I saw a documentary (I don't recall the name, I'll try to find it and edit maybe later here) by a person responsible for "diversity" in the City of London who after a number of years simply gave up on trying to integrate the city. He came to the conclusion that people of similar culture simply want to live together and there's nothing you can do to prevent it and still have them be free people. This was a controversial stance, to say the least, even though said person was black himself.
Thing is, there is nothing wrong with this sort of voluntary segregation. On the contrary, it greatly enhances the charm of a city if there are ethnic neighbourhoods with their own character, as long as it doesn't descend into ethnic hatred. The problem with apartheid wasn't the segregation as such, it was the
forced segregation (which is another thing altogether) and the exploitation of cheap labour.
The lefties are trying to force tolerance on us by trying to ram everyone into everyone else's faces; it can only lead to conflict. In a sense, our tolerance is tested every bit as much by groups that wish to keep to themselves. How good are we at tolerating groups like, say, the Amish, or the Jehovah Witnesses, or, in the case of SA, the Orania folks? Seems to me that if a group keeps to itself and bothers no one, and complies more or less with national law and bill of rights, there is no reason to go scratch where it ain't itching.
I have to wonder how far that kind of thing can go before neighboring factions start warring over resources again. Perhaps that's what we do, sub-(or not)consciously all the time.
Yes, there is always that problem. The Oranians chose their site well: it is semi-desert that almost no one wants. But of course, the big weakness there is the water supply. There are limits to the size of society that can be supported by the Orange River.
Recent Posts
