Race Denial Is No Long Tenable - Ideology Is Downstream from Iconography

Following WWII and the demise of Nazism(and revelations of its horrors) and prior to the explosion of race problems in America(and now in Europe as well), one could forgive the sincere belief among intellectuals, social scientists, and politicians that race is essentially a ‘social construct’ and, once equality was assured under the law, all races could achieve more or less the same. If intellectuals were wrong about race reality and racial differences back then, it was more out of naivete or idealism than dogma, cowardice, or some pernicious agenda.

But after several decades of social experimentation, it should be clear to any honest person that racial differences are all-too-real and account for the persistent problems of race, especially pertaining to blacks. But because of the pervasiveness of PC as status symbol(as political incorrectness will invariably lead to blacklisting or demotion in the choicest careers), iconography of holy relics(as Jews, Negroes, and Homos are now objects of mandatory reverence), and radical violence as forms of intimidation(as heretics & dissidents face real danger of being physically assaulted by Antifa thugs, BLM lunatics, or screeching campus fanatics), most academics and media people are FORCED to be dishonest, FORCED to ‘not know’ what they, in the heart of hearts, know.

We can forgive a white liberal in the 1940s, 1950s, and even in the 1960s for believing that black conditions would be vastly improved with new laws and federal programs because, after all, blacks(along with other non-white races) had been denied equal opportunity in America. But after several decades of undeniable proof of black advantage in muscle power, black impulsiveness, black aggressiveness, and black psychopathy that tends toward obsessive egotism & narcissism, one has to be willfully disingenuous or just plain delusional to insist that the racial problems in this country owe to the legacy of slavery and ‘Jim Crow’.

It’s no longer about Jim Crow but ‘Radio Raheem’(the obnoxious thug of Spike Lee’s worthless DO THE RIGHT THING), the kind of moron who is all too common in black communities across America. The problem is too many Negroes who act like ‘nogs’ and carry this ‘groid’ gene that makes them tougher, more aggressive, more impulsive, and more psychopathic. After decades of black rampage against other races(and among themselves), this fact should be plain as day, but the tyranny of political correctness prohibits honest discussion of race that locates the black problem as rooted in genetics. As a result, we are left with praising everything black(as if even Problem Blacks are really just misguided and misunderstood victims of the System)and blaming anything white as explanation for the failures of the black community.

PC is an excuse-making machine that blames external white forces for all that stinks in the black community. (This is all the more disingenuous because it is the problematic nature of blacks that is hyped and sensationalized as ‘cool’ and ‘badass’. So, the very white progs who insist something must be done about black gangsta culture of mayhem and murder also promote it as ‘authentic’ and something worthy of emulation.) The idiot critic Andrew O’Hehir at Salon surmised(or pontificated) that Detroit’s decline owed to envious white racism’s punishment of Motown. Apparently, white folks decided Detroit must go down because Smokey Robinson wrote too many groovy songs.

To be sure, conservatives are hardly better on the Race Issue; they also play by the PC songbook in their own way. So, we are told that Detroit was ruined by Liberalism, socialism, and the Democratic Party. Apparently, it had nothing to do with race, specifically the naturally destructive tendency among blacks. If so, why are some white-majority cities under Democratic rule among the richest in America? Why is San Francisco and Manhattan, two very Liberal cities, overflowing with wealth and privilege despite their ‘big government’ policies?

Or consider how Ann Coulter blames lowly black behavior on the Democratic Party, as if blacks would have acted better under Republicans. So, how are blacks acting in Republican Alabama or Texas? Or channeling Thomas Sowell, Ann Coulter muses that blacks learned how to be violent from Scotch-Irish hillbillies, a notion that would imply that Black Africa was an Edenic paradise of peace and harmony when, in fact, it was inhabited by spear-chucking savages from time immemorial. Why is there so much nonsense about blacks?

Political Correctness isn’t just about ideas & issues but also about idols & icons. In a way, the power of idolatry & iconography is more crucial to the sway of PC. After all, even as the ‘right’ and the ‘left’ differ in their explanations & proposals of the Black Problem, both sides are agreed that blacks, along with Jews and even homos, must be treated as a preternaturally noble and holy people, a Magic People. Despite differences in ideology, the American ‘right’ and American ‘left’ are agreed on the icons. It’s like the conflict between Catholics and Protestants or between Sunnis and Shias. Despite doctrinal differences, they worship the same gods or icons. So, ‘iconology’ > ideology. While ideology offers explanations, ‘iconology’ determines what or whom should be worshiped. There is a reason why Jews, homos, and Negroes have special iconic power in the US. Part of the reason is obvious: Jews control the media and decide which people should get favorable attention and adoration. But it’s also because Jews, homos, and blacks have special talents. Jews are especially good with intellectualism, science, business, and humor. So, they are admired as people of superior skills whose achievements continue to do wonders for all humanity. Jews also promoted the Cult of Shoah. As for homos, they are naturally fanciful, flamboyant, & narcissistic, and in our Age of Vanity & Hedonism, those qualities count for a lot. As for Negroes, they dominate sports, pop music, and sexual symbolism. For many whites, nothing is worthier of worship than the black ‘twerking’ booty and the black dong. Andrew Breitbart once said "Politics is downstream from culture." Sometimes, ideology is downstream from iconography. People are captivated by something first on the sensory level and then seek rational or ideological explanations to justify their fixation. It’s like the John Hurt’s closeted homo character in LOVE AND DEATH IN LONG ISLAND who is so enthralled by the iconic sexuality of some second-rate actor that his mind follows his heart and balls.

The Uneasy Dynamics of Rancor, Religion, and Rationality

Religion stands in the way of reason, but intellect or higher mental activity is impossible without restraint of savage nature, the animal rancor in the heart of every man. Savage nature is beastly & brutish and prefers breeding & fighting over reading and writing. It has no use for learning, reflection, or cultivation of heart & soul. It is about the law of the jungle.

Religion suppresses & restrains animal rancor and steadies & prepares the mind for reflection & contemplation. Thus, religiosity/spirituality cultivates the life of the mind even as scriptures place strictures on what can be thought and said.

Rationality had to break out of the taboos of religiosity, but then, reason could arise only after spiritual authority had forced chaotic animal rancor inside the cage and tamed it.

Reason is the bird that flew out of the cage of religion, without which the wild cat of animal nature would have devoured the bird while still inside the egg. For there to be higher freedom of the mind, the lower freedom of savage instinct must be tamed. And religion played a key role in restraining lower freedoms so that higher freedom could finally arise, though, to be sure, they had to break out of the confines of religious taboos.

As most people weren't sufficiently smart or privileged for higher thought, the only viable option for them were spiritually guided moral life of restraints OR animal-driven beastly existence of excesses. If most people were moral, a stable community was possible and could sustain institutions for higher learning. But if most people were barbaric, social chaos ensued and even smart people had to scramble just to survive. (There are smart people in Africa, but they can't cultivate the life of the mind because most Africans indulge in animal nature of jungle boogie. Same is true in most black-majority communities in the the West.)

With the fading of religious authority and the weakening of constraints on animal nature, we are now witnessing the degradation and destruction of Western civilization by the savagery of black thuggery, harlotry of slut pride, and decadence of homo vanity. Blacks are especially dangerous because their animal nature is more aggressive, wild, destructive, and beastly than those of other races.

If there is a kind of 'religion' in the current West, it is Political Correctness, the official dogma of Jewish-controlled Globalism, that enforces taboos on honest minds that notice that the Emperor has no clothes. Honest people see the reality of racial differences and its dire implications. They also perceive the threat to the West(or any sane civilization) posed by black savagery, homo degeneracy, Jewish supremacism(via globalism), and feminist insipidity, but inquisitional PC imposes the politics of silence, shunning, or witch-burning on any brave soul who refuses to cower before the court of globalist dogma.
Actually, shallow & stupid PC is worse than real religions, which, at the very least and despite their repressive dimensions, were grounded in genuine contemplation, profundity of vision, and reflection of higher truths. PC is just a disingenuous tool of Jewish supremacists to bait and milk 'white guilt' so that there won't be a viable challenge to Jewish Power.

Social Privilege vs Genetic Privilege

White folks are indeed privileged. And it's about time race-ists admitted it.

White people really are privileged with genetic traits that give them an advantage over others in certain areas.

This privilege was bestowed on whites by evolution and nature. It is genetic. Whites can't do anything about it since it's inborn.

It's like blacks are privileged when it comes to sprinting, jumping, and punching. No matter how much blacks apologize for their genetic privilege in athletics, they will run faster than others. They can't help themselves.
A black guy, upon winning the sprinting competition, can say he's sorry, mope about about it, and speak in favor of sports-equality. But in the next race, he will beat other races once again due to his genetic privilege that makes him faster than other races.

Likewise, Ashkenazi Jews are genetically privileged with higher IQ. Evolution made them that way. So, no matter how many times Jews apologize for this genetic privilege/advantage and no matter how badly they may feel about it(or may try to deny it), they are going to outperform gentiles, particularly blacks, in academic endeavors.

Nature is all about genetic privileges. Just look at birds. They got wings, so they are privileged in flight, something most animals cannot do. Look at fish. They got fins and gills, and that means they are privileged to thrive in water. Even a dumb shark has great advantage over a smart human in water because genetic privilege makes shark master over man.

Genetic privileging is what nature is all about. Without these natural privileges, organisms wouldn't have their niche advantages that allow them to survive. Turtles may be slow, but they are privileged with shells that offer them protection. Thus, their chance of survival is improved. A skunk isn't big or fast, but it is privileged with musk odor that can send predators running. Imagine a 'progressive' animal speaking ill of a turtle for its shell-privilege and of a skunk for its stink-privilege.

Different organisms have different privileges.

Likewise, different races have different genetic privileges that persist even when social privileges are removed from society.
Sometimes, social privileges and genetic privileges may be aligned. Suppose there is a social law in America that says ONLY BLACKS can play in NBA or NFL. So, blacks would be socially privileged in sports and totally monopolize both sports. But suppose other races denounce this privilege and call for end of such privileges. But will the change of policy really change the sports scene all that much? NO, because black genetic privilege in sports will remain despite the removal of social privilege. So, even as some whites who are exceptionally good might make it into NBA and NFL, both leagues will remain predominantly black, and there is fat chance of Asian, Mexican, Hindu, or Arab getting in.

This is the problem with blacks and academics. It is true that blacks were effectively denied entry into many intellectual institutions that once socially privileged whites. But even once those social privileges were removed, white genetic privilege in brain power remained effectively in play.
In contrast, the removal of social privilege for whites in sports had a huge impact since blacks have natural genetic privilege in athletics. So, change in social policy led to huge changes in sports based on biological factors.

If people understood the concept of social privilege vs genetic privilege better, they wouldn't be so confused and partial to PC.

Incidentals and Fundamentals in the Consideration of Truth

In the search for truth, we need to consider two sets of knowledge: Incidentals and Fundamentals.

Incidentals are facts about incidents that take place everyday all over the world. Crimes, accidents, meetings, mergers, riots, marches, deals, and etc. all comprise the realm of incidentals. Incidental truth seeks straight facts about what happened where, when, and how. Exactitude and accuracy are crucial. Incidentals are often difficult to ascertain without indisputable video & audio evidence.
It's like we don't know exactly what happened on the night when George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. We know for sure that Zimmerman was assaulted and Martin was shot, but we don't know how the event unfolded. We only have Zimmerman's account and approximation based on collected material evidence. Incidentals vary from incident to incident even though there are patterns to certain kinds of incidents, such as drive-by-shooting. They happen to be drug-related and carried out mostly by black gangs. Because each incident is unique and isolated, one can't rely on other incidents, however similar they may be, to determine what happened at a particular incident. So, every murder or business deal happened within its unique set of circumstances. Incidentals are mutable, each incident being different from other incidents.

Fundamentals are immutable. They are about general truths governing peoples, things, and places around the world. For instance, it is a fundamental fact that lions are stronger than leopards and hyenas. There may be cases where a wounded or old lion is killed by a hyena or leopard. So, not every incidence of violence between lions and hyenas(or leopards) involves lions emerging victorious. But despite variations among incidents, it is a fundamental fact that lions are bigger and stronger than hyenas and leopards, and that means most encounters between lions and hyenas(or leopards) will favor the lions.

To know the facts about an incident, every incident has to be investigated separately. Just because many murders follow a certain pattern doesn't mean that a particular murder under investigation happened in the same way in the same place by the same people for the same reasons as other murders.
In contrast, the ever-shifting details of countless and ever-unfolding incidents aren't crucial to our understanding of the fundamentals of the world. So, even though there may be dumb Jews and many incidents involving Jews doing stupid things, it is a fundamental that Jews(at least Ashkenazi kind) are smarter than other groups. Likewise, even though there are cases where black athletes lose to non-blacks, it is a fundamental that blacks are generally more muscular and athletic than non-blacks.
Fundamentals don't ensure that every incident will conform to general truths. It is possible that, on a bad day, a black basketball team will lose to a non-black one. Also, even in games in which the black team wins, the margins of victories will be bigger in some games than in others. So, each game, as an incident, has to be reported on differently. And this is what the news are about. They are about reporting the incidentals. So, sports pages will cover each game as an isolated and singular event. While some teams will be expected to win more games than others, each game has its unique set of stats and results.
But that still doesn't invalidate the fundamental fact that some teams are better than others and that some races excel at sports more than other races do. Also, it's a fundamental fact that men are better at sports than women are. There may be rare cases when women are victorious over men, but the fundamental says men will prevail in most cases.
And in gambling, it is a fundamental that the House-Wins-in-the-End. Without such fundamental, gambling industry couldn't survive. So, even though there are individuals who gamble and win, the overwhelming truth is the casino wins far more than it loses.

While incidentals gleaned from news are crucial to our understanding of world affairs and social issues, more important is an understanding of the fundamentals of the world. For instance, one may learn of many individual cases where gamblers have won against the House, but the central fact one must know about gambling is the House-Wins-in-the-End. That is the immutable truth about the gambling industry. The odds are calibrated so that the House will usually win or win more than lose.

Consider the incident with Michael Brown, the big black guy who was gunned down by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. To know the incidentals, we have to rely on witness accounts and material evidence from the scene of the altercation. There are incidents where black thugs attack the police first. There are incidents where cops shoot an unarmed man who poses no threat. So, each incident has to be treated independently.

But we cannot ignore the fundamentals of black violence. These are immutable fundamentals about blacks: (1) Blacks are bigger and more muscular. (2) Blacks are more aggressive and abrasive. (3) Blacks feel contempt for whites and other non-blacks as 'weak and wussy'. (4) Blacks are generally less intelligent. Their lower intelligence & higher aggression make them less reflective and self-critical. (5) Due to aforementioned facts, blacks are more likely to act thuggish, commit crime, and come in conflict with the police.

Those are fundamentals that must be considered in race relations in America. Now, those fundamentals don't guarantee that every altercation between blacks and whites will involve blacks-as-aggressors and whites-as-victims. There are cases, rare as they may be, of white aggressors and black victims. But given the fundamentals, it is hardly surprising that interracial violence is overwhelmingly black-on-white. Likewise, it is a fundamental that men are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than women, therefore most sexual violence will be male-on-female even though there are incidents where women attack men.

Fundamentals are essential, but we mustn't confuse true fundamentals(developed from integrity, honesty, and courage) with false fundamentals(concocted from official dogma, political correctness, intimidation, moral blackmail, and self-serving antics of the elites). Black Lives Matter or BLM was based on a false fundamental. It posited that rogue 'racist' white cops are out-of-control and gunning down innocent angelic blacks for no reasons. This false fundamental was erected from bits and pieces of the Magic Negro myth, Hollywood & TV shows, education as PC indoctrination, and propagandized media that employ semantic tricks like referring to black criminals & thugs as 'teens' and 'youths' to suppress true fundamentals of race relations. They all conspire to maintain the image of the Magic Tragic Innocent Negro from the pages and reels of TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD. Also, even in cases where blacks are indeed depicted as killers, they are romanticized as rappin' outlaws & gangstas who be so 'cool and shit'. So, black thuggery is either glorified as something 'badass'(therefore beyond conventional 'lame' morality) or as heroic rebellion against the 'racist' system that won't give the Negro no chance to 'survive'.

Because of their willful preference for the false fundamental of BLM, it was assumed by Proglodytes and blowhard blacks like Charles Blow that the main problem of America is innocent blacks being gunned down by 'racist' white cops. Of course, this was all just a fantasy. Blacks are mostly killed by other blacks --- blacks also rob, rape, and murder many non-blacks --- , and most cops(black or white) have been justified in shooting at violent non-compliant blacks. There are surely cases where innocent blacks are killed by panicked or psychotic cops. But those are exceptions than the rule.

Because the false fundamental of the BLM narrative was so ludicrous, the activists had to scream & throw tantrums and resort to intimidation to push their agenda. It's like a liar or fool who can't win on facts and logic will fall back on high drama and volume. If you can't win by facts and argument, try kicking and screaming.

So, what has been the result of BLM's false fundamental's being crammed down America's throat? It led to the Ferguson Effect that only increased crime, violence, and number of dead blacks in cities.
True fundamental on race says that blacks commit more violence and crime because they are stronger, more aggressive, less intelligent, and less reflective. So, more police presence will suppress black crime and save black lives(and non-black lives). False fundamental on race says that rogue white cops are going around killing angelic innocent blacks. Because of BLM rage and demands, police in many cities decided to retreat and be 'more sensitive', which allowed blacks to be more flagrant and arrogant in their natural racial tendencies. So, the result of cops standing down or retreating led to more licentiousness among blacks to indulge in violence and mayhem. And that meant more dead black bodies. But black pride, the product of lower black IQ and childlike egomania, cannot own up to any of this. You can't expect people who describe their own emotions as 'incandescent rage' to think clearly or logically. They are full of self-righteous self-flattery that is nothing more than moral flatulence. And white 'liberal' conscience, premised on virtue-signaling and preening display of 'compassion', is too stuck-up to come to terms with reality.

Anyway, even though unique details matter for each and every incident, one cannot overestimate the importance of assessing the fundamentals of racial differences, black characteristics, Jewish abilities, homosexual tendencies, ways of power, basic facets of human nature, racial differences in personality & temperament, and etc. in order to understand the true state of the world.
True fundamentals are the most important guide in our interaction with the world.
That is precisely why Jews who control the media and academia are so invested in spreading false fundamentals as palliatives to sustain their power and privilege. After all, true fundamentals enable gentiles to understand matters more clearly and deal more effectively with Jewish Globalists whose tentacles of false narratives have done so much in service of Jewish Supremacism at the expense of gentiles.

Why do the Elitists want to ban the Truth about Race from the Masses?

Even though Political Correctness enforces rigid dogma on Racial matters --- "race is just a social construct", "there are no significant racial differences", etc --- , in truth many individuals in the academia & think-tanks are well-aware that there is a genetic basis to race and racial differences. And these people freely discuss this matter among themselves. So, their main concern is not the discussion of race and racial differences but the 'danger' of this knowledge leaking out to the masses. To these elitists, many of whom are Jewish or white collaborators(cucks or shabbos goyim), the rise of mass consciousness on the Reality of Race is a threat to their own power and privilege since the entire edifice of Political Correctness is built on 'White Guilt' of 'racism' that supposedly constructed wholly artificial racial hierarchies when, all things being equal, every race is capable of achieving as much as any other. Thus, Political Correctness blames 'white racism' for all the social inequalities and problems in the West. This is useful for the Jewish elites because their elite-minority-power rests on suppressing white pride, power, and unity. And nothing has been as effective as 'white guilt', especially since Western Morality is founded on Christian Culture of Conscience.

But in fact, many Jewish elites know that race is real among themselves. They know that blacks tend to make a mess of things because blacks are more aggressive and less intelligent. Also, genetics made blacks more muscular and stronger, which accounts for interracial violence being overwhelmingly black on non-black. Jews and white shabbos goyim know this in their inner circles. But if such knowledge were to become widely disseminated among the white masses, the cult of 'white guilt' would dissipate. White people would realize that it's not their fault that other races have the problem that they do. Thus freed of 'white guilt', white people will think, organize, and operate on basis of white pride, power, and unity. This will threaten Jewish elite-minority-power-and-privilege, especially since Jews have been so hostile toward whites. And since white shabbos goyim(cuck collaborators) depend on Jewish largess, threat to Jewish power is threat to their power(just like threat to Nazi power in France also threatened French collaborators in Vichy). Is it any wonder that not only Jews but Conservatism Inc. is freaked out about the Alt Right that is willing to directly address the issues of race and the Jewish Question?

This is why the Jews want to keep the Realities of Race a SECRET KNOWLEDGE that can only be discussed among the Jewish elitists and their closest allies. As for the white masses, they must be kept in the dark and fed a steady diet of 'race is just a social construct' and 'white guilt'. Some Jewish academics have said that EVEN IF there is scientific truth about racial differences, it must be censored & suppressed for the Social Good. Of course, what these Jews really want is to protect their own power and privilege that is premised on Everlasting 'White Guilt' that paralyzes White Pride & Power.

But such attitude is nothing new in history. The Hindu Brahmins also had their secret knowledge. Their sacred texts could only be read by them for certain peoples. If someone of the wrong caste heard even a bit of this knowledge, the punishment was molten lead poured down their ears.
And in totalitarian-communist nations, the knowledge of the outside world, especially of the capitalist West, was restricted to the elites. The communist elites knew that life was more bountiful in the capitalist West. They themselves enjoyed the goods and entertainment of the the Enemy. But they kept this knowledge within the inner circle while feeding the Official Dogma to the masses since their power and privilege were premised on the 'scientific-materialism' of Marxist-Leninist Doctrine. If the masses were to know the difference between the Capitalist West and Communist East, they could rise up to overthrow the power of communist elites(like what happened in Romania).
So, the communist elites kept the facts about the capitalist West a Secret Knowledge. They themselves wanted to access and enjoy Western luxuries, but they had to censor the truth from the masses who, if enlightened, might demand end to communist rule in favor of market economy.

Jewish elites, Brahmins, and Communist rulers, as keepers of the Secret Knowledge, all invoked the INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE or NEEDS OF A SACRED ORDER, but their main concern was preserving their own power and privilege. If the masses were to know, they might tell the rulers to go. What the rulers decried as corrupting of the masses was really disruptive to their own power.
And this is why Political Correctness is used to keep certain facts and ideas taboo for everyone but for the elites who believe they and only they should be guardians of the Secret Knowledge.
Insider Trading may be illegal on Wall Street(even though the real insiders do it all the time by 'other means'), but Insider-trading-of-secret-knowledge is the norm in elite circles.

When the Jewish elites attacked Charles Murray, it wasn't primarily because of his views on race and racial differences. If anything, such views had long been aired in elite circles. The problem was he wrote a book for the public, thus playing a Promethean role. Gods didn't punish Prometheus for having the knowledge of fire. They punished him because he took the knowledge of fire to the mortals. Thus, fire was no longer the sole magic power of the gods.

The disingenuous rationalization for 'Reparations' for Blacks

Why all this reparations stuff promoted by the media?

Is it because the Liberal coalition is weak? After all, Jews, homo elites, and white Liberals(and some Asians)are doing a helluva better than blacks and browns.

So, how to keep the coalition together through means other than KKKrazy Glue? After all, crying wolf gets tiresome after awhile.

Bribery to browns in the form of amnesty.

And bribery to blacks in the form of reparations.

Fed will be printing a lot of money.

But how will reparations work? Will every new black child born receive reparations? After all, if every black person deserves it, then reparations will have to go on forever. Why should only blacks who are alive now get it? What if you’re a black person born 50 yrs from now?

If reparations had been done when the black population was only 10 million, then all the blacks that came later wouldn’t have gotten it. Unfair, right?
So, for it to be fair, every newborn black kid will have to get it, which means forever and ever and ever.

Since Libs don’t want to admit that blacks fail in school and work because of their lower IQ and behavioral problems, they’re gonna blame white ‘racist’ history and appease blacks for eternal bribery. Every newborn black kid is assured $150,000 or something like that.
And like aff-action, it will never end.

As the economic gulf between the super-have Libs and super-have-not blacks and browns keeps growing larger and larger–and since all the educational programs aren’t doing any good to bridge the gap–, the only way to maintain the coalition is through outright bribery.

I guess companies don’t really mind since they know that blacks tend to be spendthrift. Most blacks won’t save that money or invest it in anything long-term but just buy fancy cars and bling. Just consider Jesse Jackson Jr.’s spending habits. He should have defended himself by saying that the money he spent illegally was really a form of reparations.

Or go to Las Vegas and gamble.

Blacks and the Impact of Immigration

Blacks are bad workers.

In a way, the demise of the GOP may not be a bad thing for whites, at least many whites who are not of the working class. If Democrats totally win and push massive immigration, it will mean more yellow/brown buffer between whites and blacks.

Blacks are the biggest headache in the US.

If we have more immigration, it will drown out blacks. Already, Hispanics are the #1 minority and will grow even bigger. And with people from India and China, there will be a bigger Asian presence. So, blacks will be flooded with non-black immigrants.

To the extent that whites can use browns and Asians as buffers between themselves and blacks, more diversity is good for whites. But it’s bad for whites of lower IQ or values who are left behind.

In a way, we also see non-blacks appropriating black symbolism. Civil Rights Movement was mostly about black struggle for equality. But MLK has become sort-of-generic, and now every group ‘appropriates’ the symbolism to push their own cause.
It’s like the homo/tranny movement invokes MLK and Civil Rights Movement to justify ‘gay pride parades’ and men-in-dress using women’s washrooms. This has made a parody of the Civil Rights Movement because we are supposed to believe that a bunch of sexual deviants having mock-orgies on the street is of equal moral importance as blacks braving bricks and bottles to march equality under the law.

So, while non-whites defer to black symbolism and the holiness of MLK, that symbolism is often used to push interests that may hurt blacks.
For instance, more illegal immigration from Latin America means less power for blacks. But these illegals often march by invoking the Civil Rights Movement.

Civil Rights Movement asked for something special for blacks. MLK’s “I have a dream” speech was specifically about what white America owes to black America. But before this ‘dream’ was delivered, US got flooded by so many immigrants, and the children of these immigrants call for more immigration rights by invoking the Civil Rights Movement. But immigrant rights and more diversity means less for blacks.
On the other hand, if there is to be reparations for blacks, much of the burden will have to be paid by immigrants whose ancestors had nothing to do with slavery. Also,immigrants often work hard and provide the taxes to pay for blacks in government and/or welfare.

Surreal how things work in Diverica.

PS. As for voter suppression and corruption, Democrats are the masters. But they were silent because it was used against Conservatives. But now that Sanders voters are discovering how Hillary’s gang has used it against them, they are angry as hell.

The fact that Trump overcame the opposition more easily than Sanders did with Clinton goes to show that there is more honesty on the GOP side, even if not much. Neocons did everything to derail Trump but it didn’t work.
But it was much easier for Hillary’s gang to derail Sanders with all sorts of dirty tricks.

What is the American ideal?

What is the American Ideal?

It was radically altered since America became a Jewish-centric “Nation of Immigrants”.

Remaking the US into a ‘nation of immigrants’ sent American Indians and Blacks to the back of the bus, especially as Homomania is the new globo-religion of America.

Before the US was a ‘nation of immigrants’, it was a nation of native red savages, white conquerors and settlers, and black slaves. Though whites ruled, white narrative was inseparable from the Native American or Indian narrative and the black narrative.

After all, whites conquered Indian lands, and whites brought over black slaves.

So, the conqueror-settler narrative was closely linked with the Indian and Black narratives.

But as America went into ‘nation of immigrant’ narrative — especially involving immigrants who arrived after America was conquered and Civil War was distant memory — , the American Narrative became less and less linked with the Indians and even blacks.

Black Narrative is still strong but has been twisted to favor Diversity than Black Interest. MLK is elevated increasingly as champion of diversity and ‘inclusion’ than of justice for Negroes. When MLK was marching around in 60s, he was all about justice for Negroes who’d been denied full rights.

But MLK is now supposed to be the champion of ALL minorities, and that means tons of immigrants, even millions of illegals. MLK and Emma Lazarus might as well be the same people.

MLK-ism and American Indian narrative are morally compelling because whites did take the land from Indians and because whites did bring over black slaves and exploited them.

In contrast, as nice as Emma Lazarus poem may read, it has no moral justification whatsoever. If white Americans did wrong to Indians and blacks, what do they owe to the rest of the world? If there is huddled wretchedness around the world, it’s not America’s fault or the white man's burden. White Americans owe something only to those whom they wronged. White Americans didn’t create the conditions in Russian Jewish ghettos or poor villages in China and India. America never owed anything to Jewish Europeans or Chinese or Indians or Arabs or Africans(who were not brought over as slaves).

MLK-ism used to mean ‘something for blacks’. Now, with MLK as a hero to ALL minorities, he stands as a brotha to Emma Lazarus.

What blacks fail to understand is that the demise of the white conqueror/settler narrative also means the demise of the black narrative. The Immigrant Narrative isn’t linked with the Black Narrative. Late-coming Immigrants didn’t enslave blacks and owe nothing to them. So, as America becomes more Diverse, blacks matter less.

Also, the Nation of Immigrants concept totally trashed the American Indian Narrative.

The Conqueror/Settler Narrative puts Indians at the moral center. It says, “yes, white man did great things in America, but it came at tragic expense of Indians who lost their ancestral lands.” The Conqueror narratives means America was conquered and taken from a certain people. Who were they? Indians.

But since Immigrants came after America was already settled, they feel no special historical bond to the Indians.

The Nation of Immigrants Narrative pisses on nativism. It says all nations(except Israel for some reason) should be open to massive immigration, and any nativist who opposes this is evil.

But that also implies that American Indians were wrong to resist the White Conquest of America. After all, the Red Man was a nativist who fought to keep the land of his forefathers. He wasn't being 'inclusive' of white settlers.

The globalist concept of ‘nation of immigrants’ pisses on nativism all over the world, and this is the new imperialism. After all, the great anti-imperialist struggles of the 20th century were all nativist. Native indigenous peoples were telling white European colonizers to go back home. The Vietnam War was also nativist as it was against the US occupation of South Vietnam and the resulting diversity of US soldiers using women as whores.

The Nation of Immigrants Narrative not only does violence to White Americans but to American Indians and Negroes. Whereas the white conqueror/settler narrative does pay special tribute to Indians and Negroes, the Nation of Immigrants Narrative does not.

“America is a nation of conquerors/settlers” narrative is linked with “America is a nation of the conquered Indian tribes” narrative and “America is a nation of enslaved blacks” narrative. This narrative says Americans owe something to Indians and blacks.

But "America as Nation of Immigrants" morally prioritizes foreigners(as potential immigrants) whom Americans never did any wrong. Also, if indeed America is a Nation of Immigrants, it must keep taking in more and more immigrants in order to be ‘American’. Using that logic, America is no longer American if it stops taking in immigrants.
It's as if America’s main moral obligation is to the world than its history.

65 killed 64. The 1965 Immigration Act undid the promises of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It turned White America away from the needs of Indians and blacks(whom white Americans had done wrong to) to the needs of a world of foreigners(whom white Americans hadn’t done wrong to). But since Jews gained power as relative late-immigrant arrivals, it was in their interest to put Immigrants above Indian natives, white settlers, and black slaves.
Indeed, now MLK has been transformed from a black leader to leader of Diversity is amusing indeed. But King’s message was not, “white folks should favor the interests of masses of foreign immigrants pouring into America over that of Negroes.” People like MLK who supported the Immigration Act probably thought non-whites would side with blacks against whites. But as it turned out, non-stop immigration turned blacks from the biggest minority(by far) to the second minority behind Hispanics. And if we take Hispanics, Asians, and Muslims together, blacks are becoming less and less significant. But then, white/Jewish/homo Liberals really love this since there is nothing they fear more than strong, aggressive, and hostile black thugs who nearly destroyed cities like NY and Chicago in the 70s.

But if Liberal elites honestly admitted why they love immigration(as buffer between themselves and blacks), there will be much anger. So, even as they push for more immigration, they say all the nice palliative things that keep Negroes believing that they is #1 in the hearts of Liberal America. So, even as NY increases Diversity to drown out blacks, the pages of NYT pay special tribute to a moron like Tahenisi Coates the ‘genius’.

What the NFL culture is really about.

What is the NFL culture all about?

It is about the white father cheering on the black guy to beat up his white son and impregnate his white daughter.
THAT is the NFL-addicted dad's idea of what the USA and the red, white, & blue are all about.

The Real Animating Force behind BLM or Black Lies Matter

Let’s get one thing straight.

BLM isn’t really about white cops killing innocent blacks.

Indeed, instances of white cops killing blacks is no worse now than in the past.

It’s just that blacks got frustrated over the years as they were crowded out by homos, massive immigration, gentrification, mass incarceration, increased racial profiling(in NY esp), and New Liberalism that favors the 1% over everyone else.

With Obama winning presidency, many blacks thought ‘we got it made’. But Obama’s presidency, while tossing some crumbs to blacks, has been mostly about Wars for Israel(against Russia, Libya, Syria, etc), homomania, white/Jewish/Asian yuppie gentrification, mass immigration(mostly of Mexicans, Asians, and Muslims), bailouts for Wall Street, and etc.

Blacks are especially pissed because all of this happened when US has come under the dominance of Democrats. When the very people who say the most flowery things about blacks actually push policies that do little for blacks(or even hurt blacks), blacks are awful angry.

But black rage has been muffled because most blacks are Democrats and because the Democratic Party(that dominates all big cities) is supposed to be watching their backs.

Blacks needed some convenient excuse to vent their spleen, and it was the Narrative of white cops killing innocent blacks.

But when we see the trajectory of BLM, there is something more happening. If blacks are indeed angry about white police violence, why don’t they target the specific police departments where it happened? Why do they march in every city, especially those dominated by white/Jewish/homo Liberals?

White cops are just useful scapegoats by both BLM and white/Jewish/homo Liberal Establishment. This is really a struggle between blacks and white/Jewish/homo urban Liberals(who supported increased policing to make cities livable again). Blacks are really angry at urban Liberals but can’t say so because they are both Democrats. Urban Liberals are really afraid of blacks but can’t say so because both groups are Democrats. So, blacks pretend they are marching against police brutality, and urban Liberals play along since the alternative — black rage at Urban Liberal elites — would be more frightening.

It reminds me of the scene in Akira Kurosawa’s RAN when the Third Castle is being attacked. Though the armies of the two treacherous sons are ostensibly united and working together against the fallen Old Lord, the real power struggle is between the two sons. Theirs is a sham unity held together in the attack against their father. It’s an alliance based on deception. The two sides are really eyeing each other for dominance but pretending to direct their fury at the powerless lord.

There is no Conservative power in the big cities and college campuses where most of BLM fury is directed. They are all bastions of Liberal Democratic Power. But officially, blacks and white/Jewish/homo elites ares supposed to be allies. So, they make ‘common cause’ and chant the same slogans and make-believe that they are united against ‘evil racist white cops’; but the real rage of BLM is about blacks fuming over how the Liberal Victory Pie went mostly to white yuppies, Jewish elites, homo neo-aristocrats, Asian immigrants, and etc.

So, this stuff about ‘white racist cops’ is just a ruse to light the fuse. Blacks have been looking for some compelling excuse to take to the streets and demand their slice of the pie. If big cities were dominated by ‘racist’ Republicans, blacks would have had a handy excuse. But blacks had trouble coming up with an excuse since big cities and college towns have been totally taken over by Jews, white Liberals, fancy mulattoes, homos, and diversity-immigrants who are supposed to be Democratic allies of blacks. Besides, US has a black Democratic president. So, blacks just fumed silently while losing out to other groups within the Liberal coalition.

But with BLM, blacks finally latched onto some ‘compelling’ issue to retake center stage of the Liberal Narrative. They bitch about cops, but it’s about something much more. The real message is “WE BLACKS ARE ANGRY AS HELL FOR BEING SENT TO THE BACK OF THE LIBERAL BUS, AND WE WANT SOMETHING NOW OR WE WILL USE ‘RACIST COP’ ISSUE AS EXCUSE TO BURN DOWN CITIES WHERE YOU JEWS, WHITE LIBS, HOMOS, AND IMMIGRANTS HAVE IT SO GOOD.”

It’s like Spike Lee’s screed about how Urban Liberals are ‘bogarting’ the neighborhood he grew up in.

In a way, the Liberal Establishment miscalculated. It figured that it could control and contain black rage by flattering some black activists, thus buying them off.

Some argue that Obama made things worse by inflaming black rage, but this is only a half-truth. Obama’s variation of “I feel your pain” to the black community was really to contain the rage. By pretending to do something about black rage, Obama may have encouraged black violence but he also appropriated black rage into institutional hands. Eric Holder was criticized for poring over every detail in Ferguson, but it had a way of calming things down a bit. It created the impression that the government was fully invested in the issue. And Baltimore calmed down when the cops were charged with the murder of Freddie Grey. Negroes, Trust the officials and don’t burn down cities.

Such gambits are effective but unstable. They may calm down the black community by sending the message that something is being done. But it also sends the message that LOUDER BLACKS ACT, MORE ATTENTION THEY GET.

And so, we ended up with BLM that is spreading to other nations as well, like Canada and UK and Germany, and etc.

Biology, not history, explains the Black Problem

History, history, history.

It doesn’t matter.

If all those blacks had been brought to America as free men, we’d have the same problem.

It’s biology, not history.

Blacks mess things up here, blacks mess things up in Jamaica and Haiti, blacks mess things up in Africa, blacks mess things up in Europe.

Sure, some higher IQ Nigerian immigrants do better in the West, but that’s cream of the crop. Most Nigerians in Nigeria turned that nation into a hellhole.

And look where South Africa is going. And before anyone blames Apartheid, look at black African nations that had no apartheid. They ended up worse.

Blacks are stronger, more aggressive, more volatile, more pathological, less introspective, less self-critical, and etc.

Evolution made them that way because they lived in hunter-warrior societies where aggressive hunter-warrior traits were most favored.

If Americans had brought Vietnamese as slaves, things would have turned out very differently.

Yes, Vietnamese-American descendants of slaves would have a bitter narrative and harbor rsentment, but they would pose no threat since Vietnamese are scrawny geeks. They wouldn't threaten or scare anyone. There never would have been a Vietnamese Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali or OJ Simpson. There wouldn’t be Jungle Fever for Vietnamese men. And even if there had been a Vietnamese Civil Rights Leader, he wouldn’t be an object of cult worship since Vietnamese don’t have boom box voices(of someone like MLK) that have a magical voodoo effect on white folks… indeed as if they are hearing the voice of god hisself.

Vietnamese were fearsome only in Vietnam where they outnumbered the French and Americans by a huge margin. But on a one-on-one basis, a short skinny Vietnamese is no threat to a white man. As a minority, Vietnamese-Americans would pose no threat to white folks despite their bitter slave narrative. Also, as East Asians, Vietnamese have servile genes(like Mexican indigenous mongoid folks and American Indians in reservations) and would have just gotten along with White Power.

So, the real shame of America wasn’t so much slavery. It was WHOM the whites enslaved.

They made a terrible choice in enslaving a people bigger, tougher, and more aggressive than themselves.

White people should have enslaved scrawny Vietnamese, not powerful blacks.

Pride and Dignity for the masses were not instrumental to creating civilization

The oft-heard gripe about American slavery is that blacks were not allowed pride and dignity. This is true enough, even though maybe the white man thought there was more dignity for blacks as slaves within white civilization than as free savages in the ‘jungle’.

At any rate, the civilizational process for all peoples around the world had little to do with pride and dignity, qualities that were simply denied to them who had no choice but to live in bondage, servitude, or subjugation. They were serfs, slaves, or tenant-farmers beholden to their masters or lords. The rule of Leviathan was that Social Order could only be realized by a strong hand and an overbearing system that kept people in place. This meant little in the way of freedom, dignity, or pride for most people, but then, it was from the stability of Social Order that other good things could eventually arise. Stability, order, and discipline before idealism, reform, and progress.

So, even though it would be immoral to say American Slavery was a good thing, it had some positive effect on blacks who were instilled with work ethic, discipline, organization, regularity, and morals.
Tragically, in rebellion against white racial injustice(and it was unjust) and 'Uncle Tom'ism', blacks threw out the baby along with the bathwater.

Consider the Japanese and Nordics. Both people are known for hard work, discipline, organization, and manners. How were such virtues formed within their communities?
By every individual being imbued with pride and dignity all through their history? Not so.
For most of their history, most people lived under iron rule and discipline under their masters and lords. By our standards, the social order for most of history for all of mankind was cruel and unjust. But under such strict management and supervision, Japanese and Nordics developed work ethic, discipline, restraint, cooperation, and respect. They lived in an unfair system, but the system did nevertheless have a taming and sobering effect on them.
For the Vikings to become civilized, they had to undergo an ‘enslavement’ process that left them no choice but to develop new attitudes and norms of proto-civility acceptable to the social order.
There was also the impact of ‘unrulicide’ whereupon the most unruly, troublesome, and uncooperative members of society were exiled or executed. Thus, over time, people with more cooperative genes had children, and society became kinder as a whole.

Would it be wise for Japanese and Nordics to reject and spit on all of their social norms and values because so much of their virtues had developed under bondage, serfdom, and even slavery? Unfortunately, that is exactly what blacks did in America. If, prior to the 60s, blacks felt they'd been historically wronged but still gained something valuable from the American Experience, the new attitude was to spit on everything associated with the white man.

So, even though American Slavery can’t be morally defended, it would have produced better blacks had it lasted a thousand years or more. Then, unrulicide would have weeded out the most troublesome blacks, and many generations of blacks would have been instilled with the virtues of hard work and discipline. The resulting population would have been milder and more cooperative. So, paradoxically, the reason why American blacks are so troublesome is not because slavery lasted too long but not long enough.
Most civilized peoples underwent the process of 'enslavement' and 'unrulicide' for thousands of years. They had to be ground down before they could be molded up.

This goes for school too. School is like an educational prison. It is mandatory and doesn't allow freedom for children to opt out. Children must go to school and must do the work. And students who accept this form of 'imprisonment' do better and gain genuine skills. They accept their bondage but eventually graduate to a higher freedom. Their pride of immaturity is put in the back-burner.
In contrast, many black children demand 'pride' and 'dignity' from a young age and cannot stand being told what to do. They wanna be like rappers with attitude. They holler at teachers. They beat up teachers. Their primacy of gangsta pride means they will do as they please. But such crude animal 'dignity' and 'pride' lead to breakdown of social order and discipline. Such blacks remained mired in the freedom of thugs and animals, not of civilized people.

Is it any wonder that the institution in which blacks have done best is in the military? Why? Because of its culture of discipline and restricted choice.

Globalism leads to Diversity ruled by Fixed Number of Ethno-Supremacist Groups

The promise of Globalism and Diversity is that everyone around the world will equally share in the fruits of human achievement and excellence.
The Cult of PC, as promoted and enforced(wherever possible) by globalism, posits that 'race is just a social construct' and that open borders will lead to all peoples being accorded and afforded the same freedoms, opportunities, victories, and happiness.

But taking a hard look at globalism and diversity, we can't help but notice that these promises are false. They are Weasel Words meant to hoodwink the world into surrendering sovereignty and independence to toil under the supremacist domination of a handful of nations, peoples, and groups.

First of all, it is rather odd that the US, the main purveyor of globalism, arrogantly pontificates about how it is the 'exceptional' and 'indispensable' nation. On the one hand, US pushes globalism in the name of equality, but on the other, it huffs & puffs like the Big Bad Wolf as the 'greatest' nation that is immune to international laws and norms on the assumption that it always knows best.
So much for equality among nations. Even more is amusing is that 'progressives', who claim to abhor hierarchy and inequality, love this kind of talk from the mouths of Hillary Clinton, Neo-Wilsonians, Neocon Zionists, and the Military-Industrial Complex.
It is rather similar to Jews posturing as 'progressive' champions of equality while commandeering all gentiles to serve Israel and Jewish interests as sacrosanct.

There is no equality among nations in globalism. Globalism means the US gets to dictate policy to all other nations. Globalism has made the EU and client states of Latin America & East Asia even more beholden to the US. Is there anyone in Europe with the stature of Charles DeGaulle or even Helmut Kohl anymore?
Globalism is not about all nations equally putting sovereignty aside in the name of mutual harmony and cooperation. It is about all nations coming under the the ever-expanding influence of the US.
Worse, this Power isn't even invested with or reflective of most people of America(who also lose out under globalism). Rather, American globalist power is all about concentration of wealth and privilege in the 'cosmopolitan' elites in NY and DC.
Most Americans get nothing from this supposed glory of American predominance. If anything, the globalist elites in the US despise most of their own native population and are hellbent on reducing them to a minority via massive Third World immigration. Of course, the immigrants win out because conditions are better in the US than back home. But as their own nations experience brain drain and loss of political agency(and come under migratory strains from other nations), they face long-term decline under globalism as well. When so much energy is invested in moving to the West than reforming and building their own nations, the world will get worse, not better. Globalism offers an easy way out for many Third Worlders who would rather feed on the accumulated wealth of the West than make their own nations better.

Despite the implied idealism, the notion of an 'American' is a myth inasmuch 'Americans' are not equal. Anyone who thinks Jewish-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Polish-Americans, Arab-Americans, Asian-Americans, Scotch-Irish Americans, and etc. are equal in the US is blind or crazy. Theoretically yes, but money buys power in the US, and Jewish-Americans can afford an organization like AIPAC. What do Palestinian-Americans have? Do American politicians follow idealism and treat both Jewish-Americans and Palestinian-Americans with an equal sense of justice, or do they suck up to whomever has more to offer or more firepower to destroy their enemies?
Under globalism, Jews who rule America rule the world. So, if Jews want a certain nation hit with sanctions or bombs, it will happen even if the reasons given are bogus. But whatever Israel does, the US keeps singing praise and offer billions in aid.
That is globalism.

Also, despite the PC contention that all races are equal in intelligence and ability, the effects of globalism show this not to be true. If all peoples were alike, they would be equally successful in all endeavors. In truth, because of higher IQ among Ashkenazi Jews, globalism means the entire world coming under the influence of Jewish finance, media, academia, entertainment, and agenda. Why are there so many people like George Soros in the upper echelons of power?
Globalism is like a pool hustler duping you into thinking you're winning, only to find out you've been taken for a ride and robbed of everything, even the shirt on your back. Ask the Russians what globalism did to them in the 90s.

And look at Popular Culture. Globalism hasn't led to worldwide sharing and appreciation of all cultures. It had led to the dumbed-down and vulgarized masses all over the world hooked to the same junk music(mostly rap, hip hop, or pop idol music), same movies(more Hollywood blockbusters), and same fashions(ugly tattoos, piercings, and cult of narcissism). Globalism has McStandarized culture all over the globe.

Only four peoples are gaining under globalism.

At the top, there are the Jews who control finance, media, law, academia, and Western governments. Globalism means Jewish tentacles reaching into every corner of the globe. The worldwide Jewish networks seek domination everywhere and ruthlessly seek to undermine or destroy any resistance to that power, be it Iran, Syria, Russia, or China.

There are the homos who have been favored as the proxy-allies of the Jews. With their preening vanity, narcissism, and bitchiness, homos are more than happy to play the role of auxiliaries to Jews in the game of global domination.

There are the Negroes who, though backward in economics and academics, are the toughest, fastest, and loudest people in the world. So, globalism had led to worldwide worship of the Black. Even yellow boys in China worship Negroes in the NBA as demigods. And the cult of 'mandingo' means that there is demand for the Negro stud all over the world. This will lead to the blackening of the world, especially since so many young people all over are enthralled with American black-dominated sports and black music like rap.
Every new Olympics features ever increasing number of blacks not only from African nations and the US(that imported black slaves) but from European nations. Even Eastern European nation like Ukraine and Central Asian nation like Azerbaijan featured black athletes. Japan fielded three black athletes, the product of Japanese women having kids with black men. Theoretically, globalism says all races are equal, but in practice, all nations take notice of the fact that blacks win in sports. So, globalist trend in sports is for all nations(even non-black ones) to recruit, favor, and revere black athletes. Once blacks come to be revered in such manner, every people will feel it's their imperative to have blacks in order for their nation to be 'cool'. Especially because American Culture dominates the world, the sacrosanct image of the Negro as both ultra-spiritual and ultra-'badass' has penetrated into every nation. It is the universalization of 'white guilt' and white-created 'jungle fever'. As such, blacks are seen as the nobler and cooler race, one that a nation must have in order to be 'vibrant'. So, globalism is not about equal sharing of glory by all races. It means all races worshiping Negro muscle as superior.

Then, there is the Asian-Indian. Even though sectors of India are much like the rich West and developed East Asia, it is different in one important regard. Whereas White Europeans and Yellow East Asians have stopped having babies and face steep demographic decline, Asian-Indians are still multiplying like rabbits. While Asian-Indians are nothing special when it comes to brains(at least vis-a-vis Jews, whites, and East Asians) and muscle(especially in relation to blacks), the sheer combination of exploding demographics and sufficient ability is making Indian a winner of globalism. India not only has a growing economy but its growing population will colonize the world, not only America but Europe and East Asia(that is looking to other nations for cheaper supply of labor). It's no wonder that Fareed Zakaria is such an avid fan of globalism. He talks of Diversity, but he sees it as pathway to rise of Indian power around the world.

But who else wins under globalism? Sure, there will be many people who do well enough... but for how long? With all those black Africans pouring into Europe, how long will white Europeans cope? With all those black males taking over sports and sex culture in the West, what is there for the white man but to see increasing numbers of white women using their wombs to produce mulattoes while he himself is reduced to a cuck-dork-loser?

And what will happen to East Asia when it also embraces enrichment by Diversity, not least due to pressures of the US and American-educated Asians who spread PC back in their homelands? As for the masses of Mexicans, they will amount to little more than dish-washers and lettuce pickers in the globalist order. As long as Mexican elites an dump their problems on the US, Mexicans will never be incentivized to take hard but necessary measures to make Mexico into a better nation.

Power Outside Politics. Learn from Jews.

Looking to politics for ultimate power misses the point.

Jews are 2% of the population, and there has never been a Jewish president. But Jews rule this country because they work as a team in controlling the key industries and institutions of America.

Whites need to learn from Jews. Act in unity for identity. Identify or create a common enemy against which white people can come together. Gain power and create networks OUTSIDE politics. Once that has been accomplished, the political gains will naturally follow.
It's like training in the off-season prepares for the performance during the season. The game itself is only the culmination of all the practice away from the playing field.

Black failure hasn't been primarily political. It has been economic, moral, and social. They abused freedom to revert to savage African nature. Blacks have succeeded politically in places like Detroit and Baltimore. But, their political success only led to social failure because blacks are weak in morals, virtues, skills, and knowledge. Outside politics, they succeed in failure.

Diversity vs Blacks. The Globalist Democratic Elite Strategy

Look at California. Do blacks have much power there?

That is the direction that the Democratic Party wants to go.

Yes, Democrats rely on black votes. But Democrats are also sick of black crime and stupidity. Notice urban Democratic white/Jews/homos want to relocate blacks out of cities via gentrification and Section 8 vouchers(that has the blessing of Libertarians).

Ultimately, the future that the Jewish/homo/white-Liberal Democrats is something like California. They want blacks to be replaced by Asians and Hispanics who are more docile. True, Hispanics take too much from the dole. True, Asians take 'too many' college slots. But both are reasonably docile and harder-working. In contrast, blacks commit too much crime and are too destructive.

So, all this immigration/diversity-pushing by Democrats is actually to reduce black power as well as white gentile conservative power. Killing two birds with one stone. Democrats want more Diversity to destroy the GOP, but it is also to eclipse black power within the Democrats by having browns and yellows provide the bulk of the votes in the future.

Notice that blacks in GOP-controlled Deep South have more power than blacks in California that is Democratic but dominated by Jews, white Progs, browns, and yellows. Blacks are losing out in Ca except in rap industry and sports teams.

That is what Trump is playing on. He signals, as Coulter did, that the Immigration Law of 65 pretty undid the Civil Rights Law of 64.
Blacks got equality but then diversity exposed blacks to massive competition from immigrants from Latin America and Asia.

Democratic narrative would have us believe that this coalition of colored folks are rising against ‘white racists’, but the fact is blacks have been out-competed by browns and yellows for jobs.

History and What It Means to be 'American'.

Progs will say that everyone is equal in America. No American is 'More American' than any other American. American-ness is all about citizenship according to the law, not about identity-history-heritage.

But then, how can the ethnic privilege of Indian Reservations be justified? Such special right is accorded to no other group in America. It illustrates how history does matter? It is history that informs us that American Indians were here first and that they tragically lost their homeland to white conquerors and settlers. So, on those grounds, they have given special rights to have their own reservations or 'nations' within the larger nation.

And, could Affirmative Action for blacks be justified without history and identity? Isn't it because of the history of slavery and racial discrimination that blacks were rewarded with special rights in college admissions and hiring? Without that history, there would be no moral justification for Affirmative Action.

So, not all Americans are equal, indeed not even under the law. Given American history, some groups are accorded certain privileges, special rights and recognitions.

Well, if American Indians and American blacks are to be specially recognized for historical tragedy, then one can argue that European-Americans should also be specially recognized for their essential and profound contribution to the creation of America.
Just about every idea and value that were instrumental to the development of America came from Europe. And no people did more to settle, build, and expand America than white people.

So, history matters. It is history that gives Indians and blacks special recognition over other American citizens. And it is history that should give whites or European-American special credit and recognition as the people that contributed most to the creation and construction of America.

Not all American citizens are equally American. If history doesn't matter, a new arrival from Nepal should have same rights as Indians to have a 'reservation' and same rights of blacks to benefit from Affirmative Action. And he should have the same right as whites to make the claim that his forefathers founded and built America.

Why Blacks Rejected Sanders Socialism

Blacks may bitch incessantly about how white folks got more and must share with blacks, but for whites to 'share', they need to make a lot of money and be affluent. If whites turn socialist and demand free stuff too, there will be fewer whites for blacks to take from.

Blacks are resentful of whites having more wealth, but blacks want to monopolize the politics of demanding free stuff. When blacks see whites turning socialist, they think 'they is gonna get what should be coming to us.' Also, white socialists, playing the role of 'victims' of capitalism, compete with blacks in the victim-hood sweepstakes.