Thread: Muslim Integration and Multi-culturalism

A 'timely' event ...

Flames erupt at Villawood Detention Centre as detainees protest | Adelaide Now

RIOTING asylum seekers have torched buildings inside Sydney's Villawood Detention Centre sparking an explosion as a day-long protest turned violent.

NSW police will investigate after protesting asylum seekers torched nine buildings inside the centre overnight, as authorities struggled to gain control of the volatile situation.

Negotiators are still working to talk down two protesters who remain on the roof of the detention centre.

By daybreak, immigration spokesman Sandi Logan said firefighters had contained the fires and although people remained on the roof, the situation was otherwise in hand.

"We're certainly in the process of regaining control and as daylight comes, we'll be in a much better situation to assess damage," he told ABC Radio.

The asylum seekers still on the roof are reportedly calling for a meeting with the immigration department, but Mr Logan said case managers will continue to be their first point of contact.

"Until they come down, we won't be negotiating, but we are working and managing to get them down from the roof,'' he said.

"We hope that occurs shortly."

Guards had had to "take cover and retreat" during the riots, Mr Logan confirmed, noting that they had not been armed.

He said firefighters had also been attacked with roof tiles, furniture and pieces of wood.

"With daybreak now we're doing an assessment of the damage, we'll have structural engineers and assessors coming," he said.

"We know at least nine structures, including the medical centre, the kitchen, the dining room, the laundry, a computer room and other support amenities were destroyed in the fire overnight," he said.

There will be a police investigation before any charges can be laid.

"NSW Police responded as it's a criminal matter and they've done a wonderful job protecting the firefighters as they've done their job," Mr Logan said.

"There may well be charges laid from this investigation," Mr Logan said.

NSW Police are maintaining a security perimeter outside the centre due to jurisdictional limits, keeping scores of onlookers a safe distance away.

During the drama Australian Federal Police and the centre's security force were trying to move non-protesting detainees to safe areas within the centre.

Fire crews had through the night battled at least three major fires from outside the centre, because detainees were running amok inside the centre.

Ten fire trucks rushed to the facility, in Sydney's southwest, about 10.30pm (AEST) on Wednesday.

Fire Superintendent Chris Jurgeit said three ladder trucks had hoses in elevated positions, dousing a series of buildings, demountables and sheds that were on fire.

"We can't get too much water into the structures," Supt Jurgeit told AAP.

"It's like a prison fire. We don't want to put firefighters at risk."

There were no reports of injuries at this stage.

The problems began on Wednesday morning when two asylum seekers took to the roof of one building reportedly in protest to the department denying their applications.

Refugee Action Coalition's Ian Rintoul said a total of 13 asylum seekers were on the roof by Wednesday evening and were there when others on the ground started the fires.

Mr Rintoul remains in contact with some of the detainees who described the situation as chaotic.

He said the men had been held in detention for 15 months and had their applications rejected twice.

"The two asylum seekers have been rejected at the appeal stage of the determination process and say they do not know what will happen to them now," Mr Rintoul said.

Social Justice Network spokesman Jamal Daoud is also in contact with detainees who said that Serco security officers at Villawood have been attacked.

"The detainees attacked SERCO security with fire extinguishers and (were) throwing objects on them,'' Mr Daoud said in an email.

"The detainees told me that they are experiencing difficult breathing because of this.

"There is total chaos inside the detention (centre), with detainees from the rooftop throwing roof tiles on the ground."

Rioting, Arson, Assault. Three things that won't result in you obtaining citizenship.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Germany must be a very class conscious place.

Always has been.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

I cannot for the life of me understand why you'd pay good money to send your child to a private school that couldn't even meet basic standards. Germany must be a very class conscious place.

To be fair the average student population of private schools performs only slightly worse than at state schools.

The immediate area i live in (inner Rhine-Neckar area, roughly comparable to the city of Auckland in size) has 133 general secondary schools. Of those 133 some 107 are public and 26 are private.

The private schools in this area cater to:
- the class-conscious crowd (9 schools)
- religious people (7 schools: 2 protestant, 2 baptist, 3 catholic)
- the alternative crowd (4 schools: 3 Waldorf, 1 Montessori)
- the "slipping" rich kids (2 schools)
- special groups (4 schools)

(the latter category includes an international school, one for "gifted" kids and two for rich parents of bodily disabled kids)

The schools for the class-conscious crowd and the catholic and protestant schools (not the baptist ones) tend to effectively emulate state schools. They work the same curriculum, at the same standards, with similar class sizes, student/teacher ratios etc. With the usual variation - some are better, some are worse.
The schools for the alternative crowd and those for getting rich kids their secondary degree all tend to perform pretty bad. However that's owed to the kind of kids sent there; kids who do not get along with standard education. Waldorf and Montessori schools additionally have the "we don't think the state curriculum is right" angle, as do both baptist religious schools.

For kids who have problems in school that can be solved by proper immersion and additional support there tend to be offers at state schools. For the topic of this thread - there are state schools that really excel at integration of non-German-speakers. Private schools tend to not have the money for that kind of thing; there are a couple that are specialized in this, but they're not exactly widespread.

I see I've built up something of a backlog. Apologies, I'll try to get through them as quick as possible.

Originally Posted by Chunder

Oh, so it's only the rich that get 'tax raped' to pay for social issues, and it's okay, because they're ass holes?

Chunder, let's be honest, the rich don't get tax raped. Ordinary people do, depending on what tax, I agree, but the lack of anger towards the top, who ferret and hoard wealth while whinging about oppressive government is staggering. Not to mention those in the pockets of either some sad Randian fantasy, or the paycheck of their masters, who try to throw tax cuts on the table as a solution: the mindbending neoliberal 'leave them to their fourth rolex because they earned it' orthodoxy is just amazing. We're here talking about cutting taxes for the oppressed rich while shoveling billions into their failed banks/the market is self-regulating drivel. If one was true there'd be no need for the other.

Ordinary working people are the first to be hit, in service cuts or tax hikes. There is never any question of stopping the failed tax cuts that don't create wealth for anyone but the local Yacht club. What was once a way to give birth to one of the proportionally largest and wealthiest middle classes in history is now unthinkably socialist. That's what years of corporate-funded counter-revolution and the collapse of populist class anger (except against the fabricated 'liberal elite') gets you.

And yes, most rich people are assholes, scientifically proven.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

I don't see the need for a) Muslims to openly display faith when it has such a negative impact on the whole integration process, b) Christians as well are banned from displaying religious symbology, so it in no way like Muslim states is biased towards one particular religion.

Yes I missed that bit where Switzerland was going to ban steeples.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

The host religion is Christianity, it has adapted and changed to its secondary role in society, Islam has not. Christians in Europe are a tolerant bunch, if anything, your surveys proved that most Christians care not much about the structure of religion or even going to Mass. On the other hand, not only does Islam have strict policies preventing the "laziness of religion" seeping in, but there is a push for Islam and sharia law to be implemented in Britain. Now hold on here... what did you say about religion in Politics? I hope your against Sharia law in Britain. Halting Islamic immigration is necessary because until the time Muslims are de-radicalized, this will hang like a specter over the community in general.

Eh? I'm against any form of theocratic law. Christianity did not adapt, it was thrown out of civic responsibility, and rightly so.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Interesting testimonies from ex-Muslims. Not ex-fundies.

Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

Children in a joint marriage are raised as Muslims. No choice
If you marry an Islamic spouse you have to convert. Children have to be raised Islamically.
You can't leave Islam. The only way out is death, or permanent societal and cultural ostracization.
Women have received a secondary status in such societies.

Horror stories from Islamic families in Western society? Not in dispute. That Islam (especially in the West) is riddled with such, in dispute.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

You argue the same is true in Christian communities. Yes, in radical ones, no doubt. But in normal ones? This occurs for normal Muslims. But atheism is growing in the West and Islam is one of the fastest growing religions. Conservative religion is dying out for most in the West. It's had to adapt and conform to societies standards in order to survive. I repeatedly mention the vulnerability of the average Muslim going radical thanks to in part the radicalization posed by violent sects and their growing influence over the religion.

What is a normal Christian society? I just don't think you get it. Western societies, at least in Europe, are not Christian anymore. They just aren't. We have a generation growing up that is areligious, secular and spiritual without the r word. The Church used to pressure the government succesfully to censor films like Casablanca here, regulate dances (don't get too close buster!), and tell women their place was in the kitchen: that was a Christian society. This one is not, praise be to Allah.

Conservative religion has been shackled, it has not adopted. We have introduced a civic floor which ignores Christian doctrine, that was our great compromise as such. That does not make loonbags any less so, it's just 'weak left wing' reforms have seperated Church from state. At the constant whining and wailing of the right, btw.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

No it wouldn't. Because Western Governments are religious in nature.... or base their judicial system around a 1300 y.o script of paper. Don't try to equate the two when there is no justifiable comparison. Have I said we crack down on Muslims? Prevent them from worshiping their faith? All I said is we halt immigration so we can best deal with the problem now and prevent the radicalization of said community.

Western Governments were orginally religious (and similar to many Islamic countries in the cozy relationships between the Church and nobility), but certainly not now. The framework you speak of is still there, but it's just scaffolding clinging to a steadily evolving building.

And halt immigration? That's not a crackdown? You said it yourself, you're an immigrant, what gives you any more claim to the Australian dream than anyone else? Also it's just a problem with 'said community'? Way to help them integrate.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

More Muslims equates to less integration. Not vice-versa. More Muslims equates to more monocultural sub-society, more ghettos, more districts organized on the basis of race. Until we eliminate that, no way in hell are we going to achieve integration.

Following that logic (that more Muslims equals less integration), less Muslims is good, no? State policy should be to reduce the number of Muslims. By any means. Objectionable?

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

We don't listen.. but the Islamic community will. And what happens when you have a radicalized Islamic community sitting under your doorstep? May I remind you the London tube bombings were caused by second gen migrants. Their kids won't integrate because they are going to Government funded "Islamic" schools or ethnically homogenous schools in the Islamic district/region.

You don't speak for the Islamic community, and you don't get to patronise others in the way that you are, and the way you think they are. Yet again, you want second generation immigrants to adapt and integrate, treat them exactly the same as you treat your others neighbour's children. Otherwise they have every reason to radicalise.

And to reiterate, any faith schools are bad in my mind, and publically funded ones are inexcusable.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

A Muslim fundamentalist has more in common with an average muslim than he does with a Christian or an atheist? Ergo? The fact that Muslim fundamentalism is GOING MAINSTREAM in Islam, is the problem. These "other" Muslims exist, only as long as your tolerant sects of Islam exist. 2nd generation terrorism proves that fact. The terrorists were cleanskin terrorists (no previous affiliation) and were influenced by radical teachings at the local mosque. AFAIK Christian fundamentalists haven't perpetrated a global series of attacks against Western nations. If you don't believe Islamic fundamentalism is a problem, you are living under a rock for the last 10 years. Post-9/11 our whole societies have been geared towards fighting it when we are ignoring the dormant problem that could flare up any moment - the growing, dissatisfied, alienated Islamic community that has failed to integrate and is conducive to the transfer of radical Islamist propaganda.

Where is the proof it's 'going mainstream'? And I've certainly not lived under a rock, I just find you tiresomely hyperbolic. Muslims in Ireland tend to be very conservative on social issues, and I frequently clash with some I know on equality for gays and women, contraception, stuff that to me is self-evident and to them horrible. But a whiff of cordite or crazy fundieism? No. That is my personal experience of Islam, not hysteria or anecdotes, and it's ironic they tend to get on well with any Irish conservatives I know, and find common ground against me.

And you're absolutely right that the onus is on mainstream Muslims to fight terorrism, I hope you Christians will fight these morons as hard:

French culture minister Frederic Mitterand described the incident as an 'attack on the freedom of creation'.

Staff had closed early on Saturday because of the protest.

A worker, who asked to remain anonymous, said that they had also received death threats.

'Several people have called saying, "If you open, you're dead",' one museum worker said.

'We're nervous and we have asked for protection from the police.'

It was unclear whether the attack was linked to the earlier demonstration.

Serrano made the controversial work by placing a crucifix in urine and blood, and it has drawn criticism in the past from some Christian groups.

Young far-Right Christian activists from the General Alliance Against Racism and the Respect of the French and Christian Identity are taking the Collection Lambert to court tomorrow to try to have the crucifix photograph removed from the exhibit.

The group denounced the photograph on its website, saying it 'insults and injures Christians at the heart of their faith'.

The exhibit opened December 12 and is supposed to run until May 8.

Read more: US artist Andres Serrano's 'Piss Christ' attacked by vandals in France | Mail Online


Nothing like a bit of advanced Christianity to show Islam how it's done.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Nationalism.

Of an ethnic and political nature, same as this debate. We were trying are hardest at throwing the British huns out. No difference whatsover in terms of aims or hatred, just because it was a flag we worship in Camlough rather than god doesn't change what it was.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

If Australians were as racist as you claim then no other Ethnic group would have managed to integrate. We'd see terrorism from Chinese, Viets, Indians and Greeks, Italians. Hmm, we DON'T? Suprise Suprise, Aussie society can't be racist if SO many ethnicities have managed to integrate Aussie society is very multicultural and integration is more than possible. I find it hard to say that it is us, at fault, and we have to continually correct ourselves and adapt our legal system, society to appease migrants. It's always worked the other way around. Migrants come to developed countries to improve their standard of living, in order for that standard of living to even reach that stage, certain customs have to be abandoned.

Where did I say Australians, or Australian society, was racist?

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

By that logic everyone wouldn't tick Christianity? I mean why would they, the fact that they still do means that they consider it of some worth to hold on to, or at least the values it propagates.

No, not all, but most do, despite not going to church or following doctrine, which is my point. As said, over 80% in Ireland. If you're talking about religion, ticking a box is not good enough to measure it's effect on society. It has to be open, to be praticed, to be part of the community.

And it fails all three miserably in Ireland. I don't know about your society, but here it's just not apparant. When I grew up divorce was illegal, homsexuality was illegal, abortion was quadruple illegal (so much for your Christian societies don't interfer). Now we all giggle when the Church realeases dissaproving statements on Pride day or at the majority of marriages ending in divorce. We have become secular in a decade. It's quite a welcome phenomenom.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

France has taken in a lot of North African and Algerian immigrants/refugees - something that wouldn't be possible in a "xenophobic" society.

The only reason "Western" society survived the Dark Ages and wasn't swallowed up by the Ottoman was because of religion. All these concepts mean nothing if Christianity was naught.

France has taken many ex-colonial identities into itself, which is easy enough - most speak French in any case, and have a certain affinity with France.

And you wanna talk Dark Ages? Christianity was in the literal dark ages - sawing off legs for minor wounds, while Muslims practiced herbal and primary medicine. Christianity does mean naught. It's just another Islam, and you're weak point will always be that - my position is completely consistent, all religions can be barbaric, yours is shaky because somehow one is better than the other, when it's patently not. All that's different is circumstance, and reform created the circumstance in which religion was removed from civil life here.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

I don't how you cannot acknowledge something of your culture, nation and past and fail to respect it. The Enlightenment and Renaissance only begun because of the knowledge stored in monasteries by Christian monks. You are again guilty of the same argument you are accusing me of being guilty.. substitution fundie Christians in for normal Christians. If society was similar to that, in that era, we would have seen no growth, and eternal stagnation in the "fundie" paradise. But somehow the Church gave ground? Gasp.

I'm not substituting anything. I'm saying normal Christians and Muslims are both perfectly fine and law abiding people, but I don't agree with them. No difference whatsover, then when we bring them to the extremse both Christian and Muslim fundies will lead us to the Dark Ages and misery. Neither is better, is the point I'm making. It is what you make it, like anything else in life.

It's also not part of me, whatever about the past, so again I'd ask you to speak for yourself, not me: My identity revolves around a flag, country and a tongue, my 'god' is my wife and child. I bow to no one, no fake monarch or god.

I marvel at the things that have been done in the name of Christ and Allah, like St Peters Basilica or Mecca - but not at the architecture itself, that people starved and died to make it's decadence to a false idol. Same as the pyramids, same as the Taj Mahal. People suffered to built those monuments, and somehow they're meant to be a sign of 'glory'? Slavery more like, to those who believe so much in the afterlife that life on this Earth should be short and miserable. Guilty for existing.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Why is it so prevalent in a country like Saudi Arabia which has a relatively affluent and stable economy.

Because Saudi Arabia is just a poor country that happens to be rich. Ordinary Saudis get nothing from the whoring of their country. It's an oligarchic (we'll get to that later) monarchy full of bored inbreds who funnel money to their 'interests' and patrons, while hanging and beheading adulterers and gays.

And of course, the people, who have nothing, lap it up. If ever a place was gagging for a socialist revolution...

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

So am I. I just don't want to eliminate religion. There are values propagated by religion that have stood the test of time as being socially necessary for a functioning society. Namely a Nuclear family, charity, etc.To abolish them in favor this ephemeral concept of an enlightened humanity is the bigges mistake one can do, for one, have we even established atheist/a-religious morality? What does it involve, its so morally nebulous and subjective that no proper consensus can be reached.

I don't want it eliminated, I want it kept out from my face, and life. What you do is your business.

Charity is not a Christian, or religious concept. Neither is the Nuclear family (and I don't think that's worth much either). It's not about enlightened humanity, it's about accepting humanity for what it is, not as you might wish it was.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Cutbacks encourage private enterpise to get involved, since there is a market. Private Enterprise is good because it creates jobs. Cutbacks means less tax and more spending money. More money = good for economy.

Cutbacks don't encourage private enterprise, they depress the economy (including private businesses who accept money from 'welfare spongers' and government funding) and put less money in circulation, leading to deflation.

Less money = bad for economy.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

I agree, but thats not the case here, nor in Britain.

Muslim schools offered cash to become state-run | Mail Online

Labour charged as guilty.

Absolutely. The Iraq War, ID cards, privatising railways ('cheaper fares' lol), CCTV society, rising poverty, and now we can add funding religion in the classroom. New Labour has a lot to answer for.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

The majority also is quite silent when it comes to condemning actions of the radical members of their society, especially the clerics.

Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK - Telegraph

32% of Muslim students support killing for Islam; 40% for Sharia law

University students. Integrated enough for you?

The 'Christian Telegraph'? Now you're taking the mick.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Because it is reverse racism to specifically fund one group. Using the taxpayers money to "level the playing field" is socialism of the worst kind. Taxpayers money has to be used for the benefit of everyone and not selective ethnic/religious groups.

I'm talking about funding areas, not 'groups'. Their are plenty of white people who live in inner city poverty.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Doesn't practice it as a state policy he mentioned.

The point is that the US HAS NO STATE POLICY. It gives a flag, an anthem, and indentity, and then let's you get on with it. Which is why it's funny to see American conservatives go nativist and try to end the last vestiges of what made America exceptional - the blending of cultures to create something new, while always having a canvas of common values in a beautiful constitution.

Irish people spoke not a word of English when they came off the ships, neither did Jews or Italians. They stayed together for years, with gang warfare, bootlegging, borderline anarchy. They integrated slowly, but irreversably the stigma of new arrivals ended and they were allowed to participate in society.

That is not what you're advocating.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

I'm all for it. I'm a migrant from the subcontinent/N.Z into the country. . Studies have shown that a multicultural society has 30% increased creativity. The U.S is where it is because of migrants. All those migrants wanted to INTEGRATE into the U.S not want the U.S to become their vision, or their state. I'm for the proper integration of multiculturalism and not a bunch of monocultures uneasily coexisting together. Because that is a recipe for violence on a brutal scale, and that is what will happen if the weak left-wing vision goes through.

No, those migrants took ages to integrate, and often did so violently. Go read 'Gangs of New York'. You're engaging in the politically common but inaccurate revisionalism that somehow immigrants threw themselves into American life and adopted an American identity as a matter of course. It took decades for that to happen, and what is seen as 'American' is a hodgpodge of many other cultures, all leaving an imprint. There was a distubing element rarely talked about, sometimes repeated in this time, a 'what we have we hold' view of the world, the guys that ran editorials against newly-disembarked immigrants in America. Lord knows the Irish, Poles, and Italians were papists, the Jews are usurers and unchristian, and non-white people should come either in the circus or in chains.

I will never be ok with any argument like that. And I include shameless caricatures, simplifications and personifications of 'Islam', to play to the prejudice of the day and fear of extremism, in these noxious arguments.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

I don't see the private sector complaining about wages. In any case, high-skilled and highly educated individuals are in demand, and companies court them, not the other way around. Government regulation also prevents wage-raped as does the media. Seems to be only the public sector moaning about wages, especially in America.

No, from what I gather they are being perfectly constructive (in Wisconsin for example accepting all fiscal requirements, despite the fact they were being used to fund huge tax cuts for the wealthy), and complaining about the attempts to strip them of their rights to organise and bargain collectively.

The first thing that goes in fascists and communist states is free Unions.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

I'm defending the idea that a man who works hard succeeds. You define I success as becoming a billionaire? I define success as being able to feed your family, your self and live a comfortable lifestyle and pursue your interests. Working hard in America/UK/Aus gets you further than working hard in a Chinese/Soviet gulag. I'm sorry but if a working man can get food, entertainment, a shelter, clothing, water, healthcare all for "working hard" something that most people fail to even obtain in the world, then I will fight to the death to allow him that.

The working man is having his work downsized, outsourced, cutbacked and mechanised. If you care for the working man you should care when the rich are waging war on him, to increase their already massive slice of the pie.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Inequality is natural because in nature life exists in hiearchies. There are hierarchies upon hiearchies, within species, like chimps, monkeys, ants, bees, intra-species within herbivores, carnivores as omnivores.

To attempt to create a classless society you'd have to wipe the floor with everything that makes one unique and different, everything natural. You'd have to start with literally, a blank planet and species. You'd have to make a) environment the same, b) you'd have to make genes the same. And thanks to the nature of DNA-RNA transcription there will always be mutations. Mutations mean variants. Variants mean either change or death. Some variants are going to be better at doing things than others. Does this mean we should punish them because they are successful in fulfilling their biological role/niche? Isn't equality a regressive concept because it means you are not adapting to change and rather trying to prevent natural adaptation?

I completely disagree. It is not natural that one child should die of hunger in the street while another is constantly complaining of tummy ache after his second dinner. It is not natural that one man gets a kingdom because of who's vagina he came out of, and another can't get a bank overdraft.

Hierarchies are anti-human, fundamentally. The 'Inner-Party' of 1984 reminds me of a lot of your arguments, the best will rise either way, and the proles just gotta except it. You even add creepy eugenics as a supposed natural justification. I suppose I should just guzzle my Victory gin and hope that I'll someday get to hold the whip against my fellow man. And again you misrepresent me. It's not about wiping out differences in culture or anything else. It's about recognising that whatever differences do not mean that one person should be treated differently for being different. We are different, we are not better because of it.

I am a Republican, that is what I believe.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

I define a nation as a shared group of people with similar cultural, linguistic and ethnic ties. A large tribe if you will

That is not the sole definition. Your own country shows that.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Internationalism/Humanism belief in one humanity equal and free. I'd shoot you but I'd become the monster I hate, because I'd be persecuting someone who simply views the world differently from me, who is not equal to me.

I don't believe in Internationalism (not practical, and the ultimate form of centralisation), I like being Irish. I believe that Ireland should be open to all who will pledge fealty and become Irish, regardless of where they came from. They should also keep and put their cultures into the pot of wider Irishness.

I am a Humanist, but that's just because I'm human.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Communism failed because it based its economic principles on human ideals and not realism.

No, it failed because it was what it claimed to hate, to use your phrase. It had a ruling class, just political instead of economic, as is in capitalist countries. The good people of Russia traded one taskmaster for another.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

I believe the contrary. Out of any system an oligarchy will inevitably emerge, in the moments of change between oligarchies you have a crash and "gasp" genuine freedom which generally means massive population crashes, deaths, famine. Freedom means peril for the common man. The belief that people can exist without government in such quantity is false because a system would have to develop to link the massive population (agriculutral and urban network)
with food and out of that you would have some political force forming.

You are right that any true freedom tends to be fleeting, I disagree that that's the way it has to be.

And Emilia-Romanga, where there are 8,000 co-ops who trade and cooperate with each other without any state help or control, is doing fine at linking people to each other without government. In Argentina workers have reclaimed factories the bosses closed and are providing thousands of jobs. These system intrigue me precisely because it shows that such a 'linking of people' as you say happens naturally. People tend to accept equality when everyone gets a good deal.

That's a basic truth that forced cooperation sometimes clouds.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

The only way I see an anarchists paradise emerging is if we have a massive, massive population crash to the point where global resources become a non-issue.

Global resources are indeed a huge point of contention that tends to get people killing each other.

I'm not sure that the above is Anarchism though, especially of the Socialist flavour. It's got nothing to do with a lawless society or postapocalyptic vistas. It's a society of law by consent and cooperation. Business owned by workers, not bosses, dismantle all illegitimate sources of power and free the people to do as they will.
Wiki has a very good article on Catalan Anarchism, with lots of Orwell quotes (always a plus!) - Spanish Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can agree or disagree with it, and the way it was implemented, but it is quite clearly not a senseless idea.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Strongmen will be the most successful in an anarchists society, precisely because an organized force prevails against a disorganized one.

Yes, that's arguable. It's the primary reason Anarchy finds it hard to take hold. It's very freedom is the seed that can destroy it. That's not to say that anarchism is disorganised, just voluntary organisation. Chief to defending the revolution, as such, is therefore making going back impossible. Disperse power to a level where it can't be centralised.

Whether that's possible is an interesting debate in itself.

Originally Posted by gunnut

You know there is a thing called "black flight" too, right?

Many black neighborhoods in LA county have been transformed into hispanic neighborhoods. The blacks moved out to the suburbs of Riverside County. I guess they're racists too.

Yes, that's equally racist. Let me reiterate - moving out of an area because you're 'uncomfortable' with other races moving in is racist. I thought that was pretty self-evident J?

Black Flight, White flight, Asian flight, it's not the race doing it that matters, but that race matters to them to the point they want to balkanise.

Originally Posted by Mihais

Nope,my world is various shades of pink vs various shades of brown

About the shooting part,I won't a) bother and b) waste ammunition.The cheapest round is about 10 cents.However I wish you to live in the society of your dreams.What would be more fair and what would be a greater curse? I'm also sure there will be immigrants or descendants of immigrants that will do the work I won't.
Also a piece of advice,for what's worth it.Just because people think differently than you doesn't make them bitter,haters or impotents. You want diversity,enjoy true diversity.
About the wonders of multiculti,you may feel as you like in Calcutta or Mombasa.But for some reason is not Calcutta or Mombasa that look like Dublin year by year,its the reverse.And i don't see a two way street,but only one .Hurray for the equality.

Don't worry,its only natural for some to burn flags,while others defend them.There would be nothing left to burn otherwise.

I do enjoy diversity Mihais, and just to confirm the impotent thing was also tongue in cheek, not meant to be taken literally . I couldn't make a judgement either way, my brother could but I don't think conservatives are his type.

And it's a one way street because it makes no sense for me to migrate, no jobs in Mombasa for me. Plenty for Mombasans in Dublin. Lots of them have gone back since the jobs left, others have stayed, often because their kids are Irish, and bringing them 'home' would be like bringing them to another planet. My friend's girlfriend is Indian-born, got her citizenship last year, and she gives out about boggers (rural folk) in the same way they give out about her. Dublin will always be Dublin, and she's as much a Dub as me or Oscar Wilde.

Originally Posted by crooks

Chunder, let's be honest, the rich don't get tax raped. Ordinary people do, depending on what tax, I agree, but the lack of anger towards the top, who ferret and hoard wealth while whinging about oppressive government is staggering. Not to mention those in the pockets of either some sad Randian fantasy, or the paycheck of their masters, who try to throw tax cuts on the table as a solution: the mindbending neoliberal 'leave them to their fourth rolex because they earned it' orthodoxy is just amazing. We're here talking about cutting taxes for the oppressed rich while shoveling billions into their failed banks/the market is self-regulating drivel. If one was true there'd be no need for the other.

Ordinary working people are the first to be hit, in service cuts or tax hikes. There is never any question of stopping the failed tax cuts that don't create wealth for anyone but the local Yacht club. What was once a way to give birth to one of the proportionally largest and wealthiest middle classes in history is now unthinkably socialist. That's what years of corporate-funded counter-revolution and the collapse of populist class anger (except against the fabricated 'liberal elite') gets you.

And yes, most rich people are assholes, scientifically proven.

I will get back to you on this, easter holidays means I have to depart for sometime. Damn this separation of Church and state, :p...