If you were to ask 100 people those three questions, you would get 300 different answers. But you wouldn't really get 300 answers, you'd get 300 preconceived reactions. Whiteness (i.e., the concept of being white) is a stressor (particularly for white people), therefore it doesn't provoke thought, it triggers a conditioned response.
How would one “imagine a world without white people” if they actually had to imagine it
All discussions of good faith begin with an agreeable definition of the concept being discussed. Concepts aren't observable, so unless they're explicitly defined, they remain malleable to interpretation. When debating the flavor of apples, it's vital that all parties know the difference between an apple and an orange. I was formally enlightened to this debate etiquette years ago while deliberating the concept of God with a close friend. He said, “We can't debate an abstraction without defining it first. In your own words, define God.” Needless to say, defining concepts “in your own words” is an eye-opener to what you actually know, as opposed to what you believe.
This brings us to the question of why we opt to engage in the exchange of ideas in the first place. After all, it's not a physiological need motivated by homeostasis. Your biological existence would be exactly the same if you never shared any of your thoughts. However, according to Descartes's “cogito, ergo sum,” thinking is existing. Ironically, he came to that philosophical conclusion while doubting his existence (dubito, ergo sum). If Descartes had never doubted his existence, he would've never existed. Disagree? Prove me wrong. And just like that, we have a battle of ideas.
What separates humans from all other animals is the ability of reason. The ability of reason isn't just some evolved trait of the naked ape, it's the essence of humanity. Theoretically, our memories were the result of evolution, but evolution doesn't provide an explanation for the human consciousness. Therefore, within the realm of reason, either everything is a coincidence, or nothing is. More specifically, if reason doesn't invoke logic, then it's just a word that represents a meaningless concept:
Reason is the capacity of consciously applying logic by drawing conclusions from new or existing information, with the aim of seeking the truth.
The exchange of ideas using logic and reason isn't just our formula for understanding, it's the proof of our metaphysical existence. When those ideas transition into an experience, they result in the acquisition of knowledge. Ideas are conceptualized, then translated with words. Whereas, knowledge is gained ostensibly via experience. The reason we exchange ideas and embark on experiences is the same reason we eat when we're hungry, or seek shelter when we're cold. Ideas are food and shelter for the soul.
Feeding your soul lies is the equivalent to feeding your body candy bars. You might be able to survive on a diet of just candy bars, but your body will manifest the nutritional deficiencies of ingesting such a diet. Your soul is no different. The reason our society is inundated with soulless corpses isn't because of mental illness, drug addiction, homelessness, sexual degeneracy, morbid obesity, nihilism, etc. Those are all just symptoms of a disease. The disease is chronic malnutrition of the soul from a diet of lies and deception.
The construction of reality based on lies is known as a delusional disorder. A person's feelings doesn't change the meaning of a word. Redefining the word “hunger” doesn't redefine the body's need for food. When reality becomes a social construct, truth becomes perception. All lies are a derivative of truth. When the truth has been compromised, so has reality.
In the status quo, connotations are attached to certain terms. The term you choose depends on the narrative you endorse. Some examples include: “illegal alien” vs “undocumented immigrant,” “Merry Christmas” vs “happy holidays,” “transgender” vs “schizophrenia,” “abortion” vs “murder,” “demographic change” vs “white genocide,” etc. The use of euphemisms are a form of psychological warfare intended to manipulate a person's reasoning. When shape-shifters alter the meaning of something using euphemisms, they are effectively staking a claim in your thoughts. At which point, that part of your frontal lobe no longer exists because someone else is thinking for you (cogito, ergo sum).
Thesis
The purpose of this paper is to be objective. To observe reality and define it appropriately. To deconstruct narratives built on euphemisms. To make you think. And most importantly, to call the demographic replacement of white people what it really is: white genocide!
To begin with, the reader may assert that calling demographic change “genocide” is anything but objective. Some might prefer more marketable terms like “demographic transition” or even “white replacement.” Some might even call it “human migration.” But, this paper isn't about establishing a narrative, or winning a debate. It's about observing a phenomenon and using the proper term to define it. So, if replacing a particular group of people with different groups of people in the span of a generation isn't genocide, then what exactly is it? Furthermore, the word replacing implies an inorganic action. Nobody asks, “Why is the white population in America rapidly declining?,” because everybody knows why: the white population is being intentionally replaced. Thus, if a group of people within a population are being systemically replaced, how is that not a tenet of genocide?
Regarding the history of genocides, when have the perpetrators of genocide referred to their acts as “genocide”? They always call it something else, but does that change history? As Shakespeare so eloquently wrote:
What's in a
name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as
sweet.
Words are a lot like shoes: if they don't fit, they're useless. Hence, the wise woman who once said, “if the shoe fits, put the damn thing on!,” also said, “if you're not going to call a spade a 'spade,' then what's a spade?”
What is genocide
In 1944, a Polish Jew named Rafael Lemkin coined the term genocide by combining the Ancient Greek word génos (race or people) with the Latin word cide (killing). He defined the term as follows:
By "genocide" we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.
Genocide is a means to an end that is always covert. Every instance of genocide has a large group of people who either deny it's happening, or they justify it by calling it something else (i.e, euphemisms). The architects of genocide use their institutions of power to establish the moral high ground via social engineering techniques, then actively scapegoat the undesirables for the ills of society. This sways public opinion, which causes many to turn a blind eye. One doesn't have to have a degree in psychology to understand how this works. A vague analysis of the recent COVID pandemic and/or the last two presidential elections provide working models of how reality is packaged for societal consumption.
There are no historical examples where a group of people are replaced in a short span of time and it isn't considered genocide. The fact that the majority of people criticize the acknowledgment of white genocide, and counter the accusation by saying it's a good thing, is itself a characteristic of genocide. Many are also premature to dismiss accusations of genocide on the notion that genocide requires violent extermination. But by all definitions, it does not.
Words are tools of comprehension in the field of communication. Data doesn't care what humans call it, because data doesn't have an agenda, it's just data. While terms like “great replacement,” “demographic change,” “human migration,” and “white genocide,” are all theoretically different, they're all empirically the same. Depending upon perspective, all four of those terms are interchangeable as descriptions for the following phenomenon:
Up until the 1950s, the United States was 85% white. By 2020, that number had dropped to 57% (these figures don't include the roughly 30 million non-whites illegal immigrants):
I wanted to start this discussion with a series of hypothetical questions as a way to illustrate subjective reasoning. For example, if you were to type “white genocide” into an internet search engine, every result is effectively an anti-white propaganda piece. As a matter of fact, the first result says that white genocide conspiracy theory is the result of a psychological panic driven by white extinction anxiety:
The white genocide, white extinction, or white replacement conspiracy theory, is a white supremacist conspiracy theory which states that there is a deliberate plot, often blamed on Jews, to promote miscegenation, interracial marriage, mass non-white immigration, racial integration, low fertility rates, abortion, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence, and eliminationism in white-founded countries in order to cause the extinction of whites through forced assimilation, mass immigration, and violent genocide. Less frequently, black people, Hispanics, and Muslims are blamed for the secret plot, but merely as more fertile immigrants, invaders, or violent aggressors, rather than the masterminds.
White genocide is a political myth, based on pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and ethnic hatred, driven by a psychological panic often termed "white extinction anxiety". White people are not dying out or facing extermination. The purpose of the conspiracy theory is to justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda in support of calls to violence.
It's interesting that being “anxious” about your group's extinction somehow makes you a bad person. It's also interesting that the declaration of genocide can be labeled a “conspiracy theory” without addressing any of the empirical evidence that is the foundation for the claim. The “white genocide conspiracy theory's” assertion that only “violent white supremacists full of ethnic hatred” would take notice of their replacement is a classic example of an ad hominem fallacy. Asking these types of people to “imagine a world without white people” would illicit the type of responses that would be associated with those who support white genocide. Actually, many openly admit it:
“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists… Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed – not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.” ~ Noel Ignatiev
“The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.” ~ Noel Ignatiev
“Is it the duty of every good revolutionary to kill every newborn White baby?” ~ Jose Angel Gutierrez
“So if you’re a gang member and you would normally be killing somebody, why not kill a white person?” ~ Sister Souljah
“Today, we would add that as long as 150 million Americans define themselves as white with all the expectations, privileges and violence that accrue to that identity, there is no hope for us as a nation.” ~ Mark LeVine
“Whiteness is a public health crisis. It shortens life expectancies, it pollutes air, it constricts equilibrium, it devastates forests, it melts ice caps, it sparks (and funds) wars, it flattens dialects, it infests consciousnesses, and it kills people...” ~ Damon Young
According the UN's Genocide Convention, genocide has to meet one or more of the following criteria:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
For 175 years, the demographics of the United States were static (roughly 90% White). Then something changed. In 1965, “high-ranking officials and special interest groups” applied immense pressure on lawmakers to pass a bill (Immigration and Nationality act of 1965) that reversed the immigration policy, which had previously restricted natural citizenship to “white persons” (with preference given to northern and western Europeans of Protestant faith):
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 marked a radical break from U.S. immigration policies of the past. Since Congress restricted naturalized citizenship to "white persons" in 1790, laws restricted immigration from Asia and Africa, and gave preference to Northern and Western Europeans over Southern and Eastern Europeans. During this time, most of those immigrating to the U.S. were Northern Europeans of Protestant faith and Western Africans who were forced to immigrate because of slavery.
At the time of the act's passing, many high-ranking politicians favored this bill to be passed, including President Lyndon B. Johnson. However, the public did not reciprocate these feelings, which can be seen in a Gallup Organization poll in 1965 asking if they were in favor of getting rid of the national quota act, and only 51 percent were in favor. The act was pressured by high-ranking officials and interest groups to be passed, which it was passed on October 3, 1965. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1965 act into law at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, ending preferences for white immigrants dating to the 18th century.
The Diversity Immigrant Visa program, also known as the green card lottery, is a United States government lottery program for receiving a United States Permanent Resident Card. The Immigration Act of 1990 established the current and permanent Diversity Visa (DV) program.
The lottery is administered by the Department of State and conducted under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). It makes available 55,000 immigrant visas annually and aims to diversify the immigrant population in the United States, by selecting applicants from countries with low numbers of immigrants in the previous five years. Around 13 million people applied for the lottery in 2020.
If doing a lottery to replace white people doesn't make a valid argument for white genocide, I'm not sure what does. Are there any other instances in history where a country has been so desperate to replace a group of people that it enacts a lottery to do so? How could anyone present a rational argument for a “diversity lottery” without asking the question: “Isn't this kinda like genocide?” The “green card lottery” motto should read: “We don't care about your IQ, social status or character, we just want a non-white America. Apply today!”
A powerful element of the country has manipulated the legal system in order to change the cultural and ethnic fabric of the United States. The founders were white men who created a nation explicitly for white people. It doesn't matter how that makes you feel, that's just the truth. Nonetheless, while “politicians and special interest groups” utilize the legal system created by white nationalists to genocide the white population, they also disregard the same legal system when it comes to laws on illegal immigration. In other words, they use the law to enforce their agenda, and they ignore the law to enforce their agenda: win-win.
Speaking of illegal immigration, a Yale study estimates the number of illegal immigrants in the United States could be as high as 29.1 million. And almost all illegal immigrants are non-white:
The undocumented population in the United States could be twice as large as the most commonly-used estimate, according to a research study published Friday in the scientific journal Plos One.
The paper, led by Mohammad M. Fazel-Zarandi, a researcher at Yale and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, estimates there are 22.1 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.
Fazel-Zarandi's study compared inflows and outflows of immigrants as well as demographic data. According to the report, the number of undocumented immigrants could be as low as 16.5 million, or as high as 29.1 million.
In 2021, illegal immigration fueled a record number 46.6 million foreign-born people residing in the United States, which now accounts for 14.2% of the population (the most since 1910):
A new analysis of census data previewed by Secrets found that there are now 46.6 million legal and illegal foreign-born immigrants in the country, up 1.6 million over last year.
The analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies also said that the foreign-born population is now 14.2% of all people in the country counted by the census. That is the highest in 112 years.
“If present trends continue, the immigrant share is likely to surpass the all-time highs reached in 1890 (14.8%) and 1910 (14.7%) in the next few years,” said the report’s authors, Steven Camarota and Karen Zeigler.
It's important to note that genocide doesn't just start one day and end the next. It can go on over period of years. Or, in the case of white genocide, decades. The fact that laws were passed to enable white genocide doesn't mean it's not genocide. Laws are the concepts of men, and men are always the perpetrators of genocide. This point can't be emphasized enough, so it needs to be reiterated: using laws to enact genocide is still genocide. This alone will create immense cognitive dissonance in the normie-conformist personality type. His entire argument will be that changing racist immigration laws isn't genocide even if the results are genocidal.
Mass non-white immigration + forced assimilation = white genocide
Up until this point we have written a recipe for white genocide, but we haven't added the final ingredient needed to differentiate demographic change from white genocide. This implies implementing a method of deliberate acts inflicted on a group with the purpose of physical destruction. Importing millions of non-white immigrants into white spaces isn't grounds for genocide by itself. But forced assimilation is:
Forced assimilation is an involuntary process of cultural assimilation of religious or ethnic minority groups during which they are forced to adopt language, identity, norms, mores, customs, traditions, values, mentality, perceptions, way of life, and often religion and ideology of established and generally larger community belonging to dominant culture by government. Also enforcement of a new language in legislation, education, literature, worshiping counts as forced assimilation. Unlike ethnic cleansing, the local population is not outright destroyed and may or may not be forced to leave a certain area. Instead the population becomes assimilated by force. It has often been used after an area has changed nationality. Forced assimilation is also called cultural genocide and ethnocide.
Diversity has been forced on whites by the use of tyrannically oppressive laws, as well as Machiavellian intimidation tactics (job termination, loss of financial resources, housing eviction, travel restrictions, societal ostracization, violence, civil lawsuits, etc), which has enabled white genocide to occur. White genocide is methodical, which means it's deliberate.
Mandating diversity (non-whites) on a white population is forced assimilation, which according to article II, part (C) of the United Nations Genocide Conventions, is genocide by definition.
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
We are experiencing white genocide. It's observable, so it's not debatable. Therefore, why are people so offended by it? Why is white genocide such a taboo topic for information systems? Pundits, politicians and journalists all know it's happening, but they refuse to talk about it in an honest manner, as if it's some kind of secret they don't want anyone to know about. Come to think of it, the conspiracy to conceal white genocide makes much more sense than the conspiracy to reveal white genocide.
I began this paper by telling you to imagine a world without white people. There are no right or wrong answers to what one imagines, but there is also only one way to instruct someone to “imagine a world without white people.” It doesn't matter what people think about white genocide, what matters is that they acknowledge it.
No comments:
Post a Comment