Anti-white sentiments

How do you propose dealing with differences in IQ of races? Would you support establishing a hierarchy that places whites over blacks and other nonwhite races? Or would you prefer to let these differences show naturally without any discriminatory law?

The question is whether the concept of 'nations' is optimal for humanity and the planet or if we'd all be better off without 'nations'.

If not 'nations', then humans will find another trivial facets to discriminate between in and out-groups. The concept of 'nation' isn't the root of the problem. If you look at experiments like the Robbers Cave experiment, it takes virtually nothing for humans to engage in tribalistic nonsense.

Humans would require massive redesigning, in order for appeals to "humanity" to be more effective than tribalism.

Albeit, this is not going to happen. Countries with stronger cultural and racial identity will covertly invade countries silly enough to adopt multi-racial and multi-cultural policies, the invasion will continue until the invaders are dominant, and then the invaders, we have now become the dominant culture/race, will slowly begin to fall for the same traps that tricked the ones they conquered. That cycle has happened all throughout history, and will continue to happen.

Something we are close to agreement on for once.  

Perhaps it is only your apparent pessimism regarding postive change I don't fully concur with.

I'm a bit busy to address your other statements, but regarding race... The idea of a racial identity has been occasional, though throughout history it's largely been more ethnic or culturally based.

The idea of racial identity, especially a white identity, is almost entirely tracable to Protestant-European colonists that saught to justify slavery.

In other cases, there was more fluidity. The most successful empires typically imposed cultural hegemony and assimilated/integrated conquered peoples. Ethnic based ones such as the Mongols usually failed. 

Homogeneity is the cornerstone of a flourishing society -- you care much more about those similar to you, than those whom are not.

That may have been so in the past but a wise man said "The human mind needs radical change, or else it'll fall into the same traps it historically has always fallen into."

Racial identity, of any kind, has roots in evolutionary tribalism. "White identity" is a manifestation of that. Beyond that, there really isn't a worthwhile distinction to be made.

The tactics/facets that empires used to become successful, and the tactics/facets that empires used once they became successful, are crucially important to recognise. Every single major empire, that decided to employ assimilation/integrated models, planted the seeds for it to become divided -- to have its multi-racial/multicultural people apathetic, lazy, uncharitable and distrusting of their fellow neighbours. 

Homogeneity is the cornerstone of a flourishing society -- you care much more about those similar to you, than those whom are not.

Not true, the idea of a "white identity" comes from Protestant European planters in the New World using race as a diving line between black slaves and white indentures to prevent them from cooperating and overthrowing them, as they were initially trying to.

In reality, "whites" would encompass a loosely defined people of a great multitude of cultures, languages, religion, etc, that could never unite simply based on skin color. 

And empires divided over a multitude of causes... To attribute this entirely, or even significantly to the lack of racialism, is quite absurd. Moreover, "multicultural" and "multiracial" are different terms. 

You're assuming ingrouping/outgrouping, homogenity, and tribalism are all entirely based on race. 

Homogeneity is the cornerstone of a flourishing society

Uhhhh I'm pretty sure I just explained this - Protestant planters creating a racial boundary to change the tribalism dynamic to be based on race in order to prevent indentured whites and black slaves from cooperating for their benefit.

There was absolutely no concept of white identity in Medieval Europe prior to this, and even after racial identity was never hard-engrained into much of Europe and doesn't remain so. 

And? Tribalism occurs due to a variety of reasons

and I fail to see the necessity of being hardline on race. There are several people of X race who were born, grew up in, and assimilated to a culture of Y country. I fail to see the necessity in mandating these people to be discriminated against. Immigration restrictions may be necessary everywhere, but society isn't going to simply collapse in on itself if a person of X race has citizenship in a country of Y race. There's a big difference between hardcore racial identity and demographic displacement as with what's occuring today. 

By nature, empires do expand and encompass a wide variety of cultures. Yes. 

Multiracialism and multiculturalism are, however, different. I fail to see how multiracialism always necessarily causes the latter effects you described. These effects aren't necessarily present in culturally homogenous but racially heterogenous Latin American countries. 

Ah, I suppose this is where the argument ends. You sure are a ficety one, Cassie. I suggest you leave this site before displaying your mental problems, lack of anger management, and your b1tchiness. I would advise against you sperging out, then crying about your real life problems and trying to make people feel sympathetic - and repeating the cycle. 

Yeah it's a product of love and respect

anathema to wingnut godists.

I think that subsidiarity helps with managing diverse subgroups.

What we have now is the worst of all worlds: no political subsidiarity, self-segregation is illegal, no enforced universal culture, and a drive towards ever-increasing diversity. The entirely predictable outcome of this, for anyone with an unclouded mind and two brain cells to rub together, is a violent backlash the likes of which will shatter our society and result in atrocities.

I'm still haunted by a historical retelling of Boston's busing policy and the violent, neighborhood-dissolving backlash which followed. Not just white against black, but black against jew and every other ethnic combination. Pretty universally, minorities were tolerated with politeness. One teach, a black women from the West Indies who taught in a white school, testified that nobody had every called her a nigger in all her years of teaching. But as soon as any school reached a point where there was no clear minority, it triggered those deep limbic systems that humans have and jaw-dropping violent, hatred, and resentment came to the forefront. What had been a tapestry of more or less self-contained, content, functioning communities dissolved into a violent, chaotic free-for-all because every community was deprived of its backbone (and all of them, black white and Jewish, fought tooth and nail against it) in pursuit of vapid utopianism.

It's like staring into water and seeing a reflection of yourself (white identity), but not realising that the reflection is coming from you (evolutionary tribalistic drives).

Otherwise known as follow the leader, most people are indoctrinated to not think for themselves but to follow the mob. Most humans aren't nearly as evolved as they might want, if they were they wouldn't need religions.