The Great Replacement Theory

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

The 'great replacement' conspiracy theory isn't fringe anymore, it's mainstream

A racist conspiracy theory is believed to have motivated the suspected gunman in the Buffalo attack. It was once a fringe belief, but it's found its way into the mainstream.

www.npr.org

Is there a difference between:

Theory 1: a conspiracy theory that some secret cabal of Jewish people and Illuminati types are trying to "replace" white-skinned people with Muslims or Latinos

and

Theory 2: a theory that in the U.S., (a) demographics are and have been shifting towards an ever increasing % of Latinos via immigration and birth rates, (b) Latinos have historically voted about 2-1 in favor of Democrats, (c) that Democrats, in general, have more liberal immigration and path-to-citizenship policies, (d) human beings and political parties are motivated by a desire for more power, CONCLUSION: at least one reason for (c) is that Democrats want more power--that it will benefit their party more.

Regarding Theory 2, factual premises (a)-(c),I think, have been pretty mainstream thought for over two decades. Premise (d) doesn't seem like much of a stretch, does it?

Is wrapping up Theory 2 with Theory 1 just a cynical ploy to convince people that believing Conclusion 2 is not only wrong, but actually racist (i.e. it's so wrong don't even listen to the argument because it's verboten)?

I'm really curious about this. I don't buy that there is a cabal of people trying to "replace" white people. But I think quite a few people in the world--including me--would like to see a blending of all peoples together so that we don't have these distinctions anymore in however many hundreds of years it takes (and which is where we are headed anyway). Am I a replacer? If I believe Theory 2, does that make me a racist or a believer in a conspiracy theory?

Finally, it is bizarre to me that the Great Replacement Theory would be a motivating reason for anti-black hatred and this shooting.(No doubt the Buffalo shooter suffers from some mental illness as nearly all these people do.) Black people are increasing as a % of the population, but not at nearly the same rate as Latinos or Asians and the growth is due to bi-racial growth (which I see as beneficial)--the % of people labeled as "black only" is actually decreasing.

Key findings about Black America

The Black population in the U.S. is diverse and growing. Our analysis explores the demographic characteristics of this population in 2019.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[GuyDatHoo]

It seem strange that the two theories you have laid out have been conflated to such an extent by some in the last couple days. I ascribe to Theory 2. Democrats have openly touted how shifting demographics spell DOOM for the Republican Party for the better part of two decades now. Whether that proves to be true or not I believe it’s the only rational explanation for why an administration that claims to believe in border security continues to deliberately undermine it.

Illegal immigration concerns do not amount to Replacement theory but that is the line being drawn.

Theory 2 is Tucker Carlsons argument as well I believe (who isn’t mentioned once in the shooters manifesto btw). But that hasn’t stopped people from comparing him to Charles Manson and other such nonsense in recent days.

And as you mentioned, Tucker’s complaints seem to always being in the context of Mexican illegal immigrants, who believe it or not, are not the same thing as black people.

 

[iuwclurker]

The young are likely to develop their worldview from their parents or their peers. The more people come in human contact with different people, the less prone they are to adopting a monolithic worldview.

That Tucker Carlson has such a large platform and uses it to foster a monolithic worldview tells us there are a lot of parents sharing that view.

We need more factors in society exposing people to the humanity in different people.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

It seem strange that the two theories you have laid out have been conflated to such an extent by some in the last couple days. I ascribe to Theory 2. Democrats have openly touted how shifting demographics spell DOOM for the Republican Party for the better part of two decades now. Whether that proves to be true or not I believe, it’s the only rational explanation for why an administration that claims to believe in border security continues to deliberately undermine it.

Illegal immigration concerns do not amount to Replacement theory but that is the line being drawn.

Theory 2 is Tucker Carlsons argument as well I believe (who isn’t mentioned once in the shooters manifesto btw). But that hasn’t stopped people from comparing him to Charles Manson and other such nonsense in recent days.

And as you mentioned, Tucker’s complaints seem to always being in the context of Mexican illegal immigrants, who believe it or not, are not the same thing as black people.

I really don't know what Carlson is pitching and I'd prefer not making him part of this, because it will lead to side issues of whether people are for or against him.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The 'great replacement' conspiracy theory isn't fringe anymore, it's mainstream

A racist conspiracy theory is believed to have motivated the suspected gunman in the Buffalo attack. It was once a fringe belief, but it's found its way into the mainstream.

www.npr.org

Is there a difference between:

Theory 1: a conspiracy theory that some secret cabal of Jewish people and Illuminati types are trying to "replace" white-skinned people with Muslims or Latinos

and

Theory 2: a theory that in the U.S., (a) demographics are and have been shifting towards an ever increasing % of Latinos via immigration and birth rates, (b) Latinos have historically voted about 2-1 in favor of Democrats, (c) that Democrats, in general, have more liberal immigration and path-to-citizenship policies, (d) human beings and political parties are motivated by a desire for more power, CONCLUSION: at least one reason for (c) is that Democrats want more power--that it will benefit their party more.

Regarding Theory 2, factual premises (a)-(c),I think, have been pretty mainstream thought for over two decades. Premise (d) doesn't seem like much of a stretch, does it?

Is wrapping up Theory 2 with Theory 1 just a cynical ploy to convince people that believing Conclusion 2 is not only wrong, but actually racist (i.e. it's so wrong don't even listen to the argument because it's verboten)?

I'm really curious about this. I don't buy that there is a cabal of people trying to "replace" white people. But I think quite a few people in the world--including me--would like to see a blending of all peoples together so that we don't have these distinctions anymore in however many hundreds of years it takes (and which is where we are headed anyway). Am I a replacer? If I believe Theory 2, does that make me a racist or a believer in a conspiracy theory?

Finally, it is bizarre to me that the Great Replacement Theory would be a motivating reason for anti-black hatred and this shooting.(No doubt the Buffalo shooter suffers from some mental illness as nearly all these people do.) Black people are increasing as a % of the population, but not at nearly the same rate as Latinos or Asians and the growth is due to bi-racial growth (which I see as beneficial)--the % of people labeled as "black only" is actually decreasing.

Key findings about Black America

The Black population in the U.S. is diverse and growing. Our analysis explores the demographic characteristics of this population in 2019.

www.pewresearch.org

I don't disagree with your points on D entirely, but there is a different take I will offer. For some undoubtedly it is power. But for me, I think of it as a brake release. The GOP has gotten really good at being the brake that prevents the car from moving forward even marginally in many issues. My hope is to attract Latino voters the GOP finally sees some reforms that need to be done. Child care and health care are the two I would suggest as a quick look at the polling shows those are two areas Latinos are well left of the GOP. Frankly, I would love for the GOP to develop plans for those two areas and compete with ideas rather than just "no, hell no, oh my God, NO".

 

[Bowlmania]

The 'great replacement' conspiracy theory isn't fringe anymore, it's mainstream

A racist conspiracy theory is believed to have motivated the suspected gunman in the Buffalo attack. It was once a fringe belief, but it's found its way into the mainstream.

www.npr.org

Is there a difference between:

Theory 1: a conspiracy theory that some secret cabal of Jewish people and Illuminati types are trying to "replace" white-skinned people with Muslims or Latinos

and

Theory 2: a theory that in the U.S., (a) demographics are and have been shifting towards an ever increasing % of Latinos via immigration and birth rates, (b) Latinos have historically voted about 2-1 in favor of Democrats, (c) that Democrats, in general, have more liberal immigration and path-to-citizenship policies, (d) human beings and political parties are motivated by a desire for more power, CONCLUSION: at least one reason for (c) is that Democrats want more power--that it will benefit their party more.

Regarding Theory 2, factual premises (a)-(c),I think, have been pretty mainstream thought for over two decades. Premise (d) doesn't seem like much of a stretch, does it?

Is wrapping up Theory 2 with Theory 1 just a cynical ploy to convince people that believing Conclusion 2 is not only wrong, but actually racist (i.e. it's so wrong don't even listen to the argument because it's verboten)?

I'm really curious about this. I don't buy that there is a cabal of people trying to "replace" white people. But I think quite a few people in the world--including me--would like to see a blending of all peoples together so that we don't have these distinctions anymore in however many hundreds of years it takes (and which is where we are headed anyway). Am I a replacer? If I believe Theory 2, does that make me a racist or a believer in a conspiracy theory?

Finally, it is bizarre to me that the Great Replacement Theory would be a motivating reason for anti-black hatred and this shooting.(No doubt the Buffalo shooter suffers from some mental illness as nearly all these people do.) Black people are increasing as a % of the population, but not at nearly the same rate as Latinos or Asians and the growth is due to bi-racial growth (which I see as beneficial)--the % of people labeled as "black only" is actually decreasing.

Key findings about Black America

The Black population in the U.S. is diverse and growing. Our analysis explores the demographic characteristics of this population in 2019.

www.pewresearch.org

I posted something about GRT earlier in the "At Least 10 Dead" thread, and I'm glad you ran with it.

Of course there's a difference. Your "Theory 1" is the essence of the Great Replacement Theory. Your "Theory" 2 isn't theory at all. It's fact. Your "CONCLUSION" is theory. But perceiving (and even happily perceiving) shifting demographics as benefiting one's political party is a far cry from endorsing a baseless conspiracy theory that a cabal is orchestrating the shift.

Finally, with respect to your reluctance to accept that the Great Replacement Theory is a motivating reason for black hatred (and, I would add, Jewish hatred), just check out the shooter's manifesto. This is hardly breaking news, but neo-Nazis and white supremacists don't like blacks. To your credit, your skepticism is at least partly a function of the fact that you don't frequent sites like 4chan or the one Andrew Anglin curates. The Buffalo shooter wrote that he was exposed to the Great Replacement Theory on 4chan and its message board. The guy was radicalized online and hates Jews and dark-skinned people.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

It seem strange that the two theory’s you have laid out have been conflated to such an extent by some in the last couple days. I ascribe to Theory 2. Democrats have openly touted how shifting demographics spell DOOM for the Republican Party for the better part of two decades now. Whether that proves to be true or not I believe, it’s the only rational explanation for why an administration that claims to believe in border security continues to deliberately undermine it.

Illegal immigration concerns do not amount to Replacement theory but that is the line being drawn.

Theory 2 is Tucker Carlsons argument as well I believe (who isn’t mentioned once in the shooters manifesto btw). But that hasn’t stopped people from comparing him to Charles Manson and other such nonsense in recent days.

And as you mentioned, Tucker’s complaints seem to always being in the context of Mexican illegal immigrants, who believe it or not, are not the same thing as black people.

With respect to paragraph 1.......I think there is also a second simpler, well-documented reason for the Dems......they really hate red state Caucasians and their blue state allies and therefore support actions/activities that tend to harm/target them. It doesn't even matter that the same policies harm many AAs, and Hispanics who were legal immigrants. They promised they wouldn't protect the border. That's one promise they kept. What else can explain Joe's complete disinterest in immigration-related fentanyl deaths? Do you recall him saying anything about the subject since he stumbled into the Oval Office?

Do you remember Joe rushing to Waukesha after the black dude intentionally drove through the Christmas parade, killing 5 and wounding 50 others? Neither do I. Did he even personally SAY anything about that incident? If so, I don't remember it. They take this stuff personally. They literally do not care whether you live or die, other than they'd prefer the latter.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I posted something about GRT earlier in the "At Least 10 Dead" thread, and I'm glad you ran with it.

Of course there's a difference. Your "Theory 1" is the essence of the Great Replacement Theory. Your "Theory" 2 isn't theory at all. It's fact. Your "CONCLUSION" is theory. But perceiving (and even happily perceiving) shifting demographics as benefiting one's political party is a far cry from endorsing a baseless conspiracy theory that a cabal is orchestrating the shift.

Finally, with respect to your reluctance to accept that the Great Replacement Theory is a motivating reason for black hatred (and, I would add, Jewish hatred), just check out the shooter's manifesto. This is hardly breaking news, but neo-Nazis and white supremacists don't like blacks. To your credit, your skepticism is at least partly a function of the fact that you don't frequent sites like 4chan or the one Andrew Anglin curates. The Buffalo shooter wrote that he was exposed to the Great Replacement Theory on 4chan and its message board. The guy was radicalized online and hates Jews and dark-skinned people.

To focus in on your paragraph 2, do you believe that Conclusion 2 is a baseless conspiracy theory?

 

[Bowlmania]

The young are likely to develop their worldview from their parents or their peers. The more people come in human contact with different people, the less prone they are to adopting a monolithic worldview.

That Tucker Carlson has such a large platform and uses it to foster a monolithic worldview tells us there are a lot of parents sharing that view.

We need more factors in society exposing people to the humanity in different people.

I agree with your comment about exposure to different people, but I think you might be overlooking the outsize influence of the internet.

 

[bawlmer]

Do you remember Joe rushing to Waukesha after the black dude intentionally drove through the Christmas parade, killing 5 and wounding 50 others? Neither do I. Did he even personally SAY anything about that incident? If so, I don't remember it. They take this stuff personally. They literally do not care whether you live or die, other than they'd prefer the latter.

This may help jog your memory. Just trying to keep it real here.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I agree with your comment about exposure to different people, but I think you might be overlooking the outsize influence of the internet.

Especially for those who are not interacting with the world for reasons other than their parents.

This person was mentally ill. For many who are (not all), it is difficult to interact with other people because they are perceived as weird, or different, or crazy. It's not uncommon for the mental illness to make the person combative or difficult. (I obviously don't know if any of this applies to the Buffalo shooter, but it would actually surprise me if it didn't).

So if you still want or need interaction with people (and we all do), where do you go? The internet. Like most things, that could be good or bad.

 

[iuwclurker]

I agree with your comment about exposure to different people, but I think you might be overlooking the outsize influence of the internet.

I don’t underestimate the influence of the Internet. I think the big problem is lack or scarcity of actual face-to-face human contact. (There are other problems involved too, such as not having a sensible activity in one’s life.) I suspect people with a reasonable amount of diverse human contact are less influenced by the Internet.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

This may help jog your memory. Just trying to keep it real here.

View embedded media

Thanks, I did not remember that. What came of his administration 'monitoring the situation closely'? Did the JD file criminal charges?

 

[Bowlmania]

To focus in on your paragraph 2, do you believe that Conclusion 2 is a baseless conspiracy theory?

No.

 

[outside shooter]

I still want to know what the parents were doing/thinking when this kid was compiling his big arsenal of guns, ammo, body armor, and filling his days with browsing hate-filled corners of the dark web and writing his 180-page rant. Surely that level of hate would have manifested itself in some chilling exchanges with Mom and Dad. He was apparently identified as a threat to shoot up his high school. Mom, Dad, did you do anything? Try some therapy? Limit his spending, much of it likely before age 18?

 

[IUCrazy2]

I don't disagree with your points on D entirely, but there is a different take I will offer. For some undoubtedly it is power. But for me, I think of it as a brake release. The GOP has gotten really good at being the brake that prevents the car from moving forward even marginally in many issues. My hope is to attract Latino voters the GOP finally sees some reforms that need to be done. Child care and health care are the two I would suggest as a quick look at the polling shows those are two areas Latinos are well left of the GOP. Frankly, I would love for the GOP to develop plans for those two areas and compete with ideas rather than just "no, hell no, oh my God, NO".

That is literally a power move, not only that, it is a power move based on intentionally ignoring written law in order to stack the deck in your favor. It is also why you often see conservatives say that Democrats are in favor of an "open border" and there is always push back on that idea. However, it is undoubtedly true. "We still want to check people but we will let everyone through who doesn't have a criminal record or something similar" is an open border.

You don't want to replace conservative white people, you just want to game the system in order to put them at a permanent minority. See also court stacking, taking away the electoral college, etc., etc.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

That is literally a power move, not only that, it is a power move based on intentionally ignoring written law in order to stack the deck in your favor. It is also why you often see conservatives say that Democrats are in favor of an "open border" and there is always push back on that idea. However, it is undoubtedly true. "We still want to check people but we will let everyone through who doesn't have a criminal record or something similar" is an open border.

You don't want to replace conservative white people, you just want to game the system in order to put them at a permanent minority. See also court stacking, taking away the electoral college, etc., etc.

Biden gives 2 shits about the law or the Constitution.

 

[IU_Hickory]

With respect to paragraph 1.......I think there is also a second simpler, well-documented reason for the Dems......they really hate red state Caucasians and their blue state allies and therefore support actions/activities that tend to harm/target them. It doesn't even matter that the same policies harm many AAs, and Hispanics who were legal immigrants. They promised they wouldn't protect the border. That's one promise they kept. What else can explain Joe's complete disinterest in immigration-related fentanyl deaths? Do you recall him saying anything about the subject since he stumbled into the Oval Office?

Do you remember Joe rushing to Waukesha after the black dude intentionally drove through the Christmas parade, killing 5 and wounding 50 others? Neither do I. Did he even personally SAY anything about that incident? If so, I don't remember it. They take this stuff personally. They literally do not care whether you live or die, other than they'd prefer the latter.

getting high a little early today?

 

[cosmickid]

The 'great replacement' conspiracy theory isn't fringe anymore, it's mainstream

A racist conspiracy theory is believed to have motivated the suspected gunman in the Buffalo attack. It was once a fringe belief, but it's found its way into the mainstream.

www.npr.org

Is there a difference between:

Theory 1: a conspiracy theory that some secret cabal of Jewish people and Illuminati types are trying to "replace" white-skinned people with Muslims or Latinos

and

Theory 2: a theory that in the U.S., (a) demographics are and have been shifting towards an ever increasing % of Latinos via immigration and birth rates, (b) Latinos have historically voted about 2-1 in favor of Democrats, (c) that Democrats, in general, have more liberal immigration and path-to-citizenship policies, (d) human beings and political parties are motivated by a desire for more power, CONCLUSION: at least one reason for (c) is that Democrats want more power--that it will benefit their party more.

Regarding Theory 2, factual premises (a)-(c),I think, have been pretty mainstream thought for over two decades. Premise (d) doesn't seem like much of a stretch, does it?

Is wrapping up Theory 2 with Theory 1 just a cynical ploy to convince people that believing Conclusion 2 is not only wrong, but actually racist (i.e. it's so wrong don't even listen to the argument because it's verboten)?

I'm really curious about this. I don't buy that there is a cabal of people trying to "replace" white people. But I think quite a few people in the world--including me--would like to see a blending of all peoples together so that we don't have these distinctions anymore in however many hundreds of years it takes (and which is where we are headed anyway). Am I a replacer? If I believe Theory 2, does that make me a racist or a believer in a conspiracy theory?

Finally, it is bizarre to me that the Great Replacement Theory would be a motivating reason for anti-black hatred and this shooting.(No doubt the Buffalo shooter suffers from some mental illness as nearly all these people do.) Black people are increasing as a % of the population, but not at nearly the same rate as Latinos or Asians and the growth is due to bi-racial growth (which I see as beneficial)--the % of people labeled as "black only" is actually decreasing.

Key findings about Black America

The Black population in the U.S. is diverse and growing. Our analysis explores the demographic characteristics of this population in 2019.

www.pewresearch.org

There was a pretty good discussion on the distinction between the two this am on Morning Joe. People need to remember that although he is anti-Trump and due primarily to Trump's influx on the GOP Scarborough resigned from the GOP and registered as an Independent, that he is still a traditional Conservative at heart. Not only did he serve 3 terms as the Congressman from one of the reddest districts in the country (FL-1 in the Panhandle), but he was a member of the wave of GOP Reps who were swept in to Congress and a proud signee of Newt's Contract With America. Just establishing that on economics at least, he is right of center...

At any rate, he has no difficulty pointing out the difference between an inevitable demographic fact (#2) and the Conspiracy theory that is #1. And even though you don't want to involve Tucker, the reality is that when you bring the same conspiracy theories that have been cited by multiple far right killers in their passed along, published manifestos to your "mainstream" program- someone is sharing sources. The question is respective motives...

The reason these killers author and share manifestos in the first place is not to be regarded as "original thinkers". They want to pass along and SHARE their manifesto in hopes that it will inspire others to emulate them... That's why for many of them Tarrant's rampage and his published manifesto have become a template. But the question is why is Tucker bringing these same ideas to the mainstream, since presumably he is not secretly wanting people to emulate them and kill others?

This is how far right neo-nazis reacted to a broadcast from April 2021, in which Tucker went all in on #1...

"In the days following Tucker Carlson’s vitriolic, xenophobic commentary about demographic change, most white supremacist reactions were supportive of the Fox News personality and praised him for railing against “white genocide.” Some suggested that Carlson is finally showing his true colors and fully embracing white nationalism. One 4Chan poster wrote: “As predicted, Carlson is our guy.”

You are being redirected...

Here is how Scarborough details the differences between 1 and 2, and why believing in #1 is racism from the true believers, and political expediency from the people pushing it (like Tucker) who know it's false...

 

[IU_Hickory]

Biden gives 2 shits about the law or the Constitution.

that's 2 more than trump gave

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That is literally a power move, not only that, it is a power move based on intentionally ignoring written law in order to stack the deck in your favor. It is also why you often see conservatives say that Democrats are in favor of an "open border" and there is always push back on that idea. However, it is undoubtedly true. "We still want to check people but we will let everyone through who doesn't have a criminal record or something similar" is an open border.

You don't want to replace conservative white people, you just want to game the system in order to put them at a permanent minority. See also court stacking, taking away the electoral college, etc., etc.

I am not sure about the "you". If the GOP cared about childcare and healthcare I wouldn't give a damn which party is in power. If Texas doesn't like what the feds do, develop their own plans. That's federalism, right? Instead it is a continual litany of "no".

As to gaming the system, look at something like DACA. Huge numbers support doing something for the people in that program, including a majority of Republicans:

Americans broadly support legal status for immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children

91% of Democrats favor granting legal status to immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally as children; 54% of Republicans say the same.

www.pewresearch.org

The minority, representing a small potion of Americans, can tie up DACA through the filibuster. That isn't gaming the system?

Robb: How a DACA deal 'died' in the Senate, despite bipartisan support

A bipartisan majority in the Senate voted to give dreamers legal status and a path to citizenship. But a virtual filibuster killed it.

www.azcentral.com

I like the idea of the filibuster, but it must be returned to the old days of someone standing there talking until they dropped, ala Mr Smith Goes to Washington. The modern filibuster is WAY too easy and makes passing anything almost impossible. It is gaming the system. And yes, I know there will be a GOP senate soon and that the older filibuster will almost certainly help them far more than Democrats in the 6 months remaining.

Anyone who doesn't believe the filibuster has become too easy is being intentionally obtuse or they haven't thought it through. And we have made up lore about it. The filibuster was not part of the original Senate. The Senate and House had identical rules until 1806 when Aaron Burr, shooting unarmed man champion of his era, suggested the Senate rulebook was too cluttered and needed trimming. He cut the rule about not having a simple majority to move on with business. There was no debate on protecting rights, he cut that rule and others and the Senate voted yes. We made up the great altruistic purpose. And to show it wasn't something they planned, it was 31 years until someone used it. In all the debates that happened in those 31 years, many over slavery, doesn't it seem strange no one thought, "hey, we have this filibuster rule to protect our losing cause"?

How Aaron Burr may have created the filibuster by mistake - Roll Call

Despite its dominance over the Senate today, the filibuster may have actually come about by accident due to a speech by Aaron Burr in 1805.

rollcall.com

But it has become tradition even if the reason is wrong. I'm not saying get rid of it, just turn it back to the filibuster that existed for a very long time. Stand there, read a book, and try to outlast the other side.

 

[hoosboot]

you just want to game the system in order to put them at a permanent minority.

Wrong.

And how does the electoral college stop the GOP from being "a permanent minority"? It currently empowers the GOP as a minority.

 

[cosmickid]

Biden gives 2 shits about the law or the Constitution.

Biden like millions of others greatly revere the Constitution based on how we interpret the Constitution. Millions of others, like you interpret various aspects of the document in different ways and that difference has existed ever since it was originally drafted.

It's a little silly to argue that only 1 possible definition of various terms and meanings prevails, when the founding fathers themselves had huge disagreements over how they defined various issues discussed in the Constitution. Of course the fathers never envisioned such a vast country with huge swaths of diverse people, and most of their life experiences involved being subjects of an Imperial power.

I honestly don't think Trump is much of a constitutional scholar. But excluding him, there are plenty of other Republicans I might disagree with politically that I'd still acknowledge their sincere belief in whatever interpretation of the Constitution that they purport to believe in. I'd likely disagree, but I wouldn't deny them acknowledgement of their sincere belief in their reading of the Constitution...

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

There was a pretty good discussion on the distinction between the two this am on Morning Joe. People need to remember that although he is anti-Trump and due primarily to Trump's influx on the GOP Scarborough resigned from the GOP and registered as an Independent, that he is still a traditional Conservative at heart. Not only did he serve 3 terms as the Congressman from one of the reddest districts in the country (FL-1 in the Panhandle), but he was a member of the wave of GOP Reps who were swept in to Congress and a proud signee of Newt's Contract With America. Just establishing that on economics at least, he is right of center...

At any rate, he has no difficulty pointing out the difference between an inevitable demographic fact (#2) and the Conspiracy theory that is #1. And even though you don't want to involve Tucker, the reality is that when you bring the same conspiracy theories that have been cited by multiple far right killers in their passed along, published manifestos to your "mainstream" program- someone is sharing sources. The question is respective motives...

The reason these killers author and share manifestos in the first place is not to be regarded as "original thinkers". They want to pass along and SHARE their manifesto in hopes that it will inspire others to emulate them... That's why for many of them Tarrant's rampage and his published manifesto have become a template. But the question is why is Tucker bringing these same ideas to the mainstream, since presumably he is not secretly wanting people to emulate them and kill others?

This is how far right neo-nazis reacted to a broadcast from April 2021, in which Tucker went all in on #1...

"In the days following Tucker Carlson’s vitriolic, xenophobic commentary about demographic change, most white supremacist reactions were supportive of the Fox News personality and praised him for railing against “white genocide.” Some suggested that Carlson is finally showing his true colors and fully embracing white nationalism. One 4Chan poster wrote: “As predicted, Carlson is our guy.”

You are being redirected...

Here is how Scarborough details the differences between 1 and 2, and why believing in #1 is racism from the true believers, and political expediency from the people pushing it (like Tucker) who know it's false...

View embedded media

So the video link you sent is in line with my initial question: it explicitly said that the Republican statement that Dems want open borders and amnesty to get more Dem voters is racist.

 

[iuwclurker]

That is literally a power move, not only that, it is a power move based on intentionally ignoring written law in order to stack the deck in your favor. It is also why you often see conservatives say that Democrats are in favor of an "open border" and there is always push back on that idea. However, it is undoubtedly true. "We still want to check people but we will let everyone through who doesn't have a criminal record or something similar" is an open border.

You don't want to replace conservative white people, you just want to game the system in order to put them at a permanent minority. See also court stacking, taking away the electoral college, etc., etc.

Bottom line, one person, one vote. Nothing forces Republicans to have the party platform they have, liked or disliked.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Wrong.

And how does the electoral college stop the GOP from being "a permanent minority"? It currently empowers the GOP as a minority.

Not wrong. You cannot win the arguments you want to win with the present make up of the electorate, so you allow the illegal mass immigration of poor, low skilled workers into the country who come from areas where the government taking care of them is more common. And all of that, as Marvin indicated, is to move the Overton window on certain conversations that the Democrats cannot do now. "After we have settled that argument, then we can get back to a split." But then you have already set the playing field. Government programs never expire. Ever.

As to your second paragraph, yes, the Electoral College is set up to protect the minority because of the excesses of pure Democracy. The Democrats now believe that they have the upper hand (barely) in populist votes and so they want to do away with the protections set within our government to protect the minority.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Bottom line, one person, one vote. Nothing forces Republicans to have the party platform they have, liked or disliked.

So we can break the law to do that? Because if it is all about power, than I want to block all the Latin countries who are more likely to vote Democrat and only import from Latin areas where a GOP voter is more likely. Immigration law doesn't matter after all.

 

[iuwclurker]

So we can break the law to do that? Because if it is all about power, than I want to block all the Latin countries who are more likely to vote Democrat and only import from Latin areas where a GOP voter is more likely. Immigration law doesn't matter after all.

I don’t even know what you’re talking about with this breaking the law business.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Biden like millions of others greatly revere the Constitution based on how we interpret the Constitution.

Biden does not revere the constitution. He disregards it frequently with his words and deeds. When he uses it as an instrument to advance his agenda, he doesn’t know what he is talking about. And I’m not talking about haggling over words and phrases. I’m talking about the basic structure of government. He doesn’t get it. The states hold plenary power to govern, not the federal government. Biden doesn’t even know what the previous sentence means.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I don’t even know what you’re talking about with this breaking the law business.

We have immigration laws on the books. The Democrats refuse to enforce them and encourage people to flout them.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Biden does not revere the constitution. He disregards it frequently with his words and deeds. When he uses it as an instrument to advance his agenda, he doesn’t know what he is talking about. And I’m not talking about haggling over words and phrases. I’m talking about the basic structure of government. He doesn’t get it. The states hold plenary power to govern, not the federal government. Biden doesn’t even know what the previous sentence means.

Eviction stay, vax mandates, all in the first year. He has to work for the Dem party

 

[larsIU]

so you allow the illegal mass immigration of poor, low skilled workers into the country who come from areas where the government taking care of them is more common

Yes, but the "illegal mass immigration of poor, low skilled workers" does not represent a voting bloc. Because they can't vote.

Also, I'm not real sure how robust the social welfare programs are in Central American countries.

 

[zeke4ahs]

That is literally a power move, not only that, it is a power move based on intentionally ignoring written law in order to stack the deck in your favor. It is also why you often see conservatives say that Democrats are in favor of an "open border" and there is always push back on that idea. However, it is undoubtedly true. "We still want to check people but we will let everyone through who doesn't have a criminal record or something similar" is an open border.

You don't want to replace conservative white people, you just want to game the system in order to put them at a permanent minority. See also court stacking, taking away the electoral college, etc., etc.

Or how about Republicans try to do something so minorities would be more likely to vote for them? Why do you think they vote mostly democratic? The huge majority of Democrats are not for open borders. It seems a little bit of a stretch to think the reason is to make a bigger voting block.
As for courts, expanding wasn’t discussed until Mitch started his shenanigans to take a seat.
As for electoral college, at some point the majority gets tired of being ruled by the minority. Republican Senators represent over 40 million less people.

 

[Bowlmania]

Biden does not revere the constitution. He disregards it frequently with his words and deeds. When he uses it as an instrument to advance his agenda, he doesn’t know what he is talking about. And I’m not talking about haggling over words and phrases. I’m talking about the basic structure of government. He doesn’t get it. The states hold plenary power to govern, not the federal government. Biden doesn’t even know what the previous sentence means.

If you want to argue Biden's been a shitty president, have at it. But arguing that he "frequently disregards" the Constitution is utter nonsense.

But back to the thread title. What do you think of the Great Replacement Theory? You Trumpers have been uncharacteristically quiet on this issue.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The 'great replacement' conspiracy theory isn't fringe anymore, it's mainstream

A racist conspiracy theory is believed to have motivated the suspected gunman in the Buffalo attack. It was once a fringe belief, but it's found its way into the mainstream.

www.npr.org

Is there a difference between:

Theory 1: a conspiracy theory that some secret cabal of Jewish people and Illuminati types are trying to "replace" white-skinned people with Muslims or Latinos

and

Theory 2: a theory that in the U.S., (a) demographics are and have been shifting towards an ever increasing % of Latinos via immigration and birth rates, (b) Latinos have historically voted about 2-1 in favor of Democrats, (c) that Democrats, in general, have more liberal immigration and path-to-citizenship policies, (d) human beings and political parties are motivated by a desire for more power, CONCLUSION: at least one reason for (c) is that Democrats want more power--that it will benefit their party more.

Regarding Theory 2, factual premises (a)-(c),I think, have been pretty mainstream thought for over two decades. Premise (d) doesn't seem like much of a stretch, does it?

Is wrapping up Theory 2 with Theory 1 just a cynical ploy to convince people that believing Conclusion 2 is not only wrong, but actually racist (i.e. it's so wrong don't even listen to the argument because it's verboten)?

I'm really curious about this. I don't buy that there is a cabal of people trying to "replace" white people. But I think quite a few people in the world--including me--would like to see a blending of all peoples together so that we don't have these distinctions anymore in however many hundreds of years it takes (and which is where we are headed anyway). Am I a replacer? If I believe Theory 2, does that make me a racist or a believer in a conspiracy theory?

Finally, it is bizarre to me that the Great Replacement Theory would be a motivating reason for anti-black hatred and this shooting.(No doubt the Buffalo shooter suffers from some mental illness as nearly all these people do.) Black people are increasing as a % of the population, but not at nearly the same rate as Latinos or Asians and the growth is due to bi-racial growth (which I see as beneficial)--the % of people labeled as "black only" is actually decreasing.

Key findings about Black America

The Black population in the U.S. is diverse and growing. Our analysis explores the demographic characteristics of this population in 2019.

www.pewresearch.org

People like CO.H in the other thread and Crazy in this very thread are explicitly accusing Democrats of purposefully attempting to make whites a minority. So who is really doing the conflating here, and what do you think they might be trying to deflect from?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

People like CO.H in the other thread and Crazy in this very thread are explicitly accusing Democrats of purposefully attempting to make whites a minority. So who is really doing the conflating here, and what do you think they might be trying to deflect from?

I will add, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, UK, Norway, and Sweden are all left of the US. If the goal was to have a massive voting advantage we could bring in more from those countries, they would almost certainly be more Democratic and they are mostly White.

 

[hoosboot]

Not wrong. You cannot win the arguments you want to win with the present make up of the electorate, so you allow the illegal mass immigration of poor, low skilled workers into the country who come from areas where the government taking care of them is more common. And all of that, as Marvin indicated, is to move the Overton window on certain conversations that the Democrats cannot do now. "After we have settled that argument, then we can get back to a split." But then you have already set the playing field. Government programs never expire. Ever.

As to your second paragraph, yes, the Electoral College is set up to protect the minority because of the excesses of pure Democracy. The Democrats now believe that they have the upper hand (barely) in populist votes and so they want to do away with the protections set within our government to protect the minority.

Your arguments are laughable, Crazy.

On one hand in your first paragraph you baselessly and laughably suggest that I (by that I assume you mean Democrats) can't win arguments on the basis of popular vote and then admit in the second paragraph that Democrats are winning arguments on the basis of popular votes (which you try to smear by calling them "populist votes"). Given your lens on this, I suppose that means you are desperate to preserve minority rule because you are the one who can't win the popular vote.

Maybe if I had a shallow, power-hungry, power-centric view of government like yours, I might attribute my own shortcomings to those I disagree with politically. Thankfully, I don't.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

People like CO.H in the other thread and Crazy in this very thread are explicitly accusing Democrats of purposefully attempting to make whites a minority. So who is really doing the conflating here, and what do you think they might be trying to deflect from?

I don't think Crazy meant Dems were purposefully trying to make (all) whites a minority. Instead, I think he was referring to conservatives, and if he thought about it, he'd probably eliminate the word "white" in the sentence above. I don't know what CoH said.

I'd bet that if someone proposed a policy that allowed in a giant group of Indians/Nigerians/Cubans who were projected to vote 2-1 Republican, Democrats would be against it and Crazy and most mainstream Republicans for it.

But for you, then, do you see Conclusion 2 above as racist?

 

[iuwclurker]

Yes, but the "illegal mass immigration of poor, low skilled workers" does not represent a voting bloc. Because they can't vote.

Also, I'm not real sure how robust the social welfare programs are in Central American countries.

Furthermore, demographic predictions of an eventual white minority are not necessarily based on illegal immigrants arriving. One area where wealth inequality favors non-whites over whites is in the sperm bank.