Well, aside from the obvious contributions filled with passive aggression, veiled ad hominems and a deluded sense of righteousness, this has been a pretty good debate so far. A couple of posters have utilised their predicted arguments to no effect, but hey...

I'm not saying proponents of race replacement are good or bad, it's just great to have people admit that they support such an extreme, destructive ideology.

I would like to add one last though that came to mind after I left...

The earth is a canvas, and every race is a beautiful colour on this delicately weaved canvas. If we are to be a master piece of culture, wisdom, beauty and peace, then nothing will be gained by dividing the colours on a torn up canvas. Race should be a celebration of unity, the earth as it was supposed to be, a canvas, a rock in space we as nature must share.

I might just be biased being part of the "race replacement" as I’m mixed race, but where I call home I will share with anyone, with you and anyone else who looks at the painting of life and sees nature staring back at them.

Originally posted by OwenGP185
The earth is a canvas, and every race is a beautiful colour on this delicately weaved canvas...

A beautiful notion; but at the expense of existing, complete, ancient cultures? Is the total eradication of something ancient and profound, against the will of those subject to it, justified in the painting of something new?

Perhaps the ultimate future would be one where largely uninhabited land (perhaps in northern Asia) could be set aside for the multicultural experiment. Where everyone who wants to can go and mix cultures and races to their hearts content.

But I can tell you one reason that will never happen: people do not create multicultural societies for cultural/artistic reasons. Multicultural societies 'bloom' in prosperous countries only, because people from all over the globe are drawn to the pre-existing economic opportunities. An Asian wilderness that does not already have an urban, consumer, welfare-driven State will not be deemed a worthwhile 'canvas'.

What about cultural preservation? Should a culture be allowed to protect itself? What is it when the rulling elite have an agenda to destroy it's prevalant culture, and attacks it when it does seek to protect it's existence?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are concerned about cultural changes in the UK, rather than racial ones - otherwise your thread doesn't make too much sense.

Little over 200 years ago, ''English culture'' included accepting slavery, denying women the vote, imprisoning homosexuals and transporting supposed ''criminals'' to obscure colonial outposts.

The ''English culture'' you are defending is just an ephemeral ideal which will quickly be swallowed up by the inevitable train of social evolution - a process which has happened countless times before.

Originally posted by Maslo
So what happens when you mix all colours on a canvas together? An ugly mess.

You're not a fan of abstract art, then ?

What you may consider an ''ugly mess'' is often quite beautiful to others.

Originally posted by Maslo
I for one want to preserve blondes for our children/

Why ?

Originally posted by Maslo
But seems like some people wont be happy before there is only one race of averaged-out brown people on the whole planet.

Firstly, ''averaged out brown people'' is a ridiculous concept; the only way a race could be ''averaged out'' is if there was a concerted effort to fuse two, or more, of them together.

Secondly - and more pertinently - why does it matter what ''races'' are going to predominate or become obsolete in the future ?

I think that, for this discussion to be fruitful, it is necessary that we:

a) Dispense with political correctness within this discussion. The emotion-fueled outrage at someone taking a "politically incorrect" stance on a racially-charged issue contributes nothing to the discussion. So let's settle a few things: in spite of efforts to bring about racial, ethnic, and cultural homogeneity, racial, ethnic, and cultural differences *do exist* and *are important.* Many groups, racial or otherwise, segregate by choice. Most people are not "colorblind." I know we aren't allowed to acknowledge this normally, but if we do not acknowledge it here, this discussion will not be as valuable as it otherwise could be.

b) Understand that there is a difference between multiculturalism and cultural/ethnic/racial homogeneity. What is at risk here? Is the issue simply that white people in the UK now need to live next to other racial groups who are becoming assimilated into the English culture? Is the issue that there are now ethnic minorities in the UK that have their own culture and traditions? No, the issue is that these other ethnic groups are *replacing* those who have, traditionally, inhabited the UK. The traditional culture of the UK isn't expanding to include others. It is being swept away and *replaced* by those others, largely because of the liberal welfare-based programs and the fixation on political correctness. Just to be clear on this: it isn't a simply process of social evolution. A major culture will, if the process continues unabated, be *lost.* Is this process of replacement acceptable given the stakes?

If one can get beyond the emotional response (gasp! racism!), it is actually a tricky issue. Do we really believe that race is merely a social construct with no inherent importance? If it is only a social construct, is the issue any less important? Is national identity important?

Also, let's throw in a hypothetical situation that may hit home with more of the many American ATS people. What if, at the current rate of people entering/leaving the country, the dominant racial/ethnic groups in the US would be Mexican or Chinese in just a few years? That would radically change the nature of this country--would we have (a) the desire and (b) the right to do anything to protect the ethnic and cultural heritage of the US?

Did the Native Americans have the (a) desire and (b) right to fight to defend their homeland when ethnic replacement was imminent? (Yeah, yeah, that example is a low blow and is painfully overused. Sue me.)

Originally posted by backwardluminary
Is this process of replacement acceptable given the stakes?

Sadly, to some posters here, it would seem so.

No matter the claims about culture being more important than race, the ultimate, objective truth is that race replacement is occurring. The next question in the process - as per this thread - is: does that matter?

It blows my mind that the people who flinch at how the Jews were targetted for genocide are the same who seem to support the genocide of various European peoples. Or perhaps those people are in fact violently anti-semitic too. Question:

Are the English deserving of extinction but the Jews not?

(note: I keep using the example of the English because it is my home country and the situation I know most about)

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by backwardluminary
Is this process of replacement acceptable given the stakes?

Sadly, to some posters here, it would seem so.

No matter the claims about culture being more important than race, the ultimate, objective truth is that race replacement is occurring. The next question in the process - as per this thread - is: does that matter?

It blows my mind that the people who flinch at how the Jews were targetted for genocide are the same who seem to support the genocide of various European peoples. Or perhaps those people are in fact violently anti-semitic too. Question:

Are the English deserving of extinction but the Jews not?

(note: I keep using the example of the English because it is my home country and the situation I know most about)

So other ethnicities are exterminating the English? This post is so ironic I'm lost for words, comparing yourself to slaughtered Jews when in fact your opinion is if anything closer to how the Nazis wanted things, i.e. a specific group out of their land. What you just said is an insult to those people who died and frankly ridiculous. Did you seriously just say that... Wow.

Might I add that those suggesting brown people are taking over the world is just as ridiculous, maybe the govermnment should start banning all those tanning salons/products so people stop destroying England.

Originally posted by OwenGP185
So other ethnicities are exterminating the English?

No - never said that! I said that certain economic, social and political circumstances are inadvertently causing immigrants to stream in and replace the native population. I've also clearly stated that I do not hold the immigrants themselves to blame. But just because something bad is happening accidentally, doesn't mean it can't or shan't be addressed.

Originally posted by OwenGP185
This post is so ironic I'm lost for words, comparing yourself to slaughtered Jews when in fact your opinion is if anything closer to how the Nazis wanted things, i.e. a specific group out of their land.

Again - never said that! I compared YOUR desire to see the English displaced with the NAZI's desire to see the Jews displaced. When you actually think about, free from the blinkers of post-holocaust, Liberal thinking, there is no difference. You've stated, clearly, that you think it's okay for the English race to be replaced. The only difference between you and the Nazis is that you probably don't want it to happen violently (though violence is inevitable when the English reach a critical juncture on their replacement).

My opinion is akin to Nazism huh? Please tell me where I said I want a specific ethnic group out of my land! I've talked about healthy minorities, stemming the flow and re-asserting English values and ownership. In fact, one of my earlier posts even mentions how opposed I am to forced repatriation.

I don't think it's okay for any folk in the world to be race-replaced - you apparently do! It should be obvious to all free-thinkers who has most in common with the Nazis. Or is genocide not evil when perpetrated against white people?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are concerned about cultural changes in the UK, rather than racial ones - otherwise your thread doesn't make too much sense.

Why not? A nation's identity is defined culturally and genetically. Is it automatically deemed racist to talk about the preservation of genetic identity? Culture develops as a result of race. That's why with all the beautiful unique races we have in the world - of all colours - each has a distinct culture (per ethnic group). England's culture cannot survive without the blood that created it (though from the sounds of things, you might view that as a positive thing?)

It doesn't bother me in the slightest. And "races" (as if such a thing actually existed outside of the realm of human imagination) aren't replaced, they're assimilated.

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are concerned about cultural changes in the UK, rather than racial ones - otherwise your thread doesn't make too much sense.

Why not? A nation's identity is defined culturally and genetically. Is it automatically deemed racist to talk about the preservation of genetic identity? Culture develops as a result of race. That's why with all the beautiful unique races we have in the world - of all colours - each has a distinct culture (per ethnic group). England's culture cannot survive without the blood that created it (though from the sounds of things, you might view that as a positive thing?)

What is England's culture?

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Would you date someone who was not the same race as yourself?

That's not at all what this thread is about. This isn't a general discussion about race - it's a specific question about whether it's okay for any race in the world to be systematically replaced, so save such questions for other threads.

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon
What is England's culture?

You're writing with it for a start. Rather than have you put me on the backfoot, I'll ask you to define what is NOT England's culture and then we can go through what's left and confirm how much of it IS England's culture. I've been asked to outline England's culture many times in many discussions, and have done comprehensively. But I've come to realise that it's such an offensive question - with its implications of England having no unique culture - that it doesn't dignify a response.

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon
And "races" (as if such a thing actually existed outside of the realm of human imagination)

Wow! Now that's a lie so enormous any Dictatorship would be proud of. To deny the beautiful diversity of planet Earth like that, and to ignore the sciences of geneticism and anthropology. Racial variation does exist and we should enjoy it, not attempt to destroy it by denying facts that some of us find uncomfortable.

Originally posted by Cythraul
It goes without saying that I hope we can keep this thread free of hate. Emotional, or hateful responses to the subject of race are exactly what has kept it taboo. And in being taboo, an underbelly of anger has quietly grown, ready to explode in the coming years.

Shortened; White people are angry that there are brown people. White people on ATS now start to whine about how awful this is.

Like the Nazis,

What, already reached the bottom of your bag of tricks?

(3) That this is a good thing - the land and culture do not belong to the founding ethnic group(s).

However, argument (2) is brought into disrepute by the revelation that...

...within a few years, a quarter of young Britons will be black, Asian or of mixed race. In the capital, the total will be well over 50 per cent.

So far you've failed to express why this is so terrible.

Argument (3) is really what this thread is about, for the evidence now shows arguments (1) and (2) to be well-and-truly discredited. So all we are really left with is the debate as to whether race-replacement is acceptable or not. It is well under way now in England and several European countries who since ancient-times have been comprised of European peoples. It is not over-exaggerating the situation to predict that in England, in just a few decades, the ethnic English are going to be a minority. Some extremists may claim that we deserve it for the misdemeanours of the British Empire. But even if we do deserve some kind of recompense (for the record, I believe not) then is the theft of the English peoples' homeland a reasonable price to pay?

if it's not acceptable, what is your solution? Perhaps mass murder is on your docket? 'Cause there's really no better way to rid your pure, glistening, white society of those brown mud-devils, you know.

People migrate, settle, and screw the locals, making a bunch of small people who look somewhat like both groups. The fact that humans are no longer restricted to horses for travel has simply sped up an inevitable process.

The ironic thing is that many 'Liberal left' extremists would say that predominantly European peoples stole the Native American and Australian's homeland. I agree, and would not have been among those invaders who drove the natives to the edge of extinction. But where many would say those natives had every right to fight back (some even saying they still have a right to fight back now), they would scream bloody murder if a white European stood at his/her own border with a shotgun locked and loaded.

Crucial difference is that the Spanish, British and Americans made every actual attempt at real genocide against the people of the Americas, Australia, and Southern Africa. it wasn't just a case of "Hi, we're moving in now," but rather "Hi, we're going to massacre you, rape your women, steal your kids, enslave everyone who's left, and then try to grow cotton in your desert, derp derp"

This isn't about hatred or superiority. It is purely and simply to do with the rights of each ethnic group in the world to survive. The English are coming into an era where we are in a fight for our very survival. Multiculturalists aren't true multiculturalists - I am! I want a world where every beautiful ancient culture, from the Dogon of Africa to the Sami of Lapland; the Aborigines of Australia to the Cherokee of America, is preserved and allowed its own space to thrive. Multiculturalists want a world where each of those cultures exists multiple times within multiple Continents, only in a watered-down version that is adapted to the Consumerist, 'Liberal' trappings of the modern, technological Western World.

So you want every culture in the world to exist as a time-frozen segregated museum piece? See, we Indians get that a lot, how we're not "real" Indians if we wear shoes and have a watch. We're supposed to be living in a teepee, chasing buffalo, and wearing feathers. You know, "being authentic" for the benefit of tourists and blithely racist white people who think it'd be more "romantic" that way.

Cultures meet, mingle, adapt, cross, die, are reborn, altered, and just generally evolve. My advice would be to get used to it, 'cause so long as humans are moving around, it is guaranteed to happen.

It's not right!

Don't worry, the brown isn't contagious. We don't rub off on you.