>>12051161>>12051288There's a lot of stuff written here, but there's no cumulative point.
By 'anglo-saxon civilization' I'm presuming you mean white civilisation. Anglo-saxons by definition were conquered by the french in the 11th century and the identity died with Olde English. The phrase was only 're-ignited' in the 18th century to spur an allusion of some undisturbed, pedigree, indigenous genetics of 'pure-bred' Britons. Obviously this makes no sense.
The ulterior motive was to rally British people under an Us/Them underdog narrative, so we could compete with Spain and Holland in international trading - eg, slavetrade. Slaves are now defunct, we have Robots. They became defunct when the West industrialised. Slavery only serves a purpose in countries with poor industrialisation - India, the Congo etc. where poor blacks are enslaved by wealthy blacks. It's simply a means of free labour, and has very little 'inherent' relation to race.
Regarding the defense of white civilisation? Inciting conflict will only be seen as 'defensive' when you are the exploited party.
Some people mug you, you shoot them: The medium of defense would be your personal, immediate safety, and your property. You had something, and now, through force, it is gone. Your safety and property has been exploited, so YES, it is defense.
Your boss underpays you, so you organise a strike: You and your coworkers outnumber your boss, physically. But the medium of defense is financial property, and financial power, of which your boss has taken from you. You had something, and now, through force, it is gone. Your work/money has been exploited, So YES, it is defense.
The case of preserving culture & genetics is a serious issue. The medium of defense is not just who has the higher population, or the greatest cultural influence, but also who's population is 'encroaching' on another's population.
