The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Gnobe
Yeah but you mentioned white british and so i was just quoting back on your figure for that group.

It will decrease itself, the white population will become an ageing population. Isn't the birth rate amongst White (British) women only 1.7 or something, lower the replacement level of 2.1? So I would expect the 54 million figure for white people to stall/fall.

It's kinda what's happening in America, Hispanics have overtaken white's in California just recently, and they were quite a long way behind only in 2000.


Right but what you have to remember is that the birth rate for 2nd generation immigrants generally falls inline with native populations so unless you were proposing to let in literally millions of immigrants who then all had 6+ children each, while at the same time ensuring that pretty much no white children were born in the UK it could never happen.

And about California, i just googled it and the latest figures show that Whites still make up the biggest percentage of the population (42.3%) with Hispanics at 36.6%. I can't be bothered to look for the figures for 2000 but i would stake a large amount of money on the fact that the White percentage of California was a lot lower in 2000 than what the White percentage is in the UK right now so it's not really accurate to compare the two.

Anyway, there's not really much point in continuing this because it's quite obvious you're a troll who has no clue what they're talking about.
I read somewhere that whites will be a minority in the UK by 2012 or something like that...bit scary.
Dude Where's My Username
She won't, because she's banned :teehee:



she finally crossed the line? **** me that line must be a good astronomical unit away if she hadn't passed it already :lolwut:

what did she do lol?
Reply 83
If it happens it happens, I don't think it should be forced through by artificial engineering. As much as I am for multiculturalism, I think that British values/traditions need to be preserved
This is fun. :cookie:
Reply 85
We already have loads of other cultures here. Compared to other countries we are very multi-racial indeed!
SoapyDish
I read somewhere that whites will be a minority in the UK by 2012 or something like that...bit scary.


As a Cambridge student, I'm suprised you believed that :colonhash:
Reply 87
OP is duuuumb.

Not only should British people hate themselves, they should want their country to be +50% non British. Imagine if someone suggested this philosophy in Africa or china. Foreigners seem to believe Europeans should feel ashamed about our culture.

The America comparison is moot. America wasn't a White country until 200 years ago. Most Hispanics are white... White people are the bigger ethnic chunk of south america. Spanish and portugese people moved their ages ago
(edited 13 years ago)
Dude Where's My Username
As a Cambridge student, I'm suprised you believed that :colonhash:

Ahh, I never said I believed it, just said I read it :p:
Reply 89
summershine
And about California, i just googled it and the latest figures show that Whites still make up the biggest percentage of the population (42.3%) with Hispanics at 36.6%. I can't be bothered to look for the figures for 2000 but i would stake a large amount of money on the fact that the White percentage of California was a lot lower in 2000 than what the White percentage is in the UK right now so it's not really accurate to compare the two.

Anyway, there's not really much point in continuing this because it's quite obvious you're a troll who has no clue what they're talking about.


Sorry I have an article here claiming 40-37. They're not the largest but they're becoming it shortly.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-06-05/news/21658549_1_hispanic-population-whites-replacement-level

sduong
If it happens it happens, I don't think it should be forced through by artificial engineering. As much as I am for multiculturalism, I think that British values/traditions need to be preserved


Who said we will lose British culture? We will teach all our children born and brought up here British values and to speak English regardless of their ethnicity.
Reply 90
I don't know why anyone still considers the BNP a threat. They're a laughing stock in the political world and their supporters aren't the brightest sparks.
Why cant we just live in Britain without people worrying about POINTLESS issues like
'ooooohh we need more whites in the country!
'The blacks are taking overr!!!!' :eek3:

Why does skin colour matter so much anyway?
:s-smilie:

Backward and close minded people who worry so much about skin colour shouldnt be allowed on this country :yes:
Barden
she finally crossed the line? **** me that line must be a good astronomical unit away if she hadn't passed it already :lolwut:

what did she do lol?


No idea. I was beginning to think Dickflip was untouchable as well. She got 15 warning points in one go so a mod must of decided they're not going to wait any longer for her to properly break a rule before dropping the banhammer
Reply 93
AskMeAnything
Fairer for who, though?

Is it really fair for the countries culture to be forcibly changed by legislation, when it could be to the detriment of their society?

In the 2001 census, 85% of people in the country were white british. I will imagine that has dropped to somewhere in the region of 80% - meanwhile, 1 in 6 of the prison population is an immigrant into Britain.

By the way, I don't agree or disagree with your post, just stimulating debate.

you've just plucked up figures from thin air.. we need sources for statistics... from a simple google search, it seems 1 in 7 is immigrant not 1 in 6
Reply 94
Gnobe
Sorry I have an article here claiming 40-37. They're not the largest but they're becoming it shortly.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-06-05/news/21658549_1_hispanic-population-whites-replacement-level



Who said we will lose British culture? We will teach all our children born and brought up here British values and to speak English regardless of their ethnicity.


That sounds easier than done - ethnic minorities tend to be more insular - whether this be what they want - i.e. not to mix with other races, or because they can't - i.e. can't speak English. You'd argue that then schools should be provided etc for them to learn English, but I believe that speaking English should be a requirement if you want to move here. I'm from an ethnic minority - my grandparents had the courtesy to learn english, and the willingness to intergrate before emigrating here.
Edit - I'm not "racist" in any way - I don't have an issue with races/skin colour - I just think that a large influx of immigration would make intergration more difficult.
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 95
Gnobe
I was reading an immigration bill passed by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 that was designed to allow more non-white people to enter the United States and to deliberatley change the ethnic makeup of the US to make it a more fairer society.

This legislation went on to, for example help Barack Obama, become the United States President. The US is expected to become a non-majority nation in the next 30-40 years, in which many democrats, including Bill Clinton have championed it calling it a "good thing".

And I was thinking to myself why wont Britain do something like this? The only way Britain will move foward as a society is if we pass a permenant legislation that allows non-white people to become a larger part of the demographic.

Britain needs to be a non-majority nation, i.e. less than 50% white to IMO to defeat the likes of the BNP and racists, so there is no overall racial control.

Do you personally agree with this that Britain needs a legislation passed similar to the Americans in radically changing the ethnic makeup of the country to make a fairer society?


I think that at the heart of this kind of policy is the idea of not wanting to appear racist when there is no strong reason to push it forward. We should remember particularly the African-American segregation that was in the USA which led to some whites to have more consideration for minorities.

Therefore I dare say that the changes were driven by compassion and not principals. Come up with some good reason for such a policy like the economy, fertility rates (which would help support Britain's ageing population and Talk about skills not just what race makes up the majority. When it comes to making immigration policies, let not Britain be driven by racial difference but rather sound reasoning that will baffle the minds of many.
Reply 96
legend0777
jog on u d**K they are already taking over need to kick them out not let them in ffs, look at that flood in pakistan gods way of ethnic cleansing even he hates them lmfao


Are you anti-gay or are you pro. Writing of ethnic cleansing is not different from Gay cleansing
You are the racist- we have the right to exist on this planet,like every set of people. Ethnic self preservation is the most natural and healthy of rights- a right which leftists support the world over,from Tibet to the Amazon. Only in white countries are indigenous rights not only refused but actively worked against- the silence over this is deafening.
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 98
As a British Asian born and bred in this country I wouldn't want Britain to become majority non-white. They'll be more conflicts between religions, more ghetto communities, British values and identity would be in danger.

I say no more immigration from outside the EU, strict border controls and deportation of illegal immigrants!
(edited 13 years ago)
Anti-racist, or anti-white?


We have all heard politicians talk about diversity, tolerance, understanding, multiculturalism, immigration, integration, assimilation, the melting pot, and so on. What do they mean by this? And what is their long-term goal?

“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”

So says former Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev, whose magazine is called Race Traitor.

Anti-racists will rarely admit their goal as clearly as Professor Ignatiev does. Anti-racists generally will not call themselves “race traitors” or “anti-white,” nor will they call white genocide their goal. Instead of saying it directly, they call themselves “anti-racist” and then argue for “a melting pot” where all will be mixed and become brown.

This goal of abolishing the white race can be divided into four basic stages:

(1) The demonization of whites. Another term for this is what is often referred to as “white guilt”;

(2) Third world immigration into all white countries and only into white countries;

(3) Forced integration as the first step towards assimilation. Assimilation is not directly forced but everybody who opposes it is condemned for being “racist”;

(4) In addition, anyone who speaks out against any part of the process of white genocide will be denounced as a “racist”, or as a “white supremacist”, or as a “naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

The demonization of whites, i.e. the white guilt complex, makes white people accept non-white immigration, integration and assimilation, leading to a melting pot where all formerly white countries turn brown, thus eventually eliminating the white race.

Consider the arguments that the so-called anti-racists use:

Why must white countries have immigration? A commonly used argument for why America must accept immigration is because white people took the land away from the native Americans. If that really was the case one might start to wonder why Germany must accept immigrants. For as we all know, Germans never took their land away from Indians or any other non-white group.

Then you will notice that anti-racists change their argument. They will now talk about the evil Nazis, Hitler, and the Holocaust. They say it would be a disgrace if Germany, with such a history, would discriminate and not take in non-whites.

So what about Britain and France? Britain and France never took their land from anyone nor did they support Hitler. Notice that the anti-racists change their arguments again and pretend to be objectively interested in former colonial powers taking in immigrants from former colonies.

What about Iceland? The people of Iceland did not take the land away from anyone, nor did they support Hitler, nor did they have any colonies. Again the anti-racists will change their arguments in order to support immigration and say that Iceland has an ageing population needing more workers.

If you have argued with so-called anti-racists, you will notice that they always have many arguments for why white countries must have immigration. These arguments, taken as single cases, may seem genuine.

However, consider Japan: Japan was allied with Hitler, had colonies and also has an ageing population. But Japan does not have massive third world immigration. Do anti-racists condemn Japan, and accuse Japan of being a racist country? No! That is because anti-racists are purely anti-white, not anti-Asian.

Anyone who opposes this agenda is automatically accused of being racist.

The agenda says that the white race is a social construct ... except when someone is to be blamed.

Another argument is that the white race does not exist and therefore there is no good reason to preserve it. Who is white, the anti-whites will ask?

Anti-whites pretend to have problems with identifying who is white and who is not when people who want to preserve the white race confront them. But at the same time they have no problems identifying who is white when they talk about slavery, colonization, the Holocaust, discrimination, racism and so on.

Anti-racists know, as does everybody, who is white and who is not. The reason they deny the existence of the white race is because they are justifying white genocide. And remember: nothing justifies genocide!

“Anti-racist” is just a code word for anti-white.

Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from 1948 defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Anti-racists, as we know, are anti-white. They are going after all white countries and only white countries. Through their forcing of immigration, integration and assimilation into all white countries, and only white countries, they have shown their intent to destroy the white race in whole. They are deliberately inflicting on the white race conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole.

Whatever weapons these anti-whites come up with, whether the lynching of blacks in the American South in times long gone, or the mass killing of Jews in Germany three generations ago, it is all to justify genocide against the completely innocent generations of whites today.

These anti-whites think this way. Whatever has been done in the past or whatever is being done in the present, it can all be used to justify the genocide and elimination of the white race. Period.

What is our goal as whites?

We who are pro-white want to preserve our race. We believe that all races have the right to exist, including our race. And it is usually when we say this, and include our race, that these people who call themselves anti-racists get mad. We are fighting for our existence, for the right to live.

In the worldview of an anti-white, there is simply no place for white people. In contrast, according to our worldview there is a place for all races, including the white race.


http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/anti_racist_or_anti_white/

Your arguments: Undone.

Latest

Trending

Trending