Fascism is the union of government with private business against the People.
"To The States, or any one of them, or to any city of The States: Resist much, Obey little; Once unquestioning obedience, at once fully enslaved; Once fully enslaved, no nation, state, city, ever afterward resumes its liberty." from "Caution" by Walt Whitman

Monday, February 6, 2012

How is Fascism defined?

The process of Fascism follows a certain set of characteristics conditioned on the personal moralities and lifestyles of the cartels and their economic bureaucrats.
These individuals use their monopolized media to spread false information about what "fascism" is. Fascist agents publish or repeat assertions that "fascism is leftist", that anybody working to defend the ecology, labor rights, or human rights are "fascists". Notice that these "fascists" are advocating for ideas which impact the profit making of the actual fascist cartels.

The following links are to articles showing EXACTLY how the USA has become fascism. These are written by capitalist conservatives:

However, the confusion stemming from the actual fascist propaganda cartels about what constitutes fascism is prevalent:

2012-01-22 "Fascism, socialism not interchangeable ideas" by Wolfgang Sailler of Salem
In his Jan. 12 letter, Tom Salzmann perpetuates an error equating fascism/naziism with socialism/communism.
On the face of it, the 25 point program of the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers Party) can be mistaken for a socialist program but that was only a cover to attract the innocent and hide the true aim of the movement which was corporatism. They (fascists) denounced Marxists and Social Democrats to the point of killing them as time went on.
In all fascist countries, the economy evolved into something like an oligopoly: Few very large corporations owned and run by an elite class of capitalists who were also influential party members or at least supported them. (This does sound like the machinations of some people of our time.)
Communism was based on the idea to share all productive means for the good of all. Similarities between the systems lie in the fact that both needed pressure from above to perpetuate themselves and ultimately ended in dictatorships that would not tolerate dissent.

2012-01-11 "Fascism really a left-wing ideology" by Tom R. Salzmann of Salem
Have our wonderful American universities become seminaries for the indoctrination of old, tired, failed, left-wing ideologies taught by secular priests known as professors?
Evidence to support this view is conveyed by retired professor Jim King's Jan. 9 guest opinion, "Occupy reaches new phase of movement."
King writes that we have a "failed corporate capitalist system." I would remind the professor as kindly as I can that he was provided a comfortable, stable income for what he did by this "failed corporate capitalist system" and a secure retirement income as well, which makes it possible for him to leisurely sit back and spew forth his particular brand of propaganda. Instead of showing gratitude, he bites the hand that feeds him.
Contrary to what you may have been taught by professors or the media, fascism and communism are two sides of the same totalitarian coin. Nazi refers to National Socialism. They are both left-wing ideologies.
To call a conservative a fascist (as leftists frequently do — they don't know what it means, they just know it's an insult to people they don't like), reveals their bigotry and ignorance of history.

2012-01-21 "Fascism, socialism are close" by Dave Barker of Greenacres
I am afraid Nancy Runyan (“Conservatives need mirror” – Jan. 15) does not know her history or politics.
 Fascism is not the polar opposite of socialism. It is its twin brother, and in all relevant aspects. The wrong-headed idea that fascism is somehow to the far right of communism was promoted by none other than Josef Stalin. He was trying to distinguish his workers-of-the-world dictatorship from the National Socialist dictatorship of Hitler.
 The real polar opposite of this evil set of twins is the free-market libertarian who adheres to the belief that the only moral function of government is to provide an army for international protection, a police force for fraud and other crime, and a system of courts. Some libertarians would also include a bureau of standards for weights and measures. That’s it.
 No mechanism of government for corporate cronies would even exist. For a mind-blowing education, I would encourage the reading of Jonah Goldberg’s excellent book “Liberal Fascism.”

"Corporate Facism and Nationalist Democracy Fail!" by Tracy Turner
Market force greed does not equal freedom, democracy or bill of rights...
Wall Street, the banking sector and politicians talk about the money made from money economy as if that itself represents freedom and democracy. Aside from the market needing continuous adjustments that detract from it's boosters yeah-saying"
 If the United States, fails to recognize that market forces and democracy are opposing forces, one of which devours the bill of rights, America as a democracy will fail, if it has not already failed.
 Market economics corrupt corporate boards and the entire electoral process" Absolute corruption that erodes democracy absolutely. Fascist corporations buying the elected are the twin pillars of Oligarchy/Plutarchy/Fascism. The undermined pillars fall with a painful burden on the shoulders of the general populace of America, France, Greece, Italy and the United Kingdom. American corporations are setting an example, which now demands democracy exported by missile and gun-muzzle.
 Why do we think our so-called enemies would want to be owned by Deutsch bank and Dutch Shell, with Disney-frosting-non-news on top? I did not see one TV station cover due-process getting stabbed in the back by corporate-run-government"
 The market economy corrupts citizen's rights. Democracies run on ideas, not on greed and money. Greed and money destabilize the stable; impoverish the haves into have-nots. Market forces never overcome poverty. Truth never comes from the mouths of the paid for politicians. The Untied States of America has become a horse. The horse is wearing a saddle and saddlebags, which are multinational corporations and their bribery. The horse is also wearing blinders, which are whoever we are at war with today, to confuse the populace into being fleeced like silent lambs. All wool goes into the war effort, but only a few muted bleats are heard.

The following article uses an anti-Fascist law to claim that "liberal fascism" is happening.
Monopolized drug companies have long been protected from prosecution their habit of bribing doctors to promote the use of dangerous drugs without oversight. Now that a law has been put into place to save lives from this fascist business policy, the drug companies have produced propaganda claiming they are the victims to "fascism"!
2012-01-17 "The Face of Obamacare’s Incremental Liberal Fascism?" by Samuel R. Staley
If anyone was interested in how Obamacare might lead incrementally to the health-care industry’s form of “Liberal Fascism,” look no further than today’s New York Times article on the recently announced disclosure requirements for medical firms (“U.S. to Force Drug Firms to Report Money Paid to Doctors“), The goal, of course, is laudable — make doctors tell their patients if they receive compensation from drug and medical-device makers. After all, doctors respond to incentives like everyone else. But, as they say, the devil is in the details, and it’s the way the transparency effort is being implemented that opens the door to strangling innovation.
 Rather than simply require doctors to disclose the information to their patients, Obamacare requires drug companies to provide to the government what payments they make to doctors for research, consulting, travel, and entertainment. This information will then be put on a web site so everyone can access it. And the government will ramp up staff to audit the information for accuracy and, presumably, monitor and enforce compliance. Voila! Instant bureaucracy. One has to wonder where all the “savings” from cheaper (and less effective?) procedures presumably incentivized by this disclosure will go.
  But perhaps the most telling part of the NYT reporting on the policy is the complete lack of reference to whether this will improve health outcomes. The Times reports that “researchers” (including its own reporting) have found that doctors that take money from drug companies tend “practice medicine differently” and prescribe more expensive and sometimes riskier medicines. But the real issue is whether there are improved outcomes for the patient, not whether it’s more or less expensive or even more risky. It’s the patient and the doctor that should decide the relative merits of the risk involved with any particular treatment.
  Moreover, by opening the door to providing detailed data about individual doctors, and making implicit assumptions about treatment (expensive and risky is presumptively “bad”), the mechanism used for reporting and enforcing transparency is clearly opening up a door to future regulation of doctor-patient relationships.
  Notably, the rules apply only to doctors providing Medicaid and Medicare services. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how this will eventually be applied to the entire profession if: 1) the program is deemed successful by politicians (and the nationwide individual mandate under Obamcare is ruled Constitutional), or 2) doctors withdraw from Medicaid and Medicare to avoid disclosure requirements, thereby limiting the services available to seniors and lower income households.”

No comments:

Post a Comment