Yes I saw this one. Though I do not think it fascist necessarily. It is a despicable act though. It does fit the play book to discredit and intimidate institutions that speak truth to power. Every government that is not blinded by ideology organizes countervailing powers that stimulate debate on the basis of best available knowledge. countries that silence such institutions tend to like to rule by emotion, appealing to the sound intuition of the masses rather then to knowledge.

I still feel that those guys from the 1930s had most to say about fascism and the way it comes to power: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1948164?seq=1

Interesting read, especially the comments on capitalism. For the moment supporting Trump seems to be conducive to making a profit. As the rule of law is removed, so is market predictability and stability. I suspect there may already be some pressure from other billionaires for that dancing clown to tone it down a bit after his salute.

Of course we have to settle on what 'of note' means. — Tobias

I'm talking about fascism, obviously. Or anything catastrophic that is beyond the scope of what is normal for US presidents and is directly attributable to Trump. Keep in mind that he'll have Biden to contend with in terms of wanton incompetence.


It's routine for US presidents to ruin some part of the world for profit during their term, so don't yap about personal consequences.

I'm talking about fascism, obviously. Or anything catastrophic that is beyond the scope of what is normal for US presidents and is directly attributable to Trump. Keep in mind that he'll have Biden to contend with in terms of wanton incompetence — Tzeentch

Yes, obviously, but you seem to have a rather ... peculiar... notion of what that term means. you think that cutting the subsidies of a member of the club that frustrates the clubs overall policy amounts to ' looming fascism' whereas threatening military action against against entirely peaceful nations does not. So what you consider fascism and what not is for me entirely unpredictable.

I can handle your second category but I would say that the events of the 6th of January fall out of the scope of what is normal. So I take it to mean that you hold such events will not take place anymore, that there will be a peaceful transfer of power to a legitimate successor, either democrat or republican, after fair and transparent elections and that he will indeed step down after four years, yes? Nor will there be an obvious puppet nominated after merely tokenist Republican party elections, such as someone from his family? In short, in four years elections proceed in a fashion previously considered in ways that are "normal for US presidential elections"? Moreover there will not be other significant constitutional events of note right, something like, say, an unconstitutional federal intervention in Californian policy suspending the rights traditionally held by States?

Are you really willing to put such a hefty amount of Tzeentch coins on the line?

For the moment supporting Trump seems to be conducive to making a profit. As the rule of law is removed, so is market predictability and stability. I suspect there may already be some pressure from other billionaires for that dancing clown to tone it down a bit after his salute. — Banno

They will uphold all the regulation in place necessary to support profitable markets, but cut all regulation aimed at preventing market failures. Every legal barrier to innovation will be taken away. Mind you that might not even be a bad idea, it is just a big gamble that will leave a great many people very miserable.

Yes, obviously, but you seem to have a rather ... peculiar... notion of what that term means. you think that cutting the subsidies of a member of the club that frustrates the clubs overall policy amounts to ' looming fascism' whereas threatening military action against against entirely peaceful nations does not. — Tobias

I pointed not just to the EU's actions vis-á-vis Hungary, but at a wider trend in the EU, involving the fact that it is an untransparent, undemocratic, authoritarian den of nepotism and corruption, which makes it a likelier candidate to develop into fascism than the US - which isn't to say that it is likely that it will.


Secondly, military action against peaceful nations is what the US does best. If you believe that shows the US is fascist, then it already is and has been for decades.

The US invades and destroys other nations like its their national pastime. But the term for this is 'jingoism', not fascism. Fascism refers to how a state is organized, not to a foreign policy.


Now, I appreciate the fact that a 1000 Tzeentch-coins represents a substantial value, but you're sort of missing the point. I don't care what definition of fascism you use. Use your own made up definition if you want to.


In four years no reasonable person will believe the US has become fascist by any definition of the word.

I pointed not just to the EU's actions vis-á-vis Hungary, but at a wider trend in the EU, involving the fact that it is an untransparent, undemocratic, authoritarian den of nepotism and corruption, which makes it a likelier candidate to develop into fascism than the US - which isn't to say that it is likely that it will. — Tzeentch

It is untransparent, I give you that. There is a democratic deficit, yes well known and freely discussed in academic and civil society circles, but where is the authoritarian part? In what way are its actions against Hungary, an authoritarian country which ranks 85th in the RSF Press Freedom Index, indicative of fascism per Paxton or any other credible researchers list?

Secondly, military action against peaceful nations is what the US does best. If you believe that shows the US is fascist, then it already is and has been for decades. — Tzeentch

In a world of rivalry between super powers i which the US might have indeed faced existential those interventions were unlawful and altogether criminal, but might have had a different justification than simply 'America first' . What matters is the motive, per Kant, whom you know well. This motive conforms to the last two on Paxton's list:
- the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success;
- the right of the select group 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.

The US invades and destroys other nations like its their national pastime. But the term for this is 'jingoism', not fascism. Fascism refers to how a state is organized, not to a foreign policy. — Tzeentch

Foreign policy cannot be separated from state organization, it is a part of it. A state is characterized by the way it exerts internal as well as external sovereignty. Or put differently, it projects its ideology inward as well as outward.

In four years no reasonable person will believe the US has become fascist by any definition of the word. — Tzeentch

Secondly, military action against peaceful nations is what the US does best. If you believe that shows the US is fascist, then it already is and has been for decades. — Tzeentch

Hmm compare the two quotes. There are certainly definitions of fascism thinkable under which the US can be labeled such ' for decades' as you suggest. I would not label the US as fascist in those days at all an still would not of course. Instead of bandying such words about I think we should agree on a list of common characteristics of fascism and see if these characteristics are displayed by a ruling government. You are dodging the point though. I laid out a couple of indicative events of note. They are all indications of a government moving to the far right (or far left but as there is not any indication of that I will not consider that). Will they or will they not occur?

Let me add to events of note by the way the prosecution of scores (a substantial number, not one, not two, but at least hundreds) of political opponents through either formal or informal means via employment bans and street intimidation.

For reference, these are your words from the previous post to which I reacted.

Who'd like to take me up on a bet that in 4 years nothing of particular note will have happened, and you all are a bunch of hysterics? — Tzeentch

Now you are shifting from 'nothng of particular note' to a whole country becoming fascist. It is nigh impossible to label an entire country 'fascist', what we may assess is whether a country's government embraces a fascist ideology. The OP provided a list of characteristics, which seem reasonable to me. Can I conclude you renege on your offer? Such a pity, I was already counting them Tzeentch coins...

Now you are shifting from 'nothng of particular note' to a whole country becoming fascist. — Tobias

'Shifting' :rofl: If you fail to grasp that in a thread about fascism I was talking in the context of fascism then that sounds like your problem to me.

'

in 4 years nothing of particular note will have happened, and you all are a bunch of hysterics? — Tzeentch

Ohhh... so ' something of particular note' is limited to the whole country becoming fascist? Everything else is ' not of a particular note' and If people warn of troubling trends short of blown fascism gripping the good old U S of A, they are a bunch of hysterics. I see. Well, too bad, I would have liked those coins, but alas, people do not put their money where their mouth is no more....

Now, I appreciate the fact that a 1000 Tzeentch-coins represents a substantial value, but you're sort of missing the point. I don't care what definition of fascism you use. Use your own made up definition if you want to.

In four years no reasonable person will believe the US has become fascist by any definition of the word. — Tzeentch

For the moment supporting Trump seems to be conducive to making a profit. — Banno

Yeah, just ask Nancy Pelosi.

The fact that you make some argument that is hypocritical in the light of the other side's actions just shows that either you live in a bubble, or you just don't care about being taken seriously.

Politicians are not nice, caring people. If you think that one side cares more for the common folk than the other, you're deluding yourself. Just watch Obama and Trump talking and smiling during Carter's funeral and you will see that they never thought he was a fascist. The left just wanted you think he was to manipulate you, and it appears they have succeeded.

Abandon the group-think and group-hate already. Evolve.

I certainly take you up on it. Of course we have to settle on what 'of note' means. I predict that a major constitutional event will take place that furthers or tries to further the hold on power of current government circles, including, but not limited to, Presidents being allowed a third term, prosecution of political and social high profile figures on drummed up charges, the administrative branch blatantly ignoring a supreme court verdict or something else of significant constitutional weight. — Tobias

Hasn't that already happened? The thing that each side seems to forget is that increasing the hold on power by one side is increasing it for the other as well. Both sides are stroking each other's ambitions of power while manipulating citizens like yourself into thinking short-term that it is only the other side that is power-hungry. By supporting the two-party status-quo you are enabling them and their aspirations of power.

Neither side is concerned about the country turning communist or fascist. They just want more power and authority.

After reading this thread, any reasonable person would walk away understanding that both sides are hypocrites and is pointless to keep supporting the status quo.

You want real change? Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans.

Now, I appreciate the fact that a 1000 Tzeentch-coins represents a substantial value, but you're sort of missing the point. I don't care what definition of fascism you use. Use your own made up definition if you want to.

In four years no reasonable person will believe the US has become fascist by any definition of the word. — Tzeentch

But Tzeentch I do not feel the need to make up any definitions. You do when you consider that the EU's treatment of Hungary is an indication of looming fascism. Nowhere though can withholding subsidies to member nations be found as an indication of fascism, except maybe Hungarian government propaganda, but I doubt even that does not go as far. I refer to the list provided by OP and made by Robert Paxton an expert on the subject.

I agree with you that diagnosing a certain government as fascist requires that ideology should be reflected in the institutional make up of a nation and requires practical events as indicators. At least, I assumed that you made this sensible point when you posed your challenge about 'nothing of note to happen'. However you refuse to back your point up by identifying what these evens of note might be.
That is a pity and I must assume that you mentioning 'nothing of note' is just idle rhetoric.

Hasn't that already happened? The thing that each side seems to forget is that increasing the hold on power by one side is increasing it for the other as well. Both sides are stroking each other's ambitions of power while manipulating citizens like yourself into thinking short-term that it is only the other side that is power-hungry. By supporting the two-party status-quo you are enabling them and their aspirations of power.

Neither side is concerned about the country turning communist or fascist. They just want more power and authority.

After reading this thread, any reasonable person would walk away understanding that both sides are hypocrites and is pointless to keep supporting the status quo.

You want real change? Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. — Harry Hindu

I agree with you Harry, at least partially. The dems seem to have shot themselves in the foot and also maintain the status quo, not transforming the system itself, but keep expanding the powers of the executive branch. However that they are also short sighted, also power hungry and also willing to resist change does not mean they are ideologically equal.

You want real change? Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. — Harry Hindu

I think the real political division in the West is moderates vs. extremists, with the moderates standing for old school liberalism and democracy. The extremists could be reactionary or progressive, but they have the same drive to upset the status quo.

However you refuse to back your point up by identifying what these evens of note might be. — Tobias

I've given you literally a blank check - 'fascism' can mean whatever you believe it means - and you still won't take the bet because you yourself evidently do not take the idea that the US may devolve into fascism of any description seriously either.

And if you're expecting me to wade into details about something I don't take seriously to begin with then you are sadly mistaken.

You want real change? Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans.
— Harry Hindu

I think the real political division in the West is moderates vs. extremists, with the moderates standing for old school liberalism and democracy. The extremists could be reactionary or progressive, but they have the same drive to upset the status quo. — frank

I would say it's more a battle between authoritarianism and liberalism. In (what is suppose to be) a free society authoritarianism is the extreme.

In four years no reasonable person will believe the US has become fascist by any definition of the word. — Tzeentch

Only because the reasonable - and I will not debate the definition of 'reasonable' - people who have dared to speak out in public will have been silenced. Starting with those who - according to a definition most reasonable people have accepted for decades - have been warning about this particular threat for at least four years.
It's not the exact definition of the ism under which American democracy is utterly destroyed that people should be concerned about, but the means by which it is done.

would say it's more a battle between authoritarianism and liberalism. In (what is suppose to be) a free society authoritarianism is the extreme. — Harry Hindu

I think the perception is that liberalism ended up screwing people over and leaving them without reliable income or healthcare. Or the perception is that liberalism opened the door to changes people didn't want, like LGBTQ.

Only because the reasonable - and I will not debate the definition of 'reasonable' - people who have dared to speak out in public will have been silenced. — Vera Mont

Is this a prediction? Four years from now, no one will be speaking out in public against Trump because they will all have been silenced?

Given the absolute deluge of criticism that Trump has received and is receiving I find that very hard to believe. But hey, if you're willing to make that prediction then we have at last found someone who is taking the premise of this thread seriously.

The looming fascism game is a trend that also happened during Trump’s first term, and it’s a rather clever racket. Pundits, activists, and experts predict a looming fascism and play live-action-roleplay for a few years. But, when it never arrives, instead of admitting their predictions were wrong they credit themselves, their friends, and their brilliant foresight for having stifled it from happening.

Is this a prediction? Four years from now, no one will be speaking out in public against Trump because they will all have been silenced? — Tzeentch

Yes - an obvious one. Trump has made it abundantly clear that he will replace all the top officials of agencies with people who will carry out his 'retribution'.

But hey, if you're willing to make that prediction then we have at last found someone who is taking the premise of this thread seriously. — Tzeentch

It's pretty damn serious already.

:up:

A couple of recent events that add to the concerns about Trump: his firing of 12 Inspectors General, and his pardoning of the Proud Boys & Oath Keepers convicted of seditious conspiracy for planning the 1/6 Capitol break-in.

“Success is going to be retribution...We gotta do everything in our power to make sure that the next four years sets us up for the next 100 years.” -Enrique Tarrio, Proud Boys leader, convicted of seditious conspiracy for conspring to break into the Capitol on 1/6.

I don't think you understood my post. It was about how Tobi's article pointed out that the capitalists might back Trump only so far as he is profitable. If he is unpredictable or if his policies are otherwise not conducive to profit, they will not back him.

'The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable"...' — Tom Storm

And yet it is worth a glance at Paxton's definition.

Like, all of this is great and such (not really). But at the end of the day, each person is a Fascist by nature. Man is a domineering being. He simply would have perished under the harsh dominion and nature of either: the beasts of this world or unforgiving climate or propensity for food scarcity be it by season or event or what have you if he was not. He simply evolved (slightly) to realize what his predecessor failed to. Eventually, you'll discover you're wrong, and it placed you in a situation you have seemingly no choice but to act violently to change or escape from. This was the sole reality of the first man. Now, modern man realizes, or perhaps is forced to recognize, there's always going to be someone either A.) stronger or B.) smarter than you no -- no matter what you do. To an extent, a government has to deprive man of his primal need to use force. Not his right. But simply replace the daily and consistent part of his primal being that once defined his essence. You couldn't just walk down a street or send your kid to your neighbor's house or to the local library for half a day without a care in the world. It would've been a death sentence. But he'll never realize the sheer, jarring, shocking degree of how far society has yielded, not to the will or dominion of another, but to his very own as a result of alleviation of his burden of force to that of a higher and accountable governing power. Because, despite how far we've come, men will be men. And must always be kept in check.

It's the fact that out of the hundreds of other nations that go unreported and are globally acknowledged to not have the level of accountability of Western nations, the only concern, the one tired re-occurring theme, is the only nation that does have fair accountability and open press gets the whipping treatment. Such comedic scrutiny and lack of coherence transcends words like "pathetic" or "blatant" but truly shows what is wrong with a world that tries (and I assure you will ultimately fail) to sweep it's own inhumanity under a rug or keep it's closeted skeleton's undiscovered.

Fascism is everywhere. Wherever man lives, there will be fascism. It just so happens in this case, the only place it's allowed to be called out by those weak or strong, rich or poor, is under scrutiny. It's a joke. That's what it is, a tired joke those set to ending mankind's suffering has grown tired of and instinctively ignores. That's all.

There is a good book called The Three New Deals by Wolfgang Schivelbusch that details how similar the Fascist, National Socialist, and New deal programs were. Of course, to compare is not to equate, he writes, but all three of those leaders opposed liberalism, and desired a strong militarist and collectivist state.

Hitler told Ambassador William Dodd that he was “in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan “The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual”’

That Nazi slogan “The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual” is the crux of fascism, found not only in Fascist iconography, but in Mussolini’s writings. I’ve heard variations of it uttered on this forum.

Exactly what he said he would do, and most Americans dismissed as hyperbole. Many - I don't know how many - are still in denial. "He doesn't mean it... he can't do that... it's against the law... we have a Constitution... blah, blah blah." Five days in, some of those commentators have already kissed the ring. The rest are scribbling political cartoons which are not yet illegal, but far, far too late to have any effect.

Yea, but Nazis hated Communists, so obviously collectivism wasn't all there was to fascism. It was also about recreating some mythical lost greatness.

That Nazi slogan “The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual” is the crux of fascism, found not only in Fascist iconography, but in Mussolini’s writings. I’ve heard variations of it uttered on this forum. — NOS4A2

I'd consider myself as someone who broadly supports individual rights, but in the presence of an existential threat the group must act decisively to ensure its own survival and the preservation of the individual rights of the group. The problem is this principle is so easy to abuse.

It's ancient. Supposedly the reason Pharaoh enslaved the ancient Israelites is because they were multiplying too much and threatening the Egyptian state demographically.

Supposedly the reason Pharaoh enslaved the ancient Israelites is because they were multiplying too much and threatening the Egyptian state demographically. — BitconnectCarlos

They sold themselves into slavery because they were experiencing famine. But that's just a myth. There's no evidence that it happened.

That Nazi slogan “The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual” is the crux of fascism, found not only in Fascist iconography, but in Mussolini’s writings. — NOS4A2

That seems overly simplistic, but tell me if you think the proposition ("The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual”) is intrinsically false - meaning that it's necessarily wrong in all respects and in all contexts.