Sean Last vs Destiny On Immigration

submitted by literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism from self.debatealtright

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5oz6TsxfXE

Thought I'd post in case anyone missed it and can stomach sitting through 2 hours of that awful little hobgoblin. Last did well.

all 12 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Empire_Earth 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks - I hadn't heard of this debate. Sean Last is a genius

[–]Girondin 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I missed it, I did check destiny subreddit and there barely talking about it, people there say Sean Last won or they say it was a aimless snorefest. This seems to be better then Sean Last last discussion with destiny some years ago.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Didn't listen but the comments said that destiny accepted many points like racial differences in IQ and heritability of intelligence and crime.

I get the feeling that many white libs like Destiny and Vaush are starting to feel the heat and are realizing that their diverse friends despise them and want them dead.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah destiny was surprisingly acquiescent towards many of Last's points and didn't try to just steamroll him with snark and a flurry of words which was refreshing.

TBH he looked like he'd forgotten to pick up his adderall refill.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

TBH he looked like he'd forgotten to pick up his adderall refill.

lol

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

Sean wasn't that good in my opinion. At one point he was almost espousing Whig historiography when he said that there's a global historical trend towards an expansion of borders and that rightists who tried to reverse that are out of their mind. He mentioned that this trend was mostly caused by military power and technology, which is just begging the question. It's political power that matters, not military power or technology. At the end of the day, the expansion of borders - which is what we've generally seen throughout history - is a direct consequence of decisions made at the highest political level. It wasn't some inevitability that just occurred because of military power or technology. The political elites deliberately decided to move in that direction. Furthermore, there have been several events in the last century alone that have actually reversed the trend of expanding borders. The first example is the collapse of the League of Nations and the rise of fascism. Now obviously the UN was formed and fascism lost, but that wasn't an inevitability. And the second example is the collapse of the Soviet Union. That event caused a massive contraction of borders, not an expansion. You can even make the argument that the current era is also seeing the beginning of another contraction with the decline of US hegemony. So no, it's not inevitable and anyone who wants to reverse it is not out of his mind.

By the way, he almost never called out Jews when it came to the anti-white narrative. It was very frustrating to watch.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's political power that matters, not military power or technology. At the end of the day, the expansion of borders - which is what we've generally seen throughout history - is a direct consequence of decisions made at the highest political level.

Rulers throughout history have always wanted to continually expand borders and add greater control over their subjects. Technology didn't allow it.

The invention of the musket and artillery allowed states to raise large standing armies and centralize. Local lords could no longer frustrate the king in years-long sieges and the King did not have to rely on nobles who were trained in horsemanship from birth and could afford armor. He could simply raise an army of peasants and easily arm and train them in musketry and defeat noble rebels. This led to the creation of strong centralized states under a king/parliament.

Similarly, the ability of armies to fight far away from their heartlands was enhanced by the invention of the railway and sailships. Rome at its height controlled 1/4th of the world's population yet could never exert much force into Persia or Ukraine, simply due to the logistical difficulties in maintaining an army that far away.

These changes lead to a shrinkage in the number of states from the medieval age up to ww1. In 1450, there were thousands of states in Europe. And tens of thousands of de facto states. In countries like France, large duchies like Burgundy, Brittany, and Flanders were often de facto independent. In 1871, this had shrunk to about 14 states.

Napoleon and Hitler could not invade Britain in their times and thus their politics were tailored to adjust to that reality. However, imperial France or Nazi Germany could invade Britain today due to the advent of the helicopter and guided missile.

In past, maintaining a standing army was difficult due to the risk of caesarian generals. Today it's easy due to radio communications, wiretapping, and videotaping.

The advent of nukes has made great power wars unlikely and has allowed the world to splinter into rival power blocs: US, EU, Russia, China, India, etc. Without nukes, it's likely there would only be one or two power blocs while the rest would've been conquered.

This has led to a state of frozen conflict where it became increasingly difficult for the great powers to enter wars of annexation in fear of coming into conflict with rival great powers. This has in turn led to an increase in the number of states. The USSR was not able to stop its own dissolution in large part out of fear of American intervention.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah I agree that people often cite a phenomenon that seems to happen often with one that is inevitable process of history and it annoys me too. That or they confuse a deliberate act like mass immigration with something that 'just happened this way because that's how the modern world is.'

By the way, he almost never called out Jews when it came to the anti-white narrative.

In fairness to him Last and Alt-Hype did do an about turn on that issue and publish some very good counter-Semitic articles but the reason they don't discuss it on that channel is because the host requests they don't. They don't want to get banned which is understandable.

[–]Fonched 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Can anyone think back to the debate vs. Nick Fuentes? How would one compare this vs. the previous one, where Destiny made a lot of bold points against Nick?

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I only vaguely remember it. Definitely don't remember any 'bold points' being made. Lots of snark and speciousness though.

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

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rm7VSA09Pr4PEhQB628CTKYzmR1lzUZSd8PT4LteFxE/edit Here is the document. Destiny claimed more Americans were in favor of lifting immigration restrictions in the 1960s than were against, immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than Whites, among comparing immigration to other things that are a net benefit despite its dangers (like driving, firearm use etc.)

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

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rm7VSA09Pr4PEhQB628CTKYzmR1lzUZSd8PT4LteFxE/edit Here is the document. Destiny claimed more Americans were in favor of lifting immigration restrictions in the 1960s than were against, immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than Whites, among comparing immigration to other things that are a net benefit despite its dangers (like driving, firearm use etc.)