Trascism: It’s Not About Him

Why the Orange One can do or say anything and still win.

First, let’s celebrate the perfection of that term, combining Trump and fascism; the word was the result of a fine, expensive Harvard education. I don’t know whose, though; certainly not mine.  This crisp, sharp shard of reality was crystallized over the last winter, but beyond being formed in the snow, I don’t know who did the precipitating. Lovely, though, isn’t it? It sparkles: Trascism. A perfect and true blend. Fight Fiercely, Harvard!

But onward.

In a highly complex system, attempts to externally order relationships between units destroys order.  I say that this is the most useful way to explain the Short-Handed; that this aspect of complexity is actually what his support is organized around, and why it exists and thrives.

In the highly complex system known as a ‘technologically-advanced culture’, social order depends on the willingness of the units to participate in that order; imposing orderings diminish this willingness, independent of any other results of that ordering for good or ill.

As such cultures advance technologically, that advance becomes ever more sensitive to imposed orderings. The ability to relate in more ways to other units demands more freedom of individual action, and so as technology continues to advance, further advancements depend on increases in individual choice and reach; further advancement and increases in liberty come together in an inter-dependence that defines whether or not that culture is overwhelmed by the deficits of advancing cultures, such as pollution, disease and poverty, or continues to create and solve problems at roughly the same rate.

Standing in opposition to this vital interrelationship is our human need to see order as the result of a hierarchy, an orderer – God or Government, as you define them. We impose this assumption of ordering on our perception of any self-arising order we stumble across; this imposed hierarchic fantasy will become increasingly a brake on solution creation. Every attempt at organizing based on the self-informed view on either side of our assumed political duality results in all seeking centralized authority for themselves and those who they think think like them, with equal moral certainty that The Nation Will End if their side doesn’t win.

Our dualistic politics depends on opponents, pictured at the moment we are in as Right (theoretically conservative but acting as fascists) and Left (usually liberal, working as progressive) to participate in guiding us in a productive competition.  In truth both groups are equally willing to go it alone to command an ordering of society as they see fit on everyone, both people who agree and people who don’t.

All this absorbs our attention, each side seeing only their own rightness and the other side’s ignorance, quite as if the argument was exclusively about what to tell all to do – while a growing mass of angry, detached people don’t want to be told even as they want to do the telling.  This group, each detached for its own ‘local’ reasons and banded by their anger and the delusions fed them, seeks for a way of upending all order as their only perceived path to an order they are willing to participate in, with ‘truth’ only an irritant.


In sum, as technology advances, the deficits of those assets pile up in destructive unintended problems; in cultures sufficiently free, these problems are opportunities for further advances. Those advances will out-pace the rising rate of problem creation only if individuals in it are increasingly able and willing to create. Hierarchy – centrally-imposed ordering – is destructive of this freedom to create, and thus hobbles the further advances so necessary to problem solving.  (A note, however; this observation itself exists in a complex state.  I don’t mean no ordering, just less ordering.  We approach a tipping point where the too-many-disconnected have a destructive effect on culture.  We need to back away, not turn and go screaming in the other direction ensuring a whole ‘nuther set of unintended consequences.  Hubris.)

In the highly complex system that is politics in our culture we thus have this tension; a large enough group of members who no longer support the status quo, though for a very wide assortment of individual reasons, so angry and frightened by the loud bossing of a culture they don’t feel part of that they choose to burn it all down rather than spend another hopeless day being ignored.  They can be grouped as things like ‘racist’ but there are other forces as well; will the sum total of their anger be enough to reach that tipping point and end this experiment in self-government?

Here then is how these large tendencies in complexity apply to this race for this Presidency; one force, the conservative, has retired from the field in disarray, leaving the other, liberal force to oppose the natural tendency of angry frightened populations to cling to hierarchy – to nationalism and fascism – in their anger and despair. Trump, the real person, is simply not a factor in this, other than as the Circus part of the historic Roman equation on how to control the masses. (Good luck waiting for the ‘bread’ part.)  His constant insults to the system are not  disqualifying; they are the entire point for his most passionate followers, his greatest qualification. He was right when he said he could shoot someone and not lose support. It isn’t about him. He’s been an insignificant factor in all this for some time.

The question isn’t about this or that policy, or what he’ll do, or say, or be as President. Or her, either. Challenging Trump on any factual proof of his inadequacy only helps; only makes it more obvious the true question which we are resolving in a month.


To blow it all up, or not to blow it all up. That is the question.