Slavs aren't white.

submitted by MisterQ from self.debatealtright

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You didn't by any chance catch the debate between Keith woods (nationalist, isolationist) vs an anglo imperialist? The imperialist actually made some damn good arguments for international white imperium. I still lean with keith and the ethno nationalists but it's always worth keeping the option open for total world domination if 'they' won't leave us alone.

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/XyqLUKl0sMHt/

    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Keith Woods (and by extension also Slav Morality) really went mask-off in that debate. I already knew that Keith Woods has this kind of (stereotypically Irish) submissive third worldist sense of "nationalism", but I held him in much higher regard and didn't expect him to be nearly as crazy as he's shown himself to be in this debate.

    Whenever Keith Woods or Slav Morality opened their mouth, it literally sounded like an anti-white Jew or brown person was talking. They don't seem to have any racial ingroup preference, to the point where they accuse Nativist Concern (the Anglo) of lacking a moral compass for not wanting white people to get BTFO'd by the rest of the world, even though ingroup preference (just like a moral compass) are literally traits we've evolved to have since the dawn of time.

    Futhermore, near the end of the debate, Slav Morality brings up a very weird argument that in order to be pro-white, you're obligated to pick between the (supposedly mutually exclusive) ideas of white people as either gravitating towards their family and community (blood and soil) but with no will to power, or as conquerors but with no sense of connection to their homeland. This is a very disingenuous false dichotomy of him: In reality, both the blood and soil mindset and the conqueror mindset are just different expressions of the same underlying trait: ingroup preference, and usually rather tend to go hand in hand. He didn't back up this ridiculous argument either; the reason for why we'd have to either pick blood and soil nationalism or imperialism/colonialism and reject the other seemed to boil down to "because I say so".

    [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    This is a very disingenuous false dichotomy of him: In reality, both the blood and soil mindset and the conqueror mindset are just different expressions of the same underlying trait: ingroup preference, and usually rather tend to go hand in hand.

    I wanted to scream this while listening to the debate. These two white traits are closely related. Although there are lots of people with high ingroup preference that don't exhibit either. It just seems to be a unique expression in whites.

    I'd go easy on Keith here. I don't think he was intentionally framing it this way. I just think he was trying to get the anglo imperialist to flush out his full views and by doing so Keith needed to over emphasize the blood and soil side. Keith has the brains on him that he could probably argue the imperial side just as effectively.

    He didn't back up this ridiculous argument either; the reason for why we'd have to either pick blood and soil nationalism or imperialism/colonialism and reject the other seemed to boil down to "because I say so".

    Agreed. I thought the anglo imperialists won that debate but again it was a friendly debate.

    The bottom line is that you really can't protect 'blood and soil' if you don't have some type of international presence, information network and projection of power. Blood and soil can only be preserved when there are constant new lands and new challenges to mold and shape the next generation of warrior explorers. That's another big reason the white race is struggling. We've lost our frontiers. We are no longer challenged. It's no coincidence the British people were at their healthiest and strongest as they were conquering the oceans and the Americans as they were conquering the west. You might enjoy reading about Fredrick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Thesis