[Patrick_Ross]

I’m posting this thread SPECIFICALLY to address Lawrence Britt, and his “14 Points of Fascism” article. More specifically, I’m addressing the disinformation being spread by a member of this board, Jaime Souviens.
…Who, was actually defeated spectacularly by both myself and Gunplumber in another thread. But in order to get that thread back on topic and keep it there, I’m opening fire here.
Here are Lawrence Britt’s 14 points of Fascism:

Lawrence Britt Lawrence Britt:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2.Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3.Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4.Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5.Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6.Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7.Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8.Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9.Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10.Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .
11.Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12.Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13.Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14.Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Umbert Eco (an Italian scholar) wrote this next essay in 1995. I have found instances of a number of people claiming that Dr. Britt’s work is stolen directly from this essay, but actually reading the essay (which obviously a number of people have declined to do) reveals that they are two completely different works.

Umbert Eco Umbert Eco:

1.The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.
Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counterrevolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but is was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of the faiths indulgently accepted by the Roman pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages -- in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little-known religions of Asia.
This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, "the combination of different forms of belief or practice;" such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and although they seem to say different or incompatible things, they all are nevertheless alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.
As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.

2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.
Both Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon blood and earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.
Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs," and "universities are nests of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.
In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.
Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.
That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old "proletarians" are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.

7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.
This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the United States, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson's The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.
Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such "final solutions" implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.


10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.
Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people in the world, the members or the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler.

11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.
In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Spanish Falangists was Viva la Muerte ("Long Live Death!"). In nonfascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.
This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons -- doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.

13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.
In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view -- one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
Because of its qualitative populism, Ur-Fascism must be against "rotten" parliamentary governments. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.
Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, as the official language of what he called Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.

When compared to Britt’s work, there is no question that it is fundamentally different. But in actuality, this is just part of a concentrated effort to discredit Britt and his theories. If this seems funny to anyone, you’ll laugh out loud at this one -- because this actually comes to us courtesy John Crowley, by way of our “Master Debator”, Jaime Souviens:

John Crowley John Crowley:

The article in question was originally written in the Free Inquiry Magazine (Volume 23, Number 2: Oct/Nov 2003), however the article is attributed to a Laurence W Britt (note the absense of the title Dr there) who appears to be a novelist.

Another article from Rochester's City Newspaper informs readers the Laurence Britt is a retired professional who used to work for Allied Chemical, Mobil, and Xerox Corp. His politics were clarified during his years studying business at Northwestern University in the early 1960s, although it does not specify if he gained a doctorate.

"I had a course in Situational Analysis," says Britt. "You would analyze facts and come to a solution for businesses. I applied the same methodology to determine what political philosophy was most appropriate. After a lot of reading and research, I came down on the progressive side."

Since retiring, Britt has written three novels, but it's that one short article from Free Inquiry Magazine that has gained him high visibility on the left. The article in the City Newspaper linked above also asks Britt to elaborate on the 14 points of fascism and makes an interesting read. From what I can ascertain, he is not actually a doctor, and not a political scientist either (at least not professionally). Interesting. I imagine the press somewhere along the line embellished the original story to make it more newsworthy by adding the Dr title and calling him a political scientist rather than a novelist; sounds more 'official' I guess....

So, first off, where do we begin. Well, first off, this comes from someone’s weblog. As a fellow blogger, I understand something that apparently our dear Mr. Souvien doesn’t: the majority of articles you find on weblogs (including my own) are unreviewed, and have never been edited by a second or third party. As a result, their sole value is as opinion pieces.
Also, I would like to note the language Mr. Crowley uses:

John Crowley John Crowley:

From what I can ascertain, he is not actually a doctor, and not a political scientist either.

. Apparently, all Mr. Crowley’s claim that Britt is a fraud can be traced back to one interview in a weekly newspaper.
The essay in question, however, was published in Free Inquiry Magazine. As a result, it was reviewed, and it was edited. As a result, in the eyes of any Academic, the essay in question is perfectly suitable to be used in context of a scholarly debate, whereas this attempt to discredit him is not.
In all fairness, here is what appears to be the source used for the weblog article in question:

Ron Netsky Ron Netsky:

Fascism in America?

By Ron Netsky (Staff)

The last place you might expect to find a progressive would be the executive offices at Allied Chemical, Mobil, or Xerox Corp. But, throughout a business career that spanned four decades, Laurence Britt never stopped challenging the status quo. And at the age of 64, he has become a leading voice on the left.
Britt, who held positions at all of the above companies, traces his interest in history back to his boyhood in suburban Philadelphia. His politics were clarified during his years studying business at Northwestern University in the early 1960s.
"I had a course in Situational Analysis," says Britt. "You would analyze facts and come to a solution for businesses. I applied the same methodology to determine what political philosophy was most appropriate. After a lot of reading and research, I came down on the progressive side."
Since retiring, Britt has written three novels. But it's one short article that has gained him high visibility on the left. Fascism Anyone? (www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm) outlines 14 common threads linking Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia. The article was published in Free Inquiry in 2003, but type the title into Google and you'll get 3,500 hits. One political website --- Project for the Old American Century --- fleshes out his 14 points with examples of how America is slouching toward fascism (www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm).
Britt sees no conflict between his capitalist career and his left-wing politics; he believes the companies he worked for were ethical. "Capitalism works well in creating prosperity for the most people and providing them the most freedom," he says, "but it needs a lot of regulation."
At Xerox, Britt rose to divisional vice president of finance and, later, business manager of an out-of-the-box activity. Titled "Intrapreneurship," the division used small-company techniques to find new ways of doing things. Among his group's achievements was the Xerox 2510, a copy machine that has basically replaced the blueprint process. "It was one of the lowest-cost product-development activities for one of the highest profits we ever had in the company," he says.
But he never left politics behind. In the late 1980s he answered an ad from Johns Hopkins University Press seeking contributions to a book of new ideas to engage the Soviet Union. He wrote an essay on business and trade that was published and presented to government officials in Washington, D.C.
A few months later he got a call from the FBI, asking him to report to the Federal Building.
"They asked lots of questions: 'Why did you in November have a phone call to the Soviet Embassy?' 'Why did you visit the Soviet Embassy?!' This was after the book came out, after the paper was presented to an audience with people from the CIA and defense intelligence agencies. But the FBI hadn't been clued in. They said I could go, but 'don't say anything about this and most of all don't tell the press.' That gave me an idea of the mindset in these agencies."
In 1990, Britt started a consulting firm to help link American and Soviet companies for trade. It was fairly successful for six years, despite interference from the United States government when it came to exporting goods. But toward the end, in 1994, Britt says, "We ran into the over-arching and growing power of the Russian Mafia. Every time we visited companies, security became more and more obvious. Extortion was the big thing. 'You want to do business? Give us a cut or something bad will happen to you.' Eventually some of the people we were working with got knocked off."
It was on one of his 18 trips to Russia that Britt began writing novels, all of which had prescient elements. June, 2004, which deals with America slipping into fascism, was published by BookWorld Press. In Terror (published on the web), the Russian mafia smuggles a nuclear bomb into the US and uses it for extortion. The book also explores bungling in US intelligence services. Paying the Price (unpublished), which tells the story of a young idealist drawn into corruption, was a precursor to the corporate scandals.
At the end of Fascism Anyone?, after outlining his 14 points, Britt writes: "Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not."
In a recent discussion, we asked Britt to elaborate on the 14 points, with an emphasis on his phrase, "Maybe, maybe not." An edited version of that conversation follows.

City: In your first characteristic of fascism, "Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism," you mention displaying the flag. I was surprised to see a large one on your porch.
Britt: I put a flag up on Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Flag Day, and Veterans Day. I don't have it up all the time. There's nothing wrong with pride, it's when pride moves into hubris.
City: Many people who might agree with you about hubris put up flags after 9/11 as a way of saying we're not going to take this country for granted.
Britt: Certainly we need to come together, but we need to come together intelligently. We need to understand why 9/11 happened. I don't think too many people asked why. It was just: We're good; they're evil.
City: Why do you think it happened?
Britt: I don't think it happened because we're the beacon of freedom and opportunity, which is what we heard from the president. It happened because America has been extremely aggressive in the last 50 or 60 years on the world stage and has caused a lot of suffering that most Americans have absolutely no clue about.
We've interfered in the internal affairs of 51 countries --- Lebanon, Syria, Cuba, El Salvador, Columbia, Bolivia, Angola, and many more --- since the end of World War II, putting agents on the ground, interfering with elections, things that, if done to us, would be absolutely outrageous.
Twenty-six countries we've attacked, bombed, invaded, without being asked in. Seventeen we've overthrown governments and in just about every case the result was very bad for the people involved. In virtually every case, the government installed was autocratic. We say we're trying to promote democracy, but that isn't happening. Of the seven fascist countries in the article, we set up three of them: Greece, Chile, and Indonesia.
City: Why, specifically, did bin Laden attack us?
Britt: The upshot of that is we've made a lot of enemies. Bin Laden --- like a lot of other people who turned out to be our enemy --- we were one of his early supporters. The CIA trained and armed him because we believed he would be using the weapons against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. So this is an example of blow-back.
He clearly said that the reason he was opposing the Soviets was because of religion; they were the infidels. Nobody thought that through, that some day we might be the infidels. Then the Gulf War came along. By the way, bin Laden was particularly incensed with Saddam Hussein because his behavior got the US into the Middle East. There we were with a huge army within miles of Mecca. To his Islamic Fundamentalist mindset, we become an object of hatred. So we fight the Gulf War and stay there, establishing large bases in Saudi Arabia. We become his sworn enemy.
City: Would you have gone after him in Afghanistan after 9/11?
Britt: Obviously he was responsible for what happened in Somalia and for the USS Cole, so obviously we should go after him… or modify our behavior, perhaps.
City: Well, which would you do? Would you go after someone who killed 3,000 Americans?
Britt: Once that happened you have to go after him strongly, which is not what the Bush Administration did. But to learn from the event you have to understand what led up to it, and I think we're going to continue to be the enemy of a lot of people as long as our foreign policy continues to be this aggressive and laced with hubris. Plus, we have no allies now.
City: Your second characteristic is "Disdain for the importance of human rights." What are some cases you're thinking of?
Britt: Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the Patriot Act.
City: The argument is: it's a different world today with chemical weapons, where one person can cause much more harm than during, say, World War II. Do you think it's different in terms of dealing with prisoners of war or suspected terrorists?
Britt: Just one point: All of these are descriptions of characteristics of fascism in the seven regimes that I talk about. I didn't say, per-se, this is what's happening in the US.
City: But you wink at the end and question whether it's going on here. That is your implication, isn't it?
Britt: Of course. But I'm not saying all 14 are happening in America.
City: But I want to see which you think are. The argument is we're seeing new forms of killing that weren't there before.
Britt: Bush's nominee for Attorney General [Alberto Gonzalez], in a memo, talked about how certain aspects of the Geneva Convention might not apply to the prisoners at Guantanamo. I'm kind of astounded that that would be true today, but in World War II when we were facing world-historical enemies, Nazi Germany, we never said anything like that. Look at the threat of World War II compared to these terrorists; it's like nothing.
City: I think the Bush position would be that if an enemy is not following the conventions of war, they're the ones who have changed the rules, hitting soft targets, etc.
Britt: And they did it in one day and they haven't done it since. They never did before and the reason they were able to succeed that day was because of incredible lapses in security. I don't think it will ever happen again, at least not that way.
World War II went on for six years. On an average day in World War II, 35,000 people died. To equate the War on Terror with the magnitude of that kind of conflict and the amount of hysteria that's generated for political purposes is incredible. Yes, it was a spectacular event. Part of the reason was it was covered by cameras and repeated over and over. No other event in history has ever been covered like that. But just think of how many people this year will die from the flu because we don't have flu shots. You can't take a picture of that. So, yes, 3,000 people were killed, but do you turn your democracy on its head?
City: That leads to your next point: "Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause." Filmmaker Theo van Gogh was recently murdered by Islamic extremists in the Netherlands for making a film they found offensive. Islamic schools and mosques there have been attacked. After 9/11, there were hardly any attacks against people in the US.
Britt: That's done by the crowds; if you look at government actions it's a lot less sanguine. People have been arrested all over the place, held for months with no charges. People were deported for no reason. The people in Lackawanna, when you get right down to it, there was nothing there.
City: They had been to bin Laden's training camps.
Britt: But nobody had done anything. There was no plotting, no weapons or explosives. The government made them admit something and put them away.
City: Wasn't that caused by the idea of sleeper cells? The people who did 9/11 had been in the country and had used the freedom of the country to do it. Richard Reid was on the plane trying to set off his shoe bomb. And another man was ready to attack LAX. These men had been to al Qaeda training camps; what do you do?
Britt: You need good law enforcement and good intelligence. And act appropriately. What you don't need is hysteria and complete overreaction. We went from being asleep at the switch to being ridiculously over the top so as to give the impression of really doing something even though it might be ineffectual.
The word "terrorist" has become like "communist." John Walker Lindh is turned into a monster and thrown into prison for the rest of his life. It's ludicrous. He was over there at the time of the attack; he certainly had nothing to do with it. He was converted to Islam and became kind of a fanatic. He's fighting with the Taliban, he gets caught, and he's down in the basement of this place strapped to a stretcher. A CIA guy a couple hundred yards away gets killed and we want to prosecute him for the murder. He was a deluded teenager. They should have just let him go. He had parents back in California. People get misguided every day.
City: He had weapons. He was fighting against US troops.
Britt: He was fighting against the Northern Alliance; he was there before we got into the war. For all we know he didn't even know the US was involved before it was too late. It's the kind of hysteria that gets stirred up. I remember the cover of the NY Post: "The Face of a Traitor!"
City: We've touched on point four, "The supremacy of the military/avid militarism," but in these times don't we need a strong military?
Britt: Of course we do. We're a great power with a lot of interests to protect. It's a question of how we're going to use this power. For the most part the American military has a good history compared to most of the militaries of the world.
City: Your next characteristic, "Rampant sexism," deals with issues like abortion and homosexuality. Do you believe, now that Republicans dominate, the clock will be turned back on gay rights and abortion rights? Could it be that these issues are used as political footballs --- very effectively --- but that not even Bush will try to outlaw abortion? And Cheney's own daughter is gay.
Britt: I've heard a lot of people comment since the election that the evangelicals came out in strength to re-elect him and now they want to be paid back. I think Supreme Court appointments could have the effect of overturning Roe v. Wade. Do I think it will pass? Probably not.
City: Number six is "a controlled mass media." I liked the description in your novel, "June, 2004," of a talk show where one liberal is shouted down by two conservatives.
Britt: That's what goes on now. You put the most outrageous person on with someone who's telling the truth. The perception is that the truth is somewhere between this outrageous lie and the truth. And it isn't; the lie is a lie and the truth is the truth. They present it so people will shrug and say, "Who knows?" The accusations of the swift boat guys is one point of view and the denial is another, so it's somewhere in between there, folks.
Almost every pundit show that you see has right-wingers and moderates, that's your choice. There's nobody from the left --- no Noam Chomskys to balance that point of view so you get some sort of middle ground. What you get is the middle and the right and the middle of that is to the right.
City: Is that the media's fault, or do the American people largely range from the middle to the right and Chomsky, for most, is off the scale?
Britt: No. I believe the American people think that way because that's the only thing they ever hear. If you look at who owns the media and their political orientations, how can it be otherwise? Every time I hear this stuff about the liberal media, it's such nonsense. Who owns the media?
There's Murdoch; we know where he is. Sumner Redstone at Viacom is a right-winger. General Electric owns NBC; [former GE CEO] Jack Welsh was a right-winger and [new GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt's] politics are well-known. ABC is owned by Disney, which is owned by Capital Cities, and that's also run by a right winger. How can any journalist who works within that environment ever stray too far to the left?
City: In "June, 2004," the New York Times is the only media vehicle that has a straight point of view. Do you feel that's true today?
Britt: No, I don't. Look at what they did with Clinton. Even the controversy when Clinton left office --- all those pardons --- it seemed like the New York Times was leading the pack in saying how terrible it was. Where is the liberal press?
City: "Obsession with national security" is next. We have the Patriot Act, but even conservatives like William Safire protest its scope. In a time of chemical warfare and suicide bombings, how would you suggest handling security?
Britt: Effectively. The borders are terrible. In one of my books, Terror, written in 2000, shipping containers were part of the plot. All the things exposed in the 9/11 report, the uncoordinated intelligence, the warning on August 6, that should have been all you needed to say step up security at the airports. Flying airplanes into buildings? Well, maybe we should check who's training because I doubt if a pilot is going to become a suicide bomber. It was all so obvious.
City: I guess we don't have to look beyond the election to see your next point: "Religion and ruling elite tied together."
Britt: It's clear that all the ministers out there in the Red states passed out the voting guides and said you'd better elect Bush. If you look at those seven fascist states I based my article on, they all used religion to bring people in line with the government. Of course, going back to monarchies in Europe, they used the church as a way to cow the population. I guess you could say that monarchies were the older form of fascism.
City: In your recent essay, "Resolved: George W. Bush Is the Worst President in American History" (in "Toward a New Political Humanism," Prometheus Books) you make a strong case and yet, he was re-elected. How do explain that? Are you out of touch with the American mainstream?
Britt: Sure! [He laughs.]
City: Let me try it another way. Even conservatives will admit that Bush is not the brightest bulb, but many view the presidency as the team he's got around him. Somehow they averted a follow-up to 9/11, which everybody thought there would be. Deep-down, could that be the reason he won?
Britt: I think there are a lot of reasons that he won. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting did a study of the 2000 election. They found that the number of negative stories on Gore vs. the number on Bush was like 10 to one. Look at the [Rochester, New York] Democrat & Chronicle. Every day it's full of photo-ops that make Bush look good. I'm sure that's repeated in papers across the country.
Plus the drum beat of right-wing talk radio just saturates, especially in the red states, with no answer. They fight dirty, the Democrats don't. Clinton was accused of being a drug dealer, a murderer. They turned it on McCain four years ago in South Carolina: it's a black baby. They're ruthless and they get away with it.
And the campaign was so lame. Kerry went all through the month of August and he didn't attack. He never answered the swift boat guys. He allowed Bush to be perceived as effective in the fight against terror, which has been an abysmal failure, starting with the fact that it happened in the first place. I've read the 9/11 Report [The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States] carefully. There's any number of things you could have used for a campaign attack. The August 6 memo is so obvious. Look at the lies [the Republicans] use. And [the memo] isn't even a lie; that's honest.
City: I want to combine the next two: "Power of corporations protected;" "Power of labor suppressed or eliminated."
Britt: It's the union of the government and the corporation. At the FCC, the regulators are in cahoots with the regulated.
City: And we have tax breaks for the rich and a freeze on the minimum wage.
Britt: The power of labor, in history, was seen as the opposition to all the things you were trying to do. You want to make sure their power was limited, so you appoint conservatives to the National Labor Relations Board who will favor management. Overtime rules get screwed up. Everything labor wants they don't get.
City: In terms of number 11, "Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts," I know of one professor kicked out of a Florida University on the grounds that he supported terrorism. But I don't see academics being suppressed. Isn't the wide dissemination of your article proof that free speech is flourishing?
Britt: It isn't blatant yet, but that doesn't mean that in the next few years it won't be. Lynne Cheney led a group, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. Its objective was to identify faculty who weren't toeing the line and do something about it.
City: Next is "Obsession with crime and punishment." You're talking about our overcrowded prisons?
Britt: It's the emphasis on incarceration. We have the largest prison population in the world. That's not something to be proud of. Politicians compete for who can be toughest on crime. It's throwing raw meat at the electorate and trying to make them hysterical and therefore we'll accept a Draconian criminal justice system.
City: So non-violent criminals shouldn't be in prison?
Britt: Right.
City: Going back to business, you have "Rampant cronyism and corruption."
Britt: You don't have to look any farther than Bush's career; it was cronyism personified. He was set up in businesses to do whatever he wanted. He sold his stock in Harken Energy Corp. before it went under. Who investigates this? The attorney for the Securities and Exchange Commission was a personal friend of his and was the attorney for his family. He was assigned to find out if Bush violated insider trading laws. "No" was his conclusion. It's not investigated because the head of the SEC was appointed by Bush's father. Once he's in office, he and Cheney, all his friends, Bechtel and Halliburton, get all the deals. It's blatant cronyism.
City: Your final characteristic is "Fraudulent elections." There were many reports of possible corruption last month, but even people like David Corn of The Nation concluded that there did not seem to be a strong case.
Britt: Fraudulent elections were used by the seven fascist regimes to maintain power. They just made sure they were going to get the votes and they were ruthless enough to do whatever was necessary. I see certain tendencies of that here. You certainly saw that in Florida in 2000.
There were deep suspicions about many things that happened last month. Maybe it's not enough to turn the election, but it could have been. When they were perpetrated no one knew what the outcome would be, and I'm sure there are a lot of irregularities. Certainly it's in the minds of voters now that you can't trust the results. A democracy, more than anything else, counts on honesty and the integrity of the vote.
City: Looking at the world right now, do you consider the US a fascist state?
Britt: No. By definition it's a democracy. My article is a cautionary tale. This is what I've researched; this is what I've seen; this is what's happened in the past. You can draw your own conclusions: No, this has nothing to do with the United States; or, there are some disquieting trends here that we certainly have to be aware of, and the powers that be exhibit many of these characteristics, and we'd better damn well be careful.

http://altweeklies.com/gyrobase/AltWeek ... d%3A142120

So, Lawrence Britt may or may not possess a doctorate. According to the majority of articles regarding the 14 points of fascism, he does. But, of course, the majority is not always necessarily correct. Regardless, what is revealed by reading this article (and is conveniently not included in Souvien’s quotation) is that Lawrence Britt is a respected writer with a past of contributing to public discourse on a number of topics. Oh… and he also wrote some novels. That’s where Jaime Souviens and John Crowley would like you to stop reading, but if you’ve read this far, I doubt you’re going to.
Now, here’s where I’d like to make a very important point about Lawrence Britt. Jaime Souviens attempted to write off his essay by claiming that it was written for political, not intellectual purposes. Here is a quote from the end of Fascism, Anyone?:

Lawrence Britt Lawrence Britt:

"Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not."

As with any quality intellectual, Britt has made his point, but has also left the ultimate interpretation of his work to the reader… it’s part of that whole “discourse” thing that Jaime doesn’t seem to understand.
Then again, it would seem that John Crowley is a man with an axe to grind. Here is another comment written by Mr. Crowley:

John Crowley John Crowley:

As should have been evident to any student of history, Lawrence Britt's 14 points of fascism is terrible scholarship. His choice of 'fascist' countries and periods is rather arbitrary, specifically, leaving out Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, and North Korea. Most students of Hitler would be interested to learn that he used religion to justify his regime. In fact, Britt is a novelist, not a political scientist. He also has no doctorate. Only the very gullible on the left would have fallen for this pitiful liberal rant.

Now, compare the two. Does it seem like Mr. Crowley is repeating the same remarks over and over, without ever producing any proof? If it does, it’s because it is. Of course, I don’t mean to suggest that Lawrence Britt is beyond criticism. However, Crowley (and especially Souviens’) criticism is actually a piss-poor excuse for criticism.
Here is a good one:

Don Hagleberg Don Hagleberg:

A criticism can be lodged against Dr. Britt for only dealing with Fascism (Corporate State-ism) and not also including Bolshevism (State Socialism), better know by its most ruthless practioneers: Hitlerism and Stalinism.

In Fascism, a few individuals have the greatest amount of wealth and apply the fourteen traits to the society below in order to remain in power. One can mention that the mega-wealthy, those 235 people who have as much wealth as the lowest 50% of the human population in this world, wince at the mention of Fascism, for the possibility of that 50% of population no longer wishing to co-operate with their own exploitation might bring the rule of the mega-wealthy to an end.

In Bolshevism, a leader rules on behalf of the masses with the help of the advanced guard of idealists called the "Party." The Party are bribed by special rights above their working "equals." The Party becomes the apparatus which governs and the general populace become those who are told what to do.

In both cases, Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism, death can become favored.

But Nin-com-poop-ism is out done when these fourteen points are not seen as being practiced by both Facism and Bolshevism.

Take a read of Robrert Service's Biography of Stalin and Joachem C. Fest's biography of Hitler.

Yes, their approaches differed. Religion was co-opted by the State Christian Church in the case of Hitler, and religion was substituted for by the Communist Party in the case of Stalin.

The application of the fouteen points to an examination of our situation here in the United States today leaves a "Yes" column with a lot of "tick" marks.

Perhaps those United States citizens who are leaving the country to live in other countries are merely mirroring geographics taken at other times in out history: the "Exiles" in the time of the "Robber Barons" (Henry James, Whistler etcetera) or the "Flight" in the "Prohibition Era" (F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Gertrude Stein etcetera)?

I can write that I am uncomfortable with the Political-Economic condition of the United States and wonder if I were to put a set of fish eyes from my plate onto the table in a fast food cafe, would there be a fight to see who would be able to eat them up the quickest? (c.f. "One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich.") Or are those on tax breaks, those 235 people who have as much wealth as the lowest 50% of the world's population, so boken that they can't afford a meal in a fast food cafe? Which would be very, very"phat" of them.

See the difference? Whereas Souviens and Crowley scream “he wrote novels!”, mr. Hagelburg says, “I think he’s wrong, and here’s why.”
Personally, I agree with Britt when he says “maybe, maybe not”. But one thing that I can certainly agree with is that from Britt’s work a list of warning signs can be compiled – a list of warnings that should always be examined and addressed, not ignored.
Now, I’ll sit back and await Souviens’ lowest-common-denominator attempts to discredit Lawrence Britt… it should be good for a laugh (again).

[Jaime_Souviens]

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

...(mindless crap)...

You claimed he was a professor. He is not.

You, and half the leftist web claim he is a doctor. He is not.

I don't give a sh*t about his opinions.



Blue is not red. Up is not down.

You can believe in Britt or not. I don't give a damn. But don't pretend he's something he isn't.

If you misrepresnt his credentials, you're lying.

You apparantly can't face up to it. Which is why you've had to resort to this new thread.

Because you've as much as admitted that I was right all along---so thanks for that.

[Patrick_Ross]

No, I just systematically disproved you, and you won't even read it.

You couldn't have admitted defeat in any more spectacular fashion. So, NO: Thank YOU.

You may kiss my ass and leave. BITCH!!!

[Jaime_Souviens]

Look, I wouldn't discuss the tenets of Mormonism with a Mormon because it's rude and only likely to make him upset.

Your faith is Leftism, and discussing Leftism with you just seems to make you upset.

So why would I bother?

By the way, I've already gone over the fourteen points twice now, (by the same token, all you've done is scream and whine like a little kid).

[Patrick_Ross]

Jaime Souviens (in the WRONG FUCKING THREAD) Jaime Souviens (in the WRONG FUCKING THREAD):

All you had to do is post, "Okay, so he's not a doctor..."

But you can't do it, can you?

Patrick Ross Patrick Ross:

So, Lawrence Britt may or may not possess a doctorate. According to the majority of articles regarding the 14 points of fascism, he does. But, of course, the majority is not always necessarily correct.

If Lawrence Britt does not possess a doctorate, then it is a common misconception. I do not know for a fact that Lawrence Britt possesses a doctor.
Of course, regardless of whether or not he possesses a doctorate, it doesn't change the fact that while you scream "fraud" you have yet to produce anything credible to discredit him. Under these circumstances, the onus is NOT on me to prove he is credible, to on you to prove he is not. You haven't. You've produced nothing credible to discredit Britt, and that is a FACT.

Jaime Souviens Jaime Souviens:

By the way, I've already gone over the fourteen points twice now, (by the same token, all you've done is scream and whine like a little kid).

No, myself and others systematically destroyed your arguments. I wasn't shy about pointing out the fact that you are both an asshole and a joke with no punchline, but you can call it "screaming and whining" all you want.
It doesn't change the fact that I'm right.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

Jaime Souviens (in the WRONG FUCKING THREAD) Jaime Souviens (in the WRONG FUCKING THREAD):

All you had to do is post, "Okay, so he's not a doctor..."

But you can't do it, can you?

So, Lawrence Britt may or may not possess a doctorate. According to the majority of articles regarding the 14 points of fascism, he does. But, of course, the majority is not always necessarily correct.
If Lawrence Britt does not possess a doctorate, then it is a common misconception. I do not know for a fact that Lawrence Britt possesses a doctor.
Of course, regardless of whether or not he possesses a doctorate, it doesn't change the fact that while you scream "fraud" you have yet to produce anything credible to discredit him. Under these circumstances, the onus is NOT on me to prove he is credible, to on you to prove he is not. You haven't. You've produced nothing credible to discredit Britt, and that is a FACT.

I posted a link to an interview with the man in the left-leaning Rochester City Paper. He doesn't have, or claim to have a doctorate. I provided everything anybody could be expected to provide. Case closed.

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

Jaime Souviens Jaime Souviens:

By the way, I've already gone over the fourteen points twice now, (by the same token, all you've done is scream and whine like a little kid).

No, myself and others systematically destroyed your arguments. I wasn't shy about pointing out the fact that you are both an asshole and a joke with no punchline, but you can call it "screaming and whining" all you want.
It doesn't change the fact that I'm right.

No, actuallly, you skipped many of them, and I think it was you who even conceded one.

I'm not going to reproduce a whole argument over again here.

You haven't been right yet.

[Jaime_Souviens]

I'lll quote me, one of the few reliable sources here:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Let's look at what you've got.

Britt. Nothing to support his credibility.

Patriot Act. All you had were fellow leftists in a snit, no single citation of anything. (I mean, hell, I have no problem with the Patriot Act and I could have done a better job attacking it.)

14 points of Fascism. You immediately conceeded 6. You looked ridiculous on the rest, (i.e., they proved to be simply subjective tests, or, to call it by its true name propaganda for a political position and not some credible 'political science'), or your positions were otherwise ridiculous, (like your claim that Q.E.II's references to religion were irrelevant because of her limited constitutional position).

Sponsorship. You did provide over the top claims about failure to achieve convictions leading straight to fascism. Nobody else believed you, either.

Repetition. You did confirm that I was right and gunplumber was wrong and that this had been up before.

Condescension. You're a big winner here.

Anybody can tote up the score here,

....you've got jack shit.

You were wrong in the last thread, you're wrong here.

[Jaime_Souviens]

If you're too thick to know when you've lost a point or a whole argument, there's not a lot of point to any of this.

[BartSimpson]

Fascism in Germany was made possible by the extreme inflation and poverty created by the Versailles Treaty and exacerbated by the French invasion of the Ruhr in 1922. That Germany would embrace extremism of the fascist or Communist sort was inevitable. The Nazis won but the Commies came close.

In Italy their perennially instable and corrupt governments made the rise of Mussolini unstoppable since no one could get it together to stop him.

In Spain it again came down to a battle between fascism and Communism and the fascists won again.

Umberto Eco was not a fascist, guess which side he was on?

Neither is good, of course, but the Britt list is just a thinly veiled attack on the Bush Administration whose 'scape goats' rammed two planes into the WTC. Amazing how the lefties keep forgetting that the War on Terror didn't start with the invasion of Iraq. They all seem to have forgotten that we invaded Afghanistan, too.

Howzabout you pull up a list that is a little less biased?

[Patrick_Ross]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

No, actuallly, you skipped many of them, and I think it was you who even conceded one.

Jaime, eventually you will learn that concession doesn't always equal defeat. I conceded ONE point to you because I feel you were correct on ONE point. The rest was pedantric nitpicking by someone who is rather desparate to belittle the value of Britt's theories.

And the methods you've used have been laughable at best. You posted a link not to the interview in the City, but to some jackass' weblog. It was ME who posted the link to the complete interview. The article that you posted intentionally ignored a number of points regarding Lawrence Britt's career as a scholar that would have revealed how one-sided this attempt was. That article was written to portray Lawrence Britt has a fraud despite clear evidence that Britt has been active in the scholarly community for decades. In other words, it was a hatchet job. Hatchet jobs are typically the tactics of cowards. So then, Jaime, you are not only an idiot, you are not only an asshole but also a coward. But even prior to that, you had the nerve to claim that Britt's 14 points of fascism were "hate speech". Do you think that no ne else smells the desperation on you? It's utterly tangible.
Only you would be proud of that.
So, I'll address your points here:

Lawrence Britt - I don't need to prove his credibility. You're the one making adverse claims about his credibility, you are the one who needs to prove them. You haven't. In fact, I've destroyed the credibility of your attempt. Finished.

Patriot Act - I produced links to watchdog groups, one of which contained a laundry list of complaints about actions taken under the pretense of the Patriot Act. I produced information that details how the Patriot Act serves contravene many of the freedoms granted to citizens of the United States under its constitutions. You, meanwhile, claimed it doesn't harm constitutional freedoms beause it doesn't explicitly state that. In the face of evidence, rhetoric is always a weak argument. You're done.

14 Points of Fascism - I would really like to know where you think I conceded six. I conceded nothing. I did grant you the point that the sexism issue (within the United States) has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction. This is what a quality intellectual does -- grant respect to a point well made. You, however, are not a quality intellectual. You've been beaten twice now on this subject and still come around claiming you've won.

Sponsorship - I never said that failure to secure convctions for the guilty party would lead "straight to fascism". I said repeatedly that if we fail to deal with the sponsorship scandal appropriately (and also, by the way, others like it) we run the risk of planting the seeds of corruption that will allow fascism to flourish. But once again, here you are, trying to put words in other people's mouths. It's underhanded, but then again, so are you.

Repetition - Gunplumber fucking OWNED you in that argument. Where, exactly, did I confirm you were right?

Condescension

So, tallying up your score, you've got precisely jack shit.

However, I have:

Tman1 Tman1:

Xerxes Xerxes:

As long as he's learned his place.

And that was from someone who was pissed off at us (me as well) because of the argument sucking up his thread.

DerbyX DerbyX:

You won't admit when your wrong. The term hippocrate springs to mind.

And that was from someone who disagreed with my opinion regarding the sponsorship scandal and cronyism.

Scape Scape:

Actually village/forum idiot seems more fitting. Perhaps we should create a medal and nominate this ass clown for it?

Not to mention, I was the only one big enough to take this debate where it belongs -- here. Also, not to mention the fact that I have provided opinions that disagree with mine -- as opposed to trying desperately to repress them. So I wonder why you're so sensitive regarding fascism?
Now, onto the response that actually deserves a response:

Bart Simpson Bart Simpson:

Fascism in Germany was made possible by the extreme inflation and poverty created by the Versailles Treaty and exacerbated by the French invasion of the Ruhr in 1922. That Germany would embrace extremism of the fascist or Communist sort was inevitable. The Nazis won but the Commies came close.

I would agree that this is one thing about fascism that Lawrence Britt fails to address: the rise of fascism. A country does not simply magically "become" fascist. One thing that an examination of various fascist regimes is that certain conditions need to be present before such a transformation can occur. Good point.

Bart Simpson Bart Simpson:

Neither is good, of course, but the Britt list is just a thinly veiled attack on the Bush Administration whose 'scape goats' rammed two planes into the WTC. Amazing how the lefties keep forgetting that the War on Terror didn't start with the invasion of Iraq. They all seem to have forgotten that we invaded Afghanistan, too.

I would like to believe that many people recognize that because there was a demonstrable link between the Taliban government and Osama bin Laden -- as well as the fact that they were knowingly harboring them -- the Afghanistan invasion was not only valid, but also mostly a good thing. Iraq, in many people's minds (including my own), is not so much a good thing -- it's more of a mixed bag of good things AND bad things.
Also, I would like to note that Britt himself has taken a more neutral stance toward the Bush administration and the United States than many who are interpreting his work -- I also believe this is very important to remember. If Souviens is showing us anything, it's that it can be remarkably easy to put words in other people's mouths -- especially when they aren't around to clarify matters.

Bart Simpson Bart Simpson:

Howzabout you pull up a list that is a little less biased?

I'd honestly argue that the bias is in the interpretation. Even if you and I can't agree whether or not any number of these characteristics (and let's face it, none of them are very encouraging) being present in a society represent fascism, can we not recognize that all of these traits were present in fascist societies, and agree what we can recognize them as potential warning signs? Personally, that's how I view Britt's work.
However, I have another opinion on Britt's work. I view it as the equivalent of "fascism for dummies". It's a very simplified view of fascism AS IT IS, ignoring much the socio-psychological mindset that is behind such a system, as well as the societal conditions necessary to help it flourish. Umbert Echo's work is a more sophisiticated analysis of the subject, but touches on many of the pilosophical elements that Britt's work seems to miss. I think both have value separately, but each is enhanced by the other. Both are quality pieces of work by respected scholars.

[Scape]

[Canadian_Mind]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Fascism in Germany was made possible by the extreme inflation and poverty created by the Versailles Treaty and exacerbated by the French invasion of the Ruhr in 1922. That Germany would embrace extremism of the fascist or Communist sort was inevitable. The Nazis won but the Commies came close.

In Italy their perennially instable and corrupt governments made the rise of Mussolini unstoppable since no one could get it together to stop him.

In Spain it again came down to a battle between fascism and Communism and the fascists won again.

Umberto Eco was not a fascist, guess which side he was on?


Neither is good, of course, but the Britt list is just a thinly veiled attack on the Bush Administration whose 'scape goats' rammed two planes into the WTC. Amazing how the lefties keep forgetting that the War on Terror didn't start with the invasion of Iraq. They all seem to have forgotten that we invaded Afghanistan, too.

Howzabout you pull up a list that is a little less biased?

Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. why arn't you hunting bin laden anymore?

[Jaime_Souviens]

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

No, I just systematically disproved you, and you won't even read it.

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

No, actuallly, you skipped many of them, and I think it was you who even conceded one.

Jaime, eventually you will learn that concession doesn't always equal defeat. I conceded ONE point to you because I feel you were correct on ONE point. The rest was pedantric nitpicking by someone who is rather desparate to belittle the value of Britt's theories.

Above, you said "systematically destroyed". Now you say you conceded one, and you also skipped five others. You are NOT systematic.

You're just lying.

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

And the methods you've used have been laughable at best. You posted a link not to the interview in the City, but to some jackass' weblog. It was ME who posted the link to the complete interview.

No. I posted the link, at 2005-07-20, 01:43:54, on page 10 of the last thread, about 5/6 the way down.

You're lying.

Just a flat out lie.

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

The article that you posted intentionally ignored a number of points regarding Lawrence Britt's career as a scholar that would have revealed how one-sided this attempt was. That article was written to portray Lawrence Britt has a fraud despite clear evidence that Britt has been active in the scholarly community for decades. In other words, it was a hatchet job. Hatchet jobs are typically the tactics of cowards. So then, Jaime, you are not only an idiot, you are not only an asshole but also a coward. But even prior to that, you had the nerve to claim that Britt's 14 points of fascism were "hate speech". Do you think that no ne else smells the desperation on you? It's utterly tangible.

He's a retired chemical company exec who's claim to scholarly fame was attending some classes at Northwestern four decades ago. The article was an interview with Britt by an 'alternative' leftist newsweekly in Rochester.

Your quotes here are tangible, though.

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

Lawrence Britt - I don't need to prove his credibility. You're the one making adverse claims about his credibility, you are the one who needs to prove them. You haven't. In fact, I've destroyed the credibility of your attempt. Finished.

You claimed he was a professor. You claimed he was a Doctor. You were arrogantly indignant when I dared to question that.

Jamie Souviens Jamie Souviens:

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

Jamie Souviens Jamie Souviens:

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

But then again, I suppose you may be right... mere "respected scholars" like Lawrence Britt can't hope to match wits with Jamie Souviens.

Your "respected scholar" is a retired oil company businessman from Rochester, look him up. He's doesn't have a doctorate, he's a fraud.

According to what I've found, Dr. Lawrence Britt possesses a doctorate in political science.

From a university, or is this the same non-referenced material provided by the people who take him seriously?

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

But then again, not only do these people not know anything, but nobody other than Jaime Souviens could POSSIBLY know ANYTHING.

You're lying.

Your description above in your recent post? A flat out lie compared to what you posted before. It's all there in a couple dozen words.

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

Patriot Act - I produced links to watchdog groups, one of which contained a laundry list of complaints about actions taken under the pretense of the Patriot Act. I produced information that details how the Patriot Act serves contravene many of the freedoms granted to citizens of the United States under its constitutions. You, meanwhile, claimed it doesn't harm constitutional freedoms beause it doesn't explicitly state that. In the face of evidence, rhetoric is always a weak argument. You're done.

I would have been happy to debate any of the substantive issues related to the Patriot Act. You couldn't point to any, (of course), and tried to cite secondary sources from where ever you could find them in the internet.

You can't discuss real issues because they're beyond you.

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

14 Points of Fascism - I would really like to know where you think I conceded six. I conceded nothing. I did grant you the point that the sexism issue (within the United States) has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction. This is what a quality intellectual does -- grant respect to a point well made. You, however, are not a quality intellectual.

Fair enough. You outright granted one and omitted to discuss the others.

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

You've been beaten twice now on this subject and still come around claiming you've won.

You're an arrogant liar. You wouldn't have created this thread if you weren't desperate. You knew you had lost in the last thread. You're trying to bury the discussion here.

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

Sponsorship - I never said that failure to secure convctions for the guilty party would lead "straight to fascism". I said repeatedly that if we fail to deal with the sponsorship scandal appropriately (and also, by the way, others like it) we run the risk of planting the seeds of corruption that will allow fascism to flourish. But once again, here you are, trying to put words in other people's mouths. It's underhanded, but
then again, so are you.

Let's look at YOUR words :

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

Jamie Souviens Jamie Souviens:

And Canada. Sponsorship. You're calling Canada 'Fascist' again.

YES! Canada does meet this characteristic of fascism (as well as, arguably, the controlled mass media characteristic). Which is exactly why we have to make sure the Sponsorship Scandal is dealt with properly... up to and including the eventual conviction of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin.

You are saying that Canada has already reached this one point of Fascism, and that ONLY the conviction of the two PM's will steer Canada away.

Anyone can read these two paragraphs. In the upper, you misrepresent your own words in the lower.

Your weaselly justification above is another lie. You hope people will forget what happened in the last thread.

If you want to back out on that now, fine. I couldn't really care. But dont lie and say you said something else. That's just lying. You know lying, don't you? That's not telling the truth.

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

Repetition - Gunplumber fucking OWNED you in that argument. Where, exactly, did I confirm you were right?

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

Jamie Souviens Jamie Souviens:

No, I could swear some other idiot has already posted it here.

It has been posed here before. It's also been posted on EVERY other message board that I frequent. It's very popular right now. I, however, read it six months ago.

Admittedly not a big point, just wanted to clarify. At one time, weeks ago, gunplumber had issues along these lines.

Gunplumber OWNED me? That's funny. He called me a pussy 16 times. That isn't much of a debating technique.

He was also very slow to get it when I was mocking him.

And he didn't understand much of what I wrote, just in terms of nuts and bolts.

I'm not going to pick on him for it, but the guy's no genius.

But don't worry, you can make him an imaginary professor in your imaginary Leftist university, where you'll be Dean!



Stop lying to people here, you'll ruin your credibility.

[Patrick_Ross]

Scape Scape:

Seeing as how the votes are cast (and you have lost by a landslide), I see no further need to continue to rebut Souviens. But it's so much fun making him reveal how much of an asshole he is, so:

Ja, MeSoVain Ja, MeSoVain:

Above, you said "systematically destroyed". Now you say you conceded one, and you also skipped five others. You are NOT systematic.

A liar? Am I now?

Actually, Jaime I only responded to the points you raised that were worth responding to. The rest were such garbage that I just let them slide, if only to share you the embarassment. Unfortunately, you constantly embarrass yourself.

Ja, MeSoVain Ja, MeSoVain:

No. I posted the link, at 2005-07-20, 01:43:54, on page 10 of the last thread, about 5/6 the way down.

You're lying.

Just a flat out lie.

It would help if your link... you know... works. Despite the fact that I provided the City interview IN ITS ENTIRETY, instead of just the parts YOU wanted people to see. The blog article was a hatchet job, and worthless... kind of like that thing between your ears you never use.

Ja, MeSoVain Ja, MeSoVain:

He's a retired chemical company exec who's claim to scholarly fame was attending some classes at Northwestern four decades ago. The article was an interview with Britt by an 'alternative' leftist newsweekly in Rochester.

Apparently so. And that's where you wanted people to STOP reading. That's where you stopped giving people the pertinent information. But I gave everyone here the interview in its entirety, and encouraged them to read it all. Lawerence Britt is a respected scholar who has been active in the scholarly community for decades... oh, and he also worked for a petrochemicals company. Apparently, in the world of Jamie Souviens, one makes it impossible for him to be the other.

Ja, MeSoVain Ja, MeSoVain:

Your quotes here are tangible, though.

You're fucking right they are. And now you're just embarrassed because you've been exposed. Now you're here calling me a liar. Fuck, have you ever gotten desperate? Give up the grudge and give up the game, Jaime. You've lost.

Ja. MeSoVain Ja. MeSoVain:

You claimed he was a professor. You claimed he was a Doctor. You were arrogantly indignant when I dared to question that.

No, I revealed your "discrediting source" was nothing more than a weblog hatchet job by some nut with an axe to grind.
I did say he was a doctor... so did about 3,500 other people on the internet. I acted based on the information I had. But I've admitted to this. You just want to milk it because it's literally the ONLY THING YOU HAVE. And that's pretty pathetic. And you wonder why you've lost this?

Ja, MeSoVain Ja, MeSoVain:

You're an arrogant liar. You wouldn't have created this thread if you weren't desperate. You knew you had lost in the last thread. You're trying to bury the discussion here.

The votes are in, Jaime. 5-0. You lose. The only person who has even remotely taken your side in this is Bart Simpson, and his points were far superior to yours. I simply chose to make you continue this discussion to the end. Not in a place where you can jump somebody, and then hope someone will play topic police and end the debate. You just stay put get your ass handed to you. Apparently, you don't like it.
I, howver, I have been loving every second of this.

Ja,MeSoVain Ja,MeSoVain:

You [said] that Canada has already reached this one point of Fascism, and that ONLY the conviction of the two PM's will steer Canada away.

I understand that some of those are the words that you want to put in my mouth. The point that I was making is that if we fail to address this issue approrpiately (and it is my opinion and Chretien and Martin are both guilty, and both belong in jail) we run the risk of allowing fascism to flourish in future.

Ja, MeSoVain Ja, MeSoVain:

Your weaselly justification above is another lie. You hope people will forget what happened in the last thread.

No, Jaime, I've clarified my statement. In fact, I recognize that the statement I need warrants clarification, and I can admit that, and live with that. You, however, want everyone to ignore my clarification, and regurgitate the words you want them to. Who, exactly, is arrogant, again?

Ja, MeSoVain Ja, MeSoVain:

Patrick Ross Patrick Ross:

It has been posed here before. It's also been posted on EVERY other message board that I frequent. It's very popular right now. I, however, read it six months ago.

Admittedly not a big point, just wanted to clarify. At one time, weeks ago, gunplumber had issues along these lines.

That's it? THAT'S YOUR BIG TRIUMPH?

That is such a joke I'm not even going to continue addressing it. You, Jaime, are a fucking idiot and you just proved it. Thanks a lot.

Ja, MeSoVain Ja, MeSoVain:

Gunplumber OWNED me? That's funny. He called me a pussy 16 times. That isn't much of a debating technique.

You are a pussy.

Ja, MeSoVain Ja, MeSoVain:

And he didn't understand much of what I wrote, just in terms of nuts and bolts.

I'm not going to pick on him for it, but the guy's no genius.

You make so many assumtions. Do you know what you do when you assume? You make an ass out of you and me. But mostly you.

Ja, MeSoVain Ja, MeSoVain:

Stop lying to people here, you'll ruin your credibility.

So... um... that's your clincher, huh? That's your BIG FINISH that you think is going to put me away for good.
You've lost this argument so badly that you have to resort to calling me a liar, and you think this is going to wash?
I'm going to be honest, Jaime. I actually feel bad your you. You see, a debate is supposed to be an exchange of ideas. Certainly there is some element of a contest to it, but that isn't the point. A debate is ultimately an exchange of ideas.
You, however, have no ideas. All you have is your pendantric rhetoric that allows you to try and tear down other people's ideas, and make you feel smart. It isn't about ideas to you, it's about winning and losing. And that's why you've lost.
Your pendantric rhetoric has failed you, and now you're mad. That's too bad. But it's really your own fault. You see, pedantry is easy. That's probably why you're such a big fan of it. But it's also lazy, and that's why you just got beaten by two guys who outworked you. It happens, and it just happened. Live with it.
Jaime, I hope you're smart enough to walk away from this. Because not only did I just beat you, but I'm going to keep beating you until the only way for you to save face is to leave this board, and I think you'll be sorely disappoined with the number of people who will miss you.
G'night, chump.

[Blue_Nose]

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

You, however, have no ideas. All you have is your pendantric rhetoric that allows you to try and tear down other people's ideas, and make you feel smart. It isn't about ideas to you, it's about winning and losing. And that's why you've lost.

I'm not really concerned with the rest of your squabble, but I certainly agree to this point. Ascribing his so-called failure to pedentry, however, assumes a certain level of scholarship, which I don't see in his posts (I don't assume anything of his actual level of education).

I had been meaning to make this point several times throughout my interactions with Jaime_Souviens, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.