Populist Xenophobia moves The Netherlands to the Right

[wellwisher]

It certainly looks as if Geert Wilders, the extreme right populist, anti-immigrant politician in the Netherlands has led his party to victory. This is very disappointing, as it seems to show that the our fears about one another based on race, religion, sexual orientation and what-have-you are playing a larger and larger part in our politics.

In my view, this cannot bode well for the future.

Comments welcome, of course.

It has to do with being forced to accept an invasion, instead of having more time and fewer screened immigrant, so there is no forced disruption. In the USA, there are way too many illegal immigrants, who start their immigrant careers, breaking and entering. This makes honest people hesitant. Why don't all the xenophobic liberals, who think this is a good idea, invite all these illegal immigrants into their homes, since you guys want this?

Do Liberals really hate all these immigrants; xenophobia, but only pretend to care to get credit for something they will not do? How many Liberal on this site, who call other xenophobes, have an immigrant in your home? What are you afraid of?

Say there were 7 million illegal immigrants and say there are 100,000,000 Democrats, this is 1 immigrant for each 14 Democrats. This should be easy, so why so much xenophobia among all the Liberals, for a group who gives illegal immigration so much lip service? Lip services does not provide food or shelter. Does it mean virtue signally, means more than any actually effort? Put your money where your mouth is.

What you call xenophobia is from people who are being honest to the inconvenience and hardship. But Xenophobia also comes from the two faced, who lack of direct personal involvement for their uninvited guests. Not everyone is rich and can afford to accommodate unwelcome guests invited by others. But if you invite people, to get credit for caring, and then fail to deliver, this far worse. This can put hopeful people in a bind. If you are honest and say no, they may have time to make other plans or postpone. Honesty is more helpful.

I remember growing up and having friend who would make plans, for the next day, to be a driver, to the beach, with a group of friends. That night everyone is happy and he is the hero. But next day, he is no show. He got plenty of credit and free beers in advance, but did not have to produce anything other, the next day, other than his con artist words of caring. This is in contrast, to those who do not want the extra guests and say no. They get no credit, just blame. However, their honesty gives everyone time to another arrangement. This new arrangement often comes from the same person, who said no last night. He had time to think and in the end, the "xenophobe", comes through; Evangelical.

One of the first waves of immigrants, bussed from Texas to the so-called pretend "Sanctuary States" was to Martha's Vineyard. This a summer Island, South of Cape Cod in Massachusetts, for the rich. It is very expensive and is mostly summer homes and estates. These rich and bigger hearted people, had given lip service to illegal immigrants, so they were tested.

Once they received their immigrants; about 100, even though the mansions were off season, and had many extra guest rooms and some even had guest houses, they pulled political strings, and had the immigrants shipped off to the mainland, to much less wealthy neighborhoods. This placed a strain on the lower middle class and poor, who are not able to accommodate the extra uninvited guests. This is trickle down Liberalism sleaze bagging. However, Church groups, still provided some volunteers to help compensate for those who accepted credit in advance, but who do not step up when needed, for the very guests they invited.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I was specific.

Not really.

What do you think?

See, I can play this game, too.

You're right, how foolish of me to ask you to specify what you would consider to fit the definition of the terms you're using. This is clearly a cunning and deceitful game.

In my experience, an inability to answer simple clarifying questions is a dead-cert indicator of a poorly constructed position. That, or an indicator of a position you very much want to keep vague. For reasons.

 

[LadyJane]

It has to do with being forced to accept an invasion, instead of having more time and fewer screened immigrant, so there is no forced disruption. In the USA, there are way too many illegal immigrants, who start their immigrant careers, breaking and entering. This makes honest people hesitant. Why don't all the xenophobic liberals, who think this is a good idea, invite all these illegal immigrants into their homes, since you guys want this?

Do Liberals really hate all these immigrants; xenophobia, but only pretend to care to get credit for something they will not do? How many Liberal on this site, who call other xenophobes, have an immigrant in your home? What are you afraid of?

Say there were 7 million illegal immigrants and say there are 100,000,000 Democrats, this is 1 immigrant for each 14 Democrats. This should be easy, so why so much xenophobia among all the Liberals, for a group who gives illegal immigration so much lip service? Lip services does not provide food or shelter. Does it mean virtue signally, means more than any actually effort? Put your money where your mouth is.

What you call xenophobia is from people who are being honest to the inconvenience and hardship. But Xenophobia also comes from the two faced, who lack of direct personal involvement for their uninvited guests. Not everyone is rich and can afford to accommodate unwelcome guests invited by others. But if you invite people, to get credit for caring, and then fail to deliver, this far worse. This can put hopeful people in a bind. If you are honest and say no, they may have time to make other plans or postpone. Honesty is more helpful.

I remember growing up and having friend who would make plans, for the next day, to be a driver, to the beach, with a group of friends. That night everyone is happy and he is the hero. But next day, he is no show. He got plenty of credit and free beers in advance, but did not have to produce anything other, the next day, other than his con artist words of caring. This is in contrast, to those who do not want the extra guests and say no. They get no credit, just blame. However, their honesty gives everyone time to another arrangement. This new arrangement often comes from the same person, who said no last night. He had time to think and in the end, the "xenophobe", comes through; Evangelical.

One of the first waves of immigrants, bussed from Texas to the so-called pretend "Sanctuary States" was to Martha's Vineyard. This a summer Island, South of Cape Cod in Massachusetts, for the rich. It is very expensive and is mostly summer homes and estates. These rich and bigger hearted people, had given lip service to illegal immigrants, so they were tested.

Once they received their immigrants; about 100, even though the mansions were off season, and had many extra guest rooms and some even had guest houses, they pulled political strings, and had the immigrants shipped off to the mainland, to much less wealthy neighborhoods. This placed a strain on the lower middle class and poor, who are not able to accommodate the extra uninvited guests. This is trickle down Liberalism sleaze bagging. However, Church groups, still provided some volunteers to help compensate for those who accepted credit in advance, but who do not step up when needed, for the very guests they invited.

That was rather simmering in Americentrism.

 

[PureX]

Not really.

You're right, how foolish of me to ask you to specify what you would consider to fit the definition of the terms you're using. This is clearly a cunning and deceitful game.

In my experience, an inability to answer simple clarifying questions is a dead-cert indicator of a poorly constructed position. That, or an indicator of a position you very much want to keep vague. For reasons.

You're just fishing for an argument.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're just fishing for an argument.

All I did was literally ask a clarifying question. If asking you for clarification is enough for you to start an argument then the problem is you, not me.

So, tell me, does a Chinatown fit your definition of an "alien cultural enclave" or not?

 

[icehorse]

My mistake, double negative.


Toronto has over 12 Catholic 'gender-segregated' schools that receive funding from the government, so such practices are hardly outside of cultural norm here. No reason to make special prohibition for Mosques.

I would say that whoever is forcing gender segregation ought to be called out.

 

[anna.]

It has to do with being forced to accept an invasion, instead of having more time and fewer screened immigrant, so there is no forced disruption. In the USA, there are way too many illegal immigrants, who start their immigrant careers, breaking and entering. This makes honest people hesitant

This is sadly ironic, considering what the European waves of illegal immigrants did to the indigenous peoples of our country, when they broke and entered what is now the U.S. and took indigenous lands and ejected the native-born from their ancestral homes by force and by deceit.

 

[icehorse]

This is sadly ironic, considering what the European waves of illegal immigrants did to the indigenous peoples of our country, when they broke and entered what is now the U.S. and took indigenous lands and ejected the native-born from their ancestral homes by force and by deceit.

This seems to me to be a tricky perspective. It's accurate to say that EVERYONE alive is living on stolen land. All of the indigenous people of North America were living on stolen land when Europeans arrived. So how far back in history should be go?

 

[anna.]

This seems to me to be a tricky perspective. It's accurate to say that EVERYONE alive is living on stolen land. All of the indigenous people of North America were living on stolen land when Europeans arrived. So how far back in history should be go?

Maybe to you.

Invasion is a word conservative Americans apply to immigrants who pose a status threat to them, while rarely wondering how many times their group has done the invading.

 

[icehorse]

Maybe to you.

Invasion is a word conservative Americans apply to immigrants who pose a status threat to them, while rarely wondering how many times their group has done the invading.

I do not deny history.

Do you deny that EVERY INDIGENOUS nation on earth is (or was), living on land they stole?

 

[anna.]

I do not deny history.

Do you deny that EVERY INDIGENOUS nation on earth is (or was), living on land they stole?

Are you a xenophobic conservative? If not, my post doesn't apply to you.

 

[icehorse]

Are you a xenophobic conservative? If not, my post doesn't apply to you.

Hmmm, it sure looked like your post #129 was directed at me?

FWIW, I think that these days labels like left, right, conservative, and liberal are more misleading than they are useful. People usually don't fit into such restrictive boxes.

If I had to choose a box for myself (under duress), I'd saying something like "moderate liberal". But I also think that the simplistic "oppressor vs. oppressed" view of the world is also more destructive than it is helpful.

 

[anna.]

Hmmm, it sure looked like your post #129 was directed at me?

FWIW, I think that these days labels like left, right, conservative, and liberal are more misleading than they are useful. People usually don't fit into such restrictive boxes.

If I had to choose a box for myself (under duress), I'd saying something like "moderate liberal". But I also think that the simplistic "oppressor vs. oppressed" view of the world is also more destructive than it is helpful.

My initial post was to wellwisher.

You told me my perspective was "tricky." I replied "Maybe to you..." That's it. That's all that applies to you. The rest of my post concerned conservatives, to which group you've said you don't belong.

Then you implied somehow I was saying that you denied history? That's a straw man. I know you're familiar with that pesky guy.

 

[icehorse]

My initial post was to wellwisher.

You told me my perspective was "tricky." I replied "Maybe to you..." That's it. That's all that applies to you. The rest of my post concerned conservatives, to which group you've said you don't belong.

Then you implied somehow I was saying that you denied history? That's a straw man. I know you're familiar with that pesky guy.

No harm, no foul. I read your entire post #129 as being directed towards me. An honest mistake.

 

[anna.]

No harm, no foul. I read your entire post #129 as being directed towards me. An honest mistake.

No worries. I was focused on the word invasion in the opening line of post #121 because it's a loaded word, with a particular message - sort of an in-group identifier, which fits the OP quite neatly. Here's a quick explainer:

Loading…

www.npr.org

 

[icehorse]

No worries. I was focused on the word invasion in the opening line of post #121 because it's a loaded word, with a particular message - sort of an in-group identifier, which fits the OP quite neatly. Here's a quick explainer:

Loading…

www.npr.org

I consider myself a moderate liberal. I'm of course extremely concerned about the far right. That said, I think the far left is making the far right's job easier. We cannot underestimate the far right, they are smart. Evil, but smart. When the far left goes too far, which happens more and more, they're making it easier for the far right to win the hearts and minds of the huge, politically-unengaged middle.

 

[anna.]

I consider myself a moderate liberal. I'm of course extremely concerned about the far right. That said, I think the far left is making the far right's job easier. We cannot underestimate the far right, they are smart. Evil, but smart. When the far left goes too far, which happens more and more, they're making it easier for the far right to win the hearts and minds of the huge, politically-unengaged middle.

With all due respect, icehorse, my focus wasn't on what you consider yourself, or of your views of the far left.

Would you like to address any part of the particular focus of my post?

The word 'invasion' as a dog whistle for the far right, for white nationalists, Christian nationalists, xenophobes?

Again:

No worries. I was focused on the word invasion in the opening line of post #121 because it's a loaded word, with a particular message - sort of an in-group identifier, which fits the OP quite neatly. Here's a quick explainer:

Loading…

www.npr.org

 

[icehorse]

With all due respect, icehorse, my focus wasn't on what you consider yourself, or of your views of the far left.

Would you like to address any part of the particular focus of my post?

The word 'invasion' as a dog whistle for the far right, for white nationalists, Christian nationalists, xenophobes?

Again:

I agree that "invasion" is a dog whistle for the far right, but:

I think that in cases like this we have to see the bigger system, which includes how the far left and the far right interact with each other. Throughout Europe, far left political leaders have pushed the idea of multiculturalism to an extreme, allowing for a massive influx of immigrants - mostly Muslims - into Europe in the last few decades. Many moderate Europeans do indeed view this multicultural experiment as a failure (I agree), and the influx of immigrants as a sort of invasion.

This massive immigration in the name of multiculturalism hasn't reached the US quite yet, but I think it's wise for us to see what's happening in Europe as "the canary in the coal mine". IMO, sadly, NPR has been leaning farther and farther "left", andI think this is a mistake. Ideas are good or bad based on their own merit, not on who the messenger is. I believe that multiculturalism - at least how it's been implemented in Europe - is a bad idea. It doesn't matter that far right asshats agree. As an unaffiliated moderate, I conclude that it's simply a bad idea.

 

[anna.]

I agree that "invasion" is a dog whistle for the far right, but:

Yes, and yet you use it yourself, for your own purposes.

I think that in cases like this we have to see the bigger system, which includes how the far left and the far right interact with each other. Throughout Europe, far left political leaders have pushed the idea of multiculturalism to an extreme, allowing for a massive influx of immigrants - mostly Muslims - into Europe in the last few decades. Many moderate Europeans do indeed view this multicultural experiment as a failure (I agree), and the influx of immigrants as a sort of invasion.

This massive immigration in the name of multiculturalism hasn't reached the US quite yet, but I think it's wise for us to see what's happening in Europe as "the canary in the coal mine". IMO, sadly, NPR has been leaning farther and farther "left", andI think this is a mistake. Ideas are good or bad based on their own merit, not on who the messenger is. I believe that multiculturalism - at least how it's been implemented in Europe - is a bad idea. It doesn't matter that far right asshats agree. As an unaffiliated moderate, I conclude that it's simply a bad idea.

These migrations aren't just a matter of Europe saying "come on in!" It's a very complicated situation of mass human upheaval as the result of wars and famine and other issues that make life untenable in the migrants' home countries and they undertake what is a dangerous and difficult journey to find a better, safer life. These immigrants are not doing it "in the name of multiculturalism" but they are arriving regardless and European countries have to find humanitarian ways of dealing with the crises.

The fact that you'll kill the messenger (NPR) without actually addressing the content of the article isn't surprising, but it is disappointing. Other than agreeing the word invasion is a dog whistle to the right, you ignored the point to focus on the sins of the multiculturalism of the left. Seems to me you're trying to shift the conversation to the direction you want it to go, and I'm not joining you in that. We can drop it here because I'm not gonna go down one of your well-worn paths. There's a reason I'm rarely inclined to make an initial post to you anymore. I might answer you, as I have here, but not likely initiate, because the conversation never gets anywhere.

 

[PureX]

Yes, and yet you use it yourself, for your own purposes.



These migrations aren't just a matter of Europe saying "come on in!" It's a very complicated situation of mass human upheaval as the result of wars and famine and other issues that make life untenable in the migrants' home countries and they undertake what is a dangerous and difficult journey to find a better, safer life. These immigrants are not doing it "in the name of multiculturalism" but they are arriving regardless and European countries have to find humanitarian ways of dealing with the crises.

The fact that you'll kill the messenger (NPR) without actually addressing the content of the article isn't surprising, but it is disappointing. Other than agreeing the word invasion is a dog whistle to the right, you ignored the point to focus on the sins of the multiculturalism of the left. Seems to me you're trying to shift the conversation to the direction you want it to go, and I'm not joining you in that. We can drop it here because I'm not gonna go down one of your well-worn paths. There's a reason I'm rarely inclined to make an initial post to you anymore. I might answer you, as I have here, but not likely initiate, because the conversation never gets anywhere.

@icehorse is not wrong. The controlling elites in nations all across the globe tout multiculturalism and humanitarian empathy as their moral justification for importing lots of cheap laborers that will drive down wages all across the economic spectrum. And this includes their democratic toadies in the U.S.,. The only reason republicans are against it (not in action, but only in speeches) is because they have whipped up such a fervor against it amongst their base that they now have to pretend they're against it. But in fact they are just as beholding to their corporate overlords desire for cheap labor as the democrats are. None of them want to stop the "invasion" that they so love to pretend they care so much about.