[anasawad]

@Donna

I've studied the left's traditions for years and the idea of "group rights" is not something I've ever encountered. Even for something like the civil rights movement in the United States, the legal reforms pertained to the rights of individuals not to be discriminated against. Who are the primary intellectual proponents of "group rights"?

Marxists.
It's called collectivism for a reason.

It's pretty dishonest to ignore the fact that Egypt, Syria and Libya underwent revolution and war in the last decade, or that climate change and inequality is displacing significant numbers of people in Africa.

hah? Dishonest in what way.
Those mobs and gangs have been acting as enforcers for the regimes' in those countries for decades before the revolutions, when the revolutions came many of them escaped to Europe adding to the crime wave there.
These types of crimes still exist in these countries due to the mentality persisting, but it's far less organized.

And what does climate change has to do with sexual crimes and human trafficking gangs?

In the UK everyone knows that Asian is a term for South Asian. It's not political correctness, it's just the way the British speak.

That doesn't seem to be the case with the "politically incorrect" people who say those gangs are specifically from Pakistani and Afghani communities.

The left isn't causing the far-right to grow. Every aggravation of the far-right, whether globalization or immigration, is a mechanism of global capitalism.

The current "far right" ( which on a side note, is not far right but rather center and center right groups since you guys really don't know what far right actually looks like, you can look at the Baath ideology to know what far right really is) is mostly made of capitalists and neo-conservatives which both are for globalization, the anti immigration sentiment and the main drivers of the right to grow are local issues caused by mass immigration under the social policy of the left.

The left simply refuses to allow minorities to be scapegoated for problems created by wealth inequality.

Dude, dude, dude, how many times should I tell you that these propaganda lines don't really work with me?
You're not discussing the topic with someone in Britain who's still confused about the topic, you're discussing it with someone who lived in 3 middle eastern countries and is currently in one and have seen these things first hand over and over again.
This isn't scapegoating minorities, these are well known gangs in well known areas from well known group of people acting in near impunity due to the light hand of the law provided by the progressive left protecting and covering for these gangs.
If someone from the right came and said migrants are the cause for deteriorating infrastructure, then you can say they're scapegoating migrants. This isn't the case, those gangs are very specific and operate in very specific areas.

If it was the Russian mob operating in Russian migrant communities in well known areas and the police are not arresting them or atleast investigating them, we wont say they're scapegoating them if someone calls it out because it's known who it is and where it operates. This is the exact same case, simply with different country of origins.

The fascist nationalist

Syria has a fascist regime. Iraq had a fascist regime. We in Baalbek spent over 15 years fighting against Fascist occupation ending in 2005. I know what fascists are like.
The main body of the so called right in the west is made up of conservatives, classical liberals, libertarians, and centrists, not from fascists.

And nationalists are an entirely different thing from fascists.

stop scapegoating innocent people who are just trying to live their lives in peace.

Stating the fact that there are criminal human trafficking gangs, guided by extreme religious views, and operating in the Muslim communities in the UK and demanding the government to take action to end these gangs is not scapegoating "innocent people".
If they were scapegoating Muslims in general as a whole, then Muslims themselves in Muslim majority countries wont be suffering from and fighting against those same exact type of gangs.

[Donna]

@Donna

Marxists.
It's called collectivism for a reason.

And what does climate change has to do with sexual crimes and human trafficking gangs?

What did I say about climate change?

That doesn't seem to be the case with the "politically incorrect" people who say those gangs are specifically from Pakistani and Afghani communities.

Which is why the British refer to them as South Asian or Asian. It's not political correctness. It has always been how English is used in Britain. If you're from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, or even Afghanistan, you're "Asian". It's unusual, but it follows from Britain's historical relationship with the region.

The current "far right" ( which on a side note, is not far right but rather center and center right groups since you guys really don't know what far right actually looks like, you can look at the Baath ideology to know what far right really is) is mostly made of capitalists and neo-conservatives which both are for globalization, the anti immigration sentiment and the main drivers of the right to grow are local issues caused by mass immigration under the social policy of the left.

Immigration policy has nothing to do with the left and everything to do with neoliberalism and the demand for open borders by business interests.

Syria has a fascist regime. Iraq had a fascist regime. We in Baalbek spent over 15 years fighting against Fascist occupation ending in 2005. I know what fascists are like.

Yet all you do is make excuses for their talking points. Sounds like to me you have some fascist sympathies yourself.

The main body of the so called right in the west is made up of conservatives, classical liberals, libertarians, and centrists, not from fascists.

That has been changing for a number of years now since the rise of the Alt-Right.

And nationalists are an entirely different thing from fascists.

Both can go to hell.

Stating the fact that there are criminal human trafficking gangs, guided by extreme religious views, and operating in the Muslim communities in the UK and demanding the government to take action to end these gangs is not scapegoating "innocent people".
If they were scapegoating Muslims in general as a whole, then Muslims themselves in Muslim majority countries wont be suffering from and fighting against those same exact type of gangs.

Attributing the crimes of trafficking gangs to their culture/religion is scapegoating Muslims I'm afraid.

[ingliz]

The English have always had a problem with what to do with children. Fucking them is not a new phenomenon. In the late 1800s, child prostitution flourished and was an accepted fact of life. Even now around 1 in 10 English women report being sexually abused as children (Source: CEOP/ONS).

[Potemkin]

The English have always had a problem with what to do with children. Fucking them is not a new phenomenon. In the late 1800s, child prostitution flourished and was an accepted fact of life. Even now around 1 in 10 English women report being raped as children.

Exactly. The Victorians made it legal to have sex with girls over the age of 13. This was done in order to protect children younger than that from sexual exploitation. Before the Victorians (who were so prudish that they even disapproved of fucking children), there had been no age of consent laws and children were regarded as fair game, sexually speaking. It's only in recent decades - roughly from the 1990s onwards - that fucking kids has become socially unacceptable in Britain.

[anasawad]

@Donna

Immigration policy has nothing to do with the left and everything to do with neoliberalism and the demand for open borders by business interests.

Not immigration policy, social policy regarding immigrants.
Similar, but different areas of policy.

Yet all you do is make excuses for their talking points. Sounds like to me you have some fascist sympathies yourself

I'm afraid you're confusing me with skinister, I am the one calling for their destruction along with the regime in Iran and its dogs like Hezbollah here.

That has been changing for a number of years now since the rise of the Alt-Right.

Perhaps, but not to a notable or sufficient degree to change results of a democratic election or the such, meaning the far-right and likewise the rebranded group of the "alt-right" are both still living on the fringes.

Attributing the crimes of trafficking gangs to their culture/religion is scapegoating Muslims I'm afraid.

It's not.

There are two parts for why these gangs, or better say the mentality behind them, forms:

1- These grooming gangs and the view of the acceptability of the rape and enslavement of "infidels" have been part of many Islamic schools of thought all the way back since the times of the Khalji empire under the name of Sabi.
Although this part of Islam was seemingly dying out in the 19th and early 20th century, people like Shiekh Sayyed Qotob and Sheikh Sha'rawi (major influencers not only in the Muslim brotherhood but also on the Deobandi school of thought under the rule of Jennah in Pakistan.) played a huge role in bringing it back.
These rules, brought and spread mainly by the Muslim brotherhood and infecting many schools of thought, are the main Islamic justification for why there is still slavery in massive scale in the gulf states, why groups like ISIS took Christan girls as sex slaves, why there are mass and gang rapes and sexual assaults widespread against any girl to be perceived "stray of Islamic code" especially in Muslim brotherhood areas in Egypt.

2- The utilization of mass rapes under the various regimes in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and the various military regimes in Pakistan, likewise, played a role in establishing dozens if not 100s of gangs and mobs of men with their sole duty is to terrorize opposition and decenters and enforcing the regime's reign(This is why just a few years ago the word Mokhabarat had a dreadful effect on people), at the early stages in the 70s and early 80s the common method was arresting the men and torturing them, (this is why there are around a dozen infamous prisons in the middle east that although far less active since the late 80s, still hold its reputation of torment and suffering for anyone who is sent there like the Tadmor or the Sahnaya prisons for example), that policy of just torturing decenters failed though as it had shown the brutal oppression will result in brutal and violent uprisings and resistence, as such those regimes (starting With Saddams regime and moving on to Hafez and Qaddafi's regime) decided to switch the roles and instead of attacking the men attacking the women to terrorize them, this can be anything from assaulting them in the streets to secret police going into their homes, raping the girls while tying up the men and forcing them to watch. The goal isn't to torture the girls, but since they perceived it so that it is far easier and more effective to terrorize the women, this way if you for example dared say anything about the "Dear leader", your wife or daughters or sisters would be targetted, who in turn out of fear of being attacked again from these mobs would pressure you to censor yourself and not talk about the state or politics anymore so nothing would be done to them.


Now, merge these two mentalities together in the areas where not only these Islamic teachings are spread, but also where these mobs recruited, and you get the type of grooming gangs in the UK and the dozens of mass rape gangs and human trafficking mobs currently in Europe. Immigration helped them spread their operations, and the economic downturn followed by revolutions in these countries pushed many of these gangs either to relocate or outright escape for their lives to Europe.


As you can see, there is both an Islamic and ideological aspect of it, and on the other hand a cultural aspect of it wherein these extreme forms of male dominance and violence sub-cultures are mainly present in areas where these gangs not operated but recruited and these two aspects merged and are hard to combat because the first (i.e. the Islamic aspect of it) justifies the second when it comes against non-Muslim populations.
That's why even when enforcing in these countries, there was always an element of claiming these women were whores or degenerates or stray, they had to be pushed away from Islam to justify it; That's why there is a thing called Takfiris now spreading.

And lets be clear, this isn't some new stuff that only me talks about, no, if you talk to people from Egypt on the Mubarak years, you'll surely hear of Mubarak's gangs assaulting girls in the street; if you to talk to Lebanese people, you'll surely hear the countless stories of rapes on the hands of Syrian intelligence and officers during the occupation years; If you talk to Syrians, you'll hear the stories of the Syrian intelligence forces raping thousands of girls in a single city or the occasional kids being tortured after members of their families joined an anti regime protest; If you talked to Shiites and Kurds in Iraq, you'll hear the endless stories of the Saddam regime having a policy of stealing the kids of any group deemed opposition and putting them into sex slavery both to humiliate and subjugate these groups and also to instill fear in other groups not to meet the same fate, that's why you get titles like the children theif for his ministers; And the same can be said regarding warlords in Afghanistan or current day Libya or Yemen or Sudan or Eritrea or Pakistan, it's all similar policy, the only difference now is that these organized gangs are going to Europe.

[Truth To Power]

I don't believe shifting to Overton window further to the far-right is a good way of fighting racism.

Because you believe only whites can be racist, only whites can perpetrate racist crimes.

And I'm not sure how the trafficking gangs are anyone's fault but the perpetrators themselves.

They are just as much the fault of the anti-white, politically correct enablers of racist crime against whites. Like you.

[Truth To Power]

Incorrect. They are treated as every other British or European citizen or permanent resident according to the rule of the law. This particularly angers racists who will never be sufficiently satisfied unless Muslims in their country are denied their rights.

That is a load of anti-white racist garbage, as anasawad has proved.

[Donna]

@Donna


Not immigration policy, social policy regarding immigrants.
Similar, but different areas of policy.

Please elaborate.

Perhaps, but not to a notable or sufficient degree to change results of a democratic election or the such, meaning the far-right and likewise the rebranded group of the "alt-right" are both still living on the fringes.

I'd say it's more like the situation in France where the political institutions are adept at keeping a fascist like Le Pen out of power but underneath the system there is a lot of groundswell support for a new racist and illiberal political paradigm. The election of Donald Trump and the gradual rise of Salvini in Italy (fortunately he was defeated at the polls yesterday), the AfD in Germany and right-wing populism elsewhere are rumblings of a public that is increasingly losing its cosmopolitan cohesion. Meme culture on the English-speaking internet has also lurched toward the far-right with disturbing consequences. Far-right violence and terrorism is also on the rise and statistically overshadows Islamist or left-wing violence. Meanwhile, according to the FBI, hate crimes in the US have reached a 16 year high. Telling me the far-right isn't a real problem is a deceptive ruse.

[Donna]

Because you believe only whites can be racist, only whites can perpetrate racist crimes.

They are just as much the fault of the anti-white, politically correct enablers of racist crime against whites. Like you.

It's not possible to be racist against white-passing people. Prejudice, yes, but racism is about power and who has it.

[anasawad]

@Donna

Please elaborate.

Migration policy: Migration rules, limits, quotas, etc.
Social policy regarding immigrants: Policies regarding Immigrants once they're in the country.

I'd say it's more like the situation in France where the political institutions are adept at keeping a fascist like Le Pen out of power but underneath the system there is a lot of groundswell support for a new racist and illiberal political paradigm. The election of Donald Trump and the gradual rise of Salvini in Italy (fortunately he was defeated at the polls yesterday), the AfD in Germany and right-wing populism elsewhere are rumblings of a public that is increasingly losing its cosmopolitan cohesion. Meme culture on the English-speaking internet has also lurched toward the far-right with disturbing consequences. Far-right violence and terrorism is also on the rise and statistically overshadows Islamist or left-wing violence. Meanwhile, according to the FBI, hate crimes in the US have reached a 16 year high. Telling me the far-right isn't a real problem is a deceptive ruse.

Marie Le Pen is a nationalist, not a fascist.
Matteo Salvini is a nationalist and a protectionist with a slight pinch of globalist free-trade capitalism in some fields, also not a fascist.
Donald Trump is also a nationalist and a protectionist, not a fascist.
The AfD are also nationalists and protectionists, not fascists.

The largest Fascist party in Europe as far as I'm aware is the Golden Dawn in Greece, and they're insignificant.
Nationalists =/= Fascists.
You can take a look at the Baath ideology to know what fascism is really like in views and implementation.

It's not possible to be racist against white-passing people. Prejudice, yes, but racism is about power and who has it.

Racism is prejudice and discrimination based on race.
You can't be racist against an ideology, which is why you can't be "racist" against Muslims. You can have a prejudice against them but not racism.

Power is relative to the circumstances surrounding each situation as such the concept of racism is about power is not only baseless, but also illogical and inconsistent.

[Donna]

@Donna

Migration policy: Migration rules, limits, quotas, etc.
Social policy regarding immigrants: Policies regarding Immigrants once they're in the country.

Such as?

Marie Le Pen is a nationalist, not a fascist.
Matteo Salvini is a nationalist and a protectionist with a slight pinch of globalist free-trade capitalism in some fields, also not a fascist.
Donald Trump is also a nationalist and a protectionist, not a fascist.
The AfD are also nationalists and protectionists, not fascists.

The largest Fascist party in Europe as far as I'm aware is the Golden Dawn in Greece, and they're insignificant.
Nationalists =/= Fascists.
You can take a look at the Baath ideology to know what fascism is really like in views and implementation.

They will be labelled as fascists because they are fascist-adjacent. It might be that not all nationalists are fascists, but all fascists are nationalists and that is enough for me.

Power is relative to the circumstances surrounding each situation as such the concept of racism is about power is not only baseless, but also illogical and inconsistent.

I don't think you understand what racism is on a higher academic level.

[anasawad]

@Donna

Such as?

??
Those are obvious.

They will be labelled as fascists because they are fascist-adjacent.

They're not.
Infact, they're closer to libertarians and classical liberals than fascists. Should be obvious by anyone who spends a few minutes looking at what they're demanding.

For example, in a comparison between someone who is pro-censorship and someone who is for absolute free speech, the one closer to a fascist is the one who wants censorship.
That's why when many of the new progressives call people demanding absolute free speech fascists, they're only proving they don't know what fascism is.

I don't think you understand what racism is on a higher academic level.

If an academic gave you this definition, then they aren't really academics since they'd have easily noticed the logical inconsistency of that definition.

Power is relative.
Power is also absolute and tends to concentrate, as such, by the very nature of power, no collective can hold power, only individual actors.
As such, anyone attempting to attach power to a collective like race, ethnicity, gender, etc is someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

That's why for example under a socialist system, unions act as individual entities exerting power through representatives, and not as a collective or a mob. Sure, it's an individual actor representing a collective, but it's still an individual actor exerting the power not the collective.

[Donna]

@Donna

??
Those are obvious.

Do you have any examples?

They're not.
Infact, they're closer to libertarians and classical liberals than fascists. Should be obvious by anyone who spends a few minutes looking at what they're demanding.

No. The dabbling with nativism and bigotry crosses the line from classical liberalism into blood-and-soil narratives. It is the road to fascism.

If an academic gave you this definition, then they aren't really academics since they'd have easily noticed the logical inconsistency of that definition.

It's literally an entire field of social studies that goes back to W. E. B. Du Bois but ok.

[ingliz]

not fascists

Whatever you call them, and I call them Neo-Nazis, the AfD's "Young Alternative" youth group, as well as a group known within the party as "The Wing" have been labeled suspicious by authorities and are under constant intelligence service surveillance.

[anasawad]

@Donna

Do you have any examples?

Regarding migration policy, everything from country quotas, numerical limitations, specialty limitations, rules for visas and entry passes, etc are all examples of migration policy.
Regarding social policy towards migrants, everything from naturalization rules, benefits, taxation policy, time limits on residency, terms for visa renewal, etc are all social policies targetted at immigrants.
It's not really hard bro.

No. The dabbling with nativism and bigotry crosses the line from classical liberalism into blood-and-soil narratives. It is the road to fascism.

Well, I don't know where you're reading your news from, but those things are chanted and repeated on the fringes, all while those you call fascists are demanding free speech, equality under the law, no special treatments for anyone, etc. Those aren't fascist policies.

It's literally an entire field of social studies that goes back to W. E. B. Du Bois but ok.

It literally starts its definition by saying white privilege, a logically inconsistent term in itself.
Again, not really academic.

Privilege is also relative and can never be absolute due to its inherent attachment to other factors and actors.

@ingliz

Whatever you call them, and I call them Neo-Nazis, the AfD's "Young Alternative" youth group, as well as a group known within the party as "The Wing" have been labeled suspicious by authorities and are under constant intelligence service surveillance.

They can be hardline nationalists, it still doesn't make them fascists.
Fascism isn't some meaningless word that can be thrown on anyone, it's an actual ideology.

[Donna]

@Donna

Regarding migration policy, everything from country quotas, numerical limitations, specialty limitations, rules for visas and entry passes, etc are all examples of migration policy.
Regarding social policy towards migrants, everything from naturalization rules, benefits, taxation policy, time limits on residency, terms for visa renewal, etc are all social policies targetted at immigrants.
It's not really hard bro.

Please provide some examples of how "the left" controls naturalization rules, benefits, taxation policy, time limits on residency, terms for visa renewal, etc.

Well, I don't where you're reading your news from, but those things are chanted and repeated on the fringes, all while those you call fascists are demanding free speech, equality under the law, no special treatments for anyone, etc. Those aren't fascist policies.

Ah, this is what I call Andy Ngo syndrome. Basically it's being fascist-adjacent and not realizing it and thinking you're a classical liberal.

It literally starts its definition by saying white privilege, a logically inconsistent term in itself.
Again, not really academic.

They can be hardline nationalists, it still doesn't make them fascists.
Fascism isn't some meaningless word that can be thrown on anyone, it's an actual ideology.

Dumb fash apologists: "Fascism specifically pertains to the regime in Italy under Mussolini. Technically even Germany wasn't fascist."

Smart antifash lefty-bois: "We fought the fascists in Spain, in Italy, in Germany, on Cable Street. ¡No pasarán!"

[ingliz]

it still doesn't make them fascists.

Neo-Fascism - If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and gives a Nazi salute they are fascists enough for me.

demanding

What they ask for and what they want are two different things.

[anasawad]

@Donna

Please provide some examples of how "the left" controls naturalization rules, benefits, taxation policy, time limits on residency, terms for visa renewal, etc.

2 points:
1- The left is present in the government in the UK and other European countries as such participate in the creation of these laws and policies.
2- I specifically state very early on that the left-wing progressives are preventing or putting obstacles in the path of enforcing the law, which I did prove.

Therefore, the left progressive movements can be said to control these aspects since they can simply obstruct or prevent any law they don't like from being implemented, all while seeming to have the support to implement their policies throughout Europe and the EU.
I mean, the EU is very progressive don't you think?

Ah, this is what I call Andy Ngo syndrome. Basically it's being fascist-adjacent and not realizing it and thinking you're a classical liberal.

As said before, anyone claiming is that people demanding free speech are "fascist-adjacent" is someone who didn't even go through the wikipedia page on fascism.


-
You can laugh all you want, the facts are simple.
Privilege is relative and context-dependent,; As such, any general statement made regarding a collective having privilege is an illogical statement and the person who said it is, to put it very lightly, an idiot.

Dumb fash apologists: "Fascism specifically pertains to the regime in Italy under Mussolini. Technically even Germany wasn't fascist."

There are indeed modern fascist and fascist-Adjacent, as you call it, parties and governments.
I have given examples.
The regimes in Iraq and Syria are full on fascists.
The regimes in Libya and Egypt and Pakistan and Iran are close enough but not fully there.
The regime in Saudi Arabia is also close, but not as close as Libya or Egypt.
The regime in Turkey is heading that way, but has some decades to go through.

Now;
1- This statement is a strawman.
2- You don't know anything about fascism or its policies.
3- Try to keep the "good faith".

Smart antifash lefty-bois: "We fought the fascists in Spain, in Italy, in Germany, on Cable Street. ¡No pasarán!"

You didn't.

Infact, the people who currently claim to be fighting fascists in the west are not only clueless on what fascism is but also the soft muffins who either get killed off right away or just run away from the fight.
The people currently fighting real fascists are generally split between Liberals, socialists, conservatives, tribals, monarchists, etc.
Not only the "Smart anti-fash lefties" in the west not fighting fascists, infact, they're the ones almost endlessly defending them.

So smart.
Brilliant.

I guess the "good faith" charade is gone now isn't it.
Good to know.



@ingliz

Neo-Fascism - If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and gives a Nazi salute they are fascists enough for me.

Yea, but the majority of those who western liberals claim to be fascists don't do any of those.
I mean, if we take free speech for example.
Under a fascist regime, anyone saying the wrong thing will not only experience endless torment but to even their family. I mean their mothers would regret giving birth to them.
If you demand free speech, you're inheritly anti-Fascist.

If you demand equal implementation of the law with no protected groups or classes, you're anti-fascist because at the very fundamental level, fascist regimes are built on an absolute hierarchy.
etc.

Those aren't the so called fascists in the west you guys are pointing at.

What they ask for and what they want are two different things.

Well, if we're going take that logic of assuming guilt, then shouldn't they atleast have some resemblance between the two?
And if it isn't (edited: Turned It's to Isn't.) required, then why would it be bad if they assumed the intent on your side and acted upon it as well?

It seems you guys are not only failing to think objectively on the matter, but your approach is counterproductive since it will inevitably lead to the destruction of both side in your ideological struggle.

Well, I guess once you guys finish off each other, we can come and take your stuff.

[ingliz]

Yea, but the majority of those who western liberals claim to be fascists don't do any of those.

Yea, but the majority of those who I claim to be fascists do.

assuming guilt

Why not? They are guilty.

[anasawad]

@ingliz

Yea, but the majority of those I claim to be fascists do.

Then specify which groups are you talking about exactly?

If you're talking about the AfD, the Alternative for Germany, the party seems to have begun as a socially conservative, economically protectionist, and politically liberal party, then split into two with one being center-right Liberals and the other being neo-Nazis. As such, they, the neo-nazis, remain as stated previously a fringe minority.

Noting that those aren't the majority of people standing in opposition to the left, rather the minority of your opposition in Europe.