The Great Replacement
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another? -Bertolt Brecht, “The Solution”
America is a nation of immigrants. No doubt you’ve heard this old chestnut more than a few times when debating immigration policy, as if that notion in and of itself precludes the country from being able to exercise evaluative judgements on the kind and quantity of immigrants that have the privilege of coming to live, work, and eventually become citizens of the United States. It also paralyzes the ability of the average citizen without the requisite vocabulary to voice their reservations about the changing composition of their country. Instinctively, many people are aware that what Peter Brimelow and VDare call the Historic American Nation is being erased, so there is something intrinsic in the conception of what it means to be American.
America began as a nation of immigrants—European immigrants. The Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted naturalization to “any alien, being a free white person” of good moral standing, and required an oath to support the Constitution. We’ve since removed the racial strictures on citizenship, of course, but it is vital to understand the philosophical underpinnings and the historical context that frame the United States as a nation if we are to suitably defend it. I’m not saying we should only extend citizenship to whites, but it is worth considering the implications of demographic sea change and a de-emphasizing of character and a commitment to the Constitution moving forward if the United States as it was constructed is to have a future. It is entirely possible, probable in fact, that the United States must maintain a super-majority of those of European descent for it to remain, well, the United States, but I do not believe that it has to be exclusively so. Like it or not, blacks have been a fixture of American life for four centuries, and there are many people around the globe who share our values and would love to become a part of the American fabric. If we decide to continue accepting immigrants—and it is by no means a given that we should—we need to be extremely judicious about who, exactly, these people are and what benefits they may potentially bring to our nation.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy first differentiates between a nation and a state—“whereas a nation often consists of an ethnic or cultural community, a state is a political entity with a high degree of sovereignty”—before elaborating that nationalism:
Centrally encompasses two phenomena… (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their identity as members of that nation and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take in seeking to achieve (or sustain) some form of political sovereignty.
The word “nation” is derived from the Latin natio, which is translated as: “native place,” birth, people, race, and class. This is an extraordinarily dense word, one with so many connotations it is little wonder its essence has remained contentious to this day. Understanding what, exactly, a nation—our nation—is, however, is absolutely vital to framing essentially all of the existential debates surrounding its purpose, its function, and its very existence.
Montserrat Guibernau defines the nation as, “A human group conscious of forming a community, sharing a common culture, attached to a clearly demarcated territory, having a common past and a common project for the future and claiming the right to rule itself.” The nation, then, is as much a reflection of its people as it is a parcel of land—much more so, in fact. We can consider the nation to be a living organism, much like the human body, where something as seemingly minor as the changing composition of gut bacteria can have significant effects on the body’s health and well-being, and even psychological state.
A nation that is civilizationally confident enough can be more dexterous in absorbing different peoples, and historically the United States, though far from perfect, had until recently come closest to this ideal via an emphasis on individual liberty. Regarding the much-vaunted pluralism of classical liberals, this essentially holds that diverse groups may reflexively improve each other via cultural enrichment—hence why policing cultural appropriation is a civilizational dead end—and open channels of dialogue. That all being said, the various ethnicities in question were almost exclusively of European origin, and Israel Zangwill’s “melting pot” was uni-continental: “America is God’s Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming” (my emphasis added). Contrast this with multi-culturalism, which allows for essentially parallel sub-societies within one larger one, where broad agreement on who we are as a people is lost to tribal self-interest. Voting becomes its own kind of internecine warfare, and each group feels that by necessity they must keep their knives sharpened in order to cut out their slice of the pie and defend themselves as they endeavor to do so.
Identity politics for all but whites, academia-fueled Cultural Marxism, and the race grievance industry all contribute to the toxic atmosphere of public discourse and make it extraordinarily difficult to engage in productive dialogue exploring complex issues. Mass immigration only compounds the problem. Targeted immigration or light immigration would enable both the native and immigrant populations time to acclimate to each other without the rapid de-stabilization that comes from too much change too quickly. Human beings are creatures of habit, and we struggle pretty much universally with large-scale change. It’s not bigoted to suggest it might take someone some time to get used to their new neighbors who have different customs and different ways of seeing the world. In fact, it is bigoted to assume a specific paradigm where only “certain people” have reservations about “certain immigrants.” To paraphrase a friend of mine whose assessment I like very much: “If you’re one of the mostly gun-less Europeans, and Boko Haram is setting up shop the next street over, would you feel just a touch uneasy?” I think we would do well to re-assert Western values of individualism and liberty, but this also need not mean we ignore the substantial biological differences between the races, which is where civic nationalism falls short.
Immigration policy, which until 1875 was solely the province of individual U.S. states, is set by the federal government with essentially no input by the American people. Immigration policy is just that—policy. The effete, sentimental notions that have hijacked the debate about who should or should not be able to come into the country are having profoundly destructive effects. Immigration might just be the most consequential policy issue of this generation, for demographic transformation is changing the fabric of what we have always understood as American. In the time period from 1790 to 1912, all immigration accelerated capital stock gains by a mere decade compared to where the country would’ve been if there was zero immigration. What this means is that the founding colonial stock has been almost exclusively responsible for the country’s economic growth, and any additional immigration approaching the 1924 cut-off had only slight benefits to the country. Hence, immigration, which is taken as a fixture of life these days, is by no means necessary, and as we’ve seen post-1965, far from being beneficial, even slightly as was the case in the 19th and early 20th centuries, has proven to be a major detriment to the country at large.
Japan has the third-largest developed economy on the planet with nonexistent immigration. The Polish economy is growing at a whopping 4%—with nonexistent immigration. The United States’ economy in the 1950s grew at 4% as well, with, you guessed it, nonexistent immigration! We also landed on the moon. In terms of economic output, we want to emphasize quality over quantity and besides, to quote Peter Brimelow, “Public policy is subsidizing [peoples’] choosiness about work, thus artificially stimulating the demand for immigrants.” Even if we needed more warm bodies for labor (keep in mind we are already the third most populous country on earth), why not incentivize people who are already here to have more children by making it less expensive? Peter Brimelow, among others such as Douglas Murray, have asked this very same, perfectly logical and very practical question. Why not incentivize marriage and reproductive efforts with large tax breaks, especially since there exists a gap between the number of children Western women are actually having versus the number they really desire?
Incidentally, for the United States, their dearth of births coincides with massive spikes across the rest of the planet. Jobs once held by teenagers in the U.S. are now going to the immigration lottery winner from Ghana or Egypt. With technological innovation, many of these jobs won’t even exist in the near future. If we’re losing an increasing number of jobs to automation, then why the insatiable demand for more unskilled labor? We’re already struggling to find gainful employment for millions of Americans, so what’s the sense in importing millions more people, most of whom are entirely uninterested in the American project and view our nation as a cash cow to be bilked and milked?
Much of Europe has fallen into the same trap of importing huge numbers of people who, to be charitable, have little to offer their new countries, and are often downright hostile to their new environs. Instead of augmenting their native populations, the governments of most of the major Western and Central European nations have decided to import wholesale entirely new populations. Douglas Murray makes a great point:
For even if you believe...that some immigration is a good thing and makes a country a more interesting place, it does not follow that the more immigration the better. Nor does it mean—however many upsides there are—that there are not downsides which should be easy to state without accusations of malice. For mass immigration does not continue bringing the same level of benefits to a society the more people who come in.
Economic growth is largely driven by ideas and innovations, not cheap labor that brings disease and tribalism to the country. Why, for example, have we in the United States re-settled over 100,000 Somalis in formerly high-trust, low-crime areas like Lewiston, Maine; Shelbyville, Tennessee; and Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota? With an average IQ of 68, two points below clinical retardation, what will these people bring to an increasingly cognitively-intensive labor market? What possible benefit can they contribute to the economy? We know the costs: Minnesota recently spent millions of taxpayer dollars to contain a measles outbreak among its largely unvaccinated Somalian population, and there have been a pair of high-profile incidents involving a wrongful death at the hands of police officer Mohamed Noor in Minneapolis and the arrest at a Ja Rule and Ashanti concert of Maine’s first Somali Muslim police officer Zahra Munye Abu, who was charged with assault, battery, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and trespassing.
The refugee re-settlement racket, mass immigration, bogus asylum applications—this is the world we live in. Colonialism is alive and well, but like another creaky ideology in Marxism, it’s got a new paint job. These large-scale importations—despite the protest of the native populations—are presented as an indisputably positive change, as if the dispossession of ethnic Europeans of their native homelands is a cause for celebration. There’s certainly been plenty of hand-wringing over the “legacy of colonialism and imperialism” in Africa and points beyond, but there’s hardly been a peep about what’s happening to Europe and its international cousins.
There’s a strange paradox in all of this; Western leaders are squeamish about any troop casualties abroad, but seem perfectly willing to let an indefinite number of civilians be raped, maimed, or killed by alien, antagonistic populations. The Muslims in particular have consciously adopted what I call the “Longshanks Strategy” toward their European hosts (English King Edward the Longshanks from Braveheart referring to his policy of Scottish conquest: “If we can’t get them out, we’ll breed them out”). Make no mistake, these teeming millions of “migrants,” almost exclusively young men, are colonists. This is an invasion, albeit the likes of which we’ve never experienced before. The conquered are financing their own dispossession. There are over two million “migrants” receiving state benefits in Germany alone. If a government can no longer protect its people, then it’s lost all legitimacy and should be liquidated in favor of one that will prioritize the interests and safety of its own citizens.
What we’re witnessing is the conscious re-engineering of the social contract and even more fundamentally the population base of the West. The present Leftist authoritarianism initially manifested itself under the auspices of a kind of state-managed liberalism, or in the case of Europe a pan-continental socialist bureaucratic order, but it has inevitably yielded to tyranny. The European Union is a supra-national governing body that has become a globalist monstrosity, consciously subverting the will of the people and implementing policies, particularly as they pertain to immigration, that undermine the sovereignty of the individual nations. Clearly the bureaucratic functionaries and multi-national string-pullers have decided to take Bertolt Brecht seriously and elect a new people. The problem is that their new people are far less docile than the present vintage of Western Man. The New Western Man will bear a striking resemblance to Borat, his affinity for the Kazakh pastime of rape, especially of the Infidel, never quite sated.
How the Brussels bureaucrats and their deep state cohorts in America and around the globe cope with this new reality remains to be seen, but they better be careful what they wish for. If current migration and birth rates hold, Germans, for example, will be a minority in their own country within a few decades, and like neighbors the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and others across Europe, there will be no Germany, even with millions of Germans still residing in the territory. The globalist dream will be realized, but with a catch—Europe will be subsumed by the Dar al-Islam. At that point in time will the globalists be able to receive welfare from their new Muslim overlords? What about the managerial elite in a mocha-colored borderless Western Hemisphere that looks like Brazil from Ellesmere Island to Cape Horn? Will they be livin’ la vida loca in unfathomable opulence, or will the boot of Islam, the African strongman, or the jungle generalissimo be stamping on their face forever? I think we can fairly ask, then, as Aretha Franklin once did, “Who’s zoomin’ who?”
 Montserrat Guibernau, Nationalisms: the Nation-State and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. Polity Press, 1996, p. 47.
 Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, London: Bloomsbury, 2017, p. 28.