h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

"This hasn't led to a rise in the Far Right"

Repeated Islamist terrorist attacks did not result in a rise in the Far Right.

What DID lead to a rise in the Far Right was a point-blank refusal by the mainstream parties in general, and the Labour government in particular, to address legitimate public concerns over immigration.

The "rise" of the Far Right was a good thing - it acted as a wake up call to the mainstream parties (although Gordon "that bigoted woman" Brown didn't get the memo, and paid for it in 2010). They started discussing immigration instead of just shouting down anyone who mentioned it.

And pretty much as soon as they did - and as soon as the BNP leader Nick Griffin was given his allotted spot on Question Time and disgracefully stitched up by the producers, but failed like the dolt he is to make any hay from the fact - support for the far right withered, and they self-destructed to comedy effect.

The British people as a whole demonstrably don't have much truck with the Far Right, but will occasionally rattle their cage if they feel a shakeup is required. I'm a little proud of them for that.

Your pride seems justified.

It's difficult to generalise about whether a "country" is Islamophobic or not, and that's even before we start on what we mean by Islamophobia.

In general I like to think that the vast majority of people in the UK are decent, open-minded folk who live and let live, and I reckon that's the same throughout the world. We've got our share of cranks and racists, but frankly I'd rather they vent their hate on social media than putting bricks through windows.

But I don't think we can go too far in patting ourselves on the back and saying that everything is wonderful and everything is rosy. There's been an appetite among certain sections of the media for anti-Muslim stories that goes beyond legitimate criticism, so stories get twisted - and even fabricated - and given a prominence beyond their inherent newsworthiness.

But it's certainly true that this climate of media hostility - plus the violence done in the name of Islam - doesn't appear to have translated to the rise of the far right or a surge in hate crimes in the UK. And that's to be welcomed. I'd like to think that people have realised what terrorists and fanatics always want - which is for ordinary decent people to start turning on each other out of fear.

While I agree with David Cameron's description of UKIP as largely "fruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists" (along with some neo-Thatcherite hardliners who think the rich aren't rich enough and the poor aren't poor enough), I'd say they're a positive development in that they're probably the least far-right rightwing party we're likely to get, and they're absolutely committed to the democratic process. I was at a public lecture recently in which it was pointed out that most European countries have a political party like this - right wing, nationalist, democratic.

Who knows what the future holds for UKIP, especially after the referendum. I'd say they're too dependent on Nigel Farage who I don't think is the force he used to be, and I think UKIP are probably a much more fragile coalition of interests than a lot of people think. But they (along with the Green Party) are really badly treated by an unfair electoral system. UKIP got 12% of the vote in the last election, and 1 seat out of 650.

I'd agree that Britain isn't particularly right-wing by nature. I'm sure it looks like that to those on the farther reaches of the Left, but I would say we're far more Centrist than anything. It's some of the European countries that lurch to the extremes - fascism in Spain, communism in Eastern Europe (now switching to fascism), not to mention Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy and the like in the Second Unpleasantness. It's also some European countries that rate highest in the Islamophobia stakes - I've read that Denmark is particularly anti-Islamic

Well, I don't think I'd want to be a cartoonist for a Danish humor magazine.

I think the "centre" has shifted substantially towards the "right" in recent decades, and more so since the crash. I've read about something called the Overton Window, which is the range of ideas that seem feasible/up for debate/might happen which can reasonably be put forward. Hard not to see that that's moved to the right, even if it's not moved to the far right.

It's really hard to say how much of the rise of extremist governments is to do with national character, how much to do with circumstances, and how much to do with historical accidents. I've heard it claimed that linguistic differences between English and German mean that there couldn't be a Hitler figure in the UK, but I'm not convinced.

There does seem to be a case to be made that the UK is doing better at integration than most, but I'm not persuaded that it's because of national character, or that because it's worse elsewhere, we're doing okay. I'd be interested to know what, for example, other people thought of Goldsmith's mayoral campaign in London. I don't live there, but it sounded to me like a divisive and nasty campaign, which went beyond "dog whistle" to being loud and clear.

I hope that that candidate wasn't worse than Trump.


[ for ].

Even if he was, at least he only got as far as mayor.

Isn't London bigger than some countries?

By population, London is larger than:

Switzerland
Papua New Guinea
Hong Kong
Bulgaria
Togo
Serbia
Paraguay
Sierra Leone
El Salvador
Laos
Libya
Nicaragua
Kyrgyzstan
Lebanon
Denmark
Singapore
Finland
Slovakia
Eritrea
Norway
Central African Republic
Costa Rica
Palestine
Turkmenistan
Republic of the Congo
New Zealand
Ireland
Liberia
Oman
Puntland (Somalia)
Croatia
Kuwait
Somaliland (Somalia)
Panama
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Georgia
Mauritania
Moldova
Uruguay
Puerto Rico (U.S.)
Tibet
Mongolia
Armenia
Albania
Lithuania
Jamaica
Qatar
Namibia
Botswana
Slovenia
Macedonia
Latvia
Lesotho
The Gambia
Kosovo
Gabon
Guinea-Bissau
Bahrain
Trinidad and Tobago
Estonia
Mauritius
Equatorial Guinea
East Timor
Swaziland
Djibouti
Fiji
Cyprus
Réunion
Comoros
Bhutan
Guyana
Macau
Solomon Islands
Montenegro
Luxembourg
Suriname
Cape Verde
Western Sahara
Transnistria
Malta
Brunei
Guadeloupe
The Bahamas
Martinique
Belize
Maldives
Iceland
... and a whole bunch of little islands that would not be surprising.

By LAND AREA, London is larger than only the following (mainly those aforementioned islands...):
São Tomé and Príncipe
Dominica
Tonga
Kiribati
Micronesia
Singapore
Bahrain
Saint Lucia
Seychelles
Andorra
Palau
Antigua and Barbuda
Barbados
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Grenada
Malta
Maldives
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Marshall Islands
Liechtenstein
San Marino
Tuvalu
Nauru
Monaco
Vatican City

My mind is boggled....again.

[Okay, maybe someday I will have seen and heard everything]

And one of our little provinces - in the Maritimes - is roughly the geographic size of the entire UK. While our national total population is far less. Canada has something like 3 people per square mile, whereas the UK is around 650 to the same ground space.

Do they stack them like chord-wood to sleep?

Like Texas, a State full of wide open spaces.



Most of them surrounded by teeth.

Much to the chagrine of Texas, Canada is actually bigger.

Texas is tougher.

Texas has some scary laws.

“It's really hard to say how much of the rise of extremist governments is to do with national character, how much to do with circumstances, and how much to do with historical accidents. I've heard it claimed that linguistic differences between English and German mean that there couldn't be a Hitler figure in the UK, but I'm not convinced.”

What a bizarre idea that of the linguistic differences!


If there wasn´t a Hitler figure in UK was not for lack of candidates.


Eduard VIII had sympathy for the Nazis. Not only him, the European aristocracy and all the european stablishments. They thought that fascism could stop the labour movements. That same fear explains the No Intervention and Neutrality Pact supported by Neville Chamberlain. Churchill was opposed to that pact. It was made by the Allies, it denied any help to Spain.

Churchill was sharp enough to see the Spanish Civil War as the first chapter of the WWII. He knew it wasn´t a civil war , it was a Coup d´etat supported by Hitler and Mussolini. A fascist army against a democratically elected goverment with a left, socialdemocrat programme ready to put an end to privileges and all kind of unjustices.

Churchill critiziced the British stablisment for choosing their class interests instead of the UK´s interests.


“It's really hard to say how much of the rise of extremist governments is to do with national character, how much to do with circumstances, and how much to do with historical accidents.”


Right now, we have an stablishment who fear left social movements ( Anywhere: UK, Spain, France, USA...) A stablisment that wants scared citizens, because that is the best way to make us swallow anything. They are wiping out our rights and pointing our rage against the weak ones and against a common enemy.

Our rage should go against those who are assuming far-right ideas( Cameron and Goldsmith against that muslim candidate, for instance) and applying a kind of economical neofascism against their people.

Those are economical and political circumstances very similar to those of the pre-war days.

The case of Austria is very strange. What do they fear? They are very rich, not unemployment... It´s national character? I don´t believe in that concept, I don´t think there´s such a thing. There must be other reasons.

"establishment"

4 weeks ago I would have said that the UK was on the whole tolerant and accepted Islam and its followers.

Having read posts on the EU referendum debate forums I have been forced to the conclusion that there is s very strong Islamophobic trend, the EU debate has uncovered a strong feelings of dislike and possibly hatred.

It has become evident that the debate has managed to bring the Islamophobia to the surface and make comments on public forums.
undercurrent.