gregorgregorovich
Well-known member
Ah yes, the Corps Republican de Securite and the Carabineri, those bastions of restraint and community policing.
Woke b***ds.
Why are the Far Right rising?
- Thread starter GibbosEmpire
- Start date
Woke b***ds.
r00fie1
Well-known member
For those who`ve been watching, its a world wide trend - not by accident. In a world where competition means a bigger fight for scarce resources. Where might gets what it wants, like oil, minerals, silver, nuclear material, land and people to make its commodities, war between nations and world dominating corporations, set the political and economic agenda. Culture and spirituality become the batons of ideology. All that tightens the chains is given over to the rich and powerful, who use the illusion of democracy to take away human rights and freedoms and they hold the key. In times of declining empires, economic dereliction and political brutality, the state becomes the butcher and purveyor of barbarism.
Take India, for example: President Modi represents religious-ethno-nationalism, with its openly Islamophobic spear, which sees Muslims barred from living in certain exclusively Hindu areas, restrictions on their freedoms and liberty, with the foot soldiers of Hindutva Supremacist Extremists frequently administering beatings of non-Hindus and with impunity. Suppression of dissent and denial of cultural diversity is the badge of Modi`s BJP, who are in the bloodline of the fascist RSS
The break up of the Soviet Union provided a fertile breeding ground for the growth of ehtno-centric nationalism, chauvanism and seperation of cultures, peoples and land along ethnic lines. Under the pretext of "democracy" NATO, backed by those across the pond, moved in to divide and conquer those countries with large stores of natural resources and significant places in the geo-political jigsaw. Those countries which werent grabbed in the immediate aftermath of the end of the State Capitalist empire, were corrupted and undermined, in order to install puppet regimes who would dispose of the vast assetts and infrastructure assembled under the former Soviet Union. Thus, the CIA had and still has, a strategy of fostering dissent and provoking unrest in order to maintain control economically, politically and culturally. This is not to promote "democracy". More, it is to extract political and economic value in order to prop up its war empire.
The rise of ethno-centric-nationalism in Europe is no coincidence. It reflects the movement of economic and political tectonic plates across the globe. With large corporations already stretching like octopi across the planet, they dominate continents and have, up untill the turn of the century , dictated the lives of many through puppet regimes and governments tied to the dollar. But that model began to crumble after the defeat of the Vietnam War and then later in the political shift to independence in South America. Whilst still volatile and vulnerable, the empire has used Columbia and Bolivia to sustain right dictatorial regimes through gun running, gangsterism and drug smuggling. The drug culture in rogue states in South America has enabled the USA to fund terrorism and military coups [including failed ones]. Africa has seen a rise in its predominance in world affairs: far less the slave of the white man, although their are still major corrupt rogue states on that fruitful land. In order to sustain its colonial power in the world the "West" needs to extract and consume more and more resources, but the former subjects of that colonialism now have the keys to the land and increasingly refuse to unlock the door.
China hasnt been surrounded by US bases over the last 50 years by accident either. It represents a major challenge to the ailing empire. Ailing empires and cultures will fight to the death to defend their power, even if it means killing their own populations and possibly the planet. The United Kingdom, with its own colonialist supremacist past, retains an underlying racism and sense of entitlement, which is intrinsicaly embeded with the imperialism and colonialism of the United States. Isolationism, nationalism and corporate economic needs, sacrifice the pretence of democracy and raise the soldiers of war to fight not battles of freedom, but economic wars, at any cost. The Middle East is a perfect example.
Fighting racism, fascism and nationalism is not a hobby or the pastime of the few. It doesnt always arrive in jack boots or armoured personnel carriers. It often enters the back door, using the guise of "security" "self defence" "anti-terrorism" "protecting our borders" "stopping illegal immigrants" "protecting the indigenous population and culture from foreigners" "defending our way of life" "reducing the organised power of [labor] trades unions". It has many faces, but the brutality and political barbarism it represents is only just below the surface. It comes to shake your hand then breaks your wrist. Denial and marginalisation or "othering" is designed to marginalise and silence dissent. But we can fight it by pushing back, making it less comfortable for the self-assured right-ward drift and its foot soldiers. The rise of the "right" isnt a sign of strength, but symptomatic of the ailing empire and the desease-riddled body politik it has inevitably created.
Take India, for example: President Modi represents religious-ethno-nationalism, with its openly Islamophobic spear, which sees Muslims barred from living in certain exclusively Hindu areas, restrictions on their freedoms and liberty, with the foot soldiers of Hindutva Supremacist Extremists frequently administering beatings of non-Hindus and with impunity. Suppression of dissent and denial of cultural diversity is the badge of Modi`s BJP, who are in the bloodline of the fascist RSS
The break up of the Soviet Union provided a fertile breeding ground for the growth of ehtno-centric nationalism, chauvanism and seperation of cultures, peoples and land along ethnic lines. Under the pretext of "democracy" NATO, backed by those across the pond, moved in to divide and conquer those countries with large stores of natural resources and significant places in the geo-political jigsaw. Those countries which werent grabbed in the immediate aftermath of the end of the State Capitalist empire, were corrupted and undermined, in order to install puppet regimes who would dispose of the vast assetts and infrastructure assembled under the former Soviet Union. Thus, the CIA had and still has, a strategy of fostering dissent and provoking unrest in order to maintain control economically, politically and culturally. This is not to promote "democracy". More, it is to extract political and economic value in order to prop up its war empire.
The rise of ethno-centric-nationalism in Europe is no coincidence. It reflects the movement of economic and political tectonic plates across the globe. With large corporations already stretching like octopi across the planet, they dominate continents and have, up untill the turn of the century , dictated the lives of many through puppet regimes and governments tied to the dollar. But that model began to crumble after the defeat of the Vietnam War and then later in the political shift to independence in South America. Whilst still volatile and vulnerable, the empire has used Columbia and Bolivia to sustain right dictatorial regimes through gun running, gangsterism and drug smuggling. The drug culture in rogue states in South America has enabled the USA to fund terrorism and military coups [including failed ones]. Africa has seen a rise in its predominance in world affairs: far less the slave of the white man, although their are still major corrupt rogue states on that fruitful land. In order to sustain its colonial power in the world the "West" needs to extract and consume more and more resources, but the former subjects of that colonialism now have the keys to the land and increasingly refuse to unlock the door.
China hasnt been surrounded by US bases over the last 50 years by accident either. It represents a major challenge to the ailing empire. Ailing empires and cultures will fight to the death to defend their power, even if it means killing their own populations and possibly the planet. The United Kingdom, with its own colonialist supremacist past, retains an underlying racism and sense of entitlement, which is intrinsicaly embeded with the imperialism and colonialism of the United States. Isolationism, nationalism and corporate economic needs, sacrifice the pretence of democracy and raise the soldiers of war to fight not battles of freedom, but economic wars, at any cost. The Middle East is a perfect example.
Fighting racism, fascism and nationalism is not a hobby or the pastime of the few. It doesnt always arrive in jack boots or armoured personnel carriers. It often enters the back door, using the guise of "security" "self defence" "anti-terrorism" "protecting our borders" "stopping illegal immigrants" "protecting the indigenous population and culture from foreigners" "defending our way of life" "reducing the organised power of [labor] trades unions". It has many faces, but the brutality and political barbarism it represents is only just below the surface. It comes to shake your hand then breaks your wrist. Denial and marginalisation or "othering" is designed to marginalise and silence dissent. But we can fight it by pushing back, making it less comfortable for the self-assured right-ward drift and its foot soldiers. The rise of the "right" isnt a sign of strength, but symptomatic of the ailing empire and the desease-riddled body politik it has inevitably created.
Boro
Well-known member
I think it's always easier to market right wing ideas as they are less complicated and always based on negative messaging with simple answers and simple scapegoats. Easier to talk about stopping things, cutting things, splitting things, blaming things, chuck in some nostalgia & flag waving and you're there. Simple policies and simple slogans from a tough talking leader promising instant returns.
However if you are trying to build things, grow things, compromise things, understand things, share things, & create a more unified country then the ideas & policies are always going to be harder and more complex. You need more detail, more justification, more explanation, and the results are always going to be long term not instant. Hard to compete marketing wise.
As Spike Milligan said, easy to pull the wings of an insect but now try to put them back on again.
jonny_greenings_sock
Well-known member
Normally stay well away from all this. I agree with all the arguments about right wing politics being a distraction technique, and that right wing parties worldwide cover up incompetence and mismanagement with dog whistles.
At some point you have to wonder though. If right wing governments are being elected everywhere with their only real message being “reduce immigration”… maybe, democratically, a lot of people don’t really like immigration?
I think you have to recognise that truth whether you agree with it or not, and if you dig down into everything from Brexit to Orban to the rise of far right parties in Europe it comes down to this. And then you have to recognise, what is the point of democracy? Just because people vote for something that’s either unpalatable, economically self harming, for misguided and fearful reasons or all of the above, isn’t it the point to give them what they voted for?
My own point of view is that people are people and of course overwhelmingly, generally good. There’s an enrichment to cultural diversities which is priceless. If you spend time outside of the UK you realise that we’re way better at multiculturalism than most places, and no-one in Italy for instance knows the best recipe for a chicken bhuna or can put together a decent dub reggae playlist off the top of their head.
There’s also a point - like the part of London I used to live in, officially the most diverse few square miles in the country with 120+ languages spoken - where it becomes an absolute nightmare, because everyone is transient, desperate, and (including me!) have no connection, care or interest in the environment or people around them. And, again including me, it’s not like that area got the very best of people from wherever we all came from to end up there, because it was cheap and rough.
This also goes unsaid a lot of the time, because it’s a dangerous topic, but I think you’re also morally obliged to play the hand you’re dealt with re colonialism / history’s impact on your 21st century population. It’s like a moral tax for that country’s contribution to your current country’s prosperity. I would never, ever look down on Jamaican or Indian / Pakistani / Bangladeshi / Canadian immigrants as “not British”. A French Arab is as French as the white farmer with a baguette hanging off his bike. I also think it’s reasonable for someone in, say, Sweden, to look at, say, France or Belgium, and the level of social instability caused there by immigration from Islamic countries (let’s say, it because it’s true) and think, I don’t want any part of that.
(Am aware that all governments need immigration because of ageing populations and increasing the tax base with affordable workers who are a net economic positive. The difference is the sleight of hand they use to pretend they’re not doing it.
Am also deeply aware of the irony of the “Stop the Boats” party being the one who have added 2 million immigrants in 3 years.)
At some point you have to wonder though. If right wing governments are being elected everywhere with their only real message being “reduce immigration”… maybe, democratically, a lot of people don’t really like immigration?
I think you have to recognise that truth whether you agree with it or not, and if you dig down into everything from Brexit to Orban to the rise of far right parties in Europe it comes down to this. And then you have to recognise, what is the point of democracy? Just because people vote for something that’s either unpalatable, economically self harming, for misguided and fearful reasons or all of the above, isn’t it the point to give them what they voted for?
My own point of view is that people are people and of course overwhelmingly, generally good. There’s an enrichment to cultural diversities which is priceless. If you spend time outside of the UK you realise that we’re way better at multiculturalism than most places, and no-one in Italy for instance knows the best recipe for a chicken bhuna or can put together a decent dub reggae playlist off the top of their head.
There’s also a point - like the part of London I used to live in, officially the most diverse few square miles in the country with 120+ languages spoken - where it becomes an absolute nightmare, because everyone is transient, desperate, and (including me!) have no connection, care or interest in the environment or people around them. And, again including me, it’s not like that area got the very best of people from wherever we all came from to end up there, because it was cheap and rough.
This also goes unsaid a lot of the time, because it’s a dangerous topic, but I think you’re also morally obliged to play the hand you’re dealt with re colonialism / history’s impact on your 21st century population. It’s like a moral tax for that country’s contribution to your current country’s prosperity. I would never, ever look down on Jamaican or Indian / Pakistani / Bangladeshi / Canadian immigrants as “not British”. A French Arab is as French as the white farmer with a baguette hanging off his bike. I also think it’s reasonable for someone in, say, Sweden, to look at, say, France or Belgium, and the level of social instability caused there by immigration from Islamic countries (let’s say, it because it’s true) and think, I don’t want any part of that.
(Am aware that all governments need immigration because of ageing populations and increasing the tax base with affordable workers who are a net economic positive. The difference is the sleight of hand they use to pretend they’re not doing it.
Am also deeply aware of the irony of the “Stop the Boats” party being the one who have added 2 million immigrants in 3 years.)
Paterson
Well-known member
My wife is an immigrant and both those places look better when she is there.
Laughing
Well-known member
We have controlled immigration the tories just choose to ignore the levers and controls.
Laughing
Well-known member
You raise a very good point. Social media allows the grouping of folks much more readily. In some ways a good thing in others very bad.
Stocko
Well-known member
Exactly, this site is a perfect example,
50% love the Boro and the other 50% hate the tories
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
I keep coming back to your post as it intrigues me.
You say you do not care but then you must care enough to post about it and then call all political parties liars. I always struggle with this mindset. They aren’t all as bad as each other. Even if they were all liars some will lie more than others.
Political apathy is why we are in the state we are in. People not caring and voting using soundbites from a skewed media. Your comment in particular about immigration could well be one of these.
Now I don’t know if you are left, right, centre, Tory, Labour, Lib, none of the above but I would say the following about what you asked and the message you replied to:
- We have always had controlled immigration, even in the EU. It is a political choice how many immigrants you allow in to the country.
- Immigration did rise under Blair but this coincided with a period of economic boom. These workers were needed to grow the economy. House prices weren’t going crazy, public services were funded and Labour never waged a war against the immigrant so in the eyes of the media / public all was good.
- The global financial crisis hit and we got Tories. They are a party of division and love to wage a war against Johnny Foreigner. This suited their Brexit narrative to a tee. They forgot all the good the immigrants did the economy and decided to turn on them to aid their cause. The problem here is you have to be competent in other areas of Government to reduce immigration. You have to skill workers up, have an effective benefits system to support people back to work, a good industrial strategy, you need to grow the economy and increase earnings so you don’t need cheap foreign workers. Sadly the Tories just cut everything. And now they can’t even control immigration.
It’s a strange issue for the Tories is immigration. Even if the country needs it to grow (it probably does as we have too many vacancies) half the party detest it. So again we have policy which cuts of the country’s nose of despite its face just to satisfy Tory infighting and to cling to power. A trait all too common with the Tories.
So, the Tories have failed. It doesn’t matter what Blair did, the economy was growing. Under the last 13 years of Tory the economy has stagnated. They are the liars and they have no idea what they are doing. All they want to do it stay in power.
LaPennaBianca
Well-known member
It doesn't. It's a simple statement of fact that Brexit didn't do anything for reducing immigration.
It's myriad benefits nevertheless abound, of course.
speckyget
Well-known member
Easy one. Those parts of our towns and cities avoided by white people who find brown faces distasteful.
gizasqueezemister
Well-known member
The ability to lie and lie well is an essential part of the politicians tool kit. Anyone who thinks there is a party in waiting who are going to come in and tell the truth are simply deluded. This should however be limited to maters affecting the Nations security and best interests. The Tories seem to have got a tad carried away it seems….
Although I agree with your point, there's no getting away from the fact that this country can't handle the extra people in these current times. Whether they are students, working professionals, asylum seekers or illegal immigrants the fact remains. There is a housing crisis. The NHS is under massive strain. The public transport systems are at capacity. Unemployment is on the rise.
These are all largely the fault of the government with some external factors thrown in, but they are all true. Reducing immigration to prevent population rises seems sensible until these issues are properly tackled.
WeeGord
Well-known member
Blair is very understandably a divisive figure, the war in Iraq forever a stain on his time as PM. However, for the most part Blair was light years ahead of any other PM in my lifetime in regards to the state of the country, not leaving the poor behind and improving public services.
I'd take Blair right now ahead of any of this shower of a corrupt Tory/UKIP/BNP government that we have.
It's low but it's rising. There's no point encouraging immigration to fill vacancies if we don't have the houses provide homes and the healthcare system in place to care for the amount of people living here.
Omega
Active member
Yes that’s what he meant reply’s like yours are part of the problem.
So would I, Gord. But I can just about remember the time when politics wasn’t about popularity contests and showbiz presentation.