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

[Basil II the B.S]

How is Britain replacing white people? The only immigration we are "mass importing" is Eastern European, we havn't had any significant black or asian immigration since the windrush generation.

Unless Eastern Europeans are not white? Can't say I've ever met a black pole tbh.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...y-by-2066.html
White birthrate is below 2.1 meaning that if the population is stable or growing then white people are being replaced. Medium term (roughly 2060-70) it means that British peoples will be minority within their own country as highly recommended by Sukiyama, Mongrel and Spartan.

3rd time within the same thread.

[95thrifleman]

It was Spanish claimed territory and then part of Mexico for 15 years, but it was never really settled by "Hispanics". In 1823, two years after independence, the new Mexican government offered land grants to immigrants from the United States in order to settle the place, which turned out to be a mistake. Various conflicts arose with the Americans who quickly outnumbered anyone who considered themselves Mexican to the point that only seven years later Mexico outlawed immigration from the US, but of course it was too late. In 1838, the American immigrants declared independence setting the stage for the Mexican–American War.

History does seem to show that the biggest threat to human life in North America has white skin and prays to the christian god.

But it's the darkies we have to worry about apparently.

[Basil II the B.S]

Native Americans in North America killed each other long before the white man showed up nor particularly created anything valuable in terms of science, architecture or developed social structure, but sure, let's go with the genocidal left interpretation of history: NatAm=advanced people; white man=evil conqueror.

A retarded argument that doens't pass elementary school but gets you an A grade in liberal universities where the only accepted argument is based on the premise that white people are responsible for all world's problems and should be ethnically cleansed.

[95thrifleman]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...y-by-2066.html
White birthrate is below 2.1 meaning that if the population is stable or growing then white people are being replaced. Medium term (roughly 2060-70) it means that British peoples will be minority within their own country as highly recommended by Sukiyama, Mongrel and Spartan.

3rd time within the same thread.

You really do not understand British history or culture.

[Basil II the B.S]

I understand demographics and what your side is doing. Ask English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish:'' is it ok if you become a minority within your own country by 2066, because that's what going to happen with the current immigration trends?''


That's all I care. Once you get the obvious answer to that question, we can move on to address who the real problem is here. Your side. Anyone recommending, defending, arguing for replacement migration, or denying its demographic impact, which has the effect described, is stripped of citizenship, tried for high treason and attempted ethnic cleansing. You can look at this thread for evidence. Every single one of your side arguments relies on denying (Sukiyama, Spartan), derailing the conversation, dishonest arguments (Sukiyama again), disrupting with irrelevant stuff (mostly Mongrel). It's pretty clear that you agree with the goal of ethnic cleansing and want to prevent white people from realizing what fate you have in mind for them. The next decades will see a war of liberals against humanity.

[Basil II the B.S]

The rivers of blood of the people killed in London by Islamic terrorists who came to the Uk thanks to liberal immigration policies, the girls from Rotherham, Rochdale, Newcastle and a dozen other places raped by Muslims while your side turned their back to them, the people stabbed to death in London, would all like to have a word with you.

[95thrifleman]

The rivers of blood of the people killed in London by Islamic terrorists who came to the Uk thanks to liberal immigration policies, the girls from Rotherham, Rochdale, Newcastle and a dozen other places raped by Muslims while your side turned their back to them, the people stabbed to death in London, would all like to have a word with you.

You always seem to ignore the fact that terrorism in the UK since 9/11 has been it's lowest for FIFTY years.

For someone who likes to accuse everyone he disagrees with of dishonesty it's very hypocritical to base your own arguments on dishonest claims. In 1972 alone your precious white terrorists killed 368 people, that's more than muslim terrorists killed between 9/11 and today.

[Basil II the B.S]

Once again, retarded argument. Irish terrorism is not an excuse to import Muslims to kill your own people. What the dude.

[Cope]

It was Spanish claimed territory and then part of Mexico for 15 years, but it was never really settled by "Hispanics". In 1823, two years after independence, the new Mexican government offered land grants to immigrants from the United States in order to settle the place, which turned out to be a mistake. Various conflicts arose with the Americans who quickly outnumbered anyone who considered themselves Mexican to the point that only seven years later Mexico outlawed immigration from the US, but of course it was too late. In 1838, the American immigrants declared independence setting the stage for the Mexican–American War.

Don't waste your time sumskillz: 95thrifleman doesn't really do facts or accuracy. Most of his posts are emotional appeals based on half-truths.

[95thrifleman]

Once again, retarded argument. Irish terrorism is not an excuse to import Muslims to kill your own people. What the dude.

You claim some liberal organisation is importing muslims to kill us but offer no proof, not a single shred of evidence. If your ethnic cleansing theory is true why are the sikhs, hindus. bhuddists, black christians, chinese not raping our kids or commiting acts of terrorism?

Seems very incompetent of this liberal world order to only use a small percentage of a small percentage to wipe us out.

[Basil II the B.S]

Apparently governments are not in charge of immigration policies. Rofl.

[mongrel]

I understand demographics and what your side is doing. Ask English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish:'' is it ok if you become a minority within your own country by 2066, because that's what going to happen with the current immigration trends?''


That's all I care. Once you get the obvious answer to that question, we can move on to address who the real problem is here. Your side. Anyone recommending, defending, arguing for replacement migration, or denying its demographic impact, which has the effect described, is stripped of citizenship, tried for high treason and attempted ethnic cleansing. You can look at this thread for evidence. Every single one of your side arguments relies on denying (Sukiyama, Spartan), derailing the conversation, dishonest arguments (Sukiyama again), disrupting with irrelevant stuff (mostly Mongrel). It's pretty clear that you agree with the goal of ethnic cleansing and want to prevent white people from realizing what fate you have in mind for them. The next decades will see a war of liberals against humanity.

I'm Irish, people can ask me. I consider the theory as utter bollocks. We had this with Eurabia, when Oslo was supposed to be half muslim by 2010. Still waiting.

Britain had an Empire, still has Commonwealth most of it is black or brown. as 95th said you know damn-all about British history or culture. Celtic British peoples are a minority in their own country, the United Kingdom.

This is what Great Replacement is about:

The El Paso shooter who murdered 22 people posted a manifesto online explicitly stating his motivation: he was trying to stop a “Hispanic invasion of Texas”.


Another shooter attacked a synagogue in Poway, California, killing one woman . In his manifesto, he claimed he was responding to the “meticulously planned genocide of the European race”.

In Pittsburgh , October 2018, still another shooter online said that they were trying to “bring invaders in that kill our people”.


And we musn't forget Christchurch , where the shooter explained Great Replacement theory was in a way the OP avoided. The man who murdered 51 people called immigration an “assault on the European people”. This in a country where every white person is an immigrant, or descended from one.

Apparently governments are not in charge of immigration policies. Rofl.

You have been telling us that the UN and not governments were in charge of migration policy. When confronted with the genuine UK policy you ran off never referring to the truth, that he UK does not have a preference for non-white migrants, quite the opposite.

Don't waste your time sumskillz: 95thrifleman doesn't really do facts or accuracy. Most of his posts are emotional appeals based on half-truths.

It takes brass balls to say that on a thread disseminating fake propaganda used to justify recent terrorist events.

[Basil II the B.S]

I love how the population of the geographical area known as Great Britain all of a sudden is expanded to an area that's a hundreds of times bigger so that you could manipulate the argument in your favour. Nope.jpg.

[Cope]

Enough of this now Basil. As well you know, I have been critical of liberal migratory policies and the excesses of the elite but the reality is that they haven't the motive - let alone the competence - to "replace" native communities in a manner consistent with genocide. I think you can acknowledge that migration and fertility rates have been poorly managed over recent decades without insisting that it's all part of a conspiracy to destroy white Europeans.

[Alwyn]

White birthrate is below 2.1 meaning that if the population is stable or growing then white people are being replaced. Medium term (roughly 2060-70) it means that British peoples will be minority within their own country as highly recommended by Sukiyama, Mongrel and Spartan.

Your argument seem to assume that "white" means the same thing as "British". Black and Asian British people are British.

Anyone recommending, defending, arguing for replacement migration, or denying its demographic impact, which has the effect described, is stripped of citizenship, tried for high treason and attempted ethnic cleansing.

Do you want to punish people for having a different view? Traditionally, the punishment for high treason is death - are you saying that people should be killed for disagreeing with you?

If a white family sell their home to a black or Asian family, do you really see no difference between this and the burning of villages and the massace of families where ethnic cleansing is happening?

It's pretty clear that you agree with the goal of ethnic cleansing and want to prevent white people from realizing what fate you have in mind for them. The next decades will see a war of liberals against humanity.

In much the same way as it's "pretty clear" that everyone who disagrees with me supports an invasion of the Earth by the Aldmeri Dominion, the Borg and the Daleks.

The rivers of blood of the people killed in London by Islamic terrorists who came to the Uk thanks to liberal immigration policies, the girls from Rotherham, Rochdale, Newcastle and a dozen other places raped by Muslims while your side turned their back to them, the people stabbed to death in London, would all like to have a word with you.

This reminds me of how, when some people criticize the Nazis for killing millions, some people point out that Communists killed even more, as if our only choices were to support Nazis or Communists and as if they hadn't noticed that we can be against both ideologies. If I'm okay with a nurse from Brazil, a video game developer from India and a teacher from Lithuania coming to the UK, it doesn't make sense to claim that this means that I support terrorism, rape or other crimes.

Stricter immigration policies can't prevent people who were born here from being radicalised online - which both Islamic extremists and white nationalist extremists seem keen to do - and they're unlikely to prevent someone landing by boat on a remote beach. Crime in the UK rose after we lost 21,732 police officers from March 2010 to March 2018 - and the Prime Minister promised to recruit 20,000 officers, so it seems that he believes that there's a connection between having enough police officers and controlling crime.

[Basil II the B.S]

Enough of this now Basil. As well you know, I have been critical of liberal migratory policies and the excesses of the elite but the reality is that they haven't the motive - let alone the competence - to "replace" native communities in a manner consistent with genocide. I think you can acknowledge that migration and fertility rates have been poorly managed over recent decades without insisting that it's all part of a conspiracy to destroy white Europeans.

The motive is simply that they like diversity more. White Liberals are the only group that distinctively shows a preference for diversity over their own group:
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-new...-white-saviors

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now, you put this kind of people in power and what do you think they are going to do? Well, act according to their preferences. It's not really a conspiracy, but it definitely is a unique preference in sheer contrast with the wishes of the majority.

To be fair I'd make more surveys for instance asking White Liberals: ''do white majority countries have the right to want to retain their ethnic majority?'' I'd expect an overwhelming majority of White Liberals to say no.
I don't have Kaufmann's book right now at hand but I think he did ask something similar.

The other reason is that promoting diversity over their own ethnic groups allows White liberals to present themselves as a benevolent elite because of their ''tolerance'' and ''welcoming attitude''. Under this aspect bashing white people is a ritualistic atonment that White Liberals use to justify a system that they benefit from, at the expense of everyone else, both whites and non-whites. So that they are both the economic and moral winner of the current state of affairs.

I'll give you that this is a lot more complicated argument than much of the garbage than has been posted in this thread. Unfortunately, very few (I'd name Kritias and Black Knight) seem to be able to make interesting posts while everyone else relies on denial/derail/defame, which gets really boring after a while.

[Aexodus]

Justin Trudeau has ascribed a vision of Canada as a ‘postnational state’ with ‘no core identity’ to use his words. To quote WaPo, this is his unpopular prescription of what he wants for Canada, not a description.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...adas-identity/

Trudeau’s rhetoric alludes to a goal, popular in center-left circles, of a Canada that has reached an almost transcendent level of multicultural democracy, in which all historically restrictive conceptions of nationalism — race, religion, language, culture — are vanquished in favor of an inclusive citizenship based on simple acknowledgment of shared humanity.

Immigration can and should remain high(Canada’s rates are already among the highest, per capita, on Earth) and assimilation discouraged, lest the majority population attempt to enforce a “mainstream.” Even the notion of shared Canadian values becomes taboo to partisans of this school of thought, as seen in the relentless scorn heaped upon failed Conservative Party leadership candidate Kellie Leitch. Leitch proposed a Canadian values test for immigrants and was mocked not for any definitions she offered but for simply implying Canadian values could be defined at all.

This is related to the ideology of cosmopolitanism I discussed in another thread.

It’s why people like Basil are paranoid, but there’s no proof it has anything to do with antagonism against whites or whiteness (two different things), and instead just being what is on the tin.

[Vanoi]

@Basil

Immigration is ethnic cleansing now? Calm down Patrick Crusius. Ethnic cleansing by defnition requires the forced deportation or movement of peoples against their will. None of that is happening in Western countries.

[Basil II the B.S]

Your argument seem to assume that "white" means the same thing as "British". Black and Asian British people are British.

No. The 4 nations of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are England, Scotland, N. Ireland and Wales. If you are Asian, clearly you are... from Asia. As for Black, likely Africa. This is purely under ethnic terms. Given that today's citizenship isn't ethnic based, people from Asia and Africa can acquire the citizenship and legally claim to be British. So, legally speaking you are correct, ethnically speaking you are not.

Do you want to punish people for having a different view? Traditionally, the punishment for high treason is death - are you saying that people should be killed for disagreeing with you?

Or banishment. I'm a supporter of the idea of splitting citizenship. Global citizenship for cosmopolitans (the term actually means citizen of the world anyway), national citizenship for locally minded people.

If a white family sell their home to a black or Asian family, do you really see no difference between this and the burning of villages and the massace of families where ethnic cleansing is happening?

That's not my argument. I specifically named fertility rates below replacement level and population being stable or growing.

In much the same way as it's "pretty clear" that everyone who disagrees with me supports an invasion of the Earth by the Aldmeri Dominion, the Borg and the Daleks.

I'm missing the videogame reference here. :/

This reminds me of how, when some people criticize the Nazis for killing millions, some people point out that Communists killed even more, as if our only choices were to support Nazis or Communists and as if they hadn't noticed that we can be against both ideologies. If I'm okay with a nurse from Brazil, a video game developer from India and a teacher from Lithuania coming to the UK, it doesn't make sense to claim that this means that I support terrorism, rape or other crimes.

Oh but I use those arguments only when I get excuses for the current behavior of certain people by using examples of unrelated past. Indeed, it's a stupid discussion.

Stricter immigration policies can't prevent people who were born here from being radicalised online - which both Islamic extremists and white nationalist extremists seem keen to do - and they're unlikely to prevent someone landing by boat on a remote beach. Crime in the UK rose after we lost 21,732 police officers from March 2010 to March 2018 - and the Prime Minister promised to recruit 20,000 officers, so it seems that he believes that there's a connection between having enough police officers and controlling crime.

The Prime Minister also shifted officers from street duty to online policing duty for mean tweets. That's another thing I find unbeliavably stupid. Crime itself however is not necessarily related to the number of officers, as it is to social cohesion in terms of mutual trust, common values, opportunities and culture. All of which are not helped by excessive diversity. Japan is a big country with very little crime. How come?

Justin Trudeau has ascribed a vision of Canada as a ‘postnational state’ with ‘no core identity’ to use his words. To quote WaPo, this is his unpopular prescription of what he wants for Canada, not a description.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...adas-identity/


This is related to the ideology of cosmopolitanism I discussed in another thread.

It’s why people like Basil are paranoid, but there’s no proof it has anything to do with antagonism against whites or whiteness (two different things), and instead just being what is on the tin.

When you combine the above with critical race theory and policies inspired by it, there clearly is. Add the open hatred of the Woke crowd against white people on social media and that basically settles it.

I'm not paranoid, those are facts. I'm just done with them. Their policies are not just a threat to national security and social stability but to individual freedoms as well. They have crossed to Rubicon when it comes to reasonableness. You don't try to reason with nutjobs. It's pointless. They want a confrontation, let's prepare for it.

[Alwyn]

No. The 4 nations of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are England, Scotland, N. Ireland and Wales. If you are Asian, clearly you are... from Asia. As for Black, likely Africa. This is purely under ethnic terms. Given that today's citizenship isn't ethnic based, people from Asia and Africa can acquire the citizenship and legally claim to be British. So, legally speaking you are correct, ethnically speaking you are not.

People are from the place where they grew up. If two friends were born and raised in the same neighbourhood in the UK, they're British. If the colour of their skin is different, why should this affect where they're from? Ethnically speaking, someone is British if they were raised here or became part of the community after moving here. Their skin colour makes no difference.

Or banishment. I'm a supporter of the idea of splitting citizenship. Global citizenship for cosmopolitans (the term actually means citizen of the world anyway), national citizenship for locally minded people.

So you do want to punish people who disagree.

That's not my argument. I specifically named fertility rates below replacement level and population being stable or growing.

Do you really not see a difference between some people having fewer babies and the burning of villages and the massacre of inhabitants?

I'm missing the videogame reference here. :/

The Aldmeri Dominion are elvish imperialists in Skyrim who believe that they're better than everyone else.

The Prime Minister also shifted officers from street duty to online policing duty for mean tweets. That's another thing I find unbeliavably stupid. Crime itself however is not necessarily related to the number of officers, as it is to social cohesion in terms of mutual trust, common values, opportunities and culture. All of which are not helped by excessive diversity. Japan is a big country with very little crime. How come?

Shouldn't the police investigate death threats, intimidation and harassment? People may not trust people they don't know, but trust can be built when you go to school and work with people. Having the same skin colour isn't the same thing as having the same values. Yes, Japan has a low crime rate and low diversity, you seem to imply that there's a simple correlation between the two. If so, North Korea, which is even less diverse than Japan, should be a crime-free heaven. Canada is even more diverse than the US - if you're right, they should have a higher crime rate, yet it seems that they don't.

When you combine the above with critical race theory and policies inspired by it, there clearly is. Add the open hatred of the Woke crowd against white people on social media and that basically settles it.

I'm not paranoid, those are facts. I'm just done with them. Their policies are not just a threat to national security and social stability but to individual freedoms as well. They have crossed to Rubicon when it comes to reasonableness. You don't try to reason with nutjobs. It's pointless. They want a confrontation, let's prepare for it.

"They" want a confrontation? Didn't you say that you wanted the execution or banishment of people who disagree with you? Didn't you accuse people who disagree of supporting "ethnic cleansing"? That sounds pretty confrontational, to me.

You call the other side "nutjobs", while advocating a 'replacement' conspiracy theory.

The "threat to national security" comes from some supporters of your 'replacement' conspiracy theory who carry out terrorist attacks (and other terrorists), not people who don't mind whether their school-friend or colleague has the same skin colour.

What do you mean by "preparing" for a "confrontation", specifically?