Oh, I'm sorry. Did I say I would be debunking replacement theory? My apologies. Since I see no rational, logical way to debunk replacement theory, I'll take a shot at debunking the debunking of replacement theory. This way, I'll contribute mightily to this blog's mission, stated many times, to offend as many as possible in the time I have left. Let's get the ball rolling.
Since the Saturday, May 14, attack on the Buffalo supermarket by a white 18-year-old in body armor, replacement theory has been all the rage on the nightly news. Every broadcast mentions it but doesn't really seem to explain what it is. The attack left 10 dead, and based on the screed left by the shooter, and the fact he had "nigger" painted on the barrel of his weapon, the attack appears to have been your classic Caucasian dude on a psychotic rampage in service of keeping America majority-white.
Replacement Theory
If I'm going to explore the debunking of the debunking of replacement theory, I'd best first attempt to define replacement theory. To make my argument, I'll divide replacement theory into what I see as two separate components. The first argues that whites in the United States are being replaced over time by non-whites. Is this really happening? Well, gosh darn it, yes indeedy.
For the last 10 years, the Census Bureau projections have consistently predicted the United States to become majority non-white in 2044 or 2045. The consensus is that the U.S. will, barring some virus that disproportionately kills non-whites or something like that, have a non-white majority by 2050. This should be no surprise to anyone. As early as 1990, the handwriting was clearly on the wall. The only debate was regarding whether it would be sooner, say 2035, or more like 2050. My late wife had a doctorate in demography, so I try to keep tabs on most of this stuff. Let me throw some numbers at you that are a couple of years old. To get absolutely up to date stats, I recommend visiting the closest university library and surveying the latest demography or population studies journals. As of about a year ago, the majority of Under 18 Americans became non-white. Also, non-Hispanic white Americans 15 years of age or less have now been confirmed as a minority. Back in 2015, just over half of American 1-year-olds were racial and ethnic minorities.
There was absolutely no mystery about any of this. These demographic trends have been writ large in the American firmament for decades. Thus, if you want to refer to whites being replaced by non-whites as "Replacement Theory," my only argument would be that it's long past the theory stage and should be referred to as "Replacement Fact." Anyone who says this hasn't been happening and isn't going to happen is delusional.
The second component of "replacement theory" posits that liberal leaning elites have plotted and planned this all in advance. These evil elites are making it happen.
I don't want to get into the nuances of some folks considering Jews as non-whites and the borrowing of storylines from The Elders of Zion. I just want to point out that to consider this replacement of whites by non-whites via money-driven policy as "just a conspiracy," one must decide that political actions by elites have no effects on the outcome. This is by definition not the case and frankly absurd. Of course politics plays into the pace of replacement.
In 2005, roughly one in eight Americans was a foreign-born citizen. That's about 45 million people, which is a lot by any metric or from any political perspective. If current trends continue and the great American racial see-saw pivots in 2050, one in five Americans will be foreign-born. Immigration policies have undeniably played and will continue to play a huge role in when the pivot occurs. Those policies are the result of political emphases and decisions driven by American elites. Thus, no matter to what degree replacement theory is presented as mean-spirited, parochial bordering on paranoid, and unfashionable, it's pretty much correct.
"Replacement Theory," stripped of sociopathic and white supremacist labels, checks most of the reality boxes.
Reality Check
If my stating the simple and obvious results in readers perceiving me as a white supremacist or conspiracy righty, I submit that such readers are victims of propaganda. In the days ahead, it'll be fascinating to discover how American media tackles the indelicate subject of replacement theory. Those foreign-born immigrant stats I mentioned -- will CNN discuss them? Will The New York Times? Will any American media attack the psychopathy of the Buffalo shooter while acknowledging that the shooter's perceptions and stated motives are not fantasies?
Those numbers for the in-progress massive scaling up of foreign born immigrants -- how often in the last two years have those stats been delineated on CNN or MSNBC or major networks? And if not, why not? The projections are clean, clear, and unambiguous. Yet major corporate media desperately avoids spelling out the bald numbers.
One of the ongoing themes of this blog has been that what is NOT mentioned usually tells you more than what is. The absence of information that's germane to policies is a powerful form of propaganda that too often goes unexamined. When the Buffalo shooter's motives are discussed by media, when his treatise is publicly analyzed, "Replacement Facts" need to be part of the conversation. Will they be? It'll certainly be interesting to find out.
Bob Dietz
May 21, 2022
