Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 203

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

  1. #1

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

    Conservative Americans and cosmopolitan liberals are talking about the same thing. Narrative, however, matters. What someone wants and likes might be the opposite of what the other wants and likes. This is the typical case when it comes to immigration. A good way to silence opposite opinions is to frame them as conspiracy theories while at the same time openly celebrating the very same thing, so long that's presented under a positive light.

    Let us see the case at hand:
    Can the Democrats Still Count on a Demographic Advantage?

    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/...advantage.html


    This is a pretty good introductory piece, because it's an interview with one of the original theorists of the Democratic open borders agenda, Rui Teixeira, author of ''The Emerging Democratic Majority'' influential book. The core thesis of the book is that non-white immigration would erode the numbers of the working-middle class whites, a the ''diverse'' coalition would guarantee a one-party rule for the decades to come.

    Teixeira still argues in favour of the theory and recently wrote ''The Optimistic Leftist: Why the 21st Century Will Be Better Than You Think''.
    Noteworthy to mention, in the book he argued about trying to retain the white working class vote.This has abundantly failed. The white working class has become the dead horse that upper class white liberals love to beat in their free time on social media. Hillary Clinton herself described it a ''basket of deplorables'', shortly before crashing against the beautiful Rust Belt Wall built by the white working class to keep her from becoming President. Nonetheless, the white working class is topic of another one of Teixeira's book. He also mentions that his theory would backfire in case Hispanics would start identifying themselves as part of the ''white'' group, something there are some signs of.

    In 2012 he wrote an update of his theory:
    The Emerging Democratic Majority Turns 10


    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...rns-10/265005/

    Further media coverage:
    Permanent Democratic Majority: New Study Says Yes

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/peman...major_n_186257
    Can Democrats Count on Demographic Shifts to Put Them Back in Power?


    https://www.thenation.com/article/ca...back-in-power/
    The Democratic demographic advantage is real and growing


    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/worl...l-and-growing/


    Slate has a surprisingly honest (for the most part) article about it as well:
    The Coming Democratic Majority? Not So Fast.


    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...you-think.html

    Progressive think thank:
    America’s Electoral Future
    https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...oral-future-2/

    Another less optimistic (for Dems) article:
    Are Democrats being too smug about their demographic advantages?
    https://newrepublic.com/minutes/1278...hic-advantages

    Which leads to one of my points. To paraphrase Bill Maher, if you tell people they are going to become a minority too often, they'll start voting like one.

    From ''How Democracies Die'':
    The simple fact of the matter is that the world has never built a multiethnic democracy in which no particular ethnic group is in the majority and where political equality, social equality and economies that empower all have been achieved.
    Lots of meat to roast:
    - the fundamental hypocrisy of liberals, trying to censor dissenting opinion and killing democratic discussion, so that their own opinion is the only one accepted; this is particularly dangerous because the goal here is to simply get away with democracy;
    -their own theory might as well not work out as intended and backfire in possible ways:potential loss of the Hispanic vote (here continous immigration helps the Dem case), actual loss of the white working class vote but also social breakdown along ethnic lines;
    -the attempt to build a society that ultimately has never shown a chance to be successful; here the best comparison would be the United Nations Assembly, where every group has one vote. Indeed almost nothing ever gets done.
    -finally, the fact that Dems would like a society with strong redistributive policies, but those exist only in countries with very high social cohesion and that's correlated with high ethnic homogeneity, hence why the US is not going to have an European style welfare state;
    https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/al...-alesina11.pdf

    You can pick any of the above topic to discuss.
    Last edited by alhoon; August 07, 2019 at 06:49 AM. Reason: off topic part removed

  2. #2

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    Before I respond to this post, I would like to clarify the context of that quote that you grabbed from How Democracies Die. This is actually a quote from their colleague Danielle Allen... and they are using it as a statement of the challenge they wish to overcome. Here is additional text around the quote "It is imperative that we succeed, extraordinarily difficult though the task is. As our colleague Danielle Allen writes: "The simple fact of the matter is that the world has never built a multiethnic democracy in which no particular ethnic group is in the majority and where political equality, social equality and economies that empower all have been achieved.” This is America’s great challenge. We cannot retreat from it. "
    So I think this is a good point to start from (and what I mean by that is the statement in bold). This is the challenge that America faces...

    ... and the United States has tried treating it by creating a monoethnic state that has excluded the issues of minorities in the past. Notice How Democracies Die approaches this solution: “We think this is a terrible idea. Seeking to diminish minority groups’ influence in the party—and we cannot emphasize this strongly enough—is the wrong way to reduce polarization. It would repeat some of our country’s most shameful mistakes. The founding of the American republic left racial domination intact, which eventually led to the Civil War. When Democrats and Republicans finally reconciled in the wake of a failed Reconstruction, their conciliation was again based on racial exclusion.The reforms of the 1960s gave Americans a third chance to build a truly multiethnic democracy.”

    Now I’m going to diverge from their point about the solution being unethical (cause frankly, if that is the only solution to preventing a fractured government and country, you may as well do it right?) and instead, make an alternative point. Notice the trend Basil? I’ll bold it. When you are as diverse as America, it causes a constant cycle between integrating into a monoethnic solidified government and polarizing into factions that create conflict (sometimes its small, sometimes it's not). And guess what? The country has never stopped the cycle. We have never maintained unity…And minorities are making up a larger percentage of the population... Maybe this gives you a perspective of why Democrats act the way they do.

    Essentially Democrats are done with retreating from the challenge that has always been part of this country. If they were to do what has been done previously and perpetuate monoethnic dominance, they are setting up the country for ethnic conflict in the future as minorities rally around whatever identities they can to play power politics (which is the fundamental nature of human beings). And now minorities make up a larger percentage of the population than they ever have. Think that's a good path to take long term? Why should a democrat not take a side with them and utilize them for their own power politics in the meantime? It allows for more control over the eventual transition of a shift in power (which would be absent in the event of violent transition of power) and push radical policy that wouldn’t otherwise get through a more centrist government culture.

    So, here’s my main point. Rather than rag on “libs”, or some democrats for their defensive posturing of minorities, maybe you should promote more discussion of how our political system incentivizes this behavior and try to understand why politicians act the way they do. With the current demographics of the United States, politicians will always stray from a monoethnic approach because championing minority rights and playing the empathy game is a great way to gain power leverage over your opponent. They are just acting as humans would in that situation and demonizing them won’t change anything.

    That leaves us to solving the issue... We have minorities in the country... They make up 40% of the population... They all have power aspirations of molding the country in their own image (just like any human being would)… What can we do? If you can offer an ethical alternative solution, then maybe it’ll be easier to persuade left-leaning posters to distance themselves away from some of the approaches of the “libs”.

    Last edited by ♔The Black Knight♔; August 06, 2019 at 11:24 PM.

  3. #3

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    You can pick any of the above topic to discuss. Dishonest posts will be called retarded, laughed at then then I will ignore you for the thread.
    Your entire post is dishonest. For starters, you're not discussing "The Great Replacement" theory. You're accusing the Democratic party of a conspiracy to slowly seize power (as if that was illegal).

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Conservative Americans and cosmopolitan liberals are talking about the same thing. Narrative, however, matters. What someone wants and likes might be the opposite of what the other wants and likes. This is the typical case when it comes to immigration. A good way to silence opposite opinions is to frame them as conspiracy theories while at the same time openly celebrating the very same thing, so long that's presented under a positive light.
    The Great Replacement, and all White Genocide theories are conspiracies.

    Let us see the case at hand:
    Can the Democrats Still Count on a Demographic Advantage?

    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/...advantage.html


    This is a pretty good introductory piece, because it's an interview with one of the original theorists of the Democratic open borders agenda, Rui Teixeira, author of ''The Emerging Democratic Majority'' influential book. The core thesis of the book is that non-white immigration would erode the numbers of the working-middle class whites, a the ''diverse'' coalition would guarantee a one-party rule for the decades to come.

    Teixeira still argues in favour of the theory and recently wrote ''The Optimistic Leftist: Why the 21st Century Will Be Better Than You Think''.
    Noteworthy to mention, in the book he argued about trying to retain the white working class vote.This has abundantly failed. The white working class has become the dead horse that upper class white liberals love to beat in their free time on social media. Hillary Clinton herself described it a ''basket of deplorables'', shortly before crashing against the beautiful Rust Belt Wall built by the white working class to keep her from becoming President. Nonetheless, the white working class is topic of another one of Teixeira's book. He also mentions that his theory would backfire in case Hispanics would start identifying themselves as part of the ''white'' group, something there are some signs of.
    Uh huh. "Open borders agenda". Prove it.

    That's not what the article says.

    “A new progressive era” was not only possible but likely, if liberals focused on surfing the wave of demographic trends, which were slowly eroding the electoral power of working- and middle-class whites.
    Reading further on.

    The second thing, which is a little bit our fault — or, let’s put it this way, we just didn’t emphasize enough — is that our analysis works best on the level of the country as a whole. When you get down to the House of Representatives, to the state legislative races, to the small-state advantage the Republicans have, we didn’t emphasize enough the way the structural advantages that are built into the system at this point might benefit the Republicans and allow them to stave off change. Particularly since the Democrats’ coalition was stronger in urban areas, stronger among relatively low-turnout constituencies — all of these things were going to mean that even though the Democrats represented more people, they were inefficiently distributed for political purposes.
    Republican strategy focuses on voter suppression and gerrymandering. Which, by the way, they executed to a brilliant level. Kudos for strategy and execution.

    In 2012 he wrote an update of his theory:
    The Emerging Democratic Majority Turns 10


    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...rns-10/265005/

    Further media coverage:
    Permanent Democratic Majority: New Study Says Yes

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/peman...major_n_186257
    Can Democrats Count on Demographic Shifts to Put Them Back in Power?


    https://www.thenation.com/article/ca...back-in-power/
    The Democratic demographic advantage is real and growing


    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/worl...l-and-growing/
    None of these say what you think it says. This isn't evidence of Democratic conspiracy. Changing demographics are changing demographics.

    Which leads to one of my points. To paraphrase Bill Maher, if you tell people they are going to become a minority too often, they'll start voting like one.

    From ''How Democracies Die'':


    Lots of meat to roast:
    - the fundamental hypocrisy of liberals, trying to censor dissenting opinion and killing democratic discussion, so that their own opinion is the only one accepted; this is particularly dangerous because the goal here is to simply get away with democracy;
    -their own theory might as well not work out as intended and backfire in possible ways:potential loss of the Hispanic vote (here continous immigration helps the Dem case), actual loss of the white working class vote but also social breakdown along ethnic lines;
    -the attempt to build a society that ultimately has never shown a chance to be successful; here the best comparison would be the United Nations Assembly, where every group has one vote. Indeed almost nothing ever gets done.
    -finally, the fact that Dems would like a society with strong redistributive policies, but those exist only in countries with very high social cohesion and that's correlated with high ethnic homogeneity, hence why the US is not going to have an European style welfare state;
    https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/al...-alesina11.pdf
    1. There is no fundamental hypocrisy to Democrats. You might as well call it the fundamental hypocrisy that existed in every human being, every society, ever. All politicians inevitably seek to increase their own power. Singling out Democrats is simply partisanship.
    2. So long as Republicans insist on opposing Hispanics, on treating them as second-class citizens, and on suppressing the rights of minorities to equal representation, they will continue to vote reliably Democrat. In short, what Ruy Texeira and every other Democrat strategist has been saying, If the Republican Party doesn't shift its platform in the coming years, they will cease to exist.
    3. The United States was built in a time where Democracy was considered to be a shaky form of government. The United States today, and in the future, will be foremost a government based on civic values. Not ethnic.
    4. Switzerland is split between France, Germany, and Italy. Moreover, social cohesion can be achieved by emphasizing civic identity, not racial or ethnic. "American pride" is based on a civic identity, not on whiteness.

  4. #4

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Your entire post is dishonest. For starters, you're not discussing "The Great Replacement" theory. You're accusing the Democratic party of a conspiracy to slowly seize power (as if that was illegal).

    The Great Replacement, and all White Genocide theories are conspiracies.



    Uh huh. "Open borders agenda". Prove it.

    That's not what the article says.



    Reading further on.
    2 counts of denial and dishonesty.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Republican strategy focuses on voter suppression and gerrymandering. Which, by the way, they executed to a brilliant level. Kudos for strategy and execution.
    1 count of derailing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    None of these say what you think it says. This isn't evidence of Democratic conspiracy. Changing demographics are changing demographics.
    Immigration numbers can controlled, presenting it as something that naturally changes is fundamentally dishonest. 3rd count.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    1. There is no fundamental hypocrisy to Democrats. You might as well call it the fundamental hypocrisy that existed in every human being, every society, ever. All politicians inevitably seek to increase their own power. Singling out Democrats is simply partisanship.
    2. So long as Republicans insist on opposing Hispanics, on treating them as second-class citizens, and on suppressing the rights of minorities to equal representation, they will continue to vote reliably Democrat. In short, what Ruy Texeira and every other Democrat strategist has been saying, If the Republican Party doesn't shift its platform in the coming years, they will cease to exist.
    ''We are going to change the demographic of the country to turn into a one party state but if you denounce it you are a racist''
    Enjoy the Second American Civil War.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    3. The United States was built in a time where Democracy was considered to be a shaky form of government. The United States today, and in the future, will be foremost a government based on civic values. Not ethnic.
    Except for the fact that every single society that is too diverse under religious, ethnic and linguistic terms splits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    4. Switzerland is split between France, Germany, and Italy. Moreover, social cohesion can be achieved by emphasizing civic identity, not racial or ethnic. "American pride" is based on a civic identity, not on whiteness.
    The German cantons and the French ones of the Geneva areas all joined Protestantism in a time when religious allegiance was everything. Social cohesion was based on religious allegiance. The Italian canton is only one and quite small, they are a minority and their status hasn't changed. There's zero chance of Italian takeover, despite Italy being next door. Immigration from Italy (or anywhere else from that matter) has always been tightly controlled. Ticino is also a relatively young canton. They are also all white and Western European. In short, of the 3 great dividing factors, ethnicity, religion and language, only one actually counts, but that has been solved by the fact that everyone has to speak both German and French, while German retains the uncontested primacy at federal level.

    The idea that the US, a country with 330 million can have the same organization of a country of less than 9, with a completely different history in terms of development and ethnic groups, is utterly retarded. Not only your argument relies on a very weak and superficial understanding of Switzerland, but it intentionally leaves out important details like size, organization and cultural differences. This might work out in the liberal academia when you can say the stupidest thing without being questioned, but it will be excoriated for its studipity here. ''We are going to be like Switzerland'' is as retarded as the UK claiming ''We are going to be like Singapore''.

    Given the denial/derail/dishonesty of the first part and the abysmal quality of the last part, you won't get further answers.
    Last edited by Basil II the B.S; August 07, 2019 at 01:13 AM.

  5. #5
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,650

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    90% of Hispanics are concentrated in uncompetitive states in the Southwest, so the rest of the country shouldn't be affected much by them. The only states Republicans are at risk of losing in the future thanks to Hispanic immigration are Arizona and maybe Texas, which are worth 43 votes in total. Meanwhile, as Republicans consolidate their control over non-college whites, they're gaining ground in traditionally Democratic states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire, which together are worth 60 votes. They're also turning traditionally swing states like Ohio, Florida and Iowa into more reliably Republican states; these states are worth 53 votes.

    43 vs (60+53)

    Sounds like a bad trade on the Democrats' part.

    Voter Trends in 2016 - Center for American Progress

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



























    Last edited by Prodromos; August 07, 2019 at 01:34 AM.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch

  6. #6

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Immigration numbers can controlled, presenting it as something that naturally changes is fundamentally dishonest. 3rd count.
    You're implying that it is a planned event by a specific organization. Congratulations, you're 80% of the way to a conspiracy.

    ''We are going to change the demographic of the country to turn into a one party state but if you denounce it you are a racist''
    Enjoy the Second American Civil War.
    100%

    Except for the fact that every single society that is too diverse under religious, ethnic and linguistic terms splits.
    An arbitrary line with no meaning whatsoever. When is a society "too diverse"? When do ethnic and linguistic terms fuse and when do they split? In 1857 the Indian subcontinent was a collection of dozens of different states and ethnicity. That still remains true today, but by and large, the vast majority of the population identify themselves as "Indian". In contrast, immediately to the East, Myanamar is still paralyzed by ethnic conflict.

    So no, your beliefs are entirely fictional and you do not get to determine what is or isn't possible. Only what seems plausible to you.

    The German cantons and the French ones of the Geneva areas all joined Protestantism in a time when religious allegiance was everything. Social cohesion was based on religious allegiance. The Italian canton is only one and quite small, they are a minority and their status hasn't changed. There's zero chance of Italian takeover, despite Italy being next door. Immigration from Italy (or anywhere else from that matter) has always been tightly controlled. Ticino is also a relatively young canton. They are also all white and Western European. In short, of the 3 great dividing factors, ethnicity, religion and language, only one actually counts, but that has been solved by the fact that everyone has to speak both German and French, while German retains the uncontested primacy at federal level.
    All ignores the fact that Switzerland is historically a confederation. National and ethnic differences are eventually rendered irrelevant given the right political climate and time. What's important is the forging of an "identity" that is not predicated on where one comes from or what one looks like. This is most exemplified by the "White" race in United States. Which is an amalgamation of dozens of different nationalities and ethnic groups.

    The idea that the US, a country with 330 million can have the same organization of a country of less than 9, with a completely different history in terms of development and ethnic groups, is utterly retarded. Not only your argument relies on a very weak and superficial understanding of Switzerland, but it intentionally leaves out important details like size, organization and cultural differences. This might work out in the liberal academia when you can say the stupidest thing without being questioned, but it will be excoriated for its studipity here. ''We are going to be like Switzerland'' is as retarded as the UK claiming ''We are going to be like Singapore''.

    Given the denial/derail/dishonesty of the first part and the abysmal quality of the last part, you won't get further answers.
    Your stupidity/denial/dishonesty is ignoring the history of United States in its entirety. This is a state that has, throughout its history, shown the futility of right-wing identity politics. That is, pandering to xenophobia, racism, and fears of the dominant class losing power. Starting with its fear of Catholics, to slavery, to the mass migration of Europeans, to Chinese, Vietnamese, and finally Muslims and Hispanics. The only thing your argument demonstrates, is the hollowness of your warnings.

    It will be as pundits often predict. The Republican Party will have to shift its platform to survive, as it shifted its platform many, many times in its past in order to win political power.

  7. #7

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    90% of Hispanics are concentrated in uncompetitive states in the Southwest, so the rest of the country shouldn't be affected much by them. The only states Republicans are at risk of losing in the future thanks to Hispanic immigration are Arizona and maybe Texas, which are worth 43 votes in total. Meanwhile, as Republicans consolidate their control over non-college whites, they're gaining ground in traditionally Democratic states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire, which together are worth 60 votes. They're also turning traditionally swing states like Ohio, Florida and Iowa into more reliably Republican states; these states are worth 53 votes.

    43 vs (60+53)

    Sounds like a bad trade on the Democrats' part.

    Voter Trends in 2016 - Center for American Progress

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



























    I'm aware. Though I'm not sure how much it's Dems pushing the white working class away with their new ideology or it's Reps attracting them. I do think Reps could and should do more.

  8. #8

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    90% of Hispanics are concentrated in uncompetitive states in the Southwest, so the rest of the country shouldn't be affected much by them. The only states Republicans are at risk of losing in the future thanks to Hispanic immigration are Arizona and maybe Texas, which are worth 43 votes in total. Meanwhile, as Republicans consolidate their control over non-college whites, they're gaining ground in traditionally Democratic states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire, which together are worth 60 votes. They're also turning traditionally swing states like Ohio, Florida and Iowa into more reliably Republican states; these states are worth 53 votes.

    43 vs (60+53)

    Sounds like a bad trade on the Democrats' part.

    Voter Trends in 2016 - Center for American Progress

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



























    Southwest is turning Purple. Midwest will be purple for the forseeable future. Republicans played their hand in 2016, it'll be a tougher fight for them here on out.

  9. #9
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,650

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Southwest is turning Purple. Midwest will be purple for the forseeable future. Republicans played their hand in 2016, it'll be a tougher fight for them here on out.
    "If I keep repeating it, maybe it'll come true."
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch

  10. #10

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    Anyone recall Great Replacement theory being used to justify mass murder lately? What next, breezy OPs about the objectives of the Real IRA or ISIS?
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  11. #11

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    I am starting to get concerned people don't know what the word "replacement" means.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  12. #12

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    I am starting to get concerned people don't know what the word "replacement" means.
    I do.
    https://www.un.org/en/development/de...-migration.asp

    Do you?

  13. #13

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    Ok, what do you think the "replacement" means in "Replacement Migration"? I'll give you a hint: it isn't replacing the Native population.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  14. #14

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    That's not Replacement Theory and I doubt if you read the document. No-one is going to shoot up the neighbourhood on the basis of this hypothetical report. So no you do not.


    White replacement theory, to give it its full name is actually made up of two sub-conspiracies: “the great replacement” theory, which originated in France, (Muslims will destroy white culture and wipe out white people) and “the white genocide theory” (More latinos and other minorities will take over the nation wipe out white people), which comes from the US. These beliefs have proliferated in mass killer texts for the past eight years, beginning with Anders Breivik.I quote the El Paso shooter. “In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto. This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.” He did not refer to the issues raised in the UN document.
    Last edited by mongrel; August 07, 2019 at 04:38 AM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  15. #15

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Ok, what do you think the "replacement" means in "Replacement Migration"? I'll give you a hint: it isn't replacing the Native population.
    In Europe it definitely is. In the US, technically it's not the Natives since those have been already replaced, but it's definitely replacing the whites. Which leads to your side gloating about under the argument white people=bad, they deserve it.

  16. #16

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    In Europe it definitely is. In the US, technically it's not the Natives since those have been already replaced, but it's definitely replacing the whites. Which leads to your side gloating about under the argument white people=bad, they deserve it.
    No no, I mean that Replacement Migration is an actual term and you don't seem to understand what it means. You are using it in the scaremonger way to conjure up images of good American citizens being woken up in the middle of the night and evicted from their homes so that "others" with funny accents can come in and set up in the evictee's home. "Replacing" natives would require someone to remove them, like how the US did with the American Natives, the government forcibly removed Natives from their land. Last time I checked, American citizens have not been removed or forced out of the US.
    Last edited by The spartan; August 07, 2019 at 05:03 AM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  17. #17

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    No. If that argument was correct then the UN wouldn't use replacement as term. It uses it because it's a demographic replacement. Also, I didn't see Black Knight (apologies for that) answer for some reason so I'll focus on that one since the rest seems to be trash so far.

  18. #18

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    No. If that argument was correct then the UN wouldn't use replacement as term. It uses it because it's a demographic replacement. Also, I didn't see Black Knight (apologies for that) answer for some reason so I'll focus on that one since the rest seems to be trash so far.
    Bollocks. I said you didn't read the report.You seem to have confirmed my point.

    The UN report refers to a number of issues arising from falling birth rates such as appropriate ages for retirement, health-care benefits for the elderly, labour-force participation, assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers needed to support retirement and health-care benefitsand policies and programmes relating to international migration and the integration of recent migrants and their descendants. It mentions that international migration can provide countries of destination with needed human resources and talent, but may also give rise to social tensions, so policies must therefore take into account the impact on both the host society and countries of origin.

    What it doesn't say is that countries must import black or brown people in order to wipe out white culture and indeed white people themselves as a race, which is what Replacement Theory advocates.
    Last edited by mongrel; August 07, 2019 at 05:26 AM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  19. #19

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    No. If that argument was correct then the UN wouldn't use replacement as term. It uses it because it's a demographic replacement. Also, I didn't see Black Knight (apologies for that) answer for some reason so I'll focus on that one since the rest seems to be trash so far.
    It is specifically referring to the replacement level of fertility, about 2.1 children per child-bearing woman. It is meant to "replace" the falling fertility rate, not the citizens already here. Again, to "replace" a native population, you kinda have to go through the trouble of removing them.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  20. #20
    Kritias's Avatar Petite bourgeois
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,142

    Default Re: The Great Replacement ''Conspiracy Theory'' vs The Emerging Democratic Majority

    Well, let's deconstruct this one for a second:

    The Emerging Democratic Majority (EDM for brevity from now on) is a very moronic stratagem for long term electoral success. The reason being that it presupposes the Republican party will remain static, projecting the same policies benefiting the same people for the forseable future; and that's just not the case. At best, it could be argued that EDM has a benefit for short term success. But as experience has shown, the EDM couldn't stop what it was designed to do; mainly stop people like Trump from getting into office. If, as I consider possible, Trump gets a second term, too, we can safely put this 'grand strategy' to rest - where it belongs.

    But what about the minorities themselves? The EDM presupposes that the African American and Hispanic voters will continue to support Democrat, and to a degree that can influence elections, which (1) isn't the case as since the minorities exhibit notorious low turnout, and (2) the continuation of these minorities to consistently support Democrat ad perpetuum is far from secured.

    Seen from a historical perspective, the Irish, Italian and Greek Americans were once part of the 'other' group, the latter two categories not even considered among the 'whites'. They were casually shunned as racketeers, petty criminals and a general nuisance to public order; now, Irish, Italian and Greek Americans are as white as anyone else, and their politics isn't shaped by ethic identity but class and culture identities, as everyone else in the white majority population.

    A similar trend will be seen with African Americans and Hispanics, as well as other minorities who will get uplifted in society by the introduction of immigrants. As happened in Europe, when immigrants arrive somewhere, they are directed to take the lowest pay, lowest status jobs (mainly street economy activities, also care and domestic work) thus pushing the people who were occupied there upwards and more to the 'official economy'. One simple example of this is the decline of prominence of African American maids during the last fifty years; what this means is that, just as it was for Irish, Italians and Greek Americans, the African Americans and Hispanic demographic will gradually start fragmenting between the two parties. In this way, the EDM actually helps bipartisanship instead of hindering it.

    Now, there's something else that I would like to ask, before we get sidetracked. What's the purpose of this thread, exactly? Because it's in very bad taste, considering the news of just a few days ago.
    Under the valued patronage of Abdülmecid I

Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •