69 million page views

Case is not proven

Reader comment on item: There's a Name for Trump's Brand of Politics: Neo-fascism

Submitted by Kellsey (Latvia), Jul 25, 2016 at 08:19

Saying that Trump is some form of neo fascist is huge stretch. The burden of proof is on you...

Fascism, like nazism, is hate-based ideology. Hate is at the root of it. There is no fascism that's full of love for humanity. To prove Trump is neo fascist, you first have to prove he is hateful.

Now, what is hate? The word is rarely explained, making it easy to pin it on anybody we don't like. Here's what it is - it's a feeling of denying right to exist (to live, to be alive) to other human being. The most intolerant feeling to have.

Mussolini, fascist originale, was a hateful man.

He said, as quoted in 1938: "(The Italians) must learn to be less sympathetic in order to become hard, relentless and hateful - in other words, masters." In 1941 he said that "cold, conscious, implacable hatred, the hatred embedded in every heart, spreading in every household, is indispensable for victory." In 1942 he said: "You don't make war without hating the enemy from morning until night, in all the hours of day and night, without propagating this hatred and making it the inner essence of your being."

He hated intellectual and bourgeois class. He said they are rotten with "cowardice, laziness and love of the quiet life." He said they need to be "kept on their feet to the tune of kicks in the shins". To connect cowardice, laziness and love in one thought, it really tells you about the man.

He was a racist, which means he hated others more than he hated his own. He proclaimed: "I would say we can easily sacrifice 500,000 barbaric Slavs for 50,000 Italians". When a man talks about "easily" murdering hundreds of thousands of people, including his own, that tells you lot about him too.

Anyway, Trump. Where is his hate? If you can't prove Trump is hateful, you can't even start to prove he is in any shape or form fascist, neo or old school.

Here are your main points:

- He will order torture of prisoners and killing of civilians

You wrote: When told that uniformed personnel would disobey his unlawful order as president to torture prisoners and kill civilians, Trump menacingly replied "They won't refuse. They're not going to refuse, believe me."

First of all, ...He didn't say he'd kill civilians. He said he'll go after terrorist families. That doesn't mean he would order to kill them. He can investigate them more scrupulously, detain them, jail them, deport them. Those are all legitimate reactions to muslim terror attack. Muslims are much more group-think than individualistic in their worldview, so it's more plausible that any muslim terror attack is not done by a lone wolf, but by a group, and that includes family. When it's about terror attack, even turning the blind eye has horrific consequences.

By the way, please provide link where Trump says he'll order to kill civilians, because that explicit statement is in your second sentence, which puts it among the most important statements you make. Until you provide such link, which I am not aware that exists, ... That's not good.

As for torture, all forms of detention are some kind of torture. Solitary confinement in jail is torture. There can't be "unlawful order to torture prisoners", as you present, but "order to unlawfully torture prisoners". Since being prisoner is torture by itself, it's about the degree of torture. As far as I know, Trump didn't say he want to mutilate or kill prisoners. What's true is he didn't lay out what he would do, because why would he broadcast to the most cruel enemy where are his lines. Regardless, while any harsh torture is deeply regrettable, loss of innocent lives to future terror attacks is more regrettable. Trade off is done one way or the other. In current climate, where terrorists' families get prime time media coverage to explain "islamophobia" immediately after their son or brother kills innocent people while yelling to alah, I would say scale is tipped on the wrong side. Correcting that seems advisable.

Finally, you said he "menacingly replied". That's presumptuous. On video it doesn't look "menacingly" - something that threatens to cause evil or harm. It more looks as if it was said firmly or with certainty. It's subjective, of course, but when put in perspective of your whole statement, ... That's not promising for what comes next.

- He is like mafia

You wrote: Responding to criticism by the speaker of the House, Trump spoke like a Mafia don: "Paul Ryan, I don't know him well, but I'm sure I'm going to get along great with him. And if I don't? He's gonna have to pay a big price."

This is your second argument that Trump is neo fascist - to publicly say that a politician can pay a big price? Big price can be a lot of things including losing political influence or position, losing the vote, losing privileges, getting demoted, getting kicked out of group, etc... Those are legitimate political outcomes for a politician who goes against the leader of his organization (and electoral vote). I don't know if you have employees or assistants, but if you did, and a person in significant position within your organization diametrically opposes most of what you write, say and do, and fights you one way or the other most of the time, that person would probably pay big price by being fired and losing all the money she could continue to earn with you.

Saying that a 70 year-old man has suddenly started to act "like a Mafia don" by publicly saying that a politician can pay big price for his actions ...

- He wants United States to be respected

You wrote: Complaining that the United States' international standing has declined, Trump promised to make foreigners "respect our country" and "respect our leader" by creating an "aura of personality."

This is third argument? Wanting to be respectable is neo fascism?

And having aura of personality is neo fascism? Jesus Christ is a neo fascist then, like Pablo Picasso and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

But who would want to be respected, really. Such a pitiful, contemptible goal.

- He wants that publishers of false information get held accountable

You wrote: Concerning the media, which he despises, Trump said, "I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."

It's possible Trump despises media, but you didn't mention he is constantly painted in bad light and lied about. Famous "Trump says Mexicans are rapist" is good example. He didn't say it, or anything similar. He was broadcasting the fact about researched data that says significant percentage of girls and women who illegally cross southern USA border are raped by Mexican illegal traffickers. Saying "they send rapists" when Mexico doesn't guard it's border and leaves it to their criminals to establish rule of that land, and let them rape females who cross it, is truthful statement.

As for libel laws, advertising in a magazine or newspaper that looks like an article must have word "Advertising" at the top of the article. That is so people won't be misled about publisher standing behind certain product or service, but that it's a paid advertisement. In other words, presenting article as true article has it's weight. Now, why would provable lies be allowed in what is presented as serious, factual news article, without any consequence to the author or publication?

But however you look at it, you seem to think that it's one of the most significant signs of neo fascism, and hate, when media publishers are held accountable for false information, since you ranked it towards the top of your article?

To shorten this comment... You don't come even close to making the case for Trump being neo fascist. Or being hateful person.



Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Case is not proven by Kellsey

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2022 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)