Actually Existing Fascism

With the election of Donald Trump, we’re being told that now is the time to fear fascism in America.

What is this nightmare-vision of a fascist America supposed to look like? This alternate-reality USA, under the uniquely vicious reign of the Trump regime, is one in which minorities have to fear for their lives. The president will speak in openly white supremacist language. Black Americans will have to fear death at the hands of police and vigilantes; latin@s will have to fear deportation; Muslims, Islamophobic violence; and so on. The good people of humanity will tremble as Trump wields America’s fearsome armed forces, secret police, elite death squads, drones, and surveillance technology for the good of himself and his cronies. Earth’s ecosystem—the very promise of a habitable planet—will be sacrificed by men who put profits ahead of human needs and the good of mankind.

Truly, fascist America would a terrifying place. This vision is so terrifying that mere days after the election, even the most conformist liberals have suddenly gotten in touch with the radical antifa apparently slumbering inside each one of them. Highly publicized protests have already occurred in several major cities. Democratic Party propaganda organ Daily Kos, which banned criticisms of Hillary site-wide in March 2016, is suddenly receptive to a planned general strike on inauguration day. Those who can manage to unscrew themselves from the fetal position are resolute in their opposition to Trump’s agenda—“we have all been radicalized,” writes future Molotov-thrower Lena Dunham. All these new radicals, radicalized by Trump’s racist language. Radicalized by the way his administration threatens non-whites with state violence. Radicalized by the fact that he’ll be Commander-in-Chief, and he’ll use that power to kill.

So where the fuck were all these protesters when Obama was actually doing what Trump says he’ll do? Trump’s neo-Nazi dystopia is the USA that exists today, and anyone who doesn’t realize it needs to shut the fuck up and stop pretending to know anything about politics. Anyone who thinks Donald Trump is more of a fascist than Barack Obama is some combination of an imbecile, a liberal, and a charlatan.

Barack Obama was the President who expanded the White House’s power to kill anyone, anywhere, including American citizens. If wielding power like a führer is the mark of fascism, then Obama qualified as of the 2012 passage of the NDAA.

It seems like every dire warning about the Trump administration starts with a bit about the millions of immigrant families that might be torn apart. Many Trump voters would salivate over the prospect of deporting 2.5 million people, as Obama has done—more than every 20th century president combined. Along the way, the Obama administration has created countless millions of refugees by destroying Honduras and Libya, towards whom the president has shown a remarkable callousness that doesn’t seem to trouble these Democrats suddenly frightened on behalf of immigrants.

Trump said that he wants to ban Muslims from entering the United States. In 2009, as Obama began his time in the White House, prosecutions for “homegrown terrorism” shot up, as the Obama Department of Justice focused on a Muslim enemy within. By 2010, in the face of nativist hysteria over a “Ground Zero mosque,” the most stirring defense the President could muster was that Muslims were free to practice where they want but they probably shouldn’t. This was at the same time that the NYPD, trained and likely acting on behalf of the CIA, was spying on tens of thousands of Muslim-Americans throughout the US Northeast. Anyone deluded enough to think Barack Obama is a friend to Muslims should ask Tarek Mehanna, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, or the hundreds of thousands of Libyans, Yemenis, Pakistanis, Afghans, Iraqis, Somalis, or Iranians who his administration has killed, displaced, maimed, starved, or terrorized. And with less than a week before the election, Barack Obama agreed to appear on HBO’s Real Time hosted by Bill Maher, a virulent liberal Islamophobe who has spent years peddling Trumpian bigotry against Muslims.

Liberals are horrified by Trump’s hatred of journalists, which is supposed to be a sign of his aberrant fascist tendencies. Before the Snowden leak spectacle largely wiped of from the news cycle, progressive outlets had started to cover the Obama administration’s war on journalism, which was sending whistleblowers and their journalist allies to prison at an unprecedented rate. Of course, while Trump’s dislike of journalists makes him Hitleresque, Obama’s actual imprisonment of journalists was, at worst, Nixonian.

Trump will, apparently unlike every president in AmeriKKKan history, be uniquely bad for African-Americans. Will his administration steal the wealth from black homes, the way Obama helped Wall Street loot black America? Will black Americans have to rise up in the streets and declare that black lives matter, to protest the black person murdered every 28 hours in the USA? Will black revolutionaries start being mysteriously and brutally murdered in Trump’s America, like Darren Seals and at least 5 other activists in Ferguson, all of whom bear the hallmarks of falling victim to a COINTELPRO 2.0? Will a Trump Justice Department ramp-up efforts to capture fugitive black freedom fighters like Assata Shakur?

Even the idea that Trump and the Republicans are the only ones to speak in openly white supremacist language is idiotic, and someone doesn’t have to go back to Hillary Clinton talking about “super-predators” to find examples. As one blog pointed out:

Obama’s 2008 “speech on race” in Philadelphia (officially titled “A More Perfect Union”), celebrated as “too good for today’s media” and “reviving the spirit of the nation itself,” was a Eucharistic repetition of white supremacist lies. In this speech, the future president delivered an objectively white supremacist view of US history, deriding the idea that white racism is endemic, equating the liberation theology of Jeremiah Wright with the latent anti-black racism of his grandmother, and accusing black radicals and revolutionary anti-racists of fomenting “disunity” at a time when “we” need to come together—while pointing to his own candidacy as proof that racism had mostly been dismantled. Minus the well-worn details about the Senator’s life story and tedious speechifying, the basic lessons of the speech would have been at home on a Fox News panel about “race hustlers.”

One thing is true, though: Trump is uniquely bad in certain ways. The Donald, that two-bit reality-TV huckster, is sullying the august White House walls with his conciliatory attitude towards Russia and China (though his quick about-face on US troops in the southern half of the Korean peninsula is an indication of how serious this is). Still, after a year of Hillary Clinton sounding the drums of war, the Democrats are seemingly united in fury that Trump is a little frigid towards the idea of starting World War III. To be fair to them, they’re absolutely right: Trump can’t claim Hillary’s feverish desire for a nuclear war against Russia, nor her proven track record of killing millions of people throughout the global South.

Anyone who hasn’t surrendered the last lobe of their brain to the Democratic Party, and who’s fond of not being turned into ashes, has to ask themselves why it would be desirable for President Trump to start WW3, as Clinton practically promised to do. This is another question that Nate Silver would get completely wrong, but I think the actually existing fascism of Obama offers a clue. Just like Democrats have transferred all of Obama’s evils to the Nazi caricature of Trump, liberals are the ones who are lashing out against reality.

The reality is that capitalism, particularly at this stage, has nothing good to offer the vast majority of humanity, and even increasing numbers of people in the core. Democrats conveniently forget that the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania rose to power based on illusory promises to make things better. Like Trump, his record spoke to the absurdity of his bill of goods, and he boasted a CV only marginally more impressive than “shady tycoon and TV personality.” Even though his economic promises were vague, all the “hope” talk gave people a lot of ideas; when it came time to govern, Obama defended capital against “the pitchforks,” as he always intended. If apathetic voters and fucked-over workers played a part in Trump’s election, why wouldn’t they? And how will the upper-middle class and rich liberal who benefit from this order respond? As one commentator observed, in a story that is typical of America’s sneering liberal bourgeois:

A Seattle-area friend who lives in the farther working-class suburbs came to work to his inner-city, wealthy liberal coworkers bitching that his neighbors “voted us into fascism.” In the same breath, this rich shit complained about the passing of a transportation bill that would raise their taxes: “If they want Trump so bad they can pay for their own buses.” Here’s someone who probably calls themselves a progressive attacking actually existing progressivism because their taxes will go up a split hair, and potentially benefit unworthy types, “deplorables.” Maybe these people wouldn’t feel the need to “shake things up” if they had had what they needed to thrive all along. But then your misty piney mossy café-flanked Seattle townhome might have to fit only one Subaru in the garage.

Trump now owns whatever happens under his presidency,” writes another newly energized rebel at Daily Kos. Not Obama. Obama, like any high-status Democrat, is never responsible for what he creates, and when he is, it’s at worst a mistake. Actually existing fascism has been erected through a series of bumbles, hypocrisies, mistakes, and odd little ironies. Obama has never been culpable for what he does; today, Democrats wail that Hillary’s worse crime was being imperfect. The bourgeois elements that are the most visible Democrats can never own up to the fact that their alleged “base” doesn’t have any good reason to come out and vote for them. So like the Red State-bogeymen they invoke so frequently, liberals are sprinting away from reality into a bubble of comforting myths and idols.

Rather than face up to the fact that Hillary Clinton has little appeal outside of Goldman Sachs and whatever the Project for a New American Century is called these days, Democrats are cursing Sanders fans, third-party voters, and non-voters with a hatred usually reserved for vegans. Since they can only imagine their own upper-middle class lives orbiting major urban centers, the loudest Democrats think that everyone who’s not exactly like them is a racist, woman-hating cretin, and hope “that they be educated and moved to the vicinity of the major hubs in the northeast and western parts, that they die off [or] that a country would attack the United States and obliterate them.” Rather than actually learn anything of substance, liberals are doing the only thing their politics really involve: sharing and commiserating over an extremely circumscribed set of insipid pop-culture references that flatter them and insulate them from reality. Those leftist critiques of Obama or Clinton that do manage to penetrate this fantasy-world get angrily dismissed as right-wing media conspiracy theories or Kremlin propaganda. And finally, as with any good whitewash, liberals are going to pretend that Donald Trump represents something totally alien and uniquely menacing, as though Obama hasn’t done everything Trump says he will.

And now, as soon as humanity has its first shot at finally being rid of the Clintons, and taking a small step back from the brink of ultimate atomic horror, these people want to gnash their teeth about America finally becoming fascist.

Fuck them.

If Trump is a fascist, them countless prominent American liberals are too, chief among them the widely beloved Barack Obama. Contemporary America doesn’t look like Nazi Germany for the simple reason that it isn’t Nazi Germany (J. Sakai argues that “Settlerism filled the space that fascism normally occupies”). What the Democrats offer is a slightly more “woke fascism,” in which the slave-owning settlers are remade in entertainment media as cool black guys, with all the “problematic” racist history elided via a harmonious multi-ethnic makeover. It’s worth noting that Donald Trump makes overtures to the same woke fascism as Obama and Clinton: after the Pulse nightclub massacre, Trump promised to defend “the LGBTQ community” from foreign attackers. In other words, Trump and Clinton alike promise a typically colonialist defense of liberal values like gay rights from the swarthy hordes.

So color me unim-fucking-pressed that now that a blatantly villainous Republican is headed for the White House, everyone is talking about a united front against fascism. Of course, given that the vast majority of the newly radicalized loved and still love the child-murdering white supremacist Barack Obama, what we’re talking about is a just another united front against the GOP.

I know it’s ancient history to be talking about the Bush years, just like it’s hopelessly passé to unironically talk about “imperialism” in 2016, but please indulge me. I remember back when George W. Bush was president, torturing people around the world, “shredding the Constitution,” attacking Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran with nukes. At the time, it was pretty common, even popular and fashionable, to call the president a fascist. Even on TV! Everyone who wasn’t a Republican was radical: it seemed like Democrats and communists alike could gripe over everything from a stolen Florida election to the invasion of Iraq.

Then sometime around 2007, a neoliberal and fundamentally conservative mediocrity named Barack Obama showed up, and while he made a lot of noise about how different he was, there was almost nothing of substance to back it up. Once he was president, all the stuff that was proof of George W.’s fascism became a trifling issue, a simple mistake, or a regrettable necessity when Obama did it. As Obama continued George Bush’s legacy, and as Dick Cheney came out in support of Hillary Clinton, liberals stopped thinking of the Bush administration as a fascist criminal enterprise and started seeing it through Sorkin-colored glasses, with a George Bush-Michelle Obama hug at the twilight of the Obama presidency marking the decisive transition.

So I actually remember how this went down the last time the mainstream was this comfortable talking about fascism—although the chorus was never this deafening. I remember that all the liberals quieted down about fascism when their guy was doing it. So did a lot of the radicals, to the eternal shame and discredit of those absolute frauds. As the popular Democrat Obama brought hell to millions with the brazenness of a Duce, calling the president a fascist went back to the fringes, where it had been, and where it will be again once it’s no longer politically expedient for people at the top to have us raising hell against Trump. I know exactly how this goes, since it all happened before, and not very long ago, either. And just like with Obama, whose coronation was a sort of inversion of this, I remember that anyone who’s remotely skeptical of this obviously elite-approved narrative will get dismissed as a crank or a spoilsport.

However, maybe for now we could have some perspective. I know he’s popular and cool, but Obama’s been in office nearly a full eight years. Maybe these last 70 days, the radicals now hyperventilating over Trump could develop some idea of what Obama’s actually been doing this entire time?

And if the still-uncompromising black revolutionary and political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal can say “If Trump is the price we have to pay to defeat Clintonian neoliberalism–so be it,” then maybe some of the liberals still dry-heaving can pull themselves together and learn a single thing about what America and the world are really like outside their privileged little bubbles? I mean, I know how fond these people are of pretending that they’re the only adults in the room, the only people using their inside voices. Maybe they could try to be as smart as Trevor Noah keeps telling them they are.

In the meantime, I’ll go ahead and be skeptical about all the no pasarán shit that cropped up the instant Hillary lost. Maybe if the inspiring new Credulous Dipshit Brigades could name a single fucking instance of fascism that’s not practiced by Obama, then this whole thing wouldn’t look like such an obviously astroturfed, color-revolutiony scam.

What I know for sure is that any radicals who end up calling liberals comrade in the coming weeks are allying themselves with people who want a more violent, more genocidal, and ultimately more fascist president. Almost every liberal complaint includes references to Donald Trump weakening NATO, as though that wouldn’t be one of the most progressive developments for the good of humanity. This is where liberals give themselves away: just like they wanted Obama to restore America’s reputation after Bush so it could be the most effective fortress of capitalism, they trust Clinton to be a more capable imperial steward than Trump. If you find yourself shoulder-to-shoulder with liberals at the barricades, know that your allies are fighting on behalf of American fascism, if the word means what we keep hearing it does.

And if you think Trump is more evil than Obama or Hillary Clinton, you’re ignorant as fuck and you’re a liberal.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Actually Existing Fascism

  1. dkbuntovnik says:

    I agree with much of what you say, but one thing I’m left wondering is: how strong is the actual case for Hillary having a “feverish desire for a nuclear war against Russia”? Her call for investment in “net-centric warfare” seems to support a broader redefinition of warfare as “operations”, with information war directed at more “symmetrical threats” like Russia and more traditional methods of war directed at “asymmetric threats”. I elaborate on this in a recent post I made at my blog ( ) A relevant passage:

    “Hillary Clinton and U.S. militarists’ broad conceptualization of warfare, redefined and expanded to include a variety of operations which were heretofore held to be “operations other than war”, should be read as an attempt to accelerate the militarization of domestic policing, expand proxy wars, and work around the limitations imposed by mutually assured destruction, not as an imminent push to engage Russia with nuclear warheads, as the peewee two-party system bourgeois candidate Jill Stein has argued in her alarmist pro-Trump lesser evilist discourse.”

    The Trump as lesser evil pitch is a really hard sell and I’m suspicious of the idea that it’s even a point worth trying to make. The actual chances of Trump weakening imperialism (e.g. on NATO) are slim–we’re talking about the candidate who campaigned on the promise of stoking the blood bath in Syria with legalized lethal kin liability/Sippenhaft. They are both pretty much equally fucking evil. Maybe better than the idealist question of “who’s more evil?” is the scientific question of “who’s more progressive (in the historical sense of development)?” Like Lenin said: ““The proletariat is hostile to every bourgeoisie and to all manifestations of the bourgeois system, but this hostility does not relieve it of the duty of distinguishing between the historically progressive and the reactionary representatives of the bourgeoisie.” There the answer is pretty obviously that Hillary is more progressive than Trump, because she aligns with the forces of globalization and even open borders (a step closer “the future union of peoples in a single world economic system, which is the material basis for the victory of world socialism” [Stalin’s words]), while Trump campaigned on the basis of trade protectionism and blatant appeals to white supremacism.


    • doloresvek says:

      Clinton’s insistence on a No-Fly Zone in Syria, at a time when the Joint Chiefs of Staff keep repeating that such a thing means war against Russia, seems a clear indication that she’s pushing a policy that can only end one way. The same with her comments about meeting cyber-attacks with military force, at the same time that her campaign was blaming Kremlin hackers for Wikileaks releases.

      Liked by 2 people

      • dkbuntovnik says:

        Would a Clinton presidency have further exasperated relations between the US-Russian governments more than a Trump one? Yeah, that’s very likely, but it’s still a big leap from dogfights over Syria to all-out nuclear Armageddon. As for “meeting cyber-attacks with military force”, that seems like an even bigger leap since, from what I gather, Clinton & US militarists were talking about conducting military operations in non-traditional theaters of war such as cyberspace; e.g.

        “We need a military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats and operate on short notice across every domain – not just land, sea, air and space but also cyberspace.” — IBTimes, “Clinton: US should use ‘military response’ to fight cyberattacks from Russia and China”

        “The report followed the release in mid-July [2011] of the Pentagon’s cybersecurity policy, which designated cyberspace as an ‘operational domain’ like land, sea and air where U.S. forces would be trained to conduct offensive and defensive operations.” — Reuters, “U.S. reserves right to meet cyber attack with force”


      • doloresvek says:

        it’s still a big leap from dogfights over Syria to all-out nuclear Armageddon.

        No, it’s not.

        Liked by 5 people

      • parink says:

        It’s not just Syria. Don’t forget Ukraine. Obama and Nuland installed a NAZI infested regime there.

        Liked by 1 person

    • gbelljnr says:

      There the answer is pretty obviously that Hillary is more progressive than Trump, because she aligns with the forces of globalization and even open borders (a step closer “the future union of peoples in a single world economic system, which is the material basis for the victory of world socialism” [Stalin’s words]), while Trump campaigned on the basis of trade protectionism and blatant appeals to white supremacism.

      I think it is open to dispute that the neoliberal world system bequeathed by globalization truly is a step closer to the material basis for the victory of world socialism. If anything, the neoliberal world system is the consequence of a carefully planned process of globalization aimed at eliminating the conditions for world socialism, and preventing the emergence of any other kind of globalism which might make world socialism more attainable.

      Just for example, the vaunted openness of borders under neoliberal capitalism is an openness to the movement of capital, or to the managed migration of labor for the benefit of capital. Closed borders are also useful to neoliberals though. Selectively porous borders are integral, because the partition of globalized capitalism into national enclosures, separating out and segregating formations of the working class to prevent them acting in concert, is part of the playbook for preventing the conditions for world socialism from emerging. This is all part of the process of offshoring production, and the reason for the decimation of the working class within the imperial core. It is desirable to globalized capital that borders remain, but that they are porous when they need to be, and selectively. Countries are sandboxed laboratories. The whole system is rigged to enforce a contagion against the coordination of an organized global working class.

      I’m not saying it’s less progressive than trade protectionism and a return to postwar Bretton-Woods era national capitalism, but I don’t think it’s “pretty obvious” that it is more progressive either. One seems a development of the other. Neither favour socialism.

      Liked by 1 person

      • doloresvek says:

        And someone should tell the 2.5 million people Obama deported about the Democrats’ progressive, humane open-borders policy.

        Liked by 2 people

      • No soy yo says:

        Yeah the borders aren’t op,en or planned to be opening, under neoliberalism for human movement except in limited ways, including virtually; so we can have a call center for a local company in another country, for example.

        In our climate-changed world, free movement of goods under globalization is not necessarily a positive, either, even if we didn’t have the climate-killing trade agreements.


      • dkbuntovnik says:

        Fair points. I am just trying to say that socialism is its own form of globalization, yes? and neoliberal capitalism is its own form of globalization, which has aspects which we must appropriate in a movement of alter-globalization. That is, we cannot entirely negate neoliberal globalization like the “anti-NWO”, “build the wall” Trump types would want and start a socialist globalization from scratch. For example, an element of the ruling class strategy (‘part of the playbook’) on selectively porous borders is the anticipation that the “native” (core) working class will segregate from and regard the undocumented workers from the imperial periphery as “alien”, accepting their “illegal” status and keeping them from acting in concert and thus preventing labor organization from making demands such as for better wages and benefits. (In other words, “the managed migration of labor for the benefit of capital” is also meant to be for the detriment of labor). Undocumented workers are in the US as a consequence of globalization and policies such as NAFTA, but even given the fact of their arrival on the basis of neoliberal globalization the Left mustn’t demand their removal as a step towards anti-globalization. Building a multinational working class movement within the imperial core’s “melting (or burning) pot” is alter-globalization in that it “accepts” or “works with” globalization (or its effects, such as large undocumented migrant populations) but rewires it to socialist ends, as opposed to trying to “protect and defend” American jobs “for Americans” on some erroneous hunch that a more homogeneous national working class will increase the cohesion and strength of the working class movement. As far as offshoring production, the decimation of the core working class that that entails may also play a unifying role in that the working class’s living standard in the imperialist countries begins to resemble that of the working classes in subjugated countries more, which can begin to undermine the sustainability of imperialism. We should support those workers in organizing and seizing the means of production wherever they happen to be presently located and recognize that workers from one country are not anymore “entitled” to those jobs than workers from another. And I’m not I am not using “progressive” here to mean anything inherently “good” or “moral”–I am well aware that Obama surpassed Bush on deportations, but we have to recognize that the prime appeal of Trump was to anti-immigrant sentiment. Nor am I saying that recognizing the section of the bourgeoisie in the Clinton camp as slightly more progressive than that which backed Trump means that we should have supported Clinton or any bourgeois candidate.


  2. Pingback: Fuck Your Partisan “Anti-racism” | The Rancid Honeytrap

  3. Tarzie says:

    Reblogged this on The Rancid Honeytrap and commented:
    I think I have found my soulmate, seen here, giving global capital’s newly minted antifa morons the drubbing they so richly deserve:


  4. Pingback: Actually Existing Fascism | The Rancid Honeytrap

  5. gbelljnr says:

    it’s still a big leap from dogfights over Syria to all-out nuclear Armageddon

    Whether or not one agrees with this, dogfights between US and Russian military aircraft are still a gigantic, reckless leap in the wrong direction, and still significantly and intolerably raise the risk of a nuclear confrontation.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. No soy yo says:

    Thanks for the great post. “future Molotov-thrower Lena Dunham.” Ha ha.

    You’re in a peace-loving, “democratic,” “already great” country, and suddenly, out of the blue, a “Nazi fascist” is elected. He’s going to jail people, discriminate, rape, deport, build walls, reduce a woman’s right to choose, cause environmental destruction, and have the nuclear codes! In 70 days! Do you:

    a) Stay home and complain on Twitter and Facebook; “hunker down and love one another”?

    b) Attend vigils with posters that are cute twists of the Nazi’s name and slogans/”protest” marches where some people burn small items(organized by a group formed to protect a previous rapist in the White House)?

    (c) sign lots of online petitions?

    d) Organize a million-woman march for after the Nazi is installed?

    e) Buy a subscription to the New York Times?

    f) March on the White House/sitting president and demand that he do everything in his executive power to prevent the coming apocalypse. Stay at the White House until he agrees. He could (1) tear down the existing wall and fences; (2) ask some different lawyers and judges to brief and rule that, whoops, the NDAA isn’t constitutional after all; (3) and that, whoops, the drone program isn’t constitutional after all; (4) destroy all the nuclear weapons; (5) free everyone already in federal jail; (6) lease all federal land to different small, proven environmental groups for 100 years for a dollar a year so no new environment-destroying activity will occur; (7) reverse what he said about the ACA being “a healthcare bill and not an abortion bill” and remove his signing statement/executive order about federal funds never being used for abortion; (8) destroy all the data the NSA (and rest of alphabet soup) has about us, (9) fire everyone in ICE, in the FBI, etc. so the Nazi needs to rebuild the agencies, etc?

    g) go to the congress and demand the same of them.

    h) Storm prisons, free prisoners, burn down prisons, walls, and fences?

    i) Everything else possible to reduce the chances that this Nazi will cause death and mayhem in 70 days?

    The fact that the choices are all a) through e) and none of f) though i) proves unequivocally that even the fear of a new fascism is total bullshit.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. robert says:

    tarzie bro’t me here. great, as in spot-on, infuriating, and terrifying, stuff. thank you. terrifying cuz we still have 60 plus days of the current crater-sized asshole.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. C says:

    While I agree with everything you say, I also detect an undertone of glee that perhaps the acceleration of the destruction of what remains of our Democratic institutions is at hand. You may get your wish. I hope you and those you love, though, are not ground into meat as the machine whirls out of complete control, which is what you will get with a Trump admin. Blasting the controls, running the train off the tracks, etc., is a very nihilistic desire, and I don’t share it with you. Yes, Obama is what they say Trump will become, but Trump is not what Obama was; he is worse. Anyone backed and approved by actual, no-shit Neo-Nazis can’t be anything but worse.


    • doloresvek says:

      Since you’re confusing fury at the continued whitewashing of the mass-murderer Obama with “glee,” I don’t feel any need to engage with this maudlin picture of a nihilistic, accelerationist strawman beyond this.

      Yes, Obama is what they say Trump will become, but Trump is not what Obama was; he is worse.

      More fact-free declarations about Obama, goodie, I haven’t gotten enough of those the past 8 years. No, Trump isn’t Obama–he’s an obvious villain, therefore millions of people object to him pursuing the same agenda we just had. Looks like I’ll be referring to Black Agenda Report’s indispensable article on “the more effective evil” for years to come:

      Barack Obama backs and approves of Nazis in Ukraine, who candidate Hillary was planning on further arming. She was backed and approved-of by Henry Kissinger and Dick Cheney, who are worse than any living Nazi by any measure. Since we both agree my accounting of the Obama administration’s record is correct, I’ll leave it at that.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Am I bad if I enjoys doing a twinge of glee, if just for a minute?

        Liked by 1 person

      • doloresvek says:

        Hillary Clinton had concession speech ready… but she was too upset to give it

        Hillary Clinton had her concession speech prepared – she just never thought she’d need to read it out loud.

        And when the moment came early today to admit that her lifelong dream of becoming America’s first woman president had been dashed, she simply couldn’t face the world.

        The devastated Democratic candidate remained locked in her New York hotel room as it became clear that her glass ceiling had come crashing down around


        Liked by 1 person

      • gbelljnr says:

        Former secretary of State Hillary Clinton personally autographed copies of Newsweek’s “Madam President” issue following a campaign rally the day before the election.

        The failed presidential candidate was photographed by Justin Sullivan for Reuters signing one of the copies backstage after a rally in Pittsburgh, Penn., that Monday. The issue was for “Cate.”

        Betting Clinton would win, Newsweek chose to print the commemorative edition ahead of the election and sent out 125,000 copies of the issue to celebrate her win. “Hillary Clinton’s historic journey to the White House,” the cover read.

        But after her stunning defeat, the magazine was forced to issue an embarrassing and expensive recall and publish the “President Trump” version of the issue.

        Read more:

        Liked by 2 people

      • No soy yo says:

        Oh, yes I have glee at Hillary’s loss, and may print out that photo of her autographing the Newsweek magazine. I wonder how many she snatched for herself?

        That’s different from glee at Trump’s win, or glee that we — and most around the globe — are totally fucked no matter what.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Or maybe it was more strategic than that: The Concession Speech aka Meet The New Clinton Inc.

        A turn-around consultant muses on Clinton’s concession speech.

        Again, through my business prism, it had all the characteristics of what many a company might do (or even what I myself might advise) when it finds itself knee-deep in either a business ending circumstance (think a profitable drug maker that just learns a cure has been found for its only product) or, one that suddenly finds its product/brand facing extinction via a new technology (think landline phones vs cell phones.) That’s what stuck me as I watched. And it hasn’t left me since.

        The reason why I’m sharing this is in direct response to the reaction when I first made these observations, in real-time to a colleague as we were both watching the presser (i.e., I said “This looks more like a business PR rollout than a concession speech.”) Where he then stated, “Wait…What?” As I explained his face first went slack-jawed, then responded “Holy cr-p! I didn’t notice it that way, but now? I can’t see it being anything but.”


    • No soy yo says:

      This “glee” concept must be a talking point going around in liberal circles, because I’ve been accused of it as well on totally different sites. How can anger be confused with glee?

      It becomes morally indefensible to discuss “lesser evilism” at these levels in my opinion. But with Obama we had liberals *and* conservatives, neolibs *and* neocons, rooting for endless war and defending all the actions Dolores talks about here. So not sure it’s as clearcut as you say which is worse.

      And I’d prefer a narcissist like Trump in charge of the nuclear arsenal before someone who has already shown her sociopathic creds like Hillary. But again, lesser evilism is really a liberal thing, and while it’s useful to think it through and conclude that there are many arguments for The Donald being a lesser evil, they’re all incredibly evil and the dream of nihilists everywhere.

      Liked by 2 people

      • doloresvek says:

        It makes sense the “glee” thing would be a talking-point: it provides a chance for making fact-free declarations, delving into psychological speculation, and writing these overwrought little stories about how little anyone cares besides Democrats. It’s perfect for this audience.


      • No soy yo says:

        “and writing these overwrought little stories about how little anyone cares besides Democrats. It’s perfect for this audience.”



    • diane says:

      Oh Lord, if you are not quite young and black or quite young and darker skinned hispanic, quite young, non republican voter asian american [in the US™] (as opposed to so many older and elderly blacks, and darker skinned who have never trusted/and or owned computers, Androids or IPhones, and have lifelong experience as a good reason not to reveal all of their experiences On Line™ , even if they could afford to.), I feel sorry for you when you realize the truth – or I hate you for being an utterly self ab$orbed AHole or an utter $nake.

      Morbidly gleeful? You bet. Anyone in their right mind, would at least like their enemy to say how they really feel about them, so they don’t have to die earlier than necessary.

      more of my gut here.


      • Hummus says:

        Tarzie brought me here! I’ve sent this out a bunch, it was great.

        I only get gleeful when liberals tell me that Hillary won the popular vote and it doesn’t matter and it’s bullshit and I reply “POPULAR VOTE DID NOT MATTER IN HONDURAS EITHER.”


      • diane says:

        Dear Hummus,

        I Love the Honduras response! ;o)

        I’m lucky in that those I speak at length with on a daily basis (and myself), have all stopped voting for the lessor evil sociopath and their lackeys; for some time now. None of us voted for anyone on The Presidential Ballot

        (By the way, thanks for the double treat: the Honduras response, and your user name making me hungry (I love hummus), reminding me that – in lieu of hummus – I had a nice ripe avocado, which I promptly sprinkled with salt and devoured.)


  9. Nate says:

    Now I want to go Clockwork Orange on any US Liberal I encounter until they can passionately recite this entire text from memory back to me.
    Guess I’m a fascist too now.


  10. lecolonelchabert says:

    Great post, thank you. One note: the license for media to recognize Bush regime fascism excluded the ethnic cleansing, militarization, death squads of New Orleans during/after Katrina. Many liberals became as enraged by discuss0ion of deliberate crime vis à vis New Orleans as they do about charges against Obama, and still do.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Pingback: Nope, not “America by Trump.” Just America, You Fucking Idiot. | The Rancid Honeytrap

  12. Dave Stewart says:

    Delores Vek, you are absolutely wonderful! I read this great article on Black Agenda Report. Thank you so much for expressing the Truth so very clearly. Best wishes.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Malik says:

    I totally agree with Ms. Vek. As an AA Male, I didn’t vote for Obama in either 08 or 2012, based in large part on the wisdom imparted at Black Agenda Report and my own instincts. Anyone who writes a book and praises Ronald Reagan is a tool and dipshit, And the fact that he came out of nowhere with no record of substance spells CIA/Deep State tool written in large letters and blood.. an utter disaster waiting to happen. My other instinct is that the man is simply WEAK..the Rethugs smelled this out early on. As for brands or varieties of racism, I think White Liberals are worse than White Conservatives for a variety of reasons, chief among them intellectual dishonest as Ms. Vek so elegantly and colorfully describes. Another reason is White Liberal Racism is practiced as and predicated on PATERNALISM while White Conservative Racism is practiced as and predicated on WE ARE ALL EQUAL OR PULL UP YOUR BOOTSTRAPS. I’d rather someone view me is being able to complete with them (even though the deck is eternally stacked) versus someone who looks down at my from their lofty Liberal perch as being eternally unable to compete. It’s a lesser evil thing if you dig me. LOL

    Now in fairness, let me give some Liberals or shall I call them White Progressives some reprieve. There were many progressive websites– Daily Kos and Digby, and Move.on and other shills for the Dummocrats excepted– who railed against Obama’s crimes, his refusal to prosecute Wall St., and his capitulation to the health care industry in crafting the disaster known as Obama Care, among other sins. (Remember when his chief of staff R. Emanuel basically told them to go fuck themselves??). Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges are just a couple of examples that come to mind. Therefore, Black “Liberals” need to eat a shit load of crow too and suck it up as well as shut the fuck up. Because when White Progressives complained about Obama’s retrenchment and being Bush 2.0 an overwhelming majority of Black Liberals joined the chorus with White Liberals and bullied and shamed them as being racist. I knew Obama would barely win in 2012 because a lot of White folks had abandoned him, I’ll call them White Progressives vs. Liberal to draw a distinction.

    It’s pretty much an embarrassment (IMO) for anyone to call themselves a Dummocrat. The effete, selfish, petty bourgeois attitudes make me puke. (An example would be attempting to shame VP-Elect Pence at the Hamilton Musical performance in NYC). A shit load of good that did. No offense to the LBGT or is now LBGQ (political correctness sucks ass too, its a form of verbal and thought censorship), but on another note, this Summer I recall Obama pushing his executive order to let Trannies pick and chose where they took a shit… while people white, black, yellow and brown were suffering and one check away from homelessness. I also recall how Obama avoided the Black on Black crime wave/mayhem in his hometown of Chicago. Obama and the Dummocrats were hoisted on their own petty petard. Good Riddance to the current iteration of the Dummocrats which was indeed an iteration of the Rethugs. Two sides of the same coin.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Bro. Mundah says:

    Dear Delores Vek,
    I don’t know who you are. Never heard of you before. Came across your piece “Actually Existing Fascism”, reposted on Black Agenda Report and visited your site to read it first-hand…..
    ….Your shit is T-I-G-H-T! EVERY thing you stated is on-point, true, and absolutely correct.
    Like I said. Don’t know who you are. But your mind is deep and dope as fuck!
    Damn girl! I thought it was just me (thinking what you wrote). Relieved to know it’s not and that at least SOMEONE else is truly enlightened enough to see thru the shit we are calling “reality”.
    I call out Obama and people look at me like I should be committed.
    Keep on pushing lady. You’re on the one!
    I’ll peruse your blog for more brain food in the coming days….while everyone else will be on this “holiday” shit. (Don’t even get me started on THAT!)

    PS: Like you said above….I’ve seen this movie before and I know how it ends…..8 years of even more absurdity, and then the Powers-That-B will run Michelle for president to put the masses right Black to sleep – just like they did when they rolled out Obama, at a pivotal point when folks were on the brink of critical mass (revolt?)……8 years of her, and repeat the cycle….
    To channel Amira Baraka – [Wee be stupid – Stupid wee be]


  15. Pingback: Disrespecting the American Imperial Presidency | D!SRUPT

  16. Pingback: Disrespecting the American Imperial Presidency  Dark Politricks

  17. Pingback: USA : Un fascisme déjà en place | Dan Halbock

  18. Pingback: The True Terror of a Trump Presidency | 100 Flamingos

  19. Sean says:

    The prose on this piece is very good; top level quality and I loved it. The underlying political analysis is very accurate.

    My question, if you are willing, is: Do you work for anyone or is this blog an independent project?


  20. Pingback: Disrespecting the American Imperial Presidency – aladdinsmiraclelamp

  21. Pingback: Open letter to Louis Black | Du er Journalist

  22. Pingback: The Celebrity Left is Still the Enemy | Stupidity Tries

  23. tovangar2 says:

    Yes, I see all the garment-rending and hear the wailing you detailed, but I’m also detecting an undercurrent. Aren’t libs a tiny bit glad HRC lost? I smell a whiff of triumphalism. As Obama’s facade is cracking, maybe her’s would have been too obvious a sham, causing the people to become restless. The FBi nipping at her heels was worrying and her foundation was/is a horror show. After all Trump is a VERY acceptable alternative for the libs. He can carry on the program while being an obvious, cartoon villain, who the libs can gasp at in feigned horror. They’re not actually going to do anything about Trump, beyond theatrics, are they? And they’re certainly never going to take his supporters concerns seriously, just keep dismissing them as Trump’s tail of deplorables, mostly hidden by his great bulk.

    Bernie Sanders (not, in fact, really very scary) was the one who filled the libs w/ actual fear. His supporters caused real unease. Bernie’s the bullet they sought to dodge. I’m taking all the lib emotion on display as relief that they’ve been gifted w/ such a spectacular fund-raising opportunity. Dems, after all, don’t “govern” in the sense ordinary people understand it, just monetize, exploit and discard like the Fascists they are. Primarily, they are a fund-raising machine, so they seem to be quite happy now, in their natural role, relieved that they don’t have to keep up the charade ATM, but have four (or 8) years to gas up and regroup. Trump is a godsend for them.

    Four years of Trump, followed by a big Dem victory was always preferable to a possible Clinton debacle which would have kept Dems out of the WH for an unacceptably long time, and most certainly preferable to a Bernie victory, which might have ruined everything near and dear to a Fascist’s heart.

    There’s been no regime change. Absolutely nothing has changed.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Pingback: Breaking the Press (Part 3): Everything in this Universe is a PSYOP – 66th Take

  25. Pingback: Breaking the Press (Part 3): Everything in this Universe is a PSYOP – 66th Take

  26. Pingback: Chapo Trap House is “The Daily Show” for Smarter Suckers | Dolores Vek

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s