The Fundamental Problem With Diverse States

What is the real issue with multiculturalism and diversity? Is it the mere existence of innocent people from different groups living among others whom they’ve never harmed? Of course not; such a notion would be preposterous. But there is a problem with both at a more fundamental level, especially when it comes to forming a state.

Multiculturalism and diversity in of themselves are not necessarily harmful in the short term e.g.: a group of diverse peoples at a vacation resort for a few days. However, in the long term, both inevitably become massive problems which can lead to instability and conflict within a state. But why? Because in the former, the short term goal of enjoying a vacation at a resort is not the same as living among various people — all of whom have different needs, goals, capabilities, and ethics — for the long term, especially when said people have a say in how others should live their lives and how their taxes should be spent. In such a scenario, these different groups will eventually clash over their various differences, which translates to political conflict.

Self-segregation comes to mind as a solution, but even this would fail, for even if various group were separated into different living spaces hundreds of miles apart while living under the same central power, there would still be conflict because no one group would want their labor, in the form of taxes, to be spent on those who are, in essence, their political, religious, and racial competition. This is why a diverse, multiparty state, despite all measures taken to ensure equality and tolerance, will always cannibalize itself.

I created Sovereign Nationalism to address this fundamental flaw of diverse, multiparty states, to help people understand that we all must live among our own, otherwise internecine conflict is inevitable.

---

To understand how simple the answer to all of our problems is, I will break it down into the following points that only a supremacist or parasite would disagree with:

• No group should speak on behalf or represent any other group, for they have no right as nonmembers.

• No group's financial or human resources should be spent on another group without their permission.

• This is only solved by all groups living among their own and governing themselves.

Anyone who argues against these points is demanding that different groups must not only tolerate living among others they disagree with, but also that they must spend their financial and human resources on their competition, which is asinine.

Think about the following: Why would any Christian donate to a Muslim fundraiser attempting to raise money to build a mosque in the same city, or vice versa? There need not be any animosity toward members of these groups on a personal level; such members could even be friends or coworkers. But on a macro level, Christianity and Islam are competitors, so why would they want to empower each other? This competition is the same between every religion, even among sects of the same religion: Why would Catholics help fundraise to build a Protestant church in the same town, or vice versa?

The same issue is true with political groups: Why would a Democrat help raise money for a Republican? Again, like religion, every single political party is in competition with another, even among the same political sphere: neoconservatives are in competition with paleoconservatives, and so on.

We human beings are tribal, and our most fundamental tribal identity, before we are given a name, are initiated into a religion, or join a political party, is our race, which, unlike all others, is a biological construct, not a social one, that we can never change out of and no one else can change into. In fact, the only people than can make more of a race are members of that race, whereas anyone can join a certain religion or political party and increase its ranks.

Race is real; in fact, it’s one of the only things that is real; preserving one’s race should be a fundamental human right. Any political system that denies this right, is by definition, genocidal.

I know there are several ethnicities that exist within a race, but for the sake of simplicity, I will just use race as the term to describe the biodiversity of mankind. The fact this biodiversity exists, it must be considered when organizing humanity. Now, some people may not value race as much as others, but those that do value race should not be represented by those of another race, nor should their financial and human resources be used for the benefit other races without their permission.

Within the diverse multiparty states of the West, race, in the case of White people, is not even considered to be a legit, unifying principle for them, whereas every other race not only uses their identity as a unifying principle, but are also encouraged to do so. This of course is unjust but intentional, as the main target of world jewry is the White race; they work around the world and around the clock to ensure White people never use race or ethnicity as a unifying principle, while they of course, unite around their jewishness.

---

In the last century, White people have been conditioned to be the least tribal of all the races they find themselves among, and thus, are least likely to pool their financial and human resources for their own, while everyone else does, is allowed to do so, and is encouraged to do so. In fact, when some Whites create pro-White organizations, they are labeled Nazis, antisemites, White supremacists, and are attacked by every jewish organization on this planet. Other races, conditioned by this jewish anti-Whiteism, also join in on the attack.

Because of this social pressure from world jewry and non-Whites, along with the nonstop White guilt and White privilege propaganda, Whites remain atomized and do not see themselves as a group with legit interests; in fact, in many cases, they will refuse to even support their own on a racial basis, due to it being considered racist.

Despite being gaslit into believing they are the most racist group on Earth, Whites are more likely to support and donate to non-Whites than the other way around. This anti-Whiteism must be eliminated from society; and like any other kind of racism, the only real solution to it would be White-only living spaces.

---

As we have seen, these multicultural, multireligious, and multiparty states are simply too dysfunctional and unjust: no sovereign human being wants their hard work and resources to be taken from them and given to their competition or enemies; yet, these centralized Western governments syphon people’s hard-earned money into their treasury and do just that, which is literally a form of slavery, not just to one master, but several masters. And to make matters worse, not only do the citizens living under these governments not trust their own government, studies have shown that such diverse societies are low-trust societies, where trust among citizens is also low. Should anyone be surprised by this? Why would a nation full of various different peoples, with different customs, beliefs, wants, and needs, create a higher-trust society than one that’s full of similar people? Why would anyone feel safe in a society surrounded by their competition? Why would anyone want to live under such madness?

It has been clear to me, and it should be clear to anyone with any sense at this point, that the way forward for humanity, now that we’ve all seen this so-called melting-pot social experiment fail miserably, is to embrace Sovereign Nationalism and start negotiating and organization people into living spaces that will be much safer and more productive for them and everyone else.

A sovereign is one who has bodily autonomy and decides where they contribute their labor and resources. Only sovereigns who agree to pool their labor and resources for their common good can make a true sovereign state. Under our current slave-colonies we call Western governments, these rights are denied. This is unacceptable and must be stopped; and the only way we can stop it, is with Sovereign Nationalism.

---