I think it shows that people are needing numbers. Covid shows people are herd animals and will only do what it’s ‘allowed’ to do. The minute it’s ’ok to talk about it’ because there’s some authority figure doing so will be the inflection point. Right now there’s such a stranglehold on news media and speech. If you get people talking and a bit of momentum, things could get interesting.
Which is why farage has just split reform, the uk state is indeed good at neutering and squelching any nucleus that opposition might form around. The riots were such a threat because they didn’t have any nucleus , it was an expression of widespread rage, and I think that will have shocked them as well. The tactics that followed were much more heavy handed, locking people up for speaking. Emptying the jails. How many cycles of that can we go through?
I actually spoke about exact thing in this thread. I think the attempt to oust Lowe was to prevent anything beyond CivNat positions from taking root. We saw in this thread prior the Tory shadow cabinet member talking about demographics and the lack of integration and why mass migration are responsible for both; this shows that the new floor regarding immigration is Civic Nationalism, which was being argued for by the non-establishment Right-wing over a decade ago. It might finally give the Tories an actually anti-immigration policy unlike the one they've been masquerading to have years prior, encouraged by their own dwindling numbers and Reform's popularity. It actually represents a stronger position than Farage's purely 'the numbers are too high' position, which doesn't even factor in culture or beliefs; though his argument that the shortfall of European immigrants being replaced with non-Euros after Brexit being an
assurance and not a warning should make that obvious.
CivNat rhetoric is too little too late unfortunately. It was in vogue a decade ago when the numbers weren't as bad, the economy and burden on our budget wasn't as shit, and the fact there was the odd good Muslim or Brown saying the right things put into people's minds that if they were
all like that, then it'd be fine regardless of their numbers. In hindsight, the idea that you could convert hundreds of thousands into undergoing a personality and belief change with just dialogue was extremely naïve. Say such a thing were possible, people don't make such transformations public and rarely shift beliefs after just one interaction and encouragement. Such a change which takes place over a long period of time and is typically motivated and at least somewhat tied to your original beliefs (A centre-left person could become any other shade or intensity of Left-wing over time for instance). Muslims have no reason to change for one, since the state encourages and even celebrates them remaining the way they are due to diversity and tolerance; CivNat beliefs — which argue patriotism and thereby culture should be celebrated — can't argue for the targets original culture to be depreciated in favour of your own because it would be a contradiction of the stance. And let's say you had issues tied to their race, culture and beliefs, CivNat rhetoric was at least useful for optics at the time, allowing one to get their foot in the door when it came to stemming the tide of immigration. However the idea of them being able to integrate at this point is laughable since they occupy entire swathes of cities, which allow them to function in a parallel society essentially. There's no need to 'fit in' when there's no greater majority to melt into. Even whites do this, the obvious example being in America. Between 1815 and 1845 1 million Irish arrived in New York only, and they maintained a cultural identity even a century later. More than that are arriving every 2 years in the UK (not every single one a Muslim but still), so the idea they'd just melt and join the British cultural identity based on some sort of appreciation for being here is just absurd.
Small aside, but I remember Civic Nationalism causing a schism with the online right around 2015-2018, with people torn between the idea that colour didn't matter, only 'culture' and 'ideas', whilst the other half stating it did and that people always identified with their race regardless of what they believed. It's funny to compare the Sargon of Akkad of 2015, the bloke who was proud to admit having black ancestry, debating race realists and why they were wrong, and that demographics don't matter to the Sargon of today, who openly admits that Muslims are a problem and there's too many of them here and that white English identity matters. Back then implying that there was anything inherently wrong with their culture and beliefs was still a position many were unwilling to commit to, and the fact most of them (Muslims) simply
do not want to 'integrate' took a further decade to become apparent to people and the right position to take regardless of the few exceptions. The shift Sargon underwent ties into the point I made prior about such a change taking a long time, which I imagine is true for many people, and they would look back on their original positions embarrassed to have ever held them to begin with. Sargon's change from being a CivNat to an outright nationalist and his efforts to cover issues in the country is enough to make me call him Carl, at least on occasion — but I digress.
You're right in that people need an acceptable public figure to say things before they feel comfortable being open about it themselves. I earnestly think the panic to remove Lowe by Farage is a result of him coming worryingly close to being a figure in his own right, capable of making certain ideas become acceptable in public discourse; the big ones being deportations and incentivised emigration, all in a bid to get large numbers out. I think in part, outside of it being considered 'racist' and therefore unelectable, it's to try and stop racial tensions from increasing further. If such ideas are proliferated by a certain party, ones which would essentially paint every immigrant here as a problem that most would rather see gone, and the party espousing these ideas is popular with a huge chunk of the population, it might embolden the immigrants to stop being so 'nice' I.E. their political parties (we already see the early stages of that with Pro-Muslim independents), fiery anti-nativist rhetoric, etcetera. Although that perspective is based on the idea that people moving the pieces behind the scenes care about the country's health, which is counter to everything they've done thus far. Maybe if one looks at it as them being worried that immigrant fee-fees would be hurt, and their response would cause natives to get even angrier and maybe violent.
You also asked 'How many cycles of that can we go through?', and call me optimistic but considering what happened as a result of just one cycle, the subject might already be the answer. I doubt a 2nd cycle (assuming you mean something akin to the Southport riots and ensuring reaction) would be bearable for the state or tolerable for natives, and since a single one incensed people enough to shoot Reform to the top spot with polling conducted in Westminster, a 2nd would likely be much stronger and make a mere promise of lowering the overall numbers and decreasing (not stopping,
decreasing) boat crossings not nearly enough to keep people from blowing a gasket. Keep in mind: deportations, a complete cessation of immigrants, alongside paying some people to leave, is on the lighter side of the positions people could adopt. Making their beliefs illegal, forcibly deporting people without compensation for assets, and anything more extreme is never off the table depending on how angry people get and what people in public positions feel they can say. And whilst not everyone who supports Reform now participated in the riots (I have a friend who, despite being Right-wing himself, thought the riots were too much but expressed shock at the discovery people were arrested for positive social media posts) the government's continued inaction to the cause but crackdown on the reaction will further encourage discontent.
The Conservatives adopting CivNat talking points is probably an act of desperation, either to attract voters from Reform who are sick of Farage, or to establish
the line it comes to immigrant discourse. If people move past that line in large enough numbers, I don't think any of the parties are prepared to deal with that, either rhetorically (them trying to talk about it in the same way Lowe does would cause whiplash) or the potential ramifications it would have across society and their own parties. Imagine Badenoch trying to argue the 'there's too many here' and 'they need to leave' stances that Lowe is threatening to make mainstream. They'd be completely fucked since they've spend the past 10 years trying to solidify into the position that was popular prior to Civic Nationalism being argued, and being shoved into anything more potent is just untenable. Badenoch will likely be ousted if things stay the course and the Conservatives have a poor showing in the next round of council elections, just to put a white guy in charge so the new party line doesn't look contradictory. The "I'm not racist, I just don't like 'em" mindset is probably the best outcome they can hope for when it comes to white consciousness in the UK, since it would still okay the presence of foreigners and the self-segregation of communities (which is already the status quo) and make their CivNat policy still sort of work. The argument made by the shadow secretary was that there's too many people coming in that they can't integrate because there's too many people here already that haven't is the strongest position they could take. Suggesting that those who've refused to integrate should just leave then is the position they can't risk taking since that statement more than likely pertains to most if not all Muslims in the UK. And that's just the Conservatives!
Labour are utterly listless on immigration meanwhile; they're
the party for it, the party that is earnest in arguing there's zero differences between a fresh import from Pakistan and a native, even as such a view becomes unpopular across the country. I also think the majority of white people voting Labour are just as anti-immigration as the average Reform voter, it's just that Labour offer free money, are the 'poor' party as I mentioned before in the post you're replying to (the working class are more likely to hate immigrants than the middle class students Labour try and cater to), and Labour never bring up their pro-immigration or anti-native positions anywhere loud and proud. At most the odd, easy to disregard comment is most you'll get. When the issue of immigration is raised, it's an issue they only ever touch on, hoping the one small aside they offer about 'fixing illegal immigration' (
All immigration in the mind of Big Gazz) is enough to keep their voter's contradictory views assuaged. It's really fortunate for them that the election occurred prior to Southport and their subsequent reaction to it; they barely shambled in as is, legitimately carried by the truly uninformed and saved by the inaction of the apathetic. Southport would have truly motivated people I feel, although the election causing the potential death spiral of the Tories is a silver lining.
In the thread I linked I spoke of Farage being a plant, either unwitting or willing, but I do think there are ways to explain his actions that aren't rooted entirely in maliciousness, that being his old-fashioned interpretation of the
game. He knew how it was played in the past and saw that people's sentiments weren't quite on the level of BNP yet, hence their fall into irrelevancy, but people still wanted something done about immigrants and the EU. He also knew that you had to really have to bend over to the establishment just to continue existing in the public space and remain tolerable enough to appear on TV, especially if you're Right-wing. But I think a combination of ego, not comprehending the scale of his internet-only alternatives (he might still be of the view he's the only Right-wing voice in the country people listen to), and perhaps an earnest belief in pre-Civnat ideas are why he's trying to oust Lowe (People call him the 'British Trump', but Trump at least has people on call familiar with the internet to gauge people's true sentiments, those being Baron and Elon, but Farage seems loathe to listen to anybody but himself). He also might truly believe that the people intending to vote Reform are more aligned with him and his particular anti-immigrant stances rather than the fact he left people no other choice (the ego). Nigel might not even realise the people who are hoping he'll be their hero for change have moved beyond him in views, and attributes his own popularity to the views he held 10 years ago. Alternatively, that Muslim on the board of directors might threaten to pull out along with his cash if Lowe is allowed to continue, and maybe he's necessary for the continued function of the party? Who's to say. He might also legitimately be a plant, a false messiah propped up to give people hope, and when he sees Lowe might potentially undo what he's there to do, he panicked and accidently made a big spectacle of trying to bring Lowe down in particular; ignorant to the damage he'd inflict due to his own ignorance of the internet. Lowe's immediate point by point breakdown of the allegations made against him before Reform even tweeted out their statement was piss poor. How are Trump (7
and Lowe (67) both more competent with the internet and twitter than Farage(60)?
But to summarise:
1. The media and government stranglehold over information has effectively been pried open thanks to people being more independent in searching for info (point argued in the post you're replying to) which occurring during lockdown, and their inability to control the Musk-owned Twitter (not without pissing off the US), finding content creators on youtube, and whatever shit appears for zoomers on Tiktok, has finally meant people's exposure to info goes beyond what they see on TV, read in the paper or hear on the radio.
2. The Tories starting to adopt CivNat talking points is thanks to a combination of Reform siphoning their vote share and because people are, indeed, 'talking'. Ditto for Labour's limp-wristed efforts to stop boat crossings and the immigration bill they passed earlier this year to restrict immigrants (also increased the cost of Visas). CivNat ideas are outdated with the current paradigm forced onto us by our open borders and meagre attempts to lower the insane numbers coming in both legally and illegally are a paltry salve to sooth the anger and distrust engendered in much of the population after Southport (which is still present, and rising, thanks to Labour's austerity measures and the open secret that is the cost of migrant hotels).
3.
If Farage is a plant meant to set the limit on acceptable right-wing rhetoric, he has been a dismal failure, as even his subordinates in his own party have sprinted past him; Lowe not already becoming irrelevant to Reform voters after the accusations demonstrates his sway over party members is considerably less that what was once believed and that his time in the sun as the Right's darling is over. Generously, he might genuinely believe his milquetoast views are why he's popular and that he still believes anything more would prevent his party being covered, in which case his ego (and ignorance to his own usefulness as a tool to the establishment) was his own undoing.
4. None of the other parties except the fringe and Reform could even utilise the rhetoric of Lowe because they fundamentally can't, having spent too long fostering their present images and party makeup. That's why it's in their collective best interests to make sure it doesn't reach anyone beyond Lowe's followers, hoping the accusations against Lowe would make him poisonous to support or rally around whilst also getting rid of him quietly enough that people didn't notice (They failed). Lowe's points would be pretty much accepted by anybody who opposes immigration.
5. The government couldn't handle another Southport. One could argue they didn't even handle the first one. During the riots Reform's polling skyrocketed, the migrant hotels were attacked directly (meaning people were still aware of them, or made re-aware of them thanks to the spread of information), people were arrested for merely expressing support for the reaction. These riots and what got people mad to begin with are something the government is deathly afraid of, trying to recontextualise the stabber's motive (And all male violence) from anti-whiteness or Islamism to being rooted in misogyny influenced by Andrew Tate. If that doesn't
reek of desperation and attempt to change a narrative, I don't know what does.
I have to stop typing up these long messages. Although thanks to Ofcom, it might at least discourage me from bothering. I actually started writing this before either of the features so I was confused why it wouldn't send; now I know. My government's general incompetency and inability to enforce anything (remember the attempt to restrict porn?) makes me think Null is overreacting a tad, but it's understandable. See you around everybody!
" level of disliking.
