Customs Regulations in the EU.
Juha Veijalainen
> I have just been informed
> by Finnish Customs that I am not allowed to keep my
> car here any longer (I have had it here six months) and
> that I am not allowed to sell it in Finland!
> Can someone clarify this point of European law? Does
> Finland need to get its act together?
I think Finland _does_ need to get its act together.
Cars are, again, another exeception. I do not know the
details, but what you described could be true. The
reason behind is the ridiculously high car tax (something
over 100 %) and the need to protect it. Otherwise we
could see Finns driving cars registered in other countries.
I assume you're not a finnish citizen? I hope there is
an exception for this tax law (IMHO there should be).
I could be wrong, but if you decided to register your
car in Finland, you'd have to pay a huge tax.
--
Juha Veijalainen, http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/karhu/
** Mielipiteet omiani / Opinions personal, facts suspect **
Adrian Sims
borders - i.e. you can buy any product in any EU country
and take it to another EU country without declaring it
or paying any tax on it?
I know that Finland and Sweden have some kind of opt-out
of this policy for alcohol - but I have just been informed
by Finnish Customs that I am not allowed to keep my
car here any longer (I have had it here six months) and
that I am not allowed to sell it in Finland!
What kind of customs union is that? I think if I take a British
car to France - or even if a Finn drives his car to Britain - then
the car can stay for as long as the owner wants it to.
Can someone clarify this point of European law? Does
Finland need to get its act together?
Email responses appreciated.
Adrian
------------------------------------
adria...@ntc.nokia.com
Nokia Cellular Systems Oy
Aanekoski, Finland.
------------------------------------
Kurt Swanson
> Isn't it true now that you can take all goods across all EU
> borders - i.e. you can buy any product in any EU country
> and take it to another EU country without declaring it
> or paying any tax on it?
Not unlimited alcohol (limit varies), new cars, snus, and a few sundry
items...
> I know that Finland and Sweden have some kind of opt-out
> of this policy for alcohol - but I have just been informed
> by Finnish Customs that I am not allowed to keep my
> car here any longer (I have had it here six months) and
> that I am not allowed to sell it in Finland!
Are you saying they are forcing you to *export* the car? Or is it
just that you now have to *register* it in Finland? The six months
rule, if I remember correctly, deal with the length of time a car of
foreign registry can be kept in another country.
> What kind of customs union is that? I think if I take a British
> car to France - or even if a Finn drives his car to Britain - then
> the car can stay for as long as the owner wants it to.
A limited one.
> Can someone clarify this point of European law? Does
> Finland need to get its act together?
You can find some information under www.cec.lu - somewhere under
that...
--
Kurt Swanson, Department of Computer Science, Lund University.
Kurt.S...@dna.lth.se (http://www.dna.lth.se/home/kurt/)
Matthew Cunliffe
>
> Isn't it true now that you can take all goods across all EU
> borders - i.e. you can buy any product in any EU country
> and take it to another EU country without declaring it
> or paying any tax on it?
Yes
> I know that Finland and Sweden have some kind of opt-out
> of this policy for alcohol - but I have just been informed
> by Finnish Customs that I am not allowed to keep my
> car here any longer (I have had it here six months) and
> that I am not allowed to sell it in Finland!
They may not have yet implemented the directives governing that aspect.
But I do find it ridiculous that they do not allow you to keep it their.
> What kind of customs union is that? I think if I take a British
> car to France - or even if a Finn drives his car to Britain - then
> the car can stay for as long as the owner wants it to.
Yes you can keep it there for as long as you wish. In the UK however,
one must change the registration plate to a British one if become
resident for longer than six months. This may be the case in other
countries.
Regards,
Matt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew Cunliffe Ancie...@durham.ac.uk
The Third Foundation - Political Resources
http://www-ucs.dur.ac.uk/~gradsoc/Politics/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jari Oksanen
>Adrian Sims wrote:
>> I know that Finland and Sweden have some kind of opt-out
>> of this policy for alcohol - but I have just been informed
>> by Finnish Customs that I am not allowed to keep my
>> car here any longer (I have had it here six months) and
>> that I am not allowed to sell it in Finland!
Could you expand, please. I think that you are bit economic with details here.
Are the Customs authorities perhaps saying that you cannot keep your car in
Finland with foreign registration, but you have to register it in Finland? If
it is an EU car, it should be duty free, but not necessarily tax-free (though
it often is, provided you have owned it long enough, and followed the correct
procedures when importing it to Finland). That is, are they saying the same as
the British authorities would say, according to Matthew Cunliffe below.
The rules vary in countries, but I know that if you move permanently to
Norway, you have to register your car in Norway "immediately" (so it says in
the book of rules and regulations). If you're a temporary resident, (i.e.,
have work only for a limited period), you can keep your car with foreign
registration for one year. It is possible to extend this time to three years,
if you can prove that you move out from Norway within three years. However,
this is dependent on the good will of the customs authorities, and only one
year comes automatically. If you first keep your car for one year, and first
after that start discussing about registration in Norway, you have committed a
crime, but if you are lucky, the only punishment is that they look at you
angrily. You don't have to pay taxes or duties if (i) you took your car with
you when you moved to Norway, (ii) and you have owned your car at least for
one year before moving to Norway, (iii) and you have not lived in Norway
during five previous years.
Was it something more restrictive down there in EU?
>They may not have yet implemented the directives governing that aspect.
>But I do find it ridiculous that they do not allow you to keep it their.
>> What kind of customs union is that? I think if I take a British
>> car to France - or even if a Finn drives his car to Britain - then
>> the car can stay for as long as the owner wants it to.
>Yes you can keep it there for as long as you wish. In the UK however,
>one must change the registration plate to a British one if become
>resident for longer than six months. This may be the case in other
>countries.
--- Jari Oksanen Tromssa, Ruija / Romsa, Norga / Tromsø, Norge
VEP
>Isn't it true now that you can take all goods across all EU
>borders - i.e. you can buy any product in any EU country
>and take it to another EU country without declaring it
>or paying any tax on it?
>I know that Finland and Sweden have some kind of opt-out
>of this policy for alcohol - but I have just been informed
>by Finnish Customs that I am not allowed to keep my
>car here any longer (I have had it here six months) and
>that I am not allowed to sell it in Finland!
>What kind of customs union is that? I think if I take a British
>car to France - or even if a Finn drives his car to Britain - then
>the car can stay for as long as the owner wants it to.
>Can someone clarify this point of European law? Does
>Finland need to get its act together?
>Email responses appreciated.
>Adrian
>------------------------------------
>adria...@ntc.nokia.com
>Nokia Cellular Systems Oy
>Aanekoski, Finland.
>------------------------------------
Indeed there are some strange things going on. I often find the
similar problems in Italy. I assume that while the treaties are
approved between governments, they really (in some countries, at
least) are not implemented -i.e. national legislation is not passed
(as it was supposed to be). Furthermore, it's difficult to find the EU
regulations on normal, day to day issues. Two examples - in Italy, for
your to live somewhere, you must obtain a "residency" authorization,
which is issued by the local mayor. If he denies it or just leaves it
indefinitely in the "pending" tray, you cannot licence your car, use
the health system, etc. I always assumed you could live anywhere,
without "approval" of the local authorities.
I am also having problems recognizing other european diplomas in
Italy. They school authorities did't even know which countries made
part of the so called "Unior" and the rights people have (or should
have). It seems that there is still a long way to go...
Frankly, it also seems that the EU is only taken more seriously by the
two major players, France and Germany. The Benelux really does't count
and Italy (to my regret) is a joke. England, I don't know what they
are doing in the EU - They hate it. To be sure, they should join NAFTA
- where their heart is - and leave the Europeans to sort out their
many local peculiarities.
Well then, let's hope next century will see something more efficient.
Regards,
Vittorio
Jorma Kypp|
> Frankly, it also seems that the EU is only taken more seriously by the
> two major players, France and Germany.
Right.
> The Benelux really does't count
But they are geographically in the center of "hard core".
> and Italy (to my regret) is a joke.
The role of Greece, Italy and Spain is important. They are the
first frontier countries towards south and islamic world.
> England, I don't know what they
Do you mean, that Scotland and Wales should stay in EU, while England
joins in NAFTA? I assume, that you just made a fatal mistake and
meant to say GBR, instead of England?
> are doing in the EU - They hate it. To be sure, they should join NAFTA
> - where their heart is - and leave the Europeans to sort out their
> many local peculiarities.
Not a too bad idea (if we speak about GBR). When EC was at first offered
GBR escaped by creating EFTA and draw Scandinavian countries there.
Also Finland was included by especial arrangements.
Now GBR could escape to NAFTA and draw Denmark, Finland, Sweden and
perhaps even Norway with her. That would give to Fennoscandian
countries more independence and distance from EU superpowers, because
NAFTA is too wide (USA, Mexico, Canada) to became too centralized,
and besides wider market area than EU. Secondly, Nordic countries
would have as a market place a very fertile situation in the
center of a triangle formed by NAFTA, EU and Russia.
And we don't have to deal anymore with the problems, that
Greece, France & co cause on the Mediterranian area.
Let's keep this idea in mind.
Jorma Kyppo
Laukaa
Finland
jo...@jytko.jyu.fi
Peter Pasternak
>GBR escaped by creating EFTA and draw Scandinavian countries there.
>Also Finland was included by especial arrangements.
>Now GBR could escape to NAFTA and draw Denmark, Finland, Sweden and
>perhaps even Norway with her. That would give to Fennoscandian
>countries more independence and distance from EU superpowers, because
>NAFTA is too wide (USA, Mexico, Canada) to became too centralized,
>and besides wider market area than EU. Secondly, Nordic countries
>would have as a market place a very fertile situation in the
>center of a triangle formed by NAFTA, EU and Russia.
>And we don't have to deal anymore with the problems, that
>Greece, France & co cause on the Mediterranian area.
>Let's keep this idea in mind.
The NAFTA (i.e. USA) will be happy to get those new partners. First
Mexico and Canada, and then GB and Finland (with more than 20%
unemployed). One big happy family? ;-)
BTW: Do you think, the world is a cake, which the industrial-countries
should share as they like to? This sounds like nightmares from the
past to me.
>Jorma Kyppo
>Laukaa
>Finland
"... There is no dark side of the moon really. It's all dark!..."
Peter
**whois** Peter Pasternak
Dinslaken, Germany
BBS: p.pas...@nadeshda.gun.de
Internet: p.pas...@unidui.uni-duisburg.de
Matti Linnanvuori
: >by Finnish Customs that I am not allowed to keep my
: >car here any longer (I have had it here six months) and
: >that I am not allowed to sell it in Finland!
Yuo can keep driving it in Finland, if you pay the Finnish
car registration tax. You can also sell the car, but the registration
tax has to be paid after six months anyway.
: >What kind of customs union is that?
The principles of customs union are not violated, because there are no
import duties for goods from the EU. Car registration tax does not
contradict EU laws as long as it treats all cars from the EU equally.
--
Matti Linnanvuori lin...@snakemail.hut.fi
Scott D. Erb
>
>: adria...@ntc.nokia.com (Adrian Sims) wrote:
>: >by Finnish Customs that I am not allowed to keep my
>: >car here any longer (I have had it here six months) and
>: >that I am not allowed to sell it in Finland!
>
>Yuo can keep driving it in Finland, if you pay the Finnish
>car registration tax. You can also sell the car, but the registration
>tax has to be paid after six months anyway.
Even in the United States, which is much more than a customs union, I had to
re-register and pay taxes on my car when I moved from Minnesota to Maine. I
also had to take a driver's test within a month of the move. If I had not
re-registered my car, I could have been levied large fines.
That's the beauty of federalism -- states are supposed to still have rights
to control a lot of what happens.
-scott
Andrew Taylor
In article <4kdu51$1h...@saturn.caps.maine.edu>, Scott D. Erb (scot...@maine.maine.edu) writes:
Scott,
Re our messaging on the economics of the EU recently, I received
this message (privately)...
>If you want evidence of a substantial kind vs anecdotal from
>an economist refer to the writings of Bill Jamieson of the
>Telegraph - Economics editor., He has spoken to the Bruges
>Group and Freedom Assoc. and visited Sherbourne recently under
>the "Eurofacts" banner. He has also written a book and extensive
>articles all of which show the economic reasons without emotive
>arguments as to why UK plc would prosper outside the EU
>regards
>...
I am going to try to get hold of it as I believe Mr Jamieson wa
san economist before turning to journalism. OK, I know he has
mailed his colours to the mast but the book he has written
might still be interesting to read. :-)
And whilst we are at it, I know you mentioned that my being a
member of the UK Independence party might colour my view, might
not also a ``Mr Erb's'' views be coloured to one particular
countries views as well?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Taylor (Taylor Associates) Download my PGP Key from my URL
E-mail: and...@taylor.co.uk - Tel: +44-956-264270 (24 hrs)
URL: http://www.taylor.co.uk - last updated on 25th Jan 96
UK Agents and Project Managers (See my home page) - London
==========================================================
Richard Wiggett
> Even in the United States, which is much more than a customs
union, I had to
As is the EU.
[branded mit'm Gruenen Punkt and sent to the appropriate location]
> That's the beauty of federalism -- states are supposed to still
have rights
> to control a lot of what happens.
Do you honestly expect the US to switch to centralization (states
--> counties)? Methinks not. Most EU nationalists now agree that the
forthcoming EU nation will be federalized, not centralized. Just
like the USA, the EU is just too big for centralization.
--
Richard M. Wiggett - Netsurfer Extraordinaire - Cardiff, UK, EU
ri...@gerrit.demon.co.uk Fone#: +44 973 848356
----------------------- PHAX#: +44 1222 549878 (5-10pm UK time)
Europa wird eins!
Unknown
>And whilst we are at it, I know you mentioned that my being a
>member of the UK Independence party might colour my view, might
>not also a ``Mr Erb's'' views be coloured to one particular
>countries views as well?
Perhaps. But though I lived in Italy and Germany a short time, I get much of
my European news from "The European," and "The Economist" as well as "Die
Zeit." I personally think my view comes from a basic internationalist
perspective which sees boundaries and nationalisms as artificial social
constructs. It's fine to hold them as cultural artifacts whose traditions
and histories one can learn and appreciate. But to treat a "nation" as
anything more tends to lead to conflict and division. In short, one can have
difference without division. There are no essential differences between
British, Germans, French or Americans. And working together, people can
achieve more. The EU I think is a first step. Then closer working between
the regions. Then the United Federation of Planets, with its flagship
Enterprise led by Captain Jean-Luc Picard...but that's a few hundred years in
the future :)
-scott
Ideologically I guess you could call me a Lennonist (he was a Brit -- note
I'm not saying Leninist)
"You may call me a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one..."
Jean Gundersen
>In article <17...@taylor.co.uk>, and...@taylor.co.uk says...
>Perhaps. But though I lived in Italy and Germany a short time, I get much of
>my European news from "The European," and "The Economist" as well as "Die
>Zeit." I personally think my view comes from a basic internationalist
>perspective which sees boundaries and nationalisms as artificial social
>constructs. It's fine to hold them as cultural artifacts whose traditions
>and histories one can learn and appreciate. But to treat a "nation" as
>anything more tends to lead to conflict and division. In short, one can have
>difference without division. There are no essential differences between
>British, Germans, French or Americans. And working together, people can
>achieve more. The EU I think is a first step. Then closer working between
>the regions. Then the United Federation of Planets, with its flagship
>Enterprise led by Captain Jean-Luc Picard...but that's a few hundred years in
>the future :)
>-scott
>Ideologically I guess you could call me a Lennonist (he was a Brit -- note
>I'm not saying Leninist)
>"You may call me a dreamer
> But I'm not the only one
> I hope someday you'll join us
> And the world will live as one..."
Thank you for giving me a head start today!
I am so glad that there are people out there with similar thoughts as
I have. I was starting to think I was the only one, but as Karel Capek
said:' Nothing is new. Every chessplay have already been done by
somebody."
Please convince the stubborn Norwegians if you can!
Sincerely,
Jean Gundersen
j0g...@tam2k.tamu.edu
Tony Leeson
>>member of the UK Independence party might colour my view, might
>>not also a ``Mr Erb's'' views be coloured to one particular
>>countries views as well?
>
>my European news from "The European," and "The Economist" as well as "Die
>Zeit." I personally think my view comes from a basic internationalist
>perspective which sees boundaries and nationalisms as artificial social
>constructs. It's fine to hold them as cultural artifacts whose traditions
>and histories one can learn and appreciate. But to treat a "nation" as
>anything more tends to lead to conflict and division. In short, one can have
>difference without division. There are no essential differences between
>British, Germans, French or Americans. And working together, people can
>achieve more. The EU I think is a first step. Then closer working between
>the regions. Then the United Federation of Planets, with its flagship
>Enterprise led by Captain Jean-Luc Picard...but that's a few hundred years in
>the future :)
>-scott
>
>Ideologically I guess you could call me a Lennonist (he was a Brit -- note
>I'm not saying Leninist)
>
>"You may call me a dreamer
> But I'm not the only one
> I hope someday you'll join us
> And the world will live as one..."
>
Since Mr Erb has now been beamed up away from the planet perhaps there
can be a better and more realistic discussion in relation to the subject
header.
--
Tony Leeson
Jorma Kyppo
> Perhaps. But though I lived in Italy and Germany a short time, I get much of
> my European news from "The European," and "The Economist" as well as "Die
> Zeit." I personally think my view comes from a basic internationalist
> perspective which sees boundaries and nationalisms as artificial social
> constructs. It's fine to hold them as cultural artifacts whose traditions
> and histories one can learn and appreciate.
Just asking: how do you like to hold them?
Just asking a theoretical question: what do you think about the whales,
mean it is nice to try to save them, but finally ... is it necessary
at all?
> But to treat a "nation" as
> anything more tends to lead to conflict and division.
Actually nice and small states in Europe, like Finland, Austria,
Czech, Belgium, etc.. are not very dangerous in this case.
Dangerous ones are big states or superpowers, that want more power,
because of nationalistic or non nationalistic reasons. I mean such
like France, Germany, Russia, Yugoslavia (local power), EU....
> In short, one can have
> difference without division. There are no essential differences between
> British, Germans, French or Americans.
And now you said it!! "There are no essential differences.."
. between the europides. What can glue EU together is euro-
nationalism. "We, the Europeans are finally same blood...".
> And working together, people can
> achieve more. The EU I think is a first step. Then closer working between
> the regions. Then the United Federation of Planets, with its flagship
> Enterprise led by Captain Jean-Luc Picard...but that's a few hundred years in
> the future :)
Ok. So finally you are not an euronationalist and accept, that also
those "who have essential differences" can join in EU. Or let's
say WU, World Union.
And then what? I suppose, that you also accept, that also Chinese
can decide about European politics. Mean what kind of cars can
be used in Germany or what kind of agriculture Britannia must have?
Naturally in WP, World Parliament, Europe has 5-10% of votes and
Chinese have almost one third..
Or whar kind of structure WU should have? Who would decide and how
much?
And because WU is worldwide, there would not be any more problems
to stardardize telecommunication laws. No more anarchy on internet,
not necessary any more censorfree writ............................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.......as...............ut, that I can't say for sure.
> "You may call me a dreamer
> But I'm not the only one
> I hope someday you'll join us
> And the world will live as one..."
and free like a melody of flue
without EU.....
Jorma Kyppo
Laukaa
jo...@jytko.jyu.fi
Scott Erb
me in other threads. I've been gone for a week or so, and my server doesn't
keep things for more than three or four days)
In article <4l5f5s$7...@mordred.cc.jyu.fi>, jo...@jytko.jyu.fi says...
>Scott Erb (scot...@maine.maine.edu) wrote:
>> It's fine to hold them as cultural artifacts whose traditions
>> and histories one can learn and appreciate.
>Just asking: how do you like to hold them?
>Just asking a theoretical question: what do you think about the whales,
>mean it is nice to try to save them, but finally ... is it necessary
>at all?
Huh? In the U.S. it happens all the time. I have Jewish friends who are
very proud of their traditions. I was just at an ethnic dance festival with
performances of Latvian, Bulgarian and Macedonian dances. There are German
fests all over in the autumn. Families keep up traditions. At Augustana and
St. Olaf Colleges they keep Norwegian heritage alive with even the (to me)
vile yearly lutefisk eating contest. That's the beauty of a
multinational/multicultural society. One doesn't need a state in order to
have traditions.
I have no idea what your question about whales means in this context.
>Actually nice and small states in Europe, like Finland, Austria,
>Czech, Belgium, etc.. are not very dangerous in this case.
>Dangerous ones are big states or superpowers, that want more power,
>because of nationalistic or non nationalistic reasons. I mean such
>like France, Germany, Russia, Yugoslavia (local power), EU....
Danger is not just in states, but in nationalist movements within states as
well as between states (perhaps even between small states such as Hungary and
Romania, etc.) Internationalism is the best solution, and the EU, I think,
should NOT develop as a super state, in my opinion. The choice is NOT simply
between a big EU super power and a bunch of sovereign states of the sort who
have thrown Europe into numerous wars. Neither of those two extremes is
desirable.
>And now you said it!! "There are no essential differences.."
>. between the europides. What can glue EU together is euro-
>nationalism. "We, the Europeans are finally same blood...".
A lot of things are possible, but I think the above certainly is not
desirable nor is it inevitable. I don't even consider it likely.
>Ok. So finally you are not an euronationalist and accept, that also
>those "who have essential differences" can join in EU. Or let's
>say WU, World Union.
>
>And then what? I suppose, that you also accept, that also Chinese
>can decide about European politics. Mean what kind of cars can
>be used in Germany or what kind of agriculture Britannia must have?
>Naturally in WP, World Parliament, Europe has 5-10% of votes and
>Chinese have almost one third..
In another thread I stated that I think the concept of subsidiarity has to be
better developed and defined in a manner to avoid bureaucratic centrism. As
some powers go from the state to a supranational authority, other powers will
go to regions and even individuals. I think the wave of the future will
actually be against bureacratized regulations.
The future can be scary, but the reality is that technology and communication
is bringing us together, and there will be more and more globalized policies.
At the same time, these technologies are increasing individual powers, and
takes away the ability of the state to control. It's a slow process, but I
doubt it'll be reversed. The key is to make it a positive rather than a
negative change. Trying to stop the inevitable is less effective than trying
to adapt and shape the way change occurs.
-scott
Niels Ebbesen
>(First of all, I apologize if I've neglected responding to any responses to
>me in other threads. I've been gone for a week or so, and my server doesn't
>keep things for more than three or four days)
>
>In article <4l5f5s$7...@mordred.cc.jyu.fi>, jo...@jytko.jyu.fi says...
>
>>Scott Erb (scot...@maine.maine.edu) wrote:
>
>>> It's fine to hold them as cultural artifacts whose traditions
>>> and histories one can learn and appreciate.
>
>>Just asking: how do you like to hold them?
>>Just asking a theoretical question: what do you think about the whales,
>>mean it is nice to try to save them, but finally ... is it necessary
>>at all?
>
>Huh? In the U.S. it happens all the time. I have Jewish friends who are
>very proud of their traditions. I was just at an ethnic dance festival with
>performances of Latvian, Bulgarian and Macedonian dances. There are German
>fests all over in the autumn. Families keep up traditions. At Augustana and
>St. Olaf Colleges they keep Norwegian heritage alive with even the (to me)
>vile yearly lutefisk eating contest. That's the beauty of a
>multinational/multicultural society. One doesn't need a state in order to
>have traditions.
>
>
that I have as little in common with a German or a Frenchman as I have with
an American. I certainly do not identify myself with "Europe". When I see
the flag of the European Union I see the flag of an alian occupational power.
Take a look on what happened to former unions such as the Soviet Union and
Youslavia, and you will understand why such heterogenous unions suck. The
closer the different nationalities come to each other the more tensions
the differences are causing.
You cannot compare the situation in Europe with the one in the USA. In the
USA you have a White Anglo Saxon Protestant monoculture. All the immigrants
from various European countries had to adapt to that culture and gradually
become Americans. In Europe there is no common European culture and language,
but rather Germans, French, Danish and so on. There is no European
nationality like there is an American English speaking nationality. I am very
often in the USA, and I become hurt when somebody there call me an European.
"NEB"
--
Henrik Ernoe
I am very
>often in the USA, and I become hurt when somebody there call me an European.
>
>
>"NEB"
>
have the guts to post in his own name, pathetic truely pathetic.
And then, to cover up his cowardly behaviour, he steals the name
of Niels Ebbesen.
Well, what else could one expect from a person who habitually denies Holocaust, lectures on the the Neo-nazioid networks and who ref=
eers to Danish resistence figthers in WWII as "terrorists".
This is typical of rigth wing xenophobes.
Henrik ernoe
Scott D. Erb
>
> I think that you are a naive and ignorant American.
Perhaps. But I've lived in Italy and Germany, have spent time in over twenty
European countries, have a Ph.D. in Political Science with a specialization
in European politics, and have worked in both academia and the government.
> I am Danish and I feel
>that I have as little in common with a German or a Frenchman as I have with
>an American. I certainly do not identify myself with "Europe".
So, I guess that says more about your psychology than anything else. Perhaps
therapy would help.
> When I see
>the flag of the European Union I see the flag of an alian occupational
>power.
Ah, paranoia! I feel sorry for you.
>Take a look on what happened to former unions such as the Soviet Union and
>Youslavia, and you will understand why such heterogenous unions suck.
I suppose the U.S. should send blacks back to Africa too, by your logic? I'm
afraid that if anyone is naive and ignorant, you are. Heterogenity is a
strength if the people involved are intelligent enough to accept difference
without division. That's a challenge, to be sure, but a necessary one. You
can stick your little head in the sand all you want, but the world is going
to keep evolving. And, believe it or not, people are learning to be tolerant
of other cultures, despite your fear of them.
> You cannot compare the situation in Europe with the one in the USA. In the
>USA you have a White Anglo Saxon Protestant monoculture.
LOL! You ARE indeed very, very ignorant.
>I am very
>often in the USA, and I become hurt when somebody there call me an European.
Well, you are a European, like it or not. And your petty fears aren't going
to chance the political development of the European Union. To be sure, I
agree with those who want ot fight against euro-nationalism and make the EU a
superstate rather than a type of federal/confederal union with most powers
remaining in the localities and regions/states.
-scott
Niels Ebbesen
In article <4ll70j$l...@nef.ens.fr>, Henrik Ernoe wrote:
>o...@login.dknet.dk ("Niels Ebbesen") wrote:
>>often in the USA, and I become hurt when somebody there call me an European.
>>
>>
>>
>
>So whats is this "Niels Ebbesen", but Ole Kreidberg who no longer
>have the guts to post in his own name, pathetic truely pathetic.
>And then, to cover up his cowardly behaviour, he steals the name
>of Niels Ebbesen.
The reason why I have taken a pseudonym is that my views on the socalled
European Union coincide with the views of the Danish left wing. I just
think that seeing my real name under those views may embarrass many of
the left-winged Danish EU opponents.
"Niels Ebbesen" is the name of a Danish National hero who in 1340 assinated
the German Count Gerhard the Fourth and thereby prevented Denmark from
being swallowed up by Germany. The period from 1332-40 is regarded the
darkest chapter in Danish history. There was no king and the country was
ruled by the Germans. After the assassination of Gerhard the Germans
retreated and the country was slowly revived.
>
>Well, what else could one expect from a person who habitually denies
>Holocaust, lectures on the the Neo-nazioid networks and who ref=
>eers to Danish resistence figthers in WWII as "terrorists".
>This is typical of rigth wing xenophobes.
>
I am not xenophobic. I just want to preserve the sovereignty of Denmark
like the majority of the Norwegian people want to preserve the sovereignty
of Norway. I do not want to see Denmark become to Germany what Scotland is
to England. I fear the much bigger Germany. Bigger countries have the habit
of swallowing smaller countries. Just take a look on the sad fate of
Scotland, Wales, Corsica, the Basque country, Quebec etc, and you will
understand. I want my government to be in Copenhagen and not in alien
Brussels.
Concerning denial of the socalled holocaust, as long as there are laws in
crazy STASI-Germany and Funny-France prohibiting dissident views on the
established historiography of the fate of the Jews in the German
concentration-camps during WW2, it is of course a great pleasure for me to
deny the holocaust. Germany has even been so impudent as to try to force
the Danish goverment to legislate of what Danish citizens should be
permitted to think about contemporary *German* history. This proves that
Germany already regards Denmark as it's puppetstate. Although only a few
Danes share my views on the holocaust it is a fact that no Danes identify
themselves with German history. The Germans can have their beloved holocaust.
I don't mind. I will not try to take it away from them, but on the other
hand I certainly refuse to share it with them.
"NEB"
--
Niels Ebbesen
In article <4lnrib$1c...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, Scott D. Erb wrote:
>In article <YOBVnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>>
>
>> I think that you are a naive and ignorant American.
>
>Perhaps. But I've lived in Italy and Germany, have spent time in over twenty
>European countries, have a Ph.D. in Political Science with a specialization
>in European politics, and have worked in both academia and the government.
>
>> I am Danish and I feel
>>that I have as little in common with a German or a Frenchman as I have with
>>an American. I certainly do not identify myself with "Europe".
>
>So, I guess that says more about your psychology than anything else. Perhaps
>therapy would help.
Could you please tell me exactly what it is that I have in common with a
Frenchman that I do not have in common with an American? I have been in the
USA for alltogether 10 monthes, and I have stayed for monthes in Australia
as well as I have travelled in almost all European countries and I certainly
feel more at home in the USA and Australia than in Germany and France. The
Germans with their authoritarian herd mentality are as alien to me as the
Chinese and Arabs.
>
>> When I see
>>the flag of the European Union I see the flag of an alian occupational
>>power.
>
>Ah, paranoia! I feel sorry for you.
>
>>Take a look on what happened to former unions such as the Soviet Union and
>>Youslavia, and you will understand why such heterogenous unions suck.
>
>I suppose the U.S. should send blacks back to Africa too, by your logic? I'm
>afraid that if anyone is naive and ignorant, you are. Heterogenity is a
>strength if the people involved are intelligent enough to accept difference
>without division. That's a challenge, to be sure, but a necessary one. You
>can stick your little head in the sand all you want, but the world is going
>to keep evolving. And, believe it or not, people are learning to be tolerant
>of other cultures, despite your fear of them.
Hm, The former Yougoslavia stayed a union for more than 70 years and the
"Yougoslavians" did not learn to be "tolerant". On the contrary as soon as
they got the freedom to express what they really felt for each other, they
immediately started to fight with each other, and the spell of the ugly
union was broken. Take a look on cypruss. Also here the Greeks and Turks
lived together for centuries, and still they never learned to "tolerate"
each others. There are innumerable of similiar examples from the rest of the
world. What do you think of Lebanon, Sri Lanka and Sudan just to mention
a few?
I think that you are a wild-eyed American dreamer and visionary who sits
in his armchair in a remote corner of the USA and fantasize about politics
on distants continents.
>
>> You cannot compare the situation in Europe with the one in the USA. In the
>>USA you have a White Anglo Saxon Protestant monoculture.
>
>LOL! You ARE indeed very, very ignorant.
You are not able to answer my questions or come up with a sensible
commentary. Instead you are desperately uttering political correct smear
such as "ignorance". You pretend to have a lot of knowledge, but you are
not able to answer a simple question. Please try to answer this one. What
benefits have Denmark got from it's membership of the EEC and EU that
non-members such as Norway and Switzerland have not got?
>
>>I am very
>>often in the USA, and I become hurt when somebody there call me an European.
>
>Well, you are a European, like it or not. And your petty fears aren't going
>to chance the political development of the European Union.
You know that the Danish people voted no to the Maasstrict treaty in 1992
and only voted yes with a slight majority in 1993 after 4 four exemptions
were entered. The Danes do not want to become "Europeans" but just want to
benefit from trade cooperation among the European nations. The four Danish
exemptions were:
1. No common citizenship
2. No common central bank
3. No common currency
4. No common military
An opinion poll later showed that 92 per cent did not want common
citizenship. Almost all of the rest was "do not knows". Maybe there will
be some kind of union, but I think it will be without Denmark. I think that
the British people is not too keen either in that respect.
>To be sure, I
>agree with those who want ot fight against euro-nationalism and make the EU a
>superstate rather than a type of federal/confederal union with most powers
>remaining in the localities and regions/states.
This may be your ugly and obnoxiuos dream.
"NEB"
--
Henrik Ernoe
o...@login.dknet.dk ("Niels Ebbesen") wrote:
>In article <4ll70j$l...@nef.ens.fr>, Henrik Ernoe wrote:
>>o...@login.dknet.dk ("Niels Ebbesen") wrote:
HE> he steals the name of Niels Ebbesen.
>The reason why I have taken a pseudonym is that my views on the socalled
>European Union coincide with the views of the Danish left wing. I just
>think that seeing my real name under those views may embarrass many of
>the left-winged Danish EU opponents.
Well, you should be a national embarassment to any decent Dane,
left- or rigth-wing, for or against the EU. What I don`t understand is why people in the socalled "national" anti-immigrantion groups
don`t try to distance themselves from you and people of your ilk.
But that does trow a different ligth on their "patriotism".
>"Niels Ebbesen" is the name of a Danish National hero who in 1340 assinated
>the German Count Gerhard the Fourth and thereby prevented Denmark from
>being swallowed up by Germany.
>>
>>Well, what else could one expect from a person who habitually denies
>>Holocaust, lectures on the the Neo-nazioid networks and who ref=
>>eers to Danish resistence figthers in WWII as "terrorists".
>>This is typical of rigth wing xenophobes.
>>
>
> I am not xenophobic. I just want to preserve the sovereignty of Denmark
>like the majority of the Norwegian people want to preserve the sovereignty
>of Norway.
Not xenophobic!. Thats a joke coming from the person who suggested
that Non-european immigrants and residents in DK should be gathered
in camps on remote Danish islands before being deported to their
country of origin. Or who claims that Germans are inherently undemocratic and the the French inherently bloodthirsty and violent.
As for the use of the "Niels Ebbesen", it is strange to see that
name used by someone who wrote that he "if he had been born
during WWII would have remained neutral during the German
occupation of DK".
What an astounding level of patriotism!!!!
OK: I do not want to see Denmark become to Germany what Scotland is
>to England.
Strange: had you been born during WWII you would not have fougth
the German occupation, and now you are against Denmark losing its independence to Germany.
That is not a very consistent position.
Unless, yes that must be it:
You have no sympaty for the political leadership in todays Germany,
but sympathise with the German leadership in 1940 to 1945.
Since you don`t have the guts to use your own name I suggest you
use one more appropriate: RANE JONSÖN. Now thats a historical person who fits your character.
Henrik Ernoe.
Scott Erb
In article <Y0CWnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
> Hm, The former Yougoslavia stayed a union for more than 70 years and the
>"Yougoslavians" did not learn to be "tolerant". On the contrary as soon as
>they got the freedom to express what they really felt for each other, they
>immediately started to fight with each other, and the spell of the ugly
>union was broken. Take a look on cypruss. Also here the Greeks and Turks
>lived together for centuries, and still they never learned to "tolerate"
>each others. There are innumerable of similiar examples from the rest of the
>world. What do you think of Lebanon, Sri Lanka and Sudan just to mention
>a few?
There are 190 countries in the world, and conflicts exist over economics,
religion, etc. Solving those conflicts requires work and the building of an
understanding that divisions are social constructions to be overcome. A
culture that is homogeneous becomes stagnant and rancid, just like a family
that inbreds becomes stupid. Sure, there are challenges. But for those
dramatic examples there are millions of interactions that take place every
day which don't get reported on the news because they are not dramatic.
Also, I know of Turks and Greeks who get along great together. It's up to
individuals to work one on one to overcome the stupid paranoid unscientific
idiotic frightened and pathetic racism that causes conflict. Racism leads to
things like what happened to Nazi Germany.
> I think that you are a wild-eyed American dreamer and visionary who sits
>in his armchair in a remote corner of the USA and fantasize about politics
>on distants continents.
Perhaps. But I also travel a lot (I'll be in Croatia this summer, for
instance, and went through East Europe last summer). I've also worked in
Washington D.C. on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and learned more
about this stuff than you'll ever know. You're just as silly scared little
boy. Anyway, my life is beautiful, I have friends in cultures and countries
all over the world, and if I am just naive and wild-eyed, well, I'm sure
loving life and enjoying myself this way. And if one has fun in life and
experiences as a beautiful wondrous thing, then that's about all you can hope
for, isn't it?
I've seen from other responses to you that you're just a nazi-sympathizing
scared child, so I doubt it's worth my time to discourse with you. I hope
you learn to look at life through something other than your frightened little
eyes.
leb wohl,
scott
Niels Ebbesen
In article <4m1bud$1a...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, Scott Erb wrote:
>A culture that is homogeneous becomes stagnant and rancid,
Who says so? Do you really believe in that? Denmark was homogeneous for
centuries. Did that make it stagnant and rancid? One of the most
homogeneous countries in the world is Japan which also happens to be
one of the most succesful.
>Perhaps. But I also travel a lot
So did I. I have visited more than 60 different countries in the world,
and I have learned to respect the innate differences among ethnic groups.
The first law of nature is self-preservation, and this law applies to
nations and ethnic groups as well. Furthermore I do not base my views of
the meaning of ethnic differences on nazism but rather on the experience
of history, common sense, logic and the eternal laws of nature. What is
the matter with that?
"NEB"
--
Colin
Scott, my worry is that there seem to be too many people who feel the way the Dane
(olk, right?) does and that in turn makes me fear that cultural tolerance will never be
fully acheived. Yes, I know that sounds a bit pessimistic but when I turned on Euro news
today and saw a bunch of Serbs smashing cars and buses full of muslims visiting their
old homes, I just wanted to cry.
Colin
Scott Erb wrote:
> There are 190 countries in the world, and conflicts exist over economics,
> religion, etc. Solving those conflicts requires work and the building of an
> understanding that divisions are social constructions to be overcome. A
Niels Ebbesen
In article <4lvvvv$6...@nef.ens.fr>, Henrik Ernoe wrote:
>o...@login.dknet.dk ("Niels Ebbesen") wrote:
>
>
>Well, you should be a national embarassment to any decent Dane,
>left- or rigth-wing, for or against the EU. What I don`t understand is why
>people in the socalled "national" anti-immigrantion groups
>don`t try to distance themselves from you and people of your ilk.
>But that does trow a different ligth on their "patriotism".
When Henrik Ernoe lacks good arguments, he turns to mud slinging and
attempts of character assassination.
>>
>> I am not xenophobic. I just want to preserve the sovereignty of Denmark
>>like the majority of the Norwegian people want to preserve the sovereignty
>>of Norway.
>
>Not xenophobic!. Thats a joke coming from the person who suggested
>that Non-european immigrants and residents in DK should be gathered
>in camps on remote Danish islands before being deported to their
>country of origin. Or who claims that Germans are inherently undemocratic
>and the the French inherently bloodthirsty and violent.
Germany (and Austria) is the only country in Europe which still has
political prisoners as well as prisoners of conscience (e.g. people who
refuse to believe in the holocaust). This proves that the Germans have not
changed much during the last 50 years. Behind the thin veneer of Democracy
you find the same "good" old Germans.
Concerning the French. They have passed a law that makes it a thought-crime
to deny _German_ war crimes, while they have no laws against denial of
their own war crimes. In e.g. the Algerian war of liberation against
the French occupation more than 1 million civilian Algerians were
massacred by the French. I have never called the French bloodthirsty. I
just called France the most hypocritical country in the Europe. Concerning
their treatment of people who refuse to believe in the holocaust the French
have a very long tradition of persecution of dissidents. Does the Saint
Bartholomew night massacre on more than 20000 French protestants ring a
bell? Or the execution of nobles and the French king and queen in connection
with the French revolution? I have never said that the French people are
bloodthirsty, but they tend to be rather fanatic and intolerant. The
Germans and the French are through the EU trying to pressure the other
membership countries to copy their wild and obscure laws concerning
dissident views on history and ethnic questions. This is another good
reason for being against the membership of the EU.
>
>As for the use of the "Niels Ebbesen", it is strange to see that
>name used by someone who wrote that he "if he had been born
>during WWII would have remained neutral during the German
>occupation of DK".
>
>What an astounding level of patriotism!!!!
You know very well that the Danish nobles and squires were allied with
Germans when it came to overthrow the unpopular Danish king Christopher
the Second. Not until the Germans became too powerful and threatening
to the sovereignty of Denmark and *the interests of squires and nobles*,
the squire Niels Ebbesen went into action.
>
>OK: I do not want to see Denmark become to Germany what Scotland is
>>to England.
>
>Strange: had you been born during WWII you would not have fougth
>the German occupation, and now you are against Denmark losing its
>independence to Germany.
We have had this discussion before. The German WW2 occupation of Denmark
was made out of military strategical reasons. The Germans did not make
any attempts to annex, nazify or Germanize Denmark, therefore I think that
the armed resistance was unnecessary. All other ways of resistance were
of course fully justified. Any attempts by Hitler to create a united
Europe under German leadership should have been fought from Danish side
with political means and not violence.
"NEB"
--
Henrik Ernoe
>
It is amasing who little the self proclaimed "patriot" Ole kreidberg knows of Danish history. The state of Denmark was never ethically homogeneous:
Before 1814 what is today Denmark was part a twin kingdom and
a double duchy: containing ethic Danes, Holsteiners, Frisians,
Feroese, Norwegians, Greenlanders, Icelanders, Sami and Creole
Virgin Islanders.
Until 1864: Danes, Holsteiners, Frisians, Feroese, Greenlanders, Icelanders, and Creole Virgin Islanders.
Until 1917: Danes, Feroese, Greenlanders, Icelanders, and
Creole Virgin Islanders.
After 1920: Danes, feroese, greenlanders, Icelanders and Germans.
In addition to this Denmark have been home to a high number of immigrants:
Kristian the 4th imported dutch peasants to Amager where the
village of St. Magleby had dutch as church language for 200
years until the end of the 19th century.
Copenhagen had a large influx of askenazi jews from Russia
and eastern europe around 1900, earlier sephardic jews had
settled in Fredericia which was already home to higher number
of french huygenots who had their own french speaking churches
for 150 years before the congregation decided to give up
french because the had become totally assimilated.
The islands of Falster and Lolland had a number of polish
immigrants and seasonal workers in the sugar beet industry.
For some time they formed seperate communities with their own
catholic church, but now they have been absorbed into the Danish population; a fact that anyone can check by looking into a telefone
book for the islands and see the high proportion of polish names.
If there is something to learn from Danish history then it is that
the country have been able to absorb many different kinds of
immigrants.
It is bizarre that "patriots" like Kreidberg have so little faith in Danish culture.
Henrik Ernoe
Scott Erb
In article <318654...@keyworld.net>, col...@keyworld.net says...
>
>Scott, my worry is that there seem to be too many people who feel the way
>the Dane
>(olk, right?) does and that in turn makes me fear that cultural tolerance
>will never be
>fully acheived. Yes, I know that sounds a bit pessimistic but when I turned
>on Euro news
>today and saw a bunch of Serbs smashing cars and buses full of muslims
>visiting their
>old homes, I just wanted to cry.
>
>Colin
Well, I've already come to the sad conclusion that it won't be achieved in my
lifetime. But given growing communication (like the internet), economic
interdependence, and easier transportation, culturals are going to continue
to mix and at times clash. The best I figure we can do is to try our best to
show tolerance (and as a teacher, I try to get students to understand
different cultures and the causes and impact of prejudice and hatred), and
hope that somewhere down the line things slowly get better.
But it may take quite a few more generations, unfortunately.
-scott
Niels Ebbesen
In article <4m7aa1$6...@nef.ens.fr>, Henrik Ernoe wrote:
>o...@login.dknet.dk ("Niels Ebbesen") wrote:
>>In article <4m1bud$1a...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, Scott Erb wrote:
>>
>>>A culture that is homogeneous becomes stagnant and rancid,
>>
>> Who says so? Do you really believe in that? Denmark was homogeneous for centuries.
>
>It is amasing who little the self proclaimed "patriot" Ole kreidberg knows
>of Danish history. The state of Denmark was never ethically homogeneous:
>
>Before 1814 what is today Denmark was part a twin kingdom and
>a double duchy: containing ethic Danes, Holsteiners, Frisians,
>Feroese, Norwegians, Greenlanders, Icelanders, Sami and Creole
>Virgin Islanders.
>
>Until 1864: Danes, Holsteiners, Frisians, Feroese, Greenlanders,
>Icelanders, and Creole Virgin Islanders.
>
>Until 1917: Danes, Feroese, Greenlanders, Icelanders, and
>Creole Virgin Islanders.
>
>After 1920: Danes, feroese, greenlanders, Icelanders and Germans.
>
It is true that Denmark has an imperialist past, but were the
above-mentioned relationships happy? I say no. Have you forgotten about
the wars fought over the duchies of Slesvig-Holsten. In 1848 the German
population in the duchies made rebellion against the Denmark. In 1864 a
regular war broke out between Denmark and Prussia and Austria-Hungary,
because of the discontent of the German population in the duchies.
Norway was for centuries under the Danish crown. The Norwegians remember
this period as the "Danish night". How do the Icelanders remember Danish
imperialism? Or the descendants of the Negro slaves brought to the US Virgin
Islands (Until 1917 the Danish West Indies) by the Danes?
>In addition to this Denmark have been home to a high number of immigrants:
>
The number immigrants was certainly not very high.
>Kristian the 4th imported dutch peasants to Amager where the
>village of St. Magleby had dutch as church language for 200
>years until the end of the 19th century.
The Dutch came as early as in 1518 (that is before Christian the Fourth),
when 184 Dutchmen were allowed to settle on the island of Amager south of
Copenhagen.
>Copenhagen had a large influx of askenazi jews from Russia
>and eastern europe around 1900,
Christian the Fourth permitted the first Jews to settle in Denmark in
1622. Never in the History of Denmark has the Jewish population been
larger than ten thousand
From 1870 to 1921 alltogether 3146 East-European Jews arrived.
>earlier sephardic jews had
>settled in Fredericia which was already home to higher number
>of french huygenots who had their own french speaking churches
>for 150 years before the congregation decided to give up
>french because the had become totally assimilated.
>
>The islands of Falster and Lolland had a number of polish
>immigrants and seasonal workers in the sugar beet industry.
>For some time they formed seperate communities with their own
>catholic church, but now they have been absorbed into the Danish
>population; a fact that anyone can check by looking into a telefone
>book for the islands and see the high proportion of polish names.
>
Of these Poles alltogether 3338 stayed and became Danish citizens.
You forgot to mention about 500 French protestants, who fled from
persecution in France after 1560.
>If there is something to learn from Danish history then it is that
>the country have been able to absorb many different kinds of
>immigrants.
>
I think that there were very few immigrants and the majority of them were
ethnically and culturally very closely related to the Danes.
"NEB"
--
Scott D. Erb
In article <MLKXnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>and I have learned to respect the innate differences among ethnic groups.
>The first law of nature is self-preservation, and this law applies to
>nations and ethnic groups as well.
A couple of points:
1) ethnic differences are not innate, but socially constructed. Furthermore,
social constructs are constantly being reproduced and transformed.
2) there is no law of nature that applies to nations and ethnic groups. Laws
of nature applies only to individuals or a species as a whole. Everything
else is simply the way we choose to get along politically.
>Furthermore I do not base my views of
>the meaning of ethnic differences on nazism but rather on the experience
>of history, common sense, logic and the eternal laws of nature. What is
>the matter with that?
The notion of "eternal laws of nature" is problemmatic. Scholars and
philosophers disagree what "laws of nature" exist, and when it comes to
trying to determine laws involving interactions between groups with socially
constructed differences and identities, those laws are inevitably contingent
on human beliefs. They are not in nature, those laws are themselves
political and social constructs. In any event, the trend I see is for
communication, technology and interdependence to bring people closer together
and increase interactions between different groups. That gives us the
opportunity to overcome fear of the "other" and can recognize that difference
can exist without there having to be division or isolation.
-scott
Ole Kreiberg
In article <4md2ce$t...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, Scott D. Erb wrote:
>In article <MLKXnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>
>>and I have learned to respect the innate differences among ethnic groups.
>>The first law of nature is self-preservation, and this law applies to
>>nations and ethnic groups as well.
>
>A couple of points:
>
>1) ethnic differences are not innate, but socially constructed. Furthermore,
>social constructs are constantly being reproduced and transformed.
Do you really believe in that? I don't. To me this sounds more like
political doctrines, than something that has to do with real science.
>
>2) there is no law of nature that applies to nations and ethnic groups. Laws
>of nature applies only to individuals or a species as a whole. Everything
>else is simply the way we choose to get along politically.
>
>>Furthermore I do not base my views of
>>the meaning of ethnic differences on nazism but rather on the experience
>>of history, common sense, logic and the eternal laws of nature. What is
>>the matter with that?
>
>The notion of "eternal laws of nature" is problemmatic. Scholars and
>philosophers disagree what "laws of nature" exist,
Gee, do they disagree that the law of gravity exists too? :-D
>and when it comes to
>trying to determine laws involving interactions between groups with socially
>constructed differences and identities, those laws are inevitably contingent
>on human beliefs. They are not in nature, those laws are themselves
>political and social constructs.
All political mumbo jumbo.
>In any event, the trend I see is for
>communication, technology and interdependence to bring people closer together
>and increase interactions between different groups. That gives us the
>opportunity to overcome fear of the "other" and can recognize that difference
>can exist without there having to be division or isolation.
All wishful thinking, but very cute.
Your fantasies of a united European superstate or even "one world" are
nothing but castles in the air. By tyranny you may be able to keep such
unnatural monstrosities together the way the Soviet *Union* and the
Yougoslav *Union* were kept together, but only for while. Before or later
they will collaps like the Soviet Union and Yougoslavia did. This is the
way nature works. All that are against nature and her laws have a short
life time. Face it or lose.
Ole Kreiberg
--
Scott D. Erb
In article <WoHZnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>>1) ethnic differences are not innate, but socially constructed.
Furthermore,
>>social constructs are constantly being reproduced and transformed.
>
> Do you really believe in that? I don't. To me this sounds more like
>political doctrines, than something that has to do with real science.
The point is that ethnicity is based on culture, which is a human
construction. It is not based on some 'scientific' truth. Take, for
instance, the differences in Bosnia. From a "scientific" perspective, all
the people there are basically closely related. They are, in a sense,
brothers and sisters. Yet their cultural constructs (caused by having slavs
convert to Islam during the Ottoman era, western slavs adopt Catholicism,
etc.) cause conflict. Ethnic differences are socially constructed, they are
human artifacts. I can't think of any other explanation which is at all
defensible scientifically.
>All political mumbo jumbo.
Or, more likely, its just beyond your comprehension. Perhaps you should
learn a bit about social theory before you call names.
> Your fantasies of a united European superstate or even "one world" are
>nothing but castles in the air.
I have never supported a European superstate, so you are fantasizing about
what my fantasies are.
Face it -- by nature humans are humans, with more in common with another than
different. You are essentially the same as a human of another race, ethnic
group, or culture. Yet we've constructed differences. Those differences are
interesting, exciting to learn about, and fun to experience. They can also
lead ot conflict if people fear difference. You seem to be one who fears
difference, and I feel sorry for you for that. But I'll continue to travel,
teach, make friends across the world, and enjoy the beauty diversity has to
offer. If you wallow in fear that your identity is somehow threatened, I
chuckle at you, and I go on my way with my fun, exciting, and enjoyable life.
-scott
Ole Kreiberg
In article <4mqhr8$1d...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, Scott D. Erb wrote:
>In article <WoHZnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>>
>>In article <4md2ce$t...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, Scott D. Erb wrote:
>
>>>1) ethnic differences are not innate, but socially constructed.
>Furthermore,
>>>social constructs are constantly being reproduced and transformed.
>>
>> Do you really believe in that? I don't. To me this sounds more like
>>political doctrines, than something that has to do with real science.
>
>The point is that ethnicity is based on culture, which is a human
>construction. It is not based on some 'scientific' truth. Take, for
>instance, the differences in Bosnia. From a "scientific" perspective, all
>the people there are basically closely related. They are, in a sense,
>brothers and sisters. Yet their cultural constructs (caused by having slavs
>convert to Islam during the Ottoman era, western slavs adopt Catholicism,
>etc.) cause conflict.
As there are political conflicts which have nothing to do with ethnicity,
there may as well be cultural conflicts between people of the same stock.
This does not exclude the possibilty of true ethnic conflicts. One could say
that a human being is a product of 50 per cent heredity and 50 per cent
enviroment. You can change the enviroment, but you cannot change the
heredity. Therefore the heredity is the most important factor concerning
the long-termed consequences of a multiracial society.
>Ethnic differences are socially constructed, they are
>human artifacts. I can't think of any other explanation which is at all
>defensible scientifically.
>
>>All political mumbo jumbo.
>
>Or, more likely, its just beyond your comprehension. Perhaps you should
>learn a bit about social theory before you call names.
Hey what do you know about my education in the first place? So you believe
in a social theory, and you have a dream of a better world of tomorrow. Is
that what your education has given you?
>
>> Your fantasies of a united European superstate or even "one world" are
>>nothing but castles in the air.
>
>I have never supported a European superstate, so you are fantasizing about
>what my fantasies are.
>
>Face it -- by nature humans are humans, with more in common with another than
>different. You are essentially the same as a human of another race, ethnic
>group, or culture.
The antiracialist allegation of an inborn and natural racial equality is
nothing but a political doctrine based on wishful thinking. To most people
the truth about the racial differences is so compelling obvious that the
burden of proof must lie with those who proclaim the racial equality - not
the other way round.
>Yet we've constructed differences.
Different ethnic groups construct different cultures exactly because they
are inherently different.
>Those differences are
>interesting, exciting to learn about, and fun to experience. They can also
>lead ot conflict if people fear difference.
>You seem to be one who fears difference
I do not fear differences, I rather accept and try to understand the meaning
of them. I know that they are natural, and that I am not able to undo them.
>and I feel sorry for you for that. But I'll continue to travel,
>teach, make friends across the world, and enjoy the beauty diversity has to
>offer. If you wallow in fear that your identity is somehow threatened, I
>chuckle at you, and I go on my way with my fun, exciting, and enjoyable life.
>-scott
>
I can understand that according to your political correct prejudices I
feel fear. I just wonder why you are not using the other political
correct epithets such as "bigot", "hater", "nazi" etc. Maybe you are just
polite. Anyway good luck with all your fantasies and dreams. Please give
them my regards on cloud nine. :-)
OLK
--
Jon Livesey
In article <bRxanOev...@login.dknet.dk>,
Don't forget "paranoiac" and "xenophobe". If you debate much
further you'll get those thrown at you as well, I expect.
I've never quite understood why wanting other people to do
whatever it is they want to do, but leave me out of it, makes me
either a xenophobe or a paranoiac, but no doubt there is a theory
in Social "science" to cover that as well.
jon.
Scott Erb
In article <bRxanOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
> As there are political conflicts which have nothing to do with ethnicity,
>there may as well be cultural conflicts between people of the same stock.
Except, of course, there is no such thing as "people of the same stock." Any
biologist can tell you that such a concept is invalid. Heredity is also a
non-factor when talking about cultural and societal traits. The traits
inherited are individual. Again, take a basic course in genetics and
biology.
> Hey what do you know about my education in the first place?
Only that you are positing positions which are scientifically invalid, and
based apparently more on prejudice and opinion than any research. Either
you've had a poor education, or you've chosen to ignore it.
> So you believe
>in a social theory, and you have a dream of a better world of tomorrow. Is
>that what your education has given you?
I'm reasonably sure we have the capacity of building a better world. That
isn't from my education; my education has just helped me determine what means
are best able to try to achieve that goal.
> The antiracialist allegation of an inborn and natural racial equality is
>nothing but a political doctrine based on wishful thinking.
No, it is SCIENTIFIC FACT! Of course, you apparently have contempt for
science, since it doesn't adhere to your prejudices and fears. The genetic
differences causing hair and eye color difference are as great as those
causing skin color difference. But as a species humans are so completely
similar to each other genetically that it makes no scientific sense to speak
of racial differences.
> Different ethnic groups construct different cultures exactly because they
>are inherently different.
Nope, you are wrong again. Take some courses in biology, genetics,
sociology, etc.
> I can understand that according to your political correct prejudices I
>feel fear. I just wonder why you are not using the other political
>correct epithets such as "bigot", "hater", "nazi" etc. Maybe you are just
>polite. Anyway good luck with all your fantasies and dreams. Please give
>them my regards on cloud nine. :-)
The world moves slowly, and I don't expect the world to become anything much
better in my lifetime. But little by little things change, and I've learned
in my experiences traveling and studying with people from Mongolia, Nepal,
Sri Lanka, Turkey, Russia, Mexico, etc., that deep down humans are basically
the same. We have the same emotional make up, the same capacity for
friendship and love, the same innate concern for each other when fear doesn't
get in the way, and the same ability to both have fun and get angry. We've
constructed a world where fears and beliefs that the "other" is some how
"strange" or "different" has helped create violence and hate. And that will
take a long time to change, probably generations.
But humans have a short history so far. We're still learning. I think you
should at least think about why it is you are so opposed to
"multiculturalism" as you call it. In an interdependent world of quicker
communication and transportation, it's the wave of the future. Perhaps if
you examined it with an open mind you'd find it's not as bad as you think.
-scott
Scott Erb
In article <4n0tlb$s...@fido.asd.sgi.com>, liv...@pirate.engr.sgi.com says...
>Don't forget "paranoiac" and "xenophobe". If you debate much
>further you'll get those thrown at you as well, I expect.
>
>I've never quite understood why wanting other people to do
>whatever it is they want to do, but leave me out of it, makes me
>either a xenophobe or a paranoiac, but no doubt there is a theory
>in Social "science" to cover that as well.
>
>jon.
Er, Jon, are you sure you want to join forces with Ole on this one, since he
has stated clearly he believes that racism is a legitimate form of political
ideology. I just want to understand clearly your position -- would you, like
him, support policies based on racism?
To be sure, if you have those beliefs, you should, like Ole, state them. Its
much better if people state their true beliefs rather than get intimidated by
political correctness. Those of us who disagree with those views will, of
course, be free to respond strongly. C'est la politique.
But I haven't yet seen you use racism to support your anti-EU position, Jon.
Perhaps you were just too quick to embrace Ole here. So I'll let you state
more clearly the ideological rationale behind your position.
-scott
Jon Livesey
In article <4n2c53$11...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In article <4n0tlb$s...@fido.asd.sgi.com>, liv...@pirate.engr.sgi.com says...
>
>>Don't forget "paranoiac" and "xenophobe". If you debate much
>>further you'll get those thrown at you as well, I expect.
>>
>>I've never quite understood why wanting other people to do
>>whatever it is they want to do, but leave me out of it, makes me
>>either a xenophobe or a paranoiac, but no doubt there is a theory
>>in Social "science" to cover that as well.
>>
>>jon.
>
> Er, Jon, are you sure you want to join forces with Ole on this one, since he
> has stated clearly he believes that racism is a legitimate form of political
> ideology. I just want to understand clearly your position -- would you, like
> him, support policies based on racism?
I never "join forces" with other posters. I never adopt a
position I disagree with simply because someone pushing that
position has agreed with me on some other issue.
I think I ought to caution you about setting up a smear campaign
based on guilt by association. However desperate you may be to
smear me, it's a very bad idea indeed. If you turn this
newsgroup into a series of "Do you realise that you just agreed
with someone who has previously expressed racist views" accusations
then I will simply unsubscribe.
Is that perfectly clear?
And, as a clear answer to your McCarthy-style question, no, I do
not now, nor have I ever, supported policies based on racism.
And no, I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the
Communist Party.
jon.
Jens S. Larsen
On Fri, 10 May 1996, Ole Kreiberg wrote:
[crap]
> You can change the enviroment, but you cannot change the
> heredity.
You can't keep heredity unchanged either. Each parent contributes
only 50% genes to each of their children.
[more crap]
[Scott Erb]>Those differences are
> >interesting, exciting to learn about, and fun to experience. They can also
> >lead ot conflict if people fear difference.
> >You seem to be one who fears difference
> I do not fear differences, I rather accept and try to understand the meaning
> of them. I know that they are natural, and that I am not able to undo them.
But can you enjoy them?
Could you imagine kissing an African girl, for instance?
Come to think of it, could you imagine kissing anyone?
[...]
--
*************************************************************
* Jens Stengaard Larsen * Esperanto parolata *
* studerende ved * English spoken *
* Institut for Almen og * Deutsch wird gesprochen *
* Anvendt Sprogvidenskab, * Dansk tåles *
* Københavns Universitet * Francaix est massacré *
*************************************************************
Ole Kreiberg
In article <Pine.SOL.3.93.960514142827.20064B-100000@rask>, Jens S. Larsen wrote:
>Could you imagine kissing an African girl, for instance?
No.
OLK
--
Scott D. Erb
In article <drccnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
I couldn't imagine Ole kissing an African woman either.
I think as he approached them they would get sick to their stomach at the
thought of actually making lip contact. ;)
To those who understand that race makes no difference scientifically and
genetically, and that our common humanity unites us, love rather than skin
color and geographical place of origin is what would lead us to kiss or marry
or have children. It's nice to see that her in the U.S. there are more
"mixed" marriages and friendships. People are slowly overcoming the "fear of
the other" that has caused wars, concentration camps, and the like.
-scott
Ole Kreiberg
In article <4ni491$b...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, Scott D. Erb wrote:
>In article <drccnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>>
>>In article <Pine.SOL.3.93.960514142827.20064B-100000@rask>, Jens S. Larsen
>wrote:
>>
>>>Could you imagine kissing an African girl, for instance?
>>
>>No.
>
>I couldn't imagine Ole kissing an African woman either.
>
>I think as he approached them they would get sick to their stomach at the
>thought of actually making lip contact. ;)
I would be happy if they find it as repulsive and unnatural as I do. To me
sex with other races is as unnatural as sex with other men.
>
>To those who understand that race makes no difference scientifically and
>genetically, and that our common humanity unites us, love rather than skin
>color and geographical place of origin is what would lead us to kiss or marry
>or have children.
>
How sweet. I used to believe in all that mumbo jumbo, when I was younger.
Today I no longer believe in it. It is all political doctrines based on
wishful thinking about how the world should be. Sweet dreams and nothing
else.
OLK
--
Scott Erb
In article <LRUdnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>>To those who understand that race makes no difference scientifically and
>>genetically, and that our common humanity unites us, love rather than skin
>>color and geographical place of origin is what would lead us to kiss or
marry
>>or have children.
>>
> How sweet. I used to believe in all that mumbo jumbo, when I was younger.
>Today I no longer believe in it. It is all political doctrines based on
>wishful thinking about how the world should be. Sweet dreams and nothing
>else.
So you prefer to believe in something that is totally contrary to scientific
understanding.
That defies logic.
Because something sounds to you like "wishful thinking", then you think it
should not believed? Instead someone should, like you, deny science and
ethics and instead, for no reason other than your own fear and prejudices,
embrace an illogical unscientific ideology?
You are really strange. The mumbo jumbo you believe in has been shown
obviously false, misguided, and unscientific. Yet you believe it because it
fits in your little hatreds and prejudices. Ah well, you can have your own
little fantasy I guess.
The rest of us will deal with reality.
-scott
Ole Kreiberg
In article <4nqnli$1b...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, Scott Erb wrote:
>In article <LRUdnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>
>>>To those who understand that race makes no difference scientifically and
>>>genetically, and that our common humanity unites us, love rather than skin
>>>color and geographical place of origin is what would lead us to kiss or
>marry
>>>or have children.
>>>
>> How sweet. I used to believe in all that mumbo jumbo, when I was younger.
>>Today I no longer believe in it. It is all political doctrines based on
>>wishful thinking about how the world should be. Sweet dreams and nothing
>>else.
>
>So you prefer to believe in something that is totally contrary to scientific
>understanding.
You say that the meaning of the inherent racial differences are not
proved scientifically. Well neither is it proved that there are no other
racial differences than the visible. The fact is that science does not
know much about this subject. Like 600 hundred years ago science believed
that the Earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around it. This was
ignorance. It is the same when science speaks of racial differences. It
speaks out of ignorance or insufficient knowledge of the subject.
>Because something sounds to you like "wishful thinking", then you think it
>should not believed? Instead someone should, like you, deny science and
>ethics and instead, for no reason other than your own fear and prejudices,
>embrace an illogical unscientific ideology?
My views on the meaning of the racial differences are based on the
experience of history, common sense, logic and the eternal laws of
nature.
The first law of nature is self-preservation. This law also applies to
nations and ethnic groups.
>
>You are really strange. The mumbo jumbo you believe in has been shown
>obviously false, misguided, and unscientific.
Yes according to your political correct prejudices it is so.
>Yet you believe it because it
>fits in your little hatreds and prejudices. Ah well, you can have your own
>little fantasy I guess.
>
I do not believe, I rather confront reality. And I never try to repress
something, just because it may not fit into my perfect little dreamworld.
>The rest of us will deal with reality.
I think that you will rather keep on dreaming your political correct sweet
dreams which you are obviously not able to distinguish from reality.
OLK
---
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is
assumed all right-thinking people will accepet without question. It is not
exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
... Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced
with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost
never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow
periodicals." - George Orwell
--
Scott Erb
In article <XkYenOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>
> You say that the meaning of the inherent racial differences are not
>proved scientifically. Well neither is it proved that there are no other
>racial differences than the visible.
Wrong. I think you need to take a course that looks at modern genetics. The
genetic differences that account for race are so insignificant that they are
not considered enough to create any biological classification. You may as
well be avoiding people of different hair or eye color for what it's worth.
Why must you display your ignorance of science to the world?
> My views on the meaning of the racial differences are based on the
>experience of history, common sense, logic and the eternal laws of
>nature.
Hogwash. "Common sense" is the basis of my belief too. The experience of
history and my personal experience shows me that people not only can get
along, but cultures and friendships are better if there is a variety of
different views and customs. Finally, you use the "eternal laws of nature"
here like some religious mantra. Ironic, since your belief in eternal laws
not only has no basis in science, but is contradicted by science.
Face it, you are wrong. You are simply trying to rationalize your fears and
prejudices.
>Yes according to your political correct prejudices it is so.
...ah, yes, everyone who disagrees with you, you label "politically correct."
A rather empty insult, I'm afraid. Is that the best you can do?
-scott
Ole Kreiberg
In article <4nttmh$12...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, Scott Erb wrote:
>In article <XkYenOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>>
>
>> You say that the meaning of the inherent racial differences are not
>>proved scientifically. Well neither is it proved that there are no other
>>racial differences than the visible.
>
>Wrong. I think you need to take a course that looks at modern genetics. The
>genetic differences that account for race are so insignificant that they are
>not considered enough to create any biological classification. You may as
>well be avoiding people of different hair or eye color for what it's worth.
It is true that modern genetics claims that all human races share
mostly the same genes. However it also claims that 98 per cent of
the genes of chimpanzees and humans are the same. (What about some
affirmative action in favour of those poor downtrodden chimpanzees :-) )
>
>Why must you display your ignorance of science to the world?
Please let me quote the American scientist Carleton S Coon, (now retired
I guess) Professor of Anthropology at Harvard and at the University of
Pennsylvania, curator of ethnology at the University Museum in
Philadelphia, past President of the American Association of Physical
Anthropology. In the course of writing his The Story of Man, which has
been translated into at least eight languages, he said:
"More serious are the activities of the academic debunkers and soft-
pedalers who operate inside anthropology itself. Basing their ideas on
the concept of the brotherhood of man, certain writers, who are mostly
social anthropologists, consider it immoral to study race, and produce
book after book exposing it as a "myth". Their argument is that because
the study of race once gave ammunition to racial fascists, we should
pretend that races do not exist.... These writers are not physical
anthropologists, but the public does not know the difference."
>...ah, yes, everyone who disagrees with you, you label "politically correct."
> A rather empty insult, I'm afraid. Is that the best you can do?
Thus spoke Scott Erb, Ph.d in political correctness :-)
OLK
---
In the view of the terrifying chaos which prevails in the wake of present
day applications of current racial theories both in America and elsewhere
around the world, it has become morally mandatory that the still uninvolved
men of good intentions and normal intelligence overcome their aversion
and reassume responsibility for their own society. The obvious place to
begin their new involvement will be with a reexamination of those theories
being thus applied to the practical situations of man's relationship to
man. - William Flax
The confusion, conflict and frustration in our management of minority
problems derives largely from a refusal to face and discuss certain facts
and realities on which intellectual progress toward workable solution
depends. - George A. Lundberg
A solution to these problems must be found, but it will never be obtained
from falsification of the facts of heredity and racial history.
- Robert Gayre
The truth, to be sure is sometimes hard to grasp, but it is never so
elusive as when it is not wanted. - Herman H. Dinsmore
--
The Eagle
k:>
Organization: Alternative Network Generation
Distribution:
Ole Kreiberg (o...@login.dknet.dk) wrote:
: Well neither is it proved that there are no other
: racial differences than the visible.
Eh! I must disagree. My girlfriend is black and I can vouch that she is
inherently human just as I am. She has intelligence, she has emotion, she
can love. Just as I can.
: that the Earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around it. This was
: ignorance. It is the same when science speaks of racial differences. It
: speaks out of ignorance or insufficient knowledge of the subject.
Six hundred years ago we were all very ignorant about the reality that we
are all human, no matter what "race" or "ethnic group" we may be. We all
came from one source and we are all one race -- the human race.
I would think that things would improve in six hundred years.
: My views on the meaning of the racial differences are based on the
: experience of history, common sense, logic and the eternal laws of
: nature.
History must be interpeted. Common sense must be learned. Logic must be
learned. Eternal laws must be learned. And yet, you did not learn how to
multiply numbers right away. It took you some time to learn. Surely it
is reasonable to assume that you might have overlooked something - that
you may simply be wrong about your conclusions? The day that you assume
that you know everything and are perfect in knowlege is the day that you
are flat-out wrong!
: The first law of nature is self-preservation. This law also applies to
: nations and ethnic groups.
I just have to say this: prove it.
: Yes according to your political correct prejudices it is so.
If you were blind, or even color-blind, would you think there are any
races? Any differnce that there is to a blind man is what the true
differnce is. A blind man knows there is no differnce -- a black or asian
man can be kind just as a white man can -- thus he knows that we are all
human inside. And that is what matters.
It is foolish to chase after hard-to-define racial groups. Your life is
short. We all die and rot away sometime. Make some good of it.
: I think that you will rather keep on dreaming your political correct sweet
: dreams which you are obviously not able to distinguish from reality.
Look, stop the snide remarks and do some proving. If you say that this
can be proven - if you say there are ways to show that you are right --
then for God's sake DO IT!
: "At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is
: assumed all right-thinking people will accepet without question. It is not
: exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
: ... Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced
: with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost
: never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow
: periodicals." - George Orwell
I wish the Nazis had considered this before commited atrocities.
--
The Eagle
ea...@altie.org
http://www.altie.org/~eagle
Finger for PGP Public Key
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not
have, nor do they deserve, either one." -- Thomas Jefferson
Ole Kreiberg
In article <4oofbm$4...@news.corpcomm.net>, The Eagle wrote:
>k:>
>Organization: Alternative Network Generation
>Distribution:
>
>Ole Kreiberg (o...@login.dknet.dk) wrote:
>
>: Well neither is it proved that there are no other
>: racial differences than the visible.
>
>Eh! I must disagree. My girlfriend is black and I can vouch that she is
>inherently human just as I am. She has intelligence, she has emotion, she
>can love. Just as I can.
Have I ever claimed that negroes are not human?
>
>: that the Earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around it. This was
>: ignorance. It is the same when science speaks of racial differences. It
>: speaks out of ignorance or insufficient knowledge of the subject.
>
>Six hundred years ago we were all very ignorant about the reality that we
>are all human, no matter what "race" or "ethnic group" we may be. We all
>came from one source and we are all one race -- the human race.
A sweet political doctrine and belief. Yeah I think that a lot of people
wish it was that way.
>
>
>If you were blind, or even color-blind, would you think there are any
>races? Any differnce that there is to a blind man is what the true
>differnce is.
>A blind man knows there is no differnce -- a black or asian
>man can be kind just as a white man can -- thus he knows that we are all
>human inside. And that is what matters.
Studies in the USA have proved that blind people perceive and understand
the reality of human races.
OLK
--
Scott Erb
In article <0lBjnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>>Six hundred years ago we were all very ignorant about the reality that we
>>are all human, no matter what "race" or "ethnic group" we may be. We all
>>came from one source and we are all one race -- the human race.
>
>A sweet political doctrine and belief. Yeah I think that a lot of people
>wish it was that way.
Odd, Ole.
Everytime everyone states something like the above, you think that by calling
it "sweet" or "wishful thinking," you are denying that it is real. You are
not. Instead you are betraying your own orthodoxy which seems based on
bitterness. Apparently, to you something that's sweet and beautiful is
something bad, needing to be avoided. Apparently you believe that trying to
improve the world by spreading tolerance and kindness is somehow untrue
because your orthodoxy defines any sort of belief like that to be naive.
Sad, that you must go through life that way. C'est la vie.
Remember: race is not a scientific concept. Even if it were, the species
would be strengthened by variety and mixing, not by inbreeding. But it
isn't, so any such arguments are irrelevant. (Still, even if you were right,
your position would lose!) Interdependent economies, communication, travel,
etc., is mixing with enlightenment and learning to make your views ever more
irrelevant and obsolete. Face it, you're an anachronism.
-scott
Ole Kreiberg
In article <4p2md3$15...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, Scott Erb wrote:
>In article <0lBjnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>
>>>Six hundred years ago we were all very ignorant about the reality that we
>>>are all human, no matter what "race" or "ethnic group" we may be. We all
>>>came from one source and we are all one race -- the human race.
>>
>>A sweet political doctrine and belief. Yeah I think that a lot of people
>>wish it was that way.
>
>Odd, Ole.
>
>Everytime everyone states something like the above, you think that by
>calling it "sweet" or "wishful thinking," you are denying that it is real.
Reality is that human beings are not equal from nature, neither races nor
the individuals within the same race. That is the way things are in real
life whether you like or not.
>You are not. Instead you are betraying your own orthodoxy which seems
>based on bitterness.
^^^^^^^^^^
Bitterness??? Because I refuse to believe that it is possible to remove
the inherent very real and obvious racial differences by "progress", mumbo
jumbo about equality, human kindness or whatever, I am supposed to be bitter.
Why would I be bitter? I just accept things as they really are and do
not waste my life on dreaming or trying to realize some far fetched visions.
>Apparently, to you something that's sweet and
>beautiful is something bad, needing to be avoided. Apparently you believe
>that trying to improve the world by spreading tolerance and kindness is
>somehow untrue because your orthodoxy defines any sort of belief like that
>to be naive.
>
>Sad, that you must go through life that way. C'est la vie.
>
>Remember: race is not a scientific concept.
Hey, who says so. Some scientists say so and others don't.
>Even if it were, the species
>would be strengthened by variety and mixing, not by inbreeding.
This racial theory is your own, I presume. There are million of
people in each racial group, and there is therefore hardly any danger of
inbreeding.
>But it
>isn't, so any such arguments are irrelevant. (Still, even if you were right,
>your position would lose!) Interdependent economies, communication, travel,
>etc., is mixing with enlightenment and learning to make your views ever more
>irrelevant and obsolete. Face it, you're an anachronism.
Oh, you are one of those members of the Jet-set with all the fashion-right
opinions.
OLK
--
Ole Kreiberg
You may wonder what the discussion of race has to do with the European
Union. However the European Union has issued a directive in order to
control the thoughts of the citizens of the Union concerning race.
Furthermore on the 19th March this year the ministers of justice and
internal affairs agreed on a common action against those citizens who
express views which deviate from those guidelines dictated by the
European Union. The European Union has dictated that all citizens
must believe in the multi-ethnic society or go to prison. Dissident views
on atrocities commited by the Germans during WW2 will not be tolerated
either. All citizens are ordered to believe in the holocaust.
OLK
--
Scott Erb
In article <0IhjnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
. The European Union has dictated that all citizens
>must believe in the multi-ethnic society or go to prison.
Liar.
Ole Kreiberg
In article <4p6j33$o...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, Scott Erb wrote:
>In article <0IhjnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>>must believe in the multi-ethnic society or go to prison.
>
>Liar.
>
national parliaments have so far been unable to make such legislation,
because it would be against the national constitutions and the political
traditions.
OLK
--
Bruno Chanal
Ole Kreiberg wrote:
>
> You may wonder what the discussion of race has to do with the European
> Union. However the European Union has issued a directive in order to
> control the thoughts of the citizens of the Union concerning race.
Let me know the practical details on the methods used to "control
thoughts". I could have some uses for them... *grin*
Is there a way I can control your thoughts and make you believe that you
are surrounded by nasty aliens and the only way to save your soul is to
move to the South Pole?
Bruno.
Robert Smith
o...@login.dknet.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
> You may wonder what the discussion of race has to do with the European
>Union. However the European Union has issued a directive in order to
>control the thoughts of the citizens of the Union concerning race.
>Furthermore on the 19th March this year the ministers of justice and
>internal affairs agreed on a common action against those citizens who
>express views which deviate from those guidelines dictated by the
>European Union. The European Union has dictated that all citizens
>must believe in the multi-ethnic society or go to prison. Dissident views
>on atrocities commited by the Germans during WW2 will not be tolerated
>either. All citizens are ordered to believe in the holocaust.
If this is true then the European Union in which I passionately
believe is wrong on this point and we should all campaign to have the
law recinded. You cannot order people what to think, especially
Europeans. My mind is my own.
>
>OLK
>--
====================================================
Robert Smith A Europe for all its Peoples
rik...@dircon.co.uk England- The Other UK Nation
====================================================
C:DEMONSPOOLMAIL
In article: <0IhjnOev...@login.dknet.dk> o...@login.dknet.dk (Ole Kreiberg) writes:
>
> You may wonder what the discussion of race has to do with the European
> Union. However the European Union has issued a directive in order to
> control the thoughts of the citizens of the Union concerning race.
They are not controlling the people, but they are controlling the system.
Please try to understand the difference.
> Furthermore on the 19th March this year the ministers of justice and
> internal affairs agreed on a common action against those citizens who
> express views which deviate from those guidelines dictated by the
> European Union. The European Union has dictated that all citizens
> must believe in the multi-ethnic society or go to prison. Dissident views
> on atrocities commited by the Germans during WW2 will not be tolerated
> either. All citizens are ordered to believe in the holocaust.
Ever considered that it just might have happened? You are calling a lot
of people in the world liars by your statements.
They have not said that WE must belive in the Holocaust, that they leave
up to you. What they have said is that THE SYSTEM believes in it, and
therefore we must respect that belief.
Before further argumenting, could you give us the complete story? WHAT do
they say, WHO says it? (Prefareble in the original wordings...)
Over lyngen,
____________________________________________________________
"Life is not a mystery to solve, but a puzzle to play"
____________________________________________________________
Alexander Johannesen (alex...@intelsec.demon.co.uk)
Tim
Does anyone know if Sweden has passed legislation to allow Swedish
citizenship to grandchildren of Swedes?
Sincerely,
Tim
Ole Kreiberg
In article <31B988...@compuserve.com>, Bruno Chanal wrote:
>Ole Kreiberg wrote:
>>
>> You may wonder what the discussion of race has to do with the European
>> Union. However the European Union has issued a directive in order to
>> control the thoughts of the citizens of the Union concerning race.
>
>thoughts". I could have some uses for them... *grin*
>
lines" is instructed to the massmedia. Through the regimentation of the
massmedia in favour of the multiethnic society and multiracialism is
thoughts of the citizens to be conrolled. Do the words indoctrination and
brainwashing ring a bell.
OLK
--
Johan Olofsson
In article <31BBE9...@monmouth.com>
Tim <tva...@monmouth.com> writes:
> Does anyone know if Sweden has passed legislation to allow Swedish
> citizenship to grandchildren of Swedes?
No, why should we?
You meen some equivalent to the German policy of granting residence
permit and citizenship to anyone who claim to have German blood in
his/her veins ???
Has anything like that been proposed?
I've lived in the illusion that the Swedish rules to grant citizenship are
fairly liberal compared to neighboring countries - but then of course that's
for people who have lived in the country for the last years, and not for
aliens living abroad.
Regards!
Johan
--
e-mail: j...@lysator.liu.se
s-mail: Majeldsvägen 8a, 582 63 LINKÖPING, Sweden
S.W.
Tim <tva...@monmouth.com> wrote:
=>Does anyone know if Sweden has passed legislation to allow Swedish
=>citizenship to grandchildren of Swedes?
There is no such law, and AFAIK there are no plans for it either. Swedish
citizenship is given to the children of Swedish citizens, and to those
legal aliens who have lived in Sweden for a certain number of years.
--
S.Wendel
wen...@algonet.se
wen...@kuai.se
http://www.kuai.se/~wendel/
Tim
> Tim <tva...@monmouth.com> writes:
>
> Does anyone know if Sweden has passed legislation to allow Swedish
> Johan Olofsson wrote:
> No, why should we?
> Regards!
>
> Johan
Well Johan, if the papers are correct they say that Sweden has many, many
immigrants arriving who themselves are not related to Swede's and have no
other connection to the Swedish culture other than they would like to
come to a safe country where crime is low and where college and medical
care is guaranteed. Would you agree? Remember, most of the world is
somewhat crueler and harder than Sweden.
There are probably a billion people who would love to have guaranteed
medica and college, no matter where they have to travel to get it. The
real problem seems to be, that they cannot, or will not, create this
within their own countries. It is hard to create, it is much easier
to "go get from someone else". This is likened to a Swedish hard-worker
in a forest cutting down trees and working very hard to build a nice,
strong house for his family to live in. Another man bothers not to cut
down trees and he does not build a house. He lays around, perhaps smoking
drugs like Ghanja weed and he focuses all his time on having sex with
different girls, perhaps he lies and steals too. He has no house because
he didn't spend time building a house. Building a house is complicated,
and poor morals stop a person from doing complicated things.
When it rains or gets cold out, he then wants to go live at the safe
house built by the Swedish hard-worker. The two men are from different
cultures, they speak different languages, they follow totally different
rules and laws, and they have different morals. The Swedish hard-worker
does have an extra shed someone can live in, but should he let the
non-Swede live there who is of such a different culture? Or should he be
more inclined to allow a fellow Swede to live in the shed, someone who
already shares the same basic values and beliefs, a common religion and
the same basic morals as he?
Let us vote.
I say the Swedish hard-worker allows the fellow Swede to live in Sweden.
*********
Because we love our own culture doesn't mean we have to hate anybody
else's culture. In fact, the more we treasure and respect our own culture
the more we respect other cultures when we come across them. Respect all
cultures, including your own.
Model Castles at http://www.monmouth.com/~tvawter/caslist.htm
Foundation for Health Services Research
Tim <tva...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>Well Johan, if the papers are correct they say that Sweden has many, many
>immigrants arriving who themselves are not related to Swede's and have no
>other connection to the Swedish culture other than they would like to
>come to a safe country where crime is low and where college and medical
>care is guaranteed. Would you agree? Remember, most of the world is
>somewhat crueler and harder than Sweden.
I am not Swedish, secunda only, a fact I sometimes regret, sometimes not.
However: Some of my relatives are the laziest people I know. That does not
vary.
>There are probably a billion people who would love to have guaranteed
>medica and college, no matter where they have to travel to get it. The
>real problem seems to be, that they cannot, or will not, create this
>within their own countries. It is hard to create, it is much easier
>to "go get from someone else". This is likened to a Swedish hard-worker
>in a forest cutting down trees and working very hard to build a nice,
>strong house for his family to live in. Another man bothers not to cut
>down trees and he does not build a house. He lays around, perhaps smoking
>drugs like Ghanja weed and he focuses all his time on having sex with
>different girls, perhaps he lies and steals too. He has no house because
>he didn't spend time building a house. Building a house is complicated,
>and poor morals stop a person from doing complicated things.
>
>When it rains or gets cold out, he then wants to go live at the safe
>house built by the Swedish hard-worker. The two men are from different
>cultures, they speak different languages, they follow totally different
>rules and laws, and they have different morals. The Swedish hard-worker
>does have an extra shed someone can live in, but should he let the
>non-Swede live there who is of such a different culture? Or should he be
>more inclined to allow a fellow Swede to live in the shed, someone who
>already shares the same basic values and beliefs, a common religion and
>the same basic morals as he?
I wish you could repeat your argument, Tim (or Chris? Veronica?). The
complex richness off your thinking deserves to be laid out in more detail.
The character base for this educational parable, would that have been three
little pigs?
>Let us vote.
>
>I say the Swedish hard-worker allows the fellow Swede to live in Sweden.
Are you registered as a Swedish voter?
>*********
>Because we love our own culture doesn't mean we have to hate anybody
>else's culture. In fact, the more we treasure and respect our own culture
>the more we respect other cultures when we come across them. Respect all
>cultures, including your own.
Worshipping one's own grandeur, on the other hand, has always meant other
people's suffering. In the real world, not Zaratustra's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arne Kolstad e-mail: hel...@oslonett.no
Scientific Researcher Telephone: +47 67929458
Foundation for Health Services Research Fax: +47 67929469
Johan Olofsson
Tue, 11 Jun 1996 01:52:46 Tim <tva...@monmouth.com> writes:
> Well Johan, if the papers are correct they say that Sweden has many, many
> immigrants arriving who themselves are not related to Swede's and have no
> other connection to the Swedish culture other than they would like to
> come to a safe country where crime is low and where college and medical
> care is guaranteed. Would you agree? Remember, most of the world is
> somewhat crueler and harder than Sweden.
12% first generation immigrants, arrived since 1940.
A third of them from the Nordic countries, a third as refugees in the last
25 years, and the rest as refugees from countries with internal violence
or poverty at a time when the Swedish industry was very grateful for the
addition of workers.
From http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/Jfaq.html I quote:
Since 1945 over 900'000 immigrants have settled in Sweden. Only the last ten
years 293'000 refugees have applied for asylum in Sweden. Over 200'000 of
them have been granted permanent residence permit.
If the 1,8% Finnish 1:st generation economic immigrants of the last 50 years
should be given certain rights, then why not also the people born in
* Yugoslavia (1,3%)
* Iran (0,6%)
* Norway (0,6%)
* Denmark (0,5%)
* Poland (0,5%)
* Germany (0,4%)
* Turkey (0,4%)
* Chile (0,3%)
* ex-USSR (0,3%)
* Lebanon (0,3%)
* Iraq (0,2%)
* Hungary (0,17%)
* and in the USA (0,17%)
>
> There are probably a billion people who would love to have guaranteed
> medica and college, no matter where they have to travel to get it. The
> real problem seems to be, that they cannot, or will not, create this
> within their own countries. It is hard to create, it is much easier
> to "go get from someone else". This is likened to a Swedish hard-worker
> in a forest cutting down trees and working very hard to build a nice,
> strong house for his family to live in. Another man bothers not to cut
> down trees and he does not build a house. He lays around, perhaps smoking
> drugs like Ghanja weed and he focuses all his time on having sex with
> different girls, perhaps he lies and steals too. He has no house because
> he didn't spend time building a house. Building a house is complicated,
> and poor morals stop a person from doing complicated things.
>
> When it rains or gets cold out, he then wants to go live at the safe
> house built by the Swedish hard-worker. The two men are from different
> cultures, they speak different languages, they follow totally different
> rules and laws, and they have different morals. The Swedish hard-worker
> does have an extra shed someone can live in, but should he let the
> non-Swede live there who is of such a different culture? Or should he be
> more inclined to allow a fellow Swede to live in the shed, someone who
> already shares the same basic values and beliefs, a common religion and
> the same basic morals as he?
The main question is if they who are grand-parents to emmigrants from Sweden
have that much of contemporary Swedish culture that they should be granted
citicenship before they have moved here.
>
> Let us vote.
>
> I say the Swedish hard-worker allows the fellow Swede to live in Sweden.
The Swedish workers participate in the democracy to a much higher extent
than workers in many (most) other countries claiming to be democracies.
regards!
Gunnar Blix
>> Tim <tva...@monmouth.com> writes:
>>> Does anyone know if Sweden has passed legislation to allow Swedish
>>> citizenship to grandchildren of Swedes?
> Johan Olofsson wrote:
>> No, why should we?
Tim <tva...@monmouth.com> writes:
>Well Johan, if the papers are correct they say that Sweden has many, many
>immigrants arriving who themselves are not related to Swede's and have no
>other connection to the Swedish culture other than they would like to
>come to a safe country where crime is low and where college and medical
>care is guaranteed. Would you agree? Remember, most of the world is
>somewhat crueler and harder than Sweden.
[Cute little parable about the hard-working Swede deleted]
>The Swedish hard-worker does have an extra shed someone can live in,
>but should he let the non-Swede live there who is of such a different
>culture? Or should he be more inclined to allow a fellow Swede to live
>in the shed, someone who already shares the same basic values and
>beliefs, a common religion and the same basic morals as he?
Well, that's really the crux, and that's really where much of your
little parable breaks down. This is ChrisMoorian reasoning at its
best.
The current assumption underlying Scandinavian immigration policies
are that people living and working legally in Scandinavia, by the time
they decide to file for citizenship, share the same basic values and
morals as other Scandinavians. They already work. They already pay
taxes. They can already vote in (at least local) elections (I believe
- that's one of the things that tick me off about the good old U.S. of
A.). Reasonably it can be argued that they should have a right to
clear those last few hurdles.
There is, however, absolutely no guarantee that some random grandchild
of some random Scandinavian citizen shares any values or morals
whatsover with another Scandinavian citizen.
Note that both of the above could have the same skin color, same
religion, same values, same tone of skin before seeking entry into
Scandinavia. Really, why should we assume that just because your
Swedish grandfather had viable sperm, you stand just that much taller?
Urghh.
--
Gunnar Blix bl...@cs.uiuc.edu
University of Illinois http://www-ilg.ai.uiuc.edu/~blix/
Nothing so ridiculous but some philosopher has said it. -- Cicero
Richard Buttrey
rik...@dircon.co.uk (Robert Smith) wrote:
>o...@login.dknet.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>
>> You may wonder what the discussion of race has to do with the European
>>Union. However the European Union has issued a directive in order to
>>control the thoughts of the citizens of the Union concerning race.
>>internal affairs agreed on a common action against those citizens who
>>express views which deviate from those guidelines dictated by the
>>European Union. The European Union has dictated that all citizens
>>must believe in the multi-ethnic society or go to prison. Dissident views
>>on atrocities commited by the Germans during WW2 will not be tolerated
>>either. All citizens are ordered to believe in the holocaust.
>believe is wrong on this point and we should all campaign to have the
>law recinded. You cannot order people what to think, especially
>Europeans. My mind is my own.
>>
>>OLK
Ole, thanks for this. Does anyone have any fur(t)her information about
this? - sorry for the pun.
I'd heard something about this on the radio back in March but not seen
anything in print yet.
Cheers,
--
Richard Buttrey - Grappenhall - Cheshire - UK Ś Dum spiro spero
email: ric...@buttrey.u-net.com
Tim
Gunnar Blix wrote:
>
> There is, however, absolutely no guarantee that some random grandchild
> of some random Scandinavian citizen shares any values or morals
> whatsover with another Scandinavian citizen.
>
> Note that both of the above could have the same skin color, same
> religion, same values, same tone of skin before seeking entry into
> Scandinavia. Really, why should we assume that just because your
> Swedish grandfather had viable sperm, you stand just that much taller?
Well Gunnar, since you use the word "random" I must comment. I think
there are far more random non-Swede's who would wander to Sweden in
search of not the Swedish culture or Swedish people, but in search of
free college, free health care, low crime and other socilaist benefits
which he has not created in his own country.
The grandchild of a Swede would not be random, but would purposefully
choose to go to Sweden for the very reason of the Swedish culture and
Swedish love, of which he most certainly did learn from his grandparents
and parents as well. He sees his culture disappearing in America, he sees
crime and drug-use continuing to escalate, and when he comes home from to
work watch the American TV while he eats his supper, all sorts of
extremely horrific acts of violence are thrown at him in graphic detail.
He is a non-violent person who would like to move to Sweden. Gunnar, you
would instead allow non-Swede's to come over?
Sincerely,
Tim
Johan Olofsson
In article <31BEC0...@monmouth.com>
Tim <tva...@monmouth.com> writes:
> The grandchild of a Swede would not be random, but would purposefully
> choose to go to Sweden for the very reason of the Swedish culture and
> Swedish love, of which he most certainly did learn from his grandparents
> and parents as well. He sees his culture disappearing in America, he sees
> crime and drug-use continuing to escalate, and when he comes home from to
> work watch the American TV while he eats his supper, all sorts of
> extremely horrific acts of violence are thrown at him in graphic detail.
> He is a non-violent person who would like to move to Sweden. Gunnar, you
> would instead allow non-Swede's to come over?
Isn't his culture disappearing also from the Nordic countries?
Aren't you confusing immigration policy with naturalisation policy?
Have you tried to contact any of the US based multinational companies
in the Nordic companies and offered your services? If so, have you
been refused residence permit?
If not, what are you trying to say?
Gunnar Blix
j...@lysator.liu.se (Johan Olofsson) responds to Tim <tva...@monmouth.com>:
> > The grandchild of a Swede would not be random, but would purposefully
> > choose to go to Sweden for the very reason of the Swedish culture and
> > Swedish love, of which he most certainly did learn from his grandparents
> > and parents as well.
------- 8< -----------
>Aren't you confusing immigration policy with naturalisation policy?
Yes, he is, but that's beside the point. He is looking for a shortcut
to Swedish residence permit, and willing to take the extra step to
full naturalization.
>If so, have you been refused residence permit?
>If not, what are you trying to say?
He doesn't want to go through the hoops.
He thinks he's better than most because he's got Swedish grandparents.
(Which I'd tend to buy if they were Norwegian :-)
What he apparently doesn't realize is that 90% of people think they
are better than most. The remaining 10% need therapy :-)
Foundation for Health Services Research
Tim <tva...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>... in search of
For a while I thought you were a Scandinavian posing as American right wing
extremist just for fun. But you are for real: Who else would call these
things "socialist benefits"? Most of us call it civilization.
Anyway, I am sure that you would be alowed into Sweden (or some other
European country) if you either were persecuted by the authorities or
powerful groups within the US for your opinions, a refugee as defined by
the UN, or you if have some specific skill that is in particularly high
demand in Sweden. You compete with third world people and Eastern
Europeans, and your chances are very good.
Arne
a bourgeois
Gunnar Blix
Tim <tva...@monmouth.com> writes:
>Well Gunnar, since you use the word "random" I must comment. I think
>there are far more random non-Swede's who would wander to Sweden in
>search of not the Swedish culture or Swedish people, but in search of
>free college, free health care, low crime and other socilaist benefits
>which he has not created in his own country.
Yes, I know you think that. And Chris Moore thinks that. But reality
is different. If you look at the statistics of how immigrants
assimilate in society, there is no real reason to believe that they do
substantially worse than the natives. So, basically, I claim that
whether you're hard-working or lazy, generous or greedy, open-minded
or petty has nothing to do with whether or not your grandfather was
Swedish.
An, no, I don't care what you think.
>The grandchild of a Swede would not be random, but would purposefully
>choose to go to Sweden for the very reason of the Swedish culture and
>Swedish love, of which he most certainly did learn from his grandparents
>and parents as well. He sees his culture disappearing in America, he sees
>crime and drug-use continuing to escalate, and when he comes home from to
>work watch the American TV while he eats his supper, all sorts of
>extremely horrific acts of violence are thrown at him in graphic detail.
>He is a non-violent person who would like to move to Sweden. Gunnar, you
>would instead allow non-Swede's to come over?
It's not up to me to allow or disallow anyone, but I think the current
policy makes a lot more sense.
Now, just to clarify, you think that two generations of seeing
American society go to hell qualifies you as a hard-working Swede?
What did _you_ do to build that wonderful house?
And, if this grandson of a Swede came from Somalia instead of the
U.S., would that make any difference?
In my mind, whether your grandparent was Swedish should make no
difference... if you wanted to come and work in Sweden, you should
show that you are capable, and that you will not be an undue burden on
society. And then they'll let you both in.
Mr T A J Haxell
In article <4pfg0k$e...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>,
rik...@dircon.co.uk (Robert Smith) writes:
>o...@login.dknet.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>
>> You may wonder what the discussion of race has to do with the European
>>Union. However the European Union has issued a directive in order to
>>control the thoughts of the citizens of the Union concerning race.
>>Furthermore on the 19th March this year the ministers of justice and
>>internal affairs agreed on a common action against those citizens who
>>express views which deviate from those guidelines dictated by the
>>European Union. The European Union has dictated that all citizens
>>must believe in the multi-ethnic society or go to prison. Dissident views
>>on atrocities commited by the Germans during WW2 will not be tolerated
>>either. All citizens are ordered to believe in the holocaust.
>If this is true then the European Union in which I passionately
>believe is wrong on this point and we should all campaign to have the
>law recinded. You cannot order people what to think, especially
>Europeans. My mind is my own.
Exactly. Racism is a problem which needs to be tackled (unfortunately our
government has vetoed making next year the European anti-racism year) but
this is not the way to go about it.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+Tristan Haxell +email es...@csv.warwick.ac.uk +
+3rd Year Computer Systems Engineering + +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Erik Robertson
bl...@ai.uiuc.edu (Gunnar Blix) wrote:
>In my mind, whether your grandparent was Swedish should make no
>difference... if you wanted to come and work in Sweden, you should
>show that you are capable, and that you will not be an undue burden on
>society. And then they'll let you both in.
Swedish legislation, as well as that of most states (including the US,
I believe), allows for almost immediate citizenship for such
individuals. While Belize might settle for a personal net worth of
around USD 10 000 to issue a passport, Sweden can be expected to
require you to bring several hundred thousand USD (a couple of million
SEK), and that you have a well-established business, in international
trade, for example, as proof of your capabilities and low potential
for becoming a burden.
So, in principle, the situation is as you would want it. The height of
the threshold is another matter...
Erik.
evil Beavis
Ole Kreiberg wrote:
>
> You may wonder what the discussion of race has to do with the European
> Union. However the European Union has issued a directive in order to
> control the thoughts of the citizens of the Union concerning race.
> Furthermore on the 19th March this year the ministers of justice and
> internal affairs agreed on a common action against those citizens who
> express views which deviate from those guidelines dictated by the
> European Union. The European Union has dictated that all citizens
> must believe in the multi-ethnic society or go to prison. Dissident views
> on atrocities commited by the Germans during WW2 will not be tolerated
> either. All citizens are ordered to believe in the holocaust.
>
>
> --
Really, you go to jail if you don't believe in the holocaust or
multiculturalism?? I think it is rather you can get arrested if you run
around screaming heil hitler and offending people whose ancestors and
relatives were exterminated and if your anti-multiculturalism is
manifested by beating up and killing non-Europeans and burning the
houses where immigrants live. You are one cowardly and stupid fuck Ole!
eB
evil Beavis
Tim wrote:
>
> > Tim <tva...@monmouth.com> writes:
> >
> > Does anyone know if Sweden has passed legislation to allow Swedish
> > citizenship to grandchildren of Swedes?
>
> > Johan Olofsson wrote:
>
> > No, why should we?
> >
> > Johan
>
> Well Johan, if the papers are correct they say that Sweden has many, many
> immigrants arriving who themselves are not related to Swede's and have no
> other connection to the Swedish culture other than they would like to
> come to a safe country where crime is low and where college and medical
> care is guaranteed. Would you agree? Remember, most of the world is
> somewhat crueler and harder than Sweden.
And many places in the world also have more competitive economies,
higher salaries, more choices, and lower unemployment. This is why I
reside in the US. As far as "guaranteed" college, well, that certainly
is not the case. I wonder where you got that from?
>
> There are probably a billion people who would love to have guaranteed
> medica and college, no matter where they have to travel to get it. The
> real problem seems to be, that they cannot, or will not, create this
> within their own countries. It is hard to create, it is much easier
> to "go get from someone else". This is likened to a Swedish hard-worker
> in a forest cutting down trees and working very hard to build a nice,
> strong house for his family to live in. Another man bothers not to cut
> down trees and he does not build a house. He lays around, perhaps smoking
> drugs like Ghanja weed and he focuses all his time on having sex with
> different girls, perhaps he lies and steals too. He has no house because
> he didn't spend time building a house. Building a house is complicated,
> and poor morals stop a person from doing complicated things.
Again, that guaranteed medical care and college. My dad almost died by
waiting in line for a by-pass surgery and finally got it privately and
paid for most of it. And I keep reading about all the mistreatments and
deficiencies in the hospitals at home all the time. I rather see a
physician in the US any day.
>
> When it rains or gets cold out, he then wants to go live at the safe
> house built by the Swedish hard-worker. The two men are from different
> cultures, they speak different languages, they follow totally different
> rules and laws, and they have different morals. The Swedish hard-worker
> does have an extra shed someone can live in, but should he let the
> non-Swede live there who is of such a different culture? Or should he be
> more inclined to allow a fellow Swede to live in the shed, someone who
> already shares the same basic values and beliefs, a common religion and
> the same basic morals as he?
Contrary to this notion, Swedish people work less hours and are calling
in sick much more than the average US worker. The 5 weeks of vacation
and the relatively high salaries for unskilled labor (by wage
equalization) is why we have such a problem with an inefficient economy
and high unemployment in Sweden.
>
> Let us vote.
>
> I say the Swedish hard-worker allows the fellow Swede to live in Sweden.
>
> *********
> Because we love our own culture doesn't mean we have to hate anybody
> else's culture. In fact, the more we treasure and respect our own culture
> the more we respect other cultures when we come across them. Respect all
> cultures, including your own.
>
> Model Castles at http://www.monmouth.com/~tvawter/caslist.htm
There are many racist at home who are afraid of other cultures as
well...
eB
Ole Kreiberg
In article <31C068...@scott.net>, evil Beavis wrote:
>Ole Kreiberg wrote:
>>
>> You may wonder what the discussion of race has to do with the European
>> Union. However the European Union has issued a directive in order to
>> control the thoughts of the citizens of the Union concerning race.
>> Furthermore on the 19th March this year the ministers of justice and
>> internal affairs agreed on a common action against those citizens who
>> express views which deviate from those guidelines dictated by the
>> European Union. The European Union has dictated that all citizens
>> must believe in the multi-ethnic society or go to prison. Dissident views
>> on atrocities commited by the Germans during WW2 will not be tolerated
>> either. All citizens are ordered to believe in the holocaust.
>>
>>
>> OLK
>> --
>
>Really, you go to jail if you don't believe in the holocaust or
>multiculturalism??
In Germany you do, and the Germans are working hard through the
European Union to export their legislation to the other European nations.
You see the Germans are too cowardly to take the full responsibility for
what they did or did not do to the Jews during WW2. They want to make it
look like it is was the "Europeans" who committed the socalled holocaust and
not only the Germans. They want to tyrannize the rest of Europe with their
miserable past. In Denmark, so far, all the politicians from the right to the
extreme left refuse to see the history of WW2 from a German perpective, and
they have therefore rejected pressure from the German government to legislate
about what the historical truth is. Allthough very few Danes agree with
my revisionist views on the holocaust, all of them however identify
themselves with Danish history. According to Danish history Denmark was
invaded by a wellknown historical enemy in 1940. This was experienced as
a humiliation. The nazi ideology was experienced as "Kraut stuff" and
something alien to Danish culture and mentality. No Danes participated
in any actions against the Jews, and some Danes even helped the Jews to
escape to Sweden. Even all the Jews agree that Danish people did not
do any harm to them during WW2. Remember, that Hitler said several times
that National Socialism knows only Germany and is not meant for export.
It is distortion of history to say that the holocaust teaches us what
people are able to do against people. No, it only teaches us what the
Germans are able to do when they are worst.
>I think it is rather you can get arrested if you run
>around screaming heil hitler and offending people whose ancestors
Have you never heard about the Guenther Deckert case or the Hans Schmidt
case. The latter is a German born naturalized American citizens. After he
had been on a short visit to Germany in order to visit his sick old mother
in Germany, he was arrested by the German police on August 9 before his
departure from Franfurt Airport and held in custody for several monthes.
His thought-crime was that he had sent a letter to Rudy Geil, a member of
the upper house (Bundesrat) of Germany's parliament, at his home in Schwerin.
The "crime" was that he had used the word "infested" (verseuchten) in
connection with freemasons and Jews. Concerning German justice it can
sometimes be difficult to see the difference between the Federal Republic of
Germany and the former DDR (East-Germany).
I do not feel that I owe the Germans or Jews something and I will
certainly say whatever it suits me about the holocaust - no matter how much
the German government and it's European Union are trying to bully me. What
Germany did not succeed in on the battle field in WW1 and WW2 it will try
to accomplish through the European Union, and that is German hegemony over
the rest of Europe. German history is already more important than the
history of the other european countries according to the European Union.
Please note that there is no laws prohibiting denial of British or French
atrocities committed in all of those big empires where the British and
the French people once were the undisputed masterraces. Who cares about that
one fifth of Boer population in Transvaal in South Africa died in British
concentrations camps during the Boerwar, or that one fifth of the Algerian
civilian population were killed by the brutal Frenchmen in the Algerian war.
And what about the treatment of the Red Indian population in Latinamerica
by the Spanish. You can deny all that as much as you want, because England,
France and Spain are not so important as Germany, and Boers, Arabs, and Red
Indians are not as importants as Jews. So simple is that according to German
logic.
OLK
--
Scott Erb
In article <1RgmnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>
>You see the Germans are too cowardly to take the full responsibility for
>what they did or did not do to the Jews during WW2. They want to make it
>look like it is was the "Europeans" who committed the socalled holocaust and
>not only the Germans.
You continue to be a liar, Ole. The Germans take full responsibility for the
holocaust, and have never, ever tried to claim it was the "Europeans" who are
to blame. Furthermore, the laws against neo-nazi activity (note, they don't
control what you THINK -- another of your lies -- but what you DO) are
evidence that this is something they take very seriously. To try to claim
otherwise is simply ridiculous.
> It is distortion of history to say that the holocaust teaches us what
>people are able to do against people. No, it only teaches us what the
>Germans are able to do when they are worst.
Are you saying that Germans are not people? That Germans at their worst act
differently than other people at their worst? What basis do you make for
this claim? How are Germans fundamentally different from Danes? Do no Danes
at their worst ever kill, abuse or torture other people? Have they ever in
the past? I know Americans are capable of everything Germans did. The
British are. The French are. The rest of the world is. Are only the Danes
immune? Methinks you're ultra-nationalism has gotten a bit irrational!
>His thought-crime was that he had sent a letter to Rudy Geil,
er, Ole, sending a letter is an ACT. It is not a THOUGHT. I am not
surprised that you don't recognize what thought is, since you seem not to do
much thinking before posting.
> The "crime" was that he had used the word ...
Again, using a word is an act, not a thought. One can disagree with these
laws, but to pretend they are "thought crimes" is simply wrong. I suggest
you try to make your case against such laws with accurate labels.
>Indians are not as importants as Jews. So simple is that according to German
>logic.
No, that's according to Ole's weird way of conceptualizing history. You have
to remember that German laws about denying the holocaust or engaging in
neo-nazi activity were made right after the evil racist regime (those words,
evil and racist, belong together in virtually all cases, by the way) had
subverted democracy and instituted an ideology which became a state
psuedo-religion. De-nazifaction was necessary. Now, with respect for their
particular past, Germans believe they should not allow anti-Jewish hate
activity (not thoughts, Ole, activity), or denial of something which is
beyond doubt based on evidence so overwhelming that denying that the
holocaust happened is as sensical as denying that world war II occurred. The
difference is that if you do the latter, people will simply laugh you off, if
you do the former, you usually have some evil ulterior motive, and may be a
danger to freedom.
As an American, I personally believe in free speech, and think that Germany
and other EU states have a strong enough democratic system to warrant
liberalizing those laws. However, one can agree with the position that those
laws are wrong (and EU laws of such a sort would be ill advised as well)
without buying into the bizarre and illogical rhetorical fantasy of yours.
-scott
Lawrence Segal
Ole Kreiberg (o...@login.dknet.dk) writes:
> I do not feel that I owe the Germans or Jews something and I will
> certainly say whatever it suits me about the holocaust - no matter how much
> the German government and it's European Union are trying to bully me. What
> Germany did not succeed in on the battle field in WW1 and WW2 it will try
> to accomplish through the European Union, and that is German hegemony over
> the rest of Europe.
>
I would have thought that you, of all people, would welcome German
hegemony over Denmark. Perhaps it is only Nazi hegemony over Denmark that
you admire so much, as evidenced by your Nazi-appologist postings regarding
Denmark during WWII.
> Please note that there is no laws prohibiting denial of British or French
> atrocities committed in all of those big empires where the British and
> the French people once were the undisputed masterraces.
The British did not set up extermination camps in the lands in which they
colonized. The French Canadian population in Canada (a former British
colony) were permitted to retain their language and culture while under
British rule, following the British conquest of Quebec in 1768.
> Who cares about that
> one fifth of Boer population in Transvaal in South Africa died in British
> concentrations camps during the Boerwar
Aside from a bunch of racist Boers, no one gives a shit. The Boers were
engaging in a guerilla war againt the British Army. The Brits needed to
ensure that the guerillas were not being re-supplied and assisted by the
civilian population. If the Boers had been fighting a conventional war
against the Brits, the tactics would have been different.
To suggest that the actions of the Brits during the Boer war is one and the
same as that of the Nazis during WWII is just so demented, it's a wonder
you haven't been committed to a mental instutution, Ole. Your simply
nuts, crackers, not playing with a full deck....
--
Lawrence Segal
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
Simen Gaure
In article <1RgmnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk (Ole
Kreiberg) wrote:
You see the Germans are too cowardly to take the full responsibility for
what they did or did not do to the Jews during WW2. They want to make it
look like it is was the "Europeans" who committed the socalled holocaust and
not only the Germans.
Uh? I've never heard such a claim from any German.
Do you have any references for this?
[...]
It is distortion of history to say that the holocaust teaches us what
people are able to do against people. No, it only teaches us what the
Germans are able to do when they are worst.
While this, in a strict logical sense, is true, I see no benefit
in confining this sinister possibility of the human mind to Germans.
As you point out elsewhere in your posting, other peoples have
done similar things.
Note also that, just because Germans were largely responsible
for the holocaust as a people (in the sense that they elected the butchers,
and didn't revolt when it became clearer what was happening),
this doesn't mean that Germans favour such activities more
than other people do. And certainly not today. Remember that
theories of racial purity and supremacy were quite commonplace
at that time, also in scientific circles. That's of course
not an excuse for the atrocities, but it's a partial explanation for
why such ideas could spread. That's the most important lesson,
and, with the advent of modern "racial purity" practices like human
gene diagnostics, euthanasia etc, the lesson should never be forgotten.
--
Simen Gaure, Department of Mathematics, University of Oslo
Stein J. Rypern
[Ole Kreiberg]
>> Who cares about that
>> one fifth of Boer population in Transvaal in South Africa died in British
>> concentrations camps during the Boerwar
[Lawrence Segal]
>Aside from a bunch of racist Boers, no one gives a shit. The Boers were
>engaging in a guerilla war againt the British Army. The Brits needed to
>ensure that the guerillas were not being re-supplied and assisted by the
>civilian population. If the Boers had been fighting a conventional war
>against the Brits, the tactics would have been different.
Umm, Lawrence --
I don't think that is quite the best counterargument I have ever heard
about this. Are you saying basically "They deserved what they got" ?
Locking up civilians in prison camps with insufficient food supplies
and medical attention is morally indefensible, IMO. I do believe the
Geneva convention is quite clear on this subject.
It doesn't matter whether this is done by brits, norwegians, germans
or canadians (canadians troops also committed *a few* war crimes during
WW2, as I am certain you know - like shooting prisoners when it was
inconvenient to escort them to the rear).
But obviously not on the scale the germans were committing war crimes
and crimes against humanity and not with the explicit approval of and
even on clear intructions from their politicial leadership, as in the
case of the germans.
But I wouldn't get on my high horse and claim that "our side" always
has had lily-white hands. If you want another example, look up the
history of the Amritsar massacre committed by troops under the command
of british brigadier Dwyer in India. You will find that this was *after*
WW2, I believe.
But it has been a while since I read about it, so I might be wrong.
But check out that story if you will.
Stein
--
Stein J. Rypern I "If we do happen to step on a mine, Sir,
Ostbyvn 21 I what do we do ?"
N1920 SORUMSAND I "Normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet
NORWAY I in the air and scatter oneself over a wide area."
Ole Kreiberg
In article <4pupj2$s...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, Scott Erb wrote:
>In article <1RgmnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>>
>
>>You see the Germans are too cowardly to take the full responsibility for
>>what they did or did not do to the Jews during WW2. They want to make it
>>look like it is was the "Europeans" who committed the socalled holocaust
>>and not only the Germans.
>
>the holocaust, and have never, ever tried to claim it was the "Europeans"
>who are to blame.
>Furthermore, the laws against neo-nazi activity (note,
>they don't control what you THINK -- another of your lies -- but what you
>DO) are evidence that this is something they take very seriously. To try to
>claim otherwise is simply ridiculous.
>
>> It is distortion of history to say that the holocaust teaches us what
>>people are able to do against people. No, it only teaches us what the
>>Germans are able to do when they are worst.
>
>Are you saying that Germans are not people? That Germans at their worst act
>differently than other people at their worst?
The Germans are much more passionate, bordering the fanatic, than
Scandinavians and Anglo-Saxon people. Let us assume that the holocaust did
happen. In that case such an act could only be made out of extreme fanatism.
The development of such fanatism would be unthinkable in Denmark.
>What basis do you make for
>this claim? How are Germans fundamentally different from Danes? Do no
>Danes at their worst ever kill, abuse or torture other people?
Experience from the real world and thousand years of history proves that
the Danes have never done something like the alleged holocaust. They never
become frenzied like the choleric Germans. They understand how to control
themselves. Remember you are innocent until otherwise proved.
>Have they
>ever in the past? I know Americans are capable of everything Germans did.
Have you got any evidence for this accusation against the American people
from the real world? Your statement is defamation and slander against the
American people.
>>His thought-crime was that he had sent a letter to Rudy Geil,
>
>er, Ole, sending a letter is an ACT.
Sure, sending a letter is certainly not a crime in a true democracy.
>It is not a THOUGHT.
In a true democracy you have the right to express your thoughts freely.
Take a look on section 77 in the Danish constitution.
>I am not
>surprised that you don't recognize what thought is, since you seem not to do
>much thinking before posting.
>
>> The "crime" was that he had used the word ...
>
>Again, using a word is an act, not a thought. One can disagree with these
>laws, but to pretend they are "thought crimes" is simply wrong. I suggest
>you try to make your case against such laws with accurate labels.
>
>>Indians are not as importants as Jews. So simple is that according to German
>>logic.
>
>No, that's according to Ole's weird way of conceptualizing history. You
>have to remember that German laws about denying the holocaust or engaging
>in neo-nazi activity were made right after the evil racist regime (those
>words, evil and racist, belong together in virtually all cases, by the way)
>had subverted democracy and instituted an ideology which became a state
>psuedo-religion. De-nazifaction was necessary.
It is their problem, and they have no right to bother Danes with their
history.
>difference is that if you do the latter, people will simply laugh you off, if
>you do the former, you usually have some evil ulterior motive, and may be a
>danger to freedom.
An evil ulterior motive? Yes, If you are paranoid you may believe so. It is
true that the neo-nazis support revisionism, but they only constitute a
minority of the revisionists. To me it does not mean that much whether or not
the holocaust happened. What really matters are the attempts to gag free
speech.
>
>As an American, I personally believe in free speech, and think that Germany
>and other EU states have a strong enough democratic system to warrant
>liberalizing those laws. However, one can agree with the position that those
>laws are wrong (and EU laws of such a sort would be ill advised as well)
>without buying into the bizarre and illogical rhetorical fantasy of yours.
>-scott
>
This is the way an American or a Dane think, but the Germans with their
authoritarian mentality think differently. Germany of today is just as big
a danger to democracy in the European countries as it was in 1939. The
German problem was not solved with the German defeat in WW2. You simply
cannot change the character of the Germans. Let me give you an example.
Twice when I have written something to soc.culture.german that some Germans
did not like, they have sent complaints to my postmaster. Running home to
their mother crying or complaining to an authority when things become a
little rough instead of taking up the challenge, is typical for Germans.
I have certainly not met such cowardice from the Danes or Americans I am
usually debating with in other newsgroups. Look at yourself. You are
an American and you take up the challenge when I post something against you,
instead of chicken out and seeking protection and security from some
allmighty authority, postmaster, great Fuehrer or what ever. Face it
the Germans are Germans and will always be. It will be over my dead body
that I submit to their will and stop expressing dissident views on the
holocaust or anything else.
OLK
--
Lawrence Segal
Stein J. Rypern (ste...@sn.no) writes:
> [Ole Kreiberg]
>>> Who cares about that
>>> one fifth of Boer population in Transvaal in South Africa died in British
>>> concentrations camps during the Boerwar
>
> [Lawrence Segal]
>>Aside from a bunch of racist Boers, no one gives a shit. The Boers were
>>engaging in a guerilla war againt the British Army. The Brits needed to
>>ensure that the guerillas were not being re-supplied and assisted by the
>>civilian population. If the Boers had been fighting a conventional war
>>against the Brits, the tactics would have been different.
>
> Umm, Lawrence --
>
> I don't think that is quite the best counterargument I have ever heard
> about this. Are you saying basically "They deserved what they got" ?
I am saying that if the Boers had fought a conventional war, there would
have been no need for the British to have confined Boer civilians. But
since the Boer civilians were part of the Boer war effort - by
re-supplying the guerillas, this was a necessary step for the Brits to
take. It should be stressed the Brits did *not* set up extermination camps.
I would also be willing to bet that British soldiers in the field got no
more or less food or medicine than did Boers in British camps. Don't
forget - this war occurred at the beginning of this century. You seem to
think living conditions in general at that time were equivalent to 1996. They
were not.
As for whether the Boers deserved what they got - given the events that
followed in the subsequent 90+ years in South Africa - mainly at the hands
of the Boer population - one cannot help but wonder if things mights have
been much better, much sooner, in South Africa, had all the Boers been
wiped out during the Boer war. I certainly have no great sympathy for the
Boers, especially after all the injustices they imposed on the *majority* of
South Africa's population in the years that followed the Boer War.
> Locking up civilians in prison camps with insufficient food supplies
> and medical attention is morally indefensible, IMO. I do believe the
> Geneva convention is quite clear on this subject.
I disagree for the reasons outlined above. BTW, there was no "Geneva
Convention" at the time of the Boer War (1900-1902). Conditions of war
were very harsh in those days - both for civilians and the military. The
Boers were engaging in guerilla tactics against what was then the greatest
military power in the world.
> But I wouldn't get on my high horse and claim that "our side" always
> has had lily-white hands. If you want another example, look up the
> history of the Amritsar massacre committed by troops under the command
> of british brigadier Dwyer in India. You will find that this was *after*
> WW2, I believe.
Ah, but the Brits held him accountable for his acts, and didn't try to
pretend it never happended. He was tried for this act. And, as you pointed
out, this action did *not* have the support of the political or military
leadership of Britain. India gained independence from Briatian shortly
after WWII, and I think this incident occurred before WWII. In any event,
India's independence from Britain was achieved peacefully, without a war
between India and Britain. This was also true for countless other
former British colonies around the globe, including Canada.
Scott Erb
In article <kc-mnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
> The Germans are much more passionate, bordering the fanatic, than
>Scandinavians and Anglo-Saxon people. Let us assume that the holocaust did
>happen. In that case such an act could only be made out of extreme fanatism.
>The development of such fanatism would be unthinkable in Denmark.
Really? If it had happened in Denmark, I suspect the Germans would say it
would be unthinkable in Germany. It's easy to assume that you wouldn't do
what someone else does. But, of course, I reject the whole notions that
Germans are somehow "by nature" so different. I've lived in Germany, I've
visited Scandinavia a few times, and I've lived in Italy and (mostly) the
U.S. I fail to see any essential differences between the peoples, esp. in
terms of "bordering on the fanatic," though Italy does have a different set
of cultural norms. Denmark and Germany are quite similar.
> Experience from the real world and thousand years of history proves that
>the Danes have never done something like the alleged holocaust.
"Alleged?" Well, Ole, if it didn't happen than your whole argument about the
Germans is wrong. You have a contradiction that destroys both sides of your
argument!
> Have you got any evidence for this accusation against the American people
>from the real world? Your statement is defamation and slander against the
>American people.
Yawn. Genocide against the native Americans perhaps? A mini low tech
holocaust. Sound familar? Other activities in the Third World weren't much
better. I'd suggest to the book by Michael Hunt "Ideology and Foreign
Policy." For a look at colonialism, check out David Spurr's "The Rhetoric of
Empire." In any event, here in America we can be very critical of our
history and past actions without considering it slander and defamation of
'the American people.'
>Sure, sending a letter is certainly not a crime in a true democracy.
Sending letters with various contents can be. For instance, if you send a
letter with holocaust denying propaganda, you are using the federal
government's mail service to deliver your letter. Therefore, you are getting
the state directly involved in spreading your propaganda, easily making it
something which is far, far outside a thought crime,and something that the
state has a right to control. Even here in the U.S., where freedom of speech
is protected, you can't just send anybody anything via the postal service.
> In a true democracy you have the right to express your thoughts freely.
>Take a look on section 77 in the Danish constitution.
Can you stand up in a movie theater and yell "fire, fire"? Can you go to the
airport and tell the security people that you think that hijacking is OK, and
you may do it sometime, and joke that you might have a gun with you? There
is always a line between thinking and acting to express those thoughts. Not
every form of expression is legal any where. Lines are just drawn
differently.
This isn't to defend all German law, only to point out that what you call a
"thought crime" is not a thought crime, but a crime based on a specific act.
Please label it correctly next time.
> It is their problem, and they have no right to bother Danes with their
>history.
You're the only one who seems bothered. Therefore, I suggest it is YOUR
problem.
> This is the way an American or a Dane think, but the Germans with their
>authoritarian mentality think differently.
No, Ole, I have friends in Germany, many of them are as liberal if not more
liberal than I am. To be sure, the ones that were raised under the Kaiser or
in the Nazi regime had authoritarian ideals drilled into them. The
generations since the war think differently, act differently, and are very
democratic. I base this not on some theory (though Almond and Verba's "Civic
Culture Revisited" gives significant statistical data), but on my own
experience with friends all over Germany, as well as more than two years in
the country.
>Germany of today is just as big
>a danger to democracy in the European countries as it was in 1939.
I'll let that statement stand on its own. Readers can judge.
>Twice when I have written something to soc.culture.german that some Germans
>did not like, they have sent complaints to my postmaster.
Ah, there's the reason. You've had some complaints lodged, so you're taking
it out on all Germans with your rhetoric. Hint: here in the U.S. complaints
are lodged all the time about posters and their practices. It's not just a
German phenomenon. Since you posted to soc.culture.german, it just happens
you got more Germans to read and respond. Now, don't be so silly. It's like
you're pouting "they complained about me so I'll insult their whole country!"
However, when you make such outlandish and bigoted statements about Germans,
it automatically makes you less believable in eyes of lurkers when you also
make statements about the holocaust or other matters. So, in essence, your
tone helps you destroy your own credibility. Think about it.
-scott
Robert Smith
o...@login.dknet.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
<<cut>>
> The Germans are much more passionate, bordering the fanatic, than
>Scandinavians and Anglo-Saxon people. Let us assume that the holocaust did
>happen. In that case such an act could only be made out of extreme fanatism.
>The development of such fanatism would be unthinkable in Denmark.
<<cut>>
Ole, read the rest of the reply you gave, and then say who's passinate
bordering the fanatic.
As for your look at 1000 years of history, don't look further back
because you will come up against the Danelaw. As I was born in
Yorkshire, I quite possibly have Danish blood as your/my ancestors
raped and pillaged that part of England for some considerable time.
Robert
====================================================
Robert Smith A Europe for all its Peoples
rik...@dircon.co.uk England- The Other UK Nation
====================================================
====================================================
Robert Smith A Europe for all its Peoples
rik...@dircon.co.uk England- The Other UK Nation
====================================================
Robert Smith
o...@login.dknet.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>>> You may wonder what the discussion of race has to do with the European
>>> Union. However the European Union has issued a directive in order to
>>> control the thoughts of the citizens of the Union concerning race.
>>> Furthermore on the 19th March this year the ministers of justice and
>>> internal affairs agreed on a common action against those citizens who
>>> express views which deviate from those guidelines dictated by the
>>> European Union. The European Union has dictated that all citizens
>>> must believe in the multi-ethnic society or go to prison. Dissident views
>>> on atrocities commited by the Germans during WW2 will not be tolerated
> In Germany you do, and the Germans are working hard through the
>European Union to export their legislation to the other European nations.
>You see the Germans are too cowardly to take the full responsibility for
>what they did or did not do to the Jews during WW2. They want to make it
>look like it is was the "Europeans" who committed the socalled holocaust and
>not only the Germans. They want to tyrannize the rest of Europe with their
>miserable past. In Denmark, so far, all the politicians from the right to the
>extreme left refuse to see the history of WW2 from a German perpective, and
>they have therefore rejected pressure from the German government to legislate
>about what the historical truth is. Allthough very few Danes agree with
>my revisionist views on the holocaust, all of them however identify
>themselves with Danish history. According to Danish history Denmark was
>invaded by a wellknown historical enemy in 1940. This was experienced as
>a humiliation. The nazi ideology was experienced as "Kraut stuff" and
>something alien to Danish culture and mentality. No Danes participated
>in any actions against the Jews, and some Danes even helped the Jews to
>escape to Sweden. Even all the Jews agree that Danish people did not
>do any harm to them during WW2. Remember, that Hitler said several times
>that National Socialism knows only Germany and is not meant for export.
> It is distortion of history to say that the holocaust teaches us what
>people are able to do against people. No, it only teaches us what the
>Germans are able to do when they are worst.
teach us what people are able to do against people. That is exactly
what history teaches us, no more no less.
We (people in general) are likely to do this when we feel humiliated
and find politicians and others who play on our fears of 'race'. I
presume Ole that your are Danish, if so you are no different
'racially' (by that I mean a common ancestory) from the mixed group of
german tribes who settled most of north western Europe.
I am aware the Danes did what they could for their Jews, but I am also
aware that some people in the other occupied countries (including the
Channel Islands) were happy to join the persecution of the Jews. Your
comments are racist. The Germans are just ordinary North Europeans
like you and I. When we try to put the blame soley on them it is
because we are afraid to look in ourselves and find them staring back.
> I do not feel that I owe the Germans or Jews something and I will
>certainly say whatever it suits me about the holocaust - no matter how much
>the German government and it's European Union are trying to bully me. What
>Germany did not succeed in on the battle field in WW1 and WW2 it will try
>to accomplish through the European Union, and that is German hegemony over
>the rest of Europe. German history is already more important than the
>history of the other european countries according to the European Union.
I agree the EU law is wrong, so campaign to change it, don't use it as
an excuse to show your fear and hatred of a Germany of the past.
scha...@wat.hookup.net
In <4pkcb9$6...@nuntius.u-net.net>, Richard Buttrey <ric...@buttrey.u-net.com> writes:
>rik...@dircon.co.uk (Robert Smith) wrote:
>>o...@login.dknet.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>>
>>> You may wonder what the discussion of race has to do with the European
>>>Union. However the European Union has issued a directive in order to
>>>control the thoughts of the citizens of the Union concerning race.
>>>Furthermore on the 19th March this year the ministers of justice and
>>>internal affairs agreed on a common action against those citizens who
>>>express views which deviate from those guidelines dictated by the
>>>European Union. The European Union has dictated that all citizens
>>>must believe in the multi-ethnic society or go to prison. Dissident views
>>>on atrocities commited by the Germans during WW2 will not be tolerated
>>>either. All citizens are ordered to believe in the holocaust.
>>believe is wrong on this point and we should all campaign to have the
>>law recinded. You cannot order people what to think, especially
>>Europeans. My mind is my own.
>>>
>
>Ole, thanks for this. Does anyone have any fur(t)her information about
>this? - sorry for the pun.
>
>I'd heard something about this on the radio back in March but not seen
>anything in print yet.
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>
>--
>email: ric...@buttrey.u-net.com
>
>
I guess what he was trying to say that he got his nose out of joint because
jerks like Ernst Zundel find effective opposition.
Hartmann Schaffer
Ole Kreiberg
In article <Simen.Gaure-16...@mattemac1.uio.no>, Simen Gaure wrote:
>Remember that
>theories of racial purity and supremacy were quite commonplace
>at that time, also in scientific circles. That's of course
>not an excuse for the atrocities, but it's a partial explanation for
>why such ideas could spread. That's the most important lesson,
>and, with the advent of modern "racial purity" practices like human
>gene diagnostics, euthanasia etc, the lesson should never be forgotten.
>
It is purely political propaganda to claim that ideas of racial purity
automatically leads to massmurders or similiar events. It would be just
as wrong as to claim that ideas of social justice and better conditions for
the working class automatically leads to camps and killings as those of
Stalin and Pol Pot. Or to claim that religiosity automatically leads to
burning of witches and heritics or religious wars. Like it is not guns
that kill but rather people with guns that kill, it is not political ideas
and religions that kill but rather people with political ideas religions
that kill. Heavy passions and fanatism often kill.
Therefore I am sick and tired of hearing political propaganda about how
dangerous nazism is, and if we all just could avoid being nazis or
"racists" the world would be a much better place. Sure there were many evil
nazis like there were many evil communists etc., but these people would have
been evil anyhow. The wickedness would just have found another expression.
When I hear that the Germans have arrested a man just because he has
written the word "infested" in a letter I see the same evil Germans who
worked for the Gestapo or the STASI in the former DDR. I then ask myself,
will these Germans never stop persecuting and imprisoning each other
because of dissident views on this and that? Why are they so?
All the paranoia and hysteria about nazism and the "importance" of
remembering the "holocaust" serve only one real purpose that is as
political propaganda against the opponents of the immigration from the
third world to Europe and North America, and those who speak out against
the multiethnic society. It is propaganda in favour of internationalism.
Anyway the communists were consistent and keen internationalists and
there still died more people in communist camps than in nazi camps. So why
do you want me to believe that internationalism makes people better than
nationalism?
OLK
--
Ole Kreiberg
In article <4q13rt$1g...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, Scott Erb wrote:
>In article <kc-mnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>
>> The Germans are much more passionate, bordering the fanatic, than
>>Scandinavians and Anglo-Saxon people. Let us assume that the holocaust did
>>happen. In that case such an act could only be made out of extreme fanatism.
>>The development of such fanatism would be unthinkable in Denmark.
>
>Really? If it had happened in Denmark, I suspect the Germans would say it
>would be unthinkable in Germany.
But things like that would never happen in Denmark, period.
>It's easy to assume that you wouldn't do
>what someone else does. But, of course, I reject the whole notions that
>Germans are somehow "by nature" so different. I've lived in Germany, I've
>visited Scandinavia a few times, and I've lived in Italy and (mostly) the
>U.S. I fail to see any essential differences between the peoples, esp. in
>terms of "bordering on the fanatic," though Italy does have a different set
>of cultural norms. Denmark and Germany are quite similar.
>
>> Experience from the real world and thousand years of history proves that
>>the Danes have never done something like the alleged holocaust.
>
>"Alleged?" Well, Ole, if it didn't happen than your whole argument about the
>Germans is wrong.
Sure, either the holocaust happened, and the Germans were exceptional evil,
or it did nor happen, which I believe, and the Germans were not exceptional
evil. Being a nice guy I really want to think nice about other people, even
the Germans. :-)
>
>You have a contradiction that destroys both sides of your
>argument!
>
>> Have you got any evidence for this accusation against the American people
>>from the real world? Your statement is defamation and slander against the
>>American people.
>
>Yawn. Genocide against the native Americans perhaps? A mini low tech
>holocaust. Sound familar? Other activities in the Third World weren't much
>better. I'd suggest to the book by Michael Hunt "Ideology and Foreign
>Policy." For a look at colonialism, check out David Spurr's "The Rhetoric of
>Empire." In any event, here in America we can be very critical of our
>history and past actions without considering it slander and defamation of
>'the American people.'
>
>>Sure, sending a letter is certainly not a crime in a true democracy.
>
>Sending letters with various contents can be. For instance, if you send a
>letter with holocaust denying propaganda, you are using the federal
>government's mail service to deliver your letter. Therefore, you are getting
>the state directly involved in spreading your propaganda, easily making it
>something which is far, far outside a thought crime, and something that the
>state has a right to control. Even here in the U.S., where freedom of speech
>is protected, you can't just send anybody anything via the postal service.
>
In Denmark there is a law which prescribes the secrecy of the mails. The
consequence of this is that the mail services cannot be held responsible for
what their customers mail. Furthermore I have difficulties in understanding
what holocaust denying "propaganda" has to do with crime. To me the German
laws against dissident views on the holocaust are nothing but political
repression and expose the wicked nature of the German society.
>> In a true democracy you have the right to express your thoughts freely.
>>Take a look on section 77 in the Danish constitution.
>
>Can you stand up in a movie theater and yell "fire, fire"? Can you go to the
>airport and tell the security people that you think that hijacking is OK, and
>you may do it sometime, and joke that you might have a gun with you? There
>is always a line between thinking and acting to express those thoughts. Not
>every form of expression is legal any where. Lines are just drawn
>differently.
But I can certainly say, as much as I like, that I do not believe that it
was technical possible to kill and cremate 6 million Jews as quickly and in
the way described in the established historiography.
>
>> It is their problem, and they have no right to bother Danes with their
>>history.
>
>You're the only one who seems bothered. Therefore, I suggest it is YOUR
>problem.
All the Danish politicians find it inaprobiate to legislate about German
history in Denmark. A group of Danes once wanted to have the tiny Danish
naziparty prohibited, but even the leader those anti-nazis said to the
Danish television that he thought that it was a human right for everybody to
falsify history.
OLK
--
Scott Erb
In article <bH8nnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>It would be just
>as wrong as to claim that ideas of social justice and better conditions for
>the working class automatically leads to camps and killings as those of
>Stalin and Pol Pot.
Since when did anyone associate Stalin or Pol Pot with ideas of social
justice?
> Therefore I am sick and tired of hearing political propaganda about how
>dangerous nazism is,
It's not propaganda. It's called truth, Ole.
> All the paranoia and hysteria about nazism and the "importance" of
>remembering the "holocaust" serve only one real purpose that is as
>political propaganda against the opponents of the immigration from the
>third world to Europe and North America, and those who speak out against
>the multiethnic society.
Oh, so you'd rather just forget? No there are many purposes, including to
illustrate the danger of fascist and racist ideology, and to make sure such a
thing never happens again.
As for a multiethnic society. Well, there's no way you're ever going to
escape that! The trends point to easier communication and transportation,
and diversity will increase. You may not like it, but c'est la realite.
> It is propaganda in favour of internationalism.
>Anyway the communists were consistent and keen internationalists and
>there still died more people in communist camps than in nazi camps. So why
>do you want me to believe that internationalism makes people better than
>nationalism?
False logic, Ole. Stalin wasn't an internationalist. Remember "socialism in
one country." Also, there are many internationalists, and most are
non-communist. So you can't claim that because SOME communists are
internationalists, all calls for internationalism will lead to communism.
In any event, all your whining aside, you're on the losing side of this
issue. Global trends are against you, as is the educated public. This isn't
the EU I'm talking about -- Maastricht may fail, some countries may pull out
-- but global society. We're leaving behind the type of world you yearn for
(it may never really have existed). It may be dangerous, but that's where
we're going. Deal with it.
-scott
Scott Erb
In article <q09nnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>But things like that would never happen in Denmark, period.
I disagree, period.
> But I can certainly say, as much as I like, that I do not believe that it
>was technical possible to kill and cremate 6 million Jews as quickly and in
>the way described in the established historiography.
Actually, over 11 million were killed (5 million non-Jews who for various
reasons were considered opponents of the Nazi regime) by various means (not
just cremation and other high-tech methods, but also crude low tech means
were used -- huge numbers were just lined up and shot). And these are well
documented; I have not yet seen a revisionist who was not debunked (though
they usually come back and re-assert that which has been debunked, causing me
to doubt the honesty of their motives. Revisionists either have a religious
faith in their views making them impervious to evidence, or else they must
have ulterior motives).
-scott
Ole Kreiberg
In article <4pv8ei$1...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, Lawrence Segal wrote:
>
>Ole Kreiberg (o...@login.dknet.dk) writes:
>> I do not feel that I owe the Germans or Jews something and I will
>> certainly say whatever it suits me about the holocaust - no matter how much
>> the German government and it's European Union are trying to bully me. What
>> Germany did not succeed in on the battle field in WW1 and WW2 it will try
>> to accomplish through the European Union, and that is German hegemony over
>> the rest of Europe.
>>
>
>hegemony over Denmark.
Why? Just because I am saying the truth about Denmark during WW2, you think
I am pro-German.
>Perhaps it is only Nazi hegemony over Denmark that
>you admire so much, as evidenced by your Nazi-appologist postings regarding
>Denmark during WWII.
>
>> Who cares about that
>> one fifth of Boer population in Transvaal in South Africa died in British
>> concentrations camps during the Boerwar
>
>Aside from a bunch of racist Boers, no one gives a shit.
If the world does not cares about some dead Boers, why should it care about
some dead Jews. Remember the Jews are often regarded racists too, especially
by the Arabs. In november 1975 the majority of the nations of the world
declared in the UN General Assembly, that zionism is racism. Also back
in the seventies the then head of state of South Africa, J Vorster visited
Israel, where he said that South Africa is Isreal's best friend.
>The Boers were
>engaging in a guerilla war againt the British Army. The Brits needed to
>ensure that the guerillas were not being re-supplied and assisted by the
>civilian population. If the Boers had been fighting a conventional war
>against the Brits, the tactics would have been different.
The Brits were fighting in order to lay their hands on all that newly
found gold in Transvaal, and they wanted to extend their empire from Cape
Town to Cairo, and the Boers were standing in their way.
>
>To suggest that the actions of the Brits during the Boer war is one and the
>same as that of the Nazis during WWII is just so demented, it's a wonder
>you haven't been committed to a mental instutution, Ole. Your simply
>nuts, crackers, not playing with a full deck....
>--
Arthur Schopenhauer on how the undesired truth is received:"First it is
ridiculed, then it is fought violently for at last to be accepted as
self-evident."
OLK
--
Achim Recktenwald
Ole Kreiberg wrote:
[snip]
>
> All the paranoia and hysteria about nazism and the "importance" of
> remembering the "holocaust" serve only one real purpose that is as
> political propaganda against the opponents of the immigration from the
> third world to Europe and North America, and those who speak out against
> Anyway the communists were consistent and keen internationalists and
> there still died more people in communist camps than in nazi camps. So why
> do you want me to believe that internationalism makes people better than
> nationalism?
>
> --
If I understand you right, your hate everybody except the Danes.
Achim
Achim Recktenwald
> > The Germans are much more passionate, bordering the fanatic, than
> >Scandinavians and Anglo-Saxon people. Let us assume that the holocaust did
> >happen. In that case such an act could only be made out of extreme fanatism.
> >The development of such fanatism would be unthinkable in Denmark.
>
The Germans are actually of Danish heritage. During the migration of nations, I think it was around
800 - 600 B.C., they wandered into the present German territory from northern Jutland.
Achim
Holger Skok
In article <bH8nnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk (Ole
Kreiberg) wrote:
...
> When I hear that the Germans have arrested a man just because he has
> written the word "infested" in a letter I see the same evil Germans who
> worked for the Gestapo or the STASI in the former DDR. I then ask myself,
> will these Germans never stop persecuting and imprisoning each other
> because of dissident views on this and that? Why are they so?
> All the paranoia and hysteria about nazism and the "importance" of
> remembering the "holocaust" serve only one real purpose that is as
> political propaganda against the opponents of the immigration from the
> third world to Europe and North America, and those who speak out against
> the multiethnic society. It is propaganda in favour of internationalism.
> Anyway the communists were consistent and keen internationalists and
> there still died more people in communist camps than in nazi camps. So why
> do you want me to believe that internationalism makes people better than
> nationalism?
Well, you might do well to substantiate that claim of yours - the word
"infested" leading to someone being imprisoned. Look here, I am German,
I post from Germany and I can write "infested" all over this posting
without having to fear prosecution. There, I said it again: "infested"
again: INFESTED, iNFesTEd, INfestED....
There has to be more to the use of that word if someone is getting
into trouble over it. I would imagine that the offense was
"Volksverhetzung" and that is clearly something bordering on
a thought crime. I know that the ACLU would be apalled at the
laws concerning "Volksverhetzung" and the display of Nazi symbols
or the denial of the holocaust. All of them are punishable
offenses. I am uncertain if that sort of legal treatment is
still appropriate. It does impose limitations on the freedom of
speech which can be considered justified in view of our German past.
But now, more than fifty years after the end of the Third Reich,
I think that they are slowly losing their justification.
The right wing groups in Germany simply use different symbols,
reminescent of the swastika. Everyone knows what is meant, yet
the symbols are not covered by the law prohibiting the PUBLIC
(mind you) display of Nazi symbols. So the Wiking Jugend marches
in the street with their rune, the FAP uses a modified symbol
of the DAF, Kühnen used a "Hitler's salute" not with the entire
hand outstretched, but with thumb, pointer and index (?) finger
spread out. ... The examples abound.
Also, Nazis cleverly use the ensuing legal proceedings to get
cheap media coverage for their ideas and propaganda, so, maybe
the laws are counterproductive even. On the other hand, you can
surely imagine what the international news coverage would
be, if we had people marching with the swastika in the streets
again. So, in view of the internation relations of Germany, the
laws make some sense. I am undecided on this issue.
You make it look though, as if that treatment was commonplace.
You say we are "imprisoning each other because of dissident
views on this and that" as if the cause was unimportant. Do
you know of any other opinions, besides "Volksverhetzung" and
denial of the holocaust which are punishable in and of themselves
according to German law? If so, speak up.
Ciao,
HSK
--
Holger Skok ITW, Uni Stuttgart
email: sk...@itw.uni-stuttgart.de
phone: +49 711 685 3230
Edmund Grimley-Evans
|> Also, Nazis cleverly use the ensuing legal proceedings to get
|> cheap media coverage for their ideas and propaganda, so, maybe
|> the laws are counterproductive even. On the other hand, you can
|> surely imagine what the international news coverage would
|> be, if we had people marching with the swastika in the streets
|> again. So, in view of the internation relations of Germany, the
|> laws make some sense. I am undecided on this issue.
Thanks for the nice balanced summary!
I suppose the thing could be compared to the (proposed) law against
burning the national flag in the USA. It's a restriction on freedom
of speech, but it's not the end of (so-called) democracy ...
Robert Smith
Achim Recktenwald <ac...@cam.org> wrote:
>Robert Smith wrote:
>>
>> o...@login.dknet.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>>
>> <<cut>>
>> > The Germans are much more passionate, bordering the fanatic, than
>> >Scandinavians and Anglo-Saxon people. Let us assume that the holocaust did
>> >happen. In that case such an act could only be made out of extreme fanatism.
>> >The development of such fanatism would be unthinkable in Denmark.
>> <<cut>>
>>
>The Germans are actually of Danish heritage. During the migration of nations, I think it was around
>800 - 600 B.C., they wandered into the present German territory from northern Jutland.
>Achim
Achim, sorry to disagree but I thought all the germanic tribes
originally came from the East. I don't dispute that their was lots of
cross-migration. What I was trying to get across was that we are all
of the same descent. (the English, Dutch, Germans and Scandanavians)
Robert
====================================================
Robert Smith A Europe for all its Peoples
rik...@dircon.co.uk England- The Other UK Nation
====================================================.
Robert Smith
Achim Recktenwald <ac...@cam.org> wrote:
>Ole Kreiberg wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> All the paranoia and hysteria about nazism and the "importance" of
>> remembering the "holocaust" serve only one real purpose that is as
>> political propaganda against the opponents of the immigration from the
>> third world to Europe and North America, and those who speak out against
>> the multiethnic society. It is propaganda in favour of internationalism.
>> Anyway the communists were consistent and keen internationalists and
>> there still died more people in communist camps than in nazi camps. So why
>> do you want me to believe that internationalism makes people better than
>> nationalism?
>>
>> OLK
>> --
>If I understand you right, your hate everybody except the Danes.
>Achim
No, I should think he hates some of the Danes as well. Hatred like his
knows no frontiers.
Robert
====================================================
Robert Smith A Europe for all its Peoples
rik...@dircon.co.uk England- The Other UK Nation
====================================================
Jonne Henrikki Kolima
>In article <1RgmnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk (Ole
>Kreiberg) wrote:
> It is distortion of history to say that the holocaust teaches us what
> people are able to do against people. No, it only teaches us what the
> Germans are able to do when they are worst.
Tutus, Hutsis, Cambodeans, Japanese, Russians, Americans etc. etc.
The list goes on and on. Sometimes it seems that most of the
nations have committed acts of systemical massacre at some point during
their history. The Nordic countries seem to be an exception this
(hmm, OTOH, vikings & hakkapeliittas?) but that's probably because we're
rather flegmatic in nature and haven't really been in position to do
so in the first place.
--
-jhk-
Ole Kreiberg
In article <4q25qq$18...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, Scott Erb wrote:
>In article <bH8nnOev...@login.dknet.dk>, o...@login.dknet.dk says...
>
>>It would be just
>>as wrong as to claim that ideas of social justice and better conditions for
>>the working class automatically leads to camps and killings as those of
>>Stalin and Pol Pot.
>
>Since when did anyone associate Stalin or Pol Pot with ideas of social
>justice?
Communists associate themselves with a struggle for social justice and
equality. Stalin and Pol Pot were believing communist.
>> Therefore I am sick and tired of hearing political propaganda about how
>>dangerous nazism is,
>
>It's not propaganda. It's called truth, Ole.
It ought to be called paranoia.
>
>> All the paranoia and hysteria about nazism and the "importance" of
>>remembering the "holocaust" serve only one real purpose that is as
>>political propaganda against the opponents of the immigration from the
>>third world to Europe and North America, and those who speak out against
>>the multiethnic society.
>
>Oh, so you'd rather just forget? No there are many purposes, including to
>illustrate the danger of fascist and racist ideology, and to make sure such a
>thing never happens again.
>
>As for a multiethnic society. Well, there's no way you're ever going to
>escape that!
If everyone think like you, it may be so. But if we decide to fight back
against the undesired the multiethnic society, we can do it.
>The trends point to easier communication and transportation,
>and diversity will increase. You may not like it, but c'est la realite.
>
>> It is propaganda in favour of internationalism.
>>Anyway the communists were consistent and keen internationalists and
>>there still died more people in communist camps than in nazi camps. So why
>>do you want me to believe that internationalism makes people better than
>>nationalism?
>
>False logic, Ole. Stalin wasn't an internationalist. Remember "socialism in
>one country."
But the communist ideology and movement certainly were internationalist.
When the Soviet Union failed to have the communist revolution exported to
other countries Stalin was forced to accept the idea socialism in one
country. As soon as he got the chance he had no scruples in installing
communist governments in all those Eastern European countries which he
liberated from German occupation. So much for socialism in one country.
>Also, there are many internationalists, and most are
>non-communist. So you can't claim that because SOME communists are
>internationalists, all calls for internationalism will lead to communism.
>
I do not say that all internationalism leads to communism. I just say that
the nature of communism is internalistic.
>In any event, all your whining aside, you're on the losing side of this
>issue. Global trends are against you, as is the educated public. This isn't
>the EU I'm talking about -- Maastricht may fail, some countries may pull out
>-- but global society. We're leaving behind the type of world you yearn for
>(it may never really have existed). It may be dangerous, but that's where
>we're going. Deal with it.
This sounds very fatalistic. If you accept it this way it will be so, but
I know that opposition and resistance in the long run will be able blow
this ugly new world order away. Concerning the poltical correct socalled
educated public I cannot help thinking of the story of the emperor's new
clothes. Your ideas seem to be of the same nature.
OLK
--
Stein J. Rypern
In article <4q114j$h...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lawrence Segal) writes:
[Stein]
>> I don't think that is quite the best counterargument I have ever heard
>> about this. Are you saying basically "They deserved what they got" ?
[Lawrence]
>I am saying that if the Boers had fought a conventional war, there would
>have been no need for the British to have confined Boer civilians.
Allow me to use the same argument to "support" the nazi's : "if the
jews (or gipsies, or polish intellectuals, or gays, or socialists, or
whatever) had not annoyed the nazis, there would have been no 'need'
for arresting jews, trade unionists, intelectuals etc".
And for the sarcasm impaired, *of course* I don't mean what I just
wrote above. I am just trying to hint rather strongly that blaming
your opponent for "forcing you to take harsh measures" is an old,
tired argument.
The Germans of World War 1 used "Franc-tireurs" (ie Guerillas) as an
excuse to burn down towns in Belgium and to murder civilians. Does this
make the burning of Louvain right ?
The Germans of World War 2 used "terrorism" as an excuse to kill the
civilians of the towns of Lidice, Oradour-sur-glane (sp?) and countless
other towns. Does this make it right ?
Blaming your opponents for "forcing you" to behave wrongly is not a
valid excuse, in my opinion.
[Lawrence]
>As for whether the Boers deserved what they got - given the events that
>followed in the subsequent 90+ years in South Africa - mainly at the hands
>of the Boer population - one cannot help but wonder if things mights have
>been much better, much sooner, in South Africa, had all the Boers been
>wiped out during the Boer war.
Or to rephrase what you just wrote: these boers were "untermenschen"
(sub-humans), who deserved to be killed off ?
[Lawrence]
>I certainly have no great sympathy for the Boers, especially after all
>the injustices they imposed on the *majority* of South Africa's population
>in the years that followed the Boer War.
This is totally irrelevant. Killing off "the boers" includes killing
children, grandmothers, pregnant women, the sick and disabled, people
not supporting the war/rebellion and so on.
Do you really think it is morally defensible to kill a pregnant woman to
prevent her unborn son or her grandson from imposing "injustices on the
*majority* of South Africa's population" about 50 years later ? (Apartheid
was made law in RSA around 1948 or so, unless I misremeber too badly)
As for what way the boer society would have gone if Transvaal hadn't been
invaded is kind of hard to tell. We cannot go back and change history to
try other branches.
[Stein]
>> Locking up civilians in prison camps with insufficient food supplies
>> and medical attention is morally indefensible, IMO. I do believe the
>> Geneva convention is quite clear on this subject.
[Lawrence]
>I disagree for the reasons outlined above. BTW, there was no "Geneva
>Convention" at the time of the Boer War (1900-1902).
The Geneva convention dates back to 1864. But the original convention
only gives protection to wounded soldiers and medical personell. The
addendum that protects the civilian population wasn't adopted until
1949. So you are right in saying that there was no Geneva convention
protecting civilians at the time of the Boer War.
But my original argument was: "locking up civilians in prison camps
with insufficient food supplies and medical attention ***is*** morally
indefensible, IMO. I do believe the Geneva convention ***is*** quite
clear on this subject."
*Present* tense. I judge the actions of the british in south africa,
*and* of the Germans during the nazi government with *present-day*
moral standards.
If you are to excuse the british with the argument that "times
was like that back in 1900", one might as well excuse the nazi's
with the argument "theories of racial purity and the desirability
to weed away the genetically 'weak' were acceptable in most european
countries prior to WW2".
Or for that matter by : "If you look at the suffering caused by
israelis towards the palestinians, one might wonder if not ...".
I do *not* hold such views, I am just trying to show you that your
position on this issue is, in my opinion, rather inconsistent.
>> But I wouldn't get on my high horse and claim that "our side" always
>> has had lily-white hands. If you want another example, look up the
>> history of the Amritsar massacre committed by troops under the command
>> of british brigadier Dwyer in India. You will find that this was *after*
>> WW2, I believe.
>Ah, but the Brits held him accountable for his acts, and didn't try to
>pretend it never happended. He was tried for this act.
He ordereded troops to open fire at peaceful, unarmed protesters including
women and children in a city square, under non-wartime conditions. His troops
only stopped firing when their supply of bullets were exhausted. He did not
allow people to surrender or disperse. He did not provide medical attention
for the wounded.
Was he hanged ? Was he sentenced to a prison term ?
No. He was eventually cashiered from the king's service. That was
all. And money was collected from brits living all over India to
provide him with a "decent pension". His actions was widely applauded
in the british community in India - I believe the phrase "that ought
to teach the buggers a lesson" was heard once or twice ...
>And, as you pointed out, this action did *not* have the support of the
>political or military leadership of Britain. India gained independence
>from Briatian shortly after WWII, and I think this incident occurred
>before WWII.
India gained independence from Britain in 1947. This incident might
have occured prior to WW2. I don't have any of my books on indian
history handy right now.
>In any event, India's independence from Britain was achieved peacefully,
>without a war between India and Britain.
That sort of depends on how you define "war" and "peaceful". Subbas
Chandra Bose (sp?) and his Indian National Liberation Army certainly
fought an armed war against the british during World War 2.
The tremors of India gaining independence caused the loss of a large
number of human lives. But of course, these lives were mostly indian,
so it might still qualify as "peaceful" by your standards.
There was a massive exodus of moslems and hindus being forced to
leave their homes as India was split into a moslem part (Pakistan)
and a predominantly hindu part (India).
I would say that the independence of India was about as bloodless
as could be managed at the time, and that the credit for this should
mainly go to the indian leaderships insistence on non-violence as a
course of action.
The initial british responses to the independence movement was a
brutal repression and the use of excessive force. As it also was in
e.g. Kenya and several other "non-white" nations.
Not that this detracts from the honors due to e.g. Lord Louis Mount-
batten, the last viceroy of India. He was a wise man who made a massive
contribution to keeping the situation from getting a lot worse than it
got to be.
But this is a massive side-tracking of the original point. My original
point(s) were:
1) that I consider it morally indefensible to "exterminate", "wipe
out" or to murder *any* group of people, be they jews, azerbadjanis,
germans, palestinians, tutsi, francophone canadians, west-coast
norwegians or boers.
2) that I consider it morally indefensible to perform wholesale arrests
and imprisonment of individials just because they belong to such an
identifiable group.
and
3) that these actions are just as wrong no matter *who* performs them.
As this is getting rather far off topic for soc.culture.nordic, I intend
to stop debating this issue here. If you want to continue the debate, then
I hope email would be acceptable to you ?
Lawrence Segal
Ole Kreiberg (o...@login.dknet.dk) writes:
> In article <4pv8ei$1...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, Lawrence Segal wrote:
>>Ole Kreiberg (o...@login.dknet.dk) writes:
>>> I do not feel that I owe the Germans or Jews something and I will
>>> certainly say whatever it suits me about the holocaust - no matter how much
>>> the German government and it's European Union are trying to bully me. What
>>> Germany did not succeed in on the battle field in WW1 and WW2 it will try
>>> to accomplish through the European Union, and that is German hegemony over
>>> the rest of Europe.
>>>
>
LS:
>>I would have thought that you, of all people, would welcome German
>>hegemony over Denmark.
>
OLK:
> Why? Just because I am saying the truth about Denmark during WW2, you think
> I am pro-German.
No, you're not pro-German, you are pro-Nazi, as I indicated below:
>>Perhaps it is only Nazi hegemony over Denmark that
>>you admire so much, as evidenced by your Nazi-appologist postings regarding
>>Denmark during WWII.
OLK:
> If the world does not cares about some dead Boers, why should it care about
> some dead Jews.
There was *never* a deliberate attempt to anihilate Boers by the British
Army, as I already pointed out. This was certainly *not* the objective of
the british political or miliary leadership. However, it was the objective of
the Nazi leadership to exterminate Jews, Gypsies, the disabled. That's why.
> Remember the Jews are often regarded racists too, especially
> by the Arabs.
I'm sure that's correct. But, then again, you are *also* a racist, Ole,
so it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black for you to accuse
Jews of racism.
LS:
>>The Boers were
>>engaging in a guerilla war againt the British Army. The Brits needed to
>>ensure that the guerillas were not being re-supplied and assisted by the
>>civilian population. If the Boers had been fighting a conventional war
>>against the Brits, the tactics would have been different.
OLK:
> The Brits were fighting in order to lay their hands on all that newly
> found gold in Transvaal, and they wanted to extend their empire from Cape
> Town to Cairo, and the Boers were standing in their way.
South Africa was a British colony at that time, Ole, as was much of
Africa. The British wanted what was theirs at the time. The Boers fought
using guerilla tactics against a British Army that used traditional
(European) tactics. The British reacted by removing the civilian
re-supply lines to the Boer guerillas. There was no deliberate attempt to
exterminate the Boers - if there had been, perhaps South Africa would
never have become the racist shit-hole it was for so many years, while it
was under racist Boer control. The Boers got what they deserved, and we
neededn't feel any great sympathy for them. BTW, Canadians fought against
Boers during that war, as did troops from many parts of the British
empire. Canadians also spearheaded the fight against racist South
African (Boer) government policies, and in fact made the first steps to
remove South Africa from the British Commonwealth, back in the 1960's,
blacklist their products, and remove them from international sports events.
OLK:
> Arthur Schopenhauer on how the undesired truth is received:"First it is
> ridiculed, then it is fought violently for at last to be accepted as
> self-evident."
The "truth" will never be self-evident to a racist scum-bag like you, Ole.
You are blinded by racism.