Fascist rise in europe

[Quintium]

The real reason why for that is because your kind are not worth debating with and your facts suck wieners.

Try harder. You didn't even offend me. In fact, the most offensive part about what you just said there was the grammar.
In all seriousness, though, this is why we're stuck in this situation - I'd love to say mainstream politicians have a bit more common sense than you, but they don't.

Plus, Fascists like you are mostly motivated by the fear of the "other". You hate the fact that peoples you can't control or suppress are not buying your bullshit anymore.

Lovely analysis. Yes, I fear the fact that some neighbourhoods in the city next to mine are practically under the control of human traffickers and islamists.
As for 'buying my bullshit' - I take it you refer to western views on women's rights, gay rights, freedom of expression and freedom of religion for non-muslims?

[Quintium]

How much of that is inherent discrimination, like how black people are overrepresented in criminal statistics in the USA? You wouldn't suggest that black people are all criminals, would you?

The police has a policy of not even making anything seem like discrimination, or they're brought to trial themselves. You can try to offer any kind of zany explanation, but fact remains more than two-thirds of all Moroccan men in the Netherlands have been arrested at least once before the age of 22. Try to pseudo-scientifically explain as much as you like, but these are the figures and that's how it works.

Considering the Netherlands' approach was to treat them like gastarbeiters and not give a fuck since they'd leave, this doesn't surprise me. A country shouldn't just dump immigrants in ghettos, and hope everything works out. It tends to blow up in their face.

Actually, we didn't. For the past two decades, the government has been trying to get them out of those ghettos, but they're refusing to leave to a point where they start attacking people who try to bring up that there are better houses available. In fact, there's a policy with housing corporations where they try to spread people a bit more. How does that work? I'll tell you this - the only black family in this neighbourhood lives a few houses away from me, and I've never actually seen them apart from the time the guy was making a rather loud drug deal in front of the house my tax money pays for.

And guess what? Some of the highest immigrant crime rates in the world. That's what multiculturalism is about.

Fundamentalism should be resisted, but the way to do it isn't to stoke Islamophobia by telling everybody about Muslamic ray guns and sharia courts. Tabloidisation and fearmongering doesn't help, it only alienates the majority of non-fuckhead Muslims who feel like they're being discriminated against.

Which majority? Can you find some figures on that?

Fuck most of Europe's population then for

...not agreeing with you. Great.

I'm angry with the EU too, but unlike you, it's because I want the EU to stop fucking up and actually be a good thing. Unfortunately, it'd be difficult to overcome its design problems.

Can't be overcome.

No, it isn't. What do you want instead, oppressive monoculturalism?

At the moment, we have a hybrid. Monoculturalism with mostly-detached counterculturalism. If you don't know what that means, I suggest you stop arguing about it. There is no cultural unity through diversity. Diversity means disunity, in practical terms. Believe me - I live in an area where some neighbourhoods have muslim majorities, and there's absolutely no cultural dialogue going on. They're in charge there, and we're in charge here. That's how it goes.

Have you tried actually looking at the factors behind it before jumping on the "all non-white immugrants iz crimmenulz" bandwagon?

Yes. I've tried looking at poverty, but the black family that deals drugs a few houses away is actually a lot wealthier than me, a poor law student. For natives and western immigrants, as well as East Asians in a comparable socioeconomic situation, there are absolutely no poverty figures or crime figures or unemployment figures anywhere near those of, specifically, black Africans, muslims and Afro-Caribbeans. Those are the problematic groups in this country, and those are the problematic groups in every European country. Well, along with gypsies.

[Quintium]

They entered illegally, make them legal then, but you stand with the bureaucracy, not democracy. You're just like the EU bureaucrats, only, you lot take it even further.

You do know what you're saying here, right? You're saying we should legalise theft and selling stolen goods.
That's what they're doing. I know what he's on about - we have them here, too.

[Quintium]

We already mentioned the Hungarian German French and Serbian parties but they keep hitting the greek one

Indeed. Let's not forget for a moment that most of Serbia's current leadership has never distanced itself, or has even actively endorsed or worked with, a man standing trial for the murder of thousands of muslims in the 1990s. Or that a lot of Hungarians would now vote for a party that wants to invade Romania. Or that a far-right party that has even denied the Holocaust is polling third. Or that some towns in Germany are now led completely by neo-nazis.

No, I said make them legal, I simply do not recognise "illegal immigration". What part of that do you not understand Mr strawman?

Lovely, but not quite true. How would they make money if they couldn't sell stolen goods, which is currently getting them their entire income?
They'd have no job, I'll tell you right now. It might be the ideal solution for you, but for them, and for the Greek people, and for all of Europe, it's a horrible deal in reality.

[Quintium]

You're the traitor to human liberation as far as I can see. You want to f**k humanity.

Which part of inviting massive groups of people without any perspective over is human liberation for you?
Which part of inviting millions of people over who do not believe in equal rights or freedom of expression is human liberation for you?

[Quintium]

Er, the world is much larger than that of Greece. Do millions really want to go to Greece, I think not. Meanwhile the execs of Goldman Sachs are having a cocaine party and laughing at you for blaming those pesky immigrants.

That's a useless conspiracy theory. I'm talking about all of Europe. Thing is, with the current situation, all large amounts of immigrants will just be added up to the sum of unemployment. They have no future here. If new immigrants arrive here, they generally aren't economically viable. Basically, current immigration policies are turning Europe into the refugee camp of the world. They can't really do anything because there's no hope for us, let alone new arrivals, and they just sit around being fed, cared for and housed by us. That's reality at the moment.

[Quintium]

Probably the part where people get to live wherever they want, no matter their perspective.

Thereby undermining both our economy and that of their home country. Really, we aren't far away from famine if we carry on like this.
Realistically, allowing them to live wherever they want will mean that they all flock here until we go down like their home countries went down.
You've not solved one situation, you've created two.

http://www.nrc.nl/inbeeld/files/2012/10 ... 80x735.jpg
Here. Today. These people were asked to leave, though our government can't deport them, and now they've set up a tent camp.
This is their freedom? We have to feed them, meaning they're a burden to us, and they live in conditions even worse than those in their countries of origin.

[Quintium]

Oh, how you sound just like a mainstream politician right now from New Democracy. It is a documented fact that Goldman Sachs and the New Democracy government at that time, colloborated this scheme to fix the figures to join the Euro, the Greek government got burnt for it, you deny that! What a surprise.

I'm not denying that their plans were stupid. What I am denying is that they somehow like fascism. Additionally, I'm not a fascist. I'm a social democrat, but a very realistic one. If idealism means accepting our own demise, idealism needs to get out of the way to allow for realism to take over. Realism means immigrants don't have a chance in hell of employment, tend to oppose western values of freedom and democracy and the ones we're allowing in now are almost all counted immediately as unemployed. That means they live off our money, our food supply, our housing and our health care.

Your tolerance is, paradoxically, a causal agent for intolerance. If you flood people in who oppose rights for women and homosexuals, you'll eventually end up with a large part of society that kills homosexuals and rapes women for not dressing conservatively enough. Oh, that's happening in Europe already? Yeah, sorry. I had my mind stuck in the 1990s, when that also happened and everyone knew, but nobody was allowed to talk about it and those who did were sentenced to jail terms.

[Quintium]

Maybe if America and other Western nations spent more on aid and ensured the aid was delivered effectively, as opposed to maintaining large quantities of nuclear weapons and other pointless shite, then there wouldn't be such a huge problem.

Actually, foreign aid - especially medical aid and food aid - are causing a large part of this situation. You see, Africa does not actually have the agricultural output to feed its current population. If we were to withdraw food aid by 2025, it's estimated more than half of Africa would be left without food. But now, due to foreign aid, their numbers are inflating artificially, and their enormous population growth is partially brought here.

Were you aware of that?

[Quintium]

Low and behold you should show empathy toward fellow human beings, that would just be too healthy wouldn't it? Better to be self-absorbed.

Ad hominem does not constitute a factual argument.
You've lost, my brother.

[Quintium]

One could say that they should stop 'screwing' around...

It's exactly that. As long as they have food, and food is guaranteed during famines by western governments, they will have children without limit. Meanwhile, because food is something the bearded, long-haired idealistic white man takes care of, their government feels no need to limit population growth or build actual infrastructure.

And how is a suspect going to prove that discrimination happened?

Before we go there, how are you going to prove that this has anything to do with the fact that sixty-five per cent, or more than two-thirds, of Moroccan men in the Netherlands has been arrested on strong suspicion of a crime? I mean, don't forget - for the police to arrest anyone, they need 'strong evidence that a criminal fact with enough weight has taken place'.

[Quintium]

Source on the estimate please?

http://www.infrastructureafrica.org/key ... west-world
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1214-unu.html

And Africa could have the agricultural output to feed its population. Countries such as Malawi, where a famine was turned into a foord surplus in just 5 years, prove that.

It could, but it doesn't. There is absolutely no incentive for them, because they get food when they need food.
In Europe, methods of innovation were created because there was no aid. In Asia, methods of innovation were created because there was no aid.
In Africa, they get food, so why the hell innovate instead of having more children?

[Quintium]

So you do have empathy then, I've yet to see it.

I have empathy, which is why I oppose the idea that western society should fall in order to perpetuate the misery of those living outside it. Because that's what it is. Immigrants are poor here because they're not needed or wanted. Meanwhile, they drain away from their countries of origin, meaning those are left with the elderly, massive amounts of children, and those unable to produce food for themselves.

The current model is one of guaranteed failure.

[Quintium]

No, because the years of European Tyranny and Discrimination has stripped Africa of it's prosperity.

Which is why South Korea, ravaged in the 1950s due to European and American superpowers fighting each other in a proxy war, has developed from a level of development similar to Uganda's to one eleven times better.

[Quintium]

Yeah, but South Korea was never colonized by Europeans, and it actually maintained a stable democracy.

Actually, it was a dictatorship right up to the 1980s.

[Quintium]

+eurocommunism
+environmentalism
+female & LGTB rights
+further democratisation of the representation system
+socialism with a human face
+activism

Interestingly, I can't see any of these things supported by those left-wing parties bring in here. They're conservative, fiercely against female and homosexual rights, many are against democracy, and activism for them means taking to the streets when their prophet is insulted.

Well, still, it was never colonized by Europeans.

Not literally, but their dictators, before they were overthrown/murdered, were proxies.

[Quintium]

You'd let people starve because they should have better a better economy in their country?

No, but you are currently letting people starve. Because every time you send aid, more people won't die, meaning they're able to have children, meaning the next famine will be exactly the same problem only on a larger scale. Edit: as I said, Africa's population based on current output should be less than 500 million, but it's well over 1 billion now.

[Quintium]

So if we stop sending aid, because it may cause demographic issues, Africa will only be able to support half its populace, meaning a death toll in the hundreds of millions could reasonably be effective.

You're playing poker with those lives here. Their population will keep growing rapidly, and their agricultural output will not increase enough to support even half of that. And there will come a time when, due to environmental or political concerns, the western world and East Asia will need to take care of their own population first. And that's when the bubble will burst. The size of the bubble is the issue here, and it depends completely on how willing the European left is to expand it before it bursts.

Because shutting off food supplies in order to cause mass death isn't indefensible or anything.

You're just postponing it. We'll be known in the future as the generation that did heinous things with good intentions.

[Quintium]

Syriza does support all of the above in written form,there are even caucuses inside the party that advocate them officially ...if you aren't informed don't generalise.

Talking about muslims here, not Syriza.

[Quintium]

If, for example. no aid was given they may well have been in a better position. If the aid giver was actually motivated by concern for the nation then they probably would end up in a better position. If the aid giver had invaded and embarked in colonialism and then left they probably would end up in a better position (in some cases, this was the case).

This is quite true - the aid is actually more of a problem than a solution.
An artificial system will never work. They'll need to make their own reality or their reality will be suffering.

[Quintium]

How about, instead of starving people, we continue experimenting with GM crops, in order to try and create higher-yield ones?

Happening already. Yet Africa's situation is still dire, and getting worse, and apparently 75% of their population now depends on foreign aid for their basic needs.

You're advocating bringing forward mass death to prevent it later.

I'd rather have 500 million starve now than 1500 million in a decade or two, yes.
Thing is, this situation will not be solved within the reality of there being foreign aid.

Last time I checked, deliberately causing mass death by famine could technically be classed as genocide, as well as a more generic crime against humanity.

It's not deliberate. We're not stopping food shipments they can afford. We'd just be stopping food shipments we feel obliged to give them while their population expands in such a way that the next food shipment needs to have three more containers, and the one after that five more, and seven more, until they reach a point at which we cease to be able to afford it and they all die.

[Quintium]

Could you source that?

I already have. Look for it a few pages back.

Depends. I'd support a massive contraception-spreading and education program, personally.

Impossible. You'd have to turn to castration. Reality is, these people do not want contraception. Children are their life insurance and retirement fund all at once. And Africa's infrastructure is barely enough for 250 million people, yet it has to maintain a billion. That's part of the reason why Africa's population is in trouble. The infrastructure, agricultural, academic and much more, is operating at about four times its capacity. Most people born in Africa now are born without a chance of success - because there's too many of them to support.

It doesn't matter whether they can afford it or not. If you deliberately, and the scenario you've just described involves deliberate stoppage, deprive an ethnic group (in this case, Africans, hideously inaccurate and wide-ranging as that term is) of the food that they need to survive, with mass starvation being both the object and the outcome, then you've committed genocide.

Yes. And we will commit genocide unless we commit 'genocide'. Listen very carefully. The system as it is now will collapse within a few decades. And at current and predicted population growth rates, the damage done will be several times worse if the system collapses in three decades, and even worse in four.

[Quintium]

But if we don't send aid, people will die, and dead men build no sustainable nations.

They won't all die. It won't take long for them to catch up. Thing is, the aid we're sending now is the build-up for an inevitable collapse of the system, meaning more than half of Africa's population risks immediate starvation, all African nations except perhaps those in North Africa will collapse and all hell will break loose. You can't avoid that. We need to produce much more food than we need in order to feed Africa, and as environmental and social concerns here grow, their food supply might very well dry up within two decades.

[Quintium]

I'd imagine that that's due largely to child mortality rates, meaning that people need to have more children to have a chance of some reaching adulthood, meaning lots and lots of hungry mouths to feed.

Proper, widespread medical facilities set up by the West, in large numbers, could help with that, could they not?

Unfortunately, that seems rather impossible. Health care costs in the west are quite nearly impossible to afford already, so you'd have to spread it very thinly across Africa. Adding to that issue, it's not just a matter of the ones making it into adulthood. It's also a matter of large families being a symbol of status and necessity in famine-stricken and aid-fed regions like the Horn of Africa.

Again, no reason why aid, in the form of volunteer teachers on a large scale, supported by Western governments, in accordance with large amounts of aid spent on infrastructure, could not fix the problem.

There's not enough people to teach here, let alone a surplus to send over to Africa. Again, you'd have to spread it so thinly you'd end up with almost no practical gain. Paying for making African infrastructure up to date would immediately bankrupt all western countries. We'd all be bust by tomorrow if we even thought of paying for irrigation in all famine-stricken parts of Africa. The underlying problem with these ideas is that you assume there to be a capacity that does not exist at all. There is simply no way to make life good for the Africans, as long as they depend on aid.

Genocide is never an option and never should be considered one. Aid, on a far larger scale than the frankly pathetic 0.7% of GDP that most Western nations "strive" to meet, and properly implemented, is a far better solution long-term.

We're not talking about money. We're talking about food. Our agricultural sector is very well near the end of its capacity, and we're still sending enormous shipments of food to Africa each year. I'll tell you this, living in the country with the most efficient agricultural-output-to-land ratio in the world: there's no way we can keep feeding them for any more than two decades, even if we can spend hundreds of billions on it, if there's no food to buy for that money.

[Quintium]

http://www.strafrechtsite.nl/00000098c70cfbf1f/index.html

Er moet een objectieve aanleiding zijn om u te voorzien van het etiket verdachte. Het zijn van verdachte is vervolgens weer een voorwaarde om U te onderwerpen aan dwangmiddelen zoals U aanhouden en U vast zetten.
...
Het criterium is dat er een objectief gezien op het moment van Uw aanhouding sprake moet zijn van een redelijk vermoeden dat U zich schuldig heeft gemaakt aan een strafbaar feit. Het gaat om een licht criterium maar wel een zeer belangrijk criterium omdat het de deur opent naar tal van bevoegdheden aan de zijde van justitie maar biedt U ook rechten:

Have you any idea what that says at all? What it says, word by word, is that they need an objectively-determined immediate motivation to arrest you. They need a very credible reason to suspect you have committed a crime if they want to be allowed to arrest you. That's all it says. It says absolutely nothing about discrimination, and is not at all relevant to that matter. Or, for that matter, to the fact that more than two-thirds of Moroccan men in this country have been arrested at least once before the age of 22.

And that's not even getting into the other possibilities that artificially pump up the number of immigrant arrests (maybe immigrants just spend more time near poorer areas where crime is more likely to be committed? Maybe their larger family sizes mean they're more likely to be connected to the victim/perpertrator? Maybe crimes done by immigrants are just more obvious than the more white-collar crimes done by non-immigrants? Maybe an immigrant committing a crime is just more likely to be recognised doing it because he/she looks different from the average Dutch person?). These reasons might not all be true or valid, but the point is: it is possible that the number of arrests does not completely represent the amount of crimes that have actually been committed.

Once more, this is just speculation. I've provided you with facts. There is a crucial difference between speculation and facts. And at the moment, facts indicate that, whatever reason there might be for that, there is an immense gap in crime rates between non-western immigrants, especially muslims, and another group that consists of native Dutch people, East Asians and western immigrants. That's why I blame this on culture - even in similar socioeconomic situations, there is a vast gap between those groups.

Looking at the number of arrests for immigrants is stupid, since arrest is something that's done to a suspect and a suspect =/= a criminal. It would be far better (though not perfect) to look at the number of immigrants who were actually convicted.

As I said before, convictions are relatively rare. Many can just strike a settlement with public prosecution, meaning they pay a small sum and charges are dropped. Our incarceration rates are low for a reason, you know. We fine, we hand out community service, but it takes a lot of guts to convict anyone - even if it's for rape or robbery.

As for the matter of reducing food aid to Africa, it's not a matter of morals. I think it's completely immoral as well, but there is no alternative that wouldn't bankrupt and starve off not just them, but also us. We can see ourselves reduced to a minnow in economics, and we can see ourselves brought back to substinence farming. But whatever we do, the problem remains that, as long as we send food, they will have children, and their population will grow, and their agricultural output will not increase accordingly, and they will need more food aid, and there will come a point where it's a choice for the rest of the world between us and them because there's not enough food for both.