Separatism Is The Most Humane Way To Organize The World's Peoples
James Miller
Humane Way To Organize The World's Peoples.
By James Miller
HUMANS ARE TRIBAL AND INHERENTLY SEPARATIST
Humans are innately "wired" for racial/ethnic/religious/cultural separatism.
Simply look at any large city in America... residents more often than not
self-segregate into ethnic neighborhoods. Even in multiracial cities such
as Los Angeles & New York, 92% of all marriages are same-race marriages (per
UCLA study, 2006). Visit any large shopping mall in L.A. or the NY metro
area, sit on a bench for an hour, and conduct your own survey. You'll
notice that about 90% of groups of two or more people who walk past you
consist of people from the same race. Visit any school cafeteria and you'll
witness students self-segregating based on race, ie. each ethnicity will
stake out its own lunch tables. Take a cursory look at the last 6,000 years
of human warfare. Easily 70% of all wars and other forms of violent
conflicts are rooted in one or more of the following:
racial/ethnic/religious/cultural clashes. Humanity should learn something
from the cold-hard-fact that people are tribal and they ALWAYS will be.
MULTICULTURALISM LAYS SEEDS FOR FUTURE CONFLICTS
Creating multicultural/multiracial/multiethnic societies (via immigration)
lays the seeds for future tension and eventual violent conflict. If
multiculturalism were so wonderful, wouldn't Asians seek out white or black
neighborhoods to live in? Wouldn't blacks seek out hispanic neighborhoods
to live in? Wouldn't hispanics seek out black neighborhoods? Wouldn't
Korean immigrants seek out Chinese neighborhoods? Wouldn't whites seek out
black or hispanic neighborhoods? Of course this doesn't happen. Rather,
people seek out a neighborhood inhabited by their own people (ie. same
race/ethnicity). Of course there are exceptions, but generally, people
self-segregate because they feel more comfortable amongst their own "tribe".
LIBERALS WHO PUSH MULTICULTURALISM USUALLY MEAN WELL, BUT THEY ARE NAIVE
Liberals have a utopian vision of a future world in which people will look
past racial/ethnic/religious differences, ie. everyone will "get along", war
won't occur, peace will prevail, etc. This sounds nice but it's naive. In
their quest to build this imagined utopian multicultural world, liberal
elites are actually doing the EXACT opposite - they are laying the seeds for
war and conflict within the nations they've targeted for multiculturalism.
As the violent realities of multiculturalism transpire (as they always do),
liberals then blame ethnic clashes on "racism". Liberals then embark on the
their usual "education campaign" to "teach" people to be more "tolerant".
But liberals are working against nature and therein lies their folly - you
can't unwire the innate tribal separatist nature of humans.
PRESERVE PRESENT DAY HOMOGENEOUS NATIONS WHILE ENCOURAGING
SEPARATISM IN MULTIRACIAL NATIONS
Nations which are currently ethnically homogeneous (such as Japan), should
be left alone. In fact, they should be encouraged to maintain their
homogeneous nature.
In multicultural nations, it's a more difficult situation because so much
damage has already been done. In such nations (eg. United States, UK),
public policy should be altered to encourage racial/ethnic separatism while
at the same time encouraging respect between the different "tribes" (ie.
ethnic groups) so as to avoid intergroup conflicts. Further, in the United
States, we can start by deporting all illegal aliens and their anchor babies
and stop all immigration. We should drop absurd slogans like "celebrate
diversity" and replace with something like, "separate and respectful".
Humanity must wake up to the above outlined tribal reality and work within
its constraints. Multiculturalism only leads to tension and violent
conflict within a nation.
###
For SERIOUS conservative writing visit my blog:
http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com
jos boersema
On 2009-11-01, James Miller <james...@spaminator.com> wrote:
[...]
> LIBERALS WHO PUSH MULTICULTURALISM USUALLY MEAN WELL, BUT THEY ARE NAIVE
> Liberals have a utopian vision of a future world in which people will look
> past racial/ethnic/religious differences, ie. everyone will "get along", war
> won't occur, peace will prevail, etc. This sounds nice but it's naive. In
> their quest to build this imagined utopian multicultural world, liberal
> elites are actually doing the EXACT opposite - they are laying the seeds for
> war and conflict within the nations they've targeted for multiculturalism.
Maybe that is a naieve understanding: maybe the powers that be foment
'multi culturalism' because they want to make the whole world uniform
so they can subjugate it easier, secondly maybe they want multi
culturalism because they want to stamp out all diversity in the world
so that people will simply not be in the presence of cultures that do
something different so that the people will be forever locked under
their ignorant and opressive governance systems and ideologies (taken
to be the Only True Way That Exists Anywhere In The Universe.)
And another even more mundane and therefore more likely suspect:
by promoting 'multi culturalism' they whitewash bringing in cheap
labor from other nations to staff their exploitation operations.
The liberals (who would be called 'socialists' in Europe, curiously),
they are indeed naieve, you also see that same type here in Europe.
People are not the same but even if they where, people should still
rule themselves in relatively small/average sized nations with total
and complete sovereignty. Otherwise it is unmanageable, and secondly
it has no meaningful democracy. Especially the americans will need
to re-learn people's sovereignty because they have lived in "the
empire" for so long, they are used to "the government" being an
ivory tower.
--
Bringing power to street level, segregate the world in free nations:
http://www.socialism.nl/~joshb/sheet1.txt
http://www.socialism.nl/~joshb/sheet2.txt
http://www.socialism.nl/~joshb/sheet3.txt
jeffry gagnon
Who/What is responsible for "racism"?
"Don Imus Gets Oprahcized"
By Bernard Chapin
Apr 17, 2007
In Chicago, one must pity the atheists. Imagine how difficult it is
to argue that Heaven and Hell are a fairy tale when one of the Devil's
chief operatives makes daily broadcasts from a fashionable address in
the West Loop. Of course, the operative I refer to is none other than
the phenomenally successful multi-billionaire, and supposedly oppressed
person, Oprah Winfrey.
Today, the talk show host applied her fantastically ignorant mind to
the question of Don Imus. The episode was called, "Oprah's Town Hall:
Now What?" The "now what" must be truly perplexing because she has
dedicated tomorrow's show to the subject as well. Her angle is not
difficult to discern as it provides her with yet another fabricated
opportunity to cast shame upon men and Caucasians in general.
As most readers already know, Don Imus is a person and not merely a
question. The sixtyish shock jock recently got fired by both CBS and
MSNBC for calling the Rutgers female basketball players, "nappy-headed
hos." To the normal person, his statement was strange and
inexplicable.
When the actual telecast is viewed its context becomes clearer.
Imus attempted to make light of the toughness of the player's physical
appearance. He thought they looked like a bunch of tattoo scarred
thugs. Imus (unwisely) compared them to gangstas in the language of
the street. Everyone then assumed that his intent was racist, but
that's far from certain - even though perpetual PC dupes like ESPN have
no doubts.
"Nappy headed ho" by itself, while admittedly dumb and in poor taste,
does not only refer to black women because many white youths of both
sexes Africanize their hair. Making one's straight hair kinky appears
to be in style at the moment. As far as humor goes, his attempt
missed the mark by many miles, but I see no hatred in his words.
If anything, what he said seemed to be more of a class comment as the
Tennessee team to which he compared the Rutgers girls is unquestionably
racially integrated. Their team picture depicts seven black players
and four white players who share a feminine appearance and are devoid of
brands or tattoos. This could have been easily clarified by Imus but
he was too busy apologizing and making-out with the feet of race
shysters to find the time to do so.
Reaction to his faux pas was not immediate. Just as with all
politically correct crusades, momentum built slowly before reaching a
level of hysteria. The story only reached Shandra Levy proportions
after the usual band of jackasses was recruited to harass Imus's
employers and assault the American psyche. With Jesse Jackson, Al
Sharpton, Oprah Winfrey, and the mainstream media, any life or career
can become forfeit in just a few hours time.
This was all unfortunately brought to my attention today as I sat in
the doctor's office at 9 am. His TV was set to "The Oprah Winfrey
Show" and the program was stocked with all manner of luminaries from
various parts of the left side of the political spectrum.
One of the most offensive was a psychologist named Robin Smith who
talked about Imus embodying the sickening racism and systematic
oppression that is so rife in other parts of the world but suspiciously
absent from the United States. Well, actually, that wasn't her
position.
Her version of reality, issued as she sat upon a perch of privilege,
focused only on America and purposely avoided any mention of the greater
world.
Oprah placed on her website the supposed theme of the show. She
asked viewers as to whether or not there is "a double standard in this
country?" I'm glad she did because there are a myriad of double
standards in this country. The most obvious one on display here is
that only a white American can get fired for making what someone
somewhere construes to be a racial comment about somebody else.
Nothing like that ever happens to blacks or Hispanics because they are
the chosen mascots of political correctness.
A case in point comes from only a few traffic lights away from where
I now type, in the person of Ozzie Guillen. He still manages the
White Sox despite his calling a sports columnist a "fag." Pariah
status is reserved for white males offenders alone in our
anti-intellectual PC society.
Another double standard is that most words of hatred are only words
of hatred when they are spoken by Caucasians. A shock jock of a
different color could have gotten away with what Imus said and there
would have been no drama at all. Had his ancestors hailed from Kenya
or Mozambique, Imus could have even said the N-word. White people
have numerous words with which they're not allowed to say and many of
them we don't even know about until after we say them [recall the
infamous "niggardly" incident].
Every day it seems as if there are more and more words that result in
our being condemned by some kind of ism. For the last twenty years, I
always thought that the "N-word" was the only one truly off limits.
Last month, I discovered that faggot has also been added to the list,
while today Oprah informed her audience that "bitch" and "ho" are words
of devastation as well.
Here we see yet another reason why PC is so pernicious. In the
case of all these words, arbitrary distinctions have been made in an
attempt to control our actions and dominate our speech. In my
opinion, there should be no words whose utterance automatically equates
with an individual having some sort of psychological condition -
particularly not ones as mundane and overused as "bitch" and "ho"
[rather delicious it is that "ho" stands for "whore" but is now referred
to as the h-word].
Here, yet again, is another double standard because there are all
sorts of words which men are not allowed to call women (such as the
c-word, the h-word, and the b-word), but there are _none_ for which
women are not allowed to call men. A woman can say anything she wants
to about a man and get away with it.
The reason for this is that women are yet another privileged class in
America today. Our society is loath to hold them responsible for
anything that they might say or do. They are the most comical of PC
mascots as their heartiness and extended lifespan make a mockery out of
their supposed sensitivity and vulnerability.
Here we come to another double standard within a double standard - as
there's absolutely no equality in Oprah's treatment of women on her
show. They allegedly are the superiors of men yet their beings can be
torn asunder after being called a few banal, uncreative names. Its
absurd to pretend that women are more loving, empathic, efficient,
complete, wise, and intelligent than men when so many believe they
should go ballistic after hearing a colorful word or two. No
superhero in history ever shattered like porcelain after being called a
name.
As a society, all of our citizens must learn to deal with criticism
or being insulted without having to conduct witch hunts, town hall
meetings, and therapy sessions. Instead, defending oneself or
refusing to associate with those who demean you is the best practice.
And it's a good habit to get into even if you don't happen to be a
member of a PC mascot class.
Let's consider for a moment what would happen if your narrator was
placed in the position of those Rutgers girls and a guy like Tavis
Smiley called me a "bald-headed cracker" on his program. Obviously,
no one would be too bothered by this - although there really isn't much
of a parallel here as Imus used no terms of racial derision - but my way
of dealing with it would be first to grant out that I was bald-headed,
and then to inquire if the person had any idea where the next
International Brotherhood of the Crackerazzi Convention was going to be
held. Please note that I suspiciously left out of my response: "I'm
going to call you an ism."
Whenever I argue something like this in print someone usually claims
that it isn't an accurate comparison because "white people are bothered
by stuff like that," but the fact is that nobody is really bothered by
much of anything unless society tells them that they should be. Being
called a name is not a "nuclear weapon" of interpersonal interaction and
it doesn't "dehumanize" anyone. It's just a name, and, unless one has
a criminally inflated sense of self-esteem, it doesn't mean much.
America's true sickness isn't racism; it's the evil therapism society
tries to interpose upon our relations with others. If self-righteous
social engineers just stayed out of our way and left us alone we'd
probably all get along.
The major mission of political correctness is to subjugate our
thoughts, feelings, and souls within a dungeon of sterility - wherein
the definition of being human is morphed into "never saying anything
wrong or offensive about anyone." Human beings simply aren't like
that. We frequently get mad or angry and say things we don't really
mean. That's what happens when blood rather than oil courses through our
capillaries.
Every time somebody says something that we don't like it doesn't
equate with their being abnormal and some kind of "ism." I wish the
American population would save their resentment for the self-glorifying
buffoons demanding our eternal repentance rather than pouring it on a
self-glorifying buffoon trying to entertain us.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago. He is the author of
"Escape from Gangsta Island", and is currently at work on a book
concerning women. He can be contacted at veritase...@gmail.com.