The Great Replacement

by Vincent James and DoomerNationalist

Introduction

Since the Buffalo, New York shooting in 2022, the concept of the "Great Replacement" has gained widespread attention, even being discussed by prominent figures like Tucker Carlson. Although this idea has been labeled a "conspiracy theory" and discussions around the replacement of White populations have led to calls for deplatforming, the core arguments of the Great Replacement theory have not been directly refuted. The term "Great Replacement" was coined by Renaud Camus, a French writer, political theorist, and intellectual. It is based on his 2011 book, Le Grand Replacement, which, despite not being translated into English, has sparked significant debate and controversy in the Western media.

In his work, Camus presents the argument that native, white Europeans are experiencing a form of reverse colonization through the influx of black (Sub-Saharan African) and brown (Middle Eastern, Latino, etc.) immigrants. He describes this as a critical threat, likening it to an event that could lead to the extinction of native populations. According to Camus, this phenomenon signifies a clear and undeniable shift in the ethnic and civilizational makeup of Western countries, suggesting an orchestrated effort to diminish the presence of European peoples in their own ancestral lands. This discussion aims to explore evidence of demographic changes, examine the motivations behind elite support for mass immigration and the push for diversity, and consider the perceived impacts of increasing heterogeneity versus maintaining homogeneity. The focus will be specifically on the demographic changes affecting descendants of Europeans in America, leaving out the broader European context. 

“Uncontrolled immigration threatens to deconstruct the nation we grew up in and convert America into a conglomeration of peoples with almost nothing in common — not history, heroes, language, culture, faith, or ancestors. Balkanization beckons.”

— Patrick Buchanan, The Death of The West

The Demographic Reality of America 

America used to be a White nation. The Founders made sure it would remain like that. Thomas Jefferson, while wanting slavery to be abolished would say, “when freed, he [the Negro] is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.” The very first naturalization act (on who could become a citizen) made sure that only “free, White people of good character” could become citizens of America. Other naturalization acts would follow (in 1795 and 1798) but would keep the “free White people” requirement. It would take almost 80 years since the first naturalization act was passed for freed blacks/African-Americans to gain citizenship. 

Even after blacks were able gain citizenship, legislation was frequently passed to make sure the country retained its status as a White nation. For instance, the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act prohibited all Chinese immigrants for a period of ten years. The 1924 Immigration Quota virtually cut off all immigration, severely limiting migrants from even European countries such as Britain, Ireland, and Italy. From 1790 to 1964, America passed acts that made sure the demographics reflected the founding stock of our nation. America was founded on, and. for the vast majority of its history, embraced White nationalism. Unfortunately however, things have changed dramatically. Through years of uncontrolled immigration and various legislatures, America is now unrecognizable and a shell of its former glory.

Not even that long ago, in 1980, White residents comprised almost 80% of the national population, with black residents accounting for just 11.5%, Latino/Hispanic residents at 6.5%, and Asian-Americans at 1.8%. Twenty years later, by 2000, things were starting to change. Hispanic-Latino populations showed a slightly higher share than the Black population: 12.6% versus 12.1%. The Asian American population share (including Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders) grew to 3.8%, while the White population share dropped nearly 10 percentage points, to 69.1%. As of 2020, non-Hispanic Whites made up only 57.8% of the population. The White population from 2000 to 2020 dropped 11.3 percentage points. 

The groups feeling ethnic replacement the most are the ones who will also be around non-Whites the most: the younger generations. Generation Z (Gen-Z) is only slightly over 50% White. Generation Alpha, the youngest generation is already minority White. You and I have already been replaced. The damage is done. While you might have grown up with friends that look like you, had teachers that looked like you, your children (assuming you, the reader are white) most certainly will not be around those that look like them. Most of this replacement has been done by Hispanic-Latino migration. 

The Hispanic growth rate over the April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007 period was 28.7% — about four times the rate of the nation's total population growth (at 7.2%). The projected Hispanic population of the United States for July 1, 2050 is 132.8 million people, or 30.2% of the nation's total projected population on that date, a 23% increase since 2000. So many once-great cities which used to be filled solely with Whites are now majority Hispanic - Fresno, San Antonio, Miami, Florida just a few to name, all once were great, White cities.

As a matter of fact, throughout the country, there are 342 cities with a population of over 100,000. 47 of them had Hispanic majorities, and in 74 more cities, between 30% and 50% of the population identified as Hispanic. Out of the 47 majority-Hispanic cities, 26 are in California and 9 were in Texas. As another matter of fact, the so-called conservative, great state of Texas is already 40% Hispanic. The same thing is seen with California, with the state being nearly 40% Hispanic and growing daily. All in all, Hispanics have accounted for more than half of total U.S. population growth since 2010. In fact, since 1970 the Hispanic population has increased sixfold. Over half of the Hispanic population is concentrated in the Southwest region, mostly composed of Mexicans. 

This can be seen as a “reconquering” of the Southwest by Hispanics through simple demographic replacement, all without a single bullet fired or drop of blood shed. In fact, a vast majority of Americans think there is an invasion on the southwest border. It’s plain and simple to see, especially with daily footage showcasing mass amounts of migrants pouring through the border on a daily basis. America will be minority White in 20 years, perhaps even less if nothing occurs. Your cities, your states, your country has and will continue to be replaced with different peoples. One thing that hasn’t been mentioned about the replacement of our nation’s founding stock is that it is happening undemocratically. Recent polling has shown that the majority opinion Americans hold right now is to decrease immigration levels at both state and federal levels. Many border “reforms” done by the Biden administration have done just the opposite of that, and fueled our current border crisis. President Biden wants to stop Title 42, which a majority of Americans oppose. 

Looking at polling and demographics paints such a simple story. Founding Father John Jay said this in the Federalist Papers:

“Providence has been pleased to give us this one connected country to one united people -a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.” 

— John Jay, The Federalist Papers

Due to replacement immigration, White Americans have undemocratically been replaced in their own country. Destroying the homogeneous and beautiful country the Founders had wanted for their descendants to grow up and thrive in. 

On Contact Theory and Assimilation

Contact theory is a theory that states that prejudice is caused by a lack of integration. Therefore, if more groups come into contact with each other, the result would be a reduction of prejudice due to exposure. Empirically speaking, it’s tough to judge this theory. From an analytical point of view, there must be more empirical data testing on contact theory on racial prejudice for more integrationist policies to be passed. A meta-analysis looking over the available research on contact theory found that most studies that stated contact lowers prejudice had some erroneous errors:

“Scholars who have looked to the prejudice-reduction literature as a guide to public policy have lamented its common design limitations. Non-experimental studies are prone to bias due to well-known threats to validity (Campbell & Stanley, 1963), and research has specifically found that the positive correlation between contact and non-prejudiced behavior in observational data can be explained by less-prejudiced individuals seeking contact.” 

— Thomas F. Pettigrew and Linda R. Tropp, The Contact Hypothesis re-Evaluated

The most famous study on contact theory is a meta-analysis done by Santa Cruz and Thomas Pettigrew, which found that contact does indeed reduce prejudice. 

“However, the value of this collection of studies is less clear in one particular respect: for understanding whether contact causes policy-relevant reductions in prejudice. The vast majority (95%) of studies do not randomly assign contact; of those that do, just eight measure outcomes at least a single day after treatment. Of those eight, three study interracial contact. Thus, evidence for whether contact’s effects on racial prejudice persist – the focus of policy and legal work on intergroup contact research and advocacy – is sparse.” 

— Thomas F. Pettigrew and Linda R. Tropp, The Contact Hypothesis re-Evaluated

The first analysis cited comes to the conclusion that there must be more studying on the topic for legislation to be passed to justify that integration will reduce prejudice:

“The surge in high-quality research outside the lab and outside the USA brings the policy community closer to answers about the long-term effects of intergroup contact, but important gaps must be addressed before this research can reliably guide future policy decisions.” 

— Thomas F. Pettigrew and Linda R. Tropp, The Contact Hypothesis re-Evaluated

So the belief held by the left is that more integrationist and open-border policies will solve the problems of diversity (since they believe the negatives of diversity are caused by prejudices) needs to be studied more, and thus for right now it is not empirically justified. Many nationalists who oppose replacement migration make the point that this massive amount of immigration will change the culture of the country they are living in. Many leftists counter this by saying immigrants will assimilate. However, looking at Hispanics specifically demonstrates that they don’t assimilate culturally, politically, or economically. Looking at a study by Steven A. Camarota, even third-generation Hispanic immigrants have higher than average rates of poverty and welfare use as well as lower-than-average levels of educational attainment, home ownership, income, and insurance coverage. 

George Borjas in his paper on the slowdown of economic assimilation writes this:

“This paper uses data from the 1970–2010 decennial censuses to examine the evolution of immigrant earnings in the United States. The long- term trends in the data reveal a potentially important new finding. Not only are there cohort effects in the level of earnings, with more recent cohorts having relatively lower entry wages through 1990, but there also exist cohort effects in the rate of growth of earnings, with more recent cohorts having a smaller rate of economic assimilation than earlier cohorts. Immigrants who entered the country before the 1980s typically found that their initial wage disadvantage relative to natives narrowed by 15 percentage points during their first two decades in the United States. In contrast, the immigrants who entered the country after the 1980s have a much lower rate of wage convergence. In fact, the evidence suggests that there has not been any economic assimilation for the cohorts that entered the country in the 1990s.” 

— George Borjas, The Slowdown In The Economic Assimilation of Immigrants

So no, immigrants aren’t assimilating economically. Assimilation has actually slowed down, looking at wages. but also another way to test assimilation, one metric more important: is politically. Do Hispanics adopt views that represent what we consider American values? No. Hispanics favor hate speech laws, more gun control, and a general bigger government than White Americans themselves do. 

It’s a popular claim that Hispanics are actually naturally socially conservative but this just isn’t true. Hispanics are less likely to identify as Conservative as the general population and more likely to identify as Liberal. 

And while Hispanics are more pro-life (which shouldn’t even be a point since Roe v. Wade was already overturned), Hispanics are also more likely to accept homosexuality. 

In every single election, Hispanics have overwhelmingly voted Democrat, with 63% of native Hispanics and 62% of foreign Hispanics identify as Democrats. As one article states:

“Immigrants, particularly Hispanics and Asians, have policy preferences… more closely aligned with progressives than with conservatives.” 

— Washington Examiner, Study Finds More Immigrants Equals More Democrats and More Losses For GOP

It is very obvious: If you want to live in an America that’s socially traditional and embraces its historical values, prevent the ethnic replacement of it from occuring. However, one of the biggest indications of assimilation is identity. Do Hispanics identify as American? No. A Pew study found that a majority of Hispanics identify with their country of origin, with 24% identifying as “Hispanic or Latino” and just only 21% identify as Americans. 

Around half of Hispanics don’t see themselves as “typical Americans”. 

So no, Hispanics are very different from Americans even while remaining in America and having children, and even they themselves recognize and acknowledge this. It is very obvious from almost every metric that assimilation has failed and was never successful, nor ever will it be. 

The Negatives of Diversity

Contrary to popular media narratives, diversity, specifically in terms of various races cohabiting, isn't inherently beneficial. Research exists suggesting that diversity may have adverse effects on a nation, particularly impacting social cohesion, which is the measure of community solidarity and the strength of interpersonal relationships. The most famous work illustrating this is Robert Putnam’s work. Putnam even when taking into account crime, age, income, house ownership found that diversity still correlated with lower social trust. Putnam found that the more diverse a community was, the less trust residents reported having in their neighbors; the less people trusted local government and media, the less people voted; the less people gave to charity, the less people worked on community projects, and the fewer friends people had. Perhaps most strikingly, people in diverse communities were less happy overall and less satisfied with their lives. Many other studies have found the same effect. In fact a meta-analysis reviewing:

“...The literature on the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust through a narrative review and a meta-analysis of 1,001 estimates from 87 studies. The review clarifies the core concepts, highlights pertinent debates, and tests core claims from the literature on the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust. Several results stand out from the meta-analysis. We find a statistically significant negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust across all studies. The relationship is stronger for trust in neighbors and when ethnic diversity is measured more locally.” 

— Peter Thisted Dinesen and Kim Mannemar Sønderskov, Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: A Narrative and Meta-Analytical Review

Many studies have been able to replicate Putnam’s initial findings and many reviews of literature on the topic have found the same conclusion. Diversity is simply not compatible with strong communities. Not only does diversity correlate with less happiness and less trust, this meta analysis found that a 10% increase in the local representation of one’s own ethnic group predicts an 12% decrease in the odds of a person being suicidal. So homogeneity basically has an opposite effect. Many try to say a positive to diversity and immigration is its effects on the economy. Saying diversity causes more innovation and immigration causes more jobs, more overall growth, and more wage growth. I will go into the economics of immigration in a later section but I want to focus on the claim that (ethnic or racial) diversity increases innovation.

This study states:

“We show that ethnic diversity or fractionalization and values diversity are distinct and while the former has a negative effect on innovation, the latter contributes positively. However, countries are bound to have both types of diversity. We find that countries that are ethnically homogenous but diverse in values orientation are the best innovators.” 

— Katherine W. Phillips and Tracy L. Dumas, Diversity and Innovation

When it comes to overall economic growth, diversity is negatively associated with economic growth, even after controlling for wealth over time. This study found that ethnic diversity negatively correlates with economic success such that going from perfect homogeneity to maximal diversity predicts a 2% decline in the annual national growth rate of GDP per capita. This idea that bringing in more Hispanics and Blacks will make your firm more innovative and make your country richer is just plain wrong and ignorant. 

The effects of diversity are mostly felt by our younger generation since they are still in schooling. White children in more diverse (black) schooling are faced with terrible circumstances and overall diversity has a negative effect on education. This study sampled a total of 4,083 individuals, consisting of 1,643 students, 1,632 faculty members, and 808 administrators. It found that:

“As the proportion of black students rose, student satisfaction with their university experience dropped, as did their assessments of the quality of their education and the work ethic of their peers. In addition, the higher the enrollment diversity, the more likely students were to say that they personally experienced discrimination… Faculty members also rated students as less hard-working as diversity increased… Enrollment diversity was positively related to students’ experience of unfair treatment, even after the effects of all other variables were controlled. (As the proportion of black students grew, the incidence of these personal grievances increased among Whites. Among blacks, however, there was no significant correlation. Thus diversity appears to increase complaints of unfair treatment among White students without reducing them among black students.)”

— Neul Nevitte, Seymour Martin and Stanley Rothman, Racial diversity reconsidered

This study found that:

“Achievement for both Black and White students was lower in the highest Black student density schools than in the lowest density schools.”

— National Assessment of Educational Progress, School Compistion and The Black-White Achievement Gap

This study finds that black students are far more likely to be bullies than White students, and interracial black on White bullying is 64% more common than the inverse relationship. That study also states:

“Regardless of race, attending a high-minority school increases risk of suicide significantly: for every one percentage point increase in the percent minority in the school, the likelihood of suicide increases by one percent.”

— Robert Faris, Race, Social Networks, and School Bullying

And of course with a multiracial society you will always have crime and conflict. This study looking at diversity and crime on a national level found that:

“Analysis of up to 132 nations indicates that incarceration rates are significantly associated with ethnic diversity and ethnic polarization. The lowest incarceration rates are observed in countries with substantial homogeneity or substantial diversity. Incarceration rates are highest in countries with moderate diversity but high polarization—where a sizable minority population is present, approaching parity with a majority group.” 

— Christopher J. Marier, Ethnic Diversity, Ethnic Polarization, and Incarceration Rates: A Cross-National Study

A common claim by the left is that “native citizens commit more crimes than immigrants”. And this is technically true because it’s counting blacks and descendants of foreign born nationals as native born citizens. However we know that a lot of demographics that are native born citizens commit more crime than others. To get a better understanding of immigrant crime, one should look at demographics of incarceration data. When looking at this data Hispanics (most Hispanics are immigrants 2nd or 3rd generation or even 4th generation the way Hispanics get here is immigration) commit more crime than Whites even when considering age. 

It should also be mentioned that federal welfare spending breaks records every single year, and welfare is the biggest portion of the annual federal budget. There are over 80 different welfare programs according to the CRS. Now if we look at which ethnic groups in America are paying more into the system than they’re using and which are more likely to pay for it, and then compare this to the individual and household income by race, a much clearer picture is painted as to who is actually paying for social safety nets.

From widely available income and welfare data, we can see that on average, White and Asian Americans are paying far more into the system than they use. White Americans largely foot the bill for welfare and public services. Who is most likely to receive welfare, use public education and public transportation vs who is most likely to pay for it but not receive.

So if diversity means less happiness, less trust, a higher suicide rate, less innovation, less wealth, more government spending, more crime, more bullying of White schoolchildren, and overall worse education experiences. Why are we pursuing a policy of more diversity? If it means a worse life experience for everyone and also Whites losing power of their ancestral homelands why are we doing this? 

Why Replacement Benefits The Elites

It is obvious mass replacement is not in the interest of the general populace. So why is it happening? Well while the general populace is extremely affected by replacement migration and the consequences of multiculturalism, the upper class has a damn near incentive to increase levels of immigration. First, liberal elites don’t have to deal with the effects of diversity since they live in homogenous gated communities and wealthier towns. 

Looking electorally it’s obvious what interest elites have in replacement. With the Democratic Party now being the party of the wealthy and also the party getting a lot of support from non-Whites it’s obvious why the elites would benefit from the incoming of more voters with the party of their preference. However, elites benefit the most from replacement by economics. The biggest way the working class is affected by immigration is wages. Immigrants lower the value of workers since they heavily increase the labor market, driving down the wages of hard working Americans. Many studies have found this. This one for example found that a 10% increase of immigration can result in wages falling by 4.5-6%. This paper done by George Borjas found that what's known as immigrant surplus goes to the employers of workers, since they are saving money by hiring cheap labor. So while Americans are hurting by immigration lowering the value of their labor, wealthy employers are benefiting by hiring that cheap labor that lower wages. 

Immigration and multiculturalism also hurts the power workers have in firms. This study, looking at the relationship between diversity and unionization. Stating:

“Consistent with the prediction of the theory, both layers of the empirical analysis provide evidence of a strong, negative and highly significant relationship between ethnic diversity and the decision of the workers to participate in trade unions.” 

— Nikos Benos and Pantelis Kammas, Workers of The World Unite (or Not?) The Effect of Ethnic Diversity on The Participation In Trade Unions

This fact is exploited by large companies as well. Back in April of 2020, it was found that Amazon was able to track the risk of its stores unionizing based on how diverse they were. Also the very concept of mass immigration limits the power of unions. But the single biggest way the elite benefit from mass immigration is that it simply brings in dumber people that they can control. The average White IQ is 100, the average immigrant IQ is 88. Bringing in dumber people to replace the smarter people makes the jobs of the elites a lot easier. It is pretty obvious why the elite would have an interest in mass immigration and replacement but it’s also obvious they have some type of ideological goal to open the borders to the less advanced world to diversify our country. 

“An unrelenting stream of immigration, nonstop, nonstop. Folks like me who were Caucasian, of European descent for the first time in 2017 will be in an absolute minority in the United States of America, absolute minority. Fewer than 50% of the people in America from then and on will be White European stock. That’s not a bad thing. That's a source of our strength.”

— Joe Biden, White House Summit On Extremism and Terrorism (02.17.15)

But also just look at all the articles calling the observation a conspiracy theory. Look at everyone in the media supporting immigration and saying how good diversity is. It would be insane to suggest that the status quo in our society does not have some ideological position of anti-Whiteness. This matters because elite interests are drastically overrepresented in legislation. So look at why elites have an interest in replacement and how elites are represented in government it makes sense why it is happening. 

The Impacts of Racial Differences In Society

Although the subject of biological differences in human racial groups has become taboo in mainstream academia, often conflated with less advanced methods of physical anthropology such as phrenology, In light of recent research on genetics and sociobiology, a new debate is being forged by Data-Analysts (known as Race-Realists) questioning the anthropocentric notion that divergent evolution does not extend to impact humans and opposing unrigorous sociological notions about oppression narratives and the origins of what they deem “racism”.

Meta Analysis as recent as 2020 have reached the conclusion that Multiculturalism significantly reduces Social Capital. Why is this? To start, different ethnic groups are preselected to have an ingroup preference as a way to preserve and maintain the continuity of their genes within a broader racial context. This is one explanation for why different ethnic groups have higher levels of altruism for their members than outsiders. On a more extreme level, the reason why a member of an ethnic group would be willing to lay down his life and sacrifice himself for the survival of his tribe or nation during a time of war also makes sense, whale in such a situation that person may have died, his genes would have lived on through his extended family and the nation that he sacrificed himself to protect.

This process is known as kin selection, and in modern academic discourse it hadn’t been seriously considered to exist beyond small tribal bands and family groups until the research of geneticists William Hamilton and later Frank Salter through analyzing the differences in gene frequencies between different ethnic groups. To understand why Multiculturalism would lead to a society which lacks social cohesion we must first understand the biological reality of the races. In 2021, Harvard geneticist David Reich stated:

“Genetic studies have demonstrated differences across populations not just in the genetic determinants of simple traits such as skin color, but also in more complex traits like bodily dimensions and susceptibility to diseases.”

— David Reich, How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of Race

Correct, he was. John Fuerst shows in his 2015 paper that many morphological and genetic studies have generally supported the five major races.

In the study “Different level of population differentiation among human genes” by Dong-Dong Wu and Ya-Ping Zhang that the most significant The most significant genetic differences between human races are neurological. It’s been shown time and time again an individual’s self-reported race can be detected on a genetic level with over 99% accuracy. So races exist biologically and there is significant genetic variation between the races. This is important due to Genetic Similarity Theory. As Canadian psychologist, J. Philippe Rushton stated in his book:

“Genetically similar people tend to seek one another out and to provide mutually supportive environments such as marriage, friendship, and social groups.”

J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior

So people who are genetically similar have a natural preference towards each other. This is very empirical true with the races. People of one race have friends who are the same race as them, most marriages are intraracial, marriages that are interracial end in divorce way more than intraracial ones, and people generally like to live in in neighborhoods and go to church congregations that are mono-racial. Since people naturally prefer people who are genetically similar to them and different races have significant genetic variation, it makes sense why in multicultural societies (societies where individuals share very little genetic similarity) there would be a lot less social cooperation and a lot more self isolation. 

(((Jewish Contributions))) to Replacement

In the previous section the class and ideological interest the status quo would have in replacing the White population. However the only way to have a clear picture of White replacement is recognizing how Jewish it is. As it was previously mentioned America has historically always had immigration restrictions that preferred its native population (Northern European). The reform that changed this was the 1965 Hart-Cellar act. The Hart-Cellar act abolished the national quota system. Now groups who were heavily discriminated against such as Mestizos and Asians were able to immigrate here easily. The man who wrote the legislation was the Jew Norbert Schlei. In fact the bill itself was partially named after the Jew Emmanuel Cellar. The Jewish support for a globalist immigration policy is extremely well documented. As Kevin Macdonald stated in his revolutionary book Culture of Critique:

“As indicated above, the rejection of a skill requirement or other tests of competence in favor of "humanitarian goals" and family unification had been an element of Jewish immigration policy at least since debate on the McCarran-Walter act of the early 1950s and extending really to the long opposition to literacy tests dating from the end of the nineteenth century.” 

— Kevin Macdonald, Culture of Critique

Prominent Jews that supported the Hart-Cellar act include Senator Jacob Javits, earlier mentioned Congressman Emanuel Celler, Congressman Leonard Farbstein, New York Governor Herbert Lehman and many Jewish political groups. As this article states:

“In a joint statement, seven national Jewish groups, including the American Jewish Congress and the Conservative movement’s United Synagogue of America, called the bill a “long overdue” change to the quota system that had “defaced our immigration policy and mocked our national protestations of equality.”

— Jewish Telegraph Agency, Welcoming The Stranger

All of this Jewish support for the Hart-Cellar comes from the heavily Jewish opposed 1924 bill that heavily restricted immigration. Hugh Davis Graham in his book Collision Course stated:

“Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s…. Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform.” 

— Hugh Davis Graham, Collision Course

Because of the Hart-Celler Act, the population of the US went from 225 million in 1960 to around 325 million today., and is expected to grow to over 400 million by 2050. Without the act, the population of America would have remained around 200 million people. Since the late 1960s, the United States has been below replacement birth rates, therefore it is mathematically impossible for Americans to have grown the population to over 300 million people based on their posterity alone. The population surge has been driven by immigration and the children the high-birth rate immigrants are having within the US.

Because of the 1965 immigration act, the demographic makeup of the immigrant population has completely changed. In 1960 only three states received their main source of immigration from Mexico, but in 2018 over 35 states were receiving most of their immigrants from Mexico. Today, the countries that send their immigrants have changed a bit, but the vast majority of immigrants driving the foreign-born and total population surge are coming from South and Central America. Because of many changes in immigration laws over the decades, it has become nearly impossible for immigrants from Europe to migrate to the US legally and become citizens.

Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) are some of the most powerful groups behind mass immigration into America. Recently, around 50 Jewish groups including the ADL, run by Jonathan Greenblatt, sent a letter to Joe Biden urging Democrats to put a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal immigrants “in any economic recovery or infrastructure legislation that moves forward via budget reconciliation.”

“As Jewish organizations that collectively represent millions of American Jews, we urge you to prioritize the inclusion of a pathway to citizenship for immigrant youth, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders, essential workers, and their families, in any economic recovery or infrastructure legislation that moves forward via budget reconciliation….As Jews, we are taught that each of us is equally deserving of the opportunity to prosper in safety.”

— National File, 49 Jewish Groups Including ADL Call For Biden To Put ‘Pathway to Citizenship’ For Illegals In Spending Bill

The ADL is one of the most powerful non-profit groups in America, and has been one of the biggest driving forces behind the suppression of free speech in America, particularly if you publicly oppose mass immigration into the US or any European country. The ADL, SPLC, Canary Mission, and other Jewish groups work to expose and punish anyone who discusses ‘replacement migration,’ which is happening in America and even touted on the United Nations website. But the ADL and other groups strongly oppose mass immigration for the nation-state of Israel. On the ADL’s website, the group proclaims that immigration into Israel and the high birthrates of Palestinian immigrants threaten the Jewish racial majority of Israel.

In 2017, HIAS, the global Jewish nonprofit that ‘protects’ refugees, released a letter signed by more than 1,500* rabbis in support of welcoming refugees. Mark Potok, the Jewish former senior fellow at the SPLC had written down the population of whites in America at 90% in 1920, 79% in 1980, and 63% in 2014. According to the SPLC, anyone who opposes replacement migration and whites becoming the minority in the countries they built, is a ‘white supremacist’ that needs to be exposed and reprimanded.

It is very clear historically Jews have played a prominent role in getting the US to accept non-White immigration. And Jews continue to heavily fund and support the open borders anti-White Democrat party. Putting the dogma beside and taking an objective view on it, no one can deny the Jewish contribution to the browning of America. By 2045, non-hispanic whites will become the minority in the US, with many European countries following this demographic trend as well. All of this is thanks to Jewish influence.

Why Being a (White) Minority Is Bad

“The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.” 

— Teddy Roosevelt, speech in October 12, 1915

Teddy was absolutely correct. Due to the influx of non-European peoples, America will no longer be able to replicate the European values, customs, traditions, that made this country great. Samuel P. Huntington in his book Who Are We?: The Challenges to America's National Identity stated:

“Would America be the America it is today if in the 17th and 18th centuries it had been settled not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish, or Portuguese Catholics? The answer is no. It would not be America; it would be Quebec, Mexico, or Brazil.”

— Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We?: The Challenges to America's National Identity

Due to the influx of people from these inferior countries. America will resemble Mexico or any South American or any African country and will lose its status as the great hegemone, due to the people who built this once great nation no longer able to hold any substantial political power. The biggest problem with the acceptance of non-White replacing the historical majority is the lower IQ of these immigrants. As it was previously mentioned the mean IQ of an immigrant is 88 which is almost 1 standard deviation lower than the average 100 IQ of White Americans. There’s been a number of studies that provide a correlation between IQ and wealth growth. This one study finds a:

“1 point increase in a nation’s average IQ is associated with a persistent 0.11% annual increase in GDP per capita.”

— Garrett Jones and Joel Schneider, Intelligence, Human Capital, and Economic Growth: A Bayesian Averaging of Classical Estimates (BACE) Approach

Thus if having a higher national IQ is associated with more wealth than having a lower national IQ is associated with having less wealth. And thus a country having lower life satisfaction. These types of relationships exist with crime, job performance, and welfare recipientation. Thus if America continues to bring lower IQ people it will lead to a poorer, more criminal, lazier country. 

A scientific research article published in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association called On Having Whiteness. The article, was written by the Jew Dr. Donald Moss who claimed that whiteness is “a malignant, parasitic-like condition.” In the article, Moss wrote that “‘white’ people have a particular susceptibility” to the “parasitic” condition, which he claims “renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse.” He explained he believed whiteness establishes “entitled dominion” that enables the “host” to have “power without limit, force without restriction, violence without mercy,” and increases one’s drive to “terrorize.” This is only one of thousands of papers written in academic journals attacking White people and ‘Whiteness.’

These are just a few examples among thousands of examples in academia and employment where White Americans are explicitly prohibited from applying or receiving any benefits. This anti-White epidemic across all of America’s institutions is a possible explanation for why we are seeing a trend emerge where students in universities and adults in search of employment are choosing to identify as anything other than White on applications.

The more pernicious angle of the Anti-White propaganda spreading throughout the country, is that the disseminators of this ideology claim we must deconstruct Whiteness by ‘any means necessary,’ and that ‘some White people have to die‘ in order to succeed in destroying ‘White supremacy.’ A quick search for the phrase "I hate white people" on Twitter exposes a substantial number of instances where individuals openly express their animosity towards white people. Remarkably, many of these individuals do not hesitate to reveal their true identities online while confessing their hatred. In fact, The Washington Post conducted an investigation revealing that approximately 90% of content flagged as "hate speech" and subsequently removed consisted of statements expressing contempt, inferiority, and disgust specifically targeted at white people and men.

Statements like this and articles with headlines like “Can US Spy Agencies Stop White Terror?” and “White Supremacist Extremists are the Nation’s Deadliest Terror Threat” are meant to convince Americans of something that – according to all available government data – is statistically false. This narrative is not a recent development. In the past, Representative Ilhan Omar made a statement suggesting that "white men" are responsible for the majority of deaths in the country, urging Americans to be more wary of them. However, a brief examination of available government statistics, as well as academic studies, reveals that this narrative is far from accurate.

Data from reputable sources such as the CDC, FBI, Bureau of Justice, and comprehensive scientific analyses on race and crime consistently show that black males have the highest involvement in violent crime. They are responsible for the highest rate of homicides and the majority of such cases, including approximately 80% of gun-related homicides, despite comprising only a small portion of the US population. Nevertheless, many institutions and media outlets persist in portraying "whites" as the primary threat facing Americans today. Data shows that white Americans are victims of interracial crime at a higher rate than any other group.

In 2018, The Bureau of Justice Statistics released their survey of criminal victimization, breaking down 593,598 interracial violence between blacks and whites. Black Americans committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies or 90 percent, while white Americans committed 56,394 of them or less than 10 percent. In 2012-13, then-President Obama’s DOJ recorded that black Americans committed 85 percent of all interracial victimizations between black and white Americans; white Americans only committed 15 percent. Furthermore, despite making up only 13.4% of the American population, black Americans commit more than double the amount of interracial homicides on white Americans, who make up 60% of the American population.

With the increasing amount of anti-White hatred, it will vastly escalate as White people become more of a minority. In 2020 the number of anti-White crimes increased by 23%. No media nor governmental official remotely mentioned this. This number will continue to increase since White people have no authority to speak out against this. Anti-White legislation is already becoming a norm, especially with the phenomenon of Critical Race Theory (CRT).

The concept of CRT can be seen as a form of propaganda aimed at fostering animosity towards a specific racial group based solely on the color of their skin. CRT is essentially a manifestation of anti-White racism, without any further complexities. It should not be mistaken for "reverse racism" or "neo-racism," as it simply constitutes racism itself. CRT asserts that Western Civilization, predominantly associated with White countries, is inherently racist due to perceived unequal outcomes for different racial groups. According to this theory, regardless of one's personal opinions, being White is believed to automatically entail inherent racism and privilege, necessitating efforts to deconstruct one's presumed "Whiteness," which is seen as the primary culprit.

So with Biden’s COVID relief plan only benefiting non-Whites and with Oakland deciding to give UBI to only poor non-White families what will the future behold for White people in a minority-majority country, especially if our society is spouting out anti-white garbage like CRT? We see the increase of taxation on only White people, talk of Reparations, forced redistribution of White tax money into Welfare for minorities, and maybe we’ll see White farmland be taken. We see an increase of murders targeting Whites done by Blacks and Hispanics, motivated by a hatred of Whites, It’s a future like Rhodesia or South Africa for America. Essentially what the conservative Patrick Buchanan called the violent Balkanization of America.

How Race Demographics Change The Political Landscape

Outside of Cubans, who only make up 0.5% of the entire American population, the Hispanic demographic has voted approximately 70% for the democratic party consistently in every election. The recent decline in Hispanic support for the Democratic party Republicans have applauded accounts for a small percentage of Hispanics, and only in certain parts of the country. Around 1 in 10 Republican voters are White non-Hispanic every single election season.

According to Pew Research, 75% of Hispanics say it’s more important to institute gun control than to protect gun rights. Pew also finds that 72% of Hispanics say that hate speech is violence, and 52% of Hispanics say we should criminalize hate speech. A recent poll published by Campaign for Free Speech showed that over 51% of millennials support a “hate speech” exemption in the first amendment. When that poll is broken down by race, it is almost identical to the Pew research study results.

Recent polls indicate that more than 80% of Black Americans continue to express support for the Black Lives Matter movement, even in the aftermath of widespread protests and instances of unrest. Surprisingly, some polls even suggest that support for Black Lives Matter among the Black community increased by one percent following the George Floyd riots. Additionally, Black Americans are more inclined than other racial groups to view their skin color as a central aspect of their identity.

The notion that non-White individuals would oppose ideas or legislation that benefit them is as absurd as the belief held by the 'Blexit' movement that Black Americans would overwhelmingly vote for Republicans in 2016 and 2020. Certain conservative commentators argue that conservatives should make more efforts to win over minority voters from diverse backgrounds. However, given the continuous influx of minorities into the country and their growing population, it becomes mathematically implausible to achieve this. Denying this reality is equivalent to denying basic mathematical principles. If significant action is not taken, it is conceivable that, within my lifetime, a right-wing president will never be able to secure an election victory again.

Conclusions

The endeavor to uphold a White majority in the United States encompasses instituting an open-ended suspension of immigration, potentially annulling the Civil Rights Act to permit voluntary racial separation, and terminating Affirmative Action while advancing pro-natalist policies to increase White birth rates. Furthermore, the advancement of assimilation entails measures like outlawing non-English public signage in White majority areas and formulating a culturally conservative educational syllabus. It is underscored that nurturing a more robust racial consciousness among White individuals is imperative for their perpetuation.

The suggested stratagems are designed to confront apprehensions regarding demographic transformations, underscoring the significance of adopting identity politics and communal concerns. Recognizing the ostensible menace of the "Great Replacement" necessitates a purposeful rejoinder grounded in empirical substantiation and a proactive posture, as expounded in the delineated outlook. For a more comprehensive strategy on navigating this issue, please refer to the following article.

---

Supplementary videos to this article:

Paul Collier on Migration Dynamics and Their Policy Implications

Roger Scruton on Immigration and The Welfare State

Immigration and World Poverty

Reverse Racism

American Balkanization

Patrick Buchanan on Suicide of a Superpower