Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Diversity Causes Conflict

  1. #1
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 22nd, 2009 @ 12:19 AM
    Ethnicity
    Nordic
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Greater Manchester
    Gender
    Politics
    National socialism
    Religion
    Nature's Eternal Religion
    Posts
    35
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Diversity Causes Conflict

    DIVERSITY CAUSES CONFLICT

    The existence of “race” has been questioned, - yet the existence of ETHNIC DIVERSITY is undisputed.

    "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,"
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0125073157.htm

    Africa has always been a war-ravaged continent. Can there ever be peace in Africa?

    Study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c4ac4a74-570...0779e2340.html
    “His [Harvard Professor Robert Putnam’s] research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.”

    So perhaps the question should be: Can there ever be peace anywhere ever again, thanks to immigration? And: how long until we have the same violence and corruption over the whole world?

    Discrimination and Ethnic Nepotism
    http://conservationfinance.wordpress...hnic-nepotism/
    “We all discriminate all the time.”
    “An abundance of research has shown that people tend to give preferential treatment to others who are genetically similar to themselves, whether they’re actual blood relatives or simply share an ethnic background.”

    How well we treat others depends upon how much such behavior benefits copies of our genes .
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
    “Kin selection theory predicts that animals are more likely to behave altruistically towards their relatives than towards unrelated members of their species.”
    Science agrees: “The importance of kinship for the evolution of altruism is very widely accepted today, on both theoretical and empirical grounds.”

    We should not fight nature or try to change nature. The more homogeneous a society is the more peaceful it is. History proves this time and time again, yet this is a modern heresy.

    The consequences of not facing these facts can only be catastrophic.

    ————————————————————————————————

    The purpose of the above was to summarise, as efficiently as possible, the basics of the argument for ethnic segregation. It is essential that people understand this idea and I would like you all to consider spreading this message as far and wide as possible. Everything worth saving depends upon the idea being accepted and understood.
    Last edited by Leofric; Tuesday, March 6th, 2007 at 08:43 PM. Reason: merging two posts

  2. #2
    A.K.A. Autobahn
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    frippardthree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Thursday, April 12th, 2012 @ 09:59 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Germany, Gaul, England, Austria, Canada
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Ohio Ohio
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    1,662
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    20
    Thanked in
    20 Posts
    Enoch Powell's famous speech is obviously still relevant today.

    Transcript of Rivers of Blood Speech

    Enoch Powell's famous speech to the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre, Birmingham, England, April 20, 1968.

    The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: At each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

    Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: 'if only', they love to think, 'if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen'. Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical. At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it, deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

    A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalized industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: 'If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country.' I made some deprecatory reply, to the effect that even this Government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: 'I have three children, all of them have been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them settled overseas. In this country in fifteen or twenty years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.'

    I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation? The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that this country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.
    Full Transcript:
    http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/rivers_blood2.html


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, September 26th, 2009, 07:00 PM
  2. The Anatomy of Ethnic Conflict: Finally, a Scientific Look at “Diversity”
    By Oskorei in forum Psychology, Behavior, & Neuroscience
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Thursday, June 7th, 2007, 11:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •