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 they 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's “cogito,
ergo sum,” thinking is existing. Ironically, he came to that
philosophical conclusion while doubting his 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 of reason. The ability of 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.
Feeding your soul lies is the
equivalent to feeding your body candy bars. You might be able to
survive on a diet of just 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, etc. 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 doesn'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 are 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 a tenet
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 has a large group of people
who either deny it's happening, or they 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 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 foundation for the claim. The “white genocide
conspiracy theory's” assertion 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 the UN'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
(Immigration
and Nationality act of 1965) that reversed the 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 immigration 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 immigration population of the United States (i.e., 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.
If doing 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 period
of years. Or, 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. Therefore, 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.
