Hi Jay,

First, nobody is 'flooding' Australia with anybody, except Poms and Kiwis, as far as I can tell.

Second, groups don't inter-marry - individuals do, and more power to them.

Third, no, I don't believe that "there is a race problem with Whites" or with anybody per se, nor would I even contemplate that "the inevitable and final solution is to make everyone in White countries Brown." Inter-marriage is happening, and will continue to happen into the future - it is a function of association and interaction, pure and simple. It's voluntary, so anybody who doesn't want to get involved, doesn't have to get involved. Nobody's forcing you, Jay.

Fourth, 'genocide' to my simple mind, means the killing of people. How can people loving each other and having kids together constitute the killing of anybody ? Wouldn't the banning of inter-marriage lean more towards genocide, by limiting births, than inter-marriage itself ? I'm not accusing you of genocide, Jay, but I think you have a job on your hands to prove that I'm guilty of it either.

And if you can't see beauty in people from all over the world, I'm truly sorry for you.

Joe

Loudmouth keeps oscillating between saying white genocide is inevitable and saying it's "voluntary." How can it be both? Can anybody make heads or tails of this?

I think that some people here are confused
between genocide and what used to be called,
quaintly, miscegenation. Genocide refers to
exterminating an entire ethnic group, while
miscegenation means, literally, mixing of blood.

The former is a crime against humanity, while
the latter is simply evolution in action.
I think that Loudmouth (Joe) has made the most
reasonable and intelligent comments lately
in this discussion.

Hi Arminius,

No, I have never said that genocide is inevitable: point me to a quote :) For the record, I fervently wish that it would stop in places like Afghanistan and Congo and Uganda (from which we welcome a handful of refugees), and never happens again anywhere.

Of course, voluntary inter-marriage, and/or mixed-group children, may well be inevitable once people from different groups mix together, i.e. individuals exercising their right to choose who to mix with, i.e. voluntarily. By definition, Arminius, you don't have to if you don't want to.

But how is that 'genocide' ?

'Genocide' has a fairly explicit meaning: the more-or-less indiscriminate killing of people from a particular group. 'Killing', to me, does not mean the dying of old age from natural causes.

Yes, I certainly believe that inter-marriage should be voluntary, and that genocide should be eliminated. If you confuse the two concepts, which seem to me to be at opposite ends of a life-death continuum, then you have a serious problem.

Thank you, Talisman, for your intelligent and succinct definition. I think that should resolve the confusion.

Joe

You seem confused about the word genocide. Etymologically, it means to "kill a race." It doesn't have to involve the direct killing of individual people.

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(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."

I hope this helps with the confusion.

It certainly does, Arminius:

(a) : nope, not happening [at least, not because of voluntary inter-marriage];

(b) : nope, not happening, except perhaps mental harm to Jay;

(c) : nope, not happening;

(d) : nope, not happening;

(e) : see below at [f]. Apart from those examples: nope, not happening.

So how does inter-marriage - voluntary association between people from different groups - and the production of mixed-group children, fit into any of that ? What don't you understand about the word 'voluntary' ? Are you suggesting that such VOLUNTARY relations between people from different groups should be banned, that [presumably] the guy involved should be jailed, perhaps both 'guilty' parties should be ? Should people from different groups be segregated, not allowed to live in the same areas, or go to the same schools, or work in the same work-places, frequent the same theatres ? Good luck :)

I can see how this sort of racist idea can fit in with Hazza's notion of an Indigenous Australia segregated off from a non-Indigenous Australia. For racists, that would get rid of one group: it would just be a matter of finding similar spaces for the Afghans, Maltese [or are they counted as White?], Vietnamese, Maori, Sudanese, South Americans, Koreans, etc., etc. and 'persuading' them all to bugger off into 'their own' spaces. In the name of autonomy and self-determination, of course: that should get the support of the Left, as well as the Right. Good luck with that too.

[f] Historically, if you search around, you may find that inter-marriage has been banned in some societies, with the children of those marriages and liaisons being killed. i.e. genocide. Occasionally in history, the children of these sorts of marriages have been subject to your (e), but not for the reasons you prefer.

Do you have any examples actually linking VOLUNTARY inter-marriage with genocide ? While you are looking, I'll just sit here and contemplate a beautiful, coffee-coloured future for our grandchildren. Yours and mine :)

Joe