Oddly Enough, the New Waves of Immigrant-Invaders are like Whites of Old America, whereas White Americans are doped on the Peyote and Firewater of the Constitution — African Evolution and Consequential Culture of Buns & Dongs

It has become something of a 'politicultural' pastime among White American Conservatives to gripe about Constitutional Rights being buried by avalanche of Diversity via Mass-Immigration-Invasion. The logic goes, "Since most immigrants are non-white, and since most non-whites vote for Democrats and align with PC, most future elections will be won by the 'Left' that will clamp down on Constitutional Rights and Traditional American Liberties." Even if immigrants themselves may not be anti-white or anti-American(or anti-Constitutional, especially as one of their reasons for wanting to come to America is for greater freedom), they come under the influence of US media. Furthermore, their children are indoctrinated by PC-laden schools and turn into mental robots spouting the usual nonsense about 'racism', 'antisemitism', and 'homophobia'; and they'll say Diversity is among the highest values(even though many immigrant-invaders moved to white-majority nations in the hope of getting away from too much diversity in their mother countries). But then, EVEN IF most immigrant-invaders were totally supportive of the Constitution and what it stands for, they will still vote for Democratic Party for the simple reason that it is more supportive of Broken Borders(aka Open Borders) that will allow them to bring over more of their relatives and the like. It seems India wants to export at least 400 million Hindus to US, Canada, and Australia. Many are also motivated by envy and resentment. This is especially true of people from Latin America, white and brown alike. White Latinos have long been resentful of the far more successful Anglos and Anglo-Americans, and browns see the 'gringo' as the people who got more of everything. So, their anti-white spite would override their hypothetical support of free speech and property rights. Emotions often overwhelm principles(and even material concerns).

But there is another reason for immigrant-invaders supporting the Democrats and PC. While it's true that they come to the US, Canada, and Australia for More Freedom and More Liberty, they want more of that for THEMSELVES(as opposed to for everyone). While Freedom need not be a zero-sum game, it's usually the case that freedom/opportunity for one people leads to diminished freedom/opportunity for another people. Letting blacks freely compete in sports led to far less opportunities for whites to make a mark in athletics because blacks are naturally better at it. Letting blacks wander around freely diminished the freedom of white movement due to fear of black thuggery and crime.
In order for there to be America, the freedom of the American Indians — to continue their culture and traditional ways — had to be crushed. In order for the US to take over the Southwest Territories, Mexican freedoms had to be trampled and curtailed. In order for Jews to freely push for Zionist-Centrism, it certainly helps to limit the freedom of the BDS movement to spread the message of Justice and Liberation for Palestinians. So, there is a kind of Freedom Paradox in the American Dream. It is true that all these Immigrant-invaders come to the West for MORE FREEDOM(as their home nations are often less free), but in order for them to maximize their own freedoms, it certainly helps if Western Policies limit the freedom of White Natives or Nationals who might say "Enough Already, No More Mass-Immigration and Great Replacement" and "Look at all the problems these Newcomers bring with them from so many backward or barbaric parts of the world." It's like, if YOU want to say MORE, it's useful to gag the other person. If he is free to speak just as much as you are, then freedom will clash with freedom. If you want to prioritize your freedom, it's tempting to limit the freedom of the other, especially if he or she holds an opposing view. This is why Jewish Power has spread the Jew Taboo that smears any view that is critical of Jews as 'antisemitism'. Thus, Jews feel free to say whatever they want, whereas non-Jews must be very careful about what they say about Jews lest it be 'antisemitic'! Non-white immigrants feel as the Jews do. They also want to maximize their own freedoms but by suppressing the 'excess' freedom of whites who might push back against mass-immigration-invasion and condemn the cultures/values brought over by the newcomers. But then, were whites any different throughout most of American History?

In a way, white Americans who invoke the Constitution(its protection of rights and liberties) and how it's threatened by all these newcomers(who as new citizens vote 'left' and for 'socialism') are not thinking clearly nor very honestly. Something like true and neutral adherence to the US Constitution was never a part of US history. One may argue that the US was closest to its Constitutional Ideal from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s with the end of racial discrimination against blacks and with explosion of personal rights and liberties all throughout the nation. Of course, even here, there were problems. After all, did the Constitution allow for 'Affirmative Action'? Where in the Constitution does it say anything about a woman's right to abortion? And then, there is the problem of federalism and states rights that have never been satisfactorily resolved. Still, for about two decades from the mid-60s to mid-80s, the old restraints faded while PC(the product of the radical boomers) had yet to take hold of universities, though trends had been moving in that direction, mainly due to the agenda of boomer Jews. For those two decades, America seemed freer than ever before in terms of Free Speech and Personal Liberty, and this meant for people on the 'right' and 'left', religious folks and non-religious(or anti-religious) folks,whites and blacks, men and women, and so on. This was a time when the Jewish-heavy ACLU even felt compelled to defend Neo-Nazis and the KKK in certain cases to demonstrate that the US Constitution must protect the rights of all. Free Speech Absolutism was still useful to Jews back then as many were into radical politics and had yet to take total power over all the main institutions of America. But anyone who thinks most of US history was like those yrs from 60s to 80s is gravely mistaken.
The bulk of US history was not about equal freedom for all under the Constitution but White Freedom and White Rights Uber Alles. The US was founded as the Land of the Free(and was freer than most parts of the world, including most of Europe), but it wasn't meant to be the land of equal freedom. Indeed, the US would never have come into being on the basis of equal freedom, whether between elites and the masses, between whites and non-whites, between Anglo-American Whites and Non-Anglo-Whites, between Christians and Non-Christians, and among the various states. For starters, suppose America, from its very inception, had respected the right of American Indians to be equally free. Then, American Indians would have stayed put and kept playing Indian, thereby standing in the way of the white man's move westward and technological progress. Much of America would have remained savage. Also, if Early America said American Indian culture & values are just as valuable and worthy as Anglo-American culture and values, then civilization and savagery would have had to coexist side by side. With both having equal protection under the law, the forces of civilization wouldn't have been free to sweep aside the forces of savagery freely romping around with bows & arrows and tomahawks(and a bit of human sacrifice and cannibalism). America was created by white people hogging the freedom to do as they wished and by crushing the freedoms of American Indians who wished to maintain their way of life on what they deemed as their sacred hunting, mating, and burial grounds. Also, as American Indians practiced slavery and saw no evil in it, equal freedom for the Indians would have meant their 'right' to practice slavery without the interference of Western Culture and Values then moving away from the institution of bondage as grave moral injustice, even an evil. After all, slavery didn't begin with whites in the New World. It had been practiced by American Indians for nearly ten thousand years.
The formation and development of America also depended on the suppression of blacks, a people even more savage in origin than the American Indians. While many whites, in the South as well in the North, weren't proud of slavery and eventually wanted it eradicated(as it was regarded as a moral stain and ideological betrayal of Enlightenment principles), they also instinctively understood that blacks posed a serious threat to the white race. For starters, blacks were more muscular and naturally more aggressive. They had to be trained hard, even severely, to behave because they had a natural propensity to act ugabuga and apelike(like how today's rappers make motions akin to chimp-gorilla behavior). Black women, if left to their own devices, had a tendency to shake their butts to attract the men. It's hardly surprising that with more freedom and fewer inhibitions in America, black women reverted to ass-shaking that is now called 'twerking'. Black women have bouncier butts for reasons of evolution. To attract men in Africa, black 'biatches' had to jiggle their buttocks before the men who preferred bouncier buns. Whereas women were mainly chosen for their faces in Europe, they were chosen for their buns in Africa. When women shook their buns at men, men were supposed to pull out their dongs to show who got the bigger ones. So, over time, black men favored bouncy buns while black women favored bigger dongs. The essence of black African culture was in the buns and dongs. Of course, the Africanization of the West is turning white women into a bunch of whiggirls prepping for Afro-Colonization of White Wombs.
White people instinctively understood this threat posed by blacks. As blacks are naturally more rambunctious and uggity-buggity, their use of freedom was bound to be different from that of whites. While all races have their share of good ole boys who like to act wild and rowdy, blacks had badass boys who were likely to act even wilder and crazier. Also, whereas non-blacks regard having-fun as recreation and blowing off steam, blacks regard fun as the core of existence. This is why so many blacks commit crime not just to gain something but to have fun. Non-whites think, "Work, earn, buy stuff, and have fun." Blacks feel, "Grab it if you want it, and that be fun." It's the difference between agricultural mentality and hunting mentality. Farming isn't fun, but you do it because you will be rewarded with harvests that can be sold for profits with which you can have some fun. In contrast, hunting itself is fun whether you catch the prey or not. Long ago, whites understood this side of blackness, and this is why they couldn't allow equal freedom to blacks. Having a different nature, blacks were bound to use freedom differently. Just like men and women with equal freedom spend their money and expend their energies in divergent ways, whites and blacks were bound to use freedom differently. Whites are more likely to use freedom constructively and rationally, blacks are more likely to use freedom destructively and crazily. In order for America to grow and develop by White Freedom Tendency, it was believed that Black Freedom Tendency had to be suppressed. If blacks had been granted equal freedom as whites, black misuse of freedom would have stood in the way of white use of freedom to build a modern nation of Rule, Regulations, and Sound Management.

Of course, there was nothing in the US Constitution that spelled out issues pertaining to Racial Tendencies, but that didn't matter as White Americans favored White Freedom over Black Freedom. As in regards to the American Indians, in order for white Americans to have their way and do their thing, it was necessary to clamp down on equality of black freedom. It's like parents must limit the freedom of children to keep the family together and maintain semblance of order. If parents allow equal freedom to their kids(who are so easily manipulated by junky pop culture and pied-piper charlatans), the family will fall apart and things will spiral out of control. So, even though the suppression of black freedom was a violation of the US Constitution, most whites felt it was necessary and worthwhile to develop and maintain a sound, stable, and sane nation(that could easily be corrupted by unfettered black savagery and brutalized by unleashed black thuggery). What this shows is that most of US history was not about 'Muh Constitution' or Equality of Rights for everyone and all groups. While the Constitution was certainly important and shaped much of American values and norms, most whites who dominated America believed White Survival, White Expansion, White Well-Being, White Prosperity, White Progress, and White Stability were more important. If whites had to choose between the Constitution/Principles and Continuation/Power, they chose the latter. Whites believed the Law existed to guide and serve whites than the other way around. Of course, most whites didn't believe whites were always right or that the law must favor white interests at all times — if a white committed murder of a non-white, he should face justice — , but they believed that the Law must not stand in the way of what was good for whites as a collective.

For most of American History, whites understood that they couldn't have pure tribalism or pure principles. If white were purely tribal, they would have been hardly be different from savage American Indian Tribes or could all devolve into clans like Hatfields and McCoys. Therefore, whites valued the Constitution, Rule of Law, and Higher Principles, such as that led to the eradication of slavery and many other social reforms. And yet, whites also understood that Man Doesn't Live on Principles Alone. After all, even though the West became a Christian Civilization, it wouldn't have survived, let alone grown in power, by adhering to a purist form of Christianity. If the Christian West practiced 'turn the other cheek' and believed in poverty-as-virtue as Jesus had preached, it would have been conquered and dominated by other peoples and races. The West gained much wisdom and good values from Christianity, but its principles had to be balanced by the Way of Power. When necessary, whites had to be warriors and fight. And they had to make peace with human nature and allow people to pursue wealth and privilege in order to have economic development and science/technology. Life has its own organic rules. Human life gained much by creating certain values & rules and obeying them than going purely by life's instinct. Everyone has something to gain by stealing, but good people choose not to steal(even when they can) because it's good for the whole community if people respect each other's property. If people act like animals(or Negroes) and just take stuff because they want it, the thieving individuals might gain short-term benefit, but social order would crumble, and then, things would be harder for EVERYONE. It's because animals act like animals — chimps steal from other chimps, wolves steal from other wolves, lions steal from other lions, etc — that they are mired in a world of brutality. And so, rules and principles are important as regulators of life. And yet, ultimately, rules and principles have real value ONLY IF they enhance the survival and well-being of a community. If adhering to rules and principles leads to the demise of one's community, then it doesn't matter how fancy and precious those values may be. The fact is they led to destruction of life.
The lesson to be learned is that there is a useful limit to every rule and principle. So, while Christianity has been useful as a moral and spiritual guide for the West(and non-West), it would be foolish to follow its tenets to the letter as doing so will definitely lead to the demise of your people. There has to be a kind of compromise between power and principles. Power must agree to adhere to principles, but principles must concede that they don't have all the answers. Principles have value only as a guide. After all, if people must adhere to the principle of 'thou shalt not steal' at all times, then America would have been impossible as it was created through white man's stealing of land from the Indians. In some ways, it was a violation of moral principles, but from the power perspective it made sense because so much of bountiful rich land was occupied by a relatively small number of primitive savages. Same is true of war. Sure, the notion of War Crimes is a useful idea, and all sides should stick to the Rules of War, but the fact is, no side really does and can't expect to win by sticking to the letter of international conventions. So, through most of US history, white people favored Continuation over Constitution. They never rejected the Constitution and, if anything, had great respect for it as a legal and political guide for the nation, but their priority was their own racial survival, victory, and power. They were not willing to give up those things in the name of absolute adherence to the Constitution. Free Speech as an absolute right may have existed in the US from late 60s to the mid-80s, but prior to massive social changes in the 60s, many forms of speech and expression had been suppressed or downright censored by the state and/or private sector for their obscenity, seditious nature, subversive content, blasphemy, disturbance to the peace, and the like. So, the notion that the US will respect Free Speech Abolutism ONLY IF it remains white is to ignore most of US history.
It is also false to believe that US will turn 'socialist' because of the rise of color. Europe was more white than the US, but even Western Europe went far more 'socialist' — with social democratic programs and labor protection laws galore — than the US. Also, it was an overwhelmingly white America that elected 'socialist' FDR four times, indeed so much so that the GOP had to make peace with New Deal policies. And Lyndon B. Johnson who promised Bigger Government was elected by a nation that was solidly white. This was prior to the 1965 Immigration Bill. Why did so many white people vote for the 'socialism' of the Democratic Party? Because the white hoi polloi thought the Democratic Party would take MORE from the Fat Cats(who mainly supported the GOP) and spread the wealth around to the white masses. (White Americans began to turn against 'socialism' and Big Government ONLY WHEN government policies began to favor blacks over whites.)

When we consider all these points, it is rather disingenuous for white Americans(especially of a 'conservative' bent) to argue that the Constitution and Inalienable Rights will go out the window if the US ceases to be a white majority nation. The fact is the US almost never had Free Speech Absolutism though the period from the late 60s to late 80s came closest. Also, it was White America that elected 'socialist' New Dealer Franklin Delano Roosevelt four times. And it was white Germanic Wisconsin and white Scandinavian Minnesota that had some of the most socialist programs in the US. In contrast, socialist policies were generally shunned in the American South because of the fear of blacks. But even that isn't the full picture. Huey Long of Louisiana gained support as a populist who railed against Big Money and spoke on the behalf of 'hicks' who had less(at least according to ALL THE KING'S MEN). And many white agricultural folks in the South voted Democratic because they regarded it as the party of the working class and 'honest farmer' against Big Money dominated by the North. White Southerners began to turn against 'socialism' only when blacks got full franchise and began to dominate the politics of taking from the trough.

A kind of Socialist Paradox operates among whites. A community that is virtually all-white or minority-white is more likely to turn 'socialist', whereas a community that is majority white but with a large non-white population of dependents is likely to be 'anti-socialist'. If a society is all white, most people regard 'socialism' as a kind of all-in-the-family. It's white money going to white folks. Besides, there is a sense of shared values among whites, especially those of Northern European heritage. The understanding is that the rich pay more, but even poor whites have some values and sense of shame and try to get back on their feet. They use socialist services out of need than laziness or chronic parasitism. Thus, 'socialism' is attractive to communities that are overwhelmingly white. In contrast, in a society that is majority white but with a sizable non-white population(especially such as blacks or browns), there is a sense among whites that much of their tax dollars will go to supporting leeches and deadbeats. Whites of such community tend to reject 'socialism' out of lack of identification with and trust of non-whites. However, if non-white population keeps growing and eclipse the white population — as happened in California and fated to happen to Texas as well — , their votes can win elections in favor of 'socialism', whereby whites will have to pay more to fund non-white leeches. California can afford to do so because of its giant businesses in agriculture, entertainment, and high-tech, but this is a recipe for disaster for most white-minority societies. 'Socialism' in an all-white setting is one of common trust and compromise, whereas 'socialism' in a white-minority setting is one of parasitism and resentment. Of course, eventually, 'socialist' policies can no longer be afforded and sustained, whereby the three likelihoods is (1) radical tyranny, as happened in Cuba (2) oligarchic tyranny, as happened in most Latin American nations ruled by military juntas backed by big money or (3) stalemate & stagnation, as is the case in current Venezuela that is, at once, democratic, radical, and oligarchic, with no single side gaining full power to establish order as it wants.

The fact is white Americans for most of US history put their race, survival, well-being, and power before the Constitution. Just ask the American Indians, blacks, Mexicans, and Asians(especially those in 'internment camps' during World War II). And this was also true between Anglo-Americans and non-Anglo-whites. Just ask the German-Americans during World War I who came under great suspicion and were pressured to become more Anglo-Americanized. (It's no wonder that Jews go out of their way to make Israel the closest ally of the US. Anglo-America made German-Americans side with US/UK against Germany. It made Italian-Americans side with the US against Italy. It made Arab-Americans side with US against Arab nations. So, it's possible for the US to make Jewish Americans side with American Interests against Jewish/Zionist interests abroad. To prevent such, Jews have the full might of media and their whore-politicians to repeat the mantra, "Israel is our closest ally and greatest friend, and bagel is the finest food" in the hope it will be inconceivable for any American to believe that US could act against Jewish or Israeli interests. The US is a nation built on betrayal as betrayal can be liberating and spark new possibilities. The colonials betrayed their British King. French King betrayed a fellow monarch and aided the revolutionaries against the Crown. Though the French King did so much for American Independence, Americans had no problem working with the French Revolutionaries who killed him and his family. Whites betrayed all the treaties made with Indians. America betrayed the principles of its anti-imperialist founding by practicing its own imperialism. And all the new immigrants were made to swear oath to America, thereby turning their backs on their ancestral nations. In time, German-Americans were willing to kill fellow Germans abroad to serve the US empire. Just about the ONLY people who refused to betray their own kind are the Jews, and they must be admired for that. Jews were not willing to kill fellow Jews abroad for the US empire. If anything, they were going to take power and make the US fight for interests that served World Jewry, and it is for such strategy that Jews must be condemned. But then, Jews had good reason to think that unless the US was made to bow down before Jewishness, it was possible that the US could turn anti-Jewish and use its might against Jewish interests abroad.) In order to forge a new united nation, Anglo-Americans used many extra-legal and what might now be called unconstitutional means to shove Anglo-Americanism down the throats of non-Anglo white immigrants. Even as such groups found much freedom in America and could keep certain aspects of their culture(mainly in food and wine), they and their children came under pressure from schools, businesses, and so many other areas to conform to Anglo-American standards... or else. Only the Jews, with a deep & profound sense of identity and powerful personality, managed to resist this pressure, though at times they did a pretty good job of pretending to be Good Americans. If Constitutional purism had been upheld and enforced in the late 19th century and early 20th century when so many newcomers came ashore from the Old World, it's difficult to believe the US could have come together as a solid mass of national unity and patriotism.

As valuable as the Constitution is, it is about 'negative rights' and therefore, it is defensive. It's not about a certain vision, nor about right or wrong. All it says is that people should be free to say, do, and have certain things, and those should be secured as 'rights'. It isn't particularly American as most of those ideas had developed already long ago in Europe. Also, constitutionalism has spread worldwide, even in non-white nations. Everyone in all parts of the world know something about 'rights'. To speak of 'rights' is not to say that "I am right." It means, right or wrong, I have a 'right' to say, do, or have certain things. As such, it is morally neutral and defensive. But Power cannot win by defense alone. White people didn't gain power in the US by protecting all rights, all ideas, all property of all peoples and groups. Rather, it had a certain vision about race, culture, values, civilization, and progress. And this vision was going to be realized with or without the Constitution. The Founders were proud white men. They saw all the land and resources before them and had preconception that the US could be a great magnificent nation of immense power and potential. And they were racial loyalists and envisioned the development of America as an extension of European Civilization, albeit with a new fighting and liberating spirit. The stuff about rights, freedom, and property was useful as incentives for Americans to move westward and do lots of work to create a new nation. It also drew in immigrants from Europe of same or similar stock who were looking for new opportunities. It was all about white power.
Some may call it 'white supremacism', but then, it should be given credit as the main reason why the US became a rich and powerful nation. Without 'white supremacism', whites would not have 'stolen' land from the American Indians. And for those who believe blacks are so integral to America and its economy, it was 'white supremacism' that efficiently exploited black labor to expand the economy. Also, the only reason why blacks are in the Americas is due to 'white supremacism' that was willing to use black labor. If there had been no 'white supremacism', black slaves would not have been brought over to the Americas, Latin or Anglo. Blacks or no blacks, the main makers of America were whites, and the fact then(as is still now, more or less) was that whites were the most advanced, most productive, most innovative, most progressive, and most ingenious people in the world. Thus, limiting mass-immigration to the US mostly to whites did great things for America. Seriously, if America right after its founding had practiced open borders in the name of 'anti-racism' and welcomed all the world, would things have worked out so well? Give the Devil its due. What is called 'white supremacism' in American History had a dark side but also was the basis of much that was great and awesome about it. Indeed, prior to the rise of idiotic multi-culturalism, even the main aspiration of non-whites was to be like whites and emulate them. And the most developed parts of the non-West are those that decided that the White Way is the best as the model for development. Of course, under the influence of globo-shlomo-afro-homo, the White Way is now almost entirely useless as it's all about Negro-worship, Jew-worship, Homo-worship, and Diversity-worship, but when whites were riding high, they'd come up a formula for power, prosperity, and progress such as the world had never seen before.

Anyway, what do current Immigrant-Invaders and Whites of Old America have in common? Both groups put Power before Principle. They put their own racial interests before a set of 'universal' notions. Whites of Old America favored concentration and continuation of their power over the Constitution. Only when their power was secure and assured did whites adhere to the Constitution with anything like true commitment.
In dealing with non-whites, here or abroad, white folks of America always understood that their power must not be sacrificed over a set of tenets. And White America was pretty much in this mode until the 1960s. Many people have lauded White Americans(who have lauded themselves) for having 'come a long way' in ultimately favoring universal principles over racial/tribal politics, and this was at a time when white Americans had it so good that they could rest on their laurels, take their power for granted, and indulge in magnanimity & generosity toward other groups in US and the world, not least because the Cold War had created a mentality that the US must show its 'best face' in order to defeat the Soviets that preached World Revolution and Liberation of the non-white world from Western Capitalist-Imperialism. Also, the Civil Rights Narrative made many whites believe that the end-goal of American History was to fulfill the guarantees of equal rights in the Constitution. Finally, free at last free at last, the Negroes be free at last, and America could put behind its legacy of racial discrimination. But such highfalutin thinking overlooked the fact that racialism had been integral and essential to the making of America. Long before whites could rest on their laurels and put on do-goody airs as 'progressive' folks with 'white guilt', the only way America could have come into existence was through White Power. American Indians had to be pushed aside. Black savages had to be tamed and kept tame because of their natural apelike uggity-boogity tendencies. (Just look at the state of Detroit, the product of blacks left to indulge in their freedom.) Also, immigration had to be limited mostly to whites because (1) Europeans were more talented and had higher IQ than most other folks and (2) it was easier to create unity among peoples of same race than different races. Therefore, while it's fair game to point to all the dark sides and horrors of American History(and there are plenty), it is also undeniable that what made America great was its conscientious, intelligent, pragmatic, and sensible race-ism. (Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean the reality of race, possibility of racial differences, and need for racial consciousness. Be a race-ist.) In this, D.W. Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION should be regarded as nearly as important as the Constitution. In some ways, it is more important because while the Constitution deals with 'negative rights', Griffith's great and awesome film offers a positive, powerful, and sober vision of what white folks must constantly be reminded of lest they turn into a bunch of worthless cucky-wucks and/or damned naive fools. A prophetic work, its warnings 100 yrs ago have come to be realized in a nation where whites came to lose identity and reject their own racial pride and heritage. Griffith warned of BAMMAMA(blacks are more muscular and more aggressive), jungle fever, ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), and cucky-wuckery among whites. Well, look all around. Who were more right about blacks? Sappy do-goody race-denying liberal-wiberals who said blacks are merely whites with dark skin and could be treated as such OR sober race-ists like Griffith who warned that blacks, with their higher aggression, natural savagery, tougher muscles, and bigger dongs, will terrorize and intimidate the white race into jungle fever or cucky-wuckery?

What do New Immigrants have in common with Whites of Old America? While they come to the US(or Canada or Australia or New Zealand) for more freedom and opportunity, they place their racial, tribal, and/or familial interests at the center. Even when non-white immigrants are hardcore individualist-libertarians, they still put MY interest before American Interest or the Constitution. If 'my interest' means to be in America and enjoy its fruits, it means that nothing is more important to non-white libertarians than being allowed INTO the US. Therefore, if Party A is pro-individualist and anti-immigration while Party B is anti-individualist but pro-immigration, the non-white individualist is likely to go with Party B because his main priority is to be INSIDE the US. After all, even limited individualist freedom in the US is likely more than what he is likely to have in his own nation.

It's not that all these new immigrant-invaders are anti-free speech or anti-Constitution. They are for it TO THE EXTENT that such doesn't undermine their MAIN interests of wanting to gain access to America(and such nations) for material improvement, better livelihood, and more opportunities. Sure, they come for freedom and 'rights' too, but they are secondary to the priority of gaining access to metropole of World Empire, living in the richest and most powerful nation on Earth, and bringing over more of their own clan/tribal kind so that they can enjoy the fruits too. In this, they are very much like the white pioneers and settlers who built this nation, albeit without the audacity and adventurous spirit(as they are followers than leaders). When early White Americans were fighting Indians, working the farms, and taking land from Mexico, they were not thinking about 'muh constitution' or some set of highfalutin principles. They had more primal interests and elemental emotions in their minds, hearts, and guts. Americans understood that the only way they could take SW territories from Mexico was by sheer might and power. It wasn't anything in the Constitution that convinced Mexico to surrender those parts to the US. Now, one can argue that the Constitution and its rule of law made for a better-functioning society in the US that was able to expand faster with greater wealth and power. But keep in mind that Imperial Germany made tremendous gains in the late 19th century and early 20th century WITHOUT anything like the US Constitution. In contrast, even with democracy and a constitution nearly identical to that of the US, Mexico has always been a basket-case.

Long ago, white Americans understood that what mattered most was identity, power, solidarity, and sense of heritage/continuity. They were proud to have a Constitution to guide them as a framework and compass, but when push came to shove, they understood that Constitutional Principles had to take a backseat to White Power and White Continuation. "Our People, Our Power, Our Survival, and Our Well-Being come first." Indeed, what would be the point of adhering to the Constitution 100% if doing so led to the demise and eventual collapse of a people? Is it worth it to lose one's civilization in the name of 'muh democracy'? Surely, even tyranny-and-survival is preferable to democracy-and-death. It's like it's better to lose one's freedom and live than gain freedom to use it for self-destruction.
What the American Experiment demonstrated is that one can have both freedom and life, but this is true ONLY IF freedom serves life than other way around. By life, we don't just mean individual lives but the Life of a People, Culture, Civilization, Memory, Heritage, the things that outlast the life spans of individuals. If current 'Western Values' are leading to the demise of the White Race that is to be replaced by non-whites, then they are useless no matter how fancy, precious, and highfalutin they may sound to educated(or indoctrinated) ears. Of course, one must not throw away the baby with the bathwater. While the current globo-shlomo-afro-homo bathwater that masquerades as 'Western Values' must go, there is a great Western Tradition in culture and values that can maintain and uphold a great civilization for many centuries, indeed millenniums, to come. After all, those values and outlooks led to the greatest civilization in human history.

The fatal flaw of the West was in trusting Jews. More than any people, it was the Jews who bitched, whined, and seethed that White Americans had betrayed their Constitutional or Propositional principles. Jewish elites in media, academia, and government urged whites to favor Principles at all cost, even at considerable loss of white power, pride, and prestige. Thus began the white trajectory of being 'beautiful losers'. The sheer stupidity of this way of thinking is proven by the fact that Jews themselves don't practice what they preach to whites. Indeed, Jews urged whites to favor principles over power mainly so that they themselves could gain more power by manipulating those principles(and Hindus have learned this game and are now cooperating and competing with Jews at it). Notice how Jews, even as they admonish whites to let go of white identity, are always telling whites to be mindful of supporting Jewish identity, Jewish interests, and Jewish power. If principles must win over power, then Jews should do exactly like whites have been cajoled into doing(by Jews no less), but the fact is, just as Jews tell goyim to do one thing, they do quite the opposite. But then, what kind of people are Jews. They accuse of Palestinians of trying to wipe Israel off the map while conveniently overlooking the fact that Israel was created by wiping Palestine off the map. Seriously, if Jews treat Palestinians this way, why would they treat whites any better or with any more honesty? Whites may think, "Uh... out of gratitude to whites for having helped them take Palestine from the Palestinians?" Any white who thinks this way is a willfully naive dupe who knows nothing about Jewish personality and culture. Gratitude-toward-Goyim simply doesn't exist in the Jewish Vocabulary. Also, surely whites need to realize that Jews crave far more what whites got than for what Palestinians had. While Israel has great symbolic, cultural, and spiritual meaning for Jews, the main source of Jewish supremacist power is in the control of the West, mainly the US, the metropole of the world. And in order to make whites serve Jewish interests, Jews naturally defame & suppress white identity while using the whip of 'white guilt' to make whites channel their repressed tribalism toward another people who would be the Jews. If Jews are really into colorblind universalism(which is supposedly what the Constitution is about), why do they insist that the US support Zionism over Palestinian nationhood? Why do they use their muscles to have US businesses and governments shut down BDS? Why did Jews pull their strings to shut down the Constitutional rights of free speech and assembly at Charlottesville?
Jews are for freedom, but they are for Power before Principles. They will tolerate freedom only to the extent that it doesn't jeopardize their supremacist control of the US. This is why Jews say, "We defend Free Speech but not 'hate speech'", with 'hate speech' to be defined by the likes of AIPAC, ADL, and SPLC. Likewise, Hindus flood into the US for more freedom and wealth for their kind, and it is precisely for that reason that Hindus will support the US Constitution ONLY TO THE EXTENT it serves their interests.

But then, this was precisely how white Americans practiced the Constitution for most of American History. They always found exceptions and clauses to ensure that principles didn't undermine the core power and survival of White America. It is something forgotten by white Americans while obsessively practiced by non-whites. It is then time for whites to return to how it used to be. It's the ONLY way to survive and to win. It's like what Arthur who, having regained the wisdom of 'you and the land are one', says before the battle: "We'll use the old ways" in John Boorman's EXCALIBUR. And Lancelot, who'd lost himself to religious fanaticism, a kind of SJW nuttery of the day, returns to fight for Arthur once more. Don't damn the principles. Damn the fool who mistakes or favors principles over power. Both are important, but without securing the power, it will be for the other side, very likely your enemy, to manipulate principles to suit its priority of... power. Whites need to say "We believe in free speech but not 'hate speech'", and they must define 'hate' as insulting whiteness, Jewish defamation of white identity, black thug-talk, calls for Great Replacement or White Nakba. Once whites think this way, they will once again be on the path of winning.

Implications of White Flight from Black Fight — Nature of Globalist Elitism and its War on the National Covenant — Upper-Class Consciousness among the Globo-Homo Elite Class — National Unity vs Global Diversity

White Flight After the Greater Migration: http://www.unz.com/isteve/white-flight-in-other-countries/

"The Great Migration of 6 or 7 million African-Americans from the South to Northern cities in the 1940s-1970s contributed heavily to white flight to the suburbs. With sub-Saharan Africa forecast to quadruple in population to 4 billion over the rest of the century, first world countries need to be thinking seriously about what would be the impact of a Greater Migration of blacks out of Africa of one or two orders of magnitude greater than the Great Migration that caused so much havoc in 20th Century urban America."

White Flight isn't all bad for whites. It means the basic tendency and even defacto 'right'(of well-being and self-preservation) of whites to move to safety as group strategy. This happened in the 60s with many whites, Republicans and Democrats, moving to the suburbs or safer/ritzier parts of the city. And there was resistance against Busing from both Democrats and Republicans, from both working class and middle class. And the main reason wasn't Race & IQ but Race & Muscle, i.e. the reality of weaker whites being bullied and humiliated by tougher & more aggressive blacks, or BAMMAMA(or blacks are more muscular and more aggressive).
So, white flight was about white solidarity. It was about even white(and Jewish) Liberals eventually coming to see the reality of black crime & grime and moving to white areas. Back then, whiteness was under moral pressure but not vilified. The message was whiteness could be better, not that it was inherently evil.

Since then, whiteness has been so vilified over the yrs that the notion of any white collective interest or behavior is taboo. So, if white flight of the past was about whites of all ethnic groups, regions, and classes acting with common and shared understanding of black violence and crime, the new trends are about class than race. It's not about White Flight -- based on sentiments shared by vast majority of whites -- but about Privilege Village. Privilege Village doesn't play out in terms of whites running from blacks but in terms of those with status & privilege coalescing in hip urban centers(as socio-economic magnets) and circling the wagons with means ranging from obvious to subtle. Its core modus operandi is based on wealth, status, and connection, not race. (Though globalism leads to diversity among both elites and masses, the diverse elites are better able to coordinate policies to expand their privilege than it is for diverse masses to cooperate to build power. For one thing, the elites are far fewer in number than the masses. Also, the elites are closer to one another due to their concentration in elite institutions and circles in a handful of big cities and college towns. Many know each other by face and name. In contrast, the diverse masses are spread out and hardly know one another. Also, the affinity for abstract thinking and affluence-as-reward for serving globo-homo agenda make it easier for diverse elites to put aside their tribal differences for common haute-class interests. Diversity based on carrots works smoother than Diversity based on sticks. When diverse elites conform to globo-homo agenda, it means more carrots. When diverse masses come under globo-homo regimen, it means more sticks to beat them with. Less intelligent, less keen on abstract thinking, and more desperate, the diverse masses fall into the habit of accusing one another along tribal lines and fail to form a Pan-Diverse Mass Solidarity against the elites among whom diversity is less a hindrance to consensus and coordination.)

In contrast, the White Flight of yesteryear brought together whites of all classes. When my family moved to the suburbs, there were almost no blacks in a neighborhood where whites(and some Asians) ranged from upper middle class to working class. They had one thing in common: they did whatever they could to move away from blacks. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc., they all wanted safety from urban crime that has always been disproportionately black. So, even though white solidarity wasn't overt and blatant, everyone understood why they moved to the suburbs. It was clearly a white thing.

But now, any notion of white interest or even well-being is anathema to all-pervasive Political Correctness. This doesn't mean that whites can't have it good. Indeed, many whites today have it better than ever. But they must pursue their interests in terms of class and status, not race(unless one happens to be Jewish or black). So, the essence of their worldview isn't about whites and blacks but winners and losers. The affluent whites in urban centers take pride as 'winners' and look down on whites with less as 'losers'. Even Kevin Williamson of National Review espouses such sentiment. But then, this is now a worldwide phenomenon.

Look at Japanese elites' decision to open the gates to massive immigration. (Granted, much of the blame must go to the Japanese masses that stopped breeding. Though most Japanese are not part of the elite, a kind of universal elitism has infected too many Japanese who now refuse to breed unless they can be assured of their kids going to good schools and having good jobs. Another problem is crass hedonism and soulless materialism that made so many Japanese live for momentary pleasure than long-term obligation and meaning.)
Now, some argue that it's stupid for the rich class to let in all the poor folks(especially from Third World nations) because the poor folks will vote for policies that tax and rob the rich. But has this happened in Latin America? It seems oligarchic power was always greater there than in homogeneous nations like Japan, historic Canada and historic Sweden(as opposed to globalist Sweden that is dying fast due to mass-immigration-invasion). Granted, Latin American situation can lead to Communist Cuba or Bolivarian Venezuela, but more often than not, diversity in Latin America has led to consolidation of elite/oligarchic power. For one thing, since the white or whiter elites see the brown or browner masses as different(despite bogus rhetoric about all 'Latinos' being harmoniously mixed) from themselves, there is little sense of connection or ethnoblesse olige. Also, because there are so many racial gradations in the diversity of Latin American masses, they've been unable to form a united alliance against the ruling class.
In contrast, in a nation like Japan or historic Sweden, functional socialist policies went further because the elites regarded the rest of the population as part of the national family. Also, the people of Japan and Sweden have believed in equal claim to the homeland. So, even though Japanese elites have more private property, they have no more claim on Japanese Nation than the native Japanese masses do. A working class Japanese has just as much claim on Japan-as-homeland as the richest Japanese oligarch does. Because all Japanese had such a powerful collective claim on the land, their demands had to be addressed by the ruling class. And same was true in Sweden. Swedish people have been there forever, and Swedish civilization goes back many centuries. Swedish elites have more personal wealth, but they are no more deserving of Sweden-as-homeland than the Swedish masses are. Because Japan-as-homeland belongs equally to elites and masses, the elites must be mindful of the masses as fellow nationals. And because even working class Swedes have roots going back centuries(even millennia if we count the barbarian eras), the Swedish elites must recognize them as co-owners of the nation. So, Japanese masses and Swedish masses aren't merely rent-seekers or nomadic boarders but co-owners of the nation as 'sacred homeland'. That implies a lot of moral power and legitimacy among the people. It suggests a concept of claim-and-ownership that goes beyond private property(of libertarianism). According to the notion of private property, your worth counts only on the individual level of personal possession and contract. If you have a lot, you are a winner. If you have little, you're a loser.
In contrast, if there is a concept of National Property, even the poorest person of the nation has something precious. Even he has a 'covenant' with the nation, a deeper concept than capital or constitution. Value by capital is about who has more money. Value by constitution is about protections under the law. Covenant, in contrast, says your connection to the land is sacred and eternal. Israeli nationalism is based on the covenant. You could be a Jew living in a goy nation, and your ancestors could have been away from the Holy Land for 1000 yrs. But as a Jew, you have an eternal connection & covenant with the land of Israel. It goes beyond capital and is deeper than constitution.

A person is pulled by two forces: tribalism and elitism. On the tribal level, a person instinctively feels closer to his own kind. And yet, he also wants to be with the 'best', whatever the cost in terms of tribal solidarity.
On the one hand, a white person has an instinctive feeling of closeness with fellow whites. However, in his ambition for riches and privilege, he may wish to identify more with Bread than Blood. While the world of success could be overwhelmingly white, it could also be highly diverse with many non-white actors(who are equally obsessed with position and privilege). If a white person had to choose between middle class status among whites and upper class status among globo-homo diversity, he may well choose the latter because people want MORE and BETTER(especially in a world where affluence and narcissism are the biggest idols). Immigration patterns sure bear this out. So many non-whites are eager to depart from their own ancestral lands, national kinfolk, and deep culture to start new lives in richer nations even if it means loss of identity and culture, especially among their children who racially mix with others, take up the globo-homo flag, and come to know only one lingo: American English and Ebonics.

We don't have much in the way of classic Marxist class-consciousness anymore, but class-outlook is bigger than ever in some ways. If Marxism placed proletarian class consciousness at the center of social, moral, and historical discourse, globalism puts elite class consciousness at the center of all things. Indeed, the promotion of homomania is less a blow against class politics than a promotion of elite-class politics. The difference from Marxism is that class discussion has moved from the needs of proles to the preferences of the globogeoisie. Homos are useful to the elites because homos are vain, narcissistic, and obsessed with riches and privilege(as with the 'gay butler' in WOLF OF WALL STREET).

Anyway, in a globo-homo world where the elites of every nation mainly fixate on status, success, privilege, and connections, their main focus is not tribal connection with the native masses but neo-aristo-class affinity with other elites around the world(and especially those in the US and EU), with whom they or their kids marry. (According to Charles Murray's COMING APART, an educated white male graduate of Harvard was likely to marry his white hometown sweetheart in an America prior to the rise of mass non-white immigration and feminism, but today, a white attendee of elite institution has a good chance of marrying a non-white based on status and connection than any other consideration.) With such as the main prerogatives of the globo-homo class, the natural tendency of globo elites is to weaken, subvert, de-legitimize, and eradicate any obstacle to their power. One of those obstacles is a sense of national obligation of the elites to the masses. And this obligation is especially powerful IF the masses are seen as co-owners of the National Property based on a ethno-historical covenant. Under such premise, the elites must regard and treat the masses as fellow nationals and comrades. But this is economically a burden to the elites. It means the masses are deserving of decent wages, protections, and benefits, all of which are expensive, demanding, and burdensome(from the vantage point of elites with limitless ambition for MORE). The native masses can make such demands AS LONG AS they have a moral claim to the nation as co-owners based on shared ethnicity, history, and territoriality. After all, it's like the Jewish Covenant applies to all Jews, from richest to poorest. Likewise, the national covenant says even the poorest native has equal claim to the land as shared-national-property. Under the covenant theory, if we were to see a nation as a house, then everyone in the house has equal right to be there. He is a co-owner of the house. But if the covenant theory is removed, one's place in the house becomes a matter of capital or constitution. So, those with more capital have more claim on the house because he owns more shares. Or, if residency is determined by constitution, one's place in the house is merely that of the law. So, if the house is opened to newcomers who agree to follow house rules, they have equal claim to the house. Canadian-ness is now all about capital and constitution. If rich Hindus and Chinese arrive, they are more valuable as 'Canadians'(due to their infusions of capital) than white working class Canadians with deep roots are. And in the US, an immigrant with citizenship(after mere 5 yrs) is just as much an American as any white person with ancestry going back 100 or more yrs. The meaning of historical covenant is negated for the founding Anglo/American stock.
National concept based on capital favors only the elites. It's no wonder that US white elites feel closer to Jewish elites, Asian elites, and black elites than to white masses. Nation based primarily on the constitution favors immigrant-invaders over the founding native stock. After all, if the essence of the nation is based on the Law, then any newcomer who pledges to live by those laws have equal claim on the land. What would happen to Israel if 5 million Muslims could move there and pledge to respect the liberal-democratic laws of Israel? Democracy may survive, but Israel-as-Jewish-homeland certainly won't. Indeed, if Jewish elites in Israel only cared about their privilege and status, they might as well get rid of the 'covenantial' foundation of Israel and just focus on capital and constitution. They will likely make more money by replacing Jewish workers with cheaper ones and by forging closer ties with non-Jewish globalist elites than with their own tribal brethren of all classes.

Whether it's UK or Japan, the elites are under globo-homo mindset and think mainly in terms of status, haute class, and privilege. And they want more and more in the competition of keeping-up-with-the-globo-homonses. And in order for them to have MORE, they need access to cheaper labor and increased interaction with global capital.
At this point, even if patriotic elites wanted a nationalist economy, it might be impossible. Suppose a globalized nation returns to nationalist mode and tries to offer decent wages and benefits to its national workers. But that would lead to higher production costs, which could mean an inability to compete on the global scale with trans-national companies that snub national interests in favor of globalist domination of market share. Pat Buchanan mentioned this problem in one of his books. Under globalism, even US companies that wanted to keep its factories in the America and hire local workers simply could not compete with companies that shipped their factories to Mexico or China. And US medical companies that stick with American-born professionals may not be able to compete with globalist companies that hire Asian-Indian professionals for 1/4 of the cost.

Nationalism is about UNITY of elites and the masses with a shared sense of covenant of ethnicity, history, and territoriality. This can be the basis of a sound and stable nation. However, it places brakes on elite ambitions because they are forced to be mindful of the working masses not merely as employees but as fellow comrades with shared stake and ownership of the national property. Elites under nationalism feel like Guido in the opening dream sequence in Fellini's 8 1/2. They soar up into the sky but are prevented from flying off.

Nationalism has a kite-like effect on the elites. They rise high but remain bound to the land and folk. Globalism severs the ties to the land so that all the elite-kites could fly off and form their own globo-sky-island like the one in LAPUTA: CASTLE IN THE SKY. And once the elites are freed from the leashes of nationalism, they feel freer than ever and become obsessed with nothing but more wealth, more status, and more privilege(and with the dream of immortality and quasi-divinity, as transhumanism is about man-into-godism, or man going from worshiping gods to using science to become gods). And yet, the globalist elites also feel more vulnerable because their own people no longer trust them and turn to populist anger? But then, why should the national masses trust the globalized elites who openly renounce any notion of covenant with race, culture, and nation(which is apparently too 'petty' for their globalist ambition for all-the-world-as-their-oyster) and pontificate as to how the native masses must be replaced with endless waves of immigrant-invaders? To subvert and sabotage national mass revolt, the elites push Diversity, the opposite of Unity so integral to nationalism. Diversity, a tool of globalism and imperialism, turns a nation into a hodge-podge of different groups, and the diversity makes it near-impossible for collective action against the elites.

Also, the elites see great advantage in immigrationism(or migrationism) because it undermines the 'covenantial' claim by the masses to the land. When UK and France were in nationalist mode, the masses had moral advantage over the 'exploitative' elites and could make demands on them on the basis that elites and masses shared common destiny as co-owners of the homeland. After all, nationalism emphasizes the covenant between native masses and the nation(as their sacred homeland). In contrast, globalist immigrationism or migrationism says that newcomers have just as much 'right' to the nation. This negates the notion of racial-historical-territorial covenant among the natives. Also, the newcomers, lacking deep roots and protected only by the constitution, don't feel much of a claim to the land either. At most, they can argue that they have legal(or constitutional) right to live there but not much else. Thus, both native masses and newcomers are rendered into renters or rent-seekers(than co-owners) of the nation, the only real value of which has been reduced to that of capital. (Ownership is meaningless if made 'inclusive'. If you own a car, but then, if it can be 'owned' and used by everyone else as well, your claim on the car becomes effectively meaningless. If White Americans are said to be owners of America but are prevented from stopping endless immigration-invasions by non-whites to also become co-owners, America comes to be owned only by the elites with capital[because private property, unlike national property, continues to remain in 'exclusive' mode, i.e. in the hands of the owner-class, that is unless communism does to private property what globalism does to national property; indeed, if globalism cannot be stopped, the masses should get their revenge by using communism against the globo-homo elites; if globalist elites take away your national property, take away their private property]. True ownership means you or your people get to KEEP the property than letting it fall into the hands of others. It is like marriage, which becomes pointless if you can't keep your spouse as your special partner bound to you and only you. If your spouse must be made 'inclusive' to other peoples, he/she is really just a whore. While globalism makes every individual feel superficially freer as a 'citizen of the world', most people fail to gain anything while losing forever what was tangible and priceless: A special, even sacred, homeland.)

Now, why don't Jewish elites go whole hog and do likewise as the goy elites(who are, to be sure, under the thumb of Jewish elites)? If white elites and Asian elites have more to gain for themselves by ditching the National Covenant(that binds them to needs of the native masses or co-ethnics) in favor of Global Capital, why don't Jewish elites act in the same manner? Why do Jews insist on sticking to the National Covenant?
One reason is there are far fewer Jews in the world and many of them are in the upper-ranks. So, there is less of a burden among Jewish elites to take into consideration the well-being of Jewish masses. But what about Israel, a nation with a large number of non-rich Jews? Isn't it an economic burden on Jewish elites to be ever mindful of less well-off Jews in Israel? Sure, but Jewish power around the world has coerced goy nations to bankroll Israel to the tune of billions of dollars a year and other favors and benefits. So, it's not so much rich Jews taking care of lesser Jews but rich Jews making goyim take care of lesser Jews. That's some clever thinking.