A lack of dualism is largely to blame for the problems of 20th Century ideologies including, Fascism, Communism, the New Left, and post-war conservativism. Reagan conservatism and wokeness are especially bad as far as having an all or nothing binary. While there is some value in libertarianism, it is insane to be a full-blown big “L” Libertarian. The same with Classical Liberalism, which has a lot of good but functions as a mental and ideological handicap.
Ultimately, though, 'multiculturalism plus White identity' is accepting the displacement of Whites *by the rest of the world* in their traditional homelands. It's not really a compromise for Whites, its a death sentence for any kind of collective existence whatsoever. There really isn't a way to 'compromise' our way out of the necessity of White Nationalism and an acceptance by Whites of the necessity of a struggle for national liberation. Every other part of 'multiculturalism' has an ethnic homeland they can return to. And they should be returned to it. Since the discomfort of Whites at being displaced in their homelands is irrelevant to the multicultural hordes, there's not reason the discomfort of the multicultural hordes should be of the least concern to Whites.
It seems to me you are advocating relativism in that there are no absolutes concerning beauty, the good, honor, right and wrong, etc. I don’t see much difference to modern liberalism.
It seems to me that you're thinking of 'relativism' as if it where just a different sect of universalism. It's not. Without a 'metaphysical ground' for meaning, meaning exists in tradition and the struggles that created those traditions. Stark is a 'liberal' because he accepts the continued existence of non-Whites in traditionally White homelands. 'Liberalism' is the exact opposite of 'relativism'. Liberalism is a *mass* movement that is universalist, anti-local and anti-pluralist. Relativism, on the other hand is *not* universalist, contains no intrinsic objection to local rules for local folks and is openly pluralist. Calling everything you don't like 'liberal' is the same a calling everyone you don't like 'Hitler'.
Liberalism demands the 'free movement' of people, goods, ideas and money. 'Free movement' of people, goods, ideas and money is non-negotiable with liberals. Liberalism opposes all forms of racial organization. Liberalism requires that all local conditions be subsumed to 'universal' systems necessary to facilitate the 'free movement' of people, goods, ideas and money. Liberalism is a totalitarian doctrine of 'universal integration' required for 'free movement' and the vigorous suppression (and annihilation) of everything that is local, particular and relative.
> Liberalism is a totalitarian doctrine of 'universal integration' required for 'free movement' and the vigorous suppression (and annihilation) of everything that is local, particular and relative.
That makes no sense. Biden has repeatedly said white supremacy is the greatest threat to democracy. White supremcy can be anything from Russia to statues of confederate generals, e.g., a work of art.
Gnostics should be tortured to death and also their babies should be launched in catapults into volcanoes #tbh
We don't need anymore "radical center" controlled opposition, we already have enough of those.
Ultimately, though, 'multiculturalism plus White identity' is accepting the displacement of Whites *by the rest of the world* in their traditional homelands. It's not really a compromise for Whites, its a death sentence for any kind of collective existence whatsoever. There really isn't a way to 'compromise' our way out of the necessity of White Nationalism and an acceptance by Whites of the necessity of a struggle for national liberation. Every other part of 'multiculturalism' has an ethnic homeland they can return to. And they should be returned to it. Since the discomfort of Whites at being displaced in their homelands is irrelevant to the multicultural hordes, there's not reason the discomfort of the multicultural hordes should be of the least concern to Whites.
It seems to me you are advocating relativism in that there are no absolutes concerning beauty, the good, honor, right and wrong, etc. I don’t see much difference to modern liberalism.
Thank you for your article.
It seems to me that you're thinking of 'relativism' as if it where just a different sect of universalism. It's not. Without a 'metaphysical ground' for meaning, meaning exists in tradition and the struggles that created those traditions. Stark is a 'liberal' because he accepts the continued existence of non-Whites in traditionally White homelands. 'Liberalism' is the exact opposite of 'relativism'. Liberalism is a *mass* movement that is universalist, anti-local and anti-pluralist. Relativism, on the other hand is *not* universalist, contains no intrinsic objection to local rules for local folks and is openly pluralist. Calling everything you don't like 'liberal' is the same a calling everyone you don't like 'Hitler'.
My dictionary's definition of relativism:
"the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute."
Sounds like modern liberalism to me.
Liberalism is clearly an absolutist doctrine.
How so?
Liberalism demands the 'free movement' of people, goods, ideas and money. 'Free movement' of people, goods, ideas and money is non-negotiable with liberals. Liberalism opposes all forms of racial organization. Liberalism requires that all local conditions be subsumed to 'universal' systems necessary to facilitate the 'free movement' of people, goods, ideas and money. Liberalism is a totalitarian doctrine of 'universal integration' required for 'free movement' and the vigorous suppression (and annihilation) of everything that is local, particular and relative.
> Liberalism is a totalitarian doctrine of 'universal integration' required for 'free movement' and the vigorous suppression (and annihilation) of everything that is local, particular and relative.
That makes no sense. Biden has repeatedly said white supremacy is the greatest threat to democracy. White supremcy can be anything from Russia to statues of confederate generals, e.g., a work of art.