"oh no, won't somebody please think of the unfortunate oppressed fascists!.. Except anyone that you want to oppress will retroactively be labelled "fascist", o

"oh no, won't somebody please think of the unfortunate oppressed fascists!.. Except anyone that you want to oppress will retroactively be labelled "fascist", or "far-right" by whatever loose system serves that purpose. The latest version of "terrorist", "activist" or "heretic". and Le Pen is absolutely a fascist, in my opinion But whose opinion is canon in matters of censorship? Le Pen is also a valid political candidate with fair support in her electorate. Consider this - If a "fascist" is democratically elected, what wins: anti-fascism (presumably from the perspective of an opposing 3rd party, as Le Pen doesn't describe herself as a fascist); or democracy? so you say "if you allow actual fascism to flourish.. something much worse in the long run" - who gets to decide what is "allowed", and what isn't? Seems to me the basis for such stability would have nothing to do with subjective judgements of what constitutes "fascism" - and more to do with principles of democracy - i.e. a fascist entity can be democratically elected - it just can't be given powers that would allow it to override democracy, or escape legal oversight. Perhaps the key word is "extralegal"? The problem is that too many political entities (not just far-right) seek extralegal, overreaching powers; believing it OK so long as "they can be trusted"; but if the king of today is a good king, his heir might still be bad. And the good government that allows for overreach enables the bad government that does the same.