Support NeoGAF

[Palette Swap]

Right, but the point I was making is that the conversation turns into a attack or a defense of immigrants and refugees from the Middle East (note: not from the US, Canada, Japan, etc.), when the conversation could focus on the reasons why people are turning into far-right parties. It's not like these people just automatically buy into racist, anti-humanitarian values just because brown immigrants and refugees are coming into the country, there is something more than that that's going on.

From a French perspective, but this might apply to other European nations, I would say this is on a superficial level a rhetorical issue. I mean that the far right discourse answers a very widespread perception that a) we're slowly falling behind as a country while our systems and protections wither away and b) mainstream parties are all the same and, with their soft touch, haven't done anything to solve anything.

From a discursive standpoint, populist parties offer huge departures from these parties as they offer simple solutions that are opposite enough to what has been done so far to imply that they should work, considering the opposite didn't. This is obviously a fallacy, but the idea of new, radical solutions is appealing to people who believe they don't have much to lose. This is essentially the anti-establishment component.

There's also some kind of strongman cognitive bias at play here: the more expedient a solution seems, the more potent it should be. Your omelette can only get better as you break more eggs. Human rights are very often these eggs. Words themselves tend to betray these thoughts about human rights as besides the overused idiom "political correctness", hard righters will also use pejorative idioms such as "droits-de-l'hommisme" ("human-rightsism" which implies human rights have gone too far) and "bien pensance" ("well thinking" in a thought police sense).
This is a semantic context that is often overlooked but essentially boils down to a notion of silent majority, where human rights and openness keep the majority silent and prevent it from finding solutions to its problems if only it was allowed to speak up. The irony is of course that these people are 24/7 on TV or the radio, complaining about their lack of free speech.

One last thing, and this might be the most crucial part : voters need a political project, common goals, a legible roadmap to the future. Traditional parties have failed time and again to create a positive narrative that projects the county five or ten years from now, describing the kind of country they want. This means far right populists are pretty much the only ones with a story to tell that isn't more of the same. This inability of institutions and dominant parties to communicate their value will be their demise. They appear too complex and mired in technicalities, with no clear vision, while populists project the exact opposite. They don't sweat the details as long as they can sell their story.

Sorry if this is a bit disjointed, as I'm on mobile and was trying my hardest to not make it about the usual social, economic or demographic issues.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

The integration system is adequate for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. people in Europe. They don't face the same difficulties integrating and being a part of a liberal society that some of the Muslim minority have. It's not like Muslims can never integrate, though. Met plenty of girls from a Muslim Middle Eastern background who are basically Westerners in mindset. Westernized/secular Middle Eastern chicks are pretty hot.

 

[Madness]

It means you folks had your heads in the sand for years and didn't see this coming and are now shocked. Human history is repetitive and cyclical and politics is like a pendulum always swinging back and forth. Just look at the US for example. The emancipation proclamation and the ending of slavery brought new laws and new rights to African-Americans and things improved every decade until the rise of white nationalism and the KKK and Jim Crow and things became bad until the rise of civil rights and equality and things again became good for a bit until now we're seeing the rise of the far right again.

After years or decades of left, far left, liberal policies, it is inevitable things will go back centre, right, far right. Until they will go back to being center, left, far left again. We're baarely 70 years removed from World War II. Essentially one generation for people in power. People forget and old ideas return, new ideas become formed etc. Greece in 2004 welcomed the world to Athens and human unity. And then a decade later Golden Dawn was talking about dragging non greek babies out of hospitals into the streets.

 

[gerg]

Right, but the point I was making is that the conversation turns into a attack or a defense of immigrants and refugees from the Middle East (note: not from the US, Canada, Japan, etc.), when the conversation could focus on the reasons why people are turning into far-right parties. It's not like these people just automatically buy into racist, anti-humanitarian values just because brown immigrants and refugees are coming into the country, there is something more than that that's going on.

To examine the Brexit vote in the vein of Palette Swap's post about France (although, here, again I think it is important to highlight the complexity of "othering", given that the vote was not solely about keeping immigrants and refugees from the Middle East out of Britain): the Remain campaign had no message as provocative and evocative as "Take Back Control".

Here I'll simply quote a PERC analysis that was posted the day the Leave vote won:

In this context, the slogan ‘take back control’ was a piece of political genius. It worked on every level between the macroeconomic and the psychoanalytic. Think of what it means on an individual level to rediscover control. To be a person without control (for instance to suffer incontinence or a facial tick) is to be the butt of cruel jokes, to be potentially embarrassed in public. It potentially reduces one’s independence. What was so clever about the language of the Leave campaign was that it spoke directly to this feeling of inadequacy and embarrassment, then promised to eradicate it. The promise had nothing to do with economics or policy, but everything to do with the psychological allure of autonomy and self-respect. Farrage’s political strategy was to take seriously communities who’d otherwise been taken for granted for much of the past 50 years.

As Palette Swap says in respect to France, here we see a centre-right and far-right campaign providing a message of optimism and affirmation that the left (and the significant part of the centre-right that backed a Remain vote) failed to match. Although Zoe Williams argues against associating the Brexit vote too strongly with one particular class or group of people, she similarly highlights the success of the Leave campaign with its capacity to resonate with nevertheless disgruntled voters. Certainly, the claims that the Leave campaign may have been lies (such as the suggestion that Britain would be £350m a week richer from leaving the EU), or rung hollow, given that within the EU it is Britain that already does have the most sovereignty (irrespective of whether sovereignty is worth having above all else). But the Remain campaign, whether out of incompetence or disinterest, was simply incapable of reminding people of the benefits of EU membership, and was stuck denying the Leave campaign's assertions.

 

[Foffy]

No thanks, gun laws, mass consumption, pollution, no healthcare, slave-like working conditions, corporate plutonomy, imperialistic foreign policies, drone strikes, prison industrial complex, CO2 emissions, highest military budget in the world, white supremacy, low social mobility, hating the poor, acceptance of torture, boot straps rhetoric, NSA surveillance, death penalty, supporting Israel, militarized police force, denial of man-made global warming, Christian nutjobs, for-profit education, all make me not want to move to the US.

But you can buy anything you want, tho.

 

[Madness]

No thanks, gun laws, mass consumption, pollution, no healthcare, slave-like working conditions, corporate plutonomy, imperialistic foreign policies, drone strikes, prison industrial complex, CO2 emissions, highest military budget in the world, white supremacy, low social mobility, hating the poor, acceptance of torture, boot straps rhetoric, NSA surveillance, death penalty, supporting Israel, militarized police force, denial of man-made global warming, Christian nutjobs, for-profit education, all make me not want to move to the US.

Can I ask what superior country you supposedly live in? Guarantee that your country has several of these very same things. Any world superpower will have those things. Denial of man made global warming? The leader of the US was instrumental in making sure the Paris Accords were followed through with. NSA surveillance is different from MI5 British surveillance? American support for Israel is different than German, UK or French support of Israel? For-profit education is not inherently bad. It is what allows American universities to be the best in the world. Don't conflate high and rising tuition costs with for-profit education. No healthcare? 85% or more of Americans have healthcare or health insurance. It is just that a large portion are uninsured. Otherwise if you are low-middle, middle or upper class and have a job, you have healthcare especially after the passing of the ACA/Obamacare. I will agree about the gun laws though. Drone strikes too. Hating the poor? I forgot all about how Europeans love the Roma and downtrodden in Europe. It isn't like they're literally segregating and building tent cities and barbed wire borders between each nation to stop refugees eh?

 

[Burai]

Exactly. Gays are prosecuted in Islamic countries and some people from those countries still harbour the same belief. Unless they are willing to integrate to western way of life, I don't want them in my life. I moved to more a liberal country because I share the same belief as the people whose country I'm moving into. If you don't then why even move to that country and expect the people in it to change and accomodate you instead. Fuck that.

Is that really what they want though? Or are they finding their new home countries to be completely hostile and unwilling to accept them, so they take the only option available to them and live in their own segregated subculture?

Integration is a two-way street. How can we expect people to conform to our way of life if we aren't willing to engage with them to try to change their way of thinking?

We've already seen historical parallels when the influx of West Indian migrants to the UK in the 50s and 60s was met with an astonishing amount of hostility. "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish", "If you want a coloured for a neighbour, vote Labour", etc. And these people really did want to integrate. It's taken generations to get to a point where they are thought of as anything like equal by British society and I'd be lying if I said that there aren't still large numbers of people who still don't accept them some 60-odd years after they first came.

So am I surprised that these people don't want to integrate? Not in the slightest. Why learn the language when the general population don't want you to breathe the same air as them, let alone talk to you? How do you educate your kids in the public school system when the indigenous parents don't want them sharing a classroom with their children? How do you learn to abandon your prejudices when all you meet is prejudice? How do you change your moral compass when people hate everything about your culture, right or wrong?

How much appetite is there for spending public money on helping these people to integrate? To participate in community bridge-building programmes? None. So how do these people integrate? How do they change?

And in response to your homosexuality, how can we expect them to change their views on homosexuality when so many in western society reject your orientation too?

 

[DavidDesu]

We're all being, and have been for some time, socially engineered by our media. The news is literally a narrative used day in day out to bombard us with just the right pieces of information to drive this hysteria. It enforces the notion that we have options when what we have is a massively narrow range of options that are virtually identical but with just enough spin that they seem different.

Just look at how Corbyn has been treated. Written off before being elected and then endlessly torn to shreds in a million different ways. This is from places like The Guardian which is apparently very much a leftist publication, lol.

These narratives we are fed do absolutely everything to ensure the entrenched power brokers can always get a decent nights sleep. It shuts down any truly different thinkers and lambasts them as crackpots. We all know by now how fucked our world is through climate change, if we truly had a critical media then every single politician and virtually every party would and should be getting roasted alive on the news. Nothing. We bailout the banks for mass fraud and we get waves of bankers all intrinsically part of that system basically promoting their side, yet we are told these are impartial experts merely imparting their wisdom on the topic. An HSBC director who was there when the bank was involved in massive money laundering for drug cartels now runs the BBC.

The media truly is the biggest part of our current problem. The internet which promised truth has merely made easy misinformation now the de-facto way many people form their views from, and so on.

Frankly we're all fucked. We're too far gone and I don't see how it's ever going to change.

 

[Linkyn]

That wouldn't work.
In France, several cities/circonscriptions where the FN won the elections are left in some serious financial troubles; FN MEP do absolutely nothing in the EU. I don't think that cost the FN a single vote.

Though to be fair, France has a serious problem ion the absence of any politician worth anything. We had to choose between Hollande and Sarkozy last time, it won't be much better this time...

That seems to be a problem in quite a few European countries at the moment. Right now, many people are fed up with our liberal / social democrat / green government, but there is no viable alternative in my opinion. Our former PM was such a political behemoth on the national level (and I suppose he now is at the European level) that he left a vacuum that the christian democrats seem unable to fill, to the point that several of their MEPs (which are more prominent politicians) have already announced that they're planning to return from Brussels to participate in the next national election.

 

[dapperbandit]

From a French perspective, but this might apply to other European nations, I would say this is on a superficial level a rhetorical issue. I mean that the far right discourse answers a very widespread perception that a) we're slowly falling behind as a country while our systems and protections wither away and b) mainstream parties are all the same and, with their soft touch, haven't done anything to solve anything.

From a discursive standpoint, populist parties offer huge departures from these parties as they offer simple solutions that are opposite enough to what has been done so far to imply that they should work, considering the opposite didn't. This is obviously a fallacy, but the idea of new, radical solutions is appealing to people who believe they don't have much to lose. This is essentially the anti-establishment component.

There's also some kind of strongman cognitive bias at play here: the more expedient a solution seems, the more potent it should be. Your omelette can only get better as you break more eggs. Human rights are very often these eggs. Words themselves tend to betray these thoughts about human rights as besides the overused idiom "political correctness", hard righters will also use pejorative idioms such as "droits-de-l'hommisme" ("human-rightsism" which implies human rights have gone too far) and "bien pensance" ("well thinking" in a thought police sense).
This is a semantic context that is often overlooked but essentially boils down to a notion of silent majority, where human rights and openness keep the majority silent and prevent it from finding solutions to its problems if only it was allowed to speak up. The irony is of course that these people are 24/7 on TV or the radio, complaining about their lack of free speech.

One last thing, and this might be the most crucial part : voters need a political project, common goals, a legible roadmap to the future. Traditional parties have failed time and again to create a positive narrative that projects the county five or ten years from now, describing the kind of country they want. This means far right populists are pretty much the only ones with a story to tell that isn't more of the same. This inability of institutions and dominant parties to communicate their value will be their demise. They appear too complex and mired in technicalities, with no clear vision, while populists project the exact opposite. They don't sweat the details as long as they can sell their story.

Sorry if this is a bit disjointed, as I'm on mobile and was trying my hardest to not make it about the usual social, economic or demographic issues.

This is a great post

 

[Hip Hop]

The rise of the regressive left is equally worrying.

 

[Orniletter]

Heard what she said, I don't get why what she said was wrong at all. More on the left need to say stuff like this.

Die Linke is an absolutely awful party, imagine Trump-esque "easy solutions for the stupid to latch onto for extremely complicated matters" but with a mid to far left viewpoint.

No wonder Kipping and her cabal criticized someone for making sense.

 

[Out 1]

All valid points.

And the worst thing is that there's a higher chance of people being killed by their own couch than a "terrorist" attack. People are dying in traffic, by alcohol, by regular murder, by tobacco, and on and on, yet people think that they will die tomorrow somewhere because of a terrorist attack. We don't see billions of Euros thrown at these things, yet terrorism and refugees are all of a sudden the reason our societies will be destroyed.

This bothers me as well. Terrorism does not pose an existential threat to the world and the Western way of life in particular. The retaliation to the acts of terror that we saw is, frankly, inadequate and absurd. Open societies should know better.

 

[AmaterasuOni]

The rise of the regressive left is equally worrying.

Yeah. Both sides are dangerous.

 

[CyclopsRock]

There are basically no countries in the world where the populations see immigration positively. I don't think this is a uniquely European problem, it's just that the geographic location of Europe combined with the EU makes it more of a powderkeg.

 

[Chittagong]

The rise of the regressive left is equally worrying.

I agree with this. It is equally shocking.

In my view, people not willing to integrate with the value system in our society are not welcome. That includes gay rights, female equality, racial equality, criminalisation of domestic abuse, just to mention a few.

I employ women, gay people and moderate muslims, and it works just fine when everybody subscribes to the society they are part of. But I also share the worry that many people now migrating from middle-East are not like that, and believe it can be a problem unless we put our foot down for the values we have achieved.

 

[Raphael]

I agree with this. It is equally shocking.

In my view, people not willing to integrate with the value system in our society are not welcome. That includes gay rights, female equality, racial equality, criminalisation of domestic abuse, just to mention a few.

I employ women, gay people and moderate muslims, and it works just fine when everybody subscribes to the society they are part of. But I also share the worry that many people now migrating from middle-East are not like that, and believe it can be a problem unless we put our foot down for the values we have achieved.

Exactly. The leftist went to the extremes in the eu. Being blind to the issue they have created and instead of employing some common sense they started covering them up and blaming everything apart their policies.

However people see that and they think balancing this is possible by going to the other extreme side of the political spectrum.

Edit: No longer junior. Oh yeah!

 

[WorriedCitizen]

Fear of the far right is as much a distraction tactic in public discourse as is fear of terrorism/muslims.

Nobody would have to fear a rise of the right if the self proclaimed "good guys" on the center and left would do their homework. This means:

1) Acknowledgement of issues where there are issues. For instance last week in the light of a growing crime rate from north african asylum seekers one member of the green party said they should lose their right of asylum if they become criminal, which is a reasonable stance imo and a good compromise because it doesnt mean people cant request asylum but adresses valid concerns of regular citizens, yet it caused an outrage on the left.

2) Parties on the center themself need to stop pushing leoliberal agenda, erosion of constitutionality and democracy (for instance using mass immigration as a tool for cheap labor, outsourcing ever more responsibilities to the EU, privatization of the states monopoly to use force as is the case in Germany right now under the pretense of fighting hate speech, dubios weapon deals and muddling in the middle east etc.)

3) the new (some would call them regressive) left needs to stop the idiotic support for these shenanigans, realise the enemy of the enemy isn't their friend and return to their leftist roots. One of the reasons regular small people seek relief on the right is that the left offers no alternative to current politics and has degenerated so much that they have become part of the problem for normal workers and lower class people. For instance it's a common theme that issues of small people will be framed in a intellectuals vs. dumb folk context by the left.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

I can't really comment on Europe in general but I know that in France, on top of the racist part of the country people are getting fed up of the traditional left and right. People sought change with Hollande, left policies and togetherness just to found him employing tactics and policies that he once rejected.

No that the left and the right both disappointed them I feel like people want to try something else which is the far-right. To counter the far-right we have what out politics call "or front républicain" which means that when the FN is in a position to win an election the candidates of the 2 biggest political parties( le PS for the left and "Les Républicains" formerly "l'UMP" for the right) form an alliance where the candidate from one of the 2 party who has the less chance of winning quit and endorse the other. It's something that doesn't help at all since then people who voted far right feel like their voice is worth anything and they resent the mainstream parties because of it.

To top it all of they both have different ways to deal with the rise of the far right. You have some in the right who tries to cater to far right voter by using similar ideology (Sarkozy is the worst offender) and then, the left whose clearly antagonistic toward them which won't win them any voters.

I don't think Le Pen is going to win next year but even if she doesn't the issue will most likely remain.

 

[Hyperactivity]

I mean, if you're going to enter another country, I don't think it's unfair to take up many local customs and act according to societal norms in that country.

It's a fact that women are often mistreated in Middle Eastern societies at this point - should that suddenly be allowed in European countries too?

Speaking from the outside here, but it's always seemed ridiculous to expect complete and total assimilation.

Maybe it's the word itself, which reminds me of a hive mind or cult.

I've just never really found the version of integration brought up in these conversations as fair. The idea of a sub-community being formed that's integrated and accustomed to the culture of the host country? Yeah, that's appealing. But the way I see it described is as if immigrants should drop everything from their past and their culture to act just like the other residents of their new residence.

Ideally, integration should involve a degree of cultural exchange: the Indian-American community has many of its own unique attributes that distinguish it, but members going to India aren't suddenly up to date with everything there (this was a random example, I'm not sure how good it is). But conversations that I see come up seem to defend this pre-set notion of what being German or Dutch or Swedish or French should mean, when ideally that should be fluid. Tbh, I don't care for whatever pre-set definition of these cultures is.

The opposite of "assimilation" seems really dumb too. "Leave them alone" types of approaches, or putting immigrants in isolated communities, both seems extremely naive and lazy.

Integration should happen, but it will happen in a more welcoming and accepting environment that tries to mix things up. The existence of sub-cultures within a culture shouldn't really be frowned upon for not being like the rest of the culture. If anything, those sub-cultures can add variety and appeal to culture as a whole. Same with the act of new immigrants joining or moving into similar communities (newsflash: when you're in a strange new country you're going to be living in, you want a degree of familiarity in your surroundings both for practical purposes and homesickness). Ideally, if your country hasn't fucked up the integration and available interactions for these smaller communities, other members can act as a springboard into interacting more with the host country's culture.

But if the communities themselves are already isolated and withdrawn, then the solution needs to focus on fixing that, not trying to remove these communities entirely. That means not alienating them and not creating laws or an atmosphere that decreases the chances of interactions outside the community.

tl;dr

A. Assimilation is a terrible word to use there
B. Integration means the immigrants should get to keep or mix their previous culture, and the host culture takes some of the new one. It doesn't mean everyone that moved to France should suddenly act according to some definition of the french.

C. Sub-communities are good and can act as springboards for integration, but only if they're not isolated
D. Every time an isolated or discriminated community is alienated, it will just cause said community to be more withdrawn, and decreases chances of external interaction and integration.

EDIT: And no, cultural exchange doesn't and won't (for the paranoid ones of you out there) mean that everyone will be out wearing burqas and oppressing women, nor that that should be accepted. But if you're gonna act like everything in these immigrant cultures is reprehensible or backwards, that maybe voting far-right makes sense for you

 

[thegoosen]

Don't know what to do but if anything it's surely the fault of "leftists".

Because-because if they would "acknowledge" the problem by imitating politics of the far right, the votes for far right parties would magically disappear!

 

[Hyperactivity]

No thanks, gun laws, mass consumption, pollution, no healthcare, slave-like working conditions, corporate plutonomy, imperialistic foreign policies, drone strikes, prison industrial complex, CO2 emissions, highest military budget in the world, white supremacy, low social mobility, hating the poor, acceptance of torture, boot straps rhetoric, NSA surveillance, death penalty, supporting Israel, militarized police force, denial of man-made global warming, Christian nutjobs, for-profit education, all make me not want to move to the US.

To the land of the free it is!

Spoiler

Actually no seriously I wonder what some people here think (or if they know) about stuff like illegal immigration in the USA and how its dealt with, or that we don't have an official language and the attempt to make English ours was stopped iirc

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

I agree with this. It is equally shocking.

In my view, people not willing to integrate with the value system in our society are not welcome. That includes gay rights, female equality, racial equality, criminalisation of domestic abuse, just to mention a few.

I employ women, gay people and moderate muslims, and it works just fine when everybody subscribes to the society they are part of. But I also share the worry that many people now migrating from middle-East are not like that, and believe it can be a problem unless we put our foot down for the values we have achieved.

Regressive left. Haven't heard this term before but it certainly speaks to me. I feel we see this a lot in us politics as well...at the same time though these people may not have anyone to speak for them

Certainly a complex problem

 

[deli2000]

The reason why far right parties thrive over here is that due to Europe being overwhelmingly white, minorities have no real political voice. Meaning appealing to the "legitimate concerns" of white citizens is way more politically viable than growing a backbone and showing empathy for the legitimate concerns of minorities for once.

The majority of white Europeans hate being told about racial problems because a combination of apathy and arrogance has lead to a complete lack of understanding of racism in Europe, and even bringing it up is worse than actual racism. Just see the reaction to post brexit racism on this very board. As a second generation immigrant my entire life has been defined by this ignorance.

Or it's all the lefts fault for actually trying to give a shit about people like me. That's probably a better conclusion.

 

[Jimrpg]

It's the same shit that's been happening for the longest time, ever since man walked on two legs.

There was never any way to share things equally, so with that inequality came jealousy and hatred. If the guy next to you is worse than you but makes more money, your average person will call bullshit too. That doesn't mean I want communism, but it's a problem that seems impossible to fix given over time there's always going to be some sort of inequality. Capitalism has a lot to do with it.

One short term non philosophical fix would actually be to make sure everyone around the world is well fed and well educated. But I get the feeling that's not what the first world wants, they'd rather keep the third world suppressed.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Is that really what they want though? Or are they finding their new home countries to be completely hostile and unwilling to accept them, so they take the only option available to them and live in their own segregated subculture?

Integration is a two-way street. How can we expect people to conform to our way of life if we aren't willing to engage with them to try to change their way of thinking?

We've already seen historical parallels when the influx of West Indian migrants to the UK in the 50s and 60s was met with an astonishing amount of hostility. "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish", "If you want a coloured for a neighbour, vote Labour", etc. And these people really did want to integrate. It's taken generations to get to a point where they are thought of as anything like equal by British society and I'd be lying if I said that there aren't still large numbers of people who still don't accept them some 60-odd years after they first came.

So am I surprised that these people don't want to integrate? Not in the slightest. Why learn the language when the general population don't want you to breathe the same air as them, let alone talk to you? How do you educate your kids in the public school system when the indigenous parents don't want them sharing a classroom with their children? How do you learn to abandon your prejudices when all you meet is prejudice? How do you change your moral compass when people hate everything about your culture, right or wrong?

How much appetite is there for spending public money on helping these people to integrate? To participate in community bridge-building programmes? None. So how do these people integrate? How do they change?

And in response to your homosexuality, how can we expect them to change their views on homosexuality when so many in western society reject your orientation too?

That must be the dumbest thing I've read in a while.

People emigrate their home countries for a reason, which is usually the seek of a better life. The new country provides this life, otherwise they wouldn't have moved there. So immigrants have an obligation to adapt to the society of the new country and learn the language. And it's not even IMO. The country itself doesn't have to do shit. It owns the immigrants nothing.

You sound like this dumb coworker of mine who was butthurt because a friend of his told him that her parents would never see him as local, no matter what he does. Well, bu hu. People bash each other everywhere. During my military service some of us were bashed just because we were from another state of the same country. It was even about local or foreigner, just the different state! Dumb people always find a reason to hate on others. And acting all butthurt just because a handful of locals treat immigrants hostile is the most childish thing ever.

 

[Condom]

Good stuff

You hit the nail on the head IMO

Europe has an identity problem as in that they don't know if they should see foreign influences as a part of their new combined culture or that they should see them as intruders that infect the pure national Christian culture.

We think we had trouble with multiculturalism but actually never really embraced it. Now the kneejerk reaction is nationalism and cultural homogeneity but that is for sure not going to work. That ship has sailed a long time ago and those pushing for it know it, like fish desperately splashing on land.

At the same time there are many examples in big cities of where multiculturalism has been embraced and has been successful and those examples will multiply and form the new Europe.

 

[Ekai]

The reason why far right parties thrive over here is that due to Europe being overwhelmingly white, minorities have no real political voice. Meaning appealing to the legitimate concerns of white citizens is way more politically viable than growing a backbone and showing empathy for the legitimate concerns of minorities for once.

The majority of white Europeans hate being told about racial problems because a combination of apathy and arrogance has lead to a complete lack of understanding of racism in Europe, and even bringing it up is worse than actual racism. Just see the reaction to post brexit racism on this very board. As a second generation immigrant my entire life has been defined by this ignorance.

Or it's all the lefts fault for actually trying to give a shit about people like me. That's probably a better conclusion.

This is pretty much my reaction to the topic.

 

[Darth Ghandi]

This is all the left's fault.

The left gave a huge opening to the far right by refusing to admit: unfettered immigration might actually cause problems, terrorists will enter Europe while posing as refugees, Europe's wealth isn't unlimited, integration will be difficult, etc. etc.

First thing the left should do is: stop digging and admit there is a problem.

I'll never understand why immigration is the hill the European left decided to die on.

Citation needed.

 

[Jumeira]

It's creeping slowly, what is scary is that the right believe thier racism is acceptable, and hide behind integration rhetoric. They throw criticism at newly entered immigrants and try to extend it to naturalised migrants who have been in Europe for generations. I also find the tribal speak of Europe and Muslims just as revolting, as if the claim is trying to mobilise all whites as one unit and anyone else as another. It's used here too, its an inaccurate and ignorant view of Europe, particularly today.

 

[thegoosen]

That must be the dumbest thing I've read in a while.

People emigrate their home countries for a reason, which is usually the seek of a better life. The new country provides this life, otherwise they wouldn't have moved there. So immigrants have an obligation to adapt to the society of the new country and learn the language. And it's not even IMO. The country itself doesn't have to do shit. It owns the immigrants nothing.

If the benefit of it is to have more taxes, the country better has to do its job to provide enough services to make the transition to the labour market and society for immigrants as effective as possible. Otherwise, can you explain to me how "don't complain, butthurt" does contribute to anything?

 

[Valhelm]

The integration system is adequate for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. people in Europe. They don't face the same difficulties integrating and being a part of a liberal society that some of the Muslim minority have. It's not like Muslims can never integrate, though. Met plenty of girls from a Muslim Middle Eastern background who are basically Westerners in mindset. Westernized/secular Middle Eastern chicks are pretty hot.

East Asians also haven't reached the critical mass of scaring European racists yet

 

[SmoothOperator]

Actually a good thing : Shows that Europeans still have some guts in them and won't have their way of lives and secular cultures being destroyed by some obscure political agenda.

 

[Condom]

East Asians also haven't reached the critical mass of scaring European racists yet

You might want to look into the history of that population in the Netherlands. They had their fair share of racism targeted against them before being accepted.

 

[bionic77]

Actually a good thing : Shows that Europeans still have some guts in them and won't have their way of lives and secular cultures being destroyed by some obscure political agenda.

I was such a fool to think facism could be a bad thing.

 

[Ekai]

Actually a good thing : Shows that Europeans still have some guts in them and won't have their way of lives and secular cultures being destroyed by some obscure political agenda.

I didn't realize seeing others as human beings was a "obscure" political agenda. (Just kidding, I know it's been one since the right-ring has opposed civil rights for decades)

 

[SmoothOperator]

I was such a fool to think facism could be a bad thing.

Historically speaking fascism is a left-thing not right nor far-right.

 

[Jacobi]

I didn't realize seeing others as human beings was a "obscure" political agenda. (Just kidding, I know it's been one since the right-ring has opposed civil rights for decades)

Love that black and white thinking

 

[Condom]

Historically speaking fascism is a left-thing not right nor far-right.

Fascists hate the left but are leftists themselves. Very interesting.

 

[Ekai]

Historically speaking fascism is a left-thing not right nor far-right.

You should really educate yourself on what the political spectrum is. And what characteristics fascism has. It's a far-right thing.

Pro-tip: Socialism in the name National Socialism for the Nazi party =/= actual socialism or left-wing. This is a recognized fact in pretty much any discourse on politics.
The keyword there is National.
Another pro-tip: the fascists have always attacked liberals/the left.

Love that black and white thinking

When the right-wing stops being as extreme as it is, it won't have to be fact anymore.

 

[Beefy]

Biggest problem we have is austerity. Making the poor /ill even poorer. Which gives the right wing a easy way to get peoples vote.

 

[Condom]

You should really educate yourself on what the political spectrum is. And what characteristics fascism has. It's a far-right thing.

Pro-tip: Socialism in the name National Socialism for the Nazi party =/= actual socialism or left-wing. This is a recognized fact in pretty much any discourse on politics.
The keyword there is National.
Another pro-tip: the fascists have always attacked liberals/the left.

No no no look the Democratic republic of North Korea has Democratic in it's name so that means it's a democracy, just like how the Nazis are socialist because it's in their name #flawlesslogic

 

[Ekai]

No no no look the Democratic republic of North Korea has Democratic in it's name so that means it's a democracy, just like how the Nazis are socialist because it's in their name #flawlesslogic

Yea, misnomers can't possibly be a thing in politics.

 

[bionic77]

Fascists hate the left but are leftists themselves. Very interesting.

Regressive lefties left us with no choice but facism because they failed to use certain words and solve certain problems.

We didn't really want it, it was forced upon us apparently. And when it fucks up everything, as it always does, it will still be the fault of the left.

 

[old]

Sounds like Europe is going through 80's America. Cut social spending, increase defense spending. Heard that before.

Perhaps for the same reason. By that time in America you had a whole generation of baby boomers raised on a luxurious welfare state. High taxes, cheap if not free higher education, ample access to healthcare, well paying government and union jobs, lots of infrastructure investments....etc. These Americans were set. They had great jobs with a fortune of equity in their house and other investments all thanks to the help they got from the social spending set up by the previous generation.

So what did the baby boomers do when they became the majority in the 80's, when it was their turn to be ones shouldering the tax burden to invest in the next generation? "Fuck you and yours! I got mine!" is about the most concise and accurate way to put it. They voted to cut taxes, cut taxes again, and cut taxes even more. Starve social programs they weren't benefiting from any more. Privatized infrastructure after they had already built up their own businesses. And busted all of those unions of working class Americans looking for decent pay. But they did spend extra for that military to protect their assets and investments.

The boomers got very far climbing up the ladder built by the greatest generation. And when they got to the top they pulled the ladder up. And now you're telling me Europeans who've benefited from generous welfare states are now voting to cut social spending and increase defense spending....

I wonder if it's just humane nature. If all welfare states are doomed to expire the moment a spoiled selfish greedy scared generation comes along, who doesn't need it anymore and would gain more by dismantling it.

 

[Jacobi]

Sounds like Europe is going through 80's America. Cut social spending, increase defense spending. Heard that before.

That's not happening at all, more like increased social spending because you have hundreds of thousands new people.

 

[Matsukaze]

Historically speaking fascism is a left-thing not right nor far-right.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

That's not happening at all, more like increased social spending because you have hundreds of thousands new people.

Researched the dude in your avatar and it turns out he's a massive leftist. And you said you liked most of his other policies. So what is your political stance? I find this idea that Europe HAS to be homogenous to function otherwise it'll collapse to be troubling.

The SPD is fucked in Germany because they moved to the right and cut welfare for the poorest. The working classes have pretty much been the ones to lose out from all the social changes that have taken place. The traditionally left-wing voting working class hence sided with the right wing to support Brexit and anti-immigration politics because demagogues told them that it would solve all their problems, and that the mainstream has abandoned them in favour of the rich and middle class. Surveys have shown that the working classes despise immigration but on the other hand support other leftist policies. And the idea that the mainstream is ignoring the problem and tells everyone to shut up isn't really that valid anymore. Governments and centre-right parties have been talking tough on this issue for some time now.

It's not stupid to say integration is a 2 way process. Native populations should accept the newcomers and in return newcomers should accept the society and make an effort to take part in the society they moved to. And the EU Blue card scheme for Germany requires university level education and a salary of 48,400 Euros at a minimum for non-EU citizens, so the idea that the EU is simply an open door to the uneducated and unskilled who there aren't any jobs for anymore anyway in 2016 is clearly false.

Having said that, I'm not satisfied with how the refugee situation has been handled at all because of how people aren't vetted before they enter the EU (they are vetted only within EU countries, a nice opportunity for extremists to blow people up in the meantime), and how disorganized the intake is. The UN or the EU itself should invest in safe spots near the conflict zone under EU/UN protection and it would be a place where people could apply to the EU as a whole. Take in people from these places who are successful in smaller numbers so the existing systems can work more efficiently, and hold asylum seekers to a much higher standard of behavior than citizens or labor migrants because the EU is doing you a favor here by letting you live here without a job and without paying taxes to support that society. That means even minor crimes can equal cancellation of the asylum application, and it means they'll be sent back to the aforementioned safe zone without the possibility to apply again. Only issue temporary asylum permits to be reviewed every 3-4 years to decide if someone still needs asylum, and allow them the possibility of getting a permanent residence and eventually citizenship if they have a job, can support themselves, learned the language and tried their best to be part of society. Seems fair?

 

[Darth Ghandi]

In Sweden some AFA people stabbed an immigrant to death. In Germany they are basically going full fascism and attacking everyone who even remotely looks like a "nazi". Also ANTIFA is threatening music venues if they let som ebands to play who they think have some kind of far-right contact (it can be that the band uses runes in their artwork). Just yesterday far-left in Kallio, Finland attacked police who were trying to stop an illegal rap concert which was causing disturbance in the area. And so forth and so forth. Most of the violence in demonstrations in Finland have been caused by these AFA/anarchist types. They're scum just like far-right.



SoO is scum just like far-left. This is what I was talking about: far-right and far-left will divide countries, just like before both World Wars.

Both are harmful, both follow socialism. Puppets of the oligarchs. Idiots.

Yeah I would like a source for that since during the last 25 years in Sweden only the far right extremists have killed 23 people (that I know of).

Can't speak for other countries but I believe the socialdemokrats in Sweden did start the selling out of public owned institutions and the blue parties sold even more, so you could say that some blame is on them. The problem is that the Socialists stopped being true socialists and sold out.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

In the UK the situation has been pretty similar to Sweden. The last centre-left Social Democrat (Labour) government from 1997-2010 pretty much moved to the right economically as well, they continued the work of the Right when they sold state owned institutions and embraced the free market in its entirety. At the same time they were very pro immigration and oversaw a huge immigration increase. They actively encouraged Eastern Europeans to come over and work when those countries joined the EU. Anti-immigration sentiment was pretty much silent as an issue politically until relatively recently. UKIP were the only real anti-immigration party and the mainstream called them racists and lunatics for years. The UKIP movement grew massively in the last couple of years, fueled by the resentment of the traditionally left wing left behind working classes who were being ignored as a political group by everyone. And the working classes overwhelmingly voted against the EU. Sweden's social democrats didn't go utterly insane after their time in opposition and select a far-leftist leader who the traditional left wing voters still won't vote for, though. Not sure about other parties but the Front National are pretty leftist in economic policy, pretty much to appeal to the working class who are economically left wing but socially right wing in general.