Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

moniss

(9,150 posts)
7. You're missing my meaning here. They don't need to control
Mon Aug 25, 2025, 04:53 PM
Aug 2025

every last person and employers fired or repressed workers during the Hoover years who didn't have government contracts. Many of them were right wingers and thought they were "patriots" etc. or were just scared of what the government might do to them if they didn't go along. You can also control large numbers by making an example of smaller numbers.

Someone doesn't need to be omnipotent to create catastrophe. Hitler was not omnipotent. Yes the states and people can act but much of what I'm talking about is the institution of repression using propaganda, deception and behind the scenes action. All 3 of those things are easy to deny and can be hard to prove. Meanwhile during our "proving process" and "taking action when we have the proof" and "getting the courts to take action" the clock ticks on and the damage continues as well as their unfolding evermore atrocious moves.

I'm not saying there is no hope. I'm saying, by posing a scenario and showing we are even further, that this is what is coming to us, really never left even once COINTELPRO was outed, and can and will happen on a much larger scale. Also to a large extent the information needed to target us has already been given by us to the government.

I have written before about the privacy assurances we have all been given along with assurances that our info is only accessible and to be used for legal purposes. But Roberts et al have said anything is legal if it is an act of the President in his duties. The fascist argument simply put is that they view their duty as repressing anybody and anything that in their judgement goes against the "values" and well being of the country. Therefore their argument is that the repression is legal. It is not unique or the first time the argument has been used.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If this ICE-American Gest...»Reply #7