What you did today

[ShadySands]

We went white water rafting on the Arkansas River. It's the tail end of the season so the water level was fairly low but that kinda worked out for us because I don't think I would have been able to get my wife on the raft otherwise. It worked out too because now she loves it and wants to do it again next year so I'm happy.

[Monte Carlo]

We went white water rafting on the Arkansas River.

 

Did you get rescued by Burt Reynolds with a compound bow?

[Monte Carlo]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/fraser-nelson/2014/09/shock-election-in-sweden-as-far-right-sweden-democrats-become-no3-party/

 

A view from an English political magazine, comparing the Swedish Democrats with UKIP in Britain and the Front National in France.

 

They agree that a lazy liberal elite, centrist parties with a near-identical agenda, have stifled debate on perfectly reasonable topics like immigration and welfare spending for years. As I say, for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.

 

I'm deeply suspicious of the FN, much more so than Alternative for Germany (who by any reasonable set of political metrics are not 'far-right') or UKIP. But I see why the average French person might be tempted to vote for Madam Le Pen. Ditto these other parties.

 

Those of you on the centre-Left share the blame for this. You've used the word Racism as a weapon to the point where the blade is blunted with over-use. Now people realise it's become a moron's chant - the trees of genuine racism have been lost in the vast, deep woodlands of leftist hyperbole. Worrying about a boatload of third world strangers with foreign values and religions moving into your tiny village isn't racist. It's logical.

 

The leaders of the groups currently taking a battering have disregarded those concerns. On the left, politicians (a) see client voters and (b) conflate concerns about Islam with race. On the right, corporatist new-conservatives see immigrants as part of the warp and wend of global capital, cheap labour. Of course, it is also very easy for each side to swap clothes with the other, as they sit on a very broad, flabby centre-ground of contemporary political discourse.

 

So these insurgent, populist groups prosper. I'm not going to make lazy comparisons with Weimar, but unless the balance is restored in European politics, unsavoury firebrands like Le Pen (especially) will flourish.

[Nepenthe]

The majority of those 13% are probably just protest voters who are upset about the current politics of the lefties, I bet only a fraction really believes in what that party stands for. Last voting I also voted for the right wing party, not because I'm a true fan of their ideas and agendas but to show the current ruling parties that they'll lose votes to their worst enemies if they continue with their totally ruinous, overly ''politically correct'' course.

 

What he said. I assume from personal experience that the "protest" movements get a lot of votes from people who are just fed up with the direction of the country. Certainly Finland, which Swedish politicians are already using as an example of how to wreck your country...

 

I think there's in an interesting political situation in most of Europe... since politicians are professionals, you should look at their parties - their employers -  as corporations. And then you start understanding politics a lot better. Political parties form oligopolies, so you kind of wind up with all of them peddling the same **** at the same prize while maximizing their own profits. (The US is a duopoly, which is interesting of itself and explains IMO some of the differences.)

 

I avoid voting professional politicians whenever I can, preferring people who've worked as lawyers, judges, policemen or with a background in economics whenever I can. Finland, at least, is lead by mediocrities who've never distinguished themselves in anything outside student politics and their respective parties.

[Nepenthe]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/fraser-nelson/2014/09/shock-election-in-sweden-as-far-right-sweden-democrats-become-no3-party/

 

A view from an English political magazine, comparing the Swedish Democrats with UKIP in Britain and the Front National in France.

 

They agree that a lazy liberal elite, centrist parties with a near-identical agenda, have stifled debate on perfectly reasonable topics like immigration and welfare spending for years. As I say, for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.

 

I'm deeply suspicious of the FN, much more so than Alternative for Germany (who by any reasonable set of political metrics are not 'far-right') or UKIP. But I see why the average French person might be tempted to vote for Madam Le Pen. Ditto these other parties.

 

Those of you on the centre-Left share the blame for this. You've used the word Racism as a weapon to the point where the blade is blunted with over-use. Now people realise it's become a moron's chant - the trees of genuine racism have been lost in the vast, deep woodlands of leftist hyperbole. Worrying about a boatload of third world strangers with foreign values and religions moving into your tiny village isn't racist. It's logical.

 

The leaders of the groups currently taking a battering have disregarded those concerns. On the left, politicians (a) see client voters and (b) conflate concerns about Islam with race. On the right, corporatist new-conservatives see immigrants as part of the warp and wend of global capital, cheap labour. Of course, it is also very easy for each side to swap clothes with the other, as they sit on a very broad, flabby centre-ground of contemporary political discourse.

 

So these insurgent, populist groups prosper. I'm not going to make lazy comparisons with Weimar, but unless the balance is restored in European politics, unsavoury firebrands like Le Pen (especially) will flourish.

 

AFAIK, Front National has existed a lot longer than these other movements, which might explain the differences? That said, I fully agree with both your points and analysis.

[Lexx]

I'm deeply suspicious of the FN, much more so than Alternative for Germany (who by any reasonable set of political metrics are not 'far-right') or UKIP. But I see why the average French person might be tempted to vote for Madam Le Pen. Ditto these other parties.

The AfD is right wing enough as it is. Not as much as the NPD of course, but still. Hell, they even copied the NPD party wallpaper texts and just reworded them a little to sound less aggressive.

[Rosbjerg]

Ordered my ticket to Morocco, me and a buddy will be going there over Christmas and New Years eve, 22 days in total. I have a feeling this is going to be a fun adventure.

[Azdeus]

Don't be. You are not them. They do not reflect upon you. I would advise that instead of feeling shame that they exist; you should instead feel contempt for them.

 

True, I'm not them, but they are part of the same society that I am, and I can't help but feel both contempt at them, and shame that so many people of the Swedish populace are that ignorant and blind to what they vote for.

 

The majority of those 13% are probably just protest voters who are upset about the current politics of the lefties, I bet only a fraction really believes in what that party stands for. Last voting I also voted for the right wing party, not because I'm a true fan of their ideas and agendas but to show the current ruling parties that they'll lose votes to their worst enemies if they continue with their totally ruinous, overly ''politically correct'' course. 

 

No party here is worth voting for though, its all just a  joke, I don't agree with any of their disastrous political ideas. Truly dark times are ahead. 

Well, unless you happen to live in Switzerland.

 

Would you actually protest by voting on a party who's leaders have publicly stated that they need to take "Islam is worse than Nazis", "Arabs have violence in their genes" and want to "Register the Romani's" who's party leader has a gambling problem and is a compulsive liar (Besides being a professional politician that is, lying about things like his childhood)?

Oh, and then there are the videos where three of their higher ups verbally abuse a famous comedian and arm themselves with metal pipes and later on when the police come and clear the scene makes the statement "Being an eye-servant (Behaving well when important people are watching) always works" when they are leaving.

 

This is the kind of people they've voted for.

 

And sure, they're not racist, it only happens to be so debates about immigrants focus on arabs and africans. Pure coincidence. Gimme a ****ing break.

 

Here's a nice sticker from one of the parties that merged into Swedish Democrats;

 

Varning!

till svenska flickor!

Undvik oskyddat samlag med negrer som bär dödligt AIDS!

Allra helst; Skända inte din ras, Ditt Sverige, Din Familj och släkt.

Bevara Sverige Svenskt

 

Edit; Did'nt get this in https://translate.google.com/

Edited September 15, 2014 by Azdeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Euro poltics are weird.

 

Ordered my ticket to Morocco, me and a buddy will be going there over Christmas and New Years eve, 22 days in total. I have a feeling this is going to be a fun adventure.

Don't get arrested and drnnk as much as possible.

[Azdeus]

I should know better than to think of politics, I've got a headache and nosebleed.

 

Did spend the weekend playing RPG's with my mates, some lighthearted Rogue Trader/Dark Heresy crossover on saturday, and yesterday some Only War. Good fun, our group also purchased Dark Heresy 2.0 and WOD Demon 2.0 so we've done some light reading and discussions of that. Demon 2.0 really sounds cool, I love those concepts portrayed in the book and it'll be interesting to see what the GM will come up with for that.

I'm still trudging through the Shadowrun book and jotting down some ideas that I like to try to get the group hooked with and then I'll probably try and start a long campaign going, but first I have to get a hold of the ruleset, and I'll have to say that I really don't like how they have it all written out, the book feels jumbled when things you want to know are explained ten pages after the first mention.

[Rostere]

The Sweden Democrats are just a scheme for the right-leaning unemployed and people with lacking education to secure their unemployment insurance and pensions. The recent right-wing government have struck a hard blow against the pensioners in Sweden. They have also not been good to the unemployed and the ill, although I personally think they have maintained a reasonable level there.

 

What do you do when you are right-leaning person of mediocre skill who are faced with increased globalization? It has long been a theory of mine that political sympathies have their basis in psychology. A right-leaning person is not going to vote for a left-wing party, even if that would be sensible from an egoistical perspective. So you don't vote for a left-leaning party to secure you unemployment money. You will seek you solution further rightwards. The only solution that can be offered from the political right is one of "conserving the society", shutting out outside competition, whether in the form of free-market unions like the EU or immigrants competing for jobs. The Sweden Democrats have gained most of their voters from Moderate party, the previous party farthest to the right in Sweden. This is in part because they have all but completely abandoned a backwards agenda of protectionism, isolationism, social conservatism, and so on. Admittedly it's been a very long time since the Moderate party represented those things, but anyway. Those only became a hot topic gradually after the fall of Communism, the enlargement of EU and the following globalization.

 

The modern part of Sweden's politicians are among the most cosmopolitan in the entire world. While those are sending Sweden as a whole down a road of economic growth - which can be seen in the successes of the recent right-wing government - this leaves individual persons behind. A person with no skill at anything sitting in a small town in rural Sweden would be much better off with a government with no visions shutting itself off from the world. Of course that would lead to long-term catastrophe, but the people who vote for such a party aren't really good at thinking or else they would not have found the allure of those parties in the first place. They claim that the other options are all alike, and that the politicians do not listen. The first point is far from true, but sure, from their perspective all options look like **** because the future for inbred small-town unemployed men with no education (Sweden Democrat voters) looks increasingly bleak, accelerating with globalization. Yes, the politicians do not listen to them, because they don't agree with their opinions.

 

It's really the same thing as with Luddites during the industrial revolution. If you replace 70% of all workers with machines you will have created an angry, unemployed mob. If you swim with the globalization, increase free trade, outsourcing and so on you will also in the end create an angry mob. The leaning to the left might vote for pseudo-communists, those leaning to the right will vote for nationalists. The people voting for the Sweden Democrats are not die-hard racists like their politicians, they are angry, confused and very, very afraid of change. The nationalist wave in Europe is composed of modern-day Luddites who can't deal with globalization. They are one of history's brake blocks. It's sad, but we have to take their opinions into account because they are also humans.

[Monte Carlo]

^ I'm inclined to agree. Globalisation seems to be succeeding where Socialism failed - an attempt to make all of us equally poor in a non-stop race to the bottom in terms of wages and living conditions while a supra-national socio-political elite wonder what all the fuss is about. Until, of course, they find themselves watching an old lady knitting while they are dragged to the square outside the Hôtel de Ville...

Edited September 15, 2014 by Monte Carlo

[Marceror]

I hurt myself today

 

 

 

to see if I still feel. I focus on the pain, the only thing that's real.

 

 

Damn papercut!

[Barothmuk]

Make all of us equally poor in a non-stop race to the bottom in terms of wages and living conditions while a supra-national socio-political elite wonder what all the fuss is about.

That's capitalism.

[Lexx]

I hurt myself today

 

 

 

to see if I still feel. I focus on the pain, the only thing that's real.

 

 

Damn papercut!

So tell us, what have you become? And will you let us down?

Edited September 15, 2014 by Lexx

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I hurt myself today

 

 

 

to see if I still feel. I focus on the pain, the only thing that's real.

 

 

Damn papercut!

So tell us, what have you become? And will you let us down?

Who gets the crown?

[Woldan]

Don't worry, the pain is only temporary because beneath the stains of time, the feelings disappear. 

[Marceror]

Clearly, it was a really profound paper cut.

[Hurlshort]

See that girl, watch that scene, digging the Dancing Queen.

[Monte Carlo]

 

Make all of us equally poor in a non-stop race to the bottom in terms of wages and living conditions while a supra-national socio-political elite wonder what all the fuss is about.

That's capitalism.

 

 

No, it's a type of capitalism. I'd describe it as a sort of nu-Corporatism, actually, especially the Russian and Chinese iterations.

 

Capitalism is by it's very nature plastic. It constantly mutates and evolves, like quicksilver in a maze. At it's best, it is liberating. At it's worst, it's as bad as any other political / economic model. I'd argue that history shows us it's the least worst.

 

I hate utopias and utopians. Their plans always lead to camps, central committees and early morning knocks on the door. Capitalist utopians are as bad as socialist utopians or ISIL utopians (they think they're building one, you know).

[Namutree]

 

Make all of us equally poor in a non-stop race to the bottom in terms of wages and living conditions while a supra-national socio-political elite wonder what all the fuss is about.

That's capitalism.

 

Not at all. Capitalism always has, and always will increase peoples wealth and standard of living. Under capitalism wages go up and living conditions go up.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Namutree

[Namutree]

 

Those of you on the centre-Left share the blame for this. You've used the word Racism as a weapon to the point where the blade is blunted with over-use. Now people realise it's become a moron's chant - the trees of genuine racism have been lost in the vast, deep woodlands of leftist hyperbole. Worrying about a boatload of third world strangers with foreign values and religions moving into your tiny village isn't racist. It's logical.

 

 

You're pretty smart, Monte. I agree completely with this.

[Barothmuk]

No, it's a type of capitalism. I'd describe it as a sort of nu-Corporatism.

Oh how silly of me to forget about the glorious time when capitalism wasn't reliant on keeping wages low, worker exploitation 'profits' high and funnelling wealth into the hands of a few. 

 

Gosh darn that new capitalism, ahem "corporatism".

Edited September 15, 2014 by Barothmuk

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think you guys are in the wrong thread.

[Monte Carlo]

Barothmuk, please. Markets. I can give you plenty of examples of free-flowing capital making wages rise. It's a central tenet of markets. The problem with capital is simply how do you control it? Can you? Hayek or Keynes? Mind you, there is only one type of socialism, really, and that's the one that makes everyone broke except the party apparatchiks and the secret policemen.

 

I think it was Jean Cretien who said, "the only problem with Capitalism are Capitalists. They can never be rich enough."