Senate The rise of populism on the left and right - 1920s part 2?

Oh, ok.

So what he means, Ben, is that they're disingenuous bell ends.

 

That works for me!

 

No.
One meaning is disingenuous/hypocritical: tossed up.

The other is bell ends: tossers

Either one works though not at the same time. No tossed up tossers.

Although….

 

Wot.

Shane are you familiar with the term bell end?

 

slang for balls?

Aw crap, I screwed it up!

Disingenuous balls….

Disingenuous ***** head...

 

No mate. It's the end of your willy innit.

 

I like it but thought bell ends was the gonads.

edit: Let's get back to talking about populism. Talking about penises and balls is not really my thing except apparently when it is incorrectly using British slang.

 

But we were. We were saying the UKIP MEPs are disingenuous willies.

Which they are.

 

gosh are my bell ends swollen...

 

I saw the last person to post was Crem. I though, "he's going to say 'pupulism'" and talk about poo.

Was disappointed.

 

i actually was going to do a longish mostly serious post but then i thought naahh

 

As usual.

 

Ah, what an excellent example of a brief yet fun off-topic tangent. Still, suppose this thread better get back on track, though I'm quite at ease slagging Ukippers.

 

You know what we need right now? A huge influx of Polish builders so that we can hit the 1m homes by 2020 target.

 

https://www.socialeurope.eu/2016/11/democratic-polarisation-pull-ground-right-wing-populism/#

Credit to JoinTheSchwarz for this one.

I don't agree with his take on capitalism; I find the left will quickly point out how the Maoist, Leninist and Stalinist abuses don't actually represent the intent of economic socialism and Marxism, but when you say capital is under systemic abuse by way of amputating the 'invisible hand' it's not acceptable. Largely because people remain fundamentally ignorant of what capitalism is, and instead focus on the abuses a system using this name creates.

Of course, the irony is lost on them.

Nonetheless, some of the conclusions are worth paying attention to.

or, you can just assume "racists" and act bewildered when populism gains further momentum.

 

So the United States has fallen to it.

Looking at the polls it looks like the Netherlands and Austria will succumb to populist governments at some point (the latter always having a populist right-wing bent). It looks like Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and France will be able to hold out, although some of them are on shaky ground (I'm looking at you France). The UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada and New Zealand seem to be weathering it fairly well (Brexit seems to tempered it in the UK).

 

So, a few years back, Partij voor de Vrijheid gets kicked out of the Dutch government coalition with Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie, drop to around 13 seats or so, have no role in the Rutte government.

They're looking now at the most seats according to November 2016 polling, for next year.

Debo SuperWatto, I'm assuming it's the Nice/Belgium/Paris attacks that is pushing the concerns about Moroccans and Islam in general towards support for PVV?

 

That just shows how quickly these movements can rebound after we assume they are whipped.

 

On that;

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4271/moroccans-netherlands

Now, the Gatestone Institute has been branded by some segments as anti-Muslim, but Islamic scholars have also defended it, so take it how you will.

 

Yes but also, all the "established" parties are Hillarying.

 

True. And they will be Hillarying until things go bad. Problems with the Moroccan community have been present since, what, the 1980s. But nobody was allowed to mention the issue. If anyone did, they were cast off as some kind of closet Nazi. It made me think of Jacques Presser's (Dutch writer/historian, 1899-1970) remark, that the new fascists will present themselves as anti-fascist. When filmmaker Vincent van Gogh was murdered because of his anti-Islam film, the defense mechanism that kicked in was: "But he had said horrible things about Islam. He had gone too far." He was brutally killed, mind you. The obvious effect of this constant suppression was that a large group of people went from "they should kick the troublemaking Moroccans out" to "they should kick all Moroccans out"--and Muslims, as the two have become interchangeable terms. Radicalizations in all directions. That's what happens here, it happens in Europe, and it happens in the US, which is why Trump is king now. Such are the strange times we live in. It's sometimes as if the whole world has been in a state of confused panic since September 11, 2001.

I look at it all in wonder, but I don't really follow the news anymore. I'm my own sovereign state. And I believe that everything will eventually right itself. Or rather, everything ends badly--which means the bad also ends badly, and that's good, as Harry Mulisch used to say.

 

Well, Van Gogh had said horrible things. I remember fearing for his life when reading his columns. I'd think "Don't write that! You don't know who you're messing with!". I knew the guy from around town, liked his films, liked his interviews, didn't want anything to happen to him. But he hadn't wizened up. He thought we were still in a peace-loving community, an open society where you could mock everything.

So I wouldn't call that a defense mechanism, more a realistic appraisal. More realistic than his, in fact. Weren't his last words "Can't we talk about it"?

 

What prevents a reasonable and rational liberal party from reaching some sort of answer to this rather than a hard right? Are there centrists that have made appeals but haven't found traction? Why do people flock in Europe to these hard right figures for the answer rather than centrists?

 

He did go too far. But the point is, it shouldn't matter if you go too far. Because in the eyes of some people, you'll always go too far one way or another. A short skirt, a T-shirt with some imprint, a cartoon: anything can be a provocation when you're a loon. I think Van Gogh was trying to be a clown, a jester, someone who could provoke the king without any consequences, but he ended up as a tragic figure, and ultimately he proved nothing. "Where be your gibes now?" I thought he was a nasty figure by the way; though that too is beside the point.

As for the PVV--used car salesmen. Slicked back hair and suits that don't fit, with mismatched ties. I'd never vote for them, though at the same time I think it's good that their party exists, if only to prevent the established parties from dozing off again. There should always be someone who goes too far.

 

For the law, it shouldn't matter. For personal safety, it just does.

That's why I'm not sure it's good the PVV exists, because it only fans the flames.