Amidst refugee crisis, xenophobes invoke antiziganism

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Hungarian justice minister says no to immigrants, because Gypsies already pose huge burden (http://hungarianfreepress.com/2015/05/22/hungarian-justice-minister-says-no-to-immigrants-because-gypsies-already-pose-huge-burden/)


If any further convincing is needed, in order to show that Fidesz has morphed into Jobbik, then the words of Hungary’s Minister of Justice, shared by Inforádió Friday morning, should suffice. László Trócsányi started off by attacking the European Union’s system of quotas when it comes to accepting and assigning refugee claimants among the member states. He then added that Hungary was already dealing with a huge influx of refugees, in significant part from Kosovo, noting that for Hungary the Balkans represented a priority and a problem, rather than the Mediterranean. He then explained why the Orbán government had no choice, but to say ‘no’ to more immigrants and refugees: Hungary can’t accept any more economic migrants, because it must tend to the integration of 800,000 Gypsies.

In other words, the Roma pose too big of a problem and the Orbán government’s hands are already full with them.

The Hungarian left-centre weekly 168 Óra framed the story with this title: “It’s because of the Gypsies that we don’t want any refugees.”

The liberal 444.hu website noted that the debate on immigration has “reached new heights,” observing sarcastically that Mr. Trócsányi was a “genius” for connecting the issue of immigration with the Roma minority. The paper remarked that perhaps rather than suggesting that the Gypsies are to blame for Hungary not being able to support a compassionate immigration policy, one might consider that a whole slew of unnecessary soccer stadiums built by Mr. Orbán’s government and his friends or the massive corruption that permeates the government is the reason why there is no money, resources or energy remaining to accept refugee claimants.

Dialogue for Hungary (Párbeszéd Magyarországért – PM), a small opposition green party, is already demanding that Mr. Trócsányi resign. The party’s spokesperson, Rebeka Szabó, said it was infuriating that the Minister of Justice would speak of the entire Roma minority as a burden for Hungary.

The Hungarian Liberal Party joined in the calls for Mr. Trócsányi’s resignation, adding that it is totally unacceptable for a government minister to judge Hungarians based on their ethnic or racial origins.

I should note that Mr. Trócsányi visited Canada this past March, where he came to negotiate with Stephen Harper’s government on “the regulation of migration” and, since Hungary has taken over the chair of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), to open the commemorations hosted by the Embassy of Hungary in Ottawa. Hungary’s participation in the IHRA clearly hasn’t made the Orbán government any more sensitive to issues of minority rights and anti-racism.

I continue to believe that it is shameful, how the Government of Canada has turned a blind eye (more so than any of its partners), to the true nature of the Orbán regime.

Controversies over the refugees’ arrival in Romania (http://www.romaniajournal.ro/controversies-over-the-refugees-arrival-in-romania/)


The information granted by the presidential adviser Ludovic Orban on Tuesday that over 1,700 refugees are set to arrive in Romania gradually, with the first of them arriving in November, stirred fierce debates in the Romanian public opinion.

Most voices said that Romania is not ready to face this issue and to receive immigrants, with the most virulent such position being voiced by former president Traian Basescu, who said Romania should not receive immgrants.

PM Victor Ponta said on Wednesday that the exact number of refugees that Romania can shelter will be debated in the the Supreme Council of National Defense (CSAT), adding the necessary measures have been taken “at the border”. “We’ll have a discussion in CSAT, we talked to the President, to the Interior minister, the vice premier is the one who is drafting all documents (….) I can say only one thing, we are not keeping hands in our pockets, we are ready,” the prime minister told journalists after the Annual Meeting of the Romanian Diplomacy. He also said no date has been settled yet for the arrival in Romania of the first refugees.

However, the prime minister said the risks of a terror attack in Romania are low, considering the statements of some politicians saying that Romania should close its borders and not receive refugees are abnormal.

On the other hand, Romanian incumbent FM Bogdan Aurescu stated on Wednesday that solutions for the immigration issue should be found at its source, including in the origin countries, arguing that unilateral or national solutions cannot bring lasting results, as neither the migrant quotas is enough.

“(…) It’s important to treat the problem’s cause-the instability in the southern neighborhood, fighting terrorism (…) There are challenges which should find their answer within EU initiatives and actions,” Aurescu said.

The minister reminded that the European vicinity policy is undergoing a revision process and that Romanian tabled several solutions, such as setting up a permanent dialogue platform, Security Trusts, with the partners in the southern and eastern vicinities, with the neighbours of these partners to find solutions.

Ex-president Basescu says ‘no’ to refugees, slams EU

Former president Traian Basescu said in a phone intervention at B1TV on Tuesday night that Romania cannot be compelled to receive immigrants, while the idea of them being sheltered here only for two years is “a lie”, as they won’t leave and will bring their “numerous families” here, too. The former Romanian head of state lashed out at Europe, saying that it is getting now the lesson “of its own foolishness”.

“My answer is definitely no. Romania should refuse to receive immigrants on its territory. It’s not our game, our issue, we are not the magnet for these people, on one hand. On the other hand, it’s not just a matter of accommodation for several thousands citizens coming from Syria, Libya, northern Africa. When you accept these people, you have to provide them with education, learning them the Romanian language, health services, preserving their culture and customs (…) And the idea of them being accommodated only for two years, forget it. I know how nicely EU can lie,” Basescu said, ironically commenting to The Netherlands: “The best country which can receive them is Holland, the Dutch people who are so strict when it comes to Romania joining the Schengen area.”

“EU may give as many money as possible, but it cannot ensure the cultural identity to those people. Romania is a Christian country. You have to give them the right to express their culture, to build mosques, schools in their own language. When you assume that, you assume a long list of responsibilities. We are struggling to integrate Roma people for so many years, how could we succeed in integrating these ones?” Basescu added.

The former Romanian president claimed that Romania would have warned EU countries on the consequences of “destroying the dictatorship in Libya” and of the attempt to export democracy in the countries of Northern Africa.

“I want you to know that Romania used to warn Europe over the fact that some European countries hurried to launch air strikes in Libya. Romania said: don’t destroy the dictatorship in Libya, as the reverse side will be chaos (….) Those who assumed responsibility of transferring European democracy in countries like Libya, Egypt, they are the ones who should assume the effects now. The lesson Europe is getting today is the lesson of its own foolishness,” Basescu stated.

Hayssam: Over half million refugees to come to Romania

Syrian Omar Hayssam, convicted for terrorism and serving a 23-year jail sentence in Romania, also reacted on the refugees’ topic. He said that Romania will face a “refugees’ wave”, of over 3,000 persons per day, in the next six months and that things are far more serious, as the state must provide them with accommodation, food and decent conditions.

“3,000 persons each day, that means that in six months there will over half of million of refugees. Legal or not, the refugees are people who deserve a human treatment. They must eat, need decent life conditions, even in this forced transit. Although I wouldn’t hurry to use the word “transit”…. I think many refugees won’t be able to be physically repatriated, and if western countries will ban their access there, their stay in Romania will be a long term one,” Hayssam opined.

I think in this type of discourse it's actually not at all a question of integration, but one of assimilation and erasure. Rroma as a scapegoat for social problems is an integral part of nationalist discourses. And the recent Romanian movie "Aferim!" shows how Rroma were well-integrated into Romanian society as slaves of the Church, the wealthy, and the State up until the mid 19th century. Meanwhile, despite Basescu's admission that the state has an obligation to provide education in minority languages, at the end of his 10 year presidency, the country has just one single elementary/middle school with instruction in Rromani in a village of 741 inhabitants (http://www.pressalert.ro/2014/02/singura-scoala-din-romania-cu-predare-limba-tiganeasca-este-timis-ce-talent-au-copiii-si-de-ce-vin-cu-drag-la-scoala/).

[ziggyfish]

There are other issues at play here, such as food clothing, roads, hospitals, schools. Then you have administrative issues with these refugees such as health checks, getting enough medication to the refugees so that deceases don't spread. I haven't mentioned housing, transport, or assimilation and social problems involved in increasing the population of Hungry by and extra 10% each and every year about the birth rate. Also the economy needs to find an extra 345,56 (average Romanian wage) * 546000 (days in 6 months * 3,000) = 1, 886, 75, 760 € that the government (or business community) must find in 6 months just to support these people.

Just to mention a few problems.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Of course there is a panoply of elements... anti-migrant discourse deploys a full suit of armor, but one must identify the crux... go for the codpiece or the helmet. And I just commented on some of these "other issues" above. Can you really suggest that insufficient clothing is reason to deny the right to asylum?

What it comes down to is the suggestion that 'foreigners' should be made to live in greater misery because of the intolerance of others. And it's not even really about 'foreigners', because the Rroma alluded to by Trócsányi and Basescu and are not foreigners in their countries, but are still painted as un-integrateable, just like the refugees from Syria and elsewhere. Their identity policing and categorizing large swaths of humanity, even their co-nationals, as fundamentally different Constitutive Others has a greater impact in maintaining apartheid than anything members of those groups do to 'integrate.'

The anti-migrant demagogues who point to the Gulf states as hypocritical for not receiving more 'birds of their feather' (e.g., the Mecca tent ghetto meme (http://www.ibtimes.com/refugee-crisis-2015-saudi-arabia-criticized-100000-air-conditioned-tents-not-use-2095403)) would do well to look at a map and see that Syrian cities are, much of the time, closer in proximity to Southeastern Europe than to the Gulf states.

There are literally more than enough empty houses in Europe and America that if every Syrian individual in the world was to be given their own house there, it would leave a surplus.

[ziggyfish]

Of course there is a panoply of elements... anti-migrant discourse deploys a full suit of armor, but one must identify the crux... go for the codpiece or the helmet. And I just commented on some of these "other issues" above. Can you really suggest that insufficient clothing is reason to deny the right to asylum?

Absolutely, do you really think there is a stockpile of 16 million * 7 days * 5 (Tshirts, pants, undies, socks, shoes) = 560 million items of clothing, just sitting there?


What it comes down to is the suggestion that 'foreigners' should be made to live in greater misery because of the intolerance of others. And it's not even really about 'foreigners', because the Rroma alluded to by Trócsányi and Basescu and are not foreigners in their countries, but are still painted as un-integrateable, just like the refugees from Syria and elsewhere. Their identity policing and categorizing large swaths of humanity, even their co-nationals, as fundamentally different Constitutive Others has a greater impact in maintaining apartheid than anything members of those groups do to 'integrate.'

I never mentioned foreigners. However when certain religions discriminate against people of a different faith, who is at fault? Should we really be so kind to those who seek to destroy us?


The anti-migrant demagogues who point to the Gulf states as hypocritical for not receiving more 'birds of their feather' (e.g., the Mecca tent ghetto meme) would do well to look at a map and see that Syrian cities are, much of the time, closer in proximity to Southeastern Europe than to the Gulf states.

I am with you on that I don't buy that excuse either.


There are literally more than enough empty houses in Europe and America that if every Syrian individual in the world was to be given their own house there, it would leave a surplus.

Lets not discriminate against the other 51 million - 16 million = 35 million refugees out there and lets ignore the 4.1 million people that homeless in Europe and the 3.5 million in the US. Lets also ignore the 2.2 BILLION people who live on less than $2 USD per day and finally lets assume that the 11 million empty houses meet current living standards (eg, can access clean water, have power connected, close to sources of food).

We would still need to find another 5 million homes of house the Syrian refugees. Not to mention the other 35 million that we seem not to want to talk about.

I would provide links to the figures I give, however the forum software will not allow me to do so.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Absolutely, do you really think there is a stockpile of 16 million * 7 days * 5 (Tshirts, pants, undies, socks, shoes) = 560 million items of clothing, just sitting there?

Probably easier to get clothes in a place that is not being bombed at the moment. Big clothing retailers regularly destroy or dump their surplus stock into landfills. And the same goes for food. So yes, it is just sitting there.


I never mentioned foreigners. However when certain religions discriminate against people of a different faith, who is at fault? Should we really be so kind to those who seek to destroy us?

If they were not foreigners then they would not be refugees because they would not need to claim asylum in order to be granted the right to stay in a place. Refugees are people whose circumstances compel them to cross national borders. Western imperialism and interventions for regime change are largely to blame for the refugee crisis, in addition to stoking religious fundamentalism. So you think that refugees seek to destroy "us"? (& who is "us" btw?) How do you figure that?


Lets not discriminate against the other 51 million - 16 million = 35 million refugees out there and lets ignore the 4.1 million people that homeless in Europe and the 3.5 million in the US. Lets also ignore the 2.2 BILLION people who live on less than $2 USD per day and finally lets assume that the 11 million empty houses meet current living standards (eg, can access clean water, have power connected, close to sources of food).

We would still need to find another 5 million homes of house the Syrian refugees. Not to mention the other 35 million that we seem not to want to talk about.

The point was not that literally every Syrian person should get their own house in the West (that would leave Syria a ghost country). It was to illustrate that there is hardly a shortage of available dwellings.

[-=56=-]

I'm not sure as to why the U.S., doesn't offer help/aid - it's (mostly) their policy that led to this crisis. Simply put, it was engineered.

I don't see boats and visas for these people...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm not sure as to why the U.S., doesn't offer help/aid - it's (mostly) their policy that led to this crisis. Simply put, it was engineered.

I don't see boats and visas for these people...

Hey, now, give us Europeans some credit, "our" bourgeoisie got fat exporting weapons to the Glorious Syrian Opposition (which is definitely not Daesh and has nothing to do with Daesh which coalesced out of the aether at some point in the past) too. To bring the US into this is a red herring. The migrants are in Europe. So that's where we need to agitate for full citizenship rights for these people.


However when certain religions discriminate against people of a different faith, who is at fault?

Yeah European Christianity is horrible. I'm glad we agree.

[Aslan]

I got only one thing to say.

A new iron curtain has been raised over Europe...

Mr. Orban, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!:rolleyes:

[Aslan]

Not to mention this could also bring a rise in popularity for militant right-wing groups!

[-=56=-]

Hey, now, give us Europeans some credit[...]

I am European.


"our" bourgeoisie got fat exporting weapons to the Glorious Syrian Opposition (which is definitely not Daesh and has nothing to do with Daesh which coalesced out of the aether at some point in the past) too.

You mean Germany, then, for Germany supplies Syria with weapons and as long Germany plays a big role in EU, I don't see a valid reason for other member countries to pay the price.


To bring the US into this is a red herring. The migrants are in Europe. So that's where we need to agitate for full citizenship rights for these people.

Destabilise the region first and then say it is Europe's fault.

Best joke ever.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I am European.

Then you should remember the words of another European, Karl Liebknecht: the main enemy is at home. If I, as a European, ignore the horrors done by "my" country in favour of attacking the US, I am nothing more than an opportunist, a patriot.


You mean Germany, then, for Germany supplies Syria with weapons and as long Germany plays a big role in EU, I don't see a valid reason for other member countries to pay the price.

I don't mean just Germany. Even our laughable Croatian bourgeoisie made a profit selling weapons and mercenaries to the Syrian opposition. And you oppose EU member states having to "pay the price"? To hell with all of them, let them pay through the nose, why should we care? "Our" bourgeoisie is our enemy.

In any case we're talking about, you know, actual people, many of them workers. You're presenting a completely fantastic scenario that would expose them to even more hardship so that European bourgeois states don't have to pay anything.

[ziggyfish]

Probably easier to get clothes in a place that is not being bombed at the moment. Big clothing retailers regularly destroy or dump their surplus stock into landfills. And the same goes for food. So yes, it is just sitting there.

Actually most big clothing retailers give the stuff to third world countries already through world charity organizations like the red cross (I know because I work in these organizations). However due to religious reasons, they are not accepted by the refugees. So yeah, there is a stock pile (although there would still be a shortage or cloths), however religion gets in the way. I would link to a video proving this, however forum doesn't allow me to.


If they were not foreigners then they would not be refugees because they would not need to claim asylum in order to be granted the right to stay in a place.

All refugees are foreigners however not all foreigners are refugees.


Refugees are people whose circumstances compel them to cross national borders.

The true definition of a refugee as defined by the UN is (from 1951 refugee convention):


A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.


Western imperialism and interventions for regime change are largely to blame for the refugee crisis, in addition to stoking religious fundamentalism.

Should the west really sit back and watch mass genocide? Should the west sit back and watch gays being prosecuted for being gay, women being discriminated against or people starving to death due to food shortages or religious faith?

There are two ways to solve this problem, you can either help those who are effected by the situation, or you can make the situation better (or you can do both). Accepting more refugees only solves a symptom of the problem, and not the problem itself.


So you think that refugees seek to destroy "us"? (& who is "us" btw?) How do you figure that?

Not all refugees seek to destroy us, however there are some religions that don't tolerate people of different faiths, take Islam (not the only religion that does this though) for example:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Hadiths (reported sayings of the profit):
Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.


The point was not that literally every Syrian person should get their own house in the West (that would leave Syria a ghost country). It was to illustrate that there is hardly a shortage of available dwellings.

So which refugees do we take and which do we leave behind? Do we take the people who have the same values as those in the country are migrating to?

My point is that there are other issues at play here and none of them have to do with being xenophobes.

[ziggyfish]

I'm not sure as to why the U.S., doesn't offer help/aid - it's (mostly) their policy that led to this crisis. Simply put, it was engineered.

I don't see boats and visas for these people...

I agree the U.S. has done more harm than good in this area, and should really bud out of wars it doesn't belong in.

[ziggyfish]

Hey, now, give us Europeans some credit, "our" bourgeoisie got fat exporting weapons to the Glorious Syrian Opposition (which is definitely not Daesh and has nothing to do with Daesh which coalesced out of the aether at some point in the past) too. To bring the US into this is a red herring. The migrants are in Europe. So that's where we need to agitate for full citizenship rights for these people.



Yeah European Christianity is horrible. I'm glad we agree.

Quote from Karl Marx:

[QUOTE]
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself."
{/QUOTE]

[Rafiq]

I'm not sure as to why the U.S., doesn't offer help/aid - it's (mostly) their policy that led to this crisis. Simply put, it was engineered.


Do you mean to tell us that the refugee crisis was engineered?


I don't see a valid reason for other member countries to pay the price.

There is no "price", it is just that in a world where commodities can circulate freely, you cannot justify opposing the free movement of individuals without perpetuating the conditions of the existing order. The bourgeois liberals do not oppose this development - to oppose it is to be a reactionary.

YOU are the one playing stupid ethical games. The world exists in a totality - no country "minds its own business".


Lets not discriminate against the other 51 million - 16 million = 35 million refugees out there and lets ignore the 4.1 million people that homeless in Europe and the 3.5 million in the US. Lets also ignore the 2.2 BILLION people who live on less than $2 USD per day and finally lets assume that the 11 million empty houses meet current living standards (eg, can access clean water, have power connected, close to sources of food).

It has not, however, reached a point of controversy wherein a single action, or set of decisions can make it or break it as far as the millions of homeless people, world poverty, and the rest of the world's refugees. plainly put, even if we did not want to "ignore" the 35 million refugees "out there", it would make no practical difference as far as the CONCRETE SITUATION GOES.

The refugee crisis, which is imminent and polarizing already, is something one must take a stand on - not opportunistically fall back on making equivalences between refusing to deport millions of people and trying to solve every fucking problem in the world whimsically.


We would still need to find another 5 million homes of house the Syrian refugees. Not to mention the other 35 million that we seem not to want to talk about.

In each respective state in the EU, the number of refugees numbers less than or little more than 100,000. These are for states that have taken in the most. In most states, the numbers are much smaller. Do you even know how many refugees are actually settling in Europe right now? For fuck's sake. Also, many even here have repeated the nonsense about Syria's neighbors not taking in any refugees - has it ever occurred to many of you that Turkey has taken in 2.5 million, and millions more are settled in Lebanon, Jordan, ETC. ? 300,000 refugees have entered Europe in 2015. There are 500 million people in the EU.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Actually most big clothing retailers give the stuff to third world countries already through world charity organizations like the red cross (I know because I work in these organizations). However due to religious reasons, they are not accepted by the refugees. So yeah, there is a stock pile (although there would still be a shortage or cloths), however religion gets in the way. I would link to a video proving this, however forum doesn't allow me to.

Still no valid reason here to compel people to live in a war zone. I would rather be relatively safe and wearing a raggedy potato sack poncho than being bombed/shot at and have nice clothes. Wouldn't you? I think most people would.


All refugees are foreigners however not all foreigners are refugees.

The true definition of a refugee as defined by the UN is (from 1951 refugee convention):

A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.

What's your point? This is a thread about the refugee crisis being used as a pretext/outlet for the expression antiziganist scapegoating sentiments.


Should the west really sit back and watch mass genocide? Should the west sit back and watch gays being prosecuted for being gay, women being discriminated against or people starving to death due to food shortages or religious faith?

There are two ways to solve this problem, you can either help those who are effected by the situation, or you can make the situation better (or you can do both). Accepting more refugees only solves a symptom of the problem, and not the problem itself.

Not accepting refugees (and migrants) is a problem in and of itself. It's also symptomatic of a larger trend of right-wing populism and scapegoating of minority groups. This creeping fascism is much more dangerous than any wave of migrants.


Not all refugees seek to destroy us, however there are some religions that don't tolerate people of different faiths, take Islam (not the only religion that does this though) for example:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Hadiths (reported sayings of the profit):
Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.

So what if I told you that I, a non-Muslim, have encountered plenty of Muslims in my life and not one of them has tried to fight me or even convert me? Have I just met "no true Muslim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)"?

Indeed, you say "Islam is not the only religion that does this", so let's take Christianity. Here is some infallible Church doctrine (written more recently than your citations), from the bull Romanus Pontifex (http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/indig-romanus-pontifex.html):

"invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and (...) reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and (...) convert them to (...) profit"


So which refugees do we take and which do we leave behind? Do we take the people who have the same values as those in the country are migrating to?

Not accepting or "leaving behind" refugees is not only a violation of international human rights law, but also, in the cases of Hungary and Romania, unconstitutional under the national statutes as well, all of which guarantee the right to asylum.


My point is that there are other issues at play here and none of them have to do with being xenophobes.
Then how do you explain your own Islamophobic rhetoric? (Since you pretty clearly seem to be getting at the notion that Muslims have dangerous values which are incompatible with your idea of civilized Western life and should not be granted asylum there because of that.)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Should the west really sit back and watch mass genocide? Should the west sit back and watch gays being prosecuted for being gay, women being discriminated against or people starving to death due to food shortages or religious faith?

There are two ways to solve this problem, you can either help those who are effected by the situation, or you can make the situation better (or you can do both). Accepting more refugees only solves a symptom of the problem, and not the problem itself.

"The West" - meaning the bourgeois states in Europe and North America - should die. That's the socialist position on "the West"; incidentally also the socialist position on "the East", "the South" and so on - we are opposed to "our" bourgeois government.

But the notion that Western governments intervene in the region in order to stop genocide or the prosecution of gay people is laughable. For one thing, the current chief imperialist ally in the region, Iran, is a country that routinely executes gay people on trumped-up charges. Western governments have financed and instigated sectarian massacres of Sunnites in Iraq that led to the rise of Daesh. Gay asylum seekers are routinely denied entry into racist Fortress Europe while Western groups travel around agitating for the death penalty for homosexuality in Africa.

So spare us the pinkwashing, the Western governments don't care about genocide or rights for homosexuals. Just as you can't have capitalism without misogyny, you can't have capitalism without racism and homophobia.


Not all refugees seek to destroy us, however there are some religions that don't tolerate people of different faiths, take Islam (not the only religion that does this though)

That must be why there are currently two large populations of Muslims in Europe and why Muslims coexisted with other religions in e.g. the Ottoman state before European imperialism instigated ethnoreligious conflict in the various states it carved out of the old Ottoman empire.


for example:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Hadiths (reported sayings of the profit):
Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.

If we're going to use scripture to deny people entry into Europe, let's first cleanse the continent of all Christians because the Bible takes the cake when it comes to fucked-up shit.


So which refugees do we take and which do we leave behind? Do we take the people who have the same values as those in the country are migrating to?

Again, the socialist position is clear: we take all of the refugees. If the poor, poor Western bourgeoisie complains we laugh because in fact we don't care about them at all.


Quote from Karl Marx:

(Which isn't relevant to anything being discussed here.)

[ziggyfish]

It has not, however, reached a point of controversy wherein a single action, or set of decisions can make it or break it as far as the millions of homeless people, world poverty, and the rest of the world's refugees. plainly put, even if we did not want to "ignore" the 35 million refugees "out there", it would make no practical difference as far as the CONCRETE SITUATION GOES.

The refugee crisis, which is imminent and polarizing already, is something one must take a stand on - not opportunistically fall back on making equivalences between refusing to deport millions of people and trying to solve every fucking problem in the world whimsically.


So why continue with a "solution" we know doesn't do anything and makes "no practical difference"? Isn't that the definition of insanity? Shouldn't we as the socialist collective come up with a better than, that does make a practical difference?

The right's solution is let nature take its course. Meaning by not doing anything and forcing those who are effected to stay in their own country and fight which forces the oppressed sort out their own problems.

There must be another solution isn't there?

[ziggyfish]

Still no valid reason here to compel people to live in a war zone. I would rather be relatively safe and wearing a raggedy potato sack poncho than being bombed/shot at and have nice clothes. Wouldn't you? I think most people would.

But if the refugees don't want to accept those conditions, what more can we do?


What's your point? This is a thread about the refugee crisis being used as a pretext/outlet for the expression antiziganist scapegoating sentiments.

My point was, you got the definition of a refugee wrong.


Not accepting refugees (and migrants) is a problem in and of itself. It's also symptomatic of a larger trend of right-wing populism and scapegoating of minority groups. This creeping fascism is much more dangerous than any wave of migrants.

Not when the migrants are trying to chop your head off.


So what if I told you that I, a non-Muslim, have encountered plenty of Muslims in my life and not one of them has tried to fight me or even convert me? Have I just met "no true Muslim"?

There are Muslims who have never read the Koran, as were people in Nazi Germany that didn't understand fascism. Same can be said for Christianity, Just because people identify with a given identity doesn't mean they know everything about that identity. The issue comes when the majority stays silent while the minority does evil.


Indeed, you say "Islam is not the only religion that does this", so let's take Christianity. Here is some infallible Church doctrine (written more recently than your citations), from the bull Romanus Pontifex:

"invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and (...) reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and (...) convert them to (...) profit"

Not accepting or "leaving behind" refugees is not only a violation of international human rights law, but also, in the cases of Hungary and Romania, unconstitutional under the national statutes as well, all of which guarantee the right to asylum.


I think you have worked out my point, If Christians and Muslims can't live together, why encourage them. Why not give priority to those who believe in the same values as the country they are seeking asylum into?


Then how do you explain your own Islamophobic rhetoric? (Since you pretty clearly seem to be getting at the notion that Muslims have dangerous values which are incompatible with your idea of civilized Western life and should not be granted asylum there because of that.)

I am islamophobic, and honestly we all should be. Islam roles back everything us socialists have fought for hundreds of years. We have fought for equal rights for women, workers rights, anti-discrimination (i.e discrimination based on religion), protection of children from being sold as sex slaves and environmental issues. We would loose all this progress if we were to accept islam as the norm into our society. Islam also supports medieval practices such as chopping of fingers if you steal something, corporal punishment (stoning, whipping, etc), just to name a couple of things.

I don't know about you, but shouldn't we be against any religion that seeks to discriminate, treat workers as slaves, treat woman as personal property, and forces children to do things that are unethical?

[ziggyfish]

(Which isn't relevant to anything being discussed here.)

Religion can make people do things that otherwise they would not have done.

As to the rest of your post, Iran is an Islamic country, and I can easily point you to exactly where in Islam these acts are actively promoted.

Under the Ottoman empire, as a Christian, you were not allowed to worship anyone other than Allah, you were treated as a second class citizen, and were required to pay a tax just because you were a non-Muslim. Does this really sound like Muslims happily "coexisted with other religions" to you?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Religion can make people do things that otherwise they would not have done.

Religion is the ideological expression of certain material interests, which vary from religious group to religious group, and is secondary to these real interests at best. If you remain on the level of a superficial analysis of ideology, the world makes no sense. Why, for example, did the Wahhabi Taliban cooperate with Sufis and mystics in Afghanistan? Because the real driving force of their movement was not Wahhabism but opposition to modernisation. If the Pashtun landowners thought that dancing naked under the moonlight could mobilise the backward population against the Soviets, they would have done that.


As to the rest of your post, Iran is an Islamic country, and I can easily point you to exactly where in Islam these acts are actively promoted.

Iran is an Islamic country that was heavily sponsored by the West, you know, those people who are supposedly so concerned about gay people, as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. Saying that the West should intervene in the region to protect gay people is, one, completely daft, and two, tasteless, as the only thing that happens when the West intervenes is that gay people end up getting killed in areas where that did not happen before, from Iran to Afghanistan to Iraq and Syria and beyond.


Under the Ottoman empire, as a Christian, you were not allowed to worship anyone other than Allah

This is a pretty stupid thing to say. "Allah", after the rise of Islam at least, is the Arab term for the monotheist deity, and as all of the recognised ethnoreligious corporations in the Ottoman empire were monotheist, all you're saying is that they worshipped one deity. Well, yes.


you were treated as a second class citizen, and were required to pay a tax just because you were a non-Muslim. Does this really sound like Muslims happily "coexisted with other religions" to you?

It sounds like they coexisted, and continue to coexist in Europe (despite the efforts of some of their Christian neighbours), which completely contradicts this Sarkozyte fantasy that every Muslim wants to kill all of the infidels.


I am islamophobic, and honestly we all should be. Islam roles back everything us socialists have fought for hundreds of years.

So does Christianity and Judaism and Rastafarianism and Mandaeism and so on, and so on. Our perspective is not to attack workers, and particularly not to give any political support to racist Fortress Europe, but to fight against the social roots of backwardness.

[-=56=-]

Then you should remember the words of another European, Karl Liebknecht: the main enemy is at home. If I, as a European, ignore the horrors done by "my" country in favour of attacking the US, I am nothing more than an opportunist, a patriot.

I think we have and wield different definitions of European, for you see, my family (first written data thereof) exists in Europe beginning 1400-1500. No offence to Karl Liebknecht, though, and no offence to Syrian 'refugees'.

As for the content of monsieur's Liebknecht words, well...


I don't mean just Germany. Even our laughable Croatian bourgeoisie made a profit selling weapons and mercenaries to the Syrian opposition. And you oppose EU member states having to "pay the price"? To hell with all of them, let them pay through the nose, why should we care? "Our" bourgeoisie is our enemy.

Yes, I still am not fond of the price member states ought to pay for a policy of non-interventionism in Syria. Those who do, ought to pay the price, i.e. provide these masses of people jobs, housing, education, etc. It is self-explanatory.

I do not have to mention that many countries have been surprised by the Syrian flood of people that, if my memory serves me right, have been repulsed by Turkey (at least a certain amount) as well, and are not prepared to offer significant aid in their own borders.


In any case we're talking about, you know, actual people, many of them workers. You're presenting a completely fantastic scenario that would expose them to even more hardship so that European bourgeois states don't have to pay anything.

Again, I think we wield different definitions of "European bourgeois states", for I am sure you will agree Europe isn't a homogeneous entity when it comes to plitics and economy. We can talk about individual parts, sure, but Europe as a whole, no. No offence but there are people, who live here for a very long time that may need help as well. Maybe it will sound crass, but it seems to me, you are putting the welfare of your own people somewhere milion light years away.


Do you mean to tell us that the refugee crisis was engineered?

Yes, that's what I wrote. Iraq and Saddam Hussein comes to mind, who may have been a former CIA agent (I wrote may have, as in I do not have any evidence for the claim) and by former I do not mean ceased to be when the noose tightened around his neck...

Bashar al-Assad may end up the same way, if any one follows or followed the Arab conflict in Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. This, basically, means the U.S. with the help of its allies is responsible for the rise of ISIS.

[quote]There is no "price", it is just that in a world where commodities can circulate freely, you cannot justify opposing the free movement of individuals without perpetuating the conditions of the existing order. The bourgeois liberals do not oppose this development - to oppose it is to be a reactionary.

Of course liberals do not oppose free trade/free market. That would be absurd...

[quote]YOU are the one playing stupid ethical games. The world exists in a totality - no country "minds its own business".

Every country minds its own interest, ergo minds its own business. So you are the one who is "playing stupid game of semantics."

[-=56=-]

Then you should remember the words of another European, Karl Liebknecht: the main enemy is at home. If I, as a European, ignore the horrors done by "my" country in favour of attacking the US, I am nothing more than an opportunist, a patriot.

I think we have and wield different definitions of European, for you see, my family (first written data thereof) exists in Europe beginning 1400-1500. No offence to Karl Liebknecht, though, and no offence to Syrian 'refugees'.

As for the content of monsieur's Liebknecht words, well...


I don't mean just Germany. Even our laughable Croatian bourgeoisie made a profit selling weapons and mercenaries to the Syrian opposition. And you oppose EU member states having to "pay the price"? To hell with all of them, let them pay through the nose, why should we care? "Our" bourgeoisie is our enemy.

Yes, I still am not fond of the price member states ought to pay for a policy of non-interventionism in Syria. Those who do, ought to pay the price, i.e. provide these masses of people jobs, housing, education, etc. It is self-explanatory.

I do not have to mention that many countries have been surprised by the Syrian flood of people that, if my memory serves me right, have been repulsed by Turkey (at least a certain amount) as well, and are not prepared to offer significant aid in their own borders.


In any case we're talking about, you know, actual people, many of them workers. You're presenting a completely fantastic scenario that would expose them to even more hardship so that European bourgeois states don't have to pay anything.

Again, I think we wield different definitions of "European bourgeois states", for I am sure you will agree Europe isn't a homogeneous entity when it comes to plitics and economy. We can talk about individual parts, sure, but Europe as a whole, no. No offence but there are people, who live here for a very long time that may need help as well. Maybe it will sound crass, but it seems to me, you are putting the welfare of your own people somewhere milion light years away.


Do you mean to tell us that the refugee crisis was engineered?

Yes, that's what I wrote. Iraq and Saddam Hussein comes to mind, who may have been a former CIA agent (I wrote may have, as in I do not have any evidence for the claim) and by former I do not mean ceased to be when the noose tightened around his neck...

Bashar al-Assad may end up the same way, if any one follows or followed the Arab conflict in Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. This, basically, means the U.S. with the help of its allies is responsible for the rise of ISIS.


There is no "price", it is just that in a world where commodities can circulate freely, you cannot justify opposing the free movement of individuals without perpetuating the conditions of the existing order. The bourgeois liberals do not oppose this development - to oppose it is to be a reactionary.

Of course liberals do not oppose free trade/free market. That would be absurd...


YOU are the one playing stupid ethical games. The world exists in a totality - no country "minds its own business".

Every country minds its own interest, ergo minds its own business. So you are the one who is "playing stupid game of semantics."


*May have posted twice due to two time log attempt.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think we have and wield different definitions of European, for you see, my family (first written data thereof) exists in Europe beginning 1400-1500. No offence to Karl Liebknecht, though, and no offence to Syrian 'refugees'.

But offence is obviously meant, as the claim is that these are not "real" Europeans. Well, no offence but, a European is someone who lives in Europe. How long someone's family has been in Europe is pretty irrelevant. Any cut-off date you propose will be completely arbitrary; and I'm fairly sure your family hasn't been in Europe forever either. In fact I don't know why you assume they have been here longer than Liebknecht's family.


As for the content of monsieur's Liebknecht words, well...

Yes, I still am not fond of the price member states ought to pay for a policy of non-interventionism in Syria.

In other words you support "your own" bourgeois government. Fair enough, but then don't go around claiming to be a socialist.


Again, I think we wield different definitions of "European bourgeois states", for I am sure you will agree Europe isn't a homogeneous entity when it comes to plitics and economy. We can talk about individual parts, sure, but Europe as a whole, no. No offence but there are people, who live here for a very long time that may need help as well. Maybe it will sound crass, but it seems to me, you are putting the welfare of your own people somewhere milion light years away.

Socialists don't care about the welfare of "their people", we take the side of workers, whether they're Croat, Hungarian, Syrian Alawites, Syrian Sunnites, Tunisians or Eskimos, and we oppose the bourgeoisie and their executive committee, the state, whether that bourgeoisie is Croat, Hungarian, Syrian Alawite, Syrian Sunni, Tunisian or Eskimo.

[Rafiq]

Yes, that's what I wrote. Iraq and Saddam Hussein comes to mind, who may have been a former CIA agent (I wrote may have, as in I do not have any evidence for the claim) and by former I do not mean ceased to be when the noose tightened around his neck...

Bashar al-Assad may end up the same way, if any one follows or followed the Arab conflict in Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. This, basically, means the U.S. with the help of its allies is responsible for the rise of ISIS.

That American military, political, etc. intervention in the near east has fostered the refugee crisis sais nothing about some kind of intentional plan to "flood europe with the arabs" as some will have it. Though I suspect this is not what you think, so we shall leave it at that.


Of course liberals do not oppose free trade/free market. That would be absurd...

The free movement of people most usually contradicts, undermines and disrupts the functions of the 'free market', though this is not the case.

In any event, suppose we cynically concede that - for example - the British bourgeoisie directly helped to facilitate the introduction of Polish migrant workers to the UK. It would be just as reactionary to oppose this as it would be to oppose the prerogatives of the bourgeoisie in trying to destroy the ancien regime in the 19th century.

One does not incur the existence of the global totality, the free circulation of commodities by "supporting" or "opposing" it. It exists as a result of real social/material processes. Therefore how one approaches, and receives it cannot be outside of it. The free circulation of commodities is perhaps a pre-requisite to the free circulation of individuals and the strengthening of ties between the proletariat of different nations. Protectionism has always been reactionary.


Every country minds its own interest, ergo minds its own business. So you are the one who is "playing stupid game of semantics."

One does not lead to the other. Of course every state exists and therefore has its own particular interests as a state. But these interests cannot be fulfilled without being entangled, subsumed, inter-lapped, etc. by the interests of other states. This has never been more true than it is in 2015 - there is no such thing as a country which "minds its own business". You accuse me of playing stupid semantic games, and yet what you say can only ever amount to the notion that "things are inter-connected or engage each other's business and it does not contradict their own interests". Mining one's own interests necessarily means engaging in the business of others. Even a state as isolated as North Korea is not an exception to this rule. It is even sickeningly stupid to talk about these as independent interests, because it is unfathomable that you can abstract these states as having an independent interest that is somehow not constituted by the totality that which it is subsumed by.

Yet, like any other opportunist, you confer different meaning where it is not directly apparent in your phrasing. You are insinuating that countries indeed do "mind their own business" and can be "dragged into things" which have nothing to do with them. But merely by merit of being a country, and a state - no less in 2015 (in this objectively globalized world), no particular interest is isolated from the universal movement of capitalism and the universal interests of global capital.

The point is not to play stupid ethical games, but to demonstrate the bankruptcy of your attempt at it. You claim some states are being forced to "pay the price", and that this is immoral. But no state "pays the price", for one cannot "pay the price" in a vacuum - the world as it is is objectively a condition for the existence of these states, and vice versa. The only way a state can absolve itself from "paying the price" of things that are a condition of its existence is through its self-negation as a state - through proletarian revolution. I mean, it's even more pathetic when you realize that every state in question, save for Sweden and Austria, is a member of NATO.

But let's forget that. On a concrete level, the migrants are here, and they are not here because Rafiq or anyone else whimsically decided to re-locate them. You take a side, in consideration of our practical prerogatives as Communists. if you are not a Communist - which frankly, I suspect you are not - we have nothing to say to you. What that means is that while we will expose the bankrupt, hypocritical nature of your positions (insofar as they are the positions of the reactionary bourgeoisie/petty bourgeoisie, and not "the people" or "the nations" as a whole), we do not have to justify ourselves to you. We are Communists. In fact, I suspect you are a fascist (and we do not care for the specialties of your self-identification here). Why? Let us look at your introduction, for starters: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2852835&postcount=3


Q: What are your political ideas, if anything in particular?

-=56=-: Extreme to the ruling class.

So, our friend here is very vague about his "political ideas" and offers us nothing more than the fact that they are "extreme to the ruling class". A leftist could qualify here. So could a Christian fundamentalist, an Islamist, a Fascist of any flavor, and it goes on. But as generous as he is, he doesn't just tell us his ideas are "extreme to the ruling class". He openly defends the anti-immigration sentiment in Europe on behalf of reactionary pretenses to "national soveriegnty". So if your ideas are "extreme to the ruling class" (which you haven't even defined - what is this 'class' in your mind?), and you've taken a concretely reactionary position amidst a political situation, where does that leave us?

Oh, and one more thing:


I think we have and wield different definitions of European, for you see, my family (first written data thereof) exists in Europe beginning 1400-1500. No offence to Karl Liebknecht, though, and no offence to Syrian 'refugees'.

No offense to Liebknecht, who came from a German-christian family? What are you insinuating?

In any case, no one gives a fuck about your definitions. One's identification on these terms is as provisional, malleable and plastic as anything in history. What of the South American identity, and the list goes on? Before you were "European", you might have been a shit-shoveling barbarian for the Romans. They certainly had no regard for the idea of a "european" person and the Romans had infinitely more respect for the Egyptian-Africans than the primitive Gaulic, Iberian and Germanic tribes. The Greeks had infinitely more respect for the Phoenecians than did they for the Europeans to the far north. The list goes on.


I do not have to mention that many countries have been surprised by the Syrian flood of people that, if my memory serves me right, have been repulsed by Turkey (at least a certain amount) as well, and are not prepared to offer significant aid in their own borders.

There are 2.5 million refugees in Turkey. Even if Turkey expelled them, that is a struggle for the Turkish socialists, for there is nothing European socialists can do to force the Turkish state by military means or otherwise to have all of the refugees - except oppose them in doing so, which they do. If that means showing solidarity with Turkish socialists opposing the Turkish state, then that is what it means. What do you suggest, that Europe invade/force Turkey to have all of the refugees? How?

[Rafiq]

So why continue with a "solution" we know doesn't do anything and makes "no practical difference"? Isn't that the definition of insanity? Shouldn't we as the socialist collective come up with a better than, that does make a practical difference?

Are you stupid? If we could whimsically address every single problem in proportion to its mere existence in imagination or in ethical systems, rather than its immediate political concerns for society as a whole, we would already be living in a proletarian dictatorship. Even then you cannot do this.

You say "what about the other 35 million refugees?" - like what the fuck are you trying to say? Are you saying that by some moral deficit the Syrians are going to Europe, while the other tens of millions are keeping to themselves because they're not bad like the Syrians are? What are you saying?

The difference is that supporting the Syrian refugees does make a practical difference - it is a practical pre-requisite for someone as a Socialist, it is the socialist position, assessment of the concrete situation. There are implications regarding one's allegiances for opposing it. It is that fucking simple. Since we are just intellectuals who have no political power, that is all there is to it, and that's how you're qualified.


Meaning by not doing anything and forcing those who are effected to stay in their own country and fight which forces the oppressed sort out their own problems.

And thus condemn them? What does that actually mean, "let them sort out their own problems". Their problems are irrevocably the problems of Europe and the United States, the problems of the world at that. If this wasn't the case - you fool - there would have been no intervention in the first place.


There must be another solution isn't there?

There are plenty of solutions. The one that matters, in the here and now, is to unconditionally support the refugees and conceive them as potential political recruits.

[-=56=-]

But offence is obviously meant, as the claim is that these are not "real" Europeans. Well, no offence but, a European is someone who lives in Europe. How long someone's family has been in Europe is pretty irrelevant. Any cut-off date you propose will be completely arbitrary; and I'm fairly sure your family hasn't been in Europe forever either. In fact I don't know why you assume they have been here longer than Liebknecht's family.

Standing in a garage does not make you a car and no offence, but they do not live in Europe, so that does not compute, which has been my original point. As for the irrelevancy, if you're not content nor give a toss about language, history, blood ties, culture and sovereignty, it sure is irrelevant.

I have never assumed what you accuse me of assuming. So far it looks like you have assumed that I have assumed something, which is not true. All in all, you are assuming that I am assuming.


In other words you support "your own" bourgeois government. Fair enough, but then don't go around claiming to be a socialist.

Last time I checked I didn't vote my government, so you're assuming again. Another assumption would be you assuming that this (mine) government is clearly anti-immigration. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it isn't.


Socialists don't care about the welfare of "their people", we take the side of workers, whether they're Croat, Hungarian, Syrian Alawites, Syrian Sunnites, Tunisians or Eskimos, and we oppose the bourgeoisie and their executive committee, the state, whether that bourgeoisie is Croat, Hungarian, Syrian Alawite, Syrian Sunni, Tunisian or Eskimo.

So if I were to hide your balls in a basket right now, one of them black and the rest white, you're going to discard the black one. Got it.

Fine. After reading the credo of a socialist you wrote and forcefully repelling my claim to socialism, I hereby lay upon your hands my self-criticism, komrades. Forgive me, for I have sinned.


That American military, political, etc. intervention in the near east has fostered the refugee crisis sais nothing about some kind of intentional plan to "flood europe with the arabs" as some will have it. Though I suspect this is not what you think, so we shall leave it at that.

Of course it doesn't. Never implied it does, so your suspicions are reasonable.


The free movement of people most usually contradicts, undermines and disrupts the functions of the 'free market', though this is not the case.

Have to disagree here, chief. Globalisation in a nutshell is free movement, be it, free movement of folk, commodities, free travel of capital, etc., so claiming an instrument of nowadays capitalism (?) to "undermine the functions of free market", is a bit of a faux pas.


In any event, suppose we cynically concede that - for example - the British bourgeoisie directly helped to facilitate the introduction of Polish migrant workers to the UK. It would be just as reactionary to oppose this as it would be to oppose the prerogatives of the bourgeoisie in trying to destroy the ancien regime in the 19th century.

Taking into account the fact the migrants you speak of are by far after vocational school/have at least secondary education, it isn't such a surprise to me. It is going to sound crass again, but I am not entirely sure most of them would survive in their native habitat.


The free circulation of commodities is perhaps a pre-requisite to the free circulation of individuals and the strengthening of ties between the proletariat of different nations. Protectionism has always been reactionary.

Oy vey.

One does not lead to the other. Of course every state exists and therefore has its own particular interests as a state. But these interests cannot be fulfilled without being entangled, subsumed, inter-lapped, etc. by the interests of other states.

They cannot, but imperialism isn't surely the way to go...


This has never been more true than it is in 2015 - there is no such thing as a country which "minds its own business". You accuse me of playing stupid semantic games[...]

By a country minding its own business I meant a country having interests. Specific interests that may or may not interfere with status quo, so your previous past was just a game of semnatics to me. Minding one's own business and having interests as a country, are synonymous if not the same thing to me.

Yet, like any other opportunist, you confer different meaning where it is not directly apparent in your phrasing. You are insinuating that countries indeed do "mind their own business" and can be "dragged into things" which have nothing to do with them.

...


The point is not to play stupid ethical games, but to demonstrate the bankruptcy of your attempt at it.

No. The point is not to play a stupid game of semantics.


You claim some states are being forced to "pay the price", and that this is immoral.

Never wrote it is immoral. You and your hombre there seem to have a monopoly on being socialist and a monopoly on assuming something that wasn't even claimed. Pure figment of your imagination there - it is time to face reality. Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

And of course it has been forced on other member states alluding to some ill understood "solidarity" manifesting in "we do something really dumb, you have to as well or you won't get our monies". Hilarious.

I mean, it's even more pathetic when you realize that [I]every state in question, save for Sweden and Austria, is a member of NATO.[/QUOTE]

Good to know Russia is in NATO as well, genius.

[Lord Testicles]

I mean, it's even more pathetic when you realize that every state in question, save for Sweden and Austria, is a member of NATO.

Good to know Russia is in NATO as well, genius.

Before you go around sarcastically calling people "genius" you should know that Russia isn't in the EU.

[Recke410]

Have any left wing sites put any material out regarding the recent spate of refugee on refugee anti-christian violence in Germany and the foreign camps? Maajid Nawaz was talking about how he hopes the left will address this rather than ignoring it and playing into the hands of extreme right exenephobes who will use it to whip up support for anti-immigrant sentiment.

Some of the trends are quite worrying, multiple Christians and other minority faiths being killed while at sea, being targetted in the camps and the women amongst them having to sleep fully clothed with male relatives around at all times.

Nawaz has got some mainstream attention recently after coining the phrase "regressive leftist" arguing that the left has abandoned the reformers, gay and lesbian community, athiest and secular movement in the "Islamic world" by branding any tackling of Islamic ideology or actions by Muslims as Islamophobia. Maajid is himself a Muslim and spent years in Mubarak's illegal jails and was subject to torture when he was an Islamist.

He says he fears the regressive left are basically abandoning the issue and leaving the right to capitalise on it, which he fers will polarise society and lead to a rebirth of the far right. He cites European communities who were initially welcoming of the refugees who after witnessing disturbing elements within (Muslim refugee stabbing a female police officer, abuse of minority refugees amongst them, a large jump in incidents of rape in the area) the new community.

I was hoping to see something put out from the various Anarhcist and Marxist publications I browse from time to time but sadly nothing has been put out. Sadly there are thousands of articles out on this issue from the far right and these are influencing more and more people to have an increasingly anti-immigrant and nationalist stance, especially when they feel the right is the only side acknowledging their concerns.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Standing in a garage does not make you a car and no offence, but they do not live in Europe, so that does not compute, which has been my original point. As for the irrelevancy, if you're not content nor give a toss about language, history, blood ties, culture and sovereignty, it sure is irrelevant.

I have never assumed what you accuse me of assuming. So far it looks like you have assumed that I have assumed something, which is not true. All in all, you are assuming that I am assuming.

You said "no offence to Karl Liebknecht", clearly implying (as in, this is the only way to read your comment so that it makes at least some sense) that Liebknecht was not a European, presumably because of the vaguely Jewish-sounding surname. Then you started with that spiel about how your family has been in Europe since the 15th century. Sorry, that's quite late. I imagine most Jewish families have been in Europe longer than that, and by your criteria have more of a claim to being European than some immigrants from the steppes.

And of course we don't care about "language, history, blood ties, culture and sovereignty", we're socialists. Internationalism and opposition to all patriotism is an integral part of socialism.


Last time I checked I didn't vote my government, so you're assuming again. Another assumption would be you assuming that this (mine) government is clearly anti-immigration. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it isn't.

It doesn't matter. You're obviously concerned with the "sovereignty" of your beloved nation, with the fact that "your" bourgeoisie might have to pay for something. Not to mention your concern with "blood ties".


So if I were to hide your balls in a basket right now, one of them black and the rest white, you're going to discard the black one. Got it.

I have no idea what any of that's supposed to mean. But to reiterate: we support the proletariat and oppose the bourgeoisie without regard for their ethnic origin. We oppose any national unity, cooperation and so on.


Fine. After reading the credo of a socialist you wrote and forcefully repelling my claim to socialism, I hereby lay upon your hands my self-criticism, komrades. Forgive me, for I have sinned.

Go and sin no more.

[-=56=-]

Before you go around sarcastically calling people "genius" you should know that Russia isn't in the EU.

Well, genius, thanks for pointing out the obvious, but Russia is still, geopolitically, in Europe thanks to covering nine time zones (correct me if I am wrong). Only geopolitically, though, and the most correct term that applies to Russia is Euro-Asia.

So before you, Croat(?) acknowledge the right of Turkey (laughable eight percent of territory) in EU, you better think twice.

And before you point out I am sarcastically calling people geniuses, maybe it is time to admit your komrade there in his tirade against reactionaries and opportunists called me both. No problemo matey, but I won't stay idle.

Cheers from a reactionary and opportunist.

[Lord Testicles]

Well, genius, thanks for pointing out the obvious, but Russia is still, geopolitically, in Europe thanks to covering nine time zones (correct me if I am wrong). Only geopolitically, though, and the most correct term that applies to Russia is Euro-Asia.


Yeah, yeah, whatever, I think it was quite clear that Rafiq was talking about the European Union.


So before you, Croat(?) acknowledge the right of Turkey (laughable eight percent of territory) in EU, you better think twice.

What are you even talking about & why should I care?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What are you even talking about & why should I care?

I think that the two of us have somehow become conflated. My sincere condolences, even I don't want to be me.

And as for the EU, we don't care. We stand for a Socialist United States of Europe. The more Turks, the merrier. Likewise Kurds, Syrians and so on.

[-=56=-]

Yeah, yeah, whatever, I think it was quite clear that Rafiq was talking about the European Union.

If Rafiq was talking about EU only, then that is his problem solely. Take it from some one who actually knows or studied international law.

I can list Finland, for example, as well. And it fits the criteria.

What are you even talking about & why should I care?

It is not me you should be asking this question...

Sorry for the formatting, I am in a point of time where I am in 2-3 places at once, so do not mind the aesthetics.

[Lord Testicles]

Take it from some one who actually knows or studied international law.


Sure you did buddy.


I can list Finland, for example, as well. And it fits the criteria. Cough. Czech Republic. Cough.


Finland isn't in NATO. Czech Republic is in both. I still don't see what this has to do with you thinking that Russia was a member of the EU. (A pretty big mistake for someone who knows or has studied international law.)

[-=56=-]

Finland isn't in NATO. Czech Republic is in both. I still don't see what this has to do with you thinking that Russia was a member of the EU. (A pretty big mistake for someone who knows or has studied international law.)

Ehh, never thought Russia was or is in EU. I think it reads, geopolitically in Europe, if you know what it means at all. The Czech one was blunder, I had some other national i mind. I am up on my feet starting 5 am yesterday and today and going to be tomorrow. I didn't even had time to eat properly, so do not mind the formatting or that obious blunder. I meant Malta.

I do not always have the luxury of time to write beautiful poems on a forum.

[Lord Testicles]

Ehh, never thought Russia was or is in EU. I think it reads, geopolitically in Europe, if you know what it means at all. The Czech one was blunder, I had some other national i mind. I am up on my feet starting 5 am yesterday and today and going to be tomorrow. I didn't even had time to eat properly, so do not mind the formatting or that obious blunder. I meant Malta.

I do not always have the luxury of time to write beautiful poems on a forum.

Yeah, the Czech Republic and Malta, I'm always mixing those two up. How about you do us all a favour and instead of polluting our space with your presence you stay away from this forum and just concentrate on feeding yourself.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm still waiting for an explanation of balls (as in, the comment about balls in a basket, I don't need to be told how human testicles work, I've seen quite a few in my time). But I think every new post from this guy makes less sense than the ones before which is a fucking accomplishment on RL.