Saturday, May 20, 2017

Herbert J. Gans' hysteria about 'white racism' in the Zionist-Supremacist NEW YORK TIMES

http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-census-and-right-wing-hysteria/

First, let's start off by suggesting Hans and Germans like him need to calm down. We are sick of their 'Good German' act. Yeah, we know the history. World War I happened. Germany lost. Germany was crippled economically, and Germans tried to make democracy work. But the Depression got even worse with the Crash of 1929. Also, the German conservatives turned to the far right because the far left(with heavy Jewish representation) took over Russia and killed millions of people and destroyed 50,000 churches. So, Hitler came to power. And for awhile, Hitler focused on domestic matters and did some good things economically and culturally. The nation revived. Also, Germany took back German lands like Rhineland. Also, Sudetenland was 80% German, and those people weren't well-treated by Czechs. So, Hitler united Germany with Austria and Sudetenland with great popular support. But then, the pathological bugger began to shift from nationalism to imperialism. He took Czechoslovakia. And then, he plotted with Stalin to divvy up Poland. When UK and France declared war on Germany over the issue of Poland, Hitler quickly defeated France. So, Continental Europe mostly belonged to the alliance of National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union. German imperialism and Russo-Slavic imperialism ruled most of Europe. (To be sure, the Soviet elites had many non-Russians. Jews were initially vastly over-represented among the elites, but many fell by the wayside in the Great Purge.) Now, if Hitler had kept his alliance with Stalin, who knows how things would have played out. But the pathological fool decided to sucker-punch the USSR, and that made USSR an ally of the UK and the US, and the fate of Germany was sealed. But not only did Germany lose the war but it committed great war crimes against Slavs and Jews, culminating in the Holocaust. And after defeat, many Germans have been wracked with cult of guilt. 

Now, I'm not sure how sincere this guilt is. After all, the biggest victims of the Germans were the Slavs. 3 million Poles died. And the numbers of Soviet dead range from 20 million to 27 million. And yet, we hardly see Germans express any guilt about Poles or Russians. If anything, current Germany insults Poland for not taking 'refugees' though Germany never presses Israel to take refugees or hand back Golan Heights to Syria. Also, Germany works with the US to support Neo-Nazis in Ukraine against Russia. Imagine that. Germany makes a big stink about how it has to atone for the sins of WWII, but it is working with the US to support Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Also, even though the German invasion killed so many Slavic civilians, Germans today express little remorse about its 'guilt' toward Russians. If anything, Germany is working with the US to economically strangle Russia. It is especially cruel since Russia was economically raped by globalists(mostly Jews) in the 90s.
Also, if Germans are so conscientious about what happened in WWII, why have they been silent about how the US globalist policies have created WWII-like conditions in the Middle East? If Germans really learned the lesson of the evils of WWII, why aren't they condemning US foreign policy in the Muslim Wold that devastated nation after nation? Germans make a a big show of 'compassion' by taking in 'Syrian refugees', but why are they silent about why those people became refugees in the first place? Surely, Germans must know that Jewish power controls the US, and it has steered US foreign policy toward fighting Wars for Israel, globalism, and bankers. To any sane moralist, taking in refugees should be secondary to insisting that people NOT be turned into refugees in the first place. Turning people into refugees is a terrible crime. And US has done that by making a total mess of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. US also aides Saudi Arabia's cruel war on Yemen. US has also backed the Nakba against Palestinians and fully supports Israel's apartheid policies in the West Bank. When Israel was killing all those innocents in Gaza, the US Congress(totally controlled by AIPAC) expressed support for Israel and didn't shed a single tear for Palestinian victims. Also, Seymour Hersh and others have said Jewish-controlled Obama administration worked with its allies, the loathsome Saudis and thuggish Turks, to destroy Syria. US and its allies aided 'moderate rebels' who are little more than rebranded Alqaeda, the very people who did 9/11.

So, people like Gans need to get off their high horse. I'm so sick of these Good Germans now pretending to be moral paragons with redeemed souls. Now, Gans and his ilk may argue that they are mum about Jewish evils in Israel/Palestine and US foreign policy out of historical guilt, i.e. because of German guilt in Holocaust, Germans have no right to condemn Jews for anything, indeed even when Jews act like Nazis... like Madeline Albright with a cold heart toward 500,000 Iraqi children. 



But are Germans silent about Jewish/Zionist evils out of sincere guilt about WWII? Really? I don't buy it. I think the real reason is twofold. One is fear of Jewish power since Germany is a puppet state of the US that is controlled by Jews. Jewish finance and media can destroy any nation. Also, Germans love to virtue-signal with their Guilt-Shtick. Germans are now Guilt-Nazis. They love to make a big show of how they're being reformed, redeemed, and rehabilitated by railing against 'racism'. Really? Then why is current Germany working with the US to aid Neo-Nazis in Ukraine? Furthermore, if German crime against Jews in WWII nullifies the German right to criticize Jews, why doesn't the same rule apply to German attitude toward Poles and Russians? After all, German Occupation of Poland led to 3 million deaths. And German invasion of Russia led to at least 20 million deaths, more than half of them civilians. But, Germany nastily berates, attacks, and reviles Poland and Russia. And why?  Poland's great crime is it wants to be remain Poland than be invaded by foreigners. And Russia's great crime is it wants to preserve its national sovereignty that fall under globalist rule. Russians experienced globalist domination in the 90s, and it was horrible. Indeed, Russian economic crisis of the 90s makes Weimar Germany seem like a picnic. 



Her chapter on the Russian oligarchs has the politically incorrect subtitle 'The Jewish Billionaires of Post-Communist Russia' because, she notes, "six out of seven of Russia's wealthiest tycoons are Jewish". It requires courage to make such an observation, even from a Harvard law professor with a Jewish husband - the latter a biographical detail inserted rather wisely in the chapter. Professor Chua describes the difficulty she faced in discussing her observations with colleagues: "In the spring of 2000, a professor whom I'll call Jerry White was furiously trying to finish an article on the debacle of Russian privatisation. Jerry and his co-authors had served as legal advisers to the Russian Government during the country's mass privatisation process in the late 1990s. The article described how Russia's pro-market reforms had gone horribly awry. Instead of dispersing ownership and creating functioning markets, these reforms had allowed a small group of industrialists and bankers to plunder Russia, turning themselves almost overnight into the billionaire owners of Russia's crown jewels while the country spiralled into chaos and lawlessness. It seemed to me that most of the key players in the privatisation of Russia were Jewish. 'Oh, no,' Jerry replied instantly. 'I don't think so.' 'Are you sure?' I pressed him. 'If you look at their names…'. 'You can't tell anything from names,' Jerry snapped, clearly not wanting to discuss the topic any further".


Just think about it. Germans get down on their knees and kiss Jewish toes because of WWII. But even though Germans also killed millions of Poles, current Germany bullies Poland and morally condemns it for not taking in 'refugees'.  Germany doesn't condemn the apartheid policies in West Bank. It was silent about the mass-Nazi-like butchery in Gaza few yrs back. Germany has supported Jewish-led US foreign policy that made entire areas of Muslim World like WWII battle zones. Germany is silent about the very wars and policies that forced millions of Muslims into refugee-status. But Germany demeans Poland for refusing to be invaded by tons of 'refugees'. Now, are Poles occupying Palestinian land? Did Poles come up with neo-imperialist plans to turn the Muslim World upside down from Afghanistan to Libya? No, the Jewish-controlled US messed up the Middle East and created the refugee crisis. But Germany sucks up to Jewish-American power, and it barks at Poland for refusing to bear the brunt of problems caused by the US. Also, Germany, as running dog of Jewish-controlled America, supports the current Ukraine regime that came to power with the help of Neo-Nazis.  



SO MUCH FOR GERMAN REDEMPTION AND CONSCIENCE. 

People like Angela Merkel and Herbert Gans are contemptible. They love to virtue-signal as the Good Germans --- moral nazis --- , but they are either disingenuous or completely misread the history of WWII and what followed. The lesson to draw from WWII is that nationalism is good. What is bad and nasty is imperialism. If Hitler had kept his policies on the nationalist level, he could have easily avoided WWII. Indeed, when Hitler focused on reuniting German territories, even UK and France understood. It's like Franco of Spain kept the peace because he kept everything nationalist. When Hitler asked him to join, Franco said No. Mussolini joined in Hitler's imperialist project and got burned too.  

Imperialism sucks. Nationalism is good.

Indeed, nationalism is the most effective weapon against imperialism. Why did Poles resist German imperialism? They were nationalist patriots. Why did Russians fight for the Motherland? Uhhh, because they were inspired by some Marxist theory of capital? No, it was far more 'existential'. It was about nationalist survival. It was the alliance of nationalisms that defeated German imperialism. And the Independence movement in the Third World after WWII was also about nationalism. African, Asian, Arab, and other peoples were inspired by nationalism in driving out British imperialists, French imperialists, Dutch imperialists(from Indonesia), and American imperialists(from Vietnam and Cuba). 
The problem of National Socialism or Nazism was not nationalism. it all went to hell when Hitler went from nationalist mode to imperialist mode. But the same happened with the Soviet Union. It too became increasingly problematic because it was an empire. Non-Russians got sick of Russian-domination over Eastern European nations and various Soviet Republics that were not Russian. Baltic states, for example, were inspired by nationalism in their resistance against Soviet domination. And the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 was totally nationalist. 
It is imperialism and forced diversity that leads to problems. How did World War I began? The clash of empires and suppression of nationalist will. Why did Yugoslavia blow up in the 90s? The nationalist will of each people to go their own way. Incidentally, even though American Globalists generally denounce Nationalism, they use it when comes in handy. So, the US instigated far-right Ukrainian nationalism against Russia. To break Iraq apart, US stirred up Kurdish nationalism. Also, it supported Albanian nationalism in Kosovo to break that province away from Serbia. Also, the great irony of US globalism is that it is led by Zionists who are rabidly and virulently for Jewish nationalism in Israel and even the occupied territory of the West Bank. So, there is no moral consistency to any of this. It is really a matter of who has the power to twist the Narrative to serve their interests and agendas. 

Anyway, if Gans and other Germans like him want to atone for WWII, they need to support nationalism for all peoples, including that of Germans. Hitler never hurt other nations with German nationalism. He hurt them with German imperialism. Imperialism is reaching beyond national borders to push other nations around. Imperialism is unstable in the long run. That is why Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed in World War I. German and Japanese Imperialism crashed and burned in WWII. Imperialism made them lots of enemies. And French, British, and Dutch imperialism collapsed in few decades after WWII. And then Soviet Empire fell apart. The only imperialist power left in the world is Globalism, and it is controlled by the US that is under Zionist domination. Even though Russia minds its own business whereas the US invaded and destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, the globalist media(controlled by Jews and homos) make Russia out to be the aggressor. Even though US meddled in Ukraine by installing a neo-Nazi regime and has worked with Saudis, Qatar, and Turkey to destroy Syria, we are told that Syrians are the 'war criminals'. When Aleppo was liberated of ISIS scum, the Jewish-run media reported it as the 'Fall of Aleppo'. Now, given German guilt in WWII, you'd think Germans and German-Americans would speak out, as an act of atonement and redemption, against this great globalist-imperialist evil. Instead, Germans and German-Americans are total collaborators of the new imperialism of globalism. We are living in a surreal world indeed. When Trump talks of working with Russia and bringing the crisis in Syria to an end, the so-called Liberal Media howl and call for his head. But when Trump shot those missiles into Syria based on bogus reports, the Liberal Media was cheering him on. I mean WHAT THE HELL is going on? The so-called Liberals love hawkish Trump more than pro-peace Trump. 

Anyway, the great evil of Germany in WWII was interfering with other nations and even invading them. If Germans had minded their own business, the whole mess could have been avoided. Today, US is the premier imperialist power. It is arrogant and supremacist, calling itself the 'exceptional' and 'indispensable' nation, thereby implying that all other nations are dispensable and unexceptional. It throws its weight around. It invades nations and uses sanctions against nations hated by Jews. So, even though US showers praise and prizes on Israel despite its illegal 200 nuclear warheads and occupation of West Bank, it has punished Iran, a nation that hasn't invaded anyone and has no nukes, with crippling nukes. Obama, the War Criminal of Libya and Syria, did one good thing in negotiating with Iran, but Trump, being the toady of crazy Zionist thugs like Sheldon Adelson, now makes noises about reviving sanctions. And of course, since Congress is totally controlled by Zio-globalists, it just goes along. It's funny. When Trump calls for better relations with Russia and Syria, Jews howl with rage and call him 'Hitler'. But when Trump cozies up to Jewish Hitler Adelson who is clearly batshit crazy, the Jewish media never attack him on that. So, when Trump acts least like Hitler and calls for peace, he is 'Hitler'. But when he's most hawkish under the influence of nuts like Adelson, he's okay. Jewish logic? One thing for sure, the biggest 'intersectionality' in the US is the agreement of both parties to totally whore out to Zionist-Globalists who have created WWII-like conditions in the Muslim World.  



The great irony of current Germany is that it is acting like Nazi-Germany all over again in the name of redeeming itself of sins of WWII. Beginning with 1939, Germany wouldn't leave other nations alone. It began to make demands on non-Germanic peoples. Taking Sudetenland was understandable since it was over 80% German. But then, Germans even moved into Czechoslovakia. And when that was forgiven by UK and France, Germany that made moves on Poland. Some German demands on Poland made sense, like return of Danzig that was over 90% German. But Germans had bigger ideas and divided Poland with Stalin. Also, Germans began to rule all of Central Europe like its fiefdom, interfering with their economics and politics. And then, Germany invaded Russia. The lesson to learn from the whole fiasco is Germany should have rejected imperialism and minded its own business. 
But today, Germans repeat the same mistakes. If Germans really learned their lesson from WWII, they would reject the neo-imperialism of the Jewish-controlled US that wages wars mainly to serve Jewish Supremacist interests. Germans are stuck on the Holocaust Image of Jews. Yes, Holocaust was horrible, and many innocent Jews died. But people are not static in vice or virtue. A good powerless people can become an evil powerful people, and vice versa. It's like evil Germans and Japanese learned to be good people after WWII. Well, if evil people can become good, then good people can become evil. And too much wealth, power, and arrogance made Jews into an evil people. The only imperialism that still exists in the world is US imperialism, and it is Jewish-controlled. 



Now, I can understand German conscience about the Holocaust, but today's Jews are not those Jews who staggered out of concentration camps, anymore than today's Chinese are those who hid from Japanese lunatics in Nanking.  China is now a great power, stronger than Japan. And Jews are the most powerful people in the world since they control the US, the most powerful nation on Earth. So, when Germans like Herbert Gans remain stuck in WWII-mentality, they are not seeing the big picture.

Also, what does it mean that Germans have no right to criticize Jewish power because of Holocaust guilt? So, if Zionists carry out Holocaust against Palestinians, will Germans still side with Jews? How ironic that would be: Germans supporting Zionist 'nazism' to atone for German Nazism. If Israel continues to turn extremist, it may well lead to the rise of leaders who might call for unspeakable policies against Palestinians in the West Bank. If 'liberal' Madeline Albright thought 500,000 dead Iraqi children were worth it, imagine what truly extreme Jews have in mind. 



Anyway, if Gans is for real, he needs to stand up against US neo-imperialism that has destroyed much of the world. These bogus 'progressives' who virtue-signal by hugging 'refugees' ignore the far more crucial question of why there are so many refugees flowing out of the Muslim World in the first place. It is because US foreign policy worked with nations like Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to undermine and destroy any nation hated by Zionists and globalists. For example, Libya had to be destroyed even though Gaddafi gave up all his WMD. This happened under Obama and Hilllary, like Iraq Disaster happened under Bush. But most 'progressives' are just partisan hacks. Since Obama and Hillary committed those War Crimes, just shhhhh. Just virtue-signal by feigning compassion for refugees without ever demanding that the US change its policies so as not to produce even more refugees in the Middle East. 
For example, just when Assad was winning the war and winding things down, Trump used bogus pretext to shoot missiles. So, how did the 'liberal' media react? They finally showed him some love. Zionists see Syria as ally of Russia and Iran, two nations Jews hate most for resisting US globalism and preserving their sovereignty. Jews welcome ANY action that will prolong the bloodshed and slaughter in Syria. So-called 'moderate liberals' like Thomas Friedman wants Trump to keep the horrible ISIS in business. When Japanese militarists attacked Pearl Harbor, they had hell to pay. Since the end of the Cold War, US has committed far more grievous war crimes, but it gets away with all of them. Bush is living it up. And Obama gets a $60 million book deal and $400,000 from Wall Street as 'thank you' for the bailouts of banksters. 



It's good to be the king. 



The idiot 'left' has forgotten the great lesson of history. Nationalism is the best thing for people. The French Revolution began as a nationalist movement. Prior to its triumph, Europe was like it is today under EU rule. The aristocrats across Europe felt closer to one another than to their own people who were seen as miserable and deplorable. From Spain to Russia, the elites disdained their own national masses and dilly-dallied with each other across borders. But then, the French Revolution happened, and it demanded that the French elites represent, defend, and serve the French people. It created the ideal of the leaders and the led of one nation. So, why did French Revolution fail? The same reason Nazi revolution failed. It went from nationalist mode to imperialist mode. Even though the French imperialists spread some good ideas, they nevertheless trampled on the sovereignty of others and made lots of enemies. And in the end, French imperialism collapsed in Russia. If the French revolutionaries had been more like American revolutionaries and thought nationally than imperialistically, they would have succeeded. Nationalism is workable because it follows the Goldilocks rule: Individualism or clan-tribalism are too petty, too small. On the other hand, universalism is too big, and besides, who knows what is good and just for ALL peoples around the world?  After all, different nations have different histories, cultures, values, taboos, and narratives. 
So, the best way is nationalism, which means a people should (1) secure their own nationalism and (2) respect the nationalism of other peoples. China and Japan get along better since both are in nationalist mode. It sure works better than the grandiose project of creating the Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere during WWII. And consider all the headache caused by Marxist-Leninist universalism(based on so-called rationalist-scientific-socialism) of the Soviet Empire that included the various republics of the USSR and the vassal states of Warsaw Pact.

It was nationalism that finally ended imperialism, and we don't need new versions of imperialism. Let each nation mind its own business, secure its sovereignty. And then, on good will, let them trade goods and ideas with other nations and co-exist in mutual respect. Let Hungary be independent, let Poland be independent. Under Soviet rule, they always had to obey Moscow. The EU Project was initially sound in trying to create better relations and understanding among European nations. But over time, EU became just a puppet of the US. And its bureaucrats, at the behest of globalist elites, began to write laws that kept on eroding national cultures and sovereignty. And under Jewish influence, it came up with crazy stuff like 'gay marriage as universal right'(what???) and 'western values are about Europe being invaded by limitless numbers of non-Europeans as 'New Eurpoeans'? I mean, who came up with such shit? Think about it. Poland had once been wiped off the map by Russia and Germany. It regained its nationhood after WWI but then had to suffer WWII. Next came 50 yrs under Soviet imperialist oppression. And then, it finally gained true independence with the end of Cold War. Polish nationalism finally survived. Now, decent people would congratulate the Poles. But globalist-imperialists attack and revile Polish nationalism. They say there is no such thing as Polish nation, people, or culture. Also, Poles have no right to control their national borders. No, Poland must take orders from Germany(that takes orders from the US) and open up its borders to endless invasion from Middle East and Africa. So, Poland finally gained independence and national freedom just to commit national suicide on the order of Merkel, the vile bitch who will sell her nation down the river for back-slaps from cretins like George Soros? 

Stable nationalism is the building block for stable internationalism. When nations are secure and stable, they are more able to work in good faith with other nations. Mass movements of finance and peoples undermine national unity and sovereignty, and this undermines even the international order. After all, what has been the main curse of the post-imperialist world-order? Europeans drew crazy national maps all over Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. For instance, instead of giving Kurds a nation of their own, Europeans divided Kurds among several nations. These diversities led to instability that could only be kept in check under autocratic rule. Once US power weakened autocratic rule in Arab nations, all hell broke out due to tribal, ethnic, and sectarian diversities. Nationalism is good, but it has to be organic. For example, Poles deserve their own nation. It would cause lots of headaches to divide Poland into four parts and add one part to Germany, one part to Ukraine, one part to Hungary, and one part to Lithuania. Poles would end up like tragic Kurds. 
Europeans drew crazy national borders in the Middle East and Africa. If in some places, the West forcibly bunched together different peoples into a single nation, in other cases, they split apart a real organic nation in two. The classic example is Korea. Funny that WWII began with Nazi Germany dividing Poland with USSR, and WWII ended with the US coming with a crazy plan to divide Korea in half with the USSR. Neither Poland nor Korea had any say in the fates of their nations. This is what imperialist powers do. They toy with other nations. 

Anyway, if Germans must learn one crucial lesson from WWII, it is RESPECT THE NATIONALISM OF OTHER NATIONS. Germany has no right to be telling Poland and Hungary to open up to invasion. Merkel is acting just like Hitler, throwing her weight around. During WWII, Germans invaded other nations.Today, Germans order other nations to be invaded by non-Europeans. Germans say, "We are committing national suicide, so you guys do it too." Now, if Germans want to commit national suicide over WWII guilt, that's their own stupid problem. What right do Germans have to order other nations to join Germany's going over the cliff, its determination to abolish itself?  


These insane Germans never seem to understand balance. Everything is extreme and filled with hubris. During WWII, Germans were obsessed about conquering and dominating others. Today, the German Left wants Germany to be invaded by the world to create some ridiculous 'super-cultural' society.  What in the hell would that be? Germans either love themselves too much or hate themselves too much. Or they love themselves too much for hating themselves too much. You see this characteristic among Germans who bawl like babies over the Holocaust. "Bwaaaaaaaah, we Germans are so awful, we are so terrible, we are so horrible, we don't deserve to exist, and we must atone forever... but because we are filled with such super-conscience of self-loathing remorse, we are better than you and have the right to lecture and call you a bad person and racist and nazi and blah blah." These Germans are so tiresome and so dime-a-dozen. Germany has mass-manufactured them since cradle. 

Now, let's consider Gans' argument in his New York Times article: 


Several years ago, the Census Bureau began to predict that the United States would become a majority-minority nation by the 2040s — that African- and Asian-Americans, as well as Latinos, would outnumber non-Hispanic whites. Last year the census underlined its prediction by announcing that non-Hispanic white babies under the age of 1 were already in the minority.

But the issue is bigger than white vs non-white. Even though immigration helps the Democratic Party, it also upsets the historic balance within the party. After all, not every group is equally represented in the Democratic Party. When the US was mostly white and black, things were simpler. Blacks were once with the Republican Party but moved to the Democratic Party that came to represent the working class, poor farmers, and those who with less. So, the power of the Democrats meant more power for blacks. But with rising immigrant numbers, blacks have come to matter less and less. In 1965, whites were 89% of population and blacks were 10%. The rest of the 1% was made up of Mexicans, Asians, and Indians, etc. So, black power meant something back then. But by the early 90s, Hispanics had overtaken blacks, especially in the SW territories and West Coast. Incredibly, there are now more Asians in California than blacks. Also, immigration means more competition for blacks who get pushed further to the back of the bus. So, the simple dichotomy of white vs non-white doesn't make much sense. 

Another thing. The reason why the GOP has been turning more into a 'white party' is because Democratic Party took up identity politics. There was a time when the Democrats were calling for color-blind politics and unity of Americans regardless of the color of the skin. But the problem was blacks needed affirmative action and preferential services and hiring from government. So, color-blind ideal failed with blacks, and black politics became increasingly race-conscious. Now, if this had been limited to blacks(and maybe American Indians), it might have been manageable, especially given the US history of slavery(and 'genocide' of Indians). But this identity politics caught onto other groups as well, and soon, Democratic Politics went from colorblind ideal to group identity and grievance-agitation. When not just blacks but all other non-whites attack and blame whites for all their problems, the effect will be whites being pushed to another party. Notice even the white working class moved to the GOP. 

Now, 'progressives' would have us believe that American politics is about 'white privilege' vs 'non-white struggle for equality', and this might have been true at some time in the past. It isn't today's politics. For instance, there is a huge divergence of status and income among non-whites. Asians tend to do better than blacks and Hispanics and even whites. Also, what is a 'Hispanic'?  This is really a misnomer since some Hispanics are of white European background, some are racially mixed with Native Indio blood, and some are almost pure-blood Indios. Also, even blacks are called Hispanic if they come from Latin America. This confuses matters because 'Hispanic' should really only refer to those who are of white Spanish ancestry or have substantial white blood. Mixed blood folks from South of the Border ought to be called 'mestizos', and people who are mostly of native Indio blood should be called Meso-Americans.
After all, we don't call American Indians and blacks 'Anglos' in America because they speak English. So, why should non-whites be called 'Hispanic' because they speak Spanish? Philippines was conquered and ruled by Spanish for a long time. Should Filipinos be called 'Hispanic' on that account? 

Here's another factor that Gans leaves out. The white flight to the GOP has a lot to do with class. In class terms, the Democratic Party is the party of white elites and white globalists, whereas the GOP is turning more into white middle class and white working class party. In a homogeneous nationalist society, the elites of the nation are supposed to feel a connection to their own people, the racial brethren. Thus, there is unity and solidarity between elites and masses. And that was the history of the US. It meant white elites leading, representing, and serving white masses. The New Deal was about just that. But since blacks felt left out, the US tried to make amends by offering equality and special benefits to blacks. At any rate, prior to massive non-white immigration, there was some semblance of the unity of American elites and American masses.
But as America became more diverse and favored globalism over nationalism, it led to the 'coming apart' of the whites. White elites no longer cared for white masses. Globalism made it possible for white elites to outsource jobs to other nations. White elites could ship factories to Mexico and China for bigger profits. Also, mass immigration meant white elites could hire non-whites for lower wages. Furthermore, the degradation of American Pop Culture and moral norms meant that increasing numbers of both whites and blacks grew up dysfunctional and dependent on government. Also, the feminist attack on the family, further degraded by hedonism and decadence, meant more kids raised in single mother homes. Also, infantilization of American culture meant even two-parent homes had nothing but Trash TV as culture. So, the white working class slid lower and lower. In the past, when white elites cared for white masses, they might have done something for the common good. But globalist white elites no longer think nationally or racially. In Israel, Jewish elites still care about Jewish masses, even Jewish working class and Jewish poor. In the US, the white elites only care about their own success. Also, if they must make a show of 'compassion', they always hug 'diversity', codeword for non-whites, especially immigrants. It is deemed 'racist' for white elites to show ANY concern for white have-nots. Indeed, the study on White Death was suppressed by white elites in media and academia for a long time. 


Part of the reason why white elites didn't care for white masses and have-nots was because white elites had favored whites over non-whites in the past. So, in the spirit of 'anti-racism', it was deemed unbecoming of white elites to favor whites-with-problems. But, there is a difference between not-favoring-whites and totally ignoring the problems of the growing white underclass degraded by globalism, rising crime, cultural degradation(by Hollywood), and mass immigration. Indeed, white elites didn't much care about blacks either. In a way, all this cultism about Martin L. King, Harriet Tubman, and election of Obama was really symbolic, a means to mask the fact that the Democrats were trying to replace black power with immigrant power. Why? Blacks commit too much crime, cause too much trouble in schools, are too corrupt and demanding in politics, and etc. So, white elites and Jews got tired of blacks. But because blacks are still big in number, vocal and demanding, and shrouded in the sacro-mythology of the Civil Rights Era, the white elites couldn't dismiss them like they did with once venerable white working class(who were idealized as noble proles during New Deal era). So, white elites made lots of symbolic gestures in favor of blacks. They even elected a black president. But Obama was a creation of Jews and homos. New York Magazine even called him the 'first Jewish president'. Obama's main goals were serving Wall Street, Zionism, Wars for Israel, and Homo Agenda. He suckered a lot of blacks, but he was really a puppet of Jews, homos,and globalists. Also, he cared more for immigrants, even illegal ones, than for blacks. By making such token pro-black symbolic gestures, white/Jewish elites in the Democratic Party could fool blacks into thinking that everything was hunky-dory for blacks. But in fact, the Obama Era was about the Rise of the Elites and the decline of both white working class and blacks. Blacks simply couldn't compete with immigrants in schooling and jobs. And even affirmative action in elite colleges came to favor African immigrants over black Americans with slave ancestry. (Also, those African immigrants are the descendants of slave sellers, as blacks sold blacks long ago in the Atlantic Slave trade.) Immigrants were useful to white elites since filling up cities with them reduced crime. Even though white/Jewish elites are loathe to admit it, they think, "blacks = crime" and "immigrants = low crime, cheap labor, and barriers between us and blacks". Immigrants are useful as buffers. Better to have blacks rob and attack immigrants than white/Jewish 'creative class' who rake in most of the profits in the globalist economy. 

So, when we take a closer look at the two parties, the great paradox is that even though the GOP is more a white party, the Democratic Party is more the white privilege party. Prior to massive rise of immigrants, Democrats were shitting bricks. Why? They got saddled with blacks and all the black problems. Prior to the riots and mayhem of the 1960s, blacks showed promise. MLK was seen as inspiring figure. And black music was mostly fun, not crazy. And crime was still under control. But following the Civil Rights movement, rise of youth culture, and Vietnam War crisis, the nation just blew up. Also, blacks began to act 'uppity'. It was the age of Muhammad Ali. Blacks realized that they are faster, tougher, and more dominant physically. Blacks began to feel contempt for whites as 'slow, faggoty, and pussy-ass'. So, black crime and violence spread all over. And this led to demise of many cities. Even Liberal Jews ran from darkening cities. Jew Flew was part of White Flight. While some whites moved away due to simple prejudice, many left for suburbs out of genuine fear of black thuggery and crime. And things got really bad. Democratic Party got associated with black crime. Also, the economy was changing, and Big Labor was increasingly seen as outdated, corrupt, and standing in the way of innovation and growth. But the Democrats got saddled with Big Labor.
This is why the GOP had a huge advantage for awhile. Reagan Era welcome innovation in economy, technology, and finance. It appealed to whites tired of black crime, and this included lots of Reagan-Democrats too. Also, big money favored the GOP because it was for lower taxes and 'free trade'.  But Reagan got working class votes too because he came across as more patriotic, whereas Democrats also got saddled with 'going easy on communism'. 

This is why Clinton changed everything to bring Democratic Party back to life. To do it, he had to dump Big Labor and the working class and win over the Creative Class in finance and technology to the Democrats. He did this by pushing NAFTA and stabbing Big Labor in the back. Clinton also had to do something about crime, much of which was black. But this was difficult since most blacks were Democrats. But the ONLY way to bring down crime was to lock up record numbers of blacks. Clinton intended to massively expand incarceration for blacks but had to sweeten this pill. So, he made a lot of symbolic gestures about how much he loved them Negroes. And blacks, being childlike, fell for this jive. Also, another way to revive cities was gentrification, which is a codeword for reducing black numbers in cities by relocating them to other parts. 'Inner city' used to be synonymous with 'urban black criminal underclass', just like 'youth' and 'teens' are now codewords for black thugs and criminals. The problem for Democrats was that too many low-income crime-prone blacks were occupying prime space in and near downtown areas of cities. They had to moved out to build upscale yuppie towns. But this might come across as 'racist'. So, just when white elites in cities were doing most to send blacks to prison and push them out of cities, they made a lot of noise about how King's Dream is alive and etc.

New York Times and New York elites are masters at this game. They got Giuliani two terms to clean things up with tough measures. They got Bloomberg three terms to push stop-and-frisk to target black males. And a whole lot of gentrifying has been going on. It's incredible that urban revival is carried out by white/Jewish elites who claim to love blacks... but have relocated blacks out of cities in large numbers. "We love you blacks so much that we want you to integrate with OTHER whites who are less affluent and privileged while we ultra-privileged whites make downtown areas whiter and more Jewish."  Urban renewal all across America has lowered black numbers and raised white numbers. But whites couldn't do it alone. They needed immigrants as buffer, cheap labor, and consumers. Mexicans were mainly useful for menial labor, whereas East Asians weer useful for middle managers(to be checked by so-called 'bamboo ceiling'). Also, homos were very useful for several reasons. Since homos don't have kids, they made ideal pioneer gentrifiers. Also, as homos are vain and narcissistic, they love privilege and hanging with rich people. So, homos served class privilege than challenged it like Big Labor once did. But since homos also had 'victim' status, they could serve as a useful moral instrument for the elites. So, whenever the elites wanted to feel morally justified, they waved the homo flag. Wall Street, Hollywood, Las Vegas, and Silicon Valley made all the money in the Bush-Obama era, but hey, they are 'progressive' because they are wild about homos.  

So, the Democrats are supposedly about 'equality' and 'diversity'. If anything, diversity increases inequality. Look at the Democrats, and it's a very hierarchical order, with Jews at the top, white globalists below them, East Asians and Asian-Indians below them, and upper-middle class creative class made up mostly of whites and Asians. Most successful Hispanics are white. Most mestizo and Indio 'Hispanics' are stuck at menial labor. They are helots. Muslims drive cabs. Blacks do well if they can secure government jobs, without which there would hardly be a black middle class. The unspoken feeling about white/Jewish elites is that blacks don't have the mental goods to succeed in business and other competitive fields. Of course, white/Jewish elites will never say this openly since it goes against PC dogma, but they really wink-wink feel it. So, the only way for blacks to secure good pay is to work for government where you don't need to be particularly creative or innovative or smart. As for blacks who can't secure government jobs, there is pretty much nothing. Factories are gone. Blacks cannot compete with immigrants in jobs and skills. Blacks dominate sports and pop music, but those fields offer limited opportunities. 

Anyway, if you got white privilege, the Democratic Party is now a wonderful place. It is no longer the black party(associated with crime) since massive immigration has filled up Democratic ranks with Hispanics, Asians, and Muslims. Also, white/Jewish elites prefer African immigrants to black Americans since (1) African immigrants tend to be cream of the crop of African nations and (2) their more conservative social values make them less likely to act like rapper gangsta trash with bad attitude. So, if you're part of the white/Jewish elites, you belong to the upper hierarchy above brown servants, Asian managers, and fancy homos. As for blacks, they become increasingly less important as US turns more and more like California, the state where even Asians outnumber blacks. Also, thanks to Clinton's dumping of Big Labor and embrace of 'free trade', the Democratic Party has become the party of the innovative 'creative class' that is raking in most of the billions. 

So, to understand GOP as the white party, one has to understand that the Democratic Party is the party of white/Jewish privilege. Now, what if you are white but don't have white privilege. Suppose you didn't go to fancy elite college or have a job with Wall Street, Silicon Valley, or some 'creative' globalist company. If white/Jewish elites are ABOVE the people-of-color, you would be competing with them or below them. Furthermore, if FDR, as member of the white elite, cared about the white masses, the current white elites either put down white working class or ignore them altogether as they are too busy celebrating 'diversity'. White elites say they promote 'diversity' in the name of racial equality, but you notice that the privileged whites/Jews are doing better and better with Diversity. More diversity, aka more immigration, means white elites/Jews are safer from black crime. Also, more immigration, along with 'free trade', means that white elites get to hire cheaper labor and reap more profits. It also means white elites get access to Asian women who may come to the West because they find white men to be sexually superior to Asian men. Also, the rise of immigrant populations means that white/Jewish elites can use these immigrants(and especially their children) as middlemen to global trade all over the world. Now, the world of super-privilege isn't only white or Jewish, but it is mostly dominated by them. 


Now, one may ask, why would white/Jewish elites(and even newly risen Asian elites) favor the Democrats over the GOP when the GOP has been more pro-wealth, pro-Wall-Street, pro-profits, pro-privilege, pro-Zionist, and pro-lower-taxes. Why did the super-rich come to favor Obama over McCain? Why did Wall Street favor Hillary over Trump 20 to 1? One could argue that they figured Obama will win in 2008 and Hillary will win in 2016. So, why not go with the winners. But actually, the major shift in party affiliations among the super-rich and the privileged educated classes happened during Clinton and accelerated under Bush II. 

At any rate, even though the Democratic Party dumped Big Labor and cut a deal with 'free traders'(and deregulated Wall Street) and pandered to affluent yuppies, the fact is the GOP still offered more favors to the rich class. So, why did the rich and affluent(especially those in cities) turn decisively to the Democrats or the 'left'? For one thing, the 'left' was no longer threatening to the Rich. Left used to be about 'class war', but with homos being the New Face of 'leftism', much of 'progressive' energies were about Wall Street, Hollywood, Las Vegas, and Silicon Valley funding massive homo parades. Left went from Mayday to Gayday. Also, since Clinton, Giuliani, Bloomberg, and others revived cities like locking up lots of blacks or relocating them through 'gentrification', the Democratic Party was more the party of yuppies, gentrification, and urban privilege than black crime and pathology. 
Indeed, black politics got so dumb and useless that Jews and whites were able to remake 'black politics' by appointing Obama as 'house negro'. It used to be the case that Jesse Jackson dominated black politics, but his son turned out to be a dud. And Jackson Sr. just grew corrupt, and black leaders from the black community turned out to be total morons and embarrassments, like Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters. Sure, Jews and white Liberals pretend to be respectful and even reverential toward blacks(as if every Negro is a child of MLK the Magic Negro), but deep down inside, even Jews and white liberals see blacks as trouble.

Anyway, the Black Problem within the Democratic Party was controlled by various means: (1) mass immigration that made esp Asians and Mexicans increasingly more important and blacks less important (2) mulatto 'house negroes': Obama, Jarrett, and others were 'clean-cut negroes' whose political ties were closer to Jews and homos than to real black community. So, black politics went from Jesse the big-talking Negro to Obama the black guy who once thought of being 'gay' and suck Jewish cocks (3) mass incarceration beginning with Clinton that brought down black crime and revived urban life (4) gentrification that relocated troublesome 'inner city' blacks to other places, thus reclaiming prime real estate for upscale yuppie communities (5) rise of homo-mania that pushed blacks to the back of the bus.
Thus, the Democratic Party was saved from being a Rust-Belt Party and Black Crime Party. When Democratic politics was dominated by Big Labor concerns and black issues, it began to lose a lot of people as the economy was becoming more globalized and US big labor was seen as less competitive and burdensome. Even Liberal boomers in business didn't want to hire US workers. Too many regulations and demands. Better to have 'free trade' and reap maximum profits by having plants in Mexico and China and by outsourcing to India. Clinton was a political genius of sorts. Like Tony Blair in UK, he remade the Left Party into an economic Right party while keeping the brand and symbolism of 'progressivism'. 

Another reason why the elites and affluent turned more Democratic is due to increasing imbalance in academia. Jonathan Haidt says that the left-right imbalance in the academia was like 2 to 1 in the 60s. Also, many on the Liberal side back in the 60s would today be considered 'conservative'. But with boomer radical takeover of academia, the imbalance is now like 10 to 1, or higher. So, naturally, more college students in elite colleges come under 'leftist' ideas. This creates a strange paradox. Elite colleges take in students who are destined to make the most money and gain the most privilege. They will be the globo-aristocrats of the future. But they are instilled with the ideology of 'equality'. But then, this kind of hypocrisy is nothing new. In the end, all ideologies and creeds just turn into a kind of status-signaling. Consider how Christianity began as the faith of the poor and wretched, but it was transformed into the status-symbol of the rich and powerful. It went from 'meek shall inherit the earth' to 'divine right of kings'. And look at China today. Maoism is dead as practiced ideology, but the symbolism and brand are still potent. So, even though Chinese elites attend top schools to gain most money and power, they still mutter their allegiance to Mao and Marxism. And something similar has become of 'leftism' in the West. PC is the status-symbol of the elites. It is their golden crucifix necklace. It allows them to justify their riches, power, and privilege with precious paeans to vague-nice-sounding terms like 'inclusion', 'diversity', and 'equality', even though under Clinton, Bush, and Obama, the only reality is that the educated elites get richer and more privileged while the rest sink deeper. Indeed, how surreal that Trump won the election by appealing to Labor of all things while Hillary the 'leftist' candidate had the near-unanimous backing of Wall Street and most of the big oligarchs. 
Social-strivers are obsessed about status, so they will naturally take up any idea, attitude, or cause that is associated with privilege. So, if everyone at some fancy cocktail party is for 'gay marriage, then you better be too if you want to be included in the club. The effect of this on the Asian-American community is telling. It used to be that Asian-Americans voted 50/50 Republican and Democrat. But among the young, it's like 80% Democratic. This may seem strange since many Asians are social-strivers or status-supremacists who seek to attend best colleges and get best jobs. They seek elitism and privilege. So, why would they go for a party associated with 'equality'?  Because, cult of 'equality' is now associated with privilege, just like Christianity became an elite-religion and just like Mao symbolism is now owned by Chinese oligarchic elites. The New Way is to rhetorically praise 'equality' as cover for gaining privilege. It's like what American Scholar article said.  So, these Asian brown-nosers know how the game is played. Say all the correct platitudes to gain entry into the Club. (To be sure, since the socio-economic reality is so unequal, the preferred terminology is 'inclusion' than 'equality'. It's like Mexicans can never be equal in wealth and income with Jews but they've been 'included' to serve as nannies and helots.)



"I love Negroes, so let me into Stanford."   ROTFL. 

What Clinton understood was that RICH DOESN'T LIVE ON CAKE ALONE. Sure, even with the rise of New Democratic Party that was tough on black crime and pro-big-business, the GOP offered even more concessions to the rich class. So, why did the rich turn to the Democrats? Because THE RICH DOESN'T LIVE ON CAKE ALONE. People want to be feel justified. And those who are socio-economically narcissistic also want to be morally, culturally, and spiritually narcissistic. They want the right kind of look, reputation, and association.
In the past, GOP's association with religion may have meant something. Long ago, even educated elites in America were mostly Christian and devout. But religion is now seen as for dummies. Educated people don't care about religion, and when they do, it's about "god and jesus want gay marriage" or some such nonsense. Also, the Party of Lincoln became the Southern Party and got associated with Neo-Confederacy. In a nation where MLK is worshiped as demi-god and where 'racism'(at least against blacks as it's okay to bash Muslims and other groups) is the greatest sin, GOP's reputation as the party of the Deep South full of sister-fuc*ing redneck 'white trash' who hate 'ni**ers' made it less reputable to educated elites who like to see themselves as 'tolerant'. Of course, these very good elite liberals used Clinton to lock up tons of Negroes and even elected Giuliani and Bloomberg to clamp down on black crime, BUT they love to virtue-signal. In what they actually do, they may be just as 'racist-segregationist' as other whites, but they still want to feel good about themselves by virtue-signaling against those 'rednecks' in the Souuuuuuth. (Strangely enough, the blue state economic policies were so detrimental to blacks that many blacks left Democratic states for Southern 'red states' under Clinton, Bush, and Obama.)  
Another factor was the Cool Factor. As American Culture got more celebrity-centric, narcissistic, and hedonistic, the only culture that mattered was Pop Culture of Hollywood and Pop Music. And all that stuff is controlled by Liberals, Jews, and Homosexuals, most of whom are Democratic. The rise of the 'creative class' meant that these bohemian-wanna-be-yuppies wanted to be considered hip, cool, and edgy. American Conservatism was less represented in 'cool' and 'hip' celebrity culture, so it was only natural that rich and affluent people preferred to be with the Cool Party of Democrats with the celebrities than the Lame Party of the GOP with country music and Nascar. So, vanity had a lot to do with it. 

Clinton understood that, even if the Democrats don't offer as much to the affluent as the GOP does, offering almost as much would be good enough since there would be fringe-benefits for the rich in being part of the Democrats. The rich might get more tax cuts with the GOP, but the Democrats own the new spirituality(MLK-worship and Homo-worship as replacement for Christianity and Diversity as manna from heaven), the cult of creativity, vanity of cool, and the conceit of intellect. To be sure, this was filled with contradictions. If indeed the Democratic Party was about the have-nots, why was it so close to homos who are all about vanity and narcissism? And if the Democratic Party is about intellectualism, why was it so close to the vulgar trashiness of Hollywood and Rap? And if the Democratic Party is so concerned about black issues, why was it so eager to welcome gazillions of new immigrants to replace not only white working class but blacks as well, like what happened in California where black power has been reduced to near zero. Even in Oakland, the last holdout of black power, rapid rise of immigrants and gentrification is pushing blacks out. Why all the contradictions? Well, politics make for odd bedfellows. It's like the GOP has both pro-drug Libertarians and Evangelical moralists. 

Now, the problem with Gans' thesis has something to do with loaded terms like 'racism' and 'hysteria'. 'Racism' is not a scientific, rational, or objective academic term. It is a quasi-spiritual term that instantly denigrates, degrades, and discredits the views and feelings of certain groups. Also, 'hysteria' means that certain positions are clinical disorders. It's like calling someone a 'homophobe'. When the term 'phobe' is used, it doesn't merely mean the person is against the current homosexual agenda but is mentally or clinically sick in the head.  With such loaded terminology, it is no wonder that so much of media and academia fail to understand reality. The use of such loaded terms is like Marxist discourse that dismisses entire ideas and concerns by invoking terms like 'bourgeois'. Communists used 'bourgeois' like today's PC academics and media people use certain virtual epithets. And feminists throw 'misogyny' often, but what does it mean? It's supposed to mean 'anti-woman', but anything can be construed as 'anti-woman'. So, feminists said sexual presentation of women is 'misogynous' for 'objectifying' women. But some women say sluts should be proud because women dressing like whores is 'empowering'. According to such women, a man who says women shouldn't dress like hookers is 'misogynous'. Also, feminists who drone on and on about 'misogyny' are silent about rap music culture where women are called 'bitchass hos'. And even though anti-women violence is biggest in the black community, we are to believe that most of misogyny is committed by white male college students, like with the UVA rape hoax. And feminists are now allied with patriarchal Muslims. Of course, Muslims say it is Western Culture that is anti-woman and 'misogynous' because it encourages women to dress like hookers and neglect family to pursue hedonism. At any rate, a term like 'misogynous' is useless since it can mean just about anything. 
Likewise, when an academic uses the term 'hysteria', he is saying certain people are just crazy and not worth taking seriously.  Also, 'hysteria' as a term is used politically and opportunistically. So, we were told that Joe McCarthy and Red Scare was all about 'hysteria' about the Soviet threat. But now, the same people are saying Russians have taken control of America, and Trump is Putin's bitch. Is that 'hysterical'?  Yes or no? I can understand partisans and politicos smearing the other side with epithet of 'hysteria', but Gans is a poor academic if he's so dismissive of certain views as 'hysteria', as if he has some medical credential to pass judgement on the mental health of entire populations. 

These numbers have become a handy data point for whites fearful that they are being threatened and “overwhelmed” by a growing tide of darker-skinned people. In this way, the census may have unintentionally increased white racism, thereby justifying the longstanding Republican strategy of turning itself into a whites-first party. White fears probably even helped Donald Trump win the 2016 election.

Now, why would white people feel this way? Could it be that the Liberal Jewish media have been gloating over and over that white gentiles are finished because of the rising tide of color? After all, Diversity is useful to minority elite supremacism. If a minority elite is faced with homogeneous majority, there is the danger(however slight) that the majority will unite and oust the power of the minority. Jews had immense influence in Germany in the Weimar period, but they were pulled down by Germans who were 98% of Germany. In contrast, Jews had felt more secure in their power and privilege in the Austro-Hungarian Empire because of the diversity. Even though various gentile groups in the empire distrusted and even disliked Jews, they also disliked one another, so they could not join together against Jews who held immense privilege and influence.
White power was finished in South Africa because of black majority power. If white elites in South Africa had been smarter, they would have welcomed massive immigration from non-black nations and turned South Africa into a very diverse nation. Suppose such mass immigration had made South Africa 1/4 black, 1/4 Asian, 1/4 Iranian and 1/4 white. Blacks never would have been able to take power. White minority elites could have manipulated diversity to secure their own power indefinitely. So, Jews feel the same way. Jews are smart and know their history. They know that the British minority elites were able to rule India for 200 yrs because of diversity. Whites could play divide-and-rule among the various groups along religious and ethnic lines. It was only when the various Indians came together as one people, as 'Indians', that they were finaly able to push the British out. Homogeneity and unity are threatening to the elite-minority elite. The European imperialists had a tougher time securing control over China than in India because China was more homogeneous, which enabled the Chinese to unite and resist the 'foreign devils'. 

So, Jews, as the ruling minority elites of America, have been pushing for massive immigration. Jews do the same to Europe. Jews see Polish unity in Poland and Hungarian unity in Hungary as barriers to Jewish supremacist control. George Soros has been barred from Hungary. A nation that is homogeneous has the native elites representing, defending, and serving their own people. But when a nation becomes globalized and diverse, the native elites become collaborator-puppets of George-Soroses of the world. They no longer serve their own people. Instead, like Angela Merkel, they hug foreigners, migrants, immigrants, and refugees as the 'New People' and denigrate their own people as 'racist deplorables' for not being so enthused about their ancestral homeland being taken over by a New People. When UK and France was all white, the native elites were mindful of native working masses. Today, the globalized elites in UK and France serve globalist oligarchs and disregard their own people who are to be replaced by 'new people', just like Palestinians got replaced by Jewish Zionist immigrants. 

Jews use diversity as a weapon. When Jews say 'diversity is our strength', it means it is power for Jews. Diversity empowers Jewish elites while weakening native mass power. Indeed, suppose white rulers of South Africa had allowed mass non-black immigration to South Africa and reduced blacks from majority status to minority status pushed out by endless tides of Chinese, Hindus, and Muslims. Whites would still be ruling South Africa while blacks would be on the bottom. 
And that is indeed what happened to Hawaii. At one time, it was owned and ruled by Hawaiian natives. But whites arrived and took over. And whites allowed white immigration to Hawaii. Native Hawiians lost out. But then, whites did something even worse. They allowed in tons of Asian immigration. This forced-diversity on Hawaii led to Hawaiian nativs being minorities and strangers in their own ancestral homeland. What had once been sacred to Hawaiians became a real estate boon for whites and Asians. Asians were useful to whites. Without them, Hawaiians could have outnumbered whites, just like blacks came to outnumber whites in South Africa. If Hawaiian politics had been just white vs Hawaiian, things would have been simpler. But with massive Asian immigration, white elites could play divide-and-rule among various Asian groups and between Asians and Hawaiians. Diversity has long been the weapon of imperialists. 

Since Jewish globalists are the real rulers of the US, they now use Diversity as a weapon to undermine white majority power. And they do the same in the EU. This is why Jews are using puppets like Merkel to threaten Hungary and Poland.
Now, why would non-whites collaborate with Jews against whites? After all, non-whites remember the history of imperialism when their own lands were colonized by outsiders. They got so angry that they eventually rose up and kicked the colonizers back to their homelands. Hindus kicked the British out. Algerians kicked out the French. Vietnamese kicked out French and Americans. And Cuba kicked out the US.

So, why would these people who'd once been anti-invasivist now collaborate with Jewish globalists to invade and take over white nations and white-majority nations? It's not about principles or ideals or any such. They just want the riches of white nations since they've done a bad job of running their own economies. That is it. Just as animals move to greener pastures, humans also seek out richer nations. It's all about material interests. If white nations were poor and backward, NO ONE would be invoking 'inclusion' and 'diversity' to gain access to them. These immigrants just want short-cut to material bounty in the West by going there. It's about self-interest. It's like all those immigrants during the Emma Lazarus Era didn't care about Indians. When she wrote that poem, there were still lots of land in the West where Indians held out. But Emma Lazarus told the 'huddled masses' to come in bigger numbers, take up rifles, mow down Indians, and take the land from the 'savages'. She was Jewish, so she cared about Jews, not about Indians. It's like Jewish immigrants to Palestine didn't care what happened to the native Arabs. Sure, every invasive people try to justify their land-grab with highfalutin talk. Back in the 19th century, whites spoke of Manifest Destiny to take land from Indians. And Emma Lazarus gave us the sob story poem about 'huddled masses', but she just wanted her tribe of Jews to come and kill Indians and take the land. 
But then, US took over Hawaii with highfalutin talk too: Something about spreading God and Jesus. Today, we have all these non-whites coming to the West for material want and self-interest, but they justify their mercenary desires with talk of 'tolerance' and 'inclusion' and 'diversity'. It's just a lot of Bull. It's especially bullshit since so many of these people are fleeing from diverse nations to go to less diverse nations. If diversity is so great, why are people fleeing diversity to come to less diverse nations? Latin American nations are more diverse than US and Canada in the sense that most of them have minority-white populations and majority non-white populations. Now, if diversity is so great and if it's great for whites to be reduced to a minority, then Latin America should be paradise. But so many people there try to flee to the US and get away from diversity. Latin whites prefer to move to White parts of America than steal with local natives of mestizos. And countless non-whites in Latin America want to move to the US and work for Anglo whites than for Latin whites whom they regard as corrupt. 

Anyway, it's a legitimate concern of any people to be alarmed by massive demographic changes that will forever alter the character and meaning of their nation. Look what massive immigration did to Palestine. Jews are now masters and Palestinians live in apartheid conditions in West Bank. Look what massive immigration of whites and Asians did to Hawaii. Are native Hawaiians supposed to celebrate the Diversity that reduced them to minority status in their sacred ancestral homeland? That is the Jewish Plan for all of Europe: massive Palestinianization or Hawaiization. Jews want every European people to end up like Hawaiians. And then, Jews can infiltrate those nations and rule as minority elites by playing divide-and-conquer among the diverse groups. THAT is why Jews are so eager to flood Poland and Hungary with massive invasion.  After all, Jewish minority elites are most powerful in European nations that fell under the mantra of 'diversity is our strength'. In such nations, the native elites no longer defend and serve the native masses. Instead, the native elites, as puppets of globalists, excoriate their own peoples as 'racist' and 'hysterical' for being insufficiently welcoming of foreign invasion. The native elites, as comprador-collaborators of Jewish globalists and virtue-signaling 'progressive' elements, hug the New People as 'victims' and neglect & revile the identity and interests of the native population as 'racist', 'atavistic', and 'reactionary'. Thus, the native masses are Palestinianzed and Hawaiized. 
Or Tibetanized. Chinese do the same thing in Tibet. In the name of 'diversity' and 'inclusion', the Han Chinese keep flooding Tibet with Chinese who take over. And if Tibetans complain and resist, they are not only denounced by the Chinese but by the Tibetan elites who collaborate with the Chinese. Tibetan elites, as puppets of the Chinese, favor Han Chinese migrants in Tibet over their own people who are demeaned as 'reactionary' and 'exclusive'.  So, 'inclusion' and 'diversity' are the language of Jewish globalist imperialists and other kinds of imperialists, like the Han Chinese in Tibet and Xianjiang where the native Turkic Uighur people are being replaced by Han Chinese migrants. Needless to day, the Uighur elites collaborate with the Chinese imperialist against their own people. Collaborator-comprador elites are rewarded handsomely for their betrayal. Merkel is set for life. So is Macron. Tibetan and Uighur elites who collaborate with Chinese will be showered with lots of prizes. 

Current globalism is worse than past imperialism because of its deception. Past imperialism, colonization, and immigration had fewer fancy rationales about what they were really about. It was about one people taking over another people. Even with pretty talk and moral justifications, there was no denying that one people were gaining at the expense of another. But the current demographic imperialism has been associated with 'progressive' values. So, it is somehow ennobling, righteous, wonderful, and promising to have one's nation be taken over by masses of foreigners. Why would that be good?
Or a nation is defined as a number than a culture. For instance, Germany and Japan have low-birthrates and the native populations are bound to shrink. Globalists say the losses must be made up by foreigners. But why? If Japan has 100 million people now but will be 50 million in the future, who cares? Japan will still be Japan since it will be inhabited by Japanese, regardless of whether there are 100 million or 50 million. Japan is Japan because it has Japanese people. It's a matter of WHO than HOW MANY.  Whether Japan has 50 million, 100 million, 150 million, or 200 million, it is Japan if it has mostly Japanese people. But if we define Japan as a number, say 100 million, then it means Japan will be Japan ONLY IF it has 100 million people. So, if native Japanese numbers decrease to 50 million, Japan has to take in 50 million foreigners to remain Japan.  That is the dumbest thing I ever heard. Suppose your family has 10 members but three people die. Is it no longer a family since there are seven members than 10? Must three strangers be added to make it 10 again for it to be a family again? Nuts.
This is what happens when globalist economics is allowed to dictate the meaning of a nation. The nation goes from a rich entity of history, culture and ethnos to some game of data and statistics, as if the people of the nations are little more than digits. 

Now, Gans uses the term 'racist' to characterize the resistance of white Americans. What does this mean? The term 'racism', like 'misogyny', can now mean just about anything. It used to mean racial supremacism or racial bigotry. But now, it even means the desire of the native population to maintain national integrity in terms of race, identity, history, and heritage. So, even if a people don't believe themselves to be superior to other peoples, even if they don't seek domination over other nations/races/peoples, and even if they don't have no ill will or nefarious designs on other peoples, they are deemed 'racist' simply because they want to preserve the historical, cultural, and demographic integrity of the nation that they inherited from their ancestors. So, any people who want to defend and preserve their land, identity, and culture from foreign invasion are 'racist'. By this definition, Palestinians were 'racist' for not wanting to be overwhelmed and displaced by Zionist immigrants. And today, Jewish Israelis would be 'racist' for allowing Jewish-only immigration to Israel and for securing Jewish rule in Israel. And Algerians were 'racist' for wanting to take their land back from the French immigrant-colonizers. And Vietnamese were 'racist' for fighting to drive out the French colonialists, settlers, and immigrants.
'Racism' used to be associated with imperialism. It used to be about invading other people and gaining supremacist domination over them through military might or demographic displacement. But now, since 'progressive' globalist-imperialism is the dominant force around the world, 'racism' is tagged with defensive nationalism. So, imperialism is now anti-racist'. It's apparently wonderful for entire peoples to invade and colonize other lands. But it is 'racist' for a people of a nation to want to preserve its borders, ethnicity, and heritage. So, if the Jewish-controlled US foments wars and invades other nations and turns things upside down like in Iraq, Libya, or Syria, that's wonderful. No criticism from Gans. But when a small nation like Hungary wants to maintain its Hungarian identity and unity by fending off foreign invaders, that is 'racist'. 

Using this logic, the Spanish Conquistadors were the good guys, and the native folks of Meso-America who resisted the European invasion were the bad guys, the 'racists'. After all, the Spanish Conquistadors were spreading diversity and 'inclusion'(though coercive) whereas the natives of Meso-America were trying to 'exclude' the white invaders. And I suppose any Hawaiian native who resisted white colonization and Asian immigration(that came to overwhelm the native population and culture) was 'racist' too. Gans is now a shill of globalist-imperialism. He's for open borders and the eradication of all races, cultures, and peoples. To him, race and culture are as 'fluid' as gender is to a tranny. So, even non-whites can be 'white', just like a man with a penis is a 'woman' by demanding that he be called a 'she' and wearing a wig. No wonder globalists push trans-gender nonsense. It is a way of weakening and destroying all identities and cultures. 
After WWII and during the era of anti-imperialist struggles, progressives used to be on the side of nationalism and preservation of cultures and peoples. They would have understood what Gandhi meant: 


I can understand how 'racism' was a problem when white people occupied or colonized other people's land and imposed white rule over them. But what's wrong with 'racism' that is defensive and devoted to the preservation of one's own homeland? German 'racism' became a huge problem because Germans conquered and ruled over non-German peoples in Poland, Ukraine, Russia, and etc. But why would it be a problem to the world if Germans in Germany decide to mind their own business, defend their own nation, and preserve their own race and culture in their own land? If that is 'racism', what is wrong with it? It is anti-invasion. It's about Germany agreeing not to invade other nations and refusing to be invaded by other peoples. So, what would be the problem?
Germany is not the world. It is merely one nation among many nations in the world. Germany is Germany because it's the land of Germans. And Germans have the duty and right to preserve German-ness in Germany. If Nazi Germany had followed this principle, there would have been peace. But WWII broke out because Germans violated the nationalism of other nations, such as Poland. Today, US is violating national sovereignty all over the place. It invaded and destroyed nations in the Muslim World. It still occupies Afghanistan. It works with Saudis to undermine national sovereignty in Yemen. It works with allies to send terrorists into Syria to mess things up. It fomented a coup in Ukraine. Also, US navy is station all along Chinese coast. Is the Chinese navy stationed all along US coast? US military is still in South Korea and Japan. US meddling in world affairs have destabilized entire nations and set off a massive refugees and migrant crisis. Millions of Arabs, Kurds, and Afghans have left their war-torn nations. US destruction of Libya has led to millions of Africans willfully endangering themselves out in the open sea so that Europeans will 'rescue' them and drag them to shore and offer free stuff. 

And while there are genuine refugees(mostly due to US imperialism), many people from the Muslim world are moving to EU for the same reason Africans do. They want free stuff. They don't care about ideals or principles. They just spout cliches about 'tolerance' and 'diversity' because they want to live on the dole in the EU. This is an invasion, but fools like Gans demean and dehumanize people who want to preserve the integrity of their own nations as 'racist'. Again, if racism means defense of one's own borders, ethnicity, identity, culture, and heritage, it is the greatest thing. 
In the past, progressives sided with nationalists against imperialists. The Left sided with Polish nationalism, Russian nationalism, and French nationalism against Nazi German imperialist invasion. Progressives sided with Third World nationalists seeking to regain independence and preserve their own territorial and cultural integrity from European invaders, immigrants, and colonists. And when progressives realized the true nature of totalitarian communism, they sided with the patriotic dream of every Eastern European nation to overthrow the Soviet Imperialist yoke and liberate their nations. 
But today, so-called 'progressives' are impugning nationalism, national independence and sovereignty, and working as servitors and shills of the globalist-imperialist empire. They turn a blind eye to Zionist-imperialist US destruction of Muslim lands. They are silent about the countless US military bases all over the world. They don't denounce America's evil role in Libya and Syria. They say EU must be invaded by endless waves of Muslims and Africans. They say European elites should snub their own native masses and hug the invaders as 'New Europeans'. These globalists also train non-white elites in Western Universities and try to impose Diversity on peaceful and safe homogeneous nations. They keep pushing Japan to take in tons of refugees and immigrants even though Japan had NOTHING to do with the disaster in the Middle East. 

How did progressives go from defenders of national independence, national liberation, national sovereignty, and national integrity to globalists, imperialists, and militarists? Why do they want to turn all the world into something like Brazil? For one thing, Brazil's diversity is a cesspool of crime, corruption, violence, and mayhem. If diversity is so great, why did Japan and Sweden do so much better than Venezuela and Peru? Sweden used to be a paradise as a homogeneous nation, but it's turning into shit due to Diversity. If Third World peoples messed up their own nations, why wouldn't they do the same to Sweden? It's like Mexicans have made huge parts of California and Southwest region look more like Mexico. Who needs that? If Swedes want Somalia, they should just go and live in Somalia. Why bring Somalia to Sweden and turn whole areas into third world conditions? Also, if France and UK may have taken in immigrants out of nostalgia for old imperialist eras(thereby turning their own nations into miniature empires), why should European nations that never had overseas empires do the same? None of this makes any sense. But then, it makes sense when we realize who controls the West. Jews control the West, and Jews hate all nationalisms but their own. Jews love and defend Zionist-Israeli nationalism. In military policy, border control, immigration, and demographics, Jews do everything to keep Israel a JEWISH State. So, Jews love nationalism where they are the solid majority. But in nations where they are minorities or insignificant in number, Jews see nationalism as conferring power, prestige, and legitimacy to the majority native population. For example, nationalism means a nation like Hungary belongs to Hungarians. It has a distinct Hungarian identity and history. So, Hungary is the homeland of Hungarians, and that means Hungarian dominance should define Hungary, just like Japanese dominance should define Japan and Turkish dominance should define Turkey. Jews hate this because it means their place in such nations is secondary to that of the native majority. Jewish ego cannot handle this well. After all, Jews came up the monotheism that said Jewish God is the only God. Yahweh was a projection of Jewish megalomania on the universe. Even secular Jews, though atheist, have this personality-trait. No matter where they go, they think they are the best and feel as though gentiles exist to serve them. So, even in gentile nations, Jews want to feel as masters. To enable this, Jews undermine nationalism in gentile nations. Jews spread the cult of diversity.  They spread homo agenda to weaken the moral pride and fiber of every nation. And Jews agitate the minority groups in nations against the majority. By doing this, the majority is made to feel guilty for its 'racism'. So, to make amends, it makes more and more concessions to minorities,and Jews use this vulnerability to infiltrate and take over. I wonder if Gans knows this but remains mum about it out of German guilt about Holocaust. Or maybe he is really naive and ignorant. Even though he studied sociology all his life, it's possible that he inhaled too much Politically Correct ass-fumes and can't think straight and honestly about the Way of Power. 

Also, Gans misunderstands the levels of anxiety in American politics. What is true of Democrats is true of Republicans. Just as there are competing voices and agendas on the Democratic side or so-called 'left', there are competing vision on the Republican side or the so-called 'right'. I use quotes because, the US, having a winner-takes-all Two Party system, goes for big-tent politics that brings together a wide spectrum of voices and interests.

There are many factions in the GOP, and if the GOP has anything in common with the Democratic Party, it's that both are dominated by a small but powerful faction of Jews. Indeed, the Democratic Party is essentially Liberal Zionist manipulation of White Cucks, Diversity, Blacks, & Homosexuals to support Jewish-globalist supremacism & Zionism. And the GOP is Neocon-Zionist manipulation of white Christians, white Conservatives, and white Libertarians to support Jewish-globalist supremacism & Zionism. So, neither the GOP nor the Democratic Party is about Rule by Majority. Since most Democrats are gentiles, you'd think it would serve their interests. But over the yrs, the Democratic Party has mainly been for Zionism, Wars for Israel, Wall Street(Jew-owned), Hollywood(Jew-owned), Las Vegas(Jew-owned), Silicon Valley(Jew-owned), and Ivy League(Jew-dominated). Democratic Party has also favored homos(the main political allies of Zionists) over all other groups so as to normalize elite-minority privilege and domination. Sure, the Democratic Party gives lip-service to blacks and Diversity, but the main objectives of Democratic Politicians have been to serve Jewish oligarchic power and Israel. Also, Diversity within the Democratic Party makes it easy for Jews to play divide-and-rule among the various groups: Blacks, Hispanics & Meso-Americans, East Asians, Hindu-Americans, Muslims, Homos, SWPL yuppies, feminists, and etc. Though vaguely united against 'white privilege', this is a disunited Big Tent where no one agrees on anything except hatred of Evil Whitey as impugned by the Jew-run Media.
Take California. It is said to be totally dominated by the Democrats, but it's difficult to think of a more divided state. Proggy Anglos, Jews, Muslims, Asians, Mexicans, blacks, homos, various immigrant groups, and etc. have nothing in common in California and are divided by race and class. Consider the issue of Affirmative Action that Asians oppose but blacks and 'browns' support. And even Jews are getting worried about BDS anti-Zionist movement. But then, Jews own the elites of California who are opposed to BDS since politicians take their dough mainly from Jew-dominated Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Non-whites have been fooled by globalism that they are gaining power in the US against 'white supremacism' and 'white privilege', but they are only being turned into servitors of Jewish supremacism. They've been fooled by Jews into thinking that White Supremacy rules America, and therefore the rising anti-white rhetoric means rise of Non-White Power. But in fact, Jewish Supremacy rules America, and Jews are merely directing Diversity as their attack dog against white gentiles. If anyone really wants to fight supremacism in the US, he needs to smell the coffee and realize that Jews are the ruling elites with supremacist power-obsession. Also, even if non-whites were to topple both white and Jewish power, they would not come to power since they are divided among themselves. Suppose all whites and Jews were to vanish into thin air. What would be the essence of American Power?  Blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, East Asians, Hindus, and many others all getting along in perfect harmony? No, it would be endless tensions, crisis, conflict, and rage.

If the Democratic Party is about Jewish elites rigging the system to have Diversity(mostly immigrants), blacks, homos, SWPL cucks, and feminists serve Zionism & Jewish supremacism, the GOP is about Jewish elites manipulating the system to make the vast majority of gentiles serve Jewish interests. Given that 85% of Jews are Democrats, the Jewish percentage of the GOP is truly tiny. But because of immense wealth, 30% of GOP donations come from rich Jews. Also, as Liberal Jews control the media, they've favored Neocon Jews to serve as the face of Conservatism Inc. So, both Liberalism and Conservatism in the US are mainly defined by Jewish interests, biases, obsessions, and hatreds. Also, because Jews control the Narrative via academia & media, they've promoted the Cult of White Guilt. This means that white gentiles have no autonomous moral pride. If Jews can feel moral pride simply as Jews and if blacks can feel moral pride simply as blacks, whites cannot feel any autonomous moral pride since the Narrative has associated whites with certain historical 'sins' such as slavery and 'antisemitism'. So, whites must leech off the Moral Pride of others. Whites must latch onto Jews or blacks(as sanctified and sacralized peoples) to be associated with any sense of Moral Justification.
Due to Jewish control of Narrative that associated whites with Historical Guilt, white politics is one of endless atonement, apology, and redemption. And even though such attitudes is less pronounced in the GOP, it more or less kowtows before the Narrative and sucks up to Jews. As a result, the GOP is also a minority party in that the majority of whites serve Jewish minority elite interests. And even though GOP has failed to attract blacks, it is forever in 'Democrats are the real racists' mode. And notice there has been zero effort among Republican elites to stop the dismantling of Confederate monuments.

That said, there is a real division among GOP that is becoming more pronounced. The establishment careerist Republicans don't care about winning or losing as long as they are offered secure positions inside the Beltway. For them, politics is mostly a profession or career, a way of putting food on their table. But there is a rising awareness among some American conservatives and rightists that Identity Politics is the way to go since the Genie of Identity cannot be put back inside the bottle. Without Identity and Interests-centered-on-Identity, you are increasingly nothing in the US. American Politics is decided by which group has the stronger & more dominant identity with greater will to power. After all, Jewish Power cannot be understood apart from Jewish identity as a uniting and galvanizing principle. And black power would be nothing if blacks had opted for colorblind mentality since the 60s. Identity is the magnet of power in politics. It pulls a people together and makes them really around a flag. Look at homo power. Homos are small in number and don't even constitute a race or stable culture. But their sense of Homo Identity and Pride has led to great power, though, to be sure, they had the crucial support of Jews.
Herbert Gans talks about the fluid identity of 'whiteness', and this can be an advantage to whites if white Hispanics, Caucasian Arabs, and Eurasians choose to identify as white. But this isn't likely since the vilification of whiteness in Western Politics has made it disadvantageous to be associated with whiteness.
It's the great irony of the world. Non-whites want to come to white nations. They want to live with whites. They prefer to send their kids to white schools than to non-white schools. Many non-whites want to have sex with whites, marry whites, and have white-looking kids. They even get plastic surgery to look white. Non-whites are obsessed with heading toward white lands and living alongside with whiteness(preferred even to their own kind), but they also jump on the bandwagon of anti-white politics. What they actually do --- flight to whiteness in real terms --- suggests a racial inferiority complex, a mad preference to live with whites in white nations than with their own kind. To hide this shame of inferiority, they make a lot of noise about Evil Whitey. They say they are spreading Diversity in white lands because Diversity is so good. But if diversity(codeword for non-white-ness in most cases) is so good, why are they fleeing non-white diversity and going to nations that are white-majority?

Now, consider Democratic side once again. Immigrant groups tend to be pro-Democratic for one reason. They want easy access to the West for better material lives. No, it's not about 'higher principles'. After all, if the US were dirt-poor but billed itself as 'proposition nation', no one would want to come. Even if US got rid of democracy and became an autocracy, people would try to emigrate to the US because material conditions are better. Indeed, most immigrant groups are not all that interested in politics. Mexicans are mostly apolitical. And even though Asians are the majority in Hawaii, whites still dominate the politics there. Also, even when Asians take up politics, they just follow other people's causes and parrot other people's voices. And most Mexicans just leave it up to self-described 'leaders of the Hispanic community' to set the agenda. The main interest of immigrants is the opportunity to come to white-majority nations because material conditions are better there. Indeed, if most people had to choose between rich autocracy and poor democracy, they'd go for the former. This is why your average person would rather move to autocratic Singapore than democratic India or Nigeria. 

Even among Democrats, there are varying views on immigration. Strong majority of blacks oppose more immigration since blacks simply lose out to immigrants. Immigrants may boost the Democratic Party, but as immigrants come to define the Democrats, blacks will come to matter less...like in California. It was Democratic Party's abandoning of the native working class in preference for docile immigrant labor force that led to the defection of working class from the Party. Also, there is a huge divide between Jews and Muslims. Jews use their immense power to make the US support Zionist imperialist-supremacism over Palestinians. Also, Jews use American military power to smash any Muslim nation deemed as a rival to Israel. So, while Israel has been sitting pretty, over a million Muslims and Arab Christians have died in recent wars instigated by Jewish-run USA. 
Most immigrants don't give a shit about Israel. Also, they see Jews as whites, indeed the most privileged whites. If one lives in NY, LA, SF, and etc, it's hard not to notice that much of 'white privilege' is really Jewish privilege. Also, these non-white immigrants have narratives of anti-colonialism, so they naturally sympathize with Palestinians.
Now, I'm sure that Gans and other Germans like him feel sorry for Palestinians too. But since they have 'holocaust guilt', they feel morally compelled to support Jews all the way, even if Jews act like Nazis and foment wars all over the Middle East that end up killing a million Muslims. Because of his 'holocaust guilt', I'll bet Gans will remain silent even if Zionists decide to kill all Palestinians. Anyway, given the hostility between Jews and Muslims, why are they united? When Hillary promised more wars in the Middle East while Trump condemned US-war-mongering and called for peace with Syria, you'd think Muslims would prefer Trump over Hillary. So, why are most Muslims on the Democratic side? Why do they side with Jews and Zionists whose Invade-Invite policies have led to death of over a million Muslims?
It's because Muslims, like so many non-whites around the world, are addicted to the hope-dope of moving to the white-majority West and gaining access to better material lives. So, immigration makes Muslims collaborate with their arch-enemies. They want to move to the West so much that they form alliances with the very forces within the West that are most hell-bent on the destruction of the Muslim World.
In some ways, West's greater tolerance of non-whites have corrupted the Third World. When the West was 'supremacist' and 'racist', the Third World rose up and forced Western imperialist-supremacists to go home. Also, because Western nations didn't allow mass immigration and instead favored the native peoples, the Third World elites stayed at home and served their own nations and peoples. Today, non-white elites are welcomed by Western elites. So, weasel-skunks like Fareed Zakaria prefer to rub shoulders with fancy globalist elites in the Elysium World. In the past, such non-white elites would have condemned US imperialism. Today, they support and serve Zio-US-globalist imperialism since they've been allowed into the Globo-Club.
It's like Gandhi used to serve British Imperialism in Africa. He admired the British and wanted to be accepted as 'one of them'. But the British favored their own kind, and this pissed off Gandhi, and so he decided to become a great leader by returning to India and inspiring his own people. Globalism, in contrast, bribes non-white elites to join the Elysium world and serve as puppets of Zionists. So, when Trump went back on his word and shot missiles at Syria, there was Zakaria saying 'Trump finally became president'. Zakaria was cheering for Trump's globalist aggression against the sovereignty of Syria, a non-white nation.

Even so, there are huge divisions in the Democratic Party. Keith Ellison was slated to be the new leader of the Party but was derailed by whom? By Jews who detested his somewhat sympathetic stance toward Palestinians. Alan Dershowitz(who pulled strings to destroy Norman Finkelstein) warned that rich Jewish donors might bolt the party if Ellison was elected. Given that Jewish donations comprise 60% of Democratic Party, Jews get to the call the shots in the end. So, the Democrats got a Hispanic, but notice it is a white Hispanic. Even though white European conquistadors conquered, raped, and enslaved the natives of 'Latin America', they get to masquerade as 'people of color' and pretend to represent the interests of the 'browns'. Never mind that 'Latin America' nations are still about white Latino elites ruling over the brown masses who have no power. Indeed, the brown nativists of 'Latin America' didn't ask for Diversity. It was forced on them by whites who invaded and then brought over millions of black slaves. Given this history, one would think diversity = imperialism + slavery, but it is celebrated. Native Hawaiians are coerced into celebrate the 'diversity' that reduced them to minority in their own homeland. The natives of 'Latin America' must celebrate 'diversity' that entailed imperialism, genocide, slavery, and mass rape. Maybe, if the Germans had won WWII, they would have told their Russian slaves to celebrate the 'diversity' of living under German rule, just like Chinese urge Tibetans to celebrate the 'diversity' of seeing Tibet be overrun by Han Chinese. 

Even though 'racism' is usually used to describe whites, the Democratic Party is no less 'racist' in the sense that various groups are looking for their own interests. Jews are into Jewish interests and Jewish power. Jews push diversity in gentile nations to use 'divide-and-rule' among the goyim. Jews do NOT push non-Jewish immigration on Israel, however. Why should they? Where Jews are the majority, non-Jewish immigration will weaken Jewish unity and solidarity. Jewish elites in Israel represent and serve Jewish masses. They don't dream of bringing in non-Jewish immigrants, hugging them as 'New Jews', and pissing on native Jews. 
Also, black 'leftism' is really a form of rightism. Blacks only care about black interests, and the only reason they are on the Democratic side is because it offers more government jobs and more welfare to blacks. Black politics is tribal. And Mexicans are Democratic because they want 'affirmative amnesty' for their brethren. And immigrant groups are Democratic because they want easy access to Western riches for their own kind. It's not about higher principles. Only naive white 'progressives' like Gans fall for that nonsense. It's a way for them to feel morally supremacist over others. Gans thinks he's better than other whites because he is sooo 'inclusive' and 'tolerant'. It's really a way of hugging himself and patting himself on the back. "Oh, aren't I so very good for dumping on 'racists'?"

Anyway, non-whites often choose 'leftism' for what are really right-wing or tribal reasons. It's like many Third World nations adopted leftist communism for nationalist purposes. They found communism to be more effective in waging war of liberation against Western Imperialism for the sake of gaining national independence. So, what may seem like 'leftism' isn't always in core motivation. Why did 95% of Muslims in France vote for Macron when their views are socially far more conservative and tribal? Because globalist immigration policy means Muslims and Africans can pour into Europe and feed on its largess. Alliances are usually not about principles. It's like the US sided with Maoist China against the Soviet Union even though Red China was more virulently radical than post-Stalinist USSR in the 1970s.  It's like the theocratic Saudis will side with homomanical West against Iran. It's like theocratic Iran will side with secular modern Syria against theorcratic Saudis. Game of power makes for odd bedfellows.

But when the contradictions become too troublesome, it may lead to the reconfiguration of alliances. Also, even though the Democrats are tagged as the 'left', it is about as 'leftist' as today's China is Maoist. Democratic Party now lost the working class. It still has blacks as part of the underclass, but the Democrats have done things to diminish black power even as it showers praise on them rhetorically.
Also, black elites will sell their own constituents for their own narrow interests. Even though more immigrants mean more competition for blacks who lose out in competition, black elites don't care since all they care about is bribes, connections, and favors for themselves. Black elites know that their privilege depends on government jobs and favors. They feel that black masses(too many of them anyway) are too stupid and degraded to serve as basis of black power. That was once the hope when the black bourgeoisie defined and guided black culture. But since the 60s, black culture has been defined by the underclass and its pathology of hipster gangsta cool. So, rap attitudes are promoted as 'authentic'. Even educated blacks, to earn street credit, put on the 'rage of the black middle class' act to prove that they ain't no uncle tom House Negro sellouts but angry blacks folks like the poor brothas and sistaz. But the fact is educated blacks know that their privilege depends on government and connections to elite institutions. They know that black folks won't amount to much. Having lower IQ and more violent/aggressive temperament, too many blacks will remain on the bottom. In the past, even such problematic blacks had come under moral pressure from family values, church, and black middle class that aspired to be respectable. But all that is gone. Black culture has now reverted to shameless celebration of fuc*ing and fighting. So, black elites cannot rely on black masses for power. They rely on Jewish/white elites and the Democratic Party. Jewish/white elites own most of the businesses and have the most money. Also, Democratic Party is for bigger government than the GOP is. While GOP has been ineffective at reducing government, it is a tad less enthused about expanding it. So, black elites figure the success of Democratic Party is key to their privilege and power since blacks cannot make it economically(except for government workers, rappers, and athletes). Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley are mostly controlled by Jews, whites, and some Asians(especially Indian-Asians who are good with English). Even though Asian-Indian history in the US is short, they have 1000x more power and wealth in Silicon Valley than blacks do.  In contrast, blacks dominate sports because they are naturally more muscular and fast.

Anyway, that is why black elites are for immigration. They know immigration means more competition for blacks. But it also means more power to Democratic Party, and that means more government largess for black elites via statism(since blacks cannot compete meritocratically in business with Jews, whites, Asians, and even Muslims & Mexicans). But then, black elites figure that TOO MANY BLACKS will mean failure regardless of immigration or no immigration. After all, if blacks in Los Angeles may complain that they lost out due to massive influx of immigrants, what excuse do blacks in Milwaukee and Detroit have? Those cities have far fewer immigrants, and blacks dominate entire swaths of the area. But they are even more run-down than black areas near immigrant neighborhoods. So, the black way is now to leech off others. Leech off Jews, leech off whites, leech off Asians, leech off Mexicans. And to leech off them, blacks need bigger government. That way, the US brings in more immigrants, makes them do business, and then taxes them, and passes the taxes to blacks in form of government jobs(for black elites and black middle class) and welfare(for black underclass). And then, businesses take back the welfare money by selling stuff to blacks. Anyway, look around the world, and most people can do stuff on their own. Europeans can have a great economy with only Europeans. Asians can have a developed economy with only Asians. Arabs can run a stable society on their own(as long as Jewish-controlled US doesn't meddle in the Muslim World). And India, filled with Hindus, have made impressive strides in economic growth. But blacks cannot do anything on their own. They must rely on others to do things for them. So, blacks need other people to invest and run things in Africa. Recent rise in African GDP owes to Chinese and Indian investment and management. And blacks flee to the West to live off whites. During the anti-imperialist era, black Africans told white imperialists to go back home. Blacks were so sure that they could make their own nations rich. But they all failed from corruption, tribalism, big-man-ism, brutality, etc. Mugabe of Zimbabwe is now begging whites to come back and run the farms again. And it is telling that white-run South Africa in the past had an economy bigger than all of black Africa. Now, under black-rule, South Africa is steadily and surely turning into just another black African nation. 


This is the black conundrum. Blacks love to blame EVERYONE but themselves. They blame whites, Jews, Chinese, Hindus, Muslims, and etc. But when those people leave Africa and when blacks can't run things for themselves, they just loot and pillage everything and fail to develop anything. So, even as blacks revile and scapegoat everyone else, they also need to leech off others to have anything like modernity for themselves. So, blacks are like, "Honkey, you is racist, you is evil, you is a motherfucker, you is punkass piece of shit. Get out of here, honkey ass motherfucker and don't come back" and then, "motherfucking racist honkey, let me into your nation/community, because you got all the good stuff that we want. You see, we can't make that shit on our own. Why? Uhhhh.. Cuz of history of racism, motherfucker. So, let me in and gimme free stuff and let me fuck your white daughter turned onto jungle fever from all that rap music." 
That's about the mentality of black politics and culture today. Sure, we like to pretend otherwise and wanna believe that blacks have that Magic Negro soul expressed by Morgan Freeman's neo-uncle-tom-ish assurances in all those movies. We like to think that blacks are inspired by "I Have a Dream", but it really comes down to, "I gots to have me what the honkeyass mofo got." So, today, South African blacks are saying 'kill the whitey" and "send whitey packing back to Europe so that we can grab all the ill-gotten white loot." But once blacks take from whites, they fail to invest in the future and then, the whole economy sinks. And then, blacks in South Africa will demand that EU and US open up to black South African immigration since nothing works in black-run South Africa. It's like what Mark Steyn said about the Most Important Graph: 


What we have is a corruption of the meaning of 'racism' and 'antisemitism'. 'Racism' used to mean white people seeking supremacist domination over others. That is why there was the anti-imperialist movement. Peoples in Africa, Middle East, and Asia told white colonists to pack up and go back to Europe. There was some of that too in 'Latin America', but the natives there were unable to kick out the whites. Too much Diversity. In Asia, Africa, and Middle East, the natives outnumbered the colonists by a huge margin. Also, there wasn't much race-mixing between the natives and the colonists. French did more race-mixing than the Anglos did, but for the most part, the natives were still distinct from the colonists. In contrast, the European race-mixing with the natives of 'Latin America' was so extensive that the identities got confused in Latin America.
In Africa, it was black majority vs white colonist minority. In India, it was Hindu majority vs British minority. But in most Latin American nations, it was whites at top, mestizos in the middle, and natives on the bottom. Because the mestizos were mixed in blood, they were confused in identity. They felt oppressed by white elites, but they didn't identify with pure-blood natives. And in some nations, there were large numbers of blacks due to slave trade. Thus, blacks became fellow conqueror of the natives by the mere fact of being stuck in the New World. It's like blacks made up 15-20% of cowboys in the American West. Though brought as slaves, they eventually came to conquer the West and wipe out Indians too. It's like Asian immigrants in Hawaii collaborated with white colonists to marginalize and crush native Hawaiian power.

Another factor that complicated Latin American politics was that even Latin whites might pose as 'people of color'. This was made convenient due to Anglo-hegemony over Latin America since the days of the Monroe Doctrine. Anglo-Americans were far more enterprising and innovative in building up a dynamic economic, military, and political power. One reason was the US was founded by Anglo-Americans, then the most innovative and industrious people in the world. In contrast, Latin America was culturally dominated by the Spanish and Portuguese who were in a state of decline. But the reason was demographics as well. The Northern US remained majority white, so there was more unity and solidarity. In contrast, Latin American had minority-white rule. Mestizos didn't identify as white or Indian. They were in a confused limbo state. As for the natives, they were mostly a race of helots and serfs bound to haciendas of the Latin elites. So, Latin America achieved far less, and Anglo-America began to gain hegemony over all the Americas. This 'victim' status allowed even Latin Whites to roleplay as 'people of color' even though Latin America was the creation of white conquistador imperialists, slavers, genociders, and rapists.

Anyway, unlike in other parts of the world where white rule was seen for what it was -- European imperialist domination --, white rule in Latin America could role-play as representing 'brown power' even though Latin elites had long rigged the system to serve their own European kind. When Anglo-America used to have hegemony over Latin America, many Jews sided with Latin American rebels and revolutionaries, not least because many Jews were Marxist or radical. But today, American Jews are far less likely to side with the revolutionary types because Jews now control the US, and that means US hegemony over Latin America is now Jewish hegemony. Furthermore, the anti-white revolutionaries in Latin American nations like Venezuela tend to be anti-Zionist and seek friendly ties with nations like Iran, Russia, and China, nations that still have sovereignty. Indeed, it's interesting how much the so-called 'Left' changed. Long ago, the Left was outraged by CIA dirty tricks that led to ouster of Allende. But recently, the 'Left' has been supportive of US-backed coup in Ukraine. It was silent about the military coup in Egypt that toppled a democratically elected government following Arab Spring. Even when this coup killed 1000s of people, the Western 'left' was silent in the 'silence is violence' manner. And when Hillary pulled strings to mess up Latin America to serve the globalist Jewish oligarchs on Wall Street, again, there was deafening silence. Sure, some outlets like The Nation made a stink, but the Liberal Jewish-run MSM hardly noticed: 


Anyway, the point is 'racism' changed in meaning. It used to mean "whites have no right to conquer non-white peoples and lands and act like they are the boss". Or in the case of the New World, it meant, "Since whites took land from Indians and brought blacks as slaves, whites need to show those groups special consideration." After all, Indians and other natives of the New World didn't ask to be conquered, enslaved, raped, and/or genocided. Also, blacks didn't ask to be brought over as slaves. What happened was a bunch of black African kingdoms got greedy and figured they could make easy bucks by selling fellow blacks to Arabs and whites. And whites bought a whole bunch of them(especially the Jewish Marrano landlord in Brazil) and used them as slave labor in plantations. Since what happened happened and cannot be undone, the idea was that New World white folks should recognize the tragedy of Indians and try to make amends to Negroes.  

But then, what does 'racism' mean now? It means there is something wrong with white people wanting to defend and preserve the ethnos, culture, demographics, and territory of their own HOMELANDS. Now, I can understand how one could denounce Brits for ruling over Kenyans, French for ruling over Algerians, Dutch for ruling over Indonesians, and Germans for ruling over Namibia and parts of China.  If that is 'racism' or 'white supremacism', we can see how it's wrong because whites are invading and ruling over others. But what in the hell is wrong with Brits trying to defend Britain, French trying to preserve France, and Germans trying to preserve Germany?
Or consider Poland. Poles were once imperialists. They were not overseas imperialists, but they did rule over huge parts of Ukraine and treated the people there none too well. So, there was a huge rebellion to push the Polish nobles out who were  exploiting Ukrainian peasants. So, it made good sense to push out Polish imperialists out of Poland. That was Polish supremacism in the Polish Empire. But what is wrong with Poles trying to defend and preserve their national core? 

Now, the problem is not having some minorities. Every nation has some. And some of these minorities have been there for a long time, and they should be treated humanely. That is not the problem. The problem is globalism and multi-culturalism call for non-stop immigration-migration-invasion to the point where the the entire national-racial-cultural-historical integrity is fundamentally altered. It's like what happened in Palestine. Jewish immigration didn't end after a spell. No, the Jews kept on coming and coming and coming until they posed an 'existential' threat to Palestinian nation-hood. And in the end, the final result was demise of Palestine and the rise of the Jewish State over what had been Palestinian land. Using the current globo-PC logic, Palestinians were 'racist' for their humble and limited desire of trying to preserve their homeland. Palestinians weren't seeking to conquer and control other peoples and nations. They just wanted to hold onto what was theirs, but they were denounced as 'anti-Semites' for opposing the Jewish destruction of Palestine. In the end, Jews dug up Palestinian graves and built shopping malls and 'gay' night-clubs over them. 

Any sane person would see this as a great tragedy. But today, Jews are pushing the same kind of logic on every European nation. This is not about pushing European imperialists out of non-white nations. This is about bringing forth the massive demographic invasion and colonization of European homeland by foreigners. It is about Europeans becoming colonized by the non-European world, but fools like Herbert Gans don't see the evil in this because the PC virus that infected his mind says 'Diversity' is some kind of holiness. They don't seem to realize that Diversity has long been an imperialist instrument to take over and control other peoples. Gans fails to understand that Jewish minority elites use Diversity as a divide-and-rule weapon against gentile nations. Does Gans ever stop and ask why Jews push Diversity on Sweden, Austria, Hungary, and Poland but not on Israel that has a strict Jews-only-policy?  Maybe Gans knows the truth deep down inside but feels obligated to play dumb and push for demise of whites nations to expiate his German Holocaust guilt. But that is irrational. It's closer to religious thinking, like with the stuff about Original Sin. What happened in WWII was horrible, but only Germans of that generation are responsible for it, and it is crazy to pass this 'sin' down to all future generations of Germans or white people. 

What goes for 'racism' also goes for 'antisemitism'. It used to mean something like PROTOCOLS OF ELDERS OF ZION, though to be sure, Jewish also used counter-slander against others, such as the Russian Czar. 


Anti-Semites used to blame Jews for everything, even stuff Jews didn't do. So, Jews might be blamed for poisoning some water-well, and then Jews might become victims of looting and rioting, especially as Jews tended to run businesses that could easily be sacked.

But today, 'antisemitism' means noticing Jewish Privilege, criticizing Jewish Power, and denouncing Jewish abuses. No people are as obsessed as Jews are about themselves. Jews obsess about their wealth, power, status, clout, identity, culture, greatness, mastery, brilliance, genius, wit, and superiority. But if others notice that Jewish Power has consequences on the world, sometimes negative, Jews freak out and accuse others of being 'obsessed' about Jews.


There is a reason why the world is obsessed with American Power and not with Nepalese Power. American Power has consequences all over the world. It can mean life or death for any nation. In contrast, Nepalese can't harm anyone but themselves. Given that Jews constitute the most powerful group in America, of course their power should be scrutinized. I mean all this Russia Hysteria is TOTALLY about Jewish Interests, and only a dishonest fool or an ignorant dupe would deny it. 

Anyway, Gans and his ilk have to put food on their table, and deep down inside, they must know they must play by the rules of Jewish-enforced PC since any deviation will lead to denunciation of him as a 'racist' and 'anti-Semite' and who knows what. And his whoring out to PC in NYT is just a prime example of white cuck behavior that is so pathetic. 

Gans should know that 'racist' whites who voted for Trump are not calling for 'new cold war' with Russia. They didn't call for Wars for Israel in the Middle East. They don't want to tell the world what to do. They just want an America where the elites care about their own people. 

There is no moral basis for immigration in America. If anything, it was precisely because of immigration that American Indians got wiped out. It was because of immigration and new enterprises that US embarked on bring slaves from Africa.

True, immigration made America, but it doesn't mean America is morally bound to the entire world. American Immigration led to 'genocide' of Indians and slavery for blacks. So, that means American History has moral responsibility only to Indians and blacks(on the main continent, as Hawaiians deserve special recognition in Hawaii and Eskimos deserve special recognition in Alaska). If whites took land from American Indians, they owe something to American Indians. They owe NOTHING to Asian-Indians as white Americans didn't 'steal' land from Asian-India. Also, whites owe something to blacks since they were brought over as slaves. America owes NOTHING to the rest of the world since it wasn't created by taking land from them.  
Same moral logic should apply to Hawaii. Whites took land from native Hawaiians, so whites owe something to the natives. Whites owe nothing to the rest of the world in Hawaii since Hawaii was taken only from Hawaiians. Indeed, when whites let Asians into Hawaii, the natives lost out doubly: they lost out to whites and also to Asians. So, continued immigration just means the natives losing out even more. 
If it was tragic that American Indians lost their land to whites, how is it some consolation to know they are gonna lose it to the entire world due to nonstop immigration? The logic of Diversity is crazy. 

No comments:

Post a Comment