Just Say It is RACE-IST AND TRUE. Associate Race-ism with Truth.

Even after so much ink has been spilled over how Political Correctness robs us of reason, liberty, integrity, and courage, we still can’t have honest discussions of world problems because the vast majority of people adhere to the PC definition and deployment of the term ‘racist’. The word has such power over us because nearly everyone, from ‘left’ to ‘right’, agree on its dubious meaning. So, even as there are increasing numbers of people who deny that they are ‘racist’ or hurl back the accusation at the other side, almost no one dares to deconstruct the term and examine why it is so powerful.

People fail to understand that the term was devised to suck out all the air in the room so that it can have only one meaning and nullify all other meanings. In other words, ‘racism’ is like a terminological black hole that will not tolerate honest discussion of race. Why would that be? It is because a neutral sounding word has been defined in the most extreme way. Most of you will say that ‘racism’ means racial hatred, racial chauvinism, racial supremacism, irrational racial hostility, blind racial animus, or even racial genocide. Now, why is this a problem? Because a neutral-sounding term has been overloaded with strong meanings.
Now, suppose extreme racial views had been associated with a term ‘radical racism’ or ‘racial extremism’. Thus, we can agree that some people may have extreme prejudice or extreme hostility based on racial differences. After all, ‘radical’ means purist and fanatical. And ‘extremism’ means an abnormal stress on certain inclinations or tendencies. So, if a term like ‘radical racism’ or ‘racial extremism’ carried the burden of ultra-hardline views on race, we can have rational and sensible discussion of the reality of race and racial differences. Indeed, under such rules, the term ‘racism’ or ‘race-ism’ would mean what it should mean. As ‘ism’ means belief or credo, ‘race-ism’ would mean belief in the reality of race & possible racial differences and the necessity or inevitability of racial consciousness or awareness.

Now, race-ism could become extreme or radical, but it doesn’t need to be... no more than a religious person must be a fanatical nut like Jim Jones or a socialist must be a radical communist. Likewise, belief in racial reality doesn’t mean one has to be a Nazi or a member of the KKK, Nation-of-Islam, or Jewish Defense League(an outfit created by the Zionist zealot Meir Kahane who was so extreme that even fellow Jews renounced him). Some might go that way, but then, one can become crazy about anything. After all, people love food, but that doesn’t mean they have to become fatty-fatkins. And people like being slim, but that doesn’t mean people who watch their weight are fated to be anorexics.

Anyway, because a neutral-seeming term like ‘racism’(race + ism) has been defined as an extremist ideology, it’s difficult to have an honest and truthful discussion of race. After all, the formulation of the term ‘racism’ keeps reminding us that ANY ism(belief) about race must be extreme and pathological. Some have tried to solve this problem by using terms such as ‘racialism’ or ‘race realism’, but that only complicates matters. Such tactics are defensive when, if anything, true race-ists must go on the offensive and stop backing down. The term ‘racism’ must be rehabilitated, just like innocent victims of tyranny. The only alteration I would recommend is to spell and pronounce it as ‘race-ism’ to reiterate that the word should mean race + ism = belief in reality of race & possible racial differences and the necessity or inevitability of racial consciousness. For more on this matter, go to this link: http://dailyandreaostrov.blogspot.com/2018/03/why-im-only-true-race-ist-how-misuse-of.html.

Anyway, for the time being, what steps can we take to slowly steer the ship to redefine ‘racism’ or race-ism properly? I propose the ‘Race-ist-and-True’ Rule. If you make a true statement about racial reality and racial differences OR exhibit natural tendency of racial consciousness & solidarity, don’t ever back down when you are accused of ‘racism’. If you try to explain that you’re not ‘racist’, you’ve lost the argument there and then. You’ve put yourself in a defensive and pleading corner, as if the other side has the right to judge you while you feel a need to defend and justify yourself. This is because what should be a neutral term has been rigged by Jewish radical agenda and political correctness to mean something extreme and evil. For that reason, ANY belief in race or expression of racial identity(at least if you’re white and gentile) is automatically smeared as something extreme.
Now, what is so extreme about believing that evolution created different racial groupings of human beings? It is so obvious to any honest pair of eyes. What is so extreme about noticing racial differences? We can see it all around in sports, crime, and all sorts of behavior. And what is so evil about a people having a sense of racial identity, unity, and solidarity? It seems rather natural given that humans are genetically programmed to judge things based on sight and other visible signals. But because the mere terminology of race + ism has been defined as the most heinous form of extremism, even people making the most obvious observations or statements about race and racial differences must be on guard against charges of ‘racism’. With nearly all the institutions and powers operating in such PC manner, is anything possible to stem the tide of this rabid and virulent Judeo-Nazi agenda?

Yes, even if it’s an upward struggle. Also, the first tentative steps are the most important in any movement. It means you are serious and willing to move forward with the truth. And once we reach the top of the hill(like the Train that Could), it will be easy coasting from there on, with historical gravity being on our side.

So, what exactly is it that should be said when our perfectly reasonable views are accused of ‘racism’? First, I’m talking of rational and sane statements about racial reality, racial differences, and racial identity. I’m not talking of clown antics of people like Andrew Anglin who will say ANYTHING to trigger people and gain notoriety. Their views really are extreme, demented, or unserious(and mainly for attention). There can't be any moral defense for such stupidity and dementedness though we must defend speech rights to say offensive things.
As for those of us who dare to speak the truth about race & racial differences and have facts, truth, courage, and integrity on our side, the proper way to respond to accusations of ‘racism’ is to say that our views are ‘race-ist and true’. That is the right way. Don’t try to deny that you’re ‘racist’. Don’t play by their word game that was long ago rigged to favor them... just like a socialist can’t win any argument IF even the most moderate socialism is made synonymous with Stalinism, Maoism, and Khmer Rouge.

Likewise, a capitalist will be in a hopeless position IF the base terminology of ‘capitalism’ is defined to mean Scrooge-like greed and pathological selfishness. Indeed, communist nations defined capitalism in just such manner, and that made it nearly impossible to lay out a rational case for free markets. According to communist terminological rules, the term ‘capitalism’ could never mean a neutral theory of economics based on market dynamics. It couldn’t be approached rationally and judiciously because it had an albatross of ‘greed’ and ‘exploitation’ around its neck.

Now, capitalism CAN be exploitative and ugly, but just because a system is capitalist doesn’t mean it is ultra-libertarian where the ONLY thing that matters is greed & profits and nothing else.
But in a communist nation, there were few things worse than being called a ‘capitalist-roader’ or ‘bourgeois’. Communist terminology fixed it so that ‘capitalism’ could only mean utterly greedy exploitation and ‘bourgeoisie’ could only mean the reactionary exploitative class. A rational, balanced, and empirical discussion of capitalism or the bourgeoisie’s role in history was nearly impossible because those very terms were loaded with moral contempt and loathing.
And in the Current West, ‘racism’ has the same kind of effect. Thus, even if someone like Charles Murray wants to calmly discuss the subject of race, it is denounced immediately as ‘racist’, and then any views about racial differences between whites and blacks is associated with slavery, Jim Crow, and lynching. This hysteria would have us believe that because racial differences had been invoked the past to justify certain institutions, any idea of racial differences must be to restore slavery.
This is like someone in a communist system insisting that any argument in favor of capitalism and market economics must be evil because, at least in his mind, anything associated with markets and profits must be about the greedy rich hogging all the wealth, sadistic henchmen tyrannizing workers, giant smokestacks belching out black soot to choke the proletariat, and innocents beaten down with truncheons. The radical stigmatization of the term ‘capitalism’ made it difficult for reformers to call for more efficient market economics because their reputations and careers(and even lives) could be ruined by accusations of being ‘bourgeois reactionary’ or ‘capitalist roader’. Even basic market reforms and limited privatization that might boost the economy became taboo in many quarters because, according to the communist terminology, there could never be a moderate and balanced form of capitalism. No, all forms of capitalism were extreme, exploitative, & evil, and that was that, and there was nothing more to be said.
People in the West face the same trouble with the term ‘racist’. As Charles Murray and many others found out, there are too many people brainwashed by PC into believing that rational ideas about race and racial differences are simply not possible. There can only be one view of race, and it is ‘nazi’.

Now, there are idiotic Nazi types who do espouse extreme and radical views on race. Calling them ‘racist’ would be correct to the extent that they do hold views on racial reality and racial differences. But the difference is their views are indeed radical and extreme, and more importantly, there is no way that sane and rational people who believe in racial reality and racial differences have views that resemble the lunacies of Neo-Nazism. So, my advice is not for radical racists who are prone to saying idiotic things. As so much of what they say is numbnuts and retarded, I have no wish to represent them or defend them. Fools who dig themselves into holes can’t be helped.

But, what if you’re a sane, rational, and honest person? What if your views on racial reality and racial differences are fully in accordance with known facts & data and are indeed in alignment with what any honest pair of eyes can see from racial reality in any society. If you’re that person and if what you’ve said makes good sense, then the worst thing you can do is deny that you are ‘racist’ when that charge is thrown at you. If your race-ism is valid & true and if you’re accused of ‘racism’, the proper response is to say that your views are ‘race-ist and true’.
This puts the accuser in a bind. After all, truth has the advantage of prestige. How can falsehood be better than the truth? Those who argue for the Noble Lie will lose soon enough because no one wants to believe that he or she must stick to demonstrable falsehoods for the ‘higher good’. People want to believe that their righteousness is based on rightness about reality. The rabid dogs of PC want to believe that science, reasons, and facts are on their side. To be sure, there are some PC hacks who argue that truth about race must be suppressed for the ‘higher good’. But such argument simply cannot stand for long. It’s like the Geocentrism of the Catholic Church couldn’t withstand the truth of real astronomy that placed the Sun at the center. If PC admits that it favors lies over truth in the name of the ‘higher good’, it will be admitting that PC 'goodness' has no legs of truth to stand on. It must be propped up by crutches of deception, the logic of which is not unlike withholding the truth about Santa Claus to little children.

So, truth beats all in the end. Those with truth on their side merely need to speak honestly because truth backs them up. In contrast, those opposed to the truth must resort to lies, propaganda, hysteria, or banal homilies. Indeed, the reason why so many Jews(in media and academia), Antifa Janissary types, and cuck-collaborators are so triggered by rational race-ists is due to their abject fear that they may indeed be wrong on facts and truth, thus on the wrong side of history. Not only are racial differences so obvious to the naked eye but new genetic studies are showing that group differences among various races are all too real. PC hacks are now so desperate that they go beyond calling people ‘racist’ and call them ‘nazi’ as well. (This is rich coming from Jewish globalists especially because, if we were to judge people by what they DO as opposed to what they SAY, Jewish Power is the most nazi-like force in the world as it indulges in Jewish supremacism, warmongering & imperialism, politics of paranoia & scapegoating, cult of megalomania, and even genocidal tendencies.) PC hacks hope to shut down debate by screaming ‘racist’, and that is supposed to decide there-and-then that your race-ist views are false and invalid.
But if you do have truth and facts on your side, you should respond to the charge of ‘racism’ by clarifying that your views are, yes, ‘race-ist’ and also true. This way, the term ‘race-ism’ is gradually, step by step, associated with the courageous will to speak the truth and counter the platitudes of PC. Prog idiots use ‘racist’ as shortcut to invalidate those who won’t get on with the program, and they gained much power by convincing so many people that, yes indeed, any view about racial differences had to be about irrational ‘hatred’ and ‘supremacism’.

And PC got the upperhand because even people with rational and sane views on race, upon being accused of ‘racism’, denied the charge and tried to explain themselves on ground of science and facts. But the fact is they never had a useful term for their rational position on race. Because the neutral formulation of race + ism has been defined to mean something extreme(and possibly the most evil thing in the universe), people with rational views on race simply didn't know how to characterize their positions. Perhaps, they could have used the term ‘genetist’(as opposed to geneticist who is a researcher of genetics). A genetist could mean someone who believes in the genetic or biological roots of human existence. But ‘genetist’ is too broad and would apply to all life forms. As we are mostly involved with human affairs, it made sense to winnow down to categories and concepts with the greatest relevance to us. And race is of great importance because evolution has been at work to create different human groups that really do vary generally in appearance, body size, intelligence, strength, speed, temperament, and other factors. Therefore, we must stick to the term that addresses the reality of race, and that term must be race + ism or race-ism. If race is real(and it is), then it means there are real differences among races. That is the truth, and we prefer the truth over falsehood. So, it means we are race-ist and truthful. Then, if some PC dog barks at us and accuses us of ‘racism’, we must simply say that, yes, our positions are race-ist-and-true. PC dolts assume that the mere accusation of ‘racism’ has a magically discrediting and disinfecting effect on people who espouse 'hateful' views.

But they are unprepared to deal with people who dare to point out that race-ism = truth. If we stand our ground and insist that our views are race-ist-and-true, then the other side will find itself in a bind. They are so used to ‘winning arguments’ with that magic word ‘racist’ that they've grown mentally lazy. Our enemies are accustomed to people cowering or backing down because PC has long held that ‘racism’ = extreme views on race = falsehood.
But we can easily demonstrate that race-ism is valid and true. Facts are really on our side. Races do exist, and the differences are not just skin-deep. So, our race-ism is rational and sane. Furthermore, because we have the facts on our side, our views are race-ist-and-true. Because we stand our ground and associate race-ism with truth, it is now up to the PC side to prove that our race-ist views are untrue. But this is difficult because the evidence of racial differences is so everywhere and so obvious. Furthermore, the advancement of genetic science is beginning to prove that differences among racial groups go the roots of our DNA.
So, there you go, the idea of Race-ist-and-True will be difficult to beat. Then, the next time you are accused of ‘racism’ by PC dogs and dolts, don’t cower and sweat as you try to persuade them that you’re not ‘racist’. Instead, tell them that your views are Race-ist-and-True. Insist that truth is on your side precisely because you are a race-ist who has the will and courage to look at the world with honest eyes. See what happens.

Are Progs acting in Good Faith when they say Corporate Monopolies have the Right to Dismiss and Blacklist White National Liberationists who say NO to White Submissivism demanded by Jewish Supremacists?

So many people associated with ‘white nationalism’ or ‘white supremacism’ have been demoted, fired, or blacklisted. Even physically attacked. And the internet deplatforms entire sites devoted to White Identity and White Interests.

We are told that this is constitutional since Freedom of Speech doesn’t apply to private companies. In other words, private companies can hire and fire whomever they want based on whatever.

But I just don’t buy this line of argument.

Just consider the following scenario. Suppose a company has a president who reads about Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Suppose he is appalled by Zionist behavior. Suppose he comes to see Zionism as a form of imperialism and supremacism. On that basis, suppose he purges any worker who is associated with Zionism or support for Zionism.

Would ACLU, ADL, SPLC, and American Jews(who control most media) just accept this as OKAY since private companies can hire or fire whomever they want?
Now, the hypothetical company didn’t fire anyone simply because he or she is Jewish. The company fired people, Jews or gentiles, who are known to have explicitly supported the project of Zionism. (After all, there are anti-Zionist Jews.) So, would the Establishment, Jews, and globalists be fine with this since it targeted not race but the creed/credo of workers?

Or suppose a company decides that BLM is a Hate Movement based on lies that promotes intimidation, violence, and thuggery. Suppose it decides to fire anyone, white or black or whatever color, who is associated with support of BLM and its agenda.
Or suppose capitalist corporations adopt a policy of firing anyone associated with Marxism on the basis that communist ideology is anti-freedom, anti-property, anti-individuality, and anti-liberty, all in the name of state tyranny based on delusional theory of justice that the world must be made into a proletarian prison-state to ensure equality for all?
Would ACLU, ADL, SPLC, and NAACP — and NYT and MSM — just accept it as the Right of private companies to hire or fire whomever as they please based on their own criteria of what is ‘acceptable’?

Or suppose Paypal is bought out by Arab-Americans who are appalled by Zionist mistreatment of Palestinians. Suppose their new policy is to deny Paypal service to any proponent of Zionism. Would the Jewish community and Mass Media accept it as the right of private company to do as it pleases?

I don’t think so. I’m sure all the ‘experts’ will find LEGAL reasons to oppose such company decisions. If anything, the powers-that-be will summon any means possible to make sure that such a company will be destroyed for practicing its supposed constitutional rights.

If Youtube were owned by Hindus, Chinese, or Arabs and went about deplatforming Zionist vloggers as ‘hateful’ or homo vloggers as spreading ‘degeneracy’, I highly doubt if Jews, globalists, and progs would defend the rights of private enterprise to do as it pleases. After all, if progs care so much about Free Enterprise and Business Rights, why do they call for socialization of medicine?

Or can you imagine Youtube hiring BDS to root out Zionist vloggers as murderous, genocidal, imperialist, and/or exclusionary? If anything, American Jews are using money and influence to pass laws that will criminalize speech and actions that are in favor of BDS.

The Right must push for laws that make it illegal to fire anyone for political or ideological views away from work. That is discrimination based on creed. If it’s wrong to fire someone for being pro-Zionist, it is wrong to fire him for being pro-Europeanist. All workers must follow professional codes AT WORK, but his private and personal beliefs or activities shouldn’t be grounds for dismissal from work.
And that is the very argument that the Progressives once made. They decried the firing and blacklisting of so many communists and leftist sympathizers(many of whom were Jewish) during the ‘McCarthy Era’. But they’ve now shown their own face. It was never about principles but about protecting their own. If McCarthy had been a leftist who went after far-right people, I’m sure the Lib Narrative would remember him as a hero.

Why We Need to be Vigilant of the Power of the TEMPLATE

Some on the Patriotic Right fret about the corrosive effects of Cult of White Guilt, but it’s actually a secondary problem flowing from a much bigger one, namely the power of the TEMPLATE.

The Template decides who are approved & who can accuse as opposed to who are accused & who must atone.

But once the Template is smashed, it doesn’t matter what people believe as individuals. The personal consciences of individuals matter only in relation to the condemnation or consecration by the Template held by the Power. Why does one’s personal views and feelings about Jews matter in America but one’s views and feelings about Buddhists don’t? It’s because the Template protects and favors Jews but is utterly indifferent about Buddhists. So, a person can love or hate Buddhists, and it wouldn’t matter one way or the other. Neither loving nor hating Buddhists is either an advantage or a disadvantage. The Template just doesn’t care. But if one’s feelings about Jews were made known, it’d have serious consequences on the social, economic, and political level because Jews are so central to the Template.

Take communism in East Germany. As long as the System was in place, the Template was “Marxism-Leninism is the eternal truth, and good communists are on the side of angels, and it is their right and duty to accuse and expose anti-communist heretics.”
Under the System, the pro-communists could accuse and condemn anyone deemed anti-communist. They didn’t need to explain or justify their feelings and actions. The System ensured its supporters to take for granted the infallibility of Marxism-Leninism. All they had to do was point fingers and accuse. Destroy the enemy and feel justified as good comrades. As for the accused, they had to either deny the charges of anti-communism or defy the system with all the courage they could muster(and almost invariably pay a heavy price). The System enforced the Marxist-Leninist Template. Even if we were to suppose everyone in East Germany, communist and anti-communist alike, was motivated by the purest ideals and principles, what ultimately decided their fate was not their individual consciences but the Template that had the power to choose winners and losers.

But once the System came tumbling down in East Germany, it no longer mattered if there remained hardline communists or Marxist true believers. The System no longer existed to protect and favor them. Whether few or many, they were now all alone to make their case without the System enforcing the Template in their favor.

Also, their accusations no longer carried any weight. They suddenly lacked the power to affect the lives of others because the Template no longer existed to lend them support against others. If anything, there was the sudden realization that their power had been illusory. Because they could destroy other lives under communism, they’d been lulled into believing that their personal sense of righteousness, in and of itself, had the force of history. But in fact, it had been the systemic wind behind their backs that had created the impression of having agency in history.
It’s like Christians in a Christian Order may feel empowered by Faith alone. After all, the Christian Faithful feel blessed in a Christian system that favors their kind. One could easily overlook the crucial role of the system and believe in God as the source of one’s blessed position in society. But one’s favored status really owes to the power of the Church that endorses and ensures the privilege of the true believers. If the power of the Church were to fade, their faith alone wouldn’t amount to a plate of beans. Today, American Christians have begun to realize this. Because core institutions of America are now effectively post-Christian(and even anti-Christian), what with the Template consecrating Jews-Negroes-Homos above all others, being a Christian today has little resonance within the domains of power. If anything, it could be a liability in many key areas.

Anyway, the fall of East German communism meant that anti-communists no longer needed to fear informers or cower before their accusers. They no longer needed to deny their anti-communism. They no longer needed to defend or justify their anti-Leninism. They could freely express their disdain for communism.
And as long as the New Template favored those who called out against communists of the prior regime, their anti-communism had value as a token of power. But once the New Template lost interest in making an example of former communists, even anti-communism came to mean nothing. In time, neither having served communism nor having resisted communism carried any water in the New Order where the Template was devised and enforced by globalists.

Same logic applies to the cult of ‘white guilt’. It’s not the feeling itself that is most worrisome. Same goes for the cult of Diversity and Homomania. Before Diversity and Homomania were promoted as part of the Official Template, it didn’t matter if one espoused nationalism or anti-homo sentiments. One could openly question or mock Diversity or the Homo agenda prior to their consecration into the Template. And it didn’t matter if some people were pro-homo-agenda or pro-mass-invasion. They lacked the backing of the Template and could therefore be pushed back because they stood alone with their own convictions.

But once Diversity was canonized into the Template, its advocates had the blessings of the System. And its opponents were effectively excommunicated by the System. If an idea isn’t yet canonical, opposing it cannot be heretical. Thus, while opposing it may lead to heated arguments with its advocates, one cannot be destroyed by the System for harboring such views because the System has yet to canonize the idea that would render such views heretical.

Once elite institutions canonized the tenets of PC, opposing views were no longer regarded as mere disagreements or dissent but as heresies of ‘hate’. So, with the full spectrum of elite opinion from left to right chanting the sacred mantra of ‘Diversity is our strength, the message was loud and clear that Diversity now has the full blessing of the Template. It was no longer a position among other possible positions but The Position, the Only Position.

So, the key issue isn’t White Guilt per se. Such sentiments always exist because any society(even non-white ones) will have its share of self-loathing types who love to make a spectacle of their higher virtue via atonement and redemption.
What gave Self-Loathing Whites or SLW’s the moral and political advantage is that the Globalist elites used their immense power to push the Iron Template of Diversity and Homomania. So, SLW’s are now favored in the way that communist zealots, communist toadies, and communist hacks were favored in Stasi-dominated East Germany. But notice how the commies in all walks of life lost their advantage overnight when the System came down. Being communist in a system tailored to Marxism-Leninism was like having an anti-gravity belt. But once the system’s power was shut down, those hovering in the air all came crashing down. Tragicomically, while they were up in the air, they thought their power of levitation emanated from within their own souls. They learned the truth the hard way when the system no longer supplied power to their belts. It's like a soldier has the power to kill other people as long as he is consecrated as a 'hero' by the System. But back in civilian life, he realizes his 'power' of 'heroism' totally depended on the System.

So, the problem isn’t so much the existence of SLW’s, annoyingly unbearable as they may be. Rather, it’s that they are blessed by the System that calls for Open Season on White Heretics, aka the Patriots. Once the Template is smashed, the Patriots can fight back with the full force of facts, logic, and passion, and then, SLW’s will have to stand on their own legs in the fight that they will inevitably lose. After all, those who hate their own kind will lose to those who love their own kind. Also, the support of the Template made the SLW’s spoiled and lazy. Their reliance on anti-gravity belts powered by the Template made their bones weak.

We must smash the Template, or the Tabernacle.

Why is the Globalist 'left' far more Dangerous than the Classic Left? Its aim isn't to help the masses but to Replace them.

It's no longer about the Left vs the Right. Long ago, even leftists were patriots. New Deal was for Americans Only, and the French Communist Party was anti-immigration and for the French Working Class.

So, the victory of the Left was not an 'existential' threat to the nation. French Revolution didn't destroy France. Labour governments in the past didn't destroy Great Britain. And even though far-leftist communism was terrible, it still preserved the peoples and cultures of various nations such as Russia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, East Germany, Bulgaria, and etc.

The Left called for more power to the working class of the nation. It didn't call for the replacement of native folks with invasive foreign masses. So, regardless of political victory, left or right, the nation was preserved in terms of racial, cultural, and historical integrity.

Also, the Left used to be anti-imperialist and pro-nationalist. It championed the right of Third World peoples to cast off the yoke of Western Imperialism and amass their own power in their own nations, ancient or new.

That was then, this is now. Today, what is called the 'left' has nothing to do with the Classic Left. It is globalist, controlled by Jewish-Homo oligarchs, and seeks to destroy the ethnic/cultural/historical character of every nation. It is like Ugly Americanism on steroids. It is rude, intrusive, and arrogant. It goes to EVERY nation(except Israel) and demands that it 'welcome' endless immigration-invasion, even to the point of having the native folks(with deep roots in the soil) be REPLACED by others.

This new 'left' isn't about economic policy or workers' rights. Its Sorosian Agenda is to destroy the unique ethnic/cultural/territorial character of every nation.

When the Old Left won, it meant a change in economic policy. It didn't destruction of the nation's sense of history, identity, and territory.
But, if the globalist 'left' wins, it means your nation is lost forever. Worse, this globalist agenda of Replacism is pushed not only by these 'new leftists' but by neo-liberals and neo-conservatives who see no value in the preservation of History, Identity, Territory(or HIT), except in Israel of course.

The victory of this Sorosian 'left' means your nation is gone forever, and your people have been REPLACED by foreign masses who, btw, came to your nation not out of respect or admiration but parasitic self-interest.

History, Identity, and Territory. HIT, that is the essence of a nation. Be a HITTER against the REPLACISTS. The so-called 'new left' of REPLACISTS says your nation doesn't belong to your people. It says your nation belongs to the globalist oligarchs(like George Soros) and their Replacist hordes.

Globalism is the Greatest Evil. Tyranny of Bad Ideas is Temporary. Tyranny of Demographic Transformation is Permanent.

Demographic Imperialism and Replacism are the most ruinous phenoms that can befall a nation, people, and culture.
Ideological disasters are nothing by contrast in the long run.
Ideas exist in the mind and may eventually pass away. Even an idea as disastrous as communism was no big deal in the wider scope of history.

While communism can wreak havoc on a nation’s economy, once it’s relegated to the dustbin of history, the nation and its people & culture remain intact and can thrive once more.
Communism oppressed Poles in Poland and Hungarians in Hungary, but Poland remained the nation of Poles and Hungary remained the nation of Hungarians. A nation under communism is tyrannized by a bad idea, not by a foreign people.

In the end, ideologies are come-and-go. Bad ideas lead to bad socio-economic results, but ideas do not alter or erase the essential character of a nation’s people and culture.

But demographic imperialism and replacism do just that. Once masses of foreigners take over a nation, they mean to stay and, absent a serious war and revolution, they will take over and grow in numbers until the native population has been eclipsed and replaced.

Communism’s ill effects on Eastern Europe were NOTHING compared to globalism’s fatal impact on France, UK, Germany, and Sweden.
Nations under communism could eventually be rid of the ideology, and once freed of the illusion, could carry on with the same people and culture.
But after globalism is finished with Western Europe, the result will be an entirely new world populated by Muslims and Africans.
It’s a daunting challenge to rid society of bad ideas and institutions, but it’s a gargantuan(and even impossible) task to be rid of demographic imperialists once they’ve taken over your own nation. Serbs will never take back Kosovo. Palestinians lost Palestine(now Israel) forever.

Communism was about proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. As economically disastrous as it was, the nation still belonged to its people at the end of the day since the proles and bourgeoisie were of the same ethnicity and class. So, Romania run by dictatorship of the proletariat was still Romania dominated by Romanians.

If communism is about one class replacing another in power, globalism is about foreign ethnics replacing the native ethnic. This isn’t merely an ideological struggle but a biological and cultural one. Upon its victory, all nations(except for Israel, which is ‘passovered’ with special exemption) are transformed by globalism to the extent that native folks no longer even own and control what had been their homelands. Globalism is about making every people(except Jews in Israel) strangers in their own homeland. It turns a nation of kinfolk into a nation of strangers and foreign usurpers. The native folks are duped into welcoming this dire fate by having their minds infected with delirious mantras such as ‘Diversity is our Strength’ when only an idiot could believe such.
Globalism is appealing to the elites of advanced nations since it means more opportunities to make a buck. And it is appealing to masses in poor nations since it means an opportunity to demographically migrate to rich nations and leech off them.
It is also appealing to holier-than-thou me-huggers who see globalism as a utopian project of making the whole world sing in perfect harmony.
But for patriotic natives who care about preservation of ethnicity, culture, and history, it is an absolute tragedy.

In this sense, globalism is a far greater evil than communism. Communism forced bad ideas on a nation like Poland. It didn’t force Poland to be invaded and transformed by non-Europeans.

In contrast, globalism says Europe MUST welcome endless invasions by tons of foreigners, and its native populations must be REPLACED. And if Europeans say NO to Replacism, they are defamed as ‘Nazis’ by globalist forces controlled by Jews.

Anyway, the ill-effects of bad ideas can be reversed and repaired. But the impact of bad demographic policies is often irreversible. If you adopt a stupid idea, the stupidity is eradicated once you come to your senses. But if you swallow poison, its fatal consequences can’t be reversed even if your mind realizes you did something dumb. The poison will take over your body and will destroy you.

Communism was a bad idea that infected Europeans in the 20th century. Once European minds rejected the idea, it was gone for good.
In contrast, globalism force-feeds mega-doses of poison(in the form of massive foreign invasion) as ‘medicine’ to Europeans, and the poison spreads all over Europe.

Bad ideas, as illusions, are real only to the extent that certain people believe in them. Once the faith is gone, the ideas are also gone.
People are different. They are real, and once a foreign people take over your nation, they are there to stay regardless of what you think.

Imagine if your people adopt Islam as an idea. It may be a bad idea, but it’s just an idea. Therefore, there is the chance that your people may one day reject Islam and be rid of it.

Now, imagine if your people adopt Islam and accept 10 million Muslims. The dire reality is that those invaders are now part of your nation no matter what you think. Even if your people reject Islam, those 10 million Muslims and their offsprings are in your land and taking over. That is what globalism does and not to just one nation but all nations(except Israel). It is the greatest evil the world has ever seen.

Tyranny of Ideas is transitory and reversible. It can be undone once the native people realize the badness of those ideas.

Tyranny of Demographics is permanent and irreversible. It can't be undone even when the native people realize they made a huge mistake in letting in all those invasive foreigners.

It is the difference between Acute Illness and Chronic Illness. Globalism leads to chronic disease for any nation that surrenders to its agenda.

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.

Why do the Elitists want to ban the Truth about Race from the Masses?

Even though Political Correctness enforces rigid dogma on Racial matters --- "race is just a social construct", "there are no significant racial differences", etc --- , in truth many individuals in the academia & think-tanks are well-aware that there is a genetic basis to race and racial differences. And these people freely discuss this matter among themselves. So, their main concern is not the discussion of race and racial differences but the 'danger' of this knowledge leaking out to the masses. To these elitists, many of whom are Jewish or white collaborators(cucks or shabbos goyim), the rise of mass consciousness on the Reality of Race is a threat to their own power and privilege since the entire edifice of Political Correctness is built on 'White Guilt' of 'racism' that supposedly constructed wholly artificial racial hierarchies when, all things being equal, every race is capable of achieving as much as any other. Thus, Political Correctness blames 'white racism' for all the social inequalities and problems in the West. This is useful for the Jewish elites because their elite-minority-power rests on suppressing white pride, power, and unity. And nothing has been as effective as 'white guilt', especially since Western Morality is founded on Christian Culture of Conscience.

But in fact, many Jewish elites know that race is real among themselves. They know that blacks tend to make a mess of things because blacks are more aggressive and less intelligent. Also, genetics made blacks more muscular and stronger, which accounts for interracial violence being overwhelmingly black on non-black. Jews and white shabbos goyim know this in their inner circles. But if such knowledge were to become widely disseminated among the white masses, the cult of 'white guilt' would dissipate. White people would realize that it's not their fault that other races have the problem that they do. Thus freed of 'white guilt', white people will think, organize, and operate on basis of white pride, power, and unity. This will threaten Jewish elite-minority-power-and-privilege, especially since Jews have been so hostile toward whites. And since white shabbos goyim(cuck collaborators) depend on Jewish largess, threat to Jewish power is threat to their power(just like threat to Nazi power in France also threatened French collaborators in Vichy). Is it any wonder that not only Jews but Conservatism Inc. is freaked out about the Alt Right that is willing to directly address the issues of race and the Jewish Question?

This is why the Jews want to keep the Realities of Race a SECRET KNOWLEDGE that can only be discussed among the Jewish elitists and their closest allies. As for the white masses, they must be kept in the dark and fed a steady diet of 'race is just a social construct' and 'white guilt'. Some Jewish academics have said that EVEN IF there is scientific truth about racial differences, it must be censored & suppressed for the Social Good. Of course, what these Jews really want is to protect their own power and privilege that is premised on Everlasting 'White Guilt' that paralyzes White Pride & Power.

But such attitude is nothing new in history. The Hindu Brahmins also had their secret knowledge. Their sacred texts could only be read by them for certain peoples. If someone of the wrong caste heard even a bit of this knowledge, the punishment was molten lead poured down their ears.
And in totalitarian-communist nations, the knowledge of the outside world, especially of the capitalist West, was restricted to the elites. The communist elites knew that life was more bountiful in the capitalist West. They themselves enjoyed the goods and entertainment of the the Enemy. But they kept this knowledge within the inner circle while feeding the Official Dogma to the masses since their power and privilege were premised on the 'scientific-materialism' of Marxist-Leninist Doctrine. If the masses were to know the difference between the Capitalist West and Communist East, they could rise up to overthrow the power of communist elites(like what happened in Romania).
So, the communist elites kept the facts about the capitalist West a Secret Knowledge. They themselves wanted to access and enjoy Western luxuries, but they had to censor the truth from the masses who, if enlightened, might demand end to communist rule in favor of market economy.

Jewish elites, Brahmins, and Communist rulers, as keepers of the Secret Knowledge, all invoked the INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE or NEEDS OF A SACRED ORDER, but their main concern was preserving their own power and privilege. If the masses were to know, they might tell the rulers to go. What the rulers decried as corrupting of the masses was really disruptive to their own power.
And this is why Political Correctness is used to keep certain facts and ideas taboo for everyone but for the elites who believe they and only they should be guardians of the Secret Knowledge.
Insider Trading may be illegal on Wall Street(even though the real insiders do it all the time by 'other means'), but Insider-trading-of-secret-knowledge is the norm in elite circles.

When the Jewish elites attacked Charles Murray, it wasn't primarily because of his views on race and racial differences. If anything, such views had long been aired in elite circles. The problem was he wrote a book for the public, thus playing a Promethean role. Gods didn't punish Prometheus for having the knowledge of fire. They punished him because he took the knowledge of fire to the mortals. Thus, fire was no longer the sole magic power of the gods.