''Diversity'' and ''Inclusion'' in the UK: the rise of the Racist White Liberals

[mongrel]

The remaining white people whom your side wants to discriminate against, as demonstrated by Mongrel's racist post ''it's ok to prefer BAME candidates based on their racial belonging and discriminate against white males'', which you agree with, as you stated. .

It's not ok: the 2010 act says so. I have read both the Act and your sources. You clearly have not.

Your side's genocidal agenda to make a ''rainbow'' society displacing native whites must be stopped. It's an absolute evil that has no room in a civil society.

Oh it's that bollocks, the stuff Brenton Tarrant was banging on about whilst murdering scores of Muslims in Christchurch. I think I may be excused for not taking your views seriously.

This is the ad:
-it has specific racial preferences, that's racism; (positive discrimination)
-it specifically excludes 1 group based on their race, that's also racism; (negative discrimination)

Newsbeat is a program by BBC, indeed called BBC Newsbeat. The fact that the internship is funded by a charity is entirely irrelevant. (And that's what Mongrel's focused on, attempting to derail the attention from the racial discriminatory practice). The way the selection process is based is entirely based on racial discrimination. Mongrel is ok with it because it favours black kids and that's the typical white liberal approach that favours ''positive discrimination''.

Regardless, that doesn't change the fact: for that position, no whites allowed.
If I make an ad for a position saying ''only whites and Asian'' I'd be sued within 3 seconds by a dozen of organizations and rightfully so. If the deal is: it's ok to discriminate against whites, then it's a declaration of war. The woke crowd wants war? They'll get war.


The last thing we need are liberal white males, so no. I'd take a non-white female who agrees with me as leader over a liberal white male that disagrees with me. Mostly because the latter will actively discriminate against me.

Again no challenge.

It is clear that Creative Access is asking for candidates. It's up to the Beeb whether to take them on , or take on someone directly or through a different route. I can say now that the Hard Rock Cafe London Picadilly is recruiting, if any TWC member wants to apply go ahead. That doesn't mean that next time I'm there I will expect the bar to be crewed entirely by Gigantus, Dante and Heinz Guderian.

More importantly a casual stroll through the charities website includes links to many employers, museums , theatre and, ironically given Basil's emphesis on gammon fodder, the Daily Telegraph. It is a training position the law allows for that if a group is underepresented. They have to apply though. Indeed their website says :


'We facilitate paid 3 to 12 month-long internships; provide employer training and host an opportunities board for organisations to list their roles.'

'Our interns have been placed with almost 300 organisations, including global brands such as ITV, Hachette, Apple, Tate, Pan Macmillan and the National Theatre.'

So why choose a year-old tweet linked to a singular BBC trainee position and extrpolation this to suggest that the Beeb cannot employ what people? IThe latter can't be true given the evidence of our own eyes when watching TV., US TV being far more diverse. Is it because alt -right charlatans have been using the Beeb refuses non-white employees myth to fool gullible gammon for some months now?

Want the truth about the Beeb's policy on work experience? I invite the forum to read for themselves.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/careers/work-experience

Epic_fail is entirely correct to say there are exceptions. Female bra -fitters, Jewish Rabbis, Christian Vicars, speaks for themselves. If someone advertises for a Mandarin speaker and yes a Chinese native-speaking bloke gets it over the white person who studied the language at GCSE, no crying genocide there.

Anything more or are we done now?

[Muizer]

The last thing we need are liberal white males, so no. I'd take a non-white female who agrees with me as leader over a liberal white male that disagrees with me. Mostly because the latter will actively discriminate against me.

Hmm, you expressed concern about the destruction of your society though. But it is beyond doubt that this society has been shaped in no small part by pervasive discrimination in favour of white males. Does that not jar with your opposition against racism in all circumstances? People might consider your stand against discrimination less than credible if it serves to secure this inheritance.

[Basil II the B.S]

Hmm, you expressed concern about the destruction of your society though. But it is beyond doubt that this society has been shaped in no small part by pervasive discrimination in favour of white males. Does that not jar with your opposition against racism in all circumstances? People might consider your stand against discrimination less than credible if it serves to secure this inheritance.

*evidence needed.

European societies used to be 98-99% white before the traitors took over in the 90s, it's hard to discriminate against non-whites when there are basically any.
This isn't the US where there was actual discrimination, but even in that case arguing for discrimination to day to atone past crimes is based on the concept of inherent and collective guilt, which is the dictionary definition of racism. You don't discriminate innocent people because some grandfather might have done something bad 80 years ago.

The argument that today minorities are ''discriminated'' in European countries is also racist towards minorities themselves. You are essentially arguing that non-whites are migrating in enormous numbers to countries that, according to you, hate them. In short, if the reasoning was valid, migrants would come to Europe under the banner ''let's go get oppressed''. Clearly, they don't. Why? Because the system, that the white males you want to discriminate against created, give migrants better rights than they could receive in the countries they are the ethnic majority.

We really don't owe anything to anyone. Anyone who wants to come to Europe to get a job through ethnic quotas can stay home and enjoy his own society's rights, if any. The woke crowd that's pushing for this agenda is also welcome to leave and enjoy the vibrant diversity of places like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and South Africa, where evil whites are not the majority and their favourite ethnic groups rule according to their customs, which, according to the woke crowd, are better than our own.

[mongrel]

*evidence needed.

European societies used to be 98-99% white before the traitors took over in the 90s

Having lost the UK argument moves to generic Europe. Europe is not in the UK, indeed the UK is attempting to leave Europe.



Sticking to the nation named in the OP, that is the UK, this is again too easy.... When Britain's frontiers ran to their greatest extent, white Britons were very much a minority. Or are we suggesting that Indians, Carribeans, Africans, Gurkhas, Malays and Hong Kong Chinese and sundry other indigenous peoples are 'white'. So no yet again you are totally wrong. Same could be said for France.

In Victorian times anyone could be British if they were willing to be subject to Her Majesty's laws. The first migration controls, the 19o5 Aliens Act was a direct result of an anti-semetic backlash against Russian Jews fleeing persecution. The 90s saw the free movement of predominently white people from the EU who had no connection with the UK, whereas under the Rule Of May, black British citizens were denied jobs , benefits or helath treatment or were deported simply because the Home Office deleted their records, forgot to update the relevant legislation. Astonishingly,the very idea that the British West Indies existed (and still does in some form) needed to be explained to their policymakers.

We really don't owe anything to anyone. Anyone who wants to come to Europe to get a job through ethnic quotas can stay home and enjoy his own society's rights, if any. The woke crowd that's pushing for this agenda is also welcome to leave and enjoy the vibrant diversity of places like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and South Africa, where evil whites are not the majority and their favourite ethnic groups rule according to their customs, which, according to the woke crowd, are better than our own.

You have not provided any evidence of UK employers recruiting by race quota, genuine occupational requirements being a rare exception*. There won't be, it's illegal.

( *I expect that every Army Jewish chaplain will be Jewish).

As for the latter point, again no evidence supplied, who are these fabled ethnic groups you speak of? Elves? Hobbits? Asgardians? Facts please, not copy and paste slogans.

[Muizer]

@Basil, do I understand you correctly if I say that your views are based on a history that can roughly be summarized as "Europe's white society is, since the 90s, being overrun by migrants who are now threatening to marginalize the native white people with the collaboration of white liberals"?

[Basil II the B.S]

It wouldn't be fair to blame migrants since most of them don't hold any power nor even have citizenship. Kaufmann's book ''Whiteshift'' also points out that 1 out of 3 migrants decries the loss of cultural and ethnic identities of their host society. White liberals get the entirety of the blame, since they are the ones pushing for the kind of crap: from open borders, to multiculturalism, to ''diversity and equity'' policies, to ''decolonization of curricula''. It's always, every single time, the same group of people doing this kind of things.

[Muizer]

@Basil

Do I understand you correctly, then, when I summarize your assessment of the immigration issue as follows: There are a lot of people from outside Europe who want to move to Europe. The white liberal elite is actively encouraging this, is not requiring immigrants to assimilate and even gives them preferential treatment over the native populace?

[Basil II the B.S]

Broadly yes. The preferential treatment depends on the country. It's aggressive in the UK and the US, less in others. What is common however is the outright disdain and deprecation of European cultures and identities. Something that has been studied is that for white liberals it's no longer sufficient to tolerate diversity, but you have to prefer it, otherwise you are racist. This is ironic because by the standard definition of racism, it has been decreasing enourmously as most people do not consider themselves racially superior to others, are fine with interracial marriage. In absence of racism, the white liberal elite has gone out of its way to expand the definition of it, thus any kind of request of reduction of immigration whatsoever is racist. Any kind of demand to retain the cultural European heritage is racist. You can see it in the other thread about the ''woke crowd''.

You know what's funny? One thing that has been studied is the way people choose the neighbourhood they live in. Guess who is the first to leave multiethnic neighbourhoods and move somewhere else? White liberals. This is partly because they are the ones that moves more often. However, when they choose where to live, they pick overwhelmingly white neighbourhoods. What they systematically avoid are East Asian dominated neighbourhoods because Asian kids are too competitive in school. (This is all from Kaufmann's book anyway).

So they are all hypocrites. They want ''diversity'' simply because they want to collectively pat their back and sleep well at night. It's a moral satisfaction to espiate the fact most of them never earned their status, it's hereditary. The diversity however is out of their neighbourhood. They like the cheap taxi drivers and ethnic restaurants (indeed culinary diversity is one of the arguments often used for multiculturalism) but even those are welcome only when needed. A hilarious recent interview of a promiment Italian journalist revealed he wants to welcome refugees and migrants ''just not in my neighbourhood because it'd decrease property value'' (he did say that).

That's why I argue for an intolerant, aggressive approach: there's nothing to salvage from the people. They want the moral benefits while at the same time dumping the problems on the citizens of Europe. When we protests then we get freedom of speech and press suppressed. That's tyranny, on top of all charges. It's a declaration of war: our freedoms, our identity, our cultural heritage, our civilization. They started it, it's time to fight back.

[Muizer]

I'm sure there are hypocrites amongst white liberals. Whether that is somehow pervasive or a good reason to reject the ideas they profess is another matter, but perhaps we will come to that later.

Now, your examples include such things as preferential treatment for minorities in the US and the UK. The US of course has its history of domestic slavery. The UK has its colonial past. Same goes for several other western European counties: France, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium even. Then there are those countries that in the wake of the Second World War invited immigrants from around the Mediterranean sea-board for the post war reconstruction. Both have left large non-white communities, which have retained at least some aspects of their culture. We're talking of second, third and fourth generation descendants.

Would you agree that these people should not be blamed for the sins of their fathers if they have not fully assimilated?

Would you agree that if the numbers show they're underrepresented this presents a problem for society as a whole?

[Basil II the B.S]

I'm sure there are hypocrites amongst white liberals. Whether that is somehow pervasive or a good reason to reject the ideas they profess is another matter, but perhaps we will come to that later.

Now, your examples include such things as preferential treatment for minorities in the US and the UK. The US of course has its history of domestic slavery. The UK has its colonial past. Same goes for several other western European counties: France, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium even. Then there are those countries that in the wake of the Second World War invited immigrants from around the Mediterranean sea-board for the post war reconstruction. Both have left large non-white communities, which have retained at least some aspects of their culture. We're talking of second, third and fourth generation descendants.

Would you agree that these people should not be blamed for the sins of their fathers if they have not fully assimilated?

You just made an argument that countries that have a history of whatever should give preferential treatment to minorities as atonment....
So, we get collective guilt for our forefathers crime but migrants not only do not get that, they get preferential treatment?

To answer your question, none of that. You evaluate people individually. I reject any policy based on ''sins of fathers'' whoever they are. Europeans, non-Europeans.

Would you agree that if the numbers show they're underrepresented this presents a problem for society as a whole?

Underrepresented in what? Specific jobs? Where is it written that specific, which btw is only high income, jobs should represent the ethnic ratio of society? You want to help poor people, you help all poor people, not just the ones who have the colour of the skin you like.

[Knight of Heaven]

Underrepresented in what? Specific jobs? Where is it written that specific, which btw is only high income, jobs should represent the ethnic ratio of society? You want to help poor people, you help all poor people, not just the ones who have the colour of the skin you like.

That has been one of the issues common people complain about in my country (Portugal). About the refugee, and migrant social help from the state and its institutions. When there is lots of money to allocate and integrate this people, but if you are National citizen that help is more limited, when you have it at all, or just takes long time to arrive. Cant say is a national debate, but ask anyone on the street or people who had the experience of needing social help, and they tell you the exact same thing.
Part of it is because there is EU funds specific to help Migrants, refugees etc. Everybody else is outside of this preview, has different treatment generally speaking, i myself know a few cases of friends and their families who had to deal with this.

Cant be surprised stuff like this to help social resentment in already Poor European country to boot.

Recently there was also talk about the Portuguese Association of African descendants ( if im not mistaking it), demanding Affirmative action in schools universities, and in some jobs. Claiming that as a group the African minorities are the a bottom in education achievement. Claiming stuff like language to be one of the highest obstacles they face.

From my personal experience i know better the reasons of low achievement, so do education professionals. Meanwhile Chinese students are at the top of Education achievement, so are the Pakistan, and Nepalese students, as well the Ukrainians.

It is a fad, that caught on in other countries, and they want to do the same here.

As a moderate leftist, and a social liberal for the most part, i fail to see the social justice in this kind of policy to be honest.

[Alwyn]

European societies used to be 98-99% white before the traitors took over in the 90s, it's hard to discriminate against non-whites when there are basically any.

I don't see migration as the result of action by "traitors" or as a thing which got started "in the 90s". In the UK, many people came from South Asia, Africa and the Caribbean after 1945 to help rebuild cities left in ruins by the war. Some were veterans. I'm glad that they did, my country would be worse off if they hadn't.

That's why I argue for an intolerant, aggressive approach: there's nothing to salvage from the people. They want the moral benefits while at the same time dumping the problems on the citizens of Europe. When we protests then we get freedom of speech and press suppressed. That's tyranny, on top of all charges. It's a declaration of war: our freedoms, our identity, our cultural heritage, our civilization. They started it, it's time to fight back.

As for 'our identity, our culture', British culture is the product of migration, by Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Danes and Norsemen, Huguenots and many others, and the English language includes words of South Asian and African origin. It's difficult to see how my life would be better if my culture lacked those influences.

In the country where I live, immigrants are continually attacked in parts of the media. No-one is closing down newspapers for demanding a hard-line anti-immigrant approach. Anti-immigration political parties are free to operate. The far-right British National Party were free to stand in elections, while UKIP and the Brexit Party are free to campaign including attacking immigration. The government intervened when a far-right group, National Action, crossed the line from speech into violence. Are you saying that government action against far-right violence is "tyranny"? You describe policies against racism as a "declaration of war" and call for people to "fight back". 'Fighting', after a 'declaration of war', normally involves violence. Is that what you are advocacting, just a few weeks after a far-right terrorist killed 50 people in New Zealand?

[Basil II the B.S]

I don't see migration as the result of action by "traitors" or as a thing which got started "in the 90s". In the UK, many people came from South Asia, Africa and the Caribbean after 1945 to help rebuild cities left in ruins by the war. Some were veterans. I'm glad that they did, my country would be worse off if they hadn't.

You might want to look at demographic data then.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/sta...ion-statistics
As the chart clearly shows, before 1997 in the UK net migration was well below 100k a year. In some years, it was negative, meaning you had more people leaving than coming. You seem under the impression of the usual talking point of the liberal left that anyone who opposes mass migration simply wants to shut down borders and kick everyone out. I never argued for that, unless you want to find me evidence I did. So, before the 90s (the exact year changes depending on the country) migration was limited enough to allow people in without radically altering the demographic balance of the country. This has changed. Every single study of demographic trends (when available, the stats are heavily suppressed by your side) shows that ethnic Western Europeans will become minorities within their own country at the current rate within the end of this century, starting from 90s when they were the 95-98%.

That's ethnic cleansing. It's not negotiable. It's a denial of the right for the people of Western Europe to exist, cultivate their heritage and preserve it. This is also a deliberate policy because the spikes in immigration coincide with specific policies (in the UK case the Labour govt one is well known) and governments.

As for 'our identity, our culture', British culture is the product of migration, by Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Danes and Norsemen, Huguenots and many others, and the English language includes words of South Asian and African origin. It's difficult to see how my life would be better if my culture lacked those influences.

In the country where I live, immigrants are continually attacked in parts of the media. No-one is closing down newspapers for demanding a hard-line anti-immigrant approach. Anti-immigration political parties are free to operate. The far-right British National Party were free to stand in elections, while UKIP and the Brexit Party are free to campaign including attacking immigration. The government intervened when a far-right group, National Action, crossed the line from speech into violence. Are you saying that government action against far-right violence is "tyranny"? You describe policies against racism as a "declaration of war" and call for people to "fight back". 'Fighting', after a 'declaration of war', normally involves violence. Is that what you are advocacting, just a few weeks after a far-right terrorist killed 50 people in New Zealand?

''We've always been multicultural'' is merely the identity of upper class white liberals. One noteworthy element of the Brexit referendum was how people identified themselves. Core Brexit voters identified themselves by their Englishness, Scottishness, etc. Core Remain voters waved between Britishness or even a broad European identity.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/full-english-b...-nationalisms/
Englishness for instance is an identity strictly based on distancing itself from Continental Europe. Outside the London, Oxford and Cambridge talking bubbles British identity is weak. What you claim represents the values and identity of your own country are actually only the values of the elite. The underclass defines itself rather differently, no matter how much you desparage it. it's also the identity of the majority of the nation.

Finally, a note for intellectual integrity: I also strongly recommend to avoid attempts to shame me by bringing up the white nationalist attack in New Zealand (or even the Neo-Nazi in Pittsburg for that matter) since I never really hinted any support for such actions. If you want to play that game, I'll be just as radical: by the same logic you use, your side is guilty for every single Islamic terrorist attack in Europe, because you want ''multiculturalism'', you want the cultural enrichment that you described ''makes our country better''. As it turns out, it's not better for the victims of the immigrants you want to bring in. Do you take responsibilities for that? The next step would be holding you responsible every time an immigrant commits a crime against a native.

So, let's avoid that?

[Copperknickers II]

*evidence needed.

European societies used to be 98-99% white before the traitors took over in the 90s, it's hard to discriminate against non-whites when there are basically any.
This isn't the US where there was actual discrimination, but even in that case arguing for discrimination to day to atone past crimes is based on the concept of inherent and collective guilt, which is the dictionary definition of racism. You don't discriminate innocent people because some grandfather might have done something bad 80 years ago.

It's frequently noted by liberals that countries like Pakistan, Jamaica and so on which contributed a lot of immigrants to the UK, were at one point dominated and badly brutalised by the British. It's also true that the victims and perpetrators from this time period are now mostly dead. Nevertheless, the effects of these events live on into the modern day so I think they are relevant to the debate. In addition, while it would be rather unfair to hold modern Brits responsible for the actions of the British Empire, I think it's still reasonable to call white supremacists hypocritical for decrying immigration as an 'attack' on their culture and way of life, precisely because they refuse to see immigrants as individuals but view them as a monolithic group who are somehow collectively responsible for the actions of a small minority.

You can't have it both ways: if people are individuals then you're right that modern Brits shouldn't have to buy in to a narrative that immigration is a moral imperative resulting from past colonialism. But then you must accept immigration on a case-to-case individual basis which means making no distinction of race, colour or religion in immigration policy.

The argument that today minorities are ''discriminated'' in European countries is also racist towards minorities themselves. You are essentially arguing that non-whites are migrating in enormous numbers to countries that, according to you, hate them.

I don't think anyone argues that white people as a whole discriminate against minorities. A small amount of racism can have a big influence on a lot of people. One racist employer can pass over 1000 non-white employees over the course of their career. One racist teacher can affect the lives of hundreds of non-white students. One racist prime minister can damage the fortunes of millions of non-white people. Fixing racism is largely a matter of targeting a small minority of media outlets, politicians, communities and inviduals who are responsible for the vast majority of the harm.

In short, if the reasoning was valid, migrants would come to Europe under the banner ''let's go get oppressed''. Clearly, they don't. Why? Because the system, that the white males you want to discriminate against created, give migrants better rights than they could receive in the countries they are the ethnic majority.

Western systems of government are the result of centuries of collective efforts by men and women alike. Our system is based first and foremost on equality and meritocracy for ALL groups in society, not just the priveleged ones. It seems to me that by opposing meritocracy and equality and creating a two-tier societal system, you want to undermine the very same system that made us successful.

And before you counter that positive discrimination doesn't have a place in an egaligarian meritocracy, you must first account for the undermining of said egalitarian meritocracy that results from societal discrimination and inequality of immigrant groups and neighbourhoods (white and non-white), which has a far greater impact than positive discrimination ever could.

We really don't owe anything to anyone. Anyone who wants to come to Europe to get a job through ethnic quotas can stay home and enjoy his own society's rights, if any.

The vast majority of Brits to whom ethnic quotas apply are British citizens who never 'came' to Europe in the first place, we were born here the same as you were. Positive discrimination is first and foremost a domestic agenda designed to combat inequalities among Brits, it has little to do with the small numbers of non-white immigrants who are competing with Brits for jobs.

The woke crowd that's pushing for this agenda is also welcome to leave and enjoy the vibrant diversity of places like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and South Africa, where evil whites are not the majority and their favourite ethnic groups rule according to their customs, which, according to the woke crowd, are better than our own.

London is the wealthiest and most successful city in the UK. It's also majority non-white British. White people move to London in droves to enjoy the greater opportunities the city offers. It's almost like ethnicity has nothing to do with success, but rather the historical and economic development of a country regardless of its diversity levels.

[Aexodus]

Why does colonialism mandate that we have mass-immigration? Even if, as you say, Basil views immigrants as a monolithic block.

White people move to London in droves to enjoy the greater opportunities the city offers.

No they don’t. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...om-London.html

[Alwyn]

You might want to look at demographic data then.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/sta...ion-statistics
As the chart clearly shows, before 1997 in the UK net migration was well below 100k a year. In some years, it was negative, meaning you had more people leaving than coming. You seem under the impression of the usual talking point of the liberal left that anyone who opposes mass migration simply wants to shut down borders and kick everyone out. I never argued for that, unless you want to find me evidence I did. So, before the 90s (the exact year changes depending on the country) migration was limited enough to allow people in without radically altering the demographic balance of the country. This has changed. Every single study of demographic trends (when available, the stats are heavily suppressed by your side) shows that ethnic Western Europeans will become minorities within their own country at the current rate within the end of this century, starting from 90s when they were the 95-98%.

I said that "many" people came to help rebuild Britain after the war. They did (source). You seem to be trying to move the goalposts.

You also seem to be trying to put words in my mouth. I haven't accused you of wanting to "kick everyone out". If you wish to defend your implication that I have, feel free to quote the post where I said that.

You claim that statistics about demographic trends in the UK are "heavily suppressed", yet it took a quick online search and there they were.

That's ethnic cleansing. It's not negotiable. It's a denial of the right for the people of Western Europe to exist, cultivate their heritage and preserve it. This is also a deliberate policy because the spikes in immigration coincide with specific policies (in the UK case the Labour govt one is well known) and governments.

I'm wondering if you know what ethnic cleansing means. If a family from Ghana or India moves in next door, this doesn't affect my ability to exist or preserve my heritage. No-one is stopping me from enjoying traditional British heritage or culture.

''We've always been multicultural'' is merely the identity of upper class white liberals. One noteworthy element of the Brexit referendum was how people identified themselves. Core Brexit voters identified themselves by their Englishness, Scottishness, etc. Core Remain voters waved between Britishness or even a broad European identity.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/full-english-b...-nationalisms/
Englishness for instance is an identity strictly based on distancing itself from Continental Europe. Outside the London, Oxford and Cambridge talking bubbles British identity is weak. What you claim represents the values and identity of your own country are actually only the values of the elite. The underclass defines itself rather differently, no matter how much you desparage it. it's also the identity of the majority of the nation.

British identities have been affected by migration for generations. You say that Englishness is based on distancing itself from Continental Europe, that's true in relation to the current Brexit debate. However, even the word 'English' came from settlers from Continental Europe (Angles, Saxons and Jutes) and English identity is influenced by the culture of migrants from many parts of Europe and other parts of the world. You don't have to be 'upper class' or 'elite' to use words like 'bungalow' or 'zombie', to enjoy fish and chips or chicken tikka masala, or to listen to rap, bhangra or R&B.

Once again, you're trying to put words in my mouth, accusing me of disparaging the identity of the majority of the nation.

Finally, a note for intellectual integrity: I also strongly recommend to avoid attempts to shame me by bringing up the white nationalist attack in New Zealand (or even the Neo-Nazi in Pittsburg for that matter) since I never really hinted any support for such actions.

You wrote "it's time to fight back" after "declaration of war" in a discussion about immigrants, soon after a terrorist 'fought back' against immigrants by murdering people. Fighting in the context of war usually involves violence. If you don't want to call for violence, why talk as if you do?

If you want to play that game, I'll be just as radical: by the same logic you use, your side is guilty for every single Islamic terrorist attack in Europe, because you want ''multiculturalism'', you want the cultural enrichment that you described ''makes our country better''. As it turns out, it's not better for the victims of the immigrants you want to bring in. Do you take responsibilities for that? The next step would be holding you responsible every time an immigrant commits a crime against a native.

I see, your posts are trying to twist words to the opposite of their actual meaning. Believing that it's okay for people to listen to different kinds of music, enjoy different styles of cooking or pray differently has nothing to do with supporting terrorism or crimes.

Britain's experience of the mid-20th century was that Nazis reduced our cities to ruins and that migrants (some of whom helped to defend our country) helped to rebuild them. You seem to be arguing that the lesson to take from this experience is that we should embrace extreme-right policies and be hostile to migrants. I see the lesson of history differently.

It's telling that your posts seem to be trying to divide white British people against immigrants, and to divide everyone else against what you claim are 'elites'.

[Basil II the B.S]

It's frequently noted by liberals that countries like Pakistan, Jamaica and so on which contributed a lot of immigrants to the UK, were at one point dominated and badly brutalised by the British. It's also true that the victims and perpetrators from this time period are now mostly dead. Nevertheless, the effects of these events live on into the modern day so I think they are relevant to the debate. In addition, while it would be rather unfair to hold modern Brits responsible for the actions of the British Empire, I think it's still reasonable to call white supremacists hypocritical for decrying immigration as an 'attack' on their culture and way of life, precisely because they refuse to see immigrants as individuals but view them as a monolithic group who are somehow collectively responsible for the actions of a small minority.

You can't have it both ways: if people are individuals then you're right that modern Brits shouldn't have to buy in to a narrative that immigration is a moral imperative resulting from past colonialism. But then you must accept immigration on a case-to-case individual basis which means making no distinction of race, colour or religion in immigration policy.

And I don't do that?

I mean, I add the context of labour market, social cohesion conditions, level of integration of already present immigrants to find the right yearly inflow, but for the sake of individuals I evaluate them individually considering their potential contribution to society. Who do you think I prefer between an engineer from India and a school leaver from let's say Austria?

I don't think anyone argues that white people as a whole discriminate against minorities. A small amount of racism can have a big influence on a lot of people. One racist employer can pass over 1000 non-white employees over the course of their career. One racist teacher can affect the lives of hundreds of non-white students. One racist prime minister can damage the fortunes of millions of non-white people. Fixing racism is largely a matter of targeting a small minority of media outlets, politicians, communities and inviduals who are responsible for the vast majority of the harm.

Western systems of government are the result of centuries of collective efforts by men and women alike. Our system is based first and foremost on equality and meritocracy for ALL groups in society, not just the priveleged ones. It seems to me that by opposing meritocracy and equality and creating a two-tier societal system, you want to undermine the very same system that made us successful.

And before you counter that positive discrimination doesn't have a place in an egaligarian meritocracy, you must first account for the undermining of said egalitarian meritocracy that results from societal discrimination and inequality of immigrant groups and neighbourhoods (white and non-white), which has a far greater impact than positive discrimination ever could.

I'm not sure how exactly I'm opposing ''meritocracy'' by opposing race quotas that favour undeserving people with the right skin colour at the expense of deserving people with the wrong one.
As for egalitarianism and meritocracy, in places like the UK or the US it's a myth.

Dumb kids with rich parents will outearn gifted kids with poor parents over their lifetime, simply because rich parents provide a safety net and allow endless failures.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...-than-talented

This has nothing to do with marginalization of minorities. I'm wholly in favour of providing equal opportunities to fix the above mentioned bs, but race quotas simply aren't a good way. A rich kid with minority background gets a position over a poor kid with a white background? That's bs. And do you know why it's bs? Because those who make this kind of policies are the upper class white liberals I'm railing against. What they care is their ''feel good'' moment that atons them from the sin of being born rich and having had a free ride in society.

Let's switch from race to gender for a second. Why do you think it's always about women CEOs, or similar upper income jobs, and never, for instance about gender quotas for miners? Because those pushing for gender quotas are upper class women to begin with. They don't really ''need'' the extra income as CEO, they are already in managerial roles and part of the top 10%, if not 1% of the income worldwide. Extra income makes little difference to them. They want the recognition of moral supremacy. That's the extra they seek. They want the upper class income status and the upper class more status. That's why the fraudolent attention towards ethnic/gender/sexual orientation quoats. There's no feel good moment from putting women into coal mines.

The vast majority of Brits to whom ethnic quotas apply are British citizens who never 'came' to Europe in the first place, we were born here the same as you were. Positive discrimination is first and foremost a domestic agenda designed to combat inequalities among Brits, it has little to do with the small numbers of non-white immigrants who are competing with Brits for jobs.

London is the wealthiest and most successful city in the UK. It's also majority non-white British. White people move to London in droves to enjoy the greater opportunities the city offers. It's almost like ethnicity has nothing to do with success, but rather the historical and economic development of a country regardless of its diversity levels.

You'll be happy to know that white working class pupils are the worst performing across all races/class.
https://www.ft.com/content/d53298f8-...0-57a2a826423e
That's the result of positive discrimination btw.

As for London, it's also the most inequal, those who benefit from the wealth are a restricted minority (which includes all races indeed), while the overwhelming majority of non-whites are poor. This is indeed the model that globalist liberals are forcing down everyone's throat in Western Europe. A parallel society of ultra rich whites (themselves) with token minorities and the other side of society of extremely poor, mostly minority people. It's the same thing in places like San Francisco, New York City, Paris, etc. All places with huge foreign population, an ultra rich, predominantly white financial elite and a rapidly shrinking middle class.

Hell, even service providers and consumer products producers admit behind closed doors that there are only two types of consumers: the rich and the poor.
The one big theme of our century is going to be the crisis of big cities:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...graphic-trends
because life has become unaffordable if you want it decent. Third world migrants are welcome because they have low expectations. Either you are born rich, or stay poor.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I said that "many" people came to help rebuild Britain after the war. They did (source). You seem to be trying to move the goalposts.

You also seem to be trying to put words in my mouth. I haven't accused you of wanting to "kick everyone out". If you wish to defend your implication that I have, feel free to quote the post where I said that.

You claim that statistics about demographic trends in the UK are "heavily suppressed", yet it took a quick online search and there they were.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world

One demographer, who didn't want to be named for fear of being called racist, said: 'It's a matter of pure arithmetic that, if nothing else happens, non-Euro peans will become a majority and whites a minority in the UK. That would probably be the first time an indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority in its historic homeland.'

That's the level of debate allowed. It's a taboo that's breaking anyway.

Before you say ''but that's a old article''. The trend is still alive and well:
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/m...ority-minority

Broadly, it doesn't change my point. I never had any issue with the occasional flow like the after-war you mention. It's a whole other topic when it becomes population replacement.

I'm wondering if you know what ethnic cleansing means. If a family from Ghana or India moves in next door, this doesn't affect my ability to exist or preserve my heritage. No-one is stopping me from enjoying traditional British heritage or culture.

Ethnic Brits are dying out and being replaced with other groups. Is ethnic replacement a form of ethnic cleansing?

British identities have been affected by migration for generations. You say that Englishness is based on distancing itself from Continental Europe, that's true in relation to the current Brexit debate. However, even the word 'English' came from settlers from Continental Europe (Angles, Saxons and Jutes) and English identity is influenced by the culture of migrants from many parts of Europe and other parts of the world. You don't have to be 'upper class' or 'elite' to use words like 'bungalow' or 'zombie', to enjoy fish and chips or chicken tikka masala, or to listen to rap, bhangra or R&B.

Actually, you do. English people eat marmite.

You wrote "it's time to fight back" after "declaration of war" in a discussion about immigrants, soon after a terrorist 'fought back' against immigrants by murdering people. Fighting in the context of war usually involves violence. If you don't want to call for violence, why talk as if you do?

The UK government is currently discussing ''Islamophobia'' laws, which for all intent and purpose are equivalent to Sharia blasphemy laws, right after creating ''online hate speech'' legislation, which is an Orwellian thought crime legislation, on top of an ''Equality Act'' that allows discrimination of native citizens in favour of minorities.

There has been a clear popular outburst resulting from the disasters left by globalisation in the UK just like in the rest of the Western world. The elite reaction is to suppress freedoms and discriminate? That's tyranny. Arresting people because they vent their frustration online is ludicrous. It's at the level of China. So yes, it's an act of war against the people and their freedoms.

I see, your posts are trying to twist words to the opposite of their actual meaning. Believing that it's okay for people to listen to different kinds of music, enjoy different styles of cooking or pray differently has nothing to do with supporting terrorism or crimes.

Britain's experience of the mid-20th century was that Nazis reduced our cities to ruins and that migrants (some of whom helped to defend our country) helped to rebuild them. You seem to be arguing that the lesson to take from this experience is that we should embrace extreme-right policies and be hostile to migrants. I see the lesson of history differently.

It's telling that your posts seem to be trying to divide white British people against immigrants, and to divide everyone else against what you claim are 'elites'.

I really haven't suggested anything against migrants who came here decades ago. If anything that's when migration worked, because the numbers were limited.

As for the division of society, the liberal elite started it. Look at their reaction when they lose an election: the people are ignorant, ungrateful, misguided or simply ''racist and sexist''. Look at how Brexit voters have been treated for the past 3 years. And now the elite has opted for repression. One of the ironies of this story is that in the end, the elite of liberal democracy is no different from any other in history. They guarantee you freedoms so long that you vote the way they like, but suppress them as soon as you vote ''wrong''. Under that reasoning, I'm simply arguing for fighting back. I don't like the direction society is going, it's either I'm allowed to vote my way out and retain my freedoms, or the elite needs to go.

[Basil II the B.S]

merge and delete

[Muizer]

You just made an argument that countries that have a history of whatever should give preferential treatment to minorities as atonment....

Pardon. Where did you get this 'atonement' stuff from? Did you infer that from me mentioning terms like 'slavery' and 'colonialism'? Those are just historical facts. I never mentioned anything about owing anything to the non-native communities it produced.

To answer your question, none of that. You evaluate people individually. I reject any policy based on ''sins of fathers'' whoever they are. Europeans, non-Europeans.

Allright then. Just establishing that you're not in the same crowd who would treat people differently from anyone else because their grandparents migrated here. (think of trying to deport people to the countries of their forefathers, or trying to stifle their religious expression within the law).

Just saying, because if you refer to hypocritical white liberals as 'my side', then 'your side' has plenty of people who still see no problem with treating people as second rate citizens because their grandparents were not assimilated (leaving aside the question of whether that was ever a realistic or desirable prospect).

Underrepresented in what? Specific jobs? Where is it written that specific, which btw is only high income, jobs should represent the ethnic ratio of society? You want to help poor people, you help all poor people, not just the ones who have the colour of the skin you like.

That's a 3 step reasoning

1) if we actually treated everyone equally under equal circumstances, then this ethnic/cultural ratio would be reflected in job opportunities, school grades, political representation etc..
2) The reason why we're not seeing this is hidden bias
3) The solution is push people from minorities into sectors where they are underrepresented. Not as a goal to even the number, but as a means to tackle hidden bias. And, secondly, to make people who are already in a position to make hiring decisions and so on aware of the fact that they may have hidden biases.

Just because there are people who take this to extremes (like those 'how privileged are you' score cards) and turn it into a blame game (your 'atonement' scenario) doesn't mean most people who recognize the above 3 points are just trying their best to solve a problem in society. That they are way more pragmatically motivated, rather than ideologically, than you seem to think.

[Basil II the B.S]

Pardon. Where did you get this 'atonement' stuff from? Did you infer that from me mentioning terms like 'slavery' and 'colonialism'? Those are just historical facts. I never mentioned anything about owing anything to the non-native communities it produced.

Yeah you brought them up and they are generally brought up to justify mass migration as some sort of payback. If it wasn't your argument, we can leave it.

Allright then. Just establishing that you're not in the same crowd who would treat people differently from anyone else because their grandparents migrated here. (think of trying to deport people to the countries of their forefathers, or trying to stifle their religious expression within the law).

Just saying, because if you refer to hypocritical white liberals as 'my side', then 'your side' has plenty of people who still see no problem with treating people as second rate citizens because their grandparents were not assimilated (leaving aside the question of whether that was ever a realistic or desirable prospect).

The irony here is that those I'm complaining about on your side might as well result in the take over of those you don't like on my side. For the sake of ethno-purists, my girlfriend is Ukrainian and her background is half Polish, 1 quarter Ruthenian and 1 quarter Russian Tatar, which is Turkic central-Asian. Ethno-purists would kick her out. Now that would make me very angry.

What's my point? The extremists on your side are fueling the extremists on my side (there's evidence of this, you may read ''The Coddling of the American Mind''). If those I'm complaining about in this thread don't stop, then you'll get the nasty guys of my side eventually. I don't want them either.

That's a 3 step reasoning

1) if we actually treated everyone equally under equal circumstances, then this ethnic/cultural ratio would be reflected in job opportunities, school grades, political representation etc..
2) The reason why we're not seeing this is hidden bias
3) The solution is push people from minorities into sectors where they are underrepresented. Not as a goal to even the number, but as a means to tackle hidden bias. And, secondly, to make people who are already in a position to make hiring decisions and so on aware of the fact that they may have hidden biases.

Just because there are people who take this to extremes (like those 'how privileged are you' score cards) and turn it into a blame game (your 'atonement' scenario) doesn't mean most people who recognize the above 3 points are just trying their best to solve a problem in society. That they are way more pragmatically motivated, rather than ideologically, than you seem to think.

No. The ''hidden bias'' you talk about might found some ''academic'' equivalent in terms of ''unconscious bias'' and it's completely ideological. There's zero evidence it exists. There is some discrimination at individual level, but not a systemic one.

The idea that completely equal opportunities would result in equal representation among groups is also wrong, because you'd have to eradicate cultural differences to begin with. Otherwise, even providing the same exact schooling and scholarships to everyone regardless of their ethnic group would result in Asians outperforming everyone (as they do already) because of the immense cultural pressure they put into education.

Part of the reason certain minorities struggle is that the get stuck in ghettos with continous flows of newcomers from the same area and thus never integrate with the host society but simply reproduce their country of origin on a local level. That's what keeps them behind: second generations mixing with new flows.

One of the greatest delusions of the left is this idea that equal opportunities result in equal outcomes. There's overwhelming contrary evidence for instance from the gender policies of Sweden. They tried everything to put ''more women into STEM'' and give equal opportunities and they got the opposite effect. This is know as the ''gender equality paradox''.
https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equ...48156-Feb2018/
Even in the most optimistic scenario of equal opportunities, you'd have outcomes generated by differentials in culture, personal hobbies and intelligence.