Do you believe it is morally hypocritical to be fine with the ethnic replacement of Native Americans but oppose the Jewish replacement of Palestinians?

submitted by Nasser from self.debatealtright

In discussions with leftists about the colonization of the US this is their common argument that since Whites ethnically replaced the Native Americans and "stole" their land that we should be fine with mass non White immigration and White Americans should be ashamed of their nations/peoples history and identity.

The common counter argument to this is the idea of right of conquest which is valid as well as the fact their populations were mostly reduced radically through lack of immunity to disease rather than Whites supposedly genociding them. However a counter argument I've seen used is that it is hypocritical to be fine with this colonization but morally opposed/repulsed by the Nazi generalplan Ost or their alleged plan to wipe out and ethnically replace the people of Eastern Europe.

This thread here on reddit which is pretty based with Whites fighting back against the established narrative, has this argument splashed throughout it - https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/17r8pr8/native_american_land_loss_in_the_usa/

Since users here mostly don't believe the Nazi's planned that, we'll use the Jewish colonization of Palestine which most White nationalists oppose. Now some are out of spite towards Jews and their actions to deny the ability of Whites to self advocate and form pro White nations like Israel is for Jews, a good chunk of White Nationalists like the NJP do appear to have sympathy for the Palestinian people and oppose their ethnic replacement. How do you reconcile opposing that (or generalplan Ost if you do) while being okay with ethnic replacement of Native Americans?

all 18 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

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

I am not a universalist, I take the side that I am white and anything white people do to increase our territory or racial interests is good. Taking North America has been a net positive for white people and so it was good and just. Israel and jews are a net negative to white people so I take any side that is fighting against them

[–]IkeConn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Being white makes you right.

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

First off, I don't really care about Israel situation. My take is to look at what's best for us and that is return to status quo - meaning situation before Oct 7. We don't want Israelis bombing Gaza to the ground and sending two million arab muslims our way and we also don't want Hezbollah or Hamas or Iran wiping out Israel and sending six million jews our way.

That being said it wouldn't be hypocritical for someone to jewish settlement in Palestine while being fine with white settlement North America. The latter happened centuries before any of us living had any say about it while Israel situation is happening right now.

[–]WhiteZealotWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It depends on what your system of morality is. My system of morality is: Always act in your own genetic interests.

It's not necessarily hypocritical for me to say I don't want jews to conquer Palestinians but I want Whites to conquer a certain tribe. Whether it's hypocritical of me or not depends on whether I know that either of those two positions are against my genetic interests.

[–]William_World 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

both should have built a wall. white americans are getting ethnically cleansed if they can't stop it

[–]Nasser[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

That doesn't answer my question at all.

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

sorry yeah i thought it was more rhetorical and to start a discussion

it's complex. Were the native americans thnically replaced? they're still around. But they did lose some land. Did jews replace palestineans? Did jews originally live in israel?

Some books I have read about this are From Time Immemorial and The invention of the Jewish People

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Palestinians are Arabs. They have a home in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Khuzestan, Yemen, Kuwait, etc.

Their land dispute with Israel is mostly due to jihadi religious reasons. There is plenty of land for them, but they want mooslim night ascension rocks.

Tldr Palestinian holy War not the same as crazy horse.

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

damn lol

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

There would have been many ways for the Jews to get rid of the Palestinians without creating the fucking mess both sides are on nowadays...

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

like killing them all before? not realistic. There's more than 2 billion muslims all surrounding that region. They don't all care about the people in Gaza but they do send funds and arms there all the time because their people demand it. People since Alexander the great have thought about that problem but they can't all be wiped out. And that'd be fighting evil with evil anyway.

[–]HibikiBlackCaudillo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Genocide isn't what I had in mind either way... A solution could have been splitting the country in half.

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

isn't that what letting them have gaza and west bank already is? Israel would still have to worry about rockets and terrorist attacks coming from where ever the muslims are. This has been discussed and debated a lot thru the years but that is the main problem.

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

It's a completely different situation. The narrative that whites genocided the natives in America is a racist lie. Their population collapsed largely from Cocoliztli epidemics -- a native disease.

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

What was the name of the Israeli operation to create an ethnic bomb?

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

Israel was founded in 1948, when a lot of modern laws and treaties were created. So no, they don't actually have a right to colonize Palestine and occupy other territory (it's why they returned the Sinai to Egypt after all).

Europeans arrived in the American continent long before there was a United Nations, and it was considered normal to still be allowed to conquer territory.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Everytime you post here you're really long winded and not clear with what you're asking. What are you trying to say??

we'll use the Jewish colonization of Palestine which most White nationalists oppose

Most Europeans oppose it not just 'white nationalists'. Genocide is a shitty word charged up by holocaust propaganda. Genocide seems to only be thrown around when talking about white history to shame whites for surviving and thriving.

How do you reconcile opposing that (or generalplan Ost if you do) while being okay with ethnic replacement of Native Americans?

90% of natives living in North America were dead in a generation of exposure to European explorers. That's not the Europeans fault. Nobody at the time understand contagious disease very well. Pre and post small pox epidemic 90% of natives were at war with each other and engaged in genocide towards each other. A waring and quickly depopulating area is going to be conquered by whites or by someone else. And let's be honest, who really made a lot of the decisions to keep putting natives and small and smaller reservations? Who made the decision to go to war with them on the Prairie? Not 'whites' not 'Europeans' but a small group of government officials tied to elite families that for the most part hate everyone but themselves. Not every European was a blind expansionist or pro conquering and colonizing. The Germans had almost no colonies and constantly discouraged it.

Natives were absolutely genocided but not in the same way the Palestinians are being genocided. Whites are currently being genocided by the Jewish merchant class and their traitor allies. That's my concern right now. Not some historical argument. Not some weird moralizing argument. Jews don't give a shit about morality. The seem to only care about accumulation and get everyone around them to fight and die against each other so they can profit.

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

I'm asking the question in the title, the body of the post is just context.