Invasion Hypocrisy Doesn't Exist

Alt-right is a loose term, but if there is one stance we all share, it is the the opposition towards the invasion of white countries by the rest of the world. There is certainly an element of white nationalism to that, but most of us, I reckon, are omni nationalists. We believe in nationalism for everyone. Every nation gets a homeland. That's the western tradition we've had at least since Westphalia, and up until so recently.

Supposedly there is hypocrisy in all this. For instance, if I stated that the US should not become a white-minority country, every liberal within earshot would proudly proclaim my hypocrisy, since white people took the lands from the Amerinds. So it's hypocritical for white people to take a moral stance against invasion now. But those claims of hypocrisy can only be made by people so insulated from reality that they have no comprehension of the natural order of things.

Lets look at an example a little further from home, to get a little extra objectivity. Every last alt-righter is fully abhorred at the Muslim invasion of Sweden. But who do we criticize? Just looking at this blog, who gets the blame? The Muslims? Hardly. I ridicule the Swedes every chance I get. For the Muslims to engage in resource warfare is perfectly normal. I don't know of anyone making the claim that Muslims should not invade Sweden, on moral grounds. No, what we say is that the invasion should not be allowed by the Swedes, on the moral grounds that people have a duty to preserve their nations, and should not be condoned by the rest of the world, on the moral principle of omni nationalism.

We think the Muslims are immoral for a lot of reasons, but not because they are amassing in places that will provide them resources. Doing so is perfectly natural. Likewise, we can't condemn our white ancestors for invading places like North America and Australia. We'd expect that the displaced peoples be given some sort of homeland, in reverence to omni-nationalism. In America, the Indians are allowed to live in highly autonomous reservations. It's probably not good enough, but it's far better than nothing. Most conquered peoples in history have not fared so well. 

There are two characteristics of the white invasion of America that bear scrutiny. One is a widespread lack of honor in the tactics of invasion, and the other is the degree to which Europeans engaged in profiteering over nation building. Our forebearers had a habit of breaking nearly every treaty they made with the Amerinds. Promises were made to keep things stable until such time as the application of force worked in the favor of whites. While diplomatic deceit was not created by Europeans (and is much more associated with the Eastern tradition), it is not a proud legacy. Frankly, we expect better of ourselves. Also, lands were not always settled for noble causes. Europeans had the tendency to import cheap labor from all around to build highly profitable plantations. While building economic engines is an admirable pursuit, it should be done with long-term goals, and without violating the dignity or rights of other people. Hawaii became a minority nation because of immigrant labor, as did many other places. Europeans didn't hesitate to import black African slaves to any location they might be useful. As such we see many black-dominated countries in the Caribbean today and strong populations in the American southwest and in the cities. As we're aware, every place with a black-majority population is an economically depressed locale, save the places that are fortunate to reside on popular tourist destinations.

Clearly there is room for criticism of white imperialism, and we in the dissident right are as quick to point them out as anyone (and probably with more clarity). But, that's not to say that white people were immoral for finding underdeveloped lands and building more advanced nations on those lands. This has been the natural way since time immemorial. We owe our existence to a very long history of more developed people displacing the backwards. Otherwise we'd have remained as tree-dwelling proto-humans. 

At the end of the day it's pretty damn simple. The morality of invasion is going to depend on what side you're on. Here's a way to argue with liberals if you get into it with them over invasion hypocrisy. Was it moral for the Nazis to bomb London? (They will say no.) Was it moral for the Americans to bomb the Nazis? Their heads will spin at this one, because as much as they hate America, Nazis are the real bogeyman in the prog cult. Ultimately there will be much handwaving about Germany being the aggressors or human rights atrocities, but you can see how you can easily corner them into agreeing that the morality of war acts depends on the side of the observer more than anything.

All this goes to show why we're just ever so slightly torn on the Swedish/Muslim holy war. On the one side we have a great affinity for the Swedes, who share our western European lineage and culture, and we recognize the right of all nations to exist. But we acknowledge that the Muslims are adhering to the natural order, whereas the Swedes are so infected with liberalism that they beg and pay to be invaded. When we look at things from a very wide view, and try to mute our personal biases, we find we must respect the Muslims' natural inclination for conquest, and cannot respect the Swedes' unnatural preference for national suicide.