My Racial Philosophy

I could try writing it myself but I freely admit writing is not my strong point. I found this a few years ago and thought it summed up my philosophy pretty well so I’ll post this here with thanks to the author James L Miller PHD.

‘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 proves this (i.e., roughly 80% of all wars throughout history are rooted in racial/ethnic/religious conflict). All races and ethnicities are “tribal” & separatist in nature – these innate characteristics of human nature must be accepted and public policy should be crafted with such characteristics in mind. Hence, racial/ethnic homogeneity should be encouraged by policy makers. Pursuing racial/ethnic homogeneity is the most humane way to organize the world’s 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 16% 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 2045. And by 2080, 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.

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, which is 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 the debate are generally trying to confuse the listener. 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, most countries have a immigration policy. However, such policies are typically 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 multiculturalising of the Western World began after World War II. Each White Western nation adopted 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 100 – 125 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 a nation by flooding it with immigrants.

A corollary to my Ethnic Nationalism worldview 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 one who is on 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. 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 (again, as history illustrates). Hence, humanitarians (like myself) who are realistic about human nature believe FIRMLY in racial/ethnic separatism. On the other hand, those pushing for multiculturalism are actually anti-humanitarian since they are 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’

9 thoughts on “My Racial Philosophy

  1. Rob Murphy

    I’m really glad to read something like this.
    Far too many times I have tried to become part of local groups that want to stand up, but all I hear is calls for violence & deaths. I’m not to shirk from a fight, but needless violence I’m against.
    If you are being truthful & honest I will stand beside you.

    Rob from Down Under.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Enzo

      Solve the jewish question and everything will be all right!
      +Indeed, many non-jewish people honestly like to learn how to live the American(White) way of life.
      +You allow your truly enemy to control all your country when you have the total power to do that, with self-determination. ((((They)))) truly hate you to death as well as they hate all non-jewish people.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Enzo

      “The music spoke to me. These composers (Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven and Wagner) were my people and the feelings that their music aroused in me had absolutely nothing to do with pacifism. Ludwig Van’s glorious Ninth stood head and shoulders above the rest. His music inspired in me visions of all that we in Western Europe could become. It supplied the relentless driving beat and thematic development that bespoke the energy, conflict and sacrifice that would be required to get there.
      I did not hear the slightest hint in his work that the trip would be peaceful. After all, fail to survive and reproduce and you are out of the game – forever.
      Similarly, in the popular press, in books, and even in personal conversations, the inner party at that time relentlessly asked the same question, namely – “how could a country which had produced Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms have also produced the third Reich?”
      I could never, at that time, be so rude as to pipe up with the obvious answer. After all, it was quite clear to me that the “Brahms-not-bombs” crowd and the inner party did not have the slightest idea what they were really listening to. They obviously heard something very different from what I heard when listening to the same performances.”

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Pingback: My Racial Philosophy – Trump's Troops

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.