IMMIGRATION thread

**Greyblades** · 08-19-2016, 13:07

Originally Posted by Legs

Well that is one hell of a muppet
so a neo nazi holocaust denier got arrested because he posted some 1930s racial purity propoganda on social media.

The hell? What video did you watch? At worst this guy was a Reichsbürgerbewegung, aka a prussian nostalgist/state citizen. Where the hell are you getting holocaust denier?

And 30's race propaganda? It was a naked blonde woman pictured in mid motion looking like she's doing the nazi salute and captioned " it doesnt get more german than this."

**Fragony** · 08-19-2016, 13:36

Originally Posted by Greyblades

The hell? What video did you watch? At worst this guy was a Reichsbürgerbewegung, aka a prussian nostalgist/state citizen. Where the hell are you getting holocaust denier?

Why bother with inception. I only called him an idiot because he should have known that he would get into trouble. can't also see any holocaust denial.

In the meantime, a rabbi was stabbed by a 'confused man' shouting 'Allahu Akhbar'.

motives unknown, except one

**Legs** · 08-19-2016, 19:00

Originally Posted by Greyblades

The hell? What video did you watch? . ."

Your video.

At worst this guy was a Reichsbürgerbewegung, aka a prussian nostalgist/state citizen

Yes, not all reichsburger nuts are neo nazis, but lots of them are.
So the question is, is this particular flagwaving nutcase one?
Enough points head in that direction for it to be a pretty safe deduction.

Where the hell are you getting holocaust denier?

Which "historian" is he recomending for the stab in the back and global conspiracy element of his political views?

And 30's race propaganda? It was a naked blonde woman pictured in mid motion looking like she's doing the nazi salute and captioned " it doesnt get more german than this."

Yes, 1930s german aryan certified "art" produced for the promotion of the master race. Reichsculture mate established under Goebells in 1933. Ministry of public enlightenment.
Didn't you hear him mention the origin of the image he posted.

So the question is, did you even watch the bloody video and listen to the idiot on it?

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 08-19-2016, 19:10

Still smacks of 'thought policing' to me. Unless and until he incites harm against another, his hateful opinions are his own problem. Belief in the tropes of Nazism brands you as a bit of an idiot, but stupidity is not criminal.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 08-22-2016, 19:29

Originally Posted by Legs

That is where it gets interesting, he was only one of sixty people who had their computers seized.
He is part of a group yes?
The group is closely monitored by the German domestic security service because it has issued death threats against "traitors".

Okay, if there is any perception of credibility from the threats, THAT would justify investigation and possible prosecution. I just hate efforts to make laws about a person's thoughts and the expression thereof. I believe people have a right to idiotic views (as long as they don't represent a threat to the neighbors).

**Husar** · 08-23-2016, 02:12

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Okay, if there is any perception of credibility from the threats, THAT would justify investigation and possible prosecution. I just hate efforts to make laws about a person's thoughts and the expression thereof. I believe people have a right to idiotic views (as long as they don't represent a threat to the neighbors).

Does it represent a threat to the neighbors if they vote accordingly for a government that is very bad for the neighbors?

**Fragony** · 08-23-2016, 06:00

Originally Posted by Husar

Does it represent a threat to the neighbors if they vote accordingly for a government that is very bad for the neighbors?

The exreme-right is so marginal in Germany that that isn't a 'what if' worth bothering with

**Husar** · 08-23-2016, 12:37

Originally Posted by Fragony

The exreme-right is so marginal in Germany that that isn't a 'what if' worth bothering with

It is a question every society has to ask at some point and I asked it in general, not just about Germany.
I fully understand Seamus' point, it's just that a border may have to be drawn somewhere or does the democratic will of a majority of the population who want a dictator trump the supposedly "universal truth" that a democratic government is best for a people?
A better country to compare with than German would be Turkey. If it is the democratic will of the (majority of) people that Erdogan can do what he wants with all the other people, should someone deny them the realization of that idea? Many or even most modern European democracies would say yes. Trump may actually say no. So yes, I think it is a relevant question because the process of political voting is a process of turning ideas into realities.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 08-23-2016, 18:35

Originally Posted by Husar

Does it represent a threat to the neighbors if they vote accordingly for a government that is very bad for the neighbors?

Potentially. One of the joys of having a written Constitution as we have in the USA is that the government -- even WERE a group of like-minded skinhead-esque yahoos able to work together long enough and well enough to win a plurality in a significant election -- isn't permitted to just toss aside Constitutional constraints and rule by fiat. In the final analysis, THAT is the point of the 2nd Amendment, were our government to try to do so then the government would be changed. We pay a price for that safety from tyranny in lives, but it serves as our ultimate constraint on government and, by extension, the skinhead-fascist who would impose her views on us through force.

We thus can afford to let people express themselves -- even those whose expressions are patent nonsense.

In addition, our courts have long maintained the concept of "clear and present danger" as the standard for free speech. You can call for change, advocate racism, deny the mountains of evidence that confirm the Holocaust, even insist that the only true deity is a wheat noodle. When you call for violence, when you encourage violence, when you sanction violence your speech becomes actionable as a clear and present danger to the rights of the larger community.

I don't know quite how Germany sets things up so that the idiot can express herself AND the community is comfortable with that expression because it is a null as a threat -- your history is much different from ours on this. I just don't think that thought police laws are very enforceable or, in terms of human rights, wise.

Oh, and for those of you gun restriction advocates who read the comment on the 2nd Amendment above and thought..."but the government has all the weapons that count, your hunting rifle is pointless anyway"...you are failing to consider that the government could not convince its military to act against their own people in that way. Our culture simply doesn't foster obedience to superiors in that manner. And even IF the military somehow went along with it, you CANNOT maintain "boot on the neck" control over a nation with more weapons than persons and a ridiculous number of people who love the blow "stuff" up for fun while celebrating holidays. Witness just how problematic it is to try to exert control in Afghanistan even with drones, air support etc.

**Viking** · 08-24-2016, 08:12

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Oh, and for those of you gun restriction advocates who read the comment on the 2nd Amendment above and thought..."but the government has all the weapons that count, your hunting rifle is pointless anyway"...you are failing to consider that the government could not convince its military to act against their own people in that way. Our culture simply doesn't foster obedience to superiors in that manner. And even IF the military somehow went along with it, you CANNOT maintain "boot on the neck" control over a nation with more weapons than persons and a ridiculous number of people who love the blow "stuff" up for fun while celebrating holidays. Witness just how problematic it is to try to exert control in Afghanistan even with drones, air support etc.

The majority of the people who armed themselves could be supporters of the fascist government rather than opponents of it, lessening or removing the need for military intervention.

**Fragony** · 08-21-2016, 02:48

Sympathising with nazi's is not a crime, I don't understand why someone sympethises with nazi's but if someone does so what really. I'm not going to buy him a beer but sympathise with nazi's all you want as long as you don't harm anyone

**Legs** · 08-21-2016, 09:02

Originally Posted by Fragony

Sympathising with nazi's is not a crime,

That depends on the different legislation different countries have. It also depends on how the "sympathy" is expressed.
Does Germany have such laws?
Whoever domestically disseminates or produces, stocks, imports or exports or makes publicly accessible through data storage media for dissemination domestically or abroad, means of propaganda of a party which has been declared to be unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court or a party or organization, as to which it has been determined, no longer subject to appeal, that it is a substitute organization of such a party; the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization,
shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

Looks like they do.

**Legs** · 08-21-2016, 08:51

Originally Posted by Beskar

What about the "Are you incredibly stupid?"

Well neo nazi marches have been widely coverered on the tv news and in print media.
It would be pretty difficult to not know what flags they like to carry on their protests, unless you knew virtually nothing about the subject you were talking about.
So if a person wanted to make a claim that the flag has no connection with neo nazis in germany it isn't something that is hard to check before they went ahead and made the claim.

So does "ignorant" or "wilfully ignorant" describe it better than "incredibly stupid"? Because the only possible deductions are;
A
a person doesn't know what they are talkling about but is still making claims on the subject.
B
a person does know what they are talking about but is making a claim that is clearly false.

Either one of which can only lead to questions about the level of intelligence being applied by the person.