Populist Xenophobia moves The Netherlands to the Right

[Shadow Wolf]

What have I been telling?
There is the need of a Marshall Plan in Africa that stops the exploitation and turns the resources of Africa in something valuable that belongs to Africans only, and Europeans cannot touch that wealth.

The issue with that is we live in a global society where no one is self sufficient. Trade is international and we need what each other has to offer.
Better we learn to get a long and share than try to put us all back in our boxes of isolationist policy and leaving everyone alone as we take care of ourselves (something that has never been).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Europeans are zero. They deserve to disappear and to be ethnically replaced.
That's the mantra of the Globalist Woke Agenda

Makes me glad my grandparents helped kicked Mussolini's ***.

 

[Estro Felino]

Makes me glad my grandparents helped kicked Mussolini's ***.

I am glad about that.
That doesn't mean Europeans are all fascists.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am glad about that.
That doesn't mean Europeans are all fascists.

I know. They aren't all like Italy no matter how much you try to present it that way, and not all Italians are like you despite your trying to present it that way.
There's a common history of Christ of war, but beyond that obviously Europe is not monolith. Even Western, Northern, Central and Eastern European countries aren't very alike. Not unless someone wants to pretend England, Germany, Bosnia and Romania are all alike and very similar to eachother.

 

[Estro Felino]

The issue with that is we live in a global society where no one is self sufficient. Trade is international and we need what each other has to offer.
Better we learn to get a long and share than try to put us all back in our boxes of isolationist policy and leaving everyone alone as we take care of ourselves (something that has never been).

I still believe Africa's development depends on its own resources.

 

[JIMMY12345]

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.

Never underrate the power of social media and artificial intelligence to close a close gap in USA or the Netherlands.We need to be careful in a democracy if some are opposed to to issues that we favour we must still respect them.That's democracy even if a certain ex president does not get it.As a famous person said:

I might disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to the death for you to say it"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

I found it quite humorous btw, to see how Russia was very quick to applaud this victory and considered it a good thing.
Quite the irony coming from a band of thugs who're currently waging a war to "de-nazify" their neighbour.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The topic here is why Wilders won.
He also won because of those illegals from Africa who actually mean to reach Germany or Benelux.

So it's those illegals who made him win.

False.
He won because like so many other populists he was succesful in his fearmongering campaign about "them illegals" and you seem to have fallen victim to this same propaganda.

Or do you think Europe should take all those illegals in?

I don't answer stupid loaded questions

 

[icehorse]

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.

I think xenophobia isn't really the correct word / idea for this situation.

It seems that these days a lot of people gave come to believe that immigration is a sort of right, and that host countries are somehow obligated to accept immigrants. Neither of those things are true.

For decades (centuries?), countries have based immigration on the idea that people are allowed to immigrate IF they will be of benefit to the host country. Somehow that idea seems to have been lost, but I think it's still appropriate.

Should rich countries give aid to poor countries? Absolutely! But such aid works far better when it is given "in place".

 

[Koldo]

Should rich countries give aid to poor countries? Absolutely! But such aid works far better when it is given "in place".

Works better for... who?

 

[stvdv]

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.

I was just reading the newspaper in which was said, that there are already 5 members with principle objections against having Wilder's PVV at all

If none of the other parties want to work with Wilders, he can't do much. Wilders already accepted that he won't be Prime Minister. And most of his extreme views he gave up already

So, I don't worry about Wilders causing more problems than the other PM

They already talk about another election. I won't be surprised Wilders' PVV will get bigger, so I think they are smart enough to not let that happen

 

[icehorse]

Works better for... who?

Ever listened to an air steward give their safety talk? They say "if you have a kid, put your own oxygen mask on first".

So strong, healthy countries can give aid only as long as they remain strong and healthy. Another example would be, if a doctor works so hard that she gets sick, she can't help others.

 

[Koldo]

Ever listened to an air steward give their safety talk? They say "if you have a kid, put your own oxygen mask on first".

So strong, healthy countries can give aid only as long as they remain strong and healthy. Another example would be, if a doctor works so hard that she gets sick, she can't help others.

How does directing aid towards immigrants, rather than poor countries, makes a rich country unhealthy and weak?

 

[icehorse]

How does directing aid towards immigrants, rather than poor countries, makes a rich country unhealthy and weak?

It doesn't necessarily, but it can in some circumstances. If a certain group of immigrants brings and then defends values that are antithetical to the values of the host country, than that group will negatively impact the overall health of the host country.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think xenophobia isn't really the correct word / idea for this situation.

It seems that these days a lot of people gave come to believe that immigration is a sort of right, and that host countries are somehow obligated to accept immigrants. Neither of those things are true.

For decades (centuries?), countries have based immigration on the idea that people are allowed to immigrate IF they will be of benefit to the host country. Somehow that idea seems to have been lost, but I think it's still appropriate.

Should rich countries give aid to poor countries? Absolutely! But such aid works far better when it is given "in place".

The xenophobia label comes in when rhetoric stoking fear about immigrants, such as crimes, terrorism, or replacement is used.

 

[icehorse]

The xenophobia label comes in when rhetoric stoking fear about immigrants, such as crimes, terrorism, or replacement is used.

Would you say that there are legitimate reasons for a host country to deny immigration to some applicants?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Would you say that there are legitimate reasons for a host country to deny immigration to some applicants?

Yes.

 

[Augustus]

The xenophobia label comes in when rhetoric stoking fear about immigrants, such as crimes, terrorism, or replacement is used.

Every year since I was little I'd visit my gran in a working class suburb of Rotterdam.

It was government subsidised housing, so was low income and probably about 95% were white. It was fairly safe though, with a good sense of community. Someone in the block of flats would always look out for my gran who lived alone, and us kids would happily play outside without supervision. As with any poor area there was some anti-social behaviour, but not a great deal.

Over 20 years, due to cheap housing, the area became probably 80% immigrant and very unsafe. Gang violence, drugs, vandalism, robbery became common, it became very noisy and dirty. My gran would not go outside after dark, and people tried to break into her house multiple times. No one would look out for her anymore, many of the people in her block couldn't even speak Dutch.

When she was younger, after her sister died in childbirth, my gran had helped raise her mixed race children at a time when attitudes towards such things were a lot more prejudiced than today, and she nearly remarried to an Indonesian man. She was by no means a xenophobe, she would just take people on their merits.

However, based on her direct experience, she saw a connection between immigration and increased crime, and, while she wouldn't have used terms like "replacement" she did feel a bit like it was turning into a foreign country. She certainly saw immigration on that scale to be harmful and the net effects to be negative.

One of the reasons why such rhetoric resonates with many people is because it matches their own experience. When politicians and others who live in wealthy, low-crime, mostly white suburbs tell them that it is racist and xenophobic to not be entirely enamoured with their experiences of mass immigration, it somewhat stokes their resentment, hence we see a backlash in many Western countries.

(and fwiw I'm an immigrant married to an immigrant )

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Every year since I was little I'd visit my gran in a working class suburb of Rotterdam.

It was government subsidised housing, so was low income and probably about 95% were white. It was fairly safe though, with a good sense of community. Someone in the block of flats would always look out for my gran who lived alone, and us kids would happily play outside without supervision. As with any poor area there was some anti-social behaviour, but not a great deal.

Over 20 years, due to cheap housing, the area became probably 80% immigrant and very unsafe. Gang violence, drugs, vandalism, robbery became common, it became very noisy and dirty. My gran would not go outside after dark, and people tried to break into her house multiple times. No one would look out for her anymore, many of the people in her block couldn't even speak Dutch.

When she was younger, after her sister died in childbirth, my gran had helped raise her mixed race children at a time when attitudes towards such things were a lot more prejudiced than today, and she nearly remarried to an Indonesian man. She was by no means a xenophobe, she would just take people on their merits.

However, based on her direct experience, she saw a connection between immigration and increased crime, and, while she wouldn't have used terms like "replacement" she did feel a bit like it was turning into a foreign country. She certainly saw immigration on that scale to be harmful and the net effects to be negative.

One of the reasons why such rhetoric resonates with many people is because it matches their own experience. When politicians and others who live in wealthy, low-crime, mostly white suburbs tell them that it is racist and xenophobic to not be entirely enamoured with their experiences of mass immigration, it somewhat stokes their resentment, hence we see a backlash in many Western countries.

(and fwiw I'm an immigrant married to an immigrant )

I get the experience of seeing a neighborhood change culturally and socially, but xenophobia, literally "fear of strangers" and used to decribe irrational fear of those from a different culture, is still a good way to label the rhetoric that many people (politicians often) use when they talk about immigration.

Considering there's data (US based) that suggests immigration doesn't increase crime, when American politicians use this rhetoric of criminal immigrants, they are stoking xenophobia.

The mythical tie between immigration and crime

Research by Stanford’s Ran Abramitzky and co-authors uncovers the most extensive evidence to date that immigrants are less likely to be imprisoned than U.S.-born individuals.

siepr.stanford.edu

That could be primarily an American perspective, and I realize I may be adding some American bias into a European political thread.

 

[Altfish]

Europeans are zero. They deserve to disappear and to be ethnically replaced.
That's the mantra of the Globalist Woke Agenda.

Really!!
Maybe I'm not woke enough because it is not on my woke agenda.