The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

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.


Those are the consequences of colonialism. Britain brought that upon themselves.
Imagine not thinking white people are bad for the world
Reply 122
There would be a lot more white people if they stopped killing each other.
Original post by Truths
Those are the consequences of colonialism. Britain brought that upon themselves.


Who did Sweden colonise then? And why do other colonisers (like Japan, Arabs and Turks for examples) not have this?
Reply 124
Original post by Truths
Those are the consequences of colonialism. Britain brought that upon themselves.


Explain that to the Swedes. Immigration has nothing to do with colonialism, it never has.
Reply 125
Original post by Little Toy Gun

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.

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



Latin American countries are not "pretty white". The only parts that are are places like Southern Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay all of which have high standards of living. And if the USA and Mexico have similar crime rates that can be attributed to black and hispanic people living in the USA, white americans have a crime rate similar to Switzerland.
Original post by Crassy
Explain that to the Swedes. Immigration has nothing to do with colonialism, it never has.


Sweden chose to accept refugees on their own accord.
Reply 127
Original post by anarchism101


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.


You are twisting language. Governments are supposed to protect the interests of their people, immigration has never been in people's interest. It has been "forced" in the sense that people have been lied to about it and not given a choice.
Reply 128
Original post by Truths
Sweden chose to accept refugees on their own accord.


All countries took in immigrants of their own accord. You think immigrants magically appeared in Britain due to "colonialism"? No, if the government/their handlers didn't want immigrants, there never would have been immigrants. But there is a difference between the government and the people.
Original post by KimKallstrom
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.

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:

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.


Maybe I was overly positive in my wording, that tends to happen if you're talking to a sensationalist. That said, SA is still the largest economy in Africa with life expectancy and GDP per capita rising. It's also been experiencing a reverse brain drain so obviously people aren't trying to leave at the first opportunity. These are simple facts. It's absolute nonsense to pretend that the current social problems weren't there underneath the surface during the Apartheid. At least now people believe that if they go to the police they might get justice.
Original post by Crassy
You are twisting language.


No, I'm using it in the normal way. You're the one trying to argue that passivity is actually force.

Governments are supposed to protect the interests of their people


Accepting this statement for the sake of argument, who are "their people"? Their voters? All voters/citizens? What?

It has been "forced" in the sense that people have been lied to about it and not given a choice.


You're essentially arguing for a concept of 'force' that is subject to political considerations, and in which if simply something happens to which someone is opposed, then it has been "forced" on them. I am arguing that there is an independent and objective definition of force.

Also, they were given a choice of sorts, at elections. They chose, for the most part, not to vote for hardline anti-immigrant parties.
Original post by Quantex
Except for those who have a problem with people who aren't white, I don't see what the problem is.

It is also a "problem" entirely created by white people who choose not to pop out as many sprogs.


The problem created by white people is failing to protect their territories. It is that and only that. Territories are what preserve races, cultures and so on. You also have to really ask why all these other races have such problems that breeding and quality of life are still excessive. We are well beyond blame it on whitey now so I think it really is about time we start holding these places and peoples to a higher standard in which they sort out their mess. Overbreeding is a catastrophic problem for these societies. If they are going to offload the problem onto us what are they then doing to eliminate it at home? What stops this from going on and on?

If you want to make an argument for genocide by population wars that is absolutely awful. The rest of the world should actually be following the white example. This policy of genocide by outbreeding was a problem with colonial systems and today is well regarded as a crime against humanity. So basically what you are saying is races should compete by breeding as much as possible until there aee no more resources to support a larger population and then fight each other to gain more resources.

Your logic is also incorrect. Only people with a problem with white people should be in support of this. What you are pushing for is an all black world and that is as racist as saying we should have an all white world.

What you are really saying is that white people are not allowed to care about themselves and this is unacceptable.

I would be loath to say that we should seek out absolute racial purity but on the otherhand seeking ethnic clensing by supporting policies of extreme breeding and immigration is actually a bigger atrocity.
Original post by RayApparently
Maybe I was overly positive in my wording, that tends to happen if you're talking to a sensationalist. That said, SA is still the largest economy in Africa with life expectancy and GDP per capita rising. It's also been experiencing a reverse brain drain so obviously people aren't trying to leave at the first opportunity. These are simple facts. It's absolute nonsense to pretend that the current social problems weren't there underneath the surface during the Apartheid. At least now people believe that if they go to the police they might get justice.


Pretty sure Nigeria has now overtaken it.

While it's true to say that South Africa is slowly getting richer it's at a slower level than numerous countries in Africa. It has rampant industrial disputes and is somewhat socialistic in it's approach, inflation is rampant as is unemployment and the government is overtly racist to whites.

Things were fine for about a decade because everybody stops boycotting it and the Soviet Union collapsed, ever since then it's being a prime example of why i consider some cultures incapable of doing anything but impoverish themselves.
Reply 133
Only people who oppose White genocide are labelled supremacists

Is it because [insert race here] nationalists, are racially conscious people?

Look up quotes about White genocide and you'll see that this is an engineered genocide that's timing is linked with a creation of a certain state in the Middle East. What they're doing is dehumanising Whites, by promoting ideas of White guilt and self hatred.

Maybe if more Whites can be educated about what is going on they can actively oppose it.

But I ask non-Whites on here. Do you support White genocide? If so, you pretty much proved every racist right.
Original post by Fenix98

Look up quotes about White genocide and you'll see that this is an engineered genocide that's timing is linked with a creation of a certain state in the Middle East. What they're doing is dehumanising Whites, by promoting ideas of White guilt and self hatred.


What state? And why look up quotes this is nutcase territory?
Original post by MrControversial

What you are really saying is that white people are not allowed to care about themselves and this is unacceptable.

I would be loath to say that we should seek out absolute racial purity but on the otherhand seeking ethnic clensing by supporting policies of extreme breeding and immigration is actually a bigger atrocity.


Why so fixated? This does intrigue me....

Everyone has differences and things in common with different people.
What matters is that cultures evolve and are also preserved in some sense, they form the bedrock while race is less important. I think we need to limit immigration on this basis, because cultures are what give life a common soul and purpose. I think however the right numbers of immigrants with high levels of mixing and mixed children is no problem, in fact it's good for genetics, the more varied genes from around world the better. As I say, I believe in much less immigration from now, because high levels do not foster mixing, they foster the cultural/population war scenario you mention, and because I favour the development and enhancement of a shared culture and therefore tribe of nation that people feel solidarity with. However I think the balance is to be struck between outmixture and variance, and not a single groups dominance.
[QUOTE=Crassy;67247950

But if you have any problem with that profound demographic and cultural shift turning your country into an unrecognisable identityless wasteland with no community or shared purpose? Oh your obviously a white supremacist who hates all non-whites! Not to mention the same thing has miraculously been forced on Western european countries, even countries like Sweden which had replacement level birth rates has gone from paradise to multicultural hell in 30 years, but it's all unavoidable and natural and good I guess. Better let in more "refugees" and give them free apartments and benefits.

. It's about distinct ethnic groups being wiped out in the name of corporate interests and their own "tolerance". Guarantee if it were your ethnic group that faced the same thing you and no one else would cheer it on. The propaganda is deep.

The point you seem to ignore here is that that is as much about culture, rates of immigration from ANYWHERE, and the economic and political system that makes for this as it is about race. You can have people have been in a country generations who are ethnically varied, and still not have mass immigration flows from wherever(white or black)and have a political and economic system based on the national interests, that is not sociopathic.

I would agree that there is heavy economic element in it, as with all our decisions, including EU membership, at Washington's behest, that is mostly to do with money, and in the most odious manner dressed up as about morals, whilst people are preached to. It is the most head-up-their-arse, sickening self seeking bile. It is only because the echo chamber is so self-validating, and because they hector so hard that they fail to realise that the silent majority hates them for stifling all debate like little totalitarians doing the bidding of the neoliberal regime.
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending