[ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps

Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com
Tue Oct 2 05:12:51 UTC 2007

On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:34 PM, Emlyn wrote:

> This isn't new, but it is interesting, I thought some people mightn't
> have seen it. It'll read as pretty strongly partisan, so get past that
> if you can. Do you think things are really as bad as she describes?


1) 911 almost certainly was an inside job, seriously inside.

2) 911 was then used to curtail civil liberties and all but  
rubberstamp subsequent government power grabs.

3) 911 is used to justify current and future wars and indeed "war  
without end".  Out of generated and nurtured sustained fear the people  
go along.

4) Our economy is a tottering house of cards with the dollar fast  
running off the rails.

5) Peak Oil is real.

6) 4 & 5 and the knowledge thereof and how bad it really is likely  
explain why (1) was considered justified and why it and subsequent  
developments raise so little outcry in either major party.

7) Given a coming economy crash and subsequent mass unrest the state  
wants and has acquired the means to do whatever it wishes to and with  
the people to perpetuate its own existence or at least the comfort of  
the power elites.

on her (2) I don't think it is an accident that we jail a larger  
percentage of our citizens than any other government or that much more  
prison capacity is being planned and built out.   I find it very  
chilling that already signed executive orders give the President  
authority to have anyone he wants arrested and effectively disappeared  
without trial or rights simply by applying the label 'enemy combatant'  
or 'terrorist' without any standard of proof.

(4), surveillance, worries me greatly.  Past States leaning toward  
totalitarianism could not dream of the level of surveillance that is  
technically possible today.  With increasingly powerful and ubiquitous  
surveillance resistance become not merely futile but nearly impossible.

She is right on (5) that the definition of "terrorism" is much too  
loose and fluid.  It is easy to label something or someone as  
terrorist and remove many legal protections and quiet objections.

She is right about the dangers and about every specific development  
she mentions in its dangers and implications.

This is a very dangerous situation for we who live on this side of the  
pond.  So why is most of the response here about how much of an  
intellectual she is or is not and other side matters?   Is the heart  
of the matter so easily dismissed?  Or is it simply to disheartening  
and difficult to take on?  Would we really argue about what "fascism"  
means or strut our intellectual wit while our freedoms and our future  
are taken away?    Perhaps "fascism" is not technically the right  
word.  Perhaps the author does overly inflate.   But the subject is  
far too deadly serious to treat lightly or to distract ourselves with  
lesser matters from considering.

- samantha

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list