Why is fascism happening?

Post Reply New Topic

Very Vague with no reference, to what are you referring?

A quick reaction to a few points raised earlier.

As far as whose fault we have what we have is, it is a two way street with both voters and feeding negativity and fear off of each other.

On a personal level as far as not voting as a protest goes I have never done that despite having the desire to at times because 1. Too many people have sacrificed too much to give me that right to not use it. 2. Voting for the lesser of two evils is the moral thing to do because one is attempting to cause less harm 3. On very rare occasions I have not voted in particular local matters because of complete lack of knowledge means I would be abusing that right.

On occasion I used the write in option. I never use that as a joke such as writing in Mickey Mouse or write in somebody I know. The election workers get pissed when I ask for that option but too bad I have a constitutional right to use that option.


As far a predetermined outcome goes I can see it happening on local level and maybe state levels. It does happen when candidates run unopposed and in judicial races where the parties do negotiate over which loyal party members get which position on the ballot. My problem with everything is rigged especially on a national level is that politicians have massive egos. Rigging requires a lot of narcissistic people to give up a lot of personal ambitions.

I personally accept that voting is important to so many, but I have to question its effectiveness. There is and remains such a thing as protest voting. I personally watch as leader after leader injects ideology—often cloaked as “policy” or “pragmatism”—into their leadership, shaping governance in ways that sometimes feel disconnected from the electorate’s actual needs. Factually, history shows that ideology strongly influences decision-making at every level, from local councils to national executives. Whether it’s economic, social, or foreign policy, leaders rarely act purely on evidence or consensus; their worldview and biases are always present.

Following this trail of thought, it’s clear that voting is both a duty and a gamble. Even when we attempt to mitigate harm by choosing the lesser of two evils, we are still subject to systemic forces beyond our control: entrenched party structures, lobbying, media framing, and public sentiment. This doesn’t render voting meaningless—it matters for local outcomes, accountability, and symbolism—but it does highlight that participation alone cannot fix structural dysfunction.

Protest voting or choosing to abstain is often dismissed as apathy, yet it can also be a rational response to a system that repeatedly disappoints. The act of voting is not merely a civic ritual; it’s a dialogue with power. And sometimes, watching carefully, questioning deeply, and holding leaders accountable between elections can matter more than the election day itself.

At the same time, it’s important to resist the cynicism that “all is rigged.” While predetermination happens in certain contexts—unopposed races, judicial appointments, party negotiations—the myth of omnipresent rigging undermines trust without acknowledging the genuine impact ordinary citizens can still have. Voting, advocacy, community engagement, and information sharing remain tangible tools for shaping outcomes, even if imperfectly.

In short, voting is morally significant and practically imperfect. Protest or skepticism doesn’t negate responsibility—it frames it differently. To truly engage, we must vote, observe, challenge, and recognize that leadership is a negotiation between ideology, human ego, and collective will.

Under the notion of injecting ideology, the world as a whole largely operates in a Binary. Almost every political argument, social debate, or public disagreement stems from one side being dissatisfied—or outright opposed—to the other side’s views. The Binary dominates discourse because it’s simple, easy to communicate, and psychologically intuitive: yes/no, left/right, for/against. But simplicity comes at the cost of depth and nuance.

I personally moved myself outside the traditional right-center-left spectrum into something entirely new—a Trinary understanding. It’s a framework that acknowledges more than two forces, more than two “correct” positions. In this Trinary model, positions are neither purely oppositional nor strictly hierarchical; instead, they interact dynamically, creating spaces where synthesis, mediation, or entirely novel approaches become possible.

Believe me, it is very difficult to juggle this Trinary understanding within a world still dominated by the Binary. People tend to force debates into two camps, and when you try to speak in three—or more—dimensions, you’re often misunderstood, dismissed, or forced into a “side” anyway. This tension illustrates why injecting ideology into leadership is so consequential: leaders themselves almost always interpret problems through the Binary lens, shaping policy and public perception in ways that oversimplify complex realities.

The challenge then becomes not just holding an independent perspective, but navigating a society that expects you to conform to a Binary worldview. The Trinary demands patience, critical thinking, and a willingness to occupy the uncomfortable middle—or even entirely new spaces outside conventional debate.

For example, I neither hate nor despise Trump, Farage, or anyone else. I can observe their actions, assess their impact, and critique policies without reducing them to pure villains or heroes. On the flip side, I cannot simply forget what came before. To erase history would be to deny the lessons embedded in it—and history has a tendency to repeat itself if ignored. And unfortunately, it has been repeating more and more lately.

Protests, for instance, are more frequent now than in previous decades. Looking at a rough historical scale, movements and public demonstrations in the 1950s–1970s were more centralized and issue-specific, often constrained by social norms and government response. Today, since the early 2000s, protests have become increasingly common, dispersed, and sometimes performative, reflecting a combination of grassroots frustration, online amplification, and global interconnectivity. This frequency suggests a society that is more restless and polarized.

People are increasingly gravitating toward camps—half-agreeing or fully subscribing to the narratives promoted by the leaders of those camps. Identity and belonging often outweigh nuance. Take someone like Tommy Robinson as an example: it does not matter to his followers that he has been convicted multiple times; he presents himself as a martyr, and that narrative resonates more than legal realities. The phenomenon isn’t unique to him—leaders of all ideological stripes cultivate personal mythology to galvanize support, simplify complex issues, and transform followers’ loyalty into near-religious adherence.

This illustrates a larger societal trend: the Binary framework dominates perception. Even when individuals—or entire groups—try to adopt a more Trinary or nuanced perspective, the culture tends to pull them into pre-existing camps, rewarding emotional resonance over critical analysis. Leaders who understand this leverage it, consciously or not, turning controversies, legal issues, and past mistakes into symbols of authenticity or persecution, depending on which side of the Binary you inhabit.

In short, the difficulty isn’t just the leaders or their ideologies—it’s the way history, human psychology, and social structures conspire to trap discourse in repetitive cycles. Understanding this helps explain why one can neither fully embrace nor wholly reject public figures while still being aware that ignoring lessons from the past risks repeating them.

As an Autistic person, I’ve often been able to look beyond conventional thinking, following threads of thought until I reach insights that others might overlook. For me, this ability led to discovering Syncretocracy—a concept hidden in plain sight, right in front of everyone. It offers what is almost immediately a solution to many of the issues society faces.

Neurodivergent individuals—those with autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and other cognitive variations—approach problems in ways that are unconventional yet deeply effective. Their perspectives frequently produce solutions outside the Binary framework of right vs. left, us vs. them, normal vs. different. Companies like Specialisterne have demonstrated this by leveraging the pattern recognition, attention to detail, and innovative thinking of neurodivergent employees in fields like software testing and data analysis.

Yet, the world is so polarised that disseminating such solutions often risks them being misunderstood or misused. Leaders exploit Binary thinking, attracting loyalty while reinforcing divisions, and the nuanced contributions of neurodivergent thinkers are too often ignored.

A Trinary perspective—acknowledging more than two sides to every issue—allows for a more nuanced understanding, encourages dialogue across differences, and creates space for these unconventional insights to be recognised and applied thoughtfully.

Being neurodivergent isn’t just about thinking differently; it can be about seeing what is hidden in plain sight. The challenge lies in a world structured around extremes, where the greatest solutions risk being lost in translation.

You are referring to individuals "within" the entertainment industry who fit the criteria of vile, corrupt and hypocritical. But the media and entertainment industry are businesses. they are focused on five core goals
1. what does our target audience want?
2. is our audience on board with what we are creating?
3. what do we invest in that will bring a maximum/profit return?
4. are our shareholders happy?
5. finally can we increase our market share and bring in new investors and collaborators?

entertainment execs don't care about the torrid private lives or beliefs of their employees, art or culture. they do not care about politics or the social milieu or civil discourse...they care not for our collective grumbling, all they care about is 1-5.

I made reference to Friends and Seinfeld because it represented the end of an era of film, television and cinema that started with silent film in the early 20th century. when you look into the mirror you want to see a reflection of you. entertainment is a mirror and what that mirror showed between 1900 to 2000 was a homogenous idealised world ordinary Americans wanted to see.

From 2000 the media industry wanted to expand it's market share (number 5). Blacks, gays, women and other minorities had money to spend in the box office and on advertiser's products. Suddenly the America on tv isn't what ordinary Americans come home from a hard day's slog at work want to see. 15 years of "woke" entertainment plus 8 years of Obama plus several years of global financial crisis and you have primed the American conservative to want a return to the past. Make America great again. And in 2016 conservative Americans had their dreams come true.

"Trinary thinking", what you’re describing is simply grown up thinking, depicted in politics by representative democracy where people negotiate their differing views and needs, taking and compromising so that the society we inhabit can function for all. Great, only the problem we have is upstream - to come together one has to be convinced that other parties may have differing views but that their intent comes from reason, and that they can be reasoned with. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

What we have seen for all the time I've been observing politics, is this tawdry bogeyman game appealing to peoples base instincts, trivialising everything into a personality game. And today its distilled into this football-fan grade rivaly where "you just hate the other side". (Apologies to any football fans for the generalising, the vapidness of political chat is such now it's not ever fair on you) Entitlement to state what you think has surpassed reason or empathy. People say "I hate politician x or personality y", I say "why", and they look at you like something they've stepped in, and at most you'll get some regurgitated ad homiem drivel, glared at and told "you don't get it". WTaF? If you going to state hatred of someone, thats a big deal, you should damn well be able to articulate some reasons, and if you can't - then to my mind you're clearly exhibiting signs of brainwash.

And yeh thats the thing. You're not negotiating or reasoning, when you're still at the stage of calling the other side names like facists or nazis, do you.

You tell people Trump, farage etc are symptons of deeper problems, and many people are so vapid that they think you're saying something supporting or excusing them. Even though I can be talking of smart, educated, compassionate people, They don't have the capacity or desire to strip it down. No they want it easy. Look, there's mr villian, i just hate to hate him and i'm on good person team.

And you wonder to what degree the terrible lesson and it's suffering becomes an unavoidable inevitability because of This lemming-like tendancy of just how humans are. here comes the spoon.

The terrible truth is the world is in turmoil, the economies of many of the worlds leading countries are completely f****d, it's all a house of cards but with a globalised economy everyone is in the same sinking ship, steered by the remnants of political parties motivated to do nothing but fill their boots while offering notsomuch more than parody of an ideology, telling all of y'all that "that guy over there is a buttsniffer" and you're all "yeah buttsniffer grrr hehehe"

In stark contrast to this "turmoil" there are millions who live in there own curated bubble who sip champagne while watching the political circus on their televisions and shrug their shoulders. the vast majority of us are not invested, we get on with our lives and are relatively comfortable living in a dystopian world.

Comedian Patrice O'Neill did a skit back in 2000 where he's some dude drinking a beer watching a natural disaster with thousands dead followed by a civil war with civilian casualties followed by political turmoil caused by George Bush on the television news, he pretends to care about these for about 10 seconds then naaahhhh...goes back to his beer and forgets. that's most of us.

People who march in the streets against trump, no troops in Portland, no Kings etc...find purpose and identity in marching, fighting fascism. But ordinary Americans are worried about bills, their kid's grades and getting a promotion. they play happy families (and that's most of us) while the world goes to s^^t.

According to survivors people continued to party as news came in that the titanic was sinking.

I want the artsy hipster, goth, and anarcho-punk subcultures to be a big thing nationwide, not just NYC, San Francisco, and Seattle. This is what my "Cultural Revolution" is.

It would also include:
1. Marijuana dispensaries, abortion clinics, LGBTQ+ bars, and erotic art museums in every town. They say NIMBY, I say TS. No more rules that certain businesses can't be within 1,500 feet of a school or church (nearly every speck of developable land in Houston is within 1,500 feet), and it would be illegal for religious groups to protest the existence of said businesses.

2. Vulgar language and full-frontal nudity would be allowed on ABC, CBS, NBC, etc, at any hour of the day.

3. It would be illegal to teach abstinence as part of sex ed. And no banned books. If your Christian kids see a copy of "Billy Has Two Mommies" in the school library, deal with it!

4. Criminalization of hate speech, with laws similar to those of Germany and Sweden.

I've been a protest voter against the GOP since I could vote.

And Australia and New Zealand.

Because the rich are trying to reinstate feudalism.

American military police and white GIs actually tried to force British pubs and British citizens from serving American black troops in the 1940s


Local Brits actually fought along with black GIs against the US military police. American fascism was so abhorrent to British people they stood with black GIs. Imagine the irony, claiming to fight fascism when you have laws worse than the enemy you are fighting.

Here's my personal take: Conservatives tend to operate on a platform of fear, and people with that mindset tend to elect authoritarian leaders because they think those leaders will protect them from the big scary immigrants or whatever the current boogeyman is. Also, I've heard it said that fascism is the natural end result of the free market, which is part of the reason why we need regulations to prevent oligarchs from seizing control of the government through things like lobbying.

Hahahahaha. I know I miss when people are trying to be funny a lot of the time, but you have to be joking right? Thanks for the laugh.

They genuinely don't know because no one in their Fox News/Newsmax echo chamber talks about anything negative regarding Trump.

I am in Europe. Right-wing ideology is such a big problem here as nearly everywhere.

I have thought that maybe the pendulum's got to swing a bit when existing societal structures aren't equipped to respond to changing conditions (I am thinking of climate change).

We are not capable, at a societal level, of an adaptive response to these challenges, because there is the inertia of the status quo to overcome. When a particular societal form emerges, we become invested in a particular myth of progress (one that inevitably reinforces the institutions that in that particular moment govern our lives) and certain aspects of that form seem inviolable and immutable. It seems to us in that moment that change can only take place within these constraints; but change on that scale is not enough to secure the viability of the population.

We are not good at coherent collective action. But we are actually rather good, at an existential turning-point, at creating chaos conditions (often unpleasant) that allow for rapid change. Then the society becomes conservative and reactive by turn until as though by accident it, or what is left of it, settles upon a viable shape. This is a traumatic process.

I am very ignorant about politics. That is what I think about... maybe some anthropological factors.

How is your homeland coping with the refugee crisis?