David, do you not think there are a number of serious paradoxes in your proposed views? Here's one, for example:

You favour a complete stoppage of immigration/emigration and you also favour a sort of separate but equal culturalism, where each country lives its own cultural and separate life, free from the influence of other cultures. (Presumably you also favour strict and well-policed border controls to enforce such cultural isolations, plus draconian internal measures in each country to ensure cultural purity).

You also favour a stronger UN - presumably a sort of international police who would regulate all the activities of the world.

But if you strictly isolate countries and cultures from each other, there will surely be less international understanding and less co-operation - co-operation which would be an absolute necessity to create a stronger UN. You only have to observe the current arguments and polarities within conglomerates of countries - the EEC (which you don't care for), the Middle East, etc., to realise that an extrapolation of that conflict would be almost inevitable. Remember the League of Nations - utterly useless in preventing World War II.

You mention economic immigration as being a Bad Thing - how would you then help those persecuted peoples in Africa who have to flee their own country to a neighbouring country to avoid being murdered en masse? Call in the UN? A UN Army?

In short, give "man's inhumanity to man" (Burns), there appears to be little possibility of such a regulated world as you envision ever existing.