Subj : Great Replacement Theory To : Boraxman From : Kaelon Date : Sun May 29 2022 18:00:17 Re: Great Replacement Theory By: Boraxman to Kaelon on Sun May 29 2022 04:39 pm > Calling such common, understandable and acknowledged preferences "racialist" > or "racist" is an argumentative tactic used to pathologise, specifically for > one people, that which is understood as normal elsewhere in order to support > morally dubious ideologies. I'm hardly being argumentative to correctly define the term that you are using to describe your preference. You wish to prioritize one race over another (namely, "White" people, as you have identified them). That is the very definition of racialist politics: the prioritization of one race over the others. Do not blame me for making it pathological - blame the Third Reich for taking racialism to the extreme by murdering over 6 million Jews all in the interests of their "pure" Aryan race. It's unfortunate that racial preferences, when they prioritize the numerically dominant race at the expense of the minority, cannot be discussed in nuance; it is a slippery slope that other countries have demonstrated lead to genocide. And there have been countless examples since Nazi Germany - from the Khmer Rouge to Serbian Nationalists. It is a cornerstone of hate, and the first step towards holocaust. Perhaps this is why diversity policies cannot realistically be dissented against; there is no example of a scenario where this dissent does not ultimately turn violent. > Secondly, the discussion about birtrate, colonialism, and the other issues > that you brought up are worthy of nuanced discussion, but not now. The > reason being is that while we may agree more than you realise on the > analysis of these, it is *specifically* their use as justification for mass > immigration. We know they are used as justifications for this, because they > are always brought up, just as you decided to bring them up. They are > standard "talking points". To change the nature of the conversation, as you > desired, is to draw discussion away from the central point, which is whether > it is morally problematic or not, to enact, support and by certain means, > entrench policies and practicies which jeaopardize an identifable group. Why not now? I think you follow up precisely with why it's better to discuss social, political, and economic causes that have led to a general zero-tolerance in the West towards racialist policies. I don't think it's changing the nature of the conversation: it is the very conversation that needs to be had. What led Australia to institute its policies of multiculturalism and diversity? Clearly, there were social, political, and economic ones that led to this consensus. To instead blame "outsiders" for this, or suggest there is some sort of "Great Replacement" conspiracy - which, again, has been widely disproven by every serious demographer and sociologist - is refusing to take responsibility for the problems that your society is contending with. > My view is simple. That is immoral. It is immoral to use this as a > "solution" to a problem, whether it is the "race" problem, the "birthrate" > problem or the "colonialism" problem. I have suggested various ways to address your demographic and economic failures without moving towards immigration. You do not want to discuss them, and instead just want to blame non-Whites (somehow?), when it's clearly an inherent quality of Western Civilization to embrace divergent viewpoints, diverse perspectives, and seek out to assimilate talent and skills outside of their own borders. Considering Australia's origin story as the ultimate British Penal Colony for people deemed by the British Crown to be "deviant" and unacceptable to the Anglo-Saxon norm - whether the criminal justice system, or simply socio-economic undesirables - it is disappointing that you do not embrace your country's origin story more patriotically. _____ -=: Kaelon :=- --- þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net .