[Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous

[John W.]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:56 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at advancenet.net>wrote:

 Mort,
>
> I am not going to attend to the issue of empirical evidence of what the
> majority of U.S. people think at any given time in or throughout U.S.
> History since I am inclined to agree with you that there are no valid,
> reliable and valid statistics available and those indicators that might be
> found tend to be skewed or biased.  All sides have the right to put forth
> their unsubstantiated opinions backed by impressions and anecdotes.
>
> However, I will attempt to address the second question pertaining to the
> definition of fascism and if “authoritarianism” is a necessary property of
> fascism.  First. As suggested “Fascism” and Fascist” with capital “F”s are
> proper names of a specific political regimes ideological doctrine and of a
> specific political party and its members and supporters.  When used with a
> lower case “f,” it does not designate a proper name but something much more
> generic and general  than a specific concrete regime or political party or
> the actual members and supporters of that concrete political party or
> regime.  Dictionary definitions typically define terms in light of either
> their specialized or formal technical uses or in terms of their common
> everyday usage.  Such uses are language uses and not philosophical uses in
> which fascism with a lower case “f” refers to a political theory and its
> substantive content of which there are a number of variants and not to
> concrete manifestation of either attempts to implement the political theory
> or  instances where a concrete entity seeks to appropriate the name for its
> use as a name for itself or its ideology.
>
> As for the fact that some dictionary includes the term and even the notion
> of “authoritarianism” or “authoritarian” in their definition of “Fascism” or
> “fascism,” it is obvious that they are using popular notions of  both
> fascism and authoritarianism which obscures and ignores the fact that the
> popular versions of these notions are very vague and ambiguous from a
> theoretical and empirical perspective.  In political theory and philosophy,
> fascism does not call for authoritarianism or authoritarian leadership or
> actions by name or by description as a key or essential element.
>

So what does it call for?  What is fascism if not authoritarian?  How can
the state own and control corporate capitalism without exercising authority
over it?



> In fact, the  term and/or notion and/or concept of authoritarian and
> authoritarianism have little or not actual standing – much less
> definitions.  The terms and notions do have some standing in psychology and
> social psychology as well as a technical definition which refers to and is
> based on a personality type with  set of personality traits that
> characterize people to a greater or lesser extent.  Each of these traits in
> the set according to the theory presents a continuum and not an “either/or”
> trait  in which various configurations of  the traits in the set might
> constitute or characterize an authoritarian personality of for different
> given  individuals.  There has been a popular tendency to generalize these
> individual traits and project them into political theory and onto states,
> political arrangements, political parties, groups ,ideologies, and political
> theories and philosophies in an “either/or” reified fashion.  I take these
> dictionary definitions with a grain of salt and do not take the alleged
> contradiction between dictionary definitions and philosophical or
> theoretical traditions.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:
> peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *Brussel Morton K.
> *Sent:* Monday, August 17, 2009 4:40 PM
> *To:* LAURIE SOLOMON
> *Cc:* 'E. Wayne Johnson'; 'Peace-discuss List'
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>
>
>
> I hesitate to enter this discussion, but have been struck by the number of
> unsubstantiated assertions in it. Does anyone have a studied grasp of the
> facts concerning what the majority of U.S. people think at any time or
> through our history? If so, I haven't seen it in the discussion. Rather,
> there have only been personal impressions, many of which could possibly be
> valid, but which are less than compelling due to lack of reliable and
> extensive data.
>
>
>
> On another tack:
>
>
>
> As to the use of the words "fascism" or "fascist", here is what (the
> Larousse and Robert) dictionaries say:
>
>
>
> *Fascism*:
>
> 1) Regime established in Italy from 1922 to 1945 installed by Mussolini and
> founded on the dictatorship of a single party, exalting nationalism, and
> corporatism.
>
> 2) The doctrine or practice aiming to establish a comparable regime. in
> varying degrees, to Italian fascism.
>
>
>
> 1) Doctrine, tendency, or political system aiming to install an
> authoritarian regime which is nationalistic, totalitarian, corporatist and
> respectful of  capitalistic structures.
>
>
>
> *Fascist*:
>
> One who follows the ideas/doctrines of fascism. The word has also been
> employed in a general pejorative sense in light of the the 20th century
> regimes in Italy under Mussolini, Germany under Hitler, Spain under Franco,
> Chile under Pinochet, etc.
>
>
>
> To state that "authoritarian" is not to be found in the definition of
> facism goes against the above definitions.
>
>
>
> --mkb
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2009, at 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 <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 <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 <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 <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> <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
>
>
>
> *To:* 'unionyes' <mailto:unionyes at ameritech.net> <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 <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> <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
>
>
>
> *To:* 'Neil Parthun' <mailto:lennybrucefan at gmail.com> <lennybrucefan at gmail.com> ;
>
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
>
>
>  <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> <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 <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090818/c864b095/attachment.html