Thoughts / Opinions on the Future of Western Countries

[dallysingh101]

5 hours ago, Premi5 said:

Examples of wider gene pool for ‘them’? 

Yes. 

Quote

do you mean mixed race people less likely to have own cultural identity ? So easier to manipulate by media? 

Not always, some communities are very good at assimilating outside blood within their own and making the mixed race offspring have a strong identity within the culture. Some sullay communities are good at this, and some west Indian communities for example. But that being said, yes, some mixed-raced offspring who haven't been raised within a strong culture might be more susceptible to the general, ubiquitous but  amorphous culture that 'mainstream' society promotes. Such things are not surprising in a cultural vacuum. We have to get some sense of identity from somewhere - in the absence of one being successfully implanted by parents - it's obvious that kids will pick up the one mainstream media promotes. 

 

Quote

I would have thought drugs companies would want inbreeding as it more likely creates genetic defects

Pharma is a big factor in society like you mention, but it isn't the only one. Absorbing other communities to make yours bigger and stronger is also at play. Also, mixed race people can be used as doorways into other communities.

[dallysingh101]

On 2/9/2021 at 7:11 PM, MisterrSingh said:

Great analysis. I'm starting to think the incendiary issues to do with race, religion, culture, and sexual identity are a smokescreen for the much more sober and "unexciting" problems to do with economics. 

The toxic and divisive nature of public discourse is leading to an atmosphere where there is genuine and palpable hate for the other side. That gentlemanly manner of previous decades of British public discourse is a distant memory. It's nasty, personal, and generally lacking substance.  They're past the point of agreeing to disagree, or coming to an amicable arrangement that takes the best from both sides. Even the manner in which they interact is simplistic, unintelligent, and verging on childish. Overall, I think the general quality and character of public figures is nowhere near the level of the past, and that gets reflected in the mood of the nation itself.

I think your 'youngness' (and possibly naivety?) is starkly showing here. If you experienced and knew of what constituted normal behavior by the indigenous in england only a few decades ago, you'd probably realise that what you are describing above is possibly just a return to form - and not (as it appears you think?) any change to longstanding norms. What you've grown up in, could be considered the aberration? A short, imposed experiment of liberalisation, that has largely been rejected by the indigenous because they no longer see advantage in it. Now you are likely to see the truth of these people, without the façade. 

Quote

My personal feeling is that much of the animosity is being deliberately stoked by the press and the media. For what end? Probably bloodshed or a prolonged and unpleasant series of crises.

I have ears on the ground. The resentment isn't just flamed by the press and media, it is actually acutely felt by large sections of the indigenous community, who feel like they have been suppressed. The dams likely to blow, and people like myself have a good idea of what this might bring. Actually a part of me thinks things could go even worse than the 70s/80s now. 

But some of us also witnessed what type of guys reversed the situation in the past - and in a worse case scenario, I wonder how many young people amongst apnay have that in them now? These guys (in the past) cleared areas of strongly embedded violent elements whilst dealing with a hostile media, police force, legal system and largely complicit indigenous culture at the same time.   

On a related note, I think this was all coming prior to coronavirus, and a lot of the lock down stuff is actually as much to do with trying to suppress what we might call impending 'social unrest'. 

Once things open up again - we might see the old London I grew up in, trying to make a come back. 

On a related note: I notice how racist, neo-nazi 'gangs' seem to flourish under long periods of tory rule - like the NF did. hhmmmm

[Premi5]

2 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I

Once things open up again - we might see the old London I grew up in, trying to make a come back. 

On a related note: I notice how racist, neo-nazi 'gangs' seem to flourish under long periods of tory rule - like the NF did. hhmmmm

Most of London proper is majority non white now, and most of the white British are middle/upper middle class

only in the outer parts are significant white majority.

im surprised you think that racists will flourish easily in London, I see almost none in southeast London unless you mean blacks racist towards whites 

[MisterrSingh]

9 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

What, as in killing off these lot? 

What's so shocking about what they've become? 

Your one-note appraisal of the situation is disappointing. Unsurprising yet disappointing. I give the Puritan settlers their dues without diminishing their inhumane treatment of the natives. I can hold two conflicting concepts in my mind without grounding to a halt. 

They managed to build something from nothing. It was, objectively, a magnificent achievement. They constructed a civilisation from the ground up through sheer stubborn force of will and hard graft in some of the most unruly and inhospitable conditions on the planet. Admittedly, it came at the expense of the indigenous people of the land, and there's no denying it. Was it wrong and immoral? Certainly. 

I think our attitude and understanding of this subject goes a long way to understanding why Sikhs and Indians in general don't have what it takes to create anything approaching civilisation. We graze on the achievements of others, and then subsequently and perpetually resort to masking our inadequacies and incompetence through a process of poking holes in the achievements of other groups through a veneer of judgemental, high-handed moralising, implying that we'd behave any differently if we found ourselves in the same situation of forging something great and new in less than ideal circumstances. 

[MisterrSingh]

2 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I think your 'youngness' (and possibly naivety?) is starkly showing here. If you experienced and knew of what constituted normal behavior by the indigenous in england only a few decades ago, you'd probably realise that what you are describing above is possibly just a return to form - and not (as it appears you think?) any change to longstanding norms. What you've grown up in, could be considered the aberration? A short, imposed experiment of liberalisation, that has largely been rejected by the indigenous because they no longer see advantage in it. Now you are likely to see the truth of these people, without the façade. 

I have ears on the ground. The resentment isn't just flamed by the press and media, it is actually acutely felt by large sections of the indigenous community, who feel like they have been suppressed. The damns likely to blow, and people like myself have a good idea of what this might bring. Actually a part of me thinks things could go even worse than the 70s/80s now. 

But some of us also witnessed what type of guys reversed the situation in the past - and in a worse case scenario, I wonder how many young people amongst apnay have that in them now? These guys (in the past) cleared areas of strongly embedded violent elements whilst dealing with a hostile media, police force, legal system and largely complicit indigenous culture at the same time.   

On a related note, I think this was all coming prior to coronavirus, and a lot of the lock down stuff is actually as much to do with trying to suppress what we might call impending 'social unrest'. 

Once things open up again - we might see the old London I grew up in, trying to make a come back. 

On a related note: I notice how racist, neo-nazi 'gangs' seem to flourish under long periods of tory rule - like the NF did. hhmmmm

I'll respond to this in full during the day, but I will say that if my appraisal of this situation belies my relative youth, your take on the subject reflects your own particular outdated understanding of certain issues. I think you should try to process things beyond the events and mood of Thatcherite-era of the late 70s and 80s. I'm looking at things from a top-down civilisational sense encompassing centuries not just my own lifetime and experiences. I find as I get older that the "activist" mindset of your generation is incredibly reductive and limiting. I don't doubt the troubles you faced growing up in that era, but I'm trying to understand, not find people to blame. That's all we seem to do. It's a mindset of inaction. Perpetual activism isn't my idea of forward progress.

[GurjantGnostic]

39 minutes ago, Premi5 said:

Most of London proper is majority non white now, and most of the white British are middle/upper middle class

only in the outer parts are significant white majority.

im surprised you think that racists will flourish easily in London, I see almost none in southeast London unless you mean blacks racist towards whites 

While assumptions and stereotypes about white people do exist, this is considered racial prejudice, not racism. Racial prejudice refers to a set of discriminatory or derogatory attitudes based on assumptions derived from perceptions about race and/or skin colour. Thus, racial prejudice can indeed be directed at white people (e.g., “White people can’t dance”) but is not considered racism because of the systemic relationship to power. When backed with power, prejudice results in acts of discrimination and oppression against groups or individuals. In Canada, white people hold this cultural power due to Eurocentric modes of thinking, rooted in colonialism, that continue to reproduce and privilege whiteness. It is whiteness that has the power to define the terms of racialized others’ existence. Tim Wise explains how, for white individuals,

 

“When a group of people [such as racialized individuals] has little or no power over you institutionally, they don’t get to define the terms of your existence, they can’t limit your opportunities, and you needn’t worry much about the use of a slur to describe you and yours, since, in all likelihood, the slur is as far as it’s going to go. What are they going to do next: deny you a bank loan? Yeah, right. … White perceptions are what end up counting in a white-dominated society. If whites say Indians are savages (be they of the “noble” or vicious type), then by God, they’ll be seen as savages. If Indians say whites are mayonnaise-eating Amway salespeople, who the hell is going to care? If anything, whites will simply turn it into a marketing opportunity. When you have the power, you can afford to be self-deprecating, after all” (2002). 

 

Ricky Sherover-Marcuse asserts that "we should not confuse the occasional mistreatment experienced by whites at the hands of people of color with the systematic and institutionalized mistreatment experienced by people of color at the hands of whites” (p. 2). While expressions of racial prejudice directed at white people may hurt the white person/people individually or personally, and are never to be condoned, they do not have the power or authority to affect the white person's social/economic/political location and privileges. 

 

“Racism has nothing to do with feelings. It is a measurable reality that white people are not subject to, regardless of their income or status” (Harriot, 2018).

 

[Premi5]

5 hours ago, GurjantGnostic said:

While assumptions and stereotypes about white people do exist, this is considered racial prejudice, not racism. Racial prejudice refers to a set of discriminatory or derogatory attitudes based on assumptions derived from perceptions about race and/or skin colour. Thus, racial prejudice can indeed be directed at white people (e.g., “White people can’t dance”) but is not considered racism because of the systemic relationship to power. When backed with power, prejudice results in acts of discrimination and oppression against groups or individuals. In Canada, white people hold this cultural power due to Eurocentric modes of thinking, rooted in colonialism, that continue to reproduce and privilege whiteness. It is whiteness that has the power to define the terms of racialized others’ existence. Tim Wise explains how, for white individuals,

 

“When a group of people [such as racialized individuals] has little or no power over you institutionally, they don’t get to define the terms of your existence, they can’t limit your opportunities, and you needn’t worry much about the use of a slur to describe you and yours, since, in all likelihood, the slur is as far as it’s going to go. What are they going to do next: deny you a bank loan? Yeah, right. … White perceptions are what end up counting in a white-dominated society. If whites say Indians are savages (be they of the “noble” or vicious type), then by God, they’ll be seen as savages. If Indians say whites are mayonnaise-eating Amway salespeople, who the hell is going to care? If anything, whites will simply turn it into a marketing opportunity. When you have the power, you can afford to be self-deprecating, after all” (2002). 

 

Ricky Sherover-Marcuse asserts that "we should not confuse the occasional mistreatment experienced by whites at the hands of people of color with the systematic and institutionalized mistreatment experienced by people of color at the hands of whites” (p. 2). While expressions of racial prejudice directed at white people may hurt the white person/people individually or personally, and are never to be condoned, they do not have the power or authority to affect the white person's social/economic/political location and privileges. 

 

“Racism has nothing to do with feelings. It is a measurable reality that white people are not subject to, regardless of their income or status” (Harriot, 2018).

 

Not sure what you meant with this post, but living in/around London I have seen racism against whites for sure. And, yes, their is discrimination sometimes against whites here, and it can affect the working class or middle/upper classes

 

 

[Not2Cool2Argue]

13 hours ago, GurjantGnostic said:

. 

 

“Racism has nothing to do with feelings. It is a measurable reality that white people are not subject to, regardless of their income or status” (Harriot, 2018).

 

South Africa? 

[GurjantGnostic]

6 hours ago, Not2Cool2Argue said:

South Africa? 

Dutch messed that up probably for generations. 

It's a mess but karmas a .....

That is an example of a people that now in power, once over the hump of racism and power shift that still targets them, could become reactionary racists. 

I'd suggest the previous slave owners leave. 

[GurjantGnostic]

Lol