Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Poll do you think the US will become a fascist country by 2030?

US fascism Trump Republicans Democrats police state Recession Crisis Pandemic Capitalism

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you think the US be fascist by 2030? (15 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you think the US be fascist by 2030?

  1. Yes (2 votes [13.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.33%

  2. No (11 votes [73.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 73.33%

  3. Yes the US is already fascist (2 votes [13.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.33%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,260 posts
  • LocationUK

Yeah...no. There are definitely issues of race relations in this country, and there are certainly members of each race who'd want to stick to themselves, but the vast majority of each people still wants to coexist with the other peoples of the country. 

If most people want to coexist with other groups, then why do all these groups self-segregate? Why does white flight exist? Why do African-American and Hispanic people mainly choose to live among their own? Maybe, like Outlook says, there's something natural to this. I think it's rather insulting to African-American and Hispanic people to suggest they wouldn't be better off with their own nations.



#22
SeedNotYetSprouted

SeedNotYetSprouted

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

 

Yeah...no. There are definitely issues of race relations in this country, and there are certainly members of each race who'd want to stick to themselves, but the vast majority of each people still wants to coexist with the other peoples of the country. 

If most people want to coexist with other groups, then why do all these groups self-segregate? Why does white flight exist? Why do African-American and Hispanic people mainly choose to live among their own? Maybe, like Outlook says, there's something natural to this. I think it's rather insulting to African-American and Hispanic people to suggest they wouldn't be better off with their own nations.

 

 

Coexistence is not the same as assimilation. It's more like pluralism. People may still want to live amongst their family and friends, but they won't react with revulsion or disgust when someone who happens to be two shades darker than them walks by. And vice versa. 

Also, I acknowledged that there was something natural to this with my chimp comment further down in that same post. That's why I believe that neurological metamorphosis is in order.

 

And to address Outlook: nothing is purely logical. Spock and the Vulcans don't exist. There's always some underlying emotion to one's thoughts. Therefore, we have the leeway to make the decision as to how we want to progress psychologically and morally. Tribalism does not have to exist given sufficient alternative modes of operation. A future being could do well without it.



#23
Erowind

Erowind

    Anarchist without an adjective

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,565 posts

^ Why specifically death camps? Fascist Italy didn't even have concentration camps until the mid-1930s, but the British empire did in the 1890s, as did the USA in the 1940s (and arguably two during the Civil War).

Outgroup motivated genocide is where my brain goes to with fascism and there are empires that have certainly acted fascist. I don't know I could be wrong, I haven't actually put enough thought into this. It's not just concentration camps that signify fascism.

 

I suppose it's because fascism in my brain is a reaction to capitalist contradiction by capitalist systems. When the contradictions start unraveling themselves fascism reacts by trying to return to an idealized historical point that never actually existed. It does this by selecting and targeting certain outgroups and trends towards genocide as it tries to eliminate them, as the fascist regime pictures a given outgroup as the reason for its degeneration away from that idealized tradition. This doesn't work because the ideal of history is never the actual history, and what historical reality did exist can never be reclaimed because the conditions that created it no longer exist. This doesn't stop the fascist from trying though. As the elimination of one outgroup fails the regime moves on to another, and then another until eventually it starts eating itself entirely. If the Nazis had won WWII the genocide would not have stopped with the Jews and Slavs. It would have targeted other groups until it devolved so much that even Germans with Brown Hair would have eventually been targeted. This is the point (likely before even) at which the regime collapses in on itself because no country can sustain itself while genociding most of its population.

 

In that sense America is proto-fascist because it has established outgroups which it systemically targets but hasn't taken the full plunge into domestic genocide yet.



#24
Godstone

Godstone

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
Apparently, President Trump says he wants ANTIFA designated a terrorist organisation.

It won't happen, because there's not an organisation, but if the President wants those who are anti fascism to be declare terrorists then maybe a fascist USA isn't far off.

#25
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,942 posts

This is roughly how I expect the US to balkanise based on current trends by the end of the century (I couldn't be bothered to do it literally county-by-county).

 

AfACKjX.png

 

 

 

The problem with this map is that it is based on two at least partly contradictory premises:

 

  1. That the country will balkanise.
  2. That, except for the "American Republic" the most radical/progressive forces will win control in the respective regions where they live.

If the radical/progressive forces win across the board, then there will be no reason to balkanise.  Lumping progressive New England together with the more conservative Midwest, and then having New England in the subordinate position, just makes it seem more plausible.  In fact, there is no reason to believe that is how the split would play out. Certainly not initially.  

 

If balkanisation does occur, initially it will be the South that will be dominated by reactionary forces. Reactionaries will suppress the vote of blacks in their region and most likely suppress the vote of Hispanics in Texas, so that Texas will belong to the reactionary South instead of the progressive Latina West.  Florida  will be more likely to join the South because of vote rigging there, along with Latinos that are more conservative due to their  hostile memories of antipathy toward the Communists of Cuba.  The Midwest, with the possible exceptions of Wisconsin, Illinois and Colorado, will cast its lot with the South, or stop short of actually wanting to separate from the rest of the country.  There will be no reason for Washington and Oregon to separate itself from the Latina West.  Only geographic distance will separate the Pacific from the northern Atlantic coast, and that only if the Midwest joins with the South. 

 

If voter suppression efforts fail in Texas, Wisconsin, and Florida, then it is hard to see reactionary elements of the South becoming powerful enough to pull off a successful separatist movement. 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#26
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,942 posts

1280px-Percent_of_Hispanic_and_Latino_po

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note that Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Illinois and some states in the northeast all have relatively large percentages of Hispanics, although not to the same extent as California, New Mexico, and Texas.

 

Source:  https://en.wikipedia...tino_population


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#27
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,942 posts

1280px-African_American_by_state_in_the_

 

Percentage of population self-reported as African American by state in 2010       l ess than 2%   2–5%    5–10%    10–15%    15–20%    20–25%    25–30%    30–35%    35–40%

 

Source:https://en.wikipedia...USA_in_2010.svg


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#28
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,942 posts

When you compare the two maps and realize that in 2010 Texas had over 35% Hispanic and almost 12% African American you realize how vitally important it is to the reactionaries of that state to suppress voter turnout among those two minority groups.  Hispanics tend to be more conservative than blacks, but more liberal than whites. So they are not dependably reactionary enough to allow or encourage high voter turnout.  


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#29
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,942 posts

Oh hell, might as well throw Asians into the mix. It does help explain why California is so much more progressive than the rest of the country.

 

1024px-Asian_American_population_percent

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...ate_in_2010.svg


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#30
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,942 posts

Just in case you were starting to conclude that South Dakota and North Dakota must be lily white, you might want to check out the map  below.  Of course, no matter how you slice it, the actual percentage of population is pretty low, and it is only in comparison to other states that areas like North and South Dakota have a relatively high population of First Nation peoples (aka American Indian).

 

8840-03-figure-1.png?w=735&h=551&crop=1

 

https://www.google.c...=MihcavO5brLySM


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#31
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,942 posts

If voter suppression efforts fail in Texas, Wisconsin, and Florida, then it is hard to see reactionary elements of the South becoming powerful enough to pull off a successful separatist movement. 

 

Of course, I probably should have written that a more likely scenario is: a separatist movement from the federal system of states fed up with the Electoral College system electing reactionaries, despite the actual popular vote. That, coupled with the Supreme Court completely emasculating the House of Representatives.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#32
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,261 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

This is roughly how I expect the US to balkanise based on current trends by the end of the century (I couldn't be bothered to do it literally county-by-county).

 

AfACKjX.png

 

I expect the African-American population will desire their own nation - as the Black Panthers of the 1960s did with their dream of "New Afrika" in the south-eastern US. My general outline of "New Afrika" circa the late 21st Century is based on where the highest concentrations of African-Americans are (rural as well as urban) and so it's a bit different to the Black Panthers' outlines of the 1960s. It's the same logic with the Hispanic-dominated "Republica de America Latina". The Hispanic population might well dominate an area of the US much larger than that by the end of the 21st Century but like I say, based on current trends I would expect some sort of seccession movement to include these areas. I don't think they'd be very willing to just be annexed by Mexico though because now there's an entirely separate Hispanic-American identity which is too different to just be subsumed by either Mexico or the US. Florida is cut off from the rest of the RAL but that's not really that uncommon with other countries. Northern Ireland is cut off from the rest of the UK, Kaliningrad is cut off from the rest of Russia, etc. Alaska is cut off from the rest of the USA today, in fact. I expect Hawaii to become an independent nation. I thought Alaska would stay part of the white conservative Federal Republic because, well, Alaska is white and conservative and identifies very strongly with the traditional USA. Cascadia (Washington/Oregon) is white, with an increasing proportion of East Asians, but is a hotbed for radical leftism so I couldn't imagine them wanting much to do with their potentially fascist-leaning fellow whites in the Federal Republic. I know that New England is much more liberal but they're not really radical leftists in the same way that a lot of people in Cascadia are so all being the same based on today's trends, I think New England would just end up being absorbed by the Federal Republic even if it becomes a bit of a rebellious area.

 

Yeah...no. There are definitely issues of race relations in this country, and there are certainly members of each race who'd want to stick to themselves, but the vast majority of each people still wants to coexist with the other peoples of the country. The people that want to separate based on race are ethno-nationalists. There are plenty of white nationalists like Jared Taylor and that sly cumstain Stefan Molyneux, and a few black nationalists like Louis Farrakhan and Umar Johnson. However, like I said, they are a very small and vocal minority of their particular group.

 

There will always be racism because humans are tribalistic chimps. The only way to change this, as Cyber Rebel stated before, is to ascend into technological or supra-biological forms with altered neurology.

Agreed with all of this. Reduce human group differences on important traits such as average IQ and average amount of criminal behavior through transhumanism and you are likely to get less racial tensions in the US.

 

Personally, I am personally a huge believer in continued US unity. This might be because I am an immigrant to the US, but I personally would never want to see the US break up unless the US quite literally became a total dump--and it's an extremely long way off from that, thankfully! :)



#33
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,261 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

In response to the OP here, No, the US will not be Fascist in 2030. Trump's version of Fascism appears to be flaming out; it could linger on for a very long time, but Trump has seriously hurt it. Some kind of left-wing Woke mild totalitarianism might be more likely, though. A lot of people in academia have already gotten fired for saying controversial things and I expect this trend and pattern to only continue and accelerate in the future :(:

https://medium.com/@...cs-4685b1705794



#34
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,261 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

This is roughly how I expect the US to balkanise based on current trends by the end of the century (I couldn't be bothered to do it literally county-by-county).

 

AfACKjX.png

 

 

 

The problem with this map is that it is based on two at least partly contradictory premises:

 

  1. That the country will balkanise.
  2. That, except for the "American Republic" the most radical/progressive forces will win control in the respective regions where they live.

If the radical/progressive forces win across the board, then there will be no reason to balkanise.  Lumping progressive New England together with the more conservative Midwest, and then having New England in the subordinate position, just makes it seem more plausible.  In fact, there is no reason to believe that is how the split would play out. Certainly not initially.  

 

If balkanisation does occur, initially it will be the South that will be dominated by reactionary forces. Reactionaries will suppress the vote of blacks in their region and most likely suppress the vote of Hispanics in Texas, so that Texas will belong to the reactionary South instead of the progressive Latina West.  Florida  will be more likely to join the South because of vote rigging there, along with Latinos that are more conservative due to their  hostile memories of antipathy toward the Communists of Cuba.  The Midwest, with the possible exceptions of Wisconsin, Illinois and Colorado, will cast its lot with the South, or stop short of actually wanting to separate from the rest of the country.  There will be no reason for Washington and Oregon to separate itself from the Latina West.  Only geographic distance will separate the Pacific from the northern Atlantic coast, and that only if the Midwest joins with the South. 

 

If voter suppression efforts fail in Texas, Wisconsin, and Florida, then it is hard to see reactionary elements of the South becoming powerful enough to pull off a successful separatist movement. 

 

So, basically, voter suppression on a huge scale is an essential prerequisite for any Balkanization of the US?



#35
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,261 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

This is roughly how I expect the US to balkanise based on current trends by the end of the century (I couldn't be bothered to do it literally county-by-county).

 

AfACKjX.png

 

I expect the African-American population will desire their own nation - as the Black Panthers of the 1960s did with their dream of "New Afrika" in the south-eastern US. My general outline of "New Afrika" circa the late 21st Century is based on where the highest concentrations of African-Americans are (rural as well as urban) and so it's a bit different to the Black Panthers' outlines of the 1960s. It's the same logic with the Hispanic-dominated "Republica de America Latina". The Hispanic population might well dominate an area of the US much larger than that by the end of the 21st Century but like I say, based on current trends I would expect some sort of seccession movement to include these areas. I don't think they'd be very willing to just be annexed by Mexico though because now there's an entirely separate Hispanic-American identity which is too different to just be subsumed by either Mexico or the US. Florida is cut off from the rest of the RAL but that's not really that uncommon with other countries. Northern Ireland is cut off from the rest of the UK, Kaliningrad is cut off from the rest of Russia, etc. Alaska is cut off from the rest of the USA today, in fact. I expect Hawaii to become an independent nation. I thought Alaska would stay part of the white conservative Federal Republic because, well, Alaska is white and conservative and identifies very strongly with the traditional USA. Cascadia (Washington/Oregon) is white, with an increasing proportion of East Asians, but is a hotbed for radical leftism so I couldn't imagine them wanting much to do with their potentially fascist-leaning fellow whites in the Federal Republic. I know that New England is much more liberal but they're not really radical leftists in the same way that a lot of people in Cascadia are so all being the same based on today's trends, I think New England would just end up being absorbed by the Federal Republic even if it becomes a bit of a rebellious area.

TBH, I suspect that most US blacks and Hispanics would prefer to live in a united US since they would likely have a higher quality of life and standard of living here than they would in their own ethno-states. Plus, a Hispanic ethno-state is likely to be led by white Hispanics anyway, so brown Hispanics would simply be replacing one kind of white domination with another kind of white domination.

 

Interestingly enough, this is probably why most Israeli Arabs are likewise highly unwilling to support secession from Israel. They know that their quality of life would be worse in an Arab-majority country than it would be in Israel--and this is in spite of them being second-class citizens in Israel!



#36
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,261 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

US blacks are by and large notoriously loyal to the US. AFAIK, few blacks have left the US even during Jim Crow--preferring instead to move to other parts of the US that didn't actually have Jim Crow. Even being a second-class citizen in the US was superior for most US blacks in comparison to moving somewhere else, such as to Sub-Saharan Africa. So, Yeah, I really don't see a push for a black ethno-state as actually getting much traction among US blacks unless something significantly and drastically changes in the future.



#37
Computron

Computron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts

US blacks are by and large notoriously loyal to the US. AFAIK, few blacks have left the US even during Jim Crow--preferring instead to move to other parts of the US that didn't actually have Jim Crow. Even being a second-class citizen in the US was superior for most US blacks in comparison to moving somewhere else, such as to Sub-Saharan Africa. So, Yeah, I really don't see a push for a black ethno-state as actually getting much traction among US blacks unless something significantly and drastically changes in the future.


Waka wakka flava





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: US, fascism, Trump, Republicans, Democrats, police state, Recession, Crisis, Pandemic, Capitalism

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users