FUCK the uk

...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Firsto posto besto posto desu

When those "refugees" let their relatives come over, that number will be ten times higher.

'UK population'

Do it again this time with 'Native (read:white) population'

>(((((refugee population)))))

Most of the niggers are now 2nd and 3rd generation (((full citizens)))), who are just as ((((british)))) as white families with bloodlines going back hundreds of years.

A real citizen of a country would not say "Fuck my country" you are not a British person.

Meanwhile Ahmed the refugee has his 9th child and counting with his 4th wife while John and Sarah the newlywed English couple adopt their 4th puppy from the shelter because they don't want children yet

Demography is destiny.

You're almost at the point non-white britons have equal kids to white britons.

That seals your fate, and the rest is just waiting for the end result of being replaced.

This bullshit of counting old people to say "you're not a minority" is just a sleight of hand.

Look at all the americans convinced whites are a majority in the US. They've been outbred for decades because "we're still the majority".

Not only is white people destined to be a minority in their own country, they will never recover and they will lose all political control, simply due to demographic shift.

The trick is keeping you complacent as if it's in a far distant future, when the reality is in your kindergarten classes, today.

>hundreds

At least. There's a huge amount of common names that go back to before the conquest, meaning many people have over 1,000 years of blood on the Island.

A real citizen of a country would uphold the values and the laws present within in. You forget that your founding fathers were English conservatives, not radicals. John Adams' 'Government of laws, not of men,' was quoting an Englishman called James Harrington.

The worst part is actually something different, to me at least. It might be controversial to say on Sup Forums but I don't care too much about the bloodline or the race. What hurts more is our system of governance that made the Anglosphere the greatest world powers, and with freedoms totally unique in the world until only decades ago, is what is actually dying.

1,500 years of defence of freedoms, refusal to standing armies, and the limit of authority over the individual, free trade (continentals used to hate how materialistic the English were), and other creations of the English-speaking peoples are what is really being wiped out.

Okay let's do that.
Let's just assume, for simplicity, that everybody who's islamic and hindu is not, like you so eloquently put it, Native.

That removes 5,8%* from the total number of UK population.

This means that you're left with 58.068.270 British versus 193.510 refugees.

I hope this answered your question to satisfaction, good sir.

*) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom

Refugees don't exist in the european union

They are called migrants

>I have no idea what exponential growth is: the image
This isn't what polish pilots were shooting nazis over UK for.

>5.8%

Try again.

The UK is a Muslim caliphate, sorry to break the bad news.

Have you calculated with the rate of growth for the nonwhite communities vs the white communities to see if there might be a major demographic shift in the next fifty years? If there is then there is a problem. I hope to God you're right, and all of these people assimilate and eventually become white through out breeding, but I don't think it's going to happen. For one thing the Muslim community of Britain is the group least likely to marry outside of ones religious/racial group. It's one thing for a country to take in vulnerable people, but it's something else entirely when the immigration and refugee policy creates a demographic shift. I wouldn't accept this if I were living in Ethiopia or Iceland or Mongolia or Mexico.

>James Harrington.
Is that the dude who invented the toilet?

BAHAHAHAHAH, did you really confuse religion with ethnicity,or was it intentional?

The thing is that the government (all the governments for the last 50 or so years) decided to do this, and they did it so rapidly that there was really no action that could be taken.

Enoch Powell wanted to halt this mass-importing for replacers and he had the support of 80% of the population. Governments still did it anyway. And in our international world its not as if anything can be done to remove or incentivise a reduction of THEM, while the same can be done clearly for US.

I find demographic growth difficult to estimate. Usually what people do is take any rising line and just assume that it will continue to rise with the same speed until 2090.

I remember in primary school they taught me that by 2010, Africa would be the richest continent, because it experienced a period of economic growth in the late 80s, early 90s.
I also learned that Almere would be the biggest city in the Netherlands by now. It's not, but it was made in the 1970s and grew to 100k residents quickly. People just continued that line.

To get more on topic: It's possible that these people will continue to have higher amounts of children. However I doubt it. In every civilization on earth the amount of children decreases when wealth and prosperity rises. +/- 50 years ago, let's say around the time our parents were born, it was still rather normal to have 7 children. Personally, I think immigrants are on that same breaking point at the moment. They still have the mindset of their old country, but i'm curious to wether or not their children will have it too.

What's interesting to follow is the third generation immigrants, who will be coming of age around now and soon start building families (If they haven't already)

It was intentional. Government graphs and information usually count second and third generation immigrants as British, that's why I chose to go by religion, as that would probably still be the same as their parents.

No one really "invented" the toilet, but the inventor of the flushing toilet was a man called Thomas Crapper.

And now you know why "crap" is used for shite.

I don't know, it seems like anything could happen in this climate. A man was just elected in the United States that wants a ban on all Muslims entering the country, who basically insinuated that Mexicans are more prone to crime and who out and out said that he hated globalism. In the Netherlands wilders, the man who is set to be the leader of the largest party in the country wants to close down all mosques and ban the Koran, as well as deport most Muslim migrants and fund a right of return for akrikaaners to the Netherlands. We're living in a different world and one that is seeming to reject globalism today.

and how many immigrants, over all, are being allowed into the country every year?

150,000? 300,000?

>It's possible that these people will continue to have higher amounts of children. However I doubt it

Why do you think they keep bringing more in?

But really since the government pay or the kids there's really nothing stopping Muslims using the womb as a weapon (actually part of the Koranic art of war) and simply outbreeding the natives, and then making the natives pay for the care of these children.

I can't prove or disprove the validity of your graph.

Are you sure it doesn't represent London?

I'm sure our cucked country will find a way to bring all those Jihadis over here and stick them in some quiet Cotswold village to abuse the locals.

Nothing is going to happen in this country; they're a protected class. How else could Rotherham (one of many cases) have occurred if the system didn't prefer them to the native population?

We're fucked. It's over for us. Any sort of insult or difficulty placed on the lives of those invaders will just cause them to stop playing nice and murder the natives as the government stands behind them helping them and stopping the Europeans from doing anything.

It's the third generation immigrants that are the most interesting I agree. And you would assume that with less radical views a population like the Muslims in Europe would adopt more modern styles of living and have less children. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be happening. Children and grandchildren of immigrants are far more likely to be radicalized, and a horrible split in the cities is occurring along racial and religious lines, which is halting the declining birth rates in these immigrant communities slightly. Also, the gradual decline in birth rates in the Muslim community, which I agree is happening as it is all around the world, might not be enough to stop the current "replacement" levels of demographic change in these countries. I sadly feel that countries like yours are going to either start resorting to the wilders approach, which is mass deportations or are going to start to Balkanize in the wake of this racial strain, especially since this immigration has happened so suddenly in places like Western Europe.

>I don't care too much about the bloodline or the race
>What hurts more is our system of governance that made the Anglosphere the greatest world powers, and with freedoms totally unique in the world until only decades ago, is what is actually dying.

Yes, you can tell yourself it's unrelated.

We couldn't make southern Europeans adopt northern European values. They'll always be lazy, their culture corrupt, their sense of time "mañana". They're our neighbours, we have thousands of years of history together.

The gift of anglo governance was given to the arabs, the indians and the africans. You then retreated, gave them freedom, and they fuck it up immediately. Because the only reason it worked is the people who used it.

We talk about "bad cultures" in "problem areas". These are just the importing of people not compatible with our way of life, and the inevitable resulting mess. Then they grow that population and give them more power and we're supposed to act confused about "changing values".

You've blinded yourself to the cause.

Despite thousands of years of history to prove how slowly a culture and people develop and how hard habits die.

Even ancient rome struggled to make incompatible peoples into romans and they had immense incentives both positive and negative to do so. Multikulti philosophy never worked.

I'd say that's actually more accurate no matter what it represents as it turned out that mane non-white British listed themselves as white British on the census.

When it comes to this sort of thing see what is "official" then make it worse and then you'll likely be closer to the truth.

This graph is so wrong in so many ways.

Now do it with people under age 10.

If there's any word of advice I could give you, it's not to worry too much. Even if only for the sake of your own peace of mind. Also stay away from low quality newspapers, they make money from baiting people into fear.

As to your question of why they keep bringing people in:
The way I see it, right now, there's two different kinds of immigrants coming in. There's refugees and economic immigrants.

On the economic immigrants I can be short. In my opinion, they can choose between getting a job and becoming a functioning member of society, or go back. And I can speak from my own experience, i'm currently in the process of emigrating to another European country, but if i'm unable to find a job there i'm not going or postponing it. I think that's normal, or at least it should be.

On the refugees, I met quite a lot of them, actually. Not a single one that I met wanted to stay in the Netherlands. I must say that they were all Syrians, but they all wanted to go back to Syria after the war was over, no exceptions. They saw it as their homeland and they missed it. And the idea that they are highly educated is often ridiculed, but it's mostly true. Syria was a relatively wealthy country before the war, and especially in the cities people were and are well-educated. But these are not the people you need to worry about. Of course there are bad apples, it's naive to deny that, and the police does need to keep a close eye on them.
The refugees that are causing problems are often the ones from 'safe' countries in Northern Africa and eastern Europe. Think of it this way, they only come here because they can't find work in their home country.

I'm digressing, and this is mainly just my opinion and personal experience. I should stop rambling.

I think the approach that the U.K. Should take, which is unique for any country suffering under these immigration waves is to open up a freedom of movement with your white colonies (Australia, nz,Canada, Ireland maybe.) that way the waves of immigrants will wash out all of the Muslim elements of society. There is an association that is pushing for communwealth freedom of movement, which is easy to find online. That should be step one. There should also be a movement to colonize the Falklands with whites voluntarily. The Falklands is roughly the size of Connecticut , which as an urban New England state has six million people in it with room. A program of voluntary immigration to these islands will secure another bank for white anglo Saxon immigrants to the U.K.

I don't think it's that simple. Afterall, the people of Hong Kong are freedom-loving people but are genetically identical to the robotic mainland Chinese.

What's more likely is that these Muslims will receive monetary donations from the government in order to have more children in order to keep the diversity train rolling.

Yeah the Syrians I don't think will stay in Europe long. It's one of the arab countries that has a certain level of civilization.

Yeah isn't that a strange thing? The moment you move away from a place your cultural background tends to become stronger. The children of immigrants often feel strong connections with their ethnic and religious backgrounds, and are quite vulnerable to radicalization. But I think the only way to combat this is to give them an identity. Yes they are Pakistani/Moroccan/Turkish/Indian/Whatever, but they are also part of society. This might be controversial here on Sup Forums, but realistically, it's the best weapon against radical views and terrorism that we have.

And however understandable a tough rightwing approach is, it's extremely difficult to realize the ideas of the likes of Wilders, and it's really, really, counterproductive. It only helps to radicalize youth. People like Wilders, or Hofer, or Le Pen, actually unwillingly help fuel terrorism.

However, soft responses from the other side of the spectrum don't help either.

We don't have the infrastructure to support natural population growth, let alone taking in hundreds of thousands of needy people.

Countries like the UK have huge budget deficits, it cannot continue to go down this route.

>Firsto posto besto posto desu
fuck off duterte

They'll only want "diverse" people and you know it.

Any idea will be twisted to how they want it to be.

I'm not fearful. Fear only comes from the uncertain. I know what the future holds so I'm just sad.

>Think of it this way, they only come here because they can't find work in their home country.

And they don't have to here because governments just give them free money for doing nothing.

Why make them feel part of society when they can attack the host nation and make it more like what they want it to be?

The west does nothing but kowtow to their demands, so why not turn Europe into the Middle East when the governments of these nations are more than happy to do it?

You're right. We need less white people.

Luckily old white people are killed via the Liverpool Pathway, and young brown people can take their place.

And if they have to borrow more money and tax the working whites even harder to fund their replacements, then so be it.

Why would they suddenly start caring now?

I understand your point, but I think making it worse, like you say it, is also a wrong thing to do, ethically. I mean we want to go for the most reliable information, right?

If you can find reliable information on this, you're free to do it.

I didn't mean it in a positive way, that they can't find work in their own country. It usually means that they are either extremely low educated or there's something else wrong. And I agree that we can't use those people over here either. What's wrong with a rule like, you're only eligible for free stuff when you worked here for three years. Or maybe that even exists already, I don't know. I might look it up later if I can be bothered.

I agree that the our governments do too little about this situation. And saying 'You don't like it here? Just go somewhere else where you feel more comfortable' is a valid reaction. But is it too easy? I don't know. Keep in mind that, you don't see them as British, but their native country doesn't see them as a citizen either.

suck my fucking dick you fucking retard

>I don't think it's that simple.

It's not simple at all.

> Afterall, the people of Hong Kong are freedom-loving people but are genetically identical to the robotic mainland Chinese.

Mainlanders and coast Chinese have been separate people and cultures for a long time.

Everything is not irreducibly complex. Even internal countries have divisions, and long running ones.

We have centuries invested in the rural/city division and the north/south division.

Importantly to your Hong Kong point is that Hong Kong didn't turn out british. Despite being literally separate from China, having their own government, heavy british influence. They didn't magically become brits.

The internal variations are just not bigger than the variations between peoples and their cultures.

You seem to think you can transplant a few million chinese to the UK, remove the white people and still have brits. Think about that and then try to find examples of that happening, ever.

>I mean we want to go for the most reliable information, right?

That's why I said see what the government says and then make it worse. When it was revealed that London was only 49% white they did another count and it turned out to be closer to 45%.

>What's wrong with a rule like, you're only eligible for free stuff when you worked here for three years

Governments want them to stay. Why make it hard if they want them?

>you don't see them as British

They don't see themselves as truly British. They say they do but it's the cosmopolitan "our culture is multiculture!" version of British.

>but their native country doesn't see them as a citizen either.

That's because they left on a mission of conquest.

Even in the 1980s they were burning human effigies of authors for writing books they disliked.

The hardest thing and most pragmatic thing about wilders's strategy is that there won't be any kids to radicalize under his system. Deportation does work and it's better to face an external terroristic threat than an internal one.

>the thing is that the government (all the governments for the last 50 or so years) decided to do this

And people think democracy is real. Only a hidden oligarchy could make so many different countries take on such a ruinous project in lock-step.

That's not what I was saying. I was just saying that the racial replacement wouldn't bother me as much if the culture remained. But they're both going so it's likely even the history books will go quiet, and people will wonder what happened in these countries for those centuries of silence.

And who lived there? We'll never know, because they're all gone.

How did they live? They do not answer.

No one wants to move to the Falklands. White British people will have to move there viluntarily. And trust me, blacks WILL NOT move there. I predict that you can get the Falklands to a couple of hundred thousand people strong without seeing a single black person.

Doesn't matter now. Not worth getting upset over.

Deportation wont happen. The international community wont allow it, up to and including an invasion to kill the natives to protect the replacers if they must.

That's why no one "rises up," because they know that they will be killed to protect the new Europeans.

Assuming that all these refugees are muslim (which they obviously are) and a quick google search, I can gather the following:
The amount of incoming refugees is 193510.
The average mudslime fertility rate is 3,1.
The half of all refugees are probably women, thus 193510 / 2 = 96.755, new mudslimes by birth = x3 -> 299940
On top of that, often let family come over after, whom let friends come over etc etc, so expect the initial population doubled.
193510 * 2 + 299940 = 387020 + 299940 = 686960

now expect this for a few years.
half a million
and it somewhat doubles
and that somewhat doubles
and that somewhat doubles

you're fucked.

I do wonder what's the point of keeping those islands. If we're committing suicide why not just leave them to whomever?

Will accept 1 refugee per 1 virtue signalling lefty cunt deported.

No backsies.

OIL

There's an international law that bans countries from deporting foreign born and those of foreign extraction from the country?

Which we can't afford to drill.

>Governments want them to stay. Why make it hard if they want them?
This is something I don't understand. I can understand governments wanting people to do the labour native people refuse to do, but the immigrants that come here to do nothing?

>They don't see themselves as truly British.
Sadly, this is true. But I think it's also naive to see this as solely their fault. I think it's also the social climate these days. Co-existing works both ways, immigrants need to show respect, and they also need to receive respect. Right now it's a vicious circle of neither, and either they or we need to break that circle. Imagine living somewhere where you only have to open a newspaper to see how bad you or your people are. I don't want to sound too leftwing though, I don't mean hug them to death, but giving individuals honest chances would be a start.

>That's because they left on a mission of conquest.
I honestly doubt this. That's all I want to say about it.

Please let me explain to you why Wilders his strategy has 0% chance of success.

Currently Wilders is leading the polls, and it's realistic to assume that he will come out as the biggest party during the elections in March. Let's assume he wins the 38 seats he's currently projected to win.

He's now tasked with forming a coalition. To rule in the Netherlands you need 75+1 seat in the parliament of 150. So you need to cooperate with other parties. He now needs to find 38 more seats worth of parties. That's 2 or 3 bigger ones. Not a single one wants to cooperate with him at this point. Also why would they, because they know that if Wilders fails to form a coalition, it's their turn to try.

But let's assume he finds some parties that agree to. Then he'd have to go to the King and the king officially puts his signature under the coalition. The king has never refused this in history, so let's assume he's okay with a far right government. He most likely will be.

1/2

You've made the retarded assumption that the top figure represents British people. Either way it's better for everyone if you fuck off to some Islamic shithole and virtue signal there, perhaps you'll realise what a delusional ideology liberalism

They'll invent one if they want there to be one.

Why wouldn't they? You think the globalists would let themselves be undone by something as silly as a democratic vote?

>This is something I don't understand. I can understand governments wanting people to do the labour native people refuse to do, but the immigrants that come here to do nothing?

so they keep voting in liberal parties, thats it

>what is outdated statistics
>what is higher reproductive rates among migrants

Okay so now Wilders is prime minister, because he succesfully formed a coalition. He now has 76 seats in parliament. And the other parties he cooperates with have agreed to his terms, too.

He now needs to change at least 3 articles of the constitution. Otherwise he can't deport anyone. Changing the constitution requires 100+1 seats of parliament to agree.

The chances of him getting that amount of seats to agree, are absolutely zero.

Long story short, the chances of Wilders being able to execute his plans are extremely slim.

Fuck off man we barely won the brexit vote.

Trump absolutely stomped his way to victory but we barely get ours, 6 months on and the government are still dragging their heels and it's christmas day right now my dude...

CAN YOU FUCK

OFF

???

They couldn't stop trump or farage

There's an article of the constitution against deporting people?

>Small as fuck country with 62m pop
> BUT LOOK ITS ONLY 200K REFUGEES WE NEED ANOTHER 61.8M

>but the immigrants that come here to do nothing?
They vote for people who let in more of them.

>Co-existing works both ways
>they also need to receive respect
"We've been here for countless generations, and have a history and a culture that's centuries old. But sure we'll change for you, person who has been here for less than one generation."

>you only have to open a newspaper to see how bad you or your people are

The difference is that they have defenders in the police and government. We don't.

> but giving individuals honest chances would be a start.
We've been doing that for decades.

We just need to accept that our ways of life are over, the best we can do is kill ourselves before the pogrom.

Brexit isn't going to happen. Idiot.

And even if it does they'll keep the things that benefit them and tell the whites to get fucked.

Why would they let a democratic vote stop them doing what they want to do?

>This number is bigger, therefore we're not being taken over.

So article 50 isn't going to be triggered?

Very softly. They'll trigger it but it will be essentially meaningless to every grievance that was raised.

>Source: kikepedia
Lol

>everything's going well here.
>alright, let's inject some mostly nonlethal poison.
>there's currently only a 1% chance it will kill you and 99% chance it will do absolutely nothing.
>here, take the needle. come on, you're not a bigot, are you?

now lets look at what the refugee population will be in 10 years if we keep doing what we're doing now

I added all of Wilders his political ideas for the election of 2017 as a picture. Yeah that's all of it. Let's go through it.

>Zero new refugees from islamic countries, close the borders
Closing borders entirely is difficult. He'd have to either leave the EU (Constitutional change) or convince the EU to allow him to. Also one could argue that not allowing muslim immigrants collides with consitution article 1, discrimination not allowed.

>Close all refugee centers
Theoretically possible

>No headscarfs in public functions
If he somehow convinces the rest of the parliament that headscarfs are a safety hazard, he can do this. Otherwise, discrimination article 1.

>Forbidding islamic expressions that are dangerous for the public order
Right, okay, if he can convince parliament that they are a danger for public order, it's possible.

>Locking up radical muslims preventively
Locking up people who haven't committed a crime (yet) is absolutely impossible with the current constitution.

>Kick criminals with a double passport out of the country
Maybe it's possible. Could be.

>Close all mosques and islamic schools
Freedom of religion and freedom of religious education are constitutional.

And that's only point 1.

>They vote for people who let in more of them.
Immigrants are notorious non-voters

>We need to adapt to immigrants
We don't. But not telling them every one of them is a criminal every day might be a start.

>the best we can do is kill ourselves before the pogrom.
I fear you more than most immigrants, right now.

>tfw no scottish-arab wife.

>I fear you more than most immigrants, right now.

Why would you fear some guy killing himself in despair for what the future holds.

>But not telling them every one of them is a criminal every day might be a start.

We treated them with utmost kindness for decades.

I totally agree with telling anyone off who claims "EUROPE IS LOST!!!!! THEY CANNOT RECOVER!!!!", but this is misleading. There IS a problem, and it's not refugees, it's migrants. They come, they stay, they become citizens, they vote. And this is going on for decades now. So don't get hysterical about "ISLAMISTS ARE TAKING OVER" (though the leftists do their best to get some into positions of power, just look at the mayor of fucking Londonistan or our Berlin senator Chewbli or whatever her muslim name is), but also don't play down the problem by only focussing on the "refugee" label.

I can't truly express how much I hate living in this country.

There is literally nothing admirable about Britain or being British anymore.

Jesus Christ, why the fuck do they want to squeeze more people into our landscape of destroyed wildlife, litter infested streets our numerous rows of ugly brown houses.

>Why would you fear some guy killing himself in despair for what the future holds.
All I would like to say is that if you're serious about this you should seek professional help. It's irrational and you will hurt a lot of people that care about you.

>We treated them with utmost kindness for decades.
Can we agree that most problems with muslims and immigrants started after 2001? Think of the 80s and 90s, for example. Things were better weren't they? Well, at least regarding islam and immigration.

#Rapefugees welcome

I DON'T WANT MY FUTURE CHILDREN GETTING AN EDUCATION NEXT TO SUB 90 IQ NIGGERS

EUROPE IS NOT FOR SHITSKINS

And they have more children than us as well as having preferential treatment from the government.

The politicians know what side of the bread is buttered. They're not stupid.

And if thousands of girls can be raped and the criminals can be defended by the system, what is it to replace those rapes with murders? They've already established they don't care.

If I was a jihadi I'd just go on an indiscriminate killspree, then get a grant from the government and retire to a nice house in the country.

YOU ARE FREE TO SEND YOUR CHILDREN TO ANY SCHOOL OF YOUR CHOOSING, ISN'T THAT GREAT?

>It's irrational
Their numbers are increasing.

Ours are decreasing.

Seems rational to me.

>Things were better weren't they?

Look up the Salman Rushdie controversy. Riots in the street and burning human effigies of an author who wrote a book that offended them, who they wanted to kill for the insult. He was in police protection for years. All that time they invited them on to television and treated their views are perfectly valid.

What you want is irrelevant and always has been. The system wants it so deal with it and enjoy your multicultural future, and remember to pay the dhimmi tax.

"LOL JUST SEND THEM TO A DIFFERENT SCHOOL"

You fucking faggot retard, do you think that will be an easy task considering how demographically fucked western urban areas will be?

This image fails to account for the fact that there's not a Muslim woman of child baring age who's not pregnant and Muslims ghettoize and overtake geographic regions and elect their own politicians to enact their own laws. Consider London.

Actually it was a case of nominative determinism: "crap" had the meaning it does long before him.

Nor did he even invent the flushing toilet. He invented several improvements to the syphon flush mechanism, but his main contribution was mass producing toilets.

Surprising level of understanding from user. I'm impressed.

>that 61 million includes the millions that have immigrated over the last 10 years.

IT'S JUST 40 PEOPLE HURR

The refugees themselves aren't the problem; the real problem is the big picture, when you consider the refugees + the islamic communities already installed + the family of refugees and economic migrants that sooner or later may come too.

That, together with their rapid breeding and conservative ideology is a recipe for disgrace, at least when it comes to western culture.

>Refugees

To be quite honest we don't actually take that many rapefugees which is good, but we're still fucked thanks to all mudslimes we took due to Blair.

With this logic, leftys need to stop claiming that the 1% is taking over the 99%.

Which means it's the perfect time to deport kebab.

colonization always starts out with small numbers dumb leftfags

that picture has been floating about for years I would like to see an updated version just to see the changes