I think that is it right there. Perhaps multiculturalism in only very small doses would be better perhaps. I do not know, this is now also going into sociology and such I think. After all when you have even such as your parents or my parents when we came to the states, we did retain obviously some sense of our own culture, and that is only natural. Again, we are treading on a very fine line here. However it seems that the elephant in the room(or thread) in this case seems to be Islam.

Your observations though are exactly correct - and this is all due to the left's argument. Had that person been white, his arguments are to be immediately discarded, because he is a 'straight white male.' Which is petulant and not a valid rebuttal.

I agree on that, it is part of their religion fine whatever but you again raise another point at the end of your statement. Those who seem to be wanting to force non Muslims into their rules. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st-London.html

That is absolutely intolerable - and should absolutely be combated.

Unfortunately because Sharia completely disregard any secular law in most if not all aspects, however I am going to try to step away now from that part of this topic. Generally speaking most that come there are looking for a better life, and majority are good and law abiding - but the adage is also true that one bad apple will spoil the entire barrel. It will not mater if the majority are good and have lets say been in their new adoptive home for years - they can still be grouped together - this is outright danger I also see in the total rise of populism all around. This again I want to reiterate is the fault of those who instilled this sort of silence and political correctness to turn a blind eye to the problem.

Hence now I reference again, the popularity of Wilders in the Netherlands and a very high chance of him actually winning the election there, and also Marine Le Pen in France. What those on the opposite side of the political spectrum need to realise is that nobody was ever in favor of turning anyone away initially, but at the same time you cannot simply expect everyone to go along with an unlimited amount and without any sort controls in place. Or also keep silent when communities begin to be overrun by malcontents. Sweden has right now the worst of it.

You're engaging in mind reading here.

While I do find the niqab a bit creepy, I'm not sure having the government telling people that they can't wear certain things is an improvement...

Tommy Robinson: Sweden self-destructs for "diversity" - we should disregard his arguments though, because he is a straight white male and he is a bigot....

Well the niqab/burqa is banned in France and rightfully so I think as well. Also, Marine Le Pen refused to cover up - and now there is such a fuss, but I applaud her on that.

Styxhexenhammer666 - Le Pen Refuses Head Scarf: I Applaud Her Bravery

But there is also the consideration of cultural respect.

Women's clothing has been a very big issue in these (desert!) countries for centuries. It is deeply ingrained into their culture. Even if a woman otherwise feels that she does not need to wear this particular garment, when visiting these lands it might be the right thing to do. Out of courtesy and respect to the [ancient ...] culture that you are briefly being a part of.

To do something that deeply offends other people, even if you believe that you have "the right" to do it, just might not be "the proper thing to do." You are, after all, their guest.

Still I am pointing to the one-way street argument. Le Pen visited other Muslim majority nations and was not asked to cover up, and the issue of respect those coming into their new adoptive home, should obviously show respect as well. Just like if I were to come into someone's home by invitation - I am not going to be doing anything to disrespect my host - sorry a simplistic rebuttal perhaps but I feel it is apt.

Now, I think this gentleman's view is again rather spot on about the whole PC culture and the overuse of calling someone a fascist - seems like a moral panic and his comparisons are interesting: Styxhexenhammer666 - "He's a Nazi" in 2017 Is Like "She's a Witch" in 1517

So why are these women allowed to do something that deeply offends me? I don't go to their country and offend against their customs.

In the UK:

Very ill judged actually, this is what is causing the swing to the right in the first place - the overuse of the race card for everything now.

Germany:

I have a bad feeling this is just the beginning.

I think populism is much more likely to take an overtly fascist direction in countries that have a historic tradition of fascist government, like Germany, Austria and Greece.

In the UK, it's interesting to compare the success of UKIP, which was never directly racist (though some of its members are), with the failure of officially racist parties like the National Front and the British National Party to get off the ground.

Greece has already arrived at that. Golden Dawn was chosen a few years back - I would have thought by now Greece would have just said to hell with the EU and dropped out without even bothering to invoke Article 50.

Even countries that may have not been fascist such as The Netherlands are going towards the right - also the irony of all this is that in the US you still have ANTIFA causing trouble and essentially taken up fascist tactics, which in this case fighting fire with fire isn't the best course of action.

In Europe though, those in power do not want to come to realise the situation that they brought their nation into and either are doing nothing or just trying to double down with the use of tolerance.

...and founder of the EDL and British chapter of PEGIDA.

If you've read about him at all, I don't know if anyone can take his views seriously...

Another very interesting and well-done piece of international journalism. Will you ever hear such things in the Western media? Only thanks to the Internet and thanks to places like LQ, which enable people to encounter these things for themselves if they choose.

The thing that sticks out in my mind about this form of journalism is that it stimulates thought and discussion, instead of simply stuffing your head with the one thing that you are "supposed to" think and/or believe. And this, to me, is what all journalism is supposed to be about.

Much of this episode was about "globalism" (with a long foray into "Brexit" by people who obviously are opposed to it), and in this I think they hit the global [coffin-]nail on its head. IMHO, a true "healthy economic system" has many stakeholders – specifically including the workers themselves. It's not just "all about the lowest price and the cheapest labor." I think that we need to inject a new adjective into this conversation: "sustainability."

Our present "globalist" view is both abusive to people world-wide and, for that reason, unsustainable. People do not want a system that tries to "level the world's economic playing field" by pushing wages and security (of all types) down to the least-common denominator that is to be found in the poorest ghettos. (As the US did, when they suddenly decided that "Bangladeshdore is a fabulous source of IT labor!") That way of thinking is not sustainable, and everyone who wasn't born with a silver spoon in their mouth implicitly knows it.

The people who've been making these decisions were always careful to ensure that they had a life-boat. Therefore, they set about sinking the ship. And, as RT's journalists correctly observe, none of their economic promises came true.

We can never have a resilient, sustainable world trade system if every member in it is on a fight to the bottom. Rather, rade can only be strong if every trading partner looks out for their own nation first, and understands that this is "the #1 rule of the game" that every one of them is following at the same time. Only deals which are truly beneficial to both trading partners, in the view of both country's citizens, will make it to "go-live." And, every trader knows that s/he is trading against a strongly-developed (and, well-protected) "domestic alternative."

Another good RT episode: CrossTalk: Liberal War Addiction.

In addition to two American guests, they also included a guest from Tehran, who in some ways posits the most-interesting viewpoints. Also you hear frequently the term, "the Deep State."

The Iranian guest has very interesting things to say about "neoliberalism" and its relation to human-nature selfishness.

You will also enjoy the interaction in the second half where a New York "talking head" never stops talking, and neither does the host. (He finally has to threaten to cut her mike.) This is a tactic that you sometimes see used: just keep talking without interruption and ignore any attempt to interrupt you. "You've got your ideas and you're sticking to them."

Very good food for thought here. Enjoy.

Fair, but I do want to ask a Swede then how is it over there. Is it as good as the media says, or as bad as this guy says? Somebody is lying. I really also did not want to post this, and I have been holding off as much as I could, but I feel I should now: Mouthy Buddha - The Immigrants Dindu Nuffin: Sweden's Multicultural Experiment

Now, was this all staged, faked? Are the statistics in this wrong? https://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home.html (one of the sources used). So what is then actually happening in Sweden? Is the problem overblown, or is it under reported? Are there any Swedish LQers here that can shed some light on all this? Is Rinkeby as dangerous as this video stated, or was this a one time incident? The main point of this video also and my own point and question is, what is the cause of all this? If it is really unfettered immigration, then shouldn't this be enough to reconsider some policies, or again am I just taken in by all this and also just causing further fear mongering? Who is telling the truth and who is lying?

Yes a very good one, and what stuck out to me the most was the almost condescending views by one of the guests there - practically implying that the voters did vote wrong, because they were 'mis-informed' - there should be a referendum (also see the video I posted by The Britisher and his analysis of Blair, wanting the same thing). That to me also sets a very dangerous precedence, because you have a referendum and say the vote turns out again to leave the EU, then what? Do you just keep having referendums until 'they get it right?" At that point then you must ask, how far will referendums go? Lets say going back to a policy voted on a year ago or further? The British voted to leave, and I am sure they knew and had all the information they needed, but the guest there in his condescending manner did not realise that this thing called the internet, and anyone can find out the information they need - so I think he could be a Blair-ite and want to reverse Brexit somehow, no sorry then whats the point of having a democracy, do you just start reversing everything people voted for that you do not agree with? Then whats the point of a democracy?

Yes I did see that one, but that lady started to piss me off near the end and I wish Mr. Lavelle did just cut her off. As soon as it was stated that Trump was the president, and at this point you have to give him a chance - she goes full idiot and refuses any logical reasoning. Just like what I have mentioned in my other paragraph about Brexit - desperately wanting to turn back the results somehow. It is done, thats it accept it and she needs to actually offer some sort of REAL argument against Trump, but she did not - don't even give him a chance, kick him out by all means apparently. She offered no real value to the discussion in general.

As far as the deepstate, well there is some truth to that, and how the media is also trying to take down Trump every which way - see this post since this Lionel guy has some good insight despite him going into different tangents and his anecdotes.