Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Moderator: Uccisore

Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby AutSider » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:26 pm

make it more acceptable?



The outcome - the extermination of a people - is the same, whether you line them up against a wall and shoot them or if you create a system in which you indoctrinate them with subversive ideas into accepting their own destruction via ideas like liberalism, diversity, feminism, tolerance, etc. and ostracize and destroy the lives of anybody who disagrees with this self-destruction and then enforce this system with violence whilst lying to everybody you are in favor of freedom and against violence, etc.

So is one more moral than the other?

I guess if you take suffering into account, you could say killing people with a bullet in the brain and getting it over with quickly is much more merciful, as it is swift and painless.

The second method strips people of all their dignity as they are forced to watch from a position of powerlessness as everything they love slowly dies out and gets destroyed around them and their countries are taken over by traitors and foreigners. It's one of the cruelest things you can do to anybody.

Also, the first method is much more honest, whilst the second is based on an entire web of sick and perverted lies to maintain itself.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby Carleas » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:05 pm

It seems you're comparing literal genocides with metaphorical genocides. All group extinctions are not genocides. And more obviously, the metaphorical 'death' of ideologies is not the same as a real death, and the extinction of those ideologies is not the same as the extinction of the descendants of those who held them, let alone of an intentional genocide of anyone. Ironically, the way you're describing in literal language someone watching "everything they love slowly die[] out and get[] destroyed around them" when what you're really talking about is "indoctrination" and ideological pressure, is strikingly similar to the stereotyped liberal use of "violence" to include language and ideas that make someone uncomfortable.

For literal genocides, in which a group of people is literally removed from the gene pool, we can make moral distinctions, on at least the dimensions of directness and intent:
  1. intentional direct genocide, where people are murdered in order to kill the group.
  2. intentional indirect genocides, where people are excluded, isolated, starved in order to kill the group
  3. unintentional direct genocide, where people are murdered with the side affect that the group is killed
  4. unintentional indirect genocide, where people are excluded, isolated, or starved with the side affect that the group is killed

There does seem to be a moral difference here, with the badness decreasing in the order I've presented them. There are probably other dimensions of moral consequence on which we could divide genocides, but these are the two most salient.

I think you could make a case that certain forms of metaphorical genocide are worse than some forms of literal genocide as I've defined it, but it's a hard one. Effectively all forms of literal genocide will be perceived as worse by the people affected by them than any metaphorical genocide that could befall them. We could posit a moral system in which the extinction of ones memes is a greater loss then the extinction of ones genes; there's a lot of territory to explore in that, and I don't have solid intuitions about how it might work.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby James S Saint » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:42 am

Carleas wrote:It seems you're comparing literal genocides with metaphorical genocides.

Not at all. He is talking about subversive genocide, a very real occurrence in today's world.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25807
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby Carleas » Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:09 pm

James S Saint wrote:Not at all. He is talking about subversive genocide, a very real occurrence in today's world.

The few references I can find for "subversive genocide" talk about the threat to culture from immigration, i.e. metaphorical genocide. Here's one that helpfully puts 'genocide' in scare quotes, denoting that it isn't a literal genocide.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:25 pm



The replacement of Whites/Europeans is intentional.

It's not some natural force at work, it's the policies in place which facilitate this replacement. There could just as well be policies in place to facilitate the preservation of the European people in their countries. People could just as well ask themselves in the name of muh anti-discrimination: "Why are there more children being born among 'Hispanics' than among Whites? We must create policies and efforts to change this."
User avatar
Is_Yde_opN
Thinker
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby phyllo » Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:29 pm

ideas like liberalism, diversity, feminism, tolerance,
Each of those words describes a huge number of concepts and behaviors. Unless one is more focused, a post can't be anything more than rant.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10110
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby Carleas » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:07 pm

IYO, you're still talking about metaphorical genocide.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby AutSider » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:09 pm

Fuck if I know what Carleas thinks by "metaphorical" genocide.

What I'm speaking of is the quite literal genocide of white people as their numbers decrease in their own countries compared to "minorities".

As for whether it's intentional or not, I could give less of a shit. I only care about stopping it.

Carleas has said that direct genocide is worse than indirect genocide, but not why. Why is that, Carleas? I explained why I think what you would say is "indirect" genocide is actually worse than direct genocide.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby Carleas » Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:09 pm

AutSider wrote:What I'm speaking of is the quite literal genocide of white people as their numbers decrease in their own countries compared to "minorities".

I understand that, but that isn't genocide. Decreasing numbers (assuming that's the case) are only one element of a genocide. You're using the word "genocide" because it has emotional resonance, it's a way to stir up outrage (or maybe just to express your own outrage). That's a metaphorical use of the term, it's not a literal use.

I'd say other elements of genocide not yet mentioned are:
- Some outside force (a group who chooses (say for religious reasons) to stop reproducing is not the victim of a genocide).
- Some outside actor (a natural plague is not a genocide)
- Some culpability on the part of the actor (minimally negligent or reckless indifference)

The reason genocide is a serious allegation is that it carries certain moral implications. That's why you're using it, but your use if metaphorical and the bases of those moral implications don't hold for the phenomenon you're describing as a "genocide".

EDIT: I'll answer your question about the moral ranking of genocide once we have a common understanding about what it means for something to be a genocide. It wouldn't be useful to start the former project prior to finishing the latter.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:17 am

Joe Biden isn’t an ‘outside’ force hence why he’s not genocide-ing Whites.
The commissars in the Soviet Union are not an outside force hence why they didn’t genocide 10s of millions of people.


Rotherham is not an accident and it’s not the only case, it’s systemic and you will find this kind of rape epidemic wherever you have those racial demographics. When the state does not protect its citizens and instead is even hampering people trying to defend themselves then that’s easily an active genocidal policy.

The destruction, disempowerment of Europeans is already a given moral good. What’s left is to justify it, to call it social justice.

Did you not know that Europeans are evil and that non-Whites suffer under their evil oppression?
I mean, that’s a fact.
It’s not at all the moral framework to simply justify White dispossession today.
Of course there are also good Whites, it’s those Whites who help along this dispossession of Whites.
Very good people.


Most liberals and also cuckservatives would call someone like me a White supremacist. I hope they don’t believe that I think Whites are so superior to non-Whites, I mean, looking at liberals and cuckservatives, I’d say there is some stuff seriously wrong with them, seriously out of balance, way too much slave in them and while that has and had its advantages, it’s going to induce great suffering for Whites in the now and the future.
User avatar
Is_Yde_opN
Thinker
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:27 am

"Genocide" means the removal of a specific set of genomes from the gene pool. Cross breeding can (and does) cause genocide. Many things are being used to manipulate the gene pool (aka "population control"). Such manipulations cause genocide to be inherent.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25807
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby Inconvenient Reality » Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:52 am

Directly from the UN Treaty "No. 1021. CONVENTION1 ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE. ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 9 DECEMBER 1948"

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group, as such :
(a) Killing members of the group;
(£) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(e) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(rf) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


Sorry, metaphorical genocide? I don't think so.
Inconvenient Reality
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:47 am

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby Carleas » Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:12 pm

Thanks IR (and welcome to the forum). I think that's a good place to start.

I note that, contra James and my earlier schema, genocide requires "intent". I take intent to mean taking actions for the purpose of bringing about the listed ends. That could also include depraved indifference, through which I could smuggle in some part of my two 'unintentional' genocide categories, but I acknowledge that my earlier meaning would include mere culpable negligence, where this formal definition would seem to require more.

Lesser injustices, like the death of white supremacy as a culture, or the gradual mixing of races, are not genocides under this definition. To call them genocide is to use the term metaphorically.

[EDIT: a word]
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby Inconvenient Reality » Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:56 pm

Carleas wrote:Thanks IR (and welcome to the forum). I think that's a good place to start.

I note that, contra James and my earlier schema, genocide requires "intent". I take intent to mean taking actions for the purpose of bringing about the listed ends listed. That could also include depraved indifference, through which I could smuggle in some part of my two 'unintentional' genocide categories, but I acknowledge that my earlier meaning would include mere culpable negligence, where this formal definition would seem to require more.

Lesser injustices, like the death of white supremacy as a culture, or the gradual mixing of races, are not genocides under this definition. To call them genocide is to use the term metaphorically.


Thank you for the welcome Carleas. Further to my reply and pertinent I think to your mention of intent, is the very next article in the convention I quoted:

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide ;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(rf) Attempt to commit genocide ;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Inconvenient Reality
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:47 am

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:32 pm

AutSider wrote:Fuck if I know what Carleas thinks by "metaphorical" genocide.

What I'm speaking of is the quite literal genocide of white people as their numbers decrease in their own countries compared to "minorities".

As for whether it's intentional or not, I could give less of a shit. I only care about stopping it.


But I repeat myself...

My own reaction to this sort of thing revolves less around whether his arguments are correct and more around how we might explain the reason that he opted for choosing them. Why these particular opinions and not others?

Clearly, there was a point in time when he first began to think about race in what "intellectuals" construe to be a "political" or "philosophical" frame of mind. In other words, that point in time when all of the experiences he had had -- experiences that had predisposed him to one set of political prejudices rather than another -- were more or less set aside and he commenced to do some serious research on the subject. That way after "studying the matter" he could convince himself that, with respect to race, there was indeed an optimal frame of mind to be had here and that if you delved deep enough into these matters you could discover it.

[Or maybe even invent it. Your very own explanation for why most folks do what they do historically, culturally. Instead of what they ought to do naturally]

What he discovered is that, as with folks like Satyr, only when you acknowledged that 1] human interactions revolved first and foremost around biological imperatives and that 2] it was possible to grasp the necessary assumptions to understand them were you then able to both prescribe or proscribe human behaviors -- all of them apparently -- as either in sync with or not in sync with nature itself.

THE nature.

Which is why I would be curious to know how he did come to make that distinction between memes and genes here. What actual experiences did he have in his life that predisposed him to embrace his current rather dogmatic political agenda?

Finally, can he really say with any degree of certainty that new experiences, new relationships, new sources of information and knowledge etc., will not upend his current assessment and take him in a whole other direction?

Or, instead, is my own frame of mind -- that folks embrace one of another religious or secular dogma in order to embody the "psychology of objectivism" -- a more reasonable manner in which to grasp his political agenda here.


That's the direction he refuses to explore. Instead, he merely asserts that his own set of assumptions here are in sync with "natural behavior"; and that if you don't share his own frame of mind, you are wrong.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 22707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby WendyDarling » Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:25 pm

But I repeat myself...

:lol:
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:31 pm

WendyDarling wrote:
But I repeat myself...

:lol:


I thought folks would like that.

Of course that doesn't make my point go away though, does it? :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 22707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby AutSider » Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:18 pm

There is nothing metaphorical about the way I use the word genocide. That is the entire point of this thread.

Whether you destroy a people through ideological subversion or through more direct and honest methods, you destroy them and they are gone.

In many white countries:
1) Whites are blamed for everything that is regarded to be "evil" under the current moral paradigm (making violence against whites more acceptable)
2) Whites are decreasing in numbers (meaning whites are becoming less capable to defend themselves against violence)

Basically, the stage is being set for the genocide of whites.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby AutSider » Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:32 pm

Carleas wrote:
AutSider wrote:What I'm speaking of is the quite literal genocide of white people as their numbers decrease in their own countries compared to "minorities".

I understand that, but that isn't genocide. Decreasing numbers (assuming that's the case) are only one element of a genocide. You're using the word "genocide" because it has emotional resonance, it's a way to stir up outrage (or maybe just to express your own outrage). That's a metaphorical use of the term, it's not a literal use.

I'd say other elements of genocide not yet mentioned are:
- Some outside force (a group who chooses (say for religious reasons) to stop reproducing is not the victim of a genocide).
- Some outside actor (a natural plague is not a genocide)
- Some culpability on the part of the actor (minimally negligent or reckless indifference)

The reason genocide is a serious allegation is that it carries certain moral implications. That's why you're using it, but your use if metaphorical and the bases of those moral implications don't hold for the phenomenon you're describing as a "genocide".

EDIT: I'll answer your question about the moral ranking of genocide once we have a common understanding about what it means for something to be a genocide. It wouldn't be useful to start the former project prior to finishing the latter.


I would say to call the extinction of a people genocide it must have been perpetrated by a conscious agent and it must have been intentional. So yeah, a natural plague isn't a genocide.

As for the group which "chooses" not to reproduce - what if they have been brought up in a system which painted reproduction in a bad light and made it economically almost impossible and created the circumstances in which the sexes aren't interested in seriously engaging with one another? People don't make choices independently of social circumstances (both, social norms and laws), and social circumstances are brought about intentionally by choices of others (the elites/politicians/media/educational system...) and enforced with violence.

But even purely religious reasons - if a child is brainwashed since early age not to have kids, is it really fair to say it made a choice?

As for culpability, it seems to me like you're saying that those in power are by default responsible, and I agree with this. The "leaders" of white countries, actually filthy traitors most of them, deserve at the very least to be replaced, if not executed for treason against their people.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:40 pm

Image

Diversity is mandatory in absolutely every aspect of society, save for the thumbnail of articles that say we shouldn't reproduce


It's true.
User avatar
Is_Yde_opN
Thinker
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby Carleas » Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:33 pm

AutSider wrote:Whether you destroy a people through ideological subversion or through more direct and honest methods, you destroy them and they are gone.

There is a huge difference between changing someone's ideology and killing them!
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby WendyDarling » Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:52 pm

Genocide is about exterminating a race, not necessarily through direct murder, but it could happen through social conditioning when you teach the white race to be rich instead of to become a family unit. Do you acknowledge that there is such a thing as social conditioning propagated through religions, educational institutions, media pushes, workplace environments, families, friendships, government initiatives, etc.?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby AutSider » Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:03 pm

Carleas wrote:
AutSider wrote:Whether you destroy a people through ideological subversion or through more direct and honest methods, you destroy them and they are gone.

There is a huge difference between changing someone's ideology and killing them!


Changing somebody's ideology can mean killing them, and their entire bloodline, depending on the ideology. Some ideologies are just weak and/or self-destructive, and so don't facilitate reproduction, survival, or self-expansion.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby phyllo » Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:09 pm

Changing somebody's ideology can mean killing them, and their entire bloodline, depending on the ideology. Some ideologies are just weak and/or self-destructive, and so don't facilitate reproduction, survival, or self-expansion.
Well if the lame ducks are so stupid that they adopt a self-destructive ideology, then maybe they deserve to die out. :evil:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10110
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

Postby Inconvenient Reality » Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:04 pm

phyllo wrote:
Changing somebody's ideology can mean killing them, and their entire bloodline, depending on the ideology. Some ideologies are just weak and/or self-destructive, and so don't facilitate reproduction, survival, or self-expansion.
Well if the lame ducks are so stupid that they adopt a self-destructive ideology, then maybe they deserve to die out. :evil:


That could be used to justify everything from slavery to outright slaughter.
Inconvenient Reality
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:47 am

Next

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot]