But I'm the "fucking stupid" one. Okay.
Okay! On to the next problem!
fascism requires the notion that everyone who isn't part of the master race should be massacred
That's Nazism. Fascism is the Mussolini thing.
This is such a dumb definition we all know fascism is objectively the right wing of social democracy
brags about not starting any wars
He actually did start a war in Niger the press just didn't report on it
And he almost started one by assassinating Soleimani. It certainly seemed like he as trying to start a war then. Not to mention the trade war with China.
You get the timing wrong. He assassinated Soleimani after he withdrawn from attacking Iran, to have last word and to placate republican warhawks. There was no risk of war then already unless Iran would openly attack USA which they wouldn't did.
He attacked Iran right after he withdrew from attacking Iran? That makes no sense.
Again read my post slowly and read about the assassination itself. That attack was a bone thrown to the rep warhawks and a consolation prize to placate them after they were denied the war with Iran. It wasn't attack on Iran itself, it wasn't even in Iran, and Iran also didn't treated it like the act of war (note they did also not really declared war after multiple assassinations of Iranian offcials on Iranian soil by Isn'treal, and their answer might be the same since every now and then "someone" do bomb US bases in Iraq and Syria).
That attack was a bone thrown to the rep warhawks
You don't get to do that. You don't get to assassinate the commander of Iran's armed forces while he's on a diplomatic mission and then say 'oopsies, this is just a consolation prize as we avoid war with Iran'. That's nonsensical and also revisionist. Trump looked like shit for days after that attack while the iran war caucus was ecstatic precisely because of how much closer to war the entire region got. Iran did in fact treat this as an attack, which is why retaliations had to be arranged.
Trump and Bolton didn't step back away from war. They incited it. It was Iran who chose to deescalate when they called the Americans and arranged for face saving measures instead of starting the war we see today.
Iran and the rest of the resistance have been in a hybrid war against the US and Israel for decades. The fact that Israel can also kill whoever they want and bomb whoever they want is not an indication that peace reigns or that doves reign supreme. It's an indication that the NATO powers have been able to wage war with impunity. Nothing more, nothing less.
Jess wtf are you even talking about.
You don’t get to do that. You don’t get to assassinate the commander of Iran’s armed forces while he’s on a diplomatic mission and then say ‘oopsies, this is just a consolation prize as we avoid war with Iran’.
Unless you are the most fucking unhinged empire on planet who just geared up for war to 11:59 and then abruptly stopped because the target proven they can defend themseleves. Also you speak as if USA ever gave a shit about unnecessary detalis like diplomacy or international opinion. For fucks sake foreign secretary back then was Pompeo, possibly the worst diplomat i've ever seen (at least outside Isnt'real). For him and Trump their party bonzos opinion is 1000 times more valuable than everyone, and they were sorely disappointed no blood has flown so they get at least one head.
Trump looked like shit for days after that attack while the iran war caucus was ecstatic precisely because of how much closer to war the entire region got
Like no shit sure he was, he wanted it just the same, but most likely got advised by Pentagon to not do it in last minute when Iranian air defense proven they were much superior to anything US expected when Iran shot down their best stealth drone with old 60's Soviet missile just with more modern locally produced radar & guidance system. THIS stopped the war, nothing else. This was 20 june 2019, US backed from war soon after and Soleimani was murdered 3 january 2020.
Trump and Bolton didn’t step back away from war. They incited it.
They incited war which didn't happened? Did USA bombed Iran? Invaded it? War did started? No. So while they did pushed for it, they backed down, or more accurately Trump did, Bolton was sacked (10 september 2019, after the dron shot down but before Soleimani murder) precisely because he still pushed for it when Trump and the administration decided to back down.
It was Iran who chose to deesclate when they called the Americans and arranged for face saving measures instead of starting the war we see today.
Lol fucking lmao this would be first time in history when the potential target of US manage to avoid being attacked by "calling them". The only way you can do it is to show force, which is precisely what they did (or have nukes like DPRK). Also, did you just suggested that Soleimani's death was Iran giving him up so the US can "save face"? because there surely wasn't any other "success" of the US back then in the region.
Iran did in fact treat this as an attack, which is why retaliations had to be arranged.
yes they did, but they didn't openly attacked US in retaliation and surely didn't go to war with US. They added it to the book but regardless what US did they wouldn't escalate to war just after they avoid war just to avenge one man, funnily of you to engage in such vulgar great man theory after calling me "revisionist" lol. Also name that retaliation - what did they do, precisely, and how it even fits in you subsequent words about Iran deescalating.
Iran and the rest of the resistance have been in a hybrid war against the US and Israel for decades. The fact that Israel can also kill whoever they want and bomb whoever they want is not an indication that peace reigns or that doves reign supreme.
Again jesse what the fuck are you just strawmanning me into here, "peace reigns or that doves reign supreme"??? Lol where i did ever said that lol.
Jess wtf are you even talking about.
Reality. You don't get to attack a country and pretend that's de-escalation. What you're describing is absolute and fucking utter nonsense that has no relationship with reality, basic analysis or the human ability to string two words together.
Unless you are the most fucking unhinged empire on planet
The kind to attack the commander in chief of Iran while he's on a diplomatic mission and then pretend that's de-escalation? No wait, you're the one saying that.
who just geared up for war
Yes, anyone with a pair of functioning eyes can look at a map and realize the United States is perpetually ready to invade Iran. Hence their ability to continuously wage hybrid war against 5 different countries in the region, including Iran.
Like no shit sure he was, he wanted it just the same
Ah, yes. Trump wanted a war. Which is why he de-escalated by attacking the country!
this would be first time in history when the potential target of US manage to avoid being attacked by "calling them".
Jesus fucking Christ. Anyone who reads the news mega can cite dozens of instances where de-escalation was achieved by calling the other side and letting them know where bombings. Case in point, when the United States attacked Iran the Iranians called the US, told them which bases they'd bomb and those bases were promptly prepared for the attack.
Also, did you just suggested that Soleimani's death was Iran giving him up so the US can "save face"?
See above for the actual events I was referring to. You lack basic knowledge of the facts at hand, which is why you just asked such an asinine question.
but they didn't openly attacked US in retaliation
See above once again in case you ignored my previous advice. The fact that you can even make such a statement is another instance of you lacking the basic knowledge of the situation at hand. Iran and the iraqi resistance attacked US bases in Iraq as retaliation for the US's attack on Iran. That is what happened.
and surely didn't go to war with US
Yes, it was Iran who chose to de-escalate by letting the pentagon know where and how the retaliation would occur. The US has continued to wage hybrid and actual war against Iran nonetheless.
funnily of you to engage in such vulgar great man theory after calling me "revisionist" lol.
No. Revisionist isn't just a word that exists within your terminally online circles. It's an actual word used in sociology and history. The fact that you don't know two shits about what happened back then (see above) is what makes you an incompetent revisionist. The United States attacked Iran, killing its commander in chief. The fact of the matter is that the pro iran caucus believed that was it, that war would finally happen. That is one of the many things you've been incapable of remembering or ever knowing.
Lol where i did ever said that lol.
Oh I'm sorry, is the statement 'The United States de-escalated from war with Iran by killing its military commander in a diplomatic mission without any provocation' any less ridiculous than the implication that the US was appeasing peace doves when IT FUCKING KILLED THE MILITARY COMMANDER OF IRAN IN A DIPLOMATIC MISSION.
Reality. You don’t get to attack a country and pretend that’s de-escalation.
I didn't even want to read rest of your inane drivel after this, i explained it to you at least twice but you seem to live in alternate reality where the war did happened.
Since i'm on grad and we don't have this emoji, treat this as PPB and move along.
the killing (which is an aggressive action)
of the iranian military commander (very important person)
while they are on a diplomatic mission (big no no to kill someone here)
is
not (as in, the negative)
deescalation from war (as in, choosing to not wage war)
I'm going to write a short insult on the fact that you wrote all that with elaborate meticulous clarity that I refuse to give a flying fuck about because I'm fat, lazy, single and about to jack-off to some kinky porn. Sorry, man but it means I don't care about who's right and who's wrong when I can't exert the will to care about such status. Just because I have only ever subscribed to popular noose articles and media doesn't mean I'm nearly as intelligent as I'm pretending to be.
i'm sorry that happened to you, hope things get better for you comrade.
I mean, I gotta say, for real this time, how heavily impressed I was by your elaborate explanation up there. You really do just ignore all the blather written to lie over media and through the pretty old puppets. Is what it is and cannot be read by folks brainwashed by the fucking TV. I had to write some equally blathered bullshit mocking his clearly insecurity.
Coups aren't technically wars, but they sure can start them.. and he tried a couple of those
And maintaining the current wars and trying to do coups isn't exactly a good thing either. But libs are just this fucking scratched at this point.
Didn't his admin also drop an MOAB in Afghanistan? That's one of if not the largest non nuclear bomb out there
conquest/imperialism
What the FUCK do you think America loves doing exactly?
Militarised citizenry
Somehow forgotten about the literal armed fascist militias? Memory holed those I guess. Even if at large the citizens are not currently militarised they can be at any point mobilised into mass violence and have the weaponry to do so.
Elimination of our government bodies
Don't need to eliminate what doesn't work in the first place. There's no communist opposition the government bodies were built from the ground up to serve fascists so they don't need elimination
Trump isn't facist... America is fascist
Militarised citizenry
Isn't that just the police now. I think they're classified as civil servants too, not professional soldiers.
And how many local shithead militias have close ties to local PDs all across the country? Remember Patriot Prayer setting up a fuckin sniper nest in a parking garage in 2020?
Oath Keepers were running over the rooftops and streets when Ferguson was going down.
Got military grade IED resistance vehicles in some towns, training from IDF, budget larger than most militaries in the world. Hell there is a history of law enforcement and military training of those in latin America which I imagine is a guinea pig for the US testing things out
'thank you for your service (and only means of not going into debt when buying a house or acquiring an education)'
people literally think hitler is the single end-all-be-all of fascism. bitch didn't even invent it
didif fascism comes to the united states it will be cloaked in a flag of course, but more importantly 80% of this idiot country will confidently declare it isn't because it doesn't come from a bavarian beerhall or some shit. the american people are unintellectual
if fascism comes
It's been here. It's always been here. Where do you think the Germans got their blueprints?
"when fascism comes to america it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross" is a distorted antifascist slogan from the 40s, i was riffing on that
Yeah, I got that. I personally don't like the slogan because I would argue the country has been fascist since its very conception, it just had more rudimentary political structures.
This is what happens when you start with the assumption that the USA doesn't currently show signs of Fascism, and that Fascism must be done to the US.
The Citizenry is currently engaged in a series of events of stochastic terrorism
Congress is entirely undemocratic
The USA does plenty of massacres, while those are mostly outside of the US. What ICE does is within the US. But Non-citizens don't count I guess.
That's a lot of words to say you don't know what fascist means, but you want to carry water for them
passed criminal justice reform
I entirely forgot what Trump did. But I'm still pretty darn sure it was pure politics, superficial, and in no meaningful sense "reform".
personally pardoned black inmates
How many people? ~5? And he pardoned some rappers. That was pure politics too.
---
If some net rando gets the details wrong - I don't think anything of it. But politics is her fucking job and it pays her mortgage and her bills. How can anybody be so stupid?
Ninja edit. It's a rhetorical question of course.
To your first point: First Step Act
Of course like most any legislation a president takes credit for it's literally "signed his name and didn't block it". But that might put Trump above Biden in terms of actual criminal justice reform
How can Ana Kasperian try to champion Trump's criminal justice reform when she uses her platform to rail against bail reform laws and do the same crime fearmongering that they do on MSM? Scratched liberal is scratched.
Just a few days she said something about the left loving crime or some shit
I think her reasoning is not very strong but as to whether trump or these populist right wingers are "fascists" I'm on samuel moyn's side that they're an entirely new modern terrible thing and that the more rigorous you want to be when comparing them to real historical interwar fascism the less accurate the description becomes.
The mass politics aren't there, neither for them nor for us, neither is the civil militarization, not nearly at the level where it'd actually be relevant. So you're just kinda left with, "they're racist and want to reverse rights", yeah that's called being a conservative and a reactionary, but it's not fascism. And that goes both for trump (who's brand of populism is more like classic american white nativism than a fancy european ideology) and for the surging far-right in europe. The strongest claim one can make is that they're "like" fascists, or they're "neo-fascists" or something, but a 1 to 1 comparison I think loses power the more these parties turn out to not do the most significant things that fascists do, because they can't, you can't conjure up a mass social movement out of the current moment.
The 2 exceptions I make are India, since the BJP's oficial militarized gangs resemble fascist militias way more than anything in europe and north america (but that might just be my ignorance about the country).
And Israel. And I think it says a lot how much money academics, journalists, pundits, "human rights advocates" and center-left activists have made by painting the contemporary right or far-right as fascist, but are COMPLETELY SILENT about the categorization when faced with a real contemporary example.
As to whether it's good that we call all these people fascists now as a political move, if you're one of those "you gotta understand something to fight it" guys then you probably oppose it on that principle but I think after a few years of this political climate you can see how there's good and bad things about it as a strategy.
The good is that it's basically "red-tagging" (when you call every lib a communist) but for conservatives, by labeling people much to the right of where they actually are based on 1 or 2 positions, in theory that brings the overton window and the range of acceptable politics left, and that remains while the accusation has credibility, which is until the political center starts taking positions from the far right (on say migration), because the centrists CAN'T be the fascists.
The bad is that it creates an emergency situation, which might drive some people towards real (not online) leftist militancy (that's what happened to me) but it probably drives far more people into the center, because if "the fascists are coming" and you have hitler on your mind, then you're not gonna bother with radical politics, you should be afraid, and if you're afraid you're gonna want to give power only to people who uphold "democratic" institutions like parliaments, laws and norms, and not all radicals want to uphold those norms for good reason. And we've seen what that entails, it's getting in line "anti-fascitly" behind Biden-Harris, Macron (which is what the NFP still did with their alliance) or Costa (Portugal).
I had the thought just the other day that the US might be best described as "post-fascist", seeing as how elimination of any real left is an already completed project, suppression of marginalized groups and workers is fully institutionalized, and then there's of course the historical slavery and genocide that most people now just shrugs at if they're even mentioned all.
I am admittedly an idiot though, so yeah.
seeing as how elimination of any real left is an already completed project, suppression of marginalized groups and workers is fully institutionalized
Yeah that's a big factor too that I forgot to mention, I remember when Biden just straight up called off that big railworkers (I think) strike, or how Macron can push his retirement age reform even through mass contestation. We talk about fascists ultimately serving capitalism to fight violently fight the worker militancy in germany and italy (I read an interview once where an old german guy said that if you moved into their city, and you didn't immediatly join a party or a labour union, you would get beaten up and harassed, because it was assumed that you were there to be a scab, that's the level of militancy there was), but you don't need that kind of violence to defeat the current level of militancy, you just sign the act to make the strike illegal and workers understand that if they keep going you'll send in the national guard, or, like Macron, you wait them out.
In a way, it's like you don't NEED fascism when centrists can accomplish some of the same goals.
That part about you being an idiot is the only part you're wrong about 🤗
Alt-fascism. Neo-fascism. Crypto-fascism. I think at some level it's a distinction without a difference.
I tend to frequently at the moment call every lib/conservative a fascist these days on Hexbear, but honestly you're probably more spot on with this.
The question is if it matters. To me, what you describe is just fascism in the 21st century. Whereas Israel and BJP are more traditional 20th century style fascism. It's a good discussion to have!
I tend to frequently at the moment call every lib/conservative a fascist
Yeah so do I, I called the german green party Nazis the other day, sometimes you just wanna let out how much you hate these people.
To me, what you describe is just fascism in the 21st century. Whereas Israel and BJP are more traditional 20th century style fascism.
Yeah that's what makes the most sense to me too, to say that these people ARE fascist but they're, just, fascists with the material conditions that we have now, which make them not actually resemble or be able to do what old-school fascism actually was.
I mean, if you lean too hard into calling Trump a fascist, you have to start justifying why all the Democratic Party policies are the same as his. If you're trying to be a mainstream pundit, you can't call both parties fascists with little to no sunlight between them, even if it's demonstrably and obviously true.
This has exactly the same energy, as the rule nerds who will patiently spend hours explaining that what's happening in Palestine is not a genocide, it's just ethnic cleansing.
This is simply a semantic argument, that is so caught up on legalistic definitions, that it's unable to see the forest for the trees.
It turns out that when fascism takes its mask off in the imperial core 80 years after its "defeat" in Europe, it looks a little different. Material conditions change, Mussolini and Hitler were fighting large communist organizations within their country, the largest left wing organizations in the United States, are hilariously impotent in comparison.
Meanwhile a majority of Republicans, and a large minority of Democrats approve of the idea of putting undocumented workers in literal camps.
---
US has always been fascist
