-->
@FLRW
Thanks for the info. It's news to me, and I'll find out more about it.
TRUMP INDICTED!
Posts
Total:
231
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Your opinion of the motives of the author irrelevant.
Then why are you asking me for my opinion on it?
Millions of OG fascists believed this.
Yes, that makes perfect sense and is why I described it as indicative of fascist tactics.
Were you under the impression that you were refuting what I said about it?
-->
@Double_R
Your opinion of the motives of the author irrelevant.Then why are you asking me for my opinion on it?
I wasn't asking you for your opinion on the motives of the author.
Were you under the impression that you were refuting what I said about it?
I know that fascists conflated the people and the state far more than they conflated the autocrat with the state, although they did all three.
Thus using original source material I have demonstrated that Trump's claim is less fascist than your fruedian slip.
Trump's rhetoric is deeply anti-government, which is antithetical to fascism. When he says "people" he does not mean the state, you are inculcated into a fascist philosophy. You do not know this because it was convenient for those who indoctrinated you to think fascism was simply a rebranding of autocracy.
Fascist philosophy is indeed a way to control the people. It was used by autocrat and corporate syndicalists in the mid 20th century. It's being used by corporate syndicalists (the deep state) now.
You are the type that trusts authority. You are the type that only believes in approved conspiracy theories and rejects all others. You are the type who thinks he is for democracy while applauding the erosion of election integrity. You are the type who thinks he is against capitalistic exploitation while almost every major corporation supports the same policies as your favored politicians.
You see if you can go from reading Trumps mind and transforming "people" to "state" and "state" to "trump" to get to your naive reduction of "fascism" to autocracy, others can play at that game.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
from The Anatomy of Fascism (2004) by Robert O. Paxton
mobilizing passions (pp. 219-20):
⦁ a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions
⦁ the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it
⦁ the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external
⦁ dread of the group’s decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences
⦁ the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary
⦁ the need for authority by natural chiefs (always male), culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s historical destiny
⦁ the superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason
⦁ the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success
⦁ the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group’s prowess within a Darwinian struggle
I think most of these fit Trump and his followers far more than Biden's administration.
Yo. Someone tag Roosevelt and tell him to unblock me, so we can discuss the terms of the debate 1on1.
That way, he doesn't send people to talk for him.
-->
@b9_ntt
The words and actions of fascists are the final authority on the definition of fascism.
Even if we are more concerned with the sociological phenomenon than the professed theory, the phenomenon must be studied based on what the people believed and not what we know would happen hindsight.
Still, I'll go through your list.
⦁ a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions
Both tribes. Right tribe about the loss of manufacturing. Left tribe about healthcare and climate change.
⦁ the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it
Left-tribe, completely.
⦁ the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external
Left-tribe mostly. Increasing in right-tirbe but mostly because the left-tribe is waging a cold civil war. See this thread.
⦁ dread of the group’s decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences
Neither tribe much, left-tribe more. See BLM defining "whiteness" as a series of standard human virtues.
⦁ the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary
Neither tribe much, left tribe more. The standard of purity for the left-tribe is virtue signalling.
⦁ the need for authority by natural chiefs (always male), culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s historical destiny
Neither tribe AT ALL. For one Kari Lake would get just as much support as Trump. For another it is the consensus of the right-tribe that Trump just happened to be the first guy the deep state couldn't control, not the only one.
⦁ the superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason
Neither tribe. Certainly both sides are competing to be the most irrational possible, but neither base that on any one person's instincts.
⦁ the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success
Neither tribe much, left-tribe a bit more. See the glorification of the BLM riots. "The voice of the unheard". Left-tribe leadership has backed off as they want to maximize propaganda around Jan 6; but some of us remember.
⦁ the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group’s prowess within a Darwinian struggle
Neither tribe end of story.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
The President will organize the debate.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I know that fascists conflated the people and the state far more than they conflated the autocrat with the state, although they did all three.Thus using original source material I have demonstrated that Trump's claim is less fascist than your fruedian slip.
Let's break this down in parts.
First, you are claiming fascists conflated the people and the state. Based on your example and arguments, you appear to be saying they did so in their speeches. So in other words, your argument is that fascists can be taken literally and at their word.
That's absurd.
Fascists are about using language to invoke powerful emotions within their followers. Using language that sounds appealing but it's completely divorced from the reality of their intentions is the prime weapon of a fascist.
If you want to get your followers to support your efforts to destroy the rule of law, you do it by accusing the other side of destroying the rule of law and thus giving yourself free reign to break the law in defense of it. This is really basic stuff, but you would be the idiot going 'duh he says he's for the rule of law so he must be the good guy'.
This is BTW exactly what Trump is doing - he ran as the rule of law candidate and now that the law has caught up to him is urging his supporters to take up arms (directly violating the rule of law) in defense of it.
You do not take fascists at their word. That's common sense.
Second, your continued assertion that fascism more closely aligns with conflating the people and the state as opposed to the autocrat and the state is ridiculous. Fascism is inextricably linked to autocracy. As an autocrat, you literally are the state. So for a fascist to conflate the people with the state is completely antithetical to everything they are striving for. Continuing to make this assertion demonstrates yet again that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Trump's rhetoric is deeply anti-government, which is antithetical to fascism.
No it's not. If you are a fascist your prime goal is to get the people to accept you over the current government so that people will give you the power to disregard it's boundaries, thus allowing you to expand your power.
You do not know this because it was convenient for those who indoctrinated you to think fascism was simply a rebranding of autocracy.
I never said it was a rebranding, I pointed out how the two are linked. Here's another example;
What is fascism?
Fascism is a movement that promotes the idea of a forcibly monolithic, regimented nation under the control of an autocratic ruler.
So apparently you think I've been indoctrinated by Miriam Webster and now time magazine. Perhaps in your world I should escape this indoctrination by heading over to Info Wars.
You are the type that trusts authority.
No, I'm the type that believes in expertise. Clearly you don't, which is mind boggling.
You are the type that only believes in approved conspiracy theories and rejects all others.
I'm the type that believes in epistemology, which means learning about and following basic rules of logic.
You are the type who thinks he is for democracy while applauding the erosion of election integrity.
Do you believe the 2020 election was stolen?
-->
@b9_ntt
from The Anatomy of Fascism (2004) by Robert O. Paxton
Madeleine Albright's book on fascism I found good.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Here's another view. This one from Umberto Eco.
1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.
2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake.
4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.
5. Disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.
6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.
7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. ... at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at one and the same time inside and outside. In the U.S., a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson’s New World Order, but ... there are many others.
8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex.
10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.
11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. The cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. ... the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death ....
12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits. ... Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism... individuals as individuals have no rights ... since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. ... Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments.
14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.
-->
@b9_ntt
The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.
That's too fuzzy for me to address. Every culture has traditions. Certainly the left-tribe in the USA seems to delight in revisionist history, but they also fanatically try to manufacture their own traditions. Black history month, Juneteenth (which is a much better cause for holiday than many), pride month, pride parades, etc.. etc...
i.e. they may be young traditions but there is certainly an awareness of the power of established cultural touchstones and how they might be used to refocus a population.
2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
This appears to be a more accurate depiction of the real animal (of fascism) than the colloquial and shallow "basically racist autocracy" that people like double R are taught.
Neither political tribe in the USA fits this well. They both claim to be the inheritors of the age of reason. They aren't both right, but they both claim it.
4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.
Anti-categorical, this appears to be a corollary of (2). "Don't think, act - for action is pure"
Neither political tribe in the USA fits this well. Certainly an element of the left-tribe loves to tell people they aren't entitled to an opinion and that rational thought is an artifact of whiteness but isn't mainstream. Of course they won't police their tribe so...
5. Disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.
Race isn't the only difference to be frightened about. At the time class was an infinitely bigger issue in Europe. So much bigger that they basically had to invent a race out of jews to hate them. The fascist didn't even think of doing this until the nazis showed them how useful it was in accumulating power.
6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.
To general to be of use in identification. The buddha said all wasted action arises from dissatisfaction (or frustration).
9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex.
Then one of the least fascists things you can do is negotiate peace and preach against war.
10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.
Elitism huh... well I hope he's not suggesting we mistrust the experts. Double_R wants us to trust the experts...
Frankly the rest were either so obviously not applicable or so generic as to be unhelpful (again, like "arising from frustration")
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What is funny and ironic is that the neocon tribe of which Trump has cozied up to varying degrees along with the established left tribe both operate in ways much closer to the Wiemar republic than any form of fascism.
It's inevitable as the economy collapses similar to 1930 that America will wish they had such a reasonable leader as Trump compared to the one the planned Weimarian dystopia will spawn.
-->
@Double_R
I know that fascists conflated the people and the state far more than they conflated the autocrat with the state, although they did all three.Thus using original source material I have demonstrated that Trump's claim is less fascist than your fruedian slip.Let's break this down in parts.First, you are claiming fascists conflated the people and the state. Based on your example and arguments, you appear to be saying they did so in their speeches. So in other words, your argument is that fascists can be taken literally and at their word.That's absurd.
OK, so again really slowly so we can all understand:
1.) I claim fascists said X
2.) You admit that I am saying you can discover this by looking at their speeches (or in this case a written document)
3.) So in other words my "argument" is that fascists can be taken literally and at their word?
No... I made no argument. This is a tautology. You're circling a consistent assertion.
Fascists claim X = "their word"
If CNN reports "Donald Trump just claimed he is the most stupendous mountain climber in history" and then they show a clip of Donald Trump claiming that: Is that taking Trump at his word?
No, that is merely relating Donald Trump's word. If they had said "Donald Trump is the most stupendous mountain climber in history, because he said so." That would be taking him at his word.
I did not say X. I did not say that "the state and the people are indistinguishable" (in some imaginary fascist ideal of the possible state). I said fascists claimed that.
Now are we clear? Actually I don't care, if you keep playing dumb I'll just ignore it.
This is BTW exactly what Trump is doing - he ran as the rule of law candidate and now that the law has caught up to him is urging his supporters to take up arms (directly violating the rule of law) in defense of it.
Just like elections, since the left-tribe has authority based epistemology you cannot distinguish between the ritual and the fact.
Democracy is rule by the people, as measured by a free and fair election.
Left tribe thinks anti-democracy is criticizing anything that's been labeled a free and fair election.
Rule of law is equal application of well defined objectively evaluable laws with a presumption of innocence and strong advantages afforded to anyone trying to uncover the truth.
Left-tribe thinks any document that uses legal words is "law".
Since we're talking about fascists, they were just as capable of anyone of writing their insane and baseless morality into law and using it to generate the simulation of legal justice. That's not what is meant by "rule of law"
Also, you're relating fake news, he never said anything about taking up arms ever.
As an autocrat, you literally are the state. So for a fascist to conflate the people with the state is completely antithetical to everything they are striving for.
They embraced contradictions because (as some of the things b9 has posted indicated) they were proudly dismissive of rationality.
Their epistemology was based on authority and authority derived from the purity collective spirit (nation-race for the axis powers). To them their autocrats were the embodiment of the people and the state the embodiment of the autocrat and people. Hitler (for example) wasn't the leader because he was awesome compared to the average man but because he was the most aryan of the aryans. The aryan spirit was distilled and focused in him. The force was strong with him and destiny was using him for its purposes.
This stands in stark contrast to the absolute monarchies of France where the monarch was basically portrayed as a descending angel, there not as an avatar of the people but of something much more beautiful and noble than them. A savior appointed by god acting through his body, the state. That is an example of where the state and the autocrat are conflated. "I am the state" "I am France and France is me!" <- actual quotes from the autocrats of France.
Trump's rhetoric is deeply anti-government, which is antithetical to fascism.No it's not. If you are a fascist your prime goal is to get the people to accept you over the current government so that people will give you the power to disregard it's boundaries, thus allowing you to expand your power.
Also if you're literally any other political movement...
Perhaps in your world I should escape this indoctrination by heading over to Info Wars.
I would suggest reading original source material, or listening to the commentary of someone who is reading original source material. TIK on youtube would be a great place to start.
You are the type that trusts authority.No, I'm the type that believes in expertise. Clearly you don't, which is mind boggling.
Old argument. I won't rehash.
You are the type who thinks he is for democracy while applauding the erosion of election integrity.Do you believe the 2020 election was stolen?
Yes, old argument. I won't rehash.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Rule of law is equal application of well defined objectively evaluable laws with a presumption of innocence and strong advantages afforded to anyone trying to uncover the truth.Left-tribe thinks any document that uses legal words is "law".
It might go deeper than that. Left tribe sees the word "rule" and associates it with power instead of a standard or a list.
This is likely the first of many. From the tiny amount of research I’ve done it’s probably an overreach but I don’t think it matters much. Republicans need a sanity check before deciding to nominate an 80 year old who’s already lost once and is under multiple indictments. 2016 Trump isn’t coming back
-->
@thett3
The more it comes the more it guarantees Trump is it. Humans don't surrender in response to escalation until the point that they lose hope for victory.
It might go deeper than that. Left tribe sees the word "rule" and associates it with power instead of a standard or a list.
Look, if you were smart you would be more than a substitute teacher making $100 a day.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
1.) I claim fascists said X2.) You admit that I am saying you can discover this by looking at their speeches (or in this case a written document)3.) So in other words my "argument" is that fascists can be taken literally and at their word?No... I made no argument. This is a tautology. You're circling a consistent assertion.
We're talking about whether Trump is a fascist. In the course of this conversation we came across a disagreement about whether fascism conflates the state with the people, or whether it conflates the state with the individual at the helm.
You are claiming the former better fits to fascism. I am claiming the latter. So this is what we're trying to hash out.
Your argument in favor of the former is to show words uttered by what I can only assume is a well known fascist. Within this speech the speaker talks in a way that closer aligns the people and the state than the alternative. You are arguing that this proves your point, because we're bound to judge them based on their words and this is what they're saying.
I am pointing out why that is ridiculous.
You are ignoring how fascists operate. You are ignoring not only that fascists advance their agenda by appealing to people's emotions, which means using language in a way that is inherently disingenuous, but also that we judge whether someone is a fascist by judging how their words are used to advance their agenda. That's the part that actually matters, and that's the part you left off entirely while pretending you proved your point.
This is where the examples I brought up come in. If you want to cheat to win an election, just claim the other side is cheating so that you can pretend everything you're doing is in defense of election integrity.
You don't determine what someone's actual philosophy is based only on their words.
I did not say X. I did not say that "the state and the people are indistinguishable" (in some imaginary fascist ideal of the possible state). I said fascists claimed that.
Right, so you're not here to express an actual opinion that you have, you're just here to tell me what others have claimed. Ok bro...
Left tribe thinks anti-democracy is criticizing anything that's been labeled a free and fair election.
No, the left thinks anti-democracy is claiming a free and fair election was rigged without any evidence, because you know, Donald Trump said so.
-->
@Double_R
Didn't see anything worth responding to.
-->
@thett3
before deciding to nominate
Don't pretend the DNC doesn't have a huge say as to who ends up on the opposition ticket. Especially after last election cycle.