Democrats, Fascists and Socialists go Hand in Hand

Oh boy. I was going to try and keep this to 4k characters but it looks like I'll be needing more than that I feel like you were sitting there waiting for me to make what you believe to be a slip up in political philosophy. I understand what the political Left believes Trump to be, And what they propagate. I'm well aware of their moronic, Often irrational portrayals of Trump. I didn't say whether or not I believe that Trump is a fascist (which, For the record, I obviously believe he is not), And I made no implication that I've been deluded into believing any of the lies you just explained to me, And all of which I'm quite familiar with. I simply (and this is all I did) provided several reasons for why Democrats often portray Trump as being a fascist; please actually read what I've said before you jump to radical conclusions as to what I do or don't personally believe. And believe me, I'm well aware of De Souza and his "Big Lie". I'm quite a fan of his lectures. "Friedrich Hayek made the startling claim that Western welfare-state democracies, Having defeated fascism, Were themselves moving inexorably in the fascist direction. He said, "The rise of fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies. " Yup. I've already poured through Hayek's works. You're not impressing me in throwing random quotes from people you think I've never heard of into the mix. The utility of this particular quote rests in what your definition of Fascism is, And so you are going to have to explicitly define it in your words in order for me to refute it. "The Left identified fascism with amorphous tendencies that could just as easily be applied to numerous other political doctrines: authoritarianism, Militarism, Nationalism, And so on. " No sorry, But you're wrong again. "The Left identifies fascism with amorphous tendencies that could just as easily be applied to numerous other political doctrines" is true. What is also true is that everyone identifies every political ideology with amorphous tendencies that are most relevant to the political ideology they are speaking of when they are speaking of those ideologies more colloquially. Take you for example. You literally just said "They are the ones who use Nazi bullying and intimidation tactics and subscribe to a full-blown fascist ideology. The charges that they make against Trump and the GOP are actually applicable to them. The self-styled opponents of hate are the actual practitioners of the politics of hate. In a sick inversion, The real fascists in American politics masquerade as anti-fascists and accuse anti-fascists of being fascists". You literally just used tons of traits reminiscent of political ideologies to describe what you believe to be Fascists. And there are at least five other quotes I could pull from the argument you just made that make you a hypocrite. People often use examples like authoritarianism to describe certain traits often found with certain doctrines. That isn't to say that these traits can't be applied to numerous doctrines. Taking your example of Nationalism, Of course Nationalism isn't only unique to Fascism. Nationalism exists in every country that holds itself to higher esteem than not (generally speaking), Which means virtually every nation on earth holds Nationalistic views to an extent. The same goes with Authoritarianism. One might describe Communism, Socialism, And Fascism as all being authoritarian. But certain political ideologies are often notable for specific ideals. Fascism is often described as being Nationalistic because Fascist dictatorships put a strong emphasis on Nationalism. That's why I used that to describe Fascism. I'm not leftist by the way, So I'd hope you don't make the mistake of making that assumption again in your next rebuttal. "Statism and collectivism are at the core of fascism and national socialism adds another explosive ingredient-anti-Semitism. This much is well known. Socialism does not necessarily have to be Anti-Semitic to be Socialism. Specific social biases do not define political ideologies, Just as Anti-black does not define premodern capitalism, Which is something I specified in my earlier arguments when I described what a political ideology is. By definition, Socialism is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" and Fascism is "a political philosophy, Movement, Or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, Severe economic and social regimentation, And forcible suppression of opposition". (Marriam - Webster). Indeed both are Statistic and Collectivist. That doesn't make them both the same thing. Also, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Stalin, And numerous other Socialist dictatorships were not Anti-Semitic, And therefore Socialism is not defined as being Anti-Semitic. "What the progressives have carefully disguised, However, Is the degree to which Nazi anti-Semitism grew out of Hitler's hatred for capitalism. Hitler draws crucial distinction between productive capitalism, Which he can abide, And finance capitalism, Which he associates with Jews. For Hitler, The Jew is the unproductive moneygrubber at the center of finance capitalism, The entrepreneurial swindler par excellence. " Yes this is likely true of how Hitler saw the Jews. After all, Socialists often despise Capitalism; In Russia the Socialist parties who overthrew the Tsar were loved by the public because they had grown resentful of Capitalism, While the Tsar supported capitalist nations like the U. S during WW1, And the leverage given for Socialists to overthrow the Cambodian government was a series of air raids performed by the U. S during the Vietnam War, Which hit assets in Cambodia and swayed the general public in opposing capitalist views, For example. What progressives are you here referring to? The Progressive Left? The Progressive Right? Because here I thought we were talking about, In Dave Rubin's words (because I'm assuming you watch a lot of YouTube lecturers), The "Regressive Left". Also, Don't mean any offense, But that whole segment sounds suspiciously like a copy paste quote. "This hardly sounds "right-wing"; in fact, With some slight modification, It echos progressive rhetoric about greedy Wall Street investment bankers. " That's because it isn't Right-wing. Here's a real shocker for you: Nazism is Socialist, Not Fascist. Hitler's political party that won and gave birth to Nazism was called the National Socialist German Worker's Party for god's sake. Sorry, But I'm pretty sure that that fact alone pretty much undermines everything you've said about Nazism thus far. Furthermore, The party's ideas, Such as eugenics and the Aryan race, Come straight out of Marx's theories on dominant and oppresses relationships in social structures, And Darwin's theories of evolution, Both of which fueled the Socialist movement. FDR and JFK praised Mussolini and Hitler. And your point is? JFK had incredibly controversial views during his presidency, And in no way reflects on the mainstream views of Democrats. In a way JFK was what Trump or Lincoln was to Republicans. Of course FDR praised Mussolini and Hitler. Many world leaders and figures of the time period were praising Hitler right up until the wars started. After all it was an impressive spectacle. The Nazi party had literally jumped from 14% popularity in Germany to winning by a landslide. And foreign nation had had no idea of what was to come at that point. Https://www. Thedailybeast. Com/the-american-papers-that-praised-hitler. I can't find any historical evidence to prove or disprove, , But guarantee you FDR wasn't praising Hitler after he invaded Paris. "All the Fascist founders were socialist. " First off, You've made a philosophical fallacy here in making a universal rather than a general statement. "Many Fascist founders, Including the more well known ones (ie. Mussolini) were socialist" would be more accurate. Second off, No. Many founders of Fascism, Including Mussolini, Were historical advocates for Socialism until they became Fascists. Fascism was strongly influenced by Socialism and came out of Socialism, But that doesn't make it a Socialist ideology. It also evolved quite rapidly to become something distinctly different and separate (as all ideologies do) from what it started as. Forgive me if I come across as being irritated. There's nothing more annoying to me than when my opponent assumes my political perspective, Writes me off as a Trump hater and portrays me as having all these beliefs that I don't actually hold and never in any way implied, Insinuates that I've been deluded by Leftist ideology when I am in fact anything but Leftist, Proves himself to be a hypocrite in making a completely false point, And describes an argument that I never made. And let me just clarify. I'm not a Democrat. I'm Canadian so I can't actually register as either but my views certainly don't coincide with that of Democrats. I simply don't stand for political parties, Views, Etc. Being misrepresented.