Discussion:
SHAY, NOW, sheenie SHEIN (shick old yidoid pedo Baruch 'Barry' Shein dba Barry Z. Shein (bzs@TheWorld.com) infeshting 700 Washington St B'righton Mass),,,I JUSHT googled your circumcished jew shishter Shuzan F. Binder....SHEEMSH, her GOOGLEFUCKING is COMPLETE!
Add Reply
NoSpamAtAll
2019-10-05 16:48:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 08:26:15 -0700, "shick old yidoid pedo Baruch
HUH?
Yes, and a good job all, round jew pedo BARUCH!
It's all your jew fault! IS, the jew cunt even TALKING to you any mo?
<TSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSK!>
Well, no.
I should hope NOT!
Butt REGARDLESSH!....let'sh CONTINUE with the MERCILESSH and
Your, circumcished jew shishter Suzan F. Binder and her
circumcished jew hubby Marc W. Binder
Your, circumcished shitshke 'wife' Mary E. Riendeau Shein
Your, shenile circumcished jew mum Annie Shein (SHOOSH!)
Your, circumcished jew shub-uncle Hyman Shein (POP!)
Your, circumcished jew dad Shaul (LOLOK) Shein (zt"l/a"h since 1992)
and LASHT butt not LEASHT your, shubcherry-popped circumcished jew
shubnephew Zachary G. Binder!
And who the fuck is Isidore (Izzy) Shein??? Googlefuck him anyway!
Well, YES!
Yup.
The Peeler
2019-10-05 17:00:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 09:48:45 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Yup.
Yup, you ARE a VERY VERY sick asshole, pedophilic gay Razovic!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: <rlMUE.676067$***@usenetxs.com>
Michael Ejercito
2019-10-08 16:27:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Peeler
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 09:48:45 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Yup.
Yup, you ARE a VERY VERY sick asshole, pedophilic gay Razovic!
Indeed the mangina is.

Now here is Judith Bergman writing about Scandinavia's crime statistics.

Who's Afraid of Scandinavia's Crime Statistics?
by Judith Bergman
October 4, 2019 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14911/scandinavia-crime

Send
Print

Share240
"Most immigrants are not criminals, but when the immigrant population is
overrepresented in almost every crime category, then there is a problem that
we must dare to talk about." — Jon Helgheim, immigration policy spokesman
for the Norwegian party Fremskrittspartiet (FrP).

"In the more than thirty years that the surveys cover, one tendency is
clearer than all others, namely that the proportion of the total amount of
crimes committed by persons with a foreign background is steadily
increasing...." — Det Goda Samhället ("The Good Society"), Invandring och
brottslighet – ett trettioårsperspektiv ("Immigration and crime – a
thirty-year perspective"). All statistics for the report were supplied by
the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.

Unless Scandinavian political leaders begin actively to engage with the
facts that these statistics describe, the problems are only going to become
more intractable -- to the point where they might not be solvable at all.


Unless Scandinavian political leaders begin actively to engage with the
facts described by crime statistics, the problems are only going to become
more intractable -- to the point where they might not be solvable at all.
(Image source: iStock)

In Sweden, discussing who is behind the current crime epidemic in the
country has long been taboo. Such a statistic has only been published twice
by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (BRÅ), in 1996 and in
2005. In 2005, when BRÅ published its last report on the subject, "Crime
among people born in Sweden and abroad," it contained the following note:

"Critics have argued that new results can be inflated, taken out of context
and misinterpreted and lead to reinforcing 'us and them' thinking. There is
every reason to take such risks seriously. However, BRÅ's assessment is...
that a knowledge-based picture of immigrant crime is better than one based
on guesses and personal perceptions. The absence of current facts about the
crime among the foreign-born and their children facilitates the creation and
consolidation of myths. If crime is a problem in certain groups of the
foreign-born, then the problems do not disappear unless you highlight them
and speak openly about them. A correct picture of the extent and development
of the problems should instead be the best basis for analyzing conditions
and improving the ability of all residents to function well in Sweden,
regardless of ethnic origin."

Back then, apparently, the authorities still appreciated facts.

Twelve years later, in January 2017, however, Minister of Justice Morgan
Johansson flatly refused to publish statistics about the ethnic origins of
criminals in Sweden. According to Johansson:

"[Studies] have been done both in Sweden in the past, and there are
countless international studies that all show much the same thing: That
minority groups are often overrepresented in crime statistics, but when you
remove socio-economic factors, it [the overrepresentation] almost completely
disappears. So the political conclusions that I need to make, I can already
make with existing international and Swedish studies."

Johansson, who in addition to being Minister of Justice also serves as
Minister for Migration and Asylum Policy, was not alone in his views. When
Swedish Television asked the political parties in the Swedish parliament,
the majority said that they did not think such a statistic was needed.

This summer, however, in the continued absence of any forthcoming public
statistics on such an extremely important public issue, a private
foundation, Det Goda Samhället ("The Good Society") took it upon itself to
produce these statistics in a new report, Invandring och brottslighet – ett
trettioårsperspektiv ("Immigration and crime – a thirty-year perspective").
All the raw data in it were ordered from and supplied by BRÅ. The raw data
from BRÅ can be accessed here.

According to the new report by Det Goda Samhället:

"For the first time now, more crimes -- in absolute terms -- are committed
by persons of foreign background than by persons of Swedish origin... The
most crime-prone population subgroup are people born [in Sweden] to two
foreign-born parents."

The report concludes:

"In the more than thirty years that the surveys cover, one tendency is
clearer than all others, namely that the proportion of the total amount of
crimes committed by persons with a foreign background is steadily
increasing... During the first of the investigated periods, 1985-1989,
persons with a foreign background accounted for 31 percent of all crimes.
During the period 2013-2017, the figure had risen to 58 percent. Thus,
people of Swedish origin now account for less than half, 42 per cent, of the
total crime in Sweden, despite constituting 67 per cent of the population
surveyed."

In 1996, in its first report on the issue, BRÅ disclosed (p. 40) that, "The
general picture from foreign studies of immigrants' children's crime is that
they have a higher crime rate than first-generation immigrants. That is not
the case in Sweden". According to the new report, it is the case now, and
that is perhaps the greatest indictment against Swedish integration policies
of the past 30 years: the policies clearly do not work.

Another notable conclusion of the report is the increase in crimes committed
by foreign-born non-registered persons in Sweden -- these include illegal
immigrants, EU citizens and tourists. The crimes this group has committed
have increased from 3% in the period 1985-89 to 13% in 2013-17.

The report has largely been ignored by the Swedish press and political
echelons, apart from a few exceptions, such as the local newspapers
Göteborgs-Posten and Norrköpings Tidningar.

In Norway, recently, a report about the overrepresentation of immigrants and
their descendants in crime statistics was ordered from Statistics Norway, by
Fremskrittspartiet (FrP), which forms part of the Norwegian government. "We
had known that immigrants are overrepresented in these statistics, but not
[by] so much" said FrP immigration policy spokesman Jon Helgheim.

"For example, if we use the unadjusted figures... Afghans and Somalis are
charged five times more for violence and abuse than Norwegians. Adjusted for
age and gender, the overrepresentation is almost triple... Most immigrants
are not criminals, but when the immigrant population is overrepresented in
almost every crime category, then there is a problem that we must dare to
talk about".

According to Dagbladet, FrP has, for years, been calling for detailed
statistics on crimes perpetrated by immigrants and children of immigrants.
In 2015, the party commissioned data from Statistics Norway, but the agency
refused to compile crime statistics based on immigrants' country of origin.

Two years later, Statistics Norway published research showing that
immigrants were strongly overrepresented in the crime statistics, but the
report was not detailed enough, according to FrP, which ordered a new
report, now available. According to Dagbladet, the new statistics "show that
immigrants from non-Western countries are overrepresented in 65 out of 80
crime categories. In 2017, 7.1 per cent of Norway's population were
immigrants from a non-western country."

According to Dagbladet, the new statistics also show that, "The largest
overrepresentation [is] in violence and abuse in close relationships."

"Non-Western immigrants and their descendants are charged with family
violence eight times as often as the rest of the population. In total, 443
persons were charged per year on average during the period 2015-2017, [and]
35 per cent (155) of those charged were from a non-western country or had a
non-Western background. Only half of those charged with abuse in close
relationships were what SSB [the statistical bureau] calls the rest of the
population... Africa, Asia, Latin America, Oceania except Australia and
Europe outside the EU and the EEA are considered non-Western countries."

According to Dagbladet, men from the Palestinian Authority and Somalia are
charged with violence and abuse three times more often than Norwegian men.

FrP has been accused by its political opponents of ordering these statistics
specifically for municipal elections that took place in Norway on September
9, 2019. Dagbladet asked Helgheim whether using these statistics was
"cynical." Helgheim responded:

"No, it's not cynical at all. This is very relevant for the citizens to know
something about. It would be a failure of FrP not to do everything we can to
inform voters of what are realities and facts. Our opponents constantly
criticize us for pulling the immigration card... I can find no explanations
other than that those who do not want this to be known also do not want to
know about the consequences of immigration to Norway."

In Denmark, unlike Sweden and Norway, the publication of such statistics in
itself is fairly uncontroversial. The Danish statistical bureau, Statistics
Denmark, publishes them as a matter of fact every year and they are publicly
available to everyone.

According to one of the latest such reports, "Immigrants in Denmark in
2018," as reported by Berlingske Tidende in April:

"The figures show that crime in 2017 was 60% higher among male immigrants
and 234% higher in male non-Western descendants than the entire male
population. If one takes into account, for example, that many of the
descendants are young, and Statistics Denmark does so in the report, the
figures are 44% for immigrants and 145% for descendants, respectively. If
further corrected, for both age and income, of immigrants and descendants
from non-western countries, the figures are 21% and 108%".

As for the nationality of the criminal migrants, Berlingske Tidende
reported:

"At the top of the list are male Lebanese who, as far as [their] descendants
are concerned, are almost four times as criminal as average men, when [the
figures are] adjusted for age. [That is] sharply followed by male
descendants from Somalia, Morocco and Syria. The violence index is 351 for
descendants from non-western countries. They are 3.5 times more violent than
the population as a whole. Descendants from Lebanon have an index of violent
crimes of 668 when corrected for age."

Unless Scandinavian political leaders begin actively to engage with the
facts that these statistics describe, the problems are only going to become
more intractable -- to the point where they might not be solvable at all.

Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a
Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
a little sanitary towel, please
2019-10-05 18:12:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoSpamAtAll
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 08:26:15 -0700, "shick old yidoid pedo Baruch
HUH?
Yes, and a good job all, round jew pedo BARUCH!
It's all your jew fault! IS, the jew cunt even TALKING to you any mo?
<TSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSK!>
Well, no.
I should hope NOT!
ABSHOLUTELY NOT!
Post by NoSpamAtAll
Butt REGARDLESSH!....let'sh CONTINUE with the MERCILESSH and
Your, circumcished jew shishter Suzan F. Binder and her
circumcished jew hubby Marc W. Binder
Your, circumcished shitshke 'wife' Mary E. Riendeau Shein
Your, shenile circumcished jew mum Annie Shein (SHOOSH!)
Your, circumcished jew shub-uncle Hyman Shein (POP!)
Your, circumcished jew dad Shaul (LOLOK) Shein (zt"l/a"h since 1992)
and LASHT butt not LEASHT your, shubcherry-popped circumcished jew
shubnephew Zachary G. Binder!
And who the fuck is Isidore (Izzy) Shein??? Googlefuck him anyway!
Well, YES!
Yup.
Indeed.
NEMO
2019-10-05 18:19:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a little sanitary towel, please
Indeed.
Indeed!

"You may have something there. This touchy-feely 'New Man' attitude
isn't getting me anywhere. Perhaps I should go for the more basic
Neanderthal approach." -- sick old nazoid pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron,
Message-ID: <***@news.ukgateway.net>#1/1.

LOL!
The Peeler
2019-10-05 18:45:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 11:12:31 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "a little insane towel, please",
Post by a little sanitary towel, please
Well, YES!
Yup.
Indeed.
Indeed, you ARE a VERY VERY sick asshole, pedophilic gay Razovic!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
TallHenry
2019-10-06 12:42:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoSpamAtAll
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 08:26:15 -0700, "shick old yidoid pedo Baruch
HUH?
Yes, and a good job all, round jew pedo BARUCH!
It's all your jew fault! IS, the jew cunt even TALKING to you any mo?
<TSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSK!>
Well, no.
I should hope NOT!
NO more jew Eashter shedersh!
Post by NoSpamAtAll
Butt REGARDLESSH!....let'sh CONTINUE with the MERCILESSH and
Your, circumcished jew shishter Suzan F. Binder and her
circumcished jew hubby Marc W. Binder
Your, circumcished shitshke 'wife' Mary E. Riendeau Shein
Your, shenile circumcished jew mum Annie Shein (SHOOSH!)
Your, circumcished jew shub-uncle Hyman Shein (POP!)
Your, circumcished jew dad Shaul (LOLOK) Shein (zt"l/a"h since 1992)
and LASHT butt not LEASHT your, shubcherry-popped circumcished jew
shubnephew Zachary G. Binder!
And who the fuck is Isidore (Izzy) Shein??? Googlefuck him anyway!
Well, YES!
Yup.
No, doubt about it!
The Peeler
2019-10-06 13:35:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 05:42:29 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by TallHenry
No, doubt about it!
NO doubt about it AT ALL that you ARE a VERY VERY sick asshole, you poor
idiot!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: <rlMUE.676067$***@usenetxs.com>
Michael Ejercito
2019-10-09 15:15:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Peeler
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 05:42:29 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by TallHenry
No, doubt about it!
NO doubt about it AT ALL that you ARE a VERY VERY sick asshole, you poor
idiot!
You are so right about the mangina.

Now here is Jack Marshall writing about the anti-discrimination lawsuit
against Harvard.

http://ethicsalarms.com/2019/10/04/the-ruling-in-the-harvard-asian-discrimination-case-so-what-was-the-point/


The Ruling In The Harvard Asian Discrimination Case: So What WAS “The Point”?
OCTOBER 4, 2019 / JACK MARSHALL


In response to U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs’ ruling this week
that Harvard University does not discriminate against Asian Americans in
undergraduate admissions, two commentators issued reactions with almost
themes: the ruling missed the point. In the New York Times, law professor
Melissa Murray wrote that the opinion missed the point by being…

…focused on diversity as the sole grounds on which the use of race in
admissions may be justified. As Judge Burroughs noted in her ruling,
diversity-centered admissions policies can “enhance the education of
students of all races and backgrounds, to prepare them to assume leadership
roles in the increasingly pluralistic society into which they will
graduate,” “broaden the perspectives of teachers” and “expand the reach of
the curriculum and the range of scholarly interests.” Her words echo the
standard refrains that have been deployed to defend affirmative action since
Justice Lewis Powell’s opinion in University of California v. Bakke (1978).
Justice Powell famously extolled the virtues of the “Harvard Plan,” which
recognized that a “farm boy from Idaho can bring something to Harvard
College that a Bostonian cannot offer.” The problem, of course, is that
thinking about diversity in terms of what beneficiaries might contribute
makes the benefits of affirmative action contingent and conditional — worthy
only because its beneficiaries serve the broader needs of institutions and
those who are assumed to belong.

To the contrary, Murray believes that Harvard’s race preferences out to be
justified as permanent reparations, though she never uses those exact words.
(Hmmmm.…I wonder if she’s black? Let’s see…why yes, she is!):

Those who fought for affirmative action expected institutions to maintain
policies that ensured continued representation of those who had long been
excluded. But at least in the courts, these convictions have been largely
jettisoned.

That’s because they are unethical, illegal and unconstitutional.

The momentary victory for Harvard, which was correctly accused of
discriminating against Asian-Americans in admissions in order to further
affirmative action goals, was the result of an ideological rather than a
legal analysis. I give the judge credit for being open about his bias: how
else could one interpret his reasoning? From the Washington Post:

While Harvard’s “admissions process may be imperfect,” Burroughs wrote, the
judge concluded that statistical disparities among racial groups of
applicants “are not the result of any racial animus or conscious prejudice.”

The law does not require “racial animus or conscious prejudice” to make
racial discrimination illegal. Discrimination on the basis of race is
unfair, unjust, illegal and wrong. The judge doesn’t address that fact; he
just explains why Harvard’s discrimination is the good kind, writing, “The
use of race benefits certain racial and ethnic groups that would otherwise
be underrepresented at Harvard and is therefore neither an illegitimate use
of race or reflective of racial prejudice.”

What does “under-represented” mean? This is a tell: Judge Burroughs is a
disciple of the Left’s edict that institutions, workplaces, benfits and
distinctions are inherently suspect or harmful if they don’t closely match
demographic divisions within the public in general. This essentially
un-American myth requires the use of quotas while disguising their intent
and function.

Affirmative action has always been an example of policy hypocrisy, engaging
in present discrimination in order to combat the effects of past
discrimination. It was justified, at best, as a temporary breach of core
principles in pursuit of a theoretical remedy to a unique problem.

Another “the opinion missed the point” article had a more useful, if also
flawed, analysis than the law professor’s “We should keep discriminating
against whites and Asians forever because of slavery and Jim Crow” argument.
Richard Ford makes the case in “The Harvard Ruling Misses the Point” that
the entire debate is taking place within an absurdity. Elite institutions
like Harvard exist to bestow the credential of being certified “elite,” a
member of the deserving American upper class. “Democratizing” the anointment
process by artificially using factors that have nothing to do with merit or
achievement to bestow elitism is self-contradictory: once it becomes obvious
that getting admitted to Harvard signifies nothing substantive, then Harvard’s
ability to sanctify its graduates vanishes, or should.

It should. Harvard’s degree always was something of a fraud in this respect.
Ford correctly observes,

The unstated assumption that folds affirmative action into a general
critique of elite admissions is that acceptance should be based exclusively
on individual merit (and that merit, in turn, should be measured by grades
and test scores). Indeed, opponents of affirmative action often speak as if
it is a departure from an otherwise even-handed and admirable meritocracy.
But the Harvard case and the bribery scandal both expose—in high relief, if
not for the first time—the extent to which non-racial (and hence legally
unproblematic) admissions preferences dwarf those associated with race.
Athletes, legacy applicants, and those otherwise likely to help universities
secure large donations enjoy higher admission rates than members of
underrepresented racial groups. Affirmative action is one of the more modest
of many departures from numerical indicia of merit.


Well, more modest except for the fact that it is, you know, illegal. There’s
no law or Constitution principle, or even logical rebuttal, that holds that
a private institution cannot and should not make practical quid pro quo
arrangements with benefactors, or that admitting otherwise less-than-stellar
applicants out of storied parents and families does not enhance an
institution’s prestige, and thus the value of its degrees to graduates who
are, in fact, qualified on their personal merits alone. There are, however,
laws that forbid discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, and
the other familiar categories. Ford is essentially excusing racial
discrimination in admissions because “it’s not the worst thing,” but, in
fact, it is.

Other observations in the article are better. Ford writes, for example,

As a practical matter, then, so-called merit-based admissions—however one
defines merit—can only go so far: the children of the elite must always
predominate if the school is to remain elite. A truly elite school admits
the most talented student body it can while still ensuring that most of the
student body is drawn from the upper class. If it were not for the American
myth of the classless society, we could admit that an elite education is,
among other things, a class credential. Elite admissions could then be
understood as a ritual through which the upper classes sort themselves and
decide which lucky members of the lower orders to admit into their ranks.

Bingo.

And…

The Harvard ruling and the bribery scandal will lead to calls for reform of
the admissions process, and there is plenty to criticize. But much of the
uproar has been based on unrealistic and even incoherent ideas about the
nature of selective universities, their strengths, and what they can
accomplish. The myth of the classless society allows the critics of
university admissions to pretend that selective universities could somehow
be less elitist but still just as elite. And this has meant that all the
resentment over the classist aspects of university admissions has been
displaced onto the relatively minor issue of race-based affirmative action.

It’s not relatively minor if you are a Harvard applicant passed over because
your skin is the wrong color, and someone with inferior qualifications is
nonetheless the “right color.” Ford, like Professor Murray and Judge
Burroughs, in the end is using a rationalization to justify racial
discrimination, just a different one than they were.

Harvard is going to lose this case in the Supreme Court of the United States
because its racially-biased admissions process constitutes illegal
discrimination.

That’s the point. and it isn’t a particularly complicated one.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Loading...