There are two men with similar points of view. One man discusses his views in an open debate, and tries to persuade others to his side through facts, reason, and logic. The other man murders people.
Question: does that implicate the first man because of their similar beliefs?
Well, it depends on how similar the beliefs are. This might help you understand the similarities and differences in any particular belief:
The reality is that the two men don’t share the same belief since one doesn’t believe in and doesn’t call for murdering people he disagrees with.
The murderous actions of one man doesn’t delegitimize the views, concerns, or policy preferences of the peaceful man with similar views, but that’s where we are. We’re always being lectured to that we need to “start a conversation”, but if that conversation starts with your views being labeled “murderous”, there’s not a lot of room for discussion.
If you believe I’m referring to the actions of the New Zealand murderer, you’re mistaken. I was referring to the African migrant who attempted to murder 51 Italian school children by trying to burn them alive on a bus in the name of open borders and for Italy not accepting more migrants.
There are obvious policy differences between those who wish to help and accept migrants and refugees from Africa and the Middle East and those who wish to prevent a third world invasion into European countries, but not all supporters of migrants want to burn children alive. Nor does the other side want to shoot up a Mosque. If both sides can accept that, maybe we can “have this conversation” like rational adults.
The murderer of Muslims in New Zealand began his manifesto talking about The Great Replacement. If you simply Google it, you’ll immediately find Wikipedia calling it “The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory”, stating:
The great replacement is a right-wing conspiracy theory, which states that the white Christian European population is being systematically replaced with non-European people, specifically Arab/Berber Middle Eastern, North African and Sub-Saharan African populations, through mass migration and demographic growth.
The conspiracy theory commonly apportions blame to a global and liberal elite, such as Brussels and the European Union, which is portrayed as directing a planned and deliberate plot or scheme to carry out the replacement of European peoples.
But is it a conspiracy theory, or is it an actual, provable policy? And if something is a provable policy, does that still make it a conspiracy theory or a policy that can be scrutinized with legitimate, peaceful debate?
On March 17, 2000, the U.N. released a report on “Replacement Migration” issued by the U.N. Population Division which was a solution to be enacted by western governments as a way to deal with aging populations and low birth/fertility rates. Instead of enacting policies to encourage births among native populations, they would import large numbers of migrants with high birth rates to fill the gap in order to prop up social welfare programs and increase GDP.
The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.
United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. The potential support ratio — i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person — will often be halved, from 4-or-5 to 2.
Major findings of this report include:
• In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity.
• Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration.
• The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections.
• The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working- age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population.
• The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.
To ensure the potential support ratio doesn’t drop below 3, according to the report Europe would need to add 294 million immigrants and their descendants by 2050. If Europe wanted to maintain their current potential support ratio of 4 to 5, it would need 1.7 billion immigrants and their descendants, or 3/4 the population of Europe.
With this as their stated concern back in 2000, and current European governments’ seeming unwillingness to do anything about the flood of African and Middle Eastern migrants and refugees (not just unwillingness, but active support of), is it any wonder why native populations who are being subject to “Replacement Migration” might see themselves as being replaced, and consider this an attack on them, their way of life, their communities, their culture, and their children’s future (for those who are actually still having children, that is)?
Is giving a name to what the U.N actually proposed and what’s now staring them in the face everyday a “conspiracy”?
Let’s talk about Japan, since it’s included in the report. Why do we call people Japanese? Sounds like a strange question with an obvious answer, right? But really, why? Because they’re from Japan, of course. So if I, as an American of European descent, moved to Japan, it would make me Japanese. No? Of course it wouldn’t, because being Japanese means more than taking up residence in Japan. Japan isn’t just a geographic land mass that can be inhabited by anyone and still be considered Japan and its people still be considered Japanese. Japan as a nation is a reflection of its people’s identity, ethnicity, ancestry, heritage, history, traditions, language, and culture, and referring to someone as Japanese actually means something.
Japan is still very much comprised of Japanese people:
According to census statistics, 98.5% of the population of Japan are Japanese, with the remainder being foreign nationals residing in Japan.
Since 2010 Japan has experienced net population loss due to falling birth rates and almost no immigration.
Japan is a homogenous nation. Its people and its policies regarding immigration are a form of “ethnic nationalism”, and that isn’t a bad thing because Japan without being comprised of Japanese wouldn’t be Japan. If Japan had enacted the same policies most of Europe has over the last 20 years, it wouldn’t be Japan.
Is its population aging and birth rates falling? Yes, but human history is full of population ebbs and flows. A hundred years ago its population was 55 million. Now its 126 million, but last year it was 127 million. So? The reality is that populations don’t always have to go up indefinitely, nor do countries need to import people from wildly different cultures to maintain perpetual growth. It also isn’t expected of Japan to open their borders to “Replacement Migration”, but it is of western nations, and only of western nations.
People of Sweden are Swedish. They’re ethnically Swedish, they speak Swedish. Sweden has been a country since the 12th century. It has its own identity, heritage, history, traditions, and culture. The people’s ancestors have survived and adapted there for thousands of years. If you take a 23andMe test, it will tell you how much Swedish you are, because people from Sweden are Swedish. Sweden is more than a land mass, and being Swedish actually means something. This sounds redundant, but for some reason Swedish leaders believe that importing a few million people from Africa or the Middle East into a country of about 10 million is good for the Swedish continuing as a people, and any opposition to this policy is tantamount to a hate crime. Yet as they say “diversity is our strength”, another grenade is thrown, another Swedish girl is raped, and another Swedish girl is dismembered by a truck.
Diversity is our strength, as M(u/o)hamm(a/e)d is the most popular name given to baby boys in Britain for the 9th straight year, while a Briton like Tommy Robinson is being imprisoned for filming four Muslims at court who were convicted of gang raping a child, teenage girls are bombed at a concert, more people are mowed down on the street, and the Muslim mayor of London says terrorism is part and parcel of life in a big city.
The Great Replacement is real; whether it was originally designed to purposefully rid white Christians from Europe or other nations founded by Europeans (U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand) or to reduce them to a minority, or if it was a desire of governments to prop up their welfare programs and GDP (or if that’s merely the excuse), its results are the same, and the people are seeing and experiencing the ramifications. Europeans, while already a global minority, will become minorities in their own countries within the next 25 years under the current policies of their own leaders. And it begs the questions: are any nations that are currently whatever ethnic European majority allowed to remain that ethnic European majority, and if not, why not? Because of supposed sins of the past? Do to Europeans what “they” did to the world? Is it ok to even ask these questions or debate this policy without accusations of being a blood thirsty “white supremacist”? Should Japan remain Japanese?
The United States in the 1960s was comprised of about 90% European descent. Since our inception, naturalization, which in turn affected who immigrated, was limited to those coming from northern and western Europe. This can be verified by the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Page Act of 1875, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and the Immigration Act of 1924. Even in 1965 when the Immigration and Nationality Act was passed to lift restrictions on immigration based on national origins, Senator Ted Kennedy famously stated (lied):
First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.
Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.
In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.
That, as they say, didn’t age well.
The United States had a population of 199 million in 1965. Since then, Americans were encouraged not to have more than one or two children due to the threats of “overpopulation”, and to abort their unexpected or unwanted children resulting in a third of an entire generation of Americans having been aborted, while at the same time millions upon millions of immigrants came legally and illegally to fill in the potential support ratio gap.
The U.S. population in 2018 was 327 million, with about 800,000 to 1,000,000 legal immigrants still coming every year (Trump suggesting he wants to increase this number), and an untold amount of illegal aliens plus their children either brought here or born here who are now considered American citizens. The population is now comprised of 62% European descent.
To put that in perspective, in 1965, Americans of European descent totaled 175 million. Today, it’s 202 million. The total European increase was only 27 million in 54 years (half a million per year), while non-Europeans increased by 101 million.
The U.N. didn’t exclude the United States from their Replacement Migration report. To prevent the potential support ratio from dropping below 3, the U.S. would have to import more 61 million immigrants and their children by 2050. To maintain a ratio of 4-5, it would be 593 million.
Is it any wonder why those in power, from both parties, will not stop illegal or legal immigration? They believe that a country that was created for “ourselves and our posterity (descendants)” must be dependent upon a never ending Ponzi scheme of immigration to prop up their welfare state and GDP.
There’s a saying, “Demographics is destiny”, and everyone acknowledged it – and some even celebrated it – at least they did before the Christchurch murders.
Stat Chat (Univ of Virginia)
Will whites actually be a minority by 2040?
When will minorities be the majority?
Now demographers are saying, “We need to rethink how we talk about our data” because they’re concerned a “racist terrorist” will use it to justify another Christchurch.
Their data did not inspire or give “false scientific and rhetorical legitimacy” to justify Christchurch; what governments did with their data led to Christchurch and the current upheaval in Europe. Demographers should be more concerned about how they present their research to governments and what policies they should recommend rather than what a “racist terrorist” might do. There are other options than simply “replace the native populations with mass immigration”.
Mass replacement migration is something that’s never recommended, endorsed, or encouraged into non-European or non-western countries, as it’s considered colonialism and genocide of native peoples. In 1948, the United Nations defined genocide as any of several acts (including murder) “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. If governments intentionally import massive amounts of people from radically different national, ethnical, racial, or religious groups to the point that their own people are now minorities, it is literally the U.N.’s definition of “genocide”.
If we’re to have an open and peaceful debate on the merits of mass replacement migration and the huge influx of refugees into European countries, this double standard first needs to be addressed by those pushing the “diversity is our strength” narrative, then the actual policy needs to be debated, and, in my opinion, ended.
This current policy has consequences, and until the side which is screaming “STOP” is heard, those consequences will never be properly resolved.