How can he be a fascist when he's strongly opposed to any increase in state power (PATRIOT Act and the like)?
"Not all, obviously" means that he isn't "quite the fascist" on all, or even most, political issues.
I'm thinking more the fact that he (and American "Libertarianism" in general) represents a rather extreme (if unimportant) backlash against both the established political and social order and against the political Left.
I think the problem here is that when people think of "fascist" they think of militarism, authoritarianism and so on... and while these things were all important features of fascist states, by concentrating just on those things I think that we sometimes miss something more fundamental to the ideology itself, or at least why people supported it.
Perhaps I should have been clearer to minimise offense.
O/c what ever Paul
is, I'm quite sure of one thing that he
isn't a "Classical Liberal". There's nothing liberal about Paul, in any sense of the word.