Social Sweden. Update: Came in Ferrari - applied for social benefits

[sweede]

Operation Frostbite, 2019-11-19

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/...malmo-ska-skydda-inkallade-kollegor-efter-hot

Operation Rimfrost is going to break the criminal gang in Malmö. Now, hotels where the extra police officers live will be protected by heavily armed police - because of the threat posed by criminals, according to Aftonbladet.

- I do not know if any new threats have been addressed now, but in general there is a latent threat of such efforts, says Calle Persson at the police in the South region.

On November 10, the special incident that the police call Operation Rimfrost was initiated. It is supposed to last for six months and will stop the violent development that has happened lately.

The police have extra cars in the center and Möllevången (the open market I have reported about) of Malmö.

- We are making significant efforts to increase our ability to counter explosions as weapons in conflicts. We are taking steps to increase the crime resolution of shootings and blasts in criminal environments, said then state police chief Anders Thornberg.

- In line with that, we will send further reinforcements to Malmö to meet the need for both investigative resources and increased accessibility to complement the local police.

This is not the first time that additional resources have been allocated to Malmö from the rest of the country. But this time the culmination was reached when 15-year-old Jaffar was shot to death outside a pizzeria in Malmö's entertainment district around Möllevången - amidst all the people moving in the area on a Saturday night.

This is not the first time that Malmö has been allocated resources from all over the country.

The police who are sent to Malmö to put pressure on the gang criminals and carry out efforts aimed at the environment live in different hotels in the city. Now, these accommodations will be protected by police armed with heavy weapons because of the threat posed to the extra called resources, according to Aftonbladet's information.

2 teams of specially trained police are part of the reinforcement.

- When the pressure against the criminal environment increases, it happens and has happened before that threats of violence are directed at the police. He says they will take the necessary steps to protect police officers so that they can safely carry out their missions, says Calle Persson.

The goal of Operation Frostbite (Rimfrost):

- Reduce fires and blasts in criminal environments.

- Reduce the number of people in criminal networks through prosecution and defamation activities.

- Increase the seizures of weapons and explosives.

- Increase the safety of the public.

 

[sweede]

At the same time, our Prime Minister is out on a mini tour to our 3 major cities to talk about the violence in Sweden.

Prime Minister: Sweden has not prepared for this kind of violence, 2019-11-19

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/...ige-har-inte-forberett-sig-for-det-har-valdet

Stefan Löfven has received stinging criticism after his floating response in "Agenda" in SVT about the gang violence. Now he clarifies:

- My view is that for too long in Sweden we have not prepared for this kind of violence to come to our country, so this is a shared political responsibility. Within six months security should have increased.

Right now Stefan Löfven travel around in the red S-marked bus he often traveled in during the election movement. On Tuesday morning he visited the police in Gothenburg, who managed to better fight gang shootings and blasts, than his colleagues in Stockholm and Malmö.

Prime Minister Stefan Löfven in Malmö

Many people want to associate the crime that Sweden has received so many refugees. What do you say about that?

- I say we have been too poor at integration in many respects. Too many people remain in unemployment for too long. It's not good. There are too many children who go to schools who are not doing their best and they are therefore more focused on the course of the crime.

To read the entire interview, follow the link.

 

[Happy Man]

At the same time, our Prime Minister is out on a mini tour to our 3 major cities to talk about the violence in Sweden.

Prime Minister: Sweden has not prepared for this kind of violence, 2019-11-19

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/...ige-har-inte-forberett-sig-for-det-har-valdet

Stefan Löfven has received stinging criticism after his floating response in "Agenda" in SVT about the gang violence. Now he clarifies:

- My view is that for too long in Sweden we have not prepared for this kind of violence to come to our country, so this is a shared political responsibility. Within six months security should have increased.

Right now Stefan Löfven travel around in the red S-marked bus he often traveled in during the election movement. On Tuesday morning he visited the police in Gothenburg, who managed to better fight gang shootings and blasts, than his colleagues in Stockholm and Malmö.

Prime Minister Stefan Löfven in Malmö

Many people want to associate the crime that Sweden has received so many refugees. What do you say about that?

- I say we have been too poor at integration in many respects. Too many people remain in unemployment for too long. It's not good. There are too many children who go to schools who are not doing their best and they are therefore more focused on the course of the crime.

To read the entire interview, follow the link.

Is Sweden not capable of saying “these refugee migrants suck, and they’re going home.”

do that Sweden, and save your nation and people.

Grenade attacks will fall back down to 0 a year. Rapes will plummet. Rape is heinous.

 

[TheGreatA]

British supporters of the empire were very nationalistic and it was the nationalistic Americans who strongly pushed for the move Westward

my point is why make a hard distinction because Hitler had imperial plans but he was a bonafide nationalist

They’re not contradictory ideologies

I would say more often than not Nationalistic movements tend to bring about a more autocratic type of government.

This is because often there is a military struggle involved in which power is centralized, and the end result will be democracy only if the military leaders are willing to relinquish power.

I think we are confusing nationalist movements with fascist movements, as well as colonial history.

The history of colonialism and imperialism is separate from the history of nationalism. Nationalism is actually what was responsible for making many of the colonies and subjects of imperialism independent.

If Hitler had been satisfied with governing a German nation, he could certainly have been described as just a nationalist. But he was not satisfied with merely that, he wanted a German Empire with other people as its subjects (or victims, more like). You can say that he was a German nationalist, no doubt, but his greatest atrocities occurred as a result of his imperial aspirations, not just because he wanted to regain what had historically been German territory.

The base principle of nationalism is that all people, of different ethnicity, culture and language, must have sovereignty, self-rule, over lands that they have historically populated. This extends every bit as much to Africans and Asians and native Americans, as Europeans. Doesn't mean that this principle is any more perfectly followed by all nationalists, as communist principles are followed by all communists, but that's the base principle. Without that, you would not have today's state of affairs. States based on common ethnic groups that share language and traditions, would not exist in such a great number, but they would merely be subjected to Empires or federal states and so forth.

For example, India separating from the British Empire, was an example of nationalism. There are also subsets of Indian nationalism which include Muslim/Hindu nationalism which would propose a further disintegration of that territory, into Hindu/Muslim hands. If Indians suddenly wanted to conquer Somalia, that would not be nationalism, but imperialism. Or insanity, whichever way you want to put it. Since there are no historical claims whatsoever for Indians to be ruling over that land, you can't put that under the category of "nationalism".

 

[sweede]

And this is precisely why the situation in Sweden will continue, indefinitely.

It won't be until people let go of the "racist card" that they can reach any sort of viable conclusions.

Personally I would give less of a damn about some supporters of a political party being "angry racists", compared to cars being torched, streets being blown up with grenades, people being shot in broad daylight, but that's just me.

If you aren't angry and prejudiced against immigration to some degree at this point then you're probably living a delusional fantasy.


Just remember that as long as you keep throwing the "race card" around, you can hardly complain that others use it against you, too. What goes around, comes around. If that's the game you want to play, then you better get used to its rules.

To begin with, I would like to thank you for your input in this thread. You have so much knowledge that I become purely jealous.

With that I want to tell you one thing. SD's headquarters are north-eastern Skåne and the border with Blekinge (one of 25 landscapes in Sweden) and Sölvesborg is a town I have a lot of knowledge about when I was raised in Bromölla. In the municipality of Sölvesborg, where Jimmy Åkesson's wife is a municipal leader, has also gained power through the local party "Listerparty".The name Lister comes from the area in western Blekinge called Listerlandet (Listercountry). The Listerparty members vote on SD as they had not had a chance elsewhere in Sweden and would not have the numbers to get in to the parliament. In the area called Lister there is a football club called Mjällby AIF. They jump back and forth from the highest league to first and second division. They are known in Sweden by having supporters who make monkey sounds or throw in a banana every time a black player has the ball.

You see, there are many angry racist people who vote for SD in the absence of extreme right-wing parties in parliament. These people are narrow-minded and don't know much about the reality outside their own domain. I dislike Islam and the Middle East mentality, but these people hate based on race and appearance. That's why I don't vote for SD.

 

[TheGreatA]

To begin with, I would like to thank you for your input in this thread. You have so much knowledge that I become purely jealous.

With that I want to tell you one thing. SD's headquarters are north-eastern Skåne and the border with Blekinge (one of 25 landscapes in Sweden) and Sölvesborg is a town I have a lot of knowledge about when I was raised in Bromölla. In the municipality of Sölvesborg, where Jimmy Åkesson's wife is a municipal leader, has also gained power through the local party "Listerparty".The name Lister comes from the area in western Blekinge called Listerlandet (Listercountry). The Listerparty members vote on SD as they had not had a chance elsewhere in Sweden and would not have the numbers to get in to the parliament. In the area called Lister there is a football club called Mjällby AIF. They jump back and forth from the highest league to first and second division. They are known in Sweden by having supporters who make monkey sounds or throw in a banana every time a black player has the ball.

I don't see why it matters that these people vote SD. They have the right to vote, after all.

This is just the problem with Swedish concern for "optics". They are more concerned with whether who they are voting for is "socially acceptable" and that whether their voter base of a "high enough social caste", before thinking about the policies themselves. The real concern is whether voting for SD is going to put one's self in a "lower social class" than where they currently reside.

There are plenty of sleaze-balls voting for the other parties but nobody cares about that. Murderers, career criminals, fraudsters, jihadists. But if some local football hooligans vote for Sweden Democrats, you just can't associate yourself with that.

At this point, you've just got to put such menial concerns behind you, and do the right thing.

You see, there are many angry racist people who vote for SD in the absence of extreme right-wing parties in parliament. These people are narrow-minded and don't know much about the reality outside their own domain. I dislike Islam and the Middle East mentality, but these people hate based on race and appearance. That's why I don't vote for SD.

Yeah, well, you better start enjoying the Islamic mentality, because that's what you'll be getting more of, by voting for anything but SD at this point.

Making them the biggest party is going to force everybody else to adopt a tougher stance on immigration.

 

[Last Samurai]

I think we are confusing nationalist movements with fascist movements, as well as colonial history.

The history of colonialism and imperialism is separate from the history of nationalism. Nationalism is actually what was responsible for making many of the colonies and subjects of imperialism independent.

If Hitler had been satisfied with governing a German nation, he could certainly have been described as just a nationalist. But he was not satisfied with merely that, he wanted a German Empire with other people as its subjects (or victims, more like). You can say that he was a German nationalist, no doubt, but his greatest atrocities occurred as a result of his imperial aspirations, not just because he wanted to regain what had historically been German territory.

The base principle of nationalism is that all people, of different ethnicity, culture and language, must have sovereignty, self-rule, over lands that they have historically populated. This extends every bit as much to Africans and Asians and native Americans, as Europeans. Doesn't mean that this principle is any more perfectly followed by all nationalists, as communist principles are followed by all communists, but that's the base principle. Without that, you would not have today's state of affairs. States based on common ethnic groups that share language and traditions, would not exist in such a great number, but they would merely be subjected to Empires or federal states and so forth.

For example, India separating from the British Empire, was an example of nationalism. There are also subsets of Indian nationalism which include Muslim/Hindu nationalism which would propose a further disintegration of that territory, into Hindu/Muslim hands. If Indians suddenly wanted to conquer Somalia, that would not be nationalism, but imperialism. Or insanity, whichever way you want to put it. Since there are no historical claims whatsoever for Indians to be ruling over that land, you can't put that under the category of "nationalism".

I'm not saying Nationalism is bad, but it is always a risk. George Washington could have easily proclaimed himself king, if he wanted to. When Finland won independence, at first they actually did try to appoint a king.

These types of movements generally involve rallying around a common cause, to fend off an external threat. This creates a consolidation of power, which can be abused if it falls into the wrong hands.

 

[TheGreatA]

I'm not saying Nationalism is bad, but it is always a risk. George Washington could have easily proclaimed himself king, if he wanted to. When Finland won independence, at first they actually did try to appoint a king.

These types of movements generally involve rallying around a common cause, to fend off an external threat. This creates a consolidation of power, which can be abused if it falls into the wrong hands.

The "king" would've probably been more comparable to the "kings" that exist in Sweden or Britain these days. A representative to the country.

The hilarious thing is that the whole project fell flat because the guy didn't want to be a king, and apparently no one else wanted to be, either.

Abuses have happened, and continue to happen, but a lot of what is being touted as "the danger of nationalism" is not actually the product of nationalism. When people bring up colonialist abuse and so forth, that wasn't a point in history where modern "nation-states" were really even on the table. Likewise, when some huge federation consisting of various states, tries to absorb more land, that's more of a problem with "federalism" than anything, yet nobody will ever speak about the "danger of federalism".

The reason why there is so much noise about the "danger of nationalism", is because tiny ethnic groups form a threat to federations such as Russia and China, and so forth. They don't want groups like Uighurs or Dagestani or Chechens or whatever, forming their own independent nations. That's the real "danger of nationalism".

 

[Islam Imamate]

British supporters of the empire were very nationalistic and it was the nationalistic Americans who strongly pushed for the move Westward

my point is why make a hard distinction because Hitler had imperial plans but he was a bonafide nationalist

They’re not contradictory ideologies

I agree that they're not mutually exclusive and sometimes are mutually supportive but I still see them as distinct as nationalism can exist without imperialism.

I would say more often than not Nationalistic movements tend to bring about a more autocratic type of government.

This is because often there is a military struggle involved in which power is centralized, and the end result will be democracy only if the military leaders are willing to relinquish power.

I find that an odd thing to say since Europe, where most consolidated democracies first came exist, is also the birth place of nationalism and that is not accident. It was their nationalist movements that freed them from autocratic monarchies and vast empires. That isn't to say nationalism can't go wrong though

The "king" would've probably been more comparable to the "kings" that exist in Sweden or Britain these days. A representative to the country.

The hilarious thing is that the whole project fell flat because the guy didn't want to be a king, and apparently no one else wanted to be, either.

Abuses have happened, and continue to happen, but a lot of what is being touted as "the danger of nationalism" is not actually the product of nationalism. When people bring up colonialist abuse and so forth, that wasn't a point in history where modern "nation-states" were really even on the table. Likewise, when some huge federation consisting of various states, tries to absorb more land, that's more of a problem with "federalism" than anything, yet nobody will ever speak about the "danger of federalism".

The reason why there is so much noise about the "danger of nationalism", is because tiny ethnic groups form a threat to federations such as Russia and China, and so forth. They don't want groups like Uighurs or Dagestani or Chechens or whatever, forming their own independent nations. That's the real "danger of nationalism".

I think one legitimate danger of nationalism is when you have incongruity between the nation-state on paper and in practice. That is to say that within a certain border that is thought to be the historic homeland of nation A and where they are a majority of the population but the land is also home to a smaller but still very distinct nation B.

This doesn't always go wrong, sometimes the people and representatives of nation A are wise and magnanimous enough to create a stable and mutually beneficial modus vivendi. But sometimes nation A wants to force the people of nation B to fit the mold of A and that's when things can get ugly. This is more likely to happen in post-colonial states as the borders weren't organically determined through conflict but imposed form above without regard for the demographic reality on the ground but can also happen elsewhere such as in Catalonia.

Its to point out this issue that I first jumped in the conversation in response to the silly idea that nationalism is fine as long as it stays within borders. On the flip side I think one could theoretically justify nationalist expansion. Its usually a pretense for imperialism but in theory I think it wouldn't be entirely illegitimate for a nation-state to go to war to defend people of its nation being legitimately oppressed in another..

 

[sweede]

I don't see why it matters that these people vote SD. They have the right to vote, after all.

This is just the problem with Swedish concern for "optics". They are more concerned with whether who they are voting for is "socially acceptable" and that whether their voter base of a "high enough social caste", before thinking about the policies themselves. The real concern is whether voting for SD is going to put one's self in a "lower social class" than where they currently reside.

There are plenty of sleaze-balls voting for the other parties but nobody cares about that. Murderers, career criminals, fraudsters, jihadists. But if some local football hooligans vote for Sweden Democrats, you just can't associate yourself with that.

At this point, you've just got to put such menial concerns behind you, and do the right thing.



Yeah, well, you better start enjoying the Islamic mentality, because that's what you'll be getting more of, by voting for anything but SD at this point.

Making them the biggest party is going to force everybody else to adopt a tougher stance on immigration.

In other news, winter has come early to northern Sweden and Finland.

We are not America, where a party minus equals an authoritarian power.

We have block policy. A single party cannot accumulate 51%. At present, there are 2 parties that adopt part of SD's policy, the ones dealing with immigration, integartion and higher demands on the new mentalities.

There are many from all social classes in Sweden who vote for SD who are not racists but want to make demands on the new ones. What is the error in contradicting the openly racist?

 

[Last Samurai]

I find that an odd thing to say since Europe, where most consolidated democracies first came exist, is also the birth place of nationalism and that is not accident. It was their nationalist movements that freed them from autocratic monarchies and vast empires. That isn't to say nationalism can't go wrong though

There is nothing wrong with Nationalism when it comes to having pride in your country or striving for self-determination. Most independent countries were founded on these kinds of principles.

What concerns me especially when it comes to Sweden, is that the mood is ripe for racist groups to exploit the immigration issue and take control. That is not something I want for my country. When racism and Nationalism intermix we get the sort of thing that is happening to the Uyghurs.

 

[TheGreatA]

I think one legitimate danger of nationalism is when you have incongruity between the nation-state on paper and in practice. That is to say that within a certain border that is thought to be the historic homeland of nation A and where they are a majority of the population but the land is also home to a smaller but still very distinct nation B.

This doesn't always go wrong, sometimes the people and representatives of nation A are wise and magnanimous enough to create a stable and mutually beneficial modus vivendi. But sometimes nation A wants to force the people of nation B to fit the mold of A and that's when things can get ugly. This is more likely to happen in post-colonial states as the borders weren't organically determined through conflict but imposed form above without regard for the demographic reality on the ground but can also happen elsewhere such as in Catalonia.

Its to point out this issue that I first jumped in the conversation in response to the silly idea that nationalism is fine as long as it stays within borders. On the flip side I think one could theoretically justify nationalist expansion. Its usually a pretense for imperialism but in theory I think it wouldn't be entirely illegitimate for a nation-state to go to war to defend people of its nation being legitimately oppressed in another..

It isn't, and there have certainly been cases where this has been used as a "casus belli".

There have also been cases, of course, where that threat of oppression has probably been exaggerated, Russia being a rather frequent abuser of that narrative. And if one were to complain that this is a result of "nationalist aggression", I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

When one country decides to invade another with no such "pretext" though, no historical cause, no territorial dispute, no oppression of "one's people", that's when such aggression ceases to be nationalist and becomes more so imperialist or "globalist" in its aspirations. And it is my belief that there has been an equal amount, if not more, violence resulting from "supra-national" interests being defended, as much as there has been from national interests being defended. Yet in the mainstream narratives, the dangers of federalism, supra-nationalism, global interventionism, and so forth, are rarely brought up to the degree that the "danger of nationalism" is brought up.

I tend to believe that in the future, almost all conflict will be fought on a "global scale" and the threat of "nationalism", from the smaller parties such as Kurds, Palestinians, Houthis, or whoever, will mostly be reduced to serving as an excuse for the bigger players to "intervene" and stake their claims. The scale of the damage would probably be much lower if it wasn't for the fact that seemingly every "major power", be it Russia, America, and probably soon China and EU, believes it to be fully within their rights to randomly intervene in Syria, Libya, Iraq or wherever, because they feel the need to represent their particular idea of a world order. Instead of local players resolving the conflict, it usually turns to global players deciding to escalate the conflict, supplying their proxies and prolonging the violence.

 

[TheGreatA]

There is nothing wrong with Nationalism when it comes to having pride in your country or striving for self-determination. Most independent countries were founded on these kinds of principles.

What concerns me especially when it comes to Sweden, is that the mood is ripe for racist groups to exploit the immigration issue and take control. That is not something I want for my country. When racism and Nationalism intermix we get the sort of thing that is happening to the Uyghurs.

No offense but the last thing you need to be concerned about in Sweden, is "racism".

The idea of Sweden suddenly becoming Naziland is absolutely ludicrous. You're completely at the other end of the spectrum in that regard. Reaching towards the middle wouldn't be a problem.

Even if you had a couple of hard-line anti-immigrant politicians in the government, it would just serve to balance out the loons on the left.

 

[sweede]

This is more likely to happen in post-colonial states as the borders weren't organically determined through conflict but imposed form above without regard for the demographic reality on the ground but can also happen elsewhere such as in Catalonia.

Thank you for your contribution in this thread!

But I think this is a poor example to give. If Catalonia had been in the same situation as Andalusia, would they still want to be loud about independence?

 

[Islam Imamate]

There is nothing wrong with Nationalism when it comes to having pride in your country or striving for self-determination. Most independent countries were founded on these kinds of principles.

What concerns me especially when it comes to Sweden, is that the mood is ripe for racist groups to exploit the immigration issue and take control. That is not something I want for my country. When racism and Nationalism intermix we get the sort of thing that is happening to the Uyghurs.

Oh that's definitely a fair concern, just look at the rest of this thread. OP is starting down that path and is being egged on by other posters.

The problem is if you talk about the ills of nationalism in the context of how that hurts non-white, and especially Muslim, groups you won't find much sympathy on the right. Look at how some posters just dismiss my posts because I'm Muslim and must be secretly defending Muslims at all times. So critiquing it on that level tends to just add to polarization.

Its more fruitful to point to cases like Catalonia in Spain where the minority are Europeans. What do the right wingers think of nationalism then, when its victims aren't foreign Muslims but white Europeans living in their homeland? To be fair I guess the thread is about Sweden so I understand the focus on Sweden and its specific problems with the Muslim population.

 

[sweede]

Oh that's definitely a fair concern, just look at the rest of this thread. OP is starting down that path and is being egged on by other posters.

So reporting from the left-site media (very obvious to gain weight) makes me radicalized and Anders Breiveik as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi clone @Fazz has described me? I'm curious what you would call the other extreme in this thread.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Thank you for your contribution in this thread!

But I think this is a poor example to give. If Catalonia had been in the same situation as Andalusia, would they still want to be loud about independence?

Andalusia was well before the time of nationalism and the emergence of the nation-state so its hard to tell. But if history is an indicator Catalonia would be actually more separatist since nationalist differences are magnified by religious ones. Note how the Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire were far more likely to engage in separatism(and thus more likely to face brutal oppression) when compared to the Muslim subject peoples who tended to ask for, at most, some autonomy within the empire. So if Andalusia existed into the modern era I'd expect it to be torn apart by the emergence of the nationalist separatist movements of the 20th century unless it had become majority Muslim by then.

 

[Islam Imamate]

So reporting from the left-site media (very obvious to gain weight) makes me radicalized and Anders Breiveik as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi clone @Fazz has described me? I'm curious what you would call the other extreme in this thread.

I am not saying you are radicalized, kind of hard to make that argument when you said you wouldn't vote for the Swedish Democrats for being racist. But you're flirting with ideas from that side and some other posters in this thread are egging you on to take on more radical ideas from that side. So my post was saying more about them than you.

 

[unimackpass]

At the same time, our Prime Minister is out on a mini tour to our 3 major cities to talk about the violence in Sweden.

Prime Minister: Sweden has not prepared for this kind of violence, 2019-11-19

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/...ige-har-inte-forberett-sig-for-det-har-valdet

Stefan Löfven has received stinging criticism after his floating response in "Agenda" in SVT about the gang violence. Now he clarifies:

- My view is that for too long in Sweden we have not prepared for this kind of violence to come to our country, so this is a shared political responsibility. Within six months security should have increased.

Right now Stefan Löfven travel around in the red S-marked bus he often traveled in during the election movement. On Tuesday morning he visited the police in Gothenburg, who managed to better fight gang shootings and blasts, than his colleagues in Stockholm and Malmö.

Prime Minister Stefan Löfven in Malmö

Many people want to associate the crime that Sweden has received so many refugees. What do you say about that?

- I say we have been too poor at integration in many respects. Too many people remain in unemployment for too long. It's not good. There are too many children who go to schools who are not doing their best and they are therefore more focused on the course of the crime.

To read the entire interview, follow the link.

Remember all the bullcrap about the right overhyping this stuff?
I've been around enough leftist bullshit to know not even one will fess-up about how wrong they were. It's not possible because they live in delusion even about their own lies.
Being concerned about what's coming down the road doesn't make one a bigot but rather someone with common sense.

 

[The ScorpioN]

I am not saying you are radicalized, kind of hard to make that argument when you said you wouldn't vote for the Swedish Democrats for being racist. But you're flirting with ideas from that side and some other posters in this thread are egging you on to take on more radical ideas from that side. So my post was saying more about them than you.

When did pragmatic common sense (with significant statistical backing) become "radical"?
This is why *some* may think you're shilling for your ethnic tribe while trying your best to stop others from doing the same thing.