Critical thinking isn't leaving out portions of an ideology to suit your rhetorical needs, which is exactly what you are doing by saying Gavin Newsom (governor of a defacto sanctuary state, bastion on neoliberalism, so on and so forth California) is a fascist. Thats just laughable sorry. I mean you want to go the other way and say he's a dictatorial communist, also laughable, but I'll at least listen to that. Authoritarians aren't always fascist, but fascists are always authoritarian.
Now when Newsom starts barring entry to Cali from other places and placing blame for all his problems on neighboring states, making moves to stratify the social structure between the haves and have nots and stressing some sort of California greatness via merely being "Californian", and lining dissenters against the wall, come get me.
And now you are doing the same to the definition of nationalism, forgetting the part about identifying so much with the idea of what your country is you do so at the detriment of other persons or nations. You can absolutely believe in having a national identity, and borders and such and be patriotic and not say, for example l, fuck those other countries and the people from anywhere but here because they aren't from here, legislate and launch foreign policy initiatives to actively harm those groups and countries. That's nationalism.
I don't think my reading comprehension is the problem here, you can't just explain away facts to use the buzzwords you want.
