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

[Mithradates]

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..

Assuming that all cultures are equals, which they are not. Different cultures wont give the same opportunities to their children, for example a girl growing up in a traditional gypsy family will have less opportunities than her schoolmates.

[Copperknickers II]

Why does colonialism mandate that we have mass-immigration?

I never said it did. I just dislike the way that immigration is presented by right wingers - as if a load of totally unknown foreign interlopers just suddenly decided to pile into a formerly peaceful backwater called Britain. The original waves of immigrants who were invited into the UK in the 60s and 70s were by and large people who had been born as colonial subjects of the UK. The British Empire wasn't some kind of historic event for those people, it was the country which they were born into. I'm of non-British descent, but not a single ancestor of mine was born outside of the dominion of the British empire, they were all British subjects. So your attitude to colonialism as being some irrelevant rhetorical device is rather strange to me. Of course, with every passing year, the chances of non-white immigrants to the UK having actually been born as British subjects decreases. But then we might mention some of the things that have happened since the collapse of the empire, such as the expulsion of the Ugandans by British-supported dictator Idi Amin, and then the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the intervention in Libya that contributed to the situation in the Middle East. Those were decisions made by in many cases still-living British politicians elected by currently living British voters.

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

Yes, they do.

https://www.trustforlondon.org.uk/da...ng-and-london/

"Domestic immigration has remained relatively steady since 2004/05; in 2014/15 it was 210,000."

The net movement of native Brits of all ethnicities is away from London, but it's still entirely accurate to say that hundreds of thousands of white Brits flock into London every year.

Who do you think I prefer between an engineer from India and a school leaver from let's say Austria?

Replace 'India' with 'Pakistan' and I'd be very interested to hear your answer to that question.

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.

Because employers are not good judges of who is more 'deserving' than who. Overt racism, subconscious biases, lack of understanding of contextual factors and cultural differences plus socioeconomic inequality all mean that it's very common for supposedly 'less' deserving quota candidates to actually massively outperform their 'fairly' hired peers.

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. This has nothing to do with marginalization of minorities.

Wealth and privelege are features of the established white elite social stratum. The fact that immigrants do not come from this social stratum and are at a huge disadvantage is a large part of the reason why they are underrepresented in elite, higher-earning jobs. Racial quotas can help level the playing field. You're absolutely right that we do a very poor job of levelling the playing field even for white working class people let alone ethnic minorities, but shouldn't we at least try harder?

A rich kid with minority background gets a position over a poor kid with a white background? That's bs.

Totally agree. But given the higher levels of poverty among ethnic minority communities, that would be the exception not the rule and so is not a good argument against quotas, merely an argument for improving the quality of quotas and adding other criteria such as socioeconomic status rather than just race - there are many affirmative action programs which do exactly this.

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.

If even the most priveleged and talented women in the world still suffer from discrimination, then what hope does that leave women at the bottom of the pyramid? These women are role models for other women and they also have resources other women don't, so they are able to push their own agenda more effectively than women at lower social strata so we hear about them more than we hear about the struggles of lower-down women.

There's no feel good moment from putting women into coal mines.

What total nonsense. How many times have you seen Emma Watson, Oprah Winfrey or Michelle Obama participating in some UN fund drive for getting women into education and work in Bangladesh or Nigeria or some such place?

You'll be happy to know that white working class pupils are the worst performing across all races/class.

Shocking. We should ban white people from entry to our countries, clearly they can't compete on the level with our vastly superior ethnic minority kids. [/sarcasm]

Seriously, the success achieved by ethnic minority kids in education is well-known. It's mostly a function of the economic supremacy of London and other big cities which simultaneously attract successful hard-working people (including ethnic minorities) and also drain regional areas of talent.

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.

No argument from me on that.

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.

Yeah, that is one of the big drawbacks of immigration - it erodes workers rights because immigrants are happy to work harder for less money as well as artificially increasing the labour supply, aiding employers at the expense of employees and applicants. Nevertheless, immigration still produces an overall benefit to the economy, so with proper policymaking (perhaps less sticking plaster welfare spending and more EU-style active investment over a long period to tackle poverty and inequality in white areas) immigration need not be such a sore point. At any rate, I'm glad you have identified something that liberals have been trying to tell the right wing for 150 years now: vulnerable minorities are the victims of the real problems not the cause.

[Alwyn]

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

Immigration is continually criticised in the media and by some politicians here, and has been for years, yet you seem to imply that this isn't "allowed" because the UK population is living under "tyranny".

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.

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

What do you mean by "ethnic replacement"? In a British street, if a black family whose grandparents came from Ghana have three kids and their white neighbours whose grandparents came from Britain have two kids, who is being "replaced" and how are they being replaced, exactly?

You ask about ethnic cleansing. Are you asking whether I think, in the street above, that the white family are victims of ethnic cleansing? No, I don't believe that if one family has more kids than another this is equivalent to a group (like the Rohingya Muslims) being being violently driven out or killed. Do you?

Actually, you do. English people eat marmite.

Are you saying that, in Britain, fish and chips and chicken tikka masala are eaten only by the 'elite' and not by ordinary folk? Did you watch Iron Man and conclude that, because Tony Stark ate an American cheeseburger, in the US only billionaries eat cheeseburgers?

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.

Why the quotes around Islamophobia, a few weeks after a Muslim-hater murdered 50 people?

Why should people be allowed to harass and threaten others, online or in RL? You seem to believe that not being allowed to threaten or harass others is tyranny.

Your sweeping claim about the equality law was already answered:

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.

[...]

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.

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.

'They started it'? You're seriously using the logic of a six year old caught out by their teacher for fighting in a playground?

[Heathen Hammer]

Immigration is continually criticised in the media and by some politicians here

Last time I checked, one can go to jail in UK for making a social media post that government doesn't like.

Why the quotes around Islamophobia, a few weeks after a Muslim-hater murdered 50 people?

Because "islamophobia" isn't really a thing.

[Alwyn]

Last time I checked, one can go to jail in UK for making a social media post that government doesn't like.

People can be sent to prison for making death threats to MPs, after a white supremacist murdered Jo Cox MP. What political opinion does a death threat convey? Why should people be allowed to threaten to kill others?

Because "islamophobia" isn't really a thing

A few weeks ago, a Muslim-hating terrorist murdered 50 people, yet you claim that hatred of Muslims isn't really a thing. Unless you agree with this act of terrorism - do you?

[Heathen Hammer]

People can be sent to prison for making death threats to MPs, after a white supremacist murdered Jo Cox MP. What political opinion does a death threat convey? Why should people be allowed to threaten to kill others?

Switching goal posts much? Dankula didn't threaten anyone, netiehr did Robinson or that guy that made effigy comedy video. I'm not even talking about that time with Instagram post with Snoop dog lyrics in it.

A few weeks ago, a Muslim-hating terrorist murdered 50 people, yet you claim that hatred of Muslims isn't really a thing.

I don't think you understand the argument, or at least pretend not to. There is no such thing as "islamophobia". As I pointed out in other thread criticism of Islam and acknowledgement of its rather oppressive and violent nature isn't irrational. Having said that, the whole "alt- right panic" thing is irrational, kinda like Satanic Panic of the 80s.

Unless you agree with this act of terrorism - do you?

So basically you support ISIS - do you? See I can play that game too.

[Alwyn]

Switching goal posts much? Dankula didn't threaten anyone, netiehr did Robinson or that guy that made effigy comedy video. I'm not even talking about that time with Instagram post with Snoop dog lyrics in it.

I was responding to your claim that the UK goverment imprisons people simply for making social media posts they don't like, by showing why people are actually imprisoned - for death threats and similar behaviour. You didn't answer my questions. What political views does a death threat convey and why should someone be allowed to make it?

We've been over the "Gas the Jews" video. You might not perceive that phrase as threatening, but some Jewish people did. The fact that a bully and his supporters think that the bullying is hilarious doesn't make it okay.

What "social media post" was Robinson sent to prison for? As far as I know, he was sent to prison for assault, trying to enter the United States illegally using a passport which wasn't his own, mortgage fraud and contempt of court (disrupting a criminal trial).

I don't think you understand the argument, or at least pretend not to. There is no such thing as "islamophobia". As I pointed out in other thread criticism of Islam and acknowledgement of its rather oppressive and violent nature isn't irrational. Having said that, the whole "alt- right panic" thing is irrational, kinda like Satanic Panic of the 80s.

So basically you support ISIS - do you? See I can play that game too.

Was the far-right terrorist in New Zealand motivated by an "rational fear" of the Muslims he shot dead? What threat did they pose to him, praying in their mosque?

No, I don't support ISIS. I answered your question, it's your turn: do you support the far-right terrorist attack on Muslims in New Zealand, or not?

[Basil II the B.S]

Replace 'India' with 'Pakistan' and I'd be very interested to hear your answer to that question.

He might as well be from Saudi Arabia if we really want to pick countries I'm suspicious about. I'm not going to say no a priori. Worst case scenario, I do background checks, which should be necessary for most migrants anyway.

Because employers are not good judges of who is more 'deserving' than who. Overt racism, subconscious biases, lack of understanding of contextual factors and cultural differences plus socioeconomic inequality all mean that it's very common for supposedly 'less' deserving quota candidates to actually massively outperform their 'fairly' hired peers.

Here's a list of factor employers discriminate about: height, attractiveness, way of dressing, weight. If HR is run by idiots, you'll get idiotic selections.

Wealth and privelege are features of the established white elite social stratum. The fact that immigrants do not come from this social stratum and are at a huge disadvantage is a large part of the reason why they are underrepresented in elite, higher-earning jobs. Racial quotas can help level the playing field. You're absolutely right that we do a very poor job of levelling the playing field even for white working class people let alone ethnic minorities, but shouldn't we at least try harder?

Totally agree. But given the higher levels of poverty among ethnic minority communities, that would be the exception not the rule and so is not a good argument against quotas, merely an argument for improving the quality of quotas and adding other criteria such as socioeconomic status rather than just race - there are many affirmative action programs which do exactly this.

Just do it by socioeconomic status, you help everyone and noone gets mad.

If even the most priveleged and talented women in the world still suffer from discrimination, then what hope does that leave women at the bottom of the pyramid? These women are role models for other women and they also have resources other women don't, so they are able to push their own agenda more effectively than women at lower social strata so we hear about them more than we hear about the struggles of lower-down women.

These days? Look at the European Commission. You have Mogherini, who's highly incompetent yet got the job because the President was a man of the EPP and the S&P demanded a woman to represent them as coalition partner. Given that the most represented among them was the Italian group, they picked her. How did she get there to begin with? Also a quota. The Italian government went on the fetish to have 50% of the ministers female, so they gave her the Foreign Affairs one. Then you get a woman who talks about ''Europeans having to accept political Islam'' and crying when political Islam bombs the Brussels airport.
If a woman is driven she doesn't need anything. Margaret Thatcher castrated everyone in the 80s, she didn't need female quotas. Angela Merkel doesn't need quotas.

What total nonsense. How many times have you seen Emma Watson, Oprah Winfrey or Michelle Obama participating in some UN fund drive for getting women into education and work in Bangladesh or Nigeria or some such place?

Yes, in education so that they can get a degree and get a comfy office job, not a back breaking one in coal mines or logging.

Shocking. We should ban white people from entry to our countries, clearly they can't compete on the level with our vastly superior ethnic minority kids. [/sarcasm]

Seriously, the success achieved by ethnic minority kids in education is well-known. It's mostly a function of the economic supremacy of London and other big cities which simultaneously attract successful hard-working people (including ethnic minorities) and also drain regional areas of talent.

Look at the data well.
1) Upper class kids of all backgrounds outperform their respective underclass counterparts (that's normal it's the class advantage)
2) Women of all backgrounds outperform their male counterparts. Every single group. Why? This is one big debate on how education is built to favour girls these days.
3) When it comes to ethnic background, low income white males end up dead last compared to other low income males.

So, while there's clearly a cultural aspect, is it really a case where a field like education, that's overwhelmingly left-wing biased and runs ''diversity'' and ''inclusion'' policies that discriminate white males, sees working class white males dead last? I don't think so. Just so that we are clear, this kind of education system is what creates the likes of Tommy Robinson.

No argument from me on that.

Yeah, that is one of the big drawbacks of immigration - it erodes workers rights because immigrants are happy to work harder for less money as well as artificially increasing the labour supply, aiding employers at the expense of employees and applicants. Nevertheless, immigration still produces an overall benefit to the economy, so with proper policymaking (perhaps less sticking plaster welfare spending and more EU-style active investment over a long period to tackle poverty and inequality in white areas) immigration need not be such a sore point. At any rate, I'm glad you have identified something that liberals have been trying to tell the right wing for 150 years now: vulnerable minorities are the victims of the real problems not the cause.

So, would it be really a tragedy to reduce net-migration flows to pre-1997 levels (in the case of the UK)? Migrants still get to come, you give them more time to integrate within locals, avoid large ghettos like huge chunks of Birmingham, Bradford or Luton, you avoid the downward pressure on wages and you avoid the native working class to get wrecked economically and culturally.

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

Immigration is continually criticised in the media and by some politicians here, and has been for years, yet you seem to imply that this isn't "allowed" because the UK population is living under "tyranny".

What do you mean by "ethnic replacement"? In a British street, if a black family whose grandparents came from Ghana have three kids and their white neighbours whose grandparents came from Britain have two kids, who is being "replaced" and how are they being replaced, exactly?

You have a country that was at least 95% white in 1990 and will be 51% non-white around 2060, because natives are dying out and immigrants are coming in huge numbers. That policy is ironically advocated by the United Nations as ''replacement migration''.
https://www.un.org/en/development/de...-migration.asp

So it's a replacement.

You ask about ethnic cleansing. Are you asking whether I think, in the street above, that the white family are victims of ethnic cleansing? No, I don't believe that if one family has more kids than another this is equivalent to a group (like the Rohingya Muslims) being being violently driven out or killed. Do you?

Forced migration is considered ethnic cleansing. So ethnic cleansing isn't only about killing. Forced migration is generally intended as expulsion, however an intentional migration to change the demographic of an area, dispossessing the natives, can easily be considered ethnic cleansing. No?

Are you saying that, in Britain, fish and chips and chicken tikka masala are eaten only by the 'elite' and not by ordinary folk? Did you watch Iron Man and conclude that, because Tony Stark ate an American cheeseburger, in the US only billionaries eat cheeseburgers?

Fish and chips not really. Chicken tikka masala is more typical of cosmopolitan urban areas rather than the rest of the country.

Why the quotes around Islamophobia, a few weeks after a Muslim-hater murdered 50 people?

Why should people be allowed to harass and threaten others, online or in RL? You seem to believe that not being allowed to threaten or harass others is tyranny.

Your sweeping claim about the equality law was already answered:

So, I can't say '' Islam'' or any other religion (except Christendom, those can be insulted freely and they are) online anymore?

As for the 50 Muslims killed by Tarrant, if you want to play that awful game, I raise the 300 Christians killed by Muslims in Sri Lanka on Easter a few weeks ago. After which I assume you'll bring up some other victims of right wing terrorists, which will force me to point out the statistics of worlwide deaths by terrorism, which see something like 90% Islamic terrorism, 10% all the others, meaning that even putting together all forms of religious and politically motivated terrorism, Islam still kills 9 times more that number. And you want me to stop saying '' Islam'' online?

'They started it'? You're seriously using the logic of a six year old caught out by their teacher for fighting in a playground?

The likes of imbecilles who promote ''diversity and inclusion'' policies think that objectivity and evidence-based are ''white supremacist'' connotations. So yes, we are at the level of 6 years olds more or less. There's no way I let 6 years old bullies dictate policies though. Not sure if you ever dealt with bullies in school, but I have. There's one solution: you pick them apart and teach them a lesson they'll never forget.

[Aexodus]

Was the far-right terrorist in New Zealand motivated by an "rational fear" of the Muslims he shot dead? What threat did they pose to him, praying in their mosque?

The shooter - whose name we won’t mention - had an intense hatred of those who were not white. Perhaps racist was the correct word.

[Heathen Hammer]

I was responding to your claim that the UK goverment imprisons people simply for making social media posts they don't like, by showing why people are actually imprisoned - for death threats and similar behaviour. You didn't answer my questions. What political views does a death threat convey and why should someone be allowed to make it?

We've been over the "Gas the Jews" video. You might not perceive that phrase as threatening, but some Jewish people did. The fact that a bully and his supporters think that the bullying is hilarious doesn't make it okay.

What "social media post" was Robinson sent to prison for? As far as I know, he was sent to prison for assault, trying to enter the United States illegally using a passport which wasn't his own, mortgage fraud and contempt of court (disrupting a criminal trial).

So basically anyone can be jailed because of subjective notion of "feeling threatened". You either have freedom of speech or you don't. UK doesn't have freedom of speech, since its "prohibited" forms are defined so vaguely anyone can be jailed for anything.
As for Robinson, your narrative has already been debunked in the thread about his arrest.

Was the far-right terrorist in New Zealand motivated by an "rational fear" of the Muslims he shot dead? What threat did they pose to him, praying in their mosque?

No, I don't support ISIS. I answered your question, it's your turn: do you support the far-right terrorist attack on Muslims in New Zealand, or not?

I presume he was motivated by accelarationism, as per his own words. And as before, I think you are missing the point or are pretending to miss it with a hilarious accusation that my stance on freedom of expression is somehow supporting that mosque shooting.

[Basil II the B.S]

The shooter - whose name we won’t mention - had an intense hatred of those who were not white. Perhaps racist was the correct word.

Nah. I read his manifesto. It's significantly more cunning. Sure he dislikes non-whites but he targeted Muslims not much because he hates them, but because he knows that the political activists are the most prone to commit terrorist attacks. What he hopes for is retaliation against whites by Muslims, which will drive even more people to agree with his ideas and thus a cycle of violence and possibly war. He also hoped for Wh*te liberals to go all out in their white bashing (which they did) so that they would further antagonize people and drive them towards extremism.

[Aexodus]

He also hoped for Wh*te liberals to go all out in their white bashing (which they did) s.

Is that so? What happened between then and now that would entail that?

[mongrel]

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



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

For some nations simples, they were also British/Commonwealth. For the EU also simples. Because of treaty obligations. No conspracy theories required. I note that the thread's author is now too embarrassed to stick to OP. It is after all quite clear that .

- the Equality Act is 9 years old
- since then we have had two pretty regressive Conservative governments
- Teresa May was arguable the most racist ( and ineffective) Home Secretary Britian has ever had, who wrongfully and unlawfully deported black Britons (Windrush) and wealthy overseas-born individuals who amended tax returns, so as to declare more income (paying more tax).


The whole thread is just nonsesnse.It basically boils down to what an anti-Semetic terrorist wrote down in his jail cell some twenty five years ago, dressed up as some fictional current day crisis.

Nah. I read his manifesto. It's significantly more cunning. Sure he dislikes non-whites but he targeted Muslims not much because he hates them, but because he knows that the political activists are the most prone to commit terrorist attacks. What he hopes for is retaliation against whites by Muslims, which will drive even more people to agree with his ideas and thus a cycle of violence and possibly war. He also hoped for Wh*te liberals to go all out in their white bashing (which they did) so that they would further antagonize people and drive them towards extremism.

In realty he killed those poor people to promote white identitarian ideas.The clue is in the title of the manisfesto.It's contents are little different to stuff posted by extremists on other sites. Indeed not too dissimilar to your own works.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/...acism-language

You keep mentioning quotas even though there are no such thing, they are explicitly illegal in the UK.If only there was a quota for this forum.

[Basil II the B.S]

Is that so? What happened between then and now that would entail that?

Macron and Zuck have already met to repress your rights.

[Alwyn]

You have a country that was at least 95% white in 1990 and will be 51% non-white around 2060, because natives are dying out and immigrants are coming in huge numbers. That policy is ironically advocated by the United Nations as ''replacement migration''.
https://www.un.org/en/development/de...-migration.asp

So it's a replacement.

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:

It's a denial of the right for the people of Western Europe to exist, cultivate their heritage and preserve it.

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?

Forced migration is considered ethnic cleansing. So ethnic cleansing isn't only about killing. Forced migration is generally intended as expulsion, however an intentional migration to change the demographic of an area, dispossessing the natives, can easily be considered ethnic cleansing. No?

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.

Fish and chips not really. Chicken tikka masala is more typical of cosmopolitan urban areas rather than the rest of the country.

It sounds like you really did watch Iron Man and conclude that, because Tony Stark had one, in the United States only billionaires eat cheeseburgers.

So, I can't say '' Islam'' or any other religion (except Christendom, those can be insulted freely and they are) online anymore?

Of course, you can say that. You just did.

As for the 50 Muslims killed by Tarrant, if you want to play that awful game, I raise the 300 Christians killed by Muslims in Sri Lanka on Easter a few weeks ago. After which I assume you'll bring up some other victims of right wing terrorists, which will force me to point out the statistics of worlwide deaths by terrorism, which see something like 90% Islamic terrorism, 10% all the others, meaning that even putting together all forms of religious and politically motivated terrorism, Islam still kills 9 times more that number.

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.

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?

And you want me to stop saying '' Islam'' online?

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

The likes of imbecilles who promote ''diversity and inclusion'' policies think that objectivity and evidence-based are ''white supremacist'' connotations. So yes, we are at the level of 6 years olds more or less. There's no way I let 6 years old bullies dictate policies though. Not sure if you ever dealt with bullies in school, but I have. There's one solution: you pick them apart and teach them a lesson they'll never forget.

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

So basically anyone can be jailed because of subjective notion of "feeling threatened". You either have freedom of speech or you don't. UK doesn't have freedom of speech, since its "prohibited" forms are defined so vaguely anyone can be jailed for anything.
As for Robinson, your narrative has already been debunked in the thread about his arrest.

You claimed that people are put in prison in the UK for saying things on social media which the government doesn't like. I showed that they're actually put in prison for things like online death threats.

As Katsumoto said, Robinson admitted that he'd acted in a way which could have interfered with a criminal trial, and "a judge temporarily suspended reporting on an on-going case to avoid compromising it, something which is a well-established law in the UK", so this was not the attack on free speech which some people were trying to paint it as.

I presume he was motivated by accelarationism, as per his own words. And as before, I think you are missing the point or are pretending to miss it with a hilarious accusation that my stance on freedom of expression is somehow supporting that mosque shooting.

You're trying to twist the facts, again. I didn't say that your stance on free speech meant that you supported the mosque shooting. I responded to your post on my comment about the Muslim-hating terrorist in New Zealand, where you claimed that irrational hatred oif Islam isn't a thing:

Why the quotes around Islamophobia, a few weeks after a Muslim-hater murdered 50 people?

Because "islamophobia" isn't really a thing.

It seems reasonable to conclude that this far-right extremist hates Muslims, since he murdered 50 of them, at their mosques. You seemed to be claiming there's no such thing as irrational hatred of Muslims. If you believe that, then you believe that all hatred of Muslims is rational. If you believe that all hatred of Muslims is rational, and if this terrorist hates Muslims, then you believe that his hatred of them was rational.

That's why I wanted to know whether you support the mosque shooting or not. if you don't support it, then it seems that you agree that the shooter's hatred of Muslims wasn't rational, in which case Islamophobia exists, despite your claim that it "isn't really a thing".

[The Wandering Storyteller]

This is a very dangerous precedent. Liberals in Asia (very similar to the ones in the West) want to bring this nonsense of race baiting against race baiting. The most racist people are Liberal Westerners blaming other Westerners! Soon they'll do it in India, how Brown people are racist towards brown people.

This has to stop. Its manufactured Marxism on a massive scale and does ****, it regresses humanity. Humans aren't exclusive, and very soon if white people are discrimainted against by their 'liberals' , then minorities living in Western countries will face the same problem by these so-called Liberals.

[Basil II the B.S]

There's actually a littlle bit of this in East Asian, but they aren't exactly popular. I'm not aware of India though.

On topic. The UK State Channel, which some here would argue is a beacon of quality journalism, is now decrying that marriages are too white.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47632929

Added to the OP.

It's actually hilarious because at the bottom of the page they add ''why you can trust us''.

LMAO
---
Alwyn, I'll reply to you later on today.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

There's actually a littlle bit of this in East Asian, but they aren't exactly popular. I'm not aware of India though.

On topic. The UK State Channel, which some here would argue is a beacon of quality journalism, is now decrying that marriages are too white.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47632929

Added to the OP.

It's actually hilarious because at the bottom of the page they add ''why you can trust us''.

LMAO
---
Alwyn, I'll reply to you later on today.

Thanks for this, they have it in East Asia?

If its one thing for certain, the politicians in Japan, Korea and China won't allow them to progress. They're an already established class that has ruled those countries for generations.

Eh I just see it in Indian news channels etc

That? Weddings too white? What next, weddings too boring?

Clearly they haven't seen an Indian wedding.

God forbid if the world has gone crazy thes e days.

[Heathen Hammer]

You claimed that people are put in prison in the UK for saying things on social media which the government doesn't like. I showed that they're actually put in prison for things like online death threats.

Yeah, because Dankula videos, Snoops lyrics and burning effigy are all "death threats" if you perform mental acrobatics hard enough.

You're trying to twist the facts, again. I didn't say that your stance on free speech meant that you supported the mosque shooting. I responded to your post on my comment about the Muslim-hating terrorist in New Zealand, where you claimed that irrational hatred oif Islam isn't a thing:

And as I said, in case of Tarrant, his motivation was idea of "accelerationism" where you cause further unbalance in society to make it eventually collapse) where an event like this would cause NZ government to go full retard like UK government did, and the scariest part is that it literally did just that. "Islamophobia" itself is just a lazy buzzword from Islamist fundamentalist apologists and corrupt Westerns that these apologists have in their bag.

[Basil II the B.S]

Thanks for this, they have it in East Asia?

If its one thing for certain, the politicians in Japan, Korea and China won't allow them to progress. They're an already established class that has ruled those countries for generations.

Eh I just see it in Indian news channels etc

That? Weddings too white? What next, weddings too boring?

Clearly they haven't seen an Indian wedding.

God forbid if the world has gone crazy thes e days.

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.