ZephrC said:
You're making a dangerous and sadly common mistake here. You assume that fascism equals racial purity. That's simply not true, however. Fascism only requires a clearly delineated "Us" and "Them" to provide an artificial conflict between.
Certainly racism is a possible source of that delineation. On the other hand, there are other options as well. Which side of an imaginary line you were born on is a pretty common one. Also your deity of choice, or even simply how you choose to worship said deity can be used as a tool by fascists. Even within a group it can come down to something as vague as actions. How you dress, what music you like, who you like to fuck, all these things can be used to group people into "Us" and "Them".
When you're looking for signs of fascism, don't look for similarities to Hitler. Those are easy to pick out and will never gain any kind of foothold again at this point. Look for someone saying that we have to stop "Them". We need to make sacrifices to stop "Them". It's okay to do bad things to "Them". That's when you really need to start worrying.
I fail to see your point. You accuse Bob of having a limited view of fascism as being based on questions of race, and then proceed to list every type of protonormalist archetype which can be used to form an "us v them", with the conclusion being... what?
How does your definition of fascism (which is really a definition of protonormalism, but whatever) conflict with his? Just because a racially diverse group can develop fascist ideas based on something else which unifies them, or because fascist tendencies can rise from what is ostensibly a democratic society (looking at you, republicans), suddenly the notion of fascism based on racial uniformity becomes less valid?
Not trying to be an arse here, just curious about what your point is.