Monday 30th January 2017

[adam]

From the Yonatan Zunger piece posted earlier today on the nature of Trump and his government...

Note also the most frightening escalation last night was that the DHS made it fairly clear that they did not feel bound to obey any court orders. CBP continued to deny all access to counsel, detain people, and deport them in direct contravention to the court’s order, citing “upper management,” and the DHS made a formal (but confusing) statement that they would continue to follow the President’s orders. (See my updates from yesterday, and the various links there, for details) Significant in today’s updates is any lack of suggestion that the courts’ authority played a role in the decision.

That is to say, the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored.

[HindleA]

Come back when you've had a junction named after you,SpiningHugo.

[citizenJA]

Again "fascist" doesn't mean "right-wing person with horrible views".

(cJA edit)

No, it's an excellent definition of 'fascist' really.

[AngryAsWell]

Trump-Era Political Violence Begins As Liberal Activists Are Beaten, Hospitalized
Two progressive activists were attacked an event featuring conservative provocateur James O’Keefe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jam ... 72c4e8265f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AngryAsWell]

Obama Weighs In On President Trump For The First Time
Obama wanted to give Trump his space. Nine days later, he is joining the debate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bar ... 0efeff0ed0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SpinningHugo]

Again "fascist" doesn't mean "right-wing person with horrible views".

(cJA edit)

No, it's an excellent definition of 'fascist' really.

No it isn't. On that Temulkar and I agree completely.

[Temulkar]

I see.

So Trump has ended democratic elections and there is no longer any means of removing him from power by democratic means. Just like Germany 1933.

And I'm the ignoramus.

I see.

1. two free and fair elections held in germany in 1932. Hitler and the Nazi party were the largest unit in the reichstag and with the support of the nationalist party formed the legitimate elected government in a coalition in Jan 33. A legally and democratically elected chancellor

2. The first unfree and unfair election in Germany was after his election after the reichstag fire, and the process of gleichshaltung completing the corruption o f the democracy to a fascist dictatorship was not complete until 1934, after death of hindenburg.

Hitler was a fascist all that time, he didn't become a fascist after coming to power, he didn't become a fascist after destroying the republic, you utterly cretinous individual. He had to corrupt a democracy, it takes time, and nobody stopped him when they had the chance at the start, because they listened to twats like you who tried to obscure what he was, but he was still a fascist all along.

You really really really are one dumb ignorant fuck.

I am not sure how either the abuse or the repetition of GCSE history helps you much.

If Trump were proposing to end democratic government and seize power as Hitler, Mussolini or Franco did you might be right. He'd be a fascist, and this would be just like 1933 Germany.

Nobody thinks that. Including you when less cross.


Just silly hyperbole, unworthy of a fellow Green.

Ah pity the poor sore loser whose been proven wrong, yet again, but wriggles on the hook like the whiny worm he is, trying to deflect and twist the argument away from his repeated demonstrations of ignorance and inadequacy. Gleichshaltung takes time, but Donald has already promised to drain the Washington swamp, what do you think that is a euphemism for? Ive seen SEN kids in Year 7 with better political acumen and historical understanding than you.

As I have pointed out, you deliberately divisive dickwad, this is where it starts; it is what he is, stand on the right side of history. For god sake man have you no shame?

My qualifications are openly available to see - I did O levels not GCSE - I do not hide who I am like you do. From the evidence of this thread alone, though, I can tell you that they're better than yours in this subject, by a long way.

[SpinningHugo]

1. two free and fair elections held in germany in 1932. Hitler and the Nazi party were the largest unit in the reichstag and with the support of the nationalist party formed the legitimate elected government in a coalition in Jan 33. A legally and democratically elected chancellor

2. The first unfree and unfair election in Germany was after his election after the reichstag fire, and the process of gleichshaltung completing the corruption o f the democracy to a fascist dictatorship was not complete until 1934, after death of hindenburg.

Hitler was a fascist all that time, he didn't become a fascist after coming to power, he didn't become a fascist after destroying the republic, you utterly cretinous individual. He had to corrupt a democracy, it takes time, and nobody stopped him when they had the chance at the start, because they listened to twats like you who tried to obscure what he was, but he was still a fascist all along.

You really really really are one dumb ignorant fuck.

I am not sure how either the abuse or the repetition of GCSE history helps you much.

If Trump were proposing to end democratic government and seize power as Hitler, Mussolini or Franco did you might be right. He'd be a fascist, and this would be just like 1933 Germany.

Nobody thinks that. Including you when less cross.


Just silly hyperbole, unworthy of a fellow Green.

Ah pity the poor sore loser whose been proven wrong, yet again, but wriggles on the hook like the whiny worm he is, trying to deflect and twist the argument away from his repeated demonstrations of ignorance and inadequacy. Gleichshaltung takes time, but Donald has already promised to drain the Washington swamp, what do you think that is a euphemism for? Ive seen SEN kids in Year 7 with better political acumen and historical understanding than you.

As I have pointed out, you deliberately divisive dickwad, this is where it starts; it is what he is, stand on the right side of history. For god sake man have you no shame?

My qualifications are openly available to see - I did O levels not GCSE - I do not hide who I am like you do. From the evidence of this thread alone, though, I can tell you that they're better than yours in this subject, by a long way.

Right, so to be clear, your serious claim is that Trump intends to end democratic government in the US. So we won't be having an election in 2020 presumably?

And your subsidiary claims are that in denying this I am a "dickwad" who has been proven wrong by your superior grasp of German history.

Interesting.

[Temulkar]

From Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College:
"I don't like to talk about politics on Facebook-- political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends-- but there is an important non-partisan point to make today.
What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night's ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries-- is creating what is known as a "shock event."
Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order.
When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.
Last night's Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.
Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.
My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one's interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won't like.
I don't know what Bannon is up to-- although I have some guesses-- but because I know Bannon's ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle-- and my friends range pretty widely-- who will benefit from whatever it is.
If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.
But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.
A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union.
If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln's strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power.
Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it."
Please copy and paste, not share, for wider reach.

[Temulkar]

I am not sure how either the abuse or the repetition of GCSE history helps you much.

If Trump were proposing to end democratic government and seize power as Hitler, Mussolini or Franco did you might be right. He'd be a fascist, and this would be just like 1933 Germany.

Nobody thinks that. Including you when less cross.


Just silly hyperbole, unworthy of a fellow Green.

Ah pity the poor sore loser whose been proven wrong, yet again, but wriggles on the hook like the whiny worm he is, trying to deflect and twist the argument away from his repeated demonstrations of ignorance and inadequacy. Gleichshaltung takes time, but Donald has already promised to drain the Washington swamp, what do you think that is a euphemism for? Ive seen SEN kids in Year 7 with better political acumen and historical understanding than you.

As I have pointed out, you deliberately divisive dickwad, this is where it starts; it is what he is, stand on the right side of history. For god sake man have you no shame?

My qualifications are openly available to see - I did O levels not GCSE - I do not hide who I am like you do. From the evidence of this thread alone, though, I can tell you that they're better than yours in this subject, by a long way.

Right, so to be clear, your serious claim is that Trump intends to end democratic government in the US. So we won't be having an election in 2020 presumably?

And your subsidiary claims are that in denying this I am a "dickwad" who has been proven wrong by your superior grasp of German history.

Interesting.

Goodness, my thinking of you as a deliberately divisive dickwad with a grotesque inferiority complex that drives him to sow discord on internet forums to get a sad kick in his sorry little life isn't a claim, that's an opinion. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, that is mine of you.

My superior grasp of german history in this instance would be a fact.

And as a final aside, there were still elections in Hitler's nazi germany in 33, 36 and 38 - of course they werent free or fair, which you would know if you had demonstrated any understanding of the subject in this thread, but hey ho, If Trump is in charge in 2020 neither will that election be.

[adam]

Right, so to be clear, your serious claim is that Trump intends to end democratic government in the US. So we won't be having an election in 2020 presumably?

Look at the quote I posted at the top of this page. You don't have to stop people voting in order to start (at least) frustrating democratic government. If Trump's administration is instructing a federal agency to ignore the very specific orders of a federal court, (edited to add - as appears to be the case) I would say that was a significant step down the line.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nal-crisis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The Muslim ban has brought the US close to constitutional crisis
Trevor Timm

[Temulkar]

From Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College:
"I don't like to talk about politics on Facebook-- political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends-- but there is an important non-partisan point to make today.
What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night's ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries-- is creating what is known as a "shock event."
Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order.
When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.
Last night's Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.
Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.
My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one's interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won't like.
I don't know what Bannon is up to-- although I have some guesses-- but because I know Bannon's ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle-- and my friends range pretty widely-- who will benefit from whatever it is.
If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.
But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.
A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union.
If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln's strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power.
Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it."
Please copy and paste, not share, for wider reach.

Gleichshaltung.

[citizenJA]

Goodnight, everyone.
love,
cJA

[SpinningHugo]

Ah pity the poor sore loser whose been proven wrong, yet again, but wriggles on the hook like the whiny worm he is, trying to deflect and twist the argument away from his repeated demonstrations of ignorance and inadequacy. Gleichshaltung takes time, but Donald has already promised to drain the Washington swamp, what do you think that is a euphemism for? Ive seen SEN kids in Year 7 with better political acumen and historical understanding than you.

As I have pointed out, you deliberately divisive dickwad, this is where it starts; it is what he is, stand on the right side of history. For god sake man have you no shame?

My qualifications are openly available to see - I did O levels not GCSE - I do not hide who I am like you do. From the evidence of this thread alone, though, I can tell you that they're better than yours in this subject, by a long way.

Right, so to be clear, your serious claim is that Trump intends to end democratic government in the US. So we won't be having an election in 2020 presumably?

And your subsidiary claims are that in denying this I am a "dickwad" who has been proven wrong by your superior grasp of German history.

Interesting.

Goodness, my thinking of you as a deliberately divisive dickwad with a grotesque inferiority complex that drives him to sow discord on internet forums to get a sad kick in his sorry little life isn't a claim, that's an opinion. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, that is mine of you.

My superior grasp of german history in this instance would be a fact.

And as a final aside, there were still elections in Hitler's nazi germany in 33, 36 and 38 - of course they werent free or fair, which you would know if you had demonstrated any understanding of the subject in this thread, but hey ho, If Trump is in charge in 2020 neither will that election be.

I am not sure why you think there is any argument about Germany in 1933.

The argument is about whether Trump intends to end democratic government in the US.

I think that is a joke proposition, that discredits the speaker. The claim that there won't be free elections in the US any longer is laughable.

But,it is late and I'll try to assume you've just got carried away, trying to defend a throwaway but obviously wrong initial claim.

[AngryAsWell]

Sources: Trump executive order allowing anti-LGBTQ discrimination is coming soon

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/01/sour ... ming-soon/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AngryAsWell]

Pascal Klein ❄
‏@rascaldj

Meanwhile there's also a pro Trump demo in Cardiff

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Temulkar]

Right, so to be clear, your serious claim is that Trump intends to end democratic government in the US. So we won't be having an election in 2020 presumably?

And your subsidiary claims are that in denying this I am a "dickwad" who has been proven wrong by your superior grasp of German history.

Interesting.

Goodness, my thinking of you as a deliberately divisive dickwad with a grotesque inferiority complex that drives him to sow discord on internet forums to get a sad kick in his sorry little life isn't a claim, that's an opinion. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, that is mine of you.

My superior grasp of german history in this instance would be a fact.

And as a final aside, there were still elections in Hitler's nazi germany in 33, 36 and 38 - of course they werent free or fair, which you would know if you had demonstrated any understanding of the subject in this thread, but hey ho, If Trump is in charge in 2020 neither will that election be.

I am not sure why you think there is any argument about Germany in 1933.

The argument is about whether Trump intends to end democratic government in the US.

I think that is a joke proposition, that discredits the speaker. The claim that there won't be free elections in the US any longer is laughable.

But,it is late and I'll try to assume you've just got carried away, trying to defend a throwaway but obviously wrong initial claim.

No no lets be correct here, your claim is that trump is not a fascist, whilst I have claimed he very clearly is.

To support that rather untenable claim you have made a series of spurious, and easily disproven, statements about historical fascism.

Now you claim there is no argument about Germany when your statements have been laughably incorrect all evening? Come on, at least credit people with the ability to read and hold a thread conversation in their heads. That's an insult to everybody on here's intelligence, not just mine. It is actually quite trumpesque in its audacious barefaced deceitfulness.

[SpinningHugo]

Temulkar:

Fascism (noun) a form of government headed by a dictator that forcibly suppresses opposition.

Democracy (noun) a form of government by the whole population, typically through representation.

Are these definitions in dispute?

So, for example, Germany under Hitler, or Italy under Mussolini, or Spain under Franco were clearly all fascist governments. They are not compatible with democracy

Trump is a racist, misogynist extremist. Easily the worst President of my lifetime.

Does that, on the meaning of the word, make him a fascist? is he proposing the end of democratic government? No.

You claimed not only that democracy in the US is under threat of ceasing, but that it is over. "The US is no more a functioning democracy than Weimar in 33". I don't think that is just foolish, I think it is deeply offensive.

There will be and will continue to be, free elections in the US. It is not a perfect democracy, but no system anywhere is that.

I hope you will come to see that you've got carried away. Easily done on the internet late at night. If not, a shame, but I don't think you should be, or should ever have been, engaged in education.

The left is often guilty of this. By going too far you discredit the sensible claims that need defending. Trump *is* awful. You don't have to prove that he is on the same spectrum as Hitler to make that claim good.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Perhaps the last word to the awesome Robin Lustig?

Robin Lustig ‏@robinlustig
I wonder what the right word is for a country in which State officials are instructed to disobey court orders.

[Temulkar]

Temulkar:

Fascism (noun) a form of government headed by a dictator that forcibly suppresses opposition.

Democracy (noun) a form of government by the whole population, typically through representation.

Are these definitions in dispute?

So, for example, Germany under Hitler, or Italy under Mussolini, or Spain under Franco were clearly all fascist governments. They are not compatible with democracy

Trump is a racist, misogynist extremist. Easily the worst President of my lifetime.

Does that, on the meaning of the word, make him a fascist? is he proposing the end of democratic government? No.

You claimed not only that democracy in the US is under threat of ceasing, but that it is over. "The US is no more a functioning democracy than Weimar in 33". I don't think that is just foolish, I think it is deeply offensive.

There will be and will continue to be, free elections in the US. It is not a perfect democracy, but no system anywhere is that.

I hope you will come to see that you've got carried away. Easily done on the internet late at night. If not, a shame, but I don't think you should be, or should ever have been, engaged in education.

The left is often guilty of this. By going too far you discredit the sensible claims that need defending. Trump *is* awful. You don't have to prove that he is on the same spectrum as Hitler to make that claim good.

Yes that definition is bollucks an absolute joke, what is the source please? Ah its ok I have found it, and how you have manipulated it.

Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism. It a political ideology, that can be a system of governent if implemented, but it is not a system of government in its own right. I have clearly stated that the US is no more a functioning democracy that Wiemar in 33. The only difference is the maturity of the democratic institutions which can hopefully save it from the coup that is now happening. Weimar's functioning democracy was destroyed, and so will the US be if idiots like you are allowed to spread your ignorance of what fascism is.

Lets have the full definition shall we from the source you bastardised to prove a point, failing again despite the deceit.

1(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2.
(sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3.
(initial capital letter) a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fascism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RogerOThornhill]

Temulkar:

Fascism (noun) a form of government headed by a dictator that forcibly suppresses opposition.

Democracy (noun) a form of government by the whole population, typically through representation.

Are these definitions in dispute?

Way too simplistic.

Read Roger Griffin's The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology in which he says this firstly:

fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anticonservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn on a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led ‘armed party’ which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome the threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics, and actions is the vision of the nation’s imminent rebirth from decadence.

and then in simplified form:

Fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism.

Populism, nationalism, palingenesis - that "draining the swamp" - the elements are all there.

You can be a fascist without being in government - it's a belief system not a form of government. Oswald Mosley wasn't in government but was very definitely a fascist.

[Temulkar]

Temulkar:

Fascism (noun) a form of government headed by a dictator that forcibly suppresses opposition.

Democracy (noun) a form of government by the whole population, typically through representation.

Are these definitions in dispute?

Way too simplistic.

Read Roger Griffin's The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology in which he says this firstly:

fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anticonservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn on a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led ‘armed party’ which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome the threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics, and actions is the vision of the nation’s imminent rebirth from decadence.

and then in simplified form:

Fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism.

Populism, nationalism, palingenesis - that "draining the swamp" - the elements are all there.

You can be a fascist without being in government - it's a belief system not a form of government. Oswald Mosley wasn't in government but was very definitely a fascist.

He cut down a genuine definition to try and suit his argument. It's actually quite pathetic really.

[SpinningHugo]

Temulkar:

Fascism (noun) a form of government headed by a dictator that forcibly suppresses opposition.

Democracy (noun) a form of government by the whole population, typically through representation.

Are these definitions in dispute?

Way too simplistic.

Read Roger Griffin's The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology in which he says this firstly:

fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anticonservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn on a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led ‘armed party’ which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome the threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics, and actions is the vision of the nation’s imminent rebirth from decadence.

and then in simplified form:

Fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism.

Populism, nationalism, palingenesis - that "draining the swamp" - the elements are all there.

You can be a fascist without being in government - it's a belief system not a form of government. Oswald Mosley wasn't in government but was very definitely a fascist.

Quite happy with all of that, I was as I know you realise, simplifying to make a point. Hitler was, of course, a fascist before 1933. Fascism is incompatible with democratic government. At least I hope that much common ground can be accepted. Temulkar claims that the US is in the same position as Weimar in 1933 in this regard, and Trump's agenda is equivalent to Hitler, Mussolini and Franco.

Being honest, I don't think you agree with that claim, do you?

But, from the intemperate language being used I realise passions are running high, as perhaps they should, and so I'll leave it there.

[RogerOThornhill]

He cut down a genuine definition to try and suit his argument. It's actually quite pathetic really.

I did him a dis-service by ripping that bit from his paper. Here's the whole thing if you haven't already seen it.

https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/ ... etic-core/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Temulkar]

Temulkar:

Fascism (noun) a form of government headed by a dictator that forcibly suppresses opposition.

Democracy (noun) a form of government by the whole population, typically through representation.

Are these definitions in dispute?

Way too simplistic.

Read Roger Griffin's The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology in which he says this firstly:

fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anticonservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn on a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led ‘armed party’ which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome the threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics, and actions is the vision of the nation’s imminent rebirth from decadence.

and then in simplified form:

Fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism.

Populism, nationalism, palingenesis - that "draining the swamp" - the elements are all there.

You can be a fascist without being in government - it's a belief system not a form of government. Oswald Mosley wasn't in government but was very definitely a fascist.

Quite happy with all of that, I was as I know you realise, simplifying to make a point. Hitler was, of course, a fascist before 1933. Fascism is incompatible with democratic government. At least I hope that much common ground can be accepted. Temulkar claims that the US is in the same position as Weimar in 1933 in this regard, and Trump's agenda is equivalent to Hitler, Mussolini and Franco.

Being honest, I don't think you agree with that claim, do you?

But, from the intemperate language being used I realise passions are running high, as perhaps they should, and so I'll leave it there.

Are you claiming that Trumpp isnt trying to corrupt the democratic institutions of the republic to implement an ideology that is clearly and demonstrably fascist? Are you really trying to claim that in spite of all the evidence?

The intemperate language is because I am tired of your moronic pronouncements, and the only way to stand up to fascists and their appeasers is to call them out on it. You are demonstrably a liar, more than once in this thread alone, you are even prepared to cut up a legitimate definition of what fascism is to try and defend donald trump ( That's really pathetic schoolboy deceitfulness ) Again I ask you have you no decency left? no shame? I mean you have been shown up lying and manipulating a dictionary entry FFS, have you no shame?

[Temulkar]

He cut down a genuine definition to try and suit his argument. It's actually quite pathetic really.

I did him a dis-service by ripping that bit from his paper. Here's the whole thing if you haven't already seen it.

https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/ ... etic-core/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's a v good speaker, I took an A level lot to a talk of his a few years ago, but haven't read that as far as I can recall.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... y-minister" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Take care of your elderly mothers and fathers, says Tory minister
David Mowat says tackling care crisis will require people to be as responsible for their parents as they are their children


Oh fuck off,many do.You are making it harder.

[Temulkar]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... y-minister


Take care of your elderly mothers and fathers, says Tory minister
David Mowat says tackling care crisis will require people to be as responsible for their parents as they are their children


Oh fuck off,many do.You are making it harder.

Tell me about it.

[HindleA]

I know,partly a nod to you.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... tte-cooper" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


UK asylum seekers' housing branded 'disgraceful' by MPs
Select committee calls for rethink of asylum seekers’ accommodation after reports of infestations of mice, rats and bedbugs


http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... hed-16-17/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... y-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Scandal, radicals and insurgencies – all bets are off for the French presidency
Pierre Haski

[HindleA]

"Gobshite",I always found an interesting word.Not sure what made me think of it.

[HindleA]

"Skinner is, basically, a juvenile politician"


With only 57 years and continuing of political electoral success.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ssociation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Councils may cut social care provision due to underfunding, LGA says
Association says some of its 370 councils are struggling to meet legal requirement so badly they could face high court challenge

[HindleA]

Counting pre-MP days,clarification.

[NonOxCol]

Trump sacked his acting AG overnight. The WH statement reads like it was dictated from a play pen.

[seeingclearly]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... y-minister


Take care of your elderly mothers and fathers, says Tory minister
David Mowat says tackling care crisis will require people to be as responsible for their parents as they are their children


Oh fuck off,many do.You are making it harder.

Thats a joke. I have been cared for by one offspring in increasing measure since the age of twelve, now double that and still caring, own needs unrecognised and with changes unlikely ever to be, no adult life choices currently in sight, though my needs are slightly mitigated by social care, several workers badly rotated and on minimum wage, one of whom is nearly my age, has arthritis, low blood pressure and is sometimes grey with fatigue by the time she arrives here. She will be working tiil she is the age I am now, has children of her own, supportive family too. It is an awful mess. The figures I mentioned yesterday, the comparitive ones, deaths per 100,000 dibbling around 500 till 2013 since running at around 1000 slightly higher in the devolved regions than in England but not by much, ccan find nothing to account for it, the ONS, hope I got that right, has a detailed document on how to look at their statistics which are the basis for the .gov.uk documents list no changes to the way data is collected that coincides, but there have been plenty of structural changes to our welfare state.

With work practices changed and the ever increasing pressure for people to work and to push people off any unemployment or low/under employment stats, there will be many 'children' of older people with health and social care needs who simply cannot up sticks and leave work, their lives would simply disintegrate and they additionally will not get any state support because they will be deemed to have made themselves unemployed. In fact in some cases their elderly family member will be supporting them already, as alone they would not manage. Housing also in a chaotic state, moving home currently is a very big decision, especial problems for younger offspring of people who had children late, and various caps just being implemented making ordinary lives very much more difficult. The strain on families, even the most caring cannot be underestimated. Most parent bring up their children to have productive and independent lives, getting older is no fun sometimes for the person concerned, some huge issues arise. I my caring offspring were already in a secure tenancy somewhere else, it would be me urging to live their own live, and not brooking any argument on the matter, rather than a matter of implied neglect of filial duty. I know many who would feel the same. It is really not too great to have to see dreams both of getting older with some dignity and dreams of making a place in the world die stillborn. Many facing this though in differing permutations, many very much worse than mine. Where children and partners also involved, things unsupported become very chaotic. Do these ****ers really understand what they are doing or are they just heartless ****s who don't care? On the whole I opt for latter.

Glad to see a bit of mojo here. In times like these very much needed.