Home

Is "great replacement" theory a dogma, conspiracy, or actually a good theory that fits the observations?

roc_abilly

Member
EDIT: Jump to synopsis of the findings of this thread HERE.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm of course referring to this


(p.s. do not take this article as anything more than an introduction to the theory, we will develop our own opinions about the theory's implications on this thread, and our own interpretations. The article's author's perspective is his own, however it is a good article in setting out a good number of relevant facts as introduction.).

Now we find this theory turns out to be absolutely central to poster's E Electricity worldview, in fact everything in his mind revolves around it, so it seems.

He even calls it "nationalism" and stridently claims that it is the only worthwhile central tenet of Irish nationalism.

So, perhaps it would be a good exercise to see exactly what's in it.

Or, conversely, if it is in fact a theory that does a terrible disservice to the facts - particularly if it excludes other important and relevant facts that it may be harmful to ignore (on the strength of their not fitting in with the theory). And what is the nature of this disservice, and implications of same.

And whether it has taken the form of dogma in the minds of its adherents like E Electricity. And whether it is a pernicious dogma.

(Admittedly I am already lead to strongly suspect dogma may well be the case - owing to this poster's continually hysterical putting the leading, loaded question to me of "Are you also indifferent to the elimination of a European country by demographic changes?" - when did you stop beating your wife etc.

Of course, we know his theory predicts "the elimination of countries by demographic changes", along with other predictions. But, we have not yet resolved the question of whether or not it is a good theory capable of making good and relevant predictions about the nature of reality. So as a first step, let us try and resolve that question, eh...).
 
Last edited:

roc_abilly

Member
There's also this meme being brandished at me.

I know how the mUh CoNsPIraCy tHeORy shtick is used by (trained) anti-white gimps like you

I think we might start with that.

Now I had hardly discussed with him whether the theory has earned the right to be called a conspiracy theory, and the justifications for claimimg that.

If he read back, I was largely keeping the discussion to the basic fact that the idea of "white replacement" is a theory, and ensuring he grasped that most basic, simple, obvious fact.

We well established that it was a theory (yesterday). Of course it fucking is.

I think though let's not yet go onto the question of whether it is a "conspiracy theory" or not. Rather, as the next step, let's consider Epicurus’ Principle of Multiple Explanations – basically, if more than one theory is consistent with the observations, consider all theories.

So something else we established yesterday was that the theory of "great replacement" of white people, white civilisation and white culture, has been around for a hundred years or so.

Now let us review the observations that lead to the theory. (Everyone agrees that the "observations" must have come first, to lead to the theory, no?)

To do that, let's go back to the original formulations of the theory. - What exactly were the theory's proponents writing about when they formulated the theory?


Well James' theory's first appearance was in France in 1900, in the following book, that set out the core ideas of "Barresian nationalism".


While in the English language it was Madison Grant's 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race that set out James' theory.


So, let us put the question to James - what were the observations made by these two writers that lead them to formulate this theory, to account for their observations?

And, as per Epicurus’ principle, might there by any other theory we could apply to account for these observations, and are these observations as they were formulated to develop the theory still relevant today?
 

roc_abilly

Member
Is the above fair? Indeed it is. And I would also say that if E Electricity is unable to engage honestly and properly with what I have put to him, then he must admit that his precious theory is in fact dogma.

Note that we're still not saying anything about it being a conspiracy theory or not. It may very well have the power of prediction and conveying a true account of reality, as say relativity theory, if E Electricity can convince us of that?

So let us suspend our judgements on his theory until we hear his representations.

Anyway, set out the authors' observations for us that your theory is based on E Electricity, and let us take it from there.

Good lad.
 

Mowl

Member
Jambo's nationalism: can't speak any language except English and pure bollocks. Hates Irish people, which I'm willing to overlook as I do too. Loves English culture and the closest to Irish culture he finds himself, the more his feet angle themselves at ninety degrees as he mimics Liam Gallagher. Thinks Irish history is worthless old bollocks and refuses to engage with anything historic and Irish.

Speaks a language only the indoctrinated few understand and peppers his comments with tough guy type intimidation, but fails every time. Is single and will remain so until he finds a 100% Irish moth with cash to cover his costs. Has no life outside of online trolling, thinks women playing football is strictly for the gay quarter.

Doesn't have any moral compass, moral convictions, or respect for anything Irish, but demands to right to knock Irish culture every chance he gets. Has no online friends any more than offline friends. Needs a blowjob more than any white man this side of the Rio Grande.

Has a diction and lexicon so peppered with borrowed phrases from The Englishman's Guide To Being A Half-Baked Anarchist it's impossible to figure out what the fuck he's talking about. Is about as interesting as a car crash on the Sneem bypass between two culchies. Has all the originality of thought of a second Valamhic.

Has the personality of a self-loathing Weegie with a broken bottle in his one good hand, and the other picking his nose. Is about as large an embarrassment to Ireland as Ryan Tubridy. Is as boring as the day is long, has one single post which he's repeated non-stop for around eighteen months, and still hasn't made it clear what he's trying to say.

If youtube videos were gold, he'd still be a pauper.

If Telegrams were pork, he'd get food poisoning.

His benefit to this site? Zero.

His benefit to the planet at large? Even less.

His humour quotient? Likely the same as his life savings: fuck all.

A dole head, angry with life and world, probably hated by his own kin, a loner - but not in a good way. A wanker of extraordinary talent with a tissue and a tub of face-cleansing cream of his Ma's. Has about as many fans and as much respect for his efforts as the last mongrel Val slaughtered for supper.

And finally?

He has all the balls of a gimp in a box down in the basement.
 

roc_abilly

Member
:rolleyes:

How much more bloody clear could I have been that we will assume it is a legitimate theory so that we can examine it as such, and that the opinions of the author in the introductory article were not of account for this thread?

Not a great start. It would seem poster E Electricity has only one stock answer. The "muh conspiracy theory" meme. So he therefore must insist that this is the point being put to him. As he has a reponse to this point. He can even write that stock response in crazy letters.

... Note that we're still not saying anything about it being a conspiracy theory or not. It may very well have the power of prediction and conveying a true account of reality, as say relativity theory, if E Electricity can convince us of that? So let us suspend our judgements on his theory until we hear his representations...
 
(Admittedly I am already lead to strongly suspect dogma may well be the case - owing to this poster's continually hysterical putting the leading, loaded question to me of "Are you also indifferent to the elimination of a European country by demographic changes?" - when did you stop beating your wife etc.
I first asked you why intent, or "explicity" should matter, which is the mUh CoNsPIraCy tHeORy shtick, and then when you implied that you were indifferent to the "elimination of Israel" by demographic changes (a brazen lie) I asked you if you would also be indifferent about the same for a European country. You did not answer those questions.
 
:rolleyes:

How much more bloody clear could I have been that we will assume it is a legitimate theory so that we can examine it as such, and that the opinions of the author in the introductory article were not of account for this thread?

Not a great start. It would seem poster E Electricity has only one stock answer. The "muh conspiracy theory" meme. So he therefore must insist that this is the point being put to him. As he has a reponse to this point. He can even write that stock response in crazy letters.
It was the perfect start because you are being dishonest (or stupid) claiming that it's not presented as a conspiracy theory, and the first link you posted says exactly that.

Frankly, no one really has the audacious stupidity to claim that it's not actually happening. But here you are. Amazin' 🤣
 

roc_abilly

Member
It's fucking painful. Where to start with that braindead load of shit that comes from nowhere except your own delusions, lack of reading comprehension, and severe unintelligence. It's like trying to have a conversation with a brain damaged monkey given just enough limited grasp of language to convey his brain damage to humans. Look, I'm going to rethink this particular laboratory experiment on you, clearly I got ahead of myself. I'm hanging up my lab coat for the day. You go and get some rest too. We'll try something else tomorrow.
 
It's fucking painful. Where to start with that braindead load of shit that comes from nowhere except your own delusions, lack of reading comprehension, and severe unintelligence. It's like trying to have a conversation with a brain damaged monkey given just enough limited grasp of language to convey his brain damage to humans. Look, I'm going to rethink this particular laboratory experiment on you, clearly I got ahead of myself. I'm hanging up my lab coat for the day. You go and get some rest too. We'll try something else tomorrow.
That's a lot of words to say precisely nothing.

Go on, fuck off, you absolute gobshite (the pair of yez)
 

roc_abilly

Member
I may as well emphasise this point for other struggling readers who may have missed the exchanges yesterday.

Perhaps Jambo's old "A-Team" may even be listening in, and god knows they may well need such simple points explained to them too.

A fact, or something we might claim is "actually happening" in this context would be things like.

Fact: Immigration has increased in Ireland since 2000 (or whenever).

Or, I might present a summary of known facts in the form of a graph, like say the below (taken from the 2016 census returns).

population_figures_ireland-png.130210


Whereas a theory tries to make as simple an explanation as possible that accounts for those facts.

It should be testable and falsifiable, and encompass the facts we're concerned with.

For example, theory: "yes, well the white race is being replaced, that is why immigration is increasing".

Or, theory: "yes, employers are lobbying governments so they can get more workers and keep wages down, that is why immigration is increasing".

Or, any number of other theories that may help to explain the facts.

See, fact versus theory. It's not that hard now is it. :rolleyes:
 
There isn't anything theoretical about it.. so stop using that word.. which is always used in the sense of it being a conspiracy theory.

If you want to argue that Europeans are not being replaced in their homelands.. then feel free. And I can laugh in your fucking face, with data.
 

roc_abilly

Member
Any pish prats looking in like to sign up and come to the aid of their hapless compadre who is being so easily manipulated into painting their precious "far right" ideology as complete farce?

Or are they too scared to post an opinion in a forum where they are not protected from robust challenge?

A forum not just their usual echo chamber where they get together with their fellow failures to discuss being the victims of “white genocide” or "globohomo" or "wokeness" or whatever?

Go on wrap yourself up in the Irish flag, choose the handle of some Irish patriot, and come on here to help save "Irish nationalism" from Jambo. What have you got to lose apart from your dignity, which you lost long ago in any case. 👍🏿
 
lol I'm making perfect sense, I don't need any help.

Again, don't be using the word 'theory' when talking about replacement or the Great Replacement because in that sense it's always described as a CONSPIRACY theory, that's the shtick, that's the routine.

lol I swear, when you went to do your anti-white training you must've been the dumbest kid in class.
 
And of course it's relevant.. and I've highlighted it (on Pish) and now here. See: https://politicsisle.com/index.php?threads/how-to-become-an-irish-nationalist.74/post-3346

People should understand what the anti-white is actually, but not explicitly, saying. I still see people (who should probably know better) say stuff like - "It's not a conspiracy theory, It's real!" on social media or whatnot. But that's not what the anti-white is saying. They're not denying it, they're saying that it's not being done with intent.

And now here we have the biggest dunce in class (who obviously failed his anti-white training) questioning whether 2 + 2 = 4 🤣
 

roc_abilly

Member
I think I see now.

You're posting things in response to what Morgoth has told you your "anti-white" nemesis thinks and says.

So you ignore what's actually written, and substitute this phantom argument that you project onto me.

Whereas I have only clearly asked you what exactly are the observations that suggest the theory that the white race, homo europaeus, is in danger of submergence or "replacement" under a corrupt system dominated by non white races, and variations, and embellishments of the theory, thereof.

But anyway I'm done toying with you. Your abject stupidity has no redeeming features, it's utterly boring. Mind-numbing.

And I already know the answer to the thread title in your case at least. It's not best described as a conspiracty theory. It's best described as dogma.

Dogma. Like in how you selectively search out anything that might corroborate your theory. How you evade the finding of circumstances or data that go against the predictions of your theory. How you have a range of devices to avoid critical thinking. And everything else that characterises dogma.

You are like a moonie in the way you believe in this theory. So please fuck off now kindly unless you want to engage rationally without continual reversion to dogma and Morgoth's trite stereotypes and memes.
 
So you ignore what's actually written
No, that's what you do.

I fully accept that you're such a fucking moron (failed your anti-white training) that you are using, 'theory', in a sense and context that it is never used. You are using, 'theory', to contest the uncontestable.
 
Whereas I have only clearly asked you what exactly are the observations that suggest the theory that the white race, homo europaeus, is in danger of submergence or "replacement" under a corrupt system dominated by non white races, and variations, and embellishments of the theory, thereof.
That's the "theory" .. Because it's a CONSPIRACY "theory", you abject fucking idiot.

You have translated this into - Whether Europeans are (actually) being replaced, which is not up for debate, because they are.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top Bottom