But “the jury’s out” on Macron.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Italy elects a 'far right' government
- Thread starter shingle
- Start date
But “the jury’s out” on Macron.
Cheshire Cat
The most curious thing..
Truss might be a right wing conservative but I don't see her as a born again fascist or nazi. She isn't clever enough for that.
She heads a government that outlaws protest, arrests journalists, changes laws to avoid accountability, scraps human rights laws, transports refugees to Rwanda, let’s children go hungry to pay cronies, manipulates statistics, disenfranchises legitimate voters, bans unsympathetic media outlets from press conferences ….
Nah, no far right alarm bells there. You cut up enough pigs, eventually you have to admit you’re a butcher.
Nah, no far right alarm bells there. You cut up enough pigs, eventually you have to admit you’re a butcher.
You're not going to get a non-emotional argumentation about anything EU-related with that guy. He keeps the organisation very close to his heart and any question, however neutral and however strictly curious, you may have about any bad thing and the EU is going to result in him curling up like a hedgehog.
Of course sometimes EU plays a role in the far-right being successful in elections: when this (sometimes very flawed) supranational organisation fails or wants too much power, people go vote for nationalistic parties.
That said, this time the EU has little to do with these far-right governments and more about a combination of cultural upheaval (due to technological change, but blamed on immigration) and economical hardship (due to a variety of reasons, but blamed on immigrants) making people go for what they think are parties that will take radical action to reverse society back to "the good old days". Neither the Sweden Democrats or Brothers of Italy had much to say about the EU in their last campaigns - it was all about immigration really.
"Fascism" can mean a lot of things, but according to the original one - "fascism is the merger of state and corporate power" - you could absolutely argue she is a fascist when she brings in her hedgefund buddies to rule the country with her.
Mind you, there's very few countries and parties today who aren't influenced or even absorbed by corporate power. Ideologically speaking, most branches of liberalism, communism and nationalism are fascist ideologies, while conservatism and social democracy should in theory not be fascist - but you'll struggle to find a recent (50 years) example of conservative or social democratic rule with a clear separation of powers between government & corporations.
Good question. And as you surmise the only philosophy that interests me is the scientific method. So, yes, good and evil are subjective concepts rooted in societal norms (views, and indeed laws, about certain activities). They are not in themselves quantifiable absolutes. They also have strong emotive impact for obvious reasons, making them important. Thus our society, through laws and attitudes, would label things including physical or sexual assault 'evil' with the term more likely to be applied if it is perceived that there is an equality imbalance between the doer and the recipient.
Thus I am not interested in the terms good and evil as such and I wouldn't attempt to test what is good and what is evil in a lab. I am content that societal norms define what is good and evil. I may lobby to change societal norms if I feel motivated. For example, in the 1970s it was not uncommon for people to describe homosexual acts as evil, and I certainly recall lobbying against that. Now, such an attitude would be more commonly regarded as religious and/or peculiar. Going back in time, being a Catholic was regarded as evil. It still is in some places.
A few weeks ago you mentioned that you would like to kill someone (or did when you were younger). This is out of kilter with societal norms and you can expect to get pelters for this. Given that this is part of a nonscientific rubric it is not quantifiably wrong for you to express such a desire, but you may find that it is illegal if you try it, regarded as evil by those who hear about it, and likely to trigger your exclusion from society (as exemplified by NSC) if you continue to defend it.
As a rational scientist I am quite relaxed about the use of 'irrational' (or, abstract) societal norms to limit the scope of human activity. I suspect that you imagine you are not. However, you are, since you moderate your impulses to a degree in order to fit in
I can't be bothered to start correcting you, we'll be here all day. However, I will ask that you stop trying to stir shit between myself and other posters. I happen to like Shingle and his posts, while we don't always see eye to eye we can have a sensible discussion and have a respect, or I think we do. I was trying to establish why he was framing it as an EU issue and not a wider one.
So please, with the most respect I can muster, keep your trolling and shit stirring for your mad conspiracy sites and don't attempt to drag me into the sphere of your dope addled agenda. Stick to your interesting and often insightful posts, which you do well. It's a much nicer side of you.
Well, you refused to give the bloke anything but passive-aggressive answers to his genuine question so I gave it an attempt. Mind you, I admit I could have left out the comment about you.
Crawley Dingo
Political thread tourist.
- Mar 31, 2022
- 1,080
You are using Musolinni's definition, under that one the US Democrats would be Super-facist but the Italian leader isn't. She is anti-corperate. Speaking to Italians they say she isn't far right unless you consider being pro God, Family and borders as far right. The problem here as well as generally on the internet at the moment is definition creep. This achieves nothing but confusion and hostility.
You have misunderstood my posts.
Unelected leader of the EU warns the democractily elected leader of Italy about veering away from democratic principles
To be fair , at least they have the EU to make sure democracy is upheld.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Your idols over in the EU recently labelled Hungary a non-democracy... and it is also a EU country.
In theory, the EU is a vital entity for checks and balances. But it has to be working effectively. I am concerned that the current government UK is binning off a lot of regulations and workers rights, with the human rights act set to be scrapped. I am deeply concerned that individuals will have no recourse when their rights are breached.
You can try to make me out to be a die-hard EU fan who see's no wrong in the union. Not true at all. But there is a reason nobody else has left. In fact, countries are signing up.
And they are correct, Hungary is no longer a full democracy. Orban is a monster and I'm glad he is being called out. It's about time someone stood up to him.
Frankly, your attempts to discredit me are making your argument look weak. Just try and make your point without the catty narrative.
Last edited:
And thats coming from you, most often calling me all kinds of funny stuff...
Human rights - well, you're still a member of the UN right?
Anyway, I predict the European Union will be in a deep crisis (probably not yet dissolved) by this time next year unless we see a very sudden change in the situation in Ukraine.
Some collapsing states are going to want to go to war against Russia to end the situation, others are going to want to trade freely with them, some (those that can afford) are not going to want to rock the boat. Many will turn on each other, Germany vs US relations are going to become very difficult and ominous. And the EU will either be seen as an obstacle if it does something or as a redundant cost if it doesn't.
I shall expect to see the opposite. There's a reason countries in the centre and sidelines of the Ukraine war are queuing up to join the EU.
Indeed there is a reason, and we're not going to agree on what that reason is - and maybe we should leave that part of it at that...
However, these nations are not going to play a big role in an escalation of the conflict. They're very minor players.
Germany is the key player here. Every German is well aware of this exchange from early this year:
Biden: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2."
Reporter: "But how will you do that, it's in Germany's control?"
Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."
The gas supply in Germany is currently stable but if or when that is no longer the case, they will have chaos. They'll watch you and America sitting comfortably in your respective countries far away from the action while sending weapons to Ukraine, whereas they themselves might not be able to cope with a prolonged conflict. Right now you have most of the German people behind you, supporting the delieveries, but if the go without gas and so for a month while you remain unaffected - things will change and the people of Germany are going to want the war to end in any way possible - and some of those possible ways could be of the kind that the US and some European countries find unacceptable.
A lot of assumptions there. If Germany wishes to go and join the fight, they are welcome to. NATO is the relevant factor here. Not the EU. Although, the EU wouldn't support a Germany Vs Russia war and quite rightly so. The EU was formed to prevent a World War happening again.
Your theory rests on Germany not having the resolve to hold their temper. I think you're wrong.