Is Trump Fascist Leaning?

[metis]

Back in 1991, I was sponsored on a study of the Holocaust, thus spending two weeks in Poland going through three of the death camps, and then following up with my study spending a week in Israel, going through Yad Vashem and talking with survivors.

But after I returned back to the States, one question really bugged me, and that is how a country like Germany, which reputedly had the best educational system in the world, could have its people so duped that some historians estimate that up to 80% of the German people was supportive of Hitler and the Third Reich?

I had access to many copies of "Der Sturmer" on microfeesh (sp?) at the Holocaust center, so I spent many hours going through them. What I saw coming out of that propaganda arm of the NAZI's is bone-chilling, especially looking at the tactics that are now being used by this president.

It's the "divide & conquer" approach, matched with acute stereotyping, name-calling, and racism. It's the "we v they" approach, whereas the "they" are demonized. It's the accumulation of power by the increasing going against the "rule of law". It's the blind hero-worship of a "strong leader" that's demanded. It's the accepting of the hate-filled rhetoric and simplistic blaming of certain groups, including the media, as being "enemies of the state".

This is serious, and to take what Trump is doing so lightly is dangerous to our democracy and well being as Michael Cohen told Congress, and his opinion is now being supported by John Kelly.

"Buyer beware"

 

[metis]

So you admit his enemies are no better.

I don't use nor believe in "false equivalencies", plus there's a vast difference between inconvenient facts versus ad hominem attacks.

 

[Terry Sampson]

"Is Trump Fascist Leaning?"
I say no. I say that he believes that the world is one big whore house and that whores like it rough; and he wants to sample as much candy as he can before anyone stops him.

according to Trump's first wife Ivana, who wrote that he kept NAZI essays on the table next to his bed and that he read them regularly.

Instances of Trump's illiteracy abound. I suspect that Ivana made up the stuff about Trump reading "Nazi essays" regularly because she didn't want folks to think that she had married an idiot just for his money and couldn't think of anything else that Trump might have been willing to read if he could read.

Trump also wrote in his book "the Art of the Deal that his father taught him that they were descendants of German "warriors and kings" and that he should always remember that.

The story is probably true but Trump didn't write that book. His ghost-writer, Tony Schwartz, did, .... and regrets it. Donald Trump’s Ghostwriter Tells All

 

[Stanyon]

Do you think the German propaganda is any different than the propaganda used today?

The base concepts seem to have remained the same throughout the centuries, the only thing that has changed is the technologies and tools available to dispense them. Fritz Hipplers essay Der Filme Als Waffe (Film as a Weapon) is a good modern example of that understanding.

 

[dianaiad]

OK, which political party does Wikipedia favor and please post your evidence?

Secondly, since Wikipedia is so supposedly partisan, then why don't you post non-partisan quotes and their sites to support your point of view? Heck, anyone can badmouth nearly anything as that's all too easy to do, but where's the evidence that goes beyond your outrage?

BTW, over the last few years Wikipedia has been "cleaning up its act", thus trying to avoid what you claim above. In so many cases where they cannot confirm something they'll post "[citations needed]".

Did you bother to read my post?

Evidently not.

Try this, AGAIN.

Wikipedia is a platform, the articles it hosts are written by individuals who are partisan in their own ways. Some are extremely left leaning. Some extremely right leaning. SOME might try for objectivity, but to claim that 'wikipedia' is 'non-partisan' is about as silly a thing as I've seen in awhile.

Wikipedia is a PLATFORM. Wikipedia isn't a person or a group. It's...a card catalogue. It's contents are written by individuals whose only connection to one another is the publishing platform they use. Each individual can be, and is, partisan in his/her own way. Some are extreme right wingers. Some extreme left wingers. Some aren't political at all. Some are very well researched articles with lots of references that one can check for accuracy and bias. Some are not. DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA as 'the source' for anything. It's a third party access device that gives you references to other places. It's a grand set of footnotes.

In other words, WIKIPEDIA is neither partisan or non partisan, but the authors who post there ARE...and you have to make that determination author by author. For you to claim that Wiki is non-partisan is to place your opinion of IT onto the articles written by the authors in it.

And that's just dumb.

(grin)

Oh, I just found this: Wikipedia Is More Biased Than Britannica, but Don’t Blame the Crowd

Wherein the Harvard Business Review finds that Wikipedia, in general, is more 'left leaning." (grin)

that was fun to read. Personally, I still go for the individual articles and references used, and don't figure that the articles are 'right' or 'left' leaning simply because they happen to appear on Wikipedia, but that's just me.

 

[Stanyon]

there's a vast difference between inconvenient facts

Like the Trump colluded with Russia story that still exists even when a two year investigation concluded there was no collusion.

 

[metis]

I suspect that Ivana made up the stuff about Trump read "Nazi essays" regularly because she didn't want folks to think that she had married an idiot just for his money and couldn't think of anything else that Trump might have been willing to read if he could read.

I don't know, which is why I din't state it as if it were a fact. However, what possibly leads some credence to
what she said is the tactics that he is using, which are becoming increasingly blatant and autocratic.

The story is probably true but Trump didn't write that book. His ghost-writer, Tony Schwartz, did, .... and regrets it. Donald Trump’s Ghostwriter Tells All

I've listened to him many times, as well as his other co-author. Neither of them have nice things to say about Trump, and Schwartz lived with Trump for roughly nine months, according to him.

He said that as boastful and arrogant Trump appears to the public, the reality is that he's a "small man", to use Schwartz's words.

 

[metis]

Did you bother to read my post?

Evidently not.

Try this, AGAIN.

Wikipedia is a platform, the articles it hosts are written by individuals who are partisan in their own ways. Some are extremely left leaning. Some extremely right leaning. SOME might try for objectivity, but to claim that 'wikipedia' is 'non-partisan' is about as silly a thing as I've seen in awhile.

Wikipedia is a PLATFORM. Wikipedia isn't a person or a group. It's...a card catalogue. It's contents are written by individuals whose only connection to one another is the publishing platform they use. Each individual can be, and is, partisan in his/her own way. Some are extreme right wingers. Some extreme left wingers. Some aren't political at all. Some are very well researched articles with lots of references that one can check for accuracy and bias. Some are not. DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA as 'the source' for anything. It's a third party access device that gives you references to other places. It's a grand set of footnotes.

In other words, WIKIPEDIA is neither partisan or non partisan, but the authors who post there ARE...and you have to make that determination author by author. For you to claim that Wiki is non-partisan is to place your opinion of IT onto the articles written by the authors in it.

And that's just dumb.

(grin)

Oh, I just found this: Wikipedia Is More Biased Than Britannica, but Don’t Blame the Crowd

Wherein the Harvard Business Review finds that Wikipedia, in general, is more 'left leaning." (grin)

that was fun to read. Personally, I still go for the individual articles and references used, and don't figure that the articles are 'right' or 'left' leaning simply because they happen to appear on Wikipedia, but that's just me.

I read your post the first time, and the only thing you're showing us is that you're being quite hypocritical since you admit you use it a lot. And the "footnotes" you like on other matters are also used on the quotes I gave you. So, only when its convenient for ya, eh, do you badmouth it?

And just to be clear, my feeling that Trump is fascist-leaning was there long before I read the Wiki article in fascism, because Trump's rhetoric and actions are too reminiscent of my studies of fascism as I explained in a previous post #21.

And to call my reference "dumb" is just a nonsensical slam since I always use multiple sources on anything controversial.

 

[metis]

Like the Trump colluded with Russia story that still exists even when a two year investigation concluded there was no collusion.

The Mueller Report didn't support the accusation of collusion, which is why you don't see me claiming that he was guilty of that.

 

[metis]

BTW, just a short note in that since Lent is starting tomorrow with Ash Wednesday, for the duration of that time through to Easter, I will not be getting involved in any political discussions here at RF. And, just to be clear, I made that decision a couple of weeks ago. The irony is that when I created this thread I forgot about the fact that I couldn't continue with it after today. Oh well.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No. Trump doesn't believe in anything or hold any ideological values and principles.

That is a dangerously ignorant assessment.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But there has to be at least some base that Trump is working from, and since he's been interested in NAZI propaganda according to Ivana, and since he continually has praised "strong leaders", there's is at least a "something there".

However, where I agree with you is that his main brunt is his acute self-centeredness.

A lot of people admire or are fascinated with the Nazis due to the power they projected and their slick aesthetic, while not agreeing with or really caring about the ideology.

 

[metis]

A lot of people admire or are fascinated with the Nazis due to the power they projected and their slick aesthetic, while not agreeing with or really caring about the ideology.

That's true, which is one reason that I made no claim that this is what has been driving him.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That is a dangerously ignorant assessment.

Not really. He just wants power for power's sake. He's a crook and a liar. Throw some base bigotry in the mizlx and you have a person who will be a brute to appease the lowest common denominator, of which there are millions.

 

[dianaiad]

I read your post the first time, and the only thing you're showing us is that you're being quite hypocritical since you admit you use it a lot.

Yes I do use it a lot, BECAUSE I KNOW HOW, and I know what it's weaknesses and strengths are. What I do not do, very often, is use Wikipedia as a primary source. I go there, go to the articles published there....and from there GO TO THEIR REFERENCES. What I do not do is assume that because an article is published on Wiki, then it WILL BE unbiased, because the odds are very great that it will be. Biased, that is. I may not know which way the bias leans, but since people write that stuff, I assume from the get go that there is bias there. that's why I go to THEIR footnotes and references.

I can tell you this: when I was teaching, I insisted that my students USE Wiki....but if they tried citing it they flunked.

Do you understand the difference here? I make no assumptions about Wikipedia. I certainly do NOT assume that it is non-partisan, because no matter which way the partisan bias lies, it will be partisan, if politics is involved. Because people write the articles.

And the "footnotes" you like on other matters are also used on the quotes I gave you. So, only when its convenient for ya, eh, do you badmouth it?

Metis, you are the one who claimed that Wikipedia was unbiased and non-partisan, not me....and you didn't give us any links or references to anything but Wikipedia. (looking...nope, all the references were to wikipedia articles and definitions)

And just to be clear, my feeling that Trump is fascist-leaning was there long before I read the Wiki article in fascism, because Trump's rhetoric and actions are too reminiscent of my studies of fascism as I explained in a previous post #21.

And to call my reference "dumb" is just a nonsensical slam since I always use multiple sources on anything controversial.

First, your feelings about Trump and fascism are yours. My only quarrel with you is your statement that Wikipedia is non-partisan.

As to calling your reference 'dumb,' well....since you haven't used anything BUT wikipedia references (I clicked on all of 'em, just to be sure, and the only thing that was NOT a wiki definition was a shout out to Roger Boesche, and I think that was an accident) I think I made my case. That's not 'multiple references."

So, you evidently haven't used multiple references for this one, anyway. Not that your opinion isn't quite valid...I don't agree with it, but it's a valid one...but my only point is that you seem to be worshiping at the altar of Wikipedia, attributing to it qualities it simply does not have.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can you think of something that Trump actually enacted through policy that would be conducent with fascism?

Enabling and otherwise whitewashing dictatorial thugs.
Facilitating the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds.
Denigrating our nations security services.
Exercising vulgar nativism and xenophobia with maximum cruelty.
Eviscerating the Justice Department.

To all of which Trump brings his unique combination of disgusting misogyny and pathological dishonesty and narcissism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Madeleine Albright Warns of a New Fascism - and Trump

 

[Heyo]

I think the democrats don't have much to offer and have to resort to personal attacks and intimations of fascism in their efforts to defeat Trump in 2020, it's what they've been doing since 2016 so why stop now?
There is still hope yet! Bernie Sanders was asked what was going to happen if he debated Trump and Trump highlighted that Sanders had no clue how to pay for all his proposals or how much it was going to cost. Bernie Sanders answer to this? Call him a liar and say he's the most dishonest president ever.

"I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall."
Sometimes it's more honest to say you don't have the financing down to the cent than brazenly lying to the voters.

 

[fantome profane]

Not really. He just wants power for power's sake. He's a crook and a liar. Throw some base bigotry in the mizlx and you have a person who will be a brute to appease the lowest common denominator, of which there are millions.

Pretty good description of many historical fascists.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Pretty good description of many historical fascists.

You find those types in all authoritarian movements.