Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

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

  1. #11
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Eastern
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Posts
    3,943
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9,600
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    425
    Thanked in
    372 Posts
    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.

  2. #12
    Retarded in mysterious ways
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Žoreišar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    1 Hour Ago @ 07:38 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Gender
    Posts
    2,795
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,899
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,937
    Thanked in
    983 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Coillearnach View Post
    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.
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Žoreišar For This Useful Post:


  4. #13
    Senior Member
    Winterland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 4th, 2021 @ 04:57 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German; Scot-Irish; Scandinavian
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Coastal region
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Free Lance
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    407
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    319
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    237
    Thanked in
    173 Posts
    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.

  5. #14
    Senior Member
    Coillearnach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Online
    Monday, October 12th, 2020 @ 08:16 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Celtic
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Vagrant
    Politics
    Nativism/Nationalism
    Religion
    Summum bonum
    Posts
    426
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    397
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    397
    Thanked in
    193 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Žoreišar View Post
    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.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Coillearnach For This Useful Post:


  7. #15
    6th army lives matter
    Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,820
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,260
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,322
    Thanked in
    1,534 Posts
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coillearnach
    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.
    “As brothers and sisters we knew instinctively that if we were going to stand in darkness, best we stand in a darkness we had made ourselves.” - Douglas Coupland

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chlodovech For This Useful Post:


  9. #16
    Retarded in mysterious ways
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Žoreišar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    1 Hour Ago @ 07:38 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Gender
    Posts
    2,795
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,899
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,937
    Thanked in
    983 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Coillearnach View Post
    I don't come at this from a standpoint of complete moral relativism, [...]
    Neither do I, but rather moral subjectivism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coillearnach View Post
    [...] 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coillearnach View Post
    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.
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  10. #17
    Senior Member
    Coillearnach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Online
    Monday, October 12th, 2020 @ 08:16 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Celtic
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Vagrant
    Politics
    Nativism/Nationalism
    Religion
    Summum bonum
    Posts
    426
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    397
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    397
    Thanked in
    193 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Žoreišar View Post
    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.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Coillearnach For This Useful Post:


  12. #18
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Eastern
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Posts
    3,943
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9,600
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    425
    Thanked in
    372 Posts
    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.

  13. #19
    Retarded in mysterious ways
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Žoreišar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    1 Hour Ago @ 07:38 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Gender
    Posts
    2,795
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,899
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,937
    Thanked in
    983 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Coillearnach View Post
    I don't hold this view either...
    From what do your morals derive their substance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Coillearnach View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coillearnach View Post
    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.
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  14. #20
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    KYAnglo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 03:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    England/Britain
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Y-DNA
    R1b>U106>L48
    mtDNA
    H3af
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    The Pennyrile
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Single parent
    Occupation
    Paying the bills
    Politics
    Confederate
    Religion
    Folkish Heathen
    Posts
    934
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    340
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    450
    Thanked in
    298 Posts
    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.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to KYAnglo For This Useful Post:


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, April 2nd, 2018, 03:30 PM
  2. The Least & The Most Racist Countries in Europe
    By Northern Paladin in forum Immigration & Multiculturalism
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: Wednesday, March 29th, 2017, 04:52 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, August 9th, 2012, 05:11 PM
  4. Germanics in South Africa Back in Europe
    By Teuton in forum Southern Africa
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 08:16 AM
  5. Future of Europe/USA?
    By DreamWalker in forum Questions About Germanics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 06:54 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •