.
Irony of history. There were some voices obsessing about the Arctic and calling for more Canadian military preparations to counter the oh-so fearsome Russians in the Arctic region; icebreakers, infantry with snow vehicles and whatnot.
Now it becomes obvious that the actual threat to Canada's sovereignty isn't coming from the North; it's coming from the South - icebreakers and fancy snow special forces won't make a difference.
Canadian deterrence & defence isn't about navy, air force or armoured vehicles any more. It's about occupation-proofing themselves by becoming an armed nation.*
Being allied with Europe won't help Canada much if the Fascists in Washington, D.C. Mar-A-Lago get too greedy for land. It's simply not credible deterrence, for Europe cannot defend Canada against the U.S. given the logistical issues and requirement for troops to face Russia in parallel.
So I offer four advices for Canada
- Avoid angering the Fascists too much, particularly don't suddenly shut down the electricity exports.
- Arm yourself with training, equipment, weapons and munitions that would make an occupation impractical and bloody even with a million occupation troops, and let the American public know about it. Conscription for three to six months training is warranted under the current circumstances in my opinion, much longer conscription service for personnel qualified to train the recruits.
- Build up a conventional deterrent, such as the ability to launch ten thousand cheap cruise missiles within an hour to destroy thousands of fragile power grid and (petro-)chemical industry targets up to 1,500 km deep in Fascist America.
- Ward against subversion. Shut out American media, prohibit immigration and travel from Fascist America, minimise the quantity of Fascist American diplomats to a skeleton crew in Ottawa, cut all intelligence and security cooperation including ejecting all American military personnel (even embassy marines), shut down NORAD.
Canada: Stop wasting money on toying with a miniature balanced military. Almost none of it has any relevance to Canadian security.
S O
*: The Americans have the myth that a nation armed with light weapons such as assault rifles is a nation that cannot be occupied. The current crop of American politicians is stupid enough to believe such propaganda, and so will be the loyalty-over-competence crop of new generals that get installed in commands to coup-proof the Fascist regime.
.
You only used "fascism" or variations of the word six times. Thats fewer than one per paragraph.
ReplyDeleteI mean, I get it, you don't like the new government and there are good reasons, and the defense advice you lay out also sounds reasonable (same goes for many countries to be honest), but I believe it is a bit of an overreaction to scream about fascism from the rooftops.
Just my two cents.
I scream from rooftops about problems years before others realise them.
DeleteMussolini was in power for 13 years before he started wars of aggression.
Hitler was in power for 5 years before he started grab land.
Canada needs 3 years to satisfactorily apply what I prescribed even if it went all-in on the effort. Rather 10 years at ordinary speed.
The American Fascism checks all boxes of Fascism, it's just not honest about what it is because the brand is burnt (the overt hostility to antifascism is an indicator that at least parts of the movement will become overt Fascists).
One can also describe it as well as oligarchy-kleptocracy with dissolution of separation fo church and state (the "church" serving at a tool to control the population as in Russia, or at least certain demographics).
In the end, it's very much the same as Fascism and it already shows a total lack of respect for the sovereignty of other countries, which means Canada needs a different deterrence & defence ASAP.
@anon:
DeleteI deleted your comment and the rewrite of your comment because I don't tolerate the bollocks about Fascism being an Italy-only thing.
Get some actual political science book or a history book, or even only read wikipedia. Whatever, you will find in non-crazy sources that Fascism is a political ideology/movement. It can exist and has existed in many countries. Nazism is not on the same level, it's a subcategory of Fascism.
Literally on the second paragraph of the German wikipedia article on "Fascism" it says:
Delete"Die Verallgemeinerung des Faschismus-Begriffs von einer zeitlich und national begrenzten Eigenbezeichnung zur Gattungsbezeichnung einer bestimmten Herrschaftsart ist umstritten, besonders für den deutschen NS-Staat."
So much for that.
So your own opinion is in no way consensus.
DeleteIf you disagreed you could have written a counterpoint instead of just censoring, which, in combination with your corresponding rhetorics, just makes you look like a authoritarian leftist.
This blog is in English.
DeleteThe English wikipedia agrees with me wholly, while the German one disagrees with your assertion, as you quoted. Worst case interpretation of the German wikipedia article is that I deleted a comment that asserted something as certain that's disputed.
BTW
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
Also, I dislike manipulative cherrypicking.
DeleteThere's a whole chapter in the German wikipedia article on fascism listing 6 regimes that are considered Fascist by scholars and 22 European countries where unsuccessful (didn't come to power) Fascist movements existed.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faschismus#%C3%9Cberblick_der_als_faschistisch_bezeichneten_Bewegungen_in_Europa
"Hitler was in power for 5 years before he started grab land."
DeleteCome on, S.O. Liebensraum was GERMAN policy, not just the mustache man's policy. The starvation of Germany by the Royal Navy's blockade during World War One (and for a year afterwards) made it obvious to every foreign policy thinker in Germany they needed more land to feed themselves.
The Poles sitting on top of lands which used to be owned by every Prussian General in the Wehrmacht didn't help their case either.
@Big Bill:
DeleteArguably the use of German police to suppress dissent dates to the immediate post WWI era and culminated in einsatzgruppen (death squads) of Barbarossa.
For starters, it's "Lebensraum" (room to live), not "Liebensraum (room to love).
DeleteSecond, it was not a widespread thing at all. Germans would have liked to get the territories lost due to the Versailles treaty back, but practically nobody was dreaming of living in fortified cities in Ukraine and dominating the rural Ukrainians.
Third, nonsense. Germany had easily enough land.
All relevant explosives and propellants other than blackpowder are based on lots of nitrogen and enough oxidisers. The nitrogen production capacity that Germany had in 1913 was almost entirely in use for production of nitrogen fertilisers.
Moreover, the 18+ y.o. farmer sons were drafted in 1914, many older farmers in 1915.
Same with horses. A mobilised army of 1914-1918 required millions of draft horses and relatively few riding horses at a time when very little of agriculture was mechanised.
A shortage of agricultural area was not the cause of the famine. There was enough of it, but we lacked farmers, farming (draft) horses and fertilisers.
Fourth, Germany HAD much Polish land in 1915 and it did jack shit preventing the famine.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Europe_WW1_Frontlines_as_of_1916.png
Fifth, West Germany was able to feed West Germans, some Middle (nowadays called East) German refugees and almost all former East Germans (East Prussia, Silesia, Eastern Pomerania) during the 50's. That was technologically not far away from the 30's. German scientists were world-renowned and civil servants pretty good as well. The food production potential within the borders of 1932 was clearly enough, and anyone who looked at the topic knew it.
Sixth, food production potential could easily and quickly be improved over 1932 levels by
- more fertilisation
- mechanisation
- land reform for more efficient fields
- intensified offshore fishing
"Arguably the use of German police to"
DeleteDude, you made a wrong turn somewhere.
22. Make sure only people with "approval" have a place on the ballot for election. Judges bribed with perks like "conferences" in exotic locations for example, will gratefully lend a hand. Call everyone else a fascist.
DeleteThat sounds like the 'The anti-Fascists are the real Fascists' bullshit that Fascists spew to deal with their cognitive dissonance of being the bad guys.
DeleteTotally. Dressing in black and wearing masks and using physical violence against political enemies is the complete opposite of what fascists would do.
DeleteThey're asking for it anyway, if rightwingers didn't want to be beaten up they wouldn't be rightwingers! Using political violence against the correct people makes us the good guys! <3
That's a misrepresentation of antifascists AND you should broaden your knowledge.
DeleteEven the described extreme outlier behaviour is far from exclusive to Fascists.
BTW
https://ccjls.scholasticahq.com/article/26973-far-left-versus-far-right-fatal-violence-an-empirical-assessment-of-the-prevalence-of-ideologically-motivated-homicides-in-the-united-states/attachment/67191.pdf
I know that not only fascists dress and behave that way, that was exactly my point.
DeleteAntifa are violent thugs who just use supposed fascists to justify their unacceptable behavior nothing more. Unless you mean the morons who graffiti "antifa" all over the place.
And attempts to claim otherwise because there are some misguided people who are peaceful but associate themselves with that brand would be like defending the Nazi party by pointing to John Rabe.
The extreme right also being prone to violence does not exonerate Antifa as a group.
And coffee is black. That's just as irrelevant to the question whether MAGA is fascism, of course.
DeleteYou're distracting / doing bothsiderism.
Besides, Antifa did almost nothing illegal considering the size of the U.S.. Its excesses of several years are equivalent to a week to a month of SA activity in '29 to '32.
Not aware how I'm doing bothsiderism, you were the one who pointed to crime statistics showing that the right is more violent in the US.
DeleteJust tired of people defending Antifa by pretending their motives are pure. Sure fascism is bad and should be fought, but lets not pretend like Antifa only targets actual fascists, they seem to go against anyone who disagrees with the far left politically. And they do it using violence which I find unacceptable regardless of who they're supposedly fighting.
Comparing defense of that group to defense of the Naziparty wasn't meant to suggest the two are equally bad, obviously that is not the case, perhaps I should have used a less extreme example.
I do see a pretty major uptick in politically motivated violence in the US though. Which is why we shouldn't defend Antifa, rather point out that there is no real difference between them and say violent rightwing skinheads.
The topic isn't antifa. You brought that up. That's why it's bothsiderism.
DeleteDeflecting from something terrible by pointing out that somewhere else there's also something not purely good.
Guess we're talking past each other or something, I was responding to your comment "That sounds like the 'The anti-Fascists are the real Fascists' bullshit that Fascists spew to deal with their cognitive dissonance of being the bad guys."
DeleteWell, it doesn't hurt (much) to prepare for various possibilities, and Trump is somewhat erratic so the advice is generally sound (especially the bit about not pissing him off, not so much shutting out the media, most of the US media dislike him somewhat :D ).
ReplyDeleteOne nitpick: Saying you're against "antifascism" makes you fascist? I always saw those antifa guys as essentially a politically motivated group of violent thugs. Dressing in black and wearing masks and beating people for their political opinions, I don't know. Always saw them as the lefts modern version of the Nazis SA during the twenties, but I guess peoples view on that depends what type of politics they were socialised into.
The US needs Russia to help contain China. China is the peer adversary.
ReplyDeleteRussia failed to overrun Ukraine. The US has decided that NATO is no-longer essential.
For a realistic look at whats happening
George Friedman at Geopolitical Futures
https://youtu.be/cYpL-QvGM8M?si=2-JI1YPvgzSpR-GG
For a historical context
Sarah Paine (US navy historian)
https://youtu.be/x0QrOjqXx8U?si=QfceC0cbWZM7ExFh
Seems to me the American's are working to reduce the size of their government and are giving us warnings about free speech.
ReplyDeleteNot very fascist like behavior.
Also abolishing the rule of law and threatening military invasion of other states. Seems moderately and increasingly fascist to me.
DeleteThe American Fascists aren't pursuing "free speech". They want their propaganda to be louder and have absolutely no interest in protecting free speech of political enemies.
DeleteThey "reduce the size of the government" only in regard to consumer protection, white collar crime prosecution, social benefits for the poor and middle class. That's in no way in conflict with the Fascism diagnosis.
If there is a head of state you dislike and he is opposed to all that is good on literally every single point and everything is only ever evil and bad and obviously so yet tens of millions voted for him, you might want to consider that perhaps the problem is that you found your way into a bit of a media echochamber.
DeleteI didn't write about like or dislike. I wrote about what they do.
DeleteI notice you didn't even try to disprove that.
Not like there is much to dispute, you said america is now fascist, I believe you're wrong. But I'll try to at least counter the two points you did make here in the comments.
Delete"The American Fascists aren't pursuing "free speech". They want their propaganda to be louder and have absolutely no interest in protecting free speech of political enemies."
Do you have any proof for this assertion? I don't see it like that, I see almost all political censorship coming from the left ("hatespeech" etc.), while the right (sorry, the "american fascist") actively wants the left to say whatever they want because the left in the US is so far gone that it actually helps the right when people see what these lunatics are up to. Again, just my opinion, fully aware you don't share them.
"They "reduce the size of the government" only in regard to consumer protection, white collar crime prosecution, social benefits for the poor and middle class. That's in no way in conflict with the Fascism diagnosis."
I don't see proof of this, though it is too early yet to see where it will ultimately go. Considering just how much fraud there must be in a government that massive (and with such ridiculously lax corruption laws) I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt for now. The reaction of the opposition to audits suggests the government might still only be scratching at the surface, but as I said, I'll wait and see.
I am with you that the talk of annexing other people's territory is inappropriate to say the least. Though the annex canada thing is just trolling, as if the conservatives would want canada to become part of the US, it would actually hurt their future election chances.
The problem with calling people fascists is that it makes the reader think it's just the opposition screeching because they're pissed. If a conservative or right leaning politician called literally every opponent communists thats just babble and the same is true in reverse. I will say that I respect you (or I wouldn't bother responding), so if you have other points to make I will consider them with an open mind.
If not, I understand, I know how tedious discussing politics on the internet can become.
Bit odd to talk about free speech when Trump is known for going after political enemies and placing cronies in positions of power. And just a couple of days ago things like this occured: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgj5nlxz44yo
DeleteI am sure the Trump disinformation bubble will have its own spin on this, but this is clearly authoritarian and anti-freedom.
The lying moron just called two TV networks "illegal" because one of them doesn't lick his boots and the other only does so occasionally.
Delete@John Smith
DeleteSeriously? You mean the foreigner who gave out pro Hamas fliers and openly stated his goal was the destruction of western civilization is getting deported? Oh no, what a tragedy.
Yes, free speech has limits, there always have been, lots of people are now getting butthurt because those consequences are no longer applied onesided in their favour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_They_Came
DeleteIt's a salami slice tactic.
You're the frog swimming in the water glass, and you notice nothing.
By that logic I could argue that criminals are getting locked up and since we're not crying out soon we'll be next. I mean if I travel to a foreign country and start calling for its downfall I damn well should be kicked out asap.
DeleteThis idea that anyone is entitled to live in any country he chooses regardless of behaviour is absurd. Personally I think it's high time that the west starts being a little more discerning about who they allow to live in their countries. That would also help reduce the increasing antagonism to immigration.
There are laws that work well in one country and are disastrous in another. "Stand your ground" is self-evident in German law, but it's abused by people who want to kill in Florida.
DeleteLikewise, the same political action is sometimes a slippery slope into dictatorship and rather innocuous in another context.
The Biden administration deporting such a guy would happen rather calmly as business as usual. The lying moron administration uses it as a step in desensitising, as a salami slice. First they expel some WH correspondents, then they crack down on a dissenter whom a lot of people despise. Then on some more dissenters, some more, some more, until there's no free speech and no free press any more.
BTW, the lying moron is so stupid and undisciplined that he's already giving away his desired end-state:
https://x.com/peterbakernyt/status/1900899455206879500
Yeah, I'm with you on the media thing (though a lot of corporate media is ludicrously biased and even outright deceptive), anyone should be allowed to write what they want. Even if someone else considers it to be misinformation. I would however say kicking out or denying press passes to media caught in blatant lies is understandable, though the criteria would have to be debated.
DeleteAs for the deportation, what's he supposed to do? Let foreign open terror sympathisers continue to stay? Maybe it's the start of a slippery slope but at least the start is perfectly fine. If he pushes too far, then you resist, I'm not going to oppose the deportation of some hostile scumbag just because in the future it might hit other people. When it goes too far, then you resist, until then think of the president what you will, at least he's not letting this kind of crap slide like so many other western administrations have for years. Like in germany where deporting convicted felons to afghanistan is just impossible except of course in the days leading up to an important election ^^
I hate that we've come to this. Everything is so broken that people will vote for anything to end the status quo. Meanwhile the preexisting political class just resists and tries to keep everything the same and doesn't realise or care that these parties/movements/people are not going away unless they actually start fixing things.
Just out of curiosity, is it normal that your more military themed posts (which are excellent by the way, glad I found your blog) get a lot less comment traffic than the political ones?
"As for the deportation, what's he supposed to do?"
DeleteA deportation of a single individual is a low key affair. Someone 5-8 levels below POTUS does that job usually.
They politicized it - that's what matters here, not the act itself. They're trying to normalise sanctioning speech.
"Like in germany where deporting convicted felons to afghanistan is just impossible"
Deportation is a state-level authority in Germany, not a federal one. That's because policing is almost entirely state-level. It's a minor design fault in the constitution. The 16 states have no means of pressuring countries into accepting their people back (a problem with Morocco and some other countries) and little means to argue in court that a certain country is safe enough.
I never figured out how to create traffic or how to get much comment engagement. I expected my recent AAM blog post to hit a nerve, but comments-wise it was a total flop.
I understand that me pushing back on some comments depressed comments engagement compared to for example Think Defence, of course. But then again, TD, get a lot more traffic with a lot more weird topics anyway.
Good point, it should be lower levels dealing with deportations. I'm still not entirely convinced it's really a slippery slope, that they'll really push to fullon authoritarianism but I guess we'll see.
DeleteI understood the deportation thing as a mostly federal affair, especially in tricky situations like Afghanistan. Didn't the Ministry of the interior request a list of criminal afghans from the different states and then select the candidates to be deported, hence the deportees from multiple different states? I saw a report to that effect (don't remember where though). Anyway, the point was less that it's impossible, thats just what the government pretends most of the time, only to flip 3 days or whatever it was before the state elections last year. If you believe the date was a coincidence and not politically motivated I have a bridge to sell you.
Yeah, I read the AAM one, I think the reason for low traffic would be that theres not really much to debate there, you just laid out a prefectly reasonable classification system, I'd only comment for debate or to ask for clarification, neither was necessary. And so the only comment is someone having an aneurism I think :D
The German federal level makes the laws about deportations (with consent of the Bundesrat where the state governments have their representatives), but the deportation has to be done by the 16 German states.
DeleteAnonymous15 March 2025 at 11:09
Delete@John Smith
Seriously? You mean the foreigner who gave out pro Hamas fliers and openly stated his goal was the destruction of western civilization is getting deported? Oh no, what a tragedy.
Yes, free speech has limits, there always have been, lots of people are now getting butthurt because those consequences are no longer applied onesided in their favour.
You clearly don't understand what free speech means. Free speech isn't free speech when you only allow free speech for the poltics you want.
And that isn't his openly stated goal anyways, that's just your disinformation bubble.
You seem strangely unconcerned about actual authoritarians threatening free speech and freedom.
Here's another example today, why aren't you concerned about this anti-freedom authoritarian behaviour threatening western democracy? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8j0vwpkwkxo
Also...butthurt? Is this how an adult mind should be thinking? Are you a kid or something?
@John Smith
Delete"Free speech isn't free speech when you only allow free speech for the poltics you want."
And he won't be imprisoned or fined or anything, he can say those things, doesn't mean you have to tolerate him in your country. He is a guest and should behave within certain norms or leave.
"You seem strangely unconcerned about actual authoritarians threatening free speech and freedom.
Here's another example today, why aren't you concerned about this anti-freedom authoritarian behaviour threatening western democracy? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8j0vwpkwkxo"
Yep, completely unconcerned about that. Said Judge wanted to stop the deportations of dangerous criminal illegals. Illegal immigration is just that - ILLEGAL! Weird how letting western countries get flooded by literally millions of illegals is fine, but god forbid someone tries to send even the worst of them back.
"Also...butthurt? Is this how an adult mind should be thinking? Are you a kid or something?"
Not a kid, thats just generally how I write in english, not my first language, since I rarely get to "speak" it and mostly practice by writing on the internet I guess I'm just used to using course language. So fair enough, I shall try to amend my language somewhat.
"@Anonymous18 March 2025 at 19:38"
DeleteYou can type in CAPSLOCK all you want, but you seemed to have mised the point. For all you talk about illegal, not the main point, you seemed unconcerned about the rule of law and judicial process.
When even Trump appointed supreme court judges issues such statements, perhaps you should be concerned about rule of law and actual freedom of speech.
When a judge can be called to be impeached for doing his job, that is a direct contradiction to freedom of speech. But again, you seem curiously most unconcerned by that, preferring instead to just chant some irrelevant culture wars stuff.
@John Smith
DeleteActually a Judge massively overstepping his jurisdiction and being impeached is the seperation of powers working as intended. Otherwise Judges could just (which is what they are doing in the US) just rule that anything they don't personally like as potentially unlawful, issuing injunctions that then never get resolved or only years later.
And you can call it culture war or whatever you like, but I can't help but notice that it only ever goes one way. And the moment not everything goes exactly like leftists want suddenly it's the end of "their" democracy.
As for being unconcerned about judicial process, these days thats just code for nothing ever really gets done and instead gets trapped in an endless stream of lawyers and nensensical gobbeldigook.
Like state bureaucracies, the justice systems in the west are too bloated and eventually they shouldn't be surprised when normal people check out or even want it cut down to size.
You are wrong because it's not the judges who act illegally, but the lying moron 47 administration.
DeleteSee lying moron administration 45's comment:
https://youtu.be/hJMQS2nz1tY
@ Anonymous22 March 2025 at 14:35
DeleteThe judge didn't overstep anything, and he is not impeached. The judge is operating within the rule of law as is his remit. In fact he is still continuing his job despite Trump harrassing him:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3y03l1gvko
You are just living under a disinformation bubble.
This is the second time you revealed yourself to be under a disinformation bubble. Please look beyond. Though I guess military focused blogs are kind of self selecting, so not a good example.
I don't know why you are talking about leftist, I consider myself on the right; as I consider democracy and rule of law, and freedom of choice of paramount importance.
Meanwhile you call the rule of law as "unconcerned about judicial process, these days thats just code for nothing ever really gets done and instead gets trapped in an endless stream of lawyers and nensensical gobbeldigook."
Yep, that's fascist speech right there. Authoritarian. Lack of concern for rule of law. What you call "nensensical gobbeldigook" is the foundation of democracy, the rule of law.
Trump is following Putin and Erdogan's book. You don't get to act like you are concerned about about free speech when you are cheering for the destruction of democracy and rule of law.
You are concerned about America being warned about becoming fascist, by disliking the work fascism, than to be concerned by the fascist direction it is heading under.
The rule of law and avoidance of a primarily exploitative economy are necessary conditions for creating or sustaining prosperity beyond stalinesque industrialisation.
DeleteWe can observe this in the shitty Russian oligarchy economy.
Acemoglu recently got a nobel for this. His book "Why nations fail" is a very readable bestseller.
@John Smith
DeleteI deliberately consume media from both sides, and while both will occasionally use deception, one side is massively overrepresented, though I'm pretty sure we'd disagree on which one.
The Judge is not impeached and almost certainly won't be because thats unfortunately not how things are done these days, everything just continues on in the same disfunctional manner.
As for the Judge overstepping his position, that ends up being such a complicated question that lawyers could probably argue about it till the sun burns out.
And as for the rule of law in general, the same people who are are screeching about its supposed violation now, are the same ones who seemed pretty unconcerned about violation of the law when they happen in favour of issues the left cares about (which is why I assumed you were a leftist).
To get back to the original issue of Trump and Fascism, I don't deny that Trump is somewhat extreme on certain issues, pretty thinskinned and with other character issues, and wouldn't be my first choice for leader of a country, But when everything is disfunctional and nothing ever gets done, people will eventually vote for the most anti-status-quo guy around, this is simple human nature. You can call him authoritarian if you like, but he is essentially the executive and that comes with pretty substantial power, thats how the US constitution works. There is a lot to criticize about the way he wields it, his character flaws come in to play here, you may even with some justification call him somewhat authoritarian, but that doesn't make him a fascist.
Finally you do what so many on the left do and nonsensically combine terms like rule of law, fascism, democracy etc. (another reason I took you for a leftist). We were discussing Judges and rule of law, where the hell did democracy come into it? I am against democracy because I think the judicial has become so disfunctional that it needs to be drastically changed? Again, we can freely disagree on that, I even see your point though I obviously disagree, but nothing about that opinion makes me anti democracy or pro fascism and yet that is always the claim the left throws around. So if you consider yourself more on the right yet use the lefts terminology, then it might behoove you (lol) to stop consuming only one sides media. Best way to get anywhere close to the truth is read both sides and then draw your own conclusions since media bias is now the norm, not the exception.
It's not just the lying moron.
Deletehttps://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2019/12/lets-open-our-eyes-to-ugly-reality-as.html
(R) started to slide towards Fascism more than 40 years ago.
Now people have difficulty to grasp the transition bc there was no obvious tipping point. + many people are emotionally and psychologically invested in regard to party loyalty.
@ S O
DeleteJust looked at the list, that's a pretty weak argument, no offense. A party that large (and conservative) will by sheer size meet many criteria, several of which are just plain conservative/patriotic anyway.
By that logic I'm sure it's possible to go through everything the democrats have done in the last decades and nitpick your way to proclaiming them Stalinist.
Whichever one of us turns out to be right on this (and I hope to god it's not you, again, no offense) the arguments for readying for greater conflicts just in case is sound for everyone these days, it looks like the stability of the last decades has really come to an end. But let's hope that in twenty years we can come back here and argue whether or not the republicans classified as fascist with hindsight :D
No, you cannot. That's a bothsiderist B.S. smokebomb.
DeleteThe Democrats did and do not stand for purges, secret police, collectivized agriculture, total censorship. They do not even tax the rich much, just a minority faction of the D proposes it.
And meeting many criteria isn't the problem.
Republicans meet ALL criteria of Fascism since 2017.
The Republican party in the USA is Fascist and not "republican" or "conservative" at all.
@ Anonymous25 March 2025 at 13:35
DeleteYou already had two instances of gross misinformation, so protestations that you consume media from “both sides” is hardly beleivable. There is no both sides, there is only true or false when it comes to factual reporting. Everything else would be analysis or opinion.
You called rule of law and judicial independence as dysfunctional. Rule of law is the bedrock of democracy, along with rights that are enforced by that rule of law.
“Screeeching” is just your opinion. Hardly something something someone who claims to consume “both sides” would say.
Trump is fascist. Though that may count as analysis, I guess. Anti-status quo has nothing to do with fascism in that respect, and Trump is hardly anti-status quo in many matters. You just seem to dislike the word fascist being subscribed to him. But it’s not about Trump anyways, it about USA.
If you can’t understand how rule of law, independence of judges and democracy are related, that’s quite shocking for someone talking about “warnings about free speech”.
I’ll explain it simply for you:
Democracy relies on rights such as voting rights and right to fair trials and right to freedom of speech. All rights are enforced by rule of law. An important aspect of rule of law is an independent judiciary that is unaffected by interference by any human leader, except when the govenment lawfully amend laws. These aren’t the terminology of the left, but basic civil understanding that underpins how democracy operates.
I'd like to add; a small deviation from ideal democracy is not a problem as long as the democracy does not face a major challenge from authoritarians from within.
DeleteThe lying moron was such a challenge and the American democracy failed because hyperpartisanship & "party before country" by (R) disabled its checks.
The 2028 elections are not going to be fair & free. The 2026 elections will not be fair & free in many red states.
This is either a fallback to a new & different cold war or to rampant 19th century great power imperialism.
Maybe Canada should consider what the Poles plan on doing (universal military training).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy83r93l208o
Welcome back, rare visitor.
DeleteOccupation and punitive bombardment may be deterrable with my proposal,
navsl blockade and punitive ground raids not so much.
Conscription for a regular army is useless, an invitation to disaster.
I like #3: Destroy petroleum refineries. Studying the bombing campaign of Germany in WWII, I became convinced it was the only thing that actually was effective. Bombing civilians probably lengthened the war as the population became angrier and angrier. Bombing industrial targets did little as industrial production went up throughout the war (until the refineries were finally bombed).
ReplyDeleteIt would be devastating.
The U.S. hasn't built a new refinery since 1972 IIRC.
DeleteOnly three factories in WW2 Germany produced the additives needed for high octane fuel.
Only two factories produced synthetic rubber.
Multiple components essential to submarines/torpedoes were produced in but one factory each.
WW2 showed the value of picking strategic targets well, which made the 1999 air war and the limitations on the Ukrainian cruise missile target selection even more egregious.
"The U.S. hasn't built a new refinery since 1972 IIRC."
DeleteWrong: "The newest refinery in the United States is the Texas International Terminals 45,000 b/cd refinery in Galveston, Texas, which started operating in February 2022.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=29&t=6
Ah, well. I quickly googled to check whether my memory was correct before I wrote it and was satisfied when a slightly older than 2022 article confirmed it.
DeleteThere are some in Canada who think as you suggest. I suspect we won't spend the money or make the changes necessary to do it, useful as it might be in peace or war. https://brtrain.wordpress.com/2025/03/06/a-canadian-civil-defence-corps/
ReplyDeleteI'd be very surprised if anyone in the establishment dared to oppose the miniature military syndrome that leads to submarine and supersonic fighter procurement even when it's obvious that the only real threat would not be deterred and would render them useless during an aggression.
DeleteI don't think the military or government-funded thinktanks or government are mentally or organisationally capable of what I wrote about.