First off, I will remind folks that the distinction between "Fascism" and "Communism" was created by propaganda. There was no distinction of importance made by Vladimir Ulyanov and Joseph Dzugashvili (their names before their marriages to Communism) between the followers of Zinoviev, Trotsky, Mussolini, and Hitler. In a Totalitarian world, you are either in or out, and if you are out, then you are to be killed, tortured until you repent, or sent off to an isolation camp where you cannot influence anyone of consequence, or spread your message in any way.
As Orwell described, "enemy" is a fluid description, and may vary according to the actual needs of the State, or according to their perceived need to create an "enemy" around which to rally the forces of hatred and intolerance; to be clear, of the sort Hitler used to rally the Germans around the hatred of the Jews. The same words and same techniques were used against the Kulaks, against the "bourgeois", against the very few Capitalists in a largely agrarian (roughly 90%) society.
And "Fascist" was a great all-purpose word for them to describe fallen disciple Mussolini, who was once one of them, and National Socialist leader Adolph Hitler, but ONLY after he violated his pact with them. Before that, he was a great hero and friend to the Soviet "people" (one must always read "dictators" when describing Communist states, since the actual people are meat for the grinder, nothing more). Then, on a dime, their greatest enemy, which of course he was.
Yes, the Nazis--or their precursors--fought the Spartacists and Bolsheviks in the streets of Berlin. But the Bloods fight the Crips. Does that make one of them good and the other bad? Only if you choose sides. From the sidelines it looks like pointless, nihilistic violence waged by and against morally vacuous men (and the occasional woman) with no moral compass, no sense of genuine purpose, and no vision for an actually better future. The present is always conformity, and nothing in that will ever change, on either side.
Within this context, we need to understand that the word "bourgeois", when used by Communists, is a very thinly veiled code word for "enemy". It is a term of contempt, of derision. It is used to describe someone who has yet to sell their soul to a soul-less enterprise of scheming lunatics, who seek nothing less than the global destruction of human culture. Not its perfection, which is their conceit: its immolation, in a fiery Holocaust of affect and meaning, and sense of purpose that will make Hitler look like an amateur. That is the vision.
They may not intend to kill everyone. I don't think they do, although mass death is certainly a part of the vision. I think they want to torture the minds and bodies of non-conformists until they give up every last vestige of the cultural evolution of the past 100,000 years.
Here is the quote:
"Whereas the left has long attacked bourgeois institutions like family, church and property, fascism has made its peace with all three. It (very wisely) seeks political strategies that call on the organic matter of the social structure and inspire masses of people to rally around the nation as a personified ideal in history, under the leadership of a great and highly accomplished man."
Note that he does not put "bourgeois" in quotation marks, as he would have, in this presumably edited piece, had he intended to distance himself from that sentiment. "Bourgeois" was intended, by Obama, in his guns and religion comment. Both are "bourgeois". Both are challenges to elevating the State to the status of God, which is desirable for the God-less.
And think about what he is saying. Can we not assume he granted Obama the right to speak of "America", and "Americans", despite his patent distaste for both? His objection here is not that Trump is arrogating to himself a right which he, the author, does not feel should never be granted anyone.
What he is implying is that appeals to family, church and property are INHERENTLY fascistic. He is implying that authentic Liberalism isn't Liberal, and that Leftist Sadeism IS what he wants. For the life of him, he does not understand the people who insist on clinging to the things and people and institutions which render their lives comfortable, meaningful, and pleasant.
He doesn't get that, because he was the kid in high school nobody liked, who ate with the kids on the periphery. He doesn't get that, because he has no authentic love in his soul. He doesn't get that, because for him living an authentic, emotionally open life would be hell, and his only true home is abstraction.
These people make me sick. They mean the human race nothing but ill, and they lie about to everyone, including themselves.
Trump may be a fool, but he is saying things which no one else has the balls to say. If you are going to lose anyway, why not go down fighting? Why not try your best? Why not bellow out all the unspoken obvious truths which fear has taught the prudent to keep suppressed?
And these truths are not the blatantly racist sentiments we are told by Leftist propaganda MUST be on the minds of "we the ignorant".
Here is a truth: black people have not participated equally in efforts to raise their overall standard of living.
Here is a truth: Mexicans have a country, called Mexico, and it is not the job of America to rectify all the things they are doing wrong; and it IS the job of America--the people and the government--to help rectify what WE have done wrong, which is completely botch the process of integrating blacks into society, by doing for them things they could have and should have been doing for themselves.
Here is a truth: given a fixed supply of jobs, an increase in job seekers will ALWAYS depress wages.
Here is a truth: if you add enough people to the welfare roles, who take out but do not contribute, eventually the money runs out, even if you increase taxes.
Here is a truth: the White House is occupied by someone who was raised to view the American nation and people as racist criminals who deserved punishment. He was voted for by blacks, who assumed he gave a shit, but he didn't and he doesn't, and he never will. He will drop his "g's" when speaking to black audiences, but the fact that black poverty has doubled under his reign does not faze him in the slightest. It's not even on his top ten list of priorities. Hell: it's probably not even on the list. They probably just decide from time to time to sprinkle some goodies on black neighborhoods, and particularly just before election time. It's been good enough in the past, why not in the future?
Here is a truth: the entire project of the Left is built on destructive lies, and if enough people would just grow the balls to shout this truth from the rooftops, at some point, the whole illusion will burst like the delusional bubble reality it is.
Edit: I looked up the author, and his self conceit is apparently somewhat Libertarian: http://fee.org/people/detail/jeffrey-a-tucker
So I have to conclude he is simply stupid, because this article is asinine. If I, as someone who reads the news and studies these topics relentlessly, cannot get to his actual point, neither, apparently, can he. He doesn't like Trump. Fine. Who the fuck do you like, and how exactly do you propose that person get news coverage without making waves?
I like Rand Paul, but he is being avoided and rejected by pretty much every Establishment there is. Given this, what is the danger of Trump? That we might lose the election? If we put anyone but Paul (and possibly one or two others) in there, we will in any event.
Trump is providing a needed service, not by conjuring up jingoism, but by speaking truths that in any other country would be commonplace and obvious. Mexicans don't allow illegal immigrants. Why do we?