Maenads said: traed said: Burden of proof rests on those making the claims. If it's not proven the claims are a conspiracy theory. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-41-population-projections.html "The non-Hispanic White-alone population is projected to shrink over the coming decades, from 199 million in 2020 to 179 million in 2060 — even as the U.S. population continues to grow." I will take up the burden of proof, at least for the US. I don't know much about the "great replacement conspiracy", but ethnic demographics are changing in the US. I am sure there is evidence this is the case in Europe as well. I understand that this is potentially dangerous information that can lead people to radical ideas, but come on, let's not deny the truth. Are you suggesting white Hispanics aren't white? They are the decendants of the Spanish and for some the French. The conspiracy is that it's intentionally to wipe out a population not that demographics change over time. Then there is the whole part claiming the Jews are behind it but Ashkenazi Jews are white. |
| I don't think anyone denies that most white populations have low fertility rates and are therefore shrinking or on course to shrink, but that's also true for many non-white populations (e.g. Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Kuwait, Sri Lanka, much of the Caribbean, etc). There's a lot of research on low fertility and some of the most common explanations have to do with income, health, urbanization, the education/empowerment of girls/women and emerging global cultural norms. Zero percent of the explanations have to do with genocidal conspiracies. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Maenads said: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-41-population-projections.html "The non-Hispanic White-alone population is projected to shrink over the coming decades, from 199 million in 2020 to 179 million in 2060 — even as the U.S. population continues to grow." I will take up the burden of proof, at least for the US. I don't know much about the "great replacement conspiracy", but ethnic demographics are changing in the US. I am sure there is evidence this is the case in Europe as well. I understand that this is potentially dangerous information that can lead people to radical ideas, but come on, let's not deny the truth. There really isn't any ground breaking proof of that regarding Europe. There's that Pew article that you can find in an article linked in this thread and even that says Christians and non-religious Europeans will still be majority in countries they included in their statistics. I'd say that's only trustworthy result due to because it's not European so no political links, but someone may take it as negative thing. As for European source I have just seen political party magazines that try to paint this picture and those should never be taken as truth, because every politician is a lying bastard. Another is just individuals who already think "white genocide" is the truth and make their own calculations to fit their agenda and opposite will do their own calculations to say "no that is not true". It is true that many European countries ethnicity rates will change and have changed, but that also includes other European immigrants too and is more by country how it will change. Russians make still majority of immigrants here in my home country and there is no evidence their immigration, or even that asylum seeking would end because we do take in also Russian refugees every year. If I look at last year statistics 10 000 Russians got residence permit, round 4 800 Iraqis and 4 700 Indians got residence permit. Those are three biggest groups then comes Ukraine and China. That of course doesn't go for every European country, example Poland has given Chechnya refugees more residence permits than other European countries and majority still live in Poland, because well Russia. |
 |
traed said: Pxi2 said: Settler colonialism is considered genocide in alot of circles. The Soviet Union committed genocides via sheer immigration and displacement in central asia. But it isn't settler colonialism. Settler colonialism is when a population seeks to replace an existing population by will of an imperialist authority often with views of ethnic or racial superiority but that isn't what is going on. Not sure what you're even referring to there but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand. And the neoliberal authority wants to flood countries with cheaper labor and breakdown national groups that look out for the collective interest of their group. Josh said: The "great replacement" conspiracy theory is barely worth refuting. There's no good reason to think that Western elites (the majority of whom are white) generally favour immigration because they don't like white people and want to eliminate them. There are many more boring and common reasons that Western elites favour immigration, such as believing that it brings economic/financial benefits (more workers, more consumers, younger population), geopolitical benefits (bigger is more powerful, aids in building international relationships), social benefits (cultural exchange and diversity are good), or simply that, within limits, people should be free to go wherever they want (principled liberalism/libertarianism). All of those beliefs satisfy Occum's razor much more than "wanting to commit genocide". Western elites tend to hate white people. They aren't a good pool of cheap labor and scapegoating poor whites allows them to fulfill their basic need to feel like a good person without actually treating their employees better. Academia for example divides the world into two groups via intersectionality - whites vs "PoC"  Media generally aimed at upper middle class white people also echos this sentiment. Whites becoming a minority in places is something to be celebrated instead of just something that is the case. |
Pxi2 said: Who are the Western elites, in your view? I usually think of them as the people who are high up in business or government, or who have an outsized influence on society for some other reason (celebrity, inherited wealth, etc). Under that definition, I would bet that most elites have never even heard of 'intersectionality', or else they have quickly scoffed at and dismissed it. Josh said: Western elites tend to hate white people. They aren't a good pool of cheap labor and scapegoating poor whites allows them to fulfill their basic need to feel like a good person without actually treating their employees better. The "great replacement" conspiracy theory is barely worth refuting. There's no good reason to think that Western elites (the majority of whom are white) generally favour immigration because they don't like white people and want to eliminate them. There are many more boring and common reasons that Western elites favour immigration, such as believing that it brings economic/financial benefits (more workers, more consumers, younger population), geopolitical benefits (bigger is more powerful, aids in building international relationships), social benefits (cultural exchange and diversity are good), or simply that, within limits, people should be free to go wherever they want (principled liberalism/libertarianism). All of those beliefs satisfy Occum's razor much more than "wanting to commit genocide". Academia for example divides the world into two groups via intersectionality - whites vs "PoC" Media generally aimed at upper middle class white people also echos this sentiment. Whites becoming a minority in places is something to be celebrated instead of just something that is the case. Intersectionality is a relatively new concept and mostly confirmed to a small segment of academia. Also, intersectionality, white privilege, critical race theory, etc. — none of those theories/approaches say that white people are bad or that they should be disliked/hated. They only say that being white comes with advantages in most contexts, relative to being some other skin colour. (Whether that's true or not is irrelevant for this conversation, it's only important to note that those theories/approaches are not about hating white people.) Also, many elites do not employ people and, of those that do, many do not rely on cheap labour (either at all, or not in the country they live in) — so they would have no particular reason to blame working class white people. If anything, they might (and some of them do) blame the government for introducing labour laws that restrict their access to cheap labour at home. I can't recall mainstream media ever celebrating the demographic decline of white people, but I think we would have different interpretations of similar stories. I can say that there have been thousands of articles and dozens, if not hundreds, of books trying to understand/explain/reverse the various plights of white America published in the last few years alone. People clearly care an immense amount about the issues facing white people in America, which is not a bad thing. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| IF there's anything the modern trend of terrorism has shown us it's that both sides have people willing to commit mass murder. Terrorism is a phenomenon that transcends ideology. I see it as a virus in the global operating system. It's a syndrome of hatred, now how can we overcome this? ... |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
hopa1 said: The whole balkization of the USA thing that was in it is a real plan that Douglas Pearce talked about in the 1970's. Whose a gay communist who praises genocide done by Europeans. The eco-fascism bit has to do with Pentti Linkola, who is a deep ecologist who wrote that everyone outside those fought in WW1 and 2 needs to be genocided for the sake of life. You don't hear about them because they are the fringe. Oh no you give Pentti Linkola too soft look. He would be happy no matter who dies, if they spend nature's resources. He has called the attack UK and USA did to Germany in the WWII as humanity's worst genocide because it used so much nature's resources according to him compared to what Nazis did with their concentration camps and glorifies how they re-used human parts. And I wouldn't call him fringe, because he did get invitation to the Independence Day reception by the president of Finland. He of course declined because fuck the government and fuck everything. |
|
149597871 said: QPR said: Whites aren't endangered, that's just nonsense but countries will become unrecognisable in 50 years. There's no PC way of doing it and that's all people care about now. China sorted it out in an un PC way Human rights don't mean much in China, of course they wouldn't care about being PC when sorting out their problems. I wanted to find out what is a reasonable solution according to the right, because Europe is not China and can't go barbaric like the guy from New Zealand. It doesn't seem like a good way to prevent Europe from becoming "unrecognizable". All I see is people taking advantage of the immigration problem in order to gain political power although they have no actual solution for these problems. How about simbly not allowing any more immigration for a while and cut all benefits. Cutting benefits is the bigger thing because many of those economic migrants may even go back to their countries if they can't get free shit, It helps those that really fled wars to stay. Because if you fled a war-zone you won't go back just because you won't get welfare, but if you came because you think you can get free shit then you might be annoyed enough to go back. It will clear out even those that didn't fled war but came to contribute from those that simply came to be leeches. |
hopa1 said: konkelo said: I was talking about his stance on immigration which is IIRC is kill them all because it took us two world wars to reach where we are now and they're gonna die of climate change before they do so might as well get to it because it would be less painful for everyone involved. Oh no you give Pentti Linkola too soft look. He would be happy no matter who dies, if they spend nature's resources. Though he's a fan of anything that would result in billions of people needlessly dying, the more horrifying like starving them, butchering them like livestock and eating them, killing them to use their body parts in everyday items eco-friendly the better. In his ideal world people wouldn't move even inside a country and should just live where they were born. But yes you're correct he would be glad if every third world would just starve to death, reason why he is against any aid that would help people not getting killed and in development. I think it's just a bit hard to separate that to its own stand from just him being cunt to everyone that doesn't live like him. Like he has said every terrorist attack is good because people die and any attack against western life style is good for nature. He really hates USA too and if some ebola would spread there he'd have a good day. hopa1 said: And I wouldn't call him fringe, because he did get invitation to the Independence Day reception by the president of Finland. He of course declined because fuck the government and fuck everything. He's well-known in Finland but until recently officially he was unknown to everyone in the Anglosphere except for people like Michael Moynihan who would write about him in his neo-tribal magazines. He was the one that was gonna kill George H. W. Bush when Reagan was President.I see, but I'm not surprised. I don't think any of his writings nor books have been published in English as a whole. He does get new interviews in Finnish magazines from time to time. Last year I think it was reported his wife has died and he himself is going in to worse shape. |
|
Monad said: 149597871 said: Human rights don't mean much in China, of course they wouldn't care about being PC when sorting out their problems. I wanted to find out what is a reasonable solution according to the right, because Europe is not China and can't go barbaric like the guy from New Zealand. It doesn't seem like a good way to prevent Europe from becoming "unrecognizable". All I see is people taking advantage of the immigration problem in order to gain political power although they have no actual solution for these problems. How about simbly not allowing any more immigration for a while and cut all benefits. Cutting benefits is the bigger thing because many of those economic migrants may even go back to their countries if they can't get free shit, It helps those that really fled wars to stay. Because if you fled a war-zone you won't go back just because you won't get welfare, but if you came because you think you can get free shit then you might be annoyed enough to go back. It will clear out even those that didn't fled war but came to contribute from those that simply came to be leeches. I don't think it's that simple because it's based on the assumption that migrants will go back to their countries if they can't get things for free. That definitely isn't the case. Even if there was no war back in their home country and no benefits from the welfare system in Europe, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that he or she has a much brighter future in let's say France than he would have had in your average Middle Eastern country. In fact leaving immigrants/refugees to their fate once you've already gave them the permission to stay in your country is one of the worst things possible that you can do. That was the case back in my home country where a certain minority has been almost completely abandoned by the government for decades already, but instead of fixing any of the problems it only makes them worse and worse although the immigration process has ended. Immigration isn't always a harmful thing and I doubt any country will resort to completely closing its borders. You probably mean "poorly controlled mass" immigration and if that is the case I kinda agree with what you said. However that still doesn't change the fact that there are already millions of immigrants in those countries. Certain minorities have pretty high birth rates which means that even if you close your borders their numbers are only going to increase and with no money or education, these minorities will continue to isolate themselves from the rest of the society, creating their own communities filled with chaos, poor health, high poverty rate, etc. until it's too late for the government to control them. Yes, they will most likely stop "leeching" money and getting "shit for free" which may temporarily improve the economy but the bigger problem will be that in a few decades you entire country will most likely be either gone or in an unrecognizable state. Of course that doesn't mean that the current system is perfect either. |
QPR said: It's from the Guardian, they would claim racism if anyone spoke out against the nazis in the 1920s. All you need to do is take a look at the birth rates to see what will happen, Belgium is an interesting example. Belgium will be gone within our lifetimes, France is predicted to go within 40 years. It will lead to the collapse of the EU when those countries open up the floodgates. The birth rate is 1.6 for non muslims and 2.6 for muslims so the Euros are actively reducing in numbers and the muslims are actively increasing. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/29/muslim-population-in-europe-could-more-than-double It's no wonder right wing parties are popping up all over Europe, I'm expecting one to be in power in the UK when they withdraw from Brexit. Muslims gotta have more kids, so they can use them as suicide bombers amirite? |
| When you stand at the cliff's edge, staring into the darkness below, the most horrifying realization is not that you might slip, but that you could leap. |
If you have a problem, maybe you should complain to the most left wing paper in the UK and possibly Europe that came up with the article. |
 |
QPR said: and here we have QPR kindly providing an example for what the opening post was talking about.It's from the Guardian, they would claim racism if anyone spoke out against the nazis in the 1920s. All you need to do is take a look at the birth rates to see what will happen, Belgium is an interesting example. Belgium will be gone within our lifetimes, France is predicted to go within 40 years. It will lead to the collapse of the EU when those countries open up the floodgates. The birth rate is 1.6 for non muslims and 2.6 for muslims so the Euros are actively reducing in numbers and the muslims are actively increasing. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/29/muslim-population-in-europe-could-more-than-double It's no wonder right wing parties are popping up all over Europe, I'm expecting one to be in power in the UK when they withdraw from Brexit. GG. Don't tell me propaganda isn't effective. @deg pay attention, he's right there under your nose |
Railey2Jul 24, 2019 5:24 AM
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
deg said: this topic is worth dedicating its own thread to, but I'll try to summarize some important points here@Railey2 oh your back, and ye the right wing propaganda is doing great its becoming mainstream hopefully news articles like this debunks those claims of the right wing though because it makes sense for a layman like me and im not even a right wing person 1) When a population immigrates, their birthrates generally converge towards the birthrates of the native population. Birthrate convergence is a complicated topic, and there are a lot of factors at play here: How entrenched a culture is, the distance between the two countries, how different the birthrates are, how compatible the cultures are, how good the foreign countries integration policies are.. but it generally helps to remember that immigrants are people too, that they react to financial incentives like everyone else, and that their daughters might want to have a stable career before having children. Birthrates almost never stay the way they were across generations, the second generation will be more educated too, which again means lower birthrates. 2) Second generation immigrants tend to be less religious than their parents Coincidentally, I happen to know some 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, and while their parents or grandparents are often very religious, they couldn't give less of a shit about Islam, or only follow the religious rules superficially. Again, it helps to remember that immigrants are people, that when exposed to a real education often learn to prioritize other things than the worship of an elusive deity that supposedly strikes down the nonbelievers. This effect is amplified if you live in a country where people are generally areligious. You're always absorbing some of the culture as an immigrant, if not all of it. It should also be noted that Nazis or Nazi-sympathisers don't do the thing that I've been trying to stress here: They don't think of outgroups as collectives of people. This can be clearly seen when you take a look at their language or their implicit goals or ideas about governmental policy. Some examples from this thread. QPR said: dehumanizing languageRemember also the 2.6 per couple is only going to go up as virtually all of them still have 10-20 years breeding time before the woman hit 40. QPR said: endorsing human rights violationsThere's no PC way of doing it and that's all people care about now. China sorted it out in an un PC way and there you have it, folks. Right-extremism is very dangerous. Keep your eyes open and try to call it out wherever you see it! Bonus points if you get them banned from whatever platform you're on. |
Railey2Jul 24, 2019 6:47 AM
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
| @Railey2 this is like a good time or thread to talk about this stuff though since we cannot make a dedicated thread about this on casual discussion for example (unless the mods do selective enforcement again like they are doing with some recent threads like the thread tax is theft and etc) and i remember those points you brought up was said by aother user too i think his username was like psyotic or something similar when he argue for a lot of pages with polarc if i remember right he also mention "contact theory" that i learn from him besides saying those same points you gave |
| The dude was a terrorist, nothing more, nothing less. He sought to cause chaos and terror, he said this himself. He didn't align with any ideology and if he said he did he did so to advance his true goal of causing terror [as a true terrorist would] and chaos among the current climate of the world. He didn't align with the left nor did he align with the right, he was purely a terrorist in the truest sense of the word. Every time this shit gets mentioned and debated is exactly the goal of his attack. |
 |
| Actually a terrorist is defined as someone doing it for a cause, killing people for no apparent reason makes him a psychopath. |
|
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |