3 ms·

What characteristics did you test against?

• lolinder 2y ago
  A few of them [0]: > a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and/or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. Our vocabulary in the US around politics (left and right) gives the false impression that politics is a 2D spectrum. It's not, and very few right-wing groups today have many shared beliefs with fascists at all. This includes the nutjobs who think they're Nazi sympathizers. According to Orwell the word was already a mostly meaningless insult by 1944 [1], and it's still a mostly meaningless insult: > Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come. > ... All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism [1] https://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune/AsIPlease19440324.html https://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune...
  • cess11 2y ago
    Elizabeth Prophet didn't dictate her organisation? It wasn't obsessed with nuclear weapons? Their view of initiation doesn't signal a belief in a natural social hierarchy? They didn't sign over their personal assets in service of this ultra-nationalist organisation? I don't think you've tried to determine their politics at all, you just want to say that the dominant ideology of the US is not allowed to be named.