

what you think you know is irrelevant.

Rhonda Chriss Lokeman, a blackish Star columnist decided to make her own Imus remarks in her April 8th column regarding everyone's favorite classless Bonnie Parker wannabe, Shautay Henderson.

Sir Richard Branson (yeah, the Virgin Records guy) brought his talent for publicity to bear on climate change on Friday, offering a $25m prize to anyone who invents an economical way of removing carbon from the atmosphere.
Finally now something might get accomplished with the worsening condition of the carbon choking the planet. Nothing EVER gets accomplished without a couple of millions behind it. I can already see the Not to be a treehuggingotdamnedhippe, but i'd like to be able to drive horribly inefficient gas guzzling V-8 ferrari's for the remainder of my time in this existence. The day they outlaw internal combustion engines to save the atmosphere waaaay too late is the day I blow something up.
Anyways, the only element I can manipulate on demand is methane. I guess my frequent methane 'releases' aren't really helping anything though. Ah well, back to the lab. Come, Igor--that 25Mill is as good as mine.

It's pretty evident that in the wake of the entire spectrum of race-related issues in this failing republic, many members of the majority still can't seem to get right. I keep hearing people bitch that minorities need to 'get over' their shitty treatment in this country and move on. How?
That makes you a racist bigot, and I sincerely hope that your insensitivity and social retardation follow you for the remainder of your life. I'm glad the schools are taking action in these cases, but i'm so jaded when it comes to race relations in this country that i'm wondering if they aren't just trying to avoid the NAACP bringing the heat.
When will it change? There are many of us who are sick of waiting. Are you part of the problem? If you are part of the problem, please do humanity a favor and don't procreate. Just let your stupidity and intolerance die when you do.
Associate Press January 23,2007
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - A second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group now steaming toward the Middle East is Washington’s way of warning Iran to back down in its attempts to dominate the region, a top U.S. diplomat said here Tuesday.
Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, ruled out direct negotiations with Iran and said a rapprochement between Washington and Tehran was “not possible” until Iran halts uranium enrichment.
“The Middle East isn’t a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn’t a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That’s why we’ve seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region,” Burns said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank.
“Iran is going to have to understand that the United States will protect its interests if Iran seeks to confront us,” Burns continued.
________
I thought Jim Webbs' response was pretty decent. A military veteran with a son in Iraq, Senator Webb put Bush in the cross-hairs of irresponsibility last night when he said:
"Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues, those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way."
So if you believe the President, Iran is behind these newest series of attacks in Iraq. Do people actually believe him? If they do, why? I guess Iran is hiding Bin Laden and they came in to cart out those WMD's too. Damn you, Iran!



"According to the Washington Post, "a 'signing statement' attached to a postal reform bill on December 20 says the Bush administration 'shall construe' a section of that law to allow the opening of sealed mail to protect life, guard against hazardous materials or conduct 'physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.'" This move seems to have opened the door for the government to open mail without a warrant.
This makes more than 750 presidential signing statements, according to the Associated Press, by an Administration that has consistently tried to alter laws that it finds unpalatable. This total surpasses the number of signing statements issued by all American Presidents combined before #43. The threat to democracy is obvious if laws that members of Congress have crafted after research, debate and bipartisan negotiation can be gutted with a few strokes of the president's pen."





NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- New Orleans police lined up "like at a firing range" and fatally shot an unarmed man in the back as he fled from them in the days after Hurricane Katrina swept ashore, a witness to the shooting told CNN.It marks the first time a witness has come forward publicly with information about the shooting of Ronald Madison, a 40-year-old mentally retarded man whose death has sparked a police investigation and a grand jury probe into what happened in and around the Danziger Bridge that day.
"He just fell like he was collapsing," Kasimir Gaston told CNN. "Like something just wiped him out." (Watch Gaston describe what he saw
)
Gaston was one of many flood refugees living on the second floor of the Friendly Inn, a low-income motel on the city's east side. On Sunday, September 4 of last year, he says he woke up and stepped onto the balcony of the motel and saw a man running, hands outstretched and being fired upon.
Initial police accounts said that Madison reached for his waistband and turned on police, but Gaston said Madison did not appear to have a weapon and that he was running away from police "hands out, full speed" when he was shot.
Police declined CNN's request for an interview.
After the shooting last year, police said officers had responded to reported gunshots on the Danziger Bridge and that a running gunbattle ensued with six suspects.
One teenager was killed near the base of the bridge and three other people were wounded, according to police reports.
A police department press release from October 4, 2005, said Madison, described as an unidentified gunman, was "confronted by a New Orleans Police officer. The suspect reached into his waist and turned toward the officer who fired one shot, fatally wounding him."
When asked if Madison had a gun, Gaston said, "I didn't see any on him."
No gun was found on Madison's body.
An autopsy obtained previously by CNN and verified by the Orleans Parish Coroner said Madison suffered five gunshot wounds to his back and two in his shoulder. (Watch police describe a running 'gunbattle')
"We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade," said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP's takeover of Congress in 1994.
-_-
People's interviewer also mentioned that readers had asked if he takes sleep aids or 'sleeps well' in the face of the current world events. Bush said generally not, but he does occasionally when he travels.
Bush: “I must tell you, I'm sleeping a lot better than people would assume,”

"In whatever milieu coercion is practiced, the routine follows the same basic steps: (1)Generate disorientation, (2)induce regression, and then (3)become the target’s transferred parent figure"Any commissioned salesperson, the CIA, detectives, and cult/church (a cult is just a religion without any power, duh) leaders have long used this technique. Under coercion, millions of otherwise rational people can be persuaded to act against their own interests--whether by shelling out big bucks for overpriced coffee, betraying family members, or allowing a gang of criminals to destroy their nation’s Constitution and launch criminal wars of aggression.I've worked several commission-sales jobs and done well, notably high-dollar electronics and new cars. They always make you 'train' for a couple of weeks on how they think selling should be. Selling things to people (read: manipulating other people's money) is simple if you understand the fundamentals of coercion. Therefore I completely ignored the 'training' they gave and simply followed the three steps listed above. It's tried and true and works 90% of the time.
Have you ever seen a dramatization of a police interrogation (or seen it in real life, you criminal)? Of course you have. Take a look at the interrogation room. It's stark, usually no windows. The room is kept hot or cold on purpose, and the chairs are plain and uncomfortable. They usually keep you waiting for a while and inevitably panic sets in before anybody says anything. Did you notice the camera monitoring your mannerisms and body language? What do you think those European unmarked CIA prison's interrogation rooms look like?
Whenever I'd walk out to greet someone on the showroom floor or on the car lot, I'd walk purposefully and directly at the 'mark' and stick my hand out for a handshake while introducing myself. "Welcome to ________ my name is _______, and you are..?" I have immediately diffused the standoffish nature that the conversation would have taken, and it's almost a knee jerk reaction for them to give me their name in response. I won't go into super detail about how the conversation always plays out, but it's always the same with about a 5-10% variance. The marks' arms eventually uncross, and he allows me to engage him in meaningless small talk and dumb jokes (he sees just how 'stupid and harmless' i really am). I always say that I'm new. I steer the conversation towards reinforcing his/her dissatisfaction with their current car, and establish ownership by opening the car up and having them sit in the drivers' seat. The mark is already in a vehicle, being asked to imagine himself owning the same type of vehicle. It’s the same as if I asked you about the kind of book you can imagine yourself reading. Your current situation is re-framed in fantasy. It creates a momentary confusion, or dissociation, from the activity you’re involved in. If the mark answers no, he gets the same treatment in other cars until he answers yes. Then he is brought back to the dealership and infantized, as the salesman becomes his transferred parent figure. He is told where to go, how to walk, where to sit. In this way, the mark is trained to obey, and given his fear and disorientation in the sales environment, he welcomes the commands and their implied invitation for him to regress into the safety of childhood.
Once the customer has been infantized, he is controlled by various tricks. One of the best-known is the “common enemy” technique. The salesman pretends to be conspiring with the customer against the nasty head of the dealership, or against another salesman who is greedy and dishonest. The "common enemy" technique is also used by the police (started by various intelligence agencies)--one interrogator, the "good cop," teams up with the subject against the other interrogator, the "bad cop."
Governments, of course, use the same technique: In October 2001, Bush doubled his approval ratings by infantizing the American public on 9/11 and rallying them against the "common enemy" of evildoing Muslim extremists. Bush, of course, would assume the role of protector and savior.
more later...
F
My favorite comedian George Carlin (don't give me any shit--he's brilliant) is the master of euphemisms, which happen to be a hobby of mine. The way people manipulate language has a massive effect on everything we do/say/believe in.
Senator-Elect Claire McCaskill (D-MO) appeared on CBS Face The Nation Sunday morning. Among the many topics covered, McCaskill discussed her position on the Iraq war in the context of her recent appointment to the Senate Armed Services Committee. McCaskill strongly questions the role of money in the war, both in terms of the money the US government is putting into the war, as well as the money contractors and others are making in the rebuilding of Iraq. Partial transcript:
"But I know as a new member of the Senate, and as a new member of the Armed Services Committee, I want to ask some questions, because this supplemental appropriation of $150 billion the President is going to ask for, clearly we need to have some accountability. People have gotten rich off this war, and I want to make sure we put a stop to that."I sincerely hope you can back this talk up, Senator. After all, i DID have to go one entire city block out of my way to vote for you during my lunch break. If I got you closer to a Senate job, the least you can do is hold the war profiteering companies accountable for the disastrous Iraq War. Well, at least chair a committee. Anybody can talk a big game before they take office.



'Fifty years ago we'd have you upside down with a fucking fork up your ass. Throw his ass out. He's a nigger! He's a nigger! He's a nigger! A nigger, look, there's a nigger! They're going to arrest me for calling a black man a nigger.'His rant was beyond jokes, and now that I think of it 98% of black people would have kicked your narrow ass on stage without hesitation. You can see white people in the TMZ video hurriedly leaving--they knew what the deal was. If you're gonna drop n-bombs on around black people, you should at least have sense enough to prepare for a beating. Actually I saw George Carlin drop a couple when he was performing here in KC, but they were in the context of an excellent social critique of our society.

Poppy Bush and James Baker gave Sonny the presidency to play with and he broke it. So now they’re taking it back.—The president and Karl Rove, underestimating the public’s hunger for change or overestimating the loyalty of a fed-up base, did not ice Rummy in time to save the Senate from teetering Democratic. But once Sonny managed to heedlessly dynamite the Republican majority — as well as the Middle East, the Atlantic alliance and the U.S. Army — then Bush Inc., the family firm that snatched the presidency for W. in 2000, had to step in.
While Vice went off to a corner to lick his wounds, W. was forced to do his best imitation of his dad yesterday, talking about “bipartisan outreach,” “people have spoken,” blah-blah-blah — after he’d been out on the trail saying that electing Democrats would mean that “the terrorists win and America loses.”
He was asked if his surprise at the election results showed he was out of touch with Americans. “I thought when it was all said and done,” he replied, “the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security.”
So it was just that the American people were too dumb to understand? W. also managed to bash Vietnam vets, saying that this war isn’t similar because there’s a volunteer army, so “the troops understand the consequences of Iraq in the global war on terror.” Is that why W. stayed out of Vietnam? Because he understood it?
I watched Speaker Pelosi talk about her agenda for the beginning of her House leadership today. Contrary to what conservatives believe it did not include: gay abortion cloning, abandoning our troops, or making San Francisco an honorary European city. These idiots have been throwing around the term 'Nancy Pelosi Liberals' like it's a slur. I think there are going to be hearings all over the place, and there will be more resignations as there finally appears to be someone who can force accountability in the government.-Increase science research, ensure the teaching of evolution, increase funding for community colleges.
-Cut student-loan interest rates by half.
-Ensure access to family planning methods and abortion, fund infant and child-care.
-Increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour before Congress gets a raise, increase employment benefits.
-Enact funding recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
-Institute lobbying reform, implement balanced budgets, pay down the national debt.
-Enact tax changes to benefit entrepreneurs.
-Focus national security strategy to nation's borders, increase port security.
-Fund more public transportation, promote environmental restoration.
-Repeal subsidies for oil and gas companies to encourage renewable fuels.

What news, what news, what GLORIOUS news.Officials said Robert Gates, former head of the CIA (current president of Texas A&M), would replace Rumsfeld.
Of course, nobody listened during the year prior that Dems were calling for Rummy's resignation. Not the GOP, not W, not Faux News. Nobody on the Right wanted to admit that the problems stemmed from the shitty policies of a shitty Defense Secretary. As expected, Bush's nomination for the job is not without his controversy.Robert M. Gates was the Central Intelligence Agency's deputy director for intelligence (DDI) from 1982 to 1986. He was confirmed as the CIA's deputy director of central intelligence (DDCI) in April of 1986 and became acting director of central intelligence in December of that same year. Owing to his senior status in the CIA, Gates was very close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities.Oh wow, Apparently now Montana has gone Blue. Don't screw us, Virginia. By the way, 'us' is my euphamism for regular people who are fed up with the direction of this country.

LONDON - The United States is seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbors and allies, with Britons saying President Bush poses a greater danger than North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, a survey found Friday.A majority of Canadians and Mexicans agreed, with 62 percent of those polled in Canada and 57 percent in Mexico saying their neighbor’s policy had made the world more dangerous.
So apparently my suspicions were true.
Oh man. Never a slow news day.Then, Mr. Kerry said: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
"If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is a classic GOP play book. I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come form those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.
"I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq," rails Kerry, in the statement. "It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have."Kerry asserts that it is the President and Vice President Cheney who owe troops an apology for misleading the country into war, saying they have "widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it."
"These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor," the statement continues. "Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they're afraid to debate real men. And this time it won’t work because we're going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions."
He concludes, "No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq."
ummm...where was this guy in 2004?
I know you've seen/read about these people picketing soldiers' funerals before. The 'church' that preaches that since the US 'harbors gays' that God is killing us in Iraq. But I haven't seen it on the news in quite some time even though. Being a good sheep, i thought that since the news wasn't covering it still--it wasnt happening. I was taking a look at the iraq casualties and remembered this 'church' . I never thought i'd say that i hated a church...but...if i even ran into one of these assholes, someone would have to bail me out.The two most significant facts about the current crew in power is that they have increased the debt overhang facing the next generation from $20 trillion to $43 trillion in five years. The new Medicare entitlement was putting fiscal gasoline on a raging fire of debt. No one who voted for it can even be faintly described as conservative. Then there's simple pork and corruption. The last transportation bill had over 6,000 earmarks in it. Reagan vetoed a bill because it had 150 earmarks in it. That was when the GOP was conservative. What Bush-DeLay-Hastert-Frist are about is not fiscal conservatism in any recognizable form. They are about borrowing vast amounts of money from Asian banks, spending more liberally than any Democratic Congress since FDR, and using it to bribe voters in gerry-mandered districts to keep themselves in power..."
Source: Andrew Sullivan


i am going wondering what the 'Christian Right' is thinking. If I'm alone in my thoughts for longer than a minute--my brain makes futile attempts to follow the logic of these people who unwaveringly support the the president and his countless moronic foibles. After the headaches and anger reach a boiling point, i try to apply reason to the current schism in America's mental state. I calm down, then I see another Bush/Cheney sticker on some suburban soccer moms' SUV and I lose it again. "What are you thinking...wait...are you thinking?" When did people in this country become so complacent in the face of such obvious inadequacy at the highest of levels? The misinformation, the lies, the propaganda, the cover-ups..do you people see this? I am all for people who believe what they want to. But when you blindly follow flawed policies and support a morally indignant ideology, i can no longer discuss matters of intelligence with you. Most of the Republicans i've known (admittedly VERY few) will always regurgitate rhetoric when i ask them about the current political climate.
“South Korea, forced by the United States, has already halted inter-Korea humanitarian projects and is moving to stop cooperation in other areas. The South is even revealing an intention to join U.S.-led military operations aimed at blockade against us,"
“If South Korea joins the U.S. ploy to pressure us, we will consider it as a declaration of a showdown and take corresponding actions,”

"Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism,' " the group said.
"The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 U.S. states, refuse to recognize the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism," the group said.
I wonder if there are actually politcians who will say, "No, I will not run a negative attack-based campaign. I will beat my opponent purely on the merit of my record, and the voting public will see the good that I have done." (check the truth about Talents' ads here)
So..previously i stated that i'd like to see Senator Obama run for president, and apparently there are plenty of people who feel the same way. When he came to Kansas City, he was preempted on many occasions by people yelling "Obama for President!" which was good for laughs but you could tell he's felt the pressure. It became a pretty major story this morning .

"Black babies are terminated at triple the rate of white babies," a female announcer in one of the ads says, as rain, thunder, and a crying infant are heard in the background. "The Democratic Party supports these abortion laws that are decimating our people, but the individual's right to life is protected in the Republican platform. Democrats say they want our vote.Why don't they want our lives?"
BLACK MAN #1: "If you make a little mistake with one of your 'hos,' you'll want to dispose of that problem tout suite, no questions asked."
BLACK MAN #2: "That's too cold. I don't snuff my own seed."
BLACK MAN #1: "Maybe you do have a reason to vote Republican."
Rush Limbaugh interviewed Vice President Cheney on his show on Tuesday. At one point, Limbaugh asked Cheney to respond to growing frustration over U.S. efforts in Iraq.






I was in attendance this Saturday, where Claire McCaskill had Senator Obama and Rep. Cleaver as guests at the Uptown Theater. I can go either way on her politics, and everyone was there to see Obama anyways.

A week ago, Joe Scarborough asked, "is Bush an idiot?" With the world reeling toward ever increasing intolerance, hate and violence, led by persons who express knowledge of "God's will," we might ask, "Is God an idiot?"
George Bush, the person running the US foreign policy like an idiot, claims that God is directing his actions.
Tony Blair, who never seemed like an idiot before, has thrown his career and reputation away, reportedly because of his deep religious faith. Why is God telling Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair to invade and occupy Iraq? Why is God telling Mr. Bush to sanction torture, or degrading the use of diplomacy?
Terrorism, as is defined these days, is much about people carrying out "Gods will." Osama Bin Laden claims to speak on behalf of God when he urges attacks on civilians.
Mahmood Ahmadinezhad, the devout Shia who is president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, appears to be pushing for new nuclear arsenals, and raising the prospects for war in the middle east.
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the "deeply religious" leader of Hezbollah, is now a hero among many Muslims for provoking a shooting war with Israel. "If you hit Beirut, the Islamic resistance will hit Tel Aviv and is able to do that with God's help," he said.
Israel's aggressive bombing of Lebanon, including countless civilian casualties, is yet another chapter of recent warfare that is based upon religious differences.
Iraq is falling apart, as warfare between Suni and Shia populations are killing thousands per month.
If these conflicts are motivated and directed by persons who pray and listen to God, what does it say about God these days? Or about anyone who claims that God is helping or urging them to wage war or kill?
How is it, that in 2006, we see political leaders of all types claiming that brutality, murder and warfare are "God's will"?
Why are we so defenseless in challenging such ridiculous claims? How have we let religion become a tool to justify the least productive, most foolish, and least moral courses of action?
Do we need a "smarter" God? A "smarter" public? Leaders who can discuss the consequences of hatred, intolerance, violence and warfare in a world that is searching for moral outcomes?
Source: The Blog | James Love: Is God an Idiot? | The Huffington Post
Link to In the NSA Case, a Judge Says No to King George - Yahoo! News
Finally. I was wondering if everyone had forgotten about the NSA's illegal wiretapping program. Apparently the ACLU had been trying to get the program deemed as illegal, which it clearly is. I just have reservations about anything that involves wiretapping, and the real kicker is that the NY TImes had to break the story in order for the public to know it was even happening. Of course, the administration went into attack mode and began denouncing the NY TImes as 'helping the terrorists' by uncovering the newly named 'terrorist survellance program.' I hate PR.
Secret FISA courts, no warrants needed, and no oversight for the NSA. Are people really willing to give up their civil liberties for the illusion of security?
Apparently this judge isn't, and renews my faith that at least somebody is doing something.


They say suicidal Muslim fanatics did it. They say those radical Muslims hate our freedoms. They say the country is full of sleeper agents who could wake up and kill us at any moment, as soon as their little 'I hate America' wristwatch alarms go off.
They say that Saddam had something to do with it--he's Muslim, isn't he? They say invading Afganistan and Iraq was the appropriate response; we had to do something, right? They say is you're not with us, you're against us--and if you're against us that means you are for the terrorist evildoers.
They say those cunning, devious suicide hijackers defeated America's trillion-dollar defenses using flying lessons and box cutters. They say it was ordered by a tall, dark, sinister, hook-nosed dialysis patient in a cave in Afganistan (who kinda looks like Jaffar from Aladdin minus the jewels in the turban).
They say it happened because our defense and intelligence systems didn't see it coming, despite all those urgent warnings from dozens of countries as well as whistleblowers from our own agencies. They say nobody was really to blame, so nobody needed to be investigated, prosecuted, reprimanded, or at the least fired. They say that by promoting the very same people who made the most outrageously improbable blunders, and giving the screw-up agencies a whole lot more money, weve made sure theyll do better next time.
They say anyone who even questions what they say happened is a left-wing radical conspiracy theorist.
i question, and i'm not by myself. I think its my duty as a citizen to question and inspect.
"Who exactly are they and why do they say so much? More amazing, why do we listen to them?" -Douglas Rushkoff, 1999

i have decided that my obsession with poorly-run administrations qualifies as a hobby. No wait, hobbies cost money. This is an 'interest.' Interests are usually free. No, wait--i pay fed taxes (re: they TAKE taxes). Great.
So check it out. I found this somewhere in the infinite, i'll link up the source when i find it.
We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by 'protofascist' regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.
Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking similarities of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.
For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Francos Spain, Salazars Portugal, Papadopouloss Greece, Pinochets Chile, and Suhartos Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.
Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the peoples attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choicerelentless propaganda and disinformationwere usually effective. Often the regimes would incite spontaneous acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and terrorists. Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes excesses.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting national security, and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elites behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the godless. A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of have-not citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. Normal and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or traitors was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included 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.
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against any wrong doing. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. :)
Maybe, maybe not.

