Current Affairs The Far Right

Status
Not open for further replies.
No actually, I'm talking about the current state of activists in western politics. In terms of a clear and present danger, the far right are far more dangerous than the far left. Objectively.

Again, really struggling to understand how people aren't getting this. You might disagree with some or even all of left wing politics, but they ultimately don't have elements that want a return to Jim Crow.

You were referring to white supremacists, as you yourself said, let's have a bit of intellectual honesty here.......
 
I think Pete, Tree13 and various other people on this thread are willfully ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people who take to the streets as "anti-fascists" are not violent and are not communist/anarchist so can't really be called "far left."

It suits their argument to conflate all "antifas" together as violent thugs - something which is patently not true. Sadly for them, it makes them look foolish. Sadly for us, it means they're part of the problem and not the solution.
 
You were referring to white supremacists, as you yourself said, let's have a bit of intellectual honesty here.......

Erm... yes, because that's the current state of the far right in western politics. White supremacy movements, "birthers", anti-immigration and so on. It's a sliding scale, but that's the "far" element of the right.
 
... nobody is saying anything other than that, but the difference here is the far left are reactionary to a dangerous societal threat by the far right. They have no aim other than opposing the far right. That's not the case the other way around, as they are literally advocates for white supremacism.

This hsouldn't be hard to understand.

Do you really believe that the only reason the far left exist is to oppose the far right. If anyone on here wrote that the only reason the far right exist is to oppose the far left, they would rightly be laughed at. You are trying to perpetuate some left wing myth that far left is good, far right is bad......they both are bad.....
 
I think Pete, Tree13 and various other people on this thread are willfully ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people who take to the streets as "anti-fascists" are not violent and are not communist/anarchist so can't really be called "far left."

It suits their argument to conflate all "antifas" together as violent thugs - something which is patently not true. Sadly for them, it makes them look foolish. Sadly for us, it means they're part of the problem and not the solution.

Not so Clint. I'm pretty certain that the vast majority of protestors against fascism are just ordinary people from the left, centre and right of our political spectrum. However to pretend that the far left do not also take part, and invariably bring violence, is denying the truth.......
 
Do you really believe that the only reason the far left exist is to oppose the far right. If anyone on here wrote that the only reason the far right exist is to oppose the far left, they would rightly be laughed at. You are trying to perpetuate some left wing myth that far left is good, far right is bad......they both are bad.....

No, I'm saying the violent elements currently in existence only exist to oppose the active violence of the right. Obviously two different ideologies exist, that's why we have a spectrum in the first place, but the current upheaval and violence is instigated by the right.

Again, it's intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise, and all you are attempting to do is draw a moral equivalency to in essence justify far right white supremacist violence.
 

"That of course doesn’t mean it exhibits an overall Tory bias, and the BBC-Westminster revolving door is certainly not exclusive to the Conservative Party. A good number of Labour politicians have been back and forth to and from the BBC as well, notably the Blairites Chris Bryant, Ben Bradshaw, and James Purnell, who is the BBC’s current Head of Strategy. There are even some figures on the left. The socialist Labour MP Clive Lewis is also ex-BBC, as is Jeremy Corbyn’s deputy director of strategy and communications, Steve Howell.".........
 
No, I'm saying the violent elements currently in existence only exist to oppose the active violence of the right. Obviously two different ideologies exist, that's why we have a spectrum in the first place, but the current upheaval and violence is instigated by the right.

Again, it's intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise, and all you are attempting to do is draw a moral equivalency to in essence justify far right white supremacist violence.

No I'm not. These people are a plague on our societies. The problem on here is that you try to portray anyone who takes a centrist or right wing view as being a supporter of the far right, yet you seem to be defending the far left when they instigate violence. I detest the far right and the far left, I deplore any form of violence resulting from protest. You are trying to give moral superiority to violent people........
 
I think Pete, Tree13 and various other people on this thread are willfully ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people who take to the streets as "anti-fascists" are not violent and are not communist/anarchist so can't really be called "far left."

It suits their argument to conflate all "antifas" together as violent thugs - something which is patently not true. Sadly for them, it makes them look foolish. Sadly for us, it means they're part of the problem and not the solution.
You could say the exact same thing about the left as wearing a Trump hat seems to make a person a fascist in many eyes, especially in the eyes of antifa.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top