On racial egalitarianism - I can understand heterogeneity as a form of insurance in certain respects, but there are multiple scales at which the risk or violence can be considered.
Internally, you could argue that the risk of violence actually increases due to inter-cultural tensions.
Internationally, you'd imagine the risk of violence dropping due to increasing likelihood
of shared characteristics as a consequence of migration
As for race realism being dangerous, I agree - it's interesting to note that the fact of racial differences does not imply one must necessarily segregate or ostracise, you could just as easily be sympathetic and address the problem, as I assume liberalism attempts but in a subtle manner. Do conservatives have a hatred for the inferior? Or are these simply rationalisations for prefered group strategies?
Diversity can increase the risk of low-level violence, but the risk of high-level violence decreases.
- Armenians were as 1-3 million in 1914, out of a total Ottoman population of 18.5 million, giving their percentage as 5-16%.
- Before the Rwandan genocide, the Tutsi were 14% of the population.
- Before the Darfur Genocide, Darfuri were 17.6% of the population.
- Before the Saint-Domingue Genocide, whites were 10% of the population, with coloreds making up another 10% of the population.
These genocides have the following in common:
1. The targeted population is extremely Balkanized (they all live in one area of the country), or,
2. The target population is less than 20% of the total population.
3. The targeted population is unwilling or incapable of forming alliances with other groups.
4. The dominant group (the one doing the genocide) must have strict endogamous separation from the victim group, or else, it must enforce strict forms of religious conversion on all "mixed" populations. For example, the requiring mixed-Muslim Armenians to be Muslim rather than Christian.
5. The genocide can only begin during an existing war or during starvation conditions.
6. The genocide is often facilitated by other nations (Ukrainians and Poles participating in the Holocaust; British and Spanish blockading the French during the Saint-Domingue genocide and supplying the rebels)
It's very difficult to conceive of a genocide occurring without 2/6 of these conditions being met.
Fighting age men in America are now 50% non-white, and there isn't a strict Balkanization between white and non-white states. Whites don't practice strict endogamy or religious conversions against non-whites.
Unless whites drop below 20% of the population, I don't see genocide in America as being possible.
In South Africa, for reference, whites are only 7.3% of the population, and I still think top-down white genocide is unlikely there. Gradual low-level ethnic conflict is a different story. Obviously South Africa should be sanctioned for allowing this, but there is a distinction between top-down and bottom-up violence. Also, the Boers are partially at fault for not all moving to Orania. No one is being killed in Orania. I don't mean "moral fault," but like, "woman getting drug without friends at a party and going home with a stranger" fault.
I'd also like to mention here that most of the genocides mentioned here had some kind of deep religious divide or involved black people. Black people aren't increasing as a percentage of the American population. The incoming Hispanics are largely Christian. The incoming Asians are Buddhist or secular. Not all diversity is equal. India has maintained a very diverse population for centuries and it was only with the invasion of Islam that genocidal violence arose.
One point, as far as I can understand, Boers moving to Orania would lead to more of those conditions being met (ie 4), increasing the probability of 5 & 6, and therefore an increased risk of being wiped out. So I don't quite understand your rationale or point there unless they enforced borders and were protected.
As usual with any defense of liberalism from first principles, this is filled to the brim with half truths and bad assumptions.
"Non-whites have not developed this inoculation, and they are being devastated by feminism. Feminism is sort of like a smallpox blanket. If you want to reverse white demographic decline, the last thing you should be doing is attacking feminism."
Smallpox is something that makes you sick and kills you. If your best argument for a sick person is that the sickness is maybe killing his enemies faster, according to the tea leaves, that's not going to be very convincing. A sick man with less enemies is still sick and dying. It still needs a solution that isn't more feminism, which is the only direction liberalism is capable of going (see: the latest white democratic man being canceled for sexting)
"Let’s say that Somalians have an IQ of 67.8. Somalians in Somalia have a TFR of 6.2. But if you import Somalians to Finland, their TFR drops to 2.39. Problem, conservatives?"
The problem is that we don't know what the end rate of TFR looks like. Perhaps Somalians flatline at 2, or 1.5, or some other number. But that still means that, by trying to 'solve' 3rd world overpopulation, you've imported millions and millions of Somalians. Even if this population is slowly decaying, that's still millions of Somalians (and Pajeets, and Guatemalans - their home countries are shitholes too!) fucking up your country. They drain financial resources, they inject garbage politics, studies even claim that they suppress native fertility contrary to what your magic charts claim. You know what's better than any of this? Not importing millions of Somalians. Imagine having such foresight! I'm not that smart, and yet I'm smarter than millions of elite human dipshits by realizing that one billion Americans is a bad idea.
"The question is whether or not it is good to defend your country against invasion by the Eurasian cartel, in the long term. I would argue that a Europe dominated by Russia and China would be worse in the long term, and it is entirely moral for the United States to assert itself in providing aid to Ukraine."
From where does this moral assertion come from? If England being invaded by millions of Bomalians is good, then why give a shit if millions of Russkyies attack millions of other Russkyies? Oh no, violence! This kind of violence is super bad because it uses tanks, but the regular gang violence that kills thousands year after year in South America is A-OK because liberals endorse drugs. This ethical system sucks a fat dick and no one but the most delusional, propaganda addled cretins buy it anymore. If people are going to die and sacrifice their blood for democracy, democracy should not mean infinity bomalians and gay marriage.
"Whenever right-wingers protest against racial egalitarianism, they are never honest about their alternative. The alternative looks like 200 years of race war between Native Americans and whites. If you think that’s a moral position, go for it, "
The 200 years of war between Natives and Whites is what produced the American super state that your ideology relies on for dominating the world! Therefore, genocide of an inferior people was necessary and good for liberalism to succeed. But despite that, the most important thing is protecting resentful, unproductive, badly behaved minorities because... because... because?
anyone who obsessively reads someone they think is a dipshit has too much free time on their hands. do something better with your life -- you're signaling to me that your time is worthless and you don't respect yourself.
Great article.
I love liberalism now!
On racial egalitarianism - I can understand heterogeneity as a form of insurance in certain respects, but there are multiple scales at which the risk or violence can be considered.
Internally, you could argue that the risk of violence actually increases due to inter-cultural tensions.
Internationally, you'd imagine the risk of violence dropping due to increasing likelihood
of shared characteristics as a consequence of migration
As for race realism being dangerous, I agree - it's interesting to note that the fact of racial differences does not imply one must necessarily segregate or ostracise, you could just as easily be sympathetic and address the problem, as I assume liberalism attempts but in a subtle manner. Do conservatives have a hatred for the inferior? Or are these simply rationalisations for prefered group strategies?
Diversity can increase the risk of low-level violence, but the risk of high-level violence decreases.
- Armenians were as 1-3 million in 1914, out of a total Ottoman population of 18.5 million, giving their percentage as 5-16%.
- Before the Rwandan genocide, the Tutsi were 14% of the population.
- Before the Darfur Genocide, Darfuri were 17.6% of the population.
- Before the Saint-Domingue Genocide, whites were 10% of the population, with coloreds making up another 10% of the population.
These genocides have the following in common:
1. The targeted population is extremely Balkanized (they all live in one area of the country), or,
2. The target population is less than 20% of the total population.
3. The targeted population is unwilling or incapable of forming alliances with other groups.
4. The dominant group (the one doing the genocide) must have strict endogamous separation from the victim group, or else, it must enforce strict forms of religious conversion on all "mixed" populations. For example, the requiring mixed-Muslim Armenians to be Muslim rather than Christian.
5. The genocide can only begin during an existing war or during starvation conditions.
6. The genocide is often facilitated by other nations (Ukrainians and Poles participating in the Holocaust; British and Spanish blockading the French during the Saint-Domingue genocide and supplying the rebels)
It's very difficult to conceive of a genocide occurring without 2/6 of these conditions being met.
Fighting age men in America are now 50% non-white, and there isn't a strict Balkanization between white and non-white states. Whites don't practice strict endogamy or religious conversions against non-whites.
Unless whites drop below 20% of the population, I don't see genocide in America as being possible.
In South Africa, for reference, whites are only 7.3% of the population, and I still think top-down white genocide is unlikely there. Gradual low-level ethnic conflict is a different story. Obviously South Africa should be sanctioned for allowing this, but there is a distinction between top-down and bottom-up violence. Also, the Boers are partially at fault for not all moving to Orania. No one is being killed in Orania. I don't mean "moral fault," but like, "woman getting drug without friends at a party and going home with a stranger" fault.
I'd also like to mention here that most of the genocides mentioned here had some kind of deep religious divide or involved black people. Black people aren't increasing as a percentage of the American population. The incoming Hispanics are largely Christian. The incoming Asians are Buddhist or secular. Not all diversity is equal. India has maintained a very diverse population for centuries and it was only with the invasion of Islam that genocidal violence arose.
Interesting.
One point, as far as I can understand, Boers moving to Orania would lead to more of those conditions being met (ie 4), increasing the probability of 5 & 6, and therefore an increased risk of being wiped out. So I don't quite understand your rationale or point there unless they enforced borders and were protected.
As usual with any defense of liberalism from first principles, this is filled to the brim with half truths and bad assumptions.
"Non-whites have not developed this inoculation, and they are being devastated by feminism. Feminism is sort of like a smallpox blanket. If you want to reverse white demographic decline, the last thing you should be doing is attacking feminism."
Smallpox is something that makes you sick and kills you. If your best argument for a sick person is that the sickness is maybe killing his enemies faster, according to the tea leaves, that's not going to be very convincing. A sick man with less enemies is still sick and dying. It still needs a solution that isn't more feminism, which is the only direction liberalism is capable of going (see: the latest white democratic man being canceled for sexting)
"Let’s say that Somalians have an IQ of 67.8. Somalians in Somalia have a TFR of 6.2. But if you import Somalians to Finland, their TFR drops to 2.39. Problem, conservatives?"
The problem is that we don't know what the end rate of TFR looks like. Perhaps Somalians flatline at 2, or 1.5, or some other number. But that still means that, by trying to 'solve' 3rd world overpopulation, you've imported millions and millions of Somalians. Even if this population is slowly decaying, that's still millions of Somalians (and Pajeets, and Guatemalans - their home countries are shitholes too!) fucking up your country. They drain financial resources, they inject garbage politics, studies even claim that they suppress native fertility contrary to what your magic charts claim. You know what's better than any of this? Not importing millions of Somalians. Imagine having such foresight! I'm not that smart, and yet I'm smarter than millions of elite human dipshits by realizing that one billion Americans is a bad idea.
"The question is whether or not it is good to defend your country against invasion by the Eurasian cartel, in the long term. I would argue that a Europe dominated by Russia and China would be worse in the long term, and it is entirely moral for the United States to assert itself in providing aid to Ukraine."
From where does this moral assertion come from? If England being invaded by millions of Bomalians is good, then why give a shit if millions of Russkyies attack millions of other Russkyies? Oh no, violence! This kind of violence is super bad because it uses tanks, but the regular gang violence that kills thousands year after year in South America is A-OK because liberals endorse drugs. This ethical system sucks a fat dick and no one but the most delusional, propaganda addled cretins buy it anymore. If people are going to die and sacrifice their blood for democracy, democracy should not mean infinity bomalians and gay marriage.
"Whenever right-wingers protest against racial egalitarianism, they are never honest about their alternative. The alternative looks like 200 years of race war between Native Americans and whites. If you think that’s a moral position, go for it, "
The 200 years of war between Natives and Whites is what produced the American super state that your ideology relies on for dominating the world! Therefore, genocide of an inferior people was necessary and good for liberalism to succeed. But despite that, the most important thing is protecting resentful, unproductive, badly behaved minorities because... because... because?
anyone who obsessively reads someone they think is a dipshit has too much free time on their hands. do something better with your life -- you're signaling to me that your time is worthless and you don't respect yourself.
Hanania is the one I hate, but okay, bye.
you have exposed yourself as my biggest hate-fan