Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Latest Slur Against the Right: Replacement Theory
When I read the jumble of definitions that were supposed to define “replacement theory,” I became extremely skeptical of its credibility and validity. Yet a part of me, given the current chaotic climate in this country, was reluctant to discard it out of hand and assume it wasn’t important, for a number of reasons.
First, replacement theory is a mish-mash of theories that the Left has chosen to lump together, a kind of everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach. The problem with this “theory” is that the Left can conveniently modify it to suit their needs and use it to attack others. For example, one broad definition is:
At the extremes of American life, replacement theory — the notion that Western elites, sometimes manipulated by Jews, want to ‘replace’ and disempower white Americans — has become an engine of racist terror, helping inspire a wave of mass shootings in recent years and fueling the 2017 right-wing rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, that erupted in violence.
Please note that the only people guilty of espousing this definition are “white Americans” at the extremes, and that Jews are conspiring with the elites.
But in the same article, these radical ideas are identified everywhere:
But replacement theory, once confined to the digital fever swamps of Reddit message boards and semi-obscure white nationalist sites, has gone mainstream. In sometimes more muted forms, the fear it crystallizes — of a future America in which white people are no longer the numerical majority — has become a potent force in conservative media and politics, where the theory has been borrowed and remixed to attract audiences, retweets and small-dollar donations.
In this definition, the conservative Right is conspiring with the white supremacists out of fear of losing their positions in society.
Finally, the Republican Party is targeted as espousing replacement theory:
Yet in recent months, versions of the same ideas, sanded down and shorn of explicitly anti-Black and antisemitic themes, have become commonplace in the Republican Party — spoken aloud at congressional hearings, echoed in Republican campaign advertisements, and increasingly embraced by right-wing candidates and media personalities.
Tucker Carlson on Fox has been targeted regarding replacement theory, even though he rejects the term; he does, however, point out that the Democrats have openly declared in the past that increasing the ranks of the Hispanic population will likely increase their electoral base, although evidence to the contrary is now emerging. I doubt that the Left appreciates being reminded of its arrogance.
And now Liz Cheney is “eating her own” (so to speak):
‘The House GOP leadership has enabled white nationalism, white supremacy, and anti-Semitism. History has taught us that what begins with words ends in far worse. @GOP leaders must renounce and reject these views and those who hold them,’ Cheney said in a tweet.
Although many Conservatives don’t take her seriously, the political Left probably agrees with her and uses her diatribes to discount us.
Do those of us on the political Right have reasons to be concerned? After years of being accused of being systemic racists, Nazis and anti-Semites, is replacement theory just another troll?
I believe that at some point we have to call out the Left for their smears, repeatedly, resolutely, and every time we are in front of a camera. We are looking at the worst possible attacks by a group that is incapable of recognizing its own bigotry, hatred and actions. After all, the Left, given how they condescend to the blacks in this country, demonstrate systemic racism. They demonstrate their willingness to make baseless accusations to prop up their narrative, such as Nazi attributions we heard from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez likening the detention facilities to concentration camps. And her cohorts have made anti-Semitic remarks and were reprimanded with a pointless House response.
As an American, a Conservative, and a Jew I can no longer sit back and disregard these attacks as annoying but harmless. Separately, these diatribes might be brushed away, but cumulatively they are being used more frequently and with abandon. At some point, our half-hearted protests and complaining will strengthen their false narratives. And we will have lost any advantage and credibility to call them out.
What will we do then?
What can we do now?
Published in Culture
I think that your reaction proves my point, actually. We seem to have a fundamental disagreement about this. That seems to be the libertarian-conservative divide that I was referencing.
You might want to think about it, and try to understand the views of someone who disagrees with you, rather than reacting emotionally with the “<<FACEPALM>>” thing and then quoting Charlie Brown. It is the sort of response that leads one to think that you don’t have a viable foundation for your views.
We were too busy celebrating our victories in the Economic Wars. We wanted to savour that for a while, not dive headlong into another gruelling fight. But in hindsight, that was a mistake.
I know somewhat less about the so-called Renaissance, I think. I view it as primarily artistic. Most of the Renaissance themes continued to be religious, so I don’t have the impression that it involved the rejection of religion and tradition that characterized the so-called Enlightenment. It seems to have principally involved a development in art, especially painting and sculpture, toward a more realistic and accurate portrayal than in the immediately preceding period. Particularly in sculpture, this was reminiscent of Greek and Roman art, though what I’ve seen of Greek and Roman painting lacks the accuracy of the Renaissance painters.
The label placed on the so-called Renaissance does seem to imply a rejection of medieval Christianity in favor of Greco-Roman paganism. The themes of Renaissance art do not seem consistent with this, however, though this impression may be an artifact of my limited exposure to such art. I’m principally familiar with the religious works of the great masters like Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Raphael. Works like the Pieta, the Last Supper, and the Sistine ceiling do not suggest a rejection of Christianity. Quite the contrary.
Someone posted on Ricochet some time ago – two years now, I think? – that many social problems come because conservatives also tend to want their daughters ( and wives) to become doctors, not mothers.
I suspect it’s also true that conservatives tend to want their daughters (and wives?) to become doctors, etc, and not teachers.
I wanted mine to become electricians and plumbers. I suppose there’s still time, but both are aiming at medical-related fields.
Succinct and true.
Further ceding the ground of education, to the left…
Teaching used to be considered just fine for women. Especially as-yet-unmarried women.
Well, yes and no. Fully enraged libertarians with no moral anchor tend to the anarchist / minarchist/ anarcho-syndicalist side of things, and our tent has seen no small disruption due to their inclusion.
I think “overemphasis on liberty” is not wrong, although it certainly grates. Depends upon what one means by liberty. The liberty to entice children into drugs and other ill behaviors certainly also relies upon the liberty of the child, but as a society, we maintain certain arbitrary yet essential distinctions, many of which come with curbs upon liberty. Selling drugs for example, even between consenting adults, is seen to foster a swamp of destruction and associated crime. And the “legalize it” crowd is wrong about the law being the problem — humans under the thrall of drugs become slaves to their ruin and ruin to their associates.
I’ll write a post about our Libertarian struggles here sometime. For now, this will have to do. And I hasten to add that “libertarian/Libertarian” covers a lot of ground, of varying utility.
Well, I just read that we need our own elites so maybe they’ll help.
They’re unmarried for a reason.
Seems like that also just continues to cede education to the left.
Sounds like good reason not to want to put conservatives into teaching. Yep, uh-huh.
This is well worn ground with him…the meaning can shift to whatever is necessary for him to exhibit the transparently shallow, forced contrarian “personality” he has adopted since about December 2020. It has long ago become tedious and distracting to me but I do concede that some up there in the Upper Member Feed seem to enjoy the games of footsie with the character. So be it. As for me, I’m not nearly as impressed with it as he is.
I think the Libs of TikTok person is an American hero.
Which explains the effort to dox the person for the purpose of ending the whole thing.
Exactly. Did they succeed? Is the feed still active? (I only see it on Rico or when Mr. Charlotte shows me one. That’s about all I can take.)
Oh yes.
Yes, the Right’s thinking (and arguing, and persuading, and changing things) is at root rational (truth and fact-based), and to a large extent the acceptance of others’ right to disagree and otherwise control their own lives. The Left’s is something other than rational, and they explicitly want to control other people’s lives (and murder babies, old people, and the depressed).
I think it made worse by the end of the Cold War. The big bad USSR with nukes were a strong force for ginning up American patriotism and pride. When that opposition dissipated our patriotic muscles atrophied and creeping Leftism moved in.
If you want to know what the Left is up to, just look at what they are accusing us of doing.
Stupid trap.
If whites were ever to enmass decide to engage in racial spoils, America is over.
I prefer the Lorem Nation , thank you.
Watched Suits and red-headed Donna says to her two black co-workers “I’m black on the inside.” I want to know… what’s wrong with being white?
No one values white music or white dancing, style, anything. It’s ridiculed and dumped on. Be less white, because whites have no culture, no taste.
I have questioned the enlightenment value, too. First Things is also starting to question its effects.
Religion and tradition are built on generations’ worth of experiences distilled into relatively accessible moral codes. The enlightenment sought to disrupt that because their immediate senses could not readily experience the what generations experience.
Abandoning moral codes can have negative consequences for individuals, but a lot of the time, individuals do not face serious consequences for bad acts. It is society that deteriorates from bad acts. The consequences of bad acts are usually so big, it doesn’t just affect the one individual, but many around them.
But one individual and one generation will never feel the repercussions of removing the moral structures from a society. Empiricism is not useful.
Saying “nuts” to the Divine Right of Kings got us the US Constitution. Saying the same to all moral strictures got the French the Reign of Terror.
I made this for another occasion, but it might be appropriate here too:
What?
The enlightenment rid itself of generational wisdom. It demands to constantly rediscover for oneself what works and what doesn’t. The consequences of some actions, though, are not felt immediately. In some cases, they take a generation to be felt. And another generation and another.
Ok, but . . . how do you reconcile your two bolded claims?
Missing qualifier. Generational experience is not individual experience.