Diversity, as promoted & practiced by globalism, is a Disaster.
We need to combat DDD, or Diversity Disaster Denial.
For a long time, the 'progressive globalists' or PROGLOB have been saying that 'diversity is our strength' and that white people have much to gain from it.
It was sold as a boon for whites. But now that whites are losing out(with the huge problem of White Death and wage decline and all sorts of social problems), the PROGLOB like Fareed Zakaria are gloating that whites are dying, losing, and going to end up in dustbin of history.
Or consider the Newsweek cover that features Obama as victorious general with the heading that blares: "GOP, YOU'RE OLD, YOU'RE WHITE, YOU'RE HISTORY".
So, it turns out Diversity is not strength but disaster for whites after all. Whites had been tricked by globalist Jews.
Now that white folks appear to be doomed, the globalists are coming out of the woodworks and cackling with hideous glee. They love to see the fall of the white race.
Or at least the white masses.
After all, white elites(like the Clintons and Bidens who collaborate with Jews) are well-taken care of and will end up gaining even more under Diversity. Finally, some whites are waking up to Diversity Disaster. But it may be too late.
Elites have the Power, and white goy elites have much to gain from diversity. If ALL whites were harmed equally by diversity, the white elites will grow angry and lead the white masses. But the way the system is set up, white elites are lavishly rewarded by globalism for betraying the white masses. The economic angle of globalism is about white elites sacrificing white masses for their own gluttony. But because white elite privilege has been associated with 'progressive' values like homomania and 'anti-racism', the piggish white elites(like the Clintons) rake in ever more for themselves while acting morally righteous and putting the white masses on the moral defensive for being 'xenophobic' and etc.
After all, Diversity means using immigrants used as buffer between dangerous blacks and affluent white elites in big cities. It means cheap docile labor and not having to deal with the hassles and demands of white American workers and labor unions. If you're an affluent white person, Diversity can be a great social and economic boon since you will remain above most of Diversity. After all, the browns are not going to compete with the upper whites. Yellows may offer some competition in schools, but eventually, a huge number of yellow women are going to offer their wombs to white men and yellow boys will never rise above middle management, and many will die childless playing videogames. Asian-Indians may offer more challenge since India still has a huge birth boom and Asian-Indians are very energetic in personality. They got babu-ism.
So, Hillary vs Trump is like white elites vs white masses.
Hillary Victory means white elites can go full-globalism and expand their privilege at expense of white masses.
Trump Victory(if Trump is honest, which I doubt) means white masses get to make demands on American elites to support and defend American workers and citizens.
The America that resulted from New Deal era was one where the elites couldn't just fatten themselves. Because of emphasis on national capitalism and the needs of the working class via unions and greater cohesion between elites and masses(since both were white mostly), the elites couldn't pig out for themselves at the expense of American workers, especially because of the memory of the Great Depression and working class sacrifices in World War II. They had to be mindful of the masses. So, elite privilege and maximization of profits for the super-rich were curtailed because the masses mattered too.
That bond has been broken by both parties. GOP started it, but Democrats grabbed it and ran with it, especially since the Clinton Era, toward the globalist end-zone. It was bound to appeal to Democrats in the long run since they hold the big cities, the cosmo centers of globalism. Once cities became de-industrialized and became hubbub of the information economy, urban Democrats wanted less to do with native workers and more to do with global opportunities.
But some blame must go to US workers and labor unions too. The unions became bloated and corrupt, like in that Danny Devito movie about Jimmy Hoffa and that Paul Schrader movie BLUE COLLAR. Also, American workers got used to taking things for granted. They became like the hare in the story where it races with the tortoise. While other nations were catching up, US auto workers just wanted more benefits and business as usual. Also, the children of the working class got into drug and hedonistic culture in the 60s, and their work attitudes became lousy. Just look at the kids in DAZED AND CONFUSED. So, we need to fix up the culture as well. White 'trash' culture isn't all that better than wild Negro culture.
Another problem is the moral sleight of hand pulled off by the PROGLOB. It might be called Justice Diversion Tactic or Diversionary Justice Tactic.
What is justice? Justice is about redressing a wrong.
So, if I did something wrong to you, I owe something to YOU. Not to others.
Suppose I stole your water, like what happens in the movie JEAN DE FLORETTE.
If there is to be justice, I should re-irrigate a canal whereby I would return some water back to your land. The water should go from my land to your land to redress the wrong. That is justice.
But suppose a third party diverts the water that goes from my land to your land, thus channeling it to his land. Suppose his 'moral logic' argues as follows: because I'd done YOU wrong, the water-of-redress should flow to HIS land. He poses as the middleman of justice and takes it for himself when it should go from me to YOU.
Does this make sense? That's not justice. But that is the foundation of the (Emma)Lazarus Logic of Justice:
Because white folks took the land from the Red Savages and used blacks as slaves... that means... uh.... white folks owe something to the huddled wretched masses all over the world. What kind of justice is that?
If whites had done wrong to Indians and Negroes, then whites owe something to the redskins and blacks, not to anyone else.
Consider Israel. Zionists took land from Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed and still live under Occupation in West Bank. So, for the sake of Justice, we can argue that Jews owe something to the Palestinians. That makes good sense. But would it make sense to say, "Because Jews did wrong to Palestinians, they must redress the problem by offering right of immigration to Chinese, Black Africans, Hindus, Iranians, Mexicans, and etc"? That'd be ridiculous. It would be a case of Justice Diversion. The water of justice that should flow from Jews to Palestinians would be diverted to serving peoples whom Jews hadn't done harm to.
Diversity Mania is a form of Justice Diversion. It says White America owes something to the entire world(by way of open borders immigration) because it committed wrongs against Indians and blacks.
It also says Europe owes something to the entire world because of its horrors in WWII. But if Europeans had wronged Jews in WWII, they owe something to Jews. What do they owe to Muslims and Africans who just wanna come to EU for free stuff and white women?
Also, why ALL of Europe? Only a handful of European nations were involved in imperialism. Most weren't. How many overseas empire did Poles, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Serbians, Croatians, Finns, Swedes, Norwegians, and etc have?
Furthermore, imperialism wasn't only about taking. Western imperialists also spread a lot of positive influences all over the world. So, there was take but also give. It evens out in most cases. (And of course, non-white civilizations had empires of their own. Oftentimes, it was a war of empires than a war of white imperialists vs gentle non-whites living in harmony with nature. Aztecs were an imperialist people. When whites came upon China, it was under Manchu rule. And when Brits came to India, it was under Moghul rule. And when French came to Cambodia, it was being carved by Vietnamese and Thai empires.)
Anyway, Justice Diversion is messing up the world. It is making a mockery of the meaning of justice. It is burdening innocent nations with the problems caused by other peoples. If any people need to pay for the disaster in the Middle East and North Africa, it is globalist Jewish supremacists in NY and DC who've steered Western foreign policy toward destroying Arab nations. But Justice Diversion says Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, and etc. must take in the 'refugees'.
Justice Diversion not only diverts the redressing of wrongs to undeserved parties but directs punishment at those innocent of the wrong or crime.
In the US, the rewards for historical wrongs of America have been diverted from blacks and Indians to immigrants. Look how well the Asian-Indians are doing in the US. But white man 'stole' American from American Indians(aka Injuns), not from Asian-Indians. So, who are the likes of Fareed Zakaria to act as though they DESERVE to come to America and take over economies?
In the EU, the punishment for the horrors visited upon Arabs and Muslims have been diverted at European nations. So, even though Jewish-dominated foreign policy led to the destruction of much of the Arab/Muslim World, the burden of ameliorating this disaster has been dumped on Europeans. Because of European crimes in WWII, Europe must be burdened with the 'refugee' crisis because... uh.... the 'refugees' are sort of like Jews during WWII... or the twisted logic goes.
This is like saying Japan must suffer the burden of taking care of Africans uprooted by war and poverty because of what it did in China in WWII. But that is not justice. If Japan did China wrong, then Japan owes something to China, not to the world.
Imagine if I stole $1,000 from Jill, but Bob comes along with his Justice Diversion theory and says I should hand that money to him because I'd done Jill wrong.
Ludicrous. That is Justice Usurpation.