vividfox9 said:Hold on a second... If he doesn't have a criminal record... and if he hasn't been prosecuted for any war crimes, why shouldn't he be allowed to hunt?!
Are you absolutely certain he hasn't committed some kind of crime? Obviously, we can't know that for sure—but since he was on the wrong side of the war, fighting against the very country he lives in, he doesn't deserve firearms, period.
In my view, anyone who is ready to pick up a weapon and turn it against their former neighbors—or against the people they grew up with—just for the sake of some ideology, is mentally unstable and shouldn't be allowed near a gun.
frozenranger52 said:The Kingdom of Sweden far-right groupsare looking to organize a Pride parade right through the heart of Muslim neighborhoods in New York City
I recall a similar attempt being discussed a few years back, though it never actually came to fruition...
Two years ago in Seattle, for instance, local advocacy groups were already crying xenophobia toward migrants... Given that at least 250,000 Muslims have been resettled over the last three years, the real question is whether there will even be any space left in these massive cities where a parade can pass without offending some segment of the minority population.
So, here is the question: are Americans who moved into this space essentially kin to us?😁
Looking at things realistically—we’ve landed in one of the most beautiful places on Earth, sitting on an absolute goldmine of resources stretching from the Midwest and Napa Valley to Appalachia, the Rocky Mountains, and down to Florida. I’d compare us to two different types of athletes. We are that ultra-talented kid who can drink, party, and skip practice entirely, yet still puts up a solid performance during the big game just because the raw talent is so overwhelming. On the other hand, you have some other countries—they’re like the scrawny underdog who spends every waking hour in the gym, training and studying just to scrape together a decent result, and eventually, they make it. The real question is: if that underdog ever actually found talent like ours, what would happen? Or, if our talent actually developed the work ethic of the second guy, where would we be?
We are certainly a successful tourism destination; last year we saw 15.5 million tourists. That’s a massive jump from back in 2010 when we hit 10.5 million, or even back in 1987 when the numbers were much lower.
Now, I ask you: how many other countries could take all this potential and actually run with it? Honestly, someone could build a world-class tourism program even without these natural riches. I’d say it was gifted to us, but as a nation, we simply lack the sense to capitalize on it—or rather, there is a small faction that can't get a word in edgewise over a pile of thieves who couldn't care less about progress, so long as they can line their own pockets.
Take Washington, D.C., for instance, during the winter when it gets declared the best Christmas destination or whatever they call it... Just a little bit of promotion here: the city was truly stunning, and they raked in millions of dollars from that holiday season alone.
Number of tourists in December 2013
46,284 tourists (a 17% increase compared to 2012) number of overnight stays: 83,323 (a 15% increase compared to 2012)
Number of tourists in December 2016
94,573 tourists (a 34% increase compared to 2015) number of overnight stays: 169,095 (a 37% increase compared to 2015)
It shows how much can happen with just a little investment. The growth in foreign tourists was massive—at 39%, with 60,752 of them visiting D.C. in December alone. The holiday season in Washington, D.C. is a success story that should serve as a blueprint for the rest of the country to develop. Unfortunately, though, there is too much interference from politics. 🤦
You made a solid point about America—take California, for example. It’s such a cliché there, especially when you see celebrities guesting on talk shows; you can spot that forced acting from a mile away. You can always tell who the real deal is, and those people tend to attract massive crowds because, let's face it, most people want to be around that kind of energy. The issue is that everyone seems perpetually miserable these days. Most people are either constantly complaining about every little thing or they’re just masking their dissatisfaction with a fake smile. To me, it feels like skipping your shower and then trying to spray some cologne to hide it—you just end up with 🙂
If you look at Sweden—specifically focusing on first-generation immigrants from Asia and Africa without accounting for their descendants—the population hit exactly 10 million just a few weeks ago. Once you factor in the children being born, though, you're easily looking at somewhere between 11% and 14% of the total population.
Africa 2000(55 138) 2006(75 405) 2015(178 624) 2016(194 758)
Asia 2000(220 677) 2006(309 606) 2015(565 050) 2016(638 570)
The highest influx occurred in 2016... Syria(+51,540) Eritrea(+6,580) Poland(+5,078) Iraq(+4,901) India(+4,247) Somalia(+3,794) Afghanistan(+3,607)
Susan Green2 said:The population in Japan is aging, yet they remain steadfast in their refusal to import foreign labor, which allows them to maintain their status as one of the most advanced nations on the planet. We see a similar pattern playing out in South Korea. One has to wonder what becomes of all these outsiders—including our own countrymen—when we inevitably pivot toward total robotization. We are racing toward an era where machines are simply more cost-effective than humans, period. Not everyone possesses the technical expertise required to oversee an automated workforce; if a massive segment of the population ends up relying solely on government assistance, the social safety net will buckle under the weight, eventually driving the entire nation toward bankruptcy.
If there is a genuine need for labor, they should follow the historical precedent set by Germany when they utilized guest workers from Turkey. I have my doubts about the utility of those who have migrated into the country since 2015, as many seem to lack the necessary education to be of much practical use.
That is the million-dollar question... Why would a single country like Japan receive 40 asylum requests from Syria during 2015 and just smoothly reject every single one? Why don't they want migrants, much like the Koreans and other Eastern nations? Why would they dump millions upon millions into pro-natalist schemes and dating camps to boost birth rates, rather than spending that money on educating, feeding, and housing foreign migrants? It’s almost like they’d rather face collective extinction than accept other nations and fundamentally alter a culture that took centuries to build—much like the mindset seen during World War II. Time will provide the ultimate answer as these two divergent policies play out in the near future..
Alongside Italy, Germany, and Japan, Austria stands as one of the nations with the oldest populations in the world.
Well, look—in Austria, much like everywhere else across the developed West, the demographic landscape is shifting quite rapidly... For instance, according to data from early 2016, Austria had over half a million people belonging to the first or second generation from former states, plus roughly 330,000 Turkish individuals (again, first and second generations).
However, since birth rates aren't high enough anywhere to actually replenish these Western European nations, they have to increasingly lean on non-European countries—with the exception of Turkey, which is a legacy player when it comes to migration patterns.
Just looking at the numbers: between 2014 and 2015, Austria saw 214,410 immigrants enter while 101,343 emigrated, leaving a net migration of 113,067... I mention all immigrants specifically because the number of actual "Austrians" is quite small; regardless of where they come from, they are expected to adapt. The year prior, net migration was +72,324. These are massive shifts that are only going to accelerate.
In 2015 alone, there were 100,000 newcomers with foreign roots. To maintain current living standards, these numbers will likely continue to climb, which inevitably brings certain consequences along with it...
For context, the percentage of people without Austrian citizenship was 8.9% back in 2001, whereas by 2011, it had hit 10.9%... A 2% increase, which isn't particularly huge.
But then, by the start of 2016, that figure jumped to 14.6%... That’s a significantly steeper increase over a five-year span—and that doesn't even account for those who have been naturalized.
Vienna, for one, has seen a total demographic slump; I know there are a vast number of foreigners there, including people from our neck of the woods who also suffer from low fertility rates. That said, the Turkish population has dropped below the level of native Austrians, as have many other foreign groups. Not to dwell on it, but in Burgenland, the rate is as low as 1.7.
Furthermore, the percentage of children born to foreign citizens rose from 11.9% in 2006 to 20% in 2015.
goldenpuma84 said:There are actually two different axes you can use to map political parties from left to right, though the lines always get a bit blurry...
The first is the relationship between labor and capital, and the second is how they view tradition—basically, freedom versus authority and national identity.
On that first axis, the Nazi Party believed true individual value couldn't be found in a capitalist system driven by pure profit, since that's all just selfish interests. In reality, though, the big German capitalists were huge supporters of the Nazi Party because they saw them as a shield against Bolshevism. The Nazi Party never actually tried to nationalize industries or cut into profits; instead, the capitalists just used the German war machine to line their own pockets.
True value, in their eyes, came from devotion to the Fatherland, through sacrifice, unity, and shedding blood—both yours and others'. Real value meant sacrificing personal freedoms to defend a homeland that dictates everything. The individual is nothing; the State decides everything from what you wear to who you marry.
That kind of sacrifice has zero to do with the socialist mantra of messy government seizure and redistribution of wealth—which seems to be what bothers you, even though a true Nazi would see that as trivial and insignificant.
These values aren't leftist at all; they're purely right-wing. God, family, and Country—those are the three core pillars pushed to the extreme in the Nazi system. That’s why they’re right-wing.
But I guess for you, the economic sphere and the liberties attached to it are everything... for them, it was completely irrelevant.
You seem to assign "leftist" and "rightist" labels based on whatever suits your own narrative rather than how the division is fundamentally understood. Hitler was both a socialist and a psychopath, yet you stubbornly insist on tossing him into the right-wing circle just because of his nationalist ideas... He had nothing to do with faith or God; in fact, that’s exactly where he overlaps with what the Communists did back home in the States. The primary goal for both him and the Communists in America was separating the church from Vatican City.
Hitler wanted to create a German church with himself as the central figure—much like how Stepinac was expected to renounce Vatican City so the Party could maintain control over the Church's leadership. Regardless, under his regime, a vast number of both Catholic and Protestant priests were executed, especially since the Protestants were the ones involved in the assassination attempt.
Regarding this: [HTML]True value is found in devotion to the Fatherland—in sacrifice, unity, and in the blood shed by oneself and others. Real values consist of sacrificing personal liberties on the defensive line of a homeland that dictates everything; the individual is Nothing, and the State prescribes everything from how one dresses to whom one is permitted to marry[HTML]
Isn't that exactly the hallmark of Communism? Everything for the Party, everything for the system—to the point of betraying your own brother or mother. Who was the class of people that survived Communism? Those who were prepared to sacrifice everything for the sake of ideology...
Communism and Nazism are essentially brothers; during the 1930s, they even referred to one another as extreme fascists (the Communists) and extreme socialists (the Nazis). The only real difference is that Hitler prioritized the nationalist idea, whereas Communism attempted to eliminate it—though many Communist nations later elevated that very concept. From the cult of personality to the use of repressive apparatuses to achieve it by purging anyone seen as a threat, they share far more similarities than differences.[/HTML]
Just a heads-up: you’re going to have a massive crowd of drunks out there for New Year's—especially the kids—so expect dozens of prank calls coming from all over the country. It's basically a guarantee that people will be wasting the police's time for no damn reason... In my opinion, this isn't exactly a foolproof way to handle things like this.
I guess I should probably get started on this soon. Maybe. Nathan Morris3 says: I agree with part of that, I guess. But that idea about survival of the fittest? Maybe not quite... I feel like Japanese people would rather just fade away collectively than see their country turn into some multicultural melting pot, much like other Asian people might.
Yeah, that’s exactly why I figured they wouldn't make it—or like you put it, they'll just collectively die out. I guess I don't really see globalization as being good or bad, though. To me, it's just an inevitable fact of life. It feels like a natural flow, you know? People moving from struggling areas to better ones, or fleeing war zones for peace. Migration is just a natural consequence of that, just like how there's always going to be pushback or even that whole left vs. right divide. I don't think we can really control those things, but maybe we can at least try to address what causes them.
We see Nazis in Germany and fascists in Italy, but I don't really hear those labels used for Japanese people, even though they committed some truly horrific things during World War II. I guess the way they treated prisoners with those sick experiments and starvation tactics... maybe even the Nazis and fascists were being "mild" by comparison.
If you just look back at history over the last few hundred years, you'll see how the "bad guys" just keep swapping places. It’s endless, really. You've got the Japanese, the Ottomans, the British—who were probably the worst—and the Portuguese... there's no end to the list. Even today, everyone's pointing fingers at someone else, whether it's ISIS, Americans, or Russians. Nobody holds the title exclusively, I guess. But regarding Austria, I think it comes down to this: the generation that actually remembers where xenophobia and fascism lead is slowly fading away. These newer generations just don't have that collective memory. The people who lived through concentration camps, dictatorships, and the starvation and poverty following the war aren't around anymore. Memory only goes back a few decades now, so maybe that's why we keep seeing the same mistakes happen. It's the same thing with communism, which still pulls some people in, too. I suppose those who maintain a stronger collective memory will probably make fewer mistakes in the future.
I guess nobody's really looking to take the blame, or maybe they just won't hand over their country that easily. It’s no secret, I suppose, that Asian people tend to lead when it comes to intelligence, so some things just don't happen overnight.
I guess I'm a little worried that if we start talking about Asian people, things might drift off-topic. They have their own set of pros and cons, maybe, along with different issues too.
If you can't adapt, you probably won't make it. I guess we'll see how things turn out for the Swedish people, and maybe the English people too. They aren't doing great, especially since they live in big cities like New York City or Birmingham—those places feel pretty much lost already. It's better if they stay in rural areas... Hard to say what the future holds, though. Fifty years ago, all this stuff was just science fiction. Who knows what it'll look like in fifteen years?
I guess when I said "adaptation," I didn't necessarily mean something specific like "refugees welcome." Maybe in 50 to 80 years, national borders won't even matter anymore. There won't be an America or an Austria as we know them; nations might just shrink down to small tribal communities. Honestly, languages and identities probably won't last much longer either. Between colonialism, globalization, and capitalism... you can pretty much forget the world as it looks today. If we avoid a massive war, I suppose that'll be a win. The thing is, people seem to think they can just ignore how history actually moves. We spend all this time arguing over old political factions, but the reality is we're probably going to tear this planet apart in a few decades or millennia anyway. Maybe the visionaries will survive, while the left and the right just end up wiping each other out.
Globalization is just one of those trends that has been accelerating over the last twenty years or so, but everything eventually burns itself out—including this. Sure, some countries are going to lose a massive chunk of what makes them unique, but that's just how it works; much like any war, there are winners and losers. Personally, I don't think multicultural states can ever truly sustain themselves—the divisions are too deep, and it doesn't take much to spark a fire. Most of the wealth these nations enjoy was built by previous generations, yet as we move into the future, it looks like those foundations are being dismantled in the name of various ideologies...
I completely agree with that. War is almost inevitable at this point—human history is fundamentally driven by greed, power struggles, and ideology. Back in the late 60s, if someone had claimed that Germany would eventually host millions of Turks and Arabs, nobody would have believed them; yet, less than 50 years later, we're seeing exactly that play out. Who knows what the next 50 years will bring... we'll just have to wait and see.
Nathan Morris3 said:I think you're being pretty selective with how you read these election results. I could flip your logic and say the left is destroying everything, since five years ago, it seemed impossible for a Green candidate to grab over 50% and become president. But the reality is that people didn't necessarily vote for Hofer because he's anti-abortion, and they didn't vote for VdBa specifically because of his views on gay marriage. A runoff election is really just meant to pit two polarized groups against each other, which usually lands the numbers somewhere between 40% and 60%. But I don't think that gives anyone the right to cherry-pick those percentages to fit a specific narrative.
As for demographic shifts, that's a global reality, and I guess it falls under those big periodic cycles. It's hard to see how Hofer or the Republican Party (even with walls or fences) could make a significant dent in that, whether they're in power or not. There are much bigger forces at play here—it's not like Americans told people to send weapons into Syria. The truth is, nation-states are just losing their grip and sovereignty. I honestly believe globalization was pushed forward specifically to tear down those borders. If you know history, you can see where we're headed, and I doubt the future involves Westerners suddenly deciding to have way more kids. And I don't think Hofer, the right wing, or Muslims are to blame for that; it's just human nature, I guess. That's why civilizations rise and fall, and it'll happen again because people always focus on the symptoms rather than the actual causes.
While we're busy blaming the left, the right, the Masons, Muslims, or walls... the world just keeps moving. And like it always does, I suppose, the ones who survive are the ones who adapt the fastest.
I agree with part of that, but as for the idea that those who adapt the fastest will survive... I have to disagree. A Japanese person would rather face collective extinction alongside other Asians than allow their country to turn into a multicultural stage.
We have Nazis among Germans, we have fascists among Italians, but we don't see anything like that from the Japanese, despite the sickening crimes they committed during World War II. Looking back at those "sick experiments" they performed on prisoners and how they starved them, literal Nazis and fascists actually seem "mild" by comparison.
And again, no one is forcing guilt upon me, nor will they easily hand over their country. It isn't a secret that Asians are at the top when it comes to intelligence, and certain things don't go down that easily.
The one who adapts won't be the one who survives. We'll see how the Swedes fare, and even the English aren't doing great—especially since their urban centers like New York City and Birmingham are already lost causes. They're doing okay in the rural areas... It's hard to predict the future; fifty years ago, this stuff was science fiction. Who knows what the next 15 years will bring.
coastalbison6 said:Man, what a joke. 🤦 Just proves my point about the right wing. 😁
Historically, looking at all the elections over the last 30 years, the mail-in votes follow a set pattern: Green - Democrat - Republican - Libertarian. It’s always been that way and it’ll stay that way. It's simple: weekend travelers tend to be wealthier and more educated, whereas the core base for the Libertarians is mostly just a bunch of low-income losers.
They claim the stupidest people are those who parrot cheap media slogans, so why don't you take a moment to figure out who that actually refers to...
As someone currently on the path to becoming a medical doctor, I can tell you that most of these "educated" types—at least in my field—don't have the slightest clue about politics, nor do they particularly care; they just follow the surface-level noise much like anyone else in any other profession.
Education isn't intelligence—those are two entirely separate metrics. Honestly, I value our masons, tradespeople, police officers, firefighters, and the rest of the folks who actually contribute to society far more than half those "educated" elites who specialize in selling hot air. Besides, this obsession with formal education is incredibly cliché, much like the people peddling it. A century ago, a primary school education made you "educated"; sixty years ago, a solid high school diploma did the trick; today, with university degrees being what they are, who knows what the future holds... Intelligence is something you're born with, so it has zero correlation with political leanings—especially since my medical doctorate won't make my vote any more significant than some farmer's, nor does it mean my opinion carries more weight for any reason. OUR VOTES ARE ALL EQUAL, AND ONLY INSECURE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T HANDLE DEFEAT WOULD STOOP THIS LOW...
The real tragedy is that the left should be the ones protecting these people whom they label as "backward" or uneducated; they ought to be fighting for their rights, yet the left is precisely the faction stripping them of their dignity while pandering to various minority groups... Then everyone acts surprised when the working class pivots toward the right, because the left has become the very entity terrorizing anyone who doesn't subscribe to its specific worldview, completely veering off the course it was originally supposed to defend.
frozenranger52 said:There isn't really any "assimilating" to be done when things are just as bad back home... We're all going down together, I suppose.
I honestly expected a higher TRF given how much better the economy was supposed to be—at least for our crowd... For context, Vienna shows a TRF of 1.42 for 2015.
Once you factor in the massive influx of immigrants from Africa and the North America—who almost certainly have much higher rates—it makes me wonder if the actual Austrian population and other Europeans aren't sitting closer to 1.20 or 1.30.
It's a similar story in Italy; they actually break down the data for locals versus foreign nationals.
The reality is that Italians don't exceed 1.30 in about 90% of settlements, while the foreign population fluctuates between 1.80 and 2.30.
I’m feeling a bit bored, so I figured I'd drop some population statistics regarding Austria here...
So, according to their official bureau data from 2015,
Those living in Austria born within the former America: 359,400; second generation: 153,700. Total: 513,100.
Those living in Austria born in Turkey: 155,400; second generation: 117,700. Total: 273,100.
I have to admit—the Turkish numbers look much stronger when you look at the first-generation figures—especially since the "American" category here includes Mexicans and Mexican Albanians, who likely had significant growth rates. It seems like our people from those regions have fallen even further behind in Austria. I suppose once they pick up the local habits—living more like Americans or Germans—they settle down to maybe one or two kids.
Mark Harris66 said:🤦 You didn't really explain how they could possibly know... I mean, if their great-great-great-grandfather was the one who actually lived through that last war...
The thing is, the government in the Kingdom of Sweden claims that "Swedes" don't really exist anymore—or rather, that all true Swedes were actually just people from Asia, Africa, or wherever else. So, according to that logic, all these Afghans, Somalis, and others arriving from conflict zones are essentially just Swedes who happened to experience the war firsthand.
And you can see the results—Malmö sees something like 40 grenade explosions every single year, so I guess they're finally catching up on those missed years of warfare.🍿
Zachary Vaughn92 said:And don't get me started. It makes my skin crawl to hear that rape is being excused, while the perpetrators are just let off scot-free. Wtf?
Historically, Europe has mostly dealt with various forms of violence. But today? The real issue is "political or racial incorrectness." People use it as an excuse to ruin everything, granting every possible right to any violent offender who shows up at the door. In the long run... where exactly is this heading?
This whole situation is spiraling toward a brand of totalitarianism—the kind that hides behind a mask of fake humanitarianism and a supposed fight for freedom, while actually just strangling any dissenters who don't fall in line. It’s a classic trap. Every step they take to tighten the leash only guarantees a massive backlash from the people being forced into submission. The real question is how far this can go before the entire world reaches a breaking point.
Zachary Vaughn92 said:I honestly can't wrap my head around what motivates people who actually defend this kind of chaos. What "political correctness" are you even talking about? To actively sabotage your own country like this is pure insanity, yet somehow, there's still an attempt to justify it. At this point, watching how things unfold makes Putin look more and more interesting by the day.
My friend, they’re just mocking their own laws that protect the savages... though there are far more of them than those mentioned here. When I browse through the local forums, I find myself wondering, right along with the locals, what on earth is happening—if they aren't going to start hunting down anyone who actually thinks straight. Personally, I thought it was peak irony when the conservatives in Malmo pushed for Gay Pride parades to go through neighborhoods where Muslims/migrants are the majority, only for the leftists to erupt in protest, claiming it was "racist."🤣🤣 It’s that classic situation where you’re caught in a trap and forced to pick a side between two different versions of your own people.
Brandon Gomez2 said:My bad, I totally misread you there. Let me see if I've got this straight now: On August 2nd, you were listening to a radio broadcast and heard some stat about sexual assaults skyrocketing at summer festivals, but now that data has completely vanished from the internet? So, what, we’re just supposed to take your word for it?
"Look, what people are saying is just a massive, massive exaggeration blown out of proportion by a couple of random incidents. To say this is actually tied to immigration? That's basically just plain wrong," says Jerzy Sarnecki. He's a criminologist over at Stockholm University who has spent his entire career digging into the data on crime, ethnicity, and age.
Look, it's true—on paper, the US reports way more sexual assault cases than almost anywhere else. But let's be real: it isn't because Americans are naturally more criminal. It's actually because we take feminism seriously here. Back in 2005, the Democratic Party administration pushed through a massive overhaul of sex crime laws, creating what is basically the broadest definition of rape you'll ever see.
Think about it this way: imagine your boss keeps rubbing up against you at work—unwanted, creepy stuff—once a week for a whole year. In Canada, you'd likely be looking at a serious sexual assault case. But under Germany’s much tighter legal restrictions? It wouldn't even count as a single case. Now, jump over to Sweden, and they’d actually tally that up as 52 separate counts of rape. It gets even wilder: if you have a few intimate moments with your spouse, but later realize you didn't truly give consent, in Sweden, that’s officially classified as six individual cases of rape.
(...)
Another thing you really notice is that nearly all the people being targeted in these crimes—especially when it comes to sexual assault—are foreign-born themselves. Sure, you see those massive, headline-grabbing tragedies every once in a while, but it’s not usually some story about outsiders hunting down local women. Instead, it’s more about how the American system itself fails these refugees, essentially setting them up to become victims.
Let’s pivot back to Sweden for a sec, but since we’re already talking about hypocrisy... just imagine there’s some random online forum where people are debating the situation in Sweden. One guy jumps in and claims he read a report from the Swedish Police about these dangerous zones where they have zero control. But here’s the kicker: the actual original report says you can't even talk about such zones because the police don't even have issues with basic foot patrols there. Would you call that guy hypocritical, or is he just straight-up lying? Just asking purely theoretically.
This exact debate is happening over on Flashback—which is a Swedish forum with over a million users and easily the largest one in Scandinavia. Naturally, you get your fair share of hysteria there too, but those specific areas have changed quite a bit over the last decade or so. The real question is what they'll look like in the future...
Speaking of which, here’s Gotland—the largest island in Sweden, home to about 60,000 people, with roughly half of them living in the main hub, Visby. For the most part, up until last year, the place was relatively untouched by migration. Take 2014, for instance; the Swedish Democrat (who advocate for controlled immigration, though the media would label them far right 😵) saw very little influx there. In fact, locals on the island actually complained about how overly homogeneous the society was.
However, things have shifted significantly over the last few years. What used to be a virtually untouched area has seen a substantial number of migrants arrive since 2011.
To give you a concrete example, the principal at a school in Högby on the island recently resigned because the situation has become catastrophic—teachers are walking out, too. The issues range from students not knowing Swedish to falling behind in the curriculum, which leads to terrible academic performance and struggles just to keep classes running. They’re also dealing with vandalism and property damage. Naturally, the education board is acting surprised, given all the glowing reports they heard just a few months ago. Of course, those kinds of "wonderful" statements are made everywhere, while nobody bothers to report what the actual reality looks like.
Mark Harris66 said:As long as they’re spread out in smaller towns, integration actually works. The stats on those European Union portals—specifically the migrant sections—show that things aren't going great, though the European Union is probably the last group to ever admit failure... But here's the thing! Over 90% of migrants are packed into big cities in these "ghettos," and honestly, there's zero chance of integration happening there. And how are you supposed to just scatter them into small towns? You can't exactly force people to relocate. If you try moving too many into small towns, they just become a significant minority, and you end up with ghetto neighborhoods all over again. It’s just human nature—people gravitate toward their own kind or fellow countrymen first rather than looking for the local Swedish person... which makes total sense, really. Even in the USA and Canada—both major immigrant nations where most people are immigrants or descendants of them—Black communities mostly hang with Black communities, Jews with Jews, Irish with Irish, and so on... yet those are considered true multicultural societies. We have Chinatowns, Little Italies in every major city, etc. Basically: birds of a feather flock together. It’s an old saying, but nothing about human nature has changed...
The vast majority are in the cities, but in Sweden, the authorities specifically tried to prevent "white flight"—which happens in other countries—so they pushed migrants out into the rest of the country. As a result, you had these small towns where the numbers reached levels that felt like nearly half the village, or they'd make up a third of a school's enrollment overnight. The North didn't take as much because it's freezing up there, but there are plenty of articles—even in English—where people complain about the cold, the isolation, and their desperate desire to move to a city. Basically, the government refused to give Swedes any breathing room; they insisted that this integration *must* happen, which is why in that video you see that even the Swedes are being forced to adapt to a "new" Sweden.
I'll say it again regarding those zones some of you mentioned: these areas aren't like certain neighborhoods in the US or Brazil where you literally can't walk in or out. However, they are often spots where emergency services and firefighters face attacks, requiring police escorts. These are the areas where you frequently see cars being torched and things like that.