Comaparison to Facism.

Welcome to our community

Take a moment to sign up and join the discussion! It's simple and free.


Active Member
Comaparison to Facism.

Let us draw a comparison to facism shall we? And then we'll take a brief dip into history, for that is where all of this is spinning from.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

I would quite honestly say, that we are fairly nationalistic people. We will not tolerate any anti-America slongans, presidents, etc. However, why not? Are we not free people, are we not saying we are "liberating" the Iraqi people, or are we just purging our tyrananical government onto them? Who wants too face the oppression of the United States?

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.

The Patriot Act, there in lies, the disdain of our human rights. They are now making it their obligation to be "spies" upon our, privacy. Wanna look into my life, go 'head, you'll notice that I don't have much of a life.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

Well, I'll be. We had the 9/11 terrorist attacks, shocking. As I stated in another thread, our president thought we were safe because of an Ocean. Thats the President that I want running this country, someone that thinks an ocean can protect us, when information alone could kill us, particullary the information about the government. We are using the terrorists as a scapegoat, and they have unifed us, you say 9/11 was a government created thing, you are automatically a cyncial guy/gal. The truth may hurt, but I would rather be told the truth, over their lies, and then their deceit as well.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

I'd say we use our military way too much. And they're already over-extended. Just pass the freakin' National Selective Service Act already. I ain't going to serve one damn hour for you fools. Make it you're wish to lock me away. I refuse to fight for a tyranical government, i'd fight for my damned enemy before I fought for THIS administration.

5. Rampant sexism.

Hello Gay-Marriage ban. Its against the bible! Take you're bible and shove it up you're tooter. Thats about all its worth to me, you think by justifying you're encouragement of the ban, that you should use the Bible. If I find the apprpriate Amedment in the Constitution, it clearly states "Seperation of Church and State". Right there, are the means for impeachment.

6. A controlled mass media.

I'd say the neocons have got this one solid lid. They get FoxNews to display whatever they choose, and then the American Public automatically belives it. There used to be a time, when the truth mattered, apparently people are too busy with sex, and drugs to care.

7. Obsession with national security.

Oh Lawd. After the 9/11 attacks, the Patriot Act was passed. Which was supposed to protect us, not hurt us. I beg to differ, they're trying everyone, and using racism against us. Ridiculous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.

Well, I'd say President Bush makes it his viable duty to use the Bible to its fullest extent while hes in office. I don't care if you're a Christian, do you're job right for once. If you want to practice Christianity within the Oval Office, good for you, 'bout the only deed that you can do in there, without being told what to do.

9. Power of corporations protected.

This ain't my expertise, but from what I hear, they are protecting corporations, non-stop. Giving them fedearl aid, just so they can stay alive. Too much money in the Federal Reserve for them to go bankrupt.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.

They're getting there. Thats all I can say, give them a few days, and they'll surely do so.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.

Too funny, Thats all I have to say. Just wait till they start crackin' and puttin' people in their FEMA camps.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

Their obession with crime and punishment is too funny. Too bad they can't fess up too the truth, and admit themselves to the US Supreme Court, but then again, the USSC, is in on it too. So they'd get pardoned.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.

The word corruption, can only deal so little justice. Our government is beyond corrupt, they are inexplicably far out there.

14. Fraudulent elections.

Flordia 2000, other stations said that the state went to Gore, when FoxNews, which is run by the necons, said it went Bush. Well, if I don't smell a conspiracy then, i'll be. Heck, we just experienced another election, inwhich was probably more fraudlent than the last one. Ohio, I'm sure that the neocons stuffed the ballot box full of Bush ballots, with the names Goofy, and Minne Mouse. Give me a break, if you want to further you're PNAC goals, let Kerry do it.

In Conclusion, in no way am I saying that the US government, is indeed a Facist lying sack of mush. Indeed, it may appear to be that way, but as soon as you add the bible, they're good GOP members. Give me a break...

Here is where I got the Bulleted points, the writing was done by me, and what I see:

Just remeber one thing, "smile, it gets a lot worse from here".



Junior Member
Comaparison to Facism.

It occurred to me years ago that most Americans would endorse fascism if it were sold to them without the label and using American "mom and apple pie" marketing techniques.

On the other hand, most Americans will quickly shoot the perpetrator as soon as they realize that what they have been sold is fascism. So let's get the word out.


Senior Member
Comaparison to Facism.

These fourteen points were the things in common found when Dr. Lawrence Britt studied Hitler(Germany), Mussolini(Italy), Franco(Spain), Suharto(Indonesia) and Pinochet(Chile).

Yes, you will find interesting parallels to the US's form of 'Democracy' and our current state of affairs. However, our country was founded much closer towards a Republic than anything else. Is it our turn to experiment with a fascist based control system to insure a continued stay in office for the man in charge?

Only time will tell.

Because when you think about it, each and every one of those past regimes basically made damn sure that the one at the top was very well insulated to the point that it was all but impossible to remove them form their perch of control, thus they were protected.

If you look hard and long enough, you can find almost anything that resembles what you are looking for. But is it actually the case? Remember the Bible Code?

I find it very interesting that Britt failed to bring up Stalin and Lenin. Just because a regime is communist does that mean it can not also be fascist? Or did the fact that they considered religion "an opiate of the common people" and made sure that it never was officially recognized, cause Britt to kick them from the list?
Why not Caesar for that matter or any other?

There has been much speculation about what's wrong and how things are going to hell around here. That is just one side of the coin. Being aware is one thing but being pragmatically pessimistic is the work of the dark side. Before one starts running around and proclaiming Doom and all is lost take a step back and consider the picture in it's entirety.

Life is made up of cycles, hence the adage "Failure to remember the past insures us to repeat it" Because one part of a cycle may be negative does not mean that all of it will be negative. If all that one can see is nothing but negativity than perhaps the viewpoint needs to be adjusted.

I must say that in order to get the full picture, go live in a foreign country for a few years and learn to speak their language. Learn to live like a poor person of that country. Eat the humble food that they eat. You will find that two things may occur to you. First, you are actually a world citizen. Second, Be It Ever So Humble, Right Or Wrong, Home is still home and you would rather live here.

Nothing is perfect. Dwelling on the negative for too long is not a way to view life or your situation imho. Yes, there are things wrong here, but there are more things right that you must not forget also.

I would prefer to go through life smiling because I am doing the best I know how, and it confuses the opposition.

Judge Bean

Senior Member
Comaparison to Facism.

Such strange facts as that Mrs. Dick Cheney was once head of the National Endowment for the Arts-- not to mention her husband's dogged preserverance in his own selfrighteousness and greed (two traits which seem to occur in some people in the absence of character)-- and now wants to have it eliminated, resonate throughout the list. When you burn books, you need to burn them all, everything from Catcher in the Rye to Common Sense. Refer also to the anti-artistic policies of the Nazis in weird combination with their theft of all art they could get their hands on-- two kinds of art permitted, one for the masses, one for the elite.

The Nazi line was that foreign, mongrelized art corrupted the pure soul of the Folk (while soothing the thugs in charge). Compare this to the "culture war" supposedly now being waged (which they want to fuse with the other so-called wars on Drugs and Terror), in which corrupt (and "nonchristian," i.e., Jewish, "secular," and Moslem) spiritual and creative traditions are said to be threatening the way of life in our "Christian nation." Things do not really change all that much, I'm afraid.

Refer to the new Roth novel of fictionalized history, in which Charles Lindbergh becomes the fascist President-- not a farfetched idea at the time, when, among others, Henry Ford and Joseph Kennedy demonstrated the American style of fascist sympathies. Despite the corrosive namecalling of the recent election, in which "mainstream America" was said to be opposed to the "left-leaning" Democrats, it remains true that the far right wing of American Folk associate Fundamentalist Christianity with paramilitary rascism, and target a conglomerate group of "nonwhites" that includes Jews, Catholics, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and now Moslems.

The reason we are always a step or two from a fascist state is not because we have bullies for leaders who like "law 'n' orda" more than peace and justice, but because all human society is always a step or two from the brutal and hating and powerful evil everywhere among us. It's as common and as complicated as dirt.


Re: Comaparison to Facism.

Gawd, how moronic.

First rule of fascism guys:

In a trully fascist state you would not be allowed to distribute anti-government propaganda.:p


Senior Member
Re: Comaparison to Facism.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"lucidus\")</div>
Gawd, how moronic.

First rule of fascism guys:

In a trully fascist state you would not be allowed to distribute anti-government propaganda.:p[/b]

Yeah, lucidus, there was probably some anti-Hitler and anti-Nazi publications before they were outlawed there. Believe what you wanna believe man. The signs are there and the trend is in place. You wanna wait til you CAN'T distribute "anti-government propaganda" before saying something? Not me. Think about it.



Senior Member
Re: Comaparison to Facism.

Sorry for the double post folks, but this article sums up what I'm talking about. Yeah, it's a long ass post. Read it if you give a rat's ass.


? ? ? ? ? ? ? The idea that America is turning fascist has been ? ?popular on the Left for as long as I can remember: in the 1960s, when antiwar ? ?radicals raged against the Machine, this kind of hyperbole dominated campus ? ?political discourse and even made its way into the mainstream. When the radical Symbionese Liberation Army went into ultra-Left meltdown and began issuing incoherent ? ?\"communiqu?s\" to an indifferent American public, they invariably ? ?signed off by declaring: \"Death to the fascist insect pig that preys on ? ?the life of the people!\"

?Such rhetoric, too overheated for American tastes, was quite obviously an exaggeration: ? ?America in the 1960s was no more \"fascistic\" than miniskirts, Hula ? ?Hoops, and the rhyming demagoguery of Spiro T. Agnew. Furthermore, we weren't ? ?even close to fascism, as the downfall of Richard M. Nixon made all too clear ? ?to whatever incipient authoritarians were nurtured at the breast of the GOP. ?

?Back in those halcyon days, America was, in effect, practically immune from ? ?the fascist virus that had wreaked such havoc in Europe and Asia in previous ? ?decades: there was a kind of innocence, back then, that acted as a vaccine against ? ?this dreaded affliction. Fascism ? the demonic offspring of war ? was practically ? ?a stranger to American soil. After all, it had been a century since America ? ?had been a battleground, and the sense of invulnerability that is the hallmark ? ?of youth permeated our politics and culture. Nothing could hurt us: we were ? ?forever young. But as we moved into the new millennium, Americans acquired a ? ?sense of their own mortality: an acute awareness that we could be hurt, and ? ?badly. That is the legacy of 9/11.

?Blessed with a double bulwark against foreign invasion ? the Atlantic and Pacific ? ?oceans ? America hasn't experienced the atomizing effects of large-scale military ? ?conflict on its soil since the Civil War. On that occasion, you'll remember, ? ?Lincoln, the \"Great Emancipator,\" nearly emancipated the U.S. government ? ?from the]]the chains of the Constitution[/url] by shutting down newspapers, jailing his ? ?political opponents, and cutting a swathe of destruction through the South, ? ?which was occupied and treated like a conquered province years after Lee surrendered. ? ?He was the closest to a dictator that any American president has come ? but ? ?George W. Bush may well surpass him, given the possibilities that now present ? ?themselves.

?From the moment the twin towers were hit, the fascist seed began to germinate, ? ?to take root and grow. As the first shots of what the neocons call \"World ? ?War IV\" rang out, piercing the post-Cold War calm like a shriek straight ? ?out of Hell, the political and cultural climate underwent a huge shift: the ? ?country became, for the first time in the modern era, a hothouse conducive to ? ?the growth of a genuinely totalitarian ?tendency in American politics.

?The events of 9/11 were an enormous defeat for the U.S., and it is precisely ? ?in these circumstances ? the traumatic humbling of a power once considered mighty ? ?? that the fascist impulse begins to find its first expression. That, at any ? ?rate, is the historical experience of Germany, for example, where a defeated ? ?military machine regenerated itself on the strength of German resentment and ? ?lashed out at Europe once again. The terrible defeat of World War I, and the ? ?injustice of the peace, created in Weimar Germany the cradle of National Socialism: ? ?but in our own age, where everything is speeded up ? by the Internet and the ? ?sheer momentum of the knowledge explosion ? a single battle, and a single defeat, ? ?can have the same Weimarizing effect.

?The Republican Party's response to 9/11 was to push through the most repressive ? ?series of laws since the Alien ? ?and Sedition Acts, starting with the \"PATRIOT ? ?Act\" and its successors ? making it possible for American citizens ? ?to be held without charges, without public evidence, without trial, and giving ? ?the federal government unprecedented powers to conduct surveillance of its own ? ?citizens. Secondly, Republicans began to typify all opposition to their warmaking ? ?and anti-civil liberties agenda as practically tantamount to treason. Congress, ? ?thoroughly intimidated, was silent: they supinely voted to give the president ? ?a blank check, and he is still filling in the amount?

?The intellectual voices of American fascism began to be heard in the land before ? ?the first smoke had cleared from the stricken isle of Manhattan, as even some ? ?alleged \"libertarians\" began to advocate giving up traditional civil ? ?liberties all Americans once took for granted. \"It is said that there are ? ?no atheists in foxholes,\" wrote ? ?\"libertarian\" columnist and Reason magazine contributing editor ? ?Cathy Young, \"perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist ? ?attacks,\" she noted, as she defended government spying on Americans and ? ?denounced computer encryption technology as \"scary.\" As much as Young's ? ?self-conception as a libertarian is the result of a misunderstanding, that infamous ? ?\"anti-government\" sentiment that used to permeate the GOP evaporated ? ?overnight. Lew ? ?Rockwell trenchantly labeled this phenomenon \"red-state fascism,\" ? ?writing:

?\"The most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost ? ?completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state ? ?bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional ? ?elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative ? ?middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now ? ?celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing.\" ? ?

?This worrisome shift in the ideology and tone of the conservative movement ? ?has also been noted by the economist and writer Paul ? ?Craig Roberts, a former assistant secretary of the Treasury, who points ? ?to the \"brownshirting\" of the American Right as a harbinger of the ? ?fascist mentality. I raised the same point in a ? ?column, and the discussion was taken ? ?up by Scott McConnell, editor of The American Conservative, in a ? ?thoughtful essay that appeared in the Feb. 14 issue of that magazine. My good ? ?friend Scott sounds a skeptical note:

?\"It is difficult to imagine any scenario, after 9/11, that would not ? ?lead to some expansion of federal power. The United States was suddenly at war, ? ?mobilizing to strike at a Taliban government on the other side of the world. ? ?The emergence of terrorism as the central security issue had to lead, at the ? ?very least, to increased domestic surveillance ? of Muslim immigrants especially. ? ?War is the health of the state, as the libertarians helpfully remind us, but ? ?it doesn't mean that war leads to fascism.\"

?All this is certainly true, as far as it goes: but what if the war takes place, ? ?not in distant Afghanistan, but on American soil? That, I contend, is the crucial ? ?circumstance that makes the present situation unique. Yes, war is the ? ?health of the State ? but a war fought down the block, instead of on the other ? ?side of the world, means the total victory of State power over individual liberty ? ?as an imminent possibility. To paraphrase McConnell, it is difficult to imagine ? ?any scenario, after another 9/11, that would not lead to what we might ? ?call fascism.

?William Lind, director ? ?of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation and ? ?a prominent writer on military strategy, argues that what he calls \"cultural ? ?Marxism\" is a much greater and more immediate danger than militaristic ? ?fascism, and that, in any case, the real problem is \"abstract nationalism,\" ? ?the concept of \"the state as an ideal.\" This ideal, however, died ? ?amid the destruction wrought by World War I, and is not about to be resurrected. ? ?And yet?

?Lind raises the possibility, at the end of his piece, that his argument is ? ?highly conditional:

?\"There is one not unlikely event that could bring, if not fascism, ? ?then a nationalist statism that would destroy American liberty: a terrorist ? ?event that caused mass casualties, not the 3,000 dead of 9/11, but 30,000 dead ? ?or 300,000 dead. We will devote some thought to that possibility in a future ? ?column.\"

?I was going to wait for Mr. Lind to come up with that promised column, but ? ?felt that the matter might be pressing enough to broach the subject anyway. ? ?Especially in view of this, ? ?not to mention this. ?

?If \"everything changed\" on the foreign policy front in the wake of ? ?9/11, then the domestic consequences of 9/11 II are bound to have a similarly ? ?transformative effect. If our response to the attacks on the World Trade Center ? ?and the Pentagon was to launch a decades-long war to implant democracy throughout ? ?the Middle East and the rest of the world, what will we do when the battlefield ? ?shifts back to the continental U.S.? I shudder to think about it.

?The legal, ideological, and political elements that go into the making of a ? ?genuinely fascist regime in America are already in place: all that is required ? ?is some]]some catalytic event[/url], one that needn't even be on the scale of 9/11, but ? ?still dramatic enough to give real impetus to the creation of a police state ? ?in this country.

?The legal foundation is already to be found in the arguments made by the president's ? ?lawyers in asserting their \"right\" to commit ? ?torture and other war crimes, under the \"constitutional\" aegis ? ?of the chief executive's wartime powers. In time of war, the president's lawyers ? ?argue, our commander-in-chief has the power to immunize himself and his underlings ? ?against legal prosecution: they transcend the law, and are put beyond the judgement ? ?of the people's representatives by presidential edict. Theoretically, according ? ?to the militarist interpretation of the Constitution, there is no power the ? ?president may not assume in wartime, because his decisions are \"unreviewable.\" ? ?On account of military necessity, according to this doctrine, we have to admit ? ?the possibility that the Constitution might itself be suspended and martial ? ?law declared the minute war touches American soil.

?It wouldn't take much. There already exists, in the neoconized Republican Party, ? ?a mass-based movement that fervently believes in a strong central State and ? ?a foreign policy of perpetual war. The brownshirting of the American conservative ? ?movement, as Paul Craig Roberts stingingly characterized the ugly transformation ? ?of the American Right, is so far along that the president can propose the biggest ? ?expansion of federal power and spending since the Great ? ?Society with nary a peep from the former enthusiasts of \"smaller government.\" ?

?While the Newt Gingrich Republicans of the early 1990s were never really libertarians ? ?in any but a rhetorical sense ? Newt himself has always been a hopelessly statist ? ?neocon ? the great difference today is that the neocons are coming out with ? ?an openly authoritarian program. David Frum and Richard Perle, in their book ? ?An End to Evil, ? ?advocate establishing an Orwellian government database and comprehensive electronic ? ?surveillance system that not only keeps constant track of the whereabouts of ? ?everyone in the country, but also stores a dossier, complete with their religious ? ?and political affiliations. If anyone had brought such a proposal to the table ? ?in the pre-9/11 era, they would have been laughed out of town and mercilessly ? ?ridiculed for the rest of their lives. But today, the neocon tag-team of Frum ? ?and Perle not only gets away with it, but these strutting martinets are lauded ? ?by the same \"conservatives\" who used to rail against \"Big Government.\" ?

? The label \"neoconservative\" ? ?has always been unsatisfactory, in part because the neocon ideology of rampant ? ?militarism, super-centralism, and unrestrained statism is necessarily at war ? ?with the libertarian aspects of authentic conservatism (the sort of conservatism ? ?that, say, Frank ? ?S. Meyer or Russell ? ?Kirk would find recognizable). Let's start calling things by their right ? ?names: these aren't neoconservatives. What we are witnessing is the rebirth ? ?of fascism in 21st century America, a movement motivated by the three principles ? ?of classical fascist ideology:

?1) The idealization of the State as the embodiment of an all-powerful national ? ?will or spirit;

?2) The leader principle, which personifies the national will in the holder ? ?of a political office (whether democratically elected or otherwise is largely ? ?a matter of style), and

?3) The doctrine of militarism, which bases an entire legal and economic system ? ?on war and preparations for war.

?Of these three, militarism really is the fountainhead, the first principle ? ?and necessary precondition that gives rise to the others. The militarist openly ? ?declares that life is conflict, and that the doctrine of economic and political ? ?liberalism ? which holds that there is no necessary conflict of interests among ? ?men ? is wrong. Peace is cowardice, and the values of prosperity, pleasure, ? ?and living life for its own sake are evidence of mindless hedonism and even ? ?decadence. Life is not to be lived for its own sake: it must be risked ? ?to have meaning, and, if necessary, sacrificed in the name of a \"higher\" ? ?(i.e., abstract) value. That \"higher\" value is not only defined by ? ?the State, it is the State: in war, the soldier's life is risked on behalf ? ?of government interests, by government personnel, on behalf of expanding government ? ?power.

?These beliefs are at the core of the fascist mentality, but there are other ? ?aspects of this question ? too many to go into here. Since fascism is a form ? ?of extreme nationalism, every country has its own unique variety, with idiosyncrasies ? ?that could only have arisen in a particular locality. In one country, religion ?will play a prominent role, in others a more secular strategy is pursued: but ? ?the question of imminent danger, and the seizure of power as an \"emergency\" ? ?measure to prevent some larger catastrophe, is a common theme of fascist coups ? ?everywhere, and in America it is playing out no differently.

?While Pinochet ? ?pointed to the imminent danger of a Communist revolution ? as did Hitler ? the ? ?neo-fascists of our time and place cite the omnipresent threat of a terrorist ? ?attack in the U.S. This is a permanent rationale for an ever escalating series ? ?of draconian measures fated to go far beyond the \"PATRIOT Act\" or ? ?anything yet imagined.

?Already the intellectual and political ground is being prepared for censorship. ? ?The conservative campaign to discredit the \"mainstream\" media, and ? ?challenge its status as a watchdog over government actions, could easily go ? ?in an unfortunate direction if Bin Laden succeeds in his vow to take the fight ? ?to American shores. Well, since they're lying, anyway, why not shut them down? ? ?After all, this is a \"national emergency,\" and \"they're ? ?not antiwar, they're on the other side.\"

? The neoconservative movement represents the quintessence of fascism, as expressed ? ?by some of its intellectual spokesmen, such as Christopher ? ?Hitchens, who infamously hailed the Afghan war as having succeeded in \"bombing ? ?a country back out of the Stone Age.\" This belief in the ? ?purifying power of violence ? its magical, transformative quality ? is the ? ?real emotional axis of evil that motivates the War Party. This is especially ? ?true when it comes to those thuggish ex-leftists of Hitchens' ? ?ilk who found shelter in the neoconservatives' many mansions when the roof ? ?fell in on their old Marxist digs. Neocon ideologue Stephen ? ?Schwartz defends a regime notorious for torturing dissidents, shutting out ? ?all political opposition, and arresting thousands on account of their political ? ?and religious convictions ? in ? ?Uzbekistan. How far are such people from rationalizing the same sort of ? ?regime in the U.S.?

? At least one prominent neocon has made the ? ?case for censorship, in the name of maintaining \"morality\" ? but ? ?now, it seems to me, the \"national security\" rationalization will ? ?do just as well, if not better.

?McConnell is right that we are not yet in the grip of a fully developed fascist ? ?system, and the conservative movement is far from thoroughly neoconized. But ? ?we are a single terrorist incident away from all that: a bomb placed in a mall ? ?or on the Golden Gate Bridge, or a biological attack of some kind, could sweep ? ?away the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and two centuries of legal, political, ? ?and cultural traditions ? all of it wiped out in a single instant, by means ? ?of a single act that would tip the balance and push us into the abyss of post-Constitutional ? ?history.

?The trap is readied, baited, and waiting to be sprung. Whether the American ? ?people will fall into it when the time comes: that is the nightmare that haunts ? ?the dreams of patriots.



Re: Comaparison to Facism.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"CaryP\")</div>
Yeah, lucidus, there was probably some anti-Hitler and anti-Nazi publications before they were outlawed there. Believe what you wanna believe man. The signs are there and the trend is in place. You wanna wait til you CAN'T distribute \"anti-government propaganda\" before saying something? Not me. Think about it.


This is just typical Reductio ad Hitlerum.

Comparing your opposition to Hitler or the Nazis is the ulimate admission of desperation.

I think a better comparison would be the U.S. of today to the Roman Republic just before it became an Empire. Don't get me wrong, I don't like our current government. I would much prefer the old Republic, but its gone. Both sides of the political spectrum(Republicans and Democrats) have conspired to kill it. Our current government is not Fascist or Communist, it is just a typical Imperialist power now.

But, rants such as these are really rather meaningless. You have your opinion and I have mine. Meanwhile, great powers rise and fall.