It's a fact that white people will lose demographic majority status in the US next ~30 years - there's nothing conspiratorial in asserting this. The conspiracy (and opprobrium) come from believing it to be a (((scheme))) and a goal unto itself instead of seeing it as a byproduct of several cultural and demographic trends or policy decisions that were intended to be race-blind.
Even that though - is a lot to do with the very specific New World way that America tries to pigeon-hole and force racial categories. As in, there are a lot of American people who would be considered as being "white" elsewhere but who aren't in the American understanding of racial classifications; and the country is a very, very long way from having a majority of the population with no or little European ancestry.
In that case, the hand wringing over the dissapearance of a white majority is something that is mostly a question of definitions - or in other words, a reflection of the degree to which "race" is not actually a biological reality but a cultural one. Nor is one specific ethnic identity losing its status as the majority exactly a new phenomenon in the US. White Anglo-Saxons have long since ceased to be either a majority or even an especially identifiable population, in all likelihood the "Non-hispanic white" category will at some point go the same way.
In Europe it's even more so, I was reading something fairly recently on the demography of France, which is possibly the European country with the largest non-white population. In essence, if current rates of immigration and intermarriage continue, it will never have a majority with no "European" ancestry, or even with mostly non-European ancestry. And in any case, I don't really see why worrying about a country where most people have some North African or something background is on the whole any more worrying than the current situation where most people can probably identify some Italian/Portuguese/Polish ancestry. Demographic "replacement" as it is, is pretty much a constant phenomena across all of human history.
Which is all not to say that worrying about immigration makes someone a hopeless racist, more that pushing a "great replacement" narrative - even with the conspiratorial element removed - does play on some fairly racist tropes along the lines of "in order to be a genuine European you must have zero non-European ancestry and preferably not anything too close to the Meditteranean either"
Nah, I really don't think that's true (the part in bold primarily. The part after that is definitely true.) The notion that people aren't "truly" white if they have some sort of somewhat "ethnic" background or a tiny bit of non-European ancestry isn't really a widely held view in the US by anyone younger than Social Security eligibility age and for some reason Atlas posters. The people pushing the "Great Replacement" stuff certainly don't think that, it's not like they're also trying to exclude Italians and Eastern Europeans, a lot are actually of that ancestry themselves.
Also it's a bit of a myth that "ethnics" were ever considered non-white even in the 19th century. Like for one just look at the Census results then, the country was far more white than it is now which isn't surprising at all, but this showed that all people of European ancestry were being counted as white still. Also they were able to vote even under Jim Crow, could marry WASPs even in states that banned interracial marriage before
Loving v. Virgina, they were allowed to use white facilities in the segregated south, etc. Trying to exclude them today is just weird and not something I ever see outside of things like stereotypical Twitter liberals trying to pull some sort of "gotcha!" on someone like Nick Fuentes even though it's obvious the alt-right doesn't care. I kind of wonder if a lot of this is because their blatant racism and bigotry is so archaic-sounding in some ways that a lot just assume they hold the exact same views on racial categories as the original Klan. But there's a reason you won't ever see someone like the Buffalo shooter targeting Italians.
Even for people outside of Europe, the white status isn't really that disputed. Like the most obvious example of people included as white in the Census but who some would argue otherwise is Middle Easterners. But who seriously argues that the Governor of New Hampshire isn't a white guy or tries to count him as an example of a non-white GOP politician? Also to reuse an example I cited in that thread about that "families of color playground night", there's a couple at my church where the husband is Egyptian, and so their kids are half-Egyptian, yet they really don't look much different from the fully European kids and no one would ever count them as non-white. And in fact even the mother is partially "ethnic" because she said that she's actually half-Jewish (her father is a completely non-practicing and non-observant Jew and thus her and her siblings were all raised Christian by their mother), so if Jews also count as "non-European" that would make their kids only about a quarter European in ancestry, but again no one would ever seriously consider them "students of color" or something like that. And while one drop rules were used in the past to exclude some people as white, today you don't really see that amongst anyone of majority European ancestry aside from people trying to get benefits of tribal membership on the basis of being like 1/16 Native American.
It's true that online discourse can obscure a lot of this stuff and of course people who love to debate and categorize this often end up engaging in a sort of woke neo-phrenology and it often involves some very weird takes like that Muslims are never ever white, but I think that's just another example of how Twitter is not real life.
Poll
