"Is Fascism Back?"

[hntnhole]

22 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

Out of curiosity, i asked Artificial Intelligence what it 'thought'

Wellllll ..... Artificial, yes ..... Intelligence, maaaaaybe, maaaaaaybe not so much:

 

22 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

In the early years of Hitler's regime, many European leaders underestimated his ambitions

No, the leaders of the European nations knew perfectly well that non-German speaking nations had been "using" German-speaking lands to fight their wars for centuries.  The leaders of the victors of WWI were leaders of exhausted nations, and simply crossed their fingers behind their backs, and then looked the other way.  AI needs to take another look.  

 

22 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

Policy of Appeasement

If AI learned that appeasement simply does not work (in world-affairs), or by any other means, it would be a bit less shallow.  For instance, what would AI have to say about today's military adventurism, fomented by Mr. Trump (with the aid of the PM of Israel)?  Since it's already happened, no point in asking AI what he/she/it thinks of the possibilities.  If AI came up with something along the lines of a breathtakingly weak man being manipulated by a most competent manipulator, PM of a certain nation in the Levant, then that would be at least a plus for Mr. AI.  

To the issue of appeasement, the non-German countries were just as deeply troubled by the depression as every other nation, only more-so, having just gone through a terribly-bloody war.  I may be mistaken, and I'm not going to ask Mr. AI, but I believe that the nazi party won the elections in 1931(?), which - according to the German Constitution, meant the party that wins the election takes over the German government.  Thus, taking power was a Constitutionally-required event for the nazi party, and it happened legitimately, just as the entire industrialized world was sinking into the depths of world-wide depression. 

So, sweet boy - let's ask AI what it thinks about the adventurism taking place today in the Levant - see if Mr. AI has digested his breakfast yet ..... 

[RubberAustria]

On 2/27/2026 at 9:52 PM, hntnhole said:

Thanks for that interesting response, RubberAustria.  I do have a question, however:  

How different are "fascism" and "populism from the far right"? 

Hi all!

The problem is: Fascism was first mentioned in the 1920s (latin word fascis). And Italy and spain were the first countries with this „system of ruling a country“. So definitions from 100 years ago do not go along with actual definitions/ situations. But I for my part think that all elements of (right)populism are found in fascism. And some elements of fascism are still not established in (e.g. Hungary, Austria, USA?): Resolution of parliament, complete control of media, massive repression against opposition, complete surveillance of the population. 

Sorry, english is not my mother language. So for discussions like this I have a huge disadvantage. 

[tobetrained]

The issue with today's convo in this thread is simply the selective set of inclusions. Biden, Obama, other Republican President's besides Trump have had actions called or ruled unconstitutional. You can google all that too. That's pure selective outrage.

The main issue in our democracy is Congress' abdication of authority and responsibility resulting out-of-control power of the Presidency.

Democrats today -- Feb 28 -- are harping on War Powers due to Iran strikes. Sure. But they too abdicated that authority when Obama did not want to be reigned in (and those members of congress were more concerned about election campaigns) and Dems held both House and Senate.

5 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

Where "we" do get a say in how our constitution and laws are interpreted by our government, is at the ballot box. 

Right. But both sides think even our small election wins are mandates for their wildest dreams. They over-reach. Then the other party wins an election down the road. To reiterate a point made in days/months prior: this is why 10 of the last 11 mid-term elections, starting with 1980-82, have gone against the sitting President's party (after that party's over-reach early in the President's term).  And they do so with bills/laws/regulations later deemed unconstitutional.

Prior to 1980, Democrats had gerrymandered the US House beyond Republican winning possibility (check Wikipedia, and I've posted example data before). If not for that, likely a longer trend.

9 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

What "non extreme positions" will "settle down" trumps extremism?

@tallslenderguy You talk about this in a nebulous construct. If you want, give me five and I'll take the time to respond to each. There are probably many more so five shouldn't be too hard, no? Pick which you like.

[tobetrained]

40 minutes ago, RubberAustria said:

Hi all!

The problem is: Fascism was first mentioned in the 1920s (latin word fascis). And Italy and spain were the first countries with this „system of ruling a country“. So definitions from 100 years ago do not go along with actual definitions/ situations. But I for my part think that all elements of (right)populism are found in fascism. And some elements of fascism are still not established in (e.g. Hungary, Austria, USA?): Resolution of parliament, complete control of media, massive repression against opposition, complete surveillance of the population. 

Sorry, english is not my mother language. So for discussions like this I have a huge disadvantage. 

@RubberAustria Thank you for a rational comment.

I would also be curious as to your views on left-side populism. Maybe that's a different thread at a different time. But I think many need to understand that too.

[tallslenderguy]

14 hours ago, tobetrained said:

@tallslenderguy You talk about this in a nebulous construct. If you want, give me five and I'll take the time to respond to each. There are probably many more so five shouldn't be too hard, no? Pick which you like.

You wrote: 

"extremism is for sure, both on the conservative side and liberal/progressive side. In that, both are increasing as responses to each other.

It's only when we choose to take non-extreme positions that things settle down."

That seems a "nebulous construct" to me.  my question was quoting your assertion that "non-extreme positions" will settle things down.  i see trump and his administration as extreme, i do not see how choosing non-extreme positions in response will settle things down.  

[hntnhole]

21 hours ago, RubberAustria said:

Sorry, english is not my mother language. So for discussions like this I have a huge disadvantage. 

No apologies needed, my friend.  Your points are well-made and understood.  

I agree that elements of populism are found in fascist regimes, but carried to a more extreme extent. 

Where the current state of affairs falls on an imaginary scale of fascism vs populism isn't my point; rather, it is my disinclination to place an inordinate amount of value on what AI "thinks".

I'll agree that AI can come up with pre-conceived notions that may or may not fit properly into a question or conversation, but it's not even close to an educated human brain.  

[hntnhole]

20 hours ago, tobetrained said:

The main issue in our democracy is Congress' abdication of authority and responsibility resulting out-of-control power of the Presidency

I'll agree with this statement, and happily so. 

[tobetrained]

12 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

That seems a "nebulous construct" to me.  my question was quoting your assertion that "non-extreme positions" will settle things down.  i see trump and his administration as extreme, i do not see how choosing non-extreme positions in response will settle things down.  

Ah. OK...I didn't read it that way yesterday. But, to your point: Over-reactions simply create other over-reactions and false-reactions.

As discussed above, whatever you think about this President and his admin/policies, it's not fascism. And the people who suffered from it deserve better. Over-reactions like this is what turns people off.

[Newbottom2112]

What can't you do today that you could do two years ago? 

[brnbk]

On 2/27/2026 at 3:52 PM, hntnhole said:

The only difference I see, is that one actually happened in Europe, and the other has not yet fully come to pass here in the US.   

Native Americans would beg to differ. Since the 1600s they have been living under illiberal democracy and a fascist state that laid claim to their lands and gold in the name of democracy but effectively slowly and steadily depriving them or their property and person. What has changed now is that it is not just the "Indian" who is the victim, but the white middle class as well. 

While we might disagree with wether fascism has arrived or not, or are we in a state of illiberal democracy, as some in the video argued, most will agree that the US seem to be heading toward fascism rather than away from it. This is sad given the collective lessons the world learnt during the Nazi and War Periods. 

[tallslenderguy]

i think many have responded to the question in the video title without watching the video. The video does not end with a definitive answer.  The video raises a lot of points and questions in Harris' discussion  of the topic with scholars who also reach different conclusions. 

Edited 16 hours ago by tallslenderguy

[hntnhole]

15 hours ago, brnbk said:

n the name of democracy but effectively slowly and steadily depriving them or their property and person.

You'll get no quarrel with me on this one.  Thanks for voicing your perspective. 

I've often mentioned that unless one has Native American blood in their veins, and thus is an actual "Native American" or decendant, we're all immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants.  

[tobetrained]

9 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

i think many have responded to the question in the video title without watching the video. The video does not end with a definitive answer.  The video raises a lot of points and questions in Harris' discussion  of the topic with scholars who also reach different conclusions. 

Possibly many did. But what's up with your videos and this trend of self-important overly earnest puritanical hosts? 😀 Is breathlessness supposed to be some marker of truth? His off-center orange-knit beanie was so precious you wanna dip him in glaze and stick him on shelf.

His video and supposition is described in statistics as overfitting: "Production of an analysis that corresponds too closely or exactly to a particular set of data, and may therefore fail to fit additional data or predict future observations reliably"

Every one of his steps (Origins, Violence, Acceptance, Power, Abs. Power) has been used for millennia in democracies (and other forms) by future autocrats to gain power. None of which were called fascism. They've been used by people on the left to do the same.

The Assyrians come to mind as well as the Neo-Assyrians later. Dionysius of Syracuse too... hell, and on that, the entire Hellenic world in the iron age would fit his argument.

If you want to understand fascism in a non-sensationalized way, the BBC did a fairly good documentary: The World War 1914-1945. I just looked it up, eps 3-4 cover this. But it's good enough to watch all.

[tobetrained]

...continue from last post. Sorry forgot to add this:

The documentary does a good job in positioning the rise of fascism/far-right to the rise of socialism/communism/far-left. Specifically, it updates this conversation throughout and how they, effectively, created the beast in each other.

I would argue this is much better example of today's environment.