Are there any historical situations similar to ours?

submitted by [deleted] from (self.debatealtright)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]DoubleReverse 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

There have been countless times throughout history where the formerly privileged class is resentful of a changing social dynamic. You can read about what the czarists though of the bolsheviks, the European response to colonial uprisings, the writings of deposed monarchs,, so on so forth. The general sentiment always amounts to "I feel entitled to special treatment and the fact that I'm not receiving it is unfair."

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That is not what is happening in the West. The changing social dynamic is being driven by the elite.

[–]DoubleReverse 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Regardless of who you blame it on, the essence of the conflict is the same. You feel entitled to special treatment that you're not recieving.

[–]AFutureConcern 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Ordinarily I find accusations of "entitlement" to be utterly baseless, but weirdly, in this case, it fits. Yes, we are entitled to our own homelands; we are entitled to make decisions regarding immigration - at least on paper. In theory, the public will to restrict immigration should have been respected, to preserve our collective ownership over our lands. In reality, democracy is a lie, and the elite sold us out for their high-minded bourgeois notions of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, equality and diversity. The elite, not grounded in blood and soil, not rooted in the tradition of the nations they govern, saw no value in tradition and heritage, they saw no reason to preserve the very lands they rule over. Hence they grounded their values in "progress"; the expansion of techno-capital and the erasure of "outdated" traditions, ideas and distinctions between peoples - and in doing so, they stole our inheritance that we were entitled to.

[–]DoubleReverse 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

But you are NOT entitled to persecute other people or treat them as second class citizens.

[–]AFutureConcern 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Firstly, "persecute" is a strong word for simply not letting people into our countries, and we're absolutely entitled to do that anyway.

Secondly, some people simply are second-class citizens. People flying "economy" are not treated the same as those in first-class - because they are literally second-class travelers. Similarly, the interests of the native people come first, with the interests of those with less of a stake in the country coming, yes, second.

Second-class doesn't mean we treat people horribly, or that we are mean or violent toward them. It does mean that we weight their interests lower, just like we provide the best food to the first-class passengers on a flight.

(I should also note that it's white people who are treated as second-class citizens in our own countries as it stands; so even the classical liberals are on our side in fighting anti-whiteism.)

[–]DoubleReverse 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Firstly, "persecute" is a strong word for simply not letting people into our countries, and we're absolutely entitled to do that anyway.

Don't pretend you are just against immigration, there are plenty of minorities who already live here.

Secondly, some people simply are second-class citizens.

No. They are a citizen or they aren't. No excuses.