Buffalo mass shooting - Great Replacement Theory & the long trail of blood

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119087548#Comment_119087548

I think the only bit worth clearing up is whether, there is anyone on this thread, that actually believes "GRT is happening" not in the sense of dry economical replacement stats etc. but actually in the theory-as-fact that, Jews/NWO liberals are behind this all to reshape the globe to their aims or whatever. In other words, I'd like to as per the aims stated at the foot of the OP, like to know if for example, there are people here that are largely in sympatico with the theories espoused by these people in their manifestos, about it all being planned etc by some freemason cabal of lizard people who are looking to wipe out Granny Smith and the Whites etc.

I have too much faith in everyone here in the thread to imply or believe that anyone here thinks violence is a witworthy response to the refugee/migration/miscegenation (wow I finally spelled that right the first time) question.

Ush1

Can you define your version of the theory first? Shocking thread altogether.

Dyr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119087741#Comment_119087741

So you agree as that European people are being replaced in some European countries but do not think that its caused by jews/lizard people/the Rothschilds?

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119086394#Comment_119086394

No , we're disputing your refusal to speak plainly and actually say what you really mean.

Which is that you don't want to see too many Dark faces or suggestions of the Muslim faith when you are out and about in Ireland.

Because it's "different" and "not the way it used to be" or something.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119087750#Comment_119087750

If it was my theory this thread would be in a whole other forum.

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/the-great-replacement-an-explainer

Ush1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119087769#Comment_119087769

Can you show me anywhere in that link where it is espousing physically moving Europeans elsewhere as was being harked on earlier in the thread?

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119087756#Comment_119087756

In the dryest, technically-correct sense of the verbiage as it pertains to replacing the anticipated size of the population or the workforce of the economy (ie. immigration by quota, or by skillset). I do not view accepting refugees as replacing other people in the ethnical or cultural sense. I do not believe government officials are waving in millions of refugees to eg. replace republican voters with voters who will do what I tell them to etc. or to wipe out the Christians, or any of that guff.

At worst, I think you could argue but also call a spade a spade that there was a radical-muslim campaign in France for example that, in the most disassociate terms, was a campaign of forced miscegenation, but at the end of the day it was a brutal campaign of rape, coordinated or not. But from there we start to see how these mass killers are getting radicalized: 'my country isn't stopping this' was iirc the whole thrust of Anders Breivik's whole massacre, an act of terror to shake up his country to do something about the muslims, they were his 'mongrels' that were replacing him.

My main concern is we need to bridge all these issues together and talk about them right, or it (the politically charged massacres, lone wolf or otherwise*) will keep happening again.

(just learning this bit. Investigators are reportedly going after ~10 of them who actually connected to the stream, per Wapo:)

https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/18/buffalo-shooter-journal-discord-google-docs/

kowloon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119083891#Comment_119083891

Wibbs is on the case

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119087779#Comment_119087779

I don't remember harking that myself so I might be the wrong person to reference in relation to what you say was harked earlier on thread, and with it, how whatever was harked may or may not relate to the ADL article above, which explains the gist of things.

John Doe1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119084084#Comment_119084084

There are very few Spanish Americans in the US. There are plenty of latin americans who you would not mistake for European origin also.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119087984#Comment_119087984

The spanish owned Florida for a while you know, or at least, gave it a good try - eg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castillo_de_San_Marcos

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119087522#Comment_119087522

The major waves of inward migration to Europe in the common era would have been the Jews, the huns, the Slavs, the tartars and various other Turkic migrations, the ottoman and the Romani.

From about 1500 until about 1950 Europe became a continent of net outward migration however. Aligning with the initial position I posted that migration is about people following the resources. During that time Europe had a rapidly expanding population, so populations had to move elsewhere to get resources, and the expanding population also left no opportunities for inward migrants.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119088074#Comment_119088074

With the exceptions of Romani and Jews, you left out the part where these "migrations" were on the back of warfare, invasion and imperial expansion. Indeed the Jewish diaspora migration post 70 AD was driven by warfare and invasion in their homeland when a bunch of angered up Italians took a wrecking ball to Jerusalem. And it's not as if being Roma has been a walk in the park.

As well as resources the other reason migrations into Europe stopped was because from about 1500 invading European countries was not much of an option any more for those outside who wanted to try. Ottoman expansion was halted. The Mongols had a go, but there was little chance of that succeeding. Slavs are European anyway.

The European outward migration was also on the back of invasion and imperial expansion and it didn't do the locals of the places they expanded into much good. Between the British, French and the Spanish in North America the Native American population dropped by over 80%.

RobbieTheRobber

The biggest killer of the native population following the Europeans arrival is disease. Smallpox wiped out entirely some smaller tribes on its own and in some areas accounted for up 90% of the population decrease by some estimates.

It wasn't warfare that primarily wiped out the peoples of the Americas.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119087054#Comment_119087054

People tend to "segregate" themselves. The vast majority have kids with people like them; in background, education and yes "race". In the US the group the "Whites" are most likely to get together with are "Hispanics".

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119087097#Comment_119087097

Very much so. Always follow the money. Local Africans on the Slave Coast made plenty of cash out of the Atlantic slave trade and banned the practice itself long after Europeans in Europe and the Americas did. Never mind the Arab slave trade in Africans which went on long before the Atlantic slave trade and long after it(it was more about women "concubines" than men to work fields).

It could be argued that the Atlantic slave trade died out as much because of the machinery of the industrial revolution which rendered slaves and slavery less economically viable.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119088379#Comment_119088379

There are two ways to look at history. The top down, kings, dates, battles and politics, or the bottom up, what is experienced in the lives of people. Wars dont just happen because to kings dont like each other. Its driven ultimately by the demographic shifts within the population and often the seeds of an event that results in one country invading another are a rapid shift in resource availability to population though both natural and man made phenomenon.

Taking just one of the migrations into central Europe - the Slavs arrived in to lands vacated by Germanic tribes following the invasion of the Huns. A large numbers of the Slavs themselves being under pressure in their lands further east migrated to an area where available resources could support the population. Underlying it all is people trying to make a life for themselves.

What happened the Americas had two causes, both the movement of Europeans into the Americas, and the isolation of the Native American from the bulk of Global population. Through no fault of their own they were vulnerable to diseases that were circulating freely through the remainder of the globe. This was a consequence of isolation and yet more evidence of the benefits of movement of people.

TheW1zard

The video was crazy, america is mental

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119088660#Comment_119088660

Hardly a benefit when such movements have killed tens of millions to get said benefit. The reason why was as much to do with the fact that Native Americans didn't have the domesticated animals of the Old World. A large proportion of our pathogens are zoonotic. Covid the most recent example. It's also why Old World diseases fecked the New World, but the reverse didn't happen. With the possible exception of syphilis* Europeans didn't bring back plagues from the Americas.

And you're still avoiding the point that the vast majority of migrations in world history are on the back of warfare, invasion and imperial spread and it rarely works out so well for the locals. People "trying to make a life for themselves" in new lands usually means the locals get the pooey end of the stick. No amount of "two ways to look at history" can deflect from that.

If we look at the current post WW2 politic of migration as multiculturalism, it's not worked out too well for some demographics. Particularly those who look and act the most different to the host culture and peoples. Pick any multicultural White Western nation where being of African origin means you're less likely to be unemployed, requiring social assistance, in prison, undereducated, exposed to poverty. I'll save you the trouble; there isn't one. And the same pattern is seen across generations and different host cultures and politics of same. East Asians being the outlier here as they tend on average to do better in those metrics than the host peoples. There are many reasons for this, racism among the host population being a major one, but it seems it's an intractable one too. In Ireland after only twenty years of this politic running we're already seeing the exact same patterns emerging.

*it was long thought to be American in origin, but there have been examples of the disease found in pre Columbian Europeans.

Dyr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119088074#Comment_119088074

Jews started showing up around 300 BC

The Huns were around the 400s I think they were invaders not immigrants and they didnt stick around

Tartars around the 1200s, again they were invaders not immigrants and they were driven off

Ottomans also invaders not immigrants and the parts they populated would not be great showcases for the benefits of immigration, given that the word "Bakanization" exists

Romanii have been in Europe for about 1000 -2000 years so that assertion is sorta racist

So, according to you, up until 1950 we have Jews immigrating and we can safely say that they did not come here in the numbers that non Europeans are coming here now. Lets just accept that the current levels of non European immigration are without precedent and move on.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119088946#Comment_119088946

Its racist to say the Romai arrived in Europe in the common era is it now? The Common era being CE aka AD.

As I tated the popultion pressures in Europe resulted in nt outward migration for ca. 500 years up until the last century. So just becasue the migration was more outward than inward does not mean migration is not a fact of life.

I could list all the various groups that have migrated into europe if you like? Not to mention the large numbers of migrations of vastly different peoples within Europe. Why is the migration being European or non European so important to you?

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119089068#Comment_119089068

Do not get me started on the "common era" thing. Perfectly understandable for Arab, Jewish and non Western researchers using it when referring to the Gregorian Calendar, but when Western researchers started to do it(not so long ago either) so as not to offend...

Fact of life: The vast majority of migrations were due to war, invasions and imperial spread.

Fact of life: These migrations had a strong tendency to screw over the local populations.

Fact of life: In all Western multicultural societies with inward migration the same patterns in the same demographics come up time and time again across generations in a consistent and seemingly intractable pattern.

As for European/non European. Again I look to basic human nature at work. Look to the recent migrant crisis in Ukraine, again because of war. Syria has had an ongoing decade long war where double the number of people have been displaced, with much the same actors in the mix, including putin and the actual use of WMD and nearly half a million dead.

Throughout that crisis Ireland has taken in just 3000 Syrians, half of them under 17, all vetted in a longwinded process over years in some cases. The same Ireland has taken in ten times that number of Ukrainians in just three months, with no caps and no vetting and immediate access to social supports, medical cards, access to work, even driving licences. Compare and contrast. Now colour me cynical, though not surprised, but does their skin tone and status as Europeans have more than a little something to do with that? That they're more "Us" than "Them", the Other.

I would further contend that the fear of the Other in human societies and human nature stems from the depth of human history that demonstrated that migration of the other was nearly always a negative thing for the locals.

Dyr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119089068#Comment_119089068

The title if the thread is about the Great Replacement theory, which is the theory that Europeans are being replaced by non Europeans due to some conspiracy. I've pointed out that the first part of that theory is true in some European countries. We've have 12 pages of non sequitors ever since, including yours about immigration being entirely natural are ordinary. You were asked a question:

"So the current levels of non European immigration to Europe are, in fact, the norm, going back through modern history?" Which is germane to the topic at hand

Rather than just responding "no", you decided to contend the matter by conflating invasions with immigration and admitting that for about 500 years up until WW2 Europe did not see large scale immigration and here we are.

At least the OP had cop on to see that this whole approach of outright denialism was untenable and to move onto the substance of the issue, and fair play to him. The rest? Not quite as perceptive, but they are used to posting in their bubbles.😕

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119089183#Comment_119089183

There was large scale migration both within and out of Europe in those 500 years. Skin tones visible in the street appears to be what bothers most in the thread, not the actual fact of migration

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119089229#Comment_119089229

Can you point to any post in this thread bemoaning peoples skin tones?

Dyr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119089229#Comment_119089229

You couldnt differentiate between invasion and immigration when it came to facts but have another bite of the cherry anyway, what immigration into Europe occured between the 1500s and the 1950s that would be comparable to current levels?

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119089250#Comment_119089250

Care to point to any evidence that the continued insistence on the "longstanding understanding of European vs. Non European" suggests anything else??

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119089449#Comment_119089449

European vs non European refers principally to citizenship, and secondly to cultural values. The only mention of skin tones in this thread was overheal when he tried to argue that hispanic people could not also be considered white.

Your obsession with skin tones and race in this thread reflects more on your own issues than those of any other posters in this thread.

Boggles

"You don't have to whisper," Rogers said the dispatcher told her as she tried to stay quiet so the gunman wouldn't find her. "

Jesus, that has to be the single worst piece of advice in the history of 911 calls.

I imagine that person is getting fired.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119089515#Comment_119089515

I would say that both the right on, multiculturalism is great(though can find few concrete reasons for the statement) people and the right wing down with that sorta thing people have one obvious thing in common; they're both obsessed with skin colour and race. On the one hand you have the Replacement people who only regard Brown and Black skinned people as the incoming horde that will displace them, on the other you have the diversity is our strength people who only regard Brown and Black skinned people as reflecting "true" diversity. Both are colour blind when it comes to White people.

Ireland a good example. The vast majority of inward migration to Ireland in the last twenty years has been from other(mostly EU) nations and the vast majority of them are palefaces. A demographic we hear little to nothing about. The NGO's pretty much ignore them too(though the recent Ukrainian migration has redressed that to some degree). We now have an Irish Black history month, yet there are at least three times more Polish people here and they don't get even a Tuesday afternoon.

kowloon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119086983#Comment_119086983

Was the increasing reliance on tribes outside the empire as auxiliaries and their incorporation into the empire not part of what caused Roman overstretch that brought down the Western Empire?