|
Post by Admin on Oct 4, 2021 14:03:44 GMT
Intel expert warns domestic extremism is only getting worse: 'Every failed coup is just practice' www.alternet.org/2021/10/intel-expert-warns-that-domestic-extremism-is-only-getting-worse-every-failed-coup-is-just-practice/Right-wing media outlets like Fox News, Newsmax and Breitbart News have a long history of downplaying the terrorist threat posed by far-right White nationalists, white supremacists and militia groups — even after the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol Building. But media outlets like MSNBC have been giving the threat the attention that it merits, and when MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace recently featured Kristofer Goldsmith — CEO of the intelligence firm Spaverius — on her show, he warned that the problem is showing no signs of letting up. Goldsmith told Wallace, a Never Trump conservative who served in the Bush Administration, "Every failed coup is just practice. What's, I think, most disturbing, to people now is that it's become out in the public." The Oath Keepers, an extremist militia group, were among the insurrectionists who attacked the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6. And Goldsmith discussed their recruiting efforts during his MSNBC appearance. Goldsmith warned, "The Oath Keepers are an organization that's primarily vying for not just military service members, veterans, but also, police. These are people who have a warped sense of patriotism, who believe that fighting against the government, against their fellow Americans is somehow patriotic…. What's disappointing to me is to see people using.gov and .mil e-mail addresses to sign up to be one of these members of an unlawful militia." The Spaverius CEO went on to call out Fox News for downplaying the violence that occurred on January 6. "Over on Fox News," Goldsmith told Wallace, "January 6 is no big deal. And that is the most popular channel on all military bases all over the world right now, because they use Nielsen ratings. They say, 'Oh well, Fox News is popular. So, we have to show it to the troops.'"
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 6, 2021 11:10:20 GMT
The Tory conference that caused Brexit Thatcher's parting shot launched a civil war that is still being fought BY ALWYN TURNER unherd.com/2021/10/the-tory-conference-that-caused-brexit/Thirty years ago, on 8 October 1991, a slightly bewildered Conservative Party gathered in Blackpool. There was an election due the following year, when a Tory government would seek a historic fourth term, but there was an unsettled, uncertain mood about the place. This was also the first conference since Margaret Thatcher had been ousted as leader and — after sixteen years — many of the party faithful were far from reconciled to their loss. It should have been a tub-thumping, morale-boosting rally to send her successor, John Major, out on the campaign trail. Instead it saw the opening shots fired in a civil war that would go on to wreck that fourth term, drive the Tories out of power, and put the country on the road to Brexit. Because this was the conference when talk of a referendum on Europe began to take hold of the Right. At the time, the European Economic Community (EEC) was entering a state of transition. In December 1991, the leaders of the twelve member-states would meet in Maastricht to negotiate the future path, and the following February meet again to sign the treaty that was to create the European Union (EU). This was a new incarnation of the great project, designed, as it said, “to advance European integration”.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 6, 2021 16:34:16 GMT
So-Called 'Centrists' Are Really Incredibly Dangerous Extremists Their supposed "seriousness" poses a serious threat to everyone but the small group of elites whose short-term interests they actually represent. www.commondreams.org/views/2021/10/05/so-called-centrists-are-really-incredibly-dangerous-extremistsAfter a half decade of progressive political gains, so-called "Centrists" over the last several weeks have struck back hard. In the U.K., Labour Party leader Keir Starmer used his annual speech to the party's annual conference to "draw a line" under the progressive ideas of "Corbynism" promising instead a "serious plan for government." Similarly in the U.S., Democratic Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona—both frequently described as "centrist" or "moderate"—are holding up a major progressive spending bill due to claimed concerns over its cost. While the Left rails against these attacks, many continue in the corporate press embrace them as "sensible" and "moderate" voices with "their thumb more on the pulse on the average Democrat in the country" in a time of supposed left-wing and right-wing extremism. Even more troubling, is the constant refrain that this "centrist" reaction represents a return to a "serious" politics. The dominant narrative is that while the Left may have laudable ideals, their policies are unworkable and their vision far too idealistic. By contrast, the narrative goes, these "moderates" reflect a much needed pragmatism that combines genuine desires for change with realistic and comprehensive strategies for achieving them. These notions are the latest myth for preserving an elitist status quo whose only serious ambition is increasing its profits and political power. What these so-called "centrists" are really fighting for and promoting are outdated ideas based on a dogmatic free-market ideology that if enacted would only lead to more suffering and injustice. What is needed, instead, are serious radical solutions for addressing our numerous global problems. The serious problem with "Serious Politics" If the 1990s were a decade of "centrist" triumphalism, then the new millennium marked by financial crisis, genocidal invasions, climate change, and global public health pandemics should have signaled the end to the party. At the very least, those who politically preached the promise of capitalist driven prosperity for all should have repented and reflected on how wrong they had ultimately been. Even the Chair of the House Budget Committee, John Yarmuth, finally proclaimed in exasperation that Joe Manchin has "no understanding" of how the monetary system actually works. Yet these free-market believers continue to peddle their economic "malarky" under the snake oil of being "serious" policy-makers. What is even more striking is that it was only recently that so-much of the media has reinforced this image of supposed "moderates" as policy gurus whose ideas and solutions are based on evidence rather than mere idealism. The 2016 battle between Sanders and Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination became not one between two different ideologies and worldviews but a struggle between realism and utopianism, "proven" ideas versus "pie in the sky" dreaming. Even as the evidence piled up that eight years of "smart" leadership led to a sputtering economy, endless wars, continuing systemic racism, and massive political defeats against a far-Right tide of populist anger—the discourse of the "serious" centrist persisted. Fast forward, five years later and little has seemingly changed. It matters little that in reality, Clinton's supposed policy genius was severely undermined by the intellectual hollowness of her actual proposed policies—such as her "comprehensive" poverty measure that was judged "woefully inadequate". Or that her acolyte and now VP Kamala Harris' utterly confusing and unworkable proposal for reducing the costs of Higher Education was critical to ending her own presidential campaign in 2020. The media and, therefore, much of the general public continue to buy into the nonsense ravings of the now thoroughly disproven ideas of the "Washington Consensus." Beware the "Serious" political threat of centrists Unfortunately, we are experiencing a fresh outbreak of this destructive "serious" centrist politics. In the U.K., Starmer has promised to never again go into an election with a document like the party's previous Manifesto that promised such "unserious" things like raising the minimum wage, free bus travel for young people, increasing investment in public health, making energy companies public again, and free broadband. On the other side of the ocean, Manchin and Siname are remaining defiant against passing a quite modest and debt-neutral spending bill of $3.5 trillion over 10 years that would provide two free years of community college, childcare and universal Pre-K, Medicare expansion, and extending the child tax credit. Far from a blessed return to a "substantive" and research-based politics, such resistance reflects a troubling though often utterly convincing political performance of being "informed" that requires the right outfit of tailored (pant)suits, dense but upon further investigation facile policy details, and a stern commitment to achieving only what is "realistic." They inspire through their appearance of professional competence and practical planning—a facade which protects them from any serious questioning concerning the intellectual emptiness of their actual ideas or the incoherence of their proposals. Underpinning this fallacious "seriousness" is a dangerous strain of "respectability" politics against anything that threatens the interests of corporations, the military establishment, or a political class who benefits from their power. It is meant to denigrate novel ideals and genuine progressive alternatives based on decades of research and evidence that could challenge this corrupt status quo. Hence, practical but visionary solutions for "a world without police," cooperative workplaces, commons ownership, mass redistribution of wealth, a sustainable degrowth economy, and a world without exploitative work are cast aside as mere utopian blasphemies against the "proven" faith of an old world order. Breaking free from this myth of "smart" and "informed" centrism is increasingly crucial to ensuring not only the well-being of millions of people in the U.S. but the very long term survival of our species. The threat of "moderate" resistance to needed public investment in "human infrastructure" or ecological renewal is a form of Liberal pseudo-science that must be exposed and fought against like that of Conservative religious evangelism. Their supposed "seriousness" poses a serious threat to everyone but the small group of elites whose short-term interests they actually represent.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 7, 2021 15:24:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 8, 2021 14:10:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 9, 2021 13:48:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 11, 2021 6:16:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 11, 2021 11:42:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 11, 2021 11:48:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 11, 2021 15:02:18 GMT
Amnesty International warns of “unprecedented programme of rights reversal” by the government “Ordinary people have fought hard and often bitter battles to achieve these rights - and we mustn’t let them be struck out by politicians who think they are merely getting in their way." leftfootforward.org/2021/10/amnesty-international-warns-of-unprecedented-programme-of-rights-reversal-by-the-government/Amnesty International has warned that the government is engaging in an ‘unprecedented programme of rights reversal’, as it launches a week-long campaign to prevent what it calls ‘a raid on rights’. Amnesty says it is voicing its concerns about the likely impact of two highly controversial bills currently going through Parliament, as well as threats to remove key protections in the Human Rights Act after Dominic Raab set out plans to overhaul the legislation. The two bills are the Police, Sentencing, Crimes and Courts Bill – which would place new restrictions on the right to peaceful protest and potentially entrench racism in policing, and the Nationality and Borders Bill – which would reduce the right of people to seek asylum in the UK. Amnesty and others have hailed the Human Rights Act for the vital role it has played in landmark justice campaigns – including Hillsborough, the Mid Staffs hospital deaths, recent rulings on years of human rights violations against women activists in the Spycops scandal and a mother’s successful challenge over the health threat to her son from toxic landfill emissions. The human rights group is embarking on a week-long campaign against the “raid on rights”, with activists from Liberty, Stonewall, Freedom from Torture, the British Institute for Human Rights and others joining forces. Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s CEO, said: “This Government has embarked on an unprecedented programme of rights reversal, with hard-won protections being dismantled and rolled back on multiple fronts. “Ordinary people have fought hard and often bitter battles to achieve these rights – and we mustn’t let them be struck out by politicians who think they are merely getting in their way. “The right to peaceful protest, the right to challenge injustice at the hands of the state, and our hospitality to those needing a place of sanctuary on these shores – these are some of our most treasured values. “Our polling shows that the public doesn’t want these rights removed. Ministers should pause, reflect and halt this raid on rights.” A Home Office spokesperson said in response: “These bills are vital pieces of legislation, neither of which represents a reversal of human rights. “Peaceful protest is a fundamental right but public order legislation is out of date to deal with the reckless and dangerous actions of some groups– the PCSC Bill will give police the powers they need to tackle disorder but would only be used where necessary and proportionate. “While people continue to risk their lives and die making dangerous and unnecessary crossings of the Channel, we have to act. The Nationality and Borders Bill will deliver the most comprehensive reform of the asylum system in decades, breaking the business of people smugglers while allowing us to support those in need.” Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 11, 2021 15:03:49 GMT
Boris Johnson slammed for jetting off to ‘£25,000-a-week Marbella hideaway’ during energy crisis leftfootforward.org/2021/10/boris-johnson-slammed-for-jetting-off-to-25000-a-week-marbella-hideaway-during-energy-crisis/As Britons face soaring energy prices, supply and fuel shortages as well the country being gripped by a chronic labour shortage, prime minister Boris Johnson has been slammed for jetting off to a luxury holiday in Marbella. The Prime Minister is reported to have flown to Marbella in southern Spain with his wife, Carrie Johnson, and their son, Wilfred, as millions face a cost of living crisis. The Mail on Sunday reported that Johnson had left for Spain following his keynote speech to Conservative Party conference. The prime minister and his family have been staying at a private villa owned by his minister and old-Etonian pal Zac Goldsmith. The exclusive estate reportedly costs up to £25,000 a week to rent. The prime minister’s holiday came in the same week that the £20 uplift to Universal Credit was cut, a move that even six former Conservative Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions opposed and which charities warned will push 800,000 people into poverty. Business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng sough to defend the prime minister from criticism over his break, saying it was “reasonable” for him to take a holiday. Former Tory minister Anna Soubry, told Sky News the prime minister’s holiday was “not acceptable”. “He’s decided to swan off on his jollies and it’s not acceptable,” she said. “The timing couldn’t be worse. But it’s like he doesn’t even care. He’s got an 80-seat majority and he just thinks everything will be fine.” Shadow chief secretary Bridget Phillipson said: “In the teeth of a crisis of its own making, the Government has put its out of office on. “The prime minister has gone on holiday, no one knows where the chancellor is, and this morning we understand the business secretary has entered the realms of fantasy.” Basit Mahmood is co-editor of Left Foot Forward
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 11, 2021 15:19:45 GMT
Manchester was just ‘united against the Tories’ www.thecanary.co/trending/2021/10/03/manchester-was-just-united-against-the-tories/At the start of the Conservative Party conference in Manchester, people have rallied against the party. And those attending made it clear that they were “united against the Tories”. Assembling the people The anti-austerity group People’s Assembly is holding a “Festival of Resistance” from 2-5 October in Manchester. Talks and workshops are happening across the four days, along with live music and other performances. People’s Assembly is running these in a marquee at Piccadilly Gardens. Events include: “Drive to Survive” – members of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) community in conversation with Shami Chakrabarti over the Tories’ police bill. “Where next” for the NHS and social care? A “wall of sound” noise protest outside the Tory conference on 4 October. Corbyn in conversation with Guardian journalist Gary Younge. The group Women Will Not Be Silenced talking about ‘rebel women and the importance of protest’. But the main event was a protest on 3 October. And it appeared to be well-supported. Disrupting the Tory conference Crowds began to gather from around 12pm at this national demo. It started near Whitworth Park. People’s Assembly used the hashtag #UnitedAgainstTheTories. It reported that “thousands” turned out to march:
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 11, 2021 15:21:16 GMT
The Left and the Margins By Owen Hatherley The Left is haunted by the prospect of becoming a subculture divorced from mass politics – but the history of our movement shows that marginal spaces play a critical role in liberating society. tribunemag.co.uk/2021/10/the-left-and-the-marginsIf you’re involved in the ‘scenes’ around leftwing politics or alternative subcultures, and you come from one of the industrial towns and cities of the south coast—let’s say the Medway towns, Portsmouth, or Southampton—you’ll have a complicated relationship to Brighton. You’ll undoubtedly have been there, whether it’s to go to a gig or a social centre, to a conference, or just to visit a record shop, and you’ll have found first a sense of freedom that you didn’t have at home. You’ll have found that there’s no chance in the centre of Brighton you’ll get shouted at or chased for any visible signs of difference – something that was a statistical likelihood on an average weekend in the towns mentioned above when I was growing up in the 1990s. That sense of freedom and acceptance is exhilarating at first; I know people who moved there because of it, and Brightonians are rightly proud of it. But you always know that you’re in a bubble, an enclave from the rest of non-metropolitan southern England, and this gives that freedom a certain unreality. My brother lived there for a couple of years, and caught this in his one-word description of the place – ‘toytown’. This makes it a good place to consider the role that subcultures and alternative scenes play on the left. They can at first be invigorating and freeing things to experience, but for the most part they are clubs, not movements. If you’re working class and/or black you’ll often find that especially acutely – the awareness as you enter the scene that it has an elaborate series of codes and rules which nobody has told you, but which you somehow must have known already (the story ‘Crossings’ in Juliet Jacques’ Variations describes a hair-raising example of this in the city’s queer scene). Commenting on the basic unreality of a given scene will not win you many friends. Nor will pointing out facts like—for instance—that the Green Party, stronger here than anywhere else, have been known not to bother canvassing Brighton’s few but visually prominent council estates. So what is the relationship between subculture and the left, and how should we relate to the occasional demand that the left be more ‘normal’? First things first, the left simply can’t solely be a subculture if it aims at power, by definition. We aim to change the entire economic and social system in this country and worldwide, and we aim to convince the majority of the population of the need for this. You can’t do that if you’re a club, or a scene. A little less interest in being cool at all times wouldn’t go amiss, too; as one wag on Twitter correctly pointed out in reference to the reaction to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Tax the Rich’ dress, a mass movement is going to involve a lot of cringe, so we better get used to it. It would also be useful to retire the fallacy that having interesting cultural tastes might make you politically or in any other way interesting – think here of Keir Starmer’s hilarious Desert Island Discs, which combined the cool music he actually listens to, like Orange Juice or Northern Soul, and the charity and football records his focus group tells him he should pretend to like to be more in touch with the ordinary, naff little people (could we also remember the fact David Evans once played bass and sang in a very minor post-punk group?). But that doesn’t mean that subcultures and alternative cultures haven’t had an important role for the left – on the contrary. As Tribune has constantly pointed out, the ‘world of labour’ always had a cultural element, creating its own institutes, clubs, and institutions as an alternative to the values of mainstream society, long before the idea of a counter-culture became associated with middle class radicals. From the early revolutionary years of the USSR to 1968 to the 1980s to the present day, subcultures have at their best been an incubator for new freedoms and new ideas, both collective and individual, which then go on to find much more widespread acceptance. The organised left has always been at its worst and most reactionary when it has rejected these in order not to scare an imagined socially conservative ordinary ‘voter’. The classic example here might be the ‘loony left’ of the 1980s, organised around local authorities in London, Sheffield, Manchester and elsewhere. Non-metropolitan ‘voters’, noted the Labour leadership around Neil Kinnock, were either unaware or unworried by the economic agenda of these radical councils, but were repelled by their closeness to social movements, and their vigorous support of LGBT, anti-racist, and anti-imperialist movements; accordingly, Kinnock hung them out to dry. Yet at almost every step of the way, the ‘loony left’ were proven correct in their own culture war, and their apparently unpopular—even ‘lunatic’—positions such as opposition to Section 28, support of equalising the age of consent, support for the ANC, and support for dialogue with Irish Republicans, to name a few, all became consensus politics and in some cases law under New Labour. To use an obvious contemporary example, the same argument should be made about the left and the fight for transgender rights in 2021. However inconvenient solidarity with that battle may apparently be now, we know very well how those who stand in its way will be seen in a decade or two’s time. So there has to be a way to establish friendly links between subcultures and a mainstream mass movement for power. The 1980s left actually has plenty of still inspiring examples of doing so. The free festivals and musical events of the Greater London Council drew on the way Rock Against Racism had brought the undoubtedly subcultural (and undoubtedly political) scenes around punk, roots reggae, and 2-tone under a wider political umbrella, using it to create microcosms of convivial solidarity. Around the same time, during the 1984-85 strike, the young communists of Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners ignored the notion that people in pit villages were ‘socially conservative’, and gave the National Union of Mineworkers their uncritical support. The NUM itself, only a few years earlier, had went much further than the mainstream of the trade union movement in support of the south Asian women striking at Grunwick’s in West London. What these movements all did was not so much to refuse a ‘culture war’ as such, but to refuse fighting on their opponents’ terms, which set up a divide between ‘ordinary decent people’ and sundry deviants and loonies. Actually, their actions proved, that divide was porous, much more easily breached than many might think. The means of breaching it is one of those simple things so hard to achieve: solidarity. This piece is based on a talk given at a panel for The World Transformed in September 2021.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 11, 2021 16:40:43 GMT
A dangerous opening for the right in Canada October 6, 2021 Written by John Clarke www.counterfire.org/articles/opinion/22665-a-dangerous-opening-for-the-right-in-canadaThe racist, anti-vaxx People's Party of Canada being the only party to have made significant gains in the recent election is a warning for the left, argues John Clarke In the recent Canadian federal election, the hard right and deeply racist People’s Party of Canada (PPC), increased its base of support considerably. The party is headed by former Tory MP and one time candidate for the leadership of that party, Maxime Bernier. A great deal of left social media commentary here has been quite smug and dismissive of the PPC, focusing on its failure to capture a single seat in Parliament for the second time since its formation in 2019. Yet, I would argue that this complacency is ill-advised. The harsh reality is that the ugly political message of the PPC resonated among a large enough minority of voters that we should be deeply concerned. It’s share of the popular vote, a mere 1.6% in 2019, increased to 5%, reaching 7.6% in the province of Alberta. That means that the number of voters supporting them went from less than 300,000 to over 800,000. As the results came in, Bernier (often referred to as ‘Mad Max’) was fully aware of the significance of the upsurge of support for his party and the threat it poses to his more moderate rivals, “You know what I’m saying is powerful, and you don’t want us to be powerful,” he said. “But we will be.” In positioning itself well to the right of the Tory Party and its leadership, the PPC has carved out a particular place for itself in Canadian politics and at a very dangerous time. It has become a gathering place, where those who have broken with mainstream conservatism but whose ideas are still in flux, can have political contact with those on the far right who have completed the journey. This became clear during the 2019 election, when Bernier, despite a public outcry, continued to make himself available for photo-ops with acknowledged fascists. He shrugged off criticisms of his conduct, even after the federal Minister of Public Safety condemned ‘Mr. Bernier’s attempt to legitimize this type of hatred.’ It isn’t hard to see why the white supremacist political fringe would see the PPC as a means of reaching a more mainstream audience. The party’s 2019 platform included ‘a promise to cut immigration and refugee numbers by as much as two thirds, after warning ‘extreme multiculturalism,’ will lead to ‘social conflicts and potentially violence.’ Bernier, moreover, played this racist card with persistence and determination, even ensuring that provocative billboards were erected across the country that declared, ‘Say NO to mass immigration,’ along with a call to vote for his party. The PPC also made gains and consolidated its links with the far right by embracing climate denial and enthusiastically supporting a call for the building of oil and gas pipelines. When a very sinister fascist front group called ‘United We Roll,’ organised ‘a convoy of a couple hundred trucks’ that travelled from Alberta to the parliament in Ottawa to call for pipeline construction, Bernier was among those waiting to greet them. Anti-vaxxer strategy During this election, while the racism of the PPC was still very clear, it also vigorously supported the present wave of right wing coronavirus denial and opposition to vaccination as its best means of gaining political momentum. PPC support for anti-vaxxer protests helped to give them a focus and to grow in strength. Bernier made sure to address such events, including one particularly high profile demonstration in Calgary. Party members and supporters played a major role in such activities across the country, including disruptive protests that targeted hospitals and even blocked ambulances. As a political representative of the neoliberal centre, Justin Trudeau is viewed by the far right as a globalist traitor. It is not surprising, then, that some of his campaign events were targeted by right wing protesters and PPC supporters were also very involved in this activity. One former party official was actually charged by the police over allegations that he threw gravel at Trudeau during a stop in London, Ontario. This combination of hard right policies and robust tactics has, once again, earned the PPC the admiration of fascists and white supremacists. Several such groups, including the Canadian Nationalistic Front, appealed to their supporters to vote for the PPC during the recent election. The PPC, like others before it on the right, is building support by posing as an ‘anti-establishment’ movement. It presents itself as a radical alternative to a tired and corrupt political elite that includes the Conservative Party. During the campaign, perhaps a little intoxicated by his own populist fervour, Bernier sent out a tweet in defence of vaccine refusal that declared ‘When tyranny becomes law, revolution becomes our duty.’ This brand of defiance that calculatedly sets itself apart from the political mainstream shouldn’t be underestimated for a moment. The PPC’s candidate in Oshawa, just to the east of Toronto, appeared to have been anything but demoralised over this failure to win a seat in parliament. A few days after the election, he staged a high profile anti-mask action in which he entered a local coffee shop and refused to cover his face. He declared this gesture to be a ‘sit-in against segregation’ and, shortly before carrying it out and being arrested, tweeted ‘It’s time for our Rosa Parks moment.’ As disgusting and offensive as this comparison certainly is, the issue here is that the PPC has a base that they understand well and they are playing to it with confidence. The Tories tried and failed to unseat the Trudeau Liberals in the last election with a calculated move towards the political centre that they must have known would cause considerable discontent within their core reactionary base of support. Already, during the election, the lure of the PPC cost the Tories some parliamentary seats but the fact that their gamble failed now leaves them even more vulnerable in the face of a far bolder brand of right wing politics. In truth, in comparison to the entire range of electoral alternatives in Canada, the PPC is the only party that is gaining ground to any significant extent. If it were able to increase its base of support in the next period to a degree comparable to that which it has achieved in its first two years of existence, it would have a formidable base of support across Canada and a sizable presence in parliament. Were that to happen, it would represent a dire threat that no one would be able to shrug off. The rapidly growing PPC is operating in a dangerous context of social and economic crisis that is likely to intensify. In these conditions, its racist and reactionary message is going to resonate. It functions as both a pole of attraction for those who are drawing conclusions to the right on mainstream conservatism and as a place of recruitment for fascists and white supremacists. As such it represents a serious danger to working class people and to communities who will face the racism it will promote and spread. It’s enormously important that the PPC not be treated as if its plaform were a part of acceptable political discourse. Working class organisations need to take to the streets to confront it and take up the struggles that can pose an alternative to the toxic message of hatred coming from the horribly misnamed People’s Party of Canada. Before you go...we need your help Counterfire is expanding fast as a website and an organisation. We are trying to organise a dynamic extra-parliamentary left in every part of the country to help build resistance to the government and their billionaire backers. If you like what you have read and you want to help, please join us or just get in touch by emailing info@counterfire.org. Now is the time!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 11, 2021 17:46:54 GMT
IS BORIS JOHNSON A LIAR? And if he is, why don’t his supporters seem to care? By Tom McTague www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/10/boris-johnson/620269/Afew months ago, I saw Boris Johnson recount a story about his life that I’d never heard before—and he said something that was not, strictly speaking, true. With most politicians, hearing a new tale can be unremarkable, but with Johnson—the subject of at least two biographies, countless newspaper and magazine articles, and someone who has been at the center of British political life for decades—almost everything that can be known about him is already known. Revelations that might once have troubled his ascent have long since lost their power to shock; character flaws are minimized in the public consciousness not through omission but through repetition.
|
|