Which For Peace

“History teaches that multiethnic states are held together either by an authoritarian regime or a dominant ethnocultural core, or they are ever at risk of disintegration in ethnic conflict.” ~~ Pat Buchanan

All the history I’ve read and mountains of sociological studies show that diversity in close proximity causes friction at best and wars at worst. This is true in every place and time in history. America 2016 is no different. We’re not awesome enough to be “past” it. Many of the problems our society deals with stems from its penchant for a multicultural experiment. So, in this view, promoting ethnic homogeneity is to promote peace while promoting the opposite, even if unintentionally, is to promote political and economic instability and social tension or war.

And the flip side is also proven: it’s those countries which are homogeneous that are the more peaceful, prosperous, stable, etc. Most liberals, for instance, want America to become more peaceful, “tolerant”, prosperous, beneficent, etc like Scandinavian countries; but those countries are nearly entirely white (homogeneous):



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s