Multi culturalism andd mass immigration

I've spent several hours over the past few days reading this forum and have a few basic questions.

It appears that most people here are opposed to both mass immigration and multi culturalism. What does that mean in practice in a country like mine (Britain) which has seen massive immigration and which is, by default 'multi cultural'?

Are those who aren't indiginous British to leave the country?

B Bill wrote:I've spent several hours over the past few days reading this forum and have a few basic questions.

It appears that most people here are opposed to both mass immigration and multi culturalism. What does that mean in practice in a country like mine (Britain) which has seen massive immigration and which is, by default 'multi cultural'?

Are those who aren't indiginous British to leave the country?

Well as a british lad myself Ill try and answer you.Yes I am oppossed to mass immigration and multi culturalism.

Multi culturalism is a globalist agenda and is detrimental to every folk group on the planet.I love to travel I enjoy seeing and being involved in other cultures however I understand that my culture is my culture its something that was passed down to me from my ancestors who shaped it developed it and defended it and I have a duty to pass it on to my decendants for no other reason than it makes us who we are as a people.

Non indiginous people in my opinion are unable to leave the country anyway in many cases and have lived here for six generations or more and those that have arrived recently cannot be sent back to an unsafe country or be forced from this one if the decide they dont want to go back.I belive non indiginous people should live in autonomus communitys (they almost do already in some areas) and then I hope we can live side by side in peace and cooperation and at the same time preserving our native culture,heritage and language.

TheocWulf wrote:Well as a british lad myself Ill try and answer you.Yes I am oppossed to mass immigration and multi culturalism.

Multi culturalism is a globalist agenda and is detrimental to every folk group on the planet.I love to travel I enjoy seeing and being involved in other cultures however I understand that my culture is my culture its something that was passed down to me from my ancestors who shaped it developed it and defended it and I have a duty to pass it on to my decendants for no other reason than it makes us who we are as a people.

Non indiginous people in my opinion are unable to leave the country anyway in many cases and have lived here for six generations or more and those that have arrived recently cannot be sent back to an unsafe country or be forced from this one if the decide they dont want to go back.I belive non indiginous people should live in autonomus communitys (they almost do already in some areas) and then I hope we can live side by side in peace and cooperation and at the same time preserving our native culture,heritage and language.

Thankyou TheocWulf for your swift reply. I hope you don't mind me responding with more questions but I'm intersted to know how this might work. You see, my 'ethnicity' (if that's the appropriate word) is quite mixed up. I'm white, born in England and consider myself English, I'm half Romany, have Welsh and Irish grandparents and a French great-great grandfather. I grew up in a street alongside first generation Irish kids, black kids who's parents came from the Caribean and the Indian sub-continent. My best mate from school has parents from Hungary. All typical of someone from a multi-cultural area of a large English city.

Is my culture one which fits with the one you seek to preserve?

These autonomus communities; they sound a bit like the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa (I'm not flaming or trolling here Where would they be? Presumably on British land somewhere? If so, wouldn't 'indiginous communities' be displaced in their creation?

If the presence of non-indiginous people threatens the 'folk' culture, wouldn't there need to be some form of enforcement to prevent this threat?

Thanks again for your answers and again, please let me say that I'm not trying to flame or troll; just to understand.

B Bill wrote:Thankyou TheocWulf for your swift reply. I hope you don't mind me responding with more questions but I'm intersted to know how this might work. You see, my 'ethnicity' (if that's the appropriate word) is quite mixed up. I'm white, born in England and consider myself English, I'm half Romany, have Welsh and Irish grandparents and a French great-great grandfather. I grew up in a street alongside first generation Irish kids, black kids who's parents came from the Caribean and the Indian sub-continent. My best mate from school has parents from Hungary. All typical of someone from a multi-cultural area of a large English city.

Is my culture one which fits with the one you seek to preserve?

These autonomus communities; they sound a bit like the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa (I'm not flaming or trolling here Where would they be? Presumably on British land somewhere? If so, wouldn't 'indiginous communities' be displaced in their creation?

If the presence of non-indiginous people threatens the 'folk' culture, wouldn't there need to be some form of enforcement to prevent this threat?

Thanks again for your answers and again, please let me say that I'm not trying to flame or troll; just to understand.

No problem

How can you be half Romany if you have Irish and Welsh grandparents if you dont mind me asking?

Im fairly mixed aswell I consider myself English and ive got a Welsh grandparent and other Europeans married into my family after the second world war I see no issues with this as all the above are either other home nations or other kin nations.I grew up in a small town up north and to be honest I mixed with mostly (due to the nature of small towns) kids who were just like me many of our relatives were friends or had known each other in school with the exeption of Chinese lad whos family ran the Chinese take away who im still friends with to this day.The point I think im trying make is we as individuals and our personal experiances are not really relevent,For example me haveing a Chinese friend has not in anyway affected my "englishness" but as a collective our people are suffering and our way (and of many folk groups) of life is literaly dissapering and that cannot be good for us as a people.

No not reallyt like Bantustan (you could link any autonomus group based on cultural lines similar to a Bantustan in my opinion) just communites where for an example a muslim community can have sharia law if they wish.As for where they would be in some cases they almost exist already in some areas so would naturally be where these communitys are at the moment but I do accept that people would have to relocate.

If there was a threat to our Folk culture in the case of Terrorism ie a physical threat no doubt would defend ourselves hopefully with the cooperation of the authoritys and people of these autonomus commuintys.If its not a physical threat and for example a Buddist communitys is exporting its culture among us the only thing that would counter that is the communal strength and participation in our culture and post capitalism I see a folk revival takeing place that would bring our culture back to our people on a wide scale.

Hope this helps

My dad is Romany though a house dweller all of his life. My Mom had on Irish and one Welsh parent.

I'm not sure about these autonomus group areas. Maybe 'ghetto' in the sense of those in Nazi occupied Europe is a better word? (I'm not calling you a Nazi!). Yes, there are areas of some towns with a community made up almost soley of, for example, Bengalis but at present there are no rules or laws to keep them there and other people out. Are you proposing that people would be forced against their will in some way to live in these places?
(Thinking about it, Bantustan isn't such a bad term as they were places where different 'cultures' were supposed to exhist and develope along their own lines.)
What about the Irish? They have a very strong and markedly different culture from the English and there are a lt of them in England. Would they have their own autonomus areas?

I'm really not sure what this folk culture of the English is. The term it's self has the ring of what Nazi Germans hoped to create which was, to a great extent, based on a kind of selective, rose tinted view of their past.

B Bill wrote:My dad is Romany though a house dweller all of his life. My Mom had on Irish and one Welsh parent.

I'm not sure about these autonomus group areas. Maybe 'ghetto' in the sense of those in Nazi occupied Europe is a better word? (I'm not calling you a Nazi!). Yes, there are areas of some towns with a community made up almost soley of, for example, Bengalis but at present there are no rules or laws to keep them there and other people out. Are you proposing that people would be forced against their will in some way to live in these places?
(Thinking about it, Bantustan isn't such a bad term as they were places where different 'cultures' were supposed to exhist and develope along their own lines.)
What about the Irish? They have a very strong and markedly different culture from the English and there are a lt of them in England. Would they have their own autonomus areas?

I'm really not sure what this folk culture of the English is. The term it's self has the ring of what Nazi Germans hoped to create which was, to a great extent, based on a kind of selective, rose tinted view of their past.

Who said they would be confined to these communitys? all these areas are is an area/areas where non English/British people can live by there own laws and culture.

If a group of Irish people wanted to live by Irish law and speak Gaelic they would hawve to do so in there own communiy,But if the are happy to assimilate into English/British culture they can do (and easily in a generation) as they are of course a kindred nation.

our culture is more than history although that is a massive part of it we have a collective spirit that makes us us.

B Bill wrote:I've spent several hours over the past few days reading this forum and have a few basic questions.

It appears that most people here are opposed to both mass immigration and multi culturalism. What does that mean in practice in a country like mine (Britain) which has seen massive immigration and which is, by default 'multi cultural'?

Are those who aren't indiginous British to leave the country?

I don't support the displacement of persons — regardless of race or ethnicity — that have immigrated to bourgeois states.

Now, the manner by which nations should develop, following the abolition of capitalism, is in accordance to the democratic impetus of the populations themselves. In my opinion, the most reasonable way in which to structure a policy of national self-determination would be to maintain the present [diverse composition] of bourgeois states and simply establish a legal and material framework for what Lenin referred to as the "free political secession" of nations. This would allow for the voluntary unification of populations and a corresponding political autonomy, without impinging upon the human rights of those who are content to maintain an existence within the status quo. However, I feel that any national autonomy should be contingent upon that nation's integration into some form of socialist federation (in order to prevent that population from potentially transforming into a counterrevolutionary threat).

Bearing in mind this [democratic foundation] for national development, I think it's naive to assume that some strict racial/ethnic criterion will play much of a role in the process. History has clearly demonstrated that every nation is capable of assimilating a certain degree of foreign material without it resulting in any meaningful social destabilization. Having said that, however, I should also stress the fact that social groups tend to converge on the basis of commonality. Therefore one should naturally anticipate a greater degree of homogeneity within these autonomous nations.

B Bill wrote:I've spent several hours over the past few days reading this forum and have a few basic questions.

It appears that most people here are opposed to both mass immigration and multi culturalism. What does that mean in practice in a country like mine (Britain) which has seen massive immigration and which is, by default 'multi cultural'?

Are those who aren't indiginous British to leave the country?

Im not British so I cant answer your question ( since I barely know anything about your country). Not to mention I could honestly care less about what Britain does with its immigrants.

But since you seem to be asking in general, I will say what I think should be done in my homeland. I would like to see all Non Hungarian immigration to Hungary be banned. I would also like to see every single Slovak, Romanian, Serbian, Jewish, Chinese, Arab, and Negro person sent back to their home country. I know most people on here will hate me for writing this but that is my opinion. These groups ( as a whole) are simply nuisances at best and national security threats at worst ( especially in the case of Slovaks, Romanians, and Serbs). As for Gypsies, I would have them live in their own autonomous reservations ( since they cant be deported anywhere). I would let some national minorities stay ( such as Germans and Slovenes) but they would be regarded as guests and not citizens. Only an ethnically Hungarian person could be a Hungarian citizen. These are my ( pretty extreme I must say) views on immigration and multiculturalism.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Im not British so I cant answer your question ( since I barely know anything about your country). Not to mention I could honestly care less about what Britain does with its immigrants.

But since you seem to be asking in general, I will say what I think should be done in my homeland. I would like to see all Non Hungarian immigration to Hungary be banned. I would also like to see every single Slovak, Romanian, Serbian, Jewish, Chinese, Arab, and Negro person sent back to their home country. I know most people on here will hate me for writing this but that is my opinion. These groups ( as a whole) are simply nuisances at best and national security threats at worst ( especially in the case of Slovaks, Romanians, and Serbs). As for Gypsies, I would have them live in their own autonomous reservations ( since they cant be deported anywhere). I would let some national minorities stay ( such as Germans and Slovenes) but they would be regarded as guests and not citizens. Only an ethnically Hungarian person could be a Hungarian citizen. These are my ( pretty extreme I must say) views on immigration and multiculturalism.

Well, I know little of Hungary but I know something of Hungarians as my best friend from school is born of parents who came to Britain from Hungary. My friend married a Hungarian gypsy he met when visiting Hungary. They live in Britain and have two sons who are 50% Hungarian and 50% gypsy. Where would these people live in the Hungarian state you imagine? Would the husband live in the larger Hungarian nation and the wife in this 'reservation' you speak of? And what of their sons? Would they be considered 'mixed' and have to live in a reservation of their own? And what of my friends grand children who are born of a half hungarian, half gypsy father and an English mother? Would there be a home for them in your new Hungary?

What about Hungarians of Vojvodina in Serbia? Would they be welcomed into your new Hungary or would you expect Serbia to create 'reservations' for them to live in? Or would you expect Serbia to cede lands which are home to significant Hungarian populations to your new Hungary?

B Bill wrote:Well, I know little of Hungary but I know something of Hungarians as my best friend from school is born of parents who came to Britain from Hungary. My friend married a Hungarian gypsy he met when visiting Hungary. They live in Britain and have two sons who are 50% Hungarian and 50% gypsy. Where would these people live in the Hungarian state you imagine? Would the husband live in the larger Hungarian nation and the wife in this 'reservation' you speak of? And what of their sons? Would they be considered 'mixed' and have to live in a reservation of their own? And what of my friends grand children who are born of a half hungarian, half gypsy father and an English mother? Would there be a home for them in your new Hungary?

What about Hungarians of Vojvodina in Serbia? Would they be welcomed into your new Hungary or would you expect Serbia to create 'reservations' for them to live in? Or would you expect Serbia to cede lands which are home to significant Hungarian populations to your new Hungary?

Isnt all this up to the Hungarian people and its neighbour's how conduct themselves post capitalism,we (ie you and I) should focus on our own nation.Who are you,I or anybody else to throw these hyperthetical situations around on how an ancient people conduct themselves inside its own boundries when we have not solved one problem in our own to date.

TheocWulf wrote:Isnt all this up to the Hungarian people and its neighbour's how conduct themselves post capitalism,we (ie you and I) should focus on our own nation.Who are you,I or anybody else to throw these hyperthetical situations around on how an ancient people conduct themselves inside its own boundries when we have not solved one problem in our own to date.

Yes these are hypothetical questions but they would become very real in the post-capitalist world spoken of on here so I'm seeking answers so that I may understand this better. I hope that's okay.

All peoples are ancient. Very often different ancient peoples exhist inside the same national boundaries for centuries so I think these are actually very important questions.

I'm interested to know which peoples you consider 'kindred' to the English and which aren't and your reasoning for this.

B Bill wrote:Yes these are hypothetical questions but they would become very real in the post-capitalist world spoken of on here so I'm seeking answers so that I may understand this better. I hope that's okay.

All peoples are ancient. Very often different ancient peoples exhist inside the same national boundaries for centuries so I think these are actually very important questions.

I'm interested to know which peoples you consider 'kindred' to the English and which aren't and your reasoning for this.

What would make this easier if is you tell me what you think about all this.

The nations I would considerd Kindred nations are every nation on the continent of europe as far as the Ural mountains
Our closest kin being of course the other north west european nations whom he have mingled,shared,fought against/with and mixed with since the last ice age.
A close second are our Iberian,mediterranean,central and eastern European friends
Thirdly (perhaps not kin at all) our long distant cousians who are part of our wider Indo European family who inhabit parts of India,Iran Pakistan (ie Kalash peoples) ect who share a very old spiritual and cultural connection with us.

I of course put Euro-Americans in the first or second bracket.

TheocWulf wrote:What would make this easier if is you tell me what you think about all this.

The nations I would considerd Kindred nations are every nation on the continent of europe as far as the Ural mountains
Our closest kin being of course the other north west european nations whom he have mingled,shared,fought against/with and mixed with since the last ice age.
A close second are our Iberian,mediterranean,central and eastern European friends
Thirdly (perhaps not kin at all) our long distant cousians who are part of our wider Indo European family who inhabit parts of India,Iran Pakistan (ie Kalash peoples) ect who share a very old spiritual and cultural connection with us.

I of course put Euro-Americans in the first or second bracket.

I don't really know what I think about this which is why I'm asking. Certainly I see great problems in separating people who live and work in a nation by race and even greater problems if this separation were to mean moving people from one place to another based on their race. But I want to learn and to understand, hence my questions. So far, with the exeption of the words of admin, the answers I have read pose more questions and I thank you all for your answers. One thing I am sure of is that the kids I grew up with, played with, went to school with and in one instance fought the NF off our steet alongside in the late 70's are my brothers and sisters. I would look very dimly on any individual/ideology which told them they must not live where they live because they are of African/Asian ancestry. But that's a view based on personal relationships not politics.

I hate to seem a clever dick but all of continental Europe, including Iberia and 'Eastern Europe' are west of the Urals.

I do find it strange that you find kinship with, say, a Finn or a Bulgar but not with a black person who's great grandparents lived in Britain and who's subsequent anticedants have lived, been educated and worked here. But this is not a criticism, I am simply trying to understand.

It is interesting that you mention America because it is, of course, the worlds biggest mixture of ethnicities. I know neither of us live there (though I have spent a lot of time there in the past) and that the question is hypothetical, but how would you sort that lot out based on race or ethnicity?

B Bill wrote:I don't really know what I think about this which is why I'm asking. Certainly I see great problems in separating people who live and work in a nation by race and even greater problems if this separation were to mean moving people from one place to another based on their race. But I want to learn and to understand, hence my questions. So far, with the exeption of the words of admin, the answers I have read pose more questions and I thank you all for your answers. One thing I am sure of is that the kids I grew up with, played with, went to school with and in one instance fought the NF off our steet alongside in the late 70's are my brothers and sisters. I would look very dimly on any individual/ideology which told them they must not live where they live because they are of African/Asian ancestry. But that's a view based on personal relationships not politics.

I hate to seem a clever dick but all of continental Europe, including Iberia and 'Eastern Europe' are west of the Urals.

I do find it strange that you find kinship with, say, a Finn or a Bulgar but not with a black person who's great grandparents lived in Britain and who's subsequent anticedants have lived, been educated and worked here. But this is not a criticism, I am simply trying to understand.

It is interesting that you mention America because it is, of course, the worlds biggest mixture of ethnicities. I know neither of us live there (though I have spent a lot of time there in the past) and that the question is hypothetical, but how would you sort that lot out based on race or ethnicity?

What you are doing is putting your personal experiances and feelings into something that effects the entire indigenous population of our Island our culture, language and ethnicity are on the decline and the newcomers and the capitalists that support them are erodeing our ancient culture and replaceing it with Multi culturalism or as I like to think of it no culturalism and its a globalists wet dream.People are people and ill get on with anybody regardles of race,culture,ethnicity ect ect et but all im doing is putting the needs of the collective (our people) before my own needs,wants and personal feelings as a good leftist should.

I think the sort of 'solutions' being advocated by certain members here lack the sort of practicality and humanity that would render them desirable to most rational people. That's not to mention the fact that mass deportations and other forms of (forced) relocation for 'non-indigenous' domestic populations establish a terrible precedent for the international community and require brutal, authoritarian methods, in order to be carried out.

It seems as though those who are inclined to support such extreme measures have more of an interest in preserving/developing a system of national hegemony than they do in establishing national autonomy.

Developing a system for the free political secession of nations is far more practical and accomplishes the task of establishing national autonomy without violating human rights or alienating those workers who favor the more pluralistic character of what would (in a post-revolutionary context) constitute the last vestiges of Western bourgeois society.

Admin wrote:It seems as though those who are inclined to support such extreme measures have more of an interest in preserving/developing a system of national hegemony than they do in establishing national autonomy.

That is just a vague assumption, what would make you think that?

Pantheon Rising wrote:That is just a vague assumption, what would make you think that?

I strive for both

TheocWulf wrote:I strive for both

Well I can see that in the case of the Europeans. I don't blame you for not wanting a "Socialist state of Arabia" in the middle of Britain. (No offense to our Arabian members; of course).

I don't see the need for hegemony in the U.S. though.

TheocWulf wrote:What you are doing is putting your personal experiances and feelings into something that effects the entire indigenous population of our Island our culture, language and ethnicity are on the decline and the newcomers and the capitalists that support them are erodeing our ancient culture and replaceing it with Multi culturalism or as I like to think of it no culturalism and its a globalists wet dream.People are people and ill get on with anybody regardles of race,culture,ethnicity ect ect et but all im doing is putting the needs of the collective (our people) before my own needs,wants and personal feelings as a good leftist should.

I don't understand what you mean by saying our ancient culture, language and ethnicity is being eroded. Neither culture, language or ethnicity are static things, they evolve, develope and change constantly. Culture and language change by the decade whereas ethnicitys change may take millenia but never the less they are not static. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but it would be helpful if you could give examples of this erosion and demonstrate how it is caused by the presence of non-white (because that's what you appear to be talking about) people.

As Admin seems to share my concerns about the sort of changes you advocate perhaps you could address the impracticality, inhumanity, brutality and authoritairianism required to carry out these changes. Do you not think these are characteristics a 'good leftist' should reject?

Also, you characterise non-whites as 'newcomers' when in fact most were born in this country and have family roots going back over half a century and several generations in Britain. How long/many generations before they become acceptable, if ever?

I am afraid I have to reject your claim that 'newcomers' are 'supported' by capitalists. The overwhelming majority are workers like any other and exploited by, not supported by capitalists.

To one extent or another, all politics begin with the personal. Do you not think you are putting your personal feelings about black people (that they erode your language, culture and ethnicity) before the greater good of the working class of this country?

B Bill wrote:I don't understand what you mean by saying our ancient culture, language and ethnicity is being eroded. Neither culture, language or ethnicity are static things, they evolve, develope and change constantly. Culture and language change by the decade whereas ethnicitys change may take millenia but never the less they are not static. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but it would be helpful if you could give examples of this erosion and demonstrate how it is caused by the presence of non-white (because that's what you appear to be talking about) people.

The problem is not "non-white" people. It's the capitalist system that promotes a mono-culture of world wide consumerism, and "work" ethic that disregards the particulars, the language, and the culture of each nation. The lack of time for the "siesta", lack of time for a proper lunch, the absolute need for knowledge of english, the dictating of TV programming and cultural agendas by big corporations, and i could go on.

The mass immigration that is so dear of the global capitalist system actually makes this worse, because it undermines unity and the creation of a united resistance to such changes. After all, why wouldn't you work on saturdays, if your chinese neighbours do?

B Bill wrote:It appears that most people here are opposed to both mass immigration and multi culturalism. What does that mean in practice in a country like mine (Britain) which has seen massive immigration and which is, by default 'multi cultural'?

Are those who aren't indiginous British to leave the country?

As you may have noticed, there is no general consensus on this subject in this forum. Personally, I don't feel forced expulsion is a just solution to the issue at all. I've explained the policy I do favor here.

B Bill wrote:I don't understand what you mean by saying our ancient culture, language and ethnicity is being eroded. Neither culture, language or ethnicity are static things, they evolve, develope and change constantly. Culture and language change by the decade whereas ethnicitys change may take millenia but never the less they are not static. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but it would be helpful if you could give examples of this erosion and demonstrate how it is caused by the presence of non-white (because that's what you appear to be talking about) people.

As Admin seems to share my concerns about the sort of changes you advocate perhaps you could address the impracticality, inhumanity, brutality and authoritairianism required to carry out these changes. Do you not think these are characteristics a 'good leftist' should reject?

Also, you characterise non-whites as 'newcomers' when in fact most were born in this country and have family roots going back over half a century and several generations in Britain. How long/many generations before they become acceptable, if ever?

I am afraid I have to reject your claim that 'newcomers' are 'supported' by capitalists. The overwhelming majority are workers like any other and exploited by, not supported by capitalists.

To one extent or another, all politics begin with the personal. Do you not think you are putting your personal feelings about black people (that they erode your language, culture and ethnicity) before the greater good of the working class of this country?

Well what do you propose then?

At least we know where you stand

Why would the relocation of people be impracticle and inhumane and why would a level of authoritairianism be needed to achive this?

The reason I classify them as newcomers is half a century is nothing many of our ancestors have lived on this island since the last ice age.As for how many generations it takes to become English/British that depends on where you are from,other europeans can assimilate in a generation (think of the Poles who stayed after ww2 or the Irish who came over in the 30s) non europeans it probably takes many generations.The non europeans who first came in the 50s have yet to assimilate.

Im putting the Indigenous north west european working class of this island first.

TheocWulf wrote:Well what do you propose then?

At least we know where you stand

Why would the relocation of people be impracticle and inhumane and why would a level of authoritairianism be needed to achive this?

The reason I classify them as newcomers is half a century is nothing many of our ancestors have lived on this island since the last ice age.As for how many generations it takes to become English/British that depends on where you are from,other europeans can assimilate in a generation (think of the Poles who stayed after ww2 or the Irish who came over in the 30s) non europeans it probably takes many generations.The non europeans who first came in the 50s have yet to assimilate.

Im putting the Indigenous north west european working class of this island first.

There are many examples through history of the sort of population transfers you advocate. Of the top of my head I can think of those in India following it's independance from Britain, those in Fascist Italy, the transfer of native Americans to reservations, those between Turkey and Greece in the 20's and, of course, the recent situation in fromer Yugoslavia. Each case is marked by it's inhumane and brutal treatment of people. Imparctical, for one, because such treatment of people leaves a legacy of bitterness lasting for generations, sometimes leading to conflict. How do you propose transfering several million unwilling people from Britain without authoritairianism? In fact, how would it be done if not, ultimately, at gun point? Do you want Class war or Race war?

I disagree that the non-whites who came here since the 50's, their children, grand children and great grand children have not assimilated. Most have, although I would agree that some haven't this is, in most cases, the fault of the capitalist system which works best when it's workers are divided along lines of race and or religion rather than united as a class.

I am still at a loss to understand the cultural, linguistic and ethnic erosion you claim is happening in Britain that is caused by the presence of non-whites. Could you please give examples?

In the city I come from and most other large popullation centres there are suburbs with a distinct Irish culture where the decendants of people who came here in the 50's still live in the same streets that their great grand parents settled. They maintain a distinct culture which is most certainly 'non-indiginous' and, indeed, alien to Britain. To a certain degree and to certain people, this is almost invisible;- but of course, these people are white. Perhaps it is skin colour which concerns you most in this matter?

Well I can only speak linguistically, but the influence of non-whites is causing the English language to change, and quite a few dialects are going to be gone in a few years.

Ethnically, race mixing will eventually cause the british peoples to end up as a mixed race. That's inevitable in the long term since eventually it is likely the majority will go down that path since it is after all promoted. Those who don't will end up becoming a minority. As long as the birth rates of foreigners(of all kinds) in britain outweigh those of the "native" Welsh, Scots, and English then they're eventually going to become a minority. That's the case in many european nations now where muslim immigration combined with their high birth rate is much higher than those of the native europeans in nations like for example the Netherlands.

Cultural is already being changed by foreign influence, but I doubt that English Culture itself will completely erode. It'll just be combined with a hogwash of whatever nationalities begin to gain prominence.

Balkan Beast wrote:Ethnically, race mixing will eventually cause the british peoples to end up as a mixed race. That's inevitable in the long term since eventually it is likely the majority will go down that path since it is after all promoted.

I consider the notion that societies possessing ethnic minorities and a culture supportive of miscegenation will eventually become "mixed race" to be absurd. If you analyze the marriage and dating statistics collected in recent years, you'll find that interracial relationships remain very marginal in society. People are somewhat more tolerant of interracial relationships today, but they certainly aren't engaging in them at alarming rates.

As long as the birth rates of foreigners(of all kinds) in britain outweigh those of the "native" Welsh, Scots, and English then they're eventually going to become a minority.

This is a separate issue. It's clear that immigrant birthrates are surpassing those of host populations in the global north, but I suspect this has to do with the increasingly precarious nature of work within capitalism. Immigrants frequently come from underdeveloped regions of the world, wherein large families are necessary for survival, and this strategy is maintained once they arrive in developed countries because it has become an integral aspect of their cultures. Indigenous citizens in developed countries, on the other hand, are experiencing a gradual cultural transformation. In recent decades it has become economically burdensome for many proletarians to have several children, so they're beginning to adapt themselves to this new reality.