I appreciate the first few paragraphs of this post, but cannot be as appreciative for the rest of the article. I conjecture that the author may have over-reacted, although I also agree that to correct a wrong, more often than not, we have to over-correct. But think about the danger of over-correct for a moment. How come white managers started laying off whites and hiring blacks? Some did so due to a sense of guilt because they are brain-washed. Some did this due to greed, because the cost of hiring a US citizen is about 3x that of hiring an Indian and 2x that of hiring a Chinese. The scenarios are many, and the reasons vary. One can argue that there is a consistent conspiracy to suppress the white, although personally, I think that is only one of the many reasons.
But before such "over-correction", there was also a long period of colonialism, during which time, conquering the world and bringing civilization to them was the "burden of the White". That was racism, plain and simple. I think only a small minority of "White" will differ. It is the intention to correct that racism that goes way overboard, as evidenced by using racial quotas as enrollment criteria in US college admissions and many similar actions. In Europe, I assume similar acts and laws are many, and likely some have gone even more overboard than what happens in the US.
In other words, what has driven people nuts today to the point of over-correction was due to past mistakes of over-correction. Unless your society is good at handling violent swings, it is better to control the correction without too much over-correction. In a sense, we need to heed what the author says but act properly. If all of us start acting to always protect our own tribes, NO MATTER WHAT, then we have simply gone too far.
Many of the current race-related social problems in Europe and North American are due to systemic error (by power elites) to import refugees or immigrants at a rate too high to sustain. No matter what kind of meritocracy system a society has, there is no way a transplanted 12-year-old kid from a poor peasant family can compete and win in college enrollment over his native Swedish peers. Even if the kid was a genius, he still needs a transition time and careful guidance in the transition. In other words, immigration must be granted based on social needs and qualifications. A nation can willingly take in refugees, but only if the society can successfully integrate them. I don't know of any successful story in this aspect in Europe. Asian Americans at one time (before Vietnam War) were a good example, but recent influx of Asian immigrants have pretty much gone beyond the integration capacity.
In Italia una atleta bianca vale 0 anche se vince una gara, una atleta africana naturalizzata italiana vale 100 anche se non vince . Due pesi due misure è ormai il metro standard occidentale per annichilire chi è bianco e esaltare chi è nero.
In group preference is completely normal around the World.
My country and my folk is HANSEATIC NORDLANDIA from Brugge in Flanders to Novgorod in Russia ! More on www.Nordlandia.nl
I appreciate the first few paragraphs of this post, but cannot be as appreciative for the rest of the article. I conjecture that the author may have over-reacted, although I also agree that to correct a wrong, more often than not, we have to over-correct. But think about the danger of over-correct for a moment. How come white managers started laying off whites and hiring blacks? Some did so due to a sense of guilt because they are brain-washed. Some did this due to greed, because the cost of hiring a US citizen is about 3x that of hiring an Indian and 2x that of hiring a Chinese. The scenarios are many, and the reasons vary. One can argue that there is a consistent conspiracy to suppress the white, although personally, I think that is only one of the many reasons.
But before such "over-correction", there was also a long period of colonialism, during which time, conquering the world and bringing civilization to them was the "burden of the White". That was racism, plain and simple. I think only a small minority of "White" will differ. It is the intention to correct that racism that goes way overboard, as evidenced by using racial quotas as enrollment criteria in US college admissions and many similar actions. In Europe, I assume similar acts and laws are many, and likely some have gone even more overboard than what happens in the US.
In other words, what has driven people nuts today to the point of over-correction was due to past mistakes of over-correction. Unless your society is good at handling violent swings, it is better to control the correction without too much over-correction. In a sense, we need to heed what the author says but act properly. If all of us start acting to always protect our own tribes, NO MATTER WHAT, then we have simply gone too far.
Many of the current race-related social problems in Europe and North American are due to systemic error (by power elites) to import refugees or immigrants at a rate too high to sustain. No matter what kind of meritocracy system a society has, there is no way a transplanted 12-year-old kid from a poor peasant family can compete and win in college enrollment over his native Swedish peers. Even if the kid was a genius, he still needs a transition time and careful guidance in the transition. In other words, immigration must be granted based on social needs and qualifications. A nation can willingly take in refugees, but only if the society can successfully integrate them. I don't know of any successful story in this aspect in Europe. Asian Americans at one time (before Vietnam War) were a good example, but recent influx of Asian immigrants have pretty much gone beyond the integration capacity.
In Italia una atleta bianca vale 0 anche se vince una gara, una atleta africana naturalizzata italiana vale 100 anche se non vince . Due pesi due misure è ormai il metro standard occidentale per annichilire chi è bianco e esaltare chi è nero.