Slashdot Mirror

For instance, what about those guys that gave fascism its name: Italia in the 1920-1930, but sadly that ideology has spread to other parts of the world, or people have independently invented their own form.

Absolutely. Russia, China and the US are all basically fascist currently with some variations and they (or rather elements within them) are pushing for worldwide fascist revolution meaning essentially neofeudalism.

It is hard to tell whether the US has derived their fascism from the Italian/German version (influences in the 1930 that have not been eradicated) or that this is a more recent invention that just emulates it.

My take is that it was derived, although it's not certain.
Remember, that prior to Pearl Harbor a lot of the American industrial elite absofuckingloutely *loved* the idea of fascism. Henry Ford is obviously the prime example of that, but let's not forget our current President's grandfather who went out of his way to betray his country to help bankroll Hitler.

And then once we finished the great war against fascism, there was a new threat on the horizon. Granted, the threat posed by the USSR had some actual meat to it unlike the almost entirely overblown threat of terrorism, but it was likewise an excuse more than anything.
So at that point, the US shifted gears into anti-communism mode. Now, Hitler's version of fascism was almost purely a reaction to communism, so we have the same "enemy" and policies deigned with the same goal of being "other" than that.

The fact that they were the "godless" communists is what formed the unholy alliance between the right wing in America and rural Christians. I mean, hasn't it ever surprised you how "religiously" they vote against their own best interests and against the fundamental basis of their faith?
Christianity is a completely left wing philosophy, yet in America we have the "Christian Right", which is about as oxymoronic as you can get.

So as this anti communist attitude morphed into anti-left in any way shape or form and then became ingrained into our culture and given that fascism is merely that attitude put into policy, America was locked into that track.
Add in the military industrial complex's growing control leading to most of the wars we've been in and America became a fascist state.

I mean just look at Bush's original administration. Wolfowitz, in particular, did his PhD with Strauss at Chicago, and his main "thing" was essentially Nazi philosophy and especially the idea of the "Big Lie".

Oh, and don't forget the boat load of Nazi scientists recruited by the US and more importantly the Gestapo SS types brought over to help build the CIA.

That's my take on it, and that's why I consider fascism in America to be a direct descendant of that in Nazi Germany.

Given the time between them, it hardly matters.

In a lot of ways it's true, but at least from an academic perspective, it's an interesting question to think about.

Hell yeah! Just look at the other wars the proud sons and daughters of the U.S. have won:

War on Drugs: Nobody uses those any more right? We're all clean and sober now, nevermind those pesky Californians and their "medicinal" marijuana. They're just tree-hugging hippies with glaucoma and don't count.

War on Poverty: We cured that long ago, the incredible wages we pay our hard-working CEOs have been trickling down into the economy for some time and no one is poor any more and we all have health care and social security.

War on Christmas: Won! Wal-Mart now uses the wholesome Merry Christmas instead of the godless heathen phrase "Happy Holidays". Santa Claus is no longer banned from spreading the gospel to children by teaching them the joys of rampant consumerism and owning a tickle-me-elmo.

War on Terror: We invaded Iraq, so no more terrorists, right? A reliable source told me that the insurgency there is in the last throes. However, this is only if the democrats don't ruin it by not supporting our troops by refusing to allow any more to die in the middle of the non-civil war.

Because these things aren't even theories or theoretical. A scientific theory, by definition, must be physically testable. At best, science would call Dr. Hawking's idea a "hypothesis." A theory is something that has already been tested and has been proven to the degree that all available evidence could yield no other testable explanation. The conclusions that scientists draw from theories are what the layman might understand to be "facts."

But, for some reason, the layman is very uncomfortable with the word "theory." When he disagrees with a scientific finding he will say that "It's only a theory, " as if theories were akin to guesses. What he really means by this is "it's only a hypothesis." But then, in most cases, he would be wrong. It's true that some theories have eventually been disproved once new data have come to light, but this is much less common than the ever-changing face of hypotheses.

Science and religion are really two faces of the same coin. They both begin their quest with human intuition; gut feelings, if you like. In the one case, the practitioner attempts to vet his ideas using empirical methods. In the other case, his ideas are applied to senses that are less physical in nature, but he tests them as best he can. In the scientific discipline, doubt and skepticism are useful tools. In religion, hope. Doubt and hope are likewise two faces of the same uncertain coin.

It is sometimes difficult for an individual in either camp to let go of cherished intuition. Sometimes it is difficult to see the truth revealed by an experiment, whether the experiment be empirical or spiritual in nature. In other cases, there is simply too much for one individual to directly experience in his own lifetime, and so he relies on the testimony of one who has been there, made the experiment, and discovered what seems to be the truth. When you believe what someone else tells you, even though you have not directly observed the results of the experiment for yourself, this is called faith. There are times when misguided men and women take advantage of another's faith, and times when we simply refuse to move beyond tradition or intuition and apply those principles that we hold dear to us to our mental, physical and spiritual capacities.

In such times, we fight amongst ourselves. In such times, I think we will find that we have replaced both our scientists and our prophets with businessmen, ideologues, or sophists.

Eric Hoffer put it best in the preface to his book, The True Believer: "For though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. The true believer is everywhere on the march, and both by converting and antagonizing he is shaping the world in his own image."

The true believer doesn't care much for the experiment. He needs to either follow or be followed.

I hate to be a spelling Nazi, but seriously - a sign wave? Is that how deaf people acknowledge each other from across a room?

I was really getting tired of those terrorists disturbing my neighborhood

I had a "WKRP flashback" last March 12th when two tornados tore through my town. I was reminded of the episode of WKRP where there's a tornado in Cincinnatti and the only warning script Les Nessman has is an old cold war script. Substituting "tornado" for "communist", he talks of the "godless tornados".

One of the torados hit my apartment, or rather walked around it. The big tree behind the building with the 4 ft wide trunk looked like Godzilla stepped on iot. As I walked through my incredibly torn up neighborhood, the place looked like Godzilla had waded through it. Big trees everywhere, sheet metal in the top branches of still standing trees, houses that looked like they had been packed with explosives and detonated, a cinderblock wall with five inch wood splinters sticking out of it, roofs torn off of buildings and impaled on other roofs, a sea of pink and yellow building insulation, trash everywhere. I had never in my life imagined such destruction on such a huge scale.

As I walked through the neighborhood the next day (no driving, as the streets were all blocked with trees, utility poles, transformers, and other trash) the thought struck me that if Osama Bin Laden could have seen it, he would have given up, knowing that nothing he could ever do would cause such destruction.

We lost 3,000 Americans to terrorism this century, while we lost 40.000 Americans on the highways just last year alone. Since my chances of dying in a terror attack appear to be about the same as finding a winning lottery ticket on the street, I'd like some of that homeland security money to go to guardrails and other safety improvements to the highways.

I've had quite a few friends die in their cars. I almost died in mine once. The only terrorists I'm afraid of have blond hair and drive SUVs while yakking on their cell phones.

OMG, just think about it, those poor people might get exposed to the disgusting commie linux shit. That'd be fucking awful. Yech!

Let's pray to god they too end up good honest microsoft bitches.

Everybody and their dog knows that Linux is for the godless commie fuckers running 386s.

People have all kinds of built-in psychological biases, like the strong bias towards self-preservation. A person's ability and decision to override that particular bias can serve evil, in the case of suicide, or good, in the case of risking one's life to save others.

It [_A bias to address physical needs_] doesn't obviate free will although it [_that bias_] certainly influences it, just as any of a hundred other [...] tendencies we come equipped with. It is no small facet of Christian belief [_"conventional Christian doctrine" probably works better here_] that one must overcome all kinds of natural tendencies to live a moral life, and yet there is recognition that some instincts and inclinations are beneficial.

That this has been expressed in terms of science does not, in my opinion, come into conflict with a belief in God or the moral obligations that this belief implies.

Secondly from the dictionary. "atheism - the theory or belief that God does not exist." Oxford American Dictionary.

This is, interestingly enough, one of those few areas where the compact version of the OED is flat out wrong. Sadly I do not subscribe to the full dictionary, and it would be very interesting to read what it says. In the mean time I can recommend this article on what atheism is and is not .

BTW, Webster is a lot better in this particular area:
atheism: (from Greek atheos, "godless, not believing in the existence of gods) 1a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity
disbelieve: vt to hold not to be true or real; reject or withhold belief in. ti to withhold or reject belief.

In this case Webster is right on the money. Disbelief in God where disbelief is to reject belief (which is not the same as to reject the existence of).

I am an English teacher. Now that we have eliminated any confusion regarding my position in education, we can proceed. The union isn't merely protecting bad teachers. This is an unfortunate side effect. The union is protecting good teachers from bad school boards and administrators. The union is protecting students from bad politics. The union is the only means we teachers have of insuring we have sufficient pay and benefits to attract anyone with decent qualifications who hopes to live on the proceeds of his work. Compare the salaries in union and non-union schools. You can actually make this comparison state by state, as unionization is state regulated for the most part. States with unions have higher salaries, and higher standardized test scores. Why do you think non-union states have low teacher salaries and poorer scores? Do you suppose them to be uniformly inhabited by bad people? Could it be that there is some other mechanism at work? Can you say "duh?" (sorry, couldn't help myself) If there were no teacher's unions what percent of our children would learn about evolution in Biology class, do you think? While you think remember that the the administration serves at the discretion of the school board and plenty of boards have politicized their opposition to "godless darwinism." What about politics? How many history teachers said that invading Iraq was probably a bad idea? How many board members do you think viewed these teachers as unpatriotic? For 20 years, teacher compensation has dwindled. Too many two-bit state representatives see school funds has a gift from above to be used in balancing a budget or throwing a construction project in the "right" direction. Too many parents don't feed there children or make them keep regular hours and blame the "useless" schools for "inadequacy." Schools are an easy target. They are expensive. They are deemed responsible for all social ills, and too much child-rearing. Of course they fail. (If you're dating your sister because she likes to do meth while you play banjo I probably won't be able to do a damned thing for your kids.) This makes the schools an easy political target: "blame the teacher, not the parents." So year after year teacher compensation is whittled away, the union fights a rearguard action, and pay gradually sinks below what one could make managing a Macdonald's. If the union weren't there, fighting where it has power and providing competition to schools where it is not, we would be getting paid in baskets of corn by now, and I wouldn't be teaching. Not to equate my choice of job with the existence of public education, but if it weren't for the union, America wouldn't have public education in any meaningful sense. I guess that will be ok for most of you given the anti-union sentiment I see here. Or is it that you had "bad teachers" and never leaned to work a problem though?

I think I'm fundamentally confused about faith - specifically: how it works. I never understood how one could choose to believe. If I could do that, you can be sure I'd have dreamed up the ideal personal faith by now. But as I'd still be seeing no reasons to even suspect its veracity - in fact, I'd know I made it up to cope with the human condition. So how does that work? How can you have blind faith in anything? If that's a fundamental human skill, I've not yet found it in myself.

(Of course - it's possible I'm actually in favour of a godless universe that leaves it up to us to give things meaning ...which would mean I've already got what I want. Even so it would be satisfying to believe, say, that I have a precious and beautiful soul that just happens to be tied to a flawed hunam fleshbag through no fault of my own... for example)

I don't remember if they said what would happen if I didn't delete the file (which I did, I'm not going to stick my neck out for the principle of it) but I'm sure it would have been ugly.

This really fucking annoys me. "Principle" of it? What principle? Is the University now a Godless opressor of righteousness because they nailed you for doing something illegal? I know the average Slashdotter has this complex where they feel it is their divine right to pirate simply because they can, but the responses to this article are ridiculous. Yes, the punishment for the crime can be taken too far, but what the RIAA is now doing is probably not too far, and what your University did to you is CERTAINLY not too far. Oh, poor you, you were forced to delete your illegal content because you got caught... good! You're not a heroic crusader for justice here, you're breaking the law. If you think that not being allowed to pirate media, just because you can argue like a five-year-old that you pirating it does not deprive the owners of any physical object, is an unjust law (it's not, in my opinion), then find some other way of protesting it. You can call it "civil disobediance" all you want, but at its core, it's just you being cheap.

Just what about Atheism makes it not a religion? The have their God too, they just don't personify it.

Math, science, logic, whatever you call it is the supreme being of Atheism. And when pursued with such fervor, I'd call that Radical Atheism.

In fact, I think you've cited a perfect example of religion doing exactly what this thread is accusing it of.

I get tired of hearing about godless communists when we're really talking about Radical Atheist Fundamentalism run amok.

Being a person of faith myself (Christian even), I must say that religion (including but not limited to the 3 major Abraham inspired religions) HAS been used as a blunt instrument of subjugation, but that's not the fault of Jesus (or Buddha, the others I don't know enough about to say) it's the fault of plain ole' greedy bastards who always have and always will do or say ANYTHING to get your money.

BTW, offtopic, but the biggest reason I have for being what alot of you view as superstitionist is that chemistry has never been able to explain consciousness sufficiently for me. Here I am, I know I'm here, cause I must be here to know I'm here, etc.. I can see chemistry being responsible for everything but that, even my whole personality, just not that part of me that is here listening to my thoughts and seeing through my eyes. The neutral observer.

Well exactly and this illustrates perfectly the glaring hole in evolution.

Obviously I can microwalk down to the Tabernacle if I feel like it because I know where the Tabernacle is, I have sensible shoes and a window in my schedule which allows me to worship and praise God and get back to my office in time for the evening push.

But to suggest that anyone walked out of Africa, so called macro-walking, is obviously ridiculous. First of all no one would have time to walk from Timbuctoo to the China ( for instance ) because they would not be able to get back to hear the Word of the Lord from the local preacher in time and secondly at that time The Lord hadn't told anyone that the other countries were even there yet so how would anyone know where to walk ! Clearly there was also a lack of sensible shoes but even sensible shoes aren't going to help walking over the huge glaring hole in your argument - Oceans ! Also if they did know about China why would anyone walk to a country of Godless communist heathens ?

Only The Lord can walk on water so there is no way anyone could have "macro walked" from Africa to Salt Lake City. Not only does this directly contradict everything we know about science but even common sense tell us it's ridiculous.

In twenty or thirty years, what are the parents who refuse the vaccination going to say to their kids, when they're denied health insurance coverage on their cancer, since they refused a preventative procedure?

God forbid teenagers have sex. Cause, y'know teens never had sex before this godless liberal last thirty years or so.

Yes, yes they will. See the current bruhaha over Bank of America and their giving credit cards to illegal aliens as well as allowing unapproved documents to be used to open accounts.

I sure hope this will finally drive a wedge between big-business Republicans and "social conservative" Republicans (former Southern Democrats who fled that party in protest of its civil rights platform). Every other year, those poor suckers elect another Republican to office to end immigration and abortion forever, get prayer back in schools and crack down on the homosexuals. And every time they get upper-bracket tax breaks and corporate welfare and a line about how the godless "demmycrat" party kept them from passing the important social legislation. So they send them back again to try again to prevail over the forces of darkness and the process repeats.

Let me give you another situation:
The police is told that there is going to be a crime.
There are obviously four possible outcomes:

1) Police is truthfully told that someone is going to commit a crime but does nothing. (Error of the first kind: rejecting a true hypothesis; cause of 9/11.)
2) Police is truthfully told that someone is going to commit a crime and does something. (Correctly accepting a true hypothesis.)
3) Police is falsely told that someone is going to commit a crime but does nothing. (Correctly rejecting a false hypothesis.)
4) Police is falsely told that someone is going to commit a crime and does something. (Error of the second kind: accepting a false hypothesis; cause of nearly everything after 9/11 - like that "OMG they are going to blow up a plane with mother's milk"-plot).

What you are doing is constructing a false dichtionomy by claiming only 1 and 4 are possible. In fact, 2 and 3 are possible, too, but only 1 (and 4 for those godless liberals) is ever in the eye of the public because only bad news sell, not good news (compare: Windows Vista all over the news), thus one only hears of the failings of the government.

One cannot reliably pick them out, because one can only see two cases of what actually happens but not what might have happened: if nothing happens, is that because of (2) preventive measures or because (3) nothing would have happened in the first place? If something happens, is that because it would have (1) happened anyway or (4) the police felt the need to prove their necessity?

In any case, if nothing happens, it means our laws work and we thus need no additional laws - in fact, we should be looking at which ones we don't need because they are duplicates or inhumane; but if something happens, it means we failed but need to properly apply the laws which are already existing (after all, it should not matter whether you are drunk or not when you run over a pedestrian with a car - bad example, I know).

Of course, that is my position. That of every government in the world goes more like the folowing: If nothing happens, it means the laws have worked, thus we need at least that many laws. If something happens, however, this means we have not enough laws, thus we need to make more. Never mind that there should be the need to reliably apply them, we will do that when we need some pretense to get some uppity citizen imprisoned.

And exactly that is the problem: In your scenario 1, the government did the wrong thing: instead, it should have applied the laws and protected the citizens (I know, I know, in the US laws are not there for the citizens but for the powerful). In your scenario 2, by virtue of nothing happening (or even if they caught potential terrorists: They probably would have been caught under the old laws) one should reconsider the new laws whether they are really needed.

I don't know about US law, but in German law, there exists - or rather, there existed until 9/11 - the concept of "Verhältnismäßigkeit", which means (though IANAL, so take this with a grain of salt) one should consider whether a law
1) really is needed, i.e. it doesn't do something another law does;
2) doesn't contradict the "Grundgesetz" (constitution);
3) is the only way to achieve the goal (necessity; compare 1);
4) actually reaches the goal (sufficiency: having mothers drink their milk doesn't anything to prevent terrorism - if they even wanted to use liquid explosives, they would a) blow up the airport and b) use some they don't die off [at least, not immediately, so they can blow up themselves]);
5) actually has a goal (which also should be reachable; anything enacted in the name of "The War On Terror", for example, has not, because terrorism is not a side in a war but a style of fighting).

Ugh. I can't believe how many people reply to a sig. It's a sig, people! What my sig is saying is that, before anyone flips out about how 'evil' fundamentalist religion is, and that happens often, that person should sit back and read about the various eugenics programs, not done in the name of atheism, but done in the name of evolution, which is synonymous with atheism, not unlike various bad things were done in the name of God, and that neither eugenics nor, say, murdering Native Americans for being 'godless heathens' should reflect on either atheism or fundamentalist religion, and that the the lesson we should learn here is that people will twist anything to justify their own hatred. I'm not trying to bash atheists or anything, I just want the wild eyed theophobes to see the correlation between theism and atheism before spurting anti-religious crap. Anyway, isn't it funny how everything degrades to some sort of flamewar on /., especially when someone mentions religion?

Add to that that the other leg, religion, is kicked away, too, because noone needs religion anymore because they aren't hopelessly locked in in a lower class, then it's quite obvious why they are opposed to the idea of communism (they probably should read the new testament some time).

Except replacing blind faith in "God" with blind faith in "The State" does nothing to remove religion from the equation. All it does is further centralize power in the state by removing church leaders from their positions of power which can be used to take power from the state and invest it in the church(es). The people get fucked all the same any way whether it's theocracy, a government mandated godless state or Church/State conspiring against the people as in fascism and feudalism. It's just a question as to which entity does what part of the fucking.

Well, from their viewpoint, they actually are interested in the future of their children. They're just stupid. They don't want all the godless liberals teaching their children about something that "isn't true."

I really recommend you take some time talking to some Evangelical ("Born Again") Christians. Don't piss them off right away, listen to what they believe and ask questions, it's really interesting (and somewhat entertaining).