Discussion:
I'm A Humanitarian Which Is Why I Believe In Racial Separation
(too old to reply)
James Miller
2010-08-31 18:57:08 UTC
Permalink
I Am A Humanitarian Which Is Why I FIRMLY Believe In Racial Separation

By James Miller, PhD

Multiculturalism within a nation leads to internal tension and eventual
violent conflict... 6,000 years of human warfare proves this (ie. 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 drafted 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 belong in Mexico. Nigerians belong
in Nigeria. And so on. Global humanity works best when the world is divided
into nation-states where each nation-state has racial/ethnic homogeneity.
Nations can trade (ie. fair trade, not so-called "free" trade), have
diplomatic relations, compete in the Olympics, etc. And, of course, there
should be tolerance between nations. But when we start mixing VERY different
peoples in the same nation, what happens? Trouble brews and internal violent
conflict results - this is not a humane way to organize the world's peoples.
Global humanity has enough trouble maintaining peace between nations... we
don't need to make matters worse by promoting multiracial nations which
ALWAYS gravitate towards internal conflict. 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 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.

###

--
For SERIOUS conservative writing visit my blog:
http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com
Abdul Zhitzak
2010-08-31 19:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Miller
I Am A Humanitarian Which Is Why I FIRMLY Believe In Racial Separation
By James Miller, PhD
Multiculturalism within a nation leads to internal tension and eventual
violent conflict... 6,000 years of human warfare proves this (ie. 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 drafted 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 belong in Mexico. Nigerians belong
in Nigeria. And so on. Global humanity works best when the world is divided
into nation-states where each nation-state has racial/ethnic homogeneity.
Nations can trade (ie. fair trade, not so-called "free" trade), have
diplomatic relations, compete in the Olympics, etc. And, of course, there
should be tolerance between nations. But when we start mixing VERY different
peoples in the same nation, what happens? Trouble brews and internal violent
conflict results - this is not a humane way to organize the world's peoples.
Global humanity has enough trouble maintaining peace between nations... we
don't need to make matters worse by promoting multiracial nations which
ALWAYS gravitate towards internal conflict. 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 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.
###
--
For SERIOUS conservative writing visit my blog:http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com
what you have said is sad.....but not as sas as this...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1307590/Gail-Porter-recreates-infamous-naked-FHM-pose-mark-40th-birthday.html
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
2010-08-31 20:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abdul Zhitzak
Post by James Miller
I Am A Humanitarian Which Is Why I FIRMLY Believe In Racial Separation
By James Miller, PhD
Multiculturalism within a nation leads to internal tension and eventual
violent conflict... 6,000 years of human warfare proves this (ie. 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 drafted 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 belong in Mexico. Nigerians belong
in Nigeria. And so on. Global humanity works best when the world is divided
into nation-states where each nation-state has racial/ethnic homogeneity.
Nations can trade (ie. fair trade, not so-called "free" trade), have
diplomatic relations, compete in the Olympics, etc. And, of course, there
should be tolerance between nations. But when we start mixing VERY different
peoples in the same nation, what happens? Trouble brews and internal violent
conflict results - this is not a humane way to organize the world's peoples.
Global humanity has enough trouble maintaining peace between nations... we
don't need to make matters worse by promoting multiracial nations which
ALWAYS gravitate towards internal conflict. 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 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.
###
--
For SERIOUS conservative writing visit my blog:http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com
what you have said is sad.....but not as sas as this...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1307590/Gail-Porter-recreates-infamous-naked-FHM-pose-mark-40th-birthday.html
She's still good looking.
Unless you're a gay or a pedo...
--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Abdul Zhitzak
2010-09-01 05:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Post by Abdul Zhitzak
Post by James Miller
I Am A Humanitarian Which Is Why I FIRMLY Believe In Racial Separation
By James Miller, PhD
Multiculturalism within a nation leads to internal tension and eventual
violent conflict... 6,000 years of human warfare proves this (ie. 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 drafted 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 belong in Mexico. Nigerians belong
in Nigeria. And so on. Global humanity works best when the world is divided
into nation-states where each nation-state has racial/ethnic homogeneity.
Nations can trade (ie. fair trade, not so-called "free" trade), have
diplomatic relations, compete in the Olympics, etc. And, of course, there
should be tolerance between nations. But when we start mixing VERY different
peoples in the same nation, what happens? Trouble brews and internal violent
conflict results - this is not a humane way to organize the world's peoples.
Global humanity has enough trouble maintaining peace between nations... we
don't need to make matters worse by promoting multiracial nations which
ALWAYS gravitate towards internal conflict. 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 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.
###
--
For SERIOUS conservative writing visit my blog:http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com
what you have said is sad.....but not as sas as this...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1307590/Gail-Porter-recr...
She's still good looking.
Unless you're a gay or a pedo...
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show
or incredibly desperate....
William Black
2010-08-31 20:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Miller
I don't have anything against Mexicans.... in Mexico.
Or possibly Spain, where they came from...
--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
2010-08-31 20:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Miller
I don't have anything against Mexicans.... in Mexico.
Or possibly Spain, where they came from...
Or California and Texas, where they also came from.
--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
l***@yahoo.com
2010-09-01 18:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Miller
I don't have anything against Mexicans.... in Mexico.
Or possibly Spain,  where they came from...
Mexicans are actually a blend of the natives and the Spanish
who invaded in the 1500s. You can clearly see it in a lot
of them.
walt tonne
2010-09-02 19:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Spain! The mestizos invading America are of 85% central American
indian DNA. The balance is split
between negro and White. Worthless scouring of the of their equally
fouled homelands.
Sunny Malone
2010-09-13 07:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by walt tonne
Spain! The mestizos invading America are of 85% central American
indian DNA. The balance is split
between negro and White. Worthless scouring of the of their equally
fouled homelands.
IOW you're admitting they're native to the Americas. Tell me, are
you're genes 85% Native to this continent?

Andy
2010-09-01 10:28:54 UTC
Permalink
I can't think of any state anywhere in the world which is not multi-
ethnic, because it is logistically impossible to divide up land on
ethnic grounds. The Irish are genetically pretty much all the same,
and the trouble there's been totally dwarfs all other ethnic tension
in the UK. The closer genetically related tribes tend to have the
bloodiest conflicts ... Hutus/Tusis, Serbs/Croats etc etc NW Europe
being the biggest example - WW1 / WW2...
Loading...