lol, ok. I'm not really sure what communism has to do with anything here, but communist governments in history have tended to be totalitarian. That gives it something in common with fascism, but doesn't mean they're the same thing. Nation states based on communist ideology without a totallitarian government are usually called socialist instead. You could read about communism and fascism yourself to understand the distinction.

Fascism usually begets a dictator but doesn't require the dictator to take power entirely by force or any particular way. And I did say the US was on its way to fascism, not there yet.

I also specifically referenced a certain definition of fascism through Umberto Eco. Here are the features of fascism as written about by Eco that I think we're already seeing in the US:

• fear of difference, the appeal against intruders and the use of outsiders as a common enemy to unite the nation against
• constantly harping on plots and schemes by the enemy, and that the enemy has humiliated the people of the nation
• a leader using simple sentences with a poverty of vocabulary
• displays of machismo, and disdain for women and non-heterosexuals
• valuing action for action's sake and devaluing thinking as an emasculating thing to waste time on, distrust of intellectuals
• making disagreement a kind of treason or at least taboo (eg: gag orders)
• appeal to social frustrations, particularly of the middle class, and again bringing that enemy into focus to blame those frustrations on
• selective populism, which Eco even specifically says could eventually come about through the internet "in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People."
• contempt for the weak and for pacifism (at least against the all-important enemy)
• being ostensibly against corrupt parliamentary government as a pretext to then overthrow that model of governance

In his conclusion he points out:

It would be so much easier, for us, if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, “I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Black Shirts to parade again in the Italian squares.” Life is not that simple.

The "alt-right" has very successfully launched a comeback that isn't aimed at their usual demographic of alienated loners, but has managed to be more trendy, to push a rather ironic image of rationality and critical thought, while depicting the left as "cucks" and other misogynistic insults. As a result, many people claiming to be proponents of free speech have voted in a man who has issued gag orders in his first week in power and not said a word about the contradiction there, someone claiming to intend to "drain the swamp", but showing blatant nepotism and cronyism in his own dealings. They could not get to this point of "selective populism" if they continued on their usual StormFront branding. So riding a wave of hysteria over Islamic terrorism and bitterness over the GFC, they've cleaned up their image, gathered a much bigger following, but still have the same goals in mind.

What I'm proposing is not terrorism at all. I think as the Trump administration dismantles the executive and judicial branches of government, and as civil and human rights are violated, there should be push back, and it would be naive to think that all this will go down peacefully on either side. Trump has not been elected God - he's been elected to office with a very specific mandate and set of limitations, and when he exceeds those limitations, it is entirely democratic for people to fight back.