Evil Right Wing Fascism will eventually win

[Scott Mayers]

Why do evil right wing fascists always win elections - if not now, then in the near future?

What is it with Right Wing Fascism that makes it so much more popular than say left-wing liberalism?

...., why is Fascism so popular?

Because animals normally are limited to LOCAL phenomena rather than GLOBAL ones, foundationally.

Evolution first assigns value by EACH independent animal's treatment early in life during 'windows of development'. These assign the concepts of 'good/not-good' and 'pleasure/not-pleasure', etc, from these. We learn values from (1)our self (our literal biology in context to our immediate environment, then (2)those people and things which provide these initial developments (our parents, direct guardians) then to (3) extended family and then to (4) others with SIMILAR appearances (which broadly include anything our emotions giver rise to), and...rarely, by normal evolutionary standards, beyond this.

"Family" is what some right-wingers would often use as a word to defend their focused interest because it justifies why they would believe one should CAPITALIZE on ANY behavior that gives this inner circle their advantage over others. "Race" is just an extention of this bias, as it is against other "species" altogether.

And the reason we get a rise in this is not directly from the right-wing groups because this is already default to us on a SELF-interest level. It occurs DUE to their KIND of thinking though. I think the indirect but more powerful CAUSE of fascism comes FROM within the ranks of the left who can overpower the interest of people as individuals among the whole. They are GROUP-defining right-wingers who find utility on the left by "collective fascists" that make these particular groups become the DEFINING minority rather than the individual.

So Trump's success, for instance, was as much due to how the present cult-like advocacy of the extremists who interpret an us-versus-them mentality on many "#meToo-like stances where the 'me' is defining some shallow genetic relationship as co-related to 'culture', like that one might believe that one OWNS some artistic skill due to some ancestral link, when these are ARTificial constructs.

[commonsense]

Why do evil right wing fascists always win elections - if not now, then in the near future?

....

No wonder why fascism persists even to this day. But I do wonder, why is Fascism so popular?

I believe the "evil right wing" are winning because the evil left wing are relatively MORE evil.
There are always extremists on each side [natural re Bell Curve], the issue is which evil is more evil than the other.

In effective decision making, one will calculate the weighted-average from a long list of related criteria which include positive and negative elements.
Thus despite some negative elements from the right-wing, these are not the critical issues and thus the resulting weighted-average of the right-wing is positively higher than that of the left-wing.

Personally I will give very heavy weightage to 'Freedom of Speech' and 'being wary of Islamic evil & violence' economic performances, national security, national pride, etc. The left-wing hindrance of 'Freedom of Speech' and their being so apologetic to Islam is so obvious.

Some national leaders are loud mouths, egoistic, boasters, thin skin, e.g. Trump, Duterte [Philippines]. etc. but such behaviors are not critical in comparison to actual political performance and results.

I agree with your post, VE. I would only add that whether the right or the left will win depends not only on the criteria/preferences you mention but also on what portion of the voting public agrees or disagrees with your thinking.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why do evil right wing fascists always win elections - if not now, then in the near future?

....

No wonder why fascism persists even to this day. But I do wonder, why is Fascism so popular?

I believe the "evil right wing" are winning because the evil left wing are relatively MORE evil.
There are always extremists on each side [natural re Bell Curve], the issue is which evil is more evil than the other.

In effective decision making, one will calculate the weighted-average from a long list of related criteria which include positive and negative elements.
Thus despite some negative elements from the right-wing, these are not the critical issues and thus the resulting weighted-average of the right-wing is positively higher than that of the left-wing.

Personally I will give very heavy weightage to 'Freedom of Speech' and 'being wary of Islamic evil & violence' economic performances, national security, national pride, etc. The left-wing hindrance of 'Freedom of Speech' and their being so apologetic to Islam is so obvious.

Some national leaders are loud mouths, egoistic, boasters, thin skin, e.g. Trump, Duterte [Philippines]. etc. but such behaviors are not critical in comparison to actual political performance and results.

I agree with your post, VE. I would only add that whether the right or the left will win depends not only on the criteria/preferences you mention but also on what portion of the voting public agrees or disagrees with your thinking.

I believe the present status quo will not change till a long time into the future.

However a rational discussion of the above at present and continued persistently may trigger humanity to find solutions more expeditiously for the future.
For example it is the continued discussions and debates that enable 'capitalism' to slowly creep into many once dogmatic communist regimes like Russia, China, Vietnam and others.

[commonsense]

I believe the "evil right wing" are winning because the evil left wing are relatively MORE evil.
There are always extremists on each side [natural re Bell Curve], the issue is which evil is more evil than the other.

In effective decision making, one will calculate the weighted-average from a long list of related criteria which include positive and negative elements.
Thus despite some negative elements from the right-wing, these are not the critical issues and thus the resulting weighted-average of the right-wing is positively higher than that of the left-wing.

Personally I will give very heavy weightage to 'Freedom of Speech' and 'being wary of Islamic evil & violence' economic performances, national security, national pride, etc. The left-wing hindrance of 'Freedom of Speech' and their being so apologetic to Islam is so obvious.

Some national leaders are loud mouths, egoistic, boasters, thin skin, e.g. Trump, Duterte [Philippines]. etc. but such behaviors are not critical in comparison to actual political performance and results.

I agree with your post, VE. I would only add that whether the right or the left will win depends not only on the criteria/preferences you mention but also on what portion of the voting public agrees or disagrees with your thinking.

I believe the present status quo will not change till a long time into the future.

However a rational discussion of the above at present and continued persistently may trigger humanity to find solutions more expeditiously for the future.
For example it is the continued discussions and debates that enable 'capitalism' to slowly creep into many once dogmatic communist regimes like Russia, China, Vietnam and others.

Again, I agree with your post. Very astute.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Why do evil right wing fascists always win elections - if not now, then in the near future?

* Trump getting voted in office.
* Turkish Erdogan voted by the general turkish population in- and outside of Turkey, to become a dictator.
* Hungary's Orban abolishing several democratic institutions and principles in a EU-country.
* British vote to first leave EU, then re-electing the Tories and win no-confidence vote.
* Italy's openly Fascist-parties with veneration for Mussolini, getting in office.
* AFD-party becoming the largest opposition party in Germany - threatening to topple the current government in the near future.
* Sweden Democrats becoming the largest opposition party in Sweden, threatening tot topple the current government in the near future.

What is it with Right Wing Fascism that makes it so much more popular than say left-wing liberalism?

Or to put it in another saying:

Why do evil people always win in this god-forsaken world?

Remember that Hitler, Mussolini and Franco enjoyed enourmous popularity even after WW2.
Several polls were made in the years 1946-1960 showing that Hitler enjoyed support from 50+ % of the German population.

No wonder why fascism persists even to this day. But I do wonder, why is Fascism so popular?

Because the evil fascists are cowards/idiots/psychotic and will have their brain dead followers, (their pawns, (also psychos)), kill you, just for the fun of it, if they fancy it, drunk on self ego stroking, because they know the bravery of being out of range, thus have become that thing they fear.

While the liberals are brave/intelligent thus believe in equality for all, so they'll never try and kill you for any reason, because they know that the bravery of being out of range is for fools, that have become that which they fear, thus are psychotic and therefore can only be pitied, as the sick fucks they are!

[dorothea]

Deary me. You don't know what a fascist is do you? Erdogan almost fits the definition as one who wants to force totalitarian unity on political, economic and social affairs. Trump and the Brexit voters are the very opposite in rejecting central government control, especially supra-national government, and wanting to maximise freedom (to the point of licence in trump's case). The EU's unelected bureaucrats (how fascist) are on the road to serfdom and left unmolested will produce a USSR or pan-European empire

Don't use right/left wingisms. They mean nothing. Is Iran left or right? Is Saud? Does it matter? All Islamic states are as fascist/totalitarian as the Nazis were, and the soviets too.
Aristotle distinguished only tyranny/oligarchy and opposed it to rule by the wise and just (like himself) and regarded democracy as the least worst perversion of rule by folks like himself. That's all we need

[henry quirk]

Deary me. You don't know what a fascist is do you? Erdogan almost fits the definition as one who wants to force totalitarian unity on political, economic and social affairs. Trump and the Brexit voters are the very opposite in rejecting central government control, especially supra-national government, and wanting to maximise freedom (to the point of licence in trump's case). The EU's unelected bureaucrats (how fascist) are on the road to serfdom and left unmolested will produce a USSR or pan-European empire

Don't use right/left wingisms. They mean nothing. Is Iran left or right? Is Saud? Does it matter? All Islamic states are as fascist/totalitarian as the Nazis were, and the soviets too.
Aristotle distinguished only tyranny/oligarchy and opposed it to rule by the wise and just (like himself) and regarded democracy as the least worst perversion of rule by folks like himself. That's all we need

[gaffo]

Frank Luts(sp) - i.e simple branding, "death tax" etc................

there is no Frank on the left to champion clear propoganda (as usaul the republican spanish in 38 should have won the war, but instead did the in-fighting and so lost to Franco).

Henry, from one libertarian to another - though on opposite sides - what is your view of fascism?

[henry quirk]

question: which is fascistic (authoritarian)...

the one who makes the crowd get out of his way

...or...

the crowd who blunt free movement in the public sphere?

[Gary Childress]

question: which is fascistic (authoritarian)...

the one who makes the crowd get out of his way

...or...

the crowd who blunt free movement in the public sphere?

I would think possibly both, depending on some other circumstances.

[Immanuel Can]

question: which is fascistic (authoritarian)...

the one who makes the crowd get out of his way

...or...

the crowd who blunt free movement in the public sphere?

It takes a crowd for fascism to work. By definition, it's a collectivist ideology (it refers to the fascio, or "bundle of sticks" of Roman lore, signifying the binding together in one of many individuals). As such, it's Leftist and authoritarian, and is not at all related to Classical Liberalism, or to Libertarianism, individualism, or capitalism. It depends on mobilizing the crowd.

The one who "makes the crowd get out of his way" might be an Egoist, or a Solipsist, or an individualist, or just a boor...but he's really no danger to anyone but himself, and is not a fascist, because he does not "bundle together" other people to enact his authoritarian projects.

That's where the premise of this OP goes so badly wrong. Fascism is left-wing. Fascism is nationalist, collectivist authoritarianism, whereas Communism is internationalist, collectivist authoritarianism.

[Gary Childress]

question: which is fascistic (authoritarian)...

the one who makes the crowd get out of his way

...or...

the crowd who blunt free movement in the public sphere?

It takes a crowd for fascism to work. By definition, it's a collectivist ideology (it refers to the fascio, or "bundle of sticks" of Roman lore, signifying the binding together in one of many individuals). As such, it's Leftist and authoritarian, and is not at all related to Classical Liberalism, or to Libertarianism, individualism, or capitalism. It depends on mobilizing the crowd.

The one who "makes the crowd get out of his way" might be an Egoist, or a Solipsist, or an individualist, or just a boor...but he's really no danger to anyone but himself, and is not a fascist, because he does not "bundle together" other people to enact his authoritarian projects.

That's where the premise of this OP goes so badly wrong. Fascism is left-wing. Fascism is nationalist, collectivist authoritarianism, whereas Communism is internationalist, collectivist authoritarianism.

I don't know if the terms "left" and "right" even apply anymore. The term originated in the French revolution with the National Assembly splitting over who supported the revolution (sitting on the left), and those who supported the king (sitting on the right). So authoritarianism has generally been associated with those on the right and liberalism (sharing origin with the word "liberty") being associated with those on the left. These days almost no one supports authoritarianism, at least not overtly, and so it's difficult to say that anyone is on the right. Now what we have is basically a mix of different flavors of liberalism. Otherwise, the terms "left" and "right" have lost most of their meaning. It's difficult to shoehorn those terms into contemporary politics (at least in Western societies based on liberal democracy). Certainly, most socialists don't favor authoritarianism any more or less than capitalists do. Both systems can have authoritarian aspects as well as democratic ones.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know if the terms "left" and "right" even apply anymore. The term originated in the French revolution with the National Assembly splitting over who supported the revolution (sitting on the left), and those who supported the king (sitting on the right). So authoritarianism has generally been associated with those on the right and liberalism (sharing origin with the word "liberty") being associated with those on the left.

That is almost correct. The right wasn't necessarily "authoritarian," but rather "royalist." I guess if you figure a king is always "authoritarian," by definition, then that would be right. However, the Revolution turned out to be far more authoritarian than anything that went before it. At least the king hadn't been guillotining people in the streets. That's why what the Left created became known as "The Terror," historically. And historians have conventionally said that Napoleon was "heir of the Revolution." So how much actual "liberalism" did the French Left really produce? First a lot of death, then effective despotism. That's not necessarily a great liberal legacy.

These days almost no one supports authoritarianism, at least not overtly,

I hardly know how you can say that. There are certainly many advocates of very authoritarian big government in America right now, and they mostly line up on the "Left," politically. If you listen to what they say, they want large government bureaucracies, massive economic regulation, a shrinking of the private sphere, centralized and government managed education and health care, total control of the media, destruction and confiscation of private property, and diminishment of free speech -- or they even want compelled speech laws...It's all pretty authoritarian, actually.

[Gary Childress]

These days almost no one supports authoritarianism, at least not overtly,

I hardly know how you can say that. There are certainly many advocates of very authoritarian big government in America right now, and they mostly line up on the "Left," politically. If you listen to what they say, they want large government bureaucracies, massive economic regulation, a shrinking of the private sphere, centralized and government managed education and health care, total control of the media, destruction and confiscation of private property, and diminishment of free speech -- or they even want compelled speech laws...It's all pretty authoritarian, actually.

No. IC. Most socialists don't support authoritarianism. Read up on it sometime.

[Immanuel Can]

No. IC. Most socialists don't support authoritarianism. Read up on it sometime.

"Most socialists"? You mean like the National Socialists in Germany, or the international Socialists in Russia? Or were you thinking of China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela, Angola, Zimbabwe...? Those socialists are the ones who don't support authoritarianism, you say? Or do those not count as "socialists"?

You mean American socialists? And you think they're special and different, so they won't go that route? Well, right now they declare that they want to take private property, they want a massive expansion of government, they want to suppress free speech, they want to socialize medicine and education totally, they want to control the economy, they want veto power over all the media, they want to eliminate national sovereignty...at what point is any of that NOT authoritarian?

And what would it take for them to ask for before you went, "Hey, that's a bit authoritarian"?

Don't worry...I'm very well read up on it. You actually probably have no idea how well.