Thread of What Is Fascism And Is Donald Trump A Fascist

You know Trump just creates enemies. You know you can't trust him. You know he been incompetent during this crisis. You know all those people didn't need to die. Trump talks about the Space Program and you can't safely go to a movie. Wake up

— Jim Gaffigan (@JimGaffigan) August 28, 2020

to those of you who think Im destroying my career wake up. if trump gets elected, the economy will never come back.

— Jim Gaffigan (@JimGaffigan) August 28, 2020

Etc.

Truth Hot Pocket

Gaffigan goes off...never seen him like this. pic.twitter.com/gdurze0b32

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) August 28, 2020

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgfeXifU8Acnli3?format=jpg&name=large

Wow!

no need to curse tho.

— Jeannie Gaffigan (@jeanniegaffigan) August 28, 2020

hahaha

lol

his wife is very funny.
gaffigan has excellent timing, as proven here.

Make America Gaffigan

— Jason Isbell (@JasonIsbell) August 28, 2020

I had trouble sleeping last night thinking of all these armed militia groups and the like. Namely, what can be done about them? There seem to be enough numbers across the states that they can't and more to the point won't all be arrested, and if anyone actually had the resolve and will and tried (which they don't), the results seem pretty predictable. And yet the alternative seems to be to let them go about their gun-toting business, give or take a murder or hate crime, which doesn't seem like a solution. Truly have no idea. When one side is literally and figuratively gearing up for war, and the other side doesn't give it to them, then there's no explicit pretense for punishment, and everyone is left in this tense and seemingly untenable holding pattern.

all i can hope for is a democratic administration that recognizes domestic rightwing terrorism and does something about it. that's not this administration, that's for fucking sure, and the obama administration always treated "domestic rightwing terrorism" as a bad word (for understandable but sad political reasons - i suppose they didn't want to a black president who had mentioned "clinging to religion and guns" during his campaign to be associated with the country's first real reckoning with the most dangerous elements of extreme rightwing groups, which are almost entirely white dudes with guns, justifying their racist actions on their religion). maybe biden will be able to name the ugly evil thing and do something about it.

These people have always been around, but with the advent of the internet and social media networking, their numbers have increased as the population of white people has decreased and neoliberal economies have continued to fuck over the American industrial workforce.

Remember that in the 90s, we had the OK City bombing, Ruby Ridge, and a number of other major, major right-wing fascist acts of terror committed in the US.

What happened is that after 9/11, all of the resources that went to tracking, infiltrating, and stopping the growth of such groups were shifted toward stopping what turned out to be a boogeyman of Islamist terrorism. This allowed these right-wing fascist groups to harness increasing internet connection speeds and social media networks to find and recruit new members while the Bush government murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghan peoples.

In addition, lenient gun sale laws and open-carry laws became even more of a front in the "culture" wars, so that in many of the more conservative states where these right-wing fascists tend to live, they were allowed to amass enormous arsenals.

In other words, while the US government never did a good job at catching and prosecuting these fascists, a number of factors aligned that has given them tremendous power and visibility in a way that they never had before, particularly with the advent of the Tea Party and Trumpism.

What we can do about it? Well, there's the pressure to prosecute such groups, and perhaps enact stricter nationwide gun laws, but as studies have shown, such laws tend to be enforced along racial lines, as most laws are.

I personally think that there are a few options, but most of them are looking at the long game— increasing spending to schools, getting the right textbooks and teachers into those schools, enforcing non-segregation laws in communities and schools, etc.

In terms of the short game, my suggestion is eminently unpopular here as elsewhere, but I do think more progressive people need to get real and start packing.

Remember that in the 90s, we had the OK City bombing, Ruby Ridge, and a number of other major, major right-wing fascist acts of terror committed in the US.

What happened is that after 9/11, all of the resources that went to tracking, infiltrating, and stopping the growth of such groups were shifted toward stopping what turned out to be a boogeyman of Islamist terrorism.

otm. and that's what i mean - any focus there was on violent rightwing patriots in the 90s just vanished into thin air during the bush years. then there wasn't a proper acknowledgment and focus on it during the obama years, for reasons mentioned above. then trump, which...one of the many frustrating things about the "what has trump done that's actually _bad_, tho - he's so incompetent!" crowd is they don't seem to place any value on the effect of a sitting US president whose policy is "rightwing domestic patriotic violence, justified by the name of jesus...is AWESOME AND SHOULD HAPPEN MORE OFTEN!"

I mean, fuck Randy Weaver, but calling Ruby Ridge a major act of terror doesn't sound accurate to me? You could substitute in Eric Rudolph though.

These people have been around forever, but have they always been so heavily armed? Like, at least on par with a militarized police force?

Yes.

Moreso, probably - the militarized police are just catching up with the backwoods militias.

Until 1986 civilians could buy new production actual-honest-to-god machine guns without much effort and they weren't that much more expensive than a regular semi-auto weapons.

have they always been so heavily armed?

No. The massive proliferation of guns of all descriptions was the whole point of the partnership between the NRA and gun manufacturers. It was a ploy to increase sales all along. The fact that there are now more guns in the USA than people shows how successful that partnership has been.

I see a through-line from Jim Crow-era anti-government sentiment to Reaganite anti-government sentiment to Gingrichian Contract-with-America anti-government sentiment to McVeigh/militia anti-government sentiment to Tea Party anti-government sentiment to Bundyan anti-government sentiment to Trumpian anti-government sentiment.

Of COURSE these clowns are especially emboldened, because their racist-af views are also held by people who somehow bungled into near-absolute power. I'd be emboldened too if that ever happened to me.

If you're an anti-government whackjob and your government is controlled by people who think it's (more or less) okay to have a (barely functioning) government, you can regard yourself as a macho maverick outsider who doesn't need anything from the government. You may even mostly ignore government and politics altogether, because it's irrelevant to your lives. Evangelicals did exactly that for decades. You might do something quixotic like the Malheur business, but you're (mostly) not openly roaming city streets hunting Black people in broad daylight.

HOWEVER if you're an anti-government whackjob and your government is controlled by people who are also anti-government whackjobs? You clearly feel like anything goes; it's open season and you can do as you like.

What happens to that dynamic when (one hopes) Trump and his enablers aren't in power anymore? When he's not whipping them up into a frenzy any chance he gets?

Feel free to tell me this is too pollyannaish but: maybe at least some of them will go back to their Montanan bunkers and resume counting up how many cans of baked beans and cases of ammunition they have. Maybe at least some of them will tune out for a while and only make loud-but-mostly-harmless internet mischief.

Again, these people have always been around to some extent. But the degree of blatant, brazen militarization seems new to me. That is, growing up I'd hear about militias and compounds, that sort of thing. And of course there were the occasional terrorist acts and attacks, often times under cover of night and/or hood. But what seems different (and maybe I'm wrong) is groups of heavily armed right wing groups with big guns showing up just to be there: to menace, to threaten, to storm state capitals and stand their ground. They seem angry, but they also seem ... confident? Trained? Disciplined?

A total anecdotal observation. In all the action movies I watched growing up in the '80s, civilian gun violence was generally perpetrated by handguns, shotguns, conventional stuff like that. You would sometimes see machine guns (like uzis, etc.), but usually only in OTT action movies, or when baddies have a compound they need to defend. If you saw a rocket launcher it was typically as a sort of "holy shit!" punchline. But these assholes you see now, even if there are not more of them than there ever have been, they would make "The A*Team" turn tail and run. And they were a crack commando unit.

Anecdotal of what, fiction?

Non-cops outgunning actual-cops resulted in changes to policing in the '80s and '90s - the FBI's adoption of the 10mm round (and later .40 S&W) was specifically in response to a Florida shootout where they couldn't keep up. Departments started moving from 6 round revolvers to 15+ round semi-autos because of things like the North Hollywood bank robbery.

Fascists and Nazis have a long history of public demonstrations, now they're just more openly tied to the GOP.

Yes, but did they always show up armed with assault rifles? That's what seems different to me. And per what you're saying, it doesn't seem productive for the police to need to weapon-up to deal with the militias et al. That doesn't seem like a solution, just more people with powerful guns. And in these case, the cops seem totally disinterested or unable to deal with all these right-wing lunatics showing up.

I didn't say it was a solution, I said that's what happened. The police 'upgraded' their weaponry over the last four decades in large part because non-police were so well armed. Seems pretty salient in response to your question of "have they always been so heavily armed."

There were also literally thousands of domestic bombings in the 1970s.

the cops seem totally disinterested or unable to deal with all these right-wing lunatics showing up

More the former. In 2020 Right-wing lunatics see themselves and cops as being on the same side. And what we saw with that motherfucking teen ghoul is that the cops generally see it the same way.

Black kid with a watergun is the threat; white kid with an AR is that "well-regulated militia" we've heard so much about. This is clear.

xpost Again (sigh) there's a difference imo between ad hoc random DIY bombs and, say, high grade military explosives. And I'd also say that the heavily armed police today are still, no matter their equipment, unlikely to engage the yahoos, despite being better matched than before. Because war between two groups literally armed for war is a frightening enough proposition to explain why, yeah, the cops keep their distance from dudes head to toe in camo toting long guns. They'd much rather engage with protestors toting umbrellas.

Anyway, if you're saying Same As It Ever Was, fine. Imo, it seems different.

there's a difference imo between ad hoc random DIY bombs and, say, high grade military explosives

You should tell the US Army circa 2005 this!

I don't know what the rest of your paragraph has to do with what we were discussing? You asked if the American yahoos, the conspiracy nuts, the nascent (or actual) fascists, the racists, were always this heavily armed. The answer is basically... yes.

Nor is it particularly new for the police to side with the racists and the fascists - that's how American police got their start!

The latter I know, but has the former always brandished the equivalents of ARs? The kinds of weapons that demand the police up their firepower? Was this true in the '70s?

See above: prior to 1986, you could buy an M-16 (rather than an AR) for the price of a $200 tax stamp. Ruby Ridge and Tim McVeigh and the militia movement were all tied into a world of people trading 'heavy' arms and explosives.

It's not just assault rifles, though, the shift in police sidearms from a 6-round .38 revolver to 15-18 rounds of 9mm or .40 is in direct response to the kind of pistols civilians have access to.

xps Iraqi IEDs circa 2005 were based on military ordnance, often artillery shells, not home-brewed explosives in some cellar. The improvisation was in their detonation devices, usually triggered by pagers or cell phones, and the tactics around their use.

Josh in Chicago, when the yearly 'save the south African farmers' rally used to happen at the capitol in California, the people who would go to counter demonstrate were often told to 'ignore the Nazis, ignore them and they'll go away,' but the counter-demonstrators knew that they wouldn't, and that they were a force that was actively growing and recruiting.

In 2016, a bunch of counter-demonstrators were stabbed and nearly died because of wounds given them by fascists, and it came out later that the CHP, among other police forces, was coordinating with the fascists.

This sort of thing happens a lot more often than you think.

imo Trump does not actually have a coherent ideology (whereas most memorable fascists adhered very closely to the ideology in which they explicitly believed, the ideology of fascism), but I'd be comfortable classifying him as a berzerker fascist because he says shit that's right in line with fascist governance -- national registry of Muslims, closing mosques, his obsession with national strength & power -- not security and robust health, but "beat the other guy" strength. so, in the imaginary world where he gets elected, he might well govern like a fascist, and he's certainly said plenty of fascist things.

but he probably couldn't, himself, provide any definition whatsoever of fascism. a fascist, however wrongheadedly, believes he is doing good for his nation. Trump's pathology is messier.

OTOH it's really fine to call him a fascist because calling assholes fascists is a time-honored tradition and we're not all fedora-sporting EXCUSE ME THAT'S NOT WHAT THE WORD MEANS bores

― tremendous crime wave and killing wave (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Wednesday, December 23, 2015 9:03 AM (four years ago) bookmarkflaglink

I have been OTM in this thread except for the rather sad bit about 'the imaginary world in which he gets elected'

:(

I love when Joan Crawford unexpectedly divebombs into my internet life in the last half hour.

Interesting, most interesting:

If you type in on Twitter: 'Q Jim Watkins' you'll see how the true owner of Q got doxed recently. Q . pub, Q-map/Q-anon is tied to current 8chan owner Jim Watkins. He's known for escaping America to the Philippines after suggesting that 8chan would be a safe-haven for: 'Peadophiles.' He's a rampant conspiracy theorist. His IP not only tied to Q-anon it's also tied to a obscure Twitter knock-off site that's popular with White-Supremacists called GAB and also links to The Daily Stormer which is a Neo-Nazi: 'news' site. Jim Watkins is Q and it's a essentially a viral front solely dedicated to spreading anti-Semitism as well as white supremacy online through various social media platforms.

https://t.co/gsSunGKc8D pic.twitter.com/ejHxQwy02H

— 🎀💧⚖️🌱 Tamara IAmAntifa (@tamarafurey) August 25, 2020

Nice. You just proved it.

Oh my God.

This is not a drill people. Jim Watkins owns QMAP . PUB.@travis_view @nezumi_ningen @julianfeeld @dappergander @PokerPolitics please look. This is a big deal.

The main person who could challenge his power over Q has been neutralized. https://t.co/DpWzi3C0N8 pic.twitter.com/7OUfPW5UUl

— Fredrick Brennan (@HW_BEAT_THAT) August 23, 2020

That AS hosts Dailystormer as well. pic.twitter.com/EHQt8MeWr9

— B̤̿it̺̕B͓̚ur͍̒neȑ🔥 🅱itty🅱uddy (@bitburner) August 25, 2020

From: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ijkbrd/twitter_removes_qanon_supporters_false_claim/g3eio0e/

I think the Atlantic piece on Q from a couple weeks ago came close to suggesting the same thing

So is no one going to discuss the facial hair situation there?

Mustache but no beard = Errol Flynn, David Niven, Clark Gable. 'Sup. You're cool.

Beard but no mustache = Abe Lincoln, C. Everett Koop, Amish dudes. Uh, weird flex but ok.

Mustache and sideburns but no beard = on what fucking planet is this even acceptable?

Fash planet, obv.

Makes sense that it was a scheme to spread antisemitism. The whole structure of the theory was deeply antisemitic.

Feel sick honestly. How many random boomers were roped into this?

cool, the guy my mom's friends get their information from

someone beat the living shit out of him

'I understand they like me very much'.

he has ruined so many fucking lives

I remember this guy being in the news after the christchurch shooting

Fucking asshole