You may be excluded by a group you would like to join, but that is the natural consequence of free choice. You should therefore be happy that others have the same free choice that you aspire to. Don’t worry, because if one group won’t have you, another probably will.
In the US (and increasingly in other Western countries), alienated racial and ethnic “communities” are constantly challenging the white majority’s social order and rules of behaviour.
[stextbox id=”info”]A nation can only function successfully when its people have shared values, a mutual sense of belonging and a universal moral code. But multi-culturalism and open borders promote division, segregation, and hierarchies of victimhood based on ethnic identities. Leo McKinstry, Express 30/12/13
The MSM (mainstream media) routinely blames “colonialist exploitation” for 3rd world poverty, so it is unsurprising that many whites harbour a guilt-complex about the colonial activities of their forbears and they wish to atone for that. More recently this unjustified guilt-complex has been expressed as “white privilege” – the good fortune of being born white into a rich country. Due to the relentless stream of anti-white propaganda disseminated by the leftist-controlled media – which also routinely censors and suppresses any pro-white opinions by labelling them as “racists” or “haters”. Many if not most whites have been indoctrinated at school and by the media to believe it is “their fault” that most black and brown people live in poverty-stricken 3rd world countries – countries that white people created. They thus profess the desire – and work toward the goal – that everyone on the planet, particularly black and brown people, must enjoy the same standard of living as they (and most white people) enjoy. Concurrently to the “white privilege” guilt-tripoping a constant barrage of leftist media propaganda has also convinced many people, often against their own better judgment, that these b&b people and their vibrant cultures were “equal” to whites in every way except they had been “denied” the opportunities bestowed by the magical talisman of white privilege.
It was hoped that this would be achieved through hefty dollops of foreign aid which are, to a large degree, considered by the recipients as reparations for slavery, colonial exploitation, etc. The unspoken fear amongst egalitarian lefties is that, even with generous foreign-aid donations, “equality” will never be achieved and certainly not in their lifetimes. Leftist ideologues don’t want to wait generations – they want to see “equality” in their lifetimes – so they promote 3rd world immigration “since we are responsible for their poverty, lets bring them over here to enjoy what we have”. There are several ways in which they justify this population replacement.
[stextbox id=”black” caption=”IMMIGRATION JUSTIFICATIONS “]
“Britons won’t do the dirty jobs” – “immigrants do the jobs whites don’t want to do”.
“Immigrants boost the economy” – the “Economist” in particular keeps pushing this deceptive half-truth
“NHS would cease functioning” – “foreign doctors and nurses are essential to the NHS”
“Future pensions scare” – “migrants will finance our retirement pensions as white people are not having enough children”.
“More interesting food” – “Before foreign immigration, British food was awful and boring”.
“We have always been a nation of immigrants” – “there is therefore no such thing as an indigenous Briton”.
These Guardian-reading white elites who profess a belief in the culturally-enriching powers of “diversity” tend to live sheltered lives and do not have to live with the consequences of their “do goodery”. But what they are forgetting, perhaps deliberately, is that this kind diversity is un-natural and humans – despite their wishes – are not exceptions.
THE DECEPTION OF DIVERSITY
Diversity is always promoted as wholesome and positive, something not just to be encouraged and strived for but so essential that it has to be imposed upon an ignorant and unwilling host population. We often hear cities like Rio de Janeiro or Cape Town, or even London, described as not only diverse but as “vibrant”. But, more often than not, this “vibrancy” is a euphemism for barely-suppressed cultural tension and with it the ever-present threat of crime. Nobody has ever described a boringly peaceful city, such as Oslo or Reyjavik as “vibrant”. A good example of “diversity” is a “Botanical Garden.” Although I don’t have any particular interest in plants, I enjoy visiting a botanical garden because I am able to see many “diverse” varieties of plants and trees in one place. But nowhere in nature does this diversity of plants exist – the botanical garden is artificial and is only held together by humans taking control of the situation and deciding what grows where in the garden. A more extreme case is a zoological garden, the ultimate repository of animal “diversity”. But we all know that zoos are un-natural places and, if you were to let the animals out of their cages and compounds, there would be chaos and catastrophe as the stronger and more aggressive animals would kill and eat the small, the slow, the weak, and the timid.
Whatever their true intentions might be, those who are entrusted with immigration have succeeded in convincing a large segment of the population that, without any evidence that it will work – and plenty that it will be a disaster – “diversity” is a noble thing and a goal worthy of pursuit – and that our immigration policies should reflect this goal. When I say “immigration,” I refer not only to the movement of people from one country to another, but also from one city to another – or from one neighborhood to another. When those in power discover a community that is “too white” for their tastes, they force it to accept large numbers of non-white immigrants. The community is ultimately destroyed, and the individuals within it lose their liberties as well.
If we allow large numbers of dysfunctional and/or crime-prone people into our communities, then we are faced with a choice: Either protect the citizenry by ruling with an iron fist or permit the criminals to operate freely and allow death and mayhem to prevail. If we take the latter choice, we send the message that crime is tolerated in our communities – and the violence will eventually spiral out of control. If we take the former choice, we will lose civil liberties. The only way to avoid this Morton’s Fork scenario is to prevent crime-prone demographics from entering our communities with in the first place. People are different and naturally separate themselves into groups of individuals with whom they share common bonds. This is the reason nations have borders to begin with
[stextbox id=”black” caption=”SELF-DETERMINATION”]The highest form of self-determination is that of people defining and designing their own communities, deciding who or what comes into their lives, determining their own standards and rules of conduct. People have a right to decide who to live with, who to be friends with, who to invite into their home, who to join their community. If their chosen standards don’t seem “fair” or “moral” to someone else, it is none of their business. Its not that they bear any ill-will to anyone else, its just that they know what atmosphere they like. I recall reading about a drilling ship where the all-white crew – mostly Norwegians, Russians, and Americans – all worked quite happily together but when meals came they all voluntarily self-segregated at their own tables.