Why is it so important for a white country to stay white?

[athanaric]

Except any non-white country can become white through long odds and no overtaking of their culture. White is just a color. There are even many cultures with no associated skin color that racists like to think are white.

Yes. We know. Not the point of the thread.

Still waiting for an answer from the OP and like-minded posters, btw.

[95thrifleman]

I have been following this with interest, witholding comment to properly formulate my opinions.

I have been asked a question, do I have a problem with non-white countries becoming white? The answer is no, no more than white countries becoming non-white. lso the same applies to different cultures of the same colour such as east and west Eropean cultures.

There are positive and negative aspects to any cultures mixing and there is always problems, often violent ones. However we do see positive end results with New Zealand being a good example and South Africa being a bad one.

From an historic perspective, Britain is the creation of violent, forced multi-cultural mixing. It started with the Romans forcing their culture on the Celts, the Irish Celts wiping out the Picts, Saxons invading and taking over from the Celts and then the Norse taking over half of England followed by the Normans forcing their rule and culture on the whole of England.

Then we had the English forcing their culture on the Scots and Irish, the Highland Clearences is one of the saddest chapters of our history. We have had religous wars over catholic and protestant culture and tradition.

Now we have new cultures from all over the world mixing with our own, which is not a recent effect, it can be traced as far back as the 18th century. It's not easy. not without problems and even violence, but is it a bad thing?

In my opinion it is not, the constant evolution of British culture and identity is not and should not be defined in narrow terms and I think is a positive thing for the country.

[athanaric]

I have been following this with interest, witholding comment to properly formulate my opinions.

I have been asked a question, do I have a problem with non-white countries becoming white? The answer is no, no more than white countries becoming non-white. lso the same applies to different cultures of the same colour such as east and west Eropean cultures.

There are positive and negative aspects to any cultures mixing and there is always problems, often violent ones. However we do see positive end results with New Zealand being a good example and South Africa being a bad one.

But you do realize that in all cases, the net result is that the indigenous (and yes, Brits descended from Anglo-Saxons are just as indigenous, if not more from a purely chronological PoV, to Britain as Iroquois are to the Great Lakes region, and Maori to NZ) population loses control over much of its ancestral homelands, and may be more vulnerable to ethnic or culturally-based persecution, up to and including genocide, if one of the immigrant populations decides not to assimilate, and instead set up its own ethno-state or religious utopia?

From an historic perspective, Britain is the creation of violent, forced multi-cultural mixing. It started with the Romans forcing their culture on the Celts, the Irish Celts wiping out the Picts, Saxons invading and taking over from the Celts and then the Norse taking over half of England followed by the Normans forcing their rule and culture on the whole of England.

Then we had the English forcing their culture on the Scots and Irish, the Highland Clearences is one of the saddest chapters of our history. We have had religous wars over catholic and protestant culture and tradition.

Well it actually started way before the Romans, with e.g. the Celts taking over the place from, and assimilating, a pre-Celtic population, etc.
Also IIRC, the Picts were recently found to be Celtic speakers after all, and one of the main elements in the Scottish ethnogenesis.

Now we have new cultures from all over the world mixing with our own, which is not a recent effect, it can be traced as far back as the 18th century.

It's on a whole different scale now (beginning after WWII) than in the 18th century, or (at least on the European level) ever before in recorded history.

It's not easy. not without problems and even violence, but is it a bad thing?

Well, if it's fraught with problems and violence, wouldn't you be better off without it?

[95thrifleman]

Well, if it's fraught with problems and violence, wouldn't you be better off without it?

The end result tends to be better. I very much doubt Britain would of turned out the way we had if it'd just been the Celts and no outside interference. ust because something is hard doesn't mean we should avoid it.

The civil rights movement was fraught with problems and violence, where the blacks better off as slaves? The English path to democracy was fraught with problems and violence, would we of been better off as a feudal serfdom?

I've heard these horror stories before, "those brown skinned, religous nuts will take over and kill us!". Yet the simple fact remains that the extremists are a distinct minority, the vast majority of muslims (because that is what people are really talking about here, lets be honest) do NOT want extreme interpretations of shariah law or islamic rule.

This immigration all started, in modern terms, back in 1948. We've had the Enoch Powell crap and no rivers of blood, no civil race war. British communities have formed distinct areas yes, but that is breaking down which is why the extremists are kicking off. They hate seeing the vast majority of their people embracing an inclusive, British society as much as the white power wits do.

The BNP died out, UKIP has died out, the far right, nationalists are a dying breed and the minority extremists will die out too.

I still have not seen any arguments as to why the vast majority of successful, integrated and productive non white members of British society are such a bad thing. The best arguments against seem to be pointing fingers at the extremist minority and trying to conjure some horror story that they are somehow going to take over and kill us all.

If this where true, if the extremists where a majority, we'd be having that civil war right now the people shooting up wallmarts and mosques are so desperate to start.

[Bob69Joe]

There are some serious paradoxes going on here. I will not discuss a definition of "whiteness" just as I will not for any other racially ambiguous ideology. The Stormtruppers a nation does not make, never will.

OP goes on a flowery journey with his wife into the past of Britain, millennium and more ago, but doesn't seem to know where he is in the present. British culture today is defined as it is anywhere else in Europe or America, as following the class revolutions of France. Culture today is defined as economic before anything else. Any other culture coming to the West is coming for the money. We should be asking how have we come over two-thousand years from cultures that were known precisely for being a culmination of several factors, not limited to, genetic lineage, faith, customs and hierarchy, to a purely symbolic definition that only consists in monetary economics and distribution of government services. We are only chasing after symbols, equality, tolerance, sufferage, because it is the simplest means of distributing what we have because we have redefined what civilization ought to be, which must be centered not on families and traditions but individuals.

So, to be frank, there is no way to answer the topic, because it makes zero sense. When we are only able to visualize all from our minds as the view of atomized, and lonely people, then our present turmoil is just what we get.

[Aexodus]

It started with the Romans forcing their culture on the Celts, the Irish Celts wiping out the Picts, Saxons invading and taking over from the Celts and then the Norse taking over half of England followed by the Normans forcing their rule and culture on the whole of England.

Romans, Norse and Normans contributed a negligible amount to British ancestry.

Why is cultural change in the past an argument in favour of cultural change in the future? It’s a fallacy, an appeal to antiquity. This isn’t the Bronze Age any more chap.

What culture do you want to UK to change towards. Polish, Indian, Chinese, Romanian?

The UK isn’t a country of immigrants. Most people trace back their families as far as they go and they’re still in Britain.

[Himster]

Oh look it's Himster's Rant Time

I've lived on four continents so far and I've encountered every species of nationalist, racist, imperialist, xenophobe. Most "racists" I've spoken to (and it has been a lot, considering the new American definition of "racism" we have now), are primarily concerned with their native cultures/identities being diluted/vilified. The racial component being either tertiary or irrelevant, meaning that the racial motivation projected on these people is primarily a construct made by outsiders. Considering the fact that all culturally/historically based identities are already being diluted due to the uncontrollable phenomenon of globalization/Americanization: it's quite understandable that increasingly large swathes of populations around the world are making a stand on aspects of this issue that they feel they can curb. Particularly working class peoples.

The racial component seems, to me, to be exaggerated to the point of a hysterical mythological grandeur that is not significantly reflected in reality. Just another strawman and stereotype to be used against the working class and those who voice dissent. This way we ensure we avoid an authentic discussion about the modern erasure of particular identities, forms of self-hood and the agency they entail.

(I'm not saying that racists don't exist, but rather their existence/significance is generally overstated, the actual problem is a deeper and broader issue involving identity in general.)

95thrifleman

In my opinion it is not, the constant evolution of British culture and identity is not and should not be defined in narrow terms and I think is a positive thing for the country.

Here is a problem.
You are 100% correct, anyone who is not suffering from a mental illness will undoubtedly agree with you. BUT, "narrow terms" and "broad terms" are vagueries bordering on the absurd and the worst part is: there's no substitute. I don't envision a viable/non-violent resolution to this issue. It's all well and good for us liberally-minded-middle-class-thinking-gamer-effete-latte-sipping-individuals to declaim the boorish ideologies spouted in old-man pubs and football stadia. But the fact remains that they are people too, they breed faster than we do, they are not going anywhere and in democracies their opinions matter.

-A broad definition can be extended up to and past the point of meaninglessness (which is what we're beginning to see now), for many people this is unacceptable and they will take recourse (like all people do) to assert their identity. An attack on identity is a form of violence (to use the American Academic Newspeak) and therefore it is natural to assume that, without a satisfying resolution, a violent response is inevitable. "An eye for an eye" is not an ethical prescription rather it is a description of humanity's natural instinct.
-Similarly a narrow/fixed definition can be taken to its racial or group-think extreme, leading to right-wing or left-wing totalitarianism with all the fun of ethnic cleansing and/or re-education camps that that line of thinking generally leads.

You might be thinking: well surely there must be a synthesis between these two absurd extremes. Yes and no, obviously there are other formulations of identity, but the same problems are there. Can compromises of such polarizing issues be anything but universally unacceptable? And, how can we get other formulations generally accepted without enforcing them thus causing increasingly violent reactions?

I think the answer is: We can't. But maybe you have a better answer

The BNP died out, UKIP has died out, the far right, nationalists are a dying breed and the minority extremists will die out too.

Those parties conveniently died out when their ideology migrated (mostly intact) into the Tory Party. Maybe you've forgotten, but the majority voted for Brexit and they have not disappeared. Contrary to your hopeful and near utopian view of the future, to me, it looks like things will get worse.
The wheel of progress is greased in blood, always has been and always will. A greased wheel doesn't care if it rolls forwards or backwards. If we don't push it, someone else will.

As a side-note:

I've always been of the opinion that the UK doesn't and can't have nationalists, its multinational composition makes such a notion a contradiction in terms. Rather it has Imperialists. England has nationalists/separatists, Scotland has nationalists/separatists,

Ireland has Terrorists/Freedom-Fighters

etc.

I still have not seen any arguments as to why the vast majority of successful, integrated and productive non white members of British society are such a bad thing.

Of course you haven't, nobody is genuinely arguing about that, unless they're insane. It's not as though the 52% of the UK population actually hold this view. I would be honestly surprised if there was even 1% who held this view. The sentiment of wishing to maintaining a "white" country is an easily hyperbolized position. I would advise caution when accepting the hyperbolized version of any position.

Yet the simple fact remains that the extremists are a distinct minority, the vast majority of muslims (because that is what people are really talking about here, lets be honest) do NOT want extreme interpretations of shariah law or islamic rule.

The majority want some kind of Shariah Law, any interpretation of Shariah Law is extreme in the view of practically all non-Muslims. If it were otherwise then we would have already adopted Shariah Law.

Aexodus

Romans, Norse and Normans contributed a negligible amount to British ancestry.

I would quibble about the Norse... but either way: the cultural impact from all of those groups has a tremendous impact on British culture, Most notably: the language we're speaking right now.

Why is cultural change in the past an argument in favour of cultural change in the future? It’s a fallacy, an appeal to antiquity. This isn’t the Bronze Age any more chap.

I'd say it's more of an argument that cultural change is inevitable and not completely negative, rather the positives outweigh the negatives in the long-run.
Not that I totally agree with the argument, it is still a good argument. It's not a fallacy, you reiterated it in the most ungenerous way possible and that is a fallacy.

What culture do you want to UK to change towards. Polish, Indian, Chinese, Romanian?

Obviously it was, is and will be an amalgam. I'd say it's mostly changing towards American (which is itself the most rootless amalgam on earth) and it looks likely that it will continue in that trajectory for the foreseeable future.

The UK isn’t a country of immigrants. Most people trace back their families as far as they go and they’re still in Britain.

The UK's culture is indeed one of immigrants, the same as every country that has ever or will ever exist. The language, practically all food, architecture, form of government, religions, most domesticated animals, etc.
That being said: The UK's culture is its own unique amalgam and deserves to be preserved, the same as any other. So in affect, what I've just said is somewhat irrelevant. But it should be considered because you cannot stop change, anymore than your illustrious forebear: Canute, you can only roughly guide it.
Due to the statistical and anthropological inevitability of pedigree collapse: genetic ancestry is absolutely the least relevant aspect of this issue and does not warrant even the most cursory consideration.
As a tool for dividing populations it is worse than useless.

[Bob69Joe]

Ireland has Terrorists

Hilarious!

The UK's culture is indeed one of immigrants, the same as every country that has ever or will ever exist. The language, practically all food, architecture, form of government, religions, most domesticated animals, etc. That being said: The UK's culture is its own unique amalgam and deserves to be preserved, the same as any other. So in affect, what I've just said is somewhat irrelevant. But it should be considered because you cannot stop change, anymore than your illustrious forebear: Canute, you can only roughly guide it.
Due to the statistical and anthropological inevitability of pedigree collapse: genetic ancestry is absolutely the least relevant aspect of this issue and does not warrant even the most cursory consideration.
As a tool for dividing populations it is worse than useless.

If you are aware of Moldbug, or not all no matter, of Exit, any groups at all attempting to break free of the "norm," a separatism or secession will be met with violence, a la mode ACW. The cassus belli these days is that no one has the freedom to break away from Globalism Inc.

During the American Civil War, Lincoln had attempted to solidify the Union as a vehicle for globalism, what was then called internationalism.
Theorizing that Lincoln was quite familiar with Marx, though certainly himself a proponent of international intervention, later to evolve into globalism:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/08/lincoln-and-marx/
Marx's letters to Lincoln:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...oln-letter.htm

[Love Mountain]

But you do realize that in all cases, the net result is that the indigenous (and yes, Brits descended from Anglo-Saxons are just as indigenous, if not more from a purely chronological PoV, to Britain as Iroquois are to the Great Lakes region, and Maori to NZ) population loses control over much of its ancestral homelands, and may be more vulnerable to ethnic or culturally-based persecution, up to and including genocide, if one of the immigrant populations decides not to assimilate, and instead set up its own ethno-state or religious utopia?

If "control" is defined by the strength of arms, then White shouldn't worry about losing control. I fail to see how a minority White population (who will sill remain, by far, the largest bloc of the population) will be unable to defend itself.

It's on a whole different scale now (beginning after WWII) than in the 18th century, or (at least on the European level) ever before in recorded history.

Can I get a source for this?

Well, if it's fraught with problems and violence, wouldn't you be better off without it?

That depends on what that process would entail. If "stopping" the process is also full of problems and violence, I fail to see the point. Especially when the end result is some arbitrary preference for an ethnic make-up of the country.

[Aexodus]

Can I get a source for this?

Here you go https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/48

[Love Mountain]

Here you go https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/48

I have issues with blindly trusting the word of what is essentially an anti-immigration advocacy group. I'm not saying their data is wrong, but I can't verify their data due to the lack of census data online before 2001. That said, the trends that migrationwatch is arguing are probably roughly true.

Now, why is that important?

[dogukan]

Putting aside the blatant racism of no-lifer losers who are looking for a meaning in their lives bu being white and exceptional.


I think, and HOPE it has more to do with the un-integrated nature of many immigrants rather than color. Tho it does over time build prejudices towards skin colors as well.

I can understand a brit getting annoyed by the relative power and ratio of a conservative Turkish population growing in Uk or germany or whatever. Its not about their rights but their desire to change the world to their cultural norms which tends to happen when mass immigration occurs.

Turks in geröany are still loyal to turkish nationalism and socio-political norms from turkey which they often openly reflect in germany.

Because this does in the end limit the living space of the people and even bring in a sense of instability.
Even Turks are fed ıp eith Syrians that took over the streets in istanbul despite looking similar.
I dont think people are used to integrating immense amounts of people from foreign cultures, especially if they are coming from vastly imcompatible socio-political cultures/norms.

Most recent immigrants are of lower class category to an average european city-town they come to, hence significantly impacting the living space.

Similar things can happen even in the same country. I live in kadıköy for example, arguably the best municipality in whole of middle east (not rich or luxury, good balance of youth and family life)
Recently the place pulls in too much attention hungry males from all over the town with growing infrastructure and its hurting the whole fabric bu overloading "lower class" or "lumpen" behaviour to the area.
You suddenly feel less safe in your old comfort zone.

[Mithradates]

I think, and HOPE it has more to do with the un-integrated nature of many immigrants rather than color. Tho it does over time build prejudices towards skin colors as well.

The irony here is if you dont urge them to integrate, because you dont see that as a problem, like you know, diversity is or srength we need to be enriched etc and instead of promoting integration you just ignore the issues and blame everything on racism than yes, that will build up actual racism over time.

I live in kadıköy for example, arguably the best municipality in whole of middle east (not rich or luxury, good balance of youth and family life)
Recently the place pulls in too much attention hungry males from all over the town with growing infrastructure and its hurting the whole fabric bu overloading "lower class" or "lumpen" behaviour to the area.
You suddenly feel less safe in your old comfort zone.

Imagine if a white european would say the same thing about non-european migrants in his area hahaha

[Heathen Hammer]

The fundamental issue here is that non-European immigrants for some reason are not integrating and just create paralleled societies. It makes sense for native Europeans to oppose that. I'm sure if reverse happened in, say, Pakistan locals would be upset too. Its not racist to not like the idea of mini-third-world existing close to street you live in. It is an economic and social issue and could threaten well-being of native Europeans.

[Aexodus]

I have issues with blindly trusting the word of what is essentially an anti-immigration advocacy group. I'm not saying their data is wrong, but I can't verify their data due to the lack of census data online before 2001. That said, the trends that migrationwatch is arguing are probably roughly true.

Now, why is that important?

Because it’s a direct counter to the argument that the UK has always been a country of immigration and/or current levels are normal/precedented.

[Copperknickers II]

What culture do you want to UK to change towards. Polish, Indian, Chinese, Romanian?

It won't change to any of those things. Our future culture will be a totally new culture. A culture so different from any of the above cultures, you can't eve begin to criticise it, as it's impossible to criticise something when you don't yet know what it is.

The UK isn’t a country of immigrants. Most people trace back their families as far as they go and they’re still in Britain.

It's not the US. But it's definitely a country where immigration is a major trend, and on the regional level you can definitely say that London, for example, is an immigrant city.

The fundamental issue here is that non-European immigrants for some reason are not integrating and just create paralleled societies.

That is a sweeping generalisation. It's true that many non-white people feel uncomfortable mixing with white Brits. But it's equally true that plenty of non-white people are very well integrated. Integration is a two-way process and White Brits often make it very difficult for non-white people who want to integrate. Anyway, does integration actually matter? Lack of integration can create problems but equally it's often pretty harmless. I'm an immigrant - I wouldn't say I'm very well integrated, but I don't cause any problems for my host country and I pay my taxes so what is the harm?

Its not racist to not like the idea of mini-third-world existing close to street you live in.

That has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with wealth. Poor British areas are much more similar to the third world than rich non-British areas. It's simply silly to say that every non-white suburb is going to turn into Tower Hamlets or Luton. The idea that immigrants bring their countries with them is quite flawed. Look at Elephant and Castle in London for example - it used to have a reputation as one of the roughest areas in the city, back when it was mostly white with some Afro-Caribbeans. Now it's London's Latino town, full of Colombians and Peruvians. You'd expect the murder rate to shoot up, according to your logic, since those countries have among the highest murder rates in the world. The reality is, the people who moved there did so to ESCAPE the problems in their own country, not to bring problems with them, and so the area is now way safer than it used to be. For every Rotherham grooming scandal or Peckham stabbing epidemic, there's three or four quiet, unreported Elephant and Castle gentrifications of an area by non-white incomers.

Most of the rough non-white areas today were previously rough white areas. They are rough because they are poorly developed - the immigrants who moved there were poor, hence why they live there - they couldn't afford housing in nice areas. They couldn't get good jobs (their addresses, lack of infrastructure and chronic lack of investment in their area's education went against them, just as it used to do to their white forebears) so they fell into the same social problems and it became a self-reinforcing cycle.

British culture today is defined as it is anywhere else in Europe or America, as following the class revolutions of France. Culture today is defined as economic before anything else. Any other culture coming to the West is coming for the money. We should be asking how have we come over two-thousand years from cultures that were known precisely for being a culmination of several factors, not limited to, genetic lineage, faith, customs and hierarchy, to a purely symbolic definition that only consists in monetary economics and distribution of government services. We are only chasing after symbols, equality, tolerance, sufferage, because it is the simplest means of distributing what we have, because we have redefined what civilization ought to be, which must be centered not on families and traditions but individuals.

So, to be frank, there is no way to answer the topic, because it makes zero sense. When we are only able to visualize all from our minds as the view of atomized, and lonely people, then our present turmoil is just what we get.

This is an interesting perspective. It's true that we have undergone major changes in our culture since the start of the Modern era, further compounded by changes in the Postmodern era. To make some broad generalisations, we now have an individualist, secular, pluralist society, founded on a free-market capitalist economic system. Let's list some of the positives and negatives of these things:

Individualism:
+ Allows people to express unique personalities and act in their own interests, not the interests of a collective group, which increases personal freedom and agency. For many people this makes them happier.
+ Fosters tolerance and self-expression, which allows people to expand into economic and social niches which can allow their social, romantic and financial lives to blossom.
- Breeds selfishness, greed and inequality, by idolising competition and disadvantaging less independent/'strong' individuals.
- Increases loneliness and identity crisis due to dearth of fixed group identities, which badly affects mental health of some individuals.

Secularism:
+ Makes people more open to empirical/scientific advancement, which leads to societal progress.
+ Increases productivity and social cohesion, by breaking down barriers between people formerly divided by religion/sect.
- Decreases community cohesion in some respects, especially in rural areas and among older people which traditionally used religion as a nexus.
- Reduces exposure to positive religious values such as charity, kindness, modesty etc.

Pluralism:
+ Increases dialogue.
+ Fosters economic growth and social mixing along the Medieval Jewish model (by which I mean, tolerance of Jews in Medieval times provided a loophole in moneylending laws of Christian societies which lead to economic growth due to credit, and also fostered flow of ideas across large areas due to Jews being spread out - we can see the same principle at work in many tolerated groups today, from LGBT people with their larger disposable incomes, to South Asians in the UK with their doctor-centred culture servicing our need for doctors in a country where medicine is less and less popular among the native population, and so on).
- Can lead to the creation of hard-to-penetrate parallel communities which are isolated from mainstream values and in extreme cases even from law enforcement.
- Can be divisive.


And I won't go on to list the positives and negatives of capitalism which are well-known. At any rate, I'd dispute that our culture is purely based on money, that is not true, any more than it's true to say culture in previous times was solely based on religion or nationalism. I'd also dispute that non-Western immigrants come here solely for money, they come also for safety and in some cases for our liberal values.



Finally, as regards your assertion that civilisation "must be centered not on families and traditions but individuals," there's a clear implication there that individualism represents a decline in moral and societal progress from traditional family-centred values. I've already listed the advantages of individualism, and I'd also point out that families are made of individuals, so what are family values but a set of principles intended to improve the life of the individuals within the family? Besides, the nuclear family as core unit of society is a Medieval idea which itself replaced pre-Christian tribal identity. And I'd further point out that the idea of society itself is a very modern idea, when defined as a democratic nation state. It's not clear to me that your so-called 'traditional' model is all that traditional or all that useful. I think there's something to be said for the family unit, as a space for raising well-adjusted children. There's also something to be said for the tribal structure, with its large support network and capacity for larger-scale cooperation. It would certainly do much to combat the housing crisis and elderly care crisis, if we moved back to a tribal lifestyle of living in huts in shared family compounds designed for expansion of the extended family and pooling of resources. Perhaps immigration from tribal societies in Africa and the Middle East is the answer to solving our problems after all?

[Love Mountain]

Because it’s a direct counter to the argument that the UK has always been a country of immigration and/or current levels are normal/precedented.

But you've had a 5% foreign born population since 1960. You grew up in a time of immigration. So I really don't see the issue here. Imo, Western "identity" isn't based off skin color or "culture". It's based off civic values and norms. So long as those intact, I don't really care how many muslims are running in the streets. I go to a Catholic church but I'm an atheist. In my ideal world, everyone is.

[Aexodus]

But you've had a 5% foreign born population since 1960.

Incorrect, in 1961 it was 5%, by 1991 it was 7.3%. After Tony Blair took power, after 1997 immigration dramatically increased and in 2011 it was 13.4%. Thus it’s safe to say that the UK is not a country of historical immigrants, unlike the USA and it’s recent history. Or Mexico, or Australia, Canada, Venezuela, Brazil etc.



Between 1961 and 2011 the immigrant population almost quadrupled. This is without precedent.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...nited-kingdom/


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...nited-kingdom/


The change in the scale of immigration between 1997 to now is absolutely without precedent.

You grew up in a time of immigration.

What does this even mean?

So I really don't see the issue here. Imo, Western "identity" isn't based off skin color or "culture". It's based off civic values and norms.

In my specific case it is not Western identity, rather it is British identity since I’m not a pan-european white nationalist.

British identity absolutely is based off culture, to argue otherwise is like arguing the moon is made of cheese.

But it's definitely a country where immigration is a major trend, and on the regional level you can definitely say that London, for example, is an immigrant city.

I guess Powell really was wrong, but he didn’t overestimate, he underestimated.

[Bob69Joe]

This is the point which I say I do not know.
_____
How does one attempt to do gloabalism? Clearly, there are things everyone must be assuming, chiefly equality. So, how to do gloabalism?

I can't.

There is this, that feels fresh to me. http://armenianhighland.com

Other than that, kings hire diplomats, people to do the gloabal thing, I assume. Kingdoms are an "extended family." Culture is inherent, intuitive, and people excel at just what is guaranteed of them in their life(their produce), not by station, or "social climbing." I was angry today so I won't think too much. We have no social programs to put kids in schools, kids just learn what they must and are attracted to what they may find. The big satellites are ever beaming and a kid makes his way eventually, growing older, to those big repositories of fancy knowledge. Or something. Have you thought about anarchy lately? Or the future?
_____

There are some serious paradoxes going on here. I will not discuss a definition of "whiteness" just as I will not for any other racially ambiguous ideology. The Stormtruppers a nation does not make, never will.

I can easily clarify this one. Simply being the opposition to something will not create something for you or your group. The majority has adopted egalitarian law and demotic policies because it has become rigidly opposed to the life of Europeans in the past, the fruits of feudalism in hierarchy. What minorities do in the name of these egalitarian policies is promote their group interest. Where the LEFT attacks is that if you fail to uphold any of the egalitarian points, then you, in their eyes, must be purely an oppositional party.

I can chew on this a bit more, this is important for the topic.