7 ms·

The United States is very quickly becoming an ever more scary looking country. From the outside, it appears to be converting itself into a full-on fascist regi

The United States is very quickly becoming an ever more scary looking country. From the outside, it appears to be converting itself into a full-on fascist regime, hostile to insiders and outsiders alike. The walls are going up, the spy-cams and wiretapping are springing up. The SOPA/PIPA powered nation-wide firewall is being constructed. Local authorities are increasingly becoming subservient to a centralized federal authority (DHS). And it's all being fueled by propaganda politics, big businesses lobbying, and the rich. The country appears to be going completely crazy.

shareme 15y ago
I think you better re-read what is happening in Australia, what you describe better fits their situation than the US one.
- wavephorm 15y ago
  This trend appears to be happening in Canada, UK, and EU simultaneously. The G8 are coordinating their authoritarian efforts in a way that is completely unprecedented. Like a lot of things the US is probably the one pushing for this on its "friends".
  - mattmanser 15y ago
    I feel things have calmed down in the UK on that front since TB got booted out. Personally I thought the height of that was when David Blunkett was home secretary.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - alan_cx 15y ago
      Who authorised the police to use water cannon and fire arms on protesters in the UK then? Your comment looks like political bias. Both governments ratchet up the attacks on its people. Government is the problem, not which one. I think its about time to realise that the ruling classes see it as us and them. We the people are the enemy of governments. It does not matter which party we are talking about. They farm us like animals. We allow them to.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  It could be, but US has much more influence on the world, and it used to be the beacon of freedom. So all this is happening in the country that was supposed to be the most free in the world. Whether it's more fascist or less fascist than other countries, that's besides the point. They are already fascist enough, and the trend is going up, not down. And the fact that this is happening, while it's still the most powerful country in the world, scares the hell out of everyone else.
  - rmc 15y ago
    it used to be the beacon of freedom No, the US narrative is that it thinks the rest of the world looks on it as a beacon of freedom. A lot of countries do not think "do what the USA does" is a good idea. (Just look at labour law or socialism for one example)
- Aramgutang 15y ago
  I's sorry, what? Can you please provide some examples of developments in Australia that in any way match what the parent was describing? Or have you been misled to believe that our Internet is filtered in any way? Australia has the sanest political climate of any developed country I've lived in, in large part thanks to compulsory and preferential (ranked) voting. Sure there's things like the manufactured boogeyman of "boat people", the lingering spectre of racism, and increasingly vocal tea-party-like factions, but not nearly to the same extent as in the US, UK, or even Canada.
  - Joakal 15y ago
    There's mandatory Internet censorship in Australia, in a sense that it's funded by the government and users have no choice except to leave. It's a form of making censored Internet subscriptions cheaper than Internet Freedom subscriptions that will lead those ISPs to exit market. Heard of NBN? What if the government says that ISPs must have 'appropriate criminal filters' in place to be eligible for NBN access? Look to UK for more (Remember Wikipedia being blocked?). Both parties have been known to support the ability to declare war without parliament (USA/UK need to ask). It's controversial to be in the parties and support parliamentary requirement to go to war. There's many secret copyright enforcement meetings and rumours are abound that they are discussing ways to use the piracy phenomenon as a form of economic bogeyman to spy on small businesses for the big businesses. Not only that, but there's implications that the government likes the ability to spy and restrict opposition groups. Even The Pirate Bay colourfully said that copyright lobby is so powerful that ISPs are forced to attend 'optional meetings to discuss ways of reducing copyright infringement'. Did you know that police can now issue $1320 on-the-spot fines and confiscate all electronic equipment deemed involved in piracy? It's per infringement, so 100 pictures can easily become a $132k fine.
    - Aramgutang 15y ago
      > There's mandatory Internet censorship in Australia, in a sense that it's funded by the government and users have no choice except to leave. This is simply not true. There are two ISPs: Telstra and Optus, who voluntarily block websites from a list provided by the government. However, I don't know anyone who actually uses those ISPs, and they're more expensive to boot. The other major ISPs, such as iiNet and Internode, have no intention of implementing the filter, and in fact actively and successfully fight government interference in court. They're also cheaper, and in my experience provide superior customer service. If the government decides to impose restrictions on NBN access, the latter group of ISPs are highly likely to fight it in court, and are quite likely to win. And furthermore, given the fragile position the Labor party is currently in, it has shelved its plans for mandatory filtering, and is unlikely to reintroduce them, as it alienates their voter base, who are increasingly driven toward the Green Party, which is now in a position of significant influence and vocally opposes Internet censorship. > Both parties have been known to support the ability to declare war without parliament While Australia doesn't require parliamentary approval to go to war, the countries that do, the US in particular, don't seem to pay that rule much heed, so I'm not sure how much would change if such a rule was on the books. > There's many secret copyright enforcement meetings and rumours They can meet in secret as much as they want, but fortunately, they cannot pass laws in secret. Until a bill is introduced, such meetings are of no concern, nor are they in any way unique to Australia. > Did you know that police can now issue $1320 on-the-spot fines and confiscate all electronic equipment deemed involved in piracy? No I did not, and could not find any sources to corroborate that, nor examples of such fines actually being issued. Can you provide some links to that effect?
JonnieCache 15y ago
I particularly enjoyed the all-male congressional panel on the morality of contraception they had the other day. One woman tried to testify but was deemed "unqualified." Well played. Also, who else is looking forward to the war with Iran? I hear it's going to be in HD this time.
- gph 15y ago
  Only HD? Damn, I thought I'd get some good use out of my 3D flatscreen.
- wyclif 15y ago
  Well, the only Presidential candidate in the US who isn't down with the Patriot Act and its provisions, and doesn't believe the US should be engaged in worldwide wars (aka "police actions"), is routinely dismissed as "crazy" by both major parties. Tells you a lot about the USA.
  - the_tubes 15y ago
    Ron Paul is crazy to think that he can make the US better again and reduce it's debt while shrinking the federal government and giving freedoms back to the states.
  - count 15y ago
    Just because a candidate has a position you agree on for something doesn't mean they're not crazy.
  - mindcrime 15y ago
    Well, the only Presidential candidate in the US who isn't down with the Patriot Act and its provisions, and doesn't believe the US should be engaged in worldwide wars (aka "police actions"), is routinely dismissed as "crazy" by both major parties. Tells you a lot about the USA. While I agree with your general sentiment, I want to add that Ron Paul is not the only such candidate for President in the US. If one expands their worldview to include "3rd Party" candidates, there are a few guys pursuing, for example, the Libertarian Party nomination, who hold views very similar to Ron Paul. Gary Johnson and Thomas Hill come to mind. Of course it's easy to convince oneself that "3rd party" candidates don't matter and to exclude them from the conversation, but that just feeds into a self-fulfilling prophecy, IMO.
wyclif 15y ago
The walls are going up, the spy-cams and wiretapping are springing up You mean like England, the land of ubiquitous CCTV?
- regularfry 15y ago
  The US is supposed to be a shining beacon of hope. I'm not quite sure what the UK is supposed to be.
  - jacques_chester 15y ago
    The frequently grey, overcast beacon of hope.
davidw 15y ago
Can we discuss the deteriorating situation in the US like adults and not sputter out epithets like "fascist regime"? Have a look at what's happening in Syria to see what a real dictatorship is like.
- wavephorm 15y ago
  fas·cism/ˈfaSHizəm/ Noun: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. (in general use) Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice. re·gime/riˈZHēm/ Noun: A government, esp. an authoritarian one. A system or planned way of doing things, esp. one imposed from above. I don't think you can get a more succinct description of what's happening to the United States.
  - rfrey 15y ago
    When you say "fascist regime" you are invoking emotional connection to Mussolini Italy or Nazi Germany. Citing the technical definition of the word doesn't change the intention of the rhetoric. Many emotional appeals use technically correct words. It's possible that you only used the words because they were correct, and do not share the emotional connection to them that most of your readers will have. If that is true, you should note the common effect of that phrase, and avoid it in the future during rational conversation.
    - wavephorm 15y ago
      So, in other words you would prefer to use euphemism? Isn't a big part of the problem that US media and politicians already do that?
      - rfrey 15y ago
        When euphemism detracts from the meaning or content of a message, its use is harmful. Your use of the phrase "fascist", regardless of its accuracy (which I debate, but this isn't about semantics), did not add to the content of your message. In fact it detracted significantly, substituting a tired "U.S.->Nazi" cliché in place of whatever message you intended.
J3L2404 15y ago
> full-on fascist regime. This why you can't judge the world by watching TV. It is really sad to see normally intelligent people go batshit crazy and start spewing nonsense. Europeans should know better than to throw around the word fascist. I am so sick of whining Europeans that I would almost support stalling the U.S. economy just to drive the E.U. into a ditch.
- jacquesm 15y ago
  > It is really sad to see normally intelligent people go batshit crazy and start spewing nonsense. > I am so sick of whining Europeans that I would almost support stalling the U.S. economy just to drive the E.U. into a ditch. Indeed. Pot, meet kettle.
  - J3L2404 15y ago
    Sorry Jacques if my comments are offensive, but this whole America is the evil empire meme is just a load of crap. Someone needs to start 'Occupy Reality'.
    - jacquesm 15y ago
      I think if you want to point out the flaw in someones argument you could do better than to go down the exact same road they took. You effectively claim that the US does not need the EU and that you could afford to drive the EU 'into a ditch' out of spite, when in fact the economies are now so interlinked that if the one suffers the other suffers right along with it. The current crisis is a nice example of that. Effectively it is a single giant economy with lots of subtle and not well understood dependencies, wrecking one on purpose will likely wreck the other one as well. Besides that, you are painting all Europeans with the same brush and that is just as stupid as those that like to paint all of the US with one brush. America is not 'the evil empire' (and neither is Europe), but on both sides of the Atlantic there is plenty of stuff going on that does not have the interests of the general public at heart. I don't mind those that expose those things, and I don't mind people trying to avoid making past mistakes again. They're braver than me in many respects. We're moving into uncharted territory with respect to the amount of impact surveillance technology and anti-terrorism measures have on the lives of ordinary citizens. It remains to be seen if the net result of that is beneficial or not (I'm skeptical and I think that it will be a net negative). The United States seems to me to be the party pushing most aggressively to achieve this with the EU following along and sometimes trying to outdo its counterparts. What bugs me is that there is no - or very little - accountability on this front and the extent to which commercial interests and political interests are entwined. It may take a lot of work to undo the damage that we're doing to ourselves and our societies. To polarize that into a US vs Europe debate is silly at best and 'batshit crazy' at worst. Please don't add fuel to that particular fire.

shareme 15y ago

I think you better re-read what is happening in Australia, what you describe better fits their situation than the US one.

wavephorm 15y ago
This trend appears to be happening in Canada, UK, and EU simultaneously. The G8 are coordinating their authoritarian efforts in a way that is completely unprecedented. Like a lot of things the US is probably the one pushing for this on its "friends".
- mattmanser 15y ago
  I feel things have calmed down in the UK on that front since TB got booted out. Personally I thought the height of that was when David Blunkett was home secretary.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - alan_cx 15y ago
    Who authorised the police to use water cannon and fire arms on protesters in the UK then? Your comment looks like political bias. Both governments ratchet up the attacks on its people. Government is the problem, not which one. I think its about time to realise that the ruling classes see it as us and them. We the people are the enemy of governments. It does not matter which party we are talking about. They farm us like animals. We allow them to.
nextparadigms 15y ago
It could be, but US has much more influence on the world, and it used to be the beacon of freedom. So all this is happening in the country that was supposed to be the most free in the world. Whether it's more fascist or less fascist than other countries, that's besides the point. They are already fascist enough, and the trend is going up, not down. And the fact that this is happening, while it's still the most powerful country in the world, scares the hell out of everyone else.
- rmc 15y ago
  it used to be the beacon of freedom No, the US narrative is that it thinks the rest of the world looks on it as a beacon of freedom. A lot of countries do not think "do what the USA does" is a good idea. (Just look at labour law or socialism for one example)
Aramgutang 15y ago
I's sorry, what? Can you please provide some examples of developments in Australia that in any way match what the parent was describing? Or have you been misled to believe that our Internet is filtered in any way? Australia has the sanest political climate of any developed country I've lived in, in large part thanks to compulsory and preferential (ranked) voting. Sure there's things like the manufactured boogeyman of "boat people", the lingering spectre of racism, and increasingly vocal tea-party-like factions, but not nearly to the same extent as in the US, UK, or even Canada.
- Joakal 15y ago
  There's mandatory Internet censorship in Australia, in a sense that it's funded by the government and users have no choice except to leave. It's a form of making censored Internet subscriptions cheaper than Internet Freedom subscriptions that will lead those ISPs to exit market. Heard of NBN? What if the government says that ISPs must have 'appropriate criminal filters' in place to be eligible for NBN access? Look to UK for more (Remember Wikipedia being blocked?). Both parties have been known to support the ability to declare war without parliament (USA/UK need to ask). It's controversial to be in the parties and support parliamentary requirement to go to war. There's many secret copyright enforcement meetings and rumours are abound that they are discussing ways to use the piracy phenomenon as a form of economic bogeyman to spy on small businesses for the big businesses. Not only that, but there's implications that the government likes the ability to spy and restrict opposition groups. Even The Pirate Bay colourfully said that copyright lobby is so powerful that ISPs are forced to attend 'optional meetings to discuss ways of reducing copyright infringement'. Did you know that police can now issue $1320 on-the-spot fines and confiscate all electronic equipment deemed involved in piracy? It's per infringement, so 100 pictures can easily become a $132k fine.
  - Aramgutang 15y ago
    > There's mandatory Internet censorship in Australia, in a sense that it's funded by the government and users have no choice except to leave. This is simply not true. There are two ISPs: Telstra and Optus, who voluntarily block websites from a list provided by the government. However, I don't know anyone who actually uses those ISPs, and they're more expensive to boot. The other major ISPs, such as iiNet and Internode, have no intention of implementing the filter, and in fact actively and successfully fight government interference in court. They're also cheaper, and in my experience provide superior customer service. If the government decides to impose restrictions on NBN access, the latter group of ISPs are highly likely to fight it in court, and are quite likely to win. And furthermore, given the fragile position the Labor party is currently in, it has shelved its plans for mandatory filtering, and is unlikely to reintroduce them, as it alienates their voter base, who are increasingly driven toward the Green Party, which is now in a position of significant influence and vocally opposes Internet censorship. > Both parties have been known to support the ability to declare war without parliament While Australia doesn't require parliamentary approval to go to war, the countries that do, the US in particular, don't seem to pay that rule much heed, so I'm not sure how much would change if such a rule was on the books. > There's many secret copyright enforcement meetings and rumours They can meet in secret as much as they want, but fortunately, they cannot pass laws in secret. Until a bill is introduced, such meetings are of no concern, nor are they in any way unique to Australia. > Did you know that police can now issue $1320 on-the-spot fines and confiscate all electronic equipment deemed involved in piracy? No I did not, and could not find any sources to corroborate that, nor examples of such fines actually being issued. Can you provide some links to that effect?

JonnieCache 15y ago

I particularly enjoyed the all-male congressional panel on the morality of contraception they had the other day. One woman tried to testify but was deemed "unqualified." Well played. Also, who else is looking forward to the war with Iran? I hear it's going to be in HD this time.

gph 15y ago
Only HD? Damn, I thought I'd get some good use out of my 3D flatscreen.
wyclif 15y ago
Well, the only Presidential candidate in the US who isn't down with the Patriot Act and its provisions, and doesn't believe the US should be engaged in worldwide wars (aka "police actions"), is routinely dismissed as "crazy" by both major parties. Tells you a lot about the USA.
- the_tubes 15y ago
  Ron Paul is crazy to think that he can make the US better again and reduce it's debt while shrinking the federal government and giving freedoms back to the states.
- count 15y ago
  Just because a candidate has a position you agree on for something doesn't mean they're not crazy.
- mindcrime 15y ago
  Well, the only Presidential candidate in the US who isn't down with the Patriot Act and its provisions, and doesn't believe the US should be engaged in worldwide wars (aka "police actions"), is routinely dismissed as "crazy" by both major parties. Tells you a lot about the USA. While I agree with your general sentiment, I want to add that Ron Paul is not the only such candidate for President in the US. If one expands their worldview to include "3rd Party" candidates, there are a few guys pursuing, for example, the Libertarian Party nomination, who hold views very similar to Ron Paul. Gary Johnson and Thomas Hill come to mind. Of course it's easy to convince oneself that "3rd party" candidates don't matter and to exclude them from the conversation, but that just feeds into a self-fulfilling prophecy, IMO.

wyclif 15y ago

The walls are going up, the spy-cams and wiretapping are springing up You mean like England, the land of ubiquitous CCTV?

regularfry 15y ago
The US is supposed to be a shining beacon of hope. I'm not quite sure what the UK is supposed to be.
- jacques_chester 15y ago
  The frequently grey, overcast beacon of hope.

davidw 15y ago

Can we discuss the deteriorating situation in the US like adults and not sputter out epithets like "fascist regime"? Have a look at what's happening in Syria to see what a real dictatorship is like.

wavephorm 15y ago
fas·cism/ˈfaSHizəm/ Noun: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. (in general use) Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice. re·gime/riˈZHēm/ Noun: A government, esp. an authoritarian one. A system or planned way of doing things, esp. one imposed from above. I don't think you can get a more succinct description of what's happening to the United States.
- rfrey 15y ago
  When you say "fascist regime" you are invoking emotional connection to Mussolini Italy or Nazi Germany. Citing the technical definition of the word doesn't change the intention of the rhetoric. Many emotional appeals use technically correct words. It's possible that you only used the words because they were correct, and do not share the emotional connection to them that most of your readers will have. If that is true, you should note the common effect of that phrase, and avoid it in the future during rational conversation.
  - wavephorm 15y ago
    So, in other words you would prefer to use euphemism? Isn't a big part of the problem that US media and politicians already do that?
    - rfrey 15y ago
      When euphemism detracts from the meaning or content of a message, its use is harmful. Your use of the phrase "fascist", regardless of its accuracy (which I debate, but this isn't about semantics), did not add to the content of your message. In fact it detracted significantly, substituting a tired "U.S.->Nazi" cliché in place of whatever message you intended.

J3L2404 15y ago

> full-on fascist regime. This why you can't judge the world by watching TV. It is really sad to see normally intelligent people go batshit crazy and start spewing nonsense. Europeans should know better than to throw around the word fascist. I am so sick of whining Europeans that I would almost support stalling the U.S. economy just to drive the E.U. into a ditch.

jacquesm 15y ago
> It is really sad to see normally intelligent people go batshit crazy and start spewing nonsense. > I am so sick of whining Europeans that I would almost support stalling the U.S. economy just to drive the E.U. into a ditch. Indeed. Pot, meet kettle.
- J3L2404 15y ago
  Sorry Jacques if my comments are offensive, but this whole America is the evil empire meme is just a load of crap. Someone needs to start 'Occupy Reality'.
  - jacquesm 15y ago
    I think if you want to point out the flaw in someones argument you could do better than to go down the exact same road they took. You effectively claim that the US does not need the EU and that you could afford to drive the EU 'into a ditch' out of spite, when in fact the economies are now so interlinked that if the one suffers the other suffers right along with it. The current crisis is a nice example of that. Effectively it is a single giant economy with lots of subtle and not well understood dependencies, wrecking one on purpose will likely wreck the other one as well. Besides that, you are painting all Europeans with the same brush and that is just as stupid as those that like to paint all of the US with one brush. America is not 'the evil empire' (and neither is Europe), but on both sides of the Atlantic there is plenty of stuff going on that does not have the interests of the general public at heart. I don't mind those that expose those things, and I don't mind people trying to avoid making past mistakes again. They're braver than me in many respects. We're moving into uncharted territory with respect to the amount of impact surveillance technology and anti-terrorism measures have on the lives of ordinary citizens. It remains to be seen if the net result of that is beneficial or not (I'm skeptical and I think that it will be a net negative). The United States seems to me to be the party pushing most aggressively to achieve this with the EU following along and sometimes trying to outdo its counterparts. What bugs me is that there is no - or very little - accountability on this front and the extent to which commercial interests and political interests are entwined. It may take a lot of work to undo the damage that we're doing to ourselves and our societies. To polarize that into a US vs Europe debate is silly at best and 'batshit crazy' at worst. Please don't add fuel to that particular fire.