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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    I meant 'minority' with regards to today's demographic proportions. If a minority becomes a majority, and a majority becomes a minority, and the former group becomes headed by an extremist, determined to impose their expansionist religion on the West, then genocide against Westerners isn't out of the question. To be frank, scriptural guidance to "take not the Jews and Christians for your friends", and "slaughter the infidels" aren't particularly promising.

    Yes but this is all speculative science fiction. We could apply these questions to any hypothetical situation that might happen. The opposite of what you propose has just as much chance of happening.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Yes but this is all speculative science fiction. We could apply these questions to any hypothetical situation that might happen. The opposite of what you propose has just as much chance of happening.
    For every action there is a reaction, and as long as there's segregation, racial tensions will continue to increase. In such troubling economic times (which, who knows, could hit 1930s levels), this could, potentially, erupt into civilian warfare and riots, concluding with an overthrowing of the establishment, and an extremist succession. It's foolish to ignore such possibilities. You not contemplating this as a real possibility alludes to a quasi-deterministic standpoint on your part. Such standpoints have always been nonsensical.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    For every action there is a reaction, and as long as there's segregation, racial tensions will continue to increase. In such troubling economic times (which, who knows, could hit 1930s levels), this could, potentially, erupt into civilian warfare and riots, concluding with an overthrowing of the establishment, and an extremist succession. It's foolish to ignore such possibilities. You not contemplating this as a real possibility alludes to a quasi-deterministic standpoint on your part. Such standpoints have always been nonsensical.
    But everything and anything is a real possibility. There is just as much chance of the BNP gaining power, or a socialist revolution or the invasion of Great Britain by Europe. We could throw dystopian possibilities at each other all day and get nowhere.


    Plus, arent you an advocate of racial segregation?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Could you please give your reasons for calling this culture third world please.
    Economic weakness goes alongside cultural weakness, as I have said before. A culture is not merely the day to day actions of a people, but also a glue which unites people and leads to resolute social cohesion. Iraq's current situation proves their culture has failed at doing this, however interesting bits of their history and development may be to some.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Your argument has one major flaw. How can diversity exist if everything is equal?
    .
    That is a flaw in the argument that they put forward, but it is still an idea that permeates throughout society. The amount of times I hear diversity and open-mindedness as answers when I question a multi-cultural society makes it clear to me that the idea of diversity has changed from what it once was.

    The flaw can also be addressed by the presence of a higher agenda- an agenda against diversity, to create a sick mono ethnic, mono cultural world under globalisation, as a result of a dilution of national identity,ethnicity and culture.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Also could you provide an example from history when diversity has been a bad thing.
    Extreme diversity in culture has never been beneficial. It would be better if you provided an example of extreme cultural diversity as present throughout Britain today has ever contributed to a successful or prosperous society.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But everything and anything is a real possibility. There is just as much chance of the BNP gaining power, or a socialist revolution or the invasion of Great Britain by Europe. We could throw dystopian possibilities at each other all day and get nowhere.
    You have to rank possibilities in accordance to likelihood, and there's more chance that within the next 50 years, Islam will gain a stranglehold on the West. Indeed, it's likely that this'll produce a reaction too in the form of nationalism. I can't see any alternative to polarisation. It's shortsighted to think that things will stay rosy. I saw a figure somewhere pointing to over 40% of young Muslims wanting universal Sharia law in the UK. Ominous.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Plus, arent you an advocate of racial segregation?
    No. But it's a fact of life. I have nothing against individuals who adapt to Western culture, lifestyle, values and customs, who contribute to Western society. Nevertheless, if you look at the collective, such "integration" is impossible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Economic weakness goes alongside cultural weakness, as I have said before. A culture is not merely the day to day actions of a people, but also a glue which unites people and leads to resolute social cohesion. Iraq's current situation proves their culture has failed at doing this, however interesting bits of their history and development may be to some.
    Nonsense! So you are saying that if a country has few natural resources and is plauged by famine, they would have a weak culture?

    And how exactly does Iraqs' current situation prove their culture has failed?


    The flaw can also be addressed by the presence of a higher agenda- an agenda against diversity, to create a sick mono ethnic, mono cultural world under globalisation, as a result of a dilution of national identity,ethnicity and culture.
    As Humankind grows both socially and technologically, this 'dilution' as you so eloquently put it is inevitable. You can compare any two periods in History with a substantial amount of time between them. For example lets compare neolithic Europe with classical Europe, would you not say that the neolithic cultures had been 'diluted' becoming the much larger hellenistic culture?

    Plus, were you not just advocating the benefit of one overruling culture in regards to social cohesion in Africa? What is it going to be?



    Extreme diversity in culture has never been beneficial..
    How can you say it has never been beneficial without providing an example.
    You did not use the term extreme in your original post, and i did not ask for a British example, Rather a global one.

    Would you say diversity and multiculturalism has been a bad thing in Canada or the USA?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    You have to rank possibilities in accordance to likelihood, and there's more chance that within the next 50 years, Islam will gain a stranglehold on the West. Indeed, it's likely that this'll produce a reaction too in the form of nationalism. I can't see any alternative to polarisation. It's shortsighted to think that things will stay rosy. I saw a figure somewhere pointing to over 40% of young Muslims wanting universal Sharia law in the UK. Ominous.
    Well I saw a quote somewhere that said 80% of young Muslims didn't want Sharia law in the UK and frowned upon fundamentalism within their religion.



    No. But it's a fact of life. I have nothing against individuals who adapt to Western culture, lifestyle, values and customs, who contribute to Western society. Nevertheless, if you look at the collective, such "integration" is impossible.
    Your ideaology is a nationalist 19th century relic. I agree that multiculturalism must not be forced, but i also feel that it is inevitable and essential to the progression of the Human Race. Thinking in terms of nations and races when contemplating the future is extremely small minded.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Nonsense! So you are saying that if a country has few natural resources and is plauged by famine, they would have a weak culture?
    Weak in comparison to other cultures,yes. Good cultures often develop on the back of economic success.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    And how exactly does Iraqs' current situation prove their culture has failed?
    The nation is divided, there is no unity or common sense of belonging. These are all things a stable culture should contribute to society.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    As Humankind grows both socially and technologically, this 'dilution' as you so eloquently put it is inevitable. You can compare any two periods in History with a substantial amount of time between them. For example lets compare neolithic Europe with classical Europe, would you not say that the neolithic cultures had been 'diluted' becoming the much larger hellenistic culture?
    It was being diluted, and some at the time would have opposed it, and would have been justified in doing so as I am today. However, fears ease in such situations when the benefits are there for all to see. These benefits are not visible today, other than short term economic gain from cheap third world labour.

    Cultures develop and progress,without a shadow of a doubt. Technological growth leads to cultural changes which allows cultures to change in accordance with the times- however such vast cultural change in the form of the multi cult Britain we see today is progressing at an alarming rate, yet we are seeing no obvious cultural or social benefits other than loose liberal trigger words like open-mindedness and diversity. Third world movement into first world Britain leaves you with a second world slum, both socially and culturally as well as on the economic front.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Plus, were you not just advocating the benefit of one overruling culture in regards to social cohesion in Africa? What is it going to be?
    One overruling culture within the boundaries of a nation.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    How can you say it has never been beneficial without providing an example.
    You did not use the term extreme in your original post, and i did not ask for a British example, Rather a global one.

    Would you say diversity and multiculturalism has been a bad thing in Canada or the USA?
    I will repeat :

    It would be better if you provided an example of extreme cultural diversity as present throughout Britain today has ever contributed to a successful or prosperous society.

    It would be foolish of me to enter an argument about multiculturalism in Canada or America when my knowledge doesn't extend very far about either country. I'm interested in Britain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Weak in comparison to other cultures,yes. Good cultures often develop on the back of economic success.
    Well that depends on your definition of a good culture. I get the impression that you consider a good culture to be endless safe, constant conformity, no diversity no danger. In a word, boring.



    The nation is divided, there is no unity or common sense of belonging. These are all things a stable culture should contribute to society.
    Just because a culture is not stable does not make it inferior, again this depends on your own interpratation of culture. You do not seem to appreciate the richness of culture, confusing it instead with the economic situations it finds itself in.

    Lets think like NB, maybe that will get through to you. If this recession gets alot worse and we hypothetically find ourselves with a second or third world economy but socially we resemble your perfect Britain, would that mean British culture would now be a second or third world culture?



    It was being diluted, and some at the time would have opposed it, and would have been justified in doing so as I am today. However, fears ease in such situations when the benefits are there for all to see. These benefits are not visible today, other than short term economic gain from cheap third world labour.
    But how can you possibly say that those benefits were visible back then?

    Cultures develop and progress,without a shadow of a doubt. Technological growth leads to cultural changes which allows cultures to change in accordance with the times- however such vast cultural change in the form of the multi cult Britain we see today is progressing at an alarming rate, yet we are seeing no obvious cultural or social benefits other than loose liberal trigger words like open-mindedness and diversity. Third world movement into first world Britain leaves you with a second world slum, both socially and culturally as well as on the economic front.

    What if we had mass immigration from Japan or Korea. They are first world nations. What would we be then, a first world slum? Your arguments are based on nonsense.


    Could you please attempt to justify your statement logically.




    One overruling culture within the boundaries of a nation.
    Why the boundaries of a nation? Why not the boundaries of the Globe or the Human Race?







    It would be better if you provided an example of extreme cultural diversity as present throughout Britain today has ever contributed to a successful or prosperous society.

    .


    But i cannot provide an example of extreme cultural diversity in Britain today, because it hasn't happened yet. America and Canada however are very good examples of places were extreme cultural diversity has and does take place and works very well.

    The most powerfull of the past world superpowers have been diverse multicultural Empires; The Roman Empire, The British Empire, The USA. Surely that tells us something.

    Now, would you provide an example of cultural diversity not contributing to a succesfull or prosperous society?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Well that depends on your definition of a good culture. I get the impression that you consider a good culture to be endless safe, constant conformity, no diversity no danger. In a word, boring.
    Sorry to see you find social stability boring. Diversity will inevitably appear throughout culture by traveling between areas, however for social stability an overruling dominant culture must be present.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Just because a culture is not stable does not make it inferior, again this depends on your own interpratation of culture. You do not seem to appreciate the richness of culture, confusing it instead with the economic situations it finds itself in.
    You seem unable to understand the obvious link between culture and society, and how a stable involving culture leads to a stable involving society. If social stability isn't something which you strive for, then our discussion is going to go nowhere.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Lets think like NB, maybe that will get through to you. If this recession gets alot worse and we hypothetically find ourselves with a second or third world economy but socially we resemble your perfect Britain, would that mean British culture would now be a second or third world culture?
    It wouldn't happen.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But how can you possibly say that those benefits were visible back then?
    They became gradually more and more visible over time. More than 50 years on from the dawn of multi-cultural Britain, we have seen no obvious cultural or social benefits whatsoever. Even the short-termist greed which imported cheap third world labour is going to fall flat on it's face, rendering the whole experiment a social,cultural and economic failure.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Could you please attempt to justify your statement logically.
    Bringing third worlders into Britain and assuming they become British on a social and cultural level is ridiculous. Indeed, the idea of multiculturalism is that they won't assimilate-accommodate the minorities by allowing cultures to exist side by side,and not merge into each other as you would claim. Slums and ghettos are created, and segregation flourishes. However, mass immigration alongside alarming demographic trends indicates that that a tipping point will occur, where integration is forced simply by lack of space. This tipping point is where first world Britain becomes a second world slum.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Why the boundaries of a nation? Why not the boundaries of the Globe or the Human Race?
    I stand for diversity. I find the idea of a mono-ethnic globalised world without ethnic or national identity and culture disgusting.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Now, would you provide an example of cultural diversity not contributing to a succesfull or prosperous society?
    I'll keep on what I know best : Modern day Britain. Our society is at a worse state than ever before, and it is no coincidence that multi-cultural Britain and mass immigration have happened at the same time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Voluntas Mos Victum]



    It wouldn't happen.
    Agreed. But in that situation would you call British culture second or third world?



    [quote]They became gradually more and more visible over time. More than 50 years on from the dawn of multi-cultural Britain, we have seen no obvious cultural or social benefits whatsoever. Even the short-termist greed which imported cheap third world labour is going to fall flat on it's face, rendering the whole experiment a social,cultural and economic failure. [/quote

    Ha! 50 years, how short sighted. I compared neolithic Europe to Hellenistic Europe, and you said that change was ok because they would have gradually seen the benefits and yet you are condemning present day multiculturalism based on the past 50 years? How absurd.





    Bringing third worlders into Britain and assuming they become British on a social and cultural level is ridiculous. Indeed, the idea of multiculturalism is that they won't assimilate-accommodate the minorities by allowing cultures to exist side by side,and not merge into each other as you would claim. Slums and ghettos are created, and segregation flourishes. However, mass immigration alongside alarming demographic trends indicates that that a tipping point will occur, where integration is forced simply by lack of space. This tipping point is where first world Britain becomes a second world slum.
    So i will ask you again. What if Great Britain started experiencing mass immigration from Jappan and South Korea? Both first world nations. What would Britain become then. Are you sure you are judging these cultures by their status or by your own prejudice against them.




    I stand for diversity. I find the idea of a mono-ethnic globalised world without ethnic or national identity and culture disgusting.

    Oh i see, so as long as all these minorities stay put in their own countries, no matter how many die or starve or lose their individual liberties to tyrants. As long as you can enjoy your rich western nation thats ok.

    You seem to forget that there are reasons Immigrants seek asylum in GB, do you really think they would want to come here if their own countries were safe and offered the absurd amount of welfare that we do? You also seem to forget that they have a right to come here seeing as in most cases the West is indirectly responsible for the terrible conditions in their countries.

    If you truly stand for diversity then everything you have argued up to this point has been a contradiction. Or do you stand for a diverse multi-ethnic Britain with truly diverse national identity and culture?



    I'll keep on what I know best : Modern day Britain. Our society is at a worse state than ever before, and it is no coincidence that multi-cultural Britain and mass immigration have happened at the same time.
    The individual citizen is currently richer, safer and better off than any Briton has ever been, please give examples of how we are in such a bad state.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Agreed. But in that situation would you call British culture second or third world?
    The situation is paradoxical. As culture is relative to economic status, it simply would not occur.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Ha! 50 years, how short sighted. I compared neolithic Europe to Hellenistic Europe, and you said that change was ok because they would have gradually seen the benefits and yet you are condemning present day multiculturalism based on the past 50 years? How absurd.
    There are no future benefits to be seen either, unless you support a mono-ethnic no borders globalised mess of a future.

    How throwing in a different civilisation to a previously stable society leads to cultural and social growth is beyond me.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So i will ask you again. What if Great Britain started experiencing mass immigration from Jappan and South Korea? Both first world nations. What would Britain become then. Are you sure you are judging these cultures by their status or by your own prejudice against them.
    The effects would still lead to an erosion of British culture and identity, so I would oppose it. On a social scale, it would be less disastrous,however.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Oh i see, so as long as all these minorities stay put in their own countries, no matter how many die or starve or lose their individual liberties to tyrants. As long as you can enjoy your rich western nation thats ok.
    Got it in one. The alternative is to give over Europe to second world status and to dilute our national identity and culture.

    A government exists to care for it's people and it's people alone- charity begins at home.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You seem to forget that there are reasons Immigrants seek asylum in GB, do you really think they would want to come here if their own countries were safe and offered the absurd amount of welfare that we do? You also seem to forget that they have a right to come here seeing as in most cases the West is indirectly responsible for the terrible conditions in their countries.
    In the case of asylum, they have no right to come here. International law states they must go the nearest safe country, which means Britain should only ever take asylum seekers from France and Ireland. There are no legal asylum seekers in Britain.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    If you truly stand for diversity then everything you have argued up to this point has been a contradiction. Or do you stand for a diverse multi-ethnic Britain with truly diverse national identity and culture?
    .
    I stand for a truly diverse world where everybody can enjoy their own identity and culture within the bounds of their nation.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The individual citizen is currently richer, safer and better off than any Briton has ever been, please give examples of how we are in such a bad state.
    I'll answer with a Jonathan Bowden quote :

    Every element that sustained prior forms of British and English life is declining or has dipped down. Marriage in the family is in turmoil, and hardly anyone is marrying. Procreation amongst our own group is down. Crime and violence is up by every register. Vandalism,social misbehavior and mild to evident chaos is semi permanent- and people who live on estates have to deal with it 24/7. Areas in our town and cities are semi-segregated.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    There are no future benefits to be seen either, unless you support a mono-ethnic no borders globalised mess of a future.

    How throwing in a different civilisation to a previously stable society leads to cultural and social growth is beyond me.

    The effects would still lead to an erosion of British culture and identity, so I would oppose it. On a social scale, it would be less disastrous,however.

    :


    Well, we clearly have very different views and are not going to come to an agreement. However i can take solace in the fact that ethnic diversity and multiculturalism are inevitable. History is the greatest proof of this. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it, others have tried (eg,Hitler) but it cannot be stopped, no matter what nationalist 19th century ideology you throw at it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    I'll keep on what I know best : Modern day Britain. Our society is at a worse state than ever before, and it is no coincidence that multi-cultural Britain and mass immigration have happened at the same time.
    Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, are you kidding me? do you actually believe this ****?

    Obviously you are ignorant to the past 100 years of history in the UK.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkness and Mist)

    Obviously you are ignorant to the past 100 years of history in the UK.
    Obviously you are ignorant to the fact that social cohesion cannot be passed off as on course simply because of decent economic gains ( which are likely to fall flat on their face as a result of economic short-termism in any case).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Obviously you are ignorant to the fact that social cohesion cannot be passed off as on course simply because of decent economic gains ( which are likely to fall flat on their face as a result of economic short-termism in any case).
    So if you had the choice you would go back to the good old days of sending your children down the mines at the age of 5 and only living to the age of about 40, would you really?

    And I would like you to explain how the fact that ENGLISH people lack commitment and discipline is in any way the fault of immigrants.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkness and Mist)
    So if you had the choice you would go back to the good old days of sending your children down the mines at the age of 5 and only living to the age of about 40, would you really?
    It wasn't without fault, but the first problem you mentioned was due to economic problems, not social problems. It says a lot that in the past when times were hard they sent their children to the mines and took on multiple jobs, whereas now they would steal from their neighbours or deal drugs to avoid poverty.

    The second point is irrelevant, as life expectancy increases as a result of medicinal discoveries and is independent of society in most civilised countries.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    It wasn't without fault, but the first problem you mentioned was due to economic problems, not social problems. It says a lot that in the past when times were hard they sent their children to the mines and took on multiple jobs, whereas now they would steal from their neighbours or deal drugs to avoid poverty.

    The second point is irrelevant, as life expectancy increases as a result of medicinal discoveries and is independent of society in most civilised countries.
    Economy, society and medicine are all linked, do you have any idea how a country works?

    It isnt coincidence that countries like the sudan, have far far far more social problems along with a poor economy and poor healthcare.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkness and Mist)
    Economy, society and medicine are all linked, do you have any idea how a country works?

    It isnt coincidence that countries like the sudan, have far far far more social problems along with a poor economy and poor healthcare.
    Of course, but implying sending children down the mines and having a low life expectancy was a fault of British society is factually incorrect.

    Sending children down the mines was a necessary reaction to poverty, unlike today, where such families would rather steal from their neighbours or deal drugs.

    Life expectancy increases because of factors changing over time, like medicine , irrespective of society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Navras)
    Nick aint that bad, certainly if you judge him by his appearance on the Andrew Marr show. I think BNP are trying to change their image. Which is good and I hope they do well.

    THEY TOOK OUR JOBS! And racism will only go so far in this day and age. It's a good thing that they want to mellow out a bit and step away from petty issues like race. And I don't despise nationalism, what I hate more is internationalism. Especially with ******* EUROPE.

    This might be more appropriate for general discussion, I have no argument. I just wanted to express my disdain for people that cry NAZI and RACIST at them. I'd like to laugh at these people, but everyone seems to agree with them. So I just get angry.
    It's useless trying to open the eyes of the Britons.They are so brainwashed by the media that nothing could change their mind, not even this economy disaster.BNP are called racist by the media so they must be racist, this country deserves its decline
 
 
 
  • 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

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.