Populist Xenophobia moves The Netherlands to the Right

[Estro Felino]

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.

A lounge-loving and yacht-loving carefree Left-wing will be crushed next June...during the EU elections.

 

[icehorse]

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

You might just be an old fashioned liberal and not really woke enough to be granted official SJW status?

 

[libre]

America was empty.

It can not be understated how evil this statement is.

 

[PureX]

It's not xenophobia for a society to want to protect and maintain it's successful way of life. And moving toward conservatism is exactly what they should do when people perceive this being harmfully threatened.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's not xenophobia for a society to want to protect and maintain it's successful way of life. And moving toward conservatism is exactly what they should do when people perceive this being harmfully threatened.

Especially gender equality, spouses' juridical equality, LGBT protection, freedom of speech and many other pillars.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's not xenophobia for a society to want to protect and maintain it's successful way of life.

It is when you believe doing this requires denying the immigration rights of people based on their nationality.

 

[Estro Felino]

It is when you believe doing this requires denying the immigration rights of people based on their nationality.

It's a fact that a Dane moving to Norway will feel more comfortable and welcomed by the Norwegian society.
Whereas very distant cultures coexisting forcefully creates discomfort, misunderstanding, distrust.

 

[PureX]

It is when you believe doing this requires denying the immigration rights of people based on their nationality.

Not if it's the culture that comes with that national origin that is posing the threat. As it nearly always is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not if it's the culture that comes with that national origin that is posing the threat. As it nearly always is.

Associating people's nationality and culture, and posing those as a threat, is literally xenophobia. To suggest that somebody poses a threat to "your culture" because they come from a different culture is basically the definition of xenophobia.

 

[PureX]

Associating people's nationality and culture, and posing those as a threat, is literally xenophobia. To suggest that somebody poses a threat to "your culture" because they come from a different culture is basically the definition of xenophobia.

Then so be it.

The problem that is occurring here is the cultures that have failed, and resulted in violent destructive unlivable nations that drive their own people out, end up exporting their poison along with these refugees. And it's completely reasonable that the nations these people are running to don't want that cultural poison infecting their own culture.

Usually, the problem is not the influx of refugees. It's the failed, toxic culture that they inevitably bring with them. And then insist on maintaining in their new homeland.

It doesn't matter what we call it. It remains both reasonable and logical that the new host nations do what they must to reject this cultural poison. And it's wrong for the refugees to be insisting that they should hold onto it, and that their new host nation should tolerate this.

Personally, I think the refugees should stay where they are and fight to correct their homeland like the people in the successful nations had to do. But I realize that in many instances this just isn't possible. It'd be a very big ask.

 

[icehorse]

Here's one of the first definitions I found for xenophobia:

Xenophobia is the fear or dislike of anything which is perceived as being foreign or strange.

And that's not what's happening in the Netherlands.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then so be it.

So... That's it? You're just admitting "Yes, this position is xenophobic"?

The problem that is occurring here is the cultures that have failed, and resulted in violent destructive unlivable nations that drive their own people out, end up exporting their poison along with these refugees.

Wow. Literally embracing ethno-nationalism. Cool.

Culture is affected by context and the society you live in. You are not stamped with your culture from birth - it changes over time and with new contexts. I reject your idea of "cultures that have failed" (I have no idea what your metric for that is), and I vehemently reject your suggestion that individual members of a society necessarily "export" these "failed cultures" like "poison". You are literally just doing the ethno-nationalist argument, here.

And it's completely reasonable that the nations these people are running to don't want that cultural poison infecting their own culture.

Again, ethno-nationalist rhetoric. People aren't poison. If you're going to start treating people this way, then why not start by exporting all the extreme far-right people whose values don't align with western liberal democracy? I mean, the exact same logic applies. Their ideology is anathema to western liberal democracy, and it "infects" the culture.

The problem is that you're tying people culture, nationality and ideology together, which is literally just ethno-nationalism. You don't get to decide which cultures are "poison" and deny individual people the right to immigrate based on that standard. If you cannot separate these three things and understand how grouping every person of a particular background together as if they all adhere to the same principles is both logically and morally unjustifiable, then you should never be in any kind of position to make these decisions for anybody - let alone a COUNTRY.

I mean, how does the logic "the culture of this country is bad, therefore we need to prevent people who don't want to live in that culture any more from leaving it and coming here" make sense? How does it follow that people who have made the choice to join a culture other than the one they grew up in must therefore want to continue living in that culture? I mean, it's pretty obviously nonsense.

Usually, the problem is not the influx of refugees. It's the failed, toxic culture that they inevitably bring with them.

The idea that they "invariably bring" these cultures with them is false. Studies show that when people move to more liberal countries, they tend to become more liberalised. Muslims in the middle-east tend to be Conservative, because it benefits them to maintain hegemonic power. However, in America and the UK, Muslims tend to be more liberal because, again, it benefits them to oppose hegemonic conservative structures that sideline or outright oppress them. Muslims in "western" countries tend to be more likely to accept and promote multiculturalism because it materially benefits them to do so.

Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the world

Muslims are the fastest-growing religious group in the world. Here are answers to some key questions about their public opinions, demographics and more.

www.pewresearch.org

U.S. Muslims Concerned About Their Place in Society, but Continue to Believe in the American Dream

Despite the concerns and perceived challenges they face, 89% of Muslims say they are both proud to be American and proud to be Muslim.

www.pewresearch.org

Like most Americans, U.S. Muslims concerned about extremism in the name of Islam

About eight-in-ten U.S. Muslims say they are either very or somewhat concerned about extremism committed in the name of Islam around the world.

www.pewresearch.org

This is literally dialectical materialism. I thought you were a Marxist?

And then insist on maintaining in their new homeland.

How dare people have the freedom to... continue living?

It doesn't matter what we call it. It remains both reasonable and logical that the new host nations do what they must to reject this cultural poison.

Again, "reject this cultural poison" is a euphemism for "denying people their immigration rights based on nationality and culture".

This is a new low. I never pegged you for an explicit ethno-nationalist.

Personally, I think the refugees should stay where they are and fight to correct their homeland like the people in the successful nations had to do.

This is absolutely insane and disgusting. Refugees FLEE FOR THEIR LIFE from EXISTENTIAL THREATS.

But I realize that in many instances this just isn't possible. It'd be a very big ask.

A "very big ask"?

"Excuse me, sir. I know you'd like to flee for your life to another country, and that this is well withing your rights and international law, but have you considered just staying where you are and dying? I mean, I know that this is something of a BIG ASK, but it would mean a lot to us. Because you come from a culture I don't like, and I consider you a poison. So, when you think about it, you just allowing yourself to die would be a much better option."

Utterly and completely indefensible. You should be ashamed.

 

[PureX]

Here's one of the first definitions I found for xenophobia:



And that's not what's happening in the Netherlands.

Or in most countries. There's always going to be some adjustment required, and therefor some strife, but the immagrants are responsible for doing the adjusting, not the successful host culture. And most host cultures will understand that this takes some time and may cause some strife.

But when the immigrants want to create their own subcultures within the new host nation, they are in the wrong. And the host nation has every right to do what it must to put a stop to it.

 

[PureX]

Culture is affected by context and the society you live in. You are not stamped with your culture from birth - it changes over time and with new contexts. I reject your idea of "cultures that have failed" (I have no idea what your metric for that is),

The "metric" for a failed state is that the refugees literally cannot live there anymore. They became victims in their own homeland. And that's a cultural failure as well.

... and I vehemently reject your suggestion that individual members of a society necessarily "export" these "failed cultures" like "poison". You are literally just doing the ethno-nationalist argument, here.

You can object all you want to but the simple fact that they failed to create and protect a successful culture and state in their homeland makes them suspect. And the fact that they now want to re-create that failed homeland within someone els's successful state makes them potentially toxic within that new homeland. And it's not about anyone's ethnicity. It's about culture.

People aren't poison.

No, but very often their philosophies, ideals, and habits are.

If you're going to start treating people this way, ...

Treating them what way? All I'm suggesting is that it's the refugee's responsibility to conform to the new host society, and NOT the host society's obligation to accomodate their failed culture.

The problem is that you're tying people culture, nationality and ideology together,

Actually, you are. I don't care about their ethnicity or nation of origin. I'm talking about maintaining cultural integrity within the host nation, as every culture has a right to do. And as every government has an obligation to it's people to do.

You don't get to decide which cultures are "poison" and deny individual people the right to immigrate based on that standard.

The host nation does.

I mean, how does the logic "the culture of this country is bad, therefore we need to prevent people who don't want to live in that culture any more from leaving it and coming here" make sense?

Now you're just making things up to suit your own ire. The fact is that refugees from failed states bring their failed cultures with them. They can't help it because it's all they know. The question is will they let go of this and work to adopt the culture of their new host country? Or will they try and create an enclaves within their new country where they can reinstate their failed cultural norms? Sadly, humans being human (resistant to change), most will do the latter unless they are forces to integrate. And the host nation has every right to insist on that.

The idea that they "invariably bring" these cultures with them is false. Studies show that when people move to more liberal countries, they tend to become more liberalised.

It doesn't matter who does and who doesn't. What matters is that those who resist need to be dealt with. They are obligated to change teir culture whether they want to or not. And if they resist, they should be sent back.

Muslims in the middle-east tend to be Conservative, because it benefits them to maintain hegemonic power. However, in America and the UK, Muslims tend to be more liberal because, again, it benefits them to oppose hegemonic conservative structures that sideline or outright oppress them. Muslims in "western" countries tend to be more likely to accept and promote multiculturalism because it materially benefits them to do so.

How dare people have the freedom to... continue living?

If they wanted the freedom to continue living how they like, they should have fought for it in their homeland. But they didn't. They ran. And so be it. But now they are in someone else's homeland. And if they want to live there, they need to do it in accordance with the people who's land it is. Because those people fought to make it a land they could live in as they saw fit. And they have every right to fight to protect it.

Again, "reject this cultural poison" is a euphemism for "denying people their immigration rights based on nationality and culture".

Every nation has a rght to deny anyone citizenship for any reason they choose.

This is a new low. I never pegged you for an explicit ethno-nationalist.

I don't care about anyone's ethnicity or nationality. But you can't seem to let go of it.

This is absolutely insane and disgusting. Refugees FLEE FOR THEIR LIFE from EXISTENTIAL THREATS.

All the more reason to be willing to let go of the culture that allowed that situation to happen. Unfortunately, there are a lot of refugees that don't agree, and instead want to install their old culture in the new homeland.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The "metric" for a failed state is that the refugees literally cannot live there anymore. They became victims in their own homeland. And that's a cultural failure as well.

And you think these people who are fleeing from the state that is failing them will bring the failures with them?

Makes perfect sense. Just like how the Jews were prevented from leaving Nazi Germany, because they would obviously bring Nazism with them.

You can object all you want to but the simple fact that they failed to create and protect a successful culture and state in their homeland makes them suspect.

This is called "collective punishment". And it's totally not a view espoused by fascists, I promise. It's perfectly reasonable to blame individual citizens of a state for the problems, both culturally and politically, of that state, and to associate them by their birth there as indelibly and inexorably a part of some state ideology or culture.

Totally normal, average, everyday, totally not ethno-nationalist logic, there.

And the fact that they now want to re-create that failed homeland within someone els's successful state makes them potentially toxic within that new homeland. And it's not about anyone's ethnicity. It's about culture.

When you're denying people immigration rights based on country of origin, that's denying them that right based on ethnicity. You are rolling them into the same thing.

No, but very often their philosophies, ideals, and habits are.

Like far-right people. Should they be forcibly expelled from the country?

Treating them what way? All I'm suggesting is that it's the refugee's responsibility to conform to the new host society, and NOT the host society's obligation to accomodate their failed culture.

You're arguing in favour of denying them the right to immigrate. I mean, what does "accommodate their failed culture" even mean? Do you think these people are setting up mini sub-states? Are they operating separatist enclaves? Where is this happening?

Actually, you are. I don't care about their ethnicity or nation of origin.

You're explicitly promoting the idea that it is right to deny people entry based on COUNTRY OR CULTURE OR ORIGIN. You're claiming these things are inseparable.

I'm talking about maintaining cultural integrity within the host nation, as every culture has a right to do.

What does that even mean? Please give me an example of how a country "maintains cultural integrity" that isn't just explicit ethno-nationalism.

The host nation does.

Nations are beholden to international law, which dictates fair terms and treatment to immigrant and refugees, and not denying people immigrant or refugee status BASED SOLELY ON THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

Now you're just making things up to suit your own ire. The fact is that refugees from failed states bring their failed cultures with them.

You keep saying this, but you have yet to elaborate on what that means or what form it takes. It's obviously just a nonsense phrase you're bandying about.

They can't help it because it's all they know.

Gee, that sure doesn't sound like infantilization right there. What was that totally famous thing that Marx absolutely believed?

"People are born in places and never change because that's all they know, and exposure to new material conditions totally doesn't make a difference, bro."

The question is will they let go of this and work to adopt the culture of their new host country? Or will they try and create an enclaves within their new country where they can reinstate their failed cultural norms? Sadly, humans being human (resistant to change), most will do the latter unless they are forces to integrate. And the host nation has every right to insist on that.

Please provide clear examples of exactly what you are talking about, and what "host nations" should do to prevent it that aren't just explicitly ethno-nationalist policies.

It doesn't matter who does and who doesn't. What matters is that those who resist need to be dealt with.

That's some worryingly ambiguous wording, there. What does "resist" mean in this context, and - VERY importantly - what does "dealing with them" entail?

They are obligated to change teir culture whether they want to or not. And if they resist, they should be sent back.

You're just an ethno-nationalist, then.

If they wanted the freedom to continue living how they like, they should have fought for it in their homeland.

Okay, you're a fascist ethno-nationalist.

Seriously. How dare you suggest that people FLEEING FOR THEIR LIVES "should" stay and die. It's monstrous.

"Whelp, sorry mother-of-three whose husband was executed by the state and who is fleeing persecution because you're a member of a minority ethnic group in a country that was just seized by a military coup of ethno-nationalists. Rather than fleeing to another state to claim asylum - something you are legally perfectly entitled to do - you and your children should have instead just picked up a rifle and fought against the military junta. We would just prefer you and your family literally die rather than come over to OUR CULTURE to INFECT it with your POISON. All the best! And remember to save at least four bullets for yourself and your kids, because I heard the military police force over there like to skin their political prisoners."

I actually can't believe you right now. I thought you were so much better than this.

I won't be responding to the rest of your pablum. If you can't see the obvious moral failing of the above sentiment, you need significantly greater help than I am able to give.

 

[libre]

And it's not about anyone's ethnicity. It's about culture.

The use of cultural difference to promote racist ideas in contexts where 'biological' racism is considered socially unacceptable has been going on for decades, you're not fooling anyone (except perhaps, yourself.)

 

[LadyJane]

But when the immigrants want to create their own subcultures within the new host nation, they are in the wrong. And the host nation has every right to do what it must to put a stop to it.

You must be a Native American citizen then, eh?

 

[PureX]

And you think these people who are fleeing from the state that is failing them will bring the failures with them?

They let it happen once already, and then ran away.

When you're denying people immigration rights based on country of origin, that's denying them that right based on ethnicity. You are rolling them into the same thing.

No, you are. I'm not suggesting they be denied anything based on country of origin. I'm talking about what they do when they get to the their new homeland.

You're arguing in favour of denying them the right to immigrate.

You need to read more clearly.

I mean, what does "accommodate their failed culture" even mean? Do you think these people are setting up mini sub-states? Are they operating separatist enclaves? Where is this happening?

Yep, that's exactly what some of them are doing.

You're explicitly promoting the idea that it is right to deny people entry based on COUNTRY OR CULTURE OR ORIGIN. You're claiming these things are inseparable.

Please learn how to read better. Your 'hackles' seem to have gotten in the way of your eyes.

 

[PureX]

The use of cultural difference to promote racist ideas in contexts where 'biological' racism is considered socially unacceptable has been going on for decades, you're not fooling anyone (except perhaps, yourself.)

And you aren't reading my posts. You're just imagining that any opposition to your presumed righteousness is an assault on all humanity.

 

[PureX]

You must be a Native American citizen then, eh?

Please read the posts, first. And try to respond to that. Not just imagine whatever triggers your ire and then send posts of into space.