Why the far right is surging all over the world

[CharonY]

I wanted to use this thread to discuss the rise of far-right sentiments across the world and start with this article https://www.vox.com/politics/361136/far-right-authoritarianism-germany-reactionary-spirit

It provides some background about the the rise of democracies and includes this sentiment from Francis Fukuyama

Quote

It was during this time that the phrase "end of history" entered the lexicon, thanks to a 1989 essay and subsequent book by political theorist Francis Fukuyama. Fukuyama argued that liberal democracy was the ultimate stage in the evolution of society. Fundamental forces in history, including deep human desires for recognition and equality, had buoyed it to global dominance.

Fukuyama did not claim that this state of affairs would necessarily last forever. Instead, he predicted, the very triumph of the system contained the seeds of a future crisis. “No regime — no ‘socioeconomic system’ — is able to satisfy all men in all places. This includes liberal democracy,” he wrote in the book. “Dissatisfaction arises precisely where democracy has triumphed most completely: it is a dissatisfaction with liberty and equality. Thus those who remain dissatisfied will always have the potential to restart history.”

There are various lines of thoughts, but in article suggest that a lot is driven by ethnic resentment related to immigration:

Quote

Broadly speaking, the evidence suggests that European resentment toward immigration is rooted in concerns about changes to Europe’s traditional ethnic composition and hierarchy. A 2007 study that examined 20 European countries and over 38,000 individuals found that negative attitudes about multiculturalism were by far the best predictor of individual opposition to immigration. Many other factors, like a country’s unemployment level or a person’s individual income, had a negligible effect.

This underlying hostility toward cultural difference created fertile grounds for far-right parties to profit from a sudden spike in immigrant numbers, especially since many immigrants came from nonwhite Muslim countries.

A 2018 paper by two German political scientists, Matthias Mader and Harald Schoen, examined a survey that asked the same group of people their opinions on elections and immigration before and after the refugee crisis. They found that attitudes on immigration, on the whole, hadn’t changed much: The same people who disliked immigration before the crisis still did afterward. But their partisan allegiances had shifted dramatically; anti-immigrant voters who had supported Merkel’s CDU defected to the AfD in significant numbers.

This is the reactionary spirit in action. The refugee crisis heightened the stakes for culturally conservative voters, forcing them to choose between centrist parties that were more welcoming to migrants and potentially antidemocratic extremists who opposed it. Many of them chose the latter, prioritizing preserving the traditional white-dominant society over protecting their democracy.

In many discussions on this forum, there have been puzzlement why folks like Trump with strong authoritarian tendencies have been able to gain so much ground in democracies and often fear has been an underlying current. The argument in this article is then that in countries from Hungary to India, the very idea of equality and rights (and potentially resulting demographic impacts) has become a threat to the reactionary core in society. In other discussions I (and I think others) have speculated (many years ago) that some of the craziness might be just the last reactionary embers before the rise of a more equitable and democratic society. Now we see that these "fringe" groups have become mainstream and what some of us might have dismissed as craziness has actually paid electoral dividends.

So in short, does the current world give you pause and make you revisit how you thought the world would change, say 10 or 20 years ago?

[Peterkin]

35 minutes ago, CharonY said:

In many discussions on this forum, there have been puzzlement why folks like Trump with strong authoritarian tendencies have been able to gain so much ground in democracies and often fear has been an underlying current.

It's fear. People are anxious. There are threats everywhere, from the weather, pollution, contagious disease, crop failure, too much water, not enough water, fires all over the place, saber rattling among the giant powers, impossible numbers of people migrating, displaced by war and famine. The future looks terrifying. People feel helpless.

Some loudmouth comes along, gets up on big podium with every appearance of confidence and tells them "I can fix it. I can protect you. It's all their fault, and I'll get rid of them. I'll give you back all the privileges and pride..." (...you never had, but were told stories about and identified with). It's easy to dupe frightened people.

35 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The argument in this article is then that in countries from Hungary to India, the very idea of equality and rights (and potentially resulting demographic impacts) has become a threat to the reactionary core in society.

No, that doesn't even come into question. People don't think about abstract concepts: tell them their livelihood, their stuff and their daughter's virtue are at stake. People in Hungary were okay with the idea of equality, but it was never real: the Russian occupation replaced the old class system with a new class system (except the new aristocracy had no class) and when that fell apart, the carpetbaggers moved in and set up an even more crass capitalistic one. People coped as best they could with each change, but the economics were always precarious. With two and half jobs to keep up payments, there's not much time for ideology.

 

35 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So in short, does the current world give you pause and make you revisit how you thought the world would change, say 10 or 20 years ago?

I didn't expect it to unravel this fast, but I'd given up on social progress by the 1980's .  

Edited July 18 by Peterkin

[iNow]

42 minutes ago, CharonY said:

does the current world give you pause and make you revisit how you thought the world would change, say 10 or 20 years ago?

It’s surprised me how common and easy it is for folks to blame people not part of their ingroup. How easily they believe the too easy childish faux answers even when they lack any connection to accuracy. 

It’s also surprised me how existing powers and entrenched interests have managed to maintain their power and prevent the sorts of change we need to address the things which are scaring us all. There are many such examples, but for me mainly that’s climate change.

It’s existential, yet here we are 30-50 years later still arguing with idiots about whether it even exists and with no coherent strategies to address it as a species at the scale we need. 

Migration will increase as droughts and floods keep intensifying, and the anti migrant sentiment that comes with those changes worries me.

Hate is too easy and people seem to like easy, a situation made worse given how easy we are to control when we’re angry. 

[CharonY]

30 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It's fear. People are anxious. There are threats everywhere, from the weather, pollution, contagious disease, crop failure, too much water, not enough water, fires all over the place, saber rattling among the giant powers, impossible numbers of people migrating, displaced by war and famine. The future looks terrifying. People feel helpless.

Some loudmouth comes along, gets up on big podium with every appearance of confidence and tells them "I can fix it. I can protect you. It's all their fault, and I'll get rid of them. I'll give you back all the privileges and pride..." (...you never had, but were told stories about and identified with). It's easy to dupe frightened people.

No, that doesn't even come into question. People don't think about abstract concepts: tell them their livelihood, their stuff and their daughter's virtue are at stake. People in Hungary were okay with the idea of equality, but it was never real: the Russian occupation replaced the old class system with a new class system (except the new aristocracy had no class) and when that fell apart, the carpetbaggers moved in and set up an even more crass capitalistic one. People coped as best they could with each change, but the economics were always precarious. With two and half jobs to keep up payments, there's not much time for ideology.

 

I didn't expect it to unravel this fast, but I'd given up on social progress by the 1980's .  

Interestingly many of the threats you listed are things that the reactionary forces mentioned in the article actively ignore except for the migration part. People are therefore seemingly less afraid of pollution or disease (remember COVID-19) but are mostly worried about folks coming in (or at least that is what this article argues and which some studies seem to support). In fact, addressing the many challenges, including climate change has not been a winning strategy in many (most?) areas.

Edit: crossposted

[Peterkin]

37 minutes ago, CharonY said:

nterestingly many of the threats you listed are things that the reactionary forces mentioned in the article actively ignore except for the migration part.

Ignore, deny and try to discredit. Because they don't have a facile solution for those problems - and, indeed, benefit from causing those problems.

37 minutes ago, CharonY said:

People are therefore seemingly less afraid of pollution or disease (remember COVID-19) but are mostly worried about folks coming in

They're the easy target. People are more afraid of them, because the progandists can point at a tangible boogeyman and direct their otherwise nebulous fear.

37 minutes ago, CharonY said:

In fact, addressing the many challenges, including climate change has not been a winning strategy in many (most?) areas.

No, because that's practical. That means something has to be done, something has to change; it will cost you something - giving up some convenience, paying more tax, altering your lifestyle. Getting mad at another tribe costs nothing and is cathartic.

Edited July 18 by Peterkin

[exchemist]

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

I wanted to use this thread to discuss the rise of far-right sentiments across the world and start with this article https://www.vox.com/politics/361136/far-right-authoritarianism-germany-reactionary-spirit

It provides some background about the the rise of democracies and includes this sentiment from Francis Fukuyama

There are various lines of thoughts, but in article suggest that a lot is driven by ethnic resentment related to immigration:

In many discussions on this forum, there have been puzzlement why folks like Trump with strong authoritarian tendencies have been able to gain so much ground in democracies and often fear has been an underlying current. The argument in this article is then that in countries from Hungary to India, the very idea of equality and rights (and potentially resulting demographic impacts) has become a threat to the reactionary core in society. In other discussions I (and I think others) have speculated (many years ago) that some of the craziness might be just the last reactionary embers before the rise of a more equitable and democratic society. Now we see that these "fringe" groups have become mainstream and what some of us might have dismissed as craziness has actually paid electoral dividends.

So in short, does the current world give you pause and make you revisit how you thought the world would change, say 10 or 20 years ago?

The second piece you quote is fair enough as far as it goes, but only seems to address the reasons behind European resentment of immigration. That is insufficient to explains whether or not such resentment is the primary cause of the rise of the far-right. Most analysis I have read suggests, on the contrary, that support for far-right parties may be mainly driven by feelings of being "left behind" economically and ignored politically. So at the emotional level it is to do with loss of perceived status.  

The animus against immigration may be just one expression of that, in that these groups feel new arrivals are given better treatment than the people who have lived there for generations, as expressed for instance in the legislation, and the posturing in the media and in businesses, around protection of ethnic minorities. 

The far right is good at empowering people to hate something or someone. Immigrants are one target. "Elites" , which by the way will include most members of this forum, as we are mostly highly educated people, are another. 

The rise of the internet is in my opinion largely responsible for spreading such views rapidly around. 20 years ago, when opinion-formers still tended to be politicians, writers or media commentators, there was a lot more control of the wilder and more stupid and unpleasant ideas. We have all seen how the anonymity of the internet allows many people to shake off the norms of civilised behaviour and indulge their darkest thoughts. Golding's "Lord of the Flies", which was really an exploration of how human nature, freed from civilising constraints, could have led to the rise of the Nazis, is relevant here, I think. 

As to your final question, 10 years ago it was already clear in Britain that there was a rise of nationalism and suspicion of "elites", fanned by the right wing press. That is what led to Brexit 8 years ago.

20 years ago, in 2004, before the financial crisis or 2007-8, I certainly would not have seen it coming, or not in that form. At that period, a year into the Iraq invasion, my fear was of a swaggering neocon/Likudnik dominance of the USA in foreign affairs. So very right wing, Israel Lobby-driven, Islamophobe politics in the USA, yes, but not a more widespread, grass roots revolt against domestic liberal democracy.  

One final thought: if you look at the places where right wing nationalism has been put into practice, in the UK with Brexit, Poland with PiS, India with Modi, Brazil with Bolsonaro, Turkey with Erdogan, you see electorates turning against its practitioners. The UK Tories, PiS, and Bolsonaro are out of office, while Modi and Erdogan have had their wings clipped. So I don't think it's a one-way street. But the Big One of course is Trump 2.0.   

 

Edited July 18 by exchemist

[dimreepr]

We mustn't forget the role of black friday in this; the elderly are afraid of loosing what they have, the young are afraid to be the last to own a 60" smart TV and both are afraid of the people in the queue. 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It's fear. People are anxious. There are threats everywhere, from the weather, pollution, contagious disease, crop failure, too much water, not enough water, fires all over the place, saber rattling among the giant powers, impossible numbers of people migrating, displaced by war and famine. The future looks terrifying. People feel helpless.

It’s also fear of manufactured threats. I read that the people who fear immigrants the most are people who live in areas with few immigrants. People fear the unknown, so they are a convenient scapegoat. Crime in a big city like New York is another; if you don’t live there, it’s an unknown, and if you only visit and have never been to a big city, it could be intimidating. But NYC is pretty safe, especially if you avoid known bad spots. US crime is down in general, but promoting the lie that crime is at record highs stokes fear. Minorities only got their job because of DEI and are actually incompetent, so you’re screwed. People with dark skin are thugs and going to rob you. The economy is horrible (never mind that wages are up and you have a job, where you didn't have one four years ago). Poor people are lazy, so they are not worthy of help. The list goes on and on.

[CharonY]

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

Most analysis I have read suggests, on the contrary, that support for far-right parties may be mainly driven by feelings of being "left behind" economically and ignored politically. So at the emotional level it is to do with loss of perceived status.  

I think that may be down to methodology, i.e. how the study was set up. In most surveys if you ask folks why the they vote for their respective party, You will find economic anxiety fairly up. But this is true for all parties and does not explain a shift to the extreme right. Feeling of being ignored is a bit more common but it is actually not tied to their socioeconomic study. Other studies (including the one mentioned in the article) have a more specific design. What they did is try to figure out what sentiments are predictive for voting for far right (rather than mainstream conservative) parties. So you ask all kind of questions and then try to find a pattern. Some predictors are very local, but among the themes that appear to be predictive in many countries (most studies were conducted in Western countries) are related to sex/gender and another along ethnic lines.

There is an emerging split, especially among younger votes along gender lines, with indicators of sexism being a decent predictor of far-right support. However, ethnic concerns tends to be a stronger predictor. This falls under the general umbrella of status threat and when looking at the various factors. While intuitively one might assume that e.g. socioeconomic factors (especially decline) should be the main mechanism related to that, it turns out not to be.

I.e. strangely the socioeconomic status or even the loss of socioeconomic status according to one study are not a predictor for far right support. But having e.g. attitudes that fall under the ethnic threat bracket is (again independent on actually socioeconomic situation). Similar studies in the US have also shown that this status threat is a strong predictor for the support of Trump (over "regular" Republicans).

Structurally the argument made by the article (though written a bit from an Americanized perspective) makes a lot of sense. Let's say 20-30% of the population are by default nativist reactionaries who originally would vote conservative. The issue is that a liberal democracy simply cannot address this fears, as immigrants, once becoming residents, enjoy the same rights and protection as regular citizens. Moreover, mechanistically they (mostly) are no economic threat. I.e. the fear, as other mentioned is not based on reality that might be addressable.

Therefore, these reactionaries will ultimately be dissatisfied with liberty itself and some part will be drawn to those far right authoritarian groups, as they generally do not particularly care for things like civil liberties or rights. In a parliamentary system the result is a formation of groups to the right of mainstream parties (much in Europe) but in two or three party systems (like the US) it threatens traditional positions within the party. This is what we see with traditional conservatives in the GOP. In liberal democracies there would be mechanistic safeguards protecting certain rights, which in turn is why these groups actively try to undermine them (see Hungary but also what is happening with SCOTUS).

Social media is a big amplifier of resentment in this context, but I don't think that could be causative on its own. I will also note that the fundamental issue outlined in the article is that there is an underlying current of threat to liberal democracies which does not appear to be addressable. When Trump and other far right authoritarian populists/demagogues were getting power some political commentators thought that this might be a good thing for democracies in the long run. These non-traditional parties had never ruled and the assumption is that they would fail miserably (Germany is right now looking at the same idea, unfortunately). However, as we can see that is not what happened universally or even commonly. My suspicion is that social media will again play a role here, as it will be used to rewrite reality. I will note the catastrophic handling of the COVID19 pandemic as an (almost forgotten it seems) example.

I.e. even with the blatantly incompetent leadership those groups only see a moderate drop in support. Trump lost in 2020 but might win again 2024. PiS lost the absolute majority but remain the largest party. We did a big swing into authoritarianism and especially autocracy and I do not really see a big swing back. Perhaps things will change but at least over last decade or so we went quite a bit into crazy land and it seems we might be be stuck there for a long while if nothing fundamental changes. After all, the only strategy so far is banking on far-right incompetence and I don't think it works.

 

[Phi for All]

Two things to consider. Extremists have more energy and drive than the average person, they have radical stances and are more willing to enter the quagmire of politics. They get bankrolled by the second thing to consider, the extreme capitalist who fears growing talks of UBIs and other socialist remedies. The 1% is bound to throw more money around at the threat that some of their businesses might be nationalized, or that they may actually have to pay their fair share of taxes. The more "blue" people around the world feel, the more the extreme rich have to support the extreme right.

[CharonY]

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

growing talks of UBIs and other socialist remedies.

I think specifically for UBI there is support from both sides. The issue is really just the implementation. Specifically right-wing support is related to demands of lower taxes and cuts to welfare which might alienate groups on the left.

[exchemist]

35 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think that may be down to methodology, i.e. how the study was set up. In most surveys if you ask folks why the they vote for their respective party, You will find economic anxiety fairly up. But this is true for all parties and does not explain a shift to the extreme right. Feeling of being ignored is a bit more common but it is actually not tied to their socioeconomic study. Other studies (including the one mentioned in the article) have a more specific design. What they did is try to figure out what sentiments are predictive for voting for far right (rather than mainstream conservative) parties. So you ask all kind of questions and then try to find a pattern. Some predictors are very local, but among the themes that appear to be predictive in many countries (most studies were conducted in Western countries) are related to sex/gender and another along ethnic lines.

There is an emerging split, especially among younger votes along gender lines, with indicators of sexism being a decent predictor of far-right support. However, ethnic concerns tends to be a stronger predictor. This falls under the general umbrella of status threat and when looking at the various factors. While intuitively one might assume that e.g. socioeconomic factors (especially decline) should be the main mechanism related to that, it turns out not to be.

I.e. strangely the socioeconomic status or even the loss of socioeconomic status according to one study are not a predictor for far right support. But having e.g. attitudes that fall under the ethnic threat bracket is (again independent on actually socioeconomic situation). Similar studies in the US have also shown that this status threat is a strong predictor for the support of Trump (over "regular" Republicans).

Structurally the argument made by the article (though written a bit from an Americanized perspective) makes a lot of sense. Let's say 20-30% of the population are by default nativist reactionaries who originally would vote conservative. The issue is that a liberal democracy simply cannot address this fears, as immigrants, once becoming residents, enjoy the same rights and protection as regular citizens. Moreover, mechanistically they (mostly) are no economic threat. I.e. the fear, as other mentioned is not based on reality that might be addressable.

Therefore, these reactionaries will ultimately be dissatisfied with liberty itself and some part will be drawn to those far right authoritarian groups, as they generally do not particularly care for things like civil liberties or rights. In a parliamentary system the result is a formation of groups to the right of mainstream parties (much in Europe) but in two or three party systems (like the US) it threatens traditional positions within the party. This is what we see with traditional conservatives in the GOP. In liberal democracies there would be mechanistic safeguards protecting certain rights, which in turn is why these groups actively try to undermine them (see Hungary but also what is happening with SCOTUS).

Social media is a big amplifier of resentment in this context, but I don't think that could be causative on its own. I will also note that the fundamental issue outlined in the article is that there is an underlying current of threat to liberal democracies which does not appear to be addressable. When Trump and other far right authoritarian populists/demagogues were getting power some political commentators thought that this might be a good thing for democracies in the long run. These non-traditional parties had never ruled and the assumption is that they would fail miserably (Germany is right now looking at the same idea, unfortunately). However, as we can see that is not what happened universally or even commonly. My suspicion is that social media will again play a role here, as it will be used to rewrite reality. I will note the catastrophic handling of the COVID19 pandemic as an (almost forgotten it seems) example.

I.e. even with the blatantly incompetent leadership those groups only see a moderate drop in support. Trump lost in 2020 but might win again 2024. PiS lost the absolute majority but remain the largest party. We did a big swing into authoritarianism and especially autocracy and I do not really see a big swing back. Perhaps things will change but at least over last decade or so we went quite a bit into crazy land and it seems we might be be stuck there for a long while if nothing fundamental changes. After all, the only strategy so far is banking on far-right incompetence and I don't think it works.

 

There is another element to the far right methodology we have not mentioned yet which is the cult of personality. Just look at these idiots: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cldy39vpv4qo

This behaviour is like something out of Stalin's USSR.

I'm reminded of the scene in A Man for All Seasons, in which Henry VIII jumps from a boat, accidentally into thick mud. Everyone is speechless with fear, wondering how he will react. Then he looks at them, sizing them up, decides to treat it as a joke, laughs and they all feel the need to jump into the mud themselves to copy him.  

 

 

 

 

Edited July 18 by exchemist

[CharonY]

I think that is common, but not (yet) universal.  While these groups tend to organize themselves around autocracies, in some either no obvious leader has emerged yet or are keeping a fairly low profile (something like in Germany). But you are right that those tendencies generally go well together.

[TheVat]

14 hours ago, CharonY said:

So in short, does the current world give you pause and make you revisit how you thought the world would change, say 10 or 20 years ago?

(written after OP reading only)  Not so much.  Some xenophobia is driven at a particularly local level (while some arises where there are in fact few newcomers, but people live in media silos, steered by fearmongers) and that has a particular quality to it I've seen up close in some communities in the American heartland.  For example, there was a small Nebraska town where a large agribusiness operation opened and immediately hired thousands of immigrant workers - ethnicities don't matter to this tale, because this happens all over the world.  Where a slow increase in immigrants, who came in and learned the local language and customs, would likely have triggered minimal xenophobic response, this was a different situation.  The town suddenly doubled in size, and half the population formed an enclave that tried to preserve their native culture and language, and (in spite of heroic efforts all around) did not much reach out to the natives or gain much sense of local traditions (some of which, regarding noise levels in the evening or styles of personal etiquette on meeting strangers, e.g., were deeply ingrained in the community and seen very much as integral to the local culture.)   In a perfect world, with perfect people, everyone would have been able to overlook cultural differences and welcome the immigrants and even enjoy getting acquainted with some of their customs.  Diversity would have fluourished, happy ending.  But people don't handle sudden shocks well, even if their hearts are kind.  I myself, though I partially grew up in a very diverse and cosmopolitan city and had, by age 20, lived on both coasts, had the unsettling experience of visiting the town after being gone a decade, and feeling a bit lost.  I guess people get attached to the idea of having places that change slowly and preserve a lower-stress way of life, even if there are some fictions such places are constructed on.  

I think a good analogy is an ecosystem where you have a slow shift over a period of millennia, versus a sudden cataclysmic change such that species cannot adapt very well.   

I think if the US had somehow kept immigration at a slower rate which helped place immigrants and helped them adapt to their new country, the Right would have had far less leverage in developing their immigrant-bashing platform.*  As I said, when communities are overwhelmed, it creates this mythology that immigrants bring ruin and division, and the Right gets a lot of fuel out of this to inflame xenophobia.  

 

* this more successful kind of immigrant influx was made to work quite well in places like Lincoln, Nebraska, where Bosnian refugees were welcomed with massive social support and well-orchestrated programs to help them get a foothold and help their children move into English-language schooling.  We had Bosnian refugees neighbors while we lived there, and I still miss them, a lot.  The community was able to welcome them and appreciate what they contributed to Lincoln.  Xenophobia failed to take hold (except in the already entrenched career bigots who inhabit every city).  

[Peterkin]

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think that is common, but not (yet) universal.  While these groups tend to organize themselves around autocracies, in some either no obvious leader has emerged yet or are keeping a fairly low profile (something like in Germany). But you are right that those tendencies generally go well together.

But the crazy fringes can be identified and collected by a ruthless organizer. I just heard that the Republican party keeps a data base of gun nuts, profiling them as likely candidates for recruitment. I imagine religious nuts can just as easily be tagged and tracked, just like extreme racist groups. If you know which whistles to use, you can muster a whole lot of motely in one place at one time - say the Capitol, Wednesday noon...

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I think if the US had somehow kept immigration at a slower rate which helped place immigrants and helped them adapt to their new country, the Right would have had far less leverage in developing their immigrant-bashing platform.*  As I said, when communities are overwhelmed, it creates this mythology that immigrants bring ruin and division, and the Right gets a lot of fuel out of this to inflame xenophobia.  

I don't think that is the necessarily the case. I agree that the immediate shock of higher rates makes things more visible and enrages folks more. However, anti-immigration stances are, as swansont mentioned, also very prevalent in areas with low immigration rates. When one digs down into it, the perceived threat overrides the reality/ This is also an aspect where where social media can really amplify things. A group of 5 differently looking folks can suddenly become a source of displacement fears, even if they were the only ones. Or as any crime involving someone looking differently is amplified over "regular" crime. Though one could turn it around and make the case that immigration works better if immigrants are invisible. But that is obviously a challenge for visible minorities. Ideologically, it means that folks have to acquiesce to bigotry, which used to be the norm, but is increasingly challenged. That in turn contributes to current ideological rifts.

 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

But the crazy fringes can be identified and collected by a ruthless organizer. I just heard that the Republican party keeps a data base of gun nuts, profiling them as likely candidates for recruitment. I imagine religious nuts can just as easily be tagged and tracked, just like extreme racist groups. If you know which whistles to use, you can muster a whole lot of motely in one place at one time - say the Capitol, Wednesday noon...

I haven't heard that folks are similarly organized elsewhere and have a more broad recruitment strategy (but with a focus on identity politics).

[Peterkin]

10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I haven't heard that folks are similarly organized elsewhere and have a more broad recruitment strategy (but with a focus on identity politics).

They probably aren't clumped like in the US, but the Neo-nazis tend to stay organized, what with priding themselves on militarism, and they're never far below the surface in Europe. Religious organizations are well established and have a common dread of secularism. Then, too, even unorganized interest blocs are recognizable and targetable: threaten shopkeepers with vandalism, burghers with burglary, white men with dark men, anti-Semites (not so scarce in Europe, either) with the Elders of Zion - any suggestion that somebody wants to take something from them; followed by the accusation that they already have and it must be avenged.

Fear is the easiest emotion to exploit; it can all too readily be converted to rage. There is a pitchfork leaning behind every door, just in case. And a general insecurity and anxiety is easier still, because there is no counter-argument to the vague threats. If it's a specific fear of a particular group of immigrants, measures can be taken by the established authority. When it's vague unverifiable threats and accusations, there is no practical response.    

[MigL]

Now who's lamenting about how things used to be better 'in the good old days' ?

The first step in combatting all problems is understanding; the more we understand, the easier problems become.
And the world is much more capable of understanding today than it used to be.
Every once in a while opportunistic predators will try to control our understanding, and we take a step back, but overall we have come far and will continue to advance.

And don't worry; with an age of 79, attempted assassinations and a wife who wants him dead so she can inherit his wealth, how long can D Trump possibly live ?

[CharonY]

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

hey probably aren't clumped like in the US

At least in Germany the most extremes are fairly clumped and very non-religious.

Just now, MigL said:

Now who's lamenting about how things used to be better 'in the good old days' ?

Actually the overall theme is more that there was a promise that things will get better and while things started to move that way, as outlined in the article, non-democratic forces are taking over democracies.

Also I think it is important to acknowledge that this trend is not caused by certain far right lunatics seizing the moment of immigration crises as such. The argument (with all the caveats of social science approaches) is that reactionary forces are embedded into the system and while they mostly draw from the right, they also capitalize on resentment fostered in the center and left, with a common theme (i.e. perceived status threat).

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

At least in Germany the most extremes are fairly clumped and very non-religious.

In Poland, they're religious and not exactly clumped, but swayed by the same kind of rhetoric. It's likely to be different groups, each with its own weaknesses, and maybe even hostile one to another. A clever demagogue - or, rather, his expediters - still knows what butons to push to collect them under his flag. Point them at a common enemy, or promise each a different reward. "I will protect you! My robocops will sweep up all those druggies and hookers, thieves and beggars and give you back the clean, safe city streets you deserve. I'll cut your taxes, keep foreigners out, and make the Family sacred again, with you as undisputed patriarch."  

2 hours ago, MigL said:

And the world is much more capable of understanding today than it used to be.

The capacity for understanding resides not in the world, but in the individual. Methods of communication may have changed in the last 10,000 years, but the human brain has not.