Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, October 30, 2018

All white advocates should salute The New York Times. Week after week, one author after another openly declares his intention to replace us with non-white immigrants. It’s nice to know where we stand, and to know we were right all along. A few weeks ago, it was Charles Blow. Today, it was Michelle Goldberg, in an op-ed with the blunt title, “We Can Replace Them.”

Miss Goldberg refers in her column to the recent violent attack on a Pittsburgh synagogue by a man who believed Donald Trump was too friendly to Jews and who did not vote for him. She also refers to the bomb threats made by a scarcely-white Trump supporter, a career criminal who claimed to be a Seminole Indian and is the son of a Filipino immigrant. Somehow, for her, they symbolize white people who vote for Donald Trump.

“Right now America is tearing itself apart as an embittered white conservative minority clings to power, terrified at being swamped by a new multicultural polyglot majority,” she writes. “The divide feels especially stark in Georgia, where the midterm election is a battle between Trumpist reaction [white Republican Brian Kemp] and the multicultural America [black Democrat Stacey Abrams] whose emergence the right is trying, at all costs, to forestall.”

Such candor is refreshing. Miss Goldberg’s vision of an “America,” if it can even be called that, populated by a “multicultural polyglot majority” is precisely what the Democrats are trying to achieve. As Miss Goldberg accurately notes, future elections will be racial head counts, and she wants her side to win. Georgia’s gubernatorial race is a trial run. “The potential is there [for a Democrat victory]; Georgia is less than 53 percent non-Hispanic white,” Miss Goldberg notes, approvingly.

Miss Goldberg sees demographic transformation as the easiest path to victory. “In a week, American voters can do to white nationalists what they fear most,” she writes. “Show them they’re being replaced.”

To understand this statement, let us consider whom Miss Goldberg considers a “white nationalist.” In November 2017, she called Breitbart a “white nationalist tabloid.” The next month, she said Congressman Steve King let his “fascist flag fly” when he approvingly quoted Hungarian president Viktor Orban. Only a few days ago, referring to the decidedly non-white-nationalist Laura Ingraham, she said Fox News has “given itself increasingly to white nationalist propaganda.” It appears that Miss Goldberg does not want just “white nationalists” replaced, but all whites with whom she disagrees.

Miss Goldberg’s bluntness is far more realistic than the faux opposition to identity politics championed by American conservatives. For example, in a recent interview with Jonah Goldberg of National Review, Speaker Paul Ryan discussed his opposition to “tribalism” and “identity politics.” Michelle Goldberg understands that all politics is identity politics. Furthermore, even though they don’t realize it, conservatives’ American patriotism is also a form of “tribalism.” American patriotism is sustained by whites, and disdained by non-whites, because America was created as a white nation. This is also why President Trump’s recent call to embrace American “nationalism” was widely interpreted by anti-American journalists as a call for “white nationalism.” The reaction by the president’s critics was an implicit acknowledgement that genuine American patriotism requires resurrecting white identity.

Alas, Miss Goldberg’s political clear-sightedness fails when she finds whites making the same arguments about themselves. She cites a recent article at VDARE.com (without linking to it, of course) written by a canvasser for Georgia’s Republican candidate Brian Kemp. These articles make the same point as Miss Goldberg, predicting that “the future of American politics everywhere” will be fought along racial lines, with a “black socialist versus a white populist.” Author Nathan Doyle scoffs at the colorblindness of Republicans who keep on “quacking about the economy” while the left “understands the racial dynamics.”

Mr. Doyle and Miss Goldberg see identity politics in exactly the same way, but, Miss Goldberg uses the VDARE article to attack Mr. Kemp, claiming he is not doing enough to “distance himself from bigots.” Mr. Doyle is Exhibit A as a bigot because he wrote, “I know everything I need to know about what happens when blacks are in charge from Detroit, Haiti, South Africa, etc.” (He could have said the same of Atlanta.) Miss Goldberg does not explain why Mr. Doyle is wrong. She simply assumes her readers will understand why he must be silenced.

Yet if Miss Goldberg is determined to make the world’s superpower into a “multicultural polyglot” conglomerate, the American people deserve to be told why. Miss Goldberg mocks Republicans for worrying about the latest caravan, a “group of bedraggled migrants a thousand miles away.” Yet if enough of those “migrants” arrive, there’s no reason to believe this country will be any different from those from which they have fled. Miss Goldberg appears to be counting on it; she assumes that migrants have different political interests from those of white Americans.

Miss Goldberg may find it amusing to pathologize whites as “terrified of being swamped” by non-whites, but evidently non-whites fear the same thing. If migration patterns are any indication, the only thing non-whites hate more than whites is being forced to live among their own people.

The central lie of race relations is that whites get a benefit or “privilege” from living with non-whites. The truth is that they need us; we don’t need them. This is why every “black nationalist,” from Keith “Hakim” Ellison to Malcolm X, starts with appeals to black self-determination and ends with demands for more handouts. Miss Goldberg tries the same sleight-of-hand. At no point in her column does she explain how Americans will benefit from life in a “polyglot” empire. Whites will in fact gain nothing from her preferred future — and she doesn’t pretend otherwise. She seems more interested in hurting white people than helping anyone else. After all, once the Third World has “replaced” white America, where will the non-whites run to next? Presumably, wherever the remaining “racist” whites have fled to.

Miss Goldberg’s column is a remarkable admission — pronounced from the citadel of American journalism — that she sees the existing white population as an obstacle and even as an enemy. She is confirming what we have long suspected, that they really do want to “replace us.” Yet for all her rhetorical tributes to “democracy,” Miss Goldberg should remember that democracy is about people ruling themselves. It’s not about rulers replacing the people to increase their own power. They will not replace us. We will replace them.