The media are addicted to using the terms "far right", "right", "center right", "middle", "center left", "left" and "far left" to describe a "political spectrum" that was, perhaps, the reality of the late 20th century, but no longer describes what is happening as we move further into the 21st century. If politics could ever be described in terms of a one-variable (right-left) spectrum, that is no longer the situation. We need a new understanding and with it a new vocabulary.
the Left / Right divide advocates seem stuck in 80s with Tory vs Labour, Regan vs Carter with very different views on the role of the Government. Thats just not the case now. Even more odd (to me) as a GenX person the youth vote going for "conservative" parties like the AfD.
Your points really came out in the latest Unheard podcast episode on the results where the guests made these points exactly.
The French Far right is not some "small government" individual liberty and property rights lot. Not at all. Same with one of the AfD offshoots who bills herself as a "conservative leftist"... !??!?!?!
'And that concern is now especially pronounced among the continent’s young people, who are more accustomed than their elders to living in a genuinely diverse environment, but also more directly exposed to the problems that flow from a lack of integration.'
Diversity is only a strength if it is contained within certain shared values that provide some cohesion for the whole. Mindless diversity for the sake of diversity alone without providing for this is exactly the lack of integration mentioned above and here we are. People are fond of saying the US is a melting pot. Well, it was, but only because the immigrants who came here embraced values they found here and it allowed us to enjoy, reward and enfold these folks but also to maintain our integrity as a nation. And they have enriched our country beyond measure. But it is a fact that values held by some societies whose immigrants find their way to the West are fundamentally incompatible with Western values. And you can bet that at least some of those are bent on bringing down the very countries whose freedoms allow them to be there in the first place.
The assumption seems to be that populism = fascism. Mr Hodosh below hints at we need a new definition. How about one that has a wide latitude of tolerance and hospitality for different peoples and cultures, but also knows who it is as a nation, has a healthy sense of self preservation and isn't afraid to draw the line when its integrity is threatened as a start. I would never go to another country and expect them to abandon their values and fundamentally change to become something they aren't for me or my tribe. Marriages where one person tries to fundamentally change the other beyond the usual give and take usually do not last long. So why should it be different for nations?
If the liberal extremists who constitute the European establishment had wanted to avoid this outcome, they could have easily chosen, at any time during the past several decades, to simply reduce the level of immigration from "catastrophic" to "epochal," in order to demonstrate that they were capable of exercising the most elementary responsibilities of sovereignty. They still would have achieved their paramount goal of permanently altering the demographics of Europe and reducing its indigenous Christian populations to merely one among many classes of deracinated post-national subjects. But they would have avoided this turn to the so-called """"""far right.""""""
It's quite telling that they couldn't even manage to do that. The liberal-extremist establishment's determination to go full-throttle, pedal-to-the-metal on the project of establishing a Molenbeek in every metropolitan area and a Hamas rally in every capital city -- even at the cost of turning themselves out of power in favor of the Le Pens and the AfD -- is a sign that their commitment to inflicting mass immigration on Europe goes well beyond any kind of rational, cost-benefit-driven policy program, and is something closer to a sacred quest.
That's why anyone who threatens to actually "tap the brakes" on immigration gets saddled with the laughable label of "far-right." For liberal extremists, proposing to slow down immigration is has the same effect as drawing a Muhammad cartoon, or desecrating a crucifix, on old-fashioned religious believers. It's not something that a decent person can suggest and still remain within the cult of liberalism; rather, it immediately reveals the speaker as a blasphemer, someone who must be quarantined, deplatformed and punished for heresy, as the mayors of Brussels and Essen have recently done in successfully suppressing heretical gatherings in the name of the true holy liberal faith. The holy war is already here; it's just a question of which god and which cult you will serve: liberal extremism or its enemies. Liberal-extremists will seriously propose that liberalism somehow offers a "way beyond" or "way out of" theological holy wars; perhaps the craziest thing of all is that people will actually believe this.
"It's quite telling that they couldn't even manage to do that."
They can't because they serve the oligarchy, not the people. They need to keep the population growth ponzi-scheme running at all costs. The oikophobia that enables it all is essential but secondary.
My ongoing refrain has been Western theologians have become cowards. They gave up on God is Love "Deus Caritas Est." The last Western theologian to stand up against the life-negating impulses of Islam was Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict.) So I repeat: Will we be bold enough to say some religious sects, and perhaps entire religions are truly better than others? Are we bold enough to say life-embracing religions are superior to life-negating religions? Are we ready to understand that humans are biologically wired for divinity and only good religions direct that toward love of life? We in the West will lose to the extremists, the life haters, if we do not invest in our theologians. Hamas is a death cult. Jihadists love death more than we love life. Hopefully we will have the courage to call Islam to account for allowing their religion to degenerate. As their theology degrades toward terrorism and death our theologians cower. Macron was a momentary hero to embrace life over death lovers of Jihad, but he stumbled when he turned against Israel and against the love of life itself. Israel is fighting the death cult of Hamas, who systematically sacrifices civilians. Sinwar loves the deaths of children. His primary strategy to do whatever he can to bring death to innocents. Deus mors est! That is a perverse yet very effective strategy for a West that has lost "Deus Caritas Est." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/summary-of-deus-caritas-est-3172
I think you are changing the topic: Islam has become a religion of death and has consequently brought nothing good to the world since the 1100's. Islam has a disease it refuses to treat.
No mention of the far left here. Surprising. Who are the pro-Palestinian, progressive students voting for? Maybe they despise and ignore Europe? So is it they who might save Macron in the national election. Will they vote for the arch technocrat?
The far right reverts back to some basic principles of modernism: True statements reflect objective reality. The new left is post-modern: truth is a construct of those in power. This means the new left is left ungrounded; death is good life is bad; honesty is dishonesty agreed upon and so forth. But the youth want terrra firma that the new left cannot deliver. The new left cannot tell us what is a man or a woman; it cannot tell us to choose life when we suffer emotionally. Medical Assistance in Death is now becoming normalized. It certainly cannot judge Islamic Jihad as worse than the Holy Eucharist. The new left cannot even tell us that burka's degrade women, or killing cartoonists in the name of religion is wrong. Everything is as good as everything else. Every statement is as true as any other; no action is wrong from honor killing to mercy killing. Of course the left will fall to the new right. The left already quit. Macron is already a cadaver walking.
Being modernist does not mean you are in favor of democracy or enlightenment. Because even nazism and fascism are historically modernist, western and European ideas
The Liberal Ideal, as in J-S Mill, was that reason did in fact reflect the real world. That was the catapult for the Modern World of Bacon and Descartes earlier. The human mind is made to grasp objective reality through true statements. Math and geometry were within us and we could know the world because of our universally shared ideas. 2 is 2 for you precisely as it is for me. So objective knowledge of the world was presumed possible. This also meant that honest disagreements about true and false statements could uncover the real world. This is enshrined in our First Amendment. Free speech does not mean all ideas are true. Just the opposite in fact. Free Speech means all foolish ideas are allowed in the arena of discourse and through logical conflict some may turn out true and others certainly false. I am allowed to be a fool publicly and you are allowed to show me I am a fool publicly as well. But it made us vulnerable when the West abandoned religion and with it religious certainty in favor of a god of science, Spinoza's God. Science won... for us.
Consequently as we let in more and more people whose certainty was purely religious certainty we have had ever greater problems. We believe in the conflict of ideas to discover truth, but some religions simply do not hold that fundamental view of discourse. And their resistance to Western Mathematical/Logical/Science based reality is deadly. Europe is discovering this in ever bloodier ways every day. Christianity ultimately was able to merge with tolerance, and was ultimately superseded by mathematics and observational science. And it is our contemporary faith in tolerance as the best tool to hear diverse opinions in order to discover new truths that has put us in harm's way. Extremist religions, as they pour into the West simply do not think this. For religious extremists you silence your opposition; terrify them; at times kill them, but you do not enter into honest discourse with them. This propensity to hold faith-based truths is running like a wild fire through the West, and it is not just Jihadists. Radical Islam and radical feminism and radical transgenderism and radical "decolonialism" are all extremely similar. All radicalism is faith based and thereby is opposed to truth based reality. So there it is. The West has a decision to make: do we reject our liberal heritage and succumb to power and terror, or do we stand fast in our arduous hard won truth based reality against those who believe that argument is no more than terror, fear and silence. Is God constrained by Truth or not? As Socrates asked Euthyprho: "Does God do what is Good because it is Good, or is it Good simply because God does it." The West believes the former; the radical Islamist believes the latter. Beheading babies is not good even if some god demands it.
Wait do you mean that liberal values are somehow limited to "the West" and that "the West" is going to be "defended" by right-wing collectivist values and politics? You sound more as somebody who is into Douglas Murray than into Socrates who was against populistic behaviours
My personal experience from the high-school period 2006-2008 is young men voting for the far-right Sweden Democrats as a way to joke, provoke and make fun of the school elections (not real elections, but more as training pupils about representative democracy). However, the result of the recent elections shows that that has not been the case and that the situation is more complicated and different compared to the stories about “Generation Greta” named after the famous climate activist Greta Thunberg.
Yascha makes a few good points, particularly on immigration. I am not sure that his analysis withstands examination overall. The conservatives in England are likely to take a beating for the same reasons that the incumbents suffered in France and Germany. Voters hold them responsible for current conditions. This is especially true for the young and the working classes. Inflation, particularly for housing and energy, hurts families who are just starting out. Incumbents take the blame as uncontrolled immigration reinforces the impression of bungling incompetence. Struggling voters know that asset owners are much richer today, while young people and workers seeking to acquire the basics necessary for a comfortable and dignified life feel left behind.
« There are many reasons for the growing strength of the far right. But it is clear that one reason outweighs the others: Voters simply don’t trust mainstream parties to control immigration. And that concern is now especially pronounced among the continent’s young people, who are more accustomed than their elders to living in a genuinely diverse environment, but also more directly exposed to the problems that flow from a lack of integration. A few years ago, David Frum admonished Democrats that, “If liberals won’t enforce borders, fascists will.” Moderate parties in Europe would do well to heed the same lesson. »
The media are addicted to using the terms "far right", "right", "center right", "middle", "center left", "left" and "far left" to describe a "political spectrum" that was, perhaps, the reality of the late 20th century, but no longer describes what is happening as we move further into the 21st century. If politics could ever be described in terms of a one-variable (right-left) spectrum, that is no longer the situation. We need a new understanding and with it a new vocabulary.
the Left / Right divide advocates seem stuck in 80s with Tory vs Labour, Regan vs Carter with very different views on the role of the Government. Thats just not the case now. Even more odd (to me) as a GenX person the youth vote going for "conservative" parties like the AfD.
Your points really came out in the latest Unheard podcast episode on the results where the guests made these points exactly.
https://youtu.be/r2oJA_huV7k?si=pTWw3ahlReNvMVKQ
The French Far right is not some "small government" individual liberty and property rights lot. Not at all. Same with one of the AfD offshoots who bills herself as a "conservative leftist"... !??!?!?!
True because the far-right parties in Europe are more left-wing regarding socioeconomic topics than market-liberal
'And that concern is now especially pronounced among the continent’s young people, who are more accustomed than their elders to living in a genuinely diverse environment, but also more directly exposed to the problems that flow from a lack of integration.'
Diversity is only a strength if it is contained within certain shared values that provide some cohesion for the whole. Mindless diversity for the sake of diversity alone without providing for this is exactly the lack of integration mentioned above and here we are. People are fond of saying the US is a melting pot. Well, it was, but only because the immigrants who came here embraced values they found here and it allowed us to enjoy, reward and enfold these folks but also to maintain our integrity as a nation. And they have enriched our country beyond measure. But it is a fact that values held by some societies whose immigrants find their way to the West are fundamentally incompatible with Western values. And you can bet that at least some of those are bent on bringing down the very countries whose freedoms allow them to be there in the first place.
The assumption seems to be that populism = fascism. Mr Hodosh below hints at we need a new definition. How about one that has a wide latitude of tolerance and hospitality for different peoples and cultures, but also knows who it is as a nation, has a healthy sense of self preservation and isn't afraid to draw the line when its integrity is threatened as a start. I would never go to another country and expect them to abandon their values and fundamentally change to become something they aren't for me or my tribe. Marriages where one person tries to fundamentally change the other beyond the usual give and take usually do not last long. So why should it be different for nations?
If the liberal extremists who constitute the European establishment had wanted to avoid this outcome, they could have easily chosen, at any time during the past several decades, to simply reduce the level of immigration from "catastrophic" to "epochal," in order to demonstrate that they were capable of exercising the most elementary responsibilities of sovereignty. They still would have achieved their paramount goal of permanently altering the demographics of Europe and reducing its indigenous Christian populations to merely one among many classes of deracinated post-national subjects. But they would have avoided this turn to the so-called """"""far right.""""""
It's quite telling that they couldn't even manage to do that. The liberal-extremist establishment's determination to go full-throttle, pedal-to-the-metal on the project of establishing a Molenbeek in every metropolitan area and a Hamas rally in every capital city -- even at the cost of turning themselves out of power in favor of the Le Pens and the AfD -- is a sign that their commitment to inflicting mass immigration on Europe goes well beyond any kind of rational, cost-benefit-driven policy program, and is something closer to a sacred quest.
That's why anyone who threatens to actually "tap the brakes" on immigration gets saddled with the laughable label of "far-right." For liberal extremists, proposing to slow down immigration is has the same effect as drawing a Muhammad cartoon, or desecrating a crucifix, on old-fashioned religious believers. It's not something that a decent person can suggest and still remain within the cult of liberalism; rather, it immediately reveals the speaker as a blasphemer, someone who must be quarantined, deplatformed and punished for heresy, as the mayors of Brussels and Essen have recently done in successfully suppressing heretical gatherings in the name of the true holy liberal faith. The holy war is already here; it's just a question of which god and which cult you will serve: liberal extremism or its enemies. Liberal-extremists will seriously propose that liberalism somehow offers a "way beyond" or "way out of" theological holy wars; perhaps the craziest thing of all is that people will actually believe this.
"It's quite telling that they couldn't even manage to do that."
They can't because they serve the oligarchy, not the people. They need to keep the population growth ponzi-scheme running at all costs. The oikophobia that enables it all is essential but secondary.
Do you realize that liberalism is against collectivism and for recognizing humans as equal and free individuals?
What do you mean by "liberal-extremists"? And why are you writing as someone who is into racism, Christianism and far-right ideology?
My ongoing refrain has been Western theologians have become cowards. They gave up on God is Love "Deus Caritas Est." The last Western theologian to stand up against the life-negating impulses of Islam was Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict.) So I repeat: Will we be bold enough to say some religious sects, and perhaps entire religions are truly better than others? Are we bold enough to say life-embracing religions are superior to life-negating religions? Are we ready to understand that humans are biologically wired for divinity and only good religions direct that toward love of life? We in the West will lose to the extremists, the life haters, if we do not invest in our theologians. Hamas is a death cult. Jihadists love death more than we love life. Hopefully we will have the courage to call Islam to account for allowing their religion to degenerate. As their theology degrades toward terrorism and death our theologians cower. Macron was a momentary hero to embrace life over death lovers of Jihad, but he stumbled when he turned against Israel and against the love of life itself. Israel is fighting the death cult of Hamas, who systematically sacrifices civilians. Sinwar loves the deaths of children. His primary strategy to do whatever he can to bring death to innocents. Deus mors est! That is a perverse yet very effective strategy for a West that has lost "Deus Caritas Est." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/summary-of-deus-caritas-est-3172
You think that the undemocratic and brutal development in Israel is good for "the West"? Wow , that does not sound so good
I think you are changing the topic: Islam has become a religion of death and has consequently brought nothing good to the world since the 1100's. Islam has a disease it refuses to treat.
I think that you are writing stupid and ignorant things , and that you need education and knowledge as about Islam
No mention of the far left here. Surprising. Who are the pro-Palestinian, progressive students voting for? Maybe they despise and ignore Europe? So is it they who might save Macron in the national election. Will they vote for the arch technocrat?
The far right reverts back to some basic principles of modernism: True statements reflect objective reality. The new left is post-modern: truth is a construct of those in power. This means the new left is left ungrounded; death is good life is bad; honesty is dishonesty agreed upon and so forth. But the youth want terrra firma that the new left cannot deliver. The new left cannot tell us what is a man or a woman; it cannot tell us to choose life when we suffer emotionally. Medical Assistance in Death is now becoming normalized. It certainly cannot judge Islamic Jihad as worse than the Holy Eucharist. The new left cannot even tell us that burka's degrade women, or killing cartoonists in the name of religion is wrong. Everything is as good as everything else. Every statement is as true as any other; no action is wrong from honor killing to mercy killing. Of course the left will fall to the new right. The left already quit. Macron is already a cadaver walking.
Being modernist does not mean you are in favor of democracy or enlightenment. Because even nazism and fascism are historically modernist, western and European ideas
The Liberal Ideal, as in J-S Mill, was that reason did in fact reflect the real world. That was the catapult for the Modern World of Bacon and Descartes earlier. The human mind is made to grasp objective reality through true statements. Math and geometry were within us and we could know the world because of our universally shared ideas. 2 is 2 for you precisely as it is for me. So objective knowledge of the world was presumed possible. This also meant that honest disagreements about true and false statements could uncover the real world. This is enshrined in our First Amendment. Free speech does not mean all ideas are true. Just the opposite in fact. Free Speech means all foolish ideas are allowed in the arena of discourse and through logical conflict some may turn out true and others certainly false. I am allowed to be a fool publicly and you are allowed to show me I am a fool publicly as well. But it made us vulnerable when the West abandoned religion and with it religious certainty in favor of a god of science, Spinoza's God. Science won... for us.
Consequently as we let in more and more people whose certainty was purely religious certainty we have had ever greater problems. We believe in the conflict of ideas to discover truth, but some religions simply do not hold that fundamental view of discourse. And their resistance to Western Mathematical/Logical/Science based reality is deadly. Europe is discovering this in ever bloodier ways every day. Christianity ultimately was able to merge with tolerance, and was ultimately superseded by mathematics and observational science. And it is our contemporary faith in tolerance as the best tool to hear diverse opinions in order to discover new truths that has put us in harm's way. Extremist religions, as they pour into the West simply do not think this. For religious extremists you silence your opposition; terrify them; at times kill them, but you do not enter into honest discourse with them. This propensity to hold faith-based truths is running like a wild fire through the West, and it is not just Jihadists. Radical Islam and radical feminism and radical transgenderism and radical "decolonialism" are all extremely similar. All radicalism is faith based and thereby is opposed to truth based reality. So there it is. The West has a decision to make: do we reject our liberal heritage and succumb to power and terror, or do we stand fast in our arduous hard won truth based reality against those who believe that argument is no more than terror, fear and silence. Is God constrained by Truth or not? As Socrates asked Euthyprho: "Does God do what is Good because it is Good, or is it Good simply because God does it." The West believes the former; the radical Islamist believes the latter. Beheading babies is not good even if some god demands it.
Wait do you mean that liberal values are somehow limited to "the West" and that "the West" is going to be "defended" by right-wing collectivist values and politics? You sound more as somebody who is into Douglas Murray than into Socrates who was against populistic behaviours
Certainly dangerous times!
I myself hope for the best from Macron’s daring gesture
De l’audace , as Danton urged. Macron is not one to temporize or muddle through.
Turnout for elections to European Parliament is very significantly lower than in elections for President or the National
Assembly. And those who do vote may be merely petulant
I hope citizens of France rise to their responsibilities and vote seriously
If RN does take control, there remain three years before the next Presidential election for voters to become disenchanted with them.
This is a beau geste, and it may prove as astute as it is audacious
My personal experience from the high-school period 2006-2008 is young men voting for the far-right Sweden Democrats as a way to joke, provoke and make fun of the school elections (not real elections, but more as training pupils about representative democracy). However, the result of the recent elections shows that that has not been the case and that the situation is more complicated and different compared to the stories about “Generation Greta” named after the famous climate activist Greta Thunberg.
https://vlademocracy.substack.com/p/swedish-elections-generation-greta
Yascha makes a few good points, particularly on immigration. I am not sure that his analysis withstands examination overall. The conservatives in England are likely to take a beating for the same reasons that the incumbents suffered in France and Germany. Voters hold them responsible for current conditions. This is especially true for the young and the working classes. Inflation, particularly for housing and energy, hurts families who are just starting out. Incumbents take the blame as uncontrolled immigration reinforces the impression of bungling incompetence. Struggling voters know that asset owners are much richer today, while young people and workers seeking to acquire the basics necessary for a comfortable and dignified life feel left behind.
understand, but what are the few good points on immigration?
« There are many reasons for the growing strength of the far right. But it is clear that one reason outweighs the others: Voters simply don’t trust mainstream parties to control immigration. And that concern is now especially pronounced among the continent’s young people, who are more accustomed than their elders to living in a genuinely diverse environment, but also more directly exposed to the problems that flow from a lack of integration. A few years ago, David Frum admonished Democrats that, “If liberals won’t enforce borders, fascists will.” Moderate parties in Europe would do well to heed the same lesson. »