Gay. Evidence of the Great Replacment in this please (and save your woke for someone else please as i'm not gay): https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/unpd-egm_200010_un_2001_replacementmigration.pdf If by “evidence of the Great Replacement” you mean evidence that policymakers explicitly studied large-scale immigration as a way of offsetting declining native/low-fertility populations, then yes, this UN document is genuine and is strong primary-source evidence for that narrower proposition. I read the document you linked. It is the UN Population Division's Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?, published in 2000/2001. The UN itself describes its purpose as calculating the international migration required to offset population decline and ageing. What the document actually saysThe terminology is unusually explicit. The report defines “replacement migration” as international migration to offset: declines in total population; declines in the working-age population; and population ageing. It examines France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Russia, the UK, the US, Europe and the EU. And it doesn't merely say “immigration might help.” It constructs mathematical scenarios asking how many immigrants would be required to achieve particular demographic outcomes. For Europe as a whole, the report calculated approximately: Objective, 2000–2050 Immigration required Maintain total population 95.9 million Maintain working-age population 161.3 million Maintain the 1995 worker/elderly ratio 1.357 billion The corresponding annual figures were approximately 1.92 million, 3.23 million, and 27.1 million immigrants per year, respectively. The last scenario is particularly striking. The report itself describes it as an extreme/unrealistic scenario; maintaining the 1995 support ratio through immigration alone would eventually require migration on an enormous scale. The part that is especially relevant to your argumentThe report explicitly calculates not merely immigrants but “post-1995 migrants and their descendants.” For example, under its UK scenario designed to maintain the 1995 potential support ratio, it calculated: 59.8 million migrants between 1995 and 2050; an average of more than 1 million per year; a projected UK population of 136 million in 2050; of which 80 million, or 59%, would be post-1995 migrants or their descendants. For the EU, the extreme support-ratio scenario produced an even more dramatic result: the UN calculated that roughly three-quarters of the EU's 2050 population would consist of post-1995 migrants and their descendants. So if someone tells you “the UN never discussed using immigration to replace a declining population”, that would simply be false. The document is literally called Replacement Migration, and that is precisely what it mathematically investigates. But here's where the evidence needs to be described accuratelyThere are three different propositions, and the document establishes them to very different degrees: A. “The UN explicitly studied replacement migration.” Yes. Absolutely. This is directly documented. B. “The UN considered substantial immigration a potential mechanism for compensating for low fertility, population ageing and declining working-age populations.” Yes. Absolutely. That's the central subject of the report. C. “The UN had a coordinated plan to deliberately replace white/European populations with non-white populations.” This particular document does not establish that. That's because its demographic categories are primarily countries, regions, migrants and descendants, not “white” and “non-white” populations. It doesn't say that Europeans should be ethnically replaced, nor does it present immigration as a racial objective though it could be seen as implied. There's also an important irony in the reportThe UN's own calculations demonstrate a problem with the idea that immigration can permanently solve population ageing. Because immigrants themselves age, maintaining a particular worker-to-retiree ratio indefinitely requires progressively larger immigration. That's why the extreme scenarios explode into hundreds of millions or even more than a billion migrants. For Europe, for example, the report goes from 95.9 million migrants to maintain population size, to 161.3 million to maintain the working-age population, to 1.357 billion to maintain the 1995 potential-support ratio. That's actually one of the most interesting things about the report: it doesn't demonstrate an easy demographic solution; it demonstrates how mathematically difficult permanent demographic replacement through migration becomes. So, is this evidence for “the Great Replacement”?The document isn't, by itself, evidence that a secret or coordinated racial conspiracy existed to replace white Europeans. To establish that much stronger claim, you'd need additional evidence showing intent, coordination, racial objectives and implementation (eg, financial incentives (free weekly spending money), free phone, free hotel room, prioritisation in access to public sector housing, free access to healthcare, dental care, schooling for children etc. The UN really did publish a report called “Replacement Migration,” and its numerical scenarios really do encourage enormous immigrant populations and explicitly count their descendants. I get it though, you're unintelligent (hence your disasterous life decisions) and hate being stranded in boiling hot and dangerous critter infested Thailand - which IS understandable. I realise that misery loves company so I won't hold it against you. GL.
Create an account or sign in to comment