Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by similarBlank)
    Y'all criticise white people for not having a lot of children. Well, *clap* *clap* to the minorities who have lot's of children. After all, our population has only sky-nuclear-rocketed in the past century to 7 Billion people and growing. Good for them for create a strain on resource demand and ten-folding environmental pollution.

    We should congratulate them because they're ethnic minorities and obviously everything they do, even if it causes the end of civilization and the destruction of the human race, is brilliant! White people are obviously bad, and minorities are obviously good because they're not the majority. And, anyway, white people clearly deserve this because they're stupid enough to not have enough children to use resources and take up space, unlike the minorities which have loads of children which isn't selfish at all.
    Nobody is praising non-white countries for having larger fertility rates than white ones.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    There's no threat to the continued existence of Britain either. But Japan's aging population is going to exert a huge burden on their economy - to an extent this has already begun.

    I doubt many Londoners feel more isolated than those living in other parts of our nation.

    Multiculturalism is about culture, not race.
    Europe won't exist without Europeans, not in any real sense. The land will be there, maybe the economic institutions will be too. The people living there wont be European. If you flooded China with white, brown and black people until there were no chinese people left, China wouldn't exist either.

    People in cities are more miserable and find it harder to get into long term relationships then people in suburban or rural areas. The white people in London who actually want families all moved to Essex and Kent to be around their own kind. Race isn't the only factor here, but when you have people who broadly share the same heritage, there is more sense of community and a higher level of trust. Studies have proven this, look up Robert D Putnam.

    Multiculturalism is and has always been about race. It is about the racial replacement of whites, nothing more. Europe was already "multicultural" before the term and concept existed. The concept has always existed as a way for whites to accept non-white immigration - it literally serves no other purpose then that and if your honest with yourself you could probably admit it.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    Technology and rising average income has also driven the change in migration patterns. A poor family in Western China would now be able to migrate to another country when that would have been financially and technologically impossible over fifty years ago.

    I also disagree with the idea that only a homogenous society can have a feeling of 'community or shared purpose'.
    Doesn't really disprove what I said. It is policy that drives immigration.

    And with regards to community, the problem is you think in the theoretical. Yes maybe in theory a multicultural society could be as cohesive and have as strong communities as one where people have the same roots (it's sounds absurd to me even in words) but the reality is it doesn't turn out that way.

    According to studies carried out on the topic higher diversity areas have.

    Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
    Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.
    Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
    Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
    Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
    Less likelihood of working on a community project.
    Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
    Fewer close friends and confidants.
    Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
    More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admirableyellow)
    why cant these brownies just **** off back home
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    Doesn't really disprove what I said. It is policy that drives immigration.
    I didn't say it disproved what you said. My point was that the technological change in recent decades has allowed for the demographic make-up of immigrants to change whilst the policies have remained the same. An immigration quota fifty years ago would have a very different effect on immigration than it would now.

    (Original post by Crassy)
    And with regards to community, the problem is you think in the theoretical. Yes maybe in theory a multicultural society could be as cohesive and have as strong communities as one where people have the same roots (it's sounds absurd to me even in words) but the reality is it doesn't turn out that way. According to studies carried out on the topic higher diversity areas have. Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media. Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence. Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups. Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result. Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage). Less likelihood of working on a community project. Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering. Fewer close friends and confidants. Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life. More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".
    Areas with greater diversity also tend to be considerably poorer. That could account for a few of things you listed. Unless you have a link to a study which isolates the effects of diversity?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Soon there will be no more ****ing white males!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richpanda)
    It's so sad. We're becoming a minority in many areas of our own countries, which is really sad.

    To those who say we need to have more children, the world population is already far too large. I think instead the emphasis should be on bringing down birth rates in high-birth rate places.

    The ideal world population in my opinion would be between 3 and 4 billion.
    There tends to be a correlation between female education and birthrate. If the high birthrate in sub-saharan African countries for example, is considered an issue, then the focus should be on encouraging female education in these countries. Although at the moment, a lot of people are calling for aid budgets to be cut, so how we will achieve this, I'm not sure.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    I didn't say it disproved what you said. My point was that the technological change in recent decades has allowed for the demographic make-up of immigrants to change whilst the policies have remained the same. An immigration quota fifty years ago would have a very different effect on immigration than it would now.


    Areas with greater diversity also tend to be considerably poorer. That could account for a few of things you listed. Unless you have a link to a study which isolates the effects of diversity?
    Look up Robert D Putnam, I'm pretty sure that other factors were taken into account in his studies.

    Is it really that hard to believe that areas where people have no common heritage have less community then places where people share the same heritage? It is a completely logical extension of how communities naturally develop.

    A town where everyone's families have been living for generations is always going to have a stronger community then a town where everyone is a 1st or 2nd generation immigrants, I don't see how anyone can really deny this without a poor knowledge how how human beings are.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    Look up Robert D Putnam, I'm pretty sure that other factors were taken into account in his studies.

    Is it really that hard to believe that areas where people have no common heritage have less community then places where people share the same heritage? It is a completely logical extension of how communities naturally develop.

    A town where everyone's families have been living for generations is always going to have a stronger community then a town where everyone is a 1st or 2nd generation immigrants, I don't see how anyone can really deny this without a poor knowledge how how human beings are.
    (Original post by Crassy)
    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?
    It's not that hard to believe and, to be honest, I agree but your OP suggested that society would be in some way dysfunctional if it were more diverse. Being less cohesive does not mean that there would be no sense of community whatsoever.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Time to put some serious restrictions on immigration and promote nationalism and the British identity instead of this multiculturalism bs.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Japan's ageing population is an existential threat to their future prosperity.
    Something people like you with this idea fail to realize is by opening up mass migration to cheapen workforce and grow the economy it has a knock on effect longterm; mostly being those thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions of migrants you took in will eventually grow old too.

    The UK will feel the full force of this in say 40-50 years when our healthcare, housing and welfare system buckle under the pressure of so many elderly.

    Japan will not suffer these issues nearly as much.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jake4198)
    There is a direct correlation between level of economic income and fertility rates, hence why the most advanced countries in the world often struggle with their country's birthrates. There are many non-white countries out there which also have a declining population: namely China, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea and the UAE.

    However, this was an article published by the Guardian and a lot of the points made can easily be disproved.

    In the USA, although the number of non-white Hispanics is expected to drop below 50%, the number of whites as a proportion of the population is expected to stay the same by 2060. At present, the number of non-white Hispanics is 62.2%, but in 2060 the number of whites (inluding Hispanics) is expected to be at 68.5%.

    https://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...o/p25-1143.pdf

    In Brazil, the number of whites is expected to increase. According to birth data published this year, the number of whites among 0-4 has increased to 48% whereas the number of blacks has decreased to 4.5%.

    In the UK, by 2050 it is expected that that over 2/3 of the population will still be white with only 5% of the population identifying as black, which utterly disproves any mention of a black majority by 2050.
    In the UK, it isn't black people who are the ones outbreeding us massively...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The world was never white. What they mean is the end of whites, as demographic changes that could have been benign are combined with a leftwing ideology that scapegoats whites for all of society's problems.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    Skin colour shouldn't be an issue; yes, there might be some genetic differences between people of different races but I it's proven it's environment factors such as culture that really cause differences.
    I absolutely think all races should be treated as equal but I'm not sure all cultures can be deemed as that way.
    This is undoubtedly rational, sadly though the PC, moral outrage brigade will always be there calling any criticism of a culture(like militant Islamism)or multiculturalism, racist, as they deliberately conflate the issues of culture and race.
    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Whites aren't even the indigenous population of the US and certain parts of the US have long been populated by Hispanics. Hawaii itself was never a white state.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Haven't read most of these posts because most were inane and my brain cells were starting to suffer. It's a social issue.

    There's an obvious reason why it's happened: thanks to federal investment, (Orlando *cough*) social classes in America are such that whites tend to live in richer areas and have careers meaning children become a lesser priority, while blacks tend to live in poorer, under-educated areas where a career is not a priority and there is a culture of large families. As a general rule. Finito.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What do you expect from a cultural Marxist newspaper? actually, the Guardian and it's writers at times are very much a pro-Zionist tabloid. Some have even justified kicking out Palestinians from their villages, saying it was justified because the Jews had no choice LOL yes they did. Hitler was defeated wasn't he? They go hand in hand, since Jewish ideologies are created to subvert the West. Karl Marx, and some of his associated were very much Left wing Zionist Jews. Zionism is very much Jewish ethnic nationalism.


    Political correctness (Anti-free speech, teaches you to lie)
    Diversity (Destroying homogenous populations, genocide?)
    Promiscuity (sexual revolution?)

    Many of the radical feminists like Gloria Steinem were Jews. Is this all a coincidence? To destroy a people, simply destroy the family. Less children, eventually they'll die out.

    This is what the new Left are.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Online

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teenhorrorstory)
    Can't wait
    Well if you are that keen, I highly recommend you move to Zimbabwe or South Africa, or even cities like Detroit or the most Islamic areas of Bradford. Then you will get a taste of just how great it is being a white minority.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wōden)
    Well if you are that keen, I highly recommend you move to Zimbabwe or South Africa, or even cities like Detroit or the most Islamic areas of Bradford. Then you will get a taste of just how great it is being a white minority.
    I didn't know white people were so fragile, black people have often been in a minority but they seem to be able to get their lives together but a few blacks in a white neighbourhood and it all goes to pot.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.