Is it morally acceptable to worry about the future of the White race?

I am Groot · February 3

The culture we've all grown up in over the past half-century has been one where any talk about pride in being white, or the good things whites have done, or that white people are in any way, shape, or form superior to anyone else was basically anathema. Something only the Tiki Torch Brigade engaged in.

But white people and their Western culture ARE, in fact, responsible for vitually every scientific, technological, cultural, and societal advance in recent history. From Greek philosophy and art to Roman architecture and engineering to the Reformation and secular societies, from banning slavery to the rights of the individual, to virtually every technological and scientific breakthrough the world has known.

Now, don't bother going historical on me. The problem I have with the rest of the world today is that in the case of the Chinese (Yes, I know they invented gunpowder) the type of government and mindset there absolutely does NOT encourage independent thinking. The Muslim world gave up science in the sixteenth century to focus almost exclusively on Islam. India is thoroughly corrupt and socially backward from top to bottom, and I've heard of nothing innovative or new coming out of there. Nor has anything of value ever come out of Africa. None of these places are going to move the world forward, only backward.

White people were about 30% of the world population when I was born. They're now 8%. In many Western countries, the under-30 population has whites as a minority. In the UK, projections show whites under 40 will be a minority within 15 years. In the US, whites under 27 are now a minority. In Canada, immigrants and their children are projected to be the majority by 2041 (and probably are already close given the number of illegals). This is all due to immigration. And it's happened too fast for newcomers to integrate. Nor has there been any real effort on the part of Western governments to encourage them to do so. Quite the contrary. This latest surge has come amidst a leftist-dominated cultural view of self-loathing that says we are all hateful, racist societies and that our histories and traditions are evil, colonialist, genocidal, and every other kind of horrible thing.

All of which raises the concern that by the end of the century, not only will whites be a minority in every Western country, but their cultural values and traditions (quite possibly including democracy, freedom, and non-corrupt government) will be swept away by the religious, tribal, clan-type values and beliefs of the immigrants.

So, when do we get to start wondering if this is something we ought to be addressing?

John Stone · February 3

............ arguably I'd be more concerned about whether they'll be vindictive.

CdnFox · February 3

37 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The culture we've all grown up in over the past half-century has been one where any talk about pride in being white, or the good things whites have done, or that white people are in any way, shape, or form superior to anyone else was basically anathema. Something only the Tiki Torch Brigade engaged in.

But white people and their Western culture ARE, in fact, responsible for vitually every scientific, technological, cultural, and societal advance in recent history. From Greek philosophy and art to Roman architecture and engineering to the Reformation and secular societies, from banning slavery to the rights of the individual, to virtually every technological and scientific breakthrough the world has known.

Now, don't bother going historical on me. The problem I have with the rest of the world today is that in the case of the Chinese (Yes, I know they invented gunpowder) the type of government and mindset there absolutely does NOT encourage independent thinking. The Muslim world gave up science in the sixteenth century to focus almost exclusively on Islam. India is thoroughly corrupt and socially backward from top to bottom, and I've heard of nothing innovative or new coming out of there. Nor has anything of value ever come out of Africa. None of these places are going to move the world forward, only backward.

White people were about 30% of the world population when I was born. They're now 8%. In many Western countries, the under-30 population has whites as a minority. In the UK, projections show whites under 40 will be a minority within 15 years. In the US, whites under 27 are now a minority. In Canada, immigrants and their children are projected to be the majority by 2041 (and probably are already close given the number of illegals). This is all due to immigration. And it's happened too fast for newcomers to integrate. Nor has there been any real effort on the part of Western governments to encourage them to do so. Quite the contrary. This latest surge has come amidst a leftist-dominated cultural view of self-loathing that says we are all hateful, racist societies and that our histories and traditions are evil, colonialist, genocidal, and every other kind of horrible thing.

All of which raises the concern that by the end of the century, not only will whites be a minority in every Western country, but their cultural values and traditions (quite possibly including democracy, freedom, and non-corrupt government) will be swept away by the religious, tribal, clan-type values and beliefs of the immigrants.

So, when do we get to start wondering if this is something we ought to be addressing?

I think you're blending race and culture a little bit. The thing about"White people "is that we tend to be a lot more diverse as a racial group than most of the others. I don't mean individually necessarily but culturally.

I mean, would you say that a white german and a white Texan are interchangeable as a culture? Or that Greek and Russian people are basically the same thing?

Other racial groups tend to be more concentrated ethnically and culturally. Chinese from china are more or less interchangeable with other Chinese from china in that if they swap spots they find the culture they were in very familiar. And for the most part even the same language. To a large degree you can say the same thing about africans and the black races. Even amongst muslim populations you see a lot more similarities.

So I don't know if we can talk about whites the same way we talk about the Japanese for example.

I think as far as our culture goes when we're talking about western European caucasian populations it's fine to say that you think that that history and culture is something special and worth preserving. But I don't know if you can attach the racial element to it like that.

5 minutes ago, John Stone said:

............ arguably I'd be more concerned about whether they'll be vindictive.

You think we should kill them now?

User · February 3

There is race and then there is culture, you are conflating the two here, but either way, it is perfectly morally acceptable to be concerned with either.

Michael Hardner · February 3

1 hour ago, John Stone said:

............ arguably I'd be more concerned about whether they'll be vindictive.

Is it ever moral or immoral to worry ? I don't think I would use those words to describe worry.

Your feelings with regards to your race/background are, I suspect, very context-dependent, personal, subjective etc. etc. Pretty hard to criticize an Orthodox Jew, a Black Woman at MIT, a white fisherman... for how they feel about that, or to look at it rationally at all... let alone apply a moral framework.

In short: white people are snowflakes, leave them be !

User · February 3

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

In short: white people are snowflakes, leave them be !

Of course, you are brave enough to make such a racial statement about white people...

Michael Hardner · February 3

1 minute ago, User said:

Of course, you are brave enough to make such a racial statement about white people...

Why not ? I AM white so it's politically OK to make fun of my own people.

That's how it works with these things... people tend to not be offended that way....

Ha ha. Sense of humour and so on....

herbie · February 3

To seriously ask such a question reveals you haven't any morals.

I am Groot · February 3

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I think you're blending race and culture a little bit. The thing about"White people "is that we tend to be a lot more diverse as a racial group than most of the others. I don't mean individually necessarily but culturally.

I mean, would you say that a white german and a white Texan are interchangeable as a culture? Or that Greek and Russian people are basically the same thing?

I'm not sure how much the Russians ever really took in Western culture, but the Greeks and Germans are indeed inheritors of Western cultural values, as are Texans. They might enjoy different food and music, might dress differently, but the concepts of freedom, individual rights, secular government, and an open-minded view about what can be done, what can be accomplished, of the path a person can take, that is all derived from the same inheritance.

The Americans and the West keep trying to graft these ideas onto third-world governance and it rarely works because they don't have the culture for it. Set up a democracy in Africa or the Middle East, and all it means is that people will vote for whoever is in their tribe or clan. It will be about which tribe or clan has the numbers, not about who has the better ideas. They also aren't much for respecting individual rights, including freedom of speech when they disagree with it.

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So I don't know if we can talk about whites the same way we talk about the Japanese for example.

My main point about whites is they are the people who inherited Western cultural values. And without whites, those values wither, and without those values, the planet degenerates into the third world.

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I think as far as our culture goes when we're talking about western European caucasian populations it's fine to say that you think that that history and culture is something special and worth preserving. But I don't know if you can attach the racial element to it like that.

Well, if we'd properly integrated immigrants, it wouldn't matter so much. But we didn't. We said all cultures are equal and told them they shouldn't bother to integrate since we were all racists and oppressors anyway.

So without whites running the place, is it still going to be a democracy that respects human rights? I have my doubts.

2 hours ago, herbie said:

To seriously ask such a question reveals you haven't any morals.

To be incapable of answering it reveals you haven't got any brain.

If the population of Rhinos had gone down by 80% in the last couple of generations and was continuing to go down, organizations would be taking steps to try to reverse that. Why is it okay to be concerned about Rhinos but not caucasians?

Edited February 3 by I am Groot

I am Groot · February 3

5 hours ago, John Stone said:

............ arguably I'd be more concerned about whether they'll be vindictive.

I have few doubts about that.

They will be.

herbie · February 4

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

To be incapable of answering it reveals you haven't got any brain.

One evolved beyond KKK bullshit that is.

John Stone · February 4

13 hours ago, I am Groot said:

I have few doubts about that.

They will be.

...........yes, I agree.

Caucasian literally ruled the World.

Edited February 4 by John Stone

I am Groot · February 4

1 hour ago, John Stone said:

...........yes, I agree.

Caucasian literally ruled the World.

And did it fairly well. But more importantly, if you spend decades telling everyone else that you are responsible for all their ills, that it is your cruelty, your racism, your intolerance, your oppression that has caused all of their problems, a lot of them are going to believe you. And then they're going to resent you and despise you.

We've been telling the indigenous that we're responsible for all kinds of horrible things over the years, endlessly apologizing, and showering them with money. And they dislike us a lot more than they did ten or twenty years ago. They're more bitter, more angry, more resentful than they were before. So goes the rest of the world.

10 hours ago, herbie said:

One evolved beyond KKK bullshit that is.

You can't point to a single thing I wrote that is untrue. It just makes you angry that I wrote it.

Michael Hardner · February 4

2 hours ago, John Stone said:

Caucasian literally ruled the World.

From Google AI :Caucasian is a largely outdated, racial classification term historically used to describe people of European, Middle Eastern, and North African descent
So you would include the Arab occupation of Europe I suppose ... or ... uh ... Huns ... not sure

CdnFox · February 4

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

From Google AI :Caucasian is a largely outdated, racial classification term historically used to describe people of European, Middle Eastern, and North African descent
So you would include the Arab occupation of Europe I suppose ... or ... uh ... Huns ... not sure

Then why don't you define it yourself instead of being a useless twat who's only purpose in life is to show up and criticize others while failing to do anything yourself.

You do this all the time. Why don't you contribute meaningfully instead? Offer an opinion of what term would be more appropriate if you prefer.

Honestly I don't know what the hell is the matter with the left these days

Michael Hardner · February 4

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

1. Then why don't you define it yourself instead of being a useless twat who's only purpose in life is to show up and criticize others while failing to do anything yourself.

2. You do this all the time.

3. Why don't you contribute meaningfully instead?

4. Offer an opinion of what term would be more appropriate if you prefer.

5. Honestly I don't know what the hell is the matter with the left these days

1. I'm helping. Pointing out unclarity and passing the baton back.
2. You're welcome.
3. I'm helping. Pointing out unclarity and passing the baton back.
4. I don't know what the poster meant. Pointing out unclarity and passing the baton back.
5. I'm a conservative. Crackho hates me, for example. You're welcome.

John Stone · February 4

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

From Google AI :Caucasian is a largely outdated, racial classification term historically used to describe people of European, Middle Eastern, and North African descent
So you would include the Arab occupation of Europe I suppose ... or ... uh ... Huns ... not sure

3 women board a plane for the 1st time an Asian a Caucasian and a african-american.

The Asian announces "I'm scared but i wore fluro underwear so if we crash they can see me"

The Caucasian says "i wore my stars and stripes bikini as underwear so i can be noticed and picked up 1st".

The African American says "i not wearing any panties at all!!" The other women ask how's that going to help!
The African American replies "well if we crash the 1st thing they are going to look for is the black box!!"

Michael Hardner · February 4

13 minutes ago, John Stone said:

3 women board a plane for the 1st time an Asian a Caucasian and a african-american.

The Asian announces "I'm scared but i wore fluro underwear so if we crash they can see me"

The Caucasian says "i wore my stars and stripes bikini as underwear so i can be noticed and picked up 1st".

The African American says "i not wearing any panties at all!!" The other women ask how's that going to help!
The African American replies "well if we crash the 1st thing they are going to look for is the black box!!"

I think she misunderstood what that means 🤔

eyeball · February 4

On 2/3/2026 at 9:41 AM, I am Groot said:

Is it morally acceptable to worry about the future of the White race?

No, it's just ridiculous.

I am Groot · February 5

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, it's just ridiculous.

From someone on X. I could rephrase it but why bother?

In 1965, the United States was roughly 90% white and overwhelmingly Christian.

Today, these numbers sit around 55%. Now why does this matter? Because multiculturalism consistently produces internal conflict. When multiple groups with competing religions, histories, languages, and moral frameworks are placed within the same political system, conflict erupts. Each group fights over government power, law, and preference.

Many assume that secularism would serve as a neutral referee, but neutrality is an illusion. The question is never whether a nation will be shaped by religion, but which religion will shape it. Jesus himself warned, Every kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. National societies require shared language, shared history, shared values, and of course, shared religion. National cohesion depends on unity at the deepest level.

In short, nationalism may produce conflict between nations, but multiculturalism produces conflict within nations.

Michael Hardner · February 5

7 hours ago, I am Groot said:

From someone on X. I could rephrase it but why bother?

In 1965, the United States was roughly 90% white and overwhelmingly Christian.

Today, these numbers sit around 55%. Now why does this matter? Because multiculturalism consistently produces internal conflict. When multiple groups with competing religions, histories, languages, and moral frameworks are placed within the same political system, conflict erupts. Each group fights over government power, law, and preference.

Many assume that secularism would serve as a neutral referee, but neutrality is an illusion. The question is never whether a nation will be shaped by religion, but which religion will shape it. Jesus himself warned, Every kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. National societies require shared language, shared history, shared values, and of course, shared religion. National cohesion depends on unity at the deepest level.

In short, nationalism may produce conflict between nations, but multiculturalism produces conflict within nations.

They claim that neutrality is an illusion, and their cite is... Jesus.

I think that small l liberalism is a stronger shaping force, and that religion is a brief 5,000 years long fad.

paxamericana · February 5

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think that small l liberalism is a stronger shaping force, and that religion is a brief 5,000 years long fad.

Uhhhh what? Care to explain your self there? You do know liberalism is not a repalcement for religion right? A nation requires something more than liberalism to bring people together, there needs to be a common value structure, for examplle, the only unifying theme Canadians have to one another is that they're not Americans. Which is why, it's destined to fail. In America, people are united as one nation under GOD. What's it going to be, when you have to suffer the tragedy, mallevolence and sacrifice of life, these are your options, meaningless nihilism or worship to the highest good, God. Careful when you tread on holy ground.

Edited February 5 by paxamericana

Michael Hardner · February 5

32 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

1. You do know liberalism is not a repalcement for religion right?

2. A nation requires something more than liberalism to bring people together, there needs to be a common value structure, for examplle,

3. the only unifying theme Canadians have to one another is that they're not Americans.

4. Which is why, it's destined to fail. In America, people are united as one nation under GOD.

5. What's it going to be, when you have to suffer the tragedy, mallevolence and sacrifice of life, these are your options, meaningless nihilism or worship to the highest good, God. Careful when you tread on holy ground.

1. What do you mean a 'replacement' ? They are different forces, of course, but they're both frameworks for how a culture frames their livelihoods I would say. Religion frames life as being obedient to or dedicated to god or gods, while liberalism emphasizes overall freedom and prosperity.
2. Sure but both of those frameworks can accommodate common values. Liberalism, famously, has 'the pursuit of happiness'
3. Ok, what's the unifying theme for Americans then ? I think I just said it, and I think it's the same for Canada though few of us would admit so.
4. Religion isn't a driving force in America anymore.
5. Religion isn't necessary to a healthy or unified community as far as I can see.

User · February 5

23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. I'm a conservative. Crackho hates me, for example. You're welcome.

We have already established that the way you use Conservative here has little to nothing to do with political policy positions of the day or what is referred to as the "right" or the "left" so why are you here saying you are a conservative in response to someone saying something about the "left?"

So far, most of your positions on this forum align with the left, and you are routinely liked by people on the left as you also push leftist positions on such things as the trans issue.

User · February 5

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Religion isn't a driving force in America anymore.

Huh? Most people in America still identify as having a religious belief, some 60% Christian and 10% other.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. Religion isn't necessary to a healthy or unified community as far as I can see.

That depends on what you mean by healthy. I thought you also claimed to be a Christian, yet you say it is not necessary to be healthy?

Sign In

Is it morally acceptable to worry about the future of the White race?

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Michael Hardner

John Stone

CdnFox

Posted Images

Join the conversation

Tell a friend

Member Statistics

Recent Achievements

Recently Browsing