Friday, June 29, 2018
DIW or Diversity-in-the-West is simply the result of Non-White Preference for Whites — DIN or Diversity-in-the-Non-West is what Non-Whites want to get away from — Mind Experiment of Two Island-Nations: Homogenia and Diversitonia
We are told Diversity is so wonderful. But if that’s true, why do so many people want to get away from diverse nations? India is one of the most diverse nations on Earth in terms of religion, language, tribe, caste, race, and ethnicity. But the Indian government wouldn’t mind shaving 300 million people and sending them abroad out of the 1.3 billion. And many Indians want to move to other nations. Their top choices are usually white-majority nations that are less diverse than India. Indians favor Australia, the US, Canada, and New Zealand that are still white-majority than Latin America that are mostly white-minority. We are told Diversity is so great, but why do so many people in the diverse worlds of South Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, North Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East want to move elsewhere? Why the desire to flee from their own diverse worlds? And back in the 1960s, the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe were overwhelmingly white, far more so than today. If diversity is great and if homogeneity is bad, then non-whites in diverse nations should have stayed put in their own nations instead of moving to awful homogeneous white nations. But so many people wanted to flee from their own diverse worlds and move(usually permanently) to white worlds. So, all that immigration to the West was not about preference for Diversity. It was flight from diversity and/or non-whiteness toward what were mostly homogeneous white nations. Indeed, many non-whites came to prefer whites over their own kind. Lots of Pakistani Muslims prefer to live in white nations as minorities than in their own nations as the overwhelming dominant majority. (They find life more pleasant as minorities in white nations than as the majority in their own nation. They prefer white rule than rule by their own kind. They find white strangers more appealing than their own family members and friends in their own nations.) The result of all this Immigration(that soon turned into Mass Invasion or Mass Colonization) led to rising Diversity in the West. But that diversity was the product than the preference of the mass non-white flight to the white world, i.e. non-whites were not moving to the West to enjoy or celebrate Diversity but to be with white people, to work for white people, and even to marry white people(and have white-looking kids). Diversity was the end-product of this mass migration, but it was not the goal of the immigrants.
Do a little mind-experiment. Suppose the UK in the 1960s was only 5% white and 40% black Africa, 40% Hindu/Muslim, 10% Burmese, and 5% Turk. A very diverse nation, right? How many people around the world would have wanted to move there? Not many. Indeed, there are North African nations with very diverse mixtures of races and cultures. How many people want to move there? The reason why all those people opted to move to the West was because they wanted to be with white people who were more advanced, more successful, more just, more efficient, and (in many eyes)more attractive. Why do black Africans move to Europe? To holler, "Where da white women at?"
So, why has Mass Immigration/Invasion been marketed as a celebration of Diversity? It was because the non-white masses and the globalist elites needed some bogus excuse to rationalize the radical demographic transformation of the West. So, even though non-whites were moving to the West to be with white people and to gain access to great material wealth, they embraced the Diversity Narrative to lend an ennobling and self-justifying spin to their Flight-to-White. Even though they really chose to move to the West because they prefer white folks to their own kind and because white people do everything so much better, they invoked the BS about Diversity to pretend THEY were doing a favor to the White World by bringing the gift of Diversity. Even though some non-whites did come from relatively homogeneous nations, the majority of non-whites came from already diverse nations. In the 1960s when the great waves of global invasive-migration took off, most Western nations were far more homogeneous than the nations from which most non-whites came from. UK and Canada were far more homogeneous than Pakistan and India. In 1965, the US was 90% white whereas many immigrants came from highly diverse nations, especially from Latin America. So, if Diversity is a blessing and panacea for all problems, it made no sense for non-whites in diverse nations to move to relatively homogeneous Western nations. And if diversity is such a blessing, why was it that homogeneous white nations did so much better than virtually all diverse nations?
Consider: WWII was utterly devastating to Europe whereas Latin America was totally untouched by it. But Western Europe recovered almost overnight from the devastation and became the richest part of the world after the US. In contrast, Latin America, despite its vast size and resources, lagged behind. If diversity is such a blessing, shouldn’t diverse Latin America have done so much better than homogeneous European nations? One thing Latin America and Europe had in common was White Elites. Both domains were ruled by Europeans or people of European descent. But post-war Europe was homogeneous(even more so due to newly drawn national borders following the war) from top to bottom whereas Latin America was diverse(with white elites ruling over masses of mestizos and non-whites, even blacks from Africa). If diversity is a strength, then Latin America(that, like the US, was untouched by the devastation of war) should have done much better than Europe. But in fact, Europe recovered very fast, and things were so good there that most Europeans stayed put than emigrate elsewhere. Indeed, even the depressed communist nations of Europe had living standards above diverse Latin American nations. Even during the Cold War, an average person in Czechoslovakia or Hungary was better off than someone in Peru, Colombia, or Venezuela. If Diversity is so great, why did it repel so many people in Latin America? Why did they run from their own Diversity? And if Homogeneity is so awful, why did it attract so many people to the White West? Granted, homogeneity per se isn’t attractive. Black Africa is all-black, but who would want to move there to put down permanent roots? Surely, diverse North Africa is preferable to homogeneous black Africa. But then, a homogeneous white Europe would be preferable to diverse North Africa. The proof is in the paddling. People are paddling from North Africa to white Europe, not vice versa. And even though Europe is far more diverse now than in decades ago, the ONLY reason people still want to move there is to be with whites. Black Africans aren’t going from black Africa to Europe to be with black Africans. If they want to be with black Africans, they can stay home. They want to go to Europe and holler, "Where da white women at?"
Granted, many non-whites want to have it both ways. They want to move to the West and live under white rule, gain access to white wealth, and benefit from white productivity, efficiency, & ingenuity. But they also want a sense of their own community. So, we see the rise of non-white enclaves in the UK, Canada, and Australia. They benefit from membership in the White Domain with its Rule of Law and Property Rights, but they also maintain separation and sense of their own community. They want to have the cake and eat it too. We see this especially with Muslims who want to reside in the safer and wealthier West while maintaining their own Islamic laws and customs. The Muslim way in the Muslim world has led to corruption, backwardness, cruelty, and barbarism. Muslims want to flee from fellow Muslims who are prone to acting like this:
So, they come to the West to live under more properly administered Rule of Law. They find the conditions safer and more stable, less at the mercy of arbitrary whims of tyranny or hierarchy. But they also find the West soulless & decadent and don’t want to be ‘westernized’. So, they settle for material access to the West but do their utmost to maintain their own separate society and culture, lest their sons and daughters grow up to be stupid playboys or trashy whores(or insipid feminists). Also, Muslims are especially bound to have mixed feelings about coming to the West because it is now Zionist-controlled and Jews have used US and EU to rain down so much violence and mayhem on Muslim nations. While Muslims have much better material lives in the West, they have to live with the fact that much of the recent woes in their own nations are due to the West under the control of the vile Zionist-globalists. The so-called Gold Star dad used by Hillary Clinton in 2016 made for a tormented sight. On the one hand, he was a ‘proud Muslim-American’ whose son served in the US military and was killed in action. On the other hand, he’d betrayed his Muslim brethren by settling in core of the Zionist-US Imperium and raising his son to serve in the US military that, at the behest of wicked Zionists, has brought so much grief and tragedy to the Arab/Muslim world, especially since the end of the Cold War that left the Jew-run US as the sole superpower free to do as it pleases around the world. (US still continues to occupy much of Syria and lend aid to terrorists and Jihadis there. All because of Jewish supremacist power.)
Anyway, let’s carry out a simple mind-experiment to demonstrate that Diversity is NOT what all these non-white ‘immigrants’(mass invaders or mass colonizers) are after. Imagine there are two giant islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Suppose each is about the size of Iran. Suppose one island-nation is 100% white. Suppose the other island-nation is 0% white but the most diverse place on earth. Suppose it is 5% Turk, 5% Iranian, 5% Azeri, 5% Chinese, 5% Nigerian, 5% Somalian, 5% Mexican, 5% Kazak, 5% Syrian, 5% Moroccan, 5% Bolivian, 5% Cambodian, 5% Hindu Indian, 5% Indonesian, 5% Zimbabwean, 5% Angolan, 5% Hawaiian, 5% Nepalese, 5% Ceylonese, and 5% miscellany(but not white).
Now, if homogeneity(especially the white kind) is awful, then the 100% white island-nation must be hell on earth. In contrast, the very diverse non-white island-nation must be heaven on earth. So, if there must be a mass movement/migration of peoples, whites in awful 100% white island-nation should try to move to the diverse island-nation. And the people of the diverse island-nation should want to stay put as their world is heaven on earth. After all, we've been told that diversity is a strength, a blessing, something to celebrate, and the ultimate dream of man.
But if such two worlds existed, it’s pretty safe to bet that the 100% white island-nation will be prosperous, advanced, modern, safe & secure, trusting, efficient, and governed by rule of law. In contrast, the diverse island-nation with 0% white population but all kinds of non-whites will be a piss-poor place of confusion, distrust, ceaseless warfare, high crime, outrageous income inequality, and panic. It’d be pretty obvious that a homogeneous white world is far preferable to a diverse non-white world. Indeed, most whites would have NO interest in moving to the diverse island-nation whereas tons of people of Diversitonia will be doing everything possible to move to the 100% white Homogenia. Well, well, funny how that plays out, ain’t it? All those POD or People-of-Diversity will try to escape from their messy and confused world(made especially bad by the presence of blacks) and try to settle among white folks in Homogenia.
But there is the danger that white people of Homogenia will say NO. Why should white folks who have it so nice in their own homogeneous nation let in a bunch of POD(people of diversity) who made a mess of their own world? Now, if there were some white folks in Diversitonia, it’d be a decent thing for Homogenia to let them in... just like European nations took back their own peoples when non-white folks around the world rose up against Western Imperialism and told white colonizers to go back home. But since Diversitonia has NO WHITES, there would be no reason for 100% white Homogenia to take anyone in.
So, how could the folks of 100% white Homogenia be sold on the idea of taking in lots of people from Diversitonia? They would have to be told that Diversity is wonderful and that Homogenia sucks so bad because it lacks ‘vibrancy’ and ‘color’. Those are superficial reasons that hardly justify profound transformation of one’s own nation and culture, but if white folks in Homogenia have been weaned on toxic Political Correctness(that teaches white folks that white identity and white interests are the biggest evils in the world) and trashy Pop Culture(that severs a people from their sense of roots and serves the false idols of Mammon), there is a chance they might fall for trivial and flashy reasons such as ‘color’ and ‘vibrancy’, a kind of fashionable exoticism. Nation as a Gauguin painting.
Another way a people can be made to accept detrimental change is by animalization. An animalized people primarily judge worth by instant sensations. How did the white man lower the defense of American Indians? The Red Man was sold firewater. American Indians soon became alcoholics who were willing to trade anything for another bottle. How was the Chinese resolve to defend their realm from ‘foreign devils’ weakened by British Imperialism? The Empire used Jews to sell opium to the Chinese. In the end, such a strategy was far more effective with American Indians than with Chinese because Indians lacked a sophisticated culture & deep identity and were far less numerous. Anyway, alcohol and opium had a way of animalizing their users. The addicts soon lost self-control and were willing to surrender anything for another hit of bottle or pipe. Unlike humans, animals have no inhibitions when offered easy pleasure. It’s like monkeys and other creatures will mindlessly consume fermenting fruits and get knocked-out-drunk. Animals just gorge on whatever gives them pleasure(though, to be sure, rats have been evolutionarily-selected for cautionary trait in sampling food because they’ve been targeted by so many poisons).
When people have been animalized, they can easily lose sight of the bigger picture and deeper meaning in favor of momentary pleasure. It’s like Adam and Eve who lost their minds and ate from the Tree. Animalized people are most susceptible to the siren-call of drugs like meth, crack, and other terrible stuff. They are more prone to binge on alcohol and get wild just to have a good time. They are more likely to be potheads like the Brad Pitt character in TRUE ROMANCE. They become like the parents in Hayao Miyazaki's SPIRITED AWAY who forget EVERYTHING as they lose themselves to piggish animal appetite.
Animalized people have 'short-sighted' sensations that favor the here-and-now over the far-sighted vision of what really matters in the long-run. What excites them NOW trumps all other considerations. So, for those who couldn't be ideologically persuaded or morally browbeaten to go along with Diversity, there was the bait of aromas-and-flavors, aka More Restaurants.
So, why should the West let in tons of non-whites from the Third World who will forever alter the genetics, culture, and landscape of the West? Because more Diversity means More Restaurants, you silly! I mean, who cares about preserving a people and culture when you can sample more flavors at different kinds of eateries and troughs of diversity? Are you so ‘lame’ and ‘square’ as to favor your race, culture, history, and land over a dish of tandoori chicken, falafel, or couscous? Are you so ‘white bread’ and boring?
So, your people are supposed to trade away their sacred claim and title to their own nation for More Eats. How utterly stupid and beastly is that? And of course, there is an animalist bait of easy sex. White men are told that they will have more pickings of brown and yellow women with Diversity, especially as so many white women are either fat(due to animalist appetites) or bitterly feminist. Or gone over to Jungle Fever as Diversity also baits white women with opportunity with more sex with big-donged black African men. It’s no wonder so many British, Dutch, French, and German women have gone utterly jungle and welcome more black Africans because their animalist interracism has turned them into sluttons whose main topic of discussion in life with friends is "how many guys I fuc*ed". While civilization can become overly stuffy & repressive and has something to gain from vitality & spontaneity, it can veer off the cliff if it goes the animalist route and places short-term pleasure at the center of life. While animalism is most demonstrably vulgar among the lower masses, it can affect the elites too. Even though the West still has snobby institutions(filled with proggy snobs or Prognobs), the reigning sensibility at even the best of them has been degraded by Afromania, Homomania, Pornification, and New Feminism that is about little more than "more money" and "I’m so horny". What is truly ironic is that Donald Trump, a vulgarian who seemed to embody the crassest kind of animalism, has become the leading voice of certain sensible positions that may yet save the West from total destruction. Indeed, how amusing that the fancy-educated elites, who deride him as a boor and his vulgarians as ‘deplorables’, have Homomania as their neo-religion and thug-rappers and sluts like madonna & Miley Cyrus as their idols & heroes. Are the elites even self-aware? How can institutions that give us the likes of Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz really think themselves so above the rest?