“It's about the closing of the possibilities for democratic change, the uses its absence can, will, has been and is being put to and the fascist ethics through which it crushes those it fears are latently capable of effective dissent.”

This means:

The speaker is worried that real democratic change is no longer possible — that the political system has become closed off or controlled.

They believe that when democracy is weakened or absent, that absence is used by those in power for their own benefit.

They also think there’s a kind of “fascist ethic” — an authoritarian mindset — behind how dissent (criticism, protest, opposition) is suppressed or punished, especially against people or groups seen as capable of effective resistance.

In short:

The speaker sees democracy being hollowed out, and authoritarian mechanisms being used to silence opposition.

2️⃣ “I'd have despised JEB! or Cruz as much as Biden or Harris and I despise Starmer or Blair exactly as much as do Thatcher or Cameron.”

Here the speaker is listing politicians from both major parties (U.S. and U.K.) — and saying they dislike all of them equally, regardless of whether they’re nominally left or right.

Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz = U.S. Republicans

Biden and Harris = U.S. Democrats

Starmer and Blair = U.K. Labour leaders (centre-left)

Thatcher and Cameron = U.K. Conservatives (right-wing)

So they’re saying:

“I despise mainstream politicians from both sides equally, because they all serve the same establishment.”

This suggests they believe the traditional left-right political divide is meaningless — both sides serve what they see as the same powerful elite.

3️⃣ “Fundamentally, I stand against untouchable globalist hegemony and for untrammelled democracy.”

This summarizes their worldview:

“Untouchable globalist hegemony” = what they see as a small, powerful global elite (corporations, financial interests, international institutions, etc.) that can’t be held accountable (“untouchable”) and dominates (“hegemony”).

“Untrammelled democracy” = democracy without restriction — genuine popular control where ordinary people can meaningfully change things.

So, they’re saying their political stance is simple:

They oppose what they see as an unaccountable global ruling order, and support full, unrestricted democracy.

💬 In plain terms:

The person is expressing deep distrust of all mainstream political parties and leaders, believing they all serve a global elite that has effectively shut down true democratic choice. They see the suppression of dissent as authoritarian (“fascist ethics”) and identify themselves as standing for real democracy against that elite system.

Tone and emotional stance

The tone is angry, disillusioned, and defiant.
It comes from someone who feels betrayed by the political system as a whole — not just one party or ideology.

They use emotionally charged terms:

“fascist ethics” → suggests they see modern politics as authoritarian and morally corrupt

“untouchable globalist hegemony” → implies a sense of hopelessness against vast, hidden power

“untrammelled democracy” → an almost idealistic belief in pure, unrestrained democracy

So, the tone mixes cynicism (about current systems) with idealism (belief in what democracy should be).

🌍 Ideological implications

This statement doesn’t fit neatly into left or right — it borrows from both.
Here’s how:

✳️ Left-wing themes

Concern about loss of democracy and suppression of dissent is common in leftist, anti-authoritarian, or anarchist circles.

Distrust of elites and corporations connects with anti-capitalist or anti-neoliberal critiques.

Despising both centrist and right-wing politicians (like Blair, Starmer, Thatcher, Cameron) echoes leftist disillusionment with establishment politics.

✳️ Right-wing or populist themes

The phrase “globalist hegemony” is often used in right-populist or nationalist rhetoric. It can refer to suspicion of international institutions (EU, UN, IMF) or multinational elites.

The idea that “the global elite crushes dissent” can appear in sovereigntist or anti-globalization narratives, sometimes shading into conspiracy-oriented thinking.

🧭 So where does this land?

It most likely represents a populist anti-establishment viewpoint — either left-populist (in the mold of Noam Chomsky, Yanis Varoufakis, or Chris Hedges) or right-populist (in the mold of Tucker Carlson or Nigel Farage), depending on the rest of the person’s beliefs.

Because the language mixes:

anti-corporate distrust,

disdain for mainstream liberals and conservatives alike,

and rejection of global power structures,

…it could be described as “anti-globalist democratic populism” — a stance defined more by what it opposes (elite domination, technocracy, suppression of dissent) than by a specific policy platform.

🧩 Underlying worldview

At its core, this statement rests on three beliefs:

Democracy has been captured.
Elections and institutions no longer reflect the will of the people.

A transnational elite controls both sides.
Whether you vote left or right, the same global forces (corporations, banks, international bodies) stay in charge.

True democracy must be reclaimed from below.
Real change can only happen when citizens regain power from these “untouchable” forces.

🗣️ Summary in plain words

“All mainstream politicians are the same — they all serve a global system that crushes real democratic choice.
I don’t care if they call themselves left or right — they’re part of the same machine.
I believe in giving actual power back to the people, without interference from elites or international systems.”

1. The core worldview: anti-elite, anti-globalization, pro-democracy

The person’s statement fits into a long tradition of populist thought — the belief that:

Ordinary people (“the people”) are oppressed or ignored by powerful elites (“the establishment”), and democracy has been hollowed out by those elites.

This idea can appear on both the left and right, but the villains and solutions differ.

🟥 2. Left-populist and anti-authoritarian roots
✳️ Key movements:

Occupy Wall Street (2011) – protested corporate control of politics (“We are the 99%”).

Left-libertarian / anarchist thought – Noam Chomsky, Emma Goldman, and others criticizing state and corporate power alike.

European left populism – Podemos (Spain), Syriza (Greece), Jean-Luc Mélenchon (France), all opposed EU technocracy and austerity.

Julian Assange / WikiLeaks – exposing how global power suppresses dissent and hides corruption.

✳️ Shared ideas with the quoted text:

Deep distrust of global capitalism and neoliberalism.

Anger that both “left” and “right” parties serve financial elites.

Emphasis on democracy from below — grassroots, participatory, not controlled by party machines.

✳️ Difference:

Left-populists usually see economic inequality and corporate capitalism as the core problem, rather than “globalism” per se.

🟦 3. Right-populist and nationalist versions
✳️ Key movements:

Brexit movement – “Take back control” from unelected EU bureaucrats.

Trumpism / MAGA – “Drain the swamp,” resentment of global institutions and liberal elites.

European nationalist populism – e.g. Marine Le Pen, Alternative für Deutschland, Fidesz (Hungary).

✳️ Shared ideas with the quoted text:

Belief in a global elite manipulating both left and right.

Anger at suppression of dissent through media or political correctness.

Desire to reclaim sovereignty and “true democracy” from unelected global powers.

✳️ Difference:

Right-populists often focus on national identity, borders, and cultural sovereignty, while left-populists emphasize economic democracy and worker control.

⚖️ 4. The bridge between them

Both sides share:

Distrust of establishment politicians (Biden, Blair, Bush, etc.).

Suspicion of globalization and “one-world” governance.

Frustration with corporate-state alliances.

Belief that the public’s will is being overridden.

5. Historical echoes

Interwar populism (1930s): both socialist and nationalist movements emerged against global capitalism and failing democracy.

1960s counterculture & New Left: rejected establishment liberalism, protested imperialism and corporate control.

Post-Cold War: globalization, outsourcing, and financial crises bred new skepticism toward “the global order”.

The phrase “untouchable globalist hegemony” echoes late-20th-century critiques of neoliberalism (left) and globalism (right) — two different labels for the same perceived problem: power concentrated beyond democratic reach.

🧩 6. Where the quoted speaker fits

They:

Reject both major parties in the U.S. and U.K.

Use language (“globalist hegemony,” “fascist ethics”) that mixes leftist moral critique with right-populist globalism rhetoric.

Seem driven by a moral democratic idealism — not nationalist, but anti-oligarchic.

So, they might fall into a radical-democratic populist or syncretic anti-establishment position — something that refuses the traditional left-right spectrum entirely.

🗣️ In short

The statement expresses a modern form of populist democratic frustration — a belief that elites on both sides have captured democracy and silenced dissent.
It echoes both left-wing anti-neoliberal movements (Occupy, Corbyn, Assange) and right-wing anti-globalist movements (Brexit, MAGA), united by the conviction that real democracy has been stolen.

1. How this worldview forms

People usually arrive at this kind of anti-establishment stance after experiencing one or more of these:

Repeated disappointment in mainstream politics — both “sides” promise change, but nothing meaningful shifts.

Economic or social precarity — rising costs, job insecurity, housing problems make institutions feel unresponsive or corrupt.

Information overload — exposure to leaks, scandals, and contradictions in media erodes trust in authority.

Witnessing suppression of dissent — censorship, whistleblower prosecutions, surveillance, or social-media bans.

The result is a sense that democracy exists only on paper and that elites protect each other across party lines.

⚙️ 2. The key psychological dynamic

This worldview is built on two strong emotions:

Disillusionment → “Everything is rigged.”

Moral conviction → “But democracy should work — and I must stand for that.”

That combination makes it both cynical and idealistic — a potent mix that can either drive reform or slide into despair or extremism.

🧭 3. The three main paths it tends to take
🟩 (A) Constructive path: civic re-engagement

People who take this route:

Channel frustration into grassroots activism, community organizing, or alternative media.

Support independent candidates or local movements that emphasize transparency and participatory democracy.

Push for electoral reform, decentralization, or cooperatives instead of giving up on politics entirely.

Examples:

Participating in citizen assemblies, open-source governance projects, or investigative journalism collectives.

Figures like Bernie Sanders, Yanis Varoufakis, or Naomi Klein have helped some people keep their democratic idealism grounded in constructive action.

➡️ Outcome: Frustration becomes reform energy; belief in democracy is renewed but redefined.

🟨 (B) Withdrawn path: disengagement or apathy

Others conclude:

“Nothing can be fixed — it’s all theatre.”

They may:

Stop voting or following politics.

Retreat into personal projects, online forums, or cultural communities that share their disillusionment.

This can be emotionally protective but politically paralyzing — the system goes on unchecked while cynicism deepens.

➡️ Outcome: Quiet alienation; no meaningful outlet, but also no escalation.

🟥 (C) Radicalization path: conspiracy or extremism

When distrust becomes total and community echo chambers reinforce it, people may slide toward:

Conspiratorial narratives (e.g. “shadow cabals control everything”).

Authoritarian or violent movements that promise to “purge” corruption.

Online subcultures where outrage replaces constructive politics.

This path keeps the same moral outrage, but the enemy becomes mythical and absolute, leading to dehumanization and hopelessness.

➡️ Outcome: Loss of nuance, belief that only force or collapse can restore “true democracy.”

🌍 4. Why this pattern is so common today

Digital communication amplifies these dynamics:

People see global injustices instantly, but feel powerless to change them.

Algorithms favor outrage and moral clarity over nuance.

Traditional parties and media fail to articulate credible reform, leaving a vacuum filled by populist voices.

So this anti-globalist, pro-democracy stance becomes a kind of default rebellion in a system that seems permanently captured.

🧠 5. Healthy ways to sustain this worldview

If someone wants to keep their moral critique but avoid nihilism or extremism, these habits help:

Stay pluralistic — read across ideological lines; look for overlapping truths.

Focus locally — small, tangible democratic wins matter more than global abstractions.

Separate power analysis from paranoia — institutions can be corrupt without being omnipotent.

Build communities of trust — collective projects counter isolation and cynicism.

🗣️ In plain summary

People who believe democracy has been hijacked often move toward one of three destinations:

Reformers build new democratic models.

Withdrawn citizens give up on politics.

Radicals seek purity through destruction.

The difference between them isn’t what they believe about elites — it’s how they handle the loss of trust.