- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Coming Next: Woke Pederasty

Two new animated series about heroic drag queens were recently announced. Check out the trailers below for, respectively, “Super Drags” (from Netflix) and “Drag Tots” (on WOW Presents, a streaming network):

Note well: “Super Drags” is on Netflix. Can’t get more mainstream than that. The streaming service is affiliated with RuPaul.

Remember a couple of weeks ago, when we were upset about the kids movie “Show Dogs” grooming children for sexual abuse? Remember Lactatia from a couple of weeks back [1], the nine year old drag queen that Teen Vogue says [2] “inspires us to live colorfully”?:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js [7]

Now, normalizing drag queens for children is the big woke thing. We’ve had Drag Queen Story Hours in libraries nationwide. Now Netflix is turning drag queens into animated superheroes, and RuPaul’s streaming service is turning drag queens into child superheroes.

change_me

Note well that Lactatia was photographed above at beloved drag queen RuPaul’s recent drag convention.

Can’t you see what’s happening?

You might think — I certainly hope you think — that your child will not be exposed to this filth. The thing is, your child, and all of us, have to live in a world in which this is normal, and in which the popular culture thinks that dressing little boys up like sexually provocative women is not only permissible, but a sign of cultural progress.

Law and politics cannot possibly be enough to keep sanity alive as Weimar America descends further into decadence. (Did you see this yesterday? [8] “A baby could become the first person without a legal mother if a transgender man wins a historic court battle.”) Yeah, I know, ha-ha, the right-wing Christian is freaking out again. Fine, laugh. Doesn’t bother me. What does bother me are conservative Christians (and other religious and social conservatives) who work hard to maintain their denial over the weimarization of America. And what bothers me is … my own increasingly threadbare stance of trying to figure out how to be tolerant in a culture where the people pushing this stuff are crushing people like us and brainwash our children.

The first reader who sent in the “Super Drags” clip said the sexualization of children is one thing he believes could provoke the right to violence. He wasn’t suggesting this, mind you, but saying that Netflix and the pop-culture decadents who are crusading for Lactatializing the culture are provoking forces they don’t understand. It reminded me of this blog’s hard-right commenter Raskolnik’s line from yesterday: “If you don’t want the Third Reich, don’t welcome the Weimar Republic.”

From St. Gregory’s the Great’s Dialogues, this from the life of St. Benedict [9]:

He was born in the province of Nursia, of honorable parentage, and brought up at Rome in the study of humanity. As much as he saw many by reason of such learning fall to dissolute and lewd life, he drew back his foot, which he had as it were now set forth into the world, lest, entering too far in acquaintance with it, he likewise might have fallen into that dangerous and godless gulf.

Therefore, giving over his book, and forsaking his father’s house and wealth, with a resolute mind only to serve God, he sought for some place, where he might attain to the desire of his holy purpose. In this way he departed, instructed with learned ignorance, and furnished with unlearned wisdom.

Read that again, until you grasp what it’s telling you. St. Gregory the Great says that young Benedict, born four years after the Western Empire fell, observed that the culture of the city of Rome itself was so decadent that learning its ways would drag one into a “dangerous and godless gulf.” He saw that he had to get out of there.

Benedict took up residence in a cave in Subiaco, where he lived as a hermit, praying and fasting. Only after he had built himself up spiritually, and overcome a fierce temptation, did he go out into the world to minister. Even then, he did not plunge back into the world he had left behind. He was despised by some who had initially welcomed him, because, as Gregory says, “the life of virtuous men is always grievous to those that be of wicked conditions.” Here, Gregory (who was the Pope), tells his dialogue partner that the spiritually wise person knows when to stay present as a witness in a particular place, and when to leave it:

In my opinion, Peter, evil men may with good conscience be tolerated in that community, where there be some good that may be helped, and reap spiritual profit. Where there is none good at all that receive spiritual profit, often times all labor is lost. Those that would be perfect carry always this mind: that when they perceive their labor to be fruitless in one place, to remove immediately to another, where more good may be done.

For this cause, Paul, that notable preacher of the word, who was desirous to be dissolved, and to be with Christ, to whom to live is Christ, and to die is gain [Phil. 1:21], not only desired himself to suffer persecution, but also animated and encouraged others to suffer the same. Yet being himself in persecution at Damascus, he got a rope and a basket to pass over the wall, and was privately let down. [Acts 9:25]

What then? shall we say that Paul was afraid of death, when as himself said, that he desired it for Christ’s sake? not so: but when he perceived that in that place little good was to be done by great labor, he reserved himself for further labor, where more fruit and better success might be expected. Therefore the valiant soldier of Christ would not be kept within walls, but sought for a larger field where he might more freely labor for his master.

And so, in like manner, you shall quickly perceive, if you mark well, that venerable Benedict forsook not so many in one place, that were unwilling to be taught, as he in sundry other places raised up from the death of soul many more, that were willing to be instructed.

After some time, Gregory reports:

As God’s servant daily increased in virtue and became continually more famous for miracles, many were led by him to the service of almighty God in the same place. By Christ’s assistance he built there twelve Abbeys; over which he appointed governors, and in each of them placed twelve monks. A few he kept with himself; namely, those he thought would gain more profit and be better instructed by his own presence.

At that time also many noble and religious men of Rome came to him, and committed their children to be brought up under him for the service of God.

This is what I’m trying to convey in The Benedict Option.  [10] Withdraw from this decadent culture, build ourselves up, teach those who are willing to be taught, and then build our versions of abbeys, to which Christians struggling in the world can rely on to form their own children.

If not now, you conservative Christian readers, then when? What’s it going to take for you to get serious?

UPDATE: This little boy is 10 years old.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js [7]

UPDATE.2: I can see from the comments already that some literalists are completely missing Raskolnik’s point about Weimar, and wanting to have a throwdown over historical details. Raskolnik’s point is that the Nazis arose out of the economic and social chaos and decadence of the Weimar Republic. To take a more contemporary example, Vladimir Putin is certainly no Nazi, but his authoritarian rule came about popularly, from the economic and social chaos of the Yeltsin years. Raskolnik’s point is that advanced social breakdown opens the door to authoritarianism.

This is not a radical observation. If commenters want to argue that point, fine. But don’t waste your time nitpicking over whether or not the Weimar/Third Reich analogy is precise. I’m not going to post those comments, because they will derail the thread. Again: Raskolnik’s trying to make a point about the kind of conditions that bring about authoritarianism.

UPDATE.3: A reader suggests quite rightly that we should go back and read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard commencement address [15]from June 8, 1978. Excerpt:

This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very basis of human thinking in the past centuries. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was first born during the Renaissance and found its political expression from the period of the Enlightenment. It became the basis for government and social science and could be defined as rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of everything that exists.

The turn introduced by the Renaissance evidently was inevitable historically. The Middle Ages had come to a natural end by exhaustion, becoming an intolerable despotic repression of man’s physical nature in favor of the spiritual one. Then, however, we turned our backs upon the Spirit and embraced all that is material with excessive and unwarranted zeal. This new way of thinking, which had imposed on us its guidance, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man nor did it see any higher task than the attainment of happiness on earth. It based modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend to worship man and his material needs. Everything beyond physical well-being and accumulation of material goods, all other human requirements and characteristics of a subtler and higher nature, were left outside the area of attention of state and social systems, as if human life did not have any superior sense. That provided access for evil, of which in our days there is a free and constant flow. Merely freedom does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and it even adds a number of new ones.

However, in early democracies, as in the American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted because man is God’s creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims. Subsequently, however, all such limitations were discarded everywhere in the West; a total liberation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were — State systems were becoming increasingly and totally materialistic. The West ended up by truly enforcing human rights, sometimes even excessively, but man’s sense of responsibility to God and society grew dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistically selfish aspect of Western approach and thinking has reached its final dimension and the world wound up in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the glorified technological achievements of Progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the 20th century’s moral poverty which no one could imagine even as late as in the 19th Century.

237 Comments (Open | Close)

237 Comments To "Coming Next: Woke Pederasty"

#1 Comment By Raskolnik On June 12, 2018 @ 9:55 am

Note that Scotty has nothing to say about demographic projections, nothing to say about the reality of the situation, nothing to say about history, nothing to say about Chinese policy concerning the ethnic composition of China vs. European policy concerning the ethnic composition of Europe. Absolutely nothing addressing any of the substantive points. It’s just, “Oh my these people have been here for a ‘long’ [definition needed] time, they can’t possibly leave.”

Scotty would have us commit demographic suicide, as the Chinese wait and laugh.

Having neighbors move in that look different or speak Spanish doesn’t bring about the “physical destruction” of anything.

Yes it does, you utter nitwit, yes it does, if there used to be more of you than there are of them, but now there are more of them than there are of you.

The rulers of Europe want to destroy Europe!

I probably shouldn’t be surprised, but it is actually shocking how vanishingly little you understand about European politics. Yes, the rulers of Europe, and in particular the top layers of the EU/EC bureaucracy, absolutely want to destroy the ethnic composition of Europe as it has existed since known prehistory.

Or are you suggesting, that since European powers have long abandoned most of their colonial possessions, that what happened there is no longer their problem?

What I am suggesting is that Europeans did not replace Indios in Latin America, as would be obvious from even a cursory walk around. Nor did they replace Africans in Africa, or Aborigines in Australia. The native populations in North America were 95% unintentionally wiped out by disease, it had nothing to do with any violence.

But since you brought it up, yes, I am furthermore suggesting that the “muh colonial lines that didn’t respect tribal boundaries” is a risible and inane excuse for the problems in formerly colonized nations, particularly those in Africa. India and China had magnificent civilizations prior to colonization, the British Raj didn’t respect “tribal boundaries,” yet today India and China are (obviously) doing fantastically well. The difference is that Africans never invented the wheel or built a structure more than a single story tall. The difference is the human capital. Africa was briefly civilized under European rule, and now that the Europeans have left, it is returning to its natural state… until the Chinese seize the opportunity, which they’re already doing. But you knew that. Of course you knew that. You’re very Chinese-friendly, aren’t you?

I certainly think the European nations have a right to exist

No, you don’t.

You can say the words, but that doesn’t make it true.

You don’t believe the European nations have the right to exist. You believe China has the right to exist, you believe China has the right to commit genocide by demographics against the Tibetans, in exactly the same way the rootless globalist elite of the EU are committing genocide by demographics against the historic nations of Europe, the timeline is even more or less the same, under current policy, within a century, there will be roughly as many Tibetans in Tibet as there are Europeans in Europe.

But you don’t care, because to you, who’s to say that a Han that moved to Lhasa in 1990 isn’t just as Tibetan as the Dalai Lama? Who’s to say that a Pakistani Muslim who grew up in London isn’t just as English as the Queen?

#2 Comment By Centralist On June 12, 2018 @ 10:27 am

Raskolnik

What about mean I am the child of half Korean Mother and a mostly Dutch-Scottish Father, am I going to destroy your culture?
Even though I grew up in it and am proud of all my heritage?
Will my children? My fiancé is Punjabi-American.

You are either a troll or a xenophobic fool that has the same understanding of history that the turkey does. You know a bit about yesterday, some of today, and a guess at tomorrow. Culture is a collective idea created by people, that influence later generations that also influence it in their own ways. Blood has little meaning in reality because humanity’s bloody history and the so called conqueror’s rights. That often force changed the genetic make up of the conquered people and even the conquer.

Hence why King Arthur is often called Roman-Briton, because the cultural identity we know as British was not a thing till long after the Norman Conquest of England, that followed the Saxon Conquest of England, that forced the native Britons out of the majority of England into Wales and Cornwall. Welsh by the way is a descended from the Anglo-Saxon word for strangers. Meaning things change and are not permanent and the only thing that is constant in Humanity’s short stint has a species is change.

#3 Comment By mrscracker On June 12, 2018 @ 10:46 am

RJohnson,
I don’t agree that teens marrying each other is equivalent to “grooming for sexual abuse.”

Marriage before age 18 has been a part of society for at least a couple thousand years or more I’d guess. In my own family & among older folks in our area it wasn’t uncommon common for brides to be 15-17 years old.

In the states I’m familiar with, it’s still considered by some a decent & humane option for an underage, pregnant girl who desires to “give her baby a name” & raise it in a home with legally wed parents.

And again, the state laws I’m aware of require the consent of both a judge & the parents. Teens just don’t go off, get a marriage license & get wed on their own.

I understand that’s an old fashioned concept & probably not a part of some cultures today, but for teens who prefer not to have children out of wedlock or don’t choose to give up their child for adoption, it’s still seen as the right thing to do.

I have trouble trying to figure out the energy behind the current push against teenagers marrying. Is it a reaction to immigration from countries where very young children can be married or young girls forced to marry much older men? I don’t think that’s the same culture you’re looking at in KY or TN.
And at the same time, underage girls in America can obtain abortions & contraceptives. Teens can decide they identify as a different gender & receive medical treatment. Last time I heard, boys can enter the military at 17 with parental permission. Is marriage to avoid illegitimacy so much worse a decision?

#4 Comment By mrscracker On June 12, 2018 @ 10:47 am

Sorry, for the typos. I wish there was an edit feature here.
🙂

#5 Comment By Q On June 12, 2018 @ 11:43 am

Race traitor here. For the same reason many Christians are, or have been, or should be: I cluster and propagate in accordance to extra-racial determinants. Had I come to realize in adolescence that my small town was full of Raskolniks, I would have run away and joined the circus even sooner than I did.

#6 Comment By EngineerScotty On June 12, 2018 @ 12:26 pm

Note that Scotty has nothing to say about demographic projections, nothing to say about the reality of the situation, nothing to say about history, nothing to say about Chinese policy concerning the ethnic composition of China vs. European policy concerning the ethnic composition of Europe. Absolutely nothing addressing any of the substantive points.

What about “demographic projections”? You’ll find that the so-called “browning of America” doesn’t terrify me in the slightest.

What about China? Well (stating the obvious) it’s a large, ethnically-homogenous state, with one dominant ethno-linguistic group (Han Chinese), several ethnic minorities (with a similar physical appearance but different linguistic, cultural, and religious traditions), some of which came under Beijing’s dominion by conquest (and would rather not be ruled thereby), and a fair number of expats living there (typical of any modern country). The dominant position of the Han isn’t under any “threat”. OTOH, the country isn’t conducting any pogroms against its minority groups. But China is China.

Europe, of course, is not a country; and even speaking of Europeans as a “race” is shorthand at best, foolishness at worst, particularly given the long history of intermixing and conquest. Dennis Hopper’s discourse on Sicilian ancestry in True Romance, while offensive, isn’t all that wrong.

Scotty would have us commit demographic suicide, as the Chinese wait and laugh.

If the Chinese are laughing at us, it’s because Americas nationalists elected to the Presidency a manifestly unqualified twit who is busily dismantling and undermining many of this country’s institutions. Not because Latinos might someday become a plurality in California.

It’s just, “Oh my these people have been here for a ‘long’ [definition needed] time, they can’t possibly leave.”

Why should they? Just so you can have an ethnic monostate?

>Having neighbors move in that look different or speak Spanish doesn’t bring about the “physical destruction” of anything.

Yes it does, you utter nitwit, yes it does, if there used to be more of you than there are of them, but now there are more of them than there are of you.

Unless you suspect that “more of them” means pogroms against “us”, this destroys nothing.

Another one of your problems, is, that you can’t possibly imagine people living in peace together. You hate everyone who is not like you–and you imagine that they all hate you as well. You think there will be pogroms, no matter what, and want to ensure that it’s your side doing the window-breaking. Which, in practice, means “we need to crush them while they are weak and small”.

More than you probably deserve, you have my pity here.

I probably shouldn’t be surprised, but it is actually shocking how vanishingly little you understand about European politics. Yes, the rulers of Europe, and in particular the top layers of the EU/EC bureaucracy, absolutely want to destroy the ethnic composition of Europe as it has existed since known prehistory.

And why would they want to do that?

I suppose, since you are slippery with language, by “destroy the ethnic composition of Europe”, do you mean “cause the death and destruction of native Europeans”, or “reduce the percentage of European residents who are ‘white'”? If the former, bullsh!t. If the latter, who cares?

What I am suggesting is that Europeans did not replace Indios in Latin America, as would be obvious from even a cursory walk around. Nor did they replace Africans in Africa, or Aborigines in Australia. The native populations in North America were 95% unintentionally wiped out by disease, it had nothing to do with any violence.

Again, utter bullsh!t. Millions of native in the Americas were slaughtered. Yes, disease was often the cause (particularly in North America), but it was often intentional. Many survived of course, particularly in Mexico and points south, but you’ll notice the national languages of pretty much everywhere in the Americas are European tongues–English, Spanish, French, Portugese. Europe conquered the Americas, full stop. In most cases, said colonies later became independent–but tellingly, you appear to consider the United States the rightful domain of whites, not of Amerinds.

But it’s amazing how quickly you dismiss the conquest of the New World as a mere trifle, but the presence of a Pakistani or Indian in the West End hawking curries off a truck–ohmygosh #WhiteGenocide.

You don’t believe the European nations have the right to exist. You believe China has the right to exist, you believe China has the right to commit genocide by demographics against the Tibetans, in exactly the same way the rootless globalist elite of the EU are committing genocide by demographics against the historic nations of Europe, the timeline is even more or less the same, under current policy, within a century, there will be roughly as many Tibetans in Tibet as there are Europeans in Europe.

Eh, what?

Wherever did I defend the Chinese occupation of Tibet? I haven’t, and I won’t.

The rest of this is crap. China (a giant nation) militarily invaded and occupied Tibet some time after WWII; it has a long history of viewing Tibet as part of its territory, something that the Tibetans generally dispute, but are in no position to resist. And yes, China has been encouraging Han Chinese to move there, arguably in an effort to make ethnic Tibetans a minority.

Russia has long behaved in a similar fashion to its neighbors. (China does, I should mention, have historical claims on Siberia–if it ever decided to start pressing those, things could get interesting). Many imperial powers do this; they have their spheres of influence, and often treat their neighboring states as vassals.

Which has little to do with Europe. There’s no hostile foreign power occupying Europe, deliberately moving its own nationals in as colonists. You may complain about “rootless elites” until the cows come home, but last I checked–they were every bit as European.

And the population of Tibet–total, not just ethnic Tibetans–is 3 million. The population of Europe is north of 700 million, over 95% of which are ethnic Europeans, not immigrants from off the continent. Unless World War III happens, or a similar catastrophe, your “prediction” concerning Europe’s demographics is utterly ridiculous.

But you don’t care, because to you, who’s to say that a Han that moved to Lhasa in 1990 isn’t just as Tibetan as the Dalai Lama? Who’s to say that a Pakistani Muslim who grew up in London isn’t just as English as the Queen?
Do you have any moral principles here other than “I want my tribe to win and I don’t care what needs to happen to make it so?”

Again, see above. There’s a yuuge difference between a peaceful, lawful migrant and an invading and occupying army. You, apparently, are unaware of this distinction, and view any “foreign” element in your midst as though they are a mortal threat.

And you still are confused about the difference between ethnic group and civic nationality (though perhaps a better statement of things is that you think there ought to be no difference, and that blood-and-soil nationalism is the only kind that should be recognized in law, and any arrangements to the contrary ought to be immediately withdrawn and voided, by force if necessary).

#7 Comment By Jesse On June 12, 2018 @ 12:29 pm

“Demographic studies show ethnic Swedes becoming a minority in Sweden within the lifespan of most people currently alive”

It’s called an inability to do math and look at the actual progress of birth rates in the world in general.

#8 Comment By Doug On June 12, 2018 @ 1:12 pm

LOL at Raskolnik still not understanding the difference between being a British citizen and being of English ethnicity.

Those are some mighty fine hoops you jump through to support the mass deportation of settled citizens.

Han Chinese that move to Tibet are not Tibetan, but both the Han and his Tibetan neighbour are Chinese citizens.

Similarly, my ethnicity is Scots-Irish, and yet I am a citizen of Canada, and neither the UK or Ireland. My families history only extends back 100 years, should we also be deported back to Ireland?

Is it that hard to understand, you utter nitwit (as you thusly referred to Scotty).

Your argument is basically that modern states (and how they all define citizenship) shouldn’t exist, but they do, regardless of your opinions on the matter. It’s going to take one heck of a revolution for the concept of the modern state to disappear all throughout the Americas and Europe (and yes, even China, which is home to many different ethnicities that have shuffled and displaced each other many times over the centuries).

#9 Comment By Doug On June 12, 2018 @ 1:18 pm

Indeed, Raskolnik, your entire argument seems to boil down to idea that the way modern states define citizenship inherently constitutes genocide.

That’s just a tad melodramatic, don’t you think?

#10 Comment By Brian in Brooklyn On June 12, 2018 @ 1:37 pm

Giuseppe Scalas writes: “European homosexuals, however, used to be very much influenced by such openly pedophile intellectuals such as Foucault, Genet, Mieli, etc…”

I remember learning how big defense of pedophilia was in the 1970’s and 1980’s (especially France)–both queer and non-queer varieties. I am not sure if France has age of consent laws yet.

More Giuseppe: “Sex is the reproductive mechanism of the species.”

Genital intercourse is the reproductive mechanism of the species, and a variety of sex, but not equivalent to the category of sex itself.

More Giuseppe: “Rubbing each other (which isn’t technically even sex, but lust) is not, no matter how hard one tries.”

Lust is a huge societal problem. It is considered one the Five Hindrances by Buddhists (the common term is sensory desire).

#11 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 12, 2018 @ 2:45 pm

Raskolnik is cherry picking history, and doing it quite vehemently. Its not that most of the fact he cites, when he cites any, are false, or without some truth. But whenever any less convenient and equally accurate facts are brought up, he dismisses them with a backhanded epithet as unworthy of his august consideration. Its not very convincing.

#12 Comment By Raskolnik On June 12, 2018 @ 3:47 pm

Scotty can’t deny that he thinks ethnic Han occupying Lhasa, and ethnic Pakistanis occupying London, are just as “Tibetan” or just as “English” as the actual Tibetans and English.

Utterly unreal.

But it tells you everything you need to know about his genocidal worldview.

#13 Comment By Raskolnik On June 12, 2018 @ 4:04 pm

Go try shilling your “civic nationalist” BS in China, or Japan, or literally any country that isn’t (for now) majority European, and see how far you get.

It’s moments like these where the smug parochialism of our urban “elites” really comes out. India recognizes Indian nationals born abroad as “Persons of Indian Origin” eligible for citizenship, as does China and a number of other nations. Good luck acquiring citizenship as any other kind of foreigner, though. India makes you jump through hoops to get a tourist visa if you have a single Pakistani grandparent. Everyone else on the planet understand that the preservation of their ethnos requires certain steps, and they take those steps. Genocidal maniacs like Scotty, however, don’t care–or rather, they only care if Europeans take the necessary steps to protect themselves.

Unless World War III happens, or a similar catastrophe, your “prediction” concerning Europe’s demographics is utterly ridiculous.

I would have thought such a big brained engineer could have mentally supplied the implicit “as a percentage of population.”

Indeed, Raskolnik, your entire argument seems to boil down to idea that the way modern states define citizenship inherently constitutes genocide.

That’s just a tad melodramatic, don’t you think?

Not if it actually leads to genocide, which is what is happening

#14 Comment By Raskolnik On June 12, 2018 @ 4:47 pm

even China, which is home to many different ethnicities that have shuffled and displaced each other many times over the centuries).

This is a lie. The Han have been in China since at least the time of the mythical Yellow Emperor, some 5000 years ago. They are a remarkably homogeneous population and have been all that time. They are 90%+ of the population, and they have seen to it and will continue seeing to it that this continues to be the case.

The dominant position of the Han isn’t under any “threat”. OTOH, the country isn’t conducting any pogroms against its minority groups. But China is China.

Europe, of course, is not a country; and even speaking of Europeans as a “race” is shorthand at best, foolishness at worst, particularly given the long history of intermixing and conquest.

Ethnic nationalism: awesome for Chinese, “racist” for Europeans.

I wonder, Scotty, what you would say about the ethnic nationalism of Israel, given the “long history of intermixing and conquest” among the Jews. Is it “xenophobic” for Israel to strictly limit citizenship to non-Jews? What’s a Jew, anyway?

Never mind, of course, the fact that you can do a DNA test for Jewish descent, and the State of Israel is [16]. Never mind the fact that you can use precisely the same kind of test to establish European ancestry, and you can see how close the various Europeans nations are to each other on a PCA graph.

I imagine you think it’s perfectly fine for Israel to limit citizenship to Jews, as long as they are “inclusive” of Africans “Jews” who converted three minutes ago. Never mind of course the fact that Israel has made it very clear they don’t want any Africans under any circumstances.

It’s those damned Europeans and their xenophobia that we have to watch out for.

#15 Comment By Doug On June 12, 2018 @ 6:20 pm

You really nailed it, Raskolnik. Everyone that isn’t a white nationalist is a genocidal maniac, guilty of the most severe crimes against humanity. Only the white supremacists and ethno-nationalists are free of the terrible stain of genocide. Indeed, the ethnic cleansing such people as Raskolnik desire is only defensive, a sort of reactionary genocide, such as the Final Solution.

[NFR: I’m growing weary of this discussion. It is possible to talk about ethnos and nation without using the language of genocide. More light, less heat, please. — RD]

#16 Comment By Doug On June 12, 2018 @ 7:07 pm

[NFR: I’m growing weary of this discussion. It is possible to talk about ethnos and nation without using the language of genocide. More light, less heat, please. — RD]

Agreed. And just to clarify my own position on the matter, I think it’s absolutely within normal political parameters for a nation to have a vigorous debate about immigration levels. We have these debates all the time in Canada.

Both the ‘open borders’ and the ‘ethno-nationalists’ seem to me to be caricatures of what the real debate should be, and it would do well for people to remember the ENORMOUS amount of space between these two positions. The vast, vast, vast majority of Americans exist somewhere in this space (to the disappointment of the white nationalists and the ‘all immigration restrictions are racist crowd).

All this talk of white genocide makes sensible discussion about immigration levels impossible.

#17 Comment By mrscracker On June 12, 2018 @ 7:49 pm

Raskolnik,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it, DNA tests are generally accurate at identifying Ashkenazi ancestry, but I don’t believe it works the same way for Sephardic Jews.

I don’t know where you are writing from or if this might apply to your region, but from what I’ve seen, American DNA can be very mixed up. People often find out they’re a whole mixture of ethnicities and sometimes “races. ”

Speaking of Britain, they had a long colonial history and British folk can sometimes make that same discovery about their ancestors, too.
And that may also apply to other former colonial powers.

I think culture is what’s really important and worth conserving ,not color.
And as a Christian I think I am taught to believe that.

#18 Comment By What Is Their Name On June 12, 2018 @ 9:49 pm

Many of the comments seem to have veered off into very different waters than what the orginal article was about. But I digress…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe this is trying to highlight shows (or at least one- Tots could be more aimed at adults) aimed at young children. This is when they are most impressionable and they suck up information regardless of its source. Typically, adults (parents and teachers) were the guardians and gatekeepers of such knowledge. Not so much anymore – audiovisual content is even more accessible and powerful today than 10-20 years ago. The activists know this and are willing to use anything to create more acceptance for their cause.
Society should not praise boys (especially their guardians!) who wear lipstick and dress in drag and are paraded in front of grown men for their pleasure and entertainment. And then hold a baloon with ‘eat a dick’ written on it when they’re done as ‘message to haters.”
Kami-sama help us all!

#19 Comment By JonF On June 13, 2018 @ 7:40 am

Re: I have trouble trying to figure out the energy behind the current push against teenagers marrying.

I suspect it derives from the fact that such marriages, though certainly not depraved, are extremely unwise given our current socioeconomic realities.

#20 Comment By TR On June 13, 2018 @ 8:38 am

mrscracker at 10:46am. You’re speaking for the entire (Southern, at least) culture of several generations ago. My, how times have changed.

#21 Comment By Raskolnik On June 13, 2018 @ 12:10 pm

but from what I’ve seen, American DNA can be very mixed up. People often find out they’re a whole mixture of ethnicities and sometimes “races. ”

This is actually a falsehood that is being circulated in an attempt to mask the uncomfortable truth that [17]. The USA is not (yet) Brazil. More broadly, the whole “85% of human DNA is identical” crowd misses the increasingly obvious scientific conclusion that that last 15% is actually really important, that what we take to be “race” is indeed a real and scientifically-valid construct. (Whether it is metaphysically “real” is a question that can only be engaged with as part of a broader debate between nominalists and realists concerning the status of universals).

I think culture is what’s really important and worth conserving ,not color.
And as a Christian I think I am taught to believe that.

First of all, there is more to ethnos or “race” than just color. Second, I don’t see why you shouldn’t be interested in preserving both. As Christians, we have been offered the story of the Tower of Babel as a dire warning. The people who are pushing this “there will be global peace once we’re all mocha colored and there are no more white people”–which is their openly stated agenda, in case you were not aware–are pushing a literally Satanic, diabolical plan. And it will end in exactly the same way as the Tower of Babel in the story, which I am increasingly convinced was more of a prophecy than the ancient Israelites could ever have understood at the time.

#22 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 13, 2018 @ 10:53 pm

Raskolnik, you linked to any article quoting one pundit citing another person with a well formed expectation of what they want to find, and on the very point you emphasize (which appears far down the column as almost an afterthought), the presentation is quite fuzzy and the devilish details postponed for another time. Nice try.

I was however amused by the sarcastic dismissal of the notion that most European ancestry for African Americans was due to rape, because “no woman in history was ever attracted to a higher social status man.” The truth is a lot more complex than that, but it IS true that in the 17th and 18th centuries, race was not an impediment to marriage except in the uppermost classes.

I also note that after twenty intervening generations, it is not uncommon for 50 percent of a distant ancestor’s background to be only 5 or 2 1/2 or 1 1/4 percent of your own. Inheritance changes by a factor of two every generation. That’s also why its silly to talk about “Are you descended from royalty?” Well, sure, go far enough back, probably just about all of us are.

#23 Comment By EngineerScotty On June 14, 2018 @ 3:11 am

Scotty can’t deny that he thinks ethnic Han occupying Lhasa, and ethnic Pakistanis occupying London, are just as “Tibetan” or just as “English” as the actual Tibetans and English.

Utterly unreal.

But it tells you everything you need to know about his genocidal worldview.

Hoo boy.

As explained previously, there’s a difference between ethnicity and civic nationality. You may wish to obliterate this distinction, but I’m not about to conduct the argument on those terms. Thus, your characterization of my position is rejected utterly, and I’ve already explained why.

As Doug points out, there are many positions on immigration between “open borders” and “let’s cleanse the ethnos at gunpoint”. A rhetorical trick some extremists will try (and I will not fall for) is “if you aren’t at one extreme, then you give away the game to the other”; that if I don’t support “open borders” (I don’t, in general), then I ought to be OK with e.g. forced expulsions of currently-lawful migrannts, because it’s just another choice in the immigration-policy toolbox. Or if I don’t object loudly to the obnoxious policies of every third-world kleptocracy or authoritarian state, that I can’t object when Western democracies behave in a fashion that flouts liberal democratic norms.

Specifically for Israel–I’m far less bothered about their policy of granting citizenship to foreign Jews, then their mistreatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. One is a legitimate exercise of sovereignty (even though I would object to such a policy in the US, with the First Amendement being a major reason why); the other frequently rises to the level of war crimes. (And yes, much of the Palestinian conduct is no better; two wrongs don’t make a right). Were Britain to pass a law banning further Muslim immigration, I would consider it a poor choice, particularly given Britain’s history, but it wouldn’t constitute a war crime. (I’m not British, of course, so my opinion would be advisory in any case). Rounding up existing British subjects and booting them out, OTOH, would constitute a crime against humany–even if “legalized” by an act of Parliament. Many such crimes happen under the color of law, after all; even the Final Solution was “legal” under the laws of Nazi Germany, which rather explicitly called for the rounding up of Jews.

At any rate, the suggestion that favoring immigration constitutes “genocide” is patent nonsense. What constitutes genocide is well-established under international law. Most of the legal “authorities” for your position on this matter were hanged at Nuremberg, or died in prison in The Hague.

#24 Comment By mrscracker On June 14, 2018 @ 10:55 am

Raskolnik,

I agree there’s more inherited in DNA than we may realize but I think the shade of complexion inherited is the least important part.

I’ve looked at data online re. what portion of Americans who identify as “White” have found they have African ancestry & I suspect it’s higher than we think. DNA testing is becoming more affordable but a small percentage of the overall population have been tested so far. Where I live it’s estimated 12% of White folks have African ancestry. I think that’s true for South Carolina as well.

A great many Hispanic people find they have Jewish ancestry & so do some European Americans. Jews have assimilated into the New World from the earliest days.

And as Siarlys states, DNA can become undetectable in testing after several generations. I’ve looked at some DNA test results for family members. An 18th Century ancestor’s DNA shows up in one test as 2%, but for a granddaughter 2 generations younger it’s no longer discernible.

I think “Gumbo” could describe the DNA here pretty well. Or perhaps “Jambalaya”-whatever’s on hand & thrown in the pot. It just gets better over time as everything melds together. That’s how cuisines & cultures come about in colonial regions I think.
🙂

#25 Comment By Raskolnik On June 14, 2018 @ 4:21 pm

As explained previously, there’s a difference between ethnicity and civic nationality. You may wish to obliterate this distinction, but I’m not about to conduct the argument on those terms.

“Civic nationality” is and only ever was a legal fiction. It is, moreover, a legal fiction that just about the literal entirety of the planet does not give any credence to, as evidenced by the strict laws governing the relationship between ethnicity and citizenship in just about literally every other country on the planet. Look up Indian or Chinese naturalization laws. I’ll wait.

As Doug points out, there are many positions on immigration between “open borders” and “let’s cleanse the ethnos at gunpoint”

And as I’ve explained previously, and as you are no doubt smart enough to understand–which means that you are either being willfully obtuse or deliberately disingenuous–the fact that such a political “middle ground” exists in theory is completely irrelevant to the actual issue being discussed here, which is the replacement of Europeans by non-Europeans in Europe and the United States. The borders could shut closed tomorrow, and by 2050, at current birthrates, the Muslim population of Europe will be close to 10%, including nearly 15% of France. And that’s if you believe Pew’s phoney-baloney numbers.

Leaving aside any question of the impact that kind of replacement is going to have on European security–which is to say, Muslims have been attempting to conquer Europe literally since their religion was founded, they have literally never stopped, and this is just another way of accomplishing the same strategic objective–the stark fact of the matter is that (not “just about” but) literally no other countries on the planet would tolerate a hostile xenos becoming 10% of their population. China wouldn’t tolerate it, India wouldn’t tolerate it, Japan wouldn’t tolerate it, Mexico wouldn’t tolerate it. Nobody would tolerate it. And frankly, Europe isn’t going to tolerate it either, which is one of the main reasons why I am in favor of peaceful repatriation now instead of the bloodshed that is absolutely certain to result later.

In the abstract, it is possible to construct a meaningful policy position between open borders and ~98% ethnic purity, enforced at gunpoint. In the real world, where the population of Africa is projected to reach 4.5 billion by 2100, and the population of Europe is projected to reach ~0.8 billion inclusive of non-Europeans, and at least half of sub-Saharan Africans intend to “migrate,” there is no compromise to be had. It is closed borders and repatriations, or the extinguishment of the European ethnoi.

Which is what you want, and what would be the deliberate result of your policies.

Specifically for Israel–I’m far less bothered about their policy of granting citizenship to foreign Jews, then their mistreatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories.

This is a complete non-sequitur and has nothing to do with any of the points I raised. Again, you are being either willfully obtuse or deliberately disingenuous.

So I will repeat the question: is it acceptable for Israel to strictly limit Israeli citizenship to Jews? Is it acceptable for Israel to exist as a Jewish ethnostate? If not, why not, considering the entire reason for the creation of the Jewish ethnostate is the fact that, as we all know, in the absence of such an ethnostate, the Jews faced the elimination of their ethnos? Do you think you know more than Jews about why Israel is necessary? Do you disagree with Jews that Israel is necessary? Or do you simply think that it is acceptable for Jews to have their own state, but not acceptable for the English or the French or the Germans (etc.)?

Most of the legal “authorities” for your position on this matter were hanged at Nuremberg, or died in prison in The Hague.

The criminal against humanity cries “Nazi” at you while he plots the extinction of your ethnos.

Call me a Nazi again. Maybe I’ll care this time.

#26 Comment By Raskolnik On June 14, 2018 @ 4:27 pm

I think “Gumbo” could describe the DNA here pretty well. Or perhaps “Jambalaya”-whatever’s on hand & thrown in the pot. It just gets better over time as everything melds together. That’s how cuisines & cultures come about in colonial regions I think.

I regret to inform you that the “melting pot” is now considered racist.

Sorry.

On the plus side, again, consider that the flip side of what you said is that 88% of American whites have zero African ancestry. Consider also that DNA tests are not really reliable for concentrations of DNA less than about 5% (in other words, a result of “2-4% African” is statistically more or less the same as 0%, considering the margin of error).

The American population is not nearly as intermingled as the ideologues want people to believe. Now, as someone who thinks that he plot to turn everyone mocha is literally Satanic, not to mention something that will never be accepted by e.g. the Han (though they are far from the only ones), I see that as a good thing. If you’re a fan of trying to build the Tower of Babel 2.0, and you think that such a plan is going to go just swimmingly, I suppose your mileage might vary.

#27 Comment By Doug On June 14, 2018 @ 6:13 pm

Raskolnik,

Your contention that ‘one ethnicity per state’ is the historical norm is, well, shockingly ahistorical, to the point of being disingenuous.

You entirely erase out of existence all of the multi-ethnic states that have existed throughout the millennia, including essentially every empire. You keep barking about China, and yes, China is comparatively homogeneous (ignoring the Zhuang, Turks, Mongols, Manchu, and Tibetans that have lived in China for centuries). If you actually cared to look at history, it would be clear to you that China is quite an exception, and the multi-ethnic states are and were extraordinarily common, for as long as their have been ‘states’.

You can’t wish that history out of existence. The concept of the ‘nation-state’ is itself a relatively recent invention, as every university student learns in first year European History.

What is the ‘native ethnicity’ of the United States anyways? Anglo-Saxons? Where do all the Germans, Irish, Italians, Scandinavian, African, and others fit into your scheme?

Do you really think the Irish and the German are the same ethnicity? Do you think that’s actually a historically valid claim? Or is it really just the colour of their skin that counts for you (an entirely ahistorical notion)?

#28 Comment By mrscracker On June 15, 2018 @ 12:53 pm

Raskolnik says:

“I regret to inform you that the “melting pot” is now considered racist.

Sorry.”
******************

No doubt. Pretty much everything’s considered “racist” these days.
🙂

I’m not an expert on DNA, but we do have an ancestor six generations back with DNA unique from the rest & the test results came back exactly within the percentage you’d expect, rounded up to 2 percent from the 1.58% calculated from the fraction.
And that very small amount of DNA was enough to pass along a serious, inherited disease to my cousin.

I’m skeptical about some of the DNA testing as far as assigning regions/ethnicities, but the science seems real.

#29 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 15, 2018 @ 8:42 pm

Consider also that DNA tests are not really reliable for concentrations of DNA less than about 5% (in other words, a result of “2-4% African” is statistically more or less the same as 0%, considering the margin of error).

Which means your statistics are missing a lot of real ancestry, due to the imprecision of the measurements.

Ever hear of the One Drop Rule?

Its only natural that as racial distinctions became more significant to more people, those with pale skin (who therefore had relatively small percentages of African or Native American ancestry) would primarily intermarry with each other, and the small percentages would diminish and even drop out of the measurable statistics or under the margin of error over time. Most of the inter-marriage happened in the 17th and 18th century, although it never entirely disappeared. (Check out My Confederate Kinfolk by an African American woman).

Several descendants of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings were entirely unaware that they were anything but “white” until the whole family tree was unraveled in the last few decades. One man of African descent who was a freeholder in Plymouth MA crosses with the family tree of nearly the entire New England blue-blood aristocracy (including Winston Churchill’s mother).

There is a reason southern culture was full of terms like “a spoonful of Negro blood” and “a touch of the tar brush.” Nearly everyone had it, and knew it, and tried to deny it as it became more socially embarrassing.

#30 Comment By EngineerScotty On June 15, 2018 @ 9:06 pm

“Civic nationality” is and only ever was a legal fiction. It is, moreover, a legal fiction that just about the literal entirety of the planet does not give any credence to, as evidenced by the strict laws governing the relationship between ethnicity and citizenship in just about literally every other country on the planet. Look up Indian or Chinese naturalization laws. I’ll wait.

Uh, India is a fantastically multi-ethnic society, with many different languages and cultures and religions. (And yes, biologically-distinct ethnicities as well). So much so that English remains as a sort of common tongue, long after the British left.

Or are you going to tell me, with a straight face, that “Indian” is a race?

Even China, as noted above, contains many ethnic groups; and was every bit as fractious linguistically until Mao basically forced everyone to learn the Beijing spoken dialect, which became the national language more or less by edict. Even today, use of regional dialects (the most important holdout is Hong Kong and Cantonese) is an issue of some controversy there, as all sorts of people resist replacement of local culture and literature with Mandarin.

And as I’ve explained previously, and as you are no doubt smart enough to understand–which means that you are either being willfully obtuse or deliberately disingenuous–the fact that such a political “middle ground” exists in theory is completely irrelevant to the actual issue being discussed here, which is the replacement of Europeans by non-Europeans in Europe and the United States. The borders could shut closed tomorrow, and by 2050, at current birthrates, the Muslim population of Europe will be close to 10%, including nearly 15% of France. And that’s if you believe Pew’s phoney-baloney numbers.

Even if you were to consider that a problem–it’s your proposed solution that I take issue with.

And as far as the United State goes–“Europeans” are a tiny minority of the population of this country. Of course, I know full well that what you really mean here is “white people”. I’m white, but I don’t consider myself “European” in any significant sense. (Like many American whites, I have ancestry from all over the continent, and have to go back three generations to find ancestors who lived in the “old country”).

Given that the US was founded by conquering the Amerinds who were here first, and that large numbers of Africans were imported as slaves; I’m not sure why you think that a declining population of whites is a problem.

Call me a Nazi again. Maybe I’ll care this time.

I don’t have to call you anything. You have proven yourself more than capable of demonstrating to readers here just what you are.

#31 Comment By mrscracker On June 15, 2018 @ 11:41 pm

Siaryls,
Who was the free person of color in Plymouth you mentioned?
I read a book about Winston Churchill and his mother claimed to have descended from an Indian. I’ve noticed in family histories when there’s mixed ancestry it’s usually presented as Indian.
I guess that was considered more acceptable than African.

#32 Comment By Raskolnik On June 16, 2018 @ 12:06 am

Your contention that ‘one ethnicity per state’ is the historical norm is, well, shockingly ahistorical, to the point of being disingenuous.

Point out where I said that.

Protip: you can’t.

See, this is why you ought to read carefully and objectively. You’ll notice that I actually both presupposed and made the point you think you’re making here, which is that the concept of the “nation-state” is a recent invention. Absolutely! That is precisely why the idea of “civic nationalism” is a legal fiction. Nobody had to tell the Dutch under Charles V that they were Dutch and not Spanish. The essence of your argument here is that, as loyal subjects of the Spanish Habsburgs, they should have set aside the fact that they were Dutch in favor of a “civic nationalist” identity as a Habsburgian (or something).

Of course they didn’t, because no one would, because that is insane and inhumane.

You keep barking about China, and yes, China is comparatively homogeneous (ignoring the Zhuang, Turks, Mongols, Manchu, and Tibetans that have lived in China for centuries).

First of all, by referring to Tibetans as having “living in China for centuries,” you are begging literally all of the questions at stake.

Tibet is not China, and never was, and the fact that “Tibet” (more precisely, dBu, gTsang, and the various peripheral kingdoms) did not have well-defined borders makes exactly the opposite point to the one that you think you’re making. There was no geopolitical “Tibet,” that’s a large part of what made it so easy for the Chinese to invade, and to retroactively justify their invasion; but the fact that no single unified Tibetan state existed does not and did not mean that there is no distinct Tibetan ethnos.

Second, you’re being obtuse. You’re referring to tiny ethnic minorities as though they have some bearing on Chinese demographics, when the stark reality is that the Han are 90%+ of Chinese citizens, and the Han are doing everything they can–quite successfully–to keep it that way.

This ties into the third and perhaps most important point, which is that you’re missing that what the Han is doing to the Uighur and the Tibetans in “Western China” (I prefer “Central Asia”) is (sorry Rod) genocide by demographics. They are replacing the population by importing Han. And, Scotty’s genocidal worldview notwithstanding, a Han born in Lhasa is not Tibetan. A Han born in Lhasa to Han parents who were born in Lhasa is also not Tibetan. Han are Han and Tibetans are Tibetan. A mouse born in a stable is not, therefore, a horse.

Or are you going to tell me, with a straight face, that “Indian” is a race?

The point is not that “Indian” is a race. The point is that, number one, you can see how close all those “different ethnicities” on the Subcontinent are to each other on a PCA graph, in a manner precisely analogous to how the European ethnoi are closer to each other than other populations; number two, the Government of India considers Subcontinental ancestry an essential element of citizenship and naturalization policy, as does (mutatis mutandis) pretty much every other government on this planet; and, number three, that Indians would not tolerate Chinese or Europeans or anyone else becoming even 10% of their citizenry, to say nothing of a majority of the population on the Subcontinent.

You are holding Europeans to a unique standard, out of nothing but your hatred for them.

On this note, I would like to point out to everyone that Scotty pointedly refused to answer any questions about Israel vis-a-vis the issues here. It’s because he doesn’t have any answers, because there are no answers.

#33 Comment By Doug On June 16, 2018 @ 8:38 am

Raskolnik,

First, stop accusing us of hating Europeans, and stop with this genocide garbage. I dont come to this space for this kind of nonsense. I was entirely prepared to leave this stupid genocide talk behind, but you are obviously unwilling to do so.

Genocide by demographics doesn’t exist, and you dont just get to twist the definitions around to suit whatever you like. Genocide is a real thing. Ethnic cleansing is a real thing. Genocide by demographics is not a real thing. Ethnic cleansing due to low birthrates and higher immigration rates is not ethnic cleansing.

You only keep repeating it because you know what your preferred policy entails: The forcible removal of settled citizens (and sending them where exactly?), stripping apart families where intermarriage occurs, and many other evils. These are much more serious crimes than the mere existence of immigrants and their descendants in any particular country. But, if you get to say those people are committing genocide simply by being there, well, you can justify all sorts of evil stuff to stop that genocide.

You also avoided my question about the US: There are essentially no ‘native ethnicities’ remaining, and the ‘legal fiction’ of civic nationality is all America has ever had. So which peoples do you forcibly expel? African? Mexicans? Germans? Catholics? Why or why not?

Anyways, since you insist on being such a drama queen, keeping up these melodramatic and personal accusations, and being entirely disingenuous, I am finished with this interaction.

Have a great day, and I hope you and your ilk never get the power to do what you’ve proposed here.

#34 Comment By Raskolnik On June 16, 2018 @ 9:00 am

In fact, reflecting further, Scotty not only refused to answer my questions about Israel, he furthermore refused to answer Seoulite’s questions–implicitly accepted by Hector–as to the replacement of Swedes by non-Swedes in “Sweden.”

This is structurally identical, of course, to his categorical inability to deny that a Pakistani Muslim who arrived three seconds ago but has the right piece of paper is just as British as the Queen. He doesn’t answer because he can’t answer, because there is no answer. There is just obfuscation and accusations of Nazism.

“Sweden” is the name of a piece of geography that has been inhabited for a long time by Swedes. Now there is a legal fiction, a government, that has sovereignty there, and rules on behalf of Swedes. If you swap the populations of Nigeria and Sweden, the Swedes will build a new “Sweden” in Africa, and the Nigerians will collapse into a new “Nigeria” in Europe. By the same token, if Swedes in “Sweden” become outnumbered and replaced by non-Swedes, the legal fiction of a place on a map called “Sweden” might survive (for a time, until it doesn’t), but the Swedes themselves will not.

#35 Comment By Raskolnik On June 16, 2018 @ 5:22 pm

Ethnic cleansing due to low birthrates and higher immigration rates is not ethnic cleansing.

So “X … is not X,” because I don’t like the implication that it is X. Even though I actually acknowledge that it is X. It just can’t be X, because I don’t want it to be X. Therefore, X is not X.

Awesome logic.

Just awesome.

As an aside: the deliberate elimination of an ethnos is by definition genocide, whether the mechanism of that elimination is gas chambers or “legal” immigration policy.

#36 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 19, 2018 @ 11:35 am

Or rather, if X is Z, it does not follow that Y is Z, merely because I have an antipathy for both X and Y, and everyone hates Z.

#37 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 19, 2018 @ 7:06 pm

If you swap the populations of Nigeria and Sweden, the Swedes will build a new “Sweden” in Africa, and the Nigerians will collapse into a new “Nigeria” in Europe.

Or, the Nigerians might be invigorated by the cold climate to become proactively innovative and productive, while the Swedes sink into a tropical torpor. You don’t seriously think that Europeans could have maintained profitable plantations in the tropics by their own labor, do you?