Limits of Individualism — In a World of Innate Racial and Sexual Differences, Meritocracy based on Individualism invariably leads to Neo-Tribalism — Look at the Owners and Players in the NFL and Imagine what would happen if we forced Individual Meritocracy for Men and Women in Sports

Meritocratic Individualist Competition among Greyhounds

Greyhound and Bulldog. Two breeds with obvious group differences.

In a Perfect World, we would like to believe that Meritocracy based on Individualism would result in 'May the Best Man(or Woman) Win', and that would be that. What fair-minded person would have a problem with the Best Individuals winning due to natural talent and hard work? It would be Meritocracy over Tribal Favoritism. If there’s a society made up of green people, red people, and purple people, and if green individuals are favored over red and purple people solely based on his color, then there would be cases of green individuals of inferior talent being elevated over red and purple individuals of superior talent. It would be unfair. However, if meritocracy based on individuality were enforced, the best individuals of all three peoples would be favored. The best green individuals, best red individuals, and best green individuals would rise to the top. The Social Order would no longer be about Greens(talented and untalented) over Red and Purples(talented or untalented), but Talented Greens, Reds, and Purples over Untalented Greens, Reds, and Purples. This way, all three groups win and lose, and even the losers could take heart in the fact that SOME of their kind made it to the top. So, the lower Greens can identify with and take pride in the success of higher Greens. And lower Reds can identify with and take pride in the success of higher Reds. And lower Purples can identify with and take pride in the success of higher Purples. Pride isn’t only individualist but shared on some level. It’s like a father who never attended college and works at menial job takes pride in his son who attended good college and has a high-paying job. The father, as an individual, is a ‘loser’, but he shares in the success of someone of his own blood.

If Greens, Red, and Purples were all generally equal in talent, then each group would have roughly the same number of talented people and untalented people. Then, a system of meritocracy wouldn’t necessarily favor the individuals of any one group. Green individuals, Red individuals, and Purple individuals could all hope for equal chance at success up the social ladder. Of course, many will not make it, but some individuals of each group surely will(as long as they do their homework and commit themselves to competition). So, meritocracy will undermine tribalism, at least as a means of deciding the success of individuals. Tribalism may still continue to the extent that the successful individuals of each group may still identify with the lower elements of their own kind and vice versa. For example, a successful Mexican in America who rubs shoulders with successful non-Mexicans in professional life may still feel a deep connection with Mexicans, rich or poor. And poor Mexicans may look upon him as a ‘role model’ and ‘representative’ for the Mexican community.
Still, when it comes to who-gets-what, meritocracy based on individual ability should work against tribal favoritism where winners are chosen on the basis of identity. Success would be measured on the basis of WHICH INDIVIDUALS have the most natural talent and work ethic. Thus, pride of success, power, and privilege would not belong to any single group. After all, individuals of all groups would be represented in the upper ranks because they gained success by a combination of natural ability and hard work. So, if there is an institution of higher power, not only the Greens but the Reds and Purples could point to it and notice successful individuals of their own kind. There would be successful Greens, Reds, and Purples. Success would exclusively be a Green, Red, or Purple thing but an individual thing. Furthermore, since there are successful Greens, Reds, and Purples at the top, Individual Meritocracy would result in a Success that is Green, Red, AND Purple. It'd be ‘And’ over ‘Or’. Individualism will ensure success of all three groups to the extent that some members of each group will make it to the top. Thus, Meritocracy is both color-blind and colorful. It chooses winners in a color-blind manner, but the result, at least in a Perfect World where all groups are innately equal in talent, is very colorful as individuals of all groups will win in part. Of course, many individuals will lose, but there is consolation in knowing that SOME of their own kind won. It’s like even a Jewish nobody takes pride in the fact that there are rich, powerful, and successful Jews.

The problem is we are not living in a Perfect World where all groups are innately equal in talent in all things. We’ve been told over and over that Race is just a ‘social construct’, that Jewish Success is purely due to history & culture and not to biology, and that even Sex is just a man-made concept that should be called ‘gender’(and that maleness and femaleness are, above all, states of mind, e.g. if a man insists he is a ‘woman’, we must take him at his word and address him as a ‘she’ and even let him or ‘her’ participate in female sports... with predictable results, of course, which we are not supposed to notice).

In a world where all groups are generally equal in innate talent, social policy and cultural re-conditioning can conceivably produce roughly equal results for all groups. So, if Group A and Group B have equal talent but Group A has work ethic but Group B doesn’t(and therefore members of Group A succeed more), the problem could be remedied by re-conditioning members of Group B to develop a pro-work-ethic mindset. But what if there are real innate differences(which aren’t negligible) between Group A and Group B? If Group A is innately more talented than Group B, the only chance of parity between A and B would be if members of A are talented-but-lazy whereas members of Group B are untalented-but-studious -- lazy hare vs dogged tortoise. But if members of both are equally studious, Group A individuals will still outshine Group B individuals. And the differences will be even more dramatic if Group A individuals are talented and studious whereas Group B individuals are untalented and lazy. By the way, there would be little incentive for Group B individuals to be studious at something if they instinctively feel they don’t have a chance-in-hell against the naturally advantaged individuals of Group A. In the US, why would an Mexican-American work hard at trying to make it in the NBA or 100 m sprint? On some level, he must know that NO MATTER HOW HARD HE TRIES, he can’t compete with the Negroes(and some whites who just eke into the NBA).
The most obvious example of how Individualist Meritocracy will most certainly lead to triumph of Identity would be if men and women were made to compete purely as individuals. So, there would be no Men’s Sports that bans women and no Women’s Sports that bans men. All males and females would be required to compete purely as individuals, and may the best individuals, male or female, win. The result will be obvious. All the sports will be dominated by men, most likely totally. Even if all men and women were to pretend that the winners are the best individuals than Male athletes, one would have to be jaded or deluded not to notice that the result is Triumph of Maleness and Defeat of Femaleness. Sure, the system allows all individual, male and female, to compete for the same sports, but the fact is men will always be favored over women due to innate sexual differences. When nature has made men stronger and faster as a sexual group, all this talk of individualism rings hollow, at least when it comes to Men AND women in physical competition. Among men only or women only sports, individualism would be meaningful: Best Men winning over the men or Best Women winning over the women. But the notion of ‘best individuals’ among both men and women is useless because the men, as a sexual group, have such a decisive advantage over women. So, pretending, as radical libertarians do, that individualism should be the ONLY standard of success is to ignore reality. Individualism and Meritocracy make sense ONLY AMONG those of roughly comparable talent. So, it makes sense to have greyhounds race with greyhounds. That would be a matter of individual meritocracy among greyhounds, all of which are designed by breeding to be fast. But in a case of greyhounds vs bulldogs, individual meritocracy becomes beside-the-point because greyhounds, as a group, are so decisively faster than bulldogs, which have NO CHANCE against greyhounds. Granted, a mutant bulldog with extra speedy legs might beat a mutant greyhound that is exceptionally slow, but for the most part, individualist meritocracy makes NO SENSE when applied to greyhounds vs bulldogs because of dramatic innate differences coded in their DNA. So, if one wants to discuss the relative merits of greyhounds as individual sprinters in a race involving greyhounds, that makes all the sense in the world. But any discussion of individual merit between greyhounds and bulldogs is, at best, a solipsistic abstraction, and, at worst, willful deception to lend false hope to bulldogs and their owners.

When we look at the real world and real people, despite all the dogmatic PC yammering about how Race and even Sex(misleadingly called ‘gender’) are mere Social Constructs formulated by ‘racists’ and ‘sexists’, we see real group differences in all walks of life and all spheres of high intensity endeavors. One would have to be downright retarded not to notice innate differences between men and women. Even PC-cucks who toady up to the Power must, in their private heart of hearts, know they are just mouthing BS... even though there are always those True Believer types whose passions get the best of them. (More often than not, the True Believer types have no agency, and therefore, must be FED what to be most passionate about. They compensate for their lack of individuality by being most fanatical with received passion or 'wisdom'. Since they can't own their belief or conviction on the basis of originality or autonomy of thought, the ONLY WAY they can claim it is by sheer zealotry. It's like dogs, having no agency, obey their masters as to what to bark at and bite, and their own means of pride is sheer doggedness of aggression.) I mean, what honest person doesn't understand that there are two sexes, men and women? And who, in his or her right mind, really and truly believe that a man with a wig and dress, after a few hormone injections, qualify as a 'woman'? We live in strange times. In truth, a man pretending to be a 'woman' is a social and ideological construct(as well as the product of Frankenstein or Trankenstein Medicine), but we are told THAT is 'natural', whereas the notion of 'male' sex and 'female' sex are 'social constructs'. Truth has been turned upside down, and black has been made white.
There seems to be roughly four groups of people on matters such as this. (1) Those who see the BS and say so. But calling BS on PC can jeopardize one's career prospects, especially in government and fancy institutions like Finance, High-Tech, and Law. (2) Then, there are those who see the BS and remain silent or grumble only in private. Most of Conservatism Inc is like this. (3) Then, there are those who parrot the PC line but don't really believe it in private. It's probably the case that many Liberals actually don't much care for Tranny Politics but remain mum because it's currently fashionable in the Prog Community and favored by the Power. 94) And then, there are the True Believers who swallow PC whole. These morons may be useful to the Power as inquisitors and attack dogs, but No One really respects them. It's like the Power in the Middle Ages had little respect for the most rabid witch-burners even though it found them useful enough at times to carry out purges.

In the real world, individualism becomes pointless in uni-sexual sports. While it's true enough that some women are bigger and stronger than some men, elite sports will favor men over women to the point where sports will be all-male affair(unless some of the top male athletes decide to suddenly declare themselves as 'women'). According to PC, women should not be alarmed by tranny men taking over female sports because those trannies are really 'women'. So, when trannies win in Women's Sports, it's the power of Sisterhood.
PC is controlled by Jews and push such nonsense because trans-sexualism runs parallel to trans-nationalism. Jews figure that the mentality that accepts trans-sexualism(or trans-genderism) will be more amenable to trans-nationalism. After all, an idiot who believes that a male athlete in Women's Sports is really a 'woman' is more likely to believe that African migrant-colonizers in Europe are the New Europeans. Whether sexual identification or national identity, it all becomes a matter of State of Mind. So, we should accept that a man is a 'woman', just like we should accept that an African is a 'European'. But try convincing Jews that they should accept Arabs and Africans as fellow Jews or New Israelis, and they will balk at the proposal and call you an 'Anti-Semite' for suggesting that Israel adopt Immigration Policies that are sure to wipe Israel-as-a-Jewish-State off the map.
The fact that so many white people go along with the Trans-sexual & Trans-national charade that men are 'women' and that Africans are 'Europeans' goes to show that Jews have the white race by the balls. But then, Jews don't need to really convince all the white people or even majority of white people. They only need to buy off the white elites into cuckery of acquiescence (white Democrats) or silence(white Republicans), and then, most whites will either fall in line(like the libby-dibbers) or remain comfortably numb or 'numbstruck'(like conzo-bonzos). In a representative democracy, it doesn't matter what the people say IF there is no elite representative to stand up for their views. On Wall Street, there has to be brokers to process your investments, and in a true democracy, there has to be politicians, leaders, and public intellectuals to take up your cause or the voice of the people. But because virtually all white elites have been bought up by Jews, they are more likely to take commandments from the top than take up 'demandments' from the bottom. White elites don't represent the white masses; they serve the Jewish Supremacist Hegemonists. They don't need the masses as stilts when they have puppet-strings from above to hold them up.

Now, let's consider what Individualist Meritocracy has wrought in the West. Even though it was sold as an anti-tribalist and anti-'racist' means of selecting the most excellent and most deserving individuals of all groups, the result has been neo-tribalism and race-ism. (By 'race-ism', I mean race + ism = belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Ism means belief, so race + ism should mean belief in racial truths.) If indeed all groups are more-or-less equal in talent, Meritocracy-based-on-Individualism would have meant a colorblind system of producing colorful winners in all fields and sectors. But the fact is group differences are real. In the realm of sex, this has long been known, which is why the sexes were segregated in sports because women cannot compete with men on the basis of individual merit. The recent phenomenon of male trannies entering female sports has demonstrated why women must be segregated from men if they are to have a sports culture of their own. If men and women are both seen as mere individuals in uni-sex competitions, women have no chance no matter how hard they train as individuals.
The differences among the races, while not as dramatic as that between the sexes, are nevertheless significant enough to produce results that favor group domination than individual success. This is most obvious in sprinting. It's been noted that Blacks of West African descent have such a group advantage over other races that it makes little sense for non-West-Africans to even bother to compete. But it's much the same in professional football and basketball in the US. Even though all groups are free to try out and compete for those sports, the only race with any real chance of making it is the blacks. So, football and basketball have essentially become black sports and platforms for black identity and black pride. The result has been neo-tribal and race-ist.
And, when it comes to ownership of sports teams(and the media that broadcast the events), Jews have been dominant. As the saying goes, a Jew is more likely to own a sports team than play in one. Now, one might argue that super-rich Jews are the results of Individual Meritocracy(though less so in sports for obvious reasons), but when so many Jews outwit goyim and gain dominance in sports franchises, media ownership, finance, law firms & courts, entertainment, Big Pharma, Big Tech, and etc., the result isn't merely the Success of ultra-smart individuals but a neo-tribal consciousness among the winners.
Yuri Slezkine said as much in THE JEWISH CENTURY in his chapter on Soviet Jews in the early period of the Revolution. Even though they'd pledged their hearts to communism and universalist ideology, they couldn't help noticing that so many of their elite peers were Jews. So, despite their conscious efforts to be Good Communists, they always felt an undercurrent of Jewish pride and power. And Slezkine notes how, in the end, the ethnically conscious Jews won out in Israel and the US over the Soviet Jews who made a serious effort to favor universalism.

It should also be noted that, in the long run, the more ethnic-conscious Eastern European Jews won out over the more assimilationist Western European Jews who aspired to be the Other Wasp. Animal House Jews won the Frat War against the Wasps. It goes to show that those with stronger ethnic identity/personality wins over those with weaker ethnic identity/personality. Wasps did much good for their own society by practicing individual meritocracy, but they made a fatal mistake in extending meritocracy to other groups, especially those with innate superiority in brains or brawn. Even though such reform was done in the name of fairness, justice, and merit, the result has been neo-tribalism and race-ist in producing a New Order dominated by Jewish Supremacists in brains and Black Supremacists in brawn. The New Order may be more just in the sense that the superior-brained Jews and stronger-muscled blacks won out -- meritocracy in action, no doubt -- , BUT the result hasn't been what was promised. The promise was that all groups would win out equally-and-proportionately under a system of individualist meritocracy because there is only one race, the 'human race', because 'race is just a social construct', and because all races are virtually the same except in skin color. But the fact is innate differences among groups are real, and this is why individual meritocracy among groups with markedly different traits only leads to neo-tribailsm and race-ism. In the end, smarter Jews make more money than other groups, develop ethnic pride & consciousness, buy up media and politicians, and use their power to serve Jewish interests. Jews whine about how Bad Old Wasp America favored whites over others, but they muster all their power and influence to make all of us support Israel, not least by buying up whore goy politicians who do the bidding of ADL and AIPAC to shut down BDS movement and the Constitutional right of all Americans to speak and spend freely.
And what has happened to black consciousness over the years? After decades of black domination in boxing, basketball, football, track & field, and even tennis, blacks feel pride as the superior badass race. Almost no one looks at basketball & football and just think of athletes as mere individuals chosen by colorblind meritocracy. The fact is, even if the system isn't rigged to favor blacks, biology has been rigged by evolution to favor blacks in sports. So, Western Sports have become platforms for black pride and black consciousness. This is why black football players took up the BLM cause and 'took the knee'.

If blacks weren't so dominant in sports, such racially-charged and tribally-minded gestures wouldn't make much sense. But blacks could act thus in football because they are naturally so dominant. Top that off with the pornified pop culture of the West where the big black dong is a dominant trope, and the end-result of individual meritocratism has been neo-tribalism and race-ism. Jews win with wit and intellect, blacks win with fist and dong. So, despite all the PC propaganda about diversity-and-equality, the result has been the New Tribalism. The reason why so many blacks are filled with arrogance and self-esteem is because they know they can beat up whitey and other races. It's because they watch sports, listen to pop music, and consume pornified culture, all of which boost black megalomania.
And who can deny that Jews are full of arrogance, supremacism, and contempt because they amassed so much money, power, and influence by the use of their superior wits. Granted, Jews with brains have one decisive advantage over blacks with brawn. Many more people can make it with brains than with brawn. Many people can work in law, finance, media, and high tech, whereas only a handful can make real money in sports or pop culture. Also, whereas those in sports must demonstrate their superiority in the most naked way -- one can't fake ability in 100 m sprint or football -- , sufficiently clever Jews can gain over smarter and more deserving people. Also, smart Jews can help and favor less smart Jews in fields such as management in ways that talented black athletes cannot help less talented blacks in sports. So, while many elite fields have Jews who aren't the very best, sports only have blacks who are the very best.

Of course, just as Jews are inferior to blacks in sports and blacks are inferior to Jews in smarts, neither group is superior in everything over other groups. Generally, whites are smarter than blacks, and this is why pure individualist-meritocracy will not really work between whites and blacks. White individuals(even excluding white Jews) will win out over blacks individuals. Under pure individualist meritocracy, much smaller number of blacks will make it to good schools and a tiny few will make it to elite schools. This is why blacks insist on Affirmative Action. Blacks are all for individualist meritocracy in sports where they have a natural advantage over whites, but they totally oppose it in academics where they are bound to totally lose our without group-preferences and set-asides.
Given the truth of innate group-differences, this makes some sense. What is really offensive about Affirmative Action is the LIE that blacks need extra-help because of the legacy of Slavery and Jim Crow. If blacks are so traumatized by history, where do they get all the energy for Booty Call, House Party, Sports, Dancing, and letting the good times roll? They should all be sullen and depressed. But, it seems blacks got plenty of energy for Soul Train and Funky Town and for dribbling basketballs from morn to night. No, the real reason why blacks dominate in sports and fail in school is due to nature. Nature rigged the odds for blacks in sports and rigged the odds against blacks in smarts. But because of black pride and white 'guilt'(and the virtue-vanity highs that 'good whites' get from vaping on holy-schmoly 'guilt'), we are supposed to believe that black failure in schools is purely the result of Evil Whitey, and that's why whites must do more for blacks. (But if whites must prioritize black needs, why are Progs pushing for more immigration-invasion that exposes blacks to more competition?)
Still, blacks are currently favored by both individual meritocracy and group-preference(or group-protection). In fields where blacks have a natural advantage, they are allowed to totally dominate without any regard to diversity. No one complains that sports are Too Black. And in fields in which blacks are naturally handicapped, they get special preferences. In contrast, whites must shut up and accept total defeat in areas in which they are naturally disadvantaged -- notice there is no talk of affirmative action for white or non-black athletes and no talk of white-only sports where whites are shielded from competition with superior blacks -- but also make concessions to blacks(and even to browns) in areas in which whites are naturally advantaged and winning purely on individual merit. The system is rigged so that whites lose by both meritocracy and group-protection. In sports, whites must accept total defeat, and in areas in which whites are better than blacks, whites must give up their rightful achievements to blacks and others in the name of 'diversity' and 'inclusion'.
Of course, by 'whites', we mean non-Jews, especially those in flyover country and rural areas who tend to be Christian or culturally conservative. Jews rigged the system so that they can pull strings from behind the curtain to favor their own kind in elite institutions. Also, because any criticism of Jewish Power is deemed 'antisemitic', so many Jewish abuses & hypocrisies go unnoticed or unnamed. When so-called 'progressive' Jews combat the bogeyman of White Privilege, they don't mean something must be done about Jewish power and privilege. It means sacrificing more positions of white goyim to appease non-whites(especially blacks and white Hispanics) to maintain the Alliance of Jews and People of Color against whites. It means using the white-privilege-scapegoat to distract people from the real power in America that is controlled by Jews. (Also, by claiming that the problem of Hollywood, Big Tech, and Wall Street are 'too white', it gives the false impression that they are controlled by Texan Cowboys, West Virginia Hillbillies, country club Republicans, and Mormons than by Jews.)

Recently, Asian-Americans at Harvard and other Ivy League universities have gone forward with lawsuits on grounds that the current admission system violates the principle of colorblind individual meritocracy. Asians are generally seen as inferior in EVERYTHING but hitting the books, studying for exams, and getting better grades. So, academics seems to be what Asians cling to most dearly because they can't succeed or gain victory in anything else. The reactions of big academia and big media have revealed how confused, convoluted, and contradictory the current system is in terms of what it professes and practices.
At any rate, if there is a niche in which Asians do better than other groups under a system of colorblind competition, it's just another example of how individual meritocracy among groups of different abilities will de facto lead to neo-tribalism and race-ism. After all, Asian-Americans noticed that their best bet is in academia, and therefore, any barrier to their success there undercuts what is their only meal ticket. Why don't Asians complain that there aren't enough Asians in sports and pop music? It's because they know they are generally inferior as athletes and have weaker voices in a musical culture where the hottest thing is to holler like a black man or woman.

Response to "Voters elect against dividing Koreatown to include Bangladesh Town"

http://abc7.com/politics/voters-elect-against-koreatown-split/3628714/

When US cities were white, non-white immigrants sought to assimilate with whiteness.

The idea was US is essentially a white nation but open to others as well.
The idea was that white people had the power, wealth, and good stuff. So, whiteness was the ideal, the standard. Quintessentially American. John Wayne stuff. After all, the immigrants left their own nations. And they didn't want to go to non-white nations but to white majority nations, especially America.

So, as long as whites had the numbers, prestige, and power, all non-white immigrant groups shared something in common: Respect for whiteness and wish to merge with whiteness. Whiteness lessened non-white vs non-white tensions because all non-white groups could ignore one another and move toward whiteness.

But over time in many cities, whites lost the numbers, the power, and the prestige(due to Jewish-controlled PC). So, in a city like LA, there are lots of non-white groups living alongside one another. But none of them represents something that all non-whites would want to move toward or merge with. Non-white groups once valued the movement-toward-whiteness as the process of 'Americanization', but the same cannot be said for movement-toward-non-whiteness(even though the official narrative is that 'American' is purely ideological and has nothing to do with race or even culture). (The exception is movement-toward-blackness in style and attitude but certainly not in jobs, schools, and residence.) It was once considered(and still is, albeit mutedly) prestigious for non-whites to merge with whiteness --- synonymous with becoming 'Americanized' --- , but the same cannot be said for merging with, say, Mexicans, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Hindus, and etc. Even though the official ideology says Mexican-Americanism and Vietnamese-Americanism are just as American as white-Americanism, no one really feels this way in real life. Diversity really means the desire by non-whites to be included in the White or White-made world. Diversity without whiteness would be like building a model without glue. The structure wouldn't hold together. It's been said that Diversity means 'no more whites', but that'd be self-defeating like a model set without glue. Indeed, diversity without whiteness isn't appealing to most people. Latin America and North Africa are very diverse, but neither has enough whites. India is very diverse, but Hindus prefer to move to a white nation. Most people in diverse nations with no or few whites prefer to move to white nations. Ideal Diversity requires the White Magnet. Hindus don't want to be with blacks or even with fellow Hindus. Black Africans don't want to be with Hindus or even with fellow black Africans. Both want to be with whites, and the Diversity in UK is the result of non-whites preferring whites over non-whites(even their own kind).

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41HICBc0vZL._SL500_AC_SS350_.jpg

If an Asian-American moves to a white community, he or she feels 'Americanized'. Indeed, he or she is willing to surrender his or her own identity to take up this new prestigious ersatz-white identity. But would Chinese-Americans want to give up their identity to merge with Mexican-Americanism, Hindu-Americanism, or even Korean-Americanism? I think not.

Indeed, it's interesting that Chinese have been in Southeast Asian nations for so very long BUT they've mostly retained their Chinese identity and pride. In contrast, so many East Asians in white nations instantly surrender everything about their race, culture, and language to merge with whiteness or 'westernness'. People will surrender their culture for something higher but not for something lower. Chinese will surrender Chineseness to become 'white' or 'western'(deemed superior to Chineseness) but not to become 'Filipino' or 'Indonesian'(considered lower than Chineseness). Maybe Sephardic Jews mixed more with Muslims and Arabs because they weren't all that smarter, whereas Ashkenazi Jews in Europe, being markedly smarter, were less willing to merge with goyim. I dunno.

If Los Angeles had lots of whites, this 'fancy' Asian vs 'jungle' Asian dichotomy wouldn't matter. Both the 'fancies' and 'junglies' would focus on merging with whiteness as the American Ideal. Indeed, Asian women find it most ideal to marry white and have white-looking kids. And even in Asia, lots of Asian women get plastic surgery and dye their hair brunette or blonde to look like cartoon-white-people.

But because whiteness is becoming a more precious commodity in places like LA, the 'fancies' and 'junglies' are becoming more ghettoized in their own identities. Vanishing of whiteness means less of something for which Asians(or other non-white groups) are willing to surrender their own identities in order to merge with something higher or more quintessentially American.

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.