-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
How can Europe combat its far-right nationalistic & racist political movements?
- Thread starter Lime
- Start date
- Status
Also another interesting point that madness brought up is a possible reversal of immigration and migration, than what is currently happening. The West has been for a long time (and probably still for the next 10-20 years) the main destination for family's/individuals with the means (and without) and talent to emigrate too. But what if this changes into a far east exodus? Currently a soft exodus is occurring with "Ethnic" Europeans looking for work in Asia. What would happen if an extreme future brain and youth drain from Europe occurred? You may have a situation that occurs in many third world countries now that will start to happen in Europe. The difference is the third world has the people to export where as Europe needs to cling to every young person they possibly can. It would be devastating to the economy. The people stuck in Europe will be without means and the majority will be of lower classes. Then you throw in the arguments made throughout this thread of a very diverse future Europe. If a country is filled with unemployment and poor people, but also a people with radically different values, well... It's just too unpredictable I suppose, but man is it scary.
"History has shown us, moderates and progressives eventually lose against fundamentalists/hardliners/extremists" A quote from Madness.
I always wondered that, because it can be applied to our current world. Has there never been a progressive power that has stood to these external beliefs? Are progressives due to fail? or if not outright destroyed, set back for many years/decades? I can't see how the progressive west can survive against some of aggressive ideology's out there at the moment.
"History has shown us, moderates and progressives eventually lose against fundamentalists/hardliners/extremists" A quote from Madness.
I always wondered that, because it can be applied to our current world. Has there never been a progressive power that has stood to these external beliefs? Are progressives due to fail? or if not outright destroyed, set back for many years/decades? I can't see how the progressive west can survive against some of aggressive ideology's out there at the moment.
Well you ARE defending the Soviet Union which is indeed known for mass murder.
If you have a problem with that I'd guess you're not doing a good job making your point across.
And why should your control of the population be better than the population coming to a conclusion that a certain behavior is bad better?
Again you're basically advocating for a total negation of the will of the people.
That is not going to sit well with most people for a reason.
Making 'racism' illegal is also so nebulous that it borders on the thought crime if we're being generous and a real backdoor to justify really shitty behavior.
Omnipunctual Godot
Gold Member
Okay, so you just don't know what the word genocide means.
Got it.
Here, allow Merriam-Webster to help you out with that:
genocide: the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide
There was, in fact, an Armenian genocide.
...Armenians still exist.
Edit: Oh, I see you stealth-edited your earlier post to do a little backpedaling. Nothing disingenuous about that.
Don't tell the Turks though...
curlyfriski
Banned
I have to say this is a refreshing change of pace from the usual shitty European racism threads. Absolutely insane, but still nice.
Also you dudes need some new sources other than Wikipedia and online dictionaries (referring to the guy who asserted imperialism and capitalism weren't related because Webster said so).
Also you dudes need some new sources other than Wikipedia and online dictionaries (referring to the guy who asserted imperialism and capitalism weren't related because Webster said so).
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
There is no major geopolitical power that isn't guilty of this.
I don't care if racism is "the will of the people". It needs to go.
So your objection relies solely on the contention that you used genocide to mean "mostly" wiped out instead of "totally" wiped out?
You're still wrong as there was no Cossack genocide to either degree.
Also, ain't no edit time stamp on that post kid.
I tend to use Wiki because it's really difficult for people to kneejerk that Wiki is just a tool for Soviet apologism.
Economic malaise and cartel politics push people to the fringes (in proportional parliamentary systems) or to apathy and disillusionment with the system (in de facto two party systems like the US, Aus). I don't think this is a problem with immigration per se, anti immigrant (or any kind of demonisation of an 'other') sentiment is just a consequence of mainstream parties adhering to economic policy that benefits no one but the elites. People feel betrayed, and immigrants are always a good scapegoat.
Edit: oh, this thread got interesting...
Edit: oh, this thread got interesting...
petran79
Banned
Lets not forget also the Armenian Genocide, which has not been settled unlike the Jewish Holocaust. In Turkey and Azerbaijan there are a lot of reactions in recognizing this. Because part of their identity and nationalism is based on that genocide.
Regarding Europe and Islam, Balkans and South Eastern Europe were under Ottoman rule for centuries so they're far more influenced by oriental customs. Even their language has many Turkish and Arabic words and a lot of places had Turkish names. 500 years of Ottoman rule is too great to be ignored. Unfortunately this part of European history is hardly studied in schools. It is often avoided with an excuse that it was a dark era. But in fact it was this era that shaped South Eastern Europe identity. The ethnic cleansing followed by the nationalistic movements of the 19th century and culminating in WWII left its unfortunate stamp in European history. Studying that era would help Europe greatly to understand Islam and its adherents or another culture in general.
Regarding Marxists writers, the most notable and the one I liked most was Antonio Gramsci. He was the most critical as well.
Geopolitical situation was very complex back then.
At that time the whole world, from USA to Japan, sent occupation armies to Russia to help the White Army. Country was in a chaos. Unfortunately Russia's support to Turkey led to hundreds of thousands of deaths due to genocide. Of course Western powers were responsible as well.
http://www.tacentral.com/history_story.asp?story_no=16
The Red Army invaded Armenia in April of 1920, through Kirovabad. Pressure exerted simultaneously by the Turks and Communists forced the collapse of the republic in 1920. Alexander Miasnikian declared Armenia part of the Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic on November 29, 1920.
Beginning in 1921, Lenin made overtures to the new Turkish government, led by Ataturk, which was under siege by Greek forces attempting to retake their historic lands. Having been promised the return of Asia Minor by the Allies for their support during World War I, when the Allies reneged on the deal, they had invaded, landing troops at Smyrna in May of 1919. By 1921 they were on the edge of Ankara.
Correspondence between Lenin and Trotsky in 1920-21 show that they believed the next field for expanding socialism was in Asia, and they began spreading dissent in the region. Secret letters between Lenin and Ataturk show that the new Communist State promised funds and soldiers to the Turkish government in return for favorable relationships. It is no coincidence that Ataturk approved the current flag of Turkey at that time, looking very much like a variation of the Soviet red Banner. Lenin insisted on officially keeping the Armenian lands of Kars, Van and Erzerum ceded from Turkey at the end of the war, but he promised Ataturk that the Armenian territories of Nagorno Karabakh, Nakhichevan, Zangezur and Siunik would revert to the new Azerbaijan Republic. Further, he sent more than 24 million dollars, guns and ammunition to the Turkish forces, enabling them to repel Greek advances, and to kill the local Greek population. Turkey continued to set its eyes on a pan Turkish Empire, building up forces yet again to invade Armenia.
One man stood in the way of Ataturk's and Lenin's plans. Led by Garegin Nezhdeh, local Armenians fought against both Turkish and Red Army forces at the same time, creating a standoff in Siunik and Zangezur. Nezhdeh used Andranik's tactics for guerilla war, cutting off troops in mountain passes and defeating them in small numbers. With only a few hundred men, he managed to defeat repeated incursions by far greater forces.
The situation quickly grew to a stalemate, as Lenin gradually understood that Ataturk had no intention of building a socialist state, and that the Red army could not defeat Nezhdeh. Not daring to expose the Southern regions to Turkish invasion, Lenin chose to compromise, agreeing to Nezhdeh's terms. Alexander Miasnikian, the first Commissar of Armenia, sent a telegram to Nezhdeh, guaranteeing the inclusion of Siunik and Zangezur in the Armenian State. Nezhdeh left for Bulgaria, and then settled in Paris, having preserved at least one part of the Armenian lands.
Regarding Europe and Islam, Balkans and South Eastern Europe were under Ottoman rule for centuries so they're far more influenced by oriental customs. Even their language has many Turkish and Arabic words and a lot of places had Turkish names. 500 years of Ottoman rule is too great to be ignored. Unfortunately this part of European history is hardly studied in schools. It is often avoided with an excuse that it was a dark era. But in fact it was this era that shaped South Eastern Europe identity. The ethnic cleansing followed by the nationalistic movements of the 19th century and culminating in WWII left its unfortunate stamp in European history. Studying that era would help Europe greatly to understand Islam and its adherents or another culture in general.
Regarding Marxists writers, the most notable and the one I liked most was Antonio Gramsci. He was the most critical as well.
Geopolitical situation was very complex back then.
At that time the whole world, from USA to Japan, sent occupation armies to Russia to help the White Army. Country was in a chaos. Unfortunately Russia's support to Turkey led to hundreds of thousands of deaths due to genocide. Of course Western powers were responsible as well.
http://www.tacentral.com/history_story.asp?story_no=16
The Red Army invaded Armenia in April of 1920, through Kirovabad. Pressure exerted simultaneously by the Turks and Communists forced the collapse of the republic in 1920. Alexander Miasnikian declared Armenia part of the Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic on November 29, 1920.
Beginning in 1921, Lenin made overtures to the new Turkish government, led by Ataturk, which was under siege by Greek forces attempting to retake their historic lands. Having been promised the return of Asia Minor by the Allies for their support during World War I, when the Allies reneged on the deal, they had invaded, landing troops at Smyrna in May of 1919. By 1921 they were on the edge of Ankara.
Correspondence between Lenin and Trotsky in 1920-21 show that they believed the next field for expanding socialism was in Asia, and they began spreading dissent in the region. Secret letters between Lenin and Ataturk show that the new Communist State promised funds and soldiers to the Turkish government in return for favorable relationships. It is no coincidence that Ataturk approved the current flag of Turkey at that time, looking very much like a variation of the Soviet red Banner. Lenin insisted on officially keeping the Armenian lands of Kars, Van and Erzerum ceded from Turkey at the end of the war, but he promised Ataturk that the Armenian territories of Nagorno Karabakh, Nakhichevan, Zangezur and Siunik would revert to the new Azerbaijan Republic. Further, he sent more than 24 million dollars, guns and ammunition to the Turkish forces, enabling them to repel Greek advances, and to kill the local Greek population. Turkey continued to set its eyes on a pan Turkish Empire, building up forces yet again to invade Armenia.
One man stood in the way of Ataturk's and Lenin's plans. Led by Garegin Nezhdeh, local Armenians fought against both Turkish and Red Army forces at the same time, creating a standoff in Siunik and Zangezur. Nezhdeh used Andranik's tactics for guerilla war, cutting off troops in mountain passes and defeating them in small numbers. With only a few hundred men, he managed to defeat repeated incursions by far greater forces.
The situation quickly grew to a stalemate, as Lenin gradually understood that Ataturk had no intention of building a socialist state, and that the Red army could not defeat Nezhdeh. Not daring to expose the Southern regions to Turkish invasion, Lenin chose to compromise, agreeing to Nezhdeh's terms. Alexander Miasnikian, the first Commissar of Armenia, sent a telegram to Nezhdeh, guaranteeing the inclusion of Siunik and Zangezur in the Armenian State. Nezhdeh left for Bulgaria, and then settled in Paris, having preserved at least one part of the Armenian lands.
And? People finding that the USA can do some things right are not always saying that they did everything right.
You can find flaws in how they operate (their south american policies for example).
There's also a gradation, Pol Pot is a magnitude worse than Mao ever was for example.
And that ain't happening by making it illegal.
Trying to make it illegal is actually worse than institutional racism at this point.
Omnipunctual Godot
Gold Member
"Last edited by Zuhzuhzombie!!; Today at 05:00 PM"
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=146264423&postcount=350
For the love of God, would you fucking stop lying and engaging in gas-lighting already? It's really starting to creep me out.
...And so because of that you're not bothered by the USSR's status as one of the most prolific practitioners of mass murder?
Lord Thrappleper The 49th
Member
When your own pops is a member of the BNP, it doesn't give you much hope that everyone will come together and sing kumbayaa.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
Thanks but that's not the "original post"
Gonna accuse me of gaslighting and then gonna gaslight me.
Again, you guys need to stop making stuff up as you go.
About as much as the average American is bothered by their own history.
This is a terrible argument. Americans aren't bothered enough by their own history and the implication of your post is that you know that. Set your bar a little higher.
Omnipunctual Godot
Gold Member
IT'S THE POST I QUOTE WHEN I SAY YOU STEALTH-EDITED YOUR POST.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=146265170&postcount=354
What in the hell are you talking about?
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
I don't know what you expect?
I don't advocate for any future theoretical Marxist Leninist government to make the same mistakes as Stalin or Mao. Nor do I feel that I have to preface every response to historical inaccuracies with "Well I absolutely detest what the USSR did in X and Y situation". Being a socialist doesn't mean supporting that. Nor does not falling for atrocity and cold war propaganda and repeating hysterics.
If anyone assumes the opposite for the latter two I think they need to drop the histrionic behavior. "I think Marxism Leninism had the right idea for X problem" shouldn't automatically trigger the response of "OMG I guess you love Stalin!"
Awesome. All caps now.
I'm a communist and I find it very easy to not get caught up in arguments where people accuse me of being a Soviet apologist. Trying to downplay the USSR's crimes is not the way to go, nor is pretending that Marxist-Leninist policies had nothing to do with the way it played out. Future Marxist-Leninist governments will make these mistakes because paranoid, totalitarian government is bound to cause a few genocides along the way.
Multiculturalism as defined by marxist social ideology or cultural bolshevism is not a solution, it's the reason why these confrontations between people of separate ethnic and religious groups escalate so badly. Point being that pseudo-progressives continually wage war not on human aggression and loathing but on the way these feelings are expressed, and this suppression of thought can only add to the general tension and resentment between individuals and the groups to which they belong.
And as I said before, there is nothing racist about opposing multiculturalism. Many immigrants themselves oppose it because they come from monocultural backgrounds. Multiculturalism is not about tolerance of cultures, it's a creed which holds instead that no one culture should trump any other. We cant expect to uphold human rights, equality for women, same rights for homosexuals or freedom of religious belief over cultures that dont uphold these values - especially if we're dealing with monocultural groups which strive to achieve political and cultural power in multicultural countries by forcing their native inhabitants to tolerate culture-destroying activities.
And as I said before, there is nothing racist about opposing multiculturalism. Many immigrants themselves oppose it because they come from monocultural backgrounds. Multiculturalism is not about tolerance of cultures, it's a creed which holds instead that no one culture should trump any other. We cant expect to uphold human rights, equality for women, same rights for homosexuals or freedom of religious belief over cultures that dont uphold these values - especially if we're dealing with monocultural groups which strive to achieve political and cultural power in multicultural countries by forcing their native inhabitants to tolerate culture-destroying activities.
fair point but that's not what I said it
in response to
when fascism was viewed as an opposing ideology to capitalism (according to Hitler and Mussolini at least)
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Cultural Marxism, Marxist Social Ideology, Cultural Bolshevism and many similar terms are actually concepts conjured up by the far right (in some cases, literally Nazis, originally) to slur and discredit any progressive or liberal elements and views they don't like, and actually have little or nothing to do with Marxism/Socialism. Don't bring them up if you don't want to immediately discredit yourself.
Only if your definition of multiculturalism is what you have in your second paragraph and as such, is a weird, skewed definition not by and large recognised as the usual definition. What you're describing is actually segregation as opposed to integration.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
I'm not trying to downplay anything, I've repeatedly remarked about how fucked up some of their policies were. But if someone wants to throw out Cold War propaganda that is completely baseless I don't mind correcting them. There's a slight appreciation for seeing supposed Liberals quote Neo Con talking points practically verbatim as well. Or even better, seeing a list of things that make Marxism bad/wrong when even their own society and ideology has committed them just the same.
I don't know what makes you think Marxism Leninism is inherently a paranoid ideology.
"Consequences for Racism is worse than Racism?"
Do you think that if a law isn't immediately %100 effective we shouldn't have the law?
So we should get rid of DUI laws, stop prosecuting rapists, etc?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Okay, at this point, you have actually become amazing. I hope you're a parody account, but this is awesome to read.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Uh, that's not multiculturalism. The point is not that people are forced to create their own internal communities, but that they have the choice to. If anything, most people would prefer if immigrants didn't live apart from the main community and chose to adopt the customs of their new country. Multiculturalism simply says that you can't force people to do those things, they have to be an active choice.
You actually didn't read a word of what I said!
Impressive.
Making it illegal is not consequence of racism, it's only pushing for something only the Stasi could enforce.
Do I need to explain why no one in their right mind would anything close to a new Stasi?
The only thing people hear when you tell them that you want racism being made illegal is that you want to kill any right to privacy they ever had and want to control them in all their actions.
You will have to explain how that is something worth striving for.
This is quite a good summary. I'm sure reality is far more complicated, but this is definitely true.
CHEEZMO™;146268926 said:
Always makes for great discussion. I can't think of any other case where it has completely derailed and ruined the thread.
I mean, it could have been a discussion about whether current identity politics is one of the reasons why the leftist parties have lost sympathies within certain demographic groups, as some posts with actual substance argued, or if there are other causes that have contributed more to the current political climate in Europe.
Then again, discussions like in this thread have always been productive in the sense that people have expanded their views.
You mean like literaly calling someone a nazi by association because you don't agree with his/hers particular view on how certain progressive or liberal elements have skewed marxist doctrines for their own personal or political benefit? That kind of discrediting?
I'm sorry, but what you just wrote was very offensive and sounds like one of these manipulative things that people tend to say when inflammatory opinions are being brought up, and don't know how to politely and constructively express your disagreement. A way of putting someone in the corner and in the process invalidating their opinion, because now somehow I'm supposed to be a nazi for bringing it up, but you're not in any way, shape, or form flawed for being bothered by it.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
"Cultural Marxism" was pretty much not a term that was ever used until Anders Breivik killed 77 people over Islam, feminism, and "Cultural Marxism" though:
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=cultural marxism
I don't know about Marxist Social Ideology, but "Cultural Marxism" is a term used only by white power groups.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
Seems to me the only people who would want displays of racism to be illegal are people who would participate in displays of racism.
I have to explain why the persecution of racists is something worth striving for?
Alright. Why do people imagine a divide between British and American systems of immigration, then? The US melting pot still allows for enclaves to come about, like the Chinatowns or Italian American neighborhoods that dot most East Coast cities.
I wasn't actually outright calling you a Nazi, rather (perhaps incorrectly) assuming you weren't aware of the origin of some of the terms you were using. Between what I've already explained in my original post and ItWasMeantToBe19's contribution, I'll just post these for your further reference, and you can decide whether they're still things you'd like to say:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
Boom Boom Pow
Banned
to be fair, the people immigrating to these european countries should be adjusting and adopting to the local culture.
i would hate for europe to be more islamic in either laws or culture. cuz i personally despise it. but then i also despise all forms of organized religion and their cultural remnants.
the fact of the matter is: Europeans need to discuss about it. at all levels. and be level-headed about it and be reasonable. if you want to be only Danish in Denmark, say so and don't try to soft foot it.
really, a lot can be solved if people are just honest about what they want. if you don't want refugees coming in, say so and don't say something else that indirectly correlates to the refugees.
for as shitty is proper immigration in the US, at least we talk about it. on the news, our politicians, our people, etc.
i would hate for europe to be more islamic in either laws or culture. cuz i personally despise it. but then i also despise all forms of organized religion and their cultural remnants.
the fact of the matter is: Europeans need to discuss about it. at all levels. and be level-headed about it and be reasonable. if you want to be only Danish in Denmark, say so and don't try to soft foot it.
really, a lot can be solved if people are just honest about what they want. if you don't want refugees coming in, say so and don't say something else that indirectly correlates to the refugees.
for as shitty is proper immigration in the US, at least we talk about it. on the news, our politicians, our people, etc.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
My town is a mess, it was one of labours migrant dispersal areas, a town that was essentially a still derelict wreck from de-industrialisation.
If the Tories kneecapped the north of the country then labour took a shovel to its head.
If the Tories kneecapped the north of the country then labour took a shovel to its head.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think there is a difference between the British and American systems, particularly. The Anglo-Saxon sphere are relatively akin in how they deal with things. The difference is more between continental Europe and the Anglo-Saxon sphere. If you ever visit France and go to some of the banlieues of Paris, it can feel like a completely different country in a way I think is very rare in the United States or United Kingdom.
Enclaves in the United States act as 'retreats' - Italian Americans and Chinese Americans still mostly speak English and they engage in many American cultural norms as well as their own; it's a fusion. Enclaves in some continental European countries are almost totally self-sufficient communities that barely interact with those outside them; grasp of the national language can be poor and there is sometimes disdain for the predominant culture.
I do think the problem is largely exaggerated, though. The above describes a tiny fraction of immigrant communities, most of whom do voluntarily choose to integrate. As far as the scale of problems facing European economies goes, immigration is simply not one of them. If you're not from the European Union, it's actually really hard to get into almost any of them and you have to be the sort of person who is going to be a net benefit. If you are from within the European Union, while nobody can guarantee this is the case, on average European economic migrants still bring in net revenue inflow to the state and also have slightly higher birthrates than the local population, which is useful given the demographic situation.
The costs born out of the fact that housing and healthcare sees strains, are not going to be solved by getting rid of immigrants at the point that (in the United Kingdom's example) the NHS relies hugely on foreign staff and immigrants bring in net tax revenues that should be leading to improved housing. The main problem is the fact public spending has been woefully mismanaged and austerity has just made the problem so much worse.
I appreciate the honesty and therefore be completely honest with you... wikipedia and a website which portrays itself as being 'rational', yet at the same time seems to be very selective about the facts that it is interested in, doesn't really strike me as a very convincing argument for or against something. More like ammunition depot of 'ready to serve' arguments to aid in winning debates.
I'm sorry but google is not a history book.
You both saw me mentioning marxism and it's skewed derivatives and immediately jumped the gun mentioning deranged individuals and guilt by association to move away from the topic at hand. Nevertheless, just because various wackos and looneys latch on to something, it does not make it untrue, nor does it mean those thoughts are confined to crazy people. The frustrating thing here is that this argument about extremism is so one-sided. People are free to exercise their critique of certain aspects of capitalism or western culture without being tarred by association with mass murderer Stalin or the crimes commited by the Red Army during world war II. While we might disagree with them, we shouldn't compare them with the pathological variations of their beliefs because of superficial resemblance. But when I brought up my critique of how Marxism and it's deriative movements have in my opinion impacted on multiculturalism in modern Europe all rational thought went out the window - I'm basically being labeled a nazi for saying that successful and enduring societies show a high degree of homogeneity and monoculturalism. Come on be honest, doesn't that strike you a bit like cultural hegemony?
Debating in an insular echo chamber sounds like a fast track to ignorance.It's pointless to debate a Western Communist.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
The media needs to educate people.
People show the most right tendencies in places where very few immigrants live.
Goes to show that they're full of shit.
People show the most right tendencies in places where very few immigrants live.
Goes to show that they're full of shit.
You said quite clearly that capitalism is fascism. The poster you responded to then outlined separate definitions for capitalism and fascism. You responded by pointing out that Germany, Italy, and Japan -- all at one point in the past fascist countries -- had capitalist-oriented economies. At least three capitalist-oriented countries were ruled by fascist governments in the past, ergo capitalism is fascism.
On the other hand, you argue that communism cannot be defined by the mass murder and extreme repression that has been a feature of communist states thus far. You (however grudgingly) acknowledge that the governments of communist states engaged in mass murder and extreme repression, so why does it not follow that communism is genocide if it follows that capitalism is fascism?
Boom Boom Pow
Banned
i think another thing that separates the US from Europe is that when people immigrate to teh US, they have it in their dream to want to be an American.
Where as in Europe, they're just moving to said country to just live there and get away from their war torn country (refugees), and not to necessarily become more "german" or "Swedish".
This can change of course in 2-3 generations, but it doesn't seem to be that way for europe. especially in the western states like belgium and denmark where crimes are rising in the major cities, mainly caused by said immigrants
Where as in Europe, they're just moving to said country to just live there and get away from their war torn country (refugees), and not to necessarily become more "german" or "Swedish".
This can change of course in 2-3 generations, but it doesn't seem to be that way for europe. especially in the western states like belgium and denmark where crimes are rising in the major cities, mainly caused by said immigrants
Okay, this thread is just too much.
Lest I join in the martyrdom of Zuhzuhzombie and his ideology (that is constantly imposed upon), I must point out that America provided a fuckton of Lend Lease aid to the Soviet Union during the war, and did so almost immediately after the invasion of Russia.
And what became of that shipment of trucks to the Soviet Union?
lol
Lest I join in the martyrdom of Zuhzuhzombie and his ideology (that is constantly imposed upon), I must point out that America provided a fuckton of Lend Lease aid to the Soviet Union during the war, and did so almost immediately after the invasion of Russia.
And what became of that shipment of trucks to the Soviet Union?
lol
As someone living in a major city in Denmark, this is factually untrue.
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
And as a Belgian I'm also tempted to call shenanigans on that. A lot of thefts are being committed by Eastern Europeans sure, but as far as an overal vast rise in crime I don't think so. Our most racist party would hace had a field day last election, while in all actuality they lost a shitload of vites.
Boom Boom Pow
Banned
http://cphpost.dk/news/number-of-asylum-seekers-charged-with-crimes-rising.9293.html
is the stat here wrong?
Read what you posted.
The rising of more crime corresponds to the rising amount of asylum seekers, therefore the amount of crime is larger. But at the same time, read again what the first paragraph is saying
I.e. the number has increased, but it's at a faster rate than those getting in trouble with the law. And this is corroborated by Karen Hækkerup in that same piece you just linked:
And finally, you are quoting from CPH Post, which is basically really bare-bones news organisation.
Boom Boom Pow
Banned
I don't get it. what does bare bone mean? meaning without opinion and facts? seems like a good news org to me.
as for your assertion, my point was that the refugees coming in are committing the crimes. while the larger number does not correlate to teh same percentage rise in crime, the crime is rising overall due to the increase in influx. is that not then rising immigrants causing rising crime rate, even if say, 5% of those committing crimes becomes 4%?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked