Parallels with Fascism: Demagoguery and the Gullible

Spot on. Thank you for that excellent appraisal of Perlstein's piece, Takiji.

 

Nothing remotely resembling fascism in the idea of making all members of a particular religion register with the government, right?

 

They should just use yellow stars.

 

Hmmm... let's see what he actually said:

Trump causes firestorm with Muslim registry remarks – but what did he really say?

November 20, 2015

Donald Trump’s latest media and political firestorm stems from ambiguous answers to a reporter's question: Whether he would support making Muslims register in a national database.

But his comments are not quite as cut-and-dried as the headlines declaring his support for the registry would make them seem. And by Friday, Trump clarified -- on Twitter, his favorite forum for taking on the media -- that he never suggested such a thing.



The headlines started after Yahoo News published an article Thursday based on an interview with the Republican presidential candidate. The reporter apparently asked Trump whether new security measures might involve a database to register Muslims in the U.S.

When he replied, “We’re going to have to — we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely” including mosques, Yahoo News reported that Trump did not “rule [the database] out.”

He was then asked by CNN whether he would rule out such a database, to which Trump said he “never responded to that question” during the Yahoo News interview.

But a separate exchange with NBC News muddied the picture of his position further.

The reporter initially asked Trump whether there should be a database to track Muslims.

“We should have a lot of systems,” Trump responded, but then went on to tout the importance of a strong border and a border wall. Asked whether he would like to implement that, Trump responded:

“I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.”

That single line was swiftly interpreted in several news stories as Trump’s endorsement of a database for Muslims, in turn prompting a widespread backlash. Some stories even stated that Trump had proposed a “plan” to register Muslims in a database.

However, in the NBC News exchange, Trump appeared to be referring in that single line to border and immigration security measures, because he then said the effect would be, “It would stop people from coming in illegally.”

Yet the reporter went on to ask Trump directly, once again, about a database for Muslims, and Trump did not dismiss the idea.

Instead, when asked how to do it, Trump said: “It would be just good management.”

Asked if those running it would have to go to mosques, he said: “Different places. You sign them up … but it’s all about management.”

Asked for clarification, the campaign referred FoxNews.com on Friday to Trump's latest tweet.

Trump has meanwhile been the subject of heated and bipartisan criticism since the remarks were published.

Hillary Clinton tweeted a link to a New York Times story reporting that Trump said he “absolutely” would require Muslim registration.

"This is shocking rhetoric. It should be denounced by all seeking to lead this country," she tweeted.

Republican candidates also slammed Trump. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called the plan “abhorrent.” Former New York Gov. George Pataki tweeted that the “idea for a Muslim registry is as revolting as it is un-American.”

Ben Carson, meanwhile, reacted to Trump’s comments by saying: "I think we should have a database on everybody ... hopefully we have a database on citizens here."

He then clarified that, “I don't think it's a good idea to treat anybody differently or pick people out based on religion or race."

The notion of a Muslim database also faced ridicule from a constitutional standpoint.

“There are unconstitutional ideas, and then there are ideas that are so patently unconstitutional that they really ought not to even merit a response,” Stephen I. Vladeck, law professor with the American University Washington College of Law, told FoxNews.com.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations also issued a statement condemning Trump for "Islamophobic and unconstitutional" comments.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rks-but-what-did-really-say.html?intcmp=hpbt3

So, there we have it... he didn't suggest a "Muslim database" or "registering members of certain religions" or any of that.

 

You are a moron. Listen to what was said before you start spouting your partisan hack dogma.

 

You're a moron, I did watch him and he did agree with the reporter.

"Should there be a database system that tracks the Muslims here in this country?" a reporter can be heard asking Trump after an event in Iowa.

"There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases," the businessman replied. "We should have a lot of systems, and today you can do it."

"I would certainly implement that, absolutely," he added.

Trump argued that a database would keep people from coming into the country illegally, saying it's "all about management."

When an NBC reporter later asked Trump if having Muslims register in a database would be any different from having Jews wear a yellow badge in Nazi Germany, Trump deflected.

"You tell me," he said.

 

This may not seem related, but it is. Much of our problem in recent decades has been "diversity". Who the hell really wants it? Theodore doesn't want diversity with Patrick Buchanan, ants don't want diversity with termites, Islamo fanatics don't want diversity with Christians or Jews etc. So, why push all these factions together when all it does is cause these conflicts? Maybe, we would be better deporting people and preventing others from flooding this nation regardless of the whining from certain groups.

 

Who the hell really wants diversity? I do, for one. And I'm quite willing to tolerate, even welcome the Pat Buchanans of the country, but that doesn't mean I can't disagree with them or oppose their policies. Yet.

That being said, I'm interested in the practical aspects of your proposal.
Main question? Who will decide who gets to stay in the United States and who doesn't? People like you? People like me? How do we work that one out? Simple majority? If that's how we are going to do it, you'd better get cracking because you don't have much time.

Or will it be done regionally? Areas with White Christian majorities will be able to bar from their territory those they consider undesirable. Areas with other majorities will have the same right, which they can exercise or not as they choose?

A few more practicalities I'm curious about...
1. Would deportation apply to US citizens who happen to be of what you consider an unacceptable ethnicity, "race" or religion or political philosophy, hereafter referred to as "UNACC-ERRPP" If so, to where would you deport them?
2. Would UNACC-ERRPP apply to legal resident aliens?
3. Would families be broken up based on who happened to be an UNACC-ERRPP and who didn't?
Lots of other questions will probably occur to me once the coffee kicks in, but we can start with these.

Oh yeah, one more. Would being gay be considered a deportable offense? If so then I'd really be SOL under your rules. Might as well turn in my passport right now

 

I actually agree with, and like your analysis. I would not personally support deporting anyone because of religious, sexual, racial, or political preferences, unless those preferences are used as excuses to.......well, you know-sacrifice little animals in the basement i.e. satanism etc. I suppose then we could make a case of what to do about religions like that.

 

Is that what Satanists do? I had no idea. I thought their major preoccupation was taking advantage of laws designed to "protect" the "free" practice of religion and by doing so showing up the Christian cranks who pushed these laws through as the fools and hypocrites that they are. But I could be wrong here.

I would simply say that any religion that advocates oppression against or violence toward others warrants keeping an eye on. Certainly such a religion should not be encouraged or given special treatment or protection by the state. And if religious conviction drives people or groups to commit crimes then these people or groups should be tried like any other person or group accused of criminal behaviour.

 

Well, I am not quite so critical of Christians as you and many others simply because Christians are more compassionate and give more to charities than satanists, atheists, and Muslims. Are Christians bigots? Well, are any religious, political, racial, and sexual group without faults? No! Satanists vary in life style just like anyone else, but you won't find too many Christians torturing little puppies in your neighbors basement.

 

No, I suppose not. Christians prefer to torture their children

 

Apparently, the brownshirts are back in fashion.

Trump Supporters Reportedly Beat Black Lives Matter Protester At Campaign Rally
The reported attack in Birmingham, Alabama, was caught on video.

Daniel MaransReporter, The Huffington Post
Posted: 11/21/2015 06:54 PM EST | Edited: 2 hours ago


SCOTT OLSON/GETTY IMAGESBystander video of a Donald Trump rally on Saturday appears to show people attacking a Black Lives Matter protester.
Several people attending a rally for Donald Trump in Birmingham, Alabama, physically assaulted an African-American protester on Saturday, witnesses said.

The protester began chanting "Black Lives Matter" and took off his sweatshirt to display a T-shirt printed with the phrase before people at the rally reportedly attacked him.

CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond posted a video of the altercation on Twitter. In it, a man in a blue gingham shirt appears to be kicking a black man lying on the ground.

 

People don't change, just the situations that bring out the people they really are change.

In 1921 Hitler set up a group within the NSDAP that would protect his political meetings from attacks by rivals. It gave a military look, feel and discipline to the party. This group was known as the ‘stormtroopers’ (Sturm Abteilung – SA) or ‘Brownshirts’.

Many members of the SA were former soldiers unemployed since the end of the war. As the SA grew in size, rather than simply protecting Hitler and Nazi meetings from opponents, they began to disrupt the meetings of rival political groups.

As the Nazis gained power through democratic means, the SA gained a reputation as a well-organised gang of violent thugs. This frightened and put many off Nazism, but others were attracted by the organisation and discipline of a uniformed group.

 

WOW! I wonder how many Hillary supporters were filmed shitting on police cars, have killed cops, and have threatened to burn capital building.

 

From that video, how can you tell what happened? It doesn't show much other than the guy in the dark blue suit trying to attack the guy in the yellow tie as he's getting up. The guy in the dark blue suit probably slipped on a banana peel or something after first attacking someone else. Anyway, I didn't anyone being beaten in the video (like the title of the article says). Do you see anyone being beaten?

 

I broke up a bar knife fight in rural Georgia where I was nothing but a damned yankee by turning on my bar stool real quick and threw the attacker at one half of the speed of light by pushing on his neck with the open palm of my hand but did not squeeze his neck but may have crushed his trachia. What I did was legal because I had one foot on the floor rather than two and did not squeeze his throat so said by the women who where watching.

 

Obviously, you have a problem with Christianity. Why? Do you feel threatened by them because you think they hate homosexuals? Islamo fanatics stone homosexuals to death, and throw them off the roofs of buildings. Do you feel more threatened by them?

 

Well first of all, obviously not all Christians torture their children in the name of God, only some do. Just as not all Muslims engage violent and sadistic weirdness. Nor do all Satanists, although when they do, puppies rather than people are apparently their victim of choice.

That being said, of course I have a problem with Christianity. The extent of my "problem" depends on which of the myriad versions of Christianity we happen to be talking about. Many of "Christianities" are simply silly and somewhat degrading but pretty harmless. Others, however, threaten the rights, security, and place in society of anyone who rejects their teachings. To their credit, the faithful who have bought into such dangerous theocratic nonsense are generally up front about what they want to accomplish.

Take the above and replace "Christianity" with "Islam" and you have my views on the latter as well. I see little material difference between the two faiths in terms of their teachings, their contradictions, their nutty assertions, their claim to be the one "true" path, and their ability to validate pretty much whatever a given believer wants to have validated.

 

I suppose I can respect your seemingly consistent observations. My only come back would be to say people in general are nutty regardless. Just look at how people act at ball games, political rallies, black Friday, pet shops etc. Are any of us really sane in the final analysis? I doubt it, I am sorry to say, but we are pretty much stuck with each other here on earth.