Comments by "earthstick" (@earthstick) on "Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad): An Elegy for England & English Morality" video.

One of the axioms of the opposition is that it is forbidden to discriminate against an immutable attribute. From this comes racism and a host of similar taboos. But what if that proposition is false? That, in fact, it is because an attribute is immutable that you have to discriminate against it. Being a lion is an immutable attribute, and it is precisely because a lion cannot do anything about being a dangerous wild animal, that we have to treat them with extreme caution. If they were able to change their behaviour, then we could trust wild animals. I know this is a risky line to take, but the subtly on whether to discriminate is all about intent. The intent of what is being discriminated against and the intent of who is discriminating.
2
Interesting the conversation about if an Englishman thinks of himself as English or British. I wouldn't expect Anglo-Saxons to think of themselves as British any more than I would expect illegal immigrants to think of themselves as a Britons. If you invade a country you don't have to integrate. The problem for the Anglo-Saxon is that by following the rule of whatever you take is yours then you have no moral position to defend from. How can a thief claim they have been wronged if another thief steals from them? It's just the law of the jungle.
1
To put it another way: Blood type is an immutable property. If a person requires a blood transfusion and, in the unlikely event that, the hospital does not have any compatible blood, then the hospital will have no option but to deny the treatment because otherwise the person will die from a transfusion of incompatible blood.
1