The term fascism is a hot button word these days.   It should be.   Fascism traditionally has been a very dangerous and bad thing.   We also have organizations such as Antifa around the world which is short for Anti-Fascists.   They claim to be fighting against fascism.    I don't think they are.   Their actions combined with what fascism actually is show them to be like a mentally controlled mercenary army FOR fascism.    Yet that is my current opinion based upon my observations and knowledge of fascism.    You don't have to agree with me, or anyone else.

What is fascism?

As with anything you can find many definitions because let's face it a dictionary is composed by a human or group of humans.   They get to foist their opinion of what something means.   It should be no surprise that definitions while usually being somewhat close tend to differ from dictionary to dictionary.   They are assembled by other groups of humans.   Yet there is a logical fallacy embedded in someone who thumps people with dictionary definitions as their proof they won an argument.   It is called an argument from authority fallacy.   It assumes that the humans (*you're a human too right?*) that assembled that dictionary has some authority that you don't to dictate what words mean.

Truth.  They don't.   Unless you blindly give it to them.

Now this could lead you down the path that then no words mean anything and they can all shift subjectively.   Technically this could be true, yet it would cause the break down of communication.   In reality we should have a probability of understanding the intended meaning of a word.   We should not lock it into stone as we are not mind readers and we cannot know from one person to the next what their meaning of that word is.   Thus, with most things we can only work with probabilities.  So why am I saying this?   Simple.  The people who make dictionaries are not Gods.  Don't forget that.   They are human like you.   Writing it into a book does not mean they were correct.

Okay then why use dictionaries?  Dictionaries are useful for learning what a word is you heard and have no clue what the meaning is.   They have no authority on the other hand to force you to agree with their meaning if you are already familiar with the word.

With that said.   What is fascism?   I'll give you some definitions from a few dictionaries just to get it out of the way.   This is also why I gave you my opinion/understanding about dictionaries before thumping you with dictionaries like that is proof of anything.

![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmVcjjxK5BmoyYhFE2SmpCQBeRgpokhoEhFXVG3SzkHyB1/image.png)
<h3>Dictionary.com</h3>
<ol>
<li> ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. </li>
<li> ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism. </li>
<li> ( initial capital letter ) a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.</li>
</ol>

That is a good example of why not to trust dictionaries.   That definition is weak and doesn't really define fascism.   It is more a tweak to try to make it fit how a lot of people seem to be treating it these days.   Yet it doesn't really define what fascism really is.  No surprise.   Let's see what else I can find.


![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmaAqvfyuqCx2u4rcXDxKY4DcY3SsDcoVtF4dcCX9JuPj5/image.png)
<h3>www.merriam-webster.com</h3>
<ol>
<li>often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition </li>
<li>a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality</li>
</ol>

Again.  They didn't actually define it.   They focus on dictatorship, yet there is a reason the word dictatorship exists.   Fascism and Dictatorship are not synonyms though these modern dictionaries are treating them like they are.   No surprise as what they are doing fits the narrative and the propaganda that is being used with the label these days.   If people were to only use such sources it is also no surprise they would end up being the actual fascists without realizing it.   The definition is incomplete and misleading.    Can I go further?  Sure. Let's try one more online before I start looking for older physical dictionaries.

![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmXH9eTBy8ira2GgkK9ytbLtMKKk4R6xtVsHCBXK4AyZ7b/image.png)
<h3>dictionary.cambridge.org</h3>
<ol>
<li>a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control, and being extremely proud of country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed</li>
</ol>

>This year's history syllabus covers the rise of Fascism in Europe.
>Fascism develops from right-wing extremism, supported traditionally by the middle classes, in contrast to Communism.

In lock step with the others.  Notice the "*right-wing extremism*" comment in the example?  Clue.   Right-wing extremism wasn't a thing when fascism was invented as a term...    These dictionaries also did not use to define it this way.

Why change it?  Note the last four words of that example "*in contrast to Communism*".   One of the things popular in something known as cultural Marxism is to redefine words to their advantage to paint the narrative desired.   I usually call this word hijacking.   Why would you want to do this?  Most of us think in words.   Change the meaning of words, change our minds.   It is about control.

Now I want to go wander around the house and see if I can find a physical dictionary.  I own several, though I haven't had to crack one of them open for quite some time.

<h3>Webster's New World Dictionary</h3>
***1973***
<ol>
<li>rods bound about an axe, ancient.  Roman symbol of authority.</li>
<li>a system of government characterized by dictatorship, belligerent nationalism and racism, militarism, etc.: first instituted in Italy (1922-1943)</li>
</ol>

Now I have to do something that I am willing to do.  I must acknowledge that if that is from 1973 then this definition predates the typical cultural Marxism by some degree.   Thus, I must acknowledge some of the foundation upon which I argue is shaky.    Yet not all is lost.    I note that it doesn't really tell you what fascism is either.   You see dictatorships and all of those things existed before fascism.  Fascism has some traits that make it more than a dictatorship.   In fact the Socialist Nazi party and Hitler practiced Fascism.   It was this Fascism and a few tweaks that made them differ from Stalin and the Communist Soviet Union.   In many respects they were similar other than these differences.

I will go into what I had been taught over decades that Fascism meant, but first I want to see if I can find any place that provides this detail without showing my hand.

<a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism">Britannica.com</a> - Some decent information and history.

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism">Wikipedia - Corporatism</a> - Specifically the section labeled Fascist corporatism begins to touch on a trait that I always saw as common in fascism.

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism">Wikipedia - Economics of Fascism</a>

>Fascists opposed both international socialism and free market capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third position. They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism.[12] They favored corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and social hierarchy was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists),[13][14] while also arguing that the state had a role in mediating relations between classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists).[15]

That is closer to what history seemed to show.  In all cases I could find there was a great deal of what we call crony capitalism these days.   Favored corporations and the government would work hand in hand to mutual benefit.   Ultimately the corporations answered to the government, but they worked so closely with the government that in many respects they became arms of the government.   This is sometimes called corporatism.     Many so-called socialist movements have ultimately gone this route.   People would argue they are not socialist, yet that is what they often called themselves at a time such concepts were new.   Does that mean they were?   It is easy to hide behind a label, especially one that is hijacked to support a narrative.   Yet since socialism was new perhaps they were...

Afterall what are the avowed socialists typically pushing for in our world today.

More and more government control over everything.   Offer you free education yet at the same time narrowing your choices of the education you can pursue to favored entities (*corporations*).   Offer you free healthcare at the same time empowering select health ***insurance*** middlemen (*corporations*) your business and removing your choice.  No surprise when prices skyrocket as any natural market competition is removed in the collusion between corporation and government.   Speak about how tolerant, wonderful, and advanced they are and how they have the solutions to the worlds ill while simultaneously relegating segments they find undesireable to obscurity, censorship, poverty, and in some cases death camps.   Speaking of tolerance while being intolerant.

If we take a look at historical examples of fascism you'll find corporations bending over backwards to work with them to benefit from it.   A well placed corporation within a socialist (*and yes even communist*) nation can become the ultimate form of monopoly.   A government sanctioned monopoly.

One thing that makes me think of this a lot is with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her "Green New Deal" and speaking of ***Public Private Partnerships***.

That simple phrase ***Public Private Partnership*** should scream "fascism" to anyone that has studied it.   The melding of government with private corporations is that phrase in action.

Now here is an idea...

Which is fascism?
<ol>
<li>A corporation is deemed too big to fail and is propped up by government.</li>
<li>A businessman cannot pay his bills, must declare bankruptcy, and/or sell assets.   Likely will close down.</li>
</ol>

In my mind.  The answer is ***1***.

Which is fascism?
<ol>
<li>Corporations suddenly have the right to censor the speech of people, and are allowed to only allow ideas and concepts they agree with to exist, even though they have often referred to themselves as a public square.</li>
<li>A person asks someone to leave their house who is saying things they don't want to hear.</li>
</ol>

In my mind.  The answer is again ***1***.

Which is fascism?
<ol>
<li>Receiving pay through the corporations owned by a person actively attempting to overthrow and influence not one, but multiple governments, while silencing and attacking those who try to speak against it.  Acting as an intimidation force and agency to apply force against the opponents of the corporate interests paying them.   Receiving material free of charge from these agencies to use as propaganda. Using violence if necessary.   Largely being ignored for such actions by government and corporate (<em>again fascism</em>) controlled media, who instead focuses on the same targets being attacked.</li>
<li>A group of people challenging corporate, government, or corporate media narrative.</li>
</ol>

This to me is easy.   I'd say ***1*** again, and I personally believe that describes the modern day Antifa.   The movement may have been legit when it started.   Much like the tea party was hijacked is is highly likely that Antifa was also long ago hijacked.

Another historical thing of past Fascists like Hitler and Mussolini.   They were charismatic and their word was taken as gospel by many of those that followed them.   They were trained to treat anyone that challenged these ideas as heretics.   In fact, there was quite a lot of propaganda at play specifically designed to ridicule and destroy challengers.

That propaganda was but an infant compared to what we have today.

I didn't vote for Trump.  I probably would now, but lately he has been giving in when he should have kept fighting.   I do not consider him controlled opposition.   I did not vote for him simply because I had no idea how he would do.   If I had been forced to vote between him and Hillary I would have voted for him.

I've been impressed with what he has accomplished considering the unprecedented onslaught he has been under.   That onslaught which largely is lies and propaganda has turned me from someone who was not a Trump supporter, into someone that at the moment is such.   Again, I didn't vote for him.

I've never been a fan of peer pressure.   I am likewise no fan of propaganda and the news, media, and celebrities telling me what I must do or I am a bad person.    I tend to push back against both peer pressure and propaganda.

I will admit I never thought the peer pressure would ever get this bad, or the propaganda.    There is a large air of injustice and no accountability for some very bad actors and it is and has been spreading globally.   It is like a huge fire.   Some are trying to fight the fire.   Others are simply piling on the gas, or sitting at their table drinking a beer as they stare into the light of the screen.

What is there to do?

One thing we can do is fight back against the hijacking of the words, the censoring of history, and shout loudly that we will not give up free speech.   We'll fight for your right to speak, even if we despise what you say.

You see.  I am not calling for the silencing of ANYONE, or ANY SUBJECT.

I'll meet them with my own words and thoughts, but I'll never say they shouldn't be allowed to speak no matter how much I dislike what they may say.

That is the difference.

Who on the so-called right is calling for the censorship of people on the left?

I haven't been seeing it.

Yet look at the left (*the so-called tolerant liberal left*) and you'll not only find swathes of demands for it, you'll find them actually taking action and doing it.

Deplatforming, pressuring banks not to allow people they disagree with to even have a bank account.   I doubt many people think how that can literally lead to starvation, health, and other problems if they cannot have money to pay for things.   Or perhaps they do, and like the fascist Nazis (*National Socialist German Worker's Party*) they have dehumanized certain groups of people so much that in their mind it is okay if they die.   As with eugenics movements this is the same.   No need to use concentration camps.   Simply remove their ability to speak, to be heard, or to receive payment or make payment for food, shelter, etc.    No need for gas chambers.   Let them rot on the streets.   No need for more public utilities and shelters.   Simply pass laws to say it is okay for them to defecate and urinate on the streets and sidewalks.   No need to bring back wagons to clean the defecation from the streets from the old days, simply leave it be and allow the spreading of diseases to kill them off quickly.   All the while virtue signalling about tolerance, saving the world, and being pro-choice.   When in reality the only thing they are pro-choice about is the right for someone to kill their child.   I can say this now as much of this has now moved to post birth.   I am a Deist.   I have no religious reasons for being pro-life.   In fact I've mostly considered myself pro-choice.   Though this has gone long beyond simply a clump of cells argument.  It now is legalized murder.   I am not pro-choice on that.

I do like maximizing CHOICE.  I believe in voluntarism.   In reality I am more pro-choice than the virtue signalling left, pseudo-liberal, etc.   For I believe you should have the right to choose on anything as long as you are not harming someone else or infringing upon their rights/property.  For them Pro-Choice is only about one choice.   Whether they can kill a baby or not.   That is limited.   I am pro-choice on everything.   Yet aborting a child.   I haven't ever been a "life begins as conception" person.   For me it is about awareness.   When is the child aware of itself?  When can it feel and react to pain?    Unless there is a life threatening reason (*not including mental state*) I do not support abortion.   I do not support endorsing irresponsible action.   "*Birth control, being careful, who needs it?  I have planned parenthood to cover my abortion.  Trust me I've had several.*"    Irresponsible.  Vile.  Immature.  Lazy.    For me I have been pro-choice with that concept but I always viewed it as something within the first trimester.   I've never been pro-murder which I think is the case after that time.   I'd like a study on awareness (*there have been some with varied outcomes*) and for me the results of a scientific study of that type should dictate when pro-choice is no longer viable as it is terminating someone elses life.   Sure it may be carried in your body, yet you could have acted sooner to end it, and you could have been more responsible and less casual.   If you can't accept the responsibility for your own actions then you shouldn't be having sex.   If you were raped, or something of that nature.   You can still do something in that first trimester.  Just don't make me pay for it.    If your health is truly in danger (*not mental*) then an exception may need to be made.   It is called an exception for a reason.   When it becomes the norm, then it is no longer an exception.

Wow... that post took a direction I didn't expect.   Yet I see these things as the actions of those that are most acting like the minions of past Fascists acted.   Accept the dehumanization of others and then you can justify attacking and killing them, be they people that disagree with you, or unwanted children.