Is White Replacement Real?
Is White Replacement Real?
The Little Mermaid is perhaps one of the most iconic Disney movies of the 90’s. Just upon mentioning the title, the vast majority of you will instantly think of Ariel’s red hair and affectionate naivety. The whimsy and joy this movie brought to countless generations was of course not lost on Disney, which is why they decided to make a live-action remake in 2023. The hype of the remake had fans alight, but this hype was completely and immediately drowned out by controversy, which soured the movie’s release. Instead of casting a pale-skinned woman with red hair, Disney chose to cast a black woman. The ensuing debates over whether or not this was appropriate bombed the movie, which ended up only barely breaking even on its stunning $500 million production cost – a colossal failure in the movie world.
Many on the left praised the director for casting a black woman, claiming that it added much-needed diversity to Disney’s mostly-white princess line up, and that it was a fairy tale anyway, so it did not need to adhere to strict casting rules. Many on the right noted that if Disney had race-swapped another character, like the Black Panther, progressives would likely burn down movie theaters. They also claimed that this was a form of white erasure. Through the constant bickering, not once did either side even come close to realizing that something much more interesting had happened in the casting decision.
The Little Mermaid was not created by Disney. In fact, Disney does not even own the rights to The Little Mermaid story at all. The story was originally written in 1837 by Dutch author Hans Christian, and the story deviates dramatically from how Disney adapted it. While that is immaterial to this article, it is critically important to note that the Little Mermaid is a cultural product that belongs to The Netherlands and Western Europe by extension. It was not a standalone story but was published in a collection of fairy tales for children. Fairy tales aren’t simply whimsical stories for fun. Instead, we must recognize that fairy tales are really folk tales, and as such, are cultural and historical artifacts in their own right. They reflect a deep and important way in which a culture views the world and are intended to instill specific values in children. The original story was quite dark and culminated with a lesson to children that they ought to behave, or Ariel would continue being punished by an evil sea witch. If they behaved, Ariel would be free of her punishment.
The original Little Mermaid by Vilhelm Pedersen, 1837. Looks Dutch to me.
When viewed through a historical lens, we can see that The Little Mermaid is not a whimsical fairy tale character created by a billion-dollar corporation but is instead a purposeful creation by a Dutch culture that was used to instill behavioral outcomes in its people. Earlier, we stated that both the left and the right missed the most important aspect of the recasting debate, which is this: to what extent is a culture allowed to define and maintain itself? Is it appropriate to change cultural norms and expectations to fit a modern narrative? If the answer is yes, does that constitute the erasure of the culture that created the story in the first place? These questions are difficult to answer, but we encourage our readers to grapple with them. I find it unlikely that casting a black woman erases the meaning of the original story more than the first Disney adaptation did, but that is a separate topic entirely. The producers at Disney intentionally chose to remove a Western European woman from a Western European folk tale, and it is this intent that begs the main question of this article: Is the removal of white people happening, and if it is, should we even care?
What is erasure, and is it really happening?
In our article Lessons Learned from the Indian Removal Act, we cautioned the audience against using the word genocide to describe events that are brutal, but don’t fit the true definition of the word. In that article, we made clear that intent is truly what gives genocide its definition – it is the intent of the action, coupled with the outcome, that separates true genocide from incidental erasure. In this case, we find that the concept of erasure shares many similarities with the definitions of genocide and cultural genocide. Genocide is the intentional, systematic destruction—in whole or in part—of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, while culture genocide is defined as the systematic, deliberate destruction of a group's traditions, language, religion, and identity by a dominant group.
Because there is no direct loss of life or militaristic attempt to kill off white people, it is inappropriate to use the word genocide. However, many of the end results are the same as they are in the concept of erasure: the dilution and removal of an ethnic and racial group, as well as the destruction of their traditions and identity. Therefore, the difference between genocide and erasure is that one uses violence and loss of life the achieve its ends, and the other does not. The outcome, however, is the same.
With this definition established, we can more easily try to judge whether or not this is happening in the United States or in Western Europe. In 1926, 100 years prior to writing this article, the global percentage of white people was 36%. Today, it hovers somewhere between 10 – 13%. The collapse in the white population has largely been driven by low fertility rates in developed nations and astronomically high rates in developing countries. However, this doesn’t tell the full story. East Asians, also known for having abysmal fertility rates, have not seen an equal decline in population. In 1926, East Asians also comprised roughly 35% of the global population but have only fallen to 25% today – double that of the white population. Something else is to blame, and I suspect it is self-inflicted, as we shall soon see.
In the 1950’s, New York was 90% white. Today, it is 30%. In Los Angeles, it was 94%. Today, it is 37%. The stats continue in every major city: Detroit, 84% to a shocking 10%. Chicago, 86% to 29%. Baltimore 76% to 27%. Over 90% of the U.S. as a whole was white in the 1920’s. Today it is 57% and decreasing exponentially. I find it difficult for progressives to argue that a decline of a population by over 40%, and continuing to fall beyond that number, is anything other than erasure.
The most poignant statistic in this mess is that the population as a whole isn’t decreasing, but rather just the white population. According to the White Papers Policy Institute, the foreign-born population in Georgia, for example, has increased by an astounding 1,614% since 1980 alone. North Carolina has seen the same jump in foreign-born residents at 1,554%. Virginia’s is 567%. Even blood-red Utah has seen its immigrant population increase by 639%. In fact, 26 states have seen their foreign-born population increase by over 300% while the U.S. domestic-born population increases by roughly 70% on average.
In fact, the only state in the union that has seen a greater increase in its domestic population than immigrant population is Montana. Even the Southern United States historically maintained a roughly 6-10% immigrant population; today, it is 37%.
We believe that this increase is due to two factors: the first is the introduction of the Hart-Cellar Act, which was passed under a sort of moral obligation to the downtrodden of the world. We cover this extensively in our article Diversity is a Weakness and so will not be covered here. The second is due to one of the most pernicious lies of our time, which is that Americans are unwilling to do cheap manual labor, and that we ought to import citizens to do it for us. We will explore this topic in the next section.
It is not possible to simply import people for labor. Humans aren’t robots; they come with beliefs, cultures, ideas, and expectations. One cannot bring them into this nation and expect them to bring their food and labor while leaving everything else behind. Not even Europeans in the 18th and 19th century did this, which is why our culture today closely resembles that of previous European migrant populations.
For some inexplicable reason, this is exactly what politicians in the 70’s thought would happen. It did not. Instead, they came with families, cultures, religions, and practices that are very, very far from our own.
This is happening on a state, national, and global scale and is even happening in anthropologically-white places. In the 1920’s, the United Kingdom was over 99% white. Today, it is 81%. In fact, in England’s three largest cities, white people are now the minority. In 1920, Germany was over 99% white. Today, it is 80%. France, Spain, Italy, and Sweden all follow this trend. Birthrates for whites in these countries mirror those in the United States, so the share of whites will continue to fall dramatically as time goes on. Many will claim that America ought not be white because it was built on stolen land and is a cultural melting pot. If true, why should Britain or Germany not be white?
By any quantitative measure, these trends must constitute erasure. Taking one group of people, who have their own identity and culture, and reducing them by 40% (which increases every year) while simultaneously importing a wholly separate culture, which increases by over 300%, most certainly is a replacement of the host population. Taken to an extreme, it will inevitably result in the removal of the original people and their culture with the imported people and their culture.
Why Should We Care?
Since we can comfortably say that replacement most certainly is happening, we must contend with a more difficult question: why do we care? If one human has just as much value as another human, shouldn’t the replacement be a wash? One equally valid human with one equally valid culture for another; a fair trade.
We begin with Aristotle, who famously explained both the concepts of philia and eunoia. Philia is a natural bond, a type of kinship bond, that serves as the basis for all forms of love. It is a durable, long-lasting bond forged through common beliefs, common blood, and shared goals. It provides the highest form of friendship, based on mutual admiration of character and is durable and rare, requiring time, equality, and shared virtue. Eunoia is the basis for Philia. It represents an active, selfless desire for another's welfare rather than for personal benefit. It isn’t as deep, but is the starting point for a true, foundational bond between people. These two concepts form the basis for everything we shall discuss from this point forward.
We at AP have long argued that the United States is fundamentally a Christian nation that exhibits historically uncommon amounts of goodwill and charity. From Medicare and Medicaid to the Americans with Disabilities Act, and private charitable donations to global adoption, we do fundamentally believe that Americans have a responsibility to care for those less fortunate than ourselves. We do not make this statement lightly – we encourage our most dogmatic readers to grapple with this position with intellectual honesty.
The problem with this basis is twofold: the first is that we are cherry-picking which Christian values we want to adopt and which we don’t. The second is how we are to evaluate the influx of people who benefit from Christian temperance, but don’t exhibit those same values in return.
Progressives often lament Christians who disapprove of immigration by claiming that we are called by Jesus to care for the lowly and downtrodden. Nominally, we agree with this sentiment. We do believe that Christians have a duty to provide for those without. Where this becomes difficult is when this one, specific Christian value is held as the gold standard of Christian government while many others are abandoned. It is infuriating, for example, to be told we are to live in a country with 60 million immigrants who do not share our values because of Christian temperance, but that we are also supposed to allow millions of abortions every year because not doing so would be backwards and primitive. How can both be true? If one were to make the argument that all Christian values ought to be implemented at the federal level, then one must concede that this is Christian Nationalism. Christians would then agree to mass immigration, but on the condition that everyone who immigrates be required to convert to Christianity. Pre-marital sex, abortion, Islam, and other facets of life would be criminalized if we were to be intellectual consistent with this policy. Surely progressives would not like this very much. This naturally shows the hypocrisy of wielding Christianity as a weapon against immigration restrictions – how can we use it for one Christian tenet and not others? The natural conclusion is to admit that some policies belong to Caesar, and some policies belong to God. It is up to us to divine which is which. While there is merit to the notion that we ought to provide for the lowly among us, I find it hard to believe that this applies to a wholesale cultural replacement, especially by people who do not share Christian or Western values. This leads us to the second problem.
The beliefs that many immigrants hold from their original culture inherently undermine the very generosity that created the system under which they immigrated to the U.S. in the first place. Let us put it simply so that no miscommunication may exist: A large majority of people immigrating to this nation hate us. They hate our values, they hate Christianity, and most importantly, they hate what the West has done to their birth nation for the last 500 years. The reason they come here is for money and safety, not to become American.
Notice how we delineate different types of Americans in everyday speech: African Americans, Latin Americans, Asian Americans, and so on. Strangely, there isn’t a prefix for white people because nobody uses the term European Americans. This is obviously because white people are seen as the default American, and white culture as the default culture. What’s interesting is that minority groups actually prefer the prefix. Hispanics, for example, tend to identify less with the term “American” and more with the term “Hispanic” the longer their family has been in the United States. In other words, minority communities can and often do self-identify as less ‘American’ as time goes on, not more so.
We don’t claim that Hispanics hate America, but that they do identify with their Hispanic community before they identify as Americans, which implies that these groups have not assimilated. That is why you see Hispanic protestors waving Mexican flags and claiming that the Western U.S. “used to be theirs.” It should give you pause – used to be theirs? If you are American, isn’t this land still yours? Yet this is not how they think.
Islam, regardless of African or Middle Eastern origin, is perhaps the most glaring example of this. The Somalian fraud scandal has been widely documented and needs no further explanation here, but shows us what happens when a culture that does not share Christianity’s concept of goodwill, combined with a disdain for our culture, is allowed to access to public funds. They refuse to assimilate and steal billions from the kind-hearted taxpayer.
Don’t take my word for it when you can listen to Islamists tell you themselves. In April 2026, Muslim Washington Post Columnist Shadi Hamid wrote an article titled ‘I’m Tired of Proving I Belong in America.’ He begins the article saying that Muslims have assimilated very well into American society, but then completely undermines that point himself. He says:
“"Muslims are different in certain ways. How could they not be? Islam shapes how its adherents think about family, sexuality and what it means to live a good life. Simply put, Islam is also a more public religion than Christianity. Muslim prayer is visually striking and often communal. If a Muslim doesn’t drink alcohol or fasts during Ramadan, that will be more noticeable to others. Moreover, practicing Muslims — despite being repeatedly asked to — can’t disavow 'sharia' even if they wanted to. Sharia, roughly translated as Islamic law, includes guidelines on how to pray, fast and otherwise observe what it means to submit to God in daily practice. The deal is always the same: You can stay, but you have to become less yourself. Less distinctively Muslim, less traditionally Jewish, less recognizably Latino. The specifics of your faith and culture — the things that make your community a community rather than a collection of individuals — are treated as obstacles on the path to real Americanness. The left and the right enforce this expectation. The right says: Assimilate or get out. The left, more gently: Assimilate and we’ll celebrate you. But the endpoint is the same."
The lack of self-awareness is shocking. Compare these statements to Aristotle’s concept of Philia, which is the kindship bond developed over time and shared values. How on earth can white Christian Americans ever develop Philia with someone who openly admits that our most fundamental beliefs cannot be reconciled, and shouldn’t have to be? The most shocking part comes next:
“America was not founded on the assumption that its citizens would eventually come to agree on foundational questions. It was founded on the more radical proposition that they wouldn’t — that people who disagree about God, religion and the good life could share a country anyway. Not because they would converge over time, but because convergence was beside the point.”
This statement is absolutely confounding. It is blatantly and divisively untrue in every way. The phrase printed on all our money, E Pluribus Unum, means “Of many, One.” Of many faiths, they become one. Of many cultures, we have only one. Of many beliefs, we meld into one. How one can say they don’t need to assimilate when everything about American culture dictates otherwise is an anathema to me.
This type of rhetoric has profound effects, similar to sneaking a wolf into the house when your parents said you could get a dog. Muslim students in Philadelphia are seen on camera reciting ‘blood of the martyr’ chants which include chopping off American heads and fulfilling the will of Allah. A Muslim Labour MP in England was caught on video saying “We must grow and takeover, not just parts of Birmingham, but the whole of Birmingham, the whole of the West Midlands, the whole of the U.K.” Chicago Islamist Mohammed Nusairat claims that Islam is “here to remove all other religions.” Islamic scholar and author Shaykh Asrar Rashid says “We don't say that Islam is here to coexist with lot of different religions that all of us can discuss how to be friends. This religion has been sent to dominate, to wipe out, to take out every other religion. To have the people leave every other religion and take up Islam and if that requires fighting to achieve it, then it requires fighting because the greatest purpose for which Jihad was legislated is to make the word of our lord highest. It's not something we are shy to say”
Do you see the picture? When you remove white people, you aren’t importing blank-slates. When you remove one culture and immediately replace it with another, you simply have two cultures fighting for the same space; this is fundamentally why white replacement matters. Many people say that preserving white culture is a form of white supremacy, and that white cultures don’t want to be ‘diluted’ or ‘mixed’ others. I would counter with another question; is it supremacy to not want to be entirely wiped out by people who are honest about wanting to replace you and your values? To not want to have to fight people in your own country who wave another country’s flag? We have no philia with these people but, most importantly, they have no philia with us either. I find it unlikely that these cultures could reasonably be expected to accept millions of Americans and adopt our culture in return.
Practical Considerations
Aristotle, when discussing philia, states:
“A multi-ethnic society is thus necessarily anti-democratic and chaotic, for it lacks philia, this profound, flesh and blood fraternity of citizens. Tyrants and Despots divide and rule, they want the city divided by ethnic rivalries. The indispensable condition for ensuring a people’s sovereignty accordingly resides in its unity.”
This is indisputably true, and we can measure it. A massive 30,000-person study by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
Likewise, other studies have shown that all groups except for white people rate themselves as being superior and show significant in-group biases. All groups, including whites, rate white people as their least favorite race. These beliefs have major effects on our society. It affects jury bias, hiring preferences, and communal or federal funding programs. It causes hatred, division, and causes us to infight when instead we could be working towards common goals. Friction and ill-will between different groups can’t be measured, but I can guarantee everyone reading this knows what it feels like. Simply put, we do not have to live this way, and importing demographics that consistently rate us as their least favorite demographic is an easily reversible choice.
We need more people that think like this. You know, for unity.
Because imported demographics will always favor themselves above native populations, the United States has made a severe miscalculation by importing mass quantities of cheap labor.
The absence of a large portion of a population naturally inclines people to begin filling gaps – housing prices fall, wages rise, raising children becomes easier, and equilibrium is achieved again. We see this time and time again after major disasters. The Black Death, which killed a third of Europe’s population, immediately caused a labor shortage which significantly increased wages and led to immense social mobility. The same thing happened in the United States after the Spanish influenza – wages doubled and social mobility dramatically increased. One of the great lies of the neo-conservative 90’s was that it would be a good decision to outsource our labor to cheap Asian and South American countries. While this did flood our nation with affordable consumer goods, it also made our labor compete with countries who could pay cents on the dollar. Politicians now act smugly when they can’t find American labor willing to work far below a sustainable income limit and then subsequently claim that we must continue to import cheap labor to fill the gaps. So the cycle continues.
The massive rate of importation from foreign nations has caused the United States to completely divest itself from any sort of domestic pro-birth policies to fill these gaps. Why would it spend money on its own domestic citizens when it can import millions of foreigners for a fraction of the cost? 53% of immigrant headed households are on welfare, 21% are getting cash, 35% are on food assistance, 40% are on Medicaid, and most of these households are on more than two programs. 35% are on more than three programs. All of this is still (somehow) a better option than domestic programs that support domestic workers, mothers, and taxpayers.
Imagine if this amount of money was spent on our own citizens. Imagine if mothers received extended and paid maternity leave. Fathers as well. Imagine if we had programs that helped families with large numbers of children. Even better, what if we chose not to tax them at all and let them keep the money that would otherwise go towards maintaining hundreds of subcultures that hate us and refuse to assimilate. I find it unlikely that we would be facing the same labor and fertility shortfalls with which we are currently burdened.
Rebuking Progressive Claims
Perhaps the most common refrain on the left is that white Americans are scared of replacement because it means that we will be treated the same way we treated other nations for hundreds of years. To this, we unequivocally respond: yes. This is exactly the fear. Without reservation, we proclaim that we are not willing to allow our culture to be replaced. That we are not willing to see our religion relegated to a historical footnote. That we are not willing to see our traditions and beliefs be erased. We recognize that the very first thing that a minority community will do upon becoming the majority is to enact what they view as hundreds of years of pent-up revenge on the white population. This is not hysteria by any means as it has been recorded numerous times and is happening even today. When Haitians gained control of Haiti, they slaughtered their white overlords. I don’t blame them; they certainly had every incentive to do so. Today, Haiti is one of the most destructive and violent places on earth. When Zimbabweans took over Rhodesia, the government seized farms from white settlers and slaughtered those who wouldn’t leave. Even now, in South Africa, as black Africans unite to oust white settlers from their land as the country continues to spiral into chaos. Crime and blackouts have become daily occurrences. Basic infrastructure like piping and copper wire is stolen from public spaces to sell illegally. The country is, quite literally, imploding. The X account Jozi v Jozi, run by a South African citizen, has documented its decline, a few examples of which I have included below. As previously stated, when you remove a people, you remove their beliefs and replace them with a new one. Maintenance is and respect of public spaces is not a universal value. It is highly regarded in the west and far east, but not in South Africa apparently. They are learning the hard way that white replacement also means losing the ability to maintain public infrastructure and respect common spaces.
Anti-colonialism in action.
One may argue that this is a righteous cause; that native peoples are taking back their land. Perhaps this is so. However, it is important to remember that progressives don’t believe that white Americans may lay claim to land that was originally ‘stolen’ in the first place. In their eyes, white people of European descent can morally be eradicated from land that isn’t theirs. In fact, white people can also be eradicated from land that was theirs in the first place, like England or Germany, as a form of reparations for colonialism. Here is a Res Publica peer-reviewed, academic journal making that very claim. Again, this is not my opinion, but is exactly what they are telling us to our face. Here’s a Stanford senator who says white men need to be eradicated. Here is a North Carolina State University professor saying the same thing. At the end of this article, I have compiled a slew of headlines advocating for the removal of whiteness from all aspects of daily life. When it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, anti-white progressives deliver. They have removed white people from political parties, neighborhoods, and almost all workplaces. This is not rhetoric; it is a strategy. They will take everything from you if given the chance just as they have in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Haiti.
You’re not oppressed, you’ve just been...liberated. From working.
In the beginning of this article, we defined erasure as the intentional, systematic destruction—in whole or in part—of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as well as the systematic, deliberate destruction of a group's traditions, language, religion, and identity. We also noted that philia is a natural bond that is durable, long-lasting, and forged through shared history, common beliefs, common blood, and communal goals. After reviewing this article, it ought to be clear that we have no philia with many (not all) of the minority groups that have been pouring into the country. Likewise, the acceptance and integration of their culture and customs comes with the explicit degradation and diminishing of our own.
We will leave you with this to ponder. Often, you will hear from a progressive that replacement simply doesn’t matter. As we stated earlier, the theory goes that all humans have unique value, so it doesn’t matter if one is replaced with the other. What we are curious to know is, if it truly doesn’t matter, why pursue the policy of replacement in the first place? Why put so much effort and energy into mass migration if the result is a net wash? Something tells us that it in fact does matter, and it matters quite a lot. They know this – why don’t we?
