The Union's Manifesto expressed a "plebeian mistrust" of every political party, as well as the bureaucracy and the intelligentsia. The group looked at these as obstacles to "the direct communion between the Tsar and his people". This struck a deep chord with Nicholas II, who also shared the deep belief in re-establishment of autocratic personal rule, as had existed in the Muscovite state of the 1600s. It also stood for the russification of non-Russian citizens.#trump #biden #left #liberal #conservative #gop #usa #canada #eu #europe #russia #history #fascism #liberalism #uk #deutschland #france #italy #urp #czar #unionoftherussianpeope #Союзрусскогонарода #jamesstewartmartin #allhonorablemen ">

Union of the Russian People - Wikipedia

This seems to be close to what Trump stands for.
The article mentions that some consider it an early form of fascism, but it isn't - certainly not the fascism as defined and practised by Mussolini - who gave the word it's modern meaning. (he also called it "Third Way" and "Corporatism").

Fascism is based on a liberal[1] elite - as we saw in the italian and german economies which were turning into cartels and monopolies. Thus the hunt in 1945 in Germany by James Stewart Martin for the archives of the corporations - Krupp, IG Farbe a.s.o. He was sent by Eisenhower, with the express backing of Truman. along with the front line troops to get to the archives before they could be destroyed. He wrote a book - which you can (should) read/download here.

These entrepreneurs were the "good" Nazis - they used forced labour a.s.o. - because they were business people....
Some got sentences - but were released early - and, yes, despite denials, they were the power behind the fascists.... just read the book.

So the idea that one or the other is the lesser evil is binary thinking - whether in North America or Europe we have to get out of this dichotomy.
Liberals, of course, can do marketing better and have always had a greater influence in the media because of sponsoring through their adverts and because the media itself is a liberal business.

They are both right-wing and extreme.

---

[1] liberal means those who have mobile wealth - the middle class, the french revolutionaries, the bourgoisie, entrpreneurs, factories, child labour, sweat shops, importers, exporters, commerce, a.s.o.
The conservative have the immobile wealth - old money - land, buldings, mines agriculture, junkers, landed gentry, plantations, slaves.

The difference were once crass, then became less so - especiaaly when conservatives became libreals - except in name, just as the soeuropean "socialist" parties are 100pc liberal - except in name.

But now the differences are once again becoming crass - the liberal foreign policy is to force the open-door policy on the whole world - globalism is it is's newset manifestation - but it started with th eopium wars, gun boat diplomacy with Japan - "you will trade with us, on our terms, whether you like it or not" - recognise it? Sound familiar?

The conservative foreign policy is protectionism - like the Corn Laws in the UK of the 19th Century.