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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    More informed than you'd think.

    It doesn't matter what 'SJWs' treat as a race. Indeed there are people who are the polar opposite who treat it as a race and display prejudice against anyone with brown skin, seeing them all as muslim. I believe this process is called 'racialisation' - where others begins to see one group of people as a distinct race in it's own right.
    Well ok Islam is not a race. It is a culture that causes social conflicts. My point was that races like blacks in US developed its own subculture that is causing social conflict.

    And the previous poster answered you well. White Brits indetify with Shakespeare because they are aware their ancestors are coming from the same tribes as he does. "Black Brits" dont and that is also a good argument against importing migrants.

    "India's not China, for one India had independence to win. It's not as simple as following China's example. Nonetheless it's nothing to do with ethnic conflict."
    Well I doubt Indians are not hardworking as Chinese. Their only problems is they are to divided society unlike the Chinese

    "My understanding is that the American economy has done very well under Mr Obama."
    I have enough basic economics knowledge to know all currencies on the world are centered on the dollar. That means we all must keep US rich in order that we not fall in economic chaos. Obama should thank Nixon and other US racist presidents for this legacy.

    My point is that you can have a successful country with different races in it - especially if there is cultural harmony. The problems you're thinking of all stem from culture clashes.
    Well sorry but this is a myth. Try to name at least one such state.

    Hystory has shown the pnly multiraticial/cultural countries that works is where one etnicity dominated the others.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (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. Just because the definition of "British" has been changed to anyone with a British passport, doesn't mean "The British" are made up of different races. Ultimately what you believe is rooted in language and air and what I believe is rooted in blood and human reality.

    Now you're just being disingenuous. They want to learn about their history because they aren't white and they want to learn about the history pertaining to their own heritage. Think about it this way, you might care about your families history, but you wouldn't care about someone else's family history. And it has nothing to do feeling personal achievement of other people, the fact that you people always reduce it to this is testament to just how toxically individualist and nihilistic your ideology is.

    That Britain you speak of is already completely dead in multicultural/racial parts of the country. Assimilation doesn't even work even if you wanted it to, even if you think it should work, it doesn't. In my opinion you are wrong in theory, but I'm willing to let that go as a difference of opinion, but what I won't let go is that you are also wrong in practice. There is no "British behavour" in London or Birmingham, just a shapeless miserable mongrel mass who live warily side by side each other buried in their iphones, they exist together, but are not actually connected by anything. Meanwhile go to some Welsh town where people's families have been living for generations, there will be a living, breathing community of people.
    That's the whole point of the fluidity of definitions. "Indian, African, Asian"? India's a country and the other two are continents. And within 'Asian' there's the very racially distinct south and east asian peoples. British is the people of the UK. Over time that has meant all sorts of different ethnic groups whether they be William the Conqueror's people or Alfred the Great's. The only difference is that with globalisation (more international trade and movement of people and information) the pool from which Britain draws is a wider, global one.

    'They' should be made to feel as if it is their heritage. It is, after all, 'their' inheritance. It's all of ours. I personally am interested in all sorts of history. And my ideology isn't 'toxically individualist'. I feel a commonality with far more people than you do currently (though I'll hold out hope that this'll change ). Nor is it 'nihilistic' for I believe in common ties between all people. If anything your approach is the materialist one, focusing 'blood' and skin tone and such very physical but trivial connections. The toxicity is when you reject someone you should embrace because they've got a different skin tone as you.

    Assimilation does work. It just takes time. Maybe more time than we've got to live. But there are no viking ghettos (and the first viking settlements would have been distinctly 'viking') today and it follows that eventually there won't be ghettos of any kind. As someone who lives in Greater London I reject the idea that there's no sense of community. But that's a matter of individual experience, and we'll all get along with our neighbours to varying degrees. And the the politeness, the commerciality, the sarcasm, the stoic persona are all alive and well in London. Though of course it would be silly to say that it and Birmingham aren't metropolitan and that comes with its own personality. That's because London and Birmingham aren't, and don't try to be multi-racial and monocultural. They are multicultural centres. Again, there's a difference between culture and race. And harkening back to what's already been discussed, people aren't all glued to iPhones because of immigration. Again, you're conflating ethnicity with the supposed collapse of civilisation to consumerism and the like.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teenhorrorstory)
    Can't wait
    Damn straight.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Exactly. Look at it logically, white/western birth rates are falling wheras non-white/eastern rates are rising. If this does not change then its only logical conclusion is that whites will eventually die out.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Can't wait for this to happen to britain
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by slaven)
    Well ok Islam is not a race. It is a culture that causes social conflicts. My point was that races like blacks in US developed its own subculture that is causing social conflict.

    And the previous poster answered you well. White Brits indetify with Shakespeare because they are aware their ancestors are coming from the same tribes as he does. "Black Brits" dont and that is also a good argument against importing migrants.

    "India's not China, for one India had independence to win. It's not as simple as following China's example. Nonetheless it's nothing to do with ethnic conflict."
    Well I doubt Indians are not hardworking as Chinese. Their only problems is they are to divided society unlike the Chinese

    "My understanding is that the American economy has done very well under Mr Obama."
    I have enough basic economics knowledge to know all currencies on the world are centered on the dollar. That means we all must keep US rich in order that we not fall in economic chaos. Obama should thank Nixon and other US racist presidents for this legacy.

    Well sorry but this is a myth. Try to name at least one such state.

    Hystory has shown the pnly multiraticial/cultural countries that works is where one etnicity dominated the others.
    Hence the need for social assimilation and the promotion of harmony and not rejection. To take a rather candid thought experiment - if yourself and a black american were having a discussion about race relations I suspect it would more quickly develop into a conflict than if it were me instead of you. Now you might say that you'd simply avoid the discussion and each enjoy a harmony of separation. But I think you'd be more enriched if you didn't need to. What I am promoting here, is harmony.

    I'd say that from my limited experience not all that many white Brits 'identify' with Shakespeare. The the black Brits who founded the Hip Hop Shakespeare Company might.

    You say things like 'their only problem' but that's not true. India's structural problems are distinctly different to China's.

    That's an... interesting way of putting it. And of course the US is at the heart of the global economy, that doesn't mean that it can't falter - as it did under Bush and others.

    Canada etc.

    History has taught us that less civilised people fought over stupid things and we shouldn't make their mistake.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
    Can't wait for this to happen to britain
    ^This is the reason why Hungary and Croatia rejecting the third world savages from Africa and Middle East from settling.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Well this is exhausting. 2v1 is unfair guys.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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'sSouth Africa or Brazil having white people in your country is like having colonialists destroy everything. Meanwhile blacks are always the least successful and most criminal wherever they are.
    FTFY
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Hence the need for social assimilation and the promotion of harmony and not rejection. To take a rather candid thought experiment - if yourself and a black american were having a discussion about race relations I suspect it would more quickly develop into a conflict than if it were me instead of you. Now you might say that you'd simply avoid the discussion and each enjoy a harmony of separation. But I think you'd be more enriched if you didn't need to. What I am promoting here, is harmony.
    Being enriched after having an argue with an US American over a hot topic? I doubt so. More likely it would be less harmony.

    Also you raised an interesting point with your example. Separation cause less hate. Use for example people from a society where 99% are white will have less racism than a multicultural one like UK.

    "You say things like 'their only problem' but that's not true. India's structural problems are distinctly different to China's. "
    You know in the 1950s China was economically less developed than India (since it had a lot investition from the UK colonial government).


    "That's an... interesting way of putting it. And of course the US is at the heart of the global economy, that doesn't mean that it can't falter - as it did under Bush and others."
    Bush was also a bad president as Obama. Basically every president who even purposely make bad economic decissions could hardly harm the US economy.

    If the US tomorrow bankrupts than the whole world goes into chaos with it (2008 crisis ring a bell).

    The US must constantly send the dollar into the markets to that other currencies be stable.

    "Canada etc."
    Not en example. Canada has no history of discriminating blacks yet did not prevent that BLM Toronto be formed. Give another try.

    History has taught us that less civilised people fought over stupid things and we shouldn't make their mistake.
    If you speak about Africa yes. In case of the world wars no.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by slaven)
    Being enriched after having an argue with an US American over a hot topic? I doubt so. More likely it would be less harmony.

    Also you raised an interesting point with your example. Separation cause less hate. Use for example people from a society where 99% are white will have less racism than a multicultural one like UK.

    "You say things like 'their only problem' but that's not true. India's structural problems are distinctly different to China's. "
    You know in the 1950s China was economically less developed than India (since it had a lot investition from the UK colonial government).

    "That's an... interesting way of putting it. And of course the US is at the heart of the global economy, that doesn't mean that it can't falter - as it did under Bush and others."
    Bush was also a bad president as Obama. Basically every president who even purposely make bad economic decissions could hardly harm the US economy.

    If the US tomorrow bankrupts than the whole world goes into chaos with it (2008 crisis ring a bell).

    The US must constantly send the dollar into the markets to that other currencies be stable.

    "Canada etc."
    Not en example. Canada has no history of discriminating blacks yet did not prevent that BLM Toronto be formed. Give another try.

    If you speak about Africa yes. In case of the world wars no.
    Separation causes less hate, but we don't have separation. And you should aspire to not need to be separated like children who can't get along. It's called tolerance.

    You know communism?

    But the economy in the US has improved under Obama having faltered under Bush (though this is wildly off topic now).

    Canada is an example of a successful country though. And off-shoot BLM movements are just a matter of international solidarity. Like the anti-apartheid protests in the UK and other countries.

    I'm speaking of all of human history. The time's coming to adopt a more humanist identity. We'll all be more at peace then. Also, it's a good thing that the Second World War quashed the racist, fascist Nazi ideology as well as ultranationalist ones in Japan and Italy.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
    FTFY
    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.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (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.
    South Africa isn't a 'hopeless abysmal failure'. :confused:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    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.
    I didn't say any "convoluted deconstructionist semantic or abstract argument". I simply noted that inhabitants of the Americas who are not Native Americans call themselves, and are widely called, Americans. Do you reject this practice and say that only Native Americans are 'real' Americans? Or are you employing a double standard?

    In fact, if you take the consistent belief that the native racial/ethnic groups of each continent have some inherent right to be a majority of the population, then there's an obvious way to kill two birds with one stone - advocate for the population transfer of all white people in the Americas and Oceania to Europe. Yet somehow I'm going to bet you wouldn't want that.

    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.
    Depends what you mean by 'progress'. If you mean, technological development, then yes, more human movement is an inevitable consequence of transport becoming cheaper and easier. I'm not a fan of the 'Whig history' trope of assuming everything is always getting better, so I won't call it 'progress', but if that's what you mean, then yes, it is inevitable.

    And no, it has not been 'forced on the population'. The only people a population movement can be forced on are the people moving. If people are moving voluntarily, then there is no force involved. If someone moves into the house next door to or across the road from mine, nothing has been 'forced' on me. However, it would and does require force to prevent people from moving and migrating.

    As an anarchist I have no idea why you favour something that was always about undermining working class solidarity and lowering wages.
    So you think the more consistently anarchist position is to support authoritarian state restrictions on freedom of movement instead?

    Also, working class solidarity means solidarity with all working class people, not only working class people of your own ethnicity. That would be ethnic solidarity, which really does undermine working class solidarity.

    But I guess the real dividing line in politics now is whether you hate white people and want them gone or not.
    No, not really, that's just your obsession.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Separation causes less hate, but we don't have separation. And you should aspire to not need to be separated like children who can't get along. It's called tolerance.

    You know communism?
    No, in the current british situation it is hard now to separate anything. What about communism?

    Tolerance means to not react that you dislike. What you are suggesting is not tolerance.

    "Canada is an example of a successful country though. And off-shoot BLM movements are just a matter of international solidarity. Like the anti-apartheid protests in the UK and other countries."
    No, they werw complaining about opression in Canada lol

    I'm speaking of all of human history. The time's coming to adopt a more humanist identity. We'll all be more at peace then. Also, it's a good thing that the Second World War quashed the racist, fascist Nazi ideology as well as ultranationalist ones in Japan and Italy.
    That is an uthopia as explained already. You are basically asking that we the majority should suffer to try to appease the minority. It should otherwise be.

    Allies were also nationalist as well.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by slaven)
    No, in the current british situation it is hard now to separate anything. What about communism?

    Tolerance means to not react that you dislike. What you are suggesting is not tolerance.

    "Canada is an example of a successful country though. And off-shoot BLM movements are just a matter of international solidarity. Like the anti-apartheid protests in the UK and other countries."
    No, they werw complaining about opression in Canada lol

    That is an uthopia as explained already. You are basically asking that we the majority should suffer to try to appease the minority. It should otherwise be.

    Allies were also nationalist as well.
    Rapid Chinese industrialisation was a result of communist governance. Like in the USSR.

    If tolerance is the best I can get from you I'll take it.

    It's still a successful country.

    Suffer? I'm saying that neither should have to suffer if we forgot old allegiances and prejudices. If we stopped seeing each other in terms of the majority and the minorities. After all isn't the OP about how today's majority might one day be a minority. If that happens it'd be nice if we cured our race fixation first.

    Not like the Axis though. Certainly not like the Nazis.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I didn't say any "convoluted deconstructionist semantic or abstract argument". I simply noted that inhabitants of the Americas who are not Native Americans call themselves, and are widely called, Americans. Do you reject this practice and say that only Native Americans are 'real' Americans? Or are you employing a double standard?

    In fact, if you take the consistent belief that the native racial/ethnic groups of each continent have some inherent right to be a majority of the population, then there's an obvious way to kill two birds with one stone - advocate for the population transfer of all white people in the Americas and Oceania to Europe. Yet somehow I'm going to bet you wouldn't want that.
    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.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Depends what you mean by 'progress'. If you mean, technological development, then yes, more human movement is an inevitable consequence of transport becoming cheaper and easier. I'm not a fan of the 'Whig history' trope of assuming everything is always getting better, so I won't call it 'progress', but if that's what you mean, then yes, it is inevitable.

    And no, it has not been 'forced on the population'. The only people a population movement can be forced on are the people moving. If people are moving voluntarily, then there is no force involved. If someone moves into the house next door to or across the road from mine, nothing has been 'forced' on me. However, it would and does require force to prevent people from moving and migrating.
    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.


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    So you think the more consistently anarchist position is to support authoritarian state restrictions on freedom of movement instead?

    Also, working class solidarity means solidarity with all working class people, not only working class people of your own ethnicity. That would be ethnic solidarity, which really does undermine working class solidarity.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Rapid Chinese industrialisation was a result of communist governance. Like in the USSR.

    If tolerance is the best I can get from you I'll take it.

    It's still a successful country.

    Suffer? I'm saying that neither should have to suffer if we forgot old allegiances and prejudices. If we stopped seeing each other in terms of the majority and the minorities. After all isn't the OP about how today's majority might one day be a minority. If that happens it'd be nice if we cured our race fixation first.

    Not like the Axis though. Certainly not like the Nazis.
    If the UK was ruled by a multikulturalist back than it wozld have fallen in few month
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by slaven)
    If the UK was ruled by a multikulturalist back than it wozld have fallen in few month
    By back then do you mean WW2? When the Deputy Prime Minister was the socialist Clement Attlee who welcomed immigration whilst being a war veteran and NATO founder?

    WW2 was won by heroes, not bigots. They lost.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    South Africa isn't a 'hopeless abysmal failure'. :confused:
    Only because there are still enough whites there to keep the country afloat. They're gradually being killed or if their lucky leaving though, and South Africa will turn into yet another Zimbabwe, maybe even worse since South African blacks are particularly violent.
 
 
 
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.