>“A seven year old girl was stabbed to death in an apartment in Upplands-Bro in northern Stockholm on 25 July this year by a 36 year old man, Daniel Gebru. Ten months earlier Gebru arrived as a welfare of migrant from Eritrea to Sweden. …
>Gebru has not been able to give any concrete reasons for why he cut the throat of the seven-year girl in the bathroom of her home. He had previously been living in the apartment. What he did there on that day is unclear because according to some data he was not living there anymore. As the Court notes, however, he did live in the apartment when the murder was committed but Gebru had failed to pay rent.
>Gebru has stated that he had intended to take his own life but for unknown reasons instead stabbed the girl to death.”
funny that this immediately blamed on him being a refugee rather than the myriad of other factors that could be to blame. Statistically speaking some of the refugees are going to be insane. A grandfather in Australia recently stabbed a whole family including a baby girl. Will it be blamed on his resident status? Nope. Because he was white
can't find the sydeny one with a 6 month old baby but here a brisbane one. its a fucking bad week to be a baby in australia
>its a fucking bad week to be a baby in australia
Every week is a bad week to be in Australia but back to the discussion, this isn't being made a big deal because the media be raysis, it's being made a big deal because it's a legitimate problem. Yes, statistically speaking if we were to randomly select 800,000+ people from any part of the world we would pick a few that were fucked up. The problem that comes in here is that we aren't seeing a few bad apples, we're seeing upwards of 65% increase in crime, mass public sexual assault, and a rather large increase in the amount of raping.
>upwards of 65% increase in crime.
non-wikipedia level citation needed.
why doesn't your government screen for legitimate refugees? I'm not saying there isn't a concern but there is a level of stormfront logic on 4chan. People here have a tendency to attribute negative factors to unrelated features of a group and then proceed to paint the entire group that way to justify their position.
> on 25 July this year
It's a new year so why do you give us such old news or why do they just report it now? Otherwise I do not understand why you recycle old shit. Also here is another thing: Why do only Scandinavian pages report about this? I would like to read about it in a language I can understand.
No because his residence status wasnt in question you stupid fuck
Governments are supposed to let criminals into their countries fuck no people trying for citizenship aren't gonna be perceived the same thats the whole fucking point of it. He wont get a citizenship now because he fucked up if the government could exile locally born criminals theyd do that too
The idiot parents that took the immigrant in their house are responsible for their daughter's death.
It's like they killed their child with their own hands probably because of some misguided liberal ideology.
>Statistically speaking some of the refugees are going to be insane
Stastically speaking immigrants are a smaller makeup of Sweden's population, but they have disproportionately higher rates of crime/rape etc. Just because it sometimes happens in the native population doesn't mean the refugees should be excused.
Offering help to someone while disregarding the safety of your family is criminal idiocy.
Their first responsibility was towards their child and not some stranger.
Only mad irresponsible people would let some random African immigrant in their home, in a position to harm their family.
The entire refugee argument here in Australia has been fucked for about a decade now. Both sides are going full retard after somebody realized that playing up fears about the 'boat people' would help win an election. Now it's a constant political football where nobody wants to discuss the actual issues relevant to the matter, only the boats from Indonesia that make up a tiny percentage of those that arrive here. Want to stop people coming here then applying for asylum? No point pulling out the Abbott favorite slogan 'stop the boats', try stopping the planes the vast majority of them arrive on.
That said, stopping asylum seekers isn't a solution either. The fact that we're always talking about it as a problem that needs fixing rather than an ongoing situation that needs addressing says a lot.
Sure it took them a few days but the Cologne story is all over mainstream media now.
If a 7 year old girl was murdered in Sweden back in july it would have been a MAJOR story, at least in domestic media.
It's not really that simple. And it's not really a cover up.
What this was: an immigrant-on-immigrant crime. Which means that absolutely no one in Sweden cares. At all.
Since native Swedes weren't involved on either side the general public won't care.
No political movements will care because the case is useless for any propaganda purposes.
Only a few "alternative news sources" wrote about the story but do you notice how they only mention the ethnicity of the murderer, while saying nothing about the victim.
When we read the headline of this thread we are meant to imagine a blonde little girl lying dead at the hands of a psychotic negroe. "Swedish host family". We are meant to think some kind of naive leftist family, but it was just an African immigrant family letting a countryman rent a room.
>Why won't you get rid of white criminals?
It's called prison, or Australia, depending on the country in question.
Oh but white people commit crimes in white countries, so everyone please feel guilty enough to let us import 6 gorillion people from the 3rd world to colonize our country so we don't lose our steady supply of cheap labor and votes, thanks.
That girl deserved it, he probably attempted to rape her(A sign of great respect in Islamic communities) and she refused him. I wish he would've stoned her to death instead of slitting her throat. She really deserved to suffer for being a racist. I mean, it's 2016! Why are white people still thinking they are better than everyone?
Is not a cospyracy.....but if is true one day all of them gonna tourn as a terrorist and all together invading the eu ....im ready 4 that will fucking cut off the hands to all of them. ....don't forget to prevent and prepare your self. ....
I heard that same Australian grandfather raped 2 women in Cologne and robbed and sexually molested 150 others - and did the same in Dusseldorf, Berlin, Stuttgart, Hamburg, Helsinki, Salzburg, and Zurich.
I'm not sure how to blame this on him, but we all know he did it:
"In November, Finnish authorities said around 10 asylum seekers were suspected of rapes, among the more than 1000 rapes reported to police in 2015."
You are a muslim apologist.
The most possible and simple explanation is also the truest.
>muh isolated case
>muh trillions of possibilities !
Fuck off with your reductionist bullshit.
All the black people shot by police in the US are shot because they're black, too, right? Fucking white devil is rayCIS and all minorities statistics have nothing to do with them being a member of a specifically defined group that has that statistic! Bullshit.
Every living thing on the planet that survives beyond it's inception is prejudiced.
Also, if you want to pretend like you're retarded view of "everyone is equal!" is somehow in any reality a measurable or objective reality, then surely you'll have a very easy time of providing even a scrap of evidence to back it up in contrast to the landslide of inevitable sources to prove you hilariously wrong and hopelessly deluded.
lmao you're so truly cucked.
>Refugees that you took the time and effort to integrate and treat nicely raped your mother
>BUT BUT BUT Residents also Rape! it's not the refugees fault
you're so fucking retarded
Those deaths are a joint responsibility of victims (sic) and racist police.
Not only racist, but unprofessional too. If the society needed low-quality thugs to protect them, it would hire thugs (perhaps KKK), not the police.
Makes me wonder whether you disapprove of unnecessary killing of white criminals on grounds that fewer white people are criminals. #RightWingLogic
Maybe let's apply Occam Razor to itself. How? By resisting the temptation to count even minimally controversial statements as "the most possible and simple".
I was a pimp in a predominantly Muslim part of a British town. Peddled prostitutes right under a mosque. (Stupid idea in retrospect because why offend Muslims.) No problem.
Also, only fools drink alcohol.
A plague of Lutheran "suicide bombers" in Denmark only 200 years ago:
>The state introduces harshest penalties in Danish history
>after years of suicide murder mayhem.
>Paying for you own demise. Your race, cultural identity and thousands of years of cultural heritage wiped out by monkeys who can't control their basic impulses and because you were so naïve to let them in.
That is not Nirvana, it is the beginning of immense suffering all over Europe and the end of western civilization. I warned a lot of people of the long-term implications of the current immigration policy but if they won't listen.. let them feel the consequences of their own actions (or inaction).
Après nous le déluge.
The reality is different my friend, we have evidence of that on a daily basis. Just look at what happened recently in Köln (Cologne).
And to call the Islam the climax of humanity is absolutely laughable.
>as if the downfall of Sweden is somehow Nirvana
Because you didn't specify a negative outcome :^). So, being an open-minded, unprejudiced liberal, I presumed a positive one.
I know that you intentionally did not describe Nirvana. I'm not pointing it out as your error. I'm only pointing out that my predictions diverge from yours.
The only downfall of a liberal society is straying from path of liberalism. It wasn't 9/11 that ended America as we knew it, it was America's response to 9/11 that did it.
>Don't judge Islam by the actions of the Muslims. Islam is not what Muslims do, but what they are supposed to do. ~ Dr. Bilal, Islamic scholar.
>Judging Islam on the basis of a few Muslims is like eating a rotten fruit and blaming the whole tree. ~ Dr. Bilal, Islamic scholar.
Last but not least, those immigrants are brutalised by their experience of poverty and war. Following your logic, America should refuse American soldiers returning from Vietnam because they had PTSD and war made them dysfunctional and dangerous.
Also Köln case is a product of police leniency to foreign criminals. It doesn't make them worse than domestic criminals. But it can be exploited by nationalists.
I would go as far as to call it a political provocation by German police.
Authorities did the same shit during London riots when police was ordered not to intervene.
I'm not saying here that rapists are innocent, only that the police has colluded with criminals to discredit their whole "race".
Islam is responsible for 13 centuries of pain and suffering that they've inflicted on any and every single peoples that were not Islamic they could get their hands on.
They're the original slavers, having taken 20 million African slaves, while murdering another 80 million, as well as their constant and unyielding brutality towards their neighbors as their murderous cult spread outward and gained influence.
The original doctrine of Islam permits them to do what they wish with any non-Muslim man and woman, hence their constant incursions to non-Islamic countries to feed their lust for rape, murder, theft, and conquer with the blessing of their God.
They're animals and should be genocided in a final war against all of Islam by the united peoples of Earth.
You forgot medieval Christianity.
You forget modern Western bigotry and brutality.
The only "sin" of Islam in this context is not being less violent than Christianity. That's not enough to convert me to brutality.
>Because you didn't specify a negative outcome :^)
>Paying for you own demise. Your race, cultural identity and thousands of years of cultural heritage wiped out
No because American soldiers are American and America has the responsiblity to take care of their own citizens. We as Europeans have no responsibility whatsoever to take care for Syrians, only Syria has that responsibility. The gulfstates which are far closer to Syria and are richer than most European countries and have a similar culture and language are taking NO 'refugees'. Isreal also takes no refugees because they know that 'diversity' will be the end of their pure Jewish state. If we only listened to pathos then we could invite the whole of Africa to come to Europe, but it wouldn't solve anything and would destroy Europe.
Wrong. Post >>15885 came before post >>15894.
This is how the conversation went:
You specified it AFTER my post.
>responsiblity to take care of their own citizens
Would you rather take care of an evil compatriot than of a good foreigner? Patriotism is irrelevant to humanism.
>There's plenty of room for them in other lands.
>And they don't want them.
Do you want to be like them?
I thought that Europe was better.
But you don't want to prove it.
If Europe isn't better, why protect it?
>Group of people raping and murdering people today
>"But what about group X murdering people 300plus years ago!"
Like I give two shits. Tell you global historical prospective to the 16 year olds getting molested by a horde of Muslim men.
>You forgot medieval Christianity
There's no basis for barbary in the New Testament or the teachings of Jesus. Any barbarism committed in the name of Christianity is outright disallowed by the 10 commandments, and thus not supported by the foundation of the religion.
Islam is built to allow the enslavement, rape, murder, and theft of non-believers.
>Sweden as we know it will cease to exist (long) before the end of the 21st century.
Why would you in any way, shape, or form call that 'Nirvana'? I already specified it in >>15873
>Do you want to be like them?
Yes I would love to, I would love to preserve my people who've build up this country with sweat and blood. I would love to preserve the cultural identity and heritage that my ancestors shaped over the course of thousands of years.
The immigrants are not an enrichment, they are a burden. I would be fine with it if they were real refugees and they were here to stay only temporarily, but we all know that they're here to stay permanently and that many of the 'refugees' are migrants from various countries including countries in North-Africa that are abusing the current situation.
And we are given no say in this matter. If it was decided democratically I would have no problem with it.
The first couple of years they will live of our taxmoney (while they haven't contributed a single dime) and then when they finally enter the labour market they will take jobs that our people could've filled. (while 16,2% of the working population in my country is already unemployed!)
Also note that the immigrants have higher birthrates, that 3rd generation immigrants here still haven't integrated, the higher crime and rape figures amongst non-ethnic Europeans and the fact that many of those immigrants coming into Europe today don't share the same values as ours and see women and gays as non-equal.
This one is taking me a long time to answer.
Actually, if we dig into the Old Testament a little... we might find the opposite case.
But let's focus on the New Testament. If Christians actually clung (clinged?) to Christ's message of love... their claim to moral supremacy could hold some water. Except they don't.
Which still isn't a satisfactory argument on my part because I have called not to judge a religion by sins of its adherents.
You win this battle. (At least until I come up with a better answer.)
Fiction. Try to harm them and see what happens.
If you aren't allowed to destroy it, you don't own it.
Ownership = usus + fructus + abusus. That's Latin for "the right to use", "the right to profit from" and "the right to damage".
You've been cuckolded into patriotism.
The funny thing is, it's actually the anti-nazis fueling the fire though. If they actually had some sense and attempted to at least regulate and limit immigration, they wouldn't be in this mess.
I don't think anyone except the most hardcore neo-nazi is against all immigration, but the way Merkel has basically just shipped in an entire population, likely to secure future voters, it's what fueling the fire.
Nazis rose before because they were taxed into an almost third world country state. Somehow we didn't learn the lesson that when you crush down the spirit of a country it will likely opt for fanaticism and fascism.
The people likely feel like they are being displaced, and with the current political climate, when they critise the refugee policies, the only people that don't instantly call the racist are nearly almost nazis.
Being a moderate is becoming increasingly difficult.
>Radical liberalism has polarising effect.
True. I'm not sure whether that's bad though.
We'll see true colours of each man.
I'm tired of false liberals. Make them fascists already.
Fake consensus is holding everyone back: both liberals and their opposition.
Moderation* is worse than fascism because it sustains ill status quo.
*) I'm not talking about you, mods.
You know what I mean.
I meant people who share the same ethnicity as me and share the same culture and values. My fellow countrymen. I don't think that patriotism is a particularly bad thing.
If you change the people of a country then the culture will also inevitably change.
I'd have to disagree, I feel like any civilization tends to run itself into a noose if it goes too long in one direction.
It needs to be stressed, tested and challenged to stay healthy. When one polar side is allowed to polarize for too long and becomes king, it gets fat and stop caring about practicality. A highly liberal society will errod itself as they tend to be too inwardly focused, they lose sight of external affairs and their ideals start to become weak, if another militaristic culture doesn't have it's back it will die.
A high conservative society can't change enough and becomes too fixed on the idea that it is only external issues that cause it problems, they tend to over extend their influence and die because they haven't managed to remain adaptable.
Left unchallenged they both end up totalitarian. They stop reacting and keep adhering to a static ideology in a changing world.
Don't mistake me that I believe constant moderation is good either. That can breed an uncaring popluce and a stagnation. I think the pendulum needs to swing from time to time. Not necessarily in even patterns, but it's the core culture of the country that needs to stay intact. If people still have a vested interest in the betterment of their country and people aren't beheading each other in the streets over differing opinions, then the country is relatively healthy.
What a load.
The first and foremost priority is to protect your people, your genetic kin, no matter how distant. If your society becomes less free to repel an actual existential threat then that's just par for the course.
As long as your people and land survives you can turn it into whatever you want, but now you have this group of traitors within that want to pretend like this beautiful people with their beautiful contry with beautiful traditions extends to all the scum of the Earth, which is rapidly destroy all those things within just a few generations if you allow it, especially since all these rats live off the taxpayer and pump out kids at our expense, just so they can go on to replace us and ruin everything and everyone we love.
They need to be trapped in their disgusting countries to either fight or die for something nice like our ancestors did.
Anyone that suggests otherwise is a traitor, and should be sent to live in the hellholes they have so much admiration of.
>The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
>~ Thomas Jefferson
And maybe that's what's happening...
I'm sincerely sick of this pendulum. Although you justify its existence by a logical necessity, I pray hope that the only reason it is needed is the lack of the right breed of man, rather than any fundamental laws of nature.
Albeit I am unable to justify this wishful belief rationally at this moment, so let's call it my "religion".
Could be. I suppose you could call it the way a culture evolves.
While I detest war, I do think it's sometimes necessary, and it's most likely programmed into us. Unfortunately many advances in technology used in peace time was developed because someone needed to kill someone else faster.
Of course this global "greater scheme of shit" thinking means nothing to the four year old bleeding out in the street from stray mortar fragments.
It may not be something humanity ever solves, but it could be the driving force behind a technology that saves us as a species. Half the reason we make any new space shit is to keep up with other people making space shit.
If only we could all agree to just have a Mortal Kombat style fighting tournament, every ten years or some shit.
>Anyone that suggests otherwise is a traitor, and should be sent to live in the hellholes they have so much admiration of.
I don't actually think that Islam is the best of all worlds. That would kind of contradict my love of freedom, wouldn't it?
I merely believe that Islam is the best "prison" for illiberal creatures that most men prove to be under the polarising "duress" of radical liberalism. It's so perfect in this role, that it might as well have really been a God's gift to humanity.
If fascism is good, Islam is even better.
If Islam is wrong, fascism is wrong.
That's my "liberal" logic.
As you can see, I don't want for you anything that you don't want for me and for yourself. I only demand that you take it together with all unpleasant consequences. I simply want to "bless" you with perfect fascism. (Not necessarily "you", particular anon... just anyone who rejects liberalism.)
If you want to "punish" liberals in the same way, you are more than welcome. Please, curse me with perfect liberty!
P.S. I'm not leaving this thread but I'm about to tune out a bit. So I can't guarantee further replies. I enjoyed this conversation and, as always, it will take me some time to process everything that was mentioned here in case it didn't hit home immediately.
Its *Arabs* that are a problem, Islam is just window dressing.
Culture is downstream from nature; change the people, change the culture. Importing third world people means importing third world problems.
>responsiblity to take care of their own citizens
>Would you rather take care of an evil compatriot than of a good foreigner?
>Patriotism is irrelevant to humanism.
>If you were completely with them, you will be praised despite your many faults and deviances, and if you weren’t completely with them, you will be attacked and slandered, even if you were the most pious and righteous of men. Imagine!
That's an accusation of ISIS by a Muslim. But one could say exactly the same beautiful words about Western nationalists!
>It's *Arabs* that are a problem, Islam is just window dressing.
I agree! Except this applies to all religions. Christians pick'n'mix from Christ's message as it suits their wicked nature. And atheists are no better.
>change the people, change the culture.
I so much agree! Except the most dangerous heritable trait, the authoritarian instinct, is common to all human races equally. All other ethnic defects pale compared to this one and, in addition, often come in pairs with some (usually unrecognised) corresponding virtues.
>change the people, change the culture.
How can we change Arabs if we don't raise them in our culture? Why should we change Arabs when we aren't changing our own people for better, nor repenting for our own transgressions?
>Importing third world people means importing third world problems.
Why can't we simply rely on the police doing their job? Does successful police work depend on citizens being nice? Why not give a real stress test to our lazy, indolent, corrupt and overreaching police? It's been long overdue. What are we paying them for? For protecting the interest of people in power?
Lol retards have no sense of scale. 'Rely on the police', guess what that entails? A *police state*. Without the *basic* *bare minimum* prerequisite of sovereignty, border control, maintenance of law and order becomes *exponentially* more complicated and costly.
The choice is simple, keep brown people out, or enjoy paying for 20 different alphabet agencies to watch you masturbate, and have legal powers that basically amount to executive fiat in order to pursue these goals.
If you're not *discriminate* with who gets to be allowed into the country, then naturally, you need to watch *everyone all the time*.
>Except the most dangerous heritable trait, the authoritarian instinct, is common to all human races equally.
Don't pull shit out of your ass if you dont want to be called a dumbass, dumbass.
>How can we change Arabs if we don't raise them in our culture?
Colonialism and eugenics, duh.
Man you're just not very good at this are you? I can practically feel your nervous mania through the screen.
>'Rely on the police', guess what that entails? A *police state*.
Or perhaps a state built on libertarian principles?
>enjoy paying for 20 different alphabet agencies to watch you masturbate
But they are the reason why we need Islam!
Not only that, they conspire to inflame the world of Islam.
A cure worse than the disease.
>Don't pull shit out of your ass if you dont want to be called a dumbass, dumbass.
>Colonialism and eugenics.
I will think about this. Though I doubt English chavs and Russian gopniks are qualified to be judges of human nature. Even if you make one of them a president.
>I can practically feel your nervous mania through the screen
>Or perhaps a state built on libertarian principles?
Hmm, the libertarian solution of tolerantly allowing foreign malcontents to moderately blow up a theater while moderately gunning down survivors with some moderate bullets while holding moderate hostages to round out the day?
In any case, libertarian sentiments are, overwhelmingly, a white conceit. And more specifically, they are an *anglo-saxon* conceit. If you wish for a libertarian society, and wish it to remain libertarian, you will have to keep out everyone else. How's that for irony?
Let me explain, you're not simply incorrect, you're not even wrong. The frame you are using is incompatible with the subject you are attempting to talk about. You are confusing your ideological conceits with science.
Thankfully for the purposes of our discussion, better men than you have actually done research and redaction on what traits are broadly eusocial (and why lesser peoples desperately flock in droves for the privilege of being ruled by them)
http://thosewhocansee. (spot blog) .fr/2014/11/theres-something-about-teutonics.html
>I will think about this. Though I doubt English chavs and Russian gopniks are qualified to be judges of human nature. Even if you make one of them a president.
The value of paternalism applies just as readily, or even more readily, to ones own ingroup as it does else wise. A father will naturally look to care for his children first, and he certainly would not give them any responsibilities or powers they would not be prepared to ably shoulder (in this analogy, your chavs, your gopniks, or any other less desirable, but not wholly undesirable subsets of the population).
As an officially certified white person, I am sympathetic and understanding of the applications of libertarian principles, but people should understand how that would look *in praxis*. For something to have freedom, it must be ready to pay the *penalties* of freedom as well. That freedom granted to not such a person is in fact a curse, not simply to them, but all those around them. Freedom is most definity not equivalent with ones capacity for agency.
Functional libertarianism is socially darwinistic; not merely letting actions have consequences, but in some cases even exacerbating and intensifying them. It is not something that can be applied unilaterally without concern. Freedoms insulated from consequences are rather privileges, and privileges should be reserved for the select minorities who would be most able to utilize them felicitously. People who, if they do err, you have a reasonable anticipation that such an occurrence would be an outlier, and not a trend.
http://thosewhocansee. snip .fr/2012/05/corruption-exception-or-rule.html?m=1
http://thosewhocansee. snip .fr/2014/05/foreign-policy-and-less-able.html?m=1
http://thosewhocansee. snip .fr/2013/08/whence-afro-criminality.html?m=1
http://thosewhocansee. snip .fr/2015/05/why-re-colonization-future-orientation.html?m=1
http://thosewhocansee. snip .fr/2012/03/tsar-is-far.html?m=1
Think about it:
>Germany full of white german natives, no problem
>Germany with many non aryans, stirring shit up. Big problem
>genocide non Europeans.
>we didnt even need to invade Africa, they came to us!
I am the anon that you responded to. I can't devote time to a complete response and you make many interesting points. But this:
You seem to think that everything that isn't antisocial is automatically eusocial, therefore "nationalism is good for you". Feel free to accuse me of "original research" (WP:OR, therefore no citations) but I will insist that "antisocial" isn't the only opposite of "eusocial"; the other one is "dyssocial" (pathologically social). Example: Italian mafia. Italian mafia is (or hopefully _was_) very "social"... but how many people outside Sicily are going to praise them for that? It's easy to pinpoint "antisocial" patterns. But what about "eusocial"? Who's going to judge what's "eusocial" and what's "dyssocial"? Italian mafia perhaps? If I was to judge it, I would say that nationalism is a trait of pathological societies very similar to mafias; basically large-scale bullying cliques. Could nationalism work in real life without support from sadists and clinical sociopaths? Am I supposed to like their company? Are we going to build a better world by extending childhood bullying into adult world? Bear in mind that the society of Orwell's "1984" is, technically speaking, eusocial too. Eusocial... yet how far from eutopian. And so are ants. Man is not ant. Ant's heaven is man's hell.
All of which reminds me of one Marxist essay readily on this topic. You are likely to like it:
>Theses on the Terrible Community
You can choose there between original PDF and a bad HTML copy.
TBH, I could live in some kind of "hivemind" society. But it would be need to be built around values far more substantial than skin colour, brute force and obedience.