Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectRE: fascism rears its ugly head
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=22571&mesg_id=22617
22617, RE: fascism rears its ugly head
Posted by Expertise, Fri Aug-11-00 02:38 PM
>Really ? You actually believe
>everything the institutionalised press tells
>you ?

It's better than just listening to mere hearsay.

>America is by far the strongest
>military power in the world
>today. All this nonsense
>about terrorists like Osama Bin
>Laden is to make you
>believe your money needs to
>be invested in more hi
>tech weaponry.

Yeah...so I'm sure that the incident at the US embassy in Kenya never happened.
It's about more than just small-time terrorists like Bin Laden. It's about being prepared. To simply shut down our national defense and pretend that an incident can't break out tomorrow, or whenever, is naive. The best time to attack is when noone's expecting it.

The enemy
>used to be the 'commies',
>but since the SU fell
>apart and China is your
>big buddy now (for its
>huge internal market), that's no
>longer a sales argument for
>an increased financial transfer of
>public money to the military.

China is, huh?
There has been evidence appearing that China has smuggled top secret information from government files, they are building up their arms storage, not to mention has threatened the US with war twice in the past 5 years, not to mention the controversy with Taiwan still looms. Buddies indeed.
Once again, to feel invisible is exactly what terrorist countries want us to think.

>>A national defense is important
>>in protecting the US and
>>it's interests.
>Good, keep on repeating what they
>tell you.

That's not repeating what someone tells me, it's COMMON SENSE. Only fools would not protect themselves.

>Roads don't support the public as
>a whole. It also
>enables companies to transport goods.
> Goods that bring in
>money. Goods that are
>being transported in heavy trucks
>that damage those same roads.
> Damage which is being
>repaired with public money, while
>that same public didn't cause
>the damage.

Why don't they? The highway system is not open to the public???? The public does not transport themselves to and from work, home, to see family, friends, and the like? You don't think wear and tear comes from that? You think commercial trucks are the only vehicles that damage the road system, that pollute, that have wrecks? Public money is used because the PUBLIC USES THE ROADS....

>This is just ONE small example
>of how private interests are
>being funded with public money.

All interests use the highway system. Try again.

>You completely missed my point.
>I was referring to the
>flow of public money to
>private businesses, not national defense.

And it's that flow of public money that helps people working for private businesses keep their jobs. What, you think they are going to keep them on despite losing profits? Be real.

>Does this mean you're an expert
>in empoverishment exploitation, pillage and
>genocide, since you support the
>current structure/system ?

There is NO genocide and no exploitation going on in this country. I repeat, if it is going on over international waters, then the respective governments should be held accountable for the exploits, not this government.

>I have a few ideas, mostly
>based on Noam Chomsky's views.
>If you want more info,
>you can check this link
>Chomsky discusses all topics we've touched
>He elaborates more than I can
>do here and does a
>much better job at it.

*sighs* I am not going to read 50 columns. If you read it then you should be able to give an accurate analysis on what you read and apply it to the discussion. It would be different if it was only 1 or 2, but don't expect me to sit here and read all of this stuff. Use it to prove your point, not Chomsky's.

>I agree that's not what the
>US SHOULD do, but unfortunately
>reality is slightly different...
>I hope you at least see
>this ?

No I don't. If they shouldn't do it, then why does reality say they should? Explain.

>All of them ? You
>must live in an easy
>world, where every single thing
>that doesn't fit into your
>logic is 'wrong' ...

Look, there is funding out there for anyone, repeat ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN that wants to go to school to do so. Plenty of grants, scholarships, loans, and what not, whether they are public or private. You have to actually LOOK for them. There are thousands of programs at the state and federal level that are just waiting for people to apply for them. The problem is, people don't want to take the time to find them.

>>Anyone in this country
>>that wants to learn how
>>to read, can. Anyone
>>that wants a diploma, can.
>> Anyone that wants to
>>go to college, can.

>No comment. You're definitely an

You don't have to. You can sit there and pout if you like but the simple fact is that anyone that wants to achieve, learn, or whatever in this world, can. I see it done every day. What makes people that achieve so different than someone who isn't? The door of opportunity in this world is larger than it has ever been.

>Again : not in an ideal
>world, but the US does
>nothing BUT acting like they're
>responsible for the rest of
>the world in reality.
>What sense do your remarks make
>when it has nothing to
>do with reality.

And that's something that I am against. That's why we vote, that's why we discuss, because we have different visions for the future. I feel that America should be less interventive, and more isolationist. The only thing government should be responsible for is our own interests internationally. We cannot police the entire world. Now, there are indeed things that the government should address internationally, such as international conflicts and the like, but only a few things. The US cannot continue to use the military as if it is a humanitarian organization.

>What if we all had green
>skin and were 4 metres
>tall ?
>What if I had 4 dicks
>What if ...
>I'm talking about PLANET EARTH NOW.

That's right, and the earth is split into countries and territories for a reason, because they are to represent their own interests domestically. What do you want to do, have the federal government make an international police force?

>Not some abstract theoretical vision of
>a conservative US that doesn't
>bother the rest of the

I never said it doesn't, I said that the federal government's powers should be reduced and the foreign governments should be held accountable for the plight of their citizens.

Let me also remind you that your socialist ideals pertaining to the US are nothing more than "theoretical vision" at this moment. God help us if they do become reality.....

>>Right. Hold the Guatemala government
>>accountable for allowing such practices.
>>You can't help people
>>who don't help themselves.
>Okay, then be consequent, and no
>longer buy products that have
>been made in foreign countries.

Why? It's not my job to police the practices of the people and businesses in Guatemala. If you want to boycott products that's fine, but that is an individual decision, and not something that should be forced.

>Becos, by buying those, you're part
>of the oppression and exploitation
>of the workers over there.
> Since you don't want
>to be involved and only
>want to discuss the US,
>be consequent.

I have no responsibility towards the people of Guatemala or any other country. I repeat, that is the GOVERNMENT OF GUATEMALA'S problem, not mine. I'm not part of any oppression or exploitation and hence cannot be held accountable for it. Like I said, if YOU want to boycott the products, go ahead, but you can't force other people to do so.

>>>And if you have the money
>>>to pay for it (minor
>>>detail). Then of course,
>>>if you don't have any
>>>money, that's probably your own
>>>fault, right ?
>>Sure is.
>This, my friend, is why I
>call you a fascist.

I am a fascist because I believe in earning what I have? Reaping what I sow? You got a nerve.

>>Nope. Because there is a difference
>>between brainwashing and education.
>>The problem is that you
>>want to tell children of
>>the greatness of democracy, instead
>>of telling both sides of
>>the story.

>Oh, you wanna talk about both
>sides ? No problem !
>How much did school/media tell you
>about the peace proposals during
>the Israeli/Palestina conflict, all vetoed
>by the US ?
>How much did school tell you
>about the US mass genocide
>in Vietnam ? Raping
>of women, pillaging of villages,
>destroying of agricultural infrastructure and
>economy ?
>How much did school teach you
>about the enslavement of Africans
>How much did school tell you
>about the marginalizing, killing and
>getto-ing of the original Americans
>(Indians) ?
>How much does school inform our
>children today about the cancerous
>effects of food that's filled
>with hormones ? Are
>students being told about vegetarianism
>How much unbiased info do children
>get about communism/socialism today ?

ALL of these things you can learn, given you take the respective classes on them, mainly in college.
Also, you can indeed take the initiative to learn things on your own. Some things doesn't need to e proporgandized by school.

>See, you want to criticize me,
>without realizing that you're actually
>talking about TODAY, which is
>supposed to be such an
>ideal system.

It's definitely more ideal that this unrealistic system that you have spoken of.

>No, you'd rather keep on punishing
>an overwhelming majority of poor
>people on a dialy basis,
>which is the case today.

It is not my fault that anyone is poor! That is their government's fault, not mine. The only thing I'm guilty of is being born in a country with opportunity, that's it that's all. I have no responsibility to anyone else unless I volunteer responsibility.

>When did I mention punishment anyway
>All I'm saying is that there's
>enough wealth generated

Who are YOU to say someone has generated enough wealth? Who gave you, or Ralph Nader or those Green Party nuts, the right to tell me how much money I can make and what I have to do with MY money? You have no RIGHT to go and take something that I earned, repeat, EARNED, and do whatever with it. If I want to volunteer my services or my money to a charity, that's one thing, but I should be able to do what I want to with the money I earned. The simple fact that you feel you should make decisions on what I should do with my own money is true fascism. It's the essence of big government leftism.

>I haven't even mentioned anything revolutionary.
> Small changes that most
>of us won't even feel
>in their budget can make
>a big difference on a
>worldwide scale.

Well how about this....since you feel that it won't hurt, how about YOU make enough money to give it to everyone you feel is impoverished??? If you actually want to give power to the people, how about letting the people INDIVIDUALLY make their own decisions?? Since you say the people know what they are doing, and should have some say in what happens to their money, how about letting them HAVE their own money, and if they feel inclined to contribute to the tribulations of the world, let them do so?? But see, that's not a good idea, because then they won't want to give it up, right? So here is what you and the other leftists say....

"Okay American citizens, let's get something straight. Government is going to take your money, whether you like it or not. You might as well get used to it. BUT, what we are going to do is let you democratically vote for how everyone wants that money spent. If you're part of the minority that doesn't like how it's spent, tough shit. Your money is ours now."

Yeah. That'll work.

>What people like you and me
>need to realize is that
>a lot of our luxury
>is ONLY POSSIBLE becos of
>the exploitation of a mass
>amount of people.

Look, not EVERY company exploits people in order to gain fortunes. Not EVERY individual makes their money off the backs of the poor. Not EVERY corporation engages in criminal activity. There are actually SOME people in this world, god forbid, that actually work their asses off to get in the position they are in today. And they don't owe you, they don't owe Ralph Nader, the Green Party, or any other human being on this earth SQUAT. All of you are guys are doing is supporting exploitation YOURSELVES. How? Because you are willing to steal money through the power of government that someone earned and possessed. That's thievery.

>If you're a little concerned about
>human rights and other people,
>that is hard to accept.

Human rights isn't even the point! That's one of the funny things about your dream of a democratic society....you're already assuming that the majority agrees with you! You don't even know whether or not they think their tax money should be given up for massive amounts of foreign aid! This is all your little dream inside your little head. What if they agree with me? What if they say, through democratic means, that they don't want their tax dollars being sent to other countries?? Sit there and ask yourself, if that is an idea that you can actually swallow? What would be next on the drawing board? Would you use government force in order to see that agenda enforced anyways??

>On the other hand, if you
>don't believe in the concept
>of a 'community' and rely
>solely on individuality and some
>survival-of-the-fittest logic, it's no wonder
>you act like a selfish

Well thank you, because if I want to be selfish and want to keep the possessions I buy, earn, or inherit, I have every right to do so. Once again, it isn't something that is to be forced upon people.

>Basically, you're saying that it's like
>this because people are too
>lazy or too stupid, whereas
>I simply SEE that some
>people don't have access to
>proper education or upwards social
>mobility simply cos they're born
>in the 'wrong' place, or
>they got the 'wrong' amount
>of melanin.

But is it MY personal problem or responsibility that they are going through what they are going through? Should I be forced by government to give up my possessions in order to give it to them? Should I force people to do that? NO.

I know people get down on their luck, believe me, I've been there. But I also know that you don't have to be in that same spot for the rest of your life, you can move up. Plenty of people have done so, and there is nothing stopping me or anyone else in following their footsteps. It's called OPTIMISM.

>That's not a 'political opinion' (it
>doesn't make me socialist), it's
>called REALITY. All you
>need to do to realize
>this is LOOK AROUND and
>stop being so conceited and

It's called being a pessimist. That's far from reality. The whole fact that this country, whether you feel it's exploitive or not, rose from being a startup country to the most powerful nation in the world shows that your "reality" is a lie. When you go to the impoverished, and say, "Look, you're poor, and without our help you're always going to BE poor. So therefore what we are going to do is give you a handout that you can live off of and take care of you for the rest of your days. Because hey, you can't actually SUCCEED by yourself." Once again, what a strong faith you have in the ability of others.

>>>I guess you don't oppose kidnapping
>>>and prostituting children either ?
>>Those are DIRECT crimes. However,
>>you can't hold the car
>>company accountable that provided the
>>car to the person who
>>kidnapped someone.
>Exploitation is not a crime ?
>What is 'crime' to you ?

Those are crimes also, but I nor our government has the jurisdiction to go into another country and police it! That's something that you don't understand. You expect the US to just waltz in a country and just take it over. People won't be satisfied until there is indeed a full blown world war going on, because if you don't think we don't have enemies now, we will once we try to act as an international police force.

>Simple example : when Belgium was
>occupied by Germany, it was
>not 'illegal' for German soldiers
>to rape women. But
>it still was a crime,
>if you dig what I'm

It is a crime, but we can't go into Belgium or Germany and arrest people.

>Or, maybe a clearer example to
>you : a slaveholder killing
>a slave in the US
>some 80 years ago was
>not doing anything illegal, but
>I still consider it a

Can you go back in time and arrest that slaveholder? If you can, please tell me how. You can I can make billions. You can give your part to charity.

>Therefor, if you have a country
>where the legislation allows crimes,
>the people fighting those are
>not criminals, the legislation itself
>is criminal.
>Every person/company using that criminal legislation
>to its own benefit, is
>therefor an accomplice and criminal

Well then you better get ready, because there are plenty of foreign governments you better prepare to overthrow. In fact, you better start mobilizing the military now. And you say there is no need for military buildup?

>That's just my opinion. But
>it means Nike is mos
>def to blame for using
>sweatshops to make clothes and

Nike is to blame. I'm not going to disagree with that. But in order for someone to do that, there is someone allowing it to happen. I'm not sure about this, but I don't think there are alot of places that are putting a gun up to people's heads forcing them to work.

>>Your view on government,
>>until you do such, is
>>nothing more than a dream.
>I'd rather have a dream than
>a nightmare.

Dream......nightmare...it's still not real either way.

>>>Who's protecting me from big business
>>>today ?
>Nope. I can boycott some
>products, but I don't always
>have the info needed to
>make a good decision, basically
>cos companies are not open
>enough and there's no democratic

Democratic control of companies? Once again, you are talking as if the majority is going to want the same things you want. Also, the company has to release a full report on it's ventures before you buy a product? That's the only way you're going to know what every company has done.

>Unions are a no-no in most
>countries, sometimes there's soldiers inside
>the plant, workers can hardly
>go to the toilet (if
>there are any in the
>first place) without being fined.
> Women are forced to
>have gyneacological examinations every month
>to check if they're not
>pregnant (Philippines). If they
>are, they get fired immediately,
>with no pay.

Oh well. Once again, these concerns are to be left to their governments. Not ours. If we did, they'd be part of the US and not an independent country.
>>I suggest you look up the
>>definition of fascist. Fascism
>>means advocation of the power
>>of big government and suppression
>>of the opposition through censorship
>>and persecution.
>I don't know what dictionary you
>use (probably Reagan's version)

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

That's the definition. Check out dictionary.com

>1) hypernationalist : you've said you
>only care about the US

That's irrelevant. Just because I love where I live doesn't mean a thing. I never said discriminate against anyone.

>2) authoritarian : I think the
>US record in external affairs,
>WTO, G8, UN, NAFTA is
>pretty obvious

That doesn't pertain to me personally. Nor is it obvious.

>3) antidemocratic : your signature says
>the US ain't a democracy

That's right, it sure isn't.

>... plus the way
>you rant against Nader doesn't
>really give me the impression
>you're willing to give him
>a fair chance.

He doesn't DESERVE a fair chance, this mess is nothing more than some socialist ploy. You damn right, I am not giving anyone a chance that I feel is going to take away my freedom in exchange for other people to have security.
Besides, I believe in the democratic system of elections. But I do NOT believe that those representatives or the people they represent for that matter should be above the law. I put my trust in words, not people. Words don't change, people do.

>Fascism in Italy and Germany was
>absolute; it didn't allow any
>other ideology to co-exist.
>Same thing with the current
>imperialist capitalism that has stopped
>countries/communities to develop a different
>system for the past 30-50

Wrong. Your idealogy exists, doesn't it? You have the right to talk about it and discuss it all you want. But nowhere does it say I have to give it a chance, and you can bet I sure won't if I can do anything about it.

>Examples aplenty : Cold War, US
>interventions in Chile, the assassination
>of Patrice Lumumba in Congo,
>Salvador Allende in Chile, the
>Contras in Nicaragua, ...

This is something I don't understand.....if you disagree with the provisions implemented by the US government, and acknowledge that the government has done crimes against 3rd world countries, why in the world are you willing to grant them more power and more responsibilities unto those same countries and our nation as a whole??

>>Democracy is
>>way closer to fascism than
>>libertarian conservatism.
>How ?
>I really expect you to define
>these terms before comparing them
>that loosely.

In full democracy you have the majority of the people imposing it's will on the minority. You think that everyone in Germany hated Hitler?? No. They loved him and his policies, and he was able to use that popularity to conduct Jewish genocide and foreign aggression. Hitler had support by the majority of German citizens. So did Mussolini. Therefore, fascism existed because support for Hitler's policies.

In Libertarian Conservatism, the power of government is reduced. Instead of government having the power to impose it's will on the people, the people have the power individually. The people, through laws, are protected by the government, and no representative or the people can simply change the laws due to a simple majority vote. That means the representatives power is dimished, and that means more freedom for the people to conduct their lives how they wish.

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the

Expertise@rocketmail.com or

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.