On the Great Replacement, I've Come Around: Here is Why

“The West suffers from a strange self-hatred that one can only describe as pathological; although the West tends to be laudably open to other values, it no longer tolerates its own. Of its own history it sees only that which is reprehensible and destructive, and it is not in the position to recognize what is great and pure.”

— Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2004 (who later became Pope Benedict XVI), Translation by Clarifying Catholicism. This quote above was first brought to my attention by the book The Unprotected Class, by Jeremy Carl.

I wrote this essay originally for publication in a media outlet that deals with these kind of issues. By their silence I presume that either my email never made it or that they turned down the submission as is their right to do of course.

I mention the above not to start any new internecine indie media squabbles but simply because this essay makes the most sense in context. That is, it was written for fellow conspiracy realists of an essentially egalitarian persuasion, and it was written to weigh in on the general ongoing discussion — Is replacementism a thing? Is it a cause for concern?

Secondly, I am genuinely worried that the conspiracy realist movement, at least the egalitarian side of it, which so brilliantly navigated Covid -19, 9/11 and the War on Terror, is losing its way on this issue, and missing the forest for the trees.

I haven’t submitted this essay to any additional conspiracy realist publications of an egalitarian persuasion, as I would normally do, because I don’t want to pressure them. They must do what they believe is right based on the information available to them. I took a while to come around on this matter, they might need plenty of time too, and I will respect that. If though, some of them happen to read this and they find this essay of mine compelling, they are very welcome to republish it as a way of broaching this subject with their audience.

(There’s also the matter that European publications in particular must deal with heavy criminalization of speech in their countries.)

I too hesitated to publish this because I know that some people simply cannot, or will not, understand the difference between standing up for white people, and white supremacy. And, silly as it sounds, when it comes to being called names, racist has much more of a sting than conspiracy theorist or anti-vaxxer (especially seeing as anti-vaxxer is arguably a compliment).

Conspiracy realists, in particular those involved with unmasking false flags blamed on Islamic terrorists, such as 9/11, will worry that objecting to high levels of multiculturalism and mass immigration is feeding into a strategy of tension. That’s a valid concern, keep those trees in mind (false flags being used to create tension), but here I want to talk about the forest.

I aimed to treat this sensitive topic with a difficult to achieve combination of tact, and frankness. As to whether or not I succeeded in doing that . . . you be the judge.

Below is the essay, only slightly altered, with a few paragraphs and words taken out to remove direct reference to the original intended recipient.

The Tower of Babel, by Lodewijk Toeput, 16^th century. Image Source: Wikemedia Commons.

On the Great Replacement, I’ve Come Around: Here is Why.

Whether or not we recognize replacementism at all, and whether or not we think that it is a good thing or a bad thing, is the tip of the iceberg. What we think about replacementism (if we see it to begin with) will be decided by what we think about a whole system of closely related ideas.

Replacement immigration views are tightly interwoven with white guilt and beliefs about: white people, about Western civilization, and about the Christian tradition. So this essay will be a whirlwind tour of how I came to recognize that I had unwittingly accepted a whole ecosystem of what I now regard to be anti-white beliefs, and related ideas.

This essay will also illustrate how changing my mind on those related ideas allowed me to see that yes, the Great Replacement is an observable, ongoing phenomena, happening in real time, and to see that no, it is not a good thing.

I think my experience will be of interest to (Publication X) because we have a lot of shared views. My experience may be of value to readers even if they ultimately disagree with me.

Like many (Publication X) readers and contributors, I am a conspiracy realist; I regard Covid to have been a fake pandemic, I don’t think office fires caused Building 7 to free fall into it’s own footprint on 9/11, I believe William F. Pepper’s case is convincing that James Earl Ray didn’t assassinate MLK – the US government did, and I know that Germany was not the aggressor of World War I – they were just honest enough to officially declare war after France and Russia had defacto declared war.

I’m not the MSM stereotype of a conspiracy theorist either: I’m not into aliens, I believe the world is a globe because that best fits the evidence available to me, and while I like David Icke and appreciate his mind expanding work, I don’t think that the global power elite are reptiles (though I might not put money on that last point).

What I Believed

I used to think in terms of uniting the 99%, (the peasants) against the 1% (the overlords). I would still like to see the peasants win but realize now that there might not be any 99% as I’ll explain later.

I felt that opposition to immigration was a divide and conquer tactic at best and outright racist bigotry at worst. I thought what right do colonialist governments have to keep out people from nations that they have exploited? What is a border but an arbitrary line on the map?

For the USA I had even less patience: it stole the land from the natives through war and a long string of broken treaties, and stole another big chunk of land in an outright war of aggression against Mexico. The USA has no right to this land so it has no right to decide who comes and goes, was my thinking.

I regarded civilizations as monstrosities, and I looked to indigenous cultures for inspiration, wisdom, and purer ways.

I knew that there was an anti-white agenda, and a lot of anti-white bigotry in the West. That never escaped me and was obvious to me decades ago. But I was only really concerned about it as an obstacle to uniting the 99% against the 1%. I also favored arguments about how anti-white racism actually hurt minorities, because I couldn’t oppose anti-white racism for the simple reason that it hurt white people – I wouldn’t go there.

One of my favorite jokes went like this:

A financier, an immigrant, and a worker were sitting at a table with a plate of 20 cookies. The financier grabbed 19 of the 20 cookies, stuffed some of them into his mouth and the rest into his pockets. The financier got up to leave, turned at the doorway on his way out, and said to the worker:

“Watch out, the immigrant is going to steal your cookie.”

Those were my views, they were dear to me and a big part of my identity, I was loathe to part with them. I knew I wasn’t on completely solid ground so I went out to compile evidence to shore up my beliefs.

Evidence of malfeasance on the part of the USA against the Indians, and of former colonial empires continuing to dominate former colonies through neo-colonialism was easy enough to come by and good to know. It is in other ways that the new evidence and perspectives I exposed myself to crumbled my former beliefs.

The Unraveling: Beginning with Indigenous People

The first place where my world view started to fall apart was with indigenous peoples. My precious noble savages soon degenerated into plain old humans, on average no better then everyone else, once I actually started to learn about them. Here are some examples of the kind of behavior that deeply disappointed me:

In 1835 some Māori warriors in New Zealand commandeered a ship, and with their families onboard piloted the ship to the Chatham Islands where the peaceful Moriori lived. The Māori warriors killed a 12 year old Moriori girl and hung her flesh on posts to make a point. They killed some 300 Moriori, ate many of them, and enslaved the rest (most of whom died).

Another example is the Iroquois in North America conquering a vast swath of land, monopolizing the fur trade, and driving out and destroying other tribes. Iroquois torture and cannibalism of their prisoners is widely attested to by French, Dutch, English and natives at the receiving end of Iroquois conquest such as the Huron.

There’s nothing exceptional about either of those examples, they’re well within the range of human behavior found across many people groups of all sorts.

People will blame the Europeans for all this of course, they will say that Europeans upset the balance of power, and traded firearms which set off Iroquois and Māori conquests of their neighbors. This reasoning doesn’t cut it for me – I’m not impressed by people not doing something bad that they couldn’t do anyways.

Yes, when the Iroquois and various Māori groups were not much stronger than their neighbors they didn’t conquer them, but that doesn’t mean much because at the time they couldn’t. The real test is what did they do when they could? When they were stronger? When they had guns and their neighbors did not? That’s the real test. As we can see, once they could conquer their neighbors they did.

Same thing with indigenous people and the environment. They generally refrained from over exploiting the environment only so long as they lacked the means and the motive to do so. The Iroquois didn’t hunt to near extinction the beaver in their area only because they had no motive to do so; once they had a motive (trade) they overhunted the beaver for their gain. The Māori had the means and the motive (tasty food) to wipe out the giant Moa birds of New Zealand and they did.

Yes, I know two wrongs do not make a right. Just because Indians and Māori conquered and destroyed their neighbors once they had the opportunity to do so does not mean that it was right of Europeans to do this in turn to Iroquois and Māori.

I’m just showing you the unraveling of my beliefs. I had such difficulty finding indigenous groups that were truly peaceful, that despite desperately wanting to find such groups I had to admit to myself that the rare peaceful groups I clung to as evidence were the exception that proved the rule – The indigenous peoples were not the moral superiors of white Europeans – generally they committed the same sins when they had the means and the motive to do so.

It is a testament to how much I had internalized an anti European/white/Christian attitude that I was crestfallen to learn that the indigenous peoples were generally not the moral superiors of white Europeans.

We can learn much from the myriad indigenous societies and their oftentimes exceptional (in both good and bad ways) practices without adopting an attitude of indigenous peoples chauvinism - an attitude that I have found to be quite common.

Slavery

It was probably the reading of a couple African history books (Fortunes of Africa, and Scramble for Africa) in my teens that drove home to me the very widespread enslavement of Africans by Africans and Islamic slave raiders, and that this was an ancient practice. Only slowly, though, did it dawn on me how unreasonable it was then that white Europeans were singled out as the scapegoat to be blamed for doing what everyone else was doing too.

I think a major tipping point for me was reading Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States in which he tries to show that Americans still deserve extra guilt for slavery because he claims American slavery was uniquely brutal. I had already read (in the aforementioned books) about the Sultan of Zanzibar’s slavers raiding deep into Africa, rounding up and enslaving villagers, and force marching them all, including women and children, across great distances with heavy loads of ivory, and many of them dying on the way, so I knew that Zinn was just trying to single white Europeans out, and scapegoat them for what everyone else was doing too, but I still didn’t come to terms with just how outrageous that was.

What finally did it for me was someone writing what I already had all the information to know but just hadn’t thought of it that way (I can’t remember where I read this so I’m afraid I can’t give credit). They pointed out that white people keeping slaves is hardly notable considering how widespread and nearly universal slavery has been. What is truly remarkable is that whites stopped keeping slaves, crusaded against it, and stamped out the trade in many places all around the world.

That whites get singled out for slavery guilt while having done the most to stamp it out hit me as a potent example of just how pervasive and perverse anti-white beliefs are.

Interracial Crime

A white person killing a black person often receives enormous media coverage and outrage, to the point that you would think white people are out to get blacks. It’s used as an example to say “See, see! We told you America is a white supremacist country.” The situation though, is the opposite of what we’re led to believe. For interracial homicides blacks kill a lot more whites in the USA than whites kill blacks. For all of this century (21st century) black on white homicide has been around twice the number or greater than white on black.

I didn’t know that till sometime in 2024. Why doesn’t everyone know that? Why did we have widespread BLM protests when it’s actually white people who are victimized the most in these interracial homicides?

The more I thought about this the more I saw how hypocritical it was. This seemed a clear indicator to me that in our society white lives matter less, to the point that the group of people who suffer the most from interracial killing get the least sympathy, the least publicity, and the fact is not generally even acknowledged.

We don’t want to talk about it because it might hurt black people’s feelings, and we don’t want to demonize black people as a group? I get that sentiment, but why are white people not offered the same consideration? And ultimately we must face the facts, with tact yes, but keeping quiet to avoid hurting feelings on such major issues is irresponsible.

---

Note! (Added June 2025) I said above that black on white homicide has been around twice the number or greater than white on black - that is a severe understatement: black on white homicide has actually been happening at five to six times the rate of white on black homicide. I discuss this in the follow up piece to this essay called Trust the Plan: Q-Anarchism for White People. Here is the link to the specific section in the follow up essay where interracial crime is discussed.

In short, the data I linked to in this first essay does not separate out Hispanics from non-Hispanic whites - it lumps the two categories together under “white” (of course some Hispanics are in fact white, but oftentimes they are Mestizo - European + Amerindian, or fully Amerindian, for example; Mayan, and they can also be African/African admixture). When you separate those categories (Hispanic from non-Hispanic white), most of the “white” on black homicide ends up actually being Hispanic on black. But most the black on white remains black on white.

---

White Flight

I’ve always heard about white flight but never thought much about it. And certainly never read about it. When I did read about it I learned that whites were concerned about their physical safety because crime actually did go up as a consequence of the demographic shift in their neighborhoods. Their concerns were real, which probably wouldn’t come as a surprise if we weren’t all so ignorant of and averse to discussing interracial crime rates.

Here’s an excerpt from a very gentle intro to the complexities of white flight by William Voegeli:

“During this era, Rotella points out, crime increased dramatically in South Shore, where it had previously been low. The worst felonies—murder, assault, rape, robbery, and burglary—were committed at rates nearly three times the Chicago average, turning South Shore into one of the city’s most dangerous neighborhoods.

Whites’ fear of crime, Rotella says, “wasn’t unfounded, nor was it simply reducible to white people reacting to the arrival of black people.” The many neighbors who moved away during his adolescence had their reasons, “but the way the story of their departure got told often took the form of ‘enough is enough’ after a gunpoint robbery, home invasion, or similar last-straw outrage.” One former South Shore resident interviewed for Rotella’s book said simply, “Who wants to get used to living like that?”

The last-straw outrage for some came in 1970, when, during an attempted robbery, a young black man shot and killed Manny Lazar, owner of the Wee Folks toy store. Lazar was “beloved by generations of children in the neighborhood,” says Rotella. His daughter, Caryn Lazar Amster, published a memoir, The Pied Piper of South Shore (2005), which quotes one of her father’s former customers: “The day ‘Mr. Wee Folks’ was shot was, for many of us, the day that South Shore died.”

You can easily get into much heavier darker accounts of white flight, but this above, is enough to see that there is another side to this story.

What made white flight another point that ate away at my previous beliefs, was the realization that even when whites are victimized and driven out of an area by crime and ethnic conflict, they get no sympathy; instead they are blamed, and derided as racists.

Immigration, Labor, and Housing

Let’s return to that joke I told about the financier, the immigrant, and the worker. So I thought any “They’re taking our jobs” concerns over immigration were silly only because I wasn’t thinking at all. Once I thought about it it became clear that inflating the supply of workers cheapens labor.

Capital can undercut the bargaining power of labor here in two major ways: they can take the jobs overseas someplace where labor is cheaper, and save money that way, or they can bring anyone willing to do the job for less in from outside.

(A seeming third way, labor saving innovation, is real progress that increases the value of labor in the long run. The race to the bottom of cheap wages actually reduces the incentive for labor saving innovation.)

When you take into account the iron law of supply and demand it is no wonder that the agents of capital, both the conservatives and liberals, are all for immigration (even if the conservatives pretend that they are not).

A labor shortage is good for the bargaining power of laborers, a labor surfeit is good for capital that wants to undercut labor.

So a major means that the financier in that joke uses to take all the cookies is to use immigration to cut the laborer’s bargaining power. It is for this reason that labor should be worried about immigration.

People can deny it all they want to, but besides the truism of the supply and demand consideration, we can all see that mass immigration into the United States, for all it’s supposed benefits certainly isn’t bringing us any closer to the situation where our grandparents could raise a family and buy a home on a single income and that was considered normal.

Then we get to housing:

The easiest way to ease up the demand on housing is to stop bringing in millions more people who need housing each year.

Yes, the United States still has a lot of room that we could pave over with suburbs and apartment complexes and add yet more lanes to our roads to accommodate increased traffic. We still have wide open spaces, but wouldn’t it be nice to leave them that way?

Getting past all the gas lighting and coming to terms with the brazenly obvious – that mass immigration, legal or not, is detrimental to Americans already here, including in some basic and critical ways (housing and worker bargaining power), was another turning point for me that I only finally reached in 2024.

Ethnocentrism and Racial Solidarity: Everyone Else’s Not So Secret Weapon.

Two more major turning points for me were first, reading the The Dispossessed Majority by Wilmot Robertson where he makes the point that if every other racial and ethnic group can and does organize on behalf of their group but it is taboo for whites to do so, then the groups that take their own side will take over and whites obviously will lose.

A second major turning point closely related to Roberston’s arguments was this insight from the article On Moral Unity and Regime Legitimacy by Academic Agent.

“However, universalism as a political doctrine (rather than as men standing amazed as apes before the heavens), is everywhere and always the tool of a dominant hegemon to conceal their sectional interests."

For whites to even notice that many minority groups are not working for high minded universal ideals (despite proclaiming those ideals) but instead are working for their own group’s interests, along racial, ethnic, and religious, lines is an immediate charge of being a Nazi.

For example, Hollywood is dominated by a certain minority. It’s no coincidence then that Hollywood produces an endless stream of movies and shows about the thing that is best for portraying that minority in a very sympathetic light – the Holocaust. If we accept the Holocaust narrative, and it’s accompanying numbers, at face value there are still plenty of other tragedies just as brutal, and sometimes at a much greater scale (Soviet and Maoist crimes against their people), but those other tragedies are not valuable for portraying a certain group as the ultimate innocent victims, so those other tragedies don’t get anywhere near the same attention.

That same minority group that looks out for their own identity group’s interests in Hollywood is also sure to look out for their own interests in politics through powerful lobbying firms. The public is already softened up and sympathetic from the endless Holocaust guilt reminders, so we’re ready to be fleeced by both parties who continue the gravy train in weapons to Israel and have oriented US foreign policy to serve Israel.

This was inevitable. Jewish solidarity was seen as a good thing, white solidarity as something only a Nazi would do. Given this situation there is no way that the former couldn’t have gained political power and cultural influence and the latter lost it. One group could organize on their own behalf, the other dared not.

I suspect that the only reason we don’t see more ethnic conflict in the West is because whites serve as the padding between the groups. Every other group can push their minority interests at the majority’s expense.

If whites push back by organizing on their own behalf then there will be no more easy marks to pushover for satisfying the ambitions of organized minorities, and more ethnic tension will arise.

If the white majority (for now) remains the one group that does not organize on their own behalf they will just continue to lose ground.

The longer whites wait to push back the weaker their position will be when they do.

We might not ever get to cash in on minority rights even if we become a minority of the population. The coalition of minorities is already preparing the groundwork to switch from talking about minority rights to instead talking about the rights of the global majority, which means everyone but whites.

More Diversity = Fewer Whites

A call for increased diversity in a white majority nation is to say that the white percentage is too high, and consequently must be lowered and replaced with “diversity” (anyone other than whites).

When you put two and two together and realize that we need more diversity is code for reduce the white share and give it to someone else, then the constant calls for more diversity, everywhere, in everything, start to take a decidedly sinister tone.

Anywhere that whites are a clear majority is “unbearably white.” The Unbearable Whiteness of Hiking, The Unbearable Whiteness of Skiing. No one in polite society says that kind of thing about any other group, even when another group is a clear majority in their area, but it’s been said about whites for a long time.

Anti-white people who are not tone deaf are not going to come out and say fewer whites but the insatiable demand for more diversity is the same thing. This realization was just another little wake up call for me.

The Asian Omission

Thomas Sowell’s book Intellectuals and Race brings up this really excellent point that deserves widespread dissemination. In almost any instance when disparity between whites and blacks and Hispanics is used as an example of racism and white supremacy in America, the data for Asians is omitted.

So for example CNN tells us Black Americans are incarcerated at nearly five times the rate of Whites, new report on state prisons finds. CNN uses this to argue that this disproportionate incarceration rate demonstrates racism, and leaves us with the implication that whites are to blame, but they didn’t show us the Asian data or mention it at all.

In this document here from the US Department of Justice, table 11, we can see that there are 20 times as many whites incarcerated in state correctional facilities as Asians, but whites only outnumber Asians ten to one in the total population, so the white incarceration rate is twice that of Asians.

Are we going to argue that this must be because of Asian supremacy and racism against whites?

Same goes for all the other disparities that are used to claim whites are holding down minorities. In per capita income Asians in general and a whole host of Asian ethnicities in particular earn more than whites in the United States.

So we can see why we are only shown the disparity between whites and then black and Hispanics. It gives the impression that whites are on top and that they must be there because they’re oppressing minorities since apparently systemic racism is the only explanation, but even that kind of simplistic thinking makes no sense when you see that whites aren’t on top – East Asians, South Asians (Indians), and Southeast Asians are on top in wealth.

So all the comparisons of whites vs blacks as evidence of white supremacy are lies by omission because they leave out Asians.

I knew of this long ago after reading Sowell, which probably made me more amenable to listening to white advocates later. Whites will get blamed if they do better per capita than any other group. If any other group does worse on any given metric than whites, it is white people’s fault.

Indians for example, can do better per capita in the USA than almost everyone else and that’s a heartwarming immigrant success story and we’ll be told that their success is helping all of us through the economy or something. In contrast according to the current thinking white can do no right and whites logically can only escape blame for everyone else’s woes when and if whites end up at the bottom of income and top of incarceration metrics.

Immigrant Crime in Sweden

“Migration, we are told, is beneficial for Sweden. But if this is so, it would also show in crime statistics. According to the present investigation, the first more comprehensive study since the 2005 report by the Swedish Crime Prevention Agency, this is, however, not the case. In 2017, 58% among those suspected for crime on reasonable grounds are migrants. Regarding murder and manslaughter, the corresponding figures are 73%. These figures are interesting out of purely scientific reasons. Due to migration, murder rate in Sweden has quadrupled.”

– from Migrants and Crime in Sweden in the Twenty-First Century

I’m using Sweden as an example because of how stark it is. For the Swedish government to have welcomed immigrants and refugees in, is not at all a noble or humanitarian thing for them to have done if the price they paid was the safety of their people and the loss of the social cohesion of their formerly high trust society. What Sweden did is pathological.

The other interesting aspect of Sweden as a warning story (showing both, that you can't just assume assimilation is going to succeed, and that the consequences can be disastrous if it doesn't), is that the children of immigrants in Sweden, the second generation, are more prone to crime not less:

“While the over risk (of crime) has gone down among first generation migrants, it has increased among children to migrants born in Sweden.”

– from Migrants and Crime in Sweden in the Twenty-First Century

You can supplement the statistical analysis with reading more about the Swedish example from a first person perspective in the article Farewell Sweden, My Beloved Country.

Religious Differences Matter

Replacementism necessitates sweeping differences, of all sorts, under the rug. Those who preach diversity are the first to gloss over differences (so they fail at the most fundamental level to even recognize diversity) and tell us that all the religions teach basically the same thing.

The turning point for me on taking religious differences seriously was reading Rodney Stark’s book For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery.

Rodney Stark makes a compelling case that all those things (witch hunts, the abolition of slavery, etc) for better and worse are directly related to religious doctrines.

When people are serious about religion the doctrines do matter and will have real world effects that have driven many world shaking changes and paradigm shifts.

Religions aren’t interchangeable, they’re not all the same, they do not teach basically the same thing.

Islam and Christianity are both focused on their respective founders who believers regard to have led perfect lives and seek to emulate.

For Christians it is Jesus’s example that one should emulate, for Muslims it is Muhammad's example that one should emulate.

Muhammad and Jesus set very different examples.

Muhammad started wars, founded an empire, enslaved captives, ordered non Muslims to convert or die, or pay special taxes and live in a subservient state - Dhimmitude, kept a harem, and so forth.

That might surprise you because you have probably heard that well actually Islam is a religion of peace and that the Prophet Muhammad preached peace.

What you don’t hear is, when Muhammad preached peace, and when he didn’t. We must look at the example set by Muhammad: like so many revolutionaries throughout the ages Muhammad preached peace when his movement was vulnerable, militarily weak, and expansion through war wasn’t a viable option. Once his movement was militarily strong, and expansion through conquest was an option, Muhammad preached war.

Before writing off critics of Islam, please at least hear what they have to say. Islam Unveiled by Robert Spencer would be a good place to start.

Yes Christians have committed many crimes but you can always hold them to account with their own standard by pointing out that their behavior is un-Christlike.

What would Jesus do? Is not an alarming thing to hear: What would Muhammad do? is unsettling, and rightly so.

The Tower of Babel

At the beginning of this essay I wrote,

“I used to think in terms of uniting the 99%, (the “peasants”) against the 1% (the overlords). I would still like to see the peasants win but realize now that there may be no 99%”

We conspiracy realists want to keep framing everything in terms of class – ruling class and ruled class: class conflicts of interest are real, but so too are ethnic and racial conflicts of interest, and religious conflicts of interest.

So here we are, worried about not objecting to having high levels of immigration and multiculturalism (which invites cultural, ethnic, and religious tension) imposed on us, because we think that objecting to it is playing into a divide and conquer strategy.

We’re being too clever for our own good. The answer I think is much more obvious: high immigration and multiculturalism is divide and conquer in action; that’s how we are being divided and conquered – through multiculturalism.

What we’re ending up with is a tower of babel (sometimes with literal language barriers), in which our fellow proles may be less likely to join with us because they don’t see an “us” they may see their own group as being different from us and having their own distinctly different interests which may very well directly conflict with our interests. Their vision and ours might not be compatible.

Diversity is Strength is as Orwellian as War is Peace.

The more multicultural our society the more divided it is, the less common ground there is between us, the less we understand each other, the less we trust each other and the less cohesion our society has.

The Great Replacement

There’s an article published on a website called American Renaissance, and the article is titled Renaud Camus on the Metaphysics of the Great Replacement. Costello and Camus provide a far more lucid, erudite, and deep analysis of the matter than I could, so I’m simply going to recommend reading that article, and I’ll offer an excerpt or two to give you a taste:

“It is perfectly fine to acknowledge it (the Great Replacement) as a reality if one celebrates it. If, on the other hand, you do not like the Great Replacement, then it does not exist, you are the one inventing it and you are a fascist, a racist and a propagator of conspiracy theories. If you like it, it exists, and it is an opportunity for France, an opportunity for Flanders, a blessing for Belgium, a lifeline for Europe; and you are a benefactor of humanity.”

“Under capitalism, everything becomes a replaceable, recyclable “commodity” — and this includes human beings themselves. Men become mere “consumers” manipulated by producers to desire whatever is offered to them, and qua consumers, they are entirely replaceable. Everywhere in the modern world, for Heidegger, there is a will toward uniformity, replaceability, recyclability.”

Conclusion

Don’t worry I’m not going to spring a white supremacy pitch on you at the end or anything. There are many reasons why I think white supremacy should go the way of the dodo but the most basic and incontrovertible of them is because, well . . . look at white people. That whites have been so naive and trusting in recent times is almost endearing.

Look at them (including me till recently) just accept it while a coalition of ethnocentric minorities and self hating whites demonized, and blamed whites for just about everything. Look at how we watched various minorities practicing ethnocentrism and racial solidarity right in front of us and let them call us Nazis if we so much as considered doing the same. Who could look at that behavior of whites across almost all the West and think master race?

If I was a eugenicist I would look down on whites from some high tower, scoff, and proclaim, “Ha, make way for evolution! Let the more ethnocentric groups crush the pale faces back into the earth from whence they came.”

But I’m not a eugenicist. I don’t think people’s worth can be reduced to their evolutionary fitness. I think there are far higher values that originate outside the material world (I believe evolutionary psychology can only satisfactorily explain some aspects of morality) and in moral worth I do not see that whites are of any less value than any other people.

And of course we must be fair, and keep in mind not just the epic failures but also the long list of successes that whites and their culture (broadly speaking Western culture) have had in art, architecture, music, clever inventions, and society building. The West’s now fading embrace of monogamy (today often derided as “Victorian Morals”) for example, was ultimately an egalitarian move that set the stage for other things like a higher status for women in the long run.

I think white people should stick up for themselves, and not allow themselves to be used as an all purpose scapegoat. As to when we should maybe, kinda, sorta think about getting around to doing that — I would say let’s take the classic advice on when to plant a tree: The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago. The next best time is now.

For the reasons laid out in this essay I have come to see replacementism, and widespread socially acceptable (and promoted) anti-white, anti-Western, anti-Christian-tradition, beliefs as a major proximate cause of our era’s illness.

I don’t know what the solution to this is, but I do know that it starts with acknowledging that there is a problem.

~

Jordan Henderson is an artist from the Northwest of the United States. His original paintings can be Viewed Here, Art Prints Here, and Essays Here.

~

Postscript

I was not originally going to bring up Simon Elmer’s work on replacement immigration simply because I knew it was the source of a recent truth movement feud, and I didn’t want to inadvertently fuel that feud. I figured I would just work in my own way, and in parallel.

But after tracking down and reading Elmer’s four part series The Great Replacement: Immigration in the UK I knew I had to give it a shout out and recommend it. Elmer’s series is simply top notch work.

Elmer did such stellar work that I thought, “Well damn! Why did I even bother writing my own piece on this?”

I think it’s a good thing then that I didn’t read Elmer’s work till after writing my own essay on the topic, because I’m glad I wrote this:

Firstly, there is a place for shorter, informal, spontaneous essays such as mine, alongside in depth, multipart studies, such as Elmer’s.

Secondly, my essay gives a personal American view of the matter focused on the white-guilt mental blocks that stop Americans from seeing what is happening, which I think complements Elmer’s UK perspective.

Thirdly, the convergence between writers working separately indicates that where they arrived at similar conclusions wasn’t group think.

And fourthly, the more voices the better. The political right saw the hand writing on the wall years ago, and even they, until recent years, had only a few much maligned voices willing to plainly state what they saw. The socially egalitarian camp still has very few voices on this matter. Let’s not let the few willing to speak up feel that they’re alone.

Anyhow, Simon Elmer’s The Great Replacement: Immigration in the UK is a must read along with Renaud Camus on the Metaphysics of the Great Replacement.

---

Note! (Added June 2025): in response to extensive criticism of this essay, I wrote a follow up piece. Here is the link! Trust the Plan: Q-Anarchism for White People