Here's the "report" titled "REPLACEMENT MIGRATION" on the UN's OWN WEBSITE :
un.org
MSM sources who claim that this is a "conspiracy theory"
duckduckgo.com
This document is from 2001 - it was all planned decades in advance anons.
Now is the time to make normies aware of their Great Replacement. Pic related
Other urls found in this thread:
I agree and don't agree.
Replacement Migration and "UN Agenda 31" are very real.
The point is to migrate people who live in poverty from highly populated to countries into wealthy countries with low birth rates.
It's a method of redistributing wealth, by draining western wealth on refugees and migrants, and reducing the wealth consumption and increasing wages in third world countries.
Is the ultimate goal to replace white people? No.
Do I agree with this plan?
Also no.
Group A has below replacement birthrate.
Group B is brought in to REPLACE them as they die off.
Which group survives?
It's not about wealth redistribution, it's about keeping the financial pyramid scheme afloat by shovelling in new debt at the bottom. They'll do whatever it takes to avoid the inevitable reset, including genocide. And yes, this is genocide by the UN's own definition (see UN Resolution 96 Article 2).
The saddest part is that the system has to collapse at some point because infinite growth forever is impossible. But they'd rather kill off their own culture and native population to buy a few more years of power.
There's also pic related, which is a large part of why the West is at below replacement birthrates. We were told "the world is overpopulated and having kids sucks" for 60 years and the second we stopped breeding they said "Hey, we have to bring in half the 3rd world to replace you because you're not breeding". The whole thing is sick.
I still don't agree.
If our population is naturally declining, the population will decline even if no one is brought in. The issue being addressed is population decline, not population replacement.
If they were killing off whites and bringing in other people to replace them, that would be replacement. If we are killing our own population out due to low birth rates, that is our own fault.
It has nothing to do with "replacing" whites, it has everything to do with redistributing wealth.
>It has nothing to do with "replacing" whites, it has everything to do with redistributing wealth.
Regardless of the motivation the results are the same. Also replacing white people with brown people will not maintain the current system anyway. It will destroy it. Why else do you think acceleration has now become a goal of many?
The UN's own report is called "REPLACEMENT MIGRATION".
>R E P L A C E M E N T
Group A has below replacement birthrate.
Group B is brought in to REPLACE them as they die off.
Which group survives?
>naturally declining
I refer you to the image at and the last 60 years of Western "education" and "media".
Also, why would population decline be a bad thing in an overpoplulated world with dwindling resources and climate change (as the left believes)? Even without those doomsday cult predictions there is no good reason why the population has to perpetually increase except "muh economy / GDP".
If the economy requires PERPETUAL population growth in order to survive then it is, by definition, unsustainable and is therefore guaranteed to eventually collapse.
The answer is to change/reset the system, not to prop it up for a few more years by committing genocide on your own people.
It IS replacement.
Because if it were only about population decline then the solution would be to MAKE more people, not bring more people in.
The people they bring in are easier to rule and easier to turn into consumerist debt slaves because they have both a lower IQ and a greater tolerance for corruption.
They know by now that moving third worlders into a first world country simply turns that first would country into a third world country. And that the wealth just vanishes from all but a few.
The European population and North America population "declined" in WWII and then there was a baby boom.
I agree.
But it's not a plan to replace, it's a plan to redistribute wealth.
I agree
But if Group A has a low birth rate
And no one is brought in to replace
Group A still disappears. Group B has no impact on Group A's birth rates.
It's not 'replacing' people though, it's removing people from third world countries and putting them in first world countries to redistribute wealth.
It has nothing to do with debt slaves or lower IQ or anything like that.
They are increasing the population in western countries by 1/10th or so, and dropping everyone's spending power by a 1/10th to give to them.
That, in theory, moves some people out of poverty and reduces the population stress on third world countries.
The immigrated populations into western countries will also get population drops as well. High birth rates are associated with poverty, so as countries move into better economic conditions, their birth rates will decline.
The world population will peak and decline in our lifetime. Basically, we need to make room for about 9B people total and it'll naturally drop.
cnbc.com
Replacing means replacing, eliminating one person and replacing them with another. If people are just naturally declining, and other people are moving into their place, that's not replacement. The place will just be empty if no one comes in.
>Group B has no impact on Group A's birth rates.
But in this situation they do. Greatly. Because Group A is being forced to pay for Group B despite not being able to afford having their own children.
Also, if Group A were left alone they could maintain their identity and culture regardless of how low their numbers got. They would also maintain the ability to vote in their own interests and steer their own future accordingly. While you may think that this is not directly related to birthrate, I'd argue that the psychological and demoralization factors would have a large impact on birth rates, especially when paired with my earlier point about money. Why would anybody *want* to breed when they can't see a future for their own children or any way to shape that future?
It doesn't matter why the UN says what it does. The point is that the dichotomy between people going around claiming that "the great replacement is a conspiracy theory" and the fact that word "replacement" is used by the UN. The point is to discredit the people who say it is a myth. If the person is smart they will pivot to saying something else, but the point is that if they do need to pivot to saying something us that is an opportunity to debate them on the specifics of the reason for the replacement. Suddenly we have an opportunity to debate AGAINST the replacement with them. For instance by saying that due to automation, a declining population is actually a good thing or something.
The main issue with arguing against the great replacement is that it is that people think you are an evil nazi for even mentioning it or that if it is happening you are a racist for opposing it. Since the UN replacement gives actual reasons as to why the replacement is occurring, suddenly we are free from arguing on the defensive where the migration is considered the defacto position, with the UN document it is putting forth and argument and we can argue against it.
Also add that world population in decline isn't a bad thing.
The problem is poverty in third world countries increases birth rates
Low Birth Rates are a consequence of stable Government and good economic policy.
Moving poor people into Western Countries increases their standard of living (even if they live in poverty in a western country), reduces population stress on a foreign country and can export wealth as well.
This is the real goal.
Declining birth rates are just a natural consequence of a better economy, hence why the population will eventually peak as India and China become stronger economies.
>If people are just naturally declining, and other people are moving into their place, that's not replacement.
You have a pot of salt.
Every time you use 1 gram of salt I replace it with 1 gram of pepper
Will you ultimately have a pot of salt or a pot of pepper?
Will your pot of salt still be a pot of salt? Or will it have been REPLACED with a pot of pepper?
That's not true
Low income = more kids, not the other way around.
People who live in poverty have more children because of their lower life expectancy.
And that is also true, the economic power in western nations will decline and be redistributed, that is the whole point.
It's not a replacement agenda though, population decline in western countries in a good thing.
The goal is ultimately to reduce poverty and population in third world countries as well by redistributing wealth.
The agenda and plan is real, but the stated goal is not.
If you have a pot of salt, and every time you use a gram of salt you don't replace it.
Will you have a pot of salt?
No you'd have a pot of not-salt. You just proved my point.
>Low income = more kids
Then why is Europe at a birthrate of 1.56? By your logic poor white people would have already "solved" the shrinking population "problem". Or is your argument that we have to make Europe into the 3rd world in order to *really* impoverish the natives into breeding mode?
Also, you're ignoring the massive decline in Western fertility rates (pic)
>white replacement isn’t real
Another leftist conspiracy theory that was already debunked years ago.
>No you'd have a pot of not-salt.
Correct.
But the salt is declining, whether you put something else in the pot or not.
The problem isn't the lack of salt, it's the inability to manufacture more salt. You can't replace salt with salt if there is no more salt.
It's not the pots fault that you can't find salt to put in the pot.
>Then why is Europe at a birthrate of 1.56?
Why is European's birthrate low?
Because they are a wealthy nation...?
Shrinking population is only a problem because other nations have a growing population.
The point is to spread the population equally across the globe and spread the wealth with it.
Reduced poverty = reduced population growth = reducing human population globally.
If you are going to argue that White birth rate decline is part of a conspiracy to reduce their population, than THAT would be population replacement. You are intentionally removing one population and replacing it with another.
But that is a conspiracy, that is not what the article from the UN says.
You are also ignoring that western population is in decline, which may include Asians, blacks and east Indians, muslims, etc etc etc..
>But the salt is declining
Yes, we've established that. You still haven't explained why it is suddenly a good idea to add pepper to the pot.
>inability to manufacture more salt
There is no inability to manufacture more salt. Salt producers are easily incentivised. You are simply choosing pepper over salt. Furthermore there is no NEED to manufacture more salt. A reduction in salt is actually supposed to be a GOOD thing.
>It's not the pots fault that you can't find salt to put in the pot.
The pot isn't empty. Not even close. And it no longer tastes like salt because somebody keeps adding pepper. And the more pepper is added, the less the pot remains a salt pot by definition.
>Because they are a wealthy nation
So your answer is to make Europe into the third world?
>Shrinking population is only a problem because other nations have a growing population.
Wrong. I've already explained this. It is because the economy needs perpetual new debt to create the illusion of perpetual new "growth" or the whole thing falls apart. Look up fractional reserve banking. We no longer live in a time when population size == military might or population size == economic might.
>The point is to spread the population equally across the globe and spread the wealth with it.
The population of Africa alone will be ~3 billion within 30 years. Where do you intend to "spread them out" to? Do you think Europe can take an influx of say 2 billion low skilled people? And would Europe still be a pot of salt afterwards? Pic related. Also, isn't it funny how white countries are being "spread" IN to while everyone else "spreads" OUT.
>part of a conspiracy to reduce their population
Conspiracy doesn't have to mean men in smokey rooms twiddling their moustaches. I refer you once again to + western education + western media. Besides which ...
> intentionally removing
It doesn't matter WHY the native population is falling. It's the REPLACEMENT part that matters.
Is a leaf everybody, pack up.
Shut the fuck up leaf
The word "economy" is derived from a Greek word meaning household management.
The economy is supposed to serve the people, the people are not supposed to serve the economy. A national 3% GDP growth is meaningless if the population does not somehow benefit. It becomes an irrelevant number.
So many people say:
>Gone are the days of giant steel mills and factories that can employ 10,000 people at a time with very satisfying wages
Steel is still being produced. Factories still exist. Products are still being made. Why not in the US for a US market at decent wages?
The modern orthodoxy is that the people must adapt to the economy and not the reverse.
People who are fully vested in the current economic structure are defending their wealth by perpetuating the status quo at any cost.
The monetary system requires perpetual growth or it will collapse, and that the social welfare systems that are in place are structured like Ponzi schemes and will implode without sufficient numbers of new people paying in each year. Hence the push for open borders.
Is the FED really willing to destroy Western Civilization just to save the monetary system? Is the government really willing to destroy Western Civilization just so they don't have to admit that they have mismanaged the social welfare programs and squandered the future on endless wars? Are the people really willing to destroy Western Civilization because they don't want to stop mindless consumption and hedonism?
It's like burning down your house so you can collect insurance money that you will use to pay the mortgage.
Any honest person will recognize that pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth are the guiding principles of our culture. Our capitalism has taken on the character of our people.
We live in a casino-gulag economic system because our culture has deteriorated. We have literally inverted morality and wonder why capitalism has taken on a vicious character.
Fcukoff that's a rare flag.
It literally says replacement in the text. Nobody cares that you don't agree but you're still wrong.
>the population will decline even if no one is brought in.
Or instead of spending money to look after 3rd worlders and their 9 children, you could spend money to increase native birth rates.
But politicians won't do anything to increase native birth rates, because they don't give a shit about the native population that they are meant to represent