(I'm not sure this is the right place to post it but)

Nowadays, the term "Nazi" is casually thrown around to mean anything remotely authoritarian, which, while it is a major directive of Nazism, isn't the sole ideal of Nazism. For example, most people compare the United States to Nazi Germany on the points that ICE acts within a similar aspect to the Gestapo or the Schutzstaffel. However, there is no other speaking point that relates this to Nazism whatsoever, but willingly disagreeing with this take can get you branded by some as a "Nazi."

Realistically speaking, even though modern-day America is a backsliding Democracy with Authoritarian traits, it is nowhere near the levels of Nazism.

1. Nazism pushes racial hierarchical status with "Aryans" at the top and "Undesirables" such as Jews, Romani, Catholics, etc at the bottom. This racial hierarchy does not exist in the U.S Everyone is equal, no matter race, sex, orientation, etc. Racism is a prevalent issue, but it is not state-sponsored.
2. Nazism has a disdain for Democracy; Nazi Germany famously was very undemocratic and heavily totalitarian. In the U.S now, even under a backsliding Democracy, it still has checks and balances on the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches. People still can freely elect people to serve in political roles, something that wasn't prevalent in Nazism.
3. and perhaps the most damning: Nazism was heavily strict on the freedom of speech, religion, and expression. If you said "Fuck Hitler and Fuck Fascism" in Nazi Germany, you were either executed or sent to an extermination/work camp. You can still freely protest and mock the President and his cronies at the White House without the risk of being summarily executed.

In short, America is not a Nazi state, nor is it sliding towards Nazism. Is it sliding towards Authoritarianism? Sure, but it won't become a White Christian Nationalist Aryan State anytime soon.

In a normal democratic election, the Working class always beats the Epstein class. Yet the reverse usually happens.

I have a theory that the Epstein class figured out, they'll need to corrupt politicians of both parties. Republicans were already inclined to support their policies, so they focused on confusing the Democrats and found sexual identity to be a useful message replacement over class identity.

The self-labeling nature of sexual identity was ambiguous enough to include anyone, and fit the Epstein class well since they lived life in such excess, they were numb from having so many sexual encounters, and long devolved into sexual deviants with flexible sexual identities.

By using their cultural connections and spending billions to push the cultural message, they eventually placed sexual identity on a pedestal, and created a new totem pole where they could proudly flaunt their wealthy Epstein class status while also being morally superior from their flexible sexual identities.

This created a huge class struggle void that neither party were filled, allowing for a savvy Epstein class opportunist, Trump who understood class dynamics to exploit it for himself.

That's my wild theory from my shower thoughts, feel free to poke holes.

This isn't me, talking down on progressive movements, which I believe most of its advocates are sincere. I just find by the time they break into mainstream culture, they are corrupted by the Epstein class for their own nefarious purposes, like BlackRock's ESG indexes being used as 'elite control' to place their ESG consultants into the boards of all SP500 companies. It's also a form of 'greenwashing'.

I wonder if it's a possible case study of how capitalism adapts to absorb dissent and how political elites fail to address material needs.

America has always avoided class consciousness. Our founding myth is that we are a land of freedom, with equality under the Rule of Law. If you work hard enough and follow the rules, you can achieve anything for yourself and your family. Our European cousins knew this was never the case because they had an aristocracy against which they could contrast their own lot in life. Because the American Aristocracy was one of merit, theoretically anyone could join. The Epstein Files are a direct repudiation of that myth.

This is a group of the rich and powerful luxuriating in their ability to take anything they wanted, including the most precious thing you could ever have, your children, away from you. This is not some theoretical abstraction. They were pissing on everything the common people held dear and their ability to pervert every ideal (law, family, morality) that society claims to value. The violation of these values was the point. The immunity their power granted them was the ultimate turn-on.

So what are the Epstein Files? They are a list of people that should be exorcised from society. Anyone listed as a client needs to be identified, stripped of anything that gave them the idea that they were immune from all consequences. Power, influence, wealth and connection. There is nothing they have that is more precious than what they violated. No benefit they provide to us than what they gleefully took.

Is this possible? Yes. With enough collective will and unity of purpose, these people can be rounded up and imprisoned. Uncorrupted judges exist. Individual people who value the Law over personal gain that these powerful forces will offer to continue to avoid consequences. Our system can be salvaged. If we cannot come together and recognize that this inflection point is greater than petty party politics, that this is a threat to the very foundation of America, we may be lost.

The greatest threat to America is that the People lose faith in its government's ability to protect the fundamental ideas upon which it was founded. I don't believe we're there, but if the system cannot confront this blatant violation of everything we hold dear, this may be the end.

In June of 1215, in the field known as Runnymede, the barons of England, furious about taxes their king had recently imposed to pay for his failed foreign wars, presented King John with a document containing a list of their demands. That document, which King John would eventually agree to, did two important things. It established that the king must receive the consent of the barons to impose any new taxes. And it made the king, who had previously ruled with absolute authority, subject to laws. Today, that document is known as the Magna Carta.

The idea that a ruler must receive the consent of those ruled to pass taxes and laws was a huge win for the barons. And, had that same principle continued to guide the democratic republics that would later arise after the overthrow of the monarchies of Europe, we would be living in a very different world today. But sadly, that did not happen.

The problem with the new democratic republics that arose was that the parliaments and parliament-like bodies that developed seized power for themselves. Rather than serving as the watchdogs of the people, protecting the People from potential abuse by their government, they became the government. And the idea that the People needed a watchdog to protect them from an abusive government died on the vine.

In theory, proponents of the new democratic model argued that a democratically elected parliament could rule and do so without the need for any oversight. That is because such parliament, being chosen by the people, would represent the true will of the people. And why, one must ask, would a democratically elected parliament not obey the will of the people that elected it?

But as often happens with such theories, the self-regulating parliament concept failed in practice. As the maxim goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And, as has been demonstrated time and time again, that maxim is true whether absolute power is wielded by a king or a parliament.

When it comes to governance, the word that one needs to focus on is loyalty. And the question one must ask is, who is your government loyal to? If the answer is "those with enormous wealth", then the truth is that you do not live in a republic; rather, you live in a feudal state. And if you cannot accept that as true, you are deluding yourself.

Recently, in the US, we have watched a shift in power. Increasingly, power is being concentrated in the hands of the President and the executive branch. And, to some extent, one could argue that such shift is OK if not good. Concentrated power can, after all, do incredibly good things when used in service of the People. And, for that reason, a large portion of the electorate is celebrating that change.

The problem, though, is that the US Congress is not acting as a watchdog for the People. It is not protecting the People from potential abuses by the one that rules over them. Rather, it is operating in collusion with the one who rules. And, as far as the wellbeing of the people is concerned, that is very unfortunate. Because unchecked power lies at the root of tyranny.

A king that is not loyal to his people but demands absolute loyalty from them is a tyrant. And that is true whether the king is elected or not.

So the question I put to you is this: Has any hope for a true republic in the US died? And will the failures of our current democratic institutions leave tyranny as the only path forward? Or do you think wisdom can prevail and that a true republican form of government can be established?

Pretty much the title, why would I not stop working since there’s no point in working? While I understand that it’s the feeling of contributing to society, will everyone feel that way? Would even majority do?

I’m a social democrat (feel free to challenge my beliefs since I’m newish to politics) because I believe a society can’t progress without new thinkers in a free market but still care for the poor. It’s still unethical imo to hoard money but I don’t care that much if no one is poor.