“The Right Wind”
I wrote about this a few days ago, best describing Schlein's expression, and apparently some resented it. I therefore want to spend a few more words on it, given that it is happening in Tunisia.
First of all, the expression "wind of the right" seems to mean that these progressive victories of the right would be something inexplicable, immanent, impersonal and apolitical, something that has no cause, like the wind.
By saying “right wind” one gets rid of the duty of having to explain the phenomenon.
And yet, if this right-wing wind affects the USA, Sweden, Greece, Italy, Spain, as well as the Czech Republic, we must ask ourselves some questions.
And it must be done if the only thing these nations have in common is illegal immigration, on an increasing scale, of minorities who do not integrate into the local culture.
When a country is hit by an illegal flow of migrants, within a couple of years comes the turn to the right, and not towards a civil right. It's a fact.
It's not the right wind, it's not the rain, it's not the cynical and cheating fate, it's not the story and it's not the period. The victories of the neo-fascist and nationalist right always follow the arrival of an illegal migratory flow.
You can verify experimentally: it is happening right in Tunisia. In a very short time, a migratory flow from black Africa wiped out any hope of democracy, reforms, a decent government, and put a fascist government in power.
And what are you going to do now, accuse the evil racist, supremacist white man again? In Tunisia?
The problem with this phenomenon is not so much that the usual fakes fleeing reality don't want to recognize it as such. Fakes are fakes and remain so.
The problem is that someone else notices it, who maybe doesn't want to be put under pressure on human rights. Do you want a pro-Orban Germany? Have it run over by an illegal migratory flow, WITHOUT giving Merkel the chance to make it legal and structure it. And go, within two or three years you will have the AfD in power in Berlin.
The Turks had problems with the continuing controversies from Scandinavian governments regarding human rights. They simply adjusted the tap of Syrian migrants to get them there, and today they have beautiful Alt-Right governments, which are starting to "work" on the human rights discourse. Even Lukashenka has brought migrants to the Polish border, knowing full well what embarrassment they can cause: unfortunately for him it is difficult to bring Poland further to the right, so he has lost.
But it is obvious that this mechanism is known to the enemies of democracy, and that they are learning to use it, indeed: they have already learned it.
The truth, nowadays, is that any western democracy resists as such until the current dictator decides that England must vote for Brexit. In that case, a nice migratory flow and go: England votes for Brexit to take control of the borders.
Not realizing this simple, obvious fact means looking for it: as soon as someone wants the democratic country X to become totalitarian, all they have to do is invest it with an illegal migratory flow.
The real question, the rational one, is to ask ourselves whether instead of retreating behind the dialectics of racism or non-racism, it wouldn't be better to concentrate on the effects of this political technique.
There is, in fact, a method to definitively get rid of this sword of Damocles: a referendum on migration. Citizens are asked to vote, whether they want other African and Asian immigrants or not.
If the answer is "yes", society will have to accept that it has chosen to be welcoming, and the fascist fomentors will have to understand that they are the minority.
If instead the answer is no, much more probable, the government will have to act accordingly but will be able to do so in full, explicit popular mandate.
In both cases democracy would be saved.
But that's probably not what you want.