Brexit: Now What? Part II

[Craig B]

He has learned one thing though, his positions on Islam are what the mainstream position should be for the past 15 years. Want to deal with the populists? Do that, and take away their single largest recruitment tool for good.

Yes. But if you're the same on the issue of xenophobia, you're giving credit to that ideology; simply saying, I'll do this instead of these other guys. A bit like those conservatives in Germany who were antisemites as well as the Nazis, but not as murderous in this and other respects. However, their position meant that antisemitism was legitimated on the right.

Al Jazeera says this re Fillon.

Given that Fillon has written a book with the title, "Vanquishing Islamic Totalitarianism", wants to strictly control the practice of Islam in France, "reduce immigration to a strict minimum", dislikes multiculturalism and social liberalism, and takes pride in France's colonial era, why would any French citizen vote for the National Front?​

Why indeed? I'll do the job for you. Really, the deplorables don't care one way or another whose pay we are in. But they do want to abuse immigrants, and that's fine with me. In other respects

France is nothing like the US, but Fillon like Trump, needs the gloom and doom argument in order to impose his agenda; to raise the retirement age, cut welfare, privatise healthcare, reduce vacation and increase working hours. And of course, cut corporate tax to "stimulate growth".​

People who object to this will find themselves being accused of prostituting themselves to jihadist islamism and betraying France. That'll remove the trump card from the FN's hand for sure. Ah, if only Le Pen père could make the switch from judaeophobia to islamophobia; he would be quite at home. But his brain is too ossified, alas.

The news and comment site Vox expresses the situation quite well I think.

Fillon’s landslide win sets up a showdown with Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right, xenophobic Front National (FN) party. On key issues like immigration, it isn’t much of a choice: Fillon has basically aped her xenophobic agenda ...
It also makes France the third major power, after Britain and the United States, to experience a shock election result fueled in major part by grievances over culture and ethnoracial identity. Fillon’s campaign stole themes that had been developed by Le Pen’s far-right, anti-immigrant FN, and married them to a kind of anti-government and socially conservative sentiment that proved surprisingly widespread among the French middle class.​

This is an eerily exact replay of the post-1929 crisis European political climate. Let us hope that Fillon is not the unwitting legitimiser - and forerunner - of fascism, as his predecessors were in similar circumstances more than eighty years ago.

All the more ominously, US voters have elected a buffoon, a folly they did not indulge in back then.

 

[Lothian]

Ahem, the public have clearly spoken. We want out of EU threads. We will have a civil relationship with EU threads but frankly we are sick of having the likes of French politics coming over 'ere and taking over a thread about British politics.




Lothian- Making threads about Britain great again.

 

[McHrozni]

Yes. But if you're the same on the issue of xenophobia, you're giving credit to that ideology; simply saying, I'll do this instead of these other guys. A bit like those conservatives in Germany who were antisemites as well as the Nazis, but not as murderous in this and other respects. However, their position meant that antisemitism was legitimated on the right.

It's not a phobia if it has very substantial rational component. Islamophobia is a misnomer as a result. Furthermore there are ways to address the issue that don't involve anything resembling Nazi-like policies.

France is nothing like the US, but Fillon like Trump, needs the gloom and doom argument in order to impose his agenda; to raise the retirement age, cut welfare, privatise healthcare, reduce vacation and increase working hours. And of course, cut corporate tax to "stimulate growth".

You just described every right-wing opposition hopeful anywhere. Yes, that's what they campaign on, that's what they promise and that's what occasionally deliver. What of it?

People who object to this will find themselves being accused of prostituting themselves to jihadist islamism and betraying France.

Tragically enough, it's not far from truth. France has suffered terribly on behalf of Jihadis, and controlling them should be on top of any agenda that wants to stop even worse events from coming - first from Jihadis, then from the normal backlash that always happens in these cases. In France, Jihadis are above and beyond the top recruiters for the FN. Take that strength away from the FN and they'll be back to 1-2% of electorate.

The news and comment site Vox expresses the situation quite well I think.

Fillon’s landslide win sets up a showdown with Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right, xenophobic Front National (FN) party. On key issues like immigration, it isn’t much of a choice: Fillon has basically aped her xenophobic agenda ...
It also makes France the third major power, after Britain and the United States, to experience a shock election result fueled in major part by grievances over culture and ethnoracial identity. Fillon’s campaign stole themes that had been developed by Le Pen’s far-right, anti-immigrant FN, and married them to a kind of anti-government and socially conservative sentiment that proved surprisingly widespread among the French middle class.​

This is an eerily exact replay of the post-1929 crisis European political climate. Let us hope that Fillon is not the unwitting legitimiser - and forerunner - of fascism, as his predecessors were in similar circumstances more than eighty years ago.

All the more ominously, US voters have elected a buffoon, a folly they did not indulge in back then.

Do you remember all those times when I was warning this might happen and you were claiming I was being xenophobic and unfair and islamophobic I don't know what else?

Well, it's time for a good old I told you so. FFS. The rise of FN and Filon are precisely what I was saying would happen. And you better hope Filon wins and pleases the electorate by subduing the Jihadis, or else in the next election someone worse than Marie LePen of 2016 will win, and gas chambers become a distinct possibility.

You're right in that the climate in Europe resembles that in Europe in 1929. That did end with gas chambers, remember?

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Do you remember all those times when I was warning this might happen and you were claiming I was being xenophobic and unfair and islamophobic I don't know what else?

Well, it's time for a good old I told you so. FFS.
You still think I'm wrong, I take it?

You are blind to the significance of your own words. As if a commentator in 1930 were to have predicted the antisemitism and extreme social conservatism that would soon attend the fears raised by the economic crisis. Good and well. This I have been predicting too. But different from you: I don't approve of it when it arrives.

 

[McHrozni]

You are blind to the significance of your own words. As if a commentator in 1930 were to have predicted the antisemitism and extreme social conservatism that would soon attend the fears raised by the economic crisis. Good and well. This I have been predicting too. But different from you: I don't approve of it when it arrives.

I don't particularly approve of it, I accept it is necessary to adopt a strong anti-Islamist stance in order to prevent something far worse later down the line. The stance should be strong enough, but within the limits of the human rights and within the limits of applicable laws and constitutions. I proposed several ideas in various threads, most recently in Active shooter in Ohio thread, I suggest you read them before you continue condemning me for what you imagine my positions are.

That said, don't overstate the similarities between 1930 and today. Antisemitism and anti-Islamism have their similarities but also critical differences. For one, antisemitism of 1930s was rooted in xenophobia and envy towards the successful Jews, the victims of antisemitism. Anti-islamism is rooted in xenophobia and envy of the failing Islamists, the purported victims of anti-Islamism.

This difference is critical in how you can approach the problem. Jews were absolutely powerless to meaningfully address the antisemitism, it had to be fought by others on their behalf. Today however Muslims have all the tools they need to stop the anti-Islamism, and furthermore they're the only ones who can do something substantial about it, but refuse to do anything more than occasional lip service. Regular and strong condemnations we don't even see yet often enough might cut it fifteen years ago, but not today.

This difference alone precludes drawing the parallels you continuously draw between that time and today. There is also that Islamism presents us with a televised massacre about twice a year in France alone (and about twice a week worldwide), which Jews never did. Antisemitism stood on fabrications, anti-Islamism stands on very real victims of Islamists, the tortured, raped, murdered victims that we've been reading about daily for over a decade now, and we knew of far longer than that. It's really quite in bad taste to compare the two, to tell you the truth. Nobody particularly cared about Muslims until thousands of Islamists worldwide made it their life goal to kill as many of infidels and heretics as they could and Muslims still seemed to be concerned by Israel first and foremost, defending their religion came second and denouncing these Islamists barely registered on their agenda. It's only natural such actions will breed mistrust, which will turn to anxiety, then to fear and then to hatred. I hope we're still at fear, because once it turns to hatred there are no acceptable solutions left - the best we can hope for is a voluntary emigration to the Muslim majority countries. (How you can reconcile that with the fact Muslim majority countries are the top donor of boat people is another issue altogether.) All other options involve bayonets.

McHrozni

 

[Andy_Ross]

Start your own thread if you want to talk Italy and France.

 

[McHrozni]

Start your own thread if you want to talk Italy and France.

Other than the percentages of popular support for FN or Brexit all of that applies to Brexit just as well. Without the issue of Muslim immigrants Brexit would get to 60-40 for remain at best. Tante Merkel has her share of responsibility for inviting hordes to Germany in the months before the referendum.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Start your own thread if you want to talk Italy and France.

Italy and France are who Brexit is brexiting from.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Other than the percentages of popular support for FN or Brexit all of that applies to Brexit just as well. Without the issue of Muslim immigrants Brexit would get to 60-40 for remain at best. Tante Merkel has her share of responsibility for inviting hordes to Germany in the months before the referendum.

McHrozni

So to beat the xenophobes we become xenophobes or at least to pretend to by adopting their policies as our own. Great thinking.

 

[ctamblyn]

Is anyone watching the live coverage of the Supreme Court on the appeal against the recent High Court's ruling?

https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html [NB Court is now adjourned until 2 pm].

Lord Keen, bringing the government's case, just made a controversial argument in the context of devolution settlements: "Parliament is sovereign and may legislate at any time on any matter." I do hope that makes it onto the front pages of Welsh and Scottish papers tomorrow.

(ETA Indeed his entire argument boils down to the claim that Sewel is a convention, not something enforceable in court, and Westminster may do as it likes with Scottish law.)

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Is anyone watching the live coverage of the Supreme Court on the appeal against the recent High Court's ruling?

https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html [NB Court is now adjourned until 2 pm].

Lord Keen, bringing the government's case, just made a controversial argument in the context of devolution settlements: "Parliament is sovereign and may legislate at any time on any matter." I do hope that makes it onto the front pages of Welsh and Scottish papers tomorrow.

Nothing new there is there?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sure the UKIP politician meant: the Irish will pay for the motorway but the UK won't pay for anything in return. Like freedom of trade and movement. We want the first, not the second; so that's the way things have to be. There's no point in telling these people; the Empire is dead, and it doesn't work like that any more.

"To boost the british economy I suggest we tax all foreigners living abroad".

 

[Darat]

Other than the percentages of popular support for FN or Brexit all of that applies to Brexit just as well. Without the issue of Muslim immigrants Brexit would get to 60-40 for remain at best. Tante Merkel has her share of responsibility for inviting hordes to Germany in the months before the referendum.

McHrozni

Although there was some allusions to Muslim immigration in the campaigns in the UK the anti immigration is not specific anti Muslim immigration. The main aim of the likes of the UKIP bigots is about those "East europeans" coming over here and taking the jobs.

 

[Darat]

Is anyone watching the live coverage of the Supreme Court on the appeal against the recent High Court's ruling?

https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html [NB Court is now adjourned until 2 pm].

Lord Keen, bringing the government's case, just made a controversial argument in the context of devolution settlements: "Parliament is sovereign and may legislate at any time on any matter." I do hope that makes it onto the front pages of Welsh and Scottish papers tomorrow.

(ETA Indeed his entire argument boils down to the claim that Sewel is a convention, not something enforceable in court, and Westminster may do as it likes with Scottish law.)

What's controversial about that?

 

[ctamblyn]

Nothing new there is there?

What's controversial about that?

Maybe I'm projecting, but I think it might raise some eyebrows in Wales and Scotland to see the government's view of things so clearly laid out in print. My impression is that the general public's view of the WA and/or SP has been that they have a certain, if limited, degree of independence from Westminster.

What's also rather interesting is that the SC isn't entirely persuaded by this line of argument, or so it seems.

 

[McHrozni]

So to beat the xenophobes we become xenophobes or at least to pretend to by adopting their policies as our own. Great thinking.

Let's examine this 'analysis' of yours, shall we?

Xenopobia is a compound word, made of two Greek words: xenos, meaning strange, foreign and phobos, meaning fear. Medically phobia signifies an irrational fear, one that a rational person should not hold. Xenophobia therefore signifies an irrational fear of anything foreign.

Now for the voters who are willing to vote for these clowns, they aren't afraid of everything non-British/French/Italian/German/American/..., but by one very specific group of people, namely Muslims. Even the three most ardently anti-immigrant states in EU (Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia) said they were willing to take non-Muslim migrants. This means xenophobia is an inappropriate term to begin with, which is why Islamophobia is usually (ab)used.

Now for the phobic part. As I mentioned earlier, a phobia is a fear an rational person should not hold. If you see a rabid dog snapping at everyone in range, it is not caninophobic to fear and avoid it. That fear is perfectly rational and it is this rational fear that keep you alive from day to day. This is where Islam comes in, which is rather different from other religions. It endorses beheading of non-Muslims if they refuse to convert, for one example. No reputable Islamic scholar has yet repudiated the holy texts that comes from. No Islamic organization of any relevance has done so. The contents of those texts are not trivial, since they are acted upon and used as a justification for horrible deeds in the name of Allah in many parts of the Islamic world, most famously in the Islamic state. France, but also UK, Spain and others, were not spared from those deeds, France in particular was a victim of three massive atrocities in the past two years alone. These didn't happen in vacuum, but were a part of a massive worldwide Islamic campaign at sowing chaos wherever and whenever possible. In the light of this, fear of Islam can not be rightfully described as irrational. It is a rational fear, as a fear of an unfamiliar dog is rational.

What you do next is rather dishonest: you claim that this fear of Islam equates dislike of if not hatred towards all Muslims. While this may be true in some cases, this is patently false most of the time - as I mentioned earlier, no one particularly cared if there were Muslims in France, until those same Muslims in France started going on killing sprees for their God, and the rest of Muslim community was still primarily concerned with Israel and defending their religion from any and all criticism, and barely bothered to denounce the attacks every once in a while. You can't do that for very long if you want no one will notice or react. You don't even pretend to make an effort at discerning between the two, and are guilty of the same generalization you usually denounce.

Now that I have explained it to you rather exhaustively I expect you to understand the difference and act accordingly. If you have questions about any of the parts or if you disagree with them then by all means, call them into question. I doubt you'll be able to do so however, and I fully expect you to continue with this pathetic "let's fight xenophobes with xenophobia" nonsense that I've just shown has precisely zero basis in reality.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Maybe I'm projecting, but I think it might raise some eyebrows in Wales and Scotland to see the government's view of things so clearly laid out in print. My impression is that the general public's view of the WA and/or SP has been that they have a certain, if limited, degree of independence from Westminster.

What's also rather interesting is that the SC isn't entirely persuaded by this line of argument, or so it seems.

They have limited independence from Westminster for as long as Westminster allows them to have it. Westminster could scrap the devolved Parliaments tomorrow if they wanted to.

 

[McHrozni]

Although there was some allusions to Muslim immigration in the campaigns in the UK the anti immigration is not specific anti Muslim immigration. The main aim of the likes of the UKIP bigots is about those "East europeans" coming over here and taking the jobs.

Yeah, but I'm certain anti-Muslim sentiments bring about 3-5 Brexit voters for every one the East Europeans bring. UKIP might focus elsewhere, but without Muslims they'd rack in maybe 40% at best. UK unemployment rate is at about 5%, down from a peak of 8% two years ago. There is no way the concern about lost jobs motivates nearly enough voters into an economic seppuku. Fear of terrorism has that power though, as demonstrated in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and USA to name a few.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

They have limited independence from Westminster for as long as Westminster allows them to have it. Westminster could scrap the devolved Parliaments tomorrow if they wanted to.

I'm sure that would be cause for another referendum on independence of Scotland, and this one would probably succeed.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Let's examine this 'analysis' of yours, shall we?

Xenopobia is a compound word, made of two Greek words: xenos, meaning strange, foreign and phobos, meaning fear. Medically phobia signifies an irrational fear, one that a rational person should not hold. Xenophobia therefore signifies an irrational fear of anything foreign.

Now for the voters who are willing to vote for these clowns, they aren't afraid of everything non-British/French/Italian/German/American/..., but by one very specific group of people, namely Muslims. Even the three most ardently anti-immigrant states in EU (Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia) said they were willing to take non-Muslim migrants. This means xenophobia is an inappropriate term to begin with, which is why Islamophobia is usually (ab)used.

Now for the phobic part. As I mentioned earlier, a phobia is a fear an rational person should not hold. If you see a rabid dog snapping at everyone in range, it is not caninophobic to fear and avoid it. That fear is perfectly rational and it is this rational fear that keep you alive from day to day. This is where Islam comes in, which is rather different from other religions. It endorses beheading of non-Muslims if they refuse to convert, for one example. No reputable Islamic scholar has yet repudiated the holy texts that comes from. No Islamic organization of any relevance has done so. The contents of those texts are not trivial, since they are acted upon and used as a justification for horrible deeds in the name of Allah in many parts of the Islamic world, most famously in the Islamic state. France, but also UK, Spain and others, were not spared from those deeds, France in particular was a victim of three massive atrocities in the past two years. These didn't happen in vacuum, but were a part of a massive worldwide Islamic campaign at sowing chaos wherever and whenever possible. In the light of this, fear of Islam can not be rightfully described as irrational. It is a rational fear, as a fear of an unfamiliar dog is rational.

What you do next is rather dishonest: you claim that this fear of Islam equates dislike of if not hatred towards all Muslims. While this may be true in some cases, this is patently false most of the time - as I mentioned earlier, no one particularly cared if there were Muslims in France, until those same Muslims in France started going on killing sprees for their God, and the rest of Muslim community was still primarily concerned with Israel and criticism of their religion, and barely bothered to denounce the attacks every once in a while. You don't even pretend to make an effort at discerning between the two, and are guilty of the same generalization you usually denounce.

Now that I have explained it to you rather exhaustively I expect you to understand the difference and act accordingly. If you have questions about any of the parts or if you disagree with them then by all means, call them into question. I doubt you'll be able to do so however, and I fully expect you to continue with this pathetic "let's fight xenophobes with xenophobia" nonsense that I've just shown has precisely zero basis in reality.

McHrozni

Your 'explanation' merely digs a hole further for yourself. Rationalising your Islamophobia doesn't make it any more palatable. You may think that the correct course of action for someone wanting to help Muslims in a warzone is actually not to help them but instead to demonise not only them but all people of the same religion. However Merkel disagrees (thankfully). She should be praised for being just about the only leader willing to step up to the plate while others were fudging the issue but instead the usual suspects vilify her for not pandering to their base desires.

What you haven't done in your 'explanation' is how how simply adopting another person's policies to keep them sweet in order to prevent said person getting in power an enacting those policies when you disagree with them helps anyone.

It would be akin to throwing your TV in the rubbish to stop burglars stealing it.