France is 'on the verge of a civil war'

Post Reply New Topic

I was attacking you and your post.



I don't agree with what Mr Patrick Calvar said either, but your post comes under the category of "not even wrong". As overused (mostly by know-nothings) as the phrase 'conspiracy theory' is, it does have some meaning, and 'incorrect predictions of doom and gloom' and 'conspiracy theories' are not synonymous. You should find some new phrases for your self-esteem-boosting bot-posts.

[MODERATOR]

Keep it civil, or get it locked.

[/MODERATOR]

Extremism on both the right and left has created this situation. The voice of moderation has been lost. The voice of moderation called for compromise on immigration and economic matters. People did not get behind these leaders. There should have been moratoriums, especially on immigration and refugee policies, rather than shoving these radical policies on people. Once the damage is done, what's the point of talking?

Such a marriage of hyperbole and sophistry is a kind of art. Impressive.

A narrow minded person might object that lions and tigers don't actually make or use fire, but this would miss the really beautiful nonsense at the heart of the post: blaming the left for the existence of the extreme right.

Ahistorical. Illogical. But passionately proclaimed.

If there were a judging panel I am sure they would deduct full points for content but award full points for the over the top style.

How else could this be applied?

Black people created white supremacists.
Women created misogynists.
Children created abusive parents.

There is really no limit to how this can be used.

False equivalence.



This one is probably accurate. I'm certain that misogyny has been caused by women mistreating men. Also, 100% of misogynists were literally created by a woman (with a little contribution from a man).

Oh, and another false equivalence.



Also a false equivalence.



As long as you're willing to ignore context and pretend that "created" is not shorthand, sure.

From the perspective of the "Right", you have your narrative back-to-front. Big momma government and her supporters are the parents. Le Pen, et al, are the children railing against what they perceive to be abuse. By casting the Left in the roles of Black Person, Woman and Child in your pithy little narratives, you've merely showcased your own political biases.

Further, you've opted for criticism of tone and style in order to condescend over addressing the clear point that was being made. In short, you haven't presented an argument. The "Left" has most certainly cultivated the environment in which "anti-Leftism" has grown - though the wider picture is clearly more complex and nuanced than that single factor.

Oh, and my previous sentiments on the redundancy of "Left" and "Right" still stand.

adifferentname said it, those are different scenarios. Mass immigration was a deliberate policy in my own country to "rub the Right's nose in diversity" and "to render their arguments out of date". Basically to break up and dilute the White Christian hegemony that dominated England and most of Europe. On the continent they are even more insane, particularly the infamous president Sarkozy threatening to use the power of the state to enforce racial interbreeding.

The Right said in many different ways, often with historical references and personal experience in "diverse and vibrant" countries, that this will lead to tensions, violent conflict, secession and perhaps even genocide. To which the Left replied "Racist Racist Racist". Now that tensions are heating up, violence is breaking out and far Right movements are springing up all over Europe in defence of their own kind and their way of life. The coming bloodshed is all on the radical Left's hands and their enablers.

And now for a break and to rustle some jimmies: here are some highlights of Enoch Powell's career ending speech in 1968. He thought the way he did because he spent much time in "diverse and vibrant" places like India and Northern Ireland.

...people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen." ...

...At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after. ...

...In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population...

...Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen...

...But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted...

...The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population...

...'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.'...

...As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood". That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

Can't say you weren't warned.

Not surprised you are a Powell fan. But why stop there? What about the wisdom and wit of Oswald Mosley?

Left and Right go back to the French Revolution and are perfectly good terms. The left did not, by any stretch of the imagination "cause" the success of the right.

The reason all those dark skinned people that old Enoch P was worried about came to Britain was not the excesses of the left but the inevitable end of the British Empire.

If you didn't want all those Asians in the Midlands, you should not have taken up the white man's burden with such gusto in the days of hope and glory.

It's not a false equivalence to compare one bogus argument with another. The modern extreme right was caused by the earlier extreme right, not as some inevitable reaction to the center or left.

Much of Mosley's wisdom most certainly rings true to my modern ears.



I don't deny the value of the classical definitions of left and right, but the terms are used correctly by seemingly only a handful of people.



But that's still not putting things into their proper context. Mikah was not literally stating that the left created the right, or vice versa. He was implying that the rise in popularity among voters of 'right wing' politics and parties is the result of mismanagement by 'left wing' governments. Had a General Election been scheduled immediately following Brexit, I'm certain this would have manifested as an upsurge in UKIP votes comparable to that of the last GE.

They're false equivalences for several reasons, but primarily because of an (one might say 'typically') overly-literal interpretation of his post.

I know what Mikah was doing.

I don't agree.

If you like Mosley, you are my enemy.

My sentiment runs more along the lines of "the only good fascist is an ex-fascist."

There was no inevitability about mass immigration, it's not an unavoidable legacy of empire, it's an active policy of stupid utopian leftists looking to transform a culture and dopey economic liberals (what passes for conservatism these days) looking for cheap labour. We were quite capable of refusing immigration requests and finding alternate solutions to the problems it was meant to solve.



It isn't caused by previous incarnations, the "extreme Right" is a naturally forming state of affairs that appears anywhere and anytime we humans engage in a tribal territorial conflict. This particular ongoing and escalating conflict has been artificially created by the Left's extreme stupidity, ergo this time, it's their fault.

There's a world of difference between liking Mosley and acknowledging that he said things that ring true today. If the metric by which you judge ideas relies on genetic fallacy, you're an enemy of reason.

I'm sure Mosley used words like "and" and "the" that I would find unobjectionable. Forum rules prohibit a more in depth exposition of my feelings about scum like him or the toxic horror of his way of thinking.

There is nothing natural about the far right. They are a meta phenomenon that is fueled by a combination of low level, natural aspects of being human and layers and layers of high level conceptual garbage. There is nothing natural about them. They grow and evolve as an expression of culture. They spread by propaganda and teaching.

They are an expression of the same human aspects that produce radical Islamisn and every bit as much in need of being guarded against, encouraged to change when possible, or destroyed when they threaten the rest of us.

Stunning hyperbole, but my point stands.