The Guardian: The last days of a white world (please read this concerning article)

Scroll to see replies

Nonsense. S.Africa has gone from strength to strength since the fall of apartheid.

How brainwashed can you be?

When apartheid ended, the life expectancy in South Africa was 64 — the same as in Turkey and Russia. Now it’s 56, the same as in Somalia. There are 132.4 rapes per 100,000 people per year, which is by far the highest in the world and from what I've heard is an understatement of the reality. If you are a black woman in South Africa, you will be raped before your teens, probably by your father or brother. If you think I'm lying look it up, this is the reality of your wonderful diverse "rainbow nation".

70,000 whites have been killed by blacks since apartheid and according to the human-rights organisation Genocide Watch, South Africa is at pre-genocide stage 6 of 8: “Preparation.”. There is a reason why most white south Africans are trying to leave.

South Africa is one of if not the most violent place you could be outside a warzone.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 101

RayApparently

Original post by Crassy

Let's avoid the name-calling.

The life expectancy figure is different based on the source, it's rising and is expected to continue to do so.

SA is not a 'wonderfully diverse rainbow nation'. Isn't it is less diverse than the UK today?

Rape statistics as you yourself have suggested are tricky things. It is likely that this disgusting culture of abuse went on long before the end of apartheid. Of course only after could black women could actually come forward in the hope of getting convictions.

You also appear to have missed my post 89.

Reply 102

anarchism101

Original post by Crassy

Only by changing definitions of things to fit your view can you be correct. European people are white. Non-whites in Europe are Indian, African, Asian etc.

Setting aside all other issues for the moment, where does 'European-ness' and 'whiteness' end then, according to you? Are the Balkan peoples white? Greeks? Bulgarians? Turks? And what about the Caucasian frontier - are Chechens white? Georgians? Armenians? Azeris? Ossetians?

Reply 103

anarchism101

Original post by Crassy

according to the human-rights organisation Genocide Watch, South Africa is at pre-genocide stage 6 of 8: “Preparation.”

Aside from the questionable methodology of Genocide Watch (they take a very broad definition of genocide, and lump together), their most recent reports actually include 10 stages, not 8. While South Africa is listed at 6, that stage is actually called "Polarisation" - "Preparation" is stage 7. In the 2012 report, where an 8-stage model was used, South Africa was listed at stage 5 (also then called Polarisation), not 6.

Also worth noting that Peoples Under Threat, another human rights NGO focusing on genocide, which GW itself provides as a reference on its site, doesn't consider South Africa even worthy of ranking (it only ranks those countries where it considers there is a people or peoples under threat).

Reply 104

Josb

Original post by RayApparently

Rapid Chinese industrialisation was a result of communist governance. Like in the USSR.

Chinese economic growth took off after the death of Mao, when Deng Xiaoping opened China to foreign investments. Multinational compagnies could then used the immense servile Chinese labour to make massive competitive gains. I wouldn't say that China was still a communist country at this time.

Reply 105

Truths

Original post by ZoëC

We have always been divided into the categories white and poc, of course white will appear grossly outnumbered against us, because they are being compared to every non white identifying group, which understandably is comprised of the majority of the global population....

Which ever way you spin it, Black africans, South Asians, East Asians, even Chinese people alone outnumber whites as individual groups :lol:

Reply 106

El Salvador

Original post by slaven

So? The debate is important. It seems Guardian was warning that in 2016 London will not have a British majority.

Then that's just misleading. Even now California is still in reality 72.9% white. Excluding "Hispanic whites" is literally saying Spanish and Portuguese people in Europe are not white, and the practice would be equivalent to saying Europe has a very tiny white population because only a small part of it speak English as their first language and are not mixed into other races.

Original post by slaven

Also homogenous nation have more trust among people which is good for the economy. This is one of reasons why is Japan and China developing while EU stagnating and its citizens live more miserably than 30 years ago.

Japan has not been developing in any way for years.

It's pure ignorance to label China as a one-race nation. Putting aside the existence of recognized minorities, you cannot seriously believe groups that speak their own languages, have their own cuisines, have their own religious practices, beliefs, and traditions are all really the same "homogenous" Han Chinese ethnic group just like "white English" is.

Original post by slaven

I have not been in Japan but I need only to check the internet to see that Japan has no islamic terror attack, sharia patrols, rape gangs to come to conclusion that it has no social conflicts.

Japan is such a perfect nation their population keeps committing suicide.

Original post by Crassy

it would turn into Mexico in a month.

You do realize:
1. Mexico and the US have identical crime rates;
2. Mexico is 62% Amerindian-Spanish + c10% purely white?

I mean, OK. They speak Spanish, not English; but that doesn't make them not white.

The reality is, many Latin American countries are pretty white yet they are not better off because of that.

Original post by slaven

China will never become a immigration destiny.

"Never" is a strong word to use especially considering the fact that for millennia China has been an immigration destination.

Reply 107

El Salvador

Original post by ZoëC

Also, westerners now have the practice to exclude more and more people from being "white".

They used to count Latinos as white, now they don't. Latinos are really just white people mixed with the natives. Anyone with a slight drop of blackness can be considered white but somehow to be white one must be 100% white.

And now they excluded Hispanics. What are Hispanics? People who speak the language(s) from the Roman province of Hispania, ie Spanish and Portuguese. Now, they are somehow not white?

The same in the UK. People like to talk about a white minority. Yet, the white minority senario could be created only when you count whites from Britain. Somehow white Germans, white Spaniards, white Irish, white French etc are no longer white because it doesn't fit with the narrative "white people are going extinct"""1!!"111!!!".

Reply 108

remiremi

Original post by RayApparently

Everyone grows old. And hopefully they'll have children which, combined with the increased state of technology, will be able to look after them.

The UK will be in a much better relative state than Japan in 50 years time.

You realize you basically said the answer to overpopulation and all the issues it brings, is a larger population....

Words can not explain how bad your logic is, I suppose if someone is drowning he might as well chain a few more cinder blocks to his legs.

Reply 109

StrawbAri

Original post by Crassy

Black people have Africa and the Caribbean. I think you'll find that as a minority whites do very well, whether it's South Africa or Brazil having white people in your country is like having oil in your country. Meanwhile blacks are always the least successful and most criminal wherever they are.

Not true

There's a section on African immigrants

African immigrants to the US and UK are considered model minorities.

But of course lets just ignore that because it doesn't tie in with your biased narrative.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 110

username1530463

Original post by RagingWhoreMoans

Upside: No more bratty leftists and obnoxious women

Downside: No more civilisation, more crime, basically Brazil

Yeah, sure, because umm... Before White people, there was no civilisation. Sure.

Sure

Reply 111

username1530463

Original post by Crassy

I wouldn't say there is a conspiracy, I would say there is a political, cultural and economic will to do so. It is obvious to me. That has all immigration and "diversity" has ever been about.

German is an ethnicity. The ethnicity was formed, then what ever that ethnicity did was considered "German culture". They didn't suddenly think "oh I like sausage and beer! So do I! Lets call ourselves German!", they formed out of tribal and family connections organically. They didn't found their "identity" arbitrarily, their identity is an extension of their culture and their culture is an extension of their original ethnic kinship. What you are saying is like your family suddenly came together and started using the same surname just because they all liked the same things. No. Germans could not possibly be anything other than white, and well....German, it does not make any sense.

And I don't care about abstract notions of "Western culture" that are defined by whoever currently has power. "Western culture" used to be Beethoven and Christianity, now it's twerking, transexuals and McDonalds. This is not culture but a lack of culture. A lack of culture caused by people not caring about their ancestors and what they built.

Whatever you say nothing will ever change the fact that literally no one is Japan is looking at Sweden or France and thinking "Wow we need some of that diversity!", where as there are plenty of people looking the other way around.

Not really. The Swiss and the Austrians don't consider themselves Germans, not even the Bavarians who are in Germany.

Reply 112

Pinkberry_y

Original post by asmuse123

Not really. The Swiss and the Austrians don't consider themselves Germans, not even the Bavarians who are in Germany.

Don't think many people would proudly consider themselves German, after Germany's rather colourful past lol

Reply 113

lucabrasi98

Original post by Crassy

In India maybe, but there was nothing to ruin in Africa. Rhodesia and South Africa were once great countries...under black rule they have become hopeless abysmal failures.

I'd say they were developing just fine before white people came in, butchered everyone and caused constant conflict and unrest. They then left so there's now black leaders dealing with the repercussions. It's only been around 20 years since the apartheid ended. In the 1960s their population was around 17mil. 3.5 million black people were removed from their homes and made to live in much worse areas. Did you expect the country to immediately enter a golden age when this all ended? Or are you baiting for responses? I can't tell anymore.

I hate it when 40 year old daily mail regulars find a way onto TSR.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 114

RayApparently

Original post by remiremi

I didn't say that because our problem isn't overpopulation.

Reply 115

RayApparently

Original post by Josb

That's besides the point. My point is it's nothing to do with demographic homogeneity.

Reply 116

anarchism101

Original post by Crassy

Only Native Americans are real [whatever their tribe is], and yes only Native Americans are real natives to the American continent. I don't really mind about immigration to the USA as I said, I merely highlighted American immigration policy to show how demographic changes are not just natural they are the result of deliberate changes in policies. And I would love it if white Americans moved back to Europe lol, guarantee that minorities wouldn't though, it would turn into Mexico in a month.

Meh, at least kudos for consistency.

The policies have been forced on people. Immigration is the result of deliberate policy that has been forced on populations without their knowledge or consent.

You haven't answered my point, you've simply repeated your previous post again. Where is the actual force involved? Indeed, the state is actually refraining from using force in this particular instance - the force needed to otherwise maintain the border and prevent crossing.

Maybe you are right about that. I just find it amusing how "radical leftists" support the exact same agenda and spout the same ideals as hyper wealthy globalists. Immigration has always been a corporate scam, the "diversity" ideals you believe in are the propaganda of the elite. All of it has always been to protect the banks.

i) If you separate any issue into an absolute dichotomy, you're inevitably going to find people with very different political views on the "same side". That isn't proof that they're the same, but proof that at best, it's fallacious to read broader interpretations into a narrow dichotomy, and at worst, that the dichotomy itself is fallacious. And essentially, yours here is just a repeat of the final paragraph of your previous post in this exchange, just with different phrasing; you've set up a very narrow dichotomy, and assumed everyone on the opposite side to you to be the same.

ii) It isn't even an accurate dichotomy. Now sure, I could just give the far-left anti-nationalist line that the complete opposite is true, and that capitalists in fact have historically supported nationalism and borders in order to undermine international worker solidarity. But in many ways it's more accurate to say that businesses have different interests depending on what kind of (and how much) labour they employ. Tertiary and small secondary (those lacking the capacity to relocate outside the country) sector industries like a high supply of labour and so will favour more immigrants coming in. Large secondary sector industries like to be able to employ workers in poor countries with much lower standards of workers' rights, and so want to reduce those workers' opportunities to emigrate to a wealthier country. Industries with relatively low labour intensity (like banks), or who employ only very particular specialised labour, generally don't care that much.

Reply 117

KimKallstrom

Original post by RayApparently

South Africa isn't a 'hopeless abysmal failure'. :confused:

What are you talking about? SA is on its way to becoming the new Zimbabwe! Pretty much everyone there who's able to make something of themselves wants to leave and does so at the first opportunity.

Original post by RayApparently

Nonsense. S.Africa has gone from strength to strength since the fall of apartheid.

I'm sorry, you're normally a good poster (even if I disagree with most of your views) and you put forward reasoned arguments but you've either got to be staggeringly ignorant or a moron to even begin to believe this. What planet are you living on? :s-smilie:

Original post by RayApparently

The CBD of Jo'burg used to be a thriving commercial centre like you'd find in any successful Western European or American city. When Apartheid ended, it was set up to continue to be a cash cow to be built on. Today it is like Mad Max except without the vehicles and with rampant HIV.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 118

KimKallstrom

Original post by lucabrasi98

Rhodesia became Zimbabwe 36 years ago. It went from being the breadbasket of Africa to being the basket case. They drive out and kill white farmers who produce food and employ people and give the farms to government cronies who proceed to turn them into wastelands. Corruption is as bad as any of the worst failed states in the world you could name and hyperinflation is unrivalled anywhere.

So you'd have a point if it weren't for the fact that not only has Zimbabwe not developed, it's completely killed itself and its future through corruption and perpetual retardation.

As for South Africa, we're talking about a country where the president is a vicious gangster rapist who believes that you don't get HIV if you shower after sex. Corruption is at Zimbabwe levels. They implement policies guaranteed to ensure that leadership in both political and business sectors is the worst it can be. Everyone in the country with ambition and a brain wants to leave and does so at the first opportunity if they can get into places like the UK and Australia (unfortunately many can't).

The point is that in both cases, Zimbabwe's and SA's current (and no doubt future problems given that Zimbabwe is already completely destroyed and hopeless thanks to Mugabe and SA is becoming the new Zimbabwe) are mostly self-induced. Like you say, not developing given their positions is understandable. But what has actually happened is unforgivable and 100% avoidable. They are killing themselves and patting themselves on the back for it because they can blame whitey for it and wallow in their own filth.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 119

KimKallstrom

Original post by Crassy

Whatever you say nothing will ever change the fact that literally no one is Japan is looking at Sweden or France and thinking "Wow we need some of that diversity!", where as there are plenty of people looking the other way around.

While I don't for one second back up your claim that what's going on is a conscious screwing over of the white race, this bit right here is bang on the money.