Only the very dumb think that this is a white conspiracy theory.
The unilateral declaration of a conspiracy theory by #blueanon typically means that’s exactly what’s going on and #blueanon must obfuscate and redirect.
Sad
can you point to an anlysis of replacement theory that doesn't consider it as a racist form of nativism?
I haven't looked into it, Lick.
The problem that you and the rest of #blueanonGe has relative to Europe is that you've never been able to explain why the Obama administration undertook the policies that wrecked places like Syria and Libya. It made absolutely no sense.
Yet you sought no explanation from the Obama administration as to why they did what they did and in fact offered literally no resistance whatsoever in their invoking of such disastrous policies which led to the creation of millions of refugees. That only lends more credence that the refugee situation was a sought after and desired outcome. It's the same way you defended Clinton's unilateral bombing in the Balkans which violated numerous stated policies of both the United States and NATO. That created both a refugee issue, a radical Islamic fundamentilism expansion issue and an organized crime infiltrating into Western Europe issue. Again, one can only conclude that was a sought after and desired outcome, along with NATO expansion.
Insofar as the United States, if you think about it for a moment (and you're not capable of that) . . the concept of the great replacement only hurts a small segment of white people and creates a situation that truly benefits the white oligarch class that white #blueanon educated rank and file and white #blueanon leadership has fully assimilated with and wants to associate with on every possible level.
Sad
As it pertains to Obama's failed middle east policies I see them as an attempt to advance the ideology of democratization pushed by the Bush administration. In this instance they saw the opportunity to facilitate that (ultimately failed) strategy without the need for commitment of a large fighting force. In both areas there seemed to be enough regional inertia to topple the autocrats in place. At the time I am sure it seemed like a relatively cheap way to advance an agenda we had alredy become pot committed to. (Further the notion that a McCain or Romney admin wouldn't have pursued similar if not more aggressive campaigns is foolish).
Neither Romney nor McCain were President so
Insofar as Libya goes you've bought into the propaganda 1000% and completely left out the embarrassing situation that Obama and Hillary's best bud Sarkozy was in relative to his relationship to the former Libyan leader.
Syria was just another campaign to replace a moderate Islamic oriented leadership with a hardcore theocracy. Obama-Clinton-Kerry just loved that stuff, weird. All wrapped in the bullshit guise of trying to invoke democracy.
The same with Libya, Muammar Gaddafi was openly fighting against AQA, but wasn't falling in line by talking about a common African currency and an African Union. He had to go and besides, Syria needed an influx of "freedom fighters" and weapons ,. . ,. to create an even bigger refugee crisis.
That as great party line post though, Lick. Way to stick with the script.
Lick, I truly hope your most favored white oligarchs and predominately white owned businesses have access to an even cheaper labor force ASAP. You'll get it soon, so relax.
