Category: Political Theory

What Happened To The Republican Party?

A very good and regular reader and commenter here on IST, Judy at https://judyt8630.wordpress.com/, she and I have been having a back and forth about the Republican Party and this is just an extension to that conversation.

When I was young I helped my grandfather with his efforts to get out the vote of Ike and the GOP…..those were the days when the GOP was truly a party of the people.

Their platform for that national election was something to be proud of…..

The individual is of supreme importance.

The spirit of our people is the strength of our nation.

America does not prosper unless all Americans prosper.

Government must have a heart as well as a head.

Courage in principle, cooperation in practice make freedom positive.

To stay free, we must stay strong.

Read what the GOP stood for in that election…..https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1956

Like I said it was a platform that every American could be proud of and vote for.

But then in 1960 everything started changing with in the the party….after 65 years of BS it has become the party of today…..so what the Hell happened?

This video is an interview with an ex-Congressperson on what has happened….

The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie goes deep with the artists, activists, entrepreneurs, policymakers, and visionaries who are making the world more libertarian—or at least more interesting—by challenging worn-out ideas and orthodoxies.

Today’s guest is Jeff Flake, former Arizona senator and U.S. ambassador to Turkey, and now head of the brand-new Institute of Politics at Arizona State University. Flake made national headlines in 2017 when he delivered a searing Senate floor speech announcing he would not seek reelection and declaring he would not be complicit in the “degradation of our politics” under Donald Trump and MAGA.

This is an article in Mother Jones….

In May, during an Aspen Institute conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the audience, “I want the Republican Party to take back the party, take it back to where you were when you cared about a woman’s right to choose, you cared about the environment…This country needs a strong Republican Party. And we do. Not a cult. But a strong Republican Party.” Her comments echoed a sentiment that Joe Biden had expressed during the 2020 campaign: If Donald Trump were out of the White House, the GOP would return to normal and be amenable to forging deals and legislative compromises.

Both Pelosi and Biden have bolstered the notion that the current GOP, with its cultlike embrace of Trump and his Big Lie, and its acceptance of the fringiest players, is a break from the past. But was the GOP’s complete surrender to Trumpism an aberration? Or was the party long sliding toward this point? About a year ago, I set out to explore the history of the Republican Party, with this question in mind. What I found was not an exception, but a pattern. Since the 1950s, the GOP has repeatedly mined fear, resentment, prejudice, and grievance and played to extremist forces so the party could win elections. Trump assembling white supremacists, neo-Nazis, Christian nationalists, QAnoners, and others who formed a violent terrorist mob on January 6 is only the most flagrant manifestation of the tried-and-true GOP tactic to court kooks and bigots. It’s an ugly and shameful history that has led the Party of Lincoln, founded in 1854 to oppose the extension of slavery, to the Party of Trump, which capitalizes on racism and assaults democracy.

It Didn’t Start with Trump: The Decades-Long Saga of How the GOP Went Crazy

Just a few attempts to try and illustrate what has gone wrong with the GOP…..

What we know as traditional republicanism may be dead and gone and we can thank no other than Little Donny D-Nothing and his band of goons.

Any Thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The “Communist” Comes To Town

Today is the big day….the new mayor of NYC comes to DC to meet with Donny-Do-Little…..if you recall shortly after he was elected Donny demanded that he ‘be nice’ (seriously the most rude and insulting person in government demands others ‘be nice’….he is hilarious)

President Trump said late Wednesday that the long-awaited meeting with New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani would happen in Washington later this week, setting up an in-person clash between the political polar opposites who for months have antagonized each other from afar, the AP reports. The sit-down, which Trump said on social media would take place Friday in the Oval Office, could possibly represent a detente of sorts between the Republican president and Democratic rising star, as Trump has since Mamdani’s win moved toward acceptance of Mamdani’s central, winning campaign issue of affordability. Calling Mamdani by his full name—and putting the mayor-elect’s middle name of Kwame in quotation marks—Trump posted Wednesday night that Mamdani had asked for the meeting, promising “Further details to follow!”

The day before his visit that idiot press secretary, Leavitt, has stated for the record that Mamdani is a communist and he will come to town…

Geez you people are idiots!

I have explained this numerous times and idiots keep scratching their ass and repeating bullshit….one more time for the morons out there…

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) was formed in 1982 as a bridge between capitalism and socialism….it is neither socialism or communism….is that simple enough?

Experts, however, contend that the DSA’s platform is far removed from the socialism seen in the Soviet Union or Cuba, and in fact, they argue it actually aims to build off America’s Democratic principles.

“Communists want to do away with capitalism altogether. They don’t want any private enterprise. They don’t want any private means of production. And they want a whole world run by people like that,” Michael Kazin, a history professor at Georgetown University, told ABC News. “Democratic socialists are willing to have themselves voted out of power. They believe that once you have a democratic socialist society, people will like that society, but if they don’t want to keep it, then they can go back to a more capitalist society.”

(abcnews.com)

Is that clear now?

So after years of LYING to the public who is afraid of those democratic socialists?

Apparently not many any more…..for years now the DSA has been making headway into the government of the cities, states and nationally….so apparently only morons are afraid.

They are reforming the DNC…..which has needed reforming since the 1990s….but will they succeed?

In conclusion these people are NOT communists or even a true socialist….learn what you are talking about or STFU.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Those Bastards On The Far Left

Many of the mindless drones on the Right are spouting lots of crap about all those on the far Left…..especially those dolts in the Donny Praise Society unknown as the Cabinet and especially that idiot number 2, Vance…..

His latest statement is a typical of a mindless regurgitation….

Vice President JD Vance hosted an episode of The Charlie Kirk Show from the White House on Monday, and his guests included White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who said the killing of the show’s namesake will lead to a crackdown on leftist groups that he described as a domestic terror movement. “With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people,” Miller said. Vance said the White House would “work to dismantle the institutions that promote violence and terrorism in our own country.”

  • “The organized doxxing campaigns, the organized riots, the organized street violence, the organized campaigns of dehumanization, vilification, posting people’s addresses, combining that with messaging that’s designed to trigger and incite violence and the actual organized cells that carry out and facilitate the violence,” Miller said. “It is a vast domestic terror movement.” He said the crackdown would happen “in Charlie’s name.”
  • Vance opened the show by saying he was “filling in for somebody who cannot be filled in for, but I’ll do my best,” the AP reports. He said Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, told him the 31-year-old was never “cross or mean-spirited” to her. “I took from that moment that I needed to be a better husband and I needed to be a better father,” Vance said. “That is the way I’m going to honor my friend.”
  • Later in the show, Vance said that he was “desperate” for national unity, but that there can be “no unity with the people who celebrate Charlie Kirk’s assassination.” “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out,” he said, per NBC News. “And, hell, call their employer. We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility, and there is no civility in the celebration of political assassination.”
  • “This is not a both-sides problem,” Vance said. “While our side of the aisle certainly has its crazies, it is a statistical fact that most of the lunatics in American politics today are proud members of the far left.”
  • Vance’s other guests included Tucker Carlson, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. Kennedy described Kirk as a “spiritual soulmate” who “orchestrated” his endorsement of Trump last year at an Arizona rally organized by Kirk’s Turning Point USA group, the Guardian reports.

As someone who has been on thee Left most of my adult life would you please tell me who these ‘extremists’ are?

They have no f**king idea who they are it is just red meat for those worthless spineless supporters to keep them in their corner.

It is just like all those they call socialists….in actuality none of them would know a socialist if he walked up and bit them in the ass….it is nothing more than a simple slogan that is easily remembered by the mental midgets.

Now idiot in charge has called for an assault on the Left….

President Donald Trump revealed on Monday that he was considering designating Antifa and other far-left “radical groups” as domestic terror organizations following the murder of Charlie Kirk.

Asked, “Do you plan on designating Antifa finally a domestic terror organization?” the president responded, “Well, it’s something I would do, yeah. If I have support from the people back here– I think we’d start with Pam, I think. But I would– if you give me– I would do that 100%, and others also, by the way. But Antifa is terrible.”

Trump then added that there were “other groups” he would also consider designating as domestic terror organizations, remarking, “They have some pretty radical groups and they got away with murder.”

“Also, I’ve been speaking to the attorney general about bringing RICO against some of the people that you’ve been reading about that have been putting up millions and millions of dollars for agitation,” he concluded. “These aren’t protests, these are crimes what they’re doing.”

Trump received renewed calls to go after Antifa – which has a lengthy history of engaging in violence – following the assassination of Kirk at Utah Valley University last week.

Trump Says He Wants to Designate Antifa, Other ‘Radical Groups’ as Domestic Terrorist Organizations: ‘They Got Away With Murder’

This is such bullshit!

Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are not ‘terrorists’ but antifa is…..you morons realize that antifa is NOT an organization there is no ‘leader’, there is no national headquarters it merely stands for anti-fascist.

Can they say that about the others?

They have NO idea what they say or what they want to do other than keep people divided and rabid.

Especially Blondi, DoJ, and her most recent statement….

Attorney General Pam Bondi has doubled down on her attack on free speech after a MAGA backlash, vowing to use the full force of the law to crack down on left-wing people using violent rhetoric to silence conservatives.

“Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime,” she posted on X.  (too bad that does not include all the hate speech)

“For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.”

(thedailybeast.com)

They just cannot help themselves….

Speaking again on Tuesday, days after the killing, Trump said that “most of the violence is on the left.”

But the data tells a different story. In the last five years, 81 people have been killed by political violence in the United States. Right-wing terrorists account for over half of those murders, some 54%, according to research by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. Islamists account for 21%, and left-wingers for 22%.

The same study looked at data as far back as 1975 and found that terrorists inspired by Islamist ideology account for some 87% of all deaths (3122) from political violence, due to the mass casualties of the 9/11 attacks.

Excluding the 9/11 attacks, over the same period, terrorists inspired by right-wing ideology are responsible for 63% of deaths from political violence during that time, compared to 10% for left-wing attacks. Since 1975, there have been 391 deaths caused by right-wing terror attacks in the United States, and 65 deaths from left-wing terror attacks.

(time.com)

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo’

Why The Dumbest People?

Now that is a loaded question that can go off in many different directions but for this post I want look at the trend in government.

I have not impressed in the last three elections with the choices that have been made for those that sit in judgement on the rest of us peasants.

For the most part these people have been the dumbest on record…..and watching these fools stumble through the governing process I ask ….are they incompetent or just plain dumb?

Here is a view on that very question….

As the old song by The Who goes, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” It’s a sentiment many of us feel every time a new mayor, governor, or president takes office, and we can’t help but feel that we deserve someone better. In a country with so many brilliant scientists, business people, educators, and public policy experts, why do the least impressive of us seem to rise to power?

Philosophy expert Julian de Medeiros, a popular TikToker and Substack blogger, recently wrestled with this question, and it must have been on a lot of people’s minds because the video received over 4.2 million views. “Why does it seem like so many people in power are so dumb? It’s like, why can’t we get a better class of leaders?” he asked.

Ultimately, de Medeiros believes that power and intellect are often at odds. “I’ve thought about it a bit more, and I think this is my thesis: that power is inherently anti-intellectual. Because what does intellect do? Intellect questions power. It speaks truth to power. It critiques power. And power doesn’t like that,” he says. “And so power has to speak to the lowest common denominator. It dumbs everything down.”

“It’s an anti-intellectual force. And that’s why it seems like those in power are also the dumbest,” he concludes his video. The commenters further expanded on de Medeiros’ thesis. “Also, intellectual people question and analyse everything. A leader needs to be invested in their opinion and abide by it,” one wrote. “Because those in power or seek power cares about the power only, so they make the decisions that keep them in power no matter what is the output,” another offered.

Another reason people who are a few fries short of a Happy Meal are often voted into office is that there is a deep vein of voters who are skeptical of intellectuals. These people tend to be populists who value “common sense” over intellectualism and may see experts or highly educated people as dangerous and out of touch with the common man. So, candidates position themselves against the “intellectuals” by either being their proud, dumb selves or by taking their IQ down a few notches while in public.

Theologian and philosopher Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906—1945) believed that dumb people often ascend to power because evil people have difficulty getting elected. So, they champion someone who may be more charismatic or connected and ride their coattails into power.

Finally, much like de Medeiros, Bonhoeffer believes there is a big difference between intellectualism and power. Therefore, once one attains power they are highly lifely to look like a buffoon. It’s as if, “Slogans, catchwords and the like… have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being,” Bonhoeffer says.

It’s sad to realize that the very nature of power means that those who hold office, whether we voted for them or not, will probably disappoint us at some point. But the good news from this understanding is that we are freeing ourselves from the constant disappointment of having leaders appear rather dumb. Now, whenever we meet the new boss, we can assume he’s just like the old boss and be positively delighted if they wind up slightly smarter.

(upworthy.com)

That explains a lot.

Just once it would be nice to see someone with half a brain leading this country for awhile.

Any thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You KNow

“lego ergo scribo”

For Whites Only

***Let me state from the beginning that at NO point do I agree with anything about this turn of events….I offer it up solely to show just how f*cked up these douche-bags are***

I grew up in the South so at my age I am well aware of the segregation and the ‘Whites Only” signs that were plastered everywhere.

Since about 2010 there has been more harsh language from nationalism and the tearing apart the Constitution…..and now it is becoming more and more troubling since that d/bag took office.

This is a paper that won an award for content….

A white nationalist recently won an academic award for his law school paper arguing how the constitution only applies to white people.

Preston Damsky, a proud white nationalist and antisemite, garnered acclaimed from a University of Florida professor over his paper detailing his interpretation of the doctrine. Last fall, he wrote the paper on “originalism” for the law school seminar. An idea upheld by many conservatives, originalism interprets the constitution as written during its original time period.

According to the New York Times, a Trump-appointed judge who taught the class awarded Damsky the highest honor for his paper. In his assignment, Damsky argued that “We The People,” as first written on the Constitution’s Preamble, actually refers to white people. With this mindset, he defended the idea of stripping voting rights for nonwhite citizens.

He further stated his support for shoot-to-kill orders toward “criminal infiltrators at the border.” He also referred to an America where white people did not make up the majority as a “terrible crime.” Damsky later uttered that white people “cannot be expected to meekly swallow this demographic assault on their sovereignty.”

Instead of concern for his viewpoints, his professor, Judge John L. Badalamenti, congratulated him on his provocative essay. Damsky received the book award, granted to the best student in the class, for his detailed work. Badalamenti did not comment on why he chose his recipient.

The award issuance sparked controversy across the school, with opposers stating Damsky’s recognition undermines his dangerous rhetoric. Despite the calls to revoke his award, the University of Florida’s interim dean Merritt McAlister affirmed the matter, citing his “free speech rights.” McAlister also noted  “institutional neutrality,” a new term in the rise of anti-DEI policies where schools remain impartial on political issues.

However, Damsky’s academic language did not continue on the internet. Months after the dean’s decision, Damsky created an X account to further showcase his views. His post that Jewish people must be ” abolished by any means necessary,” led to his latest scandal.

The jarring remark led to the University of Florida suspending him and barring him from campus. The University even boosted police presence at the law school. However, others believe the initial celebration of his works empowered Damsky to become even louder with his racist beliefs.

The issue also comes at a time where free speech has its own interpretation in Florida public institutions. One professor called out the double standards of Damsky being able to write his essay while she had to change the name of her class over its assertion of race.

(blackenterprise.com)

To me this is clearly racist BS….truth be told if one thinks about the Founders….who were they?

A bunch of white guys most of whom owned slaves….I can see where the jump can be made….not that I would ever agree with the premise at all.

What about you?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

That Unitary Government Thing

With all the consolidations that trump and his thug Elmo are doing to this government it looks like a push for a unitary government….I recently wrote about this opportunity for the boyz in the Trump administration to enact a new form of American government.

The Future: Unitary Government

What could go wrong right?

This should answer many questions that have lingered since my original post….

Before going into detail, it’s worth emphasizing what unitary executive theory (UET) is – and what it is not. UET is a theory of the distribution of executive power, not a theory of its scope. Even if all or nearly all executive authority is concentrated in the hands of the president, its scope could potentially still be quite narrow, if the total amount of executive power is very limited. For example, even if UET is correct, the Trump administration’s multifaceted effort to usurp the spending power is still unconstitutional, because the power of the purse is not an executive power at all. It belongs to Congress.

Still, the modern scope of executive power is very broad, in large part because the federal government has intruded into so many areas beyond what it was supposed to control under the original meaning of the Constitution. And that undermines the case for UET.

In some ways, the originalist case for a unitary executive is as compelling as ever. Article II of the Constitution states that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” It does not say that executive power can be divided between the branches of government or given to bureaucratic agencies independent of presidential control. This strongly implies that he is supposed to have all the power given to the executive branch, except such as is specifically allocated elsewhere in other parts of the Constitution.

If the executive branch still wielded only the relatively narrow range of powers it had at the time of the Founding, the case for the unitary executive would be pretty strong (at least on originalist grounds). Unfortunately, however, the current scope of executive authority goes far beyond that. To take just one noteworthy example, the president now presides over a vast federal law-enforcement apparatus, much of it devoted to waging the War on Drugs (which accounts for the lion’s share of federal prosecutions and prisoners). Under the original meaning of the Constitution – and the dominant understanding of the first 150 years of American history – the federal government did not have the power to ban in-state possession and distribution of goods. That’s why it took a constitutional amendment to establish federal alcohol Prohibition in 1919. Giving the president control over the waging of the federal War on Drugs is giving him a power the federal government was never supposed to have in the first place. Immigration is another field where the executive now wields vast power, despite the fact that, as James Madison and others pointed out, the original meaning of the Constitution actually did not give the federal government any general power to restrict migration into the United States.

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/03/02/perils-of-unitary-executive-theory/

I my opinion the unitary executive theory(UET) should be fought with every fiber of our being for it is not what this country was founded on….the checks and balances that have worked for us for over 200 years is slowly being eaten away and giving rise this abortion called UET.

Will you stand by and do nothing?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Trump And The Constitution

Yes my friends it is that time again….time for a short history lesson from our founding days.

Let’s go back to Trump’s speech on 04 March….

If there are any limits to a president’s power, it wasn’t evident from Donald Trump’s speech before a joint session of Congress on March 4, 2025.

In that speech, the first before lawmakers of Trump’s second term, the president declared vast accomplishments during the brief six weeks of his presidency. He claimed to have “brought back free speech” to the country. He declared that there were only two sexes, “male and female.” He reminded the audience that he had unilaterally renamed an international body of water as well as the country’s tallest mountain.

“Our country is on the verge of a comeback the likes of which the world has never witnessed, and perhaps will never witness again,” Trump asserted.

The extravagant claims appear to match Trump’s view of the presidency – one virtually kinglike in its unilateral power.

It’s true that the U.S. Constitution’s crucial section about the executive branch, Article 2, does not grant the president unlimited power. But it does make this figure the sole “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.”

This monopoly on the use of force is one way Trump could support his 2019 claim that he can do “whatever I want as President.”

…

When the Constitution was written, many people – from those who drafted the document to those who read it – believed that endowing the president with such powers was dangerous.

Ratified after a lot of huffing and puffing, on May 29, 1790, by rather nervous citizens, the text of the Constitution had stirred many controversies.

It wasn’t just the oftentimes vague language, which includes head-scratchers such as the very preamble, “We the People of the United States.” Nor was the discomfort due solely to the document’s jarring brevity – at 4,543 words, the U.S. Constitution is the shortest written Constitution of any major nation in the world.

No, what made that document especially problematic, to borrow from John Adams, was that it provided for “a monarchical Republick, or if you will a limited Monarchy.”

Trump is the kinglike president many feared when arguing over the US Constitution in 1789 — and his address to Congress showed it

In essence the Constitution was put together to avoid the US from having to answer to yet another king….the actions of our dearly clueless leader is trying to circumvent the Constitutional powers that the office has and make it all about what he wants.

Sorry I do not see any constitutional priority that allows Donny these unlimited powers.

If he wants this to be the law of the land then maybe it is time for constitutional upgrade.

There are, of course, opportunities to amend the constitution without completely scrapping it. Article V states that Congress itself can propose an amendment “whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,” and once the amendment is “ratified by three-fourths of the several states” it becomes “Part of this Constitution.” This process (simpler than the other option, a convention of states) has been successfully used 27 previous times. The convention of states method, on the other hand, may not be restricted to a specific subject and could be used as a vehicle to overturn the entire Constitution.

This will not happen.

Today’s political climate makes it impossible to find an intellectual giant like the founders…there is no one to ‘lead’ the way to saving this country and its laws.

Any thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

 

What Do I Believe?

The clock is ticking….about 30 days before we vote.

It is that time again….we will elect our next president and I will be giving my thoughts on their policies and ideas…..about 17 years ago I wrote a piece explaining where I am coming from on the political front….this will help the reader understand where I am in my political views.

Professor, What Do You Believe In?

I guess to some this will put me in the Left column and since I think the two political parties are nothing more the corruptible cogs in a financial machine very few of my thoughts will champion either side.

I hope this will clarify any confusion the reader may have.

Choose your vote wisely for the country depends on you.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

We Don’t Want No Stinking Dictator

We can say a lot of things about the upcoming election…..for me it is a contest between Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dummer….on one side we have a person that spews hatred and bias and on the other we have a spineless tool that makes promises only to work on them just before an election….so for me this election is a lose-lose scenario.

Beyond my personal opinion a dictatorship looms and many Americans say they do not want such and all the while they are helping create the thing they do not want.

Whether a glass is half full or half empty is a matter of perspective. The same can be said about the half of Americans who oppose the idea of allowing presidents to rule unilaterally—an exercise of monarchical power favored by only a fifth of us. I like to look on the bright side, so I take it as a win that those opposing unrestrained executive power far outnumber those who favor it. Still, it would be better if, in a republic established two and a half centuries ago, more than half the population would commit to the proposition that turning the country into a dictatorship would be bad.

“About half of the public think it would be a bad idea if the next president is able to act on important policy issues without the approval of Congress or the courts,” the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research reports of the results of a survey of 1,282 adults conducted March 21-25. “Only 21% think it would be a good thing, and about 30% think it’s neither good nor bad.”

In the poll, 48 percent overall oppose unilateral presidential rule, including 58 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of Republicans. The 21 percent favoring the idea include 17 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of Republicans. Support for unrestrained executive power rises to 39 percent among Democrats in the case of a Biden win in November, and to 57 percent of Republicans if Trump wins.

Interestingly, the AP-NORC results are nearly identical to those found by the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics in 2021. At the time, pollsters reported “roughly 2 in 10 Trump and Biden voters strongly agree it would be better if a ‘President could take needed actions without being constrained by Congress or courts.'” Among Biden voters, 22 percent strongly agreed with the idea, compared to 19 percent of Trump voters (over 40 percent of both at least “somewhat agreed” with the idea of an unrestrained presidency).

Americans Don’t Want a Dictatorship, but They’re Creating One Anyway

Maybe it is time to take a hard look at your political priorities….the thing that you dislike the most may be the very thing you are helping create.

Just a lowly observation….

Pay Attention!

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The Faces Of Fascism

Fascism now there is a word that is getting a workout these days….almost as popular as ‘socialist’ was in the not so distant past.

But how many that use the term actually know anything about it?

Here’s a hint: Very Few!

Then here is a very simple definition to get us started….a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

But if that is too simplistic for you then maybe this will make more sense to you…..

When far-right personalities and movements started popping up during the last two decades, there was, in some quarters, strong hesitation to use the “f” word to describe them. Indeed, as late as less than three years ago, I had to defend the use of the word fascist in the Cambridge Union debate against academics who were squeamish about employing it to describe far-right movements in Europe, the United States, and other parts of the world. What Donald Trump and the Jan 6, 2021, insurrection have shown, however, is that the distinction between “far right” and “fascist” is academic. Or one can say that a “far-rightist” is a fascist who has not yet seized power, for it is only once they are in power that fascists fully reveal their political propensities.

Fascism 101 for Today’s Geopolitics

But like so many other political philosophies there are many aspects within the ‘movement’….

Primo Levi used to say that every era has its own fascism. What is the fascism of our time? I define fascism as the socio-political condition of capital concentration which, without democratic control, legitimizes total indifference to the humanity of others. Therefore, fascism is a phenomenon specific to capitalist societies. I’ve been making a distinction between societal fascism (when one social group holds the right of veto over the life of another group) and political fascism (a type of authoritarian regime). Today, I think we are moving towards fascist assemblages in which previously distinct components (cultural, economic, social and political) are combined. The fascism of our time has the following faces: social neo-Darwinism, political religion, the traditional far right, lawfare, acedia individualism. Any of them is compatible with democracy, as long as democracy is not much more than a game of appearances.

Social neo-Darwinism. Neoliberalism, as an economic policy, is a device for concentrating wealth through transfers from the poor and middle classes to the upper classes by reducing the freedoms proposed by liberalism to economic freedom. As a social policy, neoliberalism translates into neo-social Darwinism: sacralization of individual autonomy in parallel with the denial of the conditions for being effectively autonomous, which leads to defending the incapacity of the state to alleviate inequalities of opportunity; glorification of order, security and tranquillity guaranteed by police repression and the mass incarceration of discontents or nonconformists; conversion of wealth and economic power into privileged criteria of human dignity; cooperation and altruism are unnatural; the means are always more contingent and disposable than the ends; the production of death is collateral damage in the struggle for success or power.

The Different Faces of Fascism

There are many faces to fascism and I feel we have not seen the end of any of them.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”