Britain has been largely replaced at least twice, first by the beaker people who wiped out most of the original natives then again in the 5-6th century when there was mass immigration of germans to England. Arguably the inhabitants of Brittany were replaced by britons around the same time. Then more recently in Australia and of course America.
As for the great replacement theory, complete nonsense.
In Argentina, Europeans largely displaced the native population except at the extreme Southern end. In Tasmania, the Tasmanians were at one point believed to have completely died out. In the end a few people of mixed Tasmanian ancestry were left, but it's still a replacement with Europeans.
The Baltic "Old Prussians" were replaced by Germans, but in this case a lot of intermarriage happened. A change of culture and administration is not always directly mirrored in the DNA.
In my city of Geneva, people of Swiss ancestry are now well below 50%. In elementary school they are closer to 20%. You can see it from the names of the pupils, or from the school classes of my kids. This city experiences replacement, but the country in total does not, yet.
The late Roman Empire. In the later stages of the empire Rome experienced massive incursions of different Peoples from the perifery of the empire, some of which were legal (invited by the states officials) other very much illegal and forceful. Eventually the balance of power in Europe shifted gradually away from the romans and to the (mostly Germanic) tribes for the next 1500 years. The "barbarians" (outsiders) have taken over. Nobody on the Right believes "the Great Replacement" is an actual 100% swap of the people in their country. That is silly.
Lombards were a Fermanic tribe from the east that had been driven west by the Huns, Replaced themselves in central asia. The Romans were more multicultural, you became Roman even if your people were etruscuan or Greek
Well considering Rome the city state was made up of 1/3 slaves from all over the empire as well as immigrants but by 1000AD was the last surviving part of the Roman Empire the Lombards displacing most of the Italics in Italy.
We are in the 'it's totally not happening' stage of this retarded game. Get ready for 'it's happening, but it's not that bad', followed by 'it's happening, and it's good actually'.
White Brits make up a third of their own capital city. In 50 years white Brits went from being 87% of the population to 37% of London. Britain is still facing an invasion of illegal aliens, hundreds of them pouring in by the day. By the end of the decade actual Brits will be a minority in their own capital. How is this not a replacement?
Glad to see we've already reached the 'it's happening, and it's good actually' stage.
Which part of a city being a global trading center necessitates allowing thousands of Albanians and Arabs to roam around the city with machetes? How many of those fascinating creatures do you think entered the country legally? And even if they did, why should they have been allowed to? Which part of a city being a global trading center necessitates your own people becoming a minority in their own capital city? Last time I checked, Tokyo was doing just fine when it came to world trade, no Balkan 'refugees' in sight funnily enough. Same story with Seoul and insert-3-dozen-Chinese-cities-here.
And this is precisely how this bullshit game goes. In 3 posts you've done exactly what I knew you would. Pivoting from 'it's totally not happening' to 'it's happening, but it's not that bad', then again pivoting to 'it's happening, and it's good actually'.
And to the 'Maybe but seriously. You can’t have it both ways.', in the post you were responding to I gave you examples of homogenous Asian cities that are doing rather well for themselves. This 'if you want financial prosperity, you've gotta import millions of illegal aliens form 3rd world shitholes who do nothing, yet demand government payouts whilst causing unprecedented levels of violent crime' rhetoric is bullshit. There's a huge difference between having >10% legal immigrant who are well educated, have stable and well paid jobs the general population wouldn't do, people who aren't a burden to the taxpayer, are law abiding citizens who want to assimilate, and then the counterpart of your standard legal/illegal immigrant who is only stealing regular jobs from the general population, people who are usually relatively uneducated, unassimilated, violent, who oftentimes hate their host country, cause riots (check France) and are a burden to the taxpayer, either through government benefits or through the cost of their incarceration.
Which part of the Chinese economy is reliant on 'diversity' exactly? And which regions on this list ( en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_Chinese_prefecture-level_cities_by_GDP ) are actually agrarian? The 'diversity = prosperity' 'logic' is laughable. Which nation do you think is better off, Liberia or Korea?
How come China, Japan and Korea have homicide rates at least half that of the likes of Sweden, UK, Canada, US, Uganda, Liberia and other diverse places?
You do realize that the examples of high homicide rate nations include a few other nations than the US?
The cause of these crimes is plainly obvious. Who's rioting in France right now? The French? Or are 'people' burning the French flag while showing off flags of the nations they came from? Why should those 'refugees' be allowed to stay? In London, this straight from the horses mouth: "This Assembly is concerned that despite making up only 13% of London’s total population, black Londoners account for 45% of London’s knife murder victims, 61% of knife murder perpetrators and 53% of knife crime perpetrators." www.london.gov.uk/.../commission-on-knife-crime-in-black-community
Do you think these 'people' are helping the UK's economy?
Germany is a funny nation. "In 2016, 31.4% of all convicted offenders were foreigners, about 3 times higher than the percentage of foreigners living in Germany." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Germany
Swedes don't collect stats on perpetrators, now, why do you think that is, and what sort of stats do you think you'd find if they did give out info on immigration status, race, religion and ethnicity?
This was a study that only got data from a couple of states, 30 years ago, still, no reason to think the rest of the nation would be much different today.
"For all men combined, there was a trend of increasing homicide risk as block-group socioeconomic conditions moved down the gradient (Fig. 1). Race-specific patterns also showed this trend. However, except for proportion of female-headed households, white men had not only a substantially lower risk of homicide compared to black and Hispanic men within the same block-group socioeconomic level, but also the highest risk for white men (over all socioeconomic levels) was still substantially lower than the lowest risk of homicide for black and Hispanic men (over all socioeconomic levels)."
And as to the non sequitur thing, I've already showed you that if you only leave a certain demographic in, the US is still in a decent position as is. Besides, we're talking about basic human rights. We have them whether the political elites agree to it, or not. If 2A wasn't important, it wouldn't have been the 2nd protection for the people against the government.
Now, let's talk about those third world countries (that right winger oh so want to turn us into), what they're like and whether guns are legal there or not.
Compare the 'Intentional homicide victims per 100,000 inhabitants' column to the 'Estimate of civilian firearms per 100 persons' column. Notice any commonality? I don't. Jamaica has half the firearms of France, yet 35 times the homicide victims.
Order by 'Intentional homicide victims per 100,000 inhabitants', descending.
Virgin Islands have a negligible population, so per capita is meaningless. Jamaica is second, with a may-issue gun license scheme. Third is Lesotho, where people are only allowed to have shotguns. Just recently they imposed curfews as a reaction to shootings. After that is Trinidad and Tobago, where you need a license to own a firearm. 5th is El Salvador , license is required. 6th is Venezuela, where guns are fucking banned. Fucking 6th, banned, 6th, banned. 7th is Honduras, where you need a license. Background checks are just doing wonders there, aren't they? 8th is South Africa, licensed. 9th is Mexico, which to my best understanding is licensed in practice, though I think it might depend on the state, and apparently they only have 1 gun store? In any case, most of the crime there is committed with illegal firearms anyway. 10th is Myanmar, where licenses are mandatory and barely anyone has them, though apparently they recently legalized ownership for everyone, maybe, I have no idea what their current situation really is, given the whole military rule thing. You know, joy of living in a nation with strict gun regulation.
Not a single one is categorized better than 'Flawed democracy'. Venezuela is a dictatorship, Myanmar is in deeper shit now than it was back a century ago, under British rule. As for the other ones, do you wanna live in Lesotho? Do you wanna live in Honduras, El Salvador, South Africa?
And Rhode Island or Massachusetts are not good reps for the country. Not even back in 1990.
But murder and crime thrive in poverty. Are as segregated by races as we are, meaning blacks kill blacks, whites kill whites. And only cure is a middle class. Like any middle class. It’s gone,
> And Rhode Island or Massachusetts are not good reps for the country. Not even back in 1990.
And why is that? Do people there have a drastically different culture compared to Indiana, Montana, Kentucky, Tennessee? Is the culture really different today? How?
In any case, that's the only place I could find where they cross-referenced a bunch of interesting factors that contribute to crime. I've never seen another study examine the impact of poverty on crime per race, much less examine female led households, unemployment, education and other interesting pieces of data. I would be very much interesting into checking out a new study like that one, hopefully, one that encompasses many more states. But really, say you knew for a fact the results of that study could be extrapolated across the US, today, would that really surprise you? Even if you are just unwilling to extrapolate that data to the nation today, how do you square away the fact that poverty is not really the reason crime happened in those 2 states 30 years ago? For the purpose of this question I don't care about other states or applying the results to different time periods. Why is it that the great god of diversity failed there?
And is the middle class gone? Half the nation is in it, that's a funny way to spell 'it's gone'.
How come you didn't mention much about the non sequitur thing then? The US is still 10 places up on the first nation from that list. And the reasons for that are more complicated than meet the surface. Anyway, check out other nations from the list, Myanmar is lower than North fucking Korea. Only place worse than Myanmar currently is Afghanistan. Venezuela isn't that much better, and it's currently rated bellow Russia. And since those nations have either banned guns or are strictly regulating them, I guess it's the leftists that want to turn us into 3rd world nations.
Yeah studies are generally more inclusive across wider areas, especially now with swing states and shit. But that’s irrelevant we can keep your research.
Tho I forgot what it said…
Anyway why does race and skin color bother you so much? Sure it’s changing but why does that freak you out?
> Anyway why does race and skin color bother you so much? Sure it’s changing but why does that freak you out?
Nice attempt at framing. The race/skin color/diversity in general is something that's funny to me. Every time someone with half a brain brings up the most obvious fact in the world, that the sacred diversity is a pipe dream and in fact is absolute dogshit in practice, the left get their panties in a bunch and call people racist/xenophobic for pointing out facts. And as to why the great replacement is legitimately dangerous, it's because the left wants more immigrants who come from shitholes, offer nothing to their new nation, in fact many immigrants hate their new homes, and don't assimilate. The last part is 'fun' because it suggests that within a few generations old indigenous culture, tradition, customs and eventually language will get replaced by animals who are no different than colonists with the added bonus of shitting on hosts who call out their disrespectful and dangerous rhetoric. Currently in the west, migrants are destroying the culture of their host nations. Churches that had been there for hundreds of years are getting torched down and some historic sites are being turned into mosques. Some places in Germany have installed bilingual signs, the other lingo being Arabic. Leftists are constantly shitting on local's culture, invoking sins of the past, in many cases fictional ones, and trying to destroy the national pride, this is happening in basically every western nation. But the same leftists will never dare mention a single sin of the new migrants, and if one does, one is shunned as xenophobic. The migrants hate the local history and culture and are destroying it, from religion to national pride and values.
But maybe you're right. Maybe the Conquistadors really did nothing wrong and enacting cultural and general genocides is just fine, after all, brining 20 Spaniards for every native ups the diversity of the place and enriches the culture.
> I’d say you won with London stats. Well done. Now why’s it bother you?
Because a culture is getting destroyed. Because the country is witness to unprecedented levels of violent crime. Because the left lied to their population (as usual). The whole 'diversity is strength' is based on a lie. Because they're letting in 'people' who are violent and hate the locals and everything they stand for. Because the idea of assimilation is dead, the newcomers don't want to assimilate, and a lot of leftists nowadays don't like the idea, when it suits them. The native Brits are going to be replaced by rando Middle Eastern/North African morons who are not going to benefit the economy, which flies in the face of the lefts promises of 'economic prosperity through diversity' claims. Because plenty of this is being spearheaded by illegal aliens, especially the crime and burden to economy thing, but leftists nowadays don't see illegal immigration as wrong. The newcomers are going to completely transform the nation, in due time they will get elected in the numbers that will allow them to internally and officially change the morals and laws of the nation to fit their view completely eradicating values of the indigenous people.
Trump tried this bullshit too. There is NO unprecedented crime spike. It’s up from last year s we’re shaking off recession and Covid. It Jesus Christ man google search for once. 70-90s were 10 times as bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London
You know I think your problem is narrow focus. You keep talking unprecedented crime yet leave out the 1980s…
And whilst every recession brings a spike of crime you fcks are always there to rail against immigrants. Well a guy from an immigrant family is mayor of London. That’s a pretty good addition to England’s ranks, huh?
I've already given you links to some of these stats, click them.
> yet leave out the 1980s…
What is this actually supposed to mean. What is your point? And if you wanna bullshit about a single word, fine, let's pretend the crime wave isn't unprecedented, it's just rising to levels not seen since the 19 fucking 80s. What now?
> And whilst every recession brings a spike of crime
Again, why would a recession lead to an increase of rape?
> you fcks are always there to rail against immigrants.
If a group makes up 13% of the population, yet causes way more crime, fuck yeah, I'm gonna rail against immigrants. Similar story in Germany, "In 2016, 31.4% of all convicted offenders were foreigners, about 3 times higher than the percentage of foreigners living in Germany." Give me 1 reason why those animals shouldn't be deported.
> Well a guy from an immigrant family is mayor of London. That’s a pretty good addition to England’s ranks, huh?
The fact some jerkoff fascist became a mayor of London means precisely jack shit to me. As an added point, it only further proves my point that immigrants are going to slowly but surely take over their host nations through their institutions, leaving them unrecognizable. The man's policies are actual dogshit. Also, lol, lmao: www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936
Ok, back to basics. Unprecedented means “never happened before”. If crime was 20x higher in the 80s and 90s you just made a stupid claim like Trump did.
But yes, recessions bring more crime. Robbery rape and murder. It’s humanity. Or inhumanity.
> If crime was 20x higher in the 80s and 90s you just made a stupid claim like Trump did.
Again, cool, let's pretend that's the case. What is your actual point here? Sit back and wait till the water starts boiling, you limp dick toad? Let's pretend it was worse, 30 fucking years ago, why can't it be even better now? Why should we allow immigrants to desecrate our nation?
> Robbery rape and murder. It’s humanity. Or inhumanity.
Now tell me which demographic is responsible for these recent rapes. What do you think the percentage of foreign born rapists, when the perpetrator isn't a family member, is? Would you think it's 10 - 15%, about the same as the percentage of population born in another nation? Go on, I really wanna hear your prediction.
As I said, let's pretend that's the case. Without unassimilated retards coming from 3rd world shitholes things would be even better, why shouldn't wee want things to be even better?
> Poorer Americans are responsible for the crime.
Might I point to the Table 1 of the pdf file you sent there.
> Yes that includes the black community. Not immigrants.
Oh, and the answer to the question you didn't dare answer, is 80%. Out of rapists who weren't family members, 80% are foreign born. Now that's what I like to call cultural enrichment. But it's fine, I hear from reliable sources (randos on the internet who don't bother to show or read stats) that immigrants aren't causing a crime wave. I hear it was even worse 40 fucking years ago. Ain't that a beautiful thought.
Sigh…. ok you are linking to individual events that boil your blood. Mine too. But seriously, research nationally is a done deal: Immigrants (illegal or not) commit less crime than native born.
I’d trade all of the Bible Belt for all the fckers at our southern border. Talk about shitholes. Louisiana to north Florida is giant red mark of crime. They top south Chicago which you probably bitch about.
> Sigh…. ok you are linking to individual events that boil your blood.
?
Who the fuck are you talking to here? Who in the absolute fuck are you talk to? I could have given you hundreds of new stories on individual events, I ain't showed you one. Show me one fucking time I did that. You're either delusional or are an outright liar.
> But seriously, research nationally is a done deal: Immigrants (illegal or not) commit less crime than native born.
I've given you links, click them.
> I’d trade all of the Bible Belt for all the fckers at our southern border.
Ah, selling out your own people in order to import illegal aliens, many of whom are gonna be drug traffickers, rapists and murderers. Classic leftist.
> Talk about shitholes. Louisiana to north Florida is giant red mark of crime. They top south Chicago which you probably bitch about.
Wanna take a more in depth breakdown of the perpetrators?
I can see you’re incredibly emotional about this. You’ve given me links about knife attacks and “unprecedented” crime without knowing what the fckin word means,
> I see you’re incredibly emotional about this. You’ve given me links about knife attacks and “unprecedented” crime without knowing what the fckin word means,
You've been lying and misrepresenting my positions for 2 weeks. In fact, you're done that in the last response, multiple times. I'm sorry I just 'get emotional' when you blatantly lie about my points. I'm supposed to do what you do when I call that out - just ignore it or call you emotional. As for the 'knife attacks', don't those matter? It's violent crime, kinda big deal wouldn't you think?
> What? Look up London crime based on percentage?
You've just showed that crime in London went up by 15% in 5 years. Just from 21/22 to 22/23 it went up 8%. Honestly, thank you for making my arguments for me.
A lot of the first colonists were economic refugees. They weren't a powerful army at all. What they did bring was death to the natives. When the first settlers landed in New England they thought that God had set the land aside for them because it was completely empty of people as there were few if no native Americans. The reality was that 5-10 years previously spainish traders and French explorers had been in the area and the native Americans caught smallpox, bubonic plague, chickenpox, cholera, the common cold, diphtheria, influenza, malaria, measles, scarlet fever, typhoid, typhus, tuberculosis and pertussis from them. One of those would be bad but imagine your village getting all those things at the same time and you body has no immunity. So when the new England settlers arrived the natives were either dead or moved west. This Iis what killed 90% of native peoples in the Americas and why the spainish and Portuguese conquistadors had such as easy time conquering. The Aztecs rightly thought it was the Appocolypse
Remember the Romans didn't replace anyone, they gave out Roman citizenship. The Romans in Rome are the last romans of that Roman Empire era yes but not for instance in the Lombardy region. The people of Venice are maybe the last Romans too. Quite a lot of Romans in Italy fled to the Eastern Roman empire which fell finally in 1453 almost completely replaced by Turks and arabs.
Unfortunately this phenomenon is both agreed on that it's happening and disagreed. The right for example will make the claim that the great replacement is happening, the left will deny it but simultaneously gloat that it is happening. But obviously for anyone with eyes can see that something along the lines of it is happening. Whether intentional or not is up to the individual. But the phenomenon cannot be denied because it is undeniably taking place in the West.
No.. by the likes of yourself, you'll agree that the West is getting more diverse and that it's a *good thing* but then deny that the phenomenon of the great replacement is happening. These are two beliefs that contradict each other yet simultaneously held by many on the left. It is clear you did not read what I actually said.
That's another contradictory belief, you would acknowledge different breeds of cats/dogs but deny that there is any existence of different breeds of human, you would also acknowledge the existence of Neanderthals which directly contradicts your belief of race not existing, just not in the sense we believe, but i'm not sure why i'm bothering telling you that since your response is just a defence mechanism since you're unable to comprehend.
France, England, Spain, Italy, Central Asia, Turkey, various countries in China, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Caribbean Islands, North africa, large parts of Russia.
How so? France? I guess I mean in the way this Great Replacemenr Theory tries to scare us…. has it happened to an established country in the last 500 years? Or so, don’t have to limit…
No you’re right, I had the thought immediately after posting. Was like shiiitttt. But seriously as a problem today, is this replacement thing in issue? Has it happened before in the last 500 years?
Mass migrations of people have always been destabilizing throughout history.
Whether it was the Sea Peoples in the Bronze Age, or the Persians moving across the Black Sea into Greece, or the Huns, pushing the Goths and Visigoths into Ancient Roman territory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
And skipping a lot of history because you wanted something more recent in the last 500 years American colonists pushed beyond the original 13 colonies in a Manifest Destiny, moving in into the Midwest. And speaking of the Southwest, part of the way American got it was just flooding Texas with American settlers in the 1800s. It was Spanish territory. And the settlers were destabilizing it. Changing it. Staking a claim. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodusters These people moved onto and colonized land that had previously belonged to indigenous people.
When Southern Blacks moved up to the Northeast in the early 1900s they were a destabilizing migration force. There are only so many jobs to go around, so much housing, and the native northeasterners then had to compete for these things with the newcomers. So they started red-lining. Not allowing Blacks to live in certain areas, denying them loans, or not giving them jobs. Inevitably this shunts the newcomers off, sticking them in their own little segregated neighborhoods, and breeding resentment between the newcomers and the transplants for GENERATIONS.
I could go on, and on, but it’s really stupid how some people seem to think it’s racist to suggest that people/cultures/societies don’t get replaced. We have all of human history to look at and see otherwise.
What? No LOL. That’s bizarre. “Best” has nothing to do with any of it. There really is no need to ascribe some weird qualitative good/bad dynamic to all this. Mass migration of one people into the area of another people is a destabilizing force. The history of the world shows that yes, it does in fact happen. People and societies get replaced.
“Best” has nothing to do with it.
All you can do is either allow it, forbid it, or manage it. This is true for all nations. It always has been. It’s called immigration control.
The Chinese didn’t have very good immigration control against the Mongolian Golden Horde. In fact the Mongols were running their nation for the for a loooong time.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
+1 y
Opinion Owner+1 y
