Stop Fascism Action Network

       The Stop Fascism Action Network ( SFAN ) has been created to provide an open space for discussion, sharing of ideas and information, and connecting with one another to spark meaningful, effective action to protect liberty, human rights and freedom, and to stop the madness of corporate fascism which is emerging with frightening speed across the planet. It is time to stand. Please join us, and welcome.
       The aim of the SFAN is to hold a space where serious engagement with the issues surrounding liberty, freedom, human rights, and their threats from corporate fascism, can be addressed. It is hoped that this will also be a space for the bringing of light, a place of inspiration, hope and determination, a place of empowerment, and a place where humor is not a bad word. The issues are serious, and require from us an earnest and dedicated response, but we must make room also for lightness, humor, friendship and joy, or we will die of a dryness of the soul, and nothing worthwhile will be accomplished. As a very great and noble woman once said, "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution." For the SFAN to be most creative, empowering and inspiring of constructive action, it must be an open space, and a place of sharing, dialog and mutual respect. Ideological "correctness" is not required - in fact, rigid clinging to ideologies would hinder rather than help the discussion.
       The challenge of our time, the threat to liberty, peace and justice, will take a strong united coalition built from the grassroots in order to be successfully met. It will require of us the ability to transcend our differences, and to find common ground and common purpose, despite our diversity - and in fact, our union will be stronger for our diversity. We need not agree on everything. We need only to agree on enough that we can work together to protect liberty, freedom and human rights, and to defend these common values from their greatest threat today: the emergence of global corporate fascism. The challenge that confronts us transcends notions of right and left. It requires of us that we build bridges where none may have seemed possible. We need to get together on the basics - liberty, democracy, and our most fundamental of human rights. If we do not come together on the basics, we will lose these basic things we thought enshrined forever.
       If we come together as Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Liberals, Conservatives, Progressives and Radicals we can defeat these threats to human rights, freedom and liberty. All that is essential to our union is that we agree on two things: Freedom is preferable to fascism, and liberty is now under attack. If we can recognize this most basic common ground, then we can form a union, a grassroots coalition, that is united across its great diversity on this one goal: the defense of liberty. If we can come together across the various lines of ideology, race, class, gender, geography, culture and religion, forming a united force rooted in this one shared value, and this one goal - to protect liberty, justice and fundamental human rights - we can create the broadest, most powerful citizen's movement the world has seen. This is precisely what we need to do.

What is Fascism?

       Franklin D. Roosevelt, president of the United States from 1933 to 1945, described fascism in his 1942 "Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-trust Laws" as follows:

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

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

"The structure of fascism is the union, marriage, merger or fusion of corporate economic power with governmental power." - David G. Mills.

       The early twentieth century Italians, who invented the word fascism, also had a more descriptive term for the concept - estato corporativo: the corporatist state. Unfortunately for Americans, we have come to equate fascism with its symptoms, not with its structure. The structure of fascism is corporatism, or the corporate state. The structure of fascism is the union, marriage, merger or fusion of corporate economic power with governmental power. Failing to understand fascism, as the consolidation of corporate economic and governmental power in the hands of a few, is to completely misunderstand what fascism is. It is the consolidation of this power that produces the demagogues and regimes we understand as fascist ones.

Fundamentalist: Fascist or Common-Sense?

       Is the only way to fight Fundamentalist Extremists becoming one yourself? Having grown up in a liberal democracy, being educated in the ideals of freedom of speech and expression, diversity, multi-culturalism and the political correctness that stems from such a comprehensive education, I find myself questioning whether I am a closet fascist when it comes to the way in which the British Judiciary are referring to the whole issue surrounding the London suicide bombers of 7 July and the related legal news stories stemming from this.
       I cannot understand the logic of the British Judiciary in countering the British Government's call for the expulsion of a number of foreign nationals specifically identified as contributing to anti-British feeling amongst the Muslim community. For example, one of the people due for expulsion is Abu Qatada, a Jordanian who has been tried and convicted in his absence in Jordanian courts for terrorism and given a life sentence. He is known as Osama bin Laden's 'Ambassador in Europe'. Now he is concerned that if he is returned to Jordan he will face the death sentence. The question becomes one of whether we can expel someone from Britain to what may be their death? While we don't know the details of his Jordanian convictions, terrorism in the Middle East tends to be pretty deadly, so it is fair to suspect this person has been convicted of something relating to people being killed.
       This is where liberal ideals and common-sense conflict - while we may agree in Human Rights Law, is it so wrong if we don't care that this man is being sent back to what might be his death? When someone commits themselves to terrorism, do they give up their right to justice when they so blatantly abuse it? How can we allow someone to rely on Human Rights law when they have so obviously overlooked the human rights of everyone else in the country? On a more local level, why do we have someone at liberty in Britain who has been convicted of terrorism in another country? Why were they being granted freedom of speech, and freedom to gather audiences, when it was known that they had fundamentalist tendencies and links with terrorist organisations? Is it our policy in Britain to say 'welcome to Britain and feel free to hate our society and way of life?'
       It would be wrong to withdraw many of our fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech because we are scared of what people might say - but surely when there is evidence that people have gone beyond what are acceptable societal boundaries then they need to be restrained in one way or another. Is this not what the new anti-terrorism provisions are seeking to do? Finding a way of tackling fundamentalism without resorting to fascism is going to require some common-sense in terms of interpreting the law.
       Nobody wants to see a repeat of the shooting of the innocent Brazilian on the underground system, but neither do people want to encounter suicide bombers. For years there have been critical news reports on Isreali soldiers shooting Palestinians who they believed to be suicide bombers, many of whom may have been innocent, as well as reports of suicide bombers blowing themselves up in buses and bars - now the reality of this is hitting Britain. There is no way to stop a suicide bomber but to kill them before they detonate themselves. Equally, there is no way of being absolutely sure that somebody is a suicide bomber until they actually detonate themselves. There lies the Catch 22 which will dominate the British legal system for years to come. Here we believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty, but by the time a suicide bomber is proven guilty it is too late.
       So where does this leave us? If we can identify the underlying factions that are stirring up fundamentalist ideals, is it not common-sense that we either imprison or deport them? Even the Muslim Council of Great Britain supports such moves. However, we need to make sure that the extremists don't win by lulling us into a fascist state out of fear, and hence we become what they are propagating we already are. It will be common-sense that wins, not fascism, but it needs to be applied through the judicial system, not just in Government.

Is The United States a Neo-Fascist Country?

       Let's compare the United States with descriptors of fascist states.

1. They are highly nationalistic. They often display flags, bunting, and lapel pins, as well as repeating popular slogans. They often display great pride in the military. Their suspicion of foreign beliefs often border on xenophobia.
       We do tend toward nationalism, and don't consider it extreme. Our assumption of national exceptionalism dates all the way back to the Founders. Recently, Mr. Obama came in for pointed criticism when he made a statement that seemed to denigrate our exceptionalism. I suppose that exceptionalism is closely related to fascism, and I presume that by nature all fascist states also assume exceptionalism as natural. Although probably not on the scale of the original fascist states, we do like to display our flags (where I live it's not entirely unusual to see the Confederate flag in front of houses). Back in the days of Operation Desert Storm, it was unusual NOT to see yellow ribbons everywhere in support of our troops. Lapel pins are more common on politicians, but some kind of emblem on hats, T-shirts, or whatever are so ubiquitous as to barely cause notice. We don't overdo the catchy slogans but they are definitely a factor in our society, such as "America, Love It or Leave It," "Buy American,", "Made in America by Americans," " You Can Have My Gun When You Pry It From My Cold, Dead Fingers," "Support Our Troops," and many others. Considering pride in the military, that's been basic to our culture certainly since the Spanish-American War. It took a relatively mild dip during our misadventure in Vietnam, but most people put far more blame on the government "experts" but support of the military is alive and well today. Support for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is overwhelming, and our willingness to fork over very high rates of taxes in support of anything military has probably outdone the spending on the military of all the other major powers combined. Support for our military gets a strong YES. Demands for unity were probably more prevalent a couple of decades ago (Think America, Love It or Leave It), but we have so many different ethnic groups now that the feeling and expression of unity is probably relatively low compared to the average fascist society. Ethnic unity seems to be remarkably high among Mexicans in the southwest and particularly southern California. They typically cheer for Mexican teams rather than the home teams in international sporting competition. I think we take a miss when it comes to suspicion of things foreign or xenophobia. Common products have a higher likelihood of coming from abroad than being produced in this country and I really don't see us as very strong on this dimension. Overall, I rate this dimension 8.

2. They downplay human rights, seeing them as a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, secrecy, denial, and disinformation the population accepts almost all human rights abuses.
       We have lost a lot of human rights. In fact, the government stripped our rights from us so fast and extensively after 9/11 that we would have to describe our government as it exists today as definitely fascist, and I don't see any return to the pre 9/11 society in the cards at all. As a presidential candidate Obama promised to repeal the Patriot Acts, but instead extended them. Obviously his controllers over rode is promises. It's foreboding that our government is fanatically determined to strip us of our Second Amendment gun rights, going through the UN when it couldn't make any headway through our own mechanisms. Not only did common citizens lose accepted rights so fast under the Patriot Acts that even a large majority of lawmakers and law enforcement personnel still don't even know everything covered by those acts. Sadly, I believe many of our "guaranteed" Constitutional rights are gone forever. Overall, I think such "civil" rights as racial equality under the law, the right of access to public places and schools will remain intact, but the relationship between government and the governed has permanently reverted to fascist levels. The government has even gotten physically intrusive in its irrational quest for security. The use of propaganda to justify the loss of rights has been minimal or almost non-existent, but the government has made extensive use of secrecy, denial, and disinformation. I reluctantly have to rate our society at present and for the foreseeable future as about a 9 on a scale of 1 to 10.

3. The most significant common thread among these regimes is the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from more important problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. Target scapegoats usually include communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and "terrorists."
       The Bush administration began using the terms "Islamic terrorists," "Islamic fundamentalists," "Islamofascism," and similar terms almost before the World Trade Towers hit the ground. The "War on Terrorism" is commonly understood to mean "Islamic" terrorism. The Obama administration has gone just as irrationally to the opposite extreme, requiring all government agencies to remove the term "Islamic" from any connection with terrorism and to refrain from using the term the "War on Terrorism." Probably by sheer accident rather than accurate information, Obama,s actions were the more appropriate since the most recent information indicates that only four Muslims were involved, two professional pilots on each plane. Current theory proposes that the four Muslim pilots were Northern European converts to Islam, and would not have stood out on surveillance tapes.. I would say we are pretty clean in this respect, about a 6.

4. The military and avid militarism is highly regarded. A disproportionate share of national resources is allocated to the military, even when domestic needs are acute. The military is an expression of nationalism, and is used extensively to reinforce national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
       The United States has historically from the Founding on fit this description very closely. The general public has always been supportive and admiring of the military, but it was not until President Eisenhower warned about the danger of the power of the "military-industrial complex" that most Americans really became conscious of the close ties between 'big business" and big military. In short, the public does not seem to make a sharp distinction between military and non-military, but assumes that everyone will do his/her duty when called on. The military is regarded favorably but not especially worshiped. We definitely rank high on this facet, probably an 8.

5. Sexism is common, as the political elite and the national culture are male-dominated, and women are regarded as second-class citizens. These societies are adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. Draconian laws receive strong support by the orthodox religion, thus providing cover for the ruler's abuses.
       Historically, women were not looked on as second class citizens but as a different type of citizens. Almost any change fosters resistance, but when women decided they wanted into the professions and more involvement in business and government they got it. The role of women was changing before World War II, but with the advent of the war and the loss of males from the workforce, women simply moved into where they were needed. The defining symbol was Rosie the Riveter, but women moved almost seamlessly into wherever they were needed. Perhaps the most symbolic example of their ability to do whatever was necessary was the military's dependence on female aircrews to ferry planes from the U.S to England across the north Atlantic. After the war many settled down with their new families, but many stayed in business and the professions. Women appeared in Congress in any force soon after the war and moved into important positions, especially in "feminine" areas such as health care, education, and social services. We have had several women governors, a female vice-presidential candidate who proved extremely popular with the public, and a serious female hopeful for the presidency who lost out when a male backed by "invisible forces" proved extremely popular with the voters. Ironically, he has visibly governed less successfully than his opponent probably would have. We have had several female cabinet members and ambassadors. One of the world's largest newspapers was run by a woman, and the fabulously successful E-Bay was founded by a woman. In a similar society one of England's most successful Prime Ministers was a very formidable woman. Women have achieved general officer status in the military. If we ever were a truly sexist society, that time is long past. We obviously rank very low on this factor, about 2.

6. Under some of the regimes, the mass media are under strict direct control, and never stray from the party line. Other regimes exercise more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. The leaders of the mass media are often politically compatible with the power elite. The result is usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes' excesses.
       We have traditionally prided ourselves on the freedom of the press, but in reality the government asserted the influence it wanted with a "velvet hand." On the more assertive side it controlled licensing and guidelines for content, but it managed the press most effectively by the granting or withholding "access" of the media to government sources. Most of the media people largely shared the political philosophy of those in government and tended to mirror the beliefs of those in power. This is especially true of Democrats, who at least from the Great Depression onward tended to be relatively liberal. Many in the media were very comfortable with this and were more than willing to reflect the views favored by Washington. Some of them are allowed to attend the annual meetings of the Bilderberers, the nearly invisible group of multi-billionaires who in reality govern all economically valuable portions of the world. They dominate the world's economies, and therefore the governments, so completely that they back both sides during elections. Either choice is their lackey. Ownership of the major media is so extensive that the mainstream media have willingly reflected the views of government, and we generally accept the slant our media put on events as though it were real news. That's not to say that government always managed to control the media. There are and always have been radio and TV stations, magazines, newspapers and other media with political orientations in opposition to Washington. At present they seem to be tolerated by government. However, if they seriously questioned the position of the elite's messages, they would quickly be taxed, over regulated, limited in their broadcast areas, and experience problems in renewing their licenses. As a result, our media comply pretty closely to the views of government and its shadow controllers, and I would rate us high, 9, on this factor.

7. Inevitably, a strong national security apparatus is under the direct control of the ruling elite. It usually enforces oppression, operates in secret and ignores any constraints. "National security" justifies anything. Questioning its activities is considered unpatriotic or even treasonous.
       We rate very high regarding an obsession with national security, and have several national security organizations. Until lately, however, these agencies have been only mildly oppressive to the populace. This relatively benign group of agencies almost immediately metastasized into aggressive, abusive, even downright illegal operations with the 9/11 disaster. American citizens have been held in military jails without charges or the assistance of lawyers. Agents were supplied with "general purpose warrants" that legalized almost anything an organization wanted to pursue. Almost everything that had been beyond the reach of government was now readily accessible. People were put on no fly lists with no explanation and no obvious way to get removed. In short, we now fit almost perfectly with the description of fascism given immediately above. At present we rate a 9.

8. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes ally with the predominant religion, and usually act as militant defenders of that religion. Propaganda keeps up the illusion that the ruling elites are defenders of the faith and opponents of the "godless." Opposing the power elite is tantamount to an attack on religion.
There are numerous talk radio, independent TV stations, web sites, and periodicals of a religious orientation that constantly lambaste various aspects of governments, but their audience is so small that the government generally ignores them. Government in the U.S. is not generally seen as the defenders of the faith. I'd say 4.

9. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens is under strict control, large corporations usually operate in relative freedom. The ruling elite sees the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production, but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite are often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.
       Actually, it's nearly meaningless to speak of "government" and "big business," since the lines of demarcation are so loose and routinely ignored. Generals approve the purchase of $400 toilet seats, then retire to become a member of the board of at least one global corporation. Top executives at major defense corporations such as Boeing are appointed as Secretary of Defense, etc. The incest is to dominant that the people involved must have a hard time deciding which set of clothes to wear each morning. Although ordinary citizens are not usually under strict overt control, the government and huge corporations are constantly accumulating almost any information at all about the public. Departments of the government have tried repeatedly to force citizens to submit to ID cards that tells an official almost everything known about you, to implanted chips so you are monitored twenty four hours a day. On the other hand large corporations can operate in almost total freedom. In fact, the Obama government has been quite busy bailing out corporations from their own mismanagement at the expense of the general public. I would give us a 8 going toward 9 out of 10 on this one.

10. Since organized labor is seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it is usually crushed or made powerless. The poor are viewed with suspicion or outright contempt.
       Government troops have maimed and killed striking workers as late as 1940. Until lately, special "futuristicly" equipped special "police" with helmets, plastic face shields, armor over critical body sites have attacked labor actions with Mace, tazers, cattle prods, clubs, and various other weapons. Under the Obama government, however, organized labor has had an almost totally free hand, and has gotten pretty much out of control. Some of the powers the Obama government seems prepared to give them seem totally illegal. I give this one a 5 out of 10 because of the temporary nature of the benevolence. This factor definitely does not fit current government-union relationships described above AT THE PRESENT TIME.

11. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them are rejected by these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom are considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. The government controls the universities, and politically unreliable faculty are harassed or dismissed. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent are strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. Under these regimes, art and literature are required to serve the national interest.
       There is no noticeable effort on the part of government to suppress or denigrate intellectuals. There is no apparent government interest in intellectuals one way or the other. The picture changes markedly, however, if we expand intellectuals to include advanced sciences. While intelligent, scientists are not usually thought of as intellectuals such as historians, political science professors, and authors furthering the governments goals. In this case, government can be lavish with research funding, access to subjects (military, prisoners), and state of the art facilities. Since the focus here is on government action historically, I'd have to give this a 7.

12. Most of these regimes maintain Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police are highly regarded, have almost unchecked power, and practice rampant abuse. "Normal" and political crime is often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents. Fear and hatred of criminals or "traitors" is used as an excuse for more police power.
       Historically there was a very strong culture of apprehending and punishing criminals on the part of law enforcement agencies, and abuse was "often" but not "common." The government seemed content with the activities of official law enforcement agencies. The FBI under Hoover approached or met this standard, especially concerning the detection of communists and organized crime. Law enforcement was very proactive during the prohibition era, and has been self motivated in the war on drugs (some claim that's because law enforcement agencies profit from it), but there is no need for motivation from government. The top levels of all three branches seem content to let law enforcement agencies continue without motivation from above. Since 9/11 law enforcement has been almost fanatical about "terrorists," even though civilian professionals say there is almost no chance of catching "professional terrorists" before they strike. The country is just too porous, police always have to be careful of minorities to avoid attention from the American Civil Liberties Union, and the sheer volume of material of all sorts coming into this country daily make detection of instruments of mass destruction almost impossible to stop. There is no need for extra motivation from top government levels. Congress has historically been very willing to criminalize various sorts of activities which goes back to the earliest days of the country, and has passed many laws concerning victimless crime or consensual crime, notably drug use, and has very harsh and excessive penalties. For example, growing marijuana almost always results in ten years in prison, clearly excessive. Sex crimes against children merit very harsh sentences, possibly death in some states. Our prisons are, in fact, seriously over crowded, even to the point in some states that prisoners are housed in tents. It's true that pre-9/11 police were seen in a favorable light, with very popular "cop" TV series. However, police did not receive unrestricted power although they often acted unlawfully in relatively minor ways, such as exceeding their authority in looking for drugs during a routine traffic stop. The public rarely made an issue of such minor infractions. However, post 9/11 law enforcement has become very highly aggressive and disrespectful of the public. For instance, in arresting a person accused of domestic violence, they often rough up the suspect and go to ridiculous lengths in searching and restraining the person, who would almost always obediently enter the police car without the tight restraints and harsh handling. Security regulations are now very strict, and the public associates all law enforcement with the over zealous action and hostile attitudes of airport screeners, etc. Except for the unduly harsh penalties meted out by Congress, most of the obsessive behavior occurs at lowers levels, not as a result of prodding from the highest levels of government. Since the basic motivation does not seem to come from the highest levels of government, I would give this a strong 7, but given the lack of control over law enforcement, I'll have to go 8.

13. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often use their position to enrich themselves. This corruption works both ways; the power elite receives financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite are in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well, such as by stealing national resources. With national security under control and the media muzzled, corruption is largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
       This certainly applies to our government. Indirect proof of this is the fact that election campaigns often spend millions to elect a certain person to a job officially paying about $150,000. Obviously such an investment is made on the expectation that the politician will route huge funds to the donors once in office. Observers have for decades questioned the "revolving door" between the Pentagon and other government institutions and major corporations, but there is no effort to stop it because those who would have to take action expect to benefit from the system themselves in the future. The American practice differs slightly from the description above in that the public is well aware of the practice, but have no way to eliminate the system since the people involved ARE the system. Improper actions are sometimes undertaken right in the spotlight of the public. In a recent attempt to pass a major and unprecedented healthcare bill the U.S. president made major corrupt deals with lawmakers to back his program. For example, he publicly promised a senator one hundred million dollars for a hospital in return for his vote, and appointed the brother of one holdout to the Federal bench. The public knows full well that such corruption is rampant, but it usually occurs out of the public's view. Many people have run for public office on the "promise to clean things up." Much, if not most, of these promises were sincere. But newly elected politicians run smack up against the system which controls its members in a multitude of way. These include office and clerical assistance, appointment to committees (some are always in the limelight, some the public has never heard of), postage allowance, and on and on until the newcomer learns his or her place. There are no "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" any more. Toe the mark, or serve only one term. I originally gave this one a 9, but with the arrival of Obamacide on the scene, this one now definitely rates a strong 10.

14. Bogus elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls are common. When actual elections are held, the power elite always gets the desired result. Common methods include maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
       Election fraud exists, and everybody knows it exists, but it is more prevalent, or rather blatant, in some parts of the country. For example, the fraud in Chicago is well known, and accusations of fraud seem to occur more frequently in the South than in the country at large, but the practice undoubtedly occurs nationwide. In a recent election, uniformed members of the New Black Panthers menaced prospective white voters and discouraged some people from voting at all. The Justice Department established the guilt of the persons involved, had the case wrapped up except for some final action, but our president openly blocked any punishment. Votes are destroyed or disallowed for some reason or another pretty much routinely. In the 2000 election mentioned above, one party attempted to disallow the absentee ballots of members of the military. In the same election votes were almost identical for the candidates but allegedly slightly in favor of the democrat. The republican, whose brother was governor of the state, managed to get the controversy in front of the state's attorney general, who ruled in favor of the republican. She happened to be republican. As I recall, the Constitution stipulates that the House of Representatives will resolve such disputed elections, but it wound up at the Supreme Court instead. It declared the republican the winner. Since fraudulent elections occur regularly in this country, I will give this factor a 9.
       So, how do we rate overall? The calculator gives a 7. What does this tell us? Mathematically, a 7 would indicate that we are just barely above average on fascism. But that's a little misleading because we tended to be markedly higher or lower, not "in between" as the 7 would imply. Self knowledge pertaining to trends rather than a snapshot seems most useful to us, so using my judgment regarding the trend, and assuming the geopolitical aspects will retain their present trajectory, I would say that we are evolving toward a typical fascist state. Before Obama actually took office, I would have expected us to turn away from a trend toward fascism, but Obama has actually maintained the Bush trend toward more fascism. The only outstanding difference is Obama's slavish stance toward Big Unionism. Obama's reign will slightly moderate a trend toward more fascism, but I definitely don't see this as the evolving trend.
       The real purpose of the World Trade Center disaster was to allow the global elite to pretty much do away with the Constitution, at which they succeeded. The Patriot Acts, Military Commissions act, and countless other restrictions on us is becoming the de-facto constitution. The determination of Obama and Clinton to abolish gun ownership through the United Nations is absolutely necessary to defeat the popular uprising once the general populace realizes that 9/11 wasn't a project dreamed up by sick terrorists laying in caves in Afghanistan, but a government coups engineered by the global elite. The only Islamic terrorists involved were the four professional pilots who crashed the planes into the Towers. They did not look like terrorists because they had no middle eastern traits, which was because they were Northern European converts, who looked just like everybody on the planes. The planes were just to add drama to the production, they made a lot of fire and smoke but had nothing to do with the collapse.
       And, speaking of the collapse, would terrorists out to do all the damage possible to the U.S. and the morale of Americans bother to rig the blasts so that the towers would fall into their own footprints, causing almost no collateral damage? Collateral damage would have been a blessing to real terrorists. So who were the real terrorists? According to my information there are only four or five organizations worldwide who could have engineered the collapse the way it did. One of them is Israel. Did they do it? Who knows? What possible motive could they have to do such a thing to friend? First, at the level of world governments there are no real allies, only temporarily useful "arrangements." Think of the "friends" who have deserted us lately. Turkey. Brazil. Iran (so its been a while.) I'd have to check on the rest. Think of the enemies who have become "friends." England. Mexico. Spain. Germany. Japan. Russia?? Italy.
       Getting back to why Israel MIGHT have engineered 9/11. Without the United States backing them up, even ignoring gross atrocities, Israel would be history. It's not Israel's nukes that are keeping the Islamic world at bay. To Muslims, death fighting Israel is GOOD. The power of the United States keeps things under control. But there is growing evidence that some people are wondering why we give Israel Billions every year while Obama is driving us to bankruptcy. Others are reading more and more articles about the true relationship between the Israeli's and Islam. Reportedly, Palestinians have made several proposals that seemed reasonable enough, but something always blocked Israeli acceptance. Horror of horrors, more and more Americans are wondering just how long this constant bloodshed is going to last. More and more Americans are asking, "Why are Islamic countries our enemies? They seem OK to me." In other words, so the theory goes, the Israelis felt American unity with them was slowly drifting away. But why would America assent/assist in such a horror? I told you already. The eighty people, more or less, known as the Bilderbergers, who actually run the world largely through moving money here and there, got tired of waiting for us to collapse from our own stupidity and decided to move things along toward One World Government. Think that sounds crazy? So did I. Then I started reading, and reading, and showed some videos in my classes that laid out how guys like Kissinger, David Rockerfeller, Rothchild, Morgan, and others run thigs. This is the hard part. Their goal is to place their Corporate Government over ALL conventional governments, and thus rule the world. Note: I call them Corporate Government instead of Big Business because business just isn't sufficient to describe these money empires. It would be like saying a hang glider and a Boeing 757 are both airplanes. It would be true but meaningless. So they see their Corporate Government over all the world's regular governments, over their states, provinces, whatever. The states would actually deal with people! Do you really want to be officially under the thumb of the world's richest (and craziest) people?

Is America a Neo-Fascist State?

Are we? Let's compare the United States with descriptors of fascist states.

1. They are highly nationalistic. They often display flags, bunting, and lapel pins, as well as repeating popular slogans.

We do tend toward nationalism, and don't consider it extreme. Our assumption of national exceptionalism dates all the way back to the Founders. Recently, Mr. Obama came in for pointed criticism when he made a statement that seemed to denigrate our exceptionalism. I suppose that Streamate Cams exceptionalism is closely related to fascism, and I presume that by nature all fascist states also assume exceptionalism as natural. Although probably not on the scale of the original fascist states, we do like to display our flags (where I live it's not entirely unusual to see the Confederate flag in front of houses). Back in the days of Operation Desert Storm, it was unusual NOT to see yellow ribbons everywhere in support of our Xlove troops. Lapel pins are more common on politicians, but some kind of emblem on hats, T-shirts, or whatever are so ubiquitous as to barely cause notice. We don't overdo the catchy slogans but they are definitely a factor in our society, such as "America, Love It or Leave It," "Buy American,", "Made in America by Americans," " You Can Have My Gun When You Pry It From My Cold, Dead Fingers," "Support Our Troops," and many others. Considering pride in the military, that's been basic to our culture certainly since the Spanish-American War. It took a relatively mild dip during our Bound Gang Bangs misadventure in Vietnam, but most people put far more blame on the government "experts" but support of the military is alive and well today. Support for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is overwhelming, and our willingness to fork over very high rates of taxes in support of anything military has probably outdone the spending on the military of all the other major FuckingMachine powers combined. Support for our military gets a strong YES. Demands for unity were probably more prevalent a couple of decades ago (Think America, Love It or Leave It), but we have so many different ethnic groups now that the feeling and expression of unity is probably relatively low compared to the average fascist society. Ethnic unity seems to be remarkably high among Mexicans in the southwest and particularly southern California. They typically cheer for Mexican teams rather than the home teams in international Hog Tied sporting competition. I think we take a miss when it comes to suspicion of things foreign or xenophobia. Common products have a higher likelihood of coming from abroad than being produced in this country and I really don't see us as very strong on this dimension. Overall, I rate this dimension 8.

2. They downplay human rights, seeing them as a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of BDSM propaganda, secrecy, denial, and disinformation the population accepts almost all human rights abuses.

We have lost a lot of human rights. In fact, the government stripped our rights from us so fast and extensively after 9/11 that we would have to describe our government as it exists today as definitely fascist, and I don't see any return to the pre 9/11 society in the cards at all. As a presidential candidate Obama promised to repeal the Patriot Acts, but instead extended them. Obviously his controllers over rode is promises. It's foreboding that our government is fanatically determined to strip us of our Second Amendment gun rights, going through the UN when it couldn't make any BoundGods headway through our own mechanisms. Not only did common citizens lose accepted rights so fast under the Patriot Acts that even a large majority of lawmakers and law enforcement personnel still don't even know everything covered by those acts. Sadly, I believe many of our "guaranteed" Constitutional rights are gone forever. Overall, I think such "civil" rights as racial equality under the Device Bondage law, the right of access to public places and schools will remain intact, but the relationship between government and the governed has permanently reverted to fascist levels. The government has even gotten physically intrusive in its irrational quest for security. The use of propaganda to justify the loss of rights has been minimal or almost non-existent, but the government has made extensive use of secrecy, denial, and Divine Bitches disinformation. I reluctantly have to rate our society at present and for the foreseeable future as about a 9 on a scale of 1 to 10.

3. The most significant common thread among these regimes is the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from more important problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. Target scapegoats usually include communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and "terrorists."

The Bush administration began using the terms "Islamic terrorists," "Islamic fundamentalists," "Islamofascism," and similar terms almost before the World Trade Towers hit the ground. The "War on Terrorism" is commonly understood to mean "Islamic" terrorism. The Obama administration has gone just as irrationally to the opposite extreme, requiring all government agencies to remove the term "Islamic" from any connection with terrorism and to refrain from using the term the "War on Terrorism." Probably by sheer accident rather than Everything Butt accurate information, Obama,s actions were the more appropriate since the most recent information indicates that only four Muslims were involved, two professional pilots on each plane. Current theory proposes that the four Muslim pilots were Northern European converts to Islam, and would not have stood out on surveillance tapes.. I would say we are pretty clean in this respect, about a 6.

4. The military and avid militarism is highly regarded. A disproportionate share of national resources is allocated to the military, even when domestic needs are acute. The military is an expression of nationalism, and is used extensively to reinforce national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

The United States has historically from the Founding on fit this Free Hardcore description very closely. The general public has always been supportive and admiring of the military, but it was not until President Eisenhower warned about the danger of the power of the "military-industrial complex" that most Americans really became conscious of the close ties between 'big business" and big military. In short, the public does not seem to make a sharp distinction between military and non-military, but assumes that everyone will do his/her duty when Kink On Demand will be necessary. The military is regarded favorably but not especially worshiped. We definitely rank high on this facet, probably an 8.

5. Sexism is common, as the political elite and the national culture are male-dominated, and women are regarded as second-class citizens. These societies are adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. Draconian laws receive strong support by the orthodox religion, thus providing cover for the ruler's abuses.

Historically, women were not looked on as second class citizens but as a different type of citizens. Almost any change fosters resistance, but when women decided they wanted into the professions and more involvement in business and government they got it. The role of women was changing before World War II, but with the advent of the war and the loss of males from the workforce, women simply moved into where they were needed. The defining symbol was Rosie the Riveter, but women moved almost seamlessly into wherever they were needed. Perhaps the Men In Pain most symbolic example of their ability to do whatever was necessary was the military's dependence on female aircrews to ferry planes from the U.S to England across the north Atlantic. After the war many settled down with their new families, but many stayed in business and the professions. Women appeared in Congress in any force soon after the war and moved into important positions, especially in "feminine" areas such as health care, education, and social services. We have had several women governors, a female vice-presidential candidate who proved extremely popular with the Public Disgrace, and a serious female hopeful for the presidency who lost out when a male backed by "invisible forces" proved extremely popular with the voters. Ironically, he has visibly governed less successfully than his opponent probably would have. We have had several female cabinet members and ambassadors. One of the world's largest newspapers was run by a woman, and the fabulously successful E-Bay was founded by a Naked Kombat woman. In a similar society one of England's most successful Prime Ministers was a very formidable woman. Women have achieved general officer status in the military. If we ever were a truly sexist society, that time is long past. We obviously rank very low on this factor, about 2.

6. Under some of the regimes, the mass media are under strict direct control, and never stray from the Sex And Submission party line. Other regimes exercise more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. The leaders of the mass media are often politically compatible with the power elite. The result is usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regim The Training Of O excesses.

We have traditionally prided ourselves on the freedom of the press, but in reality the government asserted the influence it wanted with a "velvet hand." On the more assertive side it controlled licensing and guidelines for content, but it managed the press most effectively by the granting or withholding "access" of the media to government sources. Most of the media people largely shared the political philosophy of those in government and tended to mirror the beliefs of those in power. This is especially true of Democrats, who at least from the Great Depression onward tended to be relatively liberal. Many in the media were very comfortable with this and were more than willing to reflect the views favored by Washington. Some of them are allowed to attend the annual meetings of the Bilderberers, the nearly invisible group of multi-billionaires who in reality govern all economically valuable portions of the world. They dominate the world's economies, and therefore the governments, so completely that they back both sides during elections. Either choice is their lackey. Ownership of the major media is so extensive that the mainstream media have willingly reflected the views of government, and we generally accept the slant our media put on events as though it were real news. That's not to say that government always managed to control The Upper Floor media. There are and always have been radio and TV stations, magazines, newspapers and other media with political orientations in opposition to Washington. At present they seem to be tolerated by government. However, if they seriously questioned the position of the elite's messages, they would quickly be taxed, over regulated, limited in their broadcast areas, and experience problems in renewing their licenses. As a result, our media comply pretty closely to the views of government and its shadow controllers, and I would rate us high, 9, on this factor.

7. Inevitably, a strong national security apparatus is under the direct control of the Ts Seduction ruling elite. It usually enforces oppression, operates in secret and ignores any constraints. "National security" justifies anything. Questioning its activities is considered unpatriotic or even treasonous.

We rate very high regarding an obsession with national security, and have several national security organizations. Until lately, however, these agencies have been only mildly oppressive to the populace. This relatively benign group of agencies almost immediately metastasized into aggressive, abusive, even downright illegal operations with the 9/11 disaster. American citizens have been held in military jails without charges or the assistance of lawyers. Agents were supplied with "general purpose warrants" that legalized almost anything an organization wanted to pursue. Almost everything that had been beyond the reach of government was now readily accessible. People were put on no fly lists with no explanation and no obvious way to get removed. In short, we now fit almost perfectly with the description of fascism given immediately above. At present we rate a 9.

8. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes ally with the predominant religion, and usually act as militant defenders of that religion. Propaganda keeps up the illusion that the ruling elites are defenders of the faith and opponents of the "godless." Opposing the power elite is tantamount to an attack on religion.

There are numerous talk radio, independent TV stations, web sites, and periodicals of a religious orientation that constantly lambaste various aspects of governments, but their audience is so small that the government generally ignores them. Government in the U.S. is not generally seen as the defenders of the faith. I'd say 4.

9. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens is under strict control, large corporations usually operate in relative freedom. The ruling elite sees the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production, but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite are often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.

Actually, it's nearly meaningless to speak of "government" and "big business," since the lines of demarcation are so loose and routinely ignored. Generals approve the purchase of $400 toilet seats, then retire to become a member of the board of at least one global corporation. Top executives at major defense corporations such as Boeing are appointed as Secretary of Defense, etc. The incest is to dominant that the people involved must have a hard time deciding which set of clothes to wear each morning. Although ordinary citizens are not usually under strict overt control, the government and huge corporations are constantly accumulating almost any information at all about the public. Departments of the Ultimate Surrender government have tried repeatedly to force citizens to submit to ID cards that tells an official almost everything known about you, to implanted chips so you are monitored twenty four hours a day. On the other hand large corporations can operate in almost total freedom. In fact, the Obama government has been quite busy bailing out corporations from their own mismanagement at the expense of the general public. I would give us a 8 going toward 9 out of 10 on this one.

10. Since organized labor is seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it is usually crushed or made powerless. The poor are viewed with suspicion or outright contempt.

Government troops have maimed and killed striking workers as late as 1940. Until lately, special "futuristicly" equipped Water Bondage special "police" with helmets, plastic face shields, armor over critical body sites have attacked labor actions with Mace, tazers, cattle prods, clubs, and various other weapons. Under the Obama government, however, organized labor has had an almost totally free hand, and has gotten pretty much out of control. Some of the powers the Obama government seems prepared to give them seem totally illegal. I give this one a 5 out of 10 because of the temporary nature of the benevolence. This factor definitely does not fit current government-union relationships described above AT THE PRESENT TIME.

11. Intellectuals with Whipped Ass and the inherent freedom of ideas associated with them are rejected by these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom are considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. The government controls the universities, and politically unreliable faculty are harassed or dismissed. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent are strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. Under these regimes, art and literature are required to serve the national interest.

There is no noticeable effort on the part of government to suppress or denigrate intellectuals. There is no apparent government interest in intellectuals one way or the other. The picture changes markedly, however, if we expand intellectuals to include advanced sciences. While intelligent, scientists are not usually thought of as intellectuals such as historians, political science professors, and authors furthering the governments goals. In this case, government can be lavish with research funding, access to subjects (military, prisoners), and state of the art facilities. Since the focus here is on government action historically, I'd have to give this a 7.

12. Most of these regimes maintain Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police are highly regarded, have almost unchecked power, and practice rampant abuse. "Normal" and political crime is often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents. Fear and hatred of criminals or "traitors" is used as an excuse for more police power.

Historically there was a very strong culture of apprehending and punishing criminals on the part of law enforcement agencies, and abuse was "often" but not "common." The government seemed content with the Wired Pussy activities of official law enforcement agencies. The FBI under Hoover approached or met this standard, especially concerning the detection of communists and organized crime. Law enforcement was very proactive during the prohibition era, and has been self motivated in the war on drugs (some claim that's because law enforcement agencies profit from it), but there is no need for motivation from government. The top levels of all three branches seem content to let law enforcement agencies continue without motivation from above. Since 9/11 law enforcement has been almost fanatical about "terrorists," even though civilian professionals say there is almost no chance of catching "professional terrorists" before they strike. The country is just too porous, police always have to be careful of minorities to avoid attention from the American Civil Liberties Union, and the sheer volume of material of all sorts coming into this country daily make detection of instruments of mass destruction almost impossible to stop. There is no need for extra motivation from top government levels. Congress has historically been very willing to criminalize various sorts of activities which goes back to the earliest days of the country, and has passed many laws concerning victimless crime or consensual crime, notably drug use, and has very harsh and excessive penalties. For example, growing marijuana almost always results in ten years in prison, clearly excessive. Sex crimes against children merit very harsh sentences, possibly death in some states. Our prisons are, in fact, seriously over crowded, even to the point in some states that prisoners are housed in tents. It's true that pre-9/11 police were seen in a favorable light, with very popular "cop" TV series. However, police did not receive unrestricted power although they often acted unlawfully in relatively minor ways, such as exceeding their authority in looking for drugs during a routine traffic stop. The public rarely made an issue of such minor infractions. However, post 9/11 law enforcement has become very highly aggressive and disrespectful of the public. For instance, in arresting a person accused of domestic violence, they often rough up the suspect and go to ridiculous lengths in searching and restraining the person, who would almost always obediently enter the police car without the tight restraints and harsh handling. Security regulations are now very strict, and the public associates all law enforcement with the over zealous action and hostile attitudes of airport screeners, etc. Except for the unduly harsh penalties meted out by Congress, most of the obsessive behavior occurs at lowers levels, not as a result of prodding from the highest levels of government. Since the basic motivation does not seem to come from the highest levels of government, I would give this a strong 7, but given the lack of control over law enforcement, I'll have to go 8.

13. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often use their position to enrich themselves. This corruption works both ways; the power elite receives financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite are in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well, such as by stealing national resources. With national security under control and the media muzzled, corruption is largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

This certainly applies to our government. Indirect proof of this is the fact that election campaigns often spend millions to elect a certain person to a job officially paying about $150,000. Obviously such an investment is made on the expectation that the politician will route huge funds to the donors once in office. Observers have for decades questioned the "revolving door" between the Pentagon and other government institutions and major corporations, but there is no effort to stop it because those who would have to take action expect to benefit from the system themselves in the future. The American practice differs slightly from the description above in that the public is well aware of the practice, but have no way to eliminate the system since the people involved ARE the system. Improper actions are sometimes undertaken right in the spotlight of the public. In a recent attempt to pass a major and unprecedented healthcare bill the U.S. president made major corrupt deals with lawmakers to back his program. For example, he publicly promised a senator one hundred million dollars for a hospital in return for his vote, and appointed the brother of one holdout to the Federal bench. The public knows full well that such corruption is rampant, but it usually occurs out of the public's view. Many people have run for public office on the "promise to clean things up." Much, if not most, of these promises were sincere. But newly elected politicians run smack up against the system which controls its members in a multitude of way. These include office and clerical assistance, appointment to committees (some are always in the limelight, some the public has never heard of), postage allowance, and on and on until the newcomer learns his or her place. There are no "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" any more. Toe the mark, or serve only one term. I originally gave this one a 9, but with the arrival of Obamacide on the scene, this one now definitely rates a strong 10.

14.Bogus elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls are common. When actual elections are held, the power elite always gets the desired result. Common methods include maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Election fraud exists, and everybody knows it exists, but it is more prevalent, or rather blatant, in some parts of the country. For example, the fraud in Chicago is well known, and accusations of fraud seem to occur more frequently in the South than in the country at large, but the practice undoubtedly occurs nationwide. In a recent election, uniformed members of the New Black Panthers menaced prospective white voters and discouraged some people from voting at all. The Justice Department established the guilt of the persons involved, had the case wrapped up except for some final action, but our president openly blocked any punishment. Votes are destroyed or disallowed for some reason or another pretty much routinely. In the 2000 election mentioned above, one party attempted to disallow the absentee ballots of members of the military. In the same election votes were almost identical for the candidates but allegedly slightly in favor of the democrat. The republican, whose brother was governor of the state, managed to get the controversy in front of the state's attorney general, who ruled in favor of the republican. She happened to be republican. As I recall, the Constitution stipulates that the House of Representatives will resolve such disputed elections, but it wound up at the Supreme Court instead. It declared the republican the winner. Since fraudulent elections occur regularly in this country, I will give this factor a 9.

So, how do we rate overall? The calculator gives a 7. What does this tell us? Mathematically, a 7 would indicate that we are just barely above average on fascism. But that's a little misleading because we tended to be markedly higher or lower, not "in between" as the 7 would imply. Self knowledge pertaining to trends rather than a snapshot seems most useful to us, so using my judgment regarding the trend, and assuming the geopolitical aspects will retain their present trajectory, I would say that we are evolving toward a typical fascist state. Before Obama actually took office, I would have expected us to turn away from a trend toward fascism, but Obama has actually maintained the Bush trend toward more fascism. The only outstanding difference is Obama's slavish stance toward Big Unionism. Obama's reign will slightly moderate a trend toward more fascism, but I definitely don't see this as the evolving trend.

The real purpose of the World Trade Center disaster was to allow the global elite to pretty much do away with the Constitution, at which they succeeded. The Patriot Acts, Military Commissions act, and countless other restrictions on us is becoming the de-facto constitution. The determination of Obama and Clinton to abolish gun ownership through the United Nations is absolutely necessary to defeat the popular uprising once the general populace realizes that 9/11 wasn't a project dreamed up by sick terrorists laying in caves in Afghanistan, but a government coups engineered by the global elite. The only Islamic terrorists involved were the four professional pilots who crashed the planes into the Towers. They did not look like terrorists because they had no middle eastern traits, which was because they were Northern European converts, who looked just like everybody on the planes. The planes were just to add drama to the production, they made a lot of fire and smoke but had nothing to do with the collapse.

And, speaking of the collapse, would terrorists out to do all the damage possible to the U.S. and the morale of Americans bother to rig the blasts so that the towers would fall into their own footprints, causing almost no collateral damage? Collateral damage would have been a blessing to real terrorists. So who were the real terrorists? According to my information there are only four or five organizations worldwide who could have engineered the collapse the way it did. One of them is Israel. Did they do it? Who knows? What possible motive could they have to do such a thing to friend? First, at the level of world governments there are no real allies, only temporarily useful "arrangements." Think of the "friends" who have deserted us lately. Turkey. Brazil. Iran (so its been a while.) I'd have to check on the rest. Think of the enemies who have become "friends." England. Mexico. Spain. Germany. Japan. Russia?? Italy.

Getting back to why Israel MIGHT have engineered 9/11. Without the United States backing them up, even ignoring gross atrocities, Israel would be history. It's not Israel's nukes that are keeping the Islamic world at bay. To Muslims, death fighting Israel is GOOD. The power of the United States keeps things under control. But there is growing evidence that some people are wondering why we give Israel Billions every year while Obama is driving us to bankruptcy. Others are reading more and more articles about the true relationship between the Israeli's and Islam. Reportedly, Palestinians have made several proposals that seemed reasonable enough, but something always blocked Israeli acceptance. Horror of horrors, more and more Americans are wondering just how long this constant bloodshed is going to last. More and more Americans are asking, "Why are Islamic countries our enemies? They seem OK to me." In other words, so the theory goes, the Israelis felt American unity with them was slowly drifting away. But why would America assent/assist in such a horror? I told you already. The eighty people, more or less, known as the Bilderbergers, who actually run the world largely through moving money here and there, got tired of waiting for us to collapse from our own stupidity and decided to move things along toward One World Government. Think that sounds crazy? So did I. Then I started reading, and reading, and showed some videos in my classes that laid out how guys like Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Rothchild, Morgan, and others run thigs. This is the hard part. Their goal is to place their Corporate Government over ALL conventional governments, and thus rule the world. Note: I call them Corporate Government instead of Big Business because business just isn't sufficient to describe these money empires. It would be like saying a hang glider and a Boeing 757 are both airplanes. It would be true but meaningless. So they see their Corporate Government over all the world's regular governments, over their states, provinces, whatever. The states would actually deal with people! Do you really want to be officially under the thumb of the world's richest (and craziest) people?

What does this have to do with fascism? It means that THEY wouldn't have to deal with constitutions, rights, all that nonsense. So, in my somewhat informed opinion, 9/11 was the first step, and our government HAD to be in on it.

jasmine live jasmin live