[Puffer Fish]

The following is a transcript that came from an interview of author Peter Brimelow by Craig Bodeker.
04:28 - 05:26


What do you mean by "electing a new people"?

Well, that's derived from the famous poem that the German communist poet Bertolt Brecht - he was a distant communist in East Germany, he wrote it in 1953 after the East German risings against the Soviet occupation, and he said that maybe the government should dissolve the people and elect a new one, because the people weren't behaving properly according to what the communist party thought they ought to be doing. Now that's literally what the governments throughout the western world are now doing; they've set about dissolving the peoples and electing new ones, by bringing in vast numbers of people from very different communities, from the third world, and so on; and it's very closely tied up with neo-socialism because what it does is it creates problems which the government is then called in, or feels called in, to solve. It has to intermediate, it has to all kinds of race relations laws and anti-hate crime laws, and all this kind of thing.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

This Brimelow fellow seems like just another racist.

[Drlee]

An absurd notion. The right will love it. But then they are not all that smart in the first place.

[ThirdTerm]

Peter Brimelow is the president of VDARE.com, an immigrant-bashing hate site that regularly publishes works by white supremacists, anti-Semites, and others on the radical right. But it was really happening in Britain prior to Brexit after nearly 1 million Polish people have made the UK their home. If more Poles are seeking citizenship and the right to vote, this could affect constituencies around the country. According to the 2011 census, the constituencies with the biggest Polish populations are the London seats of Ealing North, with 8.5%, and Ealing Central, with 6.5%. The Polish vote could be to the benefit of Labour.

Growing numbers of Polish residents in the UK are applying for British citizenship, allowing them to vote in the upcoming general election. In some marginal constituencies, their votes could make a difference.

In the 2010 general election, Labour held their seat in the constituency of Southampton Itchen by just 192 votes, with the Conservatives second.

When the UK votes again this May, only the slightest swing would see a Tory victory - meaning the area's Polish-born residents, numbering 2,292 in the 2011 census, could be a deciding factor in the outcome.

And while official figures suggest the number of Poles getting British citizenship across the UK remains relatively low - with 6,066 applying in 2013, compared to more than 800,000 residents - anecdotally this is changing.

Many in the Polish community say the numbers have risen sharply. Fuelled by worries about an EU referendum and its potential consequences for them, growing numbers want to vote.

This certainly seems to be the case in Southampton Itchen. Every Polish person I meet says they have applied for British citizenship themselves, or know friends who have put in an application.

[Drlee]

Good ponts @ThirdTerm I may have been to quick to react.

But you must agree that it begs the question... What is it that Labour is doing right, in the eyes of new citizens, that the Tories are not. And more importantly, why not.

Is it new citizens to which the conservatives object and is this what drives new citizens away from them? Chicken egg thing.

We have this in the US. I am always amazed that the Republicans do not excel with new Latinx citizens. For the most part they (Latinx people) are pretty socially/religiously conservative, family orientated, and certainly far from addicted to social services.

[Puffer Fish]

We have this in the US. I am always amazed that the Republicans do not excel with new Latinx citizens. For the most part they (Latinx people) are pretty socially/religiously conservative, family orientated, and certainly far from addicted to social services.

I can explain that to you. There's a divide among the Latinos in the US. The ones who came legally are much more likely to affiliate with Republicans. The ones who support Democrats are more likely to be descendants of parents who came illegally.
Economics and promises of free stuff trumps social/religious issues, in this situation.

Also, on top of that, the Democrats don't have much of a problem shaping the next generation children of these people to have negative perceptions of Catholicism. With the news media hating religion so much, it's amazing how much coverage they give to Catholicism. Of course it's always done with the subtle intention of undermining trust in it, or creating the impression that the pope supports progressive social policies. (Much like Japanese radio propaganda during WW2 that gave American/British servicemen the impression that the radio host was their friend and cared about them, even though it was actually trying to alter their opinions and sabotage their morale at every turn)

[Fasces]

The only two Catholic presidents were both Dems.

[Verv]

Due to abysmal birthrates throughout the Western world, it has actually become necessary for governments that are focused on growth, and which also have large expenditures for maintaining the services that they provide citizens.

Western states and now, increasingly, places like Japan & Korea, require this kind of immigration to expand the tax base to pay for all of the current services they provide.

It is a bit much to suggest that this is a conspiracy -- it is more of a disastrous consequence of shrinking fertility rates. None of these countries are above replacement level, some of them are desperately below it.

This is because of feminism and contraceptives.

The feminist movement did not actually liberate women: it put them into the workplace to suffer in cubicles next to men. Contraceptives did not give people more freedom: it made them slaves to their own libidos.

It's final trick will be lowering the global fertility rates so much that there'll be mandates to encourage childbirth.

Peter Brimelow is the president of VDARE.com, an immigrant-bashing hate site that regularly publishes works by white supremacists, anti-Semites, and others on the radical right. But it was really happening in Britain prior to Brexit...

My favorite kind of response to anything:

- Poison the well
- But yeah, I mean, what they are saying is right.

[Puffer Fish]

The only two Catholic presidents were both Dems.

It's an interesting situation in the US. Catholics were traditionally Democrats, despite being more socially conservative.

Think poorer Irish who had more recently immigrated.


(It gets more complicated than that. If you want to go further back in history, Catholics supported Republicans back at a time when the Republican Party was more like the Democratic Party today, and the Democratic Party was in many ways more like the Republican Party today. This was before the "switch", which is another long and discussion. But that's totally irrelevant to this discussion. For the sake of this discussion, we are talking about after around 1956)

[Puffer Fish]

Due to abysmal birthrates throughout the Western world, it has actually become necessary for governments that are focused on growth, and which also have large expenditures for maintaining the services that they provide citizens.

The people who are already here aren't having children in part because there are not enough higher paying jobs, and housing costs in many areas are too expensive.

Bringing in more people is not going to solve the problem if there are not enough higher paying jobs to go around for all those new people.
Instead you might just end up with more poverty, and it will be even harder to maintain the services government provided to its citizens before. (If the amount of wealth productivity per capita goes down)

Lots of these people don't even earn enough money to pay for their children to go to school, or to pay for their own healthcare now, let alone when they eventually get old.
I think those who claim they will add to the pot are being unrealistic... or dishonest at worst.

[Godstud]

The people who are already here aren't having children in part because there are not enough higher paying jobs, and housing costs in many areas are too expensive.

You just don't like that the people who are the wrong colour are having more babies. Admit it.

[Patrickov]

You just don't like that the people who are the wrong colour are having more babies. Admit it.

To me it's more like "wrong class" than "wrong colour".

Both the top and the bottom are polluting the world by having more of their kinds.

[Godstud]

To me it's more like "wrong class" than "wrong colour".

Same shit, different colour.

[Patrickov]

Same shit, different colour.

The best ruler to judge eligibility of people to breed is probably "what they do".

Admittedly I see "class" as a (much) better approximation of determining "what they do" than "colour" (which is proven to be too inaccurate).

[Pants-of-dog]

Note that belief in this “replacement theory” was the main reason for the recent white power terrorist attack in upstate New York.

In other words, the argument in the OP has been used to justify mass shootings of black people.

[pugsville]

The following is a transcript that came from an interview of author Peter Brimelow by Craig Bodeker.
04:28 - 05:26


What do you mean by "electing a new people"?

Well, that's derived from the famous poem that the German communist poet Bertolt Brecht - he was a distant communist in East Germany, he wrote it in 1953 after the East German risings against the Soviet occupation, and he said that maybe the government should dissolve the people and elect a new one, because the people weren't behaving properly according to what the communist party thought they ought to be doing. Now that's literally what the governments throughout the western world are now doing; they've set about dissolving the peoples and electing new ones, by bringing in vast numbers of people from very different communities, from the third world, and so on; and it's very closely tied up with neo-socialism because what it does is it creates problems which the government is then called in, or feels called in, to solve. It has to intermediate, it has to all kinds of race relations laws and anti-hate crime laws, and all this kind of thing.

'
This post exists on another site. Word for Word identical.

[Patrickov]

In other words, the argument in the OP has been used to justify mass shootings of black people.

At worst, such shooting can only be justified if the government is not on the local's side, as in Hong Kong's case.

But to me, even in that situation, the ones who should be shot up first are the ones in power.
Mass killing of civilians should never be on top of the list.

[wat0n]

Note that belief in this “replacement theory” was the main reason for the recent white power terrorist attack in upstate New York.

In other words, the argument in the OP has been used to justify mass shootings of black people.

Not just that. The only thing the people who stormed the Capitol have in common was that they tend to believe in that conspiracy theory.

https://cpost.uchicago.edu/research/domestic_extremism/

In reality though immigrants to the West are taken in not to be voters, but to work and pay taxes, especially for funding social security. Immigrants can't vote until they become citizens, and that's not particularly easy either. In some countries their children may also have an uphill battle for citizenship if jus solis isn't recognized as a way to be a national. And, often immigrants want to integrate and be more like the local population too.

[Puffer Fish]

You just don't like that the people who are the wrong colour are having more babies. Admit it.

Do you even realise what living standards in most of the world are like?

You can't answer the question WHY other countries are so terrible. Doesn't that worry you at all?
No, because you just take things for granted.

Get rid of all borders and open the country up, and I can guarantee you in short order your country will be pretty much just like the parts of the world where all these people are coming from.

Guess you don't believe that, or don't care. Or you are so ignorant you do not even realise what that will mean.

[Godstud]

Do you even realise what living standards in most of the world are like?

Yes, I have travelled extensively and live abroad alongside Americans who live where I do, because of the higher living standards than in the USA... and cheaper healthcare.

You can't answer the question WHY other countries are so terrible. Doesn't that worry you at all?
No, because you just take things for granted.

They aren't all worse. Many are better. USA does not have the highest standard of living. They don't even rank in the top 10.

USA ranks #20
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countr ... ty-of-life

You are making a comment from a position of absolute ignorance.

Get rid of all borders and open the country up, and I can guarantee you in short order your country will be pretty much just like the parts of the world where all these people are coming from.

Really? So you'll have drug wars caused by American foreign policy, and tampering with foreign leadership by propping up dictators?

Who has suggested getting rid of borders? No one. That's who. Another Strawman logical fallacy.

Guess you don't believe that, or don't care.

Believe fear-mongering and lies? Nope. Sorry. I don't buy that, like you evidently do.

Or you are so ignorant you do not even realise what that will mean.

I know what you mean, but it's based in racism and bullshit.