Umberto Eco (a survivor of Mussolini’s actual regime) identified this as one of the core traits of Ur-Fascism. Specifically, #8…
The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.… However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.
You will note that Republicans check literally every single box of Umberto Eco’s list.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism
That was my same thought. The enemy is too strong but also too weak?
I am always glad when people share this because whenever I bring it up IRL it seems like nobody else has read it.
We are outnumbered, as usual.
But we also outnumber THEM!
That’s n-
You know yeah okay yes, good point
I think of this every time I see some egregiously fascist behavior on display in the Trump admin getting defended by people who think the left is overreacting. I wish more people knew about this and understood that it’s not some left wing looney saying it, it’s a guy who lived through it and can identify it for what it truly is.
Schrodinger’s energy crisis:
We need to sell public lands for oil extraction since we have an energy crisis!
We need to cancel wind energy and solar facility construction!
True story. Back in 2008 there were two op-ed pieces on the smae page of the Murdoch owned New York Post.
One said that voting for Obama was a waste of time, because he was a centrist neoliberal who’d only serve up milder versions of GOP programs, so you’d be better off with an actual Republican.
The other screamed that he was a radical Socialist who would destroy America.
Same newspaper, same page, no irony
Isn’t this what the opinion page is for?
Not only is it what Op Eds are for, it’s also extremely common practice to have two contrasting views on the same page to give voice to a variety of different opinions.
Complaining about two Op Eds on the same page with different opinions is like complaining that a dictionary has two definitions of two different words on the same page.
Brace yourself for all the “gotcha!” comments from enlightened centrists that don’t understand the core concept of controlled opposition or propaganda.
People nitpicking on the internet?
Un-possible!
Theres nitpicking, and theres just disingenuous horse shit from centrists telling you that ummm actually both sides are the same.
Don’t get me started…
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of an Op Ed?
So, you read what I wrote and concluded that in life I’d only seen one Op-Ed page?
You funny, in a sad way.
Apparently so. You seem surprised that there were two people who had different opinions on the same page in the Op Eds. That’s what Op Eds are.
Again, I ask, are you familiar with the concept of an Op Ed? Or are you just confused that people might have different opinions?
Both opinions agree that you should not vote for Obama, that is the editorial strategy, the different motivations are to capture the whole range of voters.
Nowadays it is even easier to do this, thank to personalized news. They can tell unemployed people that immigrants are stealing all the jobs, while they can tell taxpayers that immigrants are leaving off grants. They can even tell cat lovers that immigrants are eating all the cats.
The idea you are pushing that Op-Eds are a whiteboard for diverse opinions is either innocent or malicious.
Op Eds are obviously influenced by the bias of the newspaper that runs them. But, there’s no need to veer into conspiracy theories just because two of them happen to be anti-Obama for different reasons.
You get funnier and funnier.
Please keep telling me about how much smarter you are than I am.
I’m just letting you prove it yourself.
So, you got nothing?
Too bad, I could always use another laugh.
The rest of us are laughing at you, so you could try that?
Is Doublethink a more adequate term?
Yes. And no.
Yes
Schrodinger’s Canada: we don’t need anything from them, but we’d love to own them anyway.
I just commented to get rid of the 88 count. Smash the fash.
If you’re a trans American upset that you can’t be part of the US military in 2025, what the fuck are you even doing?
Schrodinger’s racism: All non-whites must be deported, but South-African white people must be brought over, granted asylum and protection from “genocide”.
I am white, so there’s no confusion. And no, I’m not saying they don’t deserve help, as the situation in South Africa is pretty bad for them - it’s really just the double standard.
We have a case of schrodinger’s aid trucks too: Gaza has enough aid, according to israel: https://aijac.org.au/fact-sheets/fact-sheet-aid-into-gaza/ “fact sheet”
But also there’s not enough aid because Israel put a ban on it for 12 weeks to stop hamas getting it, but there would be aid if only the aid workers agreed to only distribute in the south of Gaza at four set sites protected by Israeli military. https://www.npr.org/2025/05/11/nx-s1-5395011/israel-new-gaza-aid-plan-us
To be fair, they have a problem with trans women in women’s sports. They don’t have a problem with trans men in men’s sports because they can’t imagine a situation where a trans man could possibly compete with “real” men.
It goes along with their idea that women are weak, so women are weak athletes and women’s sports teams are weak. If you accept that, it’s not a big stretch to think that someone who has gone through puberty as a male will have an automatic huge advantage in every women’s sport because their body has male characteristics.
On the other hand to them, the military is the ultimate in manly activities. Anybody other than a pure, manly man will be at a disadvantage in anything military. That includes trans men, trans women and regular women. Right now the focus is on trans people, but I’m sure they’ll want to kick women out of the military too eventually.
So, if you accept that logic, it makes sense that trans women are too weak for the military, but too strong for women’s sports. There’s no contradiction there.
To be fair
Who are you being fair to?
Not to any particular person, just fair to the truth of the situation. You know, not whacking at straw men.
The truth of the situation is that fascists have no consistency of morality or logic. You don’t need to help them.
You also don’t need to lie about their beliefs. When you do that, it just makes people wonder why you’re lying and why you can’t stick to the truth if your point is so strong.
They have no beliefs. That’s the core characteristic of fascism. Their beliefs change after a millisecond if the strongman says so.
They have beliefs, and if you don’t understand that you can’t understand them. If you don’t understand them you can’t beat them. Sticking your head in the sand or lying to yourself isn’t going to help.
There are fewer trans atheists in college sports than there are kids with measles in Texas. Guess which one they want people to focus on.
Also, what the fuck ever happened to “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? You cannot tell me in good faith that the <gasp> ‘trans threat*’ is so great a crisis of inequity and unfairness that the right wing really gives a damn about that.
*sarcasm, people.
It also goes along with their mentality that trans men are simply poor, defenseless women who have been brainwashed into wanting to become strong, powerful men. And also how trans women must be mentally ill. Because how could anyone not want to be a man? Women who want to be men are understandable but misguided, and men who want to be women are sick and to be both pitied and hated - but especially hated.
doublespeak fr
Now that we’re solidly in the era of alternative facts, all that seems to register is what a politician says in the moment. It’s really depressing to watch both political parties and 99% of voters just shrug their shoulders and go along with the utter stupidity of our political culture, even in full knowledge of its deleterious effects on their own lives.
schrodinger: jeez cmon guys all i did was kill a cat (maybe)
watching trump squirm about how all these Mexican gangs got up to Canada.
It’s being reliant on medication - that’s a problem for any combat role
Like if you are 100% reliant on Adderall in order to function, you cannot be in a combat role.
The problem is that it’s a blanket ban (plus retroactive firing) of all trans people serving in the military, not just an asterisk on serving combat roles.
For non combat roles the exclusion of Trans people is due to military leadership largely hating trans people
funny how the ban isn’t about medication but gender instead. weird how things just coincidentally happen
Yeah, those fascists totally care about the medical aspect and not the fact that they’re trans. Right… /s
Also, not all trans people take meds or surgically transition. Can confirm.
Tell that to the Trans solder that had to return early from a Deployment to get kicked out for doing his job while politically inconvienent.
While I’m very angry at the prejudice within the army, this does seem like an interesting aspect to it I hadn’t heard of before.
But yeah, as someone else said, it sounds like it was not just to combat roles.
Yeah for non combat roles excluding trans people is most likely just due to most of the military leadership hating trans people
All of it is due to hating trans people
