Trump is a fascist.

[crazy canuck]

Meh, what the D!

[Barrister]

Dguller's observation is more to the point.  It really doesn't matter if Trump is himself a fascist.  He certainly appeals to fascist tendencies which a demagogue like Trump has apparently no hesitation to exploit.

But what the hell are "fascistic tendencies"?

Looking at that fairly vague Fascist checklist", I (more or less) agree with a couple of those nine points, namely:

"The primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it."

It should perhaps not be a surprise that a career public servant thinks that people of a country owe a duty to that country?  And that duty, while perhaps not superior, is equal to the country's duty to it's citizens?

and

"Dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences."

Again it should perhaps not be a surprise that myself as a classical conservative think that we should try to be a more cohesive and unified society, that in some cases excessive liberalism harms this country, and that while welcoming immigrants (and refugees) we should make some attempts to encourage people to integrate into our society and adopt Canadian values?


If someone speaks to those points does that mean they are appealling to "fascistic tendencies"?

[Malthus]

Dguller's observation is more to the point.  It really doesn't matter if Trump is himself a fascist.  He certainly appeals to fascist tendencies which a demagogue like Trump has apparently no hesitation to exploit.



But what D

It didn't sound like that "but" was going to be good for me, so I'm glad you stopped there.

Trump's non-fascist (but definitely nasty) Gestapo got him mid-sentence!   

[crazy canuck]

Dguller's observation is more to the point.  It really doesn't matter if Trump is himself a fascist.  He certainly appeals to fascist tendencies which a demagogue like Trump has apparently no hesitation to exploit.

But what the hell are "fascistic tendencies"?

Looking at that fairly vague Fascist checklist", I (more or less) agree with a couple of those nine points, namely:

"The primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it."

It should perhaps not be a surprise that a career public servant thinks that people of a country owe a duty to that country?  And that duty, while perhaps not superior, is equal to the country's duty to it's citizens?

and

"Dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences."

Again it should perhaps not be a surprise that myself as a classical conservative think that we should try to be a more cohesive and unified society, that in some cases excessive liberalism harms this country, and that while welcoming immigrants (and refugees) we should make some attempts to encourage people to integrate into our society and adopt Canadian values?


If someone speaks to those points does that mean they are appealling to "fascistic tendencies"?

Well you were a member of the Reform party for a time 

If you really believe in the subordination of the individual to the interests of the state then I think you are at least on some difficult ground.  That leads to not questioning the group/state leadership which in turn... well I think you know where that ends up.

I guess that also goes hand in hand with an opposition to "individualistic liberalism".  I tend to think that individual rights and freedoms guaranteed in a liberal democracy are a great importance.  Frankly it surprises me that you are so far right on these issues.

[Barrister]

Well you were a member of the Reform party for a time 

If you really believe in the subordination of the individual to the interests of the state then I think you are at least on some difficult ground.  That leads to not questioning the group/state leadership which in turn... well I think you know where that ends up.

I guess that also goes hand in hand with an opposition to "individualistic liberalism".  I tend to think that individual rights and freedoms guaranteed in a liberal democracy are a great importance.  Frankly it surprises me that you are so far right on these issues.

Whatever happened to:

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"?

I believe I said that your duty to the state is equal, not superior, to the state's duty to you.

And if you're using quotes, quote correctly.  I said "excessive liberalism".  See safe spaces, microagressions, etc.  And remember that our Charter of Rights is not absolute - there are limitations to those rights found in s. 1, s. 24, and s. 33.

[crazy canuck]

Well you were a member of the Reform party for a time 

If you really believe in the subordination of the individual to the interests of the state then I think you are at least on some difficult ground.  That leads to not questioning the group/state leadership which in turn... well I think you know where that ends up.

I guess that also goes hand in hand with an opposition to "individualistic liberalism".  I tend to think that individual rights and freedoms guaranteed in a liberal democracy are a great importance.  Frankly it surprises me that you are so far right on these issues.

Whatever happened to:

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"?

I believe I said that your duty to the state is equal, not superior, to the state's duty to you.

And if you're using quotes, quote correctly.  I said "excessive liberalism".  See safe spaces, microagressions, etc.  And remember that our Charter of Rights is not absolute - there are limitations to those rights found in s. 1, s. 24, and s. 33.

I was quoting directly from the bits you said you agreed with and highlighted it. 

"and the subordination of the individual to it"  was part of the quote you said you agreed with.  That is a long way off from ask not...  Once one starts talking about subordination to the state that is an indicia of fascism. 

Perhaps this is a case of you more carefully reading a statement before agreeing with it 

[Barrister]

Well you were a member of the Reform party for a time 

If you really believe in the subordination of the individual to the interests of the state then I think you are at least on some difficult ground.  That leads to not questioning the group/state leadership which in turn... well I think you know where that ends up.

I guess that also goes hand in hand with an opposition to "individualistic liberalism".  I tend to think that individual rights and freedoms guaranteed in a liberal democracy are a great importance.  Frankly it surprises me that you are so far right on these issues.

Whatever happened to:

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"?

I believe I said that your duty to the state is equal, not superior, to the state's duty to you.

And if you're using quotes, quote correctly.  I said "excessive liberalism".  See safe spaces, microagressions, etc.  And remember that our Charter of Rights is not absolute - there are limitations to those rights found in s. 1, s. 24, and s. 33.

I was quoting directly from the bits you said you agreed with and highlighted it. 

"and the subordination of the individual to it"  was part of the quote you said you agreed with.  That is a long way off from ask not...  Once one starts talking about subordination to the state that is an indicia of fascism. 

Perhaps this is a case of you more carefully reading a statement before agreeing with it 

Perhaps you should read a statement more carefully before criticizing it.

What I said was:

I (more or less) agree with a couple of those nine points

[viper37]

and he doesn't seem to be especially pro military or with an aggressive foreign policy.

https://deadline.com/2015/06/donald-trump-isis-bill-oreilly-jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-video-1201445840/

"I say that you can defeat ISIS by taking their wealth," Trump told the Fox News Channel star. "Take back the oil. Once you go over and take back that oil, they have nothing. You bomb the hell out of them, and then you encircle it, and then you go in. And you let Mobil go in, and you let our great oil companies go in. Once you take that oil, they have nothing left."

[Razgovory]

Trump is not a fascist.

Fascism did have an identifiable political ideology, and was not merely synonymous with "bad right-wing politician".  Fascism believed in nationalism, but also believed in the national struggle.  That warfare did not weaken a country, but in fact would make it stronger, both socially and militarily.  Fascism believed in might makes right, and that the strong should dominate the weak. 

(obviously a definition in three lines is incomplete at best, but it's a good starting point)

What Trump is is a demagogue.  He has no identifiable political philosophy at all.  He gains attention by appealing to voters emotions, fears and prejudices.

Fascists were rather elastic with their beliefs and often intentionally vague.  Their policies were rarely coherent.  They did have some solid beliefs and Trump is hitting those notes.

[Grey Fox]

He is

However, he is also, and more importantly, a troll.

The more he goes on the more I agree with the crazy theory that he's a democrat mole.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I'm a layman, but isn't, though the system may function similarly, Fascism rooted in national exceptionalism, whereas Communism pays at least lip service to the equality of races and nations?

Nationalist struggle in fascist countries can be substituted with class warfare in communist ones.

it's not without reason that communism is called red-lacquered fascism

[mongers]

Trump would certainly have an agressive foreign policy if he were made aware of just out expansionist your average Canadian is.

[Martinus]

Ask not what your country can do to you, ask that they'd rather not do it, please.

[viper37]

But I think a minimum qualification to qualify as a fascist is to replace democracy with a strong central government devoid of checks and balances and protected from bad election results. Or at least try to do so.

not many leaders today would try to do that at once.
But if you look at Chavez, Erdogan, Putin, they all were moving toward that.  Chavez died before completing his act.  The other two are still reshaping their countries into more authoritarian and less democratic nations.

[crazy canuck]

Well you were a member of the Reform party for a time 

If you really believe in the subordination of the individual to the interests of the state then I think you are at least on some difficult ground.  That leads to not questioning the group/state leadership which in turn... well I think you know where that ends up.

I guess that also goes hand in hand with an opposition to "individualistic liberalism".  I tend to think that individual rights and freedoms guaranteed in a liberal democracy are a great importance.  Frankly it surprises me that you are so far right on these issues.

Whatever happened to:

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"?

I believe I said that your duty to the state is equal, not superior, to the state's duty to you.

And if you're using quotes, quote correctly.  I said "excessive liberalism".  See safe spaces, microagressions, etc.  And remember that our Charter of Rights is not absolute - there are limitations to those rights found in s. 1, s. 24, and s. 33.

I was quoting directly from the bits you said you agreed with and highlighted it. 

"and the subordination of the individual to it"  was part of the quote you said you agreed with.  That is a long way off from ask not...  Once one starts talking about subordination to the state that is an indicia of fascism. 

Perhaps this is a case of you more carefully reading a statement before agreeing with it 

Perhaps you should read a statement more carefully before criticizing it.

What I said was:

I (more or less) agree with a couple of those nine points

Yeah and then you quoted the ones you agree with and one of those points contained the bit about subservience to the group.