The White Ethno-Genocide of the Great Replacement is Occurring Rapidly By Charles Taylor (Florida)

The issue of the Great Replacement, or as we call it, white genocide, is in the media due to the latest mass shooting, or at least the shooting by a white guy that the lamestream media is only interested in, not the Asian shooter, or mass shooting and murders every day in Chicago and Baltimore. I have assembled a pile of information from numerous sources from the Dissent Right, giving one all that is needed to be up to speed on the Great Replacement, including a great interview by the French intellectual Camus who coined the term. In a nutshell, the mainstream Leftist media, proclaims the Great Replacement as a racist conspiracy theory, on the one hand, but between themselves, celebrate white demographic decline. What they do not think about is whether the system holds together given this genocidal attack. Otherwise they go down with it. World War III will make things interesting for their agenda, as will transhumanism, which will replace the entire human race, except perhaps for the top elites.

What is “The Great Replacement” and why does it evoke such passion? The phrase is shorthand for large population changes such as this one:

In 1960, whites were 85 percent of the US population, and assumed they would always to be the overwhelming majority. Today, they are down to 58 percent, and by 2060, their numbers are projected to drop to 43 percent.

The same process is underway in every traditionally white nation. In Britain and France, natives are expected to become minorities by 2060 or so. Whites who don’t welcome decline face insult and hostility. First, they hear that replacement is imaginary. A search for it on YouTube brings up a warning banner that calls The Great Replacement “a white nationalist right-wing conspiracy theory.”

A 2019 article in the New York Times called the idea “bonkers.” Farhad Manjoo explained that “as a group, they [whites] are only maybe, possibly, becoming a smaller share of the population in the United States and Europe.” “Only maybe, possibly”? Another 2019 article in the Times called replacement “a racist, sexist doctrine.”

Facts are not racist or sexist. The 2020 census found that in the previous 10 years, the Asian population in the United States had grown by 35 percent, Hispanics by 23 percent, and blacks by 5.6 percent, while the number of whites declined by 8.6 percent. Charles Blow of the New York Times wrote that “it was a terrifying census for white nationalists.”

For those who welcome white replacement, it is not a conspiracy but something to celebrate. Filmmaker Michael Moore declared the Census Bureau’s release of the same 2020 data, “the best day ever in U.S. History.”

Curiously, after the Buffalo shooting, the Times was back to worrying about “A Fringe Conspiracy Theory.” Just today, the paper called replacement a “false, fringe conspiracy theory” in an article in which the new press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, denounced “people who spread this filth.”

In January 2009, the Atlantic presumably spread filth in an article called “The End of White America?” by an English professor named Hua Hsu. By the end of the article, the question mark had disappeared: “If the end of white America is a cultural and demographic inevitability, what will the new mainstream look like — and how will white Americans fit into it? What will it mean to be white when whiteness is no longer the norm?” These are good questions, but the only correct response is cheerful anticipation. [T]he “soon-to-be white minority’s sense of being besieged and disdained by a multicultural majority grows apace,” Prof. Hsu concluded, but whites should relax because “whiteness has no inherent meaning” [emphasis in the original].

Just before the 2020 election, Times columnist Roger Cohen called the contest “Trump’s Last Stand for White America:”

“The great replacement” is a phrase generally attributed to a French writer, Renaud Camus, who said: “The great replacement is very simple. You have one people, and in the space of a generation, you have a different people.” That, of course, is a good definition of America. Of its vitality, its churn, its reinvention, its essential openness.

The Great Replacement is a sick illusion of you don’t want it, a welcome prospect if you do.

Promoters of replacement expect wonderful changes. Twenty years ago, political scientist Ruy Teixeira and journalist John Judis wrote a book called The Emerging Democratic Majority. They didn’t talk about replacement; Mr. Teixeira refers instead to “the browning of America,” which will usher in “a new progressive era.”

In 2015, the Washington Post made a very specific progressive prediction in a piece called “The NRA will fall. It’s inevitable.” The author says, “Just look at the demographics”:

Whites tend to favor gun rights over gun control by a significant margin (57 percent to 40 percent). Yet whites, who comprise 63 percent of the population today, won’t be in the majority for long. Racial minorities are soon to be a majority, and they are the nation’s strongest supporters of strict gun laws.

If it is lauded a means to progressive ends, The Great Replacement is a welcome fact.

When Virginia went Democrat after decades of Republicanism, one newspaper made a pun out of “Democratic” and “Demographic:” “The Democraphic Tide Washes Over Virginia.” The New York Times agreed: “[W]hile political leaders come and go, the deeper, more lasting force at work is demographics.”

Editor of the now-defunct Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol, tweeted this about the 2018 elections: “One has to say that today, in America, demography sure seems to be destiny.” And in a following tweet, “We’re running a census every two years as much as an election.” Just last year, CNN wrote that “The Census shows the GOP base is shrinking fast” because “these numbers suggest a bleak future for the Republican Party, which finds its strongest support among Whites.”

CNN is probably right. There was a time when presidential elections were simple: Whoever won the white vote went to the White House. No longer. The last time a majority of whites voted for a Democrat was for Lyndon Johnson in 1964 — nearly 60 years ago. Now, a Democrat can badly lose the white vote but still win, because non-whites vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Every Democrat president since Johnson — Carter, Clinton, Obama, Biden — won with only a minority of the white vote. Mr. Obama got just 41 percent, Mr. Biden 44 percent. White people didn’t get the president they wanted. Why? Because of the great . . . no. Because of a white-supremacist conspiracy theory.

Why, therefore, is it wrong for Republicans to oppose population change, if only because it means a giant political shift that favors their opponents? Immigration is — or should be — a choice, a policy decision. If immigrants were building a permanent Republican majority, Democrats would not call The Great Replacement “bonkers” or “sexist.”

White decline is not just about politics. “What will it mean to be white when whiteness is no longer the norm?” asked Professor Hsu, at a time before it was common to teach white school children that they are inherent oppressors whose very existence perpetuates systemic racism. Is it such a surprise that some whites may not welcome replacement?

The question is even greater: What does replacement mean for America? Despite every attempt to deny it, whites — Europeans — gave the United States its culture, language, institutions, and texture of life. Wherever Europeans went in large numbers — Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada — they built similar nations.

Europeans — like all people — love their land, their culture, their heritage. This love is one of the strongest collective feelings known to our species. Countless people gave their lives in the name of that love. They died stopping replacement. In the past, replacement was always by force. Today, for the first time in human history, nations that have the means to stop replacement-through-immigration allow it and even encourage it. Whites who were young in a white America grow old in a strange and different country, one they never expected. Opposing replacement is not aberrant or unhealthy; welcoming it is aberrant.

Non-violent replacement has the same results as military occupation. If Mexico had conquered parts of the Southwest, there would be a dominant Mexican/Hispanic presence of language, culture, aspirations, people — which is what we find today. Whites dare not complain about this Great Replacement. Instead, they quietly move to those shrinking parts of the country that still have white majorities. Even the staunchest promoters of “diversity” do this, apparently unaware of their hypocrisy.

Today, the entire West is united in support for Ukraine against Russia. Why? Because it is fighting The Great Replacement — this one armed. But if Ukraine saw a huge influx of Russians — people of the same race, religion, a recent history together, and with mutually intelligible languages — would Ukraine be changed even a fraction as much as The Great Replacement is changing the United States?

Nations have a powerful urge to protect their identities. It is Basic Law — part of the unwritten constitution — that Israel is a Jewish state. This officially recognizes a precious identity that replacement would destroy. All non-white nations have an equally powerful, instinctive opposition to replacement. What Turk or Thai or Tunisian would even think of setting in motion policies that would reduce their people to a minority, whether religious, racial, or linguistic?

White-majority countries are unique in demonizing anyone who wants to preserve the nation of his ancestors and applauding those who want it changed. In no nation — ever — were whites asked if they wanted their numbers to decline, their influence to dwindle, to see their children become minorities. Now, as it dawns on them what is happening, even to notice is to be called a deluded racist.

And that is why, sickening as his actions were, there will be more Payton Gendrons. I already predicted him. In 2019, I wrote about an earlier mass murderer, whom Mr. Gendron cites as an inspiration: Brenton Tarrant, who killed 50 Muslim worshippers in Christchurch, New Zealand, and who has been sentenced to life in prison.

Mr. Tarrant also believed he was fighting replacement. He, too, had a manifesto, which he called “The Great Replacement.” It has been suppressed, just as Mr. Gendron’s is being suppressed. In New Zealand, it is a crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, to own a copy.

After the Christchurch shooting there were calls for censorship in the United States as well. The Washington Post wrote that Mr. Tarrant’s mind was poisoned because “he spent his days slinking through online cesspools” and that he got his ideas from “the fervid extremism that suffuses the Internet’s darkest crevices.” The New York Times agreed:

The internet is now the place where the seeds of extremism are planted and watered, where platform incentives guide creators toward the ideological poles, and where people with hateful and violent beliefs can find and feed off one another. . . .

[W]e need to understand and address the poisonous pipeline of extremism that has emerged over the past several years.

USA Today wanted all documents like the manifesto suppressed, and the Washington Post wrote that “‘replacement’ ideology is an unacceptable trope in civilized discourse.”

Many people would forbid all talk of The Great Replacement. They say it is such a dangerous idea that it drives people to mass murder — but all strongly held ideas have that potential. Many people believe climate change is a mortal threat. If one of them shot up the executive floor of ExxonMobil, would that mean climate change was no longer happening and had become a “fringe conspiracy theory”? Many people have killed in the name of Islam. Should we ban Islam? The Black Lives Matter movement in 2020 led to the worst rioting and property destruction in US history. Does that mean the ideas behind it are “bonkers” and must be banned?

Anyone who wants to outlaw any talk of The Great Replacement should consider this: There is now sustained outrage over a leaked Supreme Court decision on abortion. What if all those angry people were treated like fools or lunatics, banished from newspaper columns, kept off radio and TV, blocked on social media? Might they lose faith in the political process? Would there be more or less political violence? As I wrote after the Christchurch attacks, censorship makes future killers inevitable.

What could have prevented Mr. Tarrant’s or Mr. Gendron’s rampages? Not more repression, censorship, and demonization. That is what caused them.

Let us instead imagine a political environment of open discussion about the demographic future, one in which it is not considered “hate” to ask: How many people should our country have? Do we need any immigrants? Do people of certain religions or races assimilate better than others? Why do people of different races build different societies? Is diversity a strength or a weakness? Is it wrong for whites to prefer to live, marry, and work with other whites? Must whites become a minority?

I have been asking these questions — politely but pointedly — for 30 years. I believe that the long-term solution to racial and ethnic conflict is not to force more “diversity” on people who never asked for it, but to let them, if they wish, build separate communities. This must be achieved only through the political process.

For this, I am called a “hater.” Twitter closed my account, Amazon banned my books, my organization lost its Facebook account, hotels will not rent meeting rooms to me, printers refuse my business, and payment processors have cut me off. Other dissident groups are harassed and silenced in exactly the same way. Any society that crushes opposing viewpoints is treating dissent as a crime. The entire West is, in this sense, rushing towards tyranny.

After Christchurch I wrote:

Terrorists kill when they believe every non-violent alternative has been closed off. They reject politics because they think the system is rigged. Being silenced does not mean abandoning deeply held convictions; it means acting outside of politics.

Millions of people in the West who are revolted by Mr. Tarrant’s actions nevertheless sympathize with his stated goal: to ensure the survival of his people. They trust in the democratic process to give them a voice in determining policy, but people can lose faith in democracy when their sincere beliefs are dismissed as “hate,” when their views are censored, and when they are forced out of politics and public discourse.

Ideas shared by many people do not disappear just because they are driven underground. They reappear in unexpected and sickening ways. . . .

Mr. Tarrant committed a horrible act of mass murder. Anyone who sincerely wants to prevent such murders should remember this: When people have a voice, they speak; when they don’t have a voice, they kill.

And that is why, sick and twisted as he is, there will be more Payton Gendrons.”

Here is the United nations, advocating replacement migration to deal with the birth dearth, due to feminism:

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/ageing/replacement-migration.asp

“United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.

Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.”

https://www.infowars.com/posts/the-un-is-pushing-the-dangerous-replacement-migration-conspiracy-theory/

https://banned.video/watch?id=6282c873b6a75f7c7677f79d

Julie Kelly argues, contrary to Joe Biden, that the data does not support the idea of white supremacism as the nation’s greatest threat. Of course, Biden has, or his Deep State controllers, defined all of his opposition in any shape or form with this cover-all hate term.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/05/16/no-data-supports-threat-of-white-supremacists/

“No Data Supports Threat of ‘White Supremacists’

Joe Biden will use the blood of innocents to paint millions of Americans as “white supremacists” and wannabe terrorists simply for supporting the opposite political party.

May 16, 2022

Joe Biden will travel to Buffalo on Tuesday, ostensibly to join the upstate New York community in mourning the murders of 10 people at a local grocery store over the weekend. It is, of course, appropriate for Biden in his role as president to grieve with Americans devastated by such a brutal massacre of innocents, especially an attack that from all accounts was racially motivated.

What’s not appropriate is for Biden to use the atrocity as a platform to fuel even more hatred and division in a country ripping apart at the seams in so many ways—but that’s exactly what he will do. The man who launched his 2020 campaign for president touting the lie that Donald Trump commended “very fine” white supremacists after a 2017 protest in Charlottesville can be expected to promote another lie; violent white supremacists and domestic extremists pose a heightened threat to the country.

That tired mantra remains an animating feature of the Biden regime. On his second full day in office, Biden instructed his national security team to devise a whole-of-government approach to combat “domestic terrorism,” largely using the events of January 6, 2021 as the pretext. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki promised a “fact-based analysis upon which we can shape policy” when she announced the initiative on January 22, 2021.

But the 32-page report, issued by Merrick Garland’s Justice Department during a public ceremony in June, was long on rhetoric and very short on facts.

While noting mass shootings committed by white men in Charleston, Pittsburgh, and El Paso, the analysis failed to prove what it described as a “persistent and emerging” threat of domestic terrorism. (The authors also claimed the “victims [of] the U.S. Capitol” join the “tragic history” of American terror attacks including the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing which killed 168 people including children.)

Further, the unrelated handful of acts took place over a six-year period, hardly representative of a systemic pattern of white-on-black violence. Horrible and sickening? Yes. Carnage that merits the harshest punishment possible for the perpetrators? Yes.

But is it representative of a pervasive threat requiring the use of intrusive government and private sector surveillance tools once reserved for foreign terrorists? No.

Of course, “domestic violent extremists” or “white supremacists” is political code for Trump supporters. What else could explain the report’s omission of violent extremists associated with Black Lives Matter or Antifa? It’s not an accident that on the one-year anniversary of the most destructive riots in the nation’s history, Biden’s missive failed to make a single mention of the damage, death, or nationwide campaign of terror unleashed in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death in 2020.

No matter how hard Democrats, the news media, and establishment Republicans such as U.S. Representative Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.)—who blamed Republican House leaders on Monday morning for enabling “white nationalism, [and] white supremacy”—try to twist the matter, the data simply does not support these accusations.

The most current figures available are from 2020, one of the most tumultuous years in U.S. history. And rather than telling the story of a country under siege by bloodthirsty white supremacists, the metrics, if accurate—and that’s a big if considering the designation of a hate crime is based on the subjective determination of the charging agency—contradict the narrative. With more than 15,000 local law enforcement agencies reporting, the FBI tallied 8,263 hate crime incidents for that year.

Roughly half, according to the FBI’s crime data explorer, were motivated by anti-black or anti-African American sentiment. And of the 4,082 offenses against blacks in 2020, the top offense was “intimidation.” A little more than 1,200 offenses were for assault; just five were categorized as murder or manslaughter.

And 1,710 out of 2,353 perpetrators were white.

Racially motivated crime would be nonexistent in an ideal world, however, that’s not the world in which we live—particularly as the ruling class, corporate news organizations, and social media platforms bang the drums of a race war on a daily basis. The individual cases may be troubling but in no way do they incriminate an entire race or political party, much less do they support the narrative of a rampant “white supremacist” crime spree.

Information from the Justice Department is even more unconvincing. On its hate crime home page, the agency listed 30 examples of federal hate crime cases for 2021. Of the nine offenses related to race, four took place in 2021; the rest occured in previous years but were adjudicated in 2021—hardly a compelling trove of evidence for a department attempting to persuade the public that dangerous white supremacist terrorists are ready to strike at any moment.

More specific data isn’t forthcoming. Overall crime statistics for 2021, including racially motivated crimes, may not be made available to the public this year—a timely gift to Democrats as voters continue to list crime as their top concern ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.

Since the FBI switched to a new reporting system, many local law enforcement entities are opting out of the voluntary program, bringing the agency participation well below the mandatory 60 percent threshold. The FBI already skipped the first quarterly report of 2022, usually issued in late March. If participation doesn’t increase, there’s a chance subsequent reports will be missed, too.

How convenient.

There is, of course, a more political reason why the FBI won’t release crime statistics from last year; the results will contradict the administration. According to an independent analysis of three dozen police departments, hate crimes rose by 39 percent in the nation’s largest cities in 2021 with the top 10 metropolitan areas reporting a staggering 54 percent increase over 2020.

The rise, however, is due to a huge uptick in hate crimes against Asians and Jews. Data crunched by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino shows a 224 percent increase in anti-Asian hate crimes; a 58 percent increase in anti-Jewish hate crimes; and a 51 percent increase in anti-gay hate crimes. News reports out of major cities support the data; a wave of recent attacks in Dallas has the city’s Asian business community in a panic. Police are looking now for a black man suspected of shooting three Korean women at a hair salon last week.

But Joe Biden will not discuss any of those facts during his visit to Buffalo on Tuesday. Instead, Biden will rage against an imaginary menace. He will blame Republicans and Fox News. And he’ll demand more stringent measures, including online censorship, to prevent another attack. Biden will use the blood of innocents to paint millions of Americans as “white supremacists” and wannabe terrorists simply for supporting the other political party. Rather than comfort the heartbroken loved ones, Biden will exploit their loss for his own gratification.

There is no stoop too low for old Joe.”

https://www.amren.com/blog/2022/05/understanding-the-great-replacement/

What is The Great Replacement?

“The Great Replacement” is a phrase coined by the French writer Renaud Camus. In an interview for American Renaissance, Mr. Camus explained it this way:

Genocide by substitution, or Great Replacement, or change of people and civilization, in short the destruction of the Europeans of Europe, is the XXI century’s crime against humanity.

Of his critics, Mr. Camus said this:

[H]ate has absolutely nothing to do with it. There are no expressions of hatred in my writings, nor any attacks on people. But hatred is the very effective name that the replacist power has chosen to give to any opposition to genocide by substitution, to any resistance to the Great Replacement, to the slightest objection to the change of people and civilization. By the way, beware when people start to speak of your hatred: It usually means that they want to kill you, or at least to finish you off, to silence you.

Is The Great Replacement a right-wing concept?

No. Mr. Camus is an irreligious homosexual and an environmentalist. Moreover, though they did not use the term, leftists talked about the phenomenon well before his book Le Grand Remplacement (The Great Replacement) was published in 2011. In 1997, President Bill Clinton said this at the University of California, San Diego:

Within the next three years, here in California no single race or ethnic group will make up a majority of the State’s population. Already, five of our largest school districts draw students from over 100 different racial and ethnic groups. At this campus, 12 Nobel Prize winners have taught or studied from nine different countries. A half-century from now, when your own grandchildren are in college, there will be no majority race in America.

Liberals have written many books about replacement, many before 2011. The most famous is The Emerging Democratic Majority by John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira, published in 2004. Academics have written about population in non-partisan ways. An example is Barren States: The Population ‘Implosion’ in Europe, which was published in 2005. This is from Amazon’s description:

Globally, over sixty-four countries have fallen below generation replacement levels and countries in eastern and southern Europe are registering the lowest birth rates in the history of humanity. Demographers emphasize that these developments could have serious repercussions for society and public policy.

Whites are not only becoming a smaller share of America, whites are declining in absolute numbers as well. The 2020 census found that in the previous 10 years, the Asian population in the United States had grown by 35 percent, Hispanics by 23 percent, and blacks by 5.6 percent, while the number of whites declined by 8.6 percent.

For a list of books about The Great Replacement from varying political perspectives, see my blog post here.

Is belief in The Great Replacement “fringe”?

No. The Great Replacement is discussed by every major news outlet, many prominent commentators, and not a few politicians.

Gregory Hood has written about how often the Left talks about The Great Replacement:

Verified Hate: The Great Replacement, January 6, 2020
Verified Hate: The Great Replacement Is Back Again, May 18, 2021
Why Do Leftists Celebrate White Decline?, August 25, 2021
Verified Hate: Replacement Denialism, September 2, 2021

Are whites the only victims of replacement?

No. The Great Replacement affects whites more than any other group, but demographic change can dispossess other groups. In the United States, blacks have been pushed out of many cities and replaced by Hispanics. Here are figures for Los Angeles:

Year	Percent Black	Percent Hispanic
1990	11.20	37.81
2000	9.78	44.56
2010	8.73	47.74
2020	7.93	47.98

From 2000 to 2010, Chicago’s black population decreased by 17 percent in the face of gains by Asians and Hispanics.”

https://im1776.com/2022/05/17/renaud-camus-interview/

“RENAUD CAMUS ON THE GREAT REPLACEMENT, MASS MURDERERS, FRENCH ELECTIONS, GLOBALIZATION, AND MORE

Renaud Camus is a French writer, political theorist and intellectual. Born in 1946 in Chamalières, Auvergne, after being politically active as a Socialist in the ’60s and ’70s and establishing himself as an influential novelist especially in the gay community (mostly thanks to his 1979 autobiographical novel Tricks), Camus went on to publish several works of political philosophy. He holds a bachelor’s degree in French literature at the Sorbonne and a Master in philosophy at the Paris Institute of Political Studies, as well as two Masters in political science and history of law. He has also taught French literature in the US.

To most in the West however, Camus is known for coining the term “The Great Replacement” in his 2011 work Le Grand Remplacement. The book was never translated into English, but the term has since been the subject of intense controversy and frequent references in Western media. Most recently, it has resurfaced in public discourse thanks initially to a New York Times‘ special and subsequently a media campaign against mainstream Republicans (and the Right more in general), following the mass shooting at Buffalo, New York, on Saturday, May 14.

In an effort to reach a deeper understanding of Mr. Camus’ work beyond the Western media’s superficial depiction of it, we decided to reach out for an exclusive interview. What follows, is a written exchange between Renaud Camus and Benjamin Braddock.

— The Editors

“There are two social or professional categories one can rest assured their members have never read me: mass murderers and journalists.”
— Renaud Camus

Benjamin Braddock: When ‘The Great Replacement’ is spoken of in English-language media it is invariably described as a “conspiracy theory”, one undertaken by some shadowy cabal in which mass immigration is the result of a deliberate plot to destroy Western civilization. When I read your book Le Grand Remplacement however, I find instead a sober work of political economy that advances a critique of materialist globalism as an impersonal force stripping people of their cultural, spiritual, and ethnic attributes, and turning them into fungible units of homogenous labor. So what is “replacism”, and why do you think there’s such a radical difference between your work and the way it is perceived?

Renaud Camus: The Great Replacement is not a theory at all, but just a sad fact, a ‘chrononym’, i.e. name for an epoch after its most important phenomenon, indeed replacism (or more exactly globalreplacism), mainly developed in my most recent book La Dépossession, Dispossession. It rests on the observation that replacement, the substitution of something else to everything and the replacement of everything by something else, is the central gesture of modern societies, at least since Taylorism and Fordism, and probably since the First Industrial Revolution. Think of how writers are replaced by intellectuals, intellectuals by journalists, journalists by TV-show hosts, marble by chipstone, stone by concrete or plaster, wood by plaster, or plastic, the signature material of global replacism which spoils even the depths of the oceans; Venice by Venice in Las Vegas, Las Vegas by a fake one in the deserts of Spain, Paris by a cheaper mock version next to Peking (which is much safer to visit these days) and so on.

Neither the Great Replacement nor global replacism are conspiracy theories — the phrase is infinitely too limited for what they are — but global replacism is indeed a theory of the machination, the substitution of machines (and computers) to men and women, i.e. the dehumanisation of humanity, or what I call today davocracy, the management of the human park (in the words of Peter Sloterdjik) by Davos, bankers, international finance, multinational companies, pension funds, hedge funds, Big Five, and all kind of more or less private powers. Henry Ford, much admired and much imitated by both Hitler and Stalin, had the brilliant idea of making clients out of his workers: consumers out of his producers. Post-fordism and global replacism go one step further, and, out of the producer-consumer, they make a product: man, woman, humanity and post-humanity — the most precious of all goods, the consumer. The number one requirement of davocratic replacism is the general exchangeability of the product. Hence the urgency of the absurd dogma of the inexistence of the races, which has become the main point and the modern form of antiracism, at least in Europe, and which, of course was made possible, for antiracists, only by taking the word race exclusively in the incredibly narrow, purely biological and pseudo-scientific meaning to which it had been limited before by the worst kind of racists. And now that the races have been successfully taken care of and suppressed, at least conceptually, it is very obvious that the current requirement of global replacism is the inexistence of the sexes.

As to why there is such a colossal difference between my books and their image, between my thought and the thoughts currently attributed to me, the answer is very simple: Practically none of those people has read me, and certainly not the diverse mass murderers whom the general press is only too pleased to associate with my name. It has been established by two Court sentences, for instance, one New-Zelandese and one French, that the Christchurch killer has nowhere mentioned me and probably does not even know my name. He wrote a brochure called The Great Replacement because that phrase is now everywhere in the world, probably for the simple reason that it aptly describes what is happening in many countries. That brochure sustains views that are very different from mine and on many points completely opposite to them. The El Paso killer, when he spoke of The Great Replacement, referred to Brenton Tarrant’s brochure and not to my book, which is not even translated into English. And now the Buffalo killer has published a manifesto which mentions neither the words Great Replacement nor, indeed, my name. There is one absolute proof that mass murderers have not read me and are not influenced by me: it is their mass murder. I am perfectly non-violent, and if I am averse to Great Replacement it is notably because, amongst other things, everywhere it brings violence with it, including daily murders, rapes and slaughtering in France. The central concept of my political reflexion is in-nocence, non-nocence: “nocence”, nuisance, harm, violence, being what in-nocence is the contrary of (and not the other way round). There are two social or professional categories one can rest assured their members have never read me: they’re mass murderers and journalists.

Benjamin Braddock: Emmanuel Macron was just re-elected as President. After five turbulent years which saw continued mass protests against his government and warnings of civil war from the French military, Le Pen only managed to capture 41% of the vote in the run-off, a marginal improvement from her 2017 result. Furthermore, France is one of the only countries I’m aware of where the youth leans considerably more to the Right than the elderly. For both Le Pen and Zemmour, Millenials and Zoomers were their strongest demographic. What does this mean for the future of France and where does the French Right go from here?

Renaud Camus: I do not care much for the future of the Right, which has betrayed the country and the people just as much as the Left and the present ‘centre’. Elections do not mean much today since opinion is manipulated more than ever in history; by school and university teachings, by the so-called ‘new means of communication’, by the collapse of general culture and the progress of mass hebetude, and by the mainstream Press, which is entirely devoted to global replacism and practically belongs to it, and now even official Government “disinformation boards.” In such conditions, it is difficult to take electoral results seriously. When a country is handed over to foreign peoples and foreign forces, occupied, colonised, daily humiliated in every way and its indigenous people daily attacked, robbed, raped, slaughtered, Left vs. Right are not the most urgent of issues. Resistance is.

There are a growing number of youths indeed which are infuriated and dispaired by the present state of their country, but there are also, unfortunately, an alarming mass of young and not-so-young people who are stultified by permanent propaganda and mass deculturation and ardently serving davocratic power while sincerely believing, for instance, they are fighting capitalism, or what they call “fascism.” The best allies and instruments of global replacism and of the Industries of Man, the producers of what I call Undifferentiated Human Matter (the main product of the Industries of Man and the principal demand, as much as the principal result, of Great Replacement) are not the old values of the Right (which have long been abandoned by the Right anyway) but the so-called progressive values of the Left, especially ‘equality’ and ‘antiracism’, which make people so much easier to exchange and so much easier to replace; so much easier to liquefy and so much easier to liquidate. Publicity, which is the natural literature of global replacism, its epic poetry as well as its common law — and which clearly tells and shows what money wants — is very obvious on that point: mix you must (and disappear).

Benjamin Braddock: I was surprised to see Le Pen say late in the campaign that regional languages like Breton should not be taught in schools. Do you also see a danger of replacism within nationalist movements?

Renaud Camus: Oh, replacism is everywhere, even in each of us, and of course is not always a bad thing: if it was, it would not be so successful. If your heart or kidney stops doing what it has to do, you will be very glad to get an artificial one. I am no expert on nationalist movements, not being a nationalist myself. But Mrs. Le Pen is by now almost entirely replacist. She thinks Islam is perfectly compatible with the Republic, which is the worst thing one ever said against the Republic. She is also convinced that in France all French citizens are French, which is of course a complete illusion — if they were French they would not call the French “the French”…

Benjamin Braddock: You have spoken of the evils of factory farming, particularly as it relates to animal cruelty. How does this fit into your larger theory of replacism?

Renaud Camus: Oh, it fits very well and is even an essential part of it. Culture and agriculture are the last two human activities which, mostly during the XXth century, have become industries. And just as cultural industries proceed to the general replacement of traditional culture, poetry, literature, tragedy, drama, history, philosophy, classical music and so on, by entertainment, show-business, talk-shows, pop music, etc., industrial agriculture alike proceeds to the replacement of animals by animal products, themselves more and more replaced by vegetable or chemical products. Man-as-consumer having become a product, it would have been very surprising if animals did not follow suit. And with products the sole concern is to get ever more of them, to sell them to ever more consumers-products, or to sellers of consumers-products, i.e. of consumers as products.

Benjamin Braddock: French intellectuals have taken the topic of national decline and turned it into a great literary genre. There is yourself, Houllebecq, Raspail, Zemmour and others. Great Britain, Canada, and the US have experienced even greater national declines but have produced nowhere near as much work on the topic, at least as it relates to demographics. Why is it that this subject is so thoroughly dominated by Frenchmen?

Renaud Camus: Literature has been for centuries the specific mean of expression of French culture and French spirit. France was par excellence a literary society. It is not anymore, and this post-literary status is very much part of the spectacular decline you allude to. By ‘literature’ we use to mean mostly fiction, the two words were sometimes almost synonymous. But fiction has moved towards science, specially the so-called human sciences, which are certainly what has produced the most fiction, not to say has been lying the most, in the last half-century. Demography, sociology and statistics have been the most efficacious and servile instruments of mass negationism, and that not only as far as genocide by substitution was concerned, but in regard to the scarcely less dramatic collapse of the educational system as well, or on the subject of public safety. There is a hundred times more reality in any novel by Michel Houellebecq than in a thousand run-of-the-mill sociological essays, all the more so if it is full of figures.

Benjamin Braddock: Which do you think is the greater threat to Western European countries: the masses of immigrants themselves, the political and economic interests that encourage them to come in, or the apathy of a society that gives in to a hyperbolic egalitarianism that swallows them whole?

Renaud Camus: This is a most excellent question, to which I find it impossible to answer, except by saying that the three threats you very adequately circumscribed are not only equals, but each the conditions and the result of the other two. When Christians were in the Roman arenas, it was of little use, for the rare disapproving witnesses, to incriminate the lions and their butchery behavior. Great Replacement, as I have said a hundred times, would not be possible without what I have called “Little Replacement”, Le Petit Remplacement (it is the title of a fat collection of six essays): the substitution of cultural industries to culture, of entertainment to the Corpus, of popular and mass culture to high culture, which amounts more or less to the disparition of culture just as Great Replacement amounts to the disappearance of indigenous peoples, cultures, and civilizations. Hebetude is the condition of the successful and peaceful process of genocide by substitution. A specific feature of the present colonization of Europe is its triangular structure, very similar to the triangular structure of the old Transatlantic slavery: the people who accomplish it are not the forces or the mechanisms which most want and promote it. In global replacement there are the replacists, who want and organise the replacement, the replacers, who accomplish it, and the replacees, who are its victims. The masses of immigrants are obviously the most pressing threat (they are more than a threat, since they are already in place, and more often than not citizens). We can resist some of their specific actions, but to castigate them on principles would be just as absurd as to castigate the lions in the circus. And to castigate the machines, the mechanisms of global replacism and the Machination, it would be essential not to be machines ourselves, or computers. But it is indeed global replacism, or davocracy, that is the archenemy.

Benjamin Braddock: How can Western Europeans overcome their innate pathological altruism and lack of in-group preference?

Renaud Camus: This exaggerated altruism and lack of in-group preference are indeed pathological, but I am not sure they are innate. It seems to me they are entirely created, modern, and a result of recent history. This is a thesis I have developed in the short essay The Second Career of Adolf Hitler, and also in the pretended children’s tale allegedly rediscovered from Hans-Christian Andersen, Ørop: how Europe has withdrawn from history after the traumatism of Second World War, and how Hitler dead is even more efficient, as an inverted figure, as a ghost, as the terminus ad quem of every sentence and every thought, than he was living. Europe has not always suffered from a pathological altruism and has for centuries shown signs of the opposite character, often in a somewhat exaggerated manner. It should now settle for a reasonable middle, just as the pendulum of colonization and counter-colonization should now settle in the middle, i.e. the Mediterranean, and put an end to all colonizations, North-South or South-North. But it obviously cannot do so without getting free, first, of totalitarian replacism and davocracy.”

https://vdare.com/articles/ann-coulter-here-are-the-nutcases-who-believe-in-replacement-they-re-democrats

“The “Great Replacement Theory” (GRT) has taken the media by storm! It seems that the white racist who shot up a grocery store full of black people last weekend cited GRT in his 180-page “manifesto.”

First of all, journalists need to understand that GRT is only a theory taught in advanced law school seminars. It is not something designed for indoctrination of mass audiences of young people.

But then—just as every argument about abortion suddenly becomes an argument about contraception—a few paragraphs later, the crackpot theory jumps from a Jewish cabal replacing whites with blacks…to the idea that Democrats are using immigration “for electoral gains.”

Wow, that is nuts! Where’d anybody get that idea?

Oh yeah—from liberals.

Here’s Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy in 1998:

“The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.”

(Well, sure, if you want to totally overlook skirt-chasing and pill-popping.)

Then in 2002, Democrats Ruy Teixeira and John Judis wrote The Emerging Democratic Majority, arguing that demographic changes, mostly by immigration, were putting Democrats on a glide path to an insuperable majority. After Obama’s reelection in 2012, Teixeira crowed in The Atlantic (which was then a magazine that people read, as opposed to a billionaire widow’s charity) that “ten years farther down this road,” Obama lost the white vote outright, but won the election with the minority vote—African-Americans (93-6), Hispanics (71-27) and Asian-Americans (73-26).

A year later, the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein began touting the “Coalition of the Ascendant,” gloating that Democrats didn’t need blue-collar whites anymore. Woo hoo! Obama “lost more than three-fifths of noncollege whites and whites older than 45.” But who cares? He crushed with “minorities (a combined 80%).”

“Adios, Reagan Democrats,” he says gleefully.

Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg’s 2019 book, RIP GOP, explains the coming death of the Republican Party as a result of…sucking up to Wall Street? Pushing pointless wars? Endlessly cutting taxes? NO! The GOP’s demise would come from the fact that “our country is hurtling toward a New America that is ever more racially and culturally diverse…more immigrant and foreign born.”

And these were the genteel, nonthreatening descriptions of how immigration was consigning white voters to the Aztec graveyard of history.

On MSNBC, they’re constantly sneering about “old white men” and celebrating the “browning of America.” A group called Battleground Texas boasts about flipping that deep red state to the Democrats—simply by getting more Hispanics to vote. Blogs are giddily titled, “The Irrelevant South” (“the traditional white South—socially and economically conservative—is no longer relevant in national politics”). MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid tweets that she is “giddy” watching “all the bitter old white guys” as Ketanji Brown Jackson “makes history.”

This week, the media’s leading expert on the crazies who believe in replacement theory is Tim Wise, popping up on both MSNBC and CNN to psychoanalyze the white “racists.” He’s been quoted, cited or praised dozens of times in the New York Times. This isn’t some fringe character, despite appearances.

In 2010, Wise wrote an “Open Letter to the White Right” that began:

“For all y’all rich folks, enjoy that champagne, or whatever fancy ass Scotch you drink.
“And for y’all a bit lower on the economic scale, enjoy your Pabst Blue Ribbon, or whatever shitty ass beer you favor …
“Because your time is limited.
“Real damned limited.”

Guess why! Wise explained:

“It is math.”

Wait, isn’t math racist? But moving on…

“Because you’re on the endangered list.
“And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving.
“In 40 years or so, maybe fewer, there won’t be any more white people around who actually remember that Leave It to Beaver …”

Have you ever noticed how obsessed liberals are with Leave It to Beaver?

“It’s OK. Because in about 40 years, half the country will be black or brown. And there is nothing you can do about it.
“Nothing, Senor Tancredo.”

After several more paragraphs of mocking white people, Wise ended with this stirring conclusion:

“We just have to be patient.
“And wait for you to pass into that good night, first politically, and then, well …
“Do you hear it?
“The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently?
“Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.”

Finally, here is Kerry Bolton detailing the United nations role in the Great replacement, to bring in their New World Order and One World government. Non-white, of course.

https://counter-currents.com/2021/10/by-any-other-name-the-great-replacement-replacement-migration/

“The concept of “The Great Replacement,” which holds that there are shadowy forces at work trying to dispossess and indeed obliterate physically the European peoples through the use of immigration, has been widely disparaged as a “far-Right conspiracy theory.” Paradoxically, this “conspiracy theory” is regarded by Establishment commentators as itself a “conspiracy” by the “far Right” to scapegoat immigrants and to scare-monger. Conspiracies do not exist — other than when they are “far Right.”

The Great Replacement was the term apparently first used by French author Renaud Camus in his 2011 book Le Grand Replacement, referring particularly to Muslim migrants. A quick read of the Wikipedia entry on the subject, that ever-so-reliable source, states that “experts” have disproved the whole scenario by stating that the number of migrants do not support Camus’ alarmism, and further that the descendants of such migrants are as much Europeans of whatever nationality as anyone else. Hence, “Geographer Landis MacKellar criticized Camus’s thesis for assuming ‘that third- and fourth- generation “immigrants” are somehow not French.’”

The United Nations Organization, however, calls the same phenomenon by a similar term: “Replacement Migration.” These population shifts are taking place while at the same time there are moves to strengthen “hate speech” laws to stifle dissent.

Specifically, the United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration is the latest means of addressing “replacement migration” in the interests of sustaining economic growth. Little was known of the Global Compact before it was given publicity, largely by the Identitarian movement in Europe and especially by its Austrian branch, who subsequently underwent a torrent of abuse and State harassment.

I had heard little of it, and a Google search found that the UNO had remained strangely silent on the Compact. What public information there was largely came from the so-called “far-Right conspiracy theorists.” Checking their sources showed that they had not exaggerated or misrepresented the matter. My own subsequent research relied entirely on UN and other such sources, and not on any “Right-wing” source.

United Nations Global Compact

The United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration was signed on December 19, 2018 by 164 members of the UN General Assembly. 29 UN member states did not sign the compact, including the United States, Hungary, Austria, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Chile, Israel, and Australia. It is notable that the US, where the Compact had its origins, was not a signatory nation in 2018, as it was resisted by the Trump administration, which eschewed various globalist entanglements — as urged by that “deplorable” “Right-wing terrorist,” George Washington, in his “Farewell Address.” The Trump administration issued a strong statement that exposed the globalist agenda:

The United States did not participate in the negotiation of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (“the Compact”), objects to its adoption, and is not bound by any of the commitments or outcomes stemming from the Compact process or contained in the Compact itself. The Compact and the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, which called for the development of the Compact and commits to “strengthening global governance” for international migration, contain goals and objectives that are inconsistent and incompatible with U.S. law, policy, and the interests of the American people.

The United States proclaims and reaffirms its belief that decisions about how to secure its borders, and whom to admit for legal residency or to grant citizenship, are among the most important sovereign decisions a State can make, and are not subject to negotiation, or review, in international instruments, or fora. The United States maintains the sovereign right to facilitate or restrict access to our territory, in accordance with our national laws and policies, subject to our existing international obligations.

We believe the Compact and the process that led to its adoption, including the New York Declaration, represent an effort by the United Nations to advance global governance at the expense of the sovereign right of States to manage their immigration systems in accordance with their national laws, policies, and interests.[1]

Apologists for the agreement state that it does not undermine national sovereignty, that it will make migration a more ordered and humane process, and eliminate people smuggling. The legal advice to the New Zealand government was that the compact is “non-binding,” and the apologists have used this to repudiate opposition.[2]

Lord Bates, Britain’s Minister of State at the Department for International Development, stated that “[t]he compact ‘protects every state’s right to determine its own immigration policies, including in areas such as asylum, border controls and returns of illegal migrants.”’[3] At the time, New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, head of the populist New Zealand First Party and part of the Labour Government coalition, having based his political career largely on stricter immigration controls in his role as apologist for the Labour Government and as the New Zealand representative who signed the Compact, adopted the line of Lord Bates, Angela Merkel, et al.

Like Merkel and other European leaders who blamed the “far Right” for spreading “false information,” Peters claimed that the “Alt Right” in New Zealand was responsible for spreading misinformation about the Compact, but what he thought the “Alt Right” was in New Zealand is uncertain. More discernible at the time was the backlash among his own party’s grassroots. If Peters had been in opposition, he would surely have been the most vociferous opponent of the Compact. For his compromise, he was out of Parliament in the following General Election.

UN Declarations and Covenants

When viewed from the perspective of how the UNO functions and how its declarations, covenants, treaties, and compacts are implemented, however, it is pure cant for politicians to claim that there is no justification for popular misgivings. While the declaration is called “non-binding” and supposedly does not subvert national laws, myriad UN declarations have become “international law,” and it is “international law” to which the Migration Compact appeals.

Human rights and race relations acts implemented across the world are examples of the types of “international law” to which the Compact alludes, which were based on the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights and a multitude of continually proliferating laws emanating therefrom.

UN members are signatories to many UN “covenants” and “declarations,” and are consequently “obligated” [sic] to report to the UN regularly in regard to how these “covenants”-turned-law are being implemented. Under “universal periodic reviews,” these include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, etc., etc.

What is a UN “universal periodic review”? In regard to UN conceptions of “human rights,” for example, the New Zealand government explains:

Under this mechanism, the human rights situation of all UN Member States is reviewed every 5 years. 42 UN Member States are reviewed each year in Geneva during three sessions dedicated to 14 States each. These three sessions are usually held in January/February, April/May and October/November.[4]

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade also explains UN sanctions against states that do not abide by “international law.”[5] When sanctions do not work, the bombing tends to start. Since the Migration Compact is an emanation of UN “international law,” it is nonsense to claim that this does not subvert the right of states to determine their own migration policies.

Policing of UN Laws

That the Migration Compact is based on other UN “covenants” that have become “international law,” with UN sanctions issued against those states deemed offenders, is indicated by the Compact’s “preamble.”[6] As with other UN declarations, much of the Migration Compact outlines the monitoring of compliance by signatory states. Sections entitled “follow-up” and “implementation” are devoted to this. The International Organization for Migration is the UN policing agency that enforces this.

In arguing for an increase of draconian measures against states deemed to be in violation of “international law,” Buhm Suk Baek of Cornell University points out that while the UN claims not to intervene in the internal affairs of members states,

[h]umanitarian intervention is based upon the doctrine that there are limits to the freedoms states have in dealing with their own nationals. It should be distinguished from actions to protect a state’s own nationals abroad. When this doctrine was defined by Dutch international scholar Hugo Grotius and other 17th century legal scholars, it allowed one or more states to use force to prevent another state from mistreating its own nationals in circumstances so brutal and widespread that they shocked the conscience of the international community. Such interference in a state’s domestic affairs is defended by the argument that if certain practices continue to take place in a state despite protest and objections by neighboring states, then humanitarian considerations outweigh the prohibition of intervention and justify a decision to interfere.[7]

As is often the case, “atrocity propaganda” is a prelude to the invasion of a targeted state that somehow offends the “international community.” It was the liquidation of the supposed tyrant Gaddafi that created a refugee crisis from Africa into Europe, about which Qaddafi had warned:

Tomorrow Europe might no longer be European, and even black, as there are millions who want to come in. What will be the reaction of the white and Christian Europeans faced with this influx of starving and ignorant Africans . . . we don’t know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions.[8]

The UN Global Compact for Migration is intended to bring order to the chaos that globalist intervention has wrought on Libya and Syria, and wherever else the nebulous “international community” meddles.

Baek approvingly cites the example of the way Yugoslavia was targeted and reduced to ruin in the name of “human rights”:

Under Security Council Resolution 757, the Council imposed a wide range of economic sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) on May, 1992. These sanctions are also related to the protection of human rights as the Council announced its concern for the continued expulsion of non-Serb civilians and noted the ‘urgent need for humanitarian assistance and the various appeals made in this connection’ under the former Resolution.[9]

Prior to the decision to target Serbia for “regime change,” for years the Kosovar Albanian separatists were known for their anti-Serbian and anti-Orthodox terrorism. It did not take long for “the international community” to change terrorists and narco-gangsters into “freedom fighters” defending the oppressed Kosovar Albanians.[10]

What does the Migration Compact state? The fundamental premises are that

humans should have the right to move across the earth without regard to barriers,
this is a natural part of the economic globalisation process,
international capital has a significant role to play in this, and
the compact is part of “international law” and “global governance.”

When the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on global migration in 2017, affirming the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants in 2016, it did so with the explicit statement that it involves “global governance,” refers to “actionable commitments,” and formalizes what appears to be a policing role for the UN International Organization for Migration.[11]

On “implementation,” the Compact states that “[w]e reaffirm our commitment to international law and emphasize that the Global Compact is to be implemented in a manner that is consistent with our rights and obligations under international law.”[12]

The first “vision and guiding principle” of the Compact states:

This Global Compact expresses our collective commitment to improving cooperation on international migration. Migration has been part of the human experience throughout history, and we recognize that it is a source of prosperity, innovation and sustainable development in our globalized world, and that these positive impacts can be optimized by improving migration governance.[13]

. . . We learned that migration is a defining feature of our globalized world, connecting societies within and across all regions, making us all countries of origin, transit and destination. . . .[14]

This is the crux of the issue: the real aim buried among the usual moralizing. Economic globalization necessitates open borders and is a primary means of destroying the barriers to international capital, not only economically but socially, culturally, and ethnically. While the UN refers to the integrity of the states, this is more doublespeak as it also refers to states being fluid and without fixity of heritage or destiny, “making us all countries of origin, transit, and destination.” This means a globalized mass humanity without roots, able to be relocated across the world as marketing and labor needs require.

A primary “objective” is the utilization of data to promote global migration agendas. The Compact alludes to cooperation between a broad range of “stakeholders,” including trades unions, media, academia, civil society, and business in what is called a “whole of society approach.”[15] It seems evident that its purpose is a mobilization against the specter of “populism.”

Hip-Hop Diplomacy

Migrants have been used in the interests of both US geopolitics and of international capital, often working in tandem. Traditional Islam (not the Wahhabist sect backed by America’s Saudi allies) remains an obstacle to globalization. However, the US aims to detach and secularize Muslim migrant youth so that they might become part of the amorphous mass of Homo economicus.

In 2011, the Globe & Mail reported that “leadership programs” sponsored by the US Embassy in France focused on “potential leaders in Muslim groups and other minorities” via the International Visitor Leadership Program. A large proportion of the participants since 2010 have been Muslims.[16] Then-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton likewise commented that many of the Egyptians in the program had become active in the riots that overthrew the regime in Egypt as part of the well-orchestrated “Arab Spring.”[17]

Journalist Garret Martin stated that American embassies across Europe are under instruction to “court second and third generation” Muslims;[18] that is to say, those who have been uprooted from their traditions. These de-Islamized youth are to be the fodder of globalism. As paradoxical as it seems, the real threat by the “Great Replacement” is not from the descendants of migrants who do not assimilate into their host communities, but rather from those who are integrated into the amorphous mass of economic automatons through the use especially of American-derived trends in culture and lifestyle. Hip-hop is a particular favorite that is sponsored by the US State Department, directed at migrant youth in Europe. This is called “hip-hop diplomacy,” and decidedly not from the imagination of “far-Right conspiracy theorists.”

Mark Katz, Professor of Music at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who has served as the director of the “Next Level” project for the State Department, has written of this:

. . . Since 2001, the United States Department of State has been sending American hip hop artists abroad, and inviting international artists to the U.S., as cultural envoys. These envoys perform, teach, and collaborate for the purpose of promoting understanding, respect, and peaceful relations across cultures, languages, and national boundaries. Why would the State Department hire rappers or DJs or beatboxers? Why would hip hop artists work for the federal government? The partnership is both unlikely and fraught, but at the same time has proven to be powerful, effective, and for those who participate in these programs, often life-changing. For five years I directed the hip hop diplomacy program, Next Level; I have witnessed these life-changing moments first-hand in more than two dozen countries.

Hip hop’s appeal to the State Department is actually easy to understand. It comes down to this. Hip hop is globally beloved; the United States government is not. And hip hop is well known to be the product of young, marginalized Americans of color who insisted on being heard and seen and who reveled in their survival. As the embodiment of struggle and celebration, hip hop resonates deeply with young people around the world. It’s the perfect vehicle for promoting a more nuanced and positive image of the United States and for connecting with populations that our embassies rarely engage. . . .[19]

The long-term danger is not that Wahhabists are going to use fanatical Muslim youths to take over Europe but that oligarchs and globalist strategists, as referred to by one of their own, Ralph Peters in his essay “Constant Conflict,” are manipulating deracinated migrant youth to de-racialize European and other white states as part of a globalist agenda.[20] Whether this is called a “conspiracy theory” or the unfolding of capitalism at a certain stage of development is not as crucial as the fact that whatever one calls it, the methods and aims are the same. Hip-hop epitomizes the US as the purveyor of a cosmopolitan anti-culture. It is used in the same manner as the counterculture of the 1960s was by the CIA and other interests.

The State Department program has elements and aims of the “Rivkin Project,” named after the then-US Ambassador to France, which sought to use migrant youth to break down France’s “xenophobia.”[21] Shall we also say that the “Rivkin Project” was a “far-Right conspiracy theory”?

The Soros Plan

To mention George Soros in any context other than the laudatory is to invite ridicule as a “conspiracy theorist.” Nonetheless, again, what one calls his plans and aims is not as important as what those plans and aims are.

Soros has a migrant plan that it is called by him “The Soros Plan.” Soros has drafted a plan that includes the European Union taking in a million migrants from Africa and the Levant annually “for the foreseeable future,” with each given a grant of 15,000 euros. The costs involved could be met by EU borrowing due to its AAA credit rating.[22] Hence, international finance gains, first, a vast labor source; second, a means of destabilizing nation-states; and third, interest accrued through the funding of the program by the banks.

Another arch-plutocrat, the late Peter Sutherland, was in the forefront of open-borders advocacy for Europe. Sutherland had been Attorney General of Eire, Director General of GATT and the World Trade Organization, honorary European chairman of the Trilateral Commission, a member of the Bilderberg Group’s steering committee, on the advisory board of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a Chairman at Goldman Sachs, which is the primary corporate contributor in funding the Afro-Levantine demographic shift to Europe.[23] Sutherland was also United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary General for International Migration. Sutherland explained the agenda for the use of the Afro-Levantine migrants into Europe as being to break down the national-cultural consciousness of Europe such as it exists:

This will demand, first and foremost, that EU leaders overcome the forces that have so far impeded action. One obstacle is anti-migrant populism, which has intensified owing to the serious economic challenges that Europeans have faced. With far-right political parties nipping at their heels, most mainstream politicians avoid taking a stance on migration that might make them seem “soft.”[24]

Sutherland stated that the migrants provide labor and taxes.[25] Perhaps it is a “far-Right conspiracy theory” to suggest that migrant labor is used to drive the growth economy for the benefit of global capital? Further:

The 21st century is built on mobility: capital, goods, and information circulate at low cost and lightning speed. Yet, paradoxically, international migration has become more perilous. It is governed by outmoded notions about human mobility. It is hampered by inadequate policy and legal frameworks. And it is stifled by overriding security concerns.[26]

For the oligarchs, as Sutherland surely states plainly enough, humans should be subjected to the same processes of international mobility as “capital, goods, and information,” and “at low cost and lightning speed.” “Security concerns” and “populism” get in the way.

The “Great Replacement” & “Replacement Migration”

From at least 2001, the United Nations started referring to “Replacement Migration.” The issue prompted the UN Migration Compact.

The UN document “Replacement Migration, is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?” statistically examines the demographic trends of “developed” states. The issue is that of ageing populations due to low fertility and the increasing duration of life expectancy, and hence a looming economic crisis as a result of the demographic imbalance. The solution is to replenish the labor market with migrants, by population transfers from the developing to the developed states. The preamble to the document states:

United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.

The Right uses the term the “Great Replacement,” the UN uses the term “Replacement Migration”; either way, the references are to the “replacement” mainly of European indigenes by drawing on the burgeoning “Third World” population. Is that, or is it not, precisely the aim of the UN Migration Compact? If not, how is it not? If so, how have the “far Right,” the “Alt Right,” and the Identitarians “lied” and “misrepresented” the issue?

The UN document concludes (emphasis mine):

Finally, the new challenges being brought about by declining and ageing populations will require objective, thorough and comprehensive reassessments of many established economic, social and political policies and programmes. Such reassessments will need to incorporate a long-term perspective. Critical issues to be addressed in those reassessments would include (a) appropriate ages for retirement; (b) levels, types and nature of retirement and health-care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour-force participation; (d) assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers needed to support retirement and healthcare benefits for the increasing elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration, in particular replacement migration, and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants. In this context, it should be noted that immigrants to one country are emigrants from another country. As such, international migration must be seen as part of the larger globalization process taking place throughout the world, influencing the economic, political and cultural character of both sending and receiving countries. While orderly international migration can provide countries of origin with remittances and facilitate the transfer of skills and technology, it also may entail the loss of needed human resources. Similarly, international migration can provide countries of destination with needed human resources and talent, but may also give rise to social tensions. Effective international migration policies must therefore take into account the impact on both the host society and countries of origin.[28]

The concluding sentences refer to:

The integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
International migration . . . as part of the larger globalization process taking place throughout the world, influencing the economic, political, and cultural character of both sending and receiving countries.
International migration [that] may give rise to social tensions.

These are all factors pointed out by the Right, yet first raised in 2001 by the UN. The problems of “orderly international migration” discussed in the 2001 document are addressed by the UN Migration Compact.

The UN document refers to problems that have supposedly hitherto been unknown to history — which is nonsense. It is more a matter that the UN “experts,” NGOs, Leftists, academics, journalists, and their oligarchic string-pullers do not have a sense of the historical. They see only “human progress,” like a tapeworm creeping along towards some utopian “end of history.” Rather, the demographic crisis in the West and Russia has been seen in prior civilizations, and the desperate answer was the same: to fill the population void with migrants. It is in this that we might discern the end of civilizations, not their traveling towards a brave new world.

Polybius (born ca. 200 BC) said of the Greeks:

In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and generally a decay of population . . . and a failure of productiveness results. . . . For this evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to passion of show and money and the pleasures of an idle life, and accordingly, not marrying at all, or, if they did marry, refusing to rear the children that were born, or at most one or two of a great number, for the sake of leaving them all well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury. . . .[29]

The Greek elite became effete, and indeed were regarded as being “feminized” by the influences of an already decadent Persian civilization. Alexander’s answer was to expand the empire and integrate Persian corruption — “cultural enrichment” and “diversity,” as it is now called — with the aim of forming a new world order.[30]

In Rome, Augustus recognized the demographic catastrophe caused by the corruption of traditional Roman virtues, asking, “How can the commonwealth be preserved if we neither marry nor produce children?” He referred to the city being given up to foreigners and to liberating slaves, “chiefly for the purpose of making out of them as many citizens as possible . . .”[31] Tacitus remarked that despite state efforts, “childlessness prevailed.”[32] At the beginning of the second century, Pliny the Younger wrote that his was “an age when even one child is thought a burden preventing the rewards of childlessness.” Hierocles remarked that most people seemed to regard siring children as interfering with their lifestyles. Prostitution became so widespread it became a substitute for marriage. Homosexuality and bisexuality had become common,[33] as did abortion. Many women became infertile. Birth control methods were widely used.[34] The cities were “populated by strangers.”[35] How modern all this sounds.

Of Western civilization in its modern epoch of decay, Oswald Spengler wrote that “the destiny of being the last of the line is no longer felt as doom.”[36]

There are causes for this demographic crisis that are not in the interests of the globalists to raise. Hence, their simplistic reaction is to insist that all will be well, the growth economy can be sustained by migrant labor, and that warnings are nothing other than “far-Right conspiracy theories.” For decades the globalists have sought to fully integrate women into the workforce by “liberation” from the “burden” of motherhood. Now there is a demographic crisis, and the globalist answer is “replacement migration,” as per Rome and Greece.

These are the problems that the international oligarchy and their Leftist fellow travelers do not want discussed. Hence, the “far Right” becomes a red herring.”

https://www.amerika.org/politics/white-replacement/

https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-05-19-un-announces-celebrates-replacement-migration-public-documents.html

“Over the next 50 years, the population of virtually all European countries, as well as Japan, will face severe population aging and decline. And the solution, says the United Nations, is “replacement migration.”

This is already occurring, of course, as migrants continue to flood into mostly white countries and replace their native populations. And according to the UN, this is something to be celebrated.

“The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration,” reads a document from the UN entitled, “Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”

“Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.”

The globalists need a steady stream of slaves to work their global plantations, hence the need for replacement migration

Rather than encourage native populations to simply have more babies by fostering the social and economic conditions necessary for that to happen, the UN and its many tentacles are instead trying to erase whiteness from existence.

The UN’s “Population Division,” as it is called, “continuously monitors fertility, mortality and migration trends for all countries of the world, as a basis for producing the official United Nations population estimates and projections,” the report explains.

“Among the demographic trends revealed by those figures, two are particularly salient: population decline and population ageing.”

The UN is attempting to make the case that even more migrants need to be shipped in to white countries to fix the problem of an aging and declining population. Replacement migration, the globalist body maintains, is “needed to offset declines in the size of population and declines in the population of working age, as well as to offset the overall ageing of a population.”

The UN’s biggest concern, which is also the concern of the globalists, is that there will not be enough working-age people left to work the global economic plantation. The report states this clearly in the conclusion.

“In the absence of migration, the size of the working-age population declines faster than the overall population,” the UN laments. “As a result of this faster rate of decline, the amount of migration needed to prevent a decline in the working-age population is larger than that for the overall population.”

In other words, the elite are scared that soon there will be no more slaves left to keep their corrupt system running. Thus, they are having to scheme new ways to replace the dying human stocks with fresh stocks.

As morbid as this all might sound, it is the reality that the globalists have created, and that they must sustain at all costs if they are to remain perched at the top of the pyramid.

The UN openly admits this in the new report, explaining that replacement migration will help to solve the problem, but not entirely. The globalist body says that the amount of replacement migration needed to offset the decline in total and working-age population declines is simply too large to offset.

“Therefore, it appears inevitable that the populations of the low-fertility countries will age rapidly in the twenty-first century,” the report concludes.”

Comments

No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment

The White Ethno-Genocide of the Great Replacement is Occurring Rapidly By Charles Taylor (Florida)

“No Data Supports Threat of ‘White Supremacists’

“RENAUD CAMUS ON THE GREAT REPLACEMENT, MASS MURDERERS, FRENCH ELECTIONS, GLOBALIZATION, AND MORE

— The Editors

Benjamin Braddock: I was surprised to see Le Pen say late in the campaign that regional languages like Breton should not be taught in schools. Do you also see a danger of replacism within nationalist movements?

Benjamin Braddock: You have spoken of the evils of factory farming, particularly as it relates to animal cruelty. How does this fit into your larger theory of replacism?

Benjamin Braddock: Which do you think is the greater threat to Western European countries: the masses of immigrants themselves, the political and economic interests that encourage them to come in, or the apathy of a society that gives in to a hyperbolic egalitarianism that swallows them whole?

Benjamin Braddock: How can Western Europeans overcome their innate pathological altruism and lack of in-group preference?

Comments

Other Sites

Categories

Blog Search

Archive

Support Jar

THE LEAGUE’S FREEDOM CAMPAIGN