The rise of nationalism.

[bovril]

4 minutes ago, Benguin said:

The rise of the right is really simply down to the rise of the left. All this buzzword, pc nonsense calls for opposing views.  Liberal media telling people how to think, results in people wanting to think differently.

 

 

Populism and nationalism does not belong to the right or left. It is, and always has been, a global phenomenon, also in places that have no 'liberal media'.

 

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

That's possibly true this time but I'm not sure you could argue that you can say that the rise of nationalist conservatism has been as a response to such things every time in the past, nor that what would be considered now as the "right" hasn't ruled the roost for most of history.

I mean I don't particularly agree with political compassing. I don't really get why someone's view of climate change can be predetermined by their view on equality but generally speaking there is a pattern with how everyone makes a decision on political issues. For me personally I would say I was very liberal, left wing thinking but it's changed for me mainly due to liberals not standing up for liberal values anymore, that was easily observed in the protests directly after brexit and Trump's victory. People, including myself, don't want to be associated with this new breed of the left wing and I think that is the cause of people voting differently to how liberal media expects people to vote.

 

I agree though, I think it's only true for right now but that's because of an apparent switch in how the left and right act. If you told a child how left wing and right wing folks protest and act in the eighties and then asked them to identify right wing and left wing folk of footage from today, they'd say the left wing were right wing and the right wing were left wing. (Don't know whether that makes sense) but essentially there has been a big switch.

[Benguin]

9 minutes ago, bovril said:

Populism and nationalism does not belong to the right or left. It is, and always has been, a global phenomenon, also in places that have no 'liberal media'.

 

I agree but OP's agenda seemed to be in line with how brexit and Trump happened so this is what I am referring to

[Claridge]

1 hour ago, Benguin said:

I mean I don't particularly agree with political compassing. I don't really get why someone's view of climate change can be predetermined by their view on equality but generally speaking there is a pattern with how everyone makes a decision on political issues. For me personally I would say I was very liberal, left wing thinking but it's changed for me mainly due to liberals not standing up for liberal values anymore, that was easily observed in the protests directly after brexit and Trump's victory. People, including myself, don't want to be associated with this new breed of the left wing and I think that is the cause of people voting differently to how liberal media expects people to vote.

 

I agree though, I think it's only true for right now but that's because of an apparent switch in how the left and right act. If you told a child how left wing and right wing folks protest and act in the eighties and then asked them to identify right wing and left wing folk of footage from today, they'd say the left wing were right wing and the right wing were left wing. (Don't know whether that makes sense) but essentially there has been a big switch.

The nazi party claimed to be a socialist party at first.the violent parts of the left are very similar to the SA brownshirts of the 20s and 30s in Weimar germanyGermany

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

4 hours ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

Yes you need say more (although you probably shouldn't). You fix 'issues' for people on the right you'll probably cause issues for people with opposing ideologies on the left. 

 

Then what? Wait until they demand their way and keep lurching from left to right?

 

Divide and rule eh.

 

 

"Divide and rule" has been successful for those who implemented it  Truly great Empire's have thrived throughout history by this means, and I applaud them for it. However, it is ridiculous to mention divide and rule in the context you are applying it to. Nothing currently is new, or changed. The dice will always continue to role.

[MC Prussian]

My question is: Is is just nationalism that is on the rise or also liberalism on a sharp decline?

 

Because the OP's starting post sounds a bit too one-sided for my liking.

[GazzinderFox]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

My question is: Is is just nationalism that is on the rise or also liberalism on a sharp decline?

 

Because the OP's starting post sounds a bit too one-sided for my liking.

The liberal centre left is being utterly routed at the moment. Look at the lib dems, look at the car crash that what we would refer to as new labour. People are even beginning to ask whether they could stomach a Blair comeback!

 

It's similar story right across Europe, Hollande is barely polling double digits at the moment, and it's also starting to happen in South America after the leftist tsunami of the 90s.

 

All they seemingly have left is ad hominem, the haranguing of Waitrose, Sainsbury's and the Daily Mail and crying students creating traffic jams in the streets.

 

They are out cold on the canvas. Can they snap out of it and get up?

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said:

The liberal centre left is being utterly routed at the moment. Look at the lib dems, look at the car crash that what we would refer to as new labour. People are even beginning to ask whether they could stomach a Blair comeback!

 

It's similar story right across Europe, Hollande is barely polling double digits at the moment, and it's also starting to happen in South America after the leftist tsunami of the 90s.

 

All they seemingly have left is ad hominem, the haranguing of Waitrose, Sainsbury's and the Daily Mail and crying students creating traffic jams in the streets.

 

They are out cold on the canvas. Can they snap out of it and get up?

You could be right, and here's hoping they do get up, because if the continued rise of aggressive nationalism and isolationism amongst leading nations leads to what it has done some (but not all) times in the past, it will likely result in a death toll not inn the millions, as last time, but the billions.

 

On this day, here's hoping "Never Again" sticks, huh?

[Benguin]

4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

My question is: Is is just nationalism that is on the rise or also liberalism on a sharp decline?

 

Because the OP's starting post sounds a bit too one-sided for my liking.

I think there is a lot of merit to that. As said in my previous post, people who grew up on liberal values such as myself are running away from being associated with it now. I think that's why there are so many nutjob "social justice warriors" because it's only the most outrageous stupid people left.

[GazzinderFox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

You could be right, and here's hoping they do get up, because if the continued rise of aggressive nationalism and isolationism amongst leading nations leads to what it has done some (but not all) times in the past, it will likely result in a death toll not inn the millions, as last time, but the billions.

 

On this day, here's hoping "Never Again" sticks, huh?

We don't all see brexit as isolationism you know, quite the contrary.

 

Where are these wars going to come from?

We're not going to declare war on anyone with the globalised economy, our recent warring past, now miget army and our 11 subs!

 

the US has just elected a man who is far less likely to go to war than his opponent.

 

I think you're getting a bit caught up in the screeching liberal fantasy apocalypse narrative.

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, GazzinderFox said:

We don't all see brexit as isolationism you know, quite the contrary.

 

Where are these wars going to come from?

We're not going to declare war on anyone with the globalised economy, our recent warring past, now miget army and our 11 subs!

 

the US has just elected a man who is far less likely to go to war than his opponent.

 

I think you're getting a bit caught up in the screeching liberal fantasy apocalypse narrative.

Perhaps you're right, and I hope that if it does pan out that way that you are right because it will mean that we'll all still be able to talk about it afterwards.

 

But looking at the past and being able to draw parallels with the increase in aggressive nationalism then, and seeing what follows...I'm pretty sure that the folks back then didn't think things wouldn't descend into madness in the way they did either, but afterwards, with hindsight people suddenly realised how obvious it was going to end that way. No one wants a large scale war (not unless you're an utter sociopath), they just happened. Alf made a post earlier on that illustrated how it might happen - how a trade war between leading nations ended up turning into something more dire, for instance.

 

I think that the longer and more advanced the growth of such nationalism around the world, the shorter the odds grow. It's not a certainty, of course it's not, that would be terrible - but looking at the past I think it enough of a chance to be wary of.

[The Doctor]

6 hours ago, GazzinderFox said:

We don't all see brexit as isolationism you know, quite the contrary.

 

Where are these wars going to come from?

We're not going to declare war on anyone with the globalised economy, our recent warring past, now miget army and our 11 subs!

 

the US has just elected a man who is far less likely to go to war than his opponent.

 

I think you're getting a bit caught up in the screeching liberal fantasy apocalypse narrative.

That's very dubious given how unstable he is, but worse than that he's put out hints that the US might abandon their obligations to NATO, and suggested they might recognise the annexation of Crimea. A weak and isolationist America means a weak nato, means very real danger with Russia the way they are.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

33 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

That's very dubious given how unstable he is, but worse than that he's put out hints that the US might abandon their obligations to NATO, and suggested they might recognise the annexation of Crimea. A weak and isolationist America means a weak nato, means very real danger with Russia the way they are.

I dont think he's ever said they would abandon nato.  He's said that America shouldn't be as prominent and he's absolutely right.  

 

As for Russia, he's the first politician to want to actually sit down and talk WITH Putin and not at him like the others before him.

 

Trump has said some stupid, divisive things but not everything he's said is bad and some of the things he's said that people keep referring too aren't actually as bad if you have the full picture and context rather than just the headline.

[GazzinderFox]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

But looking at the past and being able to draw parallels with the increase in aggressive nationalism then, and seeing what follows...I'm pretty sure that the folks back then didn't think things wouldn't descend into madness in the way they did either, but afterwards, with hindsight people suddenly realised how obvious it was going to end that way. No one wants a large scale war (not unless you're an utter sociopath), they just happened.

I'm sorry that's complete popycock they didn't just happen at all.

 

The build up to WW1 was a couple of decades in the making and due to the influence of the militaristic, Prussian inspired, German unification and expansionism and to a monarch with a screw lose wanting an empire for himself like ours. WW2 was on the cards and predicted after the treaty of Versailles in 1922 and was really an extension of WW1 anyway. A great deal of the wars in the rest of the 20th century ultimately have their roots in WW1 either because of the decline or end of empires or the rise of communism wich also was also a product of WW1.

 

You may not have noticed but the appetite for war all over the west is at an all low. We wouldn't even put soldiers into Iraq to fight against IS, a country we recently occupied and an opponent that were universally despised even by most Muslims!

 

Look at the Russian economy and how it was brought to its knees by cunning manipulation of the oil price. Who's going to fund these wars?

 

These things don't just happen and if you can't come up with a more compelling argument for why we're heading for one now you ought to keep your neuroses to yourself and stop banging on about it.

[GazzinderFox]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

That's very dubious given how unstable he is, but worse than that he's put out hints that the US might abandon their obligations to NATO, and suggested they might recognise the annexation of Crimea. A weak and isolationist America means a weak nato, means very real danger with Russia the way they are.

Perhaps if the countries of the EU actually took their defence obligations seriously and spent 2% of their GDP. Russia wouldn't think it can act with impunity on its border.

[The Doctor]

32 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said:

Perhaps if the countries of the EU actually took their defence obligations seriously and spent 2% of their GDP. Russia wouldn't think it can act with impunity on its border.

So we're blaming it on the EU for not taking defence seriously, but when juncker suggests plans to pool resources so that they can (the eu army), everyone is up in arms?

[Innovindil]

2 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

So we're blaming it on the EU for not taking defence seriously, but when juncker suggests plans to pool resources so that they can (the eu army), everyone is up in arms?

What?

 

There is a massive difference between wanting each individual country to contribute a certain percent of their income to defense and having a united European army. 

 

[GazzinderFox]

11 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

So we're blaming it on the EU for not taking defence seriously, but when juncker suggests plans to pool resources so that they can (the eu army), everyone is up in arms?

The EU has projected an image of weakness when it comes to defence and that has certainly emboldened Russian nationalism. Remind me what did the EU do when Russia strolled into the Crimea?

 

A European super army is a dreadful idea for numerous reasons already mentioned on other threads. Would the EU be willing to spend 2% of GDP on it anyway? I doubt it. 

 

These countries just just need to get on with fulfilling the promises they have already made on defence.

[The Doctor]

25 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said:

The EU has projected an image of weakness when it comes to defence and that has certainly emboldened Russian nationalism. Remind me what did the EU do when Russia strolled into the Crimea?

 

A European super army is a dreadful idea for numerous reasons already mentioned on other threads. Would the EU be willing to spend 2% of GDP on it anyway? I doubt it. 

 

These countries just just need to get on with fulfilling the promises they have already made on defence.

 

41 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

What?

 

There is a massive difference between wanting each individual country to contribute a certain percent of their income to defense and having a united European army. 

 

Except of course the nation's with the GDP to have an effective military opposition to russia are the furthest from it and having countries like Germany, france and the UK assisting the likes of Estonia provides a better defence than Estonia putting out 2% of GDP into defence spending. I'm not in favour of the EU army, but if you're going to claim that the eu needs to be stronger on in defence, whinging about attempts by the eu to assist it's weak links just makes you hypocrites.

[Innovindil]

8 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

 

Except of course the nation's with the GDP to have an effective military opposition to russia are the furthest from it and having countries like Germany, france and the UK assisting the likes of Estonia provides a better defence than Estonia putting out 2% of GDP into defence spending. I'm not in favour of the EU army, but if you're going to claim that the eu needs to be stronger on in defence, whinging about attempts by the eu to assist it's weak links just makes you hypocrites.

So Estonia (as your example) should not only get monetary subsidies but should also get to avoid spending what they have in contribution to defense? 

 

I have no problem with trying to develop other countries by investing money, but I definitely draw the line at investing lives, which is exactly what it would come down to. 

 

Every member of nato should be doing their fair share, then we wouldn't need an eu army to defend us. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, GazzinderFox said:

I'm sorry that's complete popycock they didn't just happen at all.

 

The build up to WW1 was a couple of decades in the making and due to the influence of the militaristic, Prussian inspired, German unification and expansionism and to a monarch with a screw lose wanting an empire for himself like ours. WW2 was on the cards and predicted after the treaty of Versailles in 1922 and was really an extension of WW1 anyway. A great deal of the wars in the rest of the 20th century ultimately have their roots in WW1 either because of the decline or end of empires or the rise of communism wich also was also a product of WW1.

 

You may not have noticed but the appetite for war all over the west is at an all low. We wouldn't even put soldiers into Iraq to fight against IS, a country we recently occupied and an opponent that were universally despised even by most Muslims!

 

Look at the Russian economy and how it was brought to its knees by cunning manipulation of the oil price. Who's going to fund these wars?

 

These things don't just happen and if you can't come up with a more compelling argument for why we're heading for one now you ought to keep your neuroses to yourself and stop banging on about it.

That's part of what I was saying. We can see pretty clearly exactly why the two world wars happened now, but back then either no one or not enough people saw them coming, otherwise they wouldn't have happened. Unless the primary actors actually wanted a war, which I doubt unless they were totally insane. It's possible, though.

 

I'm also pretty sure the appetite for war is always low. People don't instinctively want to go to kick the shit out of the Other Guy - that need has to be cultivated and generated. Again, history shows that given charismatic leadership and a powerful message, that is not that difficult to do, and do quickly.

 

FWIW, I don't think that it would be the Western nations that start things this time round, just as they didn't before. The most likely cause is Russia taking too many liberties with "liberating" Russian citizens in Eastern Europe or the Baltic or the Chinese responding to trade embargoes by starting something in the South China Sea, but if one of those things does happen the West may well end up being drawn in.

 

If you're not convinced then that's fine, I find your complacency as ridiculous as you evidently find my neuroses. It's interesting how the same situation can be viewed so differently.

[Webbo]

55 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

 

Except of course the nation's with the GDP to have an effective military opposition to russia are the furthest from it and having countries like Germany, france and the UK assisting the likes of Estonia provides a better defence than Estonia putting out 2% of GDP into defence spending. I'm not in favour of the EU army, but if you're going to claim that the eu needs to be stronger on in defence, whinging about attempts by the eu to assist it's weak links just makes you hypocrites.

Estonia is 1 of the few countries that does put the 2% into defence. It is a percentage, nobody is expecting small countries to spend the same as America.

[GazzinderFox]

 

50 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

 

Except of course the nation's with the GDP to have an effective military opposition to russia are the furthest from it and having countries like Germany, france and the UK assisting the likes of Estonia provides a better defence than Estonia putting out 2% of GDP into defence spending. I'm not in favour of the EU army, but if you're going to claim that the eu needs to be stronger on in defence, whinging about attempts by the eu to assist it's weak links just makes you hypocrites.

Except it doesn't work like that. If an EU country gets attacked or is threatened then the countries of the EU should come to its aid regardless of Geography. That agreement is in place already.

 

And we should help out there wether we're in the EU or not.

 

I don't understand your last point, how does me saying individual countries should fulfill their international defence obligations and do more to strengthen European defence make me a hypocrite?

[Guest MattP]

6 hours ago, The Doctor said:

That's very dubious given how unstable he is, but worse than that he's put out hints that the US might abandon their obligations to NATO, and suggested they might recognise the annexation of Crimea. A weak and isolationist America means a weak nato, means very real danger with Russia the way they are.

But there is no evidence whatsoever he's unstable, it was just a myth peddled by Clinton during the campaign and no one really except her own clique believed it, looking at her record compared to his no one could seriously argue that he's not the safer option when it comes to global conflict.

 

What really has shocked me in the last few weeks is how people who have been telling us for years that World peace was little to do with NATO (some even during the referendum saying it was more to do with the EU ) are now actually worried about it, you can't make it up. The same people who have marched for a weak and isolationist America are now telling us we all need to panic because of it.

 

As has been mentioned, all Trump is doing is something a US leader should have done a long time ago, starting to maek sure countries pay their way instead of hiding behind the US, let's hope he continues to turn up the heat on mainland Europe.

[Alf Bentley]

13 hours ago, GazzinderFox said:

 

Where are these wars going to come from?

We're not going to declare war on anyone with the globalised economy, our recent warring past, now miget army and our 11 subs!

 

the US has just elected a man who is far less likely to go to war than his opponent.

 

I think you're getting a bit caught up in the screeching liberal fantasy apocalypse narrative.

 

Assuming that war or apocalypse is inevitable can be dismissed as "screeching liberal fantasy", but it's reasonable to assume that it is now more likely (unless Trump's actions in office are very different from his isolationist rhetoric - quite possible).

 

@leicsmac has already drawn attention to the possibility of trade wars generating conflict (e.g. China's response if Trump makes good on his threat to impose 45% tariffs on imports from China....and the US response if China then demands repayment of the massive US debt to China?).

 

Also, Trump being someone "less likely to go to war" and (rhetorically) less prepared to act as the world's policeman could actually increase the likelihood of wars in Europe and elsewhere (e.g. Russian invasions in E. Europe; Chinese aggression in E. Asia; Turkey v. Kurds in Middle East).

 

In Putin, we already have a powerful leader in Europe who has recently proved that he is prepared to start wars.

In the context of Ukraine, Syria, the Trump victory & Russian resentment over the loss of their East European sphere of influence, this news is rather alarming: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/11/serbia-deports-russians-suspected-of-plotting-montenegro-coup

"Serbia has deported a group of Russians suspected of involvement in a coup plot in neighbouring Montenegro, the Guardian has learned, in the latest twist in a murky sequence of events that apparently threatened the lives of two European prime ministers. The plotters were allegedly going to dress in police uniforms to storm the Montenegrin parliament in Podgorica, shoot the prime minister, Milo Ðjukanović, and install a pro-Moscow party. The Russian fingerprints on the October plot have heightened intrigue about Moscow’s ambitions in a part of Europe hitherto thought to be gravitating towards the EU’s orbit".