Fascism is on the Rise in the United States

I too am looking at fascism on a general scale, which you might remember-palingenetic ultra-nationalist populism. I realize what Eco said may contradict in some cases, or feature in other systems. That is why I didn't use it alone, but they're still features which can be identified. You took issue with my citing "one scholar" before. The scholar in question is Roger Griffin, a noted expert whose book The Nature of Fascism. He and Robert Paxton, another scholar, are where I'm drawing this, in the essay "Rush, Newspeak, and Fascism: An Exegesis." It's a bit out of date, and mostly focuses on the merge of far-right groups such as the Patriot movement and transmission of ideas across into mainstream conservatism. I have not brought up this point about such far-right groups, knowing the response this would no doubt bring. The essay does have information on fascism in Christian fundamentalism (or "fascimentalism"). The point is that all of these groups share many ideas that are passed between them, while eschewing others. It discusses this far better than me-I urge anyone interested to read it. http://cursor.org... a. As I've said, and the essay above goes into, radical ideas have been transmitted by far-right groups into mainstream conservatism. One does not need to be fascist in order to receive such ideas, without fully understanding their origins or implications. Though some extreme views have become fairly casual, this is because of many years spent getting the public used to hearing them. My point is that, while certainly not all of the right is fascist, the movement is being built, covertly but surely. Thus "on the rise." b. The views of the American Christian right in no way reflect that of all Christians. As I said, the views they have are perverse, even heretical, to many others, and they feel the same about such opponent. I am not arguing that "for the most part" Christianity is like fascism. Like most religions, Christianity has ambiguity enough to offer myriad views of it, many directly opposed to such right-wing extremism. I have argued that fundamentalist right-wing Christianity in the US is "for the most part" like fascism, which is one particular interpretation of it. Again, I fully realize that sharing a few ideas does not make you the same. However, we can see how those ideas are becoming more powerful. The Dominionist idea of taking dominion in the world, through legislating Biblical morality, has obviously caught on, along with reviving a supposed "Christian nation." Their ideas now reach millions, directly and through mainstream conservatives that now increasingly share that perspective. I referred to Mussolini's close alliance with right-wing Catholicism, including the establishment of Vatican City. It's true of course that many Catholics opposed that. It's also true fascist movements of the day were more against religion, but used and allied alongside right-wing members of them. Most of this was power struggle, not outright persecution, since that would alienate too many. Again, my reference is toward it's core. Our background is different, and so any fascist movement would be. Other fascists have been more religious-for instance the Romanian League of the Archangel Michael, the Croatian Catholic Ustase, etc. The former failed; the latter had power for a time and killed around a million people, mainly Orthodox Serbs, estimates vary. "Religion tends to compete with the state for the peoples' loyalties, resulting in a number of churches being shut down or destroyed, or a sort of ‘civil religion' being instituted, in which the so-called deity would be the head of state." This assertion does not change what I'm saying, as the proto-fascism alive in the US would legislate religion and institute it civilly, while likely persecuting many sects. To say fascism is at heart anti-religious flies in the face or history and reason. "Pro asserts next that being ‘on the rise' doesn't equate an electoral majority. However, this is completely false – he argues that the Nazi party was marginal for a number of years before taking power, losing many elections; from here, it can be easily argued that, while losing elections, the Nazi party was clearly not ‘on the rise', as they were obviously not ‘rising' to any position of power." Um, you appear to have just proved my point. The Nazis clearly were still "on the rise" while losing the elections. In fact they lost 1932, right before taking power after manufacturing a crisis. Given that American national elections are typically decided by 5% of the vote, this does not say much. How do you define "moderate" Con? John McCain went from denouncing Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberson as "agents of intolerance" during his 2000 campaign to embracing the religious right in 2008. That doesn't mean McCain is or would ever be a fascist. Nor was Paul von Hindenburg, who allied with and put the Nazis in power. Again, I'm not saying our militarism is fully established, just moving in that direction. Having a strong military *is* a definition of militarism, if you remember. I would also say we do center on military affairs to a large degree. In 1961 President Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex. Even George Washington warned that huge standing armies were dangerous to democracy in the long run. "We do not embrace a military mindset?" Come on. I'm not talking about everybody here anyway, on the right is what I mean. Racial preference yes. Despite what the right would say though, black racism and militancy is not on the rise. False accusations of such are, especially against Obama. The blatant race-baiting at the town halls is despicable. I guess you would call it racism that "surprise!" most black people support Obama. Crypto-racism, and even blatant expression of racial hatred, which you apparently do not see, is more obvious than ever. Again, fascism takes different forms. I would contest your assertion on fascism relating with religion, especially in Spain. "Logical thought and applied reason are hardly seen as the breeding ground of corruption"? Excuse me? That one seems so obvious as to be undeniable. In past days it may have been different. I should note how different it was in St. Thomas Aquinas' time. Aquinas defended burning heretics and "killing in a loving spirit." Conservapedia may officially agree on separation of church and state. They appear to be in the minority if so. Proof by example: I know that x, which is a member of group X, has the property P. Therefore, all other elements of X have the property P. I have not used this false logic. Not all conservatives are irrational, no. Irrationalism is widespread and ID/creationism is the classic example for this. As to gun rights *you* were asserting that fascists took guns away. I said this might happen if fascism actually took power, but it would be hard to say. So now you're admitting *you* were wrong? I said we possess some "unique characteristics" as every country does, ours being having the largest number of guns for an industrial democracy, so it might be different. What am I supposed to do but speculate? This is an unknown that you asked me about. When have I failed to attack your arguments? Action and elections *are* different. One can seize power though actions that are not elections obviously. Yes, it's true Mussolini and Hitler both took power by legal means, at least sort of. Other fascist movements did not. *I am not arguing that both left and right-wingers can't use elections to impose their views on people!* Through our debate you appear to have been arguing with a strawman, not me. Ok, to sum up. I really hope I'm wrong about there being a fascist movement on the rise. If I'm wrong, we lose nothing. If I'm right, well... Vote Pro and hope I'm wrong. That sums it up.