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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    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.
    Meh, at least kudos for consistency.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    i) If you separate any issue into an absolute dichotomy, you're inevitably going to find people with very different political views on the "same side". That isn't proof that they're the same, but proof that at best, it's fallacious to read broader interpretations into a narrow dichotomy, and at worst, that the dichotomy itself is fallacious. And essentially, yours here is just a repeat of the final paragraph of your previous post in this exchange, just with different phrasing; you've set up a very narrow dichotomy, and assumed everyone on the opposite side to you to be the same.

    ii) It isn't even an accurate dichotomy. Now sure, I could just give the far-left anti-nationalist line that the complete opposite is true, and that capitalists in fact have historically supported nationalism and borders in order to undermine international worker solidarity. But in many ways it's more accurate to say that businesses have different interests depending on what kind of (and how much) labour they employ. Tertiary and small secondary (those lacking the capacity to relocate outside the country) sector industries like a high supply of labour and so will favour more immigrants coming in. Large secondary sector industries like to be able to employ workers in poor countries with much lower standards of workers' rights, and so want to reduce those workers' opportunities to emigrate to a wealthier country. Industries with relatively low labour intensity (like banks), or who employ only very particular specialised labour, generally don't care that much.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    South Africa isn't a 'hopeless abysmal failure'. :confused:
    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.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Nonsense. S.Africa has gone from strength to strength since the fall of apartheid.
    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?

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Let's avoid the name-calling.

    The life expectancy figure is different based on the source, it's rising and is expected to continue to do so.

    SA is not a 'wonderfully diverse rainbow nation'. Isn't it is less diverse than the UK today?

    Rape statistics as you yourself have suggested are tricky things. It is likely that this disgusting culture of abuse went on long before the end of apartheid. Of course only after could black women could actually come forward in the hope of getting convictions.


    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucabrasi98)
    I'd say they were developing just fine before white people came in, butchered everyone and caused constant conflict and unrest. They then left so there's now black leaders dealing with the repercussions. It's only been around 20 years since the apartheid ended. In the 1960s their population was around 17mil. 3.5 million black people were removed from their homes and made to live in much worse areas. Did you expect the country to immediately enter a golden age when this all ended? Or are you baiting for responses? I can't tell anymore.

    I hate it when 40 year old daily mail regulars find a way onto TSR.
    Rhodesia became Zimbabwe 36 years ago. It went from being the breadbasket of Africa to being the basket case. They drive out and kill white farmers who produce food and employ people and give the farms to government cronies who proceed to turn them into wastelands. Corruption is as bad as any of the worst failed states in the world you could name and hyperinflation is unrivalled anywhere.

    So you'd have a point if it weren't for the fact that not only has Zimbabwe not developed, it's completely killed itself and its future through corruption and perpetual retardation.

    As for South Africa, we're talking about a country where the president is a vicious gangster rapist who believes that you don't get HIV if you shower after sex. Corruption is at Zimbabwe levels. They implement policies guaranteed to ensure that leadership in both political and business sectors is the worst it can be. Everyone in the country with ambition and a brain wants to leave and does so at the first opportunity if they can get into places like the UK and Australia (unfortunately many can't).

    The point is that in both cases, Zimbabwe's and SA's current (and no doubt future problems given that Zimbabwe is already completely destroyed and hopeless thanks to Mugabe and SA is becoming the new Zimbabwe) are mostly self-induced. Like you say, not developing given their positions is understandable. But what has actually happened is unforgivable and 100% avoidable. They are killing themselves and patting themselves on the back for it because they can blame whitey for it and wallow in their own filth.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    While I don't for one second back up your claim that what's going on is a conscious screwing over of the white race, this bit right here is bang on the money.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Imagine not thinking white people are bad for the world
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    There would be a lot more white people if they stopped killing each other.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (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?

    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    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.
    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.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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

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