Attitudes about white genocide

[Bomb#20]

Let's pretend that all those things you said people said are true. For a moment.

What do you mean? Do you mean it literally -- that we should pretend for a moment the US and Israel were really perpetrating genocide against blacks and Vietnamese and Palestinians and so forth? Or do you mean, let's pretend for a moment it's true that those people said what I said they said? If the latter, Google is your friend. If the former, what's your point? What does pretending those U.S. and Israeli genocides were real accomplish?

The whole idea of white genocide actually precedes all these ideas because it was originally formulated by the Nazis themselves in 1934. Since Nazis of today are copying Nazis of yesterday in so many ways, I find it hard to take this argument seriously.

I lost you. I clicked your link and it didn't call anything genocide.

I find it doubly hard to take seriously since you also wrote:

Well of course you're an extremist. But then we already knew that. Why are you pointing it out?

I just don't see the point in such speech in your post, especially if you have to justify being so personal with another 5 paragraphs that bears little resemblance to the personal statements.

?

Do I have to friggin' hold your hand while I walk you through it?

The word "genocide" has been massively cheapened through the collective efforts of a lot of left wingers. The right wing does not exist in a vacuum chamber isolated from popular culture. So when a right winger calls something "genocide", there is no good reason to assume he chose the word "genocide" because he was reminded of the Shoah rather than because he was reminded of the various dumbass possible disturbances to the long-term stability of population genetics that various leftists have decided merit the word "genocide".

So when Underseer composed his OP statement and implied he got it from his enemies, he was trying to discredit them by accusing them of meaning something that whatever he actually heard them say almost certainly did not support. He was setting up a strawman. He was trying to win a meme war by tricking his readers rather than by refuting the other side's arguments. That is not an act of moderation. That is an act of extremism.

 

[Juma]

Thanks underseer for a thread that so clearly exposes the shitheads.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What do you mean? Do you mean it literally -- that we should pretend for a moment the US and Israel were really perpetrating genocide against blacks and Vietnamese and Palestinians and so forth? Or do you mean, let's pretend for a moment it's true that those people said what I said they said? If the latter, Google is your friend. If the former, what's your point? What does pretending those U.S. and Israeli genocides were real accomplish?


I lost you. I clicked your link and it didn't call anything genocide.

.....

So when a right winger calls something "genocide", there is no good reason to assume he chose the word "genocide" because he was reminded of the Shoah rather than because he was reminded of the various dumbass possible disturbances to the long-term stability of population genetics that various leftists have decided merit the word "genocide".

Why are you so hung up on the word genocide? If Nazi literature starting from Nazis and up to now claims a conspiracy of persons to destroy the "white race" then genocide is being alleged even if the word isn't used. This is similar to the racist conspiracy that also existed before Nazis and is alive up to today that one day all the blacks will get together and kill the whites. I don't remember particularly the word genocide with all that race war propaganda either. But the meaning is there, if not the word. So many modern Nazis of today believe either of these conspiracies that I don't see why you feel it necessary to insult Underseer for asking a question about it even though you are trying very hard to give a "both sides" argument.

 

[laughing dog]

You're entitled to your wrong opinion.

It was not wrong, but thank you for your permission. And you are entitled to your obvious straw man claims.

As for the pedantic explanation, well excuuuuse me, but you make pedantry necessary by playing fast and loose with logic in your tedious ongoing attempt to score rhetorical points against me.

You are free to offer as many pointless pendantic explanations as you wish in order to avoid admitting you are embarrassing yourself. It doesn’t bother me in the least. It never occurred to me that you would offer such a pointless argument - I genuinely thought you were mistaken or had some interesting argument. I see now I was very very wrong. Trust me, I have better things to do that to "score rhetorical points against you".

You insinuated that I'm an idiot or intellectually dishonest, by accusing me of implying Underseer believed the OP statement, by fallaciously equating "he believes that statement" with "it is his statement". Don't do that.

I made no illogical insinuation unless it is illogical for me to assume that you are capable of reading in context. And if you don't like insinuations, don't consstruct such pointless arguments in order to score rhetorical points against other posters.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The white genocide conspiracy theory is a Neo-Nazi, white nationalist and supremacist conspiracy theory^[1] that mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates and abortion are being promoted in predominantly white countries to deliberately turn them minority-white and hence cause white people to become extinct through forced assimilation.^[2] The phrase "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white", coined by high-profile white nationalist Robert Whitaker, is commonly associated with the topic of white genocide.^[3][4] It has appeared on billboards in the United States near Birmingham, Alabama^[5] and in Harrison, Arkansas.

.

Yes, that sums it up well. They are afraid that there will be less white people, or that white people will cease to exist as a concept as white people breed with non-white people. It is an attachment to race identity and concern about that identity fading away. That concern isn't exclusive to white people, but it is in my opinion a stupid thing to care about. With inter-racial couples increasing in number and with fecundity rates declining where people are mostly white people and increasing in immigrant communties etc, their concern may be well founded if we were to accept the importance of "race identity". You do often hear news reporters and pundits (on all sides of these issues) claim that the white majority in the USA, for example, will cease to be in the near future and that hispanics are outbreeding whites by a large margin. If that's true, then why wouldn't it continue beyond that and lead to a smaller and smaller minority of white people?

I don't see why you'd call this extremist, violent or hateful without more added to it. You have to lather on additional claims and view, like claims of genetic superiority etc or demands for power over other races, for this to enter that territory. For example, the Japanese have similar concerns about their race numbers. Quebec and other places have concerns about their "distinct culture", etc. Religions often demand believers not to mate with those outside of their religious communities, etc.

The answer of course is to get beyond the silly identity politics of this stuff, and to stop basing identity on race, which is constantly being pushed not just by these folks, but also more and more by the "People of Colour" identity politics folks. It is no coincidence that the two are growing in numbers concurrently.

 

[Politesse]

I have a had time making mind up my mind on this one. Stupid people aren't necessarily extremists, obviously. But on the other hand, they are much more likely to support, explicitly or tacitly, extremist acts and actions.

The bitter debate in my local community concerning the criminal detention of children has brought this clearly to focus for me. Plenty of "nice", decent, mild people who nevertheless hold a deeply skewed perspective on the world, are now coming out situationally in favor of child abuse. Supporting actions against the children of others that they would happily shoot someone in the face for were it being done to their own children. Vocally so, I imagine, us Valley people are well armed and normally do not extend much trust toward the federal government. But doing it to people with THAT skin color, that's fine. Let Big Brother have them. Meanwhile, the Latino population of our town is becoming even more insular and (understandably but problematically) paranoid and distrustful of perceived outsiders. This is complicating every level of public social services, policing, and many other areas. If these ideas are not extreme, their consequence certainly has been.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not sure there's really a line between extremist and not. Any ideology, taken to its extreme, becomes extremist by definition, and where one actually is on that spectrum might be very situational. I think if an idea is poisonous, it is probably important to correct it even if the bearer isn't "taking it that seriously" yet.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory

The white genocide conspiracy theory is a Neo-Nazi, white nationalist and supremacist conspiracy theory^[1] that mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates and abortion are being promoted in predominantly white countries to deliberately turn them minority-white and hence cause white people to become extinct through forced assimilation.^[2] The phrase "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white", coined by high-profile white nationalist Robert Whitaker, is commonly associated with the topic of white genocide.^[3][4] It has appeared on billboards in the United States near Birmingham, Alabama^[5] and in Harrison, Arkansas.

----

Right wing extremists use this phrase, drooling and gibbering while they do so. Google white genocide claims for more. Google you tube,white genocide , and see what you find when you flip up this rock.

That is an interesting and valuable analysis of the OP's attitudes and his drooling and gibbering post.

 

[Bomb#20]

What do you mean? Do you mean it literally -- that we should pretend for a moment the US and Israel were really perpetrating genocide against blacks and Vietnamese and Palestinians and so forth? Or do you mean, let's pretend for a moment it's true that those people said what I said they said? If the latter, Google is your friend. If the former, what's your point? What does pretending those U.S. and Israeli genocides were real accomplish?


I lost you. I clicked your link and it didn't call anything genocide.

.....

So when a right winger calls something "genocide", there is no good reason to assume he chose the word "genocide" because he was reminded of the Shoah rather than because he was reminded of the various dumbass possible disturbances to the long-term stability of population genetics that various leftists have decided merit the word "genocide".

Why are you so hung up on the word genocide? If Nazi literature starting from Nazis and up to now claims a conspiracy of persons to destroy the "white race" then genocide is being alleged even if the word isn't used.

Is that a serious question? Wow. Okay, I'll explain why I'm hung up on that word. Because it's the topic of the thread!

Let me remind you, here is what Underseer didn't write:

Attitudes about white genocide
Statement: "White people in America are currently subjected to promotion of mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates and abortion. The extent of this promotion is comparable to what black nationalists often claim black people endure."

What do you think of the above statement?
o The above statement is extremist
o The above statement is not extremist​

Here's what he wrote:

Attitudes about white genocide
Statement: "White people in America are currently subjected to something that is unfair. The extent of this unfairness is comparable to what Jews endured during the Nazi holocaust."

What do you think of the above statement?
o The above statement is extremist
o The above statement is not extremist​

You are replying to me as though he wrote the former. But Underseer didn't start this thread to discuss whether it's extremist to claim your race is being deliberately watered down by promotion of hybridization and family planning; Underseer started this thread to discuss whether it's extremist to claim having your race deliberately watered down by promotion of hybridization and family planning is a lot like having your people herded into death camps. And it looks like he succeeded in getting people like you to equivocate between the two questions -- it looks like he got you to regard evidence that they're saying the former as evidence that their views are as extreme as if they were saying the latter.

This is similar to the racist conspiracy that also existed before Nazis and is alive up to today that one day all the blacks will get together and kill the whites. I don't remember particularly the word genocide with all that race war propaganda either. But the meaning is there, if not the word. So many modern Nazis of today believe either of these conspiracies that I don't see why you feel it necessary to insult Underseer for asking a question about it

If he'd intended us to talk about a "one day all the blacks will get together and kill the whites" theory rather than a "White people in America are currently subjected to X" theory, that's what he'd have written about. Underseer tried to get people to reach his desired conclusion by putting words in his enemies' mouths. I'm criticizing him for it because I disapprove of that tactic, both because it's dishonorable and because it's an ineffective way to arrive at the truth. Are you defending him because you approve of that tactic? Did you also feel it was an unnecessary insult, that time I criticized you for putting words in my mouth?

even though you are trying very hard to give a "both sides" argument.

I lost you. What "both sides" argument? You mean the left wing and the right wing are both guilty of cheapening the word "genocide"? That's undoubtedly true, but it's not the argument I gave.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Attitudes about white genocide
Statement: "White people in America are currently subjected to promotion of mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates and abortion. The extent of this promotion is comparable to what black nationalists often claim black people endure."

What do you think of the above statement?
o The above statement is extremist
o The above statement is not extremist​

why are you separating the statement from metadata about the statement "...attitudes about white genocide...?" Is there a fuller statement that includes the phrase white genocide from the author of the phrase.

Also, why are you telling me you are reminding me? Are you referring to some other thread I haven't read?

As an aside, there is a core racialism in the statement whether or not it includes "white genocide" in context.

 

[Bomb#20]

Attitudes about white genocide
Statement: "White people in America are currently subjected to promotion of mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates and abortion. The extent of this promotion is comparable to what black nationalists often claim black people endure."

What do you think of the above statement?
o The above statement is extremist
o The above statement is not extremist​

why are you separating the statement from metadata about the statement "...attitudes about white genocide...?" Is there a fuller statement that includes the phrase white genocide from the author of the phrase.

Of course there is, which you already knew since I got it from you. It's in your post #36. I left out the words "The white genocide conspiracy theory is a Neo-Nazi, white nationalist and supremacist conspiracy theory[1] that". I separated the statement from the metadata in order to construct a hypothetical alternative OP with a parallel structure to Underseer's actual OP, for the purpose of exhibiting what a non-strawman OP on the topic of "white genocide" would have looked like. Are you suggesting there's a reason I ought not to have done that? Do you feel leaving the author's commentary out and moving "white genocide" to the metadata, where Underseer put it, distorts its meaning somehow?

Also, why are you telling me you are reminding me? Are you referring to some other thread I haven't read?

No, I'm telling you I'm reminding you because I presume you read the OP but you're talking like you forgot what it said. You have been replying to me as if Underseer wrote my above hypothetical alternative non-strawman version, and not the OP he actually wrote.

As an aside, there is a core racialism in the statement whether or not it includes "white genocide" in context.

Certainly. And if he had written the statement the alternative way I propose, and the poll question had been "What do you think of the above statement? o The above statement is as racialist as stuff Jesse Jackson says. o The above statement is not as racialist as stuff Jesse Jackson says.", then I'd have had no grounds for criticizing him.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't think you are making much sense since (1) persons call it white genocide and (2) the quote is really, really toning down the rhetoric while simultaneously removing pieces of the claims. Lastly, "...criticizing him..." seems to be problematic as opposed to his posts.

 

[Elixir]

"White people in America are currently subjected to something that is unfair."

True. It's called Donald Trump. White people are most effected because there are more of them. Unfortunately, many are too stupid to even know they're being fucked.

"The extent of this unfairness is comparable to what Jews endured during the Nazi holocaust."

False. This is the kind of statement to which Godwin's Law properly applies. No white people are being rounded up and gassed en masse.

 

[Underseer]

"White people in America are currently subjected to something that is unfair."

True. It's called Donald Trump. White people are most effected because there are more of them. Unfortunately, many are too stupid to even know they're being fucked.

"The extent of this unfairness is comparable to what Jews endured during the Nazi holocaust."

False. This is the kind of statement to which Godwin's Law properly applies. No white people are being rounded up and gassed en masse.

That, uh, isn't what I was getting at, although I confess that I was being somewhat oblique about referencing the concept of white genocide as used by white supremacists racists alt-right free speech warriors identitarians.

 

[repoman]

Well maybe in South Africa:

 

[repoman]

 

[Politesse]

That guy is talking nonsense. Literally no scientist has ever claimed that there are no genetic differences between different individuals, and neither does National Geographic. What we do claim is that so-called race theory tells you nothing useful about human genetic variation. Something Reich would entirely agree with, as even his mined quotes demonstrate.

 

[repoman]

Damn it, I was trying to rile up Kalergi...

Thanks a lot!!!

 

[repoman]

Is this real? Based!

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.

>We Must Secure The Border And Build The Wall To Make America Safe Again.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't think you are making much sense since (1) persons call it white genocide

Whoop de do. As I pointed out, the term "genocide" has been massively cheapened over the years, mostly through the efforts of Underseer's ideological allies. So for him to accuse his ideological enemies of using it in its original full-strength sense is a trumped-up charge; and his choice to make the accusation only against his enemies is hypocrisy.

Do you have any evidence that among the "white supremacists racists alt-right free speech warriors identitarians" who call it "white genocide" there are ones claiming it's as unfair as if white people were being rounded up and gassed en masse? Don't you think if Underseer had actual examples of them claiming this, he'd have produced them?

and (2) the quote is really, really toning down the rhetoric while simultaneously removing pieces of the claims.

What's your point? Are you suggesting it's okay to trump up a charge against someone provided you're convinced he's guilty of a lot of different stuff you aren't accusing him of at the same time? Is this a "Whip your child every week. If you don't know what it's for, he does." attitude?

Lastly, "...criticizing him..." seems to be problematic as opposed to his posts.

I'm criticizing him on ethical grounds. Do you feel "You wrote an unethical post." is substantively different from "Writing that post was unethical."?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Whoop de do. As I pointed out, the term "genocide" has been massively cheapened over the years, mostly through the efforts of Underseer's ideological allies. So for him to accuse his ideological enemies of using it in its original full-strength sense is a trumped-up charge; and his choice to make the accusation only against his enemies is hypocrisy.

This seems to be tu quoque or whataboutism. Therefore, my point stands. Again, racists and Nazis were always talking about a white genocide even if not always using the term. BUT there seems to be something else missing in your point, most notably that integration into a world system is not really genocide in the same sense that say the Vietnam war would have been had we stayed to accomplish the goal of ownership of the resources, people living there be damned.

......identitarians" who call it "white genocide" there are ones claiming it's as unfair as if white people were being rounded up and gassed en masse? Don't you think if Underseer had actual examples of them claiming this, he'd have produced them?

It's hard for me to have any sympathy to even consider this a valid logical point. This is not an ad hominem, but we are talking about people who said they were in Charlottesville for "killing Jews" and they chanted "the Jews will not replace us," and they don't believe in the Holocaust or if they do, they still worship Adolf Hitler. Such persons know what "genocide" means because the Holocaust is part of their regular memes and state of (un)consciousness. Meanwhile, all of the instances of the single word of "genocide" aren't there to such frequency in their rhetoric. If they have to keep saying over and over "there was no genocide against the Jews" out of one side of their mouths and then out of the other they call something white genocide, then the imbalance is their own and owned by them. Let's not introduce a red herring whataboutism where none is needed.

What's your point? Are you suggesting it's okay to trump up a charge against someone provided you're convinced he's guilty of a lot of different stuff you aren't accusing him of at the same time? Is this a "Whip your child every week. If you don't know what it's for, he does." attitude?

You seem to have 100% misinterpreted what I wrote. So, no, I'm not saying that?

Lastly, "...criticizing him..." seems to be problematic as opposed to his posts.

I'm criticizing him on ethical grounds. Do you feel "You wrote an unethical post." is substantively different from "Writing that post was unethical."?

I think there is a HUGE difference between saying a statement is racist and a person is racist, or a statement is extremist and a person is extremist, or a statement is false and a person is a liar. So if some writes to Underseer that "Well of course you're an extremist" that is very different from "your post is extreme." I will add that part of your issue as stated in the thread was a cheapening of words and to call Underseer an extremist is cheapening the word since GENOCIDAL MANIACS are extremists. If we treat Underseer like he's an extremist, we are putting him on par with such persons, which is HIS COMPLAINT IN THE FIRST PLACE you are complaining about.

Also, a statement like this "He was trying to win a meme war by tricking his readers rather than by refuting the other side's arguments" is very different from not commenting on a poster's personal motivations negatively or by calling it a false statement that readers might be tricked by or whatever.

Finally, what the heck is this: "Well, since I have reason neither to think watching the video is a good use of my time, nor to think you're a reliable witness to the positions of people you disagree with, I'm afraid I'll have to remain agnostic*" Your other posts seem to show a level of confidence that Underseer is misrepresenting something but in this other post, you are claiming agnosticism. Why are these posts different?