I believe that if races/cultures had been left alone (not being merged by means of warfare or economic invasion), they would be organically unified by now… the evil is in the details.
fear, insecurity, impoverishment of nations… is the real cause of racism/xenophobia. Multiculuralism is an agenda onto itself
There are two kinds of racial and cultural exchanges. Those that are enforced and those that happen naturally on an organic front where people do so willingly by themselves without any outside interference.
Under today’s multiracial and multicultural exchanges it is all government enforced. This kind of exchange only breeds more intolerance, hatred, and discord.
Let us assume that out of competing nations, cultures, races, and so on that global imperialism or colonization was inevitable due to technological innovation and exploration.
It could of easily been the Chinese or Mongolians in earlier history that set the global precedence of imperialism and colonization. We could of been lamenting the horrors of Mongolian African slave trading or the Chinese colonization of North America. Instead however it was western civilization that accomplished all those things first before other civilizations had the chance to do so and because western civilization achieved those ends first a type of mentality of guilt has been attached to western civilization culturally.
Now the descendants of western civilization who had no hand in those ancient activities are decreed to still be responsible for them and to carry on this guilt complex while also being told they have no right to individual autonomy.
According to Nigel Farage “the French voice … in Europe is little more … than a pipsqueak”.
Back in the old days of nations there was thing known as freedom of assembly. You could gather in public with whoever you wanted to. You could gather with like minded individuals in creating your own communities and likewise state who you didn’t want infringing in your communities by majority consensus.
With government enforced integration initiatives concerning imposed immigration this need not any longer be implied as modern governments have completely done away with this notion of freedom of assembly altogether.
The modern sense is that you’re not free to assemble where everybody obeys to the centralized micro management of government.
Under modern government you have no claim whatsoever in having your own communities where communities are under the direct control and domination of the state.
[b]The Curious Case Of The World’s First Major Public Transblack White Woman: When Political Correctness Goes Amuck And Becomes Self Loathing.
Presenting Rachel Dolezal,[/b]
…still all a case of divide and conquer.
Explain.
Groups and society using racism and multiculturalism for their own needs and gains in whatever way they can to gain from a given situation.
that is what I meant.
Now you’re intriguing me, can you give me an everyday example of what you’re articulating?
Great to see another awakened mind.
Just different social groups using media stories etc. for their own cause at the expense of others… they make it all about them and the rest be damned.
She’s an embarrassment to her own people. Who thought it a good idea to let her talk with authority on the matter of what does and doesn’t make a hate crime.
Agreed. 
Racism is merely a cultural and racial mental platitude concerning identity where the word itself is nothing more than a negative connotation tied to established propaganda.
You have a group of utopian one worlders that are all accepting and encompassing towards everybody that wants to destroy traditional cultural mindsets not realizing the negative influence as a whole on diversification overtime left unbalanced. On the other opposing side you have cultural and racial traditionalists where culture or race are seen as real existential aspects to their everyday living.
This whole dichotomy of course is a consequence of globalism where globalists that form the current established power around the world want to see the more traditional and cultural isolationists annihilated completely hence why there is this prevailing theme of egalitarianism versus racism. Unfortunately very few can see through this interesting completely deceptive propaganda dynamic at work here.
What’s interesting is that both traditionalists and egalitarians see both of their opposing moral ideologies as being objective even in conflict with one another. Traditionalists see their racial and cultural outlook in terms of identity as being objective where anything contrary to it is deemed an immoral dilution or aberration.
Egalitarians view their all encompassing acceptance of everybody and permissive tolerance towards all as being objective where anything that implies exclusion is deemed immoral.
There is a level of problems for both ideologies going into the future that nobody seems to like talking about which I’ll briefly mention here. For the egalitarians where multiculturalism and multiracialism is paramount to reality preaching diversity is strength we see examples where previous cultural or racial majorities are fast on track becoming minorities on the plateau of extinction level events. If extinction level events transpire where whole entire cultural or racial identities become eradicated egalitarians are going to have a hard time explaining how an ideology of tolerance and diversity lead to it. With their aspirations inevitable cultural, racial, ethnic, and religious conflict is guaranteed where it is puzzling how an ideology that aspires to creating a conflict free environment creates environments rife with it.
For traditionalists the problem with their ideology in a globalist world is that in order to rejuvenate the kind of traditional society they aspire towards whole scale genocide, violence, or ethnic slaughter is needed to enact it as their preferred reality disappears altogether. The last seven to eight decades has been acting vastly against them. Violent forms of enacted segregation would be the only countermeasure.
Feminism and low birth rates in terms of fertility certainly isn’t helping either where unaddressed would make any aspirations on their part virtually impossible. I find it interesting that traditionalists never approach that subject in any grave seriousness concerning dialogue.
As for me I am a neutral observer as a nihilist where I could care less either way.
