White genocide theory in a nutshell

[Donnadogsoth]

Though you don't know it, you are probably genocidal.  The reason you don't know it is your entire society is either mute about the subject or else bends towards denying that it is happening, while celebrating the conditions that contribute to it and hoping for the day when it is complete.

 

The genocide that is being conducted, is a “soft” genocide.  It is not taking place with death camps and armed guards this time; it employs obvious but largely non-violent means, foremost among them the paralytic and terrorising effects of shame-words, to dispossess and eliminate—you guessed it--the white race from the world.

 

Very clearly, you're genocidal if you:

 

    (1) deny the white race exists,

 

    (2) deny the white race is shrinking;

 

    (3) use the word “racist” to shame a white person into silence about white genocide;

 

    (4) promote race-mixing between whites and non-whites;

 

    (5) promote non-white immigration into white countries;

 

    (6) support censorship of ideas that oppose white genocide;

 

    (7) oppose economic and social policies encouraging whites to have babies; and,

 

    (8) reject the right of whites to form homogeneous enclaves both (a) in reality, and, (b) in art.

 

But what is the opposite of being a genocidalist?  It's not being neutral.  Ask a Holocaust survivor how he or she feels about neutrality being the opposite of genocidal.  No, here, the opposite of genocidal is pro-white.

 

That sounds scary, doesn't it?  All sorts of bad connotations have gotten connected with the pro-white concept, like burrs on a woollen sweater.  And this was partly intentional on the part of the social doctors and media masters.  But part of it is due to the legacy of what I call Dark Racism, a racism based not on healthy love and, to the degree that love is thwarted, righteous anger, but on a quality of metastasised hatred.

 

But it doesn't have to be that way.  Being pro-white is a wholesome thing, a clarifying thing, and a motivating thing.  It doesn't mean you have to be an asshole, or a criminal, or violent.  Rather, it means loving your race as an extended family.  Does that mean you can't love the human race as well?  No!  In fact it's highly recommended.  That said, just as your immediate family is special to you in a way that humanity is not, so race is an intermediate category for love between family and species.

 

So, very clearly, you're pro-white if at the very least you:

 

    (1) are not genocidal toward any race (i.e., not a hypocrite);

 

    (2) place principle above sensation;

 

    (3) love the white race!

[Torero]

How many whites are there in the world? Some 1.5 billion?

 

Arabs are mostly white race too, so immigration of Syrians (I'm not talking about the Eritreans traveling on their backs) couldn't be "white race genocide".

 

I shiver with ridiculous statements as "seeing other whites as extended family [and thus treat or see other races differently]".

 

Both in my analysis of the problem and as response to it I'd like to choose a much more individual approach based on moral lines.

 

E.g. a black libertarian/anarchist who advocates peaceful parenting I consider more 'family' than a spanking statist coincidentally with such blond hair, green eyes and pale skin, just like myself. Why should I use 'race' as defining characteristic and not moral values irrespective of race?

 

The problem I see much more an active statist dream (mass immigration, welfare state boost and a (false flag) "terror attack" once in a while -preferably on symbolic dates-) to keep the population in line and seeing the State as "solution" for the same problems that wouldn't exist without that force.

 

Point (8) is however the key point; every individual should have the right to live with those people they want. If people want a white (or black, yellow, Inuit or whatever) community, they shouldn't be forced to accept multiculturalism in their neighbourhood...

 

But seeing most couples as same race (and here are 3 races dominant; white, red and black, with all mixtures between them) in every country I've been (even a statist cannot make one fall for another race by proxy), seeing the number of whites and the freedom of choice every individual has to choose his/her partner, I consider "white genocide" a pretty paranoid armchair idea not based on reality.

[Donnadogsoth]

How many whites are there in the world? Some 1.5 billion?

 

Arabs are mostly white race too, so immigration of Syrians (I'm not talking about the Eritreans traveling on their backs) couldn't be "white race genocide".

 

I shiver with ridiculous statements as "seeing other whites as extended family [and thus treat or see other races differently]".

 

Both in my analysis of the problem and as response to it I'd like to choose a much more individual approach based on moral lines.

 

E.g. a black libertarian/anarchist who advocates peaceful parenting I consider more 'family' than a spanking statist coincidentally with such blond hair, green eyes and pale skin, just like myself. Why should I use 'race' as defining characteristic and not moral values irrespective of race?

 

The problem I see much more an active statist dream (mass immigration, welfare state boost and a (false flag) "terror attack" once in a while -preferably on symbolic dates-) to keep the population in line and seeing the State as "solution" for the same problems that wouldn't exist without that force.

 

Point (8) is however the key point; every individual should have the right to live with those people they want. If people want a white (or black, yellow, Inuit or whatever) community, they shouldn't be forced to accept multiculturalism in their neighbourhood...

 

But seeing most couples as same race (and here are 3 races dominant; white, red and black, with all mixtures between them) in every country I've been (even a statist cannot make one fall for another race by proxy), seeing the number of whites and the freedom of choice every individual has to choose his/her partner, I consider "white genocide" a pretty paranoid armchair idea not based on reality.

 

I've read we have anywhere from 1.2 to 1.5 billion.  Sounds like a lot, I agree.  But the numbers are misleading alone, because they don't account for the ongoing decline and the increasing rate of decline.  The average white birthrate is, by my calculations, 1.6 per woman, which amounts to around a 25% drop in population per generation.  Add to this forced immigration, forced assimilation, mandatory “diversity” education from Kindergarten to University, and race-mixing propaganda.  The trajectory is clear.

 

“The global centre of gravity is changing. In 1900 Europe had a quarter of the world's population, and three times that of Africa; by 2050 Europe is predicted to have just 7 per cent of the world population, and a third that of Africa. The ageing and declining populations of predominantly white nations have prompted forecasts of - and calls for - more immigration from the young and growing populations of developing nations to make up the shortfall.”

--The last days of a white world

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world

 

The Arabs are often different-looking from the Europeans.  Arabs often have a swarthiness, dark eyes, black hair, and very little of the variety that characterises European population as a whole (eye colour, hair colour).  The Middle East has residual white genetics, and I think it used to be as white as Europe, but millennia of mixing has changed them.  There are some fairly pale girls there but overall they've got a tint.  The Syrian refugee problem is compounded by their religion as well (and language and culture), which has a history of invading Europe and taking prized white slaves.  Why would the European slaves have been prized if the ones in the Middle East were just as white?

 

Extended families may not be warm, but they have a phenotypic affinity.  Most people prefer to marry within their race despite massive and increasing efforts at promoting race-mixing. Right now we're starting to see terroristic verbal attacks on whites-in-general, and soon whites-in-particular, for being “sexually racist.”  I think my shivers at the prospect of peer pressure to marry non-whites trumps your shivers at the prospect of being naturally fond of seeing and interacting with racial kin.

 

You should use race as a defining characteristic because it lends artistic beauty to your self-identity. It's not the only characteristic; I speak about the importance of religious identity (though I promote Christianity as universal), of cultural identity (especially European classical culture which is properly universal), and linguistic identity.  Race is a kind of culture-gone-to-seed, a language of bodily form,  and a source of solidarity.  Having a common religion, culture, race, language, history and territory is massively healthy for an individual, helping him adjust to life and making him far less vulnerable to addictive behaviour.  Homogeneity is healthy.  Variety is a spice, but you can't live on nothing but spice.

 

Of course, the crucial interpolation in any serious discussion about race is the concept of a common humanity which allow bridges to be built, without demanding that the continents be smushed together to form Himalayas of confusion, as advocated by the multicultural religionists.

 

I find your point about the State intriguing.  Really, this (racial) problem wouldn't exist without the State to propagandise about, lure, import, and sustain the Third World.  I have to think of this further and welcome any other thoughts about it.

 

About point (8), the sticking point will be when white nations collectively exercise their rights to decouple themselves from the runaway diversity train, whether via State involvement or purely voluntarily.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful reply!

[34jake]

Suicide rates amoung white men are at an all time high.

 

We are simply taking ourselves out of the equation because the environment is very anti-white.

 

Ironically we are the ones that need "safe spaces" the most.

[J. D. Stembal]

Suicide rates amoung white men are at an all time high.

 

We are simply taking ourselves out of the equation because the environment is very anti-white.

 

Ironically we are the ones that need "safe spaces" the most.

 

One of the hip things to do among white people is to trace back your lineage to a non-white person, and take on the cultural trappings of said ethnicity or culture. It is common for this to be done with Native American culture, especially, since there aren't enough tribes left for them to really strike up a fuss about it. If you had a relative from South Africa, and started calling yourself an African American, you would probably raise some eyebrows, though. I'm 100% honkey, for what it's worth. The closest I can get to non-white is a great grandmother who immigrated from Italy.

 

However, I don't really sense the anti-white media smear campaign on a personal local level at all. If anything, there seems to be a lot of distrust in the whites towards the smaller non-white communities. I definitely get the sense that multiculturalism is a failing experiment. People who look the same and speak the same language have a natural affinity towards each other. I don't think there could be outright hostility towards white people in a county that is 95% white.

 

In fact, I don't think I've lived in a whiter county than Summit, one of the last bastions of whiteness. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08/08117.html

 

And this is very interesting, too. http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhwhite.html

[Rosstronic]

Western European culture, as in the concept-bag of the freedom club, led to the greatest flowering of human progress. The most predominant race in the freedom club is white people, and the British were the whiteys that really got around with the tenants of the freedom club. As the concepts of the freedom club clashed with the brutality of human societal norms of the past, and previously savage peoples were indoctrinated with the freedom club concepts and empirical results, they fought back with those same principles.

 

Freedom concepts fought freedom concepts, and the originators (whites) were made to bear the burden of all histories' atrocities. The white devils were thus adjudicated as the sacrificial race, which continues to this day. The problem with being the bad race, is that it really takes the sexy out of life; when you take the sexy out of life, you breed less.

 

Also, as the concepts of the freedom club have been undermined because of the originators being shamed; it has slowly invalidated, in spite of evidence to the contrary, the value of freedom concepts. As freedom slides back into the savagery of the past, it becomes less feasible from a resource standpoint to have children, and it undermines the desirability of mates as many of them fall to the temptation of vice.   

[Donnadogsoth]

A wonderful and useful new take on the subject.  Thank you, Rosstronic.

[Waffle Waffles]

How many whites are there in the world? Some 1.5 billion?

 

Arabs are mostly white race too, so immigration of Syrians (I'm not talking about the Eritreans traveling on their backs) couldn't be "white race genocide".

 

 

I'm not fond of the usage of colours, `white` `red` `yellow` `black`, to define races or tribes. Because people around the world are much more than a colour. This judging people based on skin colour, yes bad, I can agree with the `liberals` about this. If we really need to do this for some reason I prefer terms like `native European` or `ethnic European`

 

Everyone is different, should be given a chance to prove their character before being judged. However, we can generalise about large groups of people by culture, ethnicity, religion, wealth, age and gender. Large groups of people tend to have predicable patterns when you attribute any combinations of those tags to them.

 

So to get back on topic, `white` genocide, let's call it the replacement of Northern European culture, environment and various genetics specific to the native population. Because it's not really just a skin colour that is disappearing.

 

You only have to look at video of, say, London in the 1960s to see how it is like a different world. It's been less than 60 years, but the transformation has been huge. The countryside is being eaten up, there's more crime, violence and chaos, more misunderstandings and hurt feelings, there's all sorts of discrimination (often against natives), areas off limits if you look a certain way, suspicion of others, people being afraid to speak freely. The change is not just skin colour.

[Rosstronic]

I can't even be openly sad about the decline of my race, and its closely linked culture, without being branded as a racist bigot. Honestly I can handle being branded as a racist bigot by almost everyone, except for white females. The most genetically close of the opposite gender have a huge impact on my limits of racial preference. The women are the determiners of the future. 

[Donnadogsoth]

I can't even be openly sad about the decline of my race, and its closely linked culture, without being branded as a racist bigot. Honestly I can handle being branded as a racist bigot by almost everyone, except for white females. The most genetically close of the opposite gender have a huge impact on my limits of racial preference. The women are the determiners of the future. 

 

What is most likely to open women's eyes, do you think?