The late rise of fascism

robindch

Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, the Jordanian Human Rights chief at the UN has issued a stern warning about the rise of "populists, demagogues and political fantasists" including Wilders, Trump, Orban, Zeman, Hofer, Fico, Le Pen, Farage - a list which could well include more mainstream politicians from the UK and USA, the current Polish government, elements of the Greeks political system and of course, Mr Putin.

Wilders' fascist manifesto is here and is worth reading even if only to see level of hatred and fear which this man and his political party is prepared to demonstrate and encourage.

al-Hussein's elegant response - which is likely to receive little coverage and be ignored by the world at large - is here:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20452&LangID=E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FgipIiN4nQ

Is it just me, or is the world really starting to look like it's tilting towards madness?

silverharp

my view on it is that if the centre doesnt do its job, somebody else will. the term fascism is a bit over used as a dog whistle term,No?. A more nationalist democracy isnt fascism I would have thought?

Pherekydes

silverharp wrote: »

my view on it is that if the centre doesnt do its job, somebody else will. the term fascism is a bit over used as a dog whistle term,No?. A more nationalist democracy isnt fascism I would have thought?

One party, one state style government, with reduced civil liberties and a reduced free press isn't democracy, either. That's what's happening all over eastern Europe.

looksee

Yes, that response (linked above) is brilliant.

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

the term fascism is a bit over used as a dog whistle term, No?

It's certainly over-used generally, but I hope I'm using it here both carefully and correctly.

Zeid's implication is correct that the hallmark of the fascist is the call to return to a simpler time which never existed. But it can also include Wilders calls to cut funding to research, the arts (and bizarrely - windmills - what's that all about?), banning of books, inward-looking focus, direct large increases into defence and police while enacting "preventive detention".

It seems uncontroversial to refer to these as "fascist" given the general range of definitions of the term.

silverharp

Pherekydes wrote: »

One party, one state style government, with reduced civil liberties and a reduced free press isn't democracy, either. That's what's happening all over eastern Europe.

everything is a on a scale, the point is people are perceiving that things havnt been well run and its common in difficult economic times that appear to be permanent to look for a "strong man" to change things. The great depression turned around Hitler's fortunes for example, he would have stayed the head of a crank party otherwise.
Lots of European countries are in an economic bind at the moment, France Greece etc. and their leadership look rudderless. So indeed the first question is, who are all these people that very few people would have been interested in a decade or 2 ago. but the more interesting question is why? or why now?

FortySeven

I think it is fairly well recognised that in times of economic instability that people will polarize politically. As the gap widens and fragments then strong leaders emerge. The next step is usually less freedom and more war.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

It's certainly over-used generally, but I hope I'm using it here both carefully and correctly.

Zeid's implication is correct that the hallmark of the fascist is the call to return to a simpler time which never existed. But it can also include Wilders calls to cut funding to research, the arts (and bizarrely - windmills - what's that all about?), banning of books, inward-looking focus, direct large increases into defence and police while enacting "preventive detention".

It seems uncontroversial to refer to these as "fascist" given the general range of definitions of the term.

I'd agree the more relatively coercive/ authoritarian a society becomes the more fascist or socialist it is becoming. A fascist state I tend to associate with at least a Franco of yonder years.

FortySeven wrote: »

I think it is fairly well recognised that in times of economic instability that people will polarize politically. As the gap widens and fragments then strong leaders emerge. The next step is usually less freedom and more war.

that's the historical cycle. You would wonder why politicians don't have a better reading of history?

FortySeven

It's just human nature. You can't really, effectively legislate against greed, power, fear or hate. Emotionally they are beyond central control.

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

Lots of European countries are in an economic bind at the moment, France Greece etc. and their leadership look rudderless.

I agree about the rudderless, but the "economic bind"? Except for the looming economic slowdown which the UK will reap from its brexit idiocy and the ongoing situation in Greece (the majority of whose population - like Ireland's - has failed to accept any significant degree of responsibility for creating the economic mess they then blamed on others), the EU is broadly-speaking, doing fine.

However, as I think I mentioned recently, that hasn't stopped many unscrupulous politicians from claiming that there are multiple, looming, ongoing crises, that "the bankers" are all corrupt, that Germany + France are running the EU for their benefit alone, that the EU as a whole is a fascist, corporatist organization out for themselves and all the rest of it.

With the rise of trial-by-anecdote which derives from social media, there is a tendency for the same unscrupulous politicians to deliver simplistic, crazy, populist solutions to complex, multi-variate problems. In the Irish context, the most prominent ongoing self-defeating fight is probably the one against Irish Water - led by a range of organizations and individuals who are wholly dishonest. But, thankfully, that's small beer compared to the similar people and organizations who are using similar tactics in, for example, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Holland, France and Germany and who have discovered that by lying and blaming others for their own problems is a much easier way of winning political support, and much easier generally, than actually doing anything to solve the problems.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Wilders, Trump, Orban, Zeman, Hofer, Fico, Le Pen, Farage - a list which could well include more mainstream politicians from the UK and USA, the current Polish government, elements of the Greeks political system and of course, Mr Putin

The above politicians represent millions of people. Lets look more closely at the dog-whistle type insults being hurled at them.

Fascists; generally taken as a militaristic political grouping who seize power by force, bullying and assaulting the opposition. They shun elections and democracy, representing only the interests of an elite.

But all of the above politicians have been democratically elected by popular vote and represent the ordinary people in their respective countries. Are they "fascists"?
We don't really have any equivalent in Ireland, although one guy tried to establish something similar. Ironically his party was bullied and assaulted out of existence by "anti-fascists".

Populists; Al-Hussein uses this word about 5 times in his speech at the UN. Or was it at a "Gala Dinner" by "invitation only" to "the liberal elite"?

Whats the difference between "populist" and "popular" anyway?
Populist is bad. Popular is good, as in the winner of a democratic election. Therefore populist must be something else. I think of it as a deceitful policy that is too good to be true, like "free" piped water. It seems nice at first, but it turns out to be unsustainable and causes problems in the long term.

Another populist policy might be sending EU ships to the 12 mile limit of Libyan territorial waters to liaise with commercial people-traffickers there. Just take on board anyone in Africa who wants to come to Europe. It might seem all happy clappy at first, but the more you pick up, the more will want to make that trip. And bearing in mind Libya is a war zone, which they must pass through to get to the waiting ships, its forcing them to risk their lives in order to gain entry to Europe. It would be nice if the EU could take in every single person from every $hitty country in the world, but in doing it we would destroy Europe and become just as bad as the places they are trying to leave.
Websters defines populism as;

: a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people..: a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people

This Al-Hussein guy, in his ivory tower, with his dickie bow and starched shirt, is a believer in the right of "the liberal elite" to patronise and berate the ordinary people. While also being entitled to be paid an enormous salary by those same ordinary people.

Pherekydes

recedite wrote: »

The above politicians represent millions of people. Lets look more closely at the dog-whistle type insults being hurled at them.

Fascists; generally taken as a militaristic political grouping who seize power by force, bullying and assaulting the opposition. They shun elections and democracy, representing only the interests of an elite.

But all of the above politicians have been democratically elected by popular vote and represent the ordinary people in their respective countries. Are they "fascists"?
We don't really have any equivalent in Ireland, although one guy tried to establish something similar. Ironically his party was bullied and assaulted out of existence by "anti-fascists".

Populists; Al-Hussein uses this word about 5 times in his speech at the UN. Or was it at a "Gala Dinner" by "invitation only" to "the liberal elite"?

Whats the difference between "populist" and "popular" anyway?
Populist is bad. Popular is good, as in the winner of a democratic election. Therefore populist must be something else. I think of it as a deceitful policy that is too good to be true, like "free" piped water. It seems nice at first, but it turns out to be unsustainable and causes problems in the long term.

Another populist policy might be sending EU ships to the 12 mile limit of Libyan territorial waters to liaise with commercial people-traffickers there. Just take on board anyone in Africa who wants to come to Europe. It might seem all happy clappy at first, but the more you pick up, the more will want to make that trip. And bearing in mind Libya is a war zone, which they must pass through to get to the waiting ships, its forcing them to risk their lives in order to gain entry to Europe. It would be nice if the EU could take in every single person from every $hitty country in the world, but in doing it we would destroy Europe and become just as bad as the places they are trying to leave.
Websters defines populism as;This Al-Hussein guy, in his ivory tower, with his dickie bow and starched shirt, is a believer in the right of "the liberal elite" to patronise and berate the ordinary people. While also being entitled to be paid an enormous salary by those same ordinary people.

Mussolini and Hitler were elected democratically. Soon after they took power they reduced human rights, civil liberties and freedoms of the press, and the rest, as they say, is history. Putin and, to a lesser extent, Orban are doing the same.

The recipe is simple: get yourself elected with demagoguery and fear-mongering. Then chip away at your political opponents, freedoms of the press, civil liberties and human rights. Then you've got it made.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

The above politicians represent millions of people. Lets look more closely at the dog-whistle type insults being hurled at them.

There's nothing "dog-whistle" about my last post. I'm specifically claiming that these politicians are fascists within the general meanings encompassed by the definitions I've linked to and the policies I've linked to.

With the notable exception of Putin, these guys haven't yet turned to violence to remain in power, but the more of these people there are around, and the more they inflame their supporters, the harder it becomes to maintain international peace. One need hardly add that we've already seen one war in Ukraine created and sustained by Russia on some of these fascist terms and the Jo Cox's murder seems to have subscribed to some too.

recedite wrote: »

Whats the difference between "populist" and "popular" anyway?

It's clear enough - a popular leader is one who's respected by the majority of the electorate which placed him/her in power. A populist leader is a leader who uses underhand tactics to acquire or maintain power - including the incitement to hatred, group identity, simplistic solutions to complex problems and so on.

recedite wrote: »

This Al-Hussein guy, in his ivory tower, with his dickie bow and starched shirt, is a believer in the right of "the liberal elite" to patronise and berate the ordinary people. While also being entitled to be paid an enormous salary by those same ordinary people.

I'm not sure if you've had time to read what he wrote - he's patronizing nobody, least of all the "ordinary people" who will be the largest class of victims in any coming violence.

Instead, he's issuing a general warning about the rise of dangerous politicians selling unsustainable, inflammable fantasies. There's nothing ivory-tower about that - quite the contrary really - there's an unhappy degree of the gutter in what he's showing - though as above, it's doubtful that many people will listen and fewer still will do anything.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

There's nothing "dog-whistle" about my last post.

The very terms "fascist" and "populist" are dog whistles. As explained in my earlier post, they are merely pejorative terms with no clear meaning. The supposed meaning is often a better fit to the policies of those who use the terms.

I think Mr. Al Hussein has won about as many elections as that other fat cat spokesman for the UN, Goldman Sachs, WTO, Bilderberg and perennial advocate of unfettered third world migration into Europe; Mr Peter Sutherland.
These guys represent elitism, banking and global corporate greed.
When the real puppetmasters require some more oil, or minerals, in some far-flung country, and it becomes necessary to clusterbomb the natives into a regime change, these guys will happily go back into their box and remain silent.

Al Hussein only got where he is today because he is a member of an arab "Royal Family" (ie some camel shaggers the British army found in Palestine 100 years ago, and managed to persuade to rebel against the Ottoman Empire) He is being used just as his grandfathers were, and he gratefully accepts whatever power, privilege and prestige is bestowed upon him.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

I agree about the rudderless, but the "economic bind"? Except for the looming economic slowdown which the UK will reap from its brexit idiocy and the ongoing situation in Greece (the majority of whose population - like Ireland's - has failed to accept any significant degree of responsibility for creating the economic mess they then blamed on others), the EU is broadly-speaking, doing fine.

seriously? it scares the bejesus out of me. Economically the EU is much weaker, the ECB is replicating what Japan started going through in the 90's, 0% ECB interest rates are a sign of ill health. countries like France and Spain have just borrowed their way through the last decade and the ECB never got its balance sheet back to 07. No sense that Europe has any upside potential, its all low growth no reforms, and only downside risk.

robindch wrote: »

However, as I think I mentioned recently, that hasn't stopped many unscrupulous politicians from claiming that there are multiple, looming, ongoing crises, that "the bankers" are all corrupt, that Germany + France are running the EU for their benefit alone, that the EU as a whole is a fascist, corporatist organization out for themselves and all the rest of it.

trust in political structures has fallen, but again goes down to the rudderless point, whether someone is being unscrupulous or not I cant say but there is plenty of ammunition

robindch wrote: »

With the rise of trial-by-anecdote which derives from social media, there is a tendency for the same unscrupulous politicians to deliver simplistic, crazy, populist solutions to complex, multi-variate problems. In the Irish context, the most prominent ongoing self-defeating fight is probably the one against Irish Water - led by a range of organizations and individuals who are wholly dishonest. But, thankfully, that's small beer compared to the similar people and organizations who are using similar tactics in, for example, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Holland, France and Germany and who have discovered that by lying and blaming others for their own problems is a much easier way of winning political support, and much easier generally, than actually doing anything to solve the problems.

maybe it should spur the governments into not treading water, reform their economies and stop alienating large groups of citizens around Europe. Getting irritated by whether some politicians are putting out spurious arguments or not is pointless. Compared to 20 years ago it is easier to contemplate negative scenarios

silverharp

Just on Prince Zeid himself, when he was Jordan's ambassador to the UN he voted to promote religious blasphemy laws internationally , there seemed to be some raised eye brows when he was picked for his current job, if he is weak on freedom of expression doesnt he put himself possibly in the camp of someone who has an interest in promoting or protecting Islam?


http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/26/the-scandal-of-ambassador-zeid/

The Scandal of Ambassador Zeid
Why the new United Nations human rights advocate is the wrong man for the job.

But there are grounds for concern about how Ambassador Zeid will treat what is arguably the most consequential human right: the right to freedom of expression. Jordan’s voting record on the highly divisive attempt to force U.N. states to criminalize the "defamation of religion" leaves a huge question mark about how aggressively Ambassador Zeid will defend free speech in the sphere of religion, where this right is constantly under attack at both the national and international level.

From 1999-2010, member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) successfully tabled resolutions on "combating defamation of religion" as part of their campaign to implement a global blasphemy ban under human rights law, in the Human Rights Council (known as the U.N. Commission on Human Rights until 2006) and the General Assembly. During both of Ambassador Zeid’s periods as Jordan’s ambassador to the U.N., Jordan voted in favor of these resolutions when they were introduced at the General Assembly. Both of the resolutions passed. The 2010 resolution commended "the recent steps taken by Member States to protect freedom of religion through the enactment or strengthening of domestic frameworks and legislation to prevent the vilification of religions and the negative stereotyping of religious groups" and urged the international community to follow suit.

Jordan’s voting record in the U.N. is consistent with the country’s domestic record on blasphemy.Jordan’s voting record in the U.N. is consistent with the country’s domestic record on blasphemy. In 2006, two newspaper editors who reprinted cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad previously published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten were sentenced to two months of imprisonment. In 2011, Jordan initiated a trial in absentia against Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, the creator of the offending cartoon, as well as 19 Danish journalists and editors who had published the cartoon in various news outlets. In 2009, Jordanian poet Eslam Samhan was sentenced to imprisonment and a fine for blasphemy after having included Quranic verses in his poetry. It was developments such as these that the 2010 resolution on defamation of religion hailed and sought to enact at the international level, turning human rights into a weapon against religious dissent and nonconformism rather than principles protecting the freedom of conscience and pluralism.
..

Ambassador Zeid’s record on freedom of expression suggests either too great a willingness to compromise on human rights principles or a lack of civil courage, neither of which would recommend him for the job. To dispel these fears and pre-empt any OIC attempts to reintroduce the concept of defamation (or guises thereof), Ambassador Zeid should move swiftly to declare in no uncertain terms that freedom of expression includes the right to criticize religion even when offensive to religious feelings. That would be in line with the efforts of his predecessor, Navi Pillay, as well as the U.N.’s Human Rights Committee and the U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Opinion and Expression and Freedom of Religion or Belief. Most importantly it would also be consistent with international human rights law. No other position should be acceptable for the U.N.’s High Commissioner for Human Rights.

recedite

Yep, these globalisation stooges are great at "virtue signalling" but when you look at the substance of their policies and where they are taking us, its not so good at all.

goose2005

Pherekydes wrote: »

Mussolini and Hitler were elected democratically.

No they weren't, Hitler only scraped a majority by having communist MPs locked up, and Mussolini managed to force through a rule that the party with most votes gets 2/3 of the seats.]

robindch

goose2005 wrote: »

Hitler only scraped a majority by having communist MPs locked up

The Enabling Act, which provided Hitler with dictatorial powers, was passed with the support of the catholic Center Party under its leader, the catholic priest Fr Ludwig Kaas.

For some inexplicable reason, this fact is omitted from every school history book I've checked in Ireland.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

the catholic Center Party

Interesting that the ex-membership of this party formed the CDU after the war. The current leader Merkel, has a habit of making unilateral decisions regarding EU policy, and then getting agreement from the bigger states afterwards. She goes around having bilateral meetings, one state at a time, until all the bigger players have agreed to play ball her way. The smaller states like Ireland don't matter to her, they just tag along afterwards.

pH

The very terms "fascist" and "populist" are dog whistles. As explained in my earlier post, they are merely pejorative terms with no clear meaning. The supposed meaning is often a better fit to the policies of those who use the terms.

I agree, the problem with the term fascist is that it's a powerful pejorative that people like to throw around, with little consideration to what actually is fascist, it just tends to be used because the user "knows it's bad" and can make political capital by using it as an insult.

At its heart fascism is a kind of hyper-nationalism, the idea that it's the state or country that's important and the individuals actually making up the population less so. It's normally "practised" by a party that promises national greatness (once again) but sadly the current rules and laws aren't quite right and they'll need to change most or all of them including the ones on elections and democracy to make this all happen.

So Fascism is really about an authoritative non liberal state, where the interests (and freedoms) of individuals take second place to some notion of the country's interest and greatness.

When the underlying politics of this type of nationalism are right-wing we tend to call it Fascism, when they're left wing we tend to call it socialism or communism, all systems where the state is all important and individuals less so.

recedite

Pretty good summary, but I would argue that "socialist authoritarianism" is what you are getting at. In the left-wing version of it, national borders are not important. International workers solidarity is the big thing.
Whereas in the right-wing version, nationalism is inherent to the socialism; hence the Nazis were "national socialists".
They are similar in many ways, but antagonistic in others. Its why Hitler and Stalin were the best of friends for a while, but were also the worst of enemies.

Peregrinus

Yup. For fascists, the community whose significance transcends the significance of individual members is the nation, inclusive of all classes, whereas for their socialist counterparts it's the trans-national proletariat.

This plays out differently in each case. The nation generally already has a political authority structure - the state - which fascists can capture, dominate and exploit. There's no comparable authority structure for internationalist socialists; their first task is to create one and, thus far, they have not been successful.

Fascism doesn't have to be as aggressively racist as the Nazis were. In many ways the purest, and most successful, example of fascism was Italy, not Germany, and they came fairly late to antisemitism and racist genocide, and even then did so for pragmatic reasons rather than principled ones. (Basically, they turned on the Jews in order to keep in with the Germans.) Of course, they had a profoundly racist colonial policy, but they shared this with liberal Great Britain and enlightenment republican France, so we can't point to this as a distinctively fascist trait.

FWIW, Islamofascists seem to be to be situtated more like the international socialists and less like fascists. For them, the transcendant community is not the nation or the class but the Ummah, the worldwide community of Muslims. There is no existing polity embracing worldwide Islam - there never has been, really - and at least some of them, most notably IS, are engaged in the project of attempting to construct one.

Labarbapostiza

recedite wrote: »

The above politicians represent millions of people. Lets look more closely at the dog-whistle type insults being hurled at them.

Let's not dog-whistle it then. It is my opinion that these people are beneath contempt and absolutely unworthy of respect. I don't care how many of them there are.

I'm not the kind of person who admires thickos for their "character".

But all of the above politicians have been democratically elected by popular vote and represent the ordinary people in their respective countries.

Adolf Hitler was democratically elected.

"Ordinary" people?.....I'm getting the feeling your talking about the kind of people who like call themselves "normal", and have a very big problem with anyone they don't consider "normal". I have a very big problem with these people.

Okay.... there is a great misunderstanding of the system of democracy we have. The will of the people is not sovereign. The rule of law is sovereign. It doesn't always work out that way, or through majoritarianism and capture of institutions it's perverted. Democracy under the rule of law, is not the dictatorship of the majority. One of the most serious issues in Poland at the minute is the governments attempts to emasculate the constitutional court. Ultimately, to create the dictatorship of the ordinary, decent, "normal" people.

Are they "fascists"?

They are fascists.

We don't really have any equivalent in Ireland, although one guy tried to establish something similar. Ironically his party was bullied and assaulted out of existence by "anti-fascists".

The doctrine of the preemptive strike is really the only way of keeping fascists under control. Bullied? Assaulted? That kind of language strikes me as peculiarly sympathetic. Given half a chance they'd be doing all the bullying and assaulting. Personally, I'm never going to give a fascist an inch. If that means dishing out a little physical chastisement, to discourage others sympathetic to fascism, so be it. A stitch in time saves nine.

This Al-Hussein guy, in his ivory tower, with his dickie bow and starched shirt, is a believer in the right of "the liberal elite" to patronise and berate the ordinary people.

You believe he shouldn't have the right to patronise and berate the "ordinary" people?

Well, he does have the right. Just as you have the right to say what you like about his dickie bow and shirt.

Should "ordinary" decent people, be the only people who can voice their opinion.

While also being entitled to be paid an enormous salary by those same ordinary people.

Maybe "ordinary" people aren't paying his salary. Maybe it's people like me paying his salary. I pay the salary of those two walking fetal abnormalities, Jackie Healy Rae's sons. I think the thickos are being well served.

Labarbapostiza

recedite wrote: »

Pretty good summary, but I would argue that "socialist authoritarianism" is what you are getting at. In the left-wing version of it, national borders are not important. International workers solidarity is the big thing.
Whereas in the right-wing version, nationalism is inherent to the socialism; hence the Nazis were "national socialists".
They are similar in many ways, but antagonistic in others. Its why Hitler and Stalin were the best of friends for a while, but were also the worst of enemies.

Kinda yeah, kinda no. The internationalist dimension you find in socialism, is related to the international dimension of global capitalism. If you think about it, you'll figure it out. But some people don't; like people on the left and right in the UK, thinking getting out the EU will allow the UK to somehow buffer itself from the global capitalist system (ideas about protectionism, etc). You can't, you're either in the global system or you're North Korea.

The only reason Stalin and Hitler fell out was Hitler invaded Russia.

What was the difference between their political systems and ideology.

From wiki

Socialism in One Country (Russian: Социализм в одной стране Sotsializm v odnoi strane) was a theory put forth by Joseph Stalin in 1924, elaborated by Nikolai Bukharin in 1925 and finally adopted by the Soviet Union as state policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country


There really wasn't any difference.

FA Hayek

silverharp wrote: »

Just on Prince Zeid himself, when he was Jordan's ambassador to the UN he voted to promote religious blasphemy laws internationally , there seemed to be some raised eye brows when he was picked for his current job, if he is weak on freedom of expression doesnt he put himself possibly in the camp of someone who has an interest in promoting or protecting Islam?


http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/26/the-scandal-of-ambassador-zeid/

Ha, Classic. The mere fact that we have Atheists espousing the ideas of someone who wishes to promote blasphemy laws tells us all we need to know about the current political landscape. It is then no wonder why the working class in the western world are turning right rather then left.

recedite

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

these people are beneath contempt and absolutely unworthy of respect. I don't care how many of them there are.

Ok.. I get that you like to disrespect people who you don't agree with. And you don't care about their numbers or whether they have a democratic mandate. It all sounds a bit "fascist" to me, insofar as fascist is definable.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Personally, I'm never going to give a fascist an inch. If that means dishing out a little physical chastisement, to discourage others sympathetic to fascism, so be it. A stitch in time saves nine.

Again, classic "fascist" tactics. Thanks for providing an example to prove my earlier point; that the people going around using these dog whistle terms are often the best examples of it themselves.

You believe he shouldn't have the right to patronise and berate the "ordinary" people?

Anyone has the right of freedom of speech. I said he has never stood in a democratic election, and he hasn't therefore earned the right to represent "the people". He represents the interests of an elite group of people best summed by one word; Bilderberg.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

The only reason Stalin and Hitler fell out was Hitler invaded Russia...
There really wasn't any difference.

We discussed the difference, a few posts back.

FA Hayek

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

There really wasn't any difference.

Well Socialism and Fascism do fall into the authoritarian bracket alright but there are many other differences when it comes to economics especially, the role of religion and the status of class.

1930's fascism was much about the strength of the nation, the virtue of its people being of good stock and blood, violence and an expansionist military.

Socialism of the era is based on the hatred of capital and controlling the means of production and capital. Socialism was much more about reengineering society into a pure form. Classic example would be Cambodia.

Forward onto today people tend to over use the word fascism as a pejorative describing people and parties they do not like. It really shows up peoples knowledge, or lack of knowledge of history, when of course the only history you know is about the 1930's, so everyone and anybody is Hitler.

Labarbapostiza

recedite wrote: »

Ok.. I get that you like to disrespect people who you don't agree with.

I don't agree with pedophiles, either. Or respect them. Should I respect them, on the basis of we're all entitled to our opinions, and because of happy clappy political correctness, I should respect the pedos. Because the root of all our problems is not understanding each other. If only we understood the pedos, we wouldn't hate them so much.

No.

I spit on the pedos, and on their even lower brethren; the fascist sympathizers.

And you don't care about their numbers or whether they have a democratic mandate.

I don't care how many of them there are. The opinion of ten thousand idiots is no less idiotic than the opinion of ten million. And there are limits to the democratic mandate. The abolition of democracy through one man, one vote, one time, isn't acceptable. That's what the Muslim Brotherhood tried in Egypt, and the military stepped in to defend democracy, and restore order. I'm sure the bog dancers would like to abolish democracy, and have political leadership passed like farms from generation to generation. The farming way of life, being the most perfect way of life, in their opinion, even though subsidising this way of life is the albatross around the next of the urban people. How much better our lives would be if we didn't have to subsidise their way of life, a way of life unworthy of life, if you ask me.

It all sounds a bit "fascist" to me, insofar as fascist is definable.

Oh really.

Again, classic "fascist" tactics. Thanks for providing an example to prove my earlier point; that the people going around using these dog whistle terms are often the best examples of it themselves.

Okay, so by your definition, the Allied forces who defeated Hitler, were fascists, because they used violence.

Listen, I'm going to side with the Allies. And I won't dog whistle. I give my absolute support to the use of violence, without limit, to stop the rise of another Hitler.

Anyone has the right of freedom of speech. I said he has never stood in a democratic election, and he hasn't therefore earned the right to represent "the people". He represents the interests of an elite group of people best summed by one word; Bilderberg.

In right-wing conspiracy theories, the Bilderberg Group's mission is to spread global communism. In left-wing theories, it's to spread global capitalism.

I'll explain the Bilderberg Group. It was formed shortly after the end of the second world war, on the realisation that since democracy had led to the rise of Adolf Hitler, the people could not be trusted.

The people cannot be trusted. It was salt of the arse, "ordinary" "normal" people who crashed the Irish economy with their buckets and shovels, and vans with their names on the side. Do you remember the thicko builder who crashed the cement mixer into the gates of the Dail? He had a conspiracy theory that the government had cut off funding to his thicko ghost estate building business, as some evil government plan to steal his money, and give it to single mothers, or other unworthy urban people. Then he went and built Achill Henge, with "working capital" he'd squirreled away from his failed property projects. Arse Henge more like.

We have one world.

FA Hayek

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

I don't agree with pedophiles, either. Or respect them.

This forum seems to obsessed with pedophiles for some reason.

recedite

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

I spit on the pedos, and on their even lower brethren; the fascist sympathizers. ..Listen, I'm going to side with the Allies.

WWII was not a war against fascism. If it was, why did Franco carry on quite happily after it was over? It was a war to prevent Germany and Japan from expanding into certain other European and Asian countries. Mussolini had been expanding into North African countries for years before WWII, but the Allies were not too bothered about any of that.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

The farming way of life, being the most perfect way of life, in their opinion, even though subsidising this way of life is the albatross around the next of the urban people. How much better our lives would be if we didn't have to subsidise their way of life, a way of life unworthy of life, if you ask me.

Well, I hope you have a good supply of those Star Trek pills they eat in the future as an alternative to food.
And BTW the interest payments that most farmers pay on their loans for plant and machinery end up fattening the balance sheets of city financial institutions. Its real workers both rural and urban who subsidise the banksters, and some of that money ends up lobbying these unelected EU "leaders" to pursue the agenda of Goldman Sachs et al.
One minute guys like Peter Sutherland and Manuel Barroso are working for the European Commission or the UN, then the next minute you discover they are on the banksters payroll, or maybe have been all along

Samaris

There definitely is a swing towards the hard right going on at the moment. You only have to look at the US to get a screamingly obvious example, but Golden Dawn in Greece, the Brexit vote, Sverigedemokratena in Sweden and even the brief rise of Sinn Fein here have all been warning signs for some time. Not to mention that "liberal" is basically used as a pejorative these days!

It is swings and roundabouts to some extent, it will swing so far and then there will be a push back against it as there has been before and will be again. So far, it does seem we have learned from the past and avoided the worst excesses of mob thinking. Maybe people get a lot of their resentment and anger out on the internet rather than in general life. There's never been that option, that venting pipe for built up steam, before.

Qs

Samaris wrote: »

There definitely is a swing towards the hard right going on at the moment. You only have to look at the US to get a screamingly obvious example, but Golden Dawn in Greece, the Brexit vote, Sverigedemokratena in Sweden and even the brief rise of Sinn Fein here have all been warning signs for some time.

Sinn Fein are about as far from "hard right" as it gets.

Hotblack Desiato

Qs wrote: »

Sinn Fein are about as far from "hard right" as it gets.

Really?

Private paramilitary force which "hasn't gone away you know"

Adherence to a national ideal above all

Alignment with the "in group" and "out group" dictated along religious lines

Suppression of all dissenting views in the 'movement'

There are a lot of similarities there.

It's wrapped up in a veneer of cod pseudo-lefty popularism, writing cheques they know they will never be called upon to cash.

cowboyBuilder

Trump, Farage, Wilders etc - Their support is a reaction, a reaction to a liberal
system that sticks its head in the sand and ignores a massive threat to western free speech and values.

Trump is a clown, he is totally under qualified to be POTUS, but at least he is honest about the problems that the west now faces - Hillary like Obama will just shout down any criticism about a dangerous ideology as "racist" and "xenophobic" when really it's just common sense.

God help the west when she is president , if ISIS had a vote they would vote for her ...

cowboyBuilder

robindch wrote: »

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20452&LangID=E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FgipIiN4nQ

Is it just me, or is the world really starting to look like it's tilting towards madness?

I pressed stop when this fool said "I am Muslim - but confusingly to racists also white skinned"


F*ck off!!
If he's gonna just sling that slur at people who have a genuine concern about the removal of western values - in western civilisation , he can go take a long walk of a short pier.

Labarbapostiza

Samaris wrote: »

There definitely is a swing towards the hard right going on at the moment. You only have to look at the US to get a screamingly obvious example, but Golden Dawn in Greece, the Brexit vote, Sverigedemokratena in Sweden and even the brief rise of Sinn Fein here have all been warning signs for some time. Not to mention that "liberal" is basically used as a pejorative these days!

There's a lot of different things going on. The Shinners don't really belong in the right-wing populist category. Frankly, they're not in that category, even if the Sindo reading West Brits sling that mud, it's only mud slinging, by a class of people who are anti-Irish, and see themselves as plastic English who were cheated out of having the Queen as head of state.

There's something radically different about Ireland. (without looking up figures) Ireland may have been the country who has proportionally received the greatest influx of migrants in the last 20 years. There are indeed people who are unhappy about this, but nowhere nearly enough for any political party to make an issue of it. There are rural TDs who are concerned that Dublin people might move to their constituencies, because they would cause "social disruption", but besides that there isn't a problem.

Why we're reacting differently than other countries is we've never had a period of being imperial colonizers. The "Greatness" of many other countries, was also due to globalisation, but globalisation with gun boat trade deals. You can't do that anymore. So, the malcontents blame the EU for enforcing this neoliberalism, but it has nothing to do with neoliberalism, the world has very significantly changed. Ireland was poor for so long because the Brits had the guns. And the British export manufacturing industry was supported by gun boats. Zimbabwe only got its' independence in 1980.

But to confuse matters, "neoliberalism", is neither liberal nor new. GW Bush's last trip to Iraq, was to get the Iraqi government to sign a trade deal that would give the US exclusive privileges (essentially a gun boat trade deal). The Iraqi's said no.

The world has changed. If you play by the old rules, you will lose.

It is swings and roundabouts to some extent, it will swing so far and then there will be a push back against it as there has been before and will be again.

You have to be ever vigilant about the madness. It tends to rise when those in power assume it's weaker than it is. The violence in the North was the result of right-wing populism. It was started by the state as a reaction to the growth of the Catholic population. It's a historically fact, the protestant militias were large and well armed, engaging in violent pogroms, before the provos had fired a single shot. I know West Brits don't like the historical fact, that Gerry Adams is far closer to a Nelson Mandela like figure than they're comfortable with, but the facts are the facts. They'd prefer to support the like of Ian Paisley. A man who advocated and engaged in pogrom himself. I think we should rename Aviva stadium after Gerry. Wouldn't that be great, all those rugby matches in the Gerry Adams stadium. We should at least have a street or two named after Bobby Sands; there's a few places in Dublin 4 that are still, quite offensively, bearing their British names.

And once the madness gets a grip, it can be a very long time before a country recovers. Northern Ireland before the Troubles, was the liberal hip place that produced the likes of Van Morrison, it took a very short time for it to become one of the most poisonous and hateful places on earth, it still hasn't recovered. The Republic experienced something similar from 1916. There was a very real underlying problem with Britain, but the Ireland de Valera and archbishop McQuaid delivered was very deliberately poorer and far more illiberal than the Ireland that had existed.

So far, it does seem we have learned from the past and avoided the worst excesses of mob thinking. Maybe people get a lot of their resentment and anger out on the internet rather than in general life.

No....something unexpected is happening. People are seeing a lot of righting populist material on the internet. And they're assuming this is having an influence. But, when you look at all the stats, young people who use the internet the most, are in fact becoming more liberal. And most of the support for the rightwing populists is coming from the old, who are in many cases not using the internet at all.

We don't have to worry about the geriatrics taking to the streets in gangs of right wing thugs. But, they have a tendency to turn out to vote twice as much as young people. Which means, they could elect fascist thugs.

recedite

Sinn Fein is like the crocoduck; difficult to categorise, due to the inherent contradictions.

Labarbapostiza

recedite wrote: »

Sinn Fein is like the crocoduck; difficult to categorise, due to the inherent contradictions.

Yeah, they're a very broad group. The more extreme end would make Mussolini blanche. The Blackshirts were notorious for making nuisance drunks drink castor oil. Occasionally, you'll run into homeless people in Dublin who are from the North. Why they're here and not in the North, is because far more than a dose of castor oil was being dished out. And that's how the Shinners fixed the homeless problem in the North....by exporting it south, often on pain of ....

What surprises me, is the Shinner bashers never pick up on this point. They're always digging for stuff without getting much, when a few casual conversations with homeless people who have Northern accents could turn up all kinds of gems.

Qs

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Really?

Private paramilitary force which "hasn't gone away you know"

Adherence to a national ideal above all

Alignment with the "in group" and "out group" dictated along religious lines

Suppression of all dissenting views in the 'movement'

There are a lot of similarities there.

It's wrapped up in a veneer of cod pseudo-lefty popularism, writing cheques they know they will never be called upon to cash.

Not much of that has anything to do with right wing politics. A lot of it also not true or purposefully vague.

Rightwing

robindch wrote: »

Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, the Jordanian Human Rights chief at the UN has issued a stern warning about the rise of "populists, demagogues and political fantasists" including Wilders, Trump, Orban, Zeman, Hofer, Fico, Le Pen, Farage - a list which could well include more mainstream politicians from the UK and USA, the current Polish government, elements of the Greeks political system and of course, Mr Putin.

Wilders' fascist manifesto is here and is worth reading even if only to see level of hatred and fear which this man and his political party is prepared to demonstrate and encourage.

al-Hussein's elegant response - which is likely to receive little coverage and be ignored by the world at large - is here:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20452&LangID=E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FgipIiN4nQ

Is it just me, or is the world really starting to look like it's tilting towards madness?

It's just you.

cowboyBuilder

robindch wrote: »

Is it just me, or is the world really starting to look like it's tilting towards madness?

It is tilting toward madness - but not to the far right, toward the far far extreme loony left!

Hotblack Desiato

Really? Don't see communism making a comeback anywhere, do you? Is Corbyn going to be the next UK prime minister?

There are plenty of noisy leftist populists in various countries but they're not forming parts of governments never mind leading governments.

Syriza stood on a popular-left platform but, well, we all knew what was going to happen there.

FA Hayek

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Really? Don't see communism making a comeback anywhere, do you? Is Corbyn going to be the next UK prime minister?

There are plenty of noisy leftist populists in various countries but they're not forming parts of governments never mind leading governments.

Syriza stood on a popular-left platform but, well, we all knew what was going to happen there.

Em, last I see aren't they still in power in Greece? Looking closer to home, does the rise of the Church of Sinn Fein and their looney brethren of the AAA/PBP not concern you? Ireland is in well aboard the left wing populist train.

Hotblack Desiato

Remember when they said they'd end austerity? How's that working out for them?

SF is a worry but their economics are not the only worrying thing about them.

The alphabet soup loony lefties will never amount to anything other than a noisy nuisance. If ever in a position to gain some power they will run a mile. Much more suitable to their agenda is opposition, being able to say whatever they like but never have to do anything.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The alphabet soup loony lefties will never amount to anything other than a noisy nuisance. If ever in a position to gain some power they will run a mile. Much more suitable to their agenda is opposition, being able to say whatever they like but never have to do anything.

The loony lefties are currently running the UK Labour party, even if the MP's have a little bit more sense. The UK's opposition just now amounts to Nicola Sturgeon.

Of the two main parties to the south, it's hard to see who's the more idiotically regressive - Labour has returned to fight the Mod/Rocker fights of 1969 while Tories have gone much further and appear ready to return to the Groat while running gunboats up the Seine.

brickmauser

Can we define what fascism means before we start using it as a prejorative label?

Fascism is an right-wing system of government and social organization characterized by absolute dictatorship, militarism, ultra-nationalism, racism, extreme chauvinism, syndicalism and isolationism. It is opposed to marxism, both economic liberalism and social liberalism and anarchism.

There clearly isn't anything even approaching fascism at work in Western Europe and the left is labelling right wing parties espousing views that were traditionally held across the political spectrum as fascistic when they clearly are not.

The left clearly do not believe in Stalinism or Leninism today either.

FA Hayek

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Remember when they said they'd end austerity? How's that working out for them?

Shock horror, magic money tree left wing economics don't deliver.

Does not negate the point though. They are still in power even though the loonies here aren't marching with them anymore. They have hitched onto the Corbyn bandwagon. That is the thing with left wing economics. There is always another bandwagon to hitch a ride on and fantasy to preach.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

.. the rise of "populists, demagogues and political fantasists" including Wilders, Trump, Orban, Zeman, Hofer, Fico, Le Pen, Farage - a list which could well include more mainstream politicians from the UK and USA, the current Polish government, elements of the Greeks political system and of course, Mr Putin.

I see the Orban government's rejection of the "mandatory migrant quotas" proposal being pushed by unelected EU and other bureaucrats has been endorsed by 98% of the voting public in a referendum. With turnout at 43% it apparently means the referendum is to be regarded as an opinion poll rather than the 50% which would automatically initiate legislation.

By way of comparison, in our last two referendums, turnout was just over 60%, but in the three before that it was less than 40%. All five were considered binding.

Apart from Hungary, no other EU country has put the question to the people, although the outcome of the Brexit vote was apparently influenced by such matters.

I find now that anytime I hear the word "populist" mentioned in European politics, if I substitute "pro-democratic" instead, the meaning suddenly becomes much clearer.

BTW A similar trick works with US politicians speaking at global events,
Whenever they use the word "freedom", just substitute "America's interests" and suddenly the sentence makes sense.

Hotblack Desiato

Oul' Adolf must have been a great democrat so, seeing as he reguarly won referenda with ~99% endorsement :rolleyes:

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I see the Orban government's rejection of the "mandatory migrant quotas" proposal being pushed by unelected EU and other bureaucrats has been endorsed by 98% of the voting public in a referendum. With turnout at 43% it apparently means the referendum is to be regarded as an opinion poll rather than the 50% which would automatically initiate legislation. By way of comparison, in our last two referendums, turnout was just over 60%, but in the three before that it was less than 40%. All five were considered binding. Apart from Hungary, no other EU country has put the question to the people, although the outcome of the Brexit vote was apparently influenced by such matters. I find now that anytime I hear the word "populist" mentioned in European politics, if I substitute "pro-democratic" instead, the meaning suddenly becomes much clearer. BTW A similar trick works with US politicians speaking at global events,
Whenever they use the word "freedom", just substitute "America's interests" and suddenly the sentence makes sense.

Wasn't the opposition campaign based around not participating in the referendum at all, so that the result couldn't be used to trigger legislation? So it could be said that effectively, as people like to say hereabouts, 57% of the electorate demonstrated their opposition to legislating to prevent immigration by not voting. Making it hardly surprising that 98% of those who did vote were in favour, and the anti immigration position not, in fact, the populist one at all...