BUSH/BLAIR=NEW ORDER OLD NAZI EUROPE

by stickler Sat Feb 01, 2003 00:50

Stop before good old Pat C bursts a blood vessell, you are challenging all he holds dear.
He has strict criteria for defining fascists:
1 docs
2 Skinhead haircuts
3 putting up anti refugee posters in some alleyway. He gets very cross when these criteria are not strictly adhered to.

by iosaf Sat Feb 01, 2003 12:26

i am not arguing with the author but....

i don´t like the terminology but the essence is true.
the pro Bush line up
Italy
Spain
UK
we don´t need to point to human rights abuses, torture, etc.,
but we can´t use up valuable and accurate terminology on them alone.
France and her allies are currently facing down Bush/Blair/Aznar/Burlosconi
but their past is no less littered with fascist imperialism.
So be careful.
Austria under Haider sent the most non aligned diplomatic assitance to Iraq.
We know Haider is a fascist.
And he has not gone away. He is a new head who will be sitting at Europe´s table for another two generations.
So please choose your words carefully.
The fascists learnt from the past as well. They reconstructed and blurred the old clearcut dilineations of their tactics loyalities and ambitions.
Also it might be worth reminding Irish readers yet again the Spain is not a unitary nation state.
Nor is the UK.
Nor is Italy.

If you continue to speak about "Spain" without consideration of either Basque countries or Catalonia as being distinct entities within a Spanish constitution under serious strain and pressure, then don´t be offended if others in Europe see no distinction between GB and UK and Ireland. there are many who see Irlande as merely "petite angleterre". Italy too is a constitution under strain. But there the seperatism is closer to the right. Is Basque nationalism/ seperatism / independence / regionalism the same as Catalan as Paduan?
no.
Paduan independence found its articulation through reconstructed fascists. Is Sardinian or Sicilian regionalism the same as Paduan?
no.
Padua and the league of the north supported by Burlosconi can not be compared to the regionalism nationalism of the south.

So Irish people should be most careful of their words.
On terms of European identity, ten million people speak Catalan as their first tongue. They have had a unitary legal structure / state for longer than Ireland. They have suffered torture and the wrath of Franco that only in the last year has left the closed archives to face historical scrutiny.

Ukraine is the newest addition to your musings.
Be most careful what you think about the Ukraine.
US foreign policy and manipulation began there long ago, before most Irish people had even given the country thought.
IS Ukranian nationalism the same as Bylorussian?
no.
Bylorussian is based on .....
if you think about for a while you will see how foolish it is to use the word "fascist" unless you are very sure what you mean.
Is lithuanian support for NATO the same as...?
Europe is big.
500million people.
ireland is small.
but it could be bigger.

by Tosser Sat Feb 01, 2003 22:26

Let's be clear, when we speak of nations like Italy, Spain, Ukraine, do we mean each individual in that nation?
No.
Obviously that makes no sense. People will disagree, start opposition or separatist movements, call for local autonomy, etc.

But governments--states--they are definable, and have definiable and explicit objectives. And the power or ruling elites i.e. those who wield the most influence over the state in question, are accountable for the actions of those states.

So when we speak of the USA's government, we mean George W. Bush (and his family--a political dynasty with many illicit connections--including with Nazis), the members of his cabinet or administration (Cheney--CEO of Halli-Burton Oil, ex-Secretary of Defense...Rumsfeld--longtime Pentagon hack and the most dangerous man in America...Powell--aided cover-up of Vietnam War era's My Lai massacre, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Bush Sr.'s war...and so on), and the corporate interests which support him and fund the political campaigns of himself and his allies.

But fascism does not always need to be Nazi fascism. It simply requires a belief in the use of the will, or coercive force, of the state to resolve matters, that the individual exists only so far as the individual is a facet of the state, and that liberty -- i.e. freedom linked to certain inalienable rights -- is expendable and irrellevant. The current American regime has displayed these tendencies through their actions all too clearly, as have other states recently, including Berlusconi's regime in Italy. At the very least, the precedents are being set that will allow for the total dominance of such an ideology -- one that links old nineteenth-century style fascism with old nineteenth-century style lassaiz faire capitalism, wrapped in the technology and propaganda campaigns of the twenty first-century.

Nightmare scenario anyone?