The Far Right

 The Far Right

---------------------

What's Right is what protects us while diversity dilutes us.

What is The Far Right? What is its meaning and ideology, and what does it stand for? What is it anti, and what is it for? What is the one word that can encompass all that? What is the one term, a noun, that rounds up their core beliefs? The Wikipedia page on "Far-right politics" defines it as including "extreme nationalist, xenophobic, homophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist, or other reactionary views," often associated with fascism, neo-Nazism, and the alt-right. The noun must also capture economic, cultural, and political dimensions. 

It means no single word is airtight. Such a debate focuses on Extremism as the most appropriate noun. However, whatever it is, it is on the rise, mainly in Europe and the United States. On both sides of the Atlantic, its engine is primarily powered by Race and Immigration. They are the two main factors that target passion. Both are constantly in the shadows of all their policies, even though their demagoguery and rhetoric do not admit it. This article will focus on its multi-dimensional approaches, causes, popularity, excesses, effectiveness, and, arguably, its perceived eventual failures.

Italy, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Holland, and the United States, besides other European countries, the young and old are embracing its offerings. Traditionalists and the young who feel let down are attracted to the Far Right for different reasons. A trend has grown from a mix of social factors that have ignited the passions and discontent with those who govern and the overall liberal policies. Special aim at the Elite in government and the private sector, blamed for the economic divide that increasingly widened between the haves and the have-nots. 

The aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008 left many in Europe with economic insecurities, and the austerity measures governments had to put in place, many felt abandoned by traditional parties, such as the establishment. Stagnant wages and rising living costs, often blamed for globalisation, created fertile grounds for the Far Right movements. The movements promised protection from trade competition, mainly from China and with it national prioritisation. Grievances arose from deindustrialisation, and the decline of manufacturing jobs meant many families went without, economically feeling sidelined. The free market globalised system, neoliberalism heralded, I argue, should not be the only factor contributing to deindustrialisation. Many other factors contribute to the decline in manufacturing jobs: tech innovation, such as AI automation, declining demands, social change, lack of skill training, lack of productivity, and the glaring absence of innovation. However, the target was the $1 'T' shirt, which never materialised. The Far Right capitalised on this by offering simple solutions, blaming immigrants or foreign powers rather than concentrating on complex structural shifts. Many young voters are in despair, faced with bleak economic prospects, and disolusioned with progressive promises that have swung to the Right. Blaming the downsides is an easy option.

Indeed, Immigration is also a major driver for the rise of the Far Right. Conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq saw millions fleeing from their countries and coming to Europe in the hope of a better life. Mexicans fleeing North to the US for the same reason – economic migrants. Countries like Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom saw the Far Right parties like the Alternative fur Deutschland (AFD), Brothers of Italy, National Rally in France and Ukip in Britain gained grounds by framing Immigration as a threat to national sovereignty and social cohesion and as we constantly reminded of "America First", policies from across the Atlantic. The perception across all regions was that immigrants take jobs or erode traditional values, even when figures show unemployment is low or migrants mostly fill labour gaps.

Distrust in the establishment and the political elites in Europe and the US, meant the EU is seen as a bureaucratic machine no longer in tune with the public it is supposed to serve. Again, the Far Right has tapped into the trend of Euroskepticism, advocating border controls and introducing laws to curb the open borders policies and migration quotas. The Far Right has promised to dismantle the establishment and voiced their beliefs that parties of the left and right have failed to address ordinary people's concerns.

Another facet the Far Right has taken on board is cultural anxieties and the rapid social changes around gender norms, multiculturalism and secularism. The movement emphasises that people's traditional way of life is under siege. The Duch party for Freedom and Spain's Vox push back against "woke" ideology or the Islamisation of Christian societies, striking a note with voters who feel the loss of a cherished past. In America, the Far Right sees itself as a defender of traditional values against progressive issues like race, religion or sexuality, and social media has turbocharged these narratives.

But of course, there is snake oil in all of this, nothing is quite what it seems. Curtailing Liberalism can often be seen as controlling and authoritarian. The Far Right come in with a heavy dose of control that can often feel at odds with the freedom they claim to champion. Take, for instance, Immigration. It is not only closing borders. Deportation means family separations and in America, it also means ending birthrights. Their cultural agendas could also include banning books in schools, dictating what teachers can say about history or gender, and pushing Christian nationalism into law. They punish platforms for being too liberal, dismantling their hands-off approach to hands-on control and redirecting it toward their vision. They control and restrict ideas on diversity and cosmopolitanism, seeing both as eroding national identity and seeing both actions as necessary correction. They cry for a firm hand to reform society to correct these downsides. Little do they realise they are swapping one dogma for another and meddling with people's personal lives, from abortion bans to policing speech. Replacing one set of shackles for another is not the remedy most people envision as a remedy for the pain and grievances they suffer.

In the US, however, there is a special case of the historical concept of Manifest Destiny embedded in ideas of racial discrimination and white supremacy. It is not a side effect, but it is baked into the framework for the Far Right since it has given the movement a sharp edge and complicates any defence of it as just an economic or anti-neoliberal push. America is a white Christian nation, and anyone else is an interloper: "build the Wall" isn't just about jobs and "you will not replace us" chants do not go amiss tying racial purity to national identity. White domination is the default. The war is on for fighting the possibilities of a "majority-minority" American nation projected in the recent US census, which suggests for the year 2045. Incidentally, Birmingham and Leicester are among the cities in the UK that are in this category. Manifest Destiny whispers that cosmopolitans are rootless and US greatness hinges on a unique racial core. In effect, the Far Right economic nationalism doubles as a cultural fortress. Looking back on when an immigrant knows his place is not idle thinking. Race is a dominant factor in the minds of supporters of the Far Right in America and in Europe.

Moreover, the obsession with Immigration is not about numbers or laws but about who is coming. The panic over replacement or invasion doesn't hit the same note when Spanish or Italians cross the UK border or Canadian or British cross into US borders, but it's laser is focused on non-whites, Muslims or Africans. Waving the English or the Confederate flags is not random but aimed at racial hierarchy. Race is not the upfront sales pitch; it's lens keeps their coalition cohesive. The Right thrives on ideas of us versus them. Immigrants are the perfect spark, and it's easy to spin into a threat. Whether "they are taking our jobs" or "they're changing our culture". You can shout out "tax cuts" or trade deals until you are blue in the face; they don't have the same appeal as "they are coming for us". Pivot is too far from such thinking, and the Far Right would be no more than any other party.

But, it is not just about race, as I mentioned earlier, the rage is also about jobs, insecurities and bureaucracies. The corporate Elite had not got stuck with shuttered factories because of globalisation or sensed that the elites rig the system. They raked in billions while tweeting about "freedom". In America, it was about draining the swamp, the Right latched on. It is a headscratcher when you have the inner circle billionaires cleaning the swamp when they are the swamp. They are sweeping one set of Elite for another. It is a contradiction that should collapse under its weight. But with Far Right supporters, passion will still trump logic even if the billionaires are holding the megaphone screaming, "Globalisation has betrayed you". Who is protecting whom, I ask or are the billionaires protecting themselves? Many of Trump supporters, however, still believe the system is screwing them, and those clique billionaires casing themselves against bureaucracy are their saviours. Little do they realise the billionaires are not dismantling the system but redirecting the profits. Europe's right-wing surge isn't a millionaire's club, it is more about populist politicians seizing the microphone, especially with their loud anti-immigration drum beat. Though Immigration is the loudest, the disease they diagnose in all cases is a loss of national identity and sovereignty.

The erosion of reason and moderation, and a lack of education is widespread, allowing few puppeteers to hold the strings. The Far Right passion-driven soundbites "build the wall" and "take back control" thrive. Critical thinking is slipping in favour of TikTok brain rot. The Far Right turn the economic frustration into emotional crusades with the help of the instant gratification culture and the tribal following on X, formerly known as Twitter. Thinking is proving too challenging, reason is out, and rage is in everywhere with populists surging ahead.

And, the war on diversity is not different; for many, it flows naturally from fairness, inclusion and human dignity, but ramming it is proving to be the cornerstone of the Far Right world view. The Far Right don't see diversity as a moral right but as a threat. Their thinking hinges on the idea that societies should be cohesive, which means sameness. They see racial, cultural or religious differences as cracks in the foundation, not strengths. If everyone is included, the white Christian loses its grip. Their moral code is for loyalty and tradition over universal equality. What's Right is What protects us, while diversity dilutes us. Morality is about defending heritage; it is about preservation, not pluralism. The Far Right reject diversity, fearing it as the Trojan Horse that betrays it. Many of the Far Right supporters would not agree, so they cherry-pick at any narrative where they find uniformity equals strength. In America, they dress up in holy jargon, thumping the Bible and "God save America" is their saving grace, more of a crusade for their tribe to lap up.

What strikes me the most is the Far Right, led mainly by a one Man show aimed at destroying Liberal Democracy, "My Way". Trump in America, Farage in the UK, Marine Le Pen in France, and Giorgia Meloni of Italy are very clever in turning rage into reign; they have a knack for turning chaos into control. Farage in the UK is a one-person hype machine—Reform's current 26% polling (February 2025) rides his vibe. Trump's "build the wall" or "drain the swamp" or Farage's "stop the boats aren't debates; they're slogans that stuck. They are more like tribal chiefs than politicians, less about dogma and more about what wins now. This one-man-show style—charisma, defiance, simplicity, tribalism, opportunism—thrives because it's personal, not procedural. When they fade, the show wobbles. It is not just about "I am right", but "you are wrong".

Resistance can be positive in many ways, but it needs to be progressive. I struggled to find positive or innovative ideas for racial and social harmony or solutions that could lead to the pacification of multiculturalism and integration or quelling the rage. Finding scapegoats for a fragmented society is easy to find, but changing the model of society can be more challenging. Economic protectionism, such as imposing tariffs on imports, can have short-term benefits. However, a study found that the US economy is approximately $200 billion negatively impacted by tariff imposition during Trump's first term. The IMF found that a 10% increase in tariffs can lead to a 1.2% decrease in global GDP. It also disrupts supply chains and likely triggers retaliatory actions. While strict immigration aiming to protect jobs and housing and preserve cultural identities might reduce competition for wages, it increases wages and lowers tax revenues, labour supply and innovation. While it is plausible to implement protectionism, the evidence leans toward protectionism as being unsustainable in the long term, as it can stifle innovation and economic growth, contradicting the Far Right's goal of financial security for the working class. Whereas cultural nationalism and exclusion in preserving the dominant cultural identity can foster a sense of community and belonging, the latest study finds that cultural diversity promotes innovation and economic growth. At the same time, homogeneity can lead to groupthink and reduced adaptability.

In conclusion, as I see it, we live in a world of ideas. A look at Silicon Valley in California indicates a revolution of innovation as significant as the nineteenth-century Industrial Revolution. The Far Right is spearheading its cause with twentieth-century tools to remedy the malady of the twenty-first century. It needs to revolutionise itself with new ideas for growth and innovation incorporating universal values. When does the demolition end and the construction start? Setting out success criteria in public services, productivity, equity, and innovation, and setting policies to better model people's world. But for now, its familiar anti-slogans are winning. Taking pointers from what is currently happening in America leads to a frightening scenario. Warping laws, courts, and anti-democratic values that filter down to local councils are the flashing red lights, a picture of the brutal past many of us have seen before or heard or read about. What is happening is that there is a blueprint of what is possible, not what is probable. The frightening bit is how much of this snowballs. As with AI development, we need an army of chips to improve the institutional barriers. There needs to be a before and after. Rage, anger and passion are not the drivers for ideas or engines of transformation.  

Easter 2023

 

American Nationalism and the Trumpist Phenomenon

 

Tea finally broke the Camel's back, or in this case, lit the fuse for American independence. The stubborn King George III, one of the four imported Hanoverian Georges of Great Britain, helped spark the American Nationalist dream of the thirteen colonies. The American War of Independence or The American Revolutionary War (April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783), when the Patriots, headed by George Washington, defeated the British Army, the American dream became a reality and Nationalism in the form of Anglo-Saxon identity in America took hold and ever since, was to become central for American political strategies. The American Constitution, with all its contradictions, was born. Freedom of the individual is enshrined in Civic and Republican Nationalism that emphasises inclusivity, taking in a shared heritage. Language and Traditions tied to Ethnic and Cultural Nationalism as additions were carefully balanced. This was the historical underpinning of American Nationalism.

The Civil War (1861–1865) Nationalism with different ideologies was at war with itself. Tested the nation's identity, pitting Confederate Nationalism, based on states' rights and slavery, against the Union's commitment to preserving the nation. The war revealed deep fractures within the American national identity and highlighted the tension between competing visions of what the United States should stand for. The belief that grounded the United States and its commitment to democratic governance, equality, and liberty for all citizens shattered. Ideas for Slavery and Human rights were in opposition. On the Federal side, they firmly believed, among other things, that Racial hierarchy and the cultural identity of white supremacy firmly exposed the profound hypocrisy in the American national identity.

 Manifest Destiny gained pre-eminence in the Nineteenth Century, witnessing the rise of expansionist Nationalism and the belief that Americans were destined to expand beyond the Appalachians. Such ideas of Manifest Destiny often justify the displacement of Indigenous peoples and the annexation of territories. Manifest Destiny is a term first coined in the 19th century to give credence to what American people perceive as the United States was divinely ordained to expand its territory and spread its values across the North American continent. Such ideology left a lasting impact on the nation's identity and development. Expansion was seen not only as a right but a moral obligation, a divine proclamation to bring progress, Christianity and prosperity to new territories. The Trail of Tears was justified as a necessary steps for American expansion. Americans believed, and still do, that the U.S. is an exception. Since then, such beliefs have become deeply rooted in their history, culture, and ideology. The idea of Manifest Destiny came to play a key role in justifying the drive for continental expansion into a broader sense of global mission.

                                   

The rhetoric of various American political leaders, such as John F. Kennedy's call to "pay any price, bear any burden" to defend freedom, further exemplified modern Manifest Destiny and exceptionalism. Ronald Reagan described the U.S. as a "shining city upon a hill", and Barack Obama asserted that the U.S. is "the indispensable nation." Repeated speeches further added to the belief that the U.S. is not just another country but holds a unique position in the world and a force for good in the world. Manifest Destiny and exceptionalism were the drivers of spreading democracy and capitalism, promoting human rights and international law, and framing all actions as morally justified and beneficial to the world.

As if that was not enough of exceptionalism, fast forward to Globalisation and bring forward ideas of Manifest Destiny into the twentieth century. The relationship that ensued between Globalisation and American Nationalism, though complex and often contradictory, had shaken the foundation of American Nationalism. Although globalisation, to a great extent, successfully reinforced American economic and cultural influence worldwide, amplifying the ideas of American exceptionalism. On the other hand, it has also galvanised a nationalist backlash, as many Americans feel that Globalisation undermines national sovereignty, economic security, and cultural identity. The original intention was good, as America was the major driver of Globalisation. It helped set up many global institutions and the economic order through the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the WTO (World Trade Organisation), and the World Bank. American companies like Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft dominated global markets. Aside from Technological leadership and innovation, American culture and Hollywood movies reinforced the perception of American exceptionalism as a superpower.

                               

However, soon enough, many Americans realised the political, economic, and cultural exchange with the world was not as good as it was cut out to be. The American people realised that Globalisation requires countries to give up some degree of sovereignty to international organisations. This did not sit well among American nationalists about the loss of control over domestic policies, particularly in areas like trade, environmental regulation, and immigration. The negative impact of Globalisation on their jobs and communities' voter anger with Globalisation was one profound reason for electing Donald Trump for President. While Globalisation has benefited many Americans, it has also led to job losses in industries like manufacturing as companies move production overseas to take advantage of cheaper labour.   This would soon contradict the emerging technological know-how, which will soon allow virtual migration, thanks to telerobotics and telepresence. This disruption within American society fueled resentment and a sense of betrayal among many working-class Americans, not at all what Globalisation was meant to be. The distrust contributed to the rise of nationalist movements portrayed in Trump's "America First" agenda. Open borders and the consequent influx of immigrants meant the erosion of American National Identity, with incoming different cultures threatening their values framed in nationalist terms. For others, Globalisation challenged the idea of American exceptionalism, as the rise of China and other emerging powers has called into question the U.S.'s unchallenged dominance. Defending American values and identity was a defensive form of Nationalism and part of that dissolusion and disappointment, many Americans aligned with Trump. He positioned himself as the champion for those who felt they were being left behind or marginalised. He joined in with their resentment, echoing many of their grievances.

This pivot was primarily a reaction to the downsides of economic interdependence. The benefits of Globalisation proved unevenly distributed. In many parts of the United States, international trade brought a decline in domestic industry and the loss of well-paid manufacturing jobs. Entire regions, mainly rural areas like the Rust Belt and predominantly industrial ones, were left behind. Trump's populist message tapped into this frustration, framing himself as a defender of the "forgotten" American worker. He promised an about-turn to renegotiate trade deals and return jobs to the U.S. He offered straightforward, often controversial solutions to complex problems that aroused nationalist fever. In the modern context, his attacks on immigration, Islam, woke culture and "America first" foreign policies can be seen as a reinterpretation of Manifest Destiny. He aroused fear that American values were being eroded and diluted. His policies, such as renegotiating trade deals (e.g., NAFTA to USMCA) and imposing tariffs on China, Europe, Canada and Mexico, aimed to restore American economic dominance and protect U.S. industries, always attempting to prove the American model is best.  

To some critics, Trump appears to use tariffs as a negotiating tactic, while others view this as a protection racket. During his election campaign, he told voters that the taxes were "not going to be a cost to you, it’s a cost to another country". That was almost universally regarded by economists as misleading. Economic studies of the impact of the new tariffs Trump imposed in his first term of office between 2017 and 2020 suggest most of the economic burden was ultimately borne by US consumers.  The non-partisan Peterson Institute for International Economics has estimated that Trump’s new proposed tariffs would lower the incomes of Americans, with the impact ranging from around 4% for the poorest fifth to around 2% for the wealthiest fifth. 

This man wonder, anti-elitist, anti-establishment loved quick fixes. Building a border wall, imposing tariffs, and renegotiating trade deals. These quick fixes appealed to those who felt that traditional politicians had failed to address their concerns. His often abrasive, combative approach showed a willingness to challenge the establishment, political traditions and norms. This created a strong emotional, if not intellectual, connection with his supporters. One example is the recent declassification of key documents related to historical figures such as John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. This could expose the workings of the "deep state" in the United States, marking a milestone in government transparency. His rhetoric of anti-diversity stance, following the Washington air accident on January 30 without evidence, gains the approval of many Republicans. They saw him as authentic, firm in his anti-woke culture and unafraid to speak his mind, in contrast to traditional politicians' polished, insincere rhetoric. The first term of Trump's presidency proved complex and highly controversial. His off-the-cuff remarks, unpredictability, and unsubstantiated and extraordinary claims caused resentment in many circles. However, while he does not explicitly reference Manifest Destiny, the underlying themes of national superiority, sovereignty, and a sense of mission resonate strongly with his rhetoric and policies. His followers remain unshaken by the controversies he leaves behind.

"An infatuated people driven to expansion and genocide by the delusional belief that they were God's chosen. With freedom on their lips, scripture in their hands, and a sense of racial superiority in their blood, Americans mowed down everybody in their way." - 'Manifest Destiny: American Expansion and the Empire of Right' a book by Anders Stephanson 

He has no hesitation in advocating for territorial acquisition and the displacement of indigenous peoples. His focus on national sovereignty and unilateralism reflects a similar desire to assert American independence and control not far short of the Monroe Doctrine, a watchword of U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere. His withdrawal from international agreements (e.g., the Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran nuclear deal) and criticism of global institutions (e.g., the World Health Organization, NATO) can be seen as a modern manifestation of the belief that external forces or alliances should not constrain the United States. This has led to a more inward-looking nationalism that prioritises border security and military strength rather than what many see as isolationist policies.

The ideology often justified using military force to achieve territorial expansion and assert American dominance. The willingness to use force (e.g., drone strikes, the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani) reflects a belief in American military exceptionalism. His creation of the Space Force and his focus on modernising the military can be seen as efforts to maintain and expand American dominance in new frontiers, echoing the expansionist spirit of Manifest Destiny. Trump's rhetoric on Islam often framed it as incompatible with American values, particularly during his calls for a "Muslim ban" and his criticism of Islamic extremism. It is not so much an anti-religious action but rather reflects broader cultural exceptionalism since the US Constitution is viewed as a beacon of freedom and modernity. An engagement in the struggle against perceived threats from the Islamic world. The principal aim is to preserve traditional American values such as Christianity and patriotism, which reflect a belief in the superiority of American culture that must be defended. This aligns with the "clash of civilisations" narrative, which can be seen as a modern extension of the civilisational mission inherent in Manifest Destiny.

The Trumpist phenomenon encouraged rallies featuring slogans like "Make America Great Again" and "Keep America Great," which tapped into a nostalgic vision of the U.S. as a dominant and exceptional nation. The fixation on building the Border Wall is a powerful symbol of Trump's nationalist agenda, representing a physical and ideological barrier.  It falls in line with a modern Manifest Destiny to protect American Sovereignty and identity, both expansionist and exclusionary combined.  

The Trumpist phenomenon is highly contradictory, but they work. Despite his elite status, Trump, a billionaire businessman, has long been part of the upper echelons of American society and positioned himself as an outsider fighting against the establishment. His rhetoric targeted political, media, and corporate elites, whom he accused of being out of touch with ordinary Americans. Phrases like "drain the swamp" and "forgotten men and women" were music to the ears of his supporters left behind by Globalisation and technological change. Trump's brash, often aggressive style challenged political norms and presented him as anti-establishment. Renegotiating trade deals, imposing tariffs, and prioritising American jobs were framed as efforts to protect working-class Americans from the excesses of corporate and global elites. He targets the political elites, the media elites, and the academic, scientific and intellectual elites in preference to common sense and reasoning by gut feeling. Dismissing the ideas from the eminent scientist Anthony Fauci at times of the Covid crisis, and when asked by a reporter how he could blame diversity programmes for the Washington crash when the investigation had only just begun, he responded, "because I have common sense." His blunt, abrasive and confrontational style made him seem more relatable to those who felt alienated by the political establishment.  The 'anti-elite' elite rather sums up his phenomena, and he succeeds in blurring the line between the two by pretending to be an outsider.

                                 

However, all that have their limits, such as rhetoric, attitudes, and oppositional views, have tendencies to divide society. While Donald Trump successfully positioned himself as an anti-elitist figure for many of his supporters, a significant portion of the population—including critics, political opponents, and even some within his own base—viewed him as a hypocrite and a conman. The idea that he is anti-elitist is delusional, and there are apparent contradictions between his elite status, his policies, and his populist rhetoric. Someone who lives in a brash gold-plated penthouse and frequents elite social circles cannot genuinely claim to represent the "forgotten" working class or the forty million people living below the poverty line. The billionaires that lined up his inaugural platform and the corporations that donate to his cause belies such claims. 

Critics argue that these policies contradict his populist promises to fight for ordinary Americans. To"drain the swamp" of corruption in Washington is a fallacy since his administration's hiring of lobbyists, corporate executives, and wealthy donors for key positions is nothing short of evidence that he was part of the very system he claimed to oppose. Trump's use of hyperbole, false claims, and divisive rhetoric led many to view him as a manipulative figure who exploited the grievances of his supporters for personal and political gain.

The presidency of Donald Trump, on his first attempt, profoundly influenced the division and polarisation of American society.  It left a legacy that has continued to shape the political landscape.  This second term is envisaged to create even more divisions. His emphasis on cultural and identity issues resonated deeply with his base but alienated many others, particularly minorities and progressives.  His fixation on building the border wall and imposing restrictive measures on Muslim immigration was seen as xenophobic but celebrated by supporters as protecting American values. Trump frequently framed politics as a battle between "real Americans" and elites, immigrants, or liberals. A culture of "us vs them" mentality deepened divisions and fostered a sense of tribalism. Delighting many of his fans, he swipes at the media ("fake news"), the judiciary, and even the electoral process.  

Altogether, it has eroded trust in institutions and created a climate of suspicion and hostility. His presidency challenged many long-standing traditions and what is politically normal, such as the peaceful transfer of power at the end of his term in office and the independence of the justice system shaking the foundation of American Democracy. Such attacks gave rise to distrust and suspicion of politics and partisan. Moreover, the Trump trajectory has sparked a nationalist backlash among those who feel left behind or threatened by its consequences. As the U.S. navigates the challenges of the 21st century, America is generously endowed with natural resources and sufficiently created geopolitical means and resources, attempting to lock its pivotal power in the world. However, the relationship between Globalisation and Nationalism within will continue to be a central issue in American politics and society but, unfortunately, under a cloud of mistrust, suspicion and unpredictability.  One of the likelihoods is that Donald Trump's presidency will leave behind multiple layers of an antagonistic society where assertiveness stands before reason. 

The Middle East According to Trump

 

And Trump said let there be Peace, and behold there was Peace, and Trump said let the hostages go and behold the hostages were released, and Trump said let the Palestinians return to their homes, and behold the Palestinians returned to their rubble. So it was said, so it shall be done.

Well, to be fair, he didn't exactly say it like that; the President-Elect of the United States of America, Donald Trump, is quoted as saying, 'all hell will break out in the Middle East' if Gaza doesn't release hostages. Divinity hasn't quite reached him yet, so bluntness will do for now rather than trying to emulate the words of Isaiah. He probably knows what the Hell is and probably wouldn't know who the hell was or is Isaiah. But that is another story.

Diplomacy is not a strong point when it comes to his foreign policies, so instead, he huffs and puffs until he blows the house down in presenting American Power on the world stage. Power to Peace would be the iconic language for the next four years. He is full of himself. His projection of American political status is upfront. Indeed, he takes on the mantle of God-given rights of kings, unabashedly rejecting traditional diplomacy on the world’s stage. The majority of US voters appointed him the driver of the most powerful military and economic machines on the planet, giving him his license to cross all the red lights.

But enough about this ​Legally defined sexual predator who boasted on Access Hollywood that women let him "grab 'em by the pussy’ President-elect of the United States; obviously, lechery goes a long way in American politics. But for this piece, let's come down to earth, specifically to the Middle East.

The focus is Gaza and Israel for now and ending the fifteen-month damaging War that has killed over 50,000 innocent civilian Palestinians and more than 2000 Israeli soldiers aside from unknown numbers of hostages who may have died while incarcerated. The War resulted from Hammas attacking a Kibbutz where young people were partying in southern Israel on 7th October 2023, killing about 1,200 people and taking 251 back to Gaza as hostages, which triggered a massive Israeli offensive on Gaza. The United States, Egypt, Turkey and Qatar have been key players in these peace negotiations. It is widely reported that the two adversaries have finally reached a hostage release agreement, and a ceasefire will follow. 

The deal is made up of three stages, the first of which is expected on Sunday, 19th January 2025, one day before Donald Trump's inauguration also, marking the beginning of a six-week truce. It stipulates the release of 33 hostages over a six-week period, including women, children, older adults and wounded civilians, in exchange for potentially hundreds of Palestinian women and children imprisoned by Israel. In the meantime, as I am writing this, three days before the appointed date, the War and the killing go on. The Peace process could break down between now and Sunday since the element of mistrust on both sides underlines the long road to arrive at this stage.  

One of Israel's continued key war aims has been to destroy Hamas's military and governing capabilities. Israel has severely damaged it after 15 months of IDF operations backed by daily deadly airstrikes. However, as evidenced by the fact that it can still negotiate, Hamas still has some capacity to operate and regroup.

The Peacedeal heralded, maybe prematurely, as the deal of the century was first proposed in May 2023 by President Biden, who takes the credit for the present agreement that it is based on the framework he set out back then. At the time, Iran, the main sponsor of Hamas, as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, were riding high, deluded in their inviolability. Well, since then, the severe erosion of Iran's firepower capacity and its dependence for now on conventional deterrence has weakened its proxies, and all three have seen their firepower disintegrate; their first casualty was the fall of the Assad regime in Syria. That followed a severe air bombardment of the Houthis and the consequent crushing of Hezbollah forces in Southern Lebanon. The "Axis of Resistance", a key part of Iran's grand strategy, is dislocated. Besides, Israel's IDF is tired of War, having almost non-stop fighting on three fronts for the last twelve months with nothing more to show for it except further killing. The negotiating table should be where it's at. Peace from weariness instead of through Power.  

Naturally, Trump, never one to miss the limelight, also claims the pivotal role in ending the War and bringing about the hitherto elusive ceasefire. But what he added, so far as I can tell, are two headliners. One is Pressure, which includes economic and military sanctions and diplomatic isolation, and the other is Guarantee, which promises military support and security assurances. Both are aimed at Israel. Many of the news media are reporting this without saying what type of Pressure or what sort of guarantees Trump has laid out, but what seems to happen is that Israel's about-turn in crushing Hammas forever but now accepts the inevitable. The main objective of Trump's representative in the peace talks was to end the War before inauguration day.

I am not a political scientist, but I will stick my neck out and attempt to unpack the 'inevitable' in layman's language. The Guarantees remain unanswered, and the leverages in securing the deal concern Iran in the first place, the Saudis and, most importantly, the West Bank and, although a long way off, the idea of a two-state solution could once more gain substance.

L'État, c'est moi

Iran's weakening of its conventional military deterrence left it with no alternative but to resume its nuclear ambition despite the piles of sanctions the previous Trump administration imposed on it. This time around, there would undoubtedly be more of the same in an effort to cripple such trajectories finally. Europe, whatever political clout left for itself, would follow suit, a cumulative effort in the hope of bringing down Iran's oppressive and authoritarian theocratic regime. It is not far-fetched if oil-rich Iraq, an adherent supporter of Iran, may find itself in a similar circumstance. Iraq's economy, which is heavily dependent on imports, can easily buckle under the strain of economic sanctions.

The losers in the deal, I envisage, are, yet again, the Palestinian people and, maybe ideologically, Jordan. There is a remote chance that America will compensate the Palestinians by offering an independent Gaza as a way out of a two-state enterprise. A loss of the West Bank would, at a stroke, legalise the Jewish settlement already there to further encourage Jewish immigration to their promised land, Judaea and Samaria. This may indeed result in social unrest among the Palestinians, but American Power, or MAGA for short, is always ready to see to it. Trump is no friend of the Palestinians, nor has he had the American Evangelicals to think about.  This time around, he has more of a free reign.

The Israeli premier told lawmakers recently that Israel's War in Gaza had offered opportunities to sign new peace accords with Arab nations and 'dramatically change the face of' the Middle East. The Abraham Accord started under Trump's first administration to expand, taking in the oil-rich Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have, for the last couple of years, held steadfast that it would not recognise Israel unless the latter accepts and implements the framework of a two-state solution for the Palestinian people. There you have it. Gaza independence can seal that deal, so says Trump.

The Middle East remains one of the world's most geopolitically complex and dynamic regions. A mix of historical grievances, ethnic and sectarian divides, external interventions, and resource competition often drives border changes and geopolitical shifts. While predicting the future is inherently uncertain, several trends, variables and factors could influence the region's borders and geopolitics.    Sectarianism, fragmentations along ideological and ethnic lines, and the solidification of semi-autonomous regions would have to be considered. Potential annexation of the West Bank, a central to the Palestinian cause and Turkish interest in Iraq and Syria to secure its borders from Turkish agitation appears increasingly likely, with counterterrorism they will continue to shape regional dynamics and fuel instability.

The Abraham Accords and subsequent normalisation deals between Israel and Arab countries like the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan have reshaped regional dynamics. The potential inclusion of Saudi Arabia in such agreements would be a significant milestone. However, a broader peace will likely depend on some resolution to the Palestinian issue, whether through renewed negotiations or alternative frameworks. Rather than US power subduing Palestinian resistance, economic initiatives, such as increased investments in Palestinian territories or shared infrastructure projects, act as confidence and trust-building measures.

The likelihood of the West Bank being formally annexed by Israel, similar to the annexation of the Golan Heights, depends on a complex interplay of domestic, regional, and international factors. The West Bank, which was captured in 1967, remains a highly contested area. It is home to a large Palestinian population and numerous Israeli settlements. Unlike the Golan Heights, the West Bank is central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has been envisioned as part of a future Palestinian state in most peace frameworks.

The current Israeli government, particularly under leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu, includes factions that support annexation. They argue that the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria) is historically and religiously part of Israel. There is every reason to believe that is what Trump has guaranteed Israel as the next episode of the Abraham Accords, which proved that normalisation does not necessarily depend on resolving the Palestinian issue despite the chorus of condemnation from European countries.

The main problem for Israel is Demography. Annexing the entire West Bank would mean absorbing a large Palestinian population. This could challenge Israel's identity as both a Jewish and democratic state, as granting Palestinians full citizenship would alter its demographic balance while denying them rights would attract accusations of apartheid. Annexation could destabilise neighbouring Jordan, which has a peace treaty with Israel and a large Palestinian population. It might also reignite tensions with other Arab states, even those that have normalised relations with Israel.

Trump has a lot of work to do.

The Sun King has more than his head in the Clouds.

Resetting British Culture.

 

Introduction

Rioting is nothing new on Britain's streets; many experienced the violent clashes in Notting Hill in 1958, a racially motivated series of riots between white British residents and newly arrived Afro-Caribbean immigrants, the 1991 Tottenham riots, sparked by the death of a black man in police custody, and others over the years. But this time, the recent riots have a different context and underlying causes.

What started as a protest against the murder of three little girls in Southport has swept the country for days, fuelled by the spread of misinformation on social media. The cause of the anger is sharply contested. For some, they are racist far-right agitators, and opportunist thugs whipped up by populist politicians and commentators. For others, they represent a more profound unease about successive immigration and social policies, which have left people feeling ignored, marginalised, and even despised by politicians and mainstream media. The ideological divide is between those who see 'diversity as strength', believing that a diverse society is stronger and more resilient, and those who think unlimited tolerance breeds its own intolerance, arguing that excessive tolerance can lead to the acceptance of intolerant views. For all the images of burning cars, racist graffiti and violent looting, there is another side to the story: those who help in the clean-up, who show solidarity with their Muslim neighbours, and who make clear their opposition to racist hatred.

One of the vital issues to the cause of the riots is that many of those taking part are working class who feel they are the ones who are paying a heavy price for immigration. Successive governments have stopped listening to their grievances, and peaceful demonstrations are not doing it and giving unfair advantages, for instance, in housing and welfare, while the working class see the deprivation of their neighbourhood deteriorating. These grievances and concerns were often mistaken for racist views and ignored. Successive governments for the last twenty years have stopped listening to a series of peaceful demonstrations. The economic problems lowering the standard of living and the all-around pressure on their spending have exasperated their frustrations.

Broken borders, illegal migrants £1.2 million costing £8 to £10 million a day, a policy people did not vote for. The government must urgently organise for national and rational debates to be put on the table and discussed, as well as to follow up and slow immigration to a manageable level so at least let the infrastructure reach an adequate level to provide a reasonable level of services. Amid mounting fears of violent Islamic extremism, many in Britain as in Europe ask whether Muslim immigrants can integrate into historically Christian countries. Indeed, more effort is needed, even to the point of resetting the British Culture.  It is argued, therefore, that both British Muslims and non-Muslim British must share responsibility to speed up the progress of Muslim integration and build a cohesive Britain.

What is culture?

                                                                           

There is a rumour that during the first couple of days after the start of the riots in Liverpool, a group of young lads draped with the flag of St George set up a roadblock. They stopped drivers to ask them, "Are you English?" and one of the drivers replied, "No, I am British," and another said I am not English; I am from Yorkshire". Little did the young lad realise that the question he asked was an age-old question that had played on the minds of the English with their identity for centuries. The English only identify by what they are not; otherwise, they do not need an identity since they are the majority. The English are not Scottish, Welsh, or Irish. They are neither Norman nor Saxon. An English identity is a myth, an imagined identity, and that is as far it goes with Nationalism in Britain. Yet, the resilience of the British identity, rooted in its diversity and adaptability, remains a source of reassurance.

The mix of the early Danes and the Germanic people with the indigenous people as early as the fourth century created a diverse society. The Norman invaders of 1066, bringing in their baggage of over ten thousand French words, failed to overcome the unique trait of an already diverse people. The invaders became the invaded. And so it is today. Immigrants to this green and pleasant land call it home and join in what has become British culture. Their contributions, stretching their natural inherited limits and blending their nature to join this rich, diverse cultural community, have enriched British culture. They are the ones who have allowed us to achieve an equilibrium in a pluralistic society that energises a happy life under the umbrella of the British sense of the culture of tolerance, fair play, and legal systems, values embedded in British history and heritage.

So, from this introduction, I can say that immigration is nothing new. The attempt at dividing this status quo is very much so. In simple terms, my ideas are taken from a personal point of view. When I first came to this country in 1958, I was one of few, a part of an immigration drizzle that had started soon after 1945. Drop ink in a large bucket of water that would quickly dissipate as I and thousands of others like me have done. Especially within the last ten years, specifically after Brexit, the trickle became a whole bottle of ink thrown in at once in that same bucket of water. The 'flow became a flood', which was a rapid increase in the immigrant population. This rapid increase has, by and large, resulted in clusters of communities, which naturally breeds identity politics as each community tends to protect its cultural distinctiveness—resulting in a pluralistic society of parallel lives and remaining happy with that difference.

Immigration

Such communitarian direction comes at the cost of traditional British dominant culture. Pluralism can be achieved, but not at the expense of losing British values. Mutual respect is the basis for tolerance, the rule of law, democracy, reasonableness, and individual liberty. An understanding of overlapping consensus as in Rawle's theory of Justice as Fairness suggests. Those who cannot accept this feel a sense of helplessness and social deprivation. Joining the new Reform Party provides a refuge, and they see its policies as a probable answer to their grievances.

There is no doubt for many that the cumulative growth of immigration is reaching a critical point, giving ammunition to those who say it is going out of control. An increase of 750,000 last year and a projected six million more by 2035, double the present population of Wales, is a significant strain on an already beleaguered health service. It's exerting pressure on an inadequate housing infrastructure, overstretched schools, and other services. The urgency of this situation cannot be overstated. Others, however, argue that these services will collapse without immigrants working in them. The NHS, for instance, is dependent on immigrants apart from the hospital backup staff; we need to train more doctors or nurses.  Importing these Doctors and Nurses, often from poor countries, who need them most raises a fundamental moral question.  But I digress.  

Yet, cohesion is an agreed foundation on which society is built when different groups within a society can live side by side with mutual respect and tolerance. This is a lofty ideal but a practical necessity for a harmonious society. Some libertarians argue for open borders, emphasising the free movement of individuals as a fundamental principle of liberty. They believe individuals should have the right to move freely and seek opportunities. Many in Britain will support that view, and many others would defy this stand if it comes at the cost of the working class, mainly when immigrants are distributed in poor areas where services are overstretched and crumbling housing accommodations. Cultural distinctiveness becomes a distinguishing marker for a heated atmosphere, dislocating any would-be harmony there may have been. One way or another, the dominant group must re-identify, "I may be poor, but I am—Somebody!"

The dominant group sees immigrants as protected by The 1951 UN Refugee Convention, The European Convention of Human Rights and The 1998 Human Rights Act and a sea of solicitors ready to act on these pointers. What was supposed to be the dominant group resented the resulting invisibility and wanted public recognition of their inner worth. This collective identity, knowingly or unknowingly, leads to what we today label as modern identity politics. Economic problems the country is in at the moment tend to exasperate the frustration, and often enough, scapegoating is always at hand. In culturally diverse societies, we can easily find patterns of state support for some cultural groups over others. Consequently, anxieties of the white working class refuse to endure such alienation. They shift to the Right to find refuge in populism and far-right, radical parties, where they are further manipulated towards racial differences, bringing racial hatred to the forefront. Headlines in newspapers further fuelled by politicians add to these temperaments.

Government policies right and wrong

The government has a legal duty to look after refugees but has no legal duty to look after their own. 
The distribution of refugees could be better directed. They are put in the poorest yet housed comfortably. At the same time, those of their own have to wait for eighteen months or more and even then are housed in poor conditions, often mouldy and overcrowded accommodation. The local people feel ignored and marginalised, even despised by the establishment. The mainstream media headlines these discrepancies and unfair advantages, which adds fuel to an already volatile situation. The result is a divided, burgeoning, pluralist society. In such cases, it belies the idea that multiculturalism is enriching. In contrast, people experience a loss of privileges, prioritising the incoming rights over those already there, changing the nature of their communities they never agreed to, creating a loss in the natural and traditional social cohesion.

Britain also attracts some of the world's most capable and highly qualified people, driving up our wealth-creating potential. National life is enriched culturally and socially. Bringing in cheap nurses and doctors abroad, often poorer countries depriving their local population of badly needed care is open to criticism that this policy hinges on the moral question of self-interest. 

That aside, bringing these people ironically stokes the fires even more. Nurses and doctors, whom we can not do without, need their families with them, yet more immigrants are needed, which exasperates the problem of community cohesion and adds pressure on an already beleaguered infrastructure in its present form. We need to torch the idea that multiculturalism in this country is somehow guaranteed. 

The 0.1% of those rioting with the help of social media directing the anger has put an end to that.

 Coming to this country, immigrants need to sign up for Britain's distinctive moral values, which are rooted in its heritage of tolerance, fair play, legal system, and theological Christian ethos that in today's secular world is labelled as Liberalism. 

A desperate need to adjust this balance: People with low or no income can apply for an HC2 certificate to help with health costs, regardless of their nationality and/or immigration status. All asylum seekers are entitled to an HC2 certificate; some receive theirs automatically. An HC2 certificate entitles individuals to free NHS prescriptions, dental treatment, wigs and fabric support, sight tests, vouchers towards the cost of glasses or contact lenses, and necessary travel costs to and from a hospital for NHS treatment under the care of a consultant.

Home Office figures cited by the Financial Times in August last year showed that the annual asylum cost reached £3.96 billion in the year up to 2023—double that of the previous year and six times higher than 2018   

Multiculturalism

Cultures serve as "contexts of choice," which provide meaningful options and scripts with which people can frame, revise, and pursue their goals - William Kymlicka.

"Cultural membership plays an important role in people's self-identity 

- Avishai Margalit and Joseph Raz.

The idea of multiculturalism reflects a debate about understanding and responding to the challenges associated with cultural diversity based on ethnic, national, and religious differences. Multiculturalism goes well beyond the definition of a 'melting pot', in which members of minority groups are expected to assimilate with the dominant culture. Instead, those voting for an ideal multiculturalism favour members of the minority group to maintain their distinctive collective identities and practices, as earlier suggested 'the similar but different.' In Britain, as elsewhere, is organised around the dominant groups' language and culture, which creates barriers for sections of minority groups in pursuing their social practices. Identity politics, the politics of difference and "the politics of recognition "all add to multiculturalism. This refers to both sides, so the minority group would not feel marginalised. The dominant group need to adjust its patterns, taking into account any disadvantages the marginalised minority groups may suffer from categories that include religion, language, ethnicity, nationality, and race.

One problem that can act as a barrier to multiculturalism is the approach to Liberalism. Liberals tend to adhere to individual autonomy and appeal to be ethical individualists. They insist that individuals should be free to choose and pursue their own ideas of the good life. They are atomistic by nature and prioritise individual rights over the collective communitarian ideals for national self-determination. British culture embraces the contents of choice, which gives people options for living and pursuing their intentions, forming an essential part of self-identity. To borrow from Charles Taylor, an eminent Canadian Philosopher, "Cultural identity as providing people with an anchor for their self-identification and the safety of effortless secure belonging". This means there is a deep and general connection between a person's self-respect and the respect accorded to the cultural group of which Muslims are part. It is not simply membership in any culture but one's own culture that must be secured for cultural membership to serve as a meaningful context of choice and a basis of self-respect.

Language no longer provides that communitarian identity for many Muslims; though embracing ethical Liberalism, they do so not in isolation of religion. In this case, Islam would serve as a group identity. Indeed, we end up in a clash of values, one which makes it harder to find a path of compromise between Muslims and the rest. Many Muslims take pride in this very fact, but that does not mean not mixing with the dominant group. It is this unwillingness to compromise in the face of secularising pressures, they would say, that makes Islam both vibrant and distinctive. They say it is undemocratic and illiberal to ask British Muslims to be as religious as they want at home but to keep their Islam out of public view. They refuse to accept for their group to prosper, religion would have to be controlled and constrained privately or by the state. We end up with State Liberalism against the Ideology of Islam. 

Integration

"I do not regard it [integration] as meaning the loss, by immigrants, of their own national characteristics and culture. I do not think that we need in this country a 'melting pot', which will turn everybody out in a common mould, as one of a series of carbon copies of someone's misplaced vision of the stereotyped Englishman. I define integration, therefore, not a flattening process of assimilation but as equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance." - Roy Jenkins, British Home Secretary

The fear of Islam is central to the lack of integration. List of Islamist-related terrorists:

The Manchester Arena bombing – an Islamist extremist suicide bomber detonated a shrapnel-laden homemade bomb as people were leaving the Manchester Arena following a concert by American singer Ariana Grande.

The 2017 London Bridge attack was an incident where an attacker ran over multiple pedestrians on London Bridge. On Borough Market, the occupants of the van stabbed multiple people before being shot by police.

A bomb wrapped in a plastic grocery bag concealed in a bucket exploded at the height of the morning rush on the London Underground. ISIL claimed responsibility for the bombing.

The Rochdale child sex abuse ring involved underage teenage girls in Rochdale. Nine Asian men were convicted of sex trafficking and other offences, including rape, trafficking girls for sex and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child. 'I was raped more than 100 times from age 12', says a young rescued girl.

It is these and more like them we hear about from around the world that can keep divisiveness and discrimination alive and play havoc in an attempt to keep multiculturalism tamed.

Islam resistance

As a result, British Muslims are widely perceived as threatening, a perception that urgently needs to be addressed. This perception is based in large part on the above and on cultural differences between Muslims and rooted British culture that feed both rational and irrational Islamophobia. There seems to be a religious component of discrimination, identifying a discriminatory equilibrium in which both Muslim immigrants and native British act negatively toward one another in a self-perpetuating, vicious circle.

Disentangling the rational and irrational threads of Islamophobia is essential if Britain hopes to repair a social fabric that has frayed around the issue of Muslim immigration. Muslim immigrants must address their own responsibility for the failures of integration, and Britain must acknowledge the anti-Islam sentiments at the root of their antagonism—urgent public policy solutions aimed at promoting religious diversity in fair-minded host societies. Education plays a crucial role in this, as it can help to dispel misconceptions and foster understanding. We need to put in place a correct level of environment for enough people to have jobs and housing and for people to welcome the immigrants instead of the resentments and divisions we see in today's environment. Also, to clear the backlog of waiting asylum seekers, easing the financial burden on the country and solving the social and economic problems.

Those at the extreme end of belief, there is a willing culture to accept Islam as an authoritarian religion, allowing it to colonise the mind. Whatever it teaches must be correct, and no other way of thinking is accepted, establishing a conflict between Religion and State, descending into the medievalist darkness, effectively submitting to rule from within, and abandoning reason and their free will. At the same time, their nature remains static and takes no account of self-reflection. Politically, Britain and countries in Europe with similar cultural structures, such as France and Germany, find themselves once more at a dangerous crossroads, the dark ages of illiberal Europe, which the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 resolved. The press and social media play such significance in spreading ideas that such enrollment is dangerous to the British way of life.

Conclusion

To end this rather lengthy essay, I turn to St. Augustine, asking why God did not make things similar. He replied if all things were identical, they would not exist. He created diversity not as a vehicle of self-realisation [...] but out of his love of his creation and as part of his design to create a perfect world. God could have easily created a uniform universe […] he did not show how great value he placed on diversity. In diversity, each one of us is endowed with a distinct nature whose constitution follows an identical drive towards the good life, and we each contribute to this harmony- Taken from Bhikhu Parekh's book 'Rethinking Multiculturalism'

Balancing the rights of immigrants with the concerns of the white working class requires careful policy-making that addresses the needs of all groups while promoting fairness, inclusivity, and social cohesion. To Promote equal protection under the law while safeguarding the rights of immigrants and addressing the legitimate concerns of the white working class about job security, wages, and social services. Publicly emphasise that legal protections for immigrants are part of broader human rights protections that apply to everyone. It can help dispel the misconception that one group receives preferential treatment over another. Encourage initiatives that bring together immigrants and the white working class in community activities, sports, or local projects. Shared experiences and interactions can help build mutual understanding and reduce feelings of alienation. Organise cultural exchange programs that allow different communities to learn about each other's backgrounds and traditions. It can foster respect and appreciation for diversity—launch campaigns to address misconceptions about immigration, including immigrants' economic and social contributions. Educating the public about the benefits of immigration can help reduce fear and resentment.

A collage of ideas, therefore, taken from all walks of life, including the mainstream media, to look again at the differences and grievances. Pluralism in this great country of ours does not exist in a vacuum. We owe it at least to the future generation to keep that spirit of British fair play and tolerance for the next generation and keep the English or British heritage alive. 

Republican Party of the United States

Warning: What you see is not always what you get

Just as Kellogs, Fairy Liquid and Mars Bar projected on our small screens with annoying jingles in the background, we see the United States's would-be President commodified and objectified, wrapped in colourful paper or tinned up even, and branded to the general public. The US presidential race in America has become like vying for a product, where policies and objectives are pushed to the shadows, taking Capitalism to the next level. They don't need policies or directions, but so long as they are carefully angled, propped, gloss applied, and how they came across to us matters most. And as long as they can read what garbage is written for them on the teleprompter and humm their one-liners 'bring it on', they can face their flock. One-line slogans will do instead of manifestos, "Lock her up" became part of the election lexicon not long ago and achieved a great following.

Raising donations is like budgeting for advertising and projecting an appearance. In the morning, afternoon, and evening, for each session, America's PR machine has a module that suits the day's audience. Mudslinging and Racist slurs are Republican infantry weapons, their firepower easily strafing their opponents as one does in happy-gun-carrying America.

Talking of the American take on Republicanism brings me to the political and economic divisive ideas of the Republican Party, finding its legitimacy mainly in its ideology of laissez-faire economics. State welfare is taboo; a helping hand or creating a safety net for the disadvantaged is a misnomer. Instead, they look at military spending as a means of waging war worldwide while keeping a Capitalist ideology, lacking in human face, at a high point.

Military engagement is never far from its ideology. Dehumanising the foreign is a Republican attribute not unlike the proxy war engaging Israel against the civilian population of Gaza, actions mostly borne out of nationalist tendencies. Republican interventionist policies are buyenlarge taken against the weak, and the proliferation of sanctions is attempted against the stronger.

The Republican slogan adapted from the Trump campaign, 'Make America White Again', is another take on MAGA (make America Great Again), is no more than identity politics, implying American identity based on white blood. To a large degree, this has come to identify the divergent views that create tensions and even segregation within American society. Polarised ideas are encouraged top-down, cascading all the way from the Supreme Court's partisan directives emanating from Republican voting US justices who sit on the Supreme Court, implicitly lending a hand to such divisions in society. The present status quo is arguably a creation of the Republican Party under ex-president Trump, which the party have come to accept and enjoy.

The Supreme Court, identified by its Republican majority on the bench, has since gone further in rulings recently to cloak the President of the United States with infallibility. Under this circumstance, an almost certain return of Trump again as President, we could see the abuse of Democracy, turning Congress and the idea of a Bicameral legislature on its head. Authoritarian one-person rule America where its President is King and can do no wrong is on the horizon. Indeed, Trump has become synonymous with Authoritarianism. The forefathers of American Democracy must be spinning in their grave-in unison.

But let's see what values their idol holds, what some people say about the man's values and, by association, the Republican Party's edifices:

He is a 'moral disaster' 'America's Hitler' He is a 'total fraud' He is a 'cynical asshole' - JD Vance, Trump's running mate. 

As I write this post, Trump is said to have lacked good judgment in choosing Vance and is about to drop him in favour of Nikky Haley. Yes, from bad to worse.  

On his moral standing:

Since the 1970s, at least 26 women have publicly accused Trump of rape, kissing, and groping without consent; looking under women's skirts; and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants. Of course, he issued denials on all charges, calling his accusers liars.

"And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." "Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."That was on BBC published video.

The Pope, he said, was 'a pawn of Mexico'.

"A con man," said. Sen. Marco Rubio. "Utterly amoral," said Sen. Ted Cruz.

Trump is indifferent to conventional notions of morality and is surprised by people motivated by them. Therefore, by definition, those aligned with Trump must hold similar values.

Republicans claim to be keepers of the Truth, which is an identity trap and is no more than identity politics based on historical legacy. The conservative campaign is built around opposition to immigration, especially from Mexico and the Muslim world. Preaching diversity of thought and action as foreign, even anti-American, where DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) is given a racist slant. Their narrow definition of American identity is based on shared religion (Protestantism), ethnicity (descent from the English), common language (English), and belief in the same republican principles of government. The anti-immigrant demons that have been summoned are often deeply illiberal and could undermine the open political order on which America's prosperity has been based rather than take steps to shape national identities in ways that promote a sense of democratic and open community.  

They claim exclusive rights to justice with no effort towards a compromise to at least avoid a sectarian and divided society. Imposing their terms in setting out political arrangements to gain a social, territorial advantage in a non-aligned state of affairs seems to increase the division between social and political nationalism versus social and political pluralism.

Conservative world view to scaffold society on their own nuts and bolts is a camouflage for state control, which includes:

• Caging drug addicts.
• Massive military spending
• They are happy to incarcerate drug addicts instead of opening up state-sponsored institutions to treat the symptoms.
• Interference in family planning.
• Saying no to immigrants, no to Muslims.
• Muzzling free speech and identifying liberalism with leftist radical organisations, classifying liberal ideology of freedom as coming from a bunch of lunatics.
• 
  

In a world of extreme diversity, we can no longer impose a particular conception of how we should all live and which goals we should all pursue without trampling the legitimate liberty of others.

Reciprocal terms of cooperation should be the imperatives, refraining from using political power to favour their worldview or repress the views of other reasonable people. They seem oblivious to a changed world where a pluralist society needs diverse opinions that are acceptable to the majority. By definition, this is what Democracy stand on. And, whereas the democrats have not claimed to be gatekeepers of this ideology, they try to be reasonable in achieving a stage of overlapping consensus based on reasonableness.

These days, we all claim to be holders of Truth, and as individuals with a multitude of diverse views and ideas, in arriving at our definition of truths, we tend to tear away the fabric of Democracy. The irony is that the Democrats try to avoid these dichotomies and prevent Democratic ideology from cannibalising itself but allow room for fairness to prevail to arrive at a liberal institutional framework.

In this era of increasing diversity, the imposition of a singular worldview undermines the fundamental liberty of others. Embracing pluralism and embracing diverse viewpoints is the path to building a truly inclusive and cohesive society. The Republican Party must recognise the need for dialogue and cooperation and adapt to a changing world where diverse opinions are valued and respected.

By contrast, especially under a forthcoming authoritarianism, the Republicans monopolise religious as well as moral pseudo-ideas of Truth while embedding their own principles to that end. Such polarisation needs tempering; there is a need to be respectful and inclusive of all rather than seeking to dominate and suppress alternative perspectives. Encouraging dialogue and understanding and emphasising the value of different viewpoints would be beneficial for fostering a cohesive society.

Additionally, acknowledging the necessity of adapting to social and cultural changes over time is crucial for progress and harmony within a diverse community. Unfortunately, I see contrasting views going into the future; as long as Trump is in the White House, I can not see any such fusion within a polarised American society but a highly volatile, unstable and increasingly divided American nation.