Yes. They are. I keep seeing this meme, and at first I thought it was too simplistic, but hell, now I just think "clear them out"

@Krunoslav I disagree. It's for the same reason most atrocities in history have been committed, "for the greater good". More homosexuals = less reproduction. It's "for the planet". This is not to say that a lot of people who have those tendencies won't take advantage of the situation- many already have. But the "good people" who are pushing this crap actually think they're doing good. But, so did Hitler.

@WinstonSmith I agree with you in principle. As you said:; "It's for the same reason most atrocities in history have been committed, "for the greater good". More homosexuals = less reproduction. It's "for the planet""

When I mention the ""clear them out"" it was a concept that comes from a speech often referenced by the YouTube channel called Academic Agent. In a way it is an inside joke, that I just threw in there.

The background story is more complex. And it was discussed with pros and cons and for and against people at great length. I can't seem to find the long stream that was a discussion on this, but I'll try to post the reference itself. By the way, I don't agree with it all, but some bits are pretty hard to deny.

Academic Agent: "You are the virus."

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." ― "War on Terror" speech by George W. Bush, 2004 Video

F. Fürstenberg wrote in 2007 in the New York Times [“Bush’s Dangerous Liaisons”], in connection with the French Revolution – upon the etymology of the word “terrorist”as well:

“… The word was an invention of the French Revolution, and it referred not to those who hate freedom, nor to non-state actors, nor, of course, to ‘Islamofascism’. A ‘terroriste’ was, in its original meaning, a Jacobin leader who ruled France during La Terreur. (Reign of Terror)”

La Terreur. (Reign of Terror) - refers to a period during the French Revolution after the First French Republic was established in which multiple massacres and public executions occurred in response to revolutionary fervor, anti-clerical sentiment, and frivolous accusations of treason by Maximilien Robespierre and his Committee of Public Safety.

Several historians consider the "reign of terror" to have begun in 1793, placing the starting date at either 5 September, June or March (birth of the Revolutionary Tribunal), while some consider it to have begun in September 1792 (September Massacres), or even July 1789 (when the first killing took place), but there is a consensus that it ended with the fall of Maximilien Robespierre in July 1794 as this led to the Thermidorian Reaction.

Between June 1793 and the end of July 1794, there were 16,594 official death sentences in France, of which 2,639 were in Paris.

In his book Inside Terrorism Bruce Hoffman offered an explanation of why the term terrorism becomes distorted:

"On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, 'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization terrorist becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."

During World War II, the Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor (the Malayan Races Liberation Army), were branded "terrorists" by the British.

More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the mujaheddin "freedom fighters" during the Soviet–Afghan War yet twenty years later, when a new generation of Afghan men were fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks were labelled "terrorism" by George W. Bush.

Groups accused of terrorism understandably prefer terms reflecting legitimate military or ideological action. Leading terrorism researcher Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa's Carleton University, defines "terrorist acts" as unlawful attacks for political or other ideological goals, and said:

There is the famous statement: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless.

Some groups, when involved in a "liberation" struggle, have been called "terrorists" by the Western governments or media. Later, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called "statesmen" by similar organizations. Two examples of this phenomenon are the Nobel Peace Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela. WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange has been called a "terrorist" by Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.

Media outlets who wish to convey impartiality may limit their usage of "terrorist" and "terrorism" because they are loosely defined, potentially controversial in nature, and subjective terms.

Have you been paying attention to rhetoric of American govmernt and their actions and results?

The "war on poverty" is the unofficial name for legislation first introduced by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. This legislation was proposed by Johnson in response to a national poverty rate of around nineteen percent.

Result is more poverty than ever and Great Society only expanded the welfare state, dependence on goverment and did the opposite of what it says.

The "war on drugs" is a global campaign, led by the U.S. federal government, of drug prohibition, military aid, and military intervention, with the aim of reducing the illegal drug trade in the United States. The initiative includes a set of drug policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs that the participating governments and the UN have made illegal.

Result is more drug trade, more addicts, more violence , more cartel control, more overdoses etc. Predictable.

The "War on Terror", also known as the Global War on Terrorism, is an international military campaign launched by the United States government after the September 11 attacks.

Do I really need to go into disastrous results of this one. From Patriot Act and many other draconian laws to fiasco in Afghanistan. 2+ trillion dollars spend, armed Taliban, global humiliation, leaving people behind etc.

Biden's "War on Covid" Becomes War on Unvaccinated. The new "Terrorists"

"Pandemic of the unvaccinated" - Joe Biden

When it started the words "war on covid" was used, to justify all the draconian power grab and wealth transfer since early 2020.

Essentially, Academic Agent is a social commentator, and intellectual who tries to have discussion and education on cultural matters and political matters and his argument is that the so called "elite" the globalist agenda people, are not a monolithic hole, and neither is opposition, and that this rather unfortunate fact makes process of unifying people who feel under attack by the population growth agenda as you put it, hard to unify against common enemy. So in attempt to find some easy phrase that help unify people he came up with this phrase "clear them out". Akin to "lets make American Great Again" etc. Something to help people unite against common foe, with not too much intellectual debate that slows everything down. Weather you agree with him or not, is a completely differnt discussion and it has been discussed in one of the streams that escapes me.

@WinstonSmith Partly a theatrical performance as well as an ideological and semi-intellectual one.

"We must return again to certain sets of ideas which suit us, that are cardinal for us, that are metaphysically objective and subjective, that see the flux and warp and weft of life, and its complicatedness, but know there are absolute standards upon which things are based.

You have an economy where no one really makes anything except things that are instantly consumed because we have no steel industry anymore no coal industry anymore and no car industry anymore. We virtually don’t make anything anymore. We process the nuclear waste of other people.

All of our bureaucracies are sordid and run down. Go outside this country and come back in and you see the defeatism, the cynicism of our rulers, the lethargy of those who are in power, the lying of the BBC and the rest of the media, the refusal to talk about immigration."

"Truthfully, in this age those with intellect have no courage and those with some modicum of physical courage have no intellect. If things are to alter during the next fifty years then we must re-embrace Byron's ideal: the cultured thug."

Jonathan Bowden - Clear Them Out

Jonathan Bowden

British artist and political figure who was active in a number of political parties and groups, and was a leading speaker on the nationalist circuit.

Bowden began his political life in the Conservative Party and in Right-wing groups around conservatism, such as the Monday Club, the Western Goals Institute, and the Revolutionary Conservative Caucus.

He later joined the Freedom Party and then the British Nation Party, which he left after an internal dispute. He continued speaking for the BNP until 2010, but never rejoined the party.

Bowden was the chairman of New Right, an British pan-European forum.

The final instalment of Jonathan Bowden speaking at a Lancashire BNP meeting. Recorded September 2009.

"
Why I Am Not a Liberal - Imperium Press (Studies in Reaction)

Bowden's oratorical firepower is on full display in this 2009 interview. Members of the London New-Right put every question to him you ever wanted to ask, letting Bowden hold forth on such topics as race and politics, the EU, Islam, gender roles, paganism and Christianity, modern art, and his own vision of the future. This volume also includes three short reflections on Bowden the man by members of the London New-Right.

Far from suggesting a misty-eyed return to a nostalgic past, the picture Bowden paints here is one of great intellectual daring, aesthetic dynamism, and the sort of bravado needed for any political movement to succeed. This is a foundational voice of the dissident right reminding it of lessons it has forgotten.

The inaugural release in the Studies in Reaction series, Bowden's Why I Am Not a Liberal serves as a sweeping overview of illiberal thinking, and makes for an excellent entr� into dissident right politics."

The Jonathan Bowden Interview, 2012

Academic Agent: THE NEGATIVE VISION (Clear Them Out)

@Krunoslav An argument could be made that Bush's statement was a "Freudian slip"...

I disagree with his central premise that Western civilization and culture is a product of "race". I would assert, instead, it is more a product of ideas. The idea of zero came to us all the way from India, Algebra from the Arabs. Cannons, gunpowder- from China. So I think Western Civilization, in fact, all civilization is multi-cultural in origin. Asia minor, the cradle of civilization, is at the crossroads between all the human groups in the "old world"- thus it benefited from ideas coming from every direction. In the Americas, we see a much slower development- and concurrent isolation from the wider world of ideas. He holds forth a lot of half-truths, quite lucidly- and I've no doubt he believes them. But to my mind, it doesn't hold water.

@WinstonSmith "I disagree with his central premise that Western civilization and culture is a product of "race". I would assert, instead, it is more a product of ideas. The idea of zero came to us all the way from India, Algebra from the Arabs. Cannons, gunpowder- from China. So I think Western Civilization, in fact, all civilization is multi-cultural in origin. "

I don't think it was a matter of race either, or I would like to think it was not. However it is hard to find easy explanations why Africa is in such a bad shape for so long. They did not lack in resources, they did not have colonizer from Europe for a long time and if people evolved in Africa and than migrated, one would expect they had a head start. Plus if you go to Africa today or follow Africans who migrated to Europe etc. Same problems exist. I prefer to think its a matter of culture not race, however I am still unable to fully explain why Africa sucks so much for so long with so many people and and resources and why when Africans come to western countries. I plan to devote more time in studying African civilization to understand it better.

"all civilization is multi-cultural in origin. "

Well some would say "Culture is the compass of a people's mentalities, traditions, mores, and values Civilization is the tangible expression of the culture, representing culture's practical realizations." - Guillaume Faye

CULTURE: The set of unwritten norms of conduct that guide the behavior of a group, expressing what is considered "right" or "wrong". - Reznal Odnanref

And there were certainly distinct culture in ancient times and civilizations that developed more or less in isolation. Modern world is not a representation of much of the history, so we must take into account how unusual it is in the timeline if history.

It is true that in modern times or even in times of great exploration, there way a crosspolitation of cultures to bigger and bigger degree, however what we do see is that the less isolated the cultures the less unique they become.

“And everybody on earth knows that innovation only occurs in small groups. Put three people on a committee and they may get something done. Ten people, and it gets harder. Thirty people, and nothing happens. Thirty million, it becomes impossible. That’s the effect of mass media—it keeps anything from happening. Mass media swamps diversity. It makes every place the same. Bangkok or Tokyo or London: there’s a McDonald’s on one corner, a Benetton on another, a Gap across the street. Regional differences vanish. All differences vanish. In a mass-media world, there’s less of everything except the top ten books, records, movies, ideas. People worry about losing species diversity in the rain forest. But what about intellectual diversity—our most necessary resource? That’s disappearing faster than trees.” ― Michael Crichton, The Lost World

In Europe there is attempt to make everything as bland as that EU abomination and there are differences of civilizations, as inspired they may be by others, they are still responsible to maintenance of their own uniqueness. The more globalist and monopolists we become the less diverse we become. Mono-culture that is as bland as it can be, starts to dominate.

"He holds forth a lot of half-truths, quite lucidly- and I've no doubt he believes them. But to my mind, it doesn't hold water."

I agree that not all he says is true. I do think he believes in them though. Or did believe in them. He passed away. But one thing is good to have, someone who does not follow the herd towards the left and has ability to stand by and defend his convictions.

Certainly liberalism is religion full of myths as is all the left religions that stem from it. And the myths are not like in the old traditional religions, liberalism and its children fundamentally deny human nature and try to conform it to their worldview. Starting with egalitarianism and rationalism. Both are not true and go against human nature. Weather one chooses to believe in it or not, its important to have other views, everyone would agree with that today except liberals it seems.

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” ― William F. Buckley

Hence the never ending pursuit for liberal empire, even from the times of Jefferson. Everyone must be "liberated" weather they want to or not. That is one big problem with liberalism, it outsources individual morality to the liberalism itself. In liberal worldview it is enough to self identify as liberal to be moral person, since it is in their view seen that liberalism is the only true faith and most moral position. Hence , one does not need to be mortally virtues one simply needs to follow liberalism.

Liberalism always had a problem with morality. It claimed that humans who adhere to liberalism are no longer bound by any previous moral ties and traditions and hence each person can choose their own morality, because it would be attack on the liberty of the individual if shared moral code was prescribed by one central authority. To supplement this arrogance liberals simply adapted shared morality by outsourcing it to the liberalism itself. Claiming that only moral stance is a liberal one. All others are oppressive and restrictive.

That is something liberals refuse to talk about because it would undermine their own mythology. Hence we need people from other perspective to point to the flaws of the liberal position. If nothing else in a respectable debates and policy making. otherwise.... well to use another quote:

“I would rather try to organize politics and political discourse in a way that encouraged engagement on moral and religious questions. …If we attempt to banish moral and religious discourse from politics and debates about law and rights, the danger is we’ll have a kind a vacant public square or a naked public square.

And the yearning for larger meanings in politics will find undesirable expression. Fundamentalists will rush in where liberals fear to tread. They will try to clothe the naked public square with the narrowest and most intolerant moralism.”

• Michael Joseph Sandel

And that is exactly what we see today. And it is the fundamental, inherent flaw of liberal religion. Liberalism inevitably always lead to more extreme left. But because liberals cannot abandoned their beloved myth of liberalism infallibility, they refuse to make the connection between extreme left and soft left , while at the same time being naturally hostile and wary of anything that came before liberalism , seeing it as restrictive to liberty.

“In the end, the actions of such liberals have the effect---again unwittingly---of continuing to cover for the goals of the extreme Left. Yet again, the soft Left is helping to conceal the hard Left whether it realizes it or not.” ― Paul Kengor, Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century