| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Thomas" |
| Date: |
29 Jan 2008 09:53:42 AM |
| Object: |
Is Global Warming the Global Jonestown? |
I watched a BBC documentary on Jim Jones "socialist, sustainable
paradise" and the appalling loss of life which it resulted in back in
1979 and it was an incredible piece of television. Compelling and very
upsetting. I had no idea that Jones' voice on the speaker system had
been recorded as the mass killings took place. To hear women screaming
as their infants and children were taken from them as Jim Jones shouts
on the microphone "mother, please do not be like this, give your child
up to God."
I know a lot of people over the years have made fun of the Jonestown
thing and Kool-Aid jokes. But this documentary really brought home
what a horrible human tragedy it was. The guy who escaped after her
could not talk his wife out of killing herself and their son was just
heartbreaking to listen too. Coupled with this he also lost his sister
and nephew and niece as well.
What it also brought home was that the most pro-Jones fanatics tended
to be middle-class and above, college educated types who enforced this
lifestyle using dreams of utophia first, paranoia secondly, then
murder later when followers began to question the cult.
So much of the same psychological dynamic at Jonestown, you can
clearly see it again with the Al Gore/AGW folks. But this is even more
frightening as mass media allows this to happen on a global scale
these days and people in the West are even more stupid and sheep-like
than there were back in the 1970's.
As long as there are people who want some uthopian dream and there is
a leader to exploit them it will always happen. Matters not what their
education level is. In fact, I would say the more educated a person
is, the more they are likely to lack real social intelligence and
therefore more more prone to be taken in by cult leaders types.
You can manipulate just about anyone with a false promises which play
on their insecurities, and then later paranoia.
I would not be surprised if any of the eco-projects around the world
don't end up like Jonestown. Watching the Jonestown story at the
begining it was just like these "sustainable" communities with
socialist ideals we see springing up all over with civil servants and
other middle-class easily manipulated types being controlled as soon
as their dream starts to wobble.
The whole Global Warming crowd are all potential Jonestowns in the
making.
If you listen to how Al Gore slowly and patronisingly speaks on TV or
in public, and then Jim Jones at Jonestown on the speaker system. It
is spine-chilling.
.
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Global Warming the Global Jonestown? |
30 Jan 2008 08:14:35 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:41:25 -0800 in
63b13097-61d3-434c-9b7f-cd765261af8f@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com, Thomas
<kfuzzbox@tinet.ie> wrote:
On Jan 29, 7:09 pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder. When they finally see their fraudulent agw construct start to
massively disintegrate before their eyes, how shrill will they get and
how far will they go to get attention and be heard. Will some drink the
koolaide to prove that their beliefs are/were "true"?
Are you kidding. It'll implode in a maelstrom of psychotic, meglomanic
and hysterical sureality. Look at how mental that climate scientist was
sobbing in hysterics on the stage (sorry altar) during the Bali summit.
Can you imagine how these crackpots will react when the game is finally
up for them.
Ignoring, of course, that ice melts are happening twice as fast as
expected...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"You know what my favorite thing in the world is?
I'll tell you.
Each week, millions and millions of upper middle class American
citizens put on expensive dress clothes, load themselves into
suv's and drive past homeless shelters, orphanages, prisons,
missions and halfway houses on their way to a very expensive
and nice church, where someone tells them to be more like Jesus.
That is fucking awesome, let me tell you."
http://tinyurl.com/2uglqf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tunderbar" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Global Warming the Global Jonestown? |
30 Jan 2008 08:44:36 AM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 8:14=A0am, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:41:25 -0800 in
63b13097-61d3-434c-9b7f-cd765261a...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com, Thomas
<kfuzz...@tinet.ie> wrote:
On Jan 29, 7:09=A0pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder. When they finally see their fraudulent agw construct start to=
massively disintegrate before their eyes, how shrill will they get and
how far will they go to get attention and be heard. Will some drink the=
koolaide to prove that their beliefs are/were "true"?
Are you kidding. It'll implode in a maelstrom of psychotic, meglomanic
and hysterical sureality. Look at how mental that climate scientist was
sobbing in hysterics on the stage (sorry altar) during the Bali summit.
Can you imagine how these crackpots will react when the game is finally
up for them.
Ignoring, of course, that ice melts are happening twice as fast as
expected...
Ice melts happen every summer. I don't recall any credible evidence
that that isn't normal. Nor that any observations of accelerated
melting isn't part of the long term cycle. Just because a few nutbars
get shrill over a little ice melt, does not prove anything except that
they are shrill nutbars.
Mann is a fraud. So is Hansen. Al Gore is a court-proven liar. And the
IPCC has been shown to be a bunch of left wing activists with agendas.
The IPCC could only find 215 "scientists" to sign a letter at Bali.
How is that a consensus?
--
Mark K. Bilbo =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Global Warming the Global Jonestown? |
30 Jan 2008 06:07:06 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:44:36 -0800 in
32ce9fdc-c5d1-406b-8cf6-94d4f9141fb4@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
Tunderbar <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 30, 8:14 am, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:41:25 -0800 in
63b13097-61d3-434c-9b7f-cd765261a...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
Thomas
<kfuzz...@tinet.ie> wrote:
On Jan 29, 7:09 pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder. When they finally see their fraudulent agw construct start
to massively disintegrate before their eyes, how shrill will they
get and how far will they go to get attention and be heard. Will
some drink the koolaide to prove that their beliefs are/were "true"?
Are you kidding. It'll implode in a maelstrom of psychotic,
meglomanic and hysterical sureality. Look at how mental that climate
scientist was sobbing in hysterics on the stage (sorry altar) during
the Bali summit. Can you imagine how these crackpots will react when
the game is finally up for them.
Ignoring, of course, that ice melts are happening twice as fast as
expected...
Ice melts happen every summer. I don't recall any credible evidence that
that isn't normal. Nor that any observations of accelerated melting
isn't part of the long term cycle.
Isn't that nice? We'll still have the problems but we can make fun of Al
Gore. That'll help.
Just because a few nutbars get shrill
over a little ice melt, does not prove anything except that they are
shrill nutbars.
Mann is a fraud. So is Hansen. Al Gore is a court-proven liar. And the
IPCC has been shown to be a bunch of left wing activists with agendas.
The IPCC could only find 215 "scientists" to sign a letter at Bali. How
is that a consensus?
"Only"
I like that.
So, tell me, what do surveys of peer reviewed journals have to say on the
matter of whether there's consensus?
You *do* know right?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“I confess I enjoy democracy immensely.
It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing.”
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Barber" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Global Warming the Global Jonestown? |
30 Jan 2008 06:34:41 AM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 7:09=A0pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 29, 10:12=A0am, Talk-n-Dog <WatchDog@talk-n-dog..com> wrote:
Thomas wrote:
I watched a BBC documentary on Jim Jones "socialist, sustainable
paradise" and the appalling loss of life which it resulted in back in
1979 and it was an incredible piece of television. Compelling and very=
upsetting. I had no idea that Jones' voice on the speaker system had
been recorded as the mass killings took place. To hear women screaming=
as their infants and children were taken from them as Jim Jones shouts=
on the microphone "mother, please do not be like this, give your child=
up to God."
I know a lot of people over the years have made fun of the Jonestown
thing and Kool-Aid jokes. But this documentary really brought home
what a horrible human tragedy it was. The guy who escaped after her
could not talk his wife out of killing herself and their son was just
heartbreaking to listen too. Coupled with this he also lost his sister=
and nephew and niece as well.
What it also brought home was that the most pro-Jones fanatics tended
to be middle-class and above, college educated types who enforced this=
lifestyle using dreams of utophia first, paranoia secondly, then
murder later when followers began to question the cult.
So much of the same psychological dynamic at Jonestown, you can
clearly see it again with the Al Gore/AGW folks. But this is even more=
frightening as mass media allows this to happen on a global scale
these days and people in the West are even more stupid and sheep-like
than there were back in the 1970's.
As long as there are people who want some uthopian dream and there is
a leader to exploit them it will always happen. Matters not what their=
education level is. In fact, I would say the more educated a person
is, the more they are likely to lack real social intelligence and
therefore more more prone to be taken in by cult leaders types.
You can manipulate just about anyone with a false promises which play
on their insecurities, and then later paranoia.
I would not be surprised if any of the eco-projects around the world
don't end up like Jonestown. Watching the Jonestown story at the
begining it was just like these "sustainable" communities with
socialist ideals we see springing up all over with civil servants and
other middle-class easily manipulated types being controlled as soon
as their dream starts to wobble.
The whole Global Warming crowd are all potential Jonestowns in the
making.
If you listen to how Al Gore slowly and patronisingly speaks on TV or
in public, and then Jim Jones at Jonestown on the speaker system. It
is spine-chilling.
Hence the line, Kool-ade drinking green weenies.
Some people never learn.
--
http://DOGi-pedia.Talk-n-Dog.com
********* =A0Koom-Bay-Ya =A0*********
Write to:
"An Inconvenient Truth" The Al Gore Global Rescue Society
20,000 sq ft, Lear Jet Liberal, Way
Taxville Tennessee 11111-1111- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I wonder. When
I think you mean "if".
they finally see their fraudulent agw construct start
to massively disintegrate before their eyes, how shrill will they get
and how far will they go to get attention and be heard. Will some
drink the koolaide to prove that their beliefs are/were "true"?
When
I think you mean "if"
agw scientists are publicly seen by everyone for the frauds that
they are, (Mann, Hansen, etc) will they do what is considered the
honorable thing by many eastern philosophies? Will they take their
shame and literally or figuratively remove themselves from this world?
Since you've posted this to alt.atheism (why?), I'll draw an analogy
between AGW and atheism. Atheists sometimes say that they would like
to believe in a god that truly cares for humanity, and who will
reunite us in paradise with our loved ones after we die. We wouldn't
have to worry about natural disasters, war, illness and death, and
would no longer face the task of either finding or creating meaning in
this world. This is more or less what most religions say (when they're
not telling us we're damned for not agreeing with them).
Problem is, the real world doesn't offer any evidence of a god like
this, or of any divine intervention in the universe at all for at
least 13.6 billion years.
The up-side to this is that it motivates us to explore how life could
be better, more fulfilling, rather than just accepting what some
preacher says that some ancient book says. If it turns out one day
that a loving, caring god exists, I suspect he/she would be more
pleased if his creations turned out to have some initiative and an
impulse to look after each other, than if they had killed enough
people over a disagreement about a few sentences in a book.
Similarly, it would be great if the evidence started pouring in that
all the warming trends are artefacts, or that they're explained by
solar activity cycles, that there are robust, negative feedback
mechanisms that keep the climate in check. We'd no longer have to
worry about how we can ensure the survival of our species. This is
what most climate change sceptics say (when they don't simply call us
a load of hippies, eco-terrorists or simply misled by all that secular
science - could you make up your mind which, please?).
Once again, the problem is, there is no evidence that this is the
case. The basic science of climate change is not controversial, even
amongst climate change sceptics. CO2 does absorb in the infra-red,
more CO2 traps more heat, and we are adding more CO2 to the
atmosphere. We know that in the palaeoclimate record, CO2 increase
usually trails temperature increase by several hundred years, but then
there weren't 6.5 billion humans around then, pumping CO2 into the
atmosphere. Even if it wasn't the initial trigger then, it was still
responsible for most of the temperature increase through positive
feedback, and a large CO2 release can itself be the trigger for this
feedback cycle.
The upside of this is that we would derive plenty of ancillary
benefits from all this action that you think is unnecessary. No more
worries about political instability in the Gulf because of all that
renewable energy we generated and reduced car use. Reduced winter
mortality in the elderly through all that insulation. Better health
because we walked and cycled more and cut down on particulate
pollution. Cohesive, viable local communities because we buy local
food and goods wherever possible, and haven't bisected our towns with
motorways. More (and better) support of overseas development because
we're setting a better example, and not demanding that poor countries
compete with each other to grow a few cash crops at unstable prices to
satisfy our demand for cheap food. Et cetera, et cetera.
Do you or the OP really think this vision of the future is so horrific?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Global Warming the Global Jonestown? |
30 Jan 2008 07:14:00 AM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 12:34=A0pm, Peter Barber <peterbarbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you or the OP really think this vision of the future is so horrific?-
Not me. I live in Ireland I would love some mild winters and even warm
summers. Problem is we have been promised "balmy Irish winters" by the
AGW brigade for about 5 year now and we just got through our coldest,
most frosty and snowy winter in the years. Seems to be happening in
most other countries as well this winter.
So who is taking the *****? People like me who say the AGW stuff is
hysterical hype, or the great AGW minds who are tell me I do not need
a winter coat anymore when I have bought 3 since the first IPCC
report? Maybe if I was a climate change activist jet setting to Bali
to 'save the earth' I might need less winter wear, but that's not my
reality most winters.
There is no proof of either god or global warming. Both are faith
based notions. Forcing AGW dogma on society is just as bad as forcing
religion on them. Without the tangible proof, leave people to insulate
their own homes, install solar panels, change to the horrible CFC
bulbs and drive hybrids if THEY CHOSE TO DO THIS. This should be a
personal choice.
Anyways a western family saving money on energy is fallacy as they
will just spend the money they saved on something else which uses
energy. So the whole concept of saving energy at the micro level is
pointless and it is in reality just transferring energy usage from
your own home to something else. This is not science. This is not
energy conservation. This is not even common sense. It's a feel-good
"eco-confessional" which superficially cleanses the carbon sins.
It's the creepy control-freak nature of the Global Warmers which
pisses me off. I saw the same mentality among the catholic church big-
wigs in this country up until the 1980s. It's the same ***** and
it's the same folk who are drawn to this notion of using AGW to
control society in the same way the catholic bishops did in the past.
Oh and like the catholic bishops, double-standards and hypocracy
appears to be a concept completely lost on the AGW crusaders. (see jet
setting to Bali in order to tell the rest of us not to fly)
To be honest, I am looking forward to a world were the weather will be
more of less what it has been for hundreds of years with normal
fluctuations and cycles. Because that's what we are getting regardless
of human or divine intervention.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Barber" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Global Warming the Global Jonestown? |
30 Jan 2008 10:50:07 AM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 1:14 pm, Thomas <kfuzz...@tinet.ie> wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:34 pm, Peter Barber <peterbarbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you or the OP really think this vision of the future is so horrific?-
Not me. I live in Ireland I would love some mild winters and even warm
summers. Problem is we have been promised "balmy Irish winters" by the
AGW brigade for about 5 year now and we just got through our coldest,
most frosty and snowy winter in the years. Seems to be happening in
most other countries as well this winter.
So who is taking the *****? People like me who say the AGW stuff is
hysterical hype, or the great AGW minds who are tell me I do not need
a winter coat anymore when I have bought 3 since the first IPCC
report? Maybe if I was a climate change activist jet setting to Bali
to 'save the earth' I might need less winter wear, but that's not my
reality most winters.
Thanks for replying, and civilly too. I have to admit I wasn't
expecting that - my usenet experience makes me cynical!
I'm sure you've read many replies that are similar to mine - if so, my
apologies for the repetition. You'll just have to be more offensive
next time and I'll leave you alone.
Regarding warm winters: this is why "global warming" is a misleading
term, and "climate change" or even "climate destabilisation" would be
a better term. The climatologists do say that global mean annual
temperature is increasing and will continue to do so over the next
century on current trends. But more heat energy in the atmosphere as a
whole as a result of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) means increase
in extreme weather systems, in general leading to hotter drier summers
and colder wetter winters.
And as for Ireland, remember that for all the cold and rain, it is
several degrees warmer than it should be for its latitude, as a result
of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (or "Gulf Stream").
There is good evidence for previous shutdowns of the THC, and the
effects that had on climate in NW Europe. Although you will be
sceptical of this, it is reasonably probable that it will shut down
again in a few hundred years' time as a result of decreased salinity
in Arctic seawater from increased meltwater run-off. Your descendants
will be buying *very* thick coats if that happens!
And as for your recent experience of cold winters, the local
temperature data will have been incorporated into global temperature
datasets, and yet there is still a robust upward trend in global mean
annual temperature. That shouldn't be controversial - if the weather
was so regular and predictable that you could extrapolate local
experience to global means,
there would be no need for weather forecasts. And weather != climate,
as others would say.
There is no proof of either god or global warming. Both are faith
based notions. Forcing AGW dogma on society is just as bad as forcing
religion on them. Without the tangible proof, leave people to insulate
their own homes, install solar panels, change to the horrible CFC
bulbs and drive hybrids if THEY CHOSE TO DO THIS. This should be a
personal choice.
In principle I agree that forcing a radical change on society is bad:
a change in societal behaviour cannot be sustained if the society
feels it is only doing it because it is being told to. But don't you
think governments are more to blame here? Yes, we are being told to
insulate our houses, don't fly, drive smaller and less, buy local, and
install solar panels - but we mainly hear this by politicians who
won't fund energy-efficiency schemes properly, fly and drive
everywhere, set up trade deals with China so we can import all our
clothes, toys and consumer electronics from nearly half-way round the
world while shafting local jobs, and throw our cash at invading a
country that happens to have *****-loads of oil, but not the WMDs they
insisted were there.
But that is not the fault of the scientific community. And I am
mystified that you can say there is no evidence. What fills the
climatology, geology, biology and ecology journals? How come climate
models only work properly when climate sensitivity to CO2 matches
measurements? How come such a large proportion of the experts agree?
And if they've all got it wrong, why should I believe you've got it
right?
Anyways a western family saving money on energy is fallacy as they
will just spend the money they saved on something else which uses
energy. So the whole concept of saving energy at the micro level is
pointless and it is in reality just transferring energy usage from
your own home to something else. This is not science. This is not
energy conservation. This is not even common sense. It's a feel-good
"eco-confessional" which superficially cleanses the carbon sins.
There you have a point - the so-called "rebound" effect does lead to
people leaving lights on for longer because they're CFL not
incandescents or driving more now that they've bought a Prius.
But just because energy efficiency isn't sufficient, it doesn't follow
that it isn't necessary. Again, the problem is not with the science.
It is with a social and economic system which needs continuous growth
in production and consumption to service the debt which is constantly
created by banks. Works well to stimulate innovation in a system with
infinite resources, but even without climate change to slam the brakes
on production, there is only so much oil, copper or agricultural land
available on this planet.
What the rebound effect demonstrates, simply and effectively, is that
technological fixes do not work in the long term. They are useful (the
carbon intensity of most industrialised economies has indeed decreased
in recent decades), but not the solution (overall CO2 emissions are
still rising despite this). What is needed is a behavioural change,
and a fairly radical change in our economic system so that we do not
have to consume ever-greater amounts of natural resources to be
regarded as useful members of society. And that's a whole other story.
It's the creepy control-freak nature of the Global Warmers which
pisses me off. I saw the same mentality among the catholic church big-
wigs in this country up until the 1980s. It's the same ***** and
it's the same folk who are drawn to this notion of using AGW to
control society in the same way the catholic bishops did in the past.
Oh and like the catholic bishops, double-standards and hypocracy
appears to be a concept completely lost on the AGW crusaders. (see jet
setting to Bali in order to tell the rest of us not to fly)
OK, I don't understand why COP-13 was held in Bali, given the perilous
situation of such islands if ACC is happening. It is bad PR. But like
everything else, there is a hell of a lot of inertia in human
behaviour. I suspect most politicians wouldn't have a clue how to set
up a conference call in Skype or iChat, for instance.
As for control-freakery, have a look at www.politicalcompass.org if
you haven't already been there. After seeing where you end up on the
compass (well, it's a grid really), have a look at the grids produced
for various national elections over the last decade (UK, Germany, Aus,
NZ, US). The various Green Parties are always libertarian left, nearly
always the most libertarian parties in their respective elections, and
maintain the most consistent political position over time. In other
words, dyed-in-the-wool social liberals.
I'm not denying that there are authoritarians who recognise the fear
value of climate chaos to get what they want from us, but
authoritarian Greens are few and far between. It just doesn't fit well
into the Green political philosophy of non-violence, radical
devolvement of political power to the local level.
And I sympathise with you about the Catholic Church's abuse of its
excessive power over Irish cultural life - but I fail to see the
parallel here with ACC. There is no priesthood that I'm aware of. The
orthodoxy itself becomes heterodox as science advances and
experimental methods improve. You might regard insulating one's house
or buying green energy as a ritual, but then why isn't fixing dripping
taps or cleaning one's house frequently?
To be honest, I am looking forward to a world were the weather will be
more of less what it has been for hundreds of years with normal
fluctuations and cycles. Because that's what we are getting regardless
of human or divine intervention.
Well, I've tried. Of course there are climate cycles, shorter and
longer; of course there are cold snaps. I think the climatologists are
aware of them and have already made allowances for their effects -
they'd look extremely silly if not. And sometimes scientists make
mistakes. Occasionally it's even the sceptics who point it out - as in
the case of Steve MacIntyre pointing out odd jumps in NASA data from
some North American weather stations between 1999 and 2000:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
No-one is hounding him down. NASA GISS thanked him for alerting them,
investigated the cause, and corrected the data within a week (not that
it made a difference to global trends, but it was still good he
mentioned it). If there is fraud or conspiracy, they're being very
subtle.
Anyway, I've spent far too long typing this! Must... stop... now...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Global Warming the Global Jonestown? |
30 Jan 2008 09:04:18 AM |
|
|
Thomas wrote:
There is no proof of either god or global warming.
You are an obvious science illiterate and usenet nutjob.
But, a guy's got to make a living, and it's easy work, isn't it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Global Warming the Global Jonestown? |
29 Jan 2008 12:23:35 PM |
|
|
Thomas wrote:
If you listen to how Al Gore slowly and patronisingly speaks on TV or
in public, and then Jim Jones at Jonestown on the speaker system. It
is spine-chilling.
OK, everyone. It's time to drink your seawater.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Christian American Fascist Propaganda - Ignore. |
29 Jan 2008 12:59:34 PM |
|
|
Thomas wrote:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm
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 evils. Historical comparisons like these are
just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
