From freedom to fascism

Careful with conspiracy theories. Remember, people who consider themselves right-wing are convinced that there are left-wing conspiracies going on too - because there are many freedoms we take for granted and that they would rather see the back of. The lack of censorship, for example, when it comes to left-wing documentaries and criticism of corporations, war etc. Two days ago in London they had a charity masturbatothon. It's never a good idea to think in terms of conspiracy theories, because the likelihood that a whole arc of the right or left wing is secretly allied in exactly the same aims becomes, on examination, patent nonsense. Better to think in terms of what each faction wants - if there's a slide towards fascism, it's got to be because it suits a large number of powerful people and organisations to support fascistic legislation. Haven't read the article yet, but I don't think we're 'slipping' into a fascist state. I think we'll always exist in a state where a few bad decisions could send us that way, and that we will teeter dangerously towards it every now and then. An authoritatian state is and always will be what a number of powerful people and organisations want, in order that they can maintain and strengthen their positions (and their own personal freedom) at the expense of everyone else. The trick is to keep ourselves those few steps away by whatever means necessary. We'll never be free of the threat though. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants Fuselit The Prowl Log Woe's Woe

Are you not part of the liberal conspiracy then Jack? We all are.

What's your explaination for a so called 'Socialist' Labour leader backing a very right-wing, neocon, Republican President, Jack?

Blair's socialist? ~PEPS~ “You do not truly know someone until you fight them.”

Yeah, didn't think Blair ever claimed he was socialist. Again though - go look at some Daily Mail columnist's page and see their list of 'conspiratorial' left-wing measures that have been introduced under Blair. What's more, it can't really be called a conspiracy when the man is, as many claim, sucking up to Bush for his own posterity and sense of self-importance. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants Fuselit The Prowl Log Woe's Woe

Blair stated in his maiden speech in the House of Commons on 6 July 1983: "I am a SOCIALIST not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for cooperation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It stands for equality". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair Surely standing up to Bush would do more to establish Blair's sense of self-importance. Unless, you mean that sort of self-importance that comes with being the best mate of the local bully.

Blair backs Bush because he supports his policies. What he said in 1983 is even less relevant to his present day thinking that what he had for breakfast or the colour of his socks. Wealthy and powerful people often take decisions in the interests of other wealthy and powerful people, against the interests most of the population - while attempting to scare most of the population into believing that these decision have in fact been taken for their own good. You can call that a conspiracy if you want but it's been going on since the dawn of time and it isn't very well hidden if choose to read some books and/or a newspaper occasionally.

I'm sure you are right about Blair, David. The real question is why is the Labour Party supporting Blair's increasingly right-wing tendencies : careerists or converts?

Well pointed out Bukharin. They're already there to a certain degree regarding their press control, have been a long time. I've got one of those so called 'moody' degrees in journalism. Funnily enough, you study a subject like that, history, what's going on now etc. You're a little more aware of what's *really* going on than the average person in the street. nobody

I've converted to Libertarianism ... now I only need 100,000 million or so Americans to follow my lead! ............ WHO'S WITH ME????

The US will never be anything other than the democracy it is, as the Founding Fathers made absolutely certain that the system would prevent it. Alarmists tend to think only in the short-term, but US history will show that the political scales always balance out in the end: it swings to the right, then to the left, then to the right, etc. Our political system being what it is, the ''Checks and Balances' system has always prevented a 100% swing to either the Left or the Right: when we have a liberal president, the House and/or Senate will be more inclined toward conservatism; and vice-versa. Even now, with a scary neo-con president, the Senate has swung toward the center, and despite Bush's best efforts, the Supreme Court has a few mavericks on the bench who vote with their consciences, and not according to the politics of whoever appointed them, so scary fascist laws have a very difficult time passing through the rigours of our Constitution. That doesn't answer the question, 'Are most Americans uninformed, lazy, over-indulgent sheep?' for not demanding more from their elected officials, but that's another debate.

In order for the US to become a "facist" state, it would require a civil war. Since we are not on the verge of civil war, I would say any estimate of the US being facist would roughly amount to being so incorrect as to making one assume that the estimator would have to be a complete moron. It does; however, make for interesting talk amongst morons. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

In order for the US to become a "fascist" state, it would have to elect a fascist government. Doubtlessly there are a few fringe groups standing, but I don't think they have much chance.

I met some Libertarians last month, they were nice people.

To claim that Blair does as Bush tells him is so ridiculous. Whatever the Blair haters here, (and I know they are many), believe is coloured by their hatred of policies they disagree with not, not a sensible assessment of the man himself. Of the two men I'd venture to say that Blair is the more intelligent. He has the brain to make his own decisions, and he must be aware that both he and Bush are going to be gone very soon. How history remembers them is immaterial to most people on this planet and I suspect that when Blair is sunning himself in Barbados on his fat pension, he won't give a shit what any of us think about him. It always amuses me how opponents of anyone use what they see as the most insulting and degrading arguments they can think of to assassinate the character of those they despise. We all do it, but that doesn't make it either fair or right.

Fascism would not march in through the front door but creep in through the back. Ideally you would have a left-wing leader because he would have much less opposition in passing right-wing legislation because his supposeded opponents would share his aims. First you reduce the powers of the police and make it difficult for them to deal with crime by increasing red tape. The you wait a few years until crime gets out of hand and bring in sweeping new laws which would have been called Fascist a few years earlier but are now welcomed as neccessary. You start to dictate what people are allowed to do and where. You try to legislate to reduce the number of people needing hospital treatment by laws effecting smoking etc. You also start a war against an evil group whose only aim is to destroy the world and find evidence of them everywhere. Then you can have lots more sweeping new laws that allow you to shoot people on the street, break into their houses in the middle of the night, shoot them, arrest them, virtually demolish their houses and then say... "Luckily, we were wrong this time!" Next of course its identity cards etc. and finally in a few years everyone gets their state number tattooed on their forehead :O)

Is this "state number" 666, by any chance...? ~PEPS~ “You do not truly know someone until you fight them.”

Hahaha, no, of course not, each person has a unique number which identifies them and is the key field of their computer records. No excuse that you forgot your ID then :O)

Anybody know any more about this idea that the government want to check every household to check their carbon footprint - or something? Excuse me Mr Smith do you know that you've left your Tv on standby?

Conspiracy theories and paranoia are alive and well on ABC.

Mykle, they are talking about offering a carbon audit for households that want it. It sounded like hot air and waffle to me. History was never my hottest subject, but I'm pretty sure all previous fascist governments either siezed power through a coup, or were elected on a clearly fascist ticket. I can't think of any that crept 'in through the back door.'

Hmm... but what about a certain Austrian-born fella and his "National Socialist" party...? ~PEPS~ “You do not truly know someone until you fight them.”

I don't think America will become a fascist state. But if I was of the opposite opinion, I can't see how any of the above arguments would go any way in convincing me. Checks and balances? Civil war? Either you need to explain these things more thoroughly so as to invest in them some kind of weight and logic, or you're spouting empty rhetoric. Or you're RadioDenver, and thus, delight in being stupid. Huzzah. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants Fuselit The Prowl Log Woe's Woe

Careful pee-wee...I'll have my llama lick your face. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

You could just as easily Google the 'checks and balances' system, couldn't you, but it's like this: When the Founding Fathers were arguing over what kind of government the new United States should have, everyone was in agreement: that it should never have the opportunity to be ruled by a single person or party (e.g. either a dictator, or a monarch), since that's what they'd been fighting against in the American Revolution. The checks and balances system was set up as a kind of triumvirate, or a goverment with three branches: the Legislative, the Judicial, and the Executive (e.g. the Prez). The Legislative was broken down even further into the Senate and the House of Representatives, which is the equivalent of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, except that Senators are voted into office in the exact same way that the President and the House of Reps. are. The Judiciary branch appointments are made by the current President, and they stand in office for life or until retirement. Each of these branches act as counterbalances to the other two branches, ensuring that no one branch can ever hold ultimate power; all have the power of vetoing the others. This is why the whole fascist idea is silly: fascism implies laws that create almost total control over a populace by a single governing body, and while each of these branches of our government are elected separately from one another, and are democratically and proportionately elected by the populace itself (minus, of course, the stupid electoral college, which will disappear eventually), no one branch will ever have enough power to do what it wants. The Senate regularly shoots down stupid laws as proposed by our Great Leader, and stupid things like the Patriot Act eventually get watered down so much by the legislative and judicial branches that they are rendered virtually worthless. I still don't see what the big fuss and paranoia is over ID cards. We Yanks have to carry ID cards until we're at least 21, and after that always have to have a picture ID on us, like a drivers license, and that has hardly been the end of the world or of our rights and freedoms, has it? ID cards have hardly contributed to a totalitarian state. People just lo-o-ove to be paranoid.

Juliet, the real fuss over ID cards is not over the cards themselves but the centralised database (the national identity register), absolutely nobody else has anything like that (not because they're any nicer, but because they're all smart enough to realise it wouldn't work). It's worth noting that various assurances given by Charles Clarke regarding access to the national identity register by third party agencies and the private sector have already been undermined by recent comments from the home office and the treasury. That said, an ID card you *have* to carry would be very unpopular, it changes the relationship between citizen and state when you can no longer walk around freely without proof of your entitlement to be in the country. As far as I was aware in America you do not actually have to produce your ID unless you are accused of a crime (or buying a drink). Maybe I'm wrong. Fortunately the damn things are going to be a monumental cock-up, all we'll have to do is pay for them, it seems unlikely we'll get to use them in the next decade.

I don’t think Archergirl is saying the American political system is flawless, just that, by its nature, it could not possibly allow something like Fascism to become the ruling creed. Having done Politics ‘A’ Level (oops, a bit of self-trumpet-blowing there…), I have some knowledge of what she’s talking about – I personally found my education in the American political system to be fascinating. It’s so complex (even more so that AG’s simplified version), that I’m not sure how most of its participants can understand what’s going on (and that’s not an anti-American slight, by the way – just a comment on the fact that probably most politicians everywhere are voted in by virtue of many things other than intelligence…). And the ‘checks and balances’ which the forefathers, with all the best intentions, set in place to defend against the possibility of totalitarianism or the like, seem to actually prohibit anything very significant from happening ever… which, getting back to AG’s original argument, can be a good thing, as it disallows the possibility of Fascism! As far as paranoia goes, although I’m sure no one believes that Osama Bin Laden is personally omnipotent, is it really so hard to believe that there are cells of his international terrorist organisation everywhere…? Not sure what my opinion is on the whole ID card issue… I’ll tootle off and have a think about that one... Anyway, good to see you’ve got time to pop in occasionally in between legs of your roadtrip, AG… Looking forward to your more regular contributions upon your return to the good ole U of K! ~PEPS~ “You do not truly know someone until you fight them.”

Sparsecad, I get the impression that you believe that you speak for the whole nation when you lose the plot and start ranting about civil rights and the USA. Sorry but you don't. The use of the 'royal we' looks and sounds good but it's erroneous. Your obvious hatred of the USA completely negates your argument. You need to take a long hard look in a mirror and re-assess your impartiality. Civil rights in the UK are not any better than they are over there. We have cops that shoot people, beat them to death occasionally, ignore their medical conditions whilst lying on a cell floor to the point of death and whaddya know, no one ever gets prosecuted for these crimes against HUMAN rights, never mind civil ones. This country was the main player in slavery and many other practices seen as breaches of rights, but then people like you get all self-righteous whenever rights, civil or human, are being discussed, especially when the USA are involved. Please try and understand this. America is no more guilty of any crime than the UK is. OK, that doesn't make any of it right, but ya know that old saying about glasshouses and stones comes to mind every time you start ranting from your superior pedestal. (there ya are Hitch, I just knew I could get a pedestal in there sooner or later). Most Americans are only ex-patriot Europeans anyway, in other words they ARE us. Another point that neither you nor your ilk will find the stomach to accept is that without bthe USA's help and support over the last hundred years you and the rest of us would be living under the yoke of one foreign dictator or another. For their support and help in the past I thank the USA. That doesn't mean I can't see that sometimes they get things wrong, but as I've just pointed out, so do we. America's record on human rights is no worse than ours, or indeed most European powers. The ID card row won't go away. Partly because people in general see ANY new law as undermining civil liberties. The truth is that we already have to carry some form of ID if we want to go about our business without problems. Yesterday I wanted to get some foreign currency and was told there was no way the Bureaux de Change would accept my debit card without a passport or drivers licence. I couldn't even spend my own fucking money without ID. As Dan says, many people here are worried about 'big brother' methods of population control emanating from the institution of ID cards. What I would say about that is that we already have the means (and no doubt they are used) to 'spy' on citizens in this country. For example, the UK has NEVER had secret ballots to elect governments. The authorities can identify every single voter and who they voted for. I believe that Special Branch use these methods to identify National Front voters etc. In the past I and friends have had long drawn out correspondence on these matters with MP's, (Clement Freud being one that defended the system on the basis that although it is possible to identify voters from their ballot papers, it doesn't happen! Yeah right.) The main objection to ID cards apart from the fears of the population is that they aren't secure anyway. I read in The Times in the last few days that an IT security expert said it was easy to decode and copy information in the new biometric passports and forge them. The reason biometrics are being used is that many other countries are starting to use them and are insisting on their use to allow free passage. The idea that the UK is an island of civil rights in an ocean of 1984 style controls is crap. Apparently we are already caught on CCTV cameras anything up to 300 times a day as it is. The police already have the right to demand identification of some sort if they suspect a crime has been commited. I can't remember a time when I wasn't obliged to produce my drivers licence within five days. Having to have ID on your person 24/7 is an annoyance I suppose, and would be unacceptable if it was a crime to not have any, but ultimately we all have to identify ourselves at some point, even if it's only to get a death certificate!

You mean to say the organ-grinder is out of the country and you're still kissing her arse monkey boy? ~SAGS~ "You don't truly know someone til you kiss their arse."

>>> You mean to say the organ-grinder is out of the country and you're still kissing her arse monkey boy? I may be wrong, but I suspect this comment was directed at me! Are you referring to the fact that I agree with some of the things Archergirl says? Hold the phone! Now don’t get an aneurysm when I say this, but she has said she agrees with some of the things I have said also. Lock us up and throw away the key! Honestly, people who agree with each other should be shot… ~PEPS~ “You do not truly know someone until you fight them.”

"The idea that the UK is an island of civil rights in an ocean of 1984 style controls is crap. Apparently we are already caught on CTTV cameras anything up to 300 times a day as it is." I agree with this, but the problem with your argument is surely that you're conflating a small difference with no difference at all. Sure, the place is already in an unacceptable state where civil rights are concerned, but people oppose further measures because, though the difference with each step might be small, they can add up pretty fast. And ID cards are a relatively big step. Archergirl - I didn't look up 'checks and balances' because it's a generic phrase that I didn't expect to be any good helping me track down America's particular arrangement. Frankly, I'm still not convinced the system you describe could prevent a competent dictator taking over. Might make a bit of an obstacle course for them, but believing that any mere system stands in the way of single party rule is an act of ludicrous and dangerous faith. It's pure 'unsinkable ship' territory. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants Fuselit The Prowl Log Woe's Woe

Well actually Jon, ID cards AREN'T really a big step. It's almost impossible to do anything in this country withour proving identity. All the financial institutions require it, the police require it in one form or another, airports require it and so do many other institutions/businesses that we have to deal with on an almost daily basis. Short of being a hermit everyone needs to be able to prove who they are at some point. I thought I expressed my view in my previous post that the concerns are not so much about having ID cards but how the collected information is used other than as ID in the course of normal day to day activities. Inspite of the authorities believing ID cards will make the nation more secure, I believe they will actually make it easier for criminals to operate. This is based on the ease with which they can be forged (referred to in my previous post), and the fact that once instituted most people will accept an ID as solid proof of identity, making it easier for criminals to move around the country and indulge in their activities. The whole point of ID cards is to provide irrefutable proof of identity, so challenging them is not going to happen. Until such time as they contain DNA samples and can be checked against, for instance, a saliva sample, at the point of use they are a waste of time and money. Identity theft has multiplied in the last 5 years, with apparently 10% of the population having been victims, and ID cards will help the thieves.

>>> It's pure 'unsinkable ship' territory. I’m going to be accused of more ass-kissery here, but what the hell! Of course, no system is infallible. The Good Ship American-Political-System is as sinkable as any other. I think in terms of likelihoods, though, AG is right. My personal knowledge of such things is based on 15 year old memories, but I doubt anything much has fundamentally changed in that time. It is truly fascinating to learn how difficult it is to get a law passed in The States! I think, under present circumstances, we are as likely to see an American Fascist Dictatorship as to see Microsoft abandoning Windows in favour of a new, instinctive, bubble-based operating system (of course, Microsoft Bubbles™ could happen in my lifetime, but I’m not about to rush down to William Hill to place more than a 50p bet on it!). What may substantially increase this possibility is A. a nuclear war, B. a revolution, or C. both; but then I think we’re getting into Judge Dredd territory… ~PEPS~ “You do not truly know someone until you fight them.”

The worst aspect of politics in this country, in my opinion, are local politics. State political systems seem to work pretty well, on a national level, there is a lot of news but the boat doesn't list with every shift of the breeze. Local politics...at the community level are where things get hairy. These things affect your life every day, zoning laws are the most abused and corrupt aspect of this. Some of these "county officials" or "city officials" can turn into little Hitlers or even worse absolute theives. Municipal police departments have a large variation in quality and training, most run with traffice enforcement used as a means of revenue generation under the guise of public safety. A bastion of "good ole boy" networks there. ID cards are a waste of time. I think I agree that all they will do is make it easier for thieves. The commercial world already has more info on you than the government, Imagine the government harassing you as much as telemarketers or sales calls or spam. That's what'll end up happening with a national ID card. Your name can end up popping up in a database for no reason other than some idiot goofed up their spelling or something and it will make it much easier for the government to make a life altering mistake on your behalf. Hell, we recently had a Veterans official's laptop computer stolen with something like 2.5 million veteran records on it. The best way for the government to protect you is to leave you alone and not make it easier to screw up your life. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Spartarcad said: "Primarily the issue of civil liberty and America strikes me as being wittily obscene, ideally and especially when coming from a Yank who has abandoned the land of the ‘dubious free’ and rejoined the Anglo-Saxon mother land for her own intellectual comfort." Oh puhleeze. Americans are far more obsessed with civil liberties than I think you imagine, Sparts; in fact, our demand for 'rights' swings almost into Libertarian territory, where the government has little say over what we do and do not do. Your objections, I would counter, are very rich, indeed, coming from a nanny state that insists that my children, who are quite large now, have to ride in a car seat until they are frickin' ELEVEN years old and nearly as tall as I am. Great Britian, god love it, has far more rules and regulations governing its people than most Yanks would fear to dream, including MOT'ing cars, licensing of televisions (talk about Big Brother!), and the benefits police snooping around seeing if you are buying just a little too much tea for what your Giro cheque ought to. So I'm not sure you're qualified to objectively critique the US for its 'civil liberties' infringements. Its political savvy, now, would be another argument altogether, and I wouldn't be in disagreement with you. I would point out that I didn't move here for my intellectual comfort. I moved here for love. *wink*

Ag, I have to say that I don't really get your objection to kids upto 11 having to ride in car seats - do you put them in the boot in the US or tie them to the roof-rack?

mykle, with respect, do you have kids? Do you know what a royal pain in the arse having to buy increasingly big and expensive 'special' seats for kids is, considering you have to not only strap the seat into the car (where it usually doesn't fit because of seat design) but then have to strap the kids into the strapped-in seat? When I was growing up, we not only didn't have car seats for 11-year-olds, we didn't even *really* have seat belts, certainly not in the back seats. I'm not saying that 'those were the good old days', but it seems to me that if people want to risk their kids flying through the windscreen, it should be their right to do so, and not have the bloody government dictate not only that we have to strap our kids in, but *also* have to fuel the carseat industry as well. It's bollocks. My kids wear seatbelts; they ride in the back seat; they are almost as tall as me; shouldn't that be enough? Why not stick it to parents who let their kids smoke or get grotesquely overweight, which will cost the taxpayer far more, instead? No doubt the government is getting kickbacks from Britax, or whoever...

Dullard...now there is a good word. AG, I would sooner rob a bank than force an 11 year old to ride in a car seat. Are you serious about that? Who is the friggn' idiot kafka spawn that thought up that idea? All these American experts...I'm telling you...I don't know how I've stayed alive all these years without this in depth knowledge of my country and how I am living. Think I'll go for a walk and see if I can see some fat lazy Americans drinking gasoline and farting CO2 while we plan our next beer-hall putsch to finally get rid of the last bit of undesirables in the world. Oh, and while I'm at it....Jack Cade...you're still a weenie boy.... (thought I'd start it this time) Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

I'm dead serious, RD, some great thinker has decided that by September I have to stuff my kids into gigantic car seats, as if there isn't enough other shit to worry about.

Isn't it past your bedtime AG? It is only 11 PM here. Lemme see, that makes it 6:00 am there? Well, rush on down to Walmart and pick up your super-duper 11 year old child seat, and pick up some of those anti-choke attachments while you're at it, don't want the pre-teens choking on their toys. I guess weenie must be sleeping it off about now.... What do you call a chicken that you put in a car seat? Poultry in motion. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

>>> licensing of televisions (talk about Big Brother!) …you know, you’ve just made me realise what a crazy thing TV licensing is! (didn’t realise you didn’t have it in The States) >>> I would point out that I didn't move here for my intellectual comfort. I moved here for love. …awwww :-) ( Love him or loath him, RD is so-o-o-o entertaining!! :-) :-) :-) ) ~PEPS~ “There is no spoon.”

That's more than can be said for some.

Yes, Missi, thank you for brining me down to Earth. ~PEPS~ “There is no spoon.”

AG does it start in September? I thought it was just one of those dead brainers they were kicking round, so yeah sadly RD it's true. Even sadder is me laughing at my young brother in law who's affected by it. But no it is a piss take, specially when at the same time we're always being told that we don't know how to install said seats anyway so the kids in the seats are unsafe. Mine are still at an age where they have to be in seats, but my eldest, who's autistic, he's a nightmare to get in one now, so who knows how they'll enforce that one. The idea of TV licences is so the BBC gets funding outside of government and business, so it's impartial. Whether it works or not is another matter. Do not fear, the ID card will solve it all, they will then know everything at the touch of a button. Even banking details and store loyalty cards in their bid to cut crime, it will help them locate offenders. It's a well known fact most criminals have a Tesco clubcard and there's no way, no matter how serious a crime they're on the run for, they're gonna miss them 40 bonus points. It's all quite worrying really, more so because of the pretence that surrounds why we need them. nobody

The title of this thread is almost a prediction for the forums. From Freedom To Fascism (again). Every now and then the malcontents get together to try and rid the forums of those they don't approve of. Let's get rid of him, him, him and her because we can't control them. For some reason being cheerful, thoughtful, earnest or intelligent has always been a sin on this forum. So the same old, same old, using whatever new pen-name, creep out of the woodwork to spew their poison. We don't like what you're posting - they say. Well tough! Isn't there room for all your wonderful contributions then? Space is so scarce that you must get rid of anything that is not up to your standards so there is room for your continous pearls of wisdom? Maybe your standards are so high you can't actually write anything yourselves that meet them and hence you don't post. Unless of course you really think the poison you spew when you do actually post anything is truly great prose.

It interests me that earlier on this thread it was argued that laws protect people from Fascism - but that is only true if those laws are enforced and that requires people who are willing to oppose. The point being that when someone opposes they are added to the list of 'enemies'. Then they are bullied, attempts are made to discredit them, drive them away, or force them into silence. If the bullies suceed then the fascists win because there is no-one left who dares to oppose them. Hence a tiny minority have imposed their 'will' on the entire population again... their only real strength being a ruthless detemination to win AT ANY COST. You can see some of this in microcosm here on ABC. Although it is terrorists and not the leaders who are doing the bullying. Attempting to force the community to play by their rules. As Liana succinctly put it "Ruler threads... lord. Have at it."

oh give it a rest

:O)