I have the impression that most people believing and repeating this "great replacement" narrative are not members of the demographics they claim are being replaced. To me it seems mostly spread by people living outside of Europe trying to paint Europe in a bad light in order to push fear and anti-immigration policies in the general west.
Unfortunately, it's not an uncommon thing to hear from people when performing community outreach (think door knocking). External push, definitely, but it's also being repeated by the demographic this narrative is being pushed to.
I can't comment on whether or not they believe it, but it's certainly repeated by some here in Ireland.
> but it's certainly repeated by some here in Ireland.
To be fair to Ireland and history they have a valid complaint going back centuries wrt outsiders taking their lands, language, governance, food and labour all while debating "the Irish Question" and reaching for eugenic "solutions".
They're clearly not being replaced, as a look at the numbers indicates, but what is true for most European countries is that if the low birth rates stay far below 2.1 their populations will continue to decline and their economies will shrink, if they don't manage to offset that trend with controlled yearly immigration.
To clarify: Although it follows mathematically with constantly low birth rate, dying out is, of course, not a likely consequence. It seems likely that at some point when the economies shrink poverty would hit so seriously that the birth rates would start increasing again, as they seem to be negatively correlated with standards of living. However, we're talking about levels of shrinkage that feel like a collapse of the economy and social security/pension systems.
IMO the problem lies with this statement. For people like OP any "control" of immigration is going to be responded with the same criticisms. Because if you take a stance hard enough, any of these controls can be spun into anti-immigration.
By "controlled" I had something else in mind than what you seem to insinuate, namely that the yearly immigration rate must roughly match the desired long-term population stability. For a reasonable immigration system, you need to welcome the immigrants you want to get, provide a long-term perspective, and offer some incentives for them to come. Unlike the US, European countries have often failed at that basic job, or at least their immigration politics have been erratic and without constancy. Phrases like "a stance hard enough" are a symptom of the problem.
My country (Germany) still consists out of 72.65% Germans (Wikipedia/Destatis Sept. 2025).
Every other ethnic doesn't surpass 4%.
Being an open and multicultural country kinda implies that other ethnics have a place here, and that's a good thing. Nationalism is the last thing my country needs.
I have the impression that most people believing and repeating this "great replacement" narrative are not members of the demographics they claim are being replaced. To me it seems mostly spread by people living outside of Europe trying to paint Europe in a bad light in order to push fear and anti-immigration policies in the general west.
Unfortunately, it's not an uncommon thing to hear from people when performing community outreach (think door knocking). External push, definitely, but it's also being repeated by the demographic this narrative is being pushed to.
I can't comment on whether or not they believe it, but it's certainly repeated by some here in Ireland.
> but it's certainly repeated by some here in Ireland.
To be fair to Ireland and history they have a valid complaint going back centuries wrt outsiders taking their lands, language, governance, food and labour all while debating "the Irish Question" and reaching for eugenic "solutions".
13 replies →
They're clearly not being replaced, as a look at the numbers indicates, but what is true for most European countries is that if the low birth rates stay far below 2.1 their populations will continue to decline and their economies will shrink, if they don't manage to offset that trend with controlled yearly immigration.
To clarify: Although it follows mathematically with constantly low birth rate, dying out is, of course, not a likely consequence. It seems likely that at some point when the economies shrink poverty would hit so seriously that the birth rates would start increasing again, as they seem to be negatively correlated with standards of living. However, we're talking about levels of shrinkage that feel like a collapse of the economy and social security/pension systems.
>controlled yearly immigration.
IMO the problem lies with this statement. For people like OP any "control" of immigration is going to be responded with the same criticisms. Because if you take a stance hard enough, any of these controls can be spun into anti-immigration.
By "controlled" I had something else in mind than what you seem to insinuate, namely that the yearly immigration rate must roughly match the desired long-term population stability. For a reasonable immigration system, you need to welcome the immigrants you want to get, provide a long-term perspective, and offer some incentives for them to come. Unlike the US, European countries have often failed at that basic job, or at least their immigration politics have been erratic and without constancy. Phrases like "a stance hard enough" are a symptom of the problem.
1 reply →
They are clearly being replaced.
>offset that trend with controlled yearly immigration
That's just another way of saying "replace themselves."
My country (Germany) still consists out of 72.65% Germans (Wikipedia/Destatis Sept. 2025).
Every other ethnic doesn't surpass 4%.
Being an open and multicultural country kinda implies that other ethnics have a place here, and that's a good thing. Nationalism is the last thing my country needs.
I am flabbergasted that you can say Germany is 72% German and not see that you're being replaced. Are you not able to extrapolate a trend?
>Being an open and multicultural country
This is begging the question.
>Nationalism is the last thing my country needs.
Whatever genes made you say that are maladaptive.
"Great Replacement" is a fiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement
I didn't say "Great Replacement."
What distinction are you drawing?
1 reply →
[flagged]