• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

10 steps - Naomi Wolf

Hammer_of_Thor

Thinker
Hammer_of_Thor
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
164
I just received an email from a friend with Naomi Wolf's 10 steps from "The End of America". I know this has been around a while.

They are:
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Treat all political dissents as traitors.
10. Suspend the rule of law.


My friend linked the list to

http://www.squidoo.com/american-fascism

I looked at the list and basically thought it was a bunch of hooey, but I don't have enough knowledge of political science to tear each of the ten steps down very well.

My thoughts about the list are as follow:

1. Talking about terrorists. I don't think the U.S. created terrorists.
2. CIA prisons? The US tortures. Yes. But what does that mean?
3. Talking about Blackwater? Cant really compare a mercenary force in Iraq to armed mercenaries walking around the streets of America. And Blackwater was raked over the coals about the incident in Iraq. So that makes them answerable, right?
4. Surveillance is around us. Deal with it. As long as it is not in our houses.
5. The government has the right to watch possible militant groups that could cause harm to people or places. I think they would watch anti-abortion groups as much as 9-11 conspiracy nuts.
6. As far as I am aware the government just doesn't lock people up. People that disagree with the government can say so.
7. What key individuals?
8. If the government controled the press how would any mention of Pres. Bush low approval get out?
9. They dont.
10. The Patriot act has some things to be tweeked, but it was also written in a very terrible time for the US.

Please correct any mistakes that I may have made in my statements. Feel free to give me more ammo to argue against these 10 steps.

Thanks.
 
Hammer_of_Thor said:
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Treat all political dissents as traitors.
10. Suspend the rule of law.
Click to expand...


Every single thing on this list was true of the Red Scare of WWI, the 30s and the 50s.
 
Last edited:
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
 6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
Click to expand...
Well, the terror threat has been milked and continues to be milked for all it's worth, but to nitpick, Usama wasn't exactly invoked by the States. But yes, that the States makes use of 'black pirsons' and torture is a disgrace to such a good nation.

3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
Click to expand...
I've seen many attempts to shoehorn this one - and it's not possible. Simple as that. There is no 'thug caste' in the States that can't be punished for their wrongdoings.

4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
Click to expand...
'Set up'? Didn' the US have a surveillance system pre-9/11? But yes, the PATRIOT ACT has to go.
5. Harass citizens' groups.

9. Treat all political dissents as traitors.
Click to expand...
Far from all citizens' groups, if any, are 'harassed' by the government. As for the pathetic 'you're either for the war or for the terrorists' approach, it peaked in 2003, and was not really heard from again after that.

7. Target key individuals.
Click to expand...
Nice out of context phrase. Target key individuals for what?

8. Control the press.
Click to expand...
Nope. Next?
10. Suspend the rule of law.
Click to expand...
What?
 
I think all of the above point would be vastly more serious if we did not have any confidence in our political system.
At present, we do not have a dictatorship, the constitution is in effect, and elections are looming. Even if the pundits are only partially correct, it appears that the incumbent party is in for hard times.
The president has seriously low approval ratings, and congress, if anything, even worse.
Most are predicting a "throw the bums out" movement come November.

Should Bush declare a "state of emergency", suspend the Constitution, and disband Congress....Then we might begin to be a little concerned.
 
Bikewer said:
Should Bush declare a "state of emergency", suspend the Constitution, and disband Congress....Then we might begin to be a little concerned.
Click to expand...
No, that's not correct. Should Bush declare a "state of emergency", suspend the Constitution, and disband Congress....Then Bush might begin to be a little concerned. As Darth Rotor pointed out in another thread, everyone in the U.S. military takes an oath to defend the Constitution. Not the president, not the government, the Constitution. Were any president to attempt to suspend the Constitution, he would find himself on the wrong side of the U.S. armed forces.

As such, this whole thread is silly. You might as well argue what the ramifications would be if cows were to learn to speak Portuguese.
 
Naomi Wolf? AlGore's wardrobe consultant and author of "The Beauty Myth" is now outlining her next book "The Al Qaeda Myth."
 
jimtron said:
Nor did Wold claim that--invoke doesn't mean the same as create.
Click to expand...
The point stands, that talking about an enemy that really exists isn't evidence of some malevolent plan.
 
Last edited:
Ugh, this is just like the conservative 10 Steps to Communism and the libertarian 10 Steps to Fascism.

It is interesting that all these evil ideologies follow a ten step program...

Wait a minute, Hillary uses ten point programs! Hillary is a Communist Fascist who will end America!!!
 
BPSCG said:
No, that's not correct. Should Bush declare a "state of emergency", suspend the Constitution, and disband Congress....Then Bush might begin to be a little concerned. As Darth Rotor pointed out in another thread, everyone in the U.S. military takes an oath to defend the Constitution. Not the president, not the government, the Constitution. Were any president to attempt to suspend the Constitution, he would find himself on the wrong side of the U.S. armed forces.
Click to expand...

I don't think a fascist takeover would work that well, (at least not if Bush tried to do it now, although I don't think that America is fundamentally opposed to fascism either) but that's an odd argument to make. Oaths are just words, they only have force if people are either willing to obey or enforce them. If the military collectively decided that they wanted to side with the usurper in such a situation, then the oaths would amount to nothing. If people want to defend the constitution, they'll do so regardless of whether they say an oath about it, and if people don't want to defend the constitution, I can easily see them saying the oath anyway.
 
Hammer_of_Thor said:
I just received an email from a friend with Naomi Wolf's 10 steps from "The End of America". I know this has been around a while.

They are:
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Treat all political dissents as traitors.
10. Suspend the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is a much simpler version of this and it's one point only:

1: "They" will take away our guns.

:rolleyes:
 
Haven't we already covered this in the Conspiracy Theory forum? Wasn't the consensus that the points were either disingenuous or too vague to be useful?
 
Skeptigirl started a thread about it a few months back, and stated that it was all based on "evidence". I asked what this "evidence" was but in came Ion with his crazy madman shtick and we never got to have an answer.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Skeptigirl started a thread about it a few months back, and stated that it was all based on "evidence". I asked what this "evidence" was but in came Ion with his crazy madman shtick and we never got to have an answer.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes, Ion, oh memories.:rolleyes:
 
Aren't all of those points really in-your-face obvious? Didn't we spend years accusing the Soviet union of all of those things?
 
JoeEllison said:
Aren't all of those points really in-your-face obvious? Didn't we spend years accusing the Soviet union of all of those things?
Click to expand...

Best not to consider a country that actually did all those things when disasterbating safely from within a country that doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom