Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
I still think voting anti-EU, anti-Euro, or both, in Euro elections makes no sense. I would understand voting this in Italian elections, as national governments decide about all these things. Is not in European Parliament's power to decide whether it exists itself, nor whether the currency union exists. You'll end up with a bunch of Nigel Farages giving colorful speeches without actually doing any MP work.
I think it would make more sense to vote the people who better represent your views on the matters that are decided by the European Parliament, and then vote anti-Euro for those institutions that can actually end it (namely, the Italian government).
Now, you said yourself you wouldn't want it for Italian government. But you are actually voting for them to rule over Italy, just in those matters delegated by national governments to EU, excluding monetary policy or the Comission's competences.
Basically, you're voting Lega Nord to make competition and anti-monopoly policy because you dislike Euro... :P
I think it would make more sense to vote the people who better represent your views on the matters that are decided by the European Parliament, and then vote anti-Euro for those institutions that can actually end it (namely, the Italian government).
Now, you said yourself you wouldn't want it for Italian government. But you are actually voting for them to rule over Italy, just in those matters delegated by national governments to EU, excluding monetary policy or the Comission's competences.
Basically, you're voting Lega Nord to make competition and anti-monopoly policy because you dislike Euro... :P
I hope we did not tore down kings, princes, dictators, the nazis, the communists, in order to have a different 'democratic' kind of slavery. Did we?
Well, you can hardly put the level of freedom you have on the same level as the one you'd have under any of the regimes you mention.
Still, I think your view on freedom and the limits to it are a bit outdated, in that you put too much stress on states and governments. Your freedom is limited by others' power. Surely when Rousseau or Beccaria wrote their books state and power were the same thing, as they lived in absolute monarchy times, hence their emphasis on putting limits to the state. But more generally, every powerful individual is a threat to your freedom regardless of whether he gets called "king", "president", "CEO", "strongest monkey of the pack", etc. You can live in a world without state but you can never live in a world without power. When states are too strong, you get oppressive dictatorships, but when it is basically absent you get... Somalia? The assumption that there can be no power if there's no state is absurd. Yet there can be no absolute freedom if there is power, meaning that no, your freedom will never be maxed out the way you suggest.
States, on the other hand, are very useful tools in enhancing your freedom. There are several ways in which individuals can obtain power, but states can act to keep that power at bay. If the state is absent or too weak, you are left to the arbitrary will of those who happen to have power of some sort, which severely restricts your freedom. If the state is too powerful, then it is itself the problem, becoming a tool for whoever gets to rule it to exercise the same (not worse) kind of tyranny that powerful individuals exercise in state-less societies. Democratic states have proven the best so far in keeping the balance between these two extremes. Our governments today are certainly not in any kind of "ideal middle point", both because they fail to fully protect citizens from private powers through corruption, and because they also keep excessive powers to themselves. Hence, any advance we can make in these two directions is welcome.
I find it rather childish to think that a collapse of democratic institutions will result in increased freedom for the general population.
(editado)
Well, you can hardly put the level of freedom you have on the same level as the one you'd have under any of the regimes you mention.
Still, I think your view on freedom and the limits to it are a bit outdated, in that you put too much stress on states and governments. Your freedom is limited by others' power. Surely when Rousseau or Beccaria wrote their books state and power were the same thing, as they lived in absolute monarchy times, hence their emphasis on putting limits to the state. But more generally, every powerful individual is a threat to your freedom regardless of whether he gets called "king", "president", "CEO", "strongest monkey of the pack", etc. You can live in a world without state but you can never live in a world without power. When states are too strong, you get oppressive dictatorships, but when it is basically absent you get... Somalia? The assumption that there can be no power if there's no state is absurd. Yet there can be no absolute freedom if there is power, meaning that no, your freedom will never be maxed out the way you suggest.
States, on the other hand, are very useful tools in enhancing your freedom. There are several ways in which individuals can obtain power, but states can act to keep that power at bay. If the state is absent or too weak, you are left to the arbitrary will of those who happen to have power of some sort, which severely restricts your freedom. If the state is too powerful, then it is itself the problem, becoming a tool for whoever gets to rule it to exercise the same (not worse) kind of tyranny that powerful individuals exercise in state-less societies. Democratic states have proven the best so far in keeping the balance between these two extremes. Our governments today are certainly not in any kind of "ideal middle point", both because they fail to fully protect citizens from private powers through corruption, and because they also keep excessive powers to themselves. Hence, any advance we can make in these two directions is welcome.
I find it rather childish to think that a collapse of democratic institutions will result in increased freedom for the general population.
(editado)
I'm voting them to "stimulate" the offer in my internal market of politics.
I think EU parliament is useless. So I can do it without risk.
(by the way Lega nord is against TTIP and EMS, and this is enough to vote them if you know what I'm talking about..)
You'll end up with a bunch of Nigel Farages giving colorful speeches without actually doing any MP work.
what does "MP" mean?
I think it would make more sense to vote the people who better represent your views on the matters that are decided by the European Parliament, and then vote anti-Euro for those institutions that can actually end it (namely, the Italian government).
But this election is a referendum about euro!!!
You can vote the 2 main european parties which are perfectly identical (oh yes there are some partial difference, but it's folkore!!!). those are the parties of deflation and labour rights attack.
you can vote some other national formation without a european real line. (In Italy we have several different examples)
you can vote the lefties federation (Tsipras list, in southern europe) that says everything and the contrary (how to impose to germany fiscal trasnfer??? they are kidding me? Why the hell germany will have to accept? And why I have to live by their charity???)
or you can vote those who says clear that the problem (well, the main problem..) is the currency, that impose europe certain fiscal policies.
I will vote against euro currency.
That vote will have an effect in both, european and italian politic scenario.
BTW, I think:
1 the end of euro don't need a majority to be decided, a significant minorance is sufficient too,
2 it will happen anyway by itself, it's only a matter of time, and who has to know it.. know it!!!
3 I'm only trying to minimize damage, doing it while we are still alive economically..
I think EU parliament is useless. So I can do it without risk.
(by the way Lega nord is against TTIP and EMS, and this is enough to vote them if you know what I'm talking about..)
You'll end up with a bunch of Nigel Farages giving colorful speeches without actually doing any MP work.
what does "MP" mean?
I think it would make more sense to vote the people who better represent your views on the matters that are decided by the European Parliament, and then vote anti-Euro for those institutions that can actually end it (namely, the Italian government).
But this election is a referendum about euro!!!
You can vote the 2 main european parties which are perfectly identical (oh yes there are some partial difference, but it's folkore!!!). those are the parties of deflation and labour rights attack.
you can vote some other national formation without a european real line. (In Italy we have several different examples)
you can vote the lefties federation (Tsipras list, in southern europe) that says everything and the contrary (how to impose to germany fiscal trasnfer??? they are kidding me? Why the hell germany will have to accept? And why I have to live by their charity???)
or you can vote those who says clear that the problem (well, the main problem..) is the currency, that impose europe certain fiscal policies.
I will vote against euro currency.
That vote will have an effect in both, european and italian politic scenario.
BTW, I think:
1 the end of euro don't need a majority to be decided, a significant minorance is sufficient too,
2 it will happen anyway by itself, it's only a matter of time, and who has to know it.. know it!!!
3 I'm only trying to minimize damage, doing it while we are still alive economically..
what does "MP" mean?
Member of Parliament :)
But this election is a referendum about euro!!!
¿?
Unless Italy is running some referendum I'm unaware of at the same time as the European elections, that is clearly not true. You are choosing people to go and seat at Strasbourg a few days per week. They may want to tell you to interpret it as whatever in their electoral campaigns, but it's all empty rhetoric, as the currency union is not linked to this election, nor the parliament, and not even Italy's membership will be decided by this election.
If you want a referendum, you need to organize a referendum (you can ask Putin, he has some expertise in doing it in no time :P), but this election is just what it is.
or you can vote those who says clear that the problem (well, the main problem..) is the currency, that impose europe certain fiscal policies.
You can vote them for Eurovision as well if the whole point is to reward those saying something. it just happens that what they are saying is unrelated to the job they are postulating for.
Member of Parliament :)
But this election is a referendum about euro!!!
¿?
Unless Italy is running some referendum I'm unaware of at the same time as the European elections, that is clearly not true. You are choosing people to go and seat at Strasbourg a few days per week. They may want to tell you to interpret it as whatever in their electoral campaigns, but it's all empty rhetoric, as the currency union is not linked to this election, nor the parliament, and not even Italy's membership will be decided by this election.
If you want a referendum, you need to organize a referendum (you can ask Putin, he has some expertise in doing it in no time :P), but this election is just what it is.
or you can vote those who says clear that the problem (well, the main problem..) is the currency, that impose europe certain fiscal policies.
You can vote them for Eurovision as well if the whole point is to reward those saying something. it just happens that what they are saying is unrelated to the job they are postulating for.
Unless Italy is running some referendum I'm unaware of at the same time as the European elections, that is clearly not true.
this is the meaning I believe it has.
In Italy I'm quite sure it is like I say.
In the rest of europe I'm not so.. (maybe in france Le Pen is imposing this theme too. I don't know how much, you know media present this as a "nationalist" problem and if people fail to inform theirselves they can't understand the question!!!)
They may want to tell you to interpret it as whatever in their electoral campaigns, but it's all empty rhetoric, as the currency union is not linked to this election, nor the parliament, and not even Italy's membership will be decided by this election.
I think you miss to understand the political consequences of the elections results.
not every results ends in the same scenario.
If you want a referendum, you need to organize a referendum (you can ask Putin, he has some expertise in doing it in no time :P), but this election is just what it is.
a referendum about exiting a currency might be disastrous.
Exiting euro will be prepared secretly and suddenly made. There is no alternatives. that's undemocratic, but still there are no alternatives.
You can vote them for Eurovision as well if the whole point is to reward those saying something. it just happens that what they are saying is unrelated to the job they are postulating for.
they propose the right solution too.
Anyway I repeat myself, EU parliament is useless. you can continue to claim they do something useful, but I think not.
they only wait for lobbies to teach them how to vote. (there was a famous doc about it... ).
this is the meaning I believe it has.
In Italy I'm quite sure it is like I say.
In the rest of europe I'm not so.. (maybe in france Le Pen is imposing this theme too. I don't know how much, you know media present this as a "nationalist" problem and if people fail to inform theirselves they can't understand the question!!!)
They may want to tell you to interpret it as whatever in their electoral campaigns, but it's all empty rhetoric, as the currency union is not linked to this election, nor the parliament, and not even Italy's membership will be decided by this election.
I think you miss to understand the political consequences of the elections results.
not every results ends in the same scenario.
If you want a referendum, you need to organize a referendum (you can ask Putin, he has some expertise in doing it in no time :P), but this election is just what it is.
a referendum about exiting a currency might be disastrous.
Exiting euro will be prepared secretly and suddenly made. There is no alternatives. that's undemocratic, but still there are no alternatives.
You can vote them for Eurovision as well if the whole point is to reward those saying something. it just happens that what they are saying is unrelated to the job they are postulating for.
they propose the right solution too.
Anyway I repeat myself, EU parliament is useless. you can continue to claim they do something useful, but I think not.
they only wait for lobbies to teach them how to vote. (there was a famous doc about it... ).
I think you miss to understand the political consequences of the elections results.
not every results ends in the same scenario.
(...)
Anyway I repeat myself, EU parliament is useless. you can continue to claim they do something useful, but I think not.
I find these two statements contradictory, or at least in conflict.
I tend to agree to the last statement. Hence, I also tend to think you overestimate the importance of European election results. You dais yourself that you are willing to vote for parties you wouldn't vote in national elections. Hence, why should parties care that you didn't vote for them in this useless elections for a useless parliament?
You vote for the people with the right diagnose and the right solution for a useless, "golden retirement" type of position, yet you wouldn't vote for them for positions involving actual power. And still, you expect this to be a tremendous shock to euro currency.
Again, I think you overestimate the impact of these useless elections.
not every results ends in the same scenario.
(...)
Anyway I repeat myself, EU parliament is useless. you can continue to claim they do something useful, but I think not.
I find these two statements contradictory, or at least in conflict.
I tend to agree to the last statement. Hence, I also tend to think you overestimate the importance of European election results. You dais yourself that you are willing to vote for parties you wouldn't vote in national elections. Hence, why should parties care that you didn't vote for them in this useless elections for a useless parliament?
You vote for the people with the right diagnose and the right solution for a useless, "golden retirement" type of position, yet you wouldn't vote for them for positions involving actual power. And still, you expect this to be a tremendous shock to euro currency.
Again, I think you overestimate the impact of these useless elections.
Well, you can hardly put the level of freedom you have on the same level as the one you'd have under any of the regimes you mention.
Well, a hyperbole is an ancient rhetorical trick to make a point, I'm sure you know that.
But more generally, every powerful individual is a threat to your freedom regardless of whether he gets called "king", "president", "CEO", "strongest monkey of the pack", etc.
Yes, everybody can be a threat to your freedom, that's why I say the government must guarantee freedom. And it is not doing that at the moment. And Somalia is most certainly not doing that either, so don't pretend that is an example of my ideal government.
But what is freedom? I define it by its classical definition, the so called 'negative freedom': the absence of oppression, the absence of (forced) interference by others. The right to do whatever you want as long as you respect other people's freedom.
One might define freedom in another way, the so called 'positive freedom'. But in my opinion, that's an incoherent, void concept. However, if you do use this definition of freedom, then yes, freedom MIGHT decrease if we stop this 'democratic' madness.
Well, a hyperbole is an ancient rhetorical trick to make a point, I'm sure you know that.
But more generally, every powerful individual is a threat to your freedom regardless of whether he gets called "king", "president", "CEO", "strongest monkey of the pack", etc.
Yes, everybody can be a threat to your freedom, that's why I say the government must guarantee freedom. And it is not doing that at the moment. And Somalia is most certainly not doing that either, so don't pretend that is an example of my ideal government.
But what is freedom? I define it by its classical definition, the so called 'negative freedom': the absence of oppression, the absence of (forced) interference by others. The right to do whatever you want as long as you respect other people's freedom.
One might define freedom in another way, the so called 'positive freedom'. But in my opinion, that's an incoherent, void concept. However, if you do use this definition of freedom, then yes, freedom MIGHT decrease if we stop this 'democratic' madness.
I find these two statements contradictory, or at least in conflict.
a political consequence is not something that happen into EU parliament, but a change of line made where decision are taken. If the main parties lose votes they have to find out what to do to regain them.
Their bosses will realize that to mantain the control over the continent they should accept some loss.
You dais yourself that you are willing to vote for parties you wouldn't vote in national elections. Hence, why should parties care that you didn't vote for them in this useless elections for a useless parliament?
because I can show clearly what i'm voting for (giving preference to a candidate with a strong anti-euro connotation), they should know how to have my vote back.. that's the way they can continue to sit on that chair again.
You vote for the people with the right diagnose and the right solution for a useless, "golden retirement" type of position, yet you wouldn't vote for them for positions involving actual power.
why do you still state that is a "golden retirement" position? Why do you assume they are worst than anyone else at doing nothing?
And still, you expect this to be a tremendous shock to euro currency.
Again, I think you overestimate the impact of these useless elections.
No. But that's a question of numbers.
Lega nord will get around 5 % in Italy, too little as result.
Maybe Marine Le Pen will do better in France, but still I think it will result in a less than 30% anti-euro votes.
The point is this:
if enough people vote as I do something happens. If I'm the only one (as I fear) the two main PUDE parties (Pude mean: Partito unico dell' Euro, United party of Euro) will continue their massacre.
But this is democracy (or what remains of it when the information is manipulated .. )
and I'm a democracy fan.
a political consequence is not something that happen into EU parliament, but a change of line made where decision are taken. If the main parties lose votes they have to find out what to do to regain them.
Their bosses will realize that to mantain the control over the continent they should accept some loss.
You dais yourself that you are willing to vote for parties you wouldn't vote in national elections. Hence, why should parties care that you didn't vote for them in this useless elections for a useless parliament?
because I can show clearly what i'm voting for (giving preference to a candidate with a strong anti-euro connotation), they should know how to have my vote back.. that's the way they can continue to sit on that chair again.
You vote for the people with the right diagnose and the right solution for a useless, "golden retirement" type of position, yet you wouldn't vote for them for positions involving actual power.
why do you still state that is a "golden retirement" position? Why do you assume they are worst than anyone else at doing nothing?
And still, you expect this to be a tremendous shock to euro currency.
Again, I think you overestimate the impact of these useless elections.
No. But that's a question of numbers.
Lega nord will get around 5 % in Italy, too little as result.
Maybe Marine Le Pen will do better in France, but still I think it will result in a less than 30% anti-euro votes.
The point is this:
if enough people vote as I do something happens. If I'm the only one (as I fear) the two main PUDE parties (Pude mean: Partito unico dell' Euro, United party of Euro) will continue their massacre.
But this is democracy (or what remains of it when the information is manipulated .. )
and I'm a democracy fan.
And Somalia is most certainly not doing that either, so don't pretend that is an example of my ideal government.
Somalia is (or was at least) not an example of your ideal government, but an example of complete lack of government in the sense that private warlord had all the real power.
But what is freedom? I define it by its classical definition, the so called 'negative freedom': the absence of oppression, the absence of (forced) interference by others.
I'm applying the same definition, hence why full freedom is not feasible (unless a magical balance of forces prevents any single individual from acquiring marginally more power than others), and more important, you get close to none of that freedom in state-less societies (where some individuals exercise uncontrolled oppression over your decisions).
It is precisely under your very own definition that I find democracy granting more freedom than any other known experiment. There is simply less coercion by the government and less coercion by other individuals. Is it zero coercion? No, but zero is impossible. Is the least level possible? I also think not, hence there is room for improvement. But we will not improve by just taking it down, I simply find no theoretical nor empirical reason to expect that.
Somalia is (or was at least) not an example of your ideal government, but an example of complete lack of government in the sense that private warlord had all the real power.
But what is freedom? I define it by its classical definition, the so called 'negative freedom': the absence of oppression, the absence of (forced) interference by others.
I'm applying the same definition, hence why full freedom is not feasible (unless a magical balance of forces prevents any single individual from acquiring marginally more power than others), and more important, you get close to none of that freedom in state-less societies (where some individuals exercise uncontrolled oppression over your decisions).
It is precisely under your very own definition that I find democracy granting more freedom than any other known experiment. There is simply less coercion by the government and less coercion by other individuals. Is it zero coercion? No, but zero is impossible. Is the least level possible? I also think not, hence there is room for improvement. But we will not improve by just taking it down, I simply find no theoretical nor empirical reason to expect that.
why do you still state that is a "golden retirement" position? Why do you assume they are worst than anyone else at doing nothing?
What have "they" or anyone to do with nothing? I'm talking about the job. You said the EU parlament is useless. Given their salaries, I call it golden retirement for politicians. Which particular politician goes there is irrelevant, I'm talking about the nature of the job.
f enough people vote as I do something happens.
The point is, I find no basis for that statement. Maybe you can find a counter-example in the history of European elections?
In the end, you keep going about how they'll need to change to get your vote back, but you said you won't vote for the anti-EU guys for Italy. So, you are assuming the main parties won't know this and will panic and leave the currency union to keep your vote. I think you underestimate their understanding of politics and how much weight they put in this election as a reference to what will happen to their actual sources of power.
What have "they" or anyone to do with nothing? I'm talking about the job. You said the EU parlament is useless. Given their salaries, I call it golden retirement for politicians. Which particular politician goes there is irrelevant, I'm talking about the nature of the job.
f enough people vote as I do something happens.
The point is, I find no basis for that statement. Maybe you can find a counter-example in the history of European elections?
In the end, you keep going about how they'll need to change to get your vote back, but you said you won't vote for the anti-EU guys for Italy. So, you are assuming the main parties won't know this and will panic and leave the currency union to keep your vote. I think you underestimate their understanding of politics and how much weight they put in this election as a reference to what will happen to their actual sources of power.
Somalia is (or was at least) not an example of your ideal government, but an example of complete lack of government in the sense that private warlord had all the real power.
Okay, but I'm not in favor of a complete lack of government. I'm not an anarchist.
I'm applying the same definition, hence why full freedom is not feasible (unless a magical balance of forces prevents any single individual from acquiring marginally more power than others), and more important, you get close to none of that freedom in state-less societies (where some individuals exercise uncontrolled oppression over your decisions).
Once again, I'm not proposing a stateless society. Full freedom IS possible. Of course, some people will always try to get control over other people and their decisions, but it is not because they try to do so, that there is no full freedom. It is only if they succeed and nothing is done about it that there no longer is full freedom.
It is precisely under your very own definition that I find democracy granting more freedom than any other known experiment. There is simply less coercion by the government and less coercion by other individuals. Is it zero coercion? No, but zero is impossible. Is the least level possible? I also think not, hence there is room for improvement. But we will not improve by just taking it down, I simply find no theoretical nor empirical reason to expect that.
I simply do not find any theoretical or empirical evidence that democracy will bring more freedom. If we look at the past 40 to 50 years, what we have seen in Europe is an enormous decrease in freedom. Taxes have skyrocketed and the government takes more and more control (in both aspects of control: in the power to change people's 'choices' and in the power to see what people actually did). I don't see how democracy will be able to stop and reverse that process.
Okay, but I'm not in favor of a complete lack of government. I'm not an anarchist.
I'm applying the same definition, hence why full freedom is not feasible (unless a magical balance of forces prevents any single individual from acquiring marginally more power than others), and more important, you get close to none of that freedom in state-less societies (where some individuals exercise uncontrolled oppression over your decisions).
Once again, I'm not proposing a stateless society. Full freedom IS possible. Of course, some people will always try to get control over other people and their decisions, but it is not because they try to do so, that there is no full freedom. It is only if they succeed and nothing is done about it that there no longer is full freedom.
It is precisely under your very own definition that I find democracy granting more freedom than any other known experiment. There is simply less coercion by the government and less coercion by other individuals. Is it zero coercion? No, but zero is impossible. Is the least level possible? I also think not, hence there is room for improvement. But we will not improve by just taking it down, I simply find no theoretical nor empirical reason to expect that.
I simply do not find any theoretical or empirical evidence that democracy will bring more freedom. If we look at the past 40 to 50 years, what we have seen in Europe is an enormous decrease in freedom. Taxes have skyrocketed and the government takes more and more control (in both aspects of control: in the power to change people's 'choices' and in the power to see what people actually did). I don't see how democracy will be able to stop and reverse that process.
The point is, I find no basis for that statement. Maybe you can find a counter-example in the history of European elections?
Even REnzi said that some results from european election will be catastrofic for his government.
In the end, you keep going about how they'll need to change to get your vote back, but you said you won't vote for the anti-EU guys for Italy
No, i said I won't vote THIS anti euro (xenophobic and nationalist/regionalist parties).
I assume there will be someone more anti-euro for our politic elections.
So, you are assuming the main parties won't know this and will panic and leave the currency union to keep your vote.
I assume that tha base of the main party stay where it is, but the opposition learn a lesson (I'm waiting for the extreme left or the M5S movement to understand the problem).
Anyway, when the PD politician will start to lose chairs and power.. they will do the internal war for me.
I think you underestimate their understanding of politics and how much weight they put in this election as a reference to what will happen to their actual sources of power.
I stand on my postion: is a question of numbers.
they know there's a certain quantity of votes for politicians that decide to take this side, mine side.
Lets look how many votes, than we'll understand who want to represent us.
I create the demand! :D
Even REnzi said that some results from european election will be catastrofic for his government.
In the end, you keep going about how they'll need to change to get your vote back, but you said you won't vote for the anti-EU guys for Italy
No, i said I won't vote THIS anti euro (xenophobic and nationalist/regionalist parties).
I assume there will be someone more anti-euro for our politic elections.
So, you are assuming the main parties won't know this and will panic and leave the currency union to keep your vote.
I assume that tha base of the main party stay where it is, but the opposition learn a lesson (I'm waiting for the extreme left or the M5S movement to understand the problem).
Anyway, when the PD politician will start to lose chairs and power.. they will do the internal war for me.
I think you underestimate their understanding of politics and how much weight they put in this election as a reference to what will happen to their actual sources of power.
I stand on my postion: is a question of numbers.
they know there's a certain quantity of votes for politicians that decide to take this side, mine side.
Lets look how many votes, than we'll understand who want to represent us.
I create the demand! :D
That's not true. Verhofstadt does not simply wants more EU integration; he wants a United States of Europe. He wants to abolish the nation states.
But for example I'd have no problem to vote for Le Pen if I'b be french. And now I'll vote for Lega Nord that is allied with the french Front National. Someone says they're far-right moviments, but I don't think so, and that's why I'll vote them.
Le Pen sr. said in a meeting in Marseille that ebola could solve the immigration problem. But no, they are no racists :')
Le Pen sr. said in a meeting in Marseille that ebola could solve the immigration problem. But no, they are no racists :')