It’s in basic human nature to hold contradictory views from time to time. But where politics are concerned, this cognitive dissonance can be taken to a high degree of professionalism. Witness:
Much of this NPR interview with a New York Times reporter who penned a hit piece on Tucker Carlson focuses on Tucker’s repeated discussion of the “Great Replacement.” This is the notion that Democrats are importing large numbers of third worlders in order to change American demographics, as immigrants from the third world are much more likely to vote for free goodies, i.e. for Democrats. (This NPR piece aired a few days *before* the Buffalo mass shooting, so expect them to revisit it in light of their new opportunity to dance on graves.)
The reporter several times refers to “Great Replacement” as a “conspiracy theory” and “factually wrong.” And yet…
“…it harkens back to an earlier era, Carlson’s childhood and mine, when America was not just majority white but disproportionately and overwhelmingly composed of white citizens.”
“Disproportionately.” How can a nations natural population be “disproportionate?” Is Japan disproportionately Japanese? Is Quebec disproportionately packed with French speakers? No. The fact that the author believes that it was wrong for the US to have once had the demographics that it did – and now no longer does – does in fact point to a belief on the authors part that replacing, to some degree or another, the existing population with another one is a good thing.
As with virtually every other PC media piece that mentions “Great Replacement,” it is called racist… but it’s never explained *how* it’s racist, or explained why the facts about it are wrong. And how can they, when they gloat that, regardless of the motive, the end result is exactly what the “Great Replacement” theory says it would be? This “Replacement is a conspiracy theory, and it’s wonderful” ranks up there with “the Holocaust never happened, and it was a great thing” often touted by actual neo-Nazis.
