LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
The suggestion on the radio was that he wasn't facing any criminal charges which seems odd to me given he was supposedly key in the money laundering process.rick_chasey said:
We already knew this but good to prove it conclusively.0 -
Everyone can see she's massively over promoted. She's destined for a career as a GBN presenter/RW blowhard at best. People really need to stop taking her seriously.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Anyone in mainstream politics. Braverman is just ineffectual.Stevo_666 said:
Braverman? (See points 1 & 2 above)rjsterry said:Oh get a grip the pair of you.
When we already have enough actual far-right extremists we don't need to trivialise their existence by slapping the F word on anything we don't like.
But she's still dangerous, for what she's trying to do. It's hard to put the genie back into the bottle, even if she's only doing it for her personal political ambition.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
First.Aspect said:
Any hope for a split in the party, to hive off the Nat-c's I to a separate party with red, black and white geometric branding and leave a moderate right of centre party that would not be catastrophic for Britain?
Or are the Nat-c's our version of the Tea Party?
Keeping lunatics in the tent is the price to pay for FPTP
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
rjsterry said:
Everyone can see she's massively over promoted. She's destined for a career as a GBN presenter/RW blowhard at best. People really need to stop taking her seriously.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Anyone in mainstream politics. Braverman is just ineffectual.Stevo_666 said:
Braverman? (See points 1 & 2 above)rjsterry said:Oh get a grip the pair of you.
When we already have enough actual far-right extremists we don't need to trivialise their existence by slapping the F word on anything we don't like.
But she's still dangerous, for what she's trying to do. It's hard to put the genie back into the bottle, even if she's only doing it for her personal political ambition.
We didn't take Truss or Trump seriously, and look where that got us...0 -
-
rick_chasey said:
Christ I wouldn’t listen to Monbiot about much.
No, I wouldn't either, but on this one I can see his point.0 -
No, people listened to everything they said instead of looking at what they were doing. The public didn't get a say in Truss; that was all an internal debate within the governing party.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Everyone can see she's massively over promoted. She's destined for a career as a GBN presenter/RW blowhard at best. People really need to stop taking her seriously.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Anyone in mainstream politics. Braverman is just ineffectual.Stevo_666 said:
Braverman? (See points 1 & 2 above)rjsterry said:Oh get a grip the pair of you.
When we already have enough actual far-right extremists we don't need to trivialise their existence by slapping the F word on anything we don't like.
But she's still dangerous, for what she's trying to do. It's hard to put the genie back into the bottle, even if she's only doing it for her personal political ambition.
We didn't take Truss or Trump seriously, and look where that got us...1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I read something a while ago from Richard Evans on whether he thought Trump was fash or not and he was quite categorical that he thought he wasn't, and the same applies here I think.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Christ I wouldn’t listen to Monbiot about much.
No, I wouldn't either, but on this one I can see his point.
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/americas/north-america/us/2021/01/trump-fascist
He contends that a critical part of Fascism was that war was the end rather than the means, and that all fascism ultimately derives from the willingness to militarise and re-fight ww1.
He argues that all the illiberalisms of fascism, lack of free press etc, are all geared up to wage war. Educating children to wage war and fight, preparing the entire economy for war etc. It was fully war without limits and war was always the destination.
Plainly, we know, Trump is not that.
I would contend that's the same here.
Far right it is. Fascist, in this interpretation, it probably isn't.0 -
rick_chasey said:
I read something a while ago from Richard Evans on whether he thought Trump was fash or not and he was quite categorical that he thought he wasn't, and the same applies here I think.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Christ I wouldn’t listen to Monbiot about much.
No, I wouldn't either, but on this one I can see his point.
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/americas/north-america/us/2021/01/trump-fascist
He contends that a critical part of Fascism was that war was the end rather than the means, and that all fascism ultimately derives from the willingness to militarise and re-fight ww1.
He argues that all the illiberalisms of fascism, lack of free press etc, are all geared up to wage war. Educating children to wage war and fight, preparing the entire economy for war etc. It was fully war without limits and war was always the destination.
Plainly, we know, Trump is not that.
I would contend that's the same here.
Far right it is. Fascist, in this interpretation, it probably isn't.
But Monbiot isn't saying it is, but that it is an ingredient necessary for fascism to develop. I'd say it's a warning to beware, not a prediction... slippery slopes, and all that. It needs to be called out.0 -
-
Not arguing there particularly. But this is risk assessment...fascism *does* rely on a mass suspension of informed critical thought. I take heart from the fact that Truss & Johnson are largely viewed critically by sane UK commentators & public, but I'm less easy about the US & their nutters.rick_chasey said:Sure, but I think the ends are fundamentally different. Even if the means are similar.
0 -
-
rick_chasey said:
It's a good article, give it a read over lunch.
I probably would, if I were subscriber...0 -
-
rick_chasey said:
https://12ft.io/
Try sticking the url in here
Thanks. Yes, good article, though part of his argument seems to be that Trump couldn't be a fascist as he's too lazy & disorganised (and that's why 6 Jan wasn't an attempted coup). I take the point of the end point of fascism being its desire for armed conflict to impose its idealogy on others.
Whatever the label you ultimately ascribe to Trump, though, I'd still argue he's using many of the same tactics deployed to make fascism possible, even if Bonespurs just likes the idea of other people using violence to advance Trump's ego.0 -
Isn't that a fairly narrow definition? That the aim is specifically armed conflict, rather than domestic ideological conflict, I mean. We might even bring the cyber 'war' on basic facts into it. If the end result is that the ideology takes over, should that be enough?0
-
First.Aspect said:
Isn't that a fairly narrow definition? That the aim is specifically armed conflict, rather than domestic ideological conflict, I mean. We might even bring the cyber 'war' on basic facts into it. If the end result is that the ideology takes over, should that be enough?
I can see the point in not letting the definition become so broad that it dilutes its power, though who polices the definition, and whether it can evolve are problematic.0 -
The argument is that all the other things, the lack of free speech, blah blah blah, are all there *to wage total war* and not the other way around.First.Aspect said:Isn't that a fairly narrow definition? That the aim is specifically armed conflict, rather than domestic ideological conflict, I mean. We might even bring the cyber 'war' on basic facts into it. If the end result is that the ideology takes over, should that be enough?
The means and ends are pretty critical for this kind of evaluation.0 -
Do you agree with that assessment?rick_chasey said:
The argument is that all the other things, the lack of free speech, blah blah blah, are all there *to wage total war* and not the other way around.First.Aspect said:Isn't that a fairly narrow definition? That the aim is specifically armed conflict, rather than domestic ideological conflict, I mean. We might even bring the cyber 'war' on basic facts into it. If the end result is that the ideology takes over, should that be enough?
The means and ends are pretty critical for this kind of evaluation.
Not being a historian, I haven't got a clue. However it seems to me that the ultimate end is imposing the ideology, albeit historically by war, rather than war itself. With the ideal outcome being to encounter some surrender monkeys who cave to the ideology wothout the need to fire a shot. Also, facicism is hardly unique in being a route to a war.0 -
I think I do broadly agree with him (though I should add he's about 40% of what I've read on the topic, so that might be fairly tautological).
I think the war bit is the central pillar on which the rest of the ideology hangs. It's about gearing up your entire society for the most total conflict you can engineer in an existential fight for ultimate supremacy. That's what fascism is about.
I think his point is that the comparison is a red herring and though it rhymes, it rhymes with many other non-fascist far-right efforts, and it makes sense to fight that fight and not the fight from 100 years ago.
There are plenty of other far-right leaders who want to be dictators.
0 -
Notwithstanding that the UK MPs stupid enough to appear at this conference are not fascists, sitting listening to someone complaining that nazism spoiled nationalism for the rest of them is yet another nadir.
It seems clearer with every day that they've given up on the next election already.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Reminds me of this bit:rjsterry said:Notwithstanding that the UK MPs stupid enough to appear at this conference are not fascists, sitting listening to someone complaining that nazism spoiled nationalism for the rest of them is yet another nadir.
It seems clearer with every day that they've given up on the next election already.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXdtafGdIVM 0 -
Is the argument a reaction to how happy everyone was/is to throw the F-word about, simply making the definition more precise? Possibly with the hope of having more productive discourse with people who love authoritarian right wing movements but have their feelings hurt if people call them fashrick_chasey said:I think I do broadly agree with him (though I should add he's about 40% of what I've read on the topic, so that might be fairly tautological).
I think the war bit is the central pillar on which the rest of the ideology hangs. It's about gearing up your entire society for the most total conflict you can engineer in an existential fight for ultimate supremacy. That's what fascism is about.
I think his point is that the comparison is a red herring and though it rhymes, it rhymes with many other non-fascist far-right efforts, and it makes sense to fight that fight and not the fight from 100 years ago.
There are plenty of other far-right leaders who want to be dictators.0 -
-
I think the key point is that if you just label everything RW as fascist it ceases to mean anything. Much like idiots labelling everything vaguely left of centre as 'woke'. It just becomes 'the worst slur I can think of' and makes it easier for real fascists to gain wider acceptance.Jezyboy said:
Is the argument a reaction to how happy everyone was/is to throw the F-word about, simply making the definition more precise? Possibly with the hope of having more productive discourse with people who love authoritarian right wing movements but have their feelings hurt if people call them fashrick_chasey said:I think I do broadly agree with him (though I should add he's about 40% of what I've read on the topic, so that might be fairly tautological).
I think the war bit is the central pillar on which the rest of the ideology hangs. It's about gearing up your entire society for the most total conflict you can engineer in an existential fight for ultimate supremacy. That's what fascism is about.
I think his point is that the comparison is a red herring and though it rhymes, it rhymes with many other non-fascist far-right efforts, and it makes sense to fight that fight and not the fight from 100 years ago.
There are plenty of other far-right leaders who want to be dictators.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
I think the flip side is if you limit the term too heavily then nothing can be fascist. I'd argue that it can be helpful to highlight the bits that to borrow Ricks phrase, there's lots of "rhyming"rjsterry said:
I think the key point is that if you just label everything RW as fascist it ceases to mean anything. Much like idiots labelling everything vaguely left of centre as 'woke'. It just becomes 'the worst slur I can think of' and makes it easier for real fascists to gain wider acceptance.Jezyboy said:
Is the argument a reaction to how happy everyone was/is to throw the F-word about, simply making the definition more precise? Possibly with the hope of having more productive discourse with people who love authoritarian right wing movements but have their feelings hurt if people call them fashrick_chasey said:I think I do broadly agree with him (though I should add he's about 40% of what I've read on the topic, so that might be fairly tautological).
I think the war bit is the central pillar on which the rest of the ideology hangs. It's about gearing up your entire society for the most total conflict you can engineer in an existential fight for ultimate supremacy. That's what fascism is about.
I think his point is that the comparison is a red herring and though it rhymes, it rhymes with many other non-fascist far-right efforts, and it makes sense to fight that fight and not the fight from 100 years ago.
There are plenty of other far-right leaders who want to be dictators.
I think there's a difference with 'woke' in that many woke people would be happy to wear the label. Most of the people accused of being fascist will spend lots of time arguing that they are not.0 -
I don't think it means much any more anyway. You rarely hear North Korea described as fascist, even though that is probably an accurate description.rjsterry said:
I think the key point is that if you just label everything RW as fascist it ceases to mean anything. Much like idiots labelling everything vaguely left of centre as 'woke'. It just becomes 'the worst slur I can think of' and makes it easier for real fascists to gain wider acceptance.Jezyboy said:
Is the argument a reaction to how happy everyone was/is to throw the F-word about, simply making the definition more precise? Possibly with the hope of having more productive discourse with people who love authoritarian right wing movements but have their feelings hurt if people call them fashrick_chasey said:I think I do broadly agree with him (though I should add he's about 40% of what I've read on the topic, so that might be fairly tautological).
I think the war bit is the central pillar on which the rest of the ideology hangs. It's about gearing up your entire society for the most total conflict you can engineer in an existential fight for ultimate supremacy. That's what fascism is about.
I think his point is that the comparison is a red herring and though it rhymes, it rhymes with many other non-fascist far-right efforts, and it makes sense to fight that fight and not the fight from 100 years ago.
There are plenty of other far-right leaders who want to be dictators.0 -
Well, The Spectator isn't making it overly easy to avoid making connections between the right wing and the views of the people who they cosy up to.The headline over his D-Day article changed during the day. The first headline read: “In praise of Wehrmacht: The real story of D-Day is the heroism of the German soldiers who were vastly outnumbered but fought nobly and to the death.”
Hours later it was changed to read: “The truth about D-Day: Don’t believe the Hollywood version. The fact is the Wehrmacht were sitting ducks.”0 -
….because it’s still basically communist?TheBigBean said:
I don't think it means much any more anyway. You rarely hear North Korea described as fascist, even though that is probably an accurate description.rjsterry said:
I think the key point is that if you just label everything RW as fascist it ceases to mean anything. Much like idiots labelling everything vaguely left of centre as 'woke'. It just becomes 'the worst slur I can think of' and makes it easier for real fascists to gain wider acceptance.Jezyboy said:
Is the argument a reaction to how happy everyone was/is to throw the F-word about, simply making the definition more precise? Possibly with the hope of having more productive discourse with people who love authoritarian right wing movements but have their feelings hurt if people call them fashrick_chasey said:I think I do broadly agree with him (though I should add he's about 40% of what I've read on the topic, so that might be fairly tautological).
I think the war bit is the central pillar on which the rest of the ideology hangs. It's about gearing up your entire society for the most total conflict you can engineer in an existential fight for ultimate supremacy. That's what fascism is about.
I think his point is that the comparison is a red herring and though it rhymes, it rhymes with many other non-fascist far-right efforts, and it makes sense to fight that fight and not the fight from 100 years ago.
There are plenty of other far-right leaders who want to be dictators.0
