Beoz

Ah the primary school teacher with his 8 degrees is back sprouting his wisdom. Oh academics - such a shame.

Well if you could read (oh the state if the Scottish primary school system must be in tatters) I did say that multi culturalism is not to blame and there's plenty of good cases of successful multi culture.

Its Islam and its ability to rein in the bad eggs globally and its repeated failure to create a leadership that can hold a consistent message globally. There's your problem and there's your source.

Trump is on another thread ... go nuts.

paulry

Interesting how you see the basic difference between left and right as being: This (the left wanting change and the right not wanting change) is in some respects true because the steady removal of our freedoms and liberties that were hard won by our ancestors requires change. For example the flooding of the west with people of non-western cultures to divide us and weaken our values making us ripe for the adoption of "new" values; The erosion of family to make us dependent on (and therefore beholden to) the state. These things all require change. Sure, most people will select a pick and mix of values across the spectrum, having a predominant left or right leaning or perhaps being pretty much right in the middle - making them "moderates".

But in any case, placing Nazis on the right of the spectrum is a big con that we blindly accepted for far too long. In truth they have no logical place there. They are very definitely children of the left - alongside the communists.

Here is a more accurate picture of the political spectrum:



And some further reading.

GarryP

The point I was getting at was echoed by Oztennis - religion is involved (all religions, I trust you aren't going to say christianity hasn't exported suffering), but in itself it doesn't answer that key question.

In part the answer involves the caliphate and the idea of unifying all islam (which give 'the sword', and excuses for violence). In part it involves the west doing stupid thing like invading Iraq for 9/11 and, from the perspective of muslims, going on an indiscriminate kill spree so they can get their hands on oil. However I'd suggest the main reason is unemployment, dead end jobs, and an inability to make a mark amongst young males (never the sanest of groups) who grab hold of radical islam as a way of 'playing the big man', and a way of belonging at the same (something really wanted at that age too).

A solution really needs to be concentrated there, not on religion (which would only make things 100x worse).

GarryP

Oh boy, did you ever get that one wrong.

First off, your spectrum is badly wrong. Obviously you have totally screwed up fascism, which lies to the right of that spectrum, next to conservatives, and consists of 'total government'. That's where you stick the Nazis - as everyone but you seems to agree.

Second, if you actually do the left part properly, you move through communism and marxism. You actually place anarchy and total freedom on the extreme LEFT side of the spectrum, since doing away with central control and having everything run by the people, for the people, is an extreme left wing utopia.

The libtards go in the 'too stupid' corporatist sub bin of fascism where they think that giving corporation control over them will somehow make them free

This version doesn't get it totally right (I'd suggest monarchy is badly positioned, and modern day conservative are right up next to fascism) but much closer to reality than yours.

paulry

Sorry, but that's bonkers. How on earth can we have anarchism (no government) alongside communism (total government)?

GarryP

The whole point of marxist theory is that communism is a stepping stone. In communism a central authority institutes the changes necessary to give the workers control - then in the end disappears leaving the workers to organise everything, and in total control.

Needless to say, not exactly practical, and stalinism is the practical result, with the state not giving up control. It's also not particularly practical as an endpoint since the optimum for the whole society might require individual workers and areas to suffer (which they wouldn't do on their own). Thus you reach the reality of it also having less freedom through anarchy (though probably not as bad as the centralised corporatism route of the libtards).

Best way to view it is as a circle - the left and the right join up - it just changes the hats worn. Freedom only comes in the middle.

Beoz

But that's the thing. You focus on history which is not the now. Now has the issue. History is just a way of excusing the current, and todays global issue with Islam.

Yes. There is an issue with young Muslim men and their insecurities. No doubt. No denying it. But what do you do about it? The lefties like to identify the issue, make academic assumptions and reasons for it, then leave it at that. This is why I have little time for the left.

The right usually take action. They make decisions and follow through. Someone will always loose but that's life.

This is way Islam need leadership. Without it Islam will continually loose.

moneypenny20

This. People don't seem to grasp this basic fact.

Beoz

Actually. Anarchy is neither. Its a total disregard for government.

paulry

They're all man-made constructs - and relatively new ones at that. 120 years ago, most did not exist.

As for the bit about freedom only coming in the middle. While "moderation in all things" is a good rule of thumb to live by, the political spectrum is constantly moving and the "moderation" of today is much further to the left of where it was several decades ago. The result is we are definitely living in a less safe, less certain world. We need a long overdue swing to the right, and thanks to the complete pigs ear that the left have made of things that could be about to happen...

GarryP

The point is, the root cause is a root problem for everyone. People are treated as disposable cogs in a machine, and as we've covered before, at least half of them are going to become surplus to requirements over the next 35 years. In short, it's not a problem of religion, it's a problem where people have no point; potentially no money; and no future to look forward to - and they don't take well to that. This kind of lashing out is just the beginning.

So, what do you do?

As covered before, the right only know how to destroy, not create, and their ideology is a significant part of the problem (winner takes all, literally). As has already been covered, the talk of solution in this (guaranteed minimum income) tends to come from the centre and the left. My contention is just ensuring they wont starve won't be enough. For people who want to strive for more, they will need a purpose and a way of achieving.

Now, beating down the right would be a fight I'm sure, probably a series of revolutions. But what then? It's no good chasing after money, that's what got us into this mess. If we are not careful it will end up being religion and the revolution will be a jihad; also not good, part of the problem. Instead we need a purpose centred on society and suitable for giving purpose to those that don't have a purpose, or saleable capabilties. And that's a tall order for which I have no answers at present. You can see some characteristics that the solution would have to have. I also don't think we'll even manage to get on the road towards it - I think we'll take the path that heads down (as we have been) towards fascism and the gas chambers. "Someone will always loose but that's life."

Well, you did ask...

GarryP

Err, the political spectrum hasn't moved; you have. The centre is where it always was, where there is balance between society and the individual.

You are correct that we are living in a less safe world, thanks to the drift towards the far right, corporatism, and away from freedom and progress. What we are long overdue is a correction, a swing back towards the centre and away from the policies of the right wing; thanks to the complete pigs ear they have made of things (don't even try to argue that one).

And judging by the rise of support for people like Corbyn and Sanders, we at least have the possibility of that happening. We certainly need it to.

paulry

....Corbyn and Sanders?

Beoz

Expected answer. No solution.

The left comes up with the theory why, but no solution to the how.

And you wonder why more and more people lean to the right these days.

The winner does take all. No point fighting it by blowing up the innocent.

GarryP

Haven't you noticed? They are very interesting.

Both are supported by the mass popular vote, against the wishes of the management of their respected parties (who much prefer a lite-right position). Both stand for something, have authenticity, and both pre-date the Thatcher/Reagan slide that originally screwed things up and bought us to this position.

I get the feeling that they might be the vanguard of younger, and more future focused politicians who would sit in the true centre. I doubt either can get elected, but I think that might allow others to get there - which is kinda what we need.