Institutional Man vs Internet Kid

Every professor or journalist is an institutional man(or woman or person). Institutions are necessary, and without them, we wouldn't have organization and structure. (Some people say they are not against religion, only institutionalized religion, but this is like saying education is okay as long as it's not institutionalized. Yet,r religions wouldn't have survived without institutionalization, and most people would be uneducated if not for institutionalization.) That said, all institutions are inherently about conforming to norms and standards. This isn't a problem and, indeed, it is even a necessity insofar as every department or discipline must maintain its rules and principles. After all, a chemist has to know & practice real chemistry, and his work has to be examined and approved by his peers. If every alchemist posed as a chemist, chemistry would soon turn into anarchy.

So, institutions must enforce standards. But when do standards turn into dogma under peer pressure, ideological or otherwise? Ideally, regardless of the ideology of scholars, they should live up to academic standards of research and discourse. In some fields, it’s easier to uphold proper standards. It’s harder to fake studies in math and hard science. But history and social sciences are open to interpretation, bias, ideology, passion, and personalities. So, as Jonathan Haidt came to realize, most of the social sciences and humanities operate as rigged systems. They don’t so much uphold objective standards of academics as enforce or nudge-nudge the peer-pressure of dogma. Indeed, some academics have admitted that they favor their own ideological kind. So, they prefer a second-rate ‘leftist’ to a first-rate ‘rightist’ even though, by objective academic standards, the latter is more deserving. And some academics and journalists dismiss the notion of 'objective standards' altogether and blatantly favor only those facts, data, and even lies that legitimize their chosen Narrative. Their logic says, since absolute objectivity is not possible in the social sciences and humanities --- or worse, since objectivity might sometimes favor the counter-Narrative --- , it should be shucked whole hog in favor of Narrative as sacred dogma.

Institutions are exclusive and open to just a few. Every academic department can hire only a handful of people for coveted slots. So, everyone knows he has to play ‘politics’ and say the ‘right thing’ to be accepted and move up the ladder. Furthermore, even though professors(esp those with tenure) are technically free to pursue knowledge wherever it may lead, they know very well that if they say or do the ‘wrong thing’, they will be targeted for demotion or prevented from further promotion. Or, SJW’s, as barking dogs of PC professors, might come running after them, even physically assault them.

This is the curse of all institutions, secular or religious. This is why nearly all great religions arose from outside the institution: Jesus and Muhammad. For most of history, academic institutions enforced strict dogma or the sacred canon of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. This may explain why so many false scientific theories of Aristotle went unquestioned and unchallenged for so long... until Galileo came along.  And China was hooked on Confucianonics.
In contrast, the modern German university conceived of a new academic culture that allowed greater leeway in discourse and research. But the model came under attack time and time again from the far right, the far left, the tribalists(Jews here, Hindus in India and even UK and Canada), and religious forces(in nations like Iran and now Turkey). Sometimes, the attack on academic freedom came from within the institution as certain personalities and thinkers wanted only their ideas to prevail.

When an institution becomes excessively ‘institutionalized’ — a tendency that exists in all institutions — , it turns into a fortress of dogma, the island of Nurse Ratched. And PC has really done damage to Western academia and to 'mass media'(which are worse because most of media are owned by six conglomerates that hire and fire people based on adherence to PC, homomania, and tribal interests of Jews).

But thankfully, there is the internet. Now, in terms of erudition and access to sources/materials, internet personalities like Stefan Molyneux and other would-be ‘thinkers’ fall short of the best of professional academics and journalists. But there is one crucial difference in favor of internet personalities. Whereas those in the institutions — even the very best, most honest, and most capable individuals — must always look over their shoulders and fear peeing their pants lest they be denounced by peers, hunted down by SJW’s, or fired from above, no such fear exists among internet ‘thinkers’ who have the freedom to notice and spout off on anything since they got nothing to lose. “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”
If institutions allowed total freedom to academics(who were hired on basis of qualifications regardless of ideology) and protected free speech, the internet personalities couldn’t compete with professors or media people. But people in the media and academia must play the PC game because every institution has a gatekeeper who decides who gets in, who stays out, and who-inside is pushed outside. Gate-keeping is essential to all institutions, but the politics of gate-keeping compromises the freedom of every institution since would-be-entrants must not only live up to objective standards but, more often than not, demonstrate that he or she is 'one of them'. So, no matter how experienced or knowledgeable an institutional man is, there are tons of things he can’t say and lots of topics he can’t broach. Even if he is technically or theoretically free to deviate from dogma or canon, he most often chooses not to out of dread of being shunned or hated by peers. When institutions grow Byzantine, it is the rag-taggers with guerrilla spirit who gain a sudden advantage. This wouldn’t be the case without the internet, but it now exists. Some youtube ‘thinkers’ reach many more young people than professors or journalists could possibly hope to. And people find their views interesting because the unrestrained nature of the talk seems closer to reality or doesn't shy away from controversy.

Leftists once spoke of ‘long march through the institutions’, but the metaphor is faulty. The Chinese Communists' Long March was not a trek into the centers of power to away from them. During the march, Mao and his men covered some 6,000 miles and ended up in the hinterlands. And it was from the periphery that Mao devised plans to take power. He appealed to the masses than to the elites.

In contrast, the Western leftists lost connection with the people and burrowed deep into institutions to take on monastic roles as the clergy of PC. It was more a deep dig than a long march. Despite their claims of caring about real people in the real world, half of what they yammer about is ‘gender politics’ over tranny issues.

If anything is long-march-like, it is the politics on the internet. Because internet is not institutionalized, it is an open platform for the free movement of ideas. While some of these ideas are crackpot and crazy, there are also discoveries & discussions of truths that the media and academia simply refuse to address. It’s like Colin Flaherty has the gall to spill the beans on the racial nature of US crime & violence that the institutions of media & academia don't want to touch with a ten-foot pole.

So, the Culture War is turning into Long March through the Internet vs Fortress Mentality of the Institutions.

Incidentally, Mao was like Muhammad of his age. How did Muhammad and his Muslims take power so fast over such vast an area? Clash of empires created a great vacuum of destruction and exhaustion. Persian Empire and Byzantine Empire battled one another ceaselessly and ground each other down…. and that provided the opening for Muhammad and his ragtag Arab raiders.
Likewise in China. The clash of big powers — Chinese Nationalists, Japanese Imperialists, and US military — led to a huge power vacuum in China; and Mao, esp thanks to Soviet intervention at the request of the US, found his opening and took all of China. The lesson to learn from this is that the minor power should look for an opening when the big guys cripple one another. When two lions maul each other nearly to death, even a hyena can take over as king.

Is Hate-Whitey Politics a closeted form of Love-Whitey Emotics?

Hate-Whitey politics is weird because it is, in many ways, a closeted & repressed form of Love-Whitey emotics.

Look at immigration. All these prospective non-white immigrants would hate the idea of moving to non-white nations. They LOVE the idea of moving to white nations. Whiter the better. Even when they come to Diverse US, they dream of earning enough to settle in white communities. I mean how many are dying to settle in South Central or Detroit? In indeed Diversity is so great, how come nearly all non-white immigrants prefer relocating to US, Canada, and Australia than to Latin America with larger percentage of non-white populations?

If given the choice, non-whites often prefer whites even to their OWN KIND. Hindus prefer to live with whites than with Hindus. Pakistanis prefer to live with whites than with Pakistanis. East Asians prefer to live with whites than with East Asians, despite the success of East Asia. Mexicans prefer to live with whites than with Mexicans. Even when non-whites maintain ethnic communities in US, Canada, or Australia, they prefer to live in their enclaves in white nations than in their own nations. So, better to live in Chinatown in the US or Canada than in China itself. Better to live in Paki-town in London than in Pakistan.

Also, non-whites have sexual attraction to whites even as they bitch about evil whitey. All these black guys who rage about whitey want white women. All those Pakistanis in UK who bitch about the English want white girls, even by rape. All those Asian women who bitch about no-good whitey want white husbands and white-looking kids. All those Latino guys who talk of their pride of mixed blood are always hankering for blondes. Just look at Hugo Chavez who ultimately settled for some blonde bimbo. George P. Bush, the mixed-race kid, got himself a blondie too. Tiger Woods, much hyped for his mixed-blood, got the woodies only for the most blonde Nordic types. And Jews got the Portnoy-Boing-Complex.

So, this Anti-Whitey politics is, at least in part, a lot of noise to drown out the embarrassing fact that these non-white folks really see whiteness as superior and love whiteness more than their own qualities. They just don’t want to admit it. So, even though most of what they actually DO is to be nearer to whiteness, much of what they SAY is to mask their sense of inferiority and preference for all things white.

Their logic is as follows: “You’re awful, you’re evil, and you’re responsible for everything wrong in the world, and I really really hate you. So, will you marry me?”

Intersectionality should really be called Distractionality

Can 'intersectionality' work without a common enemy, real or perceived or imagined?

So many groups within the Diversity-Coalition are natural enemies. They have very little in common in terms of race, class, values, education, taste, attitude, and etc. And in some cases, they have reasons to seriously distrust, resent, or even hate one another. Jews and Muslims do NOT make good allies. And Jews and blacks have even less in common. And what do Asians and Mexicans share exactly? Or Hindus and Africans? Or feminists and trannies? A lot of feminists are not happy with this tranny business.

Intersectionality means there are cross-sections of shared interests among various different groups. So, what are the shared interests when it comes to Jews, blacks, homos, trannies, Asians, Mexicans, Muslims, and etc?

I can't think of any.

The ONLY thing they have in common is the Perception of White Evil. It should really be called Distractionality. It is sham-ideological trick to distract various groups from their own serious divisions & disagreements by Crying Wolf about Whitey.

Hating whitey, fearing whitey, berating whitey, and feeding on whitey is what Distractionality is all about. Blacks get a kick out of hating, berating, and feeding on whitey. Non-white immigrants want to come and feed on white wealth and success. Jews fear that whitey will wake from hibernation and no longer cuck out to them. Without 'Get Whitey' Factor, Diversity Coalition will just fall apart.

Social Privilege vs Genetic Privilege

White folks are indeed privileged. And it's about time race-ists admitted it.

White people really are privileged with genetic traits that give them an advantage over others in certain areas.

This privilege was bestowed on whites by evolution and nature. It is genetic. Whites can't do anything about it since it's inborn.

It's like blacks are privileged when it comes to sprinting, jumping, and punching. No matter how much blacks apologize for their genetic privilege in athletics, they will run faster than others. They can't help themselves.
A black guy, upon winning the sprinting competition, can say he's sorry, mope about about it, and speak in favor of sports-equality. But in the next race, he will beat other races once again due to his genetic privilege that makes him faster than other races.

Likewise, Ashkenazi Jews are genetically privileged with higher IQ. Evolution made them that way. So, no matter how many times Jews apologize for this genetic privilege/advantage and no matter how badly they may feel about it(or may try to deny it), they are going to outperform gentiles, particularly blacks, in academic endeavors.

Nature is all about genetic privileges. Just look at birds. They got wings, so they are privileged in flight, something most animals cannot do. Look at fish. They got fins and gills, and that means they are privileged to thrive in water. Even a dumb shark has great advantage over a smart human in water because genetic privilege makes shark master over man.

Genetic privileging is what nature is all about. Without these natural privileges, organisms wouldn't have their niche advantages that allow them to survive. Turtles may be slow, but they are privileged with shells that offer them protection. Thus, their chance of survival is improved. A skunk isn't big or fast, but it is privileged with musk odor that can send predators running. Imagine a 'progressive' animal speaking ill of a turtle for its shell-privilege and of a skunk for its stink-privilege.

Different organisms have different privileges.

Likewise, different races have different genetic privileges that persist even when social privileges are removed from society.
Sometimes, social privileges and genetic privileges may be aligned. Suppose there is a social law in America that says ONLY BLACKS can play in NBA or NFL. So, blacks would be socially privileged in sports and totally monopolize both sports. But suppose other races denounce this privilege and call for end of such privileges. But will the change of policy really change the sports scene all that much? NO, because black genetic privilege in sports will remain despite the removal of social privilege. So, even as some whites who are exceptionally good might make it into NBA and NFL, both leagues will remain predominantly black, and there is fat chance of Asian, Mexican, Hindu, or Arab getting in.

This is the problem with blacks and academics. It is true that blacks were effectively denied entry into many intellectual institutions that once socially privileged whites. But even once those social privileges were removed, white genetic privilege in brain power remained effectively in play.
In contrast, the removal of social privilege for whites in sports had a huge impact since blacks have natural genetic privilege in athletics. So, change in social policy led to huge changes in sports based on biological factors.

If people understood the concept of social privilege vs genetic privilege better, they wouldn't be so confused and partial to PC.

This is a time for Organicist Strugglism, not Rationalism

Rationalism has great value, but in order for one to be rationalist, there needs to be order and stability. After all, one can be civil and discuss things in gentlemanly or ladylike manner over tea-and-crumpets ONLY IF one feels safe and secure. One cannot have a tea party in a state of war.

Humans are primarily organisms, and Organicism stresses the importance of survival and security above all else. After all, 'all else' is possible ONLY IF you survive as a race and culture. After all, there is no Persian ideas & values without Persian people & culture. There is no Turkish ideas & values without Turkish people & culture. There is no Japanese ideas & values without Japanese people & culture. So, the survival and security of race and culture precede all else. Before you have ideas and values, you must exist in the first place. And if you want to go on having ideas and values, you must secure your survival for the foreseeable future. After all, if you die, your ideas and values die with you. And if you want the culture of your people to remain through the ages, you have to produce children, your own organisms, to inherit them and pass them down to their children. If you don't have children, there won't be anyone to bear the torch of your genetics, memory, and race & culture.

We focus a lot on ideas, images, and idols, but we forget that our minds must exist in the first place for there to be ideas, images, and idols that cannot exist without brains, which are part of human organisms. Therefore, securing the survival of the organism is the primary purpose of existence.
If a people of a community read lots of books and conceive all sorts of fancy ideas & pretty images but fail to secure territory, security, & progeny, their fate will be that of fireworks: dazzling but gone forever once the sparks fade out. Civilization must be like burning coals, not fireworks. It must find a way to keep the fire burning from within.
A people who have lost the Way of Life will die out, and then, their ideas and culture, however dazzling such may be, will die with them since ideas and cultures can exist only as practices of organisms with will and agency. At best, their achievements in ideas and images will be usurped by another people who will have either conquered or replaced them.
Humans have minds, and it's a wonderful thing that minds can produce ideas. However, we must always remind ourselves that human organisms have existence apart from ideas, whereas ideas cannot have existence apart from human organisms. So, the World of Life must come before Word of Ideas. Human life has meaning and value without ideas, but ideas have no meaning or value without human life. Most of the pioneering Americans who built farms and worked in factories had little book-learning and few ideas. But they had life and, with it, a sense of family, history, territoriality, spirituality, and community that are the building blocks of culture and civilization. Life can have rich emotional, cultural, tribal, and spiritual meaning without fancy philosophy, but no idea, however insightful or brilliant, has any meaning apart from life.
Organisms are 'ireals', and it is ireals that have use for ideas, not the other way around. The best idea in the world is just a thought in the head, and it cannot produce life. It has no autonomy. But even an uncultivated person without fancy ideas, like a Germanic Barbarian of old, can produce life. As an organism fueled by instinct, he has autonomy. Those who produce life will carry on whether their ideas are good or bad. Those who produce only ideas will lose, no matter how brilliant those ideas may be. Of course, the trick is to produce both life and ideas. The most valuable kind of ideas is that which best facilitates the creation and sustenance of a society that ensures organismic survival of territory, history, and culture.

Anyway, even though we all like to sit gently and be rational with ideas & abstractions, we can't afford such luxury when our survival itself is at stake. You can talk civilly with someone over tea ONLY IF you feel safe and secure. But if someone is holding your head under water, your being must kick into another mode of existence. Under such circumstances, Rationalism and civility will do you no good. You must move into the mode of Strugglism. You must react violently and instinctively to struggle and fight to survive. If you calmly and rationally try to ponder why the person is holding your head under water, it is Game Over for you. Indeed, your instinctual life-force will react against your conceit of obligatory civility and rationality. This is true of animals as well. No matter how much a dog is trained to be obedient and devoted to its master, its life-force will compel it to rebel against the master if the latter holds its head under water. Sometimes, instinctualism is 'smarter' than idealism.

Rationalism is fine within certain contexts. But in other contexts, it is Strugglism and Instictualism that matter. In our times, whites must move into Strugglist and Instinctualist mode since there is a Jewish Agenda of holding the White Race under the globalist tide to drown what remains of white power, white pride, and white consciousness. Just like one-size-fits-all is a myth, so is one-rule-fits-all-times. There is no principle that must perpetually be adhered to. It must be rejected for something else if it threatens the survival of the organismic community. It's like the Ecclesiastes says. Different times call for different things. Swords are for fighting, not for farming. Plowshares for for farming, not for fighting. Different things for different times. Jews would have whites holding plowshares even when history is lurching toward War Mode. White must turn plowshares into swords.

Mao Zedong wrote: "A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."

It is time for Europeoples to say "Struggle for Survival is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. Struggle for Survival is a resistance, an act of violence by which one race fights off another."

The Jew holds the Euro-organism under water. Is this time for rationalism or strugglism, for idealism or instinctualism? (Idealism has value only when aligned with instinctualism. PC altered Western Idealism so that it went from white pride & preservation to white shame & submission. PC tells the white race not to rebel against the Jew who hold its head under water.)

It is when one's survival is threatened that everything finally comes into focus. Indeed, the ultimate purpose of Rationalism is to procure better knowledge and means to secure the survival and power of the organismic community. It is the only way of life worth having. Why do predators and prey use their minds, their capacity of reason? To hunt, to flee, to find food, to secure territory... in other words, to survive and gain advantage against other organisms with which they are in constant struggle.

Watch closely the Jew, and he acts in accordance to his Tribal-Organismic Will to survive and expand his power and control over others. Jews have two sets of rules, one for Jews and one for goyim. These rules are not unlike the two sets of rules that separate humans and cattle. What applies to humans don't apply to cattle, and vice versa.

Alt Right Men are the ONLY white men deserving of respect and honor

Alt Right men are the ONLY white men deserving of respect and honor.

It is the duty of men to fight for their women(the life vessels of racial survival), their land, their culture, and their historical memory.

Men who do not bear this blessed burden are a bunch of pansies. Now, some men do fight for those things but lose. For their courage, they deserve respect. American Indians lost but AT LEAST they put up a fight.
When white people look back on the history of the American West, they respect Red Men like Geronimo and Sitting Bull because, against all odds, they did put up a fight. But there is no respect for Indians who collaborated with white expansionists for a case of whiskey.

White men can choose the Viet Cong way or Viet Cuck way.

Even though the US fought bitterly with the Viet Cong and North Vietnam, there is a grudging respect for those men. However, Americans feel Zero Respect for Viet Cucks who allowed the US to use South Vietnam like a fiefdom and offered their daughters and even wives for US soldiers to hump and impregnate.

Even if Viet Cong and North Vietnam were infected with the disease of communism, they believed in national independence, driving out foreign invaders & imperialists, unifying the nation(cut in two by the US), and reclaiming control of land and possession of women.
In contrast, Viet Cucks whored out to the US, let Americans occupy and run the South, reduced Viet women into prostitutes and sex meat for foreign occupiers. They were collaborators. They served a foreign power instead of resisting them. No one honors them. Not the Vietnamese and not the Americans.

Now, it is the White World that is under Jewish-Globalist Occupation. Jews have created a Vietnam-like situation among whites. Just like the US divided Vietnam into North and South, Jews have set 'red states' against 'blue states' when, in fact, all whites have core common interests. Jews use 'blue state' whites as their collaborators. Jews tell white men that they should surrender their lands to masses of foreigners and hand over their daughters to black men.

Jews call for the colonization of white lands, white minds, and white wombs.
Jews say non-whites should become 'new Europeans' and remake Europe by replacing whites.
Jews say PC(via academia & media) should colonize white minds and fill whites with 'white guilt', white self-loathing, and white self-doubt. Jews say white wombs should be colonized by black seed and Muslim seed and dilute and destroy the white race.

No people can survive for long without control over the land, narrative, and women. It is on Land that a race is most secure and stands firm. It is the Narrative that instills a people with pride and justification. It is through wombs that future generations of the race are born. Imagine if your mother's womb had been colonized by a Negro. YOU would have been afro-aborted and tossed out of the nest of white womb that would been colonized by alien seed to create an enemy of the white race.

To the extent that Alt Right men are the ONLY white men who are aware of what is happening and why AND to the extent that they are the only ones who are explicitly struggling for white survival through possession or reclamation of white lands, white narrative, and white wombs, they are ONLY white men who deserve respect. The rest are cowards, cucks, or collaborators of Jews.

Only Alt Right men understand the absolute importance of Land, Narrative, and Womb or LNW.
Is it any wonder that Jews are most committed to destroying those three aspects of whiteness?

Diversity leads to Division or Dilution

Diversity leads to either Division or Dilution. Division leads to strife, Dilution leads to dissipation or even total loss of identity.

Since when is division a form of strength? Since when is dilution a form of strength.

Diluting something makes it stronger? Really? When whites mix with blacks, is whiteness strengthened in the mixed-race offspring? No, whiteness is lost and the child identifies as black. When whites mix with Meso-Americans, is whiteness strengthened in the mixed-race offspring? No, the kid will most likely identify as 'brown' or 'Latino'(or 'Latinx) and work against whites.

It's simple chemistry. When you dilute something, it becomes weaker and less potent, not stronger. Also, when something bonds with something else, it could well become subordinate or submissive to the other. Virtually, every child of black-and-white mixing leads to blackness and total eclipsing of whiteness.

Does anyone really believe Jews care about white gentiles? Does anyone really believe Jews that whites or Europeans will be empowered or strengthened by diversity via massive-invasive-immigration and race-mixing? How are whites or Europeans made stronger by the demographic takeover of white lands by non-whites? How is whiteness served or made stronger by race-mixing when most mixed-race kids identify as non-white and are encouraged by Jews to hate and work against whites?

More Diversity in the West means more division and strife if whites were to maintain their racial identity and consciousness. They will come in conflict with growing numbers of non-whites.
Or, more Diversity means more dilution and dissipation for whites if they were to racially mix with non-whites. Most of the kids will identity as non-white and may well work against white power and interests.

Jew would have you believe that White Power is evil. So,what is preferable? White Powerlessness?

When it comes to Jews, DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT.

SJW's, aka SLW's(self-loathing whites), are the modern-day Head-Hunters seeking approval from the PC godhead

SJWs or SLW's(self-loathing whites) are like Indian scalp-hunters or New Guinea Head hunters.

They sure went for Charles Murray's head. And they got Richard Spencer's head too. They feel this great urge to hunt for certain kinds of heads thought be possessed of 'evil spirits'.

This urge may have something to do with hunting instinct. Most people lack individuality or agency on the critical issues of right or wrong. Rather, they belong to an ideology or movement controlled by others who do the thinking and deciding for them. They obey and accept the Narrative and then go about seeking approval from the godhead(like the one in THE WIZARD OF OZ) by hunting for designated heads.
In this, their mindset isn't different from that of dogs. Dogs get very excited in their hunts, but they don't decide what is to be hunted. If the master says, 'go hunt a pig', dogs wildly go after pigs. If the master says, 'go hunt a fox', dogs wildly go after fox. If the master says, 'go hunt a deer', dogs are all crazy about hunting deer. Dog mentality seeks approval from the master or alpha leader, and dogs will go out of their way to bring down prey chosen by their masters. Only in the wild do dogs have agency in choosing and going after prey. As long as they part of human community, humans decide which animals are to be hunted and killed and which animals are to be spared and tolerated. So, if humans order dogs to hunt pigs, dogs will attack a pig. If humans order dogs to make nice with pigs, dogs will make nice with pigs. Dogs will do anything for approval from the master. The frenzy of dogs in hunt isn't much different from frenzy of 'antifa' types at Berkeley and Middlebury College. They are like Red Guard Dogs. Universities ought to put up signs, 'Beware of Dog'.
Cats are more independent than dogs, but even cats have an approval instinct. Cats sometimes catch mice or birds and leave them on doorsteps of their masters. Some specialists of cat behavior think cats are trying to seek approval of their owners by offering food.

There are common patterns among animals, kids, and soldiers. Dogs will go after whatever pleases the master. Kids will 'hunt' for whatever is approved or sanctioned by adults. So, if adults say, 'Go hunt for Easter Eggs', kids will run around to collect as many as possible to win approval from adults. If adults say, 'lynch that pinata and spill out its guts', kids will eagerly swing the bat to win recognition from adults.
Soldiers are the same way. Soldiers never decide who is enemy or foe. When Hitler told Nazi soldiers, "Soviets are now our friends", Nazi soldiers were shaking hands with Soviet troops as if they are all best-friends-forever. It's like a dog will be nice with a cat if ordered by master to 'be friends'. But if the master tells the dog to attack the cat, the dog will maul the cat for approval even though they'd been best chums a second ago. Likewise, when Hitler said, "Soviets are now our enemies and must be killed", Nazi soldiers went into attack-and-maul mode instantly. And even in democracies, the same dynamics come into play. US soldiers don't decide who is enemy or foe. The elites(usually Jewish) tell soldiers, "those guys are the enemies", and then, US troops will kill as many of the enemy to win medals and honors as 'heroes'.

SJW-mindset or SLW-mentality is the same. Most of these guys and girls are nobodies, and so they naturally want to be 'somebody' and win attention/affection. So, they must hunt heads to win approval from the godhead. It's like the Exterminators in ZARDOZ(the John Boorman film) hunted down Brutals to serve the godhead.

That SJW's or PC head-hunters have no real agency is evident in their sheer lack of consistency in stated principles. The Left used to be for free speech, now it's not. It used to laugh at homos, but now homos are sacrosanct. Feminists used to denounce sex symbols and pornography but now embrace them. 'Progressive' types used to ignore Muslims, but now Muslims are now fashionable as 'poor huddled masses' victimized by Trump. Most SJW's have no minds of their own. They just follow the Narrative and hunt heads to win approval from the godhead of PC controlled by Jewish elites.

There is head-hunting in Sam Peckinpah's BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA though for mercenary purposes, as is also the case in DAY OF THE JACKAL. Mercenaries hunt heads for money. Fanatics and zealots do it for approval from those who control the Narrative and Terms of Justice.

In Nazi Germany, the villains were Jews, so the fanatics, especially the impressionable young, set out to hunt Jews. Hitler Youth sure loved to blow the whistle on Jews to win approval from the Nazi godhead. In Communist nations, the villains were 'capitalist roaders', 'kulaks', 'bourgeois elements', 'reactionaries', and 'fascists'. So naturally, the over-zealous were on the lookout to bag one of them trophies to win accolades and approval from Big Brother.

In the US, the godhead says KKK and Nazis are most evil. But who is a KKK or Nazi in today's America? It's hard to find such people. So, any white person who isn't with the PC program will have to suffice for the time being. So, Murray had to be head-hunted as a 'Nazi'. And Milo the libertarian homo was also attacked as a 'Nazi'. Fanatics are more dangerous than mercenaries. Without money, mercenaries will not act. But fanatics, like dogs, will bark and bite just for the emotional satisfaction of approval from the godhead. It's like dogs will even risk their lives and maul anything to win approval.

On the other hand, the fanatics are easily reprogrammed with the changing of the guards. Since they lack agency and critical mindset, they rely on the godhead to tell them what is right and wrong. So, if new bunch of people take over the godhead and change the agenda, the fanatics will dance to the new tune. It's like former Nazis adapted very easily to working for the Stasi. And former Japanese militarists were the most loyal dogs to Uncle Sam. And today's 'anti-fascists' are little more than attack dogs of homomania-pushing Wall Street, Harvard, and Hollywood.

The Downside of the Professionalization of Violence in the West

One of the problems in the West is the professionalization of warrior-violence.

The West categorizes people as either ‘military’ or ‘civilian’. So, the military men are supposed to monopolize the Art of Violence, whereas civilians are supposed to restrict themselves to peaceful existence in accordance to the Rule of Law. This is not a bad arrangement. Indeed, it’s a very good one under the right circumstances, i.e. as long as the Rule of Law favors the preservation and defense of the native population. But when, the Rule of Law is usurped by Jewish globalists who subvert and denigrate a nation's core cultural stock, people need to rise up and fight. But since the Art of Violence is monopolized by the professional warrior class, the civilian population of the West have forgotten how to react to historical emergencies. Civilians in the West are accustomed to leaving the use of violence to the institutions designed for them. And when it comes to waging wars on foreign enemies or capturing terrorists, the Western institutions of official violence are still very effective. No nation, with the possible exception of China, can withstand the military might of the West. And Western intelligence forces are most often effective at preventing terrorist acts and hunting down the perpetrators who do manage to slip through and detonate something. The real problem is the institutions-of-violence must take orders from the professional political classes that are beholden to Jewish globalist masters. So, despite the formidable means of institutionalized violence to attack & invade 'enemy nations' AND capture & neutralize known terrorists, they are not allowed to engage the enemies & invaders where it is most crucial. They aren't allowed to stop the flow of migrants, turn back the tide of massive immigration, and force non-whites to emigrate back to their proper homelands. The game has been rigged so that the West will keep winning battles(against terrorists) but lose the war(against the Invasion). It's like the US never lost a major battle in Vietnam but lost the big war. When the West is allowed to battle against individual terrorists but not allowed to war against the Invasion itself, its future is doomed. It is like permitting a man to kill individual rats in his house but forbidding him to patch the holes to prevent more rats to enter in greater numbers.

Unlike a Westerner, every Muslim is both a civilian and warrior at all times. The two notions, a peaceable man of God and warrior for God, are fused in the heart of a Muslim. So, when a Muslim feels violence is necessary to defend what is sacred, he doesn’t wait around for the institution to take care of the problem. He takes action on his own since it is the will of Allah that a devout Muslim must do what is necessary to defend what is holy and true.
Among Westerners, there's something Muslim-like in radical leftists informed by anarchism and/or Marxism that every worker must also be a soldier of dialectical history and be ready to pick up a rifle or plant a bomb for revolutionary justice. But such notion is weak among European conservatives long accustomed to acknowledging violence as the monopoly of the state or professional military/police class.
American Rightists are somewhat different because of the long tradition of gun ownership in the US. They see the wisdom of being well-armed in case the System turns against them. And in the movement westward, every white family needed guns to protect itself from American Indians, outlaws, or other whites with conflicting land claims.

Anyway, it is about time EVERY WHITE PERSON no longer saw himself as a mere civilian but a soldier and warrior at all times. In our time, the Rule of Law has been reconstituted(and prostituted) to destroy the white race and hand over white lands to the Great Invasion. White elites are cuck-collaborators of the Globalists or the GLOB. And since the professional military-and-police class must take their orders from the state(that is run by elites controlled by globalists), the people can no longer rely upon it for national/racial preservation and cultural restoration.
The New Order must require for all white patriots to be civilian-warriors who are ready to do ANYTHING by ANY MEANS NECESSARY to restore what is rightfully theirs in the lands of their forefathers.

Muslim Violence is Not the Great Shame of the West. The Real Shame is the Lack of Fighting Spirit and Warrior Counter-Violence among Whites/Europeans. Whites need to know: Resistance, not Assistance, to the Enemy. Confront, not Comfort, for the Enemy.

I neither like nor want Muslim Immigration, but it seems the Muslims are doing what white patriots should be doing. Though violence is unpleasant and ideally to be avoided, it is essential in war. And the West is in a state of war, in which Muslims are hardly the main problem. If anything, Muslim entry into the West is a symptom of a much deeper problem that was NOT caused by Muslims. Indeed, one could argue Muslims are showing the way and the will of the proud warrior. To be sure, they fight stupidly and carry out useless acts, but their violence is nevertheless a virulent reaction to what is seriously vile & sick in the degenerate West.

There is a war on the identity, history, heritage, culture, and territory of white nations. White minds are being colonized with PC virus. It is a kind of covert, cultural, and psychological war, a ‘long march through the institutions and industries'. And Pop Culture has been politicized to promote white cuckery, white surrender, and colonization of white wombs, mainly by black Africans. It is precisely because white minds have been infected with the degenerate globo-virus that white people have been rendered so gutless and defenseless against the Great Defamation(of white character) and Great Invasion(of white lands).

Therefore, it is white people who should be organizing, uniting, and waging war and acts of counter-violence against the enemies of whites. Though psychological war, cultural war, and ideological war must be waged through words and images, there are times when outright violence is the only effective method. After all, Zionists didn't only use ideas and images but guns and bombs when necessary. Israel would never come into existence with words and persuasion alone. And in the end, it was guns, not words, that decided the fate of the American War of Independence, the American West, the Mexican-America War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, and etc. And Vietnam didn't only use words and images but bombs and guns to drive out the French and the Americans. And it wasn't merely through peaceful marches that blacks pressed their demands on White America. They also used threats of violence and real violence in riots. So, it is a myth that the 'civilized modern world' is all about peace. Just a passing glance at US foreign policy shows how violence is central to US power around the world. And what brought down the pro-Russian regime in Ukraine? Ultra-violence in the streets with the full blessing of globalist elites who claim to be about 'liberal democracy'.

Because white civilians have forgotten the Art of Violence, they've allowed Negroes to run riot and beat up white guys and colonize the wombs of white women. White men don't fight for their land or their women. PC infection brainwashed them to relinquish all-things-white to non-white usurpers. Worse, whites are expected not only to not offer up resistance but provide assistance to the very people who will displace them. PC-infected whites have allowed Jewish globalists to reinvent the meaning of America, Canada, and Europe. Globalists say even UK and Germany are ‘nations of immigrants’.
Whites have allowed homos to spread filth all over and desecrate marriage and even churches. Whites have allowed feminists to drive a wedge between the sacred unity of white men and white women. All this madness was NOT the work of Muslims but of Jews, globalists, feminists, Negroes, and homos.

The Muslim alternative to globalism is pretty crude, and it is not acceptable to us who aren't Muslim. That said, Muslims are to be lauded for their refusals of and reprisals against Cultural & Moral Filth that afflicts the West. They will not cave to ‘gay marriage’ or worship the Negro or take orders from foolish feminists or cave to vile homos. (If Muslims sometimes find themselves in alliance with Jews, white progs, feminists, and the like, it isn't out of craven submission to their agendas but in accidental alignment with their hostilities. Muslims side with globalist whites who attack nationalist whites with full confidence and sheer contempt that globalists will eventually follow the nationalists in the dustbin of history.) Muslims stick to their own values and visions. If any homo tried to stick a homo flag in a Mosque, Muslims would tear him from limb to limb, and rightfully so. And no Muslim father will accept his daughter acting like a whore. Now, I don’t like the Muslim Way for womenfolk, but Islam refuses to yield to decadent perverts(though, of course, individual Muslims do indulge in various vices).

Now, one might argue that Western Values are about ‘free speech’, 'tolerance', and 'individualism', and that is why Muslims, given their judgmentalism and taboos, are not to be trusted or welcomed.
But here's the problem. There is no one set of 'Western Values'. West gave us Marxism, and what was more censorious than that? West also gave us National Socialism and various autocratic ideologies. And censorship was always rife even in European democracies in the past. Many books and movies were banned in France and UK in the 1950s and 1960s. Only the objects of censorship have changed.
More importantly, the Glob, Progs, and the Left no longer even belief in ‘free speech’. Consider their happy endorsement of the punching of Spencer, and they didn't condemn the violence at Berkeley(over Milo) and Middlebury(over Murray). If anything, there were plenty who endorsed such acts of violence and mayhem.

So, we need to understand that we are in a State of War. When the other side is more than willing to use any means at their disposal to bully and attack you, counter-violence is justified.

So, when white patriots take pride by claiming, "WE don’t act like those violent Muslims", they really should feel shame for their choice of peace in a time of war. At least the Muslims knows it's war and act accordingly, even if not always intelligently. In contrast, white people carry on as mere civilians in a time when their nations have become the main experimental battleground of globalism.
It is because white patriots don’t act stand up and fight with counter-violence that they keep losing again and again to the Glob, Progs, Negroes, homos, and the Invasion.

When an attempt was made on his father's life, Michael Corleone understood he could no longer be a 'civilian'. He had to be a warrior for the clan. There are times when you have to see things clearly. The West is in a State of War waged psychologically, culturally, financially, sensually, sexually, and demographically.
One can no longer afford to be a mere 'civilian'.

Effect of PC: Reality Denial and Narrative Conjuring

Reality is blacks commit lots of crime and violence. But PC narrative sanctifies blacks as holy MLK-people. So, black violence is 'disappeared' by under-reporting, false reporting(violent riots called ‘peaceful protests'), or semantic tricks(‘youths’ or ‘tens’ done it). It's Reality Denial.

But denying reality isn’t enough. Just like UFO cultists are desperate to bear witness to flying saucers AND paranormal people need to believe in ghosts, Paranormal Politics or Para-politics must have ‘evidence’ or ‘witness’ or ‘revelation’ of White Goblins since PC says whites uniquely possess evil spirits. This has the effect with messing with people's minds. It molds their minds to(want to) see what isn't there. It’s like if you spread panic about Bigfoot or Chupacabra, many people(esp those of childlike or imaginative mindsets) mistake anything for such a creature and claim to have seen it too.
Or, to gain the affection and approval of the Big Foot community or Chupabra Society, you might tell a tale of how YOU saw one too. These tall tales are esp appealing to those who want attention but don’t get any. What better way to gain the limelight than by serving as a willing prop for the Narrative. If the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach, the way to the Current Culture’s radar is through hysteria. Coax Hoax.

Every society has its set of taboos, sacraments, and myths. And those who seek approval and attention within the community conjure fantasies or visions in accordance to the Narrative. So, in Catholic societies of old, people claimed to have witnessed Jesus or the Madonna.
In Muslim societies, people claim to see Muslim miracles.
Even though secular people are thought ‘factual’ or ‘rational’, their psychology is also essentially mytho-conformist. or 'conformystic'. And PC is neo-religion or neoligion. It has its own class of Conjurers.

Under current PC, there is a growing number of maniacs who say they saw something they didn’t. Some even say they are guilty of what they didn’t do. Since PC hegemony is about White Evil, all these sightings and confessions revolve around white hatred. Narrative Conformism and Narrative Affirmation. Just like people feel a need to donate money to ‘good causes’ or charities, they also donate 'stories'(mostly false or exaggerated) to keep the fire going since dearth of stories will weaken the fire of righteousness.
After all, what would be the relevance of a UFO cult if there were no more sightings of UFO’s? What's the use of religion if people no longer believed in miracles? Just like Hollywood can’t go on without new movies, the Narrative needs new stories to keep its engines running.
This is why blacks and Proglodytes still act as if KKK is going around lynching blacks. Without such stories, the Narrative will become an old story without relevance to today's problems. Viable Narratives feed on Malevolence-Relevance. (Some whites even confess to stuff they didn’t do. White Atonement makes them feel holy. It’s like some innocent in CRIME AND PUNISHMENT confesses to the murder because Christianity made him an addict of repentance.)
PC has the logic of the Horror Genre. It is best understood as a form of paranormal pseudo-science. Gaydar is passe. Now, the thing is KKK-dar, device with which to detect White Ghosts.

It all comes down to Globalism vs Islam in the Grand Battle of Macro-History

It boils down to Globalism vs Islam as the war of Macro-Historical Forces

There are now three big forces in the world: Globalism(largely controlled by Jews), Nationalism(controlled by gentiles of each nation), and Islam.

Nationalism is powerful but it is not a grand ideology. It is limited within particular national borders.

In contrast, globalism and Islam seek world dominance. It is no wonder that the main clash is between these two ideo-empires.

Islam is universalist, and globalism is imperialist. When Big Forces collide, each vies for supremacy.

It's like Cold Front meeting Warm Front. It leads to storms and hails.

Both are violent on a worldwide scale. Muslims will use violence and war to spread Jihad.
Globalism will use bombs, sanctions, financial manipulation, and worse to destroy entire nations that won't put out. Consider the fates of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.

Marxism was the other grand ideology, but it died. Its radical element joined forces with globalism that is a fusion of oligarch capitalists, decadents, and radical nihilism. In former Soviet Republic states, many former Marxists reverted to Islam.

So, it's Globalism vs Islam.

We accuse Islam of violence, and yes, Muslims can be violent.
But globalism has been the far more aggressive, destructive, and invasive force. Muslim terrorism killed 1000s in the West. Globalist imperialism has come close to killing a million or more in the Muslim World.

Because of the Cold War, there was once alliance-of-convenience between globalists and Muslims, esp in Afghanistan. But fall of communism no longer made the alliance viable.

In material terms, globalism is 1000x more powerful and well-funded than Islam despite the riches of Saudis and Gulf states(that, despite their Islamism, are allied with globo-US against Iran).

But Islam has certain advantages. Islam is rapidly spreading worldwide. Muslims have no guilt conscience. Every Muslim is a warrior of the heart and/or womb.

In contrast, the warrior culture of globalism is purely mercenary. It hires and pays soldiers to fight for 'muh liberty' and 'muh smartphone', but its ideology revolves around Beastie Boys 'right to party', homomania, 'pussy hats', and tattoos & piercings. Globalism is mega-rich but utterly vacuous and degenerate morally and spiritually. Whites and yellows who are the core demography of globalism have forgotten how to create life. They prefer materiality and 'liberty' over life, family, and culture.

Also, there is the lack of unity between elites and masses in globalism. Among globalists, it's a case of Jewish oligarchs like Soros and Adelson throwing cash around to foment divisions or to buy support for Israel in a world in which Jews are less than 0.1% of the population. Most people of the globo-west haven't a clue as to what globalism is really about. For some, it's Hollywood movies for the world. For SJW's, it worship of Statue of Liberty. For homos, it's homo parade in every nation.
In contrast, among Muslims there is spiritual unity between Muslim leaders and Muslim masses.

Globalist soldiers are the best in the world in training and equipment, but the globalist masses have no idea what they're fighting for.
But every Muslim knows why a Muslim fights and carries on with Jihad either violently, culturally, or reproductively.

How much of Muslim terror in the West is for Jihad and how much is it for revenge?
If it's a matter of revenge, it's less about ideology and more about 'justice'.
It's like US got 'just' revenge for Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Indeed, US even extended the revenge for 9/11 to Iraq even though Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.
So, the logic of revenge is part of politics.

So, some of these attacks by Muslims are not about religion but about retaliation for globalism's war on the Muslim world. Even 9/11 was 'blowback'. If Muslims attack all things 'infidel', why don't they target Brazil and Japan with their vile decadent cultures? (Imagine if China became far more powerful than the US. Suppose China stations troops in the US and carries out operations that decimate entire cities. Suppose so many Americans are reduced to refugee status like in the original RED DAWN. Suppose China decides to put on a Nice Humanitarian Face and allow American refugees to come live in China. While some Americans might be cuckishly grateful for China's generosity, might not some Americans want to get even with the 'slanty-eyed buggers'? Might they not carry out acts of terror? Would it be accurate to blame the violence on Uncle-Sam-ism? Wouldn't the violence have been motivated by revenge than any belief in American values?)

So, I think much of the Muslim violence has to be seen as retaliatory than religious.
If the US feels what it did in WWII against Germany and Japan was morally justified on grounds of revenge, then Muslims have a case too.

That said, because Muslims do have a universalist, warrior, and missionary creed, Islamic rage(even when retaliatory) takes on a prophetic and even apocalyptic overtones. Once Muslims get riled up, their rage just keeps burning. It's sort of like, once Jews acquire a certain resentment, it never seems to go away until their enemy is totally ground into the dirt.

Also, Muslims must be frustrated by the schizo character of globalism. It has the mightiest military in the world that can destroy entire Muslim nations in no time. But when Muslims go to the West, they don't see a race of mighty warriors and heroes but a bunch of cucks, pansies, wussies, and dorks who get pushed around by shameless sluts, henpecking feminists, goofy Jews, funny homos, nasty Negroes, and even trannies.
The West is still defined by the image of the White Male, and the globo military is still dominated by white male warriors from top to bottom. They are formidable killers who make Muslims shit their pants in the desert, like in the movie AMERICAN SNIPER.
But when Muslims come to the West, they see all those pansy white boys who cower before Negroes, kiss toes of Jews, get henpecked by wenches, pushed around by slut daughters, and do nothing to protect their women from rape gangs. Also, Muslims realize that whiteness and white men are most denigrated, degraded, and vilified in the center of the white world.

Muslims fear the globo-mercenary force operating in the Muslim World, but they see the West itself as a soft underbelly, or an overripe fruit just waiting to drop from the tree. Whites may be effective killers in the Middle East, but they seem to be political & financial slaves of Jews, cultural slaves of homos, and sexual slaves of blacks.

Nationalism would be the best thing for most nations, but globalism weakens all nationalisms. Only nations sufficiently big like China, Russia, and Iran can maintain true nationalism by weathering the onslaught of globalist hegemony. All other nations have become vassals of the US empire whose invite/invade strategy is messing up the whole world.
But unlike most peoples, Muslims will not succumb to globalist since they have a deep-and-powerful eternalist sense of what is right or wrong, holy or profane.
In contrast, Japanese no longer feel any sacred connection to their culture or history. Defined by globo-disposable cosplay culture, they follow the US and even have homo parades. Japanese people have become like gadgets and robots and cartoon characters.

So, non-Muslim nations that haven't the political, economic, military, and/or spiritual wherewithal to sustain autonomous nationalism like Russia, China, and Iran find themselves succumbing to globalism in all its deracinating and defiling manifestations.

But Muslims resist because they do have a hardy, durable, and eternal sense of what is right, holy, and sacred.
Also, they still believe in the faith. In contrast, no one cares about the church of England whose latest theme is 'gay marriage'. Because Christianity is a pacifistic religion, it wilts and fades without the protection of a Noble Warrior Class.
In contrast, Islam is a fusion of warrior creed and spiritual vision. To believe and have faith, in and of itself, is to be a warrior in Islam. A Muslim can defend himself in accordance to the Prophet. In contrast, a true Christian must turn the other cheek, and if he chooses to fight and shed blood, he must feel guilty afterwards and beg forgiveness before the Lord.
As for materialist globalism, it means you are NOTHING unless you got status and money. In contrast, even the lowest poorest Muslim feels spiritually rich as a man of God.
To be sure, there is a kind of quasi-spirituality to globalism with its New Age fantasies, but can anyone explain what Ashley Judd and madonna were yammering about at the 'pussy hat' pandemonium? It's virtue as faddishness.

So, in a way, Samuel Huntington called it right. It is about Islam vs the West. But he was wrong in one sense because Globalism, not the West, is the main contender with Islam. Globalism has already swallowed up the West; it is fusing the West with the Rest, and this voracity is advancing at rapid pace and unfortunately succeeding all too well in Latin America, Asian, and non-Muslim Africa. They are all turning into variations of Rammstein's Amerika, and the US and EU are being third-world-ized in turn by these crass materialists whose main culture is Rap, Hollywood, and video games.

It is Muslims who've thrown the monkey wrench into this globalist project by rejecting its sham ideology and values(and we should be thankful because it sticks in the craw of the GLOB monster). Even though Muslim mass entry into the West happens via globalism, Muslims will not bow down to globalist creeds and fads.

Now, I think Sharia is pretty backward and brutish. But, does anyone really think current Western values are any better?
Worship of homos and trannies? Christian bakers destroyed for decency and integrity?
Slavish & craven goy worship of Jews and Zionism in Congress?
Anti-white vitriol from the mass media?
Rap Music as expression of America pride?
White boys raised to be cuck-wussies into Gayria, Negria, and Zioria?

What kind of girls white fathers are now raising? Should these men be prouder than Muslim men because they have 'western values' that is now little more than cuckery of the likes of Justin Trudeau?

Political Discourse needs Forthrightism

The  REAL interests and demands of most groups are quite basic and simple. They are really about 'what is mine' dressed up with disingenuous conceit of highfalutin ideals. Jesse Jackson was perhaps the most obvious practitioner of this shtick, always meaning "stuff my pocket, honkey" while pontificating in grandiose manner. Speak loudly and carry a big shtick.

But because US is supposed to be about ‘high-minded principles’, various groups drag out the usual cliches about ‘equality’ and ‘justice’ and 'human rights' to justify what is little more than racial tribalism of 'what is mine'.

Given all the fancy and holier-than-thou BS that clogs up the discourse, I’d like to see more Candidism or Forthrightism. Be candid and forthright about what you or your kind really wants. Principles have value only when all sides sincerely adhere to them. Principles are for the birds when some groups cry 'foul' just because things don't go their way despite equal application of principles for all. It's like a child losing in a game fair-and-square and then throwing a tantrum like a sore loser and complaining "it's not fair".

Consider the issue of immigration. All this stuff about ‘huddled masses’, ‘inclusion’, ‘diversity’, 'dreamers', 'no human is ilegal' and etc. are just so much hooey. No, the real issues are far more basic and tribal. Non-whites want to come to white nations for material goodies. The reasons are not high-minded but primal and instinctive. It’s like animals enter human habitats for easy access to food.
If white nations were dirt-poor, would non-whites be lining up to come to them for some 'dream'? NO.
Just like animals go where the food is, people go where the good stuff is.
That's it. They are not dreamers but feeders: Foragers, scavengers, hunters, and/or parasites.

We need an Organicist explanation of human behavior.
Indeed, what are often referred to as ‘principles’ are really weapons or instruments used by organisms to gain advantage. Among whites, their interpretation of principles had a binding effect of trust and cooperation to made for more security and prosperity for the white organismic community.
As for non-whites, their reinterpretation of 'western' principles is meant to have a paralyzing effect on whites with venom such as ‘white guilt’. It has a ‘chemical’ sting that neutralizes white defenses and counter-aggression against would-be usurpers and invaders.

Via Forthrightism, it’s about time we flip all the hidden cards on the table and revealwhat EVERY SIDE Is really after.

Non-whites wanna come to white nations for better material lives. That’s it.
Jews want more diversity to play divide-and-conquer among goyim. It is about power and control.
White patriots oppose immigration because it will reduce white power into white powerlessness.
White cucks go with mass immigration because, as opportunists, they will be materially and emotionally rewarded as collaborators.
White progs push immigration because they’re addicted to virtue-signaling as a narcotic. Pleasure Principle. Also, their minds have been stung with PC chemicals that turned them cancerously against their own race. It's like ant colonies steal the ant larvae of other colonies and raise them to serve their enslavers against their own parental colony.

Russian Nationalism is the greatest threat to Jewish Supremacism

America is part of the Empire of Judenia(the most powerful empire the world has ever seen), and Jews hate Russia as symbol of white gentile national sovereignty. That is more threatening to Jews than communism and National Socialism ever were.

Why? Even though communism was universalist, its repressive statism didn’t appeal to many, not even in poor nations. Also, Marxism was too intellectualist for hoi polloi. So, there was little chance of communism taking over the world and robbing Jews of their power and privileges.
National Socialism(of Germany) was arrogant and supremacist. It said only ‘Aryans’ are great and the rest sucks. As such, it appealed to few nations outside Germany. If anything, much of the world came to fear Germany under Hitler's reign.

But Russian Nationalism is about respect for each and every gentile nationalism. It doesn’t seek wars of conquest. It isn’t supremacist. It is sensible and limited within national borders. It is mutualist with other nations. Therefore, many nations can accept and adopt the Russian Way. Not because Russia is some paradise. After all, Russia is filled with excessive numbers of lazy bums and drunken fools. No, it’s because Russian Way says, “You respect our nationalism, and we will respect your nationalism.” This can have appeal to gentile nations. Russia isn’t saying its way is the ONLY way or one-size-fits-all. It is saying what is right for Russia belongs in Russia. The corollary to this is that other nations belong to their majority populations who should determine what their national identity and destiny are really about. In contrast, America tries to force Americanism(now defined by Jews, homos, and Negroes) on the entire world. It tries to break down all national borders and subvert all cultures and traditions. Also, there is a great contradiction at the heart of Americanism. It says America is the 'exceptional and indispensable nation' but all other nations must follow it, obey it, and emulate it. How can unexceptionals hope to be like the sole exceptional?

In contrast, the Russian Way gives leeway for every nation to define its own ideas & values and decide on its own destiny without the meddling of other nations, Russia included. THIS  ASPECT is the greatest threat to globalist Jewish Power predicated on destroying all nationalisms(while 'passovering' Jewish nationalism in Israel. Jews ought to be called Passovermen, or Passubermensch). Jews actually wish Putin was Hitler peddling Russian supremacism. That way, Jews can persuade many nations that Russian Power is a threat to the entire world and an enemy of mankind. But the fact is Putin is no 'hitler', and the workd knows it. If anything, Putin preaches independence for each nation from the globalist-imperialist domination of America as crown-in-the-jewel of Judenia.

That is why there is a Jewish War on Russia.

It’s not about Putin being a thug. If Putin is a thug, US leaders are super-thugs.
It’s not about Putin being a killer. If Putin is a killer, US leaders are mass murderers.
It’s not about Russia being ‘illberal’ or ‘undemocratic’. When political results in the West are displeasing to globalist elites, the elites demean them as ‘populist’(rule by yahoos) and even call for a Deep State coup d’etat. Some even hint at assassination of elected leaders.

‘Liberal Democracy’ is euphemism for globalist domination by the likes of George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, Haim Saban, Jeff Bezos, and the oligarchs.

Guardians of Political Correctness DUCK honest engagement with Those with the Courage and Honesty to Speak the Truth on Race, History, and Identity

Long ago, white boxers -- and even black boxers like Jack Johnson and Joe Louis -- 'ducked' fights with black boxers who might beat them.

Today, PC-pushers duck engagements with those who speak candidly about race, culture, history, and identity because they fear getting KO'ed.

On race, the facts point to racial differences. Races are different, and these differences have profound impact on society in terms of income, crime, sex, sports, culture, and power.

On culture, it's irrefutable that Western Culture is now decadent & degenerate and non-Western Cultures have problem with modernity.

On history, facts say all peoples have been violent and invasive. Whites weren't the only conquerors and colonizers. Also, white expansionists did a lot of good as well as bad.

On identity, it's a fact that people crave some form of group identity and that an identity rooted in ethnicity, history, and territory is the most sound and stable. After all, why did Jews seek a land of their own where they can be Jews with a sense of history?

With PC ducking honest debate and discourse, Alt Right and HBD community have become like the Negro Leagues.

Progressive Immigration calls for Mass Migration of Enterprising Peoples to Poor Nations, Not to Rich Ones

We are told that immigrants are a blessing for the national economy.

In that case, progressive immigration should be like progressive taxation.

Now, under progressive taxation, the lower classes pay little or nothing and instead receive much of the revenues.

Likewise, under progressive immigration, poor nations should receive most of the blessing of immigration.

We are told that more immigration will lead to more economic growth because immigrants are so hardworking, intelligent, motivated, and enterprising. They are wonders for any national economy.
Well, rich nations don't deserve such blessings since they are rich already. Why should they take in immigrants to make their big economies even bigger?
After all, the worst teams in sports get the first draft picks since best teams got the best players.
It makes no sense to send more great players to an already great team.

So, progressive immigration should bless the poorest nations with mass immigration. And since immigrants claim to be 'progressive' and 'leftist', they should want to help the poor than the rich. If immigrants say they want to go to nations that are already rich and help grow the economies, that'd be like helping the rich to become even richer. We don't want that.
We want all that immigrant energy and ingenuity to be used to help poor nations develop into richer ones.

So, I think progressive immigration should be about sending most immigrants to the poorest nations where the new arrivals will use their skills and energy to grow their economies there. Why help rich nations grow richer? Why not help poor nations grow rich too?

So, send all the Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, Arabs, and Africans to the poorest nations on Earth. Now, that is truly progressive in blessing the poorest nations with human capital of talent, spirit, and industry that will do wonders for the economies.

And if the would-be immigrants are already in poor nations, they should summon their great spirit, intelligence, and skills to build their OWN economies. They should help expand the economy in their poor nations than go to rich nations to make the already rich even richer.

Next Prog Frontier: Against Genital Privileging

All this talk of Gender Politics privileges sexual organs above other organs.

What about identity based on fingers, toes, noses, lips, knees, belly buttons, ears, armpits, etc?

Instead of gender studies, why not organ studies? All organs should define identity. And we need to understand to which organs are biological realities or social constructs.

Unfortunately, elitist and exclusionary world of academia privileges the brains and genitals above all else.
Academia favors the brains because they use ideas and the genitals because they offer intense pleasure. (In a sense, 'gender studies' are a variation of leisure studies.)
But should the processes of thought and the experience of pleasure be privileged over other bodily functions that are no less important to the existence and well-being of people?
Besides, who is to say other body parts don’t think? Maybe they just 'think differently'. Maybe one’s neck thinks in its own special way. Or one’s thighs or feet.
And maybe we need to expand the meaning of ‘orgasm’ to include any body part. Maybe every part of the part is a erogenous zone in its own way. After all, aren't tongues pleasure zones? And don't muscles feel pleasure when massaged?

And maybe we should instigate certain neglected organs to rebel against other organs that are favored and privileged.
Body Politics will consider the ways in which the body is in revolutionary struggle with itself, and a dialectical understanding is necessary to understand the conflict among the various organs that are complementary but also contradictory. For example, the stomach cries out for more food, but other organs say, "please, no more, because we are turning fat and ugly." Or the mouth cries out for more beer or sugary beverages, but the buttocks and thighs call for reduction of consumption because they are turning lardy as the result of mouth's insatiable gluttony and thirst.

Maybe we should go even further. When we conceptualize ‘oneself”, we tend to differentiate between the cellular body and the things not innate to it but co-mingling with it. So, we talk of the body and germs as if germs are something apart from the body. Also, we don’t consider feces or urine as part of the body but as ‘waste material’. We don’t consider booger and snot as part of the body either. We don’t consider abscess and puss as part of the body. But such a view could be said to be xenorgophobic, or drawing an exclusionary distinction between the cellular self and the Other.

Also, the notions of 'diseases' and 'parasites' are judgmental and exclusionary. Why should hookworms be considered a foreign element feeding on the body than as parts of the body?
Why should cancer be considered a disease instead of as an alternative form of biology?
Indeed, the very notion of health vs disease must be questioned because ‘health’ denies and denigrates the kinds of lifeforms and/or processes that are deemed to be ‘harmful’ to the body. But that is to privilege one's human body over other organisms.

Ethno-Conservatism vs Credo-Conservatism

Ethno-Conservatism is about conserving the racial identity and biological inheritance of a people.
Credo-Conservatism is about conserving the principles or dogma of an ideology or belief system.

An ethno-conservative can also be a credo-conservative. A person may believe in preserving race and identity but also believe in free markets. A person may believe in preserving ethnicity and territory but believe in socialism or communism as the ideal economic system. However, what matters above all for an ethno-conservative is the survival of his race and preservation of his people's history and territory.

For example, let's suppose an ethno-conservative who believes in free markets is offered two options: For the next hundred years, (1) his ethnic kinfolks will remain the dominant demography in their nation under the dreaded ideology of communism OR (2) his people will become a minority in their nation and forget their own identity & history, but free market economics will dominate.
A true ethno-conservative will prefer the survival of his people even with bad ideas than the demographic demise of his people despite the prevalence of good ideas. (But then, can the demise of any national demographics be a good idea?) An ethno-conservative believes that humans are first and foremost lifeforms with culture, history, and territory. More important than any ideology, set of abstract principles, or universal creed, there is the need for human life and its preservation in relation to land and history. Ethno-conservatives are bio-conservatives, geo-conservatives, and mytho-conservatives.

In contrast, credo-conservatives are first and foremost wedded to a belief system. Their set of ideas is held to be so sacred and dear that it must trump all other considerations. So, even if a credo-conservative may want his race and territory to survive, when forced with having to choose between saving the idea & losing his race/territory AND losing the idea & saving his race/territory, he will opt for the former.

This is why Jews prefer credo-conservatives to ethno-conservatives. Ethno-conservatives know what they want. They want their race and history to survive on their territory. The object of their loyalty is tangible and obvious. In contrast, ideas can be manipulated and altered with sleight-of-hand trickery. So, Jews can take the idea of America and change it to a 'proposition' and say 'America' is an 'immigration nation', whereby America is no longer America unless it welcomes endless non-white immigration to supplant native white Americans as Core Americans.

There was a time when almost no white American believed in such an ideation of America. But the thing to remember is that ideas are always mutable and open to manipulation by the power and clever.
For instance, if someone holds onto some object, he is in possession of something tangible. He has it and he wants it. Simply on the basis of object-hood, it is difficult to take it from him because he feels it is his. But if you associate the object with an idea and if you convince him that the idea of the object is more important than the object itself, then you can manipulate the idea and mess with his mind until he freely hands the object over to you. Suppose you tell him that the true idea of the object is for it to be handed from person to person. So, it is wrong for him to cling to the object as his since such claim of ownership goes against the very spirit and meaning of the object-as-idea.
Indeed, this is how Jews stole America from white gentiles. Jews turned America from a white entity to a 'universal idea' that could be manipulated with at the whim of Jewish globalists(who say American immigration must not favor whites over non-whites but must favor Jews over gentiles). So, if America is turned into an Idea and if the 'sacrosanct' rule of this idea is that endless immigration is essential to what America is all about, then white Americans who've come under the spell of this idea cannot object to non-white newcomers taking America from whites. America went from a concrete nation owned by whites to an abstract entity whose future is to be determined by Jewish globalist who seek to increase gentile diversity to play divide-and-rule among the much divided goyim.

And Jews don't just stop with the US. They've convinced the Brits and the Irish that their nations are mere ideas too than concrete entities. They are no longer tangible and specific territories that belong to a particular genetic stock or ethnic group with unique histories. No, they too are 'nations of immigration' and, as such, must open up to endless immigration of non-whites in order to be true to their 'idea'. And Jews did the same to Sweden, indeed to the tragic effect that many Swedes no longer believe that there is Sweden as a territory, ethnicity, or history. There is only Sweden as a universal idea of ceaseless immigration, diversity-worship, and humanitarianism. Sweden went from concrete nation to concept nation.

Credo-centrism has rendered most American Conservatives useless. They are credo-conservatives than ethno-conservatives(preservers of European genetics), geo-conservatives(defenders of white lands), and mytho-conservatives(torchbearers of white narratives). Their main loyalty is to the Constitution, free markets & free trade, family values, and individualism. Personally, I don't have anything against the Constitution, free markets, family values, and individualism. I see them as good things, even great things. Indeed, peoples all over the world might have something to gain by emulating the general political and economic ideas of the United States.
However, a nation is primarily about a specific people with a specific history on a specific territory. A nation is not about universality or generality. A nation is meaningful in its distinctiveness from other nations.
It's like Christianity is a great universal creed, but it is not a basis for nationhood. Italians, Chinese, and Nigerians may be Christian, but that doesn't mean they are the same people with shared nationality.
Russians, Chinese, and Cubans may be communist, but that doesn't mean they belong in the same nation. Many peoples practice democracy and free markets, but they have different nations with different histories. So, the conservatism of any nation has to put race, territory, and history above all other considerations. After all, Israel will be a Jewish state whether it is a democracy, monarchy, or a dictatorship. The core of Israel isn't democracy but Jewish ethnicity and territoriality. If Israel's core meaning is democracy, would it still be Israel if Arabs took over and practiced democracy? If a Jew had to choose between a non-democratic Israel dominated by Jews and democratic Israel dominated by Arab Muslims, which one would he choose? If he's a true Jewish nationalist, he would choose dictatorship with Jewish rule than democracy with Arab rule. Democracy is nice, but it cannot be the core meaning of a nation. It is merely a political means of governance that may or may not serve a nation well.

If American Conservatives were merely overly idealistic in their credo-conservatism, their naivete might be forgiven. But they are hypocrites, snakes, and/or morons. They are hypocrites because, even as they excoriate white identity and interests, they go out on a limb to 'celebrate' non-white identities. And most obnoxious of all, they go all out in promoting Jewish power and Zionism as the core meaning of what America is about. If credo-conservatives really prioritize universal ideas and values above all else, why do they lavishly exhibit such shameless obeisance to Jewish identity and power?
Also, American credo-conservatives don't have control over the ideas and values that they claim to espouse with utmost commitment to high-minded principles. They claim to believe in family values, but these values are always molded and remolded by Jews and their cuck-collaborators. So, if Jews say 'family values' are now about 'gay marriage'(which supposedly is 'conservative' because homos are choosing 'family life'), many credo-conservatives simply nod along and go along. Since everything has been abstracted into ideas that are always mutable and open to re-interpretation, credo-conservatives really believe in nothing that is true and essential. For the credo-cons, family values went from defense of traditional family to singing praises to 'gay parents'. The American Idea went from defending America as part of Western Civilization to promoting America as the 'exceptional' and 'indispensable' Universal Nation open to non-white hordes who just might appreciate the Constitution(at least through HAMILTION the rap broadway musical). Credo-conservatives don't have autonomy and agency over their own ideas. Being servile and spineless like slugs, their idea of Conservative Principles depends on the faddishness of think-tanks funded mostly by globalist-Zionists. It is hardly surprising then that credo-conservative Heritage Foundation fired Jason Richwine, an ethno-conservative, at the behest of Jennifer Rubin. Is Rubin a credo-conservative herself? No. She is a Zio-ethno-conservative who is all about Jewish power, Jewish identity, and Jewish territory. She reviles and attacks the ethno-conservatism of white gentiles as posing a threat to the ethno-supremacism of Jews, her main passion. So, in her mind, white gentiles can either be credo-liberals or credo-conservatives, but they must NOT be ethno-anything.

What is truly tragicomic about credo-conservatives is they naively believe they can have one without the other. They think Western Ideas, Cultures, & Values can survive without Western Peoples. So, it doesn't matter if non-white peoples replace white peoples who created Western ideas, cultures, and values. All that matters is that non-white invaders and usurpers appreciate and practice those ideas and values. But the loss of Western people will also lead to the loss of Western Culture. Culture flows from the gene pool of a race. Even when Europeans adopted ideas & icons from the non-West, they reshaped and remolded those ideas & icons in their own image and inclinations. Surely, what whites did with Christianity is different from what other races did with it. So, even if non-whites were to adopt Western ideas, their use of them will drastically different from what white people did with them.
It is like different races of women will do different things to the same seed received from the same white man. If a black woman takes white seed, she will produce a mulatto. If an Asian woman takes white seed, she will produce a yellato. If a Hindu woman takes white seed, she will produce a Hindotto. Only with a white woman can white seed produce a real white child. When white cultures are inseminated into other races, the latter may do interesting things with them, but the result will be something other than a truly white culture. But given the current levels of immigration, what the West is experiencing is not the insemination of Western Cultures in the hearts & minds of non-whites but the Rape of the West by non-white hordes made especially nasty by rap culture, decadence, and Jewish anti-white propaganda. Their view of the West is essentially Negroid. The West is now a white woman to be raped and conquered, especially since white men are now a bunch of cucks, either sexually, ideologically, or morally.

Contrary to the conceits of credo-conservatives, Western Culture can only remain intact with white peoples. The fact is most non-whites are not interested in preserving the West as a culture or idea. They come to the West for material comfort and sex with white people whom they find more attractive. But even if non-whites wanted to preserve Western Culture, they wouldn't be able to. They could imitate Western Culture, but in the process of mimicry and reinterpretation, something new would be created in its stead. Imagine if whites took over an African nation and replaced its native population. Suppose these whites then decided to preserve the indigenous culture by acting like black Africans. Despite all the sincerity in the world, it would only be a parody of African culture. At best, something new would result from the process but it could no longer be called truly Africa.

So, credo-conservatives are seriously deluded. They are like the dog with the bone in its jaw looking at its own reflection in the water. In going for the abstract bone over the real bone, it loses both the real bone and the abstract bone that no longer shows in the water since the real bone is no longer in its mouth to show up as reflection.

We need to learn from Jews. Jews fused the credo with the ethno. Jews came to believe that there is a universal power BUT that it has a special covenant with the Jewish people. Then, likewise, each people must find their own unique covenant with the Truth of the World.

Why do Jews hate Gentile Nationalism? Same reason a man with a sword hates your sword.

Even though Jews love Israel and Jewish nationalism(aka Zionism), Jewish power really resides in gentile nations, especially the US and nations of EU. Since the survival and viability of Israel depend to a large extent on the support of Western nations, Jews feel they must ensure the loyalty of gentile nations to the Jews and Israel. In other words, white gentiles must favor Jews over themselves.

So, when Jews say nationalism is a bad thing, what they really mean is that the rise of gentile nationalism poses a challenge to Jewish nationalism. If nationalism means one's preference of one's own people over others, it means gentile nationalism will lead to gentiles favoring themselves over Jews. And that may pose a threat to Jewish nationalism and supremacism. China is nationalist and favors Chinese interests over any other. Iran is nationalist and favors Iranian interests over any other. Even though China and Iran may not be overly anti-Jewish, they will not place Jewish interests above their own. So, Jews cannot control those nations to serve the Jews. But Jews have persuaded white gentiles that nationalism --- at least in white nations --- is evil, a kind of 'Nazism'. (In truth, it was Polish nationalism, French nationalism, Russian nationalism, Chinese nationalism, and American nationalism that rolled back the tide of Axis Imperialism.) White gentiles, baited with Holocaust Guilt and in awe of Jewish power in media & finance, have become mentally colonized or psycolonized by Jews.
However, when Jews demean nationalism, it is not ALL nationalisms. Paradoxically, Jews attack white gentile nationalism to shore up and boost their own nationalism. Jews don't say ALL peoples, Jews included, must abandon nationalism. If anything, Jews justify their own nationalism among themselves on the basis that gentiles are innately evil and wicked. 

At any rate, Jewish fear of gentile nationalism is rational. If nationalism means the favoring of one's own people to others, then every gentile nationalism will favor the gentile majority to the Jewish minority. This doesn't necessarily mean 'antisemitism' or anti-Jewish discrimination. After all, Russia allows all sorts of freedoms and opportunities to Jews to get rich and pursue happiness & success. But gentile nationalism does mean Jews are not allowed to gain supremacist power in gentile nations, and this denial is no longer tolerable to Western Jews who now feel entitled to supremacist control over goyim. Jews no longer struggle for equality or fairness. They are addicted to maintaining their supremacist control over gentiles, especially whites. They want whites to spiritually worship Jews, financially serve Jews, culturally follow Jews, sexually surrender to Jews, etc. Jews accuse white gentile nationalists of being 'Nazi', but if 'Nazism' is a form of supremacism, then no people are as Nazi-like as the Jews are in today's world. Ironically, Jews fear gentile nationalism because gentiles will act like Jews: Favor their own kind over others. Since gentiles greatly outnumber Jews in gentile nations, this can be a real challenge to Jewish power and supremacism if gentiles were to have their own kind of gentile 'zionism'. 

Nationalism is a political weapon. It is a shield with which to defend one's own people from others. It is a sword with which to fight the enemies. A swordsman uses his own sword & shield in his fight against other swordsmen with their swords & shields. In battle, a swordsman wields his weapon to disarm his opponents of their weapons. A swordsman prizes his own sword & shield but fears, even loathes, the swords & shields of his rivals. So, it is only logical that Jews, in love with their own tribalist sword & shield, seek to destroy the swords & shields of gentiles. Jews want to be the only ones with the sword & shield of nationalism lording over all others who kneel before the Jewish king and kiss his one and only true sword. 

If we recognize nationalism as a powerful weapon, we can understand why Jews would fear the gentile nationalism of other peoples. If Jews had a nice big nation of their own, they might be content with what they have and tolerate other peoples' ownership of their own nations. But Jews are a majority in only one nation, the tiny state of Israel. So, unlike Russians, Chinese, Indians, or Iranians, Jewish power isn't much if located only in Israel. Jews must derive their power and wealth from gentile nations in which they are minorities, and therefore, Jews are keen on suppressing the nationalism of gentile peoples who've come under their thumb. Also, no people are as ambitious and arrogant as the Jews. If most peoples are content with control over their own nations and respect other peoples' control over theirs, Jews like George Soros feel this insatiable desire to remake the entire world in their radical image. Jews are tireless like rats in gnawing away at the national defenses of other peoples. Jews bitch about anti-Jewish hatred or 'antisemitism', but they ignore the fact that anti-Jewish hatred has often been defensive against Jewish aggression that gnaws itself into every region on earth to subvert and undermine gentile identity and interests. Even when Jews gain mastery over other peoples, they don't stand tall and upright as the new masters --- which would at least be honest and honorable --- but shrug their shoulders and underplay the Jewish nature of their agenda to fool the goyim. They want to be invisible masters, and this is why they rely so heavily on shabbos goyim to serve as Fronts. 

From a purely strategic viewpoint, Jewish hostility to gentile nationalism makes total sense. If Jews want to ensure that gentiles in US and EU will primarily serve Jewish interests, Jewish nationalism, and Jewish supremacism(or Jewish 'Nazism'), then gentiles must be persuaded and/or pressured to forgo their own ethno-nationalist identities and interests that, if left to grow of their own accord, could turn into obstacles to gentile subservience to Jewish identity and interests. 

History has proven time and again that the MOST POTENT force against imperialism has been nationalism. All anti-imperialist struggles were nationalist. Without the rise of nationalist consciousness, the subject peoples failed to unite to fight to overthrow the foreign rulers. It was with the spread of nationalist consciousness that the peoples of world began to regain independence and drive out the imperialists in places like Algeria, Cuba, and Vietnam. Creation of America has been portrayed as a birth of liberty, but it was more the birth of new nationalism against the overweening imperialism of the British. So, even imperialism births nationalism among the colonizers who rebel against it.

It was the rise of nationalism that finally brought an end to European imperialist domination. In some cases, the Third World nationalism was organic. For example, there really was a Vietnamese civilization going back over  a thousands years. In other cases, the nationalism was newly constructed, as in Indonesia and even India, places that gained a sense of common destiny under the imperialism. The narrative of shared tragedy under imperialism forged a political bond. Rise of nationalism made imperialism no longer viable in the Third World. 

Today, it is the West that is under imperialist rule. It is called globalism, and it is essentially Worldwide Jewish Imperialism. All whites are under the globalist imperialist domination of Jewish supremacists. Globalism spares only one nationalism, that of Zionists. Israel gets Passover treatment while all other nationalisms are eventually to be extinguished by Jewish-globalist power. Because gentile nationalism seeks to shutter the window against this poison gas of the Jews --- Zio-Klon G -- , Jews want to shatter the glass of every gentile window so that the globo-gas will enter every nation(but Israel) and destroy national identity and pride. 

Nationalism has a populist element in obligating the elites of a nation to represent, serve, and defend the people of the nation. According to nationalism, Hungarian elites should represent, serve, and defend Hungarian identity and interests. Japanese elites should represent, serve, and defend Japanese identity and interests. German elites should represent, serve, and defend German identity and interests. This is precisely what Jews fear. Jews want the best-and-the-brightest among the gentiles to serve Jewish identity and interests. Jews want gentile elites to collaborate with Jewish globalist imperialists than to represent and serve their own peoples. It's like the British imperialists wanted Indian elites to collaborate with the British than represent the aspirations of the Indian masses. And French imperialists wanted Vietnamese elites to collaborate with the French than fight for Vietnamese independence.
Now that Jews rule the West, Jews want Western gentile elites to serve their Jewish masters than lead and guide their own peoples. (But then, even the white gentile masses have been turned onto rejecting their own identity/interests and to serving Jewish globalism under the barrage of 'white guilt' indoctrination, 'jungle fever' in sports & rap, decadent faddishness of homomania, and the Cult of Diversity. So many white people have been reduced to virtue-signaling idiots who think themselves righteous because they champion their own demographic demise via mass immigration, race-mixing, and degenerate behavior.) 

When Jews say white gentiles must forgo their national identity and interests, they don't mean it applies to Jews as well. They mean whites must put down their swords & shields to submit to the sword & shield of the Jew. If ten people have guns and if the Jewish guy happens to be anti-gun, it doesn't mean everyone INCLUDING THE JEW should surrender his gun. It means everyone EXCEPT THE JEW should give up his gun. That way, the Jew is the ONLY ONE with the gun, and he has the power over the others.

Indeed, Jewish attitude on gun rights is no different from their attitude on nationalism: It is For-Jews-Only. 

Why do Jews want to take away gun rights in America? Jews have no problem with every Jewish family owning automatic rifles in Israel because Jews are the majority there. Gun ownership in Israel means Jewish power over Arabs. But in the US, Jews are only 2% of the population; therefore, a well-armed nation means many more gentiles with guns than Jews with guns. But then, Jews control the government and elite institutions that control the military and the police. So, if only the government has the power of firearms, it means ONLY JEWS have the power of firearms since nearly all politicians are owned by Jews and nearly all of the judiciary is under Jewish control. 

Whether it's guns or nationalism, Jews want to monopolize it all. Know your Jew.