recentpopularlog in

petej : extremism   447

« earlier  
Force Fed — Real Life
This was the dream of the early internet utopians: that “the web” was a form of real anarchy, a totally voluntary system of association, interest, and desire. But of course, the internet was created and has evolved to serve the needs of capital, not the people who use it. Technology companies have recognized the possibilities for social domination opened up by increasingly geographically dispersed workplaces and communities. And the algorithmic discipline they have developed has a corresponding geopolitical imaginary.

Unlike the liberals, who have proved utterly incapable of a coherent political vision moving forward, tech libertarians have recognized the imminent collapse of the nation-state and its nonsovereignty in the face of global capital. Seeing that London, Tokyo, and New York City have more in common with each other than with Birmingham, Osaka, or Albany, they envision the political return of much smaller sociopolitical units capable of serving as effective nodes in integrated global flows without all the hang-ups of nations, borders, or social services. The “neoreactionary” right wing of this group advocates the return of monarchy, while the Burning Man–types dream of seasteading city-states, or California splitting into six parts. But in all these visions, corporate sovereigns replace national ones. The internet economy is set up to deliver and manage such a world.

The tech-futurists are post-nationalists; theirs is a fundamentally different vision from that of the neo-fascists currently rising to power. The resurgent nationalism and ethno-fascism represented by the likes of Donald Trump are a counter-tendency that wants to reinvigorate the nation-state through virulent racism and hard borders. Despite their far-reaching hopes for ethnic cleansing, these neo-fascists lack a transformative economic vision. They may be able to plunder the wealth of the wrong types of people — queers, Black people, Muslims, immigrants, Jews — who their program of intensified policing, both at borders and internally, would make vulnerable to further robbery, low-wage exploitation, or prison enslavement. Combined with total deregulation and the selling off of what’s left of the social democratic state in one last cash grab, the strategy could offer continued profits and stability of the system for the medium term. But fascist nationalism has no more ability than neoliberalism to actually solve the economic crises of capitalism or save the nation-state.
games  gaming  YouTube  recommendations  algorithms  extremism  neo-Nazism  targeting  profiling  marketing  correlation  masculinity  whiteSupremacism  predictions  conformity  stereotyping  NRx  neoreactionism  libertarianism  post-nationalism  fascism 
4 weeks ago by petej
Trump, stochastic terror and the hate that ends in violence — Quartz
Back in 2011, an anonymous writer coined the term “stochastic terrorism” to refer to “the use of mass communication to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable,” or, in other words “remote control terror by lone wolf.”

Stochastic means “having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analysed statistically” but are hard to predict precisely. Vitriolic messages disseminated by pundits like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly will have the same effect as Osama bin Laden’s videotaped calls to violence, the writer warned way back in 2011.

Someone, somewhere, would react—it’s just hard to predict who and when.
USA  politics  terrorism  pipeBomb  SayocCesar  extremism  resentment  disaffection  media  incitement  farRight 
6 weeks ago by petej
Tommy Robinson and the far right’s new playbook | World news | The Guardian
The real challenge posed by the far right is its success at spreading anti-Muslim and xenophobic attitudes in society at large. The best defence is a political movement that has anti-racism at its core and seeks to give people greater democratic control over the way their society is organised and run. But this is about more than politics as a professional occupation: it involves all of us, and it is a matter of culture and institutions as much as elections or parliamentary debates. The leading far-right activists understand this, and the campaign around Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is just one symptom of a bigger problem – which must be challenged, locally and internationally, before it starts to do serious damage.
UK  politics  farRight  extremism  Islamophobia  RobinsonTommy  racism  xenophobia  EDL  contemptOfCourt  freedomOfSpeech  immigration  multiculturalism  BannonStephen  Breitbart  Internet  RebelMedia  FLA  DFLA  BNP  FrontNational  culture  9/11  warOnTerror  victimhood  media  publicity  authenticity  class  identity  austerity  exclusion  deindustrialisation  decline  dctagged  dc:creator=TrillingDaniel 
7 weeks ago by petej
Why is the far right dominated by men? | Cas Mudde | Opinion | The Guardian
But just like extreme right groups, many radical right parties espouse a strongly gendered discourse, in which they appeal to a frail masculinity, threatened by emasculating feminists, effeminate liberals, and overly virile “Others”. While women are mainly presented as victims, particularly of the latter – rape of white women by non-white men is an age-old favorite of the far right – men are called upon to protect their “nation” or “race”.

By defending their nation, and protecting their fragile women and children, men will not only regain their masculinity vis-a-vis “Other” men (eg black men, immigrants, Muslims) but also vis-a-vis their women. It restores the “natural” gender roles that decades of “cultural Marxism” threaten to destroy – which is, for example, why Viktor Orbán’s government is trying to shut down the gender studies departments in Hungary.
USA  politics  farRight  extremism  men  masculinity  victimhood  fear  nationalIdentity  gender  race  culture 
august 2018 by petej
The Sunday Essay: how we all colluded in Fortress Europe | Kenan Malik | Opinion | The Guardian
There is no iron law that says people must be irrevocably hostile to immigration. Many have become so because of the way that the issue has been framed by politicians on all sides. That framing has made immigration into a symbol of unacceptable change.

On the one hand, politicians have recognised a need for immigration. On the other, they have promoted the idea of immigration as a social problem that must be dealt with. At the same time, politicians often express disdain for those who express anxieties and fears about immigration, anxieties and fears that politicians often present as mere bigotry and racism. This poisonous mixture of necessity, fear and contempt has helped both to stigmatise migrants and create popular hostility towards the liberal elite for ignoring their views on immigration.

The contradictory needs and desires have also resulted in an incoherent, unworkable set of policies that have, paradoxically, been exacerbated by the development of free-movement policies within the EU. Freedom of movement is good and I am an advocate of such policy. The dream of free movement within the EU has, however, also spawned paranoia about the movement of people into the EU. The quid pro quo for Schengen has been the creation of a Fortress Europe, a citadel against immigration, watched over by a hi-tech surveillance system of satellites and drones and protected by fences and warships. When a journalist from Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine visited the control room of Frontex, the EU’s border agency, he observed that the language used was that of “defending Europe against an enemy”.
Europe  migration  migrants  refugees  crisis  Lampedusa  Mediterranean  sea  drowning  UK  Windrush  hostileEnvironment  France  MacronEmmanuel  Greece  Lesbos  fairness  borders  militarisation  OrbanViktor  politics  extremism  dctagged  dc:creator=MalikKenan 
june 2018 by petej
An attack on Syria could be disastrous. But the warmongers won’t be told | Owen Jones | Opinion | The Guardian
Syria is often presented as a case study of disastrous non-intervention. What utter rot. Syria has been a battleground for foreign powers, from Russia to the Gulf states, for years. The US has been bombing the country and supplying arms to rebels for some time. Our client states – the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Qatar – have funnelled weapons and billions of dollars into the conflict, backing extremist groups responsible for multiple atrocities. What has all this achieved, other than escalation and bodybags? There should be honesty among the war party, at the very least: its argument is not that there hasn’t been intervention, but that there hasn’t been enough intervention. No good can come of adding even more western missiles to Syria’s carnage. A military alliance with Trump in Syria can only escalate the horror of this war. And, unlike the politicians and commentators who brought us the quagmires of Iraq and Libya, the British public know it.
Syria  military  intervention  airstrikes  Iraq  Libya  MiddleEast  jihadism  extremism  interventionism  strategy  politics  dctagged  dc:creator=JonesOwen 
april 2018 by petej
« earlier      
per page:    204080120160

Copy this bookmark:





to read