You've been looking in the wrong direction, the dangers are coming from the right.

I would have voted for the Democratic candidate in that race.

Perhaps you could also define what you mean by right-wing and far-right / fascist.

For example, do you think Marine Le Pen is a fascist?

Look, that's a big subject. To assume that only left-wing activists were responsible for those changes is not accurate. Were they a factor in many of them? Yes, for sure. Nobody can deny history. In the same way that David Cameron, a Conservative, introduced same-sex marriage in the UK. People who subscribe to moderate right-wing ideas are not against most of those things, in fact, they're actively welcomed. And the left of today cannot be compared to the left of the past; they are two very different beasts.

But many people asking about the rise of the moderate right over the past number of years have to ask themselves the question, why?

Why did this right-wing wave manifest?

Because any objective analysis of that question must involve some introspection, some degree of personal responsibility. The reality is that many people have felt that their opinions have been ignored on matters important to them. If you label vast swathes of people as racists and fascists and Islamophobes and homophobes, and all the hundreds of other -isms and -phobes, don't be surprised when they decide to speak up, at the ballot box.

If you are concerned about the rise of the right, perhaps you'll need to consider that some of your politics have contributed largely to that outcome.

The problem is that you're amplifying the importance of these people.

The Patriot Front are a bunch of losers with 300 active members.

Three hundred.

Are they a menacing nuisance? Absolutely.

But let's not portray these tiny fringe extremists as somehow on some massive rise in the United States, because they ain't.

I have repeatedly stated that any threat - whether it's from a fringe far-right lunatic or some Islamic extremist - should be taken seriously.

What's missing here is nuance. Because I simply do not see evidence of some "far right / fascist" takeover of the West.

Recent elections do not prove it. Statistics do not prove it. Nothing backs up that radical claim.

So yes, treat these hate groups and terrorist organizations seriously. They pose a legitimate threat, even though they are in a tiny minority.

But what's happened over the past number of years is that moderate right-wing people (or opinions) are re-fashioned as "Neo-Nazi" or "fascist", or the new popular one, "proto-fascist" (how Ron DeSantis is now referred to by some).

And when you label and demonise moderate right-wing people in this way, grouping them together with the actual fascists of the world, you're losing perspective of the much bigger picture.

You're up there with the cheerful s guy in terms of being taking seriously.

That's an appropriate image.

Bolsonaro was defeated at the ballot box.

Trump was defeated at the ballot box. Not just at the general election, but also Trump-backed candidates were defeated at the midterms (they performed worse than non-Trump backed candidates).

Which proves my point.

Electorates are not moving in huge numbers toward some far-right takeover. And that assumes if you consider Bolsonaro and Trump as fascists, which I don't accept to begin with.

What we do know is that the biggest threat to the West is not from the West, but from the East - from Communist China.

But nobody ever talks about that. How convenient.

Trump and Bolsonaro are not fascists.

If they were, they would have fought a civil war to maintain power. They instead stood down, in abject failure.

Trump and Bolsonaro are simply anti-PC loudmouths with some reasonably good policies.