Friday, August 16, 2013

White Genocide!

Pictured: White genocide. Oh the horror.
Hello and welcome to my blog.

The first thing I'd like to do here is simple: attack the basis of white nationalist ideology, "white genocide".

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:


Interracial Relations/Race-Mixing

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:

FORCE.

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?

Really?

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.

88 comments:

  1. Well, thanks for taking the time to promote and reinforce nationalist ideology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You misunderstand. I'm not promoting or reinforcing nationalist ideology, I'm actually debunking it. Not sure how you've managed to misinterpret this when the content of this post is QUITE clear.

      Delete
    2. This was an attempt to debunk nationalist ideology? It was not a very good attempt.
      If I came in here as my brainwashed multicultural self from 8 years ago and read all this I'd probably leave as a nationalist. Just saying.

      Delete
    3. That's really quite clear if you actually read it. Why don't you try actually elaborating on why it wasn't a very good attempt instead of empty posturing?

      Delete
    4. I don't want to help you make your argument against nationalism. You'll just have to take my word for it when I tell you I think your argument here is weak. Would I think to say the same thing if I thought it were strong? Perhaps, but I doubt it. It's more likely that I would not comment at all and just hope the blog doesn't get views.

      Delete
    5. LOL so you don't want to elaborate why you think my argument is weak, because you know it will HELP my argument against nationalism? That comes very close to just admitting that nationalism isn't founded on any sort of logic.

      That by itself just shows that my argument actually isn't weak. If it's so weak you should be able to explain why, and it doesn't reflect so great on nationalism and nationalists if you can't defeat an argument which you think is weak.

      I will absolutely not take your word for it. Why the heck would I take your word for it? I wouldn't ask you to take MY word for it for any of MY views, that's why I've detailed in my post EXACTLY what is wrong with nationalism. I EXPLAIN my position. You can't do the same? Why on earth not?

      If you said my argument was strong you'd be in agreement with me, so there wouldn't be any reason for me to ask you to elaborate. However, you're voicing a disagreement right now, so it's kind of a cop-out if you don't elaborate on it.

      Delete
    6. I don't want to elaborate on why I think your blog argument is weak because then you can go back and edit it to strengthen it.
      I'm not saying it can be strengthen to become strong, but than it can be strengthened to become less weak, and I'm not going to help you with that. I like it the way it is. The main reason it's weak is not personal weakness on your part, but because you're fighting a losing argument. Go ahead, disagree, the blog speaks for itself though.

      Delete
    7. So, I repeat, you don't want to elaborate on why you think it's weak, because you'll afraid it'll make my argument look better, and yours look worse. Why don't you just admit that nationalism has no basis in logic while you're at it?

      If you don't think my argument can ever be "strong" whatsoever, then you have nothing to lose.

      I have NO such fear when it comes to nationalism: I am NOT afraid whatsoever that me attacking it will cause nationalists to make their argument stronger. So why are you so afraid to attack mine?

      Oooh, I might strengthen it to be LESS WEAK! Is that REALLY that scary to you? That's...hilarious. That should probably be a red flag to you that nationalism isn't rational, if you can't even BEGIN to defend it against a weak argument, in fear that that argument might become a little bit stronger.

      How am I fighting a losing argument? How does the blog speak for its own weakness? Care to explain? Oh, riiight, you don't want to explain, because you're afraid my argument might become "less weak". Yeah, sure, okay. Forgive me if I don't believe you, and think you just have absolutely nothing to say to debunk my argument.

      Why did you even bother going to the trouble of making a blogger profile and commenting if you were just going to perform some empty posturing and not even ATTEMPT to back up your claims?

      Delete
    8. You know what, you're right. This blog is AMAZING! Keep it just the way it is, and be sure to post more just like it!

      Delete
    9. So just to clarify, you're not going to tell me why it's weak, because you're scared I might make it "less weak", right? Okay, got it. I'll add that to the list of brilliant counter-arguments. Please, continue to not actually provide a counter-argument. Ironically your cowardice actually strengthens my argument....

      Delete
    10. We've already debated for 6+ hours on Youtube. I did not come here to debate your same talking points again, which you have conveniently pasted in one blog post. I came just to observe your blog, and I noticed it's pretty good for us nationalists. Thank you.
      I actually have an idea for your next blog entry, but I'll hold off on telling you what it is so that this one remains the most recent for a greater amount of time. It is so good, it must get maximum exposure.

      Delete
    11. Well hold on, you just changed your position.

      Before you said, you didn't want to elaborate why my argument is weak because you don't want my argument to become "less weak". NOW you've changed your stance and you're saying you don't want to elaborate because you've already spoken to me on youtube. Nice job copping out and trying to detract from your cowardice. Which one is it?

      Since you already lost to me on youtube though, I understand why you don't want to subject yourself to that again.

      I, on the other hand, welcome debate. I am confident in my argument and will not back down from a counter-argument. That's why the comments here aren't moderated.

      If it's so good for nationalists, would you mind putting your money where your mouth is and sharing this on any nationalist social networking sites you take part in?

      Oh, but let me guess, you're probably going to cop out of that too. You'll say "oh but I don't want to attract any attention to this blog", or some bullshit like that. Well, you just said this was GOOD for nationalism: you should want to spread whatever is good for it, shouldn't you? Why are you even here? You look ridiculous, going to the trouble to create a blogger profile JUST so you can comment and make empty claims.

      Forgive me but I don't believe you that you have an idea for my next entry. All you've done is just some empty posturing without any substance.

      Also, this isn't the most recent post. I have two posts up and this one is the OLDEST one. So since it's not the most recent anyway, you should be able to tell me your idea (if indeed you have one). I dunno why I'm even bothering asking you for it though, seeing as you'll find a way to cop out of that too.

      Delete
    12. It is both. I don't want to help you realize what's weak about your blog post, nor do I want to debate your ideology. Good job declaring victory for yourself by the way.

      I don't normally post links anywhere, but there's a strong possibility that I will show this to other people. This important information would go viral if it were up to me.

      I really do have an idea and I would like to tell it to you. Here it is: "Is there anything dumber than a white anti-white?" I stumbled upon a video and it's a pretty interesting concept. I'm hoping that you can weigh in with your unsurpassed knowledge of humanity and explain how this question pertains to everyday life. Thanks in advance.

      Delete
    13. Good job copping out of backing up ANY of your claims.All you've done is say my argument is weak, and you've pulled up every reason you can out of your ass to NOT back this up, including the hilarious "reason" that you're afraid I might make my argument "less weak". That's just petty. You cannot make that look good.

      I declare victory because YOU'VE made claims that you have REFUSED to back up. I win by default, sorry. You were also the one that pulled out of youtube discussion, after spamming stupid points from your precious "mantra" over and over again (insisting that allowing immigration is a genocidal policy, etc), so I think it's pretty clear who won there too.

      At the end of the day, guess who ISN'T scared to point out the flaws in their opponents' arguments? Guess who isn't scared that their opponents might make their arguments "less weak"?

      That's right. Me.

      You're still welcome to present any evidence at all to back up your claims though.

      So your idea is basically the "uncle tom" concept, but applied to whites. Self-hating people are not dumb though, per se, maybe just ignorant and uneducated. So I wouldn't explore how "dumb" they are. I'd probably incorporate it into a post about "uncle tom" phenomena in many groups.

      Delete
    14. You can make stuff up about how our debate went, and claim I don't point out flaws in my opponents' arguments. I'll just redirect the few curious people reading this blog to the truth:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzenCYVg2Jc
      My name on youtube is the same as it is here. Her's is SummerCicadaMusic. We debated for a good 4 hours one night earlier this month in the comment section. There you'll find I have already debated her on most all of the points she has made in this blog, that it didn't end the way she claims it ended, and that her claim to "victory" is merely her narcissistic opinion.

      Delete
    15. What you just said doesn't even fit with what you said previously. You told me you don't want to back up your claims because you don't want my argument to become "less weak". But just now, you claim that you've already debated me on "most all of the points" I've made here in this blog, on youtube.

      So let me get this straight. You already debunked my position on youtube, but you weren't afraid that my argument would become "less weak" then, but then you came here, made empty claims, and refused to elaborate on them because you're afraid my argument will become "less weak", even though you SUPPOSEDLY addressed all of it already on youtube. Are you fucking HIGH? What the hell do you expect me to think of this ass-backwards logic? Are you a troll?

      Also, it did end the way I claim it ended. You were the one who backed out. Last thing you said to me:

      "At the end of the day. All peoples have the right to self-determination per UN General Assembly Resolution 1514. So although we have different philosophies, and neither of us are making any significant headway in this debate, my position of supporting self-determination is a right granted to peoples by UN law. I'm sure you'll have some stubborn answer, but I'm done for now."

      You see that? "I'm done for now." You're the one who backed out, after I explained to you that immigration isn't genocide and doesn't threaten anybody's self-determination.

      Ironically, although you didn't want to help my argument become "less weak", that's exactly what you're doing now. You cannot possibly think you're helping nationalism look good right now. Anybody who sees this is going to see a nationalist who's AFRAID to back up their claims because my argument might become "less weak" (tell me that doesn't sound pathetic, especially in the face of my willingness to attack your ideology without fear).

      Your best bet is to either back up your claims or stop commenting altogether before you cause any more damage.

      Delete
  2. I backed out of the debate because it was 4:00am, we were back where we started, and the argument had been narrowed down to one main point of debate which we wholeheartedly disagreed on. You're whole argument is based on the assumption that modern governments can't prevent foreigners from settling a country and/or continent if they wanted to.
    To anyone who might be reading this. I will let you know where you stand.
    If you believe:
    A. A modern government can prevent foreigners from settling a country.
    Then you believe my nationalist argument that the governments are committing genocide against the declining indigenous European peoples by allowing massive foreign/3rd world immigration.
    B. A modern government cannot prevent foreigners from settling a country.
    Then you believe her Marxist/globalist argument that the changing demographics in Europe are beyond the control of the government and therefore not genocide on their part, only nature in action.

    That's what it boils down to. Further debate will lead back to this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My whole argument is not based on one assumption.

    It's based on the facts that immigration isn't genocide and is a natural behavior, race-mixing isn't genocide and is also a natural behavior, there is no biological definition for race (which makes it an unscientific/unproven construct), and the fact that deporting LEGAL CITIZENS from a location JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR PHYLOGENETIC TRAITS, is a violation of basic human rights.

    The government's ability to keep people out is not really part of my argument at all, the only reason I ever addressed it is because you cling to it as the basis of your argument even though it's totally irrelevant. If that's all your argument has to stand on, that's pathetic.

    Your definitions of these beliefs make no sense:

    A. If someone believes that a modern government can prevent foreigners from settling a country, then that does not automatically mean that they also believe that governments are committing genocide by ALLOWING immigration. The correlation between these two beliefs is arbitrary, and belief in one does not automatically equal belief in the other.

    B. Same as above. Believing that a modern government cannot prevent foreigners from settling a country is not analogous to disbelieving in a genocide.

    The only reason further debate would lead back to this is if you're completely immune to rational thought.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're right, nobody has to believe either of the suggested conclusions, but I believe that if they do a full examination of the reality of the situation and a full analysis of our argument we had on Youtube, those are the two possible conclusions they would come to.

    It's you who always fights along racial lines. I fight for peoples, and peoples have heritages, cultures, ancestry, and homelands. Race is just a part of heritage. It is far from the sole consideration but it is you ultra-liberals who bring up race every chance you get.
    You'll tell me that stuff is all sentimental, I'll tell you it's existential. I'll think I'm right, you'll think you're right. We've already had this discussion. You see? This is why I have avoided arguing with you, not out of fear pfffffffff...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the correlations you drew between those beliefs are completely made-up and arbitrary, so anybody who comes to either of those conclusions is completely devoid of basic rationality. And yeah, this may happen, sure, but I fail to see why you would appeal to those who lack basic mental functions and inform them of these completely illogical conclusions they may come to.

      Fighting along racial lines? That is an INCREDIBLY vague accusation. What does that even mean?

      "Race is part of heritage" is also extremely vague and subjective. Plenty of people would disagree with you here. You aren't stating an objective fact.

      I don't bring up race every chance I get. You're arguing that people should be removed from certain locations SOLELY BASED ON THEIR PHYLOGENETIC TRAITS. That is a breach of basic human rights. You can't twist it any other way. You can't just tell non-white people to establish a wide distance from you JUST because they have different traits than you do.

      "This is why I have avoided arguing with you, not out of fear pfffffffff..."

      Oh really? You're changing your stance again even though I can just scroll up and see what you said before?

      Because here's what you said before about avoiding backing up your claims:

      "I don't want to help you make your argument against nationalism. You'll just have to take my word for it when I tell you I think your argument here is weak."

      "I don't want to elaborate on why I think your blog argument is weak because then you can go back and edit it to strengthen it.
      I'm not saying it can be strengthen to become strong, but than it can be strengthened to become less weak, and I'm not going to help you with that."

      ^ That's not fear? Really? That's not an indication that you're refusing to back up your claims, solely because I might make my argument "less weak"? That's not cowardly and an implication of fear? REALLY?

      I might add that technically you're backing up your claims RIGHT NOW even though you keep saying you don't want to. You haven't addressed what specifically in the blog is incorrect or weak, but you are providing SOME elaboration. So are you not concerned about my argument getting "less weak" anymore or something? You're contradicting yourself quite a lot.

      Delete
  5. Whatever, you can go crazy typing all that shit. I just wrote a relatively long comment which somehow was permanently cleared when I clicked off the comment box while reading your comment. I'm not going to type it again. It's late. I'll just hope people can see how scatterbrained you actually are. I mean really, look at your comment, it's just lies sandwiched between nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, I can "go crazy typing all that shit", but you're also claiming that you just wrote a "relatively long comment"? Sooo, is verboseness good or bad? Also, that doesn't actually debunk ANYTHING I said, and I find it interesting that so many of you nationalists will resort to baseless ad-hominem when you're backed into a corner, while I don't even have to consider ad-hominem, since I have these things called "facts" on my side.

      Also, if I'm so "crazy" and "scatterbrained", and my comment is just "lies sandwiched between nonsense", you should be able to point out what exactly is crazy, scatterbrained, and nonsense about it. You can't just claim that's what it is and not point out WHAT is crazy about it.

      Your comment may have gotten messed up and permanently cleared (not sure whether to believe this or not), but if this is really the case, that's actually no excuse to use ad-hominem. You would've been better off just leaving it alone and not commenting at all: ad-hominem is a blatantly weak tactic, even to uneducated people, so you really don't make nationalism look good by choosing to represent it with tactics like this. It just makes my argument look, in your own words, "less weak".

      Delete
  6. Your Blog Is Trash, Playboy, And You Got Like Two People Viewing It (You And That MothaFuccin' Volkswagen Engineer) And Both Of Y'all MothaFuccas Is In Y'all Own Little Worlds, Goin' Back And Forth Like Y'all Convincin' Each Other Of Y'alls Points And Changin' Each Other's Minds. Y'all Ain't Doin' Nothin' But Writin' A Whole Bunch Of Jibberish That Ain't Nobody Readin'. Now Thank ME For Increasin' The Amount Of Viewers To Your Blog, Playboy. This Lil Comment Just Increased Viewership By 100% (ME And My Stalker). That's How Much Attention I Attract, Playboy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My pageviews are increasing every week and are currently 100+ a day. If you have anything actually relevant to say let me know.

      Delete
  7. Whatcho Numbers Lookin' Like Now, Playboy? I Know They Shot Up After I Left My Lil Comment, Playa. Aye, But For Real, Tho, You Uh MothaFuccin' White Race Hater And White Race Betrayer, Playboy. Now Stop Makin' These Mumbo Jumbo Ass Blog Posts And Start Makin' Some MothaFuccin' Mismatched, Mixed Race, Mutt, Mulattoes Withcho Nigga Lovin' Ass. Yo Nigga Lovin' Ass Makes ME Sicc, Playboy. You Disgust ME.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know I'm a "race betrayer". That's why the name of the blog has "race traitor" in it. Try posting something relevant (and with correct spelling and grammar) next time.

      Delete
    2. You Want Relevant, Playboy? Well Here's Relevant: YOU'RE IRRELEVANT, YOUR BLOG IS TRASH, AND AIN'T NOBODY READIN' IT OTHER THAN YOU AND THAT VOLKSWAGEN MECHANIC.

      Delete
    3. No, that's not relevant because you already said that before and I already answered it. I get about 70-100 views a day. Please post something relevant next time.

      Delete
  8. Well thank you for finally setting everyone straight on genocide. I kept asking myself, why do they keep using that word? I can tell you from the Black side, nobody in our community has a giant conspiracy to eliminate White. We are not organized enough or powerful enough to do so in the States. On top of that even at the peak of our power (The Civil Rights movement), the closest our leaders ever said about harming White people was "Fight back" if attacked. Were more concerned about getting our culture as a whole to rise.

    As for race mixing I will say this. Television is mostly White. T.V. shows are getting more diverse but growing up the White woman is shown as the prize. The Ultimate women. They're are beautiful women of all cultures, but for instance if you see a beloved Black women on T.V. she's fat. You don't want your women having any competition. This is where White Supremacy did itself a disservice. You made your women the most coveted. It's brainwashing. I will tell you that a lot of White women are just curious. Of all the white girls I dated when I was younger, almost all of them said they're Dads stressed "Absolutely no Black men!" What do you think that did to them? Made them curious.

    Whites can blame the Jews all they want for some race mixing agenda, but when you brought Blacks here as slaves, you actually brought the race mixing on yourselves. You can't have people next to each other all the time and have no interaction or mixing no matter how hard you try. It's nature! Even White slave masters were guilty of dabbling in the pie.

    ReplyDelete
  9. great post also by race mixing you DO pass on your genetics and you contribute to an equal amount of "genocide" to other races. Mixing is not the problem they should stick to attacking people who have no kids. At least the mixing people still pass on white genes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is quite powerful of a blog. I am mixed race myself (Black, European, Asian, and Native american) and I gotta say I find nothing wrong with it. The paranoia WN Caucasians have is quite astounding to me. The fact that people choose to love someone else outside of their race and then the WNs turn it around and say it was "forced." Love is blind. Most of them believe that home teaching their children will turn them away from diversity. Children have to leave the house at some point when growing up. Pretty sure they'll come across couples of mixed race and question it. Some will understand, some won't. But that doesn't mean they can't try to understand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! The paranoia unfortunately is not even exclusive to racist white people...I plan on making some posts addressing other racist groups like the Black Panthers (which did not start out as racist, but unfortunately has devolved into the black version of the KKK pretty much)....

      I was actually homeschooled for a lot of my life. But I was never taught to be racist and I never struggled with accepting people when I started attending school.

      Pretty much the root of all this racism comes from brainwashing and ignorance...but indeed, I think there's very little excuse for being racist in today's world where we have Google, and these people could easily check their facts and find out that they're wrong. It's willful ignorance.

      Thank you for the comment, and you can share it anywhere you want, if you'd like. I haven't updated the blog in awhile but if you keep watching it'll get updated. I have been somewhat busy and haven't been able to update as regularly as I want.

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all, your genetic traits aren't "going extinct". They don't just disappear when you have kids with someone who has different traits.

      Secondly, whites aren't "genetically inferior". Humans have a wide variety of phylogenetic traits, and only those who have detrimental mutations are considered "genetically inferior" (albinism, down syndrome, dwarfism) because it affects their physical health in a negative way. "White" traits (which ironically aren't exclusive to white people) surfaced over many generations as advantageous mutations, and are not "inferior".

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. It's alright, I wasn't mad. Thanks for having an open mind :)

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This whole flawed conspiracy is actually quite dangerous as it seems to say that you can compare some immigrants moving in to an actually genocide, diminishing the true meaning of the word.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed! They try to tweak the real definition so it fits their agenda.

      Delete
    2. Not only that, it is insulting to groups that have been victims of genocide.

      Delete
    3. Tell that to the UN.

      UN definition of genocide:
      Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group via deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

      I don't want to hear, "b-buh but race-mixing isn't genocide." You're right, it isn't, that's a straw man. However, governments opening up the floodgates of every predominantly-White country in the world to millions of people from all over the planet and telling everybody to "mix in" in some attempt to create blended humanities wherever White people reside is the destruction of White people as a racial group in part or in full. What is the destruction of a racial group in part or in full?
      .
      .
      .
      .
      *drum roll*
      .
      .
      .
      *wait for it*
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      genocide!

      While we're on the subject of words having their true meanings diminished. Let's talk about the word "racist."
      A racist used to be a person who was prejudiced against individuals of other ethnic groups in multicultural colonies such as America where the original inhabitants (Native Indians) were considered victims of genocide. Now the word "racist" is also used to refer to a person who doesn't want their ancestral homeland turned into such a colony.

      Delete
    4. Dude, look up Denmark's immigration policy. It is VERY restrictive.

      Delete
    5. When the Europeans first came to the New World, this was not considered a "genocide" in any way. These were colonists, laypeople who didn't even have guns with them. Many of these first pilgrims' colonies had peaceful (albeit strained sometimes) relationships with the Aboriginal people. They shared resources, sometimes fought over resources, shared their cultures, and this was not genocide.

      It was not until the military came and started killing Aboriginal people in the name of conquest, that this turned into a genocide.

      In light of this, you may want to rethink your ideology.

      Also: "every white country" is a bit of a stretch. As "Lightningsnowstorm" pointed out, Denmark is not easy to get into. Neither are the other Nordic countries. And even if they were...allowing people with varying phylogenetic traits to perform a natural human behavior (migration) is not genocide.

      Also, many Africans are immigrating to China, and for some reason you don't seem to think that's an Asian genocide. Or maybe you do. In that case you would be incorrect also, though.

      PS. I find it amusing you're still lurking around here.

      Delete
  14. Just wondering... how did you come to the conclusion whites are no longer fit to survive? I mean, the decline in birth rates is totally reversible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't. I was simply making the point that IF any organism becomes extinct, it's because it was not fit to survive. However, as you know from reading other entries here, "race" is not a biological reality...humans are one of the most successful organisms on our planet. We are not going extinct, in whole or in part.

      Delete
    2. Yup,"whites" will go extinct when humans do(hopefully never!)

      Delete
  15. HA! No force, huh? Check this out:http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/18116-new-swedish-law-criminalizes-anti-immigration-internet-speech

    Sweden has outlawed criticism of immigration. This is white genocide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is the legal definition for genocide (http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext-printerfriendly.htm):

      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.


      "Censorship", or "restriction of free speech" is not included in the definition, sorry.

      Delete
    2. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. Swedish people are now forced to accept MASSIVE immigration that they are no longer allowed to vote against or object to; they are forced to be replaced by immigrants and anyone who objects will be jailed. AKA forced assimilation. So yes it is genocide.

      P.S. The fact that you're so okay with this law being passed shows what kind of person you are.

      Delete
    3. Immigration is not included in the legal definition of genocide. Immigration is not a deliberate attempt to bring about the physical destruction of white people in whole or in part.

      Nobody is being "replaced".

      I have yet to see anybody "jailed" for objecting to immigration.

      P.S. Do not assume things. I never said I was okay with this law. The fact that you're so okay with making baseless assumptions about strangers shows what kind of person you are.

      Delete
  16. 1. You're right, it isn't genocide by itself; however, by preventing Swedes from expressing different opinions, it is now forbidden to vote for the fast growing anti-immigration party, and Swedes are now forced to be replaced.
    2. Nobody is being "replaced", huh? Read my blog post, it explains the demographic transformation quite nicely: http://deathofswedishsociety.blogspot.com/2014/08/mass-third-world-uncontrolled.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. I googled this and found no sources which confirm that nobody is allowed to vote for anti-immigration party/parties in Sweden.

      2. Non-Swedes immigrating to Sweden and thus changing the demographics of Sweden is not equal to Non-Swedes replacing Swedes. There is no legislation requiring Swedes to emigrate in the event of mass immigration, at least not that I could find.

      Forcible relocation has happened to Swedes in the past however: http://www.eng.samer.se/GetDoc?meta_id=1098

      Here is an example of when it happened in Scotland: http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/jacobitesenlightenmentclearances/clearances/

      Delete
    2. I see you don't believe it is a problem for Sweden to become Islamic soon. I know cultures always change, but does it have to go down THIS route?

      Delete
    3. Oh and how is it fair for Swedes to become a minority in their own country? When it happened to Native Americans you would say it's wrong.

      Delete
    4. I see you don't believe it is a problem to make claims, and then change the subject and act like nothing happened when those claims are challenged or refuted.

      Don't ask vague rhetorical questions.

      Delete
    5. And again, refrain from making assumptions. I don't recall mentioning Native Americans, in any of my comments or in the blog post.

      Please review the legal definition of genocide, and research forcible relocation. These things happened to the Native Americans. They are not currently happening to Swedes (with the possible exception of the Sami people of Sweden).

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. Whether or not I think it is okay is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the claims that you made. You said Swedes were being "replaced": this was simply incorrect. I have not shared my personal feelings on this matter because I fail to see why my feelings should matter to you or to the topic. What should matter is the facts.

      That's what I care about: facts. And, how they relate to ethics and rights. I don't care about your feelings or what you believe, and I don't expect other people to care about mine. If you have a point to make or facts to share, or a relevant argument to make, then share that.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. Ok fine, I lost the argument. I checked, the new law has nothing to do with immigration, and Swedes aren't becoming a minority or being replaced. However, I am still holding on to my anti-immigration and "islamophobic" views and I have reasons for such views.

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. This guy is so full of crap. Sweden is one of the most democratic nations on earth.

      Delete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. More proof against white genocide: Many cities, such as Minneapolis, have been getting whiter over the last few years.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Check this out: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/04/how-i-am-partly-to-blame-for-mass-immigration.html

    A British left-wing politician admits the immigration to UK was solely to ethnically cleanse the native population. Just look at this disgusting quote: "It wasn't because we liked immigrants; it was because we didn't like Britain."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clarify what you're trying to argue.

      I see no objective data in this article, nor do I see any mention of "ethnic cleansing". In fact, you seem to be confused about what ethnic cleansing is.

      Here are a couple examples of ethnic cleansing:

      http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=D09FF8A770847F94FCA796D602DF707B.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=2777544

      http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5292188

      Delete
    2. Clarify? He just admitted that he wanted to make white Brits a minority just because he could. He openly admitted that he didn't care about immigrants getting a better life, he admits it was solely to make the UK multicultural, because he hated his nation's native people. Remember: "It wasn't because we liked immigrants; it was because we didn't like Britain."

      Delete
    3. I'm not gullible enough to take a politician's personal blog post as proof of anything. You're going to have to do better than that. A politician's personal beliefs and experiences are not facts, and do not have any bearing on facts. Ethnic cleansing is not occurring in Britain, regardless of what he says. He can say the sky is made of broccoli if he wants, doesn't make it factual.

      Delete
  21. You will ignore this, but miscegenation is pushed and promoted in the media 24/7. Media portrays white men as submissive and beta, while they portray black men as well endowed, dominant, and alpha. Just look in tv shows- There are more black man-white woman couples than white man-white woman couples. This is an UNDENIABLE FACT. Try to prove me wrong. I know tons of white women who say they only date black guys because they think it's cool and they believe they have bigger dicks, thanks to years of media brainwashing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't assume I will ignore anything, especially after I have responded to all of your posts thus far. In fact, you have neglected to respond to my latest one: you've ignored me, not the other way around.

      Cite evidence to support your claims. You have not cited any facts.

      The extinction of whites is not happening, and my personal feelings should not matter to you. What matters is facts.

      Also, I just realized, you're the same user who said this about a month ago:

      "Meh, I like race-mixing. Opposites attract. Most white women prefer black men; this is proven, most women like exotic, different men.
      Just look at Heidi Klum, Elin Nordegren, Kim Kardashian, Cheryl Cole, Probably Karen Gillan, the list goes on and on.

      The bottom line is this: Opposites attract."

      Starting to wonder if you're trolling me, honestly.

      Delete
    2. The extinction of whites is happening. White women are the most likely to marry interracially. A grand total of 95% of white women were married to non-white men, black ones in particular. And that number just keeps rising. Virtually all white women, if given the choice, would choose a black man over a white man, thanks to media brainwashing. This is fact. If the trends continue, a grand total of 0% of the world population will be white.

      Delete
    3. And as for what I said about race mixing earlier, I was just mocking how anti-whites talk.

      Delete
    4. No, that's incorrect. The white population is increasing, not decreasing or trending towards extinction.

      http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/29/us/census/

      Your claim that 95% of white women are married to nonwhites is also false. I did your work for you and looked for a source for this claim, and found none. Instead, I found sources estimating that 0.4% of all white people are married to black people. Not sure where you got this 95% statistic. Take care to cite only facts next time.

      http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.21.2.71

      Your claim that "virtually all" white women prefer black men is also false.

      http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/11/30/247530095/are-you-interested-dating-odds-favor-white-men-asian-women

      So no, this is not a fact, sorry.

      "Anti-whites" (who aren't actually anti-white, just anti-racist-ideologies), don't actually talk like that, so you did a poor job trying to mock anybody. Next time do not use the term "opposite" to refer to black and white people. Black people and white people are not opposites: if you recall, I corrected you on this.

      Don't forget to cite facts, and sources (objective ones, this means hard data, no opinion pieces) to support them next time.

      Delete
    5. Maybe the whit population of US is increasing(almost entirely due to white Mexicans immigrating), but in Europe, particularly Germany, Italy and Britain, the white population is falling at a ridiculous rate. In the UK, the white population shrinks at a rate of 8% annually, and the fastest growing group is mixed-race. So yes, whites are going extinct. Sure, it is true some European countries have increasing white populations(Sweden, Ireland, Iceland, France, some would say Albanians are white), but even then, the growth is slow. Want a source? See this: http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3770/the_islamic_future_of_britain

      It explains that Britain's white population is shrinking, while its Muslim population is skyrocketing.


      Delete
    6. No, sorry. For extinction to occur, deaths must outnumber births. This is not happening to white people.

      You cannot claim white people are going extinct as a whole and only cite Britain demographics as proof. It doesn't support your claim because the demographics in Britain do not represent global demographics. You also should not contradict yourself, claiming white people are going extinct, then conceding that certain white populations are growing. You need to be clear, not contradict yourself, and understand the facts before forming an argument.

      Also, slow growth is still growth. If other demographics are growing faster than others, that does not mean the others are going extinct. They may get outnumbered and grow slower, but until deaths outnumber births, you cannot claim a trend towards extinction.

      Delete
    7. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/white-deaths-outnumber-births-for-first-time/2013/06/13/3bb1017c-d388-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html

      Read it and weep.

      Delete
    8. Did you read my last response to you? You cannot claim white people are going extinct and then only cite one population. That's like saying Asians are going extinct because their deaths outnumber births in Japan. I shouldn't have to explain that twice.

      Delete
  22. Another question: Do you believe the extinction of whites is good or bad?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really believe whites are dying off?

      Delete
  23. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/25/the-end-of-an-era-for-white-males/

    What do you think of this article written by a Jew that talks about how great it is that whites are dying off? Still believe there is no genocide that Jews are enforcing? Europe is already becoming a Muslim center for Jihad and the Jews are celebrating.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Take a look at the picture of AFRICA-head of Christ http://jimakoskx.blogspot.gr/2015/11/planet-earth-christ-jesus-english.html Greece=Testes America=Langs Arabia=Mind India=Hard etc

    ReplyDelete