France Centre Right adopt primaries in response to le Pen

Infinite Chaos · Nov 21, 2016

Auvergnat said:
But what do you do when there is no democracy, like today?

Do you define democracy only when it gives you the results you want?

Auvergnat said:
The majority of French people have been saying "stop Islam" for decades, and every year we have been served with more Islam. And now a third of the youth in Paris' region is Muslim. You only preach submission because you are content with the current order.

Where have they said this? As for "submission," stop talking bollocks.
As for me I never use violence lightly, I first seek other solutions. But when everything else failed, I have no problem with it.

Auvergnat said:
~ Muslims do not have the majority behind them, I do: 70% of French people think there are too many Muslims in France. Moreover I would be satisfied with a referendum, regardless of the outcome.

No answer to my question.

Auvergnat said:
~ I would want violence only to restore democracy, for example to allow the people to trigger unbounded referendums, not to rule. However I do admit that I would like to see a distinct status for Islam and Mosques. Feel free to point out my discrimination, but keep in mind that letting Islam grows in your country can only lead to harm, oppression and eventually a civil war.

You have any examples where this has happened?

Auvergnat said:
~ It goes further than this: in France I would be jailed for two years because of what I write on those forums. It is not just ostracism in my case, it is a harsh political judiciary repression against those who criticize Islam. It is illegal in my own country to express my desire to protect my country.

Which laws do this?

Auvergnat said:
~ 68% of UK Muslims want to punish the cartoonists
61% of UK Muslims want to punish homosexuality
7% of British Muslims feel British first - you are setting up the stage for severe identity conflicts.

Links to answers to questions I haven't asked but none to answer what I did ask.

Auvergnat said:
Do you still feel like they are a good thing for your country, and that you are obliged to not filter out Muslim immigrants?

I see no need to answer until my questions are answered.

Auvergnat said:
This is revisionism, they were such a tiny minority that they were insignificant. It is only over the past decades that they came in mass, and the problem is not jihadism but their backward ideas, their intolerance, their hatred, their criminality, and their proselytism. And the rise of the Islamic identity that prevents assimilation, through Islamism, not jihadism.

None of which refutes what I said.

Auvergnat said:
No, I would like us to pursue an assimilation path. However I would want all foreigners from Muslim countries to be deported, and a zero Muslim immigration policy. This would already significantly alleviate the problem.

On another thread you stated that the UK should accept it's problem jihadis who seek to return from Syria yet here, you argue for mass enforced deportation of French muslims?

Auvergnat said:
The best way to achieve assimilation is to encourage French citizens to exert a social pressure against Islam and in favor of assimilation. For example through an anti-Islam, pro-French and pro-assimilation propaganda (medias, education, etc). This also means harming the spread of Islam, by shutting down or controlling Mosques, Islamic schools and Islamist movements, and other proselytism sources, ending Arab courses in public schools, etc.

Encourage assimilation through intolerance, yeah great way to convince muslims to assimilate.

Auvergnat · Nov 21, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
You have any examples where this has happened?

It is found all over history books: most of theories of conflicts nowadays put social identity at their core. Our societies may have had a liberal episode, but human nature did not change. Increasing the size of the outgroups against the size of the dominant group will only lead to chaos, hatred and violence. Political repression and propaganda can only bring you so far, it may work to protect a 1% group that poses little friction, but it cannot work when a 8% group causes massive friction and keeps increasing.

Which laws do this?

Laws against hate speech. Anything is considered as hate speech by French courts nowadays. A guy has been sentenced six months for claiming that no Celt was black. And now they are trying to convict an isamophobe writer (Zemmour) to seven years for apology of terrorism after he claimed that, as opposed to us, Muslims had the guts to defend their civilizational model.

Links to answers to questions I haven't asked but none to answer what I did ask.

Why do you think that 68% of UK Muslims want to punish Muhammad cartoonists? It is because of blasphemy of course, which proves my point. Please do not evade this grave issue, even though you dislike seeing it.

None of which refutes what I said.

You brought the 1800 date to claim that Muslims have posed no problem before, as if it could prove that importing zillions of them would be fine now. You know this is a logical fallacy grounded on revisionism.

On another thread you stated that the UK should accept it's problem jihadis who seek to return from Syria yet here, you argue for mass enforced deportation of French muslims?

Our citizens are our citizens and must take them back regardless of what they did. Foreigners are foreigners, and we can expel them as we see fit.

Encourage assimilation through intolerance, yeah great way to convince muslims to assimilate.

This is precisely because of your tolerance and lack of social pressure that they do not assimilate. In a more intolerant society, they would have had to assimilate because no one would have tolerated their bull****s.

Now they further islamize every year and think they will islamize us because they keep being encouraged to maintain their "wonderful" culture, because they are told that we owe them something, because they are told that we are no longer a country of French culture, but instead a multicultural nation where Muhammad's legacy is as legitimate as the Enlightenment's legacy.

Our tolerance is the reason why assimilation failed. That and excessive numbers.

coldjoint · Nov 21, 2016

Our tolerance is the reason why assimilation failed.

Worth repeating.

Auvergnat · Nov 21, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
You have any examples where this has happened?

To add a little more matter to this question: Yugoslavia (Christians versus Muslims), Syria (Sunnis versus others), India+Pakistan (Muslims versus Hindus), Chechnya (Independence of Muslim provinces), Turkey (Kurds versus Turks), Ukraine (Ukranian speakers versus Russian speakers), Israel (Jews versus Arabs), ...

You may think it is because many are poor or failed nations. But many were once great nations. What precisely made our nations succeed and theirs fail? Why do our people pay their taxes, obey our laws and trust each other when in other countries people do not? The answer is our nasty nationalism and similar precursors: it created relatively homogeneous and strong nations, tied or merged different identities under a single identity or banner, which in turn yielded a high trust level, a pillar of all developed nations. We are strong because we are one, rather than a bunch of tribes under the same authority.

But ethnic diversity greatly undermines trust. With great adverse consequences for the economic and democratic health, and happiness. As we let the EU and immigration destroy and shatter our identities, our unity and trust levels will decrease and bring us to the developing world level. The consequences will be tragic for our descendants.

Today, the UK is the European country whose trust levels are decreasing the fastest. I am sure you already feel the early consequences. France is the European country whose trust levels have constantly decreased since the Nazi occupation, and is slowly moving towards the developing country group.

Let's stop the social experiment. Let's stop ignoring human nature.

Infinite Chaos · Nov 23, 2016

Auvergnat said:
It is found all over history books: most of theories of conflicts nowadays put social identity at their core. Our societies may have had a liberal episode, but human nature did not change. Increasing the size of the outgroups against the size of the dominant group will only lead to chaos, hatred and violence. Political repression and propaganda can only bring you so far, it may work to protect a 1% group that poses little friction, but it cannot work when a 8% group causes massive friction and keeps increasing.

For cripes sake, I asked for examples where*"letting Islam grows in your country can only lead to harm, oppression and eventually a civil war."

I don't want pages of unrelated reading, I get that from another poster when she can't answer my questions - it's a way to head off defeat by getting your debate opponent to read pages of nonsense which are pretentiously called research.

Auvergnat said:
Laws against hate speech.

How about links? France 24 links in English please. If I made a claim I would be expected to back it up.

Auvergnat said:
~ Why do you think that

I asked for specific answers and you are still dallying around with further hyperbole. You're not answering my questions - you're talking to people who agree with you.

Auvergnat said:
~ You brought the 1800 date to claim that Muslims have posed no problem before, as if it could prove that importing zillions of them would be fine now. You know this is a logical fallacy grounded on revisionism.

Like I said, nothing to do with what I said. Why do you even bother quoting me when it's clear you are incapable of answering my questions honestly?

I clarified my position when you lied about me but I get no honesty back from you.

I can't be bothered with this anymore. This is a discussion and debate site - the basic premise is that you set out a position and then defend it honestly. I have given you that basic courtesy but you have no interest or ability to answer simple requests.

coldjoint said:
Worth repeating.

It's obvious our mutual "friend" is talking to you and not to me - so how about YOU answer the questions I asked if you can? I won't hold my breath.

Chagos · Nov 23, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
I don't want pages of unrelated reading, I get that from another poster when she can't answer my questions - it's a way to head off defeat by getting your debate opponent to read pages of nonsense which are pretentiously called research.

It's called gish galloping and I'll gladly re-supply the link to the term from another conversation with same poster.

Urban Dictionary: Gish Gallop

excerpt(s): 1) The factual and logical content of the Gish Gallop is pure bull**** and anybody knowledgeable and informed on the subject would recognize it as such almost instantly. That is, the Gish Gallop is designed to appeal to and deceive precisely those sorts of people who are most in need of honest factual education.

2) The points are all ones that the Galloper either knows, or damn well should know, are totally bull****. With the slimier users of the Gish Gallop, like Gish himself, its a near certainty that the points are chosen not just because the Galloper knows that they're bull****, but because the Galloper is deliberately trying to shovel as much bull**** into as small a space as possible in order to overwhelm his opponent with sheer volume and bamboozle any audience members with a facade of scholarly acumen and factual knowledge.

Infinite Chaos · Nov 23, 2016

Chagos said:
It's called gish galloping and I'll gladly re-supply the link to the term from another conversation with same poster.

There should be a smiley / emoticon for gish galloping. I've read the term but had never really thought it could happen to me, I've given him enough chance to discuss and debate but I'm not getting anything back which makes me think he hasn't understood what "discussion" and "debate" really mean.

Chagos · Nov 23, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
There should be a smiley / emoticon for gish galloping. I've read the term but had never really thought it could happen to me, I've given him enough chance to discuss and debate but I'm not getting anything back which makes me think he hasn't understood what "discussion" and "debate" really mean.

You and I should have one of those (bolded) one day. Let me warn you though, it means that I talk and you listen. Should you have the audacity to say something as well, I'll respond with something unrelated, simply because that's what I want to say.

On a more serious note, the only sensible answer to any gish gallop (as a whole or in its individual so-called "points") is "so what"? :2razz:

P.S. depending on mood of the day, followed by an invitation to take a 3 mile walk along Southend Pier :mrgreen:

Infinite Chaos · Nov 23, 2016

Chagos said:
~ On a more serious note, the only sensible answer to any gish gallop (as a whole or in its individual so-called "points") is "so what"? ~

Maybe I'm still hopeful some people are here on this forum to discuss honestly or at the very least debate so I have a tendency to try and formulate responses but I'm afraid my French discussion friend is going in the same "so what" box reserved for a female gish galloper.

I'll read their responses and just won't bother discussing anymore.

Chagos · Nov 23, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
Maybe I'm still hopeful some people are here on this forum to discuss honestly or at the very least debate so I have a tendency to try and formulate responses but I'm afraid my French discussion friend is going in the same "so what" box reserved for a female gish galloper.

I'll read their responses and just won't bother discussing anymore.

Wise!!

With me it's all found reduction to pointing out the bovine manure being spouted. And that gets boring as well, sooner or later.

The showing of totally false presentations is just met with the usual gallop off to something else that's not even remotely related to even the context, and showing up the nonsense is more for the benefit of any drive by reader.

Economics, history, world affairs, politics in general, all governed by cluelessness for debate opponents or even partners doth not make.

Auvergnat · Nov 23, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
For cripes sake, I asked for examples where*"letting Islam grows in your country can only lead to harm, oppression and eventually a civil war."

All countries that have Muslims and non-Muslims cohabiting together have seen conflicts. Yugoslavia, India, Russia, etc. If you were expecting a modern example, mass immigration is too recent for this.

I don't want pages of unrelated reading

They are not unrelated, they are the core of the issue: it is not just Muslims, it happens whenever identities have to cohabit. Some identities are more inclusive and some more exclusive, that's all. The only solution that stood the test of time is assimilation or a common threat.

How about links? France 24 links in English please. If I made a claim I would be expected to back it up.

France 24 is a public propaganda organ! You could search for Boris Le Lay, but only far-right websites reported his case, and many others. Never the NYT and others have said anything against our political repression. Most of medias have said nothing either about the many anti-islamophobe and anti-sexist prosecutions against social medias users initiated by the socialist government after Charlie Hebdo's killing. In France the political repression has been going on without a single word of protest.

I only found those few non-far-right articles which discuss it: The Intercept and Salon and Legal project

I asked for specific answers

You asked for statistics regarding UK Muslims who want to punish blasphemy in general and I gave you one regarding those who want to punish one specific case of blasphemy. I think it honestly answers your question.

Like I said, nothing to do with what I said. Why do you even bother quoting me when it's clear you are incapable of answering my questions honestly?

Then please what was the point for you to claim that there were already Muslims in 1800?

I clarified my position when you lied about me but I get no honesty back from you.

I do not see what you are referring to and the only answer you gave me about the 1800 thing is "None of which refutes what I said.", which is not what I disputed. Once again I am ready to hear what was your point.

I can't be bothered with this anymore. This is a discussion and debate site - the basic premise is that you set out a position and then defend it honestly. I have given you that basic courtesy but you have no interest or ability to answer simple requests.

Apparently we both have the feeling that the one in front of us is an outrageous liar. Except that I sincerely tried to answer you with the best of faith and patiently remained courteous all along despite my great frustration.

So if you are sincere, then please try to read the discussion again and to find where our misunderstanding lies. Because as for me I did so and I am pretty sure I understood you correctly.

Auvergnat · Nov 23, 2016

Chagos said:
It's called gish galloping and I'll gladly re-supply the link to the term from another conversation with same poster.

Urban Dictionary: Gish Gallop

You keep incorrectly using this expression. You obviously do not know what a gish gallop is. Which is not surprising given that you consider urban dictionary as a valuable information source!

Chagos · Nov 23, 2016

Auvergnat said:
You keep incorrectly using this expression. You obviously do not know what a gish gallop is. Which is not surprising given that you consider urban dictionary as a valuable information source!

Oh I know what a gish gallop is, all right. And if I needed any reminder I'd just have to read every second presentation of yours (and that's being kind).

Source doesn't really matter here, a gish gallop is a gish gallop is a gish gallop.

Infinite Chaos · Nov 24, 2016

Auvergnat said:
All countries that have Muslims and non-Muslims cohabiting together have seen conflicts. Yugoslavia, India, Russia, etc. If you were expecting a modern example, mass immigration is too recent for this.

They are not unrelated, they are the core of the issue: it is not just Muslims, it happens whenever identities have to cohabit. Some identities are more inclusive and some more exclusive, that's all. The only solution that stood the test of time is assimilation or a common threat.

France 24 is a public propaganda organ! You could search for Boris Le Lay, but only far-right websites reported his case, and many others. Never the NYT and others have said anything against our political repression. Most of medias have said nothing either about the many anti-islamophobe and anti-sexist prosecutions against social medias users initiated by the socialist government after Charlie Hebdo's killing. In France the political repression has been going on without a single word of protest.

I only found those few non-far-right articles which discuss it: The Intercept and Salon and Legal project

You asked for statistics regarding UK Muslims who want to punish blasphemy in general and I gave you one regarding those who want to punish one specific case of blasphemy. I think it honestly answers your question.

Then please what was the point for you to claim that there were already Muslims in 1800?

I do not see what you are referring to and the only answer you gave me about the 1800 thing is "None of which refutes what I said.", which is not what I disputed. Once again I am ready to hear what was your point.

Apparently we both have the feeling that the one in front of us is an outrageous liar. Except that I sincerely tried to answer you with the best of faith and patiently remained courteous all along despite my great frustration.

So if you are sincere, then please try to read the discussion again and to find where our misunderstanding lies. Because as for me I did so and I am pretty sure I understood you correctly.

Thank you for your post, I've already said I've given up waiting for you to clarify and reinforce your position with factual links relevant to the discussion. (see post above.) My time with you on this thread is done.

Auvergnat · Nov 24, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
Thank you for your post, I've already said I've given up waiting for you to clarify and reinforce your position with factual links relevant to the discussion. (see post above.) My time with you on this thread is done.

And now I know that you were dishonest all along.

Lafayette · Dec 15, 2016

Auvergnat said:
We need anger and violence.

YOU need it! Admit the fact - given your proposals in this forum, you are sick, sick, sick and sickening.

Le Pen, once again, having been fined before, has been fined once again ($30K) by a French court for the remark that "gas chambers are a point of detail in the history of World War 2".

He's a cranky old man* and like many of his age can't seem to contain his vocal feces; except this time, when he craps before reporter, it costs him BigMoney.

Which makes his mouth the most "ExpensiveCrapper" in European history ...

*Pissed-off royally that the reigns of the National Front Party in France have been given to his daughter Marine LePen - who herself is in a public shouting match** with her niece Marion Marechal-LePen (also an elected member to parliament of the National Front Party) for prominence in a political-movement that is and always has been devoid of the most basic common sense. The FarRight in France is so far to the Rabid Right, it's off the cliff in free-fall.
**See here.

Auvergnat · Dec 15, 2016

Lafayette said:
Le Pen, once again, having been fined before, has been fined once again ($30K) by a French court for the remark that "gas chambers are a point of detail in the history of World War 2".

Who cares about what a man retired from politics said forty years ago? At that time politicians were expressing racist stances all day long both in France, Europe and the USA. I have some in memory, from "nice guys" like Chirac.

Of course he is a repulsing character, so what? He is irrelevant.

The FarRight in France is so far to the Rabid Right, it's off the cliff in free-fall.[/COLOR]
**See here.

And Fillon, the newly appointed right-wing leader has also spoken against abortion, so did all American conservative candidates for decades. Meanwhile the socialists have voted to jail for two years those who publish "misleading information" about abortion on the web.

So what should I chose? A socialist party that jails all those who disagree with it, plays for Europe against France, runs for Muslims and will try to build as many Mosques as possible and will seek to make as many as possible come? A right-wing party that plays against France and for Europe, and is against abortion? A right-wing part that plays for France but is against abortion?

I am a leftist and the left has become a disgusting and liberticide cohort that hates France and serves the EU, serves Islam and serves delinquents. They must be eradicated from the political landscape for two decades until they cure themselves. The right meanwhile is desperately returning to social conservatism. I have no party to vote for but the far-right is the lesser evil because Islamization is the top long-term concern.

But let me tell you the truth of this election: whoever is elected, abortion and immigration will remain mostly unchanged. Nothing important will happen in 2017-2022 because democracy no longer exists here. It has been replaced by the EU, by political correctness, and by an impossibly rigid version of human rights (the European one, not the UN one that is fine) constitutionally protected.

Nothing will change, Islam will continue to progress and radicalize despite islamophobic presidents. And the outcome will be violence because our democracy will have failed to halt this rise.

The majority for French people want Islam to stop its rise. As long as politicians will not give it to us, France will continue to go further and further to the extreme.

Chagos · Dec 15, 2016

Auvergnat said:
Who cares about what a man retired from politics said forty years ago?

...........are you actually as uninformed and/or confused as you give the impression of being or simply dishonest to the point of distorting virtually everything?

He wasn't fined for something he said 40 years ago, he was fined for what he said last year.

~....................snipped for being the usual opinionated rant, contents of which being corroborated by absolutely nothing.............................~

I am a leftist

:rofl

With the confusions you constantly display over matters of history, economics, sociology, geography, politics in general and most anything else one can justifiably name, you appear to lack the wherewithal needed to make it even to the fascist corner.

Which is why accusing you of any such leaning would be totally unjustified. :lol:

Lafayette · Dec 16, 2016

Auvergnat said:
So what should I chose? A socialist party that jails all those who disagree with it

Wow, that's a somersault in thinking.

The Socialists (presently governing France) want to forbid misleading medical information regarding abortions, so its a "government ploy" to restrain "freedom of speech"?

Also, I will remind you that it was a Right-wing French government to pass a law allowing abortions in France and not Socialist. Meaning the Socialists, in this above instance, were just protecting women seeking abortions (which are no longer illegal in France).

Auvergnat · Dec 16, 2016

Lafayette said:
The Socialists (presently governing France) want to forbid misleading medical information regarding abortions, so its a "government ploy" to restrain "freedom of speech"?

Your addition of the word "medical" is simply a way to make it seem like legit.

They want to jail all those who claim the embryo is alive and who attempt to drive the women calling them to adoption. I am uneasy with that but this should not be a judiciary matter.

The govt's casus belli is that the official website is no longer the top result while the new one insists on adoption. They should have forced search engines to promote their site, instead they want to jail all those who disagree.

But of course you think it is fine, since you also think it is fine to jail those who correctly present Islam as a threat.

Bodi · Dec 19, 2016

Auvergnat said:
Le Pen would change about nothing, like others.

First of all European governments no longer have enough power, they gave it to the EU. The EU is impotent, our nations are impotent, we destroyed democracy in Europe. And Le Pen does NOT want to leave the EU.

Second of all she would be entirely submitted to the right-wing party, which would comprise the quasi-entirety of her parliamentary majority. Half of them favor immigration and Islam, all of them favor the EU. Add to this a hostile administration, the true leaders of any country.

Basically she would only have two powers: referendums and foreign policy. But referendums can only concern some issues, and this excludes immigration. This could however touch the euro or the EU but I am not sure whether French people are ready to leave them, given their distrust into our own nation, and under the pressure of medias uniformly favorable to the EU and ready to afraid anyone.

Everything has been made to prevent any change in France and the political class is very happy with this. There are only two ways to change France from now on: direct democracy or insurrection/coup. But direct democracy would require a referendum to allow the crowd to trigger referendums that could cause constitutional changes (this is usually not the case). And the Constitutional Court could forbid such a referendum.

We need anger and violence.

Bastille Day...

Chagos · Dec 19, 2016

Bodhisattva said:
Bastille Day...

Off with their heads.

And, while we're at it, everybody else's as well.

France Centre Right adopt primaries in response to le Pen

Just waiting for my set...