Brive1987 wrote: ↑Finally I see you have picked up the cultural =
racial magic blood well poisoning kit. I’ll let Kirb know where he dropped it.
Brive, the "racial magic blood/One Drop Rule" thing of the Richards Spencer and Taras McCarthy is not the ONLY way people associate culture to race.
You have promoted Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone, who have also repeatedly associated race to culture, what with the infamous Southern video about non-white people in Paris, for example, or with Southern's promotion of the "great replacement" narrative.
Or this video of
Brittany Pettibone, where she discusses "race realism" with JF Gariépy.
Southern and Pettibone are not fans of the "one drop rule" that if someone is even slightly of non-European origin then they're to be deported from Europe, like McCarthy says, or deported from the "American ethno-state", like Spencer says.
HOWEVER they're pushing the idea that
in broad strokes race and culture are pretty much one and the same. They don't say "race is the ONLY source of cultural differences" or "we must keep our ethno-stare 100% racially pure", but they CONSTANTLY associate rule to culture. Also, since their policies are based on the idea of preserving "white culture", they're basically saying that they want to "preserve the white race" (buying into the Great Replacement theories). They diffuse conspiracy theories about cabals of secretive globalists pushing for sinister plots (Pettibone was instrumental in the diffusion of the "PizzaGate" bullshit).
The general conclusion that they come to is that they should reduce the number of non-white people living in "white spaces". They might not be as extremist as Spencer or McCarthy, and allow mixed-race people or some colorful ethnics to stay, but they are deliberately pushing for a "white ethno-state". They're not pushing merely for immigration reform or more integration within the host culture. They're selling a narrative based on ethno-racial differences which while maybe not as extremist as that of McCarthy or Spencer is STILL about about the primacy of race in defining culture.
Also they frequently co-operate with the likes of McCarthy or Spencer (Pettibone even co-hosted a podcast with McCarthy) so they're not exactly separating themselves from the "magic racial blood" people. They seem to work together, at least. So the Big Rift that you seem to be assume to exist between the "magic racial blood" faction and the "white, but only as a cultural term" faction is more theoretical than practical.
As for you, I don't know exactly what you think, but you seem to think that Switzerland is an ethno-state because it has less non-white immigrants than Australia, so I'm assuming you're also associating ethno-culture to race. You also commented on a mixed-race woman playing Joan of Arc by including a tweet by Mark Collett about how "European are written out of their history". It's hard to parse that comment with a "cultural" interpretation. Someone whose first and foremost concern is culture should see cultural integration as a good thing. It seems like the problem for Collett is race, not really culture.
You have expanded upon this:
So there is the issue with Joan. One website says there were 4 criteria, only 1 of which is anchored in objectivity. Orleans resident, 10 year duration, high school student, catholic. Presumably males are not discriminated against. Or maybe it would be ridiculous to have a dick wielding Joan? Once you go down this path things get sticky. Another site quotes the girl as saying “what is important is that she's French." Apparently now Catholicism and gender is optional. Of cause being “French” begs another question.
In short we need to consider .. if integrating multi cultures requires removing the base meaning of institutions - is that actual progress? Especially if the motifs of the introduced cultures remain inviolable? Meh. Questions without clear answers.
Why does the fact that the girl playing Joan of Arc is mixed-race "remove the base meaning of institution"? Unless there's a deep connection between culture and race, it's hard to understand this argument. You don't seem to be miles away from Collett on this issue.
Again, it's hard to tell what you think. The fact that you seem to think that the "magic racial blood" narrative is so deeply separated from the "defend the western white culture" narrative doesn't exactly map onto reality. Your own ideas seem more focused on race than on culture, or at least to imply that race is a big, determinant factor in matters of culture clash.