I video di Nigel Farage recentemente rinvenuti rivelano il sostegno ai rivoltosi, agli eventi neonazisti e agli slogan di estrema destra

I bet you all my money this won’t make it to the BBC headlines nor will change people’s view on this frog. For all I know, as a comparison, they could release real videos with Trump sexually abusing minors or with him admitting to it and nothing will ever happen. Sad.

Ok?

Going by the Ricky joans precedent that doesn’t matter

Note

I hate frarge

This is a guy who’s willing to say “Big chungus sends his regards” and give shout outs to events run by white nationalists for £50 per video, and close to a third of the country thinks he’d be the right choice for PM lmao

Meanwhile in mad red Reddit land I’ve just been censored for my opinion that antifa is a subversive terrorist organisation. Free speech only if it’s written in red, eh?

I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!…

Well actually no, the opposite of that.

Anyway, for the type of government Farage would run in Westminister, perhaps this [article](https://archive.is/9egkW) can provide some perspective…

>**U.S. democracy will likely break down during the second Trump administration, in the sense that it will cease to meet standard criteria for liberal democracy: full adult suffrage, free and fair elections, and broad protection of civil liberties.**

>**The breakdown of democracy in the United States will not give rise to a classic dictatorship in which elections are a sham and the opposition is locked up, exiled, or killed. Even in a worst-case scenario, Trump will not be able to rewrite the Constitution or overturn the constitutional order. He will be constrained by independent judges, federalism, the country’s professionalized military, and high barriers to constitutional reform. There will be elections in 2028, and Republicans could lose them.**

>**But authoritarianism does not require the destruction of the constitutional order. What lies ahead is not fascist or single-party dictatorship but competitive authoritarianism—a system in which parties compete in elections but the incumbent’s abuse of power tilts the playing field against the opposition.** Most autocracies that have emerged since the end of the Cold War fall into this category, including Alberto Fujimori’s Peru, Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela, and contemporary El Salvador, Hungary, India, Tunisia, and Turkey. Under competitive authoritarianism, the formal architecture of democracy, including multiparty elections, remains intact. Opposition forces are legal and aboveground, and they contest seriously for power. Elections are often fiercely contested battles in which incumbents have to sweat it out. And once in a while, incumbents lose, as they did in Malaysia in 2018 and in Poland in 2023. But the system is not democratic, because incumbents rig the game by deploying the machinery of government to attack opponents and co-opt critics. Competition is real but unfair.

>Competitive authoritarianism will transform political life in the United States. As Trump’s early flurry of dubiously constitutional executive orders made clear, the cost of public opposition will rise considerably: Democratic Party donors may be targeted by the IRS; businesses that fund civil rights groups may face heightened tax and legal scrutiny or find their ventures stymied by regulators. Critical media outlets will likely confront costly defamation suits or other legal actions as well as retaliatory policies against their parent companies. Americans will still be able to oppose the government, but opposition will be harder and riskier, leading many elites and citizens to decide that the fight is not worth it. A failure to resist, however, could pave the way for authoritarian entrenchment—with grave and enduring consequences for global democracy.

[Electoral autocracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_autocracy) coming to a Westminister near you. Farage and Reform would be able to retain power indefinitely in an authoritarian regime not dissimilar to America, Russia, Venezuela, India and Hungary to name a few.

*”Ho ho ho ho ho. This is just Nigel being Nigel. What a card. Nothing to see here”*

– his mates in the rest of the British media

Maybe Labor can chuck him £50 to support their policy

Unless you’re OK with the message, how do you receive a commission like this, agree to do it, and then say it out loud?

This isn’t like an acting job where you’re paid to portray a certain character for a story.

These are statements that can be used to push support for a damaging and dangerous ideology.

You’d have to either have no moral compass to accept money to say this, or you actually believe it

We knew he was a nazi, I want to know why he wants to get rid of human rights bill, what are his intentions afterwards?