Cultural diversity ends with assimilation.
Bob’s Books
Bob's first book - 1976
A Plague On Both Your HousesBob's second book - 1982
THE NEW RIGHT PAPERSBob's deadliest book - 2004
Why Johnny Can't Think:
America's Professor-PriesthoodWhy Johnny Can't Think ebook zip
pwrd: Phu=9Ad5
#1 by BGLass on 10/26/2011 - 9:15 am
“assimilation” is a term that gives many a warm runny feeling in their tummy, due to the acceptance of “nation of immigrants,” the idea being that some intermarriage, assimilation is good. Diversity ends with extinction.
#2 by BGLass on 10/26/2011 - 9:26 am
know i differ on that but ‘nation of immigrants’…idk. Suppose b/c they immigrated to land, not a “nation” in the sense of the constitutional entity, there was no nation in that sense; racially they were kin and so always a nation in that sense, and also, then where does one draw the line, as all “newcomers” are all “immigrants.” it was successful for its time, imo, during industrial revolution. now it is a “rule of law” (dictatorship), for whoever the court may say, for a “service” (servant) economy, (at least this is what is said on t.v.)
Whatever the case, the further it has gone from its initial european base, the more incoherent, violent, transient it has become, the more disatisfied its most historical, generational citizens.
It was founded for “our posterity.” European ok. “the human race”— well, highly doubtful that was on their minds.
Many so-called “minorities” would rather live in 1950 U.S., they only worry that they might be asked to leave. This is their resistance. Most would agree to scale back demographically, that’s a statistical fact as far as I can see; they do not wish to live in the anarchy of Empire Statism w/ multicult.
never use ‘nation of immigrants” myself. seems problematical, since they made that to mean non-white people since 1965 and demographic change in who lives on the whole continenet.
#3 by Simmons on 10/26/2011 - 1:21 pm
Rob Roy Simmons responds on the topic of the jews in response to a very long post telling everybody what they know already. This Rob Roy guy is on message every damn day, ya hearin’ me?
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/district-of-corruption/pat-buchanan-and-james-edwards/
#4 by Simmons on 10/26/2011 - 2:49 pm
Can’t stop this on message SOB Rob Roy.
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2011/10/knockout_king_mayor_slay.php
#5 by Coniglio Bianco on 10/26/2011 - 2:02 pm
A corollary of this would be
Diversity begins with racial segregation.
#6 by herrMajor on 10/26/2011 - 8:30 pm
“Diversity” is a codeword for less white people.
#7 by Neuropa on 10/26/2011 - 10:59 pm
Since the comments were closed in the thread I was going to write in I’ll write here instead. Here is the original thread: http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2011/10/09/short-one-24/
I have read Dick Whitman’s comments and listened to Whitaker’s audio installment “I support the United Nations” very carefully and I am still not satisfied.
Bob Whitaker said:
“What Wesley Clark was saying is actually world policy. The United Nations was set up specifically for the purpose of ridding the world of nations. There has not been a nation that has been accepted as a new member of the United Nations since 1950. Not one of the political units that came into the United Nations was in fact a nation.”
Wesley Clark was an american general who lead a NATO mission in the Balkans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
There was a weapon embargo against Serbia sanctioned by the UN Security Council but the military intervention was not sanctioned by the UN and was not in accordance with international law. So the military intervention was NOT a UN initiative but a NATO one.
The United Nations was NOT setup specifically for the purpose of ridding the world of nations. The purposes are outlined in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
There is not a word about diversity or any other euphemism for multiculturalism or ending nationhood.
”The United Nations was setup for the purpose of ridding the world of political units. It was, it is internationalist. But the word nationalist – they don’t even know the meaning of the word because there are precious few nations in the United Nations and the nations there are, are dedicated to destroying their nationhood.”
Many of the members in the United Nations are in fact dedicated to destroying their nationhood but that does not make the United Nations as such dedicated to destroying nations.
“The title United Nations was given to an organization that was setup to create one single united world with one single nation and a single culture called political correctness.”
The United Nations have been accused of being a vehicle for the introduction of a one world government. It was claimed in the documentary The United Nations Deception by the John Birch Society which I saw an hour ago to better inform myself. However, I still can’t see any official policy or declaration towards this end.
“And each country will be indistinguishable from the other. That is not some sort of plot. That is no secret. That is declared policy. So in order to rid the world of nations a group has been named the United Nations and it has declared a policy of diversity which is aimed at ending all diversity in the white world making it an extension of the third world and while the only race that world policy seeks to destroy is the white race the cultural differences between countries are the target of what we call diversity.”
Is there any kind of document which says the United Nations promotes diversity?
I don’t mean to sound hostile but these are my conclusions up to this point.
PS: Genseric: No, I never went to Naropa University. I live outside the United States.
#8 by OldBlighty on 10/27/2011 - 2:32 am
I have not listened to or read Bob’s comments on the UN, however from what I can see, just by reading your post, you are not yet a Mantra thinker.
You are citing pieces of paper as if they mean everything, rather than looking at real world results.
You should be asking, when nations surrender sovereignty, to a higher organization, have they lost what makes them unique?
Did France become less French, Britain become less British, after they joined the EU?
Is Scotland less Scottish, Northern Ireland less Irish, because of their membership in the UK?
Did the American colonies become less unique, after they joined the entity known as the USA?
Are there less wars or more wars, since the United Nations was created? Didn’t they write that on a piece of paper as well?
Have people ever written on official documents their intention is genocide? Have they ever admitted when they were caught their intention was genocide?
IMO you should let your faith in declarations and pieces of paper go. Beliefs like that are for over educated rubes. Real world outcomes, are what matters to a Mantra thinker.
#9 by dungeoneer on 10/27/2011 - 3:42 am
Nice job OB.
Neuro:”Is there any kind of document which says the United Nations promotes diversity?”
Pfft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmHAYjxzLcM
#10 by BGLass on 10/27/2011 - 11:18 am
when I say “nation of immigrants.” they just say, “right. we’re all immigrants, all races, the human race…” So, it’s like setting yourself up for that track. that’s where i wind up with it.
#11 by Neuropa on 10/27/2011 - 12:32 pm
I wrote a really long response and it all disappeared. Short version:
1. It’s not always better if every little town is sovereign. Support for secession is fueled by bad government decisions. Just because you give up a little sovereignity doesn’t mean you give up all.
2. Thought the UN has largely been a failure it has had its successes too.
3. Just because an organization is supranational it doesn’t automatically aims to end nationhood.
4. I dont have faith in papers they are just contracts.
#12 by Dick_Whitman on 10/27/2011 - 12:40 pm
Neuropa,
There is nothing inherently bad about an organization that facilitates nations coming together to discuss global issues.
The problem arises when these organizations are used to get White nations to accept forced integration from the “developing world.”
I find nothing objectionable about global cooperation. In fact, I believe it is in our (White)nature to improve the world. I know a guy and his wife who nurse broken-winged birds back to health. He does this at his own expense. This is part of our nature.
After we smash the anti-White system the world will better off for everyone. The urge that Whites (especially White liberals) have to help the “developing world” will not be suppressed.
BUT FIRST WE HAVE TO SMASH THE ANTI-WHITE SYSTEM!!!
This process of smashing the anti-White system begins with a talking point. This is our talking point:
————–
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
————
Learn it. Live it. Love it.
#13 by Neuropa on 10/27/2011 - 12:49 pm
@Dick Whitman
Oldblighty said that supranational cooperation was inherently anti-nations.
My point is that I have yet to see any evidence that the UN was setup for the purpose of ridding the world of nations or even that the UN is actively promoting diversity.
#14 by Dick_Whitman on 10/27/2011 - 1:59 pm
“My point is that I have yet to see any evidence that the UN was setup for the purpose of ridding the world of nations or even that the UN is actively promoting diversity.” (Neuropa)
OK. But keep in mind that:
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
#15 by Neuropa on 10/27/2011 - 2:09 pm
Everybody, really? Bob Whitaker doesn’t say there is this RACE problem.
I’ve read the mantra 1001 times. I want to talk about the United Nations.
#16 by Gar5 on 10/27/2011 - 3:34 pm
I haven’t looked into the UN or it’s laws (except the genocide conventions), but everybody that signs up at the UN has to accept immigrants (Africans).
Now ask yourself why they would make countries do that?
I don’t think they’re doing it out of diplomatic niceties or for some obscure human rights law. Surely they could try to fix those countries if they were about human rights?
Demanding that every country in the UN must accept immigrants is aimed at blending up the world, and they obviously want the world to be blended with Africans.
#17 by Neuropa on 10/27/2011 - 10:25 pm
@Gar5
No one who signs up to be a member of the United Nations have to accept immigrants. Obligation to accept immigrants comes through the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) or it’s protocol (1967). It doesn’t come with the membership. It’s a voluntary treaty. Unfortunately, all white countries have signed the protocol from 1967.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
A very limited share of all non-white immigrants stay because of the protocol though.
So the United Nations doesn’t make countries do this. Countries make themselves do this.
#18 by Neuropa on 10/27/2011 - 10:52 pm
I have found two different conventions that are quite interesting. The first one is the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It’s the one that the video that dungeoneer posted is based on. It outlaws “hate speech” and “racist” organizations. The United States have made reservations against the worst parts but most european countries have swallowed everything. It must said though again, that this convention is also a completely voluntary additional treaty. It does not come with the United Nations membership.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Racial_Discrimination#Reservations
The second one is the universal declaration of cultural diversity. It’s not legally binding so it’s pretty harmless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_on_Cultural_Diversity
#19 by BGLass on 10/28/2011 - 9:21 am
@…. “My point is that I have yet to see any evidence that the UN was setup for the purpose of ridding the world of nations or even that the UN is actively promoting diversity….”
Who cares what it was set up for in prehistory? We are not dinosaurs, and it’s 2011, lol! Serioulsy, lmao! rofl!
The point is, that it’s in the nature of institutions to grow themselves. Henry Ford hardly set up his Foundation to see his family ousted. And the Ghandis, in their Foundation, hardly foresaw Mahatmas’s (sp?) grandson ousted for being an anti-semite, LOL! Surely you’re aware of at least that, lmao!
The main point is, things seem to have gone very wrong with OUR nation, so many people —the overwhelming majority of people— agree. And a key to this is the policies and players involved in demographics, which is why Mr. Whitaker was saying… (insert mantra).
And there’s something really wrong if you can’t even discuss this.
The main point is that it’s in the nature of such institutions to grow themselves, their own infrastructures, their own power, etc, etc.—- what we have to worry about…
#20 by BGLass on 10/28/2011 - 9:28 am
from wiki, “…The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is a United Nations convention. A second-generation human rights instrument, the Convention commits its members to the elimination of racial discrimination and the promotion of understanding among all races.[5] Controversially, the Convention also requires its parties to outlaw hate speech and criminalize membership in racist organizations.[6]….”
One thing’s certain. If you make your living on this one, you will completely starve if there is no racism! That’s why some say they are in the ‘racism racket,” or raising their kids by working in the ‘racism game.’
(“Back when I was working in the racism racket, we would try hard to partner with other entities and organizations that had real problems with racism, so they could send up people to work with, and at that time, we were getting a lot of grants, so it was a good job, with lots of international travel and other perks we enjoyed. When that dried up, we were able to parlay all of it into…”)
#21 by Neuropa on 10/28/2011 - 9:25 pm
@BGLass
I agree with all your points but am still uneasy about the issue of the United Nations.
When I was a kid I remember how the teachers and the textbooks would speak endlessly about how wonderful the United Nations was. And I always thought there was something fishy about. I was wondering why my support of the United Nations was somewhat forced on me. Maybe it was because support of the United Nations was mentally associated with the so called peace movement (the movement in western nations to disarm enemies of the soviet union).
I still believe there is something fishy about it (the United Nations) and I wish I could get some answers here.
#22 by BGLass on 10/29/2011 - 10:05 am
Idk is this a good answer?
“Idk about ‘fishy.’
It’s a definitely a really big operation, and as they pointed out above, they need to have racism around in order to make their living, lol. (so they can “cure” it, but keep it coming, so they can “cure” it again, to make a living).
Whatever the case, they do one thing than could possibly be useful to white rabbits at this time, and that is they say they oppose genocide.
frankly, it does seem that the larger governance bodies become, in general, over european history, the less people feel they have control over their own lives.”