|Pictured: White genocide. Oh the horror.|
This melodramatic catchphrase serves as a handy cop-out device for any white nationalist having their beliefs questioned. You don't support white nationalism? THEN YOU SUPPORT WHITE GENOCIDE! You are dating or have dated someone who isn't white? WHITE GENOCIDE! You voted for Obama? WHITE GENOCIDE! You support marriage equality? WHITE GENOCIDE! You're a liberal? WHITE GENOCIDE! You support equal rights for all people? WHITE GENOCIDE! You support immigration? WHITE GENOCIDE! You're glad racial segregation in the US was abolished in the early 1960s? WHITE GENOCIDE! You know how to utilize common sense...? You get the idea.
While some white nationalists are certainly more paranoid than others, and you may find that the details of this "genocide" vary from person to person, there seems to be a general agreement among nationalists that it IS happening, and that interracial relationships, immigration, and integration are the primary catalysts.
You'd think that if these folks were shown the currently accepted definition for "genocide", which does not include "interracial relationships", "immigration" or "integration", that maybe they'd drop it and try some other tactic.
However, they're so intent on selling this "genocide" theory that they've already gone ahead and hijacked the definition and tried to justify squeezing "interracial relationships", "immigration", and "integration" under its umbrella.
Here's the legal definition for the crime of genocide as outlined by the United Nations:
1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."
(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.
To anybody with half a brain, it's quite clear that whites as a race are not currently victims of genocide. Nobody has to actually explain to a white nationalist how immigration and race-mixing do not fit in this definition, should they? People don't actually believe this definition encompasses anything that's happening to all white people right now, do they? Well...let's take a look at the first piece of this claim:
I'll let the white nationalists explain themselves here. Here's some screenshots of their compelling arguments (these were found on Stormfront and YouTube):
Well, alrighty! That sure was educational. Race-mixing is genocide because these people say so! Note how one of the YouTube comments even admits that mutt dogs are also products of genocide. This is interesting because biologically, race-mixing between humans and mixing between different breeds of dogs are similar events, so if you believe one is genocide, it makes no sense to deny that the other is also genocide.
Most white nationalists will try to deny it, because they see how silly it looks to say that mongrel dogs are victims of genocide. But some others embrace it, similar to how a crazy person might embrace their childhood blanket and glare at you on the subway.
|Pictured: Genocide. Oh, I can't look! It's horrible!|
|-a Stormfront member|
Oh, well excuse me! So according to you, somehow it's different for humans even though the act of race-mixing itself is pretty much the same thing as two different breeds of dogs breeding. Makes perfect sense.
Also it's not my fault if you all can't agree with each other on what constitutes genocide or what organisms it applies to. Clearly there's some confusion among your own ranks.
Anyway, do I really need to explain why race-mixing isn't genocide? It simply does not fit the definition. According to the definition listed above, genocide must be intentional, deliberate, calculated, imposed, and forced onto a group of people. Race-mixing however, purely by itself, is voluntary.
|Help us! We're being forced to race-mix!|
- Genocide must include "killing members of the group". Race-mixing is not synonymous with murder.
- It must include "Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group". Race-mixing does not do this.
- It must include "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". Hmm. They might have a point there! Race mixing is totally a deliberate attempt to wipe out white people! Wait, no it's not.
- It also must include "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group". Well, you could argue race-mixing prevents birth from within a group, since by its very definition, it involves mixing with somebody outside of your group. However, this is not imposed on anyone, which is where this requirement falls flat. When people choose a partner who just happens to be of another culture or ethnic/racial group, the choice is an exercise of their own free will. Nobody is imposing race-mixing on anybody.
- Finally, it must include "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group". This is simply something which is completely separate from race-mixing. Sometimes kids are taken away from people by Child Protective Services. Sometimes those children might be given to another family who happens to be of another racial group. But this is not systemic and not intended to bring about the destruction of a racial group.
The main confusion that seems to be happening here is that white nationalists are confusing the term extinction with genocide. They think that if a group of people ceases to exist and goes extinct, that this is automatically genocide.
Nobody's denying white people are a global minority, and shrinking. But to say the cause is genocide is simply moronic.
Extinction is a natural biological process which happens quite naturally when an organism is no longer fit to survive in its ecosystem. It's actually a healthy process, and the only reason it has such a negative connotation is because human activity has caused a disproportionate amount of extinctions in the animal kingdom, which has only served to upset the affected ecosystems.
If extinction were synonymous with genocide, you'd think the UN would just define it that way: "Genocide (n.): extinction".
|The dinosaurs were victims of genocide via a sadistic comet.|
I would now like to address the other common claims to "white genocide":
Immigration and Integration
At first glance it might seem like the white nationalists might have a point here. Just look at these arguments:
Seems reasonable at first glance, maybe. Maybe.
The inconsistencies here are more subtle than the glaring lunacy of the claims of race-mixing being an act of genocide. Here, you could almost believe that it's just a misunderstanding perpetuated by a lack of critical thinking skills, rather than pure delusion.
I'm going to spell it out straight. Here's the problem with claiming immigration and integration acts in the West are genocide:
Where is it?
No, really, where is it? Where's the force?
Policy? You mean to tell me that government policies allowing immigration amounts to force?
|Pictured: A Mexican being forced to immigrate to the US. This is clearly genocide.|
Referring to the last quote: "Bypassing the democratic process and forcing a nation to except [sp] immigration ... with any objection or resistance to be met with imprisonment or violence, IS FORCE".
Really? Because last time I checked, people in both Europe and North America were protesting immigration, and nobody was imprisoned for it. Even if they were, it would have to be systemic and enforced on all dissenters for you to really have a point there. This is nothing but paranoia.
When police brutality was observed during the Occupy Wall Street protests in the US, people called it what it was: police brutality. Nobody tried to say that people were being forced into compliance. It was an attempt, maybe, but it wasn't prevalent enough to represent a group of people being forced into anything. It was police brutality, and this tends to happen with any kind of protest.
Another thing: you're really arguing that allowing immigration in Western countries is analogous to what happened in Australia and Tibet?
Because that doesn't add up.
First I want to mention something about Tibet: China invaded and occupied Tibet. This factor is important: this is an example of how one group can exercise force on another group. The Chinese government entered Tibet without permission, and proceeded to occupy it.
Last I checked, European and North American countries (some white nationalists mistakenly believe that white people are indigenous to North America) were not under occupation by a foreign government.
Another blow to this argument is the fact that in both Tibet and Australia, government policies have encouraged and allowed legal subjugation and mistreatment of the indigenous people. While white nationalists may argue that this is certainly the case for white people, a closer look at the actual genocides in Australia and Tibet reveals a stark contrast to whatever they claim is happening to whites.
Quite frankly, it's an insult to the Aboriginal Australians and Tibetans to compare the current situation in the West to what they've gone through.
Are whites being systematically hunted like animals?
Are they being forced to leave their homes?
Are they not allowed to speak their native languages, and punished when they attempt to do so?
Are their children being taken away from them and being given to another ethnic group, in an attempt to make them comply with a new culture?
Are white women being purposely sterilized against their will?
No? Because this is what people mean when they say genocide. This is what people are referring to when they talk about the genocide of the Australian Aboriginal people. This is what it really means when a government has genocidal policies.
In fact, I'd even argue it's somewhat the other way around in Western countries. France has banned the wearing of the hijab, forcing Islamic immigrants to forgo their cultural tradition and comply with French culture. Immigrants are usually required to learn the language of the country they're immigrating to, not the other way around. And with English being the most widely-spoken language in the world, and Western clothes the most widely distributed clothing, and Western media being at the forefront of profitability, I'd say "white" culture is anything but endangered.
The situation in Tibet is more subtle, but it's generally agreed that the destruction of temples, restriction of religious freedom, and the saturation of their media with Chinese media, constitutes a kind of cultural genocide.
Churches aren't being destroyed by a foreign government. White peoples' religious freedoms aren't being stifled (people will whine about this from time to time, but it's usually unfounded, like when the Christians in the US claimed that legalizing gay marriage was oppressive to their religious beliefs). Western media is not being inundated with media from an occupying goverment.
So then, where is the genocide, cultural or otherwise? Where is the force? How can you even begin to compare the events in Tibet and Australia to anything in the Western world?
Hint: you can't.