Thread: Austrian Politican Speaks candidly

It's about time that we saw someone say this.

Turks are to Europe what Mexicans are to the USA, plus they have a different religion and culture.
Some people think there are too many Turks in Europe. Some of the Turks in Europe are actually Kurdish and the Kurds have some very un-European practices....(family honour, forced marriages etc) This is creating problems.

What precisely is your point?

Your analogy about Mexicans and Turks not even close in this case.

I'm very glad to hear such a speech in one of European parliaments. I was particularly happy to hear that "... this country is not exclusively made up of tolerance romantics...".
It appears that the immigration problem will soon make Europe to shake the tolerance and political correctness from their heads and start doing something more radical than just whispered conversations. Austria's just the first. There will be others or tolerance will kill Europe.

Yes Ramil, that's what I thought when I first heard about this. I am so tired of sugar tongued politicians because they are the death of the West!

The word is "candidly", not "candidately".

I actually do somewhat agree with what this man is saying. Tolerance is good, but there is also such a thing as a common sense attitude towards tolerance, and allowing intolerance in the name of tolerance most certainly goes against common sense.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I'm very glad to hear such a speech in one of European parliaments. I was particularly happy to hear that "... this country is not exclusively made up of tolerance romantics...".
It appears that the immigration problem will soon make Europe to shake the tolerance and political correctness from their heads and start doing something more radical than just whispered conversations. Austria's just the first. There will be others or tolerance will kill Europe.

They can stop being tolerant towards immigrants, but still be tolerant towards their citizens.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

They can stop being tolerant towards immigrants, but still be tolerant towards their citizens.

That is the definition of xenophoby.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Originally Posted by Eric C.

They can stop being tolerant towards immigrants, but still be tolerant towards their citizens.

That is the definition of xenophoby.

Chauvinism, nationalism and racism... nazism even.

The question is why being tolerant at all? If I don't like somebody that's my problem, but when this someone starts pissing me off I'll tell him to stop. Call me a nazi if you want, I don't care. Tolerance if a form of hypocrisy. People don't actually start to like people they told to like. But they're bullied into that. They're afraid to appear homophobes, racists or worse. But what of the other side? Say, I am a xenophobe, a homophobe, a chauvinist and a racist. I have rights too, goddamnit! I'll feel discriminated. I have rights to express my views, conduct homophobe parades and wear swastika according to the same logic the 'tolerance romantics' use.

Well the rhetoric of those Austrians is excessive, and the internal problems of Turkey is nothing to do with Austria! I think he should tone it down a bit, or he will immediately be cut down by the PC brigade... I do not support this type of agitation. He does not seem like a very sympathetic person to me.

That said, I am against membership of Turkey in the EU.
As things currently are in Turkey it is just NOT a suitable country to join the EU; they have so many problems there that we do not need in the EU.... It's too big anyway, plus; most of the country is not even technically IN Europe. Both the culture and the religion is non-European.

If you say you are against Turkey membership in Sweden for instance you'd immediately be labelled racist, facist etc. I think the UK supports Turkey membership too.

Mass immigration ("refugees") from the Middle East and Africa is HUGE problem in Europe. The newly arrived cannot for various reaons adapt to our countries. They brought with them brutal criminality and values that we have not seen since the middle ages. People who do not feel part of society and are not interested... will not fit in and will cause problems. Of course, there are many exceptions but I am beginning to feel like this is Europe's biggest mistake since the war.

I think the UK is the country that has handled immigration best. In the UK, competent people usually can get a job even if their language skills in England are not good and they are from a totally different background.
But people elsewhere in Europe were not ready for this!

Politically correct "censorship" prevents any honest debate about the problem because nobody is prepared to have their life (entire career and social) ruined after being labelled a racist.

And then the endless promotions of "multiculturalism" in countries which have ALWAYS been 100% homogenic. Suddenly everyone has to love the idea that our own culture is just one small part in the "multicultural weave" blah, blah... BS! If they don't, then they are a xenophopic racist.

In my country, this is the social democrats fault for being naive, overly-ideological and for not listening to what normal people think but reading airy-fairy material that has no relevance to reality, and then trying to impose it on a country where it's clearly doomed to fail. Why import problems to a country that really doesn't have any. How stupid.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Chauvinism, nationalism and racism... nazism even.

The question is why being tolerant at all? If I don't like somebody that's my problem, but when this someone starts pissing me off I'll tell him to stop. Call me a nazi if you want, I don't care. Tolerance if a form of hypocrisy. People don't actually start to like people they told to like. But they're bullied into that. They're afraid to appear homophobes, racists or worse. But what of the other side? Say, I am a xenophobe, a homophobe, a chauvinist and a racist. I have rights too, goddamnit! I'll feel discriminated. I have rights to express my views, conduct homophobe parades and wear swastika according to the same logic the 'tolerance romantics' use.

The thing is, there's a difference between tolerating someone/a group of people and liking them. No-one says you have to like gays, blacks, women, children, Jews, traffic wardens, people with nose-hair, etc., but being able to tolerate them even if you don't like them is the sign of a civilised society. If a society cannot tolerate a certain minority in its midst, then that can lead to discrimination, and ultimately horrific things like "ethnic cleansing".

That said, I would certainly be prepared to fight for your right to exercise your freedom of speech and talk at great length on why you hate Pakistanis so much, or why you think homosexuality is a sin against creation (not saying you hold either of these views, just giving examples). At the same time though, care has to be taken not to allow people with hateful views too much influence, as people in general are stupid and can sometimes be led like sheep by a powerful orator (see: Hitler).

Basically, I do see tolerance in general as a good thing, but I certainly don't think it is universally good. For example, we shouldn't tolerate paedophiles, or "honour killings", or brainwashing. We should, however, try to tolerate people or groups as long as they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights. But it's true that it can be very difficult to know where to draw the line between "exercising my own rights" and "infringing on another person's rights".

Originally Posted by Hanna

I think the UK is the country that has handled immigration best. In the UK, competent people usually can get a job even if their language skills in England are not good and they are from a totally different background.
But people elsewhere in Europe were not ready for this!

I think we handle immigration reasonably well, but if you ask a lot of people over here (natives I mean), they will tell you that apparently we have a massive immigration problem. For example, if you believe what the Daily Mail has to say, we're all about to disappear under a huge tide of immigrants. It's just sensationalism, I think. Yes, our immigration system is far from perfect, but it's not nearly as bad as some people think.

Originally Posted by Demonic_Duck

The thing is, there's a difference between tolerating someone/a group of people and liking them. No-one says you have to like gays, blacks, women, children, Jews, traffic wardens, people with nose-hair, etc., but being able to tolerate them even if you don't like them is the sign of a civilised society.

That's the point. In this thread we've been discussing how those 'certain minorities' abuse the term 'tolerance'. If I am a homophobe I have to tolerate gays but why should I hide the fact that I don't like them?

Originally Posted by Demonic_Duck

At the same time though, care has to be taken not to allow people with hateful views too much influence, as people in general are stupid and can sometimes be led like sheep by a powerful orator (see: Hitler).

That's how propaganda work. And I SEE propaganda of tolerance in the West. Only a blind and deaf wouldn't notice it. There was a joke that if you need to get a job in New York your chances would be much better if you're a black HIV positive lesbian.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Tolerance if a form of hypocrisy.

Ah, we've already been through that. The modern developed societies adopted the tolerance as part of their national policies for a reason. Going back would cause the civilization go in bloody circles.

Originally Posted by Ramil

People don't actually start to like people they told to like. But they're bullied into that.

Yes, the power is often used to enforce national policies. Is that a news?

Originally Posted by Ramil

They're afraid to appear homophobes, racists or worse. But what of the other side? Say, I am a xenophobe, a homophobe, a chauvinist and a racist. I have rights too, goddamnit! I'll feel discriminated. I have rights to express my views, conduct homophobe parades and wear swastika according to the same logic the 'tolerance romantics' use.

I see what you mean. But here's the thing: a nation cannot enforce two contradicting policies at the same time. Is not about the 'tolerance romantics' really. If wearing swastika implies you do not comply with the national policy (=the tolerance) the state's power will be used against you. Another famous example: in the 'most free and democratic country in the world' a Communist party is forbidden because it undermines/contradicts the 'democracy'. Where's the freedom? It would be a naive question for an anarchist to ask, wouldn't you think? A state cannot provide freedom, it can only suppress the freedom. The bottom line is: the tolerance policies make the modern society more productive (=more goods and services / money / PROFIT!!!!).

More goods and services is cr@p. They only enslave people. They work producing cr@p so that their customers consumed that cr@p and paid them so that they could consume some other cr@p (probably produced by their customers). Only 5-10% of population (or even less) are doing something useful. We could probably have been exploring the stars by now if people had just stopped consuming and producing cr@p and started doing something useful. This? More productive?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Another famous example: in the 'most free and democratic country in the world' a Communist party is forbidden because it undermines/contradicts the 'democracy'. Where's the freedom? It would be a naive question for an anarchist to ask, wouldn't you think? A state cannot provide freedom, it can only suppress the freedom. The bottom line is: the tolerance policies make the modern society more productive (=more goods and services / money / PROFIT!!!!).

The American government is a true MASTER of propaganda. They just take it to entirely new levels, and they have managed to convince millions of people who have never set foot in America to support their agenda and dream about being American. Not to mention their own population. I hear they get the kids to "pledge allegiance" to the US flag in the schools, every morning and sing the national antem and quote various pieces of legislation. And we have so many examples even in this forum, of Americans joining and starting to rant about the greatness of the American constitution and other things. With such hard indoctrination about how free and democratic and great their country is, no wonder most are unable to snap out of it. I think only China comes close. Apparently everyone in Hong kong (who were previously scared of China) are now becoming pro-China.

Originally Posted by Ramil

More goods and services is cr@p. They only enslave people. They work producing cr@p so that their customers consumed that cr@p and paid them so that they could consume some other cr@p (probably produced by their customers). Only 5-10% of population (or even less) are doing something useful. We could probably have been exploring the stars by now if people had just stopped consuming and producing cr@p and started doing something useful. This? More productive?

I really like this comment. I wonder if we will destroy the planet from our consumerism before more people start thinking like you.

Originally Posted by Ramil

More goods and services is cr@p. They only enslave people. They work producing cr@p so that their customers consumed that cr@p and paid them so that they could consume some other cr@p (probably produced by their customers). Only 5-10% of population (or even less) are doing something useful. We could probably have been exploring the stars by now if people had just stopped consuming and producing cr@p and started doing something useful. This? More productive?

I think the society is not mentally ready for that kind of perception yet. If you want to get to the stars you have to have a reliable drive. "It's interesting" / "It's honourable" - are not reliable drives yet. "Let's have more comfort" - is much more reliable en mass. So, realistically speaking, we would only get to the stars if someone would be ambitious enough to open star solariums which make a very unique kind of tan.

Seriously, there is a lot of debates around why do we need a space program if we still have hungry people on our own planet. So, yes, we're far far away from not needing the cr@p yet.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I wonder if we will destroy the planet from our consumerism before more people start thinking like you.

I think we've discussed that issue a number of times and you still keep bringing it on. You seem to put the carriage before the horse. The USSR had no consumerism issues, but the ecology damage it had done was at least comparable to what a completely consumerism-infected country of the similar size would have done.

Originally Posted by Hanna

The American government is a true MASTER of propaganda.

Would you be kind enough to address something specific? Do you agree with what I said or disagree with it? It seems you see the American propaganda even in a flock of penguins.

Yeah sorry, I don't need to repeat that any more. I've already said what I have to say about it more than once.