Asian "grooming gangs" in England

“The earth is flat. Creationism is the correct science and not the theory of the evolution of species. Rock'n'roll was a KGB invention to destabilize the West and and stimulates drugs, sex, abortion and Satanism. Nazism is left-wing. Indigenous people need to integrate with society to become human. There was no military dictatorship in Brazil. Torturers are heroes and Pinochet saved Chile. Sex education must focus on sexual abstinence.”

These are some of the pearls of thinking of the extreme right that governs Brazil today.

God above all and save yourself if you can.

OMG!!!!

Preach, Duarte. I don't think most people out there are really aware of the kind of lunatic beliefs and paranoid and radical statements that we have been listening to here. It seems like they simply decided that the kind of knowledge produced by reputable scholars, scientists and artists is "tainted" by their "modernist" and "leftist" credentials ("leftist" being any ideological leanings to the left ot the conservative alt-right, of course, that includes even the center-right groups) and is therefore "dangerous". It's a really worrisome situation, not just because of what it can cause in the short term, but mainly because of its possible long-term effects, creating an environment even less favorable to education, science, reasonability and intellectual progress than Brazil already has.
 
Yes, true, it is country specific. I understand the issue with the extreme right wing in Brazil. But without knowing anything at all about Brazil, it seems clear to me, given the Spanish experience, that Brazilian politicians are amateurs, since they still have not found the Fountain of Youth: declaring oneself of the Left.

This has many advantages: while an extreme right wing policy is really hard to sustain (you need police, etc, since people want to have sex, for example), if you tell "I am of the Left", all your sins are forgiven, despite how despicable human being you are.

Every time I see I am surprised at how well it works. So, be assured that in a few years, these extreme right politicians in Brazil will be "destroyed" by attention-seeking psycopaths, arguing they are from the Left. Then, you will really know what repression is. And you will not be able to complain, since otherwise you will be accused of being a capitalist pig or something.

I'm not sure that's the case, though. We had a self-proclaimed leftist government for 13 years (2003-2016), often accused by the now ruling right-wing of being "communist" (total nonsense, obviously), and even though there were a lot of political and socioeoconomic issues during their tenure, I honestly can't say there was any remarkable repression against personal or public freedoms. In fact, never in Brazil's history had right-wing propaganda run as freely and ostensibly as during that time, including pretty extremist material.

What took place in Brazil was quite the opposite of what you're saying based on the Spanish experience. Here, it was the "communist" (sic) leftist dominance that was completely destroyed by "attention-seeking psycopaths" linked to the alt-right who are very skilled in using political propaganda disguised as disinterested memes and news (mainly through the internet, using WhatsApp, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram etc.), and in resorting to all sorts of means, including controversial ones, to show off and get the attention of voters. And that's how they became popular (and populist) enough to go from 2-3% in the election survey of 2014-2015 to an electoral victory (55% of the valid votes) in 2018.

My impression is that what you are describing is simply the modus operandi of the extremist populism, regardless if it's on the right or on the left of the ideological spectrum. They always dehumanize and demonize the "other" so much that saying someone is leftist or rightist (depending on the case) becomes a demeaning word on itself. That's not an exclusive trait of the Left. It's a typical effect of the extremist propaganda of populists with authoritarian leanings. And the right is full with such people, too, especially nowadays with the rise of the conservative alt-right in many countries.
 
There are totalitarians of the left as well as the right.

Bernie Sanders' campaign manager was captured on a "hot" mic saying that right wing people would have to be sent to re-education camps and other horrific things. The radicals of the 1960s and 1970s proposed the same thing, and remnants of it were still around when I went to the university. It seems nothing has changed.

Yes, we have some Neo-Nazi types around who propose things like that, but from what I've seen they're almost all lone wolves, young, with significant psychiatric disorders. I don't know of any of them in responsible positions in Republican circles.

There's a difference.

Of course, the young psychopath who acts out with a gun is splattered all over the headlines, whereas the Sanders' aide story made barely a ripple. That's either because the members of the "mainstream" media agree with him, or because they just want a Democrat to win so badly that they're content to bury it, hoping it's an anomaly.

Also, what we have to contend with here, at least, is that the threat to free speech is not coming from the right, but from the left. Yale won't teach Art History because it was all created by white males? Awards should be given out not based on achievement but according to your group's proportion of the community? Scientists can't investigate whether there are IQ differences by group? Universities won't hire unless you sign a document saying you will do everything you can to promote diversity? In the 1950s, the same universities were making professors sign statements to the effect that they weren't Communists. Same behavior, different group is in power.

I'm beyond sick of all of that. I don't want my damn doctor to have gotten a place in medical school because she helped fill a quota. Applications should be gender, race, color, and ethnicity neutral. We're not helping anyone by doing it any other way.

I approach each situation on a case by case basis.

I don't want "anyone" deciding what is "permissible" speech or a "permissible" line of inquiry. I don't want anyone "blackballed" because of their beliefs. So, whoever is doing it is wrong, whether of the right or left, and that's going to change depending on the time and place.
 
There are totalitarians of the left as well as the right.

Bernie Sanders' campaign manager was captured on a "hot" mic saying that right wing people would have to be sent to re-education camps and other horrific things. The radicals of the 1960s and 1970s proposed the same thing, and remnants of it were still around when I went to the university. It seems nothing has changed.

Yes, we have some Neo-Nazi types around who propose things like that, but from what I've seen they're almost all lone wolves, young, with significant psychiatric disorders. I don't know of any of them in responsible positions in Republican circles.

There's a difference.

Of course, the young psychopath who acts out with a gun is splattered all over the headlines, whereas the Sanders' aide story made barely a ripple. That's either because the members of the "mainstream" media agree with him, or because they just want a Democrat to win so badly that they're content to bury it, hoping it's an anomaly.

Also, what we have to contend with here, at least, is that the threat to free speech is not coming from the right, but from the left. Yale won't teach Art History because it was all created by white males? Awards should be given out not based on achievement but according to your group's proportion of the community? Scientists can't investigate whether there are IQ differences by group? Universities won't hire unless you sign a document saying you will do everything you can to promote diversity? In the 1950s, the same universities were making professors sign statements to the effect that they weren't Communists. Same behavior, different group is in power.

I'm beyond sick of all of that. I don't want my damn doctor to have gotten a place in medical school because she helped fill a quota. Applications should be gender, race, color, and ethnicity neutral. We're not helping anyone by doing it any other way.

I approach each situation on a case by case basis.

I don't want "anyone" deciding what is "permissible" speech or a "permissible" line of inquiry. I don't want anyone "blackballed" because of their beliefs. So, whoever is doing it is wrong, whether of the right or left, and that's going to change depending on the time and place.

BTW Sanders is not a Democrat, he is a Socialist. They are so afraid that he will run as a 3rd party candidate that they let him caucus with the Democrats. They will deal with him at the convention. He's the Democrat's Trump, a cantankerous old man with a populist message. In Sander's case it is climate change, universal health care, student debt, tax the super rich, bring jobs back by protectionist policies.

BTW, the extreme white nationalist are not lone wolves. There are organized militias around in some of the western states.

I pray for the old days without the rancor and the extreme positions and without 24hr news channels that keep fanning the flames on both sides. Manufactured outrage as a business model.
 
Actually, I think the current label is "Democratic Socialist". :)

I don't care what people call it, as I suspect you don't care either; what I care about are the policy proposals.

To my knowledge no whacko militia man from out west advocating putting people who disagree with him in camps has a senior position on the staff of a current presidential candidate.

There's a long history of Marxist propaganda. I've been listening to it since I first went to listen to Herbert Marcuse. It hasn't changed.

I don't want these 18-29 year old college students, which is Sanders' entire base going by the Iowa results, although maybe that isn't the best marker, becoming the Mao like Cultural Revolutionaries of America.

As for the rancor between the parties, there have been other periods like this in American history, and we didn't need a 24 hour news cycle. Around the time of the Revolutionary War thousands of Loyalists felt they couldn't live here anymore, they were being harassed, and they moved to Canada. The pre-Civil War period was horrible, with duels, men in Congress attacking and seriously injuring each other in the halls of Congress itself, and then, ultimately, war. The atmosphere before WWI was also terrible.

Maybe we were just spoiled by an unusually calm period. :)

I agree, however, that I wish it weren't this way.
 
About the US I do not know, but in Europe while anybody having connections to the extreme right is boo-ed (I extremely support this position; see e.g. the recent case in German regional elections), connections to Communism are considered to be ok, and even positive. In Catalonia, we have a political party that sympathises with Communism and even Stalinism. Representatives of such a party have said so many times in the media, and nobody criticises them for that. There is a clear asymmetry here regarding tolerance towards totalitarianism.
 
The same thing happened in Greece @farstar. Now my family and I have known many Albanians that came to Greece for work. They are very hard workers that scrimped and saved and made something of themselves. Some of them became Greek citizens, others went back to Albania and bought houses and opened up shops. But it is the .5% of Albanian/Kossovars that came to Greece that brought violent crime to levels never seen in Greece. Before that, the only violent crimes were crimes of passion and in the modern era those were actually going down. So the reputation of Albanians/Kossovars now is of a violent race when only very few engage in such behavior.

Its true that many Albanian criminals have committed various crimes in Greece. True also Greek government has shown Olympic patience about it. True also many criminals have paid dearly with their lives( over 30 killed while in jail). True Albanian government has not complained about those killings. False Greeks think Albanians are criminals. Over 400000 Albanians have friendship and good working relations with Greeks. Nature of Albanian crimes has been mostly narcotics or property thievery, rarely rapes or sexual crimes.
 
Asian, by which I assume South Asian gangs "groomed" young English girls for sexual abuse for years without repercussions out of fear it would damage "race relations". Officers were told to go look for offenders of other ethnic groups.

This is political correctness gone amok and is an absolute disgrace. I hope whoever the incompetents and toadies were who promulgated this policy of neglect were that they all get sacked and prosecuted criminally.

Disgusting; really disgusting.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...knowingly-neglected-girls-exploited-grooming/

Yes, because in these cultures, if a woman/female doesn't dress modestly, I imagine in head to toe garment, she is the low hanging fruit that their religion will grant them access to. It doesn't matter if a man has chastity, just the female. However, here in the west, we need to keep pretending this is acceptable behaviour, else be labeled a racist.
 
The Chinese with their concentration camps for Uighurs is an excellent example. Where is the condemnation in the UN? Where are the marches, and petitions, and calls for boycotts? Where is the acknowledgement and condemnation of the Saudis, who still practice slavery? There are Europeans who even turn a blind eye to Muslims practicing child marriage and female genital mutilation, but they want to outlaw kosher butchers.

When the UN starts bleating about human rights, women's rights, children's rights, I feel my head exploding. What about how women are treated in Africa, what about the fact that in certain countries girls are disfigured for trying to go to school? Do they pass resolutions against those countries? That was a rhetorical question. They don't. It's all very selective, and against a country facing an existential threat.

You can't make this freaking stuff up.

If it were up to me I'd close the UN down tomorrow. Build some middle income housing or put up parking garages. It would be a much better use of that real estate.

whats your opinion on trumps support for saudi arabia?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...administration-has-done-saudi-arabia-n1026926
 
About the US I do not know, but in Europe while anybody having connections to the extreme right is boo-ed (I extremely support this position; see e.g. the recent case in German regional elections), connections to Communism are considered to be ok, and even positive. In Catalonia, we have a political party that sympathises with Communism and even Stalinism. Representatives of such a party have said so many times in the media, and nobody criticises them for that. There is a clear asymmetry here regarding tolerance towards totalitarianism.

maybe it's because the reasons to be far left are different than the reasons to be far right. both positions are unhealthy but they aren't the same.

which party do you mean? if the connections to communism are something positive in catalonia i assume this party must be quite popular
 
A nation's foreign policy is, frankly, not normally a question of ethics, it's a tool for the advancement of a nation's self interest. During the American Revolution we received, and appreciated, French support, but they didn't do it because they liked us or liked democracy, they did it (that is, they used us) to get back at the British. That's the way it works. American support for Saudi Arabia is the same, and has been since Franklin Roosevelt. The problem has been to what extent our support for the Sauds is against our own interest, i.e. the spread of wahabism.
 
A nation's foreign policy is, frankly, not normally a question of ethics, it's a tool for the advancement of a nation's self interest. During the American Revolution we received, and appreciated, French support, but they didn't do it because they liked us or liked democracy, they did it (that is, they used us) to get back at the British. That's the way it works. American support for Saudi Arabia is the same, and has been since Franklin Roosevelt. The problem has been to what extent our support for the Sauds is against our own interest, i.e. the spread of wahabism.

so basically morals do not count as long as it hurts us.
is there critique on these politics in the U.S population? and from where does the critique come from?
 
so basically morals do not count as long as it hurts us.
is there critique on these politics in the U.S population? and from where does the critique come from?

I can't say I know what you mean, but if you're asking if we have robust debate in this country, well yeah, we do.
 
The critique has come from many sides, including supporters of the President. At the grass roots level the Saudis are not generally popular. Why would they be?

As to the Uighurs, many nations have put national interest over ethics. Some nations ignore the issue because they like Chinese money (or are afraid of Chinese influence) and others publicly deplore it because they think it gives them leverage. As I said, foreign policy is interest, not ethics.

During WWII Britain allied with the Soviet Union. Churchill had never had anything good to say about Stalin, but he made the strategic calculation that is was better to ally with the Soviets than let Hitler win. In foreign policy, everything is interest.
 
maybe it's because the reasons to be far left are different than the reasons to be far right. both positions are unhealthy but they aren't the same.

which party do you mean? if the connections to communism are something positive in catalonia i assume this party must be quite popular

Yes, the reasons are the same: to suck resources without others realizing of that. The only differences are the lies used.

The party is called CUP. Fortunately, they have only a few seats in the Parliament. And truth to be told, possibly not all members of CUP are supporters of Stalinism (but an overwhelming majority are supporters of Communism).
 
Asian "grooming gangs" in England

Actually, I think the current label is "Democratic Socialist". :)

I don't care what people call it, as I suspect you don't care either; what I care about are the policy proposals.

To my knowledge no whacko militia man from out west advocating putting people who disagree with him in camps has a senior position on the staff of a current presidential candidate.

There's a long history of Marxist propaganda. I've been listening to it since I first went to listen to Herbert Marcuse. It hasn't changed.

I don't want these 18-29 year old college students, which is Sanders' entire base going by the Iowa results, although maybe that isn't the best marker, becoming the Mao like Cultural Revolutionaries of America.

As for the rancor between the parties, there have been other periods like this in American history, and we didn't need a 24 hour news cycle. Around the time of the Revolutionary War thousands of Loyalists felt they couldn't live here anymore, they were being harassed, and they moved to Canada. The pre-Civil War period was horrible, with duels, men in Congress attacking and seriously injuring each other in the halls of Congress itself, and then, ultimately, war. The atmosphere before WWI was also terrible.

Maybe we were just spoiled by an unusually calm period. :)

I agree, however, that I wish it weren't this way.


Come on Angela! The point is that your country is polarized; a president who is cuddling the 'white milk' drinkers you mentioned a time ago....and that earns a kind of countervailing reaction, and never the two shall meet.....

From a more European point of view (admitted at Eupedia? ;) Sanders seems to me an old fashioned leftist, in a Dutch newspaper of this morning there is a analysis of Sanders, friends of him said he was already in the sixties a kind of old fashioned man: so no long hair, cannabis, or Mao...a kind of 'thirties' old left. And that is consistent until today.

As a social-democrat myself I stress that social democrats are in the first place democratic!

So the suggestion that with Sanders a kind of neo Jacobines come to power and that the guillotine will run overtimes (I exaggerate) .....is something from the red scarce fairy tale book. More a symptom of the deep divide in the US.

And the analysis of the paper ended with a nice observation, Trump and Sanders resemble each other in one thing, they are both spindoctor resistant! ;)
 
Last edited:
“The earth is flat. Creationism is the correct science and not the theory of the evolution of species. Rock'n'roll was a KGB invention to destabilize the West and and stimulates drugs, sex, abortion and Satanism. Nazism is left-wing. Indigenous people need to integrate with society to become human. There was no military dictatorship in Brazil. Torturers are heroes and Pinochet saved Chile. Sex education must focus on sexual abstinence.”

These are some of the pearls of thinking of the extreme right that governs Brazil today.

God above all and save yourself if you can.

OMG!!!!

Human Resources Department of a public office of the Federal Government in Brazil. Reasons for firing a civil servant. Humor video by the Brazilian humor group “Porta dos Fundos”. English subtitles (just choose the subtitle language in the specific dialog).

 
Come on Angela! The point is that your country is polarized; a president who is cuddling the 'white milk' drinkers you mentioned a time ago....and that earns a kind of countervailing reaction, and never the two shall meet.....

From a more European point of view (admitted at Eupedia? ;) Sanders seems to me an old fashioned leftist, in a Dutch newspaper of this morning there is a analysis of Sanders, friends of him said he was already in the sixties a kind of old fashioned man: so no long hair, cannabis, or Mao...a kind of 'thirties' old left. And that is consistent until today.

As a social-democrat myself I stress that social democrats are in the first place democratic!

So the suggestion that with Sanders a kind of neo Jacobines come to power and that the guillotine will run overtimes (I exaggerate) .....is something from the red scarce fairy tale book. More a symptom of the deep divide in the US.

And the analysis of the paper ended with a nice observation, Trump and Sanders resemble each other in one thing, they are both spindoctor resistant! ;)

Yes, indeed, the whole WOKE phenomenon, the stifling of free speech, the attitudes of Ocasia Ortiz (another Democratic Socialist who has endorsed Sanders and is considered the "future" of the new Democratic party) and her fervent supporters are a REACTION to Trump, not an organic outgrowth of movements within society dating back to the 60s and indeed even the 30s.

Since you're being so rude to me, I'll return the favor.

Are you kidding? Why don't you stick to analyzing European politics, and not American ones. I'd also suggest not relying on puff pieces written by European apologists for Bernie Sanders.

I've been following Bernie Sanders and what he says and believes for decades. I know exactly what he's all about, and perhaps more importantly, I know what his supporters believe as well.

They've been interviewed up the wazoo, and it's all very clear. They want, eventually, government take over of major sections of the economy, and they believe that will eventually give them free everything.

Here is Alexandra Ocasio Cortez...

"Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America[8] and embraces the democratic socialist label as part of her political identity. In an interview on NBC's Meet the Press, she described democratic socialism as "part of what I am. It's not all of what I am. And I think that that's a very important distinction."[151] In response to a question about democratic socialism ultimately calling for an end to capitalism during a Firing Line interview on PBS, she answered: "Ultimately, we are marching towards progress on this issue. I do think that we are going to see an evolution in our economic system of an unprecedented degree, and it's hard to say what direction that that takes."[152]
She also, btw, believes in a guaranteed income and abolishing our Immigration Enforcement arm and throwing open the borders of the country to anyone who can get here.

Now, that may all sound great to you, but it doesn't sound great to me. Luckily, I'll be voting, not you.

Wait, I'm sure AOC would give voting rights to anyone who showed up too, so maybe you would be voting under her regime.

As for "Jacobite" tendencies, do you think any politician is going to announce ahead of time that rights will be taken away? Really? I'll go with recordings of what they're saying privately, which is, for your information, exactly what they were saying privately (in small meetings on campuses) back in the 60s and way into the late 70s, when I heard them myself.

I couldn't bring myself to vote for Trump the last time, but if it turns out to be a Trump/Sanders race, I will this time with no hesitation.

 
Yes, indeed, the whole WOKE phenomenon, the stifling of free speech, the attitudes of Ocasia Ortiz (another Democratic Socialist who has endorsed Sanders and is considered the "future" of the new Democratic party) and her fervent supporters are a REACTION to Trump, not an organic outgrowth of movements within society dating back to the 60s and indeed even the 30s.

Since you're being so rude to me, I'll return the favor.

Are you kidding? Why don't you stick to analyzing European politics, and not American ones. I'd also suggest not relying on puff pieces written by European apologists for Bernie Sanders.

I've been following Bernie Sanders and what he says and believes for decades. I know exactly what he's all about, and perhaps more importantly, I know what his supporters believe as well.

They've been interviewed up the wazoo, and it's all very clear. They want, eventually, government take over of major sections of the economy, and they believe that will eventually give them free everything.

Here is Alexandra Ocasio Cortez...

"Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America[8] and embraces the democratic socialist label as part of her political identity. In an interview on NBC's Meet the Press, she described democratic socialism as "part of what I am. It's not all of what I am. And I think that that's a very important distinction."[151] In response to a question about democratic socialism ultimately calling for an end to capitalism during a Firing Line interview on PBS, she answered: "Ultimately, we are marching towards progress on this issue. I do think that we are going to see an evolution in our economic system of an unprecedented degree, and it's hard to say what direction that that takes."[152]
She also, btw, believes in a guaranteed income and abolishing our Immigration Enforcement arm and throwing open the borders of the country to anyone who can get here.

Now, that may all sound great to you, but it doesn't sound great to me. Luckily, I'll be voting, not you.

Wait, I'm sure AOC would give voting rights to anyone who showed up too, so maybe you would be voting under her regime.

As for "Jacobite" tendencies, do you think any politician is going to announce ahead of time that rights will be taken away? Really? I'll go with recordings of what they're saying privately, which is, for your information, exactly what they were saying privately (in small meetings on campuses) back in the 60s and way into the late 70s, when I heard them myself.

I couldn't bring myself to vote for Trump the last time, but if it turns out to be a Trump/Sanders race, I will this time with no hesitation.


The difference is that I don't see any respect of you that there is a social democratic tradition in large parts of the world that is to the core democratic. You may dislike the social democratic politics (as I dislike the Trump one), no problem, but seeing social democrats as 'despotic' is simple false.

And by the way as if the persons of the Trump entourage are so pure democratic in their way of thinking.

And beside the politics there is also the person. I always go for the test from which politicians I would buy a second hand car.

And in the case of Trump or Sanders I would in the second hand car test go definitely for Sanders. More thrust worth. In the case of Trump you get much hollow words. And when your care is after a week predictable with some problems and you complain than you get a big mound and I will sue you....(in earlier days with his consiglieri Roy Cohn). That's the core of Trump.

No extravaganza and me myself and I in the white House with Sanders.....

I know Sanders would probably make no chance too much 'niche' in the US. But from European perspective it will be a great thing if that 'unguided projectile' in the White House would disappear.

But i guess it will not take look long and mister Bloomberg comes into the scene, he has personal reserves that even Trump can't crush.....(30 million spot during the super bowl etc). We will see....
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 39411 times.

Back
Top