Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs
I’m sorry, but do you actually have anything other than your opinion here? At least I loosely referred to history and some of the most timeless philosophers that we have. I could quote the Bible if you’d like:
43 “Foreigners who live in your land will gain more and more power, while you gradually lose yours. 44 They will have money to lend you, but you will have none to lend them. In the end they will be your rulers.” Deuteronomy 28:43-44 ESV
What you seem to be missing is that you’re taking the talking points of our rulers who hate us, who on one hand will tell you ethnocentrism is wrong and with the other hand are the most ethnocentric amongst us. Don’t listen to what Jews say, watch how they act, and time after time they act in ethnocentrism while telling us that it’s the worst thing ever.
I appreciate that you're referencing history and philosophers, but it's important to remember that much of what Aristotle and other philosophers said is still based on observation and opinion rather than objective fact. Philosophy itself often poses ideas for debate rather than delivering definitive truths, which means it's open to interpretation and evolution as societies change.
Regarding the biblical quote from Deuteronomy, it highlights a fear of foreign influence and loss of power—something that can be understood in the context of its time. However, applying ancient scripture to modern political and social issues can be problematic, especially when societies have evolved significantly since then. The Bible, like philosophical texts, reflects the circumstances and worldview of its time, and while it can offer wisdom, it's not always a direct guide for contemporary issues.
As for ethnocentrism, the point I’m making isn’t simply a talking point. Ethnocentrism inherently leads to division, conflict, and, ultimately, war because it encourages a mindset of "us vs. them." We’ve seen this pattern repeated throughout history, regardless of who practices it. When group identity becomes the primary lens through which we view others, it limits our ability to cooperate, communicate, and grow as a society.
You mention the actions of certain groups as being ethnocentric, and it's true that many people act in self-interest. But self-interest is not inherently the same as ethnocentrism, and just because others may choose to act that way doesn't make it the best or only approach. The real question is: do we want to perpetuate a cycle of tribalism and conflict, or do we want to push ourselves toward a more cooperative and interconnected society, recognizing that survival and progress in the modern world require more than just loyalty to one’s own group?
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives. The idea that ethnocentrism is a path to long-term prosperity is shortsighted, and it often leads to more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.
In the end, it's not about what any particular group says or does—it's about how we, as individuals and societies, choose to move forward in a world that is increasingly interconnected. Clinging to old divisions only limits our potential.
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives
This Is high trait openness, not ethnic diversity. Please cite one example in history where ethnic diversity did actually increase human progress.
I understand that ethnocentrism can lead to us versus then dynamics, I’m simply choosing to focus on the self love and love of countrymen that this society currently lacks. When I look at society today I see a society that’s absolutely terrible and most of the logical sleight of hand ultimately stems this idea that ethnocentrism is bad. Why are young people desperate for an identity that puts them on a the oppression stack? Do you think democrats would be so hell bent on importing all these potential voters if they voted Republican?
Look, we both want less conflict in the world, it’s just a question of how to get there. You seem to think that universalism is the way, but I’m trying to tell you that the post WW2 era is exactly that, so we tried that and its consequences are far worse than most of the typical modes of human operation in the pre-1900s.
To build on my last point, let's consider another example that highlights the power of economic diversity: George Washington Carver. As a black innovator and scientist in America, Carver revolutionized agriculture with his work on crop rotation and alternative crops like peanuts, which dramatically improved the livelihoods of countless farmers.
His contributions weren’t just about innovation; they transformed the U.S. economy in significant ways, especially in the South, and improved the quality of life for people of all backgrounds.
Now, let's look at someone more recent:
Elon Musk. He wasn’t even born in America, yet look at what he’s done for the country. From revolutionizing space exploration with SpaceX to pushing the boundaries of electric vehicles with Tesla, Musk’s contributions have had a massive impact on the U.S. economy and global innovation.
If America had banned “others,” we might have missed out on someone like Musk—and the economic benefits he brought with him.
That’s my point about economic diversity being our real strength.
It’s not about where someone comes from or what their ethnicity is—it’s about the unique value they bring to the table. When we open our doors to innovators from all walks of life, we build a stronger, more dynamic economy.
No single group, by itself, can replicate the collective contributions of diverse entrepreneurs. That’s why economic diversity, not ethnic homogeneity, is what truly drives progress.
You bring up an interesting point about focusing on self-love and love of countrymen, and I agree that societies do thrive when they embrace a shared sense of purpose.
However, I think it's important to redefine what we mean by diversity, and I'd argue that "Economic Diversity" is a more powerful concept than "Cultural Diversity" when it comes to driving progress and improving quality of life.
Take America, for example. What has made the country thrive historically is not just cultural or ethnic diversity but economic diversity—the presence of a wide range of entrepreneurs and innovators from all over the world, bringing different skills, ideas, and approaches to the same economic ecosystem. It’s not about everyone having the same ethnic background or cultural heritage; it's about people from different walks of life contributing unique economic value.
Entrepreneurs, whether they come from different ethnic backgrounds or not, are the ones responsible for improving the quality of life. They create jobs, innovate in technology, and find new ways to solve old problems. In America, we’ve seen that having a diverse pool of entrepreneurs—whether they’re in tech, medicine, finance, or small business—creates a synergy that no homogenous group can compete with. A country that fosters a wide range of economic activity, fueled by entrepreneurs from all over the world, has a significant advantage over one that relies on a single group with a singular worldview.
You asked for an example of where diversity increased human progress, and I’d point to the American economy itself. The U.S. is a global economic powerhouse precisely because it has welcomed entrepreneurs from different parts of the world—whether it’s immigrants founding iconic companies like Google, Tesla, or Pfizer. These aren’t successes born out of ethnic diversity for its own sake but out of economic diversity: people with different perspectives coming together to create something bigger than they could have done individually.
When you focus on fostering a community of entrepreneurs, you don’t just encourage collaboration across ethnic lines; you create an environment where different ideas and innovations compete and evolve. This is what drives human progress—economic cooperation and competition among people with different skills, experiences, and expertise. No single, homogenous group can replicate the dynamism that comes from a diverse set of economic actors working toward a common goal.
As for the post-WW2 era and universalism, I understand your concerns. But I’d argue that the challenges we’re facing today are not due to a failure of universalism but rather the lack of focus on economic opportunity and innovation. It’s not just about “identity politics” or ethnic division; it’s about ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, can contribute economically and improve their lives through entrepreneurship and innovation.
In the end, reducing conflict isn’t about promoting or rejecting ethnocentrism—it’s about fostering economic diversity and creating a society where people from different backgrounds can collaborate and compete in ways that lift everyone up. That’s the real key to less conflict and more prosperity.
Do you enjoy America as it is today? Is that why you’re on a site called the Great Awakening? America’s success largely comes from its marriage of English people and Germanic peoples. Otherwise known as Western European people, who primarily account for a majority of human advancement whether you like it or not. I’m not impressed with the high IQ foreign nationals here to loot the empire. Anyone can do that and it’s the sign of society in decline. America was like 80% white as recently as the 90s and I think you can agree that it’s been in decline since.
Do you think the diversity of our society has been good for it? Are you more well connected to your local community than you were in the 90s? Do you think our society is healthier today? Are you connected to a local church? Is it thriving? Do you think our society is more divided than it ever has been? When you look at the future of America, do you have more hope for it today? Or in the 90s?
Take America, for example. What has made the country thrive historically is not just cultural or ethnic diversity but economic diversity ...
What you are ignoring is that America was built on White power.
All that "cultural or ethnic diversity" to which you refer that BUILT America were people from EUROPE.
The Mexicans played NO PART in 18th-19th century America.
The Somalis played NO PART in 18th-19th century America.
The Chinese played NO PART in 18th-19th century America.
I can understand why non-Whites want to live in White countires. It's because they benefit greatly.
BUT ...
Whites have been nothing but harmed by the invasion of non-Whites.
The schools are MUCH WORSE today than in 18th-19th century America.
The economic progress is MUCH WORSE today than in 18th-19th century America.
The prosperity is MUCH WORSE today than in 18th-19th century America.
Google, Tesla, or Pfizer
All 3 of these companies were built on government largesse, not on free market enterprise.
As true capitalism, which America was built on, has been replaced with a corrupt cronyism, it is not surprising that these 3 companies, in particular, became "successful" entirely on the backs of government gibs.
Google - built on grants from CIA and NSA (gee, I wonder what that means ...)
Tesla - without tax credits and government gibs, Tesla never would have gotten off the ground
Pfizer - a monoply on certain drugs, with a government preventing you from suing them when they harm you or your loved ones.
THIS. IS. NOT. CAPITALISM.
This is a slice of big government taking over your life.
So, it does not support your thesis.
This type of government dominance in our lives is not better than early America.
Early America was based upon certain fundamental and commonly-held beliefs, which have largely been destroyed by people who lack those beliefs ... BECAUSE THEY ARE OF DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS.
This is the reason we have so much division today.
The diversity of cultures -- that are of different ethnicities -- is a problem, not a solution.
And if you find that statement repulsive, it only proves how much our modern society has been destroyed by harmful new ideas (which never existed before) via societal programming.
And here is my response to why it will never work.
You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing: Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
And here is my response to why it [ethnocentrism] will never work.
What you are ignoring is that IT ALREADY HAS WORKED -- in White societies, in Japan, and to some extent in other societies, as well.
Whether or not it has worked in black societies (Africa) is another question.
But those of us who love the history of Europe, and all it has accomplished over many centuries, are throwing off the propaganda and rediscovering our pride in our own history.
If blacks can be proud of their history; if jews can be proud of their history; if others can be proud of their histories, then so can Whites. But Whites are the ONLY ones who others claim cannot or should not be proud.
Yet, our people accomplished more than all the others, combined.
We are looking at the recent history of the attempt to destroy ethnocentrism IN WHITE SOCIETIES ONLY, and realizing that this "progressive" era has been an absolute disaster ... for White people.
It has been entirely destructive, and NOTHING about it has been an improvement.
Naturally, we consider the possibility that maybe Whites would be better off going back to the idea of having a society without non-Whites, by letting them do their thing "over there" and us doing our thing "over here."
I will give you a hypothetical.
Let's say that we split Texas. Blacks take half and Whites take half.
Within 20-50 years, I can predict with reasonable accuracy that the history of each race will play out again in the future, and Whites will have a thriving society, while blacks will be in chaos and poverty. Sure, some blacks can thrive, but on the whole, the rest of the black population will bring down the whole of the population (see: Africa).
The problem today is that the chaos comes mostly (not entirely, but mostly) from outsiders, from the perspective of White society.
Yes, I know that non-Whites will cry about these statements, but these statements are for the Whites to consider, and I don't care what anyone else thinks.
The biggest problem most Democrats have is that they have these ideals of how they think society "should" be, and how we should acheive such an end goal. Their ONLY solution to the "how" part is more government spending.
OK, but they NEVER take a step back to LOOK at the RESULTS of their ideas. Did their ideas from 50 years ago about education, poverty, liberty, etc. ACTUALLY ACHEIVE THE RESULT they said they wanted?
In every single case, the answer is: NO.
That's BECAUSE their solution is FLAWED. It does not work the way they think it will because people are more complex than just pushing a button and spending money (money that is STOLEN from other people).
The same is true of the experiment in desegregation and the forceful interaction of different races.
IT HAS NOT WORKED ... for Whites.
That is my point, and non-Whites will either (a) not get it, or (b) not accept it, because it has benefited them, and they don't know what their own life would be like if the Whites just picked up their toys and left town (hint: look at Africa).
There is nothing wrong with exploring these ideas. Only the propagandists who want to destroy White society push that narrative. And it is long past time that we ignore their opinions on this subject.
Sure, we all should work together to destroy the Deep State, who come in all colors (though jews are vastly over-represented), because those people harm us all.
That, however, does not change anything else I said here.
It is the Deep State who has pushed these harmful ideas in the first place. These ideas are not natural to humans.
THAT IS WHY they don't (and won't ever) work.
We should accept that and deal with reality as it is, not as someone in an ivory tower thinks it should be.
Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs
I’m sorry, but do you actually have anything other than your opinion here? At least I loosely referred to history and some of the most timeless philosophers that we have. I could quote the Bible if you’d like:
43 “Foreigners who live in your land will gain more and more power, while you gradually lose yours. 44 They will have money to lend you, but you will have none to lend them. In the end they will be your rulers.” Deuteronomy 28:43-44 ESV
What you seem to be missing is that you’re taking the talking points of our rulers who hate us, who on one hand will tell you ethnocentrism is wrong and with the other hand are the most ethnocentric amongst us. Don’t listen to what Jews say, watch how they act, and time after time they act in ethnocentrism while telling us that it’s the worst thing ever.
I appreciate that you're referencing history and philosophers, but it's important to remember that much of what Aristotle and other philosophers said is still based on observation and opinion rather than objective fact. Philosophy itself often poses ideas for debate rather than delivering definitive truths, which means it's open to interpretation and evolution as societies change.
Regarding the biblical quote from Deuteronomy, it highlights a fear of foreign influence and loss of power—something that can be understood in the context of its time. However, applying ancient scripture to modern political and social issues can be problematic, especially when societies have evolved significantly since then. The Bible, like philosophical texts, reflects the circumstances and worldview of its time, and while it can offer wisdom, it's not always a direct guide for contemporary issues.
As for ethnocentrism, the point I’m making isn’t simply a talking point. Ethnocentrism inherently leads to division, conflict, and, ultimately, war because it encourages a mindset of "us vs. them." We’ve seen this pattern repeated throughout history, regardless of who practices it. When group identity becomes the primary lens through which we view others, it limits our ability to cooperate, communicate, and grow as a society.
You mention the actions of certain groups as being ethnocentric, and it's true that many people act in self-interest. But self-interest is not inherently the same as ethnocentrism, and just because others may choose to act that way doesn't make it the best or only approach. The real question is: do we want to perpetuate a cycle of tribalism and conflict, or do we want to push ourselves toward a more cooperative and interconnected society, recognizing that survival and progress in the modern world require more than just loyalty to one’s own group?
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives. The idea that ethnocentrism is a path to long-term prosperity is shortsighted, and it often leads to more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.
In the end, it's not about what any particular group says or does—it's about how we, as individuals and societies, choose to move forward in a world that is increasingly interconnected. Clinging to old divisions only limits our potential.
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives
This Is high trait openness, not ethnic diversity. Please cite one example in history where ethnic diversity did actually increase human progress.
I understand that ethnocentrism can lead to us versus then dynamics, I’m simply choosing to focus on the self love and love of countrymen that this society currently lacks. When I look at society today I see a society that’s absolutely terrible and most of the logical sleight of hand ultimately stems this idea that ethnocentrism is bad. Why are young people desperate for an identity that puts them on a the oppression stack? Do you think democrats would be so hell bent on importing all these potential voters if they voted Republican?
Look, we both want less conflict in the world, it’s just a question of how to get there. You seem to think that universalism is the way, but I’m trying to tell you that the post WW2 era is exactly that, so we tried that and its consequences are far worse than most of the typical modes of human operation in the pre-1900s.
To build on my last point, let's consider another example that highlights the power of economic diversity: George Washington Carver. As a black innovator and scientist in America, Carver revolutionized agriculture with his work on crop rotation and alternative crops like peanuts, which dramatically improved the livelihoods of countless farmers.
His contributions weren’t just about innovation; they transformed the U.S. economy in significant ways, especially in the South, and improved the quality of life for people of all backgrounds.
Now, let's look at someone more recent:
Elon Musk. He wasn’t even born in America, yet look at what he’s done for the country. From revolutionizing space exploration with SpaceX to pushing the boundaries of electric vehicles with Tesla, Musk’s contributions have had a massive impact on the U.S. economy and global innovation.
If America had banned “others,” we might have missed out on someone like Musk—and the economic benefits he brought with him.
That’s my point about economic diversity being our real strength.
It’s not about where someone comes from or what their ethnicity is—it’s about the unique value they bring to the table. When we open our doors to innovators from all walks of life, we build a stronger, more dynamic economy.
No single group, by itself, can replicate the collective contributions of diverse entrepreneurs. That’s why economic diversity, not ethnic homogeneity, is what truly drives progress.
You bring up an interesting point about focusing on self-love and love of countrymen, and I agree that societies do thrive when they embrace a shared sense of purpose.
However, I think it's important to redefine what we mean by diversity, and I'd argue that "Economic Diversity" is a more powerful concept than "Cultural Diversity" when it comes to driving progress and improving quality of life.
Take America, for example. What has made the country thrive historically is not just cultural or ethnic diversity but economic diversity—the presence of a wide range of entrepreneurs and innovators from all over the world, bringing different skills, ideas, and approaches to the same economic ecosystem. It’s not about everyone having the same ethnic background or cultural heritage; it's about people from different walks of life contributing unique economic value.
Entrepreneurs, whether they come from different ethnic backgrounds or not, are the ones responsible for improving the quality of life. They create jobs, innovate in technology, and find new ways to solve old problems. In America, we’ve seen that having a diverse pool of entrepreneurs—whether they’re in tech, medicine, finance, or small business—creates a synergy that no homogenous group can compete with. A country that fosters a wide range of economic activity, fueled by entrepreneurs from all over the world, has a significant advantage over one that relies on a single group with a singular worldview.
You asked for an example of where diversity increased human progress, and I’d point to the American economy itself. The U.S. is a global economic powerhouse precisely because it has welcomed entrepreneurs from different parts of the world—whether it’s immigrants founding iconic companies like Google, Tesla, or Pfizer. These aren’t successes born out of ethnic diversity for its own sake but out of economic diversity: people with different perspectives coming together to create something bigger than they could have done individually.
When you focus on fostering a community of entrepreneurs, you don’t just encourage collaboration across ethnic lines; you create an environment where different ideas and innovations compete and evolve. This is what drives human progress—economic cooperation and competition among people with different skills, experiences, and expertise. No single, homogenous group can replicate the dynamism that comes from a diverse set of economic actors working toward a common goal.
As for the post-WW2 era and universalism, I understand your concerns. But I’d argue that the challenges we’re facing today are not due to a failure of universalism but rather the lack of focus on economic opportunity and innovation. It’s not just about “identity politics” or ethnic division; it’s about ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, can contribute economically and improve their lives through entrepreneurship and innovation.
In the end, reducing conflict isn’t about promoting or rejecting ethnocentrism—it’s about fostering economic diversity and creating a society where people from different backgrounds can collaborate and compete in ways that lift everyone up. That’s the real key to less conflict and more prosperity.
Do you enjoy America as it is today? Is that why you’re on a site called the Great Awakening? America’s success largely comes from its marriage of English people and Germanic peoples. Otherwise known as Western European people, who primarily account for a majority of human advancement whether you like it or not. I’m not impressed with the high IQ foreign nationals here to loot the empire. Anyone can do that and it’s the sign of society in decline. America was like 80% white as recently as the 90s and I think you can agree that it’s been in decline since.
Do you think the diversity of our society has been good for it? Are you more well connected to your local community than you were in the 90s? Do you think our society is healthier today? Are you connected to a local church? Is it thriving? Do you think our society is more divided than it ever has been? When you look at the future of America, do you have more hope for it today? Or in the 90s?
What you are ignoring is that America was built on White power.
All that "cultural or ethnic diversity" to which you refer that BUILT America were people from EUROPE.
The Mexicans played NO PART in 18th-19th century America.
The Somalis played NO PART in 18th-19th century America.
The Chinese played NO PART in 18th-19th century America.
I can understand why non-Whites want to live in White countires. It's because they benefit greatly.
BUT ...
Whites have been nothing but harmed by the invasion of non-Whites.
The schools are MUCH WORSE today than in 18th-19th century America.
The economic progress is MUCH WORSE today than in 18th-19th century America.
The prosperity is MUCH WORSE today than in 18th-19th century America.
All 3 of these companies were built on government largesse, not on free market enterprise.
As true capitalism, which America was built on, has been replaced with a corrupt cronyism, it is not surprising that these 3 companies, in particular, became "successful" entirely on the backs of government gibs.
Google - built on grants from CIA and NSA (gee, I wonder what that means ...)
Tesla - without tax credits and government gibs, Tesla never would have gotten off the ground
Pfizer - a monoply on certain drugs, with a government preventing you from suing them when they harm you or your loved ones.
THIS. IS. NOT. CAPITALISM.
This is a slice of big government taking over your life.
So, it does not support your thesis.
This type of government dominance in our lives is not better than early America.
Early America was based upon certain fundamental and commonly-held beliefs, which have largely been destroyed by people who lack those beliefs ... BECAUSE THEY ARE OF DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS.
This is the reason we have so much division today.
The diversity of cultures -- that are of different ethnicities -- is a problem, not a solution.
And if you find that statement repulsive, it only proves how much our modern society has been destroyed by harmful new ideas (which never existed before) via societal programming.
And here is my response to why it will never work.
You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing: Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
What you are ignoring is that IT ALREADY HAS WORKED -- in White societies, in Japan, and to some extent in other societies, as well.
Whether or not it has worked in black societies (Africa) is another question.
But those of us who love the history of Europe, and all it has accomplished over many centuries, are throwing off the propaganda and rediscovering our pride in our own history.
If blacks can be proud of their history; if jews can be proud of their history; if others can be proud of their histories, then so can Whites. But Whites are the ONLY ones who others claim cannot or should not be proud.
Yet, our people accomplished more than all the others, combined.
We are looking at the recent history of the attempt to destroy ethnocentrism IN WHITE SOCIETIES ONLY, and realizing that this "progressive" era has been an absolute disaster ... for White people.
It has been entirely destructive, and NOTHING about it has been an improvement.
Naturally, we consider the possibility that maybe Whites would be better off going back to the idea of having a society without non-Whites, by letting them do their thing "over there" and us doing our thing "over here."
I will give you a hypothetical.
Let's say that we split Texas. Blacks take half and Whites take half.
Within 20-50 years, I can predict with reasonable accuracy that the history of each race will play out again in the future, and Whites will have a thriving society, while blacks will be in chaos and poverty. Sure, some blacks can thrive, but on the whole, the rest of the black population will bring down the whole of the population (see: Africa).
The problem today is that the chaos comes mostly (not entirely, but mostly) from outsiders, from the perspective of White society.
Yes, I know that non-Whites will cry about these statements, but these statements are for the Whites to consider, and I don't care what anyone else thinks.
The biggest problem most Democrats have is that they have these ideals of how they think society "should" be, and how we should acheive such an end goal. Their ONLY solution to the "how" part is more government spending.
OK, but they NEVER take a step back to LOOK at the RESULTS of their ideas. Did their ideas from 50 years ago about education, poverty, liberty, etc. ACTUALLY ACHEIVE THE RESULT they said they wanted?
In every single case, the answer is: NO.
That's BECAUSE their solution is FLAWED. It does not work the way they think it will because people are more complex than just pushing a button and spending money (money that is STOLEN from other people).
The same is true of the experiment in desegregation and the forceful interaction of different races.
IT HAS NOT WORKED ... for Whites.
That is my point, and non-Whites will either (a) not get it, or (b) not accept it, because it has benefited them, and they don't know what their own life would be like if the Whites just picked up their toys and left town (hint: look at Africa).
There is nothing wrong with exploring these ideas. Only the propagandists who want to destroy White society push that narrative. And it is long past time that we ignore their opinions on this subject.
Sure, we all should work together to destroy the Deep State, who come in all colors (though jews are vastly over-represented), because those people harm us all.
That, however, does not change anything else I said here.
It is the Deep State who has pushed these harmful ideas in the first place. These ideas are not natural to humans.
THAT IS WHY they don't (and won't ever) work.
We should accept that and deal with reality as it is, not as someone in an ivory tower thinks it should be.
LOL!
It has already worked??
THEN WHY THE HELL DOES SO MANY PEOPLE WANT TO COME TO THE STATES???
Do you know how many EUROS have left their land to move to the US???
Isn't EUROPE a UPTOPIA of whiteness?
Why do people around the world want to come to a society built on WHITE ideals by WHITE people, but they don't clamor to move to Africa?
I don't know why you seem baffled.
The question answers itself.
You have all you need.