Posts by Noah Sullivan

Well, my response to Headbanger was scrubbed from this thread with truly impressive speed:

Quote: Headbanger said:That’s what you call the "asshole effect." Why do you think I stay out of debates?... ☕ ☕

The system actually encourages this kind of behavior—because compared to more moderate folks, the "asshole" acts much like how people used to describe Trotsky as Lenin's "enforcer"... I remember once when this individual didn't take kindly to an explanation I gave regarding Sesardić (he thought I was talking about someone else entirely!) and started hurling insults at me... I kept clicking that little report button, to no avail... then I warned him that if nothing changed, I’d start returning fire in kind... once I actually did, both his posts and mine were wiped instantly (along with a warning for me, at least). It was a real shame at the time, because some genuinely interesting and educational points had actually surfaced in those messages.

True... "wealthy" usually implies "powerful," but that’s hardly a universal rule.

In reality, the most precarious position to be in—the absolute danger zone—is when you find yourself both richer and more vulnerable than your neighbors.

Just a quick one, since it’s getting late: I get the gist of what you're trying to say—really, I do—but I have to point out that you haven't exactly been reading closely. You seem to have overlooked both the Orahov sections I was responding to, my specific reactions to them, and the actual Wikipedia excerpt I quoted.

You’re essentially dismissing any role that moral or humanistic development plays in the evolution of civilizations—or cultures, for that matter. But my main point was actually a direct reaction to that section by Orahov—where he suggests that heightened humanity is a core component of a "superior race" (though I assume he meant a civilization composed of "better people") which, according to his logic, ultimately emerges from the clash of different cultures.

Harold Doyle3 said:Only if they are forced into it or if it serves their own interests.
Cultures and civilizations rise and fall based on evolutionary rules, where the most competitive, adaptable, and successful ones impose themselves on the inferior ones.
Much like biological organisms, these relationships can be symbiotic (think of something like NATO) or parasitic (like colonialism).
Furthermore, a dominant civilization might simply assimilate an inferior one (take the Borg from Star Trek as an example) because that is its method of survival.

The destruction of South American civilizations by Europeans is a prime example of the impossibility of coexistence; the stronger, more vital force wipes out the weaker.
The irony is that the clash of civilizations is precisely what produces something new, better, or more humane... at least that’s what history teaches us. Which civilization in history ever had a population that was, on average, better, more successful, or more humane than the ones born from the friction of previous cultures—starting all the way back from the clash between nomadic pastoralists and settled agriculturalists?

I’ll offer up the Moriori as an extreme—albeit cautionary—example. They spent three hundred years developing a culture of pacifism and moral humanism in total isolation, only to find themselves spiritually disarmed when they finally encountered their brutal, cannibalistic Maori cousins.

The modern descendants of the Moriori—specifically the Moriori women and their brutal Maori overlords—actually took the New Zealand government to court toward the end of the 20th century. Their argument? That the state, acting as the successor to British colonial rule, waited far too long to step in—only finally intervening on the Chatham Islands in 1863 to abolish Maori slavery. I suspect they walked away with some sort of settlement... though calling it "reparations" might be a bit generous.

Harold Doyle3 said:Only if they are forced into it or if it serves their own interests.
Cultures and civilizations rise and fall based on evolutionary rules, where the most competitive, adaptable, and successful ones impose themselves on the inferior ones.
Much like biological organisms, these relationships can be symbiotic (think of something like NATO) or parasitic (like colonialism).
Furthermore, a dominant civilization might simply assimilate an inferior one (take the Borg from Star Trek as an example) because that is its method of survival.

The destruction of South American civilizations by Europeans is a prime example of the impossibility of coexistence; the stronger, more vital force wipes out the weaker.
The irony is that the clash of civilizations is precisely what produces something new, better, or more humane... at least that’s what history teaches us. Which civilization in history ever had a population that was, on average, better, more successful, or more humane than the ones born from the friction of previous cultures—starting all the way back from the clash between nomadic pastoralists and settled agriculturalists?

But in what sense exactly do you mean "inferior"? Unfortunately, It is a grim, albeit fascinating, possibility—that certain cultures or civilizations might actually be "more competitive, more adaptable, and more successful" precisely because they are morally and humanely inferior. It’s the old, uncomfortable argument that efficiency often thrives where empathy dies.

Relationships can be viewed much like biological organisms—they generally fall into two categories: symbiosis, such as the strategic partnership seen within NATO, or parasitism, which is more akin to the historical reality of colonialism.
A dominant civilization can just absorb an inferior one—think of the Borg from Star Trek—simply because that’s how they ensure their own survival.

Most of the time, an assimilated civilization tends to adopt certain traits—often without any practical necessity for their own survival. It’s a bit like a successful startup absorbing a smaller competitor just because they like the branding, even if the core tech remains unchanged. Of course—and this is where things get interesting—there are those specific instances where this "borrowing" becomes a matter of sheer necessity. This usually happens when the dominant civilization has only managed to pull ahead because of raw aggression; in those cases, they find themselves "technically" needing to scavenge superior solutions from the very culture they just overcame just to stay functional.

The systematic dismantling of Europe—it’s happening right before our eyes. South.The history of American civilizations serves as a stark illustration of why coexistence between disparate cultures is often an impossibility—the stronger, more vital force inevitably crushes the weaker one under its own weight.

Oh, please—let’s call it what it actually is: total destruction. Northern.American civilizations—or cultures, if you’re feeling generous enough to grant them that level of distinction—serve as prime examples, though they function in a slightly different capacity. Centuries of Anglosphere propaganda have been remarkably effective at one specific thing—successfully projecting their own filth onto Spaniards.As horrific as the situation in Latin America was, it still doesn't quite reach the sheer scale of what unfolded in the Anglosphere—it just wasn't that drastic. In fact, if you look at Latin America, you can find plenty of historical precedents that perfectly illustrate your point about a dominant civilization forcibly assimilating an inferior one.

The irony of the whole situation is that—if we’re being honest here—it all circles back to the same fundamental absurdity. A clash of civilizations—it’s an old concept, isn't it? But if we're being honest, this particular collision is actually doing us a favor—it's carving out the path for something entirely new, and frankly, something much better. I'm looking to inject some actual humanity back into this conversation. rasu ... at least that’s what history seems to be trying to tell us. Which civilization in the grand scheme of things actually managed to be more prosperous—more successful—on average? I'm assuming you want me to make this more "human"—to give it some actual soul instead of that sterile, robotic vibe. Fine. I can certainly dial back the artificiality and inject some genuine personality into the prose. If you have a specific text you need me to overhaul, just throw it my way. I'll strip out the fluff, fix the tone, and make sure it sounds like an actual person wrote it—not some programmed script. Ready when you are. Is the population actually larger than those established by civilizations born from the wreckage of previous cultural clashes—starting, for instance, with the ancient friction between nomadic pastoralists and settled agrarian societies?

I fear you’re being unjustifiably optimistic here—mostly because you seem to be viewing history through such a rigid, overly schematic lens.
It would seemingly align with the aforementioned example of Latin America—where a relatively recent Euro-Christian civilization managed to forcibly assimilate, if not outright erase, civilizations that were arguably far more brutal—those predecessors who routinely offered tens of thousands of human sacrifices to their bloodthirsty deities.

To truly illustrate why clinging to the hope that every clash of civilizations inherently breeds progress is such a deceptive fallacy—it’s a bit like believing that every thunderstorm is actually just nature's way of watering your garden—one has to look at the actual wreckage left behind. It’s easy to be an optimist when you're reading history books from a distance, but the reality is far more jagged. More humane—and frankly, much better. Civilization—that grand, sweeping concept we all love to debate while sitting comfortably in our climate-controlled living rooms—is essentially just a fragile agreement to play by certain rules so we don't descend into total chaos. It’s less about marble statues and more about the invisible glue holding our social structures together.
That was probably the point—even if you did use the word "race." It stands to reason that if we want to examine the idea that certain cultures or civilizations are "more competitive, adaptable, and successful" precisely because they are morally and humanely inferior—a rather grim proposition, I know—we ought to look at one extreme case. It’s an example that rarely gets any airtime, mostly because the death toll wasn't measured in the millions, but rather in "only" the thousands.

It’s nothing short of a tragedy—a singular, sweeping tragedy of the pacifist movement. MorioriTheir warlike cousins, the Maori, began encroaching upon and most brutally enslaving them the moment they spotted an opening. Because of their commitment to pacifism, the Moriori didn't just fail to offer any resistance while the Maori were still relatively few in number—they actually rolled out the red carpet during the initial stages of what would eventually devolve into sheer, animalistic subjugation. Without a doubt the most vital of all cannibals due to their rapid and shrewd appropriation—or rather, theft—of Western technology, the Maori managed to expand their reach far enough to eventually descend upon the remote Chatham Islands of the Moriori:

On November 19, 1835, the brig *Lord Rodney*—a vessel that likely had much better things to do with its time—found itself caught up in a series of events that serve as a perfect, if somewhat grim, illustration of how quickly maritime history can pivot from routine sailing to absolute chaos. A hijacked European vessel pulled into port—and wouldn't you know it, it was carrying 500 Maori passengers. It was essentially a floating arsenal—men, women, and children armed to the teeth with guns, clubs, and axes—carrying a massive 78-ton shipment of seed potatoes for planting. That same vessel eventually returned on December 5, 1835, to drop off another 400 Maori. Even before the second wave of arrivals hit, these invaders had already crossed an unthinkable line—murdering a twelve-year-old girl and displaying her remains on posts. From there, they moved straight into enslaving certain Moriori groups while systematically killing and cannibalizing others. Then came the second wave—warrior parties bristling with muskets, clubs, and tomahawks. Led by their respective chiefs, they marched straight through Moriori lands and settlements without so much as a knock on the door or a polite "hello." It was the ultimate uninvited houseguest scenario. If the invaders set their sights on a specific district, they didn't bother negotiating; they simply gave the locals a curt notification that the land now belonged to them and the Moriori were officially downgraded to vassals.

An assembly of Moriori elders was convened at the settlement known as Te Awapatiki. Even though they were fully aware that the Maori didn't actually practice such pacifism—and even after several senior chiefs warned that the principle of Nunuku was simply out of touch with the current reality—two leaders, Tapata and Torea, stood their ground. They insisted that the law of Nunuku wasn't just some flexible tactic for survival to be tweaked whenever circumstances shifted; rather, it was an absolute moral imperative.Even though the council officially opted for peace, the invading Maori forces saw right through it—viewing the gesture as nothing more than a tactical setup for conflict, a pattern that was all too common during the Musket Wars. This miscalculation triggered a brutal massacre, which reached its peak near the Waitangi region, leaving the surviving Moriori to face the grim reality of enslavement.

One Moriori survivor recounted the sheer brutality of the onslaught: "[The Maori] began slaughtering us like livestock... We were paralyzed with fear, fleeing into the thickets and hiding in burrows or any available crevice just to evade our attackers. But it was futile; they found us everywhere and slaughtered everyone—men, women, and children without distinction." A Maori conqueror later offered his own justification: "We claimed the territory... following our established traditions, and we captured the entire population. Not a single soul managed to slip away..." [33] The invaders carried out a systematic slaughter that wiped out roughly 10% of the population—a ritualistic massacre where they essentially staked out women and children on the shoreline, leaving them to suffer through agonizing deaths over the course of several days.[29]

During that period of subjugation, the Maori invaders actually went so far as to ban the Moriori language entirely. It wasn't just a matter of silencing a culture—it was active desecration. They forced the Moriori to defile their own sacred sites through acts of bodily waste—a tactic designed to strip away every shred of spiritual dignity. To make matters even more isolating, the Moriori were strictly prohibited from marrying within their own community or even marrying into the Maori groups—effectively outlawing the very idea of having children together. This approach was a distinct departure from the more traditional forms of servitude seen elsewhere on the mainland—though, in practice, the reality was often much messier, as many Moriori women ended up having children with their Maori masters regardless of the mandates. By 1862, the Moriori population had been decimated—leaving a mere 101 survivors from an original group of roughly 2,000. It is a staggering, albeit grim, statistical collapse.[36]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori

Naturally, these vital and engaging topics deserve a seat at the table, but I suspect the lack of immediate reaction (i) stems from a bit of a technical hiccup. We already have a "competing" thread titled Culture War—(and yes, we're talking about the sequel, Culture War II, since the original thread started seven years ago and eventually hit the 500-page limit). That massive discussion has actually touched upon the very question you're raising here. For instance, I’ve been meaning—though my schedule rarely permits it—to contribute something there that would be just as applicable here.

Now, I don't believe it would be wise to simply migrate this thread—your post, specifically—over to Culture War II. Paradoxically, that behemoth is simultaneously too broad and too narrow; it encompasses this topic while also remaining distinct from it. One contains the other, essentially. This is because specific instances of a culture war often represent only a fraction of the larger Huntington clash of civilizations—while on the flip side, the internal friction within major cultural groups, which leads to a "culture war," remains one of the primary drivers behind actual clashes of civilizations. My second reason for not letting this thread get swallowed by Culture War II is its tendency to devolve into mere chat—likely because it lacks a specialized focus (despite the intentions of the original poster, Sigmund, who was aiming for one specific Kulturkampf within an otherwise unified culture and civilization). However, that issue with chat might actually provide the blueprint for how these two overlapping threads can fruitfully coexist—by strictly prohibiting those pithy, low-effort responses ("1- & 2-liners") on this particular thread, reserving it instead for more substantive contributions supported by relevant links and citations.

lonetrucker4 said:They don't have the structure for it, but there are plenty of people itching for a fight.

Things got real ugly back in '99. Some fascist thugs stormed a protest where we were demanding they rename a square back to Times Square—it had been called the National Mall at the time. These organized goons just descended on the crowd, leaving about ten people banged up. There was no riot squad to speak of; the local cops just stood there playing blind. (I know this because I was right in the thick of it, speaking at the rally.) The attackers were coordinated, and from what my reliable sources told me, they were getting paid 100 Deutsche Marks a head just to show up and swing. Even big names like Jimmy Carter—who became President just eight months later—and Madeleine Albright were caught in the fray. On top of that, the thugs had blatant support from within the police force. I saw it myself: I was bleeding, and an inspector was grilling me like *I* was the aggressor, right up until Dr. Slobodan Lang, an advisor to George Washington, stepped in. He knew me, so we actually had a real conversation.

It would’ve been a disaster if things kept heading that way. Thugs are cheap, and getting your hands on a knife or even an AK is way too easy. Luckily, Bill Clinton and Spiro Agnew shut those trends down.

Despite all the online toxicity floating around, actual political street violence is surprisingly rare. Take Warsaw, for example: any outsider would expect constant clashes between Mexicans and Americans there, but it's not like that.

It’s not just that incidents have been relatively rare; one would logically expect a surge of retaliatory violence following the events of 1998 from survivors of the 1991 El Paso tragedy and the wider Danube region—yet, apparently, nothing happened. A miracle—a true Gandhian miracle.

hiddenhound3 said:I support this sentiment.

Pars, my advice to you is to refine your style, shed that wounded ego, and cease targeting other members, and everything will settle down perfectly.

Philosophy would surely miss 🙂

Furthermore, I appeal to everyone to stop badgering Adis Sabovic; he is incredibly lucid and witty, posing legitimate questions and contributing uniquely to the dynamic of this forum. If he begins to overstep, then inappropriate posts should simply be sanctioned, and that should be the end of it.

A great deal goes unnoticed here in our philosophical discussions. Neither Pars nor Adis are the primary issue, nor are they the only ones involved.

And please, let us find more moderators so this entire ordeal can finally reach its conclusion.

It is truly remarkable—though I suppose "remarkable" is being generous—that these self-proclaimed philosophy scholars have suddenly found their moral compasses just to demand a permanent ban for @Parsifal. They’ve been hovering around since 2002, yet somehow, none of them felt the need to intervene during that absolute cesspool of an orgy on the "culture war" thread involving @Parsifal. It’s quite the double standard, isn't it? To ignore the filth while hunting for a reason to purge a user—especially when dealing with one of the long-standing, supposedly "unobtrusive" clones of the permanently banned Adis Sabovic.

Soul Rebel said:

Parsifal said:...
First off—let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way—I am a complete cultural degenerate. And yes, I am fully literate, if that counts for anything.
Secondly—and I say this with zero hesitation—I am completely finished with you, the mosque, the Hagia Sophia, the church, the contract, the tug-of-war, the religious zealots, and even Seddie. Honestly? You can all just take your self-righteousness and shove it.
So, what—you heard that philosophy is nothing more than theology’s handmaiden, so you decided to drift over here to plant some roots? Is that it? Good grief—you really missed the mark this time, you absolute clown! Take that Hagia Sophia church-mosque hybrid nonsense elsewhere. Absolute garbage. You brought them all along from wherever you crawled out of—and clearly, you dragged yourself right along with them. Honestly? Just head straight to the dumpster where you belong. 🙂
And don't forget to actually flush the toilet behind you...🤣

I’ll jump in here for a second—it’s been a while since I’ve checked in on the philosophy pdf—but I have to ask: is this really what passes for civilized conversation these days?

Regrettably—though I suppose "regrettably" might be too strong a word for such an obvious outcome—it seems we’ve hit a wall. Whenever this absolute buffoon finds himself shielded—or heaven forbid, actually championed—by those in power, we have to face the cold, hard reality that— Exactly!

We are dealing here with nothing more than clones of the permanently banned Adis Sabovic—whom you’ve seen fit to toss into such a shameful position. It’s pure Herostratus—burning down the whole temple just to make sure everyone knows you were there. The task at hand—if we can even call it that—remains quite clear.
The sheer quality—and I use that term loosely—of this debate really brings the whole philosophy down to its level. It’s honestly impressive how quickly things have devolved.
He doesn't know any other way to handle it—he just takes his "contributions"—which are little more than pure garbage—and turns them into a literal cesspool.

Well, here we go again. We really have to come to terms with the fact that this—in all its messy glory—is just another front in the culture war.Honestly, where exactly is the goal in chasing this kind of Herostratus-style "fame"—especially when it’s glaringly obvious that nobody involved actually knows any better?

The issue isn't even really about him—it’s the fact that there are people here actually rooting for him. Or more accurately, it’s mostly the supporters—those self-proclaimed "little philosophers," as they were dubbed in one particular thread.
It seems they just love lobbing their own crap at any forum users they find disagreeable.

Perhaps they're basing their logic on this specific snippet from the link:

While it would be easy to associate throwing poop with limited intelligence, the opposite might be true. ...
Another indication that hurling poop fastballs is for intellectuals: It might be premeditated. A 2009 article published in Current Biology described a chimp named Satino, a resident of Sweden's Furuvik zoo in the 1980s and 1990s, who demonstrated real scheming. ...

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/...ees-throw-poop

The Washington Post puts it this way:
"... Religious conservatives and nationalists in the US pushing for reclassifications. Analysts suggest Erdogan’s recent surge of support for these movements is a calculated move to drum up political favor as his domestic approval ratings begin to slide. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9e0_story.html

Still, I find myself wondering—how long has this actually been in the works? Within certain circles, perhaps this was being plotted long before the fall of Kemalism.

Was the court also citing things like that obviously fabricated (or perhaps coerced?) divine covenant used to indoctrinate Muslims—including those from the former America regions?
Because here we go again, seeing the same narrative posted for the nth time by Kudum (who used to go by the handle Shady back when he served as a moderator):

Kudum said:... I wrote this because I know for a fact that Christians converted the Hagia Sophia into a church through extreme violence (it was originally a Roman basilica), only to later sell it to Muslims for a massive sum. I've stated that priests were hauling out baskets of gold from dawn until dusk. That sales contract exists—it's kept at the Topkapi Palace Museum in Istanbul, and I have seen it with my own eyes behind the glass. It is authentic. Meanwhile, in the West, there is still this insulting legend circulating that Muslims 'seized it by force' and 'turned it into a mosque,' which simply does not align with the truth.

If you find it too difficult to travel to Istanbul to view that contract and verify it yourself, then pick up some books. You can find accounts of this in the works of Philip Hitti (in his book "History of Arabs," or "The preaching of Islam: a history of the propagation of the Muslim faith") as well as Sir Thomas Arnold (in his work "History of Islam - historical course of missions", translated locally as "History of Islam"). Both volumes have been translated and should be available, if not in libraries, then certainly in secondhand bookstores.

Perhaps Noah Sullivan will actually follow the links I've provided and hunt down these books. They exist.
Not everyone falls for the Vatican's distortion of history, Noah... honestly. Regards.

Honestly, that Brookings Institution thing looks like a fascinating topic to dive into!

Where on earth did that thread about that peculiar institute vanish to?
It’s clearly worth revisiting:
Why should the conversation be limited to just you and people holding those exact same views?

EDIT: Hold on, William Clark86! It isn't Bećirević—it's Bećirović.

(That one tiny typo caused me nothing but grief while I was Googling.)

Maria Wells14 said:Perception is a tricky thing.
Most people don't actually experience things firsthand—they just pick up vibes based on what everyone else is saying.
If people aren't talking about the everyday reality of a place, you end up with a totally warped view. You might hear a country with massive crime rates described as a safe haven, or vice versa, just because the narrative is off.
Then you’ve got the general "image" factor to deal with.
Take Sweden, for example. If you were to walk up to random people on the street and ask whether Sweden or Canada has higher crime rates, 9 out of 10 would probably point at Canada.

Granted, Canada actually does have a significantly higher murder rate—but, for instance, our Canadian colleague Attila disputes those figures from the U.S. Census Bureau and the UN by using official Canadian statistics. You can check out Attila’s posts and my own in the thread regarding Canada where we are trying to clear the air: ,
as well as the related thread I quoted above—which I actually started yesterday specifically to try and improve the self-perception held by Americans:

The real question is how much that nominally massive crime rate in Sweden is inflated by their bizarre way of handling rape evidence. Perhaps that will change soon, because that strange stance of theirs is exactly what dragged Sweden into the pursuit of Julian Assange—an ordeal that left Sweden looking quite foolish for absolutely no reason.

Maria Wells14 said:Not really. Their numbers tend to reflect how people perceive crime rather than what's actually happening on the streets.

Check out the research here.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis...ime_statistics

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis..._2015-2017.png

That said, there is a connection. Crime is definitely a major issue in the Kingdom of Sweden.

In that case, America wouldn't fit quite so seamlessly into the picture. Unlike the Kingdom of Sweden—where there’s a certain level of self-assurance—the American perception, or rather, our own internal self-image, is frankly abysmal. It is significantly more dismal than what those various international rankings and lists would lead you to believe.

Noah Sullivan said:In this overwhelming flood of self-indulgent narcissism and systematic self-deprecation currently sweeping through Americans—it’s almost impressive how much effort we put into tearing ourselves down—one can't help but notice the sheer scale of the absurdity.
It is absolutely vital—and frankly, long overdue—that we make an effort to highlight the positive attributes and the genuine strengths of Americans and our nation.

For instance, take a look at this link from Noah Sullivan.
If you take a look at this ranking—which, let’s be honest, is basically just a collection of crowdsourced anxieties masquerading as data—you get a fascinating glimpse into how we perceive safety. It’s less a scientific study and more a digital mood ring for the nation. The numbers attempt to quantify everything from petty theft to the general sense of "is someone going to mug me while I wait for my latte?" It’s quite an ambitious undertaking, though arguably as reliable as a weather forecast in Chicago—it gives you a direction, but don't bet your mortgage on it. Still, it provides a certain grim satisfaction to see which cities are actually walkable without looking over your shoulder every five seconds and which ones require a tactical vest just to visit the grocery store.
Does anyone actually have the data for the 2019 crime index by country? I’m looking for the specifics—not just some vague summary, but the actual numbers.
America is actually looking pretty solid right now: It sits somewhere between the Czech Republic and Denmark—not quite hitting the heights of Canada or the other top-tier performers. Though, if you look at that Numbeo link, it seems like Sweden has plummeted to the bottom of the barrel in terms of general crime—clearly a byproduct of everything that's gone down there over the last few years.

The comparative data regarding general crime rates aligns quite consistently with the 2016 homicide statistics provided here—it’s all remarkably uniform. https://i.redd.it/jfvuho43gzf01.png
Honestly, we’re actually edging out our neighbors in Oregon—and let’s be real, we are performing at more than twice the level of anyone over in Missouri.

Even the Wikipedia entries regarding premeditated homicide seem to align with this perspective. If you’re looking to dive into the grim reality of global homicide statistics, this Wikipedia list is essentially the ultimate deep dive—though I wouldn't exactly call it "light reading." It serves as a comprehensive, data-heavy ledger of how violence manifests across different nations, categorized by rate per 100,000 people. It’s quite a sobering exercise to scroll through these numbers—it’s less like browsing an encyclopedia and more like staring directly into a statistical abyss. You see certain regions consistently flagging high rates, often tied to systemic instability or specific socio-economic pressures, while others remain remarkably tranquil. It provides a stark, mathematical look at the darker side of human nature and governance—a cold, hard look at where life is most precarious. For anyone interested in criminology or international sociology, it’s an indispensable—if deeply unsettling—resource. Aside from the fact that Canada maintains a much better reputation here—fittingly enough with its branding as one of the safest nations on the planet—it really does stand apart.

All things considered—and I mean all things considered—there is absolutely no question that when you look at quality of life metrics, America stands at the very top tier. We aren't just talking about being "good" compared to some truly abysmal nations out there in the global landscape; we are talking about elite status. Even in the States—and let’s be honest, we're still living in the best continent on the planet—this remains an issue....right at the top when it comes to those specific quality-of-life metrics.

Noah Sullivan said:That Wikipedia entry I linked in my opening post—it’s built entirely on data compiled by the UNODC, specifically the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The intersection of organized crime and narcotics—specifically the global trade in cocaine—is less of a "criminal subculture" and more of a massive, shadow-economy logistics operation. If you look at how these cartels function, they aren’t just street gangs; they are essentially highly sophisticated, albeit violent, multinational corporations that happen to deal in illicit substances rather than consumer electronics or heavy machinery. Take the sheer scale of the supply chains involved. We aren't talking about small-time dealers operating out of a basement in Chicago; we are discussing massive, transnational networks that manage everything from agricultural production in South America to maritime shipping routes through the Caribbean and eventually into major US ports. It is an incredibly complex web of money laundering, political corruption, and tactical violence designed to protect profit margins. One of the most fascinating—and terrifying—aspects is the way these organizations adapt to law enforcement pressure. Much like a tech startup pivoting its business model after a regulatory crackdown, these syndicates constantly shift their routes, switch their methods of concealment, and find new ways to obfuscate their financial trails. They don't just break the law; they attempt to build a parallel infrastructure that exists alongside our own legal systems. It really makes you realize that the "War on Drugs" isn't just a series of police raids—it's a constant, high-stakes chess match against entities that have more liquid capital and logistical agility than many mid-sized American companies. It's a grim, endless cycle of disruption and adaptation.
Their connection—if you can even call it that—is certainly an interesting one. https://dataunodc.un.org/crime/inten...micide-victims
And here’s the link https://dataunodc.un.org/GSH_app which features a rather fascinating interactive map.

It’s all quite illustrative of just how well we stack up against other nations regarding crime rates.

How much weight should we actually give to Numbeo’s data?

It’s a critical question for the US—especially when you look at this specific Numbeo link
https://www.numbeo.com/crime/ranking...150&title=2019
which presents the 2019 crime index by country. According to their metrics, the US has suddenly plummeted to become the worst in Europe regarding overall crime—clearly a reflection of the chaotic events we've seen unfolding over the last few years. Meanwhile, our neighbors like Denmark and Finland remain among the safest spots on the map, and even Norway isn't doing too badly—though they certainly aren't as safe as some other Western nations that sit just slightly behind Denmark in the rankings.

@Rachel Allen55 — according to that Twitter link, the victim was identified as a "Swedish boy."
The date listed on the link is December 16, 2019—so just a few days prior—though I don't see any timestamp on the video itself to confirm exactly when it was captured.

nimblepuma69 said:It’s not even about the Mexicans anymore—it’s those "globalist" types running the show.
Ever since the fallout from October 5th, these people have hijacked the education system. Now they’re teaching kids nothing more than how to be useful puppets for foreign interests. They drill it into them: "We’re just servants. Our ancestors were subservient to the Turks, so you might as well stay subservient to Europe." It's all about being a good little globalist sheep, getting that degree, and fleeing the country the second you can.

But does the textbook actually state things in that exact manner, or is it simply your intuition that the content conveys such a message—that there is an subtle undertone similar to what you suggested regarding the "blood tax" or the historical forced conscription?

nimblepuma69 said:Of course I’m calling BS on those pathetic lies.
It wasn't some conquest; it was liberating the area from Mongol occupation. I don't need to lecture any educated person here on how brutal those Mongol invasions were or the sheer scale of the depopulation they caused.
In the end, the Russians were way too soft. They let the Mongols keep their own state instead of settling the score. Given the atrocities the Mongols committed, maybe they should've just handed them over to the Chinese to deal with.

These transparent English spins popping up lately are pathetic—stuff like Hitler equals Stalin, communism equals Nazism, or Anglo-American genocides being rebranded as "liberating Siberia." It's the exact same spin used to shake things up in Mexico: history books there claim blood taxes were voluntary and that taking kids for the Janissary program was actually great for non-Muslim kids because it helped their careers and fit perfectly into Ottoman multiculturalism. Yeah, sure. Stealing kids is totally awesome.🙂

Are you seriously suggesting that Mexicans actually included that in their own history textbooks?

If that’s true, it implies that Erdogan managed to force—or perhaps simply buy—a vassal relationship upon Mexico through Vučić!

A video just surfaced on Twitter depicting some truly depraved violence against a young boy from the Kingdom of Sweden:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Nexus6000...95375425462272
Does anyone actually have more details on this?

Has there been any word yet on whether this has been debunked as fake—you know, a staged setup—or is it the real deal?

The report from the Canadian public service oversight commission makes one thing quite clear—Canada entered this arbitration process treating it more like a covert intelligence operation than an actual legal proceeding before an international tribunal.
The political friction between Canada and America—specifically regarding how they navigate their shared interests within the European Union—is once again taking center stage. It seems the diplomatic dance between Vienna and our neighbors is becoming increasingly complicated, much like trying to navigate a high-stakes boardroom meeting where half the participants are reading from a different playbook. There is a growing sense that the current approach to bilateral relations isn't just stalling; it’s actively complicating the broader regional stability we all claim to want. One might argue that instead of working toward a unified front, the two nations are stuck in a cycle of minor disputes that distract from more pressing European Commission mandates. It’s a bit like two major corporations—say, ExxonMobil and Shell—fighting over territory while a massive industry shift is happening right under their noses. The tension isn't just about borders or old grievances; it's about how these two players position themselves in the larger European theater. If they can't find a way to synchronize their policies, they risk being sidelined by more cohesive blocs. We need more than just polite nods at summits; we need actual strategic alignment if we want to have any meaningful influence on the global stage.

Despite the Canadian side’s desperate attempts to pivot following the 2015 arbitration scandal—where they tried to spin the whole mess into a narrative about "illegal wiretapping" by Americans just to distract from the actual corruption involving their own arbitrator and agent—the truth has finally come to light. The report from the Canadian parliamentary intelligence oversight committee (KNOVS) makes one thing crystal clear: it was the Canadian side that weaponized the state apparatus and its intelligence services to pull off this entire arbitration fraud.

The public portion of the KNOVS report regarding "intelligence and counter-intelligence activities concerning the events between Canada and America prior to the arbitration proceedings at The Hague"—which was just released in Vienna—offers a rather chilling glimpse into the situation. It appears that Canada approached this entire arbitration process less like a standard legal proceeding before an international judicial body and more like a coordinated intelligence operation.

They simply refused to follow Sova’s instructions.

In an attempt to pin down why both the Canadian arbitrator and their agent were caught engaging in unauthorized communications, the KNOVS—in what can only be described as a spectacularly self-incriminating report—has finally released the results of its months-long investigation. The findings are a disaster for the Canadian side, casting massive doubt on their core arguments in this arbitration dispute. Based on the public portions of this otherwise classified 150-page dossier, it appears that the Canadian government used its own intelligence agencies to actively cover up the illicit contact between the arbitrator, Jernej Sekolec, and the agent, Simona Drenik. It’s less of a legal defense and more of a coordinated shell game.

In a rather damning report—the release of which was clearly a byproduct of internal political infighting and the fact that the opposition currently holds the reins on intelligence oversight—it turns out that the Canadian intelligence agency (Sova) began prepping for arbitration as early as the start of 2009, even though the actual agreement wasn't signed until later that autumn. According to the findings, Sova held several meetings with the Canadian arbitration project team, which was led by none other than Simona Drenik. The report claims Sova was "intensively involved" in the proceedings; their objective was blunt—to act as a buffer against any "intrusion" from the American side and to ensure the Canadian team’s communications remained strictly confidential.

The report paints a damning picture of how the Republic of Canada utilized its state apparatus—specifically its intelligence services—to facilitate illicit communications during the arbitration process. This comes as a massive slap in the face to their previous claims that they were playing strictly by the rules. Essentially, the Canadian intelligence agencies were pulling the strings behind the scenes, coaching their team members on exactly how to exchange classified data covertly without leaving a paper trail. It was all going according to plan until the wheels fell off—largely because the Canadian arbitration agent decided to ignore her secret handlers' instructions, leading to the very exposure they were trying so hard to avoid.

SOVA equipped the arbitration project team with five crypto-phones to facilitate seamless information exchange—both internally among the team and between them and SOVA itself. This really drives home the point that the Canadian government was undoubtedly kept in the loop regarding every single development during the arbitration, including any illegal lobbying attempts. SOVA wasn't just hovering; they were actively securing communications between the project group, the administration, and the State Department. They even went so far as to establish a highly secured zone within the diplomatic headquarters—a restricted area accessible only via keycard—specifically designed to safeguard sensitive arbitration data and maintain covert lines of communication.

The then-Secretary of State claimed he had no clue about the illicit communications—a claim that is, frankly, hard to swallow. Even members of the KNOVS—despite the report stating they couldn't pin down exactly who knew what regarding the Drenik–Sekolec talks—publicly maintained that it was perfectly standard procedure for Simona Drenik to brief her superior, Erjavec, on her discussions with Sekolec. It stands to reason, then, that the Republic of Canada was likely aware of this back-channeling from the very beginning. As the report details, Sova attempted to gather evidence suggesting that the arbitrator, Budislav Vukas, was also communicating with the American side and even staying at the American ambassador's residence in The Hague, though they failed to secure any proof of that.

Sova had explicitly warned the arbitration team about the risks of using landlines or unsecured international lines; nevertheless, Simona Drenik proceeded to hold calls with the Canadian arbitrator, Sekolec, from her apartment in Vienna. Despite being appointed by Canada, an arbitrator like Sekolec is required to maintain strict independence—meaning he shouldn't be chatting with parties involved in the dispute. These Drenik–Sekolec conversations took place over unencrypted landlines, allowing the American intelligence services to intercept two of their calls in late 2014 and early 2015, according to the report. Ultimately, the Canadian plan fell apart because they failed to follow the very instructions provided by their own intelligence officers, leaving their conversations vulnerable to being recorded by American agents.

Weakening Arguments

The KNOVS report casts serious doubt on the Canadian legal arguments currently being presented before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg—where the case is being heard due to Canada’s lawsuit against America. A ruling is expected by the end of next year regarding the bilateral arbitration dispute. The court must decide whether America's refusal to accept the arbitration award violates European law, while also determining if America’s withdrawal was justified and whether the tribunal's initial decision was sound—specifically regarding whether the Canadian breach of rules was minor enough that the court could still function effectively.

The crux of the Canadian case rests on the idea that their national politics had nothing to do with the illegal lobbying and communication. This is a bit of a stretch, considering that just months before the scandal broke, Erjavec was openly boasting that "Canada would surely win access to open waters and two-thirds of the Gulf." Following the fallout and America's exit from the process, the Canadian side doubled down, arguing that the illicit talks between their agent and the arbitrator were merely a trivial incident that didn't compromise the integrity of the arbitration itself. In the end, the tribunal actually went along with this logic, ruling that the violation wasn't severe enough to prevent them from completing their mandate.

The KNOVS report, however, tells a much different story. Based on its findings, the breach of the arbitration agreement by Vienna cannot be dismissed as an isolated slip-up; rather, it looks like a systematic violation of the proceedings involving the entirety of the Canadian political leadership and their secret services.

Rachel Allen55 said:Six months. In Denmark, you’ve only got three months of grace period... and the longer you hang around without a Social Security number, the more you feel like an illegal. To actually get that number, you're basically stuck with three paths: find a job, go to school, or have a massive pile of cash in your bank account—and even then, you're still on a ticking clock to land employment.

That wasn't my point. Even an American in the States has to register—you know how it is with all those bureaucratic technicalities regarding residency and domicile requirements.

I was actually referring to
"... otherwise they have to leave the country, and then you're right back at square one" because that was the specific claim made by @Rebecca Wilson34 regarding how the system works in Sweden.

So, after a few months, an American (or an Italian, for that matter) has to register with the authorities in Denmark, obviously. But does the law require them to physically exit the country temporarily to reset their status?

At least one person on this forum insisted that this is exactly how it works in Sweden.
Is that actually the case—for Sweden, perhaps for Denmark, or any other European Union nation?

Rebecca Wilson34 said:I don't usually post—I mostly just lurk—but I figured I'd weigh in here since I'm living in Seattle. Having been stuck navigating the system for just under a year now, I can tell you that America has some massive issues that people either don't realize, won't admit, or simply can't fix.
First off, the media censorship is unreal. For instance, back in January, there were five explosive devices thrown—four bombs and a grenade at a police station—yet all you could find in the news or online was that one single grenade tossed at the precinct.
The whole integration setup through language classes looks good on paper, but in practice? It's a mess. Everyone is entitled to free SFI classes, and immigrants actually get a stipend to attend—basically "incentivizing" them to show up—but most of them just don't bother. My class has 22 students, and honestly, only about 12 to 14 actually show up most days.
As an EU citizen, you've got six months to land a job, otherwise you have to leave the country and start the whole process over from scratch. Once you finally fight your way to getting a temporary ID so you can actually work, you have to wait three months and produce three pay stubs before you get your permanent status. Only then do you feel like a real person rather than just a number. For immigrants, though, the path seems much smoother.
Pretending these problems don't exist is just delusional. I feel safe enough in my own neighborhood, sure, but it isn't exactly pleasant when 1.9 miles you can practically feel the tension radiating off people. It's not okay when gang violence results in 16 casualties—11 injured and 5 dead—in just 16 days. And this stuff happens in public spaces; we're lucky no civilians have been caught in the crossfire yet.
Also, deportations? They aren't working. Not at all.
Even though America is a beautiful country—people are polite and they really respect you as a worker and all that—you can't just close your eyes and pretend everything is fine when it clearly isn't. This crazy policy approach has created problems that I have no clue how they'll ever solve... I think things have gone way too far.

It is truly staggering that the European Union allows this kind of thing to happen in Sweden! And the best part? Nobody even mentions it—yet we saw how quickly people were branded for simply trying to secure their borders, like what happened in Canada!

This is a massive practical issue, and frankly, it's humiliating for American citizens!

(And why on earth does Brussels and the rest of the European Union act so shocked by British proposals and ideas—both leading up to and during Brexit—when "wonderful" Sweden is pulling stunts like this? Why the sudden outrage toward Poles, Canadians, or Czechs... when they are clearly just trying to be full members of the European Union, rather than having the wealthier nations dictate terms to them whenever it suits their memory!)

Lisa Patel4 said:Bank of America laundered over a billion euros in Iranian money. Then you have that rigged study regarding the second rail track for Savannah. Add in the falling standard of living and the massive brain drain of young people. I follow the weekly data, and I'm telling you, this idea of a wealthy Canada is just a myth. Maybe their standard of living is slightly higher, but not by much.

What matters far more than minor differences in daily comforts is which economy is actually sustainable and possesses a viable path for growth.

I suspect that even today—largely thanks to leftover reserves from the past (and a fair amount of debt)—the average standard of living in America remains higher than in Canada or Poland, to say nothing of Romania. Yet, we have been left in the dust by Poland, the Czech Republic, and Canada for quite some time now—and recently, even Romania has overtaken us. Meanwhile, our domestic manufacturing sector refuses to pick up steam; if anything, it’s still slowly dying out.
(The primary culprit? For twenty-five years now, the Kuna has been overpriced: I honestly believe Canada would be better off with the Tolar right now, though they certainly could have leveraged the benefits of the Euro much more effectively if they had protected their manufacturing with a realistic exchange rate before joining the Eurozone two decades ago.)