You chose a topic close to my heart, user, and I am glad to see someone push back against the cancer killing practically ALL of the western arts. However, you have forgotten one thing.
While the leftist and many a normalfag prop us subjectivism in the area of arts and foreign cultures, they are actually staunch "objectivists" (putting it in scare quotes because what they practice is a perversion of it) when it comes to western morals. Militant to enforce them, even. Just consider the notion of "equality" – the left refuses to even entertain the notion that egalitarianism may, in fact, be wrong, since all their many ideologies stand upon it. It acts as a dogma, that has to be unquestionably followed by all, lest they be immediatelly decalred an enemy by the left. Hell, all "undemocratic" (read: elitist rather than egalitarian) movements get immediatelly shut down for wrongthink, be they accused of racism or trying to subvert democracy. This notion is then extrapolated, along with some others, into politics at large. "We are all equal. The life of a nigger in subsaharan Africa is worth no less than that of an aryan white." Such (heavily promoted by (((them))) ) thoughts then seek to, in fact, combat and supress subjectivism in these areas. You are supposed to think about the collective (in this context meant as all of human race) and consider things that would benefit YOU as immoral if they would come at the cost to someone else. It's why Europe, heavily steeped by this shitty-ass ideology, accepted rapefugees so eagerly in the beginning. "The Pakistani refugee is my equal. Not letting him in would be immoral – he has as much a right to a happy life as I do, and those who would deny them that are evil, greedy, self-serving bigots!"
I believe nothing can illustrate this more than the so-called "effective altruism", an ideology pushed by jews and liberals alike that infests many a charity organization. The gist of effective altruism is "cost efficiency", where they consider all humans equal, and decalre that unless you spend your money most effectively (meaning save the largest amount of people at the lowest amount of money), you are, in fact, and immoral charity, as you could be saving more.
Well, guess what, the lowest cost of saving human life happens to be african shitholes, while first world countries have it highest. These charity organizations thus help niggers exclusively and rabidly oppose spending money on Europeans. To make sure this is not just my conjecture, I actually went and contacted a high rank in one of these groups (through a shared acquintance), and asked him about this. Pushed the notion that surely, people in Europe would give more money to charity if said charity helped the people they come into contact with, to the various homeless and beggars, to the sick, etc., that those people need just as much help as a starving nigger in Somalia.
He then went on a tirade about how I'm racist and how they need to be cost-effective which means helping only niggers and so on.
This sort of reasoning is absolute cancer, one that justifies most of the anti-white shit going on in the West and that is treated as dogma by the left and normalfags. Where the people need to learn to be objective when it comes to the realities of the world, they also need to learn to be subjective when it comes to things that affect them. A German seeing a Paki at the border must not go "He's a person just like me, equal to me, and thus has the same right to enjoy western luxuries as I do." He needs to think "I do not care one bit about whether he's equal to me or not, what matters is that he and his ilk will make my life worse, and as such I'd preffer him to be shot on the spot rather than allowed into my country." This is one of the foundations of individualism. The left, pushing collectivism, thus promotes the "objective" worldview, where one is supposed to see himself as but yet another ant, no different and no more deserving than all the others.
