|
Omi-Polari posted:Not necessarily. Every country in Europe during World War II had domestic fascist movements and many collaborated directly with the Nazis. It's still sickening to want your country to be under Nazi hegemony. Because obviously. But many of these modern neo-fascisms (though not all) trace their history to these quislings. Counterpoint, before the 19th century losing support of the population and provoking them to the point of actively or passively supporting a foreign invader was a sure-fire way to get your rear end handed over to you, more common in fact than a strictly internal revolt. The birth of the nation state and subsequently the rise of nationalism was the tool for population control that Machiavelli wish he'd came up with. When people were oppressed by the monarchy/aristocracy there was always a chance they would renege their fealty to their liege lords and support the claims of some usurper, either national or foreign, that promised them a better deal/treatment. You see it happening time and time and time again. Shift the allegiance of the population from a personal allegiance to their rulers into allegiance to "the state" and in one fell swoop you get rid of a whole possible vehicle for deposition. Most of the times Quislings of any political flavor don't support a foreign invader because they are inherently villainous and treacherous, they do it as a means to an end, the end being the establishment of whatever political model they believe would best serve their country. This isn't a defense of Quisling or Petain! I'm simply pointing out that nationalism can and is used as a powerful tool to maintain the status quo. Remember the red scare? Support minimum wage and social justice and you are a filthy communism traitor!  quote:If you support a foreigner you are betraying everyone, all your friends and neighbors, you are betraying The State. The only time the upper classes care about The Nation is when they need support of the people to fight off a foreign invader and after the threat is gone they go right back to their old ways. Right down to re-enslaving the people that just finished defending the country for them. Really, this poo poo has been going on since at least Ancient Greece. Apart from that the ruling class cares not a fig for The Nation, in fact they are quite happy to gently caress over their country for profit. Do you see them losing any sleep over the consequences shipping jobs to 3rd world countries is having on their own Nation? Hahaha, as long as it lined their pockets they would (and often did) sell their countrymen into slavery. Bloody hell, I have no skin in this game. Why would I fight and die to protect the privileges of the Napoleon didn't get to invade most of Europe solely due to the superior tactics of his army, he did it because when asked to stand up and protect whatever their version of Louis XVI / Marie Antoinette from the scary foreign invaders the population rightly told them to eat poo poo and die. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Aug 10, 2013 |
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 12:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
Jedit posted:They should have called that song "If You Can't Beat The Fascists, Join Them". As opposed to meekly and ineffectually grumbling and protesting? If the left was perceived to still have any remaining teeth we wouldn't be in the world of poo poo we are today.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 13:25
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:First, Machiavelli was a republican. Does it matter that Machiavelli was a republican? Did I say otherwise? Does it make any difference? What part of the argument works only if for nobility? If you have a ruling family/class that holds all the cards it makes no difference if they straight out adopt feudal titles or not, the end product is the same and the ruling families in the Italian city states demanded and enjoined no less personal fealty than open aristocracies. A republican Machiavelli might have been but he certainly was no democrat. quote:Second, how did this whole 'supporting the usurping lord' thing work out for the people? It's not like this was a vehicle for actual change, it was still supporting the status quo-- it was supporting the entire political system of "these nobles are in charge". Some times it worked for the best with the incoming foreign monarch/dynasty really being better than the deposed ones but more often than not it did nothing at all to improve things, only switched one set of oppressors by another. That was when that ruler lost the support of the people and got his rear end handed over to him. My point is that straight out condemning "collaboration with a foreign power" regardless of anything else is a recent development. There are fuckloads of historical examples of people supporting foreign powers to come and replace the ruling class that was oppressing them. "Collaboration with a foreign power" doesn't make you bad per se, you're bad if the reasons/ideology that led you to support that foreign power is evil. "Treason" itself is meaningless when the loyalty you are supposed to keep is for people loving you over. If you are getting the short end of the stick you don't owe allegiance to "the nation" aka the ruling class. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Aug 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
Jedit posted:No, if racist elements weren't taking advantage of social and economic turmoil we wouldn't be in the poo poo we're in. "Fighting" fascism by sending out your own squads of skinheaded boot boys isn't going to fix it, it's just going to put violent scum on both sides. And at that point we are lost, because there will be nobody fighting fascism any more - just a difference of opinion in who should receive the brutal beating in order to "preserve our unity". That isn't to say that the USSR was good, it just means that while there was a real threat of a foreign backed revolution the ruling class was kept in check. Nowadays? Hahaha, what are you going to do prole? Not eat the bread I'm gracefully offering you?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
weavernaut posted:They're still a laughing stock. Just a better-organised one than the BNP? Right. Maybe it's a bit premature to start back-patting the German yet, though? Wait until Germany is experiencing over 25% unemployment in general and over 50% youth unemployment in particular and then we can tell if their memory remains as fresh. Why would the german people be sliding into fascism? Things are still working out comparatively well for them as it is. When there is no more to squeeze from the periphery and their masters turn on them, then we shall see if that vaunted opposition to non-democratic "solutions" remains or is washed away in the torrent of anger and impotent liberal tears.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:There is a stigma but honestly I blame it on poor organizing more than anything else. You can adapt to being banned as a party and whatnot it's been done before. But like I've told many anarchists,socialists,and communists before yes you're being repressed but your piss poor organizing doesn't help either. Honestly I feel like people in general are having trouble adapting and organizing in more recent years and I can't really pin it on one specific thing. At least in my country I think it comes down to the end of conscription. Just the other day my father was berating my generation for being passive morons while his, when they got fed up with the regime made a coup. The only thing I could come up in defense of my generation was "easy for you to talk, all you guys were war veterans with at least 3 years of active combat, we don't even know how to clean a gun." And honestly I think that plays not a small role in the current state of affairs. The end of conscription seemed like a great idea at the time but in retrospect it deprived the general population of knowledge and discipline indispensable to organize any sort of serious resistance or subversive work, underground or not. And, historically speaking, things quickly go to poo poo when the armed forces stop being filled with general population and are replaced with mercenaries who have a vented interest in maintaining the people that pay them in charge. NikkolasKing posted:I also talked to a person who (apparently, I can't vouch for how accurate this is) knows about British history. What has determined English foreign policy, according to this person, is the fear of "a strong continental European power." Back in the day it was what brought England and France to blows but in the early 20th Century it was Germany. Great Britain was not about to help Germany become that strong European power. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 10:34
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:If any of you bleeding heart "we can't bash the fash we'd be just as bad" liberals are Greek, blood is on your hands too. If you aren't Greek, learn the lesson now so you'll be prepared if this poo poo comes to your country. No man, the anti fascists should lay down in the street and take it, don't you see that otherwise they'll lose the moral high ground? 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 12:33
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:It seems that the Greeks has been fascist for a lot longer than democratic. And banning sure does work. Look at the Muslims that are not here today. And I think Christianity was banned also once? On the other hand look at the cathars! Oh, right, never mind then... 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Don't allow the material conditions that swell Fascist support to continue. In other words, you need working governments. How do you propose the greek population "not allow the material conditions that swell Fascist support to continue"? It's going to be a bit hard bootstrapping themselves a "working government" when their problem is precisely that their governments are the ones creating those same material conditions because gently caress the working class forever. Everybody talks about how anti fascist violence didn't succeed in Germany. On the other hand in Portugal no one did a loving thing and fascists took over for the next 48 years until someone decided to pick up weapons and do something.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2013 12:20
|
|
|
Yeah, this. It was terrible but you can't say it wasn't effective. In the peninsula there wasn't so much as an hint of the religious wars that engulfed the rest of Europe. This is not at all an endorsement of the Inquisition. In the end the economic impact of cleansing the country of all heretics/infidels/whatever ended up being worse than if we had religious wars but still it was quite effective in "changing people's beliefs".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Miltank posted:The Inquisition did not destroy Spain's Muslim and Jewish populations, it only forced them out. That seems like a pretty big distinction to me. Anyway "violence didn't convince the fascists, it simply drove them out of the country" seems largely the same result to me, no fascists in the country. Install Windows posted:The Inquisition also created a rather extensive underground culture of people who were outwardly Christian but still carried on Jewish or Muslim religion behind closed doors. Arguing that violence isn't an effective tool to model collective thought is just plain silly. Did Stalin have any problems with internal dissent? There are plenty of reasons why this is a terrible approach but being ineffective is not one of them. As long as you are willing to really grind your opponents violence is quite effective, that's why it keeps being used over and over again. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:No, the Inquistion did not work. The Spanish Inquisition ran for about 80 years. It took another couple centuries of extreme repression to actually eliminate stuff quote:and then primarily by straight up execution. quote:Incidentally, the Inquisition and its successor policies were only interested in establishing a single line of thought that everyone would agree to. It would not be amenable to using the same tactics to only stamp out one particular school of thought you dislike while still allowing free dialogue among multiples you don't have a problem with. rscott posted:idk guys the despot who sent literally millions of people to the gulags as political prisoners, had Trotsky exiled and then assassinated and is overall known for his purges, did he have a problem with internal dissent??? And those millions of people were all guilty of dissent? People were sent to the gulags for anything and everything, I doubt more than a tiny fraction were really guilty of what they were accused. How many of those millions sent to the gulags came out and gave him any trouble? Their families? Their friends? No one? Seems effective. And we are discussing if purges are efficient and your argument on why purges aren't efficient is that purges took place? Really? C'mon! The man ran a campaign of terror and as a result was secure in power until he died a natural death. I'd say persecution achieved his goals very effectively.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:No, the Inquisition proper ran for about 80 years. The restrictions against other beliefs continued for centuries. Portuguese Inquisition: Established 1536; Disbanded 1821 You might argue that they weren't operating at full steam and holding public burnings on the eve of being officialy disbanded but it's quite different than saying they weren't still operating as oppressors for centuries. quote:That is because most of the sentences were against people who were Christian but minorly stepped out of line, not against out-and-out infidels. Later jews were allowed back in the country and the converted christians still couldn't practice their true faith under penalty of death. And of course most people weren't executed, when faced with the the prospect of a gruesome death they recanted. Those "out-and-out infidels" you mention were the ones that got burned at the stake. Either way the Inquisition got what it wanted. If you prosecute people, cause most of them to hide from everyone else what they really believe and kill those that won't then you successfully achieved your goal of "changing the minds of the population". When the Inquisition started there were hundreds of thousands of religious dissidents in the country when they finished they could be counted in the very few thousands. How is that not effective? quote:It was ineffective, because the only people it really "changed" were ones that it killed. Putting people a few miles outside the borders didn't change their beliefs and there was extensive continued belief in things deemed heretical. It's a loving purge not a timeshare presentation. quote:You know, just like how Hitler wasn't very effective in getting rid of his "undesirables" until full scale murder was sanctioned against them. Which is why the entire concept is ineffective. Ofaloaf posted:Can we just agree that torture is horrible and beyond the pale and whether the Inquisition does it, the US government does it or the Hypothetical Antifascist Purity Commission does it, it's not something to be condoned or actively, seriously considered for further use? Please. Install Windows posted:Not only did the Cathars oppose war and believe that reproduction should be avoided as much as possible, two factors that made continued survival in those times a bit of a problem on their own, they were also ruthlessly slaughtered and massacred. Essentially they would have died out on their own slightly slower then the Shakers almost have, even without the armies of Catholicism helping them along. If you lose control of a sect you inevitably get the Reformation or a schism, either way a big No No for the Church. Catharism was one of the many sects the Church effectively repressed into extinction, protestantism was the one they failed to. It was never a matter of "oh let's all just get along and tolerate each other", that was simply not something that could happen at that period in history. Besides catharism was getting very popular and was spreading quite fast, they were in no risk of "going extinct by themselves", that's exactly why a CrusadeTM was called for, to wipe them out once and for all. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
Grouchy Smurf posted:It should be noted that the Holy Inquisition, the one enforced and operated under the Pope, still exists under a new name, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Yeah I haven't seen any burnings lately but that's a silly point to make by comparing the 21st century with what was happening in Europe until at least the late 16th century. poo poo was grim, "Rwanda massacres" grim at times and the Thirty Years War was atrocious. Only none of that poo poo happened here, there was simply no critical mass for it because the Inquisition was hard on the job. Not until people started getting fed up of slaughtering each other and reached a religious détente did the Inquisition slack on the job. That right there is centuries of effective work serving you a daily dose of forced conformity. The Inquisition was a terrible thing to happen but it did succeed in molding the minds of the population. There simply were never enough dissidents to have a religious civil war because all the dissidents were effectively  nipped in the bud, they didn't get to convert others.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
Miltank posted:There was never a large number of Protestants in Spain so the effectiveness of the Inquisition is merely speculation. Yeah, Protestants appeared in large numbers seemingly everywhere else other than Portugal, Spain and Italy but I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Inquisition. Maybe it was the mediterranean weather. e: Anyway, I've derailed the thread more than I intended to already. I'll take it to the Inquisition megathread.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I see no reason why the removal of an existing power structure requires the literal rolling of heads to accomplish. Of course the existing structure will resist its existence coming to an end but violence against them should be in response to them becoming violent and be proportional. Well in France the massacres begun when the Paris population was being gathered to go to the front and fight the incoming army of Prussian and French-reactionaries that had avowed to slaughter the Paris population if they were resisted. Let me tell you this, if a revolution occurred in my country and I found myself pressganged to go fight a seemingly hopeless battle against an army organized by the reactionaries I'll want to make sure as well that those motherfuckers won't be left behind my back to to gloat over my body if we are defeated. It's easy for us to condemn those actions because we are used to a more or less functional political system, but for these people it was literally kill or be killed and at times it was kill and be killed. It's not like the reactionaries would stop organizing and calling on foreign armies to restore the status quo ante. The massacres of the aristocracy were an escalation, the revolutionaries didn't even kill the king until 3 years into the revolution and likely would have been satisfied with a constitutional monarchy similar to the british if the reactionaries didn't prove time and time again that nothing short of a bloody revenge and a return to the pre-revolution situation would ever satisfy them. Were there excesses? Obviously! But if they had played it any other way they would have lost much sooner and all the progress would have been undone. It's also funny in a bitter way that the period when thousands of aristocrats were killed is called The Terror, but the preceding period when millions of workers were literally starved to death by those same aristocrats is called Business as Usual. quote:Terrors very rarely end well for those that instigate them. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Jedit posted:1) Having an education does not make you automatically knowledgeable about guns. What, are we ignoring the countless political and military leaders that throughout history chose to kill themselves rather than be captured and/or tried? What is that supposed to prove other that once he achieved all he possibly could he was unwilling to go through prolonged suffering or humiliation and preferred a quick death?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
So what? Is the manner of his death what determines if he truly believed he was doing the right thing? I really don't see where you are going with this. At the end of the day all it comes down to is he preferred to die by his own hand than be executed, not unheard of by any degree and doesn't tell you anything about him.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
Jedit posted:When they came for Robespierre and he responded with panic [..] his convictions were proven hollow. Well, aren't you a tough guy. I bet when your times comes you'll look death in the eye with a smirk on your lips.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
quote:The court-martial told him: "You are under sentence of death." Leviné answered: "We Communists are always under sentence of death." Oh god 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Your straw man should be put up against the wall and shot. I'm not the one talking smack about doing things that I know will lead to my death, so how I'd react to impending doom is completely without relevance. And just because jews and muslims knew that continuing to practice their faith in secret would probably end up with them dead I doubt any of them were cheerful when time came to go to the stake. You can do poo poo that you think will get you killed if you think it's worth your life. That doesn't mean you have to chose a protracted and/or humiliating death in order for it to "really count". He did what he thought he had to, knowing that it would likely get him killed and in the end it did. What more did you want of him, a big speech to an hostile assembly? What for?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:I don't know, it made Danton look pretty badass by comparison. Shame it didn't make him incorruptible.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Red Pyramid posted:So the 50,000+ people murdered during the Terror, a huge majority of whom most likely committed no more serious a crime than having jealous neighbors, were an acceptable sacrifice because Robespierre really believed in what he was doing? Was every last execution really necessary to preserve the Revolution, or did they alternatively rob it of legitimacy and public support? I'm failing to see what the difference is when compared to Stalin's purges or Mao's Cultural Revolution. An orgy of hysterical violence isn't any less useless and counter-productive if the paranoid megalomaniac who carries it out has really strong convictions. As someone pointed out after the Revolution the rest of Europe's monarchs felt that if they allowed Louis to be forced into a constitutional monarchy against his will was not good for them. On top of that for England this was a great opportunity to grab some easy colonial pickings from France. The exiled aristocrats sat just miles from the border and conspired with the King and foreign powers to bring armies, subdue the population, restore the property of the church and nobility and force many people back into serfdom. Internally there was a large faction of monarchists supported by the a church that stood to lose all it's lands and most of it's income and that successfully inflamed some of the illiterate rural peasantry against "the godless heathens in Paris". This fifth column was real, not a fabrication of delusional revolutionaries. Several battles were fought internally and the reactionaries were pushing for a civil war. A Prussian army invades France and is quickly marching on Paris, the Prussian general announces that any resistance will be mercilessly crushed. The bells start ringing and thousands of men are called upon to make a desperate last stand. If they lose it's all over. Their enemies will have won, the old regime will return. Now, let's say you are one of those conscripted urban proles. You are about to leave for the front and there is a justified fear that the fifth column will take that chance to revolt while the army is away and deliver Paris into the hands of the enemy. Massacres are sure to follow. What do you do? You keep looking at this through your 21th century eyes but back then organizing a sit-down in front of Versailles and uploading videos of police brutality wasn't an option. This poo poo was do or die, it was the real deal. It was a revolution. In fact it was a bigger revolution in scope than anything we have seen in the 20th century. It is impossible to change the centuries old status quo without violence if there is no reasonableness from the privileged classes and the French privileged classes were having none of this poo poo. At this point the choice was either total war or complete surrender and the retaliatory massacres that would follow. Does this excuse monsters like Jean-Baptiste Carrier? No, but it was a loving revolution, monsters on all sides will always get their due in times like these. Men like Robespierre were in charge of winning the war, that meant dealing with the internal enemies and even working with people like the aforementioned Carrier. To be quite honest I don't really like any of the people that acted as rulers on any side of the revolution. Even men like Robespierre and Marat whom I largely support were flawed and distasteful individuals but they did what the Republic needed done. I won't stand from my perch and pretend to have a moral superiority because I have the luxury of freely organizing petitions online and vote once in a while. Instead I judge the revolution, with all it's warts, all the injustices, all the killing and ask "was it worth it?" It was. Raskolnikov38 posted:I'm far from an expert on the French revolution or its pre-Napoleon wars but wikipedia seems to paint the picture that revolutionary France started the war of the 1st coalition herself. It seems Europe was content to sit back as long as Louis XVI's head remained attached to his neck. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
There was no NSA to give an insight into who was really guilty of conspiring, in a lot of cases all you had was testimony and people will be people. It was rational in that they had no other choice in practice. It was not perfectly useful in that a lot of innocent got hosed but it was still better than the alternative. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Red Pyramid posted:Saying political executions are rational is different than saying the execution of 50,000 essentially untried people, 72 percent of them workers and peasants, was rational. I don't think it takes the NSA to implicate the latter as excessive and possibly counter-productive. You know, it's not like they were working on a quota. Trials were held locally, Robespierre wasn't personally presiding over courts all across the nation and executing insurrectionists. The fact that 72% were workers and peasants isn't surprising when you think about who made up the majority of insurrectionist armies, it weren't priests.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:In the modern Anglosphere, the French kings are already put in the category of "generic bad guys" like most other royalty of the era and Napoleon is regarded as a murderous midget who ruined Europe. Which only goes to show that history is written by the victors, Napoleon conquered a lot of countries that were allied against France. I guess he should have just surrendered as soon as he took power. I'm not a fan of Napoleon but he was a huge improvement over the Directory. His worse defect was his nepotism but what he gets blamed for is waging a war that other nations started and for other nations breaking peace treaties. Someone compared him to Alexander but I don't think that was his shtick at all, I see him more as an Augustus than an Alexander, interested in ruling rather than conquering but circumstances didn't allow him much peace time to do (more of) his thing. e: Maybe Augustus isn't that right either because Augustus lacked Napoleon's military genius. Maybe Caesar is a more apt comparison but instead of being a brilliant politician first and brilliant general second Napoleon had more emphasis as a brilliant general first and brilliant politician second. Who knows what might have been if Britain didn't resume war in 1803. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 11:39 on Jan 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
visceril posted:His proposition to the other parties in the cities was an end to incompetent governance and the pointless power struggles. After years of fighting itself and getting nowhere, France would unite and vanquish her enemies. Which was pretty much how Augustus ended the chaos of the Republic and became Emperor as well. Napoleon would have looked better in my eyes if he became Emperor for real instead of keeping the charade of distinct national monarchies given to his family and generals. That would never be a stable political arrangement long run, even if he managed to keep it all together once he died the whole thing would crumble. He should have kept independent national parliaments, maybe an overarching imperial senate but he should have been the sole head of state. Not that that made much difference in the end. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Jan 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Mans posted:I understand where you're coming from. Gypsies' relation with the state has turned a lot of their communities into an ostracized and marginalized group, which results in a "us vs them" mentality that gives a lot of young roma kids the mindset that robbing anyone non-roma is fair game because they don't give a poo poo about them. I have at least four gispy families in my neighbourhood and they all took their kids away from school early to work for them in the flea markets and whatever else they get their incomes, yet they do gently caress all crime against their neighbours. Paradoxically the roma are still considered to be the perfect example of wellfare queens! Still, they do no crime, they have friends and they're effectively regular folks who, basically, are really frontal. How can you generalize this with a straight face? This is not at all the experience I have having lived all my life around gypsy families. When they are having their parties in apartment buildings and blasting music and singing all night long you better shut the gently caress up and keep quiet, if you dare complain you're taking your life on your own hands. Of course you can dismiss this as nothing more than anecdotes but pretending these things don't happen and that anyone that claims otherwise is a racist is a sure way to make people racist. I don't begrudge the gypsy population for the welfare they get, welfare should be given to poor people regardless of race. What I do begrudge them for is taking their kids out of school as soon as they can. I begrudge them that when the government made school attendance mandatory for getting welfare you started getting teachers beaten up by the kids parents for reporting truancy. Teaching their kids that non-gypsies are fair game is not the way to improve their lot. We have lived in democracy for 40 years now and they have been getting free housing, schooling and welfare for all this time, can you honestly say that the situation has improved significantly? We have black doctors, often children of completely illiterate immigrants, in the last decades we've had waves of muslim immigration, asian immigrants, people from all over the place and despite the systemic racism you mention all these other groups have reasonably integrated. Where are the gypsy doctors? It's not the government taking their children from schools or putting them in segregated classes. I had 3 gypsy kids from my neighborhood in my class when I was in elementary school, all of them were taken out before they were 12. The girl was married when she was 15. Integration is a two way street, both sides need to cooperate. Putting your fingers in your ears and pretending that white racism is the only problem will solve nothing but will only further alienate people. quote:Romas are really hard to tackle because of that separation between them and the state. They don't want to participate in a society that seems set against them quote:wants to crush a lot of their social customs, which are based on very misoginistic conditions. Their lack of interest for sending kids to school or treating women equally makes them "rejects" on the eyes of many liberals and leftists, which results in a weird alliance between right, center and left not caring about them. quote:That's why i said the Roma issue is so loving complicated because they really aren't treated like other minorities, there seems to be a really difficulty in approaching the Roma, acting along side them, make them change the negative aspects of their family ties and have them be politically active. The problem with the gypsies is exactly the same problem with the irish wonderers in britain. You have a group of people (white in the case of the wonderers) that live in a closed community and actively resist any attempt to integrate them, instead resorting to petty crime and drug trafficking to make a living because they were raised in a way that ensures they can never do anything else. How can you break this cycle without a desire from said community and how can you break this cycle when you paint anyone experiencing problems daily as simply racist people making poo poo up? PS: I used the term gypsies in my post not in a derogatory way but to differentiate the native roma from the recent roma immigrants from eastern europe. Those are a whole different kettle of fish and being recent arrivals I have much less problem giving them a pass. It's harder to do that when you grow up watching one generation after another being ruined by their parents. There are several toxic aspects to gypsy culture that unless they are addressed will ensure nothing ever changes, no matter how much money you throw at it. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
In the meanwhile in Shitland Passos indicates that 2012 will be the economic turnaround year Passos anticipates economic turnaround this year [2013] Passos says 2014 will the turnaround year for the Portuguese economy Passos says 2015 will the turnaround moment But not everything is bad news, it seems that the program of forcing hundreds of thousands of people to flee the country is finally working and unemployment is down. If we are lucky Ebola should bring those numbers even lower ~next year~. Our good fortune is that our fascists are morons and can't help themselves but tout old geezer Salazar as a hero. Combine a population with a strong messianic tradition with a USELESS democracy and the fact that the dictatorship is nothing but stories for everyone younger than 45 and when the fascists get someone with charisma this country will turn so fast it will make your head spin.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
Mans posted:Hmm yes the country whose communist party is the third biggest party ,not to mention the assorted left wing and centrist-with-left-wing-facade parties that roam around, will turn to the hard right in a jiffy. Mans posted:I'll toxx myself and say that i will record myself eating the entire communist manifesto if a party to the right of CDS ever gets a single member into parliament. And I counter toxx myself and will eat the entire communist manifesto and Mao's little red book for dessert that if\when people eventually get fed up with this poo poo we won't get a communist dictatorship but a neo-fascist one and I say this as someone that's voting CDU in the next elections. Outside of a core of maybe 20% seriously left wing people that might support a leftwing revolution, the rest, those that abstain, those that "don't care about politics because they are all the same" if\when poo poo hits the fan and we start getting a whiff of 1st Republic chaos they'll much sooner flock to a well groomed gentleman that will assure them that he can bring peace, order and prosperity back. It's not like that wasn't precisely what we did in the 30s. That democracy in Portugal is a sham is something people already internalized, what they don't see yet is an alternative. That they don't don't consider the communists an alternative to the current regime is self evident. Either the current farce will prolong itself indefinitely which I don't believe or sooner or later some people will get fed up and left wing political violence will enter the table. When that happens the backlash to the right by everyone not already firmly on the left will be hard and swift. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
SO it seems Angela Merkel thinks Portugal has too many college graduates. Yeah, who do the Portuguese think they are? Right now they have 17% college graduates if nothing is done one of these days they'll reach the EU average of 25% and then what? Then again when our own government tells us we must lower wages and forego work protections in order to compete with the Chinese what can you expect from Europe. The EU has become a parody of what it once was, if we are by design to be consigned to poverty and unqualified work then what loving Union is this? MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Mans posted:Some time ago the police locked out one of the biggest commercial centers of Lisbon to all blacks in the city because two blacks got into a fight inside. Holy poo poo Mans we are largely on the same political side and we agree more often than we disagree but this is a crock of poo poo and you know it. What happened wasn't "a fight between two black guys", you can find two black (or white) guys fighting every day in Lisbon, what happened was a gathering of around 800 teens from slums neighboring the Vasco da Gama mall which then steamed the place. The police forbade more teens from continuing to enter the mall while they were trying to make arrests and disperse the crowd. Jesus loving christ, any reason why you so thoroughly misrepresented what happened to the point where someone not familiar with the situation might think there are now "No Colored or Dogs Allowed" in one of Lisbon's malls? I was in Vasco da Gama just last month and believe it or not there were plenty of black people around doing their Christmas shopping. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 08:41 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:hrm yes police Don't be disingenuous, this isn't an issue of race but of class. These kids didn't invade the mall and steal poo poo because they were black but because they are poor and live in lovely degraded slums and youth unemployment is around 50% to the general population and certainly much higher for teens living in these slums. Do you propose that police just let a group of 800 teens have free reign over a shopping mall and steal and break poo poo because most of them were black? And again, closing off a space while you make arrests isn't the same as "blacks are now forbidden from entering the mall". e: In order to save us all some time I am pro-immigration and think our country desperately needs much more immigrants to balance out our terrible birth rate. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 08:49 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Well yeah that's exactly how it works in America too. But nobody is going around claiming police in America aren't racist, because the issues of race and class are not separable, and the magic soil of the European continent doesn't change that. I mean this is literally the exact same thing as Ferguson, etc, only possibly on a smaller scale No this isn't "literally the exact same thing as Ferguson" because no one was shot or beaten up, this was a public order issue and arrests were made. Should cops also do nothing if a football riot broke out and the fans were mostly black? Do you think if these had been 800 all white kids the cops wouldn't have bothered? Shops were being raided and people were being mugged for gently caress's sake.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Yeah, seems like. Dumbass 1st- the fact that that title isn't red should tip you off. you'd be surprised how good it is at filtering idiots such as yourself that rather than address what I actually said pick up on it 2nd- what gave me off as a racist? the fact I want more black immigrants?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:You're right, Ferguson MO was simply police following public orders and making arrests in the name of public order. If it were a crowd of white people breaking into shops and looting do you think the cops wouldn't have bothered? I made no comment what so ever over the events in Ferguson and if you read the Freep thread you'd know where I stand regarding that. Also the historical origins of present day race relations in my country have nothing in common with the reality in the US and neither the situation in Ferguson nor it's aftermath have anything in common with what happened in Lisbon except that both involved police and some black kids.  I ask again, if a bunch of kids storms a mall and starts looting shops and mugging shoppers what should the police do? You are commenting on an event you know nothing about.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I think cops keeping people outside of a area based on their skin color racist and you don't friend. Quote me on that. Let me restate this once again, there are no "No Blacks Allowed" signs on that mall and plenty of black people continue to shop there. Closing off an area while you are trying to stop a riot is not the same as "forbidding blacks from entering the mall".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
You know what the aftermath of this event that was "exactly like Ferguson" was? Two kids were arrested, no one was shot.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I think he's lying about that and would like proof. You are arguing that a guy that has (twice now) said he wants many more black (and other) immigrants to come to his country is racist based on... what exactly? The fact I believe that the police should be allowed to cordon off an area while a riot is taking place? icantfindaname posted:I think police action against a mainly black crowd of poor youths is inseparable from racism and insisting it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT is an almost unbelievably naive position to hold My argument is that whatever the reason why a crowd is looting a place or the reason for the particular racial composition of that crowd once a riot is taking place you can't just not call the police and do nothing which is what you are arguing for. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
KoldPT posted:It's ok, because 'macedonia' isn't a thing How so?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 14:41
|
|