Are we now in full blown fascist totalitarianism?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Gee, what could have led to the US being in a fascist or semi-fascist state?

The US has always had strong fascist elements.

Ever since the 1930s, but "always" becomes fairly weak before that.

Lincoln Memorial. Construction started 1915. Those things he rests his hands on? They are fasces, literally the original symbol of fascism.
View attachment 51069

You do realize that symbolism used by fascists existed before fascism became an ideology?

Oh, never mind.

 

[bilby]

You do realize that symbolism used by fascists existed before fascism became an ideology?

You do realize that the fundamentals of fascist ideology existed long before it was labelled as such?

Oh, never mind.

 

[Swammerdami]

Gee, what could have led to the US being in a fascist or semi-fascist state?

The US has always had strong fascist elements.

Ever since the 1930s, but "always" becomes fairly weak before that.

Lincoln Memorial. Construction started 1915. Those things he rests his hands on? They are fasces, literally the original symbol of fascism.
View attachment 51069

You do realize that symbolism used by fascists existed before fascism became an ideology?

Oh, never mind.

Unless bilby can come up with an accusation much less stupid than the Lincoln Memorial, I'm awarding this sub-debate to Mr. Harvestdancer.

The U.S.'s Presidential system may have led to worse authoritarian-ness than countries using a Westminster model, but the U.S. has muddled through until very recently. Why? (Other countries often got poor results mimicking the USA model.) Prosperity, diversity, common-sense and good luck all played roles. Electing a 5-star General may sound like a mistake but Ike was one of the best Presidents ever.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No one gave Trump these unconstitutional powers. He just started pretending he had them, and a sufficient number of conservatives in the court and conservatives in the legislature support him so that he has been able to get some of those fascist or semi-fascist agendas moving along.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Gee, what could have led to the US being in a fascist or semi-fascist state?

The US has always had strong fascist elements.

Ever since the 1930s, but "always" becomes fairly weak before that.

Lincoln Memorial. Construction started 1915. Those things he rests his hands on? They are fasces, literally the original symbol of fascism.
View attachment 51069

I thought these united states took it up in a strength through unity context. Axe, no axe, axe tightly bound by the bindings of the rods all having symbolic meaning.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

As far back as the 1990's I was saying "the power you give to your side today will be wielded by the other side tomorrow." The Libertarian Party has been saying that since the 1970's, but I was but a kid then.

Gee, what could have led to the US being in a fascist or semi-fascist state? One election? A trend that stretches back decades?

You're absolutely right to suggest that the United States didn’t arrive at its current moment of authoritarian drift overnight. But the truth is, the roots of this trend go back not just decades—but centuries. The danger wasn't born in the last few elections. It was embedded in the foundation.

From its inception, the United States has harbored a deep tension between the language of liberty and the reality of hierarchy. The Founders, while espousing Enlightenment ideals, also enshrined inequality in both law and practice. The Constitution protected slavery through euphemisms like the "three-fifths compromise" and provisions for the return of fugitive slaves. It also included language about suppressing insurrections and rebellions—not just to maintain peace, but often to protect the interests of wealthy landowners from the demands of the marginalized.

This contradiction has played out repeatedly across our history. The same nation that celebrated “all men are created equal” maintained chattel slavery, enforced segregation, denied women the vote, interned Japanese Americans, and disproportionately conscripted the poor into wars often driven by imperial or economic interests. The current use of ICE raids, anti-immigrant rhetoric, and threats to invoke the Insurrection Act against peaceful protests are not anomalies—they’re part of a long tradition of using state power to police “the other” while consolidating elite control.

Presidential power has also been a concern from the beginning. George Washington set a norm of stepping down after two terms, not because the Constitution required it, but because he recognized the dangers of concentrated executive authority. But that restraint has eroded. Today, we're witnessing a movement that seeks not only to ignore norms but to fundamentally rewrite them—potentially through violence, disinformation, or legal manipulation. When a president openly praises dictators, says he will be king and not to leave office, and threatens to invoke the Insurrection Act over an alleged invasion, we’re not watching the fall—we’re watching the culmination of long-standing, unresolved flaws.

The Libertarian Party claims to be a defender of liberty against this tide. But its record—though limited by its lack of actual power—doesn't offer a real alternative. Much of Libertarian ideology is shaped not by a deep commitment to justice, but by a propertarian obsession with deregulation, privatization, and the sanctity of wealth. In practice, this translates into policies that accelerate inequality, weaken public protections, and cede power to corporate oligarchs. Their refusal to support social safety nets or voting rights protections creates conditions ripe for the very authoritarianism they claim to oppose.

Moreover, the Libertarian movement has often indulged in conspiracy theories and anti-government paranoia that erode trust in democratic institutions. This is not an accident—it’s often part of a deliberate “both sides are bad” narrative that serves to paralyze civic engagement and normalize extremism. The tragic case of Ashli Babbitt, who died while storming the Capitol on January 6th, illustrates how this ideology—once it meets grievance and online radicalization—can turn deadly.

Yes, liberty is essential. But real liberty requires not just less government—it requires just government. One that is accountable, equitable, and bound by laws that apply to the powerful as well as the powerless. No political party has yet lived up to that standard, but fetishizing deregulation and tax elimination doesn’t get us closer to it—it often hastens the slide into corporate and executive domination.

If we want to resist authoritarianism, we need to stop imagining that it arrived recently, or that one party or movement can be its simple antidote. The task ahead is not just to vote or protest, but to reckon with the structural legacies—legal, economic, cultural—that have always made American democracy both inspiring and endangered. Only by facing those truths can we move toward a more just and durable freedom.

 

[Elixir]

As far back as the 1990's I was saying "the power you give to your side today will be wielded by the other side tomorrow." The Libertarian Party has been saying that since the 1970's, but I was but a kid then.

Gee, what could have led to the US being in a fascist or semi-fascist state? One election? A trend that stretches back decades?

You're absolutely right to suggest that the United States didn’t arrive at its current moment of authoritarian drift overnight. But the truth is, the roots of this trend go back not just decades—but centuries. The danger wasn't born in the last few elections. It was embedded in the foundation.

From its inception, the United States has harbored a deep tension between the language of liberty and the reality of hierarchy. The Founders, while espousing Enlightenment ideals, also enshrined inequality in both law and practice. The Constitution protected slavery through euphemisms like the "three-fifths compromise" and provisions for the return of fugitive slaves. It also included language about suppressing insurrections and rebellions—not just to maintain peace, but often to protect the interests of wealthy landowners from the demands of the marginalized.

This contradiction has played out repeatedly across our history. The same nation that celebrated “all men are created equal” maintained chattel slavery, enforced segregation, denied women the vote, interned Japanese Americans, and disproportionately conscripted the poor into wars often driven by imperial or economic interests. The current use of ICE raids, anti-immigrant rhetoric, and threats to invoke the Insurrection Act against peaceful protests are not anomalies—they’re part of a long tradition of using state power to police “the other” while consolidating elite control.

Presidential power has also been a concern from the beginning. George Washington set a norm of stepping down after two terms, not because the Constitution required it, but because he recognized the dangers of concentrated executive authority. But that restraint has eroded. Today, we're witnessing a movement that seeks not only to ignore norms but to fundamentally rewrite them—potentially through violence, disinformation, or legal manipulation. When a president openly praises dictators, says he will be king and not to leave office, and threatens to invoke the Insurrection Act over an alleged invasion, we’re not watching the fall—we’re watching the culmination of long-standing, unresolved flaws.

The Libertarian Party claims to be a defender of liberty against this tide. But its record—though limited by its lack of actual power—doesn't offer a real alternative. Much of Libertarian ideology is shaped not by a deep commitment to justice, but by a propertarian obsession with deregulation, privatization, and the sanctity of wealth. In practice, this translates into policies that accelerate inequality, weaken public protections, and cede power to corporate oligarchs. Their refusal to support social safety nets or voting rights protections creates conditions ripe for the very authoritarianism they claim to oppose.

Moreover, the Libertarian movement has often indulged in conspiracy theories and anti-government paranoia that erode trust in democratic institutions. This is not an accident—it’s often part of a deliberate “both sides are bad” narrative that serves to paralyze civic engagement and normalize extremism. The tragic case of Ashli Babbitt, who died while storming the Capitol on January 6th, illustrates how this ideology—once it meets grievance and online radicalization—can turn deadly.

Yes, liberty is essential. But real liberty requires not just less government—it requires just government. One that is accountable, equitable, and bound by laws that apply to the powerful as well as the powerless. No political party has yet lived up to that standard, but fetishizing deregulation and tax elimination doesn’t get us closer to it—it often hastens the slide into corporate and executive domination.

If we want to resist authoritarianism, we need to stop imagining that it arrived recently, or that one party or movement can be its simple antidote. The task ahead is not just to vote or protest, but to reckon with the structural legacies—legal, economic, cultural—that have always made American democracy both inspiring and endangered. Only by facing those truths can we move toward a more just and durable freedom.

Most excellent post.
QFT

 

[Politesse]

You do realize that symbolism used by fascists existed before fascism became an ideology?

Ideologies don't pop into existence fully formed, out of nowhere. What became the Fascist party in the 30s had a lot of precedents in the US and Europe alike. And some of those precedents were presidents.

 

[ZiprHead]

You do realize that symbolism used by fascists existed before fascism became an ideology?

Ideologies don't pop into existence fully formed, out of nowhere. What became the Fascist party in the 30s had a lot of precedents in the US and Europe alike. And some of those precedents were presidents.

Harding in particular.

 

[bilby]

Gee, what could have led to the US being in a fascist or semi-fascist state?

The US has always had strong fascist elements.

Ever since the 1930s, but "always" becomes fairly weak before that.

Lincoln Memorial. Construction started 1915. Those things he rests his hands on? They are fasces, literally the original symbol of fascism.
View attachment 51069

I thought these united states took it up in a strength through unity context. Axe, no axe, axe tightly bound by the bindings of the rods all having symbolic meaning.

What do you imagine the core message of fascism to be, if not "strength through unity"?

It appears that you understand that the US has always had strong fascist elements, but reject labelling those elements as 'fascist'.

Ultimately all political positions can be boiled down to either "Disagreements can be minimised by accommodating differences", or "Disagreements can be minimised by enforcing conformity". "Unity" is synonymous with conformity here; "We" are strong because any disunity is either eliminated or othered. You are either with us, or against us.

Being different is either a corruption and contamination of unity that weakens the nation; Or it is a source of resilience and innovation that strengthens it. Fascism claims that the former is true. An examination of history shows that the latfer is true - Fascism is not strong, it is hard - and therefore brittle.

If we want strength from our nation states and their governments (and I am not convinced that this is a laudable objective), then the more difficult approach of "strength through disunity tempered by tolerance and kindness" is better suited to the endurance of that end. And there are better ends towards which we could strive than strength. Why not strive for happiness, prosperity, and/or freedom instead?

For what is this strength to be used? And against whom?

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[scombrid]

Deputized J6 KKK guys.

 

[ZiprHead]

For those who think it's okay for officers to not identify themselves:

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Supreme Court allows Trump to swiftly deport certain immigrants to 'third countries'

The Trump administration sought to overturn a judge's ruling that imposed a legal process for deporting convicted criminals to places other than their countries of origin.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[unapologetic]

in a state run by patriots,

Both sides call themselves 'patriots'.

It seems he’s counting on his supporters being more interested in seeing a civil war than seeing the Epstein files.

Hay, I don't even care about the Epstein files.

What an insufferable prick Newsom is.

So are you.

If it costs Wally World 40% more to produce or buy a gallon of distilled water than it did five months ago, I'll eat my hat.

Costs are going up on everything.
If costs go up on secondary suplies for water producers like Neslie, They need to raise wholesale prices on everything they produce. Dito for middlemen/distributers. Ditto for Walmart. An extra 10% all along the supply chain adds up to 40% for you. (obviously I don't know the actual percentages) And yes, some bottled water comes from outside the US. (and some is just filtered tap water. Where do the filters come from?)

but since I'm sitting here watching my favorite liberal pundit on "The Beat', we still have free speech

Do you need to lose your freedom before you'll fight for it?

As a BlueSky noobie, I don't know how to link to the BlueSky post. I could copy the URL, but suspect that URL is personalized for me.

Do not click on suspicious links.
Copy, paste, and edit them.
In a URL, anything after '?' or '&' could be tracking you. It is mostly safe to delete that shit.
'url=whatever.com' would be a redirect or the trail you followed to get there. Use caution.
In this example, "?vurl=vurl_bundle" is the ad they want to show you. '&' and everything after it is the bullshit you should delete.
https://www.usaa.com/ins_bundle_landing?vurl=vurl_bundle&txid=OLV:TX1:HMFRHOPQ... (shortened by me)
In the following example "?v=xaEsni-OgUs" is the vid you want, and probably safe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaEsni-OgUs
Both examples are from youtube.

 

[unapologetic]

What is that pimple on the top of the police cars?

Mustard gass sprayers and RFID scaners.
(there are RFID chips in passports and greencards)
I can't read Russian. What does the caption say about it?

 

[Elixir]

If costs go up on secondary suplies for water producers like Neslie, They need to raise wholesale prices on everything they produce.

I can speak directly to that; Nestlé draws water locally from our pristine aquifer, and their costs have NOT gone up at the source. Not one penny. But I was talking about DISTILLED water. They don’t need our water - sewer water would produce the same thing if it was distilled. The cost of distillation is almost 100% tied to energy costs, which have NOT gone up >40% since the fascist takeover. This increase is something between opportunistic and predatory; most of it is sold in pediatric supplies. Despicable. I might even sell my WM stock.

 

[unapologetic]

This increase is something between opportunistic and predatory;

I called out Nestle by name because Nestle does a lot of very preditory shit. Especially in the 3rd world. (re: water and formula)(you should boycott Nestle brands)
My point was that Walmart does not deserve all the blame. Rump's incompenence deserves most of it.

Some locations of our local supermarket chain have a filtered water despenser, in front. (bring your own jug) I don't know what they charge.
All locations carry their own brand of bottled water. As well as the national brands. I haven't checked the prices, but I'm sure theirs is the cheepest.

 

[Elixir]

From perplexity;​

​

800 to 6,000 Gallon-per-Day Distillation Systems​

Vapor Compression Water Distillation Systems 800 to 6000 gallons per 24 hours for as low as 0.5 cents per US Gallon production cost!

The payback period for a typical 1500 gallon per day vapor compression distiller, operating at full output, (say 5000, 1-liter bottles per day), selling at 60 cents per liter, (wholesale), is less than 17 operating days. This is truly a remarkable payback. For a water store selling 1500 gallons of distilled water daily (and there are a number of them doing just that) at 50 cents per gallon, the payback period is less than three months!

Most competing distillation systems can use up to eight gallons of reject water for every gallon of water they distill. The VC6000 and our other commercial water distiller systems produce nearly six gallons of distilled water for every one gallon of reject water. See if you can find a commercial reverse osmosis system that is this water efficient!

 

[unapologetic]

Rump's idea of a trade ballence is STUPID.
Trade doesn't need to be ballenced.
Doesn't need to be ballenced with each country. They are not stealing if it isn't.
That is like demanding that Walmart needs to buy as much from you, as you buy from walmart.
What are ya gonna do? demand a rebate or coupons for the difference? Raise the sales tax?? Compete with them? Stop buying? Build/grow everything at home?

Rump is a slumloard. He invests in buildings and land, then sits back and collects RENT.
He doesn't know anything about trade. No buying and selling experance. His grift sales are all one-time pump & dump. Nothing sustainable.
His trade 'deals' with other countrys will turn out to be the same. And they can see it.