Okay going to set the greasy coffee aside for the sake of my sanity
Yeah that's 100% coming from a fascist. Unmistakably. Like the notes are full of people saying it's just a bad/annoying opinion and that calling it fascist is way exaggerating and presumptive and misusing a very strong terminology, but fascism has some extremely specific and recognizable beliefs along these lines.
Read How Should We Then Live? by Francis Schaffer. (Please pirate it.) The ideology the author advocates for is fascism, specifically Christofascism. This book is good for learning to recognize fascism because it is silent on most of the topics that would more blatantly identify fascist ideology and mostly talks about art, history, philosophy, and aesthetics. (At least up until the last chapter when he inexplicably launches into a multi page rant about abortion out of left field.) However, if you reason through the implications of the author's conclusions, you easily see what they truly are.
Now, I think Schaffer is oblivious to the fact that he is a fascist, but he is one.
I will summarize the points in the image that are the clearest red flags. A lot of it is nonsensical "grindset" philosophy crap, but some more clearly expresses an ideology.
Of course the first red flag is the idea that there is an objective standard for "good" vs. "bad" art.
Think—is twitter guy claiming good art can be empirically proven with facts? No—his evidences are about your personal experience of the art and the message it seems to have. What twitter guy means by "objective" is "able to be rigidly designated as wrong or right."
What kind of judgment or standard could apply to things as elusive as feelings, internal impressions, and philosophical messages, but still be strict, rigid and immovable? That's right! This is a MORAL judgment of art.
See how easily "morally good" slides itself into things that appear more tangible, like "healthy" or "orderly?" Ultimately, though, fascists (particularly Christofascists) believe that there is no difference and that Orderly and Healthy IS Morally Good.
Let's look at point 11 now— good art aspires to join the canon, whereas bad art attempts to destroy the canon.
What is this "canon?" Think! This expresses the idea of adherence to tradition. "Good" art is in agreement with what is traditionally considered to be good art, whereas art that questions the idea of this "canon," or attempts to exist outside of tradition, is Bad.
Now where do you think this "canon" comes from? What type of cultures and people do you reckon are included in it? When you think of a person that has been called a "great artist," what continent does that person come from? What religion does his art depict? What gender—whoops, I gave it away—
Now look at point 12. "Hints at forgotten values." This expresses the idea that some kind of moral standard that existed in the past has been discarded and we need to return to it.
I don't even need to explain point 15. "Man's divine right" is a million clanging alarm bells by itself, and "terrible duty" is that valorization of struggle that fascists have that makes everything good and worthwhile to them sound like military propaganda describing the military.
See also point 10. "Sweat, tears, struggle." When a fascists thinks something is good, they will describe it like military propaganda describes the military.
