For the Jews, championing Free Speech was always a tactic than a principle. They(and their goy minions) were for when it served their interests. But now that the power of Free Speech challenges, defies, and exposes their corruption, hypocrisy, abuses, and supremacism, much of courageous and honest free speech is defamed as 'hate speech' that must be shut down. Of course, the powerful globalists know full well that the hysteria about 'hate speech' is really a mind-control tactic to restrict the discourse, but bottom-feeding Antifa dummies(and druggies) are too stupid to realize they are being used and abused as justice-junkie goons and SJW attack dogs.
It seems as though Neo-Stalinism is coming off the rails in US colleges, at least some of them. Why? Unlike Stalin who had iron-grip and total control over his minions, Neo-Stalinist professors do not. The Chinese Cultural Revolution spiraled out of control, but even so, Mao had the ultimate authority to rein in the Red Guards when he decided enough was enough. So when things got out of order, he mobilized the military to restore order in the cities and sent the radical youths to the countryside(ostensibly to serve the people). In contrast, Neo-Stalinist or Neo-Maoist college professors can't control what they've unleashed. Their power is too weak(and their will too wussy) to act as a lid on the pressure cooker of nutball agendas.
Also, there is a lot of unspoken resentment among the nutball radicals on campuses. Even though they do not candidly articulate their feelings, the contradictions can be sensed. Our world has come to be about winners and losers. Globalism and mass immigration/diversity has made it increasingly difficult for the Grand Middle Class to define the Core of Americanism. It is now about the winner class and the loser class; naturally, there will be many more losers than winners. This being the case, the natural thing would be for radical leftists to challenge and attack the winner class that is hogging the wealth and prizes. And in an earlier time, this would have been the case when the upper classes were more conservative, 'reactionary', rightist, and Wasp. And anti-homo, anti-statist, and even 'antisemitic'. Back then, the upper classes were attacked by the Left as the bastion of right-wing white-supremacist privilege.
But such political attitudes have diminished with the rise of boomers. Especially with Jews taking elite power from Wasps, leftist politics came to be less focused on class and more on minority-identity. By such logic, the rich Jewish minority now has more victim points than poor white gentiles. 'Minority Rights' doesn't make a distinction between billionaire Jews or fancy neo-aristo homos AND ghetto blacks or lettuce-picking Mexicans. Likewise, 'white privilege' doesn't distinguish between 'poor white trash' and someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. If anything, precisely because rich whites can buy off the opposition by funding 'progressive' causes, they are less targeted with ideological animus than are the white working class or poor folks who tend to be more nationalist(as globalism been a bane for them). With Jews as the new elites, attacking the rich is no longer ideologically kosher. Why, anti-wealth politics might be deemed as 'antisemitic'! Also, as the rich classes now fund Globo-Homomania and Diversinoma(Diversity-as-Cancer), they are praised as engines of 'progress' by the incestuous media and hype-machines controlled by people in the same club. So, nutball proglodytes go easy on George Soroses, Michael Bloombergs, Tim Cooks, and James Camerons of the world. Millennials are the Generation of Harvey Milk and Starbucks Coffee. Now that elite colleges are virtually entirely 'progressive' in an increasingly status-obsessed world(of 'winners and losers'), the future winners will be the main beneficiaries of PC-as-shield. According to the Official Dogma, how could they be 'bad people' when they are for 'gay marriage' and 'trannies in women-sports and the ladies room'? It is now easier than ever for the rich class to be 'leftist' or 'progressive' because the main organs of classic leftism have been removed and the void has been stuffed with issues amenable to manipulation by the rich. While the rich always had problems with demands of labor and class conflict, they need not concede much by pandering to the new themes of Zionism/Jew-worship, Globo-Homo, Magic Negro, and Diversity. As Jews are the richest people in America, being pro-Jewish now means being pro-wealth. As homos have neo-aristocratic flair and cater to the rich/powerful, they hardly pose a challenge to the privilege of the upper classes. The black issue can be dealt with by elevating token blacks like Oprah and Obama to the very top. Thus, even though most blacks remain mired in the same old problems, the symbolism of the 'first black president' and Oprah-as-billionaire-mammy(and MLK & Mandelas as new gods for the white race) creates the impression that the rich class is 'inclusive'. Even though they don't live close to most blacks, they rub shoulders with fancy blacks who are hyped by the media, thereby creating the impression that the upper class Jews & whites are totally 'anti-racist'. As long as they can afford fancy blacks to grace their parties and occasions, they can fend off the accusation of 'racism'. As for Diversity via More Immigration-Invasion, this is clearly in favor of the rich classes that can keep wages low; furthermore, their 'inclusion' of foreigners as new nationals is used as moral ammo against 'xenophobic' nationalist who come under the most competitive pressure by never-ending immigration-invasion. In a homogeneous society, the have-lesses have moral advantage over the have-mores by pressing for more equality. In a heterogeneous society, the have-mores claim moral advantage over the have-lesses by pushing for more diversity. As newcomers always apply more competitive pressure to the lower/middle class than to the upper class, the latter obviously has far less to lose. Of course, no one explained why More Diversity is more just. Where is the justice in allowing ceaseless flows of foreigners to take over one's own nation?
The culmination of all the ideological transformations has resulted in political schizophrenia. The NATURAL position for progressives would be to attack the winners as hoggers of wealth and power. But in the New Order, the winner class has rebranded itself as bobo-hipster-proggy. Even in the 1980s, there was the hatred of the Reaganite-Thatcherite yuppie. Consider the vapid yuppies of Oliver Stone's WALL STREET and Mike Leigh's NAKED. And AMERICAN PSYCHO was meant to expose the crass soullessness of yuppie mentality(though its author, Bret Easton Ellis, has been accused of being a soulless zombie himself). In the post-Counterculture era of 'Reaganomic 80s', the boomer professionals were so immersed in success and money that they neglected politics and ideology. But over time, especially under Billy Boy Clinton, the cultural elites formulated a way by which the new affluent class(to be labeled the 'creative class') could both reap the rewards AND shroud themselves with proggy 'righteousness'. One way was to turn leftism from Mayday to Gayday, from one of class politics to ass 'frolitics'. This worked like magic because homos are so vain, fancy-pants, and love to serve the rich. So, with homos as the dominant face of 'new progressivism', the main theme became amenable to Jewish elites and rich boomers.
This robbed progressivism of the opportunity to bash its traditional nemesis. If indeed progressives are supposed to be leftist and for egalitarianism, their natural enemies should be the rich class, especially those in the financial sector, vice industries, and inheritance jackpot. But the rich class — the likes of Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg, etc. — has come to own 'new progressivism' that went about prioritizing the destruction of anyone who refuses to bake 'gay wedding cakes' and objects to men in dress & wig to wee-wee in the Lady's Room. This does NOTHING to challenge the power of the rich. If anything, the oligarchs in Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley are cracking up that proglodytes in the US and EU can be worked up into a frenzy over silly issues about homos and trannies. Or 'slut pride'.
Surely, proglodytes in colleges, especially lesser ones, are really envious and resentful of students in better colleges majoring in prestigious fields with far greater prizes down the road. Those specializing in medicine, business, computers, science/technology, corporate law, and such will reap the most rewards. Those in humanities, history, arts, education, and especially various 'schools of resentment' will gain the least success. Many will be burdened with huge student debts with college degrees that are useless in the market place. So, naturally, a college graduate with degree in Crazy Negro Studies or Bitchy Grrrl Studies will face a less promising future than someone with a degree in computers or finance. Since politics is driven by envy and resentment(though such emotions are masked as 'justice'), proglodytes should direct their ire at the Mark Zuckerbergs and Sergei Brins of the world. But because prog losers were taught from cradle that the true meaning of 'progress' is all about Diversity, Homomania, and fighting 'racism', they can easily be directed to bark up other trees, indeed far smaller ones. Because today's rich elites make all the correct-sounding noises about More Immigration, More Homo Celebration, and More Magic Negro Worship, the loser proglodytes feel obligated to praise and support the rich progoligarchs. "They may be stinking rich and greedy, BUT at least their hearts are in the right place. Besides, gee whiz, without the rich oligarchs using their monopoly-muscle to do the right thing, the Nazis, KKK, White Supremacists, Racists, Homophobes, and Misogynists may take over and kill all of us!" Thus, the all-powerful globo-homo-shlomo oligarchs are seen as the 'lesser evil' or 'necessary evil', the bulwark against the rising tide of 'white nationalism'. Just like the rich class, during the Cold War, fooled Middle America into supporting its greedy agenda with scare tactics of "It's either us or the communists!", the rich class today fools proglodyte masses into supporting monopoly capitalism with scaremongering tactics of "It's either us or the fascists!" The Jewish elites who advise the oligarchs understand the dynamics of radical psychology and how to manipulate it. They know that proglodytes must still scream, rant, and holler about something. After all, the entire millennial generation has been raised on the Trigger-Happy Politics of Outrage. It's about me-hugging self-righteous displays of holier-than-thou virtue, a neo-puritanism. Since they cannot attack the rich and powerful(who are morally shielded by their support of globo-homomania), they look around and strike out at easy targets, like wussy professors or an odd conservative on campus.
But then, these wussy professors brought it on themselves by favoring Neo-Stalinism. Now, by 'Neo-Stalinism', I don't mean they are ideologically Stalinist in the Marxist-Leninist sense. I highly doubt if most so-called leftist professors in our time want forced collectivization of agriculture or mass executions of 'class enemies'(though some of them, especially Jewish ones, seem to fantasize about mass murder of white males and mass-rape of white women, mostly by blacks and Portnoic Jews). By Neo-Stalinism, I mean the favoring of machine politics over individual brilliance. Even though people with individual brilliance can be totalitarian and tyrannical in their outlook, they tend more towards free discourse than less brilliant people do. Why? Because the brilliant have confidence in their ability to argue and win the debate. This was why Leon Trotsky failed against Josef Stalin. Trotsky himself was autocratic and ruthless, but he was less totalitarian-minded(at least within the Soviet hierarchy) because he thought he could win with wit and brilliance. Stalin was smart and experienced, but he couldn't match wits with Trotsky or other top Jews. So, the ONLY way Stalin could win was by building up machine politics. He organized an army of cadres who were dim but obedient. They were loyal to him like dogs and attacked anyone he set them upon. George Orwell in ANIMAL FARM has the Stalin-Pig Napoleon get his way every time by threatening to unleash his attack dogs on any beast who naysays his authority.
The really smart intellectuals on the Left tend to be less totalitarian. Christopher Hitchens had confidence in his ability to take on anyone and win or at least hold his own. Steven Pinker also has self-confidence. But a lot of academics and intellectuals are really hacks or colorless. They lack brilliance or the nerves to match wits on a one-on-one basis. So, they prefer the Stalinist machine-politics way over the Trotsky my-brilliance way. They'd rather create an army of anti-intellectual(or at best pseudo-intellectual)goons who will learn and obey than think and notice. They are more 'taboosters' than taboo-busters. They would rather have obedient goons than free-thinkers. The danger, however, is that goons can get out of control(especially if they are Crazy Negroes, as with BLM fiasco). Unlike Stalin and Mao who had the means to clamp down on radical 'adventurism', the Neo-Stalinist professors are helpless when their own goons bark and bite at them for being insufficiently 'woke'. (To be sure, even many smart Jews now seek to shut down free speech in favor of Neo-Stalinist control of society, and the reasons are twofold. Some smart Jews feel that Donald Trump's victory is a harbinger of anti-intellectual Pitchfork Politics of yahoos who think and act as a Mob. They feel that such people are incapable of free & open debate and are impervious to evidence & logic to boot. The white mobs are mere dry wood for radical 'white nationalist' flames, and so, better to dampen them before they catch fire. But another bunch of smart Jews fear free speech because they sense that no amount of their wit and brilliance can argue against obvious truths such as Jewish domination of America, Zionist imperialism against Palestinians, facts about race, there being only two sexes[than 50 genders], black crime, and etc. While smart people can outwit and out-talk the less smart, just like adults can fool children, there is a limit to sophistry, however brilliant it may be. Just like kids eventually find out and learn to trust adults less, goyim have a reached a point where, via free and open exchange of ideas and information, they could arrive at the truth about Jewish Power and its hidden agendas. Thus, even smart Jews increasingly dread free speech because they fear that even their wits and brilliance cannot keep duping the dimwit goyim forever.)
Now, is PC really the most powerful force in the US? We tend to associate PC with puritanism, but hedonism exerts greater force in the West, and current PC is a strange combo of neo-puritanism and wanton puerile-ism. After all, why did Jews, Homos, and Negroes become so powerful? There is the Shoah thing, slavery thing, and AIDS thing(caused by homos themselves) to be sure, but most people don't think of such things 24/7. Most people seek pleasure, and the fact is Jews, blacks, and homos won out because of their dominance of hedonics. Jews control comedy, wit, entertainment. Blacks got music, sports, and sex culture. Homos are into fashion, vanity, and celebrity culture. 'Celebristianity' is the new christianity. Once basic needs are met, people mainly live for pleasures: Consider the exponential rise in gambling, video games, pop music, pornography, celebrity mania, drugs(with meth having killed countless poor whites), homo bacchanalia almost all year round, dances such as 'twerking', and etc. So, it seems Poo-C counts more than PC. (Poo-C meaning 'pussy' and poo-ride of homos.)
We can see the power of hedonics in US politics as well. Since the 1960 election, the rule of hedonics led to the more hedonic candidate winning. The more-hedonic-candidate is one who seems more 'fun'. That's why John F. Kennedy beat Richard Nixon. Though Lyndon B. Johnson wasn't 'fun', he was more fun than Barry Goldwater. Richard Nixon wasn't fun, but Hubert Humphrey wasn't the life of the party either. And George McGovern, though the leader of the debauchers, was a dull guy. Jimmy Carter was more fun than Gerald Ford. Ronald Reagan, former actor, was more fun than Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. George H.W. Bush, though not fun, was still more fun than the bloodless Michael Dukakis who had nothing of Zorba about him. Billy Boy Clinton was lot more fun than Bush and Bob Dole. George W. Bush, aka Dubya, was more fun than square Al Gore and droopy John Kerry. Barack Obama was more fun than Mr. MaGoo McCain and Mormon Mitt Romney. And Donald Trump was more fun than Hillary Clinton. (Maybe Bernie Sanders would have beaten Hillary if he told more jokes like a Jewish comedian.)
Donald Trump's supporters are becoming disillusioned with Zionist-Globalist War Cries emanating from Washington D.C. Whatever happened to nationalism over globalism? Whatever happened to no more wars and instead focusing on the problems facing the American people?
It goes to show that a people cannot rely on just one man.
It's like Moses led his people out of Egypt, but the Hebrews couldn't rely only on his leadership and vision. After all, even great men fade, fall, or die eventually. So, Moses had to provide his people with the Law, the vessel of principles and meaning. That way, with or without him, the Hebrews had something to guide them and set them straight through the ages.
Likewise, white people need something more than Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. Putin won't live forever, and Trump has shown himself to be a huckster and opportunist. He's not to be trusted. Also, Jewish Power is so entrenched in the US that it's difficult for Trump to outmaneuver the Jews even if he wanted to. In contrast, Russia was such an anything-goes anarcho-gangster state in the 90s that someone like Putin with deep state instincts and connections could pull off a counter-coup against the Jewish oligarchs.
Anyway, white people need a sense of who they are, what they are, where they came from, and how they must advance into the future. Trump was useful in shaking things up, but he has to deal with the reality of the Deep State and powerful institutions being controlled by Jews and/or globalists.
One thing for sure, white people need to reject libertarianism that has defined so much of 'conservative' thought. Consider soulless and spineless asses like Paul Ryan. While individualism and freedom are valuable, libertarianism goes too far in lionizing those themes above all else. It is the ideology of "I got mine, and I don't care about others, even or especially for those of my own race/ethnicity." The problem isn't one's conviction in individuality, independence, responsibility, and personal success; it isn't one's criticism of those paying the price for poor decisions. After all, the kind of leftism that mindlessly fawns upon the poor and the 'powerless' is pretty useless. It has a knee-jerk tendency to see success as 'greed' and failure as 'nobility'. In fact, many people, especially in a free society, messed up in life due to poor/stupid decisions. And they must realize this and act more sensibly in life. To be free means to accept the consequences of one's freedom.
The important thing is there is a sensible middle-ground between Libertarianism and Socialism. Libertarianism is so radically self-centered that its adherents care only about their own success. Or, if unsuccessful themselves, they fawn on those with money and power with toady-like deference. Theirs is a worldview of arrogance and contempt. According to libertarianism, the winners must be great and wonderful since they used their smarts and freedom to rise high. Libertarianism tends to ignore how ability and success can easily lurch into corruption, abuses, and exploitation. It's like even naturally talented athletes will cheat by using steroids or dirty tricks. Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones. Socialism, in contrast, is so sanctimonious in its righteous compassion that it fails to see the flaws and failings of groups deemed as 'victims'. So, lower classes are just saints with hearts of gold who, if they act crazy or violent, are merely reacting to oppression. Blacks, refugees, and immigrants are automatically good for belonging to a 'marginalized' group. Such lack of critical mentality in socialism fails to come up with useful advice to the 'losers' of the world. By fawning on such peoples, socialism only encourages the 'victim' groups to feel sorry for themselves, self-righteous relative to the have-mores, and justified no matter how stupidly they act.
The Left has done itself no favors with this brand of socialism. It always gives useless or even destructive advice to people it purports to help because of its dogmatic sentimentality about the poor, the minorities, or the 'wretched of the earth'. So, if blacks riot and burn down a city, the Left just sees blacks as nobly enraged with injustice. So, if a bunch of Muslims leave their own nations and illegally barge into the West for material gain, they are to be coddled as the 'huddled masses yearning to breathe free' instead of as craven opportunists. Imagine a parent who never straightens out his children but always makes excuses for them. Imagine a teacher who never accuses his students for bad behavior but only makes excuses for them, as if it's never the students' fault. There can be no progress, no improvement, and no rectitude with such attitude. This is why leftism has been such a catastrophe. The problem is not its concern for fellow man(who may be down and out) but the lack of courage to be critical of those in need of help. Even if a people are without privilege or advantage, they must be judged and corrected when they do wrong. It's like Moses sometimes had to be tough with his people even if they were a sorry desperate lot.
But libertarianism has its own problems. While it has some positive ideas like individuality, freedom, responsibility, and work ethic, it is obsessive about the self at the expense of all other considerations. In regard to humanity, it only sees single individual selves, not a people with common bonds of ethnicity, culture, history, and territory. Libertarianism isn't wrong to espouse the ideal of individual success by individual effort. After all, no one should expect others to do his homework for him. Where libertarianism fails is the total unconcern for anything but the self(or the various individual selves). If the self has it good, a libertarian feels no compunction to care about anyone else. But with such unconcern, a libertarian cannot have a meaningful identity, culture, or sense of history. He is just an atomized individual in a globo-cosmopolitan universe. Since he identifies only as an individual and sinks-or-swims as a mere individual, his heart and mind have no connection to anything beyond the self. As such, it cannot have a wider or deeper sense of community across time and space. Libertarianism sees lots of dots but never connects the dots to form a large picture.
Consider two individuals. One is a Libertarian Jew who is totally radical about his libertarian principles. The other is a Jewish nationalist. Now, suppose both individuals believe in individuality, responsibility, and ambition. Suppose both Jews gain success. In that regard, they have much in common. However, the Libertarian Jew is only concerned with the individual, the self. He only cares about his individual freedom and success. And he considers rest of humanity ONLY AS INDIVIDUALS. So, he sees successful individuals, middling individuals, and failed-individuals. He has no other consideration of who-they-are when dealing with humanity.
In contrast, the other guy, the Jewish nationalist, has a sense of ethnic, historical, and cultural identity. He doesn't see himself merely as an individual but also as a person of a specific racial community. So, even though he also sees a world composed of successful individuals, middling individuals, and failed-individuals, he also sees a world made up of cultures and tribes. And he feels a unity with the people of his tribe/culture, the Jews of the world. So, even though, purely on the basis of economic and individual worth, he is more like rich Hindus, rich Anglos, and rich Chinese, he feels a deep connection with all other Jews, rich-middle-poor. And if possible, he would like to do something that serves the interests of all Jews on the racial, cultural, territorial, or historical level. Meanwhile, the Libertarian Jew feels no such feelings when it comes to other Jews. They are just individuals, and some are successful, and some are not.
Now, suppose there's a Jewish community in some part of the world and something horrible is happening to it. The Libertarian Jew's attitude is, "Why should I care?" Since he only sees himself as an individual among other individuals, why should he care MORE about what happens to some Jewish community than what happens to some other community? After all, bad things are happening all the time in some part of the world. Earthquake could destroy a community in Iran. Hurricane could destroy a community in Florida. Famine could destroy a community in Ethiopia. Flood could ruin a community in Japan. So, why should the Libertarian Jew care more about what happens to a Jewish community? After all, his special concern for Jews would go against his own Libertarian principles. It might be deemed 'racist', 'supremacist', and 'exclusive'. For him to care more about a tragedy befalling a Jewish community would mean his emotions are playing racial-favorites. It means he's thinking collectively and nationalistically than as an individual committed only to principles of colorblind freedom, liberty, and success. So, even though, in a broad sense, he might feel generic sympathy for any group facing hardship or horrors -- and donate to humanitarian charities for trouble-spots around the world -- , he doesn't feel an obligation to care more about suffering Jews than any other people. So, he sees suffering Jews only in a generic way. They are suffering like the rest of humanity that is suffering, and that's that. And there is no need for him to feel especially bad about the plight of his people. Indeed, he doesn't even regard them as 'my people'. So, even though there could be some Jews suffering really badly in some part of the world, he feels no special connection with or obligation toward them. As such, he feels just fine going about his daily business and is concentrating on persona/professional interests. So, if HE is rich and happy, all's fine with the world. His happiness isn't associated with what happens to a bunch of Jews halfway around the globe.
In contrast, the Jewish Nationalist feels as part of a larger ethno-humanity. No matter how well he may be doing, no matter how well-off he is personally and professionally, and no matter how safe & secure he and his family are, he doesn't feel happy or feel all's well with the world IF there are Jews suffering terribly in some part of the world. He sees them as a part of an extended family. So, their suffering is, at least partly, his suffering as well. He feels a connection to others of his kind. His life doesn't revolve around himself. His life revolves around something bigger and deeper, a sense of being part of a history and culture.
There's a scene in SANDS OF IWO JIMA where a soldier goes on break. He's supposed to return quickly and aid his company, but he prolongs his recess to take it easy. As the result, his fellow soldiers end up getting killed because of his absence. He is overcome with shame and guilt. His extended break proved negligent and led to the death of his compatriots. The Jewish Nationalist feels in a similar way in relation to other Jews. He feels that all Jews should care about one another. This doesn't mean that some Jews should work so that others can freeload off them. Such dependence would be parasitic and opportunistic. Rather, his ideal is for a kind of ethno-INTERdependence whereby, despite every Jew's effort to gain success on his own, he would be mindful of what's happening with the worldwide Jewish community. So, if some Jews are seriously hurting in a part of the world, other Jews should feel obligated to do something, like when American Jews lent a hand to Soviet Jews. Such compassion may be tribal than universal, but universalism is too generic for meaningful emotions. After all, it's impossible for anyone to care about all the families around the world. Naturally, one cares more for one's own family. Trying to help or save all the peoples around the world would be impossible. Besides, universalists only pretend to care about other groups as for one's own. 20th century was filled with lots of horrors, but Jews have been fixated on the Shoah. Why? Would Jews have cared so much if it had been directed only at Polish Catholics and not Jews? It's only natural that Jews would care more about fellow Jews.
For a person to care ONLY ABOUT THE SELF AND CLOSE ONES would be petty. For a person to care for ALL OF HUMANITY would be generic, more a case of virtue-signaling than anything meaningful or consequential. The middle-ground for meaningful human emotions is ethno-culturalism. A Polish person shouldn't just care about the self or the individual. But it'd be impossible for him to care about all of humanity. Universalism will always be generic and confused. The meaningful balance can be found in ethno-culturalism: A Pole who cares about Polish-ness as a people, culture, nation, and history. Let him defend and preserve Polish-ness, and let peoples of other nationalities defend and preserve their own identities and heritages. It's like different departments in colleges focus on different things. Chemistry department focuses on chemistry, not on the law. Accounting Department focuses on accounting, not on agriculture or rocket science. It would be absurd to expect every academic department to focus on every discipline & every field of knowledge and welcome any student with any interest. Likewise, every nation has its own specialization in ethnicity, culture, territory, history, and mythology(collective narrative). Specialization allows the university to maintain the various departments. People of each department specialize in a certain field and maintain expertise in it. So, those in psychology maintain knowledge about psychology, and those in film studies maintain knowledge on the art of cinema. We don't condemn such specialization as 'academic tribalism' or 'academic exclusionism'. In order for every department to be expert in its specialty, it has to concentrate on certain kinds of knowledge at the expense/exclusion of other kinds. So, if a department is about teaching foreign languages, it would be stupid for it to include physics and finance as well in the name of 'academic inclusion'.
Likewise, each nation has its own special history. And each nation is stamped by a unique story of a dominant ethnic group. And each nation has a rich history, culture, folklore, and tradition. It is up to the people of each nation to safeguard, preserve, defend, and disseminate this specialized body of national-cultural knowledge among all its members. Each person of a nation must be seen as a student & scholar of its ethnicity, history, culture, and territory. Just like everyone in a college department must gain expert knowledge of the department's subject, every person of a nation should try to be an expert on that nation's history, culture, arts, geography, and etc. It is the loss of such mindset under the pressures of globalism that has made so many people into such bad students of their own identity, history, and culture. It is no wonder they are flunking in national survival and self-preservation. Poisoned by globalism that says every nation must inclusively accept ALL nationalities across its borders, people are no longer compelled to become knowledgeable patriots of their ethnicity, history, and culture with the will to defend their territory.
Imagine if the French language department was accused of specializing in French and not welcoming other disciplines. Therefore, suppose the French department declares itself as no longer exclusively about French and allows people from engineering, agriculture, ceramics, photography, law, medicine, and etc into the department. So, what would the French department be about now? It'd be deemed 'nativist' or 'racist' for the department to be about French above other disciplines. But the people in the department only know French, and they know nothing of other disciplines. And people who specialize in other disciplines feel lost wandering around the French department which is ill-equipped to serve their interests. In time, every discipline that's been allowed into the French department suffers since no one is allowed to meaningfully concentrate on anything. Only by everyone returning to his own department and only by French department concentrating on French will all departments flourish.
Likewise, all nations have more to gain by maintaining their own peoples, cultures, histories, and territories. Let the French preserve what is French in France. Let Cameroonians preserve what is Cameroonian in Cameroon, and let Algerians preserve what is Algerian in Algeria. Let different peoples specialize in their own ethnicity, territory, history, and narrative. And once each nation is preserved in such manner, the world can share and exchange each other's ideas, stories, achievements, and etc... just like various departments in colleges can share their general knowledge with other departments that specialize in their own disciplines. For there to be interdisciplinary studies across departments, each department must maintain expertise in its special field. That way, if another department needs help from the French Department, the latter will be all revved up to deliver.
We need a robust nationalism that encourages each person to be an expert in his folk, history, and culture of his/her nation. And it should be seen as a lifelong pursuit than something only learned in schools. A person with no such interest or investment should be seen as a flunk. What's the point of being a member of a nation if one has no interest in it? It'd be like being part of college department without having any knowledge of its subject.
Anyway, a nationalist doesn't only care about himself or look upon humanity as a collection of 'free individuals' in a borderless world. That would be a libertarian. A nationalist believes that certain peoples, histories, and territories became interwoven to form special 'cultures' that need to be preserved, ideally by those with blood ties to the cultures. Surely, a black African feels a deeper connection when he looks upon the artifacts of his culture. While anyone can appreciate African art on the aesthetic level, it is more than mere art to those of the race and culture that created it. Similarly, Chinese culture surely means more to people of Chinese lineage. It's like Jewish things in Jerusalem mean more to a Jew than to a Japanese, for whom the gardens of Kyoto have special meaning.
Globalism wages war on the specialization of cultures, histories, and peoples. It tries to turn all cultures into Cultures-for-Dummies: bland, generic, superficial, interchangeable. Globalism tries to turn every nation into Nation-for-Dummies. In contrast, nationalism believes that each person should become an expert of one's identity, history, and culture. Also, if the people of the culture fail in this, they mustn't expect any other people to do it for them. If Hungarians give up on Hungary, non-Hungarians will not fill the void? If Hungarians decide to abandon their culture, who will preserve it for them? Africans? Mexicans? Japanese? Brazilians? No chance. And even if another people did decide to preserve it for Hungarians, it still wouldn't be the same. It'd be like Chinese preserving the Kenyan nation, or Nigerians speaking Polish and pretending to be Polish Catholics. It'd be just 'larping'. If Jews gave up on Jewish identity and culture AND if Hawaiians or Gypsies took up the mantle of Jewishness, would it be the same? Of course not. No more than if Vietnamese took over Congo and pretended to be New Congolese.
For a nationalist, the meaning of freedom and justice cannot derive solely from personal well-being. No matter how free and well-off he may be as an individual, he doesn't feel truly free and secure as long as others of his kind are suffering or living in bondage. He feels a 'psychic' connection with others of his own kind. It's like a father cannot enjoy his meal no matter how much food he is served if he knows his own children are going hungry. It's like a son cannot enjoy his meal no matter how much food he is served if he knows his parents are starving. A nationalist sees his people as part of his larger family.
A libertarian has no special feeling for others of his own kind. He only cares about himself and has a generic sense of humanity as individuals. So, if people of his ethnicity are suffering, he doesn't see them as 'my people'. He just sees them as suffering individuals no different from other suffering individuals in some other part of the world. A true-blue Libertarian Jew would be no more disturbed by Jews being rounded up and killed than by any other people being rounded up and killed. He would be appalled but no more appalled than by violence committed to any other group.
Of course, few Jews actually feel that way. Jews, even those who claim to be libertarian, feel a great deal of tribal camaraderie with other Jews around the world. Jews know this feeling is the source of their power, resilience, unity, and will to survive. Now, it'd be nice if Jews, in valuing the meaningfulness of such tribalism, respected similar feelings among other peoples. But Jews won't tolerate such among whites because white gentiles with a sense of tribal compassion may favor their own kind's interests overJewish interests. After all, if white gentiles felt special compassion & loyalty to their own kind, they'd be less partial to sacrificing their own interests in favor of Jewish ones. In some cases, they might see Jewish interests as threatening to their own and work against them. And this is why Jews will not tolerate tribal-communion compassion among white gentiles. (This is why Jews use three methods to make sure whites serve Jewish interests uber alles. First, Jews try to persuade whites that Jewish/Israeli interests and American/European interests are one and the same. So, what is good for Israel is good for the US, no ifs and buts about it. And Western Values are synonymous with Jewish values. Second, Jews tell whites that nationalism is passe, and therefore, whites must adopt Universal Values. Oddly enough, however, once whites are made to forgo white identity in favor of universalism, Jews steer whites toward to serving Zionism and Jews above all else. In other words, it's a case of 'heads I win, tails you lose'. When Jews say people must surrender nationalism for universalism, it doesn't apply to Jews who are, if anything, celebrated for clinging to their nationalism. Also, 'universalism' is a sham because deracinated and de-nationalized whites are then steered to serve specific Jewish interests than truly universal ones. To be sure, Jews mask their tribal interests with faux-principles about 'human rights', 'war on terror', and 'liberal democracy', but just about everything Jews push under such labels goes toward serving Jewish or Zionist interests. Third, Jews not only advise whites to adopt universalism but go all out to smear even the faintest whiff of white identity as 'nazi' or 'white supremacism'. Therefore, whites are made an offer they can't refuse. They must reject nationalism in favor of 'universalism' that, however, is configured only to serve Jewish tribal interests and Zionism. The current trouble with Russia and Syria has everything to do with Jewish obsessions and nothing else, at least from the standpoint of the US.) If Jews are killed by Palestinians, Jews care a great deal about Jewish victims. Indeed, they use the media to make even gentiles care for Jewish victims. But whites are not supposed to feel any kind of racial compassion for their own kind.
So, there's hardly been ANY expression of sympathy or alarm about all those whites who've been brutally robbed, raped, and/or murdered in South Africa. And Germans are not supposed to care about German victims of migrant rapists. French are not supposed to care about French victims of Muslim violence or African thuggery. And in the US, whites are never allowed to express racial camaraderie with fellow whites attacked by blacks or overrun by non-white immigrants. Ethno-Compassion has been stamped out for whites... but whites are pressured to feel compassion for Jews(every crisis is a new holocaust), blacks(black lives matter), homos, and immigrants, even illegal ones("we have to keep families together"). But when it comes to white identity and interests? Forget about it. If anything, non-whites are encouraged to insult whiteness(despite their desire to move to and live in white nations), and even many whites have been mentally-colonized to spit on their own identity and history. Whites are only allowed, indeed compelled, to feel racial compassion for other groups, especially Jews, blacks, and homos.
This must all change.
-----------------------
Dealing with Proglodytes, it's best not to approach them as individuals with critical faculty and agency of thought. It's best to see them as mind-infected, psycolonized, or 'possessed'.
Demon-possessed Regan in THE EXORCIST was no longer herself. She was taken over by the Devil. It would have made no sense for the priests to address her as a free-thinking, independent, and autonomous person. Her young impressionable mind was taken over by Satanic spirits.
Progs are possessed by some demonic GLOB spirit. And it is that demon-spirit in them that we must address. We must focus on the Soros-bug inside their minds that is doing the 'thinking' and talking for them. We must bypass them-as-individuals and get to the source of the malaise. Progs are mere carriers of this disease. Notice how they all sound and act alike. It's as if they all caught the same Flu. It's the Globonic Plague. When a doctor treats a patient for a disease, he focuses on the infection or condition, not on the patient per se. It is the disease that has hold on the patient, not the patient who has hold on the disease. These ideological infections create the illusion among the afflicted that they freely and personally chose those 'ideas' & 'values' when, far more likely, they became infected or 'possessed' by them. Granted, the afflicted might have done things that aided and abetted the likelihood of the infection. If a person situates himself in an area where lots of people have come down with the flu, he has a good chance of catching it himself. Still, once the person has caught the flu, it is the disease that must be addressed, not the person as he no longer has control over the disease that has a 'logic' and 'will' of its own.
Proglodytes are zombie-like minions... just like Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution were infected with Mao-itis. It would have made no sense to treat every Little-Red-Book-toting-and-quoting Red Guard as an independent thinker with free will. Their minds were infected with the same ideo-disease. Once Mao-itis ran its course and passed away, it was amazing how everyone lost the fever at the same time and the same way.
Now, the GLOB is tricky and deceptive in hoodwinking its minions into believing they are made free, liberated, independent, and empowered by casting off the core tenets of morality, integrity, responsibility, sobriety, and normality. But once young ones reject such virtues as 'reactionary', they are left with a void that, desperately hungry for meaning, fills up with every fad or fashion that comes down the pipeline. Young ones fail to understand that core virtues are the immunity against being infected by various fads concocted by the cynical GLOB or radicals(or fadicals) who are infected themselves. Now, there are degrees of infections. Some proglodytes may eventually emerge from the infection and regain sanity. But some have caught the viral rabies or leprosy version of the disease, and for them, it's total madness or slow decay.
