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

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Hsieh Shih-chung and Yu-feng Chen in China, but yeah they aren't popular. I think India is safe for a while as well, mostly because Gandhi was a nationalist, thus nationalism does not have a bad name for the moment. I think indeed you don't have to fear White Libs for the moment because they'd do anything to accomodate your cultural needs. What you need to fear are the cosmopolitan Indians who will start hating on your traditions and demand you melt away in a global culture based on greyness. Given the strong rate of growth of your country you might see someone popping up with those ideas eventually.

The cosmopolitan Indians are the ones in Bollywood and various mainstream Indian news sources that love to make their opinions well known on twitter and love the West and hate any Hindu tradition tbh. They call themselves liberals, but their tendancies is to hate Trump and support someone like Hilliary. It is a case of inferioty complex where they desire to become Western, use Western speech and think the local speaking people of India are backward. Christmass pudding great - Pakoras bad on Diwali. The same way Western Liberals degrade their own cultures. (Sex strike, lol) There's a big debate on nationalism and it needs to be re-interpreted but its no where near any thing to amount too much. The current Modi Government is coming back to power. I'm not going into a debate with that since it would need its own.

Why did Trump, Brexit, or Modi happen? Because the Liberals called Hindus as dangerous people, openly degraded their traditions, and advocate that Hindu traditions are bad, they even mocked the Indian army with its recent strike over its neighbour. Because the Liberals called Americans racists and a basket of deplorables and for two and a half years they relentessly attacked Trump and the Americans, SNL crap nonsense. Brexit - same situtation. Voters 'didn't know' what they were voting for.

Yeah sure. Like remainers who know everything about solving the world by taxing the rich.

Talk about wealth distribution - lets look at Automated Luxury Communism!

Oh of course, Nigel Farage getting funds and rising up the ranks is wrong, but Cameron mingling with Russian oligarchies and millionares isn't! According to British Media.

Carl Benjamin viciously attacked by British media and saw that Darby journalist interview. It wasn't an interview, it was an interrogation that maybe the SAS would do to their enemies if they captured them.

Someone calls Anna Soubry a Nazi and they get prosecuted.

Yet milkshakes thrown at TR and CB, NOTHING!


Have these remainers ever studied history and realized that when the Government brings in radical changes to the economy that wealth and income both correlate? You don't need to give people so much money, only improve their living conditions! I'm no economist but that is the general gist.


There is one thing you should note: Whether they're Japanese, Korean or Indian, they all want to live like Western people, emulate their culture and bring in the crap open relationship nonsense. (It does not save relationships, it destroys it. Maybe in the Ancient World it could have worked since there was no strict moral codes, but now it can't.) They want to transform the societies into pretty much with a agenda, polyarmy and non-monogamous relationships. I don't mind it - but getting rid of monogamy is about as stupid as getting rid of taxes and taxing the rich. You can't change something which has been fundamental in 2000 years. The biggest example would be the film and tv societies of these countries (The film actors since they're rich, mingle with millionaries and do all the sexual stuff that would be forbidden in these conversative societies without any condemnation whatsoever. Why? Because they're fancy, educated, and they can speak English. Anyone that can speak English is considered a step up.)

The two people you meantioned will never get into power simply because you only need to examine the histories of these countries. Korea's political class are always depicted as the worst (and there hasn't been a truly despciable government than them. There was a ship ferry disaster, and the Korean coast-guard did nothing to save them. The President was sleeping and she didn't come out for nearly several hours. People that could have been saved weren't. This happened in 2014 and she got removed out of power because of corruption charges. The new President is an improvement.) Look at their historical dramas and the people who want to reform Korea always get squashed out of power. China's political class are fully aware of what's happening in the West and they don't want that same drama you see about protests and milk-shakes coming to their land. Japan I'm not sure about, but I'm pretty much clear that they wouldn't let anything like this happen. Besides these countries are first world countries. The two people you speak can talk all about the bad issues in the world (they won't get into power because the Governments had the sense to transform their societies into first world. When you're in first world, you can complain but the issues aren't so big as compared to third world India.)

I disagree with the Libs on this, because they keep pandering to a vote base when this shouldn't be the case. The libs are sitting in ivory towers and love to ignore the impact of what's happening in the West. Its not pandering to Hindus 100%. Just read the anti-Hindu bias on the New York Times, Washington Post etc. Its not fun to read these articles. So Libs are def anti-Hindu. This is an interesting article you might want to look at:
https://medium.com/@vamseejuluri/tul...r-f6720ab69742

These are my opinions, and thus no debate please. A separate thread would be needed for this.

[Basil II the B.S]

You didn't answer my question. Who is being "replaced" in the example of the British street I gave you and how does this replacement occur?

Changes to percentages don't mean that "the natives are dying out". Remember those demographic statistics which you claimed are "heavily suppressed" - which were so well-suppressed that it took one online search to find them? They show that there were 45 million white British people in the UK in 2011 (from a total of 56 million people). Your claim that white British people are "dying out" is a gross misrepresentation, like your claim that Britain is a "tyranny" and your implication that a black or Asian family moving into a street in Britain is "ethnic cleansing". You previously claimed that:

The native Brits that were living there were replaced.

As for the UK population growth, it's almost entirely due to migration: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...tion-t8tr99f6v

The British fertility rate including immigrants is 1.81, below the stability rate which is 2.1, meaning that with no migration, the population would naturally shrink.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...dandwales/2016
And again, that includes immigrants, meaning the native Brit is probably a lot lower, something like 1.60 or so. So even you had zero population growth, due to the fact that native fertility is below 2.1, that would still mean natives are being replaced by migrants.

If there are more black and Asian people in the UK in future, how will this prevent the millions of white British from "existing"? How will this prevent them from "cultivating" and "preserving" their heritage?

I would like to rephrase your question to make the scenario clearer and I would like you to ask it to your fellow citizens: would you like a future where you are ethnic minority in your own country? Let's say there will be 35-40 million white Britons and 60-70 million Asian Britons.

I want to see what's the percentage that says yes.

Doesn't "forced migration" usually involve force? If a family moves house from the city to the suburbs where housing is cheaper and the schools are better, is this "forced migration"? You seem to be implying that immigration is a sinister plot to "disposses the natives" and that there's no difference between families moving house and the killing fields of Bosnia, Rwanda or Myanmar. If you think that an African or Asian family moving into a British street is "ethnic cleansing", you might want to take a look at what happens in real ethnic cleansing.

The example of a single family is not applicable for the simple reason that we aren't talking about a single family moving to the UK, but tens of millions of people.

This is the same bs argument that someone else used: there was 1 black person in 1850 in London, that proves that London was always multicultural and it makes no differences if we go from 99% majority to 49%. That's bs. That's an intentional and dishonest misrepresentation of reality, specifically in terms of ratios.

No, I'll remind you that you described policies against racism as a "declaration of war" and call for people to "fight back". 'Fighting', after a 'declaration of war', normally involves violence. You said that protest was pointless because, you claimed, it led to "tyranny". You ruled out the peaceful alternative (protest), said that there had been a "declaration of war" and called for "fighting". Then you kept claiming that your call to give up protest and "fight" in a "war" had nothing to do with violence.

What you call policies against racism advocate racial discrimination.

As part of this, you seemed to be claiming irrational hatred against Muslims isn't a thing, a few weeks after a Muslim-hater shot 50 people at their mosques. You also keep talking about what you call "population replacement or "ethnic replacement". What was the title of the terrorist's manifesto? Was it "The Great Replacement", by any chance?

Who came up with the idea that the demographic decline of Europe should be countered with a policy called ''replacement migration''? Was it an alt-right Neo-Nazi? No, it was the UN. Little detail they forgot: most people are attached to their identity, only cosmopolitan liberals are not. Of course there are ways to fight back, not all of them are desiderable. Palestinians have been replaced in their own land as well and some of them took violent ways to protest it. Hell, Native Americans have been replaced in their own lands and some of them chose the war path (and also lost).

Where did I say that? You seem to be trying to put words in my mouth.

Ok then, no Islamophobia laws?

An insult and more misreprentation of the thinking of people on the other side of the argument.

99% of the arguments from that side are calling me Hitler for disagreeing with them. I actually praise the fact that you have not done that so far and for that you have my thanks.

[Aexodus]

This is the same bs argument that someone else used: there was 1 black person in 1850 in London, that proves that London was always multicultural and it makes no differences if we go from 99% majority to 49%. That's bs. That's an intentional and dishonest misrepresentation of reality, specifically in terms of ratios.

We?

[Basil II the B.S]

It doesn't actually include me, it's just contexualized.

[Aexodus]

Just checking you didn’t mean ‘we white people’

[Basil II the B.S]

I'm not British so clearly it doesn't count.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

So by "we" you meant British people? Because we're not British people, the British native people were black, displaced by the "beaker cup" people, and died out between Ceasar's and the later successful roman invasion.

And funnily enough the world didn't end because the Romans invaded, or a Scot became King and brought all his nobles to London with him, or a bunch of Irish got stranded in England on the way to North America During the Famine.

The problem isn't where the people are from, the problem is we're failing to filter out the s and integrate.

The problem is the poor access education, and outdated cultural concepts some of them bring with them that we fail to address.

The problem is the demographic range of people coming into the country, not those in the country, a black from canada isn't a change in cultural demographic, we are the same cultural demographic.

Obviously cultural dilution is a real thing, and threatens the stability of a country, but people don't subscribe to that culture because they are white, or don't because they are not white, there are many people in this country who are intolerant "I'm right, you're wrong because I'm me", morons who are white, and tolerant non-whites. They are even nuanced tolerant immigrants, I know, I've met some.

[sumskilz]

So by "we" you meant British people? Because we're not British people, the British native people were black, displaced by the "beaker cup" people, and died out between Ceasar's and the later successful roman invasion.

I don’t really see the relevance to a Twenty-First Century political conversation, but you’re mistaken enough that I can’t let it slide. The Mesolithic hunter gathers of the British Isles, known as Western Hunter Gathers in population genetics, were not the first people to live there. They had dark skin, but they were more closely related to modern Northern Europeans than to any other living population. Phenotypically they were unlike any modern population, but had characteristics still present in modern Europeans, some on the more common side, like blue eyes for example. The Icelandic singer Bjork has a face shape that would have fallen within the normal variation of Western Hunter Gathers, as another example.

In the Neolithic, the Western Hunter Gathers in the British Isles were nearly completely replaced by the Early European Farmers, people who were descended from the first Near Eastern farmers of Eastern Anatolia and the Levant. The Early European Farmers were largely replaced by people originally from modern Ukraine (Yamnaya via Corded Ware) who were themselves a mix of Eastern Hunter Gatherers and Caucasian Hunter Gatherers. The Bell Beakers who entered the British Isles were of the same ancestry. They did not die out. They constitute the largest portion of modern British people’s ancestry. Although all three of the aforementioned groups contributed some ancestry to the modern British gene pool.

The problem is the poor access education, and outdated cultural concepts some of them bring with them that we fail to address.

Ironically, this comment would be considered quite Eurocentric and “racist” in the first academic field I studied in. Partly because it’s a product of a colonial mentality, wherein the further one diverges from a European cultural ideal, the further back in time they are conceived to be. Objectively however, Middle East and North African culture is not outdated, it is the contemporary culture of most MENA people. There is no objective telos that all cultures subscribed to, and there is no clear indication at this point that post-Enlightenment Western Culture will ultimately win out. In fact, if MENA people aren’t well assimilated within European culture, in a few generations it may be your way of thinking that is seen as outdated, a passing fad that was ultimately rejected. There are also quite well-educated MENA people who hold to MENA values, so maybe set that assumption aside. What you really mean, it seems, is that immigrants need to be taught European values which you consider superior.

[Basil II the B.S]

So by "we" you meant British people? Because we're not British people, the British native people were black, displaced by the "beaker cup" people, and died out between Ceasar's and the later successful roman invasion.

And funnily enough the world didn't end because the Romans invaded, or a Scot became King and brought all his nobles to London with him, or a bunch of Irish got stranded in England on the way to North America During the Famine.

The problem isn't where the people are from, the problem is we're failing to filter out the s and integrate.

The problem is the poor access education, and outdated cultural concepts some of them bring with them that we fail to address.

The problem is the demographic range of people coming into the country, not those in the country, a black from canada isn't a change in cultural demographic, we are the same cultural demographic.

Obviously cultural dilution is a real thing, and threatens the stability of a country, but people don't subscribe to that culture because they are white, or don't because they are not white, there are many people in this country who are intolerant "I'm right, you're wrong because I'm me", morons who are white, and tolerant non-whites. They are even nuanced tolerant immigrants, I know, I've met some.

I'll pass on the black Brits claim since sumskilz addressed it and he's way more competent than I am on the issue.

As for the rest:
-''the problem is education''. No it isn't. In a country with over 60 million people, you'll have people less educated. It's normal, it's not for everyone.
-''outdated cultural concepts''. Neither. As far as you and I know, religions have been around for thousands of years, which is evidence that to the very least, they preserve their group. That's evidence of resilience through history. Our post-modern society instead can't preserve itself. It's young and already collapsing. Demographically speaking liberals don't have enough kids to keep their society going. They rely on importing religious people with high fertility rates. That means that religious people will outnumber liberals again in the future. Who's outdated then? The one who survives or the one who does not?
-Finally, the problem isn't economic. The problem is that people are tribal and the ruling class has become fixated on this post-racial atomistic society experiment... which doesn't work. Starting with the fact that the ruling class is also tribal and actually one of the most tribal out there. There are interesting studies (Tajfel, Eagleman) about tribalism. If you split a group of people in A and B, purely arbitrary, people from group A will be more sympathetic towards the same group and so will do people from group B. Tribalism is inescapable. The irony is that the more you push it away the more you reinforce it because people from that group perceive being attacked.

So what's the problem in the end? Woke white liberals. (And I'm well aware of the irony that I'm attacking a tribe and their ideology now). They need to drop a stupid social experiment that's not working nor going to work. You aren't going to ''educate'' people to tolerance and diversity.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

I don’t really see the relevance to a Twenty-First Century political conversation, but you’re mistaken enough that I can’t let it slide. The Mesolithic hunter gathers of the British Isles, known as Western Hunter Gathers in population genetics, were not the first people to live there. They had dark skin, but they were more closely related to modern Northern Europeans than to any other living population. Phenotypically they were unlike any modern population, but had characteristics still present in modern Europeans, some on the more common side, like blue eyes for example. The Icelandic singer Bjork has a face shape that would have fallen within the normal variation of Western Hunter Gathers, as another example.

In the Neolithic, the Western Hunter Gathers in the British Isles were nearly completely replaced by the Early European Farmers, people who were descended from the first Near Eastern farmers of Eastern Anatolia and the Levant. The Early European Farmers were largely replaced by people originally from modern Ukraine (Yamnaya via Corded Ware) who were themselves a mix of Eastern Hunter Gatherers and Caucasian Hunter Gatherers. The Bell Beakers who entered the British Isles were of the same ancestry. They did not die out. They constitute the largest portion of modern British people’s ancestry. Although all three of the aforementioned groups contributed some ancestry to the modern British gene pool.

Thank you for sharing your understanding on the matter, if your have sources, I'd love to see them.

Ironically, this comment would be considered quite Eurocentric and “racist” in the first academic field I studied in. Partly because it’s a product of a colonial mentality, wherein the further one diverges from a European cultural ideal, the further back in time they are conceived to be. Objectively however, Middle East and North African culture is not outdated, it is the contemporary culture of most MENA people. There is no objective telos that all cultures subscribed to, and there is no clear indication at this point that post-Enlightenment Western Culture will ultimately win out. In fact, if MENA people aren’t well assimilated within European culture, in a few generations it may be your way of thinking that is seen as outdated, a passing fad that was ultimately rejected. There are also quite well-educated MENA people who hold to MENA values, so maybe set that assumption aside. What you really mean, it seems, is that immigrants need to be taught European values which you consider superior.

Who said I was talking about the middle east and north Africa? You put that there, not me.

Furthermore, that was a specific, not a generalization, people who are not, or poorly educated, does not mean they received "eastern" education and it doesn't count because it isn't western.l It mean they didn't revive a fundamental education on worldwide values such as justice, performance for peace, authority, and consent.

You call MENA culture backwards, this is TWC, it wasn't, wahabbism is backwards, it's backwards compared to the historical advanced nature and tolerance of Islamic philosophy.

We're not demanding people conform, we're demanding people don't demand other people to conform.

I'm British, FYI, not European.

I'll pass on the black Brits claim since sumskilz addressed it and he's way more competent than I am on the issue.

As for the rest:
-''the problem is education''. No it isn't. In a country with over 60 million people, you'll have people less educated. It's normal, it's not for everyone.
-''outdated cultural concepts''. Neither. As far as you and I know, religions have been around for thousands of years, which is evidence that to the very least, they preserve their group. That's evidence of resilience through history. Our post-modern society instead can't preserve itself. It's young and already collapsing. Demographically speaking liberals don't have enough kids to keep their society going. They rely on importing religious people with high fertility rates. That means that religious people will outnumber liberals again in the future. Who's outdated then? The one who survives or the one who does not?
-Finally, the problem isn't economic. The problem is that people are tribal and the ruling class has become fixated on this post-racial atomistic society experiment... which doesn't work. Starting with the fact that the ruling class is also tribal and actually one of the most tribal out there. There are interesting studies (Tajfel, Eagleman) about tribalism. If you split a group of people in A and B, purely arbitrary, people from group A will be more sympathetic towards the same group and so will do people from group B. Tribalism is inescapable. The irony is that the more you push it away the more you reinforce it because people from that group perceive being attacked.

So what's the problem in the end? Woke white liberals. (And I'm well aware of the irony that I'm attacking a tribe and their ideology now). They need to drop a stupid social experiment that's not working nor going to work. You aren't going to ''educate'' people to tolerance and diversity.

Not receiving a fundamental secondary education is not normal, it's illegal. In this country, you attend school, high school drop-outs are not allowed.

We're not talking about religion, and again, islam in the 7th-18th centuries was markedly more tolerant, than christian Europe, you had to pay extra taxes if you were not Mulsim, but you weren't killed, you weren't kicked out, and you we allowed to be gay. (To an extent) and I don't mean religion, I mean fundamentalism, missodgony, homophobia, racism, and intolerance, and the assertion of one philosophy over another.

Society getting smaller, isn't the same as it not going. People identify with the people they're around, this isn't inescapable, it just requires social integration, you can belong to more than one "tribe" also that assume religion is a heritable trait, it isn't, religious adherence uptake falls among the children of fundamentalists and higher income families.

We're not talking about eliminating religion here, we're talking about making it a private matter.

We can educate people, if they want to learn, and if they don't, they can find somewhere else to emigrate to.

[Basil II the B.S]

Who says people have to leave if they refuse to be educated to your political preferences? They can vote and tear down the system. The UK political scene is a good example of what's going on as political parties have all run themselves into this ''diversity and inclusion'' corner and conservative voters are revolting.

[sumskilz]

Thank you for sharing your understanding on the matter, if your have sources, I'd love to see them.

Here are a few:

Population Replacement in Early Neolithic Britain

The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe

The full texts might be behind a paywall. I can't tell because I'm signed in through a university proxy.

Who said I was talking about the middle east and north Africa? You put that there, not me.

MENA people in Europe are all the controversy lately, but what I said equally applies to South Asians, sub-Saharan Africans, or whoever. Their cultures are not "outdated". They have developed along different trajectories.

Furthermore, that was a specific, not a generalization, people who are not, or poorly educated, does not mean they received "eastern" education and it doesn't count because it isn't western.l It mean they didn't revive a fundamental education on worldwide values such as justice, performance for peace, authority, and consent.

You call MENA culture backwards, this is TWC, it wasn't, wahabbism is backwards, it's backwards compared to the historical advanced nature and tolerance of Islamic philosophy.

There aren't universally held values.

Wahhabism is quite modern, in fact quite young, and on the rise. It seeks to recreate an idealized past that never existed. I hear Westerners talk about how Islam needs a reform movement. Wahhabism is a modern reform movement, maybe just not what Westerners were hoping for.

We're not demanding people conform, we're demanding people don't demand other people to conform.

For many, that would be demanding they conform.

I'm British, FYI, not European.

This distinction is meaningless to me.

you had to pay extra taxes if you were not Mulsim, but you weren't killed, you weren't kicked out

That only applied to people of the book, others were required to convert or be killed. That was how it was supposed to work anyway. In practice, dhimmi status was sometimes extended to some who shouldn't qualify. In practice, there were still anti-Jewish and anti-Christian pogroms and forced conversions. The Samaritans should have had dhimmi status, and yet they were almost all exterminated in the Seventeenth Century. Today there are only 810 of them. The Druze were systematically persecuted under Mamluk rule. Al-Maqrizi's kitab al-khitat recorded eight violent pogroms carried out against Copts in Cairo and throughout the countryside in 1259, 1264, 1279, 1283, 1293, 1301, 1321, and 1354, alongside a series of new laws meant to humiliate them and allow for the confiscation of their property.

Quoting Little's translation of Al-Maqrisi:

The amirs commanded the Governor of Cairo to proclaim in Misr and Cairo that every Christian and Jew who did not wear the blue and yellow turban respectively should be plundered by the populace and that they should have the right to his property and women. No Christian was to be employed by an amir in any position of the sultanate whatsoever unless he was converted to Islam. Thus the harafish and others gained dominion over them; those whom they saw disregarding the proclamation they beat almost to death, including Dhimmis who rode astride a donkey, so that many did not dare to ride or walk in the streets, fearing for their lives. Many of them were converted.

Just to point out a few counter-examples. History as seen by the religious minorities who lived under Islamic rule is quite different than what is emphasized in modern Western academia.

This is another conversation I don't think belongs in modern politics. I find it annoying that a one-sided narrative seems to have developed for political reasons. I'm not trying to offer a counter-narrative, but the other side of the full picture. Hopefully someone won't feel obligated to come along and talk about how Muslim Andalusia was all flowers and rainbows.

[Heathen Hammer]

So by "we" you meant British people? Because we're not British people, the British native people were black, displaced by the "beaker cup" people, and died out between Ceasar's and the later successful roman invasion.

Did they come from the other side of flat Earth?
But seriously, I thought the whole "Egyptians were black" thing was funny, this one must be some kind of parody.

[Aexodus]

So by "we" you meant British people? Because we're not British people, the British native people were black, displaced by the "beaker cup" people, and died out between Ceasar's and the later successful roman invasion.

I burst out laughing when I realised this was saying that native Britons haven’t existed since the neolithic, and that the native Brits were black, which they weren’t.

Hoo boy.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Seems very darkskinned to me...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...alysis-reveals

Sorry that your white anglosaxon protestant worldview of british people now is crumbling.

[Aexodus]

That guy’s not black mate.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

So in your personal definition, that is white?

[Basil II the B.S]

Lmao people are legitimately claiming that original Brits are Sub-Saharian Africans.

And this is the that the ''diversity and inclusion'' committee want to teach in schools. Orwellain.

[Heathen Hammer]

Seems very darkskinned to me...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...alysis-reveals

Sorry that your white anglosaxon protestant worldview of british people now is crumbling.

This has been debunked:
https://www.newscientist.com/article...y-not-be-true/
Full text without paywall:
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingd..._man_find_may/
http://survivethejive.blogspot.com/2...eddar-man.html
https://blog.insito.me/slicing-chedd...e-43798bf764fa

This whole thing is a typical example of leftists falling for a media hoax more easily then Soviets did for claims in Pravda.

[Basil II the B.S]

The Guardian is notorious for promoting fraudolent articles that are entirely ideological. One of the latest was the ''Single women are happier than married one'', which was hilarious slaughtered.