The new political dichotomy: Globalism vs Nationalism?

Do you agree?

Arminius, I agree with you.

What I wanted to say in my OP but perhaps I failed to express myself clearly enough, is that politics have begun leaning so radically leftist that even the present right have bought into the leftist bullshit of -isms and -phobias, hence why conservatives are actually cuckservatives and rightists are pretty much socially left, perhaps only economically right.

To be a ‘moderate’ conservative (cuckservative) is to buy into -isms and -phobias.
Why is this bad?
First of all, it is WRONG. It is a survival instinct we are programmed with to prefer your own group and to have an aversion to other groups, or things like homosexuality, pedophilia, etc. It is not a diabolic, evil conspiracy idea conjured from purely satanic intentions of bringing somebody/something else down purely for the sake of evil or something, as the left would have you believe.
Second of all, because once you buy into it you pretty much leave yourself open to further cuckification and being infected by liberalism, as you have already accepted the basic premises of their cultural marxism.

This is why Alternative Right/Nationalism is needed and has pretty much replaced the conservatives (cucks) and the modern right, who are unworthy of their name.

You have bought into the false idea that all political positions that we have today are leftist. But the truth is that, in the past oh-so-many years, there has never been a single truly leftist political position. They were all rightist; everything you could see, no matter the manner in which it dressed itself, was fundamentally rightist.

It is true that American politics is a bit limited compared to what we have in the rest of the world, but that says absolutely nothing about the reality of the situation. Your right might not be very different from your left, but that does not mean that what is lacking is right, let alone that what you need is an “alternative right”.

What is lacking is left. What is disappearing is left – the last traces of it.

To understand that the modern left is fundamentally no different from the modern right, you have to understand what lies at the core of the rightist ideology. And what lies at the core of the rightist ideology is preservationism, or the idea that the highest value is the indefinite and unconditional preservation of an identity of some sort.

Naturally, relativism follows from preservationism, as universalism threatens to question the value of identity that is to be unconditionally preserved.

The opposite of preservationism is, we can say, eliminationism, or the idea that the highest value is reduction of violence. Here, preservation is seen merely as a temporary means.

The former is hedonistic, in that the goal is to maintain or increase activity, whereas the latter is ascetic, in that the goal is to reduce activity.

And that is the true dichotomy: either you are an ascetic/Gnostic (left) or you are a hedonist/materialist (right.)

You will note that both modern left and modern right belong to the same camp of preservationists, the only difference being the way they determine and preserve their identities.

Liberal identity is based on what gives pleasure, conservative identity is based on ethnicity (but it can be any other morally neutral trait e.g. gender, sexual orientation, intelligence, physical strength, etc.)

Liberals value individualism, conservatives value collectivism.

Liberals want a minimal state the purpose of which is to regulate divergence that follows from individualism, whereas conservatives want a nationalist state the purpose of which is to direct all of its folk in the same direction.

They both value divergence, hence, they both divide, they only do it in different ways.

Liberals use covert aggression to divide internally, conservatives use over aggression to divide externally.

Liberals patch internal conflicts through TOLERANCE which means through peaceful desensitization, conservatives patch internal conflicts through FORCE which means through forceful desensitization.

Fundamentally, there is no difference.

You need to understand that what makes one evil is the prominence of the very instinct that you mention. So the above, far from being a defense, is an admittance to being evil, an evil that reaches the level of Jew, for in its attempt to wash away the accusation of evil by insisting that you’re merely trying to survive, a motive each one of us shares, it tricks people into thinking your intentions are good.

Preservationism, let me repeat myself, is the idea that the highest value is the preservation of some sort of identity. It is this valuation of infinite, unrestrained and self-referential growth that is considered evil.

What we call cancer, for example, is nothing but that which preserves itself infinitely, for no reason at all, other than to simply continue preserving itself.

It is always a rather good idea to read what you have typed before posting it and especially when it directly contradicts
another post you have made. When explaining your ideology it helps to be consistent or else you may not be understood

Shouldn’t you be with others right now polishing Satyr’s knob? :laughing:

You must laugh more often as you are not so good at being serious

You got some jizz on your mouth…

HaHaHa, let me get this straight. If a person agrees with you, they are necessarily ‘polishing your knob’ and have your ‘jizz on their mouth’. If they disagree with you, they are just deluded retards and they’re wrong.

I could explain the irony of that statement but I’m really not in the mood.

Formerly the conservatives were nationalists, not extreme nationalists but nationalists. Now the „conservatives“ are no conservatives anymore, because they support the globalists. So what we have been experiencing since 1945 or at least since 1989/’90 is an age of globalism.

Both nationalism and internationalism / globalism are part of the Occidental creations, and the Occident will defend its creations, regardless whether they are already destructive or not. So maybe the resistance to globalism will only be successful by coming from outside of the Occident, for example from East Europe.

Globalism does not work in the long term. Perhaps nationalism does also not work in the long term, but the nation is the biggest possible political unit that people can manage (something bigger - like globalism or any other imperialism - is not possible in the long term). So why are we wanted to do something that does not work in the long term? Why are people so stupid or/and crazy to support impossibilities?