This article appears in American Pigeon’s July 2022 Issue: “THE DIVERSITY MYTH: DO AMERICANS TRULY CHERISH DIVERSITY?”
After a supermarket massacre in Buffalo, New York that left 10 people dead, the media and political pundits are claiming that motivating factors include conservative commentators, like Tucker Carlson. The killer, Payton Gendron, 18, now in custody, reportedly wrote a 180-page manifesto disdaining conservatism, proclaiming to be “authoritarian left,” a “green nationalist,” and writing that he hated Christianity. He also said that the “Great Replacement Theory” motivated the attack.
The shooter was influenced by 4chan and anti-semitism, citing specific websites for his views, as per his manifesto. He wrote that, beginning in May 2020, he began to browse channels on 4chan, eventually learning through infographics, memes, and “shitposts,” that Jews were behind the white race dying out and that blacks were disproportionately killing whites.
In the manifesto, he includes images showing the Jewish influence in CNN, the New York Times, and Fox News.
The manifesto also said that the attack was motivated by the “Great Replacement Theory.” It’s the idea that whites are being replaced by minorities—a reality that the liberal Chicago Reporter wrote about in a 2019 article, “The US white majority will soon disappear forever.” The New York Times also wrote about replacing whites (where the author perceived Republicans to be white supremacists) with a “multiracial polyglot majority” in a 2018 piece entitled, “We Can Replace Them.”
PBS defines the theory in a few ways. “A more mainstream view in the U.S. baselessly suggests Democrats are encouraging immigration from Latin America so more like-minded potential voters replace ‘traditional’ Americans.”
It’s a partisan claim to use the word “baseless” given the Biden Administration’s open borders and, as we’ll see, the Democratic Party’s demography is destiny strategy.
Other radicalized definitions include racist adherents that believe Jews are behind this plan, like Payton Gendron.
The Great Replacement is associated with the far-right and its anti-immigration stances. The term was first popularized by Renaud Camus in his 2011 book Le Grand Remplacement, which argued that the growing Muslim majority in France presented a danger to French culture and civilization.
American paleoconservative commentator, Patrick Buchanan, also emphasized societal unmooring when its population is no longer predominantly native, i.e., within Germany, France, England, Russia, Japan, and the U.S. Buchanan see’s a dying West far below replacement levels for self-sustenance and which consequently needs to allow for immigration to make up for its dwindling numbers. This demographic change, however, will fundamentally begin to change the social fabric of these nations. They have already begun to do so and, as a result, France will no longer be predominantly French, nor will Germany be predominantly Germany, or England predominantly English. This creates national and civilizational destabilization as it fosters ever increasing resentment and paradigmatic shifts.
Critics have often spoke of these realities as part of “white extinction anxiety,” in an effort to dismiss them as ‘racist,’ (although such critics would not levy the same criticism at Arab or Asian countries). But before speaking of their racist effects, we must understand what the Great Replacement theory is.
“Demography is destiny” said 19th century French philosopher and sociologist Auguste Comte. By this, he meant that population increases and decreases affects everything within society.
In a 2005 article in American Renaissance, Jared Taylor writes that mass immigration into already-occupied territories is relatively new. This is for two reasons: firstly, Westerners have created “the most successful, agreeable societies in the history of mankind.” Secondly, only white Western nations permit immigration.
There are countless Indonesians and Filipinos who would love to live in Japan, and enjoy the wealth the Japanese people have created for themselves, but they cannot. The Japanese forbid it. The Japanese understand that demography is destiny, and they have the quaint preference that their destiny remain Japanese. The same is true for the people of South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and even Malaysia. They understand the importance of demography, and they want to keep their destinies in their own hands.
The reason for mass immigration in the West is because Westerners believe that populations are replaceable, Taylor writes. It is “trendy” to believe in the sociological illusion that Europe will be happier when being replaced by non-natives, as though strangers coming into one’s home to redecorate furniture, displace values, and reorder the fridge is wholesomely acceptable.
In September 2011, the World Economic Forum published an article entitled Demography is Destiny, talking about the increasing population in third world countries. They then advocate for a declining population, as this would make the poor, specifically in third world countries, easier to feed. Given mass immigration, however, one might observe that the effort to slow the population will disproportionately affect first world countries like those within the West.
There is a great opportunity in addressing these population dynamics positively. A rapid decline in population size could assist fragile countries to accelerate their development and secure their future.
Evidence shows that the way to accomplish this is not through “population control” but through “family empowerment”: educating girls, ensuring that women have the right to choose whom and when they marry, assisting families to reduce child mortality, providing access to affordable family planning and providing a supportive social context for those who wish to have fewer children. The positive empowerment of women and families has driven the most successful reductions in population growth around the world.
In E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century, sociologist Robert Putnam writes that mass immigration contributes to greater disconnect and voluntary ethnic separatism.
“In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.”
As Newsweek reports, Gendron’s manifesto allegedly said that the attack was meant to “intimidate all non-white, non-Christian people and get them to leave the country. It said the U.S. should belong only to white people and all others were “replacers” who should be eliminated through force or terror.”
This is clearly morally reprehensible. It should be considered how such an act of violence takes place.
Racial division has been stoked in the U.S. for years, peaking in 2020 when BLM riots broke out across the country after the killing of George Floyd. Everything disagreeable was labeled “white supremacy,” and it still is. But we are living in the aftermath and continued perpetuation of the “white supremacist” narrative that has emboldened extremists, whether it is on the one side, Dylan Roof, Payton Gendron, or to the other side, Darrell Brooks and Frank James.
Yet the latter two do not make national headlines as “black nationalists,” nor are headlines made when black nationalists claim that “there will come a time when black Americans will kill everything white in sight.” The lop-sided reportage is clear and has undoubtedly created a dishonest conversation around extremism.
Jack Buckby, a counter-extremist researcher and self-identifying conservative, decries the Buffalo shooting, claiming that conservatives do not take the necessary steps to address the issues on the far right.
Buckby is ultimately right. We agreed especially on the latter point: that the inability for the right to address its own extremists results from the left’s inability to confront theirs. As the media rushes to paint its political opposition as extremists, who really suffers? The victims shot up in a Buffalo supermarket and the victims shot up in the NYC subway.
As I wrote in reply, the right would also be willing to address its extremism side if it wasn’t fueled by false narratives from the left. As the left mobilizes to create racial division, we are engaged in an information war where the key objective is to achieve dominant discourse. This is not the way forward for any productive resolution.
When the Great Replacement theory is discussed it is often dismissed as a right-wing racist conspiracy. To the extent that it fuels racial supremacy, it is racist. Ethnonationalism has contributed to great periods of violence in human history (for a full discussion on the interplay of identities, see The Diversity Myth). To the extent that it speaks to our demographic reality, it is not a conspiracy. Democrats and leftists alike have explicitly strategized around a decreasing white population, admitting that the future, and political hegemony is achieved through demographic change, i.e., through immigration, identity politics and racialist pandering.
In 2020, Politico reported that “demographics are not destiny.” The author, disenchanted with the results of the 2020 election, pointed to the fact that Trump increased his black and hispanic vote in the election and the Democratic Party’s initial assumptions about demographics were wrong. The article begins,
“For years, the Democratic Party has operated under one immutable assumption: Long-term demographic trends would give the party something like a permanent majority as the country as a whole grows less white and more urban.” It continues to say that “President Donald Trump’s reliance on the politics of racial resentment would only quicken the process, solidifying support for Democrats among people of color.”
The latter part contains the real self-projected irony in that faulty assumption. He admits that the Democratic Party is strategically relying on shifting demographics (i.e., increasing minority support) given the declining white population, assuming that Trump’s “politics of racial resentment” would increase that support. He adds that Democrats lost in 2016 because they “ran a campaign that increased the salience of immigration at a time when marginal voters in swing states in the Midwest disagreed with us on immigration.”
What is most ironic still, however, is that the GOP becoming more diverse and “assembling the multiracial working class coalition that the left has always dreamed of” is called a “joke,” by a Democratic polling and data expert. For a bunch of race resentful bigots worrying about racial displacement, they seem to be doing very well amongst Americans that are tired of seeing their borders overrun and their politics saturated with the Democrats’ identity politics.
Presently, given Democrats’ majority in the House and Senate, and a Biden White House, immigration has gone completely unfettered with nearly 1 million illegal immigrants released in the U.S. interior, in an effort to buy those votes where needed. Yet, if controlling immigration is considered to be “racial resentment” then what do we call the Black Lives Matter movement and Critical Race Theory?
Democrats have rallied behind these racialist projects, with unwavering support from corporations, big tech, and Washington politicians, yet come out to say little when they get out of hand. In 2017, a BLM leader in Toronto said that white people were “genetic defects” that should be “wiped out.” In 2020, far-leftists cheered for the murder of a Trump supporter. In 2016, a Dallas sniper gunned down five officers with the intent on killing white people. In 2021, black nationalists from the New Black Panther Party said that there will be a time when they “kill everything white in sight.”
These are not isolated incidents—at least no less than the shootings perpetrated by white supremacists. The White House and mainstream media would have one believe that white supremacy is the greatest threat to the nation, to the extent of suggesting we report perceived radicals, whether friends or family. But in reality, the greatest threat to our nation is racial division, which is an increasing trend on the left and right, but lop-sidedly fueled and dishonestly permeated by the Democratic establishment.