As you have noticed, Kukulkon, you are not being treated seriously. This is not, however, because you have presented irrefutable arguments or that the other posters are not capable of informed discussion. Instead, what has happened is that you posted a rant, not an actual philosophical discussion. It makes broad sweeping charges with no supporting documentation (asserting numerous things that the other posters–from both the Left and the Right–recognize as silly).
When other posters have noted logical errors in your post, you reply that attacking logic is a “liberal trick,” yet no argument that is logically flawed can be supported by logic.
You claim that you want to debate the “issues”? Fine, let’s start with this silliness:
Your first statement has a grain of truth in regards the declared intention of Marxist thinkers. Destroying “the hegemonic white male structure of power” is one (not perfect, but adequate) description of some Marxist goals.
However, you then leap to the conclusion that this can be done only by inverting the power structure. Unless you citations to mainstream Marxists for this belief, those of us who have actually studied the phenomenon will realize that you made it up (or copied someone else who made it up). The destruction of the white male hegemony is not predicated on a non-white female hegemony, but on a destruction of all existing structures in a way that will allow a more egalitarian structure to arise on its own.
(I think the Marxists are no closer to treality than you seem to be, but you shgould at least give them the benefit of treating their goals and beliefs accurately.)
Further, you link your flawed perception of Marxist goals directly to Political Correctness. Unfortunately, many of us were alive and watched when PC arose. Certainly there are many Marxist adherents to the notion. However, the whole PC concept arose from a synthesis of a great many varied and different movements; it did not spring forth from the idea bureau of the Comintern. If you want us to accept that sort of error-laden proposal, you need to support it with facts, not assertions.
I wandered over to the anu sight and read several back issues of the Nationalist Times. I am unimpressed. It is filled with the same sort of fact-free ranting that you have presented here. This is not to say that everyting written in it is totally in error, only that it relies heavily on impassioned writing and avoids considered ideas wherever it can.
As to the goals of the ANU and their desire to return to the U.S. of 1797, I would only point out that without providing a method to disengage from the entire rest of the world without causing our own economy to collapse, they are simply uttering wishes that cannot come true.
(Oh, and if that whole rant in the OP was taken directly from another source, rather than being an original composition of your own, you may want to ask a moderator to substitute a link to the original and delete the majority of that text. We’re not really keen on pasting in major works from other sites.)