Keeping the UK majority-white should be part of that, IMHO.
Why?
asia for the asians, africa for the africans, white countries for everybody!.
everybody says there is this race problem.
everybody says this race problem will be solved when the third world pours into every white country and only into white countries.. the netherlands and belgium are just as crowded as japan or taiwan, but nobody says japan or taiwan will solve this race problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.. everybody says the final solution to this race problem is for every white country and only white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.. what if i said there was this race problem and this race problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into every black country and only into black countries?.
Keeping the UK majority-white should be part of that, IMHO.
Why?
asia for the asians, africa for the africans, white countries for everybody!.
everybody says there is this race problem.
everybody says this race problem will be solved when the third world pours into every white country and only into white countries.. the netherlands and belgium are just as crowded as japan or taiwan, but nobody says japan or taiwan will solve this race problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.. everybody says the final solution to this race problem is for every white country and only white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.. what if i said there was this race problem and this race problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into every black country and only into black countries?.
If you are FOR this happening, you do not deserve to live in Western civilization.
Actually, I will respond to this part as well, as it raises an important point. What I (and I think all civilised people in the west) stand for is pluralism. Yes, there are people who migrate to the west who don't stand for that, certain religious types for instance, and this is a problem which hopefully can be addressed through better integration. Sometimes one has to lead by example, so that newcomers and see for themselves the benefits of a pluralist society.
But for you to make a statement such as this, in which you argue that people who don't share your beliefs on immigration should not be welcome in your part of the world, or at least don't deserve to be there, suggests that pluralism has no place in your ideal society. Perhaps this is something you should think long and hard about. A pluralist society doesn't discriminate based on ideas.
asia for the asians, africa for the africans, white countries for everybody!.
everybody says there is this race problem.
everybody says this race problem will be solved when the third world pours into every white country and only into white countries.. the netherlands and belgium are just as crowded as japan or taiwan, but nobody says japan or taiwan will solve this race problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.. everybody says the final solution to this race problem is for every white country and only white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.. what if i said there was this race problem and this race problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into every black country and only into black countries?.
What this thread is about is DESTRUCTION or eroding of Western civilization.
I'll respond to this part, since the rest didn't seem to make any real point. Western civilisation is certainly not at risk of destruction anytime soon, at least not from the outside anyway. Erosion though? Well, that's how life unfolds isn't it. A cliff doesn't stand for ever, time and tide take their toll. Things change and old certainties give way to new ones as people move around and ideas progress. The Roman empire eroded too, eventually to the point of schism, but that didn't stop humanity evolving culturally, and look where we are today in comparison to then.
The real threats facing civilisation now are not so much cultural, but environmental. If climate change and the loss of vital habitat continues, then sooner or later there will be no civilisation left at all, western or otherwise, it's about priorities. Civilisation changing through the movement of people is not something that can ever be avoided, you have to deal with it. The environmental issues on the other hand might yet be averted, if we focus more of our attention on them.
What this thread ultimately boils down to is this. The world is changing, and you're scared. If you want a round of applause for that, then you've probably come to the wrong place.
Now go ahead and down-vote this post for not tickling your ears.
asia for the asians, africa for the africans, white countries for everybody!.
everybody says there is this race problem.
everybody says this race problem will be solved when the third world pours into every white country and only into white countries.. the netherlands and belgium are just as crowded as japan or taiwan, but nobody says japan or taiwan will solve this race problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.. everybody says the final solution to this race problem is for every white country and only white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.. what if i said there was this race problem and this race problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into every black country and only into black countries?.
Have you noticed how the anti-race mixing people here keep down-voting everyone who disagrees with them? It's a bit childish if I may say so.
asia for the asians, africa for the africans, white countries for everybody!.
everybody says there is this race problem.
everybody says this race problem will be solved when the third world pours into every white country and only into white countries.. the netherlands and belgium are just as crowded as japan or taiwan, but nobody says japan or taiwan will solve this race problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.. everybody says the final solution to this race problem is for every white country and only white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.. what if i said there was this race problem and this race problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into every black country and only into black countries?.
Their skin colour is irrelevant and doesn't need mentioning, what's wrong with saying immigrants? You know full well that mentioning the skin colour makes it seem relevant, which we know it isn't. It's just race-baiting.
When Europeans migrated to America in the last millennium, I'd imagine the indigenous people had exactly the same complaints. People who move into a new area are almost always hated by those who already live there, it's a natural consequence of fear and tribalism.
The problem with immigration is a lack of integration. And this cuts both ways. Immigrants often fail to integrate fully, which leads to issues, but there is likewise often a failure on the part of the natives to be all that welcoming and hospitable, which doesn't exactly give much incentive to integrate. The problems stemming from immigration are just as much the fault of the natives as they are the fault of the immigrants. Learning to accept this makes life a lot more peaceful and will allow the issues to be solved a lot more quickly and smoothly.
When immigrants see threads like this, you can't exactly blame them for not wanting to integrate. How would you feel if the boot was on the other foot?
threads about this have been made before, but none have been made for a few years.
i was very much on the fence with this one, i never really cared.
but i became curious recently, having had a few interactions with street preachers.
Jesus of Nazereth was a later label, so that isn't necessarily the case, we don't know what his/their name/names was/were.
As for the convolution, that alone doesn't prove anything, it's purely circumstantial evidence. Sometimes people write convoluted narratives in order to create a more interesting story, for instance.
The origin of Moses was an unnecessarily complex set of events as well, but no self-respecting scholar would suggest that Moses was a real person.
asia for the asians, africa for the africans, white countries for everybody!.
everybody says there is this race problem.
everybody says this race problem will be solved when the third world pours into every white country and only into white countries.. the netherlands and belgium are just as crowded as japan or taiwan, but nobody says japan or taiwan will solve this race problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.. everybody says the final solution to this race problem is for every white country and only white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.. what if i said there was this race problem and this race problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into every black country and only into black countries?.
these newer immigrants (both legal and illegal) have changed the place for the worse. There is definitely more crime and it is dirtier and more expensive.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
all White Western countries are affected for the worse because of the influx of huge numbers of all these non-White people
Yeah, not racist at all.
asia for the asians, africa for the africans, white countries for everybody!.
everybody says there is this race problem.
everybody says this race problem will be solved when the third world pours into every white country and only into white countries.. the netherlands and belgium are just as crowded as japan or taiwan, but nobody says japan or taiwan will solve this race problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.. everybody says the final solution to this race problem is for every white country and only white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.. what if i said there was this race problem and this race problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into every black country and only into black countries?.
I've already expressed my thoughts earlier in the thread. At this point all I can add is that this is a load of hysteria over nothing. Let's not forget that this thread started as a polemic on 'white genocide'.
Illegal immigration is a non-issue in comparison to the real problems facing this world, and it's a symptom of many of those problems in and of itself. Solve the real problems, and illegal immigration will no longer be an issue.
As for the rights of legal migrants, they should have the right to fully integrate, and in fact should be encouraged to do so.
asia for the asians, africa for the africans, white countries for everybody!.
everybody says there is this race problem.
everybody says this race problem will be solved when the third world pours into every white country and only into white countries.. the netherlands and belgium are just as crowded as japan or taiwan, but nobody says japan or taiwan will solve this race problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.. everybody says the final solution to this race problem is for every white country and only white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.. what if i said there was this race problem and this race problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into every black country and only into black countries?.
I'm fine with women and black people voting.
Well thank god it has your blessing, otherwise I don't know where we'd be.
the bible clearly says a generation is 40 years (exodus and job) the 1st half of the last century saw wars, famines, pestilence.
if 1914 was the correct starting date the end should have came by the mid 1950's ( which the witnesses believed at the time) this fact alone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt.
jesus was only speaking of the events of the 1st century..
Matthew references the destruction of Jerusalem. Revelation is an apocalyptic text. It stands to reason that they are about different things. But neither of those things have any kind of greater fulfillment. Arguably Revelation has no real fulfillment at all.