Repulsive Replacement Theory and Economic Delusions

Plus: The editors each point out one key disagreement they have with one another.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Repulsive Replacement Theory and Economic Delusions

In the latest Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Nick Gillespie debunk the "great replacement theory" and highlight some particularly awful responses to recent economic woes.

1:31 - The Buffalo mass shooting and "great replacement theory"

28:34- Weekly Listener Question: Matt's prompt this week to evaluate why the audience listens to the Roundtable podcast pushed me to pose a question that's been on my mind for a while: *What is one general principle, or area of practical politics, that each of you feels you disagree with the most of the others on the Roundtable about?* I regularly listen to several political roundtable podcasts to help me triangulate my views on issues, and to my ear your podcast—which I do enjoy—can often be summarized as follows: "[Insert name here], is such-and-such action by the government a good idea?" "No." I don't identify as a libertarian, so there are very likely subtleties to your views that I don't pick up on as a layman. But I would be curious to hear in your own words how you feel your viewpoints are distinct.

37:19 - Bad responses to current economic hardship

49:05 - Media recommendations for the week

This week's links: 

"The Replacement Theory—And Terrorist Practice," by Cathy Young

"Bad Policy Creates Inflation and Opens the Door to Even Worse Ideas," by J.D. Tuccille

"The Demented – and Selective – Game of Instantly Blaming Political Opponents for Mass Shootings," by Glenn Greenwald

"Buffalo Shooting Will Prompt Measures 'To Combat Domestic Terrorism,' Says Pelosi," by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

Send your questions to [e-mail]. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsors:

• This podcast is sponsored by BetterHelp online therapy. People don't always realize that physical symptoms like headaches, teeth-grinding and even digestive issues can be indicators of stress. And let's not forget about doom-scrolling, sleeping too little, sleeping too much, undereating, and overeating. Stress shows up in all kinds of ways. And in a world that's telling you to do more, sleep less, and grind all the time, here's your reminder to take care of yourself, do less, and maybe try some therapy. BetterHelp is customized online therapy that offers video, phone, and even live chat sessions with your therapist, so you don't have to see anyone on camera if you don't want to. It's much more affordable than in-person therapy. Give it a try and see if online therapy can help lower your stress. This podcast is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Reason Roundtable listeners get 10% off their first month at BetterHelp dot com slash roundtable. That's BetterHelp.com/roundtable.
• We all want to make sure our family is protected in a medical emergency. What many of us don't realize is that health insurance won't always cover the full amount of an emergency medical flight. Even with comprehensive coverage, you could get hit with high deductibles and co-pays. That's why an AirMedCare Network membership is so important. As a member, if an emergency arises, you won't see a bill for air medical transport when flown by an AMCN provider. Best of all, a membership covers your entire household for as little as $85 a year. AMCN providers are called upon to transport more than 100,000 patients a year. This is coverage no family should be without. Now, as a listener of our show, you'll get up to a fifty dollar Visa or Amazon gift card with a new membership. Simply visit AirMedCareNetwork.com/reason and use offer code REASON.

Audio production by Ian Keyser

Assistant production by Hunt Beaty

Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve

What are we consuming this week?

Nick Gillespie

• Things Fell Apart

Peter Suderman

• Ambulance

Katherine Mangu-Ward

• Come As You Are: Revised and Updated: The Surprising New Science That Will Transform Your Sex Life

Matt Welch

• Prospect Park

---

Comments

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

In the latest Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Nick Gillespie debunk the "great replacement theory" and highlight some particularly awful responses to recent economic woes.

If I had the time and inclination, I would find clips of all the interviews with politicians, journalists and Democratic operatives saying, literally, that the solutions to American white supremacy, Republicanism, and the possibility of a national Democratic party super-majority are in demographic replacement which would come largely through immigration.

Claiming that "replacement theory" is some kind of "Conspiracy theory" in the fever dreams of a Fox News host kind of misses the point.

[JesseAz]

CRT itself is about institutionalized racism to protect whites from becoming a minority. How is that different?

[raspberrydinners]

Thanks for proving once again you don't know your head from a hole in the ground.

[Moderation4ever]

Agreed. This is Jesse's attempt to set up an equivalency that does not exist.

[Nardz]

Mod & raspberry are literally cancer.
Kill the cancer.

[mad.casual]

At the very least, if White Replacement Theory is purely a myth, then there ought to be big enough holes in,

In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such." These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.

to drive cattle cars full of immigrants through. That's not to say we *should* be driving cattle cars through, but I don't see anything above that says "It's all good as long as you only do it to the repulsive parts." and several parts that clearly state the opposite.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.

I believe it is official DNC policy that there is an asterisk on that statement.

[mad.casual]

And even (e.g.) separating children from escorts at the border (whether you ship them back or not) carries the intentions/precept of preventing them from dying in the desert, being taken advantage of by pan-cultural criminal organizations, or otherwise preserving their life and culture. The integration or assimilation justification necessitates destroying one or both cultures and/or creating a new one.

[CLM1227]

Integration/assimilation does not destroy the culture in its native habitat. It continues to persist there.

To have left that culture to come to another place where another culture exists in numbers exceeding the local inhabitants and refusing to assimilate DOES erase the culture you are settling into.

[mad.casual]

Integration/assimilation does not destroy the culture in its native habitat. It continues to persist there.

No, it doesn't. You don't start with a pot of boiling water, toss in a few carrots, a few potatoes, and wind up with baked potatoes or potatoes ready for the fryer, cooked carrots, and a hot cup of water ready for tea. That's not to say that bowl of soup or stew is better or worse than baked/fried veggies and tea, just that once you've mixed the veggies with the water, don't expect a proper cup of tea.

[Nardz]

I'm sure you could find Reason writers celebrating the same...

[Gaear Grimsrud]

One only needs to look at birth rates to see that "white people" are in decline and "POCs" are ascendant. Birth rates among the native populations have declined dramatically in every European country and the U.S. They are being replaced by immigrants. Whether or not this is a good thing we can debate. But clearly the cultures of these countries will be affected by this change. It's just silly to pretend otherwise. And just to be clear. American culture includes black people, Hispanic people and hundreds of other cultures that have assimilated into what was once a liberal democracy.

[JFree]

We didn't have a liberal democracy (or classical republic or whatever) in say 1800 when only 5 states (KY, MD, RI, VA, NC) had any popular vote for Prez. And eg in Virginia - the voter turnout was roughly 4% - with Thomas Jefferson on the ballot.

We were ASPIRATIONALLY liberal then. Those who were content with simply putting aspiration on a statue and ossifying that particular 1789 status quo were not 'liberal'. They were the judges who decided the Dred Scott case on that basis.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pissing on our legs and demanding we pretend it's raining is so common, we're knee deep in urine at this point. Replacement theory is just another example.

[ElvisIsReal]

It's pretty hilarious to see them claim it's a conspiracy theory after bragging about it happening for the last decade at least.

[Azathoth!!]

If I had the time and inclination, I would find clips of all the interviews with politicians, journalists and Democratic operatives saying, literally, that the solutions to American white supremacy, Republicanism, and the possibility of a national Democratic party super-majority are in demographic replacement which would come largely through immigration.

This has been done. It was on the Ben Shapiro show a day or so ago.

Ben is particularly incensed that 'the great replacement theory' promulgated by neo-nazis is their standard 'the joos did it' crap.

Which is a shame. Because among the people glorying in the 'browning of America', the folks chanting 'demographics is destiny', the crowds cheering on the idea that census data showing fewer whites, ARE not a few elites who are also jewish.

Ben's got a real problem dealing with the fact that jews can be assholes too.

But there is no denying that the left wants to replace non-leftist whites with populations they consider more tractable, controllable and dumb.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

And I like the press tagline "majority-minority". Because there are two races: White people and Non-white people.

Let's just keep this collectivized racialized view of the world going full steam ahead, and see where that gets you.

I don't like ___________ people, I just don't like ________ness and _________ culture.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

*it's not that I don't like ________ people.

[Mother's Lament]

It's not that I don't like the Democratic Party, I just don't like evilness and Molochian culture.
No, wait... I loathe the Democrats.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

compare and contrast:

Psaki says Biden has NO plans to visit Waukesha after the deadly Christmas parade attack 'at this time' because sending the president to a community 'requires a lot of assets'

With

Biden will travel to Buffalo on Tuesday following mass shooting, official says

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Unfortunately all of those white grannys in Waukesha aren't useful to the narrative.

[Nemo Aequalis]

Yeah, CNN is making the same noises today. But this is what they were saying in 2018.

https://raheemkassam.substack.com/p/cnns-hypocritical-shrieking-about?sd=nfs&s=r

If you don't find that convincing, I guarantee I can provide plenty of articles and videos not only acknowledging the Great Replacement Theory Policy, but downright celebrating it.

That it took me less than a minute to find an example ought to be telling.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Finding people celebrating it is easy. I can't remember which one, but one of the late-night hosts made a reference recently to a study that showed "white" Americans were in the minority of the first time... since whenever and the everyone cheered.

We're in a very strange space of 100% acceptable, mainstream in-your-face racism right now.

[Nardz]

It's 1933 Germany esque

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

And yeah, I googled no less than a dozen articles from various mainstream news sources from ~2017-2018 where there was just a full throated assumption that the influx of "non-whites" into the US spelled trouble for Republicans and the GOP, and presented "huge opportunities" for Democrats because, according to no-shit straight news, It Is Known that Republicans are Racists and Democrats Are Not.

[JesseAz]

During 2nd Obama term they celebrated the new permanent majority based on white replacement.

[Nobartium]

It's even older than that. Anyone remember The Emerging Democrat Majority?

It was written in 2002.

Conspiracy theory my left testicle.

[Moonrocks]

So it's CNN that's responsible for this White Replacement violence...

[Sevo]

"...That it took me less than a minute to find an example ought to be telling."

Oh, it certainly is; quite telling, regarding your intelligence.

[JesseAz]

Justice Thomas to the media:

"I will absolutely leave the Court when I do my job as poorly as you do yours."

[Corporatist Remover]

Tucker Carlson is wonderful. Love that guy. Unlike the idiots at Reason, he recognizes that a free society is incompatible with mass immigration and woke corporatism.

Think of it this way:

1. Libertarians want to live in a free society.
2. Libertarians want to let corporations do as they please.
3. Corporate America actively promotes woke totalitarianism, which actively leads to a less free society.
4. Corporate America supports mass migration, which leads to a more Democratic (and less liberty-minded) electorate.
5. Given the choice between actualizing a free society and letting corporations do as they please, libertarians need to start penalizing companies that promote woke totalitarianism.

[Sevo]

"...Given the choice between actualizing a free society and letting corporations do as they please, libertarians need to start penalizing companies that promote woke totalitarianism..."

How?

[Mother's Lament]

Make the executives and their families live according to the same principles they promote for others.

[Corporatist Remover]

Deprive them of subsidies, take away their copyrights, raise their taxes, and saddle them with regulations. But Reason will tell you not to take that approach. It's unconstitutional! It's bad for free speech (as though liberal corporations should be allowed to talk to me about troonery).

[NOYB2]

Actually, I think just eliminating the “corporation” as a legal entity would do it.

[Nemo Aequalis]

Libertarians serve exactly one purpose in American politics: convincing conservatives to unilaterally disarm so the left can roll right over them.

[Mother's Lament]

It's the neocons, BBB-types and GOPe that promote cheek spreading.

[Corporatist Remover]

DEMOCRATS: Let's replace white America.

TUCKER CARLSON: You want to replace white America? That's not good.

DEMOCRATS: Conspiracy theorist.

And as Glenn Greenwald has already pointed out, the Buffalo shooter never mentioned Tucker Carlson or his show. In fact, he seems to have hated Fox News. But thanks for including his picture. That's very Reason of you!

[Nardz]

I wonder: if someone were to off Tucker tomorrow... should Mangu-Ward, Welch, Suderman, and Gillespie be held responsible?

By their own standards, yes?

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Would holding them responsible involve the utilization of a device capable of chipping wood? I mean it's not like they're judges or anything important.

[Mother's Lament]

"In fact, he seems to have hated Fox News. But thanks for including his picture."

He actually posted a picture of Fox News personalities with Stars of David over them, but when the establishment has a narrative the Reasonistas know their duty.

[Ronbback]

when all other theories fail and one theory fits the parameters then it is no long a theory but a working model.

[Fats of Fury]

Do Reason staffers have to wear sunglasses to prevent snow blindness? Must be the whitest place in D.C.

[MasterThief]

It depends on which areas. In DC there are upscale apartments that are almost completely white and Asian. A little further out in the nice houses you get a mix of white, middle eastern, and Indian. The few blacks in these neighborhoods tend to be active or retired high ranking military.

[DWB]

One of the main reasons Democrats lost their shit when Trump was elected was because they convinced themselves that they had created some grand coalition of the "brown" and would never lose national elections again -- a permanent majority!

Utter bullshit calling it a "conspiracy!"

[ElvisIsReal]

What's it called when you think all brown people act exactly the same way, again?

[SIV]

"culturally responsive"

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Here's a conspiracy that I'd like to see pushed, and put into action:

A supreme court with 9 Clarence Thomases and a presidential administration full of Glenn Lourys

So trust me, I worry not about "white replacement" I think we could use a little more of that type of white replacement.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

And I'd like a congress full of Coleman Hughes.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

So yeah, get out of the way, Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren and prepare to be "replaced". I'm more than willing to affirmative-action this bitch up. I'm gonna use the Time Magazine article on election fortification as a manual and start harvesting some ballots to enact my "white replacement" initiative.

[Fats of Fury]

You forget, she's a Red Herring. Ugh.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Questions:

1. Is it racist to make empirical observations and to correlate those observations by race?

2. Is it racist to make statistical predictions based on these empirical correlations?

I would argue that the answer to both questions is no. There can not possibly be any sort of animus or prejudice against anyone with simply observing reality, using statistics properly and rigorously, with professional interpretation.

What WOULD be racist, in my view, would be to make a prediction on someone's state of mind based on skin color that is NOT the result of a statistical correlation. Because in this case, one is assuming that race CAUSES the person to have a particular belief.

Not racist: "A black man is statistically more likely to vote for a Democrat than a Republican."
Racist: "A black man votes Democrat because he is black."

[SQRLSY One]

Agreed!

Racist: "We need less dark-skinned immigrants and more white-skinned immigrants, if ANY immigrants at ALL! 'Cause the immigrants from dark-skinned shithole nations will vote Demon-Crap!"

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/11/16880750/trump-immigrants-shithole-countries-norway
Trump wants fewer immigrants from “shithole countries” and more from places like Norway
He reportedly made the racist remarks during a meeting Thursday.

[Mother's Lament]

Sqrlsy definitely knows all about shitholes.

Also, calling a shithole a shithole, and encouraging immigration from one of the best educated populations in the world is now racist, because reasons.

[SQRLSY One]

One doesn't need a fancy education to perform the work that welfare-spoiled Americans won't do. You want the fruits and veggies to rot in the fields, because You (Perfect One) need to sneer at the illegal sub-humans.

[Nardz]

Here collectivistjeff admits that CRT, and himself, is entirely racist.

[R Mac]

I’d say he should change his handle, except he’s a liar, so it makes sense he’s the opposite of his handle.

[JesseAz]

Is it possible for you to not engage in sophistry by ignoring examples that have been provided to you for over a year?

[Don't look at me!]

Skin color is the most important thing

[Moonrocks]

It's not racist when we do it!

[chemjeff radical individualist]

So, do you believe it is racist to make empirical observations and to correlate those observations by race? If so, why?

[JesseAz]

Comparing two groups solely for comparative purposes but assigning a causation for disparity without investigation is both idiotic and malicious.

You can take any group of people and randomly divide them by any metric. Sex, race, hair color, last names starting from a-l vs m-z, and you will come up with disparities. Looking at these disparities is meaningless

In the context of CRT these disparities are said to imply racism without investigation as to causation.

In any statistical comparison of groups you will find disparity in sampling. Even pulling sub samples from the same group will show a disparity between the two sub samples.

It is meaningless to a fault. And malicious for what CRT advocates you is for.

Now will you admit you've ignored dozens of examples of applied CRT as taught in schools while defending it through sophistry?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Comparing two groups solely for comparative purposes but assigning a causation for disparity without investigation is both idiotic and malicious.

I agree 1,000%.

You can take any group of people and randomly divide them by any metric. Sex, race, hair color, last names starting from a-l vs m-z, and you will come up with disparities. Looking at these disparities is meaningless

Some disparities are meaningless, sure, but not all. For example, if one were to perform a rigorous statistical analysis of a disparity according to race in the Jim Crow South, that analysis could potentially tell us something about the magnitude of the harm caused by de jure segregation. (Or benefit, I suppose!)

In any statistical comparison of groups you will find disparity in sampling.

Well sure, that is why the statistical analysis has to be done rigorously and with proper attention to confidence intervals.

And by the way thanks for actually engaging with a productive comment.

[R Mac]

Huh.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/14/kiel-wisconsin-school-charges-kids-for-using-wrong-pronouns/

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

chemjeff radical individualist WTF?!?!?!

And there you go. Collectivism in action. We are not statistical aggregates. We are individuals.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Joe Biden told us that if people don't vote for Democrats they ain't black. Even if they are clean and articulate.

[mad.casual]

Not racist: "A black man (or woman) is statistically more likely to be less intelligent and, subsequently poor."
Racist: "It's because he (or she) is black."

- chemjeff radical individualist

[Ersatz]

if you didn't vote for Biden 'you ain't black'

[Ben_]

The Buffalo shooter's motive was related to blame and anger at people who are not like him.

If you think you should respond to it with anger at and blame for people who are not like you, then think again.

[SQRLSY One]

Agreed and well stated!

“MY Tribe’s lies leading to violence against your tribe GOOD! Your tribe’s lies leading to violence against MY Tribe BAD! VERY bad!” THIS is a root cause, and THIS is what is going on here! Ridiculous violence must ALWAYS be blamed on the OTHER tribe!

How about we STOP trying to be the one who hollers “MY Tribe’s lies leading to violence against your tribe GOOD!", etc., the loudest? And start trying to "love our neighbors" a bit better, instead?

The intelligent, well-informed, and benevolent members of tribes have ALWAYS been resented by those who are made to look relatively worse (often FAR worse), as compared to the advanced ones. Especially when the advanced ones denigrate tribalism. The advanced ones DARE to openly mock “MY Tribe’s lies leading to violence against your tribe GOOD! Your tribe’s lies leading to violence against MY Tribe BAD! VERY bad!” And then that’s when the Jesus-killers, Mahatma Gandhi-killers, Martin Luther King Jr.-killers, etc., unsheath their long knives!

“Do-gooder derogation” (look it up) is a socio-biologically programmed instinct. SOME of us are ethically advanced enough to overcome it, using benevolence and free will! For details, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ and http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/ .

[Mother's Lament]

"Jesus-killers, Mahatma Gandhi-killers, Martin Luther King Jr.-killers"

Is that your tribe?

[SQRLSY One]

Your tribe, not mine!

[Nardz]

Promotion of:
homosexuality and transgenderism + unlimited abortion + open borders = ?

[SQRLSY One]

Promotion of:
Hatred + smug self-styled superiority + tribalism + do-gooder derogation + racism (yes, it exists) + self-righteousness = ?

[Mother's Lament]

Sqrlsy?

[SQRLSY One]

Wrong! Nadless Nardless the Nasty NAZI and its "gurlfiend", Mammary-Necrophila-Fuhrer the Shemale!

[Nemo Aequalis]

In the latest Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Nick Gillespie debunk the "great replacement theory"

Sneering at and debunking are two different things. I heard plenty of the former, and absolutely nothing of the later.

[Mickey Rat]

That sums up the Reason Roundtable on almost any issue. Even on issues I generally agree with them, their discussion of it comes off as smug and flippant, with shallow reasoning.

[MasterThief]

It's one of the reasons I stopped trying to listen. They rarely espouse libertarian principles or implement such rationales. It's basically NPR with swearing. Even if you could say they don't consistently espouse leftist beliefs and support democrats, it's undeniable that a hatred of Republicans and the right constantly motivates their thinking

[Corporatist Remover]

LOL. Reason linked to Cathy Young's piece in The Bulwark. Could this site get any more pathetic?

[Mother's Lament]

Nothing says libertarianism like the butthurt neocons on Kaptain Kristol's Kruiseline.

[Fats of Fury]

It's gonna be so lit after the midterms. Yeah, right.

GOP senator apologizes after boos for ‘two sexes’ remarks

https://news.yahoo.com/gop-senator-apologizes-boos-two-152527584.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Our universities are populated by retards.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Two more things:

1. The huge giant flaw with "great replacement theory", ultimately, is that it confuses correlation with causation. It is no secret that minority groups statistically tend to vote Democrat. That is simply an observation of empirical reality. It is not true, however, that race CAUSES an individual to vote in a certain way. That is insulting and racist because it denies agency to the individual and reduces him/her to just a racial caricature.

2. And of course what makes it a conspiracy theory is the supposition that there is some deliberate plot to manipulate the racial composition of the nation in order to produce specific results. That is absurd paranoid thinking, as every conspiracy theory is.

[Don't look at me!]

If statistics show certain people vote a certain way, and you want the vote to go a certain way, you need more of those certain people.

[Don't look at me!]

Maybe the best thing would be to stop collecting data related to skin color.

[mtrueman]

"you need more of those certain people."

No. You need more votes. You don't need certain people.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

EXACTLY. The racist problem in this entire discussion is the suggestion that specific skin color = vote for specific party. That is what's racist.

[mtrueman]

" That is what's racist."

Also the implication that the Republicans are incapable of attracting non-white votes. In contrast to Republicans of the past like Eisenhower who garnered a large share of the black vote, Republicans of today seem to prefer suppressing the black vote to winning it.

[DesigNate]

That’s why Trump and down ticket Republicans increased their shares of minority votes, because they’re calling for so much voter suppression.

[mtrueman]

The minority vote went overwhelmingly to the Democrats.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Not racist: If you vote for Donald Trump, you ain't black!

[chemjeff radical individualist]

No, I would call that a racist statement.

[R Mac]

So you’re admitting Biden is racist.

[Lord of Strazele]

No, he's just not thinking it through and he has a bad habit of trying to find middle ground with you pieces of shit. Biden's point was that Trump is openly racist against black people and thus black people would be crazy and self hating to support MAGA politics.

[Square = Circle]

Biden's point was that Trump is openly racist against black people

Examples?

[Ersatz]

question followed by deafening silence

[awildseaking]

" And of course what makes it a conspiracy theory is the supposition that there is some deliberate plot to manipulate the racial composition of the nation in order to produce specific results. That is absurd paranoid thinking, as every conspiracy theory is."

There's a deliberate plot, but it isn't the farcical Hollywood blockbuster evil villain plot that you imply it needs to be in order to constitute a plot.

Why do democrats support open borders? Have you ever asked yourself this question? Why don't republicans nor independents? What do democrats gain from open borders?

Over the past 40 years, there has been a net transfer of electoral power to states that support open border policies. California is the greatest offender of all. They have acquired 10 additional electoral votes and countless more seats in the House since Reagan's amnesty suicide pill. What do those votes and seats entail? More national influence, more federal dollars, more everything.

If anyone can benefit from this, why have only democrats pursued it? There is a real reason why. Democrat power and influence comes from government. Everything they do involves using the government to fix things. The entire purpose of the party is to increase the scope of government to fix social ills. In other words, the purpose of the democrat party is to empower the party.

Do all of these democrats do this JUST to alter the racial composition of the country? I doubt any of them really care about race. What they do care about is power, and just like you said, while race may not be deterministic of a vote, you cannot argue that right now, more non-white voters mean democrats in power.

We've all seen the maps. If only men voted, there wouldn't be a single democrat holding any national office. If only whites voted, there would be a few. If non-whites couldn't vote, there wouldn't be a single republican holding any national office.

I do not mince words when I say that anyone that supports open border policies must be investigated for treason. These people are motivated only by power. They are conspiring with the peoples of foreign nations to flood this country and increase their political power. It can backfire and one day will. The problem is that until it backfires, the plot works. Democrats will have artificially high influence for the next 100 years.

Politics is one of the few zero sum games. When politicians pursue open border policies, they are devaluing votes and stealing representation and tax dollars from US citizens. Treason is an appropriate charge for such a grave offense.

[awildseaking]

"If non-whites couldn't vote, there wouldn't be a single republican holding any national office."

Meant to say "if whites couldn't vote."

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Racist NFTs.

On Halloween, Wood released a statement saying he had sold the artwork after he "was made aware of some of the artist's prior disturbing cartoons."

"Upon learning this, I immediately sold the NFTs as I wholly denounce any form of racism," he wrote in the statement.

He said he donated the proceeds from the sale of the NFTs to charities including Black Lives Matter.

[mtrueman]

Name one white person who's been replaced by a non-white person. Can't? How about a non-white person who's replaced a white person. Still can't? Nuff said.

[Junkmailfolder]

Jake from State Farm

[mtrueman]

Jake's been replaced. If you replace a replacement, we're back where we started, and life is beautiful once again.

[R Mac]

Haha

[Ersatz]

every white male or female half of a married couple on a tv commercial

[mtrueman]

They're actors. They hardly qualify as white males.

[Ersatz]

acting isnt a job?

[Nardz]

NAACP president

https://twitter.com/TalbertSwan/status/1526296081314848769?t=PtFcoBdLqb7bKPn-mhX8bw&s=19

Whiteness is an unrelenting, demonic force of evil.

[ElvisIsReal]

Weird how that guy is still on Twitter.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/NPRinskeep/status/1526219778385403905?t=-7WZy23MlQ2R3YzHigWloA&s=19

A fact about Rwanda's genocide has always stuck with me: the ruling party caused much of the killing simply by going on the radio and telling ethnic Hutus that ethnic Tutsis must be killed (along with Hutus who disapproved). Many people listened, and dismembered their neighbors.

The government also used organized militias. But a lot of the killing was done by ordinary people who were urged by their media to get out there and exterminate those who were defined as a threat.

It's been a long time since I read this detail in an amazing book by @PGourevitch, "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families." So I checked to be sure I remembered correctly. Here he is discussing it: [link]

"RTLM (Radio-Television Libre Milles Collines)... became the genocidal radio. It was a radio dedicated entirely to entertainment and genocidal propaganda. And it was highly entertaining. It had pop music..."

"...It was very much in keeping with the kind of youth movement spirit of the militia movement. And people loved this radio station. It was very popular. And it mounted this increasingly virulent, exclusionary and exterminatory rhetoric..."

"...It became almost Genocide Central. It was through there that people were instructed at times, 'Go out there and kill. You must do your work. People are needed over in this commune....'"

"They actually had disc jockeys who would say, So-and-so has just fled. He is said to be moving down such-and-such street. And they would literally hunt an individual... It was a rallying tool that was used in a tremendous way to mobilize the population." Wasn't long ago. 1994.

[mtrueman]

"the ruling party caused much of the killing simply by going on the radio"

It wasn't that simple. The country was in a state of civil war, not to mention the long history of antipathy between the two ethnicities. The massacre was precipitated by the still unsolved assassination of the Rwandan president. Radio played its part but so did the guns, machetes and vehicles used by the killers.

[Overt]

mtrueman making nuance where it is not needed.

The ruling party caused much of the killing by going on the radio. That is simple. The radio broadcast the location of people who were to be killed. The radio turned pop music into a prelude to propaganda.

But according to mtrueman the problem was the machetes. You see, the machetes made their wielders kill people, or something.

[mtrueman]

The radio propaganda had been going on for months before the massacre. It was the killing of the president that precipitated the massacre. The radio broadcasts helped it along, and made it more deadly, as did the other weapons I mentioned.

"the problem was the machetes"

You misunderstand. The problem was the civil war and the ethnic animosity, both of which predated the radio broadcasts by many years.

[Square = Circle]

The problem was the civil war and the ethnic animosity, both of which predated the radio broadcasts by many years.

And the 'lesson' is actually the exact opposite of what NPR is hoping/implying - i.e. that what happened to the Tutsi is a classic case of what happens when an imperialist foreign power (Belgium, in this case) raises an ethnic minority to ruling status in a subject nation and then collapses, leaving that ruling minority to face the population it helped oppress.

Which is not to say that the Tutsi deserved genocide, but it was not a case of the established majority going after a vulnerable minority because of hate speech on the radio.

[Ben of Houston]

Well, the context is important.

If a DJ tried to do that in say, Houston, the response would be confused calls to the manager as to why we went from hip hop to reading of some weird dystopian novel. Even in the darkest parts of Detroit or Chicago, the different gangs would probably do drive bys of the studio rather than take orders from some nobody on the radio.

Since Rwanda was already in a civil war, it's still horrifying, but at least it is more understandable. It was the match in a powder keg, not media zombies blindly following orders.

[sarcasmic]

'Twitter does not believe in free speech': Undercover recording reveals Twitter engineers saying they censor the right NOT the left, that everyone who works there is 'commie as f**k' and they 'hate' that Elon Musk is buying it
Project Veritas have published a secretly recorded conversation with a Twitter engineer admitting the company has a left-wing bias
Siru Murugesan, described by Project Veritas as a senior engineer at the company, said it was 'commie as f***'
He said many employees were angry and worried about Elon Musk's takeover of the company, and 'did all we could, to like revolt against it'
Murugesan said that Twitter had operated an extremely left-wing, lax culture where people could take any time off they wanted and not worry about profit
He told the undercover operative that there was 'bias' against conservatives, and said: 'Twitter does not believe in free speech'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10823295/Twitter-does-not-believe-free-speech-Twitter-engineer-recorded-saying-censor-right.html

Too funny. Hoisted on their own retards.

[Nemo Aequalis]

I tried putting these all in one post, but it's sitting in moderation, so...

https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,969770,00.html

[Nemo Aequalis]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world

[Nemo Aequalis]

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/the-us-white-majority-will-soon-disappear-forever/

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/NickRiccardi/status/1526281487988957185?t=o8VE_aXewrOCXpR23VeaaQ&s=19

SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) — Authorities: Gunman in deadly attack at California church was Chinese immigrant motivated by hate for Taiwanese.

[NOYB2]

Repulsive Replacement Theory

Well, the shooter's theory was a race-based anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, in which white Americans are being displaced by non-white invaders based on some conspiracy among Jews. That's wrong and repulsive.

Reality is that Democrats, progressives, and "libertarians" advocate open borders to flood the country with third world migrants in order to get cheap labor and new leftists voters, while bankrupting the nation. This is obviously not a "Jewish conspiracy" since the people doing it are bragging about what they are doing and why; it turns out that they are mostly racist leftists from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds.

[mtrueman]

"This is obviously not a "Jewish conspiracy"

Isn't Bernie Sanders a Jew, a Socialist, a Democrat and an advocate of third world things? Murray Rothbard? Noam Chomsky? Hollywood? The New York Times? The right wing have been wringing their hands over malevolent Jewish influence since forever, and the Buffalo killer is just the latest deadly manifestation.

[R Mac]

“Murray Rothbard?”

Murray Rothbard was an An-Cap. And the Buffalo killer was left-wing.

[mtrueman]

Rothbard was a libertarian who supported open borders and was a Jew as well. As far as I know, the Buffalo killer was neither a Jew nor left wing nor a supporter of open borders. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd appreciate your presenting it.

[Nemo Aequalis]

Rothbard was a libertarian who supported open borders

Excuse me?

[mtrueman]

Libertarian: one who supports the free movement of ideas, goods and people. What more do you need to know?

And the notion that the Buffalo killer was a left wing, libertarian, a supporter of open borders or a Jew is ridiculous. You don't believe it, so why the pose?

[Nemo Aequalis]

Libertarian: one who supports the free movement of ideas, goods and people. What more do you need to know?

I usually try to know someone's actual views on a subject so I can avoid publicly misrepresenting them.

Rothbard decidedly did not support open borders. Read what he wrote.

[mtrueman]

"I usually try to know someone's actual views on a subject so I can avoid publicly misrepresenting them."

That is commendable. I am not so diligent. But the fact remains that Libertarians support open borders, as NOYB2 stated in his original comment. People have been moving back and forth over the frontier for hundreds if not thousands of years. Why would a Libertarian support government regulation to control it?

It's also clear that the Buffalo killer wasn't Jewish, leftist, etc.

[Nemo Aequalis]

People have been moving back and forth over the frontier for hundreds if not thousands of years. Why would a Libertarian support government regulation to control it?

Easy, in an actual libertarian society, all property would be in private hands, rather than public ones.

As all property is private, government has no authority to grant access to it, in fact, their obligation is to protect the owner's property rights. Therefore, there can be no "right to immigrate".

I believe he explains that in the article I linked.

[mtrueman]

"government has no authority to grant access to it, in fact,"

Then government has no authority to prevent people from accessing it. The entire matter would be left in the hands of the owners of the property. Doesn't that follow?

[The New Number Two]

I lost a lot of respect for Rothbard around 1990 when he reversed his lifelong support for free immigration. If anything ever deserved Rothbard’s classic “monstrous!” denunciation, it is our “kinder, gentler” Berlin Wall built to keep people from living and working in the U.S. because they happened to be born elsewhere. Rothbard had always refused to justify one injustice with another, but overnight the welfare system became his rationale for cutting immigration below its already heavily restricted level. When Libertarian Party presidential candidate Ed Clark made the same argument in 1980, Rothbard was outraged, citing it as “probably the greatest (or perhaps the second greatest) single scandal of the Clark campaign.” -- Bryan Caplan

[Ben of Houston]

Truly, most of the right wing likes the Jews as a consistently conservative group that they view as having good values, and the support of Israel has been a rallying point for most Republicans for decades.

There are a few wackos who support the extremists, but they don't really fit. Even the radical evangelicals would stand with Judaism over most other groups

[MasterThief]

I was raised Christian and never encountered any hostility towards Jews in the religious community. Jews were more viewed as distant cousins who just hadn't accepted newer doctrine.
Where I've seen antisemitism on the right is the tin foil hat conspiracy theorists. Even then it rarely seems to be about race and more about noticing something that connects a lot of powerful people who collude with one another. The neonazis and such get tagged to the right, but they are absolutely left on policy. If anything could tag them to the right then it would be traditionalism and nostalgia for our country's past.

[mtrueman]

"Truly, most of the right wing likes the Jews as a consistently conservative group that they view as having good values"

The right wing hates Hollywood, the media, and the Democratic party. The state of Israel was first recognized by Stalin's USSR followed closely by Truman. (no relation) Nixon, Reagan and Bush all were willing to give recognition to the Palestinian cause.

[NOYB2]

I have no idea. Biden and Pelosi are Catholic, the squad is atheist or Muslim, and Hillary is just a jerk. So, not a Jewish conspiracy.

The only one obsessing about Jews here is you, but given that you are a racist, that should surprise nobody.

[Roberta]

What's repulsive replacement theory?

[raspberrydinners]

Another day of racists in full force out on reason.

[DesigNate]

You should tell your fellow leftist to lay off their shameful racism and bigotry of low expectations and paternalism the .

[Nemo Aequalis]

We Can Replace Them - New York Times

[awildseaking]

Replacement theory in America is unfortunately a kafkatrap.

Democrats openly speak of pursuing policies aimed at making white Europeans an ethnic minority in America.

White nationalists speak of a great replacement where European whites will be the victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Democrats use white nationalists as useful idiots. When you speak ill of Democrats for their bizarre agenda, they say "we're not doing that, go be a racist somewhere else." Then they go right back to talking about replacing you.

The two replacement theories are distinct ideas that have nothing to do with one another other than being broadly anti-white.

The white nationalist version of replacement theory is obviously not happening. There are no campaigns of targeted violence against white people.

The democrat version of replacement theory is sort of happening. The policies they're pursuing do make America less white, but I don't think that is the primary objective. When democrats are asked about it, they show a bit of their bias by saying they aren't necessarily unhappy about the outcome; "diversity is our strength."

Where I would like to explore the idea is why the modern democrat party has become so obsessed with whiteness. I am well versed in the same neo-marxist post-modern babble as the most rabid leftists. They view whiteness as a concept and not a literal skin pigmentation. Destruction of whiteness means the ideas and not the color, but then they conflate the two when it is convenient for their purpose. I find the entire ideology to be a complete joke with very poor construction, but I take it seriously as the ideology does influence our daily lives.

It would be interesting to hear journalists ask someone like Pelosi or Schumer why they cheer upon hearing that there are fewer white people.

[Ben of Houston]

I think you are definitely correct that there are two very different replacement theories. One is a horrifying conspiracy and the other is officially and explicitly the policy of the Democratic party.

As many people in this thread have said. The Democrats know minorities tend to vote for their party, and have explicitly encouraged immigration and ramped up demonization of the Republican party for the goal of staying in power permanently.

However, it seems to me that the conspiracy is just viewing the explicit policy and ascribing panicked reasoning to it.

[mtrueman]

"It would be interesting to hear journalists ask someone like Pelosi or Schumer why they cheer upon hearing that there are fewer white people."

Surely it's no mystery. It's the same reason why the Republicans are bent on policies which suppress the black vote. You can read about it every day here in the comments.

[awildseaking]

The difference being that republicans don't cheer while democrats do.

It's obviously about power. Easier for republicans to win when blacks don't vote. That's the part you're not supposed to say out loud, but it's true. Nobody will cry foul, but nobody cheers it. I wish we had a more healthy political conversation where single interest groups didn't vote 80-90% one way, but that's a pipe dream at this point.

It's easier for democrats to win without white people, but that doesn't answer the cheering.

[MasterThief]

Agree. I don't see Republicans doing anything to suppress the black vote. I also don't think they would disagree that blacks not voting helps their electoral prospects. It's difficult to sell a message of freedom and responsibility to a community that has internalized a victim mentality and is being promised everything they want and need from the government

[mtrueman]

"The difference being that republicans don't cheer while democrats do."

Because participating in elections is something seen as praiseworthy in a democratic system. Whether it's voters waggling their stained fingers or proudly sporting buttons with 'I voted' and the American flag. Not voting is somehow shameful in comparison. That accounts for the lack of cheering Republicans.

[awildseaking]

"participating in elections is something seen as praiseworthy"

That's where we break on the issue. The founders very clearly were afraid of uninformed participation in our hybrid system. They knew the dangers of a bunch of idiots voting en masse and here we are today, wondering why the scope of govt continues to expand with no end in sight.

[mtrueman]

"The founders very clearly were afraid of uninformed participation in our hybrid system."

That's why they restricted the voting to male property owners. In any case they would have seen a male property owner who refused to vote as derelict in his civic responsibilities, while the male property owner who did vote was fulfilling his.

"They knew the dangers of a bunch of idiots voting en masse and here we are today,"

There are more Americans who don't vote than those who do. Blaming voters for problems of today seems to let the non voters off the hook. Also non-elected leaders like dictators, monarchs, and so on can be just as unsatisfactory as elected leaders. I don't see how shrinking the franchise would solve anything. It would only create problems.

[NOYB2]

Stop lying. No Republican has attempted to “suppress the black vote”.

[mtrueman]

"Stop lying."

You're joking, right? Not your best effort.

[awildseaking]

Have any cites? If you mention anything about voter ID I'm gonna lol.

[mtrueman]

Long lines at voting booths, antiquated and unreliable equipment, hurdles like voter registration, and ID checks, poll taxes, literacy tests etc. You can do your own research. Anything that makes voting or eligibility to vote more complex and time consuming will tend to suppress participation. Both parties have known this since the beginning. You're not seriously telling me this is news to you, are you? If not, why the pose? It doesn't fool anyone.

[DesigNate]

Long lines at voting booths happen almost exclusively in Democrat controlled urban centers. Try again you lying piece of shit.

[mtrueman]

"Long lines at voting booths happen almost exclusively in Democrat controlled urban centers. "

Thereby suppressing the Democratic vote. Long lines in rural areas would suppress the Republican vote. It's not complicated.

[kfs]

Another day of dingleberrydinners calling people racists in full force out on reason. It's fucking ponderous.

[Noodles123]

You silly white liberals.

The minute you flood the country with foreigners who have no want to be part of your culture, ethics and morals is the minute your country will crash from within.

You make exceptions, lower standards and accept an entire class of permanent leeches...Look at the Somalians in Minneapolis, the Hasidic Jews in NYC, the Ethiopians in San Diego etc etc.

Crime, low employment, violence, low graduation rate and lots of children along with more welfare than you can shake a stick at.

The best countries that run the best year after year are usually Nordic White and 2 Asians ones (Japan and Singapore).

You push out your whites and you'll starve like South Africa, Rhodesia etc etc.

You self-hating whites in your quest to EVEN all things will kill the Golden Goose AND YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN WILL SUFFER.

[Ghost on the Highway]

In the last 50 years, the US white population has decreased from 88% to 61%, Black increased from 11% to 12%, and Asian from 1% to 6%, and Hispanics from 4.4% to 19%. Clearly whites are being replaced primarily by Hispanics. Blacks have been replaced to 3rd place in terms of size of minorities.

If there is a conspiracy going on, it is increasing the Hispanic population. Biden would fit that bill by encouraging immigration.

The New Zealand shooters thesis was that within 3 decades some Europeans countries would be majority Muslim because of high migration rates and birth rate disparities between the migrant populations and native populations. In which case, the concept of "Western Civilization" becomes tenuous

[Nelson]

I believe that there is a place in America for honest disagreement on every subject. I hold that belief because I have been confident that people with honestly-, strongly-, and passionately-held beliefs that differ from mine are still decent people who reject political violence and would condemn it whether it was perpetrated by someone who agreed with them, politically, or not.

I am no longer confident in that belief. I read people posting on this site about killing me because of things I say and think, "people who hate what I believe are disgusted by this guy because they aren't monsters". But I read this thread and have to wonder.

A kid in Buffalo, inspired by a racist theory promoted by the most popular pundit on the most popular conservative news channel, bought a gun for the expressed purpose of hunting down and killing black people who were just going about their day. Literally killing innocents.

And rather than express horror and denounce the killer and the theory, paleoconservative voices on this site start blaming Democrats, engaging in whataboutism, placing blame elsewhere, and generally act like apologists for politically- and racially-motivated murder.

What is wrong with you? Are you so beholden to "your team" that you have abandoned your humanity? Are you afraid that if you acknowledge that this is a bridge too far that you are somehow surrendering to your enemies? Is agreeing with the Democrats, moderates, and Republicans who have denounced this atrocity and its cause so intolerable to you that you would rather figure out ways to deflect blame and condemnation from a racist murderer of innocent people?

Where is your basic decency?

[P.P. Schaeffer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vSLHazdR-Y

[XM]

Most Americans have never even heard of "replacement theory" prior to the shooting. I certainly haven't. When conservatives discuss changing demographics and declining white birth rates, they're voicing concerns over the economic impact of immigration (a debatable point) and left leaning tendency of immigrant voters.
It's not a backlash over "we're becoming too brown"

Extremist murders aren't even 1% of all murders. There were around 330 such murders over a 10 year period. There were 200 murders in Baltimore in 2021. Meanwhile nearly all blacks are killed by other blacks, and radical organizations like BLM chant "ACAB" and engage in widespread violence.

We can condemn bigotry of all kinds. But if one side tries to weaponize tragedy to accuse the others of violent rhetoric while engaging in it themselves, we get to call them out. If they memory hole radicals on their side but tries to generalize and impugn entire groups out of radicals from "our side", we get them call them out. Period. The Jews had every right to say "you people killed more than we ever did" to Europe when they accused them of being baby killing cabals.

Exposing hypocrisy is not a case of whataboutism. It's not playing team games to rip the POTUS for not visiting Wakeusha because "it takes too much resources" but going Buffalo on the same week to wax poetics. That's BS, and you know it. The chunk of the left believes cops are essentially armed white supremacists. They say "ACAB" for a reason. CRT basically makes racism a white DNA. Prejudice literally means prejuding people. And that shit is mainstream on the left. Did you see many anti immigrant activists burn down amnesty organizations?

[Nemo Aequalis]

Dude, it's a bot, or at least copypasta. Did you see any of the things it complains about actually written here?

Me neither. This isn't a paleocon site, nobody mentioned killing anyone for their beliefs (although it isn't necessarily a bad idea), and nobody is defending the killer.

It's just a generic "bad conservatives!" screed. If it turns up on every forum to the right of The Nation, don't be surprised.

[Nelson]

Replacement Theory is literally what is being discussed. And there is a strong paleo presence here, although some of them believe that their restrictive view of freedom is libertarian.

Covering for and minimizing The Great Replacement theory is defending the killer. The dog whistle is "He did a bad thing, but you can see why he did it. It's reasonable.".

The disconnect between Replacement Theory and the cultural conservative defense of it is that the theory identifies non-white and non-Christian immigrants and demographic shifts as a bad thing and something to be resisted. It identifies it as an existential threat to America.

The fact that you are comfortable posting "nobody mentioned killing anyone for their beliefs (although it isn't necessarily a bad idea)" shows both your willingness to minimize a white nationalist theory and a disturbing and disgusting willingness to endorse killing people for their beliefs. What is wrong with you?

[Nelson]

"Most Americans have never even heard of "replacement theory" prior to the shooting."

Millions of people watch Tucker Carlson and he rants about it all the time. So a lot of people, especially conservatives, are aware of it.

They may not be aware that David Lane in the mid 90s wrote extensively about it or that The Turner Diaries in the late 70s fictionalized a more extreme version (a genocidal race war where whites are eliminated), but Carlson and other right-wing commentators have walked right up to the point of advocating violence to prevent the demographic changes that are occuring in the United States.

"There were 200 murders in Baltimore in 2021. Meanwhile nearly all blacks are killed by other blacks, and radical organizations like BLM chant "ACAB" and engage in widespread violence."

I fail to understand how people could think that quoting individual murder rates or the prevalence of black-on-black crime is a counter to a known and widely distributed white nationalist call for political violence. Murders are largely one individual killing another individual for personal reasons, not political violence. It is a non-sequitor. And painting BLM calling all cops bastards as equivelent to Replacement Theory is hyperbolic, to be generous.

I get that you have a tribal bias and strawman view of things like CRT, BLM, and legal immigration. But pretending that a theory like Replacement can be mitigated by pointing out unrelated things is just apologism and minimization. Stop doing that.

[Vesicant]

Gee, if replacement theory is so repulsive, I guess I shouldn't mention Sweden and rapes, Britain and grooming gangs, France and stabbings, Germany and mass groping, etc., etc.

[XM]

Dramatic demographic change will stir debates and reactions from the "native" population. It's inevitable. You see some of it places like Japan, where the population is 99% native. Some will be xenophobic, some are well meaning but rely on faulty assumptions, while others will make astute points.

If you asked the Korean community in CA whether they want massive Latino immigration, most of them will be ambivalent or lean no. Oh no, are they afraid of the state becoming too brown? Well some of them are racist, but is that the norm? What about Latinos who are starting to trend against massive migration from the south? They hate their own brownness?

Outside of charged political debate, immigration affects other immigrants in more practical and nuanced ways. Most immigrants in LA knows that the place adding another 5 million more outsiders isn't going to propel their own lives to financial boon. It doesn't work that way.

Again immigrants are not somehow indignant or revulsed by the that wide scale shift in demographics might be theoretically bad. Most Asians abroad, including their "left", do not support their nation taking in huge amounts of refugees. They're wary of how outsiders might change their culture. Why does the left freak out so much about this discourse? If your only reaction is "you're all racist", then you only encourage defensive group thought, entrench unhelpful stereotype and ignore more nuanced points.

[Nelson]

All that may or may not be true. The problem is that The Great Replacement is the idea that immigrants will *replace* Americans. That they are coming to destroy American culture. That they are a threat and a danger. And the focus of that fear is that conservative whites are the ones under siege. The subtext being conservatism is the "real" American culture.

It isn't a dispassionate analysis of the potential impacts of legal immigration on various ethnic demographics. It is fearmongering about legal, non-white immigration. And Tucker Carlson rants about it all the time. As far as I know he hasn't crossed the line to advocate violence, but he whips his audience into a frothing rage about it.

The foundational problem that conservatives are constantly trying to avoid talking about is that today's version of conservative values are inevitably going to disappear over time. What was moderate in the 50s was conservative by the 80s, ultra-conserative by the 10s, and will probably be the cultural conservative dog-whistle of the 40s.

American culture isn't static. It keeps moving forward. We try new things. Sometimes they work and we add them into the culture. Sometimes they don't and they are discarded. Sometimes we overcorrect for past transgressions and a reset is needed, sometimes we undercorrect and the issue continues to fester.

Cultural conservatives believe that there is something inherently virtuous about the past. That the things that we grew up believing are superior to the things of today. That we are losing something by moving forward. But that isn't true, is it?

While the Founding Fathers put together a radically liberal plan for running a country, the prevailing culture couldn't be described as particularly free, protective of rights (particularly minority rights), or supportive of liberty for all people. But the ideals of our founding have been held, nurtured, and spread since then.

We have taken the ideals and pushed to have them apply to all people, equally. We have championed the idea that individuals are deserving of rights regardless of race, creed, place of birth, or religion.

We are a better country today than we were in the late 1700s because we have held to our ideals and expanded access to them. The things that are at the heart of American culture haven't disappeared because they are fundamental to who we are as a country and as a people.

Immjgrants want to be part of that. They don't want to destroy it. They yearn for it. The idea that they are trying to destroy it is asinine. The idea that 100,000 people a year can fundamentally change America is asinine. The Great Replacement is asinine. But it is also very dangerous when people try to pretend that it isn't a xenophobic, paranoid theory that is embraced by some of the most hateful and violent people in our country. People like white nationalists. People like the Boogaloo Boys. People like the Buffalo shooter.

There is no justification for what he did. There is no decency in The Great Replacement. There is no virtue in political violence. There is no "both sides". There is no "yeah, but". There is no equivocation. It is evil. It is un-American. It is a terrible thing.

[Cloudbuster]

You can't "debunk" the great replacement theory because it is clearly observable numeric fact.

[Nelson]

The Great Replacement isn't an observation on demographics. It is a call to action. It doesn't just say that demographics are changing. It is saying that it's a bad thing and needs to be stopped.

Stop apologizing for or misrepresenting what The Great Replacement Theory is. Denounce it.

[Nemo Aequalis]

The Great Replacement isn't an observation on demographics. It is a call to action. It doesn't just say that demographics are changing. It is saying that it's a bad thing and needs to be stopped.

Maybe that's because they think it's a bad thing and needs to be stopped. Are they under some obligation to like it? I don't think so.

[Nelson]

They aren't required to like it. But ask yourself this:

Why is a decrease in the proportion white people in America a bad thing, not just a thing? Are you making assumptions about a whole group and applying it to all individuals?

Why would immigrants be hostile to American culture? American culture is what draws people here.

If the response to demographic shifts is to alter America's long history of welcoming immigrants, who wants to change American culture?

If immigrants are capable of destroying American culture, why hasn't it happened in almost 250 years?

If cultural conservatism is incapable of bringing new immigrants into the fold, what does that say about the persuasiveness of its beliefs?

I mean these questions seriously. Do you have answers to help me understand?

[Robert1952]

I wish whites in general would lose the notion that any drop of brown or black produces a non-white offspring. Were we (I'm white) to reverse the notion then virtually every nonwhite in America would become white due to having a drop of white ancestry. Better yet, let's eliminate identity politics as having any legitimacy.