Are the left’s multicultural policies to blame for the rise of the right?

Far right politics is on the rise across Europe, we are told. Not just in mainland Europe, with notables such as the Danish Peoples Party, or one of the favourite villains of many left-wingers, Geert Wilders in Holland. In the UK too it is supposedly a threat. The English Defence League gains headlines due to the sound and fury of their street protests, the British National Party, despite recent setbacks, sits in the European Parliament; and there are many accounts of white nationalist keyboard crusaders working themselves into hysteria, supposedly ready to emulate the atrocities committed by Norwegian gunman Anders Breivik.

For more, Link: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011...-policies-to-blame-for-the-rise-of-the-right/

 

No, what has happened is: a giant Bilderberg Bird dropped a Huge load of #$% right over the fence between two American neighbors, one left of the fence, one right of the fence. The left neighbor saw the pile of #$%# on his side of the fence and blaming his right neighbor, started shoveling the #$^$% over to his neighbors side of fence.

The right side of fence neighbor, looked out his window, saw the half of #$%# on his side of fence, plus saw some coming from left neighbors side of fence, and assumed that the big pile on his side (dropped by Bilderberg bird) came from his left neighbor. So he got his shovel, and started shoveling #$%# back across the fence.

Meanwhile the Bilderberg Bird flew overhead laughing his ass off, watching the two neighbors despoil themselves with the same crap.

What may happen however, is that both left and right neighbor will look up, and see the Bilderberg Bird getting ready to drop another load of #$@#$ on them both, and they will realize who the real culprit is. Then they will each go get their guns and shoot the #$%@ Bilderberg Bird out of the sky, and have a grand Turkey feast for the Holidays.

 

Can you explain the "left's multicultural policies"?

 

1.) Advocacy for 'Diversity'

2.) Advocacy for mass nation-swamping immigration

3.) Advocacy for inter-racial miscegenation.

4.) Advocacy for the elimination of Freedom of Association for Whites.

5.) Advocacy for non-White Racial Lobbies (NAACP, La Raza, etc.,) but none for Whites.

Come on Margot are you really this dense? I work on a University Campus and am exposed to this sort of non-sense daily, it is exists.

 

I had no idea there were some John Birch Society members still around. Thought that kind of ignorance had been weeded out by 1980. I guess it will take the death of Billy Graham to finally end Segregationism as a viable philosophy.

 

Sure, you could say that the rise of the far right is a direct reaction to increased immigration.

While a lot of right wing movements in Europe are based on racism and nativism, there are some valid points made occasionally.

I think the average American and average European desire some immigration reform to handle things like illegal immigration and to set reasonable limits on immigration.

The problem isn't so much coming from liberal idealism as it is from big business. Cheap labor is something that every country has a desire for among certain industries. The easiest ways to get it involve either outsourcing or immigration.

You can see where the business interests take precedence in both the EU and the U.S. in how economic refugees are often let in faster than immigrants with education and skills. In America, this problem is compounded by illegal immigration, since so many employers (especially in agriculture) want the cheapest labor they can get, and that's usually from Mexico.

So, it makes sense that a lot of people are starting to lean right on immigration here, because the rising influence of Latino gangs and burdens on school systems regarding ESL teaching tend to frustrate people.

Still, I'd put that blame less on liberalism and more on big business's desire for cheap labor.

 

Are you saying that "the left" has been responsible for Europe's post colonial immigration policies over the past 50 years.. or just Americans in general?

 

Three of the left's favorite policies are allowing more immigration (legal or not...assimilating or not), affirmative action, and Islamization). All are rooted in the same cause. Hunger for votes.

Before I became aware of these dangerous and damaging policies (all of which are anti-American working class and the left should be against), I was a pure far-left activist. You could hardly have distinguished my politics from Karl Marx.
While I still am a semi-neo Marxist you might say, and still far-left on economics policies, the American left's coziness to the multiculturalism of recent years have sent a cold chill down my spine. In 2003, I changed my voter registration from the ultra-left Green Party to Independent.

So who do I vote for now ? Nobody. But until Obama and his folks quit supporting the racist affirmative action policies, Islamist groups, and all immigration, they won't even come close to getting my vote. I think a lot of ex-leftists are feeling the same way.

 

We have to control the border before we reform immigration..

Guest workers who pay taxes but are not US citizens should be welcomed.
The reality is that the brightest and best come to the US for graduate level studies and go home as soon as they graduate to start companies in their home countries that employ thousands.

If you listen... American CEOs are complaining about this issue loud and clear.

 

To answer the question, "Are the left's multicultural policies to blame for the rise of the right?" I would say, "No."

 

1.) Am not a Christian. I look up to the kind of Paganism of Alain de Benoist and the mighty Aryan Warrior Varg Vikernes

2.) Billy Graham? What a straw-man! He was against segregation and has in fact been in favor of racial miscegenation ( http://www.amren.com/backissues/1994/12/poor_billy_graham.php )

3.) There is a New White Nationalism coming, academics have even warned of it: The New White Nationalism in America

 

Both. They are one in the same.

America was born as an Enlightenment project.

 

I would say "yes"

 

Racism and paranoia are responsible for the rise of the right.
In the US, they started making noise when we passed civil rights laws and ended segregation.

 

When Western nations colonize third world countries it's called imperialism / genocide. When middle class radicals fill our nations with the third world in order to fulfill some Star Trek global government dream, destroying our homogeneity and bringing us to the bring of bankruptcy and ruin, it's called "enrichment", "diversity" / choose your cynical Leninist term. So the answer to the question, without using terms such as "far right", is that the indigenous working class of Western countries are reacting in the same way as those in former colonial countries when they were under occupation / subjugation.

 

Emphasis on multi-cultural can lead to, or be born of, a desire to separate cultures instead of unite them.

 

This sums it up nicely, but you miss the most important item of them all...


6.) For forty years, the Left has been Raiding the Low-Mid Income Whites for education, jobs, and promotions to be "Affirmative Action" political pandering redistributed to non-whites, for their own political power and profits.


-

 

I don't believe that's true. It may be more true of rightwing politicians, or not. But it is certainly not true of God-believing people on the whole, and that group surpasses its opposite in every good way including number, both right and left included.

To think that anything even NEAR a majority of people on the right don't support civil rights is to waste one's thought.

 

They support Civil Rights, Which is to say, they support TRUE racial equality before the LAW.



They do NOT support what the Left has been doing:

1.) Advocacy for 'Diversity' ( which means the inclusion of non-whites, but a lack of white representation is just fine ! )

2.) Advocacy for mass nation-swamping immigration

3.) Advocacy for inter-racial miscegenation.

4.) Advocacy for the elimination of Freedom of Association for Whites.

5.) Advocacy for non-White Racial Lobbies (NAACP, La Raza, etc.,) but none for Whites.

6.) For forty years, the Left has been Raiding the Low-Mid Income Whites for education, jobs, and promotions to be "Affirmative Action" political pandering redistributed to non-whites, for their own political power and profits.



The Right wants to see people treated EQUALY without regard to their paint-job.

What has been happening is anything BUT equal treatment.

-

 

That would depend on your definition of civil rights.

A lot of people would consider gay rights to be part of that -- including gay marriage. Apparently, many conservatives disagree with that notion here, but even many people right of center in countries similar to our own would consider it part of civil rights.

From that perspective, it could be said that most conservatives are at least against that part of civil rights.

Back when segregation ended, social conservatives were against integration. They also fought against the removal of bans on interracial marriage. So, while most conservatives today support these things, the same couldn't be said when these changes were first made.

Admittedly, plenty of religious people did support the civil rights movement, but that included both conservatives and liberals.

Ironically, even Fred Phelps was part of the civil rights movement. For whatever reason, he has a major axe to grind against gay people though.

 

....and what's the problem with this one? Do you really think bans on interracial marriage are indicative of a modern country?

 

No, not at all, my wife is Hispanic, and my children are of mixed background.

Its the double standard, once again, that is the problem.

If a group of Black or Latinos state that they want to maintain "Racial Purity", it is heralded as a defense of a noble culture.

If a group of Whites advocates that they want to maintain their racial identity by not intermarrying with non-whites, its designated as a "hate-crime" which requires government sponsored campaigns to push intermarriage as a means to destroying any possible concept of white identity.

The Federal Government has line items in the budget for these campaigns. Most southwestern Colleges and Universities have programs for advocating it.

Why is it acceptable for the militant advocates of "Atzlan" to promote racial purity, and socially ostracize those of Mexican decent who marry outside of their race, but ok for the government to have programs designed to deliberately seek the destruction of anything resembling "White Identity"?

Why does the government deny my grandson’s a chance at a good college education, because my half-Hispanic daughters fell in love with white guys, but if they’d fallen in love with Mexican Illegal Immigrants, my grandson’s would “Qualify”?

Why are we encouraging Racial Purity for some, but not for all?

-

 

What does the European right-wing even mean? It isn't the same as USA right-wing.

All I know, When on the subject of European right-wing, it conjures up for me images of Nazis throwing the Jewish children into ovens and gas chambers.

 

Ok, I can agree with that. I don't think any governmental programs should encourage concepts of "racial purity."

If you want to support racial purity as a movement, you can do that with your own money and time. So yeah, I don't agree with government money going to Aztlan or any other racial purity movement for that matter.

I also disagree with the DREAM Act, but that's a whole other can of worms.

 

Racial purity is nonsense. I have no issue at all with 'race mixing' Multiculturalism is all about trying to keep ethnicities apart.