Michael Tsarion on Race, Jordan Peterson, and Why Conspiracy Work is Spiritual Work |372|

This notion of the "white genocide" has always, well, surprised me - I can't see whites being genocided anywhere in Europe, America and Australia (despite the fact that whites did come to the latter two continents as violent invaders and colonisers).

White people do have problems, sometimes, with some authortitarian segments of the modern Left movements (which cannot be equated with the Left movements in general). They can indeed, sometimes, be a target of aggression by some overenthusiastic SJW-types. I, being a Libertarian Leftist, do not support such acts of aggression, and think that modern Left movements need to acknowledge that some of their participants are openly authoritarian.

Yet such acts - which are in most cases are not even physical, let alone lethal - is a galaxy away from a genocide, that is, a systematic massive murder (directly, by physical killing, or indirectly, by a stuctural oppression intence enough to ensure that the oppressed would not survive it) of people who do (or do not) fit some criteria in which their murderers believe. As for now, white people are not subjected either to mass slaughter or to the lethally intence oppression.

Being insulted by some angry SJW, or being directed away from a "people of color safe space" on campus, or being forced to cleanse one's lecture of "trigger warnings" is not a pleasant experience, surely. Yet it is not on the same level - not even remotely so - of the one of being sent to a concentration camp, or assassinated by a death squad, or forced into a slave labour, or banished into ghetto / reservation, or deprived of food and shelter.

Thank you for putting this so eloquently! I just can't understand where the white genocide idea came from. Yes, there are extreme SJW's who spout hateful nonsense, but those are the minority who shouldn't be paid attention to. I do think "the Left" should make a bigger effort to denounce such violence and hate from the SJW movement. Being threatened online does not equate mass murder of a race. If so, then ALL races are currently in a genocide.

On a side note, I also do not understand the problem with "people of color safe spaces" or any "safe space" for that matter. I remember the uproar from that and was really confused about it. Not everything has to be open to everyone. As I've mentioned before, I am apart of a local group of black activists. Every Monday, they have a "dark skin only safe space" meeting where people can discuss issues regarding colorism. I have zero problem not being able to participate in this group, because it is not meant for me. As a light skin biracial woman, I have a privilege and recognize that dark skin people need a place where they can discuss colorism and the struggles they go through. It has nothing to do with racism or discrimination. Sorry if this is off topic, just wanted to add my two cents on this matter.
 
My best guess is that the "white genocide" claim is based on net relative immigration rates and/or net relative birth rates ("net" meaning taking into account, respectively, emigrations and deaths). I imagine that the claim is that due to these relative rates, the proportion of white people in traditionally white lands is decreasing.

Even assuming this were true (I have no idea whether or not it is and no particular interest in finding out), the claim that this qualifies as "white genocide" strikes me as extremely hyperbolic.
 
My best guess is that the "white genocide" claim is based on net relative immigration rates and/or net relative birth rates ("net" meaning taking into account, respectively, emigrations and deaths). I imagine that the claim is that due to these relative rates, the proportion of white people in traditionally white lands is decreasing.

Even assuming this were true (I have no idea whether or not it is and no particular interest in finding out), the claim that this qualifies as "white genocide" strikes me as extremely hyperbolic.

Not trying to promote Shaun again, but he has a video regarding the “great replacement”, which is the concept that white people in Europe are being replaced by immigrants, specifically Muslim immigrants. This doesn’t affect the U.S though, so why white Americans are freaking about it remains a mystery. Whites make up 60% of the population in the U.S, so they are a long way from being a minority. I also don’t see a problem if the white population decreases in America either. Why do white Americans have to remain the majority? Would it be bad if all races here were roughly the same in population?
 
Last edited:
I’m guessing he ‘white genocide’ meme allows one to excuse and maintain a racist outlook. Just look at the posters pushing it in this thread.
I won’t say anything about the posters here, but the people I have talked to that push this “white genocide” thing are usually very racist, but they won’t admit they are. Racism hasn’t gone anywhere, it just evolved into something new.
 
Can pointless and inane questions be asked?

If so, do they have a right to be answered?

Dude, there are hundreds of millions - perhaps over a billion - white people in the world today, depending on how you define "white". Since there is no widespread, systematic attempt to slaughter us, and since our birth rate is not drastically low, and since the rate of interracial marriages involving whites is low, it seems safe to say that we'll be around for a while yet...
 
Last edited:
I thought you were the one who said White People don't exist.
Nope, that wasn't me. Quite the opposite. The idea that race is nothing but a cultural construct is positively Orwellian, much like the eliminativists' denial of consciousness. That's not to say that race is perfectly defined - of course there is some fuzziness around the concept, its categories and their scope, but it quite obviously exists.

Yes. See above.
 
On a side note, I also do not understand the problem with "people of color safe spaces" or any "safe space" for that matter. I remember the uproar from that and was really confused about it. Not everything has to be open to everyone. As I've mentioned before, I am apart of a local group of black activists. Every Monday, they have a "dark skin only safe space" meeting where people can discuss issues regarding colorism. I have zero problem not being able to participate in this group, because it is not meant for me. As a light skin biracial woman, I have a privilege and recognize that dark skin people need a place where they can discuss colorism and the struggles they go through. It has nothing to do with racism or discrimination. Sorry if this is off topic, just wanted to add my two cents on this matter.
As a Libertarian Leftist, I had a lot of hard time of inner conflict, trying to find a proper balance between two equally valid and important (at least for me...) social principles - Libertarian approval of the free association, on one hand, and Leftist rejection of social segregation and exclusion, on the other.

As for now, my solution to this dilemma is such: on a personal (and communal) and informal level, people has the right to accept, reject, or avoid social contacts and relationships by their own choice, based on their own views, whatever they are; yet, on a societal and formal level, level of social policy and structure, the should be no presciption or enforcement of social segregation and exclusion of any kind.

To explain, let me use two examples - one is "dark skin only safe space" (mentioned by you, Raven), another is a Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Both cases are acceptable to me as long as they as they remain the informal personal (or communal) choices of an individual (or an informal group). People have the right to decide whom they to see in their company, and with whom they want to work or to do buisness. Their motives and decisions may be not likeable to the people outside of their immediate circle; they may disagree with them; yet they have to accept them as an expession of the basic social freedom to choose with whom to have contacts and with whom not to have.

Yet both cases stop to be acceptable to me in the moment they become a part of a formal policy; in the moment they turn into an enforceable prescription. So, I would not accept the official university policy of turning parts of campus into "safe spaces" for certain groups; neither will I accept any legislation, local or general, which will aim to deprive homosexuals of certain social possibilites (such as employing a baker to bake a cake for their wedding). In both cases, that would be segregation and exclusion, not freedom of association.
 
Last edited:
This is why Libertarian Utopianism is great in theory, but fails when brought into the real world.

Like Dr. Dean Radin, I prefer real-world results over quaint esoteric theories.

Can't see any logical connection between what I wrote and what you wrote. :eek:

What I meant is that integration and inclusion should be accepted as a general societal principle (no formal segregation or exclusion policies should be enforced) yet specific persons or communities should not be obliged to adhere to this principle in every instance - they have the right to accept or reject their associates by their own decision, with their justifications not necessarily shared by the societal majority.
 
Obviously, I don’t come here often anymore, so this is way outta left field I’m sure.

But I have a few questions of my own. First, are you an American? Second, have you ever A) owned a firearm or B) used a firearm?

I ask these questions because all two often I find that for the first, most non-Americans take issue with our second amendment. I won’t go into details as to why they may misunderstand it, the culture surrounding it and why most people, especially foreigners, are usually flat out wrong about it since I haven’t read the entire thread, nor am I going to. So I’m not going to go into a lecture on this subject. I’ll leave it at what I’ve already stated here.

For the second question, I’ve found that almost every time I’ve come across people who are either anti-gun (what a strange thing that is) or pro-restrictions have never even so much as handled a firearm. IMO, they fear that which they do not understand.

Which brings me to answering your question. The second amendment and primary purpose of any firearm is not hunting and it’s not entirely for self protection. Those are both auxiliary functions. The second A is pretty clear. The purpose of the right to bear arms is specifically to fight a tyrannical government. Full. Stop.

I’ve seen numerous debates about this, most of them using appeal to emotion, strawman or red herring arguments.

I wish I could remember which book it was that I read this in, maybe it was Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, maybe it was Collapse by Jared Dimond, but the idea was that a populace, to resist tyranny, must always remain as equally capable of warfare as the government. Meaning, the government should never be allowed to outpace its populace with regards to weaponry. Unfortunately, ours has. However, that ignores the fact that geurilla warfare is effective. Hence why Vietnam was such a damned quagmire. Even advanced weaponry and tactics by the US didn’t assure a victory.

I’m sure the response to this will be something along the lines of “you idiot militia prepper”. Well, I’m not. But that doesn’t mean I cannot understand the primary purpose of a firearm. It honestly is comical that people believe that guns were invented or continue to exist for “hunting purposes “. Lol, completely ridiculous and ignorant.
Yup, American citizen here.

Yup, I own two guns. Caveat here is they were both inherited from family members. I've hunted a couple times in my life and gone target shooting probably 10 times or so. Obviously, not a gun enthusiast but not entirely naïve as to their handling/use.

I also fully understand the underlying intent of second amendment.

Your argument to maintain the status quo as it relates to assault rifles is the check it facilitates through the threat of a citizen-powered guerrilla response to a tyrannical government? I don't agree. I don't think such a tyrannical movement would even be phased by such a threat. Vietnam was 50 years ago. Technology has moved those goalposts and will continue to do so.

I fall on the side of greater concern for safety in schools, places of worship, and the workplace. If citizen ownership of assault rifles is the linchpin to freedom, we're already doomed to tyranny. I think the horse is out of the barn on that one and that other factors/forces are keeping tyranny at bay.
 
Top