When was the United States closest to fascism?

When was the United States closest to fascism?

2017

Your double dubs still don't make you right.

Now

Soon, me and my comrades are going to start a fascist militia. wanna join?

Never.

Unironically now, in the present year

Probably in the first years of its founding when only white men were allowed to vote.

These men are right.

>omg drumpf is fashist!!!
>can't even pass a healthcare bill written by his party when his party is in power

Why he can't do that? Putin can pass laws even if he isn't President.

Because the US is a nation whose people respect the rule of law. Russians don't.

Trump isn't fascist, he's a return to centrist policies after we've had radical-left immigration politics since the 60s.

Reagan years

>radical-left immigration politics
since when is immigration a left-right issue? for example libertardians are pro immigration

No they aren't, they believe that private property owners can enforce their own immigration policies.

That was a not so subtle focus shift. Immigration is not a left right issue if you want to think about it like that.

It is a rule of law issue. Some want people to obey immigration laws, and some people do not care if the law is upheld and enforced. So then is "The Rule if Law" a left or right issue?

>when you're so brainwashed by the GOP that you think that Trump is centrist
>and presumably also think the Democrats are far left radicals

On the one hand that's pretty valid. But Trump is like Reagan mixed with Nixon and Harding. The man himself is just an opportunist and not a fascist, but his supporters give me a really strong proto-nazi vibe. They aren't past the tipping point yet, but they seem to be just a gentle shove away from full blown fascism.

leftist immigration policy is based on the illegitimacy of natural identity. in their eyes, someone living in France is just as French as someone born in the Congo.

If think you'll find that the average Libertarian thinks that Ancaps are insanely and immoral.

That's true though.

Under FDR it was closest to being an Oligarch. Fascism itself is a poorly used and described meme term Ameriblubbers use to criticize things described under Godwin's Law. The answer to a ethno-nationalistic state was probably closer to its conception than in the past century.

wanting to accept all the migrants and refugees is radical-left. There's really no other way around that. Trump's views on immigration would have been nearly universal just 60 years ago.

Never. Fascism is, as an ideology, fairly particular rather than being a term for 'political option I don't like'. Trump, Regan etc. are completely unrelated to the fascist ideology, they are just conservatives.

Only if you consider the idea of being French to be nothing more than simply living in France. It completely discounts the racial and cultural connotations attached to French identity.

Your point? Libertarianism is a leftist ideology.

You're right Trump isn't a centrist he is a center-left candidate which is even worse.

>and presumably also think the Democrats are far left radicals

On many issues the democrats are further to the left than far left parties in europe are like abortion. Ever since the New Left in the 70s drove away all the blue dog democrats from the Democrat party they have been a far left party.

>reducing the size and power of government
>fascism

Were you born retarded or did you just drink bleach at a young age?

Leftists think that budget/tax cuts are authoritarian

It's not his party. He is a democrat.

>and power
I don't think so Tim

He's the 1% neither republican or democrat.

>the US is a nation whose people respect the rule of law
(You)

Trump is a man of the people

France nation is citizenship and cultural based nationalism you germanic "muh blood/muh race" pleb.

Civil war. Check out Abe's statue.

Do you know what a nation is? A nation is a cultural group. It's different from a state, which is the government. Anyone with French citizenship can be called French, but you'd need to be much more to be part of the French nation. Like actually being a genetic Frenchman.
And what's so wrong with nation-states? Why can't every different group of people, every nation, have self-determination without other people coming in? What's so racist about that? It's not like I don't support the creation of nation for even the people I don't want in my nation. If they're too stupid to form a decent state and protect it from their neighbors, that's their issue.

And this is why Feance now drowns in Arab and nigger shit.

Now.

Smedley Butler 'business plan'

do not talk about events taking place less than 25 years ago

Wasnt it put into a perpetual state of war time with the bill of rights and the rest of it (civil liberties) suspended since like ww2, and they never technically legally pulled out of it?

Andrew Jackson

If they can draw relevent to thread historical data and arguement as to why now is then thats ok else whats the point of history anything? I blame electrolites monsanto and pfizer.

Libertarians aren't on the normie spectrum

>lolkiketarians
>right wing
>ever

Trump is left of the GOP

USA has been a fascist country well over a decade by this point.

>fascism is a code word for shit I don't like

No he is both left and right depending on specific issues- like a normal human being.

Also let's wait 4 years until we evaluate.

>Like actually being a genetic Frenchman
France nation is state-fonded, every other culture is littetraly erase by Parisien culture, don't bring you "muh blood" bullshit.

pretty disappointed in Veeky Forums, apparently nobody knows what fascism is.

>Drumpf LOL he's fascist cuz I DONT LIEK HIM
>Reagan cuz SHIT REPUBICAN

, , and especially are the only people here who seem to know anything about what they are talking about. Abe made numerous and obscenely significant executive decisions, and reversed democratic law, over half a million american citizens dying due to the decision, for better or for worse.

Fascism describes a political system outlined by people like Gentile or D'Annunzio, based on the idea of the state coming to embody everything within the nation in a supposedly organic way, hence the idea of corporatism - of a legislature composed of people elected not by geographical constituencies but by different classes in society, everyone from artists and writers to bankers and lawyers. Oddly enough Hong Kong SAR is actually quite close to this with its non-geo constituency system of election.

It is not "anyone to the right of Leon Trotsky". As Orwell said, fascism has now come to mean "something that is not desirable". The problem with this tendency is that it robs the political lexicon of its meaning and just turns any and every politically-loaded, or tangentially loaded word (e.g. "tolerance") into a rhetorical plaything for whomever has the largest megaphone.

I'm shocked Veeky Forums is so ignorant. The Veeky Forums bleedover on this board is honestly worse than /pol/ imo.

it's not worse than /pol/ by any means, this is a particularly bad thread though.

I miss philosophy threads being on Veeky Forums. it was a much better board for discussing the field.

>it's not worse than /pol/ by any means

Foucault is their personal hero, by that alone they're orders of magnitude worse in my book.

I doubt no more than 2%> of this board even knows who foucault is, for better or four worse. either way, I think it's a bit shallow to judge a board based on perceived opinions and not something like ability to hold an interesting conversation. impossible on /pol/.

Now, cause Churchill said long long time ago
The Fascists of the Future, Will be called Anti-Fascists

b-but muh slavery

He didnt actually say that.

/pol/ is shit because of the constant two-way trolling ("/pol/ BTFO'd!")

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting to debate with like-minded people, if a group of fascists suddenly decided they ought to be included in a Marxist book club for no apparent reason, then it wouldn't really be productive for anyone - they'd just end up talking past each other and inevitably, fighting among each other.

United States has been fascists for a long time.

>One identity; American
>Hates foreigners unless they are useful.
>Manifest Destiny is still supported and American never did nothing wrong.
>Extremely militaristic

Its pretty good.

never

don't let anyone tell you different, they would be retarded

that isn't fascism you twat

america is also not militaristic, it's only after the second world war buildup and response to the soviet union that you see a large peace time army existing

Huey Long anyone?

>tfw I read about him at highschool
>tfw complety forgot about him
All I remember is that he was gay

Honestly, probably in the 1920s or 1930s. Between Reconstruction and the New Deal, America slid considerably to the right on social issues.

Ending slavery made white people more racist.

The Third Great Awakening made America a lot more religious.

Jewish immigration made America far more antisemitic.

And lastly, the rise of Darwinian thought enabled the first respills.

>>Hates foreigners unless they are useful.
In what world do you live in that you would say the country with the most foreign born people hates foreigners?

This is the correct explanation. Also, fascism at its root is the discarding of the liberal worldview and ideas that it sees as an outgrowth of the burgeois class. But rather than giving the power to proletariat, it seeks to create a new, heroic ruling class like old "nobility of the sword".

Thus, because the USA has been founded exclusively on liberal principles and due to its colonial roots is one of the very few states that have no non-liberal heritage, it's impossible for America to be fascist. American politics is either "muh rights" or "muh property" and "muh citizen ethos". It's not fascist whatsoever.

Never white Amurican males are brainwashed by the muh freedumbs and muh rugged individualism propaganda. Fascism is outside their worldview and that is by design.

I would think it's non white americans that would go and think america was fascist

>non white americans

Who cares? They are not part of the founding stock of America they are parasitising on a nation created as a melting pot of Europeans,

Let me summarise the history of American immigration policy for you.

>Italians
Who cares? They are not part of the founding stock of America they are parasitising on a nation created as a melting pot of White Europeans

>Irish
Who cares? They are not part of the founding stock of America they are parasitising on a nation created as a melting pot of Anglo-Saxon Europeans

>Germans
Who cares? They are not part of the founding stock of America they are parasitising on a nation created as a melting pot of British Europeans.

Do you see why you're argument's retarded now?

Right now thanks to Blumpf

Theory and practice are very different. Italian Fascists didn't adhere to their own theorists, the Nazis even less so. There is no single Fascist ideology, and trying to argue that a state can't be called Fascist because it doesn't stick to the theory of the ideology is as pedantic as arguing the USSR shouldn't be called "Communist."
"Fascist" like "Communist" is a generalisation used to describe a specific type of government, and that means that certain actions taken by the American government and its people can be called Fascist.

1983

at least the irish spoke english

Literally never. And no, not now either.

>Italian Fascists didn't adhere to their own theorists

They did though, Italian fascists embraced corporatism. National Socialism is something different.

I mean if you want to start getting down to definitions like "any country which doesn't have western europe-tier permissive immigration and naturalization laws - if that is your litmus test - then more or less the entire world East of Germany is "fascist".

>and that means that certain actions taken by the American government and its people can be called Fascist.

No it doesn't. War in of itself isn't fascist, authoritarianism isn't fascist, dragging people out of their beds in morning raids for making racist comments in twitter for example - a la the UK, isn't fascist. Dragging them out of their beds and locking them up for race mixing would be, by contrast.

Exactly, waging war in of itself isn't "fascist". The US has waged war for liberal democratic principles, e.g. Iraq. No fascist state would declare war on another country for the purposes of making sure everyone within that country had the right to vote.

Probably under FDR.

Libertarianism has nothing to do with the Left-Right axis, you brainwashed mong.

I know it sounds like Autism but FDR.

Under FDR the US had a dominant holding of one party over the other. FDR had three terms in office, and since then no other president has.
Under FDR we had acts that imposed the loss of some freedoms of speech, press, as well as the Service Act of 1940, which issued a draft for all men of age.
We also can't forget the near slave like treatment towards the Japanese American Citizens and non citizens of America in the Japanese American Concentration Camp.

I can keep going on all day. But Even though FDR had no real intention of furthering his rule after his illness, the politics of the day were the closest the US has come to Fascism.

>a protectionist, militarist, populist, anti-intellectual, anti-environmentalist, nationalist, pro-austerity candidate
>centrist

Whatever you say buddy.

>radical left immigration policies

Like the blatant racial profiling of Hispanics in Arizona a few years back?

>Waaaaah, Trump is a fascist!

Such a fascist that he wants to reduce the federal governments ability to influence schools, actively fights against extrajudicial surveillance, wants every citizen in the country to buy to biggest gun available, and has not intimidated anyone into not criticizing him on any media platform.

Like I've said a million times, if Trump is a nationalist then what does that make the LDP in Japan? Or the average Korean? Or the CCP? Or the Gulf States? Or Modi in India? And so on.

Are you prepared to follow through your logic to its logical conclusion here? Because by this litmus test the entire world outside of Western Europe and North America is basically "ultra far right".

You're talking to people who, in spite of their worldiness, have a completely eurocentric worldview. Their only real reference points in regards to domestic politics are Sweden usually.

*pretense at worldliness

Huey Long did nothing wrong.

>trashtalking the best president the USA has ever had
I'm gonna tear you a new deal

>Populist
Sorry we live in a country that votes, sweety. There is literally nothing wrong with saying what you need to win an election.

>Anti-intellectual
Holy shit, when will this fucking meme die? The American left is hardly a bastion of unrestrained intellectual thought.

>Praising the president who prolonged the Great Depression and butchered the Constitution

>FDR had three terms in office
Didn't he die during a 4th term? Also, wasn't the 2 term limit just a tradition since George Washington only had 2? Non-burger here, my facts might be skewed.

Populism is a meaningless term. It refers to an apolitical rhetorical method both sides engage in. You can't win elections without some measure of "populism", whether you are center left or center right.

it wasn't required that you only serve 2 terms

one of the more recent amendments to the constitution establishes a 2 term limit for the executive branch.

incidentally both Roosevelts have sought more than 2 terms

>No fascist state would declare war on another country for the purposes of making sure everyone within that country had the right to vote.
this is one of fascist principles, you remove all threat to your nation through war or economy, just because definition is changed the actions don't

>Because the US is a nation whose people respect the rule of law.
Except for the people who make the laws.

And the people who actually carry out their orders. I wonder what goes through the head of people who knowingly and illegally spy on other Americans and the like, do they do it because of their conception of "the greater good" or for the pay alone?

Probably a combination of both. But the pay is definitely the deciding factor. Contractors for the three letter agencies usually get around six figures a year.

To call someone a criminal carries with it a series of connotations. The more you use it the more it will become meaningless similar to the way racist, sexist and xenephobe have all lost some of their public sting. In this case drumming up the fact that their criminality can be called into question by people in positions of authority does not take away from the fact that the crime they are guilty of is a lack of adherence to bureaucratic protocols. It literally is why they are illegal regardless of what you think of it. You have set up a bureaucracy called the immigration system and they have failed to follow the established protocols. As a result of that you deem it proper and just to entirely and completely strip them of the aforementioned things; home, family, property, friends and community. You do this because you are as a matter of fact racist and xenophobic.

I do not say this to make light of the law as a concept, I say this because the law is patently wrong in this circumstance and has itself merited its own abolition and complete replacement. It is wrong because these people have in actuality and as a matter of fact established homes, families, friends, bought property and made themselves part of their communities over years and decades and since they are in fact guilty of bureaucratic noncompliance and since I cannot justify such a harsh measure for other similar instances I cannot justify this measure.

(CONT)

The logic follows quite simply sir. This would be like stipping the very existence of another person for driving without a license, or building without a permit. Fines, community service, jail time, all of the above. Understandable maybe even warranted but in this case. If they are not violent, if they otherwise have obeyed the letter of the law to the greatest degree possible given their situation, if they work and earn their own way, how the devil can you sit there and call yourself in any way a decent human being if you would strip them all and in their totality of the whole of their amassed life?


This is not a matter of being left winged. It is foolish to even consider this. I believe wholeheartedly in the constitution, I believe in the bill of rights, I believe it is the duty of every American to be armed as well as is able and be prepared to fight tyranny and despotism in whatever despicable form it rears its ugly head. I believe life starts at conception and abortion is a grievous sin and I believe we should fight against foreign influence that would see our liberties torn asunder. But I cannot fathom the level of foolishness, pettiness and sheer dogmatic selfishness it takes to so completely strip your fellow man of their fair toil. To see them cast out of the space they have made for themselves at no provable and demonstrable cost to you.

(CONT)

The law as a general principle should be followed but if its adherence means the that one must do evil, morally repugnant things then the law must be changed, it must change sir it has a moral imperative to change. If it pushes the already powerless into total disenfranchisement that renders them even more prone to abuse and exploitation with no voice with which to plea for mercy from those in authority, it must change. This is not a matter of left and right, this is and has always been a matter of human decency and to deny this central, this one definitive truth requires the highest caliber of dishonesty to both yourself and the rest of the world. Indeed one that I simply cannot fathom. The law must never be blindly followed and we should always, ALWAYS ask ourselves what the punishment entails in its totality and if the offence committed merits that punishment. For the rights enshrined by our founding fathers were never the rights of Americans but the rights of all men that live under our banner.

(end)

>you remove all threat to your nation through war or economy

No, read Gentile or D'Annunzio. None of them mention going to war with states that pose absolutely no threat to you for the purposes of establishing democracies there. You are delusional. America is not a fucking "fascist state".

The present day monstrosity that is the United States of America is entirely the responsibility of liberals. It is founded on liberal principles and seeks to infect other countries with these principles too (see most recently America's fractious relationship with the Philippines).

Do not blame the right for this. Like I said. America is liberalism's patient zero.

the correct answer is the civil war and WWI. Anybody that says now is retarded

The New deal era and then Obama administration

Trump would have been considered left-leaning just 20 years ago.