According to France24:

France’s far-right National Front pulled off an historic win Sunday, topping the vote nationally in the first round of regional elections, exit polls showed.

What links this with the SNP massive landslide in Scotland? Is it that that are both extreme “right” authoritarian parties with an overt ethnically based policy rejecting free speech and generally acting crazy? Well yes … but that is not the real connection. The real connection is that both are detested by those who used to determine what was “acceptable” or “middle ground” in politics: the so called “mainstream media”.
And let’s be honest, the same media hate those Islamic extremists who reject their mono-cultural enforced politically correct “diversity” – by being extreme Muslims, just as much as they hate Climate sceptics for rejecting their “politically correct” view of how humanity is destroying the planet, just as much as they hate the “Scottish extremists” who don’t like the English media domination of politics in Britain. To the once mainstream media anyone who doesn’t accept their “Politically correct” views are “extremists”, whether those views are altruistic like Sceptics or hate filled like ISIS.
The same media hate football “supporters” who want to fight their games off the pitch as much as on it. They hate the “left” like Corbyn, they hate the “right” like Farage and indeed, if there’s anything that will kill dead a political movement these days it is being liked or worse, being endorsed, by the once “mainstream media”.
Because the “mainstream” media are the politically correct who hate anyone else who doesn’t accept their utopian view of a world run by them with everyone forced to have views like theirs and worse they hate any with the audacity to point out that their mad policies from unrestricted immigration to destroying the economy through giving up the fossil fuels that gave us the modern world are just practically insane.

The same censorship that created sceptics created ISIS

Any climate sceptic having experience the hugely corrupt hatefilled rhetoric and lies and distortion from those like the Biased Broadcasting Company cannot help but have contempt for the BBC and those who push the same lies whether in the media or academia or government.
Whilst I don’t personally support the Scottish Nazi Party (SNP), I do have sympathy with the way the overwhelmingly English dominated media – particularly the Biased Broadcasting Company – cover Scottish affairs from an English – indeed, not just English but SE-England – indeed within 1mile of the centre of London – centric view of the world. So, e.g. “industry” is good if it is the type of “technology company” found around London, it is bad if it is hateful “Northern” industry like steel, coal or manufacturing. So, whilst I don’t agree with the SNP that they’d be any better than the English at ruling Scotland, I empathise with the way Scottish issues are covered – all the more because I also see the same bias from the Scottish media regarding both England and issues like climate science.
So, whilst I don’t in anyway support Islamic views – I have no doubt that they too are treated with the same or even worse contempt by the media. And no doubt, in the same way that the anti-Scottish views of the English press helped galvanise support for the SNP in Scotland, no doubt the anti-Islamic anti-men pro feminist, anti-family, atheist views of the media would be like a red flag to most Muslims.

It’s the internet stupid!

In the days before the internet and social media – the press got away with their narrow viewpoint, because the “centre ground” (as the press defined it) or as it came to be known the “politically correct” ground was decided by this small group of people, usually with no knowledge of industry, science or commerce whom we called “journalists”. And because they decided what was and what was not news, whether or not for example, the real “climate” was a fact their readers “wanted” to hear about – or whether they would rather read alarmist “climate porn” from academics pushing for grants, once upon a time they decided what views were acceptable and could be heard in public.
But now, most people hear most of their views about the wider world, not through the filter of the PC media, but from their friends, family and through a vast array of “unofficial” far from PC sources on the internet.
As a result, any viewpoint the “mainstream” press detest, and therefore was repressed in the past, is now gaining ground amongst the public through social media.
So, for example, I don’t believe the SNP in Scotland got a massive majority at the last UK election because people supported their daft policies on climate, or PC correctness, state run families, etc. No! It was because people in Scotland are fed up with the English centric views of the BBC, the British establishment, and press in general – these were highlighted during the independence referendum by a combination of lack of interest and outright hostility to Scots having any say in our future and voting SNP was a way to put two fingers up to them – without going for economic suicide by voting for EU-subserviant UK-separation.
And no doubt today the French press will be beside themselves with anger at the way the public have rejected their advice to vote for parties committed to maintain an open door policy to immigration.

The Mainstream media is losing power and moral authority

Just as we sceptics see the “Biased Broadcasting Company” as wholly biased and immoral in their actions, so it is certain that the majority of people have views that they don’t see being represented by the Biased Mainstream Media. The result is that people are turning to alternative news sources and as a consequence, the Biased Mainstream is losing power and with it moral authority.
Not only that, but the “political class” is both reliant on the mainstream media to hear the “public view” as well as reliant on them to push their “mainstream” politics at us.
But people are no longer willing to accept the views of the media as rational, mainstream or even morally justified. Instead society in general is far more willing to seek alternative sources of moral authority and that is handing power to new groups with views which the mainstream media and “establishment” reject.

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech used to be a very simple thing for the mainstream media, because the only people with access to the bulk of the population were the PC mainstream and as such “Freedom of Speech” literally meant “Freedom of the PC-middle-ground media to express their own views about the rest of society” – and yes the rest of us had freedom of speech in theory. But if any ordinary person wanted to express a view, they were “free” to spend a fortune of their own money printing a very few leaflets and distributing them – only to have a journalist spend half an hour writing a single article – at no cost to themselves – spreading vicious lies about any such group they disliked. It was a wholly distorted playing field in which the only views that practically most people could hear were the PC journalists.
So “Freedom of speech” was only really “freedom of the press to speak”. Now, however with the internet it means real freedom of speech – and boy do the once mainstream media hate it. For it means two very hostile groups of the internet being “free” to sling mud at each other without any involvement of the once mainstream journalists – or indeed, in cases like ISIS – it can mean a one sided freedom to distort the news to push their own anti-western agenda (sorry to say much the same views as alarmists pushing the same anti-western industry agenda).
However, we now live in a world where practically there is “free speech”, not just for the small group of journalists, but everyone, and there is no practical way to stop views the mainstream media dislike being heard.

The Internet Revolution

In the past, “polite society” – in areas with a controlled press and media like the UK, had a very easy life. The press and media published and broadcast the views they wanted to hear and every other view was repressed. But now with the internet, alternative views are being heard – some overwhelming good like us sceptics – some overwhelmingly bad like ISIS. But whether good or bad, the result is that people are being exposed to views that formerly were not tolerated by the “mainstream” media.
So, how does society deal with views like ISIS when the filters are removed?
The worst possible way is to continue with organisations like the current BBC – who far from being more inclusive and views diverge in society – are now retrenching in their very narrow and highly disliked PC viewpoint. They are becoming less and less relevant to most people except the very very few in society like the BBC. The press likewise have stopped being interest in general subjects like REAL science – and instead do little except copy and paste press releases from increasingly irrelevant and now highly PC institutions like academics.
So, the PC establishment are losing power, they are losing control, they are losing moral authority. And worse, by retrenching into the tired PC nonsense world they are just becoming less & less relevant to most people and thus just speeding up the process of losing influence. We are in danger or run-away change – aka “revolution”.
Paradoxically, I think one of the best ways to combat the divisions in society, is to encourage more diverse but still relatively “mainstream” media. But that is currently hampered in the UK by the massive and destructive influence of the BBC which economically undermines all other media providers by providing free-to-view content.
The result is that the media is dominated by big companies & PC organisations like the BBC. And the result is a lack of competition and lack of diversity of views. This is encouraging the growth of alternative news media – some good like WUWT – some bad (like whatever ISIS supporters read).

The BBC has to go

The BBC has to go. We need to stop undermining conventional news providers which are being undercut by the BBC and encourage a “free-for-all” media market with many more smaller providers that can cater for the diversity of views now prevalent in society. Yes, that will mean many views the BBC luvvies find intolerable will suddenly get traction – but at least those views will be expressed in public where people like me will be able to comment and give hell to the idiots.
Instead, the BBC are literally encouraging ISIS – because they undermine moderate viewpoints. So, unless or until the BBC are closed, at present, I can only see one way to combat the growing divisions in society: what might be termed “internet warriors” – people like sceptics willing to give up their own time and effort to try to set a moral agenda and without fear or favour, to tackle corruption and hatred in the media and on the internet.