Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

Why did you change the topic from the media lying?

The topic isn't 'the media' lying, the topic is whether a silent majority is sufficiently anti-immigrant that burning down refugee homes and killing people in the process can be seen as a legitimate - since alternativlos - form of resistance. So far, you have provided exactly jack shit evidence. Go sit in the shame corner with Morrigi.

The Swedish Democrats make up 20% of their country's votes and their whole platform is anti-immigration. No one is speaking up for them, though, because they are silent. How many more people are there out there who believe in their policies?

How is this relevant for the situation in Germany? A large majority of Saudis are in favor of Sharia law. Should that fact enter the discussion on how Germany should treat its Salafists?

I have a sneaking suspicion you'd dismiss any evidence of support that people could show, just as you'd dismiss evidence showing that migrants heavily support terror attacks and very "extremist" beliefs.

And lo and behold, to the surprise of precisely no-one you use that accusation as an excuse to provide none at all. Hell, I even gave you a criterion for what I'd consider evidence: Get me poll data. Good, German poll data. I've certainly done the same for you, haven't I? The thing is: It doesn't exactly support your crude worldview...

Any politically active ilk of Pegida have been marginalized and attacked though. Consider our analogue Mosley, who said that current rates of immigration would make the natives strangers in their own country - despite having 3/4 of the country agreeing with him, he was dismissed from the cabinet. Even today you can see things where UKIP become the 3rd largest party yet win only 1 seat whilst the leftists with far less support retain disproportionately vast amounts of power, or more strikingly where Front Nationale won 1/3rd of the national vote and won not a single region. Then there's that issue where all the party leaders of all the mainstream parties come from the same elite Unis like Oxford, Cambridge, ENA, so you have that quandary where you can vote for a left-wing pro immigration pro-EU party or a right-wing pro immigration pro-EU party.

You're just describing the issues with the strange English voting system... Germany has an MMP system, which prevents these issues. Back in 2013 the AfD would almost have entered parliament, but failed to meet the 5% threshold. If the election was held now, it would get about 10% of seats - and thus 10% of the parliamentary power. The thing is: The AfD is hardly being discriminated against via voting mechanisms - but still they're only at 10% in the polls, and that's pretty much the high-water mark. They're simply a relatively small vocal minority, much like Die Linke.

[nullBolt]

The topic isn't 'the media' lying, the topic is whether a silent majority is sufficiently anti-immigrant that burning down refugee homes and killing people in the process can be seen as a legitimate - since alternativlos - form of resistance. So far, you have provided exactly jack shit evidence. Go sit in the shame corner with Morrigi.

You quoted me talking about the media lying and took something completely different from it.

How about you prove that people aren't anti-immigration? You're the one stating a fact and not providing evidence for it.

Go sit in the shame corner with your hand.

And lo and behold, to the surprise of precisely no-one you use that accusation as an excuse to provide none at all. Hell, I even gave you a criterion for what I'd consider evidence: Get me poll data. Good, German poll data. I've certainly done the same for you, haven't I? The thing is: It doesn't exactly support your crude worldview...

Crude worldview? What are you even talking about?

You want evidence, here's evidence from over a year ago:

In Thursday’s (19 February) national edition of the Eurobarometer opinion poll, 37% of Germans surveyed see migration as the biggest challenge for the EU, and for Germany, at the moment.

Only in the United Kingdom (38%) and Malta (57%) are these percentages higher. In most member states, the economic situation (33%) and unemployment (29%) were perceived as the biggest Europe-wide issues.

Meanwhile only 29% of Germans have a positive opinion of immigration from third countries, outside the EU. A relative majority (45%) said they believe illegal immigration into the EU should be counteracted at both EU and national levels. This corresponds to perceptions among a growing number of respondents in Germany (29%), who feel there are not enough inspections at the EU’s external borders.

As a result, German citizens are somewhat more critical than the average of all Europeans surveyed, of which 57% are against immigrants from third countries. Opposition was higher than in Germany among respondents from Italy (75%), Latvia (79%) and Slovakia (74%).

This is before the many rapes and sexual assaults came out.

Here's a poll from just over two months ago from people with migrant backgrounds, before the MANY rapes and sexual assaults came out:

A poll of Germans found that people with an immigrant background have the same concerns about migration as those without; 40 percent said that Germany should receive fewer refugees than at current levels.

How about you post some evidence Germans aren't anti-immigration? How about you get your crude worldview out of this thread?

How absolutely dare you disparage and insult my opinions when you haven't even the wherewithal to research your own? What a joke.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Calling it now: This evidence isn't going be valid because reasons. Post some of your own evidence next time before demanding others post their's.

[nullBolt]

How about some more evidence:

62% of Germans now say the number of asylum seekers is too high, up from 53% in November – driven mainly by the hardening attitudes of women

You couldn't even bother to do a Google search before starting demands for evidence.

[Loud Whispers]

You're just describing the issues with the strange English voting system... Germany has an MMP system, which prevents these issues. Back in 2013 the AfD would almost have entered parliament, but failed to meet the 5% threshold. If the election was held now, it would get about 10% of seats - and thus 10% of the parliamentary power. The thing is: The AfD is hardly being discriminated against via voting mechanisms - but still they're only at 10% in the polls, and that's pretty much the high-water mark. They're simply a relatively small vocal minority, much like Die Linke.

Not just the English voting system, not just the French voting system, at the end of the day all powers answer to the EU and the EU only has one speed: "Oh God I literally can't stop taking in immigrants." Unsurprisingly the EU's used to pass laws that would not pass in their home country, yet apply to everyone. Their votes mean fuck all whether they win anything or not. The EU taking it upon themselves to say they're allowed to take control of your borders becuz is just a long line of the EU going full diversity and trying to use immigrants to centralize power under one State.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[spoiler=JUST CITE MY SHIT UP]People have very short memories, but these conversations repeat again and again. 2010, Merkel says Multiculturalism has utterly failed. She's facing intense pressure from within her own party and from her own people to halt her social experiment. One third of Germans think Germany is overrun with foreigners, 55% believe Arabs are unpleasant people; so tolerant, very progressive. She no longer has support for mass immigration. 2013, Merkel stresses that Germany must accept more refugees whilst her parliamentary bloc moves to classify the Balkans as safe, allowing for easier rejection of asylum seekers from Serbia, Macedonia, Albania e.t.c.. At that point Germany was taking in 200,000 refugees a year. They were warned that opening the door wider and leaving more incentives for people to make the journey to Germany would do the obvious; make more people make the journey to Germany.
By 2014:

Earlier in 2014 amongst first time asylum seekers the proportion of Syrians was around 10-15%, not accounting for second time asylum seekers, fake Syrians, those coming by sea nor immigrants who authorities fail to log. Eurostat has 700,000 asylum seekers in total logged across the EU despite countries like Germany alone taking in 750,000 illegal immigrants yearly, set to rise to 800,000 - conservative estimates. Measuring by asylum applications only takes into account those who bother to apply for asylum and takes their word for it. The German panic over how big they fucked up is intensifying after they failed to stop the influx (it has increased to record highs) of people, after they failed to shovel the immigrants they so desperately lusted for onto other EU countries because they got cold feet(...) the didactic duo are running out of emergency accommodation on their own turf.
And in response to receiving 10k immigrants in 7 days the Swedish PM is begging immigrants to stay in Germany.
It seems fitting to use the german word schadenfreude here, how pleasing it is to see when people get knocked off their moral high horses with a sharp kick to the bum. It is easy to see who has helped and who has miserably failed, failed their own people, failed Syrians and Iraqis, Somalis and Libyans and throw in a couple crying Germans and Swedes. It disappoints me that after Rotherham the German and Swedish police have not learned from this and also try to cover up enriching crime

That number had risen to 800,000 a year by conservative estimates, for Germany alone - excluding all other EU countries.
And unsurprisingly we are still talking about German and Swedish police covering up enriching crime, though it seems now they have shouldered all the blame leaving others just as responsible curiously clean.
By 2015 Merkel inquires whether Germany is losing that which makes Germany so strong," namely "the societal center." She is constantly asking herself, Merkel related, "if we are losing the center. By then the rate of immigration had its estimate increased from 800,000 to 1,500,000, measured only by those who claimed asylum - excluding those who did not register. That number also does not include those logged as immigrants, legal or illegal. The number for Europe as a whole is set to increase to 3,000,000 in 2016, though I wonder how many times that number will be revised and how many will go to Germany. This will cost Germany by current estimates 17 billion euros. Contrast with the UK, who has much less money to spend than Germany, who at a time where they have cut social spending for their own subjects have spent nothing short of a billion sterling actually helping those fleeing war. And that billion sterling have helped more, helped more in need - even helped those whose situations are so bad they cannot even flee war. Whilst countries like France, USA and UK kill smugglers, shut down smuggling rings in Europe, thwart terrorist smuggling actions and otherwise pay the price for Germans tearing away at national sovereignty - even fighting alongside and training Kurds and rebels to retake their lands everywhere from Nigeria to Ethiopia and Iraq, the only Germans who've done so have been volunteers, no state actors. Meanwhile after "Syrians" with fake syrian passports disappeared in Germany the Germans wasted no time in using this crisis to take control of other countries' borders by expanding Frontex's powers without the consent of the actual countries involved. So remember, having border control is racist unless you give it to the Germans.

Going on that a 1/3rd of Germans didn't want it, yet all mainstream parties were led by people who wanted it

Everyone in a position of power held the same opinion. Diversity was a good in itself, so making Europe truly diverse would enrich it and bring 'significant cultural contributions', reflecting a widespread belief among the ruling classes that multiculturalism and cultural, racial and religious diversity were morally positive things whatever the consequences. This is the unthinking assumption held by almost the entire political, media and education establishment. It is the diversity illusion.
Advocates of multiculturalism argue that immigrants prefer to stick together because of racism and the fear of racial violence, as well as the bonds of community. This is perfectly reasonable, but if this is the case, why not the same for natives too? If multiculturalism is right because minorities feel better among themselves, why have mass immigration at all, since it must obviously make everyone miserable? (And if diversity 'enriches' and strengthens, why integrate, since that will only reduce diversity?) All the arguments for multiculturalism—that people feel safer, more comfortable among people of the same group, and that they need their own cultural identity—are arguments against immigration, since European people must also feel the same. If people categorised as "white European" are not afforded that indulgence because they are a majority, do they attain it when they become a minority?

Paraphrased from Wikipedia of all things lel

Also Nullbolt chill out, asking for evidence is good no matter the situation

[nullBolt]

I don't know, Loud, that sounds like a crude worldview you have there.

[Loud Whispers]

Also, LW - what do you think is the root cause of all this? Do you think the politicians pushing this through actually believe what they say, actually think that anti-immigration sentiment is racist? Or do you think it's greed? Outside influences?
I've seen it blamed on everything from the USA, to KGB brainwashing, to corporate greed, to psychopathy on the part of our leaders. I'd be interested in your opinion.

We're talking about several decades, several generations, hundreds of thousands of movers and shakers and hundreds of millions of supporters, all with their various reasons. I'm not sure what root cause is the cause, if there even is one. So I'll just blame it on putting jet fuel and lead in the water supply.

[nullBolt]

Wait, I thought no one died? I thought it was an empty, under-construction refugee center that was set alight.

I don't know, Covenant, I think questioning that is quite crude.

Also, LW - what do you think is the root cause of all this? Do you think the politicians pushing this through actually believe what they say, actually think that anti-immigration sentiment is racist? Or do you think it's greed? Outside influences?

I've seen it blamed on everything from the USA, to KGB brainwashing, to corporate greed, to psychopathy on the part of our leaders. I'd be interested in your opinion.

I'd say it's an attempt at keeping labour costs down so that there's no need to increase wages or do automation.

If there are two people applying for a job but three places to be filled then those two people can demand high wages. If you've got a country full of the unemployed (at least according to statistics), then you can set your wages as low as you like because you can claim there are a thousand people to fill those slots.

[scrdest]

Also, LW - what do you think is the root cause of all this? Do you think the politicians pushing this through actually believe what they say, actually think that anti-immigration sentiment is racist? Or do you think it's greed? Outside influences?
I've seen it blamed on everything from the USA, to KGB brainwashing, to corporate greed, to psychopathy on the part of our leaders. I'd be interested in your opinion.

We're talking about several decades, several generations, hundreds of thousands of movers and shakers and hundreds of millions of supporters, all with their various reasons. I'm not sure what root cause is the cause, if there even is one. So I'll just blame it on putting jet fuel and lead in the water supply.

Sure, but we're not talking about the past. What, right now, do current leaders stand to gain by what seems to be exacerbating the situation?

Wait, I thought no one died? I thought it was an empty, under-construction refugee center that was set alight.

I don't know, Covenant, I think questioning that is quite crude.

For your own good, quit it. It's neither funny, helpful, or even defiant. You're just making yourself look like an ass for no real benefit to your argument, so don't be surprised if you get stepped on by The Toad. That won't be censorship, that will just be stopping someone from being not-friendly-and-polite in a friendly-and-polite-EU-news thread.

[nullBolt]

Sure, but we're not talking about the past. What, right now, do current leaders stand to gain by what seems to be exacerbating the situation?

Power and money. Always.

[scrdest]

Sure, but we're not talking about the past. What, right now, do current leaders stand to gain by what seems to be exacerbating the situation?

Power and money. Always.

That's not an argument, that's something used to get out of one unless you elaborate the hows and whys.

Power, in particular? Status quo is maintained - natives are pissed off, conflicts are not resolved, immigrants have no particular reason or perhaps even ability to vote for the politicians responsible.

Immigration tipping point scenario (natives become a minority, that is) - same but even worse, immigrants have their own politicians to support and empower, natives are still pissed off - even more.

Natives get pissed off scenario? Nationalists get support, current leaders are at best kicked out, if not, well, you know what happens to opposition in case of extreme far-right. Metabolic inviability.

[nullBolt]

That's not an argument, that's something used to get out of one unless you elaborate the hows and whys.

Power, in particular? Status quo is maintained - natives are pissed off, conflicts are not resolved, immigrants have no particular reason or perhaps even ability to vote for the politicians responsible.

Immigration tipping point scenario (natives become a minority, that is) - same but even worse, immigrants have their own politicians to support and empower, natives are still pissed off - even more.

Natives get pissed off scenario? Nationalists get support, current leaders are at best kicked out, if not, well, you know what happens to opposition in case of extreme far-right. Metabolic inviability.

There's two main threads of thought:
a) The government creates a threat narrative (real or imaginary) by causing a bad thing to happen which they can only solve by having more powers. Consolidation of power.
b) The economic suggestion I mentioned before regarding people applying to jobs. Consolidation of money.

Example of a):
1. Say that you need more workers.
2. Have mass immigration.
3. Mass immigration causes social and terror problems.
4. Problems are done over the internet.
5. "We require more government controls on the internet!"
6. Government controls, of course, solve nothing but they have more information and ability to police their citizens lives.

[Jopax]

Or it could be just good old short-sightedness combined with ego and stupidity. Maybe they honestly didn't expect it to get this bad, maybe they hoped for some karma points for their next election without thinking of the consequences.

In any case, the motivation doesn't really matter that much anymore. You don't need to figure out why someone decided to dump a septic tank into your living room as much as you need to figure out how to fix the problem as quickly as possible.

(and no, I'm not saying the immigrants are shit, I just couldn't think of a better analogy on the spot)

[scrdest]

Re: a) the main issue is that this is a suicidal strategy. You're more likely to give that very opportunity to your opposition - which, unlikely to be super fond of you - since your entire voting base can see you've fucked up and created the problem in the first place.

[nullBolt]

Or it could be just good old short-sightedness combined with ego and stupidity. Maybe they honestly didn't expect it to get this bad, maybe they hoped for some karma points for their next election without thinking of the consequences.

In any case, the motivation doesn't really matter that much anymore. You don't need to figure out why someone decided to dump a septic tank into your living room as much as you need to figure out how to fix the problem as quickly as possible.

(and no, I'm not saying the immigrants are shit, I just couldn't think of a better analogy on the spot)

Maybe. It's been too prolonged and too involved for me to believe it's just simple negligence, especially with the constant harassment in the past of anyone who questioned it and the endless media silences on the matter.

Re: a) the main issue is that this is a suicidal strategy. You're more likely to give that very opportunity to your opposition - which, unlikely to be super fond of you - since your entire voting base can see you've fucked up and created the problem in the first place.

At least within the UK, this is a moot point. The opposition has exactly the same policies as whatever government is in power, just with different words to describe them.

Like Loud said, they're from the same schools, doing the same thing, meeting the same people.

In what world is this a fair and representative government?

[Jopax]

It could also be a simple matter of kicking the can down the road for a far too long time without realising the implications of doing so. Kinda like climate change except more noticeable.

In any case, there's that saying or something and it goes kinda like : "Never attribute to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity."

And I'd say it kinda applies here. Then again, we can't really know. So I'll go with my theory that the prevailing majority of humans are dumb animals trying to survive and it's what drives the world as we know it. Conspiracy theories are for a sligthly more perfect and orderly world.