# Freedom vs Freedom



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

As you understand I live in Sweden. Here some rules/laws are diffrent ofcourse, but I would to like a point about one significant diffrence. 

In Sweden we have "Allemansrätten" (all mens rights) that gives any one mostly free acess to all wilderness and all roads. No one can deny me the right to walk throu their forest, swamps, fields or whatever and while there collect wild flower, mushrooms, berrys and such. That includes beatches, I take a bath were I like care not who owns the beach. I can also spend one night (and one night only) were I like, and put up a tent. Exeptions are peoples gardens, fields that are in use, beaches close to houses were people live and such. 

Im not allowed to take branches from trees, litter or make a mess of any sort. 

Fishing is free somplaces.. others not. There are rivers were the plant in fish so sportfishers cacht more, those lakes/rivers one has to pay to fish. 

Roads (exept highways and such), even private ones is for everyone that walks. The roads owner can deny cars, motorbikes and horses but not pedestrians or someone on a bikecycle. If you walk, all roads are ok. 

I regard our system to be much more free, why? Because men (and women) should have as few chanis as possible, its our country, we are all supposed to defend it if we are invaded - and then we should have access to it. It is also important that nature is acceseble to all, because shit happens and beeing used to our nature improves ones options & chanses of survival. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## Makwa (Dec 19, 2014)

A question OP. So does this mean if a road is gated you can just open the gate and pass through? Lets say I own a cattle ranch and I have a dirt access road that I built on my property to go from one pasture to another and around the perimeter to check and maintain fences. It is privately owned property by me. I also have gates obviously to keep cattle in and trespassers out. Are you saying anyone can just go through the gate and walk around my property on the dirt road I built?

If so then I would have a real problem with that as people are idiots and would cause the landowner no end of grief. Why should he pay taxes if he has no control of his own land?

As for the access on public land you speak of........ I have no problem with that at all and it is the way it should be.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

In America, we are free to shoot anyone walking down our private roads in some places. Other places you have to pay.

We don't worry about defense so much because we only have 2 neighbors, (unless you count Cuba, which we don't). Besides, who would have to balls to invade us on our home turf? Even the Japanese knew this would be a very bad idea. OK, we are under constant invasion from Mexico, and the Japanese did invade the Aleutian Islands during WWII, but I don't think anyone was living there, so no big deal.

It's illegal to walk down a lot of our roads. Roads are for motor vehicles, especially the major roads. Most of our roads have sidewalks for walking, but not all. I think we are allowed to walk down the roads that don't have sidewalks unless they are a major road.

A lot of our beaches are owned by someone and considered private property, but most tourist destinations have beaches you can visit. I hate beaches. I have eaten more than enough sand for one lifetime in deserts. Deserts are like beaches, but without the water, so you don't see any bikini babes. I hate sand.

They stock a lot of ponds and streams here too, but I have never paid to fish. You do have to buy a fishing license though, but they are cheap. I think they buy the fish to stock out of the license money.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Welcome to the forum. Step on my land here in the USofA without asking and you will be asked to/ordered to/escorted off/taken to jail for not leaving.

Ask to visit and it's a different story. We own property as individuals here.


----------



## Big Country1 (Feb 10, 2014)

Makwa said:


> A question OP. So does this mean if a road is gated you can just open the gate and pass through? Lets say I own a cattle ranch and I have a dirt access road that I built on my property to go from one pasture to another and around the perimeter to check and maintain fences. It is privately owned property by me. I also have gates obviously to keep cattle in and trespassers out. Are you saying anyone can just go through the gate and walk around my property on the dirt road I built?
> 
> If so then I would have a real problem with that as people are idiots and would cause the landowner no end of grief. Why should he pay taxes if he has no control of his own land?
> 
> As for the access on public land you speak of........ I have no problem with that at all and it is the way it should be.


I agree, If its my private land i dont want others just walking in. Public land should be just that public, and should be open to anyone to do what they want. As long as they are not trashing the area, or harming the enviroment. My .02


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

Socialism vs property rights. Good example.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

If you happen by my place, there will be signs clearly posted on trees, fences and at each of the entrances. These signs state simply, NO TRESPASSING. If you proceed further, you may find a very large pole in the ground. Atop the poll is the severed rotten head of the last man who trespassed. That is my version of "Allemansrätten".


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Makwa said:


> A question OP. So does this mean if a road is gated you can just open the gate and pass through? Lets say I own a cattle ranch and I have a dirt access road that I built on my property to go from one pasture to another and around the perimeter to check and maintain fences. It is privately owned property by me. I also have gates obviously to keep cattle in and trespassers out. Are you saying anyone can just go through the gate and walk around my property on the dirt road I built?
> 
> If so then I would have a real problem with that as people are idiots and would cause the landowner no end of grief. Why should he pay taxes if he has no control of his own land?
> 
> As for the access on public land you speak of........ I have no problem with that at all and it is the way it should be.


If you open a gate you also must close it behind you. Its not a tricky concept 

But one has to be aware that there might be livestock once passing the gate ofcourse. about a decade ago I was out walking with my dog and passed an old bobwire fence (in bad shape and not allowed), the fence had a breach so I walked in, and after say 100 meters my dog started to bark loudly, and what do you know, there were cows in the forest,so I decided to turn around and head back, cows are kind of big when you get close to them.

And people can walk around on you property yes, unless it is close to your house, aka the garden. If they do that, then they are trespassing. But if they pass throu land you own, minding their own buisness then you have no right to stop them, unless their mere precense is a problem. One cant walk out i a field of say wheat, untill it is harvested. Then, if for some reason, sombody want to walk there (untill new seeds are in the ground) they are free to do so.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Prepadoodle said:


> I have eaten more than enough sand for one lifetime in deserts. Deserts are like beaches, but without the water, so you don't see any bikini babes. I hate sand.
> 
> .


Many of our beaches are without sand, solid bedock 

Beaches like this are more common then those with sand

http://www.minskargard.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/arholma-nord-600x400.jpg


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Piratesailor said:


> Socialism vs property rights. Good example.


Yes, or as people here wiew it, the rights of the rich (lords) or the rest of us (commoners).


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

I suppose it depends on what your definition of Freedom is. Here, we have something called "Property Rights", although our government often seems to have problems understanding the concept. That means if I own something, I have the Right to control who has access to it and what is done on it, as long as it doesn't affect other people. If I go through the expense of building and maintaining a road on my private property, I feel I should have control of who uses it. My road, my money, my control. 

Here are two examples off the top of my head about woodlands or timber that I on my private property and who has access to it:

1) I buy some timber because I like to hunt. I am out in MY woods/timber deer hunting. I see a deer and take a shot at it. Do I have to worry about hitting someone in the brush that I can't see? Would I even get a shot because of yahoos walking around in MY woods getting close to nature?

2) I buy some timber. My wife/girlfriend and I like getting "close to nature", and in this case I mean having sex out in the woods. It's our property and we can't be seen by the neighbors, so besides the potential of getting mosquito bites or poison ivy on some delicate parts, what's the problem? We are going at it like a couple of horny monkeys when we look up and find a group of kids standing around watching us. Or maybe it's a 300lb pervert whacking off while he watches and asks if he can have seconds. I buy some PRIVATE property so that me and my honey can get it on in the great outdoors, and don't want it turning into a spectator sport.

Perhaps the examples are a little ludicrous, but the point is, it's PRIVATE property. That means that I own it, not the community. In this country we have countless National, State, and Community parks, recreation, and conservation areas where if someone wants to take a walk in the wild, they can. They are paid for using PUBLIC funds, therefore they can usually be used by the PUBLIC. In some aspects it sounds to me that it wouldn't be unthinkable that a law would be passed that if someone want to use the toilet in your house they can just walk in and let her rip. Sounds to me like your definition of "freedom" means that it means you are free to use things that other people have paid for.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Swedishsocialist said:


> Yes, or as people here wiew it, the rights of the rich (lords) or the rest of us (commoners).


Here in the US, we used to encourage people to work hard so that they can buy their own land rather than just encroach on others who have worked to buy theirs.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

Bugging out heading for the hills. Who's property are you walking on. And what to do if someone is walking on your property after a major event.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Swedishsocialist said:


> Yes, or as people here wiew it, the rights of the rich (lords) or the rest of us (commoners).


Ahhhh, the old "class warfare" theory. "It's okay to take from them because they are rich." Have allot of that here too, we call them "Liberals" or "Democrats."

There are many areas here that if you go wondering on someone's PRIVATE property, you just might get buried there.

Perhaps what is somewhat different here is that you don't have to be rich to own land, depending on where that land is. In some areas, mostly near large urban areas, you do need allot of money, but in other areas most people can own some land if they put their minds to it.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Notsoyoung said:


> I suppose it depends on what your definition of Freedom is. Here, we have something called "Property Rights", although our government often seems to have problems understanding the concept. That means if I own something, I have the Right to control who has access to it and what is done on it, as long as it doesn't affect other people. If I go through the expense of building and maintaining a road on my private property, I feel I should have control of who uses it. My road, my money, my control.
> 
> Here are two examples off the top of my head about woodlands or timber that I on my private property and who has access to it:
> 
> ...


We do have property rights here to. Buing land for hunting on them if perfectly ok and who has right to hunt is up to the landowner. If someone gets shot during huntingseason it is regarded as an accident if there is nothing saying othervice. Accidents like that happens kind of every year, most non-hunters keep away from the forests during big game hunting season, unless one knows nobody hunts there.

regarding sex in nature, thats fine, but you cant deny others the same  But Im not sure how close to "population" one acutally can be before it becomes a legal problem,


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Swedishsocialist said:


> ...regarding sex in nature, thats fine, but you cant deny others the same  But Im not sure how close to "population" one acutally can be before it becomes a legal problem,


I am for everyone having sex in nature all they want. But do it on my land without my permission and you and your partner's severed head may end up rotting upon a Pike.

Work hard, save your money, buy your own land, have sex on it. The American Dream.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Slippy said:


> Here in the US, we used to encourage people to work hard so that they can buy their own land rather than just encroach on others who have worked to buy theirs.


Thats fine. Here we encourage people to embrace nature (in a way that dont causes the landowner to suffer in any way execpt he/she cant keep people out).


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Notsoyoung said:


> Ahhhh, the old "class warfare" theory. "It's okay to take from them because they are rich." Have allot of that here too, we call them "Liberals" or "Democrats."
> 
> There are many areas here that if you go wondering on someone's PRIVATE property, you just might get buried there.
> 
> Perhaps what is somewhat different here is that you don't have to be rich to own land, depending on where that land is. In some areas, mostly near large urban areas, you do need allot of money, but in other areas most people can own some land if they put their minds to it.


Exactly what is taken from them? The right to deny others to pass by on their lands, they are such victims are they not?


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

We had lords here once, but we shot some of them and the rest ran back to England. Maybe some of them went to where you are? Well, the rest of them left anyway.

We are all lords here, or maybe we are all commoners. I'm not sure. Some of our politicians think they are lords though. It's not considered correct to shoot them these days, so we mostly just wait a few years until we get a new batch of idiots that think they are lords.

Are you allowed to call your lords idiots? We can call our leaders anything we feel like calling them. For example, if I was to call our president a low life dirty bug sucking pig herder, that would be OK. He would still think he's a lord, but it would make me feel a little better about the whole thing.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

James m said:


> Bugging out heading for the hills. Who's property are you walking on. And what to do if someone is walking on your property after a major event.


In this case it depends, if they are walking throu and dont seem to be a problem, let them pass. Especially if they dont know you are there.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Prepadoodle said:


> We had lords here once, but we shot some of them and the rest ran back to England. Maybe some of them went to where you are? Well, the rest of them left anyway.
> 
> We are all lords here, or maybe we are all commoners. I'm not sure. Some of our politicians think they are lords though. It's not considered correct to shoot them these days, so we mostly just wait a few years until we get a new batch of idiots that think they are lords.
> 
> Are you allowed to call your lords idiots? We can call our leaders anything we feel like calling them. For example, if I was to call our president a low life dirty bug sucking pig herder, that would be OK. He would still think he's a lord, but it would make me feel a little better about the whole thing.


here, we tax the lords way more then you would belive, but they are free to stay 

We dont have a president. We have a statsminister that is elected throu our congress. Diffrent system. We can and do call him anything we want, as with our other politicians and likewise.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Actually, it doesn't sound so different than here. If someone were walking on my property I could call a cop, but that's about it. The cop would do absolutely nothing. That would be the end of it.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

I should also add that the USA has 2,607,131 km2 of federally protected wilderness. These are National parks, National Forests, Wilderness Protection Areas, and so on. We also have a lot of State parks and recreation areas. Then there's Alaska, which is mostly wilderness except it's all cold and white and has big hungry bears.

So that's probably like 4,000,000 Km2 of places that are owned by everyone and pretty much free to walk around in.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Prepadoodle said:


> I should also add that the USA has 2,607,131 km2 of federally protected wilderness. These are National parks, National Forests, Wilderness Protection Areas, and so on. We also have a lot of State parks and recreation areas. Then there's Alaska, which is mostly wilderness except it's all cold and white and has big hungry bears.
> 
> So that's probably like 4,000,000 Km2 of places that are owned by everyone and pretty much free to walk around in.


yeah, but are they close to were people live? That really matter, othervice it more is kind of at teoretical right.

And sweden is kind of alaska in some regards, lots of wilderness and we are as high up north as alaska.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

There is more wilderness land in places out west and in Alaska, but you will find both national and state parks within an easy drive of almost everyone. To put it in perspective you can be in bear country within a 2 hour drive from New York City.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Yeah, everybody is fairly close to at least one of them. There are 3 or 4 within like 50 km of me here, including the 3,500 km long Appalachian National Scenic Trail.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Diver said:


> There is more wilderness land in places out west and in Alaska, but you will find both national and state parks within an easy drive of almost everyone. To put it in perspective you can be in bear country within a 2 hour drive from New York City.


"drive to" Well I prefer just to walk acutally. I do like to pick wild berries when they are around, and lots and lots of people pick mushrooms when they are around. Thats is how it is supposed to be


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Swedishsocialist said:


> "drive to" Well I prefer just to walk acutally. I do like to pick wild berries when they are around, and lots and lots of people pick mushrooms when they are around. Thats is how it is supposed to be


Picking berry's on the land at Slippy Lodge will get you in big trouble. That shit don't fly here, 'cuz.

That is how it IS.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Swedishsocialist said:


> Exactly what is taken from them? The right to deny others to pass by on their lands, they are such victims are they not?


Just what part of this doesn't belong to you don't you get? How would you feel if on some sunday in may I just walked into your home and began sleeping on your sofa for say a year. Wouldn't like it very much would you.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Diver said:


> Actually, it doesn't sound so different than here. If someone were walking on my property I could call a cop, but that's about it. The cop would do absolutely nothing. That would be the end of it.


I realize you live in the Peoples Republic of New Jersey, but things are not like that everywhere. 
My property is completely fenced (it took years of my labor and a wheel barrow full of cash) to keep my animals in and everything else out. The fences/gates are clearly marked No Trespassing and if anyone climbs over said fence and/or gate I WILL hold them at gunpoint until the deputies arrive. And I WILL press charges.


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

I've never lived in Sweden, and I am assuming you have never lived in the US. There are plenty of places people can go without any trouble. Places that are privately owned and people not wanting uninvited guest are posted or otherwise restricted without permission, people stay off of, or face going to jail. It is not nearly as bad or restrictive as you probably think.
Likewise, as I have written I have never lived in Sweden, how "ever man's rights" sounds to me doesn't sound very good. I can imagine strange people walking across my land at any time, and not a thing I can do about it. But, I am thinking maybe it like I wrote about you and our laws, perhaps not as bad as it sounds?


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

SARGE7402 said:


> Just what part of this doesn't belong to you don't you get? How would you feel if on some sunday in may I just walked into your home and began sleeping on your sofa for say a year. Wouldn't like it very much would you.


And that is not allowed here to.

You are strange, you see yourself as free but still cant take a shit in the forest unless asking for permission.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Prepadoodle said:


> Yeah, everybody is fairly close to at least one of them. There are 3 or 4 within like 50 km of me here, including the 3,500 km long Appalachian National Scenic Trail.


The Appalachian Trail is an excellent example. You can hike from Maine to Georgia. Most of it is public land though there are some places where it passes through private property with the permission of the owners. The trail also passes within a 2 hour drive of New York City as well as being rather close to Philadelphia, Washington, DC and probably other places I should mention. I suspect most of us on this forum who live in the eastern US have hiked some portion of it at one time or another. That's one trail that is over 2,000 miles long.

As for walking on roads, most roads are public. Certainly those of any length are. The only public roads closed to pedestrians are the Interstates and that is due to safety concerns due to the speed of the traffic.

Perhaps I am dense, but it really doesn't sound much different to me. Mostly it sounds like a cultural difference in that if you deliberately cross private property it would be viewed as discourteous where in Sweden it would be discourteous to ask someone to not cross. As a practical matter you can pretty much walk anywhere reasonable in either country.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

Swedishsocialist said:


> "drive to" Well I prefer just to walk acutally. I do like to pick wild berries when they are around, and lots and lots of people pick mushrooms when they are around. Thats is how it is supposed to be


No its not. Thieves are not smiled on here. People do not just "attack" others but here, you must have some respect - but it does them good to see how they will be busted down under a single party nazi hand, where people beat in the street "es normal? Das cops beaten Das "not us" es normalen?" And other tasty features of utter control and utter detachment.
Here, if we were all so "beautiful" blacks and arabs and hippies will just invade and steal. Blacks will not learn to crop. They will learn harvest times and steal all they can.
That's reality.
They are never anything but another "mogadishu" another "bagdhad" - we can afford "hashish and child lovers" all on our own if we wish,

without the likes of them.
You live where the "others" have been gotten rid of or put in place. We live in a constant battle to keep a yard or crop from being stomped over, stolen or our house robbed because some bunch of monkeys decided "they have a right! They wanted it and you are just greedy and racist"
Bah. City rats are pitiful here and ignorant, despising to let life thrive. They have parks where they can refresh their selves without being a danger to nature or a nuisance to the people who are robbed to support them.
But, admittedly, one white nazi party here sure would be "human relief" it's just difficult for them to approve of "all that darkness you aren't saying" and the blood it takes to have a "worthwhile people only" nation of 9 or 10 million.
Canadians live pretty well too, like socialist children, but among their 12 million, there are very few kaffers of any kind. Very big difference. Don't pretend we can even try to live in an honor society buried alive in destroying trash.
That is why we are likely to shoot them. They want to thrash through "nature" completely ignorant of it and animals are not protected or their breeding areas sacred.
You know what it takes, but they are prevented to protect any life but trash, while you gloat? Tsk tsk
You can not be so unaware and enlightened at the same time
They also are not so good at "banal evil" the term coined for your country - to walk around like a little child, ignoring the things men ought not to ignore (yes? It is so)
I find it interesting that you tempt them, knowing if they try to make honor society here, they will be jailed or killed so muslims, blacks or police can take their property and sell for money.
Our lives are not "beautiful daydreams" because of our lowest we cater too and the wild rapacious rulers who steal at the end of a rifle.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Moonshinedave said:


> I've never lived in Sweden, and I am assuming you have never lived in the US. There are plenty of places people can go without any trouble. Places that are privately owned and people not wanting uninvited guest are posted or otherwise restricted without permission, people stay off of, or face going to jail. It is not nearly as bad or restrictive as you probably think.
> Likewise, as I have written I have never lived in Sweden, how "ever man's rights" sounds to me doesn't sound very good. I can imagine strange people walking across my land at any time, and not a thing I can do about it. But, I am thinking maybe it like I wrote about you and our laws, perhaps not as bad as it sounds?


It is not a problem at all acutally. The system works fine, people really cant do to much in a forest anyway more then beeing there and gain strengt from it 

Why should it be a problem that somebody passes by? what is it that scares you? Is it not a good thing people are outside instead of infront of the TV? Should I not as a member of "hemvärnet" (kind of our national guard) not know my surrondings to better adapt if problems arise? Why should I defend and give my life for a nation that also deny me the right to walk were I choose? I will not fight & die to defend lords, but I will do it to defend our rights as a people to have acesses to our lands.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Swedishsocialist said:


> You are strange, you see yourself as free but still cant take a shit in the forest unless asking for permission.


Just to show you Swedish folk the kinder, gentler Slippy. here is the last of the Blackberry Preserves that we picked from the Blackberry bushes on the land at Slippy Lodge. So good, it'll make a Swedish Socialist slap his Mama!
View attachment 9407


As far as taking a shit in the forest, here in the US you are free to do so on YOUR PROPERTY. I even have a comfortable seat on which to accomplish this act.
View attachment 9408
Just don't attempt this on anyone else's property without their permission...I would also advise you get said permission on writing and notarized...if you know what I mean Chief?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Swedishsocialist said:


> As you understand I live in Sweden. Here some rules/laws are diffrent ofcourse, but I would to like a point about one significant diffrence.
> 
> In Sweden we have "Allemansrätten" (all mens rights) that gives any one mostly free acess to all wilderness and all roads. No one can deny me the right to walk throu their forest, swamps, fields or whatever and while there collect wild flower, mushrooms, berrys and such. That includes beatches, I take a bath were I like care not who owns the beach. I can also spend one night (and one night only) were I like, and put up a tent. Exeptions are peoples gardens, fields that are in use, beaches close to houses were people live and such.
> 
> ...


Swede, I find your way very intriguing. I am sure it works for your society, but ours is a little different.

Our origins is common law, where the right to own land, even as a commoner, makes us all equal. Under common law, the owner of the land is within his right to use deadly force against someone on the property, uninvited. Few people would kill a trespasser, nowadays, but that is the heritage and that is how much we cherish our right to own property.

There are certain rules along the way, however. For example, the banks of rivers and streams are not "owned" by those who own the land adjacent. I don't remember how many feet from the water is considered public, but one is allowed off the water and onto land.

Walking, biking or horseback riding along interstates is not legal and would be a very bad idea, anyway, but it is OK to do so along other roads. I think it is beyond stupid to go biking along a road used by motor vehicles, but hey; I guess I like my life more than those people like theirs!

Hunting or fishing on someone's property is even worse than merely trespassing, here. You might as well attempt to steal beer out of a feller's fridge. Either way, it won't be a good thing if you get caught!


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

Swedishsocialist said:


> It is not a problem at all acutally. The system works fine, people really cant do to much in a forest anyway more then beeing there and gain strengt from it
> 
> Why should it be a problem that somebody passes by? what is it that scares you? Is it not a good thing people are outside instead of infront of the TV? Should I not as a member of "hemvärnet" (kind of our national guard) not know my surrondings to better adapt if problems arise? Why should I defend and give my life for a nation that also deny me the right to walk were I choose? I will not fight & die to defend lords, but I will do it to defend our rights as a people to have acesses to our lands.


Well, when you know a people can not do a thing because of their conditions and still keep demeaning them for not being run over by destroying invaders, we call that "propaganda" and see through the games of the game player pushing it.
When nothing but white, behavior trained "daydreaming" conformists are our population, I'm sure we'll all just french up and be "excellent to each other" (heh)
Why, I wonder, don't you tell them precisely "how" you made this "utopia" of children, beyond always siding with who you think will win and exterminating all but the evolved. Be more descriptive on "how" you got there - so surely they can follow by example? (  )


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Slippy said:


> Just to show you Swedish folk the kinder, gentler Slippy. here is the last of the Blackberry Preserves that we picked from the Blackberry bushes on the land at Slippy Lodge. So good, it'll make a Swedish Socialist slap his Mama!
> View attachment 9407
> 
> 
> ...


I might be relevant to know that almost all wild berries/mushrooms (above 95%) are spoiled because nobody is around to pick them. just to much of it and spread out. Still, getting out in the forest one day and returning home with some kilos of mushrooms/berries is common when they are in season. If this was illegal well, they would stay in the forests, there is no profit in paying people to go look for them, because its always a lottery, some times/years/places there is plenty, some nothing.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Swedishsocialist said:


> I might be relevant to know that almost all wild berries/mushrooms (above 95%) are spoiled because nobody is around to pick them. just to much of it and spread out. Still, getting out in the forest one day and returning home with some kilos of mushrooms/berries is common when they are in season. If this was illegal well, they would stay in the forests, there is no profit in paying people to go look for them, because its always a lottery, some times/years/places there is plenty, some nothing.


I think you missed my point Swede. We will have to work on that thing we call "comedic delivery".


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

oddapple said:


> Well, when you know a people can not do a thing because of their conditions and still keep demeaning them for not being run over by destroying invaders, we call that "propaganda" and see through the games of the game player pushing it.
> When nothing but white, behavior trained "daydreaming" conformists are our population, I'm sure we'll all just french up and be "excellent to each other" (heh)
> Why, I wonder, don't you tell them precisely "how" you made this "utopia" of children, beyond always siding with who you think will win and exterminating all but the evolved. Be more descriptive on "how" you got there - so surely they can follow by example? (  )


I really dont know what you are talking about? You make no sence. There was a period were retarded, mentally ill, nymfomaniacs, homosexuals, (I think, not sure) and such were sterilised yes because there were considerd not suiteble to pass on their genes. But that was a long time ago, now days retards can have as many children as they like, so those dark ages are behind us.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Swedishsocialist said:


> I might be relevant to know that almost all wild berries/mushrooms (above 95%) are spoiled because nobody is around to pick them. just to much of it and spread out. Still, getting out in the forest one day and returning home with some kilos of mushrooms/berries is common when they are in season. If this was illegal well, they would stay in the forests, there is no profit in paying people to go look for them, because its always a lottery, some times/years/places there is plenty, some nothing.


Ahhh. But by many people picking the berries by the kilo they are depriving wildlife such as birds and rabbits the food they need to survive. Depriving them of the freedom of life.
We have blackberries on our property, they grow wild like a weed and spread as fast as a weed too. My wife picks as many as she can to make preserves (like Slippy) and to dehydrate. Those that we can not reach or otherwise leave unpicked feed the wildlife. All nature is a balance between man and animal.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Swedishsocialist said:


> I really dont know what you are talking about? You make no sence. There was a period were retarded, mentally ill, nymfomaniacs, homosexuals, (I think, not sure) and such were sterilised yes because there were considerd not suiteble to pass on their genes. But that was a long time ago, now days retards can have as many children as they like, so those dark ages are behind us.


Don't worry, Swedishsocialist, sometimes oddapple doesn't make sense to his own countrymen. :armata_PDT_12:


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Don't worry, Swedishsocialist, sometimes oddapple doesn't make sense to his own countrymen. :armata_PDT_12:


_Sometimes_? :ambivalence:


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

I'm not trying to be rough on your fascist utopia on purpose, I just think you should tell more of the truth about the screaming basements it takes for you to "walk in daylight"
Also - first obvious big fat lie: animals and nature use everything. Berries are not "wasted" ever and animals need the food too. Starving for it.
I just have to point out the glaring flaws and now blatant lies you are using to propagandize them.
They can do it if they like? But they should know you have to be cold as ice. Loveless and self absorbed. It does not look as "divine" from the outside as it does to utterly contented, social unit thx1141 Thou ~
I'm not knocking your life or story, but they need to know the reality more honestly.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the story, the abused, ignored, tortured child is their innocent soul and human conscience - every body gets that, you gave it to the party:
The only chronological element of the work is that it begins by describing the first day of summer in Omelas, a shimmering city of unbelievable happiness and delight. In Omelas, the summer solstice is celebrated with a glorious festival and a race featuring children on horseback. The vibrant festival atmosphere, however, seems to be an everyday characteristic of the blissful community, whose citizens, though limited in their advanced technology to communal (rather than private) resources, are still intelligent, sophisticated, and cultured. Omelas has no kings, soldiers, priests, or slaves. The specific socio-politico-economic setup of the community is not mentioned, but the narrator merely explains that the reader cannot be sure of every particular.

Self-admittedly, the narrator reflects that "Omelas sounds in my words like a city in a fairy tale, long ago and far away, once upon a time. Perhaps it would be best if you imagined it as your own fancy bids, assuming it will rise to the occasion, for certainly I cannot suit you all."[6] The narrator even suggests that, if necessary, the reader may include an orgy in their mental picture of Omelas.

Everything about Omelas is so abundantly pleasing that the narrator decides the reader is not yet truly convinced of its existence and so elaborates upon one final element of the city: its one atrocity. The city's constant state of serenity and splendor requires that a single unfortunate child be kept in perpetual filth, darkness, and misery.
_*
Once citizens are old enough to know the truth, most, though initially shocked and disgusted, are ultimately able to come to terms with the fact and resolve to live their lives in such a manner as to make the suffering of the unfortunate child worthwhile. However, a few citizens, young and old, silently walk away from the city, and no one knows where they go. The story ends with "The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible it does not exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas."*_

Anyway, I have to get offline for awhile. I have been catching it for even being here or posting, but now that you're here to "educate" them, I will be even more howled at for being a truly skilled, honest, capable "natural man" who might be construed as getting in the way of the party, wanting my freedom, tall soul and all. Sell it sell it sell it - I am sure the ones who survive this true animal invasion will be happy to think over a purely white and sanitized world....


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Don't worry, Swedishsocialist, sometimes oddapple doesn't make sense to his own countrymen. :armata_PDT_12:


Good point RPD.

Swede,

But don't get any ideas...he's OUR Oddapple and we love him for just being...well...an oddapple? :icon_smile:


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Swedishsocialist said:


> ...But that was a long time ago, now days retards can have as many children as they like, so those dark ages are behind us.


Believe me, here in the US, we know all too well about retards being able to have as many children as they like. Here is a good example;


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Swedishsocialist said:


> Yes, or as people here wiew it, the rights of the rich (lords) or the rest of us (commoners).


Lords?

Dude, I own property and I an't no lord. There's a really great (and I mean REALLY great) conservation area not very far from my land (within 15 miles) that it would take an active person days and days to explore. People are more than welcome to use that land, that (and protecting wildlife) is what it is for. My land is for my use, not yours.

Those berries you are eating on my land (or will be in 2 years, we are just planting them this spring) WE put there, WE planted them, WE will harvest them and make jam or preserves or dehydrate them, eat them and give them to our friends. WE put in the effort, WE put in the money, you didn't.

I am just a working class guy who saved a long time to buy that land, and I will thank you not to trespass. If you want to go mushrooming on my property? Ask nicely! Don't just assume I don't mind.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> ...If you want to go mushrooming on my property? Ask nicely! Don't just assume I don't mind.


Coincidentally, one of my "Bucket List" items is for me to be riding my 4 Wheeler, .45 strapped to my hip, and camera phone at the ready. Two foreigners from socialist Europe approach me;

"Goot Aaaftanoon Kint Sir! May Ve seelect sum fine mushroooomss from jour landt? Aaaftawaarts ve voood like to have the sex in your forest? OK?"

That would make my big ******* ass quite happy...


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Why on earth would you sterilize nymphomaniacs? I like um.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

How is this Socialist utopia working out with the recent invasions of the Muslim Hordes who have no regard for a country's citizens, laws, customs, or morals?

It seems you have Muslim controlled "no-go" zones, Swedish police: 55 official no-go zones | THE SWEDEN REPORT, how does this fit in with the Socialist utopia? These areas are controlled by gangs and the non-Muslim citizens AND POLICE are excluded. Seems walking down the road, through the forest or fields is likely to get you killed.

"Scratch that. They just announced they're setting the sights higher with a significantly increased immigration for 2015. The new forecast should put the total immigration above 200 000 per year by the time all is said and done.

Some readers have expressed disbelief that things really could be this bad in Sweden. Well, the ambulance union is now demanding military protection gear to enter these no-go zones. If the police releasing an official report isn't enough, perhaps you will at least listen to the people having to work in these areas?

Another clue as to why the stuff happening in the Swedish ghettos is routinely hushed up and/or trivialized can be found in this remarkable article about the Ferguson riots. A Swedish journalist has figured out that plundering stores and burning cars is nothing but the evolution of democracy, and she wishes she was there to participate. No joke."

And then you have the problem with the Muslim rape of infidels children and women:

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.co...women-in-seven-months-of-2013/comment-page-3/

"Muslims rape over 300 Swedish children and 700 women in the first seven months of 2013: Crime Statistics

In the first seven months of 2013, over 1,000 Swedish women reported being raped by Muslim immigrants in the capital city of Stockholm. And that's the numbers only for Stockholm! Over 300 of those were under the age of 15. The number of rapes is up 16% so far this year compared to 2012 numbers. A large proportion of the increase include rape of young [pre-teen] girls. "

And as far as "FREE SPEACH" in Sweden, just be PC and do not rock the boat or mention Muslim atrocity:

http://chersonandmolschky.com/2014/05/11/swedish-politician-fined-hate-speech-islam/

"Sweden Democrat Party politician Michael Hess of Karlskrona was sentenced today (May 8, 2014) to a fine for hate speech after having connected the religion of Islam with rape.

According to the judgment, the statement is not part of a "factual and authoritative discussion" and it thus it does not matter whether or not the statement is true."


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Prepadoodle said:


> Why on earth would you sterilize nymphomaniacs? I like um.


well, they were back in the days considerd having low morale, but that reason was quite uncommon. The major reason was retarded/really stupid or mentally disabled in a way that could be heredetry. The last remains of those laws were abandonded 2013 when those that who changes their sex by operation no longer also have to get sterilised at the same time.. now... they can swap sex from women to man, keep their womb, impregnate themself and some call this progress... oh well.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

Hmmm.....it seems Das party es usin der darken antibiotikan on der ownenstein - not going to be so omelaus perfect long. You can't make a silk purse of that. There will always be a viper in it. (It is wayyyy too weird for the world that your countries are being over run with them too. On purpose.)


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

oddapple said:


> Hmmm.....it seems Das party es usin der darken antibiotikan on der ownenstein - not going to be so omelaus perfect long. You can't make a silk purse of that. There will always be a viper in it. (It is wayyyy too weird for the world that your countries are being over run with them too. On purpose.)


In sweden we dont speak german, just so you know


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Swedishsocialist said:


> well, they were back in the days considerd having low morale, but that reason was quite uncommon. The major reason was retarded/really stupid or mentally disabled in a way that could be heredetry. The last remains of those laws were abandonded 2013 when those that who changes their sex by operation no longer also have to get sterilised at the same time.. now... they can swap sex from women to man, keep their womb, impregnate themself and some call this progress... oh well.


I wonder if Socialist and Liberal tendencies are hereditary also? Both seem to give rise to the demise of a free nation.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Mad Trapper said:


> How is this Socialist utopia working out with the recent invasions of the Muslim Hordes who have no regard for a country's citizens, laws, customs, or morals?
> 
> It seems you have Muslim controlled "no-go" zones, Swedish police: 55 official no-go zones | THE SWEDEN REPORT, how does this fit in with the Socialist utopia? These areas are controlled by gangs and the non-Muslim citizens AND POLICE are excluded. Seems walking down the road, through the forest or fields is likely to get you killed.
> 
> ...


this is just bollocks. There are no "no-go" zones for example, none of above describes sweden close to correct exept that hess got a fine.

Note, Im not in any way saying muslims coming here is a good thing, but the above is just not true.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Mad Trapper said:


> I wonder if Socialist and Liberal tendencies are hereditary also? Both seem to give rise to the demise of a free nation.


socialist and liberal are opposits usually.

You do know that the US is far from the only free nation in the world? You are not even the most free in any regard as far as I know.

A link that might give you some insight 
Index of Freedom in the World - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Excellent information Mad Trapper,

There are many more articles about the growing muslime population in Sweden, Norway and Scandinavian countries as a whole. Seems as if the little utopia society that they think they have created is not nearly as free and utopian when it comes to islamists doing what islamists do.



Mad Trapper said:


> How is this Socialist utopia working out with the recent invasions of the Muslim Hordes who have no regard for a country's citizens, laws, customs, or morals?
> 
> It seems you have Muslim controlled "no-go" zones, Swedish police: 55 official no-go zones | THE SWEDEN REPORT, how does this fit in with the Socialist utopia? These areas are controlled by gangs and the non-Muslim citizens AND POLICE are excluded. Seems walking down the road, through the forest or fields is likely to get you killed.
> 
> ...


----------



## Stick (Sep 29, 2014)

OP sounds very much like a troll AKA Swededude or VoiceofSweden found on a couple of news sites. How he found us I don't know.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Well I am sorry to burst your Socialist bubble.

But here is about the only "sanitized" Swedish version of Your problem:

55 ?no go?-zoner i Sverige minner om parallellsamhällen | SvD

The number of residential areas in Sweden where the police can not maintain law and order now totals 55. National Criminal Intelligence Section has identified the geographical areas where local criminal networks is considered to have a major negative impact on the environment. There are areas where bargains among criminals can result in gunfire on the streets, where residents do not dare to testify and where the police are not welcome.

The report "A national overview of criminal networks with large impact in the local community" was published last week. It describes areas where "unattended police cars attacked," where police officers will be "attacked" and where it is "commonplace that police officers are exposed to violence and threats." Traders suffer from vandalism, burglary, robbery and extortion. Drug Sales are open, and although not the gangs control the territory "occurs inspections of vehicles" in the battle for the drug market.

The police do not want to talk about parallel societies, but in some areas experiencing residents to "ordinary justice system to some extent be eliminated," while police notes that "a wider clientele are turning to the criminal environment for the administration of justice". The residents believe "that it is the criminals who control the sites'.

It is about famous places like Rinkeby / Tensta and Alby / Fittja in Stockholm, Bergsjön and the Bishop's Palace in Gothenburg and manor / Rosengård in Malmö, but also about Koppargården in Landskrona, Araby in Växjö and brown in Gavle, just to name a few. On these 55 sites, police have few opportunities to curb crime. Police Call-greeted by stone throwing and investigations hampered by the people do not want to testify, if now the crimes even notified.

The police do not use the term "no go" zones. It is originally military slang for rebel-controlled areas. But the question is whether there is a clearer description of the places where "the public in several cases understands that it is the criminals who control the areas" and where "the police were not able to fulfill its task."

The police are talking about older gangs and younger, with the former work more professional and structured, while the latter are rather loosely connected networks, '' mayflies' coming and going in different configurations "where the common denominator is the social context and the geographical area .

The established gangs - which are held together by "ethnicity, kinship or friendship" - can probably be countered with targeted efforts against organized crime, while the younger ones can hardly be achieved without broad approaches in the local community. Police are investigating whether the areas coincide with those which the government considers to be "exclusion areas", to possibly identify socio-economic and other factors underlying the development.

And obviously plays exclusion role. But it may be worth recalling that many so-called exclusion areas do not seem to have fallen lawlessness, and that the vast majority of the people of alienation rather victims than perpetrators. The 55 identified areas need first and foremost, safety and security. Only then can the areas develop in a positive direction. We need a permanent police presence - well-staffed police stations - to remove the criminals from the street and to regain control of the areas.

The situation is not entirely hopeless, yet. "In most areas experienced after all police officers be able to walk freely and fotpatrullera without fear of being infested."
Wrong?


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Stick said:


> OP sounds very much like a troll AKA Swededude or VoiceofSweden found on a couple of news sites. How he found us I don't know.


I agree and we are starting to see that he is a troll, here to cause trouble.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

This is nothing, you should hear the people from Finland.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Swedishsocialist said:


> socialist and liberal are opposits usually.
> 
> You do know that the US is far from the only free nation in the world? You are not even the most free in any regard as far as I know.
> 
> ...


In the USA socialist and liberal are becoming synonymous, of people that hide under the guise of being a "democrat". The democrats now hide under the guise of being "republicans' who in fact are RINOS.

The republican party has lost it's concern for America and does all it can to marginalize and demonize opposing views and have lost the faith of the people. For proof look at the actions of the RNC in our last national election.

America needs to get back to it's roots as a republic, and break the unconstitutional chains that have been impositioned upon it's citizens. Unfortunately, the media and our own "representatives" oppose such reform. The reality it is the "2 parties" and media have a hegemony on who runs for office.

As far as Wikis go, two year olds with a computer and internet connection are welcome to their opinions, regardless of reality or facts.


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

I suggest we give our new member some more time before we start calling him a troll. This is a forum where we can express opinions that may not be popular with the majority isn't it?


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

I draw the line at calling socialism freedom. You can BS yourself all you want to, you think you are free that's great, I'm happy for you, just don't expect me or people like me to agree with you.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

Well, no liking me too much so I guess I'm glad of that ahahaha! "Beautiful beautiful omelaus, astink with the blessings of bumlam" 
And the one party rule thing there is iron - just one more seeming affirmation that the use of these invaders is going on in every country it never should have in the first place. There's something to that....disturbing.

Oh - I hear the Hindus just burned a 12 house chunk of one of their "Satan only" zones and got a few of them in apparent retaliation for kidnapping murder and their other contributions to Hindu society....so kudos hindus. One more country that figured out "yes we can!" right side up


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Slippy said:


> Coincidentally, one of my "Bucket List" items is for me to be riding my 4 Wheeler, .45 strapped to my hip, and camera phone at the ready. Two foreigners from socialist Europe approach me;
> 
> "Goot Aaaftanoon Kint Sir! May Ve seelect sum fine mushroooomss from jour landt? Aaaftawaarts ve voood like to have the sex in your forest? OK?"
> 
> That would make my big ******* ass quite happy...


Here in Florida there is a certain mushroom that grows in cow turds, pscilicybin (sp?). It is a psychedelic, and people used to trespass on cattle acreage to "collect" the mushrooms. 
This was big in the 70's, you don't hear so much about it now.
Can't ya just hear a couple of stoner hippies "Hey, man, like, look out for the bull"?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

oddapple said:


> Well, no liking me too much so I guess I'm glad of that ahahaha! "Beautiful beautiful omelaus, astink with the blessings of bumlam"
> And the one party rule thing there is iron - just one more seeming affirmation that the use of these invaders is going on in every country it never should have in the first place. There's something to that....disturbing.
> 
> Oh - I hear the Hindus just burned a 12 house chunk of one of their "Satan only" zones and got a few of them in apparent retaliation for kidnapping murder and their other contributions to Hindu society....so kudos hindus. One more country that figured out "yes we can!" right side up


Are you talking about India? If so, they are also keen on persecuting Christians, too. Especially those who convert from Hinduism.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

So in certain locales a sign with an arrow saying cow pasture 3 miles that way would be more effective at deterring trespassers than an actual no trespassing sign?


----------



## OctopusPrime (Dec 2, 2014)

freedom is a word for the naïve....the only truly free people are retards. if you pay taxes you have a master .


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Seneca said:


> So in certain locales a sign with an arrow saying cow pasture 3 miles that way would be more effective at deterring trespassers than an actual no trespassing sign?


Actually the type of trespasser that would go for that sign would only be a danger to themselves.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

OctopusPrime said:


> freedom is a word for the naïve....the only truly free people are retards...


I know I shouldn't laugh but I fell out my chair on this one.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Moonshinedave said:


> I suggest we give our new member some more time before we start calling him a troll. This is a forum where we can express opinions that may not be popular with the majority isn't it?


Dave,

I rarely disagree with you...
but my Slippy-senses tell me he is here to cause trouble, hates mostly Americans and the American way of life and wants to try his best to put down anything other than European Socialism. He has a right to be here so I have a right to point it out. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Makwa (Dec 19, 2014)

Swedishsocialist said:


> If you open a gate you also must close it behind you. Its not a tricky concept
> 
> But one has to be aware that there might be livestock once passing the gate ofcourse. about a decade ago I was out walking with my dog and passed an old bobwire fence (in bad shape and not allowed), the fence had a breach so I walked in, and after say 100 meters my dog started to bark loudly, and what do you know, there were cows in the forest,so I decided to turn around and head back, cows are kind of big when you get close to them.
> 
> And people can walk around on you property yes, unless it is close to your house, aka the garden. If they do that, then they are trespassing. But if they pass throu land you own, minding their own buisness then you have no right to stop them, unless their mere precense is a problem. One cant walk out i a field of say wheat, untill it is harvested. Then, if for some reason, sombody want to walk there (untill new seeds are in the ground) they are free to do so.


Now OP......... I am probably taking it wrong but your comment about closing the gate comes across as being a know it all smart ass to me. Those of us who worked hard and saved our money and bought a large chunk of land to farm/ranch know all too well that people are ignorant and or stupid. They routinely do NOT close gates and leave them open, allowing livestock out. There is also the attitude that you are displaying, which is that anyone who owns more than a lot with a home is 'rich' and therefore it somehow okay to cause them grief by doing things should not.

Sadly, you are coming across to me as a troll. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the way your style of writing is coming across to me.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

I actually am a blood "Lord" of the oldest existing clan and I command that no man should have to suffer under the blarney stone and to assert this at the tip of a sword.
Always worked for the nobility....
"Lord" pffft! If we were not disenfranchised we would set a flood to make the islam effort look puny and paint it red until it was through.
But now apparently Lesbians have the "vote"....ho-hum (bah!)
All lords in America or supposed to be...


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

If it wasn't for whisky the Irish would rule the world. Or so I've been told...hehehe


----------



## OctopusPrime (Dec 2, 2014)

Slippy said:


> I know I shouldn't laugh but I fell out my chair on this one.


lmao ^^


----------

