The coming "crisis" and American totalitarianism

[Almanac]

Why do you believe Franco was not a fascist?

He didn't engage in militarism or warlike politics, essential features of fascism. He never attempted to conquer neighbouring countries. Nor did he espouse a racist ideology. He was intensely religious and created a quasi-totalitarian Catholic state, whereas Mussolini and Hitler effectively substituted fascism for religion and created totalitarian secular states.

[west'sawake]

He didn't engage in militarism or warlike politics, essential features of fascism. He never attempted to conquer neighbouring countries. Nor did he espouse a racist ideology. He was intensely religious and created a quasi-totalitarian Catholic state, whereas Mussolini and Hitler effectively substituted fascism for religion and created totalitarian secular states.

Don't know Al, he ticks a few of the boxes, if not all.

1) The salute, paraphanelia, uniforms, military state was there.

2) The cult of personality was there, though maybe we can blame his sycophants and not him. Certainly he was no Mussolini

3) The Police state was there

4) The ideological involvement in foreign wars was there. (Africa/Morocco and support for counter communist activities in Russia)

5) The control of media was there

6) The corporatism of Hitler and Mussolini was there

7) The usurping of power was there without a majority of the electorate. (Neither Hitler or Mussolin had a democratic majority initially, rather they got it by doing away with the opposition and contriving false majorities.)

On the other hand,

8) His was not, as you stated, a belligerent State

9) He had no fascist ideology, no equivalent of Mein Kampf, no vain glory egoism of Mussolini.
10) He did not engage in racist pogroms.


On balance then, I would argue that he was a Fascist, just about.

[Almanac]

Don't know Al, he ticks a few of the boxes, if not all.

1) The salute, paraphanelia, uniforms, military state was there.

2) The cult of personality was there, though maybe we can blame his sycophants and not him. Certainly he was no Mussolini

3) The Police state was there

4) The ideological involvement in foreign wars was there. (Africa/Morocco and support for counter communist activities in Russia)

5) The control of media was there

6) The corporatism of Hitler and Mussolini was there

7) The usurping of power was there without a majority of the electorate. (Neither Hitler or Mussolin had a democratic majority initially, rather they got it by doing away with the opposition and contriving false majorities.)

On the other hand,

8) His was not, as you stated, a belligerent State

9) He had no fascist ideology, no equivalent of Mein Kampf, no vain glory egoism of Mussolini.
10) He did not engage in racist pogroms.


On balance then, I would argue that he was a Fascist, just about.

A lot of the characteristics or features that you outlined are not unique to fascism, as Earnest pointed out. I accept fully that Franco was leader of a totalitarian state; he was in fact a benevolent dictator though, a product of his time, who nevertheless bequeathed a legacy of peace, prosperity and stability to Spain, which paved the way for transition to democratic popular monarchy. The fascist dictators by contrast led their countries into death and destruction.

Warlike politics is a core feature of fascism as is semi-mystical supremacism and Franco's regime lacked both these features. He was essentially non-political and insisted on all the interests who brought him to power- the Church, Falange, business and property interests and the army- being equally represented on the Council of Ministers.

[rhonda15]

**Warning if you are offended by foul language do not watch this video!**

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhaQqN1ZXUU"]YouTube - more chinese crap,frogger gets phucked[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWu-efNN8PM&feature="]YouTube - I'M BACK[/ame]

LOL!

Keep On Rockin' In A Free World!

[netron]

A lot of the characteristics or features that you outlined are not unique to fascism, as Earnest pointed out. I accept fully that Franco was leader of a totalitarian state; he was in fact a benevolent dictator though, a product of his time, who nevertheless bequeathed a legacy of peace, prosperity and stability to Spain, which paved the way for transition to democratic popular monarchy. The fascist dictators by contrast led their countries into death and destruction.

Warlike politics is a core feature of fascism as is semi-mystical supremacism and Franco's regime lacked both these features. He was essentially non-political and insisted on all the interests who brought him to power- the Church, Falange, business and property interests and the army- being equally represented on the Council of Ministers.

from my reading of history franco was more of Spanish nationalist than anything else.

lets not forget that downed RAF pilots were ferried by the French resistance through France across the border to SPAIN. and then back to their units in Britain.

kind of like a De Valera on steroids. But certainly no Nazi. definitely not.

still remember the old Spanish fellas on holidays in my youth , talking about the Falange and the affection for Franco.. also bear in mind that Franco groomed one King Juan Carlos.. who turned Spain into a democracy.

there is an interesting thread on alternate history forums that brings up the Spanish Civil War - in that , if Franco had lost ,what would have happened.

Well, for starters Stalin would have had a satellite state in Spain. And that would have certainly meant a German invasion in 1941 with the imposition of REAL Nazism...

so in a way Franco saved Spain from both communism and Nazism.

history is weird that way.

and the biggest gift to humanity that Franco gave us?

One Ibiza island. seriously. look into the history of it. Franco deemed Ibiza "out of sight out of mind"...

without Franco, acid house and the whole "balearic rave" thing of 1988 would never have happened.

that is why i absolutely love history as a subject...

[Earnest]

from my reading of history franco was more of Spanish nationalist than anything else.

lets not forget that downed RAF pilots were ferried by the French resistance through France across the border to SPAIN. and then back to their units in Britain.

kind of like a De Valera on steroids. But certainly no Nazi. definitely not.

Did anybody say he was a Nazi? The suggestion is that he was a fascist. Nazis were simply the German variety of fascist.

still remember the old Spanish fellas on holidays in my youth , talking about the Falange and the affection for Franco.. also bear in mind that Franco groomed one King Juan Carlos.. who turned Spain into a democracy.

Yes, he groomed Juan Carlos to continue his regime, because Juan Carlos's father had said he wanted to be king in a British-style constitutional monarchy. Juan Carlos either was quickly converted by the concrete situation in which constitutional monarchy was the only way forward, or else had been deceiving Franco.

[Almanac]

from my reading of history franco was more of Spanish nationalist than anything else...

still remember the old Spanish fellas on holidays in my youth , talking about the Falange and the affection for Franco.. also bear in mind that Franco groomed one King Juan Carlos.. who turned Spain into a democracy.

Yes Franco was basically a nationalist. There is still plenty of admiration for Franco in Spain, even among the youth. Despite far-left propaganda, many realise that he saved Spain from communism, and the Church from extinction. It was the massacres of religious and priests that finally drove him to action in the first place.

[Almanac]

Not a bad summary of some of the concerns raised in this thread available here. Most valuable are the many sources cited such as the below.

The National Intelligence Council report, Global Trends 2025, stated that many governments will be “expanding domestic security forces, surveillance capabilities, and the employment of special operations-type forces.” Counterterrorism measures will increasingly “involve urban operations as a result of greater urbanization,” and governments “may increasingly erect barricades and fences around their territories to inhibit access. Gated communities will continue to spring up within many societies as elites seek to insulate themselves from domestic threats.”[1] Essentially, expect a continued move towards and internationalization of domestic police state measures to control populations.

The nature of totalitarianism is such that it is, “by nature (or rather by definition), a global project that cannot be fully accomplished in just one community or one country. Being fuelled by the need to suppress any alternative orders and ideas, it has no natural limits and is bound to aim at totally dominating everything and everyone.” David Lyon explained in Theorizing Surveillance, that, “The ultimate feature of the totalitarian domination is the absence of exit, which can be achieved temporarily by closing borders, but permanently only by a truly global reach that would render the very notion of exit meaningless. This in itself justifies questions about the totalitarian potential of globalization.”

[Almanac]

The asteroid threat was predicted a good while back.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0wNtdvOYSA"]YouTube - A Step Closer To New World Order: The Asteroid "Threat"[/ame]

[Almanac]

A reminder of some of the concerns outlined:

The email contains a PDF attachment of a brochure for the Swine Flu Conference. Breakout sessions detailed on the brochure include discussions on mass fatality planning, business continuity planning, and COOP or Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government Planning. Additional sessions cover enforced quarantines, mass vaccinations, and how to “control and diffuse social unrest and public disorder.” The brochure is also available for download on the International Swine Flu Conference website sponsored by ISFC New-Fields Exhibitions.

Source

These "civilian facilities" on US military bases are to be established in cooperation with the US Military. Modeled on Guantanamo, what we are dealing with is the militarization of FEMA internment facilities.

Once a person is arrested and interned in a FEMA camp located on a military base, that person would in all likelihood, under a national emergency, fall under the de facto jurisdiction of the Military: civilian justice and law enforcement including habeas corpus would no longer apply.

HR 645 bears a direct relationship to the economic crisis and the likelihood of mass protests across America. It constitutes a further move to militarize civilian law enforcement, repealing the Posse Comitatus Act.

Source

[FONT=Arial]T[SIZE=2]he United States of America is devolving into what might be described as "medical fascism" and Massachusetts is leading the way with the passage of a new bill, the "Pandemic Response Bill" 2028, reportedly just passed by the MA state Senate and now awaiting approval in the House.

This bill, if adopted, would suspend the Constitutional rights of Massachusetts citizens and forces anyone "suspected" of being infected to submit to interrogations, "decontaminations" and vaccines.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Source

RAND corporation, a Pentagon-linked powerhouse think tank, connected to the Blderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations, came up with a solution to the financial crisis in October of 2008: for the United States to start a major war. Chinese media reported that RAND “presented a shocking proposal to the Pentagon in which it lobbied for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy and prevent a recession.” Further, “the target country would have to be a major influential power,” and Chinese media “speculated that the target of the new war would probably be China or Russia, but that it could also be Iran or another middle eastern country.”

Source

On August 21 the chief of the U.S. Marine Corps, General James Conway, arrived in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi to begin the training of his host country's military for deployment to the Afghan war theater under the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

"During the meeting the sides discussed a broad spectrum of Georgian-U.S bilateral relations and the situation in Georgia's occupied territory." [1] Occupied territory(ies) meant Abkhazia and South Ossetia, now independent nations with Russian troops stationed in both.

Conway met with Georgian Defense Minister Davit (Vasil) Sikharulidze, who on the same day gave an interview to the Associated Press in which he said that the training provided by the U.S. Marine Corps could be employed, in addition to counterinsurgency operations in South Asia, in his country's "very difficult security environment."

Associated Press reported that "Asked if he was referring to the possibility of another war with Russia, he said, 'In general, yes.'"

Source

A military agreement between the United States and Columbia has led to widespread concern in South America. Leaders want to know why the United States is trying to increase its military presence in the region. The Colombian government says that having more US troops in the country will help fight drug trafficking and combat terrorism. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, however, ardently opposes these plans. He says that the military bases in Columbia will provoke conflict in Latin America.

Source