Prologue.
These are mere responses extracted from a debate I had recently, all compiled together into one text, which is otherwise a reaffirmation of what is stated in Sayings and Neoheroism. These are modified, however, extracting "you" from the text, so to be more valuable and applicable to any who may be reading this. These are addressed to someone individual, and so it isn't in Sayings, as Sayings is for complete evaluation and thought, not an argument.
Reaffirmations.
Of what does it entail that a binary view of truth is incorrect? One may affirm the Earth is flat? That dogs are cats? Man is woman? Child goes to work and parent goes to school? To claim there is no objective truth is itself an objective truth, a creed proselytized for what? Political expediency, of course. There is an objective truth, and it is the world. It does not matter the consensus, what matters is that something is true when provided evidence. Moral truth? What if my moral truth is domination, totality, and slaughter? Am I wrong? Of course, my idea was wholly hypothetical, and meant to challenge secular assumptions. And so these Marxists, such as in South Africa engaging in white genocide, this is wrong no matter what. Or in the United States where whites, and previously blacks, were disadvantaged as collectives. These are wrong, for the innocent whole of a race is not tainted by a few. These Marxists justify their violence as a sort of retribution, but there is no reason to follow this, and furthermore: people are only culpable of the crimes they have committed, and are unable to be indicted on anything more. Like these DEI and AA programs which exclude whites for what? Most are innocent, and in any sense of meritocracy, this is absurd. People who are wholly innocent are deserving of no reprimand. But is it not so that the collective is merely a group of individuals? That man does not exist in a hive mind, but exists upon himself as creations, individuals, bound by matters of culture and civility, but ultimately human and individual. That rulers, not groups, are responsible for their actions? Is it not so that mankind evidently frightful, egotistical, skittish? There has never been this action without a sovereign, and there is no nation without its leaders. That mankind has never had this collective agency, and that history is the clash of ideas of stewardship, morality, and custodianism across civilization? It seems obvious, as Marxism is readily incorrect, and fails in logic.There has never been idealized mass action in history, every revolution has been led by sovereigns commanding the many, and originate from a miniscule clique around a leader commanding forces, from the Sturmabteilung to the Red Army. Even the anarchists of Catalan had their leaders commanding forces, and even a president.