Will you condemn “Great Replacement Theory”?

[metis]

Hitler was a leftist, after all.

No, he was not as fascism is right wing, not left. He and his fellow NAZI's used "socialist" in the title of the party as a smokescreen, which is also what both Mussolini and Franco did as well.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-izəm) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism,[1] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy[2] that rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[3][4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries.[3] Opposed to anarchism, democracy, liberalism, and Marxism,[5] fascism is placed on the far-right wing within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][6] -- Fascism - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Jean Renaud Gabriel Camus (born 10 August 1946) is a French novelist, conspiracy theorist, and white nationalist writer."
- Renaud Camus - Wikipedia

Admittedly this is from Wikipedia. Feel free to quote your own source identifying Camus as a goat shagging, eco-friendly, communist jailed for paedophilia.

Well, he is gay, so he is left. Easy.

 

[Nakosis]

Buffalo shooting puts spotlight on GOP and Great Replacement Theory

It is time now for everyone to clearly and publicly denounce this dangerous rhetoric. Some of you may feel this is obvious and should “go without saying”, but the time for that is over. Some may not understand, it is time to get educated. Some of you might just want to be obstinate because you think this is “political”, the time for that nonsense is over.

Please vote in the poll.

I'm more of a mind to condemn action vs thought.
I suppose I could as easily be asked to condemn communism or Islam or Christianity or any number of ideologies which have been connected to violence.
I prefer to think humans still have some free agency and can choose not to kill. To choose a non-violent path.

 

[George-ananda]

I had to vote 'other' as the replacement theory has unemotional statistical validity to back it up. And the OP should have defined the Great Replacement Theory.

From Wikipedia:

The original theory states that, with the complicity or cooperation of "replacist" elites,[a][4][7] the ethnic French population and white European populations at large are being demographically and culturally replaced with non-European peoples—specifically Arab, Berber, Turkish and sub-Saharan Muslim populations—through mass migration, demographic growth and a drop in the birth rate of white Europeans.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

From the Nazi Platform:

That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press.


In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

Then why were they engaged in combat against LWers like communists and anarchists? Why were LWers not exempt from their prejudice and hatred?
The Nazis were Right Wing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then why were they engaged in combat against LWers like communists and anarchists? Why were LWers not exempt from their prejudice and hatred?
The Nazis were Right Wing.

That is not a good argument. There are cases of anarchists fighting communists.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I had to vote 'other' as the replacement theory has unemotional statistical validity to back it up. And the OP should have defined the Great Replacement Theory.

It's entirely emotional as it attempts to explain the natural changes and mix-n-match of cultural exchanges that have always happened as being driven by some nefarious force with the goal of eradicating Anglo-Saxon culture.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is not a good argument. There are cases of anarchists fighting communists.

Anarchists and communists aren't always LWers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's entirely emotional as it attempts to explain the natural changes and mix-n-match of cultural exchanges that have always happened as being driven by some nefarious force with the goal of eradicating Anglo-Saxon culture.

Well, theory was originally French, so it has been culturally expropriated by the Anglo-Saxon culture.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Anarchists and communists aren't always LWers.

You have a point about Communists.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Buffalo shooting puts spotlight on GOP and Great Replacement Theory

It is time now for everyone to clearly and publicly denounce this dangerous rhetoric. Some of you may feel this is obvious and should “go without saying”, but the time for that is over. Some may not understand, it is time to get educated. Some of you might just want to be obstinate because you think this is “political”, the time for that nonsense is over.

Please vote in the poll.

I think replacement theory is misguided at best.

I am against however, choosing one race over another in a preferential way that is only based on race.

 

[George-ananda]

It's entirely emotional as it attempts to explain the natural changes and mix-n-match of cultural exchanges that have always happened as being driven by some nefarious force with the goal of eradicating Anglo-Saxon culture.

Well the guy that created the theory was a French guy.

I see this more as a resistance to those that don't think it important to preserve traditional French people and French culture in France and would without concern allow it to be gradually overwhelmed by foreign peoples and cultures. I can see some valid concern in preserving one's culture in its homeland.

Such feelings can be a valid consideration in creating a nation's immigration policy.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Being upset that someone moves to your neighbourhood is bigotry, yet one may legitimately be unhappy with 80% of their neighbourhood becoming 1st/2nd generation immigrant without being a bigot.

Wouldn't you agree?

Why wouldn't that be bigotry? It's aversion to a particular group. The aversion may be based on legitimate changes in the community culture, but it's still unhappiness with a specific culture.

 

[Bathos Logos]

For example, is someone says "excessive immigration may lead to a fundamental change in the character of a nation and a lack of social cohesion and is thus not desirable", is that 'GRT'?

Unfortunately for this sentiment to exist at all, someone must necessarily be choosing a "correct" character for a nation to have. Is there such a thing, in your estimation? A "lack of social cohesion" is also a suspect phrase. It implies that things will be breaking apart or going awry... but what is the end goal? "Cohesion?" What does that mean? That everyone is working together, or that everyone subscribes to fostering the "correct" character of the nation?

What makes something GRT rather than a good-faith and non-racist political preference?

I suppose in an ideal world, people would just be people, we'd all treat one another as such, and borders would be irrelevant. It seems then, that possibly "culture" and "national character" are things that would actually push us further from such an ideal - among other things, of course. Religious requisites, activities of a criminal element, racial stereotyping and propaganda, etc. In the end, I, personally, don't view "culture" or "national character" as being important enough to tolerate the division of human-to-human interaction that they bring with them. More than I would view criminal activities as being "important enough" (what a funny idea) to tolerate given the division they cause, but not so much more that such things become so much more worth it in the end.

 

[Augustus]

Why wouldn't that be bigotry? It's aversion to a particular group. The aversion may be based on legitimate changes in the community culture, but it's still unhappiness with a specific culture.

Would you say that, for example, people in Bali or other "tropical paradise" islands who are fed up with western expats and tourists damaging their culture and showing little regard for their cultural preferences are simply churlish bigots?

Is having a preference for your neighbours to be able to speak the same language as you or your children go to a school where most people can speak that language fluently "bigoted"?

Or are these reasonable preferences that are completely rational.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Unfortunately for this sentiment to exist at all, someone must necessarily be choosing a "correct" character for a nation to have. Is there such a thing, in your estimation? A "lack of social cohesion" is also a suspect phrase. It implies that things will be breaking apart or going awry... but what is the end goal? "Cohesion?" What does that mean? That everyone is working together, or that everyone subscribes to fostering the "correct" character of the nation?

I suppose in an ideal world, people would just be people, we'd all treat one another as such, and borders would be irrelevant. It seems then, that possibly "culture" and "national character" are things that would actually push us further from such an ideal - among other things, of course. Religious requisites, activities of a criminal element, racial stereotyping and propaganda, etc. In the end, I, personally, don't view "culture" or "national character" as being important enough to tolerate the division of human-to-human interaction that they bring with them. More than I would view criminal activities as being "important enough" (what a funny idea) to tolerate given the division they cause, but not so much more that such things become so much more worth it in the end.

As an American, I feel like fear of cultural diversity is a rather odd stance, considering our culture is already an amalgam of various cultures.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Would you say that, for example, people in Bali or other "tropical paradise" islands who are fed up with western expats and tourists damaging their culture and showing little regard for their cultural preferences are simply churlish bigots?

Is having a preference for your neighbours to be able to speak the same language as you or your children go to a school where most people can speak that language fluently "bigoted"?

No, not "churlish" bigots, and yes.

The first is justified, the second isn't. The first is imperialism, the second is the experience of a culture that was diverse to begin with. Consider that I am speaking from an American perspective.

 

[Bathos Logos]

As an American, I feel like fear of cultural diversity is a rather odd stance, considering our culture is already an amalgam of various cultures.

Yes, "protecting" your own culture doesn't really seem necessary in an environment where everyone is free to do as they please culturally! Which is why a call to "protect" one's culture always seems to me more like a euphemism for something more sinister. Very possibly the desire to out some other group, wholesale, as being undesirable, and very likely without valid, demonstrable basis.

 

[Augustus]

Unfortunately for this sentiment to exist at all, someone must necessarily be choosing a "correct" character for a nation to have. Is there such a thing, in your estimation? A "lack of social cohesion" is also a suspect phrase. It implies that things will be breaking apart or going awry... but what is the end goal? "Cohesion?" What does that mean? That everyone is working together, or that everyone subscribes to fostering the "correct" character of the nation?

Of course you can have preferences for culture. Literally every human in the world has such preferences.

Would you be equally happy to live in Afghanistan where girls can get shot for going to school and women have to marry rapists compared to Switzerland?

And some degree of cohesion is needed if you want healthy communities with support for a strong welfare state where people are willing to make sacrifices for the greater good.

I suppose in an ideal world, people would just be people, we'd all treat one another as such, and borders would be irrelevant. I

Unfortunately we have to deal with the reality of human cognition.

Our identities as much rely on who we define ourselves against as they do on who we define ourselves as.

The idea we can live as one global happy family is a pipe dream and that it is desirable is a very culturally supremacist byproduct of (secularised) monotheism.

The goal should be how to live peacefully in a world where we dislike many of the inhabitants.

Fear of being ruled by those we dislike is a major cause of strife (see US party politics, but there are many worse examples from history).

No sense in pretending otherwise.

 

[Augustus]

No, not "churlish" bigots, and yes.

The first is justified, the second isn't. The first is imperialism, the second is the experience of a culture that was diverse to begin with. Consider that I am speaking from an American perspective.

Using Bali as an example:

How is a sovereign, democratic, independent nation making decisions (at national, regional and local levels) regarding its own economy "imperialism"? Indonesia has been independent 80 years, and Bali a mass tourist destination only for less than half of that time.

Good grief that's condescending.

But you agree people can object to radical changes in their cultural environment with associated, tangible harms without being bigoted.

Why can't someone in Europe object to radical changes in their cultural environment with associated, tangible harms too?