Wednesday, September 2, 2009

I Am A Humanitarian Which Is Why I FIRMLY Believe In Racial Separation

SYNOPSIS: Those who promote multiracial/multicultural societies generally mean well in that they feel they're creating a more peaceful world.  But they ignore the lessons of history and thus are essentially laying the seeds for unimaginable future conflict and bloodshed.

Multiculturalism within a nation leads to internal tension and eventual violent conflict... 6,000 years of human warfare/conflict proves this (i.e., roughly 85% of all wars throughout recorded history are entirely rooted in racial/ethnic/religious conflict; the other 15% are purely ideologically-based). All races and ethnic groups are "tribal" & separatist in nature - these innate characteristics of human nature must be accepted and public policy should be implemented with such characteristics in mind. Hence, racial/ethnic homogeneity should be encouraged by public policy makers in each country. Pursuing racial/ethnic homogeneity in each country is the most humane way to organize the world's various peoples.

Any realistic humanitarian (such as myself) understands this reality of human nature and works within its framework.

I don't have anything against Mexicans.... in Mexico. I don't have anything against Nigerians... in Nigeria. Mexicans should remain in Mexico. Nigerians should remain in Nigeria... and so on. Further, I hope Mexicans, Nigerians and all peoples of the world live healthy and productive lives in their respective countries. I do not wish ill on any peoples of the world.

The next point I will make is a central concern of all people on the political far-right. As established by the United Nations Charter in 1945, each people/ethnicity/racial group should have their own geographic area on Earth (i.e., a bordered country) in which to exercise their right to self-determination as a unique people/ethnicity/racial group. The UN essentially follows this policy for nearly all non-White peoples of the world. However, the UN pressures White nations to maintain (and even increase) their multiracial/multicultural policies. The UN essentially demands that White nations continue allowing millions of non-Whites to immigrate into White nations. Is this a double standard? Of course.

Whites make up a mere 13% of the world's population and this percentage is measurably shrinking with each passing year. White nations are under attack -- a slow, creeping attack often appropriately termed 'demographic warfare on the West' (i.e., radical demographic change via non-White immigration into the Western World). At the present Third World immigration rates into White nations, Whites will become a minority in each White nation by 2028. And by 2043, Whites will make up 20% - 25% of each (historical) White nation. The White Western World is gradually being erased... and... once the West is gone... its gone forever. Approximately 3,500 years of Western Civilization reduced to mere scattered pieces - and this colossal transformation will likely be accomplished in a little over a century. Just ponder this for a moment: a White baby born today will likely live to see a future, say, "France" where only 25% of that country is White. Or Sweden (same story). Or America (same story). Or Greece (same story), etc. Essentially then, the people who more or less invented just about everything (i.e., Whites) are being gradually eliminated.  This can only be called one thing: the ongoing genocide of the White race.  Here are just a few White accomplishments (which benefit all of global humanity)...

Some people have dismissed my concerns by saying, "every country has immigration, you're singling out White countries to make it look like they're being targeted" or they say, "human migration is part of history, get used to it."  First, as to the latter, "human migration is part of history" ... yes, indeed it is.  But it's important to focus on what's relevant today.  Thus we must only consider the modern world (as defined by the formation of the modern nation-State).  Human migration which took place centuries ago (or more) is irrelevant to the modern world and those who try to include ancient human migration patterns into this debate are generally trying to confuse the listener, or they naively bought into the Marxist slogan, "there is only one race, the human race."  As to the first comment I often hear (i.e., "every country has immigration, you're singling out White countries...) I say to them, yes, indeed, many countries have an immigration policy.  However, such policies are restricted to, 1) a handful of diplomats and their families, 2) a few rare cases of political asylum, and 3) perhaps even a small guest worker program which is carefully monitored to ensure the workers return to their home country upon completion of work.  Only White countries have systematic immigration polices which result in a demographic transformation of entire cities and eventually the entire country.  Name me one non-White country which has such an immigration policy?  There isn't one.

The multiculturalizing of the Western World began after World War II.  Each White Western nation passed a liberal immigration policy during this period; this legislative process began in 1954 and was complete by 1972 (see this article, point #12).  Initially, only a trickle of non-White immigrants were allowed in but within a few years the quotas were increased and have increased ever since.  Within 75-100 years, the White Western world will be de facto erased from the Earth, never to come back.  And not through guns, bombs, and great armies.  Rather, by way of massive immigration, mostly from the third world.  This is called "demographic warfare" - it is... for all intents and purposes... the gradual conquering of White nations by flooding each nation with 3rd world immigrants.

A corollary to my Ethnic Nationalism worldview (also called ---> the advocacy of the Ethno-State concept for each and every distinct ethnic peoples on earth) is the following --> I'm 100% opposed to imperialism and empire building... either carried out by European-derived peoples or carried out by any peoples of any race/ethnicity. Further, as a person who is part of the political far-right (and like nearly everyone on the far-right), I have been against the U.S. led Middle East wars from day one. In short, the United States has no business being in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Global humanity works best when the world is divided into nation-states where each nation-state has racial/ethnic homogeneity (i.e., the Ethno-State concept). Nations can trade (i.e., fair trade, not so-called "free" trade), have diplomatic relations, compete in the Olympics, etc. And, of course, there should be tolerance between nations. However, when we start mixing VERY different peoples in the same country, what generally happens??? History tells us that trouble brews and internal violent conflict results - this is not a humane way to organize the world's peoples.

Global humanity has enough difficulty maintaining peace between nations. We don't need to make matters worse by creating, via official government policy, multiracial countries which ALWAYS gravitate towards internal conflict and violence (again, as history clearly illustrates).  Thus, pragmatic humanitarians (like myself) who are realistic about human nature, believe FIRMLY in racial/ethnic separatism (i.e., they believe FIRMLY in the Ethno-State for each distinct ethnic peoples). On the other hand, those pushing for multiculturalism are actually (unknowingly) anti-humanitarian.  Why?  Because they are (I'll say it again ---> unknowingly) laying the seeds for future internal national conflict (via their promotion of multicultural/multiracial nations) even though they naively think they are "building a better world."

The above is the core of my racial-realist/humanitarian philosophy.