Alt. Right "Blood & Soil" Types Are Opposed To Western Civilization

[Impartial_Truth]

Does Japan have a right to exist as a race and culture? Do they have the right, hypothetically speaking, to resist being flooded with African, Latino, or Muslim immigrants and reduced to a minority in their own country without being labeled a racist?

If the answer is yes, than the same should be true for whites in America. America was founded as a European outpost. The founding fathers limited immigration to northern European nations. it wasn't until 1965 that democrats passed a new immigration law permitting immigrants from any nation.

Whites built America, its culture and institutions, fought its wars, and they didn't intend on just handing it over to mexican immigrants or anyone else. It is perfectly normal and natural for whites today to resist what is happening.

If Japan were being flooded with immigrants and the Japanese people were reduced to a minority they would resist that, rightfully so. But when whites are labeled as racist in America and Europe.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

Does Japan have a right to exist as a race and culture? Do they have the right, hypothetically speaking, to resist being flooded with African, Latino, or Muslim immigrants and reduced to a minority in their own country without being labeled a racist?

If the answer is yes, than the same should be true for whites in America. America was founded as a European outpost. The founding fathers limited immigration to northern European nations. it wasn't until 1965 that democrats passed a new immigration law permitting immigrants from any nation.

Whites built America, its culture and institutions, fought its wars, and they didn't intend on just handing it over to mexican immigrants or anyone else. It is perfectly normal and natural for whites today to resist what is happening.

If Japan were being flooded with immigrants and the Japanese people were reduced to a minority they would resist that, rightfully so. But when whites are labeled as racist in America and Europe.

Colors don't matter, people do; culture doesn't matter, principles do.

 

[PierzStyx]

If you don't have a place to be free you are not free, if those around you will kill or imprison you for acting free you are not free.

If freedom is the absence of tyranny then like the vacuum in the walls of a thermos it needs it's own space protected by walls.

You do not need a place to be free. You are born free. It is funny you talk about imprisonment and then suggest building walls around you will make you free. What is imprisonment other than being locked behind walls you will not or cannot exit? Your walls are a prison, the opposite of Liberty.

Further, your comments that freedom has struggled in ever culture is a telling truth. This suggests that no culture has ever been truly free, therefore freedom is not a culture. Not early America nor now. Indeed, insisting upon an enforced dominate culture is the opposite of freedom. Freedom is the power to think, act, and live in ways that your society opposes without them using violence against you to force you into conformity. Enforced culture demands that those who would be free are attacked, punished, even killed for using their freedom differently that what the cultural norms are. Yet, Liberty can exist in all cultures. Indeed, you cannot be truly said to be living "your culture" unless you have the freedom not to do so. A Mexican can embrace his cultural heritage right next to a Chinese person living theirs. Indeed, freedom allows for all cultures to exist and grow, competing in the marketplace of ideas to demonstrate that they benefit others the most and therefore drawing more voluntarily into their practices. What the Lefties call "cultural appropriation" is merely a function of a free market of ideas.

 

[wizardwatson]

Don't really understand why this collectivist-based deliberation about factions of political philosophy is in grassroots central.

 

[PierzStyx]

Does Japan have a right to exist as a race and culture? Do they have the right, hypothetically speaking, to resist being flooded with African, Latino, or Muslim immigrants and reduced to a minority in their own country without being labeled a racist?

If the answer is yes, than the same should be true for whites in America. America was founded as a European outpost. The founding fathers limited immigration to northern European nations. it wasn't until 1965 that democrats passed a new immigration law permitting immigrants from any nation.

Whites built America, its culture and institutions, fought its wars, and they didn't intend on just handing it over to mexican immigrants or anyone else. It is perfectly normal and natural for whites today to resist what is happening.

If Japan were being flooded with immigrants and the Japanese people were reduced to a minority they would resist that, rightfully so. But when whites are labeled as racist in America and Europe.

Pictured: The "Whites" Who Built America

As for the usage of violence against peaceful people to protect your "ideas:"

"Japan" is an imaginary collective. At that matters are individuals. Japan has no rights, it isn't a person. Therefore it has no rights to anything. Only human individuals have rights. And you have the right to decide who can and cannot enter property you privately own. But you have no right to regulate property you do not privately own in any way. You cannot decide who your neighbor has on their property. These ideas are called individualism and property rights and they are the core philosophical developments of "Western Civilization." Rejecting them and embracing barbaric "blood and soil" racial identity politics is to reject "Western Civilization" for the failed traditions of the past.

There is only one race- the human race. And you can't make that a minority.

 

[PierzStyx]

Freedom derives from culture as opposed to the other way around. Some cultures are more hostile to freedom than others. The rush to erase christian based precepts in American society is not being done by accident.

Every culture has articulated the ideas of freedom at one point or another, so this is simply not true. Tribalism -"blood and soil"- is hostile to freedom because freedom frees people from the mental, economic, and political dependence upon the tribal lords.

 

[PierzStyx]

Don't really understand why this collectivist-based deliberation about factions of political philosophy is in grassroots central.

Because how we address the ideas of Liberty will determine how we go forward. Philosophy is the central motivation for why and how we act.

 

[Lamp]

 

[wizardwatson]

Because how we address the ideas of Liberty will determine how we go forward. Philosophy is the central motivation for why and how we act.

If philosophy leads to action, then one would have to conclude that virtually everyone in this movement is horrible at philosophy given the level of activism.

That seems harsh. Some of you seem pretty sharp.

Action leads to action. A little to a lot. Now we could certainly discuss the philosophy of strategy and action in grassroots, that would be relevant, but that is what most so-called thinkers are horrible at. Thinkers who love thinking like to be proficient when they speak. They like to learn in private, then sing in public.

So outside of discussing actual strategies and ideas (and accompanying closely related philosophies of strategy and action) I would have to disagree with the idea that general philosophy should be considered "activism" and included in grassroots central.

It gives non-performing "engineer" types a central position where even a poorly performing worker is more valuable.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Colors don't matter, people do; culture doesn't matter, principles do.

Culture includes shared principles, our culture is based on the principles of liberty more than other cultures, many cultures are outright hostile to liberty.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You do not need a place to be free. You are born free.

By that definition the people of North Korea are "free", in fact it makes it impossible to not be "free", so you are "free" no matter what happens and have no right to complain.

You are not free if you don't have a place where you are able to exercise your freedoms without being punished for doing so.

It is funny you talk about imprisonment and then suggest building walls around you will make you free. What is imprisonment other than being locked behind walls you will not or cannot exit? Your walls are a prison, the opposite of Liberty.

My clothes are SO binding! If I don't go naked I might as well be in a straight jacket!
My house is a prison! If I don't tear it down and live in the field with the animals I am a prisoner!

Who said I/We can't or won't exit the walls temporarily or permanently if I/We want?

Further, your comments that freedom has struggled in ever culture is a telling truth. This suggests that no culture has ever been truly free, therefore freedom is not a culture. Not early America nor now.

Some cultures have embraced freedom more than others, if we can keep ours from being swamped by those who reject freedom we may yet build ours into perfect liberty or we may not but we will be more free than if we are overrun with leeches and tyrant lovers.

Indeed, insisting upon an enforced dominate culture is the opposite of freedom. Freedom is the power to think, act, and live in ways that your society opposes without them using violence against you to force you into conformity. Enforced culture demands that those who would be free are attacked, punished, even killed for using their freedom differently that what the cultural norms are.

Who said enforced? When I keep weeds out of my tomato patch they grow up as tomatoes without being forced, since we are talking about people they might deviate but that would be allowed, we also would let in some outsiders and hope that they would learn liberty.

Yet, Liberty can exist in all cultures. Indeed, you cannot be truly said to be living "your culture" unless you have the freedom not to do so. A Mexican can embrace his cultural heritage right next to a Chinese person living theirs. Indeed, freedom allows for all cultures to exist and grow, competing in the marketplace of ideas to demonstrate that they benefit others the most and therefore drawing more voluntarily into their practices. What the Lefties call "cultural appropriation" is merely a function of a free market of ideas.

Any culture can embrace liberty but many don't, unless or until they do it is not part of their culture and tyranny is, I don't mind if immigrants bring us tacos and egg foo young but the rest of the world is much less liberty loving than we are and if we let them all in at once we will no longer be better off than they are.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

The term used to have a very broad meaning encompassing a large group of people in the US, now it has a very narrow meaning and encompasses a few nutcases.

If anything the definition has become too broad. I've seen someone call a Democratic congresswoman (who isn't even white) from Hawaii alt-right.

 

[dannno]

If anything the definition has become too broad. I've seen someone call a Democratic congresswoman (who isn't even white) from Hawaii alt-right.

Before Charlotesville?

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Before Charlotesville?

Yes, that was before Charlottesville, but people on the left still use alt-right as a catch all category for people who have views that are similar to Donald Trump.

 

[dannno]

Yes, that was before Charlottesville, but people on the left still use alt-right as a catch all category for people who have views that are similar to Donald Trump.

People on the left also use Nazi and White Supremacist as a catch all category for people who have views that are similar to Donald Trump, are we going to let those retards define these terms in political discourse?

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

People on the left also use Nazi and White Supremacist as a catch all category for people who have views that are similar to Donald Trump, are we going to let those retards define these terms in political discourse?

No, and I won't let them define alt-right either. I'm just saying that there is a lot of misinformation out there and people who have nothing to do with the alt-right are labelled as such.

 

[Raginfridus]

The great march of history though is towards greater and greater liberty, and you can see its progress etched across the whole of human history even as it has floundered in some areas. As civilization grows the tribal barbarisms of the past become obsolete.

Prolix of a 19th century magician. Human History is only as great as the poets who write it allow, nor does history advance in any direction, or toward anything in particular - except for a cosmic drain at the end of time (if there is an end).

[MENTION=33507]PierzStyx[/MENTION] conception of Liberty as this "always new" thing only differs from the tribal blot, such as burning old man winter in effigy, in that his concept of Liberty strictly lives in concept, whereas Spring is a real "always new."

 

[PierzStyx]

Prolix of a 19th century magician. Human History is only as great as the poets who write it allow, nor does history advance in any direction, or toward anything in particular - except for a cosmic drain at the end of time (if there is an end).

[MENTION=33507]PierzStyx[/MENTION] conception of Liberty as this "always new" thing only differs from the tribal blot, such as burning old man winter in effigy, in that his concept of Liberty strictly lives in concept, whereas Spring is a real "always new."

Concepts and ideas are the only things that matter. If the 21st century has lost it, there is no greater time to rebirth it.

And liberty is the antithesis of tribalism. Whereas tribalism demands all wills bend to the demands of the collective, liberty demands individualism. You can have community with tribalism and society without collectivism.

 

[Raginfridus]

Beware that your concepts do not become new (old) gods.