1/ Imperium Press' assertion of the "first son" and "hearth" as superior or higher priorities is cope and absurd on its face. Civilizations or "the hearth" declines. Rome, a colony of earlier civilizations, becomes superior to its forebears and so on and so forth. Likewise a https://twitter.com/KeithWoodsYT/status/1303290697961951235

2/expansion does not work against the protection of the seat of an empire, quite the contrary, as the British especially should know. Whether the colony declines faster than its origin, in this case or that, in this way or that way, is its own question. But the West everywhere

3/declines in an appalling and striking fashion. Surely with contemporary examples we see both weakness and strengths in the colony lacking in the source. As to whether imperialism or expansion is a good thing, as I state, it clearly is. The forms it takes are various. We see

4/Zionists exert it through "soft power" especially where they've effectively gained a decisive political influence on the West, particularly through the cultural, political and financial dominance of America. This sort of imperialistic will to power is admirable and imitable in

5/many ways. As to the moral question: here of course we assume we are framing the question for other Whites as we are utterly immoral in the eyes of our adversaries merely by dint of our existence. There is no one answer here. The GJ petty nationalist position, though

6/false & unrealistic on its face, could have an intermediate, "political" function. The RS position is the truthful one which accords with human nature and describes an actual will not merely to power but existence. The criticalness of the latter position is that it sets the

7/goal. It's also honest which is "ostensibly" moral. And of course "might is right" in the sense that those in power get to tell us what is "moral." Does the road to power require moral posturing? It requires multiple approaches and particularly an "imperial" will to power

8/however it may or may not disguise itself. Ultimately we are bound and obligated to one another and petty nationalism serves adversaries. Understanding this does not obviate the need or desirability of local or nationalist politics. My opinion is that @MarkACollett and others

9/around the world are making fine efforts here. So ultimately, this dichotomy is a false one. If there is a division it might be one of temporary, practical politics vs. truth and larger goal. As to where an ultimate center of power appears geographically, ideally we would set

8/aside national vanities in preference of racial survival and amelioration. It's quite unnecessary for localists or nationalists to counter signal pan-Aryanists however. Though of course this thing happens. Israeli Jews, who are, ostensibly, "petty nationalists" may counter

9/signal the diaspora. But imitably and admirable we are struck by just how little these sort of "controversies" get aired at all on any meaningful platform. The Israeli of course relies on the diaspora & the diaspora gains some immeasurable symbolic moralization from a state

10/ that exists above the law of all other states. Though now we wonder if this has become a liability. Regardless, among Jews we see an imitable fraternity and cohesiveness. The Irish or English Jew feels closer to the American Jew than either do to their respective countrymen.

11/ This is the source of their strength and imitable from our perspective. I feel closer to the White man in Europe than I do to the non-White in America. Likewise I feel closer to the White who is interested in our racial survival, wherever he lives, than the shitlib

12/"countryman" who exists ubiquitously in the West. But we are aware of this global fraternity already.