Having the population shrink and just letting the wheels fall off is vastly superior to ethnically cleansing your own country by importing a bunch of foreigners. At least you can rebuild from the first scenario.
White population of London fell from 97,7% in 1961 to 53,8% in 2021, probably below 50% now. What's happening to Britain is the same thing that British did to indigenous populations during colonial times.
Whether this is orchestrated or not is debatable, but denying simple statistics from governmental agencies in democratic countries is... well... very close to a conspiracy-theory
You're missing the forest for the trees. I don't care if it's some kind of evil orchestration. That's the least of my worries. What I want is for it to be stopped. And that desire has an overwhelming democratic majority in most European countries AFAIK. Or is democratic decision making only important when it's an outcome you agree with?
If "an overwhelming democratic majority" want it stopped and it presumably hasn't, then that implies there's must be a conspiracy acting against said majority. Or how do you square this circle?
In any case, there is no country in Europe in which anti-immigration parties have an absolute majority (> 50%), let alone an "overwhelming" one [0]. So to answer your question: yes, democratic decision making is important to me, especially such that it actually reflects the will of the electorate and not some wish a minority within it has.
> then that implies there's must be a conspiracy acting against said majority.
Or that immigration simply isn't their most important policy, even though they support stricter measures.
Imagine you have a choice between two parties: party A wants to detonate an atomic bomb in the capital but also create well-funded animal shelters. Party B opposes the destruction of the capital city, but they want to turn all puppies in the country into kebabs. What do you vote? You don't want to eat ground puppies, do you?
If these are the only party choices an electorate has, it seems to me they have bigger problems. And so option C, the people don't vote, hence giving neither party a mandate to do what they want?
I really struggle to see how an example this obtuse has any analogy to reality.
I'm straight up saying that linking demographic shifts to some grand plan has already been recognised as a racist conspiracy theory.
Britain is a good for example: they (and France) spent the 20th century doing anything and everything to prevent their empires crumbling. One such thing was easing movement of people with their old colonies to maintain influence.
Turns out things can happen without little green men being involved.
Okay, so you acknowledge that orchestrated or not, the native populations of European countries are going extinct and ultimately are going to be replaced. Japan doesn't want that, as it's an existential issue for their nation. I would argue possibly THE most existential issue a nation can face.
I would personally argue that it IS orchestrated, as this massive change happened in 50 years after 1000+ years of no change, but it's not relevant to the actual outcome. Call it a racist conspiracy theory all you want, people are becoming immune to that strategy.
I do not acknowledge that, how do you get to "extinction" from "demographic shifts"? That is quite the impressive leap.
The reason for Japan's (brief) attempt at immigration is they recognised their demographic decline as an actual existential risk. They've chickened out because it proved sufficiently politically unpopular - this is not the same thing. Good luck to them dealing with their demographics in some other as-yet-unknown way.
Yes it's clear you've been drinking the koolaid. And no, people have migrated around for thousands of years, that's simply not grounded in reality. How do you think humans got from Africa to the rest of the planet? Or does that not count as migration because it's somehow too far in the past?
I don't know how else to refer to a conspiracy theory that's primarily driven by fears/hatred of others based not on their merits and values but their ethnicity/race. If you have another preferred term that accurately depicts this I'd be happy to use it instead.
