The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

[RangerGxi]

I can feel your pain.Ebenezer Scrooge starred in horror at his own untended sepulture, and he cried out:" Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of the things that May be, only?"
Don't worry. There will be no "great replacement". The west is not under siege by massive waves of immigration. But it's not so hard to predict the future.Read Martin Jacques and Ian Morris. The western rule will give away to a fragmented global order, multiple currency zones and multiple spheres of economic/military influence, each dominated by its own cultural traditions- Euro-American, Confucian, and so on.The bitter pill to swallow:in the second half of this century, numbers will tell, China will rule the world and the world will be easternized.

The country that can't even produce an edible MRE or build an aircraft carrier will not rule the world.

China is a developing country with the problems of a developed country - a population crisis, overly-bureaucratic, social alienation. Worse, its a developing country with the problems of a developing country - poverty, brain drain, inefficiency, widespread corruption, etc.

[Himster]

The level of migration does have a precendent - if you go back 10,000 years to the Bronze age.

Or we could look back to just 1609. Which led to absolutely no troubles at all.

[saxdude]

Don't worry. There will be no "great replacement".

Sigh, If only.

[Axalon]

The level of migration does have a precendent - if you go back 10,000 years to the Bronze age.

What precedent would that be? Enlighten me...

- A

[Aexodus]

You should message sumskilz if you want the details, he knows more about that sort of thing.

[Abdülmecid I]

In other news, the next target of Soros' nefarious replacement scheme are the descendants of Aristomenes the Messenian.

[Ludicus]

China is....

Wait more fifty years. China played a relevant role in the world economy between 1100 and 1800.And now, it is next in line as the new global superpower....as a side note,China Overtakes U.S. In Global Household Wealth Rankings
---
According to the power transition theory, hegemonic periods last approximately 60 to 90 years.

In other news, the next target of Soros' nefarious replacement scheme are the descendants of Aristomenes the Messenian.

Haha.
China is on track to becoming the biggest 5G market in the world by 2015.
Pompeo was here, yesterday.Portugal Resists US Appeal to Bar Huawei From 5G Network Bid

[Bob69Joe]

https://www.cnre.eu/en/appeal-of-colombey

A spectre haunts Europe and the world. It is Replacism, the tendency to replace everything with and by its double — standardised, normalised, interchangeable, low-cost: the original by the copy, the authentic by its imitation, the true by the false, mothers by surrogate mothers, culture by leisure and entertainment, knowledge by diplomas, the country and town by the universal suburb, the indigene by the allogene, Europe by Africa, men by women, men and women by robots, peoples by other peoples, humanity by a dazed posthumanity, undifferentiated, standardised, as interchangeable as you like.

It is vital to know yourself and to communicate your value as seen among people most like yourself and it becomes necessary to put on big boy pants and understand that liberalism-LEFTism seeks to invalidate all such hopes for valuation for anyone.

[Vanoi]

https://www.cnre.eu/en/appeal-of-colombey



It is vital to know yourself and to communicate your value as seen among people most like yourself and it becomes necessary to put on big boy pants and understand that liberalism-LEFTism seeks to invalidate all such hopes for valuation for anyone.

Some good old xenophobia. I'm so glad its dying out.

[Heathen Hammer]

Some good old xenophobia. I'm so glad its dying out.

Criticism of leftist ideologies is neither xenophobic, nor dying out, at least if we look at recent major election results.

[Bob69Joe]

I don't understand why the confrontation between making a choice and accepting the social quota as-is, is so alarming to certain people. A choice must be made, and those who believe they can dodge that choice by repeating a couple lines will only put off that decision another day. The schism isn't going to be violent, but will resemble a natural order of things taking their rightful place, egalitarians in utilitarian and cultureless cities and the conservative/traditionalists enjoying what God has on offer.

[Vanoi]

Criticism of leftist ideologies is neither xenophobic, nor dying out, at least if we look at recent major election results.

Replaceism doesn't exist. Elections results don't mean much. Trump won in America and yet support for immigration and the re-settling of refugees is very high.

I don't understand why the confrontation between making a choice and accepting the social quota as-is, is so alarming to certain people. A choice must be made, and those who believe they can dodge that choice by repeating a couple lines will only put off that decision another day. The schism isn't going to be violent, but will resemble a natural order of things taking their rightful place, egalitarians in utilitarian and cultureless cities and the conservative/traditionalists enjoying what God has on offer.

Some's like a horrible dystopia.

[Heathen Hammer]

Replaceism doesn't exist. Elections results don't mean much. Trump won in America and yet support for immigration and the re-settling of refugees is very high.

It certainly does exist according to pro-mass immigration politicians. Trudeau's rather disturbing statement about "old stock Canadians" comes into mind. Polls don't matter much. If Americans supported mass immigration, they wouldn't have elected Trump.

Some's like a horrible dystopia.

It doesn't really sound like dystopia, but progressive/neoliberal narrative certainly does.

[Vanoi]

It certainly does exist according to pro-mass immigration politicians.

Support for immigration isn't support of Replacism. By your logic anyone who supports immigration in any amount would fall under Replacism.

Trudeau's rather disturbing statement about "old stock Canadians" comes into mind. Polls don't matter much. If Americans supported mass immigration, they wouldn't have elected Trump.

2016 was four years ago and attitudes change over time. Using your logic Americans voted a majority of Democrats in the House Of Representatives in 2018 so the majority of Americans must support immigration and the re-setteling of refugees.

[Cope]

Replaceism doesn't exist.

That depends what you mean by "replaceism". The theory of "white genocide" is a conspiracy, but the use of mass migration solve below-replacement birth rates (particularly in Europe) is real.

Elections results don't mean much. Trump won in America and yet support for immigration and the re-settling of refugees is very high.

Trump isn't opposed to immigration. He's taken a hard line against large scale illegal immigration from South America and the movement of people from a variety of dangerous Middle Eastern and African countries to the US.

[Vanoi]

That depends what you mean by "replaceism". The theory of "white genocide" is a conspiracy, but the use of mass migration solve below-replacement birth rates (particularly in Europe) is real.

Neither one is true. Mass immigration to solve birth rates tends to ignore the amount of immigration that Europe has had since the mid-20th century.

Trump isn't opposed to immigration. He's taken a hard line against large scale illegal immigration from South America and the movement of people from a variety of dangerous Middle Eastern and African countries to the US.

Never said he was. And you left out how he how also restricted legal immigration in many ways including very recently this:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme...l-immigration/

He's opposed to much more than illegal immigration. He definitely fits the bill of someone who wants to restrict all immigration.

[Cope]

Neither one is true. Mass immigration to solve birth rates tends to ignore the amount of immigration that Europe has had since the mid-20th century.

I don't really see what your point is: the "amount of immigration that Europe has had since the mid-20th century" isn't particularly related to contemporary migratory patterns. The need for migrant labor in 1945+ was still based (in part) on a "replacement" mentality, only it was derived from war losses and a need to rebuild rather than as a consequence of faltering fertility rates. It is also the case that there were far fewer migrants entering western European countries (not including war refugees) in the post war era than there have been over the past ten years.

Read the UN's report on replacement migration for more details.

Never said he was. And you left out how he how also restricted legal immigration in many ways including very recently this:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme...l-immigration/

He's opposed to much more than illegal immigration. He definitely fits the bill of someone who wants to restrict all immigration.

You appeared to claim that national "support for immigration" contrasted with Trump's election. On the basis that supporting immigration and supporting more tightly controlled immigration are not mutually exclusive, my point was that Trump's belief in stricter border controls doesn't indicate that he's out of step with the public. This is especially true since most of data relating to the 2016 election indicates that Trump's electoral base came largely from anxious white people who supported his views on migratory policy.

[Vanoi]

I don't really see what your point is: the "amount of immigration that Europe has had since the mid-20th century" isn't particularly related to contemporary migratory patterns. The need for migrant labor in 1945+ was still based (in part) on a "replacement" mentality, only it was derived from war losses and a need to rebuild rather than as a consequence of faltering fertility rates. It is also the case that there were far fewer migrants entering western European countries (not including war refugees) in the post war era than there have been over the past ten years.

Thats kind of my point. Immigration increased in Europe after WW2 and continued on even after the need for a workers decreased. Fertility rates didn't become a problem until almost two decades ago. Immigration was still going on then and it definitely wasn't to help deal with the fertility rate.

Read the UN's report on replacement migration for more details.

You appeared to claim that national "support for immigration" contrasted with Trump's election.

HH implied the election of Donald Trump with his views of immigration would conclude the majority support the very same view point. It doesn't as most Americans aren't in favor of restricting legal immigration.

On the basis that supporting immigration and supporting more tightly controlled immigration are not mutually exclusive, my point was that Trump's belief in stricter border controls doesn't indicate that he's out of step with the public. This is especially true since most of data relating to the 2016 election indicates that Trump's electoral base came largely from anxious white people who supported his views on migratory policy.

Thats not true either. Only a minority of Americans favor restricting legal immigration.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ional-divides/

American attitudes on immigration were very divided in 2016 but a majority of Americans in 2016 said that immigrants strengthen the country through hard work and talents. Not exactly Trump's viewpoint.

https://www.people-press.org/2018/06...-into-the-u-s/

I couldn't find any reliable data on American views on legal immigration in 2016 but in 2018 only a small minority favored decreasing legal immigration.

[Cope]

Thats kind of my point. Immigration increased in Europe after WW2 and continued on even after the need for a workers decreased. Fertility rates didn't become a problem until almost two decades ago. Immigration was still going on then and it definitely wasn't to help deal with the fertility rate.

Just because concerns about fertility rates were not a feature of historic migratory policies doesn't mean they aren't a reason for mass migration into western Europe today. Rates of net migration to countries like the UK and Germany have not remained constant since 1945. In the UK for example, net migration was at -13,000 in 1992 whereas by 2015/6 it had ballooned to over ~325,000. In Germany, the proportion of foreign born residents has rocketed (it is 2d only to the US) since controls were lifted on free movement from the former eastern bloc countries and it resettled 1m+ migrants from the Middle East and North Africa. This was around about the time it was experiencing abysmally poor fertility rates.

[Heathen Hammer]

Support for immigration isn't support of Replacism. By your logic anyone who supports immigration in any amount would fall under Replacism.

They wouldn't support mass-immigration otherwise, since there is no objective benefit from it unless you are an immigrant yourself, a corporate CEO or a corrupt politician.

2016 was four years ago and attitudes change over time. Using your logic Americans voted a majority of Democrats in the House Of Representatives in 2018 so the majority of Americans must support immigration and the re-setteling of refugees.

Trump approval is all-time high right now, so you are wrong again. Trump is anti-immigration (at least compared to pro-immigration extremism promoted by Democrats). So Americans clearly don't want immigration by your own logic.