[Serious] Far-Right Extremism Is a Global Problem

[The Grand Nudger]

I know what the great replacement theory is. At least in the US, some whites want less minorities immigrating because minorities are more likely to vote Democrat. Some Democrat voters want whites to no longer be the majority because whites vote Republican more than any other group. I get it.

You clearly do not.  Great replacement theory has nothing to do with worries about people voting republican or democrat. It is the belief that the white race, is being replaced. Not that republicans are being replaced. It is the belief that white culture is being replaced, not republican culture. It is the belief that white power is being eradicated, not the belief that republican power is being eradicated. White supremacy has, itself, been the agent of republican demise here of late - the split in the party between establishment R's and Q's is an example of this. No love lost between the two, and, fwiw, the Q nuts think that the D's and R's are race traitors.

The notion presents an existential threat to a race of people as a call to action against other races in defense. It's not happening. There is no great replacement, but people are answering the call anyway. Not all of them are terrorists, ofc. You've answered the call, and you're not a terrorist, right?

Let the white supremacists do their thing. Let the Muslim supremacists who think they're the only ones going to heaven do their thing. Let the Christian dominionists do their thing. Freedom for everyone. I'm glad we ended up agreeing on this.

That's simply not possible here in the US, due to a number of restrictions and protections in our constitution, federal, and state laws. The US is not a theocratic ethnostate, and could only become one if we became a failed state. The desired item for each of those ideologies is the literal antithesis of freedom. Dominion. Supremacy.

I don't think that we can have a serious discussion about this subject if we traffic in exclusively disingenuous arguments and positions. The conversation was going to be difficult enough with an islamist and a white supremacist trying to frame it.

Neither of us want Antifa designated as terrorists, but the difference between you and I is that if it were up to you, you would have given the former POTUS the power to do so. Why would you want to give someone like him even more power?

Those in favour of an ethnostate would pay people back by taking away free speech. That would be their first act, because they fear free speech. Those types openly admit that the last thing they would want in their perfect world is freedom of speech. Something you and them have in common. You despise free speech.

No american president has that power, and, again, we don't designate -any- domestic terror groups.  We issue threat reports.  White supremacists are the top line item.  The previous occupant very much did want to designate antifa as a terror group, and that was the wall they ran into.

We can, however, identify groups as sponsors of terror.  Groups which provide material support to terrorists.  Insomuch as that support boils down to money, it's within our ability to make it illegal to donate to or profit from terror.  We generally don't bother with this either, preferring to err on the side of speech and assembly...but we're never more than one fallen building away from using all the tools available to us. Slippery slope arguments are a reason to be thorough and take care whenever we go down that path, but they're not binding on us law, nor are they a very good argument for the state abandoning it's duty to the people. Yes, it's difficult to handle this issue and stay true to what we might consider out better principles. Governance is difficult, news at ten.

Frozen peaches aren't a golden ticket and free speech is not a suicide pact. There is no cover for terrorists in free speech. Free speech certainly allows hateful people to say whatever ridiculous thing they please, but it doesn't permit anyone to engage in whatever action their hateful ideology demands, nor does it require that hateful ideologies and their attendant groups be allowed to profit from the misery of american citizens. Nor, for that matter, does it require that we provide a venue for hateful ideologies groups or individuals. The trouble for extremists here, is that bitching about the blacks and browns with your friends in the backyard doesn't move the recruitment chains. Playing the victim and appealing to, well, you, does. So they're stuck on the knifes edge. Trying to negotiate the reality of their ideology's nature as a terrorist threat and those laws which would bury them beneath prisons, and getting the word out.

There is no legal path to an ethnostate or theocracy in the united states. This is what makes those ideologies stated goals inherently criminal, a threat to our republic and it's people.

[Irreligious Atheist]

The "conspiracy theory" is not that's whites are being replaced. The percentage of whites is going down if you look at the numbers. That's not a "conspiracy theory". That's the corporate media's favourite term to use and they use it even when it makes no sense to do so. Because of immigration and whites not having many babies, they will eventually no longer be a majority. That's reality, not a "conspiracy theory".

The actual "conspiracy theory" is that Jewish elites who supposedly run the world are replacing whites because they dislike white people and because minorities are easier for these Jewish elites to control. Minorities are more likely to be in support of censorship, anti-free speech, anti-2nd amendment, etc.

And I wish I didn't need to point this out, but no, I do not believe that Jewish elites run the world, just to make that clear. I understand that the economy would suffer without immigration and I'm not for ending immigration.

[The Grand Nudger]

The "conspiracy theory" is not that's whites are being replaced. The percentage of whites is going down if you look at the numbers. That's not a "conspiracy theory". That's the corporate media's favourite term to use and they use it even when it makes no sense to do so. Because of immigration and whites not having many babies, they will eventually no longer be a majority. That's reality, not a "conspiracy theory".

None of this is true, but it does provide the thin veneer of scientific racism.  

The actual "conspiracy theory" is that Jewish elites who supposedly run the world are replacing whites because they dislike white people and because minorities are easier for these Jewish elites to control. Minorities are more likely to be in support of censorship, anti-free speech, anti-2nd amendment, etc.

And I wish I didn't need to point this out, but no, I do not believe that Jewish elites run the world, just to make that clear.

Which is irrelevant to the issue of contemporary white supremacy as a viable movement in the rise of global right wing extremism.  Contemporary white supremacy maintains and propagandizes with a message of victimization and rights abrogation as a consequence of white genocide - as so politely explained by the portion above, rather than below.  The portion that you agree with, the position which you believe to be accurate.

If the first part of this is important to you, such that a correct apprehension of facts is relevant to whether you agree with the victimization and rights abrogation narrative, then we could explore it further. Is that the case?

[Irreligious Atheist]

How am I racist for acknowledging census projections? Whites will not remain the majority forever. When did acknowledging reality become racist? https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenu...-projects/

[The Grand Nudger]

The personal consequence of advocating for this position is of no importance to me, you'll have to decide that for yourself.

I'm wondering whether this is the position you hold. Do you believe that whites are being replaced, and that the census projections are a solid case for the reality of that proposition (and/or, ofc other evidence like it)? Is this related to your willingness to entertain minority victimization and rights abrogation arguments? Would being wrong about this, if this is your position, have an effect on your position with respect to free speech abrogation and comparisons to minority groups such as atheists finding themselves oppressed by the state, ala Iran?

[Irreligious Atheist]

The personal consequence of advocating for this position is of no importance to me, you'll have to decide that for yourself.

I'm wondering whether this is the position you hold.  Do you believe that whites are being replaced, and that the census projections are a solid case for the reality of that proposition (and/or, ofc other evidence like it)?  Is this related to your willingness to entertain minority victimization and rights abrogation arguments?  Would being wrong about this, if this is your position, have an effect on your position with respect to free speech abrogation and comparisons to minority groups such as atheists finding themselves oppressed by the state, ala Iran?

The tiki torch types are not pulling this stuff out of their ass like flat earthers or something. Whites are not going to be a majority forever. Me acknowledging reality does not mean I support the tiki torch types. I personally don't call it replacement or genocide or whatever terms they like to use. I'm not going to refuse to acknowledge reality though even if some might confuse that for hating minorities. Reality is reality.

Like I posted above, I do not want to see an end to immigration. It's necessary for the economy. If whites have a problem with the census projections, then they better start having more white babies.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not asking about the tiki torchers. I'm asking you. Do you believe that whites are being replaced - and that the census projection is a demonstration of that. Is this the reality you feel compelled to acknowledge? Is this, whatever you prefer to call it, why they need to have more white babies?

[Irreligious Atheist]

I'm not asking about the tiki torchers.  I'm asking you.  Do you believe that whites are being replaced - and that the census projection is a demonstration of that.  Is this the reality you feel compelled to acknowledge?

Yes, I do feel compelled to acknowledge it because it was called a "conspiracy theory". I didn't bring it up out of the blue to make it known that I have a grievance with immigration or something. I care about reality and having a proper understanding of it.

Census projections change and it obviously is not an exact science. Whites are not going to be the majority forever though. That can not really be disputed, unless they start having way, way more white babies, and there's no reason to think that's going to happen.

[The Grand Nudger]

They are having babies. Many of their babies are counted with the non white. The reverse is also true. Many non whites are having babies, and many of their babies are being counted with the white. The census projections are not based on a genetic survey.

What is being replaced? How would you identify a white baby?

[Irreligious Atheist]

They are having babies.  Many of their babies are counted with the non white.  The reverse is also true.  Many non whites are having babies, and many of their babies are being counted with the white.  The census projections are not based on a genetic survey.

What is being replaced?  How would you identify a white baby?

Society defines what's white, not me. If a mixed race couple has a baby, it's usually not seen as white.