Londoner wrote:In the UK the traditional problem for right wing groups has always been that the hard core (and the funders) tended to be primarily anti-Jewish. But broader popular support was put off by antisemitism, they tended to be motivated by dislike of black people. (Initially Africans or West Indians, then Indians and Pakistanis, now mainly Muslims).
Because right-wingers tend to be particularly uncompromising, and because there has seldom been any prospect of actual power, this has meant that any movement has always been plagued by splits. How can you appeal to the broader public without alienating your hard core supporters and backers?
An attempt to do this was by deliberately adopting the word 'indigenous' to refer to the group they represent. It had the advantage of echoing liberal use; implying that 'indigenous British' were being culturally threatened and deserved representation, in the same way as other 'native' cultures. But more importantly, its meaning is determined privately. The masses understand it as meaning 'not Muslims' but the cognoscenti interpret as '...and not Jews' or in local contexts '...and not Catholics', '...and not Commies' and so on.
And in due course, because this obscure word was being heard more, mainstream politicians tended to pick it up, thus making it respectable in a way that the traditional epithets about race could never be.
So I would suggest that what we need to be more alert for is where racism adopts ordinary words.
We also need to be worried about them getting power. Check this out:
The entire collapse of Yugoslavia and all that killing came not from the top but from the bottom. Milosevic was just an opportunist. Check out the guy loading two trucks -'scuse me "lorries" - of rocks so "the boys", as he called his gangs of right wing racist thugs, could use them on the police and force Milosevic's hand. "The boys" - a particularly British turn of phrase?
My wife was just in Idaho - a state in the USA - and went into a bar and they had a hanging effigy of Obama. The reference to lynching was clear as day.
These right wing groups are VERY DANGEROUS and must be fought with a full court press. We must stop them. If they get into control we have Stalin, or worse.
What causes it philosophically? What form of despair? The joviality - jock-like - testosterone fueled - and frustrated into a laughing mask. Violence becomes the fantasy. And its enactment engages the ontology releasing the chemical thrill. The orgy of violence replaces sex.
In a way truth can be seen as a constraint on speech. If you decide to say the truth you are constrained by it to say only certain things. But mockery of this principle fills their speech! Compare "War is Peace" to the statements of Fox News on their "objectivity". The goal of their programming is a kind of outrage. Saying something even more outrageous, cleverly outrageous, extremely outrageous liberates the mind from the constraints of truth. That same liberation allows them to fulfill violent fantasy. The retort need be "language" but not the usual kind. Killing itself becomes linguistic.
There was a group of child soldiers being trained in Africa. Their graduation ceremony was to bite the face off of a live woman. Now that is training of a kind and actually it is language. What is says has to do ultimately with ontology - epistemology - and language - where they all come together. It is an attempt to throw off the constraints of Being and emerge victorious - or at least defiant - with respect to life. It is the origin of evil. Power - the will to power over truth and over being.
As Stalin said - paraphrasing - "There is nothing that brings a good night sleep like having your enemies killed"
Homicide will be the result of this right wing ideology. If you think they are chronically out of power be careful. Even England can fall to them.