[Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Sun Aug 16 15:26:53 CDT 2009
> In my usage, if the term "fascism" is used to name or define a
> political theory, it is intended to cover a theory philosophy that
> promotes state owned or controlled corporate capitalism in which the
> ends of the state are given priority over those of the individual and
> the individual's interests are advanced or achieved as a by-product of
> the state bringing about the common good or interest as differentiated
> from the individual good or interest.
This is exactly my definition too.
> Notions of "authoritarian" do not enter into the definition or
> conception or theory as an essential or necessary element. If the
> term is being used in everyday language, then I generally mean some
> authoritarian attempt to engage in totalitarian control over
> individuals or groups of individuals by other individuals or groups of
> individuals either under the color of official or unofficial
> governmental action (legitimate or not) or not under the color of
> official or unofficial governmental action but rather as a private
> action (legitimate or not).
This is also my definition as used as a synonym to "authoritarian".
That Democrat party front group stifling free speech by interfering with
the conduct of a business entity such as CNN seems to fit nicely inside
these definitions as being a fascist act.
I have seen definitions of fascism that include racism.
On 8/16/2009 2:30 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
> First, I did not use the term in my actual postings. Carl used in
> his post to me where he spoke of "proto-fascist." I replied that I
> was not talking about "proto-" anything but that I thought that the
> masses were the real thing -- "fascists" plain and simple without any
> qualification such as "proto." In making my comments, I was assuming
> that Carl's notion of "fascism" was one that he felt covered what I
> had described so I went along with the use of the term. Thus, you
> probably should either ask Carl for his definition; or if you make the
> same assumption that I did -- namely that fascism is Carl's name for
> the traits I described in an earlier post, you should go back and read
> my earlier posts directed toward Dave Johnson.
>
> In my usage, if the term "facism" is used to name or define a
> political theory, it is intended to cover a theory philosophy that
> promotes state owned or controlled corporate capitalism in which the
> ends of the state are given priority over those of the individual and
> the individual's interests are advanced or achieved as a by-product of
> the state bringing about the common good or interest as differentiated
> from the individual good or interest. Notions of "authoritarian" do
> not enter into the definition or conception or theory as an essential
> or necessary element. If the term is being used in everyday language,
> then I generally mean some authoritarian attempt to engage in
> totalitarian control over individuals or groups of individuals by
> other individuals or groups of individuals either under the color of
> official or unofficial governmental action (legitimate or not) or not
> under the color of official or unofficial governmental action but
> rather as a private action (legitimate or not).
>
> *From:* E. Wayne Johnson [mailto:ewj at pigs.ag]
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 16, 2009 1:37 PM
> *To:* LAURIE SOLOMON
> *Cc:* 'C. G. Estabrook'; 'Peace-discuss List'
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>
> Laurie,
> Please define "fascist" so that I can understand what you mean when
> you use
> this word. Orwell said fascist has no meaning at all. For some
> "fascist" is
> a synonym for "authoritarian"--- there are other meanings, and Mussolini
> and the Italian economists certainly did not intend for "fascist" to
> be used in
> a negative context. Many of the people I communicate with regularly
> would consider
> both Obama and McCain to be fascists. I suspect that your meaning is
> different.
>
> I have quit using the word fascist myself because I was too oft
> misunderstood.
>
> In China the language changes every few hundred yards in Gen. 11
> style. I have no problem
> with your private definitions of words but if we are to understand
> each other we
> must have some definition of terms.
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
> On 8/16/2009 11:06 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
> It very well maybe to their interests Carl; but I know from personal
> experience as indicated and supported by the reactions of people to many of
> the positions I take on this and other lists (some of which are made up of
> fellow members of the choir allegedly) that in fact my views tend to be out
> of step with the mass of my fellow citizens. I do find it difficult to see
> how it would be to the corporate media's interest to convince me that the
> mass of my fellow citizens are proto-fascists; and in point of fact, the
> corporate media deliberately attempts to convince me and others that the
> opposite is the case and true (i.e., the mass of my fellow citizens are
> decent upstanding respectable and responsible human being and are even more
> so than the citizens of any other country; it is the deviant, irresponsible,
> minority of criminal extremists and terrorists that do not accept and
> conform to establishment ways that are the crazies and proto-fascists).
>
> Moreover, I do not believe that the masses are proto-fascist; I think that
> under the surface, they are real live full blown fascists - no "proto" about
> it. And of course, I recognize that there are and always be some who do not
> fit the characterization. Some of these may be visibly fascist; and some
> may not be fascist in any way shape or fashion. My argument is not to what
> degree any given individual fits the characterization; it is a statement as
> to the national character in general as it has revealed itself when push
> comes to shove and some threat or hardship exists. The "my country right or
> wrong attitude" that underlies everything that this country does and which
> the people tacitly or overtly support for the most part from the very
> beginnings of the country and even before during the colonial period. It is
> the reluctance to stand out from the crowd and take actual steps that put
> one's self and future at risk in order to oppose informal and formal, covert
> and overt, institutional and non-institutional intolerance, bigotry, racism,
> ethnic prejudices, class biases, etc. and support all non-conformity, all
> diversity, the interests and welfare of those who are not like us in ways
> aside from only talk and throwing money at things.
>
> What I am suggesting is that the "Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" and the
> "Ugly American" still exist and still characterize the attitudes, beliefs,
> and values of Americans - elites and masses alike just as they have in the
> past. It is this that supplies the audiences for the talk radio commentators
> like Lou Dobbs, Hannity, Beck, et al of today and the Father Caughlins,
> Walter Winchels, and Drew Pearsons of yesterday and creates the popular
> demand that keeps them on the air and attracts corporate advertisers and
> support. If they did not have a significantly large audience or demand for
> what they were putting out, the corporate interests would turn their
> attention and support on those that do and engage in using and manipulating
> them for the corporate interests. To deny or ignore the size and
> pervasiveness of this popular following and demand is to act foolishly. Not
> to recognize that those who oppose such commentators and what they have to
> say are in the minority and a minority that is not all that effective is
> stupid and possibly delusional.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net>
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
> Estabrook
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:26 AM
> To: LAURIE SOLOMON
> Cc: 'Peace-discuss List'
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>
> I think it's to the interest of the corporate media to convince you that
> your
> views are unusual, and that the mass of your fellow citizens are
> proto-fascists.
>
> I don't think they are. I've not infrequently had people say to me, "I agree
> with what you say on News from Neptune, but I thought that I was practically
> the
> only one who thought that way." --CGE
>
>
> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
>
> Who says I was? I am sure that I am not totally exempt and what
>
>
>
> exemptions I
>
>
> have may come from a set of more or less than ordinary - if not unique -
>
> biographically determined experience or history. This history may not
>
>
>
> have
>
>
> significantly altered the nature of my character but it did effect the
>
> content. In short I hate and am prejudiced against different people than
>
> them and maybe most other Americans, my enemies are different than theirs
>
>
>
> and
>
>
> maybe most other Americans , my fears are different than theirs and maybe
>
> most other Americans, etc.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook
>
> [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 9:43 PM To:
>
> LAURIE SOLOMON Cc: 'unionyes'; 'Peace-discuss List' Subject: Re:
>
> [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>
>
>
> How were you able to escape these defects?
>
>
>
>
>
> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
>
>
> Very simply and to the point the people of the U.S. , for the most part,
>
>
>
> are
>
>
>
> and have been inherently all the things that Dobbs, Beck, Hannity,
>
>
>
> Limbaugh
>
>
>
> et al stand for. They comprise a natural audience for these commentators
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> those like them and, therefore, represent a significant demand for their
>
>
>
> type
>
>
>
> of commentary, which can be denied and ignored at one's own peril.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To elaborate:
>
>
>
> If anything these commentators are catering to the inherent racism,
>
> intolerance, ethnic bigotry, religious prejudices, social Dawinian
>
>
>
> biases,
>
>
>
> fearfulness, desires for conformity, love of violence, etc. that is part
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> parcel of America and its people. The people already have these traits
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> have no need for corporations or the corporate establishment to instill,
>
> encourage, or bring out such attitudes and values since they pre-existed
>
>
>
> the
>
>
>
> rise of corporations in the US and of corporate America. Hence, they are
>
>
>
> not
>
>
>
> the creatures of corporate power, money or spin. To be sure,
>
>
>
> contemporary
>
>
> corporations make use of the existence of these attitudes and values for
>
> their own purposes -- often to maintain control over the workings of the
>
> society so that it works in their interests -- whenever possible.
>
>
>
> However,
>
>
> the corporate establishment is not the source of these attitudes and
>
>
>
> values.
>
>
>
> Hence there exists a significantly large native group who hold these and
>
> similar values, beliefs, and attitudes which make up a natural audience
>
>
>
> for
>
>
>
> the Dobbs. Becks et al which create a demand for what Dobbs, beck et al
>
>
>
> are
>
>
>
> giving them. To deny this or to minimize it is to play ostrich and stick
>
>
>
>
>
>
> one's head in the ground.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* unionyes [mailto:unionyes at ameritech.net] *Sent:* Saturday, August
>
>
>
> 15,
>
>
>
> 2009 8:20 PM *To:* Peace-discuss List; LAURIE SOLOMON *Subject:* Re:
>
> [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> And your point Laurie in 50 words or less ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David J.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> P.S. I am NOT trying to be " flippant " or disrespectfull, becaue I
>
>
>
> truely
>
>
> respect your opinion and knowldge ~!
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
>
> *From:* LAURIE SOLOMON<mailto:LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
>
>
>
> *To:* 'unionyes'<mailto:unionyes at ameritech.net>
>
>
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2009 8:12 PM
>
>
>
> *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I guess that may be where we disagree; I think that there is a tendency
>
>
>
> to
>
>
> give too little credence to the fact that there is this demand and that
>
>
>
> it
>
>
> comes from a significant and large segment of the U.S. public who may be
>
> guided by corporate spin bought by corporate money but which nonetheless
>
>
>
>
>
>
> represent and embodies some very fundamental values and beliefs that are
>
> actually deeply held by a large number of the American public and masses.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> American racism, ethnic and religious prejudice, cultural biases against
>
> intellectual as opposed to practical education, and fear and hatred of
>
>
>
> new
>
>
>
> immigrants and people from other countries, intolerance, bigotry, and
>
>
>
> demand
>
>
>
> for conformity are somethings that preexisted the rise of corporations in
>
>
>
>
>
>
> America or corporate America. The corporate establishment with its power
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> wealth has been able to use these characteristics of the American public
>
>
>
> to
>
>
>
> their advantage very effectively in modern times; but it is not the
>
>
>
> source,
>
>
>
> cause, or grounds for said attitudes, values, or love of violence toward
>
> other living creatures and properties. As was once said by Stockley
>
> Carmicheal, I believe, "Violence is as American as Apple Pie." I would
>
>
>
> add
>
>
>
> that so is lawlessness, intolerance, prejudice, conformity, as well as
>
> notions of racial, ethnic, and religious supremacy, as American as apple
>
>
>
>
>
>
> pie. They all have roots that pre-date the rise of American corporations
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> are part of our cultural and psychological heritage.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* unionyes [mailto:unionyes at ameritech.net] *Sent:* Saturday, August
>
>
>
> 15,
>
>
>
> 2009 3:05 PM *To:* LAURIE SOLOMON *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou
>
> Dobbs is dangerous
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It's not so much that ; Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, etc., have a demand for
>
>
>
>
>
>
> their shows from a large segment of the U.S. public, but instead is a
>
> function of what the corporate advertisers, the rest of corporate america
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> the wealthy right-wing foundations want and will pay for !
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David J.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
>
> *From:* LAURIE SOLOMON<mailto:LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
>
>
>
> *To:* 'Neil Parthun'<mailto:lennybrucefan at gmail.com> ;
>
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
>
>
> <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2009 10:36 AM
>
>
>
> *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Whether or not one is engaged in censorship in this case appears to
>
>
>
> depend
>
>
> on
>
>
>
> one's referent level being addressed. Your point about Lou Dobbs, the
>
> person, may have some merit vis-à-vis the difference between censorship
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> access to the exulted platform of radio& TV; however if you move the
>
>
>
> level
>
>
>
> of reference up to the radio/TV station level, then one might be seen as
>
> engaging in the censorship of the station and its broadcast content.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> While no one guarantees the right to have a nationally televised show, no
>
>
>
> one
>
>
>
> guarantees anyone the right to prevent someone from having such a show
>
>
>
> or,
>
>
> for that matter prevents someone from having such a show. In the case of
>
>
>
>
>
>
> radio/TV, the air waves allegedly belong to the public to license to
>
>
>
> actors
>
>
>
> for use. The radio/TV stations and networks are among those actors; and
>
> within legally prescribed restrictions they are free to air whatever
>
>
>
> content
>
>
>
> they see fit, independent of what the public or any portion of the
>
>
>
> public
>
>
> might desire although in this country that decision is driven by the
>
>
>
> market
>
>
>
> (audience share and advertising money). Obviously, if one wants to alter
>
>
>
> the
>
>
>
> legal restrictions, one needs to go through the process of changing the
>
> legal framework , statutes, and administrative rules pertaining to the
>
> conditions of licensing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If one moves up a level to the ownership and control over the air waves,
>
> which belong legally to the public, then I am afraid that those who wish
>
>
>
> to
>
>
>
> see Dobbs shut down are going to lose for now and in the near future
>
>
>
> since
>
>
> they do not compose a majority of the public -- or enough to force a
>
>
>
> change
>
>
> in
>
>
>
> the licensing requirements for the stations and their personnel as to the
>
>
>
>
>
>
> sorts of content that they can air and when. Like the other right-wing
>
>
>
> talk
>
>
>
> commentators, his station and he appear to have strong national following
>
>
>
>
>
>
> that support and demand him be given air time and are willing to put
>
>
>
> their
>
>
> money where their mouths are. That cannot be said for the progressives,
>
>
>
> the
>
>
>
> left, or even the moderate reformers. If they comprised a significantly
>
> large population and if each contributed $5 or $10 each per year for
>
>
>
> purposes
>
>
>
> of buying advertising on the stations that carry Dobbs, they could
>
>
>
> probably
>
>
>
> use that as leverage to get the stations to either reel him and other in
>
>
>
> or
>
>
>
> take them off the air. But it seems that the progressives, the left,
>
>
>
> liberal
>
>
>
> and moderate reformers would rather hold on to their money or spend it
>
> elsewhere and exercise their lungs shouting and crying about him and his
>
> content instead.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net>
>
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *Neil
>
>
>
> Parthun
>
>
>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 10:13 PM *To:* C.G.Estabrook *Cc:*
>
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou
>
>
>
> Dobbs
>
>
>
> is dangerous
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Banning speech and requesting that such speech does not have a
>
>
>
> hyper-exulted
>
>
>
> platform to amplify it are two very different things.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nobody is saying Lou Dobbs doesn't have a right to say whatever he wants.
>
>
>
> He
>
>
>
> has that right. However, no person is guaranteed the right to have a
>
> nationally televised show to promote their views and perspectives on any
>
> topic.
>
>
>
> Solidarity,
>
>
>
> -N.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Neil Parthun
>
>
>
> IEA Region 9 Grassroots Political Activist
>
>
>
> Writer/Facilitator for Champaign-Urbana Public i
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Early in life I had learned that if you want something, you had better
>
>
>
> make
>
>
>
> some noise." - Malcolm X
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing
>
>
>
> list
>
>
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing
>
>
>
> list
>
>
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090816/d7f0f64b/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list