Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Parafox

General News

By Parafox, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

bovril

bovril

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bilo said:

The national character of many nations leads them to or away from certain ideologies in my view.

 

The British, as a people, are too distrusting of authority and value individual liberty too much to ever really embrace authoritarianism. It's why Communism and fascism never really gained a serious foothold here.

 

That's not to say that the conditions that existed here, disgruntled working-class, wealth inequality and significant levels of racism, couldn't have led to Communism or fascism elsewhere, but just not here. We're a bit too libertarian and difficult to cajole for an authoritarian government. We like to break the rules, find loopholes and exploit technicalities. 

We like to tell ourselves this but I don't think it's true. Certainly not the "break the rules" part. I suspect the real reason authoritarianism has never taken off here is that we are one of the big winners of the last 200 years, and so there were fewer historical grievances for authoritarians to exploit. We are certainly very individualistic, though not necessarily 'liberal', and we lack consciousness of ourselves as a single people compared to other countries, in my experience. So that also has helped.

 

However I don't think it's that unlikely that Britain finds itself with a Trump-esque or even Putin-esque authoritarian government in the near future. You wouldn't have thought it'd happen in America, who certainly value individual liberty more than we do. There are quite a few similarities also between modern Britain and Russia. So who knows, I don't think it's impossible. I actually think it's odds on, to be perfectly honest. 

  • Like 1
Parafox

Parafox

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, RowlattsFox said:

Will probably get lost in all the Trump stuff but that poor girl in Kendal :(whole incident doesnt make any sense. 

 

Unfortunately probably a tragic accident. I'm not going to speculate on the possible cause. No details have been released AFIK.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bilo said:

The national character of many nations leads them to or away from certain ideologies in my view.

 

The British, as a people, are too distrusting of authority and value individual liberty too much to ever really embrace authoritarianism. It's why Communism and fascism never really gained a serious foothold here.

 

That's not to say that the conditions that existed here, disgruntled working-class, wealth inequality and significant levels of racism, couldn't have led to Communism or fascism elsewhere, but just not here. We're a bit too libertarian and difficult to cajole for an authoritarian government. We like to break the rules, find loopholes and exploit technicalities. 

Sadly, I think @bovril has it about right above.

 

I would also add that British authoritarianism just takes a different form; genuflecting to "class", not the state. Think of the British class hierarchical history.

Guest Bilo

Guest Bilo

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, bovril said:

We like to tell ourselves this but I don't think it's true. Certainly not the "break the rules" part. I suspect the real reason authoritarianism has never taken off here is that we are one of the big winners of the last 200 years, and so there were fewer historical grievances for authoritarians to exploit. We are certainly very individualistic, though not necessarily 'liberal', and we lack consciousness of ourselves as a single people compared to other countries, in my experience. So that also has helped.

 

However I don't think it's that unlikely that Britain finds itself with a Trump-esque or even Putin-esque authoritarian government in the near future. You wouldn't have thought it'd happen in America, who certainly value individual liberty more than we do. There are quite a few similarities also between modern Britain and Russia. So who knows, I don't think it's impossible. I actually think it's odds on, to be perfectly honest. 

If we're liberal, we're classical liberal in the mould of J.S. Mill rather than modern liberal in a Rawls sense.

 

I think it's unlikely that we go Trump or Putin style because, unlike in those countries, we tend not to idolise individual politicians enough. A key British trait is wanting to bring down those who are too big and too powerful because we like the underdog. Farage fancies himself as that kind of figure, but he's pretty much a joke outside of his echo chamber with questionable grammar and critical thinking skills. 

Guest Bilo

Guest Bilo

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Except for a worldwide outbreak of a virus that causes sniffles! 

 

Typical 'rally round the flag' stuff for me. A sniff of hypocrisy from those in charge of enforcing it and there was complete outrage before it all fell apart like a willy puller's hankie. 

 

Also, think about why Trump and Putin are despised here. We don't like bullies or hypocrites and we're pretty much sticklers for fairness.

Paninistickers

Paninistickers

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Worth eight minutes of your time…

 

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danbowyer_vivelaeurope-activity-7303369085101199360-o_4y?utm_medium=ios_app&rcm=ACoAAAAUYUYBrJP7Hn44qqwhzKQkIfJoHVyXVqc&utm_source=social_share_send&utm_campaign=whatsapp

Great watch. Thanks. Almost every word a pleasure to listen to (tho unconvinced if Ukraine in the EU) 

 

Putin's main play is that a mollycoddled, beta western Europe has tnthe stomach for a fight. And he's right. Who wants war? 

 

But maybe, just maybe, we called his bluff.... UK + France can't be bullied with nukes. 30k troops each into the pot. Add to that Ukrainians, 50k Poles, 50k Finns and Baltic states. 

 

Would give the fckers - him and Trump - some food for thought 

.

  • Like 2
bovril

bovril

Posted
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Bilo said:

If we're liberal, we're classical liberal in the mould of J.S. Mill rather than modern liberal in a Rawls sense.

 

In my limited understanding of both I would perhaps say the opposite. Maybe in the past we were more classical liberal but modern Britain is a bit weird to me, it feels like a country that uses state control and supresses individual liberty in order to guarantee equal opportunities. I find it hard to put into words but it's like 'fairness' as a state ideology. 

 

One thing for sure is that Britain has changed a lot. Obviously from the 50s and 60s, but even from the 2000s. Even from 2015 probably. I don't think we're the bunch of pragmatic, reflexively anti-authoritarian, do-as-you-wish-as-long-as-you-don't-harm others liberals we perhaps were, or at least we like to think we were. I think modern Britain is quite fertile ground for a Trump type to emerge.

Edited by bovril
Dunge

Dunge

Posted
Posted

One of the reasons I’m a monarchist is because the royals get the ceremony and the prime minister is the head administrator. I like that it forces the distinction and fits with a suspicion of anyone who desires power for adulation.

 

I wouldn’t be so bold as to say that a charismatic maniac could come to power in the UK, particularly at a time of economic difficulty, but the closest we’ve had to that over decades is Boris Johnson and he was actually pretty centrist overall - just with misplaced loyalties and a challenging relationship with integrity. I do think we’re naturally and inherently suspicious of anyone who chases power.

  • Like 3
LCFCJohn

LCFCJohn

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, RowlattsFox said:

Will probably get lost in all the Trump stuff but that poor girl in Kendal :(whole incident doesnt make any sense. 

Awful. It’s harrowing as a parent to think you can send your child to a dance class, school or football training and for them to never make it home. A worse nightmare.

Lionator

Lionator

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Great watch. Thanks. Almost every word a pleasure to listen to (tho unconvinced if Ukraine in the EU) 

 

Putin's main play is that a mollycoddled, beta western Europe has tnthe stomach for a fight. And he's right. Who wants war? 

 

But maybe, just maybe, we called his bluff.... UK + France can't be bullied with nukes. 30k troops each into the pot. Add to that Ukrainians, 50k Poles, 50k Finns and Baltic states. 

 

Would give the fckers - him and Trump - some food for thought 

.

 

The UK and France can be bullied with nukes. They have 5000 we have combined about 300, so they could inflict a lot more damage than we could if it was truly a race to the end. 
 

Also Poland have categorically said no to troops. Where are we getting the 30k troops from, that’s about 25% of what we have? At that point, Argentina or maybe even China might be eyeing up the Falkland Islands. Then what? 
 

All this big talk is pointless and is simply posturing. We don’t have the resources or the stomach for it without US backing. We sold ourselves out to the Yanks over the past decades and now we have very few cards to play with, it’s embarrassing. 

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Lionator said:

The UK and France can be bullied with nukes. They have 5000 we have combined about 300, so they could inflict a lot more damage than we could if it was truly a race to the end. 
 

Also Poland have categorically said no to troops. Where are we getting the 30k troops from, that’s about 25% of what we have? At that point, Argentina or maybe even China might be eyeing up the Falkland Islands. Then what? 
 

All this big talk is pointless and is simply posturing. We don’t have the resources or the stomach for it without US backing. We sold ourselves out to the Yanks over the past decades and now we have very few cards to play with, it’s embarrassing. 

The French stayed out of NATO for a lot of the Cold War and some of that was through The Moscow Criterion - you don't have to have a lot of nuclear weapons if you know the ones you have will get through and cause enough damage to make the bigger guy not use his. I would say that France and the UK do have that guarantee.

 

Like you, I am interested in seeing what happens here beyond mere talk, though.

  • Like 1
surrifox

surrifox

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Great watch. Thanks. Almost every word a pleasure to listen to (tho unconvinced if Ukraine in the EU) 

 

Putin's main play is that a mollycoddled, beta western Europe has tnthe stomach for a fight. And he's right. Who wants war? 

 

But maybe, just maybe, we called his bluff.... UK + France can't be bullied with nukes. 30k troops each into the pot. Add to that Ukrainians, 50k Poles, 50k Finns and Baltic states. 

 

Would give the fckers - him and Trump - some food for thought 

.

 

Putin is on record as saying how the fates of Ghaddafi and Saddam Hussein affected him . I strongly suspect he would not want to risk a conflict with western powers given the losses in men and equipment Ukraine has inflicted alone . Another military campaign would further heighten internal tensions  in his country as losses mount and resistance will grow . He needs to win big or risk ending his days hanging from a lamppost 

  • Like 1
kenny

kenny

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Lionator said:

The UK and France can be bullied with nukes. They have 5000 we have combined about 300, so they could inflict a lot more damage than we could if it was truly a race to the end. 
 

Also Poland have categorically said no to troops. Where are we getting the 30k troops from, that’s about 25% of what we have? At that point, Argentina or maybe even China might be eyeing up the Falkland Islands. Then what? 
 

All this big talk is pointless and is simply posturing. We don’t have the resources or the stomach for it without US backing. We sold ourselves out to the Yanks over the past decades and now we have very few cards to play with, it’s embarrassing. 

I'm guessing they are hoping that some more European countries will step up as there are 3.2m standing armed forces to choose from.

 

That figure won't include Turkey or other parts of NATO that have shown support.

Lionator

Lionator

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, kenny said:

I'm guessing they are hoping that some more European countries will step up as there are 3.2m standing armed forces to choose from.

 

That figure won't include Turkey or other parts of NATO that have shown support.

https://archive.ph/hsu0J 
 

Another example why, if it descends into chaos and we don’t have US support, it’s over.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...