If you are told that something is good for you, is enriching you, and is necessary for your country to 'survive' then why do you move as far away from it as possible? If you are told, that we are all the same, and that race does not exist and other cultural and religious norms different to your own are just as equal and normal as your own, then why do you move as far away from them as possible?
If you haven't already guessed, im talking about multiculturalism, 'diversity' and how these agendas are related to the phenomenon of white flight.
When our media and politicians tell us that multiculturalism is great for our countries, deep down we all know that the exact opposite is true. What other ethnic and cultural group other than whites, would fall for such blatant lies and why do whites become so passive to it? No African or Asian nation is crying out for a multiracial multicultural society, these same nations dont have leaders who are forcing it on them either, and how long would they last if they were to attempt it. They would last about as long as it is sunny in Britain and that isn't very long. These African and Asian nations dont have media that tries telling them to embrace mass non-African or mass non-Asian immigration into their homelands either, and as a result accepting their own demographic genocide.
Everybody knows whether they care to admit it or not, that African and Asian nations would not stand idly by as their nations and continents were demographically engineered so that Africans and Asians were displaced and en route to becoming a minority in their own countries. If the roles were reversed, and there was mass white immigration in the tens of millions into these continents, then the very same people who support European countries being flooded, would be screaming about colonisation and imperialist whites. This alone is enough to recognise the agenda being behind mass non-white immigration into white countries as an anti-white agenda.
You could go to any of these non-white countries, and carry out a survey of the indigenous people asking them if they felt that mass European immigration into their countries would be a good thing, the overwhelming majority would say no. Some African and Asian countries welcome tourism from Europe, but there is a big big difference between tourism and colonisation.
In Europe, America, Canada, Australia and other countries that are historically ethnically European, people know that multiculturalism is not something that is benefiting them, they see their nations and communities changing due to governmental policies of importing mass non-white third world immigration, they dont want it, they dont need it, they dont agree with it and they dont embrace it as much as the media would like to have you believe. The majority of white people have no interest in living among foreign strangers, and upon seeing their hometowns and neighbourhoods overwhelmed by immigrants and their descendents, decide to move away into areas that are not affected by the ongoing colonisation and which are inhabited by their own people.
This is a natural reaction and would be the same if roles were reversed. This is were the nonsensical idea that multiracial diversity is natural falls flat on its face when the realities of self separation among all groups is taken into consideration. No matter how much it is forced upon us, and no matter how much the ideological strategy is pushed through schools and media, all groups naturally prefer to live among their own ethnic group.
The same can be said for the non-Europeans who have been allowed to flood into our nations, whereas whites move away from the false utopian ideal of multiculturalism, the non-whites centralise in an area, set up businesses that cater specifically for the immigrant community, religious buildings appear, and newly arriving immigrants head to these areas to be among their own people and other immigrants. They dont head straight for white communities to be among whites, but as the immigrant numbers grow and their descendents start to outnumber the indigenous birth rates further altering the area, they begin to move outwards gradually in a steady colonisation. Once this happens, white communities start seeing the slow trickle of multiculturalism as the immigrants and their descendants start moving outwards and the slow trickle turns into the multicultural tsunami as once white areas start seeing the impact of the unstoppable spread of forced multiculturalism.
Again, when this becomes overbearing, whites start to move out to be away from it. There are always exceptions to the rule however, and some whites do remain in heavily populated immigrant areas, either due to their financial situation and being unable to move, or whites who actually for some reason, do embrace their own demographic displacement. And whilst these whites go about their everyday business believing they are being 'enriched', the immigration population has no interest in whether an area is becoming non-white, but only care that they are surrounded by their own people, they employ ethnic networking to consolidate their group in an area, they will tell you they believe in diversity and multiculturalism, and they will tell you 'racism' is bad and they are victims of it, but in reality they know exactly what they are doing whilst whites dont work together in the same manner, they dont identify as an ethnic group with interests, whites are in disarray as non-whites work in the interests of non-whites.
Ethnic minorities now form a majority in eight of America's biggest metropolitan areas, according to new statistics.Washington D.C. joins New York, San Diego, Las Vegas and Memphis in showing a 'white flight' from some of the countries most populated zones. The results highlighted a much wider national trend as it emerged whites are now a minority in 22 of the country’s 100-biggest urban areas.
Demographers have been shocked by the rapid changes seen in Washington D.C. - particularly in the area's schools. A report by the Northern Virginia Regional Commission noticed that student numbers had grown by almost 119,000 from 1995 to 2010. The number of those students who were white rose by little over 1,000.
Census 2010 data shows "white flight" trend continues for Massachusetts cities:
In Western Massachusetts, Springfield’s white population declined by 18,000, or 24 percent, since 2000, Holyoke’s fell by 3,000, or 13 percent, and Chicopee lost 3,500, or 7.5 percent, census statistics reveal. Greenfield lost about 1,000 whites, down 6 percent, and Northampton shed about 1,400 whites, down about 5 percent.
The populations of whites in three other nearby cities also fell. Worcester dropped 14,000, or 12 percent, Hartford, about 2,000, or 9 percent, and Pittsfield, 3,500, or 8 percent, according to census statistics.
**** These are just some statistics I have come across, more detailed research im sure would show a similar trend in all heavily populated immigrant areas in America.
White flight: "600,000 have quit London in a decade". The true figure is far higher.
"a continuing pattern of “white flight” from areas where indigenous Britons find themselves surrounded by new minority communities."
Census Data from the decade 2001-2001...
2001 Census White British 4,287,861 (59.79%)
2011 Census White British 3,669,284 (44.89%)
An article written by Mark Easton of the 'BBC' in February this year, had the headline... 'Why have the white British left London?'
It then goes on to say:
'Something quite remarkable happened in London in the first decade of the new millennium. The number of white British people in the capital fell by 620,000 - equivalent to the entire population of Glasgow moving out.
The consequence, as revealed by the latest census, is that white Brits are now in a minority in London, making up just 45% of its residents.
So where have they gone to - and why did they leave?'
The author then tries to explain the main reason for the drastic drop in the numbers of whites as being due to 'working class aspiration and economic success.' I dont doubt for one minute that some people move away from areas for these reasons, however to suggest that this is the main reason is not only wrong, but typical of the desire of some to try and cloud the reality of white flight for ideological reasons. They will do anything to portray multiculturalism in a positive light even when the statistics and views of the indigenous people prove otherwise.
For those who have managed to escape London or other highly populated immigrant areas because of economic success or due to their aspirations then congratulations because i wouldn't like to live in London as it is now, and even if this was to be the reason given by a percentage of the 600,000 plus whites who left London, it doesn't mean that other factors have not been taken into consideration such as the non-white colonisation. How many of those people who have moved for these 'positive' reasons are not relieved to be away from a place like London and what it has been allowed to become.
The article says that in Barking and Dagenham, a London borough which has seen a phenomenal change in its cultural make-up over the past decade or so. In 2001, the census records that more than 80% of residents were white British. By 2011, it was statistically in the minority - just 49% of people in the area described themselves as white and British.
A drop of 31% of the white population in this borough is not predominantly down to working class aspirations or economic success, anybody who believes that it is are delusional. They can write article after article trying to convince you that it is, but when we stop beating around the bush, the real reasons are because mass non-white immigration has been forced upon these areas, and the whites who did live their do not want to be living in an area that does not represent an English city, a city that their parents and grandparents had lived in, but now represents the third world full of strangers who bring their own cultures and customs and who are changing what the whites had grown up to cherish, this is what they try and tell you multiculturalism and diversity is, they will tell you that this is enrichment.
Again, this is a natural reaction, if in the next decade, it showed that whites en-masse had moved back into this area, then the likelihood is that the non-whites would also move out to be in an area that was made up of their own people.
The article continues to say that many whites they had spoken to had decided to move to Essex, and in particular areas around Southend. Unsurprisingly, they try and portray the reason as wanting to move is for a better quality of life, and whilst this is true to an extent, I have more of a personal explanation for the mass exodus of whites from London to the predominantly white surrounding areas. I lived in Southend a couple of years back for a period of time due to work, and getting to know some of the locals, it became clear that the overwhelming reason for them moving away from London was immigration, and the fact that London no longer was an English city anymore. It was surprising for me to see just how many people had moved from London to this area, and nearly all people I had met had given immigration as one of the reasons. This isn't a new phenomenon either, some people had been brought up in the area because their parents had decided to move, and again the reasons given were that their parents could see where London was heading and had decided to move out. These are working class people, many of whom actually travelled into London daily for work doing working class jobs, the reason they choose not to live there is not because of working class aspiration or economic success, that idea is simply pro multiculturalists trying to portray reality in a different light. Virtually everybody you came across had a story to tell about their families reasons for leaving London, and none of them were because of economic success or simply a desire to better themselves, they left because of what London was becoming.
Take a look at the following videos, would you want to live here:
The True Face of Immigration:
Third World London:
White Flight - The Weaknesses of Diversity and the Demographic Decline of North America:
In Britain, outside of London, other towns and cities are facing the same problems that mass immigration bring. Three other towns and cities have joined London in becoming majority non-white, Leicester, Luton and Slough are majority non-white with Britain's second largest city Birmingham, due to become majority non-white by the end of the decade. This is because of the huge numbers of immigrants that have been dumped in Britain, and the birth rate among these immigrant communities that outnumber the birth rate among whites, so it stands to reason that because of declining white birth rates and white flight, these towns and cities are going to become majority non-white. By 2066, it is predicted by demographic experts, that white British people will be in the minority. So what is true now in four British towns and cities, will become the reality across the whole country, and the same can be said for all once majority white nations.
In Yorkshire and the north west of England, many towns have self segregated into white areas and non-white mainly Muslim Asian areas. Oldham, Burnley, Blackburn, Bradford and Keighley to name just a handful, are towns that are segregated along racial, cultural and religious lines, you have all white estates and all Asian estates. Tensions are high and many areas have seen race riots over the last decade or so. Oldham and Bradford in particular have seen the worst of these riots in which Asians have torched the place, destroyed businesses, property and attacked whites for being white. Muslim grooming gangs have targeted white girls all across the UK and the media and politicians have refused to take into consideration the racial nature of these crimes due to fears of being labeled racist. Resentment has grown among the white communities and tensions remain high. There are now no-go areas for whites, leftists will say otherwise but dont they always, they should listen to the Asians themselves who have no qualms about admitting that they dont want whites in 'their areas.' They should look at the graffiti which proclaims 'nwa' no whites allowed. Or maybe they should go and speak to the elderly whites stuck in areas that are majority Asian and see how they are harassed constantly in the hope they will be forced to move out.
Local community groups along with politicians and media, will tell you about the 'importance' of 'integration' and they will even come up with schemes to try and force both communities to mix. One example is forcing children from both communities to spend time with each other in each others schools. What this really means, is trying to force whites to accept the inevitable colonisation of their hometowns by 'embracing' non-white non-western people and cultures.
This ultimately fails however, because the fact of the matter is, that the communities do not want to live among each other and you will never get them to accept each other, it is unnatural for them to do so, it is natural for both communities to want to be among their own people. It is the same the world over not just in Britain or Europe, ethnic and cultural groups will stay among their own, and whether it be in self segregated towns or in the form of white flight the natural evidence is their for all to see.
We have only spoken about the US and Britain here, to speak about all nations in which whites are abandoning their cities because of the enforced multicultural onslaught would require a book of many hundreds of pages. Take any once majority white nation, and you will no doubt find the same thing happening.
So how is diversity for you? It is an unworkable, unnatural and undesirable myth, it is destructive, damaging and leads to conflict everywhere that people are forced to live together from different ethnic and cultural groups. It has no benefits, except for those who force it upon you. Diversity in its exposed form, is nothing more than an anti-white ideology that aims at displacing whites and weakening once powerful homogenous nations, the reason being that nations especially in the West, have always been a barrier to communistic globalisation employed by Jewish groups. In order for these Jewish groups to dominate and control banking, media, corporatism, communism, capitalism etc, and they do, requires the weakening of the majority population who as an homogenous group would not allow what is happening to happen. It is classic divide and conquer tactics that have always been employed to weaken their enemies. Many people will no doubt cry anti-semitism, so what. We say nothing that they have not already said themselves, people never take into consideration the vast amount of quotes, historical documents and articles that speak of this anti-white multicultural agenda, anything that exposes it has to be smeared with accusations of anti-semitism and 'racism.'
One quote in particular we refer to often is that of Barbara Spectre:
"I think there’s a resurgence of antisemitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and I think we’re gonne be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive."
Yet even though this Jewish woman admits that Jews will play "a leading role" we are the bad ones for repeating it and warning people about the agenda. This is one quote among hundreds which exposes exactly who is, and has been behind the mass immigration and genocidal multicultural agenda pushed onto all white countries.
And genocide it is:
Genocide as first defined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944:
By ‘‘genocide’’ we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. . . .Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group. . . .Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain, or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization of the area by the oppressor’s own nationals.
Source: Raphael Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. Washington, D.C., 1944, p. 79.
Even the International legal definition shows us that what is happening across all white nations is genocide.
To summarise, white flight is a human and natural reaction to forced multiculturalism and the attempts to force different cultural and ethnic groups to live together in a mythical utopia that those who force it on us know, is a myth. Of course they are going to try and convince you that it is enriching and 'good for us' of course they are going to create laws to stop people opposing it, of course they are going to use all influencing institutions to brainwash us into naively supporting it. The end result one day in the future, will be the same kind of conflict seen in middle Eastern countries as different groups fight it out for control of the country, ending up in the balkanisation of nations, which one day will happen across the West. Divide and Conquer.
Think about it, if it were natural for different races and cultures to live together then why does it have to be forced, why does it take governmental policies of opening up our borders to 'achieve' it, why does it need the systematic brainwashing and propaganda of media and education to make people passive to it, why is it only happening in white countries, why do people self segregate, why is there always conflict, why are there laws to enforce it and to stop people speaking out against it? The simple answer is that because it is unnatural it has to be forced, the fact it is only happening in white countries means it is an anti-white agenda.
Only when whites finally understand this can they even begin to try and regain control of their nations.