Politics Here we go again: Right wing nationalism on the rise again in Europe

I'm sorry but you americans ( in a continental way ) you have a highly propension to liberalize migrations even that you are the biggest killers, migrants of history, you are the europeans responsible for colonialism, so i dont actually see how because brazil is open-minded about it, is actually a positive thing, just look like reparations. Your thousands of economic migrants are not our millions economic migrants. And how is Islam actually integration and assimilation ? Looks more like we let them create a society in the society, or maybe just like the French president, you think you are a god who can create an western european islam. You just try too hard to overcompensate. Lets ask to native amazonians what they think about immigrations, and people coming in their ancestral lands for growing crops. I dont know why you actually are rpetty hysterical about that subject, it's an hot topic, so people gonna say things that you dont like, breathe. And for eastern europe like western europe, it's exactly the same question. How they would resolve their endemic issues if they have to deal with over and over issues brought by the newcomers.

I can tell you that the natives I know are anti-immigration. They wish their ancestors had taken that stance in the 1600's.
 
We dont talk about the same migration, your context is like the Irish context in America. I'm talk about actual migration, at this time, there was no Muslim Brothers, no pan-arabisme, no occidental islamism, arab women certainly didn't put any burqa like in the egypt and maghreb 50 years ago. I just look at wikipedia about Arab Brazilians they are mostly Christians, how can you not make the link yourself ? Nobody wants Islam in Europe, nobody. There is slightly any reason why christians would want Islam and less more about Atheists, Atheists that pushes a liberal view and acceptation about Islam only make them for validation reasons.

Granted, you're right that the politics and ideologies of the Middle East changed a lot since the 1930s/1940s, so the people who came before were most probably much more willing to let themselves be integrated and assimilated into the Western society they migrated to.

As for Islam, I think the problem is with the present Wahhabi-influenced religious ideology that spread in the Middle East with its center of dispersion around Saudi Arabia. Islam wasn't that more conservative than Christianity until the 18th century, though its heavily legalistic doctrine was always a problem (Christianity was always much more lax and vague about most secular things), and even in the early 20th century it was showing some signs of gradually liberalizing. But, alas, Saudi-style Islam was heavily promoted by their oil money.

As I said in previous posts, there is definitely a need for limits on immigration in many European countries (certainly not Hungary and even much less so Poland), because all those people can't be assimilated fast enough especially because both Europeans and the Middle Eastern migrants don't seem to be very bent on interacting heavily with each other and letting mutual influences and exchanges increase to the point of full integration in just a few decades. That can't happen when you have millions, and not thousands, of immigrants in the same middle-sized country. So, I definitely concede that this is an issue that must be controlled in the likes of Germany, Sweden or France... but I maintain that Eastern European parties using this as a convenient scapegoating and hysterical political strawman is little more than a political farce when they have much more pressing problems and aren't being exactly invaded by those Muslim foreigners (certainly not Poland, Hungary at least can argue that they were threatened by a massive number of people crossing their territory, even if most wouldn't stay there anyway).
 
"You can't re-write history."
No.It's your privilege.
btw wikipedia is also leftist.

I'm making up absolutely nothing.

That political party didn't exist? They didn't preach those things? They didn't get power because of it? The Arrow Cross was made up by leftists?

Can't you be honest and admit what is patently obvious?

Why don't you go back and read contemporaneous, primary sources. That's what I had to do when I wrote my papers about modern European history.

It didn't make me very proud of Italian history in the 20s and 30s, but it is what it is and has to be accepted.

Just admit that this is just a continuation of attitudes that are centuries old in Eastern Europe.
 
The overwhelming majority of those thousands of immigrants wouldn't stay in Hungary, as the report itself says they were "crossing" it. They now just found another path to use as a bridge between them and their desired destination in Western/Central Europe. End of story. As of 2018, there is no sign of massive settlement by Middle Easterners in Hungary. Get over it.

This is true. It's also true that Hungarians and others have seen the impact and failure to assimilate too many migrants in some Euro countries. It also angers them to be told by EU leadership that they must accept them. The entire concept of being forced to accept them is perplexing. Why are the EU leaders so adamant about having no choice but to import another 150 million in the next 10 years? As if they hold no power over the decision?

Just as the far right has members that make ridiculous claims, the far left has them too. The idea that most of the migrants are some sort of engineer or doctor is ridiculous. The tax revenue generated from employed migrants in Germany wasn't even enough to pay for the administration to distribute welfare to migrants, much less the actual value of benefits.

The far left also works to conceal hard facts and data because it makes people uncomfortable and in their words might bolster the arguments of the far right. If simple facts are so damaging to an ideology then perhaps it is flawed.

This thread has beat to death the idea of the rise of the far right and immigration. I think it has been established that the two are intertwined. If the left wants to stop the rise of the right then they should work to stop the rapid levels of immigration. It's that simple.

America is a diverse place but not without great conflict. Large amounts of poor immigrants have always caused huge problems that we've had to overcome as a nation. It seems guaranteed among humans that this will happen.

So, if you are fighting against the far right in the battle of ideas, you are fighting human nature which will always be difficult.

I have not yet read a coherent and rational reason for the Euro immigration as it stands as opposed to sending aid or otherwise helping the needy in their own countries.
 
The overwhelming majority of those thousands of immigrants wouldn't stay in Hungary, as the report itself says they were "crossing" it. They now just found another path to use as a bridge between them and their desired destination in Western/Central Europe. End of story. As of 2018, there is no sign of massive settlement by Middle Easterners in Hungary. Get over it.

Do you know what "refugee"quota is? Have you heard about it?
"...their desired destination..." Asylum is not wish programe!
Have you heard about Schengen external border controls?
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/migratory-pressures/strengthening-external-borders/
 
Do you know what "refugee"quota is? Have you heard about it?
"...their desired destination..." Asylum is not wish programe!
Have you heard about Schengen external border controls?
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/migratory-pressures/strengthening-external-borders/

Of course it isn't, but we're dealing with real world issues and therefore it doesn't matter what it SHOULD be or not be, but what in fact happens.

Of course (again), there must be some pragmatic controls. Another thing is political sensationalism and ideological hysteria.

The refugee quotas were for Eastern European countries were mostly tiny, of the kind that wouldn't make even a dent in the alarmist "population replacement" that is actually not happening.
 
This is true. It's also true that Hungarians and others have seen the impact and failure to assimilate too many migrants in some Euro countries. It also angers them to be told by EU leadership that they must accept them. The entire concept of being forced to accept them is perplexing. Why are the EU leaders so adamant about having no choice but to import another 150 million in the next 10 years? As if they hold no power over the decision?.

150 million in the next 10 years? Do you have some source for that claim? I mean, even during the appex of the refugee crisis the estimated number of refugees/pseudo-refugee economic immigrants was around 1 to 1.5 million immigrants. Even if that pace of immigration remained (which it didn't after 2016) that would make 10-15 million people in 10 years, and I'm sure there wouldn't be more than 10-15 million purely economic migrants coming from other places and via other routes. I don't dispute your claims and preoccupations with the ineffective and unpragmatic policies of immigration of the EU and most West European countries, and you're right in that the left must tackle this issue in some way or another (but not simply support the status quo while it is clearly not working out well)... but I think there is also some exaggeration that forces us to bring people back to the reality, even if to criticize it and find solutions.
 
what is the difference of free world,
with caynes
with capitalism
with anrcho-capitalism
with colonial-ism
with expanionism
with ....

CAN SOMEONE TELL ME THE LIMITS OF NATION or a country, or a state?
offcourse
CAN SOMEONE TELL ME THE LIMITS OF A CORPORATION?
probably,
CAN SOMEONE TELL ME THE LIMITS OF A MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION OR A MULTINATIONAL BANK?
NO nobody,


On the other hand,
how much equality can have a society have,
and how much depressure and negativity creates working in a hard job, in an easy job, in a dangerous job,
and have the same, without hope,
just pathetic,
so the κοινον of a nation is a must,
but the glory is different,
crating a nomenclass that will lead us to 'equality' is just an oligarchic dictatorship,
we must balance among the limits of a productive society, that no man become carnivore of another man,
and also have structures to stabilize society and the weaks of the team,
offcourse that does not mean that the weak must eat the flesh of the strong neither the oposite,

yes from Left to Right and back,
when a society pass the limits,
it is the duty of members to bring balance.

NO CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT LIMITS,
MORE THE PROTEST VOTE


BASIC HUMAN REACTIONS
SHELF DEFENCE
SHELF MANAGEMENT
SIMILAR SOCIETY REACTIONS
SOCIAL DEFENCE BY PROTEST AND UNWILLING OBEY
SOCIAL MANAGEMENT BY TAKING THE LAW IN HANDS

the Social defense
, simmilar to shelf defence is when someones the limit of anexation, of a group, or a person
IN MODERN WORLD IS EXPRESSED BY VOTING

THE SOCIAL MANAGEMENT
is mainly a job of politicians, law and justice, and police,
IF THEY CAN NOT HEAR THE VOICES OF THE GROUP,
THEN GROUP MIGHT TAKE THE LAW IN HIS HANDS,
ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT A WILLING ACTION, AND IS PUNISHABLE.
IF THE MANAGERS ARE DEAF, IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, THE FAILURE

 
Last edited:
I'm making up absolutely nothing.

That political party didn't exist? They didn't preach those things? They didn't get power because of it? The Arrow Cross was made up by leftists?

Can't you be honest and admit what is patently obvious?


Why don't you go back and read contemporaneous, primary sources. That's what I had to do when I wrote my papers about modern European history.

It didn't make me very proud of Italian history in the 20s and 30s, but it is what it is and has to be accepted.

Just admit that this is just a continuation of attitudes that are centuries old in Eastern Europe.

"The Arrow Cross was made up by leftists?"

No.But there were many communists who became Arrow Cross members and communists again after 1945.

If you want to write about Eastern Europe , study other than communist literature.It's fake history writing.
 
It's in his rhetoric, Bicicleur.
As to the latter, yes, there was. I remember reading about anti-Eastern European sentiment. However, being British, they didn't burn people alive in hostels as happened in Germany to some Turkish migrants.
There has also been anti-migrant violence in Italy in some cases. I'm by no means trying to "whitewash" Italy. However, you can't compare the number of migrants in Italy to the number in Eastern Europe.
As Ygorcs has pointed out, they're hyper-ventilating over a problem that doesn't exist in their countries.
yes scapegoating is always in the rhetoric,
but I don't find the Orban scapegoat other than building a fence
which was more common sense than 'wir schaffen dass'

and there were a few fires in some refugee camps in several European countries during the refugee crisis
and there were injuries and rapes and a few deaths
more than 90 % commited by refugees themselves

don't exaggerate and don't generalise

there are a lot of criminals amongst these refugees
and several commited murder and rape
in Germany, and in northwest Europe there was more violence from refugees to natives than the other way around
 
Of course it isn't, but we're dealing with real world issues and therefore it doesn't matter what it SHOULD be or not be, but what in fact happens.

Of course (again), there must be some pragmatic controls. Another thing is political sensationalism and ideological hysteria.

The refugee quotas were for Eastern European countries were mostly tiny, of the kind that wouldn't make even a dent in the alarmist "population replacement" that is actually not happening.

This should not be about "what it SHOULD be or not be".There are laws,regulations,agreements and conventions which are mandatory.We live in the rule of law.At least theoretically.

I am not talking about the first quota ,I am talking about the continuous "refugee" quota without upper limit which the EU wants to introduce. According to international statistics, there are sixty million refugees who can come to Europe in the next few years.Population replacement can go fast or slowly but surely.
 
This is true. It's also true that Hungarians and others have seen the impact and failure to assimilate too many migrants in some Euro countries. It also angers them to be told by EU leadership that they must accept them. The entire concept of being forced to accept them is perplexing. Why are the EU leaders so adamant about having no choice but to import another 150 million in the next 10 years? As if they hold no power over the decision?

Just as the far right has members that make ridiculous claims, the far left has them too. The idea that most of the migrants are some sort of engineer or doctor is ridiculous. The tax revenue generated from employed migrants in Germany wasn't even enough to pay for the administration to distribute welfare to migrants, much less the actual value of benefits.

The far left also works to conceal hard facts and data because it makes people uncomfortable and in their words might bolster the arguments of the far right. If simple facts are so damaging to an ideology then perhaps it is flawed.

This thread has beat to death the idea of the rise of the far right and immigration. I think it has been established that the two are intertwined. If the left wants to stop the rise of the right then they should work to stop the rapid levels of immigration. It's that simple.

America is a diverse place but not without great conflict. Large amounts of poor immigrants have always caused huge problems that we've had to overcome as a nation. It seems guaranteed among humans that this will happen.

So, if you are fighting against the far right in the battle of ideas, you are fighting human nature which will always be difficult.

I have not yet read a coherent and rational reason for the Euro immigration as it stands as opposed to sending aid or otherwise helping the needy in their own countries.

that is true,
the naivity with which the EU leaders handled the refugee crisis would be unthinkable in the US, before Trump

and yet stopping uncontrolled immigration was a point in Trumps campaign working for his benefit
 
150 million in the next 10 years? Do you have some source for that claim? I mean, even during the appex of the refugee crisis the estimated number of refugees/pseudo-refugee economic immigrants was around 1 to 1.5 million immigrants. Even if that pace of immigration remained (which it didn't after 2016) that would make 10-15 million people in 10 years, and I'm sure there wouldn't be more than 10-15 million purely economic migrants coming from other places and via other routes. I don't dispute your claims and preoccupations with the ineffective and unpragmatic policies of immigration of the EU and most West European countries, and you're right in that the left must tackle this issue in some way or another (but not simply support the status quo while it is clearly not working out well)... but I think there is also some exaggeration that forces us to bring people back to the reality, even if to criticize it and find solutions.

You will have to accept that we do not want any migrants. We do not need them.They are needed there at home.Or Brazil.

INSIDE A "NO GO ZONE" IN MALMO, SWEDEN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pochreLwrQs
 
This should not be about "what it SHOULD be or not be".There are laws,regulations,agreements and conventions which are mandatory.We live in the rule of law.At least theoretically.

I am not talking about the first quota ,I am talking about the continuous "refugee" quota without upper limit which the EU wants to introduce. According to international statistics, there are sixty million refugees who can come to Europe in the next few years.Population replacement can go fast or slowly but surely.

You obviously didn't understand my point: I say that it doesn't matter whether refugees "should not" desire this or that, the fact is that we have seen with our own eyes that in practice they prefer to head to and stay in some countries instead of others. That, what the real numbers and dynamics demonstrate, is what matters to define what countries are really targets of mass immigration and what nations should really be most worried about it.

As for this second proposal you're now referring to, of course it is outrageous and totally unrealistic. As I said, all sides are being either hysterical or completely out of touch with reality, so the problem is probably going to increase more and more in one way or another, because there are few people really looking for a reasonable, feasible, strong yet humane solution.
 
Me too, and I have it in here Canada together with races and religions from around the globe. I have no idea why is it so existentially importance for you to keep Sweden white and christian then?!!!

Possible Terrorist Attack in Toronto – 5 Dead, More Casualties Reported

https://www.theepochtimes.com/possi...-5-dead-more-casualties-reported_2502169.html

Around 10 people were injured when a van struck a crowd of people in Toronto on Monday afternoon, April 23, according to reports. A suspect was arrested.
The Toronto Police said that between 8 and 10 people were struck around Yonge Street south of Finch Avenue when a white van went down the sidewalk. The driver was later arrested, CTV reported.
Several media outlets have reported that five people were killed in the attack.
 
Anders Breivik and - talking of Canada, here's another good example - the "mosque shooter" Alexandre Bissonnette, who of course were just "deranged, lunatic white men", must agree that, yes, these Muslim terrorists need to get out of their peaceful countries.
 
maybe, but he is labeled a fascist because he was the one with the most common sense during the refugee crisis

he isn't
I don't see the kind of rhetoric Erdogan is using

if the EU leaders did their job properly, they wouldn't have to deal with this kind of popular leaders
look at Brexit

The British will not be controlled, you don't know their psyche. It's unfortunate that there is no good leadership there. If a buffoon wasn't running my country, the former colonies should strengthen ties to the 'motherland' so to speak as the EU has really become a left winged oligarchy.
 

This thread has been viewed 80200 times.

Back
Top