reSee.it - Related Video Feed

An unending influx of immigration will result in Caucasians of European descent becoming a minority in the United States by 2017. This shift in demographics is not a negative development, but rather a source of our nation's strength.

- They discuss the idea that there was an intention to "get more" immigration and to think more about third world immigration. The speaker notes a view that one constant of twentieth-century Jewish immigration and Jewish political movements has been to "lessen the power of Europeans in America," arguing that Europeans were seen as a threat in the long run. - The question is raised: "And why is that?" The response is that Jews wanted the United States to become "less Christian, less white European," because a homogeneous European society could "easily evolve towards Nazi." The logic is that if every ethnic group has only limited power, then a coalition among them could not form to become dangerous. - The discussion continues that Jews favored a multicultural society, which would "rationalize Judaism." The idea presented is that a multicultural society would prevent a large dominant white majority from forming a coalition that could threaten Jewish communities. - The speakers attribute the invention of a multiculturalist ideology to Jewish intellectuals, naming Horace Kallen as a key figure. Horace Kallen is described as a Zionist who did not like the melting pot idea, which had been advanced by an earlier generation of Jewish intellectuals. Kallen preferred the United States to be composed of ethnic groups that stay separate, as Jews "have always had," with the implication that this separation would make the United States safer for Jews by avoiding a large white majority. - The claim is made that Jews viewed American culture as negative and "too white," similar to Nazi Germany. The conversation notes that there was a survey conducted in the 1960s among Jews, asking whether it would be possible for something like the Holocaust to happen there, without needing to specify what "it" was. The idea is that respondents recognized that "it" referred to something horrible that happened to Jews. - The exchange ends with the observation that this awareness of potential catastrophe was connected to the broader discussion of immigration, multiculturalism, and the perceived need to prevent a dominant white majority from coalescing in a way that could threaten Jewish communities.

Europe has been predominantly white throughout its history, but now bureaucrats are deciding that Europeans should become a minority against the will of the people. Speaking out against this will result in attacks. The only other option is to say nothing and allow it to happen. A choice must be made.

The speaker expresses concern about the demographic changes in their country, stating that they view it as a form of genocide. They believe that the presence of non-white people in certain areas has led to the displacement of white people and the loss of their culture and identity. They predict that the Muslim population will continue to grow while the white population declines. The speaker feels that the government, media, and other institutions are working against their own people. They express confusion about the motivations behind these actions.

The increase in hate groups can be attributed to shifting demographics in the US. In 1970, the country was about 83% white and 17% people of color. Today, the demographics have changed significantly, with 66% white and 34% people of color. This change has been challenging and will continue to be as we navigate it as a nation. Additionally, the fact that whites will no longer be the majority by 2040 has become part of the popular discourse, including among white supremacists. Some people mistakenly believe they can push back against this demographic shift, but it is not possible to change demographics by limiting immigration.

Our communities are becoming more diverse with the continuous influx of immigrants from various backgrounds. This is something we should embrace and be proud of. In fact, by 2017, people of Caucasian European descent will be in the minority in the United States for the first time. This shift in demographics is not a negative thing, but rather a reflection of our evolving society.

We are being conquered by a complete resettlement of America with millions of people bringing different cultures and beliefs. This will permanently change the country unless there are massive deportations.

Forced mass non-white immigration is occurring exclusively in white countries, accompanied by government-mandated integration into predominantly white areas. There is a continuous promotion of interracial relationships while traditional white values are criticized. This situation can be seen as a deliberate attempt to create conditions that threaten the existence of this group, which amounts to genocide.

Whites will will not be the majority. Whiteness is a form of racial oppression. New Sweden emerging. The immigration process coming toward Europe is irreversible. An unrelenting stream of immigration. Nonstop. Nonstop. Sweden is destined to become a multiracial, multicultural society. The wave still continues. It's not gonna stop nor should we want it to stop. At this point in time, Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. Fewer than 50% of the people in America from then and on will be white European stock. The task is to bring this minority together in such a way that it makes it impossible for the legacy of whiteness to continue to reproduce itself. My concern is doing it right with whiteness. That's not a bad thing. That's a that's a source of our strength. Europe is not gonna be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century.

The increase in hate groups is primarily driven by shifting demographics. In 1970, the US was 83% white and 17% people of color. Today, the demographics have changed significantly, causing discomfort for some. White supremacists fear losing numerical majority by 2040 or 2050, leading to resistance against diversity. Attempts to alter demographics through immigration policies have failed. By 2043, the US will likely see a significant demographic shift.

Amsterdam, The Hague, and Rotterdam have high migrant populations from non-Christian, non-Western countries. London and Brussels also have a majority of migrants. The speaker believes the great replacement theory is now reality, with native populations being outnumbered. They criticize leaders for celebrating this shift as "diversity" meaning fewer white people. They question why leaders would be happy about their people no longer being the majority in their own country.

The speaker describes an encounter with a man who is part of the “religion of peace.” The man approaches and discusses Minneapolis, arguing that it’s a good thing people are sticking up for “his people” and for the white liberal. He claims that many people are coming over and taking over various cities, including New York City, and asserts that they will continue growing and “take over The United States,” and that “there's nothing that Donald Trump and his people can do about it.” The speaker notes agreeing with the man and egging him on, listening as the man explains how “they’re going to continue growing,” and that their movement is peaceful, aimed at “putting their people into politics.” The man gives the example of Mamdani becoming mayor of New York City, saying that “chip by chip, brick by brick” they will take over, and that the takeover is happening from the inside “peacefully by getting votes.” He says the white liberal benefits from this by giving them votes, and that, beyond employing “refugees” from Middle Eastern countries, they are “planting them here,” who will have kids and keep growing. The speaker, who identifies as a conservative, initially agrees with this assessment and fears that nothing can be done, noting that he would respond with force—“I got my AR fifteens,” “body armor and a helmet,” “I got this and that”—but ultimately relays the belief that there is nothing to stop the takeover. The speaker contrasts left-wing and “the religion of peace,” claiming they hate each other yet cooperate in what he describes as a “demonic plane” where both groups work with Satan. He asserts that left-wing people love certain figures and celebrations (e.g., “they love the gays,” the month of June and pride), while the religion of peace would “literally take that person who happens to be funny or funny and toss them off of the, you know, like the building.” He reiterates that, despite the apparent threat, “there's absolutely nothing that we can do about it,” and asks whether there is a way to respond: “Or is there? Come together, guys. We need to come together. Don't forget to prep for a take care.” In closing, the speaker calls for unity, preparation, and care, suggesting that the situation is unfolding “in front of our face” and expressing concern about a potential civil war, while insisting that the religion of peace is “really a religion of hate.”

Unknown Speaker says: "I am aware of the fear that an influx of foreigners will transform our social fabric in an undesirable way. But the reality is that our social fabric is changing anyway in this increasingly interconnected world."

The great replacement issue threatens to dilute the majority populations in North America, Europe, and Australia. This could lead to a loss of individualism and creativity associated with these populations, resulting in a homogeneous society controlled by a master race of elite bankers and nobility. The agenda has been ongoing since the early 20th century, with immigration policies designed to mix populations. Additionally, there is a demographic trend where lower IQ populations are having more children, while higher IQ individuals struggle to start families due to economic barriers. This situation is seen as a deliberate attempt to damage the genetic quality of the majority population, leading to a future where diversity is homogenized and dissent is minimized.

Speaker 0 argues that white Americans will soon be a minority, and that this is great. Speaker 1 counters that whites will not be the majority and describes it as an exciting transformation and evolution, a progress of the country. Speaker 2 states that whites will be a minority very soon and says, “I'm okay with that.” Speaker 1 asks, if the white working class is in trouble, whether new Americans should be brought in. Speaker 3 predicts America will look very different in a hundred years, with racial labels becoming less distinct (“You're black, you're white, you're Hispanic, you're Puerto Rican, whatever”), and says that complexity will be good in the end. Speaker 2 contends that white Americans feel they are losing their country and ownership, and that they are, in the end, not the future. Speaker 3 asserts that for the first time in American history, the number of white people went down; “White population is declining for the first time in history in America.” Speaker 3 cautions that white people will not be the majority in the country anymore, noting it will be the first generation with whites as a minority. Speaker 1 proclaims, “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” Speaker 3 proclaims that to abolish whiteness is to abolish white people. Speaker 1 contends that white people are committed to being villains in the aggregate. Speaker 3 declares, “We gotta take these motherfuckers out.” Speaker 2 asks whether it was the duty of every good revolutionary to kill all newborn white babies. Speaker 3 responds, “We have to kill white people,” and, when pressed, mirrors that sentiment with, “When we say we wanna kill whites, we don't really mean we wanna kill whites. We do. We have to exterminate white people off of the face of the planet to solve this problem.” Speaker 1 comments, “When do we start killing white people?” and then, “start killing all white folks, but maybe?” Speaker 3 reiterates the extermination goal, stating, “We have to exterminate white people off of the face of the planet to solve this problem.” Speaker 5 adds, “An unrelenting stream of immigration. Nonstop. Nonstop. Folks like me who were Caucasian of European descent will be in an absolute minority in The United States Of America. Absolute minority.” He concludes that this shift is not a bad thing and calls it a source of strength.

The echoes of replacement theory and racially motivated views are becoming more prominent. In the near future, the U.S. will see a demographic shift where white people will no longer be the majority. By 2044, everyone will be a minority, reflecting a significant change in the country's makeup. The white population is declining, while multiracial Americans are increasing. This transformation is particularly evident in states like Texas, where growth is primarily driven by nonwhite populations, especially Hispanic and Latino communities. This demographic evolution is viewed as a positive development, showcasing America's diversity and its political implications. Those who exploit these changes for profit or political gain are seen as responsible for the resulting tensions.

An unending flow of immigration will make people like me, of European descent, a minority in the US. In the future, less than half of the population will be white European. This change is not negative, but rather a part of our evolution.

In 2017, people of Caucasian European descent will become a minority in the United States for the first time. Less than 50% of the population will be of white European stock. This change is seen as a positive and a source of strength.

Living under white supremacy, despite being only 9% of the global population, white people face mass unregulated immigration and media that demonizes them. This issue isn't limited to Western countries; it's a global phenomenon. The U.S. population of European descent has declined from 90% to 57%, with calls to abolish whiteness. There's a narrative suggesting that racial tensions can only be resolved by eliminating white people. Meanwhile, white people's declining birth rates are celebrated, and their representation in institutions is diminished. Other countries aren't pressured to open their borders like this, and it raises concerns about governance favoring foreign interests over native populations. This situation would have prompted significant government changes in the past, but it has become normalized today.

The long-term consequences of demographic changes in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand could lead to the dilution of majority populations. With a global population of 7 billion, and a smaller percentage being white, the faster birth rates of non-white populations may result in a significant decline of white individuals. This shift could diminish the individualism and creativity often associated with white cultures. The outcome may create a homogeneous society that is easier to control, utilizing advanced techniques of surveillance and coercion. Political systems may become deceptive, manufacturing consent among the populace, leading society toward a troubling future.

The Muslim population in Britain is growing by approximately 75% every decade. If we politically alienate the entire Muslim community, we risk significant losses. It's crucial to find ways to include and engage with this population. By 2050, the consequences of failing to do so could be dire.

This country is in trouble because by 2040, white Europeans will be the minority. We need to start working more with Hispanics, who are a larger part of the population than us.

An unending flow of immigration will result in Caucasian Europeans becoming a minority in the United States by 2017. This shift in demographics is seen as a positive and a source of strength.

We have a large population here that is not sustainable. New York City is replacing regular students with migrants. We are planning the biggest deportation effort in our country's history, sending everyone back to their original countries. We have no other option.

Mass immigration will destroy any country that allows it, causing that country to cease to exist. This is due to the numbers: with 8 billion people in the world, even a few percent moving to a country of 50 million, 60 million, or even 350 million, would change it fundamentally. A country is not its geography, but its people. If the people of Italy were teleported to the United States, it would still be Italy. Conversely, if a large number of people from elsewhere were teleported to Italy, replacing the original population, the geographic region would no longer be Italy.