White genocide

How completely unconvincing given the earlier """jokes""".
>>>Holla Forums

...

as far as I see, it really only concerns whites that are proud of their heritage. Jamal doesn't know who his dad is, user.

Nobody who claims to be proud of their heritage even knows what spot of Europe they fucking came from.

kek

fixed

the people who actually take the time to trace their family history do, yeah, which incidentally is something I've done with my grandparents

I have duly noted this whole "obscene voyeurism" rhetoric is always used by feminists, who have no arguments except psycho-sexual manipulation and of course tend to be the biggest perverts themselves. Why'd you take your trip off, Hooch?

Alienation isn't a real psychological theory, and it's just a part of the Hegelian ontology Marx uses, and really a technical account about how capital transforms into a social force in itself in his theory, at least by Capital. Why do you insist on this.

It's the UN definition of genocide. Sure, you may argue comparing gradual, "non-violent" ethnic replacement with mass executions dilutes the unique horror of the latter, and makes little sense to conflate the two like this, to which I'd agree, but that's what the word means.

No it's not. Those are genocides of specific ethnicities not "white people." Literally never in history has a genocide occurred targeting "white people." Prove me wrong.

...

It was obviously a joke hinting at the fact the Hitler killed more "white people" than any evil Jewish cabal could ever hope to, fam.

Also technically those weren't genocides but reprisals, usually civilians they would round up at random and shoot in response to partisan activity in the area.

It's a blanket terms for entire host of psychological problems that are sweeping over the west at the moment. Depression, anxiety, etc.

Haiti? Zimbabwe?

As a misused technical term from Marxian theory, using it in a way to suggest a simple etiology of a complex phenomena, politically motivated but unsupported by any serious theory or research (that I know of). Isn't this the same kind of reckless and cynical propagandizing you accuse the Holla Forumsyps of?

This is about white supremacists using a made-up genocide to paint violence against minorities as self-defense.

It's very much global. Check out the lists of countries, they're topped by very poor, peripheric countries. Not to mention the notorious case of South Korea.

It's a legitimate term in psychology, sociology etc. too. All those variations are separate but related phenomena. But yeah, it's easy to conflate them.

Haiti, Zimbabwe, and currently South Africa, you fucking retard.

Cracker genocide doesn't exist but it should.

It's being openly called for. Denying the ongoing anuddah shoah is climate change tier denial.

Such a shit board.

Burgers

Lemme guess: you believe that the Holocaust, on the other hand, never happened?

Fuck you you intellectually dishonest cunt.
People don't have kids because they have more money. Don't be upset people can get married and then divorced.

Speak for yourself mulatto mutt.

Mother and father side both sets of grandparents fled Poland ww2.

I can't speak to Zimbabwe but in Haiti Germans and Polish on the island were specifically spared, and only the French were in particular targeted for slaughter.

What, why would people having money make them decide to not have kids? People with a lot of disposable income might just decide to travel and so forth instead of having kids but I doubt the number of people wealthy enough to do this is significant enough to account for declining birth rates. Also I mean the general decline of marriage when i say "not having kids" the amount of people who are single in - for example - Japan is ballooning. I guess you could amend "have kids" to "engage in relationships".
I'm not upset, but it's a fact that divorce courts disproportionately favor women which makes a lot of men wary of marriage. I don't think women should be chained to someone if they get married then things go south but if you think the way it's managed at the moment is fair you're clearly biased.

1. white people as currently understood is a relatively recent invention
2. there have been many genocides against groups of people that we would now consider white, often but not always by other people we now consider white, but that did not seek a total genocide of whites
3. genocide against what we now consider white people in globo in any one location is rare - Zimbabwe and Haiti are arguable examples
4. these examples are rare because what we now consider white people are concentrated in geopolitically powerful states, and are typically the dominant group(s) in those states
5. doesn't mean it can't or won't happen in the future as the balances of power and demographics change
6. the aut right fever dreams of replacement theory, cuck porn, bbc, and so on definitely do not merit the term genocide and deserve to be laughed out of the room
/party line

slaves killing their colonial masters after years of exploitation, theft, bondage, and resource rape is "genocide"

ahaha reminds me of all those fat western rich feminists complaining about being victims

Not every white in Saint Domingue was a slave owner, only a small minority in fact - the "big whites". The lower and middle class "small whites" were by and large in no such position of domination, but where massacred all the same. Understandable coming from an enslaved population, but no less genocidal.

Wouldn't be a leftypol thread without the mentioning of cuck and bbc porn.

The un openly calls it replacement immigration in their own white papers, Africa's fertility rate is through the roof and there is no will to enforce borders in Europe, idk what all the controversy is.

That's unfortunate, they should have stayed there and died.

Falling for the ancestry.com meme this hard.

These whites weren't abolitionists and most of them held aspirations of being slaveholders and supported slavery, they're obviously not as culpable as the salve maters themselves but it's a fucking lie to make them out as innocent by standards.

Well i had and what i learned only serve to chat during dinners.
I have people from widely different background in my ancestry who just lived their life the best they could in their time. So what?

Yes, things like this are complex like that. There were also the various divisions between the free coloreds and blacks, the later splits and civil wars between various black factions, and so on. Still think it's fair to say that it was a genocide, and that we should not shy away from calling it that. You can't let anti colonial, anti slavery language be used as a cover for unsophisticated hatred of whites, or for libshit whites to signal just how great of an ally they are. The "genocide against whites don't ever real"-talk is exactly that.

"… it didn't happen. Hitler was a scapegoat for the Bolshevik revolution."

Your very same infographic can be applied to communist revolutions. Although in that case, it need not be supported by fabrications.

Yet the premise is who cares for anuddah shoah and who think it's a bogus conspiracy - people that profess Not Socialist sympathies INVARIABLY believe in anuddah shoah. That image isn't supposed to be for dick waving in "who killed the most whites", it's to point out the hypocrisy of supporting a system that DID kill a lot of whites.

anuddah shoah is nothing but this
This thread is shit. It enabled Holla Forums, idpoler niggers and people with sexual preference dictated by memes. Fucking idiots

People don't actually believe in anuddah shoah because otherwise they would actually do something about it like blacks and browns have done before, you know like actually guerrilla resistance and what not. It's just a sick manifestation of white Midwestern suicidal tendencies and sexual insecurity.

but the bolsheviks were jews, why would they kill the jews when they didn't even destory their sinagoges?

They aren't saying the bolsheviks killed the Jews. The are saying that the bolsheviks, the Jews themselves, killed gentiles and reversed the truth to say that they were the ones being killed.

You are projecting your own suicidal tendencies and sexual insecurities. Do you truly believe that violence is the answer to all of your problems? Do you not realize how un-charismatic violence is? Are you unaware of what a culture war is? Are you that simple-minded?

There is no hypocrisy. Even someone like you should know the difference between whites being killed in a war, and an attempt to remove whites altogether.

anuddah shoah is just an excuse to peddle violence in "self-defense"

Whites are being genocided like my widowing aunt is having sex.

Hitler had intent to kill other white people though, that is objective FACT. The context of that intent shares the same tenuous link that the current anuddah shoah myth has i.e. blacks entering the country = genocide.

holocaust test

Nobody cares about your fetish user.

all were killed, including the children

You are reducing the definition of genocide to murder to further your sophistry and narrative that they are being hypocrites, as if they themselves reduced the definition of genocide to murder, but that isn't what is happening at all. They believe that there is a plot to not only allow foreigners into europe but to convince them to come and fund their coming, all so the white nations are bred out of existence or at least out of stability. They fear not the deaths of a few people– as you are implying– they fear for the continued existence of their entire people.

I know it is difficult for you, but the difference in not only intent, but scale, and method is completely and utterly different, and it should be plain to see.

Whatever their rationalization, or your personal lack of sympathy, which is irrelevant, the fact is it's simply ahistorical to claim a special exemption for whites from ethnic hatred. All one needs to do to prove it is consider the Western Left. Whites are absolutely targeted for the perceived fact of their participation in the alleged crime of "Whiteness" which is often construed by the Left as a social construct without any content except its efficacy in enslavement and vampiric parasitism, essentially being white is membership in a criminal organization and cult with no legitimacy. Yet most people have little to do with how their society is run or what they have been led to believe, and Leftist psychology of course insists we are all conditioned by the dominant memes/abstract "social relations". This "Whiteness" has "structures" which are hardly ever made explicit, except through elaborate phenomenological novellas, and even where exacerbating circumstances can be empirically verified and real solutions proffered, the Left bizarrely most often minimizes any discussion as empty "concessions" to dilute the struggle, vulgar liberal problem solving, or else in bad faith/predestined to failure due to "history", meanwhile also preferring their own tangible programs despite deep flaws such as Affirmative Action as "it's only right to make some lives a little better while we can". Participation in Whiteness is considered especially heinous for whites, subtly implied here by the Left to be the only ones with any agency, whites are expected to by default, know better than anyone else. We see this same master-slave thinking in their rationalizations of Islamism. Of course this doesn't preclude you from calling out non-white (euphemistically "PoC") "Uncle Toms" for "collaborating" with the whites in Whiteness, but this is largely tactical; whites are always going to be the primary beneficiaries of Whiteness, marked as the elect by pigmentation. I know Holla Forums attempts to distance itself from the real Left, smearing their comrades as spiritualists and capitalists, but this is irrelevant to the socio-psychological dimensions of Leftism proper I have described. :v)

The Jews in the camps died of typhus or starved. Plenty of them died, but there was no deliberate, planned, genocide.

Hitler was threatening the continued existence of ethnic groups within the white race and white fascists only avoid experiencing cognitive dissonance over it by espousing a malleable understanding of race wherein anyone can be and cease to be part of a certain race at a moment's notice or by insisting that white people being marked for death by the Nazi regime is a lie.

Why don't you post the unaltered report here and give us your summary of it so that we can laugh you out of this thread?

Was there ever even real Genocide before the White one tbh?
Evil of this current scope is unprecedented and something only the Jews could ever be capable of.

Do you have any more of those Holocaust-denying platitudes that have been debunked a thousand times to share with us? We're really interested in your lunatic ravings. :^)

...

Here fam: un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm

All EU for example had to do to maintain the potential support ratio (proportion of working age population to the retirement population) was raise the retirement age from between 71 - 75 with NO migration, maybe reconsider some other policies, and this assumes no fertility rebound. Accomplishing this instead with migration requires extremely high unprecedented levels, and they underestimate the fertility of migrants IIRC which does not necessarily correlate with their new economic status. Japan is not considering replacement migration to solve their ageing population and fertility decline. This was known to everyone at least as far back as 1995 and it compares studies from earlier, yet there was no public policy discussion as would be expected if whites were ethnocentric scum, instead, well we all see what the liberal global elite has done with the MENA region, and the escalation of the re-education campaign against greedy exploitative white people and their ill-gotten gains, now spilling over onto the streets.

>Here fam: un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm
They provide a definition of replacement migration so you don't have to keep thinking it has anything to do with genocide.
European countries are already raising the retirement age and your proposal is neither viable nor is it addressing the problem of old people dying faster than new people are born. Even if working the elderly to death were a realistic solution, people opting for replacement migration isn't evidence of genocide.
You could've just said they bred like rabbits and been as credible.
Japan isn't infallible and Japan isn't a baseline for policy. What it considers and doesn't consider is irrelevant.
I don't know what you're trying to say.

White people: identity politics is for SJW cuck ❄️ snowflakes ❄️

Also white people:

Einsatzgruppen not real, then?

Because even if we pretend that not a single person was deliberately killed in Nazi camps, the behind-the-lines massacres in occupied Eastern Europe are more than enough to warrant the title of genocide.

thats probably a joke
probably

Activating word filters on accident is a bell that rings "I DIDN'T LURK ENOUGH BEFORE POSTING, I AM A GIANT FUCKING RETARD PLEASE IGNORE ME"

Imagine believing in this doublethink unironically.

I'm talking about the rates and the assumption that migration is the only option taken without public questioning, which in itself puts lie to the fundamental thesis of the relevant mass ideology global capitalists and """leftists""" remarkably agree on.
Some may argue there is a strong circumstantial case for "dolus specialis", and it's quite natural to assume that once the native voting age population drops below 50%, given how much hatred is being normalized against Whites, combined with anti-democratic moves by the state ostensibly on behalf of the minority populations and the fact many migrants come from extremely conservative and often quite violent and repressive cultures and are only allied with the far left of cynical calculation rather than principle or a single compatible viewpoint (except one), there is much more likely to be merciless political retribution without possibility of recourse. So it's actually potentially quite serious, and before you say anything, of course I don't expect you to have a shred of sympathy.
If it's not viable, how are they doing it? Are the immigration quotas being lowered to compensate? This proposal of "mine" was a scenario in the report, taken seriously enough by the UN as worthy of public discussion in its own right, and I only mentioned it as the line to get it to ZERO migration. Merely one way to deal with the "problem", but There Is No Alternative, why, because you say so?
Value-laden judgment, implying callousness. An extra few years until mandatory retirement is not forcing old people to work, especially versus the effects of mass immigration on the aging population. Am I really to believe you actually care? Also, the human lifespan is continually in the process of being extended, so this should be factored as well.
Again, an attempt to paint callous disregard on my behalf. It's not like I'm suggesting naked imperialism like China or Israel. Likewise, you never proved causation or even strict correlation between economic status and fertility rate in all populations being considered, and have merely implicitly asserted it.
And why are you the arbiter of credibility?
On what basis are you judging this? Are you not automatically assuming white countries have the correct policy and other whatever other nations think irrelevant? Hmmm…

You've made no argument on why Japan's approach is not an option worth even entertaining. It's apparent you haven't thought about any of this, yet you're more than happy to be the kneejerk mouthpiece of the status quo.
And yet you felt the need to chime in anyway with this smug, shitty, nothing of a post, shilling for the norm of neoliberal socio-economic ideology. Really want whites gone, don't you?

driving colonizers out isn't genocide

It is genocide in exactly the same way as colonizers driving out natives is genocide.
Who was there first doesn't really factor into something being a genocide or not.

Neither will driving muslims and africans out of europe…

It's only genocide when it's against people I like.

There's public questioning, you're just not paying attention to it. What you say is evidence of politicians working to cull white people; leftists say is evidence of politicians serving capital. If low fertility rates are the result of capitalists imposing family-hostile conditions on the workforce, then politicians turning a blind eye is only indicative of their allegiance not being with the working class.
Studies show immigrants have similar values as natives. People of color aren't a swarm of angry like-minded drones who want to kill white people. You're just projecting what you wish you could do to the other on them.
Liberals aren’t into sustainable solutions.
They’re lower than they need to be to keep the population growing. Countries are tripping over each other to get immigrants because they know economic growth is on the line.
There are alternatives but liberals don’t like them because it might hurt capitalists.
There’s a growing socioeconomic gap in life expectancy and increases in average life expectancy don’t reflect improving life conditions for the working class. People that need retirement are people that don’t live very long. Calling it working the elderly to death is accurate.
You implicitly acknowledged economic status as a relevant factor when you said immigrants are an exception to the rule. It’s your job to justify that position and until you do I have to assume you’re just perpetuating xenophobic stereotypes.
Japan considering or not considering replacement migration is irrelevant because it can be wrong. No country, one country, or all countries acting the way you want has no bearing on the argument.
Your entire “argument” is “but Japan”. It has no substance and I don’t have to dignify it with a response more thoughtful than your “argument”.
I was calling your last sentence barely coherent and asking for clarification. If you think your last words aren’t worthy of being understood, that’s up to you.

If you look at the issue, you can see that every western society has lower birth rates. Forced participation of woman in labour, career chasing or whatever else is blamed as a cause for this, among a couple of other factors (to get specifics you would need to read a few scientific articles about this).

The competitiveness on the workfloor makes it very unappealing to have any children. There are tons of incentives a government can do to increase birth rates.

Zimbabwe in particular, South Africa sort of… the murder on whites have been so high the past 20 years that you can call post apartheid a state that is genociding its white population. The sad part is nobody is actually acknowledging these genocides, not even rightwing parties in Europe or US. They might use it as a LOOK THIS WILL HAPPEN TO US but never promise any help to whites suffering from these two brutal regimes.

Last part mostly pertrains to Americans.

There were no Muslims in my country 80 years ago (Netherlands). Now roughly 6% is Muslim due to idiots from the fake left labour party importing cheap labour. They come here to do jobs that nobody else wants to do (for a very low wage) and then they go back except they never went back. You can't deny that this brings social tensions, a religion like Islam would never be welcome in a Christian country and it would promote conflict on its own.

There is no logical reasoning behind the EU's decision to bring millions of illiterate illegals into Europe. So naturally something else is going on here: big business is profiting from refugees. Pharma can pump out druggs, real estate can rent out their unsellable houses to states, politicians are getting bribes from business and it goes on (and of course with the EU being very corrupt they love this).

A realisation that alt right doesn't make that it aren't just elite jews pushing for this (though many amongst the elite are jewish), it is big business in general. European elites post WW2 are now cooperating with each other rather than having competition with each other and it's coming at great expense of the worker. The EU exists to promote that cooperation of elites and prevent any sovereign state from ever attaining the means of production for themselves.

Was there 20 years ago?
I'm aware of the party line. Note: these aren't mutually exclusive. Prove the bourgeoisie, or powerful factions of it, constitutionally might have no interests other than accumulation and generic suppression of labor.
Pure reductionism. It's clear you're some flavor of Marxian, even if you don't know it. While it is an obvious truism that any child can grasp: that the rich have power, wish for more themselves, and maintain an antagonistic relationship with the poor, and those with power control the state, your theory has little or no real content. What can you say about how powerful institutions such as the Catholic Church will operate and affect society, for example? I'll tell you, besides "opiate; bad" and maybe atheoretical complaints here and there about collaborating with this or that foe of yours: Nothing. Nor can such a mode of analysis enlighten us on the UN and its system of NGO's, nor even does it adequately describe state bureaucracy under capitalism, nor really even the functioning of contemporary post-industrial capitalism outside of some coarse grained general trends that other theories also capture.

Yet you feel equipped to contemptuously dismiss outsiders for engaging in speculation beyond what you are capable of considering thinkable, while reserving the convenient brand of class enemy if you really don't like what they might have to say.
Ah yes, "studies show". What studies? The level of denial or detachment involved here is quite illuminating.
This is a total caricature of what I said, designed to imply a paranoid and childishly cartoonish viewpoint. "People of color" is another one of those interesting pseudo-euphemisms that is just accepted organically now, although to my ear quite repulsively dehumanizing, though not as bad as the just lazy and garish "PoC's", also being a homophone of "pox". Why don't you just say non-white, hmm?
Armchair psychoanalysis isn't an argument.

Perhaps the bourgeoisie are acting irrationally. Why is one non-ideal solution automatically preferable to another?
Here you correlate economic growth with population growth. Looking at the third world I can only say this connection is spurious.
You're saying there was a public debate as with other policy and assent was explicitly given by the civil society? Isn't Leftist theory that Whites act in their own interest participating in Whiteness? Why would they consent to its abolition? What "liberals"? 90% of people in capitalist countries have no say at all in policy and from then it's a sliding scale. Do you mean the bourgeoisie, who program the liberals with mass media, state education, etc.? Be clearer.
Can you start to source your claims, so we have something to go on? So far you appear to have made some of this up as you've gone.
I openly stated economic status was a factor, but you suggest it is the sole determining factor by default.
Why would I be doing this? Can you motivate that assumption, explain my behavior in material terms? Or is all you have unprovable appeals to emotionalism/insanity/miseducation?
NO non-majority European country, regardless of birthrate or population age, is currently considering replacement migration. You're backpedaling on your own racist subtext here. You're claiming it's not viable, acting incredibly indignant about the idea that this could even come up, etc., essentially saying not just they could be wrong, but are wrong. The more reasonable position one might take is considering what led to divergent policies, and why some people, such as yourself, seem to have an obsessive interest in steering the conversation away from such a comparison. You have nothing. If you were really concerned about countering ignorant xenophobic attitudes, rather than doing nothing constructive but announcing your assumed superiority through smarmy, mealy mouthed faggotry, you'd at least have a few sources at hand.

NazBols are so incoherent they don't mind pushing neo-liberal austerity bullshit as long as it keeps the brownies away.

On the contrary, I aim to prove the whole system is against absolutely everyone.

The gastarbeiders were a terrible idea, no question. And the current immigration/refugee policy is a dumpster fire, with some definite elite steering towards more migration for cheap workers. At the same time, it doesn't merit the term genocide, not even close. You don't just throw terms around willy-nily like that. Now, as to the position of whites in South Africa and such, that's a totally different ballgame.

Because they honestly do not give a shit. They never, ever suggest anything to help the suffering, never suggest once that maybe we should try to stop it. They care about "whites" less than anyone on this board. They're not "white nationalists" because the moment a white person becomes inconvenient or stops pushing their agenda, they drop them immediately. They have never ever suggested doing anything to help the impoverished whites across the world, or protect them from harm, doubly so when it's a result of other whites. They only want to use them as an excuse to push their own agendas.

Of all the times I've posted about this, I have never gotten a response from any of them trying to justify their actions.

There actually was and record of it is available online.
They’re nowhere close to each other in the realm of the possible. Just because socioeconomic pressure can be used in genocide to lower birth rates and higher death rates doesn't mean the existence of socioeconomic pressure is evidence of genocide. You have provided no evidence of actions being undertaken against white people or even of motives for undertaking such actions. You’re asking me to prove a negative when the burden of proof is on you.
I contemptuously dismiss all baseless speculation. This conspiracy theory is the epitome of paranoia and self-victimization.
You haven’t shown how immigrants have significantly different values from natives yet you expect me to demonstrate the opposite. Why do you impose higher standards on my arguments than yours? Why do I have to do all the work here?
“People of color” is a catch-all-term for everyone that isn’t white and you’re not supposed to pronounce its abbreviation like a disease. I’ll use “non-white” from now on since the alternative makes you uncomfortable.
Your perception of the other as someone to dominate or destroy is your only basis to non-white persons perceiving you as someone to dominate or destroy. You view the world as a war between your race and everyone outside of it and you think everyone outside of your race views the world as them being united in a war against your race.
Because one of them makes capitalism more of a living hell to the elderly of the lower class and the other just brings people from overseas.
The third world’s extensive growth is often decoupled from its intensive growth due to deficiency in capital. An economy can grow with intensive growth alone but not as much as when it’s combined with extensive growth. That’s why population growth matters.
I’m saying there was a debate and politicians chose the option that best served the interests of the capitalist class.
Leftism has no single theory because it encompasses many ideologies and none of them have a theory pertaining to whites participating in whiteness in part because race is a spook.
The bourgeois and their enablers.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62362/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK321304/
I didn’t speak out for or against economic status being a factor. I’m just asking you to explain where you get the idea that immigrants are different from natives.
Because you might believe so strongly in these xenophobic stereotypes you might think they don’t warrant justification.
That’s wrong. Not only are non-white-majority countries considering replacement migration but some of them are actually undertaking it. The UAE, for instance, is composed of 80+% immigrants and isn’t on the brink of collapse like you seem to suggest is the fate of ethnically heterogeneous societies.
I’m not saying Japan is wrong. I’m not even saying I agree with you that Japan never considered the idea. I’m just saying you can’t point to Japan as an argument without further explaining yourself.

Source?
It's a sociological theory or hypothesis. There happens to be a preponderance of evidence in its favor, and it purports to explain that which the traditional Leftist schools of sociological analysis cannot, which themselves over time devolved into so many completely incompatible sects which rely on anecdotes and baroque esoteric pseudo-theory (see: postcolonialism), and is now thoroughly contradictory on every level, resolving (aufhebung?) to one common factor: irrational hatred of Whites. Nor does "multiculturalism" even make sense to begin with in societies that weren't multiethnic nor does it make sense for it to be treated as a selective categorical imperative on white countries. Holla Forums's position based on an orthodox Marxist line carefully sidesteps some of this, hand waving that part of it away as "just liberals", yet you are a tiny and likely despised minority among the wider Left.
I just thought it would be obvious to anyone, especially an educated leftist, that the world hosts a vast variety of cultures, theologies, mores, practices, etc., many mutually exclusive. This is a concrete fact of human existence I thought was indisputable, and in fact this observation motivates much of the nihilistic relativism that currently plagues the Left.
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/
In Pakistan, 62% offer no opinion of ISIS, 84% support sharia as law, compared with Azerbaijani's at 8%. 20% of Nigerian Muslims say they support ISIS.
theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
52% of British Muslims say homosexuality should be illegal, 39% say wives should always obey they husbands, 31% say it's acceptable to have more than one wife, 21% decline to condemn those who stone "adulterers". And note the non-negligible OPEN support for terror tactics.
unicef.org/media/files/FGMC_2016_brochure_final_UNICEF_SPREAD.pdf

It doesn't make me uncomfortable, it's just illustrative of the wider social undercurrent I'm trying to examine. Sociological theories (most dramatically, Marxism) if non-trivially subscribed to by social actors, of all varieties, may all have drastic and long-running irreversible effects on societies, and in ways that can be insidiously obfuscated by that same theoretical framework by distorting the phenomena in a particular way, and even may self-perpetuate performatively. This is a fundamental methodological, epistemological and normative issue with ANY such social theory. I'm not sure why all the Leftist branches are to be presumed a priori benign or noble in intent, when many such frameworks effectively deny any real foundation of value altogether, yet other schools of theory are simultaneously considered "immoral".
See? Such intersubjective phenomenological blame games are totally recursive and arbitrary, and ultimately, always tend to skew the blame again towards whites by default. You have no access to the interior of my mind, let alone can base that as a generalization on anything but faith.
No I don't. Perhaps instead of psychoanalyzing political others YOU have constructed, you might want to consider what motivates you. What is it? "Justice"? "Reason"?
Again, you haven't explained why Scandanavian countries raising the mandatory retirement age to 68 - which again, is not the same as forcing you to work until that age, could reasonably be characterized as "more of a living hell"?
Old people are vulnerable to the inevitable deterioration of the social fabric by mass immigration, which shows every sign of increasing violent crime. The Left will tend to dismiss them as "racist" and demented (again seeing no irony in ageism, as with their classism when it's whites). Additionally, it seems unlikely the migrants would seek to preserve the expected lifestyle, state support and benefits of the ageing natives, which was the whole excuse in the first place. Young people already have a pretty bad grudge against the boomers.
Why do you expect these "le noble savages" to
A: Adopt Western progressivism when this is a culture you're actively destroying
B: Not simply act in their interests? Isn't this "pure idealism"?
Source on these big public debates? Seems possible circular reasoning to me. "They chose what's best for capitalism because they're capitalists and that's what they always choose."
Not true. Vast amounts of Leftist discussion and education for decades has made much hay of Whiteness and its social constructedness and structural violence and so forth. No real Leftist theory ever mentions Stirner. What is the defining characteristic, the essence, of Leftism according to you?

The UAE doesn't allow foreigners to have citizenship or give them any social services they use the immigrants to do their labor so the citizens can be NEETs. Imagine what would happen to the native NEET population if 80% of the population were given citizenship and voting rights.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/psp.1941/abstract
It's more complex at least than a simple index of socioeconomic status.
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62362/

canpopsoc.ca/CanPopSoc/assets/File/publications/journal/1997/1-26_Ryder.pdf
It was published January 1997, so that's already over 20 years ago. You can look up earlier sources using advanced search. People have been seeing a demographic problem coming for a while. I don’t understand why it’s important to you to believe this wasn’t discussed in the last century. It has no bearing on the argument.
It's a sociological theory or hypothesis in the same way creationism is a biological theory or hypothesis. It's not a scientific theory, hypothesis, or hunch; it's a conspiracy theory.
Where is it?
Just because they don't worship white people doesn't mean they hate them. Where do you see the racial hatred?
Migrations are older than society and multiculturalism has existed far before socialism or liberalism. Let’s say all white-majority countries have been homogeneous throughout their history for the sake of argument. How does multiculturalism not make sense for them? They operate under liberal values wherein the world is perceived in terms of individuals and not groups.
This is a standard for all liberal democracies throughout the world. No one is pressuring white countries and white countries alone to accept immigrants.
>theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-homosexuality/
This is a common belief among the religious. 64% of Evangelical Protestants in the United States think the same.
pewforum.org/2011/06/22/global-survey-of-evangelical-protestant-leaders/
67% of Evangelical Protestants in the United States think the same.
Why do you care?
More of them should be doing it. They aren’t guilty by association and shouldn’t be cornered into a defensive position.
Which you’ll find among the native population as well. The fact alone that right-wing politicians can call for war crimes without sinking their career is telling.

I won’t address everything else you posted which is unrelated to the question of immigrant values.

cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/political-assimilation-immigrants-their-descendants
Cato —a right-wing think-tank — published a report showing immigrants have similar views to that of the general population.
You’re overstating the influence of Marxism in liberal society. What alternate schools of thought are you talking about?
Where do you get this idea non-whites are out to get you then?
People who haven’t reached retirement age aren’t entitled to related benefits, which means poor people are forced to work longer to make ends meet.
First off, there’s no mass immigration. Second, immigration doesn’t weaken the social fabric. People are bound by ideology and common history, not the color of their skin.
Violent crime has been steadily decreasing over time.
What makes it unlikely? Do immigrants hate wealth redistribution? I usually hear the opposite.
If young people are going to vote the rights of the elderly away, they don’t need the help of migrants. Millennials are already the plurality of the population.

You don’t have to further discredit yourself with racist terminology; you’re already hard to take seriously.
Because they’re already doing it.
How?
I’m not expecting them not to act in self-interest. What makes you think ganging up and killing you is in their interest? What makes you think all of these different people have this common goal?
Maternity leave, family tax breaks, affordable healthcare, affordable education, etc. are ongoing debates tangential to the issue of population growth.
Let me get this straight: you’re saying the left is a unified ideological block.
All race is a social construct and this isn’t a leftist idea. This is something even right-wing liberals agree on.
What’s your problem with the theory? It doesn’t target white people.
I never said it did. I just said race was a social construct.
Leftism is a catch-all for ideologies so disparate it might as well not mean anything but its ideologies are usually progressive, egalitarian, internationalist, anti-corporate (worker-centric), etc.

Is your problem with immigration that immigrants aren’t formally recognized as second-class citizens then?
>onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/psp.1941/abstract
Your source makes a socioeconomic analysis of the question and concludes that controlling for socioeconomic status makes the difference in fertility rate insignificant.
Most self-proclaimed genocide victims are from there so it makes sense to focus on the US.
It’s a socioeconomical factor and is worth considering.
It’s only one paragraph of the paper.

This is a paper in an academic journal. The UN report was published in 1995. I'm asking for evidence of a significant PUBLIC policy discussion, the kind which is discussed in the news, openly by mainstream politicians and the like, such as with important issues of today such as tranny bathrooms and Drumpf's shitposts.
It's not important to me personally, only the truth is. My claim is there was and has been no significant discussion. I'm old enough to remember. It should be simple enough for you to show newspaper articles, and the like, rather than academic studies from the cloisters. To reiterate, I point this out as it begs the question of why civil society did not discuss it, where the Leftist claim now is, and certainly it was back then, is that the media and society in general is skewed right wing.
"Conspiracy theory" is a blanket term used to discredit outsider perspectives and has been used by state disinformation for this very purpose. Quite handily for those who actually engage in conspiracy constantly while in power. Of course just because some people believe asinine views without evidence, doesn't mean you get to be the epistemological arbiter, and it's a form of analogical fallacy. The claim the NSA was likely spying on everyone before the Snowden disclosures was a "conspiracy theory". Leftists claim all sorts of actions by organizations like the CIA and corporate malfeasance using circumstantial evidence; direct documentary evidence is not available by the nature of their secrecy. I suggest there may be elements of conscious conspiracy, but not so much top down, more in a diffused, decentralized fashion, and also that complex sociological and perhaps even unconscious psychological factors involved. This is not substantially different to any Leftist sociological theory, for example about institutionalized racism or bourgeois class interest, and in fact there is substantially more to it than most of these which rely on just so stories, special pleading, fallacious reasoning and rhetoric entirely. You are here tacitly relying on official sources, media, universities, of the liberal corporate state to authorize or discredit the range of legitimated perspectives. But this is self-refuting, as you also claim to believe these organizations are the state ideological apparatus, set up in diametric opposition to your political beliefs, to legitimate the corporate state and discredit alternative viewpoints.
I'm producing some of it now, I feel it's best to discuss it a few points at a time, as you are clearly are of a mind to reject it all out of hand anyway.
Is this just a bad attempt at gaslighting?
Genetic/naturalistic fallacy, even if good because they've always happened, not unlike the division of labor (patriachy, slavery, and many other practices we may criticize) it doesn't therefore mean all migrations are good, or will be. In fact there's already established terms implying bad migration: colonialism and invasion.
This is false, unless you mean a multiracial societies or perhaps other you have identified precursor strains of pluralism. The specific ideology of "multiculturalism" is a state policy in several Western countries, tending to be introduced by fiat and without public discussion around the 1960's.

the white race is counterrevolutionary

The liberal view on migration was integration or assimilation, and not disrupting the cultural fabric. Liberals believed in JUDGING each as an individual, despite their color, creed, or whatever, but never did believe there was no such thing as groups or culture, or that statement would make no sense. It was standard up until around the 1960's to consider the ethnic constitution of immigration before such quotas were dismantled as "racist". But it makes sense: If a culture is illiberal or even too dissimilar as to undermine civil conflict resolution, it obviously undermines the foundation of a liberal society, self-refuting. Multiculturalism calls for supplanting the nation state with a "mosaic of cultures", implying the possibility of a meta-culture which values universalism while actively fostering pluralist particularism which is a contradiction.
Disingenuous. Your study does not say anything about illegality of homosexuality, just that it shouldn't be encouraged. Massive difference.
Even if so they are a declining minority. It doesn't make sense that a secularizing society that long fought the religious right would want a restoration of significant fundamentalism in the name of the very progressivism that opposed it initially. Yet the Left has been very cosy with Islam in recent years.
Why must you resort to personalizing your retorts so much? My point was just to bullet point some examples of incompatible cultural values, which contribute to ethnic tension and importantly erode social cohesion. After you made the astonishing claim, I remind you, that everyone in the world roughly thinks and acts the same.
It's not about "guilt", it's about whether it makes sense to fill a society with a "mosaic" of contradictory cultural standards that are considered abhorrent. It seems you aren't fully relativist anyway, here you are the one putting a value-judgment on this behavior, but also moralizing whites for "cornering" them, a scenario you've imagined.
Even if so, they have different goals and targets, and even if there were no nuance here, acting to increase this percentage makes no sense. Especially given right wing extremist views emerges in response to immigration.
These are the cultures of the world that migrants would be derived from, refuting your insane assertion humanity is roughly all the same. Even from a strictly relativist perspective, it's incoherent.

Cato is a capitalist propaganda front.
I said Marxism proper. It had enormous effects on the world in the 20th Century, regardless if whether you'd like to dispute that Western academic leftism and its effects on the cultural milieu are truly Marxist. I already mentioned post-colonialism. There's critical race theory, deconstrutionism, post-structralism, all flavors of feminism, X studies, beginning with Cultural Studies and English Literature departments and steadily branching out, and so on. Some other disciplines such as social psychology are now almost completely "liberal" in the American sense of soft leftist, the poll didsn't differentiate whether or not they pay enough attention to porky for your taste.
You cannot refute this argument so you've simply repeated your rhetoric implying irrational emotivism.
This may be the case, however if white society was as callous as you implied, they might have considered just this option. This was my point, which you ignore.
What is this? We've been discussing replacement immigration. It doesn't make you look reasonable when you vascilate wildly on the basic facts under consideration like this.
While this was a trend in the past, the recent escalation of immigration is absolutely increasing violent crime, not least of which terror.
Immigrants currently vote and vocally support Left only through calculation in their own interests.
It's suggestive that there are already signs of growing resentment with a still relatively homogenous population.
Same rhetorical techniques as I pointed out in detail before. Besides "noble savage" is not racist terminology, the term was invented to criticize racist white views placing the other on a pedestal.
Clearly this is not the case when you look at their actual views - extremely hostile to everything it stands for, combined with constant propaganda against European/White culture not least of which blaming it for the warfare and looting of the third world. Claiming otherwise based on extrapolating past trends when there was more of a monoculture and pressure to assimilate is not reliable indicator of the future as the situation changes. Multiculturalism is overtly pluralist, several competing cultures do not somehow blend and form a coherent whole. You have no reason to assume progressivism is by default the better philosophy, this is yet more circular crypto-chauvinist thinking, as it is implicitly European. Now a failed political theology collapsing under its own absurdity, no one really wants it anyway. Iran had a taste of decadent Western liberalism and there was a right wing and theocratic popular revolution against it.

A good number of us realize this thank you very much. Gotta kill traitors before the enemy jim jam

Both Rousseau and a badly mangled dialectical progression of Western Nomanalism

Yeah, traitors like the SA and S.trasser, gotta make the nazis kosher to the cuckservatives in the banks, Heer and high society. Can't deny Hitler his big break in the dignified dances.

Rousseau is idealist as fuck but if you want to include the historical left of liberalism it makes some sense I suppose.
not sure what this means but imo nominalism follows from rigorous materialism so maybe it fits

What's up with the nazbol screeching in this thread?

my sides, hwites are so desperate

So basically:
or perhaps
or is there something I've missed?

This is what the NazBol discourse is attempting to elucidate.
Dialectical extrapolation from observable trends and history.
What is the common goal of western leftism? How, despite its retreat into subjectivist particularism and perpetual dysfunction with intransigent sectarian squabbles, are consistent policy objectives and dominant mantras able to manifest at all?
Yes, TANGENTIAL discourses all happened. Which even more starkly brings into question how the core issue, despite your (telling) insistence on a perenially conservative society, has remained taboo and ignored until very recently.
No. But there is a cohesive and deterministic and historical principle that unifies them, constitutes them as "the left". Considering how (superficially) reflexively critical and soul-searching the Left has been in its own texts, surely you can give some answer to this.
It is, and is very recent in intellectual history. Though to be fair so are the modern racial classifications and neo-Darwinism.
Ad populum.
Even when not explicitly, subtextually it most certainly does. The technique used here is simple, you simply proxy the target of critique and imply its applicability in generality as a principle. Leftism has been monomaniacally obsessed with the historical criminality of the white European, and undoing the narratives which supposedly systematize said violence, to pretend otherwise means you're either unfamiliar with the literature or simply lying.
This is what you CLAIM to believe, and I don't disagree to a certain extent, besides the baggage of the term "construction", just not totally as this inevitably leads to contradiction. But it's becoming easier to induce you to trip over yourselves and let that wonderful unconscious of yours shine through to the surface.

It's certainly not meaningless as an efficacious historical subject you polemically choose to align yourself with. Rattling off a list hardly gets to the morphological essence of the matter.
Evasion. You presented UAE as a multicultural paradise, obscuring the reality; it is a heritidary class society hosting transient workers and essentially was built on modern slave labor. To me it is a materialistic shithole in the desert with no identifiable culture let alone one I could possibly care about. It is the avatar of soulless consumerist capitalism. Quite revealing of your true character, and amusing how you tried to twist that back on me.
Proof? I'd say Europe, which is currently facing the migration CRISIS, is more of a factor. Are you simply too infatuated with your own nation state to give a damn?
I'll look over these at another time. It's incidental in any case. Just as your pedantic side-tracking with the question of retirement age, which was only illustrative as I explained.
Given you agree economics as such is contentious, why don't you prove it, instead of just trying to imply it is the null hypothesis. Given you can't give any explanation for why capitalists in other countries come to different conclusions. If you can't, it just shows the circularity of your argument.
Notice how it doesn't differentiate between asylum seekers or any other form of (transient) or otherwise migration. Also notice the year of the Syrian war. Of course you didn't bother to really think it through.
Group strategization against the old structures who have the "old money" and their cultural icons around everywhere. Even if race is solely a social construct, this still applies. Or is the way whites have behaved in history according to your narrative, through violent, cold, calculative exploitation, just somehow unique to whites?
You, and whatever you claim to believe, are not representative of the wider civil society who seemingly automatically assented. You seem blocked somehow from grasping the actual substance of the simplest arguments presented even though I've been breaking them up into little pieces and dumbing them down for you.

White geenocide is a useful term for people who want to deny any negative consequences to the mass immigration to first world countries over the past few decades, thanks to how hyperbolic it is.

White replacement is a more accurate and less disputable term.

I bet you don't even live in Europe, burger scum.

Because it wasn't a big enough problem for enough time to penetrate public discourse.
This isn't a left/right dichotomy and media is certainly skewed right. Even today’s self-proclaimed progressives often embrace reactionary policies or rhetoric.
>"Conspiracy theory" is a blanket term used to discredit outsider perspectives
Unsubstantiated ideas don’t stand shoulder to shoulder to well-researched and well-defended scientific theories.
Beliefs aren’t equal and unfounded beliefs are the lowest of their kind and should be treated accordingly.
We already knew it was doing that thanks to earlier whistle blowers and before that we had other tangible evidence and precedent to the effect.
I’m still waiting for so little as the presentation of a motive for the conspiracy.
There not being evidence of genocide isn’t evidence of a cover up. You had no problem using the same sources in an attempt to substantiate your claims.
What do you mean you’re producing proof? Is there no proof in existence? How did you form what you must believe is an educated opinion? You make it look like you accepted a conclusion a priori and are going backward from there.
I asked you where you see the racial hatred.
That’s not the argument. The argument is that ethnostates — what self-proclaimed genocide victims often call for — don’t make sense because groups have always merged, changed, and split and their attitude towards each other has always been dynamic. Society and the groups composing it have never been set in stone and trying to preserve society as it is now or as it was at an earlier time forever is silly.
You’re reducing things to the point of absurdity. Colonialism and invasion aren’t just bad migrations and immigrants aren’t colonizers or invaders. They come to live alongside you, not to displace you. They’re as much a competitor as a baby born inside your country’s borders.
Today’s understanding of multiculturalism is new but the concept itself isn’t. Even prehistoric societies which you’ll find were very varied needed to set aside their differences to accede higher levels of social order. Every society needed to redefine the relationship between people and the state to grow. Culture has never been static and can’t be.

That it is but I suspect you’d dismiss any other study as Marxist propaganda. Do you have any problem with the report itself?
I don’t have much to refute because you aren’t giving me anything. Why are you not answering my question?
Fertility rates are already below replacement and making the elderly work longer isn’t fixing the problem.
This isn’t a fact; you’re just evoking invading horde imagery to make things sound worse than they really are.
It’s still a trend today and immigrants aren’t more likely to commit crimes than the native population. If you think otherwise because what you read or watch keeps talking about rapefugees, you need to reevaluate your media consumption.
What is your claim based on?
How do you know there is growing resentment? The young and the old disliking each other isn’t new.
I was talking about the savage bit.
They all have different views like everyone else.
Your claim is that new immigrants are an exception to the rule and it’s up to you to back it up.
Multiculturalism in Western countries is done on the terms of Western countries. These cultures are assimilated into the dominant culture as evidenced by immigrant children and grandchildren being increasingly similar to natives.
I’m not.
You should just drop the pretense and say you would agree with everyone plotting the downfall of the West if it wasn’t for the color of their skin.

Your reasoning is backward. You're starting from the end and trying to find your way to the start. You know the left is destroying culture; you just need to figure out how.
Present it here.
People aren’t born into leftism and immigrants don’t all share a common ideology.
You’re asking why this wasn’t a popular subject of discourse when the fertility rate only recently showed signs of stagnating. It wasn’t taboo, it’s just that no one cared.
You missed the point.
They investigate all sorts of topics pertaining to all sorts of places and times. You can read similar analyses of other cultures.
They undo narratives which they believe are false.
I don't know what you're trying to say.
I don't know what you're trying to say.
I presented the UAE as a non-white country with immigration. The claim being made was that absolutely no non-white country had significant immigration and all I needed to refute it was a single counterexample.
We weren’t talking about any country in specific. An example was needed and it was provided.
It was presented as a solution to low population growth. It wasn’t pedantic side-tracking because it actually doesn't even work in theory.
It’s your job to prove white people are being eradicated, not mine to prove they aren’t.
I assumed you were intelligent enough to filter out that information on your own.
So class warfare?
Whites aren’t a single group and neither are non-whites. They aren’t locked in a Nazi masturbation fantasy against each other. This is a simplistic vision of history.
What’s the point reiterating something everyone agrees with then?

Wh.ite genocide is real.