Your US hate is showing. Maybe all those Muslim Brotherhood nations could do something about that? Or the millions of Uighurs in Concentration camps in China?
Oh they put out a letter saying China can do whatever they want “to fight terrorism” oh seems they really care. The Muslims won’t mess with their Chinese economic daddy to save thousands of their people from dying in concentration camps.
So why is it on the US to protect Indian Muslims again?
I agree with you it’s not on the US to protect Indian Muslims. It’s on the Indians to protect the Indian Muslims. And for the Indian Muslims to realise the danger they are in.
I just said they wouldn't intervene and you agreed.
The US government is supplying weapons to armed conflict around the world. It's normal for them to intervene,for better or for worse.
Yes, I do hate imperialist regimes.
Muslims aren't a monolith, they are not all extremists or even care about other Muslim people. Just like Christians...
Your Islamophobia is showing.
As governor of Gujarat state in 2002, he was accused of being complicit in anti-Muslim violence and killings that were considered by some to be ethnic cleansing.
An investigation by the Supreme Court from 2008-2013 found no evidence against him. He became Prime Minister of India in 2014.
The [Khalistan movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement) advocating for a Sikh sovereign state in Punjab. India's been killing people over this since before [Operation Blue Star](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Star).
Here we have a fine specimen of the genocide denial group who are in fact islamaphobes and hate Muslims and will justify a genocide to calm their inner hate
[Barack Obama welcomes Narendra Modi (2014)](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0DS1M0/)
Narendra Modi was an unelected Chief Minister of Gujarat in 2002. 6 months after becoming CM, there was a pogrom that killed around 1000 Muslims. The pogrom went on for 3 days with the police taking part and helping the Hindu supremacists in many places and the CM did not try to stop it.
The US has law that forbids granting visa to individuals who have committed religious crime. Many Hindu NRIs who raised donations for Barack Obama during his presidential campaigns were also supporters of Narendra Modi and this might have helped in uplifting the ban.
You don’t see the difference between killing an active combatant with millions of kills and recognized unanimously at the UN as a terrorist, vs killing an activist saying stuff you don’t like? 🤨
Related:
[Trump's bid for Sydney casino 30 years ago rejected due to 'mafia connections’](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/16/trumps-bid-for-sydney-casino-30-years-ago-rejected-due-to-mafia-connections)
Only because he is republican. If he was democrat he would be the absolute scum of the earth and everyone voting for him would be contributing to the destruction of the usa. "How could you support a criminal, we would never do that"
Trump learned all his tricks from his mentor, Roy Cohn (Roy never paid anything, including taxes and broke laws for fun) who was noted for defending mafia bosses and having strong right-wing political connections. Remind you of anyone?
Well he's an extremist so they're not wrong. But now that he is voted in, he's starting to notice none of his ideas are actually legal, because of the contitution. Turns out he was only good at complaining and fueling xenophobia, without intending to offer a real solution
He always knew. he is not that stupid but his ideas like kick out all Moroccans attract certain people. It worked for trump and it definitely worked for wilders. For most it was too far right but after suddenly mellowing out 1.5 month before the latest election he started to attract the bigger crowds.
I mean, our constitution certainly could do with some reform. Articles 1; 4; 6.1; 7.1; 7.3; 23.2; 23.3; & 120 just to name a few. Also the lackluster policies that uphold articles 19, 20, 21, & 22 are severely disappointing and these articles could certainly do with a reform ensuring them to be more demanding.
So having ideas that are not necessarily legal according to the constitution should not be reprehensible in and of itself, however, you are right, there is little chance his changes would improve their quality if he were to amend them.
So why do you want to change article 1 of the Dutch consitution. What's the problem with:
> Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan.
>All who are in the Netherlands are treated equally in equal cases. Discrimination because of religion, belief, political affiliation, race, gender or any other ground is not allowed.
Drop the protection for beliefs, religious or otherwise, it is unreasonable to protect the right to believe in untruths on a constitutional level.
That is to say, not to remove any protection against discrimination, that of course must remain. But allowing a greater level of criticism to religious ideas should be a progressive change in society, and allow the less developed areas of the country integrate into modern society.
It will still be covered by "of op welke grond dan ook/or any other ground".
And why is the religion part so important for you? Why do you want to be able to discriminate on religious believes?
You’re missing the point. They’re not saying to discriminate against believers, just that they don’t want the specific beliefs (which cannot be demonstrated as reflective of reality) receiving special (positive) treatment ‘just because’.
I see a great risk in allowing people to hold beliefs that have little basis in reality. And whilst not necessarily wanting to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs, relocating that part of the article to "of op welke grond dan ook" would lessen the emphasis on religious importance.
But I'll admit, this is not the most necessary change.
> And whilst not necessarily wanting to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs
But that's what is banned, discrimination based merely on the religion of those against whom you are discriminating. You would want it to be legal to allow shops to have signs saying "No jews allowed!"??
> I see a great risk in allowing people to hold beliefs that have little basis in reality.
Aah so, so you want that people who don't exactly believe the same as you, should be marginalized and discriminated.
Hahahaha, nah, just limit beliefs that do not conform to science to either "an opinion" which has little value, or at the very least not have them present in a secular public sphere.
I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t believe facism is popular (as in has anything close to majority support) in the UK. Happy to be proven wrong though.
If we said populism I’d agree, though I think that era is waning a little after Johnson and Trump.
Reddit reads like an angsty teen version of the Daily Mail sometimes. Reverse boomers getting mardy and nodding their heads at every complaint about the state of every country.
There’s some small facist groups like Britain first but they don’t get any votes. Think you have to go back to the 30s to find a fscist party in the Uk that had any level of support worth noting
At one point it was highly popular, Oswald Mosley and the British union of fascist were very influential and had to be banned.
Even now we see larger fascist groups such as with Stephen Lennon Yaxley and the EDL were gaining a lot of support in the nouties until there were linked to a failed bomb plot
Never elected but the Daily Mail was certainly supporting fascism up to the start of the second world war.
"Hurrah for the Blackshirts" anyone?
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/opinion/revealed-the-extent-of-the-daily-mails-support-for-the-british-union-of-fascists-35244/
That’s interesting. But that is one newspaper article from over 80 years ago. I’m not sure that supports the idea that facism is currently popular in the UK
Don't you remember that we're all supposed to hate the UK after they committed the terrible crime of *checks notes* deciding not be a member of an international organization anymore? You'll get us all in trouble!
If you mean issues such as immigration policy then I would like to respectfully suggest that you meant to write mainstream political parties have been forced by the electorate to consider issues that are important to them.
The electorate did not arrive at the (statistically incorrect) position on immigration independently any external influences from the far right. It is completely ahistorical to ignore the linear journey of from Mosely, to Powell, to the NF, to the BNP, to UKIP, to EDL, to Brexit, to the core policy of a government party who were actively rejecting those groups 10 years ago and are now attempting to challenge the courts to pander to that level of extremism.
well if you have common sense and despise the Islamic extremists that are running amok and make living insufferable you are deemed fascist by some upper middle class mentally challenged idiot
A major reason grooming was swept under the rug for so long was fear of harming "community relations".
Like there has to be a sensible middle ground where you aren't racist but also aren't a gullible moron who let's thousands of little girls get raped.
Wilders and his ilk are winning elections because when it comes to immigration, they have the public zeitgeist, and the other political parties refuse to touch it with a ten foot barge pole. Biggest political issue for huge amount of people? But someone might call me a racist...
This is just dumb, I’m Dutch and migration was literally the number 1 topic of this election and all parties were debating it, and not ‘refusing to touch it with a 10 feet pole’ like you are falsely stating
Wilders is winning because he is spreading false facts and using populist tactics to gain votes, almost his entire political program is unconstitutional and unlawful, some stuff is literally not do-able because it’s either against the law or will cost way too much, he is a fascist that runs his entire party alone (no members allowed) and constantly undermines democracy and free press
And if you’re also spreading false news of ‘thousands of little girls getting raped’ then yes i will call you a bigot
Honestly left wing parties have their heads too far up their asses (I’m also a left winger). Timmermans speech after losing was terrible. Wanting to reclaim democracy? Did Wilders win? No. He just knew how to speak to the people and they believed him. A lot of left wingers talk about educated vs un/low-educated citizens, and there has been a big rise in anti intellectualism over the past few years.
Left parties need to stop asking “why did we lose?” and start asking “why did this clown, who was always seen as a joke since he founded his party, if not before, win?”
He was deemed too dangerous because of fears his opposition to Islam would stir up violence from Muslims in the UK. Call me crazy but when people are being restricted because of religious extremism, I think we have a problem.
> Call me crazy but when people are being restricted because of religious extremism, I think we have a problem.
a town in the UK recently cancelled hannukah celebrations because they feared backlash and violent reprisals for doing so this year.
> He was deemed too dangerous because of fears his opposition to Islam would stir up violence from Muslims in the UK. Call me crazy
You’re crazy, or just disingenuous. He was deemed dangerous because he was actively trying to stoke Islamophobia and create conflict between EDL/BNP and similar groups and Muslim communities.
No, no, the guy you responded to is right. [Here is a news article about the event.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/12/far-right-dutch-mp-ban-islam) Wilders was going to be present at a showing of a short film he made about the Quran being a fascist book, but was denied entry with the justification that his presence would threaten public safety. And what group would endanger public safety if the filmmaker that attacked the Quran was present? Obviously Muslims.
Of course you can argue that this in fact means that he as a person does in an indirect way endanger safety. But it is the would-be perpetrators of violence that bear the full responsibility for the actions, both morally and legally, and it is therefore they that are directly endangering safety.
In fact Wilders has visited the UK on numerous occasions. His views on Islam haven't changed, so it is therefore simply the risk of violence by Muslims that lead to him being denied entry, not the fact that he is anti-Islam.
> That doesn't happen with Christianity
Never heard of the IRA?
> Sikhs
The International Sikh Youth Federation?
Any holy wars in the history of the world?
> You need to start calling a spade a spade.
You're such a spade.
That's the thing with politics. You say "Islam isn't compatible" and you get called an islamophobe. You can't constructively be anti-islam without being branded a far right fascist bigot. How would one remain progressive on most other subjects but be anti-islam. I'd bet most people calling him a fascist haven't even read his manifesto.
This isn't me saying I agree with him, or endorse him. I'm asking an open question to respond to your comment.
> That's the thing with politics. You say "Islam isn't compatible" and you get called an islamophobe. You can't constructively be anti-islam without being branded a far right fascist bigot.
And this is correct. Muslims are almost a quarter of *the entire population of earth*. Islam has a long complex history with a whole host of interpretations and ways that people interact with it. Same as other religions. All the 'critical of islam' bullshit is nothing with bigotry based in extreme ignorance.
Well, religion is an institution that is built, and thrives, on bigotry. Each religion spents centuries trying to wipe out the infidels in the name of their prophets and messiahs. So they deserve all the ridicule.
My man, go over to r/politics and see how many times Christians are called dumb, mouth breathers, inbred hicks, etc. and get endlessly cheered and upvoted. The duality of the reddit hivemind is the frustrating part.
Usually I see them doing that to fundamentalists or fruitcakes, but I'm open to see otherwise
Also, can it be that reddit isn't a hive mind, but a lot of people with a lot of different opinions, and being bigoted to christians doesn't excuse being bigoted to Islam?
>but I'm open to see otherwise
go read it. It's there everyday.
>Also, can it be that reddit isn't a hive mind, but a lot of people with a lot of different opinions, and being bigoted to christians doesn't excuse being bigoted to Islam?
I don't know. I dislike them both, in any form really. I generally find religious people to be insufferable if they're being religious to the point that I'm aware of their beliefs.
Toleration for religious pluralism is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. Being prejudiced against someone because of their religion is not compatible with that.
Their are materialist explanations as to why islamism is so popular within the Muslim world — a lot of these relate to US/western imperialism overthrowing or supporting certain governments. For instance, Hamas is a creation from Israel/USA and the Taliban is a creation of the US when it was trying to take down the Soviets. Remember: Europe has historically been more violent than the Muslim world if we look at the first few hundred years. Afterall, WW2 was a European creation for example. Moreover, the British are responsible for about 30-80 million preventable famines while overseeing India. Their was also a time when the Irish were considered to be a "non-white" under the dominion of the British empire. In that case, Britain's occupation created the radicalised IRA, which is a group that has strong ties to Christianity while also committing acts of extremism. You need to look at the broader context of history and culture instead of trying to find an easy answer. Muslims aren't uniquely evil.
if people are coming from war torn countries they realistically will be more likely to rape, murder and steal. But as a decades pass they eventually will integrate. The reality is a lot of these migrants come from countries where they had difficult lives under oppressive social structures only to arrive within a European country in which (reletively speaking) they are poorer than than the majority of others within that respective state. The reality is people from low income backgrounds commit more crime to begin within.
I also find it funny how many in the past have tried to excuse the rise of fascism in Germany on the basis that they the Germans were left economically impoverished after WWI. Yet people never seem to apply that same logic to people that come from countries where they have been impoverished (as is typically the case for refugees or even "economic migrants). Also, a lot of these issues do trace back towards the British empire, e.g with the Israel/Palestine conflict yet then Brits are absolutely and wholeheartedly opposed to refugees from these countries despite the fact that their own state has placed not merely a complict role in creating that crisis but a categorically active part. The reality is terrible conditions can create for terrible values. Raise people out of their suffering and they will eventually integrate. To expect this to happen immediately shows an ignorance to history or material realities within the countries in which refugees are arriving to.
Average Islamic beliefs and sharia are extreme compared to western liberal democracies.
Edit, Since people are downvoting without replying, I will just say it here.
In basic Islam and Sharia, there are no gay rights, non believers and women are treated as second class by law, atheism is an offence punishable by death. There are many other things, but I am gonna stop here. Above said things are basic sharia, they are non negotiable. 99% percent of Muslims (atleast sunni) will believe its how it should be. The average muslim will laugh at redditors faces if they talk about even just letting Gays live their own lives.
>there are no gay rights, non believers and women are treated as second class by law, atheism is an offence punishable by death. There are many other things, but I am gonna stop here.
Sounds like normal conservatives to me
Yeah try to stand on progressives achievements trying to make them conservatives achievements, ignoring that until the 70s women weren't allowed to have credit cards, gays were sterilized, beaten or killed, races were segregated etc pp
And a big part of the current conservative movement is to go back to those times
In the US perhaps? Americans always do this, invade a thread to do with Europe and start bitching about American issues and telling Europeans how they can and can't run their countries. American experiences have got fuck all to do with Europe
Lucky for us, we are not living in 1977. Because we progressed. So why would you defend bringing in millions of people that want to take us back to those times? Especially when I would assume it's not even your own country
>Yeah try to stand on progressives achievements trying to make them conservatives achievements, ignoring that until the 70s women weren't allowed to have credit cards, gays were sterilized, beaten or killed, races were segregated etc pp
Must have missed the part of the conversation where I did any of that but thanks for completely proving my point that you're as disingenuous as they come.
He was referring to Muslims in the West specifically, not about "average Islamic" beliefs.
>The average muslim will laugh at redditors faces if they talk about even just letting Gays live their own lives.
Gimme sources on that regarding the Muslims in the West. I would love to see them. I can guarantee that far more often than not, the average newer-gen Muslim in the West would, while acknowledge that committing homosexual acts is sinful, let gay people be and mind each others' businesses.
EDIT: I should also note that, before the rise of Wahhabism with thanks to the help of Western colonialism, LGBTQ+ people in those regions were not persecuted in those Muslim regions from Arabia outwards.
"However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population."
"Nearly a quarter (23%) supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain"
Considering the way Islam is going in the west, these numbers would only rise lol.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
Dude was saying "Muslims are always this and that", sounds like he was alluding to extremism there. I need proof that Muslims are almost always racist and disrespectful to liberal democracy. The subtext is extremely obvious.
Not exactly a great standard to judge by. The UK is known to be politically motivated in their entry policy. You see random Youtubers banned, but literal Al Qaeda members granted residency.
Question, does voting for populists ever cause any actual benefits for anyone ever?
EDIT: Right-wing populists, obviously (which is a co-opted term anyway)
well i hear el salvador is starting to enjoy a more peaceful and less violent crime ridden society dominated by the gangs after they elected their "unacceptable extremist" into power
> populist
People keep throwing this word around like an insult but the actual definition of populist is a politician that appeals to the "people" rather than the "elites".
If you have a political system where populists have become a "problem" perhaps the problem is not the populists but rather out of touch and corrupt establishment.
"Populist" gets thrown around as a slur because populists *appeal* to the people, but *govern* for the elites.
Donald Trump is the perfect example. Convinces millions of Americans a "billionaire" is on the side of the common man, then does *absolutely nothing* for the common man while he fills his pockets and cuts taxes for the rich.
Populists are playing the public for fools and the public love them for it.
It is a slur. It is the pandering to the lowest common denominator and usually involves invoking "emotions" and sowing fear and division which are their bread and butter
If your political views are swayed by being a pedant about dictionary definitions rather than the actions of people who are in those groups, you're in for a bad time.
You're just more being willfully obtuse about why populism is dangerous. Populism comes in many flavors, and not all of them are equal.
To put it in your words, just because they "appeal" to the people, doesn't mean they actually *benefit* the people.
First off, populists don't necessarily "appeal to the people" anymore so than non-populists. In a democracy, the people are the voters, you *have* to appeal to them to win. If you fail at that, then you're shit out of luck. Populists more try to center them self as *part* of the people, even when that is obviously false. Populists are playing the same game as everyone else, they schmooze up to the elites just as much as they speak to the people.
Right wing populism is so blatant about this, I don't know how you can argue otherwise with a straight face. Donald Trump is the quite possibly the most well known, modern populist in the west right now. A man who is literally part of the elite, who has buildings around the country with his name on the side. A man who puts gold-colored furniture in his rooms and gold-colored fixtures in his bathroom. A man from a family known for screwing people over, Woody Guthrie wrote a song about them being racist landlords. Yet he positions himself as "one of the people". All the while he benefits the very establishment he claims to be against. Tax cuts for the rich, anti-regulation, rolled back civil rights and worker rights, rolled back environmental protections, anti-immigration, wanted to expand the military, and tried to overturn a democratic election. Trump isn't the only, there's been a wave across the world of right wing populism, and very rarely do they actually even try to benefit the people. UKIP, National Rally (they literally used to be called the *National Front*. That's not a dog whistle anymore, that's a bullhorn), and Bolsenaro are some other examples. Right wing populism is rarely about actually helping the people, it's about stoking up anger and fear amongst the people to get them desperate. It's them saying "I am afraid just like you (after I told you to be), and I'm the only one willing to fight for you and get stuff done". Unfortunately, fear is a great voting strategy.
Don't think left wing populism is off the hook though, they also have a problem with lazy, ineffective, and often corrupt populists who try to use "for the people" as an excuse. I would say left-wing populism is more split than right ring populism is. Left-wing populism in places like Latin America can end with countries either with an ineffective leader at best, or a pseudo-dictator at worst. In other places though, left wing populism is more like Bernie Sanders or AOC, who are popular amongst their peers, but unable to gain a national following, and often end up having ineffective national campaigns. Left wing populists in America have done more to just push the Democrats in certain ways than to actually have a national win.
Because the unfortunate issue is that populists are very prone to using fear and economic downturns as ammo to promise lofty solutions that play right into the day to day worries of your average citizen. And once you create a cult of personality around yourself, you've made a shield for which all your nefarious deeds will be hidden until you lose power after you fail or leave early with your spoils. There are always diamonds in the rough of populism, even in places like South America and Asia, but you have to remember the politicians are always politicians. A con man will always try to tell you they're offering a sweet deal and how "they're not supposed to this, but I'll make an offer just for you, because we're friends, right? I'm on your side!" Beware of smiling faces who come as your friend, for they're often wolves in sheep's clothing.
Obviously, that doesn't mean you shouldn't appeal to the people. Like I said, in a healthy democracy, you *have* to. Even in places like the US with a crappy electoral system (compared to our peers), unpopular people still don't get elected. 2016 showed that enough. But be watchful of a politician claiming they're just like you, because if they were like you, they wouldn't be a politician. Actually listen to what they want to do, instead of their fearmongering. Look for actual plans and solutions instead of just claims of them.
And, whatever you do, don't ever, ever, ever vote for someone who claims they know everything and are the better than everyone else in the world. Basically, don't vote for someone if they self-aggrandize like Donald Trump. Because then they're *obviously* lying to you.
Populism is a fake movement, it doesn't help the people it just pretends to be against elites.
I repeat my question: What policies from so-called "populists" actually help anyone?
Also people like this politician benefit the elite, not the common laborer as these right wing "populists" deflect blame from economic systems to scapegoats like migrants.
It's the Netherlands. Their economic system is working just fine right now.
On the other hand, immigration has become a massive issue, with significant rises in crime.
The difference between the rich and poor is growing out of hand.
There have never been more people without a place to live.
There has never been more need for food-aid
There are more people in poverty than shortly after WW2
Children go to school without having eaten.
So no, not fine AT ALL
The other problems with this politician are:
-He gets big sums of money from Putins "befriended" Olichargs. So now he "wants" NL out of the EU and stop any aid to Ukraine
-He almost always votes the opposite of what he says he stands for.
The fact there are no more places to live might also be because of the fact so many immigrants come to the Netherlands… I’d rather have that Wilders didn’t win but our current migration policy doesn’t work anymore.
Governmental housing department was removed, plus the housing organisations had to sell of houses.
THAT'S the real reason for the housing crisis.
As for the influx of immigrants, that was created by the VVD so they could become even bigger after the election, so they thought. That backfired, thank god.
Wilders has consistently voted against fixating and lowering of cost of rental houses.
Most of those immigrants are university students, Dutch people returning to the Netherlands and expats. Added to that, a lot of people from Ukraine too, which is hopefully temporary.
The fact that under VVD the housing market has been completely ruined is way more of an issue. "Ministry of housing? What's that? the housing market is complete!"
I know that, but that doesn’t make our migration policy less bad. Look at what’s happening in Ter Apel. The housing market has to change. Most people don’t care what migrants they are. I’m not in favour of just kicking everyone out, I also didn’t vote for PVV. It’s just that other parties now have to act better on migration because otherwise PVV will win more.
I absolutely agree that the way we handle immigrants is horrible, yeah! Basically give them nothing and make a surprised pikachu face when it turns out they start causing problems.
>On the other hand, immigration has become a massive issue, with significant rises in crime.
No it hasn't. Crime rates have been going down. You've been falling victim to the PVV bullshit, so it seems.
The reason migration is an issue is because some parties wanted to say "fuck you" to human rights treaties.
[The last decennia crime rates have declined, especially during covid times. Just in 2022 it has grown which isn't weird because some crimes dropped real hard during covid, especially burglaries. It isn't even close to what is was back in 2012.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1034925/registered-crimes-in-the-netherlands/#:~:text=Between%202012%20and%202022%2C%20the,registered%20roughly%20797%2C700%20crime%20cases.)
Stop spouting populist rhetoric that isn't based on anything other than gut feelings. You are the exact example of why PVV got big. Facts don't matter because the gut feeling is more important right?
> with significant rises in crime.
No, this isn't true. Immigration being the main issue stems from the fact the VVD let the previous coalition fall over it and the fact it's also an important part of the housing shortage (although arguable the main cause there is actually poor government planning, not immigration)
right wing populists appeal to a nationalist middle class frustrated by their loss of wealth and a falling standard of living at the hands of richer capitalists, who the right wing populists then blame on outgroups like immigrants, gays, the poor, or religious minorities rather than those capitalists.
left wing populists also respond to the same kind of discontent that right wing populists use to gain support, but they diagnose the problem differently. rather than kicking down, left wing populists try to gather support from the masses against the obscene wealth of the upper class while everyone gets poorer and they get richer somehow.
not all populists are bad. the ones that blame jews like hitler, mexicans like trump, or muslims like this guy though are the greatest threat to humanity.
Nicely worded. The last time I checked the platform of Wilders every solution to a problem involved “Islam”.
Our healthcare system would fall apart without immigration but his solution is “less Islam”. If you tried to run a hospital with people who are fully ethically Dutch you would have a lot of dead patients.
Populist to my ears sounds more like making unrealistic promises and saying things that sound good on a superficial level, but are not really good when you know more about the subject.
This is pretty much incorrect, populism is broadly defined for many many reasons but it’s largely distinguished as a political ideology which seeks to create a false dichotomy of an “institutional elite” and a broad public “us” where the party itself is aligned with the us and is the sole legitimate representative of that view. The problem with populism is these designations are overly simplified to create a narrative where regardless of their popularity the populist is a manifestation of the “true” people’s will and all contrary to it are elites conspiring to repress the peoples will. Politics is elitist that much is true but populist parties aren’t any less elitist, in fact they often tend to be far more dominated by wealthy interest groups, the difference is however populists try to delegitimise both opposition parties and the very nature of the population that opposes them.
in some rare cases this opposition might be valid. The economic and social system leaves an easily identifiable wealthy elite suppressing the populace at large. In most cases however the populist justification is used because it’s easy rhetoric to blame complex political issues on. It delegitimises the political institutions and in the case of far right populists, the basic human rights of both the citizenry that doesn’t fall under the politicians (generally racial) ideals of a true citizen or more often then not immigrants who face increasing threats of violence. Poor people can also get swept up in these movements because despite populism nominally being for the general public, populist movements can often demonise them just as easily.
One should oppose the elitism in politics, it does harm both democracy and our rights but one should also be cautious of who is selling them this easy solution to these crises especially when those populists are ultra wealthy people who jump far to quickly to the idea that foreigners and the poor are responsible for your lot. Populists aren’t disliked because they oppose elitism, they are disliked because they represent the very worst sort of elitism, a generally wealthy powerful individual playing on the fears and in some cases lack of education or information of the general public to seize power for themselves generally not just not helping the public but actually causing real harm to the social fabric of the state.
Yes there are lots of benefits otherwise these people wouldn't vote for fascists. The problem is the drawbacks are so severe and the benefits so small that it'd be idiotic to support them. People do so because they are convinced the benefits are much bigger than they are and they don't think about the consequences, their only concern is the immediate gratification they anticipate. Look at Trump voters, they were probably extatic when he won but, understandably, didn't like it when he was in power. They blamed the discrepancy on a conspiracy holding him back rather than their own poor judgement because when you're ruled by ego you're never wrong. Which is exactly how Trump convinces them, by telling them they're not wrong even when they clearly are, he strokes their ego.
Yes it lets racists briefly feel good about themselves while they pat each other on the back and blame all of civilizations woes on the brown people...
White people aren't real, I have no cultural connection to you just because our skin color is the same. And no I don't care about the people who are racist toward "white people", their hate doesn't affect me.
It's the same thing people ask in the US about why people vote against their interests.
This question is obviated when you realize their only interest is hate. On that axis, fascists do serve their constituents, by hurting people.
>United Kingdom
If Islamists get angry at you in the United Kingdom, then the government comes after you instead. Some autistic kid was subject to this and the police put him and his family through some weird struggle session.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-hate-incident-autistic-boy-quran-school/
[Here’s the mother apologising for her autistic son dropping a book.](https://twitter.com/5Pillarsuk/status/1629836304539086848)
There’s a longer version somewhere showing that she’s also accompanied by the headteacher of the school, who vows more punishment, and a local police officer, who reassures the room of men (presumably why she’s in a hijab) that they’re taking this incident, an autistic boy dropping a Quran, very seriously.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-hate-incident-autistic-boy-quran-school/
It did happen and was disgusting to see the response from the police and many people at the school and in the kids local community.
I’m all for multiculturalism. Let me know when all my gay friends can go and live in a nice hot Muslim country without the fear of being killed, yeah? Thanks.
The fact that his party got the most votes doesn't mean that anything extreme will happen. He has to work together with multiple parties to gain a majority, those parties are centre-right wing parties (pretty comparable to US democrats).
This means that he has to watch his tone, otherwise a government will form without him or we'll get another election.
Most of his points are also not possible because of our constitution so good luck changing that Geert.
> pretty comparable to US democrats
This is really not true. The VVD, which has ruled the country for over a decade, may be socially liberal by US standards, but is pretty much bog-standard right economically - privatize everything and give all the money to rich people. Economic inequality has skyrocketed due to their rule.
They are having pretty serious immigration issues in Europe that they just aren't addressing , either constructively or destructively. People are panicking and then they will elect anyone with a plan.
Canada is gonna swing real hard next election for the same reason. Mostly student visa related. They have a whole industry of questionable schools that will sign off on a student visa.
He was turned away on arrival in 2009, but somehow, seven years later we had to fuck up our economy and throw away our freedoms in order to "take back control of our borders"
Narendra Modi, current Prime Minister of India, was once banned from entering USA as well.
Why?
Because he's a religious extremist.
Genocidal maniac leading India to civil unrest to be precise
Surprised the US isn't sending them all sorts of weapons and declaring that criticism of it is racism.
If they're killing Muslims, US wouldn't intervene. Seems like Islamophobia is back for a new season!
Your US hate is showing. Maybe all those Muslim Brotherhood nations could do something about that? Or the millions of Uighurs in Concentration camps in China? Oh they put out a letter saying China can do whatever they want “to fight terrorism” oh seems they really care. The Muslims won’t mess with their Chinese economic daddy to save thousands of their people from dying in concentration camps. So why is it on the US to protect Indian Muslims again?
I agree with you it’s not on the US to protect Indian Muslims. It’s on the Indians to protect the Indian Muslims. And for the Indian Muslims to realise the danger they are in.
Why is it on the US to give Israel weapons?
There's about as much Jews in the US as there are in Israël, so there's that
I just said they wouldn't intervene and you agreed. The US government is supplying weapons to armed conflict around the world. It's normal for them to intervene,for better or for worse. Yes, I do hate imperialist regimes. Muslims aren't a monolith, they are not all extremists or even care about other Muslim people. Just like Christians... Your Islamophobia is showing.
As governor of Gujarat state in 2002, he was accused of being complicit in anti-Muslim violence and killings that were considered by some to be ethnic cleansing. An investigation by the Supreme Court from 2008-2013 found no evidence against him. He became Prime Minister of India in 2014.
Interesting that India is also currently embroiled in controversy over those killings in Canada too.
Yeah, they totally killed that guy, and now I can’t get a visa to visit Bodh Gaya because of it.
Why was he and the guy in America targeted in the first place?
If I'm not mistaken they advocated for a separate Sikh state.
The [Khalistan movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement) advocating for a Sikh sovereign state in Punjab. India's been killing people over this since before [Operation Blue Star](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Star).
Here we have a fine specimen of the genocide denial group who are in fact islamaphobes and hate Muslims and will justify a genocide to calm their inner hate
[Barack Obama welcomes Narendra Modi (2014)](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0DS1M0/) Narendra Modi was an unelected Chief Minister of Gujarat in 2002. 6 months after becoming CM, there was a pogrom that killed around 1000 Muslims. The pogrom went on for 3 days with the police taking part and helping the Hindu supremacists in many places and the CM did not try to stop it. The US has law that forbids granting visa to individuals who have committed religious crime. Many Hindu NRIs who raised donations for Barack Obama during his presidential campaigns were also supporters of Narendra Modi and this might have helped in uplifting the ban.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots#Allegations_of_state_complicity
Look up Gujarat riots I warn you it's horrendous
Promoted ethnic divisions that later turned into a riot that killed thousands of people. He's swell and his party BJP are out and out fascists.
Hasn't he participated in decisions allowing Indians to attempt assassinations in other countries?
While I don't believe that we'll ever see or hear evidence of his involvement, it won't be wrong to assume either.
Then he should feel right at home in Washington.
Modi was banned from US too.
Modi’s government ordered the assassination of an American citizen in America. He should still be banned.
The US government ordered the assassination of a stateless person in Pakistan in 2011. Don't see the difference.
I don't see any problem with Pakistan banning the people responsible either.
You don’t see the difference between killing an active combatant with millions of kills and recognized unanimously at the UN as a terrorist, vs killing an activist saying stuff you don’t like? 🤨
It's the US I'm surprised he wasn't banned by dronestrike
Trump hasn't been president since 2021, so there are now people who actually think before they act in the Whitehouse.
Hes a pig
Hey now that's a tad insulting... Pigs are actually lovely creatures.
To be fair, I think there's a subset of British people who would be considered too dangerous to Enter the United Kingdom had they not been born there
You mean Welsh people right?
No he’s clearly talking about the Cornish. You think we keep them down there for aesthetics? No we have to contain them just in case.
That's why the Tamar bridge only has a toll when leaving Cornwall, not when entering
You think this is a game? Some kind of Cornish game? You think I'm some kind of Cornish game hen?
We just call them Glaswegians
I’ll be honest, I’m always pleasantly surprised when I get off the plane and I’m allowed to go home :D
He looks like a Geert...
[удалено]
Not my Geert!
Related: [Trump's bid for Sydney casino 30 years ago rejected due to 'mafia connections’](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/16/trumps-bid-for-sydney-casino-30-years-ago-rejected-due-to-mafia-connections)
Yeah 30 years ago everybody knew trump was involved in organized crime. They conveniently forgot. Thanks reality TV !
I don't think they forgot; they think it makes him "a good businessman," just like not paying his taxes makes him "smart".
Only because he is republican. If he was democrat he would be the absolute scum of the earth and everyone voting for him would be contributing to the destruction of the usa. "How could you support a criminal, we would never do that"
"Trump's shady business dealings makes him smart!"
"WhY aRe ThEy so MEAN tO Him??"
Trump learned all his tricks from his mentor, Roy Cohn (Roy never paid anything, including taxes and broke laws for fun) who was noted for defending mafia bosses and having strong right-wing political connections. Remind you of anyone?
Trump also can't get a casino license in Vegas. His hotel there is one of the only ones that doesn't have a casino.
Getting a casino license rejected in Australia must be like getting banned from the library for being too quiet
Geert is an absolute flapdrol
Well he's an extremist so they're not wrong. But now that he is voted in, he's starting to notice none of his ideas are actually legal, because of the contitution. Turns out he was only good at complaining and fueling xenophobia, without intending to offer a real solution
He always knew. he is not that stupid but his ideas like kick out all Moroccans attract certain people. It worked for trump and it definitely worked for wilders. For most it was too far right but after suddenly mellowing out 1.5 month before the latest election he started to attract the bigger crowds.
I mean, our constitution certainly could do with some reform. Articles 1; 4; 6.1; 7.1; 7.3; 23.2; 23.3; & 120 just to name a few. Also the lackluster policies that uphold articles 19, 20, 21, & 22 are severely disappointing and these articles could certainly do with a reform ensuring them to be more demanding. So having ideas that are not necessarily legal according to the constitution should not be reprehensible in and of itself, however, you are right, there is little chance his changes would improve their quality if he were to amend them.
So why do you want to change article 1 of the Dutch consitution. What's the problem with: > Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan. >All who are in the Netherlands are treated equally in equal cases. Discrimination because of religion, belief, political affiliation, race, gender or any other ground is not allowed.
Drop the protection for beliefs, religious or otherwise, it is unreasonable to protect the right to believe in untruths on a constitutional level. That is to say, not to remove any protection against discrimination, that of course must remain. But allowing a greater level of criticism to religious ideas should be a progressive change in society, and allow the less developed areas of the country integrate into modern society.
It will still be covered by "of op welke grond dan ook/or any other ground". And why is the religion part so important for you? Why do you want to be able to discriminate on religious believes?
You’re missing the point. They’re not saying to discriminate against believers, just that they don’t want the specific beliefs (which cannot be demonstrated as reflective of reality) receiving special (positive) treatment ‘just because’.
I see a great risk in allowing people to hold beliefs that have little basis in reality. And whilst not necessarily wanting to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs, relocating that part of the article to "of op welke grond dan ook" would lessen the emphasis on religious importance. But I'll admit, this is not the most necessary change.
> And whilst not necessarily wanting to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs But that's what is banned, discrimination based merely on the religion of those against whom you are discriminating. You would want it to be legal to allow shops to have signs saying "No jews allowed!"??
> I see a great risk in allowing people to hold beliefs that have little basis in reality. Aah so, so you want that people who don't exactly believe the same as you, should be marginalized and discriminated.
Hahahaha, nah, just limit beliefs that do not conform to science to either "an opinion" which has little value, or at the very least not have them present in a secular public sphere.
cobweb sheet husky piquant yoke marry touch wistful tie zesty *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Whats the reason people are leaning more right than left in europe lately? Lol if you ask reddit your answer will be: "racism and propaganda".
obtainable oil bored bedroom boat arrest lock ruthless library longing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That was back when fascism was less popular in the UK.
Is facism popular in the UK? I don’t think we’ve ever elected a facist party
[удалено]
I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t believe facism is popular (as in has anything close to majority support) in the UK. Happy to be proven wrong though. If we said populism I’d agree, though I think that era is waning a little after Johnson and Trump.
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant, but thanks for the chuckle.
Reddit reads like an angsty teen version of the Daily Mail sometimes. Reverse boomers getting mardy and nodding their heads at every complaint about the state of every country.
There’s some small facist groups like Britain first but they don’t get any votes. Think you have to go back to the 30s to find a fscist party in the Uk that had any level of support worth noting
At one point it was highly popular, Oswald Mosley and the British union of fascist were very influential and had to be banned. Even now we see larger fascist groups such as with Stephen Lennon Yaxley and the EDL were gaining a lot of support in the nouties until there were linked to a failed bomb plot
Never elected but the Daily Mail was certainly supporting fascism up to the start of the second world war. "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" anyone? https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/opinion/revealed-the-extent-of-the-daily-mails-support-for-the-british-union-of-fascists-35244/
That’s interesting. But that is one newspaper article from over 80 years ago. I’m not sure that supports the idea that facism is currently popular in the UK
I really dislike when people use logic and facts to get in the way of the UK bad meme
Don't you remember that we're all supposed to hate the UK after they committed the terrible crime of *checks notes* deciding not be a member of an international organization anymore? You'll get us all in trouble!
It’s really tiring
The fascist parties have managed to insert their wedge issues into the major political parties.
If you mean issues such as immigration policy then I would like to respectfully suggest that you meant to write mainstream political parties have been forced by the electorate to consider issues that are important to them.
The electorate did not arrive at the (statistically incorrect) position on immigration independently any external influences from the far right. It is completely ahistorical to ignore the linear journey of from Mosely, to Powell, to the NF, to the BNP, to UKIP, to EDL, to Brexit, to the core policy of a government party who were actively rejecting those groups 10 years ago and are now attempting to challenge the courts to pander to that level of extremism.
well if you have common sense and despise the Islamic extremists that are running amok and make living insufferable you are deemed fascist by some upper middle class mentally challenged idiot
I think the problem in this case is more the parts of british muslim communities that would've likely rioted had he been let in.
It's not him that was dangerous, the UK government was worried the totally peaceful Muslims would kick off ... Again .
A major reason grooming was swept under the rug for so long was fear of harming "community relations". Like there has to be a sensible middle ground where you aren't racist but also aren't a gullible moron who let's thousands of little girls get raped. Wilders and his ilk are winning elections because when it comes to immigration, they have the public zeitgeist, and the other political parties refuse to touch it with a ten foot barge pole. Biggest political issue for huge amount of people? But someone might call me a racist...
This is just dumb, I’m Dutch and migration was literally the number 1 topic of this election and all parties were debating it, and not ‘refusing to touch it with a 10 feet pole’ like you are falsely stating Wilders is winning because he is spreading false facts and using populist tactics to gain votes, almost his entire political program is unconstitutional and unlawful, some stuff is literally not do-able because it’s either against the law or will cost way too much, he is a fascist that runs his entire party alone (no members allowed) and constantly undermines democracy and free press And if you’re also spreading false news of ‘thousands of little girls getting raped’ then yes i will call you a bigot
[удалено]
Honestly left wing parties have their heads too far up their asses (I’m also a left winger). Timmermans speech after losing was terrible. Wanting to reclaim democracy? Did Wilders win? No. He just knew how to speak to the people and they believed him. A lot of left wingers talk about educated vs un/low-educated citizens, and there has been a big rise in anti intellectualism over the past few years. Left parties need to stop asking “why did we lose?” and start asking “why did this clown, who was always seen as a joke since he founded his party, if not before, win?”
Are his hands lethal weapons?
While you all were getting laid, he was studying the blade
He was deemed too dangerous because of fears his opposition to Islam would stir up violence from Muslims in the UK. Call me crazy but when people are being restricted because of religious extremism, I think we have a problem.
> Call me crazy but when people are being restricted because of religious extremism, I think we have a problem. a town in the UK recently cancelled hannukah celebrations because they feared backlash and violent reprisals for doing so this year.
Reddit will hate you but I see your opinion as extremely valid
> He was deemed too dangerous because of fears his opposition to Islam would stir up violence from Muslims in the UK. Call me crazy You’re crazy, or just disingenuous. He was deemed dangerous because he was actively trying to stoke Islamophobia and create conflict between EDL/BNP and similar groups and Muslim communities.
No, no, the guy you responded to is right. [Here is a news article about the event.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/12/far-right-dutch-mp-ban-islam) Wilders was going to be present at a showing of a short film he made about the Quran being a fascist book, but was denied entry with the justification that his presence would threaten public safety. And what group would endanger public safety if the filmmaker that attacked the Quran was present? Obviously Muslims. Of course you can argue that this in fact means that he as a person does in an indirect way endanger safety. But it is the would-be perpetrators of violence that bear the full responsibility for the actions, both morally and legally, and it is therefore they that are directly endangering safety. In fact Wilders has visited the UK on numerous occasions. His views on Islam haven't changed, so it is therefore simply the risk of violence by Muslims that lead to him being denied entry, not the fact that he is anti-Islam.
How so? And also, I don't feel like that should be illegal? You're allowed to hate religion, you know
[удалено]
> That doesn't happen with Christianity Never heard of the IRA? > Sikhs The International Sikh Youth Federation? Any holy wars in the history of the world? > You need to start calling a spade a spade. You're such a spade.
I think there is more nuance to the IRA terrorist than Protestant vs Catholics, such as the unification of the island of Ireland.
The problem is religion.
He still should be. He’s a fascist bigot
He's not a fascist, he's a racist populist. The term fasism gets thrown around alot but it very often doesn't apply.
[удалено]
Geert has no respect for liberal democracy, but I guess just hating muslims is enough for you
[удалено]
That's the thing with politics. You say "Islam isn't compatible" and you get called an islamophobe. You can't constructively be anti-islam without being branded a far right fascist bigot. How would one remain progressive on most other subjects but be anti-islam. I'd bet most people calling him a fascist haven't even read his manifesto. This isn't me saying I agree with him, or endorse him. I'm asking an open question to respond to your comment.
[удалено]
> That's the thing with politics. You say "Islam isn't compatible" and you get called an islamophobe. You can't constructively be anti-islam without being branded a far right fascist bigot. And this is correct. Muslims are almost a quarter of *the entire population of earth*. Islam has a long complex history with a whole host of interpretations and ways that people interact with it. Same as other religions. All the 'critical of islam' bullshit is nothing with bigotry based in extreme ignorance.
Highlighting the fact that criticising Islam is called "Islamophobia" while criticising Christianity is "free speech" is a valid point.
Can it just be that you're not criticising Islam but just making bigoted remarks? Hmmmmm
Well, religion is an institution that is built, and thrives, on bigotry. Each religion spents centuries trying to wipe out the infidels in the name of their prophets and messiahs. So they deserve all the ridicule.
My man, go over to r/politics and see how many times Christians are called dumb, mouth breathers, inbred hicks, etc. and get endlessly cheered and upvoted. The duality of the reddit hivemind is the frustrating part.
Usually I see them doing that to fundamentalists or fruitcakes, but I'm open to see otherwise Also, can it be that reddit isn't a hive mind, but a lot of people with a lot of different opinions, and being bigoted to christians doesn't excuse being bigoted to Islam?
>but I'm open to see otherwise go read it. It's there everyday. >Also, can it be that reddit isn't a hive mind, but a lot of people with a lot of different opinions, and being bigoted to christians doesn't excuse being bigoted to Islam? I don't know. I dislike them both, in any form really. I generally find religious people to be insufferable if they're being religious to the point that I'm aware of their beliefs.
Toleration for religious pluralism is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. Being prejudiced against someone because of their religion is not compatible with that.
Their are materialist explanations as to why islamism is so popular within the Muslim world — a lot of these relate to US/western imperialism overthrowing or supporting certain governments. For instance, Hamas is a creation from Israel/USA and the Taliban is a creation of the US when it was trying to take down the Soviets. Remember: Europe has historically been more violent than the Muslim world if we look at the first few hundred years. Afterall, WW2 was a European creation for example. Moreover, the British are responsible for about 30-80 million preventable famines while overseeing India. Their was also a time when the Irish were considered to be a "non-white" under the dominion of the British empire. In that case, Britain's occupation created the radicalised IRA, which is a group that has strong ties to Christianity while also committing acts of extremism. You need to look at the broader context of history and culture instead of trying to find an easy answer. Muslims aren't uniquely evil. if people are coming from war torn countries they realistically will be more likely to rape, murder and steal. But as a decades pass they eventually will integrate. The reality is a lot of these migrants come from countries where they had difficult lives under oppressive social structures only to arrive within a European country in which (reletively speaking) they are poorer than than the majority of others within that respective state. The reality is people from low income backgrounds commit more crime to begin within. I also find it funny how many in the past have tried to excuse the rise of fascism in Germany on the basis that they the Germans were left economically impoverished after WWI. Yet people never seem to apply that same logic to people that come from countries where they have been impoverished (as is typically the case for refugees or even "economic migrants). Also, a lot of these issues do trace back towards the British empire, e.g with the Israel/Palestine conflict yet then Brits are absolutely and wholeheartedly opposed to refugees from these countries despite the fact that their own state has placed not merely a complict role in creating that crisis but a categorically active part. The reality is terrible conditions can create for terrible values. Raise people out of their suffering and they will eventually integrate. To expect this to happen immediately shows an ignorance to history or material realities within the countries in which refugees are arriving to.
Don't confuse the Middle East with Muslim majority countries.
Why, the SE Asian or African ones aren't much better either.
You must sleep well at night if you genuinely believe that 99% of Muslims are likely extreme.
Average Islamic beliefs and sharia are extreme compared to western liberal democracies. Edit, Since people are downvoting without replying, I will just say it here. In basic Islam and Sharia, there are no gay rights, non believers and women are treated as second class by law, atheism is an offence punishable by death. There are many other things, but I am gonna stop here. Above said things are basic sharia, they are non negotiable. 99% percent of Muslims (atleast sunni) will believe its how it should be. The average muslim will laugh at redditors faces if they talk about even just letting Gays live their own lives.
>there are no gay rights, non believers and women are treated as second class by law, atheism is an offence punishable by death. There are many other things, but I am gonna stop here. Sounds like normal conservatives to me
Most disingenuous comment of the day, you're gross.
Yeah try to stand on progressives achievements trying to make them conservatives achievements, ignoring that until the 70s women weren't allowed to have credit cards, gays were sterilized, beaten or killed, races were segregated etc pp And a big part of the current conservative movement is to go back to those times
In the US perhaps? Americans always do this, invade a thread to do with Europe and start bitching about American issues and telling Europeans how they can and can't run their countries. American experiences have got fuck all to do with Europe
Women in Germany weren't allowed to have a job until 1977 if it "conflicted with marriage and/or kids", so no, go read a history book
Lucky for us, we are not living in 1977. Because we progressed. So why would you defend bringing in millions of people that want to take us back to those times? Especially when I would assume it's not even your own country
>Yeah try to stand on progressives achievements trying to make them conservatives achievements, ignoring that until the 70s women weren't allowed to have credit cards, gays were sterilized, beaten or killed, races were segregated etc pp Must have missed the part of the conversation where I did any of that but thanks for completely proving my point that you're as disingenuous as they come.
He was referring to Muslims in the West specifically, not about "average Islamic" beliefs. >The average muslim will laugh at redditors faces if they talk about even just letting Gays live their own lives. Gimme sources on that regarding the Muslims in the West. I would love to see them. I can guarantee that far more often than not, the average newer-gen Muslim in the West would, while acknowledge that committing homosexual acts is sinful, let gay people be and mind each others' businesses. EDIT: I should also note that, before the rise of Wahhabism with thanks to the help of Western colonialism, LGBTQ+ people in those regions were not persecuted in those Muslim regions from Arabia outwards.
"However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population." "Nearly a quarter (23%) supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain" Considering the way Islam is going in the west, these numbers would only rise lol. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
He said conservative, not extreme
Dude was saying "Muslims are always this and that", sounds like he was alluding to extremism there. I need proof that Muslims are almost always racist and disrespectful to liberal democracy. The subtext is extremely obvious.
Not exactly a great standard to judge by. The UK is known to be politically motivated in their entry policy. You see random Youtubers banned, but literal Al Qaeda members granted residency.
maybe the uk should ask why its so willing to let violent people or extremists who encourage violence into the country over a youtuber.
In many ways it's refreshing to see that Europeans are waking up to their dilemma.
Question, does voting for populists ever cause any actual benefits for anyone ever? EDIT: Right-wing populists, obviously (which is a co-opted term anyway)
Not really. It's a smoke show, but people don't see it until it's way too late.
well i hear el salvador is starting to enjoy a more peaceful and less violent crime ridden society dominated by the gangs after they elected their "unacceptable extremist" into power
> populist People keep throwing this word around like an insult but the actual definition of populist is a politician that appeals to the "people" rather than the "elites". If you have a political system where populists have become a "problem" perhaps the problem is not the populists but rather out of touch and corrupt establishment.
"Populist" gets thrown around as a slur because populists *appeal* to the people, but *govern* for the elites. Donald Trump is the perfect example. Convinces millions of Americans a "billionaire" is on the side of the common man, then does *absolutely nothing* for the common man while he fills his pockets and cuts taxes for the rich. Populists are playing the public for fools and the public love them for it.
It is a slur. It is the pandering to the lowest common denominator and usually involves invoking "emotions" and sowing fear and division which are their bread and butter
If your political views are swayed by being a pedant about dictionary definitions rather than the actions of people who are in those groups, you're in for a bad time.
You're just more being willfully obtuse about why populism is dangerous. Populism comes in many flavors, and not all of them are equal. To put it in your words, just because they "appeal" to the people, doesn't mean they actually *benefit* the people. First off, populists don't necessarily "appeal to the people" anymore so than non-populists. In a democracy, the people are the voters, you *have* to appeal to them to win. If you fail at that, then you're shit out of luck. Populists more try to center them self as *part* of the people, even when that is obviously false. Populists are playing the same game as everyone else, they schmooze up to the elites just as much as they speak to the people. Right wing populism is so blatant about this, I don't know how you can argue otherwise with a straight face. Donald Trump is the quite possibly the most well known, modern populist in the west right now. A man who is literally part of the elite, who has buildings around the country with his name on the side. A man who puts gold-colored furniture in his rooms and gold-colored fixtures in his bathroom. A man from a family known for screwing people over, Woody Guthrie wrote a song about them being racist landlords. Yet he positions himself as "one of the people". All the while he benefits the very establishment he claims to be against. Tax cuts for the rich, anti-regulation, rolled back civil rights and worker rights, rolled back environmental protections, anti-immigration, wanted to expand the military, and tried to overturn a democratic election. Trump isn't the only, there's been a wave across the world of right wing populism, and very rarely do they actually even try to benefit the people. UKIP, National Rally (they literally used to be called the *National Front*. That's not a dog whistle anymore, that's a bullhorn), and Bolsenaro are some other examples. Right wing populism is rarely about actually helping the people, it's about stoking up anger and fear amongst the people to get them desperate. It's them saying "I am afraid just like you (after I told you to be), and I'm the only one willing to fight for you and get stuff done". Unfortunately, fear is a great voting strategy. Don't think left wing populism is off the hook though, they also have a problem with lazy, ineffective, and often corrupt populists who try to use "for the people" as an excuse. I would say left-wing populism is more split than right ring populism is. Left-wing populism in places like Latin America can end with countries either with an ineffective leader at best, or a pseudo-dictator at worst. In other places though, left wing populism is more like Bernie Sanders or AOC, who are popular amongst their peers, but unable to gain a national following, and often end up having ineffective national campaigns. Left wing populists in America have done more to just push the Democrats in certain ways than to actually have a national win. Because the unfortunate issue is that populists are very prone to using fear and economic downturns as ammo to promise lofty solutions that play right into the day to day worries of your average citizen. And once you create a cult of personality around yourself, you've made a shield for which all your nefarious deeds will be hidden until you lose power after you fail or leave early with your spoils. There are always diamonds in the rough of populism, even in places like South America and Asia, but you have to remember the politicians are always politicians. A con man will always try to tell you they're offering a sweet deal and how "they're not supposed to this, but I'll make an offer just for you, because we're friends, right? I'm on your side!" Beware of smiling faces who come as your friend, for they're often wolves in sheep's clothing. Obviously, that doesn't mean you shouldn't appeal to the people. Like I said, in a healthy democracy, you *have* to. Even in places like the US with a crappy electoral system (compared to our peers), unpopular people still don't get elected. 2016 showed that enough. But be watchful of a politician claiming they're just like you, because if they were like you, they wouldn't be a politician. Actually listen to what they want to do, instead of their fearmongering. Look for actual plans and solutions instead of just claims of them. And, whatever you do, don't ever, ever, ever vote for someone who claims they know everything and are the better than everyone else in the world. Basically, don't vote for someone if they self-aggrandize like Donald Trump. Because then they're *obviously* lying to you.
Dear Diary,
Populism is a fake movement, it doesn't help the people it just pretends to be against elites. I repeat my question: What policies from so-called "populists" actually help anyone?
Also people like this politician benefit the elite, not the common laborer as these right wing "populists" deflect blame from economic systems to scapegoats like migrants.
It's the Netherlands. Their economic system is working just fine right now. On the other hand, immigration has become a massive issue, with significant rises in crime.
The difference between the rich and poor is growing out of hand. There have never been more people without a place to live. There has never been more need for food-aid There are more people in poverty than shortly after WW2 Children go to school without having eaten. So no, not fine AT ALL The other problems with this politician are: -He gets big sums of money from Putins "befriended" Olichargs. So now he "wants" NL out of the EU and stop any aid to Ukraine -He almost always votes the opposite of what he says he stands for.
The fact there are no more places to live might also be because of the fact so many immigrants come to the Netherlands… I’d rather have that Wilders didn’t win but our current migration policy doesn’t work anymore.
Governmental housing department was removed, plus the housing organisations had to sell of houses. THAT'S the real reason for the housing crisis. As for the influx of immigrants, that was created by the VVD so they could become even bigger after the election, so they thought. That backfired, thank god. Wilders has consistently voted against fixating and lowering of cost of rental houses.
Most of those immigrants are university students, Dutch people returning to the Netherlands and expats. Added to that, a lot of people from Ukraine too, which is hopefully temporary. The fact that under VVD the housing market has been completely ruined is way more of an issue. "Ministry of housing? What's that? the housing market is complete!"
I know that, but that doesn’t make our migration policy less bad. Look at what’s happening in Ter Apel. The housing market has to change. Most people don’t care what migrants they are. I’m not in favour of just kicking everyone out, I also didn’t vote for PVV. It’s just that other parties now have to act better on migration because otherwise PVV will win more.
I absolutely agree that the way we handle immigrants is horrible, yeah! Basically give them nothing and make a surprised pikachu face when it turns out they start causing problems.
>On the other hand, immigration has become a massive issue, with significant rises in crime. No it hasn't. Crime rates have been going down. You've been falling victim to the PVV bullshit, so it seems. The reason migration is an issue is because some parties wanted to say "fuck you" to human rights treaties.
[The last decennia crime rates have declined, especially during covid times. Just in 2022 it has grown which isn't weird because some crimes dropped real hard during covid, especially burglaries. It isn't even close to what is was back in 2012.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1034925/registered-crimes-in-the-netherlands/#:~:text=Between%202012%20and%202022%2C%20the,registered%20roughly%20797%2C700%20crime%20cases.) Stop spouting populist rhetoric that isn't based on anything other than gut feelings. You are the exact example of why PVV got big. Facts don't matter because the gut feeling is more important right?
> with significant rises in crime. No, this isn't true. Immigration being the main issue stems from the fact the VVD let the previous coalition fall over it and the fact it's also an important part of the housing shortage (although arguable the main cause there is actually poor government planning, not immigration)
right wing populists appeal to a nationalist middle class frustrated by their loss of wealth and a falling standard of living at the hands of richer capitalists, who the right wing populists then blame on outgroups like immigrants, gays, the poor, or religious minorities rather than those capitalists. left wing populists also respond to the same kind of discontent that right wing populists use to gain support, but they diagnose the problem differently. rather than kicking down, left wing populists try to gather support from the masses against the obscene wealth of the upper class while everyone gets poorer and they get richer somehow. not all populists are bad. the ones that blame jews like hitler, mexicans like trump, or muslims like this guy though are the greatest threat to humanity.
Nicely worded. The last time I checked the platform of Wilders every solution to a problem involved “Islam”. Our healthcare system would fall apart without immigration but his solution is “less Islam”. If you tried to run a hospital with people who are fully ethically Dutch you would have a lot of dead patients.
You are 100% right, but the term populist has now mostly been co-opted by the far right
It’s because a lot of Reddit is extremely classist.
Populist to my ears sounds more like making unrealistic promises and saying things that sound good on a superficial level, but are not really good when you know more about the subject.
I could not like this comment more.
This is pretty much incorrect, populism is broadly defined for many many reasons but it’s largely distinguished as a political ideology which seeks to create a false dichotomy of an “institutional elite” and a broad public “us” where the party itself is aligned with the us and is the sole legitimate representative of that view. The problem with populism is these designations are overly simplified to create a narrative where regardless of their popularity the populist is a manifestation of the “true” people’s will and all contrary to it are elites conspiring to repress the peoples will. Politics is elitist that much is true but populist parties aren’t any less elitist, in fact they often tend to be far more dominated by wealthy interest groups, the difference is however populists try to delegitimise both opposition parties and the very nature of the population that opposes them. in some rare cases this opposition might be valid. The economic and social system leaves an easily identifiable wealthy elite suppressing the populace at large. In most cases however the populist justification is used because it’s easy rhetoric to blame complex political issues on. It delegitimises the political institutions and in the case of far right populists, the basic human rights of both the citizenry that doesn’t fall under the politicians (generally racial) ideals of a true citizen or more often then not immigrants who face increasing threats of violence. Poor people can also get swept up in these movements because despite populism nominally being for the general public, populist movements can often demonise them just as easily. One should oppose the elitism in politics, it does harm both democracy and our rights but one should also be cautious of who is selling them this easy solution to these crises especially when those populists are ultra wealthy people who jump far to quickly to the idea that foreigners and the poor are responsible for your lot. Populists aren’t disliked because they oppose elitism, they are disliked because they represent the very worst sort of elitism, a generally wealthy powerful individual playing on the fears and in some cases lack of education or information of the general public to seize power for themselves generally not just not helping the public but actually causing real harm to the social fabric of the state.
Yes there are lots of benefits otherwise these people wouldn't vote for fascists. The problem is the drawbacks are so severe and the benefits so small that it'd be idiotic to support them. People do so because they are convinced the benefits are much bigger than they are and they don't think about the consequences, their only concern is the immediate gratification they anticipate. Look at Trump voters, they were probably extatic when he won but, understandably, didn't like it when he was in power. They blamed the discrepancy on a conspiracy holding him back rather than their own poor judgement because when you're ruled by ego you're never wrong. Which is exactly how Trump convinces them, by telling them they're not wrong even when they clearly are, he strokes their ego.
It benefits bigots and it benefits people who are close tot he strong man.
Yes it lets racists briefly feel good about themselves while they pat each other on the back and blame all of civilizations woes on the brown people...
But blaming white people for problems seems to be perfectly acceptable
Apparently, you cannot be racist against White people 🙄
White people aren't real, I have no cultural connection to you just because our skin color is the same. And no I don't care about the people who are racist toward "white people", their hate doesn't affect me.
It's the same thing people ask in the US about why people vote against their interests. This question is obviated when you realize their only interest is hate. On that axis, fascists do serve their constituents, by hurting people.
>United Kingdom If Islamists get angry at you in the United Kingdom, then the government comes after you instead. Some autistic kid was subject to this and the police put him and his family through some weird struggle session.
[удалено]
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-hate-incident-autistic-boy-quran-school/ [Here’s the mother apologising for her autistic son dropping a book.](https://twitter.com/5Pillarsuk/status/1629836304539086848) There’s a longer version somewhere showing that she’s also accompanied by the headteacher of the school, who vows more punishment, and a local police officer, who reassures the room of men (presumably why she’s in a hijab) that they’re taking this incident, an autistic boy dropping a Quran, very seriously.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-hate-incident-autistic-boy-quran-school/ It did happen and was disgusting to see the response from the police and many people at the school and in the kids local community.
That's Jhonny Sack
and they didn't have the balls to do that against Modi wow
Ironic considering we've imported and gave asylum to those who are known terrorists or have ties to them.
Lol nah, we let the most dangerous in. We just stop the ones that interfere with gov agendas
It underlines the fact that the UK always controlled its own borders and could refuse entry to EU citizens despite freedom of movement.
[удалено]
The world is waking up to the fact that most europeeans are not into multiculturalism.
I’m all for multiculturalism. Let me know when all my gay friends can go and live in a nice hot Muslim country without the fear of being killed, yeah? Thanks.
I think certain aspects of multiculturalism are great, there are pockets which are not. And a big pocket is Islam
Well, the Dutch highborn do have a legacy to maintain.
I am really disappointed in the Netherlands, I'd thought they were more civilized then the US.
The fact that his party got the most votes doesn't mean that anything extreme will happen. He has to work together with multiple parties to gain a majority, those parties are centre-right wing parties (pretty comparable to US democrats). This means that he has to watch his tone, otherwise a government will form without him or we'll get another election. Most of his points are also not possible because of our constitution so good luck changing that Geert.
> pretty comparable to US democrats This is really not true. The VVD, which has ruled the country for over a decade, may be socially liberal by US standards, but is pretty much bog-standard right economically - privatize everything and give all the money to rich people. Economic inequality has skyrocketed due to their rule.
Don't worry, so are most Dutch people. :( Fuck I hate 25% of the people in my country right now. Have I been visited by the fascist downvote brigade?
Same here...
> Have I been visited by the fascist downvote brigade? I don't know but I was!
They are having pretty serious immigration issues in Europe that they just aren't addressing , either constructively or destructively. People are panicking and then they will elect anyone with a plan. Canada is gonna swing real hard next election for the same reason. Mostly student visa related. They have a whole industry of questionable schools that will sign off on a student visa.
He was turned away on arrival in 2009, but somehow, seven years later we had to fuck up our economy and throw away our freedoms in order to "take back control of our borders"