In a State of War, Individual Freedom & Liberty cannot be the Highest Values or Principles. Survival and Victory come First. Race-Traitors and Sexual Deserters deserve Contempt.

We all want liberty. We all want to be free as individuals, but in a state of war, liberty and freedom cannot be the highest values. In a state of war, what matters most is survival and victory, which are best ensured by teamwork, organization, loyalty, and trust. Those who invoke liberty & freedom to betray their own side or desert to the other side deserve our contempt. It doesn't matter if they betrayed or deserted in the name of freedom or liberty. The fact remains they are traitors and/or deserters who turned against their own kind. This is why libertarianism is worthless in a state of war.

The white race is currently in a state of war. It is in a state of war with Jewish globalists who infect and colonize white minds with 'white guilt' and 'diversity'. It is in a state of war with Third World masses who invade and appropriate white lands to leech off white wealth and achievement. It is in a state of war with blacks who beat up white males and colonize white wombs of white women whose minds are infected with the Virus of Jungle Fever disseminated by Jewish-control-of-media.

In this WWWW or War of Words, Worlds, and Wombs, any white person who collaborates with Jewish globalists is a traitor. Any white person who welcomes mass non-white invasion is a cuck-collaborator. Any white woman who offers her womb to Negroes is a sexual deserter. She has deserted her bio-cultural obligation as creator of future white children and instead uses her womb to make black babies for blacks, the enemy of the white race. White women who choose ACOWW, or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs, are enemies of the white race. It's no wonder that Jews, who are hellbent on destruction of white power, are going all out to turn every white woman into a mudshark, a race-traitor and sexual-deserter.
And it doesn't matter if these traitors and deserters did what they did in the name of individual freedom or liberty. The fact remains that, in a state of war, they sided with the enemy and worked against their own race, culture, heritage, and homeland.
After all, the military and intelligence services do not forgive traitors and deserters because the transgression took place in the name of individual liberty and freedom.

Only when white people can ensure survival & enjoy security, only then the issue of individual liberty & freedom can be of primary importance to the white race.
When a people, culture, and land are threatened and in a state of war, Survival and Victory take precedence over all other considerations and principles, even over liberty and freedom.
After all, George Washington hanged traitors. He knew that traitors and deserters could invoke individual freedom to do as Benedict Arnold did.

This is why Jews promote libertarianism as the favored ideology among white 'conservatives'. It leads to atomization, dissension, self-absorption, decadence, and greed, none of which fosters or encourages teamwork and cooperation among white people.

Now, am I arguing for 'my country right or wrong' or 'my people, right or wrong'? No, that would be imperialism.
What I'm arguing for is nationalism for all peoples that ensures survival and victory of each people in their own realm in accordance to the particularities of identity, history, and territory.

Individual freedom and liberty are wonderful things but only in a State of Peace and Security. In a State of War, they must take a backseat to group unity, organization, loyalty, solidarity, and trust in order to roll back or defeat the existential enemy of one's own people, land, and culture.

Problem of Trust Culture & Education. Problem of Power Core in America.

There are lots of advantages of being part of a Trust Culture. But one of the downsides is the tendency to earnestly trust the Prevailing Authority and its Official Dogma.
Blind trust is a hindrance not to learning but to realizing that there may be an unspoken agenda behind the stated intentions of the Authority. Official Propaganda becomes all the more tricky when the Power is shrouded in the sanctimony of 'Social Justice'. The Power often does this by directing the righteous rage of the indoctrinated toward something other than the ruling power. In the West, the globalists have the real power, but they avoid scrutiny by directing the righteous rage at nationalism and the bogeyman of 'white supremacism'.

Culture of Trust is good for cohesion and cooperation, but when Authority if unworthy of Trust, we need a Culture of Inquiry. We need to question what we are being taught and why. When students trust the Authority, they can be good students of what they are taught. But they will never learn to realize the agenda behind the education. They will not awaken to the fact that education is often indoctrination to serve the interests of a certain group.

For most of American history, Wasps constituted the ruling elites. And then, the ruling elites have been Jewish. If Jews fall from power, Wasps won't be able to gain dominant power again. Will the result be come colorblind elite based on meritocracy? No way, as identity politics and groups interests will heat up. Without a ruling racial or ethnic group to hold it all together, can there even be a union? Without Turkish domination, the Ottoman Empire wasn't possible. Without the Russian Core, the USSR would have lacked gravitation forc.

The power core of US used to be Wasps, and this made good sense because Wasps founded America and comprised a huge segment of US population, even as other groups grew in number and power.
Then the power core shifted to Jews. This is problematic since Jews have shallower roots in the US and constitute only 2%. Also, if Wasp power was premised on positive Pride of founding and building America, Jewish power has been premised on negative shaming white gentiles for their historical sins, which can be expatiated ONLY BY the non-whitening of America, or so PC says. (But if the great sin of White America had been to Indians and blacks, how are those groups well-served by massive invasion of the US by Asians, Hispanics, Hindus, Muslims, Africans, etc?)
Still, even if Jewish power core is problematic, it is still something around which everything else revolves. It is a nucleus of power. But if Jews lose that centrality, can there be any operative power core in the US?

Mass Immigration is Intro-Colonization, and it is just as bad as Imperialism, or Extro-Colonization

How is Intro-Colonization better than Extro-Colonization in the long run?

Extro-Colonization conquers and takes other people’s lands, like what Alexander the Great did. Or like what the Persian Imperialists did.
Intro-Colonization allows one’s own civilization, kingdom, or nation to be colonized and conquered by others.
Both lead to the demise and replacement of one people and culture(in their own homeland) by another or many others.

What happened to Palestinians as the result of mass Jewish immigration, which was both intro-colonization and extro-colonization? The ruling elites in Palestine allowed it, but these ruling elites were really foreigners, namely the British Imperialists.

Of course, Palestinians didn’t choose that path for themselves. It was chosen for them by the British elites who ruled that part of the world. British rule in Palestine allowed massive Intro-Colonization of Zionist Extro-colonists. The result was tragedy for Palestinians.

Extro-colonization or Intro-Colonization, it is a form of replacism and displacism. In our globalizing world where all nations are threatened with mass-conquest by others with ZERO respect for national borders, identities, and cultures, all people should be against demographic imperialism. Especially Jewish globalists have NO respect for any nation and its identity and culture. They seek to weaken and exploit any nation that possesses an ounce of sovereignty and autonomy with ‘multi-culturalism’, ‘diversity’, homomania, and minority-elite-supremacism.

And in the Golden Age of Universal Nationalism following the end of WWII, all peoples agreed on the ideal and necessity of National Sovereignty. European colonists in the Third World had to return home and mind their own business and preserve their own nations. And newly independent Third World nations guarded their own autonomy and sought to develop their own economies. All nations tried to respect one another even as they expanded world trade and exchange of ideas and expressions.

So, what destroyed this balance?
The process of massive Intro-Colonization pursued by Western elites, especially with the encouragement and pressure of Jewish elites. For the Western elites, Intro-Colonization meant cheaper labor and more consumers. For Jewish elites, it meant Diversity and divide-and-rule over the goyim. And for non-whites in the Third World whose main theme has been nationalism and autonomy following WWII, the siren call of abandoning their own nations, moving to the West, and enjoying better material lives was too much to resist. They betrayed the ideal of national autonomy by favoring narrow self-interest over the national good. In seeking entry into the West, they join with Jewish globalists to undermine the national sovereignty of Western nations. But this will boomerang on their own nations. If they argue that the West must ‘put out’ to the world as a moral imperative, then the same logic will apply to their own nations. Thus, globalism doesn’t merely undermine and destroy Western nations. It promotion the Western Rejection of National Autonomy as the New Ideal for all nations… with the exception of Israel.

So, globalism brought about the New Age of Mass Colonization. Elites sermonize about ‘principles’ to push this madness, but I’ll take their principles more seriously when they make the same demands for Israel as for Poland and Hungary.

-----------------

It’s not ‘supremacism’ if you defend your turf. It is ‘supremacism’ when you invade others and rule over them.
Japanese were not supremacist when they were only defending Japan. They became supremacist when they invaded China and tried to rule over Chinese.

Greeks keeping Hellas for Greeks was not the problem. The problem was Greek imperialism over others. But Kennedy is less bothered by imperialism than immigration, which can lead to reverse-imperialism or demographic imperialism by foreigners.

Btw, most slaves in Greece were white and fellow Europeans. It’s like virtually all slaves in past Japan were Japanese. So, how is that a form of ‘racial supremacism’? If Greeks were biased, it was about culture. Greeks thought barbarians had inferior culture.

But then, Kennedy’s argument is oddly western-supremacist too. By arguing that Western Civilization belongs to everyone and not just to whites, she is saying all the world should be ‘westernized’.

Now, given that the West did most to create the modern world, the world had indeed become ‘westernized’. But this IDEA-aspect of Westernization doesn’t need massive transference of peoples. Ideas travel through the minds. Japan, Turkey, and Germany don’t need Hollywood in their own nations to learn to make their own movies. You don’t have to invite an Italian into your house to make pizza. Just learn the recipe from a book.

----------------

We are told ‘cultural appropriation’ is bad. But non-whites must now appropriate Western Classical culture? What’s wrong with keeping and preserving their own culture? Why must they adopt Hellenic cultural identity?

Also, should the West be appropriating peoples from other parts of the world and turning them ‘western’, thus cutting them off from their own cultural roots? Sharing Western Culture with non-Westerners may sound generous and ‘inclusive’, but it cuts non-whites off from their own cultures and encourages them to pretend that they are Greek. It’s like converting heathens to Christianity. It may seem ‘inclusive’ and ‘nice’, but the missionaries are cutting non-Christian natives from their own roots, cultures, and spiritual belief systems.

Also, Kennedy seems not to understand what Steve King really meant. There is a difference between Western Ideas and Western Folks.
It’s true that Western Civilization’s achievements don’t belong only to the West. They belong to anyone who will draw inspiration from them and use them. So, even though cinema is an American(and French) invention, other peoples can use the technology and make Arab movies, Asian movies, and African movies. The gun belongs to anyone who learns how to make them and use them even if the modern firearm is a Western invention.
Also, anyone can enjoy Beethoven or Mozart, just like anyone can appreciate Chinese architecture or Hindu temples or the Taj Mahal.

But there is more to a people than their arts, ideas, science, and technology. There is a thing called ethnos, a sense of national family, and this is deeper than any set of abstract ideas or technological advances. And it is this sense that the West has lost.
This sense of people-hood is more important than high achievements. After all, there are many peoples and nations that didn’t produce anything great. If Azerbaijanis had never existed, it wouldn’t have mattered much to the world. Unlike Jews, Greeks, Chinese, Arabs(with Islam), and Asian-Indians, Azerbaijanis didn’t do anything that fundamentally changed the world.
Still, at least for Azerbaijanis, their history, culture, and sense of lineage/heritage surely mean something simply because they are unique & distinct and imbue Azerbaijanis with a sense of who they are, where they’ve settled as homeland, and how they remember their folklore & history. So, even if Azerbaijanis don’t matter much to the world in terms of ideas and science, their culture means everything to them because it defines what they are in terms of blood, soil, and story. It’s like Jews became a people and culture first before they gained greatness.

And this is why there is something deeper than this thing called ‘Western Civilization’. While it’s true that it did more than any other civilization to reshape the world — and therefore became the template for modern world civilization —, the fact remains that European peoples and cultures would still exist and still have value even without the high achievement. Suppose Germans had never produced people like Kant, Goethe, Beethoven, Heisenberg, and etc. German civilization would have meant far less to the world, but German sense of folk, memory, and culture would still have been of priceless value to Germans. Before greatness is possible, there must be a people and culture. When a people attain greatness, they’ve created something of world significance. If they fail to achieve such, they cannot change the world… BUT their culture, even if not great, has immense value as something that defines a people, guides them, and lends them a sense of where they came from. Consider the Greeks during the Dark Ages. This was before Greeks created a Great Civilization, the ideas of which would come to eventually change the world. But even in the Dark Ages, there was a folk who struggled to defend their land and told stories to keep the legends and memory alive. This is the Core of a People. Greatness is the fruits that grow and hang abundantly from a tree, but such growth of fruits is possibly only if there is tree with trunk and roots. Too often, people regard Western Civilization as the fruits without any regard to the trunk and roots of ethnos, narrative and mythos, and territory.

So, for people like King, the achievements of the West are of secondary importance to the existence and survival of Western peoples and their sense of who they are in terms of ethnos, memory, and territory. And this core sense of blood, soil, and story is one thing that great peoples and ungreat peoples can have in common. However great or however ungreat, there is more to a people than its achievements. It’s like West Germany achieved far more than East Germany when it came to science, technology, and economy, but East Germans were no less German in the sense of blood, soil, and story that goes back for centuries and even millenniums if we count the world of Germanic barbarians.
All peoples, great or ungreat, should have the right to preserve and defend the core of blood, soil, and story in their designated homelands. Whether it’s Great Britain or un-great Bulgaria, it should have the right to preserve its core ethnos, history, and territory.

Also, even though Western Civilization can be appreciated by any people and can inspire any individual around the globe, there is a racial basis to its rise and achievement. In the most basic sense, Western literature conveys European temperament and personality. Western music conveys European emotions and passions. Western arts depict European forms and expressions. If Greeks looked and felt like Africans or Chinese, their arts and expressions would have been different.
Even when a people borrow culture from another people, their genetics work on the material and make it their own. It’s like Christianity, originated by Near Eastern Jews, was expressed differently among Arabs, Europeans, and blacks. Black people took much of Western music and created ‘black music’, and whites too black music and made it into ‘white rock’.

Most Important Fact of US-led Globalism is that Jews won the Invisible War

There are military wars. US won most of them. Even when US lost, the other side suffered far more damage than the US. It’s been said US lost the Vietnam War, but compare what happened to US with what happened to Vietnam. It’s like George Kennedy’s loss to Paul Newman in COOL HAND LUKE.

Some might say US lost in Iraq too, but US was untouched by the war. Iraq is a total mess.

But there is a war more crucial than military wars or Cold Wars. There is the Invisible War. The power within the US has been determined by the Invisible War. And it was this War, more than the Cold War, that shaped the future of the world. USSR was once a world power, but it failed to win the hearts and minds or the loins and groins of the masses of the world. So, once the USSR collapsed, the question was which group in America would get to determine America’s lone-superpower agenda for the entire world?

This Invisible War mattered a great deal because US is ethnically diverse.
All nations have Invisible Wars among various groups contending for dominance, but in a homogeneous nation, the dominant race-and-culture of that nation is in charge regardless of which side wins. Suppose there are various factions vying for power in China. Whichever wins, China is controlled by Chinese.

And it used to be like that in the US. For awhile, the only major groups vying for power were all white Protestants, or Wasps. But then, waves of immigration added new groups to the contest of power.
And something fundamentally changed since the 60s.
The Invisible War came down to Wasps and Jews. This was fought in the realm of media, academia, arts, culture, finance, ideas, and various industries. But it wasn’t a simple ‘war’ between two ethnic groups in the way that Italian gangs might fight Irish gangs.
Invisible War happens in the realm of ideas, so the other side could be turned to serve your side. Their minds could be colonized by the ideas of your side.
So, over time, more and more Wasps came to be won over to the Jewish side. Most Liberal Wasps came under domination of Jewish politics. And in time, most Wasp conservative figures came to be mentally-colonized by Neocon thought. Jews won not only by conflict but by conversion.

So, Jews won the Invisible War in America, and their agenda has been turning the world upside down with Wars for Israel, Open Borders, anti-nativitism, pro-invasivism, Homomania, crazy feminism, and Afromania.

It’s a strange agenda. At its core, it is tribal and ethno-supremacist, but it is promoted as ‘western values’, ‘human rights’, or ‘universal principles’, all vague notions manipulated and distorted in meaning to serve an agenda that aligns with Jewish supremacist machinations.
So, this ‘universal values’ requires the US to make life hell for Muslims over there but hug them like long-lost brothers over here. It’s seems crazy and illogical, but once you understand the Power it really serves, what seems like contradictions on the surface make perfect sense at the core.

Politics of Empathy: Empathy is Secondary to "What You Empathize With?" and "Who Controls What You Empathize with?"

The problem is the Politics of Empathy in relation to graven or craven images put forth by the media.

Empathy is a useful mental process. It is about trying to see things from the viewpoint and feelings of other persons(or even animals). Empathy doesn't necessarily mean agreement or sympathy. It means that other people have their own egos, experiences, problems, justifications, biases, and rationalizations. A novelist has to empathize with all his characters. An artist must 'read' minds. So, even though Oliver Stone was no fan of Nixon and loathed Bush II, he tried to enter their heads in his movies.

Everyone should develop one's own capacity for empathy, but he or she must also ask, "What am I empathizing with?" With Reality, ideality, or fantasy?

In reality, we come across real people, and over time, we come to see them for what they are. If we must learn to empathize with others(by looking into their thoughts, feelings, personal agendas and angst), it must on grounds of understanding their true motives and emotions. So, empathizing with reality is the most important thing and bring us closer to to the truth.

But outside our close circles of family members, friends, acquaintances, and co-workers, we have to rely on the media, education, arts, and pop culture to get a glimpse of what other people are like and what makes them tick. After all, we have no direct contact with them. They come to us filtered, altered, and/or spun by the media or academia. This reality outside our inner circle of people we actually know is almost never presented as raw reality or neutral truth by the controllers of knowledge. It is manipulated and shaped into an idealized version of the reality. So, if one has no direct contact with the real mafia and has never read a serious & honest account of them AND if one only knows about the mafia from Hollywood gangster movies, one's empathy will be with the ideality or fantasy than with reality of the mafia.
This is obvious enough, and the elite intellectuals should know this themselves and should be reminding us to be skeptical of how reality is manipulated by the media. Instead, elites are addicted to their own PC crack and incapable of rising above their biases. They fear the Cold Turkey of truth. Also, as they control media and academia, they prefer to use them as instruments of power and control than free thought. After all, a thinking people might disagree with the elites and draw different conclusions based on contrasting sets of facts.
So, the elites prefer the current condition where books, fiction, and movies are used as effective(especially when images are used with music) conveyors of ideality and fantasy as more-real-than-real. People's view of reality are shaped more by stereotypes and archetypes presented by media and academia than by what's really out there.

The result is the perversion of empathy. Empathy has value only when one tries to access and assess the thoughts & feelings of real people in the real world. It is a fool's game when we are empathizing with false graven/craven images conjured by the media.
Surely, if one doesn't the know the real Hitler or Stalin but only knows him by pro-Hitler propaganda or pro-Stalin movies, one will be 'empathizing' with a heroic & sympathetic portrait of the man. Thus, empathy can only become a mindless worship.
Or, if a certain figure or person is presented in the most despicable or villainous manner, the reader or viewer doesn't have much leeway to think otherwise of him.

Such rigging undermines the true worth of empathy. The reader or viewer can only go along with the pre-cooked 'empathy' served by the writer or film-maker. Now, a true artist may present complex characters in complex situations and invite the reader or viewer to participate in the exploration. But most books and movies dispense with complexity. For one thing, it's usually commercial poison as people prefer cops and robbers. Also, the powers-that-be despise the masses as dummies who should be controlled and manipulated, not provoked to think.
More importantly, the globalist-masters fear the rise of complexity & ambiguity among the educated elites because truly curious, skeptical, and rational scholars and journalists are likely to raise inconvenient and 'dangerous' questions about the true nature of power in the world and who has it. This is why the masters of the world want elite colleges and big media to be so PC, closed-minded, judgmental(without judiciousness), and smugly bigoted as 'more evolved' people by the virtue of spouting the tiresome mantras of 'racism', 'homophobia', and 'antisemitism'. Better to have intelligent educated elites fume mostly about 'trailer trash' rednecks and Evangelicals than ask questions about which group has the Real Power and uses it to spread misery around the world.
The masters of the world fear free-thinking elites more than free-thinking masses. After all, most people don't care about anything even if they had the freedom to think and ask questions. They are too incurious and none-too-bright. It is the educated elites who read books, ponder theories, and think new thoughts. So, if the paradigm is to shift, it usually begins with the elites. After all, it was Anglo elites, not Anglo workers, who shaped the political and ideological culture of the West. It was educated Jewish elites, intellectuals, and artists who changed culture and ideology. Jewish plumbers, accountants, and used car dealers had no use for that. So, in order for the Masters of the World to keep the power, they must control the educated elites that do the most thinking and raising of questions. Free-thinking elites are the most dangerous force against the Status Quo of Power. Then, we can understand why the Power Elites prefer PC hysteria in elite colleges. It is a way of preventing the culture of free thought.

For this very reason, there needs to be a major shift in the way that ideas are discussed. Since colleges only allow PC, there needs to be an online virtual campus where all voices can be heard. I'm not talking of online courses that many colleges now offer. I mean a Virtual Center of Free Thought and Discourse that is totally safe from PC. There are many independent voices on the internet and youtube, but they are too scattered and disorganized. Also,they are too fixated on a single issue or ideology to be part of a larger intellectual community committed to free discussion of ideas.

Anyway, many progs consider themselves very 'empathetic'. But they don't ask the crucial question of whom or what they are empathizing with. After all, there is a huge difference between the real Jesse James and the movie Jesse James(often featured heroically). Empathizing with the real Jesse James(for those who knew the real man) and empathizing with the Hollywood Jesse James are entirely different things. Empathizing with figures of ideality is to fall into a trap of a rigged system. Since the figure or character has been idealized, you can only see him as a hero, saint, or martyr. Empathizing with fantasy is even worse. In our celebrity culture, much of the cult of personality of various figures is closer to outright fantasy, going way beyond trimming and airbrushing less reputable details of their lives.

Too many pampered whites who grew up in protective environments don't knew the reality or actual conditions. Their idea of reality comes from books, movies, TV shows, and music videos. So, they are more likely to come across Magic Negroes than real blacks. Also, even black thugs who cause lots of harm in real life has been made 'fun' and 'cool' by the media, especially via the cult of rap. So, even the worst pathology of blacks is featured as something positive, and gullible and naive whites end up empathizing with the black gangsta some kind of 'hero' or 'legend'.

We often hear that Liberals are more empathetic by nature, but true or not, the more important question is "Are they empathizing with reality or with fantasy?" Those who empathize with fantasy mistake it for reality, and then, the whole point of empathy has been rendered moot.

Universalism is not about adherence to Universal Principles but about the Power to Force an Agenda Universally

Universalism as a political tool is not about peoples around the world agreeing to what constitutes universal values but about the preeminent power imposing its ideas and interests as 'universals' on all other peoples.

This was true of religion.
Catholics were universal in the sense that the whole world should be turned Catholic.
Muslims were universal in the sense that the whole would should be turned Islamic.
It was about Universal Imposition or Universal Coercion than Universal Consensus.

This was also true of ideology.
Communists were universal in the sense that the whole world should be turned communist.

Today, Globalism is a Universal Imposition(the new inquisition) that pressures the entire world to conform to the favored ideas and interests of the Rulers of the US. Since Jews are the ruling elites, Homos are their main proxies & agents, and blacks are sacro-negroes by PC narrative & Pop Culture, the dominant form of Universalism is about Holocaust Worship, Homomania, and Afromania.
After all, if the globalist-universalism is really about 'anti-racist egalitarianism', it should be just as sensitive to the interests of Palestinians as to those of Zionists. But it isn't so. All those politicians in Congress say they support 'universal values', but they totally ignore the tragic history and plight Palestinians caused by Jewish influence on US politics. At the UN, when Iran raised the question of why Palestinians were punished for the crimes of Europeans during WWII, the European delegation all walked out despite their professed commitment to universalism.

So, univeralism as political phenomenon isn't about what the world sincerely, rationally, and morally agrees upon as the shared values that transcend all cultures. It is not about all nations, great and small, submitting to the same principles but really about the Great Power forcing its agenda and biases on the universal scale on all other nations. Using the analogy of nature, it's not about all species of animals agreeing on shared animal-hood but about one dominant species pressuring all other species to 'universally' bow down before it.

Take 'gay rights'. This is promoted as 'universal values'. But who said so? Now, if 'gay rights' means that all peoples should acknowledge, based on scientific evidence, that some people are born homosexual, that it's not homosexuals' fault that they are homo, and that homosexuals should be allowed to pursue professions based on ability, that is a workable and sound principle. It is factual, rational, and humane; it can be held up as a universal principle in the name of reason, tolerance, and meritocracy(as some homos are skilled and talented.)
But what currently goes by the name of 'gay rights' in the West is homomania, a mindless worship of homosexuality as something holy and the cult of homo narcissism & vanity as next to godliness. It is sick, perverse, and degenerate. So, it's not about 'gay rights' but 'gay worship'. It is a fruit-sade, the new crusade. Homomania says even churches should be converted to homo-worship. Sacred texts should be re-written or reinterpreted to spread the 'gayspel' that God, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad would have been for something like 'gay marriage'.

'Progressives' deride the Inquisition of Old, but they aren't averse to using their vast globalist power to push the Imposition of their sick agenda on all the world. It is often done through bribery of foreign regimes(candies and prizes if they put on 'gay pride' parades), spread of decadent Pop Culture as narcotic & opiate, and promotion of PC that suppresses free speech ironically in the name of 'liberal values'. PC limits the range of inquiry, constricts the Narrative spectrum, and insists on a loaded terminology as dishonest as loaded dice. A term like 'homophobia' favors homomaniac since it implies that those who oppose the homo agenda are clinically sick in the head. And 'racism', as currently defined, is a loaded term since it presumes that anyone who believes in the reality of races is also a racial supremacist.

Anyway, universalism as political force is more about the power to impose one's agenda universally than about the adherence to universal principles applying equally to all nations and cultures.

Mixed-Race People are proof that Race is Real

Some people say the existence of mixed-race people proves that race is not real. Actually, it proves the opposite: Race is real. After all, there has to be white people and black people in order to create mulattoes. Without the existence of real whites and real blacks, you cannot have mulattoes. You can't make a mulatto by having blacks breed with blacks or by having whites breed with whites. For there to be the mulatto, there has to be white people and black people. Also, only mixing whites and blacks will produce mulattoes. You can't create a mulatto by mixing whites and Asians. Likewise, you can only create a Eurasian by mixing white and Asian. You can't get a Eurasian by mixing black and Arab.

You can mix orange juice and apple juice to produce an orange-apple blend.
So, does the existence of the mixture prove that orange juice and apple juice are not real? Does it prove that orange juice and apple juice are mere social constructs? No, the mixture is possible only if apple juice and orange juice really exist in the first place. The mixture can only result from the blending of distinct juices.

Just like the blend of apple juice and orange juice isn't possible unless apple juice and orange juice really exist, mixed-race people cannot coming into being without the existence of distinct and separate races.

What Black Lives Matter(BLM) and American Globo-Imperialism have in common

In a way, BLM or Black Lives Matter is as American as apple pie or fried chicken.

BLM throw fits when people say All Lives Matter. "No!!!", blacks holler. They say black lives have extra value and deserves special recognition and attention. So, it’s as though black lives are ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ in ways that other lives are not.

But, BLM is a great big lie because blacks are the most aggressive, murderous, and violent people in America. They cause the most trouble for themselves and attack-rob-rape-murder other races. Blacks cry victim and blame others, but they themselves are the main problem of America.

Well, Globo-Americanism is now like American Power Matters. America and America alone is declared ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’. If someone were to say every nation is ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ in its own way, American Power arrogantly fumes and throw fits. "No!!!", American power shouts. American Power says America has special value and deserves special respect and reverence around the world in ways that other nations do not.

But,APM is a great big lie because the US is the most aggressive, murderous, imperialist, warmongering, and violent nation on Earth. It causes the most problems for itself — like financial meltdown, PC, and decadence — and invades & destroys or bullies & intimidates other nations. American Power cries victim and blame others(esp Russia and Iran), but it is the main instigator of horrors around the world.

So, the disingenuous bullshit of BLM and the mendacious bully-pulpit of APM are really joined at the hip.

The Ugliness of Three Narcissisms & the Necessity of Tribal-Universalism

Narcissism is UGLY.

There is physical narcissism of those who are totally into how they look. This is promoted by celebrity culture, especially as controlled by vain homos.

There is talent narcissism of those who think they are so great because of high intelligence and ability. Ability and intelligence are good things, but they don't mean goodness of heart and character or soundness of mind. A person can be talented and smart and a total louse, like Mark Zuckerberg and Carlos Slim.
Libertarianism is the pathological narcissism of talent and success. The prog version of talent narcissism is the conceit of the 'creative class'. The fancy hipster urban elites deserve all the privileges because they are sooooooo 'creative'. The 'creative class' notion is also associated with vain homos, as spelled out by social critic Florida.

There is ideological narcissism of those love to self-hug themselves and pat themselves on the back for their goody-goodness. Ideological narcissism is appealing to most because ANYONE can partake of it. Physical narcissism only applies to those who really look good even though uglies do pretend to be hotter than they really are. And Talent narcissism is limited to those with real talent, and such people are relatively rare -- the kind who make it in Silicon Valley or some business venture. Most libertarians suck at most things and vicariously live through the talent narcissism of others with their Ayn-Randian worship of any rich or successful person.
But anyone can become an ideological narcissist, which explains something like antifa that is mostly made up of bottomfeeders of society. Even in elite colleges, most graduates will not become very successful, esp if they majored in something like humanities or social sciences. So, they are going to feel inferior to those with claims to physical narcissism or talent narcissism(in Wall Street, high-tech, or some business venture). So, what is left for these types to feel better than others? Ideological narcissism, a kind of secular-spiritual narcissism.

Emmanuel Macron is the favorite of physical narcissists, talent narcissists, and ideological narcissists. He is all about the look, the style over substance. Those with talent but without looks want to be associated with whatever is fashionable. Those with looks but no brains or knowledge want to be associated with whatever is officially approved, and of course 'nationalism' is condemned as a 'far right' vice. Can't have that. As for ideological narcissists, they want to feel superior about something, and PC tells them that white people are so much goody-gooder for white-knighting 'diversity'.

In the end, it's not about tribalism vs universalism.
A meaningful tribal-universalism is possible, and it's the best way. We need to take cue from the Jews whose religion is a tribal-universalism. Jews believe in the universal God, the one Truth for all. However, they have a special tribal Covenant with the universal God. So, even though God is God over all mankind, Jews have their special relation and destiny in relation to God. It's like Eskimos and Africans share the same Sun but in their own special way in different parts of the world. There is no need to make the Sun shine the same all over. The earth is round and revolving, not flat and constant. So different peoples and places get the Sun differently.
Tribalism is too limiting, but universalism is too confusing and generic. So, the Goldilocks middle is tribal-universalism.

And this should apply to secular realm as well. The notion of universal human rights is good and useful. There are certain basic ideas and values that are applicable to all mankind. And it'd be good for all peoples to adopt them. However, each people must shape and mold them according to their own history, experiences, demographics, heritage, culture, sacraments, taboos, and etc. So, these universal values will play out differently in Turkey, Iran, Uganda, Japan, Mexico, Kenya, India, Israel, etc. Also, different nations have different icons and narratives to buttress these universal values. Due to slavery and racial problems, human rights issues in the US have been represented by Lincoln and MLK, the Civil War and Civil Rights. Other nations and peoples have different experiences and different icons and different lessons they drew from history.

Same goes for free markets. It is a useful universal idea, but that doesn't mean the whole world should be part of one single market. Different nations need to have their own policies to make free markets work on the national level. And the main purpose of a nation is to serve the people of the nation than to make the nation useful to the globalist empire.

Same goes for democracy or system of republican government. When used properly, it works better than most other political systems. But that doesn't mean we should have world government of single democracy for all. Each nation needs its own national form of democracy where nationals vote for national interest.

The problem is globalists have taken control of too many key nations. And these globalists' main loyalty is not to any nation but to other globalist elites around the world. So, their main priority is to make all nations submit to the agenda of globalist elites than to have national elites represent, defend, and serve the interests of the nation.

Nationalism is the best kind of tribal-universalism. It acknowledges that other peoples should have nations of their own and their own national sovereignty. All peoples deserve their own nations as a universal human right. This mutual understanding among nations and peoples is the best recipe for peace. Also, it is on the national level/scale that universal human rights are best implemented. A nation can effectively ensure the humane functions of its national system for its own people. But a nation cannot save the world. And national identity and interests will be undermined with mass immigration-invasion.

Sweden used to practice more effective implementation of universal human rights when it was a homogeneous nation. Swedes embraced Diversity in the name of universalism, but it only led to rising tribalism and fracturing in Sweden. The result is less universalism for all those in Sweden and more contentious tribalism or cuck behavior among whites that is just downright sickening and humiliating.

Nationalism is also humble in admitting that a nation can only do so much. It is a form of hubris to play the role of savior of the world or all humanity. It's like a man claiming to be able to eat an entire horse. Hubris leads to both national degradation and imperialism, and we are seeing both in the Americanism of the 21st century. The notion that US is a limitless magnet of immigrants(the poor huddled masses) is turning entire parts of the US into the Third World. There is less unity and more enmity. America used to feel more universal when it was less diverse.
Also, the US elites now neglect the problems of Already Americans as they are too busy shopping for 'New Americans' as either cheap labor or virtue-signal-voodoo-dolls, or virdoo dolls.
And the megalomania of US as the 'indispensable' and 'exceptional' nation, the superhero savior of the world, has led to endless wars that has only destroyed countless lives. It has also compromised its allies and vassals as accomplices in these globalist war crimes by either going along or remaining silent in deference to the US. What is EU but a partner-in-crime of all the US foulness(in the name of 'humanitarian intervention') in the Middle East?