* What does ethnic diversity have to do with military effectiveness? Is there a single case in history of a multi ethnic patchwork force defeating an equal sized force of homogeneous ethnicity? Even one case in 10,000 years of warfare?
Because I can think of plenty of counter examples. In sunnier times, the histories of these events were called “the classics” and it formed the cornerstone of a young man’s education. Good thing we got away from that, those classically educated guys were so incompetent.
* The US population in 1965 was about 190 million. Our public schools were decent and had almost no students who did not speak English. It was possible for a working class family to buy their own home and not have to drive 50 or more miles to their job. The US was self sufficient in energy. The Interstate highway system was more or less the same one we use today but with 100 million fewer people using it. Our scientific and industrial technology was without peer and our economy was, by far, the largest in the world.
As for our military prowess well, twenty years before we had pushed across the Pacific and forced the surrender of Japan in three and half years and driven from the French coast to the heart of Germany in 11 months. While doing so we also built the world’s first atomic arsenal.
Tell me again why we needed 100 million additional people?
* From the position of the elite owner class (especially the elite minority class), more immigrants means more workers, more servants, more voters, more cannon fodder, more suckers. Their main interest is their own power and privilege. It’s about empire. And empire cannot sustained by nationalism alone. It’s like how Romans went from a republic to an empire.
For the owner class, it doesn’t matter who the sheep are or where they come from. Since they monopolize the power, they don’t see the newcomers as a threat. And if some of the newcomers were to rise to the top, their kids can intermarry with the kids of the owner class. The owner class mix in blood lines but the power will still be theirs. Who cares about identity when you got power and privilege? It’s like Tony Montana didn’t care about Cubanness as long as he had the money and the blonde chick and wasps doing business with him, and wasp bankers didn’t mind as long as he was shoveling money in their direction. Globalism is elite-imperialism where all the peoples of the world — white and non-white — are subjects. It is not true that ONLY white nations are subject to massive migrations and mess-ups. Look at the Middle East.
The owner class may use ideology but in a very flexible and adaptive way so that ‘progressivism’ can mean just about anything. They can turn mayday into gayday or convince women that ‘twerking’ is empowerment. Most people are dumb.
So, people are interchangeable. Whether US fills up with Mexicans, blacks, asians, etc, the owner class will still got what they got.
But the non-owner class have little in terms of power and privilege. They just get by, so their meaning of life comes from identity and values and territoriality. Even a lower-middle class American can feel pride of identity, feel morally worthy with solid values, and feel proud to be part of a collective owner of this land called US of A.
For the non-owners, it matters who is on the team. It’s not just about winning and losing but about being part of the team, win or lose, rich or poor.
Suppose there’s a white team. It matters to the team that it is white even if they lose the games. At least they got the team and are part of the team.
But to the owner of the team, the priority is to win. And if he can get rid of many or even all of his player and get new players, that is what is most important.
Owner-centrists think in terms of hiring mercenaries; the team-centrists think in terms of patriot-soldiers. Mercenaries can be bought for any price. Patriot-soldiers will only fight for their own nation and righteous cause; they cannot be bought, especially to fight their own people.
Now, both perspectives are valid. A team of white players understandably wanna keep it white as the team’s identity is what the team is about.
In contrast, an owner understandably prioritizes a winning record over who is on the team.
As sports is a business owned by owners, it is understandable that owners should choose.
But is a nation more like a collective team of those in it or is it like a company owned by a few big owners who get to fire and hire the members of the team? If we see nation as the latter, then the editorial is correct. If it’s good for the owner class(as the true masters/owners of the nation), why not go for it? More diversity means more for the owner class to choose from.
But if we see nation as a collective team of a certain people, then national policy must prioritize the racial ownership of the nation by the people whose history is embedded in the land.
As US is ruled by an elite minority, it doesn’t identify much with the majority white population. But what is truly horrifying is this mentality is spreading to Europe to the point where even a white gentile leader like Merkel is acting more like a member of the owner-class than a representative and defender of the German racial team.
She is actually worse than Jeb.
It is time for sheeple to turn into wolfen and take a bite out of the owner class.
PS. Israel is course run as a racial team for the Jews than a property of the owner class.
