Heather on Republicans

A democracy will always vote to redistribute wealth in some way and that is why the right will always in some way try to end democracy. The left (the have nots) seeks to redistribute while the right (the haves) seeks to concentrate. It follows that regulation, that is, the rule of law, especially election law, is also the enemy of the right because it is the prerequisite to redistribution. This is the basic truth of political systems. The right characterizes any redistribution as theft and any regulation as always resulting in totalitarianism, while the left characterizes the right not being taxed or regulated in any way as aways resulting in being ruled by the rich (oligarchy) and virtual enslavement of the poor. If America is exceptional for any reason, it is because of the idea of a mix and finely tuned balance between the left and right with this being the best possible Republic.

Albert was always right

Einstein wrote an essay titled “Why Socialism?” for the first issue of the independent socialist magazine “Monthly Review.” Published in May 1949, the piece included the following paragraph that said (sentences bolded for emphasis):

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

Snopes

The bolded quotes in the paragraph above do amount to the same thing as the various paraphrases we found on social media — that it would be difficult for people to make informed, objective decisions because sources of information would be controlled by private capitalists.

Crucially, however, Einstein was not writing about something that would happen in the future, but what was happening in 1949. That’s a key detail the various paraphrases were wrong about.

Musing

The “old” era of heavy launch was the Saturn V and this supposed “new” era is predicated on a vehicle much like the N-1, the failed Soviet counterpart of the U.S. Moon rocket. There were three primary features of the Saturn V that made it successful, the first being the F-1 engine, second the use of hydrogen upper stages, and third a space agency able to appropriately manage the program.

The shiny new vehicle has no counterparts to the F-1 engine or hydrogen upper stages while its most remarkable features are the reusable stages and the landing procedure for those stages. In regard to appropriate management, the shiny destroyed itself on its first flight due to the lack of a proper launch pad. Even before the failure of the first flight, the upper stage “test flights” were four fiery explosions in a row, the same as the N-1. This gave the program more the appearance of a hobbyist trying to get his new toy to work.

The upper and lower stages use stainless steel to manage heat, also used by America’s first orbital human space flight launch vehicle, the 1957 Atlas, which makes them much heavier than an aluminum alloy construct. The upper stage is like a combination of the space shuttle external tank and orbiter, with a short and fat cargo section stacked on top, with no big doors, and with some small control surfaces instead of the orbiter’s wings. Despite the steel, the upper stage has to re-enter with tiles perfectly, like a much-larger shuttle orbiter, and land even more perfectly.

The “chopsticks” used to catch the stages and the “belly flop” maneuver used by the second stage virtually guarantee it will never carry humans unless something that can escape and also lands them separately is added. It was designed to launch tens of thousands of LEO megaconstellation satellites. The 33 engines in the first stage are…not sound engineering, but rather about having only a too-small engine. The small engines and the use of methane were doubtless seen as “cheaper” but the complexity of so many of them and the not-dense, not-hi Isp propellant, which is the worst of hydrogen and kerosene, nullify any advantages.

I predict Spruce-Goosedom.

Space-based solar power production could be enabled by Starship if the cost of in-space systems can be contained. One reference design for a two-gigawatt power station would weigh 7,500 MT. Earth to LEO transportation for such a station would take 50 Starship launches –

500 of these two-gigawatt power stations would produce one terawatt. The world presently uses 15 terawatts. A wild guess of double that power consumption by the end of the century for a population of 10 billion with a reasonable standard of living (aided by terrestrial solar, wind, and conservation measures) and the target requirement is 30 terawatts, or 30,000 gigawatts.
Using the author’s reference design and a wild guess results in 15,000 power stations or 750,000 Starship launches. Spaced out over half a century that works out to 15,000 launches a year or 300 launches a week for a 50 week year and about 43 launches a day.

Rounding up to 50 Starship launches a day, broken down to 10 from North America, 10 from South America, 10 from Europe, 10 from Africa, and 10 from Asia.
Somebody please check my math.

The worst threats to civilization can be mitigated by focusing on humankind expanding into the solar system. The public understands that dinosaurs died because they were stupid, even if our so intelligent bean counters say there is not enough risk for our species to spend money on defending against extinction. The public also understands that when so many scientists are saying that climate change is an unfolding catastrophe, maybe the tiny minority paying for fake news denying that should not be allowed to give money to our politicians. A permanent presence in cislunar space can enable Space Solar Power as the solution to climate change, impact deflection, and eventually space colonies that can survive anything else that could happen on Earth.

In other words, stupidity killed the dinosaurs, but greed might be what does us in. It is encouraging that “the public” are smarter than the NewSpace “experts” commenting here.

In an effort to figure out what wrong turns America has taken since the Reagan Revolution a term being explored by progressives lately is “welfare capitalism.” The model for this is General Electric, which was wrecked by Jack Welch, whose ideology of “wealth creation” spread to Boeing and other companies in the 80s. Now we have NewSpace fanboys endlessly excoriating Boeing due to SLS competing for funding with their Cult’s flagship company. Creating new things was essentially replaced by wealth creation in the United States after 1980. Welfare capitalism, exemplified by the super-success of GE, had poured the largest percentage of profits to the lowest paid workers, resulting in the wealthiest middle class in history during that midpoint of the 20th century. This was how blue-collar workers like my father owned a home and a couple cars and raised a family on a single income in the 60s. Trickle-down Reaganomics, and the wealth creation work culture, reversed where the profits went and went far beyond, with a pernicious effect on society resulting in the destruction of the middle class we are now seeing. Jack Welch was a big part of that. His infamy grows daily as people realize just how much damage he did. And one day I believe the same level of infamy will be visited on Elon Musk. Just as Welch was worshipped as the new model of executive and CEO to be emulated, Musk fills a similar role today and goes far beyond that as the Tony Stark/Howard Roark/John Galt hero of an Ayn-Rand-in-space right-wing cult. A cult often identified with the ideology known as “NewSpace.”

Musk’s infamy is to be found in his corruption of what NASA used to call “the dream.” This was often used during the Shuttle program, along with the slogan, “the dream is alive.” In the minds of that small percentage of the population who were space enthusiasts, “the dream” had to do with humankind leaving Earth and expanding into the solar system and beyond. The most influential of all those advocating for space exploration and colonization after Apollo was Gerard K. O’Neill, whose popular 1976 book, “The High Frontier”, envisioned Space Solar Power by way of lunar resources as the economic engine of future space colonies. Other planets like Mars were eliminated as candidates for colonization and artificial-miles-in-diameter-spinning-hollow-moons were identified as the path to expanding humankind into space. After Elon Musk started his rocket company in 2002 he effectively did a Jack Welch to the space colonization movement by proposing Mars as the place to go to make humanity a “multiplanet species.” He also called Space Solar Power, “the stupidest idea ever.” His entreprenuerial success and personal wealth has attracted a particular conservative/libertarian personality type that very quickly hijacked all public forums. The “fanboys”, as they became known on discussion boards, are toxic, abusive, malicious, and just plain rotten creeps to anyone not in their cult. They have had a tremendous unrealized negative effect on public opinion in regard to space exploration. The damage NewSpace has done to the public’s perception of space is pervasive and insidious. Space is no longer “the dream” and is now a for-profit enterprise. Satellite entrepreneurship and Low Earth Orbit megaconstellations have become the focus while any attempt to promote the original vision of O’Neill and other space advocates is ignored and if addressed is actively trivialized, mocked, and denigrated by the fanboys. Many Musk cultists are also Trumpists, anti-vaxxers, and climate change deniers.

Space Solar Power by way of lunar resources as the solution to Climate Change is the realization of all the dreams of space proponents. It is, in every way, “The Dream.” Yet the cult of Musk has, in every way, fought tooth and nail against it. Musk fanboys will at every opportunity argue endlessly against anything not from the mind of their cult leader. Along with the Koch organization and others, NewSpace fans and Musk will bear responsibility for the damage resulting from climate change denialism. And for this they will be forever scorned and hated.

Chauncey Nails It

From Chauncey DeVega on Salon:

One of the Republican Party’s most effective weapons in its campaign to end America’s multiracial pluralistic democracy is a media propaganda machine that functions as a closed episteme and echo chamber. Anchored by Fox News, the feedback loop exerts a powerful if not almost omnipotent level of control over its public’s beliefs, thoughts, values, behavior, and emotions. This is accomplished through a strategy of repeating lies, amplifying and circulating conspiracy theories, and encouraging violence and hatred against some type of Other.

Ultimately, Donald Trump and other right-wing neofascists, authoritarians, demagogues, and malign actors are political entrepreneurs who are leveraging a public that has been trained and conditioned over decades to respond to such leaders, messaging, and voices. Trump is a symptom of a much deeper problem in American politics and society, after all, not the cause.

Marcel Danesi is Professor Emeritus of linguistic anthropology and semiotics at the University of Toronto. His new book is Politics, Lies and Conspiracy Theories: A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective.

In this wide-ranging conversation, Danesi details how neuroscience, psychology, and linguistics can help us to understand why Donald Trump’s MAGA cultists and other right-wing voters and followers will likely not be abandoning him any time soon. Right-wing demagogues like Trump, Danesi explains, are able to use metaphors and repeated codes and tropes as part of a larger rhetorical strategy that manipulates and triggers their targeted public on an almost subconscious level. The implications are ominous for American democracy and civil society because such programming is very hard to counteract.

This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

How are you feeling in this moment given the ascendancy of the global right and neofascist movement with its fake populists and demagogues such as Donald Trump, Orban, Erdogan, and others?

I am truly worried. Fascist-totalitarian leaders present and represent themselves as the only ones who can restore the purported “historical purity” of the state, which might be seen as having been defiled by a supposed invasion of outsiders, and by the ideas and actions of liberal elites, who bring corruption and immorality to the nation’s real original values—a view dramatized by Trump in his initial campaign speech, in which he referred to Mexican immigrants people that “have a lot of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us.” Once large segments of the population buy into the autocrat’s rhetoric, the situation is ripe for a takeover of their minds and hearts. The rise of neofascism and pseudo-populism today is connected to the spread of a false belief system activated by the autocrat’s strategic, clever rhetoric, which is perceived as a language that speaks directly to everyone, unlike the talk of elites or academics.

Trump and other right-wing demagogues and neofascists repeatedly use hatred, violence, and conspiracy theories as a feature of their communications style and other messaging. Why do these strategies work?

What makes their appeals effective, in my view, is the fact that their discourses are coded with meaning below the threshold of consciousness, where the belief system can be manipulated for ideological purposes. An example is the age-old idea that there is a cabal behind the scenes that is controlling the world. So, the populist leader emerges as the one who will defeat the cabal, called the “deep state”, made up of the usual suspects (such as liberals). Using such coded language reinforces the mind control that autocrats aim to exercise. Calling a group “animals” or “parasites”, over and over, eventually becomes part of the belief system, and accepted as true, as the work of Berkeley cognitive scientist George Lakoff has shown consistently.

Metaphors are powerful because they “switch on” existing circuits in the brain by linking together salient images and ideas, as for example linking a certain group to pests. The more these circuits are activated the more hardwired they become. Research shows that people under the influence of “big lies” develop more rigid neural pathways, showing signs of difficulty in rethinking situations. As it is almost impossible to turn the switch off, this means that when we accept a big lie or a conspiracy theory, it can reshape our perception of reality without us being aware of it. By being exposed to hate metaphors, for instance, we may develop hostile feelings towards specific groups. After a while the negative image of the group metamorphizes in the imagination into that of a parasitic organism that lives at the other’s expense. It was a powerful nefarious strategy that the Nazis used constantly in their antisemitic propaganda.

Donald Trump has what former CIA profiler Jerrold Post described in a conversation with me as “dark charisma”. His description of Trump and the danger he represented to the nation – which was proven by Jan. 6 — was chilling and prophetic. In terms of cognition and language, how does such “dark charisma” work in terms of the leader-follower relationship? For explaining the cult leader-like power and charm of Trump and other such dangerous leaders over their followers?  

The charisma of the populist leader comes, in my view, from his ability to use language to captivate people’s minds. The charismatic leader is a master wordsmith, who is able to wreak moral chaos on the polity through his deceitful use of words to create a mind fog that obscures reality and produces its own illusory world. He does this through a constant mind-numbing repetition of the same metaphors, slogans, clichés, and catchwords. In literary circles, speech based on clichés or repetitive formulas is discouraged and considered to be anathema to good style. Trump’s discourse is the exact opposite of this style. This is intentional. He uses it as an antidote to the politically correct speech of the élite (academics, liberal politicians, Democrats, and so on); it is his language of the “revolution.” As such, he is perceived as the charismatic leader who will take the nation out of the fog and back into the light—to use common metaphors that follow him around.

This type of speech is not an invention by Trump; it has always been the style adopted by despots to affect the polity. Mussolini, for example, confounded everyone when he came onto the political scene with his earthy language, setting himself apart from the intelligentsia of his era, tapping into people’s fears and concerns that the intellectuals were self-serving, looking down on everyone who did not talk like them. He founded Fascism as an “anti-party” just after World War I. Like Trump, he was seen as a charismatic outsider who came forward to drain Italy’s political and social swamp. He was a disrupter of the status quo, challenging the traditional politics of the nation and aiming to restore Italy to it great past.

In the most basic terms, narrative psychology consists of the stories that individuals and groups tell about themselves as a way of navigating the world and their place in it. What role does narrative psychology play in terms of eliminationism, conspiracism and violence?

The first step to manipulating minds is tapping into an emotional state, such as fear or uncertainty. As cognitive science has been showing, the brain is designed to respond to fear in various ways, with its own in-built defense mechanisms which produce chemicals in the response pattern, such as cortisol and adrenaline. These chemical responses are also activated by forms of language that instill fear, either directly (as in a vocal threat) or, more insidiously, by twisted facts which allay fears through lies and deceptive statements. Research shows that this language taps into and “switches on” existing circuits in the brain that link together important and salient images and ideas. Metaphors in particular bypass higher cognitive reasoning centers to make linkages that may not have a basis in reality. And when that happens, a person is less likely to notice the lie, because it “feels” right.

Someone like Trump knows how to lie and spin conspiracies—it is not random lying. He taps into the emotional response system of his followers, stoking false belief systems, through his strategic use of language. He is the maximum huckster, in the tradition of American hucksterism. Linguist David Maurier wrote a perceptive book in 1940, titled appropriately, The Big Con, in which he gave a comprehensive description of the features and effects of the big talk of hucksters and how it renders us credulous despite evidence that we are being conned. Maurier’s book inspired the 1973 movie, The Sting, which is a portrait of American hucksterism and how it has become an intrinsic part of American culture.

One cannot underestimate the power of narrative to foster belief, since it puts things together into a storyline that makes sense on its own, no matter what the truth of the matter might be. One could claim that the brain is a “narrative organ,” which makes sense of the world through narrative interpretations. I have called the belief in false narratives as the result of a “Da Vinci Code effect,” after the 2001 novel by Dan Brown, which stitches together bits and pieces of history into a purported secret history of the lineage of Christ.

The believability of a false narrative is reinforced by what psychologists call apophenia, defined as the proclivity to perceive meaningful connections among unrelated things. Apophenia is typical of conspiracy theories, fake news, and false mythic histories, where unrelated coincidences of history are woven together into an apparent plot that is occurring (or has occurred) behind the scenes. In a false narrative the “bad guys” are the “others” who are seen as the enemy and thus must be “eliminated.” History shows that violence against others is often related to the power of the false narrative.

The right-wing news media is a type of echo chamber and closed episteme. It is one of the most powerful propaganda machines ever created.

Such media tap into conspiracy codes, enlarging them and spreading them broadly. They are propaganda machines. Propaganda is a systematic use of disinformation, a classic ploy of Machiavellian liars. The first modern-day use of disinformation tactics can be traced to Soviet Russia under Joseph Stalin, who coined the term itself and founded a “Disinformation Office” in 1923—his version of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. In the post-Soviet era, the disinformation strategy has hardly evanesced, since it was adopted as a key military and social engineering tactic under Vladimir Putin, who has used it effectively both to control the minds of his own people and to interfere manipulatively in the affairs of other nations. The intent is destabilization through disinformation. Right-wing media in America, as far as I can see, use disinformation to support populists such as Trump.

Interestingly, Trump’s constant attacks on the “left-wing media”, such as CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other liberal media as “enemies of the people” who spout “fake news” falls into the same category of attack on the free press witnessed in the regimes of Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler.

On the other hand, Trump’s praise of supportive alt-right social media is reminiscent of state-controlled journalism in totalitarian regimes. Trump’s clever strategy of calling the media that critique him “fake news” and those supporting him as “real news,” does not emerge in a vacuum. Not only is it consistent with totalitarian politics in general, but it is a salient attempt to undermine serious coverage that is critical of Trump. It is not surprising that, like other autocrats, he has constantly called for government control and even censorship of these outlets. Perhaps he envisions the Federal Communications Commission as his personal Ministry of Truth.

Leaders train and socialize their followers into behavior, both positive and negative. How have Trump and other right-wing leaders in the United States conditioned and trained their public into eliminationist and other violence and hatred?

A major finding of neuroscience is that when we believe a big lie, our brain creates a false memory system to accommodate it. The mental implications of lying are thus clearly profound. It can literally “train and socialize” believers. One of the most salient findings in the research literature is that lying takes a lot of energy to carry out, and so our brains seemingly adapt to lying so that they can continue to function normally—a process called “retrieval.” When we are exposed to systemic lies, such as those of dictators and mind manipulators, the brain seems to create a false memory code for them, based on how we feel at the time of the lies. This rewired neural system might make us feel better, but at the same time, it will make us less likely to recognize the truth.

Activating the neural system in this way is an ability that the Machiavellian liar possesses. This ability allows the liar to emerge into the limelight as a leader who can do no wrong, especially if there is a sense that a nation is at war with itself culturally. Trump is perceived as a leader in such a cultural war, which sees a loss of America’s true cultural paradigm, threatened by the invasion of “others” who are contaminating the paradigm along with the “radical left liberals” who support the paradigm shift. The MAGA story is, essentially, an attack on otherness. This does not necessarily imply that believers in the story are racist. The power of the narrative is that it embraces all kinds of people who desire a return to a “pure past.” It is an Orwellian strategy, crafted to restore pride in the supposed historical roots of the “Real America,” and thus to restore its “real culture.” In the process it attacks otherness as a source of the disruption of these roots.

Can Trump’s MAGA followers and other members of the right-wing who have been conditioned through years and decades by their leaders and media into such dangerous and unhealthy thinking and behavior be deradicalized? What is the role of “information backfire” here?

A major effect of constant lies and belief in conspiracy theories is the syndrome called cognitive dissonance, discussed initially by the American psychologist Leon Festinger in 1957, who defined it as the condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from an inconsistency between one’s beliefs and one’s actions. People will seek out information that confirms their own attitudes and views of the world, or else reinforces aspects of conditioned behavior, avoiding information that is likely to be in conflict with their worldview and, thus, bringing about cognitive dissonance. So, when a diehard follower of a dictator or a victim of a con artist is told about the deception, the reaction is, often, to develop strategies to attenuate the dissonance they might feel, tending to turn the contrasting information on its head, so to make sense of it in terms of their belief systems.

Big lies and false alternative histories generate a society-wide cognitive dissonance. However, never before in human history has such dissonance become so embedded globally, because of the massiveness of the diffusion of disinformation through the Internet, whereby through constant repetition and the activation of mechanisms such as apophenia, people might accept, say, a conspiracy theory at face value, adding to it subjectively by commenting on the theory through personal posts. The resulting interactive system makes the false ideas even more believable in themselves—a mindset that can be encapsulated colloquially as follows: “If so many believe it, then it must be true, especially since I myself can add something to the substance of the information.” This whole false discourse system is bolstered by social media algorithms—when someone clicks on a conspiracy-oriented post, the algorithm offered up similar posts, sites, and platforms, which contained more false information, perpetuating the cycle of falsity that became larger and larger.

All that said, history all teaches us that truth eventually triumphs over lies and hatred (pardon my cliché). Our brain is ultimately a practical device that can be fooled only for a time, until negative conditions created by lies impel it to “recalibrate” itself. I have no empirical evidence for this, just historical evidence. All the dictatorships of the past were eventually vanquished.

What are you most optimistic about given your research and findings, if anything? What are you most worried and pessimistic about?

In a nutshell, throughout history lies work for a while, until they give way to truth. I am thus optimistic, but patience is needed in all this—a lot of it. Big lies are everywhere today, used to justify conflicts, such as invasions into national territories, as is the case of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which he justified as a purification operation. Decoding how the tactics of mendacity work in manipulating minds, in order to come up with counterstrategies for obviating or stemming their deleterious influence, is an urgent objective.  

The current era is sometimes called a “post-truth” one, because of the spread of falsehoods and conspiracy theories broadly, especially through the Internet. It may be better described, however, as an unethical era. While this book does not offer concrete practical advice on what to do about protecting oneself against the unethical distortions, it will hopefully have implications for “immunization” against them, by deconstructing the tactics on which disinformation and lies are implanted and spread. There are no such things as “remedies” or “antidotes;” one can only raise awareness of the meanings behind the words, the symbols, and the other representational forms that are injecting falsehoods into groupthink, leading to meaning breakdowns throughout the world.

Hopefully, it will shed constructive light on the following warning issued by Hannah Arendt, who was the first to propose that Nazism and Stalinism had common roots and who, if alive today, would discern these roots in many other areas: “A people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.”

Robert Nails It

(From the Guardian) Robert Reich wrote about Trump: (he) is often described as ‘authoritarian’. But that doesn’t really capture the more alarming aspects of his movement.

The Washington Post calls Donald Trump’s vision for a second term “authoritarian”.

That vision includes mandatory stop-and-frisk. Deploying the military to fight street crime, break up gangs and deport immigrants. Purging the federal workforce. Charging leakers.

“In 2016, I declared I am your voice,” Trump said at his first 2024 campaign rally in Waco, Texas. “Today, I add I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.”

How do we describe what Trump wants for America?

“Authoritarianism” isn’t adequate. It is fascism. Fascism stands for a coherent set of ideas different from – and more dangerous than – authoritarianism.

To fight those ideas, it’s necessary to be aware of what they are and how they fit together.

Borrowing from the cultural theorist Umberto Eco, the historians Emilio Gentile and Ian Kershaw, the political scientist Roger Griffin, and the former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright, I offer five elements that distinguish fascism from authoritarianism.

1. The rejection of democracy, the rule of law and equal rights under the law in favor of a strongman who interprets the popular will.

“The election was stolen.” (Trump, 2020)

“I am your justice … I am your retribution.” (Trump, 2023)

Authoritarians believe society needs strong leaders to maintain stability. They vest in a dictator the power to maintain social order through the use of force (armies, police, militia) and bureaucracy.

By contrast, fascists view strong leaders as the means of discovering what society needs. They regard the leader as the embodiment of society, the voice of the people.

2. The galvanizing of popular rage against cultural elites.

“Your enemies” are “media elites”, … “the elites who led us from one financial and foreign policy disaster to another”. (Trump, 2015, 2016)

Authoritarians do not stir people up against establishment elites. They use or co-opt those elites to gain and maintain power.

By contrast, fascists galvanize public rage at presumed (or imaginary) cultural elites and use mass rage to gain and maintain power. They stir up grievances against those elites for supposedly displacing average people and seek revenge. In doing so, they create mass parties. They often encourage violence.

3. Nationalism based on a dominant “superior” race and historic bloodlines.

“Tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border.” (Trump, 2015)

“Jewish people that vote for a Democrat [show] great disloyalty.” (Trump, 2019)

“Getting critical race theory out of our schools is … a matter of national survival.” (Trump, 2022)

Authoritarians see nationalism as a means of asserting the power of the state. They glorify the state. They want it to dominate other nations.

Authoritarianism seeks to protect or expand its geographic boundaries. It worries about foreign enemies encroaching on its territory.

By contrast, fascism embodies what it considers a “superior” group – based on race, religion and historic bloodlines. Nationalism is a means of asserting that superiority.

Fascists worry about disloyalty and sabotage from groups within the nation that don’t share the same race or bloodlines. These “others” are scapegoated, excluded or expelled, sometimes even killed.

Fascists believe schools and universities must teach values that extol the dominant race, religion and bloodline. Schools should not teach inconvenient truths (such as America’s history of genocide and racism).

4. Extolling brute strength and heroic warriors.

“You’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength and you have to be strong. (Trump, 6 January 2021)

“I am your warrior.” (Trump, 2023)

The goal of authoritarianism is to gain and maintain state power. For authoritarians, “strength” comes in the form of large armies and munitions.

By contrast, the ostensible goal of fascism is to strengthen society. Fascism’s method of accomplishing this is to reward those who win economically and physically and to denigrate or exterminate those who lose.

Fascism depends on organized bullying – a form of social Darwinism. For the fascist, war and violence are means of strengthening society by culling the weak and extolling heroic warriors.

5. Disdain of women and fear of non-standard gender identities or sexual orientation.

“When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” (Trump, 2005)

“You have to treat ’em like shit.” (Trump, 1992)

“[I will] promote positive education about the nuclear family … rather than erasing the things that make men and women different.” (Trump, 2023)

Authoritarianism imposes hierarchies. Authoritarians seek order.

By contrast, fascism is organized around the particular hierarchy of male dominance. The fascist heroic warrior is male. Women are relegated to subservient roles.

In fascism, anything that challenges the traditional heroic male roles of protector, provider and controller of the family is considered a threat to the social order.

Fascism seeks to eliminate homosexual, transgender and queer people because they are thought to challenge or weaken the heroic male warrior.

These five elements of fascism reinforce each other:

Rejection of democracy in favor of a strongman depends on galvanizing popular rage.

Popular rage draws on a nationalism based on a supposed superior race or ethnicity.

That superior race or ethnicity is justified by social Darwinist strength and violence, as exemplified by heroic warriors.

Strength, violence and the heroic warrior are centered on male power.

These five elements find exact expression in Donald Trump and the white Christian nationalist movement he is encouraging. This is also the direction that most of the Republican party is now heading.

They are not the elements of authoritarianism. They are the essential elements of fascism.

America’s mainstream media is by now comfortable talking and writing about Trump’s authoritarianism. In describing what he is seeking to impose on America, the media should be using the term fascism.

Naomi Nails It

Market Fundamentalism

Comment: I am a proponent of Space Solar Power by way of lunar resources as the solution to Climate Change, which, trust me, is not as crazy as it sounds. If you want to find people demonizing government, the perfect example of this is, sadly, popular space exploration forums, which have largely been hijacked by Elon Musk fanboys. I have been banned from most of them for years because they have zero tolerance for anyone not in their Ayn-Rand-in-Space cult. I would encourage all progressives to spread the word and visit these forums, SpaceNews and The Space Review, are two of the worst, and comment. See what happens. Elon said years ago that space solar power is, “the stupidest idea ever” and disagreeing made me public enemy. Tell them Gary Church sent you.

“If you were living in Europe in the 1930’s, there is this really difficult political situation where on the one hand- you have the rise of fascism across much of Europe, but you also have the rise of soviet-style totalitarianism in Russia and what becomes the East Bloc, and neither of those is very attractive or appealing. So, it is a bit of a challenge to think about what you think is the worst threat.”

America had a mixed economy, with a strictly controlled and highly taxed capitalism backed-up with social safety programs and maintained with a functioning democracy. This resulted in the wealthiest middle class in history and all that money in the hands of the many was the target of the wealthiest few, who can never satisfy their absolute greed. The Reagan Revolution, and the recent Trump tax cut, has turned that around and now the wealthiest few are fantastically rich beyond their previous wildest dreams.

“Trump, he just realized, like, this is what we have been building towards, where, I am the King because God said so.”