Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, XRay said:

Having some fascist tendencies does not make one a fascist. Just because I want drugs and guns for everyone does not make me a libertarian, since that means I also want the government to have less role in the economy too, which I am not sure I completely agree with.

Trump is no doubt right wing. But calling him fascist is premature and it devalues the word to a slur and it loses its impact. In American politics, communist as a word is beyond saving at this point as it has lost all its impact and it is nothing more than an insult used by the right against the left.

Ok, I'm looking at the definition of fascism several times and I see Trump either fulfilling or wanting at the very least, 6 of the 7 "attributes" of fascism (radical, right-wing, authoritarian, ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy). At what point is it fair to call him a fascist if 85% is insufficient?

12 hours ago, XRay said:

Bitching is not the same thing as actually doing something. Barks do not hurt, bites do. Trump so far has not bite.

Putting in judges that rules in his favor is not the same thing as stripping the Court of power directly and allocating that power to himself. Trump is still subject to Kavanaugh's rulings. Every president before Trump have also nominated/appointed judges that more or less aligns with their political beliefs.

Not in the world of politics unfortunately. You gotta remember that Trump has a base of crazies and that the people are frustrated with the government as it currently is and the guy frequently attacks the media as the "enemy of the people". Attacking the courts like that is pretty much an attempt at garnering support from his base and other pissed off folks into supporting right-wing judges. People vote for a president that will take action for their interests, I don't think your common Trump voter is interested in having judges that will fuck common folk and support corporations as opposed to having people who are fair.

This is true and once again, while it is Trump nominating these judges, it is more or less a result of Mitch McConnell blocking anything tried to do. Although there's something to be said about presidents appointing judges who are centrists with the intent of being true to the constitution and judges who will vote in favor of your unconstitutional bans and whether or not you may be charged while you're a sitting president. In some sense, that is still allocating power to himself and his idea of trying to fight impeachment via the Supreme Court is further testament to him trying to allocate more power to himself, the man is eagerly awaiting to put another conservative to vote in in his favor after all.

12 hours ago, XRay said:

He is the Commander in Chief and he could order the military to detain journalists, shut down news organizations, and declare martial law.

His attacks on the press pales in comparison to what people think of when they hear attack on the press, such as China's detainmen of critics and Saudi's Khashoggi murder. Trump's level of attacks on the press is nowhere close to what a fascist is would do.

Reporters are being detained by the government by the way. As a president in our system of government, you have no logical business attacking the press without evidence and that's Trump's problem: there's no evidence to claims, he never has any legitimate reason to do what he does when it comes to attacking/suppressing the media like taking away white house passes to supporters who aren't nice to him. I'd wager the only reason he hasn't done worse is because he's been told he'd go to jail for it and there IS a line Republicans won't allow him to cross.

Does a fascist have to kill journalists in order to be considered a fascist? I don't believe "forcible suppression of opposition" has to extend that far, specially if the goal is to prevent it rather than cure it after the fascist president succeeds in toppling the current system for something closer to fascism.

12 hours ago, XRay said:

Okay, I will give you that one. However, just to be a devil's advocate, he has not said that in public. At least in public, he is still extolling the virtues of democracy. He is at most a closet fascist though, since he is not railing against how bad democracies are and I am not sure if he is actually serious about wanting to dismantle our democracy.

He is railing against our system of government when he's attacking our courts though. The man doesn't understand or agree with how the executive office is supposed to function and just believes he is the law with the only thing holding him back are the Republican. Remember, a judge ruled almost an entire year ago that his child separation policy is unconstitutional and there's reports that it is still happening.

Plus, there's the recent case of the militia group holding migrants at gunpoint with border patrol basically turning a blind eye to it. When law enforcement isn't doing what they're supposed to do, Trump is silent on it.

12 hours ago, XRay said:

Trump does not understand fascism, but he also does not exhibit enough qualities of a fascist to be called a fascist either.

He doesn't have to understand it to be one. I'll ask again. What do you consider enough? Is it after the bubble's popped or before it?

12 hours ago, XRay said:

I agree that we should call out bad behaviors and tendencies because they are bad, and not just because they are fascist. Nazis (or at least Hitler) promoted animal rights and fascists promote government intervention in the economy to protect national security, but that does not mean those tendencies are bad. We also should not mislabel politicians for what they are not either.

 

4 hours ago, eclipse said:

I'd sooner think that fascism would be used to describe the Chinese government, with the move to make Xi a lifetime president, political dissidents disappearing, the Great Firewall, a society that's subject to facial recognition for damn near everything, etc.  Is Trump way further to the right than most of the posters here?  Definitely.  Labels are easy to slap on, and IMO devalue discussion as a whole.

The bad behavior is what's being called out and the bad parts of fascism IS why some of us are describing him as fascist. Perhaps we're using the term too loosely and "closet fascist" may be the best way to put it? It seems like the disagreement is to what lengths does Trump have to go to in order to be considered a fascist in your eyes and would it be better to wait until that comes or prevent it? There's an image often posted labeled "Early signs of fascism" which lists a bunch of signs to look for to see if someone's flirting with fascism and the government under Trump checks most if not all of them.

It certainly does look very  similar to how the right fear-mongers about socialism but it's just that: fear-mongering since the policies that folks on the left advocate for are popular and desired by the people while only people in Trump's base want him to be president for life/dictator. Hell Republicans fought him on the National Emergency declaration not because they don't like the idea of him doing whatever he wants but because they fear a Democratic president with that precedent established while they still exist (which is also why the court packing is including judges who are as young as 37 so the consequence of such precedence occur WAY later when they're likely to not be around).

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

8 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

The bad behavior is what's being called out and the bad parts of fascism IS why some of us are describing him as fascist. Perhaps we're using the term too loosely and "closet fascist" may be the best way to put it? It seems like the disagreement is to what lengths does Trump have to go to in order to be considered a fascist in your eyes and would it be better to wait until that comes or prevent it? There's an image often posted labeled "Early signs of fascism" which lists a bunch of signs to look for to see if someone's flirting with fascism and the government under Trump checks most if not all of them.

It certainly does look very  similar to how the right fear-mongers about socialism but it's just that: fear-mongering since the policies that folks on the left advocate for are popular and desired by the people while only people in Trump's base want him to be president for life/dictator. Hell Republicans fought him on the National Emergency declaration not because they don't like the idea of him doing whatever he wants but because they fear a Democratic president with that precedent established while they still exist (which is also why the court packing is including judges who are as young as 37 so the consequence of such precedence occur WAY later when they're likely to not be around).

I think fascism and narcissism are two sides of the same coin - both focus on the "self" (whether it be the actual self, or people like themselves), with "others" (actual other people or people who have differences, with race being an example) being used as convenient, but otherwise inconsequential.  Attacking the "self" results in quite the spectacle, so long as you (the reader) aren't caught up in it.  It's a very "my way or the high way" mentality. . .or a type of government I'd expect out of a typical three-year-old.

IMO Trump has the personal narcissistic traits.  He may extend that narcissism to his policies, though thankfully democracy hasn't eroded to the point where he can command something and have it automatically done.  But I don't think he's at the point where he's trying to consolidate power to rule for the rest of his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Ok, I'm looking at the definition of fascism several times and I see Trump either fulfilling or wanting at the very least, 6 of the 7 "attributes" of fascism (radical, right-wing, authoritarian, ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy). At what point is it fair to call him a fascist if 85% is insufficient?

He has not forcibly suppressed the opposition. The left and middle are all still alive and kicking. We are still free to protest in the streets. We even took back the House, and could maybe even take back the Senate and White House in 2020.

He is not authoritarian nor has he pursued dictatorial powers. He does seek more power, but it is in no way comparable to real life dictators who sought and centralized power. He has not done nor said anything about abolishing the two branches of government.

20 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Not in the world of politics unfortunately. You gotta remember that Trump has a base of crazies and that the people are frustrated with the government as it currently is and the guy frequently attacks the media as the "enemy of the people". Attacking the courts like that is pretty much an attempt at garnering support from his base and other pissed off folks into supporting right-wing judges. People vote for a president that will take action for their interests, I don't think your common Trump voter is interested in having judges that will fuck common folk and support corporations as opposed to having people who are fair.

This is true and once again, while it is Trump nominating these judges, it is more or less a result of Mitch McConnell blocking anything tried to do. Although there's something to be said about presidents appointing judges who are centrists with the intent of being true to the constitution and judges who will vote in favor of your unconstitutional bans and whether or not you may be charged while you're a sitting president. In some sense, that is still allocating power to himself and his idea of trying to fight impeachment via the Supreme Court is further testament to him trying to allocate more power to himself, the man is eagerly awaiting to put another conservative to vote in in his favor after all.

20 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

He is railing against our system of government when he's attacking our courts though. The man doesn't understand or agree with how the executive office is supposed to function and just believes he is the law with the only thing holding him back are the Republican. Remember, a judge ruled almost an entire year ago that his child separation policy is unconstitutional and there's reports that it is still happening.

Plus, there's the recent case of the militia group holding migrants at gunpoint with border patrol basically turning a blind eye to it. When law enforcement isn't doing what they're supposed to do, Trump is silent on it.

Trump's attacks on the media and democratic institutions are in no way to the same degree as fascists' attacks. Trump is not having his supporters storm and seize the media and government by force. He is literally complaining and whining.

The Constitution specifically gave the President the power to appoint judges, so Trump is hardly allocating power to himself when every president before him had done the exact same thing.

Blaming Trump for the actions of those criminals makes about as much sense as blaming top Democrats for the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA).

20 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Reporters are being detained by the government by the way. As a president in our system of government, you have no logical business attacking the press without evidence and that's Trump's problem: there's no evidence to claims, he never has any legitimate reason to do what he does when it comes to attacking/suppressing the media like taking away white house passes to supporters who aren't nice to him. I'd wager the only reason he hasn't done worse is because he's been told he'd go to jail for it and there IS a line Republicans won't allow him to cross.

Does a fascist have to kill journalists in order to be considered a fascist? I don't believe "forcible suppression of opposition" has to extend that far, specially if the goal is to prevent it rather than cure it after the fascist president succeeds in toppling the current system for something closer to fascism.

While the detainment of those reporters is unconstitutional, it is also very limited in scale and scope, centered around the border and immigration. Most journalists elsewhere in the nation are not being detained, and neither are journalists reporting on Trump's other stuff.

20 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

The bad behavior is what's being called out and the bad parts of fascism IS why some of us are describing him as fascist. Perhaps we're using the term too loosely and "closet fascist" may be the best way to put it? It seems like the disagreement is to what lengths does Trump have to go to in order to be considered a fascist in your eyes and would it be better to wait until that comes or prevent it? There's an image often posted labeled "Early signs of fascism" which lists a bunch of signs to look for to see if someone's flirting with fascism and the government under Trump checks most if not all of them.

It certainly does look very  similar to how the right fear-mongers about socialism but it's just that: fear-mongering since the policies that folks on the left advocate for are popular and desired by the people while only people in Trump's base want him to be president for life/dictator. Hell Republicans fought him on the National Emergency declaration not because they don't like the idea of him doing whatever he wants but because they fear a Democratic president with that precedent established while they still exist (which is also why the court packing is including judges who are as young as 37 so the consequence of such precedence occur WAY later when they're likely to not be around).

I am not sure about closet fascist, but I would describe Trump as just right ring or maybe alt right. Alt right has no set definition besides being right wing but not mainstream, so I think alt right is a good catchall term. It describes anyone on the right with a weird mix of ideas like Trump to people on the far right like fascists and KKK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets all just be glad then that Trump is an exceptionally incompetent fascist. 


Image result for trump illiterate


^^^

If a functional illiterate with a twitter account can push us this far--my god--imagine what someone who's actually good at this could do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2019 at 2:51 AM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Ok, I'm looking at the definition of fascism several times and I see Trump either fulfilling or wanting at the very least, 6 of the 7 "attributes" of fascism (radical, right-wing, authoritarian, ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy). At what point is it fair to call him a fascist if 85% is insufficient?

I guess maybe we should shift the scope of this argument. You know what the *actual* issue with Trump's campaign -- and by extension, Sanders and Clinton's campaign? They were all about finger pointing, saying the other person was corrupt then the person snipes back with a "no u" and it's not entirely false. They label the other voterbase and in this case, Trump brought up locking up his political opponent.

This is not different to what a campaign based on impeachment is doing. Vote me, I'll get Fuckface Von Clownstick locked up because nobody really likes him lol! so what they're doing is a) isolating a demographic that either has no feelings towards Trump or likes Trump (before you say they can go fuck themselves, they're saying the same right now about us; these are very easily reversible arguments) and b) no actual policy and no actual awareness to issues that the local population is actually suffering from. Impeaching Trump is not a solution, calling him a fascist is not a solution, etc because it's easy to twist words and make everything intend something different. The moment you insert a 'but' in politics you've lost no matter what the high ground is.

Anyone who campaigns on impeaching Trump or even has that as anything but a throwaway position is approaching it in a way that is divisive and keeps us pointing fingers at fellow Americans like NUMEROUS posters here do. If you wanna call Trump a fascist because he checks the criteria off due to the academic definition of the word, so be it, but name calling and finger pointing is exactly the bullshit that lead to someone like Trump taking office -- nobody wanted to vote for EITHER candidate because that's all they did, and all Sanders did was drag Clinton's name through the mud when he was already mathematically eliminated.

 

So if we establish Trump is a fascist, how does this help our chances in the next election? These politicians need to hop off Trump's dick and stop giving that narcissist attention. I firmly believe he lacks any ideology except wanting attention and branding his name everywhere (if you watch other billionaires they have the same narcissistic traits too for the record) because he will say whatever makes the crowd wild. Remember "Drain the swamp"? He admitted that it was a crowd chant that he just started saying cause it sounded good. If we wanna learn from history -- lets vote for someone who preaches helping your fellow countrymen, not taking a Boogeyman (real or fake) down. Because if Trump goes down they will just move onto another.

The politics of spite will lead to an even further divided and waning nation.

EDIT: Remember that this guy said Mexican American immigrants rape our women but then said "many are good people." He once said "I'm a globalist and a nationalist". He has no political views or ideology, something I feel is necessary to be a fascist.

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has also made several decisions that have went back on previous positions once he got into the room with influencers. For example, he once said that negotiating drug prices and being tough on pharmaceutical companies would be something he would do. A good idea, but he got into one meeting with a pharmaceutical lobbyist and suddenly he was singing a completely different tune (suddenly the pharmaceutical companies are the victims from what he said after that). Or when he has advocated for universal healthcare systems in the past including in my own country, but couldn't do anything to sway Republican orthodoxy other than dismantling Obamacare. Or when a bunch of neo-conservatives now run his foreign policy despite him being vocal about the mistakes of Iraq (whether or not he was a liar about initially supporting it). Or when he said that unlike the other Republicans, he would not be cutting medicare or medicaid. Guess what happened?

I believe that Bolsonaro has a bigger claim to fascist down in Brazil, and even despite saying some blatant anti-democratic things prior to the election, I'd still think it would be untrue to call him a fascist. Authoritarian, like Trump (and his friends, average Republicans)? Yes.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tryhard said:

I believe that Bolsonaro has a bigger claim to fascist down in Brazil,

Note again that the extent to which (1) an individual leader's political profile aligns with extreme ideologies and (2) the extent to which an individual county's institutions and political norms can constrain would-be dictators from exercising authoritarian power are two separate questions. 

And the answer to (2) is not necessarily indicative of the answer to (1).

Brazil is a weaker democracy with fewer institutional constraints on fascist leaders making authoritarian power grabs + stepping outside the law to quash opposition and implement fascist social policy, so...
 

18 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

So if we establish Trump is a fascist, how does this help our chances in the next election?


It does nothing for our contemporary politics (the label itself at any rate--attacking him on some of the positions and statements that make him so should be no-holds-bars + why he loses)

Its more for the historical record.

When the history of this period is written and the anthologies of law and government are set forth for future generations, it should be noted that early 21st century America briefly flirted with fascism. That 40% of the population was prepared to fully get behind a leader that posited America was a nation in decline because of the Mexicans and the Chinese and the Muslims and the "Fake News" and the "Deep State." And was willing to overlook any form of criminality or human rights abuse, on a theory that The Leader was making the country great again and was the only one making the country great again because he was the only one going after "the real problem." 

____________


Again--because I feel like we're starting to enter "people using the term 'fascist' interchangeably with the term 'authoritarian' and making false statements not understanding the distinction between the two, territory here, reminder as to what these terms actually mean and how they relate to one another:

4 General Classifications of Political Ideology

-Libertarian Left     (i.e. Social Democracy)
-Libertarian Right   (Laissez Faire Capitalism)
-Authoritarian Left  (i.e. Totalitarian Communism)
-Authoritarian Right  (i.e. Fascism) 

"Fascism" by definition is the radicalized form of Right-Wing Authoritarianism.

Where the driving force behind the push for more and more authoritarianism + concentration of power is The Far Right's outgroup prejudice and hypernationalist myth of "[Those people] are the reason we have so many problems in this country. Some have denied this and hate The Leader and spread vicious lies about him; they hate him because he loves you, and hate you because they are beholden to [those people]! They are part of the problem. The Leader is the only one who will tell you the truth about [those people]! The Leader is the only one who will use power to make the country great again by going after [those people]! That is why you can only trust The Leader and must give him more power, and whenever someone tells you The Leader is lying or doing something illegal you must know that you cannot trust them because they work for [those people]."

Distinct  and separate from leftist forms of extreme authoritarianism. Where the push for more and more authoritarianism + concentration of power is ideological opposite: i.e. Racism, Classism, and Inequality exists. Inequality should not exist. The Leader loves you--the poor, underprivileged masses, and knows inequality should not exist. Give The Leader all power over every resource and decision that could produce inequality, and the leader will give you a perfectly equal society where no one is underprivileged." 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

Again--because I feel like we're starting to enter "people using the term 'fascist' interchangeably with the term 'authoritarian' and making false statements not understanding the distinction between the two, territory here, reminder as to what these terms actually mean and how they relate to one another:

4 General Classifications of Political Ideology

-Libertarian Left     (i.e. Social Democracy)
-Libertarian Right   (Laissez Faire Capitalism)
-Authoritarian Left  (i.e. Totalitarian Communism)
-Authoritarian Right  (i.e. Fascism


"Fascism" by definition is the radicalized form of Right-Wing Authoritarianism.

Since we are nitpicking, I will do some nitpicking too.

I am assuming we are using the political compass model, with the two axes measuring economic freedom and social/political freedom. Depending on how many axes you use (usually 2 or 3; 4+ gets unwieldy) and how detailed you want to divide your measurements (usually an odd number to account for the middle, usually 3 for simplicity), it could range anywhere from 4 to 27 classifications, and if you are measuring something other than economic and social/political freedom on the axes, those classifications will also change. In my opinion, 4 is too simple and it does not reflect reality well, I think 9 (right, middle, left; 3x3) is better. A lot of countries are in the middle economically, sometimes with capitalism as the base economic system with lots of socialist elements tacked on, or sometimes with socialism as the base economic system with lots of capitalistic elements tacked on. Countries can also be in the middle politically, Singapore for example have a lot of restrictions politically, so while they are a democracy, the freedom they enjoy pales in comparison to the freedom Americans enjoy.

Should be "e.g." instead of "i.e." since there is definitely more than one political-economic system in each category. Totalitarian communism is not the only authoritarian left ideology. Most people in Czarist Russia are peasants and serfs tied to the land, and they have very little if any economic freedom, and definitely have no political rights.

Social democracies should be libertarian right or libertarian middle. Industries in a social democracies are generally privately owned by default, with only certain industries that are nationalized or heavily regulated/government controlled. I do not think there is ever a country where its people are politically free but have a super restrictive economy.

Similarly, fascism should be authoritarian middle or authoritarian left. While fascism allows for private property and profit, fascists promote heavy government intervention in the economy, and private property and profit can be thrown in the garbage if it conflicts with the state's interest. While fascists probably would not be seizing your local mom and pop stores, they would not hesitate to completely nationalize the media, most or all of the manufacturing industry, and probably much of the agricultural industry too.

Laissez faire capitalism is an economic ideology. It does not refer to how free people are politically/socially. NATO and close American allies generally fall under libertarian right or libertarian middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, XRay said:

Laissez faire capitalism is an economic ideology. It does not refer to how free people are politically/socially. 

Economic ideology is political.
 

35 minutes ago, XRay said:

 

Similarly, fascism should be authoritarian middle or authoritarian left. 

Absolutely not.

(and what your but private property can be thrown in the garbage if it conflicts with the interests of the state analysis misses is that core fascist ideology is that [interest of the state = maintaining racial and cultural purity against the bogeymen of miscegenation and subversive minorities]. )    

i.e. extreme rightwing thinking on issues of race and national identity

Merits of private property rights is peripheral to that core ideology.  

37 minutes ago, XRay said:

While fascism allows for private property and profit, fascists promote heavy government intervention in the economy, and private property and profit can be thrown in the garbage if it conflicts with the state's interest. 

Your argument against Laissez Faire being characterized as a political ideology of the libertarian right is that economic philosophies are not political.

Your argument against Fascism being characterized as a political ideology of the authoritarian right is--its economic philosophy aligns with leftist politics. 

(Neither statement is correct--but there's an internal inconsistency in these arguments) 
 

36 minutes ago, XRay said:

I do not think there is ever a country where its people are politically free but have a super restrictive economy.

A consummate rightwing ideologue would tell you that minimum wage laws, environmental regulations, workplace sexual harassment laws, bans on discriminatory employment practices, and a progressive income tax are hallmarks of a "super restrictive economy."

[Social Democracy] is economically restrictive when your baseline political ideology is [Laissez Faire] 

 

47 minutes ago, XRay said:

Totalitarian communism is not the only authoritarian left ideology


Its an example of an authoritarian left ideology.

And the best leftist analogue to fascism on the right. 

_____________

...out of the weeds and back to the original point...

The basic foundation of the political brand Trump has built since he got political is America is the greatest country in the world. America stopped being great because politicians let us get overrun by terrorist Muslims and job-stealing Mexicans and sent all our factories to China. Only Donald Trump is telling you the truth about the real problems facing this country and giving you the real answers politicians: everyone else is lying to you. Everyone else is part of the "Fake News" or the "Deep State." Don't listen to them. The legal processes to restrain him from using his office for unlawful purposes "Deep State Conspiracy to End the Trump Presidency" is coming after him because Trump is the only one fighting to protect "Real Americans" against the invaders and the job-stealers and the terrorists; you must ignore the fake news telling you that Trump is a criminally misusing his office and support his efforts to circumvent the legal constraints of his office "end the illegal witch hunt" so that Trump can keep protecting you from the invaders and the job-stealers and the terrorists. 

His success in acting upon that ideology (or lack thereof) notwithstanding: that is an unmistakably fascist ideology in every sense of the word. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Shoblongoo

What you are referring to is the political compass model, libertarian-authoritarian strictly refers to social/political freedom, while left-right refers to economic freedom.

Political_chart.svg

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

Economic ideology is political.

Laissez faire has nothing to do with how restrictive the government is politically or socially. You can have a politically middle country like Singapore or authoritarian like Thailand where people of both nations can generally do business freely in most industries in their own country.

In terms of the political-compass model, laissez faire describes the X axis only. It does not describe how a government is politically or socially.

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

Absolutely not.

(and what your but private property can be thrown in the garbage if it conflicts with the interests of the state analysis misses is that core fascist ideology is that [interest of the state = maintaining racial and cultural purity against the bogeymen of miscegenation and subversive minorities]. )    

i.e. extreme rightwing thinking on issues of race and national identity

Merits of private property rights is peripheral to that core ideology.  

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

Your argument against Laissez Faire being characterized as a political ideology of the libertarian right is that economic philosophies are not political.

Your argument against Fascism being characterized as a political ideology of the authoritarian right is--its economic philosophy aligns with leftist politics. 

(Neither statement is correct--but there's an internal inconsistency in these arguments) 

In the political-compass model, fascism is authoritarian middle or left. It is NOT right because the "middle or left" in authoritarian middle or left refers to the X axis, which measures economic freedom, and it has nothing to do with whether people can vote or express themselves freely. The "authoritarian" in authoritarian left refers to the Y axis, measuring how free the people are politically/socially.

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

A consummate rightwing ideologue would tell you that minimum wage laws, environmental regulations, workplace sexual harassment laws, bans on discriminatory employment practices, and a progressive income tax are hallmarks of a "super restrictive economy."

[Social Democracy] is economically restrictive when your baseline political ideology is [Laissez Faire] 

Not all right wing voters and politicians are true laissez faire-ists, and most probably are not. Republicans have no issues protecting our tech industry when the Chinese are threatening our national security. If Republicans were completely laissez faire enthusiasts, they would have sold our country to the Chinese already.

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

Its an example

Hence "e.g." and not "i.e." Exempli gratia means "for example." Id est means "in other words," implying a single definition to the exclusion of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, XRay said:

Similarly, fascism should be authoritarian middle or authoritarian left. While fascism allows for private property and profit, fascists promote heavy government intervention in the economy, and private property and profit can be thrown in the garbage if it conflicts with the state's interest. While fascists probably would not be seizing your local mom and pop stores, they would not hesitate to completely nationalize the media, most or all of the manufacturing industry, and probably much of the agricultural industry too.

The fascist state's interest is simply consolidating and reinforcing power by any means. Economic regulation (or a lack thereof) under fascism resembles neoliberalism with an emphasis on targeting specific groups. Nationalizing the media or any industry isn't necessary when the government and the owners of those industries have shared interests.

Trump is a fascist, he's in it for the power, but much of his inner circle and appointees are neoliberals who are there for personal profit.

18 hours ago, XRay said:

Not all right wing voters and politicians are true laissez faire-ists, and most probably are not. Republicans have no issues protecting our tech industry when the Chinese are threatening our national security. If Republicans were completely laissez faire enthusiasts, they would have sold our country to the Chinese already.

The bottom line is always about maximizing profits. The things Shob listed like minimum wages, etc are opposed by the right because they are seen as having a cost, so they're against regulations that protect workers. Competition from the Chinese is primarily a threat to profits, so they're for regulation to reduce that threat. A claim for national security is just convenient packaging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Johann said:

The fascist state's interest is simply consolidating and reinforcing power by any means. Economic regulation (or a lack thereof) under fascism resembles neoliberalism with an emphasis on targeting specific groups. Nationalizing the media or any industry isn't necessary when the government and the owners of those industries have shared interests.

Trump is a fascist, he's in it for the power, but much of his inner circle and appointees are neoliberals who are there for personal profit.

Fascism is also about state control over the economy, praising fascism and demonizing democracy, and suppressing the opposition forcefully.

You cannot say something is fascist if they are just nationalist and racist but other traits do not match. It is like saying the Eastern Bloc were communists when they clearly were not.

6 hours ago, Johann said:

The fascist state's interest is simply consolidating and reinforcing power by any means. Economic regulation (or a lack thereof) under fascism resembles neoliberalism with an emphasis on targeting specific groups. Nationalizing the media or any industry isn't necessary when the government and the owners of those industries have shared interests.

Trump is a fascist, he's in it for the power, but much of his inner circle and appointees are neoliberals who are there for personal profit.

The bottom line is always about maximizing profits. The things Shob listed like minimum wages, etc are opposed by the right because they are seen as having a cost, so they're against regulations that protect workers. Competition from the Chinese is primarily a threat to profits, so they're for regulation to reduce that threat. A claim for national security is just convenient packaging.

Nationalizing the media and controlling the flow of information is quite necessary to make it easier to control society. With over half the nation disapproving Trump, relying solely on the Electoral College is a poor way of preserving power. So no, Trump is not fascist. If he were a fascist, he would have caused a Constitutional crisis by now and we would be in a civil war.

Neoliberals in general oppose the trade war. In terms of short term profits, it is far easier to just work with China and get money that way. What neoliberals dislike about China is not competition, it is China's protectionist policies that give Chinese firms an unfair edge that skews competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, XRay said:

Fascism is also about state control over the economy, praising fascism and demonizing democracy, and suppressing the opposition forcefully.

You cannot say something is fascist if they are just nationalist and racist but other traits do not match. It is like saying the Eastern Bloc were communists when they clearly were not.

The thing is, fascism isn't defined by a coherent doctrine like communism is; it's more of a varied phenomenon than Mussolini's brand and is certainly not defined by a distinct economic policy. Consider--

  • Today's fascists are not going to praise fascism itself due to most people agreeing it's bad and have plenty of evidence to know so. Instead, the fascists will praise/support/not condemn people and acts inspired by fascism, like the "very fine people" who wave Nazi flags at a rally defending a Confederate statue.
  • Likewise, they aren't going to demonize democracy, which is largely seen as a good thing, but undermine it. This includes questioning the legitimacy of an election's numbers, engaging in activities that interfere with elections, and undermining the power of other elected officials.
  • In terms of suppressing the opposition forcefully, while Trump has not explicitly ordered any violent actions, his rhetoric has incited violence directed at various media entities & high-profile Democrats, and inspired alt-right (fascist) groups to engage in violence.
  • Some of the common qualities of fascism are emphasized harder than others, while some qualities barely at all. Sometimes these qualities are deliberately disguised, hidden, or downplayed in order to fool others. If you make a checklist for qualities and only agreeing that a person is a fascist when they hit all the boxes, then you might be giving a literal Nazi the benefit of the doubt.

Historian Robert Paxton writes the following in his 2004 book Anatomy of Fascism:

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by
obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood
and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a
mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic
liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or
legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
-
(pg. 218)

Trump's brand of fascism matches this loose definition. The ideology and praxis are more fluid than what you're claiming it to be, and you may want to read Paxton's words from the bottom of page 218 to 220  of the book for a more educated take than I can give without plagiarizing.

19 minutes ago, XRay said:

Nationalizing the media and controlling the flow of information is quite necessary to make it easier to control society. With over half the nation disapproving Trump, relying solely on the Electoral College is a poor way of preserving power. So no, Trump is not fascist. If he were a fascist, he would have caused a Constitutional crisis by now and we would be in a civil war.

I think it's important to remember a few things: one, Trump is not a smart person. Just because he's not a clever fascist doesn't mean he's not a fascist. Two, the political landscape and government of the US today are not like Italy or Germany 80 or 90 years ago, or other places & times where fascists and other dictators seize power. Our vulnerabilities are different, as is the extent of what political power can actually do. Media is nothing like what it was back then either, and yet Trump has been given as big a platform as one could hope for without having to completely control the media. Why (let alone how) would you nationalize the media when you have Fox News handling spin, Twitter to say whatever whenever, and every other news source giving you the spotlight (frequently without real criticism)?

19 minutes ago, XRay said:

Neoliberals in general oppose the trade war. In terms of short term profits, it is far easier to just work with China and get money that way. What neoliberals dislike about China is not competition, it is China's protectionist policies that give Chinese firms an unfair edge that skews competition.

The thing is, Trump's inner circle has a lot of in-fighting whenever he does something dumb like instigate a trade war, and it's precisely because many of them are neoliberals clashing with his fascist friends over their priorities.

Neoliberals have a lot of things they don't like about China, and the protectionist policies are pretty low on the bar. China, along with Russia, is USA's fiercest rival for not only trade, but global influence, and that's about as big a threat to profit as it gets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Johann said:

The thing is, fascism isn't defined by a coherent doctrine like communism is

53 minutes ago, Johann said:
  • Some of the common qualities of fascism are emphasized harder than others, while some qualities barely at all. Sometimes these qualities are deliberately disguised, hidden, or downplayed in order to fool others. If you make a checklist for qualities and only agreeing that a person is a fascist when they hit all the boxes, then you might be giving a literal Nazi the benefit of the doubt.

The Eastern Bloc are not communists and Trump is not fascists.

The Eastern Bloc were socialists, but definitely not communists since they had no intention of dismantling the state.

Trump is not a fascist not because he does not check every criteria of a fascist, but he is not fascist because he does not even check enough boxes. Someone who is simply racist and nationalist is not fascist.

59 minutes ago, Johann said:

Historian Robert Paxton writes the following in his 2004 book Anatomy of Fascism:

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by
obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood
and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a
mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic
liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or
legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
-
(pg. 218)

Trump's brand of fascism matches this loose definition. The ideology and praxis are more fluid than what you're claiming it to be, and you may want to read Paxton's words from the bottom of page 218 to 220  of the book for a more educated take than I can give without plagiarizing.

The only thing Trump and his supporters are missing is just the pursuing part, but I do not think you need to check every box. Under that definition, Trump would no doubt be a fascist, but it feels like that definition boils fascism down to just racism and cult of personality, which I find it to be too broad, as Russia and definitely China would also be considered fascists.

1 hour ago, Johann said:

The thing is, Trump's inner circle has a lot of in-fighting whenever he does something dumb like instigate a trade war, and it's precisely because many of them are neoliberals clashing with his fascist friends over their priorities.

Neoliberals have a lot of things they don't like about China, and the protectionist policies are pretty low on the bar. China, along with Russia, is USA's fiercest rival for not only trade, but global influence, and that's about as big a threat to profit as it gets.

I think who you are describing are nationalists, not neoliberals. As a nationalist hawk myself, I would prioritize maintaining America's global lead in politics, the economy, the military, culture, and technology. The trade war with China is something that should be escalated or at least maintained, as I see trade with China for the past 30 years being detrimental to our lead in the economy and technology. I see neoliberals as people who are generally in favor of laissez faire capitalism; while Chinese firms have an unfair advantage, they would still rather have trade with China than have our government step in and reduce trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, XRay said:

The Eastern Bloc are not communists and Trump is not fascists.

The Eastern Bloc were socialists, but definitely not communists since they had no intention of dismantling the state.

I didn't say anything about the Eastern Bloc, so I'm not sure what you're trying to highlight. I'm not disputing your statement about them either, so we can probably leave it at that

9 minutes ago, XRay said:

Trump is not a fascist not because he does not check every criteria of a fascist, but he is not fascist because he does not even check enough boxes. Someone who is simply racist and nationalist is not fascist.

The only thing Trump and his supporters are missing is just the pursuing part, but I do not think you need to check every box. Under that definition, Trump would no doubt be a fascist, but it feels like that definition boils fascism down to just racism and cult of personality, which I find it to be too broad, as Russia and definitely China would also be considered fascists.

Hmmm... I think you might want to read the section I suggested. He specifically points out that, for one, that definition "encompasses its subject no better than a snapshot encompasses a person", so if you're leaving it at that, then of course it won't seem like enough.

Paxton describes fascism existing in five stages (also discussed briefly on page 174 of the pdf I linked earlier), and this is something of his I'll get into a bit here (descriptions shamelessly borrowed from Wikipedia because I'm lazy):

  1. Initial creation of fascist movement, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in discussions of lost national vigor
  2. Political rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage
  3. Acquisition of power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite fascists to share power
  4. Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.
  5. Entropy, where the state either becomes increasingly radical, as did Nazi Germany, or slips into traditional authoritarian rule, as did Fascist Italy

Trump's fascism exists arguably in stage 3 or 4 right now, depending on how much power you think he and his circle have. The world has only ever seen stage 5 in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

9 minutes ago, XRay said:

I think who you are describing are nationalists, not neoliberals. As a nationalist hawk myself, I would prioritize maintaining America's global lead in politics, the economy, the military, culture, and technology. The trade war with China is something that should be escalated or at least maintained, as I see trade with China for the past 30 years being detrimental to our lead in the economy and technology. I see neoliberals as people who are generally in favor of laissez faire capitalism; while Chinese firms have an unfair advantage, they would still rather have trade with China than have our government step in and reduce trade.

Well, there's a considerable amount of overlap between nationalists and neoliberals, and I'd agree that those same Trump guys are also nationalists. Allow me to clarify, however, that, yes, there is a general favoring of lassez faire capitalism, but it's on a spectrum of how much regulation they benefit from. Neoliberals aren't ideologues, they're pragmatists, and what guides their decision making, ultimately, is profit and growth. They want trade with China because it's beneficial; cheap labor for manufacturing, for instance. Provoking them into conflict is bad for profits/growth since it jeopardizes every industry with a supply chain or market connected to China, which is most industries, really. The only industry that could possibly stand to gain in direct conflict would be the military industry, but war with China would basically kick off WWIII, and arms manufacturers are content with minor skirmishes in the Middle East since those countries are vilified enough for the US to get away with it.

Similarly, when Trump threatened to close the Mexican border a little while ago, the neoliberals within his circle likely convinced him it was a bad idea (which is something anybody who isn't an extreme xenophobe would agree with). From a market perspective, closing the border would have put a complete halt to many automotive factory operations, since many parts are made or assembled in Mexico. The costs of a variety of produce would have shot up as well. There very well could have been billions lost between those two markets alone, on both sides of the border.

The thing about trade between the US and any other nation is that, generally speaking, it's mutually beneficial, or at least in the capitalist context it is (there certainly are externalities like pollution, or issues like exploitation of smaller nations and the average worker). If China wasn't undergoing considerable growth these past few decades and instead somehow stayed fixed as a trade partner and manufacturer of cheap goods, then neoliberals wouldn't have a problem with it. Their beef is that China is investing abroad (see the Belt and Road Initiative), expanding its military and resources (see the South China Sea), and shifting away from depending on exports. These factors show that it's becoming less of a necessary partner (or subordinate, depending on your view of what trade with the US has meant for the average Chinese citizen) and more of a highly competitive rival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Johann said:

I didn't say anything about the Eastern Bloc, so I'm not sure what you're trying to highlight. I'm not disputing your statement about them either, so we can probably leave it at that

I am drawing a parallel between people who label the other side as communist or fascist even if the other side is not.

12 minutes ago, Johann said:

Hmmm... I think you might want to read the section I suggested. He specifically points out that, for one, that definition "encompasses its subject no better than a snapshot encompasses a person", so if you're leaving it at that, then of course it won't seem like enough.

Paxton describes fascism existing in five stages (also discussed briefly on page 174 of the pdf I linked earlier), and this is something of his I'll get into a bit here (descriptions shamelessly borrowed from Wikipedia because I'm lazy):

  1. Initial creation of fascist movement, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in discussions of lost national vigor
  2. Political rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage
  3. Acquisition of power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite fascists to share power
  4. Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.
  5. Entropy, where the state either becomes increasingly radical, as did Nazi Germany, or slips into traditional authoritarian rule, as did Fascist Italy

Trump's fascism exists arguably in stage 3 or 4 right now, depending on how much power you think he and his circle have. The world has only ever seen stage 5 in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

While including the process as part of the definition makes it more specific, I am still hesitant in calling Trump a fascist, since that process can be used to describe any ideology with a bit of tweaking.

  1. Initial creation of X movement, where disillusionment with status quo manifests itself in discussions X's talking points.
  2. Political rooting, where X movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage
  3. Acquisition of power, where a political party seeking to control rising opposition invite X to share power
  4. Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.
  5. Entropy, where the state becomes increasingly radical/authoritarian/progressive/normalized.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you'd be hard pressed to place fascism in the left wing definitively. It would probably be closer to center than anything else, and even then, actual Nazis got their ideology from Italian fascists, who were definitely more right wing and wrote in the fascist manifesto that fascism was the negation of socialism. The defining traits of them aren't any economic policies they claim to hold, it's an ultranationalist nature (often ethnic) and authoritarianism.

And this is not 'anything bad is not on the left'. We can talk about communism all day.

There is more than one aspect to political ideologies.

State capitalism is in direct opposition with socialism (and laissez-faire capitalism) even if it includes government-controlled businesses. China today is an example of state capitalism or corporatism. But from my understanding, fascism had privatization of many key industries in the mid to late 30's when military spending became higher, so I'm not even sure about the claims about their economic policies is really correct.

https://coreyrobin.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/bel-2010-nazi-privatizations1.pdf

Someone may look at anarchism not supporting government and place them on the right wing because the right libertarian types are generally for smaller government, but this is generally incorrect outside of anarcho-capitalists.

Nationalism may be generally right-wing, but there is instances of nationalism slanting more towards individualism - and more commonly separatists or independence supporters. Most people have an idea of nationalism and what they perceive as the opposite, "globalism" as vague concepts that aren't very helpful. The nationalists in my country are most accurately closer to social democrat or center left, and support independence. When ethno-nationalism is involved however, like it is often with fascism, it is almost certainly jingoistic in nature.

That all said, I do believe calling Trump an actual fascist is just detrimental to actually advancing ideas and makes him look like a victim and I wish people would stop doing it.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

I think you'd be hard pressed to place fascism in the left wing definitively. It would probably be closer to center than anything else, and even then, actual Nazis got their ideology from Italian fascists, who were definitely more right wing and wrote in the fascist manifesto that fascism was the negation of socialism. The defining traits of them aren't any economic policies they claim to hold, it's an ultranationalist nature (often ethnic) and authoritarianism.

And this is not 'anything bad is not on the left'. We can talk about communism all day.

I always thought fascism being left wing was prettily widely known as a meme hinging on mister Hitler calling the Nazi's ''National Socialists' in order to con the dumber part of the German electorate. Its the same as North Korea being a ''people's republic'' despite being an obvious dictatorship.

Edited by Etrurian emperor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, XRay said:

While including the process as part of the definition makes it more specific, I am still hesitant in calling Trump a fascist, since that process can be used to describe any ideology with a bit of tweaking.

  1. Initial creation of X movement, where disillusionment with status quo manifests itself in discussions X's talking points.
  2. Political rooting, where X movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage
  3. Acquisition of power, where a political party seeking to control rising opposition invite X to share power
  4. Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.
  5. Entropy, where the state becomes increasingly radical/authoritarian/progressive/normalized.

Certainly any ideology can follow a similar pattern, another example being how socialist ideas are beginning to take root in the Democratic party. That doesn't make it any less true when using it with Paxton's fascism definition above to examine Trump, though.

7 hours ago, Tryhard said:

That all said, I do believe calling Trump an actual fascist is just detrimental to actually advancing ideas and makes him look like a victim and I wish people would stop doing it.

Whether or not he's labeled or publicly called a fascist is less important than anticipating his behavior and preparing/reacting accordingly. It's also important for understanding some of his supporters and influences. Dude will play victim no matter what anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tryhard said:

The defining traits of them aren't any economic policies they claim to hold, it's an ultranationalist nature

Exactly. Throwing around the term "liberal fascism" is like throwing around the term "conservative communism."

No such thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Johann said:

Whether or not he's labeled or publicly called a fascist is less important than anticipating his behavior and preparing/reacting accordingly. It's also important for understanding some of his supporters and influences. Dude will play victim no matter what anyway.

I think it's important to separate Trump the person from Trump the president.  IMO his personality traits are leaking into his policies, but democracy is still somewhat alive (though the fact that the judicial branch couldn't reign in the executive branch regarding that immigrant situation is worrying).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eclipse said:

I think it's important to separate Trump the person from Trump the president.  IMO his personality traits are leaking into his policies, but democracy is still somewhat alive (though the fact that the judicial branch couldn't reign in the executive branch regarding that immigrant situation is worrying).

Leaking into? His personality traits define his policies, or at least the ones he's super vocal about, which are likely the only ones that are actually his own ideas. I'd argue that the difference between Trump the person and Trump the president is infinitesimal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Johann said:

Leaking into? His personality traits define his policies, or at least the ones he's super vocal about, which are likely the only ones that are actually his own ideas. I'd argue that the difference between Trump the person and Trump the president is infinitesimal.

Or the current Republican party happens to align with his personality traits.  But just because he tries, doesn't mean he gets his way all the time, and that's something that must be acknowledged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, eclipse said:

I think it's important to separate Trump the person from Trump the president.  IMO his personality traits are leaking into his policies, but democracy is still somewhat alive (though the fact that the judicial branch couldn't reign in the executive branch regarding that immigrant situation is worrying).

Update on that btw:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/02/border-family-separations-trump-administration-border-patrol/3563990002/

"Laura Belous, advocacy director for the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, the only legal services provider for detained migrants in Arizona, said the number of separated families dropped significantly after the injunction in June – but her office noticed a steep rise in cases again this year."  

"The official government count is at 389 separated families since last summer's injunction, according to data received by the American Civil Liberties Union in court filings. One-fifth of the newly separated children are younger than 5 years old, according to the figures." 

9934b0d4-fcc3-449a-ae70-01f03d858398-050219-v3discharged_children_from_ORR_care_Online_copy_4.png

"Border Patrol agents can separate a family if they decide the adult and child are not really related or if the parent is deemed a danger to the child. The agents use everything from years-old DUIs on an immigrant's record to old theft charges as reasons to separate – not typically offenses that merit a family separation, said Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the ACLU."
 
"After being separated, adults are transferred to detention centers, often run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and children are transferred to 'shelters' operated by HHS."
__________

So yeah....this is still happening...

If you came from one of the "Shithole Countries" and you don't have your papers, Trump will take your kids and put them in illegal prison camps "shelters" to make sure you really understand its not okay to come from a shithole country without your papers.

Can't call the guy a fascist though.  Thats mean and doesn't help you win elections  
:dry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't understand the logic behind why it's bad to blindly label people, then you're not allowed to blindly label people, no matter how well-deserved you think it is.  Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and I will be damned if the word "fascist" gets watered-down and misused because of the narcissist in chief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...