The break down of modern society: is this the inevitable march to WWIII?

Around 15 years ago, the (once) highly popular BBC Today program introduced a forum on the internet. I was an active member of that forum, with views not that dissimilar to the broadcasters: but working in industry, I was far more pragmatic and worldly and so far more aware of the need to encourage engineering, industry and profit.
However, I began to notice a new phenomenon (new to me). What I observed were individuals who desperately wanted to talk about immigration. At first, like the BBC staff, I assume they were racist, but I came to realise as I read what they wrote, that each and every time they tried to raise the subject – whilst I could see nothing wrong in what they said – the BBC moderators would just close down the discussion and ban those individuals who attempted to raise the subject.

No discussion at all – absolutely nothing – was allowed about immigration.

So, 15 years later, you can imagine how sickening I now feel to find the same intolerant BBC people, going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on …. about immigration at every news. And, far from seeing that their fascist intolerance 15 years ago was unjustified, they have the same pro-immigration views. So, I know that everything they broadcast about immigration is the most politically slanted and biased claptrap.
My wife insists on listening to the news. But after what I’ve seen and heard and found said by the BBC about sceptics and now their hypocrisy about immigration, I cannot stand listening to them wringing crocodile tears about an issue they largely caused. Now cynically using the horror of war to continue to promote their same fascist views on an open door to immigration. So I’ve moved out of the living room at night.
However, that has not stopped this immigration topic intruding. For what do I find on the internet? Last night I was reading yet again of the 1400% rise in rape cases in Sweden. As someone supporting women’s rights (if they need support – which is largely no longer the case) but yes I will support the right of women! And one of those rights is to live free from the fear of rape. So, I am sickened by the way so called “feminists” (like e.g. the BBC & Scotland’s Lesley Riddoch) seem to endorse these atrocious rapes by censoring any mention of them (at least up until the point I stopped watching the BBC).
And what is the result? In Sweden immigration centres are being burnt down. I can see the logic: people do not want a society where rape cases go up 14x largely and there is compelling evidence (from the internet) that this is directly linked to the immigration of men with different attitudes toward women. And if the government – and by them the law – will not stop these illegal actions, then people really have no choice but to make the law themselves, and take the law into their own hands.

In other words Swedish society is breaking down.

For what constitutes “the law” is not what some stupid politicians or worse, some PC broadcaster tells everyone else should happen, but instead it is a consensus amongst society. And if politicians ignore that consensus and instead impose their own values, then there is no real consensus and so there is no credible law.
However, the world has always had stupid politicians, we’ve always had immigration “crisis” so there is really nothing new in stupid politicians behaving stupidly on immigration. So what is new?

The Internet

What is different now, is that the internet is creating an inverted society where news is in control of the masses. For whereas in the past, it was the political “elite” (politicians, journalists) who worked together to control the news that we, the “masses” would hear, now it is the vast bulk of people on blogs, twitter, facebook, etc., who are deciding for ourselves what news we wish to hear, and in turn to broadcast, and also most importantly from whom we wish to hear it.
For in times gone by, the government in Sweden could and would repress all press coverage of the massive rise in rapes, not so much by any direct control of the press, but just because the only journalists who ever got on in that society, were those who shared the same PC values as the politicians in power. And this cartel was the political “elite”. They not only generated the news, they decided also what was newsworthy and if any dared to divert from the PC view, they were ostracised along with their organisation. Thus all that mattered in a society like Sweden, was the consensus amongst this political “elite”, who need have no care at all for the multitude of different views of the masses they controlled. (Unless they could organise on national scales like Unions).
And of course, the political “elite” are not only powerful, they are rich, they don’t share any of the problems of the poor and repressed who are the first to suffer from immigration as they have to share their social space with the very different cultures immigrants bring.
But now, more and more, as access to the internet and social media spreads, the news is coming directly from those poor and oppressed who suffer most from the stupidity and hypocrisy of the supposed political “elite”. But that is not so much the problem; it is this: that news is now bypassing the “PC elite” in the press/media altogether.
The reason, is that People like me have just stopped reading the press, stopped listening to the BBC, and now virtually every bit of news I get is from the internet. But worse, people like me, with an interest in politics, who would once have worked strenously to get the press to publish our views – so worked tirelessly to convince the press our views were credible – now can’t be bothered to try to get the press on our side or persuading them of our views and values.
Because why waste time and effort writing 1000 letters on the lack of global warming in the hope of getting one published – and then in the most condescending way possible by the press (usually lying overtly about their views as they did about me) – when I can write 1000 articles and reach many more people through the internet?
If your views or interests are at all different from the “PC elite” – then quite obviously there is very little point trying to get your views aired through them. But the result is that the “PC elite” are now growing more and more out of touch with the rest of society. There are now whole communities of interests that have grown up on the internet whose views are at odds with the PC elite, but who now have just as much, or indeed more, influence than the once “mainstream media”. For they are no longer “mainstream” – social media is now the “mainstream” and the press is increasingly a minority interest.
And the result, is that we are now having a two part or even many divided society. The political “elite” still have politicians talking to their journalists, who then like a mirror, write or broadcast back to the political “elite” a world in their own image. Then there is the  internet: a warren of news and stories which the PC “elite” cannot stomach and will not touch. And that is very different from the past, because that “warren” is the vast mainstream of society – one the PC elite never liked – but one in former years they couldn’t totally ignore. Because for obvious reasons the huge power and force of mainstream opinion of the vast bulk of society could and would (from time to time) force itself onto the political “elite” and demand to have its issues and stories printed and broadcast.
But NOW!! Why would anyone in the mainstream of society now bother to waste huge amounts of time and effort on the turnip heads of the press, in an almost futile attempt to be heard through them? And even if one individual tries (like I did), the practical reality is that very few other people of the same interest can be bothered to attempt the fruitless task of being heard through the PC elite. Because everyone else with the same interest is publishing and broadcasting with very little hassle through the mainstream media of the internet. The result is that the PC-elite, not only do not share our views, but unlike former years, very few outsiders bother to try to contact the PC-elite. Thus the PC-elite (who never wanted to hear non-PC views) very easily perceives the small minority who do now try to contact them as a minuscule and irrelevant “bunch of nutters” who they think they can ignore.
The result is I believe, that as alternative communities (like climate) have matured on the internet, the “elite-stream” of news, has become more and more divorced from the reality of rest of society. But also each of those individual communities is also divorced from the rest of society and because the “PC-elite”  is no longer relevant to so many, it is no longer acting as a social glue holding society together.
As a result,those like the BBC have become more and more fascist in their promotion of PC, more and more hostile to any other views. And likewise we outside the BBC are becoming more and more fed up and hostile to the BBC views and the rest of the PC elite. And as a result, the politically “elite” are being divorced. The final result (as in immigration policy) is that this out-of-touch PC elite are pursuing more and more insane and nutty policies – almost completely oblivious to the huge mainstream view against them on the internet.

The Rise of fascism

For those of my age, politics was neatly packaged by the (once) mainstream media into right & left. I’ve never liked these terms, because they imply there is only one facet to politics and that nothing else matters. And now, I particularly dislike them, because if anything divides society (having seen how “right” and “left”, translate into climate) it is that the left are pro the public sector and the right are pro the private sector.
However, I’ve now come to realise that political labels are really just means of social control. They are used to distinguish people by their distance from the views of the former mainstream media: the “PC-elite”. You were “left” if you were too pro the ordinary people and workers, and “right” if you were too pro business. Thus the real grade of a politician was not left or right, for those in the centre pretty much share the views of the PC-elite, but instead the real purpose of political labels is to distinguish who is “far-left” or “far-right” or “extreme-left/right” – the important element being “far” or “extreme”, being simply a way to denigrate and devalue non PC views disliked by the PC “elite”.
For, let’s be honest: those like the BBC are fascists. Not in the sense of “far-right” or even “far-left” but in the sense of fascist in their push to the supposed “political correct” centre. The repression of discussion on immigration was and remains a hallmark of their fascist culture. Fascist, not in the sense of far-different “from the view of the broadcast elite” (as it was used), but fascist in the sense of dogmatically enforcing the view of the PC “elite”.
But the craziness is that fascism breeds fascism. For in the same way that PC fascism led to a nutty open-door policy on immigration it now looks almost inevitable, that there will be a backlash of anti-immigration fascism. And it will be caused not so much by the immigrants, but the strength of opposition will stem from the stupidity, intolerance and vitriolic nature of those like the BBC reporting on this issue. And thus, I fear this new anti-immigration fascism is likely to be a mirror image of that intolerant hateful PC pro-immigration fascism we now see in the BBC and other hateful campaign groups.
In other words, we are likely to see the same, stupid, intolerance and vitriol that is endemic in organisations like the BBC, permitting, encouraging and even in some sense endorsing, the development of similarly vile anti-immigration fascism.

And I don’t like the look of it one bit!

Which is why I’m not going to be cowered like some timerous beastie by previous vile treatment by the Glasgow Herald, and I am being frank and honest about my views.

Stupidly intolerantly promoting tolerance

Note the stupidity here: by those like the BBC being intolerantly obsessive about everyone being “tolerant”, the practical reality of what happened means the idiots in power have created a massive problem (as shown in Sweden) which looks bound to create … an intolerantly obsessive intolerance of “tolerance”.
And worse, because the political “elite” are now so stuck up the backside of the once “mainstream media” that they can’t see the political reality of what is happening, they are largely unaware both of the growing issues they – the PC “elite” created BUT WORSE of their own weakening influence and power in society.

WWIII

The one thing I know for sure, having seen the PC social drivel that comes out of Universities (Lewandowsky), is that everything they write about the rise of fascism will be laced with a very skewed PC view of history. Thus I can predict the “cause” of the rise of the Nazis will be ascribed by the PC-elite to the failure of the Nazis to be politically correct. That is, the “cause” of WWII will be falsely ascribed to the failure of the German people to adopt the social and political values prevalent in Universities. Thus, I am fairly sure that the real cause of Nazism – and presumably WWII, will be to a large degree unreported, unrecorded and undiscussed.

And that scares me

So, I will admit I have very little idea what the real cause of WWII will have been. And that scares me, when I see the rise of PC fascism and the counter-rise of anti-PC fascism.
Yes, there is a “politically correct” narrative of what caused Nazism and that this Nazism is supposed to be the direct cause of WWIII. However, I know longer believe much I read from Universities and particularly things they disagree with and so I’ve no doubt the literature on WWII will be completely politically biased toward the “PC elite”. By simple logic, I can propose an alternative: that Nazism was a threat to the PC “elite” of Europe and far from Nazism causing WWII, it was this political “elite” itself who could not stomach this threat to their power who are largely responsible for triggering Nazism and WWII. I’m not saying that is true – I’m just saying I cannot dismiss it as a possibility.
If so, we may be much closer to WWIII, than anyone could possibly imagine. Because, from what I am seeing in the social media, the political “elite” and their stooges in the once “mainstream media” are now so far out of touch and also so much less powerful in their social influence, that if Nazism were the voice of ordinary people – and it led to WWII, then it seems only logical that the rise of similarly anti-PC fascist parties will inevitably lead to a real prospect of WWIII. And (seeing what is happening in social media) it may not be that far away.

A call for sanity

As I’ve said numerous times before, the internet is fundamentally changing society in a way that whilst partly predictable – is also largely unpredictable.
So, the importance of this dialogue, is not to excuse the Nazis, nor (however much I like it, given their disgusting treatment and hatred of sceptics) to attack the once “mainstream media” & BBC, but to try to understand what factors led to WWII and their relevance (if any) to modern society. Because if we are to stop such a situation developing in society today – and not like immigration suffer decades during which all discussion was repressed, only to find the discussion happens after the problem is so massive it cannot be ignored – we have to find a way to start discussing the real causes of war outwith the distorted and now largely irrelevant domain of the PC elite.
Hopefully by understanding those factors which really led to WWII (not the false PC-narrative), we may be able to prevent a similar set of conditions arising and so prevent WWIII.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The break down of modern society: is this the inevitable march to WWIII?

  1. Mark Hodgson says:

    An interesting analysis. I don’t by any means go so far down the road in my conclusions as you do, but I share your views to an extent.
    I have long thought that the PC obsession with “tolerance” is taken too far – it includes tolerance of intolerant movements, but is intolerant towards those who don’t share their tolerance of intolerance. It gets quite difficult when, for instance, the Courts will be called upon to adjudicate relevant rights between, say, freedom of religion on the one hand (which we are supposed to be tolerant of) and sexual freedom (including sexual orientation), for example, on the other hand, when some religions (towards which we are supposed to show tolerance) don’t share our toleration of sexual freedom and sexual orientation.
    Immigration is, understandably, an emotive issue. One has to be careful here, even disregarding the PC media, for fear of causing unnecessary offence (which we should all strive to avoid). However, the Sweden example is germane at the moment. This, for example, is from Reuters after a quick internet search:
    “The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats are the country’s largest party with 25 percent support, an opinion poll from YouGov showed on Thursday.
    “In last year’s election, the Sweden Democrats more than doubled their support and won 13 percent of the vote, becoming the third largest party, on an agenda to cut the number of asylum seekers coming to Sweden by 90 percent.
    “Anti-immigrant sentiment has been on the rise in Sweden, a country which has seen the number of asylum seekers increase to record levels and accepted the highest number of asylum immigrants per capita in the European Union last year.
    “Racially motivated hate crimes have also been rising and there have been several attacks on asylum centres after an Eritrean man whose asylum application had recently been rejected killed two in a knife attack at an IKEA store on Aug. 10.”
    The extremely sad irony is that policies of great toleration towards immigrants and immigration is driving people into the hands of extremists, who (rightly or wrongly) don’t like what is happening to their country. I hasten to add that I abhor these types of extremists. The problem is that the liberal PC elite, as you observe, no longer hear mainstream views, and so they don’t understand the law of unintended consequences – in this case, that extreme liberality can lead to extreme intolerance as a direct consequence. And while I’m sure this is the last thing the liberal elite wants, they need to think a bit harder, and to listen to a few more people, before they decide on their next liberal PC policy. Not everyone is the same as them, and however laudable many of their aims are, they may – and increasingly have – backfire(d).

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      Thanks – I suppose the question I really wanted to ask is whether similar social conditions are starting to appear now as appeared in Germany in the early 20th century. And perversely the tolerance of hate speech (so long as it is hated groups like Paedophiles) is actually promoting and endorsing a culture of ignorant hate speech and stereotyping which is in turn legitimising hate speech by anti-immigration groups.
      And we’ve all seen what a horrible mess the BBC and politicians made on something as simple as climate where there is clear unequivocal evidence (no adverse trends, no melting, etc.). If they can ignore the evidence so blatantly on science, there isn’t a hope they will head the evidence in areas where the evidence is more nebulous in social issues like immigration.
      But my big concern, is that whereas at school and through repeated TV, I was taught the Nazis were uniquely horrific, now I’ve been studying history and can put them in the context of a longer time-period, I don’t see them as very different from many other elites. So, by inference, it is just a question of time before the next regime like that appears – and the more people deny it could ever happen and “we aren’t like that” – the more likely it is to happen soon.

      • Mark Hodgson says:

        Terrifyingly, the Nazis weren’t uniquely horrific. To note a few, Stalinist Russia, Ethnic Cleansing in Rwanda and Bosnia, the behaviour today of ISIS/ISIL are on a par in terms of evil, only the scale is sometimes different (not so in the case of Stalinist Russia).
        I’m not sure, however, that this can in any way be blamed on the liberal PC elites in most cases. The worry for me isn’t so much that in Sweden, Germany, or here in the UK something similar could/will happen; rather it’s that our society, and that of traditionally tolerant nations like Sweden (and since, say the 1950s, Germany) might be about to become a lot less tolerant as a result of an unacceptable, but entirely predictable, backlash against the over-tolerance or “wrongful” or partial tolerance of the elite. They fail to understand the reaction of a large part of the population, who hugely dislike the consequences of their “tolerance.”
        It is a strange irony that a particular kind of tolerance breeds and causes large-scale intolerance of a type that the “tolerant” elite will abhor and about which they will be entirely mystified. And yet, if you stop and think about it, and/or if you live in the real world, it’s all entirely predictable.
        It’s a strange world.

Comments are closed.