Comments by "Crazy Eyes" (@CrizzyEyes) on "Trump Voter Feels Betrayed By President After Reading 800 Pages Of Queer Feminist Theory" video.

@felixwinkler6450 Again, Fascism is a very specific political ideology made in a very specific historical context (an Italian politician being fed up with Marxism). Fascists would romanticize it as the ideology of "truth," but to them truth is a brutally Darwinist authoritarian society where in each person does the job they were "made" to do. In other words, if your father was a carpenter, the state will mandate that you should be a carpenter because they believe it's what you'll be best at. It is essentially a way to lock down social structures for the "good" of the state. Broad-brushing it as all reactions to leftism is incorrect and unhelpful, and it also makes you look ignorant. This is why political dialogue has broken down in the United States, because those who know what Fascism is find the comparison ridiculous, and influential figures have made it a talking point for years. Discriminatory policies are ancient indeed and have nothing to do with Fascism. There are many ways to react to leftism; anarchism, for example, is always an option. In a parallel universe United States, hereditary monarchy might have became romanticized again and we might see a significant political group advocating for that. We just happened to get this one instead. I would urgently warn you about falling into the idiotic left-right paradigm. The real influencer in this nation, and the world at large, is money. In fact the left-right paradigm was initially created to describe economic policy and nothing else. If you follow the money, you'll discover quickly that it belongs in the hands of international corporations and international bankers. An international entity need not have any loyalty to a particular nation, especially when they have so much money. These people become bad actors in our midst, lobbying for policies that are detrimental to people at large for the sake of their own pockets. To put it simply, the left-right paradigm is a divide and conquer strategy. The real political war at hand is between competing corporate influences, but they have virtually no ideology and their effects on the common people are virtually the same, so it is not worth rooting for any one or the other. It is not really a conspiracy as they are not really working together for the end goal of rubbing their hands and spiting common people. People who believe in such a conspiracy are egotistical and believe they are more important than they really are; corporations and bankers do not care. They have no desire to be saddled down with all of the costs and effort of running a nation or its people. It is more like a disjointed series of bribes taken by short-sighted politicians from differing sources who think "what's the worst that could happen?" and the end result for 99% of people looks the same, so some assume it is a conspiracy. Ironically short-sightedness and disorganization is what allows this to happen, not a grandiose intertwined conspiracy. As for Trumpism evolving, I'm not sure what you mean because as I stated in my last post, Trump's policies are not very different to others in the bigger picture of American history. You've already agreed that the US, despite having openly racist policies in the past, was not Fascist. So I'm not sure where the Fascism in Trump comes from since his policies could broadly be described as an attempt to return to 1960s America. To this day we are one of the only nations with birthright citizenship; which is to say, all you need to do to be a citizen, is to be born within our borders. That's pretty progressive in my opinion. Perhaps the more appropriate word would be "devolution" since it would be more like a return to an older period in US history. That is in essence what conservatism is, the belief that older policies were better and a desire to return to them or preserve them, and a stricter interpretation of the Constitution usually goes hand-in-hand with that.
12
@felixwinkler6450 I respect your efforts, but if you think Trump is comparable to Fascism at all, I really don't know what to tell you other than you're not done yet. Consider, for example, that before 1965 the United States operated on a strict immigration quota, and it was discriminated based on country of origin. There was literally a document that stated "yeah for this year, we want 50,000 Polish people, 50,000 Irish people, but only 25,000 Indians, fuck those guys" etc. Not with those exact numbers, but you get the idea. Do you think the US was Fascist before 1965? The problem with Trump as he is criticized in the media is that people conflate demagoguery with Fascism. They're not the same at all. Demagogues have existed since the beginning of time, while Fascism is a very specific political ideology created purely as a reaction to Communism in the 20th century. Racism is not the same as Fascism at all, either. Indeed, I believe that in a theoretical parallel universe similar to the one in The Man in the High Castle where Nazi Germany took over the US, the Ku Klux Klan would be brutally eliminated because of their anti-authoritarian, anti-foreign and anti-Catholic views. Put bluntly, they're a domestic terrorist organization that would have differing interests to the ruling party. Racism is not an ideology that unites, it is not an ideology at all. Another fun fact: When the Nazi party took power in Germany, they looked at other nations' political histories to determine their laws that would determine racial purity. They looked at the US's Jim Crow laws, which were often based on the "one-drop principle:" if there was a single ancestor in your bloodline who was black, you were black. No exceptions. They thought that was too racist so they went with a time-based criteria instead; if your bloodline was free of Jews from some year in the 19th century onward, you were considered pure. You do not need to be Fascist to be racist.
10
@jacobhargiss3839 I disagree, Mussolini was a dyed-in-the-wool socialist before WWI happened, and it seemed to prove to him that the "international workers' revolt" was a mere fantasy because although there were a few localized revolts (like the ones in Germany and Russia) it was not worldwide and there was no "class unity" between national borders. His plan was essentially to take Marxism and turn it nationalist instead of internationalist in light of these developments. As such he dug deep for something Italians could be nationally proud of in the hard times they were suffering, and went for the most glorious period in Italian history, the Roman Empire. While he might have taken some cues from Capitalism while formulating it, the thing that spurred him to action in the first place was a reaction to Marxism.
5
@prithvijeetsingh6099 Your cheerleading isn't really helpful and will only break down dialogue further as people continue to fling labels at each other regarding a dead ideology that is practiced by exactly no one in the modern era. Please reconsider if you expect people to come together instead of pushing each other apart. Compromise is by definition a solution where neither party is satisfied so don't expect to simply plant your feet and have everyone completely agree with you. It is really goddamned annoying to have someone who is not even American (judging by your name) and therefore does not understand the local politics call me, a staunch anti-authoritarian, a Fascist. It is just utterly absurd.
5