10 replies to this topic

[Shirou]

I want to share with you a topic that's silently hot on the political agenda of various countries. The catalyst for this topic is mainly the right wing swing Hungary took when the right wing party Fidesz took over 2/3 of the parliament. I'm more interested in the social reasonings and aspects of these elections.

The most obvious example of this, the right wing swing as I have naturally dubbed it, is of course Hitlers NSDAP which lifted itself to power by invoking hope in the people who were suffering from the extreme economic recession in the thirties. The party managed to get complete authoritarian control through a theoretically democratic system. I find it intriguing to see that, in current modern times, not much has actually changed. I have the impression that whenever Europe is plunged into a crisis or people are really unhappy with their government, a right-wing populist party starts shouting radical phrases and, to me suprisingly, gets a hell of a lot of votes.

The current situation in the Netherlands is coloured by our self proclaimed prime-minister candidate Geert Wilders who has had his grip on the media with radical statements and making it a sport to use expletives (the fall of the cabinet was a 'glorious day', as the apparent 'worst government ever' was gone now) in his public reactions to political decisions. Last month with the municipality elections, something that should revolve around stuff like parking fees, his party entered in only two municipalities and won one, being second on the other. According to Mr Wilders this shows that he may very well win the General Elections held in June.

The only thing his party is really on about is immigration. Its a far right party although still rather subtle in its statements. It is not an overtly racist party like the very right wing nazi parties, but lots of people including me are convinced there are people among that party who would fit the racist suit perfectly.

In 2002, we had a similar event when the internet bubble collapsed and a small economic depression followed. Right wing immigrationparty LPF headed by Pim Fortuyn rose in the polls and also claimed he would become prime minister 'to revolutionize'. He was shot by a left wing activist, and when the depression quickly faded away so did his party in the polls.

I am just intrigued why every time a crisis appears people resort to right wing parties and are almost saying 'blame immigrants' out loud. This 'hidden racism' or 'aversive racism' as it has been called is apparently still there and not much has changed since the thirties of the last century. This all while the economy itself, the cause of the distress, is almost completely run by western companies with little 'foreign' influence of these social minorities. What are your views on this and do you see a similar movement in your own country?

Edited by Trivmvirate, 26 April 2010 - 11:12.

[Wizard]

One of the reasons why right wing parties tend to do well following crises such as these is that it is normally following a period of quite liberal social and economic policies. Taking the UK as an example, having been under a liberal governement since 1997, we have seen public spending reach unprecedented levels, immigration into the country has never been so high and the economy not so low for a long time. It doesn't take much for people to reason with themselves that their countries are in these sort of states is a result of both foreigners arriving and their governements being soft touches, in our case paying out millions on letting them stay and giving them a standard of living that their economic worth doesn't deserve. The BNP in UK has seen a huge (proportionally speaking) increase in it's support in the last 5-8 years as a result.

These things don't make us racist (although personally I believe that on some level everyone is), but it's a self protectionist approach to adopt. Human nature will always blame outside influences for failures or problems. Doesn't mean we all want to buy white sheets and start to burn crosses on peoples lawns.

[Shirou]

I can see how it is a way of self protecting your own world against influences that would allegedly reduce the prosperity. The irony here is though that even though we are in a proclaimed crisis, the level of wealth is still miles and miles ahead of the average country that brings us all the immigrants. You don't want to grow up in an average African country, the poverty is enormous and the chances are slim.

Africa is so poor because of Western influence. We buy their oil and minerals, we make corrupt governments rich over the backs of their people. We drew the lines between those countries which ultimately now creates tension between different ethnic groups who were forced together by our own influence.

I can see it as a natural phenomenon that people seek to blame someone for their own misery and look for the nearest scapegoat, neither is it untrue that immigration from third world countries brings little good to a nation's economy. However we have seen what happened in the 40's and that is now 70 years ago. No change. I thought one of the good things of war was the lessons it teaches us. With peak oil on the agenda in the next 50 years (which is a very optimistic scenario), it would be nice of us to get along, or things could go very badly wrong.

Edited by Trivmvirate, 26 April 2010 - 15:16.

[Wizard]

Trivmvirate, on 26 Apr 2010, 16:11, said:

Africa is so poor because of Western influence. We buy their oil and minerals, we make corrupt governments rich over the backs of their people. We drew the lines between those countries which ultimately now creates tension between different ethnic groups who were forced together by our own influence.

Whoaaaaa there Nelly!!! You can't make someone corrupt. They have to be corrupt to begin with, or have a good reason to want to become corrupt. There is nothing stopping anyone in that part of the world (or any other for that matter) from doing the right thing. Blaming the West for what happens in Africa is a whole other topic. I am not an expert but I am pretty sure that the problems in Africa are as culturally endemic as they are anything else. South Africa and Zimbabwe are examples of what can go wrong following years of White, racial ruling, but that isn't Western influence any where close to what you're suggesting.

Back @ topic, I don't disagree with you on the irony of hiding behind the right wing of politics in times of 'crisis'. But we are all human, we have flaws.

I for one do not blame immigrants for our current problems. They have done what any sane person would do in their situation, they have homed in on their chance of a better life. I blame those who have literally opened the flood gates and allowed our tax money to be spent on those that have not yet financially contributed to the society they have arrived in. When this happens 'en-masse', such as it has done in the UK, there are plenty of people who will be out of work through natural means who will now have to compete against these people for jobs. They will live in areas where immigrants are being housed. Cultural differences will arise, there is most certainly divides on these lines in large swathes of London, Birmingham, Bradford, Liverpool, well nearly every major city in the UK tbh.

Back in the 40's immigrants were the UK's saviour. They were welcomed with open arms, but that was following a conflict of unimagineable proportions and will (fingers crossed) almost never happen again. Those social circumstances can't be used as a guideline for immigration now.

Why do people actually blame immigrants for problems, probably because they feel they are part of the problem, or at least the most visual, visceral problem they can see. Using the only frame of reference I have, as mentioned above, hundreds of thousands have arrived, if not more, we don't really know, and are being given money by councils to leave the major cities. London boroughs are giving tens of thousands to immigrant families to leave London for the suburbs. How is that a fair situation for a young married, English couple living somewhere in London, paying nearly a thousand pound a month rent on a tiny flat, who have no means of buying anywhere, but aren't given the same money to leave London because they are indigenious?? If there weren't immigrants to spend money on then other services may benefit? There may not be such a high demand for property in London making housing cheaper.

That is just one potential explanation for why people follow the right wing parties, they can actually see a problem and realise how it affects them. The right will always champion a protectionist position as that is fundamental to it's ethos, and when people are able to see that left wing policies have helped immigrants and hurt them, the right seems all the more appealing.

Edited by Wizard, 26 April 2010 - 15:49.

[Shirou]

Wizard, on 26 Apr 2010, 17:47, said:

Trivmvirate, on 26 Apr 2010, 16:11, said:

Africa is so poor because of Western influence. We buy their oil and minerals, we make corrupt governments rich over the backs of their people. We drew the lines between those countries which ultimately now creates tension between different ethnic groups who were forced together by our own influence.

Whoaaaaa there Nelly!!! You can't make someone corrupt. They have to be corrupt to begin with, or have a good reason to want to become corrupt. There is nothing stopping anyone in that part of the world (or any other for that matter) from doing the right thing. Blaming the West for what happens in Africa is a whole other topic. I am not an expert but I am pretty sure that the problems in Africa are as culturally endemic as they are anything else. South Africa and Zimbabwe are examples of what can go wrong following years of White, racial ruling, but that isn't Western influence any where close to what you're suggesting.

Hold on, you misunderstood. I didn't say anything about making people corrupt. I meant governments or parts of them who are indeed corrupt to begin with or by some other reason, which we, perhaps inadvertently or simply because we don't care, support by buying all their natural resources. The financial goods sent there in return, under the influence of corruption, will only benefit the rich of that country.

@Topic. I don't believe immigration has really that much to do with economic crisis. Sure it may increase, but it has always been there. When times are good we complain about lack of social services and help left wing social parties to power, who then in turn increase public spending to meet the needs of its voters. In times of crisis, it is the immigrants who benefit from these services who are suddenly to blame. People shouldn't forget its their majority that put a government in place who came with those ideas in the first place. Also on your example of immigrants boosted to go to the suburbs. I for one haven't heard of any situation in the Netherlands (except of proposals) that discriminates indigenous people in favor of immigrants. Thats just wrong, a big government mistake and even a completely legal reason to run to the far right wing.

Edited by Trivmvirate, 26 April 2010 - 18:13.

[Golan]

Most people are short-sighted morons with little political, social and economic knowledge and understanding. Give them two people that tell them what's right and everyone will pick one, even if both positions are wrong.
Racism isn't really the issue. You could swap that for just about every politcal, social or whatever stance and it would probably still work as long as a) previously, a roughly contrarian position was the norm and b) the general issue isn't entirely irrelevant. With a bit of effort, propaganda and demagogy, ever point can be used to support an issue. Just take Wizard as an example here, saying he's arguing against immigration policy when the same argumentation could be used against the current form of the UK as a partial welfare state without ever raising the issue of immigration policy.

Edited by Golan, 26 April 2010 - 19:02.

[Wizard]

Golan, on 26 Apr 2010, 19:56, said:

Just take Wizard as an example here, saying he's arguing against immigration policy when the same argumentation could be used against the current form of the UK as a partial welfare state without ever raising the issue of immigration policy.

You're doing it wrong.

I am not arguing AGAINST immigration. I AM arguing against the welfare state. I have merely used immigration as the foil to elaborate on the issue created by the welfare state we have. There are plenty of indigenous people who abuse the system as well.

[Golan]

Yet your argumentation only projects it on the issue of immigration. Heck, you even mentioned the prime "argument" of appealing to the reader's nationalism/xenophobia by implying how the support for immigrants penalizes the proper Englishmen/-women in the form of the "young married, English couple living somewhere in London". Thinking about it, they probably have a cute little baby girl... ugh, sorry, there's something in my eye.
Immigration is totally irrelevant for this failure of your welfare system. The core problem is simply distributing the money irregardless of actual need or effect. Immigrants might benefit from this more as usually they are on the lower end of the social range but as far as I'm aware, the UK is quite capable of producing its own stock of homegrown welfare parasite assholes. Yet your speech is very persistent in focusing on immigration alone, whether directly by outright mentioning it or, as it is more common to do, constructing an indirect connection to the negative issues by e.g. starting with an introduction geared towards immigration followed by a general negative statement - being on the safe side by having no direct connection from one thing to the other but de facto making the biggest portion of readers/listeners instantly connect the two.

This, naturally, is not meant to imply that you by any means share the opinion you try to represent here.

[Wizard]

Golan, on 27 Apr 2010, 13:23, said:

Yet your argumentation only projects it on the issue of immigration. Heck, you even mentioned the prime "argument" of appealing to the reader's nationalism/xenophobia by implying how the support for immigrants penalizes the proper Englishmen/-women ....
Immigration is totally irrelevant for this failure of your welfare system....... Yet your speech is very persistent in focusing on immigration alone

But it is totally relevant to the topic at hand and how people will perceive immigration as a bad thing and then swing to the far right. The welfare system has failed, but I have only used immigration as a contextual reference for the purposes of the topic. Everything I have mentioned is only to highlight the reasons why people would look to immigration as a problem and therefore jump to the right. Whethere they do so because or inspite of the failed welfare system, the argument was only to highlight a potential reason for this movement, not to condone or justify it.

[SquigPie]

Those guys sound like Dansk Folkeparti (Danish Peopleparty).

The only reason why people support them is that they put any potential immigrant through ridicules tests that no native dane would ever be able to complete.

[Shirou]

Oh yes, the indoctrination citizenship tests. I think that one is rather meant as a means to know what immigrants are capable of learning something and throwing it out on a test, effectively setting a limit of a certain education. Futureless illiterate African workers are thus expelled by it.