When Palestinians are lectured on the horrors of the Holocaust, they react with a great deal of outrage. It isn’t for the reasons you think – they are outraged because they are expected to feel sympathy for the very same people that are currently subjecting them to ethnic cleansing. Similarly, when attacks like the latest incident in Nice transpire, Westerners react with outrage. Again, it isn’t for the reasons you think. Their primary source of outrage stems from being told to sympathize with the multiculturalism and diversity status quo in the face of horrific Islamist atrocities. We can expect to see a lot more of the following: terrorist/Micah Johnson attacks followed by the media rousing up public outrage against the atrocities which is responded to by a feckless call to continue respecting Multiculturalism and diversity.
There is a two prong strategy at work here. When a society is under attack, people expect their leaders take up a strong stand against the perpetrators if only to save face. One reason why India’s Narendra Modi is so popular is because of his perceived hard-line stance on Pakistan. This is not the man (according to public opinion) that adopts a conciliatory approach in the face of attack; he fights back. If he failed to do this, he would lose face (disastrous in Asia) and the public’s opinion regarding Pakistan would be further inflamed. Similarly, Westerners expect their leaders to take a stand when their societies are under attack; especially when the media rouses up passions with graphic content. When leaders (deliberately) fail to assuage the trauma of the public, the latter’s passions are further inflamed against what they perceive are troublesome minorities. Blacks and Muslims for their part are also incensed at (what they perceive) is a media war against them. It would seem that the majority and certain minorities are being pitted against each other. What could our globalist elites possibly gain from such a scenario? I believe that North America is being molded along the paradigm of Pakistan. Let’s examine this thesis.
The dilemma of diversity
The rationale behind the creation of Pakistan was to provide South Asia’s Muslims with a safe haven. It must be stated that a large number of Indian Muslims cannot relate to Pakistan due to cultural and linguistic differences. I have yet to meet a single Tamil or Keralite Pakistani. The Tamil and Keralite Muslims of south India predictably feel closer bonds of kinship to their Hindu neighbours who share their language, cuisine, and culture. What the architects of Pakistan failed to account for were the cultural and language differences that separate the various ethnic groups in western India. Due to irreconcilable cultural differences, the Bengalis in the east separated from Pakistan and formed Bangladesh in 1971. Memories of the genocide they endured in the early 70s are still alive and fresh today. Pakistan has failed to address the underlying issues of national identity and racial solidarity that led to the Bangladesh crisis. Even today, street skirmishes between rival ethnic groups like the Pasthuns and Muhajirs are common in cities like Karachi. The Sindhis despise the Punjabis and the Balochis want out of Pakistan altogether.
The only force keeping this disunited and dysfunctional “country” together is the Pakistani army. It was the Pakistani army (with Iran’s help) that suppressed the Balochi uprising in the 1950s and continues to militarily dominate Baluchistan. India (also blessed with diversity) faces similar problems. The Indian army (in conjunction with a brutal police force) ruthlessly quashes any signs of uprising in places like Kashmir and Assam. The truly stable societies in Asia are ethnically homogeneous – Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore.
Keeping diversity functioning in environments with scarce resources (like most third world nations) requires a strong state with totalitarian proclivities. Diversity is the very anti-thesis for anti-nationalism. As I’ve written previously, globalists have a strong aversion to traditionalist forces like nationalism, family, culture and religion because they hinder the free flow of capital. Diversity eats away nationalism like Sulfuric acids eats away human skin. It’s no coincidence then that the Chinese have been sending in a steady flow of han immigrants into Tibet. Nationalism dies when a nationalist’s aspirations are rejected by his neighbours.
Turning our attention back to North America, let’s examine the following chart.
The data clearly indicates that advanced police militarization is observed in Florida and NY on the East Coast, the U.S south, and finally California on the West coast. What do these regions have in common? The relatively homogeneous Midwest seems to host the least amount of police militarization. One of the horrors of the Micah Johnson shooting was that he was taken out with a robot rigged with explosives. The implications of this are enormous, yet few can rise above the sewer that is the culture war and see the writing on the wall.
As the West slowly but surely marches towards economic collapse, we can expect ethnic tensions to flare up as various groups skirmish with each other in a competition for scarce resources. The left (the mouthpiece of Globalist ideology) will continue to fan the flames of war with race agitation like BLM. The only thing that will keep the U.S. functioning as a country in such a scenario would be a militarized force backed by a State with totalitarian proclivities. Welcome to Pakistan.