Stockholm,
Sweden: 63-year-old Daniel Cuevas Zuniga was peddling home after his night
shift. He stopped to pick up an object
that he thought was a toy:
It was an M-75 hand grenade.
Manufactured in great numbers for the Yugoslav national army, and then seized
by paramilitaries during the civil war in the 1990s, the grenades are packed
with plastic explosives and 3,000 steel balls, well suited for attacks on enemy
trenches and bunkers.
So reports the New
York Times. Zuniga died; his wife, Wanna,
peddling ahead of him was also blown off of her bicycle, shrapnel penetrating
her body. Trying to crawl back to her
husband, she was stopped by the police who happened to be nearby. The explosion shuddered windows 50 feet away.
According to the Times,
“Much of the problem is the supply of surplus weapons.” Wait a minute. These “surplus weapons” have been available
since the 1990s. But when did this use
of hand grenades begin?
Affixed to the wall in Mr.
Appelgren’s office in Stockholm’s Police Headquarters is a chart showing the
increase in the use of hand grenades. Until 2014 there were about a handful
every year. In 2015, that number leapt: 45 grenades were seized by the police,
and 10 others were detonated. The next year, 55 were seized and 35 detonated. A
modest decrease occurred in 2017, when 39 were seized and 21 were detonated.
“We have lost the trust from the
people who lived and worked in this area,” said Gunnar Appelgren, a police
superintendent and specialist in gang violence.
What kinds of gangs?
Blond-haired, blue-eyed Swedes?
Varby Gard has produced a street
gang, the Varby Gard Network, which the police have been monitoring for two
years. It is led by a Tunisian man and populated by first- and
second-generation immigrants from Finland, the Balkans and Africa, said Lars
Broms, a detective who is investigating Mr. Zuniga’s death.
Finland? One of these is not like the other. I am guessing that there is an untold
backstory to this Finnish invasion.
Perhaps the truth can be found here:
Last year, Peter Springare, 61, a
veteran police officer in Orebro, published a furious Facebook post saying
violent crimes he was investigating were committed by immigrants from “Iraq,
Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Somalia, Syria again, Somalia,
unknown country, unknown country, Sweden.” It was shared more than 20,000 times…
If you believe such a post would prompt an official
investigation you would be correct.
…Mr. Springare has since been
investigated twice by state prosecutors, once for inciting racial hatred,
though neither resulted in charges.
I didn’t say that the investigation would be rational.
“Give them 20 years, and we’ll have
the same as in L.A.,” Mr. Broms said.
Cultural appropriation?
I have no idea – am I supposed to consider this good or bad?
Illegal weapons often enter Sweden
over the Oresund Bridge, a 10-mile span that links the southern city of Malmo
to Denmark. When it opened, in 2000, the bridge symbolized the unfurling of a
vibrant, borderless Europe, but in recent years it has been more closely
associated with smuggling, of people, weapons and drugs.
What changed in “recent years”?
“Crime is increasing and
increasing, and they aren’t doing anything about it,” Mr. Garrido said. “It’s
denial. Swedes are very good people and they want to change the world. They
want the rest of the world to be like Sweden. And the reality is that it’s
completely different.”
Yes, everyone around the world generally lives by the
non-aggression principle, fully infused with western liberal traditions honed
via several centuries of their own culture and tradition. Invite them all – they are just waiting for
the chance to unleash their latent liberal impulses.
So Mr. Zuniga, who was nearing
retirement, had planned his exit, squirreling money away to build a house in
Thailand, where his wife’s family lived. He told friends he planned to go in
April.
Even 10 years ago wasn’t the desired immigration route pretty
much the other way?
Conclusion
Trump cautioned about Sweden a year ago, when he pointed out
the problem. The backlash from the
establishment – including Swedish politicians and the same New York Times that is the source of this report – was immediate
and intense. What is the New York Times saying today?
Even President Trump weighed in on
the issue, saying that after taking in “large numbers” of immigrants, Sweden
was “having problems like they never thought possible.”
There are calls for military intervention within Sweden. To any sentient being it should have been
obvious that the unchecked “open borders” immigrant influx unleashed in 2015
would result in such drastic government reactions. For example:
This is the “liberty” that results from open borders.
While we are at it, we might as well invite
a few commies….
Huh, how about that? You put lots of people with different beliefs, some of them violent, together in a room and peace doesn't ensue. Go Figure ...
ReplyDelete"There are calls for military intervention within Sweden."
ReplyDeleteThis one of the real fears I have on the issue. Whites and other pro-western men won't watch their cultures eroded forever. At some point there will be a backlash and at the end of it, everyone will be worse off in the liberty department, and most likely in the humanity department as well.
It is best to peacefully (and yes exclusion is peaceful) keep out those culturally incompatible rather than seeing them violently purged or ejected later on when cooler heads have been set to a roiling boil in a hot culture war over increasing degeneracy, crime rates and a hard swing leftward in public policy.
ATL, this realization was one of my earliest "aha" moments on this topic: greatly different cultural traditions and expectations will only increase tension and therefore increase demands that government do something about it.
DeleteIn a civil war or riot, even the staunchest libertarian will be happy to see the National Guard roll a tank up to block the entrance to the neighborhood.
what comes first the chicken or the egg?
ReplyDeleteamerica and europe 1900
any problem with immigrants?
any passports than ?
Examples of collective terms are “society,” “community,” “nation,” “class,” and “us.”
which border is easier to police? access to citizenship or access to country?
borders stopping people coming in and out; which are more dangerous?
private property ( company ) borders are clearly defined and can be proven.
political borders are changeable( liable to unpredictable variation.)
in my opinion people like Bernard Sanders are more dangerous than hundreds of immigrants --- how you going to put border around him and similar people like him?
max
>in my opinion people like Bernard Sanders are more dangerous than hundreds of immigrants ---
DeleteBernie Sander will neither become president nor rape your daughter.
>hundreds of immigrants
Try millions shill
max, you should understand the history of immigration to the United States, and also what has changed in the last 50 years.
Deletehttps://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/08/united-states-immigration-history.html
See if Gary North agrees. Ask him.
Unhappy Conservative:
Deletelets try again, instead Berni use Angela Merkel.
or try this:
Following World War II there were severe labour shortage in continental northern Europe and high unemployment in southern European countries[citation needed] and in Turkey.[1] The guest worker programs were largely created because of the labour imbalance and as a result of political pressure from the USA
max
bionic mosquito:
Deletemax, you should understand the history of immigration to the United States, and also what has changed in the last 50 years.
I know history of USA last 50,100 years.
what is your solution?
which border is easier to police? access to citizenship or access to country?
borders stopping people coming in and out; which are more dangerous?
political borders are changeable( liable to unpredictable variation.)
which one are you going to defend ?
max
Max - I have been to plenty of countries where border protection is a very simple matter, and not difficult at all. I am lying, or are you just obtuse?
DeleteMatt@Occidentalism.org
DeleteIf you are citizen of Venezuela right now -- should you protect your borders or not ?
should you shoot your own citizens getting out illegally ?
should you defend your country against any who try to come in ?
max
Coming soon to America (or is it already here), thanks to the constitutional framers replacing the First Commandment with the polytheism-enabling First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteCLUE: There were no openly practicing Muslims, no Mosques, no Sharia, and no Islamic terrorism in 17th-century Colonial America whose governments of, by, and for God were established upon Yahweh's moral law, beginning with the First Commandment:
"...When the 18th-century founders replaced the First Commandment (found intact in some 17th-century Colonial Constitutions) with the First Amendment, America was transformed from a predominantly monotheistic Christian nation (a united nation under one God, Yahweh) into arguably the most polytheistic nation to exist (a divided nation under many gods, including Islam's Allah).
"It’s one thing to allow for individual freedom of conscience and private choice of gods, something impossible to legislate for or against. It’s another matter altogether for government to enable any and all religions to proliferate through the land and evangelize our posterity to false gods. This is what the First Amendment legitimizes. It is an unequivocal violation of the First Commandment and the polar opposite of the following First Commandment statute:
'[Y]e shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves. For thou shall worship no other god: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou … go a whoring after their gods….' (Exodus 34:13-15)...."
For more, see blog article "National Religious Freedom Day aka Celebrating the Founders' Violation of the First Commandment." Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Blog and search on title.
Then Chapter 11 "Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism" of free online book "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective." Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 11.
While we are at it, we might as well invite ... Target Liberty.
ReplyDeleteintentional use of immigration as a destablizing force?
ReplyDeleteDT you've nailed it. Governments perennial fear is rebellion. The history of European government is not so pristine, so enlightened and civilized as is commonly supposed. Now the moment Rome fell, political control fractured into hundreds of warring regimes run by competing warlords. The history of Europe has really been the history of warlord’s quest for territorial expansion. In time their territories grew to approximate the contours of today’s nations states. The borders of nation states represent tenuous lulls in the battle, temporary truce lines while warlords plot and plan the battle’s resumption. Borders are the product of war NOT the achievement of peace. They are the markers of who has conquered whom. They denote subjugation, NOT freedom. The ruling class understand the situation all too well and are keenly aware that it creates the ever present threat of rebellion. It is precisely in order to forestall rebellion that governments deliberately incite and maintain low grade warfare WITHIN their territories. A state of permanent low grade warfare makes inhabitants dependent upon monopoly government security as a sole guarantor of individual rights and property rights. The US political classes drug warfare project is just such an engine of chaos. It has repurposed security and justice into a machine which transforms minorities into a dangerous delinquent class, the better the white population can be brought along in support of the ruling class and its militarized police state. Similarly the US political classes middle east warfare project has functioned to breed a dangerous delinquent class, which it has imported into Europe the better the white European population is dependent on and supportive of monopoly state security. The cultivation and management of a dangerous subclass has been the strategic response of government to the threat of rebellion, rebellion which once convulsed all of Europe in the working class uprisings which began in 1848. Marx and Engels got their start studying these conflicts, observing how the working class rejected rule under the old aristocracy and the new bourgeoisie. In fact it was the chaos of these rebellions which drove millions of Europeans to flee Europe for the relative freedom and calm of America. The point it is the REAL threat is not some dangerous hostile ideology simmering within certain groups. Rather the real threat always traces back to a strategy of domination devised and deployed by a political ruling class.
DeleteNow. Possible objections. ‘Victor you idiot, you don’t know what youre talking about. Islam is indoctrination exhorting Muslims to conquer all other societies.’ Okay. But at one time the British Empire included most of the middle east. Muslims within the empire travelled freely with many settling in London. Yet where are the newspaper accounts of Islamic ‘terror’ ? The actual experience was rather one of intense fascination with the middle east and its peoples. The British public took a great fancy to its mystery and enchantment. Virtually the entirety of European artists were deeply influenced by exposure to middle eastern culture, which they portrayed as a source of wonder rather than danger. The Moorish style was all the rage among the highest circles. It was incorporated in the finest homes. The Orientalist designer Hans Makart was the most celebrated interior designer in all Europe. Many among the British aristocracy converted to Islam even affecting an over the top middle eastern dress. Now if there ever were some innate bellicosity in Islam why does it remain utterly dormant among London’s Muslim immigrants for all of the 19th and most of the 20th century ?
List of the dozens and dozens of European Artists influenced by the Orientalist style: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Orientalist_artists
Hi DT,
DeleteYes, we're talking about "Weapons of Mass Migration". Here's an interesting read:
Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy
Hi Victor,
Thank you for your comment over here. I read it as your final word in the exchange we had earlier about mohammedanism as the existential enemy of Europe. Won't say you're an idiot, 'cause you're not, but.. When you go back in time to make the argument that the "real problem" is the ruling class, conspiring to dominate, I can agree, but only up to a point. What you say about the British Empire simply doesn't compare. England itself wasn't being flooded with mohammedans.
So let's go back in time yet a bit further, while we're at it. Vienna 1683, when Christian Europe finally repelled the Ottoman mohammedans. Of course, you wouldn't suggest that the invasions of the Ottomans were really the result of some conspiring Western cabal, just like you're arguing re: today's invasions, right? You do see the problem with your line of reasoning? When you say that the "real" problem is exclusively some power elitist conspiracy, you'll have to go to considerable lengths to deny, say, thousand years of history.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Richard
Richard, the Muslims in 1683 and prior were militarily advanced and powerful, doing what most every such power does (Muslim, Christian, neocon, whatever) - invade and conquer.
DeleteThe Muslims of the last 100 years were impotent in this regard.
No "invasion" would have been possible in the last decades without the actions - both of commission and purposeful omission - of the western elite.
But maybe I too am an idiot....but...
Hi BM,
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons that I "left" libertarianism is the lack of strategy, even though I know from listenning to Tom Woods and others that libertarian society doesn't mean no rules, and that it doesn't advocate open borders, given the challenges facing the west right now, the strategy of Libertarians in general seem very anemic and lacking.
What good is the preaching if you are being invaded by millions of immigrants whose views are the opposite of what you preach, and that by definition, with increase diversity and need of centralized authoriteran policing?
By refusing to take side (or worse doing what the Keto institute does) and raising the voice against what's happening many libertarians are going to the alt-right, and rightly so, they see that the solutions are there, and that after solving the bigger issues, they will gladly talk about central banking and free trade, they know that at the current trajectory, these issues will be the least of these worries (and I think they know that the central bank is the enabler of big government that is doing these things).
I am a middle eastern christian, and I experienced first hand a demographic shift happening in my city (shifting from christian majority to Muslim) and the disasterous affects it had, I also studied the lebanese civil war, and I feel that the alt right is being more sensible that Lbertarians in this regard.
Cheers.
"... the strategy of Libertarians in general seem very anemic and lacking."
DeleteSeems? They have none.
... the alt right is being more sensible ... "
Yes we are.
I am not sure what is meant by leaving libertarianism. Do you now advocate initiating aggression, punching someone in the nose or shooting them for no reason whatsoever?
DeleteAs to the relationship of libertarianism and the alt-right, it strikes me that the more sensible proponents of each of these sees the value of the other and is finding (and will continue to find) ways to work together.
Unfortunately, each side has its crazies, and those crazies allow for easy attacks both from one camp to the other and from those outside either group toward both.
Or some crazies are redefined to fit in a group to be discredited.
DeleteI do think that a nation as a collective can have its collective borders and deny entrance, I do think that you need to organize politically through the state to repel people who want to harm you.
DeleteI think HHH put it best in his latest talk at Property and Freedom Society, and also, the much maligned Jeff Deist speech.
Hi Anonymous,
DeleteYou said:
"I experienced first hand a demographic shift happening in my city (shifting from christian majority to Muslim) and the disasterous affects it had [...]"
We are experiencing the same in our major cities over here in Holland. The above quote depicts what I'd call an invasion scenario.
One might argue (not academically, but in this real world situation) that the NAP entails the right to self-defence, so the question is, does it apply in your situation (or in my country for that matter). I'd argue in the affirmative.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Richard
Jaime, I agree this to be true in both cases.
DeleteRichard, too many "libertarians" choose to avoid such uncomfortable questions; if you have not seen it previously, I offer:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/03/uncomfortable-questions.html
We live in a real world, not a bubble of our fantasy; the real world is populated by real human beings - something else that too many "libertarians" choose to avoid.
Anonymous March 11, 2018 at 9:35 AM: needless to say, I consider HHH and Deist to NOT fall in this lalalibertarian category.
Richard, We are political minority (we've been occupied for centuries) and our % is close to zero now, in a gun stricted area.
DeleteThe last place where christians had armed resistance ended up in a very bloody and messy civil war (Lebanon).
Hi Anonymous,
DeleteThank you for your reply. You asked what good is libertarian preaching, while one is being invaded. No good, I'd say, as is all other mere preaching. That's the easy part and I think we agree on that.
Now to the more difficult part of the answer: what to do? You said that many libertarians choose the alt-right, the reason being that they raise their voice and know about solutions that are there.
Well, for all intent and purposes, raising your voice can still be considered "preaching" in absence of deeds that remedy the problem. So I'd be very interested to hear more about the solutions you think the alt-right has on offer. My guess would be that these might fall under the right to self-defence, which is NAP in motion.
When I wrote about the inherent right to self-defence, I had many practical measures in mind (border control, no welfare for these migrants, no right to vote, the right to discriminate for employers, the right to refuse to accommodate a religious death cult, "encouraged" remigration, et cetera), before even thinking about "armed resistance", but since you brought it up, I wouldn't exclude it from the just implementation of the libertarian NAP.
But that's all with regard to my own nation here in Holland, my prime concern of course. We must prevent a scenario that would result in something akin to your predicament which is dire, almost without hope.
Cheers,
Richard
Hi Richard,
DeleteI don't think you can fit everything under NAP in the real world.
For example, when you have strong property rights, and your property increased its value from the fact that you had homogeneous and productive society, who build good intitutions, etc... it starts attracting different peoples (which is kinda what happened in where I lived), if residents start selling to foreign owners, what do you do? There is no contract clause that bans them from selling it to people of different religion or ethnicity, but the contract wasn't meant to deal with such scenarios.
If a white building contractor can increase his revenue by selling to Mexicans in Texas, (or native dutch selling to Turks and Morrocans in Amsterdam) what can you do? Do we need to add clauses in every contract? how do you differentiate?
Alt-righters throw the baby with the bath water is a sense, they say we don't want to deal with this crap, we want an ethno-state in which the state enacts these laws.
Who can you sue for ruining the cities of Detroit and South Chicago in America?
What would serve Texas and Holland better, liberterian or alt righter?
Hi Anonymous,
Delete"I don't think you can fit everything under NAP in the real world."
Fair enough, but I'd like to point out that I didn't make that claim. Only that the right to self-defence assorts under the libertarian NAP. Do you dispute that?
I must admit that I find your "for example" follow-up rather puzzling. You speak of native Dutch building contractors selling to Morrocans in Amsterdam as if the decades long state-sponsored influx of mohammedans is similar to a mere change of ownership in a situation with presupposed "strong property rights". I'm sorry for having to break this, but that really is a preposterous scenario which doesn't apply by far.
My starting point, for sure, is not the libertopian strawman you invoke, it is today's society with (alas) a welfare/warfare state in power. From there, I'd like to exchange solutions which lead towards a more free society. As to this topic's subject, that of open borders, my view is as follows:
"Every non-Western immigrant poses the risk of further diminishing the freedom still enjoyed in the West. To prevent this, any libertarian must instead advocate the strict and utmost discrimination vis-à-vis any potential immigrant and from the very outset he must be strictly opposed in particular to any form of mass-immigration."
How does that sound to you?
Cheers,
Richard
Btw: Do you have a name or nick I can address you with?
You can call me Khalil.
DeleteRe NAP: I agree with you.
I think HHH has it right, but HHH is a minority among libertarians, and his physical removal became a meme within the alt-right moreso than Libertarians, so if you go the HHH route, you're really closer to the alt right in terms of strategy than Libertarians, and this is why you see many libertarians within alt-right circles today, some would say that the alt-right are the real libertarians.
Hi Khalil,
Delete"HHH is a minority among libertarians"
Well in that case I'm delighted to finally belong to a minority ;)
All the best from Amsterdam,
Richard
bionic,
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for choosing this thread to drop my comment in, but, I had to choose one so, I chose this one based solely on it's dating/relevance.
I have observed with great interest the in-house debate re: libertarianism/State-managed borders/property rights.
Within many of these debates, particularly with those more inclined to the Right (as understood in the U.S.), I have noticed that a recurring theme of subsidies as a major draw for "illegal immigrants" is cited as what seems to be the biggest factor in their complaints/concerns.
If this is true, and they really are concerned about subsidies to these "illegals", why does it seem that they are not as outspoken now re: the Federal Reserve Bank/central banking as they were when Ron Paul had the issue center-stage (thankfully!)?
In other words I am trying to understand why many of these same people have allowed themselves to be distracted from the Hydra known as the Fed when it is the very institution that enables to the largest degree that which it is they say they are concerned about?
I admit these are random thoughts but thank you for considering the potential relevance to the issue.
Larry
Larry, I agree. The welfare queens (or immigrants) take pennies while the Fed (and the elite) take trillions.
DeleteMy objection is only partly this. Mostly my objection begins with: you cannot logically derive open borders from the NAP.
The NAP speaks to private property, and the borders of private property certainly aren't "open.". Further, if me and 20 neighbors decide we want to restrict entry into our community, this is perfectly consistent with the NAP.
That the government has monopolized this decision making about these "borders" is not my fault - it does not mean that my only default is to say "no one should manage the borders of my community."
You have no disagreement from me on this. As a matter of fact, it is your writing, Hoppe's and Alvin Rabushka's "Politics In Plural Societies: A Theory in Democratic Instability" (along with some good, old-fashioned intuition. Haha!) that brought me to these conclusions. I merely employed the terminology and framed it the way the man on the street typically does. He does not understand that forced integration and welfare subsidies are two very distinct issues and must be treated as such.
DeleteHaving said this, I have been mulling around in my head whether it is a strategic error on the part
of the alt-right movement/its adherents to focus so much on the forced integration aspect and not the Fed/central banks/bankers. I know some/many/most(?) are aware of the high danger of the banks/bankers so, I wonder why they have chosen to start on the front that they have?
Larry
Here is a link to Rabushka's book:
DeletePolitics in Plural Societies : A theory of democratic instability - CiteSeerX
PDFciteseerx.ist.psu.edu › viewdoc › download
Larry