The Golden Shower are now recruiting in Germany

Post Reply New Topic

Do they not have a list of the kind of songs that are banned? They don't even sing Drunken Sailor properly here, for instance.

True, they can rise to power by force. But I prefer the tatic adopted by my country towards fascists. Police can get things done, no need for these idiots to have the right to represent idiot people in the parliament. The leader of the portuguese neonazis (along with other neonazis) is in jail and will be there for a long time ( ).

In which case, you don't believe in democracy. Democracy is democracy, even for idiots. Usually, fascists come to power not because the people are 'idiots', but because there is serious problems with the very lives of the people who run the country. If they can't get what they want by democratic means, they will take it by force. And, personally, I'd rather go the democratic route because it might well be easier to intercept. In a way, it gives the government some warning. In essence, you're disenfranchising people. I don't believe that that's ever a good thing, whether they be Communists, Islamists, neo-Nazis, Kahanists, Falangists, or whatever other type of fascists.

As I said before, democracy is not a perfect system. An example is Hitler. Another is Hugo Chavez. It has to be corrected to not allow its own demise. And one way to do that is to forbid totalitarian parties from existence.

One strategy for dealing with fascists is to allow them to go to television and spread their views, in order for people to know where they are. Pros: there is more freedom of expression (even though in the end it might have the opposite effect). Cons: There is a high risk of the movement growing.
Another strategy is to forbid fascist parties. Pros: They do not grow easily as a movement. Cons: the freedom of speech is more limited (even though, in a long term perspective, it can save freedom of speech). When weighing the pros and cons I prefer the prohibition strategy, even if in the short term it's a restriction on freedom of speech.

I have gone through an utopian phase and now I'm against utopias. In their name a lot of lives were lost. The democratic utopia you defend is one such utopia. Democracy needs some adjustments to function for as long as possible. Of course that even the terms of the constitution can be changed democraticaly, but only if the parliament has 2/3 of the votes (it should be more, like 4/5, acording to my opinion).

When I say idiots I mean the totalitarian type of idiots. Those have no right to be represented in democracy. Other idiots are free to vote for their corrupt parties at will.

What does their platform have to do with Nazism? I'm not asking what Golden Dawn members have said about Hitler or Nazism - in practical terns, what would a Golden Dawn parliamentary majority do to implement Nazism? Does anyone seriously think the Golden Dawn would erect extermination camps to gas Jews? It seems stupid to call them that, or "fascist," which is an anachronistic term. Most governments are "fascist" in the sense of having powerful executives and a collusion with industry. And how are they totalitarian? I'd say Britain is edging close to totalitarianism, with surveillance cameras on major city streets, speech laws and a drone-like population eager to enforce them. Is the Golden Dawn trying to control how citizens speak and act?

I'm sure the party is far from ideal, but they address a problem that affects Europeans. Greece is the staging post for asylum seekers, who wash up there and go to other countries where they lounge in subsidize housing.

Foreigners are afraid to leave their houses at night in some areas of Athen because there have been several attacks on "foreigners" from right extremists which also resulted in dead ones. So yes, they are clearly showing that a life has no worth for them, as long as you haven´t got the right accent. Yes, I think someone who sees a life as worthless is also capable to see many lifes as worthless, and to think of how to get rid of these many lifes. I do not feel guilty as Austrian, for what my Gradn-Grandparents did, I was not alive that time. But to not have learned from their time, never to do the failure again to estimate the hate and violance that people can bear, would be something I had to feel guilty then. Dont you think people in Germany did not tell themselves: "Yes ok, so they attack random people on the street and sometimes one of them is so hurt, that he dies. But you are not seriously thinking, that all these people they send with the train will be sent into extermination camps to gas Jews?"

No, you are allowed to speak and act as you wish. You just have to face the danger of being beaten to death by speaking not with the wished accent or actin in a way, that does not fit the right extreme gangs. There already have been deads, there already have been organized rampages against foreign shopkeepers, destroying their goods, so yes, the extermination camps are still missing.

I totally agree with you, that the actual asylums rule of europe are not fair. Because of their positions on the borders of europe most refugees reach first Spain, Italy, and Greek, which means theat these country would be responsible due to the rules. I absolutely understand that these terms are whether fair nor right. But the anger about this, should meet the EU and not refugees. They are not the ones who set up this silly rules.

Well, I'm sure that if you lived in a third world country you would say to yourself: "Well, I can't go to the EU, where I would live a much, much better life with my family, because they use taxpayers money to help poor people and refugees. Nope, that's not acceptable. I'll continue to live a miserable life here."

There is no telling what I'd be like if I was from a third-world country. Not everyone who lives in the third-world wants to leave anyway. If I could somehow intuit how I'd feel about emigrating if I were born in the third-world, it wouldn't matter. I base my views on principle, not on not trying to guess how I'd feel if I were a completely different person.

Nice way to try to avoid the question. I don't know who falls for that but so be it. I consider the case QED.

What is that supposed to mean? How was my answer evasive?

If I was from a third-world country, I would have had an entirely different upbringing. I don't know what my views on illegal immigration would be if I were born in, say, Nigeria (would I be a Nigerian or a white guy?). If I had some magical insight into what I'd think if I were born in a third-world country, it wouldn't effect my opinion at all. How this is absurd scenario you've asked me to imagine myself in an argument for illegal immigration?

How many white people do you seriously think live in Nigeria now?! Most of the white people in Nigeria are transient workers and won't be staying long. There are very few white Nigerians still living in Nigeria, and many millions of Nigerians live abroad in less dangerous countries.

I have no clue how many white people live there. ModusPonens asked me to imagine what my views on illegal immigration would be if I lived in the third-world and I mentioned Nigeria. Are you saying that his thought experiment requires me to imagine myself as a non-white? Help me out here, because MP apparently thinks his scenario makes the issue cut and dry.