Ed The Fascism Checklist, Trump 2025

[dann]

JFK's "Ask not..." is fascist? No, it's a speechwriter's rhetorical construct, designed to be a call to think beyond one's general self-interest, not replace it.

No, I didn't claim that "JFK's "Ask not..." is fascist. I claimed that it's (representative) democratic.
For some reason, you leave out the country, the nation, the state.
JFK didn't paraphrase Jesus' "Love thy neighbor." He didn't say, 'Don't be so selfish.'
His oft repeated saying is nationalistic, patriotic, and Hitler would have loved it. It's the aspect of representative democracy that fascists love.

Read my post again! Point out where it says that "JFK's "Ask not..." is fascist"!

 

[dann]

You whould read her books some time. Her bad guys come straight from the pqges of Der Stürmer.

They do indeed! What does that tell you?

 

[dann]

Did you actually read it? No. of course not. Because it's actually a deranged rant against democracy itself, not just fascism, and not even just the Democrat party. I mean, it's not even long. Just skip to the paragraph conveniently labelled "4".

Yes, of course I read it. It's not a "a deranged rant against democracy itself." It points out the similarities between representative democracy and fascism, i.e. the reason why democrats fail at the criticism of fascism!
Need I remind you that people like Mitt Romney, the Cheneys and John McCain (you know, the guy who picked Sarah Palin as his running mate) are (Repbublican) democrats?

And it's irrelevant anyway, since it's even spelling out at the end that it's an association fallacy -- and with Hitler at that, not with fascism -- via not much more than both favouring a capitalist economic system and a national state, not with anything he said in paragraphs 1 to 3. None of which are a defining characteristic of fascism or any other particular system, as opposed to anything else than I guess Trotsky's version of international communism. But really, it's just the dumbest Reductio Ad Hitlerum, aka, Goodwinning his own message, that I've ever seen.

Yes, both favoring a capitalist economic system, a national state, but one side preferring representative democracy and the other favoring fascism.

And it even tells you in paragraph 2 that 'every textbook analysis of fascism is wrong', so his opinion isn't based on any expert sources, but trumps those. (In his delusional mind.)
Frankly... the only ones dumber than the one posting that crap is anyone taking it as some authority to refer to.

1) Describes the democratic theory of fascism.
2) Describes what Hitler actually did and why his arguments seemed so persuasive to the Germans of the Weimar (democratic) Republic. Except for the historically and geographically specific points mentioned in 2), it all applies to Trump and Americans as well. Like Hitler, Trump has his reasons to do what he does. It rests on the Heritage Foundation's carefully thought out Project 2025 (Wikipedia). Trump's obsession with getting his name on things like the ballroom, the Kennedy Center and his version of the U.S. Arc de Triomphe is a minor detail, but Hitler had similar plans for Berlin.
3) Democrats don't see this and don't want to see this because, as it says: "Fascism is presented in each case as the transferred negative image of democracy." To democrats, fascism is never what it actually is. To them, fascism is the non-democracy, the deviation from democracy, and they're in denial of all resemblances between the two ways of running capitalism.
4) "There can be no talk of democracy and fascism as contrasting systems at all. They embody two variants of the competition for power in the bourgeois nation state."
One of the entertaining things to study is the attitude of fascism and representative democracy to vaccinations.

 

[dann]

She's as nazi adjacent as, say, Franz von Papen. And that's only if I'm being overly generous.

So far, I'm the only one who has quoted anything from or about her. Why is that?
And please don't get me wrong! Y'all seem to think that when I point out that somebody is explicitly democratic in one or more respects, it must mean that I think they're good people.
It doesn't!

 

[dann]

I'm pretty sure nobody has ever suggested banning transgender persons from using public bathrooms, the dispute is solely about which ones they should use. The issue is not a political one, so Rowling's political views (well to the left, I believe) are immaterial to her position on it.

As always, I'll point out that there's a practical solution to the problem – to the extent that it actually is a problem to be solved, which it usually isn't. There's a whole ISF thread almost exclusively about this topic.
As for J. K. Rowling (Wikipedia):

Rowling has attracted criticism for trans-exclusionary positions she has taken from 2019 onwards, including opposition to gender self-identification and to allowing transgenderwomen into women's toilets and changing rooms.

 

[dann]

Hmm? I'm only familiar with a few of the grotesque caricatures they used, not with their articles. If you're that well read in Nazi propaganda, please do elaborate and enlighten the rest of us.

I personally would have guessed that J.K.Rowling's villain just follow the traditional simplified style of villain we used to have for thousands of years. You know, before the very recent idea that everything has to be "complex", meaning that the villains must be bad at evil, and the heroes must be bad at being good, to the point where they often look more like the other way around. For thousands of years nobody needed to know why Homer's cyclops wants to eat the humans, instead of respecting the hospitality rules. He just is the bad guy.

And that continued straight through the middle ages, renaissance and modern era. And doubly so in stories for children and teens. Nobody needed the witch to have some complex reasons for wanting to eat Hansel and Gretel. She just does. Nobody went into some complex motivations or childhood trauma or being unfairly stereotyped for why the big bad wolf goes after Little Red Riding Hood. He's just a stand in for a child molester. (Perrault even tells you just that in the last paragraph of his version.) Etc.

And yes, for better or worse, the tradition had been to make them repulsive or animals, so it's easier for children to understand that they're the bad guys.

Politics of Harry Potter (Wikipedia)

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Yes, of course I read it. It's not a "a deranged rant against democracy itself." It points out the similarities between representative democracy and fascism, i.e. the reason why democrats fail at the criticism of fascism!

... based on the most hare-brained reductio ad hitlerum I've EVER read. 'You know who else was for capitalism and a national state? HITLER was!' And with NO other similarities, historical analysis, or anything. Just his going on for 3 paragraphs about why Hitler was bad (which nobody contested) so you would feel properly ashamed if you're for the policies he compares to Hitler. It's the most idiotic brow-beating ever. Even most internet trolls do better.

As I was saying, the only ones failing logic harder than him are the ones thinking that THAT brain-dead drivel is some kind of authority worth citing.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Politics of Harry Potter (Wikipedia)

The only thing I see there even remotely connected to that idiotic reductio ad hitlerum, is that she envisioned Voldemort as some kind of Hitler or Stalin. But Voldemort is the VILLAIN. He's the BAD guy. The guy the protagonist (who you're supposed to identify with) is OPPOSING. It doesn't follow in any shape or form that she's pushing any of those two's ideas.

The rest is just bla bla bla, from idiot activists who were looking for something to be offended about, were told to check out the books for something to be offended about, and were dutifully offended

In any case, it doesn't answer my question. Exactly which characters, in which chapter of which book "come straight from the pqges of Der Stürmer"? Complete with the Der Stürmer reference to prove it. Put up or kindly stop polluting the thread with your content-free propaganda drivel.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm pretty sure nobody has ever suggested banning transgender persons from using public bathrooms

Except in practice they are, especially when the question is what's between your legs. I have a friend who's trans male. For all intents and purposes he looks, sounds, and acts like a guy. If he was to go into a woman's restroom or locker room he'd probably be arrested or something. In practice, sweeping legislation that decides who gets to use what facilities does keep a lot of trans people from going to public restrooms at all. A better solution would be more gender-neutral bathrooms, stalls that are completely enclosed, and separate stalls that families (for example a father and his daughters) and trans people can use to change and shower.

And no, it's got nothing to do with protecting women or children. Trans people have used bathrooms since time immemorial and we haven't been flooded with horror stories of people having traumatic experiences when trying to go potty. Even when the usual suspects try to fear-monger, they can only come up with a tiny handful of cases, even when they draw from all over the world, and over decades. It's a completely fabricated problem, like the Satanic panic or the fear of organized homosexual recruitment campaigns.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

They do indeed! What does that tell you?

That she modelled her bad guys on the victims of the nazis. The goblins that run the banks, for example, are jews straight out from Julius Streichers worst fantasies.

 

[Really?]

Having things in common is hardly a criterion, or Diogenes would have been right that a plucked chicken is a human. Especially if it's feeding circularly on previous wrong usage. So it's more like starting calling a plucked chicken a human, and then deciding that therefore so is a shaved chimp. And then going from there to decide that so was the T Rex, etc.

Actually, the meaning is made very clear in Mussolini's Fascist Manifesto, and further clarified in his autobiography. It just means the nation above everything, united under one will and vision, without any divisions. It was in opposition to both the old conservative vs liberals division, and especially to Marxism, which divided things by class and postulated them to only exist in conflict.

As I keep saying, if I had to sum up fascism in one sentence, I haven't found a better one than Kennedy's, "Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country." That's it. Mussolini himself couldn't have put it better.

Germany changed that to mean "ethnic state", as in only encompassing the "Aryan Germans", if you want to classify the NSDAP as fascist, but Italian fascism was really just about Italy.

One corollary that is actually spelled out right in the manifesto is control of the industry. The industry must exist to serve the state.

Germany exemplified this in the Stakeholder Act of '37. The state was the most important stakeholder in any corporation, and had a board member with veto power on every board of directors. (That's how Messerschmidt could be forced to bear the cost and provide factory space for the Me-163 Kermit... err... Komet disaster. And that mostly happened because Milch hated Willy Messerschmidt. But Willy couldn't refuse a direct order from the state.)

Others, like authoritarianism and control of the press, are quite trivial corollaries, so I'll let them slide. You know, since otherwise you can't enforce a single undivided vision.

Everything else is extra fluff.


As an example, if you want THE prime example of a modern country that fits fascism to a T, look no further than China.

On the one hand, you deny the utility of defining Fascism on the basis of the factors that Fascist regimes have in common. You don't explain why. On the other hand, you define Fascism as nothing more than nationalism but also state control of industry, two factors Fascist regimes have in common. Why just those two? You don't explain why.

One can have nationalism without Fascism, such as new post-Colonial African nations. One can also have state control of industry without Fascism, such as Socialism. So, I think your definition does not adequately describe Fascism.

 

[jimbob]

That she modelled her bad guys on the victims of the nazis. The goblins that run the banks, for example, are jews straight out from Julius Streichers worst fantasies.

I think that is unfair. Are the goblins baddies?

There is plenty of to criticise about the underlying assumptions behind Harry Potter but I don't think that's one.

 

[arthwollipot]

I think that is unfair. Are the goblins baddies?

Arguably, yes.

There is plenty of to criticise about the underlying assumptions behind Harry Potter but I don't think that's one.

No, Gull is absolutely right. The goblins are greedy, manipulative, big-nosed, and control the bank. Total stereotypes.

I haven't played it, of course, but apparently in the Hogwarts game a major mcguffin that the player has to retrieve is a shofar.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

On the one hand, you deny the utility of defining Fascism on the basis of the factors that Fascist regimes have in common. You don't explain why. On the other hand, you define Fascism as nothing more than nationalism but also state control of industry, two factors Fascist regimes have in common. Why just those two? You don't explain why.

I did explain why: because that's how it was defined by the guy who came up with the term, and thus by the only party that actually called itself fascist.

Otherwise, if we just go by what else other people called fascist, we'd arrive at the conclusion that it just means "anyone I dislike."

Your not liking the explanation and sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't mean I didn't give it.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Arguably, yes.


No, Gull is absolutely right. The goblins are greedy, manipulative, big-nosed, and control the bank. Total stereotypes.

I don't remember them being the antagonists or even contagonists in any book or movie. They're only "bad guys" if you think that controlling the bank is making them "bad guys." But that's only saying something about the one making that judgment, not about the author.

Additionally they are described in the books as highly intelligent and master craftsmen. And their controlling the bank is because of their being highly intelligent and extremely good at finances, not on some injustice. That's nowhere near the depiction of Jews in NSDAP propaganda.

Plus the noses are AFAIK only in the movies. The books only describe their faces as swarthy with pointy beards.

But I'm not exactly a Harry Potter loremaster, so if anyone has some quotes to share to the contrary, please do.

 

[Darat]

...snip...
Plus the noses are AFAIK only in the movies. The books only describe their faces as swarthy with pointy beards.
But I'm not exactly a Harry Potter loremaster, so if anyone has some quotes to share to the contrary, please do.

Just a note - Rowling had an unprecedented level of control in the movies, she approved every major thing in the movies and most minor things, if she wasn't happy with something it was changed until she was. So however they looked in the movies was what Rowling was happy with. (Aside from her writing she is an exceptionally good business person.)

 

[Mojo]

Exactly. Now "fascist" means people I don't like.

FTFY.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Just a note - Rowling had an unprecedented level of control in the movies, she approved every major thing in the movies and most minor things, if she wasn't happy with something it was changed until she was. So however they looked in the movies was what Rowling was happy with. (Aside from her writing she is an exceptionally good business person.)

Well, ok, so she was ok with the noses. I still don't remember anything making them the bad guys of any of the movies. But if you have examples, I'm willing to learn.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The Gringot Goblins, while looking very antisemitic in the films, might in the books more a reference to The Gnomes of Zuerich slur against Swiss Bankers profiting from other people's crises and dealing with very unsavory people

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I guess I'm not drunk enough to see the phonetic similarity between Gringot and Zürich. I mean the latter starts with a "ts" according to German reading, not with a "g". Nor does the rest of each word sound even remotely similar.

Lemme try again after some consulting with my friend Vodka... glug glug glug... ahhh... nope, still not seeing the similarity.