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.

Advertisements

God – A Deducible Approach

One thing I’ve noticed about atheists is that they seem to use the principles of science to dismiss the existence of god. Instead however, I believe science supports the existence of god.

The numerous discoveries in physics, chemistry and in other sciences have demonstrated that our universe obeys laws: the laws of nature. For example, the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, rather it can only be transformed from one form of energy to another. Moreover, in chemical reactions, to conform with the law of conservation of mass, there must be the same number of each type of atom on both sides of the arrow. Human beings, for example, are created according to the makeup of their DNA. Our brains are simply a medley of electrical signals and biochemical reactions behaving in accordance with the laws of physics. If we accept these concepts, we are able to conclude therefore that the universe does indeed have order. Science in general seems to be a method of accounting for the phenomenon in the universe.

Furthermore, Newton’s third law of physics states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If this is true, it leads to the following conclusion: every action is a reaction to another prior action. This substantiates the notion that the universe is ruled by cause and effect or causality, which in turn lends credence to the fact that we are, in the present moment, defined by our past. This also means our future can be hypothetically predicted based on our past.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system is always increasing. Accordingly, our universe will reach a point in time when there can be no more disorder. Either that or the universe will reach point in time very close to a state of ultimate disorder. This would be the hypothetical death of the universe. If in fact, this will happen, that our universe is destined for some sort of theoretical death, then logically our universe must have also had a beginning. Isn’t the idea of an eternal universe contradictory to the reality of the present in which change does exist? If I drop a ball onto the floor from my hand, there is change. That is, the ball moves from my hand to the floor. So if we were destined to become a sea of photons as some scientists say we are, then shouldn’t we have already arrived at that stage an eternity ago? Why, if the universe is eternal, is there change? If the natural tendency of our universe is going toward a state of ultimate disorder and in times past, our universe was, by nature, less disordered, that means that whatever the opposite of a sea of photons is was the initial state of our universe. It then begs the question: what forces and powers brought about this primary state of the universe? If you line up a series of dominoes and push the first one over, it therefore necessitates that the line of dominoes had to have been set up at some point beforehand. If I empty a bag of marbles onto the floor from a certain height, the marbles will hit the floor and disburse and go in multiple directions. This therefore implies that, in the beginning, I had to gather the marbles together and put them into the bag. I had to raise the bag to the starting height from where I dropped them.

The crucial point to understand is that the timeline of our universe is a sequence of unfolding events in which one event gives rise to a subsequent event, which in turn, gives rise to another event and so on. This leads one to wonder that if events of times past have engendered the events of the present, what produced the first event to begin with? What tipped over the first domino? What came before cause? Although the answer seems irrational, it is the only rational answer. If we predicate our argument on the premise that our universe does indeed have a beginning, that means that some force must have engendered the progression of events of the universe in the first place. How can such a chain of events originate from nothing? Well, it can’t. That would defy the laws of nature. Therefore, the answer must point to the existence of a force that, in fact, defies the laws of nature. This evinces the existence of the supernatural. As what is the supernatural creator of the universe customarily known? God.

Perception

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.