What struck me first is the irony. Lee is against 'racism', by which I suppose he includes racial stereotypes. But he is a walking-talking racial stereotype. One of the stereotypes about Asians is they lack originality and individuality. They may be diligent and study hard, but they mostly obey and follow the dominant narrative and official ideology. This is why East Asia has had a long history of scholarship but achieved so much less than the West did. Chinese history is longer than Northern European history. And Korea and Japan have long histories of learning. But they fell behind the West. The educational culture was all about rote memory, obedience, and going with the prevalent narrative. In the modern era, East Asia changed a lot, but the mindset of obedience and following along(like a dog) still remains. Under Maoism, most Chinese were mindless Red Guard ideologues. And South Korea and Taiwan are little more than intellectual dogs and puppets of the US. Whatever the West says, the East follows. Because homo agenda is all the rage in the West, Eastern academics also follow along like dogs.
In the past, this wasn't so bad since the West was truly the bastion of free speech, free inquiry, and free thought. But with the rise of Political Correctness, there is less academic freedom and media debate. Most of the Media in the West is now owned by Jewish Zionist supremacist globalists. Most reporters are 'presstitutes'. And the academia, as Jonathan Haidt has analyzed, is all about pushing Political Correctness. To boost one's career, one must agree with likeminded peers. What passes for 'science' among so-called 'progressives' is this:
Even worse is the politicization of childhood. Surely, using children(now babies) as ideological props is the last refuge of scoundrels. We are supposed to worry about baby hitlers. So, children are politicized in manner more repulsive than Red Guards or Hitler Youth.
Of course, this baby-hitler crap is nothing new. There were articles about babies being 'racist' before. Kang Lee, so typical of his Asiatic kind, imitates and serves this narrative. Of course, not all Asian scholars are such obedient pets of globalism like Kang is. Whatever his faults, Darrell Hamamoto must be lauded for calling out Asian-scholars in the West as the servitors of the empire. Even though these Asian-scholars preen and promote themselves, they are little more than servants of globalist imperialism that is destroying all nations and cultures.
Anyway, the politicization of childhood is disgusting. Babies are too young to know anything. (And children will believe anything, even santa.) Also, if babies are hardwired to prefer their own kind, it is NATURAL, and evolution created those responses for a reason. I mean, how can you preserve your race, culture, and territory unless one identifies with one's own kind? After all, the reason why the native folks of the Americas put up a fight against European invaders was to defend their own race, culture, and territory.
Diversity is the product of imperialism. Why is the New World diverse? The native peoples were conquered, raped, and plundered. Immigration is invasion. Emma Lazarus poem on the Statue of Liberty went well together with Manifest Destiny. Both said more and more 'huddled' whites should come from Europe and wipe out Indians and take the land. Another reason why the New World is diverse is because of slave trade. Brazil took in 3 to 4 million black slaves. So, Diversity was forcibly imposed on the New World by invasion, genocide, slavery, and plunder. Immigration is just another word for invasion. Look how London turned into Londonistan.
When Japanese 'immigrated' into Korea and Manchuria during the colonial period, they were essentially taking over via invasion. Japanese thought like Kang Lee. They were imperialists and pan-Asian globalists, just like Kang Lee is a servitor of the globalist empire. Japanese denounced Koreans and Manchurians as 'racist' and forced them to be 'tolerant' of Japanese 'immigrants'. They said Koreans should surrender their own 'racist' identity and become 'New Japanese'. Today, globalist Koreans say Koreans should abandon Korean identity, move to other nations, appropriate Western names, and take on other identities, especially by filling Asian wombs with non-Asian seed of men deemed to be superior by Asian women. Meanwhile, South Korea should be taken over by 'new koreans' from the Third World. Thus, globalism messes up all nations and cultures and turns them into something like Brazil or Hawaii.
Why is Hawaii diverse? Simple answer is Imperialism. Diversity is the product of empire. White imperialists annexed Hawaii, and native Hawaiians were forced to accept massive white immigration/invasion. But it got worse. Whites allowed in tons of Asian immigrants. So, the natives lost their ancient sacred homeland to both white invader-immigrants and Asian invader-immigrants. Some people say Brazilians should be 'proud' of racial mixing. But the reason why Brazilians are mixed is due to history of shame.
Today, Han Chinese are invoking 'diversity' and 'inclusion' to complete their total takeover of Tibet. Tibetans are denounced as 'racist' and 'nationalist' in wanting to preserve and defend their territory and culture. Chinese accuse them of 'exclusion'. Chinese say Tibetans must allow 'inclusion' of endless streams of Chinese who are hellbent on taking over everything. Chinese in the West even use the language of globalist-imperialism to defend their takeover of Tibet.
I don't know if Kang Lee is Korean or Chinese. If Chinese, I can understand why he is for 'diversity'. Under the rubric of 'diversity', Chinese can take over Tibet and Xinjiang, the land of Uighurs.
If Kang is Korean, he is a dummy who doesn't realize that 'diversity' is an ideological tool of the imperialists. After all, Japanese empire was diverse. It was called the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere, and its aim was to create a diverse Asian system linking Southeast Asia across China to Korea to Taiwan to Japan. Of course, Japanese would be dominant(like Jewish-controlled US is the dominant force in current globalism). Japanese sought to divide Manchuria from China. Japanese sought to wipe out Korean identity and turn Koreans into 'New Japanese'. And Korean collaborators educated in Japan served their masters and told their countrymen to give up 'racist' Korean-ness and embrace 'progressive' Japanese-ness of diversity and 'inclusion'.
Btw, what happened to Palestinians as the result of mass immigration, inclusion, and diversity? Jews totally took over Palestine, renamed it Israel, and continue to steal land from Palestinians with full support of the US that is controlled by Zionists. What Chinese do to Tibet, Zionists have done to Palestinians. In some ways, white 'progressives' are being disingenuous. By promoting 'diversity', they are retroactively justifying their history of imperialism, conquest, slave trade, and genocide of native folks in US and Canada. After all, those events led to 'diversity'. We are told Hawaii is great for its diversity. But why is it diverse? Because native people got invaded. And then the white invaders allowed massive immigration from Asia. As a result, the native Hawaiians are minorities in their own homeland that is now dominated totally by whites and Asians. If this is something to celebrate, imperialism is the greatest thing.
If Kang is Korean, why should he be ashamed of Korea being more homogeneous than other nations? It is homogeneous because Koreans live in their own land. It was not stolen from another people. Israel is diverse because Jews stole the land from Palestinians. So, there are Jews and remnants of Palestinians who were spared the ethnic cleansing of Nakba. If anything, diverse nations need to feel more shame since they were founded on conquest and invasive-immigration.
Another reason why Korea is relatively homogeneous is because it didn't bring over millions of black slaves. New World nations did. It seems there is more shame in diversity than in homogeneity. Diversity is the product of empire. For a time, Vietnam and Algeria were more diverse. Why? The French colonialists settled them, and they were forced to have massive French presence. French also brought their subjects from other parts of the world to settle in Vietnam and Algeria.
It was the 'racist' nationalist rebels resisted and threw out the imperialists who forced diversity on them. Likewise, it was Polish nationalist, French nationalists, and Russian nationalists who were most effective at pushing back German Nazi imperialism. And after WWII, Third World nationalism was the main force against Western Imperialism. (Today, US is the main globalist-imperialist power. It is trying to undermine the national sovereignty of every nation.)
Ottoman Empire was diverse with Turks ruling over Armenians, Greeks, Arabs, Kurds, and etc. It was 'racist' nationalism that freed the various peoples from Ottoman rule.
So, it seems to me that 'racism' and 'nationalism' are the formula for national liberation and sovereignty. In contrast, globalism and imperialism create these monstrous systems where various peoples are forced to come under same system of rule. Imperialism calls for interracism: rise of diversity and rule by certain peoples over other peoples. Turkey is diverse, and it's about Turks ruling over Kurds. Israel has diversity, and it has Jews ruling over Palestinians. Mexico is diverse, and it's about white Latino elites ruling over mestizos and native Indian populations.
Because Asians racially tend toward slavishness, they are teachers' pets and follow whatever happens to be the prevailing narrative. So, the result is that Asian scholars in the US and Canada no longer defend Asia or their own race or culture. Instead, they serve globalism. Globalism is both anti-white and anti-Asian. Why? Because globalism is controlled by Zionist supremacist imperialists. Zionists promote diversity because diversity leads to divisions. And then, Zionists can play divide-and-rule among diversity to keep the power. The British were able to rule India for so very long precisely because it was diverse. Brits could play various groups against one another. Notice that Jewish Zionists don't push for diversity-immigration to Israel. They support Jewish-only immigration to Israel. Jews know that diversity is a headache for the Jews. Jews regret not having ethnically cleansed all Palestinians. But even as Jews support Jewish-only immigration Israel, they demand that all gentile nations take in tons of foreigners. Why? It will lead to diversity and divisions. It will leads to divisions between natives and invaders. The natives will also split between the nationalist patriots and globalist collaborators who side with the invaders. And then, Jewish globalists can manipulate all these divisions.
In UK, Canada, and France, there are lots of white natives who now side with invader-immigrants against the people of their own race. And we are seeing the same trend in Japan and South Korea, esp in the latter as most South Korean scholars are puppets of the US. Indeed, South Koreans are such dummies that they still haven't demanded that the US come clean about what it did in Korea.
Indeed, it makes more sense to regard Koreans as CucKoreans, the whore-race of the US empire. Just as most Koreans collaborated and serve their Japanese masters during the colonial period, they now serve their Zionist-globalist masters of the US.
At any rate, if Kang Lee is so worried about 'racism', how about not promoting diversity? Diversity breeds divisions and tensions that can breed distrust and then hatred. So, diversity is the problem. 'Racism' is not a problem in homogeneous societies. It becomes an ever bigger problem with more diversity. Diversity breeds distrust, division, and hate like swamp breed mosquitoes. For people to promote diversity and then condemn distrust/division is stupid. It's like someone who piles up manure and then complains of flies. More manure means more maggots that lead to more flies. Diversity is colorful and okay in small doses. But as the main feature of society, it is pure poison. It's like Tibetans wouldn't mind if some Chinese were in Tibet with Chinese restaurants. But when masses of Han Chinese enter Tibet and take over entire territories and economies, that is some bad shit.
Look at the mess that is Brazil. It is very diverse, and nothing works. And look at Venezuela. If diversity is so great, why do Latin Americans flee their more diverse nations for less diverse US and Canada? And if diversity is so wonderful, why do North Africans flee to Europe, especially Northern Europe?
If homogengeity sucks, how come Sweden was so nice when it was all white but is turning into shit as diversity increases?
If homogengeity sucks, how come Sweden was so nice when it was all white but is turning into shit as diversity increases?
Diversity is a mess. That is precisely why Jews push it. Jews are the ruling minority elites of the West. They fear that a homogeneous gentile community might one day unite and rise against corrupt Jewish power. So, Jews encourage more diversity, and then more ethnic tension. That way, gentiles will be fighting gentiles, and Jews will pull the strings from the top. It is exactly what British did in India. It is what French did in their empire. French used African troops to kill and rape Vietnamese. French used Lebanese businessmen in Africa, just like British imperialists recruited Hindu merchants to do the bidding of the British in Africa.
Kang's anti-white diatribe is exactly what Jews want. Jews are using Asians against whites.
But then, Jews also play up 'yellow peril' to make whites hate Asians. That way, white attention is diverted from Jewish power. Most of big media is owned by Jews, and they run endless articles about the Chinese Dragon conquering the world. So, Jews use Asians against whites, but they also fear-monger about 'yellow peril' to whites.
But then, these Asians-in-the-West brainwashed on 'diversity' as a wonder-drug will then try to push diversity in their own homelands. And in time, nations like Japan and Korea will also turn into the disasters of UK, France, and Sweden from all this 'diversity'. Whereas Koreans and Japanese won't get anything from diversity, Chinese and Hindu-Indians may gain something due to their sheer numbers. China has 1.3 billion. India has 1.3 billion too. Indian government would love to send 300 million of its people to other nations. And they see Australia and Canada as prime targets. If white Anglos had any sense, they would defend and preserve the nations built by their forebears. But as Anglo-minds, like Swedish minds, have been colonized by Zionist Globalist PC, they are welcoming their own demographic, territorial, and cultural demise. Their minds have been altered by the globo-virus. China and India have the numbers. They are also looking to use mass immigration to take over especially Japan and South Korea, rich nations that, however, have lost the will to have children as both are utterly materialist and shallow in culture. Australia is being taken over by Chinese and Hindus. But It also brings in black Africans. Blacks, being more muscular and aggressive, routinely beat up whites and Asians. Does it makes sense to bring into your nation people who are stronger and more aggressive? Why have foreigners beat up your own kids?
And 80% of Japanese and Koreans want to move to other nations, almost always Anglo-made nations. Even though the likes of Kang promote diversity, the nations they seek out for emigration are still majority white and were built by Anglo-peoples-and-cultures. Indeed, if Kang loves diversity so much, why did his kind move to white Canada than to Bolivia? And if Kang loves blacks so much, why doesn't he move to Congo? It's funny how these Asians select only Anglo-made nations for emigration. But once they come to white nations, they just follow the prevalent PC that says white nations must become un-white. Pretty crazy. Asians move to white nations because they prefer white nations over non-white ones(even their own). But then, they say it is wrong for white nations to be majority-white. They say whites must become minorities in their own homelands or nations that their forefathers made. If whiteness is so bad, why did Asians seek out white nations for emigration targets? Indeed, how amusing that Asians prefer to move to white nations than to other Asian nations. Kang's immigration choice is 'racist' because it preferred whiteness. But then, Asian scholars are so dishonest or ignorant of their own hypocrisy. It's like Jennifer Lee and Minzhou, two typical academic hacks who bleat out the same PC crap.
Anyway, it is wrong to politicize babies. It seems the 'progressives' are so lacking in truth and sound ideas that they rely more and more on brainwashing babies and children to turn them into mindless minions of PC. Indeed, 'progressives' even fear free speech and denounce any truthful speech as 'hate speech' to silence debate and to prop up the globalist tyranny of their masters.
Kang is just another careerist and hack. He has no original ideas. He just parrots the cliches and slogans of PC. 'White babies are racist' and 'diversity is our strength'. He is a perfect tool of Zionist globalists. Globalists use him as a person-of-color to attack white people. But as he's a deracinated globalist minion himself, he won't defend his own Asian nation either. He will denounce his own countrymen as 'racist' for not allowing mass invasion like Canada and Australia are doing. What a dummy. Is he aware what is happening to the West due to mass immigration/invasions? White people are fated to become minorities in their own nations. This is a good thing? If so, he must want the same fate for his own nation of origin. So, all gentile nations become mixed-and-matched with diversity and that leads to more divisions. And Jewish globalists divide-and-rule among the diversity. Meanwhile, these very Jews who push diversity on other nations insist on JEWISH-ONLY IMMIGRATION to Israel. Wow, how easily the goyim are suckered by the Zionist-globalists.
Anyway, when it comes to 'racism', Kang is looking in the wrong area. He can carry out all the 'anti-racist' experiments, but 'racism' will never go away because races are real and racial differences are real. Indeed, even those who profess to be 'anti-racist' and denounce 'racists' 24/7 act 'racist' in what they actually do. Indeed, even interracial relations are 'racist' because, as Steve Sailer said, it's not about colorblind lust but color-purposeful lust. Why do white women have jungle fever for black men but look down on yellow men? Why do yellow women prefer white men over yellow men? Why do even yellow men in Japan watch porn of black men humping yellow women? Globalism doesn't mean equality. It means becoming more aware of racial diversity and differences. Consider the effect of globalism on sexual culture.
And the reason why much of the racial problem in the US is black-related has less to do with history than with biology.
Surely, Kang and other yellow men like him realized that they have low sexual market value in the globalized world. Why? It's because races are different. White baby girls may be manipulated to like Asian boys. But once they grow up, they will realize that white men and black men are generally taller than yellow men. They will realize that Asian men generally have smaller penises than white and black men. Also, they will see that black men dominate sports and dance faster. And they will see that white males have more colorful personalities than imitative and dog-like Asian males who just follow the official narrative like good little doggies. But do the likes of Kang have the courage to deal with the truth?
No comments:
Post a Comment