A person's behavior is largely determined by genetics, which means its largely determined by race, this is of course a fact whether or not you want it to be. However evolution also has the tendency to try everything so in any group of people you will find retards and geniuses, shitty people and good people, what changes is the ratios. Which is largely controlled by what is the laziest survival strategy that works. But I digress the point is that you can understand that race realism is true but also value the founding principles of the west that all people be treated by the same rules, and that all people should be free to do as they please in life, their race is irrelevent in the value system, they will succeed if they make good life choices, which is good and they will fail if they make bad ones, which is also good. Classical Liberal values let all people suceed or fail based on their own merits. Why is that a bad thing? Why should we change it from favoring the minorities to favoring whites? Should we not simply allow all to fail or suceed on their own? Would this not prove who is superior and who is inferior beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Race realism and classical liberalism are not mutually exclusive
>the founding principles of the west that all people be treated by the same rules
>all people
> by the same rules
>founding principles
>the west
no
Mate do you have a counter argument? Because 3000 years of imperial history is pretty fucking clear. The roman empire spent a thousand years bringing civilization to the filthy savages of europe and trying to standardize what civilization was.
The British Empire spent several hundred years bringing civilization to the filthy savages of the world and trying to standardize what civilization was.
The American Empire spent several hundred years bringing civilization to the filthy savages of america and trying to standardize what civilization was. History is very clear on this. These empires were also the most sucessful ones over their rivals. Especially the british. The french just left savages to be savages which didnt help anyone, and the Portuguese and spanish just worked everyone to death which destroyed their empires in the long run.
You're a prime example of a pseudo intellectual. You post a string of buzzwords, of things you have no real knowledge, but you're so thoroughly deceived that you genuinely believe it to be an argument.
"The west" isn't one thing, there is no singular underpinning principle, and it most definitely is not universal egalitarian acceptance. There is no such thing as "Classical Liberal values" in the way that you're trying to assert either. Many so called Classic Liberals viewed the negro as inferior and incompatible with European civilizations, and this sort of view wasn't limited to blacks. These Classical Liberals that cucks like to reference aren't what you're tying to make them out to be. Only a select few espoused ideas that you're trying to lean on.
Your ideas and ideals are ultimately meaningless. The fate of a country lies in its demographics. Blacks and spics will overwhelmingly vote for state welfare. It doesn't matter how enlightened you try to be. If these demographic groups gain the majority of the vote then you will be doomed to live under the dystopian state they vote for.
America will lose its position as a world power because you're such a stupid cuck.
Okay fine I will define the west.
America and Britian. No other countries. They are filthy. They are shit and they failed. Happy now?
America was founded explicitly for free whites of good character. No one else. America did not exist to try and civilize inferior people.
Are you genuinely retarded, or are you so programmed that all you can do is regurgitate altruistic cuck rhetoric from dipshits like Sargon?
If you understood the history of slavery in america we used to enslave both whites and blacks, blacks were cheaper though so we just ended up using exclusively blacks after awhile. Regardless the issue of slavery was entirely pragmatic during the revolt. We all know we were going to go to war over it eventually, and we did, and the people who didnt own slaves won.
>The french just left savages to be savages which didnt help anyone
You are wrong on this one, Brits were the one that didn't try to civilize the native people of their colonies, we tried.
Also you're confusing imperialism with universalism. Imperialist use universalism as a tool to justify or ease their expansion. But it doesn't mean they consider all civilizations and individuals as equal, quite the opposite. Universalists OTOH think that all people are the same.
I hate both of those ideologies to be honest and neither of them are founding principles of Europe. Also "west" means nothing, the cold war is over.
You're just making an ass of yourself with all of these reddit talking points.
The history of white slavery, of Irish indentured servants, is a drop in the bucket compared to the slave trade as a whole. The contention with the Irish was primarily that they were Catholic, and the founding fathers were mostly Anglo supremacist.
None of this is even remotely relevant to the point you were trying to make. America was founded explicitly as a country of free white men. It was not founded on egalitarian principles.
No one so intent on perpetuating historical revisionism can be capable of grasping truth.
I never said I consider all cultures equal. Most cultures are shit. Treating people under the same rules, as if they are equal, means stomping out the backwards savage cultures under the boot of imperialism.
>
I hate both of those ideologies to be honest and neither of them are founding principles of Europe.
Europe is just a continent, i dont mean europe i mean "the west" the idea of civilization as created by the romans and continued by empires like Great Britain and America.
Okay refer to one instance of white men in the constitution. Juat one. If you can I will conceed my argument in its entirety and join the alt right.
>Classical Liberal values let all people suceed or fail based on their own merits. Why is that a bad thing?
Me thinks you don't know what classical liberalism is.
The Rawlsian would argue that people in the Original Position (who are under a Veil of Ignorance) would not accept racial discrimination simply because (a) they don't their and (b) don't want to risk being discriminated against if they were in the minority.
Its his first principle of justice. "Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all."
Try looking up all prior US immigration laws, Redditor.
Try reading about the very first US congress.
This country, in the words of the founders themselves, was created explicitly for free white men of good character. We were created as an ethno state.
You've done a wonderful job of posting incoherent drivel. I'm sure your cuck overlords would be proud.
Again. One instance of that in the constitution. I'll even accept previous drafts of it like the articles of confederation.
You do realize that colonization was a massive failure and cost a shit-ton of money with for only results darkies hating us on an unprecedented moment of weakness for Europeans?
There's a reason coarse people have coarse cultures and civilization, different people should have the choice to evolve and mold their societies to make it fit their needs, urges, sins etc. Otherwise you end up with monstrosity such as your "empire" which is indeed close to the Anglo-empire since it's only purpose is to pile up shekels.
This is called grasping at straws. Its pathetic.
You asserted a baseless claim, you were confronted by harsh reality, and because you can't accept that reality you're now trying to cling to some tattered remnant of your faulty belief in order to refrain from admitting your belief is wrong.
The constitution is a document outlying what limitations the states have, and what limitations the federal government has. It is not a document that confers rights, it isn't a foundational ethos. Quit acting like a baby and face reality.
The founding fathers themselves, their words, their arguments, that is foundational. The language used by the first congress, our very first immigration naturalization law, that is foundational.
You're not even trying to make an argument, you're grasping at a single straw. You've completely lost sight of any cogent point you were poorly attempting to make. Get back to the root of the matter.
Only white people waste time entertaining these fanciful ideas. Over 90% of blacks vote Democrat without questioning it. For "Hispanics" it is over 70%. These people will forever vote for increased welfare, for increased government spending, taxation, and ultimately the destruction of individual rights.
The demographics of a country determine its destiny. Egalitarianism at best is naive, at worst it is mass suicide. Face that reality and stop being a cuck.
>secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity
t. white men
Fair enough.
>whole paragraph of text
>could have just said "the original liberals were honest to god actual race realists"
That would have proved your point.
Im pretty shit at debating desu senpai.
OP is trying to make the case that whites shouldn't pursue their own ethnic interests, because these mythical Classical Liberal values are what matters most. Hes rehashing the civic nationalist argument.
His point isn't grounded in any sort of facts or reason. Its emotional appeal.
You're pretty shit at having even a cursory understanding of the topics you treat as buzzwords.