Fighting Authoritarianism with Authoritarianism

I see that the Vice President recently chided Europe for annulling elections and prosecuting speech they didn’t like. The German Defense Minister called his speech “not acceptable”, although he didn’t try arresting Vance.

Margaret Brennan at CBS lectured the Secretary of State about free speech leading to the Holocaust, which struck me as an odd position for a journalist to take. But then “Sixty Minutes” ran a strangely approving segment on the German police who scour the internet for thought crimes and dispatch special units to arrest the wrongthinkers.

Does it make any sense to try to “save democracy” via anti democrat means?

I think we tend to judge other unique nations through American eyes. Maybe Germany isn't that much different from us in a lot of ways, but they have a cultural burden of the Holocaust and Nazi oppression. I appreciate the different points comparing our so called free speech to theirs, but I don't think we should be using our influences in their politics. I suspect they have a vestigial tendency to revert to earlier regimes. A person can see how extreme right elements can create a divided nation and mayhem. It's really not our issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

I think we tend to judge other unique nations through American eyes. Maybe Germany isn't that much different from us in a lot of ways, but they have a cultural burden of the Holocaust and Nazi oppression. I appreciate the different points comparing our so called free speech to theirs, but I don't think we should be using our influences in their politics. I suspect they have a vestigial tendency to revert to earlier regimes. A person can see how extreme right elements can create a divided nation and mayhem. It's really not our issue.

---

Meanwhile, not far away from Germany, a country with no cultural burden of Nazi oppression is watching their Jewish citizens become increasingly ill at ease in their own country. Jews in parts of the UK are experiencing harassment to the point they are hiding religious symbols and are contemplating leaving the country.

It isn’t a return of The Far Right (or traditional Right anyway) it is harassment by Muslim citizens, aided by the British institutions that now tamp down on speech about their protected minorities. Assaulting Jews in the streets in the result. For law enforcement, it was forbidden to talk about (until now) gangs of Asian men raping girls.

so, in England it is not free and open discourse that is leading to a Nazi-like authoritarian regime. On the contrary, the government allows only correct speak and imprisons (yes, literally) those who speak about protected groups.

Keep in mind a significant percentage of Muslims are in favor of legal prosecution for those who simply draw a picture of the prophet Muhammad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

I think we tend to judge other unique nations through American eyes. Maybe Germany isn't that much different from us in a lot of ways, but they have a cultural burden of the Holocaust and Nazi oppression. I appreciate the different points comparing our so called free speech to theirs, but I don't think we should be using our influences in their politics. I suspect they have a vestigial tendency to revert to earlier regimes. A person can see how extreme right elements can create a divided nation and mayhem. It's really not our issue.

---

If their hostility to free expression stems from the Nazi era, then I would say they drew some tragically wrong conclusions from that period. While I agree that not every country has our glorious and exceptional tradition of “so called free speech”, I agree with Vance that if a government is fearful of the thoughts and beliefs of their own people then there may be very little America can or should do to help them.

I think that the enthusiasm some in government and media show for shutting people up is more about protecting the power of existing elites than protecting us from potential dictators.

When it comes to Vance, I think he should realize that our enemies are not in Europe or China or Canada, but we have our own big problems internally caused by our own fascist regime, thus is not in a position to tell others how to run their media or politics.

It's the old expression of noticing the speck in the neighbors eye when one has a plank in his own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

When it comes to Vance, I think he should realize that our enemies are not in Europe or China or Canada, but we have our own big problems internally caused by our own fascist regime, thus is not in a position to tell others how to run their media or politics.

It's the old expression of noticing the speck in the neighbors eye when one has a plank in his own.

---

well, there is some truth to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

...... we have our own big problems internally caused by our own fascist regime, thus is not in a position to tell others how to run their media or politics.

---

Which of our regimes would you consider fascist, and why?

Weird to call out the Europeans on their free speech issues, given the rather Orwellian turn the US is taking recently with language, literature, and art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Which of our regimes would you consider fascist, and why?

---

The term seems to be somewhat fluid, however,

"Former President Donald Trump has recently been called a "fascist" by his former chief of staff, John Kelly, his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, and leading historian Robert Paxton.

"Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It's a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy...."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fascism-term-hurled-donald-trump/story?id=115101505

"a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control of social and economicl ife, and extreme pride in country and race, with no expression of political disagreement allowed"

Cambridge dictionary

Do you disagree with the definition or it's application, and why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Weird to call out the Europeans on their free speech issues, given the rather Orwellian turn the US is taking recently with language, literature, and art.

---

it could be happening all over in various ways. I watched footage of the Germans, sending their police to a citizen’s home who had posted a racist cartoon. Apparently in Germany, this is unlawful action. That’s what I’ve been seeing in the UK as well, police visiting the homes of people who have engaged in speech, they consider un civil.

Without knowing what examples you’re seeing here in the United States I could argue —perhaps—that it’s not quite that bad in the United States, but I don’t know what examples you’re looking at.

Let me just say very clearly: the creeping authoritarianism of regimes in western nations as expressed in tamping down free speech is a major concern to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

Without knowing what examples you’re seeing here in the United States I could argue —perhaps—that it’s not quite that bad in the United States, but I don’t know what examples you’re looking at.

Let me just say very clearly: the creeping authoritarianism of regimes in western nations as expressed in tamping down free speech is a major concern to me.

---

How about in our nation, right now:

r/feddiscussion[COLOR=var(--color-neutral-content-weak)]•[/COLOR]11 hr. agoSeparateMastodon3477






1st Amendment

[COLOR=var(--color-neutral-content)]I was in a meeting today where I was told by my fed supervisor that I shouldn’t post anything disparaging about the “King” on social media. This “suggestion” included protesting against the administration unless I wanted to lose my federal job.




[/COLOR]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tybee

How about in our nation, right now:

r/feddiscussion[COLOR=var(--color-neutral-content-weak)]•[/COLOR]11 hr. agoSeparateMastodon3477






1st Amendment



[COLOR=var(--color-neutral-content)]I was in a meeting today where I was told by my fed supervisor that I shouldn’t post anything disparaging about the “King” on social media. This “suggestion” included protesting against the administration unless I wanted to lose my federal job.




[/COLOR]

---

Our President is very thin skinned which is a major indicator of him being unsuitable for this job.

But let us not forget earlier attempts to intimidate free speech about the occupants of the
White House or ideas they dislike.

Big Brother Barak Obama launched the website “AttackWatch.com” to encourage us in reporting our fellow citizen’s disparaging remarks about him. It was supposed to address rumors and attacks on the Obama White House.

Then followed President Biden’s short lived Department of Misinformation which was set up to identify expressions of thought not OK’d by the White House. It failed miserably for laughable reasons.

I do not give these examples to point out. “but but Obama did it too” I give the examples to show the creep of authoritarian control of speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

The term seems to be somewhat fluid, however.....

......Do you disagree with the definition or its application, and why?

---

Yes, the definition seems to vary depending upon who's using it and who they're applying it to. To me, fascism involves strident militarism, anti-capitalist, anti-free market, nationalist governance.

I suppose an 'America First' agenda might be construed as filling the Nationalist criteria but it seems to me that several previous 'regimes' have done a better job of encompassing a higher degree of fascist tendencies that anything we are currently experiencing.

I like to remind myself, regardless of who's currently in charge, that this country is governed as a constitutional republic with leaders democratically elected by the people it serves, and that's what we're seeing now. Sour grapes aside.

Elon Musk was not elected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nswef

Elon Musk was not elected.

---

Of course he wasn't, and he has no authority on his own as he can only advise and perhaps speak on behalf of the President, who was democratically elected.

I suppose we could make a list of all the senior advisors to previous administrations who have enjoyed tremendous influence on this country's governance without being elected, but that list would be very, very long and unlikely to dull Musk haters favorite talking point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Of course he wasn't, and he has no authority on his own as he can only advise and perhaps speak on behalf of the President, who was democratically elected.

I suppose we could make a list of all the senior advisors to previous administrations who have enjoyed tremendous influence on this country's governance without being elected, but that list would be very, very long and unlikely to dull Musk haters favorite talking point.

---

please don’t forget the team surrounding feeble Joe Biden, who might’ve been running the country to an extent we’ll find out as their books come out. Someone on Mr. Money Mustache actually said they were happy to elect the same nameless faceless team running the show in 2024. I can’t begin to understand that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Of course he wasn't, and he has no authority on his own as he can only advise and perhaps speak on behalf of the President, who was democratically elected.

I suppose we could make a list of all the senior advisors to previous administrations who have enjoyed tremendous influence on this country's governance without being elected, but that list would be very, very long and unlikely to dull Musk haters favorite talking point.

---

If Elon Musk didn’t exist, it would have been necessary to invent him. The narrative requires it. It is hardly surprising, given his odd demeanor and vast wealth, that he will be held out as a sort of Bond villain. Introducing tech bro disruption culture to our complacent, self-satisfied federal bureaucracy was bound to create cries of anguish. I’m not sure if it doesn’t help Trump’s agenda to have a windmill for the Left to tilt at while he goes about his chaotic business. I will be curious to see if his enemies are able to rally the general public around the plight of federal employees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I like to remind myself, regardless of who's currently in charge, that this country is governed as a constitutional republic with leaders democratically elected by the people it serves, and that's what we're seeing now. Sour grapes aside.

---

I hope so! I hope they are serving ALL the people!

Can this thread now be moved to Politics? If not, I'll just stay away from Consumerism & the Media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

If Elon Musk didn’t exist, it would have been necessary to invent him. The narrative requires it. It is hardly surprising, given his odd demeanor and vast wealth, that he will be held out as a sort of Bond villain. Introducing tech bro disruption culture to our complacent, self-satisfied federal bureaucracy was bound to create cries of anguish. I’m not sure if it doesn’t help Trump’s agenda to have a windmill for the Left to tilt at while he goes about his chaotic business. I will be curious to see if his enemies are able to rally the general public around the plight of federal employees.

---

Kind of like bringing in a tiger instead of a house cat to keep the mice away. There won't be any mice, but God only knows what else will be stirred up. I'll take a house cat.

I’m cleaning out bookmarks and in doing so ran across these links to articles about the Obama administration and its relationship with the media. They belie the general picture we all have of jovial, cooperative Barack Obama. I have to say they surprised me in the look back on that period.

excerpts

https://www.politico.com/story/2010/...n-obama-036454

“…Obama and the media actually have a surprisingly hostile relationship — as contentious on a day-to-day basis as any between press and president in the past decade, reporters who cover the White House say.
Reporters say the White House is thin-skinned, controlling, eager to go over their heads and stingy with even basic information. All White Houses try to control the message. But this White House has pledged to be more open than its predecessors, and reporters feel it doesn’t live up to that pledge in several key areas…”

https://cpj.org/reports/2013/10/obam...ance-post-911/

excerpts:

“U.S. President Barack Obama came into office pledging open government, but he has fallen short of his promise. Journalists and transparency advocates say the White House curbs routine disclosure of information and deploys its own media to evade scrutiny by the press. Aggressive prosecution of leakers of classified information and broad electronic surveillance programs deter government sources from speaking to journalists. A CPJ special report by Leonard Downie Jr. with reporting by Sara Rafsky…”

and

“…In the Obama administration’s Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press. Those suspected of discussing with reporters anything that the government has classified as secret are subject to investigation, including lie-detector tests and scrutiny of their telephone and e-mail records. A…”

and

“This is the most closed, control freak administration I’ve ever covered,” said David E. Sanger, veteran chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times.”


For you Rachel Maddow fans, neither of these publications are considered right wing. They are lefty or lefty-centrist. I checked before posting these because I didn’t want our little Simple Living space polluted with right wing media thought.

I post the links to Obama White House reporting to show the through line from 2010 to now in thin skin controlling White House occupants.

Now, we may in a situation where someone could say “you wanna see thin skinned White House occupants? Hold my beer!” And point to
White House 2025 and I would agree, but it has been a creeping authoritarian mindset for many years now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

Meanwhile, not far away from Germany, a country with no cultural burden of Nazi oppression is watching their Jewish citizens become increasingly ill at ease in their own country. Jews in parts of the UK are experiencing harassment to the point they are hiding religious symbols and are contemplating leaving the country.

It isn’t a return of The Far Right (or traditional Right anyway) it is harassment by Muslim citizens, aided by the British institutions that now tamp down on speech about their protected minorities. Assaulting Jews in the streets in the result. For law enforcement, it was forbidden to talk about (until now) gangs of Asian men raping girls.

so, in England it is not free and open discourse that is leading to a Nazi-like authoritarian regime. On the contrary, the government allows only correct speak and imprisons (yes, literally) those who spe rougherak about protected groups.

Keep in mind a significant percentage of Muslims are in favor of legal prosecution for those who simply draw a picture of the prophet Muhammad.

---

Things are getting rougher for Jews in Austria, too. Crazy world. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

Things are getting rougher for Jews in Austria, too. Crazy world. Rob

---

I don't think there's really anywhere on the planet to go to completely escape the Current Unpleasantness.

And unfortunately, Mr. Unpleasantness himself is spearheading the migration to Mars.

It's a cookbook!