The true agenda of PoC who endlessly whine about “white privilege” and “racism” is the destruction of white civilisation. Their inmost desire is – if not outright genocide – to gradually dilute the genes of the unfairly overly-accomplished white race by miscegenation with lower-IQ PoC. Do you really think its co-incidental that almost every financially successful black male has a white female trophy, or at least one much lighter skinned than he..? If you don’t believe what I am saying, then you obviously haven’t paid attention to the “Melting Pot” lyrics by Blue Mink.
Oh, what a beautiful dream, if it could only come true…
What we need is a great big melting pot – big enough to take the world and all it’s got – keep it stirring for a hundred years or more turning out coffee colored people by the score….”
Totally lacking in diversity, yet full of elegance and beauty….
A Mindless Multi-Cultopian Melting-Pot
In the space of a few decades the British (and other W. Europeans) have seen their countries and peoples stirred into a Multi-Cultopian melting-pot, the ultimate and true purpose of which can only be to mongrelise indigenous white Europeans into a brownish race. This wish must based on the myth that “black people cannot be racist”, and so if everyone were “black” (or blackish) the world would be a far better place as there would be no more racism, as patently absurd as it sounds. Naive is not nearly a strong enough word for this utterly mindless leftist fantasy. What it will most certainly achieve = and the left really wants this – is a lowering of the European group IQ, thus preventing future generations from achieving those amazing (but highly embarrassing to PoC) achievements. Nothing – NOTHING one could imagine – could be a more noble and worthy objective than wiping out the race which is the root cause of all the worlds problems.
‘Diversity’ has been the great mantra of our age. Like ‘equality’, it is one of those words set up to be impossible to oppose. Douglas Murray
Despite being governed by the allegedly ideal system of “democracy”, the British (and other West Europeans) have had this poisoned chalice imposed on them by pure stealth and wickedness, as surely nobody in their right mind believes the farcical lie that “Diversity is a strength”, let alone “OUR GREATEST STRENGTH”. The voting masses – as easily led as they often are – would NEVER have voted for such a foolish thing, as the political elites well knew. Thus proving how irrelevant our so-called “democracy” is, if it could be so easily be manipulated and subverted by smugly sanctimonious “progressive” elites to achieve unwanted outcomes in such a dictatorial fashion. Even those claiming to be “conservative” are so desperate to be seen as “anti-racist” – and thus as morally-superior “good-whites” – they have deluded themselves into believing the deceitful baloney that a racially diverse society is not just “culturally enriching”, but even “A great national strength”..! This is especially true of the youth who have been deeply indoctrinated by an “education” system which, in the same time-frame, has become totally dominated be far-leftist WOKE ideology.
If this is not totalitarianism, then what is?
The silent – and effectively SILENCED – majority suffer all this due to complacency – and because their lives are easy – and knowing there are severe penalties for speaking out against this all-powerful diversity cult. Those who DO have the courage to speak out are immediately branded as ignorant “bigots”, “racists” or islamophobes”, and are quickly silenced by being fired from their jobs and having their careers destroyed – especially if they are government employees, e.g.., police, or even health workers..! Meanwhile – in case we haven’t got the message – a diversity-worshipping media, fronted by increasingly diverse hosts and presenters, deluges us with a relentless stream of “diverse” content and advertising images of mixed-race couples who, non-coincidentally (because young white women are easily influenced by “fashion” trends), are almost invariably of the black male/white female variety. Such images are force-fed us by an ever-growing army of dark-skinned newsreaders and celebrities “celebrating” a Multi-Cultopian “diversity” – and their victory over “white privilege” – that anyone in their right mind must know to be a fantasy delusion. For all intents and purposes we are hostages, imprisoned in a cultural-marxist social engineering EXPERIMENT that will only end when Western Civilisation has been TOTALLY ANNIHILATED. And that end, my friends, is the ultimate objective – I know that sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, but how else can one explain such culturally-suicidal tendencies..?
A NATION MUST HAVE A DOMINANT CULTURE
MULTI-CULTURALISM IS A LEFTIST SCAM FOISTED ON SUCCESSFUL WHITE NATIONS IN ORDER TO DEGRADE AND DEMORALISE – AND ULTIMATELY TO DESTROY THEM..!
So what has this got to do with Oasis-Cities..?
OA-Cities will simply be homes writ large, so the founders of each and every OA-City will be free to establish their own preferences as to which type of person they would prefer to admit and which they would prefer not to admit, just as we all do in our own homes. This does NOT mean that OA-Cities will inevitably be “whites-only” or “blacks only” or “any others only” communities, although they should be free to do so if that is their citizens wish. Ideally, aspiring OA-citizens should be vetted by a rotational panel composed of well-established OA-citizens (e.g., those with 3 yrs or more residence). It may be the case that some panel members might be “racists” determined to reject every PoC applicant regardless of their suitability, but I think that is unlikely and anyway they will surely be outnumbered by the more open-minded. But this is why it would be much better that any “immigration panel” be a rotational, as opposed to a fixed one, so that the panel as a whole could not be accused of bias.
The following article is republished from Fred on Everything
People do not generally like being with people very different from themselves.
We find it interesting when travelling, but NOT for extended periods..!
People cluster by intelligence. With high consistency, we choose mates of intelligence close to our own. Likewise with friends: If you have an IQ of 100, or 150, you are unlikely to have friends of 150, or 100. Bright people join Mensa not from snobbery but because they want to be around people like themselves. On the internet this takes the form of distributed cognitive stratification in which people from around the globe congregate by intelligence.
People associate by age. We rarely have close friends who differ from us by more than ten years. People of fifty shrink in horror at the thought of being trapped in a bar full of screaming twenty-year-olds–and vice versa. Teenagers suffer their parents because they have to, and escape at every opportunity–to the relief of the parents. It isn’t dislike, just a lack of much in common.
Men and women would rather not be with each other too much. In social and domestic settings, yes. Men would prefer to work with other men had they the choice. Men do not want to go fishing with women, or drink beer and argue politics, and when it comes to talking about their feelings, most men would rather die. Women presumably prefer their own. Male and female homosexuals choose to associate with each other, thus gay bars.
We prefer to spend time with people of our own level of education. If you have a doctorate, you probably have no friends who are graduates only of high school–and vice versa. The same goes for white-collar and blue-collar people. Few bus drivers socialize with lawyers.
We prefer to be with our own race. Look at what people do, not what they say. Blacks do not find the company of white people compelling, and the most liberal of whites spend ninety-five percent of discretionary time with other whites. If whites do spend time with blacks, those will be of their own age, educational level, accent and, except in couples, sex. They will probably feel self-conscious anyway.
The cultures of blacks and whites differ starkly and any association occurs only to the extent that the blacks simulate the culture of whites. Distance is proportional to difference. Whites and Asians socialize more easily than blacks and whites because they have more in common.
We spend our time with people of our own culture. Jews flock together. We have Chinatown, Little Saigon, Little Italy. Good ol’ boys and Boston Brahmins do not party together.
We tend to spend our time with others of our own level of wealth. If you drive a Lexus, you likely do not have friends with second-hand clunkers.
There is worse than lack of socializing.
Diversity is not a strength but, when separation is not possible, perhaps the planet’s chief cause of butchery and hatred.
Think for example Sunnis and Shias, Tamils and Sinhalese, Jews and Moslems in Palestine, Kurds and Turks, Turks and Armenians, blacks and whites in America, Catalans and Spaniards, Basques and Spaniards, Tutsis and Hutus in Burundi, Francophones and Anglophones in Canada, Moslems and Hindus in Kashmir, Russians and Chechens, Mexicans and Anglos in Arizona, Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, and so on. For that matter, Trump’s supporters and haters cannot stand each other’s company. In general, liberals and conservatives coexist at best uneasily in social situations.
Clearly the domestic tranquility would better be served by letting people and peoples associate as they chose, and in some cases taking measure to ensure separation.
Instead we have elevated almost to the status of religion the idea that people are indistinguishable, or should be, and must be forced into association.
This is said to be the natural or at least desirable state of humanity, even though it clearly is not what we really want. On ideological grounds we imagine a world that cannot exist, and try to move into it. When it doesn’t work, we try to force it. This causes endless resentment and unhappiness and sometimes hatred.
Yet any who openly do not want to be with those unlike themselves are called racists, sexists, Islamophobes, homophobes, snobs, and so on.
If a group of men are sitting around shooting the breeze and a woman shows up, the conversational dynamics change. The men will speak differently, talk of different things, be wary. Yet heaven help them if they say that sometimes they don’t want female company.
In the military the consequences of forced togetherness are grave, and not just in that women can’t do many of the things required of soldiers. Thirteen men in a squad will work easily together to get a job done. Add a woman and all the men will compete for her sexual favors, even if she isn’t using them, which is possible.
If we permitted freedom of association, we would have bars and clubs for men only, and for women only, as well as for both as people chose. Men would not care if women had segregated bars for themselves, but, what with feminism, women feel compelled to force themselves on men.
In universities we equally see natural human resistance to mandated association. In particular blacks increasingly demand their own fraternities, student centers, graduation ceremonies, and departments of Black Studies. Thus we have the silly spectacle of universities struggling to recruit diversity which, once recruited, struggles to segregate itself.
As noted, ease of association is inversely proportional to difference, and difference is a sort of vector sum of many things: social and economic status, skin color, native fluency in English, sex and sexual orientation, and so on.
Our current policy of compulsory amalgamation is fueled both by resentment and ideology. Women and blacks think they endure discrimination by men and whites and so insist on inclusion they really do not much want.
Much of today’s anger would diminish if people were allowed to live in communities of their own kind and be able to establish organisations composed of those they would prefer. We could call this like, erm, “freedom”?
Recent Comments