Diversity at University – Good Idea?

What was the original purpose of a country in creating Universities? To answer this question with a simplistic reasoned approach, we predicate the following consecution on the self-evident fact that most countries seem to be established by a homogenous people or ethnic group inhabiting and controlling a given territory of land. The next antecedent here we take for granted is that civilizations usually cultivate scientific research and further study in various faculties of learning. So, it follows that this people establish institutions of higher learning to foster scientific inquiry but most importantly, to pass on wisdom from one generation to the next so its pupils emerge with important skills.  The individual walks away from University having wisdom and skills so that they may competently execute a function which contributes to and benefits society as a whole. And in return for fulfilling this role, society duly compensates this person so that he may eat, own a home, have a family, enjoy life and survive. In this model, there is a symbiotic relationship between the individual and the community.

Well what happens when a given country’s higher institutions begin admitting students from far-off lands, students of a different ethos and nation instead of admitting the country’s natural inhabitants? The most obvious consequence would be that fewer natural citizens belonging to the original ethnostate would be allowed to enroll in their choice of study as there would be fewer study spaces. Accordingly, more foreign students would appropriate study positions in classes that would otherwise be assumed members of the original natural inhabitants of the country.

What would this action by the universities lead to? If there were an increase in foreign immigrants and a decrease in natural citizens graduating from Universities, more foreign students and fewer indigenous citizens would receive job qualifications. Ergo, more foreign immigrants would be employed to perform functions and roles in society which were previously fulfilled by original countrymen. This would, in turn, cause an increased amount of indigenous people to be denied a role in society that they were meant to assume. It would follow that these individuals who have been crowded out must then assume infelicitous functions of society. The resultant incongruity and disharmony that would arise between the worker and the responsibilities of his unsuitable job would transform the original motivations of this individual. That is, one would go from desiring to work for both society and oneself to just being interested in working to support oneself.

To reiterate: as more and more of these natural inhabitants are crowded out of workplaces by foreign workers, more and more of these indigenous people would work out of self-interest and for sheer survival. Consequently, given that fewer people belonging to the original ethnic group are working to enhance and elevate society, the overall standing of the indigenous citizens would collectively begin to decline. Thereupon, living conditions for everyone within this now mixed country would decline as it becomes more ethnically diverse.

One might ask: since the functions in society that were once held by indigenous inhabitants are still being performed by foreigners, why should the quality of life in this now mixed country decline? Well, we have to consider the nature of an immigrant. In general, immigrants from far-away countries with a different ethos seek to live in western nations because they are seeking a better life for themselves. This one very obvious and commonly accepted fact about immigrants intimates an important revelation. The fact that an individual believes there are better living conditions in another country than in his own country and the fact that he is willing to go to great lengths to emigrate from his homeland demonstrates that his nation, his people, the ethnic group from which he originates, is incapable of producing a civilization whose living conditions are equivalent to or exceeding those of the aforementioned country he is immigrating to. Otherwise, why would he immigrate? So, given that this is true, we can see that the potential level to which needy immigrants stand to improve and elevate society can never match nor exceed the quality of society attained collectively by the members of the original native ethnic group alone. Therefore, if the quality of society cultivated by the original inhabitants dwindles, so must dwindle the quality of society in this new ethnically mixed country.



The truth about the attitude held by conservatives and white nationalists in general towards immigration is that a small trickle of immigrants whose numbers are kept to a minimum each year in order to prevent them from making significant unwanted changes to society is tolerable. They don’t prefer this option and it’s not ideal, but right-wingers can tolerate this. If this specific immigration system existed now, the issue of immigration would be ignored and disregarded entirely. In this way, there is a small amount of room for compromise. However, this hypothetical example is not the current immigration policy for most western nations. The truth is that conservatives find fault with “mass” immigration. To be only against mass immigration means that it’s nothing personal against any individual immigrant.

There is an insistence in the party line which is overweeningly presented to us in mainstream media that people of different ethnic backgrounds from various foreign countries can learn to “assimilate in” and can become citizens who end up being no different than the natural population. This conjecture purports that as long as foreigners learn our western languages and dress like us and participate in our customs, then they’re more or less part of the family. This belief also contends that refugees can serve functions in society with the same competence and to the same effect that our original countrymen can do. That’s because this teaching asserts that the differences between ethnic groups are superficial. Of course, there are three conspicuous problems with this idea: the first being that on a practical level, foreign immigrants do not generally assimilate harmoniously. In fact, most immigrants as can be observed in major cities, continue to practice their own religions, speak their own languages among themselves, continue their own traditions and customs and continue wearing clothing customary of their heritage. Secondly, as I evinced above, the sentiment that they can fulfill functions the same way is fallacious because the belief among foreigners that western countries are more desirable than their own reveals that there is a constitutional disparity of value between their kinsmen and ours. After all, what is a country if not a group of people on a plot of land? The third problem with this notion is that differences between ethnic groups are not superficial. The ethos of people of a given race that set those people apart from people of another different race are irrevocably inherent and congenital. This brings me to my ultimate point. When the government of a western country permits an immigrant from a foreign nation to enter said country, that immigrant is not leaving his nation behind. That immigrant is bringing his nation with him. His nation is inherent in him. He, along with the rest of his ethnic kinfolk, are his nation. We must recognize this fact. When governments allow relocation of significant numbers of people from one country to another, they are literally merging two countries together to a degree.

So, the question regarding immigration that we have to ask ourselves before we proceed is this: do we admire the country from where this immigrant is from? Do we, as western citizens, want to mirror this immigrant’s country of origin? The reason for asking this question is that when we import foreign nationals, we are commensurately transforming our nation into that person’s home nation. The truth is that, in western nations today, foreign racially dissimilar peoples are encroaching on the civilization of western European peoples. As a result, western civilizations are dwindling. We must amend the perilous direction in which we travel.

The truth about us conservatives is that we may like certain aspects of other countries. Sure, we may like another country’s food. We may like aspects of their culture and traditions, but that doesn’t mean we want to become them. We don’t. As much as we, right-wingers, may like aspects of another country, we don’t want to live in that country permanently. That’s why we have our own countries. If someone seeks to settle and become a permanent citizen in an unspecified western country and if this person comes from a country that we westerners do not want our country to follow in the footsteps of, nor is it a country that we want our country to become, nor is it a country we want ours to be like, we should not allow that person entry. We should not allow refugees of any kind to enter our countries. Period.



When peoples of different race, culture, language or customs are brought together into the same geographic region and the conditions are created for intermixing, the ultimate result is naturally a blending of those ethnic groups. The identity and uniqueness of those original cultural groups becomes eroded over time with each passing generation and is progressively replaced by an overwhelming mono-culture. Analogously, if a can of black paint is mixed with a can of white paint in the same container, it forms one entirely new colour. The resulting grey paint doesn’t differ from any other colour because there is no other colour. There is only one colour left. One thing. One entity. If racial diversity is a good thing, as some of our leaders profess it to be, then why bring people of different races together in the same region when the ensuing race-mixing would only bring about less diversity, not more?


A topic of discussion that floats around sometimes is religion and the belief in a deity. I thought I would give you my personal take on it. Does god exist? I believe he does. What is the definition of god? Well, according to the American heritage dictionary, it is “a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.” I believe there is an entity that has characteristics of what we define as god. If god doesn’t exist, I think there must be a being very similar to God.

Going back thousands of years and seeing many different peoples and nations around the world worship some form of deity, one might ask: could they all be wrong or are they on to something? What I believe is that gods of all different cultures are simply attempts at defining the same phenomenon, a phenomenon we do not yet fully understand. Our limited understanding, however, doesn’t mean that that entity we are trying to define doesn’t exist. Are billions of people throughout the world and throughout history all worshiping nothing at all? Now an atheist may argue that the majority of religious people are simply blind followers of their respective faiths simply because religion is something that is culturally encouraged in their region and that perhaps only a very small percentage of religious people are believers due to well thought-out reasoning.

I think, however, for billions of people around the world for thousands of years to have some sort of deity in their culture is saying something. It’s saying that humans are observing real phenomenon in the world that leads them to rationally believe that some form of god-like entity exists. Many religions contradict other religions, but that doesn’t mean that one religion is right and another is wrong. They could all be valid. Differences in religion are commensurate with the differences in various ethnic groups from which different religions originate.

Our perception is what makes the world around us real. To other animals like flies or snakes who perceive the world differently, what’s real for them is different than real for us. Is there one correct way to perceive the world way in the way that it naturally exists? I don’t think there is. This leads to the question: what is the true nature of the world?

As an example, when light hits hits an atom, the atom absorbs all of those electromagnetic wavelengths except for those wavelengths which are reflected, some of which we can see with our eyes. What about all of the wavelengths we can’t see? What if we could see them? Would it change our understanding of the world? We don’t see those invisible wavelengths because it has not been something required of humans by the imperative of survival. Survival is the only driving force that gives us our traits. In other words, all the traits we possess, we possess in order to survive. None of them are just luxuries.

My point here with wavelengths is that it’s a microcosm of the way we perceive reality in general: that it seems like human understanding perceives only a small sliver of all true phenomenon. There’s too much we don’t understand. This would point to the existence of a greater force, a greater power.

Racism and Idealism

I have a theory: it’s possible that the white “racism” observed by non-white people is falsely rooted. I believe this “institutional racism” they perceive is in fact a misconception characterized by the failure to recognize the commonality among all peoples: struggle is a basic part of life. My assertion is that what blacks or brown people might perceive as white racism is merely a misdirected interpretation of the basic struggles of life or the “eternal struggle” as Hitler referred to it which leaves no group untainted. When times bring the black man down or when times bring down the brown man, there seems to be no shortage of people in media and education ready to indirectly convince them that white people play a crucial part in their problems. I think, in turn, many non-white people begin to attribute their novel problems to whiteness in some significant way. I say this because for most of my life, I did not think in terms of race or color, and yet during that time of my life, there was a very real animosity directed against me by non-whites.

In fact, as we go through our lives, we encounter difficult obstacles but often make the mistake of thinking that no one else is going through the same thing. The individual might be inclined to think that “nobody else could understand me,” or that “everybody else is happy, why does it seem like I’m the only one who isn’t?” Now, does it matter if someone else is dealing with the same problem that you’re going through? It does. It means that we individuals often have a common foe. What surprises me so much, despite living in the so-called “information age,” is how rarely we come together as a group to tackle common problems we individuals suffer from and how often we would rather deal with our problems on our own. As an example: many people struggle with social problems. Why haven’t people come together as a group and analyzed the social and sexual needs of all individuals within the population to create a system that serves to improve the social situation of at least most of the population, if not all its members?

This brings me to the media. By media, I mean all of its forms in our culture. The media is not just an agency with bias that serves to fulfill a political agenda, as some wiser people would believe, but in fact, it is a giant roadblock in the way of collective human progress. The media facilitates the role of a roadblock not necessarily by publishing a biased article, but instead by choosing not to say certain things, certain things that need to be said, certain things that need to be heard by the population in a given situation.

What is the best societal system and what is the best structure of power in which all people’s wants and needs are satisfied to mathematically maximum and optimum levels? To this question, I do not know the answer. From a hypothetical mathematical perspective, undoubtedly our nation leaves room for functional improvement in satisfying all areas: commerce, trade, culture, space exploration, wealth distribution, individual happiness, sexual satisfaction, individual and collective achievement and technological advancement. Looking back to history for answers such as looking at medieval times, we recognize the aristocrats, kings and nobles who ruled over the impoverished peasants in feudal authority. Surely, this feudalism can neither be the most mathematically optimum way we should collectively live. I suppose the question of an ideal nation raises another question: if we have failed to create a hypothetically and mathematically ideal society in the past, is humankind even capable of sustaining such a perfect system now? Does our failure in creating a utopia in the past mean the system in which we currently live is the best we can do?


[This passage was originally written in 2013/2014. This does not necessarily reflect my view today.]

Why is immigration wrong? Good question you ask. It is wrong because it destroys cultures and nations. If you relocate one group of people who are innately different in opinion, taste, history, culture, language and behavior to another region populated by different people, those people would naturally disagree with each other. Don’t blame natural people of the land for resenting foreigners. When you mix together two innately different cultures, you wind up with neither.

When you place a large group of people from say, China into historically European-Canadian Toronto, the culture developed by the six generations of European Canadians is wiped out. An overlooked fact is that not only do the European-Canadians lose their culture, the first generation of Chinese immigrants also grow up not being able to speak Chinese.

The fundamental principle of immigration is wrong. Russia and Mongolia share a border. If twenty million Russians crossed the border illegally into Mongolia and made settlement there, would it be racist of the Mongolians to try to enforce their border laws and remove the aliens? No. Of course not.

At it’s core, immigration is a means to replace the natural citizens of a country. We, those citizens, do not want to be replaced. We don’t want our culture and nation turned around.

There was once a philosophy, whereby one must have gained consent of the people in a land to which he is migrating, in order to live there. Immigration is not a right nor entitlement, it is a privilege.

The number of immigrants currently coming into the United States and Canada as well as to Europe, Australia and several other European nations needs to be reduced to five percent of what the number is now. No more than sixty thousand immigrants into the United States per year.

Being opposed to immigration does not have to be a racial issue. I am opposed to any mass immigration be it from Poland, or southern India.