerika then revert literally overnight back into a Democratic America once again? In the span of 4 years? If you're going to brand America as "Fascsist" under Bush, will you brand it such under a possbly Democratic Administration? Is it Bush you have a problem with, or is it with America in general?

Not to put words in roachboy's mouth, but from what i gather it's capitalism, but that doesn't scare most like it does roachboy. Conservative agenda's where defense is concerned, is where the parallel with fascism is drawn, from the lefts perspective. As such BushCo seems to serve Roachboy quite well. Which is why i think for Roachboy the answer to this question:

"Does a once Fascist Amerika then revert literally overnight back into a Democratic America once again?"

would be "no". But i would be interested in Roachboy's overall attitude toward our country in general with Liberal control. For Host, i think the answer to that question would be yes.

Who T-F know what to believe, powerclown, but we have to contine to tirelessly question everything that those in authority say and do.

Obama voted for "tort reform". even though a 20 year old, permanently incapacitated by an incompetent surgeon, would receive an award that amounts to $12.00 per day, under the provisions of the "reform".

Senator Joe Biden (D) Del., voted for "Bankruptcy Reform", because MBNA is his benefactor and employs him as an internet technology consultant.

The Yale Univ. secret society, "Skull and Bones", invites six members of the junior class to join it's ranks each year. Between '65 and '67, Kerry and then Bush were among the less than 20 new members selected in that period to join Skull and Bones. Howard Dean, struck a chord during pre-primary campaigning in late 2003, early 2004, because he appeared to potential voters to be against the Iraq war from the outset, whereas Kerry agreed with more of Bush's Iraq policy than he disagreed with it. Dean appeared too shrill and radical and was sidelined by the democratic party hierarchy.

Why did the democrats on the 9/11 commission and the panel that Bush selected to review the pre-invasion Iraqi intelligence gathering, not issue dissenting reports from the "official" releases? Why have the deomcrats not insisted on independent, congressional investigations.

In his newly released film, (segment #2) "Martial Law 9/11: Rise Of The Police State", Alex Jones confronts Michael Moore in NYC during the 2004 Republican Convention and demands an answer from Moore as to the omission of the report in Farenheit 9/11, that NORAD was ordered to "stand down" during the 9/11 attacks. Moore is heard to mutter, "because that would be un-American". Alex Jones purports to believe that Moore intended his film to as a cover and a diversion for the Bush government's actual involvement in 9/11. The film, for anyone with an open mind, and a desire not to rule anything out about the curious sequence of events on 9-11-2001, is available for download in three segments at this link:
http://www.archive.org/details/MartialLaw911

powerclown, I lived in Manhattan on 9-11, and I don't know what to believe about what happened that day. To get even closer to the event in it's aftermath, I took advantage of an opportunity to move into an apartment that was three blocks from ground zero, a few weeks after 9/11. I resided there for the next three months, and I took these shots from the roof of the apartment building. I immersed myself in the aftermath of 9/11. It's under my skin. I want this president to permit an investiagtion of what happened that is not under the control of his government. He owes us and the victims that!
I am skeptical, open to most possibilities, and I question the motives of all authority, even of democrats who voted for the Patriot Act, or for the congressional resolutions on Iraq, or who belong to Skull and Bones and don't distance themselves enough from Bush's foreign and military policies.
<img src="http://me.to/wtc/MVC-006F.JPG"><br>
<p>
<img src="http://me.to/wtc/mvc-009f.jpg">

Michael Moore is a agent of the Bush administration?

:hmm:

Who T-F knows, Ustwo?

Every day, I feel like I know less than I knew the day before. We set our own boundaries as far as the limits of our beliefs and our considerations. If we do not confine our own curiousity and perspective, others, including many on this forum, are quick to challenge with "oh, you're not going THERE, are you?", or "shouldn't this be moved to PARANOIA?"

In a real way, the events of 9/11 and the reactions of the government officials, the populace, and the media, that has followed, in a sequence of events that is still playing out today, has been a catalyst in setting my belief systems "free", or at least loosening them to a degree that I can perceive.

What do you make of the following?

I almost choked to death drinking water as I read this.
I'm at a loss here too...

host, I agree with you that there needs to be questions asked, and transparency from the government. I can understand the dilemna one might have if one disagrees from the start with the notion that islamic fundamentalists were responsible for 9/11. I just don't buy that it was an inside job. Too much evidence - both here and in the rest of the world - says otherwise. Did not al-Qaeda themselves take credit for 9/11 in the world media, as well as for other major anti-american (and non-american) terrorist events in the world prior to 9/11? What about the rabid anti-american sentiment thats been simmering away in the Middle East for decades? All fabricated? I could understand a disconnect if the opposite were true - if America and the Middle East were strong allies with a long history of trust and cooperation.

I'm not sure what the pictures are supposed to show...? It looks to me like a large-scale cleanup operation, many trucks, a large tent, heavy machinery, mangled buildings.

Host - I mean this honestly and with concern. I think you need a information time out. I am just getting back from one and its quite nice. Based on the amazing number of quotes you paste, you are obviously looking all over for this stuff and it must take a good deal of your time.

For the last 5 months I have been totally out of the loop politically. I am still mostly 'out' of it. Its not a bad thing. My life didn't change for the worse, and I didn't get mad at things I couldn't really affect.

This is starting to remind me of the illuminati trilogy (and its been about 15 years since I've read it). One of the more amusing bits was where the main character is put in jail by a stereotypical racist/abusive southern sherif. The punch line is the sherif is actually a communist who is acting as he does in order to make people more sympathetic to workers/communist agenda. So yes in some world Moore could be another tool of the Bush's, but if he is then you might as well give up, because you are dealing with people far more clever than any of us are if they can pull that kind of ruse off. Of course if Moore hates Bush more than he loves money maybe he can claim this.

So just for a week try this. Don't go to the political web sites, don't watch it on TV, don't listen on the radio, and don't come here. If it comes up, change the channel. I did it for a week and I enjoyed it so much I kept doing it for 5 months. There is no need to keep getting mad and confused, and it may help you put it all into perspective.

Host. I don't recall what thread and how long ago you said it, but you said something to the effect that you were [recently pardoned from avoiding the vietnam war]. Probably vague for other people, if you remember what thread perhaps you can link it., but this quote makes so much sense to me:

"In a real way, the events of 9/11 and the reactions of the government officials, the populace, and the media, that has followed, in a sequence of events that is still playing out today, has been a catalyst in setting my belief systems "free""

Don't take this as a personel attack, it's just the way i see it. Of course it's set you free. There's a very large segment of our population post-Iraq that embraces not just questioning of the government, but a complete distrust (tempted to say hatred) for it. It's the home you've been looking for since 1973. But that population has always been there, Iraq didn't cause that distrust it was just a conventient catalyst for a public dislplay of it. I'd almost suggest you wanted Iraq for that reason alone more than neo-cons did.

The eyes are not here
There are no eyes here
In this valley of dying stars
In this hollow valley
This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms

In this last of meeting places
We grope together
And avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river

Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death's twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men.

Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o'clock in the morning.

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow

For Thine is the Kingdom

Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow

Life is very long

Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

powerclown:

two or three quick points (maybe):

1.
i qualified what i meant pretty clearly in the posts above--what i guess i would say is the following--that the elements of bushworld i pointed to are variations on options that seem to be constantly available within american political discourse. it is always possible that any administration could find itself confronted with something like 911--it is lilkely that any administration would have operated on a state of emergency footing thereafter. it is not obvious that another administration would have chosen the same path that the bush squad did after 911--the particularly simple-minded response to the attack, the refusal of any coherent analysis of it, the reversion to a particular style of hypernationalism, the instrumental use of war (afghanistan, iraq), the clamping down on dissent (mercifully confined mostly to the cultural level), the contempt for law (iraq being the most obvious example), for democratic process (here bushworld is but a particular symptom), etc.

it is also not obvious that another administration would have operated in such a tight relation to a media apparatus like that the right has developed--which is impressive as a formation, no matter what you think of the contents disseminated there.

2. even if you strip away all the qualifications above, there would still be problems: i dont see fascism as a state of affairs--it is a process, like any other ideological formation is. so the full-blown phenomenon would only gradually become present, and in significant ways would not be fully present (except analytically). ideological shifts unfold across time...it is not as though you simply flip a switch somewhere and turn fascism on and off like a light in the bathroom. so the idea that one is "in" fascism now and that sometime after bush and his pals fully enter into the ash-heap of history suddenly we would be "out" again is absurd.

3. what makes bushworld alarming is not so much the administration proper--it is this administration and its mode of ideological coordination with a wider conservative media apparatus. folk like to think that earlier forms of fascism were imposed entirely by force--which of course makes the system impossible--while elements of the german system relied on phsyical violence, the ideolgy that enabled/shaped that violence was lrgely disseminated via radio, which was the main mass media of the period. now it's tv. that is a problem.

4. bushworld is a variant on possibilities that seem structural, given the nature of american mass political disourse. in other words, bushworld invented almost nothing in terms of signifiers, but the administration and its correlate in conservative media have developed particular ways of framing signifers that are persistant aspects of american politics. but you could say the same of almost any political order that uses nationalism as a mobilizing tool. the states simply has a funny relation to nationalism--you see a kernel of it in the absurd providential history that you run into in elementary school which presents the entire history of the united states as if it metastisized from the puritans--city on a hill blah blah blah. this notion of privdential nationalism is key for any variant of fascist ideology. but the reverse does not necessarily hold--that anyplace which retains such an ideological element is necessarily fascist. it simply is a way of talking about a possibility. particular agents made particular choices that use this signifer for their own ends--these ends is what matters, not the presence of the signifier.

5. capitalism at this point is becoming a basic enemy of nationalism in general. the type of response particular to bushworld is a reaction against this tendency. when you get down to it, the main ideological problems the neocons have with clinton is that he was too willing to enter into multilateral agreements, too willing to participate in the main dynamic of globalizing capitalism--in short clinton was insufficiently nationalist for them. american mass politics is not talking about contemporary capitalism in anything like a coherent way. bushworld has no way to do it, frankly--they can cheerlead the system as a whole.treat it as an unqualified good, etc.--but the fact is that in the longer run, nationalism is outmoded and will eventually collapse. the structures that will become more visible in the context of teh global capitalist order once the fog of nationalism begins to dissipate is far less responsive to any type of democratic pressure than anything which has preceded it--how responsive to pressure from citizens is the wto? the world bank? the imf? the eu?
one thing marx was right about is that capitalism is a most revolutionary formation. all that is solid melts into air.
bushworld is not a coherent response to developments that have unfolded over the past decades in the organization of capitalism--it is a way of running away from them, even as the ideology they embody can do nothing but cheerlead these developments.
so in this case, the question of bushworld and capitalism are seperate.

more generally, capitalism requires a minimum level of social stability in order to operate. unleashing the fiction of free markets on people without some type of mediation is a way to bring about massive social destruction--left to itself, capitalism as a system would not long survive. but it is never present as a discrete system, it is always also a politics, a social policy, a system of social reproduction, etc etc etc. for about a 150 years, nationalism has been an important signifier in the production of this requisite social stability. that signifier is slowly collapsing.

roachboy,

1) While I agree with you that another administration's response to 9/11 might have been different, I fundamentally disagree with your characterization of the current one's as simple-minded and without careful thought or planning. It's my belief that there was extremely careful, intense, and intelligent analysis - from very, very bright people in the know - of the situation from a geopolitical perspective, as opposed to a philosophical one. Desperate, uncompromising and unprincipled terrorists (in this case) care little for the nuances of Marx, Jefferson or Nietzsche. So the question becomes: How to deal with such uncompromising brutality? From everything I've seen so far, I think the term 'clash of civilizations' is a logical and accurate representation of the ramifications of globalization. In saying that, it might be helpful to realize that the first criticism of the 'imperial colonialist' (a term I disagree with as it pertains to America, as there are no large and significantly permanent 'societies' of Americans outside America) - that she beligerently strayed from her borders without provocation - I see as questionable, when, for example, America was invited into Saudi Arabia by the Saudis themselves to help them with their oil-extracting technologies, to the fury of the Wahabbists. Globalization meets Old-Tyme Religion. But how can the Saudi rulers be to blame, when they are trying to exploit a natural resource for the benefit (one imagines) of their own people, including, ironically enough, the Wahabbists.

2) The power of nationalism shouldn't be underestimated. Again, it's sometimes unclear where to distinguish the lines of philosophical discourse and political reality. Speaking relatively, 'Fascism', or a fascist regime, formed in Germany practically overnight. I don't think it absurd at all to characterize the formation of Nazi Germany as practically an overnight occurence. 20 years, give or take, for a relatively 'benign' society to be completely transformed into an destructive, homocidal juggernaut is an historic instant in the timeline of humanity. One can debate an inherent war-like tendency of the indigenous people elsewhere. The point is that HitlerWorld successfully 'flipped the switch' and transformed a country 'overnight'.

3) While I agree completely that mass media can be used as a powerful tool of state-sponsored propaganda, I just don't see a link between the Bush Administration and a sympathetic Media in it's service. How to explain the numerous and flagrantly hostile anti-Bush Administration media-driven public relations disasters that have been reported? To me it almost seems a case of checks and balances gone awry. "The lunatics are now running the asylum". Now if one wants to characterize these media public relations disasters as a campaign of deception orchestrated on the part of the Bush Administration, as possibly a funtional means of releasing psychic tension on a grand scale masqerading as something more sinister, as it were, there could and should always be room for further such disucssion and exploration now and in the future. Suffice it to say I don't see things this way.

4) I must admit honestly that I sense a certain amount of alienation on your part in the current (and not so current) history of American political discourse which is fine, insofar as the discussion here is concerned. I am in no position to validate (or invalidate) the entire political history of any country. Of course, it pays to be attentive when using broad strokes. I believe it is always helpful in one's political analysis to consider the nature of the surrounding world as well, the nature in which a given political system arises, as nothing 'good or bad' is ever formed in a vacuum, of course. As it pertains to your post, I must once again deny a Bush/MassMedia complicity, and I certainly wouldn't go so far as to characterize the media as 'conservative' by any stretch of the imagination, UNLESS one sees a hostile media environment - this current media environment - as a creation from on high. As well, I do not miss out on the facts that drives certain conspiracy theories, such as the preponderance of media control and content in the hands of Jews, for example.

5) I must admit that I found this paragraph to be the most interesting of the 6. If there is one thing that can almost universally be attributed to the current american administration, it is in it's benevolence not only to american business, but to large (and not-so-large) businesses around the world. Did you know that IBM just recently sold off its ENTIRE pc computer division to a chinese company? It was a curious and telling circumstance that, when quoted to speak on bush's re-election, many world leaders praised the fruitful working business relationships that existed between america and their respective countries. Ironically, in a world political climate characterized time and again in the media as 'strained', 'stand-offish', and downright hostile, the world business/financial climate amongst the major nations has flourished almost completely unimpeded. It is business as usual alongside the 'global war on terror'. Politicians play their games - Moneymakers play theirs. In this information age, I see capitalism as being somewhat disconnected from politics when viewed on a global (inter-connected) scale.

powerclown: interesting response--thanks for it.
luckily i think this response can be shorter.
the numbers track as yours do.
1. i guess i should have simply said this: i opposed the bush administration on political grounds before he was elected the first time (quarrels about that aside)--but i did not imagine that the administration would veer in the direction that it has since 911--any more than i think the administration itself did. so my sense of what is happening, as it relates to the title of the thread, is that the administration found itself in a curious, unexpected position after 911 with an urgent need to react--which it did--to my mind--in a really quite simple-minded manner that seemed much more about a reaction to a percieved psychological need domestically--for some response, even one that narrowed the meanings of the action on 911 to a surreal extent--the problem i see is not even the response in itself (though i found it foul at the time) but that it did what i expected it to do from the outset, which was to box the administration in politically--the way of seeing the "war on terror" that you outline is to me a restatement of the effects of these earlier choices. i dont find it compelling analytically and see little but damage and hysteria resulting from it.
for all this, i understand that some kind of response was required right after 911--i simply think that it was at this point that this particular administration made really poor decisions.

2. on germany: from the a viewpoint that equates the alteration of an ideological context with the capturing of power by means of an effective coup d'etat, you'd be right. i see the two as related by seperat processes--the alteration of the ideological climate was quite rapid, but not as rapid as you make it out to be. on this, there is a body of newer social history grouped together as "the history of the everyday" in german, written by folk like martin brosazt (i am not sure of the spelling at this point--sorry) that is about trying to work out how this type of cultural alteration/domination happened, when, what reinforced it, what ran against it, etc. when i think about this type of question, i route some of it through this type of research. so we may be talking about the same thing from differing frame of reference that arent (until now) made explicit.
as for the speed of it--well, if you alter the timeframe, everything and anything can be seen as overnight, yes?

3. the press question is interesting--that there has developed a conservative media apparatus over the past 20 years or so seem unquestionable--this works within the dominant media, which i for one DO NOT see as "liberal" or "l;eft" at all--if anything a kind of diffuse moderateness conditioned by a tendency to defer to whomever is in power. so the two terms--mass media in general, the conservative media apparatus--do not cover the same area. the line is pretty obvious, if you think about it: on cable news, fox furthest and most obvsiouly to the right...in print, things like the washington times--in addition to the older-school weeklies and monthlies--the colonization of am talk radio by the right is evident as well. the rest of the institutions within/aroudn this scene are pretty well known.
that there is tight co-ordination between this apparatus and the present administration is pretty obvious--to say that there is direct control is wrong.
there are lots of older, other examples of tight co-ordination without formal control between types of organizations--i could go on at great and tiresome length about the co-ordination between the french communist party and the cgt, the biggest industrial trade union.
there is no need to slip into conspiracy unless your thinking does not allow you to see co-ordination for what it is. it odesnt require direct control of one institution by another. for example, if you think that there is no co-ordination between riger ailes and karl rove across talking points that shape how fox shapes its coverage of "news" then i would argue you are simply mistaken.

4. maybe you're right about a sense of alienation--but i am not sure what you mean exactly...anyway, in my regular life, such as it is, i do research on western european history and have spent alot of time juxtaposing western european and american political discourses/spectra of positions. so i dont tend to see americna politics entirely from the inside. maybe that is alienation--the terms doesnt really interest me, so there we are.

other tasks in real lilfe press on me, so the remainder will be suspended for the moment.

roachboy,

Thanks for the response. Although this board by and large lends itself over to a visual, short attention span audience, what's a few lines of text between board members? Continuing with the current format:

1) You bring up an interesting point, which helps lead me to this. While you suggest that Bush reacted to 9/11 in a simple minded manner, I would suggest one take additional time to reflect upon just how complex are the actions (and reactions) of any civilized, modern day society. In this day and age of short-attention span theater, it is all too easy to rush to questionable judgement on major and far-reaching decisions taken by a huge and cumbersome entity such as the american government. All should not be what it appears at first, second or even third glance in such a system, anymore than there should be quick and simple answers to complex mathematical equations, for example. One can feel free to call Bush's decisions anything one might want; but I don't believe it is accurate to characterize them as 'simple'. As i mentioned above, I do think there is some amount of 'truth' to the saying going around: 'clash of civilizations'. I think the problem is semantic in nature in this particular case of labeling certain activities in the world, where provocative phrases are tossed around for political gain. One thing 9/11 did to this artificial conversation was to blow a hole right through it; a hole blown so violently as to get everybody's attention - in a proper, prudent and evolving way - and in doing so, alerting law-abiding people (everywhere) to a (potentially) very real danger.

2) germany, 2b.: I hadn't heard of brosazt in particular, but there's always room for more on the subject as far as I'm concerned. The nice thing about Hitler is that he was so unique, such an unambiguous example of a given pathos, that it makes him a relatively easy subject to examine and understand. Read from the top down starting with him - and allowing room for the entire spectrum of activities within the Third Reich and immediate environs - it is definitely one of the few examples in modern history (due to accurate and minute recordkeeping) unclouded by extraneous (read: partisan) public opinion. Precisely because Hitler made no secret of his ambitions of world domination, was he therefore relatively easy to deal with by force. While the security concerns of the world are in one sense the same today as then, insofar as religion is being channelled as a devisive lever, the methods of warfare, heretofore straightforward generally speaking, have strayed into the unconventional. A side-effect of the Information Age? In the end (whenever that is), and as it has always been, the greater intelligence, logic, reason, cunning, ruthlessness etc. - will have the day until the next crisis forms itself.

3) the press: god love em. If they can't make history, they might as well simply talk or write about it, to whomever will listen or read. Perched forever under their miraculous First Amendment, they are like pigs at the trough, enjoying (in the West anyway) unprecedented creative license and editorial recreation. I think that journalists - the truly, deeply, spiritually committed ones - must enjoy the highest job satisfaction of any profession anywhere. Narrowing the focus to this thread for the moment, I would offer this: for every conservative voice in the (again, western) media there is a liberal counterpart on the other side of the aisle. Fox has cnn, limbaugh has franken, moore has coulter, soros has trump, stewart has letterman, newsweek has the national review, rove has reid (senate), dailykos has powerline etc, etc.. Without their ideological counterparts, each side is by definition voiceless. Each side builds the other up to the fever pitch banshee wail we see around us today. Nobody would have a job if their ideological opposites were silenced. Would limbaugh have his radio show if he had nobody to bitch about? And on, down the line. For all my looking, I can't make out a central processing unit controlled exclusively by one side or the other.

4) the description here was simply meant to question an impression I had - admittedly one dimensional by definition due to the restrictions of internet discussion boards - of the curiously persistent and hostile commentary towards the present american administration, at the expense of similarly focused and vitriolic commentary on, say, saudi arabia, north korea, russia, turkey, egypt, iran, etc. But then again, if your viewpoint wasn't documented here, no one else's would be either, and further, no one would be motivated to think either in a similar or opposite fashion so nothing personal.

Pardon the length...

People looking for the Skull and Bones/Bohemian Grove material are directed here:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=89646