[Quintus Curtius]

(11-12-2014 04:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

It's not the age of the man that matters, it's the age of a woman. You know, the wall, infertility past 35, etc. When we're talking about traditional societies, that's really just a codeword for feminine women.

There's a lot of naivete in this thread. Sp5, for example, thinks globalization is some kind of unstoppable force of nature. Even when I pointed out to him that globalization has happened thousands of times in the past and always results in failure, he continues to spout the same deterministic "End of History" globalization nonsense. "This time is different!" I think Sp5 is just too damn brainwashed by his legalistic background. Most lawyers I talk to fall into this trap. They believe in the rule of law will save the day and maintain order no matter how much society changes.

Facts are facts: Intelligent women aren't having children (too busy chasing careers), dumber men and females are becoming the norm (the ones who have children because they can't figure out how to put on a condom), and intelligent men are giving up on society. The dumber men and women of the future aren't going to be able to sustain our technology economy.

It's plainly obvious none of this globalization shit is going to last, unless we make machines that think for us. Good luck with that one. We've got robots but they are nothing more than farm animals made out of metal.

If the leftists maintain power until the point of collapse, then people will become fiercely national again (it's a survival mechanism) and those who cannot integrate will be eradicated.

This is a very prescient comment, Samulus. And it's one I happen to agree with.

It's easy to lose one's perspective. We should be thinking in terms of centuries, in terms of millenia, in terms of the whole span of history.

What many people take for granted today as the product of enlightenment--liberalism, excessive personal freedom, atheism--are entirely unknown for most of history. For most of history, the individual had little rights: it was the clan, family, or tribe that mattered.

People were kept in check by the moral codes of religion and the tribe.

But all of this has been dismantled by globalization-loving, neo-liberal corporatist culture. This is a culture that has been feeding us the lie of gender equality, feminism, and all the rest of the PC garbage that has been the West's mantra for the past 30 years.

The West has gone too far in its indulgence of personal freedoms, in my opinion. Each man now believes himself to be an emperor, each woman an empress. They behave accordingly, and the society rots away.

And Samseau is right about the false promises of "globalization": this is nothing more than a catchword for the super rich plutocrats to steal more and more of everyone's money.

Your real future is tribalism. In the short term, there will be disorder, turbulence, and a fight for resources. Make no mistake.

Every time the media tells you what to think and how things are "going to be", you should get really suspicious.

An excess of liberty eventually produces a backlash of puritanism. Which will be coming soon, I think. Liberalism has sown the seeds of its own destruction. The likely immediate future is: religious revivalism, the collapse of state structures, turbulence and social violence, and tribalism of varying degrees.

[Samseau]

(11-12-2014 06:01 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

This is a very prescient comment, Samulus. And it's one I happen to agree with.

It's easy to lose one's perspective. We should be thinking in terms of centuries, in terms of millenia, in terms of the whole span of history.

Even more sobering is that for most of history, there was no history.

Most people can't see past their nose. The only reason we even have a continual history from Ancient Greece to modern times is because of Christianity. Our entire civilization is the product of a religion that people feel they can now cast aside. Hubris abounds. Pride cometh before the fall.

[Hyperion]

(11-11-2014 01:33 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Religion isn't the guardian of morals.

It just so happens that religions like Christianity, for instance, are old, and old morals were conservative (or more accurately today: right-wing).
Christianity does not, however, explain why these morals are right. It just says 'obey or go to hell'. That isn't thorough enough to stand up to intellectuals and to be part of rational debate. Religious leaders, who are often at the forefront of debates around abortion, marriage, traditional values, moral behavior etc, simply do not have the grounding to defeat the supposedly 'new and fresh' Leftist ideas. The Leftists are using new stuff which they are making up themselves. The Priests only have their old book.

Just because many of the morals of Christians are right (e.g. 'no abortion, marriage between men and women only, gender roles etc'), doesn't mean they are the best group to defend them. They are very poor at explaining why those things are moral, without saying 'god said so'.

The Swedes already have the natural instincts of 'territorialism' and 'self-interest' in them. Its just damped out by the multiculturalist BS they've all been swallowing.
It should be sufficient to simply stoke those instincts and aggressively attack multiculturalism simultaneously.

Agreed. Traditional values need to be defended from a secular perspective. I'm religious but I never use it to justify these views when discussing with people.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(11-12-2014 09:53 AM)Gauß Wrote:  

I don't think you realize how severe the situation in Sweden actually is. I completely agree with your common sense laws and many other swedes would probably agree. Your common sense laws is basically the line that The Sweden Democrats (SD) and Kent Ekeroth espouses, still they are hated by all the other parties and all of mainstream media in Sweden and they are considered to be extremist by the "elite".

With the graph I wanted to show that 15 years ago an moderate would want an immigration cap to around 20000 immigrants per year. 10 years ago it would have been at 35000. 5 years ago it would have been at 50000. And today at 60000. Being an moderate in terms of immigration doesn't accomplish anything. That being said I don't know how we can't fix the situation and I don't necessarily agree with some of the others who has offered their solutions in this thread. Maybe we''ll just have to wait until Sweden crumbles under its own weigh and then rebuild something.

That's not what I'm talking about with the term "moderate" though. "Moderate" simply means "common-sense and fairness". It has nothing to do with whether the moderates in question (Kent Ekeroth & C.O.) are hated or not. Whether a common-sense solution can ever be passed is entirely unrelated to its effectiveness if passed.

Here's what I am saying: If Swedish immigration was reduced to 20 000 heavily filtered immigrants per year starting right this moment, all of the immigration related problems (crime, poverty, potential demographic extinction of natives) would disappear either immediately or within a decade or two.



Do you agree or not agree?

[Vacancier Permanent]

(11-11-2014 05:54 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

I'm reading a lot of guys panicking like their hair was on fire or something. Some outright fascism being peddled, too.

Sure, immigration should be limited, especially in countries which have small populations with relatively fragile cultures and languages. But cultures like the Swedes and the Danes are not going to disappear in the next century or two. Democracy is working as it is supposed to: anti-immigrant parties are gaining strength, which will drive policy to cut back immigrants and change welfare and education.

In the long run, who knows? Unless there are disasters ending air travel and communications, we'll see more and more cultural globalization, more and more interbreeding. The Travel forum here is a kind of example. Small cultures may be eventually drowned in the globalist tide, which is dominantly Anglo-American now but may be something different a century from now. I never bought the idea of Scotty on Star Trek having such a strong accent. In the United Federation of Planets 200 years from now, everyone would probably sound like Kirk. Or maybe everyone will speak Chinese then.

Muslims are about 5 - 6% of Sweden. They are not going to take over soon. Even if they did "take over," they would be different by then, themselves changed by Sweden and Europe.

At the same time, the traffic between the Middle East, Europe and the US changes the Middle East, too. Recently in Iraq, I met an Iraqi who spoke to me in Danish, thought I was Danish. He was living in Denmark and was there to get married. He was pretty Westernized from my view. Islam is having a big conflict now, no doubt about it. But I'm living in that world, and I see "Arab Idol," Rotana music TV with Lebanese singers, and laundry soap commercials with mothers in hijabs having more influence than ISIS. Cairo is not that different from Catania.

There is a whole industry of propaganda devoted to demonizing Muslims. Part of it is true, part of it is motivated by Israel's interests, part of it is just regular jingoism and warmongering, part of it is fundamentalist Christians wanting a Crusade.

If all of your sources of news and opinion are from those websites, you get a warped view of the world. You never see drunk Muslims in bars; to you they're all fanatic jihadists.

Immigrants often have problems assimilating and there is often violence. See Gangs of New York, Godfather II, or Mexican gangs in LA today. It's not a phenomenon limited to Muslim immigrants.

For the tenth time, nuclear war, natural or man-made plagues and planet poisoning and resource depletion are a lot bigger threats than the "end of Western civilization" in any foreseeable future.

Concise. Eloquently put. Very insightful. From a man who is not only very well qualified but also highly experienced on the topic at hand. This is why, when Sp5, talks, I listen. Or in this case, I stop and read what he writes as opposed to just skimming through it.

[Sp5]

(11-12-2014 06:01 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 04:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

It's not the age of the man that matters, it's the age of a woman. You know, the wall, infertility past 35, etc. When we're talking about traditional societies, that's really just a codeword for feminine women.

There's a lot of naivete in this thread. Sp5, for example, thinks globalization is some kind of unstoppable force of nature. Even when I pointed out to him that globalization has happened thousands of times in the past and always results in failure, he continues to spout the same deterministic "End of History" globalization nonsense. "This time is different!" I think Sp5 is just too damn brainwashed by his legalistic background. Most lawyers I talk to fall into this trap. They believe in the rule of law will save the day and maintain order no matter how much society changes.

Facts are facts: Intelligent women aren't having children (too busy chasing careers), dumber men and females are becoming the norm (the ones who have children because they can't figure out how to put on a condom), and intelligent men are giving up on society. The dumber men and women of the future aren't going to be able to sustain our technology economy.

It's plainly obvious none of this globalization shit is going to last, unless we make machines that think for us. Good luck with that one. We've got robots but they are nothing more than farm animals made out of metal.

If the leftists maintain power until the point of collapse, then people will become fiercely national again (it's a survival mechanism) and those who cannot integrate will be eradicated.

This is a very prescient comment, Samulus. And it's one I happen to agree with.

It's easy to lose one's perspective. We should be thinking in terms of centuries, in terms of millenia, in terms of the whole span of history.

What many people take for granted today as the product of enlightenment--liberalism, excessive personal freedom, atheism--are entirely unknown for most of history. For most of history, the individual had little rights: it was the clan, family, or tribe that mattered.

People were kept in check by the moral codes of religion and the tribe.

But all of this has been dismantled by globalization-loving, neo-liberal corporatist culture. This is a culture that has been feeding us the lie of gender equality, feminism, and all the rest of the PC garbage that has been the West's mantra for the past 30 years.

The West has gone too far in its indulgence of personal freedoms, in my opinion. Each man now believes himself to be an emperor, each woman an empress. They behave accordingly, and the society rots away.

And Samseau is right about the false promises of "globalization": this is nothing more than a catchword for the super rich plutocrats to steal more and more of everyone's money.

Your real future is tribalism. In the short term, there will be disorder, turbulence, and a fight for resources. Make no mistake.

Every time the media tells you what to think and how things are "going to be", you should get really suspicious.

An excess of liberty eventually produces a backlash of puritanism. Which will be coming soon, I think. Liberalism has sown the seeds of its own destruction. The likely immediate future is: religious revivalism, the collapse of state structures, turbulence and social violence, and tribalism of varying degrees.

You guys are salivating for a collapse into chaos or some kind of totalitarianism, to bring back your traditional tribal past. Liberty bothers you.

Me? I took an oath to support and defend the Bill of Rights several times in the military and elsewhere. My loyalties and preference are with "the worst system of government, except for all the rest," as Churchill said. With all its faults, democracy is preferable to big money oligarchy, absolute monarchs, "aristocracies," and communist and fascist dictatorships. I'm not a crypto-monarchist or crypto-fascist. I'm not in favor of imposing authoritarianism to suppress "excessive personal freedom." I can ride out other people's obnoxious-but-legal behavior without calling for Big Brother to stop it.

Maybe there will be a collapse or some large countries will turn into North Korea or Turkmenistan by isolating themselves, of course. I've said nuclear war, new diseases and planetary depletion are threats to survival, not just society.

But as I said, barring disasters like that, the world is going to get more integrated. There will be waves of political disruption like 1848 or 1968, sure. I see rioting in the near future just because of economic changes, the lack of jobs, imbalances caused by money in politics. Politics and society will adjust.

Look at what it would take to reverse the trend of global integration: (1) the end of instantaneous satellite and fiber optic communications including the end of the internet, global media, Facebook, Skype, and Tinder, (2) the end of air travel, (3) the end of international trade, (4) the end of the movement of money. How and in what lifetime do you expect this to happen? Sure, in a thousand years anything and everything can happen. Maybe people will stop using iron tools and the wheel, too. But those extreme scenarios are branded as pure science fiction, not based on observable facts from which reasonable trends can be extrapolated.

The one observable trend you mention is declining IQ scores. Assuming you are correct, and that the trend will not be reversed by what I think are naturally self-correcting social forces (like smarter women deciding not to repeat their mothers', or their childless aunts', experiment with deferring children for career, or tax incentives), it's going to take a long time to manifest any real effects, if ever. Why? Look at the world as it is now. The Philippines has an average IQ of 86, yet still manages to maintain general order and economic growth, and is improving its governance and prosperity. Even Ireland, with a very stable democracy and high per capita GDP, has a lower IQ, in the mid- to lower 90s, than most other European countries and the USA. Iran is down in the 80s, yet still has a nuclear program and a sophisticated economy which is almost totally isolated because of sanctions. It still functions.

IQ is not as big of a deal as it's made out to be. When I started out in the army, I was a personnel clerk. I had access to all of my soldiers' test scores, which included the AFQT, generally regarded as a percentile score of intelligence, and the GT score, which is an IQ score. I noticed two things: one, there were some guys with humble backgrounds with high scores, and two, scores did not correlate much with observed articulateness, ability to function in the army, and judgment. In those days, we had guys with GT (IQ) scores down into the 70s. I was friends with some of those guys, and they didn't seem impaired in any observable way and functioned well in the army in moderately technical fields. Similarly, there were guys with above-average IQs who were complete idiots with no judgment.

So even if 100 years from now the USA has the average IQ of Iran or the PI, is there going to be a collapse? Nah.

[bojangles]

(11-11-2014 06:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

^ Laughably shortsighted and incomplete analysis, Sp5. You would do well to read The Fate of Empires.

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

Quote:

One of the oft-repeated phenomena of great empires is the influx of foreigners to the capital city. Roman historians often complain of the number of Asians and Africans in Rome. Baghdad, in its prime in the ninth century, was international in its population - Persians, Turks, Arabs, Armenians, Egyptians, Africans and Greeks mingled in the streets.

In London today, Cypriots, Greeks, Italians, Russians, Africans, Germans, and Indians jostle one another on the buses and in the underground, so that it sometimes seems difficult to find any British. The same applies to New York, perhaps even more so. The problem does not consist in any inferiority of one race as compared with another, but simply in the differences between them.

- Pg. 15

"Diversity" has been a proven failure for thousands of years

Yep, as I pointed out to Krauser on twitter yesterday

[Samseau]

(11-13-2014 03:54 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

You guys are salivating for a collapse into chaos or some kind of totalitarianism, to bring back your traditional tribal past. Liberty bothers you.

Projection. Liberty bothers you, not us. True liberty exists only when a man belongs to a nation of like minded individuals, not when he cannot trust anyone because his neighbors are new faces everyday. Liberty does not mean having your backyard open to anyone who shows up for a hot meal and welfare. Liberty does not mean being taxed while miscreants reproduce endlessly.

Quote:

Me? I took an oath to support and defend the Bill of Rights several times in the military and elsewhere. My loyalties and preference are with "the worst system of government, except for all the rest," as Churchill said. With all its faults, democracy is preferable to big money oligarchy, absolute monarchs, "aristocracies," and communist and fascist dictatorships. I'm not a crypto-monarchist or crypto-fascist. I'm not in favor of imposing authoritarianism to suppress "excessive personal freedom." I can ride out other people's obnoxious-but-legal behavior without calling for Big Brother to stop it.

Bill of rights? What ever happened to freedom of association? Ordinary Americans can no longer create communities of people they want. They are forced to accommodate others in the name of diversity.

That you believe we live in a democracy must also be considered a joke. There's nothing democratic about any Western government today. It's rule by the rich for the rich and you're deluding yourself if you believe otherwise.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-11...-bottom-90

Quote:

From the early 1980s, however, these trends have reversed. The top 0.1% (consisting of 160,000 families worth $73m on average) hold 22% of America’s wealth, just shy of the 1929 peak—and almost the same share as the bottom 90% of the population."

That was as of 2013. By now the wealth of the top 0.1% is not only well above that of the "bottom 90%" but higher than it has ever been.

Are bailouts liberty? Is having terrorists flood over the border and bomb your cities liberty? Is endless war with people you've never met liberty?

Sp5, you, and anyone who defends the current western governments, are the authoritarians. Trying to pass yourselves off as liberty lovers is a joke. You don't know what the word liberty means. You've been too brainwashed by your legal education, since, as I know from personal experience, law school is really just "advanced indoctrination school."

Quote:

Maybe there will be a collapse or some large countries will turn into North Korea or Turkmenistan by isolating themselves, of course. I've said nuclear war, new diseases and planetary depletion are threats to survival, not just society.

But as I said, barring disasters like that, the world is going to get more integrated. There will be waves of political disruption like 1848 or 1968, sure. I see rioting in the near future just because of economic changes, the lack of jobs, imbalances caused by money in politics. Politics and society will adjust.

This is a strawman. No one is saying we need to become North Korea.

Quote:

Look at what it would take to reverse the trend of global integration: (1) the end of instantaneous satellite and fiber optic communications including the end of the internet, global media, Facebook, Skype, and Tinder, (2) the end of air travel, (3) the end of international trade, (4) the end of the movement of money. How and in what lifetime do you expect this to happen? Sure, in a thousand years anything and everything can happen. Maybe people will stop using iron tools and the wheel, too. But those extreme scenarios are branded as pure science fiction, not based on observable facts from which reasonable trends can be extrapolated.

None of the things you listed mean a god damn thing for liberty. As has been pointed out for about 100 times over a dozen threads on this forum, countries like Japan, China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and every other non-white country in the world will put their citizens interests first over foreigners.

And yet, in spite of being nationalist, these countries still have the internet and global media. They still have air travel and tourism. They still have international trade, and international finance.

Your specious arguments as to why we need mass unlimited immigration or else we'll lose liberty aren't going to fool me, or anyone else with half a brain. Thanks to mass unlimited immigration, we now live in the age of terrorism so bad Americans cannot go to the airport without being treated as a potential criminal. That's liberty? Time to get real.

Quote:

The one observable trend you mention is declining IQ scores. Assuming you are correct, and that the trend will not be reversed by what I think are naturally self-correcting social forces (like smarter women deciding not to repeat their mothers', or their childless aunts', experiment with deferring children for career, or tax incentives), it's going to take a long time to manifest any real effects, if ever. Why? Look at the world as it is now. The Philippines has an average IQ of 86, yet still manages to maintain general order and economic growth, and is improving its governance and prosperity. Even Ireland, with a very stable democracy and high per capita GDP, has a lower IQ, in the mid- to lower 90s, than most other European countries and the USA. Iran is down in the 80s, yet still has a nuclear program and a sophisticated economy which is almost totally isolated because of sanctions. It still functions.

The level of denial you exhibit here is outstanding.

The difference between the Philippines, with an IQ of 86, and places like Korea or Japan, with IQ's over 115, is shockingly large.

The differences between Iran, IQ 80, and Israel, IQ's over 115, is as wide as the gulf of Mexico.

The fact is, these low IQ countries would be nothing without the higher IQ ones who've developed everything. Best case scenario in a world of declining IQ scores - things remain as good as they are now. But even in a best case scenario, things aren't going to get any better without high IQs to innovate.

A far more likely scenario is that the dumber masses will be led like sheep to the slaughter for pointless wars that enrich whatever overlords rule over the dumb masses. It's already that way today, and as people get dumber they will be easier and easier to fool. Thus why declining IQ scores won't be an issue is impossible.

Quote:

IQ is not as big of a deal as it's made out to be. When I started out in the army, I was a personnel clerk. I had access to all of my soldiers' test scores, which included the AFQT, generally regarded as a percentile score of intelligence, and the GT score, which is an IQ score. I noticed two things: one, there were some guys with humble backgrounds with high scores, and two, scores did not correlate much with observed articulateness, ability to function in the army, and judgment. In those days, we had guys with GT (IQ) scores down into the 70s. I was friends with some of those guys, and they didn't seem impaired in any observable way and functioned well in the army in moderately technical fields. Similarly, there were guys with above-average IQs who were complete idiots with no judgment.

Personal anecdotes mean nothing when describing nations of millions.

Quote:

So even if 100 years from now the USA has the average IQ of Iran or the PI, is there going to be a collapse? Nah.

[Quintus Curtius]

Different people see things differently.

This subject matter of this thread originally about Swedish authorities being "afraid" to enter areas of their own countries, areas that they seem to have ceded control to criminal or seditious elements. This state of affairs is intolerable to any proud state with a long heritage.

If I were the premier of Sweden, I would not tolerate this. Such areas need to be brought firmly to heel. Criminals and seditious elements should be rooted out and either jailed or thrown out of the country.

I also said, and still say, that the concept of "liberty" and "freedom" are relative concepts, and vary according to prevailing conditions. One cannot demand unrestricted liberty when the nation's health and welfare is at stake. Liberty varies inversely with the level of the threats being faced. This has always been the case.

I also believe that Western Europeans have abandoned their culture and traditions in order to embrace a wordview that is profoundly antithetical to the entire Western tradition. I believe this worldview should be ferociously attacked. Its bearers need to be viewed as the plague bacillus that they are. Europeans seem to be unable--or unwilling--to defend themselves from the hungrier, hardier types from Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and other continents.

We must not shy away from calling things what they are.

Europe has enjoyed many, many decades of frivolity, luxury, and ease, all of it underwritten by the elites of those nations and by the largesse of the US military. They have, during this time, decayed morally (and, I would argue, physically).

It brings me no pleasure to point out these things. But I can't ignore the precedents of history. Decadence invites occupation. The have-nots want what the haves have.

In my view, as I've said, there is too much of a focus in the West on "my rights" and "my liberty" and not enough focus on social responsibility, discipline, and the values that contribute to a healthy society. No one can simply do whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

These values are going to be re-learned in the years to come, believe me. The corruption, license, and excesses generated by our fathers is now generating hardship for the next generations.

Get ready to see what economic hardship looks like. Get ready to see the real meaning of suffering. And as this happens, people will eventually to return to the values that made Europe great. We need to cultivate an ethic that promotes beauty, health, and discipline, rather than an atheistic, degenerate ethic that celebrates perversity and corruption (which is what we have now).

[Krusyos]

If society collapses and we must start again, one of the most important things to do would be to explicitly and clearly state that women are not permitted to hold office or vote, and that this particular provision is unable to be overturned by any amendment. Everything we are experiencing today is a direct result of women influencing politics with their oblivious and irrational choices.

[KC4]

Talked to some guys that I know that live in in these no go zones. In some areas police activity have increased and in others it have declined. The areas where it has increased is where there is a higher swedish population. If you guys want i can ask around a bit more either from my neighbour or from friends that live in those areas.

[Wutang]

" Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper

[berserk]

(11-13-2014 12:36 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  

If society collapses and we must start again, one of the most important things to do would be to explicitly and clearly state that women are not permitted to hold office or vote, and that this particular provision is unable to be overturned by any amendment. Everything we are experiencing today is a direct result of women influencing politics with their oblivious and irrational choices.

I dislike such legislation even though it has a long historical precedence. I am all for a more traditional society, but against societies which discriminate based on factors that a person can't change. That isn't fair.

The solution is to restrict voting to people with 'skin in the game'. Tax paying, say at least 5 out of the last 10 years, serving in the military (reserve too) or having children supported by yourself (in wedlock).

You do that and the left will never win again. Study the numbers, it is overwhelmingly public sector, single women who vote the leftists in power.

You need people to vote because they are invested in society as a whole, not just to vote for marginal more utility for themselves.

[Samseau]

(11-13-2014 02:48 PM)berserk Wrote:  

(11-13-2014 12:36 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  

If society collapses and we must start again, one of the most important things to do would be to explicitly and clearly state that women are not permitted to hold office or vote, and that this particular provision is unable to be overturned by any amendment. Everything we are experiencing today is a direct result of women influencing politics with their oblivious and irrational choices.

I dislike such legislation even though it has a long historical precedence. I am all for a more traditional society, but against societies which discriminate based on factors that a person can't change. That isn't fair.

The solution is to restrict voting to people with 'skin in the game'. Tax paying, say at least 5 out of the last 10 years, serving in the military (reserve too) or having children supported by yourself (in wedlock).

You do that and the left will never win again. Study the numbers, it is overwhelmingly public sector, single women who vote the leftists in power.

You need people to vote because they are invested in society as a whole, not just to vote for marginal more utility for themselves.

What does fairness matter when discussing survival?

[Sp5]

(11-13-2014 12:44 PM)KC4 Wrote:  

Talked to some guys that I know that live in in these no go zones. In some areas police activity have increased and in others it have declined. The areas where it has increased is where there is a higher swedish population. If you guys want i can ask around a bit more either from my neighbour or from friends that live in those areas.

Here is a Svenska Dagbladet story which seems to Google translate pretty well:

http://www.svd.se/opinion/ledarsidan/55-...051399.svd

The gist of it is that the police do not call these areas "no-go zones," so the OP story from a blogger is misleading. The report details areas where the police are having a tough time. How many cities, heterogeneous or homogenous, have tough neighborhoods where the police have a hard time? A lot.

So it appears the Swedish police are adapting and adjusting, and over time will put the squeeze on those areas. You can be pretty sure of that. Police organizations don't make a public report about a problem they don't intend to solve. That is what happens in this world, you identify problems and you solve them. Urban policing is not that different than counterinsurgency (which I have some experience in). One of the things you do is publicize problems to create support among the populace for your actions. I think this report is preparing the public for operations.

We got a stream of comments after that warning of imminent doom, as if local policing in some Swedish housing projects was a matter of cultural survival. Even though Sweden's non-European immigrant population is about 7% of the total, it was like "they" would take over Sweden tomorrow.

I don't approve of a lot of the things Sweden does, they are way too feminist dominated and have not much respect for freedom of speech, but the Swedes do run their own country through elections. If they don't want immigration, they will stop it, and it appears they are on that road. So this is not really worth getting worked up about.

Some commenters here are long on complaints and vague prescriptions. "We have to bring back standards," "excessive personal freedom" should be limited, people should be able to "create communities of people they want." They are short on specific solutions, or won't write them.

If you want to bring back monarchy, say it. If you only think white people should vote, say it. If you want dictatorial state censorship of media to shut out points of view, say it. If you want strict dress and morality laws, say it. If you think racial discrimination in housing and public accommodations if good, say it. If you think there should be a draft to ensure widespread "military prowess," say it. Don't be mealy-mouthed, have the courage of your convictions.

(11-13-2014 10:30 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

The differences between Iran, IQ 80, and Israel, IQ's over 115, is as wide as the gulf of Mexico.

Right, kind of makes my point. Do you really think Israelis are 40% smarter than Iranians?

[Krusyos]

(11-13-2014 02:48 PM)berserk Wrote:  

(11-13-2014 12:36 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  

If society collapses and we must start again, one of the most important things to do would be to explicitly and clearly state that women are not permitted to hold office or vote, and that this particular provision is unable to be overturned by any amendment. Everything we are experiencing today is a direct result of women influencing politics with their oblivious and irrational choices.

I dislike such legislation even though it has a long historical precedence. I am all for a more traditional society, but against societies which discriminate based on factors that a person can't change. That isn't fair.

The solution is to restrict voting to people with 'skin in the game'. Tax paying, say at least 5 out of the last 10 years, serving in the military (reserve too) or having children supported by yourself (in wedlock).

You do that and the left will never win again. Study the numbers, it is overwhelmingly public sector, single women who vote the leftists in power.

You need people to vote because they are invested in society as a whole, not just to vote for marginal more utility for themselves.

This legislation is necessary. First of all, it reaffirms and codifies gender differences and basically is making a statement "We believe genders have different roles and purposes." Secondly, whenever it comes time to vote for someone, men will be reminded that it is their job to lead. Whenever they go to the voting center without their wives, they are reminded of their duty to their family, country, and civilization. The women is reminded that it is her job to advise her husband. Although she cannot vote, she can counsel her spouse and provide him support.

Your solution, while better than the current circumstance, still leaves a lot of room for anti-Western politicians to come into power. The vast majority of tax-paying women in careers would identify as feminist, or at least "equalists." While the number of careerwomen is bound to change as the government itself becomes more conservative, there will still remain many women who are feminists, and even more pissed off because of what they perceive as "anti-woman" legislation. By denying women the vote we are essentially saying, "Look, you had your shot. We let you vote and control public policy, and you ran our entire civilization into the ground. The only way to prevent this from happening again is, unfortunately, only letting men vote. Science confirms that men are supposed to be leaders. You tried to usurp the male gender role, and we all suffered for it."

The argument "she was born that way and so it is unfair" while nobly intentioned, is not logical. Nature, as interpreted by science, clearly tells us that men and women are meant for different purposes. All of society is based on the assumption that men will lead and women will support. The reason we are in this mess right now is because of the disregard of this mandate. By firmly encoding in our own, human laws the greater mandates of nature, we are making it incredibly hard for anyone to screw up society bad enough that we arrive back in our current predicament.

[Quintus Curtius]

(11-13-2014 04:54 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Some commenters here are long on complaints and vague prescriptions. "We have to bring back standards," "excessive personal freedom" should be limited, people should be able to "create communities of people they want." They are short on specific solutions, or won't write them.

If you want to bring back monarchy, say it. If you only think white people should vote, say it. If you want dictatorial state censorship of media to shut out points of view, say it. If you want strict dress and morality laws, say it. If you think racial discrimination in housing and public accommodations if good, say it. If you think there should be a draft to ensure widespread "military prowess," say it. Don't be mealy-mouthed, have the courage of your convictions.

When talking about moral problems, it isn't always possible to legislate solutions. Attempts to "legislate" morality by political leaders have mostly been failures. The emperor Augustus tried it in Rome during his tenure in office. The Puritans tried it in England in the early 17th century. And some Islamic countries have tried it. But they have mostly been failures.

When I say that our society has confused liberty with license, and that the result is decay, there isn't any "prescription" or "solution" that can be offered except solutions based on culture, education, and indoctrination.

So here are my solutions, if you want them.

1. The entire educational system needs to be changed. Men's education is a subject I have written about before at Return of Kings. Re-read:

http://www.returnofkings.com/16957/leade...ng-for-men

Education needs to focus more on character, and less on stuffing a weak body and mind with politically correct liberal bilge.

2. The popular culture needs to be elevate beauty, gender roles, and positive social values. Those who produce television and movies need to understand that they share a role in the molding of the youth, and that they need to act accordingly.

3. The ethic of "profit over all else" is what has caused the exploitation of the young and women. This is evil. Corporations need to understand that they cannot just bleed the young, the old, and women, tell them what they want to hear, and cater to their most selfish instincts.

There should be advertising restrictions on not peddling shit to minors. Children now are only seen as resources to be exploited by corporations. Advertisers cater to their basest instincts. It was not always so.

4. Religion needs to be recognized for its positive role in inculcating morals, culture, and cohesiveness. The popular culture needs to shop denigrating it. Laws that have banned it from the schools should be repealed.

5. The popular culture needs to stop peddling the ethic that "nothing matters" and "who am I to judge?" relativism. This ethic leads to nihilism, negativity, and despair.


Basically, what I'm advocating is an entire spiritual revolution. That is the only thing that will work. Trying to force people to do this or that is not efficient. It does work in some situations, but usually not.

The only real revolutionaries are saints and philosophers. The revolution starts in each and every man. I'm doing my part the best I know how.

I have written extensively on all of these things. Anyone who wishes to know can find my thoughts in my articles at ROK and my book.

As for forms of government, I prefer democratic republics. But they should be true democracies. We don't have that now. We have plutocracies controlled by the super rich for their own benefit.

So, those are my specifics. State and local governments should implement laws that are consistent with these principles, as outlined above. I consider myself a social conservative and a humanist.

[Akula]

(11-13-2014 12:44 PM)KC4 Wrote:  

Talked to some guys that I know that live in in these no go zones. In some areas police activity have increased and in others it have declined. The areas where it has increased is where there is a higher swedish population. If you guys want i can ask around a bit more either from my neighbour or from friends that live in those areas.

Thanks - would be quite interesting to hear what people are saying "on the ground." I'm still pretty shocked that the native Swedish guy came up and actively pursued the cop you were having a chat with on the grounds of "harassment/racism" but it doesn't suprise me given the social engineering and crazy PC laws in place in the EU. If you're given a steady stream of lies and PC brainwashing from your state-run far-left socialist media all day, every day it eventually sinks in.

[Sombro]

[Feisbook Control]

Sp5: Yes, I'd say the Israelis are 40% more intelligent than Iranians. I've travelled to enough places in the world to know that there are fundamental differences between groups of people. I'd say that's true even within countries, as is the case here in Taiwan. The south and the east are both radically more stupid than the north. If you come from a functional place that is full of very smart people, it's very easy to take that for granted, to assume that stuff that makes sense just makes sense, and so happens. Yet you arrive in a place where that doesn't happen and it blows you out of the water. One of the most egregious examples was the water situation in Myanmar, when I was there more than four years ago. Plenty of places don't have running water. In plenty of restaurants, you'd use the toilet and the places to "wash" your hands had still water with a dozen plates and cups, i.e. you literally shit where you eat. WTF? I'd end up eating somewhere else. This isn't rocket science. Does it really take a Western NGO to come in and install a bloody water pump ffs? Likewise, we went to a place that was supposedly a holy site. It was a cave with a Buddhist shrine at the front. Then, we went through the cave. Because we'd gone through the shrine first, we were barefoot. You could not take a single step for ten minutes without stepping on plastic bags and other garbage. It was absolutely disgusting. My wife and I were with a few Europeans who were very culturally relativistic about it. No, that's why Myanmar has had decades and decades and decades of a screwed up government, because the people are fucking morons. On the other hand, in places like Denmark (I know people have many negative opinions about Denmark, its women, etc., but it's an amazingly functional place), everything just works and it makes sense. Furthermore, if you start talking to people about stuff, you know immediately that it's not just one or two bright people running the show despite everyone else. The population overall is much smarter.

Moving on...

I want to make some general comments about the ideal political/social system. Way back in the thread, someone mentioned that Sweden's problems wouldn't exist if Sweden were Swedish. Likewise, recently, various people have proposed either restricting voting to men or basing it upon meeting certain other conditions. Sweden was originally Swedish. It wasn't invaded. Western democracies originally had greater restrictions on voting. People might talk about the US Constitution or Bill of Rights and adhering to that. Yet in all of these cases, here we are with various levels or forms of dysfunction. I think vigilance is at least as important as the chosen system or makeup of society itself. It's not enough to simply prescribe these things and then think that because they're written down that that's some panacea. I think this is where a lot of American constitutionalists (if that's even a term) go wrong. Their opponents are right in some sense when they say it's just a piece of paper with words written a couple of hundred years ago. People can't just think that we can find any kind of Utopian solution to the West's problems and that will be the end of it. If that had been the end of it, we wouldn't be where we are today. I suspect that Quintus is being somewhat cagey with specific policy prescriptions for this very reason. Given his long view of history and his understanding of how the best laid plans of men and civilisations eventually decay, I think he understands that there is something more nebulous about what makes a society work than writing a prescriptive list. At least that's what I think. Maybe I'm projecting upon him.

[Chaos]

^ How much time have you spent in Israel and Iran?

[Feisbook Control]

(11-14-2014 12:46 AM)Chaos Wrote:  

^ How much time have you spent in Israel and Iran?

I have been to neither. However, if my experiences in the dozens of countries I have been to are in line with official data on IQ tests, the PISA tests, number of Nobel Laureates, etc., then I don't think it's unreasonable to infer that the official data for countries I haven't been to is fairly accurate also. By analogy, if I go to a restaurant and order several items off the menu and I do, in fact, get what I ordered, is it or is it not logical to assume that the items I hadn't ordered would also be what they are claimed to be, or would I need to order every single item off the menu to confirm this? It would be interesting to experience a day in the life of a person who never employed inductive reasoning.

[Saga]

(11-14-2014 02:21 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 12:46 AM)Chaos Wrote:  

^ How much time have you spent in Israel and Iran?

I have been to neither. However, if my experiences in the dozens of countries I have been to are in line with official data on IQ tests, the PISA tests, number of Nobel Laureates, etc., then I don't think it's unreasonable to infer that the official data for countries I haven't been to is fairly accurate also. By analogy, if I go to a restaurant and order several items off the menu and I do, in fact, get what I ordered, is it or is it not logical to assume that the items I hadn't ordered would also be what they are claimed to be, or would I need to order every single item off the menu to confirm this?

I think a more accurate analogy is that you went to a number of restaurants and then used those experiences to judge restaurants you haven't yet eaten at.

[Feisbook Control]

(11-14-2014 02:34 AM)Saga Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 02:21 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 12:46 AM)Chaos Wrote:  

^ How much time have you spent in Israel and Iran?

I have been to neither. However, if my experiences in the dozens of countries I have been to are in line with official data on IQ tests, the PISA tests, number of Nobel Laureates, etc., then I don't think it's unreasonable to infer that the official data for countries I haven't been to is fairly accurate also. By analogy, if I go to a restaurant and order several items off the menu and I do, in fact, get what I ordered, is it or is it not logical to assume that the items I hadn't ordered would also be what they are claimed to be, or would I need to order every single item off the menu to confirm this?

I think a more accurate analogy is that you went to a number of restaurants and then used those experiences to judge restaurants you haven't yet eaten at.

Because obviously the massive amounts of data periodically collected on these matters isn't correct. A more accurate analogy than yours would be reading a ratings guide for restaurants and finding that it was in line with experience, i.e. that the prices in the guide were actually accurate, the items on listed on the menu were accurate, and even that more nebulous criteria such as cleanliness or service were also accurate. Are you telling me that you don't ever use such kinds of inductive reasoning? That's why I mentioned that it would be interesting to experience a day in the life of such a person.

[Deluge]

I don't know where this idea that Iranians are dumb came from. The Iranian diaspora is a "model minority" group. Theocratic government aside Iran is supposed to be on the modern and well-educated states in the Middle East, I'm sure Chaos can say more about that and you can see that in their pre-Revoultion history. Iranians I've met are very different to Samseau and Quintus's Arab cousins, for instance. Also less than half of Israeli Jews are Ashkenazi (who have heightened intelligence) and East Asian IQ scores are supposed to ~105 not 115.