America is now a police state - why isn't this being widely reported?!

[Budapest]

Those who think that politics matters often get passionate about it (I'm probably a prime example). I'm heartened by the fact that Brits can still debate about it objectively on boards like this. Left wing, right wing or chicken wing, it's all part of the mix. There's a lot of famous quotations about democracy. My favourite one, if I've remembered it correctly, was by Eisenhower: Democracy is the great experiment.

We all know what tyranny is. We're still trying to figure out what this new concept called 'democracy' involves. What's happening in America right now is tyranny. I started this thread to try and draw people's attention to it, because it's been barely reported in the western media (which is one of the worrying aspects of all this). I believe there are Americans who take part in this board and I'd be fascinated to hear their views.

Just about everything I hear from across the pond is that it's going to be revolution, baby.

[Serial_Apologist]

We're not the only ones seriously worried about what is happening in the States. The vast majority of the population are Christians - nothing particularly wrong with that, except that, from what I have read in reasonably reputable sources, the larger proportion of Christians are fundamentalist creationists. The nation is nuclear-armed to the hilt. Most if not all the Republican candidates are fuindamentalist Christians. They may accept the fact of global warming but are convinced humankind has played no part in this, and that they are guided by God. Many of the latter group in American society as a whole are convinced of the imminence of Armaggedon, and some are of the belief that they themselves are ordained to help in its bringing about.

We were once led to believe that the Soviet Union was the greatest threat to world survival; then retired members of the CIA and Pentagon elites later admited that this was mostly a ruse to keep the "Free World" on tenterhooks.

The future doesn't bear thinking about as regards America.

[Sydney Grew]

. . . The future doesn't bear thinking about . . .

Shudder!

[Budapest]

Serial_Apologist, just about all of the muppets profess to be evangelical Christians, yet their political views are diametrically opposed to the basic tenants of Christianity. Who on earth would vote for people with such a wacko world-view, let alone elect them into positions of high power??? (Ron Paul, or whatever his name is, is being championed for standing up against the NDAA, yet he is another evangelical Christian whose views on the world will make you wince)

But take heart, although it's going to be very messy in America during this year (to put it mildly!), common sense will prevail. (relax and try not to imagine what Nazi Germany would have been like if it was armed to the teeth with thermo-nuclear weapons). Never under-estimate the American people. They will get this sorted.

[Sydney Grew]

This is a fine and inspiring thread, which gives us hope; and thanks to every one who has contributed. But I do not quite understand this statement and how it fits in:

. . . . I am not at all libertarian. . .

?

[Lateralthinking1]

Good morning. I associate libertarianism with something like the legalising of heroin. It is the sort of issue where there can be a rational argument put forward that it is (a) helpful to the individual or (b) helpful to the state or (c) both these things, even if everyone accepts that rational arguments can also be put forward to the contrary. Or indeed (d) that actually none of those things matter because an individual should have complete freedom to choose and face any consequences.

My view is that there is another dimension to such activities beyond logic, pragamatism and individual choice. It is that what is permitted by the state is always a reflection on everyone who contributes to the state and enables it to function. So I would not be seeing it simply in terms of what others can and cannot do in their own houses. I see the country as being one house with us all sharing the same roof.

Personally, I would not want to turn a blind eye in our house to heroin use in someone's room. I would see it as a reflection partially on me and one that has been forced on me by others. Hell, they would even require me to subsidise what is going on and fine me if I said no or, worse, send me off to prison. In short, there is often a need for state control to protect people from themselves and to protect people from each other by establishing ethical standards for everyday living.

[aeolium]

But the main point I would make is that socialism - partial, top-down, bottom-up, whatever - and capitalism - private capital accumulation, ownership of property and productive means, market-determined priorities predominant - are in the end at mutual odds. With the mixed economy of old (and today's Scandinavia and EU) best suiting the dominant private sector by acting as infrastructural support and subsidsing back-up, business still complains about over taxation (forgetting the welfare state was originally intended to guarantee a healthy productive workforce) and over-regulation.

S_A, thank you for a very interesting summary in your msg 25 of how you see the developments in the C20 to where we are now. Don't you think, though, that the 25-year period after the second world war at least permitted a combination of high employment, relatively high levels of taxation (in Western Europe), improving public services, relatively low inflation, and levels of inequality that were far less than in the last decade?

As for the power of the state, I think this is where Marx really got it wrong in his belief that the power of the state would gradually wither away as the working class took power. The one historical development which has been pretty well continuous for several centuries has been the increasing power of the centralised state relative to its citizens, particularly with increasing technology and means of control. I agree that parallel with that, at least in the C20 century up to now, has been a growth in the power of multinational corporations and global finance to the point where these are more powerful in many cases than nation-states (though that has not slowed the growth in the power of the state vis-a-vis its citizens). Even if nation-states are able to reclaim some control over their economic destinies from global finance (as to some extent, thanks to oil, Chavez has done in Venezuela) there is still the thorny problem of the relationship between the citizen and the state, and how that can be rebalanced in favour of the citizen and proper democratic control. Everywhere there is disillusionment with democratic governments, a despairing sense that whoever is in charge does not really make any difference. How can a strong participatory democracy be constructed - it only really seems to have existed in times of rebellion, for instance the Paris Commune or the Spanish Civil War (as documented by Orwell in his fine Homage to Catalonia)?

[Serial_Apologist]

S_A, thank you for a very interesting summary in your msg 25 of how you see the developments in the C20 to where we are now. Don't you think, though, that the 25-year period after the second world war at least permitted a combination of high employment, relatively high levels of taxation (in Western Europe), improving public services, relatively low inflation, and levels of inequality that were far less than in the last decade?

As for the power of the state, I think this is where Marx really got it wrong in his belief that the power of the state would gradually wither away as the working class took power. The one historical development which has been pretty well continuous for several centuries has been the increasing power of the centralised state relative to its citizens, particularly with increasing technology and means of control. I agree that parallel with that, at least in the C20 century up to now, has been a growth in the power of multinational corporations and global finance to the point where these are more powerful in many cases than nation-states (though that has not slowed the growth in the power of the state vis-a-vis its citizens). Even if nation-states are able to reclaim some control over their economic destinies from global finance (as to some extent, thanks to oil, Chavez has done in Venezuela) there is still the thorny problem of the relationship between the citizen and the state, and how that can be rebalanced in favour of the citizen and proper democratic control. Everywhere there is disillusionment with democratic governments, a despairing sense that whoever is in charge does not really make any difference. How can a strong participatory democracy be constructed - it only really seems to have existed in times of rebellion, for instance the Paris Commune or the Spanish Civil War (as documented by Orwell in his fine Homage to Catalonia)?

Oh yes, aeolium, a workers' state, as I understood the concept, would have to be very strong in order to prevent itself being overrun like the peaceful, Taoist/Confucian China was. Choices about democracy wouldn't necessarily be preempted in the interests of its defense, as I see it; but I do have a generally optimistic view about "human nature"; engaging people as a whole in vigilance on behalf of the democratic process wouldn't necessarily be more difficult that persuading them of the self-interest in consumerism has been for advertisers, especially if products were made to last. Marx - well, Lenin, anyway - did not believe socialism could be established (theoretically as a stage to communism) until capitalism had been overthrown worldwide. This was the main basis for the difference between Trotsky and Stalin, who believed in the possibility of "socialism in one country", and then enacted it to self-justify centralising power at the centre. As I understand (or remember) it, the withering away of the state was envisaged by Lenin as a very longterm process.

[Budapest]

I think the problem with communism, capitalism and all the other isms is that they are set in aspic, a product of their times and aren't much relevent to the 21st century (this of course includes all the religious texts as well, which have got even more cobwebs on them than the isms - hence we get stuff like islamofascism). The same applies to doctrine like the American Constitution. Here's a recent piece from the Daily Telegraph...

Americans buy record numbers of guns for Christmas

What I find rather disturbing about the above linked article is that there is no context whatsoever – ie, the authoritarian laws that are being passed in America and the rumours flying round that there’s going to be martial law, with large numbers of people being detained. There’s been hardly a mention of any of this in the western media. It’s almost as if a sort of D-Notice has been served. It’s now written in law that the American Government can detain its citizens without trial, and there’s a whole host of other equally draconian laws that have been passed, or are going to be passed. You’d think this would be newsworthy; but oh no, there’s been barely a peep out of the western media.

I started this thread with President Obama's signing-off statement as he passed the National Defense Authorization Act 2012 into law:

I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens

Take note of exactly what he says in this statement: will not authorize the indefinite military detention, etc. Obama does not explicitly say that he will not authorise any military detention, etc, but just ongoing detention (Obama is a graduate from Harvard Law School and is well versed in manipulating words). The language obscurity is even worse in the offending parts of the Act itself (Clause 1031 and 1032, but I won't go into them here). This legal stuff is a text book example of how totalitarian regimes get up and running, and it's why I won't be going on holiday to America this year - after everything I say about America I'd surely end-up in one of their fast-food detention centres.

[Sydney Grew]

I think more than is generally realized there is an element of self-fulfilling prophecy in these affairs. Talk a lot about flying-machines, and a hundred years later, voilà there they are. Talk a lot about an invisibility cloak, and voilà:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...nts-animation/

it is on the way. Talk a lot about Value Added Taxation, and after a few years, voilà!! Talk a lot (as they do in Northern America - it is something to do with their historical interaction with the poor Red Indians) about "threats" and "counter-measures" and . . . get my drift?

After the concept, after the talk, comes the concrete reality.

But even the re-al (as opposed to existence merely in thought, imagination, or language) is itself quite a new concept. Sometimes it is profitable to imagine oneself in the sandals of a pre-Socratic for an hour or two is it not.

[scottycelt]

Lateralthinking1, you talk about the "dismal economic performance under socialism". I live in France and am well aware of this stuff. More than half of the French workforce is employed in some way or the other by the state. Most of them do diddly squat, but at least they have employment of some kind. Under the capitalist model these people would be at the mercy of 'the markets'; ie, France would turn into the kind of places that America and the UK have become.

The denigration of socialism is totally ridiculous. Most of Europe is socialist, and it's the most successful bloc on earth, in terms of human rights, its economy, etc (which is why the EU is hated so much by America and her allies, and it's why you lot in the UK are so brainwashed against it). Britain is just an offshore American missile base. It saddens me that Brits don't seem to want to take part in what's going on in Europe. I hold a British passport, yet I am first and foremost a European. The death of the euro currency has been predicted non-stop by pundits, who of course have no understanding of the power of the euro or of the European Union.

America has been dead from the neck up for a long time. Europe is, and always has been, the leader of the free world.

Though I can, I think, confess to being one of our most 'Europhile' members (at least among those who regularly post) the above is rather curious, to say the least.

I completely agree about the great advantages of the EU. However, I would suggest that the great majority of national governments within it are generally largely 'centrist' in outlook rather than 'socialist' though obviously there can be quite a difference in policy between Centre Right and Centre Left. I suppose it all depends what you mean by 'socialist'. Some Republicans in America think Obama is a 'socialist' ...

As for French unemployment that is higher than in the UK. I'm not sure Europe was 'the leader of the free world' in, say, the 1930's but, thankfully and largely due to the EU, it can (at least in terms of size and commitment to human rights) certainly lay claim to that title today.

America does not 'hate' the EU, in fact she has always supported it even if that's only in her own national interest, though it is true that much of the US media appears to have a dismissive view towards Europe and Europeans (especially the French) which I find distinctly odd considering the background and foundation of America.

However, I do share your sadness plus sheer bewilderment at similar British negativity, even disdain, towards the EU which has provided so much peace and security for all our peoples, and it's long past time we realised our future is being a leading player in Europe rather than a virtual satellite colony of America.

[Serial_Apologist]

Sometimes it is profitable to imagine oneself in the sandals of a pre-Socratic for an hour or two is it not.

Tried it once, and pre-Socratic values made a loss on the stock market...

[Mahlerei]

Watched Mitt Romney's victory speech from New Hampshire and was deeply depressed by his rhetoric and determination to repeal Obama's healthcare plans. He even promised to restore America's AAA rating which, ironically, was downgraded because of Republican obstinacy. I despair, I really do.

[Serial_Apologist]

Watched Mitt Romney's victory speech from New Hampshire and was deeply depressed by his rhetoric and determination to repeal Obama's healthcare plans. He even promised to restore America's AAA rating which, ironically, was downgraded because of Republican obstinacy. I despair, I really do.

And he's the "moderate" Republican candidate

[Budapest]

scottycelt said (post 41): "America does not 'hate' the EU, in fact she has always supported it even if that's only in her own national interest, though it is true that much of the US media appears to have a dismissive view towards Europe and Europeans (especially the French) which I find distinctly odd considering the background and foundation of America."

I made the mistake of sitting up half the night watching the New Hampshire Republican debate, because I try to stay on top of these things. It was all war and the Biiible and (Iraaaq) and Iraaan and Chiiina and how such countries are a threat to the USA, despite the fact that the USA spends more on its military than the rest of the world put together, and no other country on earth could become a conceivable threat for at least another 50 years - this while an estimated 46 million (yes, 46 million) Americans are living below the poverty line and 'tent cities' are springing-up everywhere. All this Dr Strangelove paranoia of course included a hatred of socialism and the EU, and well, basically just hatred of everything. Most of these American muppets, and their followers, have no idea what socialism or communism or, indeed, fascism is, and they often interchange the terms towards anything their dim minds don't like.

Despite what's shown to you on the tv news, there is still real politics happening in America. The following speech was given by Adam Kokesh on 2nd September 2008, at a Rally for the Republic in Minnesota in support of the Republican Representative, Ron Paul. In no way do I endorse Ron Paul (who amongst many other things is closely associated with Alex Jones and buys into conspiracy theories). I don’t know enough about Adam Kokesh to give any kind of informed judgement. His speech here, though, has the power and passion of the 1960s civil rights movement…

http://youtu.be/yuBv6WhejGQ