White Replacement isn't a Conspiracy Theory: it's White Genocide!

Tucker Carlson's recent monologue on demographic replacement has sent leftists into a frenzy. It's not that they categorically deny the fact that whites are being demographically replaced, they just think it's “racist” for whites to talk about it.

The few influential people (like Tucker) who draw attention to “conspiracy theories” (like white replacement) are made the poster children for the radical left's justification of right-wing censorship. The last thing anti-whites want is 200 million white people not only asking themselves why they're being replaced, but why it's in their best interest. To save face, leftists just eliminate the discussion by virtually eliminating the influence of anyone who brings the subject up (e.g. Jewish CEO of the ADL immediately calls for FOX to fire Tucker for “spreading poison”). In other words, they don't want to talk about it, and they definitely don't want whites to talk about it. This alone should be cause for concern. In a free society, all things should be up for discussion, especially a group's existence.

On the rare occasion that leftists decide to talk about things like white replacement, it's usually accompanied by a barrage of anti-white slurs and childish analogies that depict whites as angry racists. Such can be observed in a recent Salon article titled: Tucker Carlson's immigration bait-and-switch betrays his desperation: No one denies that immigration brings change, Tucker — just that it's racist to be angry about it:

Fox News host Tucker Carlson is really determined to sell his audience on what is — and this cannot be stressed enough — a literal neo-Nazi conspiracy theory. Neo-Nazis and other white nationalist groups have long pushed the idea that a shadowy cabal of Jews is secretly conspiring to "remake" America and "steal" it from its rightful owners, white Christians. They are supposedly doing this by "importing" non-white people — who neo-Nazis believe to be mentally inferior and therefore easily controlled by the shadowy Jewish conspiracy — into the U.S.

Carlson's only spin is replacing the word "Jews" with "Democrats," but other than that, he's lifting "replacement theory" wholesale from the neo-Nazi dregs of the internet and now is repackaging this ridiculous conspiracy theory as if it were an inarguable fact, much to the delight of white nationalists. And because Carlson's main modus operandi is trolling, he's relishing the negative attention he gets by hyping a racist conspiracy theory and he's using his audience's love of liberal-triggering to encourage them to mindlessly burrow deeper into the worldview of unapologetic fascists.

Carlson is a moral monster. It's likely he has been this way since his high school "Dan White Society" days. Sadly, he is a monster that must be dealt with, despite the unfortunate risk of troll-feeding. It's not just because Carlson has an audience that regularly tops 3 million viewers, though that alone is terrifying. It's that he is a smart man whose strategy for selling this conspiracy theory is sinister and clever. To fight back, it's crucial that progressives don't fall into the trap he is setting.

So, not only is it “racist” for a white man to be “angry” about his race being demographically replaced, but it also makes him a “moral monster” who promotes “a literal neo-Nazi conspiracy theory” if he mentions it to his audience. How does that make sense on any level? Is it racist for blacks to get angry about gentrification, or when Mexicans take over black neighborhoods?

On one hand the leftist says, “European colonialism is genocidal.” But on the other hand they say, “non-white immigrants replacing white people is a good thing.” How can any rational person take that argument seriously? Furthermore, how can any rational person attempt to present that argument in the very same article in which they are chastising someone for allegedly using “bait-and-switch” tactics?:

Basically, Carlson is pulling off two bait-and-switch routines. First, he falsely conflates any cultural change with his ridiculous "replacement" conspiracy theory. Second, he tries to paint the debate one over whether change is real — something that literally no one contests — so as to avoid talking about the real issue, which is how it's nuclear-level racist to react to cultural change like it's some kind of existential threat. In reality, it's just what happens if you're lucky to live long enough to experience it.

Did I just read that right? Is she really saying that replacing a white population with a non-white population is “nuclear-level racist” if it is viewed as an “existential threat”? I wonder if she would pose that same argument to Assyrians, Cambodians or Rwandans. Actually, I wonder if she would even have a job if she said that about any group other than white people, excluding Christians.

There's no way anyone could be so callous as to refer to genocide as “cultural change.” Thus, I'll give Mrs Marcotte the benefit of the doubt and assume that she is ignorant and not inherently evil (a courtesy she didn't grant Tucker). Maybe she had a bad day and got confused with what she actually meant to say. Or maybe the editor called in sick. Either way, as a thankless gesture, I decided to post an edited version or the previous quoted paragraph:

Basically, the writer is pulling off two bait-and-switch routines. First, she falsely conflates genocide with her ridiculous “cultural change” conspiracy theory. Second, she tries to paint the debate over whether demographic replacement is real – something literally no one contests – so as to avoid talking about the real issue, which is how it's nuclear-level racist to react to genocide like it's not some kind of existential threat. In reality, only a complete idiot would consider themselves lucky to experience a genocide.

There, that's better.

But in all seriousness, she acknowledges that immigration changes the face of society, but in the same way that “generational shifts” result in skinny jeans and TikTok. Again, it's important to understand exactly what this woman is saying: she is saying that white genocide is comparable to “changing fashions and evolving social norms.” She even attempts to cleverly justify it by comparing white people's demographic decline to the bad hair products of the 80s:

Here's the thing, though: Lieu didn't give any game away. Liberals have never denied that immigration changes society. Of course it does, along with generational shifts, changing fashions, and evolving social norms. When I was young, people wore low-rise jeans and MTV still played music videos. Now it's skinny jeans (though apparently not for long) and TikTok. Change is inevitable, and generally good, as anyone who has a memory of hair-destroying styling products in the bad old days can contest.

What makes "replacement" a conspiracy theory, however, is that it invents this elaborate fantasy ascribing change not to the normal churn of human society, but to a sinister and hidden conspiracy of Jews and Democrats who are secretly inflicting change to pull off some grand scheme.

She says the reason “white replacement” is a conspiracy theory is because whites point the finger at “Jews and Democrats” as the those responsible for massive non-white immigration into the United States. What she doesn't say is that “Jews and Democrats” aren't responsible. The “conspiracy theory” aspect could easily be debunked by providing evidence that either “Jews and Democrats” aren't responsible for demographic change, or that white Republicans are actively replacing themselves with black and brown Democrats.

What would make “white replacement” a conspiracy theory would be if it wasn't an observable phenomenon that is taboo to talk about. If it's such a positive transition, why can't we have an honest discussion about it without name-calling or censorship? If this “normal churn of human society” is so wonderful, why are whites unhappy and complaining about it? Are they just to stupid to know what's best for them?

The data is conclusive: white demographic replacement isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a statistical fact. For “Jews and Democrats” to pretend that white people are dumb enough to believe that their share of the population organically decreased by 30% in less than 50 years by accident is a “nuclear-level racist” assertion. Particularly in a era when tens-of-thousands of non-whites are marching for the southern border at any given time on Biden's promise of mass amnesty.

Immigration is 100% causative, meaning that it happens for a reason. There are two primary elements that define a nation: ethnicity and border. Borders are designed to keep people from other nations out. Protocols are in place as to who gets to immigrate into the United States (all countries have an immigration policy). It's not just some random act of human migration called “cultural change” (unless that's the new liberal term for “illegal immigration”) that determines who gets to come here and who doesn't. Up until 1965, the National Origins Formula prevented immigration from changing the ethnic distribution of the largely Protestant population of Americans of Northern and Western European descent.

Historically speaking, immigration has always been a politically divisive topic in the United States. Even as recently as 2016 when Trump ran on an anti-immigration platform with the slogan of “build the wall” and a promise to deport millions of illegal brown people. Therefore, to make the assumption that Democrats aren't pro-immigration is just being disingenuous. It goes without saying that if America was 90% white, Democrats would never win a presidential election in the current political climate. Just as it's safe to say that Republicans will never win a presidential election when whites become a minority. It's as simple as that. Just because the writers of Salon aren't intelligent enough to grasp that concept, doesn't mean “Jews and Democrats” aren't.

The weird thing about this line of liberal logic is that they would never apply it to any other group besides white people. For that matter, they wouldn't apply it to animals or plant life either. These people would sacrifice their lives to save a tree or an endangered insect. But for some reason they won't do it for white people. Why is that? Well, for starters, white people have been systemically dehumanized by an anti-white establishment for the last 50 years (establishment: media, academia, politics, finance - mostly headed by “Jews and Democrats”). Dehumanization is the 3^rd of the 8 stages of genocide, according to the United States Dept of State. Ironically, the 8^th and final stage is denial (e.g. “it's not white genocide, it's cultural change due to a normal churn of human society”).

More importantly, Carlson is propping up this fake debate so that he can smuggle in his real argument, which is that change is bad.

Carlson's whole gambit depends on the presumption that change is a terrible thing. But that belief is both delusional and, on the subject of immigration, racist.

It's only a “fake debate” insofar as the radical left doesn't engage in debate. They opt to write slanderous articles filled with anti-white slurs and buzzwords that don't mean anything. They don't want the Tucker's of the world telling you that “change is bad.” Left-wingers ultimately want whites jumping up-and-down with joy for their impending demographic doom they like to call “cultural change.”

One can't help but notice why liberals (or Mrs Marcotte) never offer an explanation as to why whites should be so happy about their replacement. And even when they do, it's always the same narrative: if you're white and not happy about being a minority in your own country it's just because you're an angry racist who can't accept change.

If white replacement is a good thing for whites, and they should be happy about it, wouldn't it make more sense to offer an explanation of how it's going to be beneficial?: if you're white you're going to be demographically replaced in the United States within the next century, but don't be scared, it's just cultural change and it's going to be good for white people. And here's why: you're taxes are going to go down, you're communities will be safer with less crime, your children are going to get a better education, healthcare is going to be more affordable, there will be less social unrest, no more BLM/antifa riots, there are going to more jobs, there will be fewer suicides and opioid overdoses and so much more. Not to mention, your children and grandchildren will absolutely love being a minority. Just ask the blacks!

Therefore, until “Jews and Democrats” are willing to have an honest debate on the cause and effects regarding the rapid demographic change ongoing in the United States, white replacement needs to be called what it is: White Genocide!

The Coming Antibiotic-Resistance Pandemic

On March 11, 2020 WHO officially declared COVID-19 a pandemic. Regardless of your opinion on the COVID pandemic, it has been virtually impossible to have read any current events over the past year (sports, entertainment, local news, etc) that weren't COVID-centered. Whether it's rising cases, vaccine hesitancy, people refusing to wear masks, state shutdowns, states not shutting down, sporting events being cancelled, politicians testing positive, hospitals being at capacity, daily death toll, increase in testing, holidays with family members being "super-spreader" events, etc, etc, etc. Unless you've just disconnected from society, you've heard this all day, everyday. It's relentless. Again, this isn't about how you feel about the pandemic, or the media's coverage of it, it's just stating the fact that COVID has permeated our consciousness on a daily basis for over a year.

However, something we never read about is the overuse of antibiotics, and the looming consequences of such. When the time comes (2050?) that one can't go to the doctor and get rid of simple bacterial infections, such as a UTI or bronchitis, because the overuse of antibiotics, people are going to be in some serious trouble. At the time of writing, there have been almost 3 million COVID deaths in roughly a year and a half. According to WHO, 10 million people will die every year from antimicrobial resistance (meaning, bacterial infections that would have been treatable/cured with antibiotics, but became resistant due to evolutionary mutations by the bacteria due to antibiotic overuse).

Imagine what it will be like in a time when you contract a bacterial infection, such as a UTI or strep throat, that today nobody even thinks twice about, and you can't go the doctor and can an antibiotic to get rid of it and possibly end up hospitalized fighting for your life:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/coming-antibiotic-resistance-pandemic-could-make-covid-look-like-flu/276526/

GENEVA — Big pharmaceutical companies have not come out of COVID-19 looking like model global citizens. Pfizer has been accused of bullying South American governments after demanding they put up military bases as collateral in exchange for vaccines. Meanwhile, Bill Gates persuaded Oxford University to sign an exclusive deal with AstraZeneca for its new offering, rather than allow it to be copied freely by all. The British/Swedish multinational quickly announced it would fall 50 million vaccines short on its first shipment to the European Union.

But what if there were a looming health crisis that could make COVID look almost minor in comparison? The World Health Organization (WHO) has been warning of just such a case for some time now, predicting that antimicrobial resistance will kill up to 10 million people every year by 2050 — almost four times as many as the coronavirus has killed in the past 12 months.

“Antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest threats to global health, food security, and development today,” they write, noting that without effective antibiotics all manner of conditions — including pneumonia, tuberculosis, gonorrhea, and salmonellosis — could become far more deadly. Drug companies are making this situation worse by encouraging the overuse of our precious stores of antibiotics, particularly in the Global South and also by refusing to invest enough resources into creating new ones.

The more antibiotics are used, the more resistant bacteria become to them, meaning that humanity must guard its reserves and slow down the pathogens’ adaptive evolution by using them only when necessary. Between 2000 and 2015, antibiotic consumption decreased by 4% in rich nations but increased by 77% in developing ones, and their overuse has become rampant across the world. The poorer enforcement of medical laws in these countries leads manufacturers to “adopt unethical marketing approaches and develop creative ways to incentivize prescribing among healthcare providers,” in the words of Dr. Giorgia Sulis, an infectious disease physician and epidemiologist at McGill University, Quebec.

A second way in which giant pharmaceutical corporations are aiding the spread of resistance is their refusal to devote the necessary resources towards replenishing stores of new antibiotics. Investment in the area has rapidly dwindled. “The big problem is that we do not have any novel antibiotics in the pipeline that we can expect to see in the near future… So we really have to protect those that we do have,” Dr. Gautham told MintPress.

And while the Global South overprescribes antibiotics, in the West farm animals are pumped full of them, farmers even giving them to healthy animals so they can be packed tighter in ever-increasing herd sizes. The WHO notes that in many countries, 80% of medically important antibiotic consumption goes to farm animals and has strongly recommended a wholesale reduction of the practice.

The negative effects of this looming scenario are profound. Since the adoption of penicillin in the 1940s, the widespread use of antibiotics is estimated to have extended average life expectancy by 20 years. Dr. Gautham noted that “as antibiotic overuse keeps increasing, then all those antibiotics that we have today will slowly become ineffective against even the most common infections.”

Thus the conditions of the past will become the maladies of the future. Cancer treatments such as chemotherapy, cesarean sections, and other common surgeries will be in major jeopardy, as they require antibiotics to prevent any post-surgical and opportunistic infections. Healthcare costs will spike as conditions that were treatable in a few days will draw on for weeks, and some cases may not be recoverable. As Dr. Sulis warned:

For such a profound problem, which threatens the very foundation of modern medicine, the story is receiving barely any attention in the media. Indeed, so uninterested is the press in pharmaceutical profiteering accelerating superbugs that media-literacy group Project Censored chose it as one of their top 25 most censored stories of 2019-2020. The only substantial corporate reporting on the unethical sale of antibiotics, their research showed, was a single 2016 investigation by The New York Times.

What if George Floyd was a White Man?

The civil rights movement began in the 1960s with a black man's dream. He dreamed of a colorblind meritocracy, where black people's skin color didn't matter, but the content of their character did.

His dream proved to be both prophetic and counter-intuitive. Prophetic in the sense that his dream not only became true within the eyes of the law, but was also written into the narrative of the culture. Counter-intuitive from the perspective that when black people are judged by the content of their character, their character usually leaves much to be desired. In fact, judging black people by the content of their character typically results in an individual being socially ostracized for “racism.” So much so, that it's one of the few times we've witnessed a reversion of change, and returned to the days of black people being judged by the color of their skin. It's just more politically correct (and peaceful) to blame white people when black people's content of character is lacking. That is to say, it's more representative of our values. Nowadays, the apostates have a dream of equity, not equality.

An appropriate illustration of this can be seen in the current George Floyd saga. When George Floyd is judged by the content of his character, it can be empirically concluded that he was a thief, counter-fitter, drug addict, drug dealer, armed robber and ex-convict, who, at the time of his death, had just resisted arrest, was positive with COVID-19 (and not wearing a mask), high on methamphetamine and had a fatal level of fentanyl in his system. Contrarily, when judged by the color of his skin, he was yet another innocent black victim of a racist white society.

The latter opinion can be observed in a recently published Washington Post piece titled: How right-wing media keeps smearing George Floyd with the racist ‘no angel’ narrative:

But some in right-wing media keep doing their utmost to make this tragedy about Floyd’s drug use and troubled life, in what seems like an attempt to absolve Chauvin long before the jury reaches a verdict. In effect, they are putting Floyd on trial.

It feels all too familiar. This is the “well, he was no angel” narrative, obliquely blaming the victim for his fate. It’s a narrative all too often applied to Black men who die at the hands of police.

The “no angel” narrative, and its variations, are racist smears. Unlike George Floyd, they deserve to die.

Innocent or not, everyone (even the jurors) knows the outcome of a Chauvin aquittal. This scenario was already played out 30 years ago with the 1992 Los Angeles riots. People can have faith in the justice system all they want (does anyone?), but Chauvin was found guilty long before the jury reached a verdict. So save me the, “racists want to absolve Chauvin long before the jury reaches a verdict” nonsense.

In any case, as you can see, when black men “die at the hands of police” it's because they're a “victim of fate.” In other words, they're not being held accountable for their actions, they're being judged by the color of their skin. In the opinion of the average “woke” leftist, George Floyd would still be alive if his skin had been white, instead of black.

But would he?

Since 2015, there have been more than 5,500 fatal police shootings in the US, and of those, 2,801 were white people. As a matter of fact, there were more white people killed by police than all other groups combined (2,801 white – 2,729 non-white; Note of interest: if Hispanics were included as “white,” like they are in FBI crime data reports, the figure would be 3,832 white – 1,466 black). The “wokist” would counter with, “yea, but blacks are only 12% of the population and account for 25% of all fatal police shootings.” To which a rational person would say: “yea, but blacks are 12 % of the population and commit over 40% of violent crime” (murder, robbery, rape, aggravated assault; over 50% if you just include murder and robbery). Therefore, it only seems logical that if a group commits roughly half of all violent crime, there would be a significantly higher statistical representation of that group when it comes to fatal encounters with the police. In other words, police probably aren't as likely to have a shootout with a staggering drunk driver (81% white) facing 6 months probation as they are a trigger-happy murderer (52% black) looking at life in prison.

So, this begs the question: what if George Floyd had been a white man?

Well, like over 35,000 other white people who die every year from an opioid overdose, he would have been another forgotten statistic, instead of another “murdered by racist cop” martyr. When white thugs overdose in police custody, or die by cop for not complying with demands, they're never made into heroes. Particularly when the autopsy says:

“Chief medical examiner Dr. Andrew Baker, who listed Floyd’s death as a homicide, thought the amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s blood was “pretty high” and could be “a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.”

“If Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death.”

Nevertheless, the most obvious answer to that question is that we would have never known who George Floyd was. Furthermore, there have been literally thousands of white George Floyd's, we just can't remember their faces or names. Because when white thugs get killed by police, nobody seems to care. Or maybe they just choose to judge white people by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin.