Is shifting the Overton Window the most important thing in politics?

@Cierzo: History points in that direction. The most prolific fascist project of the 20th century, is the Nazi regime. The theme is all too similar to what they're pushing in Eastern Europe now.

Mussolini, although deeply committed to a Catholic fascism, was not really racist, and did not even think that Hitler was anything more than a buffoon, until he needed Hitler to survive.

It's funny though, when you mention scaring people and thus avoid battling on thoughts. Think on this one.

@Northwest: I cannot take seriously your determinist statements saying that fascism will return in Eastern Europe, or that cancer will he healed in fifteen years. Not only that, I find them scary. You talk like either you have information that 99% of people do not have, or you are truly determined to push for a certain agenda. None of both options is comforting.

Nazism was nothing but barbarism and destruction, but seeing how some use and abuse it politically all the time to compare it with political choices they despise, makes me think that its existence was very convenient to those who claim against it

@Cierzo:
I did not say that cancer will be healed in 15 years, I gave a period of 10-25 years. we are in the middle of the biggest bio-tech boom in the world, one where we're crossing microbiology, hardware, nano-machines, software and physical chemistry, to battle cancer. This will not be limited to cancer.

This information is available for those who want to look at it, as in, this research is not being done in secret labs.

https://www.alleninstitute.org/
https://www.fredhutch.org/en.html
http://www.uwmedicine.org
https://acms.washington.edu/
https://www.seattlecca.org/

The independent (UK Paper), is a bit sensational, when its headline says that cancer deaths will be eliminated for all under 80 by 2050, but they're only sensationalizing some of the bits they read about, or make the news.

My partner completed an application, that when fully deployed, will revolutionize cancer treatment, and that's not 25 years from now. To sum it up, cancer patients will have the following tools at their disposal:

1. Genetically targeted therapy: this is not a cure, but a way to extend life, indefinitely, until something also kills the patient. DNA analysis of both the cancer and the patient's cells, will custom produce therapies that will eliminate only cancerous cells. Early versions of this are being deployed as we speak, and the rate of progress is exponential.

2. Therapy delivery tools. These will be nano-machines, that will initially consist of a delivery vehicle (a few atoms), carrying the therapy directly to cancerous cells. This will eventually become a one-way vehicle, where the therapy itself is the delivery vehicle, and when it arrives at its target, it will re-configure to become the therapy. We're probably about 5-10 years away from effective trials.

3. Direct genetic manipulation, that will provide an actual cure/prevention, much like a vaccine. The earliest versions of this, will be deployed for different types of cancer, later versions (beyond 25 years from now), will self-modify.

4. Genetic monitoring tools. This is 35+ years away, and will involve "genetic" monitors, that note variations from the norm, and either alert or apply a local fix if it's possible.

All this will be possible thanks to the crossing of various disciplines I mentioned earlier. Most of the information is available to the public, as in anyone with access to the Internet. For most of it though, you would have to know what you're looking for, and for the most part, and for the near future, you would probably need to know what you're doing, as in it would help if you're a biologist, physicist, mathematician, computer scientist, etc.

At a minimum, you would need to spend less time researching how John Podesta, former President Clinton Chief of Staff, and his brother, in collusion with Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, are kidnapping pre-teen British girls, while vacationing in Portugal, sending them to the US, or some other location, to train as prostitutes, and then putting them to work, servicing the Clinton Foundation donors, or friends of Bill Clinton, out of a pizza parlor in the US.


I did not say that fascism will return in Eastern Europe, you misunderstood me. I am saying that it IS back in Eastern Europe. It has not won yet, but it's there. People have a choice: learn from history, or pretend it will be better this time around.

Perhaps there's a new name for it. Franco was not really a fascist, even though his alliance with the other fascists may lead one to believe so, but the same ideas applied there, and his first decade in power was marked by mass murders, torture, jail, rapes, etc. against Protestants, liberals (I'm including a lot of groups here), intellectuals, even Freemasons and separatists (Basque, Catalan).

[quote[Nazism was nothing but barbarism and destruction, but seeing how some use and abuse it politically all the time to compare it with political choices they despise, makes me think that its existence was very convenient to those who claim against it[/quote]

Yes, it's very convenient to have one's ancestors perish in Hitler's genocide camps. Can you imagine if I did not have that, what else would I be using to complain or make a political point? Why didn't fascists think of this? All they had to do, was get murdered, by the millions, and they would have it made politically, today.

@Picklebobble2: I do agree that the Tories are victims of their own 'success' in that they have done so much austerity that there has been a huge and under-reported backlash from the public. It was never really about shrinking the debt because austerity economics is illiterate in theory as well as immoral in practice. The Tories wanted to shrink the state for ideological reasons but people have now noticed the drop in services and are not willing to accept that.

The points you raise do indicate the right wing bias of the media. During the election, the media (even the liberal media and the Guardian) were entirely focused on leadership, Brexit and terrorism. The issue that decided the election was austerity and now it is only being discussed after an election has been won on the issue.

It is being discussed though and that would not have been possible without Corbyn.

@Onecharmingman: It could be that Corbyn has reached his peak because he has hit a perfect spot of galvanising the young but doing just enough for liberals not to be scared off from voting Labour. Next time people will be voting for him as PM, which is another step. The next Tory election campaign can't be as bad as the last one and they will have a different strategy.

What works in his favour is that the Tory problems continue to mount. They are currently 6% behind Labour and divisions are opening up. As the Brexit shambles goes on things have the potential to get worse for them.

My point here though is that Corbyn has already shifted what is considered centre ground and that counts as a form of victory.

@Burnley123: That's true. All through the Blair years I used to wonder whether it would be better to have a Labour party that stayed true to its principles, even if it meant having to operate as an effective opposition.