The Student Room Group

Does the UK deserve to be saved from itself?

Poll

Does the UK deserve to be saved from itself?

I've been asking myself this question a lot recently and I'm slowly coming to a realisation: it doesn't.

While many of you may disagree with the premise, to me we've become so civilised as a society that every subsequent generation is ever more demoralised, ever more relativist (affording preferential treatment to 'certain people' for ever more arbitrary reasons) and ever more apathetic, righteous and amoral.

Our entire society no longer orientates around what's right, but around shame and guilt - identity ('Scottish', 'black', 'Muslim', 'female', 'transsexual', etc.) is always prioritised ahead of principle and liberal ideals. No-one is an individual any more, everyone is a category; everyone is mobilised to act according to their perception of everyone else's collective identity; groups are pitted against other groups and all groups are pitted against the true enemy: white heterosexual males.

Our history books tell only one side of the story, a falsified narrative, that of British immorality, destruction and greed (while ignoring every instance of these same crimes by every nation-state on earth). The outcome is a nation-state which loathes its very being and seeks redemption in ever more extreme, narcissistic and pathologically altruistic forms.

Our society voted to permit a situation whereby, over the course of the next 100 years, thousands of competing identities - gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality and sexuality - will be exploited as proxies for class warfare. Our society voted for far-left extremism in the form of mass immigration. The point of no return has long since passed.

So, for those of us who can see it all coming a mile off, what is your solution? For me, it has become about one thing: watching as the greatest nation-state on earth gasps for its last breath under a tidal wave of subversive deconstruction, and revelling in the fact that my demise, and the demise of my country, will ensure the demise of those who manufactured this monstrous reality.

As Nick Cohen said: what's left?
(edited 7 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
I will sign up for the cause.
:biggrin:
stop being dramatic, nothing is going to happen whatsoever, we will go on living life with a muslim mayor and with 20,000 muslim refugees and life will be exactly the same as it would've been without them
Reply 3
Original post by 雷尼克
stop being dramatic, nothing is going to happen whatsoever, we will go on living life with a muslim mayor and with 20,000 muslim refugees and life will be exactly the same as it would've been without them


You're just a tad naïve.
Reply 4
Original post by ImmunetoShaming
I've been asking myself this question a lot recently and I'm slowly coming to a realisation: it doesn't.

While many of you may disagree with the premise, to me we've become so civilised as a society that every subsequent generation is ever more demoralised, ever more relativist (affording preferential treatment to 'certain people' for ever more arbitrary reasons) and ever more apathetic, righteous and amoral.

Our entire society no longer orientates around what's right, but around shame and guilt - identity ('Scottish', 'black', 'Muslim', 'female', 'transsexual', etc.) is always prioritised ahead of principle and liberal ideals. No-one is an individual any more, everyone is a category; everyone is mobilised to act according to their perception of everyone else's collective identity; everyone is pitted against everyone else.

Our history books tell only one side of the story, a falsified narrative, that of British immorality, destruction and greed (while ignoring every instance of these same crimes by every nation-state on earth). The outcome is a nation-state which loathes its very being and seeks redemption in ever more extreme forms.

Our society voted to permit a situation whereby, over the course of the next 100 years, thousands of competing identities will be exploiting gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality and sexuality as proxies for class warfare. Our society voted for far-left extremism in the form of mass immigration. The point of no return has long since passed.

So, for those of us who can see it all coming a mile off, what is your solution? For me, it has become about one thing: watching as the greatest nation-state on earth gasps for its last breath under a tidal wave of subversive deconstruction, and revelling in the fact that my demise, and the demise of my country, will ensure the demise of those who manufactured this monstrous reality.

As Nick Cohen said: what's left?


If I could sum up your topic in two words, it'd be literary masturbation.
Some of what you say is nothing but literary drivel, "The outcome is a nation-state which loathes its very being and seeks redemption in ever more extreme forms", what? Not only is that statement unfounded, but rather stupid too. A nation state which loathes its very being? Nationalism has only led to the decline of once great nations, Germany, Russia and Japan. Britain was smart to realise that and hence its denouncement of nationalism. We're not ashamed of the past, we're only astute enough to realise that holding one's flag in the streets proves no point.

Your point on immigration is partly correct, but it's derived from a false premise. The UK did not vote for immigration to "redeem" itself, the UK voted for immigration for the same reason Lebanon continues to take 5 times more refugees than the whole of Europe, humanitarian sentiments. That decision will affect the future of the Britain, surely, but will it be its downfall? No. It will be the downfall of a "pure" "white" Britain, I agree, but it won't be the downfall of Britain, the country.

"monstrous reality." What's this monstrous reality you're referring to? A reality where minorities get to have seats in the government? Or is it the reality of mass immigration? If its the later, let me assure you we do have not had "mass immigration" yet, and I doubt it will happen in the future.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by oShahpo
If I could sum up your topic in two words, it'd be literary masturbation.
Some of what you say is nothing but literary drivel, "The outcome is a nation-state which loathes its very being and seeks redemption in ever more extreme forms", what? Not only is that statement unfounded, but rather stupid too. A nation state which loathes its very being? Nationalism has only led to the decline of once great nations, Germany, Russia and Japan. Britain was smart to realise that and hence its denouncement of nationalism. We're not ashamed of the past, we're only astute enough to realise that holding one's flag in the streets proves no point.

Your point on immigration is partly correct, but it's derived from a false premise. The UK did not vote for immigration to "redeem" itself, the UK voted for immigration for the same reason Lebanon continues to take 5 times more refugees than the whole of Europe, humanitarian sentiments. That decision will affect the future of the Britain, surely, but will it be its downfall? No. It will be the downfall of a "pure" "white" Britain, I agree, but it won't be the downfall of Britain, the country.

"monstrous reality." What's this monstrous reality you're referring to? A reality where minorities get to have seats in the government? Or is it the reality of mass immigration? If its the later, let me assure you we do have not had "mass immigration" yet, and I doubt it will happen in the future.


Literary masturbation lmao :rofl:
Reply 6
I'm more concerned about the US than us at the moment.

ImageUploadedByStudent Room1462570549.574193.jpg


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by oShahpo
If I could sum up your topic in two words, it'd be literary masturbation.
Some of what you say is nothing but literary drivel, "The outcome is a nation-state which loathes its very being and seeks redemption in ever more extreme forms", what? Not only is that statement unfounded, but rather stupid too. A nation state which loathes its very being? Nationalism has only led to the decline of once great nations, Germany, Russia and Japan. Britain was smart to realise that and hence its denouncement of nationalism. We're not ashamed of the past, we're only astute enough to realise that holding one's flag in the streets proves no point.
.

Is the irony of your post lost on you?

You go on to criticise my decision to suggest that history is taught selectively to manufacture self-loathing, then you provide a critique of nationalism which is decidedly selective and orientated around its worst forms.

I hate to break it to you, but look north of the border for a supposedly acceptable form of nationalism which is rarely criticised for being nationalistic. Look at close to 200 nation-states the world over, all of which are subscribed to nationalist sentiment, and realpolitik (prioritising their nation's interest over everyone else's). Is this 'stupid and evil?'

However, like the school curriculum, you only have one thing to say: evil. Why? Because it doesn't play to your objectives. Either that of you've never bothered to read another version (everyone loves a bit of confirmation bias).

Original post by oShahpo

Your point on immigration is partly correct, but it's derived from a false premise. The UK did not vote for immigration to "redeem" itself, the UK voted for immigration for the same reason Lebanon continues to take 5 times more refugees than the whole of Europe, humanitarian sentiments. That decision will affect the future of the Britain, surely, but will it be its downfall? No. It will be the downfall of a "pure" "white" Britain, I agree, but it won't be the downfall of Britain, the country.
.

More irony. Yet another inclination to play to identity politics - 'whiteness' - rather than individualism. You imply that having more ethnic minorities in Parliament, in and of itself, is a good thing - why? So people can feel better represented? Does that mean people subscribe to the notion that the only way for them to be represented is for them to be represented by someone who has similar genitalia, or skin colour?

Yeah, that sounds like liberalism. Bravo.

As for mass immigration, that's verging on outright delusion. Any notion that the left imported millions of migrants for any other reason than to shore up their own vote counts is utter delusion - they are blatantly incentivised to replace as many of the resident population with as many warring identities (migrants) as they possibly can. The identity-driven migrants vote for them (Labour pulled about 600,000 more votes from BMEs at the last GE).
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 8
Original post by ImmunetoShaming
Is the irony of your post lost on you?

You go on to criticise my decision to suggest that history is taught selectively to manufacture self-loathing, then you provide a critique of nationalism which is decidedly selective and orientated around its worst forms.

I hate to break it to you, but look north of the border for a supposedly acceptable form of nationalism which is rarely criticised for being nationalistic. Look at close to 200 nation-states the world over, all of which are subscribed to nationalist sentiment, and realpolitik (prioritising their nation's interest over everyone else's). Is this 'stupid and evil?'

However, like the school curriculum, you only have one thing to say: evil. Why? Because it doesn't play to your objectives. Either that of you've never bothered to read another version (everyone loves a bit of confirmation bias).


More irony. Yet another inclination to play to identity politics - 'whiteness' - rather than individualism. You imply that having more ethnic minorities in Parliament, in and of itself, is a good thing - why? So people can feel better represented? Does that mean people subscribe to the notion that the only way for them to be represented is for them to be represented by someone who has similar genitalia, or skin colour?

Yeah, that sounds like liberalism. Bravo.

As for mass immigration, that's verging on outright delusion. Any notion that the left imported millions of migrants for any other reason than to shore up their own vote counts is utter delusion - they are blatantly incentivised to replace as many of the resident population with as many warring identities (migrants) as they possibly can. The identity-driven migrants vote for them (Labour pulled about 600,000 more votes from BMEs at the last GE).


You imply that having more ethnic minorities in Parliament, in and of itself, is a good thing - why?
- I don't, I don't in anyway or form. In fact, I am always advocating individualism. I thought you were sort of gravitating towards the "white Britain" speech a lot of people seem to be having.
Reply 9
"Immune to shaming" I feel sorry for you, really I do. Your whole arguement screams "First World Problems!!!!!!!!!!"; it screams I am a white heterosexual male and I want to continue in my ancestors' reign of corruption and privilege. I don't want to work hard for things in my life- why oh why do people care about humanitarianism and human rights ?! WTF IS HAPPENING TO THE WORLD!!!!!!!

If the panama papers show anything, it's that certain rules apply to certain people and it will take more than a little left politics to destabilise neoliberalism and corrupt capitalism. Hard right wing is on the rise not decline, so people like you have nothing to fear. It is exactly people like you, who have this manufactured sense of fear towards true democracy and equality, that breed hard right wing communities which are xenophobic, igonorant and naive. It is the mentality that in any environment of struggle, even the most laughable claims to it, the "others" are to blame. It directs blame on the most vulnerable people in society, "I can't get a job therefore it must be that Syrian kid's fault, you know the one trying to avoid death and trafficking and savagery, they should go back to where they came from and sort out their owns problems, despite the fact that my nation as well as many notable others f***** them up to begin with" ...
Original post by oShahpo
You imply that having more ethnic minorities in Parliament, in and of itself, is a good thing - why?
- I don't, I don't in anyway or form. In fact, I am always advocating individualism. I thought you were sort of gravitating towards the "white Britain" speech a lot of people seem to be having.


That's why we're screwed. I stand up for liberalism - genuine liberalism - and even a purported genuine liberal (you) plays identity politics with me.

What happens when a genuine liberal is told that, as a 'white person' (which as far as progressivism is concerned is the definition of everything this person is and a pejorative term) he shouldn't be in a position of power, or his very presence in society is metaphorical bigotry? What happens? He is forced to denounce liberalism to varying degrees, and identify as white, to defend himself. That the corner he's been painted into.

Then they really get to kill him - his identification (forced categorisation) as 'white' is patent bigotry, while every non-white person's identification according to their identity (ie, black, female, etc.), is deemed empowering. Welcome to perpetual group warfare.

Personally, I'm well beyond revelling in anyone's identity, I really couldn't give a crap, largely because it's all imagined and divisive - yet when I make a defence of liberalism, of individualism and principle before identity, I'm served implications or accusations of racism, bigotry and a tidal wave of identity politics (largely because society is now orientated around these identities for the purposes of accruing political capital, and votes). Which is exactly what they want - class warfare waged along identity lines.

Your very actions - sadly - prove my points and it has long since decimated the UK. All that's left is to wait for the inevitable, and ever more divisive, conflict.
Original post by ImmunetoShaming
That's why we're screwed. I stand up for liberalism - genuine liberalism - and even a purported genuine liberal (you) plays identity politics with me.

What happens when a genuine liberal is told that, as a 'white person' (which as far as progressivism is concerned is the definition of everything this person is and a pejorative term) he shouldn't be in a position of power, or his very presence in society is metaphorical bigotry? What happens? He is forced to denounce liberalism to varying degrees, and identify as white, to defend himself. That the corner he's been painted into.

Then they really get to kill him - his identification (forced categorisation) as 'white' is patent bigotry, while every non-white person's identification according to their identity (ie, black, female, etc.), is deemed empowering. Welcome to perpetual group warfare.

Personally, I'm well beyond revelling in anyone's identity, I really couldn't give a crap, largely because it's all imagined and divisive - yet when I make a defence of liberalism, of individualism and principle before identity, I'm served implications or accusations of racism, bigotry and a tidal wave of identity politics (largely because society is now orientated around these identities for the purposes of accruing political capital, and votes). Which is exactly what they want - class warfare waged along identity lines.

Your very actions - sadly - prove my points and it has long since decimated the UK. All that's left is to wait for the inevitable, and ever more divisive, conflict.

To sum all your 500 word paragraph : "Leftist extremism, empowering minorities and belittling white majorities, is wrong." No body disagrees with you, I certainly dont. But you're over-dramatising the whole situation. You can forget about identity politics. No one is going to reject your university application because you're white, no one is going to turn down your job application because you're white, no one is going to not vote for you if you ever go on an election because you're white. All of this stuff you see on the internet is pure drivel. Immigration is an issue, but no one is trying to "displace white people with minorities". Just refer to statistics before you make a comment like that.
Class warfare has always been a thing even before a single immigrant entered the country. Before it was the royals, the honoured and the plebs, now its us and the foreigners.
Reply 12
I don't think it does, the left have well and truly destroyed it, and government after government let it happen, the U.K. Is destroyed I think.
Original post by quirk
"Immune to shaming" I feel sorry for you, really I do. Your whole arguement screams "First World Problems!!!!!!!!!!"; it screams I am a white heterosexual male and I want to continue in my ancestors' reign of corruption and privilege. I don't want to work hard for things in my life- why oh why do people care about humanitarianism and human rights ?! WTF IS HAPPENING TO THE WORLD!!!!!!!


Shaming. See OP. See username.

As an aside, is everyone in this thread determined to argue my points while simultaneously proving them?

Original post by quirk

If the panama papers show anything, it's that certain rules apply to certain people and it will take more than a little left politics to destabilise neoliberalism and corrupt capitalism.


This has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with social policy. Try harder.

Original post by quirk

Hard right wing is on the rise not decline, so people like you have nothing to fear. It is exactly people like you, who have this manufactured sense of fear towards true democracy and equality, that breed hard right wing communities which are xenophobic, igonorant and naive.


More shaming. More exploitation of narratives like xenophobia to make other people conform to your politically correct divisiveness and socially acceptable religions. Yeah, clearly identity politics isn't choking this country to death.

You have literally no idea what 'right-wing' is, our monopolistic state broadcaster tells you what to think and feel and you clearly toe the line.

As an aside, try arguing the point, not me.
Original post by quirk

It is the mentality that in any environment of struggle, even the most laughable claims to it, the "others" are to blame. It directs blame on the most vulnerable people in society, "I can't get a job therefore it must be that Syrian kid's fault, you know the one trying to avoid death and trafficking and savagery, they should go back to where they came from and sort out their owns problems, despite the fact that my nation as well as many notable others f***** them up to begin with" ...


I'm pretty sure Belgium didn't '**** anyone up to begin with.' Or does that argument not apply in that context? Are you being relativist? No - that would be stupid, what with my accusation of endemic relativism in my OP.

Uh-huh. No it's the mentality which suggests parading a dead 3 year old child on television, for the purposes of amassing political capital and shaming and guilting people into conforming to a basket case political perspective, and against their own self-interest (while advocating the self-interest of migrant communities), is an acceptable thing to do.

It's the mentality which suggests it's acceptable that 40% of British Muslims want to impose Sharia Law on British Society.

It's the mentality which suggests it's acceptable that the UK now hosts 180,000 cases of female genital mutilation. It's the attitude which suggests that boroughs like Tower Hamlets, or cities like Bradford, are multicultural, when clearly they are anything but - they are homogeneous and have changed (culturally and politically) beyond all recognition.

It's the mentality which suggests rape is the most abhorrent crime imaginable, but not when perpetrated by people of a certain identity - in such instances, it's time to be a little bit sssshhhhhhh.
Reply 14
Original post by quirk
"Immune to shaming" I feel sorry for you, really I do. Your whole arguement screams "First World Problems!!!!!!!!!!"; it screams I am a white heterosexual male and I want to continue in my ancestors' reign of corruption and privilege. I don't want to work hard for things in my life- why oh why do people care about humanitarianism and human rights ?! WTF IS HAPPENING TO THE WORLD!!!!!!!

If the panama papers show anything, it's that certain rules apply to certain people and it will take more than a little left politics to destabilise neoliberalism and corrupt capitalism. Hard right wing is on the rise not decline, so people like you have nothing to fear. It is exactly people like you, who have this manufactured sense of fear towards true democracy and equality, that breed hard right wing communities which are xenophobic, igonorant and naive. It is the mentality that in any environment of struggle, even the most laughable claims to it, the "others" are to blame. It directs blame on the most vulnerable people in society, "I can't get a job therefore it must be that Syrian kid's fault, you know the one trying to avoid death and trafficking and savagery, they should go back to where they came from and sort out their owns problems, despite the fact that my nation as well as many notable others f***** them up to begin with" ...

Ah, that old chestnut.

"If you don't like what is happening, you shouldn't have gone and ****ed up other countries."

Absolute intellectual bigotry at its finest. I doubt the OP had anything whatsoever with the decision to bomb Syria, and even if he voted for Cameron's government I'm pretty sure that was not the reason he voted them.
Original post by oShahpo
To sum all your 500 word paragraph : "Leftist extremism, empowering minorities and belittling white majorities, is wrong." No body disagrees with you, I certainly dont. But you're over-dramatising the whole situation. You can forget about identity politics. No one is going to reject your university application because you're white, no one is going to turn down your job application because you're white, no one is going to not vote for you if you ever go on an election because you're white. All of this stuff you see on the internet is pure drivel. Immigration is an issue, but no one is trying to "displace white people with minorities". Just refer to statistics before you make a comment like that.
Class warfare has always been a thing even before a single immigrant entered the country. Before it was the royals, the honoured and the plebs, now its us and the foreigners.


Are you under the impression I'm unfamiliar with the history of Marxism? More to the point, do you have any inclination to acknowledge the fact you've just engaged in the very practice I identified in my OP - playing my identity (as numerous other posters have, despite decrying my arguments as unfounded - the irony is dumbfounding).

I'm not going to continue to argue with you on this while you continue to deny the left-wing is blatantly incentivised to promote mass immigration, under a guise of morality, for it's own self-serving, nefarious purposes.

As for your point about 'no-one rejecting me', what does that matter? That's a bit like saying 'it really doesn't matter if we call black people *******, we still give them jobs.'

The principle, like it or not, does matter.

I can also counter your point with thousands of examples, notably major national newspapers determining white people should be banned from holding elected position, the imposition of all-women shortlists, corporate policies for boardroom quotas, a massive unequal distribution of shelters for domestic violence victims, the fact rape isn't legally classified as rape when a female is a perpetrator, determinations that University places should be allocated on an identity basis because there are a few too many white males (despite being 40% of admissions)...there are thousands of examples!
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ImmunetoShaming
Are you under the impression I'm unfamiliar with the history of Marxism?

I'm not going to continue to argue with you on this while you continue to deny the left-wing is blatantly incentivised to promote mass immigration, under a guise of morality, for it's own self-serving, nefarious purposes.

As for your point about 'no-one rejecting me', what does that matter? That's a bit like saying 'it really doesn't matter if we call black people *******, we still give them jobs.'

The principle, like it or not, does matter.

I can also counter your point with thousands of examples, notably major national newspapers determining white people should be banned from holding elected position, the imposition of all-women shortlists, corporate policies for boardroom quotas, a massive unequal distribution of shelters for domestic violence victims, the fact rape isn't legally classified as rape when a female is a perpetrator, determinations that University places should be allocated on an identity basis because there are a few too many white males (despite being 40% of admissions)...there are thousands of examples!


Well then, you can go ahead fighting as much as you can each particular issue. You value individualism correct? I assume you understand that generality is too big to be handled on any scale, we need to break big problems like this into smaller chunks we can fight. Do you think a specific university is preferring minorities to white majorities? well, petition against them! Do you think a certain law favours women to men? petition against it! As for notable national newspapers determining white people should be banned from holding elected positions, that's ********. Any newspaper that says such thing won't be a "major" newspaper.

You're complaining about an extremely general issue, favoritism of minorities to majorities. That's not how we tackle issues, and that's definitely not how we find solutions to them.

The left are promoting mass immigration, but not for a nefarious purpose as your daily conspiracy theorist might suggest.
Original post by ImmunetoShaming
Our society voted for far-left extremism in the form of mass immigration.


There are economic reasons for mass immigration that aren't really left wing at all. Think about it for a minute - it's removing a barrier to movement for (supposed) economic benefit, and removing some regulations and red tape. Free movement of people and goods is a right wing, capitalist and "free market" creation. You would expect a left wing economy to be a bit more protectionist than that.

I'm a bit unsure about immigration, but I get a bit tired of people going on about it as though it's a "lefty" creation when it's a lot more complicated than that.
If we leave the EU we will be destroying ourselves!
Original post by oShahpo
Well then, you can go ahead fighting as much as you can each particular issue. You value individualism correct? I assume you understand that generality is too big to be handled on any scale, we need to break big problems like this into smaller chunks we can fight. Do you think a specific university is preferring minorities to white majorities? well, petition against them! Do you think a certain law favours women to men? petition against it! As for notable national newspapers determining white people should be banned from holding elected positions, that's ********. Any newspaper that says such thing won't be a "major" newspaper.

You're complaining about an extremely general issue, favoritism of minorities to majorities. That's not how we tackle issues, and that's definitely not how we find solutions to them.

The left are promoting mass immigration, but not for a nefarious purpose as your daily conspiracy theorist might suggest.


Andrew Neather, senior policy advisor to Tony Blair: 'mass immigration was all about rubbing the right's nose in diversity.

Peter Mandelson: 'we sent out search parties for migrants.'

The left is blatantly incentivised to promote mass immigration and displace the resident population - migrants vote for them. It's beyond debate.

1. Your logic is invalid. It suggests that the only way I can disagree with someone being violent to another person is if I create a petition. In your world, I'd be creating petitions all day. Again...principles.

2. It's not ******** - it was the Independent. The post was titled 'white men should never hold elected position in British Universities again.' Then there was the case of white people being banned from diversity events. Then there's the case of numerous institutions promoting postgraduate programmes in 'white power', ie, identifying whiteness as the root of all of society's problems.

Identity (bigotry) is prioritised ahead of individualistic principle at every turn. Would you like more?

Quick Reply

Latest