Chris Hedges on Christian Fascism - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

kerry · #1 02-03-2007, 11:29 PM

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/01/08/fascism/index.html

LaRondo · #2 02-04-2007, 01:43 AM

This is going to be another "mudslingin' thread". But what the heck...

I copied this from the text:
You're right, "fascism" or "fascist" is a terribly loaded word, and it evokes a historical period, primarily that of the Nazis, and to a lesser extent Mussolini. But fascism as an ideology has generic qualities…Does this mean that this is Nazi Germany? No. Does this mean that this is Mussolini's Italy? No. Does this mean that this is a deeply anti-democratic movement that would like to impose a totalitarian system? Yes.
What it means and what the majority of common popul doesn't get, 'Fascism" is a generic term.
We're being fooled by comparison of Hitler's Third Reich or Mussolini's Italy. We're being told, that's what is fascism.
But what we're not being told is that these are only 2 examples of it and fascism can occure in many different forms, shapes and colors.
References of Fascism are not a black or braun shirt.

LaRondo · #3 02-04-2007, 01:53 AM

The difference between the 1930s and now is that we had powerful progressive forces through the labor unions, through an independent and vigorous press. I forget the figure but something like 80 percent of the media is controlled by seven corporations, something horrible like that. Television is just bankrupt. I worry that we don't have the organized forces within American society to protect our democracy in the way that we did in the 1930s.

I copied this paragraph as well. It's Fascism's main tool.

Media-Propaganda or Propaganda-Media.The usual effect is, you won't know it, until it's too late.

It's frigthening to know, that 80 percent of the media, which includes printed press, radio, TV, movie industry, is controlled by 7 corporations.
And by taking a closer look at those corporations a certain understanding is unavoidable.

Botnst · #4 02-04-2007, 09:50 AM

Humpty-dumpty word.

B

t walgamuth · #5 02-04-2007, 01:55 PM

Which word is humpty and what do you mean by that?

I found the article did an excellent job of articulating vague feelings that I have been having about the religeous right.

It all goes right along with the Jim Jones movement. He was the fellow who took his flock from Indianapolis to Guyana and then had them all drink poisoned kool aide, men women and chlldren.

Some Messiah.

Pretty scarey.

Several of my children are attending churches which i feel may be in this sphere. I am troubled by it but don't know what to do about it.

Thanks for posting the article. It is serious food for thought.

BTW Mrs. W spotted Dobson for what he is 20 years ago when I saw him as just a nice fellow talking about family values.

Tom w

kerry · #6 02-04-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Which word is humpty and what do you mean by that?

I found the article did an excellent job of articulating vague feelings that I have been having about the religeous right.

It all goes right along with the Jim Jones movement. He was the fellow who took his flock from Indianapolis to Guyana and then had them all drink poisoned kool aide, men women and chlldren.

Some Messiah.

Pretty scarey.

Several of my children are attending churches which i feel may be in this sphere. I am troubled by it but don't know what to do about it.

Thanks for posting the article. It is serious food for thought.

BTW Mrs. W spotted Dobson for what he is 20 years ago when I saw him as just a nice fellow talking about family values.

Tom w

There is a new documentary on Jim Jones. Saw it in the theatre in December but it is an American Experience production so it should be appearing on PBS. (It may already have appeared there). First rate film although it doesn't make any explicit attempt to draw the parallel between Jones and Fascism.
I found Hedges earlier book, 'War is a Force that gives us Meaning' to be a compelling and disturbing read.

t walgamuth · #7 02-04-2007, 02:37 PM

Maybe W read it too.

Tom W.

cmac2012 · #8 02-04-2007, 02:37 PM

The word is loaded but the characters he refers to are a strange bunch. Roberston is just about certifiably whacko and yet millions hang on his every word. A pox on their houses.

kerry · #9 02-04-2007, 02:53 PM

I first heard the name R.K. Rushdooney in about 1973 when my Christian Apologetics teacher was studying his works. It was beyond imagination at the time that someone who seriously advocated the death penalty for striking a parent, could ever have any influence on US culture beyond a very small fringe of fundamentalist calvinist wackos.
The fact that someone has had to write a book about it to counter their influence is an astonishing development. (Explained by its advocates as evidence of the miraculous activity of God in their political rise).

Botnst · #10 02-04-2007, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Which word is humpty and what do you mean by that?
...

Humpty-Dumpty was a character in Lewis Carroll's, "Through the Looking Glass".

Here is a dialogue between Humpty-Dumpty and Alice.

Bot

-----------------------------------------------------

`Don't stand there chattering to yourself like that,' Humpty Dumpty said, looking at her for the first time,' but tell me your name and your business.'

`My name is Alice, but -- '

`It's a stupid name enough!' Humpty Dumpty interrupted impatiently. `What does it mean?'

`must a name mean something?' Alice asked doubtfully.

`Of course it must,' Humpty Dumpty said with a sort laugh: `my name means the shape I am -- and a good handsome shape it is, too. With a name like your, you might be any shape, almost.'

`Why do you sit out here all alone?' said Alice, not wishing to begin an argument.

`Why, because there's nobody with me!' cried Humpty Dumpty. `Did you think I didn't know the answer to that? Ask another.'

------------ Then somewhat later ----------

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

t walgamuth · #11 02-04-2007, 04:07 PM

oh, i see.

so it means you think facism can mean whatever the talker wants it to mean.

i think.

tom w

Botnst · #12 02-04-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

oh, i see.

so it means you think facism can mean whatever the talker wants it to mean.

i think.

tom w

Quoth John Doe, "Ed Zachary!"

Palangi · #13 02-04-2007, 07:11 PM

The last couple of election cycles, a fascist is simply defined as anyone who does not agree with the radical left.

It never ceases to amaze me the way the radical leftists have such an intense hatred for religion of any kind. It seem to me like they actually fear religion more than they fear their political enemies.

Maybe it dates back to old Kark Marx himself:

"Religion is the opiate of the masses."

kerry · #14 02-04-2007, 07:49 PM

But obviously, Hedges is not defining fascism this way.

Here's a quote from the Chalcedon Foundation on their position on this matter. (A leading voice in the movement Hedges is analyzing) Interpret it for yourself. I paraphrase my interpretation: We do think US civil law should be the law of the Old Testament and we do think the state should be Christian. But we are not seeking political power. We think homosexuals should be executed but in no way would we ever want the State to christianize them. Their position is virtually identical to what is called IslamoFascism.

"Misconception 2: Political Dominion
Because we believe that the Bible should apply to all of life, including the state; and because we believe that the Christian state should enforce Biblical civil law; and finally, because we believe that the responsibility of Christians is to exercise dominion in the earth for God's glory, it is sometimes assumed that we believe that capturing state apparatus and enforcing Biblical law on a pervasively unbelieving populace is one of our hidden objectives. Our critics sometimes imply or state outright that we are engaged in a subtle, covert attempt to capture conservative, right-wing politics in order to gain political power, which we will then use to "spring" Biblical law on our nation. This is flatly false. We do not believe that politics or the state are a chief sphere of dominion.

It is understandable why many people assume that we do hold this position, however. We believe firmly in social change. Liberals believe firmly in social change. Liberals believe that social change is the effect almost exclusively of politics and state coercion. For example, they believe that we can change society by means of state-financed and governed "public education"; health, education, and welfare programs; and speech codes. In other words, they believe, like communists, that man is essentially a plastic being that can be fundamentally reshaped by external means — education, wealth, health, penitentiaries, and so forth. Since no later than the French Revolution, most civil governments in the West have believed that social change occurs by revolution, not by regeneration. When, therefore, liberals (and even some alleged Christians) see us supporting and working toward social change, they presume that we are interested in political power. In simpler words, because they believe in social change exclusively by means of politics, they assume that anyone who supports social change or gets involved in politics is attempting to gain state power in order to further a social agenda.

This is a serious miscalculation. We believe in regeneration , not in revolution. Men are not changed fundamentally by politics, but by the power of God. Men's hearts are changed by regeneration (Jn. 3:3). They are translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God's dear Son (Col. 1:13). From that point, they progressively work to reorient their lives and every sphere they touch in terms of God's holy, infallible Word. Long-term, pervasive social change is the result of extensive regeneration and obedience by the people of God. This means, of course, that there can be no Christian society of any significance or longevity unless a large number of its members are Christians.

We do encourage Christian political involvement, but not for the reason that many people suppose. In fact, we believe it is important for Christians to get involved in politics because we do not believe politics is too important. The great problem with modern politics is that it is used as an instrument of social change. We at Chalcedon passionately oppose this. The role of the state is in essence to defend and protect, in the words of the early American Republic, life, liberty, and property. It is to reward the externally obedient by protecting them from the externally disobedient (Rom. 13:1-7). Its role is not to make men virtuous; we have a name for civil governments that attempt to create a virtuous society: totalitarian. Biblically, the role of the state is to suppress external evil: murder, theft, rape, and so forth. Its role is not to redistribute wealth, furnish medical care, or educate its citizens' children.

We do believe that the state one day will be Christian, but this no way implies that the role of the state is to Christianize its citizens. The Christian state is highly decentralized (localized). Our objective, therefore, in supporting Christian political involvement is to scale down the massive state in Western democracies, reducing it to its Biblical limits. We do not believe in political salvation of any kind."

"Because we believe that the state is an inherently religious institution, and because we believe that a Christian state should enforce the law of God appropriate to the civil sphere, some have accused us of endorsing state persecution for religious beliefs. This is wrong. Biblical law does require criminalization of a few sins like murder, kidnapping, theft, and child sacrifice; but these are not religious beliefs; they are violent practices that assault the fabric of society. The Bible does not permit the state to persecute or suppress any religious belief, only certain dangerous, socially destructive practices .

Further, Biblical civil law is designed for a covenanted society, just as Biblical ecclesiastical and familial law are: Paul's epistles, for example, are written to Christian churches, not to Satanic synagogues. Biblical law governing the family is designed for Christian families. Likewise, Biblical civil law is created for a covenanted, Christian society. This is why God dictated His legislation (including civic legislation) to ancient Israel after He had entered into covenant with her (Ex. 19). Biblical civil legislation is for a covenanted nation, not for modern, secular Western democracies at war with God. Our first objective is to work to Christianize them."

pj67coll · #15 02-04-2007, 08:11 PM

I saw Chris Hedges interviewed on C-Span last in the early hours of this morning actually where he was talking about his new book, "American Fascists" wherein he expands on the themes in this article. I agree with him to a large extent. One of the things he mentioned which was particularly relevant I think was the problem of tolerance. He was essentially saying that the liberals who should be the bedrock of our democracy have become so wishy washy with politically correct tolerance of late that they would tolerate everything including their mortal enemies simply for the sake of tolerance.

This is stupid but unfortunatley increasingly true. Of course the stupid tolerance level aids radical Islamofacists just as much as Christianfacists but as the former are in minute quantities in the USA and seek pricnicpally to do physical damage to the infrastructure of the country they pose less of a long term threat to the well being of the republic than the latter who are making a concerted effort to bridge the gap between church and state.

While I find the lefts socialistic, politically correct, and often anti-american blatherings nauseating I'm at a point where I'm starting to become more concerned with the destructive effects of a bunch of neanderthals with the mindset of 12th century peasants hijacking the constitution.

- Peter.