Does the means by which genocide is accomplished...

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]

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:

But I repeat myself…

[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 “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.[/i]

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.

:laughing:

I thought folks would like that.

Of course that doesn’t make my point go away though, does it? :wink:

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.

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.

It’s true.

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

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 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. :imp:

That could be used to justify everything from slavery to outright slaughter.

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 don’t live in a magical society where magically white children’s thought processes aren’t 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.

That would require use of physical force which is generally not used.

That’s not physical force.

Somebody is ostracizing you? Poor baby. Suck it up.

And if you don’t accept it, then you are ostracized. So what?

What a world. … even the neo-nazis are pussies these days.

I agree with you that young kids are being shafted and that they don’t have adequate coping skills to deal with it.

It’s the adults’ job to help them.

Yeah it is. The system is enforced with… force. What the fuck do you think police and military are for?

I don’t 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 people’s 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.

Oh yeah, baby. Breaking down social constructs and exposing what lies underneath one post at a time. Damn I’m good.

Nobody is jailing you, torturing you or beating the shit out of you.

FFS, Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in jail.

Bullshit.

So what? You’re a warrior fighting for your survival and the survival of your people. Right?

The stronger the enemy, the more glorious the victory.

Actually, it’s just a fact. By behave in a certain way I mean obey all of society’s rules (laws). If you don’t, then the police will come after you and put you in prison or kill you, depending on how much you resist.

My family and I have lived in totalitarian societies. My grandmother and father were lined up for reprisals by the Nazis - every tenth family in line went to a concentration camp. My grandfather was in a concentration camp.
After the Nazis, the communists came.

I doubt if you are experiencing anything remotely similar.