South Africa

[Uncle Paul]

Just wow. You've gone to a whole new level going from not wanting to see interracial marriage happening within your group to not intermingling with other white groups. How tribalist can you get?! I guess were going to have to add in nationalist into the mix for ya.

I don't support banning intermarriage, but what you need to understand is that for a minority group, be that group Afrikaners, Jews, Druze, Parsis, etc..., widespread intermarriage with the local majority group means the extinction of the minority group. Jews in medieval Europe didn't want to intermarry with Christians for this very reason...they valued being Jewish and wanted to pass it on to their descendants. I value being a Boer and want to pass it on to my descendants.

Then. Stop. Holding. And. Saying. Bigoted. Views.

I have already stopped talking about the most extreme elements of my views.

There's no fixing, anything. You want to establish a white ethnostate, Full Stop. Pray tell are you going to get this land for your own state? If you think you're going to rise up against the state, then I just have to laugh since the government would clamp down on your insurrection and prosecute you and your militia group for insurrection, treason, and breaching any sort of secession laws. What about the people on your land that's not Afrikaner, expel them out of your lands? This just sounds like a screed white nationalists said about establishing a white nationalist state in the American Northwest.

The goal is not to conquer land, it is to purchase and settle some sparsely inhabited land in the Northern Cape, far away from large concentrations of people. If we are willing to pay for the land at a fair market price for our own state, who are you to deny us that?

Volkstaat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't want a "White Ethnostate", seeing as that's not an ethnostate, since White people have dozens of languages, cultures, and religious denominations. I don't want some "White country", I specifically want a Boer country. Just like how the Poles wanted a Polish country in the aftermath of WWI, or the Irish wanted an Irish country in the aftermath of the same war.

lol

I've said it like a dozen times on here - apartheid was a flawed system that was not sustainable in the long run, and I'm glad it ended when it did.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't want a "White Ethnostate", seeing as that's not an ethnostate, since White people have dozens of languages, cultures, and religious denominations. I don't want some "White country", I specifically want a Boer country. Just like how the Poles wanted a Polish country in the aftermath of WWI, or the Irish wanted an Irish country in the aftermath of the same war.

From the first paragraph of the Wiki page you've provided to us:

The concept of a Volkstaat (Afrikaans pronunciation: [fɔlkstɑːt], "People's State"[2]), also called Afrikaner Republiek, was a proposed view to establish an all-white Afrikaner homeland within the borders of South Africa, most commonly proposed as a fully independent Boer/Afrikaner nation. The concept excludes Afrikaans-speaking coloureds and South Africans of English ancestry, yet is sometimes misunderstood to include them.

I've bolded some useful bits.

 

[Yeekim]

Lots of languages are dead, so what? No one speaks Proto-Indo-European anymore either, it's not some great loss. You can get a lot farther in the world speaking English than you can speaking Cherokee.

I find it baffling how you don't see the value of Cherokee for the Cherokee, while advocating so strongly for maintaining Boer culture yourself.
Also, I would argue that every language and culture has certain inherent worth, insofar as it represents an unique part of our shared inheritance.

Again, you're peddling a conspiracy theory that whites are being replaced. It does not matter if it's done via mass migration nor intermarrage, it's still a conspiracy no matter how much you want to deny it. What you're telling me here is that you'd rather want to keep your racial group pure and not tainted. Again, falls under The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory.

It is not "conspiracy theory", it is simple math that a minority can and will be absorbed into a majority, unless either side consciously avoids this. "Should one care?/"Should it matter?" is an altogether different question.

 

[Gorbles]

It is not "conspiracy theory", it is simple math that a minority can and will be absorbed into a majority, unless either side consciously avoids this. "Should one care?/"Should it matter?" is an altogether different question.

The existence of cultural assimilation as a concept does not negate the literal, named existence of said white nationalist conspiracy theory.

 

[Angst]

I find it baffling how you don't see the value of Cherokee for the Cherokee, while advocating so strongly for maintaining Boer culture yourself.

it's inconsistent but understandable seeing where he's coming from. he's being radically ideologically syncretic (even embracing contrary beliefs) because the principles invoked are not important. all that matters is afrikaaner nationalism.

as he literally said elsewhere, he's an ethnocentrist. when i told him his claims about minority rights and whatever was not a principle at all, but boiled down to his tribalism, he was like yea.

he doesn't care about the cherokee because he doesn't see them as having value.

all appeals he does, whether it's for cultural legitimacy of presence (as afrikaaners in SA and whites in NA) or against cultural legitimacy of presence (against everyone else in SA and natives in NA), whether it's for european civilization (as christian "bringers of civilization") or against european civilization (against most of western values of liberalism, against catholicism and against the dutch for some reason - against most of the west really), whether it's for majority ethnic rule in sovereign states (whites in european countries) or against majority ethnic rule in sovereign states (blacks in SA), it all boils down to that. he likes white christians and is indifferent to everyone else - save authoritarians in east asia, which to me just has two purposes - it's a token appeal to prove it's not about race or whatever, and it's to show that he's willing to enforce the plight of harsh conservatism (wording his worldview mildly here) through authoritarianism. as he said somewhere, the closest country to his ideal is either hungary or japan (hungary being not harsh enough for what he wants, and his idea of japan not being as liberal as japan actually is).

it's all stuff he's said. i'd do the work and dig up the quotes but the postings are honestly such a mess that it's hard to find. monarchy thread, his boer civ idea in the game forums, his posts in world history, this thread, the arab spring thread. he repeatedly brings up afrikaaner stuff everywhere, and even in the thread about a boer civ, it becomes a weird siderant about crusades good caliphate bad because christianity good islam bad (and again - wouldn't this work contrary to his rejection of catholicism/the pope? not to him, because the fundamental point is that it's all about tribalism, as he said. as long as he can syncretize reasonably mediating appeals about it, he doesn't care about the consistency).

 

[Yeekim]

The existence of cultural assimilation as a concept does not negate the literal, named existence of said white nationalist conspiracy theory.

True. And, conversely, existence of a bonkers conspiracy theory does not by itself make anyone opposed to cultural assimilation a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Yeekim]

he's being radically ideologically syncretic (even embracing contrary beliefs) because the principles invoked are not important. all that matters is afrikaaner nationalism

Yeah, well, maybe highlighting the inconsistency leads to some reflection and improvement? I know, I am naive like this.

 

[Gorbles]

True. And, conversely, existence of a bonkers conspiracy theory does not by itself make anyone opposed to cultural assimilation a conspiracy theorist.

True, and yet this is a different set of goalposts to what was being discussed previously. GenMarshall named a conspiracy theory by name, and you said it's not a conspiracy. It is. You being unfamiliar with it isn't really relevant, though you trying to argue that it isn't the conspiracy is.

EDIT

Yeah, well, maybe highlighting the inconsistency leads to some reflection and improvement?

If that worked, it'd be evident in any one of the past ten or so recent discussions

Chalk the first half of my reply to not being aware of said attempt to highlight the inconsistency. But I don't think you'll be very successful, regardless of optimism.

 

[Angst]

Yeah, well, maybe highlighting the inconsistency leads to some reflection and improvement? I know, I am naive like this.

one would hope. i sympathize with the attempt.

like, the thing is... cultural chauvinists usually pick and choose intentionally, to have rhetoric outreach rather than actually believing in what they're saying. in these cases, it's methodical and callous, and indifferent to values beyond my tribe. paul's practices in particular may not intentional, but it's the structure of this kind of speech. it's all about finding arguments to support the tribe. if the claims are then inconsistent or disproven, the chauvinist will provide a non-answer, rephrase, or sidetrack, try to place the discussion elsewhere, because - again - it's not actually about consistency. it's about the tribe. there's a bunch of other posts like this around the threads, but again, too much work for me to care and dig up.

so one may ask me, why engage in forums when you can't convince someone about something? i learn a lot here, stuff contrary to my views included, it can be really productive. but it's not the case with all posters, doesn't mean it's not worth my time coming here. even paul's bizarro world gives some insight into some boer stuff i sometimes didn't know, even if the point of it is deliberately warped.

 

[Yeekim]

True.

Can we just leave it at that?
Maybe I phrased my original comment poorly. I did not wish to deny the existence of the conspiracy theory (which is somewhat well known); rather point out that being against assimilation does not make one a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Gorbles]

Can we just leave it at that?
Maybe I phrased my original comment poorly. I did not wish to deny the existence of the conspiracy theory (which is somewhat well known); rather point out that being against assimilation does not make one conspiracy theorist.

Got my edit in too late.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Its a suspect position when you directly benefit from those wrongs and claim depriving you of those benefits would be a wrong.

you didn't refute his point though. you can play that game as short or far back in history as you want, but you're still playing a game that involves stealing from people in the present who didn't do anything wrong.

centuries old border changes are too far to justify in practice. territory change in that context is new conquest/expulsion, not "righting past wrongs".

Or, it's about the distribution of the inherited gains from theft when the profits from the theft are unequal to the harms of the theft.

most everyone here is operating in the bounds of governance that can very much utilize theft on you personally/directly, within a single lifetime, and where absent civil lawsuits you don't get to be a creditor (in a strange sense of getting back lost value) at all.

that's the legal framework under which we accept living, in most countries of posters here (if not all). talking about 100s of years old theft debt in that context is silly...it becomes legitimately difficult to even track and calculate financial harms at that point...not happening in the context of governments that have no interest in returning your stuff even when you very much can track the theft, directly.

Fixing the wrongs if the past falls on the current taxpayers imho.

only if the current taxpayers agree (assuming republic/democratic setup).

You just kind of gave into their demands even though they had no way of enforcing them, which is, quite frankly, baffling to me.

western society is spiraling down. it's a pattern similar to late roman decadence or end stages of other large several-century cultures/institutions.

edit: don't see anything wrong with assimilation. i also don't see how actively opposing via governing policy is meaningfully different from bigotry. it's different if people are making individual choices, but even there the line between "cultural tradition" and "discrimination" is often blurry and people treat similar behavior differently depending on who does it.

 

[Yeekim]

western society is spiraling down. it's a pattern similar to late roman decadence or end stages of other large several-century cultures/institutions

Making amends for past injustices even when one is not forced to is a sign of decadence? Am I reading this right?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Making amends for past injustices even when one is not forced to is a sign of decadence? Am I reading this right?

i don't accept the premise of "making amends for past injustices", because that isn't what is happening. it's completely inconsistent with how the countries operate generally.

if you're not going to compel the russian and uk governments to write me a check using force, you have no grounds to back these "amends for past injustices" as anything other than signaling. and nearly everyone can say something similar...

 

[Gorbles]

i don't accept the premise of "making amends for past injustices", because that isn't what is happening. it's completely inconsistent with how the countries operate generally.

Thankfully, it happening isn't contingent on you accepting the premise.

 

[Yeekim]

i don't accept the premise of "making amends for past injustices", because that isn't what is happening. it's completely inconsistent with how the countries operate generally.

if you're not going to compel the russian and uk governments to write me a check using force, you have no grounds to back these "amends for past injustices" as anything other than signaling. and nearly everyone can say something similar...

If the Hell freezes over and next Russian government writes you a check without anyone compelling them, are you going to lament this as a sign of decadence?

No one compelled NZ. It was a gesture of goodwill they could afford. I find it laudable as such. It may well pay dividends going forward.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If the Hell freezes over and next Russian government writes you a check without anyone compelling them, are you going to lament this as a sign of decadence?

i would be way too busy trying to update my model of reality/ability to make predictions in general to worry about the specific predictions of western culture following some past trends.

No one compelled NZ.

true at the country level, probably not at individual level. but that's how governments operate, just needs enough people to back something (or increasingly not even that unfortunately).

in the scheme of things, this is a significantly less bad way to allocate money than other government functions which are actively harmful, so one could do worse. but i still reject the premise of making amends for past injustices, because it's a farce.

 

[Remorseless1]

All wealth could be considered stolen if you go back far enough. It's stupid to wrong today's people in an effort to right the purported wrongs of yestercentury.

For the same reason that African-Americans didn't go back "home".

Africans brought to the Western Hemisphere were held in bondage for three centuries and had no way to return to Africa. False equivalency. Boers left Europe voluntarily, bringing family, tools, and weapons. No one ever chained Boers in the hold of a slave ship.

 

[Senethro]

you didn't refute his point though. you can play that game as short or far back in history as you want, but you're still playing a game that involves stealing from people in the present who didn't do anything wrong.

centuries old border changes are too far to justify in practice. territory change in that context is new conquest/expulsion, not "righting past wrongs".

If you read his original post, he did not in fact make a point. He sort of implied one. And I'm very bored of refuting implied points that people immediately then step away from and call you impolite for assuming they were making.

What he actually said was "It's stupid to wrong today's people in an effort to right the purported wrongs of yestercentury." which is so general that it could be read as being in support of a position that functionally depriving black South Africans of most reasonable expectations to ever own land (because personal property can only be held by one owner) is the wrong being committed today.

So go white knight for a worthwhile cause I guess. Perhaps you could work on squaring the circle of believing in equality of opportunity, but that inheritable wealth is sacrosant.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Yeah, well, maybe highlighting the inconsistency leads to some reflection and improvement? I know, I am naive like this.

First day on the internet?