Culture The Great Replacement Isn’t Happening. It’s Good That It Is

The Great Replacement Isn’t Happening. It’s Good That It Is


Gregory Hood, October 20, 2020


The Great Replacement” of whites is a myth or a conspiracy theory if you oppose it. If you think it’s a good thing, then it’s real and something to be celebrated. Whether it’s real or not apparently depends on what you believe, not the facts. There are many examples of this double standard. However, it’s rare to see a single writer play this verbal game in a single article.
Roger Cohen’s “Trump’s Last Stand for White America” is practically bait for white advocates. Mr. Cohen begins by invoking Unite the Right 2017. He sees “hate-filled faces, those of the white nationalists in Charlottesville chanting, ‘Jews will not replace us.’” It’s hard to take this seriously. State and local officials allowed and arguably encouraged violence in Charlottesville. The violence, property destruction, and threats that we’re seeing across the country dwarfs what happened in 2017. If “white nationalists” were responsible for the ongoing violence, I suspect we’d already be under martial law. Instead, Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Ken Cuccinelli is complaining about political violence on Twitter as if he had no power to do anything about it.
Open season on conservatives? https://t.co/T2AKTLrjHH
— Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli (@HomelandKen) October 18, 2020

Mr. Cohen says President Trump “has been all about the fear of replacement,” adding, “His has been the stand — I am tempted to say the last stand — of whites against nonwhites.” Mr. Cohen cites Renaud Camus by name. “You have one people,” Mr. Camus said about the Great Replacement, “and in the space of a generation, you have a different people.” This is “grotesque,” Mr. Cohen says. However, soon afterward, Mr. Cohen says replacement “is a good definition of America.” The Great Replacement is happening, the column implies, but it’s bad to protest it because one people being replaced by another is how America is defined.
Mr. Cohen claims that President Trump wants to “freeze a white America,” (if only) but then insists white America is “imaginary,” a “strange blend of Norman Rockwell and ‘Mad Men.’” However, there’s apparently a real political movement built upon this mirage: “Behind ‘America First’ lurks a very un-American credo.”
But just one sentence later we’re out of this verbal hall of mirrors and back in the real world. Mr. Cohen says, “change can be frightening,” and provides examples: “Power has migrated to Asia. America’s recent wars have been unwon. By midcentury, non-Hispanic whites will constitute less than 50 percent of the population. It is frightening to see an industry disappear, like coal in Kentucky.” It seems white America wasn’t imaginary after all, but a real nation that is weakening militarily, economically, and culturally. Are we supposed to celebrate that?
Mr. Cohen doesn’t exactly say we should. Instead, he suggests it is inevitable. We can “opt for the future or burrow self-destructively into some warped fantasy of the past.” Mr. Cohen then appeals to American liberalism’s most enduring “warped fantasy of the past,” the boogeyman Joe McCarthy, and compares President Trump to McCarthy. “American freedom is in decline,” he writes “The freedom to think, because thought depends on truth.”
I agree with Mr. Cohen, but for different reasons. Republican politicians running for re-election may pay a price for criticizing President Trump, but few others do. Taking advantage of familial or professional relationships to smear the president is practically a guarantee of book sales and media coverage. President Trump can’t be much of an autocrat if people get attacked on the streets or lose their jobs for supporting him.
Mr. Cohen is right that our freedom is under attack, but he’s one of the attackers. The New York Times itself is a threat to freedom of speech, regularly running articles undermining the First Amendment and celebrating crackdowns on “disinformation” and “hate speech.”

Mr. Cohen says that he “hold sacred” the “freedom inextricable from the American idea.” He values it with “an unreasonable ardor.” However, didn’t he begin his column by saying that America was defined by change? How can it also be defined by “freedom inextricable from” an idea? Mr. Cohen, a “naturalized citizen,” may have a place to escape to once America is fully engulfed by the Third Word. For him, this may be an intellectual exercise. For most white Americans, this is the only home we have and the stakes are much higher.
Having begun his column by mocking fears of replacement, Mr. Cohen ends with his own version of it. “Time for Americans to look in the mirror,” he says, “and realize their America is irreplaceable if it is lost.” Which America is irreplaceable? America was founded by whites. Whites continue to sustain it. Mr. Cohen’s entire premise is that whites fear losing this America. However, at the conclusion, he invokes an imaginary “America” that will be gone if President Trump is re-elected. This abstract “America” seems to exist within Mr. Cohen’s head and nowhere else.
Of course, Mr. Cohen is again right for the wrong reasons. Our country is irreplaceable if lost. That’s because a nation isn’t an idea, but a people. A nation can recover from pandemics, recessions, and military defeat but it cannot survive racial death. The only real America that has ever existed is “white America.” If we lose that, we lose the country.
Mr. Cohen may be taunting us about white America’s “last stand.” However, I suspect what he’s really afraid of is that this isn’t the end, but the beginning. White America is becoming racially aware and more willing to fight back. This isn’t our last stand, but the first step towards what Sam Francis called the “reconquest of the United States.” That will continue whether President Trump is re-elected or not.


 
Tha's the joke
1597267943714.png- 1.png

ETA: Goddamn I hate webp.
 
White identity isn’t very strong to begin with and it has negative connotations, it’s part of the reason that the left harps on it. It’s a useful boogeyman. If someone says something that they don’t like or can’t argue with, they just label them a white supremacist. It doesn’t even matter if the person is Jewish, Hispanic, or even Black (in which case it’s just internalized racism). It’s useful because it’s so ill defined and malleable and you can just throw it on anyone to dismiss them.

I’d argue one of the reasons white identity isn’t strong is because there have been multiple waves of Europeans who retroactively have been labeled white but weren’t always included. The other is a lot of people don’t just connect because of the color of their skin. Sure there are people who do, and tribes/identities imo can form around just about anything, but the color of ones skin is not really a strong rallying point. Culture, religion, political affiliation, and even regional culture frequently supersede racial identity. A good example of this is what happens to blacks that identify as conservative. It doesn’t matter that they’re black because they are now conservative and thus the enemy. His political affiliation in their eyes trumps out his ethnic background, it doesn’t matter if he’s from the inner city.

The other reason is how ill defined whiteness is. In America what was considered white has shifted significantly over the years. It once excluded Italians, Irish, and even German immigrants but now they’re all considered white. This means that being white has a lot of different definitions depending on who you talk to. There’s also still some resentment in some of these families. German for example was purposefully eradicated because of anti-German sentiment from WWI. German was forbidden in a lot of schools and speaking it could result in corporal punishment. Prohibition was also passed in part because of the association of Germans and Irish with alcohol. In extreme cases, some German and Italian Americans would end up supporting and fighting for the Axis in WWII as an act of defiance. It may not be widely discussed but some of their descendants are still bitter and remember. Is it really a surprise then that an American with Irish, Italian, German, etc. ancestry would not want to support white identity politics? Politics which had previously antagonized their ancestors?

Even if we ignore the antagonism there’s the fact that with multiple waves of immigration from multiple countries that the idea of whiteness and self identity varies a lot. So what an Anglo-American, Irish-American, and German-American would consider to be white would vary a lot because their nations of origin had different traditions. A small illustration of this can be seen in holidays, some give oranges in stockings for Christmas while others don’t have a Santa Claus but rather just the three wisemen.

Religion in many ways is an even bigger factor. For example, a German Catholic from the north will have a concept of “white culture” that’s different from a Baptist from Alabama. This applies to even those with different religions and similar ancestral background. For example a German neo-pagan will have a significantly different idea of whiteness than the aforementioned German Catholic. The former will see Catholicism and Christianity as being not white and as a cultural disaster for Germans. The German Catholic will consider the Christianizing of Germany and the North as a good thing, for obvious reasons. In some ways religion can supersede ancestral differences for example there is more likely to be crossover between a Catholic Cuban’s concept of whiteness with that of the German Catholic’s.

Another major factor is in the size of the United States. Even if everyone who lives in the US were descended from a single wave of immigrants, the differences in geography would result in the local cultures evolving differently: Values, beliefs, and traditions would diverge. In the places where ethnic nationalism does take place it’s often in smaller and more concentrated regions. It can be a strong rallying cry in such a scenario but when you have a populace spread out over a large geographical area this form of identity politics only serves to divide as there’ll be bickering about what does and doesn’t count as being part of that identity.
 
Última edición:
Why do you speds keep posting articles from this lolcow factory? It's at least the second time in a week or two that I've seen an American Renaissance article posted here. I know that A & N has dereriorated since The_Donald died, but this is a new low. At least go all out and post Stormfront articles.
 
Why do you speds keep posting articles from this lolcow factory? It's at least the second time in a week or two that I've seen an American Renaissance article posted here. I know that A & N has dereriorated since The_Donald died, but this is a new low. At least go all out and post Stormfront articles.
I have posted stormfront as well as various communist and even some gaysex websites in the past.

I laugh when people get angry over it. That's why I post them.

It's also funny how selectively angry some people like you get. I've posted literal opinion pieces why jews are the masterrace, or why blacks are better than other races, but something milquetoast like this is what makes you angry. That's just funny to me.
 
Última edición:
I have posted stormfront as well as various communist and even some gaysex websites in the past.

I laugh when people get angry over it. That's why I post them.

It's also funny how selectively angry some people like you get. I've posted literal opinion pieces why jews are the masterrace, or why blacks are better than other races, but something milquetoast like this is what makes you angry. That's just funny to me.

You're the embodiment of this meme

 
White identity isn’t very strong to begin with and it has negative connotations, it’s part of the reason that the left harps on it. It’s a useful boogeyman. If someone says something that they don’t like or can’t argue with, they just label them a white supremacist. It doesn’t even matter if the person is Jewish, Hispanic, or even Black (in which case it’s just internalized racism). It’s useful because it’s so ill defined and malleable and you can just throw it on anyone to dismiss them.

I’d argue one of the reasons white identity isn’t strong is because there have been multiple waves of Europeans who retroactively have been labeled white but weren’t always included. The other is a lot of people don’t just connect because of the color of their skin. Sure there are people who do, and tribes/identities imo can form around just about anything, but the color of ones skin is not really a strong rallying point. Culture, religion, political affiliation, and even regional culture frequently supersede racial identity. A good example of this is what happens to blacks that identify as conservative. It doesn’t matter that they’re black because they are now conservative and thus the enemy. His political affiliation in their eyes trumps out his ethnic background, it doesn’t matter if he’s from the inner city.

The other reason is how ill defined whiteness is. In America what was considered white has shifted significantly over the years. It once excluded Italians, Irish, and even German immigrants but now they’re all considered white. This means that being white has a lot of different definitions depending on who you talk to. There’s also still some resentment in some of these families. German for example was purposefully eradicated because of anti-German sentiment from WWI. German was forbidden in a lot of schools and speaking it could result in corporal punishment. Prohibition was also passed in part because of the association of Germans and Irish with alcohol. In extreme cases, some German and Italian Americans would end up supporting and fighting for the Axis in WWII as an act of defiance. It may not be widely discussed but some of their descendants are still bitter and remember. Is it really a surprise then that an American with Irish, Italian, German, etc. ancestry would not want to support white identity politics? Politics which had previously antagonized their ancestors?

Even if we ignore the antagonism there’s the fact that with multiple waves of immigration from multiple countries that the idea of whiteness and self identity varies a lot. So what an Anglo-American, Irish-American, and German-American would consider to be white would vary a lot because their nations of origin had different traditions. A small illustration of this can be seen in holidays, some give oranges in stockings for Christmas while others don’t have a Santa Claus but rather just the three wisemen.

Religion in many ways is an even bigger factor. For example, a German Catholic from the north will have a concept of “white culture” that’s different from a Baptist from Alabama. This applies to even those with different religions and similar ancestral background. For example a German neo-pagan will have a significantly different idea of whiteness than the aforementioned German Catholic. The former will see Catholicism and Christianity as being not white and as a cultural disaster for Germans. The German Catholic will consider the Christianizing of Germany and the North as a good thing, for obvious reasons. In some ways religion can supersede ancestral differences for example there is more likely to be crossover between a Catholic Cuban’s concept of whiteness with that of the German Catholic’s.

Another major factor is in the size of the United States. Even if everyone who lives in the US were descended from a single wave of immigrants, the differences in geography would result in the local cultures evolving differently: Values, beliefs, and traditions would diverge. In the places where ethnic nationalism does take place it’s often in smaller and more concentrated regions. It can be a strong rallying cry in such a scenario but when you have a populace spread out over a large geographical area this form of identity politics only serves to divide as there’ll be bickering about what does and doesn’t count as being part of that identity.

Whiteness in America is relative. European-Americans are different from each other, but they're far more similar to each other than to blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc., which is why they were able to assimilate the best into WASP America. It's a matter of contrast with other groups. Also, Euro-Americans now underestimate how hard it was for Irish, Italians, etc. to assimilate and how they changed the fundamental Anglo-Saxon character of heritage America (I say this as an Ellis Islander whose ancestors weren't here before about 1890).

Race is much more than skin color, too. Different ethnic groups are associated with cultural and religious aspects like you mention. Whites in America are defined by a particular cultural context relative to other racial groups (the American nation was pretty much a project by Euros for Euros until relatively recently). Biologically, different peoples also adapted different cognitive processes based on their environments - so different peoples think and organize their societies differently. Some are better suited to higher levels of complexity than others. The MAGA hat black guy isn't a white guy with black skin, he's a black man with an abnormal characteristic (a political affiliation typically held by whites) - he's probably still more different than he is similar to a white man.

"Don't think of your interests as a white because the left will yell at you and what does white even mean anyway" doesn't hold water to me, because: (1) the left will always yell at you no matter what, (2) "white" has been decided as our identity in American society since before either of us were born and (3) you will be attacked on the basis of being white no matter how legitimate of an identity it is or whether you accept it. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but if I'm being attacked, my response isn't "well what does being your target conceptually mean anyway, I don't think the label of being your target is very well thought out", it's to fight back.
 
Última edición:
Atrás
Top Abajo