Icelander said:

---

Icelander said:

I have a friend who used to post here who is currently living in Sweden and has been for at least 6  years or more. I asked him about this subject and his reply is worthy of this thread.

"​​

Quote:

It's a big issue with many sub-issues. I've been following it closely for years. I'll answer your questions one by one:

>Hey what's your take on the rise of the far right in Europe?

The far-right is an interesting term in itself. On the one had it is used by the media and many pundits to a priori dismiss people who can be identified with the far-right (guilt by association, shaming, demonization: good people agree with us, bad people think like the far-right). This encourages the idea that a PC elite control discourse and politics, thus bolstering support for the far-right. (I'm sure you recognize this basic pattern from your observations of mankind and US politics.)

On the other hand, one should ask themselves whether so-called the far-right is always far-right. What I see are parties and interest groups that mainly stand to the right of established ideology, in particular on immigration, nationalism vs. globalism, political correctness, and so on. Few of these parties and interest groups are fascist as they are often called. The majority of them are simply populist and often xenophobic. However, a large segment of the far-right sympathizers are in fact ideologically aligned with social democrats (who feel there is no better choice than the far-right at this point).

I think the far-right has in part arisen because there has been a power vacuum with the collapse of previously stronger social democratic and liberal parties who have alienated themselves from their voter bases (in favor of identity politics, globalist ideology and EU agendas), and because politics and media have moved far away from what people are experiencing while at the same time the media, police and power elite are in many cases, like in Sweden, are covering up what is in fact going on with the immigration crisis. With this in mind, I think the far right would largely lose voters if the ruling organs would come back to Earth, listen to their voters, and stop covering up the truth and so on.

You also have to look at the rhetoric and how quickly things have changed. Ignoring the roots of several far right parites in Western Europe, you can see that their suggested polices on immigration are in fact to the left of where left parties were just fifteen to twenty years ago. The official line has shifted, the people see it and they're upset. You get fired and crucified in the (social) media if you have the wrong opinions on the immigration issue. I'm not even talking about blatant racism and so on, but simply being opposed to official policy or having experiences that conflict with the mediated reality and received ideology you are expected to believe in.

>Are things getting crazy over there?

Yes. Things have been getting increasingly polarized, censored, desperate. Rapes, violent attacks and racial tensions are increasing. Housing shortages, economic problems, the EU is collapsing, immigrants wind up in unassimilated/unintegrated ghettos, Swedish infrastructure for instance is retracting and collapsing (police have to spend more and more time dealing with migrants and answering calls at shelters), gangs of migrant men from North Africa roam around Stockholm's central station on thieving and groping. They police have come forward and admitted to the problem, but no laws have been changed and nothing has been done to sway this problem. Refugees sit around watching TV at centers all day waiting to learn Swedish, get a job (there are none for low-skilled workers), etc. Fights break out, Christian and homosexual refugees get beaten up by Muslim refugees. Fight after fight. People walk into the Swedish Migration Agency and pour lighter fluid on themselves and the staff, but are stopped. Refugees and migrants don't listen to female social workers, break windows, etc. There are gypsy/Romani beggars everywhere in Sweden for a few years now. I've seen Romani people stealing and robbing others in the streets, but all the media writes about is how they need pity (and free health care, free dental care, etc., etc.), and if you call that into question you're a racist.

>Are the Muslims being scapegoated because a common enemy is needed to distract from economic woes?

To some extent, yes. Some people simply don't like foreigners or Muslims at all. I have worked with many and know several and believe I can see both sides. I think the naive humanism in the West has been extremely suicidal and dangerous. However, people are waking up to the fact that all of humanity is not one, and that cultures are in fact radically different and many of the so-called universal values of humanism and democracy indeed took hundreds of years to make reality and are not givens to the majority of people arriving here today. Just now are people getting a wake-up call: ah, yes, people from different conditions are in fact radically different. These differences of values, religion, background, education, views of women, etc., cannot be overcome by goodwill and a language course with a few well-meaning instructions about local law and mores. (And the only people who dare deal with the issue are the far-right and the so-called far-right.) Then there's the ghost of Islamic terrorism that has people on edge, including Europl's statement yesterday that ISIS is planning large-scale attacks throughout Europe.

I find it greatly amusing that the far-right is considered such a danger when the establishment itself has to extensively lie to and misinform the populace in order to maintain order. They are very much like the description and fears of their opposition.

My citizenship to a country on the otherside of the Atlantic may come in handy. My reading and insights indicate that 2016 is going to be much rougher than 2015 for Western Europe."

---

---

Tipote said:

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

Quote:

In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.

At the most chaotic juncture in Iraq’s civil war, a new law is unveiled that would allow Shell and BP to claim the country’s vast oil reserves…. Immediately following September 11, the Bush Administration quietly out-sources the running of the “War on Terror” to Halliburton and Blackwater…. After a tsunami wipes out the coasts of Southeast Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts.... New Orleans’s residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover that their public housing, hospitals and schools will never be reopened…. These events are examples of “the shock doctrine”: using the public’s disorientation following massive collective shocks – wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters -- to achieve control by imposing economic shock therapy. Sometimes, when the first two shocks don’t succeed in wiping out resistance, a third shock is employed: the electrode in the prison cell or the Taser gun on the streets.

Based on breakthrough historical research and four years of on-the-ground reporting in disaster zones, The Shock Doctrine vividly shows how disaster capitalism – the rapid-fire corporate reengineering of societies still reeling from shock – did not begin with September 11, 2001. The book traces its origins back fifty years, to the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman, which produced many of the leading neo-conservative and neo-liberal thinkers whose influence is still profound in Washington today. New, surprising connections are drawn between economic policy, “shock and awe” warfare and covert CIA-funded experiments in electroshock and sensory deprivation in the 1950s, research that helped write the torture manuals used today in Guantanamo Bay.

The Shock Doctrine follows the application of these ideas through our contemporary history, showing in riveting detail how well-known events of the recent past have been deliberate, active theatres for the shock doctrine, among them: Pinochet’s coup in Chile in 1973, the Falklands War in 1982, the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Asian Financial crisis in 1997 and Hurricane Mitch in 1998.

---

This is the right wing policy affecting the middle east. It is not just an economic policy, there are geo-strategic implications involved in the middle east too, as well as resource sigificance. There is an interest in dividing the middle east into smaller pieces in the name of Western/Israeli imperialism.

again, so tell me, what was the left wing politics that caused all this?? multiculturalism??

---

We have already shown that "left-wing" politicians in the US and EU supported the policy.

qman said:

The people now protesting in Germany and elsewhere are angry because their governments never allowed this issue to be debated, it was forced down their throats and it has lowered the standard of living for the native population, the protesters are completely rational and justified to be pissed off.

---

Tipote said:

@Bubbles, do you support Britain First??

---

Icelander said:

I have a friend who used to post here who is currently living in Sweden and has been for at least 6  years or more. I asked him about this subject and his reply is worthy of this thread.

"​​

Quote:

It's a big issue with many sub-issues. I've been following it closely for years. I'll answer your questions one by one:

>Hey what's your take on the rise of the far right in Europe?

The far-right is an interesting term in itself. On the one had it is used by the media and many pundits to a priori dismiss people who can be identified with the far-right (guilt by association, shaming, demonization: good people agree with us, bad people think like the far-right). This encourages the idea that a PC elite control discourse and politics, thus bolstering support for the far-right. (I'm sure you recognize this basic pattern from your observations of mankind and US politics.)

On the other hand, one should ask themselves whether so-called the far-right is always far-right. What I see are parties and interest groups that mainly stand to the right of established ideology, in particular on immigration, nationalism vs. globalism, political correctness, and so on. Few of these parties and interest groups are fascist as they are often called. The majority of them are simply populist and often xenophobic. However, a large segment of the far-right sympathizers are in fact ideologically aligned with social democrats (who feel there is no better choice than the far-right at this point).

I think the far-right has in part arisen because there has been a power vacuum with the collapse of previously stronger social democratic and liberal parties who have alienated themselves from their voter bases (in favor of identity politics, globalist ideology and EU agendas), and because politics and media have moved far away from what people are experiencing while at the same time the media, police and power elite are in many cases, like in Sweden, are covering up what is in fact going on with the immigration crisis. With this in mind, I think the far right would largely lose voters if the ruling organs would come back to Earth, listen to their voters, and stop covering up the truth and so on.

You also have to look at the rhetoric and how quickly things have changed. Ignoring the roots of several far right parites in Western Europe, you can see that their suggested polices on immigration are in fact to the left of where left parties were just fifteen to twenty years ago. The official line has shifted, the people see it and they're upset. You get fired and crucified in the (social) media if you have the wrong opinions on the immigration issue. I'm not even talking about blatant racism and so on, but simply being opposed to official policy or having experiences that conflict with the mediated reality and received ideology you are expected to believe in.

>Are things getting crazy over there?

Yes. Things have been getting increasingly polarized, censored, desperate. Rapes, violent attacks and racial tensions are increasing. Housing shortages, economic problems, the EU is collapsing, immigrants wind up in unassimilated/unintegrated ghettos, Swedish infrastructure for instance is retracting and collapsing (police have to spend more and more time dealing with migrants and answering calls at shelters), gangs of migrant men from North Africa roam around Stockholm's central station on thieving and groping. They police have come forward and admitted to the problem, but no laws have been changed and nothing has been done to sway this problem. Refugees sit around watching TV at centers all day waiting to learn Swedish, get a job (there are none for low-skilled workers), etc. Fights break out, Christian and homosexual refugees get beaten up by Muslim refugees. Fight after fight. People walk into the Swedish Migration Agency and pour lighter fluid on themselves and the staff, but are stopped. Refugees and migrants don't listen to female social workers, break windows, etc. There are gypsy/Romani beggars everywhere in Sweden for a few years now. I've seen Romani people stealing and robbing others in the streets, but all the media writes about is how they need pity (and free health care, free dental care, etc., etc.), and if you call that into question you're a racist.

>Are the Muslims being scapegoated because a common enemy is needed to distract from economic woes?

To some extent, yes. Some people simply don't like foreigners or Muslims at all. I have worked with many and know several and believe I can see both sides. I think the naive humanism in the West has been extremely suicidal and dangerous. However, people are waking up to the fact that all of humanity is not one, and that cultures are in fact radically different and many of the so-called universal values of humanism and democracy indeed took hundreds of years to make reality and are not givens to the majority of people arriving here today. Just now are people getting a wake-up call: ah, yes, people from different conditions are in fact radically different. These differences of values, religion, background, education, views of women, etc., cannot be overcome by goodwill and a language course with a few well-meaning instructions about local law and mores. (And the only people who dare deal with the issue are the far-right and the so-called far-right.) Then there's the ghost of Islamic terrorism that has people on edge, including Europl's statement yesterday that ISIS is planning large-scale attacks throughout Europe.

I find it greatly amusing that the far-right is considered such a danger when the establishment itself has to extensively lie to and misinform the populace in order to maintain order. They are very much like the description and fears of their opposition.

My citizenship to a country on the otherside of the Atlantic may come in handy. My reading and insights indicate that 2016 is going to be much rougher than 2015 for Western Europe."

---

---

Great post

Tipote said:

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

Quote:

In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.

At the most chaotic juncture in Iraq’s civil war, a new law is unveiled that would allow Shell and BP to claim the country’s vast oil reserves…. Immediately following September 11, the Bush Administration quietly out-sources the running of the “War on Terror” to Halliburton and Blackwater…. After a tsunami wipes out the coasts of Southeast Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts.... New Orleans’s residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover that their public housing, hospitals and schools will never be reopened…. These events are examples of “the shock doctrine”: using the public’s disorientation following massive collective shocks – wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters -- to achieve control by imposing economic shock therapy. Sometimes, when the first two shocks don’t succeed in wiping out resistance, a third shock is employed: the electrode in the prison cell or the Taser gun on the streets.

Based on breakthrough historical research and four years of on-the-ground reporting in disaster zones, The Shock Doctrine vividly shows how disaster capitalism – the rapid-fire corporate reengineering of societies still reeling from shock – did not begin with September 11, 2001. The book traces its origins back fifty years, to the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman, which produced many of the leading neo-conservative and neo-liberal thinkers whose influence is still profound in Washington today. New, surprising connections are drawn between economic policy, “shock and awe” warfare and covert CIA-funded experiments in electroshock and sensory deprivation in the 1950s, research that helped write the torture manuals used today in Guantanamo Bay.

The Shock Doctrine follows the application of these ideas through our contemporary history, showing in riveting detail how well-known events of the recent past have been deliberate, active theatres for the shock doctrine, among them: Pinochet’s coup in Chile in 1973, the Falklands War in 1982, the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Asian Financial crisis in 1997 and Hurricane Mitch in 1998.

---

This is the right wing policy affecting the middle east. It is not just an economic policy, there are geo-strategic implications involved in the middle east too, as well as resource sigificance. There is an interest in dividing the middle east into smaller pieces in the name of Western/Israeli imperialism.

again, so tell me, what was the left wing politics that caused all this?? multiculturalism??

---

Bigbadwooof said:

I believe a very adequate case has been presented in this thread for the right-wing perspective on the refugee situation. I haven't seen anything close from the left. The right wing stance has presented real-world facts and horrendous anecdotes. Let's stop pretending that there are two equal sides here.

Unless someone has something pertinent to add, in support of accepting refugees.

I would add that I feel that accepting refugees is a potential recipe for a second holocaust, at this time. If enough of the people turn on the refugees, and a guy like Donald Trump builds enough steam against them, there will be blood.

---

Quote:

Matthew 25:35-40:
    For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
    “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
    “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

---

Quote:

And hundreds of thousands have sought refuge in Europe. Having initially welcomed tens of thousands of newcomers, Germany is growing increasingly reluctant to take in more. By the end of the year it expects to have 1.5m asylum seekers, many of them Syrian. Meanwhile America—26 times larger, with a population four times the size of Germany's—has taken in only 1,500 Syrians since the start of the war. Why is this number so low?
from here

---

qman said:

We have already shown that "left-wing" politicians in the US and EU supported the policy.

---

zappaisgod said:

Tipote said:

zappaisgod said:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/22/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-hamas-straight-from-its-charter/

Quote:

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

---

Much more at the link.

---

Weak source. I just told you it is an outdated document - Hamas said that themselves, and they have demonstrated it.

Hamas doesn't represent all Palestinians, it doesnt even represent all Palestinians in the Gaza Strip!

So your statement that supporting the Palestinians is supporting the destruction of Israel is bullshit frankly.

---

They have demonstrated nothing except a desire to kill Jews

---

Tipote said:

qman said:

We have already shown that "left-wing" politicians in the US and EU supported the policy.

---

Where have you done that? Who?

So supporting the policy of accepting refugees is a left wing policy?

Do you think the 1951/67 Convention on Refugees is a left wing policy?

and that these policies are ripping Europe apart?

Just looking for some clarity.

---

Tipote said:

what wimpyness do you mean?

---

qman said:

We are talking about EU/US military intervention in the Middle East.

---

Tipote said:

qman said:

We are talking about EU/US military intervention in the Middle East.

---

how is that left wing?

---

zappaisgod said:

Tipote said:

what wimpyness do you mean?

---

That we didn't kick their asses completely in 1980, 1990 and when Reagan ran away from Lebanon.

Is it the right thing to do to accept these people?  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3416343/Sweden-asylum-worker-22-stabbed-death-frenzied-attack-CHILD-migrant-centre-refugee-boy-15-arrested-murder.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35231046

http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/10/mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-why-sweden-is-now-rape-capital-of-the-west/

I could go on.  Take none of them in.  They are vipers.

---