For reaons still unbeknownest to me, my original comment regarding social progressives in the other thread triggered you.

Asian people and Asian nations should of course cut out the hate and cooperate more, especially when it comes to goals that are clearly mutually beneficial, such as economic development and overthrowing the vestiges of western imperialism from their collective cultures. If massive multiculturalism and ethnic diversity MUST be forced upon all nations of Asia, would I personally rather the source of said diversity come from other Asian nations over non-Asian nations? Absolutely, without a shred of doubt! But because there are still some non-trivial cultural gaps, not to mention some bad history between various nations, I'm under no illusion that massive immigration and ethnic diversity even within Asian nations themselves will be the next greatest thing since sliced bread. Just as I wouldn't want millions of Koreans flooding into China, I would never wish for millions of Chinese flooding into Korea. And of course the same applies to all nations in Asia. Small scaled immigration to and from are and should of course be encouraged (especially if the outcomes are mutually beneficial for all parties involved), as that allows for successful assimilation into the host nation much more feasible and thus likely.

But okay, I'm still not quite sure if that addressed the source of your contention. Since even now, I still don't know exactly what it was that you were disagreeing with. Why did you maintain the pretense that I was attacking the need for technological and economical progress even after I explicitly made it clear that it was only social progressivism, specifically societal-level ethnic diversity via mass immigration, that I was against? That was quite intellectually dishonest IMO. And instead of engaging me in debate and clarifying your position, your responses degenerated into baseless ad hominems and low-effort comebacks like "Stop trying to act like an intellectual. Nationalists cannot be." FYI, if having a non-binary view of the world, which cannot yet be said of you with remarks like the one above, is enough to make you think I was attempting to be an "intellectual", then that says more about your naivety than whatever it was you were trying to accuse me of.

Now judging by your various responses in the last thread and your original post here, your main complaint seems to be that some of us espouse views that are more commonly associated with the alt-right. Okay sure, that's definitely something we can discuss. The precise political affiliation of our sub has been a frequent topic of debate since its inception over a year ago. But relatively recently, it is my understanding that we've finally come to a consensus on the matter: we don't unconditionally support any western political ideologies, rather we support whatever policy that is good for us, Asians. As such, said policies could potentially come from the left, who call out overt racial discrimination/violence against Asians; the right, who are more in favor of abandoning the current affirmative action system that's artificially capping the enrollment of Asian American students into top universities; BLM, who brings the issue that is white supremacy to the forefront of western societies, and makes sure even the most insular whitey knows of their discontent for such a system; and even gasp the alt-right, who are IMO (and many others it would seem) correct in their assessment that ethnic homogeneity for a nation is a source of strength, because this has been repeatedly demonstrated empirically time and time again throughout history up to the present day. To me, this is quite obvious from a mathematical POV as well: if you consider any given society as a dynamic physical system (which it is), the more ethnically homogeneous or equivalently the less diverse it is, then the less degrees of freedom there are in the system, therefore a lower probability for errors, which in the real world simply means less differences for its citizens to fight over.
As long as you refrain from low-effort accusatory innuendos and baseless ad hominems, then I'm all for open dialogue.