Tired of having to explain

[Bucky]

20. I see a lot of projection here, but not a lot of analysis of objective fact

Sweeping generalizations about the Other just aren't convincing. Sorry. The Republican Party is not the monolithic ogre you've described. It's a coalition of quite diverse interests. The corporate US Chamber flat-taxers, the evangelical wing, the national security hystericals, the gun nuts, the immigration hyperventalationists, the South Park libertarians, the rabid individualists...

You can't get a single charismatic figure to unite them into a fascistic movement because they're too diverse; they can't be united like that. The coalition would fall apart. The Republican party is hardly lacking for doctrinaire charismatic leaders. But the best of them go into talk radio. They're not interested in power; they're interested in making a buck off the schmucks. That's not fascism; that's charlatanism.

The only things that unite them are (1) Democratic presidents and (2) vague-talking idiots like Reagan and Dubya. They want to be hoodwinked (that's why so many swallowed Romney... and why they found it so easy to spit him back up again undigested after he lost). That's just not the same social or political dynamic as what put the National Socialists in charge of Germany.

Most of what you've described as the nascent fascism in the American right is simply vague generalizations. The human mind is a wonderful instrument designed to seek out patterns, even in a sea of random occurrences. When you look at details you've left off, your generalizations don't add up to a pattern connecting Republicans and Nazis, however. The fact that Nazis used propaganda and scapegoats doesn't mean that all scapegoaters are nazis. The fact that Republicans thing God is on their side doesn't make them Nazi-like. Hitler was pretty aggressively anti-church--he saw Christianity as a doctrine of weakness and as counterweight to the influence of the Party.

You mention a hatred of immigrants, only Germany didn't have many immigrants to hate in the 1930s. I can't think of any successful politician who didn't want to have a strong military, but I think you cherry pick facts if you ignore the anti-militarism of Ron Paul or Wayne LaPierre when you describe all Republicans. Every single politician alive promises "a future where their followers would prosper" but greed (or personal prosperity) was really not a central theme in Hitler's confidence job on the German voters. He played on resentments, not greed. He promised unity and uniformity, not the idolization of absolute individualism that Republicans wank off to.

Your conflation of Nazis and Republicans is based on distortions and historical ignorance. Sorry, no sale. You're not thinking critically. You see Republicans as bad (which they are) and you see Nazis as the ultimate bad (which they were), but then you've glued them together without any historical basis for drawing those conclusions. This is the essence of sloppy thinking.

You want to know about fascism? Read In the Garden of Beasts by Erik Larson. It's an excellent book that describes what life in Germany was like in 1933-34. It's out in paperback now and it's captivating.