Islam: Lies & War Above Peace

Comment I added on another reblog:
Fact is that multiculturalism is wrong. It breeds conflict, formality, intolerance. And just FYI: I have no problem with people from Muslim countries coming to Europe – assuming that they return home and use knowledge they gain to better their home societies. But that goes against neoliberal anti-human, anti-nation, anti-Christianity, anti-European policies. One of main goals behind the wars all over the muslim world, one of reasons why US created ISIS, is destruction of traditional Europe and creation of politically correct, shallow, unicultural (Western-type multiculturalism always ends in uniculturalism) United States of Europe, ruled by corporations, for corportations and against people, using intercultural conflicts caused by mass immigration to keep masses in check. These USE are just a step, however, towards creating a north-Atlantic superpower by uniting them with United States of America, Canada and maybe Mexico as well, a superpower where corporations will rule with no law, no democratic institutions and no economic or moral regulative to stand in the way of accumulation of riches.

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

More than 99% of known religions are, by the standards of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, not just evil, but illegal. And that includes Catholicism as practiced in, say, France, in 1700 CE.

The Islamist State has an ideology, and its name is Literal Islam, the one and only (anybody else is an apostate and Allâh ordered to kill them). John Oliver about the fuc*ing giant ass*olery which masquerades as something honorable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUzNcu0fhJw

The “Enlightenment”, mostly a French centric invention, consisted in asserting the Rights of Man and the Citizen, and destroy whatever was in the way of those rights, to impose them universally. When the French Republic declared war to the Nazi Reich (and to Hitler’s ally, the USSR), on September 3, 1939, it was more of the same. It was precisely to destroy ideologies which industrially violated the Rights of Man, while claiming to be for peace, freeing…

View original post 1,416 more words

Advertisements


Categories: reblogs, Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , ,

52 replies

  1. Multiculturalism isnot a myth, it’s a fact. We allready live in a heterogenouse culture. As a swiss citizen I should know. And anyone coming to Europe with a valid reason has the right to stay here as long as he or she likes. It’s not only their fault if they don’t integrate themselfs in our society, after all!

    • Anyone coming to any society has the right to stay – but ONLY as long as they accept cultural traditions and basic tenets of that society.

      And multiculturalism can mean many things, but I meant specifically the type of multiculturalism that Western politicians promote. Only sustainable type of multiculturalism means cultural majority + cultural minorities in any given area – in Switzerland, and any other multicultural country I know of, different cultures have dominance in different areas. But even in Switzerland, UK, Croatia etc. most major cultures come from the same (European, Christian) background, which means that they already have some common ground. That ground does not exist in case of Muslim immigrants, which means that number of immigrants, as a percentage of population, that can be successfully integrated into society at any given time is significantly lower.

  2. Perhaps it is because I am an ethnic minority myself, but multiculturalism has “worked” reasonably well for Canada and Australia.

    It all depends on the willingness of the immigrating culture to integrate into the other culture and their mentality.

  3. It´s a pity to read such conspiracy-open statements of you, because I usually liked some aspects of your essays. But since you seemingly now choose to go down the politically excluding way, I won´t further frequent you website.
    Just a short counter-statement of myself:

    1. Every modern rights based state incorporates certain basic juristical principles. One of those is the equality of all persons before the court, meaning that all inhabitants of a country (and therefore falling under its juridiction) have to share the same rights. Apart from what Altandmain said, I have to add that successful integration also depends on the society that is subject to immigration. Dedicated studies point empirically for example to the Theory of Segmented Assimilation. I live in a city with a strong immigrational influence from mainly muslim countries and the criminality rate is high in some districts, but that are those districts with high poverty, so high criminality is no suprise here. Apart from that, my direct neighbours are muslims and also practice their believe. But they for sure don´t mean a problem for our society.

    2. Currently the european countries are in a complicated situation, since their collective organisation (EU) is confronted with challenges for which it requires a deeper state of integration. Before the crisis of 2008 hit Europe, economical growth and political stabilization used to be a constant phenomenons for participating countries. But as long as the EU lacks all the necessary elements of an integrated federal state, external activies may of course have negative impacts on EUropean affairs.

    3. Political actors usually seek for personal advantages in the frame of their electorate and therefore their legitimizing polity. This is apparently part of the european problem: As long as central decisions on european matters are to be mainly shaped by national actors, EU-wide decisions are of course often sub-optimal…
    But to state, that they e.g. work “against people, using intercultural conflicts caused by mass immigration to keep masses in check.” is a ridiculous claim that cannot withstand any serious investigation.
    I am German and I experience the current refugee-situation from “the first row”. Although one might miss the plan-ability in this situation a bit, we are still very far away from an “Islamisation of Europe”! To offer refugees possibilites for sensefull integration is nothing more or less than the responsability of the state.

    4. “These USE are just a step, however, towards creating a north-Atlantic superpower by uniting them with United States of America, Canada and maybe Mexico as well, a superpower where corporations will rule with no law, no democratic institutions and no economic or moral regulative to stand in the way of accumulation of riches.”

    This statement is quite popular among nationalists, but it is utter nonsense. When the US started their Iraq-engagement in 2003, most of the EU´s “old” member states opposed the involvement (France and Germany being the most prominent), with a change in the public opinion towards the war following suit in the UK and Spain. In fact, especially in the case of of Hungary, Poland and other east european states, those who were not part of the Union were mostly prone to US-american influence and diplomatical pressure. The EU can grant extended collective sovereignty for us Europeans, but only if a majority among us is willing to actually use this opportunity.

    All in all, your posts concerning the Islam are shaped by the ignorance of the fact that all religions are prone to abuse and that all holy scriptums include references to violent actions. I already commented Patrice Aime´s article accordingly, but unsuprisingly, he (or she?) is virtually so self-centred, that he only accepts arguments and findings “of himself”, systematically disregarding any facts that disprove his claims. He is therefore quite a bad (because unserious) source for political orientation.

    • I’d agree that we should try to build a justice system and social system that treats people equally regardless of their:
      – Race
      – Ethnicity
      – Gender

      I think that equality should be an ideal to strive for. To that end, I am generally more pro-multiculturalism. I also think that we need to as societies work to minimize the biases in hiring, the justice system, and overall treatment. If you are going to have immigrants, then they must be treated well. Otherwise, you get a situation where immigrants and certain groups make up a disproportionate percentage of the poor with few opportunities in life. That leads to radicalization. Arguably, that is also how the Nazi Party in the 1930s got into power.

      There’s a reason why this became a famous poster:
      http://www.zoriah.net/.a/6a00e55188bf7a88340115706764da970b-pi

      ISIS arguably is occupying a similar niche today in Iraq and Syria. A large percentage of their “fighters” aren’t there because they agree with them. It’s because there are no other opporunities.

      ON the note of the EU: The really interesting question is whether or not deeper integration is possible given the cultural differences. The EU, in many ways has become more dysfunctional since it has taken on more member states. A case could be made for a partial partition into regions:

      1. A Northern Europe (Germany, France, especially, but also Switzerland if they want to join in, the Dutch, and the Belgians). Perhaps the UK, although they may or may not leave the EU depending on their election.
      2. A Nordic Union
      3. A Southwestern Europe
      4. An Eastern Europe union (ideally incorporating Russia, although it must be fairly done so that they don’t have too much power)
      5. Finally, perhaps a “Balkan union”

      Globally we are seeing more nations, not less nations form, which suggests people are loyal to their ethnicity. Others like the Kurds in Iraq for example, are fighting for their rights for an independent state.

      The other big question is, who is the EU for? We have to ask this because it seems to be more for the wealthy or the big corporations rather than the citizens. If it works against the interests of the common citizen for the corporations, then perhaps it deserves to fall apart and hopefully something that works for the people takes its place.

    • “It´s a pity to read such conspiracy-open statements of you”

      Conspiracies are a fact. Only question is what is precisely their scope and effect. If you don’t believe me, just do some research about TTIP and the way it is being pushed through. Or the functioning of IMF and World Bank. Or just the interaction between US government and US corporations, particularly those of military and energy sectors. I don’t believe for example that 9/11 attacks were an inside job (albeit I had considered that possibility for a time) – but US Government and corporations clearly milked them for all they were worth in their quest to restrict or destroy democracy and ensure continuous profits, and they may well have known about the attacks in advance but let them happen (it would hardly be the first time they did that, but in this particular case there is little proof either way). Using external events to push through internal policies is nothing new after all, you might want to read Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine” for a start to see how it is being done, and neoliberal system by its nature provides plenty of catastrophes to take advantage of. And many significant historical events started off as conspiracies – Caesar’s murder is a classical example, but American Revolution started as a conspiracy against British rule; Lincoln assassination was also a private conspiracy. They happen all the time, but as I said, what is a question is their scope and effect.

      As for general, read this:
      http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/09/15/in-defense-of-conspiracy/
      http://www.trueactivist.com/in-defence-of-conspiracy-theories/
      http://disinfo.com/2012/07/in-defense-of-conspiracy-theories/

      Third link also gives some examples of actual, confirmed conspiracies.

      In a more specific example, planning for the 2003 invasion of Iraq started in 2000, and preparations in 1992 (which just shows that I was correct about invasion being for the profit of military and oil industry). First attacks on Iraq were carried out in 2001, months before the 9/11 attacks happened, and shortly after preparation for foreign corporations’ exploitation of Iraqi oil fields started. In other words, invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 attacks or war on terror, they were just an excuse.
      http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline
      http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/new-documents-show-bush-administration-plan

      “1. Every modern rights based state incorporates certain basic juristical principles. One of those is the equality of all persons before the court, meaning that all inhabitants of a country (and therefore falling under its juridiction) have to share the same rights.”

      That is correct, in principle. But these principles are typically not followed – there are always those who will be “more equal than others”. Powerful corporations can easily pay the best lawysers, and even bribe and buy courts.

      “Apart from what Altandmain said, I have to add that successful integration also depends on the society that is subject to immigration. Dedicated studies point empirically for example to the Theory of Segmented Assimilation. I live in a city with a strong immigrational influence from mainly muslim countries and the criminality rate is high in some districts, but that are those districts with high poverty, so high criminality is no suprise here. Apart from that, my direct neighbours are muslims and also practice their believe. But they for sure don´t mean a problem for our society. ”

      But integration depends in large part on level of immigration. Having too many people in too short time enter the country prevents successful integration, as people from the same cultural background will try to group together and isolate themselves from the rest of the society. And if there is no time for the society to “process” them (because of high volume of immigration), poverty is a natural consequence – and that holds true even if society did not buy into neoliberal economic bullshit.

      “2. Currently the european countries are in a complicated situation, since their collective organisation (EU) is confronted with challenges for which it requires a deeper state of integration. Before the crisis of 2008 hit Europe, economical growth and political stabilization used to be a constant phenomenons for participating countries. But as long as the EU lacks all the necessary elements of an integrated federal state, external activies may of course have negative impacts on EUropean affairs.”

      Deeper state of integration will also weaken democracy, giving more power to corporations and EUs own, rather democracy-deficient, institutions. It will also mean destruction or significant damage to economies of smaller countries as they loose self-protection mechanisms (in fact, that happens – on a smaller scale – as soon as a country enters the EU due to “open borders” policy).

      “This statement is quite popular among nationalists, but it is utter nonsense. When the US started their Iraq-engagement in 2003, most of the EU´s “old” member states opposed the involvement (France and Germany being the most prominent), with a change in the public opinion towards the war following suit in the UK and Spain.”

      Their elected governments opposed it, yes. But EU is gradually taking power away precisely from those same national governments and placing it into hands of technocratic institutions and large corporations.

      “All in all, your posts concerning the Islam are shaped by the ignorance of the fact that all religions are prone to abuse and that all holy scriptums include references to violent actions. ”

      I’m very well aware of that fact. But I am also very aware of things you seem to be ignorant of – that multicultural societies, especially those where large number of immigrants arrived in a short time with no opportunity to truly integrate into society, tend to be formalistic, rigid and fragile. Also, people from poor countries – and most Muslim immigrants are from such countries – or countries where there are significant levels of poverty, tend to accept more dogmatic and extremistic interpretations of holy scriptures. And Saudi Arabia is one of greatest financers and organizers of Islamic terrorism, and is inherently fundamentalistic country. Yet it has not accepted a single Muslim refugee since this crisis started. United States have helped cause the refugee crisis by “playing” across the Arab world, yet the quota of refugees they have agreed to accept is pitifully small (single-digit thousands).

      • @ Picard
        In general, at least you answer to my comment sounds a lot more moderate than before:

        “Having too many people in too short time enter the country prevents successful integration, as people from the same cultural background will try to group together and isolate themselves from the rest of the society.”

        —> I want to remind you of the headline of this article, which is clearly sensational and populistic. “Islam: Lies and War above peace”, this might make people think, that the Islam as a whole, nearly every muslim on the steet, wants to conquer Europe. And this is plain rubbish.

        Concerning what you wrote about conspiracies:
        The articles you mention as references cite either cases of corruption in the arms sector of countries, which is no conspiracy but a plain dysfunction of basic marked principles. This one:
        http://www.trueactivist.com/in-defence-of-conspiracy-theories/
        … already disables itself in the the first paragraph. The author argues conspiracy hypotheses were just as legitimate as scientifically proven findings… Puh, where shall I start? First he has NO viable point to backup his claims. He reproaches the scientist and experts for being to emotional about wrong-provement of their theories while he himself only gives emotional reasons to his claims about conspiracy hypotheses (example: “How ARROGANT it is of the self styled…”).
        That´s a clear case of double standards; he excites himself about expert and scientists who were proven wrong, and who, according to him, act hysterically then (—> I never experienced that scientists act alike, but if it´s about theories, of course, every scientist tends to follow it as long as it proviedes explanations).
        Second: He talks about conspiracy THEORIES. That are not theories, but hypotheses, at best (mostly simply claims). Theories in sciences are, in short, argumentally enclaved systems of mutual explanatory interdependecies, that are on a broader level suit enough to provide for the explanation of empirically recognizable events, dynamic etc. Sometimes they impede one another, although nevertheless none of the theories can be completely proven wrong (an example being neo realism and neo liberalism in the international relations of the political sciences).

        Conspiracy assumptions are not a prove for expertise, but for a vivid phantasy. What is the problem with them?
        Once one follows the path of the artice´s author, for example, Pandora´s box is opened: The exciting aspect of perceived conspiracies is the unleashed (unlimited reasoning) internal logic, that essentially anything is possible, because there are always diffuse powers (Freemasons, the Bilderberger, Illuminati…) that want to dominate us normal people. Cases of bribery and dysfunctionalities in democratical systems are then meant to be a prove for a broader conspiracy. The logical gap then is, that conspiracy theorists don´t distinguish necessary from sufficient conditions. The logic behind this is simple, although somewhat childish: “If I recognize a lie, a case of non-fulfillment of duty, I cannot trust any of those persons in group (e.g. politicians).” The differences between individuums are neglected, because they contradict the internat logic of violent simplification that every conspiracy hypothesis requires.

        On the base of this unleashed internal logic, I could also claim that you are an agent of the Russian government; one of their supposedly hundreds of internet trolls that lead own blogs and post comments on news-homepages in order to influence the public of the EU with reference to internal political dissolution due to the war in Ukraine…
        …And the best thing about it is: YOU CANNOT PROVE ME WRONG! Any reference you cite will be diskredited as being belonging to the Russian government, any argumentative move of you in order to to prove you political independence will be turned into a vicious move of deviousness of a government´s agent.
        And if I claim something you don´t correspond to, I can still call you a naive person.

        Now to what you wrote concerning refugees:
        I do fully agree with you, that a state, a society have to provide resources (assistants, teachers, rooms, food, financial resources in the background) which are limited. Therefore, a practical solution to this problem of limited resources will most likely be a European share of work. As the European Commission already proposed, the distribution of refugees among the EU member states should be exercised with regard to the respective local resources: Croatia could, I guess, take a few ten thousands. Germany, France and the UK (as long as it´s part this Union) would have to take several hundred thousands without getting serious trouble, once corresponding facilities are built. To just care about the national interests is exactly the most counterproductive kind of action that is possible in this situation.

        Furthermore, since the war in Syria causes a whole population of people to evacuate, all layers of the syrian and iraqi population are represented. Especially considering that most refugees had to mobilize their financial savings in order to pay the several thousands of € for the human traffickers, the poorest of the poor are least likely to actually arrive here (also take into account, that still more than 3/4 of all refugees are in Turkey, the Libanon etc). While it is true thaat especially poor and desperate people tend to believe extremists, these are most certainly not here. In addition to that you must take into account that these people are fleeing from exactly this group of extremists, because they see no perspective to live a worthy life in such a “caliphate”.

        That we Europeans cooperate with states like e.g. Saudi Arabia is of course a shame that can barely be excused. And Croatia is a part of this too, since it trades with these countries aswell (–> M-84 tanks in Kuwait, countless rifles, ATM´s and so on in regions of civil war).

        • “—> I want to remind you of the headline of this article, which is clearly sensational and populistic. “Islam: Lies and War above peace”, this might make people think, that the Islam as a whole, nearly every muslim on the steet, wants to conquer Europe. And this is plain rubbish. ”

          That article wasn’t written by me, I reblogged it simply because it raised some good points about the false picture often painted by the Western media. And fact is that once Muslims reach a certain percentage of population, they start trying to turn the state they are in into a religious caliphate. Just take a look at Bosnia – Croatians in the Federation BiH are consistently opressed. In Sarajevo, Mostar and other mixed populace cities, it isn’t a rare sight to find a person with slashed throat – it wasn’t even before this ISIL business. In fact, Croatians in Bosnia were the first European victims of this wave of Muslim extremism.

          “The articles you mention as references cite either cases of corruption in the arms sector of countries, which is no conspiracy but a plain dysfunction of basic marked principles. This one:”

          It is not a dysfunction of basic market principles (I assume that is what you meant), free market simply doesn’t work, at least not in the neoliberal sense of the term.

          “Conspiracy assumptions are not a prove for expertise, but for a vivid phantasy. What is the problem with them?”

          Conspiracies exist and some of them are well documented. For example, take a look at TTIP treaty – it is both a case of a dysfunctional government (democratic principles being ignored) and a conspiracy (supranational government – EU and corporations bypassing any oversight and regulation from the very people of countries that treaty will affect). Or 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was prepared well before 2001 attacks, and terrorist attacks were used simply as a trigger.

          Of course, many conspiracy theories are pure gibberish – chemtrails theory, for one. But that doesn’t mean they all are. Claiming that there are no conspiracies at all (or that every single event is a result of conspiracy) is just like claiming that absolutely everything happens by accident. “Oh, we couldn’t have predicted the economic crisis” – when any fool could have seen where these economic policies will lead, or that the real crisis likely hasn’t started yet. And banks used that crisis particularly well, to the point that it is just logical to ask if they had intentionally caused it as well (I don’t think they did, they didn’t have to – see the previous sentence).

          “On the base of this unleashed internal logic, I could also claim that you are an agent of the Russian government; one of their supposedly hundreds of internet trolls that lead own blogs and post comments on news-homepages in order to influence the public of the EU with reference to internal political dissolution due to the war in Ukraine…”

          Don’t worry. Some people have already claimed something similar.

          “While it is true thaat especially poor and desperate people tend to believe extremists, these are most certainly not here. In addition to that you must take into account that these people are fleeing from exactly this group of extremists, because they see no perspective to live a worthy life in such a “caliphate”.”

          ISIL is known to send its own agents among the refugees. And it doesn’t matter how extreme or nonextreme they are, such large mass of people are certain to cause trouble, especially once they realize that Europe isn’t all green grass and roses as they imagined.

          “That we Europeans cooperate with states like e.g. Saudi Arabia is of course a shame that can barely be excused. And Croatia is a part of this too, since it trades with these countries aswell (–> M-84 tanks in Kuwait, countless rifles, ATM´s and so on in regions of civil war).”

          I know. We have in fact sent huge number (few hundred thousand?) of AK-47 rifles from our stocks to help “Syrian opposition”, at NATO/US behest. Like as not, most of these ended up in hands of ISIS, courtesy of that very same “opposition”. Which is just another bone I have to pick with EU, NATO and Western imperialism in general.

    • @ Altandmain:

      I more or less aggree with you on most points: The inclusion of many states, especially the east european ones implied huge challenges to the EU-ropean ability to find consensus, since the institutional evolution on the european level didn´t proceed correspondingly. Theoretically, there are different approaches to tackle this:
      – the idea of a “core EU” that proceeds with integration to a deeper extend than the younger members (Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania etc.)
      – generally a “multi-speed integrational model”
      and others.
      Whether multiple Unions solve the problems? I am very sceptical about that, because one has then to consider the problematic political ties between the several unions (north-> economical power, rich, oriented towards its own benefits facing the others). When the European Community of Coal and Steel was founded in 1951, its intention was to unite the interests of Germany (West) and France in a way that each country could nver again gain a national profit from arming against one another. Similarly today, although there are problems, the EU means to be a political body that comprises several states. What does this mean? It means for example, that Germany cannot seriously wish to exclude Greece from the EU, because Greece is a part of the same market realm. Nevertheless, the incentives for the german government to stabilize wellfare in Greece are, let´s say, limited, since this government seeks to secure the own (in this case: german) political realm through economical stability, social support and rewards for constructive actions.
      As I said before: As long as Europe-wide deciions are up to national legislation, the results are in the most cases likely not the optimum of what might be possible under complete consolidation.
      I fear, that several Unions would indeed consolidate the respective countries, but at the same time also build up new trenches among the the Unions, leading to struggle and political fight.

      To your note concerning states as the predominant units, that appear in growing numbers: This is true, although simultaneously the number of international organisations with supranational elements is on the rise aswell: ASEAN, the Union of South American States, the AU and quite soon the Eurasian Economical Union are the most prominent examples, that altogether affect 81 (!) countries of the 195 currently in existence.

  4. It’s kind of ironic how you’re completely opposite to everything the name Picard stands for.

    • ROFL. As I have said before, I simply reblogged that post because it raises some important points. And I am quite certain that Jean-Luc would not have accepted any lies, even those made in the name of political correctness.

      • Jean-Luc Picard in his later years was kind of becoming an extremist when it came to defending the values of the Federation (democracy and equality ) against all sort of secret agencies and especially when concerning the Borg. Pretty much like our Picard here. And if I recall well the Borg could be thought of as a very grotesque depiction of an Islamic state, with their whole resistance is futile mantra and you either assimilate with us or die. Pretty much the ISIS/L mantra . 😛

  5. Oh, and before I forget it:

    “Fact is that multiculturalism is wrong. It breeds conflict, formality, intolerance. And just FYI: I have no problem with people from Muslim countries coming to Europe – assuming that they return home and use knowledge they gain to better their home societies. But that goes against neoliberal anti-human, anti-nation, anti-Christianity, anti-European policies.”

    1. Multiculturalism is barely a well defined term. Does it mean anybody can do whatever he/she wants? If yes, I would agree with you, but since this is not the case, I don´t. The way multiculturalism is defined in the European treaties (and the German constitution aswell) expresses that anyone who acts in the frame of the existing laws and who posesses a European passport is an EU citizen (German, Maltese… Croatian whatsoever). Therefore multiculturalism is in the first line about to offer the possibilities to immigrants to become members of the state once they participate in our societies a socially, judicially, economically constractive fashion.
    2. It is indeed anti-human to systematically exclude persons from societies, because they “are different”. Read Hugo Grotius, Emmanuel Kant and others and you will understand modern humanism.
    3. “Anti-nation”… Plain fact is: There are countless political challenges for which each member state, even germany as the economically strongest, is simply too small to tacklse with. Responsible refugee policies are only one of those, with economical, ecological, foreign and also military policies being of the same kind.
    4. It sais “Love your next as you want to be loved.” and “love your enemy”. The lection of the first is, I assume, obvious. the second one refers to the conclusion that ever lasting hatred will always affect the following generations of people once the current generation fails to search for mutual forgiveness.
    Therefore, the EU in fact supports christian identities and actions in accordance with it.
    5. “Anti-European”… If the states act purely on behalf of their own or cooperate just as long as they gain the highest profits, no-one can speak of a European identity… Nationalism destroyed this continent (Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini… and that are only the most extreme examples). It´s time to overcome the nations as pure sources of identity.

    • “1. Multiculturalism is barely a well defined term. Does it mean anybody can do whatever he/she wants? If yes, I would agree with you, but since this is not the case, I don´t. The way multiculturalism is defined in the European treaties (and the German constitution aswell) expresses that anyone who acts in the frame of the existing laws and who posesses a European passport is an EU citizen (German, Maltese… Croatian whatsoever). Therefore multiculturalism is in the first line about to offer the possibilities to immigrants to become members of the state once they participate in our societies a socially, judicially, economically constractive fashion.”

      Law =/= reality. In practice, multiculturalism turns into having a myriad of inward-oriented self-centered cultural communities in close proximity to each other, which then breeds conflict. That was true for Roman Empire and it is true for European Union (and United States as well, from what I have heard from people who live there).

      “2. It is indeed anti-human to systematically exclude persons from societies, because they “are different”. Read Hugo Grotius, Emmanuel Kant and others and you will understand modern humanism.”

      It is. But what we have with modern multiculturalism is exclusion – oftentimes willing or self-enforced exclusion – of whole cultural communities.

      “Therefore, the EU in fact supports christian identities and actions in accordance with it.”

      Since when does robbing people of their freedom, identity, democracy and human rights while promoting neoliberal view of humans as nothing but resources to feed capitalist hunger for profit, count as “supporting Christian values”?

      “5. “Anti-European”… If the states act purely on behalf of their own or cooperate just as long as they gain the highest profits, no-one can speak of a European identity… Nationalism destroyed this continent (Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini… and that are only the most extreme examples). It´s time to overcome the nations as pure sources of identity.”

      Nation-states are the very basis of European identity, as they serve to preserve cultural identities. And everything you have listed was caused by greed and profiteerism. Nationalism was just a tool, “human rights”, “freedom” and “democracy” have all served the exact same warped purpose of propelling nations to war – don’t assume that “multiculturalism” is any different. And nationalism couldn’t have been used for any of what you have listed if it weren’t for previous actions of supranational entities – attack on France by royalist alliance (UK, Prussia, Austria) after the French Revolution; complete destruction of German economy, finances and independence (Treaty of Versailles) and after that, massive financing of Hitler by Western corporations (Ford, General Oil etc.) without knowledge of national governments, which was what enabled him to start World War II in the first place – Germany on its own had neither finances nor resources necessary.

      • If law is not equal to relaity, all the points of your posts become immediately invalid. You claim the state was the source of all identity? I counter-claim: States and most particuöar nationalism was and odten still is, what generations of people drove against each other. In German, there was a very popular term for our relation to the french: “Erbfeindschaft”. You don´t have to have serious reasons to hate a frenchman; you simply hate him because all you ancestors already did the same. If hatred is reproduced often enough, it becomes a sense of its own. Just as nationalism itself. The EU is the first organisation in the world, that made two archenemies cooperate and finally call one another friends. When states start to integrate, they slowly start to break Kenneth Waltz´ iron law of a security dilemma. When I talk to my spanish and french friends at the university, I can clearly recognize the beginning of common perspective on the “outer world”. Without noting it, many Europeans already today uncounciously differ between EU-citizens and the global rest.
        You are wrong, national states are not the only sources of identity. And: If you look at the history of most european states, you will have to acknowledge that this what we call the 28 member states of the EU, are compositions of formerly souvereign states themselves.

        What kind of exclusion do you talk about? The exclusion of Catholicism?
        It appears to me, that you don´t get the central point in the relations of modern secularism in states:

        States guarantee the existence and the security of any religion within their repsective jurisdiction. Their position towards them is neutral, in the sense as they have to exercise the aforementioned, while at the same time they will guard the constitutionally secured rights. This second reason is the basis of the persuation of extremist groups within whole religions.

        To this part:
        “Germany on its own had neither finances nor resources necessary.” There are no words in the whole world that couls sufficently describe how wrong you are…
        The Treaty of Versailles put strong pressure on the german economy, but it likely didn´t bring the growth to a halt. Ever heard of the golden 20´s? When large parts of the german society enjoyed freedoms they never experienced before? Partly due to new industrial innovations, and partly due to the fact that the country was forced to replace war-related economy with civil economy, the very money-consuming and otherwise senseless arms sector was abandoned in favor of those sectors which produced goods and services, which in turn led to a higher labor rate, although the rate of people without work was still uncomfortable.
        But what is even more strinking: What did Hitler? he borrowed money from industrials (Krupp, Thyssen, Lürssen, Blohm und Voss…) and built up public structures, schools and so on. Today, the question how this should be repaid would immediately arise. But not so in an unstable democracy like the Weimar Republic. The answer, hower was, that Hitler paid most of the debt. He did so, because from the very beginning of his reign, he knew he would steal the property of millions. And we don´t just talk about gold-watches, cars and expensive stuff alike. We talk about several thousands of square kilometres of land, of industrial property and so on. In addition, he managed to drag over 3 million russian soldiers, over 1 million french soldiers, over 6 million Jews and many more slawic people into forced labour.
        Germany generated a nearly unimaginable amount of financial profit. Henry Ford and others just jumped on the bandwagon, but to believe that it was their actionism that enabled Hitler to do what he did is far, far from the reality.

        And again to the EU: Economical interdependencies are what brought us peace, a break from war that lasts now for over 70 years now. This does not, however, include the region you are comming from. But 70 years of peace among northern/central european states is unprecedented in history.
        On the other side, de-regulation requires a counter reaction in the form of re-regulation. This is precisely from what many member states still refrain, and why do they do so? Because they do not want to “lose sovereignty” and the want to “keep their identity”. This is so wrong. When shifting competences to Brussels, souvereignty is to be restored, because Croatians, Germans, French, Greeks and so on finally regain the means to effectively shape their future. Together, we don´t vanish our power in fights against one another, but we join them in order to gainfrom them collectively. I am sure you don´t believe that, but you forget that states are no massive blackboxes, but realms of multiple interests, identities, political expectations etc, and this across social, religious and other borders. Do you know which party the muslims in Germany elect the most frequently? The CDU. The Christian Democratic Union, or liberal conservatives.

        What you say about religions to turn countries into states of their own religion is unserious and in no way empirically founded.

        When you refer to the wars in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I might candidly remind you of the crimes against humanity and war crimes that were committed in the name of a “Christian revenge” under the Croatian flag. Look at Jadranko Prlic, Bruno Stojic, Slobodan Praljak, Milivoj Petkovic, Valentin Coric and Berislav Pusic, who were all concicted to several years in prison in Den Haag. It was under their command, that male and female persons ranging in their age between newborns and elders were murdered en masse, that 8 year old girls were raped to death. Because they were muslims, not because these haouse-women and little children committed terrible things to anyone. But because they had the “wrong religion”.

        It was under the flag of Nazi-Germany that 70 years ago, crimes against humanity were committed against those with the wrong religion, and that german Christs stood aside and applauded or said nothing.

        And it was only a mere 25 years ago, that Croatians particiated in exactly the same kind of actions, now not against Jews and slaws, but against muslims.
        Reading the shallow arguments for your superficial view on what happens and on what causes what result, I guess you and the people who still think like you have a lot to learn.

        Because this is the basis of the EU, this is a tenor of the European Human Rights Conevntion, of the german constitution, of the secularism of the V. French Republic, of the doctrine of the nordic states like Sweden and Denmark, of the Spanish republic after Franco.

        You speak about the preservation of european values, yet youself fall short to support, let alone understand them.
        If I had to generalize from you to all Croatians, I had to say that you are not a part of the modern Europe.
        Luckily, I do not judge people singlehandedly.

        • “States and most particuöar nationalism was and odten still is, what generations of people drove against each other. ”

          There is a difference between national identity and nationalism. And history has shown that there is no need for nationalism to have massive wars. World Wars were had nothing to do with nationalism… it was capitalistic, and only then governmental, squabble. Worst mass murders in history were carried out by anational communist ideology, and both Nazism and Fascism were propped up by equally anational capitalists. And even if nations die out, people will find reasons to hate each other… religion, class differences… if neoliberal attempt at erasing national identity succeeds, resulting class wars might be worse than anything caused (or excused, as in the case of world wars) by nationalism.

          “The EU is the first organisation in the world, that made two archenemies cooperate and finally call one another friends.”

          That had absolutely nothing to do with the EU. Or NATO, for that matter. What it had to do with is that both France and Germany had a common enemy in the Communism, had developed economic cooperation, and that compared to after World War I, there were major differences in behavior: a) nobody financed a dictator in power in Germany, b) neither UK or France attempted to have revenge / massive compensation for damage in World War II and c) West, particularly US, helped Germany get back on its feet ASAP. All of that was because after World War I, Western *capitalists* wanted to exploit Germany, whereas after World War II, they were more concerned with Communism. Had capitalists not attempted to profit on Germany post WWI, extreme nationalism would have had no rich ground to fall onto.

          “Without noting it, many Europeans already today uncounciously differ between EU-citizens and the global rest.”

          Again, little to do with the EU. Europe itself has different cultural matrix compared to the rest, so it is normal to differentiate between Europeans and the rest of the world. And within the EU, many citizens also differentiate betwen north and the south, between Germany and the rest, between UK and the rest…

          “If you look at the history of most european states, you will have to acknowledge that this what we call the 28 member states of the EU, are compositions of formerly souvereign states themselves. ”

          Which composed into one state on the basis of common culture and language. Something entirely different compared to attempts to make the EU a superstate.

          “There are no words in the whole world that couls sufficently describe how wrong you are…”

          Actually, it is more like there are no words that could describe how little you know of German situation before and during WWII. German natural oil production was utterly insufficient for their war needs, even including oil imports from Romania. Without synthetic fuel production technology, given to Germany by US corporations, Hitler would not have been able to even start World War II, let alone keep it going until 1945. Most of Hitler’s trucks – which were, contrary to the popular belief, far more important for Blitzkrieg than tanks – were produced by US corporations which continued to operate in Germany even during World War II.

          “Germany generated a nearly unimaginable amount of financial profit. Henry Ford and others just jumped on the bandwagon, but to believe that it was their actionism that enabled Hitler to do what he did is far, far from the reality.”

          Only if you don’t know what was going on; see above.

          “And again to the EU: Economical interdependencies are what brought us peace, a break from war that lasts now for over 70 years now. This does not, however, include the region you are comming from. But 70 years of peace among northern/central european states is unprecedented in history.”

          Region I am coming from was torn by war in 1990s thanks to an attempt at multicultural country. As for the EU, you said it yourself: economical interdependencies, not the EU.

          “On the other side, de-regulation requires a counter reaction in the form of re-regulation. This is precisely from what many member states still refrain, and why do they do so? Because they do not want to “lose sovereignty” and the want to “keep their identity”. This is so wrong.”

          Actually, it has little to do with it. Just take a look at EU attempts at fixing the crisis. It is EU itself which forces countries to adapt Friedman’s neoliberal “solutions” to the crisis, which in turn only make crisis worse.

          “Together, we don´t vanish our power in fights against one another, but we join them in order to gainfrom them collectively.”

          That would have held true only if we had any ways of influencing EUs decision makers. But EU, as it is, is inherently antidemocratic.

          “When you refer to the wars in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I might candidly remind you of the crimes against humanity and war crimes that were committed in the name of a “Christian revenge” under the Croatian flag. ”

          It had nothing to do with “Christian revenge” or “wrong religion”. It had to do with revenge, period, as Muslims – mostly spurred by Saudi Arabia agents gotten there by the US – started a jihad. As it is, crimes done under the Croatian flag are few and far between compared to what Muslims and Serbs did. Likely because Croatians were the least numerous fraction, but still…

          You show complete ignorance of local conditions that most Westerners do, and they wonder why their “solutions” don’t actually resolve the clusterfuck in the Balkans.

          “It was under the flag of Nazi-Germany that 70 years ago, crimes against humanity were committed against those with the wrong religion, and that german Christs stood aside and applauded or said nothing.”

          Again, it had nothing to do with religion. Plenty of Christians were murdered by the Nazis, and in fact Hitler hated the Christianity and wanted to reintroduce traditional pagan religions. Overall, most murderous ideology in history was atheistic (Communism), second (?) most murderous was pagan/occultist (Nazism), and third (?) most murderous was atheistic (capitalist imperialism / Neoliberalism). So much about religion being the cause.

          “Reading the shallow arguments for your superficial view on what happens and on what causes what result, I guess you and the people who still think like you have a lot to learn.”

          Say that to yourself. I am sure there are things I have to learn, but it is clear that of history, of politics, of culture… you know very little and understand even less.

  6. “What it had to do with is that both France and Germany had a common enemy in the Communism, had developed economic cooperation, and that compared to after World War I”
    If it was for that matter,
    1. Why then did France first stress their desire to get their damage paid?
    2. The question of war reperation lasted until 1989, when our debt was finally erased in the 2+4 Treaties.
    3. The common fight aginst Communism was one reason among among many; but the cooperation showed how prosperity can arise out of the lacking restraints of national paranoia. The Marshal Plan and its escorting treaties ended in the 1960s, therefore from then onwards, Europe increasingly stood on its own two feet in terms of economies.

    “neoliberal attempt at erasing national identity”
    As I have arleady pointed aout, and even as you also mentioned, economical actors like Ford, Krupp and so on profited from the logic of clashing nations, therefore neo-liberalism gains its profit from nationalisation. If we cooperate, pooling and sharing erases these profits and switches priorities from the enclaved states to a broader realm.

    “Again, little to do with the EU. Europe itself has different cultural matrix compared to the rest, so it is normal to differentiate between Europeans and the rest of the world.”
    Exactly, and still we used to kill one another, until the Europaen Community for Coal and Steel entered force. The EU has a lot to do with it, because the ECCS developed into the European Community and its successor-organisations. The reasons are multiple:
    1. poltical as well as functional spill over: You cannot turn a political area into a common affair without touch its “neighboring” areas aswell.
    2. Again: There are topics which are too big for the states. I already mentioned them: ecological policies, security affairs (look at the british troops and their shrinking capabilities).

    “It had nothing to do with “Christian revenge” or “wrong religion”. It had to do with revenge, period, as Muslims – mostly spurred by Saudi Arabia agents gotten there by the US – started a jihad.”
    And the answer was not the search for specific, personally responsible actors like Bin Laden or Abaaoud, but a revenge on harmless civilians -old people, busy family mothers and children. The selection was based on the question for the respective membershipo in a specific religion, therefore one must assess: Religion does matter. And the way you argue about how muslims are alledgedly incompatible or even a danger to prospering societies supports this kind of thinking.

    By the way:
    “In practice, multiculturalism turns into having a myriad of inward-oriented self-centered cultural communities in close proximity to each other, which then breeds conflict.”

    And because the world is full of miracles, Germany (and many others aswell) is an economically healthy country. The crisis of 2008 hit it aswell, but still we do comparatively quite well…
    And this is not because it forces muslims (~4 million of 80 million Germans) to apply to our culture, but because it practices a careful balance between individual rights (exercising religious belief and being a german citizen) and common obligations (no extremism allowed).

    • “Without synthetic fuel production technology, given to Germany by US corporations, Hitler would not have been able to even start World War II, let alone keep it going until 1945.”
      The codevelopment of synthetic fuel between BASF and Standard Oil of New Jersey happended in 1926, over half a decade before Hitler even enterd office. So no, american companies and finaciers did not support the 3. Reich.

      “In practice, multiculturalism turns into having a myriad of inward-oriented self-centered cultural communities in close proximity to each other, which then breeds conflict. That was true for Roman Empire and it is true for European Union.”
      The Roman Empire lasted for over 500 years (and this is only the republic, not the kingdom from before), way longer than e.g. Croatia, France and other alledgedly “culturally homogenious” countries.

      And again to your conspiracy claims:
      Just because there have been conspiracies in history doesn´t prove the existence of conspiracies today.
      That is what I meant when I spoke of Pandora´s box: You refer to true conspiracies of the past and ask me to prove that there is no conspiracy today, e.g. on TTIP.
      TTIP is, in my opinion, a mistake. But it is also subject to a public debate, its conditions are slowly reveraled due to a sufficient media coverage of the topic and an increasing pressure on EP members to publicly explain their attitude to it. And many members of the EPP, Greens, Lefts and S&D´s already vote to remove the critical parts of TTIP (like independent courts) or to suspend it completely. On the other hand, the big consortiums like car producers, food supplier etc exercise pressure on the governments and the Commission. This pressure is strong, but still they don´t succeed (TTIP is not in force yet and still a subject to fierce negotiations among industry and EU-politicians, EU-politicians and american politicians and both of them and their civil rights societies).

      To state the EU is an anti-democratic system is unserious. If it was about dictatorship, it had to have taken another historical path, would be a lot less complicated (with multi-layered checks and balances, see for example Art. 5 number 1, 2 and 4) and it would not care about the desires of its 505 milion inhabitants.

      That the EU has deficits, is clear. But that are no deficits that are unsolvable. Its main problem is the executive bias, the (too) strong positions of national (!) governments in negotiations in comparison to the EP and the European Court of Justice through e.g. the Council of Ministers and the European Council.
      But looking at for example the german history again, we can see that federal systems often arose from the fusion of multiple previously independent states. The confederation that the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was imediately after the 30-years-war describes this fact quite clearly.

      And lastly: One of your main faults is to assume that states without a modern immigration history are homogenous. Take Spain as an example, or Poland (Catholics vs. Orthodoxes), PR China. Even France is subject to partially strong local identities (Bretagne, Alsace, Pyreneés-Midi).

      Homogenous countries don´t really exist. And multi cultural federations are anything but unstable by definition.

      • “The Roman Empire lasted for over 500 years (and this is only the republic, not the kingdom from before), way longer than e.g. Croatia, France and other alledgedly “culturally homogenious” countries.”

        Croatia lasted from around 800. to today, albeit with massive territorial changes (losing half the country to Ottomans, for example), so 1.215 years. During that time period it was often a part of different empires, but nearly always enjoying significant autonomy.
        French state lasted from 486. to today, but from 774. to 840. it was a multicultural Karolingian empire, and today it is also significantly multicultural. Mostly it was monocultural or slightly multicultural, however.
        Roman state lasted from 673 BC to 1.461 AD, or 2.134 years. However, Eastern Roman Empire, formed in 285, had significant Greek predominance, especially after eastern provinces fell to Arabs in 636 AD. Roman Republic only developed into truly multicultural state after conquering Carthage in 146 BC (even Greek cities, whose conquest started in 272, had a lot in common with Roman culture). So actual lifespan of the multicultural “empire” is 782 years. You *might* stretch beginning of multicultural state to 396 BC (capture of Etruscan city of Veii), which would make it 1.032 years.

        By the way, reason why Western Roman Empire collapsed is that barbaric migrations exceeded its capacity to assimilate new cultures into itself. Just as is happening now with Europe and Arabic Muslim migrations. Most people significantly overestimate assimilation ability of any culture. And as far as external threats are concerned, the moment actually significant threat emerged, multicultural Roman Empire fell apart and it took the Empire’s Greek core to stop the Arab invasions (while Persians were dangerous, they only cared about the Middle Eastern trade routes, and never tried to destroy the Empire itself – at least not until the reign of Heraclius. Also, Western Empire melted away due to multiculturalism as well).

        “TTIP is, in my opinion, a mistake. But it is also subject to a public debate,”

        Only because of the leaks. But decisions on TTIP are being made behind the “closed doors”, with no possibility of democratically elected governments to have much influence on the end result. Process itself is antidemocratic, fact that somebody spilled the beans changes nothing, and TTIP is inherently antidemocratic as well.

        Take a look a bit:
        http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/ttip-threat-democracy-standards-and-jobs
        http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html
        http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/10/28/eu-toughens-against-ttip-top-german-lawmaker-blasts-anti-democratic-deal

        “On the other hand, the big consortiums like car producers, food supplier etc exercise pressure on the governments and the Commission. This pressure is strong, but still they don´t succeed (TTIP is not in force yet and still a subject to fierce negotiations among industry and EU-politicians, EU-politicians and american politicians and both of them and their civil rights societies). ”

        TTIP was moving forward just fine until it was unmasked.

        “But looking at for example the german history again, we can see that federal systems often arose from the fusion of multiple previously independent states. The confederation that the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was imediately after the 30-years-war describes this fact quite clearly.”

        Those states all came from more or less the same cultural background, that is why unification was successful.

        “And lastly: One of your main faults is to assume that states without a modern immigration history are homogenous. Take Spain as an example, or Poland (Catholics vs. Orthodoxes), PR China. Even France is subject to partially strong local identities (Bretagne, Alsace, Pyreneés-Midi). ”

        No state is homogenous. Croatia itself is a major example. But in all successful multicultural states, there is a significant cultural majority, and cultures involved have common cultural background. There is no such background in the case of Muslim Arab immigrants.

        “And multi cultural federations are anything but unstable by definition.”

        Precisely.

    • “economical actors like Ford, Krupp and so on profited from the logic of clashing nations, therefore neo-liberalism gains its profit from nationalisation. If we cooperate, pooling and sharing erases these profits and switches priorities from the enclaved states to a broader realm. ”

      You are mixing up “nationalisation” and “nationalistic extremism”. Besides, if people are stupid, neoliberalism will profit anyway; but larger groups of people are easier to manipulate. Erasing borders means easing the flow of workforce, which means that people from the poorest country (least paid ones) dictate wages in all countries in the system. It also means that there is rarely a lack of workforce, so it is extremely easy to fire people from the job. It also makes it easy for corporations to switch operations from one country to another, and eliminates most of the inherent defenses that national economies have against larger countries and international corporations. Mixing of different cultures also sparks conflicts, which diverts attention from what corporations are doing. Nothing like a few bombings to push through yet another anti-democratic legislation, after all.

      “Exactly, and still we used to kill one another, until the Europaen Community for Coal and Steel entered force. The EU has a lot to do with it, because the ECCS developed into the European Community and its successor-organisations. The reasons are multiple:
      1. poltical as well as functional spill over: You cannot turn a political area into a common affair without touch its “neighboring” areas aswell.
      2. Again: There are topics which are too big for the states. I already mentioned them: ecological policies, security affairs (look at the british troops and their shrinking capabilities). ”

      None of which requires a multinational superstate. I have nothing against cooperation, in fact a pan-European cooperation, up to and maybe including a *confederation*, I would welcome. What I am against is a multinational corporate empire set to erase cultural identities.

      “And the answer was not the search for specific, personally responsible actors like Bin Laden or Abaaoud, but a revenge on harmless civilians -old people, busy family mothers and children. The selection was based on the question for the respective membershipo in a specific religion, therefore one must assess: Religion does matter.”

      In Bosnia, Muslims are both a religious and an ethnic unit. Besides, there were no personally responsible actors. It was a consequence of bullshit started by Austria in 19th century. In Bosnia, everybody killed everybody once crap went down – a few borders between different cultures would have been welcome, but they did not exist.

      “And because the world is full of miracles, Germany (and many others aswell) is an economically healthy country.”

      …and the rest of the Europe is paying for German economic health (EU is basically German economic backyard). Meanwhile, Germany is socially and demographically sick country, just like most of the Europe (IIRC, Ireland is the ONLY European country with acceptable natality).

  7. At first, you don´t differentiate between the multiple roles and tasks of EU-institutions. The EU is a complicated system of actors of multiple kinds and institutions with different relation to the EU as a whole. To talk about “the EU” in the way you do is utterly senseless, unless one is interested in a reality-denying nationalist attitude.

    Second, as you answered “Pascal” at the beginning of the page, you only talk about “the politicians”. That is not wise, because depending on clientele and heritage, parties and sometimes even more so institutions do matter.

    To the construction of the EU (see 1 and 6 for assistance):

    1. It comprises essentially two main theoretical areas, the intergovernmental institutions and their respective competence-realms and the supranational institutions and competence-realm. The Council of the European Union (CEU) comprises the ministers of all 28 states in their special departments (28 ministers of defense, 28 ministers of internal affairs etc). This body is part of the intergovernmental realm, as is the European Council (EC) (all 28 heads of states and government), in which the broad decisions on common aims, the creation of new institutions in the EU and so on are decided. The CEU is tasked with the majority of the legislative work; to do so, it has to cooperate with the Commission and the European Parliament (EP). Depending on the decisions to be made, the EP is more or less involved (e.g. it is less involved in foreign affairs than in ecological affairs).

    Thus, some decisions which are made in the name of the EU in fact only derive from a very small part of it: The national governments formulate a catalogue of desired aims for an EU-directive or an EU-regulation and pass it to the Commission. The Commission then drafts the regulation or the directive and hand it over either to the CEU and the EP or only to the CEU. In the second case, one has to assess that the EU-influence on the final legislative outcome is rather limited…

    2. Number one inevitably triggers the question: “If we talk about the EU, who do we mean then? The CEU? The Commission? Or the EP? I would by then indeed stress the logical importance of the EP, because it
    a) comprises of the whole variety of parties and represented interests of all Europeans, thus portraying the political “landscape” in the EU
    b) would be the central arena for public discussion about and the key institution in the creational process of controversial legislative acts (e.g. TTIP)
    c) enjoys virtually the highest degree of representational legitimacy, since its members are directly elected by the EU citizens.

    When you declare the EU to be an “anti-democratic” organization, you have to look at its internal construction. When decisions are met between the national governments with little information given to their national parliaments, and when the Commission can only collect the desired aims, I would call this undemocratic as well. This legislative modus operandi equates a corporative federal state, in which the state governments (attention!!! “state” now refers to the sub-units of the central state; Lower Saxony, Bavaria etc are “states”, but Germany is the federal “central state”) evade their state parliaments and direct their enterprises via the seconds chamber (here: the CEU) to the central government, that is not allowed to include its central parliament in this process.

    This is what happens during TTIP. The main work on the treaty-text is subject to the national governments, the CEU and -with a weak position- the Commission.

    At this point, I want to cite an article published by the Commission (4):
    “Today’s move is an example of how the Commission is putting into practice its commitment made last November to inject more transparency into the TTIP negotiations. The Commission then undertook to (…) provide access to the EU’s TTIP negotiating texts to all Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), not just a select few, by extending access to EU restricted documents in a ‘reading room’ to those MEPs who had no access to such restricted documents so far (…).”

    –> This text, as well as another one I will refer to later on prove the weak position of the EP and the non-inclusion of supranational EU-institutions (they had most likely behaved more transparent, and less neo-liberal, as will be shown).

    Therefore, the frequently mentioned lack of transparency and direct democratic control is evident, though it does not explain that the EU is “anti-democratic”, “a dictatorship” or alike. The existing lacks are a result of an insufficient constitutional design that could be corrected with an enhancement of the EP and the EU Court of Justice.

    But, again, here many national governments fear a “loss of sovereignty”, so it´s difficult. And that a back-development cannot either be the solution should be clear by now; even you rightfully admitted that a confederation needs to be in place where the member states are simply too small to have an effect. But here again: As Jaques Delors said: “The EU is like a bicycle; if it is stopped, it will fall over.” This refers directly to the logic of functional spillover and the necessity to adapt to new challenges.

    Especially concerning the positions of the various political actors and parties, it is important to note that the support of TTIP in fact varies among the parties: The French Socialistes, the German SPD and others of similar profile support TTIP only, if the “Investor-State Dispute Settlements” (ISDS) and key judicial and production standard affecting paragraphs will be removed. French Conservatives and neo-liberal parties widely welcome it, Greens, Lefts and far-right- winged parties oppose it right away. And this is more or less the case all over Europe, with the sole exclusion of the UK (here, even Labour supports TTIP without constrains; only the Scottish Social Democrats oppose it) (2).

    Furthermore, the EP provides the realization of vital EU citizen´s interests, with popular examples being the defeat of ACTA, that was “thrown out by a massive majority in the European Parliament in 2012” and the implementation of the EU’s REACH regulations, that “are far tougher on potentially toxic substances” than its US-counterparts (3).

    Additionally, the European Court of Justice is responsible in certain policy areas that are subject to the supranational realm of the EU.

    And since I assume you are affine to sources, I can offer you direct insight into interesting documents like e.g. this position paper of the EP concerning TTIP that also points out that the EP, being the key supranational institution, had only the competence to make recommendations and not decisions (5):

    Number 2: Addresses, in the context of the ongoing negotiations on TTIP, the following recommendations to the Commission:
    a)
    (ii)
    “TTIP should be ambitious and binding on all levels of government on both sides of the Atlantic, the agreement should lead to lasting genuine market openness on a reciprocal basis and trade facilitation on the ground, and should pay particular attention to structural measures to achieve greater transatlantic cooperation while upholding regulatory standards and consumer protection and preventing social, fiscal and environmental dumping;”
    (vi)
    “(…) regarding the scope and the broader context (…) to ensure that the agreement guarantees full respect for EU fundamental rights standards through the inclusion of a legally binding and suspensive human rights clause as a standard part of EU trade agreements with third countries;”
    b)
    (iii)
    “regarding market access: (…) to have a safeguard clause incorporated into the agreement, as is clearly set out in the negotiating mandate, which would be invoked where a rise in imports of a particular product threatened to cause serious harm to domestic production, with specific reference to food production and to the energy-intensive, carbon-leakage, chemicals, raw materials and steel sectors in the EU;”
    d)
    (ii)
    “regarding the rules: (…) to ensure that the sustainable development chapter is binding and enforceable and aims at the full and effective ratification, implementation and enforcement of the eight fundamental International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions and their content, the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda and the core international environmental agreements; provisions must be aimed at further improving levels of protection of labour and environmental standards; an ambitious trade and sustainable development chapter must also include rules on corporate social responsibility based on OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and clearly structured dialogue with civil society;”
    (vi)
    “to ensure that the economic, employment, social, and environmental impact of TTIP, is also examined by means of a thorough and objective ex-ante trade sustainability impact assessment (SIA) in full respect of the EU Directive on SIA, with clear and structured involvement of all relevant stakeholders, including civil society; asks the Commission to conduct comparative in-depth impact studies for each Member State and an evaluation of the competitiveness of EU sectors and their counterparts in the US with the aim to make projections on job losses and gains in the sectors affected in each Member State, whereby the adjustment costs could be partly taken up by EU and Member State funding;”
    e)
    (i)
    “regarding transparency, civil society involvement, public and political outreach: (…) to continue ongoing efforts to increase transparency in the negotiations by making more negotiation proposals available to the general public, to implement the recommendations of the European Ombudsman, in particular relating to the rules on public access to documents;”
    (ii)
    “to translate these transparency efforts into meaningful practical results, inter alia by reaching arrangements with the US side to improve transparency, including access to all negotiating documents for the Members of the European Parliament, including consolidated texts, while at the same time maintaining due confidentiality, in order to allow Members of Parliament and the Member States to develop constructive discussions with stakeholders and the public,; to ensure that both negotiating parties should justify any refusal to disclose a negotiating proposal;”
    (iii)
    “to promote an even closer engagement with the Member States, who were responsible for the negotiating mandate which directed the European Commission to open negotiations with the US, with the aim of forging their active involvement in better communicating the scope and the possible benefits of the agreement for European citizens, as committed to in the Council Conclusions adopted on 20 March 2015, in order to ensure a broad, fact-based public debate on TTIP in Europe with the aim of exploring the genuine concerns surrounding the agreement;”
    (iv)
    “to reinforce its continuous and transparent engagement with a wide range of stakeholders, throughout the negotiation process; encourages all stakeholders to participate actively and to put forward initiatives and information relevant to the negotiations;”
    (v)
    “to encourage Member States to involve national parliaments in line with their respective constitutional obligations, to provide all the necessary support for Member States to fulfil this task and to strengthen outreach to national parliaments, in order to keep national parliaments adequately informed on the ongoing negotiations;”
    (vi)
    “to build on the close engagement with Parliament and to seek an even closer, structured dialogue, which will continue to closely monitor the negotiating process and to engage on its part with the Commission, the Member States, and the US Congress and Administration, as well as with stakeholders on both sides of the Atlantic, in order to ensure an outcome which will benefit citizens in the EU, the US and beyond;”
    (vii)
    “to ensure that TTIP and its future implementation is accompanied by a deepening of transatlantic parliamentary cooperation, on the basis and using the experience of the Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue, leading in future to a broader and enhanced political framework to develop common approaches, reinforce the strategic partnership and to improve global cooperation between the EU and US;”

    Therefore, both your assessments about the EU as an “anti-democratic body of repression” and “politicians being all the same” are wrong.
    Besides, your sources don´t prove the “EU´s guilt” on the creation of TTIP; rather they prove the doubtful central role of conservative national governments, which in turn effectively morally defends the supranational core of the EU.

    (1) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Political_System_of_the_European_Union.svg/2000px-Political_System_of_the_European_Union.svg.png
    (2) http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Streit-um-TTIP-Europaeische-Regierungen-fast-einmuetig-fuer-Abkommen-2596932.html
    http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2014-11/gabriel-ttip-spd
    https://www.collectifstoptafta.org/le-collectif/article/les-membres-du-collectif
    (3) http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html
    (4) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1231
    (5) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0252+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
    (6) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23488006

    • “The Commission then drafts the regulation or the directive”

      In other words, it is a real decision-making body since a decision cannot be made unless the Commission drafts it.

      “c) enjoys virtually the highest degree of representational legitimacy, since its members are directly elected by the EU citizens.”

      And can be, in some cases at least, overriden by the body which has the lowest degree of representational legitimacy (the Comission). Further, as Nigel Farage has pointed out, members of the European Parliament often do not even know what they are voting on. There are so many topics going through that they have teams of technicians/whatever who study topics coming their way and decide on how their representative is going to vote on a particular topic. In other words, elected representatives are nothing more than brainless button pushers, with somebody else doing the thinking for them.

      “When decisions are met between the national governments with little information given to their national parliaments, and when the Commission can only collect the desired aims, I would call this undemocratic as well.”

      It is.

      “Therefore, the frequently mentioned lack of transparency and direct democratic control is evident, though it does not explain that the EU is “anti-democratic”, “a dictatorship” or alike. The existing lacks are a result of an insufficient constitutional design that could be corrected with an enhancement of the EP and the EU Court of Justice.”

      What it does is to provide a major avenue for “under-the-table” corporate influence – even larger than the one existing in representative democracies – which effectively removes democracy.

      “French Conservatives and neo-liberal parties widely welcome it”

      Of course neoliberals welcome it, as TTIP would mean the death of nation-states and increase in (already too massive) influence of big business.

      “here, even Labour supports TTIP without constrains; only the Scottish Social Democrats oppose it”

      UKIP opposed it as well.

      “Furthermore, the EP provides the realization of vital EU citizen´s interests, with popular examples being the defeat of ACTA, that was “thrown out by a massive majority in the European Parliament in 2012” and the implementation of the EU’s REACH regulations, that “are far tougher on potentially toxic substances” than its US-counterparts (3).”

      That is true. But the European Parliament has insufficient power.

      “And since I assume you are affine to sources, I can offer you direct insight into interesting documents like e.g. this position paper of the EP concerning TTIP that also points out that the EP, being the key supranational institution, had only the competence to make recommendations and not decisions (5):”

      Indeed. Which is a problem since EP is the only EUs body that is actually democratically elected.

  8. Now back to our original topic:

    1. By making unproven claims about politicians “erasing our identity with the EU and through decisions in favor of an ethically open-minded Europe”, you are clearly blurring the lines between patriotic and radical-nationalist attitudes. To believe that the EU´s member states were better off alone is unquestionably a rightful statement, although it´s factually exceptionally difficult to support. This is patriotic.

    On the contrary, to claim

    – that Muslims would allegedly be incompatible with a Christian majority society,
    – that political decisions which enable every human individual to freely exercise his/her religion (without becoming a terrorist) are part of a conspiracy
    – that Muslims are inherently unequal to other human beings, or that Christians would be morally or ethically superior
    – that the Quran was the source of all evil (ignoring how most Muslims use it and that it incorporates very liberal and foreigners-respecting suras as well)

    …is both effectively wrong and rhetorically aggressive and slandering, and therefore radical-nationalistic.

    2. As the majority of Muslims in Europe show, your claims about “threatening Muslims” are wrong. The annual report of the Federal Constitution Protection Service of Germany (2014) refers to approx. 7000 Salafists (1), of which presumably 420 are directly violence affine (mentally prepared to commit terrorist attacks) (2). This has to be seen against the background of 4 million Muslims in Germany.

    3. By the way: You still didn´t explain how you imagine a state to be led by Christian values to push away refugees and immigrants without breaking central statements of the bible such as Galatians 5.14, Jacob 2.8, Matthew 19.19 and 22.39, Mark 12.31 and so on?

    At the same time, you break all these rules and the eighth of the 10 Commandments, which should be holy to every Christian.

    You constantly fail to behave Christian, yet you claim to defend “Christian European values”. That´s ridiculous.

    (1) https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/de/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/publikationen/verfassungsschutzberichte/vsbericht-2014
    (2) http://www.sueddeutsche.de/news/panorama/terrorismus-islamistische-gefaehrder-in-deutschland-dpa.urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-151117-99-07048

    • “– that Muslims would allegedly be incompatible with a Christian majority society,”

      Unless they accepted core tenets of that society, which many are refusing to do.

      “– that Muslims are inherently unequal to other human beings, or that Christians would be morally or ethically superior”

      In case of any Muslims who want to introduce the Sharia law, latter is undoubtably correct.

      “3. By the way: You still didn´t explain how you imagine a state to be led by Christian values to push away refugees and immigrants without breaking central statements of the bible such as Galatians 5.14, Jacob 2.8, Matthew 19.19 and 22.39, Mark 12.31 and so on?”

      Immigration is simply transferring from vacuum to emptiness. Helping a few immigrants is irrelevant if issues that caused migration in the first place remain unsolved. And if these issues are solved, there will be no need for migration.

      • “Unless they accepted core tenets of that society, which many are refusing to do.”
        “In case of any Muslims who want to introduce the Sharia law, latter is undoubtably correct.”

        Again: 2. As the majority of Muslims in Europe show, your claims about “threatening Muslims” are wrong. The annual report of the Federal Constitution Protection Service of Germany (2014) refers to approx. 7000 Salafists (1), of which presumably 420 are directly violence affine (mentally prepared to commit terrorist attacks) (2). This has to be seen against the background of 4 million Muslims in Germany.

        To assume that a majority or even a critical mass would stand against our rights-based states is not provable, but an exaggerated claim. The only, really perceivable threat are persons who are known to be ready to take action.
        I could also refer to the study “Muslimisches Leben in Deutschland” of 2013, where it is clearly stated that Muslims possess a high social upward-mobility (e.g. starting at a substantially low level of education, but constantly improving over the years) and that a large majority of them are highly affine to inter-ethnical contacts in their daily social life. These findings are based on questions and registrations of Muslims in sports clubs, vacation-oriented groups (choirs etc) and their labour status. The findings are clear:
        1. The large majority is well integrated, possesses a high degree of language proficiency and average jobs.
        2. Education is a bit difficult for those who belong to the first generation, but radically improves over the first years and remains on a strong upward-path.
        3. These findings vary very strongly over the sub-groups: Iranians (Shiites and Sunnis), alevites, yezides etc.
        4. Only approx. half of the Muslims in Germany regularly exercise their religious rites or go to the Mosque.

        Your generalizations are not adequate.

  9. “In other words, it is a real decision-making body since a decision cannot be made unless the Commission drafts it.”

    No, if you look at the Commissions dependency on the national governments and that the impetus of the national governments does most oftenly come over the CEU, the member states are those who have the final say on the decisions in matters in which the parliament has only advising competences. The Commission has rather an administrative role and the choice to stress this or that a bit more or a bit less, but the frame in which it is allowed to act is ultimately set by the national governments.

    “(The EP) And can be, in some cases at least, overriden by the body which has the lowest degree of representational legitimacy (the Comission).”

    Yes, due to the Commissions´ proximity to the national governments. As A. Merkel once said: “I want that one day, the Commission becomes a true European government.” This statemant quite clearly shows the high degree of dependency of the Commission from the national governments.
    And although it may appear contradictory to the more powerful position national governments currently have, in this respect she openly advertised further development to a democratically more stabile European federation.

    “What it does is to provide a major avenue for “under-the-table” corporate influence – even larger than the one existing in representative democracies – which effectively removes democracy.”

    Democracy is not “a thing that is there or not”, a bipolar condition. But in this case, it has its foggy areas and these should be erased, sure!

    “That is true. But the European Parliament has insufficient power.”

    This in addition to everything before makes up, why I am quite convinced that the EU can be much more (more democratic, more effective & efficient and more transparent) than it currently is. Again, Jaques Delors:
    “The EU is like a bicycle; if it is stopped, it will fall over.”
    The EU has reached a point in time where it has to jump a decisive quantum leap forward, towards an integrated federal state with all the checks and balances, sensefull distribution of competences (–> EP, ECJ) and so on.

    “Further, as Nigel Farage has pointed out, members of the European Parliament often do not even know what they are voting on. (…) There are so many topics going through that they have teams of technicians/whatever who study topics coming their way and decide on how their representative is going to vote on a particular topic. In other words, elected representatives are nothing more than brainless button pushers,(…)”

    This is a problem you will find in any parliamentary system. And since the representatives have to climb up a long carreer in their parties (–> civil organisations, not specialized corporations), this lack of expertise is even necessary to some degree (although it is sometimes unsatisfactory).
    Or put it the other way aroud: How democratic could a system be in which the decision makers are aware of their destination from the very outset? Politicians start low: on the cummunity- or at best on the district-level and then “climb up”. Their partial lack of expertise is the price for democratic legitimation.
    Furthermore, legislation becomes more and more complex and technically demanding itself. This is due to different reasons, which are to manyfold to list and explain them here…

    W. Churchill: “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

    What I forgot in the previous post:

    “Immigration is simply transferring from vacuum to emptiness. Helping a few immigrants is irrelevant if issues that caused migration in the first place remain unsolved. And if these issues are solved, there will be no need for migration.”

    I do fully agree with you, but facing the multiple, often strongly intertwined and practically not solvable reasons for these circumstances in other countries (see Syria), I still stick to the support of refugee support.

    • …and regular immigration is something that has always happened and that will always happen; probably it´s human nature to strive for ever more knowledge. No empire, kingdom or state which was neglecting migration has made it to big achievements, although of course, the framing circumstances always changed (ancient Rome, China, India, later the UK, USA).

    • “No, if you look at the Commissions dependency on the national governments and that the impetus of the national governments does most oftenly come over the CEU, the member states are those who have the final say on the decisions in matters in which the parliament has only advising competences.”

      Which increases displacement of Commission relative to the people. Also, despite all the formalities you have listed, corporations and their lobbysts have disproportionate influence on the Commission, which means that link to national governments is weak as well (how democratic national governments are is questionable by itself, Commission is even worse in that regard as it has greater displacement from the people, and EU itself is far larger than any one of nation-states comprising it).

      “This in addition to everything before makes up, why I am quite convinced that the EU can be much more (more democratic, more effective & efficient and more transparent) than it currently is. Again, Jaques Delors:”

      For that, influence of large business has to be removed first. I don’t see much chance of that happening.

      “I do fully agree with you, but facing the multiple, often strongly intertwined and practically not solvable reasons for these circumstances in other countries (see Syria), I still stick to the support of refugee support.”

      Half the problems in the Middle East would disappear if the West stopped meddling. Syria was never a nice place to begin with, but once Western interventions created ISIS… in fact, much of the trouble there (and in Africa) was caused by the Western colonial powers dividing territories with no regard to ethnic or cultural boundaries. This in turn resulted in the multicultural, unstable states full of internal conflicts, and these internal conflicts helped fuel external conflicts as well. Fix up the borders and you automatically get a far calmer area. But that is not in the Western interest, corporations (who wield real power in the West) want to promote conflicts so as to better exploit these areas. NATO only intervened against ISIL once oil fields in Kurdistan, ones owned by the Western corporations (predominantly US ones), were threatened. That should tell you everything about their priorities.

      • “Also, despite all the formalities you have listed, corporations and their lobbysts have disproportionate influence on the Commission, which means that link to national governments is weak as well (how democratic national governments are is questionable by itself (…)”

        “Disproportionate” is a relative value, since lobbies (the representation of civil interests) are aby definition a rightful element of a democracy. The amount and effectivenes of lobbying are difficult to estimate.
        But groups exercising lobbying are of manyfold kind and heritage: economical consortiums, corporations, NGO´s, civil interest groups (ecological interests, citizens´rights, child protection… the list is virtually endless) and labour unions.
        To examine whose influence is predominant is difficult to diagnose.
        Companies and consortiums have mainly three arguments:
        – labour (jobs)
        – expertise (knowledge, patents and so on)
        – money (taxation, bribery)

        These are strong and able to put severe pressure on decision makers; especially jobs, knowledge and taxation.

        Bribery may happen more often than it is revealed, but regularily the other kinds of pressure are of higher exogene security for their originators. To threat that under certain circumstances, a company and all its employees may fall out of the reach of a state is more secure than to bribe all the time, because bribery is nothing special:
        Any company big enough to hold sufficient financial resources is able to bribe. But first, constant bribery is very costly over time and secondly, if the interests of two stakeholders are set against each other, the danger that this drives up “the price” increases beyond anticipation.
        But the simpler reason is: To threaten with the loss of job or taxation resource is simply cheaper. Of course, these threats usually don´t become reality, but hteir pure presence exercises pressure.

        On the other side, civil interest groups and labour unions usually do not have a comparative amount of money per se, but still enough to bribe from time to time. In general, their incentives to achieve their aims are as strong as the corporationas´ incentives to achieve theirs.
        But again, bribery is also not their major technique. NGO´s, civil interest groups and so on have strong resources for monitoring: their own, independent bureaucratic bodies, accompanying research gremiums (comprised of scientists, journalists etc) and public relations departments. As opposed to companies and consortiums, Greepeace, Attac, Verdi, and alike regularly publish information material, own newspapers, leaflets and so on.
        In short: They have particularly strong ties deep into the civil society, which they use in order to influence the general infromation of the public realm.

        The border between legal and illegal instruments is blurred, but plain bribery is threatened by sanctions: Even companies then have to replace their commanders-in-chief, but in fact these are also the heads behind the decision to bribe, so it is logical that they refrain from doing so (in addition to the already aforementioned reasons).

        So, again:
        1) Lobbying is nothing extraordinary but a regular element of democratical systems
        and usually not illegal or morally problematic.
        2) To veritably diagnose which stakeholders are predominant is difficult and has to be done on a case-to-case basis.

        Interest groups are a necessary step in the decision-making- process; in order to translate the volontees particulieres into a volontee de tous, the fusion of the former has to take place in civil and state-independent organizations. And since companies are usually private in one fashion or another, their owners or heads have to be incorporated as well.

        Therefore, to assume the Commission is always subject to illegal or morally questionable influence is not necessarily correct. And to assume that this is even more the case for it than for the national governments is incorrect, too.

        Again: Despite its flaws, representative democracies are the best option available. They grant the protection of individual rights and collective goods.

        And concerning the causes of human catastrophes: Do you seriously believe that the several European states can act in order to prevent them? If it´s possible at all, they need the combined political power of the whole EU (or its successor federation). By then, we would be one of the global players, but now? Not really. When the EU stands united, the US have difficulties to ignore us. When we remain fractioned, they simply pass over us without paying attention.
        And by the way: As you correctly stated, the interests of foreign actor are only a part of the problems. If a region is subject to instability over several decades, stability has a long way to come. But then, who grants a stabile conversion period? No-one.

        • “Therefore, to assume the Commission is always subject to illegal or morally questionable influence is not necessarily correct. And to assume that this is even more the case for it than for the national governments is incorrect, too. ”

          Problem is that it is subject to it in all important decisions. For example, TTIP, which is being talked about behind the backs of the people – all that the public knows about it comes from the leaks. Mergers in the defense industry are suspect as well, and definetly problematic. There is also an issue of steadily increasing surveillance sector, a la United States, threatening to turn the EU into a totalitarian police state. And European Comission is by its nature, being both a higher-value target and more removed from the people, more suspect to the corporate pressure. Not that the national governments are in any way immune to it (I should know, I’m living in a de facto single-party dictatorship controlled by foreign interest groups and their puppets) – they also have a hand in most of the things I have listed.

          “Again: Despite its flaws, representative democracies are the best option available. They grant the protection of individual rights and collective goods. ”

          Actually, direct democracy would be the best option, but it is impractical. Best option avaliable is a mixed representative/direct democracy, where people can override representatives when these make decisons that are contrary to the will of the people. But as has been clearly shown cases of Croatia, US and EU itself, governments can and do find a way around referendum decisions they (or their corporate sponsors) don’t like.

          “By then, we would be one of the global players, but now? Not really. When the EU stands united, the US have difficulties to ignore us. When we remain fractioned, they simply pass over us without paying attention.”

          That is true, and I would have no problem at all with the EU if it could a) define what it wants to be (an alliance, a confederation, a federation… confederation would be ideal IMO) and b) guarantee democratic governance. Neither of that seems to be the case currently, but then again, none of the five largest countries in the world (US, India, China, Russia, Brazil) can be called truly democratic, and EU combined would be the third most populous.

      • Oh, and since I now proved the actual incorrectness of the article clearly enough, could you please delete it?
        It´s actually not a contribution to a constructional and democracy-fostering public debate.

        In the end, some people might even believe the article´s content.

        • No. You might or might not agree with it, but it certainly does raise important issues… wether you agree with the answers it provides is something else, but I did reblog it in order to foster debate. Deleting anything because it is “politically incorrect” is just a modern-day, democratically-acceptable version of totalitarian censorship, one that I have witnessed too many times. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to live in the “1984” world… albeit it seems that we are headed that way.

        • Besides, if I delete the article then the discussion we’ve had on the topic gets deleted as well… of course, it might be too much to expect an average reader to read through the comments as well.

  10. To delete this article is not an act of self-censorship. The problem is, that this article creates a general mood that makes people suspect Muslims in general. A person should be seen on behalf of his/her personal character and what he/she does or did.
    That radical conservative Muslims cannot fit into the realm of a rights-based state is obvious. But by stating that everyone who reads the Quran is automatically “unacceptable” for a neutral and liberal (in this context, it has nothing to do with economical ideologies) state, you bluntly ignore the basis of exactly this legal realm.
    Do you want a free Europe or a intolerant, paranoid, self-centred Europe?

    BTW I never called it “politically incorrect”, it is factually incorrect. You are making the same error as Patrice:
    You say a democracy can only be when the people decide directly. But neither 4.3 nor 80.5 million people will ever constitute a common will.
    Democracy is much more than the rule of the people; it has to incorporate basic principles like the rule of law, the seperation of power (which you cannot exercise in a direct democracy).
    And it has to respect the plurality of its society, therefore the creation of a volontee de tous is not really practicable.
    The majority has to decide -in principle-, but if it is about the individual rights of a minority, which would, depending on the matter, never gain a majority in order to satisfy its needs, the rule of the majority has to step back behind the rule of law.

    Germany for example fares better in the transparency international report than Croatia (1), and still you would be already half in jail with your claims about “how dangerous the Islam allegdedly is”, because §130 StGB sanctions public claims that are able to motivate violent actions against individuals. Anyone who reads this article could argue that he/she attacks or descriminates a Muslim (by insulting, slandering and so on), because “Muslims are uncompatible with us”.

    And this cannot be tolerated. Otherwise Goebbels could also have been called unguilty for what happened. But words can be weapons and the appeal for discrimination via lies and slander is not tolerable.

    If I remind what I heard acquaintances say about “the dirty, lazy south Europeans (including the Balkan region), I can vividly imagine how you once become target of these attitudes. Probably they don´t beat you up right away, but things like “Let´s build-up a fence around this fucked region, so we and the rest of the civilized world have peace!” are not too seldom. Especially when people start to talk about stolen cars…

    (1) http://transparency.org.nz/images/2014/CPI2014-map-and-country-results.jpg

    • “That radical conservative Muslims cannot fit into the realm of a rights-based state is obvious. But by stating that everyone who reads the Quran is automatically “unacceptable” for a neutral and liberal”

      Patrice clearly states in the second paragraph that Literal Islam (literal/radical following of Qur’an, one practiced by the ISIL) is unacceptable. Not Islam in general, or anyone who reads the Quran. See for yourself:
      >>The Islamist State has an ideology, and its name is Literal Islam, the one and only (anybody else is an apostate and Allâh ordered to kill them).<>[ISIS declared that going to concerts or bars was “idolatry”, and that’s punished by death, according to the Qur’an, the message of Allah.]<>One call to violence in a religious text is enough to make the religion in question violent.<>A unique occasion is offering itself to get rid forever of Literal Islamism, as we got rid of Literal Christianism during the Enlightenment.<<

      Just FYI, I have read the Qur'an myself, and Patrice is correct about it having way too many passages that are either violent, or can be interpreted as a call to violence. But you apparently haven't read the entire article yourself.

      Read this as well:
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fathima-imra-nazeer/isis-islam-quran-literalism_b_5737388.html
      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389117/islamic-literal-mindedness-ian-tuttle

      "But by stating that everyone who reads the Quran is automatically “unacceptable” for a neutral and liberal (in this context, it has nothing to do with economical ideologies) state"

      Where is that said?

      "and still you would be already half in jail with your claims about “how dangerous the Islam allegdedly is”"

      Dictatorship of political correctness is no better than any other dictatorship. And Literal / dogmatic / whatever Islam is definetly dangerous, just as any other form of extremism – including liberal extremism that is, going by your comment, practiced by Germany today (faring better than Croatia in a TI report is nonindicative as Croatia itself is still a Communist dictatorship, except it is mimicking democracy in appearance).

      "And this cannot be tolerated. Otherwise Goebbels could also have been called unguilty for what happened. But words can be weapons and the appeal for discrimination via lies and slander is not tolerable."

      Via lies and slander, yes. But that Qur'an has a large content of very violent verses, that many muslims (especially those in Arabic countries, which do not have a tradition of humanism) decide to interpret the Qur'an literally, and that in most cases such literal interpretation leads to violence, is truth. Where you see lies and slander there, I don't know.

      There is exactly one passage in that text which can be seen as an indiscriminate hate.

      "If I remind what I heard acquaintances say about “the dirty, lazy south Europeans (including the Balkan region), I can vividly imagine how you once become target of these attitudes. Probably they don´t beat you up right away, but things like “Let´s build-up a fence around this fucked region, so we and the rest of the civilized world have peace!” are not too seldom. Especially when people start to talk about stolen cars… "

      And if that were correct I would not have any problem with that… except in most of the South Europe, working week is longer than in rest of the Europe, and if anything fence should be built around Germany (and UK, and France) so they stop robbing and exploiting rest of the Europe.

      • “Not Islam in general, or anyone who reads the Quran. (…) One call to violence in a religious text is enough to make the religion in question violent.”
        This is a contradiction in itself.
        “Islam says it is a religion of peace, and this lie has elements of truth in it: surely, when you are dead, you are at peace.” (from Patrice´s blog)
        That´s an unequivocal generalization about all Muslims who say of themselves that they follow their holy book.

        You and Patrice completely miss, that the interpretation of the Quran is the central question.

        This proves a clearly negative bias towards the religion, because you could just turn it the other way around:
        “One call for humanitarian action is enough to make a religion in question essentially peaceful.”
        You and Patrice use a logic that withstands no clear line and that is biased to the disadvantage of others.

        The key point to make is, that the Quran (as the Bible as well, BTW) is full of contradictory statements. ISIS cannot exercise the Quran word by word, because they wold find themselves in a constant struggle between killing and serving as the both extremes. What ISIS in fact does is to stress the violent text parts and ignore the caring ones.

        “Dictatorship of political correctness is no better than any other dictatorship.”
        To forbid mutual insults is not related to any “political correctness”, but a part of mutual respect and public order.
        If I would walk around and tell everybody that you steal cars or alike, because you are “one of those devious East-Europeans, who just entered the EU in order to take our prosperity.”, you would also have sound reason to sue me for slander.
        If someone asks me then “How do you defend this too generalized and biased claim?”, I can refer to crime statistics, theories of economical unadaptability and so on that “clearly prove” that essentially, people from the Balkan are simply a too big danger for our internal peace.

        What you do can be done to you without any difficulty. That is not what I belive is right, but I know that there are many who don´t care about differentiation and fairness.

        Oh, and that you call your country a communist dictatorship is funny, if one relates it to its membership in the “radical-neo-liberal” EU… So a communist country (ruled by the power-centric state elite) gets accepted in such a de-regulated and “privately-dominated” community like the EU?

        I rather guess that you simply belong to a political section that fails to get enough attention in Croatia.
        When I look at the governments you had since 1990, I find
        – liberal conservatives
        – liberals
        – social democrats
        – and socially conservatives.

        I know, now you return to “all parties/politicians are the same”…

        You should probably start to accept, that apparently most of your fellow citizens have a different political attitude than you.
        And still you are not discriminated, since the fact that you can express your political attitude proves your freedom.

        The same goes for Germany, the UK, Spain, Scandinavia and so on.

        – In Germany, AfD tries to polarize with the topic “refugees, the end of our identity”, and although the situation is the best possible for them, they barely break the 11%.
        – In the UK, UKIP calls the EU “unnessecary and a barrier to british sovereignty”, although without the EU, the agrar-sector, industry and -paradoxly- even their beloved London-City would fall apart (this process started in the 1980´s with Maggie Thatcher´s neo-liberal politic, that is identity- and sovereignty-wise strikingly similar to you attitudes)
        – The spanish crisis just slowly betters, but still most Spanish decide for moderate parties.
        – Scandinavians are well satisfied with their minority coalition governments and the corresponding parliaments.

        And even in the EP, there are only 210 of 751 MEP´s EU-sceptics.

        And concerning the EU, you take real events (like TTIP) and draw exaggerated conclusions out of them. The Article of the Independent, the multiple other reference I provided and the position of 751 MEP´s prove the difference between parties and their personnel, but still “We are dominated by corrupt elites who are driven by companies”.

        Face it: You are part of a minority and cry for attention. To get this, you draw a line between the “corrupted rights-based state” and a political agenda that is basically open to foreigners, even if they come from a different cultural background. In your understanding, governance is only leading to good results once it cuts the individual rights of a religious group you don´t like and therefore abolishes the principle of equality before the law.

        • “You and Patrice completely miss, that the interpretation of the Quran is the central question.”

          That’s the point (at least as far as I’m concerned… can’t vouch for Patrice). Interpretation is the central question, but interpretation depends on the general framework of a society. People who come from Arab countries have framework very different from a European one, which results in conflict… unless they accept European framework. But willingness to accept framework of a domestic civilization depends on many factors, most important of which are the cultural proximity (not geographical proximity) of two civilizations and social / environment reinforcement of the old framework, which depends on the number of likeminded people (specifically, wether that number is large enough to create a closed, exclusive society). Therefore, unregulated immigration is immediately harmful to the home society as people are less able and less willing to adapt more of them come in any given period of time, and this is especially true for philosophically distant civilizations, such as modern Western civilization and traditional Islamic civilization.

          Get what I’m saying now?

          “That´s an unequivocal generalization about all Muslims who say of themselves that they follow their holy book.”

          It is impossible to follow the Qur’an because if you follow one verse, you are immediately contradicting another verse.

          “You and Patrice use a logic that withstands no clear line and that is biased to the disadvantage of others.”

          Part that you cited is by Patrice, and I cited it to explain Patrice’s position, yet you attribute it to myself… how is that about bias?

          “To forbid mutual insults is not related to any “political correctness”, but a part of mutual respect and public order.”

          There is a difference between an insult and an unfavorable statement, one that you seem to be unable to grasp.

          “If someone asks me then “How do you defend this too generalized and biased claim?”, I can refer to crime statistics, theories of economical unadaptability and so on that “clearly prove” that essentially, people from the Balkan are simply a too big danger for our internal peace.”

          Worst part is, you would probably be correct. But I’d still be able to tell you to “clean up your own backyard first”.

          “Oh, and that you call your country a communist dictatorship is funny, if one relates it to its membership in the “radical-neo-liberal” EU… So a communist country (ruled by the power-centric state elite) gets accepted in such a de-regulated and “privately-dominated” community like the EU?”

          Again your problem with differentiating theory and practice. In practice, communism was used by the elites to enrich themselves at the expense of the masses while spouting empty phrases and throwing peanuts from the table to keep masses in line (yes, job security was greater, but only because political correctness – that is, support for the Party, or at least lack of the open dissent – was the main requirement). In that regard, it is identical to neoliberalism, so it’s no wonder that our politicians welcomed neoliberalism with open hands.

          “When I look at the governments you had since 1990, I find
          – liberal conservatives
          – liberals
          – social democrats
          – and socially conservatives.”

          Sorry, but that is bullshit. How can TWO different parties (HDZ and SDP) fall into four different categories? Not to mention that both parties are essentially neoliberal authoritarians.

          “You should probably start to accept, that apparently most of your fellow citizens have a different political attitude than you.”

          Most of my fellow citizens vote by inertia without knowing or caring even about political programs and rhetorics, let alone political practice, of said parties. Rest are either apathetic or vote for those who get the greatest media exposure, which limits the choice to two parties with completely opposite rhetorics yet completely identical policies and programmes (which is the same situation as in the rest of the so-called democracies).

          “And still you are not discriminated, since the fact that you can express your political attitude proves your freedom.”

          Oh, trust me, if I tried to express my views in our media, I’d get either ridiculed (most major media are owned/controlled by the old communist cadres) or locked away in a brig.

          “Face it: You are part of a minority and cry for attention.”

          So we’re going to ad hominem attacks now? God bless liberalism…

  11. You will never be willing to realize how harming your radical attitudes are to a society of equality, as long as you call yourself a member of the profiting cultural/religious (in this case Christian) majority.

    That´s it. I don´t have time anymore for your twisted “truths”. You will stay as you are and feel right, although you help to endanger others, but that´s nothing that would enter your consciousness.

    Bye bye!

    • @abcdef

      And again to the EU: Economical interdependencies are what brought us peace, a break from war that lasts now for over 70 years now.

      I’d have to disagree with this based on historical fact. Economic interdependence does not assure a prevention of war.

      In 1914 Britain and Germany were major trading partners with each – I believe amongst the largest after the US. The British blockade of Germany for this reason alone was devastating. They also controlled most coal refueling stations and literally waged a war to starve Imperial Germany.

      This does have implications elsewhere. Those who think today for example that economic interdependence makes the risk of war between the US and China zero are mistaken. War would be devastating for both sides, but economic dependency cannot prevent this. That doesn’t mean that there is an assurance of that war will happen (and I certainly hope it doesn’t), but it just means economic dependency doesn’t assure no war.

    • I know this was some time ago, but I did some more research on Islam and… however bad I thought Islam was back then, I see now that it is even worse. You see, the basis of Islam is not Qur’an. The basis of Islam are the Sunna and the Hadith. And these are far worse than Qur’an. I’m going to write about it someday, but Islam is not a religion, it is a political ideology worse than Nazism. To talk about “radical Muslim” makes as much sense as it does to talk about a “radical Nazi”.

  12. On the note of multiculturalism, as I said, I think that it can work, but provided the groups are willing to work together towards a common goal. That is easier said than done and there is a level of distrust that has to be overcome. It can be done, but it’s difficult. That and the groups have to be willing to at least partially assimilate. I think that for better or worse, the world will be forced to deal with it. There may even be gains where multicultural societies do better (allows for difference perspectives).

    The other is that war is a counterproductive goal for preventing refugees, as the US invasion in Iraq has demonstrated. They managed to create ISIS and this current refugee crisis. I have noticed the absence of coverage in most of the media towards discussing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the role it has played in this current crisis. I’m sure that is not a coincidence.

    I’d argue that in the case of if you want homogeneity, the best thing to do is to spend considerable amounts of money on international development. The reason is because refugees are not there by choice. Left with a choice, they would choose to stay home in peace and work towards their own prosperity. They cannot however due to war, environmental disaster, or something else. They are not there by choice.

    • “I have noticed the absence of coverage in most of the media towards discussing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the role it has played in this current crisis. I’m sure that is not a coincidence. ”

      Oh, definetly not a coincidence. Discussing that would mean discussing actual US policies in Iraq during the occupation, which in turn would bring the entire “we were trying to help the Iraqis” and “war was waged for democracy” bullshit down, hard.

      “They are not there by choice.”

      Some of them are (economic refugees), and it’s not a small group. But again, the only real solution would be to help development of undeveloped countries. That however is not in capitalists’ interests, just like preventing refuse crises is not in their interest either.

  13. Your problem is kikes, not Islam (funny they never talk about human fault, i.e. Muslims), yet your obsessed with religion of 2 billion people which goes back 15 centuries. Get a damn grip.

    • Islam is being presented as a “religion of peace” yet is anything but. Not all Nazis were evil, either, and I am sure majority of them would have ever killed anyone had they only been surrounded by other Nazis.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: