I have the impression that most people believing and repeating this "great replacement" narrative are not members of the demographics they claim are being replaced. To me it seems mostly spread by people living outside of Europe trying to paint Europe in a bad light in order to push fear and anti-immigration policies in the general west.
Unfortunately, it's not an uncommon thing to hear from people when performing community outreach (think door knocking). External push, definitely, but it's also being repeated by the demographic this narrative is being pushed to.
I can't comment on whether or not they believe it, but it's certainly repeated by some here in Ireland.
> but it's certainly repeated by some here in Ireland.
To be fair to Ireland and history they have a valid complaint going back centuries wrt outsiders taking their lands, language, governance, food and labour all while debating "the Irish Question" and reaching for eugenic "solutions".
> To be fair to Ireland and history they have a valid complaint going back centuries wrt outsiders taking their lands, language, governance, food and labour all while debating "the Irish Question" and reaching for eugenic "solutions".
Odd then, that they didn't notice when this happened post GFC when basically all of the land banks and large assets were sold off to (predominantly) US based private equity funds.
And honestly, Irish anti-immigration sentiment is far more driven by both our complete failures at building infrastructure for a growing population (which we've never had before) and the fact that all refugees are housed in poor areas (which already had much worse services).
But it's very important that no residents of South Dublin should be inconvenienced, even at the cost of our society.
I more or less nodded along in general agreement save for
> for a growing population (which we've never had before)
and feel I might remind you that in the time span of my comment (past centuries) Irelands population nearly tripled in the 40 years following 1700 to a peak greater than the current population number.
> and feel I might remind you that in the time span of my comment (past centuries) Irelands population nearly tripled in the 40 years following 1700 to a peak greater than the current population number.
True, the political system was very different then though, and the government of the time (to put it lightly) was not concerned with the needs of those citizens (c.f. penal laws etc).
I wouldn't say anyone didn't notice "when basically all of the land banks and large assets were sold off", there was years of protest and reporting about this.
> Irish anti-immigration sentiment is far more driven by both our complete failures at building infrastructure
Yeah, I'd largely agree it's a services issue, and most people I speak with correctly direct that anger at the state.
> I wouldn't say anyone didn't notice "when basically all of the land banks and large assets were sold off", there was years of protest and reporting about this.
I definitely was upset at the time, but didn't really notice many people paying attention. We basically sold off our future development policy to get out of the Troika bailout (and I understand why this happened, but I think the long term consequences of this are have been shown to be really, really bad).
> Yeah, I'd largely agree it's a services issue, and most people I speak with correctly direct that anger at the state.
And they are correct to do so. Basically all FFG have done is wait until the housing issue had gone way too far (and started impacting their voters) and then done a bunch of demand side initiatives which have just pushed up prices rather than focusing on the development side.
Not to mention the absurdity of our national spatial strategy where we won't zone more in Dublin and instead want people to move to Meath & Wicklow and commute for hours to their jobs.
But at least no-one's left in negative equity. FML.
So if you look at money, education etc basically the south of Dublin is incredibly rich relative to the rest of the country. It tends to be where much of the media and business interests of the country are focused, and you never see (for example) a Traveller halting site, or an immigration centre being set up there. Whereas, if you look at a place like Tallaght (which to be fair is also south dublin) you'll see worse services, and lots of immigration centres.
It's a comment on the geographical inequalities and their impact on politics.
Don't get me wrong, I live in a similar Northside enclave, but it's really upsetting to me that much of the media and political elite live in bubbles where they don't see the consequences of their (bad) decisions.
Well, those are common talking points in some quarters, but I can tell you they're false, because I live in a southside suburb, the kind of place that journalists describe as "leafy". For the last couple of years, a large immigration centre has been operating a kilometer and a half away from my house. (You haven't heard of it because there were no protests about it.) There's a halting site located a kilometer away from me in the other direction.
Is the system perfect? No, of course not. But the Us vs Them polemics are unfair.
> Is the system perfect? No, of course not. But the Us vs Them polemics are unfair.
Fair enough, I recognise that I may have been unfair to many residents of South Dublin in my generalisation. That being said, there is a really common pattern of anything that inconveniences higher income voters being pushed into poorer areas.
For a good example, look at where all of the large apartment buildings are being actually built (as opposed to being judically reviewed). There's a pretty clear pattern of them being built in poorer areas relative to richer ones, and I guess that's where I'm coming from here.
Like, I live in a similarly leafy suburb (but on the Northside) and they wanted to build a set of high rise apartments on a junction next to the N3, and it was shut down with many angry comments. Meanwhile, over by Blanchardstown shopping centre (a much poorer area) they're building a similarly sized apartment block with local objections being steam-rollered.
IMO there's a massive difference between what's happening today, with individuals claiming asylum, compared to the State level interference of our history.
Seems like a low bar given the entire span of Britain's history - Londinium was founded by Mediterraneans, Danelaw covered half the Big Island for a good period, the Anglo-Saxons were Germanic immigrants pushed back by the Norman wave . . .
The UK is immigrant wave after wave all the way back to when it was nothing but solid ice pressing down the entire landmass and practically all the islands.
They're clearly not being replaced, as a look at the numbers indicates, but what is true for most European countries is that if the low birth rates stay far below 2.1 their populations will continue to decline and their economies will shrink, if they don't manage to offset that trend with controlled yearly immigration.
To clarify: Although it follows mathematically with constantly low birth rate, dying out is, of course, not a likely consequence. It seems likely that at some point when the economies shrink poverty would hit so seriously that the birth rates would start increasing again, as they seem to be negatively correlated with standards of living. However, we're talking about levels of shrinkage that feel like a collapse of the economy and social security/pension systems.
IMO the problem lies with this statement. For people like OP any "control" of immigration is going to be responded with the same criticisms. Because if you take a stance hard enough, any of these controls can be spun into anti-immigration.
By "controlled" I had something else in mind than what you seem to insinuate, namely that the yearly immigration rate must roughly match the desired long-term population stability. For a reasonable immigration system, you need to welcome the immigrants you want to get, provide a long-term perspective, and offer some incentives for them to come. Unlike the US, European countries have often failed at that basic job, or at least their immigration politics have been erratic and without constancy. Phrases like "a stance hard enough" are a symptom of the problem.
The biggest failure is that part of "provide a perspective" - not even a long-term. Immigrants were accepted and... that was all, probably expecting the invisible hand, or Santa, to magically sort stuff up. And then acting surprised when immigrants who were denied the right to work looked into, ahem, "alternate" income sources, or original cultural behaviors got carried over. One could even get the idea that all these failures were by design to keep a handy scapegoat for their own failures (or misdeeds). Thus the anger of the alt-truth crowd not only with said immigrants but also with the system which failed everybody (except the system people).
My country (Germany) still consists out of 72.65% Germans (Wikipedia/Destatis Sept. 2025).
Every other ethnic doesn't surpass 4%.
Being an open and multicultural country kinda implies that other ethnics have a place here, and that's a good thing. Nationalism is the last thing my country needs.
You hope to discredit the argument that European peoples are being replaced by categorizing it as a crazy conspiracy theory about Jews or whatever. I'm merely making a conclusion based on current immigration trends.
