Jump to content

On Fascism


AUbritt

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, AUbritt said:

Depends what you mean by 'policies'. Do you mean official policies, like the one about separating children from their parents at the border in order to deter asylum seekers? Or would you also count his continual campaign against the press? If we can speak of behaviors or positions, I can go down Eco's list and point to some.

Again, to be clear, exhibiting any of these characteristics doesn't mean one is fascist. Eco's point was that fascism can coalesce around any of these.

1. Cult of tradition -- I don't think Trump appeals to this much. Bannon certainly does and is pushing it hard in Europe. 

2. Rejection of modernism -- Trump's attacks on the UN, Nato, the EU, the notion of free trade to name a few. 

3. Action for its own sake -- launching Tomahawk cruise missiles against Syria (and now Woodward reports that Trump wanted to assassinate Bashar Al-Assad), agreeing to meet with North Korea with no real plan (giving up military exercises in concession for nothing, thinking it might be a good idea to pull out of North Korea), meeting with Putin, and the list goes on. It's really as if he doesn't think he needs to think these things through and just goes with his gut.

4. Unanimity enforced from the top -- this is the whole point of telling people that what they hear from the MSM isn't what's happening, and people just need to check with Trump for the truth.

5. Fear of difference -- this is where Trump earns the charge of racism, whether it's all the rapists and murderers coming in from Mexico and Latin America, the trans folks who need to get out of the military, folks from ****hole countries, the fact that he loves folks from Norway.

6. Appealing to a frustrated middle class -- Trump and Bernie both do this really well. Pretty much every Trump rally is based around this (along with various hatreds directed at Hillary, immigrants, Dems, NFL players, and Republicans who don't toe the line). To me, the appeal to the middle class is the least worrisome characteristic on Eco's list. I mean, honestly, the middle class in this country has many reasons to be frustrated. Any politician who didn't appeal to that was missing the boat, big time.

7. The obsession with a plot -- uhhhhhhhh, does anyone do this more than Mr. "Witch Hunt" "Deep State" Trump? Hillary did it, too, with her "vast right-wing conspiracy." All that pizza-gate, Alex Jones stuff plays on this tendency.

8. Portraying enemies as a great threat, but a surmountable threat -- the Wall, Space Force, etc.

9. Life is permanent war -- see the daily fights picked on Twitter.

10. Contempt for the weak -- see Twitter again, especially tweets directed at Jeff Sessions. That's really interesting, because the reason Sessions is so weak is that Trump continually undermines him, then goes after him for his weakness. His attacks on John McCain follow a similar pattern, attacking him as not a hero because he was captured, for instance.

11. Educating everyone to become a hero -- I don't think Trump does this.

12. Machismo -- Grab them by the p*ssy, Stormy Daniels, Playboy Bunny, military parades, whatever that thing he was doing with Macron was. These are Trump's versions of machismo.

13. Selective populism -- this evidences itself in the idea that most of the American people support Trump.

14. Newspeak -- Trump is a bit juvenile, so this manifests itself quite often in name-calling, but also code words like "wall" and "lock her up" and "fake news." It's a not-very-articulate Newspeak.

So, do I think Trump is fascist? By natural tendency, yep. I think Bannon is fascist by choice. But I don't think Trump has thought things through the way Bannon has. I think Trump is content to play with -- what, 12? -- of these fascistic tendencies if it will earn him (or his family and a few friends) some money.

What's really dangerous, I think, are the folks who see what he's doing but act as if it's not dangerous at all. Trump isn't just a "Washington Outsider" who's shaking up the system. He's more of a Kremlin Insider who's doing all he can to destroy the system. And he's giving the Republicans just enough of what they want -- especially in terms of things like the courts and tax cuts for the rich, with the promise of taking out Obamacare -- that they will let him get away with it.

Whew! You unpacked a lot on this one. 

I'll try to respond with my thoughts point by point.  I don't believe pointing to border issues is a good argument in the case against this administration.  There are a lot of other areas that are less hypocritical to target.

1. I agree with you.  I think the president distancing himself from Bannon was the right move.  I do question why this guy was near the White House at all in the first place.

2. I am not ecstatic about globalization, personally.  However, I am not a politician and it is a politician's job to maintain healthy relations with our allies. I agree with you he should be a better ambassador in the regard.

3. I don't believe this was so much a Trump idea.  I believe it was a strategic move suggested by the respectable General Mattis and General Kelly to make a statement.  Since Trump took office, we have done a pretty amazing job in Syria as far as terrorist controlled areas go.  

4.  In his defense, there is a lot of negatively slanted news directed his way.  Disproportionate in fact.  Those statistics reflect bias, especially when half the country supports him and his policies.  If the media has the freedom to push out a lot of opinion pieces about things he has done and even some things they can't prove, I have no problem with him expressing his opinions of the media.  As long as there is no federal enforcement to regulate the press, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are all in fair play.

5. The only thing you brought up that I would dispute is the Trans individuals in the military, the rest I attribute to his ignorance and poor word choices.  Tax dollars in the budget of individual branches are funding the transition treatments in many of these cases.  Even after transition, there is continued hormone therapy.   This therapy also hinders military readiness... All this goes without saying, I want everyone to do what makes them happy in life.  And there are other ways to serve, such as government contracting.

6. Nothing to add.  Great point!

7. I guess this answers the question of "Do crazy people know that they are crazy?"  In today's world, I guess you have to have a little bit of crazy in ya to run for office.  

8. No problem with either of these.  I think the wall could help shrink the amount of drugs that pours into this country and I am a space nerd.  Glad we are dedicating more resources to space programs again.

9.  Thank the Lord above that I don't have twitter!

10. No defense for him on these.  I think Sessions is trying to do his job with integrity.  McCain was a hero and his life should be celebrated.  He was willing to find common ground with both sides.

11. Agree with you.

12. Everyone has done things in the past that they are not proud of.  Currently, all that applies is shows of military force.  

13. Nothing to add

14. Nothing to add

 

I thank you for putting in the time and effort to respond!  I'm not familiar with the work you are referencing, but I am interested in learning!

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

@akcwde, thanks for the replies.

I answered in terms of specific policies, since that's the way you asked the questions. If we take Trump's specific policies, we can find one or two to have a conversation about, where reasonable people can disagree about what we ought to do.

What concerns me much more -- even though I do disagree with many of his specific policies -- is the fact that he is continually pushing the envelope. I don't even think the border policy about taking the kids away from their parents was about the borders, per se. It was about testing how far he could go and get away with it.

I'm not saying that Trump is guilty of killing millions of Jews. I'm not calling Trump a Nazi. What I am saying is that too much of what he does is too close to the characteristics Eco attributed to Ur-fascism. There are right-wing -- and I don't mean like Ronald Reagan conservative -- authoritarian regimes that either have or are taking control of various countries around the world right now. Here's a list, far from complete: Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Russia, the Philippines, Singapore. There are other authoritarian regimes Trump has a more complicated relationship with, including China and North Korea. Then there's old allies that are teetering on the edge of what they are calling "nationalism," which has a lot of these right-wing tendencies: the UK and Israel, especially. Turkey could have been in that last group, but with the failure of the military coup, Erdogan decided to join the first group openly.

Meanwhile, NATO and the EU and the UN and South Korea are problems for Trump (meaning he doesn't understand why we continue supporting these institutions/regimes). 

As long as Republicans continue to think that Trump is just rolling back Clintonian Washington (including every administration since Reagan), the danger of Trump taking us far down that road to the right just grows.

Hitler didn't start executing Jews overnight. It was a gradual pushing of the German people toward the Final Solution. We are still in the early days with Trump. But if he keeps saying things like bringing charges against corrupt politicians is out of line or "flipping" should be illegal or the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt or that judges are corrupt or that elections are rigged -- essentially undermining the rule of law -- he is taking us down that road. If he keeps attacking the press and saying only he has access to the truth, he is taking us down that road. If he keeps legitimizing white supremacists, he is taking us down that road. With the Republicans we have in Congress now, there is no check on Trump. They are letting Trump lead us down that road.

I posted the first couple of things in this thread to see whether folks here who support Trump

a) don't see it, after really looking at fascist characteristics and comparing those to Trump;

b) see it, but agree we should continue down the fascist road;

c) won't even consider whether we are moving down that road.

Thankfully, I haven't seen any evidence of 'b' yet.

The other option, I think, is that if you do see it, and don't want to go down the fascist road, then you cannot support Trump. I suppose it's possible that there are folks who don't support Trump but also don't think he's moving us toward fascism. Or maybe they don't want to say it, since it elicits the, "You just think Trump is a Nazi! It's all Russians!" type of dismissal.

But this is why I don't like Trump -- because I think he's very dangerous for this country. We are a liberal democratic republic, by design. Fascism is anti-American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

@akcwde, thanks for the replies.

I answered in terms of specific policies, since that's the way you asked the questions. If we take Trump's specific policies, we can find one or two to have a conversation about, where reasonable people can disagree about what we ought to do.

What concerns me much more -- even though I do disagree with many of his specific policies -- is the fact that he is continually pushing the envelope. I don't even think the border policy about taking the kids away from their parents was about the borders, per se. It was about testing how far he could go and get away with it.

I'm not saying that Trump is guilty of killing millions of Jews. I'm not calling Trump a Nazi. What I am saying is that too much of what he does is too close to the characteristics Eco attributed to Ur-fascism. There are right-wing -- and I don't mean like Ronald Reagan conservative -- authoritarian regimes that either have or are taking control of various countries around the world right now. Here's a list, far from complete: Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Russia, the Philippines, Singapore. There are other authoritarian regimes Trump has a more complicated relationship with, including China and North Korea. Then there's old allies that are teetering on the edge of what they are calling "nationalism," which has a lot of these right-wing tendencies: the UK and Israel, especially. Turkey could have been in that last group, but with the failure of the military coup, Erdogan decided to join the first group openly.

Meanwhile, NATO and the EU and the UN and South Korea are problems for Trump (meaning he doesn't understand why we continue supporting these institutions/regimes). 

As long as Republicans continue to think that Trump is just rolling back Clintonian Washington (including every administration since Reagan), the danger of Trump taking us far down that road to the right just grows.

Hitler didn't start executing Jews overnight. It was a gradual pushing of the German people toward the Final Solution. We are still in the early days with Trump. But if he keeps saying things like bringing charges against corrupt politicians is out of line or "flipping" should be illegal or the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt or that judges are corrupt or that elections are rigged -- essentially undermining the rule of law -- he is taking us down that road. If he keeps attacking the press and saying only he has access to the truth, he is taking us down that road. If he keeps legitimizing white supremacists, he is taking us down that road. With the Republicans we have in Congress now, there is no check on Trump. They are letting Trump lead us down that road.

I posted the first couple of things in this thread to see whether folks here who support Trump

a) don't see it, after really looking at fascist characteristics and comparing those to Trump;

b) see it, but agree we should continue down the fascist road;

c) won't even consider whether we are moving down that road.

Thankfully, I haven't seen any evidence of 'b' yet.

The other option, I think, is that if you do see it, and don't want to go down the fascist road, then you cannot support Trump. I suppose it's possible that there are folks who don't support Trump but also don't think he's moving us toward fascism. Or maybe they don't want to say it, since it elicits the, "You just think Trump is a Nazi! It's all Russians!" type of dismissal.

But this is why I don't like Trump -- because I think he's very dangerous for this country. We are a liberal democratic republic, by design. Fascism is anti-American.

Something I would like to research is how many of these fascist regimes were/are in a socialist driven society, which is more easily associated to the far left crazies in today's America (there are far right crazies too).... Point being, evil people come from all kinds of different beliefs.

Because my lady is Turkish, I do know that their leader is a far right conservative fascist, which gives credence to your point.  I'd just be interested in the numbers over all.

I guess I am in option C if I had to choose.  We have so many checks and balances that protect us from this stuff.  Conservatives and liberals view each other as enemies when they should be thankful for their differences.  They keep either side from becoming too radical in the grand scheme. 

 

Since I never made clear my political point-of-view, I consider myself to be a libertarian. I believe nothing should compromise individual liberties of United States citizens.  Not important, but helps people to know where I'm coming from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, akcwde said:

Hitler didn't start executing Jews overnight. It was a gradual pushing of the German people toward the Final Solution. We are still in the early days with Trump. But if he keeps saying things like bringing charges against corrupt politicians is out of line or "flipping" should be illegal or the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt or that judges are corrupt or that elections are rigged -- essentially undermining the rule of law -- he is taking us down that road. If he keeps attacking the press and saying only he has access to the truth, he is taking us down that road. If he keeps legitimizing white supremacists, he is taking us down that road. With the Republicans we have in Congress now, there is no check on Trump. They are letting Trump lead us down that road.

JMO but a totally irrational conclusion to a series of comments all starting with "if" and yet nothing to support any of it.     

A question......So which current politicians and  other popular figures are on record with wanting to jail folks for denying global warming.?   https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2014/04/01/disagree-climate-change-deniers-throw-em-jail/7162971/  

  https://www.weeklystandard.com/senator-use-rico-laws-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/article/963007

Or who will raise up a mob to prevent someone of opposing views from speaking ?    https://www.rt.com/usa/435252-candace-owens-harassed-antifa/

Since you obviously don't now much about history, the above articles should give you some insight on how the black shirt facists got started in Europe....by shutting down free speech and jailing people who voiced opposing views.   And in case you have not noticed, these are not DT's folks out there threatening the right of opponents to just enjoy a meal  in peace or express a differing opinion.     The threat to liberty in this country seems to be coming from the left ….primarily by efforts to shut down opposing thought and speech in the media and in the classroom.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, akcwde said:

Something I would like to research is how many of these fascist regimes were/are in a socialist driven society, which is more easily associated to the far left crazies in today's America (there are far right crazies too).... Point being, evil people come from all kinds of different beliefs.

Because my lady is Turkish, I do know that their leader is a far right conservative fascist, which gives credence to your point.  I'd just be interested in the numbers over all.

I guess I am in option C if I had to choose.  We have so many checks and balances that protect us from this stuff.  Conservatives and liberals view each other as enemies when they should be thankful for their differences.  They keep either side from becoming too radical in the grand scheme. 

 

Since I never made clear my political point-of-view, I consider myself to be a libertarian. I believe nothing should compromise individual liberties of United States citizens.  Not important, but helps people to know where I'm coming from. 

I think we neglect our duty if we think the checks and balances are built in and will just engage on their own (like some kind of brakes on an elevator in case the cable snaps). 

The checks and balances only work if people in the different branches of government make them work. The checks and balances are behaviors that we need to engage in. The Constitution just sets us up to engage in those behaviors.

If you have a Republican majority in Congress that is basically working to enable Trump -- as we do now -- there is no check on him from Congress. The courts have tried to check him on some specific policies. This is what makes Kavanaugh dangerous, to me. I didn't have any real problem with Gorsuch. Kavanaugh, though, seems to have one particular set of views about the powers of the sitting president that would further enable Trump and remove the balance that the courts now provide (which is even more necessary without Congress doing anything). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AU64 said:

JMO but a totally irrational conclusion to a series of comments all starting with "if" and yet nothing to support any of it.     

A question......So which current politicians and  other popular figures are on record with wanting to jail folks for denying global warming.?   https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2014/04/01/disagree-climate-change-deniers-throw-em-jail/7162971/  

  https://www.weeklystandard.com/senator-use-rico-laws-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/article/963007

Or who will raise up a mob to prevent someone of opposing views from speaking ?    https://www.rt.com/usa/435252-candace-owens-harassed-antifa/

Since you obviously don't now much about history, the above articles should give you some insight on how the black shirt facists got started in Europe....by shutting down free speech and jailing people who voiced opposing views.   And in case you have not noticed, these are not DT's folks out there threatening the right of opponents to just enjoy a meal  in peace or express a differing opinion.     The threat to liberty in this country seems to be coming from the left ….primarily by efforts to shut down opposing thought and speech in the media and in the classroom.  

That's a misquote.  I never said that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AU64 said:

JMO but a totally irrational conclusion to a series of comments all starting with "if" and yet nothing to support any of it.     

A question......So which current politicians and  other popular figures are on record with wanting to jail folks for denying global warming.?   https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2014/04/01/disagree-climate-change-deniers-throw-em-jail/7162971/  

  https://www.weeklystandard.com/senator-use-rico-laws-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/article/963007

Or who will raise up a mob to prevent someone of opposing views from speaking ?    https://www.rt.com/usa/435252-candace-owens-harassed-antifa/

Since you obviously don't now much about history, the above articles should give you some insight on how the black shirt facists got started in Europe....by shutting down free speech and jailing people who voiced opposing views.   And in case you have not noticed, these are not DT's folks out there threatening the right of opponents to just enjoy a meal  in peace or express a differing opinion.     The threat to liberty in this country seems to be coming from the left ….primarily by efforts to shut down opposing thought and speech in the media and in the classroom.  

I assure you that I am rational. So is my argument. Just saying it's irrational doesn't make it so. Maybe you think it's false that undermining the rule of law the way Trump keeps doing is leading us down the road toward fascism. Haven't heard your argument for that claim, yet. Maybe you think it's false that Trump claiming that he is the sole arbiter of truth is taking us down the road toward fascism. Haven't heard your argument. Maybe you think giving aid and comfort to white supremacists isn't Trump leading us toward fascism. Haven't heard your argument for that claim, either.

I also don't much appreciate the ad hominem.

I'll say it for probably the third or fourth time. I am not suggesting that Trump is a Nazi or that hs methods are the exact same as the Italian (or German, for that matter) fascists. 

As far as the free speech stuff -- which is a distraction from the main point here, which is that Trump does exhibit many of the characteristics Eco outlined as Ur-fascist -- I am actually against efforts from either the left or the right to place too many limits on it. I would separate the federal government's ability to limit free speech from the sort of free speech guaranteed  by academic freedom, though.

As far as the federal government goes, I'm a fan of the First Amendment.

As far as academic freedom goes, in my opinion, it applies to the faculty (in terms of teaching and research) and to the students (not everyone thinks this). I also think librarians should enjoy academic freedom, although some suggest is should differ from that afforded to faculty and students.

Now, things get more interesting when some groups on campus decide they want to invite controversial speakers to campus. Those speakers, unless they are academics from other institutions (who are protected by academic freedom, IMO), don't enjoy academic freedom. In other words, I think there are limits to academic freedom, and these are clearest in terms of who gets it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

I assure you that I am rational. So is my argument. Just saying it's irrational doesn't make it so. Maybe you think it's false that undermining the rule of law the way Trump keeps doing is leading us down the road toward fascism. Haven't heard your argument for that claim, yet. Maybe you think it's false that Trump claiming that he is the sole arbiter of truth is taking us down the road toward fascism. Haven't heard your argument. Maybe you think giving aid and comfort to white supremacists isn't Trump leading us toward fascism. Haven't heard your argument for that claim, either.

I also don't much appreciate the ad hominem.

I'll say it for probably the third or fourth time. I am not suggesting that Trump is a Nazi or that hs methods are the exact same as the Italian (or German, for that matter) fascists. 

As far as the free speech stuff -- which is a distraction from the main point here, which is that Trump does exhibit many of the characteristics Eco outlined as Ur-fascist -- I am actually against efforts from either the left or the right to place too many limits on it. I would separate the federal government's ability to limit free speech from the sort of free speech guaranteed  by academic freedom, though.

As far as the federal government goes, I'm a fan of the First Amendment.

As far as academic freedom goes, in my opinion, it applies to the faculty (in terms of teaching and research) and to the students (not everyone thinks this). I also think librarians should enjoy academic freedom, although some suggest is should differ from that afforded to faculty and students.

Now, things get more interesting when some groups on campus decide they want to invite controversial speakers to campus. Those speakers, unless they are academics from other institutions (who are protected by academic freedom, IMO), don't enjoy academic freedom. In other words, I think there are limits to academic freedom, and these are clearest in terms of who gets it. 

Just saying that if you ae going to compare historical situations you need to compare the right ones.  ….and comparing DT to either of the major 20th century fascist is totally off base.   

DT has no real power to abuse anyone other than fire people he thinks are not serving him or the county well.   And there is absolutely no evidence at all, that he is leading the country anywhere.....can barely get a law passed and has spent a good part of his time trying to over-turn a bunch of illegal executive orders from his predecessor.    But that is just politics.  

Further, the guy is in his 70s and ain't gonna be around a long time....maybe only another couple years...who knows.   This extrapolation of his power grab or some future accumulation of absolute power is pure smoke.    You can dislike him....no issue there,  but for people  to try and use some flanged up justification about leading us down the road to fascism....anywhere else...….shows a lack of good analysis or plain desperation  

You need to go back to the early 1930s to see how AH got to where he eventually ended up.  Mostly is was is ability to sic his mob of black shirted thugs onto his opponents and drive them away from government.   The thing you seem to miss is that it took him ten years to gain control.   By the time he was able to gain enough strength by the vote, he had gathered up a bunch of like thinking fascist sociopaths such that when he took over the government he was able to put his people in every key position.  And once there he was able to immediately use them to eliminate (and by that I mean kill) his most feared enemies and jail the rest, usually in a trial presided over by his own judge.   Trust you are familiar with the incident described in the link...  https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/night-of-the-long-knives. 

The "final solution" was down the road quite a bit and by then the entire German nation was living in fear....or at least, fearful of expressing any opinion that opposed AH.

The Antifa mob is the closest thing to Hitler's black shirts that I've seen lately and at this point we have no idea (or at least I don't ) who is behind that effort to shut down the democratic process of free speech in this country.  Right now it is not uncommon that people who are identified as opponents have to face mobs in front of their homes and perhaps get run out of restaurants to avoid disturbances or violence.  And of course we have witnessed numerous incidents where they burn cars and buildings when a public speaker this disapprove of shows up on a college campus.   JMO but this what you should be worried about:   what are their motives?   and what are their objectives if they succeed?   And who is behind this?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AU64, I'm not comparing Trump directly to Hitler or to Mussolini. The point of discussing Ur-fascism is that all of the fascist regimes are different. Please don't suggest that I am trying to compare Trump to Hitler or Mussolini. I have now explicitly stated that I am not doing so for the fifth time. For that reason, your attempts to educate me about Hitler and Mussolini, although I'm sure well-intended, are irrelevant to my claims that Trump is leading us down the road to fascism.

That it took Hitler a long time to consolidate his power actually supports my position.

I find antifa troubling. I think it amounts to a failure of intellect and imagination. Just go out and bust some skulls when you disagree with someone is not the sort of policy I can support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

@AU64, I'm not comparing Trump directly to Hitler or to Mussolini. The point of discussing Ur-fascism is that all of the fascist regimes are different. Please don't suggest that I am trying to compare Trump to Hitler or Mussolini. I have now explicitly stated that I am not doing so for the fifth time. For that reason, your attempts to educate me about Hitler and Mussolini, although I'm sure well-intended, are irrelevant to my claims that Trump is leading us down the road to fascism.

That it took Hitler a long time to consolidate his power actually supports my position.

I find antifa troubling. I think it amounts to a failure of intellect and imagination. Just go out and bust some skulls when you disagree with someone is not the sort of policy I can support.

I did not intend to say you are comparing them....was just noting that there is nothing going on today that even remotely compares to the methods or techniques that past despots used to establish their kind of government power.      What kind of power is DT consolidating?    He can't even control an inept Attorney General and has leaders of the FBI after him and members of his own party are not supporting him.  

DT has no personal power over anyone, and certainly no power of life and death.    All he has is the power of the office which is pretty closely governed by the Constitution and the judiciary.  His term is up in a couple years and he will either be re-elected or not...or he might not live that long.  The point is.....DT has no devious long range plan because there is no way for him or any US president to have a plan beyond their term of office.   Even Bill could not get Hillary elected.   

Antifa,  and I am sure there are others out there are the biggest threat to our freedom....aside from the terrorist threats which have caused us to give up quite a few of our freedoms.     JMO but the people consolidating power in the US government work for Homeland Security and it's many tentacles.....or maybe Google and Facebook who apparently  can eaves drop on you even when your smart phone is off.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AUbritt said:

@akcwde, thanks for the replies.

 We are still in the early days with Trump. But if he keeps saying things like bringing charges against corrupt politicians is out of line or "flipping" should be illegal or the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt or that judges are corrupt or that elections are rigged -- essentially undermining the rule of law -- he is taking us down that road. If he keeps attacking the press and saying only he has access to the truth, he is taking us down that road. If he keeps legitimizing white supremacists, he is taking us down that road. With the Republicans we have in Congress now, there is no check on Trump. They are letting Trump lead us down that road.

I posted the first couple of things in this thread to see whether folks here who support Trump

a) don't see it, after really looking at fascist characteristics and comparing those to Trump;

b) see it, but agree we should continue down the fascist road;

c) won't even consider whether we are moving down that road.

 

:bow:

And, it's a combination of "a" and "c".  

Well, except for the neo-Nazis and White Supremacists, who are a resounding "b".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I did not intend to say you are comparing them....was just noting that there is nothing going on today that even remotely compares to the methods or techniques that past despots used to establish their kind of government power.      What kind of power is DT consolidating?    He can't even control an inept Attorney General and has leaders of the FBI after him and members of his own party are not supporting him. 

You are either irony-blind or clueless.  :-\

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AU64 said:

JMO but a totally irrational conclusion to a series of comments all starting with "if" and yet nothing to support any of it.     

A question......So which current politicians and  other popular figures are on record with wanting to jail folks for denying global warming.?   https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2014/04/01/disagree-climate-change-deniers-throw-em-jail/7162971/  

  https://www.weeklystandard.com/senator-use-rico-laws-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/article/963007

Or who will raise up a mob to prevent someone of opposing views from speaking ?    https://www.rt.com/usa/435252-candace-owens-harassed-antifa/

Since you obviously don't now much about history, the above articles should give you some insight on how the black shirt facists got started in Europe....by shutting down free speech and jailing people who voiced opposing views.   And in case you have not noticed, these are not DT's folks out there threatening the right of opponents to just enjoy a meal  in peace or express a differing opinion.     The threat to liberty in this country seems to be coming from the left ….primarily by efforts to shut down opposing thought and speech in the media and in the classroom.  

So true! The left controls the MSM, the entertainment industry and most of higher education. If you are a conservative in one of these areas, you are an outsider and conservative speech is suppressed.

Also, look at the destruction and removal of CSA monument or of historical significant persons who owned slaves. Trying to erase or change history, coming from the left.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I did not intend to say you are comparing them....was just noting that there is nothing going on today that even remotely compares to the methods or techniques that past despots used to establish their kind of government power.      What kind of power is DT consolidating?    He can't even control an inept Attorney General and has leaders of the FBI after him and members of his own party are not supporting him.  

DT has no personal power over anyone, and certainly no power of life and death.    All he has is the power of the office which is pretty closely governed by the Constitution and the judiciary.  His term is up in a couple years and he will either be re-elected or not...or he might not live that long.  The point is.....DT has no devious long range plan because there is no way for him or any US president to have a plan beyond their term of office.   Even Bill could not get Hillary elected.   

Antifa,  and I am sure there are others out there are the biggest threat to our freedom....aside from the terrorist threats which have caused us to give up quite a few of our freedoms.     JMO but the people consolidating power in the US government work for Homeland Security and it's many tentacles.....or maybe Google and Facebook who apparently  can eaves drop on you even when your smart phone is off.  

 

I find it interesting to think of ways in which Trump is weak. I actually think the op-ed I posted a couple of hours ago gives some credence to that interpretation. I'll say that I agree Trump's position is precarious.He could either fall or continue along this dangerous course. I want someone to make sure he doesn't lead us down the fascist road. Maybe the Woodward book and the op-ed will allow some Congressional Republicans to feel as if they can act against Trump. If that happens, then I agree that Trump will fall pretty easily.

Homeland Security is way more dangerous to our liberties than antifa (even though I don't like the latter and believe the former is doing many good things to keep us safe).

As I said before, I think Trump's long range plot is how to enrich himself and his families. I just think the way he plays with ur-fascist themes is really dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

So true! The left controls the MSM, the entertainment industry and most of higher education. If you are a conservative in one of these areas, you are an outsider and conservative speech is suppressed.

Also, look at the destruction and removal of CSA monument or of historical significant persons who owned slaves. Trying to erase or change history, coming from the left.

 

I don't think @AU64 said these things. I take his position to be much more nuanced than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

As I said before, I think Trump's long range plot is how to enrich himself and his families. I just think the way he plays with ur-fascist themes is really dangerous.

I guess that could be true but he was rich to start with  so not sure that is a big issue.....though most president seems to leave office with a great deal of money...Clinton's had nothing much when they arrived in DC and now are probably richer than DT.....and Obama never had a high paying job and came away wealthy......probably legally for the most part....but seems than anyone elected to office at any Federal level ends up a millionaire.  Influence and inside information are worth a lot of money these day because our government is so emmeshed in so much of our lives. 

DT has no real industrial contacts and does not seem to be affiliated with any company or business that depends on government contracts....and best I can tell, he does not have friends who have latched onto government consulting contracts.

That said,  I doubt any friend of DT's is gonna get within a thousand miles of any government business after seeing what Manafort and others went through.   Not saying they were not guilty, but if DT had not been elected president, they would all be just going along with lives like before.   The only reason the Federal spotlight picked them up was because of the election.   Few people are clean enough that they would like the IRS and FBI to go through the past ten years of their life looking for issues...and why even take the chance. ?. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I guess that could be true but he was rich to start with  so not sure that is a big issue.....though most president seems to leave office with a great deal of money...Clinton's had nothing much when they arrived in DC and now are probably richer than DT.....and Obama never had a high paying job and came away wealthy......probably legally for the most part....but seems than anyone elected to office at any Federal level ends up a millionaire.  Influence and inside information are worth a lot of money these day because our government is so emmeshed in so much of our lives. 

DT has no real industrial contacts and does not seem to be affiliated with any company or business that depends on government contracts....and best I can tell, he does not have friends who have latched onto government consulting contracts.

That said,  I doubt any friend of DT's is gonna get within a thousand miles of any government business after seeing what Manafort and others went through.   Not saying they were not guilty, but if DT had not been elected president, they would all be just going along with lives like before.   The only reason the Federal spotlight picked them up was because of the election.   Few people are clean enough that they would like the IRS and FBI to go through the past ten years of their life looking for issues...and why even take the chance. ?. 

I know the Clintons are a wealthy bunch now, but weren’t they pretty broke leaving the WH? I could be misremembering, but I thought I recalled a bankruptcy and the selling of WH items/furniture. Or maybe that info was false? 

Either way, I want them away from politics as much as anyone. It’s hard to believe all the oddities and scandals surrounding one family. Current administration seems to be trying to catch up, though. We need stability and integrity from our leaders. Here’s to hoping both sides put their best people forward next go around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an article from Jason Stanley, a philosopher at Yale, about fascism and the university.

I hope some folks who simply echo the sentiment that universities are hotbeds of liberals intolerant of conservatives, centers of corrupting the youth, will consider whether echoing these sentiments uncritically is for the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, AUbritt said:

Here's an article from Jason Stanley, a philosopher at Yale, about fascism and the university.

I hope some folks who simply echo the sentiment that universities are hotbeds of liberals intolerant of conservatives, centers of corrupting the youth, will consider whether echoing these sentiments uncritically is for the best.

The threat of the far right is not abstract, it's real:

"Attacking gender studies is also an explicit tactic of the far right in the United States. In 2010 the state legislature of North Carolina was taken over by Republicans affiliated with the Tea Party movement. Together with the Republican governor, Pat McCrory, they went after the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. A newly appointed Board of Governors of the university dismissed its widely admired progressive president, Tom Ross. Governor McCrory said in an interview that public universities should not teach courses in "gender studies or Swahili" (Swahili is spoken by 140 million people as a first or second language). He added, "If you want to take gender studies, that’s fine, go to a private school and take it."

In fascist ideology, the function of the education system is to glorify the mythic past, obscuring the perspectives and histories of those who do not belong. In a process sometimes tendentiously called "decolonizing" the curriculum, neglected perspectives are incorporated, thereby ensuring that students have a full view of history’s actors. In the fight against fascism, adjusting the curriculum in this way is not mere "political correctness." It is an essential means of protection against fascist myth."

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Fascismthe-University/244382?key=ZPRvPGcEksyNlrWwMqd4moyi7xkNq9nx4xriF0qpmqeVRBrAd-aPVMmtVciVi0rgbktRQm5DZXBIZVJDQlZrbDl6WUxZeU8xeGVzVlpYa2dTaERmXzVXSVN2NA

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an article from an American woman who's married to a Polish politician. She describes herself as a center-right, McCain-type Republican. Apparently, her husband was once a member of the party that now rules, Law and Justice, but broke with them some time before they became what they are now.

Quote

Since then, Law and Justice has embraced a new set of ideas, not just xenophobic and deeply suspicious of the rest of Europe but also openly authoritarian. After the party won a slim parliamentary majority in 2015, its leaders violated the constitution by appointing new judges to the constitutional court. Later, it used a similarly unconstitutional playbook to attempt to pack the Polish Supreme Court. It took over the state public broadcaster, Telewizja Polska; fired popular presenters; and began running unabashed propaganda, sprinkled with easily disprovable lies, at taxpayers’ expense.

Quote

This is not 1937. Nevertheless, a parallel transformation is taking place in my own time, in the Europe that I inhabit and in Poland, a country whose citizenship I have acquired. And it is taking place without the excuse of an economic crisis of the kind Europe suffered in the 1930s. Poland’s economy has been the most consistently successful in Europe over the past quarter century. Even after the global financial collapse in 2008, the country saw no recession. What’s more, the refugee wave that has hit other European countries has not been felt here at all. There are no migrant camps, and there is no Islamist terrorism, or terrorism of any kind.

Quote

From Orwell to Koestler, the European writers of the 20th century were obsessed with the idea of the Big Lie. The vast ideological constructs that were Communism and fascism, the posters demanding fealty to the Party or the Leader, the Brownshirts and Blackshirts marching in formation, the torch-lit parades, the terror police—these Big Lies were so absurd and inhuman, they required prolonged violence to impose and the threat of violence to maintain. They required forced education, total control of all culture, the politicization of journalism, sports, literature, and the arts.

By contrast, the polarizing political movements of 21st-century Europe demand much less of their adherents. They don’t require belief in a full-blown ideology, and thus they don’t require violence or terror police. They don’t force people to believe that black is white, war is peace, and state farms have achieved 1,000 percent of their planned production. Most of them don’t deploy propaganda that conflicts with everyday reality. And yet all of them depend, if not on a Big Lie, then on what the historian Timothy Snyder once told me should be called the Medium-Size Lie, or perhaps a clutch of Medium-Size Lies. To put it differently, all of them encourage their followers to engage, at least part of the time, with an alternative reality. Sometimes that alternative reality has developed organically; more often, it’s been carefully formulated, with the help of modern marketing techniques, audience segmentation, and social-media campaigns.

The whole thing is worth reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

britt why so interested in Fascism serious question. As for myself I watch a lot of the AHC channel which shows a lot of Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini history

little late with the facepalm @icanthearyou but I appreciate it please keep them coming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

britt why so interested in Fascism serious question. As for myself I watch a lot of the AHC channel which shows a lot of Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini history

Speaking of which, PBS recently aired this one-hour special on Fascism in Europe.

It was perhaps the best basic introduction to the subject I've ever seen. 

https://www.pbs.org/video/the-story-of-fascism-in-europe-pthanf/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

Speaking of which, PBS recently aired this one-hour special on Fascism in Europe.

It was perhaps the best basic introduction to the subject I've ever seen. 

https://www.pbs.org/video/the-story-of-fascism-in-europe-pthanf/

 

Thanks homer I'll check it out. Rick Steves has been around forever doing his travel show. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...