Revolution begin because of a lack of economic parity, exploitation,inequality, injustice, and corruption. People slaving away not sharing in the fruits of their efforts, starving, deprived of education and opportunity, abused by authority, deprived of justice and law.
Often times in order to dissuade an oncoming revolution the authorities or power brokers lay blame on innocent people like gays or immigrants or minorities. However if in a just society there is still disenfranchisement of the middle and poor classes a right-wing revolution emerges. The revolution also blames the innocent for their problems, but they go much farther. They seize power and the corruption begins.
Steps:
1) Unrest-militants
2) Organization-brownshirts
3) Power-stormtroopers.
These are the tools and results of corrupt right-wing revolutions. The victims are the innocent and most importantly justice.
The fascist did it in Italy.
The Nationalist did it in Spain.
The NAZIs did it in Germany.
The communist did it in Russia (although not right-wing it became so after Stalin took over).
The republicans did it in the Soviet Union. (Started out for democracy, ended up an oligarchy)
The communist did it in China (again it didn't start out right-wing but ended up that way when they achieved power).
The communist did it in Cuba (another left wing revolution that became right-wing when they took power).
The communist did it in Vietnam (again a left wing revolution that went right-wing after obtaining power).
Very few revolutions were not corrupt. To mind the American revolution. The South African Revolution, and in the long run the French Revolution.
In the UK the UKIP is attempting this and in the USA the tea party is attempting this. Anytime a revolution touts nationalism, blames minorities and or other sectors of the populace, that revolution is corrupt and on the way to a dictatorial state.
Now some say this is not the case, but that is exactly what was said during the time of everyone of the past corrupt revolutions. The problem is that people don't see it. They don't want to see it. The perpetrators of the corrupt revolutions don't want you to know it and spin everything using propaganda to mislead you.
When investigating these groups one needs to look beyond their public image and propaganda. One needs to take account their actions and find out what their REAL beliefs are. One needs to notice which groups flock and endorse these groups, and which groups endorsement they accept. The UKIP and tea party of the USA are endorsed by white supremacy groups, nationalist and isolationist groups. The uneducated and easily manipulated are all in for the UKIP and the tea party of the USA. There is a reason.....they are basically stupid and easily influenced into hatred and bigotry.
The Brexit could embolden other racist groups in other European nations and cause a widespread bigotry war against immigrants and minorities. It doesn't stop there. These groups will lash out against all sorts of minorities claiming nationalism as justification.
Look who benefited the most from Brexit....Putin, that's who. That should tell you enough about Brexit, the UKIP and the tea party in the USA!
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
The UK doesn't determine its membership of the EU by what Putin and a bunch of extremists think.
"When investigating these groups one needs to look beyond their public image and propaganda. One needs to take account their actions and find out what their REAL beliefs are." How? What are the illegitimate 'actions' of UKIP? Is it right to guess, infer or assign intentions to them? Should the people do that to the USA in general? (As if they don't do that too much already). Some people become extreme when their legitimate concerns are dismissed as racist, "stupid" or just not listened to, so it is important not to do that.
Brexit is about whether the UK is economically better off inside an EU that can't be reformed, that few Europeans understand and that seems to provide a lot of expense and bureaucracy for little extra economic growth.
To quote you from another thread, "Have you noticed how Trump has chimed in? He thinks he is leading a world movement. He's not. It is the same old story about people that fear without cause are easily manipulated into acting against their own interest."
Zeff, 2 trillion dollars have already been loss from the world economy because of Brexit. If you don't understand what is going on let me break it down for you.
1) The is a xenophobia faction in the UK much like the tea party in the USA that put out propaganda and voted for Brexit.
2) There are a number of uninformed voters in the UK that didn't even know what the EU is and voted for Brexit.
3) There is frustration among Brits that have seen there wages stagnate while the top 1% have significantly become even richer that voted for Brexit as a protest.
Now there is buyer's remorse as the people of the UK realize what they have done. The faction leading Brexit are just like the tea party. The UKIP is a xenophobic organization that used propaganda preying on bigotry and fear to push for a referendum that seriously hurt the economy of the UK and the world.
It's just like the tea party that wants to bring down any and all central governing bodies.
The British pound is at an all time low. 2 trillion dollars have evaporated from the economy. The aged Brits that voted for Brexit just lost their retirement and they won't get it back. The UK just removed themselves from the table in world affairs and rendered the UK insignificant. The Russian position in the world economy just became very very strong as a result of Brexit.
The EU became significantly weaker in dealing with foreign affairs and the world economy.
@mykob4 - I completely agree with you here. This is rampant xenophobia. Its based on insane propaganda however the voter is not as much uninformed but rather wilfully ignorant.
The same biases have gripped India. We have a murderous maniac as our Prime Minister who has been implicated for genocide in His home state. And despite that he won the elections and his popularity seems to increase.
The tragedy of wilful ignorance is that the people themselves chose to be led astray until they are completely and utterly devastated and only then when all will be lost will they dare turn toward reason.
Donald Trump with his rampant racism and xenophobia seems to be headed to a victory. In fact The seemingly best candidate america could hope for at the time was voted out of the democratic primary (asI believe he was considered not winnable) in favour of someone more likely to be implicated.
Brexit was a stupid knee jerk reaction to the fear of immigration. Its just like religion. They want to shut their eyes and keep repeating a mantra hoping it will work out or some saviour will deliver them and will not open their eyes and look to reason.
"The same biases have gripped India. We have a murderous maniac as our Prime Minister who has been implicated for genocide in His home state. And despite that he won the elections and his popularity seems to increase." Projection of India's problem onto the UK.
I fully understand why it looks like this: "Brexit was a stupid knee jerk reaction to the fear of immigration." I think that is part but not most of the story and I don't think the majority of UK electors want a Brexit.
Many people saw the EU as an unnecessary bureaucracy and expense. Even worse, many people had no idea what the EU was. Ask the average Brit who the President of the EU is, what the difference is between the Council of Ministers and the EU Commission and you'll get a very blank look. This is more due to UKGov incompetence than anything.
And there is remarkably little buyers remorse - yet. Brexiteers still seem convinced it will work out for the best and as Mr Cameron says they can have "close ties with Europe". What makes me laugh (if that's permitted) is that to get a good trade deal I suspect UKGov will have to accept at least as much immigration as is involved in being part of the EU.
The main problem though, I think, is that Scotland has no intention of leaving the EU, so there are two changes required at this time: one is the independence of Scotland from the UK and the other is the remaining part of the UK to leave the EU.
The sad thing is that this could have been put right with more time, information and with competent leadership. That was done in Denmark and Ireland in the last 25 years.
I think this will prove to be bad news for the UK, for Europe and for the Free World, in that order. The EU needs to bear some responsibility too. If it were reasonably efficient and an organization that could attract and retain members countries like Norway would want to join and not just Turkey and Ukraine. Other countries have been considering referendums and it will take more than "you had better not or else" to stop them. That (I think wrongly) perceived view of the EU certainly created some Brexiteers too. It was the leading factor in making me consider Brexit seriously and I was fully conscious that it could mean an independent Scotland.
I agree that the EU does bear some responsibility, but one cannot deny that the driving promotion for Brexit was the xenophobic propaganda that blamed innocent immigrants for British problems.
I strongly deny it, Myke. I do not deny there are prejudiced and racist people in the UK, but they aren't what this is about.
Reports of racist and xenophobic crime in London (for example) went up by 57% from a relatively low base compared with the past, but news coverage about it went up many-fold as many news media couldn't sell pages of details such as those I list. There is xenophobia and the far right, but they have to be kept in proportion. They didn't drive Brexit.
With all the talk of “it’s like the Tea Party” or “it’s like Modi’s murderous way”, what all this was originally about seems to have been forgotten. Mr Cameron observed how divided the Tory Party was over Europe and how disenchanted people were with the EU, not that they understood what it was or how it worked. He said he would obtain enough reforms or he would lead the UK out of the EU personally. This was what was obtained...
Source:
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/the-eight-eu-reforms-david-came...
Quote: Here's exactly what he wants from Brussels...
1. An agreement that the “ever-closer union” laid down in EU treaties does not apply to the UK.
2. An end to ‘benefit tourism' from EU migrants who allegedly do not come to the UK to work but for its welfare state.
3. More power for national governments, less power in Brussels.
4. Powers allowing “groups” of states to reject unwanted EU legislation.
5. New controls on immigration from new members as they join the EU.
6. An end to “unnecessary interference” from the European Convention on Human Rights.
7. Fewer regulations and an end to “excessive interference” by the EU in how businesses are run.
8. Limits on the right of citizens of countries already in the EU to migrate to the UK to find work – the most-important of the so-called “red lines” and the one that could be hardest to achieve.
Here’s what HE SAID got:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-commons-statement-on-eu-reform...
He obtained concessions under four headings:
Financial Protection. (Keeping the £. Safeguards for those EU countries outside the Euro Zone. Securing trade in services, esp financial & banking.)
European Competitiveness. (Less bureaucracy and direction regarding trade with states like USA, Commonwealth, Japan freely)
Migration. (More control over who comes in and who receives benefits and health care)
Powers for UK Parliament. (No “ever closer union” for the UK, despite those words in the EU Treaties).
He said he’d got what he went there for. He didn’t. What happened was that people looked at what he said he’d got and decided that wasn’t reform enough. The logic of that, many people naturally thought, was to leave the EU. I could go into more detail, but you can read the reaction for yourself (Feb & Mar 2016) and you will find few were much impressed, in any political party. There wording of ‘ever closer union’ remained in the Treaties, though the UK might be seen to have an opt-out. There was really no compromise on the four ‘Key Principles’ of the EU which are Free movement of goods, workers, services and capital.
http://www.europeanpolicy.org/en/european-policies/single-market.html
Forget the far right and conspiracy theories. This is and was what the referendum was about. It isn't about some international conspiracy or prejudice. I considered Brexit. It was and is a serious matter. The EU had grown bureaucratic, remote, undemocratic and was seen to interfere with lawmaking in the UK, with daily life and with many businesses who said the UK would be better off outside the EU.
The saddest thing about this though, is that most Brits don't want Brexit. I can't back it up but, like me, 28% of people didn't vote and I think most of us would have voted for Remain. Brexit won by less than 52% to over 48% of those who voted. And this could be turned around yet, with good leadership if the 1972 EU act isn't repealed and Article 50 isn't invoked. Small hope perhaps, but there is some.
And the figures you mentioned about financial losses are not more than everyone was warned of before the referendum. The question for many of us was "are we trapped in this EU, or free to leave?" Junker said before the referendum, "if you're out, you're out", nothing enticing about it. Most people expected Remain to win as noted by Nyarlathotep's stated odds of 4 to 1 against Brexit.