UK to leave EU

[I_am_not_mafia]

To explain where I am coming from:

• Exceptionalism, they believe their race is superior
  
• Fiercely nationalistic
  
• Claim to be anti-establishment
  
• Right wing
  
• They deliberately appeal to the disenfranchised
  
• Yet are happy to also lie
  
• They demonise minorities
  
• They incite violence for political gain to the extent that the law allows
  
• Scape-goating of a foreign religions and immigrants
  
• They glorify the military
  

Seems like an association fallacy to me. Basically Reductio ad Hitlerum. Might be able to argue for Trump on a couple of these but UKIP is stretching it IMO. But hey, lumping anything right of centre into one big pot of racism seems to be the done thing so have at it.

So how else are you going to determine whether a movement is fascist if not by comparing their techniques and what they preach to known fascist movements? This is you basically in denial. Tell me which items on this list do not apply to Trump or UKIP and I will be argue that they do within the current political and social landscape.

Association fallacy? That's like complaining that someone's only saying it's gold because it's coloured gold and has the same number of protons as gold. What defining characteristics would you look for before classing something as a fascist movement?

Could I interest you in my left wing Corbynite version?

Not really, I don't give a shit about Corbyn.

• Feminism. Assume everyone is the same homogeneous mass except for when it comes to paying the bill
  
• Fiercely internationalist and multi-cultural
  
• Claim to be free thinking
  
• Left wing
  
• They deliberately appeal to pseudo-intellectuals
  
• Yet are happy to also lie (found this one amusing)
  
• They glorify cultural diversity
  
• Will be as vitriolic and inciteful as the right but claim they're progressive and peaceful
  
• Ignore obvious problems with foreign religions and mass immigration
  
• They glorify pacifism
  

You see, you've just made this list up based on your own biases. Whereas the list I presented wasn't made up by me but are observed and recorded characteristics of all fascist movements by historians. Your post is basically on a par of saying "Well you stink too so nerr". The book I posted earlier doesn't just describe what fascism is, it also documents all the different fascist movements that have existed in Europe and the world and discussed why some were successful and how most failed.

One of the defining characteristics of a successful fascist movement is that they need to be given power by the right wing conservative government and this happens because they fear a greater enemy (normally communism and rebellion of the work force). Ironically, even though David Cameron may have screwed the country by giving UKIP what they wanted, he also made UKIP completely irrelevant now that Brexit won the vote.

[Napoléon]

So how else are you going to determine whether a movement is fascist if not by comparing their techniques and what they preach to known fascist movements? This is you basically in denial. Tell me which items on this list do not apply to Trump or UKIP and I will be argue that they do within the current political and social landscape.

I'm not in denial lol, I just think there's a big difference between calling Trump a fascist and Mussolini a fascist. For you that is evidently not so but it does not mean I am in denial.

Let's start with 'inciting violence for political gain to the extent the law allows'. That should be a good one.

Association fallacy? That's like complaining that someone's only saying it's gold because it's coloured gold and has the same number of protons as gold. What defining characteristics would you look for before classing something as a fascist movement?

You simply saying they're fascist doesn't make them so. I can say this chocolate bar is actually a golden chocolate bar with the same atomic structure of a golden chocolate bar, and then give a description of the atomic structure of a golden chocolate bar. It doesn't mean that the double decker I'm holding is made of bloody gold.

You see, you've just made this list up based on your own biases. Whereas the list I presented wasn't made up by me but are observed and recorded characteristics of all fascist movements by historians. Your post is basically on a par of saying "Well you stink too so nerr".

Yes that's exactly what it was on par with. In case you didn't notice I was satirizing the list you posted.

And I think you'll find the list I presented wasn't made up by me, but are observed and recorded characteristics of left wing Corbynites, thank you very much!

The book I posted earlier doesn't just describe what fascism is, it also documents all the different fascist movements that have existed in Europe and the world and discussed why some were successful and how most failed.

I give as much of a shit about the book you posted as you do about Jeremy Corbyn.

One of the defining characteristics of a successful fascist movement is that they need to be given power by the right wing conservative government and this happens because they fear a greater enemy (normally communism and rebellion of the work force). Ironically, even though David Cameron may have screwed the country by giving UKIP what they wanted, he also made UKIP completely irrelevant now that Brexit won the vote.

Ofcourse UKIP is irrelevent you twonk. Their work is done that's why. They achieved what they set out to do. Nigel Farage did at least. Your own biases are revealed precisely by how much you want to portray a narrative of negativity on the whole Brexit issue, nevermind UKIP.

[I_am_not_mafia]

So how else are you going to determine whether a movement is fascist if not by comparing their techniques and what they preach to known fascist movements? This is you basically in denial. Tell me which items on this list do not apply to Trump or UKIP and I will be argue that they do within the current political and social landscape.

I'm not in denial lol, I just think there's a big difference between calling Trump a fascist and Mussolini a fascist. For you that is evidently not so but it does not mean I am in denial.

Let's start with 'inciting violence for political gain to the extent the law allows'. That should be a good one.

Take into account that neither Trump nor Farage are able to stand up there and explicitly demand that violence take place otherwise they will be arrested and in clear violation of several laws. But they can talk about violence in the abstract and not be arrested for that. And if accused then they can say that they are warning of dangers. But that's not why they are standing up and saying these things. They are doing it to put it into their minds of their followers and supporters that this is the next logical step to achieve their aim. And someone out there will then take it upon themselves to go and do that.

For example Nigel Farage Predicts ‘Violence The Next Step’ If Immigration Is Not Controlled.

Even the Daily Mail reported Nigel Farage caught on camera telling Ukip supporters in Dudley to 'bully people' into voting for Brexit

Bear in mind that we've already had an MP killed and threatening behaviour and assault against immigrants is on the rise. My Dad isn't politically minded at all but he was born in fascist Germany. Some of my ancestors were quite literally fascists (Nazis). My Dad was raised by people who saw fascism rise from nothing. When my English mother was in denial about the rise in threatening behaviour against immigrants my dad spoke up and told her "this is how it starts".

Trump is not so subtle because he can get away with more. Not only has he described what he would do in such circumstances (again talking in the abstract) but also said that he was looking at paying the legal fees of the man who punched a protester at his rally. How can that not be condoning violence? Not to mention all the times he has said things like he could shoot someone in the street and get away with it and even threatens to punsh a protester in the face.


But you say that there is a big difference between calling Trump and Mussolini. That is because you are comparing Trump as he is now trying to get power with Mussolini after he seized power. What you should be doing is comparing Trump or Farage with Mussolini before he had any power. Fascism does not come about with storm troopers marching down the street.

Association fallacy? That's like complaining that someone's only saying it's gold because it's coloured gold and has the same number of protons as gold. What defining characteristics would you look for before classing something as a fascist movement?

You simply saying they're fascist doesn't make them so.

No. But you don't even know what an association fallacy is. I wasn't using association, I was using defining characteristics, hence the example of gold. Whereas an association fallacy is like an advertisement that uses a handsome or pretty model to sell a car, by creating an association that is not applicable.

Care to answer my question about what are the defining characteristics of a fascist movement?

No. Thought not.

You see, you've just made this list up based on your own biases. Whereas the list I presented wasn't made up by me but are observed and recorded characteristics of all fascist movements by historians. Your post is basically on a par of saying "Well you stink too so nerr".

Yes that's exactly what it was on par with. In case you didn't notice I was satirizing the list you posted.

Satire only works if you understand what you are satirising. Like the difference between defining characteristics as established by historians and making shit up.

I give as much of a shit about the book you posted as you do about Jeremy Corbyn.

Ah yes, don't bother listening to experts, just go by your feels. And this is why it is no point arguing with you.

Are you sure that you aren't religious? You'd make a good fascist. Don't question, just believe what you are told to.

[Iroscato]

Welp, this thread is where constructive debate goes to die.

[Napoléon]

Take into account that neither Trump nor Farage are able to stand up there and explicitly demand that violence take place otherwise they will be arrested and in clear violation of several laws.

Yes, let's get the qualification out the way nice and early.

But they can talk about violence in the abstract and not be arrested for that. And if accused then they can say that they are warning of dangers. But that's not why they are standing up and saying these things. They are doing it to put it into their minds of their followers and supporters that this is the next logical step to achieve their aim. And someone out there will then take it upon themselves to go and do that.

For example Nigel Farage Predicts ‘Violence The Next Step’ If Immigration Is Not Controlled.

The incredibly biased tone of that BBC interview should be an indicator of the intentions of the reporter, but can I sit here and know them? Nigel's simply saying what may be the case, presumably (and it is, presumably, because you don't actually hear the question he's asked) because he's been asked about it his opinion on this specific issue. 

And just like I can't judge the intentions of the reporter, I think it's unfair to say that his motivations are to incite violence for political gain, as though that is concrete fact. How do you know he wasn't asked the question directly about things getting violent if people don't get their way by a biased reporter?

You don't.

Also, for that matter, I don't agree that simply talking about violence in this context means you are saying it purely to "put it in people's minds". In my mind the incredibly PC nature of society is what prevents people from even bringing up any possible violent outcomes of anything. God forbid you dare discuss that. 

Even the Daily Mail reported Nigel Farage caught on camera telling Ukip supporters in Dudley to 'bully people' into voting for Brexit

I think this is blatantly tongue in cheek from Farage, something lefties rarely seem to get.

Bear in mind that we've already had an MP killed and threatening behaviour and assault against immigrants is on the rise. My Dad isn't politically minded at all but he was born in fascist Germany. Some of my ancestors were quite literally fascists (Nazis). My Dad was raised by people who saw fascism rise from nothing. When my English mother was in denial about the rise in threatening behaviour against immigrants my dad spoke up and told her "this is how it starts".

I think the world is a much different place from Nazi Germany. Having said that, how many people have been killed by terrorists in the last year? How many sexually assaulted by men from a foreign culture? Do you know?

To scrub off people's genuine concerns about these things like left wing liberals so often do is a massive disservice to every one of your fellow human beings who have lived through such injustices. 

Trump is not so subtle because he can get away with more. Not only has he described what he would do in such circumstances (again talking in the abstract) but also said that he was looking at paying the legal fees of the man who punched a protester at his rally. How can that not be condoning violence? Not to mention all the times he has said things like he could shoot someone in the street and get away with it and even threatens to punsh a protester in the face.

I like Trump even more after reading some of those!

But you say that there is a big difference between calling Trump and Mussolini. That is because you are comparing Trump as he is now trying to get power with Mussolini after he seized power. What you should be doing is comparing Trump or Farage with Mussolini before he had any power. Fascism does not come about with storm troopers marching down the street.

Yes that's true. Fair point and I take it onboard. There are more similarities than I'd like to admit perhaps. I think you can make the argument to call Trump himself a fascist, make the argument, yes, but I still don't think he fits the criteria entirely and the only reason I believe people use the term like you do is to tar him with such evil regimes of the past. Hence the association.

Nigel I'm not convinced at all. People call him a racist, xenophobic etc. I don't believe this man is and I don't believe UKIP is either. 

No. But you don't even know what an association fallacy is. I wasn't using association, I was using defining characteristics, hence the example of gold. Whereas an association fallacy is like an advertisement that uses a handsome or pretty model to sell a car, by creating an association that is not applicable.

The association comes in along with the negative baggage around fascism you would like to lump in with Trump and UKIP. Hence why I also referenced Reductio ad Hitlerum. As in, "you're playing the Nazi card", or relevantly "you're playing the fascist card". (Variations also include, the "racist" card, or the "bigot" card, see where I'm going with this?)

Care to answer my question about what are the defining characteristics of a fascist movement?

No. Thought not.

FYI I never questioned that your 'defining characteristics' were right. My point was that you were lumping Trump and UKIP into the same pot as fascists and whether they really met the criteria you outlined.

Satire only works if you understand what you are satirising. Like the difference between defining characteristics as established by historians and making shit up.

Don't think you got the point, but let's just say I don't understand and call it a day.

Ah yes, don't bother listening to experts, just go by your feels. And this is why it is no point arguing with you.

And yet here you are, you must find me charming or something.

Seems like you're just straw manning me at this point, accusing me of 'not listening to experts' when I didn't even contend your 'criteria' was correct. It was rather the application of said criteria to the people in question, that I'm questioning.

Look at it like this. We have a spade. We have set criteria for what makes a spade. You want to call Trump a spade, I'm just saying I'm not convinced he meets the criteria for a spade (on second thought the 'call a spade a spade' analogy doesn't work in my favour, but fuck it!).

Are you sure that you aren't religious? You'll make a good fascist. Don't question, just believe what you are told to.

Gotta be honest I do far more questioning on these boards than I see from the usual circle jerk. Hell this entire exchange has been me questioning you.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I think the world is a much different place from Nazi Germany.

Exactly. The world is a very different place from Nazi Germany. Which means that fascism will take on a different guise. No party will ever have any success if they laud Mussolini or Hitler.

Remember though, I didn't say that UKIP and Trump were fascist but:

I do consider UKIP and Trump to be more fascist than right wing authoritarian due to the techniques that they use to garner support.

Human nature hasn't changed. Regardless of whether you are looking at Nazi Germany or today's society, there exists the same percentage of people naturally inclined to be sociopaths, philanthropists, normal people, conscientious objectors, critical thinkers etc. This means that the same techniques work today that worked in the 20's and 30's. They need the right set of circumstances in order to find fertile ground, and more importantly an electorate who are new to the use of those techniques.

Also consider that German and Italian fascism were actually the exceptions. Most fascist movements, of which there were and still are many, either burn out or fail to gain power. That is the norm for fascist movements. Trump is unusual in that he hasn't ran as a third party but taken over the republicans from within. But what isn't unusual is that fascist movements will try to find any means by which to gain power.

As the saying goes, history never repeats but it does rhyme.

Also please notice that I have never called the Tory party fascist. I consider them to be right wing authoritarians.

And yet here you are, you must find me charming or something.

I must admit to enjoying poking you with a stick.

[abaris]

They need the right set of circumstances in order to find fertile ground, and more importantly an electorate who are new to the use of those techniques.

Most of all they need a frightened disenfranchised electorate desperately in hope for someone presenting the easy solutions for their predicament. They don't scratch the surface. Otherwise they would notice that the emperor is always naked. What all these movements have and had in common, and that may be the only thing, is the absence of real world plans. It's usually get rid of this or that ethnicity, people or group and all will be fine and dandy. That's true for any kind of populism, regardless if it's lleft or right.

[pocaracas]

I think the world is a much different place from Nazi Germany. Having said that, how many people have been killed by terrorists in the last year? How many sexually assaulted by men from a foreign culture? Do you know?

How about, if instead of using "in the last year", you use "in the last century, with yearly stats"?

Could it be that your perception of such crimes has gone up, while their actual frequency has remained stable or even declined?
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-...statistics
https://ourworldindata.org/homicides/

This one has data up to 2015 (and is, perhaps, more in tune with your requirement):
http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-ki...-1970-2015

[downbeatplumb]

What's your point?

.....wow. Just wow.

So you have no idea either I guess.

[Napoléon]

How about, if instead of using "in the last year", you use "in the last century, with yearly stats"?

Because terrorist incidents in the 1970's aren't in people's minds today are they? *edit, let me rephrase. 1970's statistics are irrelevant to the point. People's concerns aren't rendered null because there may have been more terrorism a decade ago. The perceptions currently are that there is a very real threat of Islamic terrorism. This is not an unjustified fear. Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe are the highest they've ever been.

Could it be that your perception of such crimes has gone up, while their actual frequency has remained stable or even declined?

It could be but it's not the case. The link I've already posted refutes this.