Michael Tsarion on Race, Jordan Peterson, and Why Conspiracy Work is Spiritual Work |372|

I couldn’t help but weigh in on this one, it’s too obvious and too good to pass up and I love Alex for offering the firestorm debate he knew would follow because this really needs to be ironed out, and I see a lot of logical fallacies on both sides from the racists and non-racists.

First of all, the idea of race dictating your soul spirit in the afterlife, in any way, might be the worst case of bullshit I’ve ever heard. Ever. Wherever an element of reincarnation comes into play with soul is more layer and than unit-for-unit (ie your father dies and you feel part of him in you or your son despite his soul in the afterlife) and it’s reasonable “pieces” of us stay with places, people or causes we cared about, while the “soul identity” carries forward into the afterlife. Most Shamans agree this is typical and obvious. But as for your physical race determining your “soul identity” piece in the next life, that’s hysterical. (Like finding your white buddies in one corner of heaven and black buddies in another— sounds like a bad movie). People should leave race for what it is- an issue of “middle world” as in this life and planet Earth 2018 reality.

The above point is obvious and not worth wasting time arguing over. The part that lights everyone up is HOW our racial perceptions shape our current spirituality and mentality here in this life reality on planet Earth, and that is the more fun, loaded question I think Alex is poking at. And for that trickier question, I will leave the following examples:

—I was in the nastiest parts of Haiti for medical relief after the big earthquake a few years back. One of my fellow doctors, who was in the same dangerous area risking his life too as a kickass humanitarian, stunned me when he talked about some local Muslims working there, saying “it’s just their genetics and blood, they can’t reach salvation raised with the Koran”. My mind almost exploded— kickass humanitarian or racial bigot?!

—people bashing whites, white privilege and neocolonialism Africa — yet FAR more Africans have been killed by corruption of their local and state African leaders than any globalization of the white West (and that’s coming from the guy who did a dissertation on why globalization destroyed Africa more than helped her)

—how about the US crying foul play after Sandy Hook shooting which of course broke my heart but when I mentioned to some of my professors about the epic black on black Chicago violence with murder rates WAY HIGHER than Sandy Hook, people told me “yeah, but that’s the culture there”

—or the easiest and most troubling example was a city social experiment where they hired two actors, a tall tough looking white guy and tall tough looking black guy, specifically in a liberal progressive urban college area, and they waited for these liberal college students walking in small groups at night to pass the big black guy in their direction on one side of the street, and the big white guy on another street, and they found that statistically more, those college kids moved to the other side to avoid passing the tall black guy,but not the tall white guy. What do you do with this data? Mind you, those are the same liberal white college kids protesting with Black Lives Matter. The answer is difficult but simple: despite our current conscious mindset, in this life In the human body, racial awareness has been deeply rooted in us.


The point is, nothing about race is simple in this life if you couldn’t catch the theme from examples above. The best we do, is to meditate, meditate, meditate and treat all people the same and be aware even with doing that, there is a degree of unconscious tempering when it comes to race, but we should use the conscious mind as much as possible to “check” ourselves every now and then, but also not be so goddamn offensive to defend every little thing we do as possibly affected by race. So do care, but as long as you consciously follow the golden rule of treating everyone how you want to be treated, don’t care too much.

John
 
Are 'whites' made to feel guilty? I don't see this myself, so curious where this is manifesting.
http://www.lifelineexpedition.co.uk/
so sorry.jpg
There's a bit of a culture now to make white people feel guilty for things that are individually completely out of their control, heres some more.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/michaelbla...ivilege-9hu9?utm_term=.wnEEO5mbNW#.crQmgM8pxe

Theres money and freebies to be had by cashing in on white guilt.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ervices-people-color-relieve-white-guilt.html

In fact, white guilt may be worth around 6 trillion dollars.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/point-taken/should-us-pay-reparations-black-americans/

Lastly, white guilt is often leveraged against whites to silence them when they offer unwanted criticism
see: the progressive stack of OWS where whites were actually forced to the back of the line for talks, and more recently mainstreamed as a marketing ploy by some companies to save face for a terrible product (https://theralphretort.com/sjw-infe...amers-terrible-mass-effect-andromeda-3027017/)


Now it doesn't matter whether you identify as white or not because the culture at large certainly does and they will use it against you leaving you defenseless.

More worryingly this gives an avenue to power for a small minority (among minorities) to steer the national conversation on what is and isn't important. The antiwar party is dead thanks to Obama, you could not criticize Obama while he was in office and many liberals will cringe when you try today. We no longer rally against foreign wars which we fight illegally and spend trillions on or rallying against the slavery industry that still goes on today in America, instead we're caught in a racial quagmire of victimhood of comparatively far lesser atrocities (though often still egregious).

As has been said already, we've been successfully conned by the Elite to turn a blind eye to the major problems of our society.
 
Last edited:
I am intrigued as I read through the posts here. It seems like a bunch of white folk are trying to work out some deeply felt emotions related to how white folk have impacted upon other people who are not white. I feel quite moved by the power and the pain - by the defensiveness from some, the anger from others and the idealism and compassion others have articulated. It seems that actions of our ancestors have reverberations that we can ignore or respond to. I choose to respond, not because I am moved by 'white guilt' but because a complaint has been made, and an injury claimed - and I want to confront that claim. But I get that others do not see things that way. There are multiple ways to see history and interpret the present - and I guess we choose the way that fits our disposition, and we should allow others the same liberty.

I am grateful for the discussion here, because it is a reminder that this is a deep current of genuine complexity, and that beyond the echo chamber of my cultural bias there are powerful opinions held by good people. I don't know who has been persuaded to think differently. I am not persuaded by contra arguments, but I have more respect for how they are formed, and why they are held.
 
The thing is, people talk about "white guilt" in situations where nobody alive is really guilty, and contrast that with Nelson Mandela - a man who has spent a huge chunk of his life behind bars - who called for peace, not retribution - even though there were genuinely guilty whites in his country.

David
 
I am intrigued as I read through the posts here. It seems like a bunch of white folk are trying to work out some deeply felt emotions related to how white folk have impacted upon other people who are not white. I feel quite moved by the power and the pain - by the defensiveness from some, the anger from others and the idealism and compassion others have articulated. It seems that actions of our ancestors have reverberations that we can ignore or respond to. I choose to respond, not because I am moved by 'white guilt' but because a complaint has been made, and an injury claimed - and I want to confront that claim.
Well how about guilt for what the US did to Vietnam, or Cambodia, or Iraq, or Iran, or South America? I mean heck, after WWI the Germans were forced to pay reparations, and that possibly helped to kick off WWII. Next time round the US helped Germany and Japan to recover, even though the Germans and Japanese were pretty much the guilty parties.

There is no sense in just chucking money at populations out of a sense of guilt. Just look at some of the people who have received big lottery money - a lot of them can't handle it and go to bits. I'd far rather we spent some money to try to help third world countries, and stopped selling them weapons - but spend it as an investment in peace, not out of guilt.

David
 
Well how about guilt for what the US did to Vietnam, or Cambodia, or Iraq, or Iran, or South America? I mean heck, after WWI the Germans were forced to pay reparations, and that possibly helped to kick off WWII. Next time round the US helped Germany and Japan to recover, even though the Germans and Japanese were pretty much the guilty parties.

There is no sense in just chucking money at populations out of a sense of guilt. Just look at some of the people who have received big lottery money - a lot of them can't handle it and go to bits. I'd far rather we spent some money to try to help third world countries, and stopped selling them weapons - but spend it as an investment in peace, not out of guilt.

David
I am not denying that there is such a thing as 'white guilt'. For example Australia was invaded by the British in contravention of a directive to not invade a land where there was a human population. We ended up with the notion of 'terra nullius' - an empty land - such a claim gave the basis for settlement despite there being a human population here. So our dilemma is to determine whether we settled illegally or we invaded and won a just right to be here. Is our presence the rightful fruits of invasion or the benefits of a crime?

I am Northern Irish born so I am an heir to a culture that has been invaded by the Romans, Vikings, and French successfully - and for whom colonisation in the name of empire was a good thing. Was the brutality of colonisation a good thing? I genuinely do not know. I can see arguments on both sides, and it would be easy to pick a side and feel morally justified in doing so.

I have a genuine affection for my indigenous brothers and sisters. They have been profoundly injured by our arrival here. That is beyond dispute. But which part of our action was wrong? I do not accept allegations of guilt without examining the evidence. I know I am here as the result of a series of injurious actions. There are things we must do to address the complaints. I do not know if I am benefitting from what was a crime. I do not feel guilty, just concerned that I face the allegations with honesty and integrity. Here's the surprising thing for me - it is not that easy to answer the allegation. That is perhaps why it has become such a contested territory itself.

I have no doubt soever that our policies and programs are deeply racist, and that even people who swear they are supporters of indigenous people are, at core, essentially racist. But I also know that there are people who are utterly bemused and offended by my point of view. And that is my point. I have chosen to respond to an allegation in a manner that is consistent with who I am. I can choose to be self-righteous about my pov and assume a whole chunk of moral hubris. But I have listened to people I otherwise like and have affection for express opinions and sentiments, sincerely held, that I could never accept as right.

I do not mean to argue for some awful relativism here. But I was raised in a culture that celebrated the brutalities of British colonisation with no sense at all of the impact of those actions. India and China have a profound sense of anger and shame because of colonisation. The Middle East and Africa are deeply messed up because of it. The indigenous people of Australia have a deep sense of shame over their dispossession and dislocation.

How does this sit with me? I did not commit the acts, but I benefit from them. Do I perpetuate this disrespectful attitudes of the past? How do I assert my personal moral position while I am linked to history? Benefitting from the proceeds of a crime is an offence. I can't claim ignorance of the possibility of a crime being committed. I have to make a personal assessment of where I stand - and everybody else is in exactly the same situation.

There are some things we pretty much all agree are crimes. Other things we do not agree on. It seems to me that one way we evolve as a culture is on what we agree are offences. Did you know that it was once thought a virgin child could become a sin container who could be the means by which a man afflicted with a sexually transmitted disease could find release? Have sex with the virgin child and you will be cured of the clap. Now that is so utterly mad and wrong.

I think we are genuinely evolving as a culture toward greater compassion and authenticity. But that evolution is unevenly expressed, so I do get those who are deeply sceptical about this proposition. So I don't expect or demand that others agree with me. I take responsibility for what I think and I know that others, with whom I might disagree, do the same thing and they are no less worthy of respect.

I have seen in this discussion here passions unleashed that surprised and touched me. But they are also participants in the Skeptiko forum - so they are good people. I do not agree with all the things said. But I celebrate the fact that they are said. I don't know any other place this kind of discussion could have taken place. Maybe that's just my ignorance.
 
You say that like it's a bad thing.

Why would you care about being invaded?
Err, loss of life ways, loss of culture, loss of tradition, loss of rights, loss of self esteem, loss of liberty, death of family and friends, loss of religion, loss of land - & etc.

What are the good things? You and I can both come up with a list. But the reality is that indigenous people worldwide do not benefit from invasion in the short term. The Monty Python scene on what did the Romans do for us (Life of Brian) articulates the dilemma between loss and benefit.

The inclination is that invaders blame the invaded when they fail to benefit from the advantages the invaders brought. But that is perhaps no more than victor's conceit. We understand, now, the impact of personal trauma. But cultural trauma? How long does that last? Was the British propensity for invading other lands a legacy of a history of being invaded? We know that being a victim of sexual abuse increases the risk of the victim becoming a perpetrator. We know children who are exposed to domestic violence are more likely to perpetrate it.

Of course a culture valorises what it sees as a confirmation of who it is. Deciding to invade another's country is an act of violence - of imposing your will upon them by violence. The USA decided to join in WW2 to stop German invasion of Europe, Russia and England. Perhaps the motive was only political and economic, but it was a choice. These days maybe the same question can be put to the Afghanis and Iraquis?

Personally I have reacted badly to what I have long perceived to be an invasion of American culture. I appreciate that can't ever be a problem for you. But, trust me, if you were on the receiving end you'd understand. I still don't like your culture, or your government. But I have learned to have deep affection for Americans as individuals - well, at least some of you.

What do I care about being invaded? Quite a lot actually.
 
Err, loss of life ways, loss of culture, loss of tradition, loss of rights, loss of self esteem, loss of liberty, death of family and friends, loss of religion, loss of land - & etc.
This is precisely why I joined the Alt-Right.

I still don't like your culture, or your government.
That's fine. I don't like my government much either. I do however like my White Southron Culture quite a lot.

I agree that it's not for you, and should not be imposed on you, or adopted by you.
 
I am not denying that there is such a thing as 'white guilt'.
Well there is our difference - I do deny it. Nobody can be guilty of a crime that happened before they were born (assuming we leave reincarnation issues out of this). If you comb history:

The Normans (i.e. French) invaded Britain and inflicted much suffering.
The Germans bombed Britain within living memory.
We (with the US) attacked Iraq for the second time without justification.
There may still be some some KKK members who attacked and killed coloured people many years ago - are they guilty?

Should the French and Germans bay us guilt money - no!
Should everyone in the UK/US pay Iraq for what happened? Which of us are personally guilty - I was with over 1 million people demonstrating against the impending war almost exactly 15 years ago? Only the living guilty should pay.
Should people be charged for racist murders they committed long ago - if the evidence is there, obviously they should.

The idea of guilt without personal responsibility is daft, and as I tried to point out, it possibly helped to cause WWII because the Germans were indeed forced to pay reparations to the Alies.

Does that mean Blair or Bush should be excused - no of course not, they are still alive and clearly guilty and they should be tried at The Hague. That guilt - real guilt - must also extend to those in the intelligence services that knowingly gave the false impression that Saddam was able to use weapons of mass destruction.

David
 
Your characterization of the Alt-Right is fallacious.

The Alt-Right wants an Ethno-State for White People just like Israel has for Jewish People, Japan for Japanese People, and Mexico has for Mexican People.
The example of Israel is not the best for your position, Charlie... Since, if you somehow missed it, when some (but not all) Jews claimed these lands for their own exclusive ethno-state, they found that there are other, non-Jewish people were living there already - Palestinian Arabs. And these people were not willing to give their land away to Israelis - as well as Israelis were not willing to give up their claims for it. Both sides also had a lot of arguments for their own "indigenousness", since ancestors of both did lived on these lands for a long time. So, the bloody and murderous inter-ethnic conflict between Israelis and Palestinians arose. This cruel mess continues still, and there is no sign it will have any kind of resolution in the foreseeable future, since both sides insist that it is them who have the superior rights to create their ethnic / religious state there, and neither is going to surrender.

The same goes for the former Yugoslavia - after this state fell, the different ethnic groups did not peacefully draw demarcation lines between ethnic and religious territories, to live with the people of their own; instead, each of conflicting ethnic groups peceived former Yugoslavian lands as rightfully theirs, with other ethnic groups being dismissed as impostors or invaders. Soon it lead to the bloody inter-ethnic warfare between all groups that lived on the contested territory.

Well, this is how the desire to create the racially / ethnically (or religiously / ideologically) "pure" state always ends - in the inter-ethnic or inter-religious warfare that lasts for generations without resolution, since each side believes itself to be more deserving of the land, which is the unreachable prize in the perpetual conflict.

And this is how the attempt to create the white ethno-state (as well as the black ethno-state, or the Latin American ethno-state, or whomever-owned our-group-only-state) will inevitably end - in inter-racial warfare which will be endless. The reason is simple: no matter what territory would be claimed for such pure-group state, A LOT of people from other groups will live there, and will perceive this land as their home for which they will stand if someone attempts to banish them.

So, Charlie, if you and your Alt-Right friends are going to claim a sizeable territory for whites-only, how are you going to deal with non-whites who live there?
 
Last edited:
My insistence in no way misses those facts.

Your characterization of the Alt-Right is fallacious.

The Alt-Right wants an Ethno-State for White People just like Israel has for Jewish People, Japan for Japanese People, and Mexico has for Mexican People.

I think the most peaceful way to achieve that is something similar to the practical strategy of the Free State Project where Libertarians gradually move to an area and take it over politically.

We will eventually have to divorce from the U.S. as we cannot share a Polity with people whose culture and ideals we do not share.
I think people should be able to live under the system they choose. And I think space colonies are the most realistic way to accomplish this.

I agree you would have to divorce from the US because if you are economically successful you will attract people who will bring economic failure.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-price/taxes-regulations-and-vot_b_8973816.html
Population Shift to Red States Should Make GOP Nervous
...
I remember when I worked as an aide for US Senator Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire. That state had become extremely Republican by the 1980s and was enjoying growth as people fled the disastrous political and economic situation in Massachusetts just to the South. Eventually New Hampshire became increasingly liberal as people moved who knew there were things wrong with their home state — taxes, crime, etc. — but didn’t realize that the people they were voting for were the source of their problems. So once they moved to a new promise land, they brought the same terrible policies with them. Today, New Hampshire is now a major population loser as the migrants from Massachusetts wonder what happened to the Granite State. It is a vicious cycle.

The future looks bright for conservative friendly states on paper, but this will only be the case if new voters support the very policies that have made these states so attractive in the first place.​
 
These examples are well and good and I provided some of my own however none of these should be a free pass to exploit upper class guilt where upper class guilt is deserved, and statistically in most metro regional urban areas this happens to be white affluent areas. The cyclical lack of public inner-city funding in your poor neighborhoods (often poor and black/minorities) and this very general class distinction is what drags race along into it. So yes, West Side Chicago should feel a degree of guilt for lack of funding in the slums of Chicago but by default it will be mostly Whites in the West Side whereas mostly poor blacks in the slums.
 
At David Bailey—Well you draw some pretty rough distinctions. There are obvious examples of people who either publically spoke out against or for the Iraq war (despite 99% being powerless to the decisions made). But I can't let you off that easy in other examples. While we should not be guilty of our forefathers errors (ie my great great great grandfather owning slaves) you to come to terms with the fact you should feel at least very lucky (perhaps not guilty) for your position if you grew up as a middle-class white man (I'm speaking generally, not directly to you) where those 3 attributes alone statistically put those men in inherently privileged situations compared to say, a poor black female. Now, it would not be your or my fault that we are middle class white men, however, we should feel obliged to even the playing field for young poor black females.

So the word "guilt" is tricky. I don't feel "guilty" if an innocent person is mugged and beaten across the street from me, but I grew up fighting in martial arts, and I can tell you I would surely feel guilty if I just walked away. This becomes now an ethical moral spiritual issue of whether I just walk away and call for help, or I run across the street and fight. This is the example which splits this entire "upper class white privilege" discussion. Of course none of it is present-day our fault. But which guy will each of us end up being in this example? And does that reflect or shape our spirituality in whatever we decide to do?
 
Last edited:
White guilt is BS, but the issue of racial discrimination is not. The problems of societal discrimination are coming back to haunt the race that institutionalized it. Just because you, or your ancestors have never had to face the issue, doesn't mean it hasn't been staring all of us in the face. You don't need to feel guilty to see injustice and that the issue destabilizes society in the end. The same way I can't understand how billionaires who withhold taxes from society create more problems for their children to deal with. I'd personally rather live in a safe, meaningful society than to have a ton of money in an unstable version of the same
 
This is precisely why I joined the Alt-Right.


That's fine. I don't like my government much either. I do however like my White Southron Culture quite a lot.

I agree that it's not for you, and should not be imposed on you, or adopted by you.
I had to Google Alt Right. Then I realised that I had listened to quite a few arguments and discussions. I think I have a decent understanding of the arguments - enough to give me the sense that I know where you are coming from. I am most interested in the things we can agree on and share - when they are working well maybe we can begin to explore where we disagree.My family took to fundamentalist Christianity with a passion that led to estrangement for a time. The we figured that we were all trying to be the best decent humans we could be and the bond of family re-asserted itself. That was stronger than dogma and difference - but we had to work at getting there.
 
I have been meaning to respond in this thread for a while now - the semi-compulsive research I mentioned in another thread is the main reason I have not yet done that, along with low energy levels.

Thank you for the interview, Alex and Michael, you guys covered some very interesting ground without fear of its controversial nature.

This post is essentially just to stake out my position on the many issues related to race as raised in the interview and the discussion in the thread.

I can see the appeal in denying the existence of race: if race does not exist, then nor does (can) racism. Nevertheless, reality is immune to being defined out of existence: racists will continue to be racist, whether or not the concept of "race" has been semantically excised from consensus reality. Denying the existence of race is, rather than an act of benevolence, a perpetuation of harm by proxy: in the absence of a valid concept of "race", and thus of a coherent concept of "racism", those particularly mass and systemic injustices committed on the basis of race(ism) are no longer coherent either; to deny race is to deny the harm done by colonialism and imperialism as well as the possibility of and need for remedy and restoration.

Like Michael Patterson, I live in Australia, and I think the dilemma he poses has a clear answer: that...

Australia was invaded by the British in contravention of a directive to not invade a land where there was a human population. We ended up with the notion of 'terra nullius' - an empty land - such a claim gave the basis for settlement despite there being a human population here. So our dilemma is to determine whether we settled illegally or we invaded and won a just right to be here. Is our presence the rightful fruits of invasion or the benefits of a crime?
..this is, always has been, and always will be indigenous land, never ceded. An invasion is no more justified than an illegal settlement; in fact, being an act of unprovoked and one-sided aggression, it is less justified. There can be fruits of an unprovoked invasion, but there cannot be rightful fruits. The effective dispossession of this land from its rightful owners is an as-yet unresolved crime from which we non-indigenous occupants continue to benefit at the expense of its victims.

The resolution is simple: return effective sovereignty to the land's rightful owners. If they feel that they have benefitted from colonisation, then grant them the choice to continue to reap its rewards; if not, then grant them equally the choice to determine the destiny of their land on their own terms.

We are all complicit to some extent; guilt is a reasonable though not a necessary response: more important than how we feel is that we recognise that an ongoing wrong is being perpetuated, and support the process of righting it.

-----

Vortex, in post #74, you solicited a response, so I will offer one. As I think is clear from the above, I answer the questions you posed to Charlie in criticising his position differently than you do, but I agree that his position is untenable for - I think - similar reasons as you do.

In the rest of your post, you identify "three groups of people who are still desperately clinging to racist assumptions and racist thought", all three of which you oppose. I am not sure whether you would slot my views, as expressed above, into any one of them. Perhaps the closest fit is this:

The first group is, sadly and paradoxially, are some (but not all) of the successors of the very Left-siding people who once fought, rightfully and successfully, against racism and racists - "social justice warriors" (SJWs), the Authoritarian Left. These are people who has succumbed to the time-old temptations of the victorious revolutionaries: the lust for revenge, which makes such revolutionaries unable to leave the barricades even when the revolutionary battle is won and thus finished. Still perceiving the former oppressors - whites - as the enemies, SJWs managed to invent and install inverse sociocultural racism and reverse discrmination in the some (but not all) areas of society where their presense was strong, such as academia, high-tech corporations and mainstream media. This reverse discrimination was combined with an increasingly dogmatic and uncritical thinking, which is pretending to be scientific while being nothing but, and a burning desire for censorship and supression of critical and contrarian viewpoints.
However, my position is not at all based on "lust for revenge" but on righting wrongs; on restorative justice. There is a principle in Western law, which I think reflects a corresponding principle of natural justice: that the rights of the original owner of stolen property are in no way invalidated by the transfer of that stolen property from the thief to other parties; that no matter how many hands through which that stolen property passes, justice is served only when it is returned to its rightful owner. My position is that this principle be respected at the group level at which land has been stolen by imperialists from its indigenous custodians.

I do not think either that this is an "authoritarian" position; I think that the reverse is instead true: to continue to impose upon rather than to be led by the rightful owners of the land, and moreover to refuse to even involve them in decision-making in any meaningful way, is the truly authoritarian approach.

-----

Regarding the general question of whether there is anything wrong or unethical with a racially (and/or culturally) homogeneous group of legitimate occupants of a particular region maintaining that racial (and/or cultural) homogeneity, I say: no, there is nothing wrong with that. I say this because I believe in the right - where it causes no harm - to self-determination at not just an individual but at a group level. It is also consistent with the position that I outlined above: that the legitimate custodians of Australia (and other invaded indigenous nations) have that right to self-determination meaningfully returned to them.

Personally, as a member of a racially and culturally heterogeneous society, I prefer multiculturalism - but different people have different preferences, and if any currently homogeneous society with legitimate right to its land prefers to remain homogeneous, then so be it; that is its members' right, and, in my view, it is not necessarily (although it can be) racist, for two reasons: (1) it need not at all involve disrespect for other races and cultures, but could rather be based in respect for racial and cultural diversity, and in a desire to maintain that racial and cultural diversity by not diluting it, and (2) it is a valid defence against the McDonaldisation of the planet.

I do, though, see a problem with forcing out of a heterogeneous society - in order to create or return to a homogeneous society - people who have themselves or by virtue of their ancestors been invited into that country, or arrived, by legitimate means. All bets are off if their presence is illegitimate in the first place though, as is that of those of us non-indigenous residents of countries like Australia.
 
Last edited:
Top