What exactly is a "facist"?

[MicroB]

Those little lapel buttons....

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/us/politics/trump-hatch-act.html?searchResultPosition=1

 

Quote

The US administration "moved on Friday to weaken federal prohibitions on government employees showing support for trump while at work, embracing the notion that they should be allowed to wear campaign paraphernalia and removing an independent review board’s role in policing violations.

The Office of Special Counsel, an agency involved in enforcing the restrictions, announced the changes to the interpretation of the Hatch Act, a Depression-era law devised to ensure that the federal work force operates free of political influence or coercion. The revisions, a resurrection of rules that trump rolled out at the end of his first term but that President Joseph R. Biden Jr. repealed, could allow for the startling sight of government officials sporting trump-Vance buttons or “Make America Great Again” hats.""

 

The permissions do not extend to other political figures. So supporters are free to show their support in the workplace, and when dealing with the public. Those who do not support the President politically won't be wearing said party lapel badges.
 

[Mike_Hunt]

11 hours ago, StandardIssue said:

 

Labeling them as Fascist is one thing. BUT policies moving toward components of it's WELL UNDERSTOOD CHARACTERISTICS is quite another. This is what's concerning wouldn't you agree?

 Extreme Nationalism: Fascism emphasizes the supremacy of the nation, often coupled with a belief in national rebirth or greatness. This can manifest as a focus on a mythic past and the denigration of foreign influences.   

Authoritarianism: Fascist regimes are characterized by strong central control, often led by a single, charismatic leader with absolute power. Individual rights and freedoms are subordinate to the state.
Militarism: Fascism exalts military virtues, such as discipline, obedience, and strength. Military power is seen as essential for national strength and expansion.
Suppression of Opposition: Fascist regimes forcibly suppress political dissent and opposition. They often employ violence, intimidation, and censorship to maintain control.
Social Hierarchy: Fascism promotes a belief in natural social hierarchies and the rule of elites. Equality is often rejected in favor of a system where certain groups are considered superior.
Cult of the Leader: Fascist movements cultivate a cult of personality around their leader, who is often portrayed as an infallible figure capable of restoring the nation.  
Use of Propaganda and Symbolism: Fascist regimes heavily rely on propaganda to promote their ideology and create a sense of national unity. They often employ powerful symbols and imagery.  
Economic Control: While not strictly adhering to one economic model, fascist regimes typically exert strong control over the economy, often in partnership with powerful business interests, to serve national goals. Labor unions are often suppressed.  
Scapegoating: Fascist movements often identify scapegoats or enemies (e.g., minorities, foreigners, liberals, communists) to unify their followers and divert blame from the regime's failures.  

 

 

Nationalism: There is nothing wrong with nationalism. 

 

Authoritarianism:  Why does Congress send more power to the executive branch?   The most authoritarian POTUS was FDR. 

 

Militarism: A strong military is needed.

 

Suppression of Opposition: The left loves this.  

 

Social Hierarchy: This is leftism. 

 

Cult of the Leader:  Obama? 

 

Use of Propaganda and Symbolism:  The Dems have mastered this one. 

 

Economic Control:  Which party in the USA favors more regulation of the economy?

 

 Scapegoating: When has the left ever taken responsibility for their mistakes? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dionigi]

Anyone more right wing than me

[black tabby12345]

On 4/25/2025 at 10:14 PM, gargamon said:

A pic is worth a thousand words.

 

They have something in common: Groundlessly  claiming  someone else's land "Mine".

Referring to DT's remark in Greenland and Panama(canal).

Encouraging Ukraine to give up Crimea and their eastern regions(similar to Nazi-Starlin pact came with the agreement of joint invasion of Poland. As well as the endorsement of Stalin's invasion Finland).

 

 

[radiochaser]

On 4/25/2025 at 11:14 AM, gargamon said:

A pic is worth a thousand words.

That is a really fake looking picture.  Did you make that?

[spidermike007]

Donald Trump. He wants so badly to be a fascist dictator. Just give him enough room, make the leash long enough, and his followers will be astonished to see the man that he becomes. 

[MicroB]

3 hours ago, radiochaser said:

That is a really fake looking picture.  Did you make that?

 

A simple Google Image search should generate the necessary apology from you. Interestingly, while pictures of the man with his right arm outstretched are now common memes, every since he was (allegedly) nicked on the ear, the origins of the image come from 2019.

 

 

 

https://www.metrotimes.com/imager//b/r-cover/22617914/3eef/49-01-cover-2.jpg

 

The referenced article:

 

https://www.metrotimes.com/news/is-trump-a-fascist-22617920

 

Leads me to determine that the image of the then 45th President was penned by Tom Carlson. Beyond that,  there is little more information on where you can order this artwork from, but I suspect Tom Carlson is not a member of the forum.

 

 

[FruitPudding]

48 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Donald Trump. He wants so badly to be a fascist dictator. Just give him enough room, make the leash long enough, and his followers will be astonished to see the man that he becomes. 

 

This sounds like opinion, not fact. 

 

What's he done to make you think that?

[BusyB]

On 4/25/2025 at 5:06 PM, Hellfire said:

Umberto Eco, in his 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism" (also known as "Eternal Fascism"), outlined 14 features or signs that define what he called "Ur-Fascism," or the foundational elements of fascism that can reappear in different forms over time. Here's a summarized version of those signs:

1. The cult of tradition – A belief in a primordial truth, revealed once and for all, often combining different religious or philosophical traditions.

2. The rejection of modernism – A distrust of Enlightenment rationalism, often accompanied by a rejection of progress and reason.

3. The cult of action for action’s sake – Believing action is inherently good and should be pursued without reflection.

4. Disagreement is treason – Critical thinking is viewed with suspicion; dissent is equated with betrayal.

5. Fear of difference – Racism or xenophobia; fear of outsiders and minorities.

6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class – Fascism often exploits the fears and insecurities of a struggling or declining middle class.

7. Obsession with a plot – Belief in conspiracies, often involving an "enemy" or scapegoat plotting against the nation.

8. The enemy is both strong and weak – The enemy is portrayed as overwhelmingly powerful, yet cowardly and weak at the same time.

9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy – Life is permanent warfare; peacefulness is seen as weakness.

10. Contempt for the weak – Elitism and disdain for the vulnerable or marginalized.

11. Everybody is educated to become a hero – Glorification of death, martyrdom, and militarism.

12. Machismo and weaponry – Exaggerated masculinity, violence, and control over women.

13. Selective populism – The “people” are represented by a leader who interprets their will, bypassing institutions and pluralism.

14. Newspeak – Use of impoverished, repetitive language to limit critical thinking and expression.

 

Mmhhh... Sounds familiar, where have I seen all that again recently?

[Kevbo]

On 4/25/2025 at 4:44 PM, Magictoad said:

A fascist is a person who supports a far-right, authoritarian political ideology that emphasizes extreme nationalism, dictatorial leadership, and the suppression of opposition. Fascists often prioritize the interests of the nation or race over individual rights and advocate for a centralized autocratic government.

Or in a nutshell islamism

[MicroB]

4 hours ago, FruitPudding said:

 

This sounds like opinion, not fact. 

 

What's he done to make you think that?

 

 

Does he want dictatorial powers? Well, he actually said he does. Now, he might say he was joking at the time. But consider his use of Executive Orders; how many of those overturn or over ride existing federal statute? In 2016, in his acceptance speech, he said he alone can address the vital needs of the United States. His recent use of EOs suggests he has moved from that to stating he alone has a mandate to suspend the law in pursuit of his goals.

 

Some of these EOs are now under legal challenge. That he is prepared to issue EIs that conflict with the Constitution, whether or not they are struck down or rescinded, actually does indicate either he is an ignoramus concerning the function of government (which would be worrying, considering all the experience he has gained over the years), or that he does want dictatorial powers. So is he an idiot or a wannebe dictator?

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

 

In this ruking, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett said:

Quote

 

The Constitution does not vest every exercise of executive power in the President’s sole discretion. … Congress has concurrent authority over many Government functions, and it may sometimes use that authority to regulate the President’s official conduct.

 

 

 

Congress passed a statute that required TikTok to cease operations in the US by January 2025, unless the owners sold the operation to a non-Chinese entity. There was overwhelming support from both parties. Byte Dance appealed and the Supreme Court upheld the law. Then the 47th President, even before he had taken office, urging the Court to stay the effecgive date of the ban. The brief asseted:

 

Quote

President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government

 

The Court, rightfully, rejected this request. Congress had lawfully and powerfully passed a federal law. The president cannot overturn that law.

 

But as soon as he was in office

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/application-of-protecting-americans-from-foreign-adversary-controlled-applications-act-to-tiktok/

 

Trump’s TikTok Order does just simply direct the Attorney General to ignore the statute for a period of time; it does everything it can to declare TikTok’s continued operation entirely lawful during that period, even though the company is now banned by the statute.

 

 

From 5:21, Senator Tom Cotton, who otherwise does support the President, point out the law is the Law irrespective of the President's wishes.

 

But some mght say TikTik is a trivial matter (even though it actually concerns on one level Freedom of Speech).

 

But whatabout Birthright Citizenship. The existing statutory regime provides for birthright citizenship. This Order is an attempt to overrule that regime, sub silentio. The President thinks its about his reading of the 14th Amendment. But its not, The 14th Amendment only prohibits Congress from denying citizenship to people covered by the Amendment. But Congress has the unquestioned authority to grant citizenship at birth to others who do not fall within the Amendment’s guarantee. Several Congressional statutes guarantee birthright citizenship to children whom the President's Order says are not citizens. The Supreme Court has ruked that the executive branch does not have authority to interpret statutes in contravention of the way they have been interpreted by the courts. And the 14th Amendment has been thoroughly reviewed bynthe courts over many many decades.

 

When the president asserts authority to ignore a federal statute, they must make one of two arguments: they must argue that the statute was beyond Congress’s constitutional authority to enact, or they must argue that the statute interferes with an inherent and exclusive power conferred by the Constitution on the president.

 

Article 1 of the US Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to decide who is a US citizen and who is not

 

So, another demonstration of dictorial inkling. Some call that Presidential Unilateralism. Same thing.

 

But there are many different kinds of dictator. Is he a or wants to be a fascist dictator? That's getting into the nitty gritty of political creed (he's clearly not a communist), and ultimately, he may have no political creed, so you end up with terms like Peronist, Francoist.

 

Do the question should be, does he want to be an  authoritarian or totalitarian dictator. Some call the 47th President an authoritarian populist,

 

https://news.berkeley.edu/2025/01/21/theres-a-term-for-trumps-political-style-authoritarian-populism/

 

Others call him a "new authoritarian"

 

https://theconversation.com/is-donald-trump-a-fascist-no-hes-a-new-brand-of-authoritarian-241586

 

Not a fascist.

 

But he's old, and likely dead, disabled in the next few years. What legacy will he leave. And if a Presidency has taken so much power, will it give it back. One is reminded of the Devil's Speech. You might say that you support the present President, that he is well intentioned, that he will leave America in a better place, but what of the next? America is not a one party state, and most people recognise that, and support the idea of a political opposition. Part of that means accepting your chosen party doesn't always win the vote. As civilised peoples, there is a smooth transition of power (another hot topic). Its a system that has served Western democracies very well for hundreds of years. We have complex laws that mostly work well. That they are challenging to unpick protects us all from the reactionary and paniced.

 

The Dictatorial instincts arise because this is how private companies are run, and often how they fail. Before 2016, the current President had zero experience government, national or local.  Its at local government that you see democracy really working; people of opposing ideologies actually working together, because, whether you are red or blue, left or right, fixing a pothole, collecting the trqash, is much the same. He's not really had the experience of sitting down with a group of people who disagreed with him, and persuading them to his viewpoint. The closest he has gotten is probably when speaking to the banks for a line of credit. If they don't loan him money, he goes somewhere else until someone does lend him the money,

 

When you've talk of major changes in law, especially if eminating from the Oval Office, it seems Town Hall meetings are the venue for a President to discuss his plans in a way that local people and politicians can understand. It happened last time when there was talk of repealing the ACA. Nothing is happening like that now.

 

In Constitutional issues, the British Prime Minister is one of the most powerful roles in the world. The Prime Minister decides what parliament can debate. So effectively Parliament debates the government's policies every day, and the government has the majority. There is no to little scope for the Opposition to introduce Bills that are contrary to the Government's agenda, unlike the US system. This explains the perception that the US just gets on with things, whoever is in power, but the direction of the British government can radically change every 3-5 years, especially if the government has a very large majority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MicroB]

54 minutes ago, Kevbo said:

Or in a nutshell islamism

 

Of which there are many creeds. Muslim Brotherhood islamism, which is the sort Al Qaeda and Hamas picked up, was inspired by, guess what, Nazism. The Quran forms the basis of the law, but like the Bible, that can be interpreted in many ways. Hence Islamic Scholars, So you have two branches of Islam; Sunni and Shia, with the same book, but different views of the law. The Muslim Brotherhood rejects this, and instead, the interpretation of the Quran comes from the street, the "ordinary people", layered with a dose of nationalism, filled in, like the Nazis, with a bunch of historic fantasies (the Nazis had Teutonic Knights and the Volk, Arab Nationalists frequently make up nonsense, but impressive sounding nonsense, about Saladin and imaging sleights. Hence Al Qaeda issued religious edicts based on then thoughts of a college drop out and a wierdo professor. Later on, a convicted drug dealer in Iraq was listened to earnestly by the crowd. I think at one point, Daesh was down to a car mechanic issuing instructions. In early Arab nationalism, it was mostly junior army officers, as coup plotters, who were suddenly experts in the Quran. In Libya, Gaddafi, who promoted himself to Colonel (but never General) came up with his own version, In Gaza, the leaders of Hamas seem to be an rotating list of street thugs, none of whom really have any religious knowledge, but who's authority largely derived from a book in one hand and a gun in the other.

 

Iran is interesting. It is actually a democracy.  It holds elections, there are competing political parties, and incumbants do lose elections. There is a President and a Parliament, which on one level function like a western democracy. Indeed the Iranian constitution is modeled on the French constitution which is modeled on the US one.

 

But the Supreme Leader "supervises" the President and Parliament, and he is guided by an appointed by a Guardian Council, made up of Islamic jurists. Like the Supreme Court reviewing every decision made by Parliament, Congress, to check if that decision conforms with the Shia understanding of the Quran. Now, you might end up with a wise and old Supreme Leader who looks dispassionately at these decisions, who will accept or reject decisions, until a better decision is taken, like the function of the House of Lords, except the Commons can abolish the Lords anytime. Or you might have someone with their own agenda "of this Earth".  Hezbollah is a political party in Lebanon, that wields constitutional power through the Labanese Parliament, which has been surprising resiliant after all these years (proving how wrong dictators and wannabe dictators are). Hezbollah will never run Lebanon because of then history of that country and its demographic makeup. They boost their support thanks to financial support from Iran that allows them to run a healthcare and social care system on top of whatever the Lebanese government can provide.

 

Notionally, Afghanistan has a similar system of government to Iran, except is Sunni Islam as the basis of law. And its an Emirate. Emir is kind of like King, but more like "Commander in Chief". The Taliban haven't been around long enough to establish hereditary Emirs, so the assumption is when they start popping their clogs due to old age, there will be a tussle for control. But like the Muslim Brotherhood, their power depends on the half arsed understanding of the Quran, but without the political sophistication of European fascism. Over in Iran, the Supreme leader really is an expert in religious law, spending all his life studying it, so is more like a Pope (who actually was a constitutional successor to the Emperor of Rome) and the Archbishop of Canterbury,

 

Syria is the interesting case. The current leader is apparently a temporary leader until they can get the inevitable score settling out of the way. They are still following the secular Syrian constitution. The leader seems to be an ordinary bloke. He is an Islamist, but what that means is hard to discern right now. He's clearly media savvy, knowing when during war, to look like the military commander and all tough, but in  peace, getting a haircut, some nice shirts and trousers. He comes over as urbane, and is educated.  He seems genuinely focused on his own country, which has suffered a lot, but we will see how long that lasts. We would do well to keep our noses out, and help if asked. I doubt that will happen; too many vested interests in the region. he could probably take some tips from King Abdullah in Jordan, about how to negotiate a tricky path that doesn't involve violent revolt, but also fend off the Turks, the Saudis, the UAE etc.

Then we have Syria

[Chris Daley]

Facist: Angry little British person that calls everyone a nonce and says people stole his job even though he got fired from one and quit the last three.