Response: Your issues need to be taken up with the Library of Congress.  It's their definition.  I just compared it with current events.  I'm not sure where you're going with the ranting though.  You're kind of all over the place.  Very confusing.

I thought you might be interested in knowing that there's a nine page discussion about this article here: http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=38560&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I've cut this from what's probably the most astute commentary there:

As I said, most of them are either common to totalitarianism in general or don't fit with the regimes supposedly under discussion. Starting from the beginning:

Quote:
"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."


Common to many totalitarian regimes. Look at Asian strains of communism, all of them are staunch nationalists as well as being doctrinaire Marxist-Leninists. Tito used nationalism when the Comintern was trying to kill him. Despite what some on the left would say, nationalism is not limited to any end of the political spectrum. In fact, I would say that nationalism has been by far the most potent 'ism' of the 20th century.

Quote:
"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."


Ditto.

You're explaining here that human rights violations are common in totalitarian dictatorships. Well color me shocked.

Part two follows

JK (M) 18
Won't state city, state.

Comments:  I always like to here people are discussing this article.  That's why I wrote it.  As Benjamin Franklin stated when asked about the Constitution, Declaration and other issues by a woman, "What have you given us?", she asked.

"A Republic, if you can keep it." Franklin replied. 

That pretty much sums it up. I don't know about you, but I'd like to keep it.

Hello,

These ideas have been floating around in my head for some time now; all of the thoughts you put up were relevant, but I did not realize that they were all intertwined so neatly.

Thank you for shedding some light on my inability to put 2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2 together and equal fascism.

Largely, I cannot say that you are wrong, but I cannot exactly say you are right; not yet at least. The pieces are in place, now it is what might happen to stir them to action.

Thank you, also, for informing the masses in a time where information received is comments returned in extremes. I fear that our government has destroyed the 'gray area' of society; and that we now live in a black and white world.

There are more things afoul as well lately; have you seen that the Patriot Act is being *expanded*? That brought many, many alarms to my skull. I believe you just might be right about these times a coming; though I do not wish to try to attempt to overthrow.

I am a man suited for information and the channeling of, not war and reformation; that is not my place =( If it were in my spirit to do so, I would, but I am afraid that I cannot. I wish to be the voice of the people, and I cannot do this whilst being detained or put to death for being an 'enemy of the state,' 'drug dealer,' 'child pornographer,' or any other concoction that this nation could throw against me if it so chose.

As always,
The Firgof

JW (M)
Texas

Comment: 06/13/05 Some good points Firgof. Fascism, like all evils will never look the same, it always takes a different look each time it is used and chooses something comforting whether fear's need of security, empowering people with a sense of elitism or convincing us we are entitled to the lives, possessions or minds of others. Mel Gibson illustrated this well in "The Passion of the Christ", evil's seductive and pleasing nature hiding, well, evil. The United States has yet to reach the point of no return, but if Americans do not take our responsibility as citizens and remind those governing us that WE are their bosses, not they our rulers, we could reach that point in the foreseeable future.  Getting rid of the Patriot Act is a good place to start.  It is unconstitutional.  It should have never passed in the first place.

In a response to someone who disagreed with you (I believe you were accused of being a secular humanist), you wrote this:” I’m Wisconsin Synod Lutheran, fundamental and very steadfast in my faith. I follow Christ”

I have to ask you what you meant by that? As it has always been taught to me by the Bible and by every church I have attended (non-denominational churches), a Christian is someone who is born-again, believes that Jesus is God in the flesh; that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, via immaculate conception; that he was crucified and that he died for our sins; that he is resurrected; that he is the only way; and most importantly, that in order to inherit the kingdom of heaven, you must ask him for forgiveness and pledge him as your personal savior.

The Bible says that unless you meet all of those requirements, you are not a Christian. Now, I don’t know if you are or not, but on your site there is a mockery of Psalm 23, entitled “Psalm 2003.” No Christian I know would post such a blasphemy based on such a treasured verse.

I also disagree with the critiques on George Bush’s “Christianhood.” While I cannot look into his heart and see if his profession of faith is genuine, he has to date never minced words as to what his beliefs are. He has always humbly and respectfully proclaimed what he believes. The Bible says that we should not be ashamed of the gospel and that if we deny Jesus before men, he will deny us before The Father.

Bush is, and has proven himself to be, both a Christian and follower of Christ.

RH (M) 26
Richfield, MN, USA

Comments: Interesting comments, and I agree with the summaries of the Apostle's Creed and John 3:16 above.  However I disagree with you on Bush. Let me explain, though briefly, why.

The reason I stated specifically my faith background is to separate myself from other conservative Christians in the United States who follow dispensationalism, the apostate beliefs born in 1830 that include the rapture, worship of Israel and a drive toward Armageddon.  These people follow the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and other's, including our President and have done more, in my opinion and many others, to destroy the good works of Christ and Christianity through their actions leading many to believe this hate filled rendition of scripture is Christianity.  It is not, not according to the teachings of Christ and I think it is important that non-believers and believers alike know that not all Christians are like our President and the dispensationalists.  Not all worship a foreign country.  Not all practice elitism.  Not all spout Jesus' words and then do the opposite.  Not all hide hatred, apartheid, war, and revenge in God's name.  Not all use God for conquest, murder and destruction. 

Point blank, I do not believe that Bush is following Christ or God in what he is doing on behalf of our nation. I think he believes he is, but read the gospels in context and in full.  His actions do not support Christ's teachings. Ultimately that is the definition of a Christian, we aspire to act as Christ would in all of our affairs. We're human so we don't always succeed. Jesus remains the sole example of man without sin.  But there is a difference between one who sins, and one who uses God to sin.  Bush uses God to sin.  As an American and a Christian, that is unacceptable to me.

I strongly believe the President is following "the dark side" to coin a popular phrase and I base that on his actions, not what he says.  The devil or evil if you will. according to the Bible has three main objectives: Steal, Destroy, Murder.  Bush has spearheaded each of these in our conquests of Iraq and Afghanistan and our continued support, protection and funding of Israeli apartheid. His actions speak volumes. Jesus would not do these things, and certainly never in God's name. Bush has shown himself to be the definition of hypocrite and a world class liar and continues to mislead the world and the American people.  He has shown a lack of compassion; he has used events to gain more power. He plays favorites on the world stage while professing to be fair and balanced.  He is a man who goes back on his word. He's failed to uphold his oath of office 100% which requires one thing and one thing only: That as president he support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic.   He's led the charge via the Patriot Act, even preventing voices in opposition from speaking as recently as today (06/14/05), and other new laws to destroy our Constitution and he's done more damage to our Constitution than any President in history.  A Christian wouldn't do that, not a true follower of the way.  I have several examples of each statement above.  Perhaps I'll put them into a new article soon.

If you want to understand what I mean by Christianity, there is an excellent book entitled "Think Like Jesus" by George Barna.  I highly recommend it to anyone of any faith who wants to understand Christianity as well as the competing ideologies further secularizing society including dispensationalism, naturalism, pre and post-millennialism and others. It also makes the hypocrisies of the "Christian Right" so obvious, they blind.  This simple book remains the best description of what I believe to be the essence and intention of Christianity and it looks like you and I are on the same page based upon your definition.  What is difficult is separating the image from the actuality.  The two, where our president is concerned,  define incongruence.

Yes, the psalms 23 rewrite may be offensive to some but we posted it to illustrate our President's hypocrisy.  I think it makes the point well and it was sent to us by a Christian missionary as an example of how twisted things have become.