[Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
LAURIE SOLOMON
LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET
Sun Aug 16 16:50:47 CDT 2009
> This is also my definition as used as a synonym to "authoritarian".
As I said, the formal definition of “Fascism” as a political theory, does
not include “authoritarian” a integral component of the theory; the same can
be said for “racism.” Fascist states can be authoritarian and or racist;
but there is no reason why they have to be or are.
In everyday usage, it is essentially a label or dirty name that one call
someone else or the actions of someone else. It is not a synonym for
“authoritarian” although some may use it that way. I did forget to say that
the term also tends to connote that the threat or actual use of force and
violence may be used to bring about or support one’s efforts at control.
> 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 suppose that one can use the term in everyday life as a disparaging name
for that group and its activities; but I do not think I would apply it to
the group or its actions. First, the group is not attempting to control
every aspect of everyone’s organization’s life in that organization or all
the conduct within all organizations(or even all the conduct of CNN or any
other business entity), which is what I tried to imply by using the notion
of “totalitarian.” Second, they are exercising pressure but are not
threatening or using force or violence to bring about the control they seek.
I think that these things do make a difference and would in my opinion
disqualify this from being called fascism or fascist – at least in my
everyday usage.
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of E. Wayne
Johnson
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:27 PM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: 'Peace-discuss List'
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
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] 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>
<mailto:LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
*To:* 'unionyes' <mailto:unionyes at ameritech.net>
<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>
<mailto:LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
*To:* 'Neil Parthun' <mailto:lennybrucefan at gmail.com>
<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] *On Behalf Of *Neil
Parthun
*Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 10:13 PM *To:* C.G.Estabrook *Cc:*
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
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
_______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list
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
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
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/20090816/8b8a4845/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list