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

[Basil II the B.S]

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.

If I was born in China by my same parents I wouldn't be Chinese, even if I spoke flawless Mandarin. Nor I would be accepted as Chinese. If I was born in Nigeria, again, same parents, I still wouldn't be Nigerian.

So you do want to punish people who disagree.

I want people to live according to what they preach.

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

We have stabbing, vans running over a crowd, rape and a good variety of other options currently ongoing against us by immigrants, if we really want to go down that path.

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

But I don't really believe my ethnic group is better than anyone else. Though we have an overall good society to live in. My demand is more about the right to exist and preserve it. Is it really that bad? I don't want, nor care about an empire. If anything, the global elites want a global empire based on their alleged values.

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.

No, this isn't my belief. Ethnic diversity is negatively correlated with social cohesion, that's what research, by liberals, says:
https://www.ft.com/content/c4ac4a74-...#axzz24HMFQrIc
https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-...3/1211/2332107
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...111/juaf.12015
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/...munities/7614/
https://www.forskning.se/2017/05/18/...ark-i-sverige/

And yes, in Canada as well:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...8.2007.00717.x

And those still aren't as diverse as for instance the Middle East, like Lebanon, Syria or similar. Many Sub-Saharian countries also have an extreme tribal diversity, which is one of the reasons they are so unstable. So yes, too much diversity is bad.

The US crime that you mention is due to the incredibly high crime rate of African-Americans. Sooo, technically there's an ethnic component.

"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.

Don't strawman me. You sound like a nice guy and I give you reasonable answers. It's a fair deal.

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?

Do we really want to compare the number of deaths by white nationalists to the number of deaths by immigrants crime? It doesn't even remotely come close.

[alhoon]

A lot of posts have been deleted as off-topic \ insulting \ disruptive. Address the argument don't attack the poster. Continued insinuations (or downright accusations) that a poster is going to do a mass shooting will be infracted as they are off topic and insulting

[Alwyn]

If I was born in China by my same parents I wouldn't be Chinese, even if I spoke flawless Mandarin. Nor I would be accepted as Chinese. If I was born in Nigeria, again, same parents, I still wouldn't be Nigerian.

China isn't the UK. If you're born and raised in the UK, you're from the UK.

I want people to live according to what they preach.

Me too.

We have stabbing, vans running over a crowd, rape and a good variety of other options currently ongoing against us by immigrants, if we really want to go down that path.

Crime, even violent crime, isn't the same thing as ethnic cleansing.

But I don't really believe my ethnic group is better than anyone else. Though we have an overall good society to live in. My demand is more about the right to exist and preserve it. Is it really that bad? I don't want, nor care about an empire. If anything, the global elites want a global empire based on their alleged values.

You claimed that people who disagree with you support "ethnic cleansing", which they don't, so the analogy works quite well if you don't agree with Aldmeri imperialism.

No, this isn't my belief. Ethnic diversity is negatively correlated with social cohesion, that's what research, by liberals, says

As I said, people don't trust people they don't know. When they get to know them, trust can be built. One of your sources supports this:

Individuals who regularly talk with their neighbors are less influenced by the racial and ethnic character of their surroundings than people who lack such social interaction. This finding challenges claims about the negative effects of diversity on trust – at least, it suggests that the negative effects so prevalent in existing research can be mediated by social ties.

You're saying (if I understand you correctly) that diversity disrupts social cohesion. This reminds me of an episode of the TV series The West Wing, where a military officer, Major Tate, was saying that gay people shouldn't be allowed in the military because it would disrupt cohesion. His conversation with Admiral Fitzwallace (Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, an African American character) went like this:

• Chairman Fitzwallace: We’re discussing gays in the military, huh?
• Major Thompson: Yes sir.
• Fitzwallace: What do you think? I said, what do you think?
• Thompson: Sir, we’re here to help the White House form a possible -
• Fitzwallace: I know. I’m asking you what you think.
• Major Tate: Sir, we’re not prejudiced toward homosexuals.
• Fitzwallace: You just don’t want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?
• Tate: No, sir, I don’t.
• Fitzwallace: Cause they pose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion.
• Tate: Yes sir.
• Fitzwallace: That’s what I think too. I also think the military wasn’t designed to be an instrument of social change.
• Tate: Yes sir.
• Fitzwallace: The problem with that is that's what they were saying to me fifty years ago. Blacks shouldn’t serve with whites, it would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I’m an admiral in the U.S. Navy and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Beat that with a stick.

(Source)

Don't strawman me. You sound like a nice guy and I give you reasonable answers. It's a fair deal.

I'm not trying to strawman you. If I misunderstand or misrepresent your view, please explain what your actual view is.

Do we really want to compare the number of deaths by white nationalists to the number of deaths by immigrants crime? It doesn't even remotely come close.

This brings me back to the situation where people compare the deaths by Nazis with the deaths by Communists. We can be against both Nazism and Communism. We can be against both deaths by white nationalists and deaths by immigrant criminals. Being okay with the arrival of a nurse, a video game designer or a teacher from another country isn't a "threat to national security" and it isn't the same thing as supporting immigrant crimes, despite your apparent attempts to conflate the two.

[Basil II the B.S]

China isn't the UK. If you're born and raised in the UK, you're from the UK.

Applying for UK citizenship

https://www.expatica.com/uk/moving/c...1/#Applying-UK
You can acquire UK citizenship through the following ways:

• by birth in the UK to a British citizen or someone with permanent residence
• by descent if you were born abroad to a British citizen who was born in the UK or became a UK citizen through naturalisation, registration or adoption
• naturalisation
• registration
• adoption

Here the closest to your description would be the second option of point one but it's still inaccurate. The most standard way to get citizenship is still by blood relation (point 1 and 2)

Me too.

Great, so why can't cosmopolitans live as citizens of the world? If they hate borders and love illegal immigrants why can't they live as such? Why should they benefit from a system of borders that they hate?

Crime, even violent crime, isn't the same thing as ethnic cleansing.

It really depends on the numerical dimension it reaches.

You claimed that people who disagree with you support "ethnic cleansing", which they don't, so the analogy works quite well if you don't agree with Aldmeri imperialism.

People who deny the right of indigenous Europeans to preserve their ethnic identity and majority in their homeland are supporting ethnic cleansing.

As I said, people don't trust people they don't know. When they get to know them, trust can be built. One of your sources supports this:

You're saying (if I understand you correctly) that diversity disrupts social cohesion. This reminds me of an episode of the TV series The West Wing, where a military officer, Major Tate, was saying that gay people shouldn't be allowed in the military because it would disrupt cohesion. His conversation with Admiral Fitzwallace (Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, an African American character) went like this:

Yes, even Putnam has prescribed a ton of approaches as solutions to diversity/social cohesion conundrum, broadly, they haven't changed anything. Also, again, it's not me saying it, it's research. As for the example you mention, we can move to real life and see how diversity worked out in Lebanon and Syria. Or even Ireland that left the UK, or South Africa, or Nigeria.
So why exactly are we promoting something that's incredibly nefarious for society?

I'm not trying to strawman you. If I misunderstand or misrepresent your view, please explain what your actual view is.

At no point I suggested killing the ''traitors''. As I said, I prefer my solution: want to be cosmopolitan? Live as such.

This brings me back to the situation where people compare the deaths by Nazis with the deaths by Communists. We can be against both Nazism and Communism. We can be against both deaths by white nationalists and deaths by immigrant criminals. Being okay with the arrival of a nurse, a video game designer or a teacher from another country isn't a "threat to national security" and it isn't the same thing as supporting immigrant crimes, despite your apparent attempts to conflate the two.

That's something we agree on. Here's what you are missing, since you like examples: my girlfriend is Ukrainian. By looking at her heritage she's actually half Polish, 1/4 Ruthenian and 1/4 Tatar Russian (those are Turkic from Central Asia). That's one person anyway. Clearly, I don't want to kick her out, that would make me a very unhappy Basil. We don't want to do that. There's a fair difference however between 1 (or 10, we are talking about a contained number) immigrant who works, commits no crime and does his/her best to appreciate the host society and... welcoming hundreds of thousands every year. Ukraine has 44 million people. If you tell me ''next year we have 2 million Ukrainians coming to your country, are you ok with that?'', the answer is ''no, not in a billion years'' with a few additional aggressive remarks. And I dare anyone to say I don't like Ukrainian people. Is my point clear?

[mongrel]

The most standard way to get citizenship is still by blood relation (point 1 and 2)

You have just accepted that pre-1971 Act black/asian migrants and their direct descendants are UK citizens. Well done.

[Alwyn]

Applying for UK citizenship

https://www.expatica.com/uk/moving/c...1/#Applying-UK
You can acquire UK citizenship through the following ways:

• by birth in the UK to a British citizen or someone with permanent residence
• by descent if you were born abroad to a British citizen who was born in the UK or became a UK citizen through naturalisation, registration or adoption
• naturalisation
• registration
• adoption

Here the closest to your description would be the second option of point one but it's still inaccurate. The most standard way to get citizenship is still by blood relation (point 1 and 2)

What you've quoted supports what I said - if you're born and raised here, the colour of your skin doesn't matter. (There are cases where someone born here wouldn't be a citizen - it sounds like the baby of a tourist who was only here for a short time wouldn't be - but that's true regardless of skin colour, the issue would be that the parents lack 'citizenship or permanent residence'). This information doesn't support what you said, when you implied that "white" was equivalent to "British":

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

Great, so why can't cosmopolitans live as citizens of the world? If they hate borders and love illegal immigrants why can't they live as such? Why should they benefit from a system of borders that they hate?

What makes you think that they don't? I imagine that cosmopolitans enjoy living in different countries and, when they're in their own countries, welcome people from other countries. Not everyone who disagrees with white nationalism "hates" borders, it's possible to disagree with both white nationalists and people who want open borders.

People who deny the right of indigenous Europeans to preserve their ethnic identity and majority in their homeland are supporting ethnic cleansing.

Who is denying this? If someone from another country comes to live in the UK, how does this impair my ability to preserve my identity? They live how they want and I live how I want - isn't that the kind of society you'd like to live in?

Also, again, it's not me saying it, it's research. As for the example you mention, we can move to real life and see how diversity worked out in Lebanon and Syria. Or even Ireland that left the UK, or South Africa, or Nigeria.
So why exactly are we promoting something that's incredibly nefarious for society?

Yes, it's research, some of which supports what I said. You can give examples of violence which you're implying are linked to diversity (although I imagine it's more complicated than that), I can give examples of violence by those who want to separate people based on their skin colour (or similar factors), such as violence in South Africa during apartheid, the murders by KKK supporters and terrorist attacks by white nationalists. As I said, diversity is even higher in Canada than the US, yet crime is lower - your response to this was to argue that crime in the US is linked to immigration. However, if you're arguing that immigration causes crime, it should follow that crime would be higher in Canada, yet it isn't.

At no point I suggested killing the ''traitors''.

It seemed like you did, when you said:

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.

I replied that the death penalty is the traditional penalty for high treason and asked if that's what you wanted. You could have said "No". Instead, your reply began with:

Or banishment.

It sounded like you wanted people to be executed or banished. Since many of the people we're talking about - people who disagree with you on immigration - won't have citizenship of any other country but the one where they live, they couldn't be banished - which leaves execution. I'm reminded of Eddie Izzard's "Cake or death?" comedy sketch, in which he pretends to invite people to choose "cake or death?" - after a while explains that he's run out of cake, but continues to ask.

That's something we agree on. Here's what you are missing, since you like examples: my girlfriend is Ukrainian. By looking at her heritage she's actually half Polish, 1/4 Ruthenian and 1/4 Tatar Russian (those are Turkic from Central Asia). That's one person anyway. Clearly, I don't want to kick her out, that would make me a very unhappy Basil. We don't want to do that. There's a fair difference however between 1 (or 10, we are talking about a contained number) immigrant who works, commits no crime and does his/her best to appreciate the host society and... welcoming hundreds of thousands every year. Ukraine has 44 million people. If you tell me ''next year we have 2 million Ukrainians coming to your country, are you ok with that?'', the answer is ''no, not in a billion years'' with a few additional aggressive remarks. And I dare anyone to say I don't like Ukrainian people. Is my point clear?

You're saying that you distinguish between the arrival of one hard-working, law-abiding and friendly Ukrainian immigrant and the arrival of two million Ukrainians. If I understand correctly, you're saying that supporting the first and objecting to the second doesn't mean that you hate Ukrainians. Yes, that's clear. What's not clear is how this shows that people who disagree with you on immigration are a "threat to national security", that they should be "stripped of citizeship" and "tried for high treason."

You know your girlfriend, obviously she's a good person otherwise you wouldn't be in a relationship. I wonder how you would respond to the suggestion that the people you described as a "threat to national security" know their black and Asian school-friends and colleagues too, and have found that they're good people.

[Love Mountain]

You have just accepted that pre-1971 Act black/asian migrants and their direct descendants are UK citizens. Well done.

I love it when they accidentally stumble into the right conclusions.

[The spartan]

Sorry, but I couldn't let this get away.

Ethnic Cleansing:Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial and/or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, often with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous. The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), intimidation, as well as genocide and genocidal rape.

Replacing any ethnic group with another without informed consent is ethnic cleansing. The filthy human garbage at the UN will never tell to the citizens of Europe or North America: ''we are promoting a migration policy that will make you a minority in your own country by the end of the century, do you agree?''. No, they will tell you that ''we need immigration for economic reasons'' and to ''atone the crimes of colonialism and slavery''. Manipulation, lies, arguments created ad hoc so that white people are shamed into silence and prevented from refusing a future they do not want. The liberals at the UN are evil, period. People who lie about their intentions are unsalvageable. Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity, thus UN liberals are criminals against humanity. We need to defund the UN, arrest the liberals, put them on trial for attempted ethnic cleansing and hand them swift sentences. The UN itself is an antidemocratic, anti-humanity organization.

Your rambling aside, letting in immigrants is no where even close to "ethnic cleansing". I have never heard of any ethnic cleansing that allowed the ethnicity being targeted to stay in the nation and do as they wish. Why are you being so wildly dishonest with your definitions? Is it all worth it to desperately claw at perceived political enemies?

But that's not even remotely as appalling as you asking ''what's so outrageous'' about ethnic cleansing. In short, you are arguing that anyone guilty of whiteness according to critical race theory has an obligation to step aside and see its ethnic group vanish from human history.

I didn't, now you are leveling insane strawmen at me. I asked what was so outrageous about migration, which you seem keen on marrying to the idea of ethnic cleansing. And how the is the "White" ethnic group in danger of vanishing from human history? How do you destroy the culture of people who are still here and are free to practice their culture as they wish? How do you destroy an ethnic group that has the same citizenship rights as everyone else in the nation?

It seems like you are implying that an ethnic group cannot exist unless it is allowed to have a majority over other groups, but that has some insane amounts of implications. God knows how Black culture has lasted so long in the US, then.

As for Austin and Huston, please give me the demographics of each by neighborhood.

Yeah ing right I am going to give you a demographic breakdown of each neighborhood in a 2 million+ pop city. Seriously, of all the desperate things you say, Austin and Huston are "segregated cities"? You truly have no idea what the US looks like, do you? I have spent extended time in both cities, and they are by no means perfect cities (who is?), but holy you would not be able to find a reasonable person who would honestly consider them "segregated'. You can either be serious or you can be a troll, but you can't do both at the same time.

[Heathen Hammer]

Replacing one population with another can be defined as ethnic cleansing. its funny how left tends to use imaginary interpretations to defined something non-racist as "racist" (which is what we see with constant demonization of democratic nationalist movements in North America and Europe), but in this attempts to replace one population with another via immigration and population transfer is, in fact, falling under conventional definition of ethnic cleansing.

[The spartan]

Replacing one population with another can be defined as ethnic cleansing.

Newsflash, not having the exact ethnic demographic layout you personally want isn't the same thing as being ethnically cleansed. I will say again: I have never heard of any ethnic cleansing that allowed the ethnicity being targeted to stay in the nation and do as they wish.

You are literally claiming that practically any immigration (which changes ethnic demographics) is tantamount to ethnic cleansing. Please, squirm more, I enjoy it.

[Heathen Hammer]

Just because there are less coercive methods being used on "undesired" population to disappear, doesn't mean it is not, in fact, an ethnic cleansing. A good example would be actions of internationalist regime in Russia, who cleansed "undesired" populations by denying them food. They were "free" to stay and starve, so according to NPC logic it wasn't an ethnic cleansing since population was free to stay. Neat.

[The spartan]

Just because there are less coercive methods being used on "undesired" population to disappear, doesn't mean it is not, in fact, an ethnic cleansing.

Wait, this is actually an important point, if there is no forced removal of "White" people (which includes myself, it seems), how would immigration cause "Whites" to disappear as an ethnic group? Presumably, "White" people are living their own lives and promoting their own culture as they see fit; what event would cause them to disappear?

[Basil II the B.S]

What you've quoted supports what I said - if you're born and raised here, the colour of your skin doesn't matter. (There are cases where someone born here wouldn't be a citizen - it sounds like the baby of a tourist who was only here for a short time wouldn't be - but that's true regardless of skin colour, the issue would be that the parents lack 'citizenship or permanent residence'). This information doesn't support what you said, when you implied that "white" was equivalent to "British":

As I said, legal citizenship doesn't really correspond to ethnic belonging.

You are also missing the broader point. A white person can't be Chinese or Nigerian, but, if you we accept your argument, everyone can be ethnically British. That creates an asymmetry: everyone has the right of a homeland and ethnic identity, unless you are white. You see where this is going? Everyone gets to retain their heritage, only white people are obligated to accept a level of immigration that makes them minority within their own countries first and then simply vanish. Which obviously leads to many white people not being exactly happy with it.

What makes you think that they don't? I imagine that cosmopolitans enjoy living in different countries and, when they're in their own countries, welcome people from other countries. Not everyone who disagrees with white nationalism "hates" borders, it's possible to disagree with both white nationalists and people who want open borders.

No, they don't. In practice, they demand we should welcome everyone by creating ever new reasons so that everyone is considered a refugee, like for instance ''climate change refugees''. The moralization of immigration is simply created so that no opposing opinion can be expressed, because if you say no, then you are a bad guy. So if it's going to be like that, then it's no borders, something most cosmopolitans are fine with, simply because they rely on gentrification for their personal protection.

That's another asymmetry I'm particularly unhappy about: cosmpolitans regularly dump the problems caused by immigration on others. When those others complain, then cosmopolitan start shouting ''racist and xenophobe''. This is why I argue that the price of any problems caused by immigration should be paid by people who argue in favour of it, ranging from economic costs to responsibility for crime and terrorism.

Who is denying this? If someone from another country comes to live in the UK, how does this impair my ability to preserve my identity? They live how they want and I live how I want - isn't that the kind of society you'd like to live in?

It's not one. It's millions. Enough to alter the demographics of the country and make you a minority.

Yes, it's research, some of which supports what I said. You can give examples of violence which you're implying are linked to diversity (although I imagine it's more complicated than that), I can give examples of violence by those who want to separate people based on their skin colour (or similar factors), such as violence in South Africa during apartheid, the murders by KKK supporters and terrorist attacks by white nationalists. As I said, diversity is even higher in Canada than the US, yet crime is lower - your response to this was to argue that crime in the US is linked to immigration. However, if you're arguing that immigration causes crime, it should follow that crime would be higher in Canada, yet it isn't.

I didn't say that. I said that crime in the US has an ethnic component (African American).

It seemed like you did, when you said:

I replied that the death penalty is the traditional penalty for high treason and asked if that's what you wanted. You could have said "No". Instead, your reply began with:

Death penalty has been abolished in Western Europe. Though I guess it'd be an option in the US.

It sounded like you wanted people to be executed or banished. Since many of the people we're talking about - people who disagree with you on immigration - won't have citizenship of any other country but the one where they live, they couldn't be banished - which leaves execution. I'm reminded of Eddie Izzard's "Cake or death?" comedy sketch, in which he pretends to invite people to choose "cake or death?" - after a while explains that he's run out of cake, but continues to ask.

I don't think that people who deny the right of a country to preserve itself should benefit from the citizenship of the very same. It's hypocritical. Hence yes, they should be given a ''global citizenship'', whose benefit will depend on what countries individually decide about it. If you are a global citizen, you aren't welcome in my country.

You're saying that you distinguish between the arrival of one hard-working, law-abiding and friendly Ukrainian immigrant and the arrival of two million Ukrainians. If I understand correctly, you're saying that supporting the first and objecting to the second doesn't mean that you hate Ukrainians. Yes, that's clear. What's not clear is how this shows that people who disagree with you on immigration are a "threat to national security", that they should be "stripped of citizeship" and "tried for high treason."

You know your girlfriend, obviously she's a good person otherwise you wouldn't be in a relationship. I wonder how you would respond to the suggestion that the people you described as a "threat to national security" know their black and Asian school-friends and colleagues too, and have found that they're good people.

Most Black and Asian people are fine. 99.9% of them. The problem is about dumb ideas of radically altering the composition of countries in a way that's detrimental to how the society itself works. White Liberals have less interactions with immigrants than anyone. The only foreigners they ever meet are equally upper class cosmopolitans from other countries.

[Basil II the B.S]

Wait, this is actually an important point, if there is no forced removal of "White" people (which includes myself, it seems), how would immigration cause "Whites" to disappear as an ethnic group? Presumably, "White" people are living their own lives and promoting their own culture as they see fit; what event would cause them to disappear?

Your own article states multiple time that ethnic cleansing is hard to define because the ways it has been perpetrated through history vary. I posted the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous people for a reason. The words are ''any form or effect''. This means that it doesn't have to be ''forced'', nor anything you have claimed. What matters is the effect. If the effect here is that the indigenous people of the country vanishes over time, then it's ethnic cleansing. End of the story.

[The spartan]

Your own article states multiple time that ethnic cleansing is hard to define because the ways it has been perpetrated through history vary. I posted the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous people for a reason. The words are ''any form or effect''. This means that it doesn't have to be ''forced'', nor anything you have claimed. What matters is the effect. If the effect here is that the indigenous people of the country vanishes over time, then it's ethnic cleansing. End of the story.

You still aren't answering the question: when does the ethnicity "disappear" if it isn't forcibly removed? How can you get rid of someone's ethnic identity if they want to hold it and you can't take it from them?

[Basil II the B.S]

What a stupid question. Have plenty of animal species disappeared because they didn't breed enough?

This thread proves one thing. Holocaust denial laws are spot on. You talk to Nazis today, they'll do two things: deny the Holocaust, demand to round up Jews, as if those two aren't completely contraddictory.
You look at what liberals have said in this thread: deny that the ethnic replacement is ongoing, demand it continues.

This is exactly why we are going to make replacement denial a crime. Discussion is absolutely futile with people who have an ideological interest in perpetrating a crime against humanity. They will vehemently deny it to the end, very much like Sukiyama, you and Mongrel have done.

When British people become 10% of the Uk population, you'd still have the very same 3 guys saying ''it's not ethnic cleansing, they are still there''. Then it'll be 1%. The very same people will actually start rewriting history books Orwell style, writing that ''it has always been like this''.

[The spartan]

What? Who would be forcing "White" people to not reproduce? And, moreover, what do the number of immigrants have to do with the willingness of "White" people to reproduce? The point of Replacement Migration is that the fertility rate has already fallen below replacement levels (though that is the replacement level of American citizens, not "White" people).

[Basil II the B.S]

Once again, you don't need to force anyone. If they don't breed, they don't. And they aren't.

[The spartan]

But you are claiming this is ethnic cleansing, someone is making "White" people go away. Even with a sub-replacement fertility, a given population will likely not die out as that rate can always change in the future (as total pop decreases, it is easier to maintain a replacement rate). If you are "White" you are free to go out and try and have as many babies as you want. Congrats, you will have a big family of people you have ethnically chosen. And if your children want to, they can do the same themselves. If "White" people aren't wanting to have enough children (by your standard), how is this the fault of anyone else trying to "ethnically cleanse" them?

[Basil II the B.S]

Here's what your side promotes:
-white people should have less kids because ''muh climate change''
-to compensate falling demographics, somehow we should bring in immigrants
-who of course will have 7 kids

It's a replacement.