Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 21 of 21

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

  1. #21
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Rędwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Online
    7 Hours Ago @ 04:44 AM
    Thrower of Rocks
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    185 Posts
    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.
    If only you knew how bad things really are

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Rędwald For This Useful Post:

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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


Posting Permissions

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