Sorry but isn't the debate over whether or not the US is "fascist" a dead end? Like the Nazis weren't completely defeated, they were absorbed. Fascism is smaller than what is going on here. Fascism is the dog at the end of the chain, but someone is holding the other end.
Sorry I'm not directing this at you, just this endless debate that always ends in a critical analysis of Umberto Eco, and none being any better for it.
Yeah, we aren’t quite at the “roving groups of brown shirts doing open pogroms and putting political enemies in concentration camps” stage yet, except maybe in small areas for short periods of time.
Shit is bad, but it’s going to get much much worse
It's also the fastest way to create a civil war situation. Nuclear weapons reside in more than one state and the question of what to do with the weapons in various states will be an issue. Seceding states aren't going to want to be defenseless next door to a christo-fascist state.
The result of disagreement over what to do with weaponry can only be civil war surely?
When the USSR broke up I believe the KGB took control of the nuclear facilities and the CIA even helped them because everyone agrees that having uncontrolled and unaccounted for nukes is very bad. I would guess that in the event of US balkanization the CIA would do the same, and if they failed to do so I’d expect Chinese, Russian, and British intelligence to assist.
That needs to not happen else the nukes are all going to Salt Lake City.
Between this and the Secret Service overruling trump my dumb-ass brain can't shake the feeling nobody ever quite got rid of their praetorian guard.
How would states secure the nukes within their territory? It's not like nuclear missile operators are residents of the state they are based in.
Fascism would result in fracture as fascists tend to identify by state. Texans hate California. Idahoians hate Washington. The Dakotans hate Chicago. Floridians hate Atlanta, Georgia. Alaskans hate everyone. Etc.
You'd get some kind of play, like in the Civil War, where a military leader attempts to charge into DC and seize control. But the long term consequences would be a total interstate crack-up.
The fact that Democrats swept Georgia and Arizona in 2020 suggests they aren't as secure in their positions as they like to pretend. That said, a lot of this hinges on the political power of municipalities (and their resident corporate anchors). It still all runs back to capitalist institutions and financial brokers.
A fascist turn in the US would ultimately pit business interests against one another, as power brokers try to cut one another off at the knees by bankrupting or taking over their rivals. The only end-game there would be to build the kind of economic firewalls that the US loves to build around its foreign enemies - Cuba, NK, Russia, etc. We'd just turn that policy inward and start building walls between North and South Carolina or by sanctioning all the big businesses in downtown Austin to death.
Someone whose opinions I respect has said the most likely future scenario for the US is a Qing-style degradation of federal power where state governments start merely ignoring federal laws and dictates in favor of their own, as well as making separate treaties with foreign governments. But the fiction of national unity and the military remain. I thinks its a good prediction considering another upcoming expected SCOTUS decision.
thank you. Back before Roe, evangelicals were pro-choice because they hated catholics.
If it is like going back to the before times, well people don't realize how long ago that was. It's not, 'the way things used to be' unless you're :smoothskin: years old.
Plus the big change is that it's an evangelical issue which it never used to be, so it's not even the before times, it's new.
Anyone who listens to Why Theory pod heard about the...not....infamous abortion episode of Maude. It's funny for an old sitcom and the interesting thing is how casual and grounded they thought of abortion back then.
Maude decides not to have a child because she's too old. That's it!
Because they're doing a "both sides" episode, the other character says that he enjoys kids and it might be a boy to carry on the family name. That's it.
Imagine how hard that episode would have to go now. The most controversial thing would be the fact that Maude is a well off woman with a healthy pregnancy and normal husband. These days she'd have to be a destitute woman of color- ya know make it clear she actually needs it.
Anytime I argue for abortion rights I paint a picture of how bad the worst details are going to be. The very nature of abortion has changed. Now I am having to justify it to some invisible 3rd party super ego in the room.
The craziest thing is Walter Cronkite covering Roe. Abortion isn't even big enough to be a human rights issue. Again it's a practical and technical issue.
See how they think Roe gives "doctors the right to choose". That is so how not we think about it.
This isn't anything like the before times because abortion has come to stand in for something a lot heavier and darker. Thank you for coming to my :posting:
float test
ah yes, the good old "throw her in the lake; if she floats, she's a witch"
Oh god if only someone had said something, if only someone would have warned the libs
The average human is a weak minded savage that values brawn over brain. That’s why fascist and their thuggish policies are so popular with 99% of the population. All because of the “tough guy” appeal.
This is literally what they want us to believe, it's what they believe. There are deep problems with this view. I sympathize with what you are going through.
Really good piece.
Maybe this was an only on twitter thing, but does remember when Jia Tolentino was "cancelled" because her parents owned slaves?
i remember the opposite - twitter users bending over themselves backwards to tell her how acceptable and not her fault it was that her parents owned slaves and the cancellers were an unruly mob.
The New Yorker isn't too painful as long as it's not one of their "funny" pieces.
I can see why you'd post this even if it's from the New Yorker. Here's one part that scared the shit out of me:
"Some have already laid the groundwork for establishing government databases of pregnant women likely to seek abortions. Last year, Arkansas passed a law called the Every Mom Matters Act, which requires women considering abortion to call a state hotline and requires abortion providers to register all patients in a database with a unique I.D. Since then, six other states have implemented or proposed similar laws. The hotlines are provided by crisis pregnancy centers: typically Christian organizations, many of which masquerade as abortion clinics, provide no health care, and passionately counsel women against abortion. Crisis pregnancy centers are already three times as numerous as abortion clinics in the U.S., and, unlike hospitals, they are not required to protect the privacy of those who come to them. "
I genuinely hate being on this sinking ship of a country.
Edit: And as a side note, I suppose this is the silver lining of not being able to afford major doctor visits for years due to privatized healthcare. No visits means less data to work with.
