Sean Last vs Destiny On Immigration

submitted by literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism from self.debatealtright

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.