(Part 3) Top products from r/ukpolitics

> the Lib Dems chose coalition specifically because it would allow them to go further with welfare cuts.
>
>Except they didn't. The Lib Dems briefly explored a coalition with Labour but it ended pretty quickly because the numbers didn't add up. Lib Dems + Labour didn't make a majority, and there were too many competing interests from the smaller parties required to make it work. This combined with the evidence that they wanted *fewer* cuts than labour really doesn't give your theory much legs to stand on. As it happens, I have read "22 Days in May", and although it's been a while I don't recall your claim ever being made in it.

I'll dig out the quote where Laws mentions Labour's red lines on pensions as confirming that they couldn't work with Labour.

Comparing pre-election promises on cuts whilst ignoring the actual negotiations and retrenchment by the coalition government doesn't make sense.

>I didn't claim Labour would have been worse, only that they promised to cut more than what was actually cut. Maybe they they would have been worse, maybe they would have been better, we'll never know, but thats the only information we have to go on. You're the one implying that Labour would have done better even though that is something we can't know.

It absolutely is something we can know. We can know this because that's a lot of research on the politics of retrenchment that shows that a single-party government can't go as far as a coalition with cuts.

Both the Lib Dem and the Conservative accounts of Coalition negotiations emphasise the importance of establishing a coalition (rather than, say, a supply and confidence arrangement) as a coalition would allow the burden of painful cuts to be shared between two parties - it would help establish the political consensus, necessary for success, that these cuts were necessary.

David Laws is explicit about this in his accounts of the negotiations:

> [Besides the option of supply and confidence] there was, according to the Conservative leader, ‘a case for going further’ into a full coalition. The case was based in part on the need to tackle ‘the biggest threat’ to our national interest – Britain’s huge budget deficit.
That required, according to Mr Cameron, ‘a strong, stable government that lasts [and] . . . which has the support of the public to take the difficult decisions that are needed. . .’

> [...]

> The prizes for Mr Cameron were obvious: government, not opposition; stability, not chaos; joint responsibility for tough decisions, not sole blame for the painful cuts to come; and an opportunity to change the entire perception of the Conservative Party and to reshape British politics.

And later, more explicitly:

> Finally, David Cameron and his senior team seemed to have decided that a coalition agreement was not merely something that they wished to be seen to be trying to secure; it was something that they actually wanted to secure. This may have been because of doubts about how easy it would be to fight and win the second election, which we all felt was inevitable if a coalition agreement could not be struck. But there were also, surely, major advantages of a coalition from both a national and a Conservative Party perspective. The coalition gave the Conservatives the votes to govern strongly and to push through tough measures on the economy, while getting another political party to share the pain.


As for the Tory account, Seldon's Cameron at 10 has some good insight:

> Cameron and Osborne approve of the input of Laws over their first taster of cuts. Osborne misses Hammond, though finds Laws as ‘dry as a bone’ and ‘more fiscally conservative’ than any of them. Laws deals firmly with the unprotected departments including the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), Work and Pensions (DWP), and above all with the Home Office. After long torrid discussions, Home Secretary Theresa May settles in the nick of time – at 11 p.m. on Friday 21 May.7 Laws dispels altogether any apprehensions that the Lib Dems cannot take the heat of delivering Plan A on the ground. ‘Lib Dem support for fiscal consolidation was important, because it broadened the legitimacy for the strong action that was taken and it underpinned the whole government,’ says a senior Treasury official


So it's pretty clear that the Coalition was seen as necessary, by both sides, in the pursuit of massive cuts to public spending. The reason a Coalition was necessary is because voters react strongly and negatively to perceived losses, and so retrenchment programs are incredibly difficult to pursue without risking electoral oblivion. There's a really good paper (though slightly outdated) on this by Paul Pierson called The New Politics of the Welfare State. Page 176 onwards explains the conditions which facilitate the implementation of policies of retrenchment. Essentially, the major factors are electoral slack (a weak opposition in the form of a Labour Party confused as to which way to turn), a problem pressure (the GFC), and a cross-party consensus that retrenchment is the necessary response to the crisis (the Coalition with the Lib Dems). There's obviously a bit more to it than that, but the pdf isn't easy to copy & paste from, so I won't bother with quotes here. The case studies also outline why the Tories would never have been self-destructive enough to pursue these cuts without a partner back in 2010.

Well, here are a list of sources that talk about 'cultural marxism' from academics that have literally nothing to do with conspiracies, or nazis that I found while looking into it:

1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450
   
   
2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014
   
   Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg
   
   
3. "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144
   
   Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".
   
   
4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093
   
   
5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artefacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd
   
   
6. The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf
   
   Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.
   
   
7. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."
   
   
8. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.

First appreciate the concept of the overton window. That political shifts are relative to the era they occur in. You do not suddenly go from an authoritarian theocracy to a progressive democracy over night. It's a gradual process sometimes spanning generations.

In the context of these internet communities. You create various sock puppet accounts to make it look as though the communities are more popular than they are. Then use those various accounts to normalize concepts. Spam racism. Downvote dissenting posts. Tell them it's just edgy humour and they need to stop being so uptight. Upvote other peoples accounts that adopt the behaviours your desire like parroting racism.

Over time through an instinctual desire for group conformity you end up with communities that are a mix of genuine racists and people who think racism is just a really funny joke. Now the actual brainwashing can begin. They are no longer repulsed by racism. It's just a joke. Nationalism is just memes. HAHA! They start posting more serious content. That another rape by a minority group occurred. That murderer is an immigrant. That the innocent kid who was murdered by police was really some kind of gangster thug. You still keep pumping memes because you want to your community to grow. But now you start posting links to discussions on other sites and forums. And your racists and trolls go and normalise such views in the real world. Imitating the behaviour they have been programmed with.

When governments do it. It's called psychological warfare or psyops. This is carried out by many nations. Russia's internet research agency is a noteworthy one. There have been reports of the Isreali Defence Force posting pro-israel propaganda on forums. There were even allegedly grants given to students that took part in such operations. And don't take this as some liberal lefty getting butt hurt over trump. Or some casual antisemitism. Every major power is involved in this shit. We are. America is. China is. India is. Everybody is. Maybe not targetting us specifically all the time, but you'd better believe when they see an opportunity like brexit they seize it.

Then there's civilian groups that tend to use it to secure funding for their movements. Like how the far-right use various chat servers to coordinate misinformation.

And that leaves us in our current predicament. There's no way of telling who is real, and who is a troll, or who is a part of a foreign intelligence community, or who is a sock puppet account for a political group trying to lobby support for their self-interested cause. When the fascists aren't boasting that they're printing their ideology on beermats it's a lot harder to know if they're really British.

For me. It's not about censoring anonymity. It's about creating verified communities.

Oh and I almost forgot. This isn't just limited to politics and hybrid warfare. It's also widely used by marketing firms. Google "influencer pricing".

Edit: Oh, a great book on the subject is Manufacturing Consent. Though this is more of a historical approach when such operations could only really be run by large media groups like newspapers, tv, and radio.

Ha quite.

Its worth reading Donkeys Lions and Dinosaurs, which is basically a critique of a previous defence review.

The author points out how that review needed to massively cut the size of the forces, but somehow it managed to not cut any of the traditional, prestigious upper class regiments (guards, calvary, armour, etc) or sexy fighter jet squadrons, and it was the super useful infantry and marines who got cut the most.

As the government and HoC has got less and less experience with the military, its been more and more down to the generals themselves to shape the cuts. And they obviously don't want to cut their own original (well to do) regiments.

And so we end up with another review that lacks a big picture, and instead tries to salami slice everything equally.

I do think you make valid points - I genuinely think that many people voted to leave, not because they were anti-EU (though of course, many were) but precisely because they did feel that they had been ignored by previous governments. Hell, I was having an interesting discussion with my dad the other day who was saying that, had the referendum been held under Tony Blair's government he almost certainly would've voted to leave for precisely this reason.

I also think that this talk of a transitional period, whilst absolutely necessary in the case of a hard Brexit, when used as a way to mitigate the result is perhaps a bit disingenuous. I think those politicians who are opposed to Brexit need to be clear with their intentions and explain their reasons why, rather than pussyfooting around the issue.

I don't think a UKIP government is likely - in fact I genuinely don't think that many people who voted for UKIP actually necessarily supported them. The majority of UKIP supporters I've met actually just saw them as a viable protest vote.

I should mention that I absolutely do support democracy, though I genuinely think a lot of the issues we face now with apathy and indeed people finding a protest vote necessary are precisely down to failures with our current system - most notably, the first past the post voting system which disenfranchises many voters.

To say that leaving the EU is just a matter of leaving a treaty is possibly the most misleading oversimplification I've ever seen. The reality is that leaving the EU is hugely complicated. It certainly doesn't have to leave the UK in a bad position (though I suspect this is likely, given the quality of government we have at present), but to imply that it's not a hugely complicated matter is ridiculous.

Keep in mind that businesses love stability - Brexit removes confidence in the UK simply because nobody is entirely sure what the UK is going to do now or what the UK is going to look like outside of the EU. We can't negotiate any trade deals just yet without losing the chance of a deal with the EU (which, like it or not will be hugely important to the UK) and equally no country wants to negotiate a trade deal with us just yet without knowing what our relationship with the EU is likely to be. Not to mention that remaining in the customs union may well end up being necessary anyway to maintain an open border with the Republic of Ireland.

If you are bored and want something to read I highly recommend this book as it explains just how incredibly complex Brexit will be.

I've mentioned a lot of what you just said in another comment, so I won't reply to specific disputes.

But I will say that it matters very little what the media say about UKIP as a party so long as they get coverage. Robert Ford's recent research on the phenomenon shows that UKIP attracts emotional support from a few middle and working class voting groups. A recent poll showed that a clear majority of the public guessed wrongly when quizzed about Farage's background even though he's clear to flaunt it whenever.

So really, extreme-right sentiment - about benefits, immigration or europe and general discontent/government fuckupery covered by the media is likely to build up hysteria and public support for UKIP. Looking at the media lately, its hard to doubt that's the case.

What's the answer then? More diversity in the press - give more of a voice to trade unionist and left-wing opinion than at present. Don't call climate change and otherwise settled matters a 'debate', accept them as fact. Realise that there are some opinions that are plain wrong and some voices that don't need to be heard. Focus on a wider portfolio of government activity - not just DWP stuff but whats happening in local government, infrastructure, house, energy and foreign policy. Engage with young people and otherwise looked over groups rather than focusing everything on the elderly.

When you say "Radicalized" do you mean, like UKIP, because if so I highly recomend Revolt on the Right.

I assumed you meant non-fiction, but if you meant fiction, perhaps you'd like House of Cards.

Other than that, books are usually released at the end of a particular era in politics such as Tony Blair's Premiership, although I haven't read it. One of the political memoirs of either himself or Alastair Campbell.

Hope this helps.

Why, they're just flying off the shelves, RedTerror88! Soaring into the clear air like doves!

Sexy, Tory doves!

I kid you not this book is often left in our office by people who are reading it:

Dangerous Hero: Unmissable new biography of Jeremy Corbyn from our best investigative biographer https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0008299579/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_XZ2BDbE7VDV60




I work with a few Jewish people and they are all convinced that he hates Jews.

Ian Dunt's book on Brexit is a great short read https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01M74JXK5/

Manufacturing consent is as relevant as ever.

Sadly, most journalists seem to read it and think it's a text on best practices.

for those not familiar- dont listen to this guy

read it for yourselves, then look back at this guys comment

Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

"Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies"

"Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology

Found a book you might enjoy reading.

Here's just a few reasons as to why it bothers me.

>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/number-of-muslims-in-prison-doubles-in-decade-to-12000-9222237.html

>https://www.amazon.co.uk/Easy-Meat-Britains-Grooming-Scandal/dp/1943003068

>https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

Why doesn't this bother you?

Still waiting for that benefit. There are plenty of non-Muslims in the world that could fill those roles you speak of.

And a well reviewed book https://www.amazon.co.uk/Everything-I-know-about-teaching/dp/1492912417

Revolt on teh Right

By far the most indepth, analytical insight into UKIPs support base. I reccomend anybody to read it. Guardian luvvies Goodwin and Ford have produced a worldy that is very well recommended by even the said paper as well as by BBC BookTalk. I am using their figures.

> NHS....

Evolving policies. I think they may lose a lot of that support if they went into 2015 with such policies, hence why they won;t. They tap into the anxiety of globalisation, something people scoff at and deem racist. Bizzarely.

> I'm not sure why you think it shields them or their supporters from criticism

I think you should be careful about mocking genuine economic concerns and labelling them merely racist, when they are on the whole normal people who observe the world around the, and perceive to know what is in their best interests. Mass influxes of cheap labour is not in their interests.

>being compassionate, that assistance can not in any way hinder those close to me, for I will have breached my social/fraternal/parental/etc contract.

Economics (as in the OP) is about trade offs, how much suffering for the other is acceptable as long as everyone is unhindered within the social/fraternal/parental/etc contract? An infinite amount of suffering for very slight hindrance? The line must be drawn.

This is based on Peter Singers idea of expanding circle of ethics, its a very interesting idea if you get a chance to check it out.

I read one of his books for my degree and plagiarised was influenced by much of its commentary, so I have a personal debt of gratitude to owe Anthony King.

You mean this one?

If you want to actually make a point (on a political discussion forum) you need to give a baseline amount of details.

> Source: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0091909104/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_dp_T1_FP1DzbHRDJYXC

Alternatively, Watch the documentary here;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1IvMLTQ6ew

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0822319144/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480358452&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=cultural+marxism&dpPl=1&dpID=414j9KPiZeL&ref=plSrch
Dennis Dworkin
Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies (Post-Contemporary Interventions

Do I ever!

I wanted to call it "Sic Transit Gloria Bumhole" but that would have made it harder to get it onto the Kindle store

It wasn't in an article per say but you can read all about it in his book Captive State

My view that the EU is bloated comes from this book.

I rate Anthony King highly.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Story-Brexit-Ladybirds-Grown-Ups/dp/024138656X

has someone put a Ladybird book of the EU in front of him?

​

oh heck, there's a spoof one

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Story-Brexit-Ladybirds-Grown-Ups/dp/024138656X

Any or all of these

1


2

3

4

5

Sorry but I couldn't get more than half way through that, your tone is horrible. Try reading Singer's The Expanding Circle or Pinker's Better Angels.

> Under your theory a dog could be considered more intelligent than a human if that dog could empathise more than the human.

MFW

If you'd rather stay in denial by reading critical literature through a skewed eye glass, then fine.

I don't recommend you try this one then.

Read All Out War by Tim Shipman, it doesn’t have many kind words for Cameron

> That's what happened anyway though. I realise there's an effort to change the narrative on the Lib Dems but 2010 resulted in them being seen as complete hypocrites.

There were books written in the same year that said the one of the reasons they went with full coalition was because they wanted to show coliations would work. It may be wrong but it isn't changing the narrative to state that now.

>The only book to tell the full story of how and why Britain voted to leave the EU.

>This is the acclaimed inside story of the EU referendum in 2016 that takes you behind the scenes of the most extraordinary episode in British politics since the Second World War.

>With unparalleled access to all key players, this is a story of calculation, attempted coups and people torn between principles and loyalty. It is a book about our leaders and their closest aides, the decisions they make, how and why they make them and how they feel when they turn out to be so wrong.

>In All Out War, Tim Shipman has written a political history that reads like a thriller, exploring how and why David Cameron chose to take the biggest political gamble of his life, and why he lost.

If you were only allowed one book about Brexit, it’s the one most people seem to recommend

I hate to be that guy but a trade deal with U.S is really necessary. The only thing is that we should be really careful at all the small writing in the trade deal. We could be desperate enough to accept anything but that would be bad. I have very little faith in Trump and U.S. financiers as a whole. People may complain how imperialistic the EU turned out to be, the U.S. is much worse.

Source: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0091909104/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_dp_T1_FP1DzbHRDJYXC

Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain by George Monbiot [2001]

> The Dome, the lottery, the Scottish Parliament, the Manchester tram scam, the destruction of the railways and London Underground: these are all scandals we know about and which make us think the lunatics are running the asylum. We feel bewildered disempowered, ripped off and plain scared for the future of our country and the world.

> None of these episodes is covered in this book. Yet through its coverage of the Skye Bridge, the Coventry hospitals, the “regeneration” of Southampton, genetic engineering in agriculture and medicine, the takeover of our universities - and much, much more it explains everything about the decline in quality of life, accelerating gap between rich and poor, and the total destruction of anything remotely resembling “democracy” which is going on all around us while we sit there swigging Special Brew and watching reality tv.

> If Monbiot never wrote another thing he would have entirely justified his existence with this book which is quite simply THE most important book on politics in Britain this century. In reading it you realise that you are not mad after all and neither are “they”!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Captive-State-Corporate-Takeover-Britain/dp/0330369431

Tommy and his popularity came from Grooming gangs, he began speaking about them in 2006/07, but was obviously denounced as a racist and a liar because he targetted a specific ethnic community, and, of course, being the leader of those plonkers.

By the time these gangs were proven to be true, people began seeing Tommy in a different light, hell, he even co-wrote a book on it called Easy Meat.

His appeal from terrorist didn't really take hold, his main support was from grooming gang families and now mostly poor communities.

He did not make up the problem, the problem is very real. He was convicted of fraud in an earlier crime, He lied about other things, but the grooming gangs were not one of them.

> You see, I'm not optimistic about human nature.

Facts don't support your pessimism..

It's important to think about this in a global sense. It's possible that one region of the world gets worse while the whole globe gets better. It's the aggregate that counts.

It's similar to why Americans have seen wage stagnation in the last 30-40 years but the overall incomes of the world has gone up. But Americans don't live in the ROW by definition, so they don't notice that.

Quartz had a good discussion about this, which they tried to tie in with Trump but frankly is more about the West in general and America in particular.

> But the problem is, we already have tension and a lot of people are still defending this issue as if nothing is wrong. We've had european governments tell us for decades it's racist to attack multiculturalism or islam. People can see it isn't, and right wing sentiment is on the rise everywhere in europe, mainly on the continent, because of it.


There's certainly people who are in denial about the problems. Immigration for me isn't a religion. It can be done badly or not-so-badly, just like any other policy. Europe in general has been totally clueless about immigration policy, hence the tensions.

That being said, there is a risk of alienating different minorities, both moderate muslims like the gentleman in glasgow, as well all kinds of other minorities over a hostility towards immigration, which could spill over into "if you're not white, you don't belong".

If your dad is from Northern India you could well be on that list in the future, too. I'm not as sanguine about the forces opposing immigration as you are, because once they reach enough power, they will drop the mask and it will no longer be just about Islam, but whether your skin color is white or not.

> I really want this to end before it gets violent.

It could get violent but I see it as a low possibility. The main reason is that white people hold all the cards. Muslims immigrants are mainly concentrated in urban areas in poor neighbourhoods. It'd be incredibly easy for someone who wanted to do real damage to just round them up, because they all live so concentrated.

Also, how many in the army are muslim? How many farmers? What about the institutions? A more likely scenario would be intra-white fighting. The white people who are die-hard multiculturalists against the white nationalists. That would really be a civil war, because then you have the old elite who still control the institutions vs the rising power who are still shut out, and who may be more popular with whites as time goes on, but who never the less have to contend with a shrinking electorate.

Also, if you think EE is safe, just ask them about Russia. There are reasons to be concerned about the future of the EU, but that is all the more reason to have a open discussion about the issues of race and identity instead of adopting a stifling "color blind" BS posture which pretends everything is fine and dandy when it isn't.