iF that’s what you found key in what I wrote, I’m not sure I can help you. I will say though, that what you’re saying in this thread mirrors what you’re saying in the other thread, the abortion one I think. You’ve identified correctly that the left is the enemy of western civilization, and you’re rejecting all their tactics and terminology. In this thread, you’re reacting to the fact that they call everything they don’t like ‘racist’ by embracing all these things as if they are as equivalent as they’d like you to believe. In that other thread, you’re reacting to the fact that they call everything they like “a fundamental human right” by insisting talk of rights are just a word game people play to maintain order.
To me, the fundamental lie of the left is the equivocation, which you seem to be buying: If everything is racist, nothing is. If everything is a right, nothing is. Don’t reject rights, don’t reject the existence of immoral racism; reject the political manipulations of the left that created the equivocation in the first place.
The issue is, I can’t convince you to do this, because if I try to explain to you why, I don’t know, Nazis are bad or free speech is good or whatever, I’m going to be using the same terminology the left poisoned, and you’ll reject me as a cuckservative or whatever. So your only solution is to ‘go back in time’, i.e., read works that were written before the left started playing this game. See what racism was before the left called border security racist. See what rights were before the left called internet access a fundamental right. The problem with that, is that the left also tries to control your access to your own history. In order for you to get this information, you have to pass through a screen of progressive opinion telling you that you’re an immoral person, and the things you’re about to read are immoral, and that you better keep it a secret or you’ll be punished. That keeps most people from even bothering to try, but it does mean that the few people who DO try are willing to be moral rebels, which means they’re going to be open to things that should rightly be condemned.
Spiritual, or ideological, or social, or moral. Sure, obedience to God would be a non-material end, but so is liberty. So the alternative to the left might be spiritual but need not be. What I’m referring to is one of the key facets of socialism; that a society is measured by who has what. That’s what socialism exists; because a few people having a lot of wealth and many people having no wealth is a failure-situation regardless of other circumstances, and they try to rectify it to a ‘everybody has about the same amount of stuff’ which is a victory condition for them, regardless of other circumstances. In other words, if you are evaluating civilization by the criteria of who has the most shit, then you’ve already ceded a lot of ground to the socialist…and it’s not the only place you do so in your ideas.
Your first clause doesn’t entail the second. A conservative probably does hold liberty, charity, mercy and other things to be equally valuable, and yet acknowledges that some of them have to be sacrificied for the others from time to time anyway. This is known as the tragic view of life, it’s key to conservatism. It’s just a recognition that society isn’t perfectable. Safety is valuable, Freedom is valuable. You can’t get enough of one without sacrificing some of the other. Whichever way you go, the sacrifice is still lamentable. Too bad. Recognition of this destroys the idea of society getting better and better to some ultimate utopian point, put forward first I think by Kant.
A socialist (or a libertarian or facist for that matter) will try to pick one of these values, declare that it is THE value, and argue for why the others should always be sacrificed in the name of the one, until the one is maximized at all costs.
The fundamental principles aren’t the problem, and don’t reveal the success or failure of a system, though. Communism is fucking wonderful according to it’s fundamental principles: it fails in the limitations of human implementation, and on the meta-level of how people react to finding themselves in a communist state with communist rules to follow and exploit.
There is a similar argument for why free markets are a good thing: because people deciding what they want and how much they are willing to pay for it will always be a more accurate representation of reality than a few big brains deciding how everything ought to be according to a handful of ‘fundamental principles’.
That’s a handy defense mechanism, isn’t it? “Most people consider my ideas odious, therefore anybody who disagrees me with me must be reacting to how odious they think my ideas are.” You see the same thing out of pedophiles and such. They look for any opportunity to dismiss what you say as a mere reaction to the revolting nature of what they advocate, no matter how salient your points are.
Reproductive success is certainly very important: there’s not much point in a political schema that makes everybody happy, but wipes them all out in a generation. On the other hand, there’s no much point in a political schema that results in a huge population of miserable, ignorant degenerates that hate their lives and never create or discover anything. “Yeah but at least that horrible society will last and last” I suppose is a point in it’s favor, but it’s hardly sufficient to give it a thumbs-up.
People tend to create groups around their traits and interests. Race and sex are real things, but people also define ‘their kind’ according to ephemeral things or just plain made up things, too. This is another way in which you are accepting a basic tenet of socialism: the idea that history and society is defined by a series of demographic groups or ‘classes’ perpetually in some sort of conflict with each other. Original marxists did it with economic ‘classes’, today’s SJW variety does it with race and gender.
Why a white nationalist, and not just a nationalist? Or, why not an atheist nationalist or a whatever-else-you-are nationalist? Of all the demographics you belong to, to pick your ancestry as the one that needs to be promoted and preserved at all costs isn’t a purely objective or clear-cut decision as far as I can tell, so it seems there should be more to it than that. Sure, the easy answer is “I’m a white nationalist because I’m white and so white people’s interests are my interests”, but you could replace the word ‘white’ in that sentence with any number of things. Like for example the Real IRA could be described as Catholic Nationalists. Were they wrong to focus on a thing other than race, or is it just a matter of preference?
Yeah, people are absolutely seeking out the end of the white race, they broadcast their intentions on television and the news for all to see. I actually disagree with them, though. I don’t merely think they’re wiping out the wrong people, I think that seeking to wipe out a race is immoral regardless.
eath camps or not, extermination occurs anyway, and yes, there is ALWAYS violence involved in extermination, as violence is involved in all matters concerning life.
Sure, life is inherently violent, but it is not only violent. Just like equality (or reproduction or safety or whatever) may be good, but it’s not the only thing that is good.