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?