PDA

View Full Version : Armed Citizens vs Terrorists - Sweden Not For Whites



Right Edition
01-08-2015, 08:10 PM
http://youtu.be/51NYsIE1nCM

Today Brian Lovig Discusses
Armed Citizens vs Terrorists - Sweden Not For Whites

Lott provides a sampling of recent attacks, including “the car attack in Quebec,” the attack on the War Memorial and Parliamentary building in Ottawa, “the hatchet assault in New York City,” and the car attack in Jerusalem.
He also cites the September 26 beheading in Oklahoma City.
Taking all these attacks into consideration — and the fact that ISIS encourages its Muslim adherents to engage in “lone wolf” attacks — Lott asks, “What can be done to protect public safety?” His answer: “When the police and military can’t be everywhere, the last line of defense is having more citizens carry guns.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/03/armed-citizens-the-last-line-of-defense-against-lone-wolf-terror-attacks/

Sweden Not for Whites

On Christmas eve, the Former Prime Minister of Sweden, Fredrik Reinfeldt, came out with an anti-White rant saying that Sweden belongs to the immigrants who move there, not the Native Swedish.
He also said that Sweden’s borders are fictional and the Native Swedish are “uninteresting”.
“There is a choice of which country Sweden will be,” he told TV4
“Is this a land that is owned by those who have lived here for three or four generations,” he asked, “or is Sweden [a country] where people who come here in mid-life makes it to be and develops it?“
“To me, it is obvious that it should be the latter and that there is a stronger and better society if it will be open [to more immigration].”
He also told TV4 “What is Sweden as a country? Is this a country owned by those who lived here for four generations or those found on any limit?“
“It’s what they [immigrants] do in Sweden that is Sweden.”

http://whitegenocideproject.com/former-swedish-pm-sweden-belongs-immigrants-swedes/

Right Edition
01-08-2015, 10:13 PM
Is anyone having issues with the video

88 louie
01-08-2015, 11:01 PM
It worked for me, good job again, keep em' coming Brian.

Foxer
01-08-2015, 11:02 PM
Is anyone having issues with the video

You mean playing it? No - seems to work fine.

I have a few issues with the comments about sweden by Fredrik mind you. :) Also - i have a few issues with the name 'fredrik'.

Steveo9mm
01-09-2015, 02:16 AM
wow this world is just..... i dont even know what to say anymore.

DOOK
01-09-2015, 02:24 AM
Someone's hand is up this guys butt?
To clarify, I meant the Swede.

Right Edition
01-09-2015, 08:33 AM
You mean playing it? No - seems to work fine.

I have a few issues with the comments about sweden by Fredrik mind you. :) Also - i have a few issues with the name 'fredrik'.

Freaky Fredrik

how can a Prime Minister have such a n attitude. Has zero respect for the history and culture of his own country

Sgt Shultz
01-09-2015, 08:42 AM
wow this world is just..... i dont even know what to say anymore.

proof that politicians are bottom feeders without any redeeming qualities. multiculturalism is, was and always will be a failure

Sadosubliminal
01-09-2015, 09:11 AM
I'm not going to pretend that I have all the answers, but there are definitely advantages to a homogeneous society. Iceland is a prime example of a near-homogeneous population (foreign origin population about 6%) that results in a common set of values and ethics. This could arguably be a primary reason why they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world while having one of the lowest police to civilian ratios in the world. Some like to point to strict gun laws as a contributing factor, I disagree and say that a cohesive society that shares the same values and cares for it's citizens of all classes will not turn into violent criminals just because you give them access to guns. But that's a separate argument.

I am not advocating cultural xenophobia, but there are many theories on building a national identity to include multiculturalism, some more successful than others. If you want to see some examples of failed policies, look to the past. The Soviet Union tried a couple of different formulas, none were particularly effective. In the end, they tried to build a national identity that was anchored in the idea that "we are all Soviets, no matter where you came from". This met with mixed results. Certainly there was a push to racial acceptance, at least officially, not necessarily in practice. Cultural differences were less accepted. They tried to combat insular communities by shuffling people all over the USSR and teaching a common language and set of values.

For many reasons, the USSR collapsed. The results of the national identity policies left many people without a national identity, while just as many gravitated back to their ancestral or original cultures. This resulted in pockets of ethnic similarity within communities, as well as many disenfranchised individuals who could identify with neither their country of origin or the new Russia. They could only identify as "Soviet". Needless to say, the effect was disastrous and sometimes violent divides in the newly-sovereign nations that had regained their independence post-USSR.

So what is the lesson? Why is Iceland able to promote a national identity that is embraced by its citizens while the USSR program failed to unite so many? I think that both insular multiculturalism and geographic size play a role, as well as a push in urban areas towards social isolation.

I don't know what the answer is. I'm certain that, even if Canada was 100% ethnically homogeneous, we'd still find differences in local social ethics and values, simply because of the vast distances separating communities. I do feel that, if we are to be a multicultural society, we should promote local diverse communities more actively. To clarify: I grew up on military bases. Regularly we would have block parties and local events. There was a diverse crowd: people of various cultural backgrounds and races. Yet, because we were regularly socializing, we all got along. We all seemed to share a common set of values and ethics. Going over to your neighbour's house just to chat or lend a hand with a chore was normal. Everyone knew everyone.

Today, I live in the suburbs of Ottawa. I've owned my home for 6 years. I barely know my neighbours, some I've never spoken to (not for lack of trying). I don't socialize with them. I try to be friendly and offer help when the opportunity arises, but there is no social bond. Their kids don't know my kids. There are no events locally to bring us together.

To bring this all back to Iceland, maybe their harmonious society is as a result of being ethnically homogeneous, maybe it is as a result of being more socially cohesive on a local scale, maybe it has to do with differences in their national identity policies to our own, but clearly they are doing something right.

blacksmithden
01-09-2015, 01:47 PM
Thanks again Brian. Watching your segments is always time well spent.

Right Edition
01-09-2015, 03:37 PM
Thanks again Brian. Watching your segments is always time well spent.

Thank you. It us unbelievable that these people are actually teaching our children and running our countries

Sgt Shultz
01-09-2015, 03:47 PM
I'm not going to pretend that I have all the answers, but there are definitely advantages to a homogeneous society. Iceland is a prime example of a near-homogeneous population (foreign origin population about 6%) that results in a common set of values and ethics. This could arguably be a primary reason why they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world while having one of the lowest police to civilian ratios in the world. Some like to point to strict gun laws as a contributing factor, I disagree and say that a cohesive society that shares the same values and cares for it's citizens of all classes will not turn into violent criminals just because you give them access to guns. But that's a separate argument.

I am not advocating cultural xenophobia, but there are many theories on building a national identity to include multiculturalism, some more successful than others. If you want to see some examples of failed policies, look to the past. The Soviet Union tried a couple of different formulas, none were particularly effective. In the end, they tried to build a national identity that was anchored in the idea that "we are all Soviets, no matter where you came from". This met with mixed results. Certainly there was a push to racial acceptance, at least officially, not necessarily in practice. Cultural differences were less accepted. They tried to combat insular communities by shuffling people all over the USSR and teaching a common language and set of values.

For many reasons, the USSR collapsed. The results of the national identity policies left many people without a national identity, while just as many gravitated back to their ancestral or original cultures. This resulted in pockets of ethnic similarity within communities, as well as many disenfranchised individuals who could identify with neither their country of origin or the new Russia. They could only identify as "Soviet". Needless to say, the effect was disastrous and sometimes violent divides in the newly-sovereign nations that had regained their independence post-USSR.

So what is the lesson? Why is Iceland able to promote a national identity that is embraced by its citizens while the USSR program failed to unite so many? I think that both insular multiculturalism and geographic size play a role, as well as a push in urban areas towards social isolation.

I don't know what the answer is. I'm certain that, even if Canada was 100% ethnically homogeneous, we'd still find differences in local social ethics and values, simply because of the vast distances separating communities. I do feel that, if we are to be a multicultural society, we should promote local diverse communities more actively. To clarify: I grew up on military bases. Regularly we would have block parties and local events. There was a diverse crowd: people of various cultural backgrounds and races. Yet, because we were regularly socializing, we all got along. We all seemed to share a common set of values and ethics. Going over to your neighbour's house just to chat or lend a hand with a chore was normal. Everyone knew everyone.

Today, I live in the suburbs of Ottawa. I've owned my home for 6 years. I barely know my neighbours, some I've never spoken to (not for lack of trying). I don't socialize with them. I try to be friendly and offer help when the opportunity arises, but there is no social bond. Their kids don't know my kids. There are no events locally to bring us together.

To bring this all back to Iceland, maybe their harmonious society is as a result of being ethnically homogeneous, maybe it is as a result of being more socially cohesive on a local scale, maybe it has to do with differences in their national identity policies to our own, but clearly they are doing something right.

Unfortunately multiculturalism has been declared by politicians in England ,France and several other European countries a failure due to the fact that many many immigrants do not integrate into the host countries and conform to the countries customs and traditions but try to change the host country to conform to them. Bringing with them their old hatreds and prejudices . Canada has seen this. Mounties traditional uniforms for one. The Air India Bomber from Vancouver for another and their are many more

Stevebot-7
01-09-2015, 04:54 PM
Unfortunately multiculturalism has been declared by politicians in England ,France and several other European countries a failure due to the fact that many many immigrants do not integrate into the host countries and conform to the countries customs and traditions but try to change the host country to conform to them. Bringing with them their old hatreds and prejudices . Canada has seen this. Mounties traditional uniforms for one. The Air India Bomber from Vancouver for another and their are many more
My opinion of it is that multiculturalism is a step in the right direction, but it's just a step and not the destination. The destination is the formation of a new culture, distinct from its predecessors, but hopefully possessing the best traits of them. Social evolution.

Obviously the easiest way to do this is to be homogeneous, like Iceland or Switzerland, but I think it can certainly be accomplished if people are actually willing to learn from each other. I'm not saying to run out and put on a turban and mutilate your daughter, but what I am saying is that we should engage in some reflection to determine why we do the things we do and then discard the things that no longer serve their original purpose. There's a surprising number of things people do just because that's the way they were taught, and they don't really have any good explanation for it.

When I say "we" here I am including everyone, not just us white guys. Most of the problems I see are just from people being insecure, after all if you're unwilling to debate the merits of what you do, then how devoutly do you really believe in it?

Kind of like the good old taboo against premarital sex, we now have a decent understanding of sexually transmitted infections, and how babies are made, and so if we can use reasonable precautions against both then a ban on doing it doesn't really make any sense.

Look at the evolution of guns, for years people were stubborn and used Cordite because they didn't want to adopt the French invention of smokeless gun powder, but after repeated demonstrations and research they adopted it.

Back in the day when we saw people pitch fits and start talking to invisible people we thought they were possessed by supernatural beings and generally lit them on fire or started religions around them, nowadays we have a tentative idea of what's going on in their brains that's causing them to hallucinate.

For example, my running theory on the whole Muslim ban on pork is trichinosis. Or some equivalent thereof. People get sick when they eat pork, so we're going to say that the invisible sky wizard has cursed you and teach all our children to never eat pork. Nowadays if people start getting sick or there's an outbreak of disease we might be able to narrow it down to something like a parasite or bacteria that's causing.

I don't mean to offend anyone, it's obviously other people's fake sky wizards I'm talking about, not yours. Yours is the real deal. ;)

Sgt Shultz
01-09-2015, 06:08 PM
My opinion of it is that multiculturalism is a step in the right direction, but it's just a step and not the destination. The destination is the formation of a new culture, distinct from its predecessors, but hopefully possessing the best traits of them. Social evolution.

Obviously the easiest way to do this is to be homogeneous, like Iceland or Switzerland, but I think it can certainly be accomplished if people are actually willing to learn from each other. I'm not saying to run out and put on a turban and mutilate your daughter, but what I am saying is that we should engage in some reflection to determine why we do the things we do and then discard the things that no longer serve their original purpose. There's a surprising number of things people do just because that's the way they were taught, and they don't really have any good explanation for it.

When I say "we" here I am including everyone, not just us white guys. Most of the problems I see are just from people being insecure, after all if you're unwilling to debate the merits of what you do, then how devoutly do you really believe in it?

Kind of like the good old taboo against premarital sex, we now have a decent understanding of sexually transmitted infections, and how babies are made, and so if we can use reasonable precautions against both then a ban on doing it doesn't really make any sense.

Look at the evolution of guns, for years people were stubborn and used Cordite because they didn't want to adopt the French invention of smokeless gun powder, but after repeated demonstrations and research they adopted it.

Back in the day when we saw people pitch fits and start talking to invisible people we thought they were possessed by supernatural beings and generally lit them on fire or started religions around them, nowadays we have a tentative idea of what's going on in their brains that's causing them to hallucinate.

For example, my running theory on the whole Muslim ban on pork is trichinosis. Or some equivalent thereof. People get sick when they eat pork, so we're going to say that the invisible sky wizard has cursed you and teach all our children to never eat pork. Nowadays if people start getting sick or there's an outbreak of disease we might be able to narrow it down to something like a parasite or bacteria that's causing.

I don't mean to offend anyone, it's obviously other people's fake sky wizards I'm talking about, not yours. Yours is the real deal. ;)

The theoretical is always fanciful and perfect. Reality is people have certain views and beliefs that they will not give up or change, they will not mix our ideas and beliefs with theirs to create some "cultural or belief highbrid" . As for your premarital sex thought.
More than 110 million men and women in the United States have a sexually transmitted infection.

In two studies published online Feb. 13 in the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases, estimates of the prevalence and cost of treating STDs are tallied.

The numbers are not good.
One of the more concerning findings was that there are nearly 20 million new infections each year, and half of those occur among young people (aged 15 to 24).

And the cost of treating STDs is substantial: The lifetime cost of treating 20 million infections a year comes close to $16 billion, the report showed.

Eight STDs were included in the analysis, conducted by researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They included chlamydia, gonorrhea, hepatitis B virus (HBV), herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2), HIV, human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis and trichomoniasis.

One of the more concerning findings was that there are nearly 20 million new infections each year, and half of those occur among young people (aged 15 to 24).

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2013/02/14/more-than-110-million-americans-have-an-std-report

so in your theoretical utopia this wouldn't be the case

kswan
01-10-2015, 01:28 AM
I live here in Sweden and I can say that in most circles Rienfeldt is a hated man. It doesn't take a genius to see what an irresponsible immigration policy this is. As much as I enjoy living in Sweden its time to leave.

Stevebot-7
01-10-2015, 12:45 PM
Yeah, that's an inherent problem with comparing theory to reality. In theory there's no difference, in reality there is. The only way to make it work is by forcing people to do stuff, which kind of ruins the whole "utopia" thing because either you have an overtly oppressive government, or some sort of secret shadow government doing stuff in secret.

Just because we have the capability doesn't mean the average person will use it, like the people who drive around at night with no headlights on, because they don't realize that dash lights are separate from exterior lights. Or the guys who suspect they have HIV or some such, but intentionally keep it a secret. One guy was arrested last year after intentionally infecting over a dozen people, and his defense was "I'd never get laid again if people knew I had HIV."

In my theoretical utopia, people would be aware enough to know when they need to get tested, and then responsible enough to take precautions against infecting anyone else. That way, gradually the number of infected people would drop and hopefully disappear entirely. Which will never happen because people are dumb.

On a more social side, there usually are things that can be learned from other cultures. I think most of the people here will agree that forcing women to cover everything except their eyes is a bit outdated and can likely be replaced with something better.

At the same time, I think most of us can agree that the current Canadian sociopolitical trend of disarming people doesn't work, and thus we should look into better alternatives.

RangeBob
01-10-2015, 07:08 PM
The US Supreme Court has "long recognized the role of the States as laboratories for devising solutions to difficult legal problems," and courts "should not diminish that role absent impelling reason to do so." Oregon v. Ice,555 U.S.160,171 (2009). Indeed, "tis one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." New State Ice Co.v. Liebmann,285 U.S.262,311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
-- https://web.archive.org/web/20130813061556/http://www.skepticallibertarian.com/files/posner.pdf

________________
To demonstrate that people can actually go to the moon and back, you use the American experience.
To demonstrate that public safety is not adversely affected by responsible people carrying to protect life, you use the American experience.
-- CLW.45

Candychikita
01-12-2015, 01:22 PM
The theoretical is always fanciful and perfect. Reality is people have certain views and beliefs that they will not give up or change, they will not mix our ideas and beliefs with theirs to create some "cultural or belief highbrid" . As for your premarital sex thought. More than 110 million men and women in the United States have a sexually transmitted infection.

I liked Stevebots' comments. The thing is about forming a 'new world'...THE PEOPLE need to be able to have a say in what their 'new world' will consist of. I don't think we, as the people, get heard enough and with the correct amount of frequency. The people should be able to vote what they believe...not have the option every 4 years to choose one of a few parties that meets 'most' or 'some' of their beliefs, and deal with years of silent bills being passed. Perhaps with the internet we would be able to get more of our voices heard and collect better that one voice chanting in unison for change? (Eternal optimist here?)

As for the STI comment, people despite the risks go ahead without proper preparations...those STIs could all be classified as "crimes as passion" as their ...critical thinking heads may not be fully engaged heh. As well, some of those are symptomless. Unless people are going regularly for full STI checks and pap tests (which they don't) those symptomless ones are missed. HPV in particular there is no general screening or a blood test that has been approved for Canada, so unless there are symptoms, a person doesn't know they are a carrier...and this clears up by itself according to research. They aren't even certain if a person's body completely clears this STI by itself or if the amount is so low it's indetectable, or if/when it is contagious. This STI is specifically left out of normal CDC studies because there are still a lot of unknowns - using this STI in any study to me nullifies whatever numbers they are trying to come up with. (Yes I totally research nerded out on this...they have a vaccine for female kids, I have internal debate going on here whether to vaccinate something they don't even understand fully yet)