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.

American Identity went from National to Imperial. Identity has become like Currency. Jewish Globalists now act like British Imperialists.

American Identity went from National to Imperial.

It's like how Roman identity went from the property of real Romans to that of Non-Roman Others in the Empire.

Once identity becomes de-nationalized and then imperialized, the Core Population grows demoralized as what had once been special and unique to them becomes generic and diluted. And the new 'citizens' only care about the identity as a meal ticket.

Identity became like currency.

There was a time when currency was backed with precious metals, especially gold. But when gold standard was gone, any new amount could be printed at the whims of bankers or the state. Currency became easy to manipulate.

Likewise, Identity was based on blood. Once it was cut off from river of history and ethnicity, it was stamped with generic ink. So, anyone could easily become an American, and as Americanization is the globalist-imperium that sets the template for the world, every nation(except Israel with Passover exception) is 'Americanized', which means its identity must also go from National(unique and special) to Imperial(generic and mercenary).

So, there is no longer any difference between American, British, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Irish, Brazilian, and etc. 'Diversity' and Elite-Minority-Supremacism define their New National Identity, which is anything but truly national. They are interchangeably Global. France is turning into a nation of 'Americans' who speak French.

So, just as anyone can easily become American, a newly arrived African with no roots in France is just as French as a Frenchmen with racial & cultural roots going back many centuries, and a newly arrived Turk or Syrian with no roots in Germany is just as German as a German with racial & cultural roots in Germany since time immemorial.

Americanism is no longer just a national idea that applies only to America but the ONE AND ONLY IDEAL FOR ALL NATIONS(with the exception of Israel that must remain Jewish-majority and Jewish-ruled).

The reason why imperialists hate nationalism is two-fold.

Imperialists are filled with hubris, and their own nation is no longer big enough for their ambitions and pretensions. So, whereas Bismarck was content with German nationalism, Kaiser Wilhelm and later Hitler wanted world empires. And in striving for empire over nation, they brought ruination upon Germany.

In striving for empire, imperialists neglect the sober interests of their own nation and drive their nations to huge risks... like Japan did in WWII that led to defeat and destruction.

Today, we have Merkel and her Empire of Compassion that is based on Moral Hubris. That too is destroying Germany. And Sweden's pretensions as a 'Moral Super Power', a Empire of Political Correctness, is leading it to Swedish Suicide or Swecide.

Another reason why imperialists hate nationalism is it undermines the legitimacy and power of the empire. After all, imperialists have majority power only in their homeland. Outside the empire, they are alien minority elites over OTHER peoples. If nationalism were the norm worldwide, native masses will rise up and push out the elite minority imperial overlords. So, the ONLY way the imperialists can justify their power over Other Peoples is to make the latter feel as part of a Great Empire that transcends tribal or national interests.
This is what the British did. Consider how the Brits used to rule over India, Malaysia, Kenya, Uganda, Rhodesia, Palestine, etc. (And the Japanese sold their regional globalist-imperialism as a radiant project of the Great East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.)
By rules of nationalism, each of those peoples would have struggled for national independence & sovereignty, sought to drive out the British overlords, and have their own nation. Indians would have demanded India for Indians, Malaysians would have demanded Malaysia for Malaysians, Kenyans would have demanded Kenya for Kenyans, and etc. That would have meant end of empire.
So, the British Imperialists sought to convince their non-British subjects that it was glorious and gratifying to be part of this grand wondrous empire under the loving care of the gentle queen. Also, the British imperialist elites appealed to class/caste as a binding principle among various peoples in the empire, i.e. however different they may be in race or culture, the non-white (comprador) elites and British elites belonged to a shared community of superiority and privilege.
If nationalism emphasized the special bond between national elites and national masses, imperialism urged subject elites to collaborate with the ruling imperial elites while neglecting their own peoples. Under British Imperialism, the great contradiction lay in British elites' representation & defense of British masses while pressuring non-British elites to forgo their patriotic responsibilities to their own peoples. Only the British elites could be both nationalist and imperialist whereas subject elites in the empire had to operate only in the imperialist mode of obeying British mandates.

Today, as the Anglosphere World is the subject domain of Jewish globalists, the ONLY people who have the privilege of being both nationalist and imperialist are the Zionists. Only Jews can have both powerful nationalism in Israel while, at the same time, demanding that gentile elites cut their ties to gentile masses and serve Jewish Globalists elites instead. If you disobey, you become ostracized, isolated, and sanctioned by Russia under Putin and Hungary under Orban. (Jews saw right through the British BS, and early Zionists in Palestine had no desire to serve as comprador elites of the British Empire. In time, they used terror to drive out the British, and then used war to ethnically expel the Arabs to create a Jewish nation-state. Ironically, even though Israel was an imperial creation, it was the first non-Western nation to 'liberate' itself from European imperialism after WWII. Zionists, being imperialists themselves, understood the guile of Western Imperialism better than most.)

Today, Jews think and act not unlike the British Imperialists of old Jews are only a majority in Israel. While Jews want a Jewish state in Israel, their power and influence are precarious in all other nations. Why? Because there are few or no Jews in most gentile nations. Nationalism is a barrier to Jewish penetration and takeover. So, in order for Jews to take over the entire world(by using American neo-imperialism controlled by Jewish elites), Jews must convince the entire world to 'Americanize' as America goes from a white nation to a non-white one. So, America is to turn non-white, and Europe is to 'Americanize'. And then, all other gentile nations must dilute their national identities and formulate a new shared globo-imperial identity based on Americanism that says anyone can become anyone almost overnight based on 'rule of law' as devised by Jewish globalist lawyers. And the new shared neo-religion for all peoples must be worship of Homomania since Anno Sodomini.

Fate of Anglos in the Zio-Globalist World Order

What of the Anglos in the globalist world order? What role will they play?

And why did they lose out in the lands of their own creation?

Maybe their very advantage carried within it a seed of destruction.

The huge advantage of Anglos was the culture of principle, honor, and rule of law.

But for those to work properly, a community has to be de-culture-ized. Rule of law must apply to all individuals. Principle means one has to favor stuff like meritocracy over one’s own kind. And honor means one must maintain dignity.
Among Anglos themselves, these were good things to have; they led to social reform and better governance. Nevertheless, those factors de-emphasized culture, kinship, and heritage since laws must be fair and neutral to all.

So, over time, Anglos lost their blood-and-guts identity.

And when their nations were filled up with non-whites and Jews, Anglos didn’t have the red blooded cultural tribal sense to fight and keep the power. Their culture, if such continued, became one of golf club privilege and high-toned airs of Bill Buckley.
And if white people did express themselves with blood and guts passion, their enemies could invoke the very Anglo book of fairness and point out how ‘racist’ the Anglos were acting.

So, Rule of Law and Neutral Justice are good things… but the danger is they turn people into bland individuals who are de-cultured and favor principles over blood and homeland. When such anemic people come in contact with red-blooded folks, they lack the balls to fight and survive.

Jews learned the art/science of rule of law, but they never gave up on blood and guts cultural sense… and they esp clung to it after the problems of communism, Nazism, and Zionism.

Communism taught socialist Jews that just being ‘workers of the world’ was dull and meaningless. While social justice is good, man needs culture, history, and heritage.
So, Jews found more satisfaction in Zionism that bound socialism with Jewish identity and culture.
In some ways, Germans did same with National Socialism that bound Germanism with socialism. If Nazis had kept it national devoid of contemptuous chauvinism, it might have succeeded like Zionism. But Hitler was a racial chauvinist and imperialist. (Perhaps, the undoing of Zionism in the long run is its imperialism. Occupation of West Bank is turning out to be costly. And Zio-con messing of the Middle East may lead to some unforeseen consequences for Jews. You reap what you sow.)

Anyway, rule of law and idea of justice are good and necessary, but they must be used as mere tools. They are weak as core culture and identity of a people.

A Jew who feels as Jew-and-Zionist has meaning. But a Jew who rejects his identity and says, “I’m just for individual liberty and rule of law” has weak meaning.

Tools are good and necessary but must not be mistaken with the flesh-and-blood-people they are meant to serve.

After all, each person matters more as a blood-and-flesh product of family than any ideology he adopts.
If ideology or ideas count the most in determining identity, then it means you are NOTHING unless you believe in something. What you believe would count more than your very existence.

So, if you believe libertarianism is what counts most, a person who is not libertarian is not human and has no value. But in fact, a person’s worth remains intact regardless of what he believes.
A Jew is no less a Jew for abandoning communism and adopting capitalism. He is still a Jew. His core identity is more than any ideology. This is why a Jew must put Jewishness and Zionism first before any ideology. He may adopt parts of various ideologies to serve his Jewish interest. But the thing is to have the ideology to serve him and his people than to have him and his people serve an ideology as the end-all of truth.

Tools exist to serve humans, humans don’t exist to serve tools.
Even Marx made this point. Economics must serve man. But capitalism too often makes us believe we exist to serve the economy.

Economy must serve man and his nation.

Globalism says ALL MEN must serve the economy of globalists.
In the end, it means we all must serve the economy of Wall Street and Las Vegas.