Subj : Great Replacement Theory To : Kaelon From : Boraxman Date : Sat May 28 2022 18:50:00 -=> Kaelon wrote to boraxman <=- > But the question is, WHY? Why is it that we are asked to partake in this > social engineering? You are taking the need to do this at face value, based > upon a very specific American ideology. Ka> The fact that you even pose this question reflects that you view the Ka> world - and your country - in racially monolithic terms. If you are Ka> interested in advancing one race at the cost of another race, then Ka> simply embrace your racist or racialist identity, rather than bristling Ka> at the term. It is, simply put, nativist (at best) and racist (at Ka> worst) to state that immigration is a form of "social engineering," Ka> when in fact, countries that endure immigration are complicit in the Ka> factors that led up to immigration being "forced" upon it. Now you are resorting to name-calling?? It was only a matter of time before you trotted out that old canard. Ka> If you want to halt immigration altogether (which seems to be what you Ka> are advocating here - you don't want a "melting pot," and you also Ka> don't want non-whites in your country (again, a racist perspective) - Ka> then you need to confront the demographic failures of your country. It Ka> starts with birth rate (and this is controversial) but until your Ka> country generates 2,100 births for every 1,000 women, it in effect Ka> cannot replace its population to stay population neutral. Most Western Ka> Countries have abysmal birth rates (born, primarily, out of economic Ka> factors - not societal ones), and so, you should consider making it Ka> more economically appealing for men and women to procreate. Parental Ka> leave, social safety nets, childcare, and broader incentives for Ka> training and enabling populations are multi-generational investments. Ka> But as the Nordic countries will show, they can be successfully Ka> applied. OK, so we have one "excuse" for pushing open border and mass immigration. The reasoning here is utter BS. If the population does shrink, that is *our* problem. It doens't excuse replacement, and certainly does NOT give the government licence to, um, replace the children it thinks we should have had with others. Ka> Your agenda is pretty clear. You view immigration as a threat to the Ka> cultural identity of your country; there is certainly merit in Ka> discussing how countries that are incapable of building true melting Ka> pots are threatened by unassimilating populations (like France's Ka> muslims, or Germany's turkic populations). But Western European Ka> countries are generally complicit in the factors that led to the uptick Ka> in immigration to begin with: such as France's imperial ambitions in Ka> Africa leading to vast destabilization of the magreb and sub-saharan Ka> region, or Italy's brutal occupation of Ethiopia and interference in Ka> Lybia. Europeans haven't been willing to pay reparations to those Ka> countries, or invest in African development, and so you have a Ka> situation where entire populations are trapped in failing states that Ka> the Europeans raped and pillaged as recently as the 1960s. And this is the other "excuse"... These ALWAYS get trotted out. It is a very predicable move. The sad thing is, you think this justifies immoral actions. If you believe Europeans should pay reparations, then push for that. That is a seperate issue. Ka> I think you have a beef with your country's legislative policies, and Ka> so you should take it up in the political process. Some countries have Ka> effectively halted or redirected immigration (see: Austria and Hungary) Ka> only to discover massive shortfalls in talent, population, and/or Ka> tax-bases. White Europeans haven't generally taken the steps necessary Ka> to create monolithically racial states the way that the Asians Ka> culturally do, but again, I would point to the Nordic example, which Ka> emphasizes integration and assimilation but discourages immigration Ka> through raising birthrates of its own population. Except one can not do this because people like you will say that anyone who even THINKS this way is a, *gasp*, racist. In short, the argument goes like this - Because of reasons X, Y, Z, (it doens't matter, any reason will do), your country must open up its borders, become a melting pot, and if you aren't happy with a level of immigration which will make you a minority then you're just a racist. You didn't answer my question, which means there is no answer. With so called "anti-racists", there never, ever is an answer. I've been asking this for nearly 20 years and your responses are EXACTLY like all the other anti-racist ideologies. Because to answer the question is to admit that at some point, mass immigration must be scaled back. If you don't scale it back, replacement is the logical mathematical outcome. (note MASS immigration, not all immigration). The factuality of the birthrates in Western nations is not relevant. The issue is the MORAL problem of enacting and promoting and supporting policies which lead to the decline of an identifiable group. You've done everything possible to avoid this, from name calling, to trying to find "reasons" to not confront the issue, or simply arguing that I shouldn't care. If I were not White, you probably wouldn't have had such audacity to brush of real concerns like that. If you believe that identifiable ethnic groups can be degraded and displaced by policies, then just say you agree with it and such policies are justifiable. What is happening is the result of policies, of ideas, of what people are pushing. They must be held morally accountable for it. --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52 þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org .