[QUOTE=Britain;50379245]Yeah? And? The democratic party supported slavery and the KKK but that's not relevant to their current party so why does it matter? You're needlessly demonising a party.[/QUOTE]
Read [i]anything[/i] I posted in this thread. The party heads are [i]still[/i] embroiled in neo-nazi controversy. There is loads of evidence suggesting Nazi sympathy.
It's not "needlessly demonizing" a party when the current head of the party thought Vienna was better under Nazi occupation and believes in creating a unified pan-Germanic Volk. It's not "needlessly demonizing" a party when this same person lambasted the Viennese local council for refusing to mark the grave of a Luftwaffe pilot as a "hero." It's not "needlessly demonizing" a party when the head of the party has been photographed numerous times socializing with neo-nazi groups.
This is necessary demonizing. This isn't some "dark history of the party" that they've grown past. The previous leader of the party, Jorg Haider, was politically active until his death in [i]eight years ago[/i].
Since then, they've gotten even worse. In 2011, Norbert Hofer, the man running, talked about a "reversal of Haider’s prostration" and revised the FPO's manifesto to include the term "Volksgemeinschaft," a term used almost exclusively by the Nazi party. As late as 2013, he went to party meetings wearing a blue cornflower on his lapel, which was popularized as a symbol of the pan-German movement of Austrian politician Georg Ritter von Schonerer, who renowned human rights historian Hannah Arendt has described as Hitler's "spiritual father."
This is a party that has historically been tied to the Nazi Party since its inception, and it is [i]very[/i] dedicated to returning to cultural roots and embracing Austrian identity. You can't dismiss the history of the party when part of their manifesto explicitly invokes Nazi terminology and calls for a return to a cultural identity that celebrates "Austrian heritage." This is loosely-disguised language that idolizes the Third Reich. This can be demonstrated time and time again.
There is no "demonization" of some party that had unfortunate beginnings but has grown past them. This party embraces pan-Germanic identity and has time and time again shown great respect for the Wehrmacht, the SS, and the Third Reich.
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;50379339]People should look more into [B]why[/B] these problems exist, why social phenomena happen
Going by the logic of a lot of the people who vote for far-right parties, the US, like I said earlier, may as well just deport black people[/QUOTE]
Well, we don't have the resources to integrate the migrants but we certainly have the resources to deport them and then man the borders to stop them coming in when telling them they can't come in doesn't work. I don't agree a lot of the reasoning going on either, but I do try to understand it in order to dispute it (or be convinced by it I guess).
[QUOTE=Britain;50379245]Yeah? And? [b]The democratic party supported slavery and the KKK but that's not relevant to their current party[/b] so why does it matter? You're needlessly demonising a party.[/QUOTE]
Third time I hear this argument tonight regarding the Austrian election. Almost word for word. Are you guys copy-pasting from a list?
[QUOTE=phaedon;50379509]Third time I hear this argument tonight regarding the Austrian election. Almost word for word. Are you guys copy-pasting from a list?[/QUOTE]
this is not an argument
try again
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Why reply? + Ban history." - Bradyns))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;50379339]People should look more into [B]why[/B] these problems exist, why social phenomena happen
Going by the logic of a lot of the people who vote for far-right parties, the US, like I said earlier, may as well just deport black people[/QUOTE]
I have a hunch that it is because the religion of said problem groups is pushing fundamentalist beliefs above everything, which are in no way compatible with our culture. And all thanks to batshit insane imams too we have to tolerate despite them clearly hating our culture and way of life. If Dutch society was really racist or that xenophobic, you'd see other minority groups being more involved in crime I'd guess, yet I really don't recall having heard of Indonesian, Indian, Vietnamese or Chinese youth radicalising in the past few decades or that they refuse to integrate at all. There is one really big difference between them and the problem groups, and that is their religion, which is pretty much the huge elephant in the room people somehow ignore.
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;50379187]What has been rising for the past few decades, and can you give any proof that whatever you're referring to has been rising?[/QUOTE]
There is a damn good reason Pim Fortuyn was so popular since 20 years ago. He predicted most of the issues we have now. And it's only gotten worse since then. Back then, his biggest issue with them was the amount of crime against mostly the (elderly) Dutch, and their incompatibility with stuff like LBGT rights and woman's rights. He probably rolled in his grave at speeds unknown to mankind [URL="http://www.omroepwest.nl/nieuws/2601990/Radicale-moslims-demonstreren-in-Haagse-Schilderswijk"]when pro-ISIS supporters did demonstrations in The Hague a few years back[/URL], and that most of those ''''people'''' did join ISIS, and some of them have returned and are not even getting jailed for it. That's how fucking bad it got.
[QUOTE]Again, do you have any concrete proof for this besides the one incident you named here? Like, studies? How are you so sure that Moroccans are committing crimes to 'stick it to the Dutchies' or something? Also, I'd like to remind you that there was another Moroccan group protesting against the actions of the one you're referring to.[/QUOTE]
I know, yet that behavior of those youth was absolutely terrible. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qZpMuAeFHc"]We are talking about them throwing rocks at Dutch journalists while the police does jackshit[/URL], jesus fucking christ.
It's even more ridiculous that the government even had [URL="http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4492/Nederland/article/detail/4295625/2016/05/06/Marokkaanse-consul-in-gesprek-met-Marokkaanse-jongeren-Ede.dhtml"]to consult the Moroccan consul[/URL] instead of just throwing the perpetrators into jail. What the fuck are they even doing right now?
[QUOTE=Jordax;50380029]I have a hunch that it is because the religion of said problem groups is pushing fundamentalist beliefs above everything, which are in no way compatible with our culture. And all thanks to batshit insane imams too we have to tolerate despite them clearly hating our culture and way of life. If Dutch society was really racist or that xenophobic, you'd see other minority groups being more involved in crime I'd guess, yet I really don't recall having heard of Indonesian, Indian, Vietnamese or Chinese youth radicalising in the past few decades or that they refuse to integrate at all. There is one really big difference between them and the problem groups, and that is their religion, which is pretty much the huge elephant in the room people somehow ignore.
There is a damn good reason Pim Fortuyn was so popular since 20 years ago. He predicted most of the issues we have now. And it's only gotten worse since then. Back then, his biggest issue with them was the amount of crime against mostly the (elderly) Dutch, and their incompatibility with stuff like LBGT rights and woman's rights. He probably rolled in his grave at speeds unknown to mankind [URL="http://www.omroepwest.nl/nieuws/2601990/Radicale-moslims-demonstreren-in-Haagse-Schilderswijk"]when pro-ISIS supporters did meetings in The Hague a few years back[/URL], and that most of those ''''people'''' did join ISIS, and some of them have returned and are not even getting jailed for it. That's how fucking bad it got.
I know, yet that behavior of those youth was absolutely terrible. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qZpMuAeFHc"]We are talking about them throwing rocks at Dutch journalists while the police does jackshit[/URL], jesus fucking christ.
It's even more ridiculous that the government even had [URL="http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4492/Nederland/article/detail/4295625/2016/05/06/Marokkaanse-consul-in-gesprek-met-Marokkaanse-jongeren-Ede.dhtml"]to consult the Moroccan consul[/URL] instead of just throwing the perpetrators into jail. What the fuck are they even doing right now?[/QUOTE]
Ofcourse religion is part of it, just like a lot of homophobia is motivated and encouraged by christianity lots of regressive values that middle eastern people hold are motivated by islam. Ofcourse religious fundamentalist beliefs are in no way compatible with our culture, that's why secularism is a thing and christian values aren't ruling European governments yet the majority of europeans describe themselves as christians. However, waging a war against Islam is not going to make things better - no, Islam is not the root cause of all the issues people are talking about but I'd be open to be convinced otherwise, thougharguing how Islam as an ideology is destructive isn't very convincing because there are much more factors at play.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50380079]Islam as an ideology is destructive isn't very convincing because there are much more factors at play.[/QUOTE]
Islam as an Ideology CAN (Does and has) Produced functional, peaceful societies with acceptable human rights conditions, even if it is typically the exception to the rule.
However, It also has a history of being very easy to radicalize people associated with the religion into doing horrible acts and perpetuating awful religious law/discrimination due to their belief that they're serving Allah and will be rewarded very generously in the afterlife.
As a system of belief it does have the potential to work out just fine, but it paves the road for justifying horrific acts wherever it goes in a way that no other religion can match at the present. It is very much a threat and it's the persistent refusal to acknowledge that potential by the parties in power that is causing people to vote further and further to the right.
[QUOTE=Kentz;50379749]this is not an argument
try again[/QUOTE]
I don't particularly care to defend the Democratic Party of the mid-19th century or the Reconstruction. I am asking whether the argument is a copy-paste from a list. I'd appreciate a link.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;50380147]Islam as an Ideology CAN (Does and has) Produced functional, peaceful societies with acceptable human rights conditions, even if it is typically the exception to the rule.
However, It also has a history of being very easy to radicalize people associated with the religion into doing horrible acts and perpetuating awful religious law/discrimination due to their belief that they're serving Allah and will be rewarded very generously in the afterlife.
As a system of belief it does have the potential to work out just fine, but it paves the road for justifying horrific acts wherever it goes in a way that no other religion can match at the present. It is very much a threat and it's the persistent refusal to acknowledge that potential by the parties in power that is causing people to vote further and further to the right.[/QUOTE]
I think any authoritarian ideology has the power to pave road for justifying horrific acts, including Islam, Catholicism and most other religions and historically the improvement of education, welfare and democracy has played the biggest part in making society a better place, and I don't see how it's any different when it comes to Islam and islamic countries.
Sincerely hope that many of the votes are simply out of displeasure of the current immigration policies.
[QUOTE=Jordax;50380029]I have a hunch that it is because the religion of said problem groups is pushing fundamentalist beliefs above everything, which are in no way compatible with our culture.[/QUOTE]
Well that's nice but the study I referred to earlier shows that there is no connection between culture and/or ethnicity and crime, it is social position and friend networks that matter.
[QUOTE=Jordax;50380029]If Dutch society was really racist or that xenophobic, you'd see other minority groups being more involved in crime I'd guess, yet I really don't recall having heard of Indonesian, Indian, Vietnamese or Chinese youth radicalising in the past few decades or that they refuse to integrate at all.[/QUOTE]
First of all, Indonesians were significantly less disadvantaged. Most Indonesians that came here could already speak Dutch for example. Indians, Vietnamese and Chinese people are such a small part of the population, they have fewer familiarities to cling to, they are thus forced to interact with natives more and thus integrate faster. A behaviour that is common among immigrant groups of all ethnicities is that they cling to each other.
They also aren't radicalising because they are not alienated and isolated by a perceived hate towards them, are not being told to 'integrate harder', and are not being commonly generalized.
Also, youth from the Dutch Antilles are perceived here as a problem group in some neighbourhoods, yet they are not Islamic.
And, again, do you have evidence that people with origins in Islamic countries refuse to integrate?
[QUOTE=Jordax;50380029]
And it's only gotten worse since then.[/QUOTE]
Again, do you have concrete proof for this?
[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50377307]are you saying that not having a far-right party rule would be bad?
you realize that this party's first leader was an SS officer, right[/QUOTE]
Anton Reinthaller was an honorary Major General in the SS who spent most of his time dealing with agricultural issues. Not a big deal at all. He was apparently a pretty interesting man.
[quote]Politically, Reinthaller initially belonged to the Landbund before switching to support the Nazis in 1928. He rose through the ranks of Austria's Nazi set-up, becoming state peasant leader in 1934, although his moderate stance, particularly with regards to the use of violence, meant that he was often in conflict with Theodor Habicht who feared that Reinthaller was preparing to break away and form a specifically Austrian Nazi movement that would reject union with Germany. However Habicht did not move against Reinthaller, who enjoyed good personal relations with Rudolf Hess and Richard Walther Darré, although ultimately he was removed after he spearheaded his own negotiations with Engelbert Dollfuß.
Although he had no real involvement in the failed Nazi putsch of July 1934, Reinthaller was nonetheless held for a while in Kaisersteinbruck concentration camp where he met and befriended Ernst Kaltenbrunner who, despite his own more radical views, became a supporter of Reinthaller. Reinthaller attempted to negotiate an agreement with Kurt Schuschnigg with a view to the Nazis entering the Vaterländische Front although when this failed he stepped aside from his role as the effective leader of Austria's Nazis in favour of Hermann Neubacher. Reinthaller stepped away from active politics after this, although he remained a voice of dissent on the sidelines, attacking Nazi anti-Semitism on the basis of its negative impact on international opinion of the Nazis, whilst also resisting any move to complete Anschluss.
He would re-emerge in 1935, with the backing of Kaltenbrunner and Franz Langoth, to form a National Front that sought to unite Austria's Sturmabteilung and Schutzstaffel with other rightist groups in the service of the Vaterländische Front. However the radical Nazi leader Josef Leopold stepped in as he felt Reinthaller was diluting the impact of Austria's Nazis too much and had him deprived of his party positions in 1937.
Although Reinthaller had lost his positions in the Austrian Nazi Party and had earlier opposed Anschluss, he made something of a political comeback following the Nazi takeover. Becoming a member of the Reichstag he served as Minister for Agriculture in the cabinet of Arthur Seyss-Inquart from 12 March 1938 to 30 April 1939. Following this he was appointed Undersecretary of State to the Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture under his old friend Darré, and went on to fill a number of positions for the Nazi government, including Gauamtsleiter of the Lower Danube Landvolk, head of the Landesernährungsamt Donauland (regional Food Office) and an honorary Brigadeführer (Major General) in the SS. Having initially joined the SS in December 1938 (with the membership number 292,775) he achieved his highest rank on 30 January 1941.
In April 1938, the Donau-Zeitung reported that Reinthaller took the Austrian Wotan steamer to Passau, where he welcomed German transport minister Julius Dorpmüller to Austria. Two days later, the newspaper stated that Reinthaller was still inspecting facilities along the Danube.[/quote]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Reinthaller[/url]
Helps to research these things once in a while, you know, instead of taking them at face value.
You know, if I had a right-wing party and it was partially founded by former nazis I'd branch out/split off into a new party in order to not be associated with nazism. Then again, if I supported the very far right maybe I'd just join Sverigedemokraterna.
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;50380315]Well that's nice but the study I referred to earlier shows that there is no connection between culture and/or ethnicity and crime, it is social position and friend networks that matter.
First of all, Indonesians were significantly less disadvantaged. Most Indonesians that came here could already speak Dutch for example. Indians, Vietnamese and Chinese people are such a small part of the population, they have fewer familiarities to cling to, they are thus forced to interact with natives more and thus integrate faster. A behaviour that is common among immigrant groups of all ethnicities is that they cling to each other.
They also aren't radicalising because they are not alienated and isolated by a perceived hate towards them, are not being told to 'integrate harder', and are not being commonly generalized.
Also, youth from the Dutch Antilles are perceived here as a problem group in some neighbourhoods, yet they are not Islamic.
And, again, do you have evidence that people with origins in Islamic countries refuse to integrate?
Again, do you have concrete proof for this?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://anonymousmugwump.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/rejecting-narratives-data-islam-and.html[/url]
Take a look at this second footnote:
[QUOTE][2] Given that this is a post about Islam, I wont bore the readers of my footnotes with what I hope they already know about the economic benefits of increased immigration. There is however some literature that addresses how well Muslims integrate into Western culture. There is a lot of polling to suggest, for example, that British Muslims have abhorrent views when it comes to homosexuality and free speech (see here for an aggregate of [URL="http://my.telegraph.co.uk/danielpycock/danpycock/956/what-do-british-muslims-think-of-the-uk/"]poll results[/URL] [I][there has been another major poll since this post was published, showing around 50% of British Muslims want homosexuality to be illegal][/I]). As I write later in this post, we shouldn't rob these individual of agency by saying that Islam is the cause. We should hold them accountable for their views (and fortunately, in many areas we see a divide which shows how there is no necessary connection). But it’s also worth somewhat downplaying the ‘creeping Sharia’ or ‘Muslims are going to change the character of our nation’ line of argument (not only because of the [URL="http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/book-excerpt-the-muslim-tide-that-wasnt"]dubious[/URL] demographic surrounding the issue).
This line of argument is not entirely without merit. Bisin et al (2007) find that Muslim immigrants integrate at a slower pace than non-Muslim immigration:
[IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9plsqA3rqqY/VKKrZP1J5WI/AAAAAAAAAFI/mOocwXYUcp8/s1600/footnote2.png[/IMG]
Bisin et al’s study however, has not been replicated indicating that there was some kind of error (Arai et al (2011)). Bisin et al (2011) however accounted for the bad results and said that their results could be replicated, although somewhat weaker that the graph above. Inglehart and Norris (2012), however, find more optimistic results. Given Bisin et al’s weak results, the lack of replication it is worth focusing on Inglehart and Norris’ more robust findings:
[IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GG7x1xSddqM/VKKrZcvMF-I/AAAAAAAAAFU/aZ_8644M66k/s1600/footnote2b.png[/IMG]
[I]the analysis demonstrates that the basic values of Muslims living in Western societies fall roughly half‐way between the dominant values prevailing within their countries of destination and origin. This suggests that migrant populations living in Rotterdam, Bradford and Berlin are in the process of adapting to Western cultures, while at the same time continuing to reflect the values learnt through primary socialization in their original countries of origin... in the long‐term, the basic cultural values of migrants appear to change in conformity with the predominant culture of each society.
[/I]
[IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UTYfK1fOUuk/VKKrZ1hgUYI/AAAAAAAAAFg/u0eEGyoCFyQ/s1600/footnote2c.png[/IMG]
[I]... although Western Muslims are consistently located between Islamic and Western societies, there is no evidence that generational change, by itself, will transform the situation so that the cultural differences between Muslim migrants and Western publics will disappear: younger Westerners are adopting modern values even more swiftly than their Muslim peers.
[/I]
Thanks to Ben Southwood for directing me toward these studies. I’m sure people can cherry pick Bisin et al or Inglehart and Norris – but at least then people aren’t making empirical claims without any empirical research. I have explained why I think the latter study is more rigorous but am open to saying the literature is not, at this point, conclusive. One indication however is to look again at these graphs and see that religiosity is declining. This is significant because once you account for religiosity, many of the socially conservative views of Muslims can be explained away (Lewis and Kashyap, 2013). See also [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2013/12/16/no-difference-in-religious-fundamentalism-between-american-muslims-and-christians/"]these results[/URL] from the U.S where Muslims are far more integrated.[/QUOTE]
In other words, Muslim immigrants do integrate slower than other immigrants, but the extent to which this happens is disputed. Additionally, it should be considered that the views of non-Muslims in the West are not static and are growing more liberal as well, and likely at a swifter pace than the pace at which a Western Muslim is becoming more liberal.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50380476]You know, if I had a right-wing party and it was partially founded by former nazis I'd branch out/split off into a new party in order to not be associated with nazism.[/QUOTE]
The last time a group split from the FPÖ we got the BZÖ and that didn't work out too well for anyone afaik.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50382214]You dont have to strangle people yourself to be accomplice to crime. Joining SS is enough.
Are we going to forgive people who did agriculture in IS?[/QUOTE]
Doesn't work that way. There were ~800,000 people in the SS (more than a million actually if you include members of the Waffen-SS)-- everyone from valets, driver, and soldiers to scientists, doctors, and political figures/members of the police (etc.). Wernher von Braun was a battalion officer in the SS and also a member of their horseriding school. Bernd Rosemeyer was part of their motor racing corps. Heinrich von Stackelberg was a sergeant and card-carrying member since the early-1930s as well as an economist who taught at the University of Bonn during the war. Hanns Schleyer was an industrialist and businessman in West Germany who previously just did his time in the Hitler Youth before being drafted.
Membership in the SS does not instantly bestow any kind of special guilt, and claiming that it does detracts from actual criminals who committed serious offenses/crimes against humanity and who had major responsibilities which resulted in these offenses: Adolf Eichmann, Josef Kramer and Rudolf Hoess and Amon Goeth, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, Martin Bormann, Hans Lammers, etc. Ordinary people like Schleyer, Rosemeyer, and von Stackelberg that I named (etc.) joined it because it was the German state's most important arm (or at least its most pervasive), and it offered them opportunities for social and career advancement. The same was true for von Braun, who actually joined their horseriding school before he became an actual member of their organization proper.
Nothing seems to be any different in the case of Anton Reinthaller. He knew some very important people in the Nazi Party who helped him get a job, and he went along with it because it seemed like a great opportunity at the time.
And as far as ISIS goes, that really depends on the individual's circumstances. Not that this matters, since it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand about the SS.
[editline]24 May 2016[/editline]
Actually, looking through the ideology of this party that Reinthaller led, it doesn't strike me as being particularly National Socialistic. Sounds to me like the FPO was/is more or less based on Dollfuss' views and the ideology of his Fatherland Front. And Dollfuss for the record was assassinated by the Nazis.
[QUOTE=Govna;50384553]And Dollfuss for the record was assassinated by the Nazis.[/QUOTE]
To be fair it's not like the Nazis exclusively killed "good" people.
[QUOTE=Anderan;50387762]To be fair it's not like the Nazis exclusively killed "good" people.[/QUOTE]
The point is that Dollfuss wasn't a Nazi and had very little in common with them ideologically. And personally, given the situation that Austria was in at the time, I don't think he was a bad person either.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.