By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Stephen Miller, a former Trump advisor, echoed the “great replacement theory” in response to Zohran Mamdani’s primary victory in New York City. Miller suggested that unchecked migration had fundamentally altered the NYC electorate, contributing to the shift in political landscape. This mirrors Miller’s history of promoting the racist theory, which claims that immigrants are being used to replace native-born Americans. He doubled down on this sentiment, using NYC as a warning for what happens when a society fails to control migration.
Read the original article here
Stephen Miller’s recent comments on X have sparked a predictable firestorm of controversy, and for good reason. His post, which criticized the nomination of an “anarchist-socialist” for Mayor of New York City, reads as a thinly veiled invocation of a racist conspiracy theory, specifically the “Great Replacement” theory. The core of Miller’s argument centers on the idea that unchecked immigration has fundamentally altered the NYC electorate, implicitly framing this shift as a negative development orchestrated by Democrats. This framing, however, is not just a political critique; it’s a dog whistle, a coded message designed to resonate with those who believe in a white nationalist agenda.
The criticism of Miller’s statement is multifaceted, touching on several key aspects. First, there’s the inherent irony of attacking a political figure for supposedly changing voters through immigration, when gerrymandering is a well-established Republican tactic to the same effect. Second, the sheer hypocrisy of an individual whose own family benefitted from the very immigration he now condemns, is another frequent observation. Numerous comments highlight the fact that Miller’s own lineage arrived in the United States via immigration, making his stance appear not only xenophobic but also deeply personal.
The response is overwhelmingly critical of Miller’s words, often using harsh language to express disdain. The tone veers from sarcastic to outright angry. The focus is not just on Miller’s political stance but on the perceived underlying racism driving his words. Numerous comments equate Miller’s rhetoric to that of Nazi propagandists, specifically mentioning Joseph Goebbels, highlighting the perceived similarities between Miller’s language and historical examples of hate speech used to incite fear and division. The comparison is obviously intended to underscore the severity of the perceived racism.
The reaction to Miller’s statements also exposes the fundamental absurdity of his claims. Many question the logical consistency of his argument, particularly the assertion that immigration, which is an issue directly tied to his political beliefs, is somehow the problem. The response points out that non-citizens cannot vote, therefore the “unchecked migration” he mentions is not leading to voter changes. Instead, the argument goes, Miller is simply lamenting the changing demographics of the voting population and the political outcomes that result. The comments highlight the absurdity of framing these shifts as a malicious conspiracy.
The invocation of the “Great Replacement” theory is seen as a particularly insidious aspect of Miller’s statement. This theory, which posits that white populations are being intentionally replaced by non-white immigrants, is a core tenet of white supremacist ideology. By subtly alluding to this theory, Miller is accused of leveraging a deeply prejudiced ideology to mobilize his base and denigrate his political opponents. This aspect of the issue has drawn outrage and fueled calls for Miller to be denounced.
The comments also point out the irony of the political right’s reaction to the situation. Many find it amusing that Republicans are seemingly shocked that a candidate of opposing viewpoints is running. They see the reaction as fear of losing power, and the possibility of this politician succeeding in his goals is even mentioned.
The comments include some people hoping that Mamdani, the candidate being discussed, wins the election. Their motivation is not necessarily political, but to see Miller’s words bite him back, and to see his fear come to fruition.
Overall, the comments reflect a deep-seated anger and concern about the rise of white nationalist rhetoric in mainstream political discourse. Miller’s use of the “Great Replacement” theory is viewed not just as a political misstep but as a deliberate attempt to exploit racial anxieties and further divide the electorate. The response is a clear rejection of these tactics and a demand for greater accountability from those who engage in such rhetoric. The fact that Miller’s words have drawn such a strong and negative reaction only further illustrates the toxicity of his message and the need for vigilance against such divisive ideologies.