Keith Olbermann, victim of the new fascist state?

[Yavapai]

So when the NAZIS conservatives control all the national media, how long will it be before they completely control the internet?

How long before the Corporate Control of American Democracy is complete?

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.

President Abraham Lincoln]

From Wilipedia on fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism )

Main article: Definitions of fascism

Historians, political scientists and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism.<34> Each form of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions too wide or narrow.<35><36> Since the 1990s, scholars Stanley Payne, Roger Eatwell, Roger Griffin and Robert O. Paxton have been gathering a rough consensus on the ideology's core tenets.

Griffin wrote:
a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led "armed party" which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome a threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics and actions is the vision of the nation's imminent rebirth from decadence.<37>

Paxton wrote that fascism is:
a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy, but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.<38>

One common definition of fascism focuses on three groups of ideas:

a) Fascist Negations
1. Anti-liberalism
2. Anti-communism
3. Anti-conservatism

b) Ideology and goals

1. Creating a new nationalist, authoritarian state not based on tradition
2. A new kind of regulated, multi-class national economic structure which can transform social relations, whether syndicalist, corporatist or national socialist
3. The goal of empire
4. An idealist, voluntarist creed, typically to realize a new modern, self-determined secular culture

Paxtons definition sounds to me like a description of the propagandized Tea Party.

1. Anti-liberalism - done
2. Anti-communism - done
3. Anti-conservatism - In progress


Is Keith Olbermann the victim of the new fascist state? That remains to be seen.

Read the Wikipedia article on fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism ), it is a very worthwhile.



By the way, I didn't realize just how hard this HTML posting is.
My hat is off to all of you who post here and make it look so nice!!!

[whistler162]

1. DeCaf!

[The_Commonist]

2. I think Keith was a victim of his own poor judgement.

He signed a contract that included a provision that he would not make political contributions without informing his employer. He then made political contributions without informing his employer. They suspended him. Maybe he shouldn't have signed the contract, or maybe he shouldn't have made the contributions.

This kind of thing is not that uncommon, and it's not necessarily an indication of "facsism."

[Egalitariat]

3. I hadn't heard that about his contract. That kind of changes how I feel about the ordeal

How do you know that his contract said that?

[lbrtbell]

10. Joe Scarborough did the EXACT SAME THING

He faced NO disciplinary action. By coincidence, he donated to Republicans.

NOW do you understand what's really going on?

[treestar]

22. In civil matters there can be selective enforcement

Especially if Joe's contract is with someone else.

Still, he's vulnerable for the period of the statute of limitations.

[Egalitariat]

29. What did Joe Scarborough's contract say about political donations?

[zeemike]

8. You cannot sign away your constitutional rights.

And any contract that has that provision is unconscionable and not inforcable....at least in our old country.

What if you go to work for a company and they tell you you cannot get married without their permission?...and by asking there permission it is implied that you do not have the right to marry.
Or that contract says you do not have the right to speak out on any subject unless you have permision?
By allowing a corporation to have veto power over your rights as a condition of employment IS fascism.

[Dreamer Tatum]

19. Bullshit. Go audit a class on contracts. nt

[zeemike]

36. What...you mean they actually teach that you can sign away

your civil rights?
I would say that I find that hard to believe but in this crazy world where we are all totally dependant on the ruling class for our livelihood I guess anything is possable....perhaps they have a contract for indentured servants in the works....some here would sign it and think it is legal and OK for them to do it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

32. As I said, read a bit. You can clearly benefit from it. nt

[zeemike]

44. I would counter with think a bit.

A right is not a right if someone has veto power over it.

[treestar]

23. Argue that before signing the contract and get it changed

It's not a constitutional right to get a particular job.

This isn't a freedom of speech restriction - they just wanted to know ahead of time who he'd donate to and he agreed to that when he signed the contract.

[zeemike]

33. So in other words you could have a contract that says

That you may not use the same bathroom as white people or drink out of the same fountain and when they called you boy you had to say Yousa boss....and if you signed it because you were desperate for the job well that is just too bad...you should have thought about that before you signed....that reminds me of what your parents always said....you should have thought about that before you....]
No you can't have a contract that takes away your civil rights and no mater if you signer it or not it is not inforcable...And you can turn that right around and say to the contractor...you should have thought about it curtailing my civil rights before you put it in that contract.
There is or should not be any reason to obey an illegal contract.

[Maru Kitteh]

40. Do you think you have a civil right to tell your boss you want to fuck his mom six ways till Friday?

And still keep your job?


I mean, it's free speech - right?

[zeemike]

43. But he has the right to fuck yours if it is in the contract.

Ri8ght?...Is that because he is powerful and therefore has the right to do what he wants?

[movonne]

24. It has nothing to do with his poor judgment and all to do with

corporate control...just think what they did to the dixie chicks and to me this is far worse...if they were not looking for a reason he would not have been fired...they were looking for a reason and may be behind this getting out to the media..

I believe they are paying back bush for selling them the country and will be having him on tv bragging how good he was..

[Dreamer Tatum]

4. Wait a goddamned fucking minute

Why is it inherently fascist when Fox News personalities donate to Republicans, but Olbermann is a VICTIM if facism when he does the same thing?

Does your position imply that you are completely fine with Fox being in bed with the GOP?

I think it does.

[lbrtbell]

11. Your facts are wrong

The CORPORATION that owns Fox donated millions to GOP candidates. The corporation that owns MSNBC didn't. Big difference right there.

Individual people, right or left, have the right to donate to candidates.

[styersc]

13. If KO is a journalist presenting the news, then what he did was

wrong. He cannot on one hand provide support and cash to candidates, and on the other hand present the activities and positions of those candidates with objectivity. Even had he disclosed his bias, I'd be uncomfortable with it.

You are right, FOX is wrong to do what they do. Progressives are fundamentally better.

KO soiled his reputation. Because of this he is no polger the powerfulvoice that he was.

Progressivism is more important then your cult of personality.

[lbrtbell]

15. Read the comparisons between KO & Scarborough

Countdown is clearly an opinion show--conservatives don't appear on it, conservative viewpoints aren't aired on it. MSNBC didn't punish Joe Scab for doing what Keith did, because they claimed that Morning Joke is an "opinion show".

Two identical situations.

But one is suspended indefinitely because he donated to Democrats. This is not a coincidence.

[styersc]

20. If what you're saying about Scarb is true, then you are correct

that he also did wrong and should have been punished.

I would like progressives to be held to higher standards by others as we hold ourselves to higher standards!!!

[CLANG]

31. Progressives should NOT be held to higher standards

Unless you also hold the other side to the same standards! Otherwise we continue to get what we deserve!!

[grasswire]

26. he is called a "talk show host" by the network

so his position is unclear.

[Journeyman]

5. Abraham Lincoln never made that statement. . .

and a statement such as that would have been inimical to all he attempted to accomplish during his Administration.

I suggest at least a cursory reading of the works of Hannah Arendt to better familiarize yourself with the complexities of political action.

[Yavapai]

17. I will look at the works of Hannah Arendt.

I found the Lincoln quote at http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Controlling_Corporati... .

I used it here, but don't really know the validity of the quote.

It must be true, I read it on the internet!!!

[Journeyman]

27. The quote traces back to a political campaign from 1888 . . .

and cannot be found in the multivolume Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, which most Lincoln biographers & Civil War historians consider the basic source for Lincoln's writings. (A searchable electronic version encompassing both the Collected Works and the Supplemental volumes is available at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln ).

This quote is out of character for Mr. Lincoln, too "prophetic" in its pronouncement of definite doom, and too critical of the existing social order -- a nascent corporate society Mr. Lincoln was far too dependent upon for financial support of the war for him to risk alienating it. The Civil War cost the U.S. Treasury an astonishing amount of money every day. And much of that money came from the wealthy -- the initial tax laws of the war spared in large measure the laboring class (they were allowed to give their lives, instead). For this reason, if no other, it's impossible to believe Mr. Lincoln would pen the quote in question. He had to win the war -- the very essence of his political beliefs demanded no less -- and for him to risk it all on a few uncharacteristic words, words that furthered no discernable policy is incomprehensible. For words meant something to Mr. Lincoln, he understood their power for good as well as ill, and he chose every one with painstaking diligence.

Dr. Arendt's work will challenge most everything you believe about Nazism. She took the comfortable linear view of politics -- the belief that there is a "left" and a "right" -- and showed that under conditions of totalitarianism (which she believed has only existed twice in human history, under Hitlerian Germany and the Stalinist Soviets), the political realm is best viewed as a circular image, with both left and right meeting in the middle in the form of totalitarian domination, which exists under its own set of rules and bears little relation to the world as we see it. It is not an easy read. The three part Origins of Totalitarianism challenges the mind as few political works can do. But you'll never look at the world the same again.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8f2y0F2wzLoC&dq=the+or...


I especially recommend you to the final chapter, "Ideology and Terror: A Novel Form of Government," in which Dr. Arendt convincingly argues that isolation and loneliness are the precursors to totalitarianism. As you read this, you'll see how very far we are from its implementation in this land, and yet how close we could be in such a very quick time.

[zeemike]

6. Well when you compare it to history.

The first thing Hitler did when he had the power was to shut down the opposition press.
And though there is little opposition press left this is just that sort of thing....look for more of the same....the others on the left still their will have to bend to the will or they will go too.

[Egalitariat]

7. Did someone in the government facilitate his suspension? I don't understand your comparison.

[zeemike]

9. Did someone in the government make Rosa Parks ride

in the back of the buss?
And if this went to cort as a civil rights case...claiming that his constitutional rights were denied him would the cort side with the rights of the individual or the contract that the corporation wrote?...if they sided with the individual rights then the answer would be no...but if they sided with the corporation then it is yes....just like the legal system kept blacks riding in the back of busses all those years.

[Egalitariat]

28. I have a hard time taking you seriously when you spell cort without a "u"

But I think the answer to your question is "yes", it was someone from the government who made Rosa Parks ride in the back of the bus. So you made my point.

[zeemike]

30. So a typing error is all it takes.

And no, no one in the federal government did anything....and that is my point....you can do something actively or you can do something pasive...the federal government did noting about civil rights until forced to do so. And civil rights is a federal right not a states rights.

[Maru Kitteh]

41. You made two identical typing "errors" in the same post?

[zeemike]

42. Oh my....that changes everything...

You are right...noting I have said is credible because of that....disregard it all.

[lbrtbell]

14. MSNBC is being purchased by Comcast (=Bush supporters)

Articles about it are all over DU. One man who helped facilitate the Comcast purchase used to be with News Corp, which owns FOX NEWS.

The Right is trying to take over MSNBC. That's what you need to know.

[Dreamer Tatum]

18. The question was about the government, and you sidestepped it.

And my guess is that you will continue to do so.

[movonne]

25. I so agree with you...this is much worse than most people realize

we are slowly doing much of what germany did...and even had repug candidates wear nazi uniforms and others talking about if the libs don't come around they should be put in camps...and the wars...I think they want to try and conquer all the other countries..

[zeemike]

38. We have slowly been trained to be submissive to authority.

And that is why you see some defending MSNBC in this matter....they are the authority and what ever they say we must submit to it.
And the key point of Fascism is the total submission to an strong leader.

[treestar]

12. Insane hyperbole

this is just a contract dispute.

Don't sign a contract if you are not willing to live up to it. It is not fascist to enforce a contract and this one was between private parties.

[lbrtbell]

16. Again--Joe Scab is bound by the SAME RULES

He can violate the rules, yet Keith can't?

This isn't a contract dispute. Read up on this situation, don't just get your news from Showbiz Tonight and jump to the conclusion that it's a mere contract dispute.

Jeez, I thought progressives were supposed to be well-read.

[treestar]

21. IMO to be well read does not mean knowing each and everything

about Keith Olberman.

If Joe violated his contract, the network can enforce it. But in a civil matter, you don't have to. Still, he is vulnerable if he broke a contract provision.

[Ellipsis]

35. Fuck that. Keith's agent is lovin' this.

... and the dollars will be a rollin' in.

[Maru Kitteh]

37. Yes. KO losing his job signals the end of modern civilization. It's time to hoard toilet paper and

your favorite crunchy snacks.

[oswaldactedalone]

39. Regardless of your discussion about contracts

The take home lesson from this thread is this:

"The first thing Hitler did when he had the power was to shut down the opposition press.
And though there is little opposition press left this is just that sort of thing....look for more of the same....the others on the left still there will have to bend to the will or they will go too."

I'm very worried about the takeover of our media outlets by the fascist leaning right wing media in this country. It started with Limpballs on the radio in the late '80s, and within 10 years the radio became the right wing mouthpiece. By the late 90s, False News became the TV wing of the Thug party, and now CNN is no longer a neutral news network. The Dems have not been able to establish a message to Americans because the right wing lies about and distorts every single thing we say or do.

If you aren't worried about this as a Democrat, but more important, as an American you're not thinking.

[Dreamer Tatum]

34. Sweet sassy molassey.

What a dramatic life you must live.