Subj : Great Replacement Theory
To   : Boraxman
From : Moondog
Date : Tue May 31 2022 11:43:00

  Re: Great Replacement Theory
  By: Boraxman to Kaelon on Mon May 30 2022 09:51 pm

 > -=> 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
 > Great Man (figuratively speaking) and had an unsustainable ideology.
 > 
 > The Third Reich was primarily about the party, not the "race".  You would fi
 > yourself in a concentration camp much much faster if you were speaking again
 > 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 
 > 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%?
 > 

The "big lie" the Reich was built upon was based on blaming the nation's
problems on minority groups with obvious or strong presence.  Conspiracy that
external ethnic and religious groups were there to contaminate their culture
and destroy the nation from the inside.

---
 þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net

.