It's important to note how deeply rooted & completely canonical these kooky ideas are in the US far right, & how dangerous it is that a sitting president is giving legitimacy to them. It's like Father Coughlin, the John Birch Society, and Geo Lincoln Rockwell had an orange baby.

Thanks (I think) to @z3dster for bringing this batshit tweet to my attention.
There's a long history of the American center-right and center-left laughing at this kind of stuff. It is indeed laughably ludicrous. But it's important to know that to millions of people, this is their truth. This is how they see the world. And now the President is condoning it.
One hallmark of fascism is that it defines "communism" as its enemy. One can be opposed to communism without being a fascist. But it's impossible to be fascist without being obsessed with the existential (and often hysterically overblown) threat of communism.
Every significant, US variant of fascism has depicted itself as a movement of Christian patriots defending the US from anti-American enemies of Christ. One can be a Christian and/or a patriot without being a fascist, but fascists almost always call themselves Christian patriots.
At the outset the speaker identifies the "goals of the Communist Party" as outlined in Congressional testimony in 1963. What he doesn't mention is that these come from a book written by an American fascist named Cleon Skousen. https://t.co/s6xgMRKuZ7
Skousen was so far right that Goldwater and then the John Birch Society distanced themselves from him. His "ideas" made a big comeback when Glenn Beck mainstreamed them in the late 2000s. https://t.co/PVUf0aeFp7
Another thing to know about Skousen is that he's also been a big influence on Senator Mike Lee and other LDS conservatives. https://t.co/R79ZunWBTa
The guy who made that video is, of course, connected to the far right conspiracy paper The Epoch Times which is owned by Falun Gong. https://t.co/UkWdz1DvNG
TIL that Ben Carson is a Cleon Skousen fan as well. https://t.co/lQbX5zXUa6

More from Seth Cotlar

Historian here, with a message for folks arguing against holding people accountable for the siege of the Capitol because "history will be the judge." We are in this mess, BECAUSE people in the past didn't hold their contemporaries accountable. Please don't repeat that mistake.

Nixon was forced out of office, but he was never held responsible for his egregious actions as President. You'll never guess what sort of precedent and example that set for the future President who most shared Nixon's moral turpitude.


In the 1970s, many "mainstream" media outlets buckled to right wing pressure & lent their platforms to gut bucket racists like James Kilpatrick & Pat Buchanan, rebranding them as "conservatives." We continue to reap the consequences of normalizing racism.


Here's a thread on Pat Buchanan. In the early 90s Charles Krauthammer and Bill Buckley, staunch conservatives both, called Pat a "fascist" and an "antisemite." And yet he still got major media gigs for DECADES.


Trump's career (and that of his family) is overstuffed with acts of white collar crime for which no one ever received more than a tiny fine as a slap on the wrist. Everyone one in NYC knew Trump was a morally bankrupt and corrupt crook. But somehow NBC still made him a star.
Rush Limbaugh will be remembered as one of the most consequential figures in the history of American conservatism, because he reflected and shaped the world view of the post-Reagan GOP base more than any other single person.


Limbaugh is also a good example of how the distinction between “respectable” conservatism and “the more radical fringe” can easily be overstated.


In 1992 George HW Bush had Rush Limbaugh open his final campaign event before Election Day.


Rush descended from a well-off and well-connected family in Missouri, but he played the role of “pissed off Joe Six Pack” really well. He’s a perfect example of “plutocratic populism.”

Limbaugh’s cruel bigotry and aura of aggrieved entitlement was a feature, not a bug. In an era of shifting social mores, Limbaugh gave his listeners permission to be a-holes and be proud about it. He perfected the schtick that would get Trump elected.

More from Politics

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party

You May Also Like

Trending news of The Rock's daughter Simone Johnson's announcing her new Stage Name is breaking our Versus tool because "Wrestling Name" isn't in our database!

Here's the most useful #Factualist comparison pages #Thread 🧵


What is the difference between “pseudonym” and “stage name?”

Pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie stars,” while stage name is “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”

https://t.co/hT5XPkTepy #english #wiki #wikidiff

People also found this comparison helpful:

Alias #versus Stage Name: What’s the difference?

Alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while stage name means “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”

https://t.co/Kf7uVKekMd #Etymology #words

Another common #question:

What is the difference between “alias” and “pseudonym?”

As nouns alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie

Here is a very basic #comparison: "Name versus Stage Name"

As #nouns, the difference is that name means “any nounal word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing,” but stage name means “the pseudonym of an