[Vicious]

You can't hold up a hyperbole like Breivik as an example of a trend.

And that vid on rape stats in Norway is incorrect. It has been debunked more than once on the forum. Last time around I linked to the full report the coverage picked its data from.

[j r]

Anders Brevik as a legit argument against immigration? This thread has gone somewhere very strange.

[Teedub]

I wasn't using him as an argument against immigration, only that there must be some kind of issues in that country to make him feel the way he did.

Long story short, I think high levels of uneducated Muslim immigration into Western Europe is bad for those societies.

I'm out.

[Vicious]

So the concerns of homicidal nutjobs are to be considered as legitimate because they are ready to commit heinous acts over them?

I'm not arguing the bottom line but your reasoning to get there is wonky.

[Teedub]

Fair enough, I can accept that. It was a poor choice to bring him into my argument.

[Samseau]

(03-30-2014 07:17 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 05:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The fact that people (men, especially) are shamed for holding moderate views of race pretty much guarantees future disobedience to existing power structures. If enough people get fed up, it becomes violent. Moderate views on race do not win elections and there are too many politicians whose livihoods depend on keeping blacks angry at whites, so moderate views are polarized as quickly as possible in order to retain power.

I wish people were intelligent enough to see through this and stop being played, but no matter how many times I repeat that is possible to have moderate views on race it always seems taboo to even discuss such a matter.

The nature of some topics makes it hard to have a moderate position. Debating about racial equality by its very nature has a very polarizing outcome. It's like debating about gay marriage. You either support it or you don't and there's not much of a middle position. It's not like debating the merits of competing economic philosophies where there's lots of wiggle room in the middle.

I think more often then not there is a middle position, and, being part of a democracy means learning how to make compromises with people who disagree. The nature of man is to disagree, thus there must be compromises.

Gay marriage, for example: remove marriage from the government. Allow people to enter into 'civil' unions at will. Let the word "marriage" be subject to individual priests and parishes. If gay churches pop up and have gay marriages, let them. If straight people don't like it they don't need to recognize the marriage.

But as far as government taxation/benefits go, everyone who is "married" is merely called a "civil union" thus treating everyone equally.

Of course the above solution is repulsive to many on the right and the left; true homo-haters believe even civil unions are too much, while pro-fags believe civil unions aren't enough. But the fact that extremes on both sides hate the compromise prove it's the correct course of action for a democracy of diverse peoples.

Quote:

Also, there is a lot of vested political interest in keeping whites angry at blacks. It works both ways. There's a reason the Southern Strategy works. Just about every Republican presidential candidate has employed it. George W. Bush's strategies pulled it out against rival McCain claiming that he had an illegitimate black baby. Turns out the baby was E. Indian and adopted. But it nonetheless destroyed McCain's campaign and he lost the South Carolina primary. The irony of this game is that if blacks vanished tomorrow in America, it would be the end of the Republican party. The Republican party gets the vote of poor, rural whites in the heartland and south. It would not survive without them. Not because their policies are in the economic interest of these people, but because the Democrats are branded as the party of blacks and multiculturalists and those who want to take money from hard-working whites and give it to lazy n*ggers. Without that racial resentment, many of these poor whites would vote Democrat and see that their interest do not line up with Wall Street. But their white identity and opposition to blacks is more important to them than their economic standing. This is simply the red pill truth.

It is true that plenty of white racists avoid the democratic party simply because they do not like programs that support welfare minorities. But I question how popular democrats would become if suddenly blacks were to disappear. The democrats would have to change their positions quite significantly to get more votes, that's for sure.

You make it sound like only Republicans have connections on Wall St, when in reality Wall St. owns both parties. Wall st. wins no matter who is in power.

[L M McCoy]

(03-31-2014 08:38 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

I wasn't using him as an argument against immigration, only that there must be some kind of issues in that country to make him feel the way he did.

Long story short, I think high levels of uneducated Muslim immigration into Western Europe is bad for those societies.

I'm out.

How does one even spot a Muslim in Western Europe? I'm asking because I'm going to visiting very soon and I don't want to be associated with the Muslims there. I've seen first hand the things they do over there.

[Teedub]

(03-31-2014 12:19 PM)L M McCoy Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 08:38 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

I wasn't using him as an argument against immigration, only that there must be some kind of issues in that country to make him feel the way he did.

Long story short, I think high levels of uneducated Muslim immigration into Western Europe is bad for those societies.

I'm out.

How does one even spot a Muslim in Western Europe? I'm asking because I'm going to visiting very soon and I don't want to be associated with the Muslims there. I've seen first hand the things they do over there.

I wouldn't worry about being misjudged mate!

A documentary about the Norway problem:

[L M McCoy]

(03-31-2014 12:29 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 12:19 PM)L M McCoy Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 08:38 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

I wasn't using him as an argument against immigration, only that there must be some kind of issues in that country to make him feel the way he did.

Long story short, I think high levels of uneducated Muslim immigration into Western Europe is bad for those societies.

I'm out.

How does one even spot a Muslim in Western Europe? I'm asking because I'm going to visiting very soon and I don't want to be associated with the Muslims there. I've seen first hand the things they do over there.

I wouldn't worry about being misjudged mate!

A documentary about the Norway problem:

The girl in the 1st vid 7/10 WB! I won't lie, I am somewhat worried about being misjudged. I was hoping to hit up Norway soon, I know Norway has a bad rep but the women look hot

[monster]

Does anyone have a link to the scene where she gets boned by the black dude? I wanna see what this uproar is about

[Sourcecode]

(03-31-2014 07:01 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

^ No.

I'm sure it's very pleasant in the right places. However, there's a reason Anders Brehvik was as angry as he was!

The thread strayed before I could respond.
But the "rape" epidemic is bullshit. Oslo isnt ruined at all.
Most people in Oslo probably don't believe in it.
Ive been there..People walk freely all around the city/ ( You can walk entire city of oslo in less than a day)
I watched girls stumbled around far from the main areas of the city.
If Oslo is bad..any american city is wartorn

[Teedub]

^

Yeah I went overboard saying it was ruined haha. It's just a subject matter I get quite passionate about.

In regards to the city I'd like to visit at some point but it's just so flipping expensive.

[Samseau]

(03-30-2014 09:53 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

@Samseau

Something I forgot to mention earlier. Given that you are half white and half Asian by your own admission, what is your opposition to multiculturalism based upon? You are basically the product of it. And since you are concerned about preserving races wouldn't it make sense if you no longer sleep with any white women or Asian women and only go for Asian-white mixed women?

I think voluntary racial-mixing is fine. I am of two races yes it is true. But I am not of two cultures so why would I support multi-culturalism? Some cultures are superior to others.

As for preserving race, it depends.

Are people choosing to breed with other races because they find them attractive and fall in love? If this happened on a mass scale, I wouldn't be opposed to it nor would it be possible for me to even stop it.

Are people being forced to breed at gunpoint? I would be opposed.

Are people being brainwashed in school to believe that inter-racial dating is "cool"? Yes, because schools shouldn't be talking about sexual matters in the first place.

[Lika]

»Some cultures are superior to others.

You can only judge a culture from the standpoint of another culture. So this kind of judgement is entirely subjective.


»Are people being brainwashed in school to believe that inter-racial dating is "cool"? Yes, because schools shouldn't be talking about sexual matters in the first place.

This is true but it is not only in schools, it is in most mainstream media. What is the agenda behind it? Maybe an undifferentiated mass of mixed race people who replaced their deep rooted traditional cultures with a new globalized media consumerist culture, is easier to govern...

[NY Digital]

(03-31-2014 04:45 PM)Lika Wrote:  

»Some cultures are superior to others.

You can only judge a culture from the standpoint of another culture. So this kind of judgement is entirely subjective.

False.

Certain cultures have lower crime rates, better education, higher intelligence levels.

[Flint]

If superiority of a culture involves the ability to keep its population at least on the replacement level than a lot of supposedly great nations suck badly at the moment.

Austria, Germany, Greece and Japan have 1.43 and less births per woman.

Women in Niger, Mali, Somalia and Uganda have statistically around 6 kids. In most other African countries it's only slightly less.

The demographic reality is hopelessly stacked against Europe, the West and East Asia. Rich and educated people have stopped having kids. Face it.

The future belongs the most fertile, not to the smartest.

Does anyone here really belief that there will be any social trend that could reverse this? Masses of genetically engineered children from the lab will never be accepted by mainstream society, certainly not by a majority population in the 40+ age range in the near future.

Replace the current European leadership with the most right-wing governments there is, which would install tight migration control and which promote traditional family models, and nothing will be enough to stop the demise. Look at the countries with conservative administrations (Hungary, Belarus, etc.), they do even worse than multicultural Holland or Sweden, at least economically.

I hope I don't sound like a doomsayer. I just look at the naked facts. Marine LePen, UKIP or Putin are not capable to "protect" or "save" cultures. The real social dynamics that are happening right now lie beyond governmental control.

Let the African asylum seekers bang all the landwhale chicks in Western Europe, I don't care, I can't change it. Maybe they bring some slim, traditional black girls with them, who knows. You can't do nothing but make the best out of it, or stop whining and get the fuck out.

I don't feel threatened by the Turks in Berlin or Hamburg. Yet. But then again, in Germany it is not nearly as bad with Muslims as with the UK Pakistanis in the video.

[Feisbook Control]

(03-31-2014 06:28 PM)Flint Wrote:  

If superiority of a culture involves the ability to keep its population at least on the replacement level than a lot of supposedly great nations suck badly at the moment.

Austria, Germany, Greece and Japan have 1.43 and less births per woman.

Women in Niger, Mali, Somalia and Uganda have statistically around 6 kids. In most other African countries it's only slightly less.

The demographic reality is hopelessly stacked against Europe, the West and East Asia. Rich and educated people have stopped having kids. Face it.

The future belongs the most fertile, not to the smartest.

Does anyone here really belief that there will be any social trend that could reverse this? Masses of genetically engineered children from the lab will never be accepted by mainstream society, certainly not by a majority population in the 40+ age range in the near future.

Replace the current European leadership with the most right-wing governments there is, which would install tight migration control and which promote traditional family models, and nothing will be enough to stop the demise. Look at the countries with conservative administrations (Hungary, Belarus, etc.), they do even worse than multicultural Holland or Sweden, at least economically.

I hope I don't sound like a doomsayer. I just look at the naked facts. Marine LePen, UKIP or Putin are not capable to "protect" or "save" cultures. The real social dynamics that are happening right now lie beyond governmental control.

Let the African asylum seekers bang all the landwhale chicks in Western Europe, I don't care, I can't change it. Maybe they bring some slim, traditional black girls with them, who knows. You can't do nothing but make the best out of it, or stop whining and get the fuck out.

I don't feel threatened by the Turks in Berlin or Hamburg. Yet. But then again, in Germany it is not nearly as bad with Muslims as with the UK Pakistanis in the video.

Of course the government could change fertility rates in Europe and the West generally in the same way that they could change a whole lot of other things: by staying the hell out of such affairs.

In most developed countries that you're talking about, the problem is a welfare state that largely insulates people from the rigours -- or even the knowledge -- of existence and largely holds their hand from the cradle to the grave (giving them some busywork job along the way to make them think they're productive). Or it's a world in which women have "careers" and either don't have time for kids or offload them onto daycare at the age of three months.

At another level, we see that Europe, Japan, etc. have achieved the state (largely due to the U.S.) of not even really needing to think about national defence. It's part of the same existential issue, in my opinion. Thus, both places can devote themselves increasingly to esoteric fashions and hobbies, rather than becoming somewhat self-aware about the place in a much larger continuum than which boy band they liked at fifteen to which, like, totally hot barista they're fucking at twenty five.

A large part of having children has historically been so that they would be one's pension. It has also been about the transmission, not only of genes, but of a cultural inheritance. Space aliens arriving on earth in two thousand years, might be confused to learn that children and toy poodles are not, in fact, a kind of artistic creation or perverse invention that we dress in silly clothes doing silly things and then display for the world to see on social media. That's if people can even be bothered having kids. For a lot of people, they're a downright inconvenience that gets in the way of one's next yoga class or boozy holiday to Phuket, which seems to be about as far ahead as anyone can see into the future these days also.

Again, to go off on somewhat of a tangent, I think that's related to why people are so downright awful at saving/investing for the future. Why think about saving for old age when the state will take care of that for you? I, like, totally need to buy the newest mePhone. Does it come in pink?

At some point, we are going to have to figure this issue out as societies, and I believe we will figure it out right about the same time that the welfare state finally goes belly up. Then we will see a natural uptick in births and an equilibrium will be reached.

As for other countries, a few words. Russia is still dealing with the massive cultural fallout of several generations of communism, plus WW2. That is turning around a little, but it's probably going to take a couple more generations. It is going to be a painful process, naturally.

East Asia will eventually need to reach an equilibrium where it stops eating its own. Men (and increasingly women) working 12 hour days for stagnating incomes is unsustainable. So is the massive level of state interference in many areas (reproduction, economics, etc.) still occurring in all East Asian societies.

Finally, we come to those "high fertility" countries. Actually, most of the Muslim world is experiencing plummeting fertility rates. Several nations are already below replacement levels. This trend does not look likely to reverse either. In many ways, countries such as Iran are going to be in even worse shape than Europe.

Africa is one of the last holdouts, but even there, fertility rates are coming down rapidly (whether quickly enough or not, I don't know).

Basically, what I am saying is that this population change is affecting most of the world now (some places more quickly than others). There is absolutely no reason why Europe needs to be swamped with people from other continents when either now, or within another couple of decades, the countries those people are coming from will have their own fertility crises. This whole situation has been completely blown out of proportion and engineered by the elites in various countries, largely for their own profit.

[speakeasy]

(03-31-2014 04:58 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 04:45 PM)Lika Wrote:  

»Some cultures are superior to others.

You can only judge a culture from the standpoint of another culture. So this kind of judgement is entirely subjective.

False.

Certain cultures have lower crime rates, better education, higher intelligence levels.

A "culture" can't have an intelligence level. I think you meant to say "race" but using the word culture in its place would sound a bit less harsh.

[berserk]

People, I assure you that right wingers from abroad have a better clue about what is going on with immigration in Scandinavia than the liberals who think Scandinavia is some sort of utopia and an economic miracle for state intervention. It is no such thing.

In Denmark, the so called far-right 'Danish People's Party' is now bigger than the Social-Democrats in polls and keep in mind the Social-Democrats have been by far the biggest party through most of a century, hovering around 30% of the vote. The Danish People's Party is not really right wing as it's stance on taxes and the size of the government is actually pretty far to the left. A reason, why libertarians often mock the party as being National-Socialists, yep you got why.

In Norway the 'Fremskrittspartiet' or translated the 'Progressive Party' is an actual right wing party with libertarian though nationalist beginnings. It is now part of the government in what was recently a resounding win for the right.

In Sweden were dissent is completely squashed by an extreme cultural-marxist establishment, you have the Sweden-Democrats gaining a lot of votes now in polls, I saw close to 10% in some polls and these guys are legit racist. Even when you in Sweden have the entire establishment of media, academics, newspapers etc at your marxist call, you can't stop the people from voting to stop the violence and crime they see with a sizeable portion of immigrants. Because Sweden has quelled dissent, that has allowed more extreme groups like the Swedish-Democrats to rise, unlike in Denmark and Norway which have had voices for the immigration skeptical.

As for the rape stats, I am not sure how much to put into that. You simply have to understand that arab and other immigrants in Scandinavia are far, far more violent and criminal than other groups. Something like 60% of all violent crime in Denmark is done by non western immigrants by a group that is no more than 8-10% of the population.

So these are the actual facts from the ground. There really is no use in ignoring it, because then you will see movements like Jobbik, BNP, Golden Dawn etc, instead of the democratic and far more liberal parties like the Danish People's Party and the norwegian Progressive Party. Denial of facts will have disastrous outcome in Europe. The recent news is a huge win for Front National in France, the party started by notorious racist and anti-semitte Le-Pen and now run by his daughter.

[Lika]

(03-31-2014 04:58 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 04:45 PM)Lika Wrote:  

»Some cultures are superior to others.

You can only judge a culture from the standpoint of another culture. So this kind of judgement is entirely subjective.

False.

Certain cultures have lower crime rates, better education, higher intelligence levels.

Yes you are right, cultures have certain aspects that can be measured and thus considered superior or better.

However, to deem a culture superior to another on a global level is a very different thing.

Imagine a culture where children are separated from the love of their parents at 2 years of age and then raised to be excellent in mathematics and tennis, for instance.

Then you can organize a tournament with other cultures and observe that this culture is superior in mathematics and tennis. It does not mean that you can decide that this culture on the whole is superior to all the others, especially if you consider art, happiness and well being, that are very hard to measure.

Likewise certain people in certain cultures can live very long and unhappy lives. Some others live short fruitful happy lives.

Even though our culture today is more advanced technologically than a few hundred years ago does not mean that it is "better" or that everyone should prefer it.

The only thing you can do is express a personal preference about a certain culture.

It is subjective

[Lika]

(03-31-2014 07:37 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

Of course the government could change fertility rates in Europe and the West generally in the same way that they could change a whole lot of other things: by staying the hell out of such affairs.

The (white) middle class in Europe has economic difficulties. They are heavily taxed and a big part of these taxes are used to subsidize the numerous children of immigrants.

In the fifties, one industrial blue collar worker in France could live in a house with a wife who did not work and raise 5-6 children on his salary alone.

Today (thanks to feminism), it is unthinkable... both parents have to work and their real purchasing power is way lower.

Fertility rates is essentially linked to economic conditions and the government can manipulate fertility rates easily. Imagine for instance a subsidy for middle class families that are more likely to raise balanced well structured highly intelligent children...

[berserk]

(04-01-2014 01:16 AM)Lika Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 04:58 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 04:45 PM)Lika Wrote:  

»Some cultures are superior to others.

You can only judge a culture from the standpoint of another culture. So this kind of judgement is entirely subjective.

False.

Certain cultures have lower crime rates, better education, higher intelligence levels.

Yes you are right, cultures have certain aspects that can be measured and thus considered superior or better.

However, to deem a culture superior to another on a global level is a very different thing.

Imagine a culture where children are separated from the love of their parents at 2 years of age and then raised to be excellent in mathematics and tennis, for instance.

Then you can organize a tournament with other cultures and observe that this culture is superior in mathematics and tennis. It does not mean that you can decide that this culture on the whole is superior to all the others, especially if you consider art, happiness and well being, that are very hard to measure.

Likewise certain people in certain cultures can live very long and unhappy lives. Some others live short fruitful happy lives.

Even though our culture today is more advanced technologically than a few hundred years ago does not mean that it is "better" or that everyone should prefer it.

The only thing you can do is express a personal preference about a certain culture.

It is subjective

Wow, word for word as spoken by a true cultural-relativist.

[berserk]

No culture is better than any other, it's subjective - Cultural-Marxism
No gender roles are better than others, it's subjective - Feminism

Poor nations are poor, not because of their culture, but because of western imperalism - Cultural-Marxism
Women don't make as much money as men, not because of their lack of skill, but because of patriarchy - Feminism

Marxism->Frankfurt School->Cultural-Marxism->Feminism

[Lika]

(04-01-2014 01:33 AM)berserk Wrote:  

No culture is better than any other, it's subjective - Cultural-Marxism
No gender roles are better than others, it's subjective - Feminism

Poor nations are poor, not because of their culture, but because of western imperalism - Cultural-Marxism
Women don't make as much money as men, not because of their lack of skill, but because of patriarchy - Feminism

Marxism->Frankfurt School->Cultural-Marxism->Feminism

Interesting but it is not my perception.

>>Poor nations are poor, not because of their culture, but because of western imperalism - Cultural-Marxism

I don't agree with that. Nations are relatively poor or rich mainly because of their particular culture. It does not mean that the rich Japanese culture of working 12 hours a day is "better" than some cultures I have seen in African villages where people seemed very happy.

Personally I would prefer to live in the modern Japanese culture but I think it does not mean that this culture is superior in "absolute and objective" terms.

[speakeasy]

(04-01-2014 01:25 AM)berserk Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 01:16 AM)Lika Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 04:58 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 04:45 PM)Lika Wrote:  

»Some cultures are superior to others.

You can only judge a culture from the standpoint of another culture. So this kind of judgement is entirely subjective.

False.

Certain cultures have lower crime rates, better education, higher intelligence levels.

Yes you are right, cultures have certain aspects that can be measured and thus considered superior or better.

However, to deem a culture superior to another on a global level is a very different thing.

Imagine a culture where children are separated from the love of their parents at 2 years of age and then raised to be excellent in mathematics and tennis, for instance.

Then you can organize a tournament with other cultures and observe that this culture is superior in mathematics and tennis. It does not mean that you can decide that this culture on the whole is superior to all the others, especially if you consider art, happiness and well being, that are very hard to measure.

Likewise certain people in certain cultures can live very long and unhappy lives. Some others live short fruitful happy lives.

Even though our culture today is more advanced technologically than a few hundred years ago does not mean that it is "better" or that everyone should prefer it.

The only thing you can do is express a personal preference about a certain culture.

It is subjective

Wow, word for word as spoken by a true cultural-relativist.

I think there's a difference between assumption that all cultures are equal versus taking a neutral stance with regards to judging the merits of a culture. Because cultures have such different value systems, it's very difficult to fairly judge one by the standards of another. We may look down on people who live in small hut villages in the bush, but these people have vibrant social lives where those in their village help each other out, boys are given rights of passage and taught to be men, they have respect for elders and traditions, etc. We live in soulless suburbs where we don't even know our neighbors and sit in front of TV screens with one hand on the remote and another on a smart phone waiting for it to ping to give us attention and validation.