@Kofi 's definition is a good and meaningful one, but of the type I already said was too narrow to be useful to anyone but historians.

Stripping away historical context, which is ultimately trivia; the negations, which define what fascism was reacting against rather than what it actually is; mere observations about the behaviour of fascist states in practice - suppression of dissent is inevitable in any authoritarian and particularly collectivist society, and not unique to fascism or in any way one of its core ideals; its arbitrary and debatable place on the political spectrum; and assuming that it is in fact useful to use the term fascist outside the very limited area of italian political history - you're left with a definition very like mine:

Fascism is a radical political ideal defined by its emphasis on social unity, nationalism and authoritarian leadership.

This is almost exactly the method I used to arrive at my definition in the first place. So; Nationalism, Collectivism, Authoritarianism (inward aggression). To that I've added Militarism (outward aggression) and Stupidity (we could say anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism, but we're avoiding negation and Stupidity is anyway genuinely more relevant - fascists are proudly and unapologetically stupid).

Do we like this definition? I say it applies to Obama, his two predecessors, and all of their contemporary peers.

I'm interested if Gorillaman thinks that George W. Bush was a fascist as well.

In fact, by your definition GM every American president has been fascist even before fascism existed.

Without common referents language fails to be useful. You can be arguing about something based upon significant differences in definition without knowing it. So, while GM has failed to address the dictionary definition on the basis that it does not show enough effort I will now present a definition of fascism that is accepted amoung historians and political scientists alike. With this Gorillaman can amend has he sees fit but must acknowledge the consequences of agreeing upon a universalisable definition insofar as they apply to anyone else who is or has been in a position akin to the POTUS.

Fascism.
The Fascist party was formed in Italy in the wake of World War 1. It was an ultra-right radical political ideal defined by its emphasis on social unity, nationalism (regardless of race in its initial incarnation) and authoritarian leadership. It was characterised by its violent and brutal oppression of opposition parties and voices of dissent and its anti-liberal, anti-communist and anti-intellectualism. Nazism is fascistic but not fascist. Franco's Spain was more in line with fascism. It is often debated in academic literature whether it is useful to even use the term fascist outside of the Fascist party of Italy of the interwar period.

There you go Gorillaman. You now have a definition of fascism from a bonafide political science grad student. Now please indicate how this applies to Obama and, out of interest, how it does or does not apply to the last 3 presidents of the U.S.A. or any leader in a liberal-democratic nation.

Edit:
P.S. Dictionary definitions are used very frequently in scholarly writing. Wikipedia is another matter.

My country has a long history of anti-intellectualism, but I don't think that Asimov's quote applies here, "our" reasons are different. I would believe it of the States though, despite my acute lack of either first hand knowledge or American studies... Hmm... am on shaky ground here
In reply to this comment by Trancecoach:
He's one of my very favorite orators... Always inspiring.

BTW, this particular clip reminded me of the famous quote from Isaac Asimov:

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

>> ^oritteropo:

That was rather entertaining. It didn't go in the direction I expected, and was far better for it... of course if I'd looked at the related videos section first I probably would've remembered who he was and would've been less apprehensive.

He's one of my very favorite orators... Always inspiring.

BTW, this particular clip reminded me of the famous quote from Isaac Asimov:

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

>> ^oritteropo:

That was rather entertaining. It didn't go in the direction I expected, and was far better for it... of course if I'd looked at the related videos section first I probably would've remembered who he was and would've been less apprehensive.

But -- but-- what about my point about evolution? Do you think I am talking through my hat, or do you think I might have a point?

This is coded into our DNA. Our brain structure.

Some of us evolved to be anti-intellectual.

Yes? No?

>> ^chilaxe:

@Jinx
I hate to interrupt your anti-intellectual parade and your lack of real facts or non-ignorant assertions, but have you heard of this great new site called Google.com?
Google search: muslim welfare rate europe OR britain OR sweden

Haha, anti-intellectual.

I was taking issue with your "once Europe is majority Muslim". I've read tripe like that before in a paper...what was it called again. Oh yah. The Daily Mail. Or was it The Sun. I forget.

Heres something for you to mull over: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1542427/One-third-of-homes-dependent-on-benefits.html
Oh, and before you say the majority of that 1/3 are Muslim consider that the 2001 census shows that only 2.7% of the UK is Muslim. Somewhat less than the 15.5% who identify as "no religion", but I don't see anybody expecting them to "take over Europe". So ok, 40%>33%, but its hardly the case that Islam is climbin in our windows and snatchin our welfares up. Its much the same story in the rest of Europe. Edumacate yourself thx.

Ps. I hate Islam, I just hate this distortion of reality more.

>> ^chilaxe:
@Jinx
I hate to interrupt your anti-intellectual parade and your lack of real facts or even non-ignorant assertions, but have you heard of this great new site called Google.com?
Google search: muslim welfare rate europe OR britain


Without wanting to be the second person to invoke your wrath, any chance you could link to specific articles instead of a link to the Google home page please? Preferably From sources within the EU or the UK, thankyouverymuch

@Jinx

I hate to interrupt your anti-intellectual parade and your lack of real facts or non-ignorant assertions, but have you heard of this great new site called Google.com?

Google search: muslim welfare rate europe OR britain OR sweden

Or anybody that has any background in Science really. Anti-intellectual buffoons. Even when they've dragged us all back to the dark ages they'll find a way to blame it on the gays.

@Lawdeedaw he's a lot more rude and blunt than me, and I'm definitely a million times more delicate when talking about abortion, but the actual core of what he was trying to say, I agree with.

To strip away the rudeness and hyperbole, what he said about abortion is "life" is all over the place, and we don't mind killing bacteria, insects, or even large mammals without even batting an eye. We don't seem to have any concern about killing sperm or eggs, despite their "potential" to become people either. Why should it change instantly once they're combined? It's still just a potential person and not an actual person for at least some period of time after conception.

The other point he made about abortion is that there's more to the question to consider beyond what the foetus is, there's also the consideration of what "banning abortion" would mean -- the state forcing women to carry to term pregnancies against their will. Even if you decide that's morally necessary, there's a huge array of practical implications that follow from that that the pro-life side really just handwaves away as if they're not cogent.

And with the miscarriage thing, honestly, now you really are just making straw man attacks. He's not saying mothers can't be upset if they lose unborn children, he's saying it's none of anyone else's business if she decides she wants to lose it...

But mostly what I meant by "I agree with every word" was the overall argument about how this whole thing about Ron Paul is a cult. Ron Paul isn't some savior, he's just a guy. Worse, he's a politician. Worse still, he's a Texas Republican. There's some things he says liberals might like, but most of his ideology a screaming horror of bugfuck insanity that we definitely don't want to help him implement.

As for this:

[I]f your party is arguing about stupid bullshit with itself other while the other party leads this country to its demise, are not the “intellectuals” the dumber group because the should know better?

This is a topic of conversation that comes up often on the left.

But the problem is, we then argue about what we should unify around. Me, I say hash our divisions out in Democratic primaries, then stand foursquare behind the Democrat, no matter who he or she might be. Others bitch and whine and moan about the insufficiency of Democrats and argue that we should be constantly attacking Democrats, in order to try to send a message to them (and this will somehow sway lots of people to vote Democratic because something something Overton Window).

So even on this, we're divided.

Oh, and you wanna be careful with anti-intellectual ideas like "if you're so smart, why can't you all just stop thinking for yourselves and unite behind a misguided idea like those unthinking zombies on the right?"

One doesn't have to be smart to drown out everyone else in a conversation, you just need to be louder and completely unselfconscious about telling people comforting lies.

Hear hear!

>> ^petpeeved:

The fake intellectualism of a true hipster is annoying but I think the bigger threat to America by far is the pervasive anti-intellectualism that dominates the cultural landscape.

The fake intellectualism of a true hipster is annoying but I think the bigger threat to America by far is the pervasive anti-intellectualism that dominates the cultural landscape.

@dystopianfuturetoday

"Teaching not difficult or stressful? ... If you don't bring your "A" game, you will be eaten alive by students, administrators and parents (in that order)."

You've got to be kidding to me. How low-human-potential do you have to be to find STUDENTS, hapless school administrators, and idiot parents with a fraction of your intelligence intimidating?

"Let's be honest, this 'good intellectual debate' is neither good nor intellectual, and it's hardly even a debate."

So you're saying liberals are generally anti-intellectuals who dislike open discourse. Fair enough.


*Update* Please downvote this comment if you're intellectually petty.

This has a lot to do with what is happening in this country. It's a charade, on one hand you have these bizarre christian fundamentalists who say they want "small government" when actually they want to control the lives of Americans through their own personal agendas. Then you have corporations who seek to control the masses through lobbyists so you keep buying their products.

It's relevant because in many public schools they eat subsidized corporate garbage. Some schools have corporate advertising. The school's have PTO's run by a bunch of garbage eating, fundamentalist christians and everyone wants control of some personal agenda & crusade and enforce it on everyone else. Teachers are supposed to be knowledgeable about their topics, fuck your stupid standard curriculum syllabus and let them teach kids the best way they can. Stop making America sterile!

What the hell happened to this country, why does everything have to be controlled and why can't we just listen to one another, argue if need be. Maybe, just maybe I am wrong, maybe you're wrong but hopefully one of us fucking learns something. And if I am wrong I'll admit it, I won't go on some anti-intellectual crusade and try to obscure FACTS. This country needs to relearn what is necessary/unnecessary to control.

Teachers should be paid well. The irony is I went to a private school for Junior High & some high school. All the kids were rich spoiled brats, some of them had lambos & Vipers... the teachers were the best I ever had. But, I could make as much as those teachers working at fucking Kinkos. It's hilarious to think that that really is the way America works. My parents spent 10k a year & those teachers were paid less than 30k/yr. Sure, it was a "better" environment than a public school for those teachers - but their whole objective was to get these brats into Princeton. Oh, but we don't want democratic laws & regulations to tell us how we should run businesses & schools... please.