A Simple Question for Foreigners

RSS Feed

A Simple Question for Foreigners

February 26th, 2016

Awake Goy

Every single non-indigenous person should be asked this simple question by representatives of the people of each host country:

What tangible things have you done to contribute towards your host country’s traditional culture, or the natural, or the local environment of your host country?

There can be no grey areas on this one. It cannot be “I run a shop.” This is not suitable, as it is simply for their selfish benefit and does not help the local culture. In fact it takes from the culture, because that shop should be owned by a local inhabitant, in order to maintain the local culture and local employment.

If they have contributed in a unique way, they may be able to remain; but only as a subject and never as a citizen.

Conditional Acceptance of Subjects

1. They would never be able to vote – therefore having zero political influence on the indigenous people of the host country.

2. They would never be able to hold any careers of authoritative position, therefore never controlling the inhabitants.

3. Zero social benefits – unless they personally had contributed towards these benefits over sufficient years.

4. They must contribute towards their host nation in a unique and tangible way: such as specialised martial arts of their culture, their unique cultural foods, unique natural health systems (i.e. Tai Chi, etc), teaching a language, etc. It must be something that the host country cannot provide themselves and can benefit from, but so long as they never threaten the employment and income of the indigenous people.

5. They must also socially contribute towards their host country – in either of these ways:

a. assisting in maintaining the tradition cultural heritage of their host county.

b. contribute towards the natural or local environment.

6. They would not be able to own property, or own any stake in the host country; nor have any persuasion on market values.

7. They would not be allowed to have more than two children. Therefore not disturbing the demographic of the host country.

8. They would not be allowed to have public parades of their alternative religious ceremonies. Nor should their religion impose whatsoever on the cultural identification of the host country.

9. They would not be allowed to race mix with the inhabitants of the nation, going against the natural order and distributing national demographics.

10. Any abuse of these conditions, or disruption to the natural inhabitants – then an immediate, no-compromise, permanent deportation should be made.

No more than 2% of non-indigenous peoples should be allowed to occupy any host country

For example, in Britain this would mean approximately 1,282,000 ‘vetted’ immigrants would be allowed to stay. This is ample, yet wouldn’t impact the cultural heritage of Britain.

These guests should be treated with respect from the indigenous people. No harm must come upon them. They must live a comfortable life and never exploited.

These conditions of course would apply to Brits in Spain, Italians in Germany, French in Portugal, or Russians in Sweden, etc. This is not necessarily a race issue. This is a culture (blood and soil) issue.

I used to live in Germany for a couple of years. I actively learned the language (although very rusty now), I got involved in non-paid, hands-on, social and environment projects. I did my bit to improve their culture, not just take, take, take for selfish gain. When I left after two years, I could hold my head up that I contributed to the German culture. My attitude whilst living there was that I was a guest and adapted to my host country’s conditions. I also acted as a water-down ambassador for my country, representing an Englishman in good light. Even when I had a good German beer inside me, I still acted civilly.

People cannot expect to just turn up at a country, with no heritage to that country, and expect to have the same rights as the inhabitants, whose ancestors have created and toiled for their nation. Nor can immigrants act in a parasitic or disrespectful way to their hosts.

These subjects must adopt an attitude they are merely guests under conditional acceptance. They are effectively second-class citizens to the natural inhabitants and should never consider having equal rights as the inhabitants, which is the exact same attitude as one adopts when staying at somebody’s home as a guest. This is only common sense and practical. This fair system would benefit both subjects and natural inhabitants. Both positions firmly established. It really should be this simple.