PDA

View Full Version : How to Counter the Argument That We Germanics Have No Right to USA or Other Countries Outside of Europe



Nachtengel
Thursday, April 6th, 2017, 07:28 PM
I recently talked to an American who was concerned about the ongoing program of White genocide in the Western World, who had difficulties speaking up against the mass immigration policies in his country. What was holding him back was the fact that America is considered to be the homeland of Native American Indians and not us Whites. He felt that it would be much easier for Europeans to be speak up and take action against these policies because Europe historically belongs to us Whites.

This is a common conception expressed by pro-Whites, not only in America but also in other White majority countries outside of Europe.

It might feel easier for us in Europe to be against Whites becoming a minority in our own countries because Europe has historically been considered White, but this is irrelevant to the anti-White mentality which we are up against. The anti-White mindset says that Whites must go. It aims for White genocide and consequently makes up justifications for mass non-White immigration into White majority countries.

As mentioned above, in America one common anti-White justification is that America was not White to begin with, so Whites have no right to it. If this were true, it would imply that Germany, for example, could remain White, as it is originally a White country. But in Germany the justification is that Germany has a dark past with Nazism, and therefore the native white Germans are forced to accept mass immigration into their country and the fact that they are becoming a minority.

The Dutch did not take land of Holland away from any native population, nor did they support Hitler. But this country still has to have mass immigration. One justification for this is that they had colonies hundreds of years ago.

And if we take a look at Iceland, we can see the same pressure to have open borders – why is that? They did not take their land away from any native population, they did not support Hitler and they did not own colonies. The justification given here is that Iceland has a high standard of living and an aging population.

In contrast, let us compare this to Japan. Japan was allied with Hitler, Japan had colonies and Japan has an aging population and a high standard of living. To boot, the people now living in Japan are not even the native population of the island. The people we now know as “Japanese” conquered the Ainu-people long ago. But despite all of this, Japan has not been forced to accept mass Third World immigration the way Germany, France and Sweden have. Why is that? The reason is that the anti-White mindset is anti-Whit, not anti-Asian.

ainuThe Ainu people are the indiginous people of Japan, but no one would argue today that Japan does not belong to the Japanese.

One important thing to take notice of here is that if you listen to just one of the anti-White arguments without comparing it to other similar situations in non-White areas of the globe, it might sound legit (such as the USA not being allowed to be White because it was non-White before the Europeans got there). But if you actually start to compare such arguments with other non-White cases like we did above, you will see that they are just justifications for more non-stop immigration into all White countries.

Anti-Whites just invent plausible excuses for more non-stop Third World immigration into White countries. We, however, do not agree that one genocide justifies another.

How to counter this?

The way to break through this is to compare their justifications to other international contexts and point out their contradictions, like we did above. You have to point out the fact that nobody who says that Whites have no right to the USA/Australia etc. because they took the land away from a native population, would argue that Germany, or any other native White country, has the right to remain White because they did not take the land away from any native population.

In addition to pointing out the contradiction of their statement, we also need to point out their intention, which is justifying White genocide through the means of non-stop Third World immigration into all and only White countries. Use the SCI-module below as a guide:

Statement: Whites have no right to the USA (or any White country outside of Europe) because it was not White to begin with.

Contradiction: One genocide does not justify another.

Many groups have conquered another nation at some time in history. But that does not justify harming such groups today.

The Anti-White Intention: To justify more mass immigration from the Third World into every predominately White country.

Since they always argue for something that leads to more immigration into White countries, we can see their intention shining through. They do not care whether the country has had colonies or not, has been allied with Hitler or not, or has taken the land away from a native population or not. As long as it is a White majority country, anti-Whites will want it to open its borders to mass immigration and invent plausible arguments which will favour pro-immigration policies.
http://thisiseuropa.net/how-to-counter-arguments-whites-have-no-right-to-homelands/

Catterick
Thursday, April 6th, 2017, 07:38 PM
Just point out that indigenous people have no strict definition, that excluded naturalised Euro-Americans: people move around, and as they settle they get a sense of place connected to themselves as a people (moreso than any past place of origin). And then they are indigenous themselves.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Saturday, September 5th, 2020, 09:17 PM
Iceland, Greenland, Helluland, Markland and Vinland were all Norse before Latin America existed, or Vinland became English Newfoundland, followed by Virginia. Do all Amerinds everywhere, regardless of admixture, deserve all of both continents? What about the Russians following them from Siberia across Alaska, seeing how Amerinds would therefore be from what's now Russian Siberia? Do Scandinavians not make provisions for Finns and Lapps and don't Anglos provide for First Nations reservations, the Ruskies allowing ethnic republics inside their Federation, even if the Latinos nevered bothered? Furthermore, since Indo-Europeans from haplogroup R are nearest Amerinds from haplogroup Q, this means we're the next of kin in the event of their extinction, so who thinks they've got a right to take our place in these lands with any greater claim to inheritance, when both legal possession and common Siberian genetics are on our side? Why should only Amerinds from Eastern Siberia, arriving on the Pacific coast, have sole claim to exclude Indo-Europeans from Western Siberia, arriving on the Atlantic coast? Why not just rule out non-Siberian racial groups?

Coillearnach
Saturday, September 5th, 2020, 10:58 PM
The best one is that land ultimately only belongs to those who take possession of it successfully. As far as a blood and soil-style argument is concerned, whites have been working this soil with their own hands for over 400 years - longer than the Maori were in New Zealand before first contact with Europeans and they get the luxury of being considered indigenous (even though they massacred and ruthlessly enslaved a previous wave of Polynesian settlers called the Moriori, on top of the possibility of other prehistoric settlement).

Žoreišar
Saturday, September 5th, 2020, 11:11 PM
The best one is that land ultimately only belongs to those who take possession of it successfully.That brings up the question of whether non-White immigrants can be considered to have taken legitimate possession over parts of our countries. And if not, what criteria would have to be fulfilled in order for an immigrant population could be considered the rightful owners of the land they presently inhabit? Does war or weaponized conflict have to be involved?

Coillearnach
Saturday, September 5th, 2020, 11:30 PM
That brings up the question of whether non-White immigrants can be considered to have taken legitimate possession over parts of our countries. And if not, what criteria would have to be fulfilled in order for an immigrant population could be considered the rightful owners of the land they presently inhabit? Does war or weaponized conflict have to be involved?

For me, the answer is that they have taken possession of it. I don't think they fully realize it based on their laundry list of complaints and we ofc are in various stages of denial, apathy, complete delusion, tedious mental gymnastics... Considering any kind of illegitimacy to it is kind of the cope of a loser - "but but but... you didn't play by the rules!" (as if there are any, really).

Winterland
Sunday, September 6th, 2020, 12:24 AM
To start, Indians only made up about 850,000 to 1 million across the Continental US. They had poor infrastructure and communication with other tribes speaking many different tongues and had their own established enemies. When the British and French arrived, various tribes helped the Europeans to win wars and territories to prevent torture and other cruelties against their own women and children in high conflict areas. Many tribes took no prisoners and killed the living or made slaves of them. They also tortured. A few tribes were cannibals as historians like to conceal those facts from the media. Early Native Americans had horses, but the Natives over time killed them for food instead of using them for travel and work. Some Indians admittedly knew that they had to change from the old (Paleolithic) ways as they became introduced to modern tools, better methods of farming, infrastructure and governance. I'm not saying that Europeans caused no harm, but they also liked the trade (wealth), modern equipment, better transportation, and medicines for the sick. Indians did increase population here from 1,000,000 to 2.5 million today. We had a close Indian friend who openly discussed politics and tribal life, pro's and con's. From my surprise, some Indians have a long history serving in the US military and admirable patriotism.

Only Liberals cry about how we mistreated Natives. Natives today have a choice to live on Reservations or join the rest of society. In my opinion, Europeans have claim to these lands also due to wild open ranges being cultivated and cleared to make developments. It has been estimated that 20,000 Europeans have been killed by Natives, and around 60,000 Natives killed by Europeans. Disease probably took a larger toll. I think we will have a greater challenge in holding onto our territories as the rest of Asia and Africa expands in population. With the low birth rates, we may end up losing lands much like the Native Americans experienced if we don't develop better technologies.

Astragoth
Sunday, September 6th, 2020, 09:49 PM
Why argue with them at all? They don't use facts or logic its pointless talking to them.
Just ask them why they are anti-white.

Žoreišar
Sunday, September 6th, 2020, 10:48 PM
For me, the answer is that they have taken possession of it.I'm not sure I understand you completely. London, for instance, is ruled by a Muslim Paki mayor, and the population is predominantly non-White. Have "they" taken possession of London, and the English lost it, and thus lost their moral right to London?


I don't think they fully realize it based on their laundry list of complaints and we ofc are in various stages of denial, apathy, complete delusion, tedious mental gymnastics... Considering any kind of illegitimacy to it is kind of the cope of a loser - "but but but... you didn't play by the rules!" (as if there are any, really).Well, yes. These kind of arguments are never meant towards the people who want to dispossess us in our homelands, but meant to convince our own people of our moral rights to our historical homelands and motivate them to defend and reclaim it.

Coillearnach
Sunday, September 6th, 2020, 11:09 PM
I'm not sure I understand you completely. London, for instance, is ruled by a Muslim Paki mayor, and the population is predominantly non-White. Have "they" taken possession of London

Have they taken possession of London? With demography and the elites on their side, yes.


....and the English lost it, and thus lost their moral right to London?....

Well, yes. These kind of arguments are never meant towards the people who want to dispossess us in our homelands, but meant to convince our own people of our moral rights to our historical homelands and motivate them to defend and reclaim it.

I know, I just don't think "moral rights", at least in the way I'm assuming you mean it, to land actually exist - taking our own side ala debt to ancestors, bond with the land, defending our own lebensraum, sure. What is your working definition of "moral rights"?

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, September 7th, 2020, 12:24 AM
A man has a moral right to defend his wife and children. All nuclear families have a moral right to perpetuate, only they don't cooperate internally or externally. That is the root of all ills.

Žoreišar
Monday, September 7th, 2020, 10:37 AM
I know, I just don't think "moral rights", at least in the way I'm assuming you mean it, to land actually exist - taking our own side ala debt to ancestors, bond with the land, defending our own lebensraum, sure. What is your working definition of "moral rights"?I suppose all morality is entirely subjective, with no actual objective foundation. But even though it is fleeting and mendable, it still holds a great significance for how people engage with reality. The contemporary mainstream morality among the English is what facilitated their loss of land to other ethnicities in the first place. But even so, I believe their morality also inhibits them from truly abandoning places like London as part of the English ethnic realm. And when time comes to reaffirm the position of the English, they would feel a greater justification for reclaiming London as their own than taking possession of, say, Ireland, Newfoundland, or Sri Lanka. Most people need to feel a moral justification for their actions, even if it might be biased when viewed through an entirely objective, universal lens.

I guess what I mean when I say the English have a moral right to the possession of London, is that there's room to convince (and mobilize) English people to retake it within the framework of the broader contemporary moral paradigm. More so than other random pieces of land. And even their opponents would instinctually be less inclined to consider it illegitimate.

Winterland
Monday, September 7th, 2020, 04:15 PM
I lived near a few Native American tribes years ago. I talked with some elders and Native students about our conflicted history. I learned a different perspective over our outcomes. Firstly, some Natives stated that they admired our warrior skills and bravery when we arrived in America and fought bravely against various Native tribes, but they did not like the outcome of losing battles and lands that they held for centuries. Well, I can understand this. Interesting enough, Indians said that they know how to "deal with the White man and learned to live by us." But, they also don't want Mexican or Central American Indios tribes to emigrate into the US since some are past enemies. Many Natives overall do not welcome unknown peoples in their lands as they live separately away from dominant society. (The Natives probably see more resources diverted away from their tribal needs and more population concerns.) They discussed how we are giving away their lands without their consent and no real battle.

Now, you can see our own political problems and struggles in real light. They fought to keep their lands and can't understand our foolhardy management. Well, Big Business determines our outcomes as I once told them. At this rate, we will continue to lose our lands in Europe or America being passive and morally self-righteous. European peoples have to re-instate their hold on their own lands through a kindred spirit.

Coillearnach
Monday, September 7th, 2020, 05:37 PM
I suppose all morality is entirely subjective, with no actual objective foundation. But even though it is fleeting and mendable, it still holds a great significance for how people engage with reality. The contemporary mainstream morality among the English is what facilitated their loss of land to other ethnicities in the first place. But even so, I believe their morality also inhibits them from truly abandoning places like London as part of the English ethnic realm. And when time comes to reaffirm the position of the English, they would feel a greater justification for reclaiming London as their own than taking possession of, say, Ireland, Newfoundland, or Sri Lanka. Most people need to feel a moral justification for their actions, even if it might be biased when viewed through an entirely objective, universal lens.

Thanks for clarifying. I don't come at this from a standpoint of complete moral relativism, I just don't believe that having a moral justification for something means it is a right in any real sense in a secular context. It also doesn't help that this kind of argument, if it could be countenanced, completely breaks down in the face of colonialism which is now the lived experience of most English people on the planet. Anyway, absurd as it is to me (on par with trying to discover a moral right to continue breathing, lol), I wouldn't quibble in *public* public with average people about this if it got them to take their own side.


I guess what I mean when I say the English have a moral right to the possession of London, is that there's room to convince (and mobilize) English people to retake it within the framework of the broader contemporary moral paradigm. More so than other random pieces of land.

Agree with the idea that successful arguments could definitely be made for a reestablishment of English possession of London that would be morally palatable to many modern English people.


And even their opponents would instinctually be less inclined to consider it illegitimate.

I think the horse has left the barn on this one. I don't think a meaningful "right to homeland" argument can be made with people that are adversarial to their own folkways, it'd probably end up as some bizarre reversal of the white man's burden.

Chlodovech
Monday, September 7th, 2020, 11:21 PM
1) Anglo-Americans created the modern day American state.
2) The tribes once inhabiting North-America have the best claim on the land, but after 500 years of Anglo presence, the Anglos have a decent claim to the land too. In the same way that the Turks have a good claim on historically Greek lands as well, including Constantinople.
3) There are not enough natives left to populate and operate a country the size of the U.S., nor would it remain a first world country if there were.


Considering any kind of illegitimacy to it is kind of the cope of a loser - "but but but... you didn't play by the rules!" (as if there are any, really).

An almost completely English London is still within living memory, the invaders of London have no historical claim to it - they're still just newcomers, not others. There's nothing specifically legitimate to their parasitical presence, no argument that can be made in favor of Pakistani and Indians taking over London and remaining there - as opposed to Kashmir.

Žoreišar
Monday, September 7th, 2020, 11:49 PM
I don't come at this from a standpoint of complete moral relativism, [...]Neither do I, but rather moral subjectivism.


[...] I just don't believe that having a moral justification for something means it is a right in any real sense in a secular context.Might makes rights into being, and people need moral justifications to motivate them to wield their might.


It also doesn't help that this kind of argument, if it could be countenanced, completely breaks down in the face of colonialism which is now the lived experience of most English people on the planet.I don't think it does. Colonial Anglos fought for their lands fair and square. And it is, by the way, a far cry from the situation we have with today with third worlders taking over parts of our cities, who are let in on false pretenses of needing help and refuge, and being so shitty that natives rather relocate to the parts of town.

Coillearnach
Tuesday, September 8th, 2020, 02:35 AM
Neither do I, but rather moral subjectivism.

I don't hold this view either...


Might makes rights into being, and people need moral justifications to motivate them to wield their might.

Can you explain how you think might can make moral rights into being?


I don't think it does. Colonial Anglos fought for their lands fair and square. And it is, by the way, a far cry from the situation we have with today with third worlders taking over parts of our cities, who are let in on false pretenses of needing help and refuge, and being so shitty that natives rather relocate to the parts of town.

We didn't fight for our lands "fair and square" in many cases, we continually broke our promises (even supposedly legally binding agreements) with the natives whenever we felt like it and rampantly abused their hospitality, we maneuvered ourselves in a similar way 3rd world immigrants do now - e.g. Texas in particular after Mexico made the epic mistake of liberalizing their immigration laws, etc. Facing these realities doesn't make me want to give up the fruits of this inheritance, it just is what it is. These are just things we'll have to live with until this founding lapses into myth too, if we last that long.

A lot of these stipulations about the "right way" to conquest and ideas about "moral rights" to land seem like post-hoc excuses either to excise guilt, distract from real drives - we wanted the land so we took it, someone else took it and we want it back, or poor substitutes for deities bestowing land ownership.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Tuesday, September 8th, 2020, 05:34 AM
First of all, Amerinds didn't own 100% of either continent, just as Basques and Uralics don't own Europe. Anglos moved in where there was room and even paid for land with wampum and other forms of wealth acceptable to them, although the Latinos didn't bother. Anglos forged alliances and enmities with various tribes, against the French and theirs, nothing monolithic either way and it was a bit like how the Raj formed initially by trading at Surat and Bombay, later exponentially at Calcutta in Bengal, then at Madras down to Ceylon. We were used just as much as we used the Indians, only won a monopoly due to the resources at our disposal.

Žoreišar
Wednesday, September 9th, 2020, 01:55 PM
I don't hold this view either...From what do your morals derive their substance?


Can you explain how you think might can make moral rights into being?Just that moral rights are useless unless supported by might. That's not to say that any action is moral as long as it's achieved through might.


We didn't fight for our lands "fair and square" in many cases, we continually broke our promises (even supposedly legally binding agreements) with the natives whenever we felt like it and rampantly abused their hospitality, we maneuvered ourselves in a similar way 3rd world immigrants do now - e.g. Texas in particular after Mexico made the epic mistake of liberalizing their immigration laws, etc. Facing these realities doesn't make me want to give up the fruits of this inheritance, it just is what it is. These are just things we'll have to live with until this founding lapses into myth too, if we last that long.

A lot of these stipulations about the "right way" to conquest and ideas about "moral rights" to land seem like post-hoc excuses either to excise guilt, distract from real drives - we wanted the land so we took it, someone else took it and we want it back, or poor substitutes for deities bestowing land ownership.Yeah. Good points. At least you ultimately fought for your land, regardless of what events led up to it. In my opinion, there's some moral legitimacy to be derived from that.

As for the case with Texas, Mexico apparently still consider it Mexican territory, judicially (and by implication - morally). I think there's a lesson to learn from that.

KYAnglo
Wednesday, September 9th, 2020, 05:01 PM
I am mostly a descendant of 17th century English colonists that not only built their colonies of Virginia and Maryland from nothing, but laid the foundations of what is now America.
They were not "immigrants", but settlers, pioneers, etc. There was no existing welfare state to subsidize them, just wilderness and primitive hostile natives.
Those aboriginal inhabitants aka "Indians" they encountered had little to no role in establishing the institutions of America, much less any other people.
The greatest mistake made in the colonial era was the very short-sighted allowing of importation of African negroes as forced labor, in my opinion.
Consequently, the negroes have been here practically as long as the Founding stock, and problem for just about as long.

Rędwald
Wednesday, September 9th, 2020, 11:47 PM
Here's my galaxy-brain take on this matter. It was recently discussed in a Keith Woods podcast that's up on BitChute ("Imperialism vs Nationalism").

In brief, the question was: does not imperialism lend to a Nietzschean worldview of might makes right? The problem being that this is ultimately a subjective morality, and thus you have no leg to stand on when it is being done to you. Do we not, as ethno-nationalists with a generally more ecological bent, advocate for the independence and right of self-determination of all peoples (ourselves among them), and thus consider expansionistic aims as immoral?

The question is interesting, although in this case (and many others) it's often posed with a bias against the "Eternal Anglo" and thus can't possibly be discussed with sincerity. Is it morally reprehensible for people's to expand at the expense of those around them, does this lead to some schizophrenic moral quandry undermining the imposition of objective morality that society requires to function? I would say no. On a basic level, did the various Indian tribes like the Apache, Comanche etc, who marauded constantly through the Pueblo Indian lands (forcing them into the famous dwellings upon mesas) have such qualms? What of the Japanese Empire prior to its defeat in WWII? I wonder if Hideki Tojo waxed poetic about his Imperial Nietzschean aims in contrast with traditional Japanese society and Shintoism. What of Russian expansion eastward through Siberia and beyond, or the German Drang nach Osten in the middle ages? Perhaps someone should've told the Teutonic Knights how much they were discrediting objective morality.

What I mean by this, is that it just seems to be the rhythm of history. I no more believe in moralising it as some grand Faustian need to conquer and subjugate the peoples of the world, than I do something in need of complete and utter moral condemnation. At some point, it just is what it is: human nature. It does get at something quite interesting about human nature, though. In many ways Nietzsche was wrong, but certainly he did identify something fascinatingly true in the concept of the man who is able to transgress traditional morality to just exercise power - to make the decision. Men like this are often in control of the direction of history for better or worse: Napoleon or Stalin, for example. This element does play a key part in imperialism or expansionism, this is true. The justification for Britain taking Australia was quite simply that they could, no more than the justification for any other nation's conquest. It does get romanticised, and often not wrongly: "we had to take this land to secure resources or land for our excess population so our nation might survive". With the passage of time, this will be no different in hindsight to the Vikings settling Iceland or Greenland, or invading Britain merely for soil or to pillage like the Anglo-Saxons once did.

At some point, you certainly do need the might just to prove your right. I don't think this situation is anything like the dire consequences of utilitarian Nietzschean ethic that Dostoyevsky foresaw in his story of Raskolnikov and the pawnbroker - believing that in his murder of her for her money, something he believed could be used for good (preventing his sister from being pushed into an undesirable marriage), he was no different to Napoleon, abandoning an army in Egypt or leading men to to their deaths in Russia. Perspective is necessary.

Myself, I do sympathise with the right of self-determination for all peoples. I do think it tragic that peoples like the Indians had their way of life completely destroyed and now live isolated on reservations where they tend to die due to suicide and alcoholism. However, the fact is that we are born into a people, an ethnos, and we are bound by blood ties to our people in our struggle for survival on the planet. In fact the only reason one can even admire the spirit of resistance in a vanquished people is precisely because they mirror the same loyalty to their own people. Sure, maybe I wouldn't like it done to me, but it's precisely because human history tells is it could be done to us that in advance we do it ourselves. You can no more counter this than anti-racist idiots think we can homogenise into one global human race. In fact, I feel like the question merely gets at another end of the White man's problem with altruism where he ends up self-negating, this time in another manner. Life is complicated, stuff happens, morality can get messy. If you find yourself tracing the morality of something to the point where you question your own right to existence, then you've probably gone astray.