"They don't respect Muslims"

[Poltergeist]

Your political platitudes fall on deaf ears. Either you're for something or against it. Such comfortable, lukewarm views of the world are why most modern western countries are failed enterprises. As I've said before, western politicians offer the people a carrot and Muslims, and other unwelcome invaders, beat the people with a stick. Are they welcome? Are they wanted? I don't care. In the case of Muslims, who I don't like, no they're not welcome and no they're not wanted. Muslims have a long history of causing trouble and I don't buy into that "religion of peace" garbage. Muslims are as prone to religious-based violence as any other group, perhaps moreso because of the innate machismo of Arab culture. You might say that bashing them is cheap and the work of a demagogue, but what am I supposed to do, go all loverly over people I really don't want anything to do with? It's your country and if you want to throw it away because it's better to be a niceguy (or nicegirl) than to be an undaunted upholder of your country's borders and its native culture, well, be my guest. There are enough non-whites in white majority countries to begin with.

Why is it so surprising that I don't want anything to do with barbarians?

If I understood Brännvin correctly, he says that rather government should be attacked than asylum seekers. Attacking the governemnt hardly qualifies as a lukewarm approach. Because government has incommeasurably greater power than all immigrants combined.

Of course, it depends also on the nature of this "taking on the government". If it's merely cringing of the teeth (of the keyboard, that is) on the internet, or some real life action.

[Brännvin]

Attacking the governemnt hardly qualifies as a lukewarm approach. Because government has incommeasurably greater power than all immigrants combined.

The real issue lies within the government in promoting destructive policies and the host country natives' s poor organisation in mobilizing against it
or when not.

Of course, it depends also on the nature of this "taking on the government". If it's merely cringing of the teeth (of the keyboard, that is) on the internet, or some real life action.

Bitching all time about immigration only on a forum is a laughable waste of time (I'm not saying this is bad), however, those anti-immigration individuals who spent hours on the internet instead of taking some real action are paper citizens, anti-activists.

[Cato]

First all, any true patriot will accept no demographic experiments on his own country and excessive immigration. Particularly if its artificial, recently bureaucratic government-made as the case of Sweden.

You have no idea with whom you are arguing..

Should I have an idea as to whom you are? Or, should I care? Are your opinions guided by a simple sense of right and wrong or some ambiguous political philosophy that sees the world in shades of grey rather than in good and bad?

Or, I might say, you've got no idea with whom you are arguing.

Get it, the whole problem of mass immigration, global capitalism, cultural relativism and multiculturalism not only a religion, and many of those unwanted immigrants from the middle east are not even Muslims, some of them are Christians, bitching only upon the Islam is idiocy and waste of time ignoring all the complexity of reality.

The Christian Middle Easterners aren't rioting in European countries, nor are they marching around hand-in-hand with leftist Europeans in protest of the ridiculous Jews, nor are they calling for the death of those who insult their religion.

Of course, it is cheap and the work of a demagogue.
What is needed is real action. Accuse the government and the native voters for not being anti-immigration enough.

Had I the full authority of a tyrant, you'd probably not like the action that I'd take. I'd follow the example of Ying Zheng or Oda Nobunaga and make many heads roll.

So, I can only give a comparative opinion based on my cosmological views.

Currently I care much for my country you would not make the slightest idea about it.

Nor do I think that you care very much for the Anglo-American republic, so the feeling is quite mutual. If my European cousins in the modern era want to engage in speculative narcissism rather than in certain yes and no beliefs, the fault is with them.

Whitey

Yawn.

[Cato]

If I understood Brännvin correctly, he says that rather government should be attacked than asylum seekers. Attacking the governemnt hardly qualifies as a lukewarm approach. Because government has incommeasurably greater power than all immigrants combined.

There will have to come a time when the door slams shut and these wretched wanderers fend for themselves. That's how it goes; we can't look after the entire world. If these people can't make their own countries wholesome, we shouldn't be left to take in their human flotsam.

The real issue lies within the government in promoting destructive policies and the host country natives' s poor organisation in mobilizing against it
or when not.

That's the overall cultprit, but who can sucessfully fight against an essentially faceless government when there are meatier targets to rail against? I simply regard the Muslims as one of the favored tools of this faceless government, a tool, or a hammer, used to bash away at the establishment in western countries. The poor organization that you speak of simply is the result of a sort of socio-political infiltration by fifth column types who often hide in plain sight.

[Brännvin]

Its arguments are demagogic and not effective and objective in real practice. Rational people actually should criticize immigration policies and not "immigrants" or "asylum seekers" or "refugess" whatever it means.

Why to blame them, and not the legislation or ruling elites - the true source of the issue?