Why Trump is really Hitler.

Rational, if he were to flip on that tax policy I'd flip on him in a heartbeat. Because that would def start ringing alarm bells. Mild ones, but enough to make me take a step back and go, "ok, hold on here, i smell BS"

As it stands there is zero indication of that, and indication of wanting to get more tax cuts. Combine that with ending Reagan-Era protectionist trade policies, and youve got a brew thats gonna be a winner fmpov. 

Hopefully his 2nd term he runs on balancing the budget so it' no longer a percentage of GDP. It would create tough times in the interim, but whoooooo would that skyrocket growth post those tough times

And honestly, if he can coax the Fed into barely raising interest rates, its feasible we hit a growth rate that makes it so those "tough times" the intentional recession that would create, really arent tough times in comparison. Say we can get growth rate between 5 and 6 percent. The hit to growth a balancing of the budget would create would feasibly still only result in a drop back to 3% or so growth rates. Not good, but not really all too bad either. 

Trumps a business man, he's focused on the bottom line. I don' think hes blind to this potentiality of meeting such a recession on our own terms, and using it as a launching pad to regroup and burst out from that at a full sprint 🤔

Hopefully the Dems pick up their campaign and there isn't a reelection.

If dems are gonna upend Trump, theyre gonna have to turn away from the push towards socialism and get moderate again. Like, Trump isnt extreme anything but having extreme verbal diarrhea, and being a dick. 

"Extreme" being relative, because as already pointed out, you inherently view sovereign self-interest as Facist. To you everyone is extreme it seems 🤔

He's extremely Capitalist/Right-Wing (economic right, not social).

He's moderate socially.

I wouldn't say he is extremely economic right wing. Trump supports subsidies for farmers.

A person on the extremes would have abolished all government tax-funded subsidies to businesses instead of embraced them. Subsidies are a socialist agenda, not a capitalist agenda. Government controlling the economy by selecting winners and losers in the market defines economic socialism. Government doesn't actually have to own the businesses to control them with subsidies to select favorite industries. Capitalism requires a free market free from government subsidies so that inefficient businesses can fail and free up that capital for productive ventures. Businesses influenced by the government are always relatively inefficient and unresponsive to market demand pressures. Every country with nationalized industry has found this to be the case.

Still extreme just not all the way.

dUuRR, LiBERALS r the REeL fAsheSies, amirite?

No, liberal =\= facist. But left doesn't always equal liberal either. 

Facism is a left wing ideology, never said it was liberal. Socialism isnt liberal, national-identitarianism isnt liberal, totalitarianism isnt liberal. 

So no, i wasnt saying liberals were facists. But dems aren't really all too liberal anymore. Wheres the focus on free speech? Individual sovereignty? Rule of law based on natural rights? 

Its not anywhere to be found and has been replaced with Socialism, idpol, and a slow abandonment of free speech. Doesn't sound all too liberal anymore, now does it? 

But sure, LeFtiSt AlWaYs EqUaLs LiBeRaL huRr DuRr, and DeMs AlWaYs HaVe BeEn aNd AlWaYs WiLl ReMaIn LiBeRaL, "PrOgReSsiVisM" iS a SpOoK

>All leftists are liberals

The hottest take yet, so spicy  🔥🔥

fAsHescIES R dUH REeL LeFTiSts huRrRRr dUR

What you're referring to is Classical Liberalism. Liberal has changed in definition.

But anyways, what about Fascism is left wing? 

According to Wikipedia:

Fascism sounds pretty right wing by this definition... And ask any fascist, the majority of us would rather associate with the Right Wing more than the Left Wing.

Which is nonsense, maybe read the creator of your ideology and understand you hold more in common with socialists and identitarians, which you should be on board with as a Facist. 

"Certain" doesn't mean all. You look at the nationalist aspect of right wing politics, and shoot yourself in the foot because right wingers despise Socialism. Which again, being a Facist, you should be. Otherwise, i fail to see how you can call yourself a Facist of anything other than the milk-toast, weak AF variety who just likes totalitarianism. 

What do we have in common with Socialists other than being "radical" and outside of "mainstream politics?" And what do you define as Identitarianism? I support American Nationalism and an American Identity, as should any American. 

We are shooting ourselves in the foot to back contemporary Republicans, but we'd be shootung ourselves twice to back Democrats. Also, the objective here is to "reform" the mainstream right wing - not become outcasts.

And nice insults. I too can play at that game: https://i.imgur.com/juZA36X.jpg

Idk, the whole Gentile and Mussolini(whom Gentile ghostwrote for) being outspoken advocates of not just national socialism, but total and complete subordination to the state might have something to do with it. 🤔

Sorry man, Socialism is socialism, and Socialism is inherently collectivist and communitarian, placing the "national" in front if it doesn't change a damn thing. Can see why Facists flocked away from the left though, considering Gentile was shot to death by Communists 😂. And thus we see, the lefts cannibalization is not something new 😏

Again, Facism as the original vision would hold, is Socialist. 

It is:

-Socialist(collectivist and communitarian)

-Identitarian(Nationality)

- Totalitarian(as socialist governance requires)

Being radical has nothing to do with it, has everything to do with that Gentile ripped parts of Marx and then went, "but his Socialism is wrong" and crafted what he saw was a better form of it. Mainly because Gentile thought Marx's vision of a Communist utopia was absurd and unrealistic. Rather, that utopia would only be possible if predicated upon national identity and not just economic class. 🤔

Again, you focus purely on the National Identity, go, "right wing has nationalism too" and go, "that makes Facists right wing!" Ignoring that Facism isnt just nationalism, it incorporates Socialism as well and heavily draws influence from the communitarian vision of Marx. But surrreeee, its not left-wing 😏

You keep telling yourself that Mr. "Facist" but you'd get the bullet from actual Facists all the same. Methinks you take the, "all that matters for a Facist is he remember he is a Facist" all too seriously considering milk-toast facists got the bullet under Mussolini too 😏

fascism is authoritarian nationalism. It can be left or right wing. The fact that historically it's been left wing doesn't mean it's necessarily left wing. Calling a right wing government 'fascist' is not incredible on this basis.

Fascism- a form of radical authoritarianism(its totalitarian, but the terms are generally syllogous anyways), ultranationalism(heres the identitarianism), characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.

Take away the "ultranationalist" in that and you have the description of socialism... Again, Gentile looked at Marxist theory and went, "that's batshit, people won't  willingly do that, they need to be forced to, be subjugated entirely and completely by, the state,  for that to happen. Gentile was literally a tanky before Stalin was even born 🤔. 

Tell me, would you propose we define Stalin as right wing? 🤔  It would only be consistent 

I wouldn't call Stalin right wing, but fascism is philosophical. Ultra-nationalism can be right wing supremacy. There's no checklist inherent in the definition. You can say Fascism is characterised by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce, but you can't say that it has exactly these facets and no more or less. That's the problem with defining by exemplars, you can never really establish a platonic ideal. 

When something is characterised by something else, it means it's typified by those characteristics. Defining it as it's exemplars is the logical equivalent of saying a person from Africa must be black and no other colour. It's fallacious.

Fascism is authoritarian (there is authoritarian left and right) and it's nationalistic (which can also be left or right).

"Fascism is characterised by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce, but you can't say that it has exactly these facets and no more or less"

characteristics can't be used to differentiate. Spicy take man 🤔

Characterize- describe the distinctive nature or features of.

Distinctive- characteristic of one person or thing, and so serving to distinguish it from others.

"Defining it as its exemplars is the logical equivalent of saying a person from Africa must be black and no other colour. It's fallacious"

What you just gave was indeed a fallacy because of what it's talking about. Ideologies are not some sort of "I get to make it whatever i want and still call it the same". Ideologies are specific sets of ideas and ideals that are only true if they adhere to those ideas/ideals. If not then you lose the entire basis for even holding ideologies mean anything to begin with. 

You prolly are thinking that Facism is some umbrella term like "Christianity" is to all the seperate ideologies contained therein(Catholicism, Lutheranism, etc.). Its not, Authoritarian/Totalitarian is the umbrella term for all the ideologies that fall under that range(Such as Facism) Facism is itself a specific ideology with a specific set of ideas/ideals. Not adhering to one of the core aspects makes you not a Facist, even if still authoritarian and/or ultranationalist. Quasi-facist, semi-facist, milk-toast facist, whatever you want to call someone who picks and chooses but still wants to carry the name. Are not actually Facist. 

No, words cannot mean whatever you want them to. And yes, some types of words require adherence to a specific set of characteristics to be actually held as that term. 

Btw, "Right-Wing Supremacy"

Go ahead and elaborate, why are they right wing? Is it the supremacy part? Is that the truly differentiating characteristic to you? A vocal view of being one identity group being inherently superior than another? 

Cause I'll tell you what, Marx spent alot of time establishing the proletariat as inherently superior to the bourgeois 🤔, and establishing the bourgeois as subhuman. 

Shall we hold Marx as Right-Wing now? After all, he was quite the supremacist when it came to class(income) identity. So much so that he wasn't at all meek about proclaiming that the bourgeois all had to die in a violent revolution 🤔

Noooooo, obviously he thought the bourgeois were totes people and not at all subhuman. Totally wasn't advocating for genocide with that whole violent revolution bit...

Genocide- the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Oh, it says especially, this must mean like an ideology it has to be a specific ethnic group or nation. 

Especially- used to single out one person, thing, or situation over all others

Oh wait, its just singling out a few examples, there are still others that dont align with those specific examples. Unlike characterize, where the supplied aspects were meant to specifically distinguish the ideology of facism from other ideologies. 

Again, words have meanings, as much as that sucks because that inherently limits the ability to obfuscate discussion 😤

damn you to heck lexicology

*shakes fist at sky* 

You act as if you read one book by gentile and now u derstand absolutely everything about all forms of Fascism.

Yes, it is true that Gentile was anti-Capitalist. His economic system was more closely resembling of Socialism. That being said, it does have its variances. Gentile and various Fascists did not necessarily oppose a social hierarchy in general, and desired to correct various flaws of socialism.

Even so, Gentile's economic ideals were more implemented in Syndicalism-based Fascism such as that of Fascist Spain. Fascist Italy went with a more Capitalistic variant - Corporatism. 

Moreover, it is not mere national identity I am referring to but various other parts of Fascism. Fascists have called for socially conservative values, a key basis of their ideology which would make it difficult for Fascism to be left wing. 

And yes, Stalin was a social conservative. He is not as left wing as people realize, as he could accurately be described as a Nazbol based on his social conservatism. 

Ur using Facist as an umbrella term, its not. Its a specific ideology that fits within the umbrella of Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism. 

Again, so sorry that words have meaning and some have specific characteristics that distinguish them apart from others 😏

>Capitalist

>Total control of industry and commerce

Lol, keep calling a duck a horse, at the end of the day, its still going to be a horse. Capitalism is a system based upon voluntary exchanges. Total state control =\= voluntary 🤔

Your attempts to destroy crucial aspects of linguistics, particularly in the area of lexicology and morphology are absurd. By yours and smithereens arguments, you are using characteristics that apply to left and right wing as a means to differentiate. 

But that's the crux, differentiation requires characteristics to be *different* and distinguishable. Else your differentiations are shallow and empty of meaning. 

>Differentiating via shared characteristics, the hottest take here yet 🔥

I literally explained how Fascism is an umbrella term, at least on the economuc scale.

Your post was a big (my definition is right; your definition is wrong) as a substitution for an argument. My claims still stand, unaddressed. 

Those conservative values are in family. But in Facism the state, is the family unit. In conservatism the family unit, is the family...

>The State as the family unit

>The family as the family unit

These two values do not mesh at all well. Beyond that, no you didn't establish Facism as an umbrella terms. You just pointed out that so labeled "Facist" states varied in economic policy. But again, as established before, variations from an ideology constitute as not being that ideology anymore. 

I didn't address your point because you are still holding that differentiation in ideological characteristics = the same ideology. As established, the characteristics are as such so as to be able to distinguish the ideology apart from others.(I really hate repeating myself). 

You call me out for not addressing what you said, meanwhile you in the same breadth completely ignore the linguistic point being made, as if the structure of language, and the morphology and lexicology contained therein doesn't matter. When it does, as much as you may want to attribute whatever meaning you want to words, *that's not how language works* 

And as much as you may not want it to be the case, when you differentiate Facism between Syndicalism and Corporatism, only one would be Facist as properly defined. The other would be a variation that would necessitate a differentiating term so as to *distinguish* the two apart. Again, call a horse a duck all you want, at the end of the day its still a duck. And no amount of twisting of language is going to change the characteristics of either a duck or a horse so they can be defined as being one and the same.