White Flight After the Greater Migration: http://www.unz.com/isteve/white-flight-in-other-countries/
"The Great Migration of 6 or 7 million African-Americans from the South to Northern cities in the 1940s-1970s contributed heavily to white flight to the suburbs. With sub-Saharan Africa forecast to quadruple in population to 4 billion over the rest of the century, first world countries need to be thinking seriously about what would be the impact of a Greater Migration of blacks out of Africa of one or two orders of magnitude greater than the Great Migration that caused so much havoc in 20th Century urban America."
White Flight isn't all bad for whites. It means the basic tendency and even defacto 'right'(of well-being and self-preservation) of whites to move to safety as group strategy. This happened in the 60s with many whites, Republicans and Democrats, moving to the suburbs or safer/ritzier parts of the city. And there was resistance against Busing from both Democrats and Republicans, from both working class and middle class. And the main reason wasn't Race & IQ but Race & Muscle, i.e. the reality of weaker whites being bullied and humiliated by tougher & more aggressive blacks, or BAMMAMA(or blacks are more muscular and more aggressive).
So, white flight was about white solidarity. It was about even white(and Jewish) Liberals eventually coming to see the reality of black crime & grime and moving to white areas. Back then, whiteness was under moral pressure but not vilified. The message was whiteness could be better, not that it was inherently evil.
Since then, whiteness has been so vilified over the yrs that the notion of any white collective interest or behavior is taboo. So, if white flight of the past was about whites of all ethnic groups, regions, and classes acting with common and shared understanding of black violence and crime, the new trends are about class than race. It's not about White Flight -- based on sentiments shared by vast majority of whites -- but about Privilege Village. Privilege Village doesn't play out in terms of whites running from blacks but in terms of those with status & privilege coalescing in hip urban centers(as socio-economic magnets) and circling the wagons with means ranging from obvious to subtle. Its core modus operandi is based on wealth, status, and connection, not race. (Though globalism leads to diversity among both elites and masses, the diverse elites are better able to coordinate policies to expand their privilege than it is for diverse masses to cooperate to build power. For one thing, the elites are far fewer in number than the masses. Also, the elites are closer to one another due to their concentration in elite institutions and circles in a handful of big cities and college towns. Many know each other by face and name. In contrast, the diverse masses are spread out and hardly know one another. Also, the affinity for abstract thinking and affluence-as-reward for serving globo-homo agenda make it easier for diverse elites to put aside their tribal differences for common haute-class interests. Diversity based on carrots works smoother than Diversity based on sticks. When diverse elites conform to globo-homo agenda, it means more carrots. When diverse masses come under globo-homo regimen, it means more sticks to beat them with. Less intelligent, less keen on abstract thinking, and more desperate, the diverse masses fall into the habit of accusing one another along tribal lines and fail to form a Pan-Diverse Mass Solidarity against the elites among whom diversity is less a hindrance to consensus and coordination.)
In contrast, the White Flight of yesteryear brought together whites of all classes. When my family moved to the suburbs, there were almost no blacks in a neighborhood where whites(and some Asians) ranged from upper middle class to working class. They had one thing in common: they did whatever they could to move away from blacks. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc., they all wanted safety from urban crime that has always been disproportionately black. So, even though white solidarity wasn't overt and blatant, everyone understood why they moved to the suburbs. It was clearly a white thing.
But now, any notion of white interest or even well-being is anathema to all-pervasive Political Correctness. This doesn't mean that whites can't have it good. Indeed, many whites today have it better than ever. But they must pursue their interests in terms of class and status, not race(unless one happens to be Jewish or black). So, the essence of their worldview isn't about whites and blacks but winners and losers. The affluent whites in urban centers take pride as 'winners' and look down on whites with less as 'losers'. Even Kevin Williamson of National Review espouses such sentiment. But then, this is now a worldwide phenomenon.
Look at Japanese elites' decision to open the gates to massive immigration. (Granted, much of the blame must go to the Japanese masses that stopped breeding. Though most Japanese are not part of the elite, a kind of universal elitism has infected too many Japanese who now refuse to breed unless they can be assured of their kids going to good schools and having good jobs. Another problem is crass hedonism and soulless materialism that made so many Japanese live for momentary pleasure than long-term obligation and meaning.)
Now, some argue that it's stupid for the rich class to let in all the poor folks(especially from Third World nations) because the poor folks will vote for policies that tax and rob the rich. But has this happened in Latin America? It seems oligarchic power was always greater there than in homogeneous nations like Japan, historic Canada and historic Sweden(as opposed to globalist Sweden that is dying fast due to mass-immigration-invasion). Granted, Latin American situation can lead to Communist Cuba or Bolivarian Venezuela, but more often than not, diversity in Latin America has led to consolidation of elite/oligarchic power. For one thing, since the white or whiter elites see the brown or browner masses as different(despite bogus rhetoric about all 'Latinos' being harmoniously mixed) from themselves, there is little sense of connection or ethnoblesse olige. Also, because there are so many racial gradations in the diversity of Latin American masses, they've been unable to form a united alliance against the ruling class.
In contrast, in a nation like Japan or historic Sweden, functional socialist policies went further because the elites regarded the rest of the population as part of the national family. Also, the people of Japan and Sweden have believed in equal claim to the homeland. So, even though Japanese elites have more private property, they have no more claim on Japanese Nation than the native Japanese masses do. A working class Japanese has just as much claim on Japan-as-homeland as the richest Japanese oligarch does. Because all Japanese had such a powerful collective claim on the land, their demands had to be addressed by the ruling class. And same was true in Sweden. Swedish people have been there forever, and Swedish civilization goes back many centuries. Swedish elites have more personal wealth, but they are no more deserving of Sweden-as-homeland than the Swedish masses are. Because Japan-as-homeland belongs equally to elites and masses, the elites must be mindful of the masses as fellow nationals. And because even working class Swedes have roots going back centuries(even millennia if we count the barbarian eras), the Swedish elites must recognize them as co-owners of the nation. So, Japanese masses and Swedish masses aren't merely rent-seekers or nomadic boarders but co-owners of the nation as 'sacred homeland'. That implies a lot of moral power and legitimacy among the people. It suggests a concept of claim-and-ownership that goes beyond private property(of libertarianism). According to the notion of private property, your worth counts only on the individual level of personal possession and contract. If you have a lot, you are a winner. If you have little, you're a loser.
In contrast, if there is a concept of National Property, even the poorest person of the nation has something precious. Even he has a 'covenant' with the nation, a deeper concept than capital or constitution. Value by capital is about who has more money. Value by constitution is about protections under the law. Covenant, in contrast, says your connection to the land is sacred and eternal. Israeli nationalism is based on the covenant. You could be a Jew living in a goy nation, and your ancestors could have been away from the Holy Land for 1000 yrs. But as a Jew, you have an eternal connection & covenant with the land of Israel. It goes beyond capital and is deeper than constitution.
A person is pulled by two forces: tribalism and elitism. On the tribal level, a person instinctively feels closer to his own kind. And yet, he also wants to be with the 'best', whatever the cost in terms of tribal solidarity.
On the one hand, a white person has an instinctive feeling of closeness with fellow whites. However, in his ambition for riches and privilege, he may wish to identify more with Bread than Blood. While the world of success could be overwhelmingly white, it could also be highly diverse with many non-white actors(who are equally obsessed with position and privilege). If a white person had to choose between middle class status among whites and upper class status among globo-homo diversity, he may well choose the latter because people want MORE and BETTER(especially in a world where affluence and narcissism are the biggest idols). Immigration patterns sure bear this out. So many non-whites are eager to depart from their own ancestral lands, national kinfolk, and deep culture to start new lives in richer nations even if it means loss of identity and culture, especially among their children who racially mix with others, take up the globo-homo flag, and come to know only one lingo: American English and Ebonics.
We don't have much in the way of classic Marxist class-consciousness anymore, but class-outlook is bigger than ever in some ways. If Marxism placed proletarian class consciousness at the center of social, moral, and historical discourse, globalism puts elite class consciousness at the center of all things. Indeed, the promotion of homomania is less a blow against class politics than a promotion of elite-class politics. The difference from Marxism is that class discussion has moved from the needs of proles to the preferences of the globogeoisie. Homos are useful to the elites because homos are vain, narcissistic, and obsessed with riches and privilege(as with the 'gay butler' in WOLF OF WALL STREET).
Anyway, in a globo-homo world where the elites of every nation mainly fixate on status, success, privilege, and connections, their main focus is not tribal connection with the native masses but neo-aristo-class affinity with other elites around the world(and especially those in the US and EU), with whom they or their kids marry. (According to Charles Murray's COMING APART, an educated white male graduate of Harvard was likely to marry his white hometown sweetheart in an America prior to the rise of mass non-white immigration and feminism, but today, a white attendee of elite institution has a good chance of marrying a non-white based on status and connection than any other consideration.) With such as the main prerogatives of the globo-homo class, the natural tendency of globo elites is to weaken, subvert, de-legitimize, and eradicate any obstacle to their power. One of those obstacles is a sense of national obligation of the elites to the masses. And this obligation is especially powerful IF the masses are seen as co-owners of the National Property based on a ethno-historical covenant. Under such premise, the elites must regard and treat the masses as fellow nationals and comrades. But this is economically a burden to the elites. It means the masses are deserving of decent wages, protections, and benefits, all of which are expensive, demanding, and burdensome(from the vantage point of elites with limitless ambition for MORE). The native masses can make such demands AS LONG AS they have a moral claim to the nation as co-owners based on shared ethnicity, history, and territoriality. After all, it's like the Jewish Covenant applies to all Jews, from richest to poorest. Likewise, the national covenant says even the poorest native has equal claim to the land as shared-national-property. Under the covenant theory, if we were to see a nation as a house, then everyone in the house has equal right to be there. He is a co-owner of the house. But if the covenant theory is removed, one's place in the house becomes a matter of capital or constitution. So, those with more capital have more claim on the house because he owns more shares. Or, if residency is determined by constitution, one's place in the house is merely that of the law. So, if the house is opened to newcomers who agree to follow house rules, they have equal claim to the house. Canadian-ness is now all about capital and constitution. If rich Hindus and Chinese arrive, they are more valuable as 'Canadians'(due to their infusions of capital) than white working class Canadians with deep roots are. And in the US, an immigrant with citizenship(after mere 5 yrs) is just as much an American as any white person with ancestry going back 100 or more yrs. The meaning of historical covenant is negated for the founding Anglo/American stock.
National concept based on capital favors only the elites. It's no wonder that US white elites feel closer to Jewish elites, Asian elites, and black elites than to white masses. Nation based primarily on the constitution favors immigrant-invaders over the founding native stock. After all, if the essence of the nation is based on the Law, then any newcomer who pledges to live by those laws have equal claim on the land. What would happen to Israel if 5 million Muslims could move there and pledge to respect the liberal-democratic laws of Israel? Democracy may survive, but Israel-as-Jewish-homeland certainly won't. Indeed, if Jewish elites in Israel only cared about their privilege and status, they might as well get rid of the 'covenantial' foundation of Israel and just focus on capital and constitution. They will likely make more money by replacing Jewish workers with cheaper ones and by forging closer ties with non-Jewish globalist elites than with their own tribal brethren of all classes.
Whether it's UK or Japan, the elites are under globo-homo mindset and think mainly in terms of status, haute class, and privilege. And they want more and more in the competition of keeping-up-with-the-globo-homonses. And in order for them to have MORE, they need access to cheaper labor and increased interaction with global capital.
At this point, even if patriotic elites wanted a nationalist economy, it might be impossible. Suppose a globalized nation returns to nationalist mode and tries to offer decent wages and benefits to its national workers. But that would lead to higher production costs, which could mean an inability to compete on the global scale with trans-national companies that snub national interests in favor of globalist domination of market share. Pat Buchanan mentioned this problem in one of his books. Under globalism, even US companies that wanted to keep its factories in the America and hire local workers simply could not compete with companies that shipped their factories to Mexico or China. And US medical companies that stick with American-born professionals may not be able to compete with globalist companies that hire Asian-Indian professionals for 1/4 of the cost.
Nationalism is about UNITY of elites and the masses with a shared sense of covenant of ethnicity, history, and territoriality. This can be the basis of a sound and stable nation. However, it places brakes on elite ambitions because they are forced to be mindful of the working masses not merely as employees but as fellow comrades with shared stake and ownership of the national property. Elites under nationalism feel like Guido in the opening dream sequence in Fellini's 8 1/2. They soar up into the sky but are prevented from flying off.
Nationalism has a kite-like effect on the elites. They rise high but remain bound to the land and folk. Globalism severs the ties to the land so that all the elite-kites could fly off and form their own globo-sky-island like the one in LAPUTA: CASTLE IN THE SKY. And once the elites are freed from the leashes of nationalism, they feel freer than ever and become obsessed with nothing but more wealth, more status, and more privilege(and with the dream of immortality and quasi-divinity, as transhumanism is about man-into-godism, or man going from worshiping gods to using science to become gods). And yet, the globalist elites also feel more vulnerable because their own people no longer trust them and turn to populist anger? But then, why should the national masses trust the globalized elites who openly renounce any notion of covenant with race, culture, and nation(which is apparently too 'petty' for their globalist ambition for all-the-world-as-their-oyster) and pontificate as to how the native masses must be replaced with endless waves of immigrant-invaders? To subvert and sabotage national mass revolt, the elites push Diversity, the opposite of Unity so integral to nationalism. Diversity, a tool of globalism and imperialism, turns a nation into a hodge-podge of different groups, and the diversity makes it near-impossible for collective action against the elites.
Also, the elites see great advantage in immigrationism(or migrationism) because it undermines the 'covenantial' claim by the masses to the land. When UK and France were in nationalist mode, the masses had moral advantage over the 'exploitative' elites and could make demands on them on the basis that elites and masses shared common destiny as co-owners of the homeland. After all, nationalism emphasizes the covenant between native masses and the nation(as their sacred homeland). In contrast, globalist immigrationism or migrationism says that newcomers have just as much 'right' to the nation. This negates the notion of racial-historical-territorial covenant among the natives. Also, the newcomers, lacking deep roots and protected only by the constitution, don't feel much of a claim to the land either. At most, they can argue that they have legal(or constitutional) right to live there but not much else. Thus, both native masses and newcomers are rendered into renters or rent-seekers(than co-owners) of the nation, the only real value of which has been reduced to that of capital. (Ownership is meaningless if made 'inclusive'. If you own a car, but then, if it can be 'owned' and used by everyone else as well, your claim on the car becomes effectively meaningless. If White Americans are said to be owners of America but are prevented from stopping endless immigration-invasions by non-whites to also become co-owners, America comes to be owned only by the elites with capital[because private property, unlike national property, continues to remain in 'exclusive' mode, i.e. in the hands of the owner-class, that is unless communism does to private property what globalism does to national property; indeed, if globalism cannot be stopped, the masses should get their revenge by using communism against the globo-homo elites; if globalist elites take away your national property, take away their private property]. True ownership means you or your people get to KEEP the property than letting it fall into the hands of others. It is like marriage, which becomes pointless if you can't keep your spouse as your special partner bound to you and only you. If your spouse must be made 'inclusive' to other peoples, he/she is really just a whore. While globalism makes every individual feel superficially freer as a 'citizen of the world', most people fail to gain anything while losing forever what was tangible and priceless: A special, even sacred, homeland.)
Now, why don't Jewish elites go whole hog and do likewise as the goy elites(who are, to be sure, under the thumb of Jewish elites)? If white elites and Asian elites have more to gain for themselves by ditching the National Covenant(that binds them to needs of the native masses or co-ethnics) in favor of Global Capital, why don't Jewish elites act in the same manner? Why do Jews insist on sticking to the National Covenant?
One reason is there are far fewer Jews in the world and many of them are in the upper-ranks. So, there is less of a burden among Jewish elites to take into consideration the well-being of Jewish masses. But what about Israel, a nation with a large number of non-rich Jews? Isn't it an economic burden on Jewish elites to be ever mindful of less well-off Jews in Israel? Sure, but Jewish power around the world has coerced goy nations to bankroll Israel to the tune of billions of dollars a year and other favors and benefits. So, it's not so much rich Jews taking care of lesser Jews but rich Jews making goyim take care of lesser Jews. That's some clever thinking.
