People are using the term "fascism" a great deal to describe the behavior of others. It's justified to some degree to link the Italian regime of Mussolini for instance with what various groups are doing today.
fasÂ·cism (fÂ²sh"Â¹z"...m) n. 1. Often Fascism. a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control. [Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, neuter of Latin fascis, bundle.] —fasÂ·cis"tic (f...-shÂ¹s"tÂ¹k) adj. — American Heritage Dictionary
The neocons have used the term Islamofascism to create the link in people's minds between Islam and the centralization of authority under Muslim clerics as dictators pressing stringent socio-religio-economic controls, suppressing opposition through terror and censorship, and employing a policy of belligerent nationalism (often as pan-Arabism through Islamic jihad). It would be ironic if it weren't so obvious that the neocons are Machiavellian.
The term Judeofascism has been floated to equate what the false-Zionists are doing to the Palestinians and Lebanese to what the Nazis did to Jews and others and what the South African Whites did to the indigenous Blacks. Critics also point to all the laws of Israel that run contrary to historical moves of pluralism within the United States (the Melting Pot). Despite U.S. claims of promoting tolerance of diversity within America and the world, the U.S. gives more financial and military support to the current state of Israel per capita by far than to any other nation. Why?
American fascism is used to describe the recent moves by the Bush administration to desensitize the population to living under a much more fascistic regime. The Italians coined fascism. German fascism was Nazism. The corporations (at a profit) did the bidding of the state. It was state-corporatism. The Russian brand came as Bolshevism. Bolshevism was state-capitalism. The state was one corporation that owned the people and not the other way around. It was top-down only. None of these was or is egalitarian or populist. The people were and still are lorded over by others who harmed them. They broke and break people rather than serve and heal them.
We have regimes still harming people, still breaking people and other nations. We also have people warning against that, because fascism is counter-productive. It doesn't do anyone any good at all for anyone. Those who think they are benefited by it are deceived.
Internally, the neocons embrace Machiavellianism. Their founders studied and wrote in justification of Machiavellianism. Externally, the false-Zionists vehemently deny being Machiavellian (amoral and deceptive). However, they have never publicly denounced the neocons for their Machiavellianism, their amoral and deceptive behavior. Also, the fruits of the false-Zionists are the fruits of Machiavellians. They are nationalists without doubt. They also suppress opposition through terror (if they can get away with it—if the U.S. leadership will look the other way, which it has so often) and through mass-media censoring (vast ownership and executive control), marketing (propaganda, public relations, think-tank reports, etc.), lobbying (threats and dealmaking), and campaign funding and positive media coverage to those who will keep to the party line. Also, the false-Zionists are belligerent (warlike for conquering land) for the sake of their nationalistic ambitions for an Israeli Empire (Greater Israel). They are very incremental. The Israeli settlements are done as rapidly as possible without causing the radar of the whole American population to tip down to view it all with a jaundice eye.
Is it harmful to Israel or America openly to point out these things? No. It is only harmful it they don't repent. It most certainly isn't racist to point out these things. It isn't ethnic bigotry.
Whom do you trust? The Real Liberal Christian Church is adamantly opposed to amorality and deception. The Church emphatically states that Machiavelli was completely mistaken that morality is irrelevant in politics. He had it exactly backwards. Morality is everything in everything. Politics is about how the people are governed and ordered. It is about the everyday lives of the people affecting everything they do and how it affects others. Deception as a first principle corrupts everything. Nothing can then be trusted throughout the entire system. It is inherently flawed and against itself. That's the current situation, because openly avowed (if you take their commercial published writings as such, which we do) evil-minded and evil-hearted people are running things. They are at the top, and the people at the bottom are not refusing to facilitate them (facilitate the evil).
The RLC Church isn't calling for coercive or punishing measures to be taken against anyone by anyone. We aren't calling on anyone violently or illegally or unethically or amorally to overthrow anyone. We are calling for each person to have a change of heart directly toward righteousness that is not harmful to any fellow human being but rather beneficial.
Consider Machiavelli. He was saying that it is right not to care about doing the right things. It isn't that he was saying that doing right is evil. He was saying that doing evil is the only way to grab, hold, and expand power. Is that a disciple of evil? Totally it is. Is it stupid? It is completely. Are those who follow Machiavelli being dim-witted? Utterly they are. Are the neocons and false-Zionists being dense? Entirely they are. Is it the Golden Rule to tell them? Absolutely it is.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)