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