Should a country be allowed to choose the composition of the races that occupy it?
What is a culture of a country? It could be common habits, customs and norms, but first and foremost it’s the people that compose it. Without people it’s just land. And with different people, it’s a different country.
No one can’t argue, that if all Norwegians and all Ghanaians would switch countries, the cultures would move along with them. As well as prosperity, legal systems and other societal norms. Norway would become Ghana, with all the good and the bad, and the same would happen to Ghana.
So, it’s the clear conclusion that if we want to maintain the existing cultures of the countries, we need to maintain the existing people of the country. This text is not advocacy for forcefully changing the existing composition of countries through violence and other measures. This was tried in Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s and the results were not good.
But what this text is trying to explore is if we take the current situation of a country as the starting point, can countries choose their future racial composition?
Because let’s be honest, there are clear and measurable differences between races. There are differences in intelligence, temperament, anthropometry and social inclinations. Pretending like these are not the facts is childish and only reveals ideological prejudices.
Knowing that these differences exist, it is obvious that a country should look at the racial traits and evaluate which ones are beneficial to it. In the current global environment, countries are in competition with each other. To win, it needs to think critically what components will yield the best results, considering all the relevant factors, like physical location on the Earth, available natural resources, proximities to other countries and the like.
But what does the winning mean for a country? Naturally there is no finish line for a country, no clear end when the game is over and the trophies are given. For a country, a win means prosperity for its people. And its people are its citizens. So it’s not outlandish to proclaim that the countries should optimize its policies in such a way that is the most beneficial to its citizens.
Up to very recently, this was the common sense. It was such a common sense that it was practically a universal truth across the whole political spectrum in all 1st world countries. The only exceptions were far left parties, that supported communistic policies (that bring misery without exception).
But in the recent years this has changed. The world and the western intelligentsia has been hijacked by an idea that a country does not have this right. Instead, this idea proclaims that countries (primarily white countries), should commit a cultural suicide and simply willing be raped by all other races. And not just raped, but also to pay for the rapists’ accommodation. This is a preposterous notion
From where this crazy idea came from is not clear. But has been pushed systematically for the past 30 years upon the white western countries. What is peculiar about this idea is that it feels like psy-op, because one is not allowed to criticize it. It’s masqueraded both as the West’s moral superiority and at the same time as the West’s moral inferiority. This seems to stem from intentionally misreading history and blaming all the world’s faults on the West and specifically on the white people.
In short, the West is apparently so enlightened that we recognize the historical sins made by white people, omitting all the historical sins made by other races, and due to the guilt of this perverse view, we must sacrifice our countries for the benefit of others.
It's pure lunacy. But its results have been clear and effective. The fact is that the western countries have been morally stripped from the right to enforce their borders and control population composition. The western countries are forbidden to be proud of their ethnicity.
Interestingly, this ideology is only applicable to the white countries. The international community would strongly condemn, if Gambia would be becoming white, or Japan would be becoming black or Brazil was becoming Asian. All of these would be considered as cultural destruction, genocide, or worse. But when this happens to white countries, it’s only a right thing.
People who support open borders and decry countries that don’t play by their rules, also forget that globally, white people are a minority (7 % of the world is white). Either they don’t know this or wilfully overlook this fact. But the truth is, if countries aren’t allowed to decide what their racial composition are, the white races and the white cultures will disappear. The people who strongly advocate for diversity, push an agenda that will make the world look all the same, destroying all the diversity of races from the world. The world will be populated by brownish people, with brown eyes and dark hair.
The countries have a moral obligation to enforce borders and decide who gets to come into their country. The countries must first and foremost thing about winning and ensuring that their culture lives on. Otherwise, what’s the point?
Is this racist? No, because a country is only answerable to its own citizens. No citizen of any race is discriminated against inside the country. The country only controls who is let in from outside of its borders. There is no argument to be made that it’s a human right to enter a country.