The EU and new parties on the rise in Europe[W:67]

You must also become aware of the suffocating social and political repression we presently live under, especially against critics of Islam and of immigration. Some public figures who have publicly spoke up against them have been forced to resign and they lost everything they built over decades in a just a few days! Having those ideas mean that you have to remain silent in many discussions to not lose everything, and to not be prosecuted under the pretense of a fight against hate speech that turned into a straight political repression. I am not talking about people who want to kill Muslims or others, no, I talk about people who simply state publicly what you can hear all day long among the working class. We live under a popular inquisitorial frenzy thanks to people like Marcuse.

Click to expand...

Well I don't know the situation in France, but I often hear the same thing from AFD supporters in Germany. "We are not allowed to speak our mind." At least in Germany, it's utter BS.

These people don't complain because their voice isn't heard (in fact, it's all over the internet and in many "old media" outlets, too) without any restriction by the government. They complain because other voices are allowed to be heard, too.

They have a problem with pluralism. They shout "Lügenpresse" ("lying press"), because they have the totalitarian idea in mind that only their opinion is "the truth", and all other opinions accordingly must be "lies". They want to silence opposition.

There couldn't be a more totalitarian narrative than that.

Auvergnat said:

I know that you are allergic to the word "identity" but it is time we acknowledge what social sciences have tried to teach us during the past decades. Social identities are critical to understand societal dynamics and to understand conflicts. They are essential manifestations of our fundamental gregarian nature. You cannot ignore social identities. This is not a political view, this is a scientific view.

It does not mean you have only one identity ("tribe"), but one usually dominates and there is a clear Muslim identity that the majority of Muslim believers claim for themselves. This identity does not have to be precisely defined: people simply say "I am X" and this engenders a whole lot of societal dynamics. And things have actually worsened throughout the last decades, with a global strengthening of the Islamic identity, including in France despite huge improvements regarding the education and income of French Muslims.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that observation.

I just wonder what you're going to do about it, without violating basic human and civil rights in the process.

Times when the government dictated the identity the subjects have to adopt and respect, are fortunately over. And I seriously hope neither you, nor any on the far-right want to bring these darkest of dark times back.

Or do you?

Therefore you have to understand that when you mix different identities within a same territory in significant proportions, you create conflicts. And you cannot just expect it to go well with a bit of tolerance and propaganda hammering, this is a severe misunderstanding. Maybe eventually those identities will manage to become compatible (hard to achieve with Islam and currently recessing), but if they do not then you are putting yourself in a very dangerous situation.

It is important that we understand that we cannot ignore human nature. A muti-identity or multi-color society will probably never be stable or at peace - aside of small minorities with little to no expectations, and highly compatible identities. Conflicts will increase as diversity will, whether it will be riots, punctual or systematic ethnic cleansings, or secessionism like the one rising in the USA. In this respect it is important to note that self-segregation is on the rise, whether it is about Afro-Americans, American white people or French Muslims or probably French non-Muslims. People prefer to live in neighborhoods like themselves, with as few conflict opportunities as possible, even when they claim they seek a diverse neighborhood. Only economic and security necessities drove the decrease of segregation.

Click to expand...

Is this really a necessity? That seems incredibly cynic to me. Most of the time, different ethnic identities don't seem to create problems. When people aren't assholes, they usually manage pretty well to live together with people of different ethnicity.

Now I agree that Islam poses an especially difficult problem in these regards, but my impression is that even this problem is often totally exaggerated and blown out of proportion -- even Muslims peacefully live and work together with non-Muslims, more often than not, in Western countries.

Shouldn't it be our goal instead to find ways to lessen the tension that arises, and working towards more cohesion and shared identity, rather than giving up the fight and claiming differences can never be bridged anyway?

I see the danger that this devisive narrative rather creates more division and friction, than it merely describes -- and it provides justifications for not even trying to work for cohesion and solidarity.

On the contrary, it's rather a battle cry for unleashing de-solidarization, against understanding and communication.

Moreover you lie to yourself if you pretend that you do not care about identity. Obviously you want to live in a German culture rather than an Arab one or Muslim one. Surely you think this will remain the case in Germany anyway. But it is already not in some places. In places dominated by Muslims, especially poor ones where the AfD voters are many, Islamization is a reality in 2016. The number of such places have been constantly rising over the past decades, along with their religiosity and radicalism. And the national demographic changes will have cultural and political consequences, and may continue far higher than you expect. Demographers stress out the high uncertainties.

Click to expand...

I never said I do not care about identity.

But my identity is primarily that of a universalist Westener, and I find more common ground with an ethnically brown immigrant from Tumbuktistane who shares these Western, liberal values, than with a fellow German white totalitarian nationalist (who believes a media that allows any opinions that disagree with him is "lying" and wants to restrict it).

In France most of pro-Muslims are actually not multicultural: they acknowledge they want a French France, but they think this is bound to magically happen, that immigration always result in assimilation. No it does not. No we cannot just close our eyes and there is narcissim in this choice to not question political correctness.

Click to expand...

Okay, so which measures do you propose to turn the Muslim immigrants into well assimilated Frenchmen who share French identity?

Finally the fight against extreme ideas may precisely trigger their come back. If immigration had been taken care of in time, before we had 30% of Muslim high-schoolers in Paris' region (7% national, but a lot higher among youth and urban areas), there would have probably never been an escalation. Now we will probably experience endless conflicts as two identities will clash. We may now be on the path to an inevitable war with Islam in France as the two groups will continue to polarize and radicalize. Whether you side at the left or right, halting immigration should really be seen as the lesser of all evils.

Click to expand...

Is "halting immigration" really all the Front National has in mind?

Do you think if elected, FN voters will be satisfied with just that? My guess is no. And my guess is, FN politicians will then feel inclined to further engage in certain actions they feel will please their voting base. And my next guess is that FN politicians would not really care if these actions then are constitutional or not, legal or not, or in violation of human rights or not -- as long as they satisfy their supporters and thus strengthen their grip on power.

Because once a political movement is based on rejection of an ethnic minority, it's a given they don't give a damn about human beings and their rights in general. Historical examples are endless.

Or is this too pessimistic? Do I not need to fear a FN government?

German guy said:

...

Click to expand...

* 1789's declaration was the "declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen". It granted all humans a right to a fair trial, but only citizens had their word in the public affairs. This declaration also insisted that freedom can only emanate from sovereignty.

* No, I can't guarantee the FN would not turn into a dictatorship. Can you guarantee that Podemos will not turn into one like the USSR? And again I think we do live under a political repression anyway (and that democracy has been voided of its substance through the EU, various treaties and political correctness).

In a real "democracy", which more precizely should be called "representative constitutional republic", the sentiments of the people in a given moment of time never trump civil and human rights of minorities or individuals.

Click to expand...

Then why do you jail criminals? This infringes on their human rights. Because they did violate the laws decided by the majority? Why do you prohibit children to vote? Because adults decided they cannot decide? But who decided that adults can decide?

Maybe you want to answer that those decisions emanate from core liberal principles. But all law requires interpretation, so who will interpret this framework? Judges? Look at the history of the US Supreme Court to see how bad of an idea it is. Only the people can decide.

Whatever you do, only the people can decide what is a legitimate exception or not. It is however wise to make sure that significant changes take more time and more efforts.


And again, foreigners do not have the same rights as citizens anyway. They enjoy some rights, but no innate right to stay unless the citizens decide it is in their best interests.

Democracy is built upon popular sovereignty. Trying to undermine this sovereignty is a mere attempt to impose your personal interpretations.

Moreover you lie to yourself if you pretend that you do not care about identity. Obviously you want to live in a German culture rather than an Arab one or Muslim one. Surely you think this will remain the case in Germany anyway. But it is already not in some places. In places dominated by Muslims, especially poor ones where the AfD voters are many, Islamization is a reality in 2016.

Click to expand...

I don't know what it's like in France, but I have to correct you about Germany:

In regions with a high share of Muslim immigrants, the share of votes for the AFD is actually very low. The AFD so far scored their by far highest numbers in regions with no or next to no Muslim immigrants.

In Germany at least, rejection of Islam is by far the highest in regions where there are virtually no Muslims at all.

Auvergnat said:

* 1789's declaration was the "declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen". It granted all humans a right to a fair trial, but only citizens had their word in the public affairs. This declaration also insisted that freedom can only emanate from sovereignty.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there are certain rights only citizens enjoy. Like the right to elect the government.

But the most basic rights are human rights. Regardless if these humans are citizens or not.


I wonder, why do you take so much effort emphasizing what kind of humans do not enjoy certain rights? Do you generally feel uncomfortable with all humans enjoying certain rights?

* No, I can't guarantee the FN would not turn into a dictatorship. Can you guarantee that Podemos will not turn into one like the USSR? And again I think we do live under a political repression anyway (and that democracy has been voided of its substance through the EU, various treaties and political correctness).

Click to expand...

Uhm... nope? We are not living under oppression.

Your claim is a spit right in the face of all people who really had to endure real oppression. Why do you hate freedom so much, that you have to smear it with ugly lies? Can you make this claim and look in the face of someone who was in jail under communist oppression in the GDR, for example? Can you repeat this claim and look in the eyes of an Auschwitz survivor?

But we're getting to the core of the problem: You simply hate liberal democracy. You hate the freedom we're enjoying.

Then why do you jail criminals? This infringes on their human rights. Because they did violate the laws decided by the majority?

Click to expand...

Uhm... because they violate the rights of all others, and because these rights have to be protected?

Do I really have to explain this to you?

Why do you prohibit children to vote? Because adults decided they cannot decide? But who decided that adults can decide?

Click to expand...

Now this is getting ridiculous. You really believe little children are capable of making responsible decisions about their representation?

Maybe you want to answer that those decisions emanate from core liberal principles. But all law requires interpretation, so who will interpret this framework? Judges? Look at the history of the US Supreme Court to see how bad of an idea it is. Only the people can decide.

Click to expand...

Uhm, no ...? Only independent courts can decide that. The highest courts in most Western countries work just fine.

The people certainly cannot, because the people is certainly not competent enough to decide about legal questions.

Many far right parties in Europe represent neo liberalism 2.0, that you can describe as nationalistic neoliberalism. That they are for example against free trade and free trade agreements but they want to continue neo liberal policies like for example tax cuts and deregulation.

Another example is that the neo liberal message of the last couple of decades have been that solidarity is bad and that you only should think about yourself. That far right parties want to both build on and transform that message into “group egoism” that you for example only should care about Swedes or “ethnic Swedes” if you are a Swedish person.

One of the big weakness is that for example all of Swedes and “ethnic Swedes" don’t have the same interests and needs and also for many Swedes the solution is not more neoliberalism. For example, it’s bad for many ordinary Swedes, that the far right party Sverigedemokraterna voted down a law that would had made working condition and salary equal or better than the collective agreements obligatory for government procurements.

German guy said:

Only independent courts can decide that. The highest courts in most Western countries work just fine.

Click to expand...

There is no neutral interpretation of the law. This is a well-known legal adage that I tried to convey to you with my examples.

All interpretations are political decisions. The US Supreme Court once decided that the US constitution prohibited unions. Later they decided this same text authorized them. They also decided that segregation was constituional. Until they decided it was no longer. Recently the EUCJ decided that prohibiting Islamic clothes in the enterprise is ok according to the freedom of religion, which made the US medias jump out of their seat.

This is why people are the only one legitimate to hold the supreme power. Justice courts must only be able to decide whether it requires a constitutional revision. We are not a theocracy submitted to centuries-old texts that priests would use to impose their own interpretations. We have no holy text, our only absolute reference is the people's will. This is what a democracy means.

But you are no democrat, you are an oligarch: you want the political leaders and judges to hold the supreme power because you know they are politically closer from you than you are from the rest of your people. You simply want people like you to hold the power.

I wonder, why do you take so much effort emphasizing what kind of humans do not enjoy certain rights? Do you generally feel uncomfortable with all humans enjoying certain rights?

Click to expand...

Not at all, but you attempt to deny that I am sovereign in my country. You attempt to deny our sovereignty and claim that our leaders are right to pursue immigration and islamization of vast parts of our countries.

We *DO* have the right to stop immigration, mind you and your pseudo-libertarian fundamentalism and historical revisionism.

We are not living under oppression.

Click to expand...

In France I can be sentenced for two years for what I write on those forums, so tell me again that I do not live under a political repression. Already troublesome before, our government extended the fight against hate speech to sexism, and mounted a vast hunt against bloggers and social media users.

* Boris Le Lay, blogger, six months for writing that no celt was black, then two years after pointing out that the judge was black and that eventually all white people would be oppressed in a similar fashion.

* Eric Zemmour, sentenced for saying that most of drug dealers are black or Arab. Then sentenced for saying that Muslims have their own civil code, the Koran. Then sentenced for saying that in french neighborhoods occupied by Muslims, non-Muslims have had to go. Now he is prosecuted for terrorism apology for saying that at least those terrorist are brave enough to stand for their values, which we do not.

* Hoellebecq, prosecuted but not sentenced (nevertheless threatened and harassed by the justice) for saying that Islam is the dumbest religion.

Etc. Every year we see about a hundred of such prosecutions in the name of the fight against hate speech. Most of those people say nothing very wrong, and often enough stick to facts. This is an attempt to pressure citizens to shut up and not criticize Islam in public, to not post anything on social medias. Just because no one is killed and we are only jailed or fired, it does not mean this is not a genuine political repression.

German guy said:

Is this really a necessity? That seems incredibly cynic to me. Most of the time, different ethnic identities don't seem to create problems. When people aren't assholes, they usually manage pretty well to live together with people of different ethnicity.

Click to expand...

Find me examples of long-time peaceful cohabitation, you will find few ones, and only closely compatible identities.

Now let's look at the Muslims cohabitation with others :
* Yugoslavia exploded after attempts from Muslims to secede and reciprocal attempts at ethnic cleansings.

* Muslims seceded from India to create the Pakistan, which did brought us a few minutes short of a nuclear war in the 90's. Every week a Hindu or Muslim is killed for identitary reasons in India.

* Southern Russian states, dominantly Muslims, want to secede, which led to an independence war in Chechenya.

* In China the govt is now renouncing its conciliating approach to desislamize Muslims to avoid a secession. They, too, like the rest of the world, enjoy an islamic radicalization.

* In Syria the Sunnis are fighting religious minorities led by Assad. In the country next door, Iraq, Shia militias are slowly seizing the power from Sunni militias. Meanwhile in another neighbor, Turkey, Turks are fighting Kurd armed groups who want to secede.


Or maybe you want me to look at the USA, where a third of Afro-Americans will be jailed at some point of their lives, where minorities explain all alone the exceptional criminality rate of this country (even after correcting the income difference - poor white people kill far less than comparably poor Afro-Americans), where BLM asks for secession, so do many latinos who now represent 40% of California? Or maybe you look up to Canada, where secessionism has been on the rise for decades and is now a strong current in many states? Or Belgium, who didn't have a government for ten years because those two European ethnic groups with 150 years of cohabitation behind them still fail to work together.

Why do you think most of proper nations were still ethnically homogeneous a few decades ago, while others were non-nations dominated by tribes, each with their own rules and territories, and many conflicts? Diversity does not work. We are playing the sorcerer's apprentices and the most probable outcome is a blood bath, as it always has been. You can integrate 1% or 2% of Jews, but 30% of Muslims among your capital's youth is a recipe for a disaster.

Shouldn't it be our goal instead to find ways to lessen the tension that arises, and working towards more cohesion and shared identity, rather than giving up the fight and claiming differences can never be bridged anyway?

Click to expand...

You seem to assume that every dispute arise from a misunderstanding. No, it arises from conflicting desires. Do you support a French France? Then you harm Muslims. Do you support a Muslim France? Then you harm French people. Do you support a Franco-Muslim France? Then you harm both. You assume that you can go against human nature, this is a foolish project.

Even if you thought there may be a way for it to work, why take the risk? Why do you insist on encouraging the rise of Islam in our countries? Do you think it is a desirable influence?

German guy said:

Do you think if elected, FN voters will be satisfied with just that? My guess is no. And my guess is, FN politicians will then feel inclined to further engage in certain actions they feel will please their voting base. And my next guess is that FN politicians would not really care if these actions then are constitutional or not, legal or not, or in violation of human rights or not -- as long as they satisfy their supporters and thus strengthen their grip on power.

Click to expand...

You are mounting scarecrows but most of far-right politicians nowadays are actually moderate. Moreover our countries have checks and balances for that, and they will hold. Unless the country's situation is desperate, as it was in 1933, because people do support radicalism in radical situations. One more reason to treat problems early and stop aggravating them.

As for me the left is real threat. Not only the socialist part has been very liberticide (mass surveillance, emergency state that also harmed anti-capitalist protesters, increased political repression against hate speech in social medias, citizenship stripping for terrorists, ...). But they also introduced optional Arab teachigns in primary schools, helped build Mosques, increased the immigration rate, etc. And they support the EU that weakens our nations, weakens our democracies, weakens our economies (most of us: a few countries like Germany benefited from our losses) and mounts us against each other.

So it is hard for me to still see the far-right as the true threat on freedom. Continuing the current policies is the real threat. Europe was a peaceful and prosperous continent a few decades ago, but our foolish policies are laying the ground for decades to centuries of severe conflicts. And economic problems seem intractable within the European framework, austerity is a dead end.

In regions with a high share of Muslim immigrants, the share of votes for the AFD is actually very low. The AFD so far scored their by far highest numbers in regions with no or next to no Muslim immigrants.

In Germany at least, rejection of Islam is by far the highest in regions where there are virtually no Muslims at all.

Click to expand...

Länders are too vast and diverse to make significant correlations and conclusions, you have to look at the city or sub-city level.

Look at London for example: it has a high diversity and low UKIP socres. So people erroneously conclude that a higher diversity yields a higher tolerance. This is a myth: the Londonian score actually stems from the fact that there are less white people in London and less blue collars. All things being equal, white people in London vote more against immigration.

Auvergnat said:

Find me examples of long-time peaceful cohabitation, you will find few ones, and only closely compatible identities.

Now let's look at the Muslims cohabitation with others :
* Yugoslavia exploded after attempts from Muslims to secede and reciprocal attempts at ethnic cleansings.

* Muslims seceded from India to create the Pakistan, which did brought us a few minutes short of a nuclear war in the 90's. Every week a Hindu or Muslim is killed for identitary reasons in India.

* Southern Russian states, dominantly Muslims, want to secede, which led to an independence war in Chechenya.

* In China the govt is now renouncing its conciliating approach to desislamize Muslims to avoid a secession. They, too, like the rest of the world, enjoy an islamic radicalization.

* In Syria the Sunnis are fighting religious minorities led by Assad. In the country next door, Iraq, Shia militias are slowly seizing the power from Sunni militias. Meanwhile in another neighbor, Turkey, Turks are fighting Kurd armed groups who want to secede.

Click to expand...

Great post that will necessarily (or at least substantially) go Unanswered.
I've commented on this Many times in 7+ years here.
So might add other conflicts: Armenia-Azerbijan; Ethiopea-Eritrea; the (abu-sayyef/Moro) secessionists in the Philippines; a similar Muslim separatist movement in Thailand that has killed more than in the Israel-Palestine conflict in the last decade.
In Indonesia we've had Jemaah Islamiyah and Lasker Jihad, (the Bali Bombers) and a virtual separate state/province in Aceh; the Lebanese Civil War/1970 and ongoing.

They've finally separated Sudan into North and South after decades of GENOCIDE by the more Arabo-Muslim North against the Christian/Animist South.
And we see see other problems in North Africa have lingered for more than a Thousand years since the the Muslim Conquest there. Groups like the Copts/original Christian inhabitants persecuted both officially and unofficially.

Lee Kuan Yew, former leader and Shaper of the Singapore Miracle, had mentioned the 'Muslim Problem' in his book before having to apologize for it subsequently.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/91870-uk-pm-multiculturalism-has-failed-11.html#post1059272967

mbig - Feb 8 said:

It's becoming Chorus.
First Merkel, then Cameron...
Now Singapore's Lee.
American Thinker Blog: Singapore's Lee: 'we can Integrate all religions and races Except Islam'
Blog: Singapore's Lee: 'we can integrate all religions and races except Islam'

Lee Kuan Yew ranks as one of the most successful statesmen of the 20th century, having led Singapore to independence, and built a thriving prosperous mini-state with a world class economy, out of an Ethnically Diverse population. He retired as the world's longest serving prime minister, and at 87 years of age, has little to lose in speaking his mind.

Thus, his candor in discussing the assimilation of Muslims is perhaps understandable, but still startling in a world of political correctness and compulsory sensitivity to Muslims, who are never expected to reciprocate."...."
"I think we were progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came, and if you asked me for my observations, the other communities have easier integration - friends, intermarriages and so on, Indians with Chinese, Chinese with Indians - than Muslims. That's the result of the surge from the Arab states.

He added: "I would say today, we can integrate all religions and races except Islam.".."​

EDIT/Correction: Actually Lee's statements predate Cameron's.

Click to expand...

There is invariably violence stretching across the Long 'Islamic Front Line' from from Mauritania to Mindinao.

"Two Religions may not dwell on the Arabian Peninsula."
- Mohammed

Cont'd

Auvergnat said:

....Or maybe you want me to look at the USA, where a third of Afro-Americans will be jailed at some point of their lives, where minorities explain all alone the exceptional criminality rate of this country (even after correcting the income difference - poor white people kill far less than comparably poor Afro-Americans), where BLM asks for secession, so do many latinos who now represent 40% of California? ....

Click to expand...

I view Horror of Slavery as 'Original Sin' for which we are/will be paying for generations/centuries.

You can find all of the stats in my recent string:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/269244-gun-problem.html
Just the OP

mbig said:

....
1. 89% of all Crime in NYC Nonwhite
March 4, 2016 - by A.N. Wyatte
89% of all Crime in NYC Nonwhite - The New Observer

Nonwhites commit 89% of all crime in New York City, including 97.7% of all shootings, 96% of all robberies, 94.2% of all Murders, 94.9% of all Juvenile Felony and Misdemeanor crimes, and 90.6% of all rapes.

These figures are contained in the New York City Police Department’s latest “Crime and Enforcement Activity in New York City” report, which covers the dates January 1 to December 31, 2015. It can be found on the New York Government website here (PDF). NYPD Report - Crime and Enforcement Activity in New York City

The report is almost Unique in present-day America because it Openly presents statistics on race and crime compiled from the New York City Police Department’s records management system—statistics that are most often Suppressed by other police departments.

In addition, the NYPD breaks down the racial categories correctly, listing “Hispanic” separately instead of grouping it together with “white,” which is what most of the US government does (thereby artificially inflating the “White” crime levels).​

2. 'Color of Crime' update/summary excerpts
The Color of Crime | American Renaissance

Crime rates

There are dramatic race differences in crime rates. Asians have the Lowest rates, followed by whites, and then Hispanics. Blacks have notably high crime rates. This pattern holds true for virtually all crime categories and for virtually all age groups. In 2013, a black was Six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.
......
Urban centers
In 2014 in New York City, a black was 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for Murder, and a Hispanic was 12.4 times more likely. For the crime of “shooting”—defined as firing a Bullet that hits someone—a black was 98.4 times more likely than a white to be arrested, and a Hispanic was 23.6 times more likely.

If New York City were all white, the Murder rate would drop by 91%, the robbery rate by 81%, and the Shootings rate by 97%.

In an all-white Chicago, Murder would decline 90%, rape by 81%, and robbery by 90%.
.....​

....

Click to expand...

Auvergnat said:

Why do you think most of proper nations were still ethnically homogeneous a few decades ago, while others were non-nations dominated by tribes, each with their own rules and territories, and many conflicts? Diversity does not work. We are playing the sorcerer's apprentices and the most probable outcome is a blood bath, as it always has been. You can integrate 1% or 2% of Jews, but 30% of Muslims among your capital's youth is a recipe for a disaster.

Click to expand...

'Diversity' only works if it's not so Diverse.
Americas Immigrant success is mainly "integrating" Euros: Irish, Italian, German, Ashkenazi Jew, etc.
The happy exception being with NE Asians, because of their [innately/Genetically] higher IQs and more civilized/less aggressive cultural behavior. (another, but related topic)

Auvergnat said:

~.................................Länders are too vast and diverse to make significant correlations and conclusions, you have to look at the city or sub-city level.................~

Click to expand...

.......which is precisely what German guy's example refers to.

For your somewhat silly conclusion to work (that of a greater Muslim percentage within a non-Muslim constituency as dwarfing the voting impact of those non-Muslims therein), that (Muslim) percentage voting in its own favor would have to be considerably higher per ratio (in cities).

In Germany (which German guy cites) that is not the case.

One need only see how a federal state like Mecklenburg-Vorpommern holds less than half the population of Berlin and yet has the AfD winning over 20 pct. Where in Berlin they came in with 6 pct below that count.

Now you may hold that to be supportive of your favourite argument that "ethnically uncleaner" areas will show less support for the AfD (on account of the "furriner's" votes upsetting the applecart), but then you'd have to explain how an even comparatively small number of Muslim foreigners in Berlin (about 100,000 of a total population of over 3.5 million and thus around 2.9 pct) accounts for AfD getting so much less votes than in a virtually foreigner free desert like M-V.

For the interested reader (interested, that is, beyond partaking of opinionated rants supported by nothing else):

the number of those eligible to cast their ballot in M-V was 1.3 million of which 821,000 actually went to vote. In Berlin the "eligibles" amounted to 2.48 million of which 1.66 million went to vote.

Workout the maths yourself how a city with actually double the amount of voters of that of the state of M-V gets the right wing AfD 232,000 votes, where the state of M-V gets it around 175,000 votes.

On account of the voter base of M-V being less contaminated by "furriners" than the city of Berlin is?

Leaving aside the fact that the above-mentioned 100,000 Muslims DON'T EVEN GET TO VOTE on account of not holding a German passport, even if we take the 8pct of Berlin's inhabitants that claim adherence to Islam and if we then assume that they're all eligible to vote (for the sake of argument, statistics on actual voting behavior by religious adherence not being available), the whole lot of them would amount to around 280,000 of the overall population of Berlin, meaning, with the 100,000 non-eligibles subtracted, 180,000 eligibles if we assume they ARE all eligible, which of course they're not.

That (bear with me :mrgreen would mean that of the 232,400 votes that AfD got in Berlin, ONLY 52,000 would come from the "less whites" that constitute (bear with me again :lol around 3 pct of those that actually went to the ballot box?

All of which supposedly serving in support of the argument that areas (here cities) with a higher percentage of non-Germans (non-white, of course:roll are not at all more tolerant of those very same but actually have a voting pattern contaminated by those very same.

What blatantly bovine manure!!!!!


P.S. The exercise can be repeated at one's leisure with other areas of Germany (since that was the country cited here). The figures may (and will) differ but the argument stands that at least in Germany those regions with the least amount of immigrants show the highest intolerance for immigrants.

Auvergnat said:

Find me examples of long-time peaceful cohabitation, you will find few ones, and only closely compatible identities.

Now let's look at the Muslims cohabitation with others :
* Yugoslavia exploded after attempts from Muslims to secede and reciprocal attempts at ethnic cleansings.

Click to expand...

historically ignorant.

Yugoslavia ended with Croatia and Serbia having at each other, neither all that Muslim.

* Muslims seceded from India to create the Pakistan, which did brought us a few minutes short of a nuclear war in the 90's. Every week a Hindu or Muslim is killed for identitary reasons in India.

Click to expand...

agreed in part. But your formulation is sloppy to say the least. What happened was a partition of formerly British India into two states, all of it under the reluctant auspices of the former colonial power. Pakistan did NOT secede from India since neither state (as we know them today) existed at that point in time.

* Southern Russian states, dominantly Muslims, want to secede, which led to an independence war in Chechenya.

Click to expand...

Calling the Caucasus nations Russian is about as silly as calling Ukraine Russian.

* In China the govt is now renouncing its conciliating approach to desislamize Muslims to avoid a secession. They, too, like the rest of the world, enjoy an islamic radicalization.

Click to expand...

You obviously know little of the Uyghur-China history.

* In Syria the Sunnis are fighting religious minorities led by Assad.

Click to expand...

Well, it all found its roots in the majority of the population rising against an oppressive tyrant. The predominant religious minority you refer to is incidentally Muslim as well.

In the country next door, Iraq, Shia militias are slowly seizing the power from Sunni militias.

Click to expand...

No! They have it already on account of myopic US policy not having prevented that. Simply a reversal of the previous condition where the issue was primarily political (Ba'athist against the non-Ba'athist)

Meanwhile in another neighbor, Turkey, Turks are fighting Kurd armed groups who want to secede.

Click to expand...

both of them Muslims.

So what the heck, where Muslims living with others is concerned, is your point in these last three cases?

I'll leave the rest of your post for reasons already stated before.

Chagos said:

~..................That (bear with me :mrgreen would mean that of the 232,400 votes that AfD got in Berlin, ONLY 52,000 would come from the "less whites" that constitute (bear with me again :lol around 3 pct of those that actually went to the ballot box?.....................~

Click to expand...

sorry guys, there's a logical boo-boo in this equation, arising from my having compared the wrong set of numbers (figures).

The number of votes of the AfD of course has no place being put in relation to (assumed) foreigner votes.

Still leaves the AfD with 232,000 votes though of a total of over 1,662,000 total votes given. And even if one subtracts the AfD's share and the (very much assumed) 180,000 coming from those of Muslim faith (the difficulty of gaining actual figures by religious adherence having been mentioned), that still leaves over 1,247,000 NOT having voted AfD.

And none of them Muslim and thus in no way skewing the base.

@Chagos
Yugoslavia was split into Slovenia (Slovene, half-Catholic, secular), Croatia (Croat, Catholic), Montenegro (Montenegran & others, Orthodox), Serbia (Serb, Orthodox), Kosovo (Serb speakers, Muslim), and Bosnia (Bosnian, Serb & others, half-Christians, half-Muslims, no clear border between them). Say a lot about the benefits of diversity.

But the ethnic cleansings occurred between Christians and Muslims, mostly by Christians against Muslims, precisely because they were intertwined in Bosnia and Serbs wanted to claim territories on ethnic grounds, especially Sarajevo. And one of the reasons is that Serbs had long feared an ethnic cleansing by Kosovar Muslims against Serbs, and the Kosovo's autonomy has been the ignition point of many events.

The rest of your comment is either wrong or irrelevant, and purposely focuses on details to ignore the core of the issue: multiethnicity is a powder barrel.


As for the AfD voters, as said in my previous messages and the provided link, you must also factor in social class. Rural voters vote more for the AfD because there are more blue collars among them. But I insist: all other things being equal, the more immigrants there are around you, the more you vote against immigration, as opposed to what the doxa claims.

Auvergnat said:

Let's look at the Muslims cohabitation with others :
* Yugoslavia exploded after attempts from Muslims to secede and reciprocal attempts at ethnic cleansings.

Click to expand...

No. Wrong. It exploded along with much blood-letting between Catholics and Orthodox (Slovenia/Croatia vs Serbia/Montenegro).
Bosnia came after the explostion was complete.
Get a clue, Auvergnat.

* Southern Russian states, dominantly Muslims, want to secede, which led to an independence war in Chechenya.

Click to expand...

Secede from what? An expansionist Russia. The Muslims were there first.

* In China the govt is now renouncing its conciliating approach to desislamize Muslims to avoid a secession. They, too, like the rest of the world, enjoy an islamic radicalization.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, Peking has been very "conciliatory" because, well, because Peking is well-known for its reasonableness.
If they have problems Way Out West, it's because they have been moving in Han Chinese settlers a mile a minute, just like in Tibet.

* In Syria the Sunnis are fighting religious minorities led by Assad. In the country next door, Iraq, Shia militias are slowly seizing the power from Sunni militias.

Click to expand...

None of which was happening before the Americans had the excellent idea of invading Iraq and disrupting the entire region.

Meanwhile in another neighbor, Turkey, Turks are fighting Kurd armed groups who want to secede.

Click to expand...

Whoa! Muslims fighting Muslims. Sounds like Northern Ireland.

Find me examples of long-time peaceful cohabitation, you will find few ones, and only closely compatible identities.

Click to expand...

Christians and Jews lived happily and peacefully for many centuries indeed in many Muslim parts of the world. This started to end with European colonialism and came to a grinding halt, for the Jews, with the establishment of Israel.
Still, until a couple of years ago, Christians lived very well in Syria. The Iraq war changed all that.

Look up to Canada, where secessionism has been on the rise for decades.

Click to expand...

Oh? As a Canadian I'm uhh.. surprised to hear about this. Thanks for the unexpected information.
Would you be so kind as to elaborate???

You're prolific when it comes to rolling out Factoids. Or (as in another thread) wilfully misinterpreting facts to fit your ideology.

Auvergnat said:

@Chagos
Yugoslavia was split into Slovenia (Slovene, half-Catholic, secular), Croatia (Croat, Catholic), Montenegro (Montenegran & others, Orthodox), Serbia (Serb, Orthodox), Kosovo (Serb speakers, Muslim), and Bosnia (Bosnian, Serb & others, half-Christians, half-Muslims, no clear border between them). Say a lot about the benefits of diversity.

But the ethnic cleansings occurred between Christians and Muslims, mostly by Christians against Muslims, precisely because they were intertwined in Bosnia and Serbs wanted to claim territories on ethnic grounds, especially Sarajevo. And one of the reasons is that Serbs had long feared an ethnic cleansing by Kosovar Muslims against Serbs, and the Kosovo's autonomy has been the ignition point of many events.

Click to expand...

To which I whole-heartedly echo the following

Nono said:

Get a clue, Auvergnat.

Click to expand...

...........primarily because you show your utter ignorance on what started the disintegration of Yugoslavia and when it started (Nono also points that out once again, yet I in tour case to no avail

The rest of your comment is either wrong or irrelevant, and purposely focuses on details to ignore the core of the issue: multiethnicity is a powder barrel.

Click to expand...

The rest of my comments focus on factuality rather than the distortion of facts or the misrepresentation, perhaps born from ignorance, that you appear so prone to.

Your knowledge of the Yugoslav conflict, the Caucasus history, Syria, Iraq and Turkey is so wanting as to make the conclusions you draw truly laughable.

Your feeble attempt to back up your claim of the powder barrel of multi-ethnicity by constant repetition rather than by addressing the rebuttal of "the facts" you delude yourself into having represented, is most telling in the assessment of your debating skills.

~...........................the more immigrants there are around you, the more you vote against immigration, as opposed to what the doxa claims...........~

Click to expand...

In view of what I have factually demonstrated wrt comparing the voting results of a rural area like M-V and a city area like Berlin, that statement is simply idiotic.

Maybe you can't understand what is posted, maybe you refuse to. In either case the problem rests with you.

Nono said:

...

Click to expand...

My post did not blame Muslims or claim they are at fault. I simply demonstrated through many cases that different identities cannot live together. Especially when some of those are Muslims.

As for your comment that it used to work in ancient times, it is because in ancient times most of people rarely saw anyone outside of their village. Yesterday's village was today's nation. Especially under the tribal, unstable and poor Muslim empires.

Just to elaborate on this part

Nono said:

Oh yeah, Peking has been very "conciliatory" because, well, because Peking is well-known for its reasonableness.
If they have problems Way Out West, it's because they have been moving in Han Chinese settlers a mile a minute, just like in Tibet.

Click to expand...

......and that being precisely the reason for unrest in Western China, all the way to the supposedly autonomous (and absolutely non-Muslim) lands of Tibet that China annexed. The Uyghurs share a similar fate and subsequent gripe and ambitions do not focus on secession but on getting their independence back from a country that has usurped it via occupation.

You're prolific when it comes to rolling out Factoids. Or (as in another thread) wilfully misinterpreting facts to fit your ideology.

Click to expand...

Amen.

Auvergnat said:

My post did not blame Muslims or claim they are at fault. I simply demonstrated through many cases that different identities cannot live together. Especially when some of those are Muslims.

Click to expand...

Your "demonstration" has been successfully crashed, whether Muslims are involved in your "examples":roll: or not.

As for your comment that it used to work in ancient times, it is because in ancient times most of people rarely saw anyone outside of their village. Yesterday's village was today's nation.

Click to expand...

:lamo

Yesterday's Cordoba was a centre of civilization that the Cordoba of today cannot hope to match.

Chagos said:

...

Click to expand...

Congratulations you just wrote seven more paragraphs consisting entirely of ad hominem attacks to teach others how ignorant and stupid you think they are.

Maybe one day I will see you contribute a discussion.

Chagos said:

Yesterday's Cordoba was a centre of civilization that the Cordoba of today cannot hope to match.

Click to expand...

A diversity imposed through Muslim conquests, where Christians were legally considered as inferior beings and enslaved, that lasted until Muslims decided to perform ethnic cleansings. To what Christians replied with ethnic cleansings.

A great counter-example.

Auvergnat said:

Congratulations you just wrote seven more paragraphs consisting entirely of ad hominem attacks to teach others how ignorant and stupid you think they are.

Maybe one day I will see you contribute a discussion.

Click to expand...

Congratulations, you show yet another example of your projection.

For somebody as prone to dishing it out to those that disagree with your "conclusions" and thus showing the errors, you sure get sensitive when you need to take as good as you get.

Should I quote some examples of your insults to others.

Maybe some day we'll all see YOU contribute a discussion, eh?

So far all one sees is you attempting to give your claims more credibility thru mindless repetition, in the process addressing none of the factual rebuttals at all, certainly not with anything resembling factuality.

As can be seen here, with you addressing neither the fallacy of your understanding of how the Yugoslav disintegration primarily came about, nor the presented data that clearly refutes your stance of urbanites subjected to foreigners being more prone to vote in xenophobic fashion.

Mirror, mirror on the wall :roll:

Auvergnat said:

A diversity imposed through Muslim conquests, where Christians were legally considered as inferior beings and enslaved, that lasted until Muslims decided to perform ethnic cleansings. To what Christians replied with ethnic cleansings.

A great counter-example.

Click to expand...

.............and when you can think of no other way to get out of the corner you have painted yourself into, moving the goalposts is always a good idea. NOT!

To help you refocus: It was pointed out that Christian and Jews enjoyed a fairly good cohabitation with Muslims under the rule of those.

Which you then "countered" with

As for your comment that it used to work in ancient times, it is because in ancient times most of people rarely saw anyone outside of their village. Yesterday's village was today's nation. Especially under the tribal, unstable and poor Muslim empires.

Click to expand...

Upon which I pointed out that Cordoba in those times was more of a civilisation and cultural centre than it is today.

And now you come up with this?

And you want to tell others how to properly debate?

Geesh.