The rise of fascism in the 21st Century

Gimme A Pound

gw80 wrote: »

There's lots of label throwing going on , fascists, libtards, Looney left, nazis, why?
Europe is sick, America is even worse with it's rampant identity politics, every second person over there will list out their family lineage, "oh I'm one part Dutch, and one part French and two parts irish"or whatever your having. Mainly from Europeans.
Maybe we are all just searching for something, something we lost or was taken from us,but we are not quite sure what that something was.
I don't think fascism is the answer but neither is this constant liberal progression, some things are worth conserving.
I don't know, maybe I'm just in a funny mood.
Or am I just dog whistling?

I think most people don't give a sh1te where someone is from or what they're into once they're decent people, doing something with their lives like working or training or getting educated or raising a family, not harming anyone and making some sort of contribution and not feeling entitled for nothing/take responsibility for themselves unless they actually need help which they should get.

Too much folk like to pretend the above = heading far right which is of zero help to anyone.

jmayo

By todays standards, and that includes a fair few posters here, the socialists and leftists of the past would be classed as far right fascists.

Harold Wilson's Labour party governments of the 1960s did the following social reforms:
abolition of capital punishment, decriminalisation of sex between men in private, liberalisation of abortion law and the abolition of theatre censorship.
The gave teachers a 13% pay increases and tried to get married teachers back.
He was also responsible for the Open University which allowed some working adults access to third level education.

More new social housing was built under his governments than under previous conservative governments.
He brought in way more protection for tenants.

He drastically increased spending on health, social welfare, education.

He brought in employer's liability acts and more protection for workers.

In May 1967 lodged the UK's second application to join the EEC.

By any standards he and his government were socially liberal, leftist, socialists.

But here is the rub in the summer of 1965, Harold Wilson’s Labour government published a radically restrictive white paper on immigration from British Commonwealth countries.

Even though they knew antisemitism and racism were widespread in Britain at the time, they believed one way of dealing with it was "by controlling immigration when it gets beyond a certain level.”

But according to a lot of the modern left, modern socially liberal those ideas would make them fascists and far right.

Go figure.

Hande hoche!

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Fintan O’Toole says we are all fascist.

https://twitter.com/fotoole/status/1057179279321116673?s=21

Except Fintan, who is great.

It is behind a paywall but you get the idea. One of most welcoming country in the world for immigrants, with no major right anti immigrant right wing party, is fascist because of a concern about travellers. Except Fintan, and the readership of the IT who are living as far away from halting sites as possible. Something which, by the way, isn’t accidental.

When it comes to hyperbole, Fintan is in a class of his own.

AndrewJRenko

Maxpfizer wrote: »

It makes perfect sense, really, for a politician to have paid shills doing the rounds on the local messageboards or Facebook pages etc.

Casey did get 300k+ votes though so it's not inconceivable that some of the "supporters" are genuine? Unless Putin was paying people to actually go out and vote for Casey?

What kind of funding do people like Casey have versus how much is would cost to have 2 or 3 people sign an NDA and then pay them minimum wage to post stuff online for a couple of weeks.

The thing that's confused me is why it has to be Russians and ONLY Russians doing this?

Are the USA and the UK suddenly saying "sure, we'll play dirty usually but paying people to forward our interests and spread misinformation on the internet is where we draw the line"? I doubt it.

If it's really that easy and the Russians are doing it then it's safe to assume that everyone is doing it.

I mean, knowing what we know about history you probably have groups "playing both sides" to some extent. Like you'd have a bunch of bots posting stuff and another bunch of bots posting to complain about bots.

Even in the microcosm of Boards.ie I am sure you've once in a while seen posters who are deliberately trying to get thread deleted or locked etc?

So on a wider scale would there be people who have an interest in eroding people's trust in what they read online?

If you look at both sides of the political divide objectively then I think it's fair to say that both have developed ways to dismiss any opposition. "SJW". "Russian Bot". Etc etc.

Sometimes folks are even doing that in the exact same post.

How entrenched do you have to be to say "these people just try to shut down conversation by shouting about SJWs and Snowflakes" and then turn around in the very next sentence and call your opponents "Russian Trolls"?

That's a possibility all right, that Casey had his own team stirring it up online. Or perhaps even that someone else on the far right might have had a team in place from previous campaigns that could pick up the issue fairly quickly, possibly even with no involvement from Casey.

Odhinn

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Fintan O’Toole says we are all fascist.

https://twitter.com/fotoole/status/1057179279321116673?s=21

.........

I'm not a facist. I have nice boots though.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's a possibility all right, that Casey had his own team stirring it up online. Or perhaps even that someone else on the far right might have had a team in place from previous campaigns that could pick up the issue fairly quickly, possibly even with no involvement from Casey.

.... that might explain a few of the posts around here to be honest...

Maxpfizer

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's a possibility all right, that Casey had his own team stirring it up online. Or perhaps even that someone else on the far right might have had a team in place from previous campaigns that could pick up the issue fairly quickly, possibly even with no involvement from Casey.

I wouldn't say it's a possibility. I'd say it's a certainty.

They have people going door to door, handing out flyers, putting up poster but they don't have any online presence? Not a chance.

Why is it just the "far right" though?

That's what really fascinates me about this conversation, really. People are all on board with the idea that the "far right" or "The Russians" are running all these operations online but also seem to think that nobody else is doing it?

If you believe "the right" already have teams in place to stir things up in favor of Casey then surely you have to also believe that "the left" have their own teams in place to discredit Casey?

I feel like it's very naive to believe otherwise.

That's the thing I don't get. When someone offers up a comment that agrees with your point of view then it's all great but when someone throws you a curve ball it's suddenly a troll campaign or bots or paid shills.

It's the same on both sides.

Instead of listening to each other opinions there is a large segment of the online "community" that exists ONLY to discredit the source of the opinions.

It was always a rule on forums, even if it was unwritten, that you should attack the post and not the poster. I suppose it was only a matter of time before certain disingenuous people found a way around that.

If the poster is a bot or a troll then I don't even need to discuss the content of the post.

If you don't think both sides are doing this then I think you need to look more closely.

AndrewJRenko

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Why is it just the "far right" though?

That's what really fascinates me about this conversation, really. People are all on board with the idea that the "far right" or "The Russians" are running all these operations online but also seem to think that nobody else is doing it?

If you believe "the right" already have teams in place to stir things up in favor of Casey then surely you have to also believe that "the left" have their own teams in place to discredit Casey?

I feel like it's very naive to believe otherwise.

I wouldn't rule out that possibility, but the left is far less likely to have the money to fund such things.

I don't recall noticing any anti-Casey accounts here on boards that were very recent registrations.

Maxpfizer

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I wouldn't rule out that possibility, but the left is far less likely to have the money to fund such things.

I don't recall noticing any anti-Casey accounts here on boards that were very recent registrations.

Regardless of that I still see "both sides" represented in posters, flyers etc.

I'm not sure I see the difference between folks putting up a poster or a flyer through my door with the message "vote for our candidate" and folks doing essentially the same online.

Surely accounts with larger post counts who ALWAYS take one particular side in these kind of debates, will never admit when they are wrong and will never even concede ANY ground at all are far more suspect than obvious troll accounts?

A bigger outlet such as the Irish Times having one set view and pushing one set agenda to a large audience has to be more suspect than a couple of one-post wonders on a message board?

If we are saying the poster with 10K+ posts is more credible than the poster with 5 posts all on the same thread then that's fine. What if that 10k+ poster refuses to budge on anything ever? Shouldn't that also be scrutinized?

The "recent registrations" vs "established members" idea is kind of deceptive as it could just as easily be framed as "low effort propaganda" vs "high effort propaganda".

What would be worse in reality? A couple of hundred faceless posters trying to stoke up outrage based on half truths or a mainstream media outlet doing the same?

James Brown

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Most of Europe.

We wanted to stop immigration and they opened the doors.

We wanted law and order and we ended up with the police being afraid of losing their jobs and courts trying to "reform" as opposed to punish.

We wanted welfare reform and ended up with generations of people unable to provide for themselves

We wanted to preserve our cultures and we had them eroded to suit our guests and the globalists.


Then there is all this nonsense about so called "Hate speech", LBGTXYZ issues, "Diversity", imaginary wage gaps, OTT human rights, EU/UN interference in national issues etc.

It artificially went too far, we're going back to the way things were. They have their 2-3 decades in the sun and now we're heading back to how we've being doing things for millennia. Strongman leaders, alphamales, that lead, that don't bow down, that don't apologize, that will protect the pack

Privately Trump is a globalist for business. Hotels built with Chinese steel, associates with shady oil deals with associates of Putin. While we see the right pushing anti-globalism their handlers have fingers in many global pies.
2-3 decades in the Sun? Enough Republicans/Democrats and Fianna Fail/Fine Gael already, it's time we had Republicans/Democrats and Fianna Fail/Fine Gael for a change

The hate comes in when the right cannot defend policy so uses scapegoats to distract. No immigrant or Traveler or person on welfare ever crashed the economy or was on the take for state contracts.

All I see is the financial cartels having their way, politicians sucking up to benefactors and friends while we go from crisis to crisis. But let a Transgender person use the Ladies and the world is too socialist....

AndrewJRenko

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Regardless of that I still see "both sides" represented in posters, flyers etc.

I'm not sure I see the difference between folks putting up a poster or a flyer through my door with the message "vote for our candidate" and folks doing essentially the same online.

Surely accounts with larger post counts who ALWAYS take one particular side in these kind of debates, will never admit when they are wrong and will never even concede ANY ground at all are far more suspect than obvious troll accounts?

A bigger outlet such as the Irish Times having one set view and pushing one set agenda to a large audience has to be more suspect than a couple of one-post wonders on a message board?

If we are saying the poster with 10K+ posts is more credible than the poster with 5 posts all on the same thread then that's fine. What if that 10k+ poster refuses to budge on anything ever? Shouldn't that also be scrutinized?

The "recent registrations" vs "established members" idea is kind of deceptive as it could just as easily be framed as "low effort propaganda" vs "high effort propaganda".

What would be worse in reality? A couple of hundred faceless posters trying to stoke up outrage based on half truths or a mainstream media outlet doing the same?

I suppose I'm trying to distinguish between anonymous and otherwise. Generally, posters/flyers/meetings are related to an identifiable group - a political party or a campaign group. I don't have a problem with these activities, given that they can be regulated by SIPO.


I also don't have a problem or concern about long-term posters with thousands of posts being active in these discussions on any side. It's fairly clear that they didn't register specifically for the purpose of influencing these discussions. They are established people, who happen to have strong views.


I do have a concern about the very recent anonymous registrations, as it could well be that these are some form of paid activity to influence the election, which is probably illegal under SIPO rules, if the campaign activity is not declared anywhere.

deirdremf

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is fascism OP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1btWFHjjqrs

As distasteful the people you mention are they are not fascist.

(Not sure about the Brazilian guy)

The Nazis were extreme fascists. You don't have to exterminate Jews, Gypsies or homosexuals to be a fascist.

shady acres

deirdremf wrote: »

The Nazis were extreme fascists. You don't have to exterminate Jews, Gypsies or homosexuals to be a fascist.

lol
where do you get your facts
do you make them up yourself or did you read them in a book

OneEightSeven

deirdremf wrote: »

The Nazis were extreme fascists. You don't have to exterminate Jews, Gypsies or homosexuals to be a fascist.

The Nazis were ultra-nationalists. Fascism is a single-party authoritarian police state that merges corporation and state. The reason why people often draw comparisons between socialism and fascism is heavy state interference in fascist economics.

Mussolini was the first fascist leader. The reason why the Nazis were called fascists is because Hitler adopted his style of governance and economic polices, but Mussolini wasn't an ultra-nationalist and so that's the most important distinction between Nazis and fascists.

rossie1977

For those that don't know what fascism is

jmayo wrote: »

By todays standards, and that includes a fair few posters here, the socialists and leftists of the past would be classed as far right fascists.

Harold Wilson's Labour party governments of the 1960s did the following social reforms:
abolition of capital punishment, decriminalisation of sex between men in private, liberalisation of abortion law and the abolition of theatre censorship.
The gave teachers a 13% pay increases and tried to get married teachers back.
He was also responsible for the Open University which allowed some working adults access to third level education.

More new social housing was built under his governments than under previous conservative governments.
He brought in way more protection for tenants.

He drastically increased spending on health, social welfare, education.

He brought in employer's liability acts and more protection for workers.

In May 1967 lodged the UK's second application to join the EEC.

By any standards he and his government were socially liberal, leftist, socialists.

But here is the rub in the summer of 1965, Harold Wilson’s Labour government published a radically restrictive white paper on immigration from British Commonwealth countries.

Even though they knew antisemitism and racism were widespread in Britain at the time, they believed one way of dealing with it was "by controlling immigration when it gets beyond a certain level.”

But according to a lot of the modern left, modern socially liberal those ideas would make them fascists and far right.

Go figure.

Immigration is not a right or left issue. While it's true that far right groups are using every type of immigration as a unifying force and calling anyone in favour of it a 'liberal' it's not something many on the left approve of.

China has one of the strictest immigration policies in the world and they just made it more difficult to move to the country full time within the last year.

There was a humanitarian crisis in Europe couple of years ago and Merkel (a right winger btw) gambled on letting millions in. Personally I don't approve of unchecked immigration but on the flip side the stuff Trump is saying about asylum seekers is against the law. People have a right to a fair hearing to determine if they can enter the US.

RandomName2

rossie1977 wrote: »

For those that don't know what fascism is

Rampant sexism I'm a bit skeptical about; or at least I think that 'sexism' is the wrong word.

That definitions list is otherwise pretty good, but it's missing out one of the most important bits: the reclamation of a lost heritage. It's right in the name of fascism after all.

Also autarky is pretty big in fascism.

silverharp

rossie1977 wrote: »

For those that don't know what fascism is

with a few tweaks you would have the warning signs for socialism and communism

AndrewJRenko

Fake news

silverharp wrote: »

with a few tweaks you would have the warning signs for socialism and communism

RandomName2

silverharp wrote: »

with a few tweaks you would have the warning signs for socialism and communism

You'd have to take out all the nationalism stuff, the fake cultural-historical mythos, and church. Also the protection of corporate power. There's a lot of overlap, but it's important to remember that national-socialism includes nationalism.

I mean, ask Sinn Fein.

Franz Von Peppercorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I wouldn't rule out that possibility, but the left is far less likely to have the money to fund such things.

I don't recall noticing any anti-Casey accounts here on boards that were very recent registrations.

This is the kind of denialism that the bourgeois left tends to engage in alright.

Brexit, Trump and Casey can’t be responses to policy but influenced by outsiders. A modern McCarthyism.

CinemaGuy45

This thread is really a load of old boll*x.

Open borders and rewards for the criminals and the career unemployed is what we have.

What we have is panic from the lefties and the Libtards because a few people are starting to speak out against the mad asylum we are all living in.

Edit added this.

batgoat

Find it fascinating that there are grown adults who use the term "libtard"...

CinemaGuy45

batgoat wrote: »

Find it fascinating that there are grown adults who use the term "libtard"...

To me, a Libtard is a person who has a radical ideology and dismisses the reality that does not fit with it.

Edit for those who fail to deal with reality eventually reality will deal with them.

Richard Hillman

Communism has been sneaking in the back door for a while now. We've seen the likes of Corbyn, Syriza, Melenchon, the Antifa groups all gaining prominence over the last few years. The fawning over Venezuela and the revisionism of Cuba.

The media at first dressed them up as harmless do-gooders but now the media are getting involved in promoting extreme left wing policies in the guise of "equality". The media are villainizing people who earn more, stoking up resentment on pay disparities, tagging everyone who is not supporting leftist policies as far right. They have been rightly coined with the description as the enemy of the people.

Communism needs to be stamped out ASAP. It has killed too many people.

facehugger99

batgoat wrote: »

Find it fascinating that there are grown adults who use the term "libtard"...

Posted by batgoat.:pac:

CinemaGuy45

facehugger99 wrote: »

Posted by batgoat.:pac:

Missed that one thanks.

P_1

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Communism has been sneaking in the back door for a while now. We've seen the likes of Corbyn, Syriza, Melenchon, the Antifa groups all gaining prominence over the last few years. The fawning over Venezuela and the revisionism of Cuba.

The media at first dressed them up as harmless do-gooders but now the media are getting involved in promoting extreme left wing policies in the guise of "equality". The media are villainizing people who earn more, stoking up resentment on pay disparities, tagging everyone who is not supporting leftist policies as far right. They have been rightly coined with the description as the enemy of the people.

Communism needs to be stamped out ASAP. It has killed too many people.

That would be socialism not communism lad.

Plus I think their actions rather than what the press describe them as would earn them the title of enemy of the people

2 Scoops

P_1 wrote: »

That would be socialism not communism lad.

Plus I think their actions rather than what the press describe them as would earn them the title of enemy of the people

Not sure why but this song came to mind

dr.fuzzenstein

batgoat wrote: »

Find it fascinating that there are grown adults who use the term "libtard"...

Americanism used by Trumptards.

batgoat

facehugger99 wrote: »

Posted by batgoat.:pac:

True but I'm not lobbing it around as an insult. :rolleyes: