happened in the USA. in the 1870's the irish and italians among others came here. culture blended. people in europe complaining are like the tea baggers here in the USA
Of course it blend, but that make Europe worse.
And the Americans WERE Europeans and the Europeans were Christians.
At what rate did immigrants come to USA back in that time? How does it compare to Sweden of today?
The crusades were a direct response to a particular part of that conflict, namely the conquest of lands that European Xians might care about for religious religions.
Imagine the rest of the Muslim world getting pissed off that America decided to invade Saudi Arabia and have the Marines occupy Mecca.
Well, the Saudis seem to be very found of building their temples of Islam in all other nations so what why couldn't the west build even greater temples of liberalism, capitalism and pleasure in Saudi-Arabia?
As for the 'decline' of Europe, they may be decreasing in number, sure, but they are definitely increasing in wealth (positive economic growth) with the effect that wealth and power is becoming concentrated in the hands of fewer individuals. Raw population size is a poor measure of the well-being of a country, otherwise India and China would be the best places to live.
Wouldn't your argument require Europe to have a quicker growth than the rest of the world? (maybe for power it just have to be larger in an absolute number increasing European economical size vs the world in total and maybe that actually is happening I don't know.)
A few people doesn't save the European countries and cultures (or does it because those people you perceive as rich decide the society / culture directions?)
As someone living in a very public/leader/media oikophobic socialistic democrature I don't have the impression that the riches / the people with money got the control and wins anyway. What is perceived as a decent amount of tax seem to be not what make the most sense for growth (nor for economical equality) but rather for maximum tax output (as high as possible without the economy shrinking so fast that next years money will be less) and the majority/poorer voters will likely want to have "their share" / whatever they can get (even if they call themselves more charitable and giving by that..) and rich people at-least in democracies seem to somewhat accept that / be ok with that because they are afraid that if the people don't think they get their share they will revolt and simply grab / steal it all.
Now as long as immigration happen fairly slowly I guess the Muslim fundamentalist/extremist mantra of "We're coming to Europe and we'll turn your daughters and children into Muslims!" may fail and maybe it's their own children who will rather become Europeans at heart rather than Muslims.
When it happen quickly and enough of them can stay segregated and don't adapt or they may even feel powerful in a group that help them keep their tradition and at least in a small scale / one place enforce their culture over the majority culture at that time and space. That may not completely over-throw society but it's an issue and will enforce their shit upon some unlucky souls who happen to be there at that time. Also it help them keep their ways and become Europeans less, destroy others transition to becoming Europeans (at heart, but then again major political movement against the few may overcome the minority ideology anyway) and possibly have the majority society accept their ways as an isolated group.
Socialist-idiots (repeat) usually DO think population size matters as do they with the economical size of the nation at large not per capita, here in Sweden I don't know whatever that's what they mean and if people are fooling themselves when they say that immigration will be beneficial / make more money - do they just mean in the sense that the nation and the municipal may have more money in total to deal with but not more money / capita because I don't really see how the later would happen? Rather for me while I realize we own and use some things together and that more people who are paying for that may be beneficial (just look how large cities offer more for the people to do even if the people themselves happen to be poorer, I don't really like cities though) what I perceive as my wealth is how much _I_ have / what I perceive as how rich the nation is is how much money the average citizen have not how much money the state or the municipality has. And yeah, I consider Swedes richer than say Chinese even if China is a bigger economy than Sweden.
Anyway for a country like Sweden we're fucked and done as far as the immigrants goes, we will likely never get rid of them and keep on being flooded with them. In Europe at large that could possibly had changed but it takes that the leaders would had been wanting that and at least in the sense of pushing people out again I don't think it will happen. It will just be some socialist shit-hole all of it.
I guess this is how the long term "revenge" for the crusades will happen.
The crusades was the revenge if anything.
The crusades is just a short blip in history and in the world whereas Muslim persecution of non-Muslims and spreading to new territory happen more or less the whole time.
Of course they shouldn't be imported to Europe and of course larger volumes and more segregation which let them keep their ways is a problem.
If they are few enough and spread within a community of another majority culture the most likely outcome would rather be that it's their cultural history which would become replaced not the other way around.
Enjoy your RED threat assessment. Have fun being followed by the police and pulled over for things like not doing a 1 second stop at stop signs.
I was born in a free country, I expected it to allow people to be free and I'll do my best to keep it free.
Sure it's got risks - That sucks. And for sure I don't know where the right balance is, and I don't really know how to figure that one out. I don't know the laws of my country and I wish I didn't had to because they shouldn't even exist.
I'm not American. And I totally respect the American society and I wish you all a free country in line with the constitution not the Marxist communist bullshit.
It's still dictatorship and lack of freedom of thought, opinion and expression.
Why shall we be ruled by our nations and governments? Shouldn't they accept that?
I hate my government, the traitors, the media, the immigrants. I'm open with that. I haven't attacked shit.
If anything the problem isn't that we aren't allowed to speak and that people don't listen, the set the foundation for "terrorism" but what is "terrorism" anyhow? Wikipedia: "In a narrower sense, terrorism can be understood to feature a political objective."
My government is clear that my opinion doesn't matter, they won't listen and nothing will change and they ignore people like me.
In the end what is the difference? The ruling authority use threat of violence against those who are against it too. All governments are terrorists for their own agenda?
Are Hamas terrorists? Israel? USA? Al-Assad? ISIS? Iran? France?
LOL. Another pathetic attempt to shut down debate by being "offended". White people ARE being genocided, obviously a perpetrator like you is going to keep telling us it isn't happening. We all have eyes, we can all SEE how our countries are bring invaded and destroyed by non-whites. Non-whites get to keep their own countries. But whites don't.
How fair of you.
Someone being offended should be irrelevant. People should be taught it's irrelevant if they are offended by something. One can be offended by a lot. I'm offended by having my country flooded with immigrants, by the government stating I have no culture, I have no country, that my opinion doesn't matter and is false and they should just be able to don't care about it.
Feminist scum-bags who supposedly are anti-racist and anti-sexist (they want to be viewed that way at-least) are just fine saying "Yet another offended white man!" and supposedly then it doesn't matter that he's offended because he's white and man. But if a woman, a brown person or a Muslim is offended then supposedly it does matter. How isn't that sexist and racist? Why is it a good thing then white men are offended but not when someone else is?
Personally I'm ok with all sorts of people being offended and I don't even make the claim that I'm not racist, I don't care what the fuck people call my opinion, it is what it is regardless. Too me the bad parts is discrimination, slavery, genocide, rape and mistreatment, discussing color or sex in regard of behavior or statistics or whatever I don't see the problem with. I know it's generalizations and different individuals.
In Sweden a common leftard argument would be "there are no mass-immigration", even though Sweden have the most immigration in the whole western world, and that's supposedly a valid argument and one which will catch and destroy any other claim.
I guess they could argue that feminists aren't "anti-men" too or that the replacement of the Swedish people (how can there even be when they deny the very existence of it?) or denial of their culture and their right to the country aren't genocide, anti-democratic, racist and shitty behavior.
In this city, Örebro for anyone who care if you walk up on the city 50% of those you see will seem to be immigrants. How isn't that mass-immigration? My local super-market will also have like 50% non-Swedes* in it. And you try to tell me we don't have many immigrants?
* (yeah, white, that's what we happen to be, deal with it, it's irrelevant, it's not ok to destroy all white people just because they are white and then that supposedly is anti-racist and good, why is it ok to take over and destroy countries of white people but not black and brown people?)
Within my generation Sweden will have gone from no to 1 immigrant / class in school to majority of non-Swedes in the country. How isn't that mass-immigration?
It will completely change Sweden and remove the country from us and destroy the Swedish people.
It is what it is, you could put any brand on it and it doesn't really matter, genocide, not genocide, racist, anti-racist, good, bad, this or that, doesn't matter, it's a fact that the Swedish people are being exchanged and that their country and self-rule are taken from them regardless of what you want to call it.
Fucking traitor government.
If I ruled Sweden they all would be hanged from tree-branches just like in the days of old and been shown as a warning to anyone else who thought this politics was a good idea.
Yes, because they are unfit traitors but also because the freedom of the individual are more important than the ideas of the collective.
the government should have more power (to throw people away)
The Swedish people should have all the power over themselves and their land. The immigrants should never had been allowed to or be allowed to become Swedes.
he does not want a racist country
?
but want to get rid of brown and black
I don't necessarily want to destroy the Swedish people and replace us and fill a democracy with other people who will be changing it and take it over.
The Swedish people happen to be white but that's really irrelevant. It's like stealing the land of and replacing the aboriginal people in Australia or the Indians in USA. Those was black and brown and that wasn't ok either. I don't care if it's "racist" to not steal their land and destroy their cultures and replace their people. But it's harder to say that when it happen to non-white people though? Because there's a bias against white people, for the destruction of white peoples lands and for "diversity" in any country which is white, which you indeed could say is racist depending on your view of what's racism.
Was it wrong of the Spaniards to flood and take over south America? But it's right of the Muslims and niggers to flood and take over Sweden? Why is that?
the migrants are never condemned when they do something outside the law, several afghans have been condemned
lol whut? No, I've never said they NEVER are. I'm saying that Swedish authorities consider it impossible to deport criminals and people who aren't granted asylum even with lax Swedish laws on the subject, hence it doesn't happen even if they decide that it should happen. Only 25% of the Asylum-seekers are granted asylum as convention refugees, another 50% are granted it by other reasons, and among those 75% who are granted residency permits more or less everyone has been able to bring their family over even if they have no income to pay for them leading to even more people.
he does not agree with the tyranny of majority, but when he says he has a (imaginary) majority on the increased/decrease of refugee they should follow this majority
Why do you claim it's imaginary? There's opinion research on the subject done regularly and it's always the case.
Why do you lie?
http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inri... 24th December 2015: 55% want to accept less "refugees" 19% want to accept more "refugees" 20% neither more or less.
And that's even with our media climate and lies and hidden statistics.
55% is definitely a majority and 55% is more than 19%. How are you going to change that to mean something else?
http://www.svt.se/nyheter/val2... 7th May 2014: 44% thought Sweden had taken in too many immigrants. 10% thought we had taken in too few immigrants.
How is that imaginary? What are your interpretation? That because the 10% are the ones shouting and screaming the whole time they totally make up 100% of the Swedish people except a few neo-Nazis which are irrelevant?
Why are you posting as AC your fucking coward who don't take responsibility for your bullshit?
One reason to not let the majority flood the country with immigrants anyhow would be that you know what you have and are used to it and is it ok to enforce something else upon someone within that system?
And I don't know his age
36.
he he wants the trash to be deported, I can probably buy him a one way ticket to anywhere.
That don't make me deported or a citizen of some other society.
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
D isn't really there, but replacing them, but the others are there.
There is a very active neo-Nazi movement in Sweden.
I don't know how active it is but it's on the brink of being totally non-existing.
There kinda is no neo-Nazi movement in Sweden at all.
There was in the 80s and 90s but it has been destroyed since then. There's been what may have been a few attacks on "refugee" facilities in Sweden but that's kinda that and they are far-far less than what is being done in Germany. There's been attempts to do Pegida demonstrations in Sweden but those have had like 3 people whereas there's thousands in Germany and Poland.
The flooding of immigrants is worst to Sweden by far but the response and criticism kinda is lower than in the neighbor countries and much weaker than in Germany and east-Europe.
The only thing there is is a 15-20+% opinion support for the Sweden democrats who are the only party which would want to severely cut immigration flows but that doesn't mean that 15-25% of the Swedes are neo-Nazis. It's the only party which isn't completely self-destructive and would do something about the situation.
But personally I would applaud all solutions.
The ridiculing and name-tagging won't get you anywhere.
This right here is part of the problem. If the sane pressure groups don't address the big rape issues in Sweden, they're leaving it to the nazis to rise support with. Dismissing the whole topic derisively is clearly not working.
I'm no socialist.
Call me xenophobic or pro my own people, culture and self-rule or against the genocide of my own people or whatever.
The Swedish government wouldn't admit that there are Swedes and the leftards wouldn't admit that Swedes for some reason had more right to this land and society than someone else and the Swedish government says that we have no native culture, that we are all the result of immigration and that it has always been that way.
Or justice and migration minister said that 600 000 people wanted into EU (~520 million) and likened that with 1 person asking for help and whatever he could come to an island of 1 000 people, which he meant was fine.
162 000 last year, at most there was 13 000+ / week or a rate of almost 700 000 / year, to a country which had around 9.65 million inhabitants when the year started or an actual rise of 1.7% / year and at a speed of 7% of the population / year when it was the worst speed.
Sweden in 2014 had 10+ times more asylum-seekers / capita than the rest of EU on average, that deserve the highest response against the crazy politics and mass-immigration in EU for all I care, which isn't something Sweden have. In Germany there are large protests and many more attacks on future claimed to be refugees facilities than in Sweden.
In the United States of America people whine about 60 000 Syrians, if USA got the same amount of asylum-seekers are Sweden got / capita in 2015 that would had been 5.4 million in 2015 alone, about 25% of them would had been "lone-coming refugee children" those services would had costed closer to $100 000 / person and of which 11:1 was men.
At the quickest rate of refugees arriving to Sweden the USA 450 000 refugees would had come to USA PER WEEK.
The cost of these well-fare migrants are higher in Sweden than it would be in the US due to the stronger well-fare state and higher taxes.
Back in 2014 35 TIMES MORE REFUGEES came to Sweden than to USA / capita.
The response in eastern Europe is much stronger and they get far less refugees.
Also it's complete bullshit that Sweden would have a strong neo-Nazi movement, there's more or less no neo-Nazi movement in Sweden at all. There's 20+% sympathizers to the party which want to restrict immigration and almost 1/3 of the many sympathizes with them, I think support among immigrants themselves was up like four times for the party in question, that shouldn't be likened with 20+% of the Swedes being neo-Nazis, to begin with it's the only alternative if you want a change but it's all too late anyway and they won't get 50+% support so the decades of no trash-immigration and kicking people out won't happen regardless.
Sweden is flooded with immigrants and it will continue because the ass-holes in charge consider it responsibility to not take responsibility and stop the invasion and destruction of Sweden.
Among the "lone"-coming "refugees" there's an over 11:1 ratio of men to females.
Among Swedish teens we're hitting 1.2:1 male to female ratio now thanks to the immigration, so among those generations the chance to make a couple will decrease.
Best case scenario the Swedish females would be taught to avoid the immigrant men possibly making them want to go somewhere else because they was alone and slow down the destruction of the Swedish people.
But more relevant just like it's a fact that more people will be raped in Sweden thanks to mass-immigration from rape-cultures the lack of women and partners will likely lead to more problem in Sweden too, as would social-/economical inequality. Segregation of the people and cultures will likely lead to some cultural conflicts and there's always the possibility of some sort of civil-war too.
It doesn't go away just because one doesn't admit it, accept it says "no" or live in a fairy-tale.
Just curious, are you the only person in Sweden who supports Trump? Or are there others?
Most likely others too.
I consider the government a problem and not my representatives, also traitors and thieves giving away both the country, the wealth of the people and their freedom to the invaders.
I ask because 1. judging by your past posts it does look like you're a person living in Sweden, and I don't know anyone else who lives there, and 2. I've heard that Sweden is the most liberal place on the entire planet, bar none. So it seems odd that the one Swedish person I happen to come across is a Donald Trump supporter.
My view isn't that of the majority, also I have a very peaceful and liberal (but nationalistic) mind but definitely social-liberal, oikophobic pro white-genocide and denying the Swedish culture, people and our right to the land and to the prosperity and society we've created (just as we deserve what's happening now and what's coming, or well, the politicians at-least.)
I am from Sweden, as for individualism Sweden usually rank among the very top, previously very high for equality, likely very high in how safe it is/was to be here, very high in human development index and GDP / capita and innovations and R&D before too, very early on with strong freedom of the press and hence sites such as Wikileaks and the Pirate bay.
The majority of the Swedish people likely consider Trump to be a moron, an idiot and disgusting, and likely view Bush the same. They likely consider Obama a savior and something good for USA.
The majority of the Swedish people are likely not pro their own genocide, lots of immigrants, getting away with rape, attacking the police and so on (2015 saw twice as many attacks on ambulances/-workers as 2013, why would an actual SWEDE attack an ambulance? It's completely retarded), most likely support the well-fare state (but don't understand the simple reality in that offering the Swedish well-fare state and tax-payers money to EVERYONE isn't really sustainable and as such you should pick one of a generous well-fare system or open-borders, not both at the same time because that will just lead to a socialist national stink-hole which will have people sink every lower.)
Personally I think no "refugees" (in Swedish media they are all called refugees but only 25% of them are convention refugees and that include all the bastards who lie about their origin..) should be let in for many decades to compensate for the huge numbers which they have let in in so short time. They didn't deserved to be let in but.. I think all immigrants should get residency which can be withdrawn and no citizenship, citizenship can be given to children born in Sweden at the age of 18 so that if their parents act like trash or we don't want them any longer the whole family could still be kicked out (Canada deports second generation immigrants.) And then only citizens should be allowed to vote and hence only Swedes would had actually ruled the country and the others would just had been people living here with little power for what would happen to them in regard of staying or being thrown out. As is kicking out one million of them (the last ones?) would had been a good idea because we're heavily lacking housing and teachers and what not and they are unwanted and will just replace us and ruin Sweden anyway. The space freed up could be used for successful people instead.
But that's unlikely to happen..
I think we should leave any asylum conventions and that the ones which exist should be changed so one have to go to the closest safe harbour rather than say "flee" from Somalia to Sweden because there's most money for nothing here. That would had kept the world more culturally conservative and allow people to be ~their own people, a la etnopluralism rather than cultural-marxism and "diversity" = flooded and taken over by non-whites.
I was going to write a reply about how one could do it on YouTube, because the new hip thing to do is to call everyone autistic, here in Sweden and old such phase is "CP" for cerebral pares and also "mongo" for retarded / down-syndrome.
But since the first comment was serious I'll make a twist and go serious and just say that people joking with those comments don't help. I'm 36 and strong enough in myself that it doesn't matter to me but for someone in their teens they likely don't want to bring up any mental flaws and issues when it's always made a joke and used as a degrading term.
What I mean is that the people who get a benefit may view it as ok, and maybe the majority does, but those who lose..
I can't parse that. Did you leave out a word? And what is your point?
What I mean is that I guess mostly with inherited money and no redistribution of wealth people will be born into different worlds and with a huge economical advantage against someone else where you've always been able to take advantage of them, say such as house-cleaners, chefs, prostitutes, drivers,.. whatever, that situation most likely become normal for you.
But it has obviously made you unequal and one could question why someone should say clean your house and cook your food rather than yourself.
Of course that's how normal work too but with the same salary and wealth that happen at an equal level. What I meant was that the insanely rich, call them aristocrats or whatever, will be able to rule the society and the people because they are rich and own stuff.
Personally I think money and money / service / item trade and exchange is a good thing to get the right thing done and I think that people is more likely to want to do stuff if they actually get something for it, so because of that capitalism may be better than the other option. One thing I think could be considered fair is to have 100% heritage tax - once you're dead you won't miss your items anyway and everyone started from a clean slate but you also get the advantages of whatever you do and can improve your life.
That browser too is a steaming pile of junk. Slow and nasty. More of the same. Just retire IE & Edge completely - it's trash - has it ever been good? I guess not, 11 versions of crap - AWESOME MICROSOFT!
It's like space-travel "imagine were we'd been..."
Don't worry, when the centre console fails it'll only cost you $1k or more to get it replaced. And seeing as how every car company out there also makes the entire thing responsible for important things like the heater controls and signal chimes, this is gonna be a real fucking mess.
I guess that's the thing. The car-industry knows that with electric cards there will be much less for them to do and sell after they have sold the car so they need new business.
Enter Windows and Microsoft and now people need to turn in their car the whole fucking time to fix various issues again;)
(I'm not really so serious, it's a joke! Microsoft products doesn't necessarily have to be worse I guess.)
All it needed to do is to perfectly emulate an Amiga at at-least 68060 speed and have all sorts of ADF files and be usable with a bluetooth controller or so.
1) WTC crashed by two planes. 2) Launches War on terror. 3) Fires lots of robots at Baghdad and Iraq, a country with among other things the best schools in the area. Fucks up Iraq. 4) Kills Gadhaffi, in Libya, a country which in 2010 had "life expectancy at birth at 74.5 years, an 88.4% adult literacy rate and a gross enrollment ratio of 94.1%,", fucks up Libya. 5) Support rebels and desperately want al-Assad gone, fucks up Syria... and then we of course have the development in Russia where more or less everyone become poor, lots unemployed, lots of stuff was sold out, rising Mafia and Oligarchs and so on and Afghanistan.
To be fair USA have droned-bombed somewhat in Pakistan too, and all those people in all those countries and more are so fucking glad USA is "fighting terrorism" by bombing the shit out of them. The result is surprisingly good though! Because totally there's no reason at all to be upset at the west and imperial powers and foreign countries and leaders now when they have messed your society up, made it more unsafe, stolen your properties and resources, ruining your economy, drops bombs every now and then and so on.
Shouldn't the idea with "fighting terrorism" be to like, you know, fight the cause and the existence of terrorism? Not fight by terrorizing? Maybe someone got it wrong there.. Back to Guantanamo - "these guys are bad, they have been terrorizing and torturing innocent people! Without a fair trial and without actually charging and sentencing them to anything!".. "oh wait, that was OUR guys!"?
WTF really? Sure, terrorism isn't good, but since when have USA really managed to decrease the amount of terror? It's totally understandable the rag-heads are angry, wouldn't you be too? If Iran was bombing the shit out of New York and ousting and worse Obama? If many become unemployed and poor? If sometimes people who even wasn't bad was bombed into pieces?
US foreign security politics is like slapping a giant flaccid cock in the face of anyone not willing to lick their ass-hole. It's not necessarily the best (Our Swedish foreign-ministers and traitor-scumbags in government aren't much better, they treat Israel and the west and ourselves the same while excusing and supporting Hamas and the mass-immigration of third-world immigrants, invaders and colonizers to the country and the genocide and treachery of and against their own people. They also control the supposedly free and objective public media and other media with permissions and economical support, rule the schools, handles close to half the GDP of Sweden, make the laws, silence and threaten the people, bully and lie,... employ enforced pseudo-science and moral values (like suggestions that Women shouldn't have to pay of their student loans for IT education and if it happens that hey - they didn't liked IT at all, then that's ok and they will get another period to study something else, or women (or black or Muslim?) people into management boards of industrial companies not because they deserve it but because they are women, black or Muslim, that should be enough! Because they are anti-sexist, anti-feminist and anti-Islamophobic like that! Totally fucked up socialist dictatorshiT hell-hole - but it's no surprise for anyone. Also of course all the gang-rapers, terrorists, child-molesters, ambulance attackers and what not are "Swedes" and "young boys" or whatever. And what kid doesn't want to have 25-30 year old Afghan men in their class just so they can get asylum and permanent residency (easier if you're "a child")? (Also Swedish male:female-ratio among teens have raised to 1.2:1 because 90% of these "refugees" (that's a complete lie too) are men.) So yeah, totally fucked up both of those cases and as a society I would had preferred both old USA (with that I don't mean war on terror but rather the progressive social-liberal anti-white oikophobic ideology which spreads in the US as-well. It's fine to
Had to be AC because of trolling? (That or lobbying?)
The "waste" can be used to produce even more power, which also lowers the management time by a lot, there's not always(?) the risk of nuclear meltdown either.
Slashdot Mirror
happened in the USA. in the 1870's the irish and italians among others came here. culture blended. people in europe complaining are like the tea baggers here in the USA
Of course it blend, but that make Europe worse.
And the Americans WERE Europeans and the Europeans were Christians.
At what rate did immigrants come to USA back in that time? How does it compare to Sweden of today?
The crusades were a direct response to a particular part of that conflict, namely the conquest of lands that European Xians might care about for religious religions.
Imagine the rest of the Muslim world getting pissed off that America decided to invade Saudi Arabia and have the Marines occupy Mecca.
Well, the Saudis seem to be very found of building their temples of Islam in all other nations so what why couldn't the west build even greater temples of liberalism, capitalism and pleasure in Saudi-Arabia?
As for the 'decline' of Europe, they may be decreasing in number, sure, but they are definitely increasing in wealth (positive economic growth) with the effect that wealth and power is becoming concentrated in the hands of fewer individuals. Raw population size is a poor measure of the well-being of a country, otherwise India and China would be the best places to live.
Wouldn't your argument require Europe to have a quicker growth than the rest of the world? (maybe for power it just have to be larger in an absolute number increasing European economical size vs the world in total and maybe that actually is happening I don't know.)
A few people doesn't save the European countries and cultures (or does it because those people you perceive as rich decide the society / culture directions?)
As someone living in a very public/leader/media oikophobic socialistic democrature I don't have the impression that the riches / the people with money got the control and wins anyway. What is perceived as a decent amount of tax seem to be not what make the most sense for growth (nor for economical equality) but rather for maximum tax output (as high as possible without the economy shrinking so fast that next years money will be less) and the majority/poorer voters will likely want to have "their share" / whatever they can get (even if they call themselves more charitable and giving by that ..) and rich people at-least in democracies seem to somewhat accept that / be ok with that because they are afraid that if the people don't think they get their share they will revolt and simply grab / steal it all.
Now as long as immigration happen fairly slowly I guess the Muslim fundamentalist/extremist mantra of "We're coming to Europe and we'll turn your daughters and children into Muslims!" may fail and maybe it's their own children who will rather become Europeans at heart rather than Muslims.
When it happen quickly and enough of them can stay segregated and don't adapt or they may even feel powerful in a group that help them keep their tradition and at least in a small scale / one place enforce their culture over the majority culture at that time and space. That may not completely over-throw society but it's an issue and will enforce their shit upon some unlucky souls who happen to be there at that time. Also it help them keep their ways and become Europeans less, destroy others transition to becoming Europeans (at heart, but then again major political movement against the few may overcome the minority ideology anyway) and possibly have the majority society accept their ways as an isolated group.
Socialist-idiots (repeat) usually DO think population size matters as do they with the economical size of the nation at large not per capita, here in Sweden I don't know whatever that's what they mean and if people are fooling themselves when they say that immigration will be beneficial / make more money - do they just mean in the sense that the nation and the municipal may have more money in total to deal with but not more money / capita because I don't really see how the later would happen?
Rather for me while I realize we own and use some things together and that more people who are paying for that may be beneficial (just look how large cities offer more for the people to do even if the people themselves happen to be poorer, I don't really like cities though) what I perceive as my wealth is how much _I_ have / what I perceive as how rich the nation is is how much money the average citizen have not how much money the state or the municipality has.
And yeah, I consider Swedes richer than say Chinese even if China is a bigger economy than Sweden.
Anyway for a country like Sweden we're fucked and done as far as the immigrants goes, we will likely never get rid of them and keep on being flooded with them. In Europe at large that could possibly had changed but it takes that the leaders would had been wanting that and at least in the sense of pushing people out again I don't think it will happen. It will just be some socialist shit-hole all of it.
I guess this is how the long term "revenge" for the crusades will happen.
The crusades was the revenge if anything.
The crusades is just a short blip in history and in the world whereas Muslim persecution of non-Muslims and spreading to new territory happen more or less the whole time.
Of course they shouldn't be imported to Europe and of course larger volumes and more segregation which let them keep their ways is a problem.
If they are few enough and spread within a community of another majority culture the most likely outcome would rather be that it's their cultural history which would become replaced not the other way around.
/ Swede
Enjoy your RED threat assessment. Have fun being followed by the police and pulled over for things like not doing a 1 second stop at stop signs.
I was born in a free country, I expected it to allow people to be free and I'll do my best to keep it free.
Sure it's got risks - That sucks.
And for sure I don't know where the right balance is, and I don't really know how to figure that one out. I don't know the laws of my country and I wish I didn't had to because they shouldn't even exist.
I'm not American. And I totally respect the American society and I wish you all a free country in line with the constitution not the Marxist communist bullshit.
/ Svensk.
It's still dictatorship and lack of freedom of thought, opinion and expression.
Why shall we be ruled by our nations and governments? Shouldn't they accept that?
I hate my government, the traitors, the media, the immigrants.
I'm open with that.
I haven't attacked shit.
If anything the problem isn't that we aren't allowed to speak and that people don't listen, the set the foundation for "terrorism" but what is "terrorism" anyhow?
Wikipedia: "In a narrower sense, terrorism can be understood to feature a political objective."
My government is clear that my opinion doesn't matter, they won't listen and nothing will change and they ignore people like me.
In the end what is the difference? The ruling authority use threat of violence against those who are against it too. All governments are terrorists for their own agenda?
Are Hamas terrorists? Israel? USA? Al-Assad? ISIS? Iran? France?
LOL. Another pathetic attempt to shut down debate by being "offended".
White people ARE being genocided, obviously a perpetrator like you is going to keep telling us it isn't happening. We all have eyes, we can all SEE how our countries are bring invaded and destroyed by non-whites.
Non-whites get to keep their own countries. But whites don't.
How fair of you.
Someone being offended should be irrelevant. People should be taught it's irrelevant if they are offended by something. One can be offended by a lot. I'm offended by having my country flooded with immigrants, by the government stating I have no culture, I have no country, that my opinion doesn't matter and is false and they should just be able to don't care about it.
Feminist scum-bags who supposedly are anti-racist and anti-sexist (they want to be viewed that way at-least) are just fine saying "Yet another offended white man!" and supposedly then it doesn't matter that he's offended because he's white and man. But if a woman, a brown person or a Muslim is offended then supposedly it does matter. How isn't that sexist and racist? Why is it a good thing then white men are offended but not when someone else is?
Personally I'm ok with all sorts of people being offended and I don't even make the claim that I'm not racist, I don't care what the fuck people call my opinion, it is what it is regardless. Too me the bad parts is discrimination, slavery, genocide, rape and mistreatment, discussing color or sex in regard of behavior or statistics or whatever I don't see the problem with. I know it's generalizations and different individuals.
In Sweden a common leftard argument would be "there are no mass-immigration", even though Sweden have the most immigration in the whole western world, and that's supposedly a valid argument and one which will catch and destroy any other claim.
I guess they could argue that feminists aren't "anti-men" too or that the replacement of the Swedish people (how can there even be when they deny the very existence of it?) or denial of their culture and their right to the country aren't genocide, anti-democratic, racist and shitty behavior.
In this city, Örebro for anyone who care if you walk up on the city 50% of those you see will seem to be immigrants. How isn't that mass-immigration? My local super-market will also have like 50% non-Swedes* in it. And you try to tell me we don't have many immigrants?
* (yeah, white, that's what we happen to be, deal with it, it's irrelevant, it's not ok to destroy all white people just because they are white and then that supposedly is anti-racist and good, why is it ok to take over and destroy countries of white people but not black and brown people?)
Within my generation Sweden will have gone from no to 1 immigrant / class in school to majority of non-Swedes in the country. How isn't that mass-immigration?
It will completely change Sweden and remove the country from us and destroy the Swedish people.
It is what it is, you could put any brand on it and it doesn't really matter, genocide, not genocide, racist, anti-racist, good, bad, this or that, doesn't matter, it's a fact that the Swedish people are being exchanged and that their country and self-rule are taken from them regardless of what you want to call it.
Fucking traitor government.
If I ruled Sweden they all would be hanged from tree-branches just like in the days of old and been shown as a warning to anyone else who thought this politics was a good idea.
the (swedish) government should have less power
Yes, because they are unfit traitors but also because the freedom of the individual are more important than the ideas of the collective.
the government should have more power (to throw people away)
The Swedish people should have all the power over themselves and their land. The immigrants should never had been allowed to or be allowed to become Swedes.
he does not want a racist country
?
but want to get rid of brown and black
I don't necessarily want to destroy the Swedish people and replace us and fill a democracy with other people who will be changing it and take it over.
The Swedish people happen to be white but that's really irrelevant. It's like stealing the land of and replacing the aboriginal people in Australia or the Indians in USA. Those was black and brown and that wasn't ok either. I don't care if it's "racist" to not steal their land and destroy their cultures and replace their people. But it's harder to say that when it happen to non-white people though? Because there's a bias against white people, for the destruction of white peoples lands and for "diversity" in any country which is white, which you indeed could say is racist depending on your view of what's racism.
Was it wrong of the Spaniards to flood and take over south America? But it's right of the Muslims and niggers to flood and take over Sweden? Why is that?
the migrants are never condemned when they do something outside the law, several afghans have been condemned
lol whut? No, I've never said they NEVER are. I'm saying that Swedish authorities consider it impossible to deport criminals and people who aren't granted asylum even with lax Swedish laws on the subject, hence it doesn't happen even if they decide that it should happen. Only 25% of the Asylum-seekers are granted asylum as convention refugees, another 50% are granted it by other reasons, and among those 75% who are granted residency permits more or less everyone has been able to bring their family over even if they have no income to pay for them leading to even more people.
he does not agree with the tyranny of majority, but when he says he has a (imaginary) majority on the increased/decrease of refugee they should follow this majority
Why do you claim it's imaginary? There's opinion research on the subject done regularly and it's always the case.
Why do you lie?
http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inri...
24th December 2015:
55% want to accept less "refugees"
19% want to accept more "refugees"
20% neither more or less.
And that's even with our media climate and lies and hidden statistics.
55% is definitely a majority and 55% is more than 19%.
How are you going to change that to mean something else?
http://www.svt.se/nyheter/val2...
7th May 2014:
44% thought Sweden had taken in too many immigrants.
10% thought we had taken in too few immigrants.
How is that imaginary? What are your interpretation? That because the 10% are the ones shouting and screaming the whole time they totally make up 100% of the Swedish people except a few neo-Nazis which are irrelevant?
Why are you posting as AC your fucking coward who don't take responsibility for your bullshit?
One reason to not let the majority flood the country with immigrants anyhow would be that you know what you have and are used to it and is it ok to enforce something else upon someone within that system?
And I don't know his age
36.
he he wants the trash to be deported, I can probably buy him a one way ticket to anywhere.
That don't make me deported or a citizen of some other society.
I think that people from groups who have suffered real acts of genocide, would find your trivial use of the word highly offensive.
It is the definition of genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
D isn't really there, but replacing them, but the others are there.
There is a very active neo-Nazi movement in Sweden.
I don't know how active it is but it's on the brink of being totally non-existing.
There kinda is no neo-Nazi movement in Sweden at all.
There was in the 80s and 90s but it has been destroyed since then. There's been what may have been a few attacks on "refugee" facilities in Sweden but that's kinda that and they are far-far less than what is being done in Germany. There's been attempts to do Pegida demonstrations in Sweden but those have had like 3 people whereas there's thousands in Germany and Poland.
The flooding of immigrants is worst to Sweden by far but the response and criticism kinda is lower than in the neighbor countries and much weaker than in Germany and east-Europe.
The only thing there is is a 15-20+% opinion support for the Sweden democrats who are the only party which would want to severely cut immigration flows but that doesn't mean that 15-25% of the Swedes are neo-Nazis. It's the only party which isn't completely self-destructive and would do something about the situation.
But personally I would applaud all solutions.
The ridiculing and name-tagging won't get you anywhere.
This right here is part of the problem. If the sane pressure groups don't address the big rape issues in Sweden, they're leaving it to the nazis to rise support with. Dismissing the whole topic derisively is clearly not working.
I'm no socialist.
Call me xenophobic or pro my own people, culture and self-rule or against the genocide of my own people or whatever.
The Swedish government wouldn't admit that there are Swedes and the leftards wouldn't admit that Swedes for some reason had more right to this land and society than someone else and the Swedish government says that we have no native culture, that we are all the result of immigration and that it has always been that way.
Or justice and migration minister said that 600 000 people wanted into EU (~520 million) and likened that with 1 person asking for help and whatever he could come to an island of 1 000 people, which he meant was fine.
The number of asylum-seekers to Sweden year over year:
http://www.migrationsverket.se...
162 000 last year, at most there was 13 000+ / week or a rate of almost 700 000 / year, to a country which had around 9.65 million inhabitants when the year started or an actual rise of 1.7% / year and at a speed of 7% of the population / year when it was the worst speed.
Sweden in 2014 had 10+ times more asylum-seekers / capita than the rest of EU on average, that deserve the highest response against the crazy politics and mass-immigration in EU for all I care, which isn't something Sweden have. In Germany there are large protests and many more attacks on future claimed to be refugees facilities than in Sweden.
In the United States of America people whine about 60 000 Syrians, if USA got the same amount of asylum-seekers are Sweden got / capita in 2015 that would had been 5.4 million in 2015 alone, about 25% of them would had been "lone-coming refugee children" those services would had costed closer to $100 000 / person and of which 11:1 was men.
At the quickest rate of refugees arriving to Sweden the USA 450 000 refugees would had come to USA PER WEEK.
The cost of these well-fare migrants are higher in Sweden than it would be in the US due to the stronger well-fare state and higher taxes.
Back in 2014 35 TIMES MORE REFUGEES came to Sweden than to USA / capita.
The response in eastern Europe is much stronger and they get far less refugees.
Also it's complete bullshit that Sweden would have a strong neo-Nazi movement, there's more or less no neo-Nazi movement in Sweden at all. There's 20+% sympathizers to the party which want to restrict immigration and almost 1/3 of the many sympathizes with them, I think support among immigrants themselves was up like four times for the party in question, that shouldn't be likened with 20+% of the Swedes being neo-Nazis, to begin with it's the only alternative if you want a change but it's all too late anyway and they won't get 50+% support so the decades of no trash-immigration and kicking people out won't happen regardless.
Sweden is flooded with immigrants and it will continue because the ass-holes in charge consider it responsibility to not take responsibility and stop the invasion and destruction of Sweden.
Among the "lone"-coming "refugees" there's an over 11:1 ratio of men to females.
Among Swedish teens we're hitting 1.2:1 male to female ratio now thanks to the immigration, so among those generations the chance to make a couple will decrease.
Best case scenario the Swedish females would be taught to avoid the immigrant men possibly making them want to go somewhere else because they was alone and slow down the destruction of the Swedish people.
But more relevant just like it's a fact that more people will be raped in Sweden thanks to mass-immigration from rape-cultures the lack of women and partners will likely lead to more problem in Sweden too, as would social-/economical inequality. Segregation of the people and cultures will likely lead to some cultural conflicts and there's always the possibility of some sort of civil-war too.
It doesn't go away just because one doesn't admit it, accept it says "no" or live in a fairy-tale.
Just curious, are you the only person in Sweden who supports Trump? Or are there others?
Most likely others too.
I consider the government a problem and not my representatives, also traitors and thieves giving away both the country, the wealth of the people and their freedom to the invaders.
I ask because 1. judging by your past posts it does look like you're a person living in Sweden, and I don't know anyone else who lives there, and 2. I've heard that Sweden is the most liberal place on the entire planet, bar none. So it seems odd that the one Swedish person I happen to come across is a Donald Trump supporter.
My view isn't that of the majority, also I have a very peaceful and liberal (but nationalistic) mind but definitely social-liberal, oikophobic pro white-genocide and denying the Swedish culture, people and our right to the land and to the prosperity and society we've created (just as we deserve what's happening now and what's coming, or well, the politicians at-least.)
I am from Sweden, as for individualism Sweden usually rank among the very top, previously very high for equality, likely very high in how safe it is/was to be here, very high in human development index and GDP / capita and innovations and R&D before too, very early on with strong freedom of the press and hence sites such as Wikileaks and the Pirate bay.
The majority of the Swedish people likely consider Trump to be a moron, an idiot and disgusting, and likely view Bush the same. They likely consider Obama a savior and something good for USA.
The majority of the Swedish people are likely not pro their own genocide, lots of immigrants, getting away with rape, attacking the police and so on (2015 saw twice as many attacks on ambulances/-workers as 2013, why would an actual SWEDE attack an ambulance? It's completely retarded), most likely support the well-fare state (but don't understand the simple reality in that offering the Swedish well-fare state and tax-payers money to EVERYONE isn't really sustainable and as such you should pick one of a generous well-fare system or open-borders, not both at the same time because that will just lead to a socialist national stink-hole which will have people sink every lower.)
Personally I think no "refugees" (in Swedish media they are all called refugees but only 25% of them are convention refugees and that include all the bastards who lie about their origin ..) should be let in for many decades to compensate for the huge numbers which they have let in in so short time. They didn't deserved to be let in but .. I think all immigrants should get residency which can be withdrawn and no citizenship, citizenship can be given to children born in Sweden at the age of 18 so that if their parents act like trash or we don't want them any longer the whole family could still be kicked out (Canada deports second generation immigrants.) And then only citizens should be allowed to vote and hence only Swedes would had actually ruled the country and the others would just had been people living here with little power for what would happen to them in regard of staying or being thrown out. As is kicking out one million of them (the last ones?) would had been a good idea because we're heavily lacking housing and teachers and what not and they are unwanted and will just replace us and ruin Sweden anyway. The space freed up could be used for successful people instead.
But that's unlikely to happen ..
I think we should leave any asylum conventions and that the ones which exist should be changed so one have to go to the closest safe harbour rather than say "flee" from Somalia to Sweden because there's most money for nothing here. That would had kept the world more culturally conservative and allow people to be ~their own people, a la etnopluralism rather than cultural-marxism and "diversity" = flooded and taken over by non-whites.
That's unlikely to happen in
I think most of the planet would support sending Trump into space.
Feel free to send him to Sweden as a ruling dictator for some time.
Just what we need.
I was going to write a reply about how one could do it on YouTube, because the new hip thing to do is to call everyone autistic, here in Sweden and old such phase is "CP" for cerebral pares and also "mongo" for retarded / down-syndrome.
But since the first comment was serious I'll make a twist and go serious and just say that people joking with those comments don't help. I'm 36 and strong enough in myself that it doesn't matter to me but for someone in their teens they likely don't want to bring up any mental flaws and issues when it's always made a joke and used as a degrading term.
Luxury prices?
Visit Humble bundle or use sales and accept that games are the price of a coffee/soda - pizza.
If you think you may enjoy the game as much as either then what's the problem with buying it?
So ... not always for others?
What I mean is that the people who get a benefit may view it as ok, and maybe the majority does, but those who lose ..
I can't parse that. Did you leave out a word? And what is your point?
What I mean is that I guess mostly with inherited money and no redistribution of wealth people will be born into different worlds and with a huge economical advantage against someone else where you've always been able to take advantage of them, say such as house-cleaners, chefs, prostitutes, drivers, .. whatever, that situation most likely become normal for you.
But it has obviously made you unequal and one could question why someone should say clean your house and cook your food rather than yourself.
Of course that's how normal work too but with the same salary and wealth that happen at an equal level.
What I meant was that the insanely rich, call them aristocrats or whatever, will be able to rule the society and the people because they are rich and own stuff.
Personally I think money and money / service / item trade and exchange is a good thing to get the right thing done and I think that people is more likely to want to do stuff if they actually get something for it, so because of that capitalism may be better than the other option. One thing I think could be considered fair is to have 100% heritage tax - once you're dead you won't miss your items anyway and everyone started from a clean slate but you also get the advantages of whatever you do and can improve your life.
Socialism is always a dictatorship - for some.
You're free to argue that run-away capitalism make it so to because of inequality and the huge difference in capability.
Predator X34 is sold out at newegg and cost $1300.
It's ~the monitor to have today for home usage.
34" 21:9 3440x1440 IPS 75 Hz over-clockable to 100 Hz when using G-sync if I remember correctly.
It's the screen to have currently I'd say. That or a similar FreeSync screen, guess the later is ok even with non-optimal AMD-cards.
My new wish though is that it become OLED too ..
That browser too is a steaming pile of junk. Slow and nasty. More of the same. Just retire IE & Edge completely - it's trash - has it ever been good? I guess not, 11 versions of crap - AWESOME MICROSOFT!
It's like space-travel "imagine were we'd been ..."
Don't worry, when the centre console fails it'll only cost you $1k or more to get it replaced. And seeing as how every car company out there also makes the entire thing responsible for important things like the heater controls and signal chimes, this is gonna be a real fucking mess.
I guess that's the thing.
The car-industry knows that with electric cards there will be much less for them to do and sell after they have sold the car so they need new business.
Enter Windows and Microsoft and now people need to turn in their car the whole fucking time to fix various issues again ;)
(I'm not really so serious, it's a joke! Microsoft products doesn't necessarily have to be worse I guess.)
Why does Slashdot treat me as logged out?
I've got three.
All it needed to do is to perfectly emulate an Amiga at at-least 68060 speed and have all sorts of ADF files and be usable with a bluetooth controller or so.
1) WTC crashed by two planes. .. and then we of course have the development in Russia where more or less everyone become poor, lots unemployed, lots of stuff was sold out, rising Mafia and Oligarchs and so on and Afghanistan.
2) Launches War on terror.
3) Fires lots of robots at Baghdad and Iraq, a country with among other things the best schools in the area. Fucks up Iraq.
4) Kills Gadhaffi, in Libya, a country which in 2010 had "life expectancy at birth at 74.5 years, an 88.4% adult literacy rate and a gross enrollment ratio of 94.1%,", fucks up Libya.
5) Support rebels and desperately want al-Assad gone, fucks up Syria.
To be fair USA have droned-bombed somewhat in Pakistan too, and all those people in all those countries and more are so fucking glad USA is "fighting terrorism" by bombing the shit out of them. The result is surprisingly good though! Because totally there's no reason at all to be upset at the west and imperial powers and foreign countries and leaders now when they have messed your society up, made it more unsafe, stolen your properties and resources, ruining your economy, drops bombs every now and then and so on.
Shouldn't the idea with "fighting terrorism" be to like, you know, fight the cause and the existence of terrorism? Not fight by terrorizing? Maybe someone got it wrong there.. Back to Guantanamo - "these guys are bad, they have been terrorizing and torturing innocent people! Without a fair trial and without actually charging and sentencing them to anything!" .. "oh wait, that was OUR guys!"?
WTF really?
Sure, terrorism isn't good, but since when have USA really managed to decrease the amount of terror?
It's totally understandable the rag-heads are angry, wouldn't you be too? If Iran was bombing the shit out of New York and ousting and worse Obama? If many become unemployed and poor? If sometimes people who even wasn't bad was bombed into pieces?
US foreign security politics is like slapping a giant flaccid cock in the face of anyone not willing to lick their ass-hole. ... employ enforced pseudo-science and moral values (like suggestions that Women shouldn't have to pay of their student loans for IT education and if it happens that hey - they didn't liked IT at all, then that's ok and they will get another period to study something else, or women (or black or Muslim?) people into management boards of industrial companies not because they deserve it but because they are women, black or Muslim, that should be enough! Because they are anti-sexist, anti-feminist and anti-Islamophobic like that! Totally fucked up socialist dictatorshiT hell-hole - but it's no surprise for anyone. Also of course all the gang-rapers, terrorists, child-molesters, ambulance attackers and what not are "Swedes" and "young boys" or whatever. And what kid doesn't want to have 25-30 year old Afghan men in their class just so they can get asylum and permanent residency (easier if you're "a child")? (Also Swedish male:female-ratio among teens have raised to 1.2:1 because 90% of these "refugees" (that's a complete lie too) are men.) So yeah, totally fucked up both of those cases and as a society I would had preferred both old USA (with that I don't mean war on terror but rather the progressive social-liberal anti-white oikophobic ideology which spreads in the US as-well. It's fine to
It's not necessarily the best (Our Swedish foreign-ministers and traitor-scumbags in government aren't much better, they treat Israel and the west and ourselves the same while excusing and supporting Hamas and the mass-immigration of third-world immigrants, invaders and colonizers to the country and the genocide and treachery of and against their own people. They also control the supposedly free and objective public media and other media with permissions and economical support, rule the schools, handles close to half the GDP of Sweden, make the laws, silence and threaten the people, bully and lie,
Had to be AC because of trolling? (That or lobbying?)
The "waste" can be used to produce even more power, which also lowers the management time by a lot, there's not always(?) the risk of nuclear meltdown either.
And yes - definitely better than coal.