The Rise Of Fascism

This forum is for discussion of political topics, and other serious non-football related debates. Please start these topics here, or they will eventually be moved here.

Moderators: salmar80, NCF, JustJeff, packfntk, APB, BF004, mnkcarp

The Rise Of Fascism

Postby get louder at lambeau » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:34 am

User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: The Rise Of Fascism

Postby RodgePodge » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:27 am

?
Make the Packers Great Again!
User avatar
RodgePodge
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:59 am

Re: The Rise Of Fascism

Postby APB » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:49 pm

Maybe I'm dense, but what I take from that article is 1) the U.S. is the imperialistic bad guy, 2) Putin is the non-secular, freedom embracing good guy, and 3) the international media has been involved in a multifaceted, decades long cover-up conspiracy. Is that about right?
User avatar
APB
 
Posts: 8275
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: The Rise Of Fascism

Postby APB » Sat Feb 28, 2015 4:04 am

If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained "pariah" role in the West will justify the lie that Russia is invading Ukraine.


A leading Russian opposition politician, former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov, has been shot dead in Moscow, Russian officials say.

An unidentified attacker in a car shot Mr Nemtsov four times in the back as he crossed a bridge in view of the Kremlin, police say.

He died hours after appealing for support for a march on Sunday in Moscow against the war in Ukraine.

In a recent interview, Mr Nemtsov had said he feared Mr Putin would have him killed because of his opposition to the war in Ukraine.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31669061

Is that the war that isn't happening in Ukraine, as referenced by Mr. Pilger?
User avatar
APB
 
Posts: 8275
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: The Rise Of Fascism

Postby APB » Sat Feb 28, 2015 4:34 am

This part struck me, too:

The "humanitarian war" against Libya drew on a model close to western liberal hearts, especially in the media. In 1999, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair sent Nato to bomb Serbia, because, they lied, the Serbs were committing "genocide" against ethnic Albanians in the secessionist province of Kosovo. David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes [sic], claimed that as many as "225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59" might have been murdered. Both Clinton and Blair evoked the Holocaust and "the spirit of the Second World War". The West's heroic allies were the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose criminal record was set aside. The British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told them to call him any time on his mobile phone.

With the Nato bombing over, and much of Serbia's infrastructure in ruins, along with schools, hospitals, monasteries and the national TV station, international forensic teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume evidence of the "holocaust". The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines". A year later, a United Nations tribunal on Yugoslavia announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. There was no genocide. The "holocaust" was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent.


Failed to find a mass grave? Are you $#!! me? There were/are mass graves all over Kosovo. Hell, they just unearthed another 37 bodies (and counting) from a site just last year. How do I know these reports aren't some media or government fabrication? I know because I was there for nearly a year of my life and was personally witness to several. For this idiot to argue there were no mass graves in Kosovo is utter stupidity. How can I take the rest of his "report" serious if it's so ridiculously obvious he's willing to ignore evidence that is indisputable?
User avatar
APB
 
Posts: 8275
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: The Rise Of Fascism

Postby get louder at lambeau » Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:33 pm

APB wrote:Maybe I'm dense, but what I take from that article is 1) the U.S. is the imperialistic bad guy,


He's certainly no fan of what he sees as a modern day version of neo-imperialist wars.

If you look at his bio page, you'll see why. Pilger has reported on and made documentaries about many wars and what he sees as the British and U.S. imperialism that drives them since Vietnam. You can call him anti-American if you want to, for his harsh criticism of U.S. foreign policy choices. I'd say he's better described as anti-war and anti-imperialist.

Either way, he's certainly no hack. He's an accomplished, internationally known, veteran war correspondent and documentarian with a very long, impressive resume full of honors and awards. He has been reporting on wars for almost 50 years now. His opinions were not formed through ignorance or hatred, but through what he learned over the course of a long, distinguished career in journalism. I think it would be hard to find a war journalist more expert. He tends to focus on humanitarian issues and their causes.

Here's his bio. - http://johnpilger.com/biography

2) Putin is the non-secular, freedom embracing good guy,


I'm not sure what you are getting at when you say "non-secular" in this case, or how you came to this conclusion. Maybe you can clarify this one?

3) the international media has been involved in a multifaceted, decades long cover-up conspiracy.


Not exactly the way you represent it, but the media IS used extensively by our Government for propaganda and media control purposes throughout the world. You could definitely say that there is a multifaceted, decades long international media control campaign being waged by the U.S. Government. That would be very accurate, I think.

Laws have been passed more than once over the years to try to curtail the spread of U.S. propaganda. Here's some congressional testimony from the 1970s confirming that the CIA has planted stories and assets in the mainstream media since at least the 1950s -



So, our Government's covert propaganda and media control campaigns (in addition to the more overt ones) are known to have been around longer than you or I have been alive, and there's reason to believe that these types of programs have only increased in scope in recent times. For example, less than two years ago Congress effectively repealed parts of decades-old anti-domestic-propaganda legislation with their NDAA bill -
http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-leg ... nda-2012-5

Not sure how aware or unaware you are of our Federal Government's history of usage of propaganda and media control tactics, but I think it tends to be underestimated by most, and with this particular point you seem to be poo-pooing the possibility of a coordinated Governmental effort at controlling the predominant media narrative. I think it is obvious that they do it. Normal, even.

Most people can point to their "favorite" Government lies easily enough, from conservatives knowing some of Obama's biggest lies to liberals being able to quote from Bush and Cheney's worst, but I don't think many want to admit that it is a systemic problem. The lies come regularly from both sides of the aisle, and they are amplified through expensive and vast Government propaganda bullhorns. We grew up in it, so it's just kinda normal to us. It's always been there. Old news. "Probably got fixed at some point," we might think. But did it? Doesn't look that way to me.
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: The Rise Of Fascism

Postby APB » Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:03 pm

I did read his bio prior to responding to you. Your author is accomplished but he's certainly not without his critics. Here are some from his wiki page:

English writer Auberon Waugh, writing in The Spectator in the 1980s in response to an article Pilger had written alleging Thai complicity in child trafficking (whose research was challenged), coined the verb "to pilger", defined as: to present information in a sensationalist manner to reach a foregone conclusion.[87] The word was included in the Oxford Dictionary of New Words in 1991, but removed from the subsequent edition after Pilger complained.[88] Some sources said that he threatened legal action.[89] Noam Chomsky responded to Waugh's neologism by stating that "pilgerize" was "invented by journalists furious about his incisive and courageous reporting, and knowing that the only response they are capable of is ridicule."

William Shawcross has described him as "one of the worst journalists writing in the English language".

Anglo-American writer Christopher Hitchens said of Pilger: "I remember thinking that his work from Vietnam was very good at the time. I dare say if I went back and read it again I'd probably still admire quite a lot of it. But there is a word that gets overused and can be misused – namely, anti-American – and it has to be used about him. So that for me sort of spoils it... even when I'm inclined to agree."

The Economist '​s Lexington columnist commented on Pilger's account of the Arab uprising:
Next up is the egregious John Pilger, who thinks the Arab revolts show that the West in general and the United States in particular are "fascist." ... Maybe he hasn't noticed, but what most of the Arab protesters say they want are the very freedoms that they know full well, even if Pilger doesn't, to be available in the West. No doubt he believes they are labouring under some massive mind-control delusion engineered by the CIA.


The New York magazine columnist Jonathan Chait responded to Pilger's 13 May 2014 column in The Guardian about Ukraine.[94] In the view of Chait, Pilger "defend[s] Vladimir Putin on the grounds that he stands opposed to the United States, which is the font of all evil" as a comical "attempt to cast land-grabbing, ultranationalist dictator Vladimir Putin as an enemy of fascism." [95] It has also been reported that Pilger's column contained a bogus quote from a non-existent Jewish Doctor which misleadingly gave the impression that the demonstrators expressed pro Nazi and antisemitic views while preventing the victims of the Odessa tragedy of 2 May from being rescued.


He's accomplished, but he's not without criticism. He also consistently presents an anti-American skew in his reporting and is to quick condemn US actions based on what he perceives as imperialistic meddling rather than the more likely humanitarian or anti-aggression US position.

As far as the "non-secular" comment, that was more a comment to how Pilger prefers to paint the USSR's overall leadership involvement in Afghanistan, not Putin specifically. I should have worded that better. He notes how Russian leadership supported the supposedly social and religious freedom embracing PDPA regime, this despite Russia's noted anti-religious position. His portrayal of the Afghan government was far from accurate, too. The Afghan people were in open rebellion against the government because the fledgling PDPA were a socialist puppet of the USSR, as well as corrupt and murderous, not because of anything the US was doing covertly.

Pilger's assertion that the USSR was basically forced to involve itself in Afghanistan only after the imperialist US backed the mujaheddin in their attempts to overthrow the rightful Afghan leadership is a crock. Talk about revisionist history. Afghanistan was in the midst of a civil war because they wanted none of the communist PDPA. The USSR involved itself because their puppets to the south were about to be overthrown by a people who had seen enough in the 1 1/2 year rule of the PDPA to know they wanted nothing to do with them.

Finally, I don't dispute the US government uses the media to further its agenda. Then again, show me a government that doesn't. It's a necessary evil in world politics. Does that make it right? I don't know, but to condemn the US because they use media to push an agenda when the other world players do exactly the same thing seems a bit dishonest to me. Maybe the US does it on a different level, I don't know. But you can't tell me all the world powers don't manipulate the media and plant stories to further their agendas. It's gone on since town criers spread the news. Other than perhaps the scope, I don't know why the US is suddenly the bad guy for doing what's been done for generations. Public knowledge of these activities is about the only thing that's changed.
User avatar
APB
 
Posts: 8275
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: The Rise Of Fascism

Postby dsr » Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:58 pm

get louder at lambeau wrote:Either way, he's certainly no hack. He's an accomplished, internationally known, veteran war correspondent and documentarian with a very long, impressive resume full of honors and awards. He has been reporting on wars for almost 50 years now. His opinions were not formed through ignorance or hatred, but through what he learned over the course of a long, distinguished career in journalism. I think it would be hard to find a war journalist more expert. He tends to focus on humanitarian issues and their causes.

He's certainly internationally known. I know about him here in England. And one of the things I know is that his reports do not have enough acquaintance with the truth to be worth looking at.

Maybe I'm biased, but as far as I'm concerned anyone who always sides with Russia and other dictatorships ahead of the USA and other democracies, is not to be relied on or even listened to.
dsr
 
Posts: 1298
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Lancashire, England

Re: The Rise Of Fascism

Postby get louder at lambeau » Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:49 pm

dsr wrote:
get louder at lambeau wrote:Either way, he's certainly no hack. He's an accomplished, internationally known, veteran war correspondent and documentarian with a very long, impressive resume full of honors and awards. He has been reporting on wars for almost 50 years now. His opinions were not formed through ignorance or hatred, but through what he learned over the course of a long, distinguished career in journalism. I think it would be hard to find a war journalist more expert. He tends to focus on humanitarian issues and their causes.

He's certainly internationally known. I know about him here in England. And one of the things I know is that his reports do not have enough acquaintance with the truth to be worth looking at.

Maybe I'm biased, but as far as I'm concerned anyone who always sides with Russia and other dictatorships ahead of the USA and other democracies, is not to be relied on or even listened to.


I appreciate the input from across the pond, dsr. With all due respect, your last sentence shows that maybe you ARE pretty biased, or maybe just not fully aware of what is really going on. You could certainly be forgiven, as this is a widely-held concept, but it is not anywhere near that simple as "the USA and other democracies" vs. "Russia and other dictatorships."

Russia has been "democratic" for a couple decades now. I'd guess that they are probably a pretty corrupt democracy, but we Americans live in a glass house on that issue, IMO. The US just recently helped overthrow the democratically elected government of the Ukraine. The western press doesn't talk about it, but our Assistant Secretary of State and our Ambassador to the Ukraine were caught on tape picking the new government out before the uprising began. Our Vice President's son is now on the board of their largest oil company, and the Ukrainian Minister of Finance is an American citizen who came from the US State Department. Meanwhile, we lecture the Russians about not interfering in the Ukraine.

I have been on a bit of an info binge lately, trying to figure out what is really going on in the world after realizing that our western governments and press are not as democratic or as free as we would like to believe, and that a lot of what we believe is consequently based on lies. Up until fairly recently, I, like most people, tended to trust our press, if not our Government, to act more or less in the best interests of the citizens.

From the Iraq War lies leading to the deaths of tens (maybe hundreds?) of thousands of innocent people, to the 9/11 Commission's co-chairs and legal council coming out and saying things like that they were "set up to fail", to the senior legal council of the same commission declaring that the Commission "discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue. At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened...The (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public." Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: "We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

Those are some pretty damn concerning lies. One war is now known to have been based on lies, the other is based on a terrorist attack where the report's authors complain about being setup to fail and being lied to by multiple Governmental agencies. The criticism in the case of 9/11 comes directly from the people who WROTE the story, not from some conspiracy theorist. It's crazy that there was so little discussion of that in our media. I'd bet most people don't know that Bin Laden was never even charged with the crimes of 9/11, because, according to an FBI spokesman in 2006, "The FBI has no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11." So, there is no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks, but we waged war against Afghanistan to go get him anyway. And we know the same group of people who set up the 9/11 commission to fail also lied to justify a pre-destined war with Iraq. It just blows my mind how badly we the public have been deceived.

I, like most, used to assume that those who criticized the official 9/11 version just didn't want to believe it for one reason or another, or were just paranoid or something. (Some are, of course.) I didn't have any interest in hearing their wacky ideas. Now I know that there are real, significant doubts and real, unanswered questions about 9/11. MAJOR ones. That a LOT of people, some from intelligence agencies, doubt the official version. And that we are just trusting proven war-mongering liars to tell us the truth about what really happened.

One of the most significant of those unanswered questions is who actually FUNDED the 9/11 operation. Kinda important stuff, right? Who most-likely funded the operation is supposedly disclosed in another report done by Congress, but the 28 page section relating to who likely funded the operation is classified. Rumors and leaks say that it implicates people in the government of Saudi Arabia, who remain a close ally of ours despite most of the highjackers being Saudis, and despite them allegedly funding both 9/11 and ISIS as well. And they are no democracy either, of course. They are a brutal Islamic dictatorship/monarchy that beheads people for crimes like "sorcery". You won't hear any of our politicians trying to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia or to hold them accountable for funding the 9/11 attacks or for most of the highjackers (and Bin Laden) being Saudis. None of the highjackers were Afghanis or Iraqis, but they are the ones who got destroyed anyway, while Saudi Arabia is still our bosom buddy. It's just plain surreal.

Image

Add in Edward Snowden's revelations, the Wikileaks scandal, the west-supported violent overthrow of Libya, our attacks on Syria, the Patriot Act, and all the rest, and it seems pretty obvious that what we are often kept in the dark and lied to by our own governments and our "free" press to such an extent that it skews our beliefs very badly.

As far as I can tell, John Pilger is not a communist, but an Australian journalist who has seen many of these lies up close as a war correspondent. As a western reporter, he reports on the wars western countries wage. He has thus seen the lies and atrocities of western governments up close. That could legitimately explain his anti-imperialist/anti-American/anti-whatever bias in and of itself.

Here is one of Pilger's documentaries called "The War on Democracy" about the undeclared CIA "Dirty Wars" that sheds some light on how Pilger's viewpoint would come to be different than that of the average westerner based not on his own lack of "acquaintance with the truth", but because of our own.

User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: The Rise Of Fascism

Postby get louder at lambeau » Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:28 pm

APB wrote:This part struck me, too:

The "humanitarian war" against Libya drew on a model close to western liberal hearts, especially in the media. In 1999, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair sent Nato to bomb Serbia, because, they lied, the Serbs were committing "genocide" against ethnic Albanians in the secessionist province of Kosovo. David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes [sic], claimed that as many as "225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59" might have been murdered. Both Clinton and Blair evoked the Holocaust and "the spirit of the Second World War". The West's heroic allies were the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose criminal record was set aside. The British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told them to call him any time on his mobile phone.

With the Nato bombing over, and much of Serbia's infrastructure in ruins, along with schools, hospitals, monasteries and the national TV station, international forensic teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume evidence of the "holocaust". The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines". A year later, a United Nations tribunal on Yugoslavia announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. There was no genocide. The "holocaust" was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent.


Failed to find a mass grave? Are you $#!! me? There were/are mass graves all over Kosovo. Hell, they just unearthed another 37 bodies (and counting) from a site just last year. How do I know these reports aren't some media or government fabrication? I know because I was there for nearly a year of my life and was personally witness to several. For this idiot to argue there were no mass graves in Kosovo is utter stupidity. How can I take the rest of his "report" serious if it's so ridiculously obvious he's willing to ignore evidence that is indisputable?


I'd be interested in hearing more about your experiences in Kosovo, Army. I don't know much about it. Got any good links that tell the story in a nutshell?

As to your dispute though, it seems clear that a grave with 37 people in it isn't the level of mass grave that would suffice as evidence for the accuracy of claims of genocide with 225,000 dead Albanians. Not sure what the official numbers are, but it looks like the estimates used to justify intervention were nowhere near reality. If they claimed 225,000, and it turns out that there was really maybe 5-10% of that, it's fair to say your estimate sucked pretty badly and it's fair to wonder if it may have even been an intentional distortion.

Thousands of dead is a horrible tragedy, of course, and may have justified the operation either way, but if they claimed hundreds of thousands, then that seems to have been a pretty ridiculously massive overestimate. Pilger seems to see that as just another lie in a long string of lies used to justify military interventions. He doesn't seem to have ignored that evidence, as you claim he did, as he did mention a death total in the thousands. His issue is obviously that the pre-NATO-intervention estimates as they were presented to the public appear to have been massive distortions of the truth.
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: The Rise Of Fascism

Postby APB » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:28 am

Do you know why the "genocide" claim against the Milosevic regime was dismissed? It wasn't because the Serbs weren't indiscriminently raping, torturing and/or killing ethnic Albanians by the thousands - they were. It's because the UN supervised Supreme Court of Kosovo ruled that what the Serbs were doing didn't fit the technical definition of genocide.

Genocide, by definition, means that the purpose of the action is the complete destruction of a specific ethnic group, in this case the ethnic Albanians. The Serb motivation was not the destruction of the Albanians, just their forceful removal from Kosovo. Since they allowed thousands to flee to neighboring Albania and Macedonia, the Serbs could not, by definition, be charged with genocide. They were found to have committed war crimes on a grand scale, just not genocide. Pilger is quick to point this out while conveniently leaving out the sordid details of those crimes they were found to have committed.

Kosovo's highest legal body has ruled that genocide was not committed during the 1998-99 Serbian crackdown on the breakaway province, according to a court decision released yesterday. The UN-supervised Supreme Court, however, ruled that crimes against humanity and war crimes had been carried out during "a systematic campaign of terror, including murders, rapes, arson and severe maltreatments."

"The exactions committed by (former Yugoslav president Slobodan) Milosevic's regime cannot be qualified as criminal acts of genocide, since their purpose was not the destruction of the Albanian ethnic group... but its forceful departure from Kosovo," said the province's Supreme Court.

http://www.balkanpeace.org/index.php?index=article&articleid=13532

I ask you, is that what you gathered from Pilger's writing? Was his account an accurate depiction of the Kosovo conflict, as judged by the UN supervised Supreme Court of Kosovo?

One other thing that's been bothering me: Pilger's quote of Ambassador David Scheffer's ridiculously high estimation of murders committed by the Serbs.

David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes [sic], claimed that as many as "225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59" might have been murdered.

Don't you think it's peculiar that Scheffer's quoted portion only includes "225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59" and not anything else? Why would Pilger only pull a portion of a sentence as a direct quote and not his entire statement? Well, I did some digging and I'll bet you'll never guess what I found.

He never said there were 225,000 murdered.

The statement in question comes from a speech David Scheffer gave at NATO headquarters on May 18, 1999 on the atrocities being committed by the Milosevic regime. The particular context surrounding that statement was in regard to the Serbs using Albanians as human shields and the Albanian population fleeing enmasse as a result, and this was his estimation of unaccounted for Albanians, not murdered Albanians. With a fleeing population, surely it is understandable that there would be a very high number of unaccounted for persons. "Unaccounted for" does not equate to "murdered." That's simply dishonest journalism.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find a direct transcript from that speech. However, I was able to find several news stories reporting on Scheffer's address to NATO. Here's an example of one such article that includes the reference.

Google search that line from Pilger's article and you'll find it has been repeated a number of times in various articles and reports. Coincidentally, they're pretty much exclusively from organizations with a similar agenda as Pilger. Go figure. This appears to be one of those "if you repeat it enough, it must be true" type statements. Problem is, it isn't a direct quote, only a portion of a statement taken out of context and used to validate a preconceived and illegitimate narrative.

So yeah, I can't say I hold Pilger in very high regard at this point.
User avatar
APB
 
Posts: 8275
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: The Rise Of Fascism

Postby dsr » Wed Mar 04, 2015 1:41 pm

get louder at lambeau wrote:
dsr wrote:I appreciate the input from across the pond, dsr. With all due respect, your last sentence shows that maybe you ARE pretty biased, or maybe just not fully aware of what is really going on. You could certainly be forgiven, as this is a widely-held concept, but it is not anywhere near that simple as "the USA and other democracies" vs. "Russia and other dictatorships."

Russia has been "democratic" for a couple decades now. I'd guess that they are probably a pretty corrupt democracy, but we Americans live in a glass house on that issue, IMO.

I would disagree that Russia is a corrupt democracy. Russia is no democracy at all. You're allowed to vote, but only Putin is allowed to win. The Soviet Union had a democratic process whereby everyone was allowed to vote, but it wasn't a democracy and no more is Russia.

Yes, I'm biased. Biased in favour of my own government, with all its faults, against the genuinely fascist governments such as Russia. It amazes me that Pilger can (presumably without irony) rail against fascism for a long article and then mention Putin favourably at the end.
dsr
 
Posts: 1298
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Lancashire, England

Re: The Rise Of Fascism

Postby get louder at lambeau » Mon Mar 23, 2015 8:52 pm

A quick definition of the word at hand -

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini


As to the accusations of fascism in the U.S. today, which many will brush off as crazy-talk no matter what horrible things our Government actually does, here is a recent quote from someone from the opposite side of the political spectrum from John Pilger, a former high-level Government establishment insider from the conservative side, President Reagan's Assistant Secretary to the Treasury and co-founder of Reaganomics, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts -

Interviewer - "What would Ronald Reagan think today if he was seeing all this?"

Paul Craig Roberts - "He would think we were taken over by the Nazis or something. He would be astonished. He wouldn't be able to understand it. He would think, this is not my country.

You know, look, what the United States has been doing the entirety of the 21st century is murdering people. I mean, the United States has become Murder Incorporated. It murders people. All it does is murder people. Seven or eight countries have been repeatedly invaded, bombed, droned. Some of them are in total ruins. We're talking about millions of people either dead, maimed, or displaced. And it's ongoing. Now they're starting with Russia. Ukraine is being sacrificed. I mean, it's a basket case. And it's all to stop the rise of Russia."


He has a lot more to say on both geopolitical and economic matters, which of course are often closely linked. That part starts at the 10:15 mark in this video. Please see video for context.

User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: The Rise Of Fascism

Postby get louder at lambeau » Sat Jul 18, 2015 8:39 pm

Just as a random little reminder that actual history of fascism is often not well known today, here is an old video of the current Queen of England giving a Nazi salute as a small child in the early 1930s, lead by her dad, who would later become King of Edward VIII, a known Nazi sympathizer.

Apparently, this video is just being published for the first time now -
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... esses.html
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: The Rise Of Fascism

Postby dsr » Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:26 am

get louder at lambeau wrote:Just as a random little reminder that actual history of fascism is often not well known today, here is an old video of the current Queen of England giving a Nazi salute as a small child in the early 1930s, lead by her dad, who would later become King of Edward VIII, a known Nazi sympathizer.

Apparently, this video is just being published for the first time now -
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... esses.html

You really are gullible, louder. No doubt if anyone were to tell you that Princess Elizabeth's dad never was and never would be Edward VIII, you'd just put it down as another grand conspiracy by the government to lead us all astray. You stick with your beliefs, louder. They don't let truth get in their way.

FWIW, in 1933 the full history of Wrld War 2 hadn't come out [in case you don't know, WW2 ran from 1939 to 1945]. Few people knew that the newly-elected leader of Germany was any more than a Charlie-Chaplin lookalike with the same comedy value. Which could explain why the 7 year old princess's uncle was encouraging her to take the p*** out of him.

I see why you've put this on a Pilger thread, though. Decide what your conclusion is, then find a tiny bit of truth, twist it and bend it into shape, ignore any larger bits of truth that get in the way of your conclusion, and add a few lies to spice it up. No wonder you admire Pilger - your favourite websites work the same way.
dsr
 
Posts: 1298
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Lancashire, England

Next

Return to The Podium - PG13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests