To paraphrase an old German sentiment about Poles, “The Leftist cries out as he strikes you.” Whatever they accuse us of doing, they are doing. Whatever they claim that we fear, they fear. They want to use our tactics against us while being immune from criticism.
Since we know this, it does not entirely shock and surprise us to see an article in The New York Times entitled “‘Replacement Theory,’ a Racist, Sexist Doctrine, Spreads in Far-Right Circles” about how demographic replacement is a conspiracy theory based on our desire to subjugate women, or something:
Before the massacre of 50 people in New Zealand mosques last week, the suspect released a document called “The Great Replacement.” The first sentence was: “It’s the birthrates.” He repeated it three times.
If the phrase about replacement sounded familiar, perhaps that was because it echoed what white supremacists bearing tiki torches shouted in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017: “You will not replace us.” It is also the slogan of the neo-Nazi group Identity Evropa.
Behind the idea is a racist conspiracy theory known as “the replacement theory,” which was popularized by a right-wing French philosopher. An extension of colonialist theory, it is predicated on the notion that white women are not having enough children and that falling birthrates will lead to white people around the world being replaced by nonwhite people.
We do not need to go in-depth with this rambling, disjointed article filled with conjectures used as attributions as a means of defaming the Right. We know what The New York Times does; this is their stock-in-trade and it delights their neurotic audience.
However, obviously, they are painfully wrong, since in fact “demographic replacement” and “replacement theory” are widely acknowledged and cheered by the Left. “The US white majority will soon disappear forever,” trumpets Dudley Poston at TAMU:
The European immigrants used a variety of means to push Native Americans out of the way. They killed them with disease and genocide to decimate their numbers as whites became the largest group in the U.S., bolstered even further by immigration that last for more than three centuries.
But the white share of the U.S. population has been dropping, from a little under 90 percent in 1950 to 60 percent in 2018. It will likely drop below 50 percent in another 25 years.
White nationalists want America to be white again. But this will never happen. America is on its way to becoming predominantly nonwhite.
He then repeats a tired old Leftist idea, which is that if we pretend something is not what it is, it is in fact what we desire it to be. In this case, if we start including Hispanics as “white,” white people will still exist!
If we lived in a society with more sane than insane, he would be led off to an asylum quietly after making that argument.
As usual, he begins with Leftist history, which as always consists only of the part of the story that supports the Leftist narrative. In fact, Amerinds and settlers got along quite well until the Amerinds attacked.
The diseases that finished them off were not spread to them by settlers, but naturally took hold much as they had in Europe. These are virulent and opportunistic diseases; spreading quickly is what they do, and even passing contact is enough to do it.
The origin of “replacement theory” and “demographic displacement” in the public consciousness came to us from The New Republic, who happily trumpeted the end of white people as a moral victory, claiming that the end is already here:
But whites’ tenure as America’s mainstream population is on the wane, in a demographic sense.
The most recent information from the census and elsewhere shows how quickly the shift is happening. From 2000 to 2010, a decade during which the white population as a whole grew by just 1.2 percent, the number of white children in the United States declined by 4.3 million. Meanwhile the child populations of Hispanics, Asians, and people of two or more races were increasing. In comparative terms, whites constituted just 53 percent of America’s young people (down from nearly 70 percent in 1990) while Hispanics constituted 23 percent (up from just 12 percent).
The Pew survey found marked differences between baby boomers and millennials—who are known for their racial inclusiveness—with regard to agreement that the following are changes for the better: that more people of different races are marrying each other (36 percent versus 60 percent), that the population of Hispanics is growing (21 percent versus 33 percent), and that the population of Asians is growing (24 percent versus 43 percent).
They tell us what they hope is the future: white people will breed out and die out, and then Leftists can reign forever! True, they will be ruling a third world wasteland, but what do they care as long as they have power?
Not to be outdone, National Geographic gushed with praise over the end of white people, since it sees the “fundamental transformation” of America as a positive thing on a cultural level as well, with those nasty whites gone:
The U.S. Census Bureau has projected that non-Hispanic whites will make up less than 50 percent of the population by 2044, a change that almost certainly will recast American race relations and the role and status of white Americans, who have long been a comfortable majority.
Hazleton’s experience offers a glimpse into the future as white Americans confront the end of their majority status, which often has meant that their story, their traditions, their tastes, and their cultural aesthetic were seen as being quintessentially American. This is a conversation already exploding across the country as some white Americans, in online forums and protests over the removal of Confederate monuments, react anxiously and angrily to a sense that their way of life is under threat. Those are the stories that grab headlines and trigger social media showdowns. But the shift in status—or what some are calling “the altitude adjustment”—is also playing out in much more subtle ways in classrooms, break rooms, factory floors, and shopping malls, where the future has arrived ahead of schedule. Since 2000, the minority population has grown to outnumber the population of whites who aren’t Hispanic in such counties as Suffolk in Massachusetts, Montgomery in Maryland, Mecklenburg in North Carolina, as well as counties in California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, and Texas.
The Leftists could not contain their glee at the destruction of white America; this meant, for Leftists, that the correct ideology would finally win, after years of people who have an actual culture resisting its cultureless demands for obedience to a symbolic dogma.
For white Leftists, the death of the white majority means that the Leftist side wins, and since ideology is absolute, it sees all things as a means to the end of its victory, therefore having the symbol of its side win is more important than consequences in reality.
Not surprisingly, the Left are already counting up electoral wins they anticipate with their new majority:
By 2020, the report estimates, the percentage of eligible voters who fall into the category of “white without a college degree,” will drop by 2 points, from 46 percent in 2016 to 44 percent. Meanwhile, voter segments that tend to favor Democrats will all grow as a share of the total eligible vote. That includes “whites with a college degree,” African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians/other are all forecasted to climb by one percentage point.
But if the third-party vote in 2020 looks more likes its historical norm and those voters go back to their home parties, the report says the 2020 election could yield an extraordinary deadlock.
Very few Americans realize that this demographic replacement was put into motion by the same Americans who won WW2 through an alliance with the Communist Soviet Union. Back in the 1960s, the same people who fought at Iwo Jima and the Ardennes approved their own destruction.
Of course, they did not pitch it as such; they claimed that no such thing would happen. However, like all tyrants, they realized that a national population would not support the transformation they wanted into a Leftist superstate.
As a result, the “Greatest Generation” passed a law mandating demographic replacement:
Compared to almost entirely European immigration under the national-origins system, flows since 1965 have been more than half Latin American and one-quarter Asian. The largest share of today’s immigrant population, about 11.6 million, is from Mexico. Together with India, the Philippines, China, Vietnam, El Salvador, Cuba, South Korea, the Dominican Republic, and Guatemala, these ten countries account for nearly 60 percent of the current immigrant population.
They took one look at those third world nations and realized that the people there always vote for strongmen who give out free stuff, mainly because to lower average IQ populations this always seems like a good idea, despite its perpetual failure.
If they could bring in enough of those people, they reasoned, the Left would win every election, and America could go to what “all thinking people agree” was the right thing, a socialist-style, European-style society based on the subsidy state.
Back then, following the great loss of faith in everything brought on by WW1 and the Great Depression, it was considered wise to be a Socialist. That way, you could rationalize decay as victory and feel better about living a selfish consumerist lifestyle.
These people, probably made into liars by the already Left-leaning nature of democracy, considered themselves clever for adopting far-Leftist ideas as normal. When they experienced pushback from regular people, they decided that society must be forced to do the ideologically correct thing.
Through the Hart-Celler Act, Leftists began then demographic replacement of ethnically Western European Americans:
In the decades following Hart-Celler, America experienced drastic changes in both the numbers and origins of immigrants. The number of immigrants entering the U.S. after 1965 rose significantly, from approximately 250,000 in the 1950s to 700,000 by the 1980s. Doors were opened to large-scale immigration from Eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, where extremely motivated immigrants took advantage of the family reunification provisions of the law to engage in chain migration, bringing an average of 2 relatives to the U.S. for each new green card granted. Within a few decades of Hart-Celler, family unification had become the driving force in U.S. immigration, favoring those who were most determined to move -exactly those nationalities the critics of the Act had hoped to keep out.
Thanks to a constant advance of “human rights” in the courts, illegal immigration that Leftists never endorse but always work to enable, and a steady flow of people from the dying third world toward the free stuff provided by FDR/LBJ socialist-styled entitlements programs, the demographic replacement is proceeding apace.
LBJ in particular knew that he could establish perpetual reign by the Leftists — “I’ll have those Negroes voting Democrat for the next 200 years!” — through the free stuff army, and he lied about Hart-Celler in order to enable a “soft genocide” of white Americans:
“The bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill,” President Johnson said during the signing ceremony. “It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power.” Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), the bill’s floor manager, stated: “It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society.” Even advocacy groups who had favored the national-origins quotas became supporters, predicting little change to the profile of immigration streams.
Despite these predictions, the measure had a profound effect on the flow of immigrants to the United States, and in only a matter of years began to transform the U.S. demographic profile. The number of new lawful permanent residents (or green-card holders) rose from 297,000 in 1965 to an average of about 1 million each year since the mid-2000s (see Figure 1). Accordingly, the foreign-born population has risen from 9.6 million in 1965 to a record high of 45 million in 2015 as estimated by a new study from the Pew Research Center Hispanic Trends Project. Immigrants accounted for just 5 percent of the U.S. population in 1965 and now comprise 14 percent.
It has taken Republicans years to confront this process mainly because of the stigma of seeming like Hitler. We are told that Hitler wanted to take over the world and eliminate non-whites; at least, no one will object if that is taught in schools.
In reality, Hitler wanted to protect one group — Germans — from having foreigners among them and being gradually demographically replaced or outbred, a process which replaces the original genetics with hybrids, ensuring that the original never exists again.
Tucker Carlson recently broke the bourgeois Republican taboo line and pointed out the obvious, which is that Leftists want a permanent majority who are clueless enough to vote for them:
Terry McAuliffe knew it would benefit his party if felons could vote again, so he unilaterally restored those rights and attacked anyone who disagreed as a bigot. Remember that? Well currently, control of Virginia’s House of Delegates hinges on a single race where the candidates literally tied with more than 23,000 votes cast.
In other words, McAuliffe’s gambit worked, so why not try it on a national scale, with a group far larger than just convicted felons?
Democrats know if they keep up the flood of illegals into the country, they can eventually turn it into a flood of voters for them. They don’t have to foster economic growth, or be capable administrators, or provide good government. They just have to keep the pump flowing, and power will be theirs.
This strategy has been known to tyrants through history, because if you introduce foreigners, you break up the uniformity of the original majority population, mostly by shattering social trust and with it, erasing customs, aesthetics, ideals, and beliefs.
With that complete, your group has nothing but ideology, and as society becomes more chaotic and violent, they cling to the tyrants who promise to bring order.
If anyone were thinking — spoiler: they are not — they would notice that this qualifies as a “soft genocide” under the United Nations definition of genocide (h/t Genocide Advisory Group) because it is “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”:
Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
We do not mention this because the Left loves destruction of majorities. Leftists style themselves as exceptions, which makes them feel unique even though they have defined that uniqueness in opposition to the majority, and allows them to live a vicarious existence where they imagine that they are revolutionary artists and thinkers, when in fact they are normal bourgeois citizens LARPing as people of importance.
They love the idea of tearing down everything as a means of showing how important and powerful they are. This pathology arises in Dunning-Kruger cases who realize that they are in fact not important, but need some claim to uniqueness in order to feel good about their lives.
Interestingly, things are not going to plan. First, the nu-majority elects its own instead of white Leftists; second, white resistance is slowly (slowly… slowly) growing through opposition to immigration:
Ann Coulter said that Donald Trump will continue to do well in the polls as long as he keeps talking about immigration.
“The voters keep saying, ‘We don’t want any more immigration,’” Coulter said. “That’s why Trump is so popular. So pick it up, Republicans.”
What defines tyrants is their incompetence. No leader of actual masculinity and intellectual stature wants to rule over idiots for his own power; he wants to be known for his deeds, in other words for having improved his population and achieved great things for them.
The gateway to history requires such contributions; tyrants are known merely for having suppressed, browbeaten, guilted, subjugated, controlled, manipulated, monitored, and gaslighted populations into submission. No one cares except to use them as examples of terrible failure, like Joseph Stalin or Pol Pot.
As Machiavelli said, a great leader must be feared, but also loved, to really go down in history as a winner. The natural winners recognize that, at the level of politics, the only victory consists in being the leaders who take their populations to victory and therefore are loved after they are feared, where tyrants go in the opposite direction.
Resistance is mounting to more than just white demographic replacement. People are seeing that liberal democracy did not work out so well, and want it gone; they also fear the pollution and disorder brought by modernity.
We are ready for something new. Demographic replacement will ultimately fail simply because it creates another unstable Venezuela-style state, and it has served its role in history to inspire us to go the opposite way, which is toward mono-ethnic traditionalist mercantile societies with strong natural aristocrats as leaders instead of endless bureaucratic democracy.
In other words, we are seeing the end of the twentieth century order. All of its developments — equality, consumerism, civil/human rights, industry, globalism, diversity — are failing at the same time, creating a vacuum.
And nature “abhors” one of those, which is a nice way of saying: expect a violent and sudden “equal and opposite” reaction which replaces this mess of a time with something new. If we play our cards right, it may even be better.