Frank Galvin said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

There are some interesting quotes, in the articles for sure, and a lot of slanted opinions, that could have some point if they weren't so biased themselves. DHS is supposed to enforce the integrity of the United States border and to regulate immigration. Obama turned immigrants away like a champion and held them in cages. One Nation, One People, One Heritage or whatever it is could be considered questionable if you are looking under rocks looking for racism. So could ONE Nation, Under God, Indivisible. If we are hunting for the boogy man.

OTOH, The Boxed Wine upper middle class progressive white women on the Clancy jury were openly insulting, condemning, and out and out racist toward the only man who happened to be black, was brave enough to come back with the just verdict in the Clancy trial. NBC Boston 10 and it's incredibly racist reporters and commentators were going after this man like wild hyenas trying to doxx him and expose him as if HE WERE THE CRIMINAL in this trial.

If the "from the river to the sea" progressives think they are in the clear from their own bigotry, they again as mentioned above, are so slanted they can't see the plank in their own eye, while digging out the sliver in others eyes.

---

Don't see it. One Nation means we are all together. One people, one heritage modifies that to say only select people, based on a (white) heritage qualify. It is not confusing.


Really not sure what the Clancy trial has to do with this discussion.

---

The Clancy trial shows the inhumanity of so many people in the Country where children are simply expendable. It is the natural progression of abortion up to the 9th month.

---

The Clancy jury did not have the power to help those children. They had to make a decision about where Mrs. Clancy would spend the rest of her life-a state hospital or a state prison.

---

This is false. If a NGRI comes back by Massachusetts law she will be evaluated every six months to determine sanity and once she is cleared as being sane and safe she can and will be released if she so choses. Or she could be like Andrea Yates and refuse her hearings and chose to stay. Since Clancy has already stated she hopes to do wheelchair marathons one day I doubt very seriously she chooses the Yates path, she wants out.

Quote:

---

Lindsay Clancy, whose case has become a cause celebre among radical feminists, managed a courtroom grin at Judge William Sullivan's announcement that he would wait at least a month before ruling on Clancy's attorney's motion to dismiss the charges against her, the New York Post reported.

---

Also, I did not mention the jury though there were certainly several activist on it, I was talking about the pink army proclaiming justice for Lindsay and those nuts on tik-tok saying Patrick did it.

Emboldened by these nuts, now her actual Attorney is acting like she didn't do it. What happened to the "voices she heard from a man commanding her to kill her kids".

This trial is a clown show. The 3 murdered children have become collateral damage for some "cause" now, as at least 11 other mothers have killed or tried to kill their kids emboldened by the Clancy case and support and adulation Clancy has achieved.

Reductio ad Hitlerium

Bruisers Burner Phone said:

---

Reductio ad Hitlerium

---

Oh yea….

...and a racist and a facist

Goodness, I hate the left

Speaking of "fascism"…it's been an around in the USA long before Trump. And it's a cornerstone of liberal domestic and social interventionism

[I am moved to chuckle each time I hear some media personality or left-wing blogger describe fascism as an "existential threat " to our democracy. The reality is that such ideology is not new or foreign to the United States.

Fascism has long embedded itself within the legal framework of this country.

When the government tells private citizens exactly how much they can produce, tells them what they must purchase, dictates the price floor, and punishes self-consumption, the natural-law concept of private property is reduced to a legal fiction.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is arguably the most consequential Supreme Court ruling in American history that no one talks about.

It completely flipped the American constitutional design from a system of strictly enumerated powers to one of virtually unlimited regulatory authority by the federal government, and yet it is rarely discussed.

Before Wickard, for the federal government to regulate something, that activity usually had to cross state lines literally moving in "interstate commerce." Wickard erased that boundary by introducing the "aggregation principle."

In Wickard, farmer Roscoe Filburn, who operated a 95-acre farm in Trotwood, Ohio, was penalized not for selling grain on an unregulated market, but for growing 12 acres of excess wheat to feed his own livestock, bake bread for his family, and save seed for the following year. He was punished by the government for violating the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (AAA).

To justify regulating this purely private, self-reliant, non-commercial activity under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court relied on the principle of "aggregation." The Court argued that if many small producers all engaged in the same private self-sufficiency, it would collectively impact total market demand, thereby undermining the government's central plan to artificially inflate wheat prices.

The Supreme Court decision in Wickard v. Filburn represents the absolute zenith of "New Deal" economic interventionism, and an objective historical analysis reveals that the mechanism used by the Roosevelt administration, often criticized as socialism, fits far easier into the classic structural definition of fascist economic corporatism. FDR's state-directed economic planning differed from socialism because socialism technically requires the state to seize direct ownership of the means of production.

The exact arrangement cited in Wickardwhere property remains nominally private, but its use, output, prices, and profits are strictly dictated by a cartelized partnership between big government and favored industrial or agricultural syndicates is the defining feature of a fascist economic methodology.

The New Deal programs that birthed Wickard were deeply influenced by the contemporary corporate-state models being deployed in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Both FDR's National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the AAA sought to stabilize a volatile economy by eliminating competition, fixing prices, and establishing production quotas through centralized boards. These actions were not unique for the time, they mirrored the activities of Mussolini in fascist Italy."

Redbrickbear said:

---

[I am moved to chuckle each time I hear some media personality or left-wing blogger describe fascism as an "existential threat " to our democracy. The reality is that such ideology is not new or foreign to the United States.

Fascism has long embedded itself within the legal framework of this country.

When the government tells private citizens exactly how much they can produce, tells them what they must purchase, dictates the price floor, and punishes self-consumption, the natural-law concept of private property is reduced to a legal fiction.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is arguably the most consequential Supreme Court ruling in American history that no one talks about.

It completely flipped the American constitutional design from a system of strictly enumerated powers to one of virtually unlimited regulatory authority by the federal government, and yet it is rarely discussed.

Before Wickard, for the federal government to regulate something, that activity usually had to cross state lines literally moving in "interstate commerce." Wickard erased that boundary by introducing the "aggregation principle."

In Wickard, farmer Roscoe Filburn, who operated a 95-acre farm in Trotwood, Ohio, was penalized not for selling grain on an unregulated market, but for growing 12 acres of excess wheat to feed his own livestock, bake bread for his family, and save seed for the following year. He was punished by the government for violating the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (AAA).

To justify regulating this purely private, self-reliant, non-commercial activity under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court relied on the principle of "aggregation." The Court argued that if many small producers all engaged in the same private self-sufficiency, it would collectively impact total market demand, thereby undermining the government's central plan to artificially inflate wheat prices.

The Supreme Court decision in Wickard v. Filburn represents the absolute zenith of "New Deal" economic interventionism, and an objective historical analysis reveals that the mechanism used by the Roosevelt administration, often criticized as socialism, fits far easier into the classic structural definition of fascist economic corporatism. FDR's state-directed economic planning differed from socialism because socialism technically requires the state to seize direct ownership of the means of production.

The exact arrangement cited in Wickardwhere property remains nominally private, but its use, output, prices, and profits are strictly dictated by a cartelized partnership between big government and favored industrial or agricultural syndicates is the defining feature of a fascist economic methodology.

The New Deal programs that birthed Wickard were deeply influenced by the contemporary corporate-state models being deployed in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Both FDR's National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the AAA sought to stabilize a volatile economy by eliminating competition, fixing prices, and establishing production quotas through centralized boards. These actions were not unique for the time, they mirrored the activities of Mussolini in fascist Italy."

---

This post concedes the argument. What the right spent a century criticizing, it now embraces as precedent.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[I am moved to chuckle each time I hear some media personality or left-wing blogger describe fascism as an "existential threat " to our democracy. The reality is that such ideology is not new or foreign to the United States.

Fascism has long embedded itself within the legal framework of this country.

When the government tells private citizens exactly how much they can produce, tells them what they must purchase, dictates the price floor, and punishes self-consumption, the natural-law concept of private property is reduced to a legal fiction.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is arguably the most consequential Supreme Court ruling in American history that no one talks about.

It completely flipped the American constitutional design from a system of strictly enumerated powers to one of virtually unlimited regulatory authority by the federal government, and yet it is rarely discussed.

Before Wickard, for the federal government to regulate something, that activity usually had to cross state lines literally moving in "interstate commerce." Wickard erased that boundary by introducing the "aggregation principle."

In Wickard, farmer Roscoe Filburn, who operated a 95-acre farm in Trotwood, Ohio, was penalized not for selling grain on an unregulated market, but for growing 12 acres of excess wheat to feed his own livestock, bake bread for his family, and save seed for the following year. He was punished by the government for violating the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (AAA).

To justify regulating this purely private, self-reliant, non-commercial activity under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court relied on the principle of "aggregation." The Court argued that if many small producers all engaged in the same private self-sufficiency, it would collectively impact total market demand, thereby undermining the government's central plan to artificially inflate wheat prices.

The Supreme Court decision in Wickard v. Filburn represents the absolute zenith of "New Deal" economic interventionism, and an objective historical analysis reveals that the mechanism used by the Roosevelt administration, often criticized as socialism, fits far easier into the classic structural definition of fascist economic corporatism. FDR's state-directed economic planning differed from socialism because socialism technically requires the state to seize direct ownership of the means of production.

The exact arrangement cited in Wickardwhere property remains nominally private, but its use, output, prices, and profits are strictly dictated by a cartelized partnership between big government and favored industrial or agricultural syndicates is the defining feature of a fascist economic methodology.

The New Deal programs that birthed Wickard were deeply influenced by the contemporary corporate-state models being deployed in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Both FDR's National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the AAA sought to stabilize a volatile economy by eliminating competition, fixing prices, and establishing production quotas through centralized boards. These actions were not unique for the time, they mirrored the activities of Mussolini in fascist Italy."

---

This post concedes the argument. What the right spent a century criticizing, it now embraces as precedent.

---

I guess both parties then are now just embracing the "fascism" already in existence.

That kind of undermines the idea that the 2026 GOP is then some kind of new fascist movement or is a danger to the establishment & already functioning system

Since I guess the system is already fascist and has been since FDR and the democrats created it

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[I am moved to chuckle each time I hear some media personality or left-wing blogger describe fascism as an "existential threat " to our democracy. The reality is that such ideology is not new or foreign to the United States.

Fascism has long embedded itself within the legal framework of this country.

When the government tells private citizens exactly how much they can produce, tells them what they must purchase, dictates the price floor, and punishes self-consumption, the natural-law concept of private property is reduced to a legal fiction.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is arguably the most consequential Supreme Court ruling in American history that no one talks about.

It completely flipped the American constitutional design from a system of strictly enumerated powers to one of virtually unlimited regulatory authority by the federal government, and yet it is rarely discussed.

Before Wickard, for the federal government to regulate something, that activity usually had to cross state lines literally moving in "interstate commerce." Wickard erased that boundary by introducing the "aggregation principle."

In Wickard, farmer Roscoe Filburn, who operated a 95-acre farm in Trotwood, Ohio, was penalized not for selling grain on an unregulated market, but for growing 12 acres of excess wheat to feed his own livestock, bake bread for his family, and save seed for the following year. He was punished by the government for violating the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (AAA).

To justify regulating this purely private, self-reliant, non-commercial activity under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court relied on the principle of "aggregation." The Court argued that if many small producers all engaged in the same private self-sufficiency, it would collectively impact total market demand, thereby undermining the government's central plan to artificially inflate wheat prices.

The Supreme Court decision in Wickard v. Filburn represents the absolute zenith of "New Deal" economic interventionism, and an objective historical analysis reveals that the mechanism used by the Roosevelt administration, often criticized as socialism, fits far easier into the classic structural definition of fascist economic corporatism. FDR's state-directed economic planning differed from socialism because socialism technically requires the state to seize direct ownership of the means of production.

The exact arrangement cited in Wickardwhere property remains nominally private, but its use, output, prices, and profits are strictly dictated by a cartelized partnership between big government and favored industrial or agricultural syndicates is the defining feature of a fascist economic methodology.

The New Deal programs that birthed Wickard were deeply influenced by the contemporary corporate-state models being deployed in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Both FDR's National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the AAA sought to stabilize a volatile economy by eliminating competition, fixing prices, and establishing production quotas through centralized boards. These actions were not unique for the time, they mirrored the activities of Mussolini in fascist Italy."

---

This post concedes the argument. What the right spent a century criticizing, it now embraces as precedent.

---

I guess both parties then are now just embracing the "fascism" already in existence.

That kind of undermines the idea that the 2026 GOP is then some kind of new fascist movement or is a danger to the establishment & already functioning system

Since I guess the system is already fascist and has been since FDR and the democrats created it

---

So, join right in? Oh, well... Party in power, just keep going. You guys are arguing definitions, meanwhile keep goosestepping right along... Pretty pathetic.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[I am moved to chuckle each time I hear some media personality or left-wing blogger describe fascism as an "existential threat " to our democracy. The reality is that such ideology is not new or foreign to the United States.

Fascism has long embedded itself within the legal framework of this country.

When the government tells private citizens exactly how much they can produce, tells them what they must purchase, dictates the price floor, and punishes self-consumption, the natural-law concept of private property is reduced to a legal fiction.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is arguably the most consequential Supreme Court ruling in American history that no one talks about.

It completely flipped the American constitutional design from a system of strictly enumerated powers to one of virtually unlimited regulatory authority by the federal government, and yet it is rarely discussed.

Before Wickard, for the federal government to regulate something, that activity usually had to cross state lines literally moving in "interstate commerce." Wickard erased that boundary by introducing the "aggregation principle."

In Wickard, farmer Roscoe Filburn, who operated a 95-acre farm in Trotwood, Ohio, was penalized not for selling grain on an unregulated market, but for growing 12 acres of excess wheat to feed his own livestock, bake bread for his family, and save seed for the following year. He was punished by the government for violating the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (AAA).

To justify regulating this purely private, self-reliant, non-commercial activity under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court relied on the principle of "aggregation." The Court argued that if many small producers all engaged in the same private self-sufficiency, it would collectively impact total market demand, thereby undermining the government's central plan to artificially inflate wheat prices.

The Supreme Court decision in Wickard v. Filburn represents the absolute zenith of "New Deal" economic interventionism, and an objective historical analysis reveals that the mechanism used by the Roosevelt administration, often criticized as socialism, fits far easier into the classic structural definition of fascist economic corporatism. FDR's state-directed economic planning differed from socialism because socialism technically requires the state to seize direct ownership of the means of production.

The exact arrangement cited in Wickardwhere property remains nominally private, but its use, output, prices, and profits are strictly dictated by a cartelized partnership between big government and favored industrial or agricultural syndicates is the defining feature of a fascist economic methodology.

The New Deal programs that birthed Wickard were deeply influenced by the contemporary corporate-state models being deployed in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Both FDR's National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the AAA sought to stabilize a volatile economy by eliminating competition, fixing prices, and establishing production quotas through centralized boards. These actions were not unique for the time, they mirrored the activities of Mussolini in fascist Italy."

---

This post concedes the argument. What the right spent a century criticizing, it now embraces as precedent.

---

I guess both parties then are now just embracing the "fascism" already in existence.

That kind of undermines the idea that the 2026 GOP is then some kind of new fascist movement or is a danger to the establishment & already functioning system

Since I guess the system is already fascist and has been since FDR and the democrats created it

---

So, join right in? Oh, well... Party in power, just keep going. You guys are arguing definitions.

---

I'm just mocking them

The other side in the debate has convinced themselves they are looking at nazism

Once someone has embraced such nonsense and has such little understanding of our own history around price controls, social programs, or even nationalism…..the only thing left to do is laugh at the idea

It's chicken little-sky is falling-feminine hysteria run wild.

Everything is not in fact Hitler

Fascism was a unique post WWI movement that had not existed since the end of WWII

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[I am moved to chuckle each time I hear some media personality or left-wing blogger describe fascism as an "existential threat " to our democracy. The reality is that such ideology is not new or foreign to the United States.

Fascism has long embedded itself within the legal framework of this country.

When the government tells private citizens exactly how much they can produce, tells them what they must purchase, dictates the price floor, and punishes self-consumption, the natural-law concept of private property is reduced to a legal fiction.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is arguably the most consequential Supreme Court ruling in American history that no one talks about.

It completely flipped the American constitutional design from a system of strictly enumerated powers to one of virtually unlimited regulatory authority by the federal government, and yet it is rarely discussed.

Before Wickard, for the federal government to regulate something, that activity usually had to cross state lines literally moving in "interstate commerce." Wickard erased that boundary by introducing the "aggregation principle."

In Wickard, farmer Roscoe Filburn, who operated a 95-acre farm in Trotwood, Ohio, was penalized not for selling grain on an unregulated market, but for growing 12 acres of excess wheat to feed his own livestock, bake bread for his family, and save seed for the following year. He was punished by the government for violating the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (AAA).

To justify regulating this purely private, self-reliant, non-commercial activity under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court relied on the principle of "aggregation." The Court argued that if many small producers all engaged in the same private self-sufficiency, it would collectively impact total market demand, thereby undermining the government's central plan to artificially inflate wheat prices.

The Supreme Court decision in Wickard v. Filburn represents the absolute zenith of "New Deal" economic interventionism, and an objective historical analysis reveals that the mechanism used by the Roosevelt administration, often criticized as socialism, fits far easier into the classic structural definition of fascist economic corporatism. FDR's state-directed economic planning differed from socialism because socialism technically requires the state to seize direct ownership of the means of production.

The exact arrangement cited in Wickardwhere property remains nominally private, but its use, output, prices, and profits are strictly dictated by a cartelized partnership between big government and favored industrial or agricultural syndicates is the defining feature of a fascist economic methodology.

The New Deal programs that birthed Wickard were deeply influenced by the contemporary corporate-state models being deployed in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Both FDR's National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the AAA sought to stabilize a volatile economy by eliminating competition, fixing prices, and establishing production quotas through centralized boards. These actions were not unique for the time, they mirrored the activities of Mussolini in fascist Italy."

---

This post concedes the argument. What the right spent a century criticizing, it now embraces as precedent.

---

I guess both parties then are now just embracing the "fascism" already in existence.

That kind of undermines the idea that the 2026 GOP is then some kind of new fascist movement or is a danger to the establishment & already functioning system

Since I guess the system is already fascist and has been since FDR and the democrats created it

---

That was the right-wing narrative until about ten minutes ago, yes.

karl rove???

in the same pathetic has been wanna be class as james carville...

- el UF

missing the spot light, I guess.

and more proof to the adage:

'politics is show business for talentless ugly people.......'

BID.

Go Bears!!

Beat The Sol Satans!!!

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[I am moved to chuckle each time I hear some media personality or left-wing blogger describe fascism as an "existential threat " to our democracy. The reality is that such ideology is not new or foreign to the United States.

Fascism has long embedded itself within the legal framework of this country.

When the government tells private citizens exactly how much they can produce, tells them what they must purchase, dictates the price floor, and punishes self-consumption, the natural-law concept of private property is reduced to a legal fiction.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is arguably the most consequential Supreme Court ruling in American history that no one talks about.

It completely flipped the American constitutional design from a system of strictly enumerated powers to one of virtually unlimited regulatory authority by the federal government, and yet it is rarely discussed.

Before Wickard, for the federal government to regulate something, that activity usually had to cross state lines literally moving in "interstate commerce." Wickard erased that boundary by introducing the "aggregation principle."

In Wickard, farmer Roscoe Filburn, who operated a 95-acre farm in Trotwood, Ohio, was penalized not for selling grain on an unregulated market, but for growing 12 acres of excess wheat to feed his own livestock, bake bread for his family, and save seed for the following year. He was punished by the government for violating the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (AAA).

To justify regulating this purely private, self-reliant, non-commercial activity under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court relied on the principle of "aggregation." The Court argued that if many small producers all engaged in the same private self-sufficiency, it would collectively impact total market demand, thereby undermining the government's central plan to artificially inflate wheat prices.

The Supreme Court decision in Wickard v. Filburn represents the absolute zenith of "New Deal" economic interventionism, and an objective historical analysis reveals that the mechanism used by the Roosevelt administration, often criticized as socialism, fits far easier into the classic structural definition of fascist economic corporatism. FDR's state-directed economic planning differed from socialism because socialism technically requires the state to seize direct ownership of the means of production.

The exact arrangement cited in Wickardwhere property remains nominally private, but its use, output, prices, and profits are strictly dictated by a cartelized partnership between big government and favored industrial or agricultural syndicates is the defining feature of a fascist economic methodology.

The New Deal programs that birthed Wickard were deeply influenced by the contemporary corporate-state models being deployed in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Both FDR's National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the AAA sought to stabilize a volatile economy by eliminating competition, fixing prices, and establishing production quotas through centralized boards. These actions were not unique for the time, they mirrored the activities of Mussolini in fascist Italy."

---

This post concedes the argument. What the right spent a century criticizing, it now embraces as precedent.

---

I guess both parties then are now just embracing the "fascism" already in existence.

That kind of undermines the idea that the 2026 GOP is then some kind of new fascist movement or is a danger to the establishment & already functioning system

Since I guess the system is already fascist and has been since FDR and the democrats created it

---

That was the right-wing narrative until about ten minutes ago, yes.

---

That welfare and price controls and tariffs are fascism is probably more a libertarian narrative than a rightwing conservative one.

But who knows

This "Nazi, Nazi, Nazi" narrative stuff for things others don't like is beyond stupid, juvenile, asinine....and borders on propaganda.

Its literally breaking down our ability to have rational political disagreements in a democratic-republic as Americans.

The real threat to our democracy.....

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[I am moved to chuckle each time I hear some media personality or left-wing blogger describe fascism as an "existential threat " to our democracy. The reality is that such ideology is not new or foreign to the United States.

Fascism has long embedded itself within the legal framework of this country.

When the government tells private citizens exactly how much they can produce, tells them what they must purchase, dictates the price floor, and punishes self-consumption, the natural-law concept of private property is reduced to a legal fiction.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is arguably the most consequential Supreme Court ruling in American history that no one talks about.

It completely flipped the American constitutional design from a system of strictly enumerated powers to one of virtually unlimited regulatory authority by the federal government, and yet it is rarely discussed.

Before Wickard, for the federal government to regulate something, that activity usually had to cross state lines literally moving in "interstate commerce." Wickard erased that boundary by introducing the "aggregation principle."

In Wickard, farmer Roscoe Filburn, who operated a 95-acre farm in Trotwood, Ohio, was penalized not for selling grain on an unregulated market, but for growing 12 acres of excess wheat to feed his own livestock, bake bread for his family, and save seed for the following year. He was punished by the government for violating the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (AAA).

To justify regulating this purely private, self-reliant, non-commercial activity under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court relied on the principle of "aggregation." The Court argued that if many small producers all engaged in the same private self-sufficiency, it would collectively impact total market demand, thereby undermining the government's central plan to artificially inflate wheat prices.

The Supreme Court decision in Wickard v. Filburn represents the absolute zenith of "New Deal" economic interventionism, and an objective historical analysis reveals that the mechanism used by the Roosevelt administration, often criticized as socialism, fits far easier into the classic structural definition of fascist economic corporatism. FDR's state-directed economic planning differed from socialism because socialism technically requires the state to seize direct ownership of the means of production.

The exact arrangement cited in Wickardwhere property remains nominally private, but its use, output, prices, and profits are strictly dictated by a cartelized partnership between big government and favored industrial or agricultural syndicates is the defining feature of a fascist economic methodology.

The New Deal programs that birthed Wickard were deeply influenced by the contemporary corporate-state models being deployed in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Both FDR's National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the AAA sought to stabilize a volatile economy by eliminating competition, fixing prices, and establishing production quotas through centralized boards. These actions were not unique for the time, they mirrored the activities of Mussolini in fascist Italy."

---

This post concedes the argument. What the right spent a century criticizing, it now embraces as precedent.

---

I guess both parties then are now just embracing the "fascism" already in existence.

That kind of undermines the idea that the 2026 GOP is then some kind of new fascist movement or is a danger to the establishment & already functioning system

Since I guess the system is already fascist and has been since FDR and the democrats created it

---

That was the right-wing narrative until about ten minutes ago, yes.

---

That welfare and price controls and tariffs are fascism is probably more a libertarian narrative than a rightwing conservative one.

But who knows

This "Nazi, Nazi, Nazi" narrative stuff for things others don't like is beyond stupid, juvenile, asinine....and borders on propaganda.

Its literally breaking down our ability to have rational political disagreements in a democratic-republic as Americans.

The real threat to our democracy.....

---

I've recommended Jonah Goldberg's more recent writing on this topic to other posters. None seemed interested, but maybe you will be. Goldberg is known for tracing the fascist influences in the Wilson and FDR administrations, some of which you alluded to in your post. He understands what MAGA apologists doggedly refuse to see -- that fascism isn't only or even primarily an economic agenda.

https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/

Robert Paxton, one of the leading scholars in the field, used to think the term "fascism" was overused almost to the point of meaninglessness. When he saw the real thing in action, he changed his mind.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/magazine/robert-paxton-facism.html

I understand your dismissive attitude because I used to share it. Trump proved me wrong, at least until the above arguments are rebutted.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[I am moved to chuckle each time I hear some media personality or left-wing blogger describe fascism as an "existential threat " to our democracy. The reality is that such ideology is not new or foreign to the United States.

Fascism has long embedded itself within the legal framework of this country.

When the government tells private citizens exactly how much they can produce, tells them what they must purchase, dictates the price floor, and punishes self-consumption, the natural-law concept of private property is reduced to a legal fiction.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is arguably the most consequential Supreme Court ruling in American history that no one talks about.

It completely flipped the American constitutional design from a system of strictly enumerated powers to one of virtually unlimited regulatory authority by the federal government, and yet it is rarely discussed.

Before Wickard, for the federal government to regulate something, that activity usually had to cross state lines literally moving in "interstate commerce." Wickard erased that boundary by introducing the "aggregation principle."

In Wickard, farmer Roscoe Filburn, who operated a 95-acre farm in Trotwood, Ohio, was penalized not for selling grain on an unregulated market, but for growing 12 acres of excess wheat to feed his own livestock, bake bread for his family, and save seed for the following year. He was punished by the government for violating the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (AAA).

To justify regulating this purely private, self-reliant, non-commercial activity under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court relied on the principle of "aggregation." The Court argued that if many small producers all engaged in the same private self-sufficiency, it would collectively impact total market demand, thereby undermining the government's central plan to artificially inflate wheat prices.

The Supreme Court decision in Wickard v. Filburn represents the absolute zenith of "New Deal" economic interventionism, and an objective historical analysis reveals that the mechanism used by the Roosevelt administration, often criticized as socialism, fits far easier into the classic structural definition of fascist economic corporatism. FDR's state-directed economic planning differed from socialism because socialism technically requires the state to seize direct ownership of the means of production.

The exact arrangement cited in Wickardwhere property remains nominally private, but its use, output, prices, and profits are strictly dictated by a cartelized partnership between big government and favored industrial or agricultural syndicates is the defining feature of a fascist economic methodology.

The New Deal programs that birthed Wickard were deeply influenced by the contemporary corporate-state models being deployed in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Both FDR's National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the AAA sought to stabilize a volatile economy by eliminating competition, fixing prices, and establishing production quotas through centralized boards. These actions were not unique for the time, they mirrored the activities of Mussolini in fascist Italy."

---

This post concedes the argument. What the right spent a century criticizing, it now embraces as precedent.

---

I guess both parties then are now just embracing the "fascism" already in existence.

That kind of undermines the idea that the 2026 GOP is then some kind of new fascist movement or is a danger to the establishment & already functioning system

Since I guess the system is already fascist and has been since FDR and the democrats created it

---

So, join right in? Oh, well... Party in power, just keep going. You guys are arguing definitions.

---

I'm just mocking them

The other side in the debate has convinced themselves they are looking at nazism

Once someone has embraced such nonsense and has such little understanding of our own history around price controls, social programs, or even nationalism…..the only thing left to do is laugh at the idea

It's chicken little-sky is falling-feminine hysteria run wild.

Everything is not in fact Hitler

Fascism was a unique post WWI movement that had not existed since the end of WWII

---

We are all too literal. The current Administration is authoritative, (small a, a trait not the political party). Trump does not like anyone questioning and believed he can make all the decisions. That puts off people that believe in the Executive/Congressional model. But HItler? No.

Just like the GOP/MAGA convinced that the Dems are full blown Communists or Socialists. They are not. They may have some similar traits. But not Mao.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Can't believe the GOP is being taken over by German World War I veterans who want a Germanic Empire in Eastern Europe.

I honeslty did not think there were that many WWI vets around anymore

Learn something new everyday

---

Neo-Nazi. That label fit you better?

It was on the Left, always had been. The Left also likes to project. This is one of the most common examples.

historian said:

---

It was on the Left, always had been. The Left also likes to project. This is one of the most common examples.

---

he has Helsinki syndrome...............

- UF

soon he'll be wearing ill-fitting rain coats and robbing banks.

D!

Go Bears!!

Free The Cognitively Oppressed!!!

{ sipping covfefe }

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bruisers Burner Phone said:

---

Reductio ad Hitlerium

---

Oh yea….

---

Jews own the Media, own the Print, own the Banks, own Hollywood, own Porn sites, etc. They slaughtered millions in Russia.....History always has 2 sides to the story and we've only been taught one-side of that equation.

and before you say "concentration camps". If the "numbers" were as they "say" they were - then the gas residue of the chemicals in that area would still be present based on those numbers. Where is the outrage about the camps in Vietnam, China, Japan, etc. You don't hear more about those numbers because it doesn't fit the narrative.

"The exact arrangement cited in Wickard where property remains nominally private, but its use, output, prices, and profits are strictly dictated by a cartelized partnership between big government and favored industrial or agricultural syndicates is the defining feature of a fascist economic methodology.

The New Deal programs that birthed Wickard were deeply influenced by the contemporary corporate-state models being deployed in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Both FDR's National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the AAA sought to stabilize a volatile economy by eliminating competition, fixing prices, and establishing production quotas through centralized boards. These actions were not unique for the time, they mirrored the activities of Mussolini in fascist Italy."

This is why I describe the modern Left as largely fascist: it's like socialism but allows private property which becomes meaningless when property owners no longer can use their property as they see fit.

Where did this quote come from? I am curious.

historian said:

---

"The exact arrangement cited in Wickard where property remains nominally private, but its use, output, prices, and profits are strictly dictated by a cartelized partnership between big government and favored industrial or agricultural syndicates is the defining feature of a fascist economic methodology.

The New Deal programs that birthed Wickard were deeply influenced by the contemporary corporate-state models being deployed in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Both FDR's National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the AAA sought to stabilize a volatile economy by eliminating competition, fixing prices, and establishing production quotas through centralized boards. These actions were not unique for the time, they mirrored the activities of Mussolini in fascist Italy."

This is why I describe the modern Left as largely fascist: it's like socialism but allows private property which becomes meaningless when property owners no longer can use their property as they see fit.

Where did this quote come from? I am curious.

---

dr. james vardeman uncts gave a rapid look of disdain as he passed out the graded exam blue books...........

- el UF

....... uncts.

his opprobrium was well merited.

D!

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Can't believe the GOP is being taken over by German World War I veterans who want a Germanic Empire in Eastern Europe.

I honeslty did not think there were that many WWI vets around anymore

Learn something new everyday

---

Neo-Nazi. That label fit you better?

---

Uh no....Conservative American would be just fine....one who believes in the written Constitution and the dual sovereignty of the States and Federal government does

"conservatives always admitted a nation must have its common values and common good and insist on its citizens living by those clear standards. You might not agree with those, but at least you'll know we were always the honest ones about what we stood for. And that's far better than the utopian revolutions that promise one thing, but clearly intend another."

The Nazis, Communists, and our own internationalist Liberals are revolutionaries at heart and desire the coming eschaton when perfect human "justice" & "equity" will exist and a "new man" will reign. A concept so stupid and narcissistic/delusional you would almost laugh until you remember they are dead serious about it and will (and have) killed millions to bring it about.

Were you ever in Dr Vardaman's class?

historian said:

---

Were you ever in Dr Vardaman's class?

---

si si si...........

- el UF

Waaaay back when.....

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Can't believe the GOP is being taken over by German World War I veterans who want a Germanic Empire in Eastern Europe.

I honeslty did not think there were that many WWI vets around anymore

Learn something new everyday

---

Neo-Nazi. That label fit you better?

---

Uh no....Conservative American would be just fine....one who believes in the written Constitution and the dual sovereignty of the States and Federal government does

"conservatives always admitted a nation must have its common values and common good and insist on its citizens living by those clear standards. You might not agree with those, but at least you'll know we were always the honest ones about what we stood for. And that's far better than the utopian revolutions that promise one thing, but clearly intend another."

The Nazis, Communists, and our own internationalist Liberals are revolutionaries at heart and desire the coming eschaton when perfect human "justice" & "equity" will exist and a "new man" will reign. A concept so stupid and narcissistic/delusional you would almost laugh until you remember they are dead serious about it and will (and have) killed millions to bring it about.

---

Historically, such delusional lunatics have killed millions: Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety, Lenin & Trotsky, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Chavez, etc.

One would have to be delusional to advocate socialism or any variation. And possibly megalomaniacal as well. It's a series of idiotic ideas that have never worked and can never work because they are impossible.

historian said:

---

It was on the Left, always had been. The Left also likes to project. This is one of the most common examples.

---

Kind of like the Dems have "always" been the party of Jim Crow and the KKK. Never mind that the parties completely realigned after the Civil Rights Act and the GOP is becoming more and more openly racist by the day.

When you have to go all the way back to the New Deal to prove that the left are the real fascists, you've lost the argument.

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Can't believe the GOP is being taken over by German World War I veterans who want a Germanic Empire in Eastern Europe.

I honeslty did not think there were that many WWI vets around anymore

Learn something new everyday

---

Neo-Nazi. That label fit you better?

---

Uh no....Conservative American would be just fine....one who believes in the written Constitution and the dual sovereignty of the States and Federal government does

"conservatives always admitted a nation must have its common values and common good and insist on its citizens living by those clear standards. You might not agree with those, but at least you'll know we were always the honest ones about what we stood for. And that's far better than the utopian revolutions that promise one thing, but clearly intend another."

The Nazis, Communists, and our own internationalist Liberals are revolutionaries at heart and desire the coming eschaton when perfect human "justice" & "equity" will exist and a "new man" will reign. A concept so stupid and narcissistic/delusional you would almost laugh until you remember they are dead serious about it and will (and have) killed millions to bring it about.

---

Historically, such delusional lunatics have killed millions: Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety, Lenin & Trotsky, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Chavez, etc.

One would have to be delusional to advocate socialism or any variation. And possibly megalomaniacal as well. It's a series of idiotic ideas that have never worked and can never work because they are impossible.

---

So, comparing the current Administration to Nazi Germany is out of bounds, but comparing the Dems to Lenin, Pol Pot, and Mao is perfectly fine....

Dem consulatant, Hasan Piker, has openly said we need to be more like China, and has openly praised Medong

You woke, imbecile



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mamdani-backed-socialist-hot-seat-deleted-posts-praising-communism-marxism-crazypants

" Socialist New York congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier is facing criticism over a deleted social media account that featured posts where she expressed support for communism, Marxist principles, and reverence for Soviet figures"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/mamdani-backed-chevalier-praised-north-162947115.html

"Deleted tweets from Darializa Avila Chevalier (D) one of the three Democratic Socialist candidates who won their Democratic congressional primary in New York City last week showed the congressional hopeful praising communists like North Korean founder Kim Il Sung and lamenting that books by Joseph Stalin weren't available.".

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/485678-bernie-sanders-may-want-to-praise-joseph-stalin-too/

"Sanders recently raised eyebrows, yet again, with his defense of Cuba's Fidel Castro."

Remember when you said Trump was directly pocketing Trump Gold Card money, Socalbear on the paid side.

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

It was on the Left, always had been. The Left also likes to project. This is one of the most common examples.

---

Kind of like the Dems have "always" been the party of Jim Crow and the KKK. Never mind that the parties completely realigned after the Civil Rights Act and the GOP is becoming more and more openly racist by the day.

When you have to go all the way back to the New Deal to prove that the left are the real fascists, you've lost the argument.

---

That party flip flop is a myth created by Leftists. The Dems have always been the party of racism, slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, & the rest. It might look different in recent years but it's essentially the same thing. The Dems are the party of the mass murder of babies in the womb which disproportionally kill blacks. The Dems assume blacks will vote for them and are totally vicious towards any blacks who leave their plantation. I've seen the racist propaganda aimed at Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowell, Dr Ben Carson, etc. Justice Clarence Thomas has been the target of decades of racist attacks including the "high tech lynching" conservatives often experience.

Leftist fascism is current in the 21st century. The New Deal illustrates the continuity. It's not like there's a gap in Dems wanting the federal govt to run our lives. They've been doing that since Woodrow Wilson. Truman wanted socialized medicine, the Clintons tried to impose "Hillarycare" on the country, and now we have the Obamacare monstrosity. And that's only one example. The Great Society is another, along with their agenda every campaign season.

Yes it's ok to compare the current American party with a socialist agenda and support for mass murdering innocents to historical regimes characterized by both. Comparing Trump to Nazis is a ridiculous joke because there is no similarity. If anything, the Dems have more in common: the American Holocaust, glorifying murderers, seeking the murder of their opponents, etc.

Graham Platner is a Dem. So is Shelly Headon in North Carolina, the local candidate who was photographed in front of the Dachau crematoria with the caption that Trump voters belonged there. There are other examples.

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

It was on the Left, always had been. The Left also likes to project. This is one of the most common examples.

---

Kind of like the Dems have "always" been the party of Jim Crow and the KKK. Never mind that the parties completely realigned after the Civil Rights Act and the GOP is becoming more and more openly racist by the day.

When you have to go all the way back to the New Deal to prove that the left are the real fascists, you've lost the argument.

---

That party flip flop is a myth created by Leftists. The Dems have always been the party of racism, slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, & the rest. It might look different in recent years but it's essentially the same thing. The Dems are the party of the mass murder of babies in the womb which disproportionally kill blacks. The Dems assume blacks will vote for them and are totally vicious towards any blacks who leave their plantation. I've seen the racist propaganda aimed at Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowell, Dr Ben Carson, etc. Justice Clarence Thomas has been the target of decades of racist attacks including the "high tech lynching" conservatives often experience.

Leftist fascism is current in the 21st century. The New Deal illustrates the continuity. It's not like there's a gap in Dems wanting the federal govt to run our lives. They've been doing that since Woodrow Wilson. Truman wanted socialized medicine, the Clintons tried to impose "Hillarycare" on the country, and now we have the Obamacare monstrosity. And that's only one example. The Great Society is another, along with their agenda every campaign season.

---

Trump's policies are repeatedly described as racially discriminatory
A 2025 politicalscience analysis finds that Trump enacted "numerous racist policies" that intensified racial tensions, relied on whitesupremacist ideology, and disproportionately targeted immigrants and ethnic minorities. Experts argue these policies lacked fairness, transparency, and legitimacy all factors that shape public perception of racism.

Civilrights scholars document a systematic rollback of racialequity protections
A 2025 Rutgers Law School review shows Trump's administration:

• Dismantled federal civilrights offices,
• Cancelled thousands of racediscrimination investigations,
• Redirected enforcement toward claims of discrimination against white people,
• Encouraged racial gerrymandering,
• Reframed civilrights law to portray minorities as beneficiaries of unfair preference.

These actions strongly influence public perception that Trump's governing approach is racially biased.

Trump's rhetoric has measurable effects on racial attitudes among supporters
A 2023 study shows Trump's victory increased dehumanizing attitudes toward Black Americans among white Trump supporters, while opponents moved in the opposite direction. Researchers conclude that Trump's rhetoric normalized more openly racist expression among segments of the public.

Cognitivescience research finds Trump's presidency reshaped racial prejudice norms
Studies in Trends in Cognitive Sciences show Trump's political style shifted social norms around expressing prejudice, making racially charged language more publicly acceptable among supporters.

So how does this compare to Democrats?
The question isn't whether Democrats are perfect on race scholars note racial inequities persist across both parties. But the contrast in public perception is stark:

• Democrats generally support DEI programs, civilrights enforcement, and immigration protections.
• Trump and many Republicans have actively dismantled these programs and reframed them as discriminatory against white Americans.
• Trump's rhetoric and policies have been repeatedly described by experts as racially exclusionary, whiteidentitycentered, or aligned with whitesupremacist narratives.

Because of this, experts overwhelmingly conclude that Trump's current practices make him and by extension the Republican Party he leads appear more racist than Democrats in the eyes of the public.
This is a description of expert consensus, not a personal opinion.

Why this perception matters

• Policy signals values. When an administration cancels civilrights investigations or targets minority groups, observers interpret this as racial bias.
• Rhetoric shapes norms. Trump's language has repeatedly been linked to increases in racist expression among supporters.
• Party alignment follows leadership. As Trump defines the Republican agenda, the party inherits the public perception of his racial posture.

Based on current expert analyses, Trump's practices and policies are widely seen as making him and the Republican Party appear more racist than Democrats. This perception is driven by documented policy actions, civilrights rollbacks, and measurable effects on public racial attitudes.

The Left has been accusing Trump, and the GOP in general, of racism, Nazism, and many other crazy things are usually examples of projection.

The so-called "experts" making such accusations are hyper partisan liars without any real evidence. They misconstrue DEI and other racist policies as "civil rights". If one group is favored over another then it's illegal and unconstitutional. The Left often uses misleading propaganda to hide their evil policies. True feminism is not about killing babies but they seem to think so. They talk about "reproductive health" when they really mean abortion. There is nothing healthy about killing babies. There are many other examples.

historian said:

---

Yes it's ok to compare the current American party with a socialist agenda and support for mass murdering innocents to historical regimes characterized by both. Comparing Trump to Nazis is a ridiculous joke because there is no similarity. If anything, the Dems have more in common: the American Holocaust, glorifying murderers, seeking the murder of their opponents, etc.

Graham Platner is a Dem. So is Shelly Headon in North Carolina, the local candidate who was photographed in front of the Dachau crematoria with the caption that Trump voters belonged there. There are other examples.

---

That is wrong. Democrat, GOP or Communist. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Party has nothing to do with it.

It's the difference between a valid comparison and one that is not.

historian said:

---

It's the difference between a valid comparison and one that is not.

---

It's politics. In the end we are all Americans. There is nothing in politics that should get in the way of people getting along. And threats are right out of bounds...

historian said:

---

The so-called "experts" making such accusations are hyper partisan liars without any real evidence.

---

You mean hyper-partisan liars like Jonah Goldberg?