This is what "progressive" immigration gets you

[Mountain Man]

Source: Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017...o-zones-rises/

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

[cite=Breitbart]Swedish National Police Commissioner Dan Eliasson has begged the government for help as the number of no-go zones has risen from 55 to 61 in only one year.

We need to send this guy over:

[Meh Gerbil]

Reads like an excerpt out of "Camp of the Saints".

[Mountain Man]

Police Commissioner Dan Eliasson: "Should we want the social contract to hold, people will have to want to pay taxes and participate in society."

Is he a moron? That's his solution? Pay your taxes and participate in society? "If you don't stop committing crimes then I'll pay my taxes and participate in society until you've learned your lesson!" Yeah, that'll show them!

[seer]

Reads like an excerpt out of "Camp of the Saints".

Yes, yes it does...

[Sparko]

But there are no "no-go" zones according to Snopes.

The PC term is "Vulnerable areas" which have "widespread reluctance to participate in the legal process and where police find it difficult to fulfill its mission" according to the english translation of the the swedish article breitbart was referencing:

http://www.gp.se/nyheter/g%C3%B6tebo...-oss-1.4379538

Crime is now "reluctance to participate in the legal process"

[seer]

Crime is now "reluctance to participate in the legal process"

Leftists are absolutely insane...

[Joel]

Police Commissioner Dan Eliasson: "Should we want the social contract to hold, people will have to want to pay taxes and participate in society."

Is he a moron? That's his solution? Pay your taxes and participate in society? "If you don't stop committing crimes then I'll pay my taxes and participate in society until you've learned your lesson!" Yeah, that'll show them!

I read it as him meaning the criminals when he says "people." That is: If too many people keep committing crimes, not paying their taxes, and not participating in society, then the social contract will not hold.


Tell me more about the criminals. Without knowing more, the description in the OP could almost describe King George III's reaction to those criminals in the American colonies: There are areas where British magistrates and soldiers fear to go, because they'll get tarred and feathered, among other acts of terror. The criminals aren't paying their taxes, and aren't participating correctly in society, and the social order could break down. Personally, I would not be surprised if a form of civil war occurs. In some places, the civil war has probably already begun.

[Darth Executor]

Tell me more about the criminals.

Non-Swedes. Third world savages. Rapefugees. They go by many names.

[One Bad Pig]

I read it as him meaning the criminals when he says "people." That is: If too many people keep committing crimes, not paying their taxes, and not participating in society, then the social contract will not hold.


Tell me more about the criminals. Without knowing more, the description in the OP could almost describe King George III's reaction to those criminals in the American colonies: There are areas where British magistrates and soldiers fear to go, because they'll get tarred and feathered, among other acts of terror. The criminals aren't paying their taxes, and aren't participating correctly in society, and the social order could break down. Personally, I would not be surprised if a form of civil war occurs. In some places, the civil war has probably already begun.

There's a rather fundamental difference - those in the American colonies were more than willing to participate in society; in fact, not being full participants is a good part of why the new taxes so offended them.

[Joel]

There's a rather fundamental difference - those in the American colonies were more than willing to participate in society

Yes, but not so in the eyes of the British. From googling the Swedish issue more, it seems what is meant is unwillingness to participate in judicial/legal proceedings. Which was also true of the American colonists, unwilling to participate in or with British courts, or with British magistrates or soldiers. But yes, they were more than willing to participate in their own society, and even to be friends with the British if the British would let them be. Are you saying that's not the case in Sweden? (Note that I'm not saying it is the case; I'm saying I don't know.)

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, but not so in the eyes of the British. From googling the Swedish issue more, it seems what is meant is unwillingness to participate in judicial/legal proceedings. Which was also true of the American colonists, unwilling to participate in or with British courts, or with British magistrates or soldiers. But yes, they were more than willing to participate in their own society, and even to be friends with the British if the British would let them be. Are you saying that's not the case in Sweden? (Note that I'm not saying it is the case; I'm saying I don't know.)

Um, the British wouldn't LET the colonists participate in society. "No taxation without representation" ring a bell? I have no idea how you seem to think these are equivalent. The colonists weren't living IN BRITAIN. And the immigrants don't want to be friends with the Swedes. Also, try not to confuse the immigrants with libertarians; they want to live under sharia law, which is the antithesis of libertarianism.

[Darth Executor]

Also, try not to confuse the immigrants with libertarians; they want to live under sharia law, which is the antithesis of libertarianism.

This doesn't usually matter to libertarians. They will simply claim that because they don't actually support invaders destroying your society, merely bringing them there to destroy it, they're not actually responsible for it.

[Joel]

Um, the British wouldn't LET the colonists participate in society. "No taxation without representation" ring a bell?

There is a common misconception that the colonists wanted representation in Parliament and Britain refused to let them send representatives. Rather, what was meant by that slogan was that they believed they had the right to be free from any taxation not approved by the local assembly. They were not complaining that they had no representation in Parliament, but that Parliament had no authority to tax them without the permission of their local assembly. Colonial leaders feared that Britain would try to appease the people by offering the colonies a seat at Parliament, and they warned the colonists to reject such an offer if it were made.

The colonists weren't living IN BRITAIN. And the immigrants don't want to be friends with the Swedes.

The British crown thought they were living in his realm. And viewed them as hostiles. And the colonists didn't want to be friends with the British insofar as the British kept infringing their rights and wouldn't let them be.

Also, try not to confuse the immigrants with libertarians; they want to live under sharia law, which is the antithesis of libertarianism.

This is more along the lines of what I'm asking for. Is this true? Is that what's going on? Can you give me some sources?

In my googling, it seemed that what is going on is territory controlled by drug trafficking organizations. In which case it makes me wonder if the problem is drug prohibition. The United States had similar problems during alcohol prohibition. The solution was to repeal prohibition.