This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
The rise of the far right in Europe.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Imma gonna leave this here - unfortunately, all of these snippets are absolutely 100% true about our Australian Prime Minister, in the sense that they actually happened (though a fair number of them were from when he was still running for the top job, but generally in the last couple of years).
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1y1ez7_tony-abbott-last-week-tonight_news
Post by
Gone
I'm merely noting that the Tea Party, as an establishment, has generally come to represent everything that radical Conservatives/the far Right stand for.
It really hasn't though. I think you'll find that most individual members who happen to represent xenophobic ideas (and for the record, being against open immigration doesn't make somebody xenophobic) and other non-progressive ideas are fairly typical of the geographical disbursement of political ideology of their party. The tea Party lobbying actions in Washington and on a national scale are almost always concerned primarily with the scope and role of government or preserving individual freedom.
Post by
asakawa
I guess there aren't actually enough Europeans on this forum to sustain a discussion about the continent >.<
As a UK flavoured European I'm thoroughly disturbed by it. It's clear scapegoating of minorities (not just racial minorities, also sexual, religious and so on) in order to give the masses something to blame and focus on during hard times. It can be seen most clearly in Russia - "Sure times are tough but, Hey! Gays are freaky amirite?! (aside)
quickly, invade something!
". But it's a trend in pretty much every country in the region as far as I can see.
What I want to see is more political platforms based on what they plan to
achieve
, not what they plan to stop, hinder or abolish. On
championing
people, not hating, scapegoating and deporting people.
All I see in the UK right now is three groups of the same charmless men, from the same expensive schools, with their grey suits and woeful attempts at US-style glamour politics, saying the same pandering things to people who've heard it all before. And then there's that £$%^ Farage and a shower of his "£$%y ilk trying to appeal to truck drivers and council-house inhabitants by drinking beer on camera instead of kissing babies, while spouting racism and general ignorance.
Who the heck do you vote for on a ballot like that?
It's all tribal BS, fighting over what is considered "us" and what we should call "them". I wonder if the only way to escape the vicious cycle of tribal idiocy is an "outside context problem". If the planet was under threat from an alien species, you bet people would start to see any human as part of the "us", because they'd have something actually inhuman to call "them". Until then, people will keep seeing any skin colour different to their own, any sexuality different to their own, really any way of living that doesn't look exactly like their own, as "
them
" - something to be feared, hated and ultimately fought against. "They" take our jobs. "They" corrupt our youth. "They" are the cause of my life being less than I had hoped.
It's all too easy. The right answer is so rarely the easy answer and I wish that people would look past the path of least resistance and consider what we could actually try to achieve.
Post by
Squishalot
I guess there aren't actually enough Europeans on this forum to sustain a discussion about the continent >.<
In fairness, there are a lot of countries to talk about in Europe, and it's hard to stay across all of the politicians across all of the countries.
I mean, if I were to try to give you the three biggest headlines coming out of Europe recently, I'd go for:
1) Anti-EU politicians rising to the fore
2) Spanish King is abdicating his throne to his son
3) Russia pulling 2/3 of its forces away from the Ukranian border
All three very Euro-centric pieces of news. By contrast, I think that the general trend of 'us vs them' conservative politicians becoming mainstream and popular is something that's taken traction all over the world across both developing and developed nations.
Post by
asakawa
That was really just a little dig at the Americanisation of the internet, just for funsies. I'd hate for you to focus on that and overlook the thrust of my actual opinion on the thread's subject.
Post by
Squishalot
Oh definitely not, I completely agree. I have the same frustration here in Australia too. If you get a chance, check out the video I linked with features about our PM, who, for all his failings, was elected because the population thought he'd be a better choice than the next guy.
Post by
Izichial
As a UK flavoured European
Vinegar?
In fairness, there are a lot of countries to talk about in Europe, and it's hard to stay across all of the politicians across all of the countries.
Ignorance of European politics (and no one said you need to know something about each and every country since it's about the general trend) isn't really a cause to start discussing the Tea Party at length in a thread explicitly titled to be about Europe. If you want to draw a parallel or just think something from elsewhere is relevant by all means bring it up, but... come on.
That was really just a little dig at the Americanisation of the internet, just for funsies.
Also ^, stuff like this doesn't really help with the stereotype as Americans being self-centered when it comes to political issues. :D
1) Anti-EU politicians rising to the fore
Depends on where we're talking. In hard-hit places like Greece they already had, and we're seeing the same effect on European politics in general that we saw in Greece a few years ago - extremist anti-EU parties gaining notable support and mainstream parties regardless of their historical / initial view on the EU moving towards the far end of a pro-EU / anti-EU scale, adapting to the voter mood.
All I see in the UK right now is three groups of the same charmless men, from the same expensive schools, with their grey suits and woeful attempts at US-style glamour politics, saying the same pandering things to people who've heard it all before.
Yep, it's pretty disheartening. Following UK news fairly closely frequently makes me grateful for the relatively sensible political parties / people we have in Sweden. Emphasis on relatively, politicians are still politicians and we're not exactly suffering from a complete absence of nutjobs either.
It's all tribal BS, fighting over what is considered "us" and what we should call "them".
What I find frightening about this trend is that you can easily say "I'm not against immigration but I don't think we can afford it in the current economic climate, so we should temporarily reduce it until times are better". Yet, all too many parties and public figures speaking out against immigration find it necessary to demonise immigrants or immigration in general in order to express that thought instead of basing the idea on actual facts.
And then there's that £$%^ Farage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpYIKF1wuyE&list=ELkLi6BpF1IZ4&index=12
(commented at 0:33 as well but the Americans here might be relieved to see we've got crazies over here too)
Who the heck do you vote for on a ballot like that?
Abstain and you lose your voice. Vote for a mainstream parties and you indirectly endorse the policy shift towards the anti-EU end of the spectrum. Vote for an extremist party and... well, that particular stupidity is pretty self-explanatory.
On a more positive note there's always the chance the "we want to be in the EU, but the EU should do less and do what it does more efficiently" attitude that a lot of mainstream parties have taken now actually ends up making the EU more efficient.
Post by
Monday
gnorance of European politics (and no one said you need to know something about each and every country since it's about the general trend) isn't really a cause to start discussing the Tea Party at length in a thread explicitly titled to be about Europe.
I talked about it because I felt that it was connected. Considering that Europe and America tend to be fairly closely linked in most areas, I felt it pertinent to note that not only are they rising in Europe, but also in a country (the largest and generally most influential Western country, for that matter) that shares close ties to most of western Europe (which this thread is generally about).
Logic! *rainbow flies overhead*
And on topic, if you want to keep updated on this type of news, I suggest reading the Southern Poverty Law Center's
Hatewatch
. It's generally about America, but it will run articles about stuff happening in Europe, if it's big enough news (for example, when that Golden Dawn guy murdered Killah P. Now that I think about it, a fair amount is about the Golden Dawn). Definitely worth the read, imo (and you get to see how stupid Americans can be! It's always amusing).
Post by
Dragalthor
I wonder if this is merely a blip in the increasing march towards homogenisation of all nations and nationalities. Is this the last grasp effort for societal groups to try and preserve their own national identities before resigning to the fact that for at least the last two millennia we have become increasingly more and more united.
A thought that came to me after hearing something on the radio is that where once there were a dozen or so mini-kingdoms, there is now one nation and maybe a few centuries down the line where there were once many nations, there is now just one homogeneous whole.
I cannot argue whether or not, if this is the case, that this is a good or bad thing, groups of people will always band together or form alliances for protection.
Post by
Skreeran
Personally, my favorite "
them
" is still the 1% and all the ultra-rich. I mean, it's one thing IMO to condemn racial, sexual, linguistic, cultural, etc. minorities because they're different from you, but I think economic minorities are genuinely harming the planet and the majority of its people. It's very, very difficult for me to drum up any sympathy for them.
Post by
Gone
I don't think that wealthy people doing what is in their own self interest, and sometimes indirectly harming poor people as a result is anywhere near as dangerous or harmful as trying to validate racist or sexist ideas and using them to attack other ethnic/racial/gender/linguistic based groups.
let me ask you a question Skreeran, cause this is something I always wonder about with people that make arguments like this. Would you say that the problem lies in the fact that a small percentage of people are able to accumulate and horde such a vastly disproportionate quantity of wealth compared to the rest of the world, or the fact that these people are able to use their wealth to influence policy to such a great effect.
Post by
Izichial
A thought that came to me after hearing something on the radio is that where once there were a dozen or so mini-kingdoms, there is now one nation and maybe a few centuries down the line where there were once many nations, there is now just one homogeneous whole.
And yet the nationalists, the would-be "patriots", of the one contemporary nation always conjure up some imagined mythical past of greatness of that one nation stretching back who knows how many thousand years they then claim to have lost (no doubt due to the foul play of outside agencies), but! They can bring it all back as long as people vote them into power! *snort*
I talked about it because I felt that it was connected.
Fair enough.
Post by
Skreeran
let me ask you a question Skreeran, cause this is something I always wonder about with people that make arguments like this. Would you say that the problem lies in the fact that a small percentage of people are able to accumulate and horde such a vastly disproportionate quantity of wealth compared to the rest of the world, or the fact that these people are able to use their wealth to influence policy to such a great effect.Is this a trick question? Because I think it's obviously the former. It's not at all surprising that the grossly wealthy can grease a few palms. The problem seems to me that those people are able to get so grossly wealthy to begin with (and then that all that money stays in their family, leading to aristocracy.)
Post by
Gone
let me ask you a question Skreeran, cause this is something I always wonder about with people that make arguments like this. Would you say that the problem lies in the fact that a small percentage of people are able to accumulate and horde such a vastly disproportionate quantity of wealth compared to the rest of the world, or the fact that these people are able to use their wealth to influence policy to such a great effect.Is this a trick question? Because I think it's obviously the former. It's not at all surprising that the grossly wealthy can grease a few palms. The problem seems to me that those people are able to get so grossly wealthy to begin with (and then that all that money stays in their family, leading to aristocracy.)
To me the problem is most blatantly the latter. Having a few people with such wide influence flies in the face of the one person, one vote principle. We go through such extraordinary lengths to make sure that voting districts have equal populations for this very purpose.
A small number of people accumulating such great quantities of wealth might certainly be unfair, but I fail to see how it's criminal. What is the solution to this, put a cap on the amount of money that people are legally allowed to acquire? I certainly think that exploitative business practices should be regulated, but not the amount of money that people are able to gain. Should the government step in and force the wealthy to give up what the state decides they don't need?
I'd also like to point out that money buying influence, which as I stated is what I believe to be the real problem, only increases the divide between the rich and the poor. The reason that people like JP Morgan and Andrew Carnegie were able to continue prospering despite exploitative and near criminal business models was due to having so many judges and congressmen in their pocket. During the first few decades after it was enacted the 14th Amendment was applied in favor of something like 30 corporations for every one black in the courts, despite it's original intent being to stem racism in the southern states.
Post by
Skreeran
And I'd like to point out that the rich have always had the power to buy votes, in just about any system. People want to talk about "Communism isn't compatible with human nature," and I'll say that Capitalistic Democracy isn't compatible with human nature. Higher classes will always hold more power, just because it's their interests that the politicians are looking out for, in return for a nice fat donation around election time.
Post by
Gone
And I'd like to point out that the rich have always had the power to buy votes, in just about any system. People want to talk about "Communism isn't compatible with human nature," and I'll say that Capitalistic Democracy isn't compatible with human nature. Higher classes will always hold more power, just because it's their interests that the politicians are looking out for, in return for a nice fat donation around election time.
Obviously wealth buys influence, but there are still limitations that can be placed on this.
Honestly my biggest problem with the OWS movement was that there were no real solutions proposed for the problems that the protesters took issue with, which is kind of why it fizzled out.
Post by
Skreeran
I didn't really fizzle out though, at least in my own perception.
https://www.facebook.com/OccupyWallSt
is still very active, with several post a day and thousands of shares and likes. They were a big part of the
recent Fast Food strikes
, for example.
As for their solutions, a lot of it just involves getting money out of politics. Like the
Super PAC to End all Super PACs
is supported by them.
Post by
Gone
I didn't really fizzle out though, at least in my own perception.
https://www.facebook.com/OccupyWallSt
is still very active, with several post a day and thousands of shares and likes. They were a big part of the
recent Fast Food strikes
, for example.
As for their solutions, a lot of it just involves getting money out of politics. Like the
Super PAC to End all Super PACs
is supported by them.
Maybe fizzled out was a poor choice of words, I should have said stagnated since they never really got that far beyond grassroots. Still all that we see are social media campaigns, a few scattered protests, and the same old list of grievances with little talk of practical and viable solutions. Now compare this to how active the Tea Party, or the Green Party, or even the American Reform Party is with regards to lobbying and actual influence in Washington.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.