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.