Why don't liberals admit they are wrong when we trot out magic bullet arguments like 'mass immigration is genocide,' and 'affirmative action is racism,' and 'all violent crimes are hate crimes.' We have such pithy phrases, they seem so slam-dunk, but those dratted liberals refuse to accept them. The right then accuses them of double standards and hypocrisy, and rests its case.
But the liberals aren't using double standards and hypocrisy, and the right can't 'rest their case.' The argument is far more complex than that, and it is our fault for thinking we can reduce it to a pithy phrase.
Take 'mass immigration is genocide.' First off, though the dictionary definition of genocide does include 'making it impossible for the native people to carry out their normal lives,' and 'introducing various programs that in effect reduce the native birth rate,' everyone has been taught in school that genocide means only one thing -- sticking jews in gas chambers -- or if they are more cultured, they will include leaving armenians to starve and dehydrate to death in death marches under the Ottomans, or if they are even more cultured, they will include, giving small pox blankets to Indians, which clearly accounted for all Indian deaths by disease in all of North America.
First we would have to teach people the moral equivalence between territory destruction, economic impoverishment, and outright genocide, as they all equally reduce a people's population. To say 'mass immigration is genocide,' you must first prove 'high taxes is genocide.' "job competition is genocide." "white flight is genocide." "low quality schools are genocide." Because the effects of mass immigration are all these death of a thousand cut attacks on the native white population, which results in their constant attrition, which eventually results in their wholesale non-existence. If people aren't willing to accept the moral equivalence between high taxes and genocide, the whole thing falls apart.
Next, we would have to prove that what makes genocide wrong is not the fear and pain of being physically exterminated, but the after-effect, ie, that there are no more people of that genome still alive. People don't feel that birth control is a big deal, they don't even feel abortion is a big deal. This is because there is little fear or pain when these people die, and few people are bereaved by their not existing. The argument that birth control and abortion are bad because the people they destroyed are no longer here is a far more tenuous argument than most people accept. All they care about is suffering -- no suffering, no foul.
Suppose we can convince people that it is an important cost that people who would be alive are no longer alive on Earth, hypothetically. This cannot be true if A) there are no biological differences between people, and thus we are all interchangeable. In that case, genocide cannot occur, because nothing is lost until you extinguish every last human on earth. B) the people who replace us are superior to us. After all, no one today regrets replacing the neanderthals and thinks the world is worse because they aren't around. No one regrets replacing the dinosaurs with mammals. The only time genocide can possibly be bad is if, in sequence, we establish:
Genocide's true crime is cutting off the existence of a group identity, regardless of whether they suffer or not in the process.
The people being genocided are unique and the good they accomplish/characterize cannot be replicated by any other group or lifeform on earth, it represents a total and irretrievable loss to world utility.
The people being genocided are not being replaced by a greater good than what the original people could accomplish.
Liberals object to all three of these arguments. First, they attach no value to collective identities or even existence, as they are hedonists and nihilists who only attach value to feelings. No suffering, no foul.
Second, they do not believe people are unique, and insist we are all interchangeable. There is only one race, the human race. It is completely irrelevant which groups live and which groups die.
Third, those who do think genes matter, commonly spin some story about 'hybrid vigor' and talk about all the wonderful qualities of non-whites that can enrich our boring, inbred, evil white genome. They believe a coffee colored mixed race world that replaces the original white race will be superior to the white race in every way.
The slogan, "mass immigration is genocide," consists of dozens of original premises which must all be proven first, most of which liberals reject. No wonder it isn't very convincing.
Next, the slogan, "All violent crime is hate crime," is obtuse. Yes, a violent crime against a cheating wife is a 'hate' crime, so is a violent crime against a bully who's teased you for months until the day you snap, so is a violent crime where you get in a gun fight with a rival gang that's trying to kill your friends. But these are all clearly, obviously different in moral terms than simply generating a violent antipathy to someone you've never met before, who has never done anything to you, and killing him on general principle, and with great pleasure, and with the obvious inference that you would do the same to all the others of said group with equal pleasure. Who is a greater danger to society? Who is less understandable? Who represents a greater threat to the state? Localized violence, localized hate, that has a target, and ends when the target dies. Or generalized violence, generalized hate, that has an endless series of targets numbering in the billions, and will not end until every last one of them is snuffed out?
It makes me sneer when white advocates try to erase all distinctions between things. Our entire movement is about refusing to erase distinctions, by pointing out the distinctions between things, by rejecting the liberal leveler who wishes to posit 'we all consist of atoms, so bacteria and mankind are equal, much less blacks and whites.' Then these white advocates make this smirky argument, "all violent crime is hate crime," as though they can't tell the clear moral differences between crimes motivated by personal antipathy, and group antipathy. Who is the leveler, the liar now?
The argument against hate crimes cannot be based on sophistry. It is much more complicated. It might run like this: "whites are also victims of hate crimes, I reject this law until we are as protected as all other groups." You can also argue, "Collective guilt is real. Hate crimes are simply collective retribution against a collectively guilty people, who have earned this reprisal due to their collective behavior against us." You could then point out the outrageous black on white rape rate, 20,000 white women raped by black men every year, and say they have brought this judgment upon themselves. Or you could make the argument, "We are not hate criminals, but the vanguard of the revolution, enforcing our rightful and legal authority under our constitution to eliminate all non-whites in our sovereign territory, we do not recognize the authority of this court, we are at war, and in war all civilians are legitimate targets due to their upholding of the state that unjustly occupies our territory -- just as you firebombed dresden, we firebomb black churches, let the chips fall where they may." I certainly do not recognize the right of our government to genocide us, and I fully hold accountable the non-whites shipped in by this government, the willing tools of our genocide, and the active agents who carry it out, regardless of how 'civilian' they are or how much they may smile at me in the street.
You can also make this argument, "95% of blacks voted for Obama, a vote for Obama is a vote for genocide of whites. Obama's program is a genocide platform. Anyone who sanctions genocide and brings genociders to power, is a genocider. Therefore I am performing hate crimes in self defense against those who are attempting to genocide me." Of course, it might be important to make sure the victim of the hate crime really did vote for Obama, but if the US army can brush off collateral damage, so can hate criminals.
The one argument you can't make is that a hate crime, motivated by hatred of people based on their group identity, not anything in particular about any individual, is the same as crimes against individuals for various individual reasons. So of course this is the one argument white advocates tend to make. Go figure. Also, you cannot argue that the result of the crime is equal however it came about, because we already have in place 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and manslaughter! I don't hear people saying we should repeal those laws and try everyone equally, since 'the result of the crime is the same.' There are clear distinctions in morality between accidentally killing someone, killing someone due to a unique set of emotional factors that are difficult to repeat, and killing someone in cold blood under conditions that are normal and can be repeated endlessly upon further victims. Hate crimes fall under this third category, they are people killing without remorse, on purpose, pre-planned, and with the intention of repeating themselves endlessly. Obviously they fall under a far more serious definition of murder than most other murders. Creating a special category for them is just as sensible as creating three different categories for murders like we already have.
Let's assume a hate crime is not a murder, but simply an assault, or graffiti, or a racial slur. In this case, the crime is still far more insidious than saying 'fuck you' or drawing a smiley face on a wall. The reason is these hate crimes dissolve community cohesion and lay the foundation for later violence and riots. They are uniquely capable of spreading lawlessness and endangering the state. From a state's point of view, a hate criminal is more like a subject in rebellion, or a brigand trying to undo state authority. Of course they take higher priority than a childish vandal or a bad-tempered drunk. The results may be the same whether you draw a smile or a swastika on the wall, but to the state, one is annoying and costs some paint to clean up, whereas the other is a rebellion, a treasonous adherence to anti-state principles, which could flare up into country wide civil war.
Downplaying hate crimes is therefore not in good faith. It is dishonest to dismiss hate crimes as no big deal, as pranks or just 'free speech.' Honesty would be saying "yes it's war, and it is a just war." Or to simply abide by the law and not do hate crimes, and condemn those who do as troublemakers and a discredit to the cause. It would also be honest to point out that hate crime hoaxes are the equivalent of a hate crime against whites, by slandering us as 'nazis,' and 'haters,' and 'lynchers,' and so on, which destroys community cohesion and incites violence of non-whites against whites. If we are going to pass hate crime laws, I would at least like to see an equally harsh penalty for hate crime hoaxers as hate criminals themselves. That this is lacking really is a double standard we can reject.
Then there's affirmative action. Whites insist it's racism to give preferences to non-whites. However, when these preferences are looked at in light of the drastic inequalities in outcome that still remain between whites and blacks, whining about black preferences just comes off as churlish. Why are we so greedy, so selfish, that even though we make up the vast majority of all lawyers, we simply can't stand a single black lawyer making it as well? That even though our average income is tens of thousands of dollars higher than theirs, that we resent a single black getting into college and living a middle class life? Real racism would mean making whites live at a lower quality of life than blacks, it cannot be racist if the 'racists' are the poor, oppressed, weak, and most miserable people in the country. It would be like drumming up a giant campaign against those 'racist' untouchables. Those darned lowest-caste untouchables are getting uppity and thinking even a single one of their members should live a decent life! How dare they, that's racist! How preposterous it must look for all the rich, pampered white people to march around and complain about how they are being oppressed by black children who never had a father, who can't read, who can't get a job, who live off food stamps, and who are destined to go to jail sooner or later because everything they do is against the white man's laws. Liberals hate the 'whites as victims' meme because they are sitting here staring at disparities that make the very concept laughable. How can whites, who have complete power in America, who have all the money, who have all the fine houses, who have all the college graduates, etc, be the victims of black oppression? The very idea is so outrageous they simply close down their minds and reduce our whining to a 'bzz, bzz.'
The answer of course, is that white well-being is being systematically demolished over time through a process of 'death by a thousand cuts,' a process that is so slow and invisible that it is not clearly apparent why whites are victims when just looking at the world around you. Only serious research into the issues and future trends can establish the idea that 'whites are the biggest victims in America.' One thing whites need to do is stop resenting blacks who have nothing, and start resenting jews who have everything. It's always better to be the oppressed underdog. Second, whites need to stop comparing themselves to blacks in terms of well-being. They need to compare themselves to whites 20, 50, and 300 years ago to whites of today. By making this comparison, we can show how affirmative action and other programs are making whites suffer, are making us worse off than our ancestors used to be, and will make our descendants worse off than even we are. Blacks are irrelevant, they have nothing to do with our worries and concerns. Whites are worried about white well-being compared to 'where they should be,' not to any other group. This is why whites want a nation of their own, not because we resent the existence of a black middle class (or a jewish upper class), but because we have fewer members in the white middle and upper class than we should have, if we were left alone. So long as we live among blacks, it is churlish to demand that all blacks must stay lower class, just so that a few more whites can be middle class. The economy is a zero sum game and demanding whites be hired instead of blacks by getting rid of affirmative action, is comparing sob stories: "I'm a white with a generally good life, but I could have had a yet better one!" vs. "I'm a black with a horrible life, for a brief second my family and my children were allowed to have a bright future free of all the inner city human wreckage around me, but then some white made a fuss and so instead of 99/100 of the workers being white, now 100/100 whites are, and I'm right where I used to be, at the back of the bus." You will never win that sob story competition. You will never get the 'whites are victims' meme through.
How much easier it would be to say, "I don't care how well Indonesians are doing, because we live in Vinland, not Indonesia. They can hire themselves, fire themselves, be upper, middle, or lower class, and it makes no difference to me. All I care about is Vinland, and in Vinland, we look after our own." As far as I know, there isn't a single country on earth that has two races but no affirmative action. Maybe somewhere in south america. In America, Asia, and Europe, the story is always the same -- the underperforming race gets the handouts. But so long as your country is homogeneous, affirmative action is effectively banned, because it never comes up. Whites would have an easier time getting rid of affirmative action via homogeneity, than any amount of political grousing in a multi-racial state.
When liberals say there is no such thing as race, but are adamant in the prevalence of racism, they are not being logically contradictory. What they mean is there is no such thing as biologically different races. Everything about blacks, whites, and asians is the exact same, except for skin color. Racism is still prevalent however, because there are still cultural differences between the races. When liberals argue diversity is good, the white advocates say, "but this makes no sense, just previously you argued we are all exactly the same, but now you are arguing that diversity is good. Which is it? Are we the same, or diverse?" But of course it is both. Liberals argue that we are all biologically the same, and if we simply shared the same environment, we would all end up the exact same as well. However, because the races tend to have unequal environments, the result is diversity, along racial lines. This diversity is not biologically determined, but a result of growing up in different environments and experiencing different things. Blacks have unique insights into how black environments are bad for blacks, that whites simply could never understand, because we never experienced those environments. Thus, it is important to have diversity in all positions and policy decisions and trials and so on, so that we always have access to this unique wisdom of blacks who grew up in these environments. Between liberals, the argument continues along the line of "who is to blame for bad environments?" and "how should we make bad environments better?" Republicans and democrats tend to argue endlessly about this. They all agree race is a social construct, but they also all agree that race is the most important problem in the United States, because of the unequal environments children of different races are raised in, followed by the unequal outcomes that follow. The new term is 'underserved,' and 'disadvantaged.' Just because race is a social construct, doesn't make the reality of racial differences disappear. It just proves how unjust these racial differences are.
For a white advocate looking in, this entire debate is nonsense, because race is biological and the differences in racial outcomes are also biologically determined. The environment is meaningless and there is nothing anyone could do to change the racial hierarchy we see all around the world. But this does not mean liberals are hypocrites, contradictory, or irrational, when they endlessly discuss race, while also rejecting the very concept of race as non-existent. They reject biological races, they do not reject cultural races. The answer to this argument may be simply drumming away at them with all the latest scientific research into the issue. Alternatively, it might be fun to argue, "What would it take for you to believe in biological racial differences?" After letting a group of black children and white children be raised in any environment of their choosing, and then comparing the outcomes, we should be able to prove to liberals that the environment simply is not the issue. Granting liberals complete control of the environment is the only way to prove liberal's belief in environmentalism wrong. instead of rejecting more funding for black social programs, whites adopting black babies, trained therapists staying with black mothers and children 24 hours a day, special diets prepared for blacks, free clinics for blacks, black-centric education, and so on, we should grant all of it. Grant anything. Anything they ask. Even a free white harem of willing white girls so that black boys can nurture their self esteem. I don't care, anything in a liberal's wildest imagination. If they get everything they ask for, craft whatever environment they choose, and still cannot erase the biological differences between the races, we win. If they don't get everything they ask for, they will simply argue that the one thing we didn't grant, is the key to equalizing black and white environments. There are plenty of liberals who would simply revise their theory and demand that whites are benefiting from alien mind rays that improve their intelligence after they are born, and the aliens are racist because they don't shoot the blacks with said mind rays. "Until we convince the aliens to shoot blacks with these mind rays, there is no proof that the black-white gap is biological." But there are also liberals who believe deeply that if just schools, parenting, poverty, disease, or some other thing were finally handled, we could finally create equality between the races. For people with these more reasonable assumptions, it should be easy to grant all their wishes and prove them wrong. Once liberals have the perfect parenting, the perfect school, $100,000 per black a year, and so on, and it still results in a black-white gap, even they will have to admit it's biological. Until then, nothing we say can prove it definitively, so there's little point in bothering.
There are many more 'truisms' white advocates like to advocate, but they all tend to be just as shallow and debatable. The point is, without establishing all the premises that make a truism true, there is no truth to a truism. truisms are conclusions, conclusions after long chains of logical premises, none of which liberals accept. To accuse them of hypocrisy and double standards for not agreeing with your truism is stupid. Everything liberals think and say has a logic and a sort of bizzarro honesty to it. Everything they say makes sense to them. We must understand the world from their point of view, and point out where they are factually mistaken, which is the cause of their error in thinking. We must also establish that we have separate values from theirs, and however laudatory their values might be, it is not in our psyche to gain any pleasure or satisfaction in pursuing them. That the only way for two groups of people to both celebrate and express their unique values, is for both of them to be sovereigns of their own states, among people like themselves. Just as Saudis get to legislate morality from an Islamic point of view, some whites wish to legislate morality from a white nationalist point of view -- this does not reject the liberal values universally, they can still celebrate diversity and feel enriched all they want in the old United States. It is simply a statement that these values are not universal, and that some people would be happier living under different rules, without harming or being harmed by anyone else -- simply living out their lives under rules more suited to them, because that's the shoe that fits, among fellow believers like themselves.
If liberals can be convinced that not all people share the same values, and that some people would be, or at least feel, better off under a non-liberal code, then we don't need to convince them that our code is right or true, or that they should adopt our code. We don't have to argue the merits or demerits of affirmative action as it pertains to blacks in the United States. All we have to argue is that we would like to live sovereign and free, under a new flag, under our own laws, among people like ourselves, and everyone else can do whatever they like.