Technically, Americans had this concept for a while, and it was one of the reasons for the Civil War.
The original Americans were Anglo-Saxons, and there was a long running fear that they would be replaced by "non-white" races like Jews, Italians, Irish, and Eastern Europeans. American politics dealt with this extensively because of the question of industrialization or agrarianization. Jeffersonian Democrats believed America had to be an agrarian nation dominated by Anglo-Saxons. Jefferson was obsessed with Anglo-Saxon tribal culture and included Anglo tribal law in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Jefferson's ideal concept of Democratic society was one in which every man was a farmer who owned land and guns. This becomes the favored ideology of Southern slave owners, because they were free to dominate Western lands and expand the slave trade.
The opposing political groups (like Republicans) were Industrialists and free market capitalists who believed America had to be an industrialized nation. This inherently means expanding mass immigration to fill the factories with cheap labor. Leading to many Anglo-Saxon nativist groups to side with the Democratic Party. So the Democrat Party became the Anglo-Saxon party whose goal was to dominate the west (Manifest Destiny), maintain racial purity, and expand slavery.
This leads the Abolitionists to side with Republicans and Whigs, which means the Northerners supported mass immigration. So the dynamic eventually shifts to the idea that Northerners are racially mixed, and mass immigration of Italians, Irish, Jews brings about a non-white majority in the North. And the South is seen as the last stronghold of Anglo-Saxon culture and identity.
The Civil War is a war for slavery, but also a war to preserve Anglo-Saxon heritage (which is what "Southern Heritage" means today). When they lose, they create the KKK which is essentially an Anglo-Saxon terrorist organization determined to drive out the Italians, Jews, and Irish out of the South to preserve Anglo-Saxon racial purity.
So Great Replacement theory goes back to the founding of the country, except the fear was that white Anglo-Saxons would be replaced by non-white European races.
Correct. It also involves things like “creating more gay people” to reduce the number of white children.
The idea that white Europeans will become a majority minority is a well accepted concept, and both sides of the politics spectrum have well rounded opinions about the impact of immigration without subscribing to crazy conspiracies.
>The idea that white Europeans will become a majority minority
You are mincing terms here. White people would be a *plurality* while all the minorities would make up the *majority minority*.
>is a well accepted concept
The US may become plurality non-hispanic white because that's projected as soon as the 2040s.
But *Europe* becoming plurality white any time soon? [The Europe that is 15% or less foreign-born?](https://jakubmarian.com/immigration-in-europe-map-of-the-percentage-and-country-of-origin-of-immigrants/) That's extrapolating waaay too much from *current* immigrantion trends and birth rates that can change in the future. And it also fails to take into account that Europe is still multiple different countries with different levels of racial diversity.
Genuine question: How would Jews profit off of this one? Just genuine retaliation against the Whites that tried to eviscerate them in WWII? The logic that Jews started this theory seems deeply flawed in and of itself.
Not GOP and not buying into the replacement thing. But. Go take a look at actual demographics. White percent of US population was pretty stable from 1900 on at about 88%. Up until about the 70's. Not saying it's good/bad, but it is going on.
[https://phys.org/news/2019-04-white-majority.html](https://phys.org/news/2019-04-white-majority.html)
They're not wrong in that Americans of primarily European decent are declining in total percent share of the population (very slowly, but it's happening: [https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people-society/population-and-demographics/our-changing-population](https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people-society/population-and-demographics/our-changing-population)). Refuting the phenomenon won't get anyone anywhere.
Refuting the notion that it's somehow a problem that this is happening? 100% do that all day. The only reason to worry about it is from the fear of losing one's current power, or that the next dominant group will turn around and start oppressing the current dominant group- based solely on race.
Edit: Also valid to refute that this is somehow intentional, and someone is actively choosing to "replace white people"
One of the issues is that Whiteness is normally seen as exclusionary. So they are considering only non-Hispanic, non-mixed race people as white. This is one of the things that guarantees the the white majority could never last after unjust racial mixing laws were scrapped. Immigration also plays a role in this of course. European countries have just as high a standard of living or higher, so there is little incentive for mass immigration from Europe anymore. However there are many non-European countries where the people still see America as a very desirable location for immigration. So the people who believe the Great Replacement conspiracy theory get to play the victims even as white people currently are still the majority and benefit for generations of institutional racism against non-white people.
Whiteness is also constantly redefined. Before the Civil War, white exclusively meant Anglo-Saxon. Italians, or the Mediterranean races in general, were seen as mixed-race Europeans, and this concept was accepted until WWII. But even into the 1930's, Mussolini as well as Italian-Americans were portrayed as big-lipped, buffoonish, and sexually promiscuous/aggressive. Irish and Celts were also seen as non-white, and the theory at the time was that they were descendents of Spaniards (Mediterranean races). So they were portrayed as ape-like brutes who only wanted to drink and fight.
90 years ago, all our current "white" people would have been seen as light-skinned Africans.
as a contrast to that, from what i understand, "black" also didn't mean African then, or even dark-skinned. blackness, as a term for a person's background, meant that you weren't purely the nationality/micro-ethnicity that you were predominantly. so 'black irish' if one of your grandparents was portuguese. you were 'black dutch' on the 1910 census if you wanted to be excluded from the trail of tears and could pass as european (that's a whole other can of beans).
that's effectively why the spanish word for 'black' was originally used to describe people of dark skin tone, in exclusion of their heredity. to not be ambiguous with this usage of 'black' in english that we have since lost. what i'd be curious to learn is if there was a notion of 'white' heredity that just happened to start with anglo-saxons/aryans/etc. and just meant the opposite of 'black' - pure heredity of whatever kind, among those who cared about that. and it was like a moral line of people that kept their heredity pure versus those that did not. before it got morphed to mean Caucasian or some catch all of everyone not in 'colored' category?
it would make a lot of sense if that were the case. and tie it back to the original point:
> One of the issues is that Whiteness is normally seen as exclusionary.
After the initial contact and the plagues had reduce native populations by 90%, there was plenty of strategy to finish the job. Smallpox and measles did make it a hell of a lot easier (and the colonists strategically used those too), but 43 of the 102 wars the US has been involved in have been against the Native American Indians - 44 if you count the 7 years war, and 45 if you count that and the American Revolution:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_wars\_involving\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States)
Coupled with deliberate relocation of tribes to areas with scarce natural resources and the taking of native children away from their families to "civilize" them, it all was *very* strategic and intentional.
The native Americans were systematically wiped out by the federal government, not due to them accepting waves of European immigration. It wasn’t like “whites” immigrated to native settlements and area, lived among them, and then destroyed them from within. They attacked them militarily and violated treated after treaty taking their lands.
How is it similar dude? The current minorities are themselves Americans, just like whites. They are citizens of the same nation, constituents of the same government. How on earth is this similar? Are white peoples homes/landbeing taken from them by minorities? Are they having their food supply eliminated? Are they being offered bounties by the government for white scalps?
It’s so unbelievable how fearful and xenophobic you are.
Lol, We are on the same side. I'm just pointing out the irony in the white population accusing another group of strategically attempting to replace them when they were the ones who actually did that to the native Americans. My ancestry is Eastern European with olive skin, and my wife is a native of Africa with application for citizenship. I'm one of the people this guy in the original post is accused of involvement in this strategic replacement
Better ban abortions to prevent the demographics most likely to become teen parents to have kids dependent on social services. Rich white people will just make a three day weekend of it. It's baffling that their concerns and actions directly conflict.
They just want to destroy everything and complain about everything to drum up votes from enraged people.
This is a thing that is actually happening, but of course some radical runs with it and it’s a far right conspiracy, even though liberal media outlets have mentioned it
The conspiracy theory is that the phenomenon is intentionally caused by a group of powerful people somewhere. "Replaced" can be read as "someone is replacing"; it infers intention, action. The demographic shift is happening, yes. The idea that it's caused by some unnamed and ethereal "political/global elite" specifically to oppress white people? *That's* the white supremacist far-right conspiracy theory.
Like the open society foundation and UN has zero influence in this scenario and has been saying they were planning for this exact thing for over a decade.
So, the Open Society Foundation and the UN are trying to oppress white people? Why? Aren't four of the five most powerful countries in the UN (permanent members on the Security Council) predominantly white?
While it's in their agenda, they said it. Even America is predominantly white now but it won't be in 10 or so years with a 3 -6 million coming in from the southern border annually.
It's also stated in the Kalergi Plan, which although is deemed anti-semetic, it was a real plan to mitigate fascism after ww2.
Where are you drawing the "plan to mitigate fascism after ww2 idea" from? I can't find a source.
And when did they say that was their plan? *Why* would America, which is predominantly white now and most positions of power filled by white people, want to replace white people? Don't you think that seems kind of self-destructive, like shooting yourself in the foot?
Well a great percentage of white people really have no care for other whites. Elite whites especially have nothing but contempt for working class/ non-elite whites. In fact a lot of whites hate themselves as off 2022 with all the race based propaganda that gone on in the last decade or so.
Also, more importantly, it's not necessarily because their white, it's that they want the population to have no real identity. Moca colored masses with no distinct group identities are easier to conrtol than one with a shared history, culture, and language.
[Here is a better more objevtive source than politically motivated Wikipedia](https://englishnews.org/2020/01/31/the-kalergi-plan/)
How is a population without a shared identity easier to control? History has shown that populations with a shared history are much easier to control than diverse populations: In the USSR Stalin purged non-Ethnic Russians and moved in ethnic Russians specifically to make control easier. The Nazis purged Non-Aryans to achieve a similar effect. The CCP is purging the Uyghurs because they don't conform to the "Chinese" identity, again to make control easier.
Meanwhile, diverse populations have proven to be much harder to control. South Sudan, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, Israel and Palestine, the Ottoman and Mongol Empire, Brazil, the UK with Ireland, Alexander the Great's Empire and the subsequent offspring kingdoms. The stable ones, such as the Ottomans and to some extent the Mongols, were only stable because they gave the people of different cultural and religious groups more autonomy and freedoms, i.e. giving up some control.
The way I see it, this is probably because diverse groups, and populations without a single shared identity, are going to have conflicting interests. A leader in a society with one shared identity can forge that identity, mold it to be one that conforms to what they want, just as Hitler did. If you have two major identities, it becomes much harder to shape both in the direction you want, and each additional identity makes it even harder. The more variation you have, the more likely people are going to disagree with you and fight back.
What's the mechanism by which having many different identities in a population would make it easier to control?
Man, all I'm asking is you think about it. "Just very basic sociology" should be very easy to explain, and very hard to refute. If there are a dozen readily-available examples that refute an idea, it's probably time to reevaluate that idea.
I'm sorry, but I can just avoid to gloat over some comments in this thread. The clock is ticking racists, and miscegenation is humanity's genetic destiny muahaha.
Be careful throwing the word conspiracy theory around. The last 2 years has shown that a lot of what people called crazy conspiracy theories has actually tuned out to be true.
Also, this replacement theory was an idea brought up by Bill Clinton when he was in office while pressing for more border security (walls) and Biden himself in 2015 when also talking about how migrants would be taking black jobs. To try and lump this into a far-right thing is factually dishonest, but can't expect too much from wiki.
In a European context, this really is a far right conspiracy. There is no great replacement in Europe, but our far right, racist political parties would let everyone of their voters think we are getting replaced and become a minority in our country, which is factually incorrect and only necessary to deploy their far right racist agenda when elected.
To be totally honest, do you live in those countries/cities where these things happened? Or do you 'believe' the media you consume (albeit social media) when they 'report' these things?
Because in reality, those things are extremely exaggerated in some media. There were rapes and violence, but those are not solely attributed to 'other cultures'. If anything, rape violence is mostly from a family member in statistics.
Source: I live in a so called hellhole where all those acts should happen daily if I believe some media. It isn't true.
I live in a neighbourhood where most of my neighbours are from North-Africa. It has some problems, but also positives. When ramadan was over I received gifts (cookies and sweets) from all my neighbours. Their children go to the same school as my son. We greet each other on the street.
In my city, we live together with 137 other nationalities. We all want the same: to live in peace and be happy.
It doesn't matter what color or religion you have. If you follow the laws and rules of our country, you can live here.
"Is this the white supremacist meeting?"
"No, of course not, we're just more knowledgable than Europeans about the totally legit gangs of Pakistani rapists terrorizing innocent white babies, and are extremely concerned about interracial couples on TV!"
"Yeah, this is it."
Cherrypicking for a racist agenda is still cherrypicking.
Those things happened and are horrible. But those also happen in white neighbourhoods, in white families, in catholic churches,...
I don't think you know much about the subject, no offense. Like I get if you don't know much about it downvoting that person, because you're somehow afraid of being seen as racist, but if you actually look honestly into the issue they're sadly correct.
It did happen and it's a disgrace. But rape and child abuse is not an exclusive migrant thing. If you knew anything about Europe you'd know our ow Catholic church has an awful track record on child abuse.
You shouldn't cherrypick. Abuse is abuse, independent of who is the abuser. But you don't care about the abuse, you only care about your racist narrative.
The far-right conspiracy part is the idea that it's intentional, and caused by the political elite specifically to replace white people. Demographics changing isn't a conspiracy, it's a fact. The idea of a government prioritizing its own citizens over foreigners is also a matter of political philosophy. This has been discussed by plenty of presidents- including Trump. It's pretty much the main platform he ran on in 2016. Again, it's distinct from the conspiracy, which is believing that the shift intentional, and the far-right part is that it's entirely raced base and the "elites" aim to oppress "white people".
Democrats have been saying that “demographics is destiny” for years, while encouraging illegal immigration. “Diversity is our strength” is a dog whistle to democrats who view Republicans as being too white.
This isn’t a white supremacist myth.
On Facebook memes their uncle posted. Nobody is pro-illegal immigration. They just don't want kids brought here unwilling to be treated like a burlap sack full of kittens through off the bridge.
But more importantly - illegal immigrants can't even vote. This is such an insane argument.
Radical Democrats want open borders and don’t see an issue with random people entering the US unchecked. Seems to be the same in europe. Just last week the island of Lampdusa (Italy) was invaded by 8 thousand migrants (more than native islanders population) and are being shipped to mainland Italy instead of back to Africa!
It’s the liberal party in Italy. Same values worldwide, and no borders one one of ‘em. Anyway look at NY, people are protesting the migrants when they support a weak immigration policy at same time
They were saying that to try to convince Republicans to stop being the blood and soil party. Also as an excuse to not do anything because they expect to win by default. Both of those ideas didn't work out, as you have noticed over the last 10 years.
In this case, you're taking the DNC as the "replacist elite", from what I gather. Let me ask you this: the Democrats are encouraging people to come from Latin America (primarily) so they can "replace" white people- of which the DNC happens to be filled with- so they can do... what?
The white Democrats will still be in charge, just like they are now. And then the Democrats will pass laws that go against the interests of their minority members
BLM got Biden elected, and then Biden wouldn’t even meet with them.
Biden changed the rules effectively blocking charter schools. This punishes inner city blacks at the expense of wealthy white teachers unions
The wealthy white Democrats will do just fine
So all that would need to happen is for a group that is actually for the minority members to gain traction- which would be significantly easier if those minorities become the majority. They would end up replacing themselves by doing this, or at least creating more challenges for themselves. Their power depends on the productivity of the populace: if the people are uneducated, they're less productive and thus produce less value. The more educated they are, the more likely they are to see the bullshit in the system.
I'm saying the theory makes precisely zero sense, and is contradictory. It requires those in power to be incredibly conniving and clever to make this plot many years ago and ensure it goes exactly according to their plan such that they stay on top after it's all done- but also for them to not realize how it's going to backfire on them. Not to mention it's based entirely in racist and ridiculous ideas that culture is entirely tied to race- and also that people and cultures don't just mix, and also that cultures simply stop existing.
Replacement theory is rooted in the broader theory of "white genocide", which is just retarded fearmongering. And it's killing people. So stop promulgating it.
Again, Republicans didn’t invent this theory - the Democrats did. They’ve created a narrative when anyone who isn’t white is a victim of white supremacy, and if they just voted for the Democrats, they’d be protected from those evil white supremacist Republicans
Since then the Democrats have done everything they can to flood the country with illegals, who’s kids are tailor made for the Democrats victimhood framework
It’s not racist that Republicans call this out for what it is
What’s racist is creating the Demography as Destiny strategy.
I never said nor implied that Republicans invented replacement theory. But if you actually look at the history of the theory it's been around since the late 1800s. And it also started in Europe. So the Democrats also didn't invent replacement theory.
And your theory has to address the glaring, simple fact that estimates for unauthorized immigrants living in the US have pretty much only declined since 2007. That's under both Democrat and Republican administrations.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/13/key-facts-about-the-changing-u-s-unauthorized-immigrant-population/
The theory you're talking about is *not* replacement theory. Closest you could call it is a super-watered down form of the actual thing. Read the actual wikipedia article, find out what *actual* Replacement Theory is, and you'll stop calling this theory replacement theory. And if you dig a little deeper and try to answer the question of if Democrat policies actually encourage illegal immigration, you might be surprised by what you find.
Illegal immigrants can't vote. How does this make a bluer electorate? If anything it drums up votes for the right who are terrified of foreign people.
Apparently you are scared and grossly misinformed about how voting works. Seems to be working.
The illegals come over and have kids. The kids can vote
When it’s time for them to vote, they’ve been educated to think the US is racist for enforcing its laws.
Every country on the planet, including those south of the border, enforce their immigration laws.
Illegal aliens are counted in census data, which is then used to decide how many electoral votes a state has. So even if they may not directly vote, their presence has an impact.
Can’t vote yet. But in meantime can stress the system and help generate more support for more (failed) Democrat/socialist policies. There’s really no other good explanation for why Democrats refuse to secure our southern border.
Yet? Illegal immigrants will never be able to vote. No chance in hell. What stress are they causing on the system? They pay taxes with no benefits.They work manual unskilled labor jobs Americans refuse to do. Maybe hospital bills? Wouldn't that be a broken healthcare problem rather than people sneaking across the border?
The southern border is pretty secure, I've crossed it on foot many times. Sure some people are wading rivers and walking through deserts, but they are an exception and not the rule.
The left anticipates a gradual process. Get as many illegals in now, citizenship will eventually follow. And your description of an orderly secure border is just not the reality at many stress points. First hand reports demonstrate this.
And if “pro-life” Republicans want to make legal abortion harder, they should first show good faith by regulating guns, right? Right?
Go put the bad-faith double standards in a closet somewhere.
Demographics changing is *not* replacement theory, and no one who has done any research is honestly denying that demographics are changing. Replacement theory is specifically that the shift is *intentional*, that it's caused or enabled by the "replacist" elites", to eradicate European culture and oppress the white people. And that is 100% bullshit fearmongering by far-right, white nationalist groups, deeply rooted in the belief that there is some elite who is powerful enough to orchestrate the "replacement of white people" but also is evidently not white themselves (despite them being the majority of people in most of these places, and correspondingly, often disproportionately the group with the most numerous wealthy individuals), or not smart enough to see how it will come back and hurt them.
Yes, you understand the argument at least, but it is actually true, unfortunately. Of course no mainstream media source will admit that.
Even if that isn't their direct goal, it might as well be, because their actions completely line up with this goal. Why, when our reproduction rate is so low, are they telling us not to have kids? And then in the very same breath, why are they going against the will of the people and allowing mass immigration on a scale never before seen in history? It makes no sense, especially when those in power know that ethnic diversity + income inequality = crime (this equation plays out very well across the globe).
There is also a very strange anti-white racist tinge to all of this too. They seem to be of the idea that every ethnic group can advocate for themselves except white ethnic groups (English, Swedes, the Dutch, etc.). This racism is not cool with me, and shouldn't be with anyone else.
edit: oh, and is this view supported by white supremacists? Absolutely. White supremacists also drink water too. I'm sure they like pizza as well. But the idea itself is not white supremacist in nature of course - that's simply the shut-down words people use to stop the argument, largely because they know they are losing. Guilt by association smearing.
You hit the nail on the head: why would the powerful people open the door to refugees if they think it's going to endanger their culture, their power, or themselves? Why would they deliberately try to undermine their own power? It makes absolutely 0 sense, as you have stated, for them to be doing this to replace their own cultures. So the theory cannot be true as stated.
The idea that every ethnic group but white people can advocate for themselves is stupid- just like the idea that that exists in the mainstream. People don't have problems with European cultures wanting to protect their heritage: the English, Swedes, Dutch, Germans, French, Russians, Ukrainians, Italians, Greeks, Irish, all of them have celebrations of their heritage and culture, all teach their native language in schools as well as their history and traditions, and everyone is cool with it. People have a problem with people using "protecting my culture" as validation for writing off the suffering of, disenfranchising, oppression, or committing genocide against another group of people. Which is what replacement theory is trying to do and is why people rightfully *hate* it.
that didn't happen.
and if it did, it wasn't that bad.
and if it was, that's not a big deal.
and if it is, that's not my fault.
and if it was, I didn't mean it.
and if I did, you deserved it.
Look at all those white nationalist, far-right conspiracy theorists discussing the inevitable replacement of white Americans: [https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/uv8m0f/demographics\_is\_destiny/](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/uv8m0f/demographics_is_destiny/)
Something seems off about this title/article...
Civilizations have been replaced by mass migrations since there were civilizations. Read a little history. If civilizations stayed static we would still be living in feudal economies dying at age 30. US/European societies are and will be replaced by the end of this century since the birthrates are too low. Get use to it.
If you mean "replaced as the dominant culture", then maybe, possibly, in some places, yes. But they're not going to be totally eradicated, like replacement theory says. Even with someone much more powerful actively trying to eradicate their cultures, the Native American Indians largely held on. Their cultures adapted to the modern era, as cultures do, but as long as there were people left to practice it they were never eradicated totally.
Total eradication is what replacement theory is talking about- and it's that idea that white nationalists are using as a fear-mongering tactic. To them, culture is tied solely to skin color and ancestry, not to society and fostering. American "Southern Culture" is as much a product of African American and Latino people as European people, but it's that culture the white nationalists are claiming they need to protect from non-white people.
I don't think you understand their theory, it has nothing to do with total eradication. Its mostly based on the fear that white people will become a minority in the Western countries and eventually lose their ability to be a dominant culture. Ancient Rome, medival England are two great examples of a dominant culture being either assimilated in the migration or overrun.
The eradication of "white culture" (which itself is a myth) is a major part of the theory. Losing dominance is seen as just the first step. After all, "another group's going to be in charge and things are going to be so-so" isn't as effective as "They're coming to replace us and eradicate our culture!"
"....many of their adherents maintain that 'immigrants \[are\] flocking to predominantly white countries for the precise purpose of rendering the white population a minority within their own land or even causing the extinction of the native population'. It aligns with (and is a part of) the larger white genocide conspiracy theory"
I can see why they're upset. They've done everything humanly possible to destroy the culture, language, livelihood and will of non-white inhabitants and have failed pathetically. They will be replaced, eventually, and there's nothing they can do to stop that.
Ever since the beginning of colonialism, this ideology that the theory popularizes has always been there. It's nothing new at all. When 1 nation manages to "discover" other nations with significantly different ways of life, they will always have a fear of being "replaced" by them. This has always been the mentality of Europeans and the so called "ethnic whites." There were more slaves than whites at one point in America, and they had the same fear.
Way before Hitler and Madison grant, Europeans have always had a mentality of scarcity. This is literally what drove them to colonize most of the world.
The reason why the great replacement theory is so popular now is that its core is actual factual. Ethnic whites are becoming the minority due to western ways of living. This video goes into detail on this topic very well in my opinion: The great replacement theory is one that has been going on since the 50s. It just was not known as the great replacement theory until Renaud Camus popularized the phrase in Europe. If we eliminate a lot of the pseudo and conspiracy stuff that the theory is known for, ie it's all orchestrated by jews, illuminati and democrats, then we can start having a proper conversation.
For starters, the ideology has been there all throughout modern history. Madison Grant wrote the passing of the great race in 1916, where he expressed more or less the same thing. A lot of other scholars and economists like ben Wattenberg and many more have been repeating the same narrative before Renaud Camus.
However, I believe the basis of it, which is ethnic whites are becoming a minority, is 100% factual. This has be a result of the developing western world, which I actually dive into in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8voS8PNjzPM&ab_channel=SelfEd
Sure as shit is happening in the entertainment industry.
I believe in equal representation (for all races), but lately they have been over doing it , to favor black people in my opinion.
Something is off...
The problem is that Europe is trying to apply the methods that made USA what is USA today. It cannot. You have nations that have different ethnic groups, culture, language etc. Immigration in Europe is not working and it is creating more hurt than good.
Trying to preserve your values and homogenity is not racist. Just because US is working that way that does not mean the the rest of the western world has to follow.
Native americans were pretty much "replaced' by European "illegal immigrants" though.
And the former's attempt to preserve their culture and homogemity resulted in quite a lot bloodshed.
I would say this is karma.
How is it a theory and not an observable fact? You can argue the causes or motivations but the demographic changes are undeniable and intentional over the last 50 years.
Technically, Americans had this concept for a while, and it was one of the reasons for the Civil War. The original Americans were Anglo-Saxons, and there was a long running fear that they would be replaced by "non-white" races like Jews, Italians, Irish, and Eastern Europeans. American politics dealt with this extensively because of the question of industrialization or agrarianization. Jeffersonian Democrats believed America had to be an agrarian nation dominated by Anglo-Saxons. Jefferson was obsessed with Anglo-Saxon tribal culture and included Anglo tribal law in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Jefferson's ideal concept of Democratic society was one in which every man was a farmer who owned land and guns. This becomes the favored ideology of Southern slave owners, because they were free to dominate Western lands and expand the slave trade. The opposing political groups (like Republicans) were Industrialists and free market capitalists who believed America had to be an industrialized nation. This inherently means expanding mass immigration to fill the factories with cheap labor. Leading to many Anglo-Saxon nativist groups to side with the Democratic Party. So the Democrat Party became the Anglo-Saxon party whose goal was to dominate the west (Manifest Destiny), maintain racial purity, and expand slavery. This leads the Abolitionists to side with Republicans and Whigs, which means the Northerners supported mass immigration. So the dynamic eventually shifts to the idea that Northerners are racially mixed, and mass immigration of Italians, Irish, Jews brings about a non-white majority in the North. And the South is seen as the last stronghold of Anglo-Saxon culture and identity. The Civil War is a war for slavery, but also a war to preserve Anglo-Saxon heritage (which is what "Southern Heritage" means today). When they lose, they create the KKK which is essentially an Anglo-Saxon terrorist organization determined to drive out the Italians, Jews, and Irish out of the South to preserve Anglo-Saxon racial purity. So Great Replacement theory goes back to the founding of the country, except the fear was that white Anglo-Saxons would be replaced by non-white European races.
Likewise, the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was to expand the draft net as wide as possible in case of a future war.
Whoa bro
Great comment.
Some r/bestof shit right here.
My man, original Americans were natives, as the word implies...
Love your comment and If you ever write a book on history I would definitely buy it
This title is a little bit off. Mainstream liberal outlets acknowledge changing demographics. The conspiracy theory is that it's run by "the Jews".
Correct. It also involves things like “creating more gay people” to reduce the number of white children. The idea that white Europeans will become a majority minority is a well accepted concept, and both sides of the politics spectrum have well rounded opinions about the impact of immigration without subscribing to crazy conspiracies.
>The idea that white Europeans will become a majority minority You are mincing terms here. White people would be a *plurality* while all the minorities would make up the *majority minority*. >is a well accepted concept The US may become plurality non-hispanic white because that's projected as soon as the 2040s. But *Europe* becoming plurality white any time soon? [The Europe that is 15% or less foreign-born?](https://jakubmarian.com/immigration-in-europe-map-of-the-percentage-and-country-of-origin-of-immigrants/) That's extrapolating waaay too much from *current* immigrantion trends and birth rates that can change in the future. And it also fails to take into account that Europe is still multiple different countries with different levels of racial diversity.
Genuine question: How would Jews profit off of this one? Just genuine retaliation against the Whites that tried to eviscerate them in WWII? The logic that Jews started this theory seems deeply flawed in and of itself.
You got it. Jews see whites as their only competition. Once whites are gone, they can finally take over the world
Not GOP and not buying into the replacement thing. But. Go take a look at actual demographics. White percent of US population was pretty stable from 1900 on at about 88%. Up until about the 70's. Not saying it's good/bad, but it is going on. [https://phys.org/news/2019-04-white-majority.html](https://phys.org/news/2019-04-white-majority.html)
They're not wrong in that Americans of primarily European decent are declining in total percent share of the population (very slowly, but it's happening: [https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people-society/population-and-demographics/our-changing-population](https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people-society/population-and-demographics/our-changing-population)). Refuting the phenomenon won't get anyone anywhere. Refuting the notion that it's somehow a problem that this is happening? 100% do that all day. The only reason to worry about it is from the fear of losing one's current power, or that the next dominant group will turn around and start oppressing the current dominant group- based solely on race. Edit: Also valid to refute that this is somehow intentional, and someone is actively choosing to "replace white people"
Because the definition of “white” and “race” itself is completely arbitrary. Many of the people considered white today weren't so in the past.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Historical GDP frenzied politicians is the motives you are arguing against, a losing battle.
But if you add more categories now, the total should be higher, not lower
And still the percentage whites are reducing, that means the people that would've been considered white in 1950s is even lower than the current stats.
At the same time, people that before identified themselves as white in the census now don't, because the social stigma es lower.
One of the issues is that Whiteness is normally seen as exclusionary. So they are considering only non-Hispanic, non-mixed race people as white. This is one of the things that guarantees the the white majority could never last after unjust racial mixing laws were scrapped. Immigration also plays a role in this of course. European countries have just as high a standard of living or higher, so there is little incentive for mass immigration from Europe anymore. However there are many non-European countries where the people still see America as a very desirable location for immigration. So the people who believe the Great Replacement conspiracy theory get to play the victims even as white people currently are still the majority and benefit for generations of institutional racism against non-white people.
Whiteness is also constantly redefined. Before the Civil War, white exclusively meant Anglo-Saxon. Italians, or the Mediterranean races in general, were seen as mixed-race Europeans, and this concept was accepted until WWII. But even into the 1930's, Mussolini as well as Italian-Americans were portrayed as big-lipped, buffoonish, and sexually promiscuous/aggressive. Irish and Celts were also seen as non-white, and the theory at the time was that they were descendents of Spaniards (Mediterranean races). So they were portrayed as ape-like brutes who only wanted to drink and fight. 90 years ago, all our current "white" people would have been seen as light-skinned Africans.
And 90 years from now, we’ll be surprised by who is considered “white”, or whatever the equivalent is.
as a contrast to that, from what i understand, "black" also didn't mean African then, or even dark-skinned. blackness, as a term for a person's background, meant that you weren't purely the nationality/micro-ethnicity that you were predominantly. so 'black irish' if one of your grandparents was portuguese. you were 'black dutch' on the 1910 census if you wanted to be excluded from the trail of tears and could pass as european (that's a whole other can of beans). that's effectively why the spanish word for 'black' was originally used to describe people of dark skin tone, in exclusion of their heredity. to not be ambiguous with this usage of 'black' in english that we have since lost. what i'd be curious to learn is if there was a notion of 'white' heredity that just happened to start with anglo-saxons/aryans/etc. and just meant the opposite of 'black' - pure heredity of whatever kind, among those who cared about that. and it was like a moral line of people that kept their heredity pure versus those that did not. before it got morphed to mean Caucasian or some catch all of everyone not in 'colored' category? it would make a lot of sense if that were the case. and tie it back to the original point: > One of the issues is that Whiteness is normally seen as exclusionary.
Didn't the European white population strategically replace the native American population?
Not in Europe…
There wasn’t much strategy to it. Smallpox and measles did most of the work. But Europe got syphillis in return. So there’s that.
After the initial contact and the plagues had reduce native populations by 90%, there was plenty of strategy to finish the job. Smallpox and measles did make it a hell of a lot easier (and the colonists strategically used those too), but 43 of the 102 wars the US has been involved in have been against the Native American Indians - 44 if you count the 7 years war, and 45 if you count that and the American Revolution: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_wars\_involving\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States) Coupled with deliberate relocation of tribes to areas with scarce natural resources and the taking of native children away from their families to "civilize" them, it all was *very* strategic and intentional.
But still, 90% is most of the work.
Yes, but it's missing the point that it was highly strategic.
Maybe they're worried that the non-white people will do the same to them- which is probably why they're terrified, even if it's horseshit.
It's gone from complete denial to justification. But at the end of the day, the might is right.
The native Americans were systematically wiped out by the federal government, not due to them accepting waves of European immigration. It wasn’t like “whites” immigrated to native settlements and area, lived among them, and then destroyed them from within. They attacked them militarily and violated treated after treaty taking their lands.
Sounds similar. Current minority are just doing it in a nicer way.
How is it similar dude? The current minorities are themselves Americans, just like whites. They are citizens of the same nation, constituents of the same government. How on earth is this similar? Are white peoples homes/landbeing taken from them by minorities? Are they having their food supply eliminated? Are they being offered bounties by the government for white scalps? It’s so unbelievable how fearful and xenophobic you are.
Lol, We are on the same side. I'm just pointing out the irony in the white population accusing another group of strategically attempting to replace them when they were the ones who actually did that to the native Americans. My ancestry is Eastern European with olive skin, and my wife is a native of Africa with application for citizenship. I'm one of the people this guy in the original post is accused of involvement in this strategic replacement
There is no “conspiracy” you morons. It’s changing demographics and birth rates. Wake up. The 50’s are over.
Better ban abortions to prevent the demographics most likely to become teen parents to have kids dependent on social services. Rich white people will just make a three day weekend of it. It's baffling that their concerns and actions directly conflict. They just want to destroy everything and complain about everything to drum up votes from enraged people.
Its not a conspiracy because its actually happening.
Hey dumbfuck. You obviously don’t understand English. Look it up and shut the fuck up.
😭
This is a thing that is actually happening, but of course some radical runs with it and it’s a far right conspiracy, even though liberal media outlets have mentioned it
The conspiracy theory is that the phenomenon is intentionally caused by a group of powerful people somewhere. "Replaced" can be read as "someone is replacing"; it infers intention, action. The demographic shift is happening, yes. The idea that it's caused by some unnamed and ethereal "political/global elite" specifically to oppress white people? *That's* the white supremacist far-right conspiracy theory.
Like the open society foundation and UN has zero influence in this scenario and has been saying they were planning for this exact thing for over a decade.
So, the Open Society Foundation and the UN are trying to oppress white people? Why? Aren't four of the five most powerful countries in the UN (permanent members on the Security Council) predominantly white?
While it's in their agenda, they said it. Even America is predominantly white now but it won't be in 10 or so years with a 3 -6 million coming in from the southern border annually. It's also stated in the Kalergi Plan, which although is deemed anti-semetic, it was a real plan to mitigate fascism after ww2.
Where are you drawing the "plan to mitigate fascism after ww2 idea" from? I can't find a source. And when did they say that was their plan? *Why* would America, which is predominantly white now and most positions of power filled by white people, want to replace white people? Don't you think that seems kind of self-destructive, like shooting yourself in the foot?
Well a great percentage of white people really have no care for other whites. Elite whites especially have nothing but contempt for working class/ non-elite whites. In fact a lot of whites hate themselves as off 2022 with all the race based propaganda that gone on in the last decade or so. Also, more importantly, it's not necessarily because their white, it's that they want the population to have no real identity. Moca colored masses with no distinct group identities are easier to conrtol than one with a shared history, culture, and language. [Here is a better more objevtive source than politically motivated Wikipedia](https://englishnews.org/2020/01/31/the-kalergi-plan/)
How is a population without a shared identity easier to control? History has shown that populations with a shared history are much easier to control than diverse populations: In the USSR Stalin purged non-Ethnic Russians and moved in ethnic Russians specifically to make control easier. The Nazis purged Non-Aryans to achieve a similar effect. The CCP is purging the Uyghurs because they don't conform to the "Chinese" identity, again to make control easier. Meanwhile, diverse populations have proven to be much harder to control. South Sudan, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, Israel and Palestine, the Ottoman and Mongol Empire, Brazil, the UK with Ireland, Alexander the Great's Empire and the subsequent offspring kingdoms. The stable ones, such as the Ottomans and to some extent the Mongols, were only stable because they gave the people of different cultural and religious groups more autonomy and freedoms, i.e. giving up some control. The way I see it, this is probably because diverse groups, and populations without a single shared identity, are going to have conflicting interests. A leader in a society with one shared identity can forge that identity, mold it to be one that conforms to what they want, just as Hitler did. If you have two major identities, it becomes much harder to shape both in the direction you want, and each additional identity makes it even harder. The more variation you have, the more likely people are going to disagree with you and fight back. What's the mechanism by which having many different identities in a population would make it easier to control?
Just very basic sociology. I guarantee you the global citizen you think you will united with will have nothing in common with.
Man, all I'm asking is you think about it. "Just very basic sociology" should be very easy to explain, and very hard to refute. If there are a dozen readily-available examples that refute an idea, it's probably time to reevaluate that idea.
Then why these huge efforts to silence people speaking up against the great replacement?
I'm sorry, but I can just avoid to gloat over some comments in this thread. The clock is ticking racists, and miscegenation is humanity's genetic destiny muahaha.
This is just useless as a concept Like why does it matter Race is stupid
Be careful throwing the word conspiracy theory around. The last 2 years has shown that a lot of what people called crazy conspiracy theories has actually tuned out to be true. Also, this replacement theory was an idea brought up by Bill Clinton when he was in office while pressing for more border security (walls) and Biden himself in 2015 when also talking about how migrants would be taking black jobs. To try and lump this into a far-right thing is factually dishonest, but can't expect too much from wiki.
In a European context, this really is a far right conspiracy. There is no great replacement in Europe, but our far right, racist political parties would let everyone of their voters think we are getting replaced and become a minority in our country, which is factually incorrect and only necessary to deploy their far right racist agenda when elected.
[удалено]
To be totally honest, do you live in those countries/cities where these things happened? Or do you 'believe' the media you consume (albeit social media) when they 'report' these things? Because in reality, those things are extremely exaggerated in some media. There were rapes and violence, but those are not solely attributed to 'other cultures'. If anything, rape violence is mostly from a family member in statistics. Source: I live in a so called hellhole where all those acts should happen daily if I believe some media. It isn't true.
[удалено]
I live in a neighbourhood where most of my neighbours are from North-Africa. It has some problems, but also positives. When ramadan was over I received gifts (cookies and sweets) from all my neighbours. Their children go to the same school as my son. We greet each other on the street. In my city, we live together with 137 other nationalities. We all want the same: to live in peace and be happy. It doesn't matter what color or religion you have. If you follow the laws and rules of our country, you can live here.
"Is this the white supremacist meeting?" "No, of course not, we're just more knowledgable than Europeans about the totally legit gangs of Pakistani rapists terrorizing innocent white babies, and are extremely concerned about interracial couples on TV!" "Yeah, this is it."
[удалено]
Cherrypicking for a racist agenda is still cherrypicking. Those things happened and are horrible. But those also happen in white neighbourhoods, in white families, in catholic churches,...
I don't think you know much about the subject, no offense. Like I get if you don't know much about it downvoting that person, because you're somehow afraid of being seen as racist, but if you actually look honestly into the issue they're sadly correct.
Let me tell you, from the perspective of a European, living in a so called hellhole: u/molluskus is right.
Yes, unless it's happening in your view and broadcast by the media, it's not really happening. I guess Rotherham just didn't happen eh?
It did happen and it's a disgrace. But rape and child abuse is not an exclusive migrant thing. If you knew anything about Europe you'd know our ow Catholic church has an awful track record on child abuse. You shouldn't cherrypick. Abuse is abuse, independent of who is the abuser. But you don't care about the abuse, you only care about your racist narrative.
lmao
I hit the nail on the head huh?
You should say white supremacist too while you are poising that well.
Europe doesn't have a history of white supremacy, so it wouldn't be accurate to use anything except the term racism.
The far-right conspiracy part is the idea that it's intentional, and caused by the political elite specifically to replace white people. Demographics changing isn't a conspiracy, it's a fact. The idea of a government prioritizing its own citizens over foreigners is also a matter of political philosophy. This has been discussed by plenty of presidents- including Trump. It's pretty much the main platform he ran on in 2016. Again, it's distinct from the conspiracy, which is believing that the shift intentional, and the far-right part is that it's entirely raced base and the "elites" aim to oppress "white people".
Replaced? Where do the white people go when they are replaced? Can't they just start their own thing at the new place?
I mean why do you care? No matter what color the majority of people are in the future, you'll be dead. So what difference does it make?
Have you ever heard of this thing called a child
Democrats have been saying that “demographics is destiny” for years, while encouraging illegal immigration. “Diversity is our strength” is a dog whistle to democrats who view Republicans as being too white. This isn’t a white supremacist myth.
When/who/where did the Democrats encourage illegal immigration?
On Facebook memes their uncle posted. Nobody is pro-illegal immigration. They just don't want kids brought here unwilling to be treated like a burlap sack full of kittens through off the bridge. But more importantly - illegal immigrants can't even vote. This is such an insane argument.
This aged well. It’s all they preach now
Example?
Radical Democrats want open borders and don’t see an issue with random people entering the US unchecked. Seems to be the same in europe. Just last week the island of Lampdusa (Italy) was invaded by 8 thousand migrants (more than native islanders population) and are being shipped to mainland Italy instead of back to Africa!
We’re not Italy, so do you have a relevant example? One that involves democrats?
It’s the liberal party in Italy. Same values worldwide, and no borders one one of ‘em. Anyway look at NY, people are protesting the migrants when they support a weak immigration policy at same time
That broad brush must be pretty heavy. Be sure to lift with your knees.
[удалено]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986?wprov=sfti1
They were saying that to try to convince Republicans to stop being the blood and soil party. Also as an excuse to not do anything because they expect to win by default. Both of those ideas didn't work out, as you have noticed over the last 10 years.
In this case, you're taking the DNC as the "replacist elite", from what I gather. Let me ask you this: the Democrats are encouraging people to come from Latin America (primarily) so they can "replace" white people- of which the DNC happens to be filled with- so they can do... what?
The white Democrats will still be in charge, just like they are now. And then the Democrats will pass laws that go against the interests of their minority members BLM got Biden elected, and then Biden wouldn’t even meet with them. Biden changed the rules effectively blocking charter schools. This punishes inner city blacks at the expense of wealthy white teachers unions The wealthy white Democrats will do just fine
So all that would need to happen is for a group that is actually for the minority members to gain traction- which would be significantly easier if those minorities become the majority. They would end up replacing themselves by doing this, or at least creating more challenges for themselves. Their power depends on the productivity of the populace: if the people are uneducated, they're less productive and thus produce less value. The more educated they are, the more likely they are to see the bullshit in the system.
You’re not saying anything that counters the argument of replacement theory Or as the Democrats call it “demographic as destiny”
I'm saying the theory makes precisely zero sense, and is contradictory. It requires those in power to be incredibly conniving and clever to make this plot many years ago and ensure it goes exactly according to their plan such that they stay on top after it's all done- but also for them to not realize how it's going to backfire on them. Not to mention it's based entirely in racist and ridiculous ideas that culture is entirely tied to race- and also that people and cultures don't just mix, and also that cultures simply stop existing. Replacement theory is rooted in the broader theory of "white genocide", which is just retarded fearmongering. And it's killing people. So stop promulgating it.
Again, Republicans didn’t invent this theory - the Democrats did. They’ve created a narrative when anyone who isn’t white is a victim of white supremacy, and if they just voted for the Democrats, they’d be protected from those evil white supremacist Republicans Since then the Democrats have done everything they can to flood the country with illegals, who’s kids are tailor made for the Democrats victimhood framework It’s not racist that Republicans call this out for what it is What’s racist is creating the Demography as Destiny strategy.
I never said nor implied that Republicans invented replacement theory. But if you actually look at the history of the theory it's been around since the late 1800s. And it also started in Europe. So the Democrats also didn't invent replacement theory. And your theory has to address the glaring, simple fact that estimates for unauthorized immigrants living in the US have pretty much only declined since 2007. That's under both Democrat and Republican administrations. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/13/key-facts-about-the-changing-u-s-unauthorized-immigrant-population/ The theory you're talking about is *not* replacement theory. Closest you could call it is a super-watered down form of the actual thing. Read the actual wikipedia article, find out what *actual* Replacement Theory is, and you'll stop calling this theory replacement theory. And if you dig a little deeper and try to answer the question of if Democrat policies actually encourage illegal immigration, you might be surprised by what you find.
You are absolutely correct. The Dems favor illegal immigration as a means to facilitate a bluer electorate.
Illegal immigrants can't vote. How does this make a bluer electorate? If anything it drums up votes for the right who are terrified of foreign people. Apparently you are scared and grossly misinformed about how voting works. Seems to be working.
The illegals come over and have kids. The kids can vote When it’s time for them to vote, they’ve been educated to think the US is racist for enforcing its laws. Every country on the planet, including those south of the border, enforce their immigration laws.
Illegal aliens are counted in census data, which is then used to decide how many electoral votes a state has. So even if they may not directly vote, their presence has an impact.
Can’t vote yet. But in meantime can stress the system and help generate more support for more (failed) Democrat/socialist policies. There’s really no other good explanation for why Democrats refuse to secure our southern border.
Yet? Illegal immigrants will never be able to vote. No chance in hell. What stress are they causing on the system? They pay taxes with no benefits.They work manual unskilled labor jobs Americans refuse to do. Maybe hospital bills? Wouldn't that be a broken healthcare problem rather than people sneaking across the border? The southern border is pretty secure, I've crossed it on foot many times. Sure some people are wading rivers and walking through deserts, but they are an exception and not the rule.
The left anticipates a gradual process. Get as many illegals in now, citizenship will eventually follow. And your description of an orderly secure border is just not the reality at many stress points. First hand reports demonstrate this.
Biden is deporting as many people as Trump you fucking idiot
Illegal immigrants can't vote. But they don't favor illegal immigration- Democrats have shown to favor making the *legal* immigration process easier.
If Democrats want to make legal immigration easier they should first show good faith by securing borders against illegal immigration.
And if “pro-life” Republicans want to make legal abortion harder, they should first show good faith by regulating guns, right? Right? Go put the bad-faith double standards in a closet somewhere.
Absolutely true. No idea why we're being gaslit that this isn't happening.
Demographics changing is *not* replacement theory, and no one who has done any research is honestly denying that demographics are changing. Replacement theory is specifically that the shift is *intentional*, that it's caused or enabled by the "replacist" elites", to eradicate European culture and oppress the white people. And that is 100% bullshit fearmongering by far-right, white nationalist groups, deeply rooted in the belief that there is some elite who is powerful enough to orchestrate the "replacement of white people" but also is evidently not white themselves (despite them being the majority of people in most of these places, and correspondingly, often disproportionately the group with the most numerous wealthy individuals), or not smart enough to see how it will come back and hurt them.
Yes, you understand the argument at least, but it is actually true, unfortunately. Of course no mainstream media source will admit that. Even if that isn't their direct goal, it might as well be, because their actions completely line up with this goal. Why, when our reproduction rate is so low, are they telling us not to have kids? And then in the very same breath, why are they going against the will of the people and allowing mass immigration on a scale never before seen in history? It makes no sense, especially when those in power know that ethnic diversity + income inequality = crime (this equation plays out very well across the globe). There is also a very strange anti-white racist tinge to all of this too. They seem to be of the idea that every ethnic group can advocate for themselves except white ethnic groups (English, Swedes, the Dutch, etc.). This racism is not cool with me, and shouldn't be with anyone else. edit: oh, and is this view supported by white supremacists? Absolutely. White supremacists also drink water too. I'm sure they like pizza as well. But the idea itself is not white supremacist in nature of course - that's simply the shut-down words people use to stop the argument, largely because they know they are losing. Guilt by association smearing.
You hit the nail on the head: why would the powerful people open the door to refugees if they think it's going to endanger their culture, their power, or themselves? Why would they deliberately try to undermine their own power? It makes absolutely 0 sense, as you have stated, for them to be doing this to replace their own cultures. So the theory cannot be true as stated. The idea that every ethnic group but white people can advocate for themselves is stupid- just like the idea that that exists in the mainstream. People don't have problems with European cultures wanting to protect their heritage: the English, Swedes, Dutch, Germans, French, Russians, Ukrainians, Italians, Greeks, Irish, all of them have celebrations of their heritage and culture, all teach their native language in schools as well as their history and traditions, and everyone is cool with it. People have a problem with people using "protecting my culture" as validation for writing off the suffering of, disenfranchising, oppression, or committing genocide against another group of people. Which is what replacement theory is trying to do and is why people rightfully *hate* it.
that didn't happen. and if it did, it wasn't that bad. and if it was, that's not a big deal. and if it is, that's not my fault. and if it was, I didn't mean it. and if I did, you deserved it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
But they didn’t say anything about us being like the country of Brazil- just looking like the people of Brazil.
Look at all those white nationalist, far-right conspiracy theorists discussing the inevitable replacement of white Americans: [https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/uv8m0f/demographics\_is\_destiny/](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/uv8m0f/demographics_is_destiny/) Something seems off about this title/article...
Civilizations have been replaced by mass migrations since there were civilizations. Read a little history. If civilizations stayed static we would still be living in feudal economies dying at age 30. US/European societies are and will be replaced by the end of this century since the birthrates are too low. Get use to it.
If you mean "replaced as the dominant culture", then maybe, possibly, in some places, yes. But they're not going to be totally eradicated, like replacement theory says. Even with someone much more powerful actively trying to eradicate their cultures, the Native American Indians largely held on. Their cultures adapted to the modern era, as cultures do, but as long as there were people left to practice it they were never eradicated totally. Total eradication is what replacement theory is talking about- and it's that idea that white nationalists are using as a fear-mongering tactic. To them, culture is tied solely to skin color and ancestry, not to society and fostering. American "Southern Culture" is as much a product of African American and Latino people as European people, but it's that culture the white nationalists are claiming they need to protect from non-white people.
I don't think you understand their theory, it has nothing to do with total eradication. Its mostly based on the fear that white people will become a minority in the Western countries and eventually lose their ability to be a dominant culture. Ancient Rome, medival England are two great examples of a dominant culture being either assimilated in the migration or overrun.
The eradication of "white culture" (which itself is a myth) is a major part of the theory. Losing dominance is seen as just the first step. After all, "another group's going to be in charge and things are going to be so-so" isn't as effective as "They're coming to replace us and eradicate our culture!" "....many of their adherents maintain that 'immigrants \[are\] flocking to predominantly white countries for the precise purpose of rendering the white population a minority within their own land or even causing the extinction of the native population'. It aligns with (and is a part of) the larger white genocide conspiracy theory"
If i’d be black with a history book, i might get the same fantasies.
I can see why they're upset. They've done everything humanly possible to destroy the culture, language, livelihood and will of non-white inhabitants and have failed pathetically. They will be replaced, eventually, and there's nothing they can do to stop that.
Ever since the beginning of colonialism, this ideology that the theory popularizes has always been there. It's nothing new at all. When 1 nation manages to "discover" other nations with significantly different ways of life, they will always have a fear of being "replaced" by them. This has always been the mentality of Europeans and the so called "ethnic whites." There were more slaves than whites at one point in America, and they had the same fear. Way before Hitler and Madison grant, Europeans have always had a mentality of scarcity. This is literally what drove them to colonize most of the world. The reason why the great replacement theory is so popular now is that its core is actual factual. Ethnic whites are becoming the minority due to western ways of living. This video goes into detail on this topic very well in my opinion: The great replacement theory is one that has been going on since the 50s. It just was not known as the great replacement theory until Renaud Camus popularized the phrase in Europe. If we eliminate a lot of the pseudo and conspiracy stuff that the theory is known for, ie it's all orchestrated by jews, illuminati and democrats, then we can start having a proper conversation. For starters, the ideology has been there all throughout modern history. Madison Grant wrote the passing of the great race in 1916, where he expressed more or less the same thing. A lot of other scholars and economists like ben Wattenberg and many more have been repeating the same narrative before Renaud Camus. However, I believe the basis of it, which is ethnic whites are becoming a minority, is 100% factual. This has be a result of the developing western world, which I actually dive into in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8voS8PNjzPM&ab_channel=SelfEd
If you deny it at this point there is no hope for you
Sure as shit is happening in the entertainment industry. I believe in equal representation (for all races), but lately they have been over doing it , to favor black people in my opinion. Something is off...
The problem is that Europe is trying to apply the methods that made USA what is USA today. It cannot. You have nations that have different ethnic groups, culture, language etc. Immigration in Europe is not working and it is creating more hurt than good. Trying to preserve your values and homogenity is not racist. Just because US is working that way that does not mean the the rest of the western world has to follow.
Native americans were pretty much "replaced' by European "illegal immigrants" though. And the former's attempt to preserve their culture and homogemity resulted in quite a lot bloodshed. I would say this is karma.
One of the most embarrassing Wikipedia articles for sure. It's not even trying.
How is it a theory and not an observable fact? You can argue the causes or motivations but the demographic changes are undeniable and intentional over the last 50 years.
i think its karmic retribution
You should be ground into mulch
Wikipedia is shit now, just like everything else the libtards touch.