Drowsy Emperor

He lived off of saying controversial things. It was never an issue up until it was decided overnight that its time for it to become an issue. Most of it was only controversial to the left. It's true he also said a lot of sexual things, but that was OK with Breitbart (I think the founder was a bit of a gay rights champion), and conservatives accepted it because they loved how he bashed the left. He just finally went too far to ignore for people on his own side. As I said, that's how its presented. I personally think he just outlived his usefulness. Even without the comments I have a hard time believing they would let him speak at the same gathering Trump would speak, now that he's president. Its completely inappropriate

He lived off of saying controversial things. It was never an issue up until it was decided overnight that its time for it to become an issue.

The whole brouhaha over his remarks seems pretty artificial to me. It's pretty sad that the topic in question is such a taboo that just sharing his personal perspective automatically has him labelled as a pedophilia apologist (despite the fact that pedophilia specifically refers to sexual attraction to prepubescent children, which doesn't reflect the case he described). Dropping him from conferences and cancelling his book contract is exactly the kind of persecution that "the left" is accused of in favor of PC. While I find it hilarious that "the right" are getting their collective panties all bunched up in exactly the same way, it's hard to dispute that this has all the looks of a character assassination. I think he miscalculated American political culture. While you can say a lot of extreme things there, it is fundamentally more conservative and set in its ways (regardless of whether those ways are Republican or Democrat) than modern Britain or Europe. He was "good" while the alt-right was needed to propel Trump, but with his behavior (rude, gay, openly critical of the gay community, in an interracial relationship, his style of dress etc.) he crossed so many less-than-visible lines he probably had a ticking bomb on him from the start.

Well you live as you fight. True, but if they had to burn him on the stake I would prefer it to be over something legit. The things he said obviously came from personal experience and relate to a particular situation. While I find the comments distasteful and disagree with the notion that confused "gay?" teenagers should engage in relationships with older men - instead of going to their parents first, it is painfully obvious that he was in no way condoning pedophilia. I suspect they wanted to disassociate with him rather than have him and Trump appear at the same conference, so, ironically enough - it was his own crowd that did him in.

Still watching the drive by on Milo. You can tell they were just waiting to spring it on him.

Nothing speaks to the success of a policy like going into full reverse after it https://www.rt.com/news/378231-germany-eu-refugee-deportation/

So its just the appearance change? I presumed he went through the whole thing.

I truly wonder if they do, because for all the seemingly plausible justifications in favor of doing them, the end result is just not meant to be. You can get away from a lot of things in life, but not from yourself. Eg. Chelsea Manning suicide attempt way after surgery.

People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin. It is decided by several governmental institutes that interview every asylum seeker and check situation in their home countries. That's not how it works in practice and you know it. Most of the alleged refugees aren't refugees at all, and very few of them were in any sort of immediate danger. Even the legitimate Syrian refugees from Turkish camps, while not in the most pleasant situation - are not in any sort of danger at all. They're just picking a "better option" because they can. It goes without saying that "refugees" from Iran, Kosovo, Turkey, Pakistan are not "refugees" in any sense of the word. Merely migrants hoping to pass themselves off as refugees to get on welfare. Aslyum is a provision under international law that is almost exclusively abused to get residency (and for political dissing). Its also what the current governments in Europe used to let the immigrant flood in, even though its patently obvious that most of the applicants do not fit the bill of asyulm seeker in any shape or form. Also if we're going to start dredging up moral and legal obligations, well that works both ways. The government has an obligation to take care of its citizens, and ****ing them over by dumping a mass of poor foreigners in their neighborhood goes against the spirit of any European constitution.

"More relevant are the statistics on who's committing the crimes." Those don't tell who are committing the crimes but how probable it is from person from said demographic to be a criminal. You should also put sizes of those demographics and number of crimes they have committed as whole to show what is size of their slice in the crime pie and to see what kind statistical effects one person causes. Is this seriously the argument that you want to put forth? You have several groups of people One has 8 million people from which 5% commit crimes = 400 000 criminals Then you have second group of people that consist of 200 000 people from which 8% commit crimes = 16 000 criminals Then you have third group of people that consist of 3 000 people from which 22% commit crimes = 660 criminals Who are the people that are actually committing crimes in this equation? Like for example how much of total crimes you are able to prevent by focusing on those 3000 people that have very high probably to be criminals. 0 people from high criminality minorities = 0 crimes from said minorities you have to deal with your native population, you don't have to deal with people who just felt like crossing the border Why take in more if you don't have a handle on things to begin with? ----> https://www.rt.com/news/378071-stockholm-riots-police-shots/ Or when you use taxpayer money to fulfill insane ideological goals: ---Swedish government invites migrants ---Knows there is no housing to go around (notorious fact in Stockholm for example) ---Offers millions of tax payer money to hotel owners to house them ---Individual migrant unskilled laborer probably ends up costing more than a year's worth of a PhD's salary ---Hotel owner refuses ---Gets threats from insurance company and others Sanity?

"More relevant are the statistics on who's committing the crimes." Those don't tell who are committing the crimes but how probable it is from person from said demographic to be a criminal. You should also put sizes of those demographics and number of crimes they have committed as whole to show what is size of their slice in the crime pie and to see what kind statistical effects one person causes. Is this seriously the argument that you want to put forth?

I guess it depends on how you define "better". If you cannot find reliable, long-term ways to relieve the strain on resources caused by the constant population increase, then it may be "better" from your "cultural supremacy" perspective, but it certainly is going to make everyone living in that culture miserable. Because life in Europe in the 17th century was on average awesome, right? China in the 60's? I doubt you are arguing from a gene pool standpoint either, because that's the other perspective from which it would be "better". Sure, "European" genes wouldn't have been exported to the Americas and Asia without demographic pressure and displaced many "native" genes but again, this is just the stuff in your DNA and does nothing for, you know, the carriers themselves. You have bought an ideological system where "**** people, go «culture»" is the mantra. You arbitrarily assign more value to a random set of customs than you do to the well-being of people, because reasons. But cultural values much like genes are subject to a sort of selection (the original memes). If they really are useful by themselves or by association with others, they will thrive. Otherwise they will be abandoned and relegated to history books if anything. The only intrinsic value they have is the degree to which they can replace others and become ubiquitous. This mechanism works whether you try to protect it or actively work against it. Good luck selling your ideas to anyone with anything to lose. Which is kind of ironic, considering that the people most willing to take their essence to heart are those you want to keep out. Just to be clear, I'm advocating healthy growth in place of demographic and cultural regression. There is a difference between healthy growth and unfettered growth. The cultural underpinnings of Europe aren't going "extinct" on their own, they're being deliberately undermined from the top down in an attempt to accommodate society to the needs of economic interests of the day. As with the migrants. The message was the superficially agreeable "be humane", help out people in need. The reality was that it was decided at the top that the cheapest solution for private interests was to import a mass of labor that's easy to pressure into doing whatever is necessary and at any price. Of course for them its the cheapest solution because the externalities will be borne by the taxpayer. All the asylums and welfare will be paid by someone else - they just get the net benefit to fuel their industry. Even if most of them are unemployable the overall costs can still be put on the shoulders of the taxpayer. As the youtuber I posted said: the only times the political elite sees the migrants they're importing is when they're making them a pizza in another neighborhood. They neither live in the ghetto nor do they care. The same applies to the economic elite. To that end almost the entire political spectrum and mass media are mobilized to present a one sided story where the demographic problem is unsolvable, where the fate of these tragic refugees should be solved in wealthy Europe - and we get to do a good deed and fix our economy along the way. Both are patently false, neither is the deed "good" by any criteria (particularly for the domestic population of host countries) nor will this fix anything in the long run.

Currently that is the projection model that has happened everywhere. Richer state becomes lower its birthrates become. Some states have achieved situation where their birth rates are lower than their population decreasing rate, Japan is one example of such state. There are some states that have achieved this status via artificial means, like for example China, where their one child policy has lead in population decrease. Also inside of local populations poorer families usually have more kids than rich families, but that isn't as universal rule as birthrates dropping when general wealth of state increases. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255510/ https://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Birth_Rate_Decline_e.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility total fertility rate (TFR) versus human development index (HDI), Source: Human Development Report 2009 Nevertheless, your first two links clearly describe that the trend is very problematic in the long term and serve to further my point. Furthermore, wealth is (as the links themselves explain) clearly not the only factor in play. One of them is what Azdeus showed. An ideological statement that having multiple children is a "dirty business for poor oppressed people". This is an example of bad learning. Because low income people try to have multiple children for long term economic security it does not follow that they're oppressed, their women are breeding stock, or that the approach itself is inherently bad. I recall a conversation when my fathers Indian co-worker asked him how many children he had. He said one, to which the Indian (representative of middle class) asked why? He could not fathom why my father, who wasn't poor, would not make many children. He himself had 12. It was a show of success among his peers - proof that he "made it". The equivalent of driving back to the old "hood" in a Mercedes. Point being - its a question of values. The statement that I am wealthy therefore I should have one or two children is a value statement not stemming from fact or even elementary logic. Its just "what is done" based on groupthink. The same way that muslim families make five children because that is "what should be done". My argument is simple. Their approach is better. It is better for "us", whomever that may be, to be exporting our excess population - rather than being in a position to have to import others. If one cannot follow this very basic logic, then we have no grounds for discussion. Also a reminder - if this wasn't what Europeans were doing in the first place, there would be no America or Australia or any of the former colonial empires. Think of them what you may, but without the enormous wealth built up during that time you wouldn't be living nearly as good as you are today.

It does not logically follow from your statement that European no go zones have nothing to do with immigration or Islam in addition to economics. In Europe economics are tied to immigration, which is tied to Islam. Your current president has five children. By three wives, but regardless. He himself was one of five children. Bush senior had six. The principle of having multiple children has been a sign of wealth for most of human society. The poor engage in it more for additonal economic security it provides. Neverthless, the wealthy are a small strata of society. You cannot sustain the entire middle and upper class on 0, 1 or 2 children. The principles that work for the upper elite due to the way they combine wealth with marriages and keep their own little club select and going cannot be applicable to everyone. If the entire society was like the Clintons (to present a counter-example) there would be no society left in the span of a generation.

Correct but irrelevant.

The police tried to hide that, shameful, but that wasn't done by the government. A) No, that would heinous acts against humanity. Their needs should be determined on their own grounds not what we need. B) Yeah, we do waste some money on "social experiments" as you call it, and some of them are wastes such as that camelpark and horse and goatmilk project. C) ****. No. The fact that we have low childbirth rates is a sign of our wealth and our equality, in your view we should encourage women to be breeding stock wich is as ass backwards as it gets. It's taken us decades of hard work to get to where we are now, they're a result of our hard work with labour and equality that we have done. What you are suggesting is that we take that proverbial axe towards everything we've worked for. That is the tragedy. They didn't even have to be pressured into covering it up. They did it on their own volition due to fear of reaction from above. That is the literal worst outcome. Its just evidence of overwhelming groupthink at hand. A) Why? C) In most societies, to be able to afford children is a sign of wealth, because children are a drain on resources. What it is a sign of, is a detachment from the individual's obligation to society, in which you're living in a non-sustainable demographic fantasy. 0 Children in marriage = -2 Individuals 1 Child = -1 Individual 2 = Stagnation 3 = +1 Persistent 0,1 and 2 = population loss Population loss = shifting of age pyramid, strain on welfare due to lack of workforce Result: societal disintegration, resorting to stopgap solutions (importing other people's children) to keep economy growing, political passivity due to old farts dictating everything. New imported youth changes societal values over time. System unable to change because the most politically aggressive members of society (youth) no longer represent the majority. Net result = clear loss for Sweden (or any other society)

Yes, we put too many immigrants in the same neighbourhoods, that we do. Because people in the richer areas whinge to much about their houseprices dropping if there would be immigrants nearby. I **** you not. And yes, we do need more police officers, but that has been the case for many years. Really interesting garbage article though, citing secret police reports and not linking to any sources. (Too be fair, there could've been but that page crashed 3 different scripts and locked up my browser and forced me to rewrite this) We do have 50-ish different areas in Sweden with higher crimerates than average though, that much is true, but they're not nogo zones. Does it happen that people throw stones at copcars? Yes. Is it common? No. And I can't for the life of me figure out why they linked to the murders in Trollhättan wich was commited by a white supremacist. That British tabloids are garbage is no news, but that is besides the point. The point is that the government cannot afford to link muslim immigration to criminality because that would imply a failure of its policy. They go to extreme lengths to hide it - you may remember the suppressed reporting scandal post massive sexual harrassment at a concert. When the reporter was told it was all Afghanis or other muslim immigrants they simply ignored the information. Then it blew up in their face when the coverup was discovered. There is a pattern of denial that I find astonishing, because, fundamentally - there is no reason for Sweden to engage in any of this. Immense wealth, some population problems that should be worked on but otherwise a beautiful, stable, well-organized country. Clearly the right policies are: a) engage in tight border and immigration control and cherry pick migrants according to specific needs a la Australia b) maintain what you have as long as possible by avoiding needless waste (aka social experiments) c) fix depopulation problem so as to remove need for immigration by monetary stimulus and work on changing societal perceptions of marriage/relationships to perpetuate your own nation I find these so self explanatory in Sweden's position that I don't even need to justify them. Yet the ruling class has taken it upon itself to re-engineer it to fit an ideological project of "progressive humanism", progressively taking an axe to what has taken several generations to build. I think its fascinating. To me its like science fiction, unexplainable - behavior so contrary to human nature and self-destructive that it might as well be done by alien invaders.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/641223/Swedish-police-being-ATTACKED-as-they-struggle-in-NO-GO-ZONES-as-migrant-crime-rockets It really depends on how you define them. But if it was a known quantity (that immigrant neighbourhoods are rife with crime) before the current immigrant crisis, its a damning indictment of those who proceeded with the pro-immigration policy and thereby added to the problem.

Swedes are notorious for dismissing any opposing voices. Just a week ago a policeman that is about to retire raised a national ruckus on Facebook by saying that almost every crime he worked on was done by someone from a muslim country. If it was just a meaningless rant the whole country wouldn't have jumped on the statement like it was a godsend (or a crime worthy of capital punishment). He got a truckload of flowers merely for daring to speak out. The basic narrative is always the same: there are some problems, but its all good. To imply otherwise is to be a racist. Meanwhile 30+ no go zones, Malmo etc.

Finally got around to watching the Arrival. Finally something of the old intellectual sci fi tradition. Its definitely one of the best sci fi films of the new millennium. Which doesn't say much because the past 15 years of the genre are marked by shallow, creatively bankrupt blockbusters like Interstellar, Inception etc. etc. I did not like that it used a paradox to resolve the central problem and the China bashing, but that aside the message is powerful and uplifting. And the science fiction part is intriguing and relatively well thought out.

Yes but its illegal to not wear a headscarf according to the article? The Swedish government surely cant break Iranian law Its illegal for the plebeians, but you better believe they could have gone forward without headscarves if they wanted to.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38956212 Europe is hopeless. The mindset that allows a person to behave like this can only be fixed by divine intervention. The mindset of the voter who silently condones it, or sees no problem with it makes for useless apolitical fodder. You couldn't make a municipality of those people, let alone a nation state.

Any examples of such laws? I would say France is an example of what happens when you cater to the minorities to the extreme. If you fulfill all the demands the demands will just grow and grow to the point you are not able to fulfill them. Then the violence starts and if you don't respond to violence but instead encourage and exuse it then it will escalate. Burka ban, ban for religious items in schools but not extending to crosses, and quite lot or regional/city ordinances to prevent building mosques, when mosques can be open etc.. Most of this were cancelled by courts, but they have caused protest, riots etc. in past 16 years. I would not say that Nicolas Sarkozy's policies for example are examples of catering minorities to extreme. But maybe I am wrong and he was very minority loving president. Everything you wrote there is a fairly recent reaction to a problem that had already gotten out of hand. I'm not saying that the reactions were good, but the claim that the it was French populism and those measures that caused the current resentment is flat out wrong. It was there long before the French started "reacting". Partly it was due to a wave of Islamism (and Western interventionism) that brought down the nationalist/pseudo-leftist ideology that once formed the majority of the Muslim governments and affects the current mindset of the average Ahmed. Partly Saudi money. Partly the inevitable second class citizen status of muslim immigrants. And partly the fact that strictly adhered to Islam is the complete opposite of French republicanism. Literally. Not a single thing in common. The guilt of the French was letting them in in the first place in a desperate attempt to hold onto the last vestiges of their colonial empire and then neglecting the issue until it blew up in their face.

Barriers are weak. What they should do is super-charge it with Tesla troopers so it can zap incoming terrorists. https://youtu.be/9AZwnxXiQ3E?t=28

Isn't there a fundamental difference. One is protecting a specific target, the other is excluding everyone from a certain direction. It's the difference between putting a camera next to your safe or scanning every person that enters your house. The irony is that France is giving the US lectures regarding treatment of muslims, while the country is ready to blow. They are the example of what happens when you don't build a "wall" aesthetic barrier, be it a physical or a bureaucratic one in time.