244
submitted 2 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

“Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die," Elon Musk told the large crowds at Saturday's “Unite the Kingdom” rally.

More than 100,000 people descended on Britain’s capital on Saturday for one of the country’s largest far-right rallies in decades.

The “Unite the Kingdom” rally was organized by Tommy Robinson, a convicted fraudster with a violent criminal record, and attended by billionaire Elon Musk via video link. Amid a sea of flag-waving and soccer-style chanting from large crowds that exceeded expectations, violent clashes with police led to dozens of arrests.

It came amid a surge of nationalism in the U.K., with a far-right party topping the polls, and the murder of American conservative activist Charlie Kirk — an assassination Robinson used to mobilize support in the run-up to the event.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] petrjanda@gonzo.markets 5 points 2 months ago

Right wingers in Europe are becoming more and more radicalised. I can see it everywhere but EU has itself to blame due to its failed immigration policy particularly from Africa and middle East.

[-] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 38 points 2 months ago

Congratulations on buying the propaganda you absolute chode of a human being. You're doing exactly what Elon and all these fucking idiots want.

[-] petrjanda@gonzo.markets 4 points 2 months ago

Here's a lesson you can learn, you want to be heard? Don't be a rude prick, I'm entitled to opinion as much as anyone. I'm actually pro migration.

[-] Lumisal@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

You're entitled to an opinion. You're not entitled to be respected for it.

Opinions precede action.

[-] petrjanda@gonzo.markets 2 points 2 months ago

Actually, opinions are the foundation of democracy and therefore must be respected always. You might not agree with someone's opinion but I'm not here to convince you otherwise. You are clearly here because your extremist voice and flagrant disrespect of anyone you disagree with stands in your own personal development. People like you are the reason the right wingers become more extreme. Proof of the matter is obvious everywhere in Europe. Politicians don't respect the wishes of the people who elected them. The EU has had an immigration problem for at least a decade , they are now electing extremist and populist politicians out of desperation that their voice isn't heard. Populist parties rise to power out of general unhappiness of the electorate, not the other way around.

You might not like them, hell I certainly don't but you cant change the society in a few years, it takes decades, even hundreds of years. Feel free to drown yourself in the sorrows of your utopia when right wing nutters are being elected all around Europe.

[-] Lumisal@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Opinions are the foundation of all ideologies. Hitler's opinions on undesirables for example.

The reason right wingers become more extreme is because of allowing their opinion on violence go unchecked lets them begin to actually start practicing it. Even the Charlie Kirk killer was a Trumpist who thought Kirk was too much to the left.

The issue in humanity has always been that the left has always only fought back once things become dire. They've only ever functioned as a check to a society's collapse rather than a deterrent to it's downward decline. If the left actually adhered to the paradox of intolerance, then society and humankind would progress much faster, because those who are a factual detriment to society - the greedy, the power hungry, the psychopathic - wouldn't be allowed to gain power, either permanently or through meaningful consequences.

The issue is the left is inherently peaceful to a fault. They don't actually go out and start punching let alone killing until it's too late and they've literally been forced into it.

It's also why rarely does violence actually permanently fix things - because those willing to do it usually want power rather than justice, and even if that is the case, it does not remain permanent policy.

But then, being reactionary rather than preventative to threats has always been the greatest fault of humanity, but especially the left. Not being aggressive with aggressors early on, not dealing with climate change until it's kinda too late, etc.

[-] petrjanda@gonzo.markets 1 points 2 months ago

And democracy is an ideology that we are supposed to follow. That ideology comes mostly in the form of representative democracy where you elect someone that is supposed to represent your group.

You don't know if Tyler Robinson is left or right , that is all media speculation at this stage. As someone that lived behind the iron curtain, the concept that left is inherently peaceful is complete nonsense. Neither left or right is inherently violent or peaceful. Violence of the far left and far right is always a result of someone who thinks their ideology is superior, disregards all moral grounds, and forces their will and/or dogma on somebody else. Leninist-Marxist, PLO, Earth Liberation Front, too many examples to list. I do agree that the left is generally less violent today.

[-] Lumisal@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

As someone who lived behind the iron curtain, you may not realize this, but people lie.

Something or someone calling itself leftist does not mean it is. The USSR pretending to have been socialist is about as authentic as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea being a democracy.

Earth Liberation Front is about the most violent actual leftists example you listed, and even they pale in comparison to what the right wing does, and is again an appropriate response mechanism for permanently altering the climate of the entire planet in a devastating way for the fictional concept of money we have collectively decided to value. If anything, again proving my point of too little too late when you consider the consequences, and considering they formed back when there was acid rain literally happenings due to pollution.

The right is inherently violent because it's an ideology of power and authority, not union and equality. Belief in power and authority is inherently violent, because subjection of humans goes against the inherent will of personhood, and will inevitably lead to conflict. The pursuit of power is also inherently violent, because it requires therefore forceful subjection. That's why all authoritarian governments are right wing.

I can think of only one example in recent human history that broke that mold - only one dictator that, as far as I know, sought power solely for the purpose of improving their country and the lives of people while eliminating corruption, that being Lee Kwan Yu. They were the closet I've seen to an actual violent leftist ideology, and their governmental system remains an outlier in that it's a democratic competitive authoritarian system.

[-] petrjanda@gonzo.markets 1 points 2 months ago

Thanks for proving all my points. In one paragraph you justify left wing violence as long as the cause is honourable, and in another paragraph, you claim the eastern block socialists as not really left wing.

I've got some news for you. They were as left wing and as forceful as they come. You didn't own property , everything was state owned, society was very progressive (abortions were legal - ex USSR , socialised medicine, free schooling all the way to getting a job, gender equality, LGBT rights were a lot further than in the west).

Conservatism/right-wing is not inherently violent, that's fodder. Some societies are more conservative than others. There are even right wing libertarians. It becomes evil when it seeks to impose its will over minorities or majorities, and in effect invalidate their voice. There are many examples of this from the left and the right (more right for sure).

If you are not a centrist, you are a dogmatic

[-] Lumisal@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Everything being state owned isn't leftist, at all. That's straight up authoritarian. Putin has almost everything owned by the state too - are you seriously going to call him a leftists??? Sprinkling in some civil rights so the state machine runs better does not a leftist state make. And actual libertarianism is solidly center neutral. Right wing libertarianism is an oxymoron.

But, there's no point in discussing the situation further with someone who still has past traumas from an authoritarian regime.

[-] petrjanda@gonzo.markets 1 points 2 months ago

State ownership of means of production is the very definition of state socialism, thus removing power from the capitalists, which is strictly an implementation of the leftist ideology. I have no trauma, I just don't live in a lala land. I'm sure you spend a great amount of time thinking about what society could be, instead of accepting what it is and dealing with it. Libertarianism, centrist? Oh please. Its very foundation is rooted in anarchist concepts, distinctively left wing ideology.

I agree there is no point discussing things any further. Just keep dreaming of your utopia, eventually you will grow up.

[-] Lumisal@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

State ownership of means of production is the very definition of state socialism

Except there's also state capitalism. The bloc may have been started with the intention of state socialism (doubtful, since we're talking about Stalin here), but it was definitely run as a state capitalist system, as most authoritarian governments do - including modern Russia.

Libertarianism, centrist? Oh please. Its very foundation is rooted in anarchist concepts

Just because something is rooted in concepts that might be left (or right) wing, doesn't mean the thing itself is at the same level (much like Stalinism).

Libertarianism itself is strongly center.

It's offshoots, like Libertarian Socialism, are what's left or right wing ideology.

Again, you don't actually know your politics, instead shaping your perception on things based off experience, not what they really are.

[-] nialv7@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

That's just not true. They are radicalized by lies, propaganda and the hate spread by right wing grifters.

[-] petrjanda@gonzo.markets 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This is not a chicken and egg problem. Extremists are a result of society's ailments, not the other way around. . I'll give you a few examples from the 20th century.

  • Hitler - became leader of Germany because of the impact WW1 had on German society
  • Al Queda/ISIS - got into position of power due to the suppression of moderate leaders by authoritarian regimes ie. Taliban.
  • IRA - the discrimination of Irish Catholics by the British-protestant colonialist.
  • Khmer Rouge - got into power due to Vietnam war bombing of Cambodia.
  • Kokutai - the perceived betrayal by the west after WW1 (yes Japan fought against Germany in WW1), lead to the rise of extremist ideologies which supplanted Japan's desire to fight against the West.
[-] nialv7@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

Sure, but the ailment of our time is not immigrants. It's wealth inequality, it's 1% enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else, it's unchecked self-destructive capitalism.

Rich people are the problem, not immigrants. And it's lie and propaganda that drove people to believe otherwise.

[-] petrjanda@gonzo.markets 2 points 2 months ago

That is true about the state of capitalism today. However, you choose not to see the relationship between the inherent nature of human tribalism, which is as old as humanity itself, and seeing a large influx of aliens in your tribe, as part of that same tribal nature. If you want to change the human nature, you will require a long time, if it's at all possible. The left, just like the right, gets caught up in the cycle of "we have power, we can do everything we want, and we want do it now" when these deep societal changes require very long time to be implemented peacefully, perhaps the length of a life time.

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

got into position of power due to the suppression of moderate leaders by authoritarian regimes ie. Taliban

The Taliban came long after Al-Qaida and had very similar ideology. They were organised and funded by the Pakistani security service, the IIS. The original Taliban groups were Pakistani seminary students harassing the less backward elements of Pakistani society. The movement was later spread to Afghanistan. And the Taliban were allied with Al-Qaida, never attempted to suppress them. Some other Middle Eastern governments tried to suppress them (Saddam's Iraq, successfully; Egypt's corrupt military junta, far less so). The Taliban hosted Al-Qaida fighters and training camps, and elements of the Pakistani military provided Bin Laden with safe haven on a military base.

Al-Qaida started as a Wahhabi-based xenophobic movement to purge Saudi Arabia of Western influence. The Wahhabi movement itself was a fanatical Sunni movement founded over 200 years ago with the intent to exterminate non-Sunni Muslims and non-Muslims. The Saudi and Qatari royal families are Wahhabi. The former from a more virulent faction than the latter.

Anyway, that's just one of your bullet points dismantled. In general, the idea that every group of extremists was somehow inevitably caused by some kind of social upheaval or injustice is simplistic and has no predictive value.

[-] petrjanda@gonzo.markets 1 points 2 months ago

Furthermore, while not every extremist group formed because of society ailments it is** a well known factor recognised by scholars*.

There is robust evidence that radicalisation is a social process and that identity is a key factor in why individuals become involved in violent movements. In conflicts involving violent extremism (as opposed to terrorism directed against the West), socio-economic discrimination and marginalisation do help to explain why extremist groups are able to recruit support in large numbers (Allan, Glazzard, et Al. 2015)

[-] petrjanda@gonzo.markets 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Sorry the inclusion of Taliban was a mistake, was typing too quickly. What I meant to say was the Afghan Marxist government .

Studying the history of al-Qaeda is a key to understanding the ideology and even the mentality of the movement as a whole. It began in Afghanistan in 1979 in response to the introduction of Soviet troops into the country, which caused an influx of foreign fighters from all over the Islamic world. > (Vasiliev & Zherlitsyna, 2023)

Why did the Soviets invade Afghanistan?

In April 1978 Afghanistan’s centrist government, headed by Pres. Mohammad Daud Khan, was overthrown by left-wing military officers led by Nur Mohammad Taraki. Power was thereafter shared by two Marxist-Leninist political groups, the People’s (Khalq) Party and the Banner (Parcham) Party—which had earlier emerged from a single organization, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan—and had reunited in an uneasy coalition shortly before the coup. The new government, which had little popular support, forged close ties with the Soviet Union, launched ruthless purges of all domestic opposition, and began extensive land and social reforms that were bitterly resented by the devoutly Muslim and largely anti-communist population. > (Encyclopaedia Britannica , 2025)

The aim of the Soviet operation was to prop up their new but faltering client state

There you go.

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

Right wingers in Europe are becoming more and more radicalised

I'm not sure about more radicalised, but they're more evidently centrally organised, well-funded, emboldened and numerous. Like a plague of fucking locusts. There's serious money coming in from other countries to fan these flames. Don't pretend this is a spontaneous expression of anything, it's a fucking rent-a-crowd. I've seen the ones in my city in England. They were all bussed in.

EU has itself to blame due to its failed immigration policy particularly from Africa and middle East.

You make it sound as if those hooligans are voicing legitimate grievances. That's no more the case than saying the same about Krstallnacht. The arseholes in London were marching in favour of burning women and children in refugee hostels.

this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2025
244 points (100.0% liked)

World News

51206 readers
2219 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS