@semaerla hvað ætlar þú að gera í þessu? Eru þetta Palestínumennirnir sem þú mútaðir Egyptum úr 100 milljóna söfnun Íslendinga. Hvað gengur þér til að vera flytja inn Palestínumenn á svokölluðum hermannaaldri? 15-17 Palestínumenn á móti 2 Íslendingum. Ertu tengd?

Til að vera á landinu þarf hver innflytjandi 2-3 íslenska votta sem eru tilbúnir að ábyrgjast hegðun þeirra. Brjóti innflytjandinn af sér bitnar það líka á vottunum, með sektum eða fangelsisvist eftir alvarleika afbrotsins.

ESB úthlutaði skattlausum Brusselstörfum til þeirra sem töluðu fyrir hagsmunum þess. Ef við segjum Já hefjast aðlögunarviðræður, og fólkið sem á að gæta hagsmuna okkar verður einmitt það sem ESB mun reyna að múta. Gleðilegan 17. júní 🇮🇸 mbl.is/frettir/innlent/2026/…

Hann er að tala um að hann vill BDSM skrúðgöngur þar sem börn fá að sjá kynferðisleg blæti fullorðinna, hálfnakið fólk í gimp fötum og leðurólum að draga kerrur og slá aðra með svipum Honum finnst þið eigið að ,,halda kjafti” og ekki eiga að hafa neitt að segja um það

Íslenska ríkið ætti að byrja með svona birthright ferðir að ísraelskri fyrirmynd fyrir vestur-íslendinga til að snúa til baka til fyrirheitna landsins (Íslands)

"Lygar eru það eina sem konur trúa" sagði einn góður.

Frétt RÚV

Iceland: The Case for No on August 29 One word: Sovereignty. In that one word I have said everything that needs to be said. A sufficiently clever Icelander would be able to deduce the rest and there would be no need at all for the thousands of words below. But there aren't too many of those on the right, as witness the stupidest ideas they wallow in about vaccines, "turbo cancers," diet, climate change, and so on. Therefore, the following talking points may help. Someone of consequence, such as Snorri M or Sigmundur Davíð, could pull them together into a coherent whole and place them before the public. Forces outside Iceland's control Iceland begins from a tiny baseline: roughly 300,000 of the native stock. That initial condition is decisive. Japan can be rich, consumerist, ageing, and below replacement fertility while still having over 100 million Japanese. Iceland has no such demographic buffer. High affluence & low fertility do not automatically produce rapid demographic displacement when the native population is enormous. The demographic transformation of the past decade demonstrated how remarkably easy it was to upset the demographic applecart in Iceland. Scale is not Iceland's natural friend. A nation of 300,000 operates with a razor-thin margin for error. Modern mobility and cheap travel have dissolved Iceland's protective moat, otherwise known as the N Atlantic Ocean. Over the past 30 years, the world has experienced human movement on a scale unprecedented in history. The pressure this would place on a tiny civilisation like Iceland was entirely foreseeable. Nobody of consequence in Iceland saw it coming, and if they did, they left no discernible trace of having acted upon it. At the same time, Icelanders want high living standards, abundant services, tourism revenue, cheap flights, cheap imported goods, infrastructure, Chanel 5, Botox, Dior lipstick, electronic gadgets, package delivery, and all the comforts of a modern consumer economy. Those preferences generate labour demand beyond what a small, ageing, low-fertility population can supply. In a world of easy mobility, that demand does not remain unfilled for long. Affluence coupled with high levels of consumerism and demographic continuity pull in opposite directions. Summary: Ease of human migration and the integrated nature of the modern global economy place constant pressure on Iceland's ability to preserve its founding population and identity. Forces within Iceland's control Iceland could not abolish global mobility, international wage differentials, or the labour demand generated by its own prosperity. But it could have anticipated the demographic consequences of those forces. A strict and targeted immigration policy designed to serve Iceland could have been implemented decades ago. It could have pursued policies calculated to raise the birth rate among native Icelanders. It could have accepted slower growth instead of embracing immigration as the laziest solution available. Most importantly, it could have recognised that a tiny society does not possess the demographic resilience of a large nation. It could have said No. No to refugee & asylum programmes on the grounds that they did nothing to solve the larger global problem. No to residency and citizenship for people from Muslim societies. No to family reunification. No to handing out residency & citizenship with abandon. The scale of the current demographic transformation was not inevitable. The policy response was a choice. The political class chose acceleration. Many villains aided & abetted the process. You know their names. How We Got Here The outside world created the pressure. Iceland's tiny native baseline made that pressure unusually dangerous. Political and business elites had incentives aligned with these forces. Unthinking and reckless Icelandic policy determined how rapidly that pressure entered the country. In recent years, for reasons unknown, Icelanders have developed a habit of inserting themselves into global conflicts over which they have neither influence nor control. The result has been an inflow of Ahmads and an outflow of ISK. The erosion of national feeling, pride in ancestral inheritance, and the withdrawal of religious & spiritual anchors from daily life weakened society's capacity to resist what was already underway. The arrival of Left-wing and Woke ideology further chipped away at the moral foundations and accelerated the process by teaching Icelanders to regard their own inheritance with suspicion. Trade-offs The Icelandic Left is not concerned with the country's demographic character. It is perfectly comfortable with Iceland's evolution into a multicultural nation. A significant portion of the electorate appears to share that view. The uncomfortable reality is that many Icelanders in these circles seem largely indifferent to the fate of the historic Icelandic nation. We shall soon discover whether they form a majority. The Icelandic Right, meanwhile, has nothing coherent to say. Iceland cannot simultaneously enjoy the benefits of a prosperous, highly consumerist society and preserve its historic demographic composition. Something has to give. As Milton Friedman said, there is no free lunch. Automation will greatly reduce the need for foreign labour in the long term, but it cannot eliminate the trade-off. Any politician who wishes to make an honest case must begin with a painful admission: immigration cannot be drastically reduced while everything else remains unchanged. Some combination of slower growth, higher prices, reduced consumption, fewer services, or diminished convenience will have to be accepted. The pain will not disappear. It will simply be borne elsewhere. That is the conversation nobody here wants to have. In the immediate term: • Terminate refugee and asylum programmes. • End family reunification. • Place an immediate moratorium on immigration. • End welfare (it will encourage self-deportation). • Draft a new immigration policy from first principles consonant wholly with national interest. A No vote on August 29 buys Iceland time. But not much. - RP, June 17, 2026