Government Ministers to be forced to justify adding toxins to Queensland's drinking water

This Generation Identitaire movement seems to find its feet as a reaction to Muslim reaction to the film, The Innocence of Muslims. (See post - in French language - for 2nd October here Generation Identitaire).

France does not have a policy of multiculturalism like the Anglophone countries, which really do deprive people of democracy by forcing high immigration and multiculturalism. The French civil code is anti-communautarianist.

The Generation Identitaire activism shows signs of roots in militant Catholicism which is something that the French Revolution managed to minimise. In France the Civil Code specifically provides for freedom to criticise religion. Hopefully the Civil Code will also manage to minimise militant Islamism.

The Muslim population in France is not really historically 'foreign'. It arises largely from the fact that Algeria was French and therefore after Independence a lot of Muslims were French by birth and consequently had the absolute right (like other French) to move to the French mainland. It is however quite true that streams of the resultant Muslim populations have become ethnic ghettos.

Calls to 'war' are polarising and likely to serve the principle of divide and conquer, with elite winners, so fail in their stated objectives.

There is a fairly strong 'conservative' mostly Anglophone movement internationally that seeks to make common cause with a small right-wing movement in France and other ones in Continental Europe. This movement contains strong conservative Christian elements (not always Catholic) and is not generally an ecological movement, although you do get ecologists who identify ecology as an Anglophone movement. (I would explain the importance of environmentalism in Anglophone countries as an Anglophone reaction to the Anglophone political-economic tendency to privilege corporatism which results in in-your-face environmental damage where citizens have little recourse because we have such lousy political systems. Continental Europe simply does not have the overpopulation problems of the Anglophone countries. The Continental European countries are on a trajectory to decline after the babyboomers, whereas the Anglophone ones are going to keep on growing.)

At any rate this somewhat loose international Christian-identifying movement focuses on widespread legitimate resentment and fear at loss of national identity and ability of any citizen to organise and thrive through the rise of Islamic populations in Europe consequent on the dismantling of European colonies (but now irritated again by corporate colonialism in the Middle East).

It then links that rise in non-European populations to extreme left-wing globalism, which has also contaminated a lot of ecological activism and weakened it. (Candobetter.net often complains about Australian Greens failure to deal with overly high immigration and the detrimental effect on the environment and democracy of overpopulation). This globalism has also helped the corporate colonials and Islam tends to be against it.

Whereas the Left does have a lot to answer for in allowing the rise of high immigration in Anglophone countries, the history of the rise of Muslim populations was (as mentioned above) different in Continental Europe. So the common cause here is historically fuzzy because the systems are different.

In France the Catholics tend to be anti-Leftist, anti-immigrationist and anti-State and the Protestants to be leftist (but immigrationist). The State is anti-immigration. In Australia the State is for high immigration and the Catholics are also for high immigration and tend to back up the State. I believe this tends to be the case in the United States as well with Catholics and the State (even though the bulk of North Americans are not Catholic.) You then get a reaction amongst Christian US citizens who identify with Christianity but not with State policy and who seek to find common cause with other Christians independently of the official churches. Often they are not against population growth, but want to grow the population of Christians and object to competing religions.

Whilst it sad that movements to secure democracy by securing national identity are subject to polarisation into "Left/Right", it seems that it is much easier to organise narrowly nationalistic responses, especially by stimulating religious reactionism, than to organise ecological nationalist responses because the first has generational and clan bases whereas the second is bootstrapped on relatively abstract values (although could be localised much better). My conclusion is that the media and the power elites prefer to see nations divided and they like to keep ecologists divided too, as a subset, by massaging their passive identification with globalism and downplaying that of the Catholics, for instance.

A danger seems to be looming where the mass media is fanning violent confrontation between populations on religious and ethnic grounds. In the end, it will be an excuse for the states to put down popular revolts using the police and armies. We would be better off militating for Civil Rights in the Anglophone countries based on the European civil code model.

All sides should be able to see that high immigration puts pressure on all systems affecting democracy and safety, but the force of immigration ideology is so strong and backed by growth lobbyists who benefit financially that reason does not prevail. I agree that multiculturalism has been abused to put down legitimate peaceful opinion against high immigration.

(People may find this site's comment responses to the GI post interesting: Gates of Vienna blogspot)