The Great Replacement as a Crime (I. Intro)

The most important issue of the 21st Century

(Note: this essay is the first in a series.)

The Great Replacement is the clearly observable phenomenon of formerly White countries becoming much less White. In each country, this process is, as far as can be seen, unending, so will inevitably result in the White population being absorbed into others and thereby “replaced”. In this essay series I aim to prove that this process is real (not a mere “conspiracy theory”) and intended (not a mere “emergent phenomenon”) and then to test it against various definitions of genocide.

Montem Primary School, London, 1906 and 2023

As this is an extremely contentious topic, we should begin with definitions.

By “White” I mean “genetically European”, regardless of where the person was born or grew up. This is similar to how, by the term “Black”, I mean “genetically Sub-Saharan African”. Such terms have been made controversial within academia in recent decades, but they are completely understandable to ordinary and honest people. (When the race-blind, race-denying cultural Marxist academic is mugged by a Black guy, that is how she will describe her assailant to the police.)

By “formerly White countries” I mean all countries in Europe as well as those founded by Europeans on land they conquered and settled. The latter (United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) were not natively White but the lands were transformed into countries populated and dominated for centuries, by White Europeans. Thus they were known as “White countries”. The classifying of any European country as “White” should not be controversial. Whether Europeans described themselves as “White” in previous centuries is irrelevant.

The Great Replacement is the transformation of these White countries into multiracial, multicultural countries. This transformation is happening at unprecedented scale and speed. Its result will not be a sprinkling of benign diversity, but the White majority diminishing to a minority in every one of these countries.

We can only speculate about what will happen after that - the likely experience of the White minority in its homeland. Like every other minority present it will now have to compete for resources and political favour, but unlike every other minority, it will be a defenestrated former power. That status usually entails suffering contempt and revenge-seeking from others. Both are already in evidence today.

It is absurd to think that minorities will be as kind to us as we have been to them (exceptionally kind). This is why progressives massively miss the point when they smugly ask: “Why are you worried about Whites becoming a minority? Are minorities treated badly or something…?”

The answer is yes, wherever any non-white group rules, minorities tend to get treated abominably. But the experience of a minority which was once in power will be especially bad. Today, contempt for Whites is being encouraged systematically, as if to prime other races to brutalise us once we no longer predominate.

However, while that likely future makes the Great Replacement even more important, it would be important anyway. Losing predominance in one’s homeland is very clearly a bad thing. The idea that we should have to explain why we find it objectionable is outrageous; the idea that we should find it laudable, even more so. No other human group, in all of history, ever desired for themselves what the Great Replacement is doing to us.

Moreover, while that appalling future is likely to follow the Great Replacement, we do not need to prove it will in order to prove the Great Replacement itself. I cannot prove that it will be fatally cold next winter, but I can prove that my house is falling apart today, and that is so even if next winter isn’t fatally cold.

---

It is important at the outset to answer those who say that the Great Replacement can’t be real, because race isn’t real, therefore there is nothing that could be replaced. The argument goes that, while race might appear to be a real thing, it is just an optical (or conceptual) illusion, since the various “races” are so genetically similar, more diversity within them than between, etc. Well, I don’t need to refute these fatuous arguments. I need only point out that the United Nations agrees that racial groups are a real thing. In their famous definition of genocide, they describe it as an act targeting the destruction of:

a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

That was written in 1948, but they continue to refer to racial groups today. Indeed, they explain that the very word “genocide” is derived from:

the Greek prefix genos, meaning race or tribe

This is interesting because, if it is in fact true that race is a fiction, and “there’s only one race, the human race”, then the crime of racial genocide would be, by definition, impossible, since you could neither target “another” race nor ever hope to wipe “one” out (except by eradicating the entire human species). Clearly Raphael Lemkin believed in racial groups, and the United Nations did in 1948 and still does today, and so does everyone who ever committed, suffered or spoke of racial genocide.

The only way racial genocide can be a real crime without race being a real thing is something like the following:

While race is a fiction, racism is real. The person committing genocide believes in race, and that is why he wants to wipe out a particular set of individuals he (erroneously) believes are racially distinct from himself and akin to each other.

To believe the above requires the abandonment of all common sense. But let us assume it is true. Well, if race is a powerful enough fiction to motivate mass killing, it is probably powerful enough to motivate the Great Replacement. And if we are to lament the results (not just the process) of mass killing, then the same must be true of the Great Replacement as well. We try to prevent genocide; we should try to prevent this.

---

Someone could argue that, even if the Great Replacement is happening, it isn’t important, because the change is “peaceful”. Here the United Nations can help again. In their 1946 definition of genocide, they state:

[Genocide] results in great losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions represented by these human groups

If this result is bad when achieved by genocide as such, why not when it is achieved by “peaceful” replacement? The result is the same either way.

Every human group embodies and produces things which are unique to it, and therefore, when it is lost, those things (or the ability or tendency to produce them) are also lost. This is so whether the group is genocided or lost by some other means. If the cultural loss is tragic when the cause is genocide, why is the same loss not equally tragic when the cause is absorption?

Note that the United Nations, in lamenting the cultural loss from genocide, imply that only certain groups can produce certain cultures. They acknowledge that racial identity matters and has tangible consequences. You can’t just impose a generic “rules-based order” and expect everyone to function identically. Racial groups have inherent characteristics and unique value. They don’t have to do anything to achieve or prove their value; it inheres in their very existence.

The question of “superiority” doesn’t enter into it. Human diversity should be preserved for its own sake, for the same reasons that we desire to preserve plant and animal species. We might find some more attractive or admirable than others, but regardless we want to preserve all of them (barring extreme outliers like the pitbull terrier). It is incoherent that we put such store into that task of preservation while claiming that human sub-sets are not worth preserving at all - especially when we simultaneously claim that “diversity” is wonderful.

All of this being the case, of course we should fight to preserve the unique cultures of White countries, and the ethnic groups that embody and produce them.

---

Throughout this series I will use the generic “Norweden” as a placeholder for any European country, with its native ethnic group “the Norwedens”. I will also use the generic placeholder “Bomalians”, meaning Third World immigrants, whether Sub-Saharan, North African, Arab or South Asian. Northeast Asian immigrants (Japanese, etc.) are not included; they are different enough from these other groups, and similar enough to Europeans, that our experience of them as immigrants is drastically different (and better).