The Great Replacement "Theory" (reprise)

[Mowl]

Jimmy and his rabbit warrens - we should toss him another head of cabbage every once in a while: if he's not hungry he can talk to it - it couldn't possibly BE any dumber than Jimmy is himself.

lofl

You have always framed this as "replacement theory", going on to say such things as "one aspect" of that is a conspiracy theory. No. Wrong

Yeah - but still: you're never going to get off your arse to do anything about it, are you?

I'm hopeful that 'duh Joos' replace you with a few sliced off foreskins of little pink babies.

Or a nappy full of their last great yella-shit.

Fact #1

Jambo's a right fucking twonk.

Replacement theory is a conspiracy theory (end of)

Fact #2

Jambo's a left fucking twonk.

Replacement is an empirical, observable fact

In your case, a pint of sour milk would do the job in double-quick time.

Those aren't facts you moron.

He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

They are assertions. And particularly spurious and stupid ones at that.

But apparently, that's your "argument"?! That's it?!

I told you months ago - he has one point to make.

He's been remaking it every day for some years now.

Fuck off you cretin. I can't express how fucking stupid you must be.

In comparison to say Val Martin - quite a bit.

In comparison to say Sham or Saul - quite a bit more or less exactly as thick as each other.

He's a one hit wonder: like 'Seasons In The Sun' or some other well cheesy dirge from the seventies.

 

[Electricity]

Those aren't facts you moron.

They are assertions. And particularly spurious and stupid ones at that.

But apparently, that's your "argument"?! That's it?!

Fuck off you cretin. I can't express how fucking stupid you must be.

lol Sure what can I do if you're just going to deny reality ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Here, why don't you challenge my assertions facts?

Fact #1

Find anything that discusses replacement theory that doesn't refer to it as being a conspiracy theory

Fact #2

Tell me why an empirical, observable fact is an "assertion", and that's without a spurious or convoluted definition of replacement (which I know you're more than capable of)

 

[Electricity]

Anyway, this thread really isn't about roc_abilly and I actually want to talk about the misinterpretation of this term (replacement) from the perspectives of both leftists/anti-whites and nationalists.

Of course, I'm not surprised that roc has shown up, athough I didn't expect when I opened our site today to see post after post of unreadable bilge (includes Mowl) after my OP.

So I might try to take roc's mind off it and get him to shut up about it (bit like putting a drop of hard liquor in the baby's bottle) with something else. Hmm, how about chess (which he's mentioned already in this thread)

Okay, give me a few minutes and I'll think of something...

 

[Mowl]

Okay, give me a few minutes and I'll think of something...

Consider slashing your own throat.

 

[roc_abilly]

Back to item 14 of your stupid "Bugster" script are you? FFS.

What I wrote above is self evident, explanatory, allows us to move forward. I differentiated between the conspiracy theory element and the pure theoretical element.

Even an Arsefielder could understand the distinction.

Anyway, your response is an assertion that the theoretical is actually "an empirical, observable fact". Wtf do you do with that?

Now I'm trying very hard to see where you are coming from, to find some common ground.

And it strikes me that to move toward "an empirical, observable fact" I need to put myself in your shoes, living somewhere like Blanchardstown, or Adamstown. - What do I see when I look out the window, or walk down to the shops in your shoes?

I.e. What I'm saying is that I can grant you your assertion that for you what you term "replacement" is justifiably an empirical, observable fact if we circumscribe a small geographical area, and then take what you see as "the facts". I can grant it may be true for you, from your particular vantage point and all encompassed in that vantage point, including certain psychological elements.

So, shall we start there? I'll give this to you. Circumscribe the space we will take our empirical observations from, as being Blanchardstown, and circumscribe the time frame as being from say the 1980's to the present? (approximately your lifetime I assume, or time frame of observation).

And within those boundaries then we examine the social, cultural, economic, demographic and other trajectories to see how and in what manner do these trajectories correspond with "replacement" and implications of same?

I.e. Within that, let us examine "replacement" of the culture, "replacement" of the people living there, "replacement" of the jobs people do there, and any other criteria you want?

Another clarification we need - do you want to focus on what you term "non-white" immigration? Am I correct that this is the one type that bothers you?

Another clarification needed - you talk about "Europeans" a lot. Do we assume you mean that Proto-Indo-European descendents are not the problem? But can you then resolve the cognitive dissonance then related to our own origins, that we have discussed on here previously, that are far from these origins?

In other words, who's in and who's out, in your book?

Go ahead and define the parameters in your terms, Jambo, and let's discuss.

But be clear. Who, what, where, when. Then we have something to go on.

So how about it? You capable of that?

 

[roc_abilly]

Consider slashing your own throat.

Jambo really is like the chap out in front, with the other Arsefielders behind him being shown up by the state of him.

 

[Electricity]

What I mean this time is that your brain seems to be able to only perform in pattern recognition.

Chess players play thousands and thousands of hours of chess and build up a repertoire of game patterns that they recognise.

(Acknowledging that even with these thousands upon thousands of play you remain a mediocre chess player) what you are doing here is insisting that the argument comprises a pattern that you recognise, and that you have a game-play ready for.

You are unable to respond to anything else.

Which is profoundly, utterly boring in its essential stupidity.

The still below is taken from a YT short video (I'll play it afterwards) by Alessia Santeramo discussing five things she learned from her first competitive chess game. So she would have been young, perhaps around the same age as your boy.

Slightly unflattering picture of Alessia but do you see what it says? It says Chess is 99% tactics. So you can learn all the tactics, right, job done.



White has just moved dxe (pawn takes pawn) and now it's your move as black.

Consider this conversation first:

Chess Whizz: During the opening when pawns are exchanged in the middle you don't want to be the person who opens the d-file.

roc: Why is that, CW?

Chess Whizz: Because the d-file is the where the queens start and it then allows the queens to be traded, the first person to capture with check.

roc: Why is that bad, it's a queen for a queen?

Chess Whizz: Because the recapturing piece will have to be the king.

roc: Why is that bad?

Chess Whizz: Because then castling rights are lost.

roc: Why is that bad?

Chess Whizz: Shut up roc and tell me what your fucking move is will ya.

 

[Electricity]

Anyway, this thread really isn't about roc_abilly and I actually want to talk about the misinterpretation of this term (replacement) from the perspectives of both leftists/anti-whites and nationalists.

This post that I just saw on Telegram is a perfect example of what I'm talking about from the nationalist perspective -

Laura Towler

Wife and mum, British nationalist, Deputy Leader of Patriotic Alternative and owner of Grandma Towler's tea shop: https://www.grandmatowlers.co.uk/ Write a letter to Sam: https://www.patrioticalternative.org.uk/a_plan_for_sam 🤍

t.me

I know that Mowl hates to click on my links so I'll copy paste the text and reply to it (in my own words)..

So the BBC just put out a radio show about "The Great Replacement Theory" (I really hate that phrase), with the intention of proving it isn't happening.

Now by "it", I think it's very fair to assume that he (the nationalist) means replacement.

In their show, they played Mark's demo speech, read out numerous statements by Mark, read out the census figures and got an expert on who said we're becoming more diverse and less ethnically British, but it's still somehow a "theory".

So this nationalist is left scratching his head thinking to himself - How can they call it a "theory", when 5 minutes later they admit that it's real, it's happening. It's like saying 2+2=4 is a "theory".

Now, dear reader, dear, dear reader, surely you know what's coming next.. the "theory" in "replacement theory" refers to a..CONSPIRACY theory.

Replacement theory is a conspiracy theory and replacement is an empirical, observable fact - that even the 'Left' don't deny.

And the dumbest kid in class ( roc_abilly), no matter how many times and in different ways he's been told, simply can't grasp this

Is it just me or have our enemies been particularly thick this week?

Sadly, it's you (the nationalist) who's being quite thick.

 

[roc_abilly]

This post that I just saw on Telegram is a perfect example of what I'm talking about from the nationalist perspective

You mean English nationalism. (Or rather, when these neanderthals from "Patriotic Alternative" are involved, most people refer to it as English fascism.)

PS Telegram makes you stupid. (even more stupid).

... by "it" I think it's very fair to assume that he (the nationalist) means replacement.

He's not a "nationalist" in any proper sense of the word. He's a racist, a bit like yourself, Jambo.

Also the word I gather he is reaching for is more along lines of "gradually morphing", rather than "replacement".

In their show, they played Mark's demo speech, read out numerous statements by Mark, read out the census figures and got an expert on who said we're becoming more diverse and less ethnically British, but it's still somehow a "theory".

Yes. Let's take the figures for last year in the UK for example.

You had 660,000 or just under 1% of the present population as net inward migration. (Many of whom were white Ukrainians)

Now sure, you also had emigration from the UK - so you might say the arrivals "replaced" the people leaving???

But is it not true that many of those leaving were not of your approved "races", so then how does that fit in with your theory, Jambo? Please explain.

So this nationalist is left scratching his head thinking to himself - How can they call it a "theory", when 5 minutes later they admit that it's real, it's happening. It's like saying 2+2=4 is a "theory".

I think let's use the much more accurate word of "gradually morphing", rather than "replacement".

Now where do we see this "gradual morphing" the most? Acknowledging that any phenomenon we might notice is concentrated in "hotspots".

I suggest we examine the hotspots outside of London (which city goes through the same type of cycles as any great melting pot of a city, that is like a state within a state).

So let us take the UK midlands towns and cities where immigrants concentrate (including our own Irish emigrants, historically, of course).

Now Jambo - what were these towns like 60 years ago when Enoch Powell first began talking about this "gradual morphing" (or what you term "replacement") of your theory?

Or for illustration let's go right back to the very beginning of your theory, even before Powell. It was the infamous German pamphlet written in 1934 "Are the White Nations Dying" that really was the birth of your theory. - And hey presto in 1937 we actually have a really really good first hand sociological record of the bleak living conditions among the working class in these towns in the industrial north of England.

The Road to Wigan Pier: George Orwell (Penguin Modern Classics): Amazon.co.uk: Orwell, George, Davison, Peter, Hoggart, Richard: 9780141185293: Books

Buy The Road to Wigan Pier: George Orwell (Penguin Modern Classics) 1 by Orwell, George, Davison, Peter, Hoggart, Richard (ISBN: 9780141185293) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

www.amazon.co.uk

Are not these the exact spots that Collett is most concerned about?

So, in the timeframe of this theory, Jambo, 1934-present, how did these spots "gradually morph"?

Or using your theory's special terminology, we were able to observe replacement of what, Jambo? Replacement by what?

And if we acknowledge "race" as something worth thinking about, Jambo, are there the same number of white skinned people in these towns now as in 1937? Or were some of them removed and to use the theoretical terminology "replaced" by black skinned people?

Or even has "white culture" gradually morphed? But what was that former culture, Jambo? You ever read Orwell's book about it? And are you saying we should characterise what that culture has evolved into today as "black culture"?

You see Jambo, before you do your addition of 2+2, you need to lay out your sum adequately. But you don't seem any way capable of that.

 

[roc_abilly]

And yes, I still have the chess thing in mind, I may do a dedicated thread on it in due course.

Because I am convinced there is a connection. I have a theory that there is something in the psychology of someone who is inclined to play chess that makes them more susceptible to belief in ideas like white supremacism.

I am currently studying the problem, reading the work of Binet and others, and I will revert in due course.

But here are some choice tidbits from my investigations to keep readers on the edge of their seats:

"... It has been estimated that chess experts have between 10,000 and 100,000 chunks stored in their memories … These constellations are connected with common moves and plans which are responsible for successful chess playing..."

Comment: Yes, Jambo is not capable of independent thought, it is exactly like he memorises all these Telegram videos in chunks in his memory, and his picture of the world derives solely from those.

"... In order to acquire such a large number of chess position patterns, prolonged training is a necessity for every chess expert... it turns out to come down to the amount of (focused) practice and the years of experience..."

Comment: Yes, Jambo has been memorising these chunks on Youtube and Telegram for years and years, much more so than anyone else I can think of. This is a part of it.

"... all of them took part in a chess club in their schools at least once a week..."

Comment: Yes, like how Jambo was a member of the Pish club and the Arsefields club, and branching out then into his own "A-team" club" after that.

"... When an elite subsample of 23 children was tested, it turned out that intelligence was not a significant factor in chess skill, and that, if anything, it tended to correlate negatively with chess skill..."

Comment: Yes, just as we all could easily observe, Jambo is of course thick as shit, he just has a certain brain psychology and training since childhood that raises him above the level that most people play chess at.

 

[Mowl]

Question: considering the fact that, historically, the United Kingdom/Great Britain/England has had a presence of black-skinned people from the various colonies they colonized over the decades/centuries. This quotient of black skinned people were constantly undermined and intimidated by a culture which allowed for say Alf Garnet, Les Dawson, Jim Davidson to poke fun at them while at the same time socially excluding them as third class citizens. Unemployment was rife, social housing and overcrowding were the order of the day. Many were homeless and ravaged by drink and drugs. So they did what they had to do to survive in a mother country that despised them and would prefer them to bugger off back to wherever they came from. After all, Tommy Robinson didn't exactly invite them in, now did he?

So let's keep it simple: let's limit the suggested period of incoming black-skinned citizens to say 1960 through to today?

Seventy years of relatively recent British history.

So, for all the incoming hordes from Jamaica, Africa, Pakistan, India, and even Ireland - how did their arrival and presence affect the balance of your replacement theory? These are British citizens by law even if not by culture or language. The Irish certainly weren't - we were lower than mongrel mutts to the no black, no dogs, no Irish bed and breakfast hotels. The building sites were the go-to career option, a lifetime of knuckles to the marrow.

Now let's compare the British horde of black skinned people (your interests in replacement theory via telegram posts from three English bloggers - non are Irish, right?) in England to the same period (1960 through to today) with that of Ireland. In my childhood there was one dark skinned boy in my class, he was the only one in the entire school, in fact. Back then one didn't see black people on the streets of Dublin, and when one did, one stared. One was curious, one noted that there weren't too many of them around. The kid in my class was severely abused in a number of ways so I (and one or two others) looked out for him. He remained the only dark skinned person I knew until I met (let's call him John from Tullmore, an adopted man (also in the music business but not a player as such) and at that time we often noted how people stared at him, and that was in the 1980s.

Ireland today has a rather much larger quotient of black skinned people from all over the world.

One notices immediately the imbalance between the British model and the Irish model. The English have had a legal population of darker skinned people since much earlier in their recent history than Ireland has had with its own. So if we now take the period say through 2000/2023 to today, and then factor in the published English telegrams that inform you about your replacement theory, where's the balance, the evidence, that supports your theory regarding Ireland and her people being 'replaced' by dark skinned people (deftly moved in by de Jews) to undermine your culture and replace you?

Phil Lynott, born in England - his Father was African and his mother Irish.

What's he to you? Or to your theory?

Is the rate of replacement in Ireland the same as that of England?

England's had a lot of them for a long time, and they've bred, expanded their familial base, have experienced huge exponential growth rates right across the country. Their prime minister's name is Sunak. Indian by origin. Darker skinned politicians are common in Westminster. And apart from Varadkar, not so much in Leinster House. That said, the working class estates are bursting at the seams with them. White skinned Irish people (and British) are often afraid to enter certain districts (true even for southern Sweden) for fear of reprisal.

Was there a shared/common starting point for the suggested replacement theory that's more recent - in your view?

Is it gradual across say the last seventy years or did it all start at somewhere more recent we/you can pinpoint?

Finally, ever shagged a darker skinned lady?

 

[Electricity]

And yes, I still have the chess thing in mind, I may do a dedicated thread on it in due course.

Because I am convinced there is a connection. I have a theory that there is something in the psychology of someone who is inclined to play chess that makes them more susceptible to belief in ideas like white supremacism.

I am currently studying the problem, reading the work of Binet and others, and I will revert in due course.

But here are some choice tidbits from my investigations to keep readers on the edge of their seats:

"... It has been estimated that chess experts have between 10,000 and 100,000 chunks stored in their memories … These constellations are connected with common moves and plans which are responsible for successful chess playing..."

Comment: Yes, Jambo is not capable of independent thought, it is exactly like he memorises all these Telegram videos in chunks in his memory, and his picture of the world derives solely from those.

"... In order to acquire such a large number of chess position patterns, prolonged training is a necessity for every chess expert... it turns out to come down to the amount of (focused) practice and the years of experience..."

Comment: Yes, Jambo has been memorising these chunks on Youtube and Telegram for years and years, much more so than anyone else I can think of. This is a part of it.

"... all of them took part in a chess club in their schools at least once a week..."

Comment: Yes, like how Jambo was a member of the Pish club and the Arsefields club, and branching out then into his own "A-team" club" after that.

"... When an elite subsample of 23 children was tested, it turned out that intelligence was not a significant factor in chess skill, and that, if anything, it tended to correlate negatively with chess skill..."

Comment: Yes, just as we all could easily observe, Jambo is of course thick as shit, he just has a certain brain psychology and training since childhood that raises him above the level that most people play chess at.

Are you going to say what your move is? -

Post in thread 'The Great Replacement "Theory" (reprise)' https://islepoli.com/threads/the-great-replacement-theory-reprise.60/post-2846

Or are you going to give up any pretence of knowing how to move the pieces?

 

[Electricity]

Question: considering the fact that, historically, the United Kingdom/Great Britain/England has had a presence of black-skinned people from the various colonies they colonized over the decades/centuries. This quotient of black skinned people were constantly undermined and intimidated by a culture which allowed for say Alf Garnet, Les Dawson, Jim Davidson to poke fun at them while at the same time socially excluding them as third class citizens. Unemployment was rife, social housing and overcrowding were the order of the day. Many were homeless and ravaged by drink and drugs. So they did what they had to do to survive in a mother country that despised them and would prefer them to bugger off back to wherever they came from. After all, Tommy Robinson didn't exactly invite them in, now did he?

So let's keep it simple: let's limit the suggested period of incoming black-skinned citizens to say 1960 through to today?

Seventy years of relatively recent British history.

So, for all the incoming hordes from Jamaica, Africa, Pakistan, India, and even Ireland - how did their arrival and presence affect the balance of your replacement theory? These are British citizens by law even if not by culture or language. The Irish certainly weren't - we were lower than mongrel mutts to the no black, no dogs, no Irish bed and breakfast hotels. The building sites were the go-to career option, a lifetime of knuckles to the marrow.

Now let's compare the British horde of black skinned people (your interests in replacement theory via telegram posts from three English bloggers - non are Irish, right?) in England to the same period (1960 through to today) with that of Ireland. In my childhood there was one dark skinned boy in my class, he was the only one in the entire school, in fact. Back then one didn't see black people on the streets of Dublin, and when one did, one stared. One was curious, one noted that there weren't too many of them around. The kid in my class was severely abused in a number of ways so I (and one or two others) looked out for him. He remained the only dark skinned person I knew until I met (let's call him John from Tullmore, an adopted man (also in the music business but not a player as such) and at that time we often noted how people stared at him, and that was in the 1980s.

Ireland today has a rather much larger quotient of black skinned people from all over the world.

One notices immediately the imbalance between the British model and the Irish model. The English have had a legal population of darker skinned people since much earlier in their recent history than Ireland has had with its own. So if we now take the period say through 2000/2023 to today, and then factor in the published English telegrams that inform you about your replacement theory, where's the balance, the evidence, that supports your theory regarding Ireland and her people being 'replaced' by dark skinned people (deftly moved in by de Jews) to undermine your culture and replace you?

Phil Lynott, born in England - his Father was African and his mother Irish.

What's he to you? Or to your theory?

Is the rate of replacement in Ireland the same as that of England?

England's had a lot of them for a long time, and they've bred, expanded their familial base, have experienced huge exponential growth rates right across the country. Their prime minister's name is Sunak. Indian by origin. Darker skinned politicians are common in Westminster. And apart from Varadkar, not so much in Leinster House. That said, the working class estates are bursting at the seams with them. White skinned Irish people (and British) are often afraid to enter certain districts (true even for southern Sweden) for fear of reprisal.

Was there a shared/common starting point for the suggested replacement theory that's more recent - in your view?

Is it gradual across say the last seventy years or did it all start at somewhere more recent we/you can pinpoint?

Finally, ever shagged a darker skinned lady?

I'm finding it hard to find a coherent question in your post.

I remember when I was first in London as a kid noticing all the "black-skinned" people, we didn't have them in Ireland (although like you, one of my childhood friends was black (adopted)) and yes, black immigration to the UK began after the war, this is commonly known as the Windrush generation -

Who were the Windrush generation and what is Windrush Day?

HMT Empire Windrush docked in Essex in 1948, carrying passengers from the Caribbean to the UK.

www.bbc.co.uk

Black immigration to Ireland is something associated more with this century, and?

 

[Electricity]

You mean English nationalism. (Or rather, when these neanderthals from "Patriotic Alternative" are involved, most people refer to it as English fascism.)

PS Telegram makes you stupid. (even more stupid).


He's not a "nationalist" in any proper sense of the word. He's a racist, a bit like yourself, Jambo.

Also the word I gather he is reaching for is more along lines of "gradually morphing", rather than "replacement".


Yes. Let's take the figures for last year in the UK for example.

You had 660,000 or just under 1% of the present population as net inward migration. (Many of whom were white Ukrainians)

Now sure, you also had emigration from the UK - so you might say the arrivals "replaced" the people leaving???

But is it not true that many of those leaving were not of your approved "races", so then how does that fit in with your theory, Jambo? Please explain.


I think let's use the much more accurate word of "gradually morphing", rather than "replacement".

Now where do we see this "gradual morphing" the most? Acknowledging that any phenomenon we might notice is concentrated in "hotspots".

I suggest we examine the hotspots outside of London (which city goes through the same type of cycles as any great melting pot of a city, that is like a state within a state).

So let us take the UK midlands towns and cities where immigrants concentrate (including our own Irish emigrants, historically, of course).

Now Jambo - what were these towns like 60 years ago when Enoch Powell first began talking about this "gradual morphing" (or what you term "replacement") of your theory?

Or for illustration let's go right back to the very beginning of your theory, even before Powell. It was the infamous German pamphlet written in 1934 "Are the White Nations Dying" that really was the birth of your theory. - And hey presto in 1937 we actually have a really really good first hand sociological record of the bleak living conditions among the working class in these towns in the industrial north of England.

The Road to Wigan Pier: George Orwell (Penguin Modern Classics): Amazon.co.uk: Orwell, George, Davison, Peter, Hoggart, Richard: 9780141185293: Books

Buy The Road to Wigan Pier: George Orwell (Penguin Modern Classics) 1 by Orwell, George, Davison, Peter, Hoggart, Richard (ISBN: 9780141185293) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

www.amazon.co.uk

Are not these the exact spots that Collett is most concerned about?

So, in the timeframe of this theory, Jambo, 1934-present, how did these spots "gradually morph"?

Or using your theory's special terminology, we were able to observe replacement of what, Jambo? Replacement by what?

And if we acknowledge "race" as something worth thinking about, Jambo, are there the same number of white skinned people in these towns now as in 1937? Or were some of them removed and to use the theoretical terminology "replaced" by black skinned people?

Or even has "white culture" gradually morphed? But what was that former culture, Jambo? You ever read Orwell's book about it? And are you saying we should characterise what that culture has evolved into today as "black culture"?

You see Jambo, before you do your addition of 2+2, you need to lay out your sum adequately. But you don't seem any way capable of that.

I'm not particularly adept at replying to the convolution of a mental retard however I will say this. Replacement is really quite straightforward, in fact, it could probably be summed up with a few words from the Telegram post that I posted by Laura (who's a nationalist) -

Becoming more diverse and less ethnically British

The (shorthand) term 'replacement' is probably popularised by the French author who wrote the book and the UN term - Replacement migration, a strategy to address Europe's indigenous population decline with migration from outside of Europe.

As for replacement by other Europeans, which is largely how it began here, I'm against that too. But I have an ability to hold more than one thought in my head at the same time, have you ever read my 64,000$ question?

 

[roc_abilly]

Again, you fail to grasp the mettle, Jambo.

Both Mowl and I put the essentially same thing to you really. - Explain the theory in your own words. Resolve the conundrums and ambiguities presented. Tell us what you're really on about, what matters to you.

I.e. Bring what you’re trying to say from a slogan to something that anyone can understand without having to stupidly refer to the stereotypes (patterns/chunks).

the French author who wrote the book

A literary work by a pioneering writer of gay literature sensationally titled “the Great Replacement”.

It’s a tabloid headline, it means nothing.

Well sure, you read the book and the book relates a story about Europe’s white majority being ultimately "replaced" with black Muslims in collusion with a left-wing, globalist elite.

So you refer to the title to refer to that idea.

But you have explicitlty said that the conspiracist element, the collusion of a left-wing, globalist elite, is not an element of your own idea. Also a literary telling encompassing a fulfilled "Great Replacement" is not the same as real life. Therefore the reference fails.

the UN term - Replacement migration

Similarly here we have something that is completely different to what you’re talking about.

This was a study undertaken by some obscure office of the UN back in 2000 to investigate possible solutions to the problem of aging populations. The study talked about adjusting retirement age, adjusting retirement benefits, adjusting contributions, as well as the suggestion of (actually) replacing the retiring workers with young workers that migration might facilitate.

"... One of the major consequences of population ageing is the reduction in the ratio between the population in working-age group 15-64 years and the population 65 years or older, or the potential support ratio (PSR). Everything else being equal, a lower potential support ratio means that it is much more onerous for the working-age population to support the needs of the older retired population...

... The consequences of significant population decline and population ageing are not well understood as they are new demographic experiences for countries. Keeping retirement and health-care systems for older persons solvent in the face of declining and ageing populations, for example, constitutes a new situation that poses serious challenges for Governments and civil society. Finally, the new challenges being brought about by declining and ageing populations will require objective, thorough and comprehensive reassessments of many established economic, social and political policies and programmes. Such reassessments will need to incorporate a long-term perspective.

Critical issues to be addressed in those reassessments would include (a) appropriate ages for retirement; (b) levels, types and nature of retirement and health-care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour-force participation; (d) assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers needed to support retirement and healthcare benefits for the increasing elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration, in particular replacement migration, and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants..."

Apparently they decided to title their report around their last point, to draw attention to the report - twenty three years ago they did not realise that their study title would be pounced upon by the modern “far right” seeking added sensation for their slogans and stereotypes.

Point being their use of the term replacement was tangible, replacing retiring workers with young workers. I.e. Workers retire. They need to be replaced.

Becoming more diverse and less ethnically British Proto-Indo-European (ftfy, I assume this is what you mean, as British citizens are made up of people of many skin colours)

So here at last you are describing something in your own words*.

Why don’t you build on that, and stop citing slogans and catch-cries, expecting us to just “know what you mean” like the crawling cretins on your old A-team.

For example tell us about how long this period of “becoming” is - when did it start, when does it end? Where is it located in time and space? What are the characteristics of the communities this process of change are occurring in, how does it harm those communities, what do they lose etc?


You know Jambo, if you ever step out into the real world, actually get political, it won’t be the likes of Saul who you’ll be making appeal to, who are stupid enough to listen blindly to your catch phrases and dumbly intuit that they aren’t meant to think, rather that they are expected to react emotionally to the word “replacement", in the name of that emotional reaction shutting down normal thinking rationality.


* Sorry my mistake, re-reading you took someone else's words again. I give up.

 

[Electricity]

Again, you fail to grasp the mettle, Jambo.

I grasp the mettle [sic] that you're an idiot (as well as religiously anti-white)

Both Mowl and I put the essentially same thing to you really

lol Did you two geniuses have a brainstorming session beforehand?

- Explain the theory in your own words.

What theory?

Resolve the conundrums and ambiguities presented.

There aren't any

Tell us what you're really on about, what matters to you.

I'm against replacement. I want for my country (and other European and European descended countries) what you want for Israel

I.e. Bring what you’re trying to say from a slogan to something that anyone can understand without having to stupidly refer to the stereotypes (patterns/chunks).

A literary work by a pioneering writer of gay literature sensationally titled “the Great Replacement”.

It’s a tabloid headline, it means nothing.

Well sure, you read the book and the book relates a story about Europe’s white majority being ultimately "replaced" with black Muslims in collusion with a left-wing, globalist elite.

So you refer to the title to refer to that idea.

But you have explicitlty said that the conspiracist element, the collusion of a left-wing, globalist elite, is not an element of your own idea.

Also a literary telling encompassing a fulfilled "Great Replacement" is not the same as real life. Therefore the reference fails.


Similarly here we have something that is completely different to what you’re talking about.

This was a study undertaken by some obscure office of the UN back in 2000 to investigate possible solutions to the problem of aging populations. The study talked about adjusting retirement age, adjusting retirement benefits, adjusting contributions, as well as the suggestion of (actually) replacing the retiring workers with young workers that migration might facilitate.

Oh shut up, you fucking weasel.

Replacement migration is a way to tackle countries with declining and aging populations (essentially countries with below replacement level fertility) with migration, duh fucking duh

Apparently they decided to title their report around their last point, to draw attention to the report - twenty three years ago they did not realise that their study title would be pounced upon by the modern “far right” seeking added sensation for their slogans and stereotypes.

Point being their use of the term replacement was tangible, replacing retiring workers with young workers. I.e. Workers retire. They need to be replaced.

Maggot

So here at last you are describing something in your own words*.

Why don’t you build on that, and stop citing slogans and catch-cries, expecting us to just “know what you mean” like the crawling cretins on your old A-team.

For example tell us about how long this period of “becoming” is - when did it start, when does it end? Where is it located in time and space? What are the characteristics of the communities this process of change are occurring in, how does it harm those communities, what do they lose etc?


You know Jambo, if you ever step out into the real world, actually get political, it won’t be the likes of Saul who you’ll be making appeal to, who are stupid enough to listen blindly to your catch phrases and dumbly intuit that they aren’t meant to think, rather that they are expected to react emotionally to the word “replacement", in the name of that emotional reaction shutting down normal thinking rationality.


* Sorry my mistake, re-reading you took someone else's words again. I give up.

 

[Mowl]

Conclusion?

Jambo's a plaything/fan of a few half-baked right-wing conspiratorial nobodies/loons over on Telegram, wants to be just like them, so he quotes anything and everything they say and then dumps onto one or more threads on here in an effort to appear 'cool' and 'down with the kids' on Telegram.

Jambo isn't political in any shape or form - he's a like barnacle stuck to a rock at the lips of the sewage treatment plant that pours into Dublin Bay.

His last great political outing was likely to some dank right wing den of iniquity where he got to flash his little willy at his heroes.

Any person can ruminate over the minutiae if they're so inclined, but Jambo's made a career/lifestyle out of it.

Must be crap only being able to see the world through one shitty perspective - then doing precisely fuck all about it.

 

[Electricity]

Again, you fail to grasp the mettle, Jambo.

Both Mowl and I put the essentially same thing to you really. - Explain the theory in your own words. Resolve the conundrums and ambiguities presented. Tell us what you're really on about, what matters to you.

I.e. Bring what you’re trying to say from a slogan to something that anyone can understand without having to stupidly refer to the stereotypes (patterns/chunks).


A literary work by a pioneering writer of gay literature sensationally titled “the Great Replacement”.

It’s a tabloid headline, it means nothing.

Well sure, you read the book and the book relates a story about Europe’s white majority being ultimately "replaced" with black Muslims in collusion with a left-wing, globalist elite.

So you refer to the title to refer to that idea.

But you have explicitlty said that the conspiracist element, the collusion of a left-wing, globalist elite, is not an element of your own idea. Also a literary telling encompassing a fulfilled "Great Replacement" is not the same as real life. Therefore the reference fails.


Similarly here we have something that is completely different to what you’re talking about.

This was a study undertaken by some obscure office of the UN back in 2000 to investigate possible solutions to the problem of aging populations. The study talked about adjusting retirement age, adjusting retirement benefits, adjusting contributions, as well as the suggestion of (actually) replacing the retiring workers with young workers that migration might facilitate.



Apparently they decided to title their report around their last point, to draw attention to the report - twenty three years ago they did not realise that their study title would be pounced upon by the modern “far right” seeking added sensation for their slogans and stereotypes.

Point being their use of the term replacement was tangible, replacing retiring workers with young workers. I.e. Workers retire. They need to be replaced.


So here at last you are describing something in your own words*.

Why don’t you build on that, and stop citing slogans and catch-cries, expecting us to just “know what you mean” like the crawling cretins on your old A-team.

For example tell us about how long this period of “becoming” is - when did it start, when does it end? Where is it located in time and space? What are the characteristics of the communities this process of change are occurring in, how does it harm those communities, what do they lose etc?


You know Jambo, if you ever step out into the real world, actually get political, it won’t be the likes of Saul who you’ll be making appeal to, who are stupid enough to listen blindly to your catch phrases and dumbly intuit that they aren’t meant to think, rather that they are expected to react emotionally to the word “replacement", in the name of that emotional reaction shutting down normal thinking rationality.

* Sorry my mistake, re-reading you took someone else's words again. I give up.

It's hardly as if I was keeping it a secret Then again, you probably barely read my posts (and hardly ever for comprehension) before you get on your dunce soapbox.

I see that you did a "ftfy" on it.

A British citizen and a British person are not the same thing, or, that's civic "nationalism" (poor Mowl doesn't have a clue what that is, he thinks it's something to do with civility ).

And that, civic "nationalism" (after decades of gaslighting) pervades in the West along with the demonisation of ethno-nationalism. But to a large extent in the rest of the world, ethno-nationalism is the norm. And I think even white western civic "nationalists" have some residual instinctiveness for that.

Consider this infographic -

 

[Electricity]

A) Are you going to say what your move is? -

Post in thread 'The Great Replacement "Theory" (reprise)' https://islepoli.com/threads/the-great-replacement-theory-reprise.60/post-2846

B) Or are you going to give up any pretence of knowing how to move the pieces?

So I'll take that as B).

Please bear in mind when roc_abilly is babbling about chess, belittling it really (as well as trying to link it to "white supremacy" ) he/she literally doesn't know how to move the pieces.

And I even told him/her what the move is (or did I ).

Anyway, as promised, here's the video -

 

[roc_abilly]

... I want for my country (and other European and European descended countries) what you want for Israel...

The stock Stormfront riposte.

I don't want anything for Israel, apart from an acknowledgement of the facts by Irish antisemites who masquerade under anti-zionism.

(Actually to be honest I probably don't really give a fuck if they acknowledge them or not, I just want to see them dance, pretend they don't understand, double down on their illogic, see how far they'll go with their stupidity in the name of whatever has got a hold of them, a bit like yourself, Jambo...)

Facts like the Jews are not gratuitously and malevolently slaying innocent Palestinians in some sort of vacuum, like they just woke up one morning and decided to get an army and all military like with them for no reason.

Facts like much of the Arab leadership clearly see Israel as an "Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day", and therefore explicitly as strategy and tactic in this war to take the land from the Jews hold the 1948 refugees hostage.

“In demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees the Arabs mean their return as masters, not slaves, or to put it more clearly – the intention is the extermination of Israel.” - Salah al-Din, Egyptian Foreign Minister

“If the refugees return to Israel – Israel will cease to exist.” - Gamal Abdel Nasser

“The day on which the Arab hope for the return of the refugees to Palestine is realized will be the day of Israel’s extermination.” - Abdallah al-Yafi, Lebanese Prime Minister etc.

But you seem to be saying here that the same thing is happening in Ireland? (Or, actually you seem to be more interested in the UK as a "nationalist").

Well you must know the Muslim population in Ireland is only 1.62%. (In the UK it's 6.5%).

So, what, just like the Arabs are trying to do in Israel, you think the Muslims are going to get to 51% in Ireland in the UK and make the country Islamic?

Gtfo. There's no comparison you fucking halfwit. You're just sloganeering again like the sub imbecile you are.

And that's not even accounting for the fact that many of the Muslims arriving in the West are in fact running away from the authoritarian, repressive, totalitarian, woman hating, anti democratic, violent, sectarian shit baggery they previously lived under.

But you're doing a Breivik again, and saying we're under threat from a 51% Muslim majority "invasion"?

You're painfully fucked up in the head you total peasant minded sub imbecile conspiracy parrot. Get a fucking life, fuck off, and get fucked, you fucking mindless parrot you.