Subj : Great Replacement Theory
To   : Kaelon
From : Boraxman
Date : Mon May 30 2022 21:51:00

-=> Kaelon wrote to Boraxman <=-

 Ka> I think that if you are proposing creating a new state, one organized
 Ka> around racial principles, you have to contend with the very
 Ka> "recognition and reconciliation" that you cite that many on the Right
 Ka> are unwilling to contend with.  Without this, much of what you aspire
 Ka> to create - a mono-racial or mono-cultural state - is reliant upon the
 Ka> moral rights of the people who have been exploited to create it (such
 Ka> as the aboriginal peoples of Australia).  There is also the
 Ka> inconvenient truth that, both culturally and racially, virtually all
 Ka> peoples in the world are now diverse, and so, you would be imprinting
 Ka> some sort of new or fictitious identity.  This is not without
 Ka> complication, or eventual exposure.

This is nonsensical.  No one is seeking to "create" anything, but rather to
STOP a process.

 Ka> I would agree that migration policies stem from the need for
 Ka> demographic change, but I disagree that there is some sort of grand
 Ka> racialist conspiracy the likes of which "Great Replacement" theory (a
 Ka> la Renaud and the like) is at work here.  It's far simpler: countries,
 Ka> as modern nation-states, succeed or fail largely due to geopolitical
 Ka> factors, namely, the land on which people inhabit, and the people
 Ka> themselves.  It comes down to raw resources and sheer numbers.  The
 Ka> Third Reich might have triumphed in the Second World War, had it not
 Ka> been vastly outnumbered by the Soviet Russians, who were able to
 Ka> sacrifice over 100 million people to defeat them.  It is also for this
 Ka> very reason why countries like Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark,
 Ka> have no valid recourse given their limited geopolitical constraints,
 Ka> other than to be the pawns of greater powers.

The Third Reich would never have triumphed long term because it was based on a
Great Man (figuratively speaking) and had an unsustainable ideology.

The Third Reich was primarily about the party, not the "race".  You would find
yourself in a concentration camp much much faster if you were speaking against
the regime, than if you were married to a black person.

The narrative that the war/fight was about racism is a post-hoc rationalise by
the West to justify demographic changes by leadership.  No one back then was
stupid enough to conflate the Nazi's specific racial ideas with restricted
immigration.  That confusion, which you are spreading, came later.

At what point do the British or French get to say that immigration should be
curtailed?  When they are less then 50%, 40%, 30%?
 
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
 þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

.