Over the last few months, several articles have been published in legacy media on the “Great Replacement“, a term coined by French writer Renaud Camus, according to whom European populations are bound to become a minority in their own country. The main underlying notions here are that this is a dynamic, ongoing process sustained by various factors, and that it takes place on a global level. Those taking issue with it often call it a theory and tend to imply that none of it is true. We will stick to the situation in Europe from now on as it’s what concerns this writer personally.
First, let’s look at two articles published by legacy media.
For starters, the New York Times (1) describes it as “bonkers”, along with “racist” and “sexist” right from the get-go. The sexist part being somehow linked to video games and comic books. Over the 1000 words of his article, the author provides no facts on Europe, where Renaud Camus resides, only a study on US demographics that does actually confirm the trend. Nor does .he question the influence of democracy-superseding forces said to be at play. The reader is however treated to such hard-hitting analyses as “It has found its greatest purchase among a certain type of basement-dwelling incel edgelord, to whom it offers both an explanation for self-pitying personal circumstances and a set of convenient antagonists”.
In The Independent, another article (2) leads the reader to think they’re in for a researched and point-by-point analysis through the title “how to defeat the cretinous ‘great replacement’ theory…”. Instead, its argumentation eschews any criticism of Renaud Camus’s premise to the point that this time there’s not a single figure on demographic trends. The defeat of the so-called theory instead hinges on abstract recommendations, themselves leaning on the authors’ unsubstantiated opinions. (ex: “To oppose this movement of fear and shame, we must build an internationalist movement of liberation with equality at its heart. The only response to the hallucinatory realm of white rage is a return to reality.”)
Ironically, the two authors unwittingly vindicate Renaud Camus’s view that those who support globalization have no qualms about to dissolving native European’s distinct identity. According to them, it’s no more than a figment of Europeans’ imagination (“Tarrant and others who espouse his vicious and deadly ideology seek to retrench their own invented identity”). It also checks the box of the push for unfettered immigration that local populations should have no say about (“We can brook no compromise with the ideology of hard borders”)
Before digging deeper into these journalists’ mindset, a few relevant facts about the claim of European natives becoming a minority in their own country. This is already the case in a growing number of cities:
- White Britons are now a minority in 4 towns and cities (Express.co.uk) (3)
- Ethnic Dutch a minority in big cities, so how do they integrate? – (DutchNews.nl) (4)
- Frankfurt Becomes First German City Where Natives Are Minority (5)
- “With Malmo poised to become Sweden’s first minority-majority city in the next few years” (6)
- “The ethnic and religious compositions of Nordic populations have been projected by Eurostat (Lanzieri, 2011), the Pew Research Center (2015), and Statistics Denmark (2015). These studies are updated and complemented in this paper. Lanzieri’s consideration of the native population is supplemented by taking into account assimilation via marriages between natives and foreign-background persons (…). The projected demographic changes are similar in the four Nordic countries. The development is fastest in Sweden; in 2065, the share of the native population is to decrease to 49%.” (7)
- International migration changed large West European cities dramatically. In only two generations ’ time, their ethnic make-up is turned upside down. Cities like Amsterdam and Brussels now are majority-minority cities: the old majority group became a minority.” (Sociology Research) (8)
- In the département of Seine-Saint-Denis (population of 1.5 million), 56.7% of young under 18 are or foreign origin including 38% of African origin. (9)
That is already a lot afoot for something that will never take place.
Other articles made some more effort in trying to build their case, but as with most disconnects between legacy media’s representation of reality and the real deal, the problem lies in what they omit rather than what they say.
Take Liberation’s Laurent Joffrin’s recent op-ed (10). He compares the fertility rates of native and Muslim women, and while acknowledging that the latter is higher than the former, he rightly concludes the difference will not account for anything qualifying as replacement anytime soon. He however simply considers the impact of Muslim populations already present in France. What grossly underestimates the demographic changes at play is that not all non-natives are Muslim (in 2025, there will be about twice as many Christians in Africa as the current total EU population), nor does factor in newcomers. Migration flow to France – about 100K people a year – is routinely deemed to be low by advocates of the status quo. What about the long term consequences?
Over a 50 years period, after which natives under 30 today will still statistically be alive, this would bring five million non-natives in the country. Still no replacement yet. With a fertility rate of 3, one has to add 7.5 million, or 12.5 million in total. For the first generation only, that is. Fertility rates tending to drop once settled in Europe, let’s set it to 2 for the next generation. This second-generation will comprise those arriving in the first 25 years, ie 3.75M. That’s 7.5 more millions. We’re at 20 million after 50 years, the time when the 3rd generation will begin to appear. Immigrants being generally young they will all be alive at this time. One also has to point out that this is a very conservative estimate as it doesn’t take into account that many immigrants arrive on their own and are entitled to bring their partner into Europe later on. So in reality, one would have to multiply the initial influx by a factor between 1 and 2. So, as the stern laws of arithmetic have it, a paltry 100K a year means at least 20 million over a 50 years’ period. How about the next iteration?
Another argument put forward by Laurent Joffrin is that the word replacement is inaccurate and of ill-faith. He states that for there to be replacement, non-natives should expel natives from the country. History teaches us otherwise if one looks to what happened to Native Americans. Before the 16th century, they made up 100% of the population. Nowadays, less than 2% and none of them were made to leave their country. Besides deaths from imported diseases and massacres, factors having contributed to their population’s decline to current levels include the removal of children for them to be placed in non-native foster families, assimilation, and inter-ethnic marriages. As a matter of course, one of the reasons they may still be existing as distinct ethnic groups five centuries after the first waves of mass migration is they were granted the right to live in reservations, as opposed to the forced, so-called diversity instated in non-Eastern Europe.
This alternate way of replacing native populations through dissolution is underlaid in a recent and publicly-funded study that scrutinized the ethnicity of whites’ romantic partners in the US (11). The paper concludes: “Overall, our results enhance the understanding of how exposure to racial diversity can reduce the degree of assortativity by race in dating and marriage”. The rationale given is that it’s for the good of society; or social harmony as the researchers put it.
Finally, we find a reputed newspaper acknowledging the weight of facts and confirming the trend on a global level.:
- “Non-whites will be majority in US and Europe by 2050” (The Guardian) (12)
The Guardian, too, ensures his readers that the ongoing process is for the best. A mindset one also finds in an interview (13) with the Dalai Lama who claimed Europe should be for Europeans, much to the journalist’s dismay. When doubling down, the interviewer, a non-native like the voice of rationalization (Yasmin Alibhai-Brown) in the Guardian article, pressed him to elaborate on what the big deal was about European becoming a minority in their own continent.
In summary, any native European expressing positive views of the “Great Replacement” is guilty of spreading a dubious, “racist” “theory” according to “Hate Speech” experts. This judgment has already been used to justify banning from social media, while statistics in support of this process abound and journalists doing actual legwork are allowed to write about it freely.
These self-appointed experts’ behaviour is known as “gaslighting” in psychology:
Gaslighting is a tactic in which a person or entity, in order to gain more power, makes a victim question their reality. It works much better than you may think. Anyone is susceptible to gaslighting, and it is a common technique of abusers, dictators, narcissists, and cult leaders. (Psychology Today)
Readers interested in the field will also be struck by the similarities with the different stages of grieving found throughout journalistic rebuttals. Anger with the Independent/New York Times journalists. Denial for the Le Monde Editor in chief. Bargaining and acceptance for The Guardian and the Dalai lama interviewer. The only thing that lacks is depression. A state of mind that would occur if they had sufficient self-awareness to realize how often they transgress their alleged high morale. Like with their sudden uneasy silence when Native Europeans are raped (14), decapitated (15), beaten up (16) by non-natives, racially discriminated in employment Aspects of the real world their psyche would rather not dwell too much on.
And what better way to preserve inner peace than by scrubbing those of us who broach these facts by calling is all the unsavoury names in the book? Without this cognitive dissonance, the Guardian article would pull them into the throes of introspection, as they would realize that the colonization of the past Yasmin Alibhai-Brown rails against has more similarities than not to her vision for Europe. They would have to call her out on it. Not going to happen. They may even have faint recollections of the decolonization movements in Asia and Africa. Maybe that of Algeria, which ended with the flight for their life of eight hundred thousand souls of European descent, causing them to leave all their belongings behind. Given Algeria’s population at the time, that would amount to four million non-natives having to flee the country if such events occurred in today’s France. Would it draw as little commentary? Why was that part of a “struggle for independence” and not racism/fascism? How about Gandhi? By their standards, wasn’t he an Asian Supremacist? And we’re the scum of the earth for pointing out the negative impact of globalization in Europe. Some animals are more equal than others.
Reality checks rarely are pleasant. Fighting them can be an option provided problems are of such nature that they wind up going away by themselves. This is the opposite of what’s ahead of us here, and the harder globalization advocates dig their heels in, the more mentally exhausting it will be for them as inconvenient facts will keep piling up.
The next series of posts will help make the transition smoother for them, as they’ll be able to learn about the unconscious blinders that prevent them from seeing the world as it really is. Those of us on the receiving end of their ill-placed ire will for their part get clues to how to handle them in an effective and dispassionate way. So no matter where you stand, stay tuned.
(8): Super-diversity vs. assimilation: how complex diversity in majority-minority cities challenges the assumptions of assimilation
(11): “More than Just Friends? School Peers and Adult Interracial Relationships” – Journal of Labor Economics Volume 37, Number 3 – https://doi.org/10.1086/702626