Far-right rioters leave trail of destruction in Polish capital

[Autumnlicious]

The majority was terrified and cowed by the Fascists in Italy and Germany in 1940's. The Night of Long Knives, for example, took out both Nazi and opponents.

Why do I feel you'd defend such an event as "the majority is getting tired of this. You'll see more and more incidents like this one in the future. "

[Ryantology]

Well, this whole tolerance deal of Europe, especially, has done nothing but to anger the native populations of Europe, by constanty insulting their values, bringing in immigrants, and under the failure that is "multiculturalism", allowed them to live out their lives in Europe without requiring basic integration from them. Not to mention that these immigrants have contributed to the rise of crime and unemployment.

Perhaps the problem isn't immigration in general, but rather that much of the immigration comes from your part of the world, where science and morality are both stuck in reverse.

Perhaps the solution is to kick out people like you and let you ruin your own civilizations, as you have done an amazing job of doing, instead of ruining theirs.

[EgoRaptor]

The far-right are fucking scum, I hope they destroy Poland so the Poles can learn the dangers of nationalism, & I say thid as someone who hates multiculturalism.

[Bad Writer]

Oh jeez...

[kılıç_mehmet]

The majority was terrified and cowed by the Fascists in Italy and Germany in 1940's. The Night of Long Knives, for example, took out both Nazi and opponents.

Why do I feel you'd defend such an event as "the majority is getting tired of this. You'll see more and more incidents like this one in the future. "

It was the majority who supported the Fascists in Italy and the Nazis in Germany, similarly, the nationalists in Turkey.
And you cannot intimidate the majority for too long, as today's events show, and if the Fascists and Nazis had no means of public support, they would not have been able to stay in power for too long as to wage war, nor increase their potential.
Similarly, if the majority did not support the nationalist revolution in Turkey, Turkey wouldn't exist.
In essence, all the leaders meant to do the same thing: Come to power, use the power to fuel national interests and create a strong national identity and commitment to national goals.
Some failed, some like us, succeeded.

Perhaps the problem isn't immigration in general, but rather that much of the immigration comes from your part of the world, where science and morality are both stuck in reverse.

Perhaps the solution is to kick out people like you and let you ruin your own civilizations, as you have done an amazing job of doing, instead of ruining theirs.

I am stunned by the hypocrisy of your post. You come here and tell me that immigrants "from my part of the world" are problematic(and they are, for they live in a place that is completely foreign to their character, came there with nothing to show for, and therefore, can only work in low-wage jobs), while chastisizing those (those who are anti-immigration) who claim that immigrants are problematic, with racism and xenophobia. I wonder if you could say the same for the immigrants in the US, or your own ethnic minorities, the Blacks. Why not send them back to where they came from? Their presence contributes to crime and siphons off of your taxes. Just tell them to do the same. But I personally believe that liberals are the foremost reasons for their poverty. Besides, the immigrants do not ruin the culture on their own. Liberals do. And they do this by bringing the said people into their own countries, and proclaiming that now the native culture be treated on the same level as the foreign culture they had brought in. This slowly but surely undermines and distorts the domestic culture and traditions, while foreign traditions are especially protected under the wings of liberals, which is archived by granting them special "privilages" and special rights that are above the rights of the majority, as they enjoy protection, while the domestic culture and traditions are proclaimed to be "outdated" and "oppressive to minorities".

Well, I for one do not wish my people to go to Europe, really. They are being used as the tools of the liberals in their schemes, to create a battleground for cultures, by putting people of different cultures under the same roof. Liberalism maintains that this is possible under the pretext of "multiculturalism".
We on the other hand do not insult a culture as bad and backwards, like you did just now. We just think that each culture maintains an area of influence where it can flourish without getting into fight with other cultures, peoples and religions.
Liberals are fools, and they engineered this for many of the countries of Europe. If there is such a culture war between natives and immigrants, its not the fault of the immigrants or the natives, but the liberals who claimed that a culturally homogenous Europe was bad thing. They lured my people to Germany with promises of higher wages, and they went, without having any property, roots, nor anything of value in that country, their lot in life could only be that of the lowly worker. Given this, why would they want to discard their own ways for the ways of foreigners? Their loyalty still lays with their homeland, naturally. But liberals do not ask for the loyalty of immigrants, just their presence, so that they can justify their position as "heroes of tolerance" and "savior of minorities".
Similarly, the liberals have told us that since we're all "brothers in humanity", we do not need to build cars, we do not need our own technology, we do not need to be anything else but a nation of farmers and cheap workers, and in turn, they'd provide us with technology, while we provide them with labor and food.
Liberalism is a plague upon every nation. It brings only more strife. And while it does this, it claims to have the moral upper ground.
It certainly doesn't.

The far-right are fucking scum, I hope they destroy Poland so the Poles can learn the dangers of nationalism, & I say thid as someone who hates multiculturalism.

Wow, the commie is mad, and goes wild with curses. Wherever nationalism is on the rise, commies cover in fear.

---

Just to show another example of how liberalism is the epitome of failure, I'll use my own country. Today, there exists a war of two ethnicities in Turkey. That of the Turks and the Kurds.
According to Liberals, these two people should be able to coexist. So how come that the minority vehemently denies our rule? Well, there is the thing, it is our rule, the rule of the Turks, because it was us who founded the country, and it was us, who made its laws. So liberalism yet again maintains that the minority takes up arms against us because we do not wish to include their identity and their culture into the "national culture" and "national identity"of the Turkish republic, who has been founded by Turks.
So liberalism yet again maintains that this could be archived by compromise, by that, each side giving up something in favor of peace. It requires that the current national identity be abolished and a new identity be created. But neither side is happy with this. Turks do not wish to relinquish their rights as the founders of the country, the Kurds do not wish to give up on their dreams of independence.
So we fight.
How do you propose that liberalism would create harmony without resulting into fighting? It can't. Liberalism only serves to anger both sides even more, creating more strife, and even perhaps, a civil war o major scale, while nationalism maintains order by power, not by hypocrisy. Whoever fights better and with more courage for their national interests, will triumph at the end. If we win, we will have subjugated them, and force them to accept our laws and ways, creating harmony, even though by power, if they win, they will cede from our lands, and claim the sweet prize of independence and national pride.
Liberalism contributes to nothing, as it maintains nothing.

[EgoRaptor]

Just to show another example of how liberalism is the epitome of failure, I'll use my own country. Today, there exists a war of two ethnicities in Turkey.

So you are Turkish? Funny that you are anti-immigrant, considering that it is your Islamic people who are ruining Europe for everyone else. In fact, it is only when dealing with Muslims that I am anti-immigrant. Also, I am not a communist in the strictest sense of the word, as I am a political syncretist; my main influences being economic Marxism, moderate right-wing populism, secularism & Fortuynism.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Just to show another example of how liberalism is the epitome of failure, I'll use my own country. Today, there exists a war of two ethnicities in Turkey.

So you are Turkish? Funny that you are anti-immigrant, considering that it is your Islamic people who are ruining Europe for everyone else. In fact, it is only when dealing with Muslims that I am anti-immigrant. Also, I am not a communist in the strictest sense of the word, as I am a political syncretist; my main influences being economic Marxism, moderate right-wing populism, secularism & Fortuynism.

Well, its not we, who are ruining anything. We don't have the power to rise above the status of a worker in Germany, so would you expect us to have the power to ruin anything for anyone? You are truly naive. Blame not us, blame your politicians, blame the liberals for betraying you.
Other than that, I am anti-immigration from my side. I don't want our people to go and be the workers of someone else, stuck in ethnic enclaves, facing the scorn of others for their ethnic identity, culture and religion. I don't want our youth to turn to crime because they are disgruntled with their lot in life.
And truth be told, this is only natural. We Turks and Europeans have been at war ever since the Huns, and would it be any surprise if we experienced friction under the same roof? Similarly, other muslim nations, who have been historical enemies, how would you expect them to share the same country?
I do not blame the europeans for being hostile towards immigrants, that's the most natural thing to do.
But it is the liberals who have created this battle, and pit the people against eachother by bringing them in the first place. Else, they would have lost their relevance in society, they would have no minority to back up, they would have no "disenfranchised" to support, and since they themselves are political minorities, they'd be alone, and without power.
We all are simply pawns in their game.
So do not expect me to back up the liberals simply because they support Turks in Europe. It is not their place to support our people. I refuse to let my people be the part of the same plague that is spreading to my lands.

Besides, syncretism is quite stupid. You take from this and that, and create an impure substance which you claim be the salve to your wounds. Nationalism is enough of a cure for every social ill, mainly because it comes from the essence of a people.

Sorry pal, you won't find hypocrisy in my words. I am not going against my own by opposing the liberal weapon of war, immigration, as a matter of fact, what I'm doing is very nationalistic.

[EgoRaptor]

So you are Turkish? Funny that you are anti-immigrant, considering that it is your Islamic people who are ruining Europe for everyone else. In fact, it is only when dealing with Muslims that I am anti-immigrant. Also, I am not a communist in the strictest sense of the word, as I am a political syncretist; my main influences being economic Marxism, moderate right-wing populism, secularism & Fortuynism.

Well, its not we, who are ruining anything. We don't have the power to rise above the status of a worker in Germany, so would you expect us to have the power to ruin anything for anyone? You are truly naive. Blame not us, blame your politicians, blame the liberals for betraying you.
Other than that, I am anti-immigration from my side. I don't want our people to go and be the workers of someone else, stuck in ethnic enclaves, facing the scorn of others for their ethnic identity, culture and religion. I don't want our youth to turn to crime because they are disgruntled with their lot in life.
And truth be told, this is only natural. We Turks and Europeans have been at war ever since the Huns, and would it be any surprise if we experienced friction under the same roof? Similarly, other muslim nations, who have been historical enemies, how would you expect them to share the same country?
I do not blame the europeans for being hostile towards immigrants, that's the most natural thing to do.
But it is the liberals who have created this battle, and pit the people against eachother by bringing them in the first place. Else, they would have lost their relevance in society, they would have no minority to back up, they would have no "disenfranchised" to support, and since they themselves are political minorities, they'd be alone, and without power.
We all are simply pawns in their game.
So do not expect me to back up the liberals simply because they support Turks in Europe. It is not their place to support our people. I refuse to let my people be the part of the same plague that is spreading to my lands.

Besides, syncretism is quite stupid. You take from this and that, and create an impure substance which you claim be the salve to your wounds. Nationalism is enough of a cure for every social ill, mainly because it comes from the essence of a people.

Sorry pal, you won't find hypocrisy in my words. I am not going against my own by opposing the liberal weapon of war, immigration, as a matter of fact, what I'm doing is very nationalistic.

You sound like Mao blaming everything on liberals. I, myself, draw much influence from right-wing liberal populism, especially Dutch right-wing liberalism, such as that of Pim Fortuyn & Geert Wilders. Do you even know what liberalism is? JFK defined liberal as "someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions".

Also, I am a cultural-internationalist. Your Muslims ought to stop living like pigs & enter the 21st century. You should accept or be forced to accept liberal Western values. Is this not what your nationalist leader Mustafa Kemal Atatürk did when he banned Sharia law & enforced writing in Latin script?

The irony is that you say that the Europeans are hostile towards immigrants, when in reality Europe has been far too welcoming. Now Muslims are trying to take over. Nationalism isn't the solution for anything. What is needed is a mixture of left-liberal social values with right-conservative cultural imperialism. Muslims need to be assimilated. I don't want everyone to stay in some national boundary. Everyone should accept the vastly superior Western culture & national boundaries & the nation should be eliminated.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, its not we, who are ruining anything. We don't have the power to rise above the status of a worker in Germany, so would you expect us to have the power to ruin anything for anyone? You are truly naive. Blame not us, blame your politicians, blame the liberals for betraying you.
Other than that, I am anti-immigration from my side. I don't want our people to go and be the workers of someone else, stuck in ethnic enclaves, facing the scorn of others for their ethnic identity, culture and religion. I don't want our youth to turn to crime because they are disgruntled with their lot in life.
And truth be told, this is only natural. We Turks and Europeans have been at war ever since the Huns, and would it be any surprise if we experienced friction under the same roof? Similarly, other muslim nations, who have been historical enemies, how would you expect them to share the same country?
I do not blame the europeans for being hostile towards immigrants, that's the most natural thing to do.
But it is the liberals who have created this battle, and pit the people against eachother by bringing them in the first place. Else, they would have lost their relevance in society, they would have no minority to back up, they would have no "disenfranchised" to support, and since they themselves are political minorities, they'd be alone, and without power.
We all are simply pawns in their game.
So do not expect me to back up the liberals simply because they support Turks in Europe. It is not their place to support our people. I refuse to let my people be the part of the same plague that is spreading to my lands.

Besides, syncretism is quite stupid. You take from this and that, and create an impure substance which you claim be the salve to your wounds. Nationalism is enough of a cure for every social ill, mainly because it comes from the essence of a people.

Sorry pal, you won't find hypocrisy in my words. I am not going against my own by opposing the liberal weapon of war, immigration, as a matter of fact, what I'm doing is very nationalistic.

You sound like Mao blaming everything on liberals. I, myself, draw much influence from right-wing liberal populism, especially Dutch right-wing liberalism, such as that of Pim Fortuyn & Geert Wilders. Do you even know what liberalism is? JFK defined liberal as "someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions".

Also, I am a cultural-internationalist. Your Muslims ought to stop living like pigs & enter the 21st century. You should accept or be forced to accept liberal Western values. Is this not what your nationalist leader Mustafa Kemal Atatürk did when he banned Sharia law & enforced writing in Latin script?

The irony is that you say that the Europeans are hostile towards immigrants, when in reality Europe has been far too welcoming. Now Muslims are trying to take over.

Well, since they are the supporters of the celebrate diversity thing, I guess its them who should be blamed for it.
Besides, right-wing liberalism, which is probably a poltiical stance based on reaction, not on idealism, is something that has a lifespan only as long as there are immigrants, especially muslims in Europe. It really leads to nowhere. Their whole political platform is built on anti-immigration policies, with nothing else. If anti-immigration has its roots in nationalism, it means something, else, not.

And I do know what liberalism is, it was something else in the past, but its something else today. The liberals of the past were not exactly the rootless cosmopolitants we know of today. They had ideals, and many were also part of nationalistic movements. For example, Turkish nationalism has been created by Jadidist progressives, who could be termed "liberals". However they were nothing like the liberals of today, who use the term to denote excessive individualism, and excessive individual liberties with no regard to tradition, culture and society.
Their concepts of freedom and liberty were romantic concepts, mostly associated with independence and sovereinity of their nations, and not with the degeneracy we see around the globe today that liberals support.

Besides, I'm not an internationalist, especially not an ummah-sympathisant, so I really do not care if the other muslims live like pigs, though I'm sure that a many of them lead better lives than you do, especially in oil rich countries like the UAE, Qatar, Dubai and Saudi Arabia, and the rest are already locked in civil strife which has been initiated by the west.

Besides, you cannot force anyone to accept anything, you have no power to do so. No one wants your liberalism. Neither did our founding father, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. He didn't ban the Sharia, a certain Sultan named Murad II. did. At that point, he only brought modern values that already existed in urban regions to rural areas.
He did so in order to allow every member of the nation to properly participate in the revival of the nation, as the said ummah mentality existed before the nationalistic values based on the Turkish ethnic identiy were proclaimed to be the leading values, as the values regarding the ummah lost their relevance after we lost our territories in Arabia.

Well, the Europeans have only recently begun showing hostility due to the fact that the liberals have been pushing the whole stuff about cultural diversity only recently. It didn't exist during the cold war era, because back then, the liberals of today were on the same side as the commies. The liberals of back then were anti-communistic in their stance. And muslims taking over? Tell me, where are the multitude of muslim intellectuals that have a sway over your universities? Where are the wealthy muslim bankers that control your economy? Where are the muslim media moguls that control your minds? Where are the muslim politicians that affect your internal affairs?
Where are the muslim actors, the artists, the musicians?
You are really deluded to claim that muslims in Europe actually rule anything. It is the liberals and the merchants who have taken over, and whenever you say anything, you're branded as a bigot.

[EgoRaptor]

You sound like Mao blaming everything on liberals. I, myself, draw much influence from right-wing liberal populism, especially Dutch right-wing liberalism, such as that of Pim Fortuyn & Geert Wilders. Do you even know what liberalism is? JFK defined liberal as "someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions".

Also, I am a cultural-internationalist. Your Muslims ought to stop living like pigs & enter the 21st century. You should accept or be forced to accept liberal Western values. Is this not what your nationalist leader Mustafa Kemal Atatürk did when he banned Sharia law & enforced writing in Latin script?

The irony is that you say that the Europeans are hostile towards immigrants, when in reality Europe has been far too welcoming. Now Muslims are trying to take over.

Well, since they are the supporters of the celebrate diversity thing, I guess its them who should be blamed for it.
Besides, right-wing liberalism, which is probably a poltiical stance based on reaction, not on idealism, is something that has a lifespan only as long as there are immigrants, especially muslims in Europe. It really leads to nowhere. Their whole political platform is built on anti-immigration policies, with nothing else. If anti-immigration has its roots in nationalism, it means something, else, not.

And I do know what liberalism is, it was something else in the past, but its something else today. The liberals of the past were not exactly the rootless cosmopolitants we know of today. They had ideals, and many were also part of nationalistic movements. For example, Turkish nationalism has been created by Jadidist progressives, who could be termed "liberals". However they were nothing like the liberals of today, who use the term to denote excessive individualism, and excessive individual liberties with no regard to tradition, culture and society.
Their concepts of freedom and liberty were romantic concepts, mostly associated with independence and sovereinity of their nations, and not with the degeneracy we see around the globe today that liberals support.

Besides, I'm not an internationalist, especially not an ummah-sympathisant, so I really do not care if the other muslims live like pigs, though I'm sure that a many of them lead better lives than you do, especially in oil rich countries like the UAE, Qatar, Dubai and Saudi Arabia, and the rest are already locked in civil strife which has been initiated by the west.

Besides, you cannot force anyone to accept anything, you have no power to do so. No one wants your liberalism. Neither did our founding father, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. He didn't ban the Sharia, a certain Sultan named Murad II. did. At that point, he only brought modern values that already existed in urban regions to rural areas.
He did so in order to allow every member of the nation to properly participate in the revival of the nation, as the said ummah mentality existed before the nationalistic values based on the Turkish ethnic identiy were proclaimed to be the leading values, as the values regarding the ummah lost their relevance after we lost our territories in Arabia.

Well, the Europeans have only recently begun showing hostility due to the fact that the liberals have been pushing the whole stuff about cultural diversity only recently. It didn't exist during the cold war era, because back then, the liberals of today were on the same side as the commies. The liberals of back then were anti-communistic in their stance. And muslims taking over? Tell me, where are the multitude of muslim intellectuals that have a sway over your universities? Where are the wealthy muslim bankers that control your economy? Where are the muslim media moguls that control your minds? Where are the muslim politicians that affect your internal affairs?
Where are the muslim actors, the artists, the musicians?
You are really deluded to claim that muslims in Europe actually rule anything. It is the liberals and the merchants who have taken over, and whenever you say anything, you're branded as a bigot.

Do you think I'm denying that freedom of speech is being blotted out by political correctness? Of course it is. I think you are mixing up liberalism & "progressivism". A liberal is someone who supports individual liberty & will defend your right to say something, even if they strongly disagree with it. The problem is "progressives", who cry racism every time someone criticizes Islam. Outspoken "progressive" George Galloway even publicly called for an alliance of "progressives" & Muslims. Muslims are trying to take over so they can build Eurabia!