|
| Thread: What is fascism? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
posted October 25, 2004 04:06 AM |
|
Edited By: Laelth on 24 Oct 2004
|
What is fascism?
Just an interesting inquiry into the nature of fascism and the danger that America might become a fascist state ... for anyone with open eyes.
My comments are in italics.
Quote:
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
Free Inquiry, Spring 2003
5-11-03
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
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.
When do you ever see George W. Bush and not see a 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.
Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, The Patriot Act
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.
terrorists, liberals making us vulnerable to terrorism
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.
No comment needed. Just take a look at the federal budget.
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. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
Girlie Men, Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
Fox News, Elimination of the "Fairness Doctrine"
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
Terror Alert! What color is it today, I wonder?
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.
No comment needed. Just listen to Bush speak for 5 minutes.
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.
Halliburton, Enron, The Carlyle Group
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.
The Republican party is rabidly anti-union.
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 and letters is openly attacked.
Liberal "elites"?
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.
The Patriot Act, Stiffer Penalties for Crime, Increased "Application" of the Death Penalty
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and 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.
Bush I; U.S. Supremes select Bush II; Did you know that Colin Powell's son was the head of the FCC?
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
2000? 2004? Even if not fraudulent, the 2004 election has been a smear campaign for sure.
Admittedly, we're not living in a fascist state yet. Our media is still relatively free from government control (though Fox News is quite clearly the unofficial propaganda outlet of the Republican Party). We're not an extremely sexist state, by any means, but we're surely getting more homophobic and one party is actively trying to set limits on what a woman can do with her body. And we haven't started locking up our intellectuals yet, but with the Patriot Act in place, any of us could be locked up and denied access to the courts on the mere suspicion that we were a terrorist. Finally, we can't know whether the upcoming election will be fraudulent. Bush may go away quietly, but if he doesn't, we are in serious trouble. Don't say you weren't warned.
Here's the link to the original, for those who are interested: The 14 Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism.
-Laelth
Edit:Laelth--Had to fix some BBCode.
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 25, 2004 05:58 AM |
|
|
I Disagree
America is a long way from fascism. I would be more worried about Russia becoming a fascist currently. Putin threw his political opposition in jail.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 25, 2004 07:34 AM |
|
|
I may be wrong. And have no time to check it now.
But didnt Bush(43)s wife head a think-tank who openly put out a list of "un-patriotic" university proffessors and lecturers right after 9/11. By "un-patriotic" meaning critical of Bushs handling of the situation?
Noam Chomsky for one, couldnt get anything published in the US up till the begining of 2003.
And a little PS Laelth, The US is not the only place in the world where you have to keep a vigilant watch over the democratic process. As of right now, Italy looks in a very bad shape. Not to mention alot of EU countries where its very easy to find parties that are extremely close at running for election on the same platform The National-Socialist party ran on in 1932.
Dansk Folkeparti (Translates to Danish Peoplesparty) in Denmark are one of these parties. They have been the parlamentic basis for our government since 2000. This has among other things meant that we are accused of breaking human rights. Offcourse the danish government vigourously denies this, but this is hard to take seriously when the allegations stems from EUs commissar on Human rights issues.
Just to put things in perspective.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted October 25, 2004 04:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
America is a long way from fascism. I would be more worried about Russia becoming a fascist currently. Putin threw his political opposition in jail.
But Im prety sure that you would agree that Bush is closer to faschism than Kerry is, in a relative comparison between the two sides.
|
|
sirzapdos
Promising
Famous Hero
Open the pod bay doors, Hal.
|
|
posted October 25, 2004 07:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But Im prety sure that you would agree that Bush is closer to faschism than Kerry is, in a relative comparison between the two sides.
That of course is true, as Fascism represents the extreme right of the political scale, and our friend Dubya and his GOP pals are on the right.
However, making this statement, anyone could then say that Kerry would be closer to Communism (the extreme left), as Democrats are by nature left of centre.
While I dislike Bush, this argument is pretty weak, as it would be fairly easy to associate a left wing government with Communism. The only way that this argument could hold up is if you compared Kerry's platform with Communist policies and determined who's "further" from the centre, ie, more extreme.
____________
So I try to live a complicated world...
|
|
drlucifer
Adventuring Hero
The Surgeon of Death
|
|
posted October 26, 2004 02:37 AM |
|
|
Fasicst democracy
Is America becoming a more fascist nation?
Absolutely. However, I hate to break with my liberal buddies but I think the Bush administration has reacted- although, I must admit rather strongly- to 9/11. I certainly do not think Bush or his puppeteers said when they were elected, "Ha ha, now we'll pass a Patriot Act and commit human rights abuses on the way to becoming a fascist state." They are overreacting, no doubt about it, but they do have at least some sort of excuse.
Could America become fascist?
I doubt it. We still have a press that, contrary to these 14 pillars of fascism, is very liberal and would oppose any perceived right-wing takeover. Furthermore, few Americans will support somebody who has a fascist reputation- the Nazis are starting to challenge the Commies as our favorite villain. Other than our psychotic nationalism and tendency to think our giant military can wander the world, fascist ideas aren't really that popular either. Could it happen? Maybe, but I seriously think it is unlikely.
Is democracy on the retreat in today's world?
Yeah. Russia and Italy, I believe, have been mentioned in this topic and they are great examples. Putin is gradually eliminating freedoms just as Bush is- but last I checked, Bush hadn't thrown his opponent (Kerry) and his biggest enemies (Michael Moore, George Soros) in jail. Italy, too, is under the heel of Berlusconi, who controls the entire press and has thrown in his lot with Bush. Then there are "democracies" like Israel, Belarus, and eventually Iraq that are seriously lacking in human and civil rights.
____________
Doctors are not necessarily your friends.
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted October 26, 2004 07:02 AM |
|
|
Laelth,
I enjoyed reading your post. As a matter of fact, I printed it out, and I will be taking it to my U.S. History class to discuss next week. We usually cut class a little short and then talk about the upcoming election, where I would guess that 12 or 13 out of the 16 students are Bush-haters, to include my professor who is a self-admitted 'Kerry supporter'. This week I had to deal with how Michael Moore is such an insightful genius, plus how their generation's 'hero', Bill Clinton, is going to swing the election in Kerry's favor. Needless to say, it was a painful experience for me.
Anyway, I actually did have a few questions for you in regards to the United States moving towards Fascism. If the United States was truly becoming more of a Fascist type of government, then what would be its position on gun control? Would it take away its citizen's privacy but still allow them the right to bear arms to rise up against an unjust government?
IMHO, as long as the Second Amendment stands, we are in no imminent danger of ever becoming a Fascist nation. Now, if it comes to the point where I can no longer legally purchase a firearm to protect my family from lethal force (or from a seriously oppressive government or military regime), then I would subscribe to your theory and begin to worry.
Regardless, thanks for the thought-provoking post. Keep 'em coming!
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted October 26, 2004 09:23 AM |
|
|
Khayman,
Glad you found my post provocative. That was the point. 
You pose an interesting question about gun ownership and its relationship to fascism. To be honest, I don't think a fascist America would need to take away anyone's guns to be successful. The German people, for example, didn't rise up in an armed revolt against Hitler, and it wasn't because they didn't have guns. It was because the state's enemies (Jews, communists) were thought to be the real threat, not the government. Here, it would be the same. No need to take away the people's guns. All the government has to do is keep the people with guns afraid of the state's supposed enemies. If the government can keep the people afraid, then the gun owners will support the government, and there will be no need to disarm them.
Fascism works like mass hysteria. A fascist government doesn't subdue the masses through force (though it will use overwhelming force against anyone who dares to speak out against the government). Instead, a fascist government exaggerates the threat of both internal and external enemies (terrorists and the liberals who "support" the terrorists) so that the people follow the government blindly and don't question it at all. That's what I see starting to happen in America now.
Hope that makes sense.
-Laelth
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted October 26, 2004 02:53 PM |
|
|
As big a threat as Fascism (which IMO isn't really a threat in the US), is fascistoid tendencies; i.e. tendencies that sure ain't pure fascism, but still contains the "essence" if you will, of Fascism.
One non-American example of this (US-bashing tends to get dull, and not to mention ugly...) is the way European democracies treats immigrants.
Take Norway. The Norwegian Minister who deals with these kinds of things (let's call her Erna) has "decreed" that asylum seekers whose applications are turned down, will lose any right they may have to food or monetary support from the government. This is an attempt to force them into going back to their homelands. (As if it helps; most people would choose to freeze on the streets of Oslo over being tortured to death in a basement in Addis Abeba...)
So, how is this Fascistoid?
The Fascistoid tendencies show themselves in the complete lack of respect for other human beings "Erna" shows. Taking away their food, throwing them on the streets and refusing to give them money when they starve (forcing them to commit crimes...), are not a good way to treat people. And most of these people aren't even "economical refugees" (less worthy of our help, according to the right-wing parties) but proven political refugees from North Iraq, Ethiopia, Cuba, and other countries.
(And these people call themselves conservatives! Conservatives are supposed to be avid defenders of the human rights, not offenders against them!)
The same example can be given for most western countries. So, imo, the threat isn't Fascism, but Fascistoid Democracy.
As for Belarus, that someone menitoned earlier: Lukasjenko is a despot that should be disposed of. Sadly, Tzar Vladimir of Russia supports him, so any measures taken against the Belarussian regime would just ruin the fairly good relationship between the West and Russia. Truly sad...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
silx87
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2004 08:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Furthermore, few Americans will support somebody who has a fascist reputation-
Joseph McCarthy?
I mean, senator sounds support enough to me...
Else, I agree, America doesn't look half fascist to me.
But Russia? How many of those 14 points actually apply for Russia? Everything may not look alright in Russia, but I doubt it is more fascist than America according to that article...
____________
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 27, 2004 11:03 AM |
|
|
To take the focus away from Russia for abit (Which inceidently is one of my characteristics of fascism. Put focus on another country, so people dont realise whats happening to their own).
George Soros an American-Hungarian philanthropist is running a 75 mill $ campaign against George W. Bush, and what he claims is Bush attack on "The open society".
Soros is strongly influenced by the english-german philosopher Karl Popper who wrote his main piece in political philosphy in the aftermath of WW2. Its titled "The open society: And its enemies"
And it should be mandatory reading in all countries that titles themselves as democratic.
Its main point is that any political debate in a democratic state should be conducted with transparency, and openness. Ideology is the enemy of this transparency and openness.
Why? you might ask.
Well because what ideology implies is, that there is one Truth (With a capital T). And nomatter how the world looks in reality, and how it might not fit in with a certain ideology. It is still the Truth. Therefore there is no need to debate or discuss anything.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 28, 2004 12:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
George Soros an American-Hungarian philanthropist is running a 75 mill $ campaign against George W. Bush, and what he claims is Bush attack on "The open society".
Oh, come on. You and I both know the main and most likely only reason for his anti-Bushness are his economical interests. It’s one of the wealthiest capitalists we’re talking about. Pragmatism is an imperative for types like him.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 28, 2004 02:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh, come on. You and I both know the main and most likely only reason for his anti-Bushness are his economical interests. It’s one of the wealthiest capitalists we’re talking about. Pragmatism is an imperative for types like him.
I don´t know alot about Mr Soros and his interests, but that´s 1. ad hominem, and 2. doesn´t make much sense to me. Why would anyone spend 75000000$ in order to get rid of a president who makes tax policies totally to his advantage, if it were for economical reasons?
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 28, 2004 03:03 AM |
|
|
Simply put, he's insane.
George Soros is a completely fanatical socialist and Bush hater. That's about it.
____________
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 28, 2004 08:59 AM |
|
|
A short reply to both Svarog and Wolfman, who in 2 post has managed to make Soros both a baaaad capitalist, and an even baaaader socialist.
As Lews pointed out, both are ad hominem arguments. But even worse, they both use what is called the straw-man argunebt.
If either of you had bothered reading my whole text you could see that Soros is inspired by Popper, which puts him smack in the middle of the political spectrum.
Actually I just used Soros to put Poppers name into this debate about fascism.
Why? Because its very relevant. Going to work now, but will return with a more thorough post.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Trogdor
Legendary Hero
Words in a custom title
|
|
posted October 29, 2004 12:39 PM |
|
|
Fascism and Dictatorship has proved to be the people's own worst enemy. If you have ever wondered what is happening in America today, then you are seeing a dictatorship being disguised as a democracy, headed by a madman who is too lazy to lift a finger. Bush has become no show and all talk.
In reference to the Abu Gharib/Guantanamo thing, it doesn't stop there. There is also stories of torture against refugees in Australia's detention centres. There have been plans to release the women and children from these detention centres. The children are so close to suicide in these centres.
And it is the Arabs who have become enemies of many leaders. Ever since the children overboard scandal, Howard has made an enemy of Muslims, which links him to Hitler's prosecution of the Jews and also Mugabe's prosecution of white people.
____________
"Through the power of the dollar you can communicate with the dead." - Artu
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 30, 2004 03:47 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 29 Oct 2004
|
I guess I shouldnt be criticizing Mr. Soros, cause I get funding from him for my projects, but I'm counting on your discretion. 
Quote:
As Lews pointed out, both are ad hominem arguments. But even worse, they both use what is called the straw-man argunebt.
Now, how is that a strawman?
It's pure healthy Marxist logic, which has proven correct 99% of the time both in history and in current political practice. Marx and some deductive reasoning are all it takes to become omnipotent and make God looking for a new job. 
Are you, on the other hand, suggesting that the man spends so much money for the campaign, motivated purely from his philosophical perspective of the world? Yeah right, thats why he has thousands of times more money now than in the time when he read philosophy.
I'm not even touching the "him being socialist" bit.
Do you honestly think that every god damn capitalist supports Bush because of the tax cuts? That totally lacks insight imo.
Both Bush and Kerry are the same type of rubbish, that comes in two different packings. American alternatives are actually slightly moved from the political center, due to the design of the election system (some other time for that). They both target the entire ocean of voters: the plankton, the small fish and the sharks. Capitalists pay big money for the campaigns so that they get a favourable position, or often to be simply left alone, if their "partner" is elected. Although there's some logic in the fact that capitalists are more inclined to Bush, thats certainly not such a prevailing case.
However, Soros doesnt operate like a typical capitalist. His actions are in accordance with American global strategy and political interests, and carried out through his web of NGO's and humanitarian organizations. He's a practical tool used by American policy makers, and believe me, such a powerful tool requires a hell lot of maintainence.
His organizations directly promote democracy and free-market society (which is essential to American strategy), but also often indirectly pursue the American "adjustments" of the two terms when suiting their global interests. Coming from a region where his Open Society Institute operates, I can even give concrete examples for this, but you'd need to have a lot of insight in the political situation in Macedonia and the Balkans.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Vadskye91
Promising
Supreme Hero
Back again
|
|
posted October 30, 2004 05:16 PM |
|
|
That is scarily similar...
____________
Knowledge is power...
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2004 06:14 PM |
|
|
Good Reply Svarog.
But there is a fault in your logic
Marxist analysis have not proved to be correct 99 % of the time. Actually the few times it has been correct have been due to huge generalisations which makes the analysis practically useless. Or a completely lack of facts.
I will only come with one example to show my point. The materialistic dialectic method used to analyse how societies progress. Well its based upon the assumption that wild societies developed into slave societies which then became feudalistic societies. You know the drill.
Well Marx view of the middle age where he places his feudal society is grossly incorrect. The way he describes feudalism where actually only used in a very brief time, in very local geographic areas.
Back to track.
Yes Soro is anti-communist, aswell as anti-fascist. This clearly comes from his admiration of Popper. The whole second half of Poppers "Open society: And its enemies" are actually an analysis of how Marxism always leads to a totalitarian regime, and why this is not in the best interest of the people.
I honestly believes that Soros reasons for doing what he is doing is the fact that he first survived as a Hungarian Jew during WW2, and then managed to escape from USSR occupation troops just after WW2.
Concerning the straw-man argument, isnt it clear that you put Soros reasons for doing what he is doing based on a marxist analysis, which clearly doesnt stand up to scrutiny.
Therefore you are blaming Soro for doing something which he isnt doing.
The same can be said of Wolfman, only difference is that he soesnt state his reasons or come with any arguments for his outburst that Soro is just a baaaaaad socialist. But again if I have to try and extrapolate and argument based from this. I would have to say it goes something like this.
All who doesnt support Bush are socialist and therefore bad.
Soro doesnt support Bush.
Ergo Soro is a socialist and bad.
Clearly a case of putting views on a man, which is not called for.
But I must admit that I enjoy your posting Svarog. Its always nice when there is reasoning behind posts.
Funny enough it sometimes sound like my father-in-law which is both a history teacher and a marxist. You can imagine the discussions we have about the historical causes of different subjects
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 01, 2004 01:36 AM |
|
|
Defreni, this is gonna be a somewhat long post, cause nobody messes with Marx. If you mess with him, you mess with me, Mister.
Quote:
Marxist analysis have not proved to be correct 99 % of the time. Actually the few times it has been correct have been due to huge generalizations which makes the analysis practically useless. Or a completely lack of facts.
Pardon? Few times? There’s a whole reinterpretation of history supported with logic and proofs by very eminent scientific names. Some may not agree, but that’s their right. Generalizations are necessary when dealing with a robust subject such as history, but what’s important is that the essence of matters isnt sacrificed for the generalization. If you think any particular Marxist theory is false, I’m open for discussion.
Quote:
The materialistic dialectic method used to analyze how societies progress. Well its based upon the assumption that wild societies developed into slave societies which then became feudalistic societies. You know the drill.
You’ve got your Marx scratched only on the surface pal. Materialistic dialectics is not based on the cavemen-slave-feudal-capitalistic society transition, but the development of productive forces through their contradictions. The name is really irrelevant, especially because by itself, it implies nothing. The delicate functioning of the particular system is also dependant on the natural-geographic circumstances beside the inevitable dialectical progress. Marx doesn’t say that the European model of progress is the only one viable; he only uses it to analyze history since that model was closer to him, and from certain perspectives of view – the most advanced one. You’d really have to try more to give an example which is in at least indicative contradiction with Marxist postulates.
Quote:
Concerning the straw-man argument, isnt it clear that you put Soros reasons for doing what he is doing based on a marxist analysis, which clearly doesnt stand up to scrutiny.
Of course I use Marxist analysis to explain Soros reasons, but you’re terribly wrong when you think it’s not proved. Even if I used inductive reasoning (which I would, if I knew exactly his actions and deals), we’d get to the same Marxist conclusion. Problem is, unlike Wolfman, I have proofs to support my thesis, which imo in the case of Soros should be given only to a court or very naïve people.
Quote:
I honestly believes that Soros reasons for doing what he is doing is the fact that he first survived as a Hungarian Jew during WW2, and then managed to escape from USSR occupation troops just after WW2.
…Since I see, you belong to one of the two (see above) [no offence meant; i mean it as a toss; u know i respect you ], I’ll give you some lengthy summary of George Soros, merely the visible face of a vast and very nasty network of private financial interests, controlled by the leading aristocratic and royal families of Europe.
Many describe Soros as an honest humanitarian and philantropist, who earned his many-bilion fortune by speculating on monetary issues (value of currencies, to be more precise), having an uncanny ability to predict how the financial laws would react. Nothing could be further from the truth.
George Soros belongs to a group of world oligarchs, who seek to increase their financial empire by promoting “open society”, meaning open for their capital and free exercise of economical exploitation. This interest of his corresponds perfectly with the Anglo-American banking and strategical interests and the IMF, with whom they embarked on the mission to help the economical and political “transition” of post-communist Eastern and Central Europe, by pressing the governments to implement the mechanism for such changes, consisting of monetary stabilization, structural changes and putting an end on all state enterprises.
The effects of this were increase in unemployment, deindustrialization of post-communist courtiers and the rampant corruption in privatization of state industry all over Eastern Europe, with most perspective companies ending bought by Western aristocratic circles and members of the home elite that helped them. (For example, Soros proposed shutting down the entire military industry in the former USSR, selling its energy and raw materials cheaply abroad. Another I can give is the Macedonian one: 40% unemployed, powerful monopolies sold to foreign companies, fall of industrial production by huge percent etc.)
It’s almost incredible how he managed to pull off all this. He operates like a spider, with his web of humanitarian organizations and NGO’s, corrupting the intellectual elite in the countries and making the advocacy of free-market economy to the degree of dogmatizing it. Among prominent international Soros funded groups are Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the International Crisis Group, who are in position not only to shape world politics and public opinion, but also to create them, especially concerning Southeastern Europe and the Caucasus.
All these groups had a prominent role in the “democratic” fall of Milosevic, as well as the present criticism of Putin’s “undemocratic” dealing with his opposition, Belorussian President Lukasenko, also the “ democratic revolution” in Georgia that ousted Shevernadze etc. All that these “regimes” have in common was the restrain they put to the full liberalization of their country’s economies, which was labeled a threat to “open society” and the concept of Human Rights.
A concrete example: Mihail Hodorkovski, Russia’s richest man, who participated in the criminal sell-offs of Russian companies in the 90’s, is in jail facing charges of business crimes. Instead of being greeted for this brave move, Putin is accused by “international watchdog” organizations for restricting democracy because Horkodovsky had financed political opposition during elections. He also owns a charitable organization based on Soros Open Society Institute, which maintains close connections with it. A quote from Soros on this matter would give the clear idea of what I’m talking about: “The crackdown by Mr Putin sends an unmistakeable message that independence of action will not be tolerated." Pressure from the West against a trend toward "state capitalism" could result in "Russia being forced out" of the Group of 8 industrialised nations, he added.
Need I say George Soros currently owns a lot of companies which invested in largest companies in post-communist countries, actually bought them for a funny price, after their value was artificially reduced by governing elites, having financial ties… guess with who. He conducts his money laundering through his off-shore company, a private investment fund, registered in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles, a tax haven, which is constantly criticized by UN institutions for illegal procedures hiding drug traffic and other crimes.
I can only add the breeding of so called Soros youth in his university – the Central European University, which operates in Hungary, Czhec Rep. and Poland, where an important intellectual tissue is created, which is to lead the countries in the future, unfortunately indoctrinized with the belief in “open society”, i.e. attempts to identify a scientific historical truth is totalitarianism, economic liberalism is all good, and state regulation of economy is all bad.
Why is he then still supported from the press, and so many little people know who he is and what he does? Huh, I found ironically funny statement he’s given in an interview after he was asked how he earned his fortune, which explains that: “I speculate on discrepancy between the reality and the public image of this reality, until a correctional mechanism occurs, which approaches this two.” It’s obvious that an experienced speculator such as him, would not wait idly until such discrepancy occurs, but would rather use all his power to enlarge the gap between the true reality and its public image.
The bigger a lie he creates, the harder it is to be revealed. Funding the liberal press also helps, as well as all the donations and philantropic actions which constitute that lie.
In this respect, we can explain why Soros is so fiercly opposed to Bush. Bush and the neocons are simply blowing their cover. For years Soros and other oligarchs have effectively expanded the borders of the “free world” without waging invasion wars, but Bush has managed to divide Europe, undermine NATO, help establish an opponent Franco-German-Russian bloc in emergence and important steps towards Arab unity, all of which are a huge blow on American economical imperialism. While their goals are the same, the tactics are different, and differ in subtlety enough to create a strenuous opposition between the two.
On the other hand, Soros has been known in the past to fund political organizations and figures which have called for political and military action for bringing down Saddam. (Former congressman Solarz, once described as 'the Israel lobby's chief legislative tactician on Capitol Hill' and vice-president of Soros’ International Crisis Group)
So much of his opposition to the War in Iraq.
Here’s a link where you could get some very detailed information on George Soros and all of his connections, and the source for some of the examples I’ve given here.
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/soros.html
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
| |
|
|
