With the shooting from last Friday, the topic of the Great Replacement Theory has been on the minds of a lot of political idiots. There is no question that this specific lie (Great Replacement Theory or GRT) was the literal motivation for the mass killing. It was laid out by the shooter in plain terms. Coincidentally, a week or so before the attack, the New York Times had just ran a series of three articles about Tucker Carlson and his espousal of, among other fear-mongering topics, the great replacement theory.
The common backpedaling tactic of GRT espousers is to say that they don't actually believe in the true definition of GRT. They give a very specific definition of GRT by saying it's only about a shadowy cabal of people (sometimes specifically Jewish) in power replacing white people. Then they say they don't believe it. They distance themselves from the actual words GRT, because they're bad words now and they don't want to say they believe in bad things. When GRT wasn't a bad word, they had no problem outright saying it: see September 22, 2021 episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight. The problem with this validation issue is that it seeks no useful end goal. Who are they hoping they will gain acceptance from by moderating the language of the GRT?
In any case, this backpedaling is only a syntactic nuance and not anything of substance. Take for instance Steven Crowder, who recently said he does not believe in the GRT during a show on his Louder with Crowder podcast. Afterwards he explains that the GRT is used by main stream media (specifically CNN) to poison the well of any talk surrounding the issue of Democrats buying votes by purposefully importing immigrants into specific parts of the country. Put simply, he says he believes that a group of people in power are replacing Republican voters with immigrants from countries that haven't "contributed anything to the modern industrialized world." Going further, he also believes that these people in power are controlled by big corporations through a conspiracy to import unskilled immigrants to work for less pay that are somehow also lazy and don't work and live off the government. All the time, being very careful to never mention black people by name and only through inference.
It should be clear that Crowder is describing, almost word for word by his own definition, the exact gameplan of the GRT. A shadowy cabal (big corporation executives) is importing people to displace legitimate workers (nuanced to be immigrants from Europe, during a discussion around the 1965 Immigration Act) and replace them with workers from specifically South America. Is it a feat to imply race while not specifically saying race? Is it impressive to restate the core tenants of the GRT in ambiguous terms? In a rhetorical sense it is, but if the effort is supposed to distance yourself rationally from a racial purist doctrine then it isn't. It's just giving you a comfortable way to hold the same beliefs that ethnographic extremists do.
Demographics change all the time, and that is not a bad thing. Thresholds are hit, things go the other way. Trends aren't forever. Look at the percentage of slave populations in South Carolina in 1860 and compare them with demographics of today.
Population of Southern States in 1860
Census data for South Carolina in 2021
If the demographic makeup of an area is changing, is it really for the best to shut the door and isolate ourselves? Instead, we should support burgeoning communities in the same way the initial communities had support. Every race and every culture has the capability of American exceptionalism. Our country used to believe in that for a time, and I wish it still did.