Imported non-European minorities are disloyal nation wreckers! True or false?

To claim that the above statement is a falsehood would require that minorities assimilated fully and were supportive of views and principles propagated by the European majority. So what is cultural and political assimilation? Full assimilation would mean that the imported minorities were supportive of the above including the support to the same political parties as the one(s) favoured by the Europeans. In other words; they would vote on the same parties the majority voted on and that they would have the same loyalty to the values and principles that the majority had.

So is this the case with Muslims, Jews, Hindus and non-European Christians? For them to be looked upon as equals (as a part of the Europeans extended family), it would be required that they supported the same values and principles that the majority represented. This is simply not possible if the primary motivations for emigrating are economical. Why would they give up their religion/ideology or culture if they are not expected to? A Pashtun didn’t come because he was interested in being separated from his extended Pashtun family (his ethnic group). He came because there was a high probability that he would be able to acquire funds easily, funds which then would be channeled back to his REAL family, the Pashtuns.

The relevancy of your ethnic group will always be important as we view our ethnic group as our extended family. This goes for all ethnic groups whether they are European, Pashtun, Arab, Rom, Berber-Arab, Somali, Indian, Japanese or South Korean. The Marxist claims that ethnicity is irrelevant or should be made irrelevant goes against human nature and natural laws. It is nothing more than a utopian dream which will never be achieved. Trying to forcefully achieve this objective by mass importing different non-European cultures will achieve nothing more than creating a new dysfunctional Afghanistan with eternal war.

The only three exception I am aware of, where ethnic group is only superseded by another factor (religion) are the so called Bosniaks (which are Muslim Serbs), Pakistanis (which are Muslim Indians) and Turks (which are primarily Muslim Greeks and Armenians).

So back to the question: how can we expect many minorities to be loyal to OUR extended family when they are still loyal to THEIR OWN. Firstly, why on earth would we want to go down that path, secondly; assimilation requires 100% loyalty. You cannot call yourself assimilated if you are culturally, politically and ethnically loyal to another group/culture/ideology then that of your hosts. And this is where multiculturalism fails miserably, as the ideology propagates a non-demand policy. The predominant doctrine seems to be: “do what you want, we won’t demand anything and we don’t care if you’re disloyal as long as you pay your tax and don’t commit any crimes. Please go ahead; invest in your “other” fatherland and feel free to channel funds back to your “other” extended family”. This principle of “tolerance” is really nothing more than a suicidal or genocidal policy.

European polls

F example, in Norway (probably somewhat representative for a majority of European countries); 37% of the indigenous Norwegians vote for a conservative party which opposes multiculturalism, while 63% of the indigenous Norwegians vote for liberal or socialist parties which supports the anti-European hate ideology; multiculturalism. 95% of Muslims, 70% of Hindus, 85% of Jews and 90% of non-European Christians vote for political parties who support multiculturalism. Only less than 5% of Muslims, 30% of Hindus, 15% of Jews and 10% of non-European Christians vote for political parties who oppose multiculturalism.

So why would anyone expect us to view the bulk of these minorities as equals with a right for citizenship when we consider them disloyal and unwilling to fully assimilate?

US polls

I’ve seen a US poll describing something similar; aprox. 40% of European Americans voted for the Democrats while 60% voted for the Republicans. 75% of the Jewish Americans voted for the Democrats while 25% voted for the Republicans. 95% of the African Americans voted for Obama while 5% voted for the Republicans. 75% of the Latinos voted for the Democrats while 25% voted for the Republicans.

So why would anyone expect us to view the bulk of these minorities as equals with a right for citizenship when we consider them disloyal and unwilling to fully assimilate?

These polls raises several important questions;

· Will these minorities be seen as Trojans, or nation wreckers by the conservatives in any given European country with similar statistics?

· Will these minorities or the “disloyal” part of these minorities eventually be blamed for the great European civil war, if so - which of them, and how would it affect each different minority group?

· Will these minorities or the “disloyal” part of these minorities be deported or forcefully relocated during or after the current civil war? If, for some reason, it proves to be impossible to deport/relocate them, will they be annihilated, WW2 style?

· Should the conservative Europeans invite the conservative (loyal) portions of the minorities to join them?

· Is it realistic that they will join, if they are invited?

· Are we or will be we able to see the difference between a loyal (conservative) member of the minority community and a disloyal one (liberal/Marxist)?

As I’ve said so many times before; I believe the outcome will be very different in the US and Europe. After all, the composition of minorities greatly differs. There are 30 million Muslims in Western Europe while only 12 in the US, there are 6 million Jews in the US while only 1 in Western Europe. The Republicans supports multiculturalism in the US so conservative European Americans doesn’t have any form of political representation at the moment. The lack of political representation is likely to cause a more explosive and devastating result, as countries with a clear political alternative are more likely to avoid utter destruction and may be able to orchestrate a successful military coup. The reason for this is because the military trusts known entities but doesn’t (at least historically) trust what is alternatively labeled as “right wing extremist groups”.

One thing is for certain; a majority of European conservatives witness what they see as the “disloyalty” of the greater parts of many minority groups and it would be naïve to assume that this is a factor which will not have long term consequences. Unfortunately, the problem is continuously escalating as we continue to see an increased inflow of disloyal components which will only add to the current explosive mix. This trend of mass import will continue steadily until the economy collapses and phase 2/3 of the civil war is initiated.

As for the conclusive answer to the initial question; I believe we should include as many of the loyalists as possible. However, there may be a mentality shift, based a number of factors which may result in a different end game. If the US/EU Multiculturalist Alliance refuses to capitulate to us, the conservative forces, by 2020 and instead clings to power, it is likely that the Great European Civil War will make WW2 look like a picnic, effectively sending us all back to the stone age. So let us hope that they capitulate to our forces in time.

3.104 Pro-African nationalism: deportation and/or segregation is the most anti-racist approach (UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND NOT EDITED, feel free to complete this essay)

While deportation and/or segregation might appear as the most discriminating option at first glance, it’s actually quite the opposite. One of the reasons why all African countries are failed states is due to lack of nationalistic principles with subsequent lack of pride in their people and nation. The dream about Europe, hanging like a carrot in front of a mule, eliminates any hope to create and develop a sustainable African nation. Africans who successfully emigrate from Africa are regarded as heroes by the majority of Africans in the community they left behind...

The solution is to simply remove the destructive carrot altogether. African pride cannot be established until the day we clearly tell them that Europe is off limits and all aid will seize immediately. As for how to handle the so called African asylum seekers;

An illustration on how a majority of asylum seekers should be handled in the future.

Where the opposing forces control territory - A Somali illustration;

F example a Somali family consisting of; father age 35, son age 16, daughter age 10, pregnant mother age 30 fleeing from al-Shabaab in Somalia. The family paid human traffickers to be smuggled to Europe and are now at an asylum camp in England. The family should be automatically deported (forcefully if necessary) to a territory under Ethiopian control (Ethiopian forces now controls and leads the anti-al-Shabaab military campaign), where they will be able to serve the anti-al-Shabaab forces. The males in the family, above the age of 15, should immediately report for duty, receive training and contribute militarily to the destruction of al-Shabaab and its Islamist allies. The women of the family must do their duty and produce soldiers for the campaign, until the day they are victorious and manage to seize military control of Somalia.

Ethiopian forces now control many refugee camps where they use people like these as auxiliary forces in their campaign. The only thing required for this to happen is that the European country in question comes to an agreement with the Ethiopian or Somali anti-al-Shabaab leadership. If the leadership attempts to complicate the process intentionally for the purpose of blackmailing for funds etc, this must be countered by simply dropping off containers full of these Somali refugees in safe zones, without permission. Alternatively, a small fraction on land close to the allied camp must be secured militarily in order to establish a drop-off transit area.

Where the opposing forces lack territory - An Iranian/Vietnamese illustration;

In countries where the “opposing forces” do not actually control territory of any size a different approach must be chosen. F example Iranians that somehow manage to enter Europe must be relocated to a Muslim country close to the conflict area. This principle should have been followed after the Vietnam War as well. Anti-communist Vietnamese should have been relocated to Taiwan, a country established by the anti-communist Chinese after WW2. There is absolutely no good reason why an Iranian or a Vietnamese should be encouraged or facilitated to travel across the world for relocation in a European country. However, in order to ensure a smooth transition it would be required, by the future cultural conservative regimes of Western Europe, to establish deportation/relocation agreements with a multitude of regimes around the world. There are more than 80 conflicts around the world today that should concern us in this regard.

Europe should never encourage or facilitate the African (or Asian) cowards and traitors whom attempt to abandon their people and their own struggle and conflict. Rewarding cowardice will only establish a destructive precedence which will result in a cultivation of the coward’s mentality. This short sighted bleeding heart policy is one of several important causes for both Africa’s and Europe’s problems.

As the third world resident learns that there is no hope of immigrating to Europe he will begin to look inwards and start to contribute to solve the issues in his own country. As soon as we, the cultural conservatives, seize military and political control of Western Europe in the coming decades, we will begin to implement these principles and help Europe and Africa by enforcing a policy based on pragmatism and logic. As such; we will immediately halt current bleeding heart policies which directly cause many of the problems we see in Africa and other third world countries today.

Segregation in combination with a complete halt in aid and facilitating the African governments to implement nationalistic doctrines are in fact the best African strategy. Policies like these are in fact the most anti-racist approach of all as it clearly defines the new responsibilities and limitations. Because with responsibilities and limitations, comes opportunity. Nevertheless, people who are very short sighted will consider these policies quite cynical or darwinistic. However, long term, it is the most humanistic and responsible approach.

In contrast to today’s policies; the current African policies represent processes of “clientification”. Africans and African nations are treated with the utmost contempt, very similar to how drug addicts on the streets of Western Europe are treated today. The current African policies are very racist and contribute to hold Africa and Africans back by taking what little pride they have left away from them.

Дата добавления: 2015-07-17