Will we have to fight fascism again? European elections suggest yes...

It's a feature of most far-right extremist parties to support Zionism. Do you think that they are being ' tactically careful ' ?

 

True enough. I believe that the number of people who are rejecting ' representative ' democracy is increasing. Turnouts are declining dramatically. The far right is advancing just at a time when we are realising that our democratic system is broken. Our ' representatives ' are corrupt, inefficient and, frankly, not very intelligent people. Their answer to all our societal ills is expansion or war. We are at a point wherein fascists could come to control our civilisations with a majority of a very low turnout.

Do we then continue to support a broken system with our vote ? Extremists are taking advantage of that dichotomy.....and so are corrupt politicians.

 

The thing with the far-right parties' is that they seem to be able to tap into many of the insecurities people face in an ever changing world much more effectively than is the case with the traditional left. What the left are not terribly good at is exploiting the vagaries capitalism throws up and then being able to translate disaffection into mass political support. Their cause is hindered of course by a relative lack of funds, but also by any willingness on the part of the corporate mainstream media to give anywhere like sufficient air-time to radically alternative and progressive viewpoints in order to redress the balance. It always depresses me greatly when people take out their frustrations and anger on the 'other' instead of directing it at the source of the problem itself.

 

Do you think your life and outlook would improve if you could borrow and lend without the imposition of interest ? If you do, if you can reject the false notion of the necessity of usury then ' another way ' appears.

 

^ How terrible, a France for the French...... of course some international socialists would be itching to go to war against that. First they want to war against Russia now the rest of Europe - who will fight this war for you?

Im glad to see my brothers and sisters pushing back against the Marxists in our ancestral homelands. We're a tolerant lot, never minded some immigration from outside the West, but the Marxists just had to keep flooding in more and more while pushing all sorts of laws inc immigration from their ivory towers in Brussels . If regaining your sovereignty, protecting your culture your traditions and people is far right, then bring it on!

 

We've really got to start thinking about alternatives because capitalism is not sustainable. It's about to hit the buffers in a very big way. It's really up to us to stop that happening. Is there the political will at present? No, I don't think there is. Representative liberal parliamentary democracy is a busted flush. It's totally dysfunctional and this is the crux of the problem we face. Can we successfully reform a system that's effectively institutionally corrupt to the core? I don't think we can.

I see the longer-term future in the increasing sharing of information through alternative media accessed though the internet. But this can only be effective if we the people maintain control of it. Essentially the internet is the modern version of the early days of the radical press, and then later, radio broadcasts followed by TV.

Each historical change in the medium through which the message is communicated occurs is shaped by corporate usurption of the medium that preceded it. If we want to maintain the internet's role as being one which continues to promote a genuine exchange of ideas, free of corporate interference, then we must be vigilant to the notion that the potential usurption of the internet by big business is a threat to the kind of real democracy that the free flow of alternative ideas implies.

 

Many posts here about economy and ideolegy, hardly any about immigration which is a huge part of the extreme right parties agenda's,

It looks very obvious to me many Europeans were shocked by the immigration rules - or lack of them that changed their societies, what's an extreme right with hating some minorety anyway ?

 

Europeans look forward- with avid interest- to Israelis lecturing them on immigration.


How about an illegal apartheid barrier halfway down Africa ?

' Loyalty to Europe ' pledges ?

Only those whose mother can be proven to be European allowed in or out ?

 

This actually is making perfect sense. It's unfortunate, but at least it makes sense : )

Think about it.. The entire world is being victimized by this business/banking/government mafia, who are tirelessly robbing the poor and middle class all around the world. They are also feeding distraction scapegoats (hate week) all around the world. Most are being indoctrinated to blame other races, classes, countries or their own immigrants. Like in the USA, it's those damm Mexicans stealing all our jobs, instead of the external liquidation of the economy which makes less jobs possible. Everybody's standard of living is on the decline, save the 1%.

What happens? Hate. We're wired for it. We're tribal creatures who evolved not to form a society, but to attack the neighboring tribe and steal their food. Society's development, like with our diet, outran our evolution. (this is not the only current anthropological theory though but I believe it based on my study of it).

So, you notice social unrest all around the world on the rise. Because we're all going through a similar thing, despite huge cultural differences.

So it makes sense why hate, xenophobia and extreme nationalism are skyrocketing. Unfortunately, I hope race/class wars don't spread around to other parts too much. I actually saw one a few months ago.

This is the time we all need to be uniting, now more than ever!

 

Oh no you got me all wrong, Im here to learn not teach.


So what part did the immigration take in the increase of the extreme right ? I think alot and its hardly discussed here, ideolegy ? Communits and Facists ? is that really what its about ?

 

Capitalism is very much sustainable, and is in fact the best possible economic model. It has led to amazing boons of development and prosperity for entire countries and even across class lines.

Like democracy, it requires certain other things in place in order to work, otherwise it's counterproductive. For example, you need a free market, antitrust laws etc.

The problem is, thanks to government greed, these things were removed. Nowadays, the government actually work to build trusts and monopolies, to drive down competition. They prop up some companies that should have failed due to fraud or bad business models, give them free taxpayer money, while they stifle and drive down their competitors. They purposely write in legal "loopholes" (exemptions) towards this end.

They rig pretty much every market there is. The free market is meant to do its own thing based on price-discovery, to keep the competition up for the best deal to the consumer. But it's all rigged now, from start to finish. It's mainly just computers that even trade stocks nowadays. Plus they excuse corporate crimes so they can do damage again and again. Like many of the same guys from the 08 bubble-burst are about to burst another real-estate bubble in London.

And look at the Federal Reserve. They "target interest rates" and "control the money supply" and things they say are a necessary must, but in actuality, are merely forms of central planning (communism).

Capitalism is great. The system we have now is anything but, and no doubt that it is certainly failing. In the case of the USD, it already hit the iceberg and is mathematically guaranteed to collapse. Not if, but when. Hence unprecedented measures to prop it up.

This is a perverted form of capitalism. If you can even call it that. Oligarchism or something else maybe?

 

I agree with the majority of the above. But where I take exception is the notion we are wired to be selfish and insular which is what I think you seem to be implying. I'm of the view that there is a complex mutually-reinforcing phenomena at play that shapes human behaviour and society. As human beings transform their environment they also transform themselves and their relations with others. As they exercise their capacity to meet their needs so their capacities increase and develop - "With eating comes appetite" as Marx said. As certain basic needs are met, so those needs expand and new needs arise.The need for food as such becomes the need for food of a certain quality. The need for clothing develops from a need for skins and furs to a need for money to buy ready made clothes in shops.

As the form of production changes so does the organization of society. As we move from hunting and gathering to agriculture and from agriculture to craft manufacture and industry so we move from the small nomadic clan to the settled village to the town and the modern nation. In the process human behaviour and attitudes change radically. Far from it being the case that you can't change human nature, as many people argue, the capacity for change and development is an essential part of human nature. It is one of the key things which distinguishes human beings from other animals. But that's a minor quibble.

 

Research shows that the far right 'haters' tend to be mainly men of lower social economic and educational achievement.

I would agree that the lack of people voting is a part of this. To our shame Scotland now has a UKIP representative in the EU. However he was voted in by 10% of those who voted which amounts to only 3% of the voting age population.

My concerns are more with the Eurasian desire by Russia to by this way destroy the EU and then get countries into the Eurasian Union which would be an authoritarian Union. Russia is relying on the European far Right to do this and they may achieve this - not least because the 'eurosceptics' do not get involved in European issues and so stop the Parliament from being effective.

Always though within an ideology there is a grain of truth. There is some reality which the ideology turns upside down to achieve its desired results. It uses that grain of truth to hook people and I seem to be seeing more and more people here hooked to some degree.

I understand the EU is very aware that changes need to be made so we need to wait and see what happens and hope they manage to achieve a way in which it appears more democratic and more able to deal with things in a social democratic way again.

We need to look at our ability to change things through democracy. Voting has gone down since the 80's when Thatcher got us into the global economy. Thatcher as well as her neo con advisers did not believe in democracy. Obviously they could not say right now we are authoritarian but she did manage this by almost eliminating the power of Unions in British life and with that taking away both the support they gave to the working class particularly in hard times and the political education they gave to them hence leaving them open to the BNP, ukip and what not. Likewise she massively reduced the funding to local councils - where in a democracy most decision ought to be made. By reducing the power of local councils she stopped a great influence on political thought and action. (Indeed many councils now have serious corruption - selling off council resources for instance for personal profit)

How are we going to answer this?

We do not need to become authoritarian states throwing away the rights so hard worked for during the past 70 years. Rather we probably need to find a way to get ourselves back to somewhere near the political feeling of the 70's before globalisation made our governments have to answer first to whoever had the money rather than their citizens.

I certainly find the idea of no interest rates interesting. What I don't understand is why people have not done this if it is so easy and why it seemingly is necessary to give up our rights and become a racist, homophobic, rabid Christian, authoritarian state in order to achieve it.

 

If you do see or if you saw the EU as a supplement to the USA, it is crystal clear to me that you never understood anything about the european conception.

Look to the roots. The roots are based in a french-german understandíng. De Gaulle was far from having the idea beeing a supplement to the US.

De Gaulle was as anglo-sceptic as he was rossophope and germanophil. For very good reasons.

We do need him back. A guy who tells Putin to shut t he f uck up, to install nukes to make that clear, to keep a distance to some aspects of anglo-saxon policy, to keep the british out of the EU, to establish extreme strong french -german partnership, to make France leading Europe.

Vive la France, vive de Gaulle, vive l'Europe, vive le couple franco-allemand - vraiment!

 

I feel really worried about our scotish friends. I do hope you will declare independence from Britain to save you in the EU.

England once more did proof to me that is shall never have been allowed to be a member of the EU. De Gaulle was right. The french part in me does revolt by seeing that bastard Farage destroying all our ex President did built with the country of my father.

Farage shall be a fossil monument in some empire museum where you can watch him near an indian elephant nearby a puppet of the Queen, a tea pot and strawberry creamtards with mint sauce or however what other cruel things the english can invent as food...and not walk around anymore...

"god save the Empiiiireeee...rule Britannia" NOT! In that case more: "Rule the islandmonkeys"

To the scots I say: you guys are in the deep hearts us in Europe. Save yourself from english needs to annex to the US.

 

That's why I made sure to include a disclaimer that this is not the only current anthropological theory, and in fact, is quite contentious, not just for the implications of it, but on a proper science level, like is it even true.

But it's possible and I believe it.

No doubt we have adapted and adjusted to having large societies, and those advantages and pressures and cultural norms work well to adjust our nature. We are just as much products of our upbringing and surroundings as our genetics (nature vs. nurture)..

But evolutionarily speaking, ten thousand years is nothing. Our genes won't be that much different from our ancestors even if we were able to make radical transformations to our environment and way of life. Society rather suppresses our nature. But us vs. them mentality seems prevalent. Right vs. left, black vs. white, Cubs vs. Sox, you name it.. People fight over sports games.

We have moved on, I'm just saying our instincts and genes won't necessarily be caught up.

We never evolved as insular. We were always social creatures, but rather the size of our group changed. We lived in tribes, who fought each other for land. Pushovers would die off. Strong, aggressive genes would be advantageous. Being wary or even intolerant if not homicidal toward your neighbor would be a good trait, while mutual cooperation doesn't apply instead. Now that mutual cooperation does apply, that trait is still there. We've basically just extended our group size, to make nation states instead of smaller extended families.

And of course it correlates perfectly with agriculture. They both allowed and called for each other. Settlement is the unnatural part, as we're a migratory species. We don't eat the diet we're meant to today. The hunter/gatherer diet is far different, and is what we were designed for. In fact, a lot of our diseases may arise from this.

Always remember, we evolved into our environment. We then changed our environment. We did not evolve into society. We evolved to be most suitable to the lifestyle and environment we had before we domesticated ourselves, and the way we physically are won't be much different now than back then in only 10k years, the blink of an eye. And unfortunately, I believe that contains a genetic disposition towards being unfriendly with your neighbors. But you're right, minor quibble. We won't change each other's mind nor do we have to.. According to the pros, the jury is still out.

 

I disagree with you. While recognizing many of the advances that capitalism has brought forth of the kind you described, I don't think capitalism is sustainable as you claim. Yes, of course capitalism has the capacity to create wonders, but it is also highly destructive and prone to repeated crisis. Powerful and destructive state-corporate forces are defending their 'right' to exploit the planet's resources and keep billions in poverty and servitude. I think if we don't change course pretty soon we'll hit the buffers.

Given the world's finite resources, the mantra of growth for growth's sake is most surely unsustainable especially when set against the context of a global corporate and financial juggernaut that's driven by the demands of capital. It's the demands of capital that's key. These demands shows no sign of slowing down. Scientists calculate that humans pumped around 10.4 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere in 2011, the most recent year analysed. A Nature news article reports:

'About half of that is taken up each year by carbon "sinks" such as the ocean and vegetation on land; the rest remains in the atmosphere and raises the global concentration of CO2.'

http://www.nature.com/news/global-carbon-dioxide-levels-near-worrisome-milestone-1.12900

'The real question now', says environmental scientist Gregg Marland from Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina , 'is how will the sinks behave in the future?' And biogeochemist Jim White at the University of Colorado in Boulder warns:

'At some point the planet can't keep doing us a favour.'

In other words, the ability of the planet's natural carbon 'sinks' to soak up humanity's CO2 emissions will diminish, and the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will rise at an increasing rate. What is so dangerous about climate change is not just the high level of CO2 today, but the speed at which it is increasing. In other words, climate change is accelerating.

In the novel the Monkey Wrench Gang, Edward Abbey memorably sums up the whole corporate-industrial-military system as 'a megalomaniacal megamachine.' The strong, image-laden language gives a hint of what humanity is up against. It is not a matter of 'tweaking' the system, or asking the megamachine to be nicer. It needs to be dismantled and replaced with a cooperative human society that is ecologically sustainable.

Abbey highlights vividly the madness of global capitalism.

 

The far right are opportunists; for all their carefully worded and eloquently friendly and inclusive rhetoric (viz. Marine Le Pen and her 'new improved' National Front cosying up to the Jews and immigrants her father so vehemently hated), they always emerge in times of national crises and deep recessions-see Greece and Golden Dawn. Just as the Nazis did; in the beginning they appeared to many Germans like manna from heaven. The writing, however, was on the wall and their true character and desires soon revealed themselves. "Worrisome"? You bet.
Trust me, there's a great deal more in store than just dissatisfaction with Brussels.

 

Yes I agree with what you wrote, it makes sense, but what do you think influenced the most fot their increased power across Europe ? immigrations? economy ?the feeling of losing its national identity or influence toward stronger EU members ?

 

Fear; carefully orchestrated through the media. 'Immigrants are 'flooding' the country/taking all the jobs/stealing our welfare money' etc. You have only to check the success of UKIP for an example; nobody knows what their economic policy is, nobody has a clue what they have in mind about anything except immigration. Farage, their leader, made inflammatory speeches about the Romanians, suggesting that (and this is a fact) that more than the actual population of Romania was going to invade Britain! This was nothing less than the same propaganda used by the Nazis as their justification for their vilification of anyone not a German national with strict parameters for acceptability.

 

That's a shame, I think Europe was to be the first human attempt toward International unity of diffrent ethnics and cultures, having one coin, one passport - eventually borders could become obselete and a great new era to humanity, guess human nature will prevail. so far it seems such unity is possible only by the point of a gun and not Democratic methods.

 

Possible that the British can not cope with the loss of the image of the enemy Germany and are now looking for new enemies?

Is that new enemy the poor gypsys? They wont give the lost Empire back anyway...Farage should think tiwce!

 

We should be playing the establishment and the extremists against each other. They are both intellectually derelict. We should enable the ascent of a new form of democracy- an eDemocracy within which every vote is equal , regardless of where it was cast , and every vote is for an idea, a concept, part of a direct decision-making process. ' Representatives ' are yesterday, as is fascism. Kill 'em with communication- and damn the NSA and its minions.

 

It takes a little leap of optmimism to define " socialist " the italian democratic party. I hope Renzi will come out with some balls and keep his promises, we are already fed up with liars. Germany must help us too, they have everything to lose by unreliable partners, and they could soon discover out that the mafia has it's tentacles extended.

 

They take part to the Socialist group in the European parliament ...

I agree that, looking well, the policies suggested by the former mayor of Florence are quite odd for the historical Italian left. May be he thinks to a model like Kennedy, but Kennedy was a product of the American society / environment. Italy is different.

I wonder if after a period of honeymoon a part of his present electors won't realize that he is a bit different from the dream they have got in mind now ...