Should the GOP have welcomed and embraced Mexicans and Immigrants in California and Texas? A Response to Ron Unz’s Racial Politics in America and in California

http://www.unz.com/runz/racial-politics-in-america-and-in-california

Most Mexicans and Central Americans in the US are not criminals. If anything, it could be that there are problems with excessive organized crime & violence in Mexico because too many people are overly nice and passive. Too many passive Guillermos and not enough Wild Bills to take a stand against the bad guys. So, bad guys run free and kill freely... like in THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN where the bandits push around the overly nice villagers, that is until white gringos arrive to protect them.

Still, even if most Mexicans in the US are not criminal and tend to be reasonably law-abiding(perhaps even more than 'white trash' elements), their increasing presence tend toward social mediocrity and cultural lethargy. (Indeed, this seems to be Steve Sailer's main gripe about Too Many Mexicans. They don't turn LA into Detroit but nevertheless turn it into Guillermopolis.) Much of Mexican-areas in the Southwest may be stable, but it's also so humdrum and 'lame'. Is it good to have such a large mass of passive people without agency(except for leaving Mexico to live in the US)? Having lots of Mexican neighbors may be okay -- and not dangerous like having black neighbors -- , but it also means social and economic stasis. Mexicans follow but don't lead. Also, even if these Mexicans don't commit crime, the fact that many of them do depend on government assistance of some kind will have a long-term depressive effect on society. White Flight from black is due to violence and mayhem. Whites generally don't run from browns on those grounds. But when Too Many Browns make for a depressed economy with low wages, many whites will leave just the same. The reason why white share of California population went down was not only because of mass immigration but mass flight to other states. So, obviously, the dramatic increase in Diversity meant something went wrong for many whites. It made them want to move out.

Could the GOP have earned the loyalty of Mexicans if it weren't anti-immigration in California under Pete Wilson? I doubt this. Even if GOP weren't 'anti-Mexican' -- these days, the mere opposition to more immigration is 'xenophobic' and 'racist' -- , the fact is Democrats will always offer more in terms of government benefits and holy victim pokemon points. At most, GOP can offer Mexicans an equal playing field and chance to be good fellow Americans. In contrast, Democrats offer them more government aid, favorable affirmative action, and elevated status as a 'victim group'. (Even though CA got rid of Affirmative Action, it lives on through many 'holistic' methods.) Of course, the majority of Mexicans will take the latter. It's the same thing with Jews. GOP is even more pro-Israel than the Democratic Party. The likes of Bush and McCain were more brazenly servile to Zionism than Clinton was. But the fact is Democratic Party is sufficiently pro-Zionist, and besides, Jewish elites prefer the immigration-diversity policy of the Democrats because it ensures Jewish domination in yrs to come: Turning whites into just another gentile minority is good for Jewish domination, or so the Jews think. Whites won't be able to politically or electorally gang up on Jewish power.

Now, let's suppose GOP could have won over tons of Mexicans by being Mex-friendly. Suppose Pete Wilson kissed brown babies all day long and suppose Texan GOP went full Jeb-Bush and hailed Mexicans and welcomed more brown immigrants. As a result, suppose the majority of Mexicans in Ca and Tx voted GOP, and in time, browns outnumbered whites.
But in the end, for many white American patriots, it's not about the Party but the Nation. What good is the GOP even if it wins elections IF it allows the browning of America? White patriots will take a white Democratic-ruled America over a brown Republican-ruled America. GOP is secondary to white patriotic interests. They support it because they see it as the less of two evils in the demographic transformation of America. If GOP was for mass-immigration and if Democrats were for preserving the racial composition of White America, most white patriots will go with Democrats. In the end, political parties are means to an end, not the end. It's like blacks went from voting Republican to voting Democratic because the latter offered them more stuff in programs and holy victim points.

Now, what is wrong with Ca and Tx turning majority brown IF most browns are nice-okay people? If the only priorities that mattered are social stability and economics, the browning of America might be tolerable. After all, large numbers of Mexicans may lead to some economic stagnation but nothing like the degradation in black areas of Baltimore or the jungles of Detroit. But white patriots have a historical and cultural view of what America is. It's not just about crime rates or economics. After all, Asians commit less crime than whites. So, if a white community were to become 60% Asian, it might have even lower crime. If the only thing that matters is crime rates, that would be ideal. But white patriots have a sense of connection to the land and its history. Now, amnesiac whites probably don't care. White Liberals and whites of Conservative Inc. don't have much in the way of memory and bond. But white patriots do have a sense of historical America, and they want to preserve it. And in a way, it is history that gives meaning to a people. History makes a person see a particular land in a special way. Surely, an American Indian looks upon the hills of South Dakota differently than a recent Chinese or Hindu immigrant does. The immigrant will look at the scenery and say, 'very nice'. But he has no sense of historical connection or claim to the land. But to the American Indian, there is more to the land than the land itself. It's a sense that this was the land of his ancestors who hunted, fought, died, and were buried. And surely a black in the South, if he has a sense of roots, has a different feeling about the land than a recent immigrant from Guatemala does. To the Guatemalan, some town in Georgia is just an economic zone to find a job. But to the Negro, it is the land where his folks were once slaves and picked cotton and sang coded songs that might have meant, "I'm gonna get even with whitey one day and whup his ass and hump his daughter." So, a Negro in the South feels a special attachment to the land. Or, take Jews and Israel/Palestine. Why did they feel this powerful need to choose THAT part of the world to create or recreate their homeland? Why not some piece of Africa or Siberia or North America? It was due to a deep historical sense that it was on that land that the founding stock of Jews received blessing from the Lord. Then, why wouldn't white patriots feel the same way about American history and territory? America wouldn't exist if not for white adventure, white conquest, white conception, and white creativity. Now, amnesiac whites don't care about the past. They just think of the here-and-now. And white PC-types see the past as one of 'guilt' and 'shame', so whites must welcome racial demise for atonement. But white patriots feel that white folks created something unique and great in the New World, and they should remain the dominant people on the land. This side of white patriotism cannot be appreciated with mere numbers on crime and wages.

Also, the danger of immigrants leading to Democratic domination has something to do with Jewish Power that has grown demented over the yrs. While non-whites supply the votes for the Democratic Party, they don't command the heights. They supply the coal for the ship's engine, but they don't get to steer the ship. Jews control the Democratic Party, and so, when Democrats win, Jews get to decide and steer the future of America. Indeed, I would be less worried IF the Democratic Party were controlled by Mexicans like Guillermo. He seems like a nice guy and have no agenda beyond saying, "hello Jimmy" and getting chubby on tacos. I wouldn't mind if Guillermo were governor, senator, or president. Or the head of Harvard or Yale. But the fact is Mexicans supply the votes but don't control the commanding heights. They supply the feet but not the brains of the Democratic Party. And even Mexican and non-white politicians who do get elected just become puppets of Jewish globalists. Look at the Ocasio character from NY. As a street activist, she used to be pro-Palestinian. But headed to DC, she is suddenly with the Zionists. Look at Elizabeth Warren, the pseudo-Indian. She is just a squaw whore when it comes to Jewish Power. And Negro Obama was supposed to be a socialist who cared about Main Street. As president, he did little but bail out Wall Street, push Homo-Worship, and wage more Wars for Israel.
Now, if Jewish Power was only moderately liberal, it'd be no big deal. But it's gone crazy. It's pushing Homo-Worship as replacement for Christianity. It is promoting all kinds of degeneracy. In the foreign policy field, it's more Cold War with Russia and more neo-liberal or neocon wars or subversion. I don't think most Mexicans are that crazy. But when they vote Democratic, they are not really voting for Mexican power. They are voting for Jewish power that is hellbent on pushing 'hate speech' laws, taking away guns, spreading anti-white hatred, and waging more Wars for Israel. As for Asians, they do better than Mexicans in climbing the ladder, but what do successful Asians in the Democratic Party do? They are like Sarah Jeong who serves as whore to Zion. And that Yuree Koh bitch at the Wall Street Journal who helped to shut down Alt Right Youtube channels like the Killstream. We have all this talk of the New People, but we don't see anything like the New Elite. Indeed, would Jews support mass-immigration IF they regarded yellows and browns are real threats to their hold on Elite Power? No, they just see browns as easy votes and yellows as easy toadies. There is no Elite Equality in the US. Now, suppose anti-Israeli Arab immigrants have higher IQ than Jews and, as immigrants, are poised to reach the top and take over elite power from Jews. Would Jews push for mass-immigration? I think not.

Anyway, even if most Mexicans don't commit lots of crime in California, they(and Asians) did totally change historic California. If one is amnesiac or purely materialistic, I suppose it doesn't really matter. (Indeed, it seems the problem with white Californians is they went from GRAPES OF WRATH mode to 'Good Vibrations' mode. Too much affluence and leisure robbed them of their worker-warrior spirit.) But if one has a sense of history, it is a great loss.
The same applies to the Palestinians. Under Jewish-Zionist rule, many Arabs have done pretty well in Israel. They are materially better off living with Jews than they would be otherwise under Arab rule. After all, Israel is a first world nation, and even Arabs have lots of opportunities there that Arabs in Arab-ruled nations don't have. So, if materialism and individual well-being are all that counts, many Palestinians(those allowed to stay in Israel) certainly benefited from the rise of the Jewish State. But if they have a sense of history, they feel the tragedy of how Palestine was wiped off the map and many of their brethren were expelled from the land. Palestinian individualist-materialists are happy to live in modern and prosperous Israel. But Palestinian patriots with a sense of history feel the pain over the fact that their homeland was taken by another people and that many of their brethren live under occupation in West Bank.

Zionism vs Afrikanerism as Political Philosophy of Labor — How the Ideology of National Labor eventually trumps the Expediency of Global Labor — Mind and Body in Man and Nation

Politics of Labor will decide the future of nations.

What was the most crucial difference between Zionism and Afrikanerism?

Zionists debated early on whether the Jewish settlers should hire Arab workers or Jewish workers. Zionists came down on the side of Jews hiring Jews. Thus, the Jewish head would be wedded to the Jewish body. And as the theme of Zionism would be ethno-cultural, it would serve as the heart between the head and body of the Jewish nation. In the short-term, it would have been more profitable to use Arab labor. It would have been cheaper than Jewish labor. Also, whereas a Jewish boss would feel moral obligation to treat fellow Jews with some sense of justice, he might merely exploit Arab laborers as expendable than essential members of the Community. But if Zionism had opted for Jewish owners and Arab workers, it would have failed in the long run. As there are always more workers than owners, Arabs would have outnumbered the Jews, and Jewish dominance would have been difficult to maintain. So, even though Jewish owners hiring Jewish workers was economically more costly in the short-run, it was crucial in the long-run in the creation of a Jewish state where the Jewish mind was united with Jewish body. It became one organic unit and fought off all challenges. But, suppose Zionism had opted for Jewish owners hiring Arab Workers. When the Partition of 1948 was declared, would all those Arab employees of Jewish owners have sided with their Jewish bosses or with their Arab brethren? Most would have joined with Arab Brethren, and the Arabs would have won the war, and Jews would have been expelled from Palestine permanently. But because Zionist opted for Jewish owners and Jewish workers, when the crisis moment arrived, all Jews from top to bottom united as a single force and fought the Arabs and won... and were even able to grab most of Arab territory.

In contrast, let's look at the Politics of Labor of South Africa. Afrikaners were race-conscious, but they opted for economic expediency. They decided to hire lots of black workers to do much of the work. In the short-term, this was a terrific bargain. Blacks could be hired for cheap. They could be exploited because they weren't white. White owners and bosses felt some paternal feelings for black workers but not as much as if they'd been white. So, this was a great boost to the South African economy on farms and in the mines, not unlike the economic arrangement in Rhodesia where blacks worked for white owners. But in the long run, what happened in South Africa? These blacks increased in number, outbred whites, and more blacks moved to white areas from the hinterland and even from other African nations. This meant lots of cheap labor that whites could exploit, but it also meant whites being outnumbered by blacks by an ever-increasing margin. Unlike Israel that came to be about Jewish mind wedded to the Jewish body and united by Jewish heart, South Africa increasingly became a world of white mind wedded to the black body with heart of stone lodged between the two communities. Afrikanerism wasn't organic like Zionism. Zionism decided to see Labor as part of 'us' and 'ours'. Afrikanerism decided to see Labor as the Other.
Zionists had been tempted to go with Arab labor. After all, Western Jews honed their skills in white-collar professions and in ownership of property. They weren't really into manual labor. That was for the goyim. Granted, there were poor Jews in Eastern Europe at the time who did manual labor. And even in the West, there were plenty of poor Jews in the garment industries. Still, the Jewish ideal was to use one's brains, not to toil like a 'dummy'. Labor was looked down upon as stuff Dumb 'Polacks' did. Even Jewish communists wanted to be intellectuals or commissars representing laborers; they didn't want to become laborers themselves. Karl Marx never stepped inside a factory in his entire life. And yet, another side of Jewish culture had more respect for the common man, at least if he was Jewish. As Jewish culture wasn't about warriors, it didn't develop an aristocratic culture like the Europeans and Japanese. Among the goyim, the warrior caste became the noblemen, and their power and privilege rested on blood. So, the Western ideal came to be aristocratic-minded, like that of Sparta though not nearly as extreme. Aristocratism deemed that a certain caste was superior over all the rest, and they had the right to rule over others who had to do the heavy lifting as peons and peasants. In contrast, the Jewish Covenant was shared equally by all. Rich Jew, poor Jew, it didn't matter. So, at least within the Tribe, Jews could be more mindful of the humanist value of every Jew. After all, in the Jewish Lore, the kings came later, long after the emergence of the Jews as a people and culture. In contrast, many goy narratives begin with some great leader figure who conquers and rules. According to the Jewish Lore, Jews are a people with certain needs, and they reached a point where they needed a king. In contrast, the Goy Narrative is often about how some guy beat all the others and gained the right to rule, and therefore, it was the duty of everyone else to obey him and his descendants.

National Laborism believes Labor isn't just some economic entity or measure but part of what defines and defends a people, land, and culture. Zionism is National Laborism, and it may be the only nation that is ideologically formulated to be that way.
In its day, National Socialist Germany had a similar ideology. German workers weren't seen merely as economic units but as part of the national family. Labor was organic. It was the body wedded to the German mind and soul. Unfortunately, this ideal all went to hell when Germany decided to go imperialist and turned non-Germans into slaves, thus going from National Socialist ideal to Imperialist Exploitation expediency. And yet, Hitler understood the need for German owners and German workers to be united in the newly occupied lands. Hitler's vision of Russia wasn't for German owners to hire and rely on Slavic laborers. Initially, Germans would use Russians as slaves, but eventually they would be replaced with German workers as a strong German Empire could be assured only by unity of German minds and German bodies. But this was a grisly vision outside Germany because it entailed removal, even extermination, of entire populations. Hitler was right about the New World. North America(minus Mexico) was sounder than Latin America because North was mostly about white owners and white workers. There was organic racial unity of white mind and white body. In contrast, Latin America was about white minds ruling over brown bodies. Thus, there was no heart between mind and body in Latin America. In North America, there was a sense of heart between white mind and white body because it's tougher to exploit one's fellow tribal brethren than another people. It made labor more expensive but also more precious because it wasn't seen merely as economic value but as national-cultural asset. But Hitler was wrong to apply New World historical lessons to the Old World. While it's true that the Red Man lost out tragically to the White Man in North America, there weren't all that many Indian savages in North America. Also, primitive world was supplanted with a modern world as a result of White Conquest of the Americas. In contrast, German invasion of USSR was a war on 170 million people. Also, despite evils of communism and Slavic backwardness, Russia was still part of the great civilized world. Eradicating all of that to create Greater Germany was a mad vision. Though Zionist occupation of West Bank isn't nearly so spectacular, it could be the undoing of Israel if it's ever annexed as Israel will have to offer some form of citizenship to all those Palestinians who may tip the demographic balance of bigger Israel. But then, Jews could try to expel them, but that will stir up a giant international shi*-storm.

When the US was gloriously race-ist, it had a defacto if willy-nilly kind of National-Laborism. While immigration was key to the rapid expansion of the US in the 19th century and early 20th century, most of the newcomers were white and, in time, assimilated. People like the Joads in THE GRAPES OF WRATH mattered because it was deemed a moral necessity for white haves to have a heart for white have-nots. George Bailey doesn't bowl alone in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE because those white folks of Bedford Falls are his people. If they were a bunch of crazy Negroes, apathetic Mexicans, and angry Muslims, he would have left the town. Labor was seen as part of the National Family. New Deal addressed the issue of Labor and Laborers as fellow Americans.

In contrast, the white elites in Latin America always saw Labor as a huge threat. Latin whites were the mind, but the Laboring body was brown(or black). There was little heart between the two. In some ways, Latin white elites envied American white elites, and vice versa. Latin white elites thought American white elites had it better because they hired white workers. Latin America too tried to encourage more white immigration to stem the tide of Rise of Color. But most white Europeans wanted to move to US than to Latin America. Anyway, American white elites also envied Latin White elites. Because American white elites had to hire white workers(for the most part), they felt an obligation to pay them more and offer more benefits. After all, it wouldn't do for whites to mistreat whites. But in Latin America, white owner class could treat the brown workers like expendable peons desperate to work for few pesos. It's no wonder some American capitalists romanticized Latin America. It's like what Hyman Roth says about Cuba. Money goes further in Latin America where the owners don't have to treat the people as Workers with Identity and Rights. Workers are mere peons, and political 'leaders' are whores who can easily be bought. (Today's DC resembles Havana before the Revolution, and ironically enough, this makes Trump with his Deplorable rabble army seem like New Castro to the Deep State.) It's no wonder Buckleys and Bushes had romantic views of Latin America and Mexico. It's where the distinctions of race and class have been more clearly etched. Owners are up here, and workers are down there.
We tend to associate mono-racialism with conservatism, but there is something inherently socialist about mono-racialism even if the dominant economic system in such a society is capitalist. Under mono-racialism, everyone is seen as part of the national family, and so, there is a sense of obligation to each and every person who is seen as deserving of education, opportunity, job, and benefits. In contrast, Diversity means the owner class may well be racially and culturally different from the working classes. And that means the owners don't have to pay much attention to the Other, the lesser folks who do work that is deemed low and inferior. Though Diversity is often associated with liberalism and equality, its effect is often a form of conservative hierarchy like in caste-ridden India of old. Latin America was more diverse than the US and also more conservative and reactionary in just about every area. To this day, it's about white elites ruling over browns. Of course, the official rhetoric of Latin America is that everyone is nicely mixed and no one sees race, but that's just bogus fantasy to mask the fact of hierarchy and lack of communion between those on top and those on bottom.

East Asian nations like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have been about yellow minds and yellow bodies. And nationalism was the heart that glued yellow minds to yellow bodies. But the rise of elitism via near universal college enrollment and elevated expectations may lead to the demise of National Labor ideology in these nations. Today, most Japanese see non-white-collar jobs as 'dirty, demeaning, and dangerous.' Same in South Korea and Taiwan. Not only do many yellows prefer to commit suicide than take up 'dirty and demeaning' labor, they refuse to have children who might fail in school and end up doing 'dirty and demeaning' labor. Also, Asian women, nearly all college educated, only want to marry 'winners'. This means sudden drop in birth-rates, and it means low-level jobs must be filled by... someone, and so, even Japan is now taking in 500,000 foreigners to take up those jobs. And according to Peter Frost's research, South Korean labor will be 40% non-Korean in 25 yrs. Taiwan seems to be following similar trends. So, their economic ideology is closer to Afrikanerism than Zionism. In the short term, it will be profitable and convenient as poor laborers arrive from places like Philippines and Indonesia to fill up 'dirty and demeaning' jobs. But in time, those newcomers will take over the nation just like blacks took over South Africa. Another threat to East Asia is globalism. East Asian mentality is essentially TO SERVE. The samurai, also known as 'bushi', was about submission. 'Bushi' means To Serve. Even though samurai were the elite caste, they were all about serving the Lord. Without someone to serve, one was a ronin, a nothing. Among Chinese and Koreans, the ideal was to become a Confucian bureaucrat and serve the emperor or king. Thus, an individual has no value except in service to the highest power. In Akira Kurosawa's SEVEN SAMURAI and RED BEARD, samurai are initially reluctant to serve the 'common rabble' than some fancy lord. They are used to serving the High than the Low, just like the shoe-maker in HIGH AND LOW must really struggle with himself before coming to regard his chauffeur's kidnapped son as akin to his own. When the top power in Asia was national, most were happy to serve the local power. But now that globalism made the West the uppermost power, most Asian elites are servile to the Western globo-homo way. This is in contrast to Jews who have a sense of self-worth. The Covenant means that every Jew has a direct connection to God. So, even as Jews may work for or with other people, they don't believe they exist to SERVE others. If anything, the key is to make OTHERS serve them, the Chosen Individuals. Asians lack such mentality. Today, Asian elites believe they should serve the West, the toppermost power, and they think they, as 'fancy Asians', should be served by lower people such as 'jungle Asians'. This goes against the grain of Zionism and will be disaster in yrs to come. (There is also a matter of personality. Three groups -- Jews, blacks, and homos -- have big personalities that tend to be egocentric or vain and expect the world to serve them. In contrast, most other groups have either neutral or servile personalities. Jews think everyone should revolve around Jewish Genius, blacks think everyone should suck 'muh dick', and homos think everyone should kiss their behind. No wonder the Three have such out-sized roles in World Culture.)

At one point, whites were like 50% of the South African population. Had Afrikaners taken the Zionist route and decided upon white workers for white owners, South Africa might have become a White Israel. But whites thought short-term. And same could be said for California. When the Golden State had been gloriously race-ist, it came to its senses and excluded Chinese Invasion and Colonization. It didn't want to end up like Tibet or Xinjiang are ending up today. California Dream was a kind of White Israel on the West Coast. And it was a fantastic success story, in some ways the most spectacular tale of American can-do spirit. But at some point, white Californians got used to Too Much of a Good Thing. And they turned grasshopper and took things for granted, even leading to the rise of the California Teenager meme. So, Californian economic ideology went from quasi-Zionism to quasi-Afrikanerism: Whites were too good for certain jobs, and they were to be taken by all those lowly 'beaners'. But just as lowly blacks took over South Africa, these lowly 'beaners' came to demographically take over much of California. This is what happens when the mind and body are no longer one.

Though a collective of people is different from a single person, there are certain parallels that are instructive. Even if heads and bodies could be traded among peoples, a person functions best if his head is connected to his own body via his heart. "My mind, my heart, and my body." But suppose we do an experiment where one person's mind is connected to another person's body and both are pumped by heart of yet another. Would such a person feel as one? When men pretend to be 'women', what happens to their psychology?
In John Carpenter's THE THING, the extraterrestrial creature doesn't care about any of the bodies it takes over since it can move from body to body. It has no organic unity with any single body. It considers every body as expendable. As far as it's concerned, all bodies exist just so it could move from one to the other to spread more Thingish-ness. Now, imagine if your head was severed from your body and suppose your head could move around from place to place. Suppose, it could supplant the heads of other people and take over their bodies. Would you take good care of those bodies? Not likely. Why not? They are not your bodies. You're just a parasite that sees every body as a host. You'd use and abuse the body as long as possible and then move onto to new bodies to mess with. This is indeed how George Soros and Paul Singer operate. They are heads without bodies. They move from nation to nation and attach their heads to the nation as 'advisers' and then do everything to suck that nation dry and then move onto new national bodies. But would Paul Singer do such to his beloved Israel? No. When Singer's head connects with Israel's body, it feels like 'Home', like when ET saw Yoda on Halloween.
https://youtu.be/VrVEHszxL7E?t=2m12s
In the current West, the Jewish head/mind feels little connection to the white body. If anything, the Jewish mind fears rejection by the 'deplorable' white body that might call for the return of the proud white head, and so, the Jewish mind is hellbent on diversifying the body so that it won't be white anymore: White torso, Mexican liver, Asian lungs, African dong, Muslim hands, homo anus, and etc. These body parts will be too busy rejecting one another to come together to reject the Zardoz-like Jewish Head.
As for the former white mind that used to control the white body, it was decapitated long ago, and having no organic connection to the body, it dreams silly dreams of Homo and Tranny as the new god.

A sane and sound person's mind is connected to his body and soul. A sane and sound nation is essentially of one elite ruling over one people. While Israel has a sizable Arab population, it has been a Jewish majority nation led by Jewish elites for Jewish identity from Day One. Zionic beats Bionic. Organic beats artificial. And if Turkey remains viable to this day, it's because modern Turkey was founded as an organic nation of the Turks. Its biggest problem has been with Kurds, a people who insist they are not Turks, but fortunately for Turkey, Kurds are a minority like Arabs in Israel.

Now, it may be understandable why some elites want to boost Diversity and destroy organic nationalism. They feel burdened by having to lead and deal with their own people. It's like Moses had a fearsome task ahead of him because he was a Jew leading the Jews. Because they were his people, he couldn't just see them as chattel or the rabble or human trash(even though the mobs sometimes acted like that). He had to whip them into shape, inspire them, and secure their future in terms of land and survival. Such is a huge challenge and burden, and not all elites are up to it. They just want to make money, gain privilege, and live in the glam world.

American elites were more conscientious and mindful. Protestantism suppressed narcissism and vanity. In contrast, in the colorful Catholic Latin America, the elites were more shameless in lavishly furnishing themselves with the Good Life and style over substance. In a way, the rise of Marxism was like the Second Reformation in Latin America. A way of saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH to all the Havana playboy lifestyle. Castro decided to play Moses by ruling Cuba as a nation where every worker would matter as part of the national family. Unfortunately, the fool chose Marxism than Neo-Fascism, the true way to bridge the mind and body. But in the end, the problem wasn't only bad choice of ideology but race. No matter how much Cuba's white elites tried, they couldn't represent whites, blacks, and mixed-race people in between the same way. A racially diverse nation has a hard time being organic. Ideology goes only so far in stitching the differences.

Anyway, Zionism or Afrikanierism when it comes to Labor? Should Labor be seen as part of National Family or Global Finance? When we compare the fate of Israel vs South Africa, I think the answer is clear. So, why do Jews push Afrikanerization of Labor for all nations EXCEPT Israel? Because smart(and devious) power wants to keep the secret formula for itself. Let the suckers fall for the hustle of short-term profits for long-term demise.

Patrick Little vs Nick Fuentes — Why Fuentes is wrong and right — The problems of Paul Nehlen and Patrick Little

In the heated exchange between Patrick Little and Nicholas Fuentes, the latter says an election has no meaning unless it is to win. Perhaps it was rhetorical flourish on Fuentes’ part to belittle Little as a pathetic electoral Loser, because Fuentes surely knows that elections mean different things in different contexts. Fuentes would be right in the case of Patrick Little IF there was any real chance of a Republican winning the Senate seat in California. But there is NONE. So, the next Senator of California will be another Democrat. Republicans have about as much chance of winning a state-wide seat in California as a fish has of surviving in the desert. So, I don’t begrudge Little’s use of candidacy mainly as a platform to inform people of the Jewish Question.
Also, if indeed California is the future of America, Little’s reaching out to non-whites serves as a template for what-is-to-be-done by whites. Ideally, the US should remain a white-majority nation, a part of Western Civilization. But if Jews do succeed in engineering the US to become a new Brazil or Venezuela(to the point where White Power will be permanently broken), then the only option left for whites is to get revenge on Jews by forming any possible alliance with People-of-Color against Jewish supremacist power. If Jews amassed great power and destroyed white America by directing the rising tide of color to hate and blame Whitey, then whites must return the favor once the US is lost to them forever. Indeed, I’ve argued that the GOP should fold its tents, and all whites should just join the Democratic Party. Turn the US into a one-party state and then form ANY kind of alliance with any group to bring down the Jew. Make the Jew taste his own medicine. If Jews pushed the Narrative that ‘whites are evil cuz of white privilege and must atone by siding with people of color’, then whites should indeed side with people-of-color and expose Jews as the real rulers, elites, and tyrants of not only the US but the world. After all, just do the math and add up the numbers. Jews are 2% of the US population but control how much of finance, foreign policy, media, academia, gambling & other vice industries, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Real Estate, sports franchises, Big Pharma(the harma), and etc.? So, if the future of the US is California, whites cannot regain White Power & Dominance again but they can, at the very least, get sweet revenge against Jews by, ironically, playing the Jewish rule-book. Jews have insisted that everyone, ‘good’ white and people-of-color, must unite against Evil White Privilege. Okay! Since Jewish Privilege is the Ultimate in White Privilege, then all white goyim should side with blacks, browns, yellows, Hindus, and Muslims against Jews. Whites should demand NO special treatment for Zionists over Palestinians. After all, if favoring one group over another(especially one with far less power) is a form of supremacism, then US media and foreign policy are totally supremacist in favoring Israeli-Zionist death squads over Palestinian women and children being gunned down out in the open(with the blessing of US whore politicians who take 30 pieces of silver from Judeo-Nazi globo-pimps).
So, given that Patrick Little or any other Republican has zero chance of winning the Senate seat in California, I have no problem with Little using his campaign as a platform to raise the JQ and wake up peoples of all races and backgrounds as to which people have the Real Power and are doing most harm to the world. On that score, Little deserves more respect than any Cuckservative GOP candidate who did little but sing hosannas to Israel DESPITE THE FACT that Jews have been at the forefront of the War on White. GOP’s cuckservative whores and wussies deserve no respect. Pat Little did nothing wrong in using his campaign to spread a message. He had no chance of winning the election so he decided to speak what cannot be spoken in American politics.

Another reason why Fuentes is wrong is focusing so much on ‘winning’ is that certain ideas take time to sprout, grow, and bloom. When Pat Buchanan ran in 1992, he knew he had slim chance of winning. And he knew he could have gotten more support from donors if he’d championed globalism and ‘free trade’. He didn’t. Instead, he spoke up for the American working class. He was attacked by the Media for his ‘fascism’. For much of the decade, people like Rush Limbaugh derided Buchanan as a ‘populist’ than a conservative. Buchanan failed to win once again in 1996 and lost big in 2000. And for his opposition to the Iraq War, he became a total persona-non-grata in the Republican Party. So, it seemed as if Buchanan was the biggest loser in US politics. But precisely because he stuck to his guns, stood on principles, and carried on with core conviction, his ideas eventually bore fruit with the rise of Donald Trump and populism(that, among the base, now has more positive connotations than ‘conservatism’ that came to conserve nothing). Also, Buchanan’s 1992 speech, which had been denigrated as one of the biggest mistakes ever, is now seen by many as one of the great political oratories in US history by some people. The speech would surely resonate with many Americans if they heard it today. So, when Fuentes just dismisses anyone who fails in political campaigns as irrelevant ‘losers’, he’s being glib and shallow. He is also betraying himself because he also could have won much more in the media if he’d taken the 30 pieces of silver from the likes of Ben Shapiro or some well-funded Establishment operation. But because he chose the honest and courageous path, he has to build up his reputation from the margins. The easy path has been denied him, so he has to take the longer and harder uphill path with a machete. Along the way, there will be lots of poison ivy, snakes, and other dangers, but it’s never meant to be easy for those with principles.

But in one respect, Fuentes is right and Little is totally wrong. It’s one thing for Little to court controversy and take tough stands on sensitive issues, but it’s quite another for him to spread lies, talk nonsense, exaggerate his importance, turn it all into empty theater, and, worst of all, go 14/88. It’s a cliche but true: Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right. Just because Jewish Power is now the worst evil in the world doesn’t mean that all enemies of Jews are good people. Farrakhan has been blasting Jewish influence & corruption, but he is a son-of-a-bitch himself. And even if past ‘anti-Semites’ may have had sound reasons for their antipathy, it doesn’t mean everything they did was justified. Some of those pogroms in Ukraine spiraled out of control. And the Nazism constituted a kind of Teutonic ideological pathology no less demented than Jewish globalist supremacism.
We should all know this by now. Sure, the Soviets achieved the awesome feat of defeating Nazi Evil, but the Soviets also committed lots of evils. The US did noble things around the world but also terrible, ugly things. Jews did a lot of good as well as lot of bad. The good can be bad, the bad can be good, and most peoples and nations are mix of both.
It makes no sense to go the David-Duke path where just about the ONLY GOOD JEW is Gilad Atzmon who happens to be especially harsh on his Tribesmen. Even if we have every right to be very angry with current Jewish Power, we can still keep our heads and not fall into the trap of praising insane ideologies and movements just because they were ‘woke’ on the JQ. We tend to think in terms of ‘enemy of our enemy is our friend’, but the ‘friend’ can turn out to be just as bad or even worse. Remember how the Ukrainians initially welcomed the Germans as liberators(from Soviet tyranny), only to discover that the Nazis considered Ukrainian Slavs to be a bunch of ‘subhumans’ to be treated even worse than under Stalin. But for whatever reasons, Little has decided to take his anti-Zionism and anti-Jewish-supremacism into Neo-Nazi territory. He claims that the Shoah didn’t happen. He says outrageous things like how Germans treated Jews better than Japanese were treated in internment camps during WWII. Sure, we can find anecdotal evidence where a handful of Jews were treated better because they bribed the Germans. Or for propaganda purposes, Nazis created a few ‘potemkin concentration camps’ where Jews were treated rather well to make ‘documentary’ films to show to the world. But then, Soviets did the same thing. Judging by communist documentaries of the USSR, one would have thought that workers and peasants were living in a socialist paradise of plenty and bliss. Patrick Little, who is now so skeptical and cynical about Jewish claims, is willing to swallow every BS peddled by crazed Neo-Nazis and their ilk. But the essence of truth is not a matter of black or white, night or day, this or that, especially when it comes to something as grand and complicated as history. Just as it’d be stupid to say everything about Nazism and Hitler was bad, it’s wrong to be totally anti-Jewish on everything. And just as we must be careful not to fall for Jewish BS(about Iran, Russia, Syria, Palestinians, white people, the ‘far right’, etc), we must be careful not to fall for nonsense endlessly peddled by Neo-Nazi types. Granted, Neo-Nazi psychos have no power whereas Jews have immense power around the world. But lies are lies, nonsense is nonsense, and we need to stand on the side of truth. What matters is not 'Jews are good, whites are bad' or 'whites are good, Jews are bad', but 'people, Jews or whites, must make an honest effort to be good on realistic terms.'

Because Patrick Little spouted off Neo-Nazi talking points, he disgraced himself. Worse, he associated all the necessary and compelling points he made about Jewish Power and Zionist influence with crazy 14/88 ‘Hitler did noting wrong’ nonsense. Before Little let down people like Fuentes, he disappointed and alienated people like Ryan Dawson. Dawson was looking forward to a sane discussion about Jewish power and what’s happening in Israel/Palestine, but it wasn’t long before Little veered into utterly crazy talk about how Nazis treated Jews like guests at Waldorf Hotel. It got repulsive, and in a subsequent video, Dawson reiterated the importance of not losing one’s head and lurching into cuckoo banana territory. Just like outlandish theories about 9/11 undermine intelligent skepticism of the official narrative, insane anti-Jewish vitriol undermines necessary exposure and criticism of Jewish power. Just because Jewish globalists now act like Judeo-Nazis doesn’t mean we should be praising the Old Nazis. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And it is for this reason that Fuentes was correct in not associating himself with Little.

Though I don’t think Patrick Little is a fed-larping-as-‘far-right’-dissident, he might as well be just that whenever he spouts off about how ‘Hitler did nothing wrong’. On the issue of Shoah, Little makes the same ‘mistake’ as those in the Holocaust-Desecration cult who extrapolate one falsehood about the Narrative to nullify the entire event. For example, even experts now admit that many accounts of what happened at Auschwitz can no longer be supported by evidence. And there have been Jewish charlatans who fabricated tales for attention or fortune. And certain confessions made by Germans were under the duress of torture. But that doesn’t mean the main event didn’t happen. Surely, there were plenty of men who exaggerated or told tall tales about Gettysburg or Normandy, but that doesn’t mean those events didn’t happen. Skepticism is a good thing, but why is it that so many people who become skeptical of the Jewish Narrative become easy suckers for other extreme Narratives? It’s as if, having been soul-cleansed of one sacred narrative, they crave another one that fills them with certainty. Because truth is often complex, multi-faceted, and ambiguous, people who come to reject the Big Lie easily fall for another Big Lie. They break free of the Lie but still retain the craving for some all-encompassing truth that had been satisfied by the former Big Lie. It’s like people who lose religion often turn to secular cults with a fanaticism that mimics religious fervor. Isn’t it ironic how secular progs are more rapturous and delirious in their celebration of Homomania than many religious people are in their worship of God?

Anyway, regardless of whether Patrick Little is a ‘fed’ or not, his antics are reminiscent of the flaming lunatic named Sinead McCarthy. Though initially greeted as a lively, funny, and irreverent voice of the Alt Right with her parodies and passionate views, she soon turned totally nutter and argued in favor of Flat Earth Theory, as if to Westboro-ize the movement. It was then that people began to suspect she is really a nutjob or an infiltrator whose game is to make the Alt Right look bad by having their views be associated with nonsense like Flat Earth and other silliness. And yes, she also went 14/88 and then began to attack most Alt Right people as either ‘fags’ or worse. Little is nowhere near that level of insanity, but his campaign, at least when it came to Hitler-Nazis-Shoah, clearly went off the deep end. Granted, there are plenty of Judeo-Nazis who are no less crazed. People like Max Boot would have us believe Putin is ‘new Hitler’ or that Iran poses some ‘existential’ threat to the world. Ben Shapiro is a Jewish supremacist hypocrite who berates even the slightest hint of identity and interests among white people but demands that all whites rally around Zionism. And who can forget Madeleine Albright who said it was worth it to kill 500,000 Iraqi kids or Sheldon Adelson who called for nuking Iran, a nation that has no nukes? Insane. But we shouldn’t be countering insanity with insanity. Judeo-Nazis are evil but so were the original Nazis.


Sadly, even people who should know better in the movement keep flirting with or pushing 14/88 garbage. Kevin MacDonald has done important work on the JQ. Also, we can forgive his past associations with men like David Duke and Don Black because, having been pushed to the fringes, he had no choice but to form alliances with people of shared interests. After all, the conservative De Gaulle formed an alliance with French Communists in the Resistance against German Occupation. But Kevin Macdonald now has enough name recognition to be pushing Neo-Nazi radical nonsense on Occidental Observer. How can MacDonald scoff at accusations of ‘supremacism’ when he allows pro-Hitler garbage on his website? Now, the problem is not nuance or complexity when it comes to the discussion of Hitler and National Socialism because, after all, positive things can be said about them, as of communism and other radical movements. The problem is gushing endorsement, which some writers at Occidental Observer have clearly made of National Socialism. Never let your hatred of a**holes turn you into one.

On the JQ, Fuentes has broached the topic without going cuckoo bananas. He named the power and discussed what really happened with USS Liberty and other instances of Zionist spying, theft, and sabotage. And he did it without the ‘Heil Hitler’ nonsense. Because Pat Little veered into nonsense territory with 14/88 garbage, he got stuck in the ditch. Sure, he will continue to have back-slappers on 4Chan who love to egg on any self-destructive loudmouth, but that’s no way to be a serious and mature person.

If Nehlen imploded because he wasn’t smart and feisty enough to handle the controversy and firestorm — even at his most outrageous, there was something soft, passive, and Mr-Rogersy about him — , Little’s problem seems to be he’s too bright and aggressive for his own good. Intelligence is a great asset but not when it lacks patience, balance, and probity. Instead of carefully weighing and digesting everything he’s learned in the past few years, Little just takes them as literal truths, immutable and invincible, and lets his mind run free to draw any conclusions that cast Jews in an evil light. Little has mental energy that was rarely evident with Nehlen, but he ingest ideas like he vapes on that stupid pipe of his. He’s read this and that, so he knows best, and there is nothing more to know. He’s like a born-again(or born-to-kill-again) Evangelical except with Damn-the-Jews as his new-found faith.

Personality counts for a lot in human affairs, and the strengths of Little’s personality are also his deficits. He can be tireless, which is good, but to the point of zealousness. He can be combative but to the point of being insulting and arrogant. He can be engaging and articulate but to the point of sophistry. Of course, none of this matters if he is indeed a ‘fed’ just larping as ‘right-wing dissident’ whose main objective is to associate legitimate criticism of Jewish Power with neo-Nazi desecration and mockery of all things associated with the great tragedy called Shoah.

Inversion of Prerogatives in Our Crazy World says Your Nation Belongs to Foreigners

Now, what's the point of having your own nation? To have a homeland for your people, right? If you're not going to own and defend it as such, why have a nation at all?
Indeed, why not just abandon your identity and history? Why not abandon your people's special right to the territory? And why not dissolve borders so that any number of peoples can move in and out, like animals roam the wild? If you believe that any number of people should move in and out of any place, there is no need for nations. We might as well act like animals that migrate freely from place to place. All of us might as well become like Gypsies and surrender all sense of roots.
What about Rule of Law? I have no idea how that would work out. If a nation cannot even defend its borders and decide who enters and exits, how can it enforce any kind of rule of law? And if all the world should welcome endless wanderers, nomads, and invaders who come with their own cultural norms, who's to say one Rule of Law is better than another kind? After all, Rule of Law depends on the law itself. In the Current West, the Rule of Laws says you will be financially destroyed if you refuse to bake a cake for 'gay wedding'. And Rule of Law can be used against Rule of Law. In some states, illegals who have violated American laws are given protection under the Rule of Law that favors those who break laws over those who want to defend them. Rule of Law in California and many other states protect illegals and prosecute those who take actions against the invaders. So, what is Rule of Law in a world of Broken Borders?
Indeed, this will be the big question in Europe as Muslim communities demand their own sets of laws and as African communities insist on their tribal customs and norms.
Already, Jews are virtually above-the-law in many parts of the West. Rule of Law can only be enforced within a well-defined nation with shared values and habits. But in a world where nationalism is condemned as passe and where peoples of different cultures, manners, and habits move in and out of communities that they lay to waste, what chance is there for Rule of Law?

Having a nation is like having a house. A nation didn’t just fall from the sky or grow from the ground. It had to be secured, built, defended, built some more, defended some more, consolidated, claimed, and maintained. Likewise, a house has to be built or bought. It doesn’t come into existence just out of the blue. Now, what is the purpose of having a home? To own it as one’s property. To defend it from others, especially trespassers and marauders. Worst thing that can happen to a property is for others to trespass and take it. Now, if you intend to allow just about any human or creature to move in and out of your house, why did you build or buy the house in the first place? Why did you go through all that trouble just to let OTHERS to occupy and tear it apart?
Same thing goes for a nation. Why did your people build that nation if you’re not going to defend it and own it for posterity? Why go through all the trouble of securing the land, settling the land, developing the land, building institutions, enacting laws, and growing the economy IF your final purpose is to just let others have it? If you’re going to give it all away, why did your people go through so much struggle, even great wars, to claim and defend the land? If you think OTHERS should have it, then your people should not have bothered to pour so much blood, sweat, and tears into transforming the land into a nation.
Imagine there is a wasteland that most peoples show no interest in. Suppose YOUR PEOPLE enter into the land, cut down trees, till the soil, and do the heavy-lifting to turn the land into an oasis. ALL OF A SUDDEN, other peoples now want a part of it because it's nice. (It's like people who neglected Noah's advice to build arks of their own trying to climb into the Ark when the rain began to fall.) Should you let them take it? But why did YOUR PEOPLE build up the land just to let others have it? If you think others should have the land, then your people should not have bothered to build anything on it. Let others do the hard work to develop the land. Non-white peoples had no interest in exploring, discovering, conquering, and developing the New World. They didn't even have the vision or commitment to develop their own lands that, even today, remain poor and backward(despite abundance of land and natural resources). But now that they realize that white people have nice nations, they want to claim and take for themselves what was made by whites.

Also, if any people have the ‘right’ to trespass into your nation and take over, do YOUR PEOPLE also have the right to just mass-invade any nation and take over? So, 50 million Africans have the ‘right’ to take over Italy, and 50 million Italians have the ‘right’ to move to Japan and take over... if they feel like it? And the invaders and trespassers have the prerogative and the ‘right’ over the natives with deep roots in the land? Is patriotism the biggest crime in the globalist era? Doesn’t anyone realize that losing a nation is much worse than losing a house? If you lose your house, you can build another one. But if you lose your nation, your people have no homeland to call their own. And it’s very difficult to get it back. Good luck to Hawaiians taking back Hawaii. Good luck to Palestinians getting back Palestine. Good luck to Serbians getting Kosovo back. Good luck to Greeks or Christendom getting Constantinople(now Istanbul) back. It was by a miracle that Jews got Zion back, and it was very messy and bloody, and the problem continues to this day. Kurds continue to suffer because they don’t have a nation to call their own and happen to be scattered among several nations, all of which are hostile to them.
It’s bad business to lose a house, but another house can always be built or bought. But lose your nation, and good luck about getting it back. Jews reclaiming the Holy Land was the exception that proved the rule. Also, a homeland has much greater meaning than a home. Individuals don’t live forever. A man may own a great mansion, but he will be six feet underground after several decades on earth. And the mansion will pass to some other people. But a nation can exist indefinitely as the homeland of a people. Most of the pioneers of Israel are now dead, but their children and their children’s children ad infinitum hope to keep the land for the Jews as long as mankind survives.

Now, some argue that the newcomers will just become part of the national community, but this is wishful thinking. Usually, minorities remain cooperative and respectful ONLY WHEN they’re small in number and faced with a confident overwhelming majority that also commands patriotic elite power. But when the native majority acts all apologetic & wussy and says that their nation belongs more to foreigners than to themselves, the minorities will just call on more of their kind to come invading. And as their numbers continue to swell, they will begin to smell the blood of a dying nation. They will sense they can take over and feed off it. Scavengers and leeches don’t respect weakness in the host.
But then, even if newcomers came with respect and kindness, too many of them will alter the character of the nation because a people are MORE than merely a name. Germans are more than ‘Germans’. It’s like, if you have a daughter named Sue, she is more than ‘Sue’. Even if her name was changed to Jill, she would still be your daughter. But if someone who is not your daughter changes her name to ‘Sue’ and pretends to be your daughter, she is not your daughter despite having the name ‘Sue’ and wearing similar dress as your daughter. But the West is now suffering from the Changeling Syndrome. So, Germans fool themselves that if they take in millions upon millions of Muslims and Africans and pretend that they are ‘Germans’ or ‘New Germans’, then Germany will remain Germany because all the newcomers are ‘Germans’ too. Right, and imitation crab meat is real crab meat. And cats are dogs if you call them ‘dogs’ and teach them to play fetch, which is exceedingly hard to do.

How did this Inversion of Prerogatives happen? How did people(especially whites) come to believe that OTHERS have ‘first dibs’ or primary claim on what had been theirs rightfully and ‘fightfully’(as they’d ancestors had fought to claim it)? Imagine if someone did so much to build a home but then put up a sign that said, "claim my house". Why did he go through the trouble of building a house to let others have it and push him out? That would be retarded. Or, suppose a house was built long ago by your ancestors and handed down generation after generation as special place for your family lineage. Suppose that house is meant to be more than a place of residence; it’s meant to be a place of remembrance. Then, why would you allow a bunch of marauders and squatters to trespass and tear the place apart?

In a way, the problem began with the discovery of the New World. While most parts of the Old World were settled, the New World nations came into being with conquest, settlement, colonization, immigration, and rise of new identities. (The New World template of constant migration and mobility was turned into a universal 'human right'. So, even the EU is to be seen as The Other America, a 'union of immigrants' that must take in endless 'huddled masses' from Africa and the Middle East. This template is now also being applied to East Asia as The West constantly applies pressure on Japan to welcome Diversity and Inclusion-Invasion. According to Western PC, it should be a 'human right' for millions of foreigners to move to Japan and become 'New Japanese' and take over entire communities.)
The trajectory of invasion and expansion couldn’t be helped in the New World as most of it was either unpopulated or underpopulated(by standards of other civilizations, not least due to the deaths of tens of millions as the result of lack of immunity to Old World diseases). But the New World was not discovered and founded by the world but by specific populations. Spanish and Portuguese conquered most of what came to be Latin America. And Anglos and the French to a lesser extent conquered most of North America(minus Mexico). And these peoples created their new orders as racial, ethnic, and cultural extensions of the worlds they knew back home. So, Anglo-American preferred Anglo immigrants and settlers. When the US needed More People, it preferred those who were racially and ethnically closest to Anglos: Irish, Dutch, Germans, and Nordics. As they were virtually same as Anglos in appearance and temperament(though Irish could be rough at times due to the James Cagney gene), they could easily be assimilated into Anglo-America. Also, as fellow Christians, they worshiped the same God and symbols.

The US was not founded as a World-Nation for the simple reason that the World didn’t discover and develop it. A specific population of Anglos and Northern Europeans did, just like a specific population of Spanish and Portuguese came to set the cultural template for Latin America. Their biggest mistake was bringing over all those Sub-Saharan West African blacks who were more muscular and more aggressive than the white race. The race problem between whites and blacks is testament to the Danger of Diversity or DOD. To maintain order among tougher and more aggressive blacks, whites sometimes had to use ugly and cruel violence. And once blacks got their freedom, they began to prey on whites physically, materially, and sexually as the weaker ‘wussy’ race. Another threat came from the Chinese IF they were to be ‘welcomed’ in huge numbers.
In the past few decades, we’ve seen what virtual Open Borders(or Broken Borders) can do to a place. California, which had been overwhelmingly white, is now poised to have more Mexicans than whites. And along with Asians(craven teachers’ pets of Jews and homos), whites are being squeezed out. Worse, remaining whites in California have been mentally colonized by Jews to hate their own race and to welcome the flood. Based on recent events, imagine what would have happened if the US had allowed Open Borders to Chinese immigration-invasion in the late 19th century. China, with a huge poverty-stricken population, would have taken over California and much of the West like Mexicans are doing today. Or look at China itself. As Tibetans don’t have the means to say NO to Chinese migration-invasion, Tibet itself is poised to be majority Han-Chinese if it isn’t already.

Immigration is a tool that can work for or against your people. For most of the 19th century and even 20th century, white people used immigration to boost white presence and power in America. Immigration favored white folks. Immigration is never generic. It depends on who/whom. Israel was created by immigration but of Jews Only. Suppose Israel was founded with color-blind immigration. It never would have become a Homeland for Jews. Suppose Chinese government were to allow Asian-Indians to move into Tibet. In time, Indians instead of Chinese could dominate the place. There’s a huge difference between the Russian government encouraging Russian ethnics to settle Siberia and allowing Chinese to migrate there. If the latter, the Chinese will effectively own much of Siberia. So, when people say the US is a Nation of Immigrants, it’s meaningless because it pretends that immigration is generic. In fact, the kind of immigration that formed the foundation and basis for America was genetic than generic. Back in the 19th century, Emma Lazarus’ poem was not a threat to the US because it was understood, even by Lazarus herself, that immigration would favor European whites(of whom Jews were a part). Race-ism was great for America. It made America and defined America. Without Race-ism, the US wouldn't have developed as an extension of European Civilization. Suppose upon the establishment of the US, the Founding Fathers decided to call on peoples ALL OVER THE WORLD to pour into the New Land. Anglos and whites would soon have been turned into a minority outnumbered by Muslims, Africans, Asians, Hindus, and etc with their own norms, customs, and values. And without race-ism, whites would have had no justification to replace red savages and their primitive cultures with far more advanced Western ones. (Ism means belief, and Race-ism means belief in the reality of race & differences and/or the need for racial identity and consciousness. ‘Racism’ has been willfully mis-defined by Jews to mean irrational or knee-jerk racial hatred, chauvinism, and supremacism.) Whites who settled America were aware of the importance of race. If whites were to build a modern and progressive(as opposed to the degenerate ‘progressivism’ of today) nation, they had to be racially aware. Whites had to make a distinction between themselves and American Indians whose world was savage and primitive. The biggest mistake was bringing blacks over as slaves. This is regarded as a ‘racist’ crime’, but it was really a criminal negligence of true race-ism. If whites had been truly, rationally, and sanely race-ist back then, they would have thought, "Maybe it’s not a good idea to bring over all those blacks. Just look at their muscles. That mountain-sized Negro looks like he can crush my head like a zit. And look at those black women whose main expression is shaking their booties and acting like nappy-headed ho’s. And look at the dongs on them fellers. Not only will stronger blacks whup our ass but turn our women into jungle-fevered whores who go with Negro men as the superior race and look down on us as a bunch of cucky-wucks. So, let’s NOT bring over the ‘groids’ as slaves. Slavery is cruel and unpleasant and will besmirch our reputation, which is bad enough, but furthermore, there is no guarantee that slavery will last forever. Once freed, them ‘groids’ will kick our butts in sports, turn young people wild with jiggity music, reduce us to a bunch of dweeby cucky-wucks, and colonize the wombs of interracist white women who get to thinking like Rachel Dolezal." Now, that is some Core Race-ist thought, and if white people had accepted such Race-ism, they never would have brought over those Sub-Saharan West African Americans. At most, they might have brought over some Pygmies who, being small and short, could only have looked up to white folks like Arnold of DIFF’RENT STROKES and whined, "What you talkin’ about, white man?" This is why we need proper Race-ism that acknowledges and understands racial differences. Integration between whites and blacks leads to loss of white manhood and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs) because black men are more muscular, louder, funkier, and generally got bigger dongs. And the nature of women is to get sexually excited about ‘bad boys’ who act tough. This is ever more so in a culture where the main modes of expression is Rap thuggery and booty-chuggery. The main problem with blacks was not slavery; after all, black Africa had slavery for 10,000 yrs. It was the fact that the races are not the same. If whites had enslaved any other people, the dynamics would have been totally different. If Anglo-whites had enslaved white Russians, former masters and former slaves would have merged into a common race after Emancipation. After all, the end of Serfdom in Russia led to a unified single people. In contrast, why did Caste divisions last so long in India? Because there was a racial element to the caste system from the master caste to the middle caste to the slave caste to the untouchable caste. Even so, even the racial-caste system wasn't so bad in India because the darker peoples there are NOT bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than lighter-skinned upper-caste folks.

Europeans fail to understand this. They think their Africans won’t turn out like Black Americans because Europeans don’t have the ‘original sin’ of slavery. Granted, some European nations did take part in the slave trade, but Swedes and Germans didn’t. And the French less so than Anglos and Spanish/Portuguese, not least because the French eventually lost out in the New World to Anglos. So, Europeans think their African arrivals will turn out so much better than black Americans. But the end result will be the same because the problem in the US between whites and blacks was racial than historical. Europe can take in millions of FREE Negroes and treat them well, but the Negroes there will end up like Negroes in the US. Why? It’s in their oogity-boogity genes to act wild and crazy. In Africa, they drive hippos crazy, and in Europe they will drive white folks crazy. Also, their generally lower intelligence will mean they will leech off whites forever. Furthermore, their egomaniacal personality makes them less reflective and self-critical. Blacks have poor grasp of modern concepts of property, ownership, contracts, and manners. Blacks think like predators. When lions, hyenas, or bears see something they want, they try to grab it for themselves. Lions don’t think, "Hmm, those hyenas are eating that Zebra. I think it belongs to them, and we should bring down our own zebra." No, lions just think, "Sheeeeiiit, let’s take the eats from the hyena mofos." And if hyenas see a lone cheetah eating a gazelle, they don’t think, "You know, I’ll bet that cheetah tried so hard to bring down that prey. It’s his and let’s get our own grubs." No, the hyenas think, "Sheeeeeeiiit, a free meal! Let’s drive that punkass cheetah away and take his meat." Negroes feel the same way. Their sense of property and ownership is based on "Gots to have me". That’s what Rap is all about. It’s about the thuggery of taking stuff just because you want it. This is why blacks are champion robbers and rapists. Indeed, blacks rape even white women who put out to them. So, when white co-eds with jungle fever put out to blacks, blacks still have to rape them by saying to their brothas, "Here’s some free white pussy for us all, sheeeeeiiit." Blacks don’t hanker for no little white mouse like the mountain-sized Negro does in GREEN MILE. They’s want white wealth, white women, white lands, white everything. They think everything white exists to be taken by them. Blacks even feel that white history should be owned by them. So, white historical characters should be turned into ‘groids’ and blackamoors.

Therefore, people need to stop blaming ‘racism’ for the black problem in America and increasingly in Europe. The problem has been due to the lack of True Race-ism. If white folks had acknowledged the truthfulness of True Race-ism, they never would have brought over all those blacks to the New World.

Unfortunately, whites were motivated by Christianity, Commercialism, and Chauvinism. One part of whites felt that they were civilizing black savages into good decent Christians. By this logic, slavery was a Leviathanic process whereby blacks would go from wild savages to good Christian folks, whereupon they would be freed. But for such process to work, slavery would have had to last over a 1000 yrs with wild and dangerous blacks being weeded out of the gene pool. It’s like it took some time to domesticate wild bulls into livestock. It took some time to turn wolves into dogs. It took some time to turn wild boars into the farm pig. But blacks were under slavery for only a couple of centuries. Also, whites stupidly bred blacks to be extra-strong to carry all them cotton. So, in some cases, white made the stronger race even stronger and ended up like guys like Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson(who looks more demented than even African Negroes).
'Racism' violated True Race-ism. Abraham Lincoln was a True Race-ist insofar as he understood the black threat. This is why he wanted the blacks freed and sent back to Africa. He had the same fears as the visionary prophet D.W. Griffith of THE BIRTH OF A NATION who feared something closer to BIRTH OF THE CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. But True Race-ism was overlooked by those with short-term commercial interests or Christian folly that Negroes could become nice meek humble Uncle-Tom-like Christians when, in fact, the Negro soul is too wild and rough to understand the true meaning of higher spirituality. Jesus founded His religion by silently meditating for 40 days. A Negro has difficulty sitting still for 4 minutes. His jiggity oogity-boogity nature turned even Christianity into a butt-shaking foot-tapping pandemonium. If Negroes take up Buddhism, they’ll turn Nirvana into something you attain by hollering and ‘twerking’.
Other than commercial greed and Christian folly(of civilizing blacks into nice Uncle Toms), there was white chauvinism of False Race-ism, aka ‘racism’. Unlike True Race-ism that honestly explores and notices racial differences, False Race-ism or ‘racism’ led to white chauvinism and denial of reality. White ‘racists’ were full of themselves as the toughest and manliest fellers in the world. They believed in the ‘great white hope’ who would finally whup the Negroes and show the world who’s the real King of the Hill. ‘Racism’ stupidly boosted white male pride when white men should have been in alarmist mode(like honest D.W. Griffith of THE BIRTH OF A NATION) and feared the ghastly Negro. Of course, on some level, white men did fear the Negro as a threat. After all, Jack Johnson whupped all those white guys, and later, Joe Louis whupped tons of white guys, and Muhammad Ali and other blacks dominated boxing. And blacks took over basketball and football. And blacks in schools beat up so many whites. But white ‘racists’ were too filled with bogus chauvinism to come to terms with the black threat and admit their legitimate fears. Whites had been winning so much for so long against so much of the world that it seemed white superiority was a birthright. But in fact, whites were superior only in certain things while inferior in other things. In raw struggle of animal drives, white men were bound to lose to the tougher Negro men. But too many whites didn’t admit to their fears(lest they come across as ‘scared’ and ‘wimpy’) and exaggerated their manhood by calling blacks ‘niggers’ and acting nasty like Southerners opposed to Segregation. Their anti-integrationist stance would have been much more effective if, in the spirit of True Race-ism, they had laid out why blacks, being more muscular-more-aggressive-and-bigger-donged, pose an existential and ‘sexistential’ threat to the white race. But nope, they just huffed and puffed as tough white guys and acted like thugs in front of TV cameras while blacks were pretending to be marching for ‘peace’ when they were really thinking, "You honkey mofos gonna get your ass whupped once the laws be changed cuz we just pretendin’ to be for MLK’s message of peace as Trojan Horse trick and shit." Yep, the Black Rampage was unleashed on America with the passage of Civil Rights Bill.

Anyway, the point is immigration is never generic. It is about who/whom. A nation has something to gain by letting in more of their own kind. So, when Germany took in millions of Ost-Germans after WWII, Germany just became MORE German. And when Polish ethnics were pushed into Poland from Western Ukraine(which used to be part of Poland from 1918 to 1939), Poland just became more Polish. Granted, even migration of the same kind of people can be stressful and challenging. The sudden rush of millions of Ost-Germans into Germany after WWII led to a humanitarian disaster. And the rush of many Mainland Chinese fleeing Maoism into Hong Kong led to severe socio-economic stress. Even so, problems eventually faded because Ost-Germans were fellow Germans, and all those Mainland Chinese, once they found their footing in Hong Kong, were just fellow Chinese. But the millions of New Germans(from Africa and Middle East) rushing into Germany today will alter the character of the nation. And imagine if a million Hindus than Chinese had rushed into Hong Kong. There would be big tensions between Chinese and Hindus, even if they’re regarded as ‘New Chinese’. Why did Hong Kong return to China? Because of history, ethnos, and culture. If China had the right to reclaim Hong Kong(even though Brits played a key role in having built it) because it was part of Chinese territory and populated by Chinese, why don’t the native folks of Britain have a right of claim to their ancestral homeland? Chinese don’t think, "The rest of the world has first dibs on Hong Kong and any other part of China." So, why do the Brits, French, Germans, Swedes, and etc. feel that OTHERS have greater claim to their own nations? How did such Inversion of Prerogatives happen?

Because of the Inversion of Prerogatives, we now believe that white minds belong to Jews to mold, white wombs belong to black men to impregnate, white wealth exist for non-whites to filch, and white lands exist for immigrant-invaders or immi-vaders to colonize and takeover. As for whites, they must say YES to the surrender of their claims. If they say NO, they are demeaned as ‘racist’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘exclusionary’, ‘Islamphobic’, and ‘antisemitic’. Now, if whites were in other lands lording over others, I can understand why the natives would complain and demand that whites get lost and return to their own lands. But now, even whites in their own nations are told that they don’t own their own minds, womenfolk, wealth, and land. Not even history as White History is being darkened with non-whites(especially blacks) cast in roles of white historical characters. And so many whites serve as cucks and collaborators because they’ve been raised fro cradle to obey Jews, worship homos, revere Negroes, celebrate Diversity(of Immi-vasion and replacist demographics), and hate white patriots who say NO to their own racial demise.
Part of the reason is Western elites are now worthless cuck-collaborators of Judea. But another reason is globalism has inflated Western elitist ego with dreams of neo-imperialism. So, French, British, and German leaders no longer see themselves merely as leaders of their own respective nations but of the World. Theresa May the hideous harridan talks like she is ruler of all humanity than of her British kinfolk. Angela Merkel sees herself as big-titty dairy cow to people all over the world. And the French elites still dream that France will become like a Mini-World with all the immi-vaders turning into New Frenchmen who appreciate French culture when, in fact, most Newcomers assimilate to globo-mondo-trash culture emanating from Hollywood and Rap music industry. While millions of Black Africans flock to Europe to demand "Where the white women at?" and while millions of white women yell out, "I’m here with jungle fever, you big-donged Negro", mentally castrated white males honk out, "I’m a cuck! I’m a cuck!" Indeed, among too many white males, the only warrior passion they can muster is against their own race. So, while Antifa white males honk, "I’m a cuck!" before the Negro and the Jew, they get murderously violent against white patriots who refuse to honk, "I’m a cuck!"

It’s not enough to own something. One must feel one has righteous claim over what he owns. And this is determined by control of the Narrative. It’s like it’s not enough to possess a house. You must back it up with rightful and/or righteous claim. Without the claim, one’s possession of the house becomes iffy and questionable. One is put on the defensive against would-be invaders. It’s the Claim Game. Before Jews could gain Palestine, they had to claim it with their own righteous Narrative about how the land really belongs to Jews due to history. And after WWII, Jews added the Shoah Clause to the claim, i.e. because of what happened in WWII, the West is morally obligated to back Jewish claim on Palestine. If Jews had just tried to take Palestine by brute force, they might have succeeded but would have had no moral claim to back up their ownership. The problem with whites in South Africa is they failed to come up with a useful claim on the land, made much worse by allowing blacks to become majority in the nation.

The US was founded with a specific and special claim made by Anglo-Americans and other Europeans. But Jews resented the special role of White Christianity in claiming and owning America. Jews wanted to own it for themselves. But because they didn’t have the numbers with which to beat out white gentiles — in contrast, Jews did have the numbers to squeeze out Arabs in Palestine — , Jews sought to subvert and nullify the White Christian claim by pushing for mass non-white immi-vasion. America has been a Nation of European Immigrants, but Jews took out the ‘European’ and just made it a nation of Generic Immigration from all over the world. By pushing this Diversity Narrative, Jews terminated the special white claim to America... and that meant that Jews would be the defacto rulers and owners of America. Why would that be if the World comes barging in? Wouldn’t Jews lose out along with White gentiles? No, because Jews control the upper echelons and elite level of America. With control of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Las Vegas, Real Estate, Hollywood, Big Media, Ivy Leagues, and much else, Jews would be the Hyper-Elite overlord class over Diversity of Gentiles who can be manipulated and controlled by machinations of Divide-and-Rule.

This is why it was so important for Jews to push Homomania as well. That too is an Inversion of Prerogatives. We know what real sex is. We know that all human life was created by sexual union of men and women. So, marriage and family are something that belong to straight and normal people. Not a single life was ever created by Homo fecal penetration or Lesbian poon-grinding. Marriage developed as a Bio-Moral institution. It understood the way of biology — the sex drive and creation of new life by reproductive process of men and women — and the way of morality — the need for a man and woman to commit to one another to take care of the very lives they produce — , and as such, it was the most important institution in human history. Now, because most people are straight men and straight women, True Marriage has valued the majority population over the homo(and tranny) minority of sexual deviants. Straight people not only got married but had a special claim on and ownership of marriage. This affirmed the power of the majority and normality. Jews figured that such a ‘majoritarian’ institution undermines minority ambitions. If a society of mostly straight men and women should be ruled by them and guided by their needs, the corollary is a mostly gentile society should be ruled by gentiles in service of gentile interests and needs... but that would undermine Jewish supremacist claim on gentile societies. So, Jews pushed the LGBTQ Inversion of Prerogatives that fooled so many PC-addled and Pop-culture-addicted dummies into believing that straight and normal people have no special claim on Marriage. Instead, it belongs just as much or even more so to Homos and trannies. Thanks to Jew-run media and Jew-run government, there is now more fanfare for homos getting ‘married’ even though it’s about guys committing to bugger each other for life.

But such degeneracy has been so sensationalized and blessed by the Jew-run media and entertainment that many vapid, shallow, and superficial straight people now get ecstatic at any manifestations of Homomania, which is now essentially a neo-religion for globalized, deracinated, and desexualized hedonist-morons.

And this lunacy has also bled into the idea of womanhood. We sane people know what real women are. They are the fairer sex, have boobs and pooters(or cooters), and can give birth. Some men used to dress up as women, but we knew they were men as fake women. But now, the Power tells us that womanhood is ‘fluid’. So, if some guy with dick and balls puts on a wig, wiggles his ass, dons a dress, and claim to be a ‘woman’, we better admit he’s a woman. He can get a fake ‘vagina’ through Frankenstein surgery OR keep his dick and balls. The thing is the Inversion of Prerogatives says he is a ‘woman’ and we better acknowledge him as one... or else we are ‘transphobic’ and to be fined for big bucks by cities like New York.

So, just like native Anglos no longer own UK and native French no longer own France, real women no longer own womanhood. The new prerogative for Brits and French is to defer to Immi-invaders and roll out the red carpet to them as having more claim to the land than the existing inhabitants with deep roots of ancestry and history. Because the core meaning of UK and France has been re-coded to define them as ‘nations of immigrants’ and worshipers-of-Diversity, the mass-invaders(as ‘immigrants’ and ‘people of diversity’) now have greater claim to nations like UK and France than the native folks do.
And if tranny men want to claim ‘womanhood’, the New Feminism(totally controlled by Jewish globalists) says women should welcome them as ‘sisters’. So, the Prerogative of Womanhood is no longer to define woman-ness according to biological truth but to the social construct of PC. (Ironically, LGBTQ that says homosexuality and tranns-genderism are biologically fixed, immutable, and unalterable says sex is just a social construct, and there is no fixed ‘man’ or ‘woman’.) So, the vast majority of women must surrender their prerogative of Womanhood to a tiny minority of tranny freaks who claim to own womanhood just as much as real women do. But because virtue-vanity in the prog community is invested in being ‘more evolved’ and ahead-of-the-curve in ideological fashions, so many people unthinkingly go along due to hype and hysteria or out of fear and intimidation, as those who don’t comply are identified and attacked by purity-spiralers.

But then, all the West, despite being majority white Christian — even nearly homogeneously White Christian in places like Hungary and Poland — has surrendered to the Inversion of Prerogatives whereby the prevailing idea is that Jewish & Zionist interests must always take precedence over White Christian/Gentile ones. Indeed, that was the beginning of the end. When white gentile majorities began to defer to Jews and treat them like a Holy People whose identity, interests, and narrative must take precedence over white gentile majority ones, Jews gained tremendous pride, prestige, and power to reprogram the core-coding of the West. The result was Inverted Prerogatives whereupon whites, even in their own ancestral lands, must surrender their title and claim to All the World that the Jewish horsemen use as cattle to stampede over the White West. If white people don’t want to be overrun by the never-ending stampede, they must circle the wagons and, better yet, build fences to keep the cows out.

If Western folks think they can appease Jews and the Invaders by being nice to the ones who have already invaded, they need to think again. Such wussy meekness and weakness emboldens Jews and invaders to push for yet MORE STAMPEDE. If squirrels invade your house, it won’t do to treat the ones-already-inside nicely. Squirrels on the outside will not think, "Humans are being nice to squirrels in the house. Let’s respect them and not invade further." No, when squirrels on the outside see that squirrels-inside-the-house are getting free food and other goodies, they will invade too and more and more will come. It’s just the Law of Organisms. Humans are organisms and naturally flock to where the goodies are. If white nations were dirt poor, corrupt, and messy and IF non-white nations were rich and overflowing with goodies, white organisms will want to move to non-white places. When people heard of gold in the West, there was the Gold Rush. When Africans and Muslims hear that Europe has Broken Borders through which millions can pass through and gain access to goodies, the Euro-Rush is on big time.

It is time to Re-invert the Prerogatives. Not only must the stampede must be stopped but those who’ve invaded the West must be kicked out and returned to their own homelands. If they resist, they must be accused of being ‘racist’ and ‘white preferist’. After all, why do these non-whites not want to live with their own kind? Do they hate their own people and culture? Why do they prefer to live under and with whites? Isn’t their preference for whiteness a form of ‘white preferism’? The invaders must be liberated from ‘white preferism’ and made to re-appreciate their own peoples and cultures. They must be sent back.

And there must be reckoning with Jews who messed with the Narrative and re-coded the West to invert the prerogatives. Something must be done with Jewish Power. Whatever happens, there must be stringent laws that prevent Jews from corrupting and sabotaging the Core Survival Code of any white nation.

Symbiotic Relationship between Cosmo-Prog Elites and Materialist Non-Whites - White Politics and Ideographics - California’s Failure of Democracy under Tribe-and-Bribe Rule

It’s odd…

In order for White Libs to push their Cosmo-Prog agenda, they must rely on blacks and non-white colonizers for votes. But many of these non-whites are not into Cosmo-Prog agenda.
They vote for Democrats only because they want Open Borders(so that more of their kind can gain access to the material wealth of the US) and Federal programs(without which blacks would be totally lost). It’s purely mercenary, not ideological.

It’s like the European proggy ‘left’ depends on Muslim and African voters who don’t care about the cosmo-proggy agenda, especially pertaining to Gay Rites and Queertianity. Oftentimes, these non-whites are even less proggy than native ‘rightists’ and ‘conservatives’ are. Yet, they vote for the Proggy party because it offers them access to the material goodies of the better-managed West.

What will result from all such twisted symbiosis? Virginia and France turn more proggy because the Prog elites win with votes of non-whites who generally aren’t proggy. These non-whites vote for the Prog party not for ideals but for free meals. They just want more Open Borders and Bigger Government. Their reasons are tribal, material, or mercenary.

But I guess the Progs don’t much care. They figure Asians, being docile and subservient, can easily be turned onto Proggy values via education, and this is indeed happening with dog-like East Asians and even Hindus to some extent. As for Mexicans, they will never amount to much and remain as docile labor force at the lower rungs of society. They will supply the votes to put progs in power, but progs won’t offer anything to Mexicans but open borders and tortillas. When it comes to macro social and political policy, Jews and Homos will get to decide.

Still, at some point, the system could easily break. And we see inklings of this in California. Especially with declining white power, there’s bound to be more bitterness among progs and people of color. And in Minnesota, Somalians and Progs are not seeing eye to eye on lots of things despite their united front against Conservatives(who are mostly cucks anyway).

Basically, white elites, affluents, and educrati(the edu-indoctrinated class) want to lord over non-white ‘immigrants’ and serve Jewish uber-elites.
White businesses find non-whites more docile, and white educrati find non-whites ‘nobler’ for PC reasons of ‘diversity’ and ‘anti-racism’.

Meanwhile, white masses demand that white elites serve White America. But white rulers don’t want to rule over whites. They want to serve rich Jews who call for a New People.

White masses want white elites to represent and lead them. They hope, but it’s not happening.

This is why Alt Right can play an important role. It is about creating a New White Elite class who will listen to white masses and lead them. And this New White Elite will not collaborate with the Zionist-Globalists.



But try talking sense to whites who’ve been brain-cancered into thinking it is a GOOD THING that whites will be minorities in their own nations. It’s part of their mantra.

It’s like all those idiot college students cheering Clinton’s speech that extolled a future in which whites will no longer be a majority in America.

What morons. A few slogans — "Diversity Is Our Strength" — repeated like nursery rhymes in their heads, and they really believe in the mantra. ‘Diversity’ and ‘Inclusion’ are their ‘charm of making’.

With whites especially, ideographics matter. Whereas non-whites tend to overwhelmingly vote one way(Democratic), whites are more divided by ideology. Jews made it this way by vilifying white identity. So, while blacks, browns, yellows, Hindus, and Muslims are urged to vote for their tribal-political interests(on the assumption that the Democratic Party is better for them as racial or ethnic groups), whites are denounced and demeaned if they show any racial consciousness. So, white conservatives can only be implicitly white while white Progs are stridently anti-white. While whites aren’t allowed to be pro-white-conscious, they are encouraged to be aggressively anti-white-conscious. Any white person who denounces her own race as wicked and ‘racist’ are favored by the Jewish Power. So, there is more ideological divisions among whites since white identity is taboo. So, white politics is ideographic than demographic. Many more whites than non-whites group together along ideology than identity.

The ideology of too many whites is anti-white. They see anti-white betrayal as a virtue. They’ve been educated in such manner since cradle by Jews who control media and academia. Look at white states like Maine, Minnesota, and Vermont. Demographically white but ideographically anti-white.

In a nation where ‘racism’ is seen as the worst evil — and even most on the Right use ‘racism’ as pejorative — , too many whites think that any white identity or interest is ‘racist’ and evil.

Despite demographic changes, GOP could have won Virginia if whites stuck together. But they didn’t. 41% of whites voted for Democratic and more Diversity.
(Granted, even white conservatives may welcome Diversity because they feel immigrants are preferable to blacks, socially and economically.)

Prog elites make a distinction between Democracy vs Populism, arguing that nationalist-populists are actually an hindrance to true democracy and political pluralism.

Okay, so let’s look at the political result of a state that totally destroyed the power of populist-nationalists through mass invasion and PC lunacy. Let’s see how democracy thrives under such conditions. Let’s consider California! So, just how democratic is that state? Isn’t it a total one-party dictatorship. Doesn’t it have the biggest division between rich and poor. The most strident restrictions on free speech? And Antifa goons running amok and attacking people with differing view?

Are we to assume that all of the US will be more democratic if it follows the California model?

California is about Tribe-and-Bribe. The ruling Jewish Tribe brought over tons of non-whites and bribed them with welfare and chain migration IF they vote Democratic and hate on Whitey.

Tribe as ruling elites, white cucks and Asians as their managerial class, and everyone else as helots too divided by race, culture, and faddish ideologies to ever form a common front. And Progs more allied with Hollywood and Silicon Valley than with working class and middle class(that continues to move out of Ca). What wonderful democracy they have in California.