European Immigrant Crisis

[Shiva]

No, not really. You make it sound like there's someone enforcing decisions for everyone else on no other basis aside of just because they can, and it's not like that at all. In fact, I'd say that people in charge argue way too much about what needs to be done and take way too long to actually come to a decision. If anything, that's a sign of a healthy democratic system based on debate and argument.  :P

I'm not a native Swede, but I did spend some time in that country and I have real life Swede acquaintances, so I am somewhat familiar with the way things are there. What I can say is that the view you quote is pretty specific to them in particular. I am not in a position to argue whether or not it is correct. However, I invite you to try traveling to many countries within the union, particularly eastern ones, and tell them they don't have a culture. You'll be in for a rough time.  :P There's actually a pretty strong uprising of ultra-nationalistic tendencies in some of those countries, claiming to defend precisely the culture and tradition of the people there from the many evils of globalization.

As far as I'm concerned, both sides of this loud coin are made of opportunistic dimwits that crave their moment of glory, but I think they're roughly akin to dogs barking on the side of the road while the bear keeps lumbering along.

I know eastern European countries don't do that, but they're also hated by the EU to no end. The EU is exactly the same as the Swedish government. That's why they push for such genocidal immigration policies, do everything they can to silence reports of widespread rape of European women, and rampant crime.

[gaggedLouise]

I guess it's not a big deal, really. For the sake of argument here, I've searched for an example. This video is from an official, political gathering where even the King was present. This woman is some kind of respected historian.

'There is no native Swedish culture': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eajx2iUWlFQ. At 1:40 in the video, she says "The idea that there would be a uniform, native culture with roots in ancient history is not based on facts." She is talking about Swedish culture.

Of course, I can't search for every instance where similar statements are made. It happens in various interviews, TV shows, news articles, etc., that might originally be about something else such as immigration.

Native Swede here. I saw her remarks on live tv and most of that event back in late 2015, and I agree her point of view is extreme, it is not really viable and has a heavy political bias. The whole event felt troubling to me, it had the shut-in, aggressively self-righteous and hectoring feel of a propaganda rally, or even a religious cult meeting, and most of those invited were, as we say, preaching to the choir (both in the conference hall and people expected to be watching on live tv). Ms Lomfors was definitely stating that there is no such thing (and never has been) as any native Swedish culture with historical continuity and soem degree of inner unity, and any limits of its own towards what gets picked up from other cultures, other ethnicities. She was effectiveky saying:what some people call Swedish culture is a hotch-potch of randomly picked up notions, food recipes, habits and manners, all originating abroad and all combined essentially at random. Nobody questioned this at the staged event, where top politicians, officials and government ministers, even the prime minister, the king and queen were present. :(

In most countries, you wouldn't get away with saying that at a high-profile event on national tv or radio without facing a barrage of serious and intelligent criticism, from politicians, academics and ordinary people. In Sweden at the time, there was very little open criticism of what she had said in the mainstream media, criticism surfaced in the social media instead, and it came from common people. Also from *some* extreme-right-wing politicians of course, but the bulk of the reaction came from ordinary people who saw the hypocrisy and weak factual basis of what Lomfors was saying. When some of the critical response reached her, she responded in straw man fashion, roughly: "what I was saying was that Swedish culture and social norms nowadays are not the same as they were a thousand years ago, or five thousand years ago - are you people claiming that most Swedes still think, work and behave like our forefathers did in the Viking age, or in the stone age?". :D

I think it's fair to say that many people on the upper levels of mainstream politics and media at the time, at the height of the 2015 migrant crisis, either vaguely agreed with her, or felt her statements were faulty but a too hot potato to touch.

I would add that Ingrid Lomfors is a highly controversial figure who has been recruited (handpicked?) for several high-profile posts in the museums and academic history sector, and has been fired or forced to leave most of them, one after the other, after controversial statements or conflicts with the personnel she was supposed to lead. Many of her statements and projects have been about presenting a guilt-tripping narrative of the modern history of Sweden, on weak or clearly biased grounds, and for some reason ordinary people seem to react to this more strongly than politicians do.  ??? Her remarks at that 2015 conference would have been judged as extreme in most western countries (if they had been about the majority culture of the country in question); in Sweden they were in tune with what some elite people expected, but since 2015 both the political climate and the discussion in the media have adjusted a bit. I don't think she could have made those statements today at a top-brass event without a *lot* of openly voiced criticism afterwards.

[gaggedLouise]

Also, while Lomfors doesn't say simply "there is no native Swedish culture" - period - she had that sentence on a power-point sheet above her as part of the "keynotes" of her address. Inhemsk in Swedish has both senses of "rooted in" and "historically based in, belonging with, developed by a region or a people" (even if certain impulses and ingredients were originally imoorted from abroad).

Picture here: https://twitter.com/hannarothelius/status/653514265656184832

The text on the power-point translates as:

Immigration is nothing new
We are all a consequence of immigration
There is no /such thing as a/ native Swedish culture

[Skynet]

I know eastern European countries don't do that, but they're also hated by the EU to no end. The EU is exactly the same as the Swedish government. That's why they push for such genocidal immigration policies, do everything they can to silence reports of widespread rape of European women, and rampant crime.

Okay, this is what I was worried about. You're literally repeating "great replacement/white genocide" propaganda. Immigration is not a form of ethnic cleansing, at least not in the way it's being done in most European nations. The bulk of Syrian refugees are in Turkey and Lebanon, and a much smaller fraction are in Europe. In comparison with the 300+ million number figure of Europe, many North African and Middle Eastern immigrants are nowhere near in high enough numbers to kill off or out-reproduce the white population.

It may be a bit long, but I encourage readers here to watch the below video. "The Great Replacement" was popularized by Lauren Southern and various alt-right figures, and it has a lot of factual errors.

[Shiva]

Okay, this is what I was worried about. You're literally repeating "great replacement/white genocide" propaganda. Immigration is not a form of ethnic cleansing, at least not in the way it's being done in most European nations. The bulk of Syrian refugees are in Turkey and Lebanon, and a much smaller fraction are in Europe. In comparison with the 300+ million number figure of Europe, many North African and Middle Eastern immigrants are nowhere near in high enough numbers to kill off or out-reproduce the white population.

It may be a bit long, but I encourage readers here to watch the below video. "The Great Replacement" was popularized by Lauren Southern and various alt-right figures, and it has a lot of factual errors.

I have no idea who this Lauren Southern is, and I don't know about any propaganda. Unless you live here and see it, you can't really make statements about it and call it 'propaganda'.

[gaggedLouise]

In comparison with the 300+ million number figure of Europe, many North African and Middle Eastern immigrants are nowhere near in high enough numbers to kill off or out-reproduce the white population.

More like 600 million people (excluding Russia, not because I wouldn't see Russia as a European country, but for other reasons here) :)

[Quick Ben]

Counterpoint.

Immigration can be used to displace or change a native populace. I'm sure the Native American Indians would have liked to have better means to prevent European settlers, conquerors, colonizers, immigrants, whatever word you would like to use, from coming into mainland American and effectively cleansing them from the northern part of the continent. The idea isn't that a native culture is displaced tomorrow, it's that it happens 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, or more years down the line.

[Quick Ben]

mainland America*

[Skynet]

I have no idea who this Lauren Southern is, and I don't know about any propaganda. Unless you live here and see it, you can't really make statements about it and call it 'propaganda'.

Wikipedia article.

Also the whole "unless you lived here" only goes so far. News and word of mouth exists. Many UK people say that the concept of "no-go zones" in their country do not exist, or are at least twisted in intention ("places where police only travel to in groups" is viewed as "police gave up entire neighborhoods to be self-policed by immigrants"). I don't live in say Norway, but I know for a fact that it's not a Communist police-state like some on the alt-right allege.

Counterpoint.

Immigration can be used to displace or change a native populace. I'm sure the Native American Indians would have liked to have better means to prevent European settlers, conquerors, colonizers, immigrants, whatever word you would like to use, from coming into mainland American and effectively cleansing them from the northern part of the continent. The idea isn't that a native culture is displaced tomorrow, it's that it happens 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, or more years down the line.

The fact that there's less white people percentage-wise in the US is not evidence of ethnic cleansing. Ethnic makeup changes via non-violent means all the time, whether it's due to inter-racial marriages, cultural exchanges breaking down barriers and creating new

Are any EU countries committing plans to sterilize indigenous Caucasian Europeans Or Americans? Are said white people being rounded up and placed on reservations? Are immigrants conducting biological warfare via the spreading of plagues? Are there boarding schools being set up by said immigrants to take the children of white parents away, forcing them to give up speaking English, and banning practice of their ancestral religions and Christianity?

This was all government policy by the USA, and not just sudden, but gradual. I haven't heard of anything coming close to EU member states, save via things against minority populaces (Roma people being sterilized in the Soviet Union).

Another thing is that Middle Eastern immigrants have been coming to the West for decades. Germany has had a significant Turkish population since the 70s, and some Scandinavian countries had Iraqi refugees living there for just as long. Their countries are still majority their native ancestry (if we can apply a concept of "native European" to a huge diverse melting pot that is the continent) and not majority Arab/Turk/etc. The Syrian Refugee Crisis is but a recent development brought on by US foreign military policy shaking up their homeland, and adoption of "immigration equals ethnic cleansing" rhetoric is ironically going to lead to the popularization of the continuation of said hawkish foreign policy.

Also, why would an EU government undertake policies to kill off a majority of its citizens in favor of a minuscule immigrant population? Even long-term?

[Lustful Bride]

Counterpoint.

So do hispanic Whites not count as being white? Why?

Another thing is that Middle Eastern immigrants have been coming to the West for decades.

Wasn't it also a thing that until recently certain types of middle eastern had to classify themselves as white in the census? I think that probably changed things as well.

[TheGlyphstone]

I know eastern European countries don't do that, but they're also hated by the EU to no end. The EU is exactly the same as the Swedish government. That's why they push for such genocidal immigration policies, do everything they can to silence reports of widespread rape of European women, and rampant crime.

Also, why do certain nationalist groups have an obsession with inventing 'rape epidemics' as the frontline of their anti-immigrant rhetoric?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/

[TheGlyphstone]

(And on an unrelated note, are we even still discussing the thread topic anymore?)

[Skynet]

(And on an unrelated note, are we even still discussing the thread topic anymore?)

(No. I may request a thread split into conspiracy theories about immigration leading to ethnic cleansing)

[Vekseid]

This thread probably does need to be split, yes.

Counterpoint.

Immigration can be used to displace or change a native populace. I'm sure the Native American Indians would have liked to have better means to prevent European settlers, conquerors, colonizers, immigrants, whatever word you would like to use, from coming into mainland American and effectively cleansing them from the northern part of the continent. The idea isn't that a native culture is displaced tomorrow, it's that it happens 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, or more years down the line.

There are several sorts of paths an immigrating population can go down.

-> They can straight up conquer (Magyars, Lombards, Normans, Romans, Turks, Japanese, etc). Surprisingly little genetic mixing actually ends up occurring, many of the conquered people end up as a part of the new conquering upper class.

-> Colonization and elimination of indigenous people. 'Genocide'. This only happens when the population density of the region is extremely low, such as with islands or the continental US north of the Rio Grande.  Even a lot of historical claimed genocides, such as by the Mongols, there is no evidence of genetic replacement. They only had a genetic impact on places they occupied for centuries.

-> Immigration as an outcast group. A minority group migrates, but refuses to integrate with the larger society, actively fomenting a hostile relationship with it. There are a number of these - even in the United States - but the most famous group is the Roma.

-> Immigration as an integrating group. The modern United States was literally built this way, though groups might temporarily be considered semi-outcasts (Italians, Irish, Polish, and now Spanish) the overall trend is for the culture to integrate, and the nation absorbs them.

I am not, under any circumstances, going to claim that a blanket refugee acceptance policy is wise. History tells us what happens if you don't force an immigrating populace to integrate.

Fortunately some countries are making more of an effort to force this, but I think the long-term trend for Europe is that unless decisive action is taken in the next couple decades, there are going to be a lot of hostile outcast groups in Europe that are going to be marginalized and used as evidence and platforms for far-right forces to take power.

[RedRose]

Vicious circle… You can't force people to integrate - if you do, the next generations will reject it even more. But if you have many non integrated people, then they are rejected by others often, which turns into them rejecting the others...

The truth is probably between the horrible news some sites broadcast, and the angelic ones others do. It's also VERY location dependent. In France the problem of poor suburbs didn't start with migrants but decades before. Migrants add another layer to a complicated situation. I won't deny some places have gotten scary, as in "woah omg what's happening".

[Vekseid]

Yeah I'm not sure 'forced' is the best directive.

I think EU leadership sees the US eating cultures and nations (nations as in people) whole, "How hard can it be?" We have massive, pervasive institutions that facilitate integration here.

A lot of kids in Hispanic communities here speak only English to each other and only Spanish with their parents. We've developed a culture of assimilation in the United States and it has only gotten more effective over the past century. The Spanish -> English transition is occurring far faster than in previous migrant waves. Hell, when I was a kid in primary school - not even ten - there was a Mexican immigrant in our class. He really struggled. Meanwhile the children of Mexicans now speak far more fluent English, at a far younger age, in areas where because of their parents they could get away with not speaking English period.

It's still painful, though. We haven't escaped political blowback or inter-community strife (Tampa, etc).



Meanwhile I'm not aware of any major language/cultural promotion by any non-Anglophone country outside of France. And even that's more outwardly directed.

[RedRose]

Some people have an interest to prevent integration, either because it suits their anti-France agenda, or their extreme right wing agenda, or because they see it as compromising their religion etc. Really complicated for the young generation. The older generation wanted to integrate sometimes to a fault, accepting ill treatment.

[gaggedLouise]

Yeah I'm not sure 'forced' is the best directive.

I think EU leadership sees the US eating cultures and nations (nations as in people) whole, "How hard can it be?" We have massive, pervasive institutions that facilitate integration here.

A lot of kids in Hispanic communities here speak only English to each other and only Spanish with their parents. We've developed a culture of assimilation in the United States and it has only gotten more effective over the past century. The Spanish -> English transition is occurring far faster than in previous migrant waves. Hell, when I was a kid in primary school - not even ten - there was a Mexican immigrant in our class. He really struggled. Meanwhile the children of Mexicans now speak far more fluent English, at a far younger age, in areas where because of their parents they could get away with not speaking English period.

It's still painful, though. We haven't escaped political blowback or inter-community strife (Tampa, etc).



Meanwhile I'm not aware of any major language/cultural promotion by any non-Anglophone country outside of France. And even that's more outwardly directed.

Yep, I would agree that many EU countries vastly underestimate the need for a shared language (and a both powerful and flexible education system) to integrate and unify a country, and to protect it (or strengthen it) against social disintegration, poverty and outbreaks of violence. And for institutions giving a broad backing of this language bond. Belgium for instance is practically a state split down the middle by the language rift, French-speaking Belgians (wallons) and Flemish each have their own sets of colleges, universities, newspapers, tv channels, learned societies, political parties; even the police forces are largely separate. There is little real sense of unity - and added to that there is an immigrant population of mostly Arabic-speakers who see no reason to identify with Belgium as a country, or even with either of the two language/ethnic blocs: many of them exist outside of that, and often in poverty and resentment. Of course this is an unstable and dangerous situation, but for political reasons almost nobody wants to address the wider problem.

Sweden has had a similar blindness to this, for reasons that are hard to disentangle. I would say it's largely about political positioning and *cough* a political class that seems both inept, unaware of history and unwilling to face challenges, but also about some kind of national inferiority complex - and a compensating wish to be seen as a moral great power. This climate has had some consequences that are downright bizarre, and for many years it's been taboo to discuss the risks of inter-ethnic "imported" racism among immigrant communities, or the risk of importing/facilitating terrorism or violent crime.

One Swedish politican famously said in 2014, during election season, that "if you ride the Stockholm subway then you're a Swede, period", the implication being that destructive cultural baggage is automatically left behind at the country border and that anyone asking for more robust means of integration or assimiliation into a cultural spectrum that makes sense for Sweden could be dismissed as a crypto-racist. At the time, and into 2015, few high-level politicians openly questioned this nitwit idea. Staying on message against "racism" was seen as much more important than addressing real and long-term problems and a lack of true integration. Many people who see themselves as spokesmen for the left, or as liberals, are still sticking with this concept and many of them also think Ms Lomfors (in the video clip at the top of the thread) was completely right in declaring that there is no such thing as a Swedish culture with an inner continuity or concepts and habits of its own, a real history of its own. Meanwhile, the anti-immigration party has practically doubled in every election since 2002 and has become the elephant in the room to many politicians and media people. The simple reason is: their rhethoric pulls in many of those who register that mainstream politicians are doing too little, or nothing at all, about the challenges of migration and globalization. It's quite the same mechanism that took Donald Trump to the White House, isn't it?


Also, I think the EU's approach to these questions is politically broken, and people all over Europe are seeing this and noticing the unbalanced, toxic fallout produced by this political paralysis. :(

[Lustful Bride]

Yeah I'm not sure 'forced' is the best directive.

I think EU leadership sees the US eating cultures and nations (nations as in people) whole, "How hard can it be?" We have massive, pervasive institutions that facilitate integration here.

Plus integration is part of our culture as well and seen in many places. "The American melting pot/salad"  "E Pluribus Unum" (out of many we are one) that you get people like me who genuinely believe in the American dream available for all people and that with time and effort anyone and everyone can be an American if they wish it :P

Once someone (of any race creed or faith) swears their loyalty to the US they are an American as far as I am concerned :P

[Lustful Bride]

Plus integration is part of our culture as well and seen in many places. "The American melting pot/salad"  "E Pluribus Unum" (out of many we are one) that you get people like me who genuinely believe in the American dream available for all people and that with time and effort anyone and everyone can be an American if they wish it :P

Once someone (of any race creed or faith) swears their loyalty to the US they are an American as far as I am concerned :P

I could probably explain this better. But what I mean is you get people who truly believe in the cause of integration and welcoming outsiders in, making them part of the community and this in turn (when large enough) can foster a positive feedback, instead of the Negative feedback that the Alt Right is trying to foster through fear. Enough people working together for a positive change can do wonders.

*gets down off the soapbox*

[TheGlyphstone]

Plus integration is part of our culture as well and seen in many places. "The American melting pot/salad"  "E Pluribus Unum" (out of many we are one) that you get people like me who genuinely believe in the American dream available for all people and that with time and effort anyone and everyone can be an American if they wish it :P

Once someone (of any race creed or faith) swears their loyalty to the US they are an American as far as I am concerned :P

I wonder if the fundamental age of the two groups matters to that end. America had less than 200 years from the first English colony to the American Revolution, and even till then the colonists defined themselves mostly as Englishmen, and we've had another 250 years since then to form a cohesive identity. The European Union is only 25 years old, and some of its constituent states have the better part of 1000 years worth of identity behind them prior to that. There wasn't a whole lot of difference between a Massachusetts resident and a Connecticut resident and a Rhode Island resident, but the English/French/Spanish fought wars against each other (when their royalty wasn't intermarrying, and sometimes even then). "The Other' being a threat to 'Us' has far more...inertia...for lack of a better term, in the collective European zeitgeist. So what worked for America is proving to work very poorly in Europe.

[gaggedLouise]

I wonder if the fundamental age of the two groups matters to that end. America had less than 200 years from the first English colony to the American Revolution, and even till then the colonists defined themselves mostly as Englishmen, and we've had another 250 years since then to form a cohesive identity. The European Union is only 25 years old, and some of its constituent states have the better part of 1000 years worth of identity behind them prior to that. There wasn't a whole lot of difference between a Massachusetts resident and a Connecticut resident and a Rhode Island resident, but the English/French/Spanish fought wars against each other (when their royalty wasn't intermarrying, and sometimes even then). "The Other' being a threat to 'Us' has far more...inertia...for lack of a better term, in the collective European zeitgeist. So what worked for America is proving to work very poorly in Europe.

Very true; also the US is protected by oceans on both sides, and by huge expanses of inhospitable land both to the south and at the Canada/Alaska route - the original native paleo-Americans entered that way but no major migration has gone down that route since. Europe is much more exposed to her neighbours: there are several routes that are fairly easy to use both for migrations and for military invasions.

As long as the Cold War lasted this didn't matter so much, the iron curtain and heavily guarded borders both in Europe and in the Middle East made it difficult to get onto long journeys as an asylum seeker or a migrant from outside. And travel was expensive at that time. But after 1990 and with the internet and cheap travel, it's become relatively much easier to travel thousands of miles through Africa, Asia or Russia and into the EU. It's still dangerous in some places, but not near as daredevil dangerous as even a journey from Poland to West Germany without permission (hard to get) would have been in the 1970s or 1980s.

[Skynet]

I wonder if the fundamental age of the two groups matters to that end. America had less than 200 years from the first English colony to the American Revolution, and even till then the colonists defined themselves mostly as Englishmen, and we've had another 250 years since then to form a cohesive identity. The European Union is only 25 years old, and some of its constituent states have the better part of 1000 years worth of identity behind them prior to that. There wasn't a whole lot of difference between a Massachusetts resident and a Connecticut resident and a Rhode Island resident, but the English/French/Spanish fought wars against each other (when their royalty wasn't intermarrying, and sometimes even then). "The Other' being a threat to 'Us' has far more...inertia...for lack of a better term, in the collective European zeitgeist. So what worked for America is proving to work very poorly in Europe.

Part of it is that the USA has Jus soli, or birthright-based citizenship, where whether or not being born on US soil qualifies you as being part of the greater national collective. Contrast this to other nations whose foundation may have a more specific cultural or ethnic identity. For Israel, the Right of Aliya grants any Jew from around the world the right to live and apply for citizenship. The process is far from simple, but there's a sense of collective identity tied not so much to land as ancestry or other things.

Jus soli is a minority among citizenship-based laws. According to the map on Wikipedia, almost all of said countries are in the Americas. I can't quote, but in Japan there's a small underclass of Zainichi Koreans whose parents and grandparents were taken to the country as slaves during World War 2. Although they were born and raised in Japan, most of them are not considered legal citizens. And given that most Zainichi Koreans' homelands are now in North Korea, they don't have as much incentive to return.

[midnightblack]

-> Immigration as an outcast group. A minority group migrates, but refuses to integrate with the larger society, actively fomenting a hostile relationship with it. There are a number of these - even in the United States - but the most famous group is the Roma.

The group mentioned constitutes about 3% of my country's population. Throughout most of our history, they used to form a kind of underclass and fill the roles of artisans, entertainers, house-keepers and such. When the communists took over, they completely tore down the social hierarchy and put everyone in the "working class". The country never fully recovered from that, and neither did this group. In cities they usually have warded areas around the outskirts, which are effectively no-go zones as the crime rate is extremely high. In rural areas they either form a parasite community that harasses a larger group or they live on their own out of illegal activities in areas that are once more best avoided. Just recently we've had a rash of good old-fashioned banditry in a more remote part of the country, with groups of these people lurking in the forests and ambushing drivers that would happen to pull over for a break or such.

Anyhow, what I've found amusing (albeit in a twisted way), is that back in the 90s we were constantly pointed out by civilized Europe as an example of how to fail at integrating a minority. There was a lot of "you should do this and that" and plenty of "you can't be accepted here or there unless you fix this problem". In any case, fast forward to the  00s, we entered the EU and got the right to travel freely throughout its borders. A lot of people moved westward in search for a better life, and so did many of these folks. As was pretty much expected, they ended up mired in exactly the same kind of crime-life which they did here anyway, but with significantly higher returns, as western countries were much richer. Going on a few years further, the exact same countries pointing the finger in the past got annoyed with the situation, accused that community of being unable to integrate and even requested for us to take them back, which is illegal. I believe that in the UK they ultimately resorted to paying the most annoying ones just to leave and never come back. lol.

I'm fairly certain that the situation I presented in the first paragraph is quite similar to the reality facing african or middle-eastern groups that have failed to adapt to western life. Maybe not in terms of causes leading up to it, but there are certainly parallels in behavior and political failure. I've traveled enough in the west to get a first-hand impression of things, so while I don't claim to be all-knowledgeable, it's the least convoluted assumption that doesn't involve occult conspiracies about neomarxists actively seeking to purge Europe of its native population.  By this point I honestly don't care anymore if I sound insulting to someone, so I'll affirm that stating western politicians actively push for genocidal immigration policies, do everything they can to silence reports of widespread rape of European women, and rampant crime is just delusional and paranoid, and if you really believe that then you are probably caught in the web of some manipulators that you should probably avoid from now on. For example, pointing out the rape of a local woman by an immigrant is very impactful emotionally and creates a besieged "us versus them" mindset, especially if you (intentionally) forget to mention that most rapes are carried out by men of the native group anyway.  ::)

In short, it's a very complicated problem involving human beings, and there is no short-term solution that wouldn't require crimes against humanity in some form or another. It would take a generation-long effort to sort it out, provided there is willingness on all sides involved.

[Shiva]

Wikipedia article.

Also the whole "unless you lived here" only goes so far. News and word of mouth exists. Many UK people say that the concept of "no-go zones" in their country do not exist, or are at least twisted in intention ("places where police only travel to in groups" is viewed as "police gave up entire neighborhoods to be self-policed by immigrants"). I don't live in say Norway, but I know for a fact that it's not a Communist police-state like some on the alt-right allege.

There is no conspiracy when you live here and see all the news unfolding over an extended period of time. When you put it all together, it looks really bad. When you just look at parts of it or look at it from the outside, it doesn't look bad at all. It's very much about 'unless you live here', because it radically changes your perception.

I know that there is an alt-right and they are severely exaggerating, but so is the left about how safe and good everything is—that is also severely exaggerated, because things are not safe and not good here.

Our national / independence day has been hijacked by politicians that remove most aspects of Swedish culture and replace it with middle eastern culture. Here is an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms0wNrBt3QU

The 'no-go zones' are in the shift from 'places where police only travel to in groups' to 'police gave up entire neighborhoods to be self-policed by immigrants', because now we're seeing more and more Sharia police that patrol the streets of certain suburbs instead, and police either don't bother or don't have the resources, because all the money goes to immigrant welfare.

As for the 'Communist police-state', it might not be what it was at the beginning of the 1900s, but it surely isn't gone. Key individuals of mainstream media are Maoists and Stalinist, there are thought police on the internet that hunt people down on Facebook for new and old comments they make about immigrants (see #jagärhär, researchgruppen, etc.), and over a million of our elderly are now starving and living below the poverty line because of this reckless immigration.

So, I'm sorry. I doesn't really matter what you say, nothing will change what reality is.