I’ve spent the better part of my working life as a photo-journalist specialising in certain parts of the Middle East but, despite what I witnessed, I could console myself with the knowledge that there were parts of the world where rationality and tolerance prevailed.
Now we have the likes of Putin in Moscow (Gorbachev’s ideals of glasnost and perestroika are long gone), Nigel Farage in the UK, Marine Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in The Netherlands, Frauke Petry in Germany, and the front runner of far-right populist clap trap, Donald Trump in the White House.
Seriously, what the hell is happening to our world!
Photos taken at the Casa Pound rally in Rome, May 2016.
There is a real problem with uncontrolled massive Muslim immigration,90% of migrants are young able bodied MALES coming from many countries that are not Syria,where war is raging. Those "refugies" are in fact not refugies at all but economic migrants,uneducated and unskilled for the most who look for a better life and want freebees.So far they have caused a lot of grief,everyone has heard of it and although a lot has been suppressed by the media we can still get information about it. In short it is a disaster and politicians just do not want to acknowledge it.They don't want to acknowledge they made monumantal blunders and in many cases things have got out of hands.People in western countries have become afraid of what is going on and no longer feel safe,those they have elected have promised to stop or slow down immigration and the possibility that more terrorists could enter their countries.This is probably why certain right wing politicians are now gaining momentum.
@room101: Totally agree! We must recognise that there are such Muslim leaders even if they are in the minority as sadly they are and recognise that there are Muslims who follow them even if they put their lives on the line doing so,sadly the fanatical leaders and their followers appear to be growing in numbers and that is what people are afraid of.I must share another video with you that will show you that saudi- Arabia is behind it all and why and that because of petrol money the leaders in the west are turning a blind eye and as you will see at the end of that video, it is said that the west will sorely regret it and nothing could be more true.
@room101: But do you believe that Saudi-Arabia funds terrorism and the Muslim brotherhood? I tend to believe it myself.That video makes a great deal of sense to me.
The people never vote for middle of the road (which is where I stand), it always seems to be an us or them scenario Example: One set of people want no migrants or refugees, the other vocalists want to allow everybody in after all they've all suffered. The truth lies in the middle ground somewhere, allowing entry for genuine cases after vetting. I know that's obvious but the options always seem to be one extreme or the other. And so it seems to apply for every scenario whether it is a welfare system, medical treatment or whatever.
i totally agree with you. well apart from the bit where you say that people never vote for the middle ground.
regardless of what the detractors may say, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, Angela Merkel and a number of other politicians can all be viewed as centrists of one form or another.
not too long ago, i would have argued that logic and rationality were the antidotes. that's what Obama tried to bring to the table. and we all know what happened there.......
Yes I'm not sure it is now....it might something eventually that mankind works through...or some sort of direction action will occur. Have you read the fourth turning I think it is called?
Hey, several of those people aren't in power yet, and may yet never be. Don't give up hope yet. On a slightly different note, as a person hoping to get into journalism, I'd love to hear more from you.
@Stefanv: i would argue that the pros and antis get interviewed all the time and, those interviews are published. the problem is with us, the audience.
it's called confirmation bias.
a couple of months before the Brexit Referendum, i went to a seminar hosted by one of our major banks here in the UK. it was attended by all sorts of very accomplished, very intelligent people in the world of finance. i lost count of how many of the were moaning about a lack of "real" information on the topic. i suggested a whole raft of credible articles published in prestigious newspapers, magazines and journals. they all looked at me as if i was babbling to them in Greek.
@Gauntlets28: OK my comment to Stereoguy was rather sweeping. I get like that when people start going on about Liberals and Socialists and so on and so forth.
When I talk about "no future for coming generations", I encompass all sorts of issues ranging from the ecology to finance to education to........well pretty much everything. I strongly believe that it is incumbent on my generation, and those who are older than me, to challenge these issues and to provide a sort of legacy for your generation to build on. I also strongly believe that your generation has a responsibility to learn from our mistakes, and the mistakes of those who went before my lot, and to do all you can to prevent this seemingly endless cycle of improvement followed by destruction followed by improvement and so on and so forth ad infinitum.
Regarding rhetoric, I'm afraid we're going to disagree on this one big time lol.
Rhetoric is not about logic, pathos and ethics. It's about winning a debate. It's about using all kinds of tactics ranging from strawman arguments to flagrantly disparaging remarks in order to put your opponent on the back foot and thus win.
@room101: That's a very noble outlook. I do worry sometimes that that outlook tends to get obfuscated by some people in that they forget the part about the possible mistakes they could make and the possibility that others might be trying to correct them. You don't seem like that, and I hope I don't, but it does worry me that it seems popular these days to take anything that goes against your "in-group's" party line as some sort of personal attack. Like you say, it's very easy to get like that when people start generalising. As for the rhetoric thing, I was thinking about what classically it's supposed to be all about. Obviously it's a lot more complex, but I guess the dream is to win an argument because your position succeeds in all three areas. Like how a strawman is a logical fallacy and the like. I think that whilst the game hasn't changed, people are aren't playing with the same premise anymore. Now it's not about using these techniques to win because they're more rational, ethical or affable, but because they present that sense because the initial premises of their argument is invented. Like if you said that there was ice cream under a certain mountain, and argued perfectly from that that obviously the best thing to do would be to mine it. It'd be great if there actually was ice cream, but there isn't. People just go along with it because the argument is convincing and the promised end point seems attractive.
@Gauntlets28: thank you for considering my outlook noble lol.
the fact that these outlooks worries you, tells me that you have an honest and open perspective. and i applaud you for that.
in terms of what rhetoric is classically supposed to be all about, again i must point you to the Sophists. they were literally hired to prove an argument. to win. they did not deploy techniques such as the Socratic method where questions are continuously asked in an effort to reach the root of a given problem or premise.
consider this:
what is a rhetorical question?
it's a question that does not require an answer.
ergo, rhetoric does not ask questions and requires no answers.
erm........it doesn't escape me that i just posed a question that i then when on to answer 🤓
