Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times
IDEOLOGY AND ETHICS SURVEY SAMPLE ARGUMENTS

20.
 Why should a society have the right to determine it's own destiny?


(- 5) An ethical issues-related viewpoint: All societies have a right to self-determination, although we must make some exceptions to revenge certain past wrongs and favor certain protected groups. In order to accomplish this task, we must focus on the broad ideological picture rather than examine the mechanics of popular sovereignty for each society (see the opposing viewpoint). The 19th century was a period when whites ruled most of the planet and colonized much of the nonwhite world. Although some cases involved mutually beneficial partnerships, we must focus on those that involved brutal subjugation and oppression of nonwhite peoples. The 20th century was a period when the white world was turned on its head and began to systematically demolish all forms of white rule and colonization everywhere. We must continue this process in order to achieve global "social justice," even if it means practicing extreme double standards where we undermine all forms of white nationalism while simultaneously aiding all forms of nonwhite nationalism, the most important of which is Jewish nationalism (Zionism) in Israel. In fact, Zionism requires special support because of the specialness of the Jewish people and their long history of persecution. Support includes suppression of all forms of criticism of Jewish power in the white world. It also includes overlooking the fact that Zionism might at times constitute a peculiarly authoritarian, aggressive, and even criminal form of nationalism very much at odds with the decentralized, classical liberal principles which defined early American nationalism. It includes forcing Germans to pay reparations to all real or imagined "Holocaust survivors" and their descendents in perpetuity. It includes actively supporting Marxist nonwhite revolutionary groups that seek to not only end white self-rule, but also erect brutal nonwhite dictatorships over whites and eventually expel or genocide them. This has already taken place in Zimbabwe (the former Rhodesia) and is well under way now in South Africa. In European countries, whites need to be conditioned to accept collective security arrangements such as NATO or joint economic agreements such as the EU rather than focus on the traditional brands of white nationalism favored by their ancestors. Lastly, to seriously cripple all forms of white nationalism for good, we must condition whites to passively accept their own racial suicide. A good example of this is Race Traitor magazine promulgated by the Jewish professor Noel Ignatiev at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. He openly calls for the elimination of all whites off the planet. Given current below ZPG birth rates of whites, this could very well happen within two hundred years. This is good, because whites are an especially evil race who deserve to be wiped off the planet.
. . .

(+5) An opposing viewpoint: The right of group survival is analogous to the right of individual survival. The need for a society to determine its own destiny is no different than the desire of individuals to be free and shape their own lives. The ability of a people to control its own destiny broadly constitutes its "popular sovereignty." This relates to their control of many different variables. They require control of certain intangibles, such as a religious, cultural, and racial identity to provide motivation for successful teamwork. They also require control of the strategic bases of society such media, major corporations, government, and the military. Lastly, with the exception of wandering Jews, people usually require their own territory. As all of these elements come together, we usually begin to see the emergence of "nationhood" complete with such symbols as a flag, national anthem, and national army. The possession of full sovereignty rights does not necessarily imply an aggressive or exploitive posture. For example, during long historical periods many Scandinavian countries have enjoyed strong sovereignty rights while functioning as relatively nonaggressive, peaceful nations. Conversely, it is possible for countries to manifest all the external symbols of sovereignty, such as a flag and national army, yet lack most of the real substance. It is possible that major banks and corporations are controlled by alien peoples. Government leaders may be puppets of foreign intelligence services. If too many of the vital elements of sovereignty are in the hands of aliens, it can result in de facto economic and political marginalization of a people and their slow strangulation and even genocide. Some forms of toxic intrusion are cultural in nature. In fact, even the United Nations recognizes that robbing people of their indigenous culture can be a form of genocide, to the extent that it undermines the cohesion and teamwork required to face adversity. When people give up their popular sovereignty (or local nationalism) in order to become amalgamated into some kind of multi-racial, multi-cultural imperial order, rather than experiencing the benefits of higher civilization, they more often experience the abuse or neglect of absent, alien, or tyrannical rulers. Furthermore, people have to be able to take care of themselves first before they can benefit others. If people neglect their own kind by lavishing most of their altruism on aliens, this can become a parasitic relationship where both groups end up going down together. The right of self-determination should apply to whites in European countries who are now being replaced by Third World immigrants just much as it applies to other peoples around the planet.

Return to Question 20



Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.