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

    20
    (Original post by dragonzrmetal)
    Haven't read most of these posts because most were inane and my brain cells were starting to suffer. It's a social issue.
    If you didn't even read most of the posts, how could you ascertain their inanity?
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    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.
    Yup. Spain and then Mexico between them ruled California for 300 years before it joined the USA in 1850, and the large white settlement that accompanied the California Gold Rush.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Japan's ageing population is an existential threat to their future prosperity.

    There is no political or cultural movement to make white people 'extinct'.
    The argument of ageing population is such overblown myth by the left-wing media outlets like BBC.

    And even if it is true there are far more better solutions than impoeting people from every hellhole around world.

    The media have a faulth on this as well.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  Holohoax brainwashing.jpg
Views: 215
Size:  210.4 KB

    Holocaust = Anti-German, Anti-White, Commie Jew propaganda.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    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.
    No less than than the white and black people currently living in the Americas are American.

    (Original post by Crassy)
    Look at the the USA for instance, the USA has always had immigration, yet up until recently it was 90% white, 10% black, because the immigration policies were set up in a way where it would not change the ethnic demographics.
    i) For a start, the territory that makes up the USA was, for 97-98% of its human history, 0% white and 0% black.

    ii) The first whites to reach and settle in what is now the USA arrived there only about 500 years ago. Also, they were Hispanic whites, namely Spaniards.

    iii) The USA, of course, did not exist until 1776, and didn't reach something resembling its current borders until the late 19th century.

    iv) For the first 60 years or so of its existence, the population distribution of the US was closer to 80% white, 20% black than 90-10. From the 1830s on, the black proportion of the population gradually declined for several decades, reaching 10% during the 1910s. The non-Hispanic white population of the USA never quite reached 90%, peaking at 88.5% in 1920 (even if you include Hispanic whites, it only reached 90% on a couple of censuses if you round up). Though even these are somewhat incomplete and gerrymandered results because they don't include the Philippines, which was part of the USA as a territory from 1898 to 1946, and Filipinos made up ~10% of the population of all US sovereign territory during that time.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Crassy)
    Demographics do not simply "change all the time", it is not some unavoidable natural thing, it is the result of deliberate policies that have been imposed on populations that never consented to them and have been culturally propagandised to not question or resist.

    Look at the the USA for instance, the USA has always had immigration, yet up until recently it was 90% white, 10% black, because the immigration policies were set up in a way where it would not change the ethnic demographics. This was changed deliberately and now the USA is 60% white if that, the same thing that stopped mexicans, indians and asians before is what has been making them come in ever increasing numbers since the 70's -policy, not accident. The architects of the change in immigration policy (which happened in 1965) said it would not change the demographics of the USA, we can now see that as the bare faced lie it was.

    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.

    And it's not a matter of "inferior" or "superior" or whatever other strawmen the establishment have been churning out for 50 years. 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.
    Do you think that it was also deliberate policy that the population was once as much as 20% and is now in the low teens? That's a more significant proportional change. If we look back since the 1930s the white population in the USA has doubled. It's not being stifled at all.

    The fact that you think that sharing a country with people of other races is a 'hell' and that you tie your culture and identity inextricably to your race is why you're open to being accused of supremacy. You don't believe that your culture can be shared with people of a different skin colour. But culture and race are separate.

    There is no 'corporate interest' in removing ethnic groups.

    (Original post by Crassy)
    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.
    European culture is ideas not skin tones. Same goes for China. And in a century's time China may well be a hot spot for immigration as it becomes a more modern economic superpower. Building trust between people of different heritage is part of becoming a better, more united species that's evolved passed judging others on skin colour. You can create a country with a single dominant culture for the sake of national unity or whatever but multiple races (via cultural assimilation) or you can create a country with multiple cultural traditions (and potentially just as many different races) for the perceived benefits of multiculturalism.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    This is just nature taking it's course. The white race has always been the worlds minority, it's only a matter of time before they are totally eradicated.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by remiremi)
    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.
    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.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by slaven)
    The argument of ageing population is such overblown myth by the left-wing media outlets like BBC.

    And even if it is true there are far more better solutions than impoeting people from every hellhole around world.

    The media have a faulth on this as well.
    My point is that we should not raise Japan up as this monoethnic paradise or as an example that a country can or should happily reject those from other countries.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Tl;dr: Latinos reach a near-majority in the southern North America, the land they once owned before those pale dudes from across the pond forced them out and now the similarly-minded current white dudes are pissed that they are slowly taking the land back.

    I wouldn't say it's concerning, I'd say it's perfectly justified. Although to say that it's justified suggests that they have an agenda which, beyond getting paid and enjoying the Cali sun, I doubt.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by jake4198)
    Japan is not going to open its borders, not only because of the Nationalist Party's huge majority, but also because there isn't a mandate to do so.

    Japan has heavily invested in robotics to replace unskilled sectors of the economy. Although Japan will face challenges in the future, they most certainly don't have to open their doors.
    I assume you mean the LDP. Japan is already overpopulated anyway. I am not saying that Japan should 'open their doors' I'm saying that simply arguing that we should be 'like Japan' is overly simplistic.

    ---

    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    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:
    Here we have a debate about race, not culture. The OP is fearful of there being proportionally less white people in the future. Not fewer people of westernised culture. If you are genuinely fed up of getting called a racist for criticising militant Islam then know that the 'PC, moral outrage brigade' that you so dislike is a response to the viewpoints expressed in the OP - which unless you tackle will always be conflated with your own, however reasonable they may be.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    But how will the governments make tax dollars?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    No less than than the white and black people currently living in the Americas are American.
    Nothing you have to say will convince me that a Europe full of Middle Easterners and Africans is Europe. No convoluted deconstructionist semantic or abstract argument makes it true on a real level.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    i) For a start, the territory that makes up the USA was, for 97-98% of its human history, 0% white and 0% black.

    ii) The first whites to reach and settle in what is now the USA arrived there only about 500 years ago. Also, they were Hispanic whites, namely Spaniards.

    iii) The USA, of course, did not exist until 1776, and didn't reach something resembling its current borders until the late 19th century.

    iv) For the first 60 years or so of its existence, the population distribution of the US was closer to 80% white, 20% black than 90-10. From the 1830s on, the black proportion of the population gradually declined for several decades, reaching 10% during the 1910s. The non-Hispanic white population of the USA never quite reached 90%, peaking at 88.5% in 1920 (even if you include Hispanic whites, it only reached 90% on a couple of censuses if you round up). Though even these are somewhat incomplete and gerrymandered results because they don't include the Philippines, which was part of the USA as a territory from 1898 to 1946, and Filipinos made up ~10% of the population of all US sovereign territory during that time.

    The USA and new world in general I am not really bothered about immigrants going to. I merely used it as an example of how it is deliberate policy that drives immigration and how politicians have consistently lied about their intentions, rather than it just being some natural result of "progress", it was deliberately forced on the population without their knowledge or consent. The fact is that the USA was at most a bi-racial country with a white majority and black minority. In 1980 50% of counties in the USA were 100% white, now there are 0.

    As an anarchist I have no idea why you favour something that was always about undermining working class solidarity and lowering wages. But I guess the real dividing line in politics now is whether you hate white people and want them gone or not. Radical leftists and neo-liberals are now wholly on the same side.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, heaven forbid that some ethnically homogenous stereotype of politically and ideologically interchangeable 'brown people' should threaten to usurp the absolute white-majority.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    Migration waves aren't new, except now it isn't white Huguenots but anyone from all four corners of the earth.
    (Original post by Crassy)
    Japan has low birth rates yet doesn't bear an existentialist threat. It's not a matter of birth rates but a matter of weak borders and non-whites being politically incentivised by our governments to come to white countries. It is part of deliberate political and cultural will to make white people extinct, along with promoting "diversity" and shaming anyone who disagrees. If you had said in 1996 that white people would ever be a minority in the UK, people would look at you like you were crazy, no one knew immigration was ever going to be on the scale it has been, no one has ever consented to it, it has been forced on us and politicians have consistently lied about their intentions.
    (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.
    (Original post by admirableyellow)
    why cant these brownies just **** off back home
    (Original post by Crassy)
    Demographics do not simply "change all the time", it is not some unavoidable natural thing, it is the result of deliberate policies that have been imposed on populations that never consented to them and have been culturally propagandised to not question or resist.

    Look at the the USA for instance, the USA has always had immigration, yet up until recently it was 90% white, 10% black, because the immigration policies were set up in a way where it would not change the ethnic demographics. This was changed deliberately and now the USA is 60% white if that, the same thing that stopped mexicans, indians and asians before is what has been making them come in ever increasing numbers since the 70's -policy, not accident. The architects of the change in immigration policy (which happened in 1965) said it would not change the demographics of the USA, we can now see that as the bare faced lie it was.

    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.

    And it's not a matter of "inferior" or "superior" or whatever other strawmen the establishment have been churning out for 50 years. 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.
    (Original post by Crassy)
    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.
    You guys do realize:

    1. white people are not native to the Americas;
    2. "Hispanic whites", which this figure excluded, are still totally white but just that they speak Spanish (or arguably Portuguese) as their native language;
    3. California and many other states of the United States were a part of Spanish America and then México before the US invaded and took away literally half of México; and on this point, the fact that Spanish America and Mexico both spoke/speak Spanish and thus their populations were/are "Hispanic whites";
    4. Latinos, a group not included in "non-Hispanic whites", are basically a mixed race between white people and the indigenouspeople? In fact, at one point they were considered totally white.

    Where are all these supposedly non-Hispanic white "immigrants" are supposed to go to? Where's home for them? Caucasians got to their land, killed a bunch of them, occupied the place, mated with them, and then decided to take even more land and now you're complaining about the existence of non-Hispanic "immigrants"?

    You know what? If Americans didn't want non-Hispanic whites to drop below 50%, perhaps they should:
    1. never have taken over an area where non-Hispanic whites weren't native to;
    2. never have invaded a Hispanic country and taken half of their land;
    3. never have mated with anyone who's not white.

    Whilst I disagree with the whole narrative in Europe re: whites v non-whites, it simply doesn't work in America, especially not in the US. Don't want black people? Too bad they took them in as slaves. Don't want Hispanic people? Too bad the population does come with the former Mexican territories they took.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Upside: No more bratty leftists and obnoxious women

    Downside: No more civilisation, more crime, basically Brazil
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Yup. Spain and then Mexico between them ruled California for 300 years before it joined the USA in 1850, and the large white settlement that accompanied the California Gold Rush.
    "...California...joined the USA..."

    Just also want to add that non-Hispanic whites do not include Hispanic whites, ie totally Caucasian people who just happen to speak Spanish or even Portuguese as a native language.

    Latinos are not included in that group either and most likely they would be a result of mating between white people and native Americans.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think what people are failing to realise is that eventually people of a singular race e.g African, Anglo-Saxon, South-Asian, will eventually become minorities as the majority of the world's population will be of mixed race this will happen at some point in the near future perhaps by the 24th Century. Our descendants will most likely have coffee coloured skin, with varying degrees of lightness and darkness, and a mixture of Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, African and Asian features. Essentially people will be so mixed that you wouldn't be able to define one persons 'race' from another's. The real question is whether this is a problem. Imo it's not as it merely removes one of the most divisive aspects of society: our skin colour. Furthermore, this is pretty much inevitable but it will not result in the end of just the white race but also blacks, asians etc. Eventually it really will just be the human race. Of course there will be differences in appearance and culture depending on geographical location and these differences will no doubt lead to more conflict but we are only human. That is of course if the human population doesn't go extinct any time soon.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.