Fascism Returns

[P.K.]

How rude you are PK. Lxxx has valid points and it's better for the public to be sceptical of their Government, and to always question authority.

 

Firstly Lxxx does not have valid points, they're talking through their arse.

 

Secondly you're right, everyone should be sceptical of their government. I certainly am.

 

Thirdly when does telling it like it is become rude? It's not rude, it's just telling it like it is.

 

Strange but true I was once a Guardian of the Nations Secrets. So probably unlike just about everybody else on here when it comes to this subject I DO know what I'm talking about.

 

There has been an increase in terrorism directed against "The West" for want of a better description, nobody would dispute that. So we have to defend ourselves by increased security measures. Simple as. Some folks think it's too much. Others think it's not enough. Conclusion? We're all different. But those who complain that it's an infringement of their civil liberties I find quite laughable. Because these measures are put in place in an attempt to ensure that they keep the civil liberties they've got!

 

Now these things are expensive, inconvenient and so on so they're not done for the fun of it. They are put in place by those who know this business. Those who can correctly assess risk, can correctly assess the level of activity to reduce risk, can work out the best trade-off between what needs to be done against the civil liberties they strive to maintain and so on. Is Lxxx one of those? From their posts they just see what's going on, complain about it without understanding it and then try and put it in a conspiracy theory envelope - which is complete bollocks believe me.

 

All these arguments always end up in the same place. The folks directing the efforts have a duty of care to ALL of their citizens but are also mindful of infringements on civil liberties. The conspiracy theory nutters always put up "Yes, ok, they are watching over us. But who is watching over them to keep them on track?"

 

So who watches the watchers? The answer is no-one can. So they have to watch themselves...

 

Now that's the REAL world that we ALL live in. Fortunately in the UK they watch themselves really rather well.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

There has been an increase in terrorism directed against "The West" for want of a better description, nobody would dispute that. So we have to defend ourselves by increased security measures. Simple as. Some folks think it's too much. Others think it's not enough. Conclusion? We're all different. But those who complain that it's an infringement of their civil liberties I find quite laughable. Because these measures are put in place in an attempt to ensure that they keep the civil liberties they've got!

There has been an increase, but to a degree (of which its extent is argued), the foreign policy of western countries has been the cause of this terrorism. Moreover, if the governments of the UK and US had any serious interests of the safety of the public they rule over, they would not have waged war in Iraq and Afghanistan, would not supportive of Israel and would not be threatening Iran.

 

It therefore seems clear that a number of 'security measures' set up across borders do not come into existence out of a primary interest to protect the public.

Of course, many measures are put in place that do have that purpose, such as searching people at borders, but if governments did nothing they wouldn't last very long.

 

As for infringements of civll liberties, there could possibly be good arguments to be had about removing civil liberties when people are at risk, I am open to the possibility, however, when you apply that the real world the problems largely seem from country that imposes such restrictions.

And it is very noticeable how much opposition comes from the elite when people campaign to return those liberties. Not much of great substance has changed since the terrorist laws of 2001 were introduced. How long are these terrorism laws going to be maintained?

 

Now these things are expensive, inconvenient and so on so they're not done for the fun of it. They are put in place by those who know this business. Those who can correctly assess risk, can correctly assess the level of activity to reduce risk, can work out the best trade-off between what needs to be done against the civil liberties they strive to maintain and so on. Is Lxxx one of those? From their posts they just see what's going on, complain about it without understanding it and then try and put it in a conspiracy theory envelope - which is complete bollocks believe me.

I don't think you are factoring in the political reasons underlying any assessment of trade-offs between civil liberties and removal of such.

Governments have an interest to reduce them as much as possible and have as great a control over the population as possible. You're outlook seems based on a perspective where the State works with the interests of the public at heart. I don't agree with that at all.

[Lxxx]

Lxxx, could you answer my question about fascism please?

 

Apologies, your sensible question got ambused by the incoherent ramblings of an idiot.

 

In part, yes. There can be no denying the similarities between the rise of nazi germany and the policies they put in place and the policies that are now being implemented in the US. Some may say that they are necessary due to the threat of reprisals from global bullying, but once stripped bare do they REALLY make any tangible difference? Are random spot checks on highways really going to make the US a safer place? Are advertisements in Wal-Mart to report anything 'suspicious' to the feds really going to stop an attack like we saw on 9/11? Is the increase in personnel in the TSA in just a few years from 600 to 60,000, to grope airline passengers, molest citizens at bus stops and search people watching a sports game actually going to deter the people determined to inflict mass damage?

 

Failing empires historically resort to fascism to quell revolt from the populace to maintain power, as people watch as their savings disintegrate, their jobs disappear and their homes get repossessed. The fiat monetary collapse (which in my opinion we are just watching the start of) will bring with it upheaval the likes this generation has not experienced, and this has been coming down the tracks for a long time, therefore processes, regulations and laws have to be in place to maintain the system as best they can during these times. All at the expense of liberties and freedom.

 

I am no limp-wristed leftie who hankers after my human rights, I can just see the pattern of the totalitarian tiptoe slowly picking up pace, and wonder if the UK, which is already well on the way, will be next?

[P.K.]

So Lxxx, as I'm the professional and you're the conspiracy theory nutter amateur let's invert your post:

 

"Are random spot checks on highways really going to make the US a safer place?"

 

Will they make it a more dangerous place? (That's what I mean by inverting the load of old twaddle you posted.) Of course not. Will they make it a safer place? Well they have arrested lot's of druggies, drunk drivers etc etc through vehicle checks so I guess the answer has to be "Yes, they have made the US a safer place." You do understand that don't you Lxxx? You know, the bit about catching criminals and stuff. But did you know that the US police have been doing random stops for years and years and years and years? Way way way before 9/11. But like us in the UK they need reasonable cause and "Looking at me in a funny way" is insufficient cause as attested to by the famous case of a Mr Winstone Kodogo vs Met Policeman PC Savage in 1981.

 

"Are advertisements in Wal-Mart to report anything 'suspicious' to the feds really going to stop an attack like we saw on 9/11?"

 

Are ads in Wal-Mart going to infringe anyone's personal liberties? Of course they're bloody well not going to you complete and utter moron. Jeeeze, they're no different from signs like "Thieves operate in this car park" and similar you get all over the place. So your point is? Oh yes, signs in Wal-Mart are part of a gigantic fascist conspiracy - how silly of me to forget.

 

"Is the increase in personnel in the TSA in just a few years from 600 to 60,000, to grope airline passengers, molest citizens at bus stops and search people watching a sports game actually going to deter the people determined to inflict mass damage?"

 

For starters let's strip out the deliberately emotive bullshit from your post. You know, The "grope airline passengers", and the "molest citizens" and so on. Instead let's stick to the facts. The more enforcement people you have, the less crime you have. Thanks to General Franco's various layers of authority like Policia Municipal, Guardia Civil and so on the Spanish were one of the most heavily policed countries in Europe. It was also the safest country in Europe. Go figure...

 

So thus far you've managed to amply demonstrate your paranoia and not much else. Until, that is, we come to " I can just see the pattern of the totalitarian tiptoe" which really is the jewel in the crown. For some reason, and I can't personally formulate for a second what that reason is, I concluded that an expression like that was beyond your capabilities.

 

So I googled it. And it came up with:

 

David Icke!

 

MWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

Bye bye Lxxx...

[ballaughbiker]

and wonder if the UK, which is already well on the way

Next time you are waiting in the Heysham portakabin, have a look at the Lancashire Constabulary notice by the door. I was amazed what 'they' can do just based on suspicion.

[Lxxx]

So Lxxx, as I'm the professional and you're the conspiracy theory nutter amateur let's invert your post:

 

"Are random spot checks on highways really going to make the US a safer place?"

 

Will they make it a more dangerous place? (That's what I mean by inverting the load of old twaddle you posted.) Of course not. Will they make it a safer place? Well they have arrested lot's of druggies, drunk drivers etc etc through vehicle checks so I guess the answer has to be "Yes, they have made the US a safer place." You do understand that don't you Lxxx? You know, the bit about catching criminals and stuff. But did you know that the US police have been doing random stops for years and years and years and years? Way way way before 9/11. But like us in the UK they need reasonable cause and "Looking at me in a funny way" is insufficient cause as attested to by the famous case of a Mr Winstone Kodogo vs Met Policeman PC Savage in 1981.

 

"Are advertisements in Wal-Mart to report anything 'suspicious' to the feds really going to stop an attack like we saw on 9/11?"

 

Are ads in Wal-Mart going to infringe anyone's personal liberties? Of course they're bloody well not going to you complete and utter moron. Jeeeze, they're no different from signs like "Thieves operate in this car park" and similar you get all over the place. So your point is? Oh yes, signs in Wal-Mart are part of a gigantic fascist conspiracy - how silly of me to forget.

 

"Is the increase in personnel in the TSA in just a few years from 600 to 60,000, to grope airline passengers, molest citizens at bus stops and search people watching a sports game actually going to deter the people determined to inflict mass damage?"

 

For starters let's strip out the deliberately emotive bullshit from your post. You know, The "grope airline passengers", and the "molest citizens" and so on. Instead let's stick to the facts. The more enforcement people you have, the less crime you have. Thanks to General Franco's various layers of authority like Policia Municipal, Guardia Civil and so on the Spanish were one of the most heavily policed countries in Europe. It was also the safest country in Europe. Go figure...

 

So thus far you've managed to amply demonstrate your paranoia and not much else. Until, that is, we come to " I can just see the pattern of the totalitarian tiptoe" which really is the jewel in the crown. For some reason, and I can't personally formulate for a second what that reason is, I concluded that an expression like that was beyond your capabilities.

 

So I googled it. And it came up with:

 

David Icke!

 

MWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

Bye bye Lxxx...

 

We'll agree to disagree on this one. Although I do find it fascinating the passion you have in making sure you're right and anyone else who has different view is 'wrong'. Most normal people would take on board someone else's point of view and discuss it, but your almost fanatical approach would have a psychologist wetting himself in excitement to get you on the couch and find out what's really going on upstairs.

 

As for the David Icke comment yes I did read that and found that it was a good statement. I'm not a follower as the bloke is a bit crackers and has some weird ideas which are far out there, but cut through the shite and he actually does have some valid points, they just get lost amidst all the other bollocks he spouts.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

 

For starters let's strip out the deliberately emotive bullshit from your post. You know, The "grope airline passengers", and the "molest citizens" and so on. Instead let's stick to the facts. The more enforcement people you have, the less crime you have. Thanks to General Franco's various layers of authority like Policia Municipal, Guardia Civil and so on the Spanish were one of the most heavily policed countries in Europe. It was also the safest country in Europe. Go figure...

 

And what were the problems with Francoist Spain? It's not a society that the vast majority of Spanish would want to go back to. Why? Because the State and Church had far too much control over the community.

 

In any case, the use of enforcement agencies in these societies and in adoption of the new measures in the US is not done to make society safer.

[P.K.]

And what were the problems with Francoist Spain? It's not a society that the vast majority of Spanish would want to go back to. Why? Because the State and Church had far too much control over the community.

 

In any case, the use of enforcement agencies in these societies and in adoption of the new measures in the US is not done to make society safer.

 

I spent a lot of time in rural Spain and I can assure you that not only were the Guardia Civil still fully employed but lots of the older folk wanted Franco's regime back! Because they liked the idea of the security that went with it I suppose. The church in Spain still has plenty of clout though. I first went to Spain back in the eighties and only last year did I see my first Spanish girlie with her charlies out on the beach. Thirty years after the Germans were sunbathing naked on the same stretch of sand! Some things move a lot more slowly than others it would seem.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Yes, from what I understand, there were a lot of people who supported the regime in the countryside, as oppposed to the urban areas. Though the amount of people who supported the regime in the last years who no more than a small minority. And then it has to be asked how political minds are moulded by the environment you live in. For example, in a society where the government has a great deal of control over the population, where freedoms are markedly curtailed by the power of the State, to what degree do people set aside the importance of freedoms they have never experienced? I imagine the vast majority have such a yearning to be free from such oversight and interference by the State that it plays a very large part in their political desires, but many others live in servility without complaint, seeing order in their society as the most important thing.

But the Francoist State just put a lid on the problems of that country through use of enforcement agencies that instilled a sense of fear in the people. For a significant time, they walked around the streets with guns. And punishments were severe.

Certainly, crime goes down when there is an organisation that will punish you severely and which instills fear.

 

I wouldn't want to live in a society where crime was lower only because the society lives in fear of their government. And in talking about the USA, I can see why more security controls are a problem for a number of reasons. I am not saying it is a slide towards totalitarianism, but regardless of whether you live in a liberal democratic or consider yourself to live in a free country, the government does its best to encroach on freedom when it has an excuse.

[Lxxx]

It has little to do with security and everything to do with control.

[Butterflies]

Exactly.

 

And if as PK says, he has been in a position where he was 'guarding the nations secrets' then he is commenting from that perspective, which I'm afraid PK, does not mean you 'know what you're talking about', as those people are simply paid to do as they are told, and not to think at all. Which you do seem to do a very good job of.

 

I do not agree that because there is a threat of 'terrorism' we should bring in measures that affect ordinary people catching the bus or watching a soccer game. Maybe you do, but that doen't mean I am wrong, we have our own opinions, as does Lxxx and your insults are a poor show. You agree that we're all different, but still insist others are talking through their arse when they are just pointing out what's happening and commenting. You accuse Lxxx of using emotives like groping passengers (which they do) then say things like 'load of old twaddle' 'complete and utter moron', really, what is wrong with you? You're so defensive on this subject its not even true.

 

You crown it all by saying 'The more enforcement people you have, the less crime you have.' This takes the biscuit! This shows your lack of understanding, because we all know this, but the issue is that we don't want enforcement at the cost of our liberty even if it lowers crime! We should have, and we should fight for, the right to lives our lives with the very minimum of interference from authority. Crime (IMO) is usually better tackled from the root anyway.

 

and finally, the watchers NEVER watch themselves well. Now that IS a fact.

[Butterflies]

No reply? I guess I'm right then I knew it.

[P.K.]

Dear me but your kids can be a time-consuming nuisance.

 

What twaddle "the watchers NEVER watch themselves well. Now that IS a fact" - of course they have to watch themselves, because no-one else can! I should know because I was once one of them. I met an ex-colleague in London on Friday and they're having to watch themselves even more closely these days. To coin one of your phrases - Now that IS a fact!

 

So tell me BUtterflies, what part is it you can't understand about this:

 

So thus far you've managed to amply demonstrate your paranoia and not much else. Until, that is, we come to " I can just see the pattern of the totalitarian tiptoe" which really is the jewel in the crown. For some reason, and I can't personally formulate for a second what that reason is, I concluded that an expression like that was beyond your capabilities.

 

So I googled it. And it came up with:

 

David Icke!

 

MWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

Bye bye Lxxx...

 

On second thoughts I don't give a toss what it is you can't understand.

 

Bye bye Butterflies / Lxxx...

[Lxxx]

Such succinct arguments as always. It really is pathetic to watch.

[Dreidel]

After speaking with friends who live in the US they are now planning on emigrating due to situation there which is deteriorating fast, and what you won't hear/read about in the mainstream media.

 

The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) have now expanded their remit of indecently groping passengers at airports and have now announced that in Tennessee they are now planning on having checkpoints on interstate highways to stop and search random vehicles and the occupants, lest they might be 'terrorists'.

 

This is on the back of Florida announcing they would be starting to implement checkpoints at train/bus stations and truck stops accompanied by sniffer dogs, again for the same reasons (quite how a dog can spot a threat to national security I don't know).

 

All visitors to NFL stadiums are also now subject to airline security and invasive patdowns, just for the crime of watching a sporting match.

 

Random security checkpoints, perpetual paranoia about terrorists around every corner, a rogue government that is pressing citizens to spy on each other and report their activities to authorities (see the new Wal Mart video screens at the checkouts) -- these are all protocols that took effect in Nazi Germany during the rise of Hitler, and they are all protocols that are now in effect in the US today. Think about it.

 

Could it happen here too??

 

Of course it could happen here. We've got even less rights and liberties than in the United States. They've got a constitution with a seperation of powers (albeit, all taken over by corporations), and all we've got is an elected plutocratic dictatorship, with no seperation of power, and with unelected/unaccountable quangos and civil servants running Britain (not to even mention the transfer of decision-making to the EU). They can do whatever they want. As for groping passengers, I already got groped by one of the people at London City Airport not that long ago.