Directly from the UN Treaty âNo. 1021. CONVENTION1 ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE. ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 9 DECEMBER 1948â
Thanks IR (and welcome to the forum). I think thatâs a good place to start.
I note that, contra James and my earlier schema, genocide requires âintentâ. 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 âunintentionalâ 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:
[i]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 âintellectualsâ construe to be a âpoliticalâ or âphilosophicalâ frame of mind. In other words, that point in time when all of the experiences he had had â experiences that had predisposed him to one set of political prejudices rather than another â were more or less set aside and he commenced to do some serious research on the subject. That way after âstudying the matterâ 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 â all of them apparently â 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 â that folks embrace one of another religious or secular dogma in order to embody the âpsychology of objectivismâ â a more reasonable manner in which to grasp his political agenda here.[/i]
Thatâs the direction he refuses to explore. Instead, he merely asserts that his own set of assumptions here are in sync with ânatural behaviorâ; and that if you donât share his own frame of mind, you are wrong.
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 isnât a genocide.
As for the group which âchoosesâ 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 arenât interested in seriously engaging with one another? People donât 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 systemâŚ) 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 youâre saying that those in power are by default responsible, and I agree with this. The âleadersâ 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.
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.?
Changing somebodyâs ideology can mean killing them, and their entire bloodline, depending on the ideology. Some ideologies are just weak and/or self-destructive, and so donât facilitate reproduction, survival, or self-expansion.
They are forced to adopt it. The perverted system we have will legally punish and/or socially ostracize any white who dares to advocate for principles which serve to perpetuate the existence and increase the power of whites.
The only acceptable whites to this insane system are those who accept their own destruction and become indifferent to it. The system basically selects for and rewards qualities such as weakness and disloyalty in whites.
We donât live in a magical society where magically white childrenâs thought processes arenât shaped in their early years (before they develop the capacity to resist the indoctrination) by the anti-white environment, and where they can magically make decisions completely independently of social and legal pressures.
Yeah it is. The system is enforced with⌠force. What the fuck do you think police and military are for?
I donât give a shit about opinions of others, but I do give a shit about consequences. I live in a system in which I am forced to be dependent upon others for my very survival. Yes, forced.
If I went out and lived in woods on my own, even if I could survive that way it would be unlawful. Other than putting myself in prison, the only way to obtain resources to survive is to go through the system and submit to its rules, rules which are, again, enforced with violence.
Being socially ostracized can mean not being able to find a mate (and so not reproduce your genes), and also getting fired from your job, which can potentially threaten your very existence, and that of your family, if you have one.
Society basically puts a gun to peopleâs heads and forces them to behave in a certain way, and if they refuse they are either locked up or killed.
It is fundamentally no different than the mafia, in that it takes control of a territory and enforces its will on that territory using violence, and then justifies itself by claiming it is there to protect you, partially (or mostly) from itself.
The state is simply the most powerful bully out there. Nothing more, nothing less.
Actually, itâs just a fact. By behave in a certain way I mean obey all of societyâs rules (laws). If you donât, then the police will come after you and put you in prison or kill you, depending on how much you resist.