Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US

[Samium Gromoff]

> Pierce T.Wetter III wrote:
> > [*] I did, even though I despise GWB and his cronies, and think they
> > are
> >     causing more harm to the U.S./world than any president I can
> > remember
> >     (yes, more than Reagan).
> 
>   It's really been discouraging me lately the level of hatred I see in
> US politics lately. It started building in the Reagan era, wasn't too
> bad in the elder Bush era, built up again in the Clinton era, and has
> peaked (so far) in the Bush era.

Are you aware that the living conditions of people are worsening,
and that the rich/pover disbalance grows?

>   I don't blame people for being upset with any of those
> presidents. Most people get their information from the media, and if
> you watch the media, you'll find lots of reasons to hate any of those
> people if you care strongly about almost any issue. Its important to
> realize that the media doesn't distinguish between rhetoric and fact,
> and that their goal is not to inform the public, but to gather viewers.

You assume that media has an almost complete control over people thoughts.
While it (the media) would have liked it, and while it`s largely true,
people still have to find food, housing, work, culture, education, medicare etc.

The way how these needs are satisfied does have it`s fair share of
defining their opinion wrt the current govt.

>   Presidents in general tend to be more centrist then left or right
> wing. Reagan was effectively pro-choice, Clinton was pro business, and
> so on. But if you listen to the media, they'll quote people who said
> Reagan was a Nazi, and other people who say Clinton was a Communist.
> 
>   Neither is a true, Clinton and Reagan probably had more in common
> then they were different. But if you're speaking to a rally of
> Democratic or Republican supporters, you'd never say "ah, that
> opposition really isn't that bad, they're ok guys." No, you demonize
> them. Which is ok at a Democratic or Republican rally. But then the
> media starts reporting that rhetoric as if its true.

What you say here might be more or less true, but is fairly irrelevant.

The president is only a tip of the iceberg, unless he`s got an individuality
strong enough to actually radiate his will all the way through the govt machine.

Otherwise you have to get a broader view -- namely you have to stop
talking about the _president_ and start talking about _presidency_.

I.e. the circles have power upon president, and circles which have power
upon those circles.

If you don`t do that -- and to do that you need to perform some research --
you won`t get a realistic picture on what`s happening nowadays. 

>   This spiral of hatred bums me out. So now Tom posts a link to this
> article.
> Which is so typical of the media hysteria machine. Let's fisk it.

Tom, i presume, did some research -- and was scared. Unlike you.

[ some long and boring story dissection skipped ]

>   The thing is, this is so typical of the media, that they feel they
> have to spin controversy out of everything. This is so
> not-news. Fascism is not gaining ground in the US. Tone down the
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Um? How does this follows?

Did you have read snippets from Samuel Huntington? I guess no.

> hysteria. Tone down the hatred. Bush isn't perfect, Clinton wasn't
> perfect, Kerry isn't perfect, Reagan wasn't perfect, you aren't
> perfect, I'm not perfect, none of the next 1,000,000 presidents will
> be perfect. The only "evil" person in that list is me. :-)

>    When the media implies someone is evil, they're probably lying. If
> they really were evil, they would come out and just say it. When they
> don't come out and say things, they're just trying to mess with you.

Media is run by people who play games with masses. You, therefore,
can not tell anything reliably from that random source of desinformation.

>    Pierce

[ a reiteration of the basic truths about media skipped ]


regards, Samium Gromoff