3,504 words
Imagine a world without white people. What would it look like? What would it be like? Would it be better or worse?
If you were to ask 100 people those three questions, you would get 300 different answers. But you wouldn’t really get 300 answers; you’d get 300 preconceived reactions. Whiteness — i.e., the concept of being white — is a stressor (particularly for white people), therefore it doesn’t provoke thought, it triggers a conditioned response.
How would one “imagine a world without white people” if one actually had to imagine it?
All discussions of good faith begin with an agreeable definition of the concept being discussed. Concepts aren’t observable, so unless they’re explicitly defined, they remain malleable to interpretation. When debating the flavor of apples, it’s vital that all parties know the difference between an apple and an orange. I was formally enlightened to this debate etiquette years ago while deliberating the concept of God with a close friend. He said, “We can’t debate an abstraction without defining it first. In your own words, define God.” Needless to say, defining concepts “in your own words” is an eye-opener to what you actually know, as opposed to what you believe.
This brings us to the question of why we opt to engage in the exchange of ideas in the first place. After all, it’s not a physiological need motivated by homeostasis. Your biological existence would be exactly the same if you never shared any of your thoughts. However, according to Descartes’ “cogito, ergo sum,” thinking is existing. Ironically, he came to that philosophical conclusion while doubting his own existence (“dubito, ergo sum”). If Descartes had never doubted his existence, he would’ve never existed. Disagree? Prove me wrong. And just like that, we have a battle of ideas.
What separates humans from all other animals is the ability to reason. Reason isn’t just some evolved trait of the naked ape; it’s the essence of humanity. Theoretically, our memories were the result of evolution, but evolution doesn’t provide an explanation for the human consciousness. Therefore, within the realm of reason, either everything is a coincidence or nothing is. More specifically, if reason doesn’t invoke logic, then it’s just a word that represents a meaningless concept:
Reason is the capacity of consciously applying logic by drawing conclusions from new or existing information, with the aim of seeking the truth.
The exchange of ideas using logic and reason isn’t just our formula for understanding, it’s the proof of our metaphysical existence. When those ideas transition into an experience, they result in the acquisition of knowledge. Ideas are conceptualized, then translated with words, whereas knowledge is gained ostensibly via experience. The reason we exchange ideas and embark on experiences is the same reason we eat when we’re hungry or seek shelter when we’re cold. Ideas are food and shelter for the soul.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s It’s Okay to Be White here.
Feeding your soul lies is the equivalent to feeding your body candy bars. You might be able to survive on a diet of only candy bars, but your body will manifest the nutritional deficiencies of ingesting such a diet. Your soul is no different. The reason our society is inundated with soulless corpses isn’t because of mental illness, drug addiction, homelessness, sexual degeneracy, morbid obesity, nihilism, and so on. Those are all just symptoms of a disease. The disease is chronic malnutrition of the soul from a diet of lies and deception.
The construction of reality based on lies is known as a delusional disorder. A person’s feelings don’t change the meaning of a word. Redefining the word “hunger” doesn’t redefine the body’s need for food. When reality becomes a social construct, truth becomes perception. All lies are a derivative of truth. When the truth has been compromised, so has reality.
In the status quo, connotations are attached to certain terms. The term you choose depends on the narrative you endorse. Some examples include: “illegal alien” vs. “undocumented immigrant,” “Merry Christmas” vs. “happy holidays,” “transgender” vs. “schizophrenia,” “abortion” vs. “murder,” “demographic change” vs. “white genocide,” etc. The use of euphemisms is a form of psychological warfare intended to manipulate a person’s reasoning. When shape-shifters alter the meaning of something using euphemisms, they are effectively staking a claim in your thoughts — at which point that part of your frontal lobe no longer exists, because someone else is thinking for you (cogito, ergo sum).
Thesis
The purpose of this paper is to be objective: to observe reality and define it appropriately, to deconstruct narratives built on euphemisms, to make you think, and most importantly, to call the demographic replacement of white people what it really is: white genocide!
To begin with, the reader may assert that calling demographic change “genocide” is anything but objective. Some might prefer more marketable terms like “demographic transition” or even “white replacement.” Some might even call it “human migration.” But this paper isn’t about establishing a narrative, or winning a debate, it’s about observing a phenomenon and using the proper term to define it. So, if replacing a particular group of people with different groups of people in the span of a generation isn’t genocide, then what exactly is it? Furthermore, the word replacing implies an inorganic action. Nobody asks, “Why is the white population in America rapidly declining?”, because everybody knows why: The white population is being intentionally replaced. Thus, if a group of people within a population are being systemically replaced, how is that not an indication of genocide?
Regarding the history of genocides, when have the perpetrators of genocide referred to their acts as “genocide”? They always call it something else. But does that change history? As Shakespeare so eloquently wrote:
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.
Words are a lot like shoes: If they don’t fit, they’re useless. Hence, the wise woman who once said, “If the shoe fits, put the damn thing on!” also said, “If you’re not going to call a spade a ‘spade,’ then what’s a spade?”
What is genocide?
In 1944, a Polish Jew named Rafael Lemkin coined the term genocide by combining the Ancient Greek word génos (race or people) with the Latin word cide (killing). He defined the term as follows:
By “genocide” we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.
Genocide is a means to an end that is always covert. Every instance of genocide involves a large group of people who either deny it’s happening, or who justify it by calling it something else (i.e, euphemisms). The architects of genocide use their institutions of power to establish the moral high ground via social engineering techniques, then actively scapegoat the undesirables for the ills of society. This sways public opinion, which causes many to turn a blind eye. One doesn’t have to have a degree in psychology to understand how this works. A vague analysis of the recent COVID pandemic and/or the last two presidential elections provide working models of how reality is packaged for societal consumption.
There are no historical examples where a group of people are replaced in a short span of time and it isn’t considered genocide. The fact that the majority of people criticize the acknowledgment of white genocide, and counter the accusation by saying it’s a good thing, is itself a characteristic of genocide. Many are also premature to dismiss accusations of genocide on the notion that genocide requires violent extermination — but by all definitions, it does not.
Words are tools of comprehension in the field of communication. Data doesn’t care what humans call it, because data doesn’t have an agenda; it’s just data. While terms like “great replacement,” “demographic change,” “human migration,” and “white genocide” are all theoretically different, they’re all empirically the same. Depending upon perspective, all four of those terms are interchangeable as descriptions for the following phenomenon:
Up until the 1950s, the United States was 85% white. By 2020, that number had dropped to 57% (these figures don’t include the roughly 30 million non-whites illegal immigrants):
Knowing is half the battle
I wanted to start this discussion with a series of hypothetical questions as a way to illustrate subjective reasoning. For example, if you were to type “white genocide” into an Internet search engine, every result is effectively an anti-white propaganda piece. As a matter of fact, the first result says that the white genocide conspiracy theory is the result of a psychological panic driven by white extinction anxiety:
The white genocide, white extinction, or white replacement conspiracy theory, is a white supremacist conspiracy theory which states that there is a deliberate plot, often blamed on Jews, to promote miscegenation, interracial marriage, mass non-white immigration, racial integration, low fertility rates, abortion, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence, and eliminationism in white-founded countries in order to cause the extinction of whites through forced assimilation, mass immigration, and violent genocide. Less frequently, black people, Hispanics, and Muslims are blamed for the secret plot, but merely as more fertile immigrants, invaders, or violent aggressors, rather than the masterminds.
White genocide is a political myth, based on pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and ethnic hatred, driven by a psychological panic often termed “white extinction anxiety”. White people are not dying out or facing extermination. The purpose of the conspiracy theory is to justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda in support of calls to violence.
It’s interesting that being “anxious” about your group’s extinction somehow makes you a bad person. It’s also interesting that the declaration of genocide can be labeled a “conspiracy theory” without addressing any of the empirical evidence that is the claim’s foundation. The assertion of the “white genocide conspiracy theory” that only “violent white supremacists full of ethnic hatred” would take notice of their replacement is a classic example of an ad hominem fallacy. Asking these types of people to “imagine a world without white people” would illicit the type of responses that would be associated with those who support white genocide. Actually, many openly admit it:
“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists . . . Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed — not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.” — Noel Ignatiev
“The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.” — Noel Ignatiev
“Is it the duty of every good revolutionary to kill every newborn White baby?” — Jose Angel Gutierrez
“So if you’re a gang member and you would normally be killing somebody, why not kill a white person?” — Sister Souljah
“Today, we would add that as long as 150 million Americans define themselves as white with all the expectations, privileges and violence that accrue to that identity, there is no hope for us as a nation.” — Mark LeVine
“Whiteness is a public health crisis. It shortens life expectancies, it pollutes air, it constricts equilibrium, it devastates forests, it melts ice caps, it sparks (and funds) wars, it flattens dialects, it infests consciousnesses, and it kills people . . .” — Damon Young
Citing a handful of quotes by white genocidists doesn’t implicate systemic complicity. Anti-white rhetoric is the only form of “hate speech” that is still protected by law in the United States. But just because there are lots of people who support white genocide doesn’t prove white genocide is transpiring. For white replacement to be white genocide, the implications of intent have to be deemed deliberately destructive.
According to the United Nation’s Genocide Convention, genocide has to meet one or more of the following criteria:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
All genocides have a genesis
For 175 years, the demographics of the United States were static (roughly 90% white). Then something changed. In 1965, “high-ranking officials and special interest groups” applied immense pressure on lawmakers to pass a bill – the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 — that reversed existing immigration policy, which had previously restricted natural citizenship to “white persons” (with preference given to northern and western Europeans of Protestant faith):
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 marked a radical break from U.S. immigration policies of the past. Since Congress restricted naturalized citizenship to “white persons” in 1790, laws restricted immigration from Asia and Africa, and gave preference to Northern and Western Europeans over Southern and Eastern Europeans. During this time, most of those immigrating to the U.S. were Northern Europeans of Protestant faith and Western Africans who were forced to immigrate because of slavery.
At the time of the act’s passing, many high-ranking politicians favored this bill to be passed, including President Lyndon B. Johnson. However, the public did not reciprocate these feelings, which can be seen in a Gallup Organization poll in 1965 asking if they were in favor of getting rid of the national quota act, and only 51 percent were in favor. The act was pressured by high-ranking officials and interest groups to be passed, which it was passed on October 3, 1965. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1965 act into law at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, ending preferences for white immigrants dating to the 18th century.
The purpose of passing this bill was to change the religious and racial demographics of the United States. There is simply no other explanation. Additionally, the 1965 act opened the door for other bills to be passed that are much more explicit in their desire to replace the white population. For example, the Immigration Act of 1990 (aka “green card lottery”) is a non-merit based lottery with the aim of diversifying the United States’ immigration population (i.e., to make the country less white):
The Diversity Immigrant Visa program, also known as the green card lottery, is a United States government lottery program for receiving a United States Permanent Resident Card. The Immigration Act of 1990 established the current and permanent Diversity Visa (DV) program.
The lottery is administered by the Department of State and conducted under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). It makes available 55,000 immigrant visas annually and aims to diversify the immigrant population in the United States, by selecting applicants from countries with low numbers of immigrants in the previous five years. Around 13 million people applied for the lottery in 2020.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here
If having a lottery to replace white people doesn’t make a valid argument for white genocide, I’m not sure what does. Are there any other instances in history where a country has been so desperate to replace a group of people that it enacts a lottery to do so? How could anyone present a rational argument for a “diversity lottery” without asking the question, “Isn’t this kinda like genocide?” The “green card lottery” motto should read, “We don’t care about your IQ, social status, or character, we just want a non-white America. Apply today!”
A powerful element of the country has manipulated the legal system in order to change the cultural and ethnic fabric of the United States. The founders were white men who created a nation explicitly for white people. It doesn’t matter how that makes you feel; that’s just the truth. Nonetheless, while “politicians and special interest groups” utilize the legal system created by White Nationalists to genocide the white population, they also disregard the same legal system when it comes to laws on illegal immigration. In other words, they use the law to enforce their agenda, and they ignore the law to enforce their agenda: win-win.
Speaking of illegal immigration, a Yale study estimates the number of illegal immigrants in the United States could be as high as 29.1 million. And almost all illegal immigrants are non-white:
The undocumented population in the United States could be twice as large as the most commonly-used estimate, according to a research study published Friday in the scientific journal Plos One.
The paper, led by Mohammad M. Fazel-Zarandi, a researcher at Yale and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, estimates there are 22.1 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.
Fazel-Zarandi’s study compared inflows and outflows of immigrants as well as demographic data. According to the report, the number of undocumented immigrants could be as low as 16.5 million, or as high as 29.1 million.
In 2021, illegal immigration fueled a record number 46.6 million foreign-born people residing in the United States, which now accounts for 14.2% of the population (the most since 1910):
A new analysis of census data previewed by Secrets found that there are now 46.6 million legal and illegal foreign-born immigrants in the country, up 1.6 million over last year.
The analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies also said that the foreign-born population is now 14.2% of all people in the country counted by the census. That is the highest in 112 years.
“If present trends continue, the immigrant share is likely to surpass the all-time highs reached in 1890 (14.8%) and 1910 (14.7%) in the next few years,” said the report’s authors, Steven Camarota and Karen Zeigler.
It’s important to note that genocide doesn’t just start one day and end the next. It can go on over a period of years — or, as in the case of white genocide, decades. The fact that laws were passed to enable white genocide doesn’t mean it’s not genocide. Laws are the concepts of men, and men are always the perpetrators of genocide. This point can’t be emphasized enough, so it needs to be reiterated: Using laws to enact genocide is still genocide. This alone will create immense cognitive dissonance in the normie-conformist personality type. His entire argument will be that changing racist immigration laws isn’t genocide even if the results are genocidal.
Mass non-white immigration + forced assimilation = white genocide
Up until this point we have written a recipe for white genocide, but we haven’t added the final ingredient needed to differentiate demographic change from white genocide. This implies implementing a method of deliberate acts inflicted on a group with the purpose of physical destruction. Importing millions of non-white immigrants into white spaces isn’t grounds for genocide by itself. But forced assimilation is:
Forced assimilation is an involuntary process of cultural assimilation of religious or ethnic minority groups during which they are forced to adopt language, identity, norms, mores, customs, traditions, values, mentality, perceptions, way of life, and often religion and ideology of established and generally larger community belonging to dominant culture by government. Also enforcement of a new language in legislation, education, literature, worshiping counts as forced assimilation. Unlike ethnic cleansing, the local population is not outright destroyed and may or may not be forced to leave a certain area. Instead the population becomes assimilated by force. It has often been used after an area has changed nationality. Forced assimilation is also called cultural genocide and ethnocide.
Diversity has been forced on whites by the use of tyrannically oppressive laws, as well as Machiavellian intimidation tactics (job termination, loss of financial resources, housing eviction, travel restrictions, societal ostracization, violence, civil lawsuits, etc.), which has enabled white genocide to occur. White genocide is methodical, which means it’s deliberate.
Mandating diversity (non-whites) on a white population is forced assimilation, which according to article II, part (C) of the United Nations Genocide Conventions, is genocide by definition:
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
We are experiencing white genocide. It’s observable, so it’s not debatable. So why are people so offended by it? Why is white genocide such a taboo topic for information systems? Pundits, politicians, and journalists all know it’s happening, but they refuse to talk about it in an honest manner, as if it’s some kind of secret they don’t want anyone to know about. Come to think of it, the conspiracy to conceal white genocide makes much more sense than the conspiracy to reveal white genocide.
I began this paper by telling you to imagine a world without white people. There are no right or wrong answers to what one imagines, but there is also only one way to instruct someone to “imagine a world without white people.” It doesn’t matter what people think about white genocide, what matters is that they acknowledge it.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
24 comments
Imagine a world without white people. What would it look like? What would it be like?
Off the top of my head, a universal Third World sh*thole run by Chinamen and Israelites
I haven’t read the article, as I’m not a subscriber. But I’ve been trying to get people to reflect upon this issue all my life. My fellow students used to think I was nuts when I would say in college (early 80s) that the white race was headed to extinction, and even more so perhaps when I would add that preventing white extinction was the highest collective task of mankind. Whites made the world, and most of whatever is good in it. Even more laudable than our unrivalled historical accomplishments across every field of human endeavor is our position as the world’s moral civilizers. And, contrary to what many IQ fetishists and libertarian individualists might otherwise suppose, our race didn’t achieve its preeminence solely because of its unique propensity to produce such a disproportionate share of the world’s true geniuses and benefactors. The great white men whom radical individualists extol and exalt stood not merely on the shoulders of earlier great white men, but on the communal {moral, cognitive, psychological, behavioral} excellences of the entire white race. Few could have achieved their places in history without this deep, anonymous foundation of racial superiority.
We are the greatest race, not merely the race which produced the most great men. And that is the moral basis which will justify and upon which we will take the hard and coercive measures necessary to secure our existence as a people, and a future for white children.
Respectfully, Whites are not going ‘extinct’. There are more Whites in the USA today than there were in 1965. Our problem is not extinction. Our problem is dispossession. Our raw numbers in the US are going to ‘decline’ because of the demographic anomaly that both you and I are a part of: The Baby Boom.
Scaring the crap out of White people – or, alternatively, demoralizing them – does not help White people to craft a reasoned, effective strategy to deal with things as they actually are instead of some blackpill fantasy. Whites are still not miscengating in large numbers, especially White women. No matter how much our racial enemies try to ‘sell’ race-mixing, White people don’t want it. It’s just that the institutions that Whites created to govern them (and in their protect their interests) have be hijacked and turned against us by a hostile alien race whose members always seem to want the exact opposite of what Whites want.
Describing the problem as one of ‘extinction’ suggests we need to birth our way out of this problem. But that’s not going to work. The Racial Right wasted 70+ years focusing on biology instead of power and now we have to work extra hard to try to make up for lost time.
We are not going to breed our way out of this problem. Because the problem isn’t numbers. If it were, our racial enemies wouldn’t have any power at all. Our problem is dispossession and the solution to that problem is power and the movement of unwanted non-White bodies away from White bodies.
1.Please read (and contemplate) my reply below to comment #6 from DarkPlato differentiating “white genocide” from “white extinction”. We can, imo, legitimately argue about whether “genocide” accurately describes our plight. But that whites are ineluctably headed to extinction (obviously not in our lifetimes (!), but eventually … within sight) based on the continuation of present trends is virtually undeniable.
2.Greg Johnson, in The White Nationalist Manifesto, discusses the end result of existing trends for whites as a race: extinction. I have both a print and an e-copy. Here are the first paragraphs from the first non-introductory chapter (headed “WHITE EXTINCTION”):
White Nationalists believe that the current social and political system has
put our race on the road to biological extinction. If present trends are not
reversed, whites will disappear as a distinct race.
To many whites, this sounds like an absurd and alarmist claim, given that
there are anywhere from 700 million to one billion of us on the planet today.
[note: I strongly dispute Dr. Johnson’s numbers here. I believe there are fewer than 500 million real whites. And I’m being generous in my definition of “white”, including not only racial Nordics like Trump, Biden, Dr. Johnson (and me), but all indigenous Europeans, including Iberians, Sicilians, Montenegrans, Greeks, etc, many of whom are scarcely indistinguishable from many lighter-skinned Turks, Persians, and Latinos, as well as all East Europeans and ethnic Russians (many of whom have some portion of “Tartar” {ie, Central Asiatic} blood). I’m even willing to include those with some slight nonwhite genetic background, if overwhelmingly racially white and completely white-acculturated and self-identified (eg, many white Americans and Canadians with an Indian in their Old Stock pasts; Australians and especially Afrikaners with some minimal, distant mixture; and perhaps overwhelmingly white Latinos, like Sen. Ted Cruz)]
Part of that skepticism is simply psychological denial in the face of an
unpleasant prospect. Non-whites seldom show skepticism about white
extinction. Indeed, our enemies take our eventual disappearance for granted
and openly gloat about our decline.
I wish to argue, however, that white extinction is not an alarmist fantasy,
but an alarming fact, the inevitable conclusion of sober, informed analysis.
3.I agree completely with the recognition of our racial dispossession, and of our need for both re-empowerment and ultimate ethnoterritorial separation (at least for those whites who want it; many of our people love diversity, and they should be allowed to wallow in it if they desire; I do believe in freedom of choice [we are the ones being denied that by the existing regime], but also that segregating the white racial preservationists from the douchebag diversitists will aid in long term racial attitude hardening and hence preservation).
4.Talking about white extinction is not a “blackpill”, but a wakeup call, a way to focus white minds on ultimate things, which can in the process help to lift our horizons from mere quotidian personal and political concerns, even if it is unlikely (but not impossible) that any white now living will witness the actual final extinction of whites. It’s a way to get our people thinking about the future, about what life will be like – how it will decline – in the decades and centuries of ever worsening white disempowerment preceding white extinction. Average people aren’t thinking about these matters. And never underestimate the state-manufactured ignorance (and often sheer stupidity) of people, including our people.
I’ll have to go back and read Dr. Johnson’s logic on the ‘extinction’ claim. What the data show is that globally Whites are being out-bred. But within the USA, we’re only slightly below every other native (3rd generation) race in the borders. The USA is being flooded with immigrants and those immigrants are having many children who are surviving to sexual maturity versus their homelands. They’re their own Brown Boom.
And, even if it were true, the idea that ‘extinction’ has the right ‘shock value’ to make people think is dubious. I think it just causes people’s minds to just shut down. It’s too big and the mind recoils.
But there’s also the way the idea of ‘extinction’ plays into the future demographic trough that is coming as the Boomers die. I’d rather our people calmly approach that time with an understanding of the Boomer anomaly that freak out because our extinction is ‘happening faster than we ever imagined’. That might be a great situation to grift off of if one was so inclined, but it’s hardly the sober recognition that we really don’t know what the proper demographic trend is for White people at this particular moment in history.
Across the First World – across the White First World – Whites have been voluntarily reducing their numbers and in the US, many other races have been doing the same. Are they going ‘extinct’ too?
“The most striking finding is a clear signal of admixture into northern Europe, with one ancestral population related to present-day Basques and Sardinians and the other related to present-day populations of northeast Asia and the Americas.”
Ancient Admixture in Human History
GENETICS November 1, 2012 vol. 192 no. 3 1065-1093
“We show that the genetic makeup of northern Europe was shaped by migrations from Siberia that began at least 3500 years ago. This Siberian ancestry was subsequently admixed into many modern populations in the region.”
Ancient Fennoscandian genomes reveal origin
and spread of Siberian ancestry in Europe
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018) 9:5018
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/hundreds-of-migrants-scale-border-fence-to-reach-spanish-territory-1.4817731
“What refugees bring us is more valuable than gold.” (Martin Schulz)
Young, dynamic people on their way to Europe. From minute 3.50, the
Spanish “border guards” help the illegal intruders by bringing ladders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_KtBezUi8s&t=124s
It’s a shame the article links to Wikipedia for an “explanation” of the Hart-Celler Act. As in Australia the prime movers behind ending racial segregation and demolishing the historical white ethno-state were Jews. Credit where credit is due.
I’m not a big fan of the term Genocide.
And I’m particularly skeptical of the term “White Genocide” because it implies some kind of Beta special-pleading.
This is not the way to raise the hue-and-cry and to mobilize the proverbial Minutemen, in my opinion. But I do agree that this is a debate that we should be having.
The polemical term Genocide is intentionally a matter of semantics, and certainly the point: It’s as much or as little as its exponents desire it to be.
Otherwise the term has to be meaningfully differentiated from any ordinary act of war or even perceived insult.
The late Professor James J. Martin put the meaning of Genocide as “depending upon whose ox is being gored.”
Actually, I have used this figure of speech for so long that I can’t remember if the original coinage was actually Prof. Martin’s or mine ─ but the idea came directly out of his 1984 book, The Man Who Invented Genocide, published by the Institute for Historical Review.
Professor Martin examined the public career of Polish Jewish jurist Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term “Genocide” in his 1943 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.
But we should go back a little farther to the First World War and the Ottoman Empire, and the modern desire of the Jews for a Zionist state in Palestine as their global headquarters.
President Wilson’s ambassador to Turkey was Henry Morgenthau, Sr., a foreign-born Jewish Columbia-educated New York lawyer and father of the plutocrat with the famous Plan to bring everlasting peace to the world after World War II.
The elder Morgenthau was highly interested in the Armenian Question, Zionism, and getting the United States into the war against Germany and the Central Powers prior to 1917.
During and after the Second World War, the Victors were further interested in the concept of international law, world hegemony, and race-murder.
By mid-century, they wanted the absolute end of Goyish nationalism ─ not just German National Socialism, which had of course raised an anti-Semitic alarm.
Decades after the end of the war in Europe, the Jews and their fellow-travelers were able to wring mileage from the Genocide concept, and specifically the term “Holocaust” after the eponymous TV miniseries that aired in 1978 on NBC. The Holocaust soon became “more popular than Jesus” to channel John Lennon.
What this means is that it is no longer possible even to criticize Jews without being at least anti-Semitic, if not murderous.
This was obvious from the recent kerfuffle when Negress TV personality Whoopi Goldberg publicly stated that she didn’t think the Holocaust was really about Race because Jews were not Black.
She was forced to apologize, and Goldberg’s future career in the firmament of the Jewish-owned media monopoly is questionable at best.
In 1993, Jewish theologian Prof. Deborah Lipstadt coined the Orwellian term “Holocaust Denial” with the publication of her book Denying the Holocaust.
A “Holocaust Denier” is a historian like popular WWII author David Irving whom Jews do not like ─ even though he claims to have never written about the Holocaust.
Upon a revealing cross-examination, Prof. Lipstadt recently told the court in the Sines vs. Kessler civil trial that even telling a joke about Jews was “anti-Semitism,” and (as we all know) that leads pell-mell to Jewish “Genocide.”
The defendants in the Sines civil case had the nerve to participate in a legal protest in 2017 against the removal of a statue of the great Confederate General Robert E. Lee from a Charlottesville, Virginia park at the behest of Jews and Communists.
In 2021, President Brandon appointed Dr. Lipstadt to be the “U.S. anti-Semitism Envoy,” whatever that means. Lipstadt is now some kind of global plenipotentiary of Truth and Righteousness, I guess.
So in the 21st century, “Jews” own and control the mass-media and therefore you cannot even criticize them. To question them is to kill them.
To joke at their expense is to gas them all over again ─ and this because they have put themselves beyond the pale of humanity. The means of information and education now belong almost entirely to them, so it is no longer open to debate.
The answer for White people is not to beg to not be raped, but ─ if diplomatic terms cannot be found ─ to simply go to war.
And when one goes to war it behooves his people to fight to the utmost within the limits of honor ─ but most importantly, to prosecute the fight sufficiently to WIN.
History shows that any means crucial to survival is by definition necessary and fair. The odds are irrelevant, and the victory never certain. We simply have to take our sovereignty back, and that is a fundamental requirement of Nationalism.
Mr. Lemkin obviously understood this and so did a certain Corporal.
🙂
Scott, you are the first person I’ve ever heard discuss The Man Who Invented Genocide on any of these websites. I must say I always found it strange no one else ever seemed to acknowledge it.
For 70+ years the Racial Right has been saying the solution to all White ills is RAHOWA and for 70+ years things have only gotten worse for Whites. Perhaps RAHOWA just isn’t ‘the answer’? Nah. Couldn’t be.
Very few people anymore are talking RAHOWA, except to be prepared for antiwhite pogroms (a bit of which we saw in 2020). I do believe that whites need to start thinking about personal security in the context of race war (and not only in terms of avoiding black criminals). I do think whites need to start defensively organizing themselves into purely private neighborhood militias. The day could come – and soon – when law enforcement will either fail, or be deliberately told (by progressive traitors) to stand down as nonwhites butcher whites en masse (could that have happened in Summer 2020? absolutely). Whites need to assume we are 100% friendless and alone.
But otherwise, RAHOWA talk is indeed unproductive. The answer is the slow but steady consciousness raising being done at AR and CC and elsewhere, as well as special interest group formation to lobby for our interests, and more overt political activism generally.
Whites need to assume we are 100% friendless and alone.
I was with you up until this point.
I don’t know what data you have that supports this, but nothing I’ve seen except the data on Jews, supports this blackpill thesis. I’d love to see the Institute probe this aspect of the conflict.
What I see is that no race other than our own is going to carry out water but it’s not at all clear that most non-White people – except Jews – are opposed to Whites standing up for themselves. Non-Whites don’t hate Whites. They freaking love us and want to be around us as much as they can. On the other hand, they like because we are pushovers and may like us less when we are not. But that’s just politics, not race-war.
And there’s a large number of ‘White Hispanics’ that might join the party as soon as it looks like we’ve got our act together.
If Rockwell can attend an NOI meeting and come out in one piece, we at least can pretend that the rest of the races in North America do not automatically wish us ill and pitch our rhetoric as if they are already with us and not automatically against us.
Our struggle has to be different things to different people at different times.
This can be hard for some folks to accept or understand, but the world does not stand still and what makes sense for one group to pursue or advocate at one point in time doesn’t make sense at a different point in time for the same group.
As WIN becomes more relevant and more popular, we are going to have to be able to communicate to other races that we expect them to stand with us and move forward together (even if apart) to a different and better future for everyone.
We cannot afford to make any enemies that we don’t have to make.
That’s not exactly the way that I remember it, and I’ve been around from when George Lincoln Rockwell’s body was barely cold ─ and his more thoughtful associates were still around to correspond with (in barely legible cursive).
RaHoWa was definitely not my argument above, and I am not an “accelerationist.”
In fact, I’m a modernist and a hard-core Nationalist (i.e., a Nazi). I used to call myself Progressive too, but the Left has hijacked that term so completely that I no longer use it. I just have a different definition of “modernity” than do Liberals and Churchmen.
I’m an atheist who was raised LDS. My Dad was a rocket and nuclear engineer and a scoutmaster, and I have a good relationship with my family. My parents voted for Wallace and Gen LeMay in 1968 and my aunt was McGovern’s DNC chair in 1972, the first female to hold that post. I doubt that anyone who knows me does not know my (favorable) opinion about a certain Austrian-born Bavarian Gefreiter.
Anyway, I read Pierce’s Turner Diaries when that book came out and found it entertaining and somewhat insightful, but not very useful. I joined the Army instead and learned some good leadership skills and other things, and I have never denied being a racist or Nazi ─ but I do know how to avoid brushes with the law and to keep my nose clean. I had no trouble getting a top secret security clearance in the U.S. Army Signal Corps, but know how to keep a low profile and be discrete.
Today I am surrounded by Communist academics and colleagues but am close enough to retirement that I don’t care too much about keeping a low profile any longer and no longer supervise students away. I have publicly called for an open-debate on the Holocaust since at least 2003.
The WN “Movement” went whacky when dumb@ßes starting assassinating obnoxious but irrelevant Jewish talk show hosts like Alan Berg in Denver in 1984 and robbing armored cars in Northern California. Although the movement need to move on from Rockwell’s death and then the “Illinois Nazis,” they completely screwed the pooch embracing the NW Punk skinhead aesthetic.
And going to “movement” events was usually incredibly disappointing. There were some solid working-class White guys there, and the Prussian Blue girl singing group was cute, but a lot of the followers were simply welders and Iron Cross-wearing incels who had flunked out of High School and could not remember anything from History class, nor had they ever read anything in Mein Kampf. And half were literally homosexuals. The “optics” were bad turned up to 11, and this would not have been tolerated in the Third Reich for 14 minutes, let alone 88.
I personally focused on Revisionism instead of Movement tosh because there was some real research needed in that area, post-1980, and you could do some serious stuff and still keep a low profile. Revisionism is starting to pay off finally as there is a body of good reference materials published, and I have even gotten some academic libraries to add valuable Rev. things to their collections.
There are better ways to debate this than others ─ but the important thing is that a reasonable dialog has to be possible for the sake of the integrity of knowledge and for a true Scientific Method to flourish. Usually both sides are just talking past each other with a subject like the Holocaust. For the most part both sides have trusted me to be fair (or at least they say they do, if and when they are willing to engage with Deniers at all).
There is no Magic Bullet that is going to save us. Usually the System controls the dialog and freezes out non-Kosher content, and no clever slogans or arguments will penetrate the dark matter, not even with the Internet available. This was fairly obvious with the minor point that Ms. Goldberg made, for which she was censured by her media industry.
“What Is To Be Done?” is a different debate than my comments above about White Genocide, but it’s a crucial one, and a discussion that we should be having. That is why I am here.
I will say that Rockwell’s booklet Legal Psychological and Political Warfare (ca. 1966) was infinitely more valuable that the Turner Diaries or anything else that I have seen in the last 50 years. That same material needs to be updated by attorneys such as Glen Allen, Sam Dickson, and older Movement guys like David Duke ─ but had Rockwell’s principles been followed at Charlottesville, James Fields would not be in jail for the rest of his life and cranks like Deborah Lipstadt would be in their hidey-holes afraid to confront WNs in class, in court or the town hall, because when they open their mouths they impeach themselves. The Leftists are the real bigots to use a cliché.
Now, Jason Kessler believes that you can do the Gandhi-esque style of non-violent protests like weeded hippies at Berkeley during the Indochina police action, but this is nonsense for Rightwingers. They will just get crushed unless they are disciplined and focused.
By contrast, when the NJP guys protested at Waukesha over the Brooks vehicular attack they must have followed Rockwell’s advice. Two U.S. Senators had to countersignal and the guys marching before the courthouse were disciplined and looked good, free of plastic Stahlhelms and silly Hollywood baubles, and their signage was concise and impactful. The only thing I would have added was something in favor of the death penalty (not available in Wisconsin). Maybe “gas Darrell Brooks.” Here is an example where, in my opinion, a slogan like “Stop White Genocide” might have actually helped.
Otherwise, I think the term “White Genocide” is not particularly convincing, and it is mostly preaching to the choir. As I argued above, The term “Genocide” has been loaded from the start and you don’t want to waste time trying to “unpack” what should speak for itself. It did at Waukesha at least.
🙂
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I clearly misunderstood your point. And, upon reflection, think you’re onto something. But not just about ‘genocide’ but any of the ‘strong’ emotion-laden language that has become popular as part of our culture of shock and awe. You’ve given me something to think about. There’s a kind of rhetorical escalation within the movement that may adversely affect the way we communicate our cause with the uncommitted.
I think ‘protests’ are pure media products and exist to feed the media the images they want. If the ‘protest’ doesn’t feed the media the images they want, they’ll either ignore it or help the protesters construct the image for them. I remember in the 80’s the anti-nuke movement would put 10k in the streets and hundreds would be arrested attempting to blockade or storm nuclear facilities. But if you didn’t read the Lefty press, you’d have had hardly any idea of their occurrence.
I had never heard Legal Psychological and Political Warfare by GLR. Thank you.
@Hamburger Today
There’s a kind of rhetorical escalation within the movement…
“rhetorical escalation” is a beautiful phrase.
Wow, thanks Scott, I wish you would speak more often! What sort of academic were you, if you would be willing to say? I had never heard of the Rockwell book. That I’ll have to look up. I’ve grown pessimistic about WN. I just can’t see it as ever being a real political force. Not that I think the ideas are wrong, mind
Thanks, all.
I am not an “Academic Professional” as they call them now, but I have worked in a “very large public research university library” for the last twenty years, and the main Scottsdale Public Library long before that. I had to drop out of Library School when I was run down by a junkie while I was riding my bicycle home from work in 2005 and upon getting back to normal life I have never been motivated to go back for more credentials since. I do have a degree in History, however.
To be an AP now, at least for a White male, requires some appallingly degenerate “social justice” qualifications. No thanks! Usually what I do is bibliographic metadata, or what they used to call Library Technical Services, but I have worked the busy Reference desks, thrown out drunks, and paid my dues shelving my share of rare and interesting books plus the pedestrian potboilers, which is not at all unenjoyable.
Prior to changing careers thirty years ago I used to be a TV Broadcast Engineer and a Shop Steward for the IBEW Union. Organizing White people to act in their interests is not exactly a walk in the park, but I think it is something that must be done.
We recently had CRT struggle sessions at my work, and I flat-out told them to take a hike and refused the “training.” They backed down pronto ─ before other quiescent White people got the idea and got rustled. We can be squished like bugs by the System but we are not going down without a royal fight. That is what White people need to learn how to do when they are sullied with an increasing noise floor of hate and hostility.
Furthermore, we have to strongly support people like AZ State Senator Wendy Rogers when they are called White Nationalists and anti-Semites in the mainstream (Communist) press just for things like attending events like Fuentes’ skateboard show. She is a retired Air Force colonel and an ultra-Conservative who was recently censured by the Arizona state legislature for some kind of rhetoric like “traitors need to be hanged.” Where’s the lie? She’s also an “anti-Semite” because she tweeted that Zelensky is a Soros puppet or something like that. Again, where’s the lie?
A few coward Republicans abstained from the Senate censure vote but nearly all others voted for it. I am no big fan of Fuentes, and I’m not saying that Rogers or U.S. Congressman Paul Gosar (who represents my district) are 1488 or even close, but when White people are attacked as White people, we need to circle the wagons and rally hard. Why is that so difficult?
I don’t know. I don’t have all the answers.
Regarding Revisionism, I was mentored by the late Columbia-university educated engineer Fritz Berg, who brooked little disagreement but I loved him almost like a son, and I have electronics training and advanced FCC licenses myself, plus a degree in History. I was also mentioned briefly by the former Journal of Historical Review editor Ted O’Keefe in his “Whistleblower Letter” when the IHR cancelled publication of its fine journal. I will think about writing some articles or book reviews but I have done so for both the Journal of Historical Review just before it was shut down and for Germar Rudolf’s now defunct Revisionist journal, so that might be bad luck.
I was going to review Michael A. Hoffmann II’s book Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People but found it to be not worth anyone’s time. I have not read Irving’s latest book on Himmler yet.
Anyway, I’m not as clever a writer as Mssrs. Goad and Jeelvy and others here, but I will think about contributing more. I had a good library of technical research collected regarding Revisionism at my RODOH website and discussion forum, but our systems operator in Sweden had a life changing mishap last Summer that crashed the site, and he has not been able to get the database backup to me, so I will have to rebuild a lot of reference materials that I have collected, but the forum (though wiped) is operational.
One learns lots of things in decades of discussions and debate, especially with opponents ─ and we practiced a lot less censorship in the golden age of the Internet than they did at CODOH, where I was also once their top poster. Nowadays it is almost impossible to get pro-Holocaust types to engage with Revisionists at all. I think the reasons for that are rather obvious.
In any case, I do think that attempts to criminalize questioning and criticizing Jews and anti-Whites (or anyone else) has to be met with some form of existential fervor. “Thoughtcrime is Death,” as a rather principled Liberal once said.
🙂
Forgot to add this about the censure vote.
🙂
https://youtu.be/KeI-OstjIlc
Thanks again Scott. Always nice to hear from a veteran. I think I may have been best suited to be a librarian, although I doubt there are many mundane jobs that I could succeed at.
I wasn’t so sold on the idea of white genocide. I tended to think of genocide as an active killing or extermination. I read the arguments of Greg and started to agree with this formulation though. We live in such a victim centered world, and we need a term for what is being done to whites which people will immediately relate to. Christopher Langan, frequently cited as having the highest IQ in America, believes in white genocide. He was saying this before Greg, and I’m sure he arrived at the notion from first principles.
I’ve suggested the term “extinctionated” (perhaps “extinctualized” would be better). This neologism refers to the fact that whites, though not (yet) being outright murdered, are being driven to extinction, either intentionally (in the cases of many diversitists), or with reckless disregard for the maintenance of the conditions we require in order to avoid extinction (this probably describes the majority of white extinctionists – those advocating the policies leading to white extinction).
You are correct that what is happening to us does not (yet) quite qualify as genocide, which has the connotation of mass killings. But “white genocide” does pack a nice rhetorical punch. “White extinctionation”, while more accurate, requires tedious explanation. Moreover, genocide can be understood to be not merely an event, but a process, of which the “main event” – the actual physical extermination – is merely the last step. On that understanding, we are being genocided.
People, by the way, have been talking about “white genocide” (that I’m aware of) since the 1980s. Certainly I have.
Right, “white genocide” packs a rhetorical punch—I almost used that exact phrase! Maaaybe it’s a bit of overstatement, but this is politics. “White privilege, Black Lives Matter, “etc etc. also are rhetorical overstatements, or rather inversions of the truth.
First let me say this is a very thought-provoking article, very informative, and it’s interesting to learn that a Jew coined the term “genocide.”
A world without white people would probably be technologically medieval since whites and disproportionately Northwest Europeans brought us into the modern world. Just thought I’d take that question literally and answer it.
“The disease is chronic malnutrition of the soul from a diet of lies and deception.”
Extroverts lie more frequently than introverts. The only two big five factor traits which induce women to rate interactions with men higher overall are higher extraversion and lower neuroticism. Hence, a mixed gender workplace will favor extroverted men to a greater extent and thus, presumably, lying to a greater extent because the women will favor the extroverted men presumably more than other men would. Lying has become a kind of rite of passage to upper middle class society, but the necessary extent of it is increasing. It began with having to proclaim that a Jackson Pollock painting was more than just scribbles and now has progressed to racial bell curve denialism, unquestioning support of open borders, and indulging narcissists who have failed in the game of sex as recreation and thus resigned themselves to creating their own game with their own non-binary pronouns. There is no more right and wrong but happy and unhappy as the basis of morality. Now, morality is about being well disposed vs poorly disposed rather than good vs bad.
The term genocide I don’t think is accurate for what white people are doing to themselves. It’s more or less ethno-suicide. Sure, the Jews are the number one enforcers of it, but plenty of white people are going along willingly.
In the archaeological record what we find is that the people who have a culture that is best suited to the environment tend to replace people who have inferior cultures. For example, Carlton S. Coon in the races of Europe indicates that people resembling Early European Farmers once inhabited Egypt but were eventually replaced by North African people because probably what happened is that the climate dried out and the culture of the former was not as well suited to the increasingly arid environment.
White people have created a technologically modern environment that is essentially maladaptive with respect to their genetic survival because they are staving off having children until too late in life, and in the past decade women are deciding to make it so half of all men ages 18 to 51 are single.
“Playing the game” in its current form is in the long run a spiral to collective extinction.
White people may have evolved too fast. There’s no doubt they are more sophisticated and possibly more human than other groups, but species that evolve more slowly tend to outlast ones that evolve faster, and I think that we’re seeing an obvious faultiness in terms of whites failing to reproduce themselves and also allowing themselves to be absorbed genetically by other races. They are not genociding themselves in the sense that they’re not dying but they are sort of genociding the genetic average of their race and along with it the archetype or phenotype of the average white guy and woman.
It seems whites and in particular Western Europeans were competing with each other so hard as individuals that they have sort of gotten too far ahead of themselves in this regard and let their group instincts atrophy to the extent that now they have left themselves vulnerable to absorption by other races. Again, they seem to have evolved too fast.
What perhaps peeves me the most about whites is that they don’t think for themselves enough. Those of us who do are somewhat abnormal. Most whites seem to be blank slates that forces of evil can mold to their interests in schools and through the media. In this sense, maybe we’re not evolved enough.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.