Dangers of Academic Neo-Stalinism — The Proglodyte Dilemma of Serving the Progligarchs — The Power of Hedonics in Culture and Politics

For the Jews, championing Free Speech was always a tactic than a principle. They(and their goy minions) were for when it served their interests. But now that the power of Free Speech challenges, defies, and exposes their corruption, hypocrisy, abuses, and supremacism, much of courageous and honest free speech is defamed as 'hate speech' that must be shut down. Of course, the powerful globalists know full well that the hysteria about 'hate speech' is really a mind-control tactic to restrict the discourse, but bottom-feeding Antifa dummies(and druggies) are too stupid to realize they are being used and abused as justice-junkie goons and SJW attack dogs.

It seems as though Neo-Stalinism is coming off the rails in US colleges, at least some of them. Why? Unlike Stalin who had iron-grip and total control over his minions, Neo-Stalinist professors do not. The Chinese Cultural Revolution spiraled out of control, but even so, Mao had the ultimate authority to rein in the Red Guards when he decided enough was enough. So when things got out of order, he mobilized the military to restore order in the cities and sent the radical youths to the countryside(ostensibly to serve the people). In contrast, Neo-Stalinist or Neo-Maoist college professors can't control what they've unleashed. Their power is too weak(and their will too wussy) to act as a lid on the pressure cooker of nutball agendas.

Also, there is a lot of unspoken resentment among the nutball radicals on campuses. Even though they do not candidly articulate their feelings, the contradictions can be sensed. Our world has come to be about winners and losers. Globalism and mass immigration/diversity has made it increasingly difficult for the Grand Middle Class to define the Core of Americanism. It is now about the winner class and the loser class; naturally, there will be many more losers than winners. This being the case, the natural thing would be for radical leftists to challenge and attack the winner class that is hogging the wealth and prizes. And in an earlier time, this would have been the case when the upper classes were more conservative, 'reactionary', rightist, and Wasp. And anti-homo, anti-statist, and even 'antisemitic'. Back then, the upper classes were attacked by the Left as the bastion of right-wing white-supremacist privilege.

But such political attitudes have diminished with the rise of boomers. Especially with Jews taking elite power from Wasps, leftist politics came to be less focused on class and more on minority-identity. By such logic, the rich Jewish minority now has more victim points than poor white gentiles. 'Minority Rights' doesn't make a distinction between billionaire Jews or fancy neo-aristo homos AND ghetto blacks or lettuce-picking Mexicans.
Likewise, 'white privilege' doesn't distinguish between 'poor white trash' and someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. If anything, precisely because rich whites can buy off the opposition by funding 'progressive' causes, they are less targeted with ideological animus than are the white working class or poor folks who tend to be more nationalist(as globalism been a bane for them).
With Jews as the new elites, attacking the rich is no longer ideologically kosher. Why, anti-wealth politics might be deemed as 'antisemitic'! Also, as the rich classes now fund Globo-Homomania and Diversinoma(Diversity-as-Cancer), they are praised as engines of 'progress' by the incestuous media and hype-machines controlled by people in the same club. So, nutball proglodytes go easy on George Soroses, Michael Bloombergs, Tim Cooks, and James Camerons of the world. Millennials are the Generation of Harvey Milk and Starbucks Coffee. Now that elite colleges are virtually entirely 'progressive' in an increasingly status-obsessed world(of 'winners and losers'), the future winners will be the main beneficiaries of PC-as-shield. According to the Official Dogma, how could they be 'bad people' when they are for 'gay marriage' and 'trannies in women-sports and the ladies room'? It is now easier than ever for the rich class to be 'leftist' or 'progressive' because the main organs of classic leftism have been removed and the void has been stuffed with issues amenable to manipulation by the rich. While the rich always had problems with demands of labor and class conflict, they need not concede much by pandering to the new themes of Zionism/Jew-worship, Globo-Homo, Magic Negro, and Diversity. As Jews are the richest people in America, being pro-Jewish now means being pro-wealth. As homos have neo-aristocratic flair and cater to the rich/powerful, they hardly pose a challenge to the privilege of the upper classes. The black issue can be dealt with by elevating token blacks like Oprah and Obama to the very top. Thus, even though most blacks remain mired in the same old problems, the symbolism of the 'first black president' and Oprah-as-billionaire-mammy(and MLK & Mandelas as new gods for the white race) creates the impression that the rich class is 'inclusive'. Even though they don't live close to most blacks, they rub shoulders with fancy blacks who are hyped by the media, thereby creating the impression that the upper class Jews & whites are totally 'anti-racist'. As long as they can afford fancy blacks to grace their parties and occasions, they can fend off the accusation of 'racism'. As for Diversity via More Immigration-Invasion, this is clearly in favor of the rich classes that can keep wages low; furthermore, their 'inclusion' of foreigners as new nationals is used as moral ammo against 'xenophobic' nationalist who come under the most competitive pressure by never-ending immigration-invasion. In a homogeneous society, the have-lesses have moral advantage over the have-mores by pressing for more equality. In a heterogeneous society, the have-mores claim moral advantage over the have-lesses by pushing for more diversity. As newcomers always apply more competitive pressure to the lower/middle class than to the upper class, the latter obviously has far less to lose. Of course, no one explained why More Diversity is more just. Where is the justice in allowing ceaseless flows of foreigners to take over one's own nation?

The culmination of all the ideological transformations has resulted in political schizophrenia. The NATURAL position for progressives would be to attack the winners as hoggers of wealth and power. But in the New Order, the winner class has rebranded itself as bobo-hipster-proggy. Even in the 1980s, there was the hatred of the Reaganite-Thatcherite yuppie. Consider the vapid yuppies of Oliver Stone's WALL STREET and Mike Leigh's NAKED. And AMERICAN PSYCHO was meant to expose the crass soullessness of yuppie mentality(though its author, Bret Easton Ellis, has been accused of being a soulless zombie himself). In the post-Counterculture era of 'Reaganomic 80s', the boomer professionals were so immersed in success and money that they neglected politics and ideology. But over time, especially under Billy Boy Clinton, the cultural elites formulated a way by which the new affluent class(to be labeled the 'creative class') could both reap the rewards AND shroud themselves with proggy 'righteousness'. One way was to turn leftism from Mayday to Gayday, from one of class politics to ass 'frolitics'. This worked like magic because homos are so vain, fancy-pants, and love to serve the rich. So, with homos as the dominant face of 'new progressivism', the main theme became amenable to Jewish elites and rich boomers.

This robbed progressivism of the opportunity to bash its traditional nemesis. If indeed progressives are supposed to be leftist and for egalitarianism, their natural enemies should be the rich class, especially those in the financial sector, vice industries, and inheritance jackpot. But the rich class — the likes of Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg, etc. — has come to own 'new progressivism' that went about prioritizing the destruction of anyone who refuses to bake 'gay wedding cakes' and objects to men in dress & wig to wee-wee in the Lady's Room. This does NOTHING to challenge the power of the rich. If anything, the oligarchs in Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley are cracking up that proglodytes in the US and EU can be worked up into a frenzy over silly issues about homos and trannies. Or 'slut pride'.

Surely, proglodytes in colleges, especially lesser ones, are really envious and resentful of students in better colleges majoring in prestigious fields with far greater prizes down the road. Those specializing in medicine, business, computers, science/technology, corporate law, and such will reap the most rewards. Those in humanities, history, arts, education, and especially various 'schools of resentment' will gain the least success. Many will be burdened with huge student debts with college degrees that are useless in the market place.
So, naturally, a college graduate with degree in Crazy Negro Studies or Bitchy Grrrl Studies will face a less promising future than someone with a degree in computers or finance. Since politics is driven by envy and resentment(though such emotions are masked as 'justice'), proglodytes should direct their ire at the Mark Zuckerbergs and Sergei Brins of the world. But because prog losers were taught from cradle that the true meaning of 'progress' is all about Diversity, Homomania, and fighting 'racism', they can easily be directed to bark up other trees, indeed far smaller ones. Because today's rich elites make all the correct-sounding noises about More Immigration, More Homo Celebration, and More Magic Negro Worship, the loser proglodytes feel obligated to praise and support the rich progoligarchs. "They may be stinking rich and greedy, BUT at least their hearts are in the right place. Besides, gee whiz, without the rich oligarchs using their monopoly-muscle to do the right thing, the Nazis, KKK, White Supremacists, Racists, Homophobes, and Misogynists may take over and kill all of us!" Thus, the all-powerful globo-homo-shlomo oligarchs are seen as the 'lesser evil' or 'necessary evil', the bulwark against the rising tide of 'white nationalism'. Just like the rich class, during the Cold War, fooled Middle America into supporting its greedy agenda with scare tactics of "It's either us or the communists!", the rich class today fools proglodyte masses into supporting monopoly capitalism with scaremongering tactics of "It's either us or the fascists!" The Jewish elites who advise the oligarchs understand the dynamics of radical psychology and how to manipulate it. They know that proglodytes must still scream, rant, and holler about something. After all, the entire millennial generation has been raised on the Trigger-Happy Politics of Outrage. It's about me-hugging self-righteous displays of holier-than-thou virtue, a neo-puritanism. Since they cannot attack the rich and powerful(who are morally shielded by their support of globo-homomania), they look around and strike out at easy targets, like wussy professors or an odd conservative on campus.

But then, these wussy professors brought it on themselves by favoring Neo-Stalinism. Now, by 'Neo-Stalinism', I don't mean they are ideologically Stalinist in the Marxist-Leninist sense. I highly doubt if most so-called leftist professors in our time want forced collectivization of agriculture or mass executions of 'class enemies'(though some of them, especially Jewish ones, seem to fantasize about mass murder of white males and mass-rape of white women, mostly by blacks and Portnoic Jews). By Neo-Stalinism, I mean the favoring of machine politics over individual brilliance. Even though people with individual brilliance can be totalitarian and tyrannical in their outlook, they tend more towards free discourse than less brilliant people do. Why? Because the brilliant have confidence in their ability to argue and win the debate. This was why Leon Trotsky failed against Josef Stalin. Trotsky himself was autocratic and ruthless, but he was less totalitarian-minded(at least within the Soviet hierarchy) because he thought he could win with wit and brilliance. Stalin was smart and experienced, but he couldn't match wits with Trotsky or other top Jews. So, the ONLY way Stalin could win was by building up machine politics. He organized an army of cadres who were dim but obedient. They were loyal to him like dogs and attacked anyone he set them upon. George Orwell in ANIMAL FARM has the Stalin-Pig Napoleon get his way every time by threatening to unleash his attack dogs on any beast who naysays his authority.

The really smart intellectuals on the Left tend to be less totalitarian. Christopher Hitchens had confidence in his ability to take on anyone and win or at least hold his own. Steven Pinker also has self-confidence. But a lot of academics and intellectuals are really hacks or colorless. They lack brilliance or the nerves to match wits on a one-on-one basis. So, they prefer the Stalinist machine-politics way over the Trotsky my-brilliance way. They'd rather create an army of anti-intellectual(or at best pseudo-intellectual)goons who will learn and obey than think and notice. They are more 'taboosters' than taboo-busters. They would rather have obedient goons than free-thinkers. The danger, however, is that goons can get out of control(especially if they are Crazy Negroes, as with BLM fiasco). Unlike Stalin and Mao who had the means to clamp down on radical 'adventurism', the Neo-Stalinist professors are helpless when their own goons bark and bite at them for being insufficiently 'woke'. (To be sure, even many smart Jews now seek to shut down free speech in favor of Neo-Stalinist control of society, and the reasons are twofold. Some smart Jews feel that Donald Trump's victory is a harbinger of anti-intellectual Pitchfork Politics of yahoos who think and act as a Mob. They feel that such people are incapable of free & open debate and are impervious to evidence & logic to boot. The white mobs are mere dry wood for radical 'white nationalist' flames, and so, better to dampen them before they catch fire. But another bunch of smart Jews fear free speech because they sense that no amount of their wit and brilliance can argue against obvious truths such as Jewish domination of America, Zionist imperialism against Palestinians, facts about race, there being only two sexes[than 50 genders], black crime, and etc. While smart people can outwit and out-talk the less smart, just like adults can fool children, there is a limit to sophistry, however brilliant it may be. Just like kids eventually find out and learn to trust adults less, goyim have a reached a point where, via free and open exchange of ideas and information, they could arrive at the truth about Jewish Power and its hidden agendas. Thus, even smart Jews increasingly dread free speech because they fear that even their wits and brilliance cannot keep duping the dimwit goyim forever.)

Now, is PC really the most powerful force in the US? We tend to associate PC with puritanism, but hedonism exerts greater force in the West, and current PC is a strange combo of neo-puritanism and wanton puerile-ism. After all, why did Jews, Homos, and Negroes become so powerful? There is the Shoah thing, slavery thing, and AIDS thing(caused by homos themselves) to be sure, but most people don't think of such things 24/7. Most people seek pleasure, and the fact is Jews, blacks, and homos won out because of their dominance of hedonics. Jews control comedy, wit, entertainment. Blacks got music, sports, and sex culture. Homos are into fashion, vanity, and celebrity culture. 'Celebristianity' is the new christianity. Once basic needs are met, people mainly live for pleasures: Consider the exponential rise in gambling, video games, pop music, pornography, celebrity mania, drugs(with meth having killed countless poor whites), homo bacchanalia almost all year round, dances such as 'twerking', and etc. So, it seems Poo-C counts more than PC. (Poo-C meaning 'pussy' and poo-ride of homos.)

We can see the power of hedonics in US politics as well. Since the 1960 election, the rule of hedonics led to the more hedonic candidate winning. The more-hedonic-candidate is one who seems more 'fun'. That's why John F. Kennedy beat Richard Nixon. Though Lyndon B. Johnson wasn't 'fun', he was more fun than Barry Goldwater. Richard Nixon wasn't fun, but Hubert Humphrey wasn't the life of the party either. And George McGovern, though the leader of the debauchers, was a dull guy. Jimmy Carter was more fun than Gerald Ford. Ronald Reagan, former actor, was more fun than Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. George H.W. Bush, though not fun, was still more fun than the bloodless Michael Dukakis who had nothing of Zorba about him. Billy Boy Clinton was lot more fun than Bush and Bob Dole. George W. Bush, aka Dubya, was more fun than square Al Gore and droopy John Kerry. Barack Obama was more fun than Mr. MaGoo McCain and Mormon Mitt Romney. And Donald Trump was more fun than Hillary Clinton. (Maybe Bernie Sanders would have beaten Hillary if he told more jokes like a Jewish comedian.)

'Minority Rights' means Different things to Minority Elites and Minority Underclass. To Minority Elites, it means the Right to Rule. To Minority Underclass, it means struggle for representation. Jewish Minority Overlords and Non-White Minority Underclass.

There are different meanings to ‘minority rights’. We must ask, what kind of minority are we talking about, and what is meant by ‘rights’?

After all, both British imperialist elites and the native Untouchables were minorities in India. But whereas one minority, the Brits, was at the top, the other minority, the Untouchables, was at the bottom.

For the British imperialists, ‘minority rights’ meant the right to rule over Hindu(and Muslim) masses. For the Untouchables, 'minority rights’ would have meant the modest hope of having the same legal protections conferred upon other Indians of 'higher' castes.

A similar confusion of meaning perplexes the Current West when it comes to 'minorities' and 'rights'. After all, right-to-rule(like the Divine Rights) is light years apart from right-to-representation. One is for kings, the other is for the peons. (To be sure, universal rights flowed from elite rights. The idea of rights began at the top and gradually reached the bottom.)

In the US and UK, Jews are the ruling minority or the minority elites. (Homos also belong to this group.) But Mexicans, many blacks, and many immigrant groups are either part of the minority underclass or minority ordinary folks; they have no special power or out-sized ambitions & expectations(though blacks have out-sized egos that demand attention and adulation, the blings and glitter). Asians do better academically & economically than most other immigrant groups, but their dim sense of identity and servile attitude don't translate to much power and prestige. Even in Hawaii where yellows constitute the majority, they lack political will or cultural vigor. They are just parrots and puppets of PC emanating from Harvard and Hollywood.

So, ‘minority rights’ means different things to Jews and to other minorities. For Jews, it means the quasi-divine right to rule over US & UK and make demands & dictate policy. Old ‘antisemitism’ used to mean denial of basic rights and liberties to Jews. New ‘antisemitism’ means any kind of criticism of or challenge(no matter how justified) to the Jewish supremacist right-to-rule over goyim.
And the logic is similarly operative with homo politics. ‘Gay rights’ used to mean the tolerance of allowing homos be homo and do their own thing without persecution. Today, ‘gay rights’(or Gay Rites as the neo-religion of Homomania) means we must admire, celebrate, and worship homos as angels and even change marriage laws to appease the Great Holy Homo. It means those who mock or deride the so-called LGBTQXYZ community, culture, lifestyle, or agenda must be quarantined as being afflicted with 'phobia' and be blacklisted. (In Castro's Cuba, homos suspected of HIV were quarantined and stigmatized. In the Jew-run West, sane people who seen LGBTQ nonsense for what it is are effectively contained and blacklisted from engaging in social discourse and economic competition.) And we must even put homo regalia(or re-gay-lia) in churches. It’s as if homos have some divine right to be admired and adulated, and so, we humble folks must perform our obligatory duty to homos as our 'spiritual' superiors. In all big cities, it is virtually mandatory for all politicians and 'respectable' citizens to sing hosannas to homos & trannies and take part in 'gay pride' parades. Indeed, people mustn’t even joke about(or cringe over) something as ridiculous as Bruce Jenner calling himself 'Caitlyn' or Bradley Manning(as Chelsea) expressing joy over replacing his penis and balls with a fake 'vagina'. (In the UK, a criminal investigation is under way to hunt the man who cursed out precious Brucie.) We must laud and applaud like dumb dogs at the feet of their master.

Now, there are other minorities that also demand special favors. Blacks demand affirmative action, and Mexicans demand affirmative immigration(amnesty). But many blacks and Mexicans are on the bottom looking up. Their hope is to reach the middle. (To be sure, too many blacks just fantasize about being sports stars or rappers, goals out of reach for most blacks, but then, blacks are stupid.) But even if blacks and browns demand special favors, they won’t amount to much and will never gain elite power in the West(unless they race-mix with higher-IQ Jews, whites, or Asians). Historically, all they could hope for was equality(and then some) under the law.

In contrast, equality of any kind isn’t good enough for Jews(and homos) anymore. For them, ‘rights’ means something closer to ‘divine right to rule’. Jews are now addicted to supremacism and won't settle for anything less. The New 'Antisemitism' isn't about denying Jews basic rights(what the rest of us have) but refusing to cave to all their demands(as rightful decrees of overlords who deign to rule over us as 'sheeple').
But the current arrangement makes Jews nervous because it is natural for the masses to resent and challenge the ruling elites, especially if of another racial, ethnic, and/or religious identity. Jews are different from non-Jews both ethnically and religiously. This makes Jews nervous because they, as the current ruling elites, make natural focus of the critics of power and populist angst.

So, to morally shield their power, Jews associate themselves with minorities who are relatively powerless. (Notice how Jews rig admissions at Ivy League Schools to favor Jewish students but obfuscate this operation by making all the usual noises about the need for 'Diversity'. Jews hide behind affirmative action for blacks and browns to justify the current 'holistic' system, the main agenda of which is to favor Jews uber alles.)

Since many immigrant groups have historically arrived with little and started on the bottom), they've been pegged in the popular imagination as humble and vulnerable(like a newborn baby), indeed as if Ellis Island Blues is still the anthem of New America. So, Jews associate with immigrants as 'fellow minorities'. This way, Jewish minority supremacist power is morally sanctified in association with the 'huddled masses' of recent arrivals who presumably need protection from the native populist mobs and nationalist 'xenophobes'. By posturing as noble defenders and champions of newly arrived minority immigrants, Jewish minority supremacist elites pose with(and even as) the 'powerless' by association. It's like the desperate alliance of the minority Afrikaner minority elite and the black Inkatha Freedom Party in the twilight yrs of Apartheid South Africa. Even though whites were at the top and Inkatha party members were on the bottom, they were both minorities(racial or political) and faced the challenge of the ANC party supported by the great majority of blacks. (Inkatha Party, as the political embodiment of the historically aggressive & expansionist Zulus, found common ground with European-Imperialists who came to dominate South Africa.)

The logic behind Jewish minority uber-elite alliance with economically depressed non-white minorities(mainly browns and blacks) and scab-immigrant-mercenaries is comical if one thinks about it. (Keep in mind the British Imperialists also used Migration-Collaboration to bolster their empire. Brits used Chinese migrant-minorities in Southeast Asia and shipped tons of Asian Indians to Africa to do their bidding. It was also under British Empire that the Jewish migration to Palestine began in earnest, and we know how that turned out for the native Arabs. Today, Jews control US & EU and use mass-migrations of non-whites to alter the balance of power in the West by reducing native whites into just another minority at the mercy of the divide-and-rule master strategy of the Tribe.) Imagine if the British Imperialist Elites in India sided with the Untouchables as ‘fellow minorities’ against the ‘bigoted’ and ‘populist’ masses of Hindus and Muslims demanding national liberation and independence from alien imperialism. Imagine the gall of the British ruling minority elite making overtures to the Untouchables, the underclass minority, and claiming shared victim-hood as ‘fellow minorities’ regardless of the fact that the British minority rule as the Master Class whereas the Untouchable minority is mired in poverty at the bottom. That would have been pretty amusing. But devious as the Brits could be, they didn't have the sheer audacity of chutzpah to pull off something that ridiculous.

That said, there were times when the Brits did advance the Minority Issue to morally justify their rule over India. In Richard Attenborough’s movie GANDHI, the British ruling minority presents itself as the protective guarantors for the Muslim minority from the potentially domineering Hindu majority were India to gain independence. The Brits were "masters in someone else's home" just like Jewish globo-homo elites are currently in the West. For Jews, everything is a question of "Is it good for Jews?", and this is why Jews get hysterical when whites begin to ask a similar question, i.e. "Is Jewish power good for whites?" As far as Jews are concerned, Jews and whites must share the same premise: "Is it good for Jews?" Jews must operate to serve Jewish interests, and so must white folks. One might call it shared interest and destiny, but the same can be said for master and dog. Master and dog both act on the basis of "Is it good for the master?" Shared interest is not the same thing as common interest. In a case of common interest, both sides have autonomy and arrive at a compromise that benefits both sides more-or-less equally. In contrast, there is no guarantee of parity in shared interest. Master and slave have shared interest, but it's all about the slave serving the master. Jews and whites cooperating on the basis of either 'Is it good for Jews?' or 'Is it good for whites?' is a case of shared interest, but the former is about whites serving Jews whereas the latter is about Jews serving whites. It makes all the difference.


Thankfully for India, it had a leader of Gandhi’s caliber who was witty, shrewd, and devious enough to match wits like a lawyer with the British. (He would have made Professor Kingsfield of PAPER CHASE proud.) Too bad the West lacks such leaders with just the right combination of cleverness, will, tenacity, and resolve.
Back then, the British Imperialists claimed that India was ‘British’. Now, the bloody fools in UK, under the influence of their Jewish masters, say non-white immigrant-invaders are the ‘New British’.

Gandhi urged Indians to engage in civil disobedience until the British minority elites left. Maybe white Europeans can do something similar. A strategy of mass non-cooperation and civil disobedience until the West is cleansed of globo-homo imperialism, cuck-collaborators, and Third World migrant-invaders & African sexual colonizers doing ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs).
Since overt resistance has been banned by the PC state, whites can exert their collective will through mass non-cooperation. (Whites can start by asserting that they will no longer support WARS FOR ISRAEL and act as goons for Jewish Imperialists. Let Jews fight their own wars.) But then, so many whites have been led to believe that Diversity is sacrosanct and that restoration of nationalism is unacceptable. After all, PC reminds them endlessly that the truest expression of 'European(or Western) values' is hankering for spicy exotic restaurants and jungle fever mating with Negroes. (Interestingly enough, Brexit won in UK because of older voters, but Macron won in France especially with the older demographic, 80% of whom chose him over Marine Le Pen.)

The future of Europe will be determined by whether it can produce leaders like Gandhi, Mao, Lenin, Ataturk, Mussolini, Castro, T. E. Lawrence, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, DeGaulle, and maybe Putin(as fate of Russia is still uncertain). While some of those men were pathological and dangerous, they could play politics on the grandest scale. When a civilization is faced with an 'existential' crisis, it calls out for visionaries and prophets, not technocrats, paper-shufflers, and wine-sippers. Run-of-the-mill 'leaders' won’t do. The current heads of state in Europe are not leaders but spineless flunkies of globalist oligarchs(with Jews having the most power due to Moral Advantage stemming from Shoah-Worship, the reigning religion of the West; a white goy with $10 billion is richer than a Jew with $1 billion, but the latter has 'spiritual' advantage because the Shoah Cult confers holiness upon him; the material has a price tag whereas the spiritual is priceless, and Jews have priceless value due to their moral exploitation of the WWII tragedy). Just look at Justin Trudeau the Man-Child cuck of Jewish donors. Why did so many Canadians vote for such pathetic clowns? Because Jews control media & academia and have infected so many white minds with nothing but PC and Pop Culture. 'Celebristianity'(largely shaped by Jews, Afros, and 'gays' or JAG) is the neo-religion of the West.

If Europe keeps producing nonentities like Merkel, Macron, Hollande, Sarkozy, Blair, Cameron, May, Berlusconi, and even Farage, it’s finished. Things are getting serious, and it will take real visionaries of wit and grit who can take the shit.
As for nationalists, the likes of Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and others won’t do. (The exception may be Viktor Orban.) They are too much part of the system(despite disapproval from the ruling elites) and unable or unwilling for bold action under current rules that are totally rigged by media, academia, and deep state. Trump made it in the US, but he is not a serious man. He’s a showman and salesman, and he can’t be counted on to do much that really matters.
Also, as long as enough white people are comfortable and satiated with bread & circuses and mentally infected with PC for the time being, it's difficult to shake them out of their doldrums.
If Europe is to be saved, it will require the rise of truly remarkable individuals with the power to inspire, lead, and forever alter the trajectory of history.

Extreme times call for powerful personalities.

The threat that Europe faces is the greatest ever. Past wars and repressions were horrible, but WWI and WWII were still about white Europe. So, even after millions died, it was the same white Europe. And as bad as communism was, it didn’t change the demographics in most communist nations.
But now, things are direly different. Not only is Europe being colonized physically by foreign masses but European minds have been PC-colonized to ‘welcome’ this as a good thing, even as a 'European' thing.

We need a new set of leaders and rulers who can eradicate the mental virus from European minds and purge them of this ‘guilt’ and ‘fever’. Indeed, the task is daunting because whites welcome mass invasion not only out of ‘white guilt’ but because of ‘afro-fever’, aka jungle fever. European women are turning into sexual deserters who are offering their wombs to millions of African men who are storming the beaches of Europe. As African birthrate is 6 or 7 children per women and since EU has a policy of ‘saving’ millions of self-stranded Negroes in the sea, the demographic and sexual math for Europe is horrible.

White minds are colonized by Jewish PC, white lands are colonized by Third World mobs, white males bodies are brutalized by stronger Negro men, and white females’ wombs are colonized by Negro seeds. It is White Nakba.

In Jewish history, there were two kinds of cleansers: prophets and warriors. Prophets cleansed Jewish minds of the virus of pagan idolatry and reminded them of the Covenant with God. And the warriors took up arms to do battle with enemies of Jews. (The third kind of Jews were diplomats who used wit and cunning to negotiate with rivals, enemies, or overlords of Jews.)

Anyway, unless warriors have vision and conviction, they are mere mercenaries(or Janissaries). In order for white knights to rise, white souls must be cleansed and purged of the PC virus of guilt-and-fever.
It’s like Islam has two meanings for ‘Jihad’. One means to do physical combat against infidel, but there is another meaning that says the soul must be cleansed of infidel ideas and images.

In the present, even if great white leaders were to rise, majority of white masses will curse them and denounce them since their minds have been infected with the crazy idea that ‘racism’ is the greatest sin when, in fact, race-ism is a most noble creed and conviction.