Hypothetical: If a small European country elected Hitler, would you immediately move there?

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I definitely made this thread to explore the ethics of immigration.

In particular, we are living in unprecedented times that makes retaking certain White countries nigh impossible.

For example, South Africa is without a doubt a lost cause. The millions of Whites who still live there are never getting Apartheid back, so that just leaves them with gated communities until the economy totally collapses. In which case, the Blacks are going to eat them alive.

Or in Canada, every major political party supports White replacement. Even if you tried running for politics as a nationalist, like how Faith Goldy did, the media is allowed to censor your campaign and even SUE you for it too.

https://nationalpost.com/news/faith-goldy-ordered-to-pay-bell-media-more-than-43000-in-legal-fees

So that begs the question of what can really be done except, move somewhere else that is more friendly to nationalist ideas? Even though again, it does present a hypocritical scenario. If a bunch of Canadians and White South Africans move to Europe, what happens when the Native Europeans are now a minority? How do we settle these types of culture clashes?

[–]Lugger 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (17 children)

South Africa is without a doubt a lost cause

South Africa was never a 'white country' though.

I believe, at its peak, the SA's white population was only 20% or something?

Did they really think the society and order they'd created was sustainable when blax made up such a large share of the country's population throughout the entire history?

The way I see it, white SAs pay the price for being such complete & utter morons: imagine believing you get to keep your country when the foreign, hostile racial group outnumbers you four to one at best.

South Africa is a reminder of everything that went wrong with European colonialism put in a single country, and I have little sympathy for white SAs, especially considering the fact that, despite everything they experience(d), most of them are still anti-racist liberals (just like whites in any Western country).

So that begs the question of what can really be done except, move somewhere else that is more friendly to nationalist ideas? Even though again, it does present a hypocritical scenario. If a bunch of Canadians and White South Africans move to Europe, what happens when the Native Europeans are now a minority? How do we settle these types of culture clashes?

How? Don't let white people from America and Australia (EDIT: and South Africa as well of course, forgot to mention this one) migrate back to Europe.

I haven't really put much though into whether it's acceptable for whites from ex-colonies to move to other ex-colonies, but, since mass white immigration was always a part of their history, and white people currently inhabiting them are European mutts anyway, I don't see a massive problem with it as I do with them moving to Europe.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Demographics have close to zero effect on the character of the state, this is something determined entirely by power. A brief look through world history will easily confirm that for you. Typically, a small minority rules over the vast majority. This minority can be as small as 1%-2% of the population and it is its style of government that imbues a given state with its character.

[–]Lugger 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Of course.

And yet, it's hard to call a country 'white' when white people were always such a small fragment of the population.

'White-controlled' or 'white-dominated' — sure, but not 'white'.

And white South Africans were unbelievably dumb for thinking they could keep it that way.

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Why do you think so? Didn't they lose their grip on the country because of the coordinated and determined sabotage of the entire northern hemisphere rather than any domestic factors?

[–]Lugger 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Because sooner or later they'd have to deal with the black problem, either by ending discrimination like they did or by deporting them.

And the latter would be near impossible to achieve due to the vast majority of the country being black.

The South Africa was doomed from the start; how many more years do you think the old regime would have lasted without the pressure from Western Countries? 30, 40 years?

Yeah, a minority may rule over a majority if that group that wields vast power, but this scenario is impossible to sustain when the privileged minority belongs to a different racial group.

Remember Haiti? Black folk just risen up and massacred their white masters. This would have been the fate of South Africa had the Apartheid not ended; frankly, there's still a possibility of it happening today, but white SAs got only themselves to blame.

[–]NeoRail 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I do not see how your claims can be reconciled with history. To give you just one example among many, the Islamic caliphates in Spain lasted centuries even though Muslims formed a small minority.

Haiti is an interesting example, but I don't think it is comparable. Firstly, if my memory serves me right, the Haitian slave revolt exploited a political crisis, more specifically the dissolution of central authority caused by the French Revolution. In fact, all successful anti-colonial movements of recent times seem to be heavily reliant on political crisis in the West in order to obtain victory. Secondly, the living conditions of Haitian slaves were, to my knowledge, utterly atrocious and entirely different from those of South Africa.

[–]Lugger 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I do not see how your claims can be reconciled with history. To give you just one example among many, the Islamic caliphates in Spain lasted centuries even though Muslims formed a small minority.

Sure thing man. History has a shitton of examples of a small ethnic/racial minority ruling over a massive number of foreign people.

What they all have in common is that eventually the people boot the foreign overlords out, either by military means, or by taking advantage of the political turmoil in the capital.

Secondly, the living conditions of Haitian slaves were, to my knowledge, utterly atrocious and entirely different from those of South Africa.

Yeah, and white SAs didn't face the same fate as white Haitians either.

[–]NeoRail 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

What they all have in common is that eventually the people boot the foreign overlords out, either by military means, or by taking advantage of the political turmoil in the capital.

That's not really true, in many cases what happens instead is an external force invades or destabilises the country, like what happened in India for example. However it's important to note that "eventually" is not a very useful category to work with. According to this same logic, all monoethnic societies "eventually" collapse. It's technically true, but it's not a very useful observation.

[–]Lugger 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

However it's important to note that "eventually" is not a very useful category to work with. According to this same logic, all monoethnic societies "eventually" collapse. It's technically true, but it's not a very useful observation.

I'll put it another way.

A 'monoethnic society', depending on various factorts, may or may not 'eventually' collapse.

An order based on having a small racial minority rule over a majority of people of other race(s) is 100% bound to crumble due to the very rotten nature of such a foundation, which is, as I have said, unsustainable.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And white South Africans were unbelievably dumb for thinking they could keep it that way.

They only lost when they released Mandela from prison and held a nation wide election in 1994 that included Black voters.

Otherwise, they won every military engagement against the rebels, and built nuclear bombs to stop the U.S, China or USSR from directly invading them.

The only reason you don't hear about the bombs today, is because the Apartheid regime dismantled them before handing over power.

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

Yeah, they could have still held out back in 1990s perhaps.

My point is, the regime itself was unsustainable and would have crumbled sooner or later just because it's very foundation was rotten and antithetical to what makes a successfull country.