• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed The Fascism Checklist, Trump 2025

Trump is very much a Real Life Fascist, seeking personal power and wealth, demanding obeisance, believing in personal Superiority, including genetic, rejecting any restraint and demanding constant attention.
You just described a narcissistic kleptocrat, not something particularly related to fascism. Lots of communist leader in Eastern Europe were the exact same in those aspects. Ceausescu in Romania, for example, fancied himself as The Genius As The Carpathians, same as Trump likes to call himself a genius, build the largest building in Europe as his personal palace (for scale, the ENTIRE Romanian government barely manages to occupy a third of it) and built an economic system more related to kleptocracy than to either communism or fascism.

It's not textbook fascism, but it's exactly what every fascist leader wanted.
It's also what lots of other narcissists wanted.
 
Schoolkids carry backpacks. My coworker wears a backpack. Therefore my coworker is a schoolkid :P
You are misunderstanding my point. I'm saying that fascist thought is antidemocratic but that doesn't mean that even fairly strong right wing thought is antidemocratic. I would say that by the time one gets to the "far right" it is also antidemocratic and that fascism is a subset of this
Precisely. Every communist dictator was also anti-democratic.


The thing is not just that people use other similarities, but that they're also ignoring the lack of core concepts of fascism like the state corporatism. That's exactly as silly as what the right-wingers do, when they call someone a communist even when they don't want to seize the means of production.

Trump seems to be pretty onboard with the whole entwining of his family's and friends' allies' corporate interests and that is how I understand many fascist regimes have done it.

If you want a perfect example of actual fascism these days, look at China.
The justification is quite different for China which as far as I am aware, still pays lip service to communism.

Russia is a better fit. I'd say.
 
Trump seems to be pretty onboard with the whole entwining of his family's and friends' allies' corporate interests and that is how I understand many fascist regimes have done it.
Not even close. Actual fascists enshrined it in law. As I was saying, look up Germany's stakeholder act of 1937. It had nothing to do with friends or family. Hitler GASSED Aloisa Veit, his second cousin, as part of his eugenics program. It just made the state the majority stakeholder in every company, even without having bought a single share. It worked, among other ways, by forcing any company above a certain size to have a state-appointed board member with veto power.

For example, nobody needed Willi Messerschmitt to be a relative of Hitler to make him manufacture the Me-163 Kermit... err... Komet. Milch, who was chief of procurement for the Luftwaffe, and HATED Messerschmitt personally, just ORDERED Willi to provide the factory and equipment and workers to a team that wasn't even under Willi's control even nominally. And Willi knew better than to disobey the law.

What you described is basically just most of the corrupt dictators on all sides of the political spectrum.

The justification is quite different for China which as far as I am aware, still pays lip service to communism.

Russia is a better fit. I'd say.
I would disagree on whether it fits better, but it was almost my second example of a fascist-ish regime, so I don't disagree much.
 
i consider it a misnomer to call Fascism a populist ideology.
Fascism is based in dividing the population into "good" and "bad", and ruling by having the authority to place anyone arbitrarily in either group at any time.

Trump is only a populist to his Base. He is the self-declared enemy of every American who doesn't fit, according to him.

The thing about Germany, Italy and most other countrie that embraced fascism is that their minority populations were relatively small, if 95% of the population is homogenous then turning on the other 5% is populist. The US is (very approximately from a Google) 60% 'white only' which makes a racist ideology immediately devisive, but then even that 60% isn't homogeneous in the way that a European country a century ago was as it's made up of different generation immigrants from various countries who may have retained different cultural norms from their ancestor countries to differing degrees.
 
Well, that's kinda my point. IMHO if someone just wants to say "dictatorial" or "anti-democracy", they can simply say just that.
But, no. "Fascist" is just the contemporary way of accusing someone of being a witch. Throw the label at someone, and you can dehumanize them and completely avoid addressing any argument they may have. It reminds me of the first season of Blackadder, when Blackadder is on trial for witchcraft. The witchsmeller quotes Blackadder offering his horse some carrots, that carrots are the devil's favorite food, and that carrots grow on trees. Baldrick blurts out that carrots don't grow on trees and is immediately accused of being a witch. More often then not, the bad actor is not the one being accused of being a fascist/witch, but the one doing the accusing.
 
The thing about Germany, Italy and most other countrie that embraced fascism is that their minority populations were relatively small, if 95% of the population is homogenous then turning on the other 5% is populist. The US is (very approximately from a Google) 60% 'white only' which makes a racist ideology immediately devisive, but then even that 60% isn't homogeneous in the way that a European country a century ago was as it's made up of different generation immigrants from various countries who may have retained different cultural norms from their ancestor countries to differing degrees.
I beg you to learn more history than WWII. There's lots of history. Making every analogy to mid-20th Century Europe is so tiresome.
 
But, no. "Fascist" is just the contemporary way of accusing someone of being a witch. Throw the label at someone, and you can dehumanize them and completely avoid addressing any argument they may have. It reminds me of the first season of Blackadder, when Blackadder is on trial for witchcraft. The witchsmeller quotes Blackadder offering his horse some carrots, that carrots are the devil's favorite food, and that carrots grow on trees. Baldrick blurts out that carrots don't grow on trees and is immediately accused of being a witch. More often then not, the bad actor is not the one being accused of being a fascist/witch, but the one doing the accusing.
Complete non sequitur denying the substantive similarities.

Obviously I don't think it's the party of Mussolini. But it's cut from the same cloth. With some minor changes.
 
The thing about Germany, Italy and most other countrie that embraced fascism is that their minority populations were relatively small, if 95% of the population is homogenous then turning on the other 5% is populist. The US is (very approximately from a Google) 60% 'white only' which makes a racist ideology immediately devisive, but then even that 60% isn't homogeneous in the way that a European country a century ago was as it's made up of different generation immigrants from various countries who may have retained different cultural norms from their ancestor countries to differing degrees.
Even turning on the minority was Germany-only. Mussolini couldn't care less, as long as you were a patriotic nationalist. Granted, later he got pressured by Hitler to persecute the Jews, but even there he did a half-arsed job, and it was never a part of his speeches or official policy.
 
What similarities? Like sharing polices similar to the Nazi party platform?
The funny part is that actually the US right wingers are actually AGAINST most of the NSDAP platform (which they've probably never read,) rather than having much in common. There's a reason that the US right wingers insist that the nazis were socialists.
 
The funny part is that actually the US right wingers are actually AGAINST most of the NSDAP platform (which they've probably never read,) rather than having much in common. There's a reason that the US right wingers insist that the nazis were socialists.
Please be specific. Which parts of the NSDAP platform are U.S. right wingers supposed to be against? They aren't exactly fond of Jews, Gypsies (i.e. brown people), communists or LGBTQ. They aren't sympathetic to the sick or disabled. So what is it that U.S. right wingers don't have in common with Hitler's platform? The only thing I can think of is that Hitler, unlike the GOP, was fairly rational when it came to nationalized health care and vaccinations: He wanted Germans to have those! (He 'just' didn't want his enemies to benefit from getting vaxxed.)
What similarities? Like sharing polices similar to the Nazi party platform?
Have you noticed what the GOP platform is right now, before the midterms?
Who are the boogeymen, the Volksverräter, who are out to destroy the nation?
Socialists, communists and anti-fascists!
Trump is even reviving the horror story about little Timmy returning from school as Tammy.
Transgender Experiences in Weimar and Nazi Germany (Museum of Jewish Heritage, June 2, 2022)
Hitler’s Nazi government ... brutally targeted the trans community, deporting many trans people to concentration camps and wiping out vibrant community structures. As transgender people are now increasingly targets of discriminatory legislation and hate, join the Museum for a program exploring these stories and experiences prior to and during the Holocaust.

That Trump's bisexuality is showing up and obviously increasing with every new rally is just making the show even more bizarre. In some ways, it's a pity that Hitler didn't live long enough for gay dementia to really let him get down and boogie to whatever corresponded to the Village People's YMCA in Germany.

Fortunately, people who used to believe in Trump are beginning to catch on to the misdirection of the fascist GOP. They are beginning to understand what is actually going on, and they never gave a ◊◊◊◊ about Trump's interior decorating concerns, which is all he's got:
Republicans SHOCKED To Learn Their Voters Actually HATE Billionaires (Farron Balanced on YouTube, Oct 30, 2026 – 4:48 min.)
‘Rural voters who have long been the Republican Party’s core base are expressing major discontent with the current state of the US economy, which has been hurt by President Donald Trump’s tariffs and his illegal war with Iran.’


3:27–> I got to admit I'm shocked that these rural Republican voters are like, "Yeah, screw the billionaire class.
There's too much corruption in our party because of the billionaires and because our guys are just kind of crappy."
Holy wow, they all sound like a bunch of Bernie Sanders's.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's because "socialism" and "communism" are the Rightists' boogeyman of choice now. Socialists are bad, Nazis are bad, Nazis are therefore Socialists.
Nazis are supposed to be bad now?
Have you actually listened to the GOP in recent years?
They're embracing Nazis! They are Nazis!
The Republican Party & The Far Right (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on YouTube, Oct 26, 2026 – 36:11 min.)
Ahead of the midterms, John Oliver devotes an entire episode to discussing the rising prominence of extremist beliefs within the Republican Party – from white nationalism to antisemitism – and what it all has to do with Vandy potato chips.
 
Last edited:
But, no. "Fascist" is just the contemporary way of accusing someone of being a witch. Throw the label at someone, and you can dehumanize them and completely avoid addressing any argument they may have. It reminds me of the first season of Blackadder, when Blackadder is on trial for witchcraft. The witchsmeller quotes Blackadder offering his horse some carrots, that carrots are the devil's favorite food, and that carrots grow on trees. Baldrick blurts out that carrots don't grow on trees and is immediately accused of being a witch. More often then not, the bad actor is not the one being accused of being a fascist/witch, but the one doing the accusing.
Nonsense. He had an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor.
 
Yes, but that's the same kind of logic as saying that "carpet" sounds like "car pet", so clearly they meant a pet who lives in a car. Actually worse. That's nonsense. Anyone who isn't just looking for something to get butthurt about doesn't go into that kind of 6-degrees-of association involving foreign words, or rather initials and sound-alikes of them.

You don't read "Pope Leo" and go, yeah, the L is clearly the initial of "Lecherous" and "Eo" sounds like "Ego", which is used in psychology to mean the personality, so clearly it must mean "Lecherous personality." Normal people don't work that way. Only the ones looking for any 6-degrees-of-separation reasons to get butthurt do.
No, you don't do that, but you don't appear to know the difference between, on the one hand, fiction carefully and deliberately put together by a writer playing around with words and symbols and what they mean, and, on the other hand, reality, where 'connecting the dots' leads to terrible interpretations as QAnon and its disciples have shown.

However, unlike most other names, Leo, in the case of the pope, is a chosen one, so something akin to a writer meticulously choosing names for characters in a novel to mean something may also be the case here.
Google AI suggests:
When Pope Leo XIV chose his name, he explicitly pointed to the legacy of Pope Leo XIII and Rerum Novarum, signaling a focus on applying the Church's social teachings to modern challenges—such as digital transformation and artificial intelligence—while defending human dignity and labor. [1, 2]
The next time you try your hand at fiction, you should do so more carefully.
 
Please be specific. Which parts of the NSDAP platform are U.S. right wingers supposed to be against?
Glad you've asked, my sceptic friend.

As I was saying, the most trivial example is free healthcare for all citizens. A later issue than the original 1920 program, but the nazis were for it (well, only for the ethnic Germans, since everyone else was to be stripped of citizenship, cf point 4 of the program.) MAGA would and did have fits even hearing about single-payer insurance.

Other examples from the actual 25 point NSDAP program (as signed on Feb 24 1920 by Adolf) include:

- free higher education on the state's expense for particularly smart children, so as to stop favouring the wealthy (point 20)
- expanding old age welfare (point 15)
- expanding and supporting the middle class (point 16)
- ensuring a living wage for citizens (point 7)
- freedom of religion for all denominations... except for the Jews (point 24)
- improving public health, increasing protections for mothers and children, flat-out forbidding underage labour, and supporting PE (point 21)

As I was mentioning, there are more later examples, but this will do for a casual talk on a non-history board.
 
Last edited:
Glad you've asked.

As I was saying, the most trivial example is free healthcare for all citizens. A later issue than the original 1920 program, but the nazis were for it (well, only for the ethnic Germans, since everyone else was to be stripped of citizenship, cf point 4 of the program.) MAGA would and did have fits even hearing about single-payer insurance.
We agree on that one, more or less. However, as for the rest:
Other examples from the actual 25 point NSDAP program (as signed on Feb 24 1920 by Adolf) include:
- free higher education on the state's expense for particularly smart children, so as to stop favouring the wealthy (point 20)
- expanding old age welfare (point 15)
- expanding and supporting the middle class (point 16)
- ensuring a living wage for citizens (point 7)
- freedom of religion for all denominations... except for the Jews (point 24)
- improving public health, increasing protections for mothers and children, flat-out forbidding underage labour, and supporting PE (point 21)

As I was mentioning, there are more later examples, but this will do for a casual talk on a non-history board.
There's a difference between what fascists say they're gonna do once they get into power and what they actually do once they're there.

– Hitler didn't exactly "stop favouring the wealthy" – unless the wealthy were Jews. In Mein Kampf, he was very anti-elitist as was Trump in his campaign speeches in 2016. For instance, Hitler objected to fencing (an elitist sport) and favored boxing (proletarian) instead. However, in the case of both of them, what they thought of as elites and where they managed to grab onto an already existing resentment in the working classes was: the elites = the educated! 'Those people who think they are smarter than us! A comeuppance is what's needed.'
– Did Hitler actually expand and support the middle class? Does Trump?

– The Nazis didn't ensure a living wage. They had the advantage that they came into power after the Great Depression peaked, and employment did increase. However, they didn't raise hourly wage rates but instead increased the number of working hours. Trump, of course, also claimed that he would increase the number of jobs. They always do.

– Freedom of religion ... in words but not in deeds. Not unlike Republicans, who claim that Muslims will make praying to Allah mandatory – while local GOP candidates are trying to make Christianity mandatory.

– Didn't Trump and the GOP promise to improve public health? To protect mothers and children? Underage labour was never really a point in campaign speeches, but Jeffrey Tucker and other billionaires would certainly like to 'give underage children the freedom to work.' (Hitler recruited them as soldiers towards the end of WW2.)

– Supporting PE. Yes, but why? People needed to be strong in order to fight wars and bear children. Wars are different today. For the most part, man-against-man warfare has been replaced by bombs and drones. And yet, very similar ideals of physical fitness still exist, the pathetic poster boys for this trend in the GOP being RFK Jr. and Pete Hegseth. The latter is hoping to replace PE with what he thinks is a more contemporary version: mandatory testosterone shots for male personnel in the army. The toxic masculinity in Nazi Germany is very similar to the GOP's admiration for scum like the Tate brothers. A major difference is the toxic femininity. All in all, women in the 3rd Reich looked much healthier than the MAGA women. Even Nazis would have been disgusted by the Mar-a-Lago look.

So if you consider the difference between promises given and promises (not) kept, there are more similarities than differences between the GOP and the NSDAP.
 
Yes, well, if anyone expects any politicians to actually do what they've said they'll do, they're going to be very disappointed :P

As for the other, some things they did do. They did increase jobs in the industry and infrastructure, as opposed to agriculture, exactly like the program said they'd do. (Of course, later most of those jobs went to Slavic slaves, but oh well...;))

Another promise I haven't mentioned, and that they did (ironically) keep was to regulate corporations, with penalties going all the way to nationalising companies that don't serve the state interests. See that state corporatism I've mentioned before. It really was a core issue for fascists. I think most MAGA would get an aneurism at the mere mention of the state dictating what corporations can or can't do.

Femininity... I would actually disagree there about the Nazis. There was nothing healthy about being a woman there. They excluded women from unemployment statistics, for example. And that's not even going into ick stuff like the SS Lebensborn breeding farms.
 
Last edited:

here’s an article from reason magazine critical of maga’s state corporatism

As I detailed in a recent cover story for Reason, this pivot towards a more aggressive form of state capitalism is a risky experiment that involves more central planning, invites more corruption, and risks both taxpayer dollars and vital sectors of the economy. Even amid the Trump administration's many other intrusions into the private economic sphere—tariffs, attacks on independent media outlets, and so on—the rapid acquisition of shares in so many private companies has been astonishing.

nobody had an aneurysm
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom