Could a hypothetical ethnopluralist regime be sensitive to both stereotypically leftwing POC concerns about poverty and policing and stereotypically rightwing White concerns about declining White demographics and social capital? If so, reciprocity is everything. However, there will always be power struggles and competition over resources.
What conceivable incentives do non-whites have to compromise now? Non-whites can count on white passivity and compliance no matter what demands are imposed upon us. They understand that whites are not able to mobilise en masse, are averse to conflict and lack leadership and cohesion.
Furthermore, non-whites intuit the implications of the current trends in fertility and mortality well enough. Why compromise now when they can demand more from a further weakened white population later?
Concerns over social capital are fairly abstract when compared to the concrete realities of owned space, the allocation of resources and real world status.
Finally, reciprocity is irrelevant. Asymmetries of power, reward and recognition are common enough. The dynamics of the prison system (the most consciously racialised environment in North America) are more relevant than those of the seminar or the quilting bee. Reciprocity is not to be expected.
I think it's a bit early to be talking compromise. Until the other side offers a deal that works for Whites we should just keep moving toward a larger and more militant White Identity Nationalism.
It possibly could as long as various communities were autonomous and decentralized. Of course, this would require repeal of most anti-discrimination laws and Civil Rights statutes of the past six decades.
Practically speaking any such regime would probably view the political discussion of race as a taboo and would be in favour of banning the recording of racial statistics as well as other colour-blind policies.
What conceivable incentives do non-whites have to compromise now? Non-whites can count on white passivity and compliance no matter what demands are imposed upon us. They understand that whites are not able to mobilise en masse, are averse to conflict and lack leadership and cohesion.
Furthermore, non-whites intuit the implications of the current trends in fertility and mortality well enough. Why compromise now when they can demand more from a further weakened white population later?
Concerns over social capital are fairly abstract when compared to the concrete realities of owned space, the allocation of resources and real world status.
Finally, reciprocity is irrelevant. Asymmetries of power, reward and recognition are common enough. The dynamics of the prison system (the most consciously racialised environment in North America) are more relevant than those of the seminar or the quilting bee. Reciprocity is not to be expected.
in a nutshell
I think it's a bit early to be talking compromise. Until the other side offers a deal that works for Whites we should just keep moving toward a larger and more militant White Identity Nationalism.
It possibly could as long as various communities were autonomous and decentralized. Of course, this would require repeal of most anti-discrimination laws and Civil Rights statutes of the past six decades.
Practically speaking any such regime would probably view the political discussion of race as a taboo and would be in favour of banning the recording of racial statistics as well as other colour-blind policies.
Did you get tired of writing actual essays and decide to just drop a paragraph here and there to elicit comments?