Is Identity Politics Really 'Leftist' or 'Progressive'?

The following is a response to Ken MacLeod's article, "The ends of humanity
Socialism is dead, and the transhuman future looms. Is there any way to recover a sense of global purpose?" in AEON online magazine.

"Many on the left, of course, have found in identity politics a replacement for the universalism of their past. But identity can also be seized on by the far right. It can feed a resentful indifference to the plight of others that comes from having one’s own plight disregarded."

Ken McLeod is missing the point. So-called Identity Politics is rightist or even 'far-rightist'. The only reason why it's mistaken as 'leftist' is because non-white or anti-white groups are allied with self-loathing and suicidal white leftists and liberals. Muslims who call for Sharia Law in France and UK vote for leftist parties not because they support leftist or 'progressive' ideology but because stupid-sucker-leftists-in-power translates to more tribal power to their own kind, the Muslims. The REAL impulse and agenda as to why non-whites ally with white leftist groups are essentially rightist. Most members of Nation of Islam vote Democratic because they see the Democratic Party handing out more bribes to the black community. It is a case of black rightists allying with white liberals. White liberals get the vote, and blacks get more freebies. And most Hispanic-Americans ally with white leftists and liberals because the Democratic Party offers them more 'stuff' and looser immigration--which means more Hispanics in America which means more Hispanic power. If US bordered China or India instead of Mexico, and if most illegal immigrants were Asian, would Hispanic-Americans support illegal immigration and amnesty? Of course not. Why would Mexican-Americans want their jobs and opportunities to be taken from them by the Asiatic tide? Indeed, Mexican-Americans fully support Mexico's own draconian anti-immigration policies.

And why are so many Jews 'progressive'? The main reason again is essentially rightist. Jews are for maximizing Jewish power, and so in Israel where Jews are the majority, Jews will support nationalism, ethnocentrism, and tight border security. But in the US where Jews are the elite minority, they want to increase diversity because that allows the ultra-powerful and ultra-privileged Jewish elite to play divide-and-rule among the various goy groups. Jews don't really care about equality; they are promoting 'diversity' mainly to secure their own power.
Why was the British able to rule India for as long as they did? Because India was very diverse and divided by caste, language, religion, locality, customs, and etc. Therefore, the British imperialist elite, though greatly outnumbered by the natives, could always play one side against the other. When the Brits took over the subcontinent from the Muslim Moghuls, they sided with the Hindus. Later when the rising tide of Hindu nationalism challenged British authority, the Brits sided with the Muslims.
If India had been relatively homogeneous like China, Indians would have united much earlier to drive out the British. But because India was so diverse and divided, it took a long time for the people of India to develop something like a national consciousness and overthrow the yoke of British imperialism.

Jews want more homogeneity in Israel and more diversity in the US. More homogeneity where they are the majority and more diversity where they are the minority. If US were mostly white, there would always be the possibility of whites uniting against Jewish power. But if US becomes more diverse, Jews can choose and exploit all sorts of alliances across various ethnic and racial groups to boost their own power. As the Romans and the Chinese said, 'make barbarians fight barbarians'. Jews think, 'make goyim fight goyim'. It's what Jerry Springer does on his show. He invites white trash, brown trash, and black trash and make them bash one another while he, the clever Jew, stands back and watches amused.
So, Jewish 'progressivism' is really just a ruse for Jewish tribalism. Notice how even most so-called liberal Jews are silent about the massive oppression of Palestinians that is happening in Israel. NY TIMES is much more likely to bitch about what Chinese are doing in Tibet than what Israelis are doing to Palestinians.

The only people who are truly liberal or leftist are white gentiles who spit on their own identity, heritage, and pride in order to 'atone for their historical sins'--largely thanks to having been brainwashed by the Jewish-dominated media and academia--and to promote this murky thing called 'human rights' that overlooks Saudi atrocities in Bahrain but punishes the likes of Gaddafi. White liberals are all a bunch of suckers because they fail to realize that Jews, blacks, browns, and yellows are using so-called 'leftist' Identity Politics for their own rightist tribal interests.

Besides, the notion of 'white privilege' is ridiculous since the vast majority of whites have no privilege of any kind. They are not the descendants of the Rockefellers nor do they have anything like the wealth of Bill Gates, indeed not even of a doctor or lawyer. Most white people work all year around to make ends meet. And most of their ancestors are factory workers, toilers of the soil, truck drivers, plumbers, and etc.
It seems many affluent white liberals have it so good that they mistakenly believe that ALL white people lead the lifestyles of the elite 'creative globalist class' that grows richer and richer while white middle America grows poorer and poorer. Affluent white liberals PROJECT their own privilege onto all whites when, in fact, most whites don't have trust funds, haven't attended elite colleges, and don't have 'cool creative' jobs.

"It can feed a resentful indifference to the plight of others that comes from having one’s own plight disregarded."

That's pretty clever. Based on McLeod's airheaded progressivism, you'd think all those Identity Groups are full of regard for others and simply want equal justice for themselves. But let's look at reality. Do blacks care about non-blacks? Since when have blacks ever expressed sympathy for the victims of black crime and violence? Most of these victims are not rich whites but poor whites, poor browns, and etc.
And surely blacks know that so-called 'affirmative action' favors rich blacks over poor whites. It even favors black African immigrants--whose ancestors captured and sold slaves to whites--over poor whites.
And surely Mexican-Americans know that illegals from south of the border violated American laws to enter into America. Surely, Mexican-Americans must know that amnesty is a form of 'affirmative immigration' for Mexicans. I mean everyone else around the world has to legally apply to come to America and get in line. But all these illegals from Mexico cut in front of the line simply by exploiting the border between US and Mexico. How is 'amnesty' a form of justice? It is a form of favoring Mexican illegals to all other would-be legal immigrants. In other words, Mexicans don't give a hoot about other people. They only care about themselves.

And look at Jewish Identity. The Holocaust was a great tragic event, true. But notice how the Jews have cleverly exploited the Holocaust to wrap themselves in Holocaust Sanctity forever. Thus, if anyone criticizes Jewish Power--which is the greatest power in America and by extension in the world--, he or she is simply labeled and destroyed as an 'anti-Semite'. And look how Jews used the Holocaust cult to carry out lebensraum policies against Palestinians and wage war on neighbors. Look how Israel can occupy a people for decades and still remain as the closest ally of the US. Notice how Israel has 300 illegal nukes but receives billions in aid from US every year... while Iran, a nation with no nukes, a nation that has complied with all international rules on atomic energy, is being strangulated to death by Jewish-controlled America.

And does anyone wanna tell me with a straight face that gays are an oppressed group in America? After Jews, gays are the most privileged people in America. They use their gay-boys-network to favor gays over non-gays in high positions. Even liberal women have complained about how gay men monopolize the fashion industry.
And gays, working with Jews who control the media, have pushed the gay agenda and propaganda on all of us, indeed to the point where so many Americans now think that fecal penetration among men should the basis for marriage. I suppose if the Incest Lobby were as powerful and well-connected(especially to the Jewish community) as the gay community is, we would also be hearing about the evils of 'incestophobia'; there would be incest pride parades, incest would be associated with rainbow colors, and there would be calls for legalization of incest marriage or same family marriage. "In a world of so much hate and distrust, what is sooooooo wrong about a son loving his mother?"

The Downfall of the GOP Brand. Why?

There's been much talk of the GOP being the party of 'old white men'--though majority of white women voted for Romney, but MSM is committed to feminist spin--and how it lost the 2012 election by failing to win over the Hispanic or brown vote. While the Hispanic vote may be a time-bomb for the GOP--if current demographic trends continue--, the brown vote was not decisive in the 2012 election. Romney lost because he failed to win over sufficient number of white voters, especially in the Northern states. Also, the huge swing among Asian-Americans toward Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 elections undermines the MSM narrative that GOP loses elections because if it favors privilege. Asian-Americans are more 'privileged' than most white gentiles in education and jobs. If the GOP is the party of wealth, privilege, and success, the majority of Asian-Americans(and Jewish-Americans) should have voted for the GOP.

So, why did the GOP fail among so many voters who should be its constituents according to the MSM narrative? Before we delve into that, consider what had long been the winning themes of the GOP.
Republican's pro-business position used to win over the superrich and the affluent. Republican's theme of patriotism used to work well among blue collar whites. Republican theme of suburban middle class values and solid small town values used to win over the white middle class. Republican theme of the Great White Man and the American Dream won it respect among aspiring immigrants who wanted to melt into the world of the Great White Man. There was also the issue of crime, mostly black crime.

The end of the Cold War meant the loss of the patriotic theme for Republicans. Though 9/11 and 'Muslim Terrorism' trope worked for awhile for the GOP, Bush loused up the War on Terror as badly as Johnson messed up Vietnam. Also, as time passed, even the staunchest conservative Americans began to wonder if the Muslim Threat was all that it was cooked up to be. And if indeed there was a Clash of Civilizations, why did Bush say Islam is a religion of peace, and only a handful of radical Muslims are causing all the trouble? On foreign policy, many conservatives came to prefer Ron Paul's 'isolationism' to Bush's 'interventionism', and when Romney the chickenhawk rattled his saber about more wars, it turned a lot of white blue collar people off--as many have friends and relatives whose sons died or were crippled in the seemingly senseless War on Terror; especially for Ron Paul Republicans, such saber-rattling means 'kissing Zionist ass'.
In the late 70s and early 80s, many blue collar whites did vote for Reagan out of patriotic reasons. They never forgot how liberals 'stabbed the American military in the back' in the Vietnam War, and they were shocked by how nation after nation fell to communism around the world following the fall of Saigon: Mozambique, Angola, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, etc. And Carter seemed especially pathetic with the Iran Hostage Crisis. And of course, there was the problem of inflation.
But that was then, this is now. There really isn't any patriotic issue to get all worked up about. There is the theme of Obama the mulatto globalist puppet of International Jews, but as mainstream media and the GOP are dominated by Jews, it's impossible for the GOP to go into 'racist' and 'antisemitic' mode. GOP can foam at the mouth about 'Russkies', 'Muzzies', 'Chinks', and Hugo Chavez, but it cannot call out on domestic enemies at home. Indeed, the liberal Jewish media, through their control of news and Hollywood movies, have encouraged white conservatives to channel their bottled-up rage at foreign 'enemies'. So, if whites are angry about black crime, they must keep mum on the issue and channel their rage by fuming about all those Muslim Terrorists killing 'white Jews' in Israel. Thus, 'muzzies' serve as surrogate blacks in the white conservative mind. Whites must project their domestic frustrations on foreign targets(and Jews encourage this since without such outlets for white rage, it may eventually come around to fixing on the real enemy of whites: the Jews. Why have liberal Jews in Hollywood made anti-Muslim movies like TAKEN? Why is liberal Jewish Hollywood remaking RED DAWN as yellow peril dawn?). Whites cannot discuss Jewish power, and so their suppressed rage is diverted at Global Terrorist Muslims, International Hindus, and International Chinese--away from the International Jew. Even so, there's nothing like the Evil Empire(of the Cold War) or Imperial Japan(of WWII) anymore to rile up the white American blue collar patriots.

GOP also used to have a winning formula in appealing to suburban voters. This was especially useful in the 60s and 70s when White Flight from black urban blight and crime reached its peak. Back then, white fear of black crime was fresh on many white suburbanites. But since then, successive generations of whites have grown in the safe suburbs, and they don't feel this fear of blacks. And their parents didn't say much about white flight since it sounds 'racist'. And suburban schools, no less than urban schools, are filled with politically correct propaganda. And white kids enjoy black culture from a safe distance: rap music, sports, and even interracist porn with the explosion of the internet.
At one time, white suburbs were seen as a refuge from black crime. Today, many white suburbanites just see the suburbs as an extension of gentrifying downtown areas of big cities. Many white suburbs have been yuppified and SWPL-ized, what their Starbucks cafes and other cosmopolitanisms.
Suburbs used to model themselves on small towns; indeed they were like small towns surrounding the big city. Today, most wealthy suburbs model themselves on downtown gentrified living. They have become far more liberalized. This SWPL-ization of the suburbs needs further research and looking into. (Of course, the fact that many affluent white suburbanites were indoctrinated in politically correct colleges also account for the big shift. In a way, conservatism is a victim of its own success, i.e. many successful white conservative sent their kids to good colleges, and those colleges turned their kids into supporters of 'gay marriage' and 'diversity'. Also, since conservatism favors respect for authority, conservatively raised children may paradoxically be more receptive to authority figures in higher education. This is surely the case among Asians: they are from an authoritarian/conservative tradition/culture, but their emphasis on respect for authority makes them perfect teacher's pets of political correctness.)
GOP used to have the Cold War to win over many patriotic blue collar white Americans and the Crime War to win over many white suburban voters. But especially when Clinton adopted harsh anti-crime policies and threw a whole bunch of blacks into the slammer--and drastically reduced crime rates--, the Crime War became less of an issue for many white suburbanites. Again, conservatives were the victim of their own success. They lost the suburbs partly because Clinton the New Democrat adopted many conservative policies.

Conservatives also used to have the economic war and culture war card. Economic War won over the superrich. When top tax rates used to be over 70%, many rich folks went with GOP for the simple reason of not wanting to be bled dry  by the government. But once Reagan reduced tax rates and New Democrats more or less accepted the bargain--along with 'free trade' and financial deregulation--, there was less urgency for the rich to side with the GOP. After all, the rich are vain and narcissistic, and it's much more fun to culturally hang around 'creative', 'innovative', and 'expressive' liberals than with 'square' 'whitebread' conservatives.  Again, the GOP was a victim of its own success.

And then, there was the Culture War which pitted decent Americans against the freaks and decadents. This used to win over many middle class people to the GOP, especially when freaks and radicals of all kinds went crazy in the late 60s  and 70s. But consider the sudden shift in the style of the radicals and freaks. Gays used to act really freako and turn off many people. But the new gay style is very conservative, respectable, and more 'middle class than middle class'. So, gays no longer come across freaks but as the new Ozzie and Harriet(or Ozzie and Harry as the case may be). And if Jewish radicals used to turn off many white conservatives with their nasty and virulent personalities and outrages, most liberal Jews tend to be very respectable and 'bourgeois' in style. There aren't a lot of Abbie Hoffman or Andrea Dworkin types anymore telling people to 'steal this book' or howling 'all sex is rape'.
The face of the New Jew is David Remnick. And even the so-called socialist Naomi Klein looks like a total yuppess than some crazy leftist radical talking crazy in the 60s.
And feminism abandoned its overalls and handkerchiefs and embraced femininity and sexuality. Though feminists reviled Camille Paglia when she appeared on the scene, Paglia-ism has won.  Feminism used to divide the generations. Young girls in the 80s and 90s wanted to be attractive and were pissed off with first generation feminists who were telling them it's wrong to be a 'sex symbol'. Today, feminists of all stripes have embrace sexiness, and even hook-up culture is seen as 'empowerment'. Such sexual sensibilities and attitudes may not be conservative, but in making peace with the biological fact of sexual differences--women wanna look good and sexy--, feminism became less of a turn-off for many women, even anti-liberal women.

Anyway, since liberals and leftists adopted the conservative look and style, it became more difficult for the GOP to frame the Culture War as one between respectable decent folks and outrageous freaks. When gays put on corporate suits and diligently work in office buildings, they come across as more respectable than many white conservatives with ass tattoos and body piercings. When gays and liberal Jews are more likely to listen to classical music and read Shakespeare than white conservatives, what does it mean to be culturally conservative? And when liberal women now wanna be sexy, the old conservative trope of feminism as 'movement of big fat ugly Jewish women' no longer works.
Some might say this has all been a Saul Alinskite plan of the Left to use 'conservative respectability' to worm into the heart of Americana and change it from within. And I'm sure some leftists really flatter themselves that they are doing just this. But, it seems most liberals, leftists, and gays just got sick of the whole radical ugliness of the 60s and early 70s. They 'grew up' and matured, and they got 'corrupted' by the material privileges that comes with taking part in capitalism and wealth-creation.

The GOP also lost the immigrant vote. Among some groups, this could be understood simply in terms of poor Third World immigrants wanting more freebies from Big Government. Given the voting pattern of Mexican-Americans and Central-American-Americans, this is no surprise. The more interesting data of the 2008 and 2012 elections concerns the massive shift of the Asian and young Cuban vote from the GOP to the Democrats. Not all immigrants are the same, and indeed Asian-Americans(especially East Asians and Hindu-Asians) are very different in their mind-set, sensibilities, aspirations, abilities, and attitudes from Mexican-Americans and the like. If the GOP is the party of success and middle class values, why would so many Asian-Americans vote for the Democrats?
It's because America today isn't America 20 yrs ago and because the image of the Great White Man isn't so great.

Among immigrants, ability and aspirations matter in how they think and vote.  Mexican-Americans, rather low in their abilities, don't have much in the way of aspiration. Many Mexican-Americans instinctively feel that they aren't going to rise very high, and so they stick with the party of more handouts. But Asian-Americans, like earlier waves of European-Americans, have both the ability and aspiration to rise higher. Many European immigrants in the early part of the 20th century held the Anglo-American White Man in awe and aspired to use their abilities to enter Anglo-American society--and even to become Anglo-Americans themselves. There was a time when Asian-Americans held the Great White Man with great respect and fear(and with fear comes respect). In their home countries, they likely got their image of American from news reels of General Douglas MacArthur and John Wayne & Charlton Heston movies. White Man Big and Tall and Great and Awesome! White American Man Big Superpower and Victor over Japan and Protector of Free Asia from Bad Commies!
Unlike Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans knew that they had the ability to join white society, the World of the Great White Man. Their abilities matched their aspirations.
So... what happened?

Asians, who are mad about success and upper mobility, discovered that the Great White Man was not so great. Many Asians found themselves getting better grades and going to better schools than whites. So, incrementally, Asian-Americans came to feel more like Jews. Instead of seeing White America as awesome, they saw it as something they rise above. An element of contempt crept into their feelings toward whites. Also, Asian-Americans discovered that among whites, liberal and Jewish ones were smarter than mediocre conservative whites who are into Creationism, gun hoarding, Nascar, Rush Limbaugh, and ass tattoos. So, if the Great White Man trope still existed for Asian-Americans, the new Great White Man was the urban liberal white or the Jew.

Another factor was the slow but steady decline of the white middle class(as the backbone of the American Dream). When America used to be defined by the solid white middle class as the hallmark of Americanism, most Asian-Americans wanted to belong to that class, especially as many had memories of poverty back home. But as the white middle class began to shrink and Asian-Americans strove for higher success, the ideal of the American Dream in the form of White Middle Class-ness began to lose its appeal.  The new objective for aspiring Asian-Americans to strive for and emulate was the urban SWPL global 'creative class'. Very liberal and Democratic.
Even 20 yrs ago, an Asian-American might have thought a good life in America was having a steady job and affording a home in the suburbs. But with Section 8 Housing and easy credits handing out home loans to every dumbass, the suburban ideal lost its appeal. The newly and truly affluent and privileged were found to be concentrated in the 'Europeanizing' big blue cities.
But what led to the demise of the White Middle Class? Free trade and globalism and 'ownership society' that cheapened the ideal of the American Dream. Again, the GOP was the victims of its own success.

DREAM OF CONQUEST ACT and Election of 2012. Victory for Hispanics? No. For Jews, Gays, and WHITE Hispanics, Yes.

There's been much talk of the importance of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 election. Indeed, the Hispanic vote has been instrumental in securing California for the Democrats. Though liberals attack conservative for playing 'racial politics', California went Democratic because most Hispanics think racially. Think of groups like La Raza. White leftist morons like Kevin Drum of Motherfuc*ing Jones tell whites to 'play nice' and shut up about a whole bunch of things, but this is just a pernicious 'model majority' argument that says white people must be 'nice', 'bland', and 'dweeby' and embrace their own racial demise. If 'model minority' ideal that calls for docile blacks, browns, and Asisns is wrong, the 'model majority' ideal is also wrong. If whites were the decisive power bloc in America, they could afford to be more generous. But as a dwindling pool, this is time when whites must be even more racially minded. Privileged white liberals may not feel this sense of racial urgency since they reside and work in their own little enclosed worlds of whitopia. Indeed, most white and Jewish leftist pundits are pretty well-to-do; some are fabulously rich and graduated from top schools and have fat trust funds. Or they rake in big bucks from the computer industry or globalism. Or they run 'non-profit' institutions and get to fly around the world and attend cocktail parties to discuss how to 'end poverty in the Third World' and etc.  But for many unprivileged white folks, their loss of electoral power means they must think more racially, more as a tribe.

Anyway, however and whatever most Hispanics think, this was not their victory. Even if Texas falls to the Democrats and GOP is finished forever and ever, most Hispanics--especially non-white ones--won't gain much if anything from the new order. It's like ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell. The smart pigs rouse up the barn animals and drive out the Evil Man. But what did the Horse get out of it? Pigs got all the power and used the Horse until it was finally turned into glue. Most Hispanics are that like the Horse.
This Democrat vs Republican battle is really between one bunch of white elites vs another. The Democratic elite is largely Jewish white and gay white, and the GOP elite is largely Wasp/ethnic white(though GOP has fatally been led by Jewish neocons).  Among white voters, white conservatives have more babies than white liberals. Therefore, the white liberal elite needed blacks and browns to defeat the GOP. But as in ANIMAL FARM, it's a case of Jewish and gay pigs using the black and Hispanic Horse. Anyone who thinks Obama has real power is kidding themselves. He's a black show-horse ridden by Jewish and gay pigs.

It may be that many white liberals really want Hispanics to succeed. Indeed, this has been true of white conservatives as well. Bush and Rove hoped that Hispanics would become the new Italian-Americans: make the social climb and become good middle-class Republicans. But it will never happen for both genetic and cultural reasons. Most Hispanics tend to be less intelligent than Anglos, Jews, and Asians. And culturally, Mexican and Central American societies haven't instilled their mestizos and Indios with anything like an intellectual culture. And American popular culture is so debased and trashy that many poor immigrants are turned into instant-morons by watching TV and listening to rap crap.
So, who will be the real winners of the Democratic Victory? Jewish and gay liberal pigs. They rode the Hispanic Horse to victory in places in California, but look at that state carefully. Who runs Hollywood? Who runs the vineyards? Who runs Silicon Valley? Who owns the sports teams?
Mexicans? Blacks? Haha.

Another big winner is the white Hispanic. Since 'Hispanic' is not a racial category, there are Hispanics of all kinds. White ones, black ones, mestizo ones, mulatto ones, and etc. But since so much of Hispanic immigration, both legal and illegal, came from Mexico and Central America, the great majority of American Hispanics tend to be mestizo like Guillermo on the Jimmy Kimmel Show. Such people generally don't make much of a social climb in society.
The indigenous natives of Latin America are closely related to East Asians but without the brains. And for several centuries, white Hispanic overlords have kept them ignorant and backward in order to preserve white power and privilege in Latin America.  One thing the native Indian population of Americas have in common with Asians is a certain degree of docility. Like the Japanese and Chinese, most native Indians of Mexico and Latin America tend to be a rather 'lame' bunch. Sure, there are dangerous thugs and criminals among them, but your average Mexican is not an uppity punk or thug. They are like Guillermo. But unlike Asians, they lack the brains(nor the intellectual culture instilled into Asians through 1000s of yrs of Confucianism).
So, the successful Hispanics in both Latin America and the US tend to be white ones. In most Latin American nations, whites are the minority, and they are a minority among American Hispanics too. But they have three advantages: tradition of power, higher IQ, and some degree of culture of success and intellectualism(though nothing like that of Germans, Anglos, and Jews). Just as 'affirmative action' for blacks favors mulatto blacks and African immigrants with higher IQ, 'affirmative action' and other policies for Hispanics will defacto favor white Hispanics over brown and black Hispanics.
Look at most leading Hispanic pundits, leaders, personalities, intellectuals, businessmen, and etc, and they are white or mostly white.

Indeed, anti-gringo-ism, anti-Yanqui-ism, and multi-culturalism have been the best tool for Latin American whites to keep the power in both South/Central America and in North America. Even conservative and right-wing white Latin Americans become Democratic and 'liberal' when they come to America. Anti-gringo-ism is a very convenient way for Latin American whites to wash away their own 'historical sins'. Long before Anglos settled North America, Spanish and Portuguese arrived in South America(and even southern parts of North America like Florida) and gained power over the natives. By the spread of disease, slavery, rape, and etc, the Latin whites created a three tier system of social rule: whites at top, mestizos/mulattos in the middle, and indigenous natives and pure blacks on the bottom. While there was a lot of race-mixing in Latin America, the elites tended to remain white or mostly white. Even Latin American leftists carried out this tradition. The elites of Castro's Cuba are almost entirely white. Chile under leftist regimes still remains white-ruled. Argentina, ruled by left or right, is ruled by whites. Only more recently have non-whites have gained a degree of power in places like Bolivia and Venezuela, but if you look at the real governing elites of those nations, they are still mostly white. And most Latinos in top institutions in America are white or mostly white.

So, one might think Latin whites have something to answer for: the history of 'genocide', slavery, and 'rape' over the natives and blacks in the long dark history of Latin America. But via the one-drop rule or cultural excuse, Latin whites have remade themselves into 'people of color'.  So, if some blonde Latin guy may have one drop of Indian blood, he too is a 'person of color', just like the whites in THE DESCENDANTS count as Hawaiians in Alexander Payne's movie: they can trace their ancestry back to some Hawaiian princess or something or other.

So, with a very straight face, a white Latino intellectual will lecture non-white Latinos about the evils of white 'racism' by which he means evil gringo racismo. Even though he's white or mostly white, because he's 'Hispanic', he paints himself as a 'person of color'. Since all Latin whites pose this way, they are no longer guilty of White Evil since they are no longer 'white'. And though Spanish is a European language imposed on Latin America by white Conquistadores, it has become the language of the 'people of color' since most Hispanic mestizos and Indians speak it. So, when white Latinos defend Spanish against English in American public schools, it becomes an issue of protecting the 'people of color'. This is all very clever.
It'd be like Southern whites all claiming to have an ounce of black blood, posing as 'Negroes' and 'people of color', and blaming Northern whites for all the history of 'racism' and slavery in Southern history. Actually, some whites do this by pretending to be American Indian. Ask the blonde Elizabeth Warren.

This multiculturalist shtick played by white Latinos is very clever, and it is to be expected since Latin whites--like Greeks and Southern Italians--never had much of a culture of dignity or integrity. They'll say and do ANYTHING to get ahead. And they are not called out for their hypocrisy by American whites. Liberal whites sense the BS but prize Latin whites as allies. And conservative whites, though treated in a hostile manner by Latin whites, sympathize with Latin white power in Latin America. White conservatives fail to understand that white Latinos who guard white privilege in Latin America  undermine white power in America because they have more to gain by posing as 'non-white people of color'. It is also a matter of inferiority complex. Yanquis did so much more than Latin whites, a fact that hurt Latin pride so much. Yanquis brought about the modern economy, the great military, the big factories, democratic rule, end of slavery, advances in science and technology, and etc.  Latin whites have little to show for, and so they've found this clever way to attack Yanquis as 'evil oppressors' of Latin 'people of color'. And even though Jews have been very successful, they too share Latin whites' envy of Anglo and Anglo-American achievements. No wonder Latin whites and Jews see eye to eye on so many things. Eric Hobsbawn the Jewish historian was a superstar among Brazil's white intellectual class.

And of course, Jews play the same game. They enjoy all the fruits of 'white privilege' BUT also pose as victims of 'white privilege'. How often have we heard of how some rich Jew was not allowed into some wasp country club?! Yeah, as if Jews have been so 'inclusive' of non-Jews. That must be why Hollywood top brass is so filled with Eskimos and Mexican-Americans.

Hispanic whites conveniently use the grand narrative of 'victim-hood at the hands of Yanquis and gringos' to wash themselves of their own 'historical sins'. Never mind what they did to the natives and blacks in Latin America. The new grand narrative is Latin Whites are 'people of color' by 'one drop rule'; they too are victims since all of Latin America was 'exploited' by the gringos. Of course, the truth is America didn't so much exploit Latin America but gained an upper-hand in the region because Latin whites were so slow in getting their act together in building up a modern economy. Latin whites begged for Yanqui capital and investment since they were too corrupt and unskilled to do it themselves. But put all the blame on whitey... though Latin whites are white too.

What Latin whites are doing isn't much different from what Japanese have been trying to do: portray themselves as victims of 'white American racism'. By invoking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japanese say they were attacked and invaded by whites for racial reasons. And so, never mind what the Japanese did in other parts of Asia. As far as some Japanese are concerned, Japanese and fellow Asians are all victims of 'white racism'. Ridiculous, but no more than the BS pulled by Jewish whites and Latin whites. (Jewish whites conveniently forget their role in the slave trade, both white and black. Their role in communism. Their role in financial exploitation. Instead, they are just 'victims of white antisemitism'.)

And most amusingly enough, it seems white liberals are pulling the same shtick. Though white liberals don't deny that they are white, they pose as 'anti-white whites' in order to safeguard their white privilege. Since they voted for Obama, they can't be white-white. They are good anti-white-whites, and that makes them 'progressive' and justifies their white privilege. They may not be 'people of color' but they are like honorary 'people of color' by association with 'people of color'. So the whitest and the most privileged liberal will cackle with joy about defeating all those EVIL WHITE PEOPLE!!

But seriously, now that the Evil White GOP has been defeated, how long can this charade go on?

Who's Responsible for the Real War Against Women?

In the 2012 election cycle, the Democrats picked on the theme of 'War Against Women' against American conservatives. Why? Because American conservatives oppose the idea of free birth control  for American women, especially affluent ones who could easily afford it themselves.
The poster-slut for the 'War Against Women' hysteria was Sandra Fluke, a chubby privileged Georgetown university student who expects others to pay for her birth control pills. So, according to New Feminism, there has to be War against economic and moral sense in order for America to be a safe place for women! Unless Fluke gets her free sex soma, a war is being waged on her ilk by evil American conservatives.

More serious is the issue of abortion. Though most conservatives are not hardline anti-abortionists, there are people like Todd Akin who want to ban abortion in all cases and say utterly stupid things about rape. I suppose such idiots do wage a kind of war against women's interests, especially since I'm one of the biggest advocates for abortion for the sake of eugenics. Spending $500 to abort the low-IQ child of a poor dumb woman is better than spending $500,000 to raise a kid who will likely turn out to be no good and useless, even criminal.

Of course, there are sound moral reasons for being made against abortion. In a perfect world, there would be no abortion. No matter how one looks at it, it is a taking of human life or near-human life. But I don't subscribe to the notion that all lives are sacred or equally valuable, and evidently neither do liberals, especially considering that black women perform the disproportionate number of abortions. Despite all the liberal talk of the evils of 'racism', liberals are only too happy to oblige dumb black women to abort their kids. Feminists defend abortion as a woman's right, but in fact, most educated and privileged women tend to be responsible and intelligent enough NOT to end up with unwanted pregnancies. Those who are burdened with such problems tend to be low IQ black and 'white trash' women, and feminists are only too eager to facilitate the killing of their children. If dumb Democratic women want to kill their own kids, I say let them.

Of course, many conservatives are sincerely moral in their opposition to abortion, and their view that unborn lives are the sacred blessings of God isn't evil nor meant to be a 'war on women'.  There are, to be sure, some men who want to ban abortion and restrict women's access to birth control because such choices facilitate greater sexual freedom among women. Even so, it would be a stretch to call it a 'war against women'.  Liberals, after all, want to restrict our freedom to eat certain kinds of food, but it would be ridiculous to call it a 'war against eaters'. While anti-abortionists and anti-junk-food people can be over-zealous in their desire to control how we live, they don't see it as waging war against sections of humanity. Conservatives think women shouldn't abuse sexual liberties, and liberals don't think we should abuse our eating freedoms. Both are costly to society when people mess up.

That said, there is a Real War Against Women in America, and most of it is not coming from the conservative side. Most of the real war against women--of all races--are committed by black men. Black men rape lots of black women, white women, Hispanic women, and Asian women. Look at statistics, and black men--nearly all of them Democratic--are the main perpetrators of sexual crimes in this country. And Rap Music is saturated in the language of hatred toward women. Women are called 'hos' and demeaned as prostitutes. Black men are also more likely than others to get women(regardless of race) pregnant and run off to have sex with yet more women. MLK himself was notorious for this. His drunken war against women was relentless. He would sometimes get sloshed, beat up women, and then later brag about it. Black men, almost all of them Democrats, are more likely to beat up their spouses or girlfriends. The Knoxville Horror Case involved black men doing horrible things to a white woman.

And in a case in Texas, over 20 black males raped an 11 yr old Hispanic girl, but of course, the Jewish-controlled media tried to minimize the extent of the horror. Indeed, the liberal media have a double-standard when it comes to the coverage of War Against Women. In the case of the Duke Lacrosse Team rape hoax, the media jumped to conclusions and accused white males of raping a black stripper. But in the case below involving a real rape of a white girl by a black thug, the media all but covered up the story. So, there is no doubt that the liberal Jewish media also take part in the Real War Against (mostly)White Women:


And in female to female violence, there is a good amount of War against white women committed by black women. Black women, who are bigger and stronger, will often push around, intimidate, and beat up white women. Of course, most of the victims are 'white trash' than affluent white girls who live in their safe communities and remain blissfully ignorant of all the black-on-white violence.

Hispanic men also tend to be neglectful toward their women. Many Hispanic males get women pregnant and run off, leaving the women and children to be raised by welfare paid for by white tax payers, many of whom are conservative. Conservatives are forced to pay for so much of this Real War against Women, but it's conservatives who get blamed for the 'war on women'.

Jews are also notorious in their War Against Women. Jews run most of the porn industry that degrades white women as into sex meat to be penetrated through every orifice. There is no dignity in porn, no empowerment. It's just Jewish promotion of interracism and miscegenation in order to demoralize and commoditize the white race into sex objects to be packaged and sold. This is why Jews love Marilyn Monroe; she was the symbol of white beauty turned into commodity to be marketed by Jewish men. How did she end up, by the way? Indeed, how do so many porn stars end up? And how do many young white women who enter Jewish-controlled Hollywood end up? They are turned onto drugs, fast & easy life of self-destruction(as with Lindsay Logan), and many of them die young or end up messed up for life.
Also, Hollywood movies and pop music culture promoted by liberals encourage young girls to dress like whores, act like fools with drugs/alcohol/sex, and take wild chances that lead to all sorts of trouble. Worse, by encouraging men to act like apes, liberal popular culture has encouraged a lot of young men to act thuggish, and that can't be good for women.

And despite feminism's claim to be for women's rights and interests, the culture of hostility it stirred up between men and women has been negative for both sides. Men and women prosper and find happiness together, but the bad blood instilled between the sexes by radical feminism has led to much social tension and unease. And liberal popular culture, by encouraging males to never grow up, has robbed women of mature partners in love.

As for Great Society and other big government programs, it has encouraged dependency on government among poor women who raise their children as 'single mothers' without need of husbands; morally and emotionally, it's bad for the women and the children. And the erosion of traditional values and the suppression of the culture of shame has liberated men to act like sex fiends, especially in the black community where too many black males act like punks who go from sack to sack without any shame.

So, we need to ask... who committed the Real War Against Women?

The Problem for GOP with Hispanics Is Legalism, Not Nativism.

There's a lot of noise that GOP's failure to win over Hispanics owes to white conservative nativism. While it's true that there are 'nativist' elements in the GOP, American conservatism hasn't been ruled by nativism as a principle for a long time. After all, Reagan gave us amnesty, and the GOP has been open to all races. Nixon went for the Southern Strategy, but he went out of his way to court Hispanic votes, especially by expanding 'affirmative action' to the Hispanic community.

As long as I can remember, I don't recall the GOP calling for discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or religion against non-whites.  Despite the existence of certain nativist types in the GOP, the official line and policy of the GOP have been anything but. And especially with the rise of Neocons in the 90s, the nativist elements have been all but eliminated from the mainstream conservative movement. Pat Buchanan was sidelined in the 90s. Steve Sailer was no longer welcome to contribute as writer to mainstream conservative publications or serve as the spokesman of conservatism on TV. Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor were purged from the National Review while mainstream conservatism cozied up to figures like Linda Chavez.

George W. Bush was very pro-Hispanic and even promoted Hispanics in the military and justice department. And Bush went out of his way to make his Cabinet even more 'diverse' than Clinton's. The message the GOP was sending in the 90s and under Bush II was, "our party is open to everyone, and we especially want and welcome non-whites."  While most nativists voted for the GOP--as the 'lesser of two evils'--, the GOP establishment and mainstream conservatism was NOT promoting or pushing nativism. Rudy Giuliani ran NY as a sanctuary city. McCain has been a notorious advocate of 'amnesty'. And Romney has been a 'moderate' conservative all his life, even something closer to a liberal. Even Southern conservatives were eager to hire and use ilegal Mexican labor. And if the GOP has really been so Waspy and Anglo-nativist, just how did it hand over its keys to neocon Jews even though most neocons are ex-Trotskyites who harbor negative feelings toward traditional conservatism, aka Paleoconservatism?

What really turns off Hispanics to the GOP is legalism, not nativism. GOP has more than amply demonstrated that it's willing to welcome and embrace Hispanics. So, why won't Hispanics take the bite? It's because GOP insists on legalism as opposed to illegalism. GOP expects Hispanics to live, act, and behave according to the same rules, laws, values, and standards as whites.  This means legal Hispanics should side with legal non-Hispanics against illegal Hispanics. It means Hispanics shouldn't expect legal favoritism via 'affirmative action' and 'disparate impact' programs. THIS is what Hispanics don't like about the GOP.
GOP is not dominated by minutemen types guarding the US-Mexican border. It's dominated by corporations, compassionate-conservative Christians, Catholics, and Neocons who want to broaden the base of the party. But the GOP, at least more than the Democrats, insist on Constitutional principles to be upheld by all: Since US is united by rule of law, it won't do to favor certain groups over others.  Conservatives even construe the legacy of MLK as one of color-blind equality under the law(though MLK was politically socialist and for programs like 'affirmative action'.)  Hispanics want special/preferential treatment from the government than equality with whites, and THAT element of illegalism or extra-legalism is what prevents them from joining the GOP. Democrats don't merely offer equality. They offer special favors, or more-equal-than-others-ism. So, an illegal alien would be made a legal citizen. So, illegals get access to all sorts of benefits in the US. And all Hispanics, legal or illegal, are to offered the full spectrum of preferential treatment via 'affirmative action', section 8 housing, and 'disparate housing' decrees.  Hispanics are drawn to the Democratic party because it offers goodies and freebies on the basis of illegalism.

In our sick age, homos are presented as angels while illegal aliens are associated with the 'dream'. Thus, the American Dream no longer means the opportunity of legal citizens to have good jobs and afford homes. It means instant citizenship to illegals who came here by breaking the law. And it gives a whole new meaning to MLK's cry of 'I have a dream'.  It no longer means the American Dream of equality for all races but special preferential dream of illegalism and extra-legalism for non-whites.

This doesn't mean there isn't an element of nativism or white racial consciousness in the GOP. But then, immigration-ism among non-whites is also a form of racial consciousness. Would most American Hispanics be for illegal immigration if most illegals were non-Hispanic Hindus, Chinese, or Muslims who come to take away jobs from Mexican-Americans or Mexicans in America? No, Hispanics are for illegalism because it means more power to their own kind. They think and act racially but then accuse white conservatives of doing so, even though most white conservatives insist only on equality for all under the same set of laws.
Would most Asians be for immigration if it didn't mean MORE of their kind in the US? Mexicans and Asians are for 'diversity' for the sake of their own racial power.  They are acting racially, and in their own nations, they are far more 'nativist' than conservative whites are in America.
Also, Jews want to increase diversity not out of the goodness of their heart but because more diversity means more opportunity for Jewish elites to play divide-and-rule among gentiles. Thus, the pro-immigration stance among Jews is also a form of racial/tribal consciousness. Jews in Israel sure don't call for non-Jewish immigration since Jews are the majority over there, no more than Mexicans tolerate non-Mexican immigration into Mexico and Asians tolerate much of non-Asian immigration to Asia.

The Hispanic Vote: Can Republicans Compete with the Illegalism of Democrats?

Some commentators say that the GOP must appeal to the Hispanic(and black) votes in order to win future elections. The problem is the only way to appeal to Hispanics is via Illegalism. There is nothing in the GOP platform that is anti-Hispanic. GOP welcomes Hispanics and wants Hispanics to succeed in America. GOP doesn't call for discrimination against Hispanics of any kind. Under rules of legality, GOP is a pro-Hispanic party.

What commentators mean when they say the GOP must appeal to Hispanics is it must be done on Illegalist terms. In other words, GOP mustn't only be equally welcome to Hispanics but must favor (even illegal)Hispanics over the legal white constituents who support the GOP; the GOP must favor illegal aliens over legal citizens and favor 'affirmative action' for Hispanics over non-Hispanic whites who are the mainstay of the GOP.
In a nutshell, it's not enough for the GOP to offer equality of law and opportunity to Hispanics; instead, Hispanics must be treated to extralegal privileges--such as 'amnesty' and 'affirmative action' over whites.  So, even though more than 70% of Hispanics go with Democrats, the GOP must offer better terms to Hispanics than to its loyal white supporters. (Extralegal privileges used to be the tool of European imperialists in non-white lands. Today, it is the tool employed by Jewish Supremacists to favor non-whites over whites in majority white lands.)

Democrats use terms like 'inclusion' and 'diversity', but their means of winning Hispanic vote has been through sheer favoritism and bribery. Hispanics are offered favors and things that should be illegal under the American Constitution. Illegal aliens are called 'undocumented immigrants' and showered with all sorts of benefits--though many of them don't even pay taxes. In other words, Democrats buy Hispanic votes. Worse, these votes are bought largely with white money. Whites pay bulk of the taxes, but liberals control most of the governments and bureaucracies--and courts--, and so Democrats get to decide how white tax-payer money is used. And it is used to bribe Hispanics to vote for Democrats.

No less importantly, the GOP cannot compete with Democrats even in the bribery game because the Democrats will always offer more. If GOP goes for amnesty, Democrats will go for amnesty + more benefits. If GOP goes for amnesty + more benefits, Democrats will go for amnesty + more benefits + more illegal immigration. If GOP goes for amnesty + more benefits + more illegal immigration, Democrats will up the ante with amnesty + more benefits + more illegal immigration + even more benefits. GOP can only hope to win over Hispanics if it can offer MORE goodies and freebies to Hispanics, but Democrats will always offer more free stuff to Hispanics(and to blacks).
And if the GOP goes whole hog and tries to match the Democrats on everything, it might as well be the Democratic Party.

Ideally, the GOP should appeal to Hispanics according to principles and not with payoffs. The principle should be EQUALITY UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. But, as it stands, America has gotten into the habit of winning over minority votes with bribes and special favors, something that began in the 60s with the Civil Rights Movement. Originally meant help blacks, it is now used to win minority votes across the board. Though the Nixon administration may have supported 'affirmative action' program for Hispanics in order to pit 'browns' against blacks to fight for welfare spoils, what it ended up doing is creating an alliance of blacks and 'browns'.

Anyway, as long as Illegalism is the mode of politics in winning minority votes, the GOP cannot win.

The Hidden Liberal Elite Motive behind Affirmative Action

Many reasons are put forth for affirmative action policies, but there’s one that is almost never discussed. Affirmative Action, especially at top ranked schools, is a means by which the liberal Jewish elites seek to gain control of the intellectual, economic, cultural, and political leaderships of the two main minority communities–blacks and Hispanics. Since both groups are very large and tend to be mired in poverty–especially blacks and non-white Hispanics–, they are bound to be a source of much social tensions and problems. The rich and powerful Jews don’t want to be called out, scapegoated, and attacked by blacks and Hispanics. They’d rather mold blacks and Hispanics to direct their anger against white gentiles.
　
Every community has a head and body. The head comprises the most intelligent, industrious, ambitious, shrewd, clever, and ruthless members of the community. Generally, most people–the body–don’t think and don’t even want to think. They want to be led, to be told what to think, how to feel, and what to do. The leaders of any community are its top businessmen, politicians, artists, entertainers, intellectuals, and spiritual leaders. Generally, the cream of the crop of any ethnic community go to the best schools and achieve the greatest successes in life.
The problem is even the smartest blacks and non-white Hispanics generally aren’t qualified to be admitted to the best schools where Jews dominate as both faculty and student body. This means that powerful Jews in the academia cannot gain direct contact with the future leaders of the black and Hispanic community.
For that reason, liberal Jews favor affirmative action so that the best of the blacks and non-white Hispanics can attend schools like Princeton, Harvard, and Yale. Liberal Jewish professors and students can then ‘work on’ these future elites of the black and Hispanic community. Jews will teach them that evil white oppression–‘racism’–is the main problem in history and society. Jews will teach Hispanics and blacks that Jews are their natural allies against evil ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’ whites. Jewish professors will lecture on white evil. And even non-Jewish white professors will teach blacks and Hispanics the same thing since most of them are intellectual toys or puppets of radical left-wing Jews. This way, liberal Jews achieve two things. They make themselves the patrons and ‘friends’ of the elites of the black and brown community, and black/brown anger, resentment, and hatred are diverted toward non-Jewish whites.
　
Just look at Barack and Michelle Obama. Could Jews at Princeton, Columbia, Harvard, and University of Chicago been able to contact and work on those two IF it weren’t for affirmative action? No, there are smart blacks, but even most smart blacks are not smart enough to make it Ivy League schools on intellectual merit alone. They need the aid of racial preference. Jews don’t want to live in close proximity with masses of poor blacks and Hispanics, but they want to gain access to the prospective elites of both communities. And, Jews want to get started with the best of black and brown minds from a young age. Jews want to mold and shape the minds of blacks and browns. Jews figure that if they control the heads of blacks and browns, they will also control the bodies–the masses. After all, blacks ideologically and politically follow their leaders. Until Obama, Jews had a difficult time controlling black politics since most of the leaders were not products of Ivy League but of street politics. But, Jews gained access to Obama because Obama got into Columbia and Harvard through affirmative action. And though he was an intellectual lightweight, Obama was given a job at University of Chicago law school because of Jewish connections. Obama got admitted to schools and got hired on the basis of affirmative action. Jews support affirmative action because it gives them direct access to the future stars of the black and brown communities.
　
During the peak of Ottoman power, the Turks scrounged through Greece to pick out the brightest, strongest, and most promising Greek boys. They were brought to Turkey, converted to Islam, and raised as Janissaries–military men committed to the defense and expansion of Ottoman power. Though Jews can’t go that far, they too hope to pick the best of the black and brown community and mold them into agents of Jewish power. Of course, Jews don’t spell this out or spill the beans. How could they? Rather, Jews speak of ‘diversity’, ‘equal opportunity’, and ‘progress’. And blacks and browns who graduate from Ivy League schools may sincerely believe they are studying and working to serve their own communities–and that Jews favored and helped them out of good will.
But, to the extent that they are turned anti-white and converted into political allies of the Jews, the result is very much something orchestrated by the Jews. Consider that 30-40% of Hispanics have been conservative. Yet, something like 95% of the Hispanic leadership in politics is Democratic. Why would this be? Shouldn’t the leadership be at least 30% conservative or pro-GOP? It’s because the academia and media work on cream of the crop of the Hispanic community. It doesn’t matter what the brown masses believe. The fact is Jews gain direct access to and work on the prospective elites or the heads of the Hispanic masses. Control the head, the body will follow.
Besides, affirmative action isn’t about helping poor browns or blacks. It generally favors rich or upper middle class blacks or browns over poor and working class whites. So, affirmative action isn’t really about so-called ‘social justice’ or helping the poor. No, it’s about Jewish elites gaining direct access to the most privileged elements of the black and brown communities. Jews want to control and shape the minds of people like Michael Dyson, Cornel West, and Henry Louis Gates so that these guys will, in turn, control the minds of the rest of the black community. And, the message is overwhelmingly anti-white.
　
But, we can see the effect of this on the GOP as well. We know that the GOP is controlled by Jewish neocons. Jews figure that as long as they control and buy & sell the gentile elites of the GOP, the conservative masses will just follow like sheep. And the conservative masses did indeed follow lockstep behind Bush into the war in Iraq and all the other policies of ‘compassionate conservatism’ which were really big government liberalism favored by the likes of David Frum. The conservative masses finally woke up and challenged the GOP elite when Bush and McCain tried to push amnesty, but much of the damage has been done.
Even today, the GOP is essentially controlled by Neocon Jews. It doesn’t matter what WE want since the likes of Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin will do as their neocon masters tell them to.
　
Anyway, this is one more reason to oppose affirmative action. It is a Jewish ploy to gain access to the cream of the crop of blacks and browns and turn them against whites. And since privileged blacks and browns, through the aid of rich powerful liberal Jews, gain great wealth and power by stepping over poor and working class whites, the lessons that they learn is "stick with the Jews against the whites and reap great rewards!!"

--P.V.