Politics 2017 Part 3

[Azdeus]

"The police tried to hide that, shameful, but that wasn't done by the government."

 

The police *is* the government.

 

I'd have agreed with you if the police were ordered by the government to do this, but they did'nt, it was a local policedepartment that decided this.

[Volourn]

The police *is* the government. There is nothing to dispute here.

[Azdeus]

The police hasn't been told by the government to cover anything up, hence, the government hasn't done anything wrong here.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

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.

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)

Edited February 18, 2017 by Drowsy Emperor

[Elerond]

Police is public service agency that is empowered by state to enforce laws and limit civil disorder. So police is part of system that controls the state aka government, but not the government aka ministry, a collective group of people that exercises executive authority in a state.

[Hurlshort]

The US has "no-go" zones, they are called the projects. They don't have anything to do with immigration or Islam, they have to do with economics. 

 

 

Also I totally disagree about children being a sign of wealth. Most societies at seems to run in the opposite, the poor pump out children at an alarming rate while the wealthy tend to keep their families small.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Police is public service agency that is empowered by state to enforce laws and limit civil disorder. So police is part of system that controls the state aka government, but not the government aka ministry, a collective group of people that exercises executive authority in a state.

 

Correct but irrelevant.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The US has "no-go" zones, they are called the projects. They don't have anything to do with immigration or Islam, they have to do with economics. 

 

 

Also I totally disagree about children being a sign of wealth. Most societies at seems to run in the opposite, the poor pump out children at an alarming rate while the wealthy tend to keep their families small.

 

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.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Drowsy Emperor

[Volourn]

"The police hasn't been told by the government to cover anything up, hence, the government hasn't done anything wrong here."

 

The police *is* government.

[Elerond]

The US has "no-go" zones, they are called the projects. They don't have anything to do with immigration or Islam, they have to do with economics. 

 

 

Also I totally disagree about children being a sign of wealth. Most societies at seems to run in the opposite, the poor pump out children at an alarming rate while the wealthy tend to keep their families small.

 

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

[Azdeus]

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)

 

The police don't want their statistics to get wrecked even further, that's most likely the reason; Atleast from anecdotal evidence from my police neighbour.

 

The Geneva Convention? Heard of it?

You should view Hans Roslings writings and videos on the subject of childbirth. High child mortality and low income are the main reasons for why people get many children, low child mortality and higher wealth links to fewer children.

 

I really like how you describe societal change as something that is to be avoided though, that really puts your views in clear perspective.

[213374U]

I find these so self explanatory in Sweden's position that I don't even need to justify them.

 

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.

Back on top of your game, I see. "having kids is a sign of wealth except in the case of the poor in which it isn't". Isn't circular logic just beautiful?

 

Hint: the correlation is between education and contraceptive availability, rather than wealth.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

The US has "no-go" zones, they are called the projects. They don't have anything to do with immigration or Islam, they have to do with economics. 

 

 

Also I totally disagree about children being a sign of wealth. Most societies at seems to run in the opposite, the poor pump out children at an alarming rate while the wealthy tend to keep their families small.

 

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.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Drowsy Emperor

[Hurlshort]

 

Your current president has five children. By three wives, but regardless. He himself was one of five children. Bush senior had six.

 

 

And yet, Bush Jr. only had two children despite the fact the Bush family wealth has probably grown tremendously.

 

edit: I agree it is a problem that large families are connected to poverty in our current society. I just don't think the solution is for wealthy people to have more kids. I think we need less people as a whole.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Hurlshot

[213374U]

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.

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.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The US has "no-go" zones, they are called the projects. They don't have anything to do with immigration or Islam, they have to do with economics. 

 

 

Also I totally disagree about children being a sign of wealth. Most societies at seems to run in the opposite, the poor pump out children at an alarming rate while the wealthy tend to keep their families small.

Don't think they're exactly no-go, but they're hostile to the police, and have become a lot more hostile thanks to Obama's demagoguery and lies. Europe didn't have them though until mass migration. So the causes are different but the result is the same, ethnic-cultural enclaves hostile to the society at large.

[Elerond]

 

The US has "no-go" zones, they are called the projects. They don't have anything to do with immigration or Islam, they have to do with economics. 

 

 

Also I totally disagree about children being a sign of wealth. Most societies at seems to run in the opposite, the poor pump out children at an alarming rate while the wealthy tend to keep their families small.

Don't think they're exactly no-go, but they're hostile to the police, and have become a lot more hostile thanks to Obama's demagoguery and lies. Europe didn't have them though until mass migration. So the causes are different but the result is the same, ethnic-cultural enclaves hostile to the society at large.

 

 

There has been areas that are hostile towards police in Europe as long as there has been police forces in Europe.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Examples?

[Elerond]

Examples?

 

Northern Ireland is quite famous from having neighborhoods that aren't that police friendly.

 

Here in Finland we have our Romani neighbors and our motorcycle gangs don't like police that much, especially in mid 90s when they were in war with each other and were able to access weapons like M72 LAWs their neighborhoods weren't places were police went gladly.

 

EDIT: If we go little more back in Finland's history. In there was in 1800s group called Puukkojunkarit (knife-fighters) that terrorize big part of Western Finland.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Elerond

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

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.

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.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Drowsy Emperor

[Malcador]

 

The US has "no-go" zones, they are called the projects. They don't have anything to do with immigration or Islam, they have to do with economics.

 

 

Also I totally disagree about children being a sign of wealth. Most societies at seems to run in the opposite, the poor pump out children at an alarming rate while the wealthy tend to keep their families small.

Don't think they're exactly no-go, but they're hostile to the police, and have become a lot more hostile thanks to Obama's demagoguery and lies. Europe didn't have them though until mass migration. So the causes are different but the result is the same, ethnic-cultural enclaves hostile to the society at large.

How did Obama make them more hostile? I keep reading that as if cops and minorities were cool with each other before. High profile events and everything being recorded probably are more impactful.

[HoonDing]

"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."

 

Ironically even in Eastern Yurop the Chinese are coming in buying a lot of real estate and exorbitantly pushing prices up.

[Hurlshort]

Obama is clearly behind all racial tension in this country, just like Trump is behind all of our immigration problems.  

[Azdeus]

Examples?

 

"”Man riskerar att bli skjuten om man går dit, eller rånad, av kriminella element. Det är områden dit polisen knappt själva vågar gå och folk som är där är annorlunda.”"

"You risk getting shot if you go there, or robbed, by criminals. It's areas where the police themselves hardly dare venture, and people there are different."

What the middle and upper class said about some areas in Stockholm and Gothenburg in the 30's. Filled with "jews, gypsies, russians and such suspicious filth"

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Examples?

 

Northern Ireland is quite famous from having neighborhoods that aren't that police friendly.

 

Here in Finland we have our Romani neighbors and our motorcycle gangs don't like police that much, especially in mid 90s when they were in war with each other and were able to access weapons like M72 LAWs their neighborhoods weren't places were police went gladly.

 

EDIT: If we go little more back in Finland's history. In there was in 1800s group called Puukkojunkarit (knife-fighters) that terrorize big part of Western Finland.

 

Not really equivalent, Northern Ireland obviously an insurgency problem, motorcycle gangs aren't a neighborhood, doubt romani are a whole neighborhood but again an example of an ethnic-cultural enclave, although a minor one.

 

How did Obama make them more hostile? I keep reading that as if cops and minorities were cool with each other before. High profile events and everything being recorded probably are more impactful.

By telling lies and exploiting such incidents as Zimmerman and Ferguson, and supporting BLM. I don't ever remember such anti-police riots here before (there were in the sixties, but that was a different situation).

 

 

 

Examples?

 

"”Man riskerar att bli skjuten om man går dit, eller rånad, av kriminella element. Det är områden dit polisen knappt själva vågar gå och folk som är där är annorlunda.”"

"You risk getting shot if you go there, or robbed, by criminals. It's areas where the police themselves hardly dare venture, and people there are different."

What the middle and upper class said about some areas in Stockholm and Gothenburg in the 30's. Filled with "jews, gypsies, russians and such suspicious filth"

 

I suppose if you go back far enough, again talking about an immigrant enclave. I don't know if they were factual, or motivated by racism.