This "radical centrist", "alt-centrist" moniker you use to differentiate your views from right-wingers is not very fitting to describe someone who leans left on economics and right on social issues. All information is lost when you call that "Alt-centrist".
But alas, the much more conveying "National-Socialist" cannot be used anymore.
Theoretically one could try to hype something like "Traditional Communist" although I understand it might carry a stigma in ANglo countries.
There is, I think, a very self-serving understanding of White Nationalism being used here in order to dismiss White Nationalism and keep Whites from recognizing that there is a political position that supports their interests.
It's true that is the ultimate objective of all White Nationalist organizing is total continental control of North America under a unified White Nationalist 'imperium'.
But the primary that such an idea seems suspicious is because it is Whites articulating a goal for Whites. Were it to be a non-Whites articulating a goal for non-Whites (and this is actually the case with multiculturalism/multiracialism), it perfectly acceptable.
'Racism' is always someone else's flaw, not one's own.
Which is how you can identify an epithet versus an actual idea.
Notwithstanding the long-term goals of White Nationalism, White Nationalists are increasingly pragmatic in their approach to collective organizing and accept that some form of self-determination for White Nationalist Whites in the form of 'enclavism' is a more likely desirable state in the near term.
We recognize there are Whites who are resistant to the White Nationalist position on the best outcome for their race and that these folks are going to come to the White Nationalist position hesitantly.
Hence, White Nationalism is increasingly open to self-determination in the form of political and economic 'pluralism' of the sort advocated by John C. Calhoun in his 'Disquisition'. The result is 'democracy' on the scale of organized interests but no ability for a central authority to impose its will on the people due to those organized interests retaliating against unwanted imposition.
A 'pluralism' that involves multiple centers of different kinds of power is the only way to ensure that 'enclaves' are viable habitats for self-determination.
It is my belief that once large numbers of White find out that they can say 'No!' to race-mixing and being bullied by non-White and anti-White authorities that, in due course, most Whites will embrace White Nationalist continental aspirations as a long-term racial project.
This "radical centrist", "alt-centrist" moniker you use to differentiate your views from right-wingers is not very fitting to describe someone who leans left on economics and right on social issues. All information is lost when you call that "Alt-centrist".
But alas, the much more conveying "National-Socialist" cannot be used anymore.
Theoretically one could try to hype something like "Traditional Communist" although I understand it might carry a stigma in ANglo countries.
There is, I think, a very self-serving understanding of White Nationalism being used here in order to dismiss White Nationalism and keep Whites from recognizing that there is a political position that supports their interests.
It's true that is the ultimate objective of all White Nationalist organizing is total continental control of North America under a unified White Nationalist 'imperium'.
But the primary that such an idea seems suspicious is because it is Whites articulating a goal for Whites. Were it to be a non-Whites articulating a goal for non-Whites (and this is actually the case with multiculturalism/multiracialism), it perfectly acceptable.
'Racism' is always someone else's flaw, not one's own.
Which is how you can identify an epithet versus an actual idea.
Notwithstanding the long-term goals of White Nationalism, White Nationalists are increasingly pragmatic in their approach to collective organizing and accept that some form of self-determination for White Nationalist Whites in the form of 'enclavism' is a more likely desirable state in the near term.
We recognize there are Whites who are resistant to the White Nationalist position on the best outcome for their race and that these folks are going to come to the White Nationalist position hesitantly.
Hence, White Nationalism is increasingly open to self-determination in the form of political and economic 'pluralism' of the sort advocated by John C. Calhoun in his 'Disquisition'. The result is 'democracy' on the scale of organized interests but no ability for a central authority to impose its will on the people due to those organized interests retaliating against unwanted imposition.
A 'pluralism' that involves multiple centers of different kinds of power is the only way to ensure that 'enclaves' are viable habitats for self-determination.
It is my belief that once large numbers of White find out that they can say 'No!' to race-mixing and being bullied by non-White and anti-White authorities that, in due course, most Whites will embrace White Nationalist continental aspirations as a long-term racial project.