Here comes Belgium
-
After murdering Fortyn, lynching of Buttiglione and van Kroes, and contributing to the murder of van Gogh, here's latest leftie initiative from Europe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3994867.stm[^] ...this is from the same people that allow socialist and communist party. Tomaž
-
After murdering Fortyn, lynching of Buttiglione and van Kroes, and contributing to the murder of van Gogh, here's latest leftie initiative from Europe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3994867.stm[^] ...this is from the same people that allow socialist and communist party. Tomaž
Tomaž Štih wrote: After murdering Fortyn, lynching of Buttiglione and van Kroes, and contributing to the murder of van Gogh, here's latest leftie initiative from Europe: Did you forget to take your medication? "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Tomaž Štih wrote: After murdering Fortyn, lynching of Buttiglione and van Kroes, and contributing to the murder of van Gogh, here's latest leftie initiative from Europe: Did you forget to take your medication? "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
Cmon Jan, repeat the leftie mantra with me:"World War II was caused by freedom of speech." Tomaž
-
Cmon Jan, repeat the leftie mantra with me:"World War II was caused by freedom of speech." Tomaž
I'm sorry, maybe if I had smoked the same as you, I would have clue about what you are talking about. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Cmon Jan, repeat the leftie mantra with me:"World War II was caused by freedom of speech." Tomaž
No , WW2 was caused by an extreme right wing political movement called 'Fascism', extolling the virtues of the pure arian race. Tomaz you really are a fool - I'd suggest you keep up with your schedule of medication Rhys A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk I have a workstation... Vampireware /n/, a project, capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it, which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless refuses to die.
-
After murdering Fortyn, lynching of Buttiglione and van Kroes, and contributing to the murder of van Gogh, here's latest leftie initiative from Europe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3994867.stm[^] ...this is from the same people that allow socialist and communist party. Tomaž
"The ruling means the Blok will lose access to state funding and access to television which will, in effect, shut down the party." So, all of a sudden your for state funding? Tomaž Štih wrote: this is from the same people that allow socialist and communist party. Nothing wrong with being a socialist or a communist, but the court has found that the party is racist. Now, racism isn't a political ideology, allthough it could be part of one. It's the word for a counterproductive behaviour that is so threatening to the stability of the modern globalized societies, that it is rendered illegal in all the western countries that I can think of. Tomaž Štih wrote: here's latest leftie initiative from Europe Why do you think the laws were made by lefties, and why do you think the court is leftist? Apparently the Belgium state donates money and air time on the stateowned tv channel(s) to parties that lives up to certain criterias. The party in question didn't live up to those criteria, so no funding for them. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
No , WW2 was caused by an extreme right wing political movement called 'Fascism', extolling the virtues of the pure arian race. Tomaz you really are a fool - I'd suggest you keep up with your schedule of medication Rhys A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk I have a workstation... Vampireware /n/, a project, capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it, which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless refuses to die.
Fascism was started by a renegade socialist and main editor of mainstream socialist newspaper Avanti, Benito Mussolini in Italy. Ideologically it was a socialist movement, but one that endorsed state corporativism. In Germany national socialism was another flavour of socialism that replaced "the capitalist" with "the jew" (hence - national). Hitler's party NSDAP was continuation of the German Workers Party. National socialistm and fascism are two different philosophies with the same core - they are both derivates of socialism. Another socialism (soviet type) was born in 1917 in Russia. Here are some good links for you to explain why people hated each other so much. http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/marx_hitler.htm[^] http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/marx_hitler2.htm[^] People hated each other because they were brainwashed into beliving that social differences between people are bad and that they're being exploited. They simply went to seek for the big bad exploiter and found it - Soviets in intellectuals, owners and managers, Hitler in jews. And, p.s., Hitler and Mussolini were in favour of collectivism, big goverment, high tax, and lotsa regulation. Not something you would seek on the right these days. Rhys666 wrote: Tomaz you really are a fool I'm not. You just don't know history while being deply convinced that you do. Tomaž
-
Fascism was started by a renegade socialist and main editor of mainstream socialist newspaper Avanti, Benito Mussolini in Italy. Ideologically it was a socialist movement, but one that endorsed state corporativism. In Germany national socialism was another flavour of socialism that replaced "the capitalist" with "the jew" (hence - national). Hitler's party NSDAP was continuation of the German Workers Party. National socialistm and fascism are two different philosophies with the same core - they are both derivates of socialism. Another socialism (soviet type) was born in 1917 in Russia. Here are some good links for you to explain why people hated each other so much. http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/marx_hitler.htm[^] http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/marx_hitler2.htm[^] People hated each other because they were brainwashed into beliving that social differences between people are bad and that they're being exploited. They simply went to seek for the big bad exploiter and found it - Soviets in intellectuals, owners and managers, Hitler in jews. And, p.s., Hitler and Mussolini were in favour of collectivism, big goverment, high tax, and lotsa regulation. Not something you would seek on the right these days. Rhys666 wrote: Tomaz you really are a fool I'm not. You just don't know history while being deply convinced that you do. Tomaž
Here are samples of national socialist and faschist political programs to understand why I say that this ideology was in essence left (by todays terms). Hitler's political program[^] Check points 11., 12., 13., 14., 15., 16., 17., 18., 20., 21., and 25. "To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states." And here's a study about Mussolini's[^] legacy. Tomaž
-
I'm sorry, maybe if I had smoked the same as you, I would have clue about what you are talking about. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
I'm surprised. This is no. 1 socialist excuse when discussing banning nationalist ideologies. They say that this makes sense because of national socialist historical experience. But they never say that other historical experiences, such as Soviet Russia or Khmer Rouge (or recently) red brigades could be a reason for banning socialists and communists OR (if you'd like to separate ideology from a party) for banning people who want to distribute wealth. Personally I think a person who thinks free speech caused "World War II" is an idiot. But apparently the lefties hold their claws on privilege of banning non compatible extremist ideologies, but allowing the one compatible with the leftism. That's Belgium. Tomaž
-
Fascism was started by a renegade socialist and main editor of mainstream socialist newspaper Avanti, Benito Mussolini in Italy. Ideologically it was a socialist movement, but one that endorsed state corporativism. In Germany national socialism was another flavour of socialism that replaced "the capitalist" with "the jew" (hence - national). Hitler's party NSDAP was continuation of the German Workers Party. National socialistm and fascism are two different philosophies with the same core - they are both derivates of socialism. Another socialism (soviet type) was born in 1917 in Russia. Here are some good links for you to explain why people hated each other so much. http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/marx_hitler.htm[^] http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/marx_hitler2.htm[^] People hated each other because they were brainwashed into beliving that social differences between people are bad and that they're being exploited. They simply went to seek for the big bad exploiter and found it - Soviets in intellectuals, owners and managers, Hitler in jews. And, p.s., Hitler and Mussolini were in favour of collectivism, big goverment, high tax, and lotsa regulation. Not something you would seek on the right these days. Rhys666 wrote: Tomaz you really are a fool I'm not. You just don't know history while being deply convinced that you do. Tomaž
Actually you're surprisingly incorrect. 1) When looked at correctly, The term fascism in origin referred to the concentration of political offices within the hands of the Roman Emperor, centered on his office of being head of the military. 2) Fascism is driven by bourgeois. While communist movements can also be nationalist at certain points and national movements can be socialist, they don't seem intrinsically so. In particular, communists are principled internationalists, while fascists are quite the opposite, aiming at exclusion, not inclusion. So, as we look into the matter, communists and fascists seem opposite in this respect. 3) While both communist movements and bourgeois regimes can be authoritarian, there seems to me a basic difference. The authoritarianism associated with fascism seems to be a consequence of systemic crisis, and it does not offer any escape from that authoritarian order. The authoritarianism that may be associated with a communist movement seeks in principle to build the revolutionary unity and discipline needed to arrive at a non-authoritarian future. While this has proven tricky in practice and the short term effect on people might well be the same, fascist authoritarianism and communist authoritarianism seem opposite when viewed as long term processes. 4) Fascism attacked any organization of private interest, such as unions, as threats to the political order under which the person's whole being was to be subsumed (culture raised to the political level). Communist governments or movements have at times been un-democratic as well, but, again, when viewed as a long term process, they are quite different. Fascism sacrifices democracy to perpetuate the political order needed by capitalism; communism creates a political order that can usher in democracy and the ultimate dissolution the state as an instrument of oppression. Failures in practice to achieve this goal should not obscure the fundamental difference by definition. 5) Communists represent the bourgeoisie as an alien class, but this does not mean the aim is to kill them as people, but only their class, their relation of production. That is, communists aim to expropriate capitalists and convert members of the bourgeoisie into wage-earners. While you can't, as Mao once put it, make an omelette without cracking a few eggs, a revolution is very likely to be violent. However, in its course you don't attack people for what they intrinsically are (their culture or race), but for their social role, which can change without des
-
I'm surprised. This is no. 1 socialist excuse when discussing banning nationalist ideologies. They say that this makes sense because of national socialist historical experience. But they never say that other historical experiences, such as Soviet Russia or Khmer Rouge (or recently) red brigades could be a reason for banning socialists and communists OR (if you'd like to separate ideology from a party) for banning people who want to distribute wealth. Personally I think a person who thinks free speech caused "World War II" is an idiot. But apparently the lefties hold their claws on privilege of banning non compatible extremist ideologies, but allowing the one compatible with the leftism. That's Belgium. Tomaž
You still didn't get the point, it' actually quite easy to understand, but I guess I can try again: Belgium offers money and airtime to political parties under certain criterias, one criteria being not to spread racism. The concerned party spreads racism, so they violates the criteria above. Result: No funding, and no airtime. As you can read from the article, the party isn't banned, it just has to pay for it's own commercials and airtime. Tomaž Štih wrote: I'm surprised. This is no. 1 socialist excuse when discussing banning nationalist ideologies. The ruling didn't even state that the party should stop spreading racism, it just means that they won't get paid to do it. Tomaž Štih wrote: But they never say that other historical experiences, such as Soviet Russia or Khmer Rouge (or recently) red brigades could be a reason for banning socialists and communists Do you think that communism shoul be banned on those reasons?, that would render the whole democracy useless, because you could likewise ban every political ideology based on what some idiot has done in the past. Tomaž Štih wrote: for banning people who want to distribute wealth. Is there something wrong about distributing wealth :~ "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Actually you're surprisingly incorrect. 1) When looked at correctly, The term fascism in origin referred to the concentration of political offices within the hands of the Roman Emperor, centered on his office of being head of the military. 2) Fascism is driven by bourgeois. While communist movements can also be nationalist at certain points and national movements can be socialist, they don't seem intrinsically so. In particular, communists are principled internationalists, while fascists are quite the opposite, aiming at exclusion, not inclusion. So, as we look into the matter, communists and fascists seem opposite in this respect. 3) While both communist movements and bourgeois regimes can be authoritarian, there seems to me a basic difference. The authoritarianism associated with fascism seems to be a consequence of systemic crisis, and it does not offer any escape from that authoritarian order. The authoritarianism that may be associated with a communist movement seeks in principle to build the revolutionary unity and discipline needed to arrive at a non-authoritarian future. While this has proven tricky in practice and the short term effect on people might well be the same, fascist authoritarianism and communist authoritarianism seem opposite when viewed as long term processes. 4) Fascism attacked any organization of private interest, such as unions, as threats to the political order under which the person's whole being was to be subsumed (culture raised to the political level). Communist governments or movements have at times been un-democratic as well, but, again, when viewed as a long term process, they are quite different. Fascism sacrifices democracy to perpetuate the political order needed by capitalism; communism creates a political order that can usher in democracy and the ultimate dissolution the state as an instrument of oppression. Failures in practice to achieve this goal should not obscure the fundamental difference by definition. 5) Communists represent the bourgeoisie as an alien class, but this does not mean the aim is to kill them as people, but only their class, their relation of production. That is, communists aim to expropriate capitalists and convert members of the bourgeoisie into wage-earners. While you can't, as Mao once put it, make an omelette without cracking a few eggs, a revolution is very likely to be violent. However, in its course you don't attack people for what they intrinsically are (their culture or race), but for their social role, which can change without des
Term fascism comes from the Latin fasches. http://home.uchicago.edu/~janie/fasces.htm[^] These were carried by all Roman magistrates and symbolised justice. The rest of your views seems like Marxist twisting of truth and out of touch with reality (of communist systems and if you want their bodycount outcome). I would not spend time commenting on these. They're simply wrong, there is no significatn difference between national socialism, socialism and fascism. Tomaz
-
You still didn't get the point, it' actually quite easy to understand, but I guess I can try again: Belgium offers money and airtime to political parties under certain criterias, one criteria being not to spread racism. The concerned party spreads racism, so they violates the criteria above. Result: No funding, and no airtime. As you can read from the article, the party isn't banned, it just has to pay for it's own commercials and airtime. Tomaž Štih wrote: I'm surprised. This is no. 1 socialist excuse when discussing banning nationalist ideologies. The ruling didn't even state that the party should stop spreading racism, it just means that they won't get paid to do it. Tomaž Štih wrote: But they never say that other historical experiences, such as Soviet Russia or Khmer Rouge (or recently) red brigades could be a reason for banning socialists and communists Do you think that communism shoul be banned on those reasons?, that would render the whole democracy useless, because you could likewise ban every political ideology based on what some idiot has done in the past. Tomaž Štih wrote: for banning people who want to distribute wealth. Is there something wrong about distributing wealth :~ "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: You still didn't get the point, it' actually quite easy to understand, but I guess I can try again: Belgium offers money and airtime to political parties under certain criterias, one criteria being not to spread racism. ...for arbitrary definitions of racism, apparently apropriate to stigmatize popular right wing political party that is about to win elections and whoose racism is defined as "being against immigration policies". jan larsen wrote: The concerned party spreads racism, so they violates the criteria above. Result: No funding, and no airtime. ...for arbitrary definitions of racism. And of course, funding and airtime are available to socialist parties. This nicely symbolises euro socialist democracy. You have: 1. state funding of political parties, 2. state funding of media and 3. limitation of freedom of speech (apparently no 1st amendment here) by discrimination. That is excellent. Socialists will sponsor their own political parties via the state and promote it via state media and exclude competition from funds and televisions. And that's all good and well. How come I don't understand such simple logic. The problem is I do understand it. jan larsen wrote: But they never say that other historical experiences, such as Soviet Russia or Khmer Rouge (or recently) red brigades could be a reason for banning socialists and communists Do you think that communism shoul be banned on those reasons? No. I'm strongly against banning anyone. I'm just saying that banning anyone's freedom of speech based on his ideology is simply wrong. jan larsen wrote: Is there something wrong about distributing wealth Speaking against the rich is in essence equal to speaking against immigrants. Rich are just another minority group. Tomaž
-
"The ruling means the Blok will lose access to state funding and access to television which will, in effect, shut down the party." So, all of a sudden your for state funding? Tomaž Štih wrote: this is from the same people that allow socialist and communist party. Nothing wrong with being a socialist or a communist, but the court has found that the party is racist. Now, racism isn't a political ideology, allthough it could be part of one. It's the word for a counterproductive behaviour that is so threatening to the stability of the modern globalized societies, that it is rendered illegal in all the western countries that I can think of. Tomaž Štih wrote: here's latest leftie initiative from Europe Why do you think the laws were made by lefties, and why do you think the court is leftist? Apparently the Belgium state donates money and air time on the stateowned tv channel(s) to parties that lives up to certain criterias. The party in question didn't live up to those criteria, so no funding for them. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: So, all of a sudden your for state funding? In Belgium they have 1. state funding of political parties, 2. state media that provides air time. Thus if you're banning one political party from this process you are discriminating. Of course, state sponsoring is wrong. But if there is something even more wrong then it is the state only sponsoring the socialists. jan larsen wrote: Nothing wrong with being a socialist or a communist, but the court has found that the party is racist. ...for arbitrary values of "racist" (and we know how fast socislists are with this label). Apparently this label is apropriate to exclude a political opponent of the left using such laws insteda of elections. This is simply wrong. On the other side communists and socialists talk about the rich in exactly the same way racists talk about other races. But that is considered their freedom of speech. And it is. The problem is that everyone should be free to speak as they want. Unfortunately, Belgium don't know something like the 1st amendment. Instead they have some sort of "socialist democracy" where good socialist thingies and left political correctness are above the rights of man. And of course, from such system one can't expect anything better then what happened. jan larsen wrote: Apparently the Belgium state donates money and air time on the stateowned tv channel(s) to parties that lives up to certain criterias. The party in question didn't live up to those criteria, so no funding for them. Excellent. The state will sponsor socialists but not the opposition, based on socialist laws, conflicting with such shining examples of democracy and freedom as 1st amednment. How fair. Now there's a country for ami dems to emigrate to. They'd probably ban Republicans (of course, using the taxpayers money to do so). Tomaz
-
Cmon Jan, repeat the leftie mantra with me:"World War II was caused by freedom of speech." Tomaž
Tomaž Štih wrote: "World War II was caused by freedom of speech." I don't know about that, but World War 1 was just a big family argument -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit! Phoenix Paint - back from DPaint's ashes!
-
Term fascism comes from the Latin fasches. http://home.uchicago.edu/~janie/fasces.htm[^] These were carried by all Roman magistrates and symbolised justice. The rest of your views seems like Marxist twisting of truth and out of touch with reality (of communist systems and if you want their bodycount outcome). I would not spend time commenting on these. They're simply wrong, there is no significatn difference between national socialism, socialism and fascism. Tomaz
Ah, but again you show your more simplistic side. When I talk about Communism and Socialism I'm talking about the concepts and precepts of such, not how these systems were implemented. Your major problem is that you don't know the difference between a political system and ideology, and an implemented system or ideology, such as in the USSR and China. You're making wild and sweeping claims about things you don't understand, and have little to no knowledge of, based on your right-skewed bias. At the very least the fact that you don't know enough history that there is a correlation between suffering/crisis in the working classes and communism and also suffering/crisis in the middle classes and fascism shows your incredible ignorance. I could further this by pointing out your denial that Fascism and Nazi-ism are in fact not the same, (no, they're not), is almost ludicrous. To clarify, when I talk about Communism and Socialism I'm not talking about Russian or Chinese implementation of these systems because (to put it plainly for you) I do not believe it possible for a truly communist or socialist state to exist, the leaders want more (power, money etc.) and are in the position to grant themselves that. Human nature is selfish, not selfless and true socialism and communism could only exist in a truly selfless society. Russia and China have realistically been no more than dictatorships which extol the virtues of socialism that are needed for the leaderships of the controlling parties to perpetuate and maintain their position of power. If you want to compare the Nazi party in 1940's Germany with the Communist party in 1940's Russia that's fine, but don't carry on making spurious and tenuous links in your own mind that simply don't tie up in the real world. Either that or you should put your tin-foil hat back on, I think the microwaves are affecting yur brain... Rhys A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk I have a workstation... Vampireware /n/, a project, capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it, which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless refuses to die.
-
After murdering Fortyn, lynching of Buttiglione and van Kroes, and contributing to the murder of van Gogh, here's latest leftie initiative from Europe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3994867.stm[^] ...this is from the same people that allow socialist and communist party. Tomaž
I am ducth (as most problems on your list are) YOU ARE INSULTING!!!:mad::mad: please do not try to make our problems into statments for your completely insane vision on the world. :mad::mad::mad: Move to a country that is right for you (I cannot think of one I guess you will have to build your own) disallowing the Vlaams Blok is a good Idea they should also disallow the AEL there (an arabic extremistic party that states every murdered american soldier in Irak is ok). Please go to the Hague now, there is a small fight going on please get involved X| Rutger
-
After murdering Fortyn, lynching of Buttiglione and van Kroes, and contributing to the murder of van Gogh, here's latest leftie initiative from Europe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3994867.stm[^] ...this is from the same people that allow socialist and communist party. Tomaž
Are you claiming Vlaams Blok isn't racist and xenophobic?
Fold With Us! "Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms - Groucho Marx, 1890 - 1977"
-
Are you claiming Vlaams Blok isn't racist and xenophobic?
Fold With Us! "Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms - Groucho Marx, 1890 - 1977"
No. I'm claiming that constitutional backdoors that allow excluding political parties from the democratic process in combination with arbitrary interpretation of label "racist" is bigger danger to democracy and freedom then the extreme parties themselves. What the stupids did was 1) used court to supress secessionist policies under label "racism" and 2) increased support for the Vlaams Blok instead. If we ever have extreme right again in Europe I'm sure the lefties will accuse those that protected freedom of speech of doing it - when in fact they're doing it themselves by such utterly stupid decisions. I guess goverment interventions on the political market are equally disastrous as goverment interventions on the market of goods. They don't work and the power to do it is a constant threat if exploited. Tomaž
-
I am ducth (as most problems on your list are) YOU ARE INSULTING!!!:mad::mad: please do not try to make our problems into statments for your completely insane vision on the world. :mad::mad::mad: Move to a country that is right for you (I cannot think of one I guess you will have to build your own) disallowing the Vlaams Blok is a good Idea they should also disallow the AEL there (an arabic extremistic party that states every murdered american soldier in Irak is ok). Please go to the Hague now, there is a small fight going on please get involved X| Rutger
Respecting copyright laws I wonder if I can I use the text of your message to reply to next Dutch that has an opinion on president Bush, Iraq or the United States? I would offer you fair compensation but I think it is going to be used so often that I will not be able to afford it. Tomaz