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 3rd of the 8 stages of genocide, according to the United States Dept of State. Ironically, the 8th 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!
No comments:
Post a Comment