So that's your great solution? If so I'm looking forward to see how most of the countries (especially the southern and eastern ones) will do without the EU's money and with closed borders, trade restrictions and customs duties (probably also punitive tariff duties) again. I'm sure it will be much better for them.

Meanwhile, in Sweden...

1) http://www.therebel.media/the_rape_of_europe_swedish_police_hid_informational_about_sexual_assaults_by_immigrants_for_years

2) http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/its-not-only-germany-that-covers-up-mass-sex-attacks-by-migrant-men-swedens-record-is-shameful/

And the WISE Japanese! : http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/23/sweden-opened-its-doors-to-muslim-immigration-today-its-the-rape-capital-of-the-west-japan-didnt/

That's plain wrong. Check the ideas behind even the earliest treaties, which served as base for the EU. In the course of history, trade was just the easiest topic to agree upon, but not the idea behind it.

It was peace through trade if I remember correct. Connect europe so much that it would be a bit of a suicide to start a war.

Do you have any links so I can read up on what you say? Could be a interesting read.

Actually, that's a very interesting question.....

Looking back in the past and forward in the future, the "Europe of 12"(early country members of EU) wouldn't suffer very much from getting back to a pre-1995 situation. I'm old enough to have lived this era and honestly we lived well without all this EU stuff. You could ask your parents or acquaintances from EU who lived thos times "before".....

Now for "poor" countries, that's where it gets interesting. For countries from the ex-USSR, even with all the "aids" through the years, they're still considered "poor" by Western europeans. A good example is GOG which has problems attracting employees (I bet 100 euros that if their HQ was in Germany, most of the jobs positions would be filled in six months). it's also interesting that the population of those countries are emigrating to the west creating a paradox where instead of staying "home" and helping build their country, they go abroad for better salary (like nurses, doctors, engineers, etc.). An alternative History where they would have stayed outside of EU could have been interesting to see how they would have managed an that brings me to your last point....

"closed borders, trade restrictions, etc." : Even before the EU as we currently know it, Europe has never been a closed fortress. Countries always had (and will always have) special arrangements between them for trades and worker transit. A country like Belgium didn't wait for the EU to import Italian and Moroccan workers when there were still plenty of boders to cross. Trade agreements are common worldwide and you can be sure they will still exist even if EU explode because business matters.

I'm finishing here because this kind of economic discussion is beyond our scope of "common citizens" and is the subject of tons of books but I just wanted to point out that the end of current of EU wouldn't means that Doomsday is coming :o)

Food for thought: people say Germany welcomed the refugees to insure their economic growth but in an alternate reality, why wouldn't they have chosen the way of the "degrowth"? (it's actually not a question to you but rather to show that alternatives could exist)
No links (too lazy to search) but that's what teachers told us at school in the 90's ^o^

My teachers too. That's why it would be interesting to read DeMignon's sources.

You are correct. Basis on which the EU was built was the Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel industry which was created in order to stop Germany and France to go to war again after WW2. After that they made new treaties of which the main goal was one common european market. People's rights were never the driving idea that led to formation of EU. It was created to stop wars on the continent and promote trade. European citizens only have legal rights since 2009 when the Treaty of Lisbon came in to power. Till then legally we didn't have any rights as EU citizens.

Could we agree that the European idea (if there was one) is dead?
Europe was and is only a market place, the European parliament a dump for overpriced incompetent persons (and ruled by lobbyists anyway), and the € soon the next plaything for sharks.

Coily? Am I that subtle to you? :)

The way you made your questions was not open babark. The difference between: Is there any valid reason for jamys to be accusing klumpen of nazism? And: Isn't it valid to accuse some of these posters of nazism? Is that the second is what is called a leading question. At least you're not at the supreme level of: Have you stopped beating your wife?

So no babark. You're not "just" discussing it. You could of course be specific about what you think of the accusation. Was it merited or not? Why? You think not expressing your opinion is "safe". But your opinion is mostly transparent in the way you express yourself.

And you're also continuing to try and steer the discussing towards ideology, when you've been told a few times the reason for the "backlash" was what the tone of the "accusation" implied about the accuser. Jamys made a not so veiled threat. Is it that hard to believe? Especially with the very clear "when justice is served you will get what you deserve". I am paraphrasing... I'm not going to go check the exact verbiage. I mean, what the fuck do you think jamys thinks a nazi deserves? Flowers and rainbows?

So no babark, you weren't having a discussion. You were implicitly affirming your opinion that some people in this thread, are, in your opinion, ideologically nazi-like. Otherwise why ask (paraphrasing). "Guys, come on, didn't that accusation a while ago have some validity when you consider the ideology?" You obviously think it does have some validity, and the way you asked was leading to receive confirmation of same.

And you're surprised most answers you got were negative instead of affirmative?

You know what? Maybe if you stop treating this stuff like it's some kind of rational game, and understand the very serious context that we have been trying to explain, you will get the point. Go reread the post from jamys. Can you really not see the threat there? A threat does not have to be feasible to be a threat. The ill intent is enough to establish malice, even if the threatener lacks the ability to execute on his threat. No one here believes the police will go knock on klumpen's door, especially because no one here believes klumpen to be a nazi (except jamys or you) but the desire jamys has that harm or imprisonment would be done to klumpen - that he would get what he deserves - whatever that was - that is worthy of condemnation by itself. Maybe you think a malicious person can make whatever threats they want as long they can't act on them. Others might disagree...

Some comparisons to nazism are valid, others aren't dude. No one said all comparisons to nazism are invalid. I think jamys accusation was unfounded and relevant to establish the malice of his threat, and I think that your comparrisons are wrong in giving too much weight to nationalism in defining something as ideologically nazi like.

Bottom line. If you ask about nazism ideology - which you DID - I will correctly point out the truth: that nazism nowadays is used as a bogeyman, and the actual historical nazism was very shortlived. It was also hugely dependent on one specific individual and his coterie, it did not leave a significant politically coherent legacy. It left a lot of fetishism certainly. And a clear and ugly example of what aggressive politics can achieve, if you're the kind of asshole that would lack scruples to refrain from them.

If however you try to, as you continue to do, imply that there are nazis in this thread, because you see nationalist opinions expressed and you consider that enough to accuse those people of being nazi-like. You are crossing a line into personal attack - not just because we think you are wrong in the importance you give to nationalism as defining nazism, but also because you are validating the threat that was done earlier based on exactly a similar sort of wrong and malicious thinking. In jamys' case though I suspect he sees xenophobia as the defining characteristic rather than nationalism. The two, of course, are correlated.

Maybe that's not your fault per se, just you being oblivious to the context that we are trying to explain to you. But given that you could very well avoid any kind of misunderstanding by using more precise, less loaded languagae. Well, it kind of seems like you're doing it on purpose. Surprise, surprise...

Here's a few very specific questions based on your word choices (bolded)

1 - What do you think we are trying to define too narrowly? Nazism? We are trying to be too narrow by pointing out the obvious fact of when it was a political power? And that it had several ideological sources rather than just nationalism or xenophobia? Who is being narrow? Why are you not sure you agree? No one is saying nationalism is not important - but it's not enough.

2 - What makes the backlash incredible? Why don't you believe (to believe = to find credible) that the backlash was caused by the implicit malice of the "accusation" - which was actually a threat?

3 - Assuming you reread jamys' post, do you still see no implicit threat? No malice? No desire that something harmful will happen to someone else? No ill will at all? Do you believe a threat must be credible to be evil?

4 - Do you understand the meaning of AND? Here's a working definition to start: Nazism == Nationalism AND anti-capitalism AND anti-semitism AND aggression. Agree or disagree?

5 - Do you agree that the nazi ideology, even devoid of its historical context, is inherently imoral? Do you consider anti-capitalism immoral? How about anti-semitism? Or nationalism? Or aggressive politics?

Inquiring minds want to know. Consider the above an example of how open questions can be used effectively. Leading questions are just so darn transparent... open ones show you actually understood what the other person told you.

Okay, Apparently I can't discuss ideology in this thread, because we aren't discussing ideology in this thread. Oh dear.
Is jamys (I didn't even know what you were talking about in your previous response, but in your latest one I see, I guess "jamys" was the one who called people nazis?) calling people nazis the bad thing, or is jamys apparently threatening people the bad thing?
Apparently we can't discuss ideology in this thread, because SOMEONE MADE A THREAT! (Seriously, what?)
Pity I can't tell what the threat was, it seems the post has been edited (that or I can't find it, although you're the only Preston who's made any claim of a threat, so.. ).

Also, "coyly", not coily. Dunno how a coily response would be....

Being prepared is a long-time term, so "meanwhile" was meant as it stands, I didn't know that it was taken back again though. Good riddance!

I'm not even a nationalist, quite the opposite in fact.
The really weird thing about all this is, that people are denouncing you as a fascist if you are standing up to a truly misogynistic, homo-hunting, intolerant and overall fascist belief system.

O tempora o mores!

Yep, I wonder why people forget this time and again.
Hitler pointed out, that Islam as a phasing authoritarian warrior culture is quite to his liking and many people in the middle east still think that the national socialists were heroes for killing so many Jews, so the whole comparison does make more sense the other way round.

Babark, if you took any of what I said to mean you CAN'T discuss ideology, you need to change your glasses or get a thicker skin or something... we can even discuss nazi ideology, which I actually defined for you * after you jumped in the thread asking questions that implied you thought calling some people on it nazi was kind of true - maybe impolite, but true ideologically.

Nice trick in not even mentioning nazism on that first sentence by the way. That took it from being just a strawman into also shifting the goaposts of the argument to something like an anti-censorship position. So logically twice a fallacy, but nice rhetoric. As to the third paragraph - another obvious strawman.

No one is trying to shut you up here. I happen to think the more you talk the more wrong you are getting - but that's your problem to resolve. I am trying to help... but I can't force you to drink...


Now you are asking where the threat was? Really? Don't you think it would have made sense to ask a bit earlier? How far back did you go check? You jumped in on post 405, and you started it by pointing out how others were talking about nazism and deriding calling others nazis. What had you based that on?

Post 400? That does not seem like much to base an opinion such as:
I mean one mention does not make anything the most derided... and notice how you seem to know it was only one person calling someone else a nazi. Almost as if you had read the whole thing, which would include my post calling out the threat near the start of it all. :)

But maybe you only started lurking on 347 / 351? Or 330? When did you start reading? :) For someone so curious (your own words in thread 405), you were not interested in seeing the trigger to those exchanges? :) **

Because then right above, in 328, 327... it all becomes clearer and clearer, with direct quotes in 323 and 325 even. Here's a hint... when you click the nice little arrow right by a quote, it takes you to the original quoted post. Not that hard to get to the source of that metaphorical river... and slake that thirst for the truth you say you have.

Does that help you dear? If you want to reread and get back to me I'll wait for you. Post 316 (it's not edited out) and my post 319 (I conveniently left the threat in my quoting even) are both still there. ***

PS: You earned the condescension. As you usually do by acting disingenuously. And you did start it first (emphasis mine):
A bit more impersonal than my approach, but well, you know I consider it more polite to be honest to someone's face. If you think I'm being coy about thinking you are playing word games about serious topics, let me be very direct: your trying to muddy the waters is IMO despicable. I also do rhetoric, but the reason you do it is all sorts of wrong.


You could of course actually engage openly in the ideological debate you say you want to have. My questions conveniently marked 1, 4 and 5 would seem to be nice places to continue that *4*, based as they were in stuff you already said and might be interested in defending. Certainly answering those would make things clearer instead of murkier...

If however you want to continue to try and play the personal attack game, I will continue to respond in kind. Consider this for example:
Why, it's an implication I'm the lonely wacko that is imagining an offense! :) As if it takes a majority to establish the truth! And conveniently forgetting the responses to you that did ellaborate why even a "normal" calling someone a nazi is in itself often problematic... *5*


Now, although you deserve that respect less and less. Let me again actually answer your questions:

He started it in this thread yes.

Both are bad. The first because it was IMO false, the second because it's obviously malicious. *6*


Conclusion:
As usual when the questions become direct you rather not answer truthfully and go away from the thread. There are actually people around that think I scare you away. A coleague of ours once threw that at my face, as if I had bullied you or something - I guess based on that thread where we talked about the importance of Islam to Jihadism - is it political or religious? (hint: *6*) And about how significant Islamic Fundamentalism terrorism is to the whole of terrorism in the world. But the both of us know the truth don't we babark? You "scare" yourself away when your opinions are made clearer - the truth gets a bit too unconfortable. Or you just don't want to put in the effort and you don't care enough. Maybe both even?

Stop lying to yourself mate - about yourself and about your religion. You and it can be a force for good, there are many things worth defending, there are many things worth attacking. You unfortunately seem to have some of them upside down IMO.


Last point. Nice joke with the coily. Some typos are indeed funny. You're right about my responses not being convoluted and evasive and somewhat elastic though. That's rather yours.


Annotations:

* Because unlike most people that just dismiss you for trolling, I actually reply to your ideological points. So that someone jumping in cold does not actually mistake you for a serious debater. Your identity is NOT enough...

** We all know you read the whole thing babark. Why are you even trying to hide it? Why do you dig these holes for yourself?

*** I did it on purpose to quote and not edit my reply to jamys. So even if he tried to delete his shit, there would be some record. To his credit he did not try to whitebrush it. Because right to be forgotten my ass - we should all learn to live with our mistakes, especially when we are trying to be, or have been, harmful to others. Of course, maybe he does not think he has done a mistake... he certainly didn't stick around to defend it.

*4* Since you get lost easily navigating GOG threads apparently - my questions are near the end in post 444. ;)

*5* I didn't get the Preston reference. I'm sure it will be funny if you explain it. Pretty please?

*6* What you just tried there is called false dilemma in rhetoric. Given context, you seem to like / create false dilemmas...

The self-hate is strong with this one.

See, this is why it is so tiresome talking to you, Brasas. I don't know how many different ways I can say this, but I'm not interested in "debating" or playing "word games" with you (or anyone). I don't care about "winning" from you, I'm not strategically deploying strawmen to counter your attacks or whatever. I'm not here for that. It serves no purpose for me. You seemed quite incredulous last time I pointed this out, as if it really amazed you ("Then what are you doing here?!"). Let me tell you, then: When you see me in these sort of threads, it is if I see something I know to be wrong, I mention it. If I'm curious about something, I ask it.
I was just curious as to a specific thing in this thread, and up until your responses, I was having quite insightful responses. If you have new information to share, I'm here to listen to that. I'm not here to "play word games". I'm not here to "win the internet" from you. I'm definitely not interested in encouraging you in your lack of engagement with me (you did it once before, I asked some questions, no response, you posted 50 of your own questions, and when I ignored them, you held that up with "Look, who is not interested in discussion!").

I had read all the posts you mentioned in this thread (or at least skimmed them as the thread grew). I'm sorry I don't make notes or detailed references add fields to my database of gog forum members so as to have the names of people on my fingertips when I post here. Since the actual accusers and accused were absolutely irrelevant to my question, I figured it wasn't necessary to post them. I guess that gave you fuel for your gleeful "Oooh oooh oooh! Accusing people of nazis! Why don't you do it openly! Ey, ey, ey;) ;) :P".

My initial pass through the thread found no threats made, but I see now what you are talking about (you could've just quoted it if you wished). Again, it seems you are the only person who seems to view it as a threat.

Here, now that I get what you're talking about, lets break it down into smaller parts for you:
-jamys drew parallels between the attitudes towards jews in the 1930s, and immigrants today.
-jamys extended those parallels to the other side, likening Pegida and certain forum members to the nazis.
-jamys warned against a "repeat of the 1930s" (making an explicit reference to 1938, by which I assume he meant the kristallnacht)
-jamys said that if we DO see a repeat of that, then the "nazis" responsible will have justice meted out to them.

You seem to take greatest issue with the last point, which you somehow perceive as a threat. Does that mean that you agree with jamys's thesis that attitudes today will lead to a repeat of the 1930s? Because if you don't, then there is no threat, and your statement becomes nonsensical.
As an analogy: "X people are violent! If these people murder someone, justice will be meted out to them!"- and instead of taking issue with calling X violent, you take issue with "Oh no, you're threatening X with justice!"?

Actually, breaking down jamys's post like that shows that he was kinda making direct references to historical nazis, but again, that doesn't take away from my initial point, where I was discussing the accusation in terms of ideologies.

It's your fault for destroying the German Democratic Republic (GDR) germans, you had a perfect socialist government which knew how to build walls and keep both immigrants out and emigrants in!