We have very different definitions of centrism. To you and @BlowjaySimpson it seems to be some sort of moderate/fence sitter position striving to find the middle ground between the demands of the liberal and demands of conservatives. To me it's understanding that everything is a balancing act. If you want order, you need to limit individual freedom. Ideally you find a balance where you have some of both, and where that balance lies is vastly different if you have an all white city or one that's full of niggers. Allowing immigration has costs we are all too aware of, having no immigration has a cost too. At times the extreme position is the correct one. Having no jews has no drawback. Having jews is an absolute disaster. Centrism just means you're not tied to a dogmatic position. The lolberts never want more government, government action is sometimes needed. The commies always want more government, that's even more stupid. Arguments of democracy vs dictatorship vs monarchy are all retarded. Some small group will rule and who rules will be chosen by a small group. The organization of the rulers matters little. What matters is their merit. The only thing I know of that can increase the likelihood that the rulers will have merit is if there is a prevailing sense of extremely strong nationalism. Nationalism is really the only non-negotiable element. But that makes sense, for if a government doesn't serve it's native people, then it's not a legitimate government.