From the first paragraph of the Wiki page you've provided to us:
I've bolded some useful bits.
The important part is Afrikaner, not White. We want an Afrikaner ethnostate, not an "ethnostate" that is for anyone with White skin.
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.
Obviously, I don't agree with this.
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.
And I intend to continue consciously avoiding this.
The existence of cultural assimilation as a concept does not negate the literal, named existence of said white nationalist conspiracy theory
The conspiracy theory is blaming the Jewish people for it. It's not their fault. I am not an antisemite.
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).
I don't just like Christians, I also like Jews, especially Israeli right-wingers. There was no Protestantism in the Crusader Era, so I support Catholics vs Muslims...but I support Protestants vs Catholics.
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.
Actually, it's the modern mainstream world that is "bizarro", not me.
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".
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.
only if the current taxpayers agree (assuming republic/democratic setup).
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.
I'm pro-assimilation when the assimilation benefits my people, and anti-assimilation when the assimilation harms my people.
Making amends for past injustices even when one is not forced to is a sign of decadence? Am I reading this right?
We have nothing to "make amends" for.
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.
They can return to Africa just as easily as we can return to Europe in the Year of Our Lord 2022, though. If us having European descent invalidates our right to live in South Africa, then their having African descent invalidates their right to live in the Western Hemisphere. You can't twist a logical pretzel. Personally, I think a clever US government would tie the way it treats its African-descended minority to the way South Africa treats its European-descended minority. That way, blacks in South Africa could no longer abuse us without harming their fellow blacks in the Americas.
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.
It's not reasonable that they want to own land if their owning land means robbing us of ours. They own most of the continent of Africa, they can leave us our small little corner of it.
Well, much of it is about framing.
Is one subjected to pay a high tax rate (incl. inheritance taxes) for common good? Because everyone can only eat a single bellyful of food and wear one suit at a time? Because that poor kid, if given opportunity, might cure cancer later in life?
Or is one's property seized because of crimes or "crimes" committed by his great-grandfather, for which he is now vilified?
Similar, yet very different situations...
Here's my idea of fair. I keep what I've earned, you keep what you've earned.
True about the if voters agree.
Still look at the violence in SA and USA compared to say NZ which is generally rated very high in safest countries in the world vs being shot to death in the US. SA is terrible there.
The vast majority of violence in SA does not come from the Afrikaner community...
The murder rate is much higher in South Africa than USA. Maybe if you factor in individual cities like Chicago or St Louis or Detroit, I don’t know how that compares with Johannesburg or Cape Town.
My people are not the ones responsible for this murder rate.
It's how you treat the underclass though.
Economic inequality breeds violence and extremism. NZ doesn't really have ghettoes like SA and USA. We've got our poor areas but not like that.
There's no shanty towns or equivalent of Compton in the 90's.
Or you can crack down on them with more policing and imprisonment.