2019/12/28

Let's open our eyes to the ugly reality as the decade ends

.
Copied from http://home.earthlink.net/~eldonenew/fascism.htm, green parts are mine.

"Characteristics of Fascism" by Dr. Lawrence Britt
Dr. Britt, a political scientist, wrote an article about fascism that appeared in Free Inquiry magazine -- a journal of humanist thought. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The article is titled 'Fascism Anyone?', by Lawrence Britt, and appeared in Free Inquiry's Spring 2003 issue on page 20.

The 14 characteristics
  1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -- Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.[Both Democrats and Republicans in the United States exaggerate the flag-waving and flag decorum compared to almost all other countries. Many Republicans additionally revere the traitors' battle flag.]
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -- Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to 'look the other way' or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. [Disdain for human rights shown by Republicans in cases of caging, torture advocacy, elevating war criminals to campaign props]
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -- The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic, or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. [Scapegoating is habitual for Republicans; Muslims, brown people, blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQ, and not the least Democrats]
4. Supremacy of the Military -- Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. [Republicans immediately increased of the already ludicrously high military spending despite budget deficit increase after years of debt hysteria - and did so for no reason. Elevating SEALS above the law. Lots of generals in cabinet-level positions. Cuts to social programs, empty promises on public infrastructure.]
5. Rampant Sexism -- The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy. [Not really necessary to elaborate, is it? Republicans check the box - their politicians are overwhelmingly white men and they often obsess about things like forcing transvaginal probes on women who try to exercise a constitutional right.]
6. Controlled Mass Media -- Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common. [Republicans: Extensive attempts to promote right wing media sources, independent media cut off from press briefings, interviews. Attacks on critical media as 'fake media', hate campaign against independent media, move against internet neutrality]
7. Obsession with National Security -- Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. [Republicans: check - Migrant caravan is coming! Scary brown Muslims! Seriously, they even used the "national security" argument against steel imports from Canada. "National security" talk has been on an exaggerated level in the U.S. compared to all European countries for many years. The only "National Security" that Republicans are not concerned about is security against Russia's intelligence service campaigns.]
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -- Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. [Republicans: Evangelical leaders assert that the lying moron has a mandate from heaven, talk of 'chosen one', the Vice President is a bible thumper etc.. Nothing about separating children from parents, taking away food aid, allowing more pollution, hatemongering or mocking the disabled is really Christian. This is a clear-cut case of box checked.]
9. Corporate Power is Protected -- The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.  [The only really consistent Republican policy besides fearmongering and hatemongering is pursuit of plutocracy. Big businesses that politically support the lying moron get relief from import tariffs.]
10. Labor Power is Suppressed -- Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed.  [Suppression and cracking of labour unions other than police and firefighters labour unions is a long-standing Republican policy. Republicans only targeted those labour unions for union-busting that were not clearly leaning their way.]
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -- Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free-expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts. [Republicans promote hostility to college-educated people, coastal elites etc - and their dear leader literally claimed to love the uneducated.]
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -- Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties, in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. [Republicans: Clear cut check the box, particularly in regard to migrants. Most domestic law enforcement is not under federal control, but Republicans sure cheered the 'law and order' types such as the criminal Sheriff Arpaio. Republicans were in solidarity with policemen and deputies who killed citizens for no good reason. Other American politicians play the "law and order" racket as well, but Democrats very largely turned away from it.]
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -- Fascist regimes are almost always governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions, and who use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. [Republicans sure check the box in regard to cronyism and corruption. Accountability is avoided even by obstruction of Congress (not complying with binding subpoenas). The dear leader routinely self-enriches himself through the office by allowing bribes by foreign diplomats paying above-market rates in his Washington hotel, and other scandals]
14. Fraudulent Elections -- Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against (or even the assassination of) opposition candidates, the use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and the manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. [Republicans are known for gerrymandering, voter suppression incl. voter caging, closing polling places in non-Republican-leaning areas, requiring ID to minimize non-Republican-voter turnout, resisting a law in Florida to withhold voting rights from citizens, rejecting suitable ID to maximise the effect, suppressing a decisive recount, allowing and demanding that foreign governments intervene in domestic elections on Republicans' behalf]
One might add the corruption and perversion of the judicial branch by appointment of hyperpartisan judges and smears against non-compliant judges by the Republicans.


I am past pretending that the United States of America are a Western country under the present president. They have a fascist government. 

It doesn't take a 100% replay of Hitler or Mussolini to be fascist*. The characteristics - all of which incompatible with a modern liberal* Western society - are all met by the Republicans who control the executive branch, paralyse the legislative branch and take over the judiciary branch of federal government.

Their fascist government may not be entrenched well-enough to withstand the 2020 elections, but the fascist nature of today's Republican party is evident.

The United States are furthermore a most questionable ally (that habitually disregards its obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty anyway) against the threat that the Russian Federation poses to up to four EU members. 

Europe may secure itself AGAINST the Americans in the medium term (3...5 years) rather than with them. America has a (weak) fascist government now. The USA are a THREAT to free Europe in the medium term perspective.

Europeans should stop considering the Americans to be allies at all and prepare AGAINST them. This requires a lot more ship-killing capability (primarily by air power, for the whole USN can only muster a few hundred naval aircraft), so we need to secure our combat aircraft against cruise missile attack and purchase a lot more anti-radar and anti-ship missiles (and not from outside Europe, including not from the UK which still cannot make its mind up whether it's American or European). Europe generally needs to devise and implement a strategy for resilience against precision-guided missile attack (we should simply assume that most missiles hit, regardless of whether they're ballistic or air-breathing missiles).

NO, (not yet).
Keep the alliance on paper, prepare as if it didn't exist for a while until the Europe-U.S. alliance doesn't help to dampen transatlantic conflict any more.
This includes kicking all Americans out of European defence planning, keeping them out of multinational HQs in Europe and cutting intelligence ties to the same level of minimal cooperation that we have with the Russians.

Huawei isn't a trustworthy supplier of internet hardware for Europe? Well, neither is Cisco. That's a fairly mainstream remark by now, of course.

- - - - -

I understand most Americans will hate this post and reflexively think of me as anti-American. That's a very convenient way of avoiding a confrontation with the dark side of the own nation (a side that all nations possess in varying degrees).

Nobody wants to admit that he or she is the bad guy, on the wrong side of history. Historical Fascists didn't think of themselves as the bad guys or on the wrong side of history, either. Yet there's no reasonable doubt that Fascists are both. So if the criteria for Fascism are met - and they are in this checklist and other checklists - then the diagnosis is complete. Change the ways of your nation if you don't want to be with the bad guys (or leave). You may still have a choice (maybe).

S O
defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

*: By my experience, Americans are clueless about the meaning of political science terminology like this. They don't know what Fascism or Liberalism are. American English has perverted and distorted the meaning of such words.
.

84 comments:

  1. I don't "hate" the post but think you made the facts bend to fit your thesis.

    Conservatives don't control the mass media. Rather, the mass media is hostile to conservatives.

    Conservatives don't believe that large governments have a duty to fund the arts. If local governments want to fund the arts, fine. Libraries and sports are funded at the local level for the role they have in educating young people.

    Higher education? Totally hostile to what is known as Western Civilization. How can we keep what is good when every aspect of Civilization is disparaged and universally urinated upon?

    I have other quibbles with your post but those are sufficient for now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The intent counts, and it's obvious by the creation of a right wing media bubble and frequent attacks on critical media that Republicans try to gain control of mass media and both the base and the president frequently consider critical media to be illegitimate.

      Delete
    2. With all due respect, and I write that not intending any snark-sarcasm-snideness, that is where we differ.

      Intent inferred by a third party is not sufficient to convict. There is too much potential for projection, influence by hear-say, distortions due to partisan filters... to reliably render just actions.

      Delete
  2. Here's one you could have included, Sven: 15. Populations in fascist regimes tend to include large numbers of people who are convinced, or convince themselves, of the propaganda the fascist regime broadcasts or reinforces, and hew to the fascist line, often while loudly proclaiming themselves to be everything but fascists.

    And sure enough along comes our boy Joe to prove it.

    Let's just take his first point; the "mass media".

    As currently configured in the U.S. there are two forms of "mass media". FOX, which is an open organ for the GOP (i.e. fascist) propaganda, and the rest which, barring a small handful of platforms, are committed to the "no labels" or "both sides" framing of everything where they are not explicitly committed to the"conservative" framing.

    So things that would be treated as commonsense in most industrialized countries, like national healthcare, are consistently mocked by FOX and treated as wild radicalism by the rest of the media.

    Grossly bloated defense budgets are passed without comment, while liberal policies for spending like "Green New Deals" or college tuition are derided and questioned mercilessly ("how will you pay for that?", as if money for aircraft carriers is wise and money for doctors, engineers, and architects is foolish).

    So that the statement "the mass media is hostile to conservatives" is ridiculous nonsense is obvious; American "conservative" policies and ideas are treated with slavish devotion by FOX and exaggerated respect by the rest of the media, while American "liberal" (meaning center-left, at most, in much of the rest of the industrial world) are widely reviled by FOX and treated skeptically by the rest.

    But Joe, like his fellow blackshirts, believes what he is told by The Grand Old Party is true and what is different from what they are told is not. You can't reason with that.

    So forget it, Sven. You can no more reason with him than you could have explained to a 12-year-old Volkssturm setting up a barricade along the Sonnenallee why Steiner wasn't going to arrive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was no reason to include any #15 because I didn't write the list. I just applied the diagnosis check list.

      Delete
    2. Ah, gotcha. Well, there you have it; the #15 that enables the first 14.

      Delete
    3. And just yesterday Trump re-tweeted four QAnon and a Pizzagate accounts. Total "liberal media" coverage of the Chief Executive pushing looney wingnut conspiracy theories? Zero.

      But the "mass media" is "hostile" to "conservatives".

      Suuuuuure...

      https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1210796708696690688

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And as for the danger we present...

    My guess is that the U.S. is currently about 30-40% Joe, about 20-30% me, and about 40-50% a bunch of clueless chucklefucks who would know which end of the round goes down the mortar tube first.

    Normally that mix - the 60-70% or so who have no interest in a Greater America - will mean that We the People are a drag on people like Dick Cheney who want us to be the New Romans. We can't keep out country from being sort of a nuisance...but we won't mobilize behind it becoming are genuinely monstrous global asshole.

    What I worry about is that the GOP will find a leader less incompetent and greedy than Trump. If they do...well, then you should worry, because the subset of Joes I'll call the New American Century Joes will follow them (and fight for them) to an open American Empire. The "America First" Joes (and the "I could give a shit about furriners but I like being able to call a faggot a faggot" (i.e. the "culture warrior") Joes) are likely to go along for the ride so long as the economy doesn't tank.

    Right now Trump's greed and stupidity are saving you; he can't find a way to run easy and profitable global imperial wars.

    If he ever does, though...look out. Imperial powers are generally miserable for everyone around them, and we've been an openly imperial power before and we were pretty miserable at it. I don't see us being any better with FOX news as the Voice of the Imperium...

    ReplyDelete
  5. FDC: "My guess is that the U.S. is currently about 30-40% Joe, about 20-30% me, and about 40-50% a bunch of clueless chucklefucks..."

    That was certainly true in 2016, not sure it is true anymore. The two good things that has come out of the current impeachment mess are:
    a) the Evangelical vote is splintering in interesting directions
    b) There are VERY few neutral people left on the subject of Trump. Either you worship him or hate him and, near as I can tell, about 50-60 percent hate him. Not good for his re-election chances.

    The two big variables are both out of Trump's hands:
    1) Performance of the stock market (which may have peaked)
    2) Who the Democrats put up against him (Biden and Sanders being the worst possible choices)

    The best thing Trump could do for himself is turn off his Twitter account (NOT going to happen) and do the job (NOT going to happen).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. White evangelicals are still all-in on Trump. Provided they continue to live in their culture-war bubble - and the white evangelical community has conflated the gays/sluts/satan trope so long there's really very, very little outside the bubble for them to go to - they have no alternative. Nobody gives them the red meat Trump does. That was and is his unplanned genius; nobody on any side anticipated that what a bunch of people whose worldview was based on a bunch of mumbled hatred for gays and the godless and sluts screwing out of wedlock REALLY wanted was an orange jackass who would bray that hatred loud as a clanging bell...

      I'd disagree that you have as much as 60% active Trump-hate. His disapprove numbers have never topped 50% by much, and a LOT of those people are lumps who can't be arsed to get to the polls and who will get all squicky if asked to vote for Sanders or Warren, despite the obvious fact that a fucking chimpanzee would be preferable to Trump.

      So nope. I kinda think we're doomed; Trump will squeak through in 2020 through the same electoral gimmicks he rode in 2016.

      Delete
  6. You suffer from confirmation bias, if Germany thinks that the US is evil, stop selling us BMW’s. Please, kick us out of NATO. We don’t want you at our neck or our feet.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Europe is a much more complicated population than yankland. The idea of cohesion or directed effort is impossible. The hope is that the difference between yanks and euros becomes unavoidable to the euros, and attempts at influence are resisted.

    I've got a recession coming (it has to happen eventually, a reappraisal of assets causing an loss of apparent value then a fight over who catches the falling knife). Will the dollar keep its status afterwards? What does it mean for the global economy if it doesn't? Is that beneficial for europeans, or does that import the corruption of yankland over to brussels (more completely, varying shades of grey afterall).

    I can't work anything out anymore. Anyone who chimes up with a big 'I know what the next decade...' (douglas murray, george friedman, ian bremmer) are idiots, or are being paid to do so by idiots.

    No clue what the future holds, but history teaches about the rise of fascism. How to stop it, near term. Fascism needs to win the game on the streets, to 'quell the chaos', to simplify the (unavoidable) complexities that society is facing. Don't let them win. Hold them in the fire until their promises are proven hollow. After that maybe we can start to think about some of our longer term problems.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As someone who follows this blog and arguments for 10 years, I am a little surprised by arguments in this post.

    Just to note - I don't live in US and I don't have interest in elections there. I follow US politics for learning purposes. I don't have good opinion about Trump, but much of this criticism doesn't seem logical to me.

    For example, How exactly does "requiring ID to minimize non-Republican-voter turnout" work ? In my country, ID has always been required to vote. I don't see how that helps/hinders any party (but would like to hear explanation, maybe I don't know something).

    Or the claim "Republicans immediately increased of the already ludicrously high military spending". Trump indeed increased budget in 2018 and 2019 by sizable amount. but military budget in last 10 years was actually highest under Obama in 2010 (both in absolute amount and share of GDP). Trump is significantly below that level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, the voter suppression by ID laws works in several ways.
      One way is that they make it hard to get an ID card (driving license) in certain areas where demography leads to more Democratic votes. Another is that they're vague and black voters simply get rejected at the polling station even though they show a government-issued ID.
      Remember, Americans usually have no passport and there's no obligatory national ID card. They usually identify themselves by driving license.
      https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

      About the military spending; everything I wrote stands unchallenged even with what you wrote. There's no conflict. I could have pointed out that Democrats are militaristic by OECD standards as well (as I pointed out the similarity regarding flag-waving), but that isn't a must-have mention.
      Besides, the uptick compared to the sequestered Obama mil spending is obvious:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Historical_Defense_Spending.png

      Delete
  9. "How exactly does "requiring ID to minimize non-Republican-voter turnout" work?" - "I follow US politics for learning purposes."

    If that second one was true you would have heard the argument. The US is unlike any other developed nation. It has a massive underclass. This underclass can not afford to drive (cannot afford drivers license, either) and the proportion of americans that have a passport is likewise lower than average ~40% vs ~75%.

    Begs the question (required) why? How much voter fraud is out there, you being a student of american politics should be able to answer that. Trump said 3 million 'illegals' voted in the last election, him being the president. My god out of 130M votes cast, its rampant.

    Military budget? 2010? Anything going on then? As opposed to now? What was the size of the force deployed to active warzones, compared to now? That apples to apples? Topic to research for a scholar of american politics (for 10 years), what is the Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) budget? Who has control of that budget? How about who has control of the budget at all? Is it the president? Or is it congress? Now, how long under obama was there a D congress?

    Answers on a postcard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The intents matter, and though the executive branch only signs off on the budget in the U.S. rather than writing it, it does request a budget.
      Look at their request for 2018 budget; a 10% increase of mil spending.
      https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/12/trumps-2019-defense-budget-request-seeks-more-troops-firepower.html

      Delete
  10. I felt the OP was worthy of sharing on my Facebook.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sven: "Republicans immediately increased of the already ludicrously high military spending..."

    True but you need to remember that US defense spending has almost nothing to do with national defense. It is a wealth transfer program to certain very large corporations with a side effect of protecting the US. Who are our enemies is a great question.

    The great lesson of 4th Generation Warfare is that more force applied against your opponent leads to larger strategic defeats.

    The fastest way the US could win the so-called "War on Terror" is to get our troops out of the Middle East and reduce local anger against us. Then the locals could stop shooting at us and start shooting at each other again.

    This strategy also has the advantage of moving the US away from bloated defense budgets, Fascism, and Corporate Cronyism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Military spending in fascist countries has historically rarely been about defence.

      The checklist criterion is "Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized." and it's met in its entirety.

      Delete
  12. The first main point is imo, that here and today the western european countries and especially germany are far to weak to stand for themselve without the usa. Especially germany is an weak state and we would not be able to survive without the usa in the long term. To change the culture, our actual way of buiseness and our military fast enough and strong enough to act against the usa is not possible, the idea for itself is naive and ridicolous.

    The second thought (agent provocateur) i have is, why should an fascist regime as an ally be an problem at all ? Many regiimes in the world are fascist ones by the definition you use here, also russia, also china and so on and so on. Better we have one strong fascist overlord that is at least better than the other ones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, well, that's a load of bollocks.

      Delete
    2. He is right though.
      Germany and many Western countries have regular dealings with Fascist regimes, usually they are ones that America has installed.

      Delete
    3. Autocracies, military dictatorships - outright Fascism is rare nowadays. Besides, some unimportant 3rd World Country going Fascist does not pose problems; a nuclear-armed Great Power going Fascist is a different matter.

      And he's wrong with his 'weak' blathering. The U.S. is a millstone around our neck these days, to put it mildly. They're not enhancing European security simply because European NATO is overmatch to Russia+Belarus in its own right. The Americans provide very little of what we#re neglecting; first week capabilities effective in the Baltics.

      Delete
  13. Russia and America, I see, need to unite again, in front of the growing threat of German revanchism. - he-he

    ReplyDelete
  14. Never go full Solomon lol,
    This sounds like someone just swapped Snafu Solomon's Anti Euro for Anti USA...
    Damn Politics :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look, a desire for consensus and civility is inappropriate when you deal with fascists.
      So please go back and entertain the thought that the entire fascism checklist is checked.

      Delete
  15. I don't see what is wrong with having a strong sense of national-identy and believing that it is superior to others. Otherwise why wouldnt you adopt their culture etc? Unless you try and impose it upon others... Bit like the liberals are doing with their liberal democracy.

    Human Rights never existed in mainstream thought until far more recent that the 30's and 40's so the idea that being agaisnt them is Fascist seems to me idiotic. I would point out that both America and Britain in the 1950's would have been agaisnt todays human rights, would you call them Fascists? I personally think Human Rights is a loud of rubbish and yet everyone seems to believe in them. Funny how none of these people can tell you even how many there are! Or when we will stop finding new ones! I always think people who say abortion is a human right is rather funny. Considering if that is true then surely the man must have as much right to decide whether or not he wants his unborn child killed as the woman? May i put it in those terms or do you find that offensive?

    America ever since the second world war has been a global empire and therefore had disproportionate miltary spending.

    Is it scapegoating or is it simply making the point that for decades now politicians have done nothing about mass immigration and illegal immigration and a lot of people if not a clear majority are very unhappy about this. Same goes for the failed idea of multi-culturalism. Perhaps if it was acknowledged and something was done about it, people like Trump wouldnt have standed a chance of becomming president.

    Really! That is ridiculous considering this was the 30's every Government was dominated by men! Also what does homophobia, anti-gay stance and abortion have to do with Sexism? Unless as well as Human Rights you believe in Women Rights? But then surely their should be Tiger Rights too then??? What constitutional rights have they violated? I presume Sven you are well educated/read enough to know Latin and Greek to be aware of the meaning of Homo and Phobia, to know how nonsensecal the phrase Homophobia is?

    As for corporate power why not take a look at Germany and Volkswagon though to be fair i would argue this idea seems pretty alligned with most of the Liberal democracies.

    I would point out Regan and Thatcher both believed in the destruction of labour power, so that seems rather consistent. Not to mention the huge effect mass migration has had on Labour power....a point i see you forgot to mention?

    Are you completely unware of the attacks on Conservative views at these intellectual instituitions. Who has created Hate-speech laws in the west, and the idea of no crime hate incidents? Fascists or the Liberals? As for Arts funding that was one thing the NAZIS got right modern art is a load of rubbish, ugly as sin and there is no good reason spending tax payers money for it to be created.

    Is it any wonder there is a huge obsession over crime and punishment considering that the punishment for crime has been so reduced over the last 70 years. Not to mention a huge rise in crime over that period as well. Not that i agree with whats happening in America with policing more a fan of Robert peel myself and his methods.

    Have you ever thought to play devil advocate agaisnt the whole liberal democracy idea? Considering how so many of your articles used to be agaisnt establisment thought this one seems very much in line with the popular dogma of today.

    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/01/conservative-democracy

    Ron.F

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The weird thing is that Fascists still avoid to call themselves Fascists, but don't shy away being Fascists in public.

      Delete
    2. Are you calling me a Fascist then? You have't refuted any of my points. Did you even read them? Quite honest i think you modern progressive so called liberals are the far more dangerous elements to our society than Fascists and if some Wacky right wing nutter does stage a true take over in the west you lot will only have yourselves to blame. Considering the total control over the institutions, including education and the cultural framing of our societies for decades. Be nice to know exactly what point i made that made me a Fascist though?

      Ron.F

      Delete
    3. Frankly, you got no points. You merely voiced your attitude.
      There's no way to check the 14 boxes of the fascism checklist on you, but you evidently defend Fascism attitudes in a Fascism checklist thread. You gotta live with what people think about you based on your behaviour.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey Fascists; fuck off. I'm here to fight you because you're evil and nothing but harmful with your bullshit.
    I'm not here to give your bullshit a platform.
    You Fascists belong into the trashcan of history, not on the debate table.

    It's not that one couldn't refute your crap; it's that people deficient enough to be Fascists don't understand the refutation anyway, and exposing the world to the cancer that Fascism is does no good whatsoever.

    Fascism's track record of uselessness and harmfulness is clear enough. We don't debate the pro and contra of jumping from skyscrapers without a parachute either. Doesn't matter how many idiots think it may be worthwhile.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I admit I am having a serious problem with the idea that any tenet of fascism is beneficial to a society. I can see it if you think purely very short term. Sure, on a micro scale, abandoning law and order would give me the ability to murder other citizens and take their stuff, so it would be beneficial to me - in the very short term. The idea that it would be beneficial long term is tenuous at best. So, yes, you can have temporary full employment, autobahns, parades, a great sense of national purpose and belonging and the outward semblance of a thriving society in the short term. In the longer term, when adjacent societies have grown tired of your shit? Generally not so much...

    ReplyDelete
  19. The generalization of the fascism concept from a temporally and nationally limited self-designation to the generic designation of a certain type of rule is controversial.

    The problem of delimitation from other types of movement and regime is closely related to the generic term fascism. The demarcation from authoritarianism plays a decisive role in this.

    In the following - based on the dimensions proposed by Gentile - some typical elements of fascist currents are shown, such as:

    1 the leader principle, 2 the claim to totality, 3 the military-oriented party organization, 4 a cultural, irrational secular religion based on myths, rites and symbols, 5 a corporate, hierarchical business organization,
    6 as well as a totalitarian model of society, 7 structured in hierarchies of functions.

    However, the USA and also the republican party does not even begin to meet these criteria sufficiently to be classified at least as semi-fascist. Such a more than questionable assignment as it is made here and this beyond a purely hypothetical approach in connection with the resulting radical political demands clearly testifies to a politically very extreme view.

    I therefore have to reproach Mr. Ortmann for being a political extremist himself. Such extremism, however, never grows anything good, but exactly the same thing that he have expressed in relation to fascism: only a harm to freedom and the people.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gentile's criteria look different than your super-short summary and apply to a full blown Fascist state. They cannot be used to identify a Fascist party that has not yet transformed the state to its likings. He's thus useless in this case.

      I therefore have to reproach you Anonymous for being misleading and distracting.

      Check Kitsikis, Paxton, Sternhell, Weiss, Griffin or even Eco.

      Delete
  20. In your text, you first stated that the United States is no longer a democratic country and that the United States government is a fascist government. Now you are explaining that the usa is not yet a state of expertise, but that the republican party is a fascist party. Apart from that, the republican party is not a fascist party because it lacks the essential elements. The republicans have no leadership principle and do not represent one. They lack the military organization within the party, the corresponding party militias, they have no totalitarian goal and do not want to transform society totally, they lack radicalism, they do not strive for totalitarian society, etc

    In a nutshell: your claim that the usa government is fascist or, alternatively, that the republicans are a fascist party has no serious basis. Of course, you can always call everything fascist what you don't like. Such an assignment does not change the facts, however, and it is also worth rejecting because it relativizes fascism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You misrepresent, and I suppose you do so with an agenda. The text already points out that the Fascist takeover isn't complete yet by mentioning the currently lacking control of the House of Representatives.

      "they (...) do not want to transform society totally, they lack radicalism"

      I'm not sure whether you simply haven't paid attention or are simply lying there.

      Delete
  21. By the way: the Council for Secular Humanism rejects all kinds of authoritarian beliefs. That does make every such belief fascism.

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_for_Secular_Humanism

    To define fascism according to their claims is not scientific.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dr. Britt about this article used here:

    My article is a cautionary tale. This is what I’ve researched; this is what I’ve seen; this is what’s happened in the past. You can draw your own conclusions:

    No, this has nothing to do with the United States;

    or, there are some disquieting trends here that we certainly have to be aware of, and the powers that be exhibit many of these characteristics, and we’d better damn well be careful.

    Lawrence Britt, Rochester City Newspaper, December 2004

    ReplyDelete
  23. Lawrence W. Britt is not a doctor in any field at all but a novelist who compiled fourteen points which he believes define a Fascist regime. He is a novelist, with no formal training in political science or history and so his views on fascism should be viewed objectively and as an opinion rather than as fact or as a definition. He is widely known for using rhetoric to equate the modern Republican party with fascism and his work is largely deemed to be political opinion rather than analysis or study.

    ReplyDelete
  24. A science fiction author to be correctly:

    https://www.amazon.com/June-2004-Laurence-W-Britt/dp/1884962203/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485861436&sr=8-1&keywords=laurence+britt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does not change a thing about the fact that this author is simply the same. By the way the book is about the develepoment of an fascist america and contains all off this 14 points as part of the story.

      Delete
  25. Based on a more than flawed and unscientific analysis of fascism by the novelist brittmann making such radical, most extreme political demands such as a break with the usa discredits the author so perfectly that I can only explain such a derailment in such a way that the author himself here in his filter bubble increasingly loses contact with reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The novelist has a different name and we're already past that point. Several scholars were mentioned whose works on Fascism would yield about the same diagnosis.

      Delete
  26. Guys, really? Squabbling about the messenger when the message is so important? Do you need the logical fallacy of appeal to authority to consider something worthy of attention?
    Oh, wait, what you're really doing is you're trying to not face the picture that the sum of symptoms draws. You don't want to see the evil except in your preferred bogeymen, I suppose.

    The fact that the 14 points are met - and every single one of them is very bad news - should matter. I suppose you are part of a problem if you feel there's no need for alarm if only one can (try to) shoot the messenger.

    Besides, we have a politician in Germany who got a court ruling (against him) that everyone is allowed to call him a Fascist. He doesn't come close to meeting all 14 checklist points above (he fits about five).

    -------------

    There are two reasonable ways to criticize this blog post imo:
    1) Find a mistake, such as one of the 14 points not being present in the Fascism in Germany/Italy/Spain (I suppose we can ignore Chile and Indonesia for simplicity).
    2) Disprove the green descriptions of symptoms in the Republican Party (if you can). Hint; this could be attempted by inflating the 'Libertarians among Republicans' fig leaf in one or two counts.

    --------------

    Instead, I just saw some attacks on the messenger and some seeming Fascists arguing essentially 'so what?'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To Point 1)

      The above-mentioned 14 points are misleading and unscientific because they do not appear exclusively in fascist regimes in any way. They occur just as well in many other movements that are explicitly not fascist. Political science therefore makes little sense to define fascism using these 14 points, since on the one hand the differences to other groups are no longer tangible and on the other hand fascism is relativized.

      The fact that most of the 14 points mentioned existed in the sometimes very different regimes in Germany, Italy and Spain means little if you consider how many other states and forms of government they also existed in. In principle, this is exactly like saying: Germans preferred a particular style of art at the time, so everyone who preferred this style of art is a National Socialist. That is the point. Here peculiarities that are not specifically fascist are presented as the only features of fascism and are derived from this, the Republicans are a fascist party.

      And in the original post, Mr. Ortmann explicitly claimed that the United States had a fascist government (see there). Both is not the case. Just because certain peculiarities existed among other things in fascist governments is not every government in which these peculiarities also exist fascist. The 14 points are simply not enough for that.

      Delete
    2. You need to read. The 14 points are commonalities. Commonalities that you won't find in free countries with governments doing a good job - not in this combination.

      You don't seem to understand the concept of a definition (though this was a checklist, not a definition). A definition may very well include criteria that are necessary, but not sufficient. proper math education should help understand the concept.

      Your art strawman is bollocks and not worthy of attention.

      The United States has an executive branch led by incompetent Fascist and half of its legislative branch is dominated by Fascists. They don't get their will 100%, but that's not a necessary criterion for Fascism.


      Frankly, something is wrong with you if you think a focus on the label is appropriate in light of how many criteria of evil intent and behaviour are met.

      Delete
  27. To Point 1 again)

    If we take the 14 points to determine what is fascist and what is not, then a large part of all states in the history of mankind was fascist and still is the majority of states worldwide fascist. This would also mean that fascism is the predominant and normal form of organizing human societies, and non-fascist societies the exception. However, since the word fascism always expressly relates to the fascist powers in the Second World War, such a definition either falsifies the view of real fascist regimes or falsifies the view of regimes which, despite their undoubtedly negative characteristics, are not fascist. This is how the US government is classified as fascist. This is done on purpose, of course, in order to discredit them completely, by using the term to connect them with the real fascist powers and everything that they have done wrong, which in reality does not exist.

    What is also strange to me is the restriction to Italy, Germany and Spain during the Second World War. At this time, Japan, for example, would be more suitable than Spain, which has not yet been mentioned here. But that only marginally.

    ReplyDelete
  28. To Point 2)

    1. The waving of flags and the widespread and frequent use of national symbols do not begin to establish a nationalism in the form that exists in fascist groups as its basis. In addition, contrary to Mr. Ortmann's claim, this use of national symbols in the USA is by no means exaggerated compared to other countries, but on average it is quite normal. In most countries in the world, it has never been different, and it is no different today. Disproved.

    Englisch

    There is no doubt that the US does not respect human rights to the same extent as it does in Germany today. But this is by no means comparable to the total disregard for human rights in fascist regimes. Not even in the beginning. In addition, the USA is very inconspicuous in an international comparison and has tortured the USA before (the Cold War, for example) and also under democratic governments. Even France tortured much more and much more extreme than the USA today in the Algerian war. No uniqueness. No comparison to what real fascist regimes did. Disproved.

    The use of enemy images to close the ranks is just as used by the Democrats, just as used by LInken, just as used by Muslims, etc. and is therefore neither unique nor distinguishable. The question of the radicalness of the conclusions from this would be more important with regard to the question of classification as a fascist regime. Here the republican party lacks the radicalism that is usual for real fascist movements. Disproved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You clearly have no idea of what you're writing about. The use of flag decorum is way above normal in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world.
      And then there's the jingoist slogan.

      The torture point is bollocks as well.
      "Disdain for human rights shown by Republicans in cases of caging, torture advocacy, elevating war criminals to campaign props" stands unrefuted.

      French torture 60 years ago does not matter in this case. The criterion does not elevate France to a threshold case. The criterion is met.
      https://civilrights.org/trump-rollbacks/

      Delete
    2. Let's just stick to the point of torture: the usa made people disappear here in germany in the early years of the federal republic and tortured them in secret prisons within germany with the knowledge of the German government. Were the usa already fascist even then?

      Delete
  29. 4. Militarism in fascist states differs from militarism in the USA on the one hand by the degree of Bellicism, on the other hand by the actual power of the military over the state apparatus or at least over essential parts of the state. Exaggerated armament alone is not a unique selling point of fascist states. Disproved.

    5. Sexism in the form described here has been absolutely prevalent throughout human history. The fact that primarily white older men exercise power is also the case in many explicitly non-fascist societies. Abortion can also be rejected for completely different reasons than from which fascists led to an anti-abortion stance. Disproved.

    6. The press landscape in the USA is by no means uniform. But it is uniform even within the right scene. However, making the degree of truth in the reporting a criterion (fake news, etc.) is also unsuitable because, on the one hand, the Democrats and Leftists also spread and use fake news, among other things, and the war for the memes is increasingly becoming a general feature of politics. Completely regardless of whether it is fascist or not. Disproved.

    7. There is little that the majority of Republicans hate less than Russia, perhaps russian muslims. Internal and external security is always a key issue for conservative parties and there is no difference in the Republicans here from other such parties in Europe or elsewhere. If this were to be the primary criterion, several European governments would be significantly more fascist than the United States. But even more: fear is used on all sides to pursue politics and motivate the masses. Always on the assumption that you represent the truth yourself and therefore have to use this to advance it. This also applies to the climate protection movement, or left groups who advocate for refugees etc. etc. Disproved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4.
      "Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized."
      Fully met.

      You're pretending the 'it has to be identical to fit the same category' nonsense here. Fascist Spain was probably less militaristic than the United States, and certainly less aggressive.

      5) You need to learn the meaning of necessary and sufficient requirements. Your logic is faulty.

      6) My description stands. It's obvious that the party that's continuously accusing the press of being fake and lying whenever it reports something unwanted is not in favour of a free press.

      7) You're in denial of relaity.
      https://news.gallup.com/poll/237137/republicans-positive-relations-russia.aspx
      Besides, the criterion is national security obsession, and that's an obvious check-the-box regarding Republicans.


      Your attempts at distraction are pointless.

      Delete
    2. 7. According to your own link 60 % of the republicans do not say that russia is friendly to the us. Who is here in denial of reality? You life in an leftwing extremist filter buble in which you interprete every source to support your claims. The rest is only a question of definition, see above.

      Delete

    3. Incidentally, a number of political scientists doubt whether Spain can really be classified as fascist at this time. The fixation on Spain is all the more surprising given that the empire of japan would be a much better example of the negative influence of the military in an actually fascist society.

      Delete
  30. 8. In the United States, religion and conservative politics have always been closely linked. Religion simply has a very different status in the United States than in Germany, so it is often difficult for outsiders to understand that religious rethoric is something quite normal in the United States. By the way: the National Socialists strongly rejected the Christian religion and the resistance to the Nazis came not least from strongly religious people. And in other countries, especially in Islamic countries, religion has a higher priority. Likewise also in several European countries in which religion has not experienced such a decline as in Germany. To want to classify American religiousness as fascist from the German special way is more than questionable. Disproved.

    9. Englisch

    Seriously? In my opinion, the power of large companies and their leadership caste is protected in exactly the same way in Germany. As in any other successful country. Here's another amusing anecdote about the United States: the majority of the it industry had clearly positioned itself against Trump before the election, and their taxes were cut exactly the same or even more. Political support is also always rewarded, especially in Germany. The difference in fascist countries, however, is that the economy is absolutely subordinated to certain government goals and this subordination is rewarded with immense opportunities for enrichment (slave labor, destruction of competitive companies, opportunities for action, lawlessness, etc.). Germany, with its criminal deceitful managerial caste, is closer to fascism than the United States today. Disproved.

    10. Thatcher was also a fascist and england was a fascist state in the 90s. Not really. In addition, before 1900 unions were sometimes fought much more violently. some with gun violence, some with vigilants.And not just in the United States. Disproved.

    11.Freedom of teaching and thinking are actually fought primarily from the left in the usa today, as this has gained sovereignty at most universities. Thinking beyond left-wing ideology is no longer tolerated at many us universities. Of course, Republicans are now fighting left-wing groups and since they are primarily at universities there. This has more to do with the extremely one-sided left-wing orientation of the universities than with any alleged fascist tendencies. If the universities were right-wing in their ideological orientation, we would observe the opposite and the Democrats and the Left would be in the place of the Republicans. In addition, the majority of a people in a democracy is not the predominant group of student representatives, but the people. Following this is democracy. That the republicans, of course, only pretend that nothing changes. And the conditions in the USA are worlds away from being synchronized in real fascist states. Disproved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8) Normalcy is no refutation. The Nazis didn't make much use of Christianity, but they were making up their own pseudo-religious cult.

      9) You have either no idea about the German economy or about the American economy if you think that German policies are as pro-corporate as Republican ones. Besides, you once again fail to pay attention. Germany is not a yardstick in this checklist.

      10) Your Strawman is embarrassing to your, as is your pervasive inability to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient requirements.

      11) You're lying. I'm aware of the Republicans' efforts to suppress evolution and climate change in school teaching. I'm also aware of the Republican mainstream disdain for liberal arts and their near-exclusive employment of hacks instead of actual subject matter experts.
      Besides, you once show your inability to apply logic. Whether the left does those things as well does not matter to the diagnosis of Republicans.
      Nobody gets healthy just becuase the neighbour is coughing as well.

      Delete
    2. Then, by your definition, almost all countries in the world are fascist. And almost all states have also been fascist in history. Here and today this means in particular a number of European countries (Poland, Hungary, etc.). Since you explain that you have to break with the usa and have to position yourself against it, does this also apply to all other fascist states, i.e. also to the corresponding european countries?

      And what is the difference between left and right states? According to the 14-point list, a number of states with leftist government are as fascist as de facto all islamic countries. It is this arbitrariness that I criticize. The 14 points apply to a large number of states ruled by the left. Hence everything fascists. But if everyone is fascist, how do you differentiate between political ideologies?

      Delete
  31. Inset: Alignment is one of the most important aspects of real fascism. The Republicans, however, do not strive for alignment in the sense that fascists have as their primary goal.

    12. Eines der bestimmenden Elemente des Faschismus ist ein strikter Etatismus. Gerade die polizeistrukturen in den USA sind das gegenteil davon, nämlich höchst anti-etatisch. Und von uneingeschränkter Macht wie in einem faschistischen Staat sind die polizeibehörden in den usa ebenfalls noch weit entfernt. Disproved.

    13. The same is true for the democrats and for left-wing groups in other countries. Keyword worker welfare and spd in Germany. Disproved.

    14. The exploitation of poorly constructed electoral laws, loopholes and misconstructions in law is not limited to the republicans alone. Again there is no difference here to the Democrats or to other countries either in the past or today. Disproved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12) Not disproved at all, everything I wrote stands.

      13) You truly do not understand logic. The criterion is met. Completely.

      14) same, over and over again. You are unable to cope with the simple checklist.

      Delete
    2. Let's just stick to number 12 here: radical statism is one of the most important points of fascism. This is defined by radical statism. The police structures in the United States are not static. The structure of the police force in the United States, and in particular the sheriff departments leaning towards Republicans, are the exact opposite of what constitutes fascism at its core. Anyone who dismisses this as succinctly as you do here reveals that he has no idea about political science and fascism.

      Delete
    3. Your claims that police structures in the U.S. "are not static" (not state / government run) shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just trying to get away with some actually quite trivial technical terms.

      Delete
  32. About the discussion with authorities: Mr. Ortmann criticizes here that one attacks the messenger (brittmann) instead of concentrating on the content. But even he simply unwraps a few names from fascism researchers (Kitsikis, Paxton, Sternhell, Weiss, Griffin or even Eco) and does nothing but a discussion with authorities. The authors mentioned sometimes have very different views. Amusing that in the end he calls Eco, Brittmann has clearly written off Eco and eco's classification is not only much better and more precise, but also better formulated.

    Incidentally, this does not mean that these 14 points are worthless or that there are not quite massive undesirable developments in the USA. But simply deriving a term as fascism from this and then making the most radical political demands from it is also nothing more than political extremism. Incidentally, which does not necessarily have to be wrong. extreme developments can require extreme solutions.

    Concluding: in my opinion, neither the government of the usa nor the republicans are currently fascist in their own right. But: in my opinion there is a great danger in the usa that a fascist state could actually form there and that the usa could become a fascist injustice regime. Exactly before that, the author Brittmann warns in a very entertaining and clever way in his novel, which has already been mentioned here.

    Therefore, in my opinion, the usa is currently at a crossroads and could well become a real fascist state of injustice. The question then arises as to what political conclusions other countries should draw from it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The observed symptoms fully justify the conclusions. That's separate from the checklist.

      Delete
    2. You can define things as you like. But this leads to a distortion of the perception of both the present and the past. It relativizes the crimes of fascism and how negative it actually was for society, and at the same time it hinders the perception of actual problems here and today. Anyone who throws around terms that are clearly defined by certain properties must accept the accusation that he is not concerned with an examination of the actual state but only with ideology. Of course, one cannot argue against this.

      This list of 14 points had been kept up by President Bush during the election campaign. By the way, much more than today. Finding it again and again does not change the fact that it is just a generalized copy of theses that Eco has drawn up and that its generalization does not meet scientific requirements. But of course it meets your ideological requirements.

      Anyone who, like you, does not even understand in the area of ​​statism how fascism is structured and what fascism is and what is not, cannot be discussed with. Which is why I won't bother you anymore.

      Delete
  33. The republican credo is, you need a weak state before everything else (to weaken the state to give the plutokrats and the economy more possibilites to enrich themselfe). In fascism it is the opposite. Fascism wants to strengthen the state to the point in which the state an the society will become one. This is called Etatismus in german. The interest of the state is everything in fascism and the republican party claims the opposite, that the state should be weakend as much as possible to give the rich and the corporations as much wealth as possible. This is contrary to each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, they just want to weaken whatever parts of the government don't work for plutocrats. Like, providing for health, protecting consumers against rip-offs, anti-trust, equal opportunity policies, environmental protection.
      Republicans LOVE a powerful government when they get to wield its power to bully others.

      Delete
    2. The Republicans not only want to weaken the state in areas that are in the way of the plutocrats, but also in other until the state shows serious malfunctions and can no longer perform its tasks. This republican extremism is making them increasingly incapable of politics at all. They see the problem as such in the state because its very existence hinders the enrichment of the elites. The state should therefore be converted into a mere money redistribution machine, which flushes out loans and tax money to the rich and nothing more. This is completly contrary to the fascist understanding of the state. In this too many mechanisms serve to enrich the rich, but the approach is completly different. Here the state should absolutely control every aspect of the society in a total way. To quote Mussolini: "For the fascist, everything is in the state and there is nothing human outside the state." This is completely diametrical to what the republicans essentially are.

      Just because the Republicans are the political arm of the plutocrats does not make them fascists.

      Delete
    3. Your description is in conflict with the reality of increased spending, the reality of Republicans using government to bully women who want to have abortions, the reality of Republicans welcoming minority oppression by police.

      Historical Fascists didn't come up with mandatory transvaginal probes or fetus re-insertion fantasies. That was Republicans wielding the power of the state to bully people.

      Delete
  34. @S.O.

    >> Europe may secure itself AGAINST the Americans in the >>medium term (3...5 years) rather than with them. America >>has a (weak) fascist government now. The USA are a >>THREAT to free Europe in the medium term perspective.

    >>Europeans should stop considering the Americans to be >>allies at all and prepare AGAINST them.

    What about all the european countries which are fascist countries according to the 14 points ? You talk about the europeans preparing against the usa ? What about poland, hungary and so and so on. Many european states today are fascist states according to your definition. Should they be expelled from the eu and should the rest eu prepare against them too ?

    Should therefore this rest eu prepare against all other fascist regimes in the world which are according to this 14 points nearly most states ?

    How could anyone even think such an extremist policy could work at all ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poland and Hungary are nowhere near checking the boxes #2, #4. #9 or #10 as clearly as the Republican-led U.S. do.
      Your assertion that most states meet these 14 points is unfounded and incorrect.

      And again, even a full-blown Fascist Poland wouldn't be as much a concern as a Fascist-led nuclear-armed U.S..

      Delete
  35. I agree that those 14 points describes quite well Fascism. Even Soviet communism almost fit there.

    Anyway I think SO applies them to the whole of Republican party, when really only the right wing of it fullfils completely. The thing here is that any moderate republican who dare to question GOP "doctrine" will be attacked and sidelined. So the moderates try to survive for the moment.

    I don't discard that if this trend continues several legislatures the GOP republicans could finish the remaining democratic controls and convert USA in a filo-fascist regime.

    The ingredients are there (angry middle class, economic downturn for all but top 1%, perceived international decline, etc)

    JM

    ReplyDelete
  36. Germany has largely lost its ability to defend itself - it is no longer even able to protect its own borders, let alone avert an attack by a foreign power.

    There is no longer a functioning army, so germany would be completely dependent on NATO in an emergency, and NATO stands and falls with the United States.

    Anyone who wants to protect Germany should urgently warn against further deterioration in German-American relations instead of recommending confrontation with their most important ally, semi-fascist or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This "NATO stands and falls with the United States" nonsense was refuted here repeatedly.

      Please look up reality.

      https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2015/10/military-im-balance-in-europe.html

      Delete
  37. You live in a fantasy world when you write that Europe should arm itself militarily against the usa. That we need more ship-killing capability and that we should protect the few and technically inferior European fighter planes against crusie misile attacks etc. This is extremely ridiculous and so far from any reality that i cannot even find words for it.

    Apart from the fact that the majority of European countries will remain loyal to the usa, their decisive air systems (f-35 for example), are completely dependent on the usa, in some cases even controlled and continuously monitored by them (alis).

    How can someone who thinks of himself as a logical thinking person write such an absurd nonsense in the plain view of the real political conditions and real political opportunities here in Europe?

    It devalues ​​everything else you write and questions whether any assessment of you are actually logically rational. Ideology is no substitute for the knowledge of reality. But keep living in your filter bubble of European strength, independence and armament against the usa.

    Under no circumstances should ideological blindness be the basis of politics.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The entire American naval combat aircraft force is some 500 planes, and there's practically no way to have them in the air at the same time to defend even a giant CV fleet. Most of those planes are still Super Hornets and Growlers - rather inferior to Typhoons in air combat.

      The damage that thousands of naval cruise missiles could do to military targets can be mitigated by hiding them. The damage they can do to civilian targets can be repaired quite well (though powerplants would be tricky), as WW2 experience shows.
      F-35 parts production depends on non-American sources, just as it depends on American sources.

      I suppose you deem the possible impossible.

      Delete
    2. Provocative suggestion: the fastest and cheapest way of keeping out the USN is to order a few S-400 regiments from Almaz-Antey. A dozen (or two) should ensure practically complete safety from USN carrier aircraft to the European continental mainland. Cruise missile detection? Buy Rezonans-E OTH. Algeria, Egypt, and Iran might be examples to learn from in the field of deterrence through procurement (not politically of course)

      Delete
    3. The S-400's effective radius is nowhere that great. Two batteries wouldn't suffice for proper protection of Germany even if we pretend that the supposed nominal range of their longest-ranged missile was the effective range.

      I wrote about the French NOSTRADAMUS OTH radar, but I am not sure that OTH radars are suitable (capable & reliable) for detecting stealthy cruise missiles at useful ranges. OTH radars don't yield exact location data on contacts, so it's unlikely that they would suffice for firing solution data for SAMs with tiny seekers and thus very short detection ranges. The defence would probably require additional means, such as AEW.

      I have a post scheduled for next Saturday that touches on this topic.

      Delete
    4. I'm looking forward to it :) S-400s radius is not a 400km death-zone, yes, but it's a very useful system in the above scenario because 1) it's powerful and mobile Early Warning radar forces enemy aircraft to fly low to avoid detection, with consequent performance penalties 2) it's quite capable 200km ranged SAGG-guided missiles force enemy airforces to focus on killing it first, otherwise attrition per sortie too high 3) it's mobility forces the enemy to be much more cautious and spend more time/resources on intelligence before committing to an air-attack - travelling on roads/railways it can reposition about same order of magnitude speed as a carrier battle group 4) a regiment has enough missiles to make saturation a very difficult business, particular when considering the difficulties in quickly and sneakily assembling a large strike package by carrier-take off. As such a 12-24 regiments along the western coast of continental Europe would be a pretty good deterrent to US carrier power, combined with some nasty anti-ship missiles and/or coastal subs. The numbers would be wholly insufficient to deal with the USN's huge cruise missile "magazine depth though" - TorM2KM - the containerised version might be a solution for key targets.
      Of course, the hardest thing would be to build a common IADS infrastructure and get it to work reliably in unpredictable situations, which e.g. the Iranians recently demonstrated isn't that easy. But the building blocks could be relatively quickly purchased, I'd polemicise.

      Delete
  38. Bravo Sven! It takes a great deal of courage to "connect the dots" and state this publicly.

    Yes, the USA seems somewhat proto-fascist, and is a threat to European (both EU and non EU) security and global security and have been for a long time - in my view this can be traced back to their unwise decision post-45' to break the promises made at Jalta and fight a vicious campaign to carve out a global empire in the face of the decolonisation struggle, all the while using the "red threat" to distract from it. They have since accumulated among other things, a thirst for imperial glory, a huge internal and external permanent propaganda machine, and a few Dolchstoss-Legende myths about Vietnam and currently Iraq and Afghanistan. Lovely. Also perfectly predictable as a spread of outcomes/trajectories - still better late than never, even if 70 years too late.

    I do still think you do yourself a disservice by neglecting Dimitriev's definition of fascism, and the historical role of your hallowed liberal democracy in leading to it, but that's my opinion.

    ReplyDelete