The White Genocide Conspiracy Theory And Why It’s Nonsense

Do you want to hear something crazy? Let me tell you about a conspiracy theory popular among the alt-right, white nationalists and fascists (or whatever you want to call them). It’s that the white race is facing extinction and that evil unseen forces are plotting to wipe it out. A genocide is happening right before our eyes yet no one has noticed [insert mandatory ‘wake up people!’ here]. Like all conspiracy theories, it’s riddled with holes, flaws and a complete lack of evidence (not that it matters to true believers). Most of it is openly racist propaganda and white supremacist hate. I will admit I do find something fascinating about crazy and bizarre political ideas, which lead me to write this article.

So, what is White Genocide? The core idea is that the white race will be wiped out and all currently white countries will become dominated by current minority groups. This will come from constant non-white immigration, higher birth rates and interracial marriage. It’s not clear who is committing the genocide or why, although like most conspiracy theories, they mainly blame the Jews (and sometimes Feminists too). So, America was once 85% white, is now 63% white, so the theory is that this trend will continue until it is 0% white.

Common catchphrases and slogans

  • Whites will become a minority in their own homeland
  • Why is diversity only forced on white countries?
  • Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, White countries for everyone
  • Anti-racist is code for anti-white
  • Diversity means less white people
  • Chase down the last white person
  • Forced integration/assimilation

There is of course, absolutely no evidence for any of this and it’s all paranoid delusions. But I thought it might to useful to create a response to show just how nonsensical and false the claims are. I won’t go into the issue over who or what counts are white, as this is something no one can agree on and has changed multiple times over the past century. There was a time when the Irish and Slavs were not seen as white and even nowadays racists argue if Southern Europeans and Jews count as white. White Nationalists have an image of an ideal white person as blonde and blue eyed, but few white people actually look like this.

swe1.jpg

Definition of Genocide

Let’s begin by defining what genocide is. According to the United Nations definition, genocide is:

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group , as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily harm, or harm to mental health, 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.

It is claimed that point (c) or maybe even (d), are the relevant article, although there is no evidence to support it. White people are not being starved, sterilised, killed, prevented from reproducing, forced into unsafe and unhealthy living conditions or in any way threatened with destruction. White people have the highest life expectancy in the world and access to the best medical care. There’s no risk of destruction. So let’s look at other claims.

Why is diversity only for white countries?

This claim is laughably ridiculous. Even the briefest of studies would reveal that the truth is the complete opposite to what the alt-right would have you believe. There was a global study of ethnic diversity that ranked countries from most to least. Do you know what they found? Africa has the highest level of diversity and Europe has one of the lowest. The 3rd world is not a monolith, it is home to an enormous range of ethnic and linguistic diversity.

imrs

Ethnically homogenous nation-states are primarily a European creation, African countries in contrast are all multi-ethnic. So while racists view all Africans as the same, in reality there is huge diversity among them and hundreds of ethnic groups. Nigeria has more than 500 ethnic groups and more than 500 languages. The Congo has more than 250 ethnic groups and more than 700 languages and dialects. It is estimated that there are thousands of ethno-linguistic groups in Africa.

White nationalists also rhetorically ask why there is no white immigration and integration into the 3rd world? This is simply because white people don’t want to move there. Conspiracy theorists may believe there is a secret hand guiding immigration, but in reality it’s voluntary. Africans move to Europe in search of a better life and a higher standard of living, Europeans don’t move to Africa because the living standards are lower. If they wanted to move, they would be welcome.

The countries with the highest level of immigration aren’t white

The claim that only white countries accept immigration is also nonsense. Don’t believe me? Let’s take a test. Tell me which countries (with a population above one million to exclude mini-states) you think have the highest proportion of immigrants in the world? If you named an European or “white” country, I’m sorry but you’re wrong. The record is actually held by the United Arab Emirates of whose population 83% are immigrants. In fact, of the top ten countries, most are Arab and only a single one is white.

Country (with population above 1 million) % of population born abroad
United Arab Emirates 83.7%
Qatar 73.8%
Kuwait 70%
Bahrain 54.7%
Singapore 42.9%
Jordan 40.2%
Hong Kong 38.9%
Saudi Arabia 31.4%
Oman 30.6%
Switzerland 28.3%

The only white country on the list is Switzerland. However, 85% of its foreign residents are European, only 1% are African. Which leads to the next point . . .

Most European immigrants are white

While it is certainly true that Western Europe has received many immigrants, the claim of white genocide is undermined by the fact that most immigrants are white. In the UK, the largest immigrant population is Polish. This puts white nationalists in an awkward position, because they must either claim that Eastern Europeans will have no problem assimilating, in which case there is no immigration problem, or that Eastern Europeans are a separate ethnicity and culture, in which case white nationalism is nonsense.

You can pick any European country and you find that in almost every one, the dominant ethnicity comprises over 85% of the population. There are a few exceptions like Belgium, Switzerland and the Balkans, but that is because they are divided between various ethnic groups native to the region. Most of Eastern Europe has a tiny immigrant population and is almost entirely white. Even when there are sizeable immigrant groups, they are predominantly white and European, in order words kosher to the alt-right. Even in countries that have received large numbers of immigrants, the number of non-whites relative to the total population is minuscule.

The Irish Example

Take my home of Ireland for example. According to sites that warn about White Genocide, Ireland is being flooded by non-whites and doesn’t look like Ireland anymore. There are warnings that “The Irish are soon facing ethnic extinction” (the article also claims that Freemasons caused the recession and Enda Kenny is a transvestite). There’s even an article from 2005 that claimed the Irish could be an ethnic minority in Ireland by 2050 (although the source of the claim is “unpublished UK-based research, which he does not identify”, in other words, it doesn’t exist). There’s no indication of who is supposedly behind this genocide or why. Ireland had only a single Jewish member of parliament, Alan Shatter, who was in opposition during the immigration boom and lost his seat at the last election. Claims that he has been secretly controlling the country’s immigration policy for decades don’t make any sense as immigration dropped during his period as Minister for Justice. Nor are there any other convenient scapegoats to blame as the media, business and finance are dominated by Irish people (the lead villain from the financial crisis had the typical Irish name of Sean Fitzpatrick).

ireland-immigrants.jpg

In the 2011 census, 15% of the population was born outside the state. Yet before anyone cries genocide, the two largest immigrant groups are the Polish and the British (funny how no one ever mentions the British when complaining about immigration). In fact, of the top five immigration nationalities, four of them are white. So, while the White Irish share of population was 85%, another 10% were non-Irish White and only 1% were African.

But those figures are from 2011, perhaps more recent information shows signs of genocide? Actually, the preliminary data from the 2016 census is available and do you know what it shows? The net flow of migration actually decreased by 30,000. That’s right, rather than being an ever-growing constant stream, migration is highly dependent on economic conditions, so when the recession occurred, less immigrants arrived and more returned home. While the non-Irish White proportion held steady, the African proportion dropped in half from 41,642 to 22,150 and the Nigerian share by two-thirds from 17,642 to 6,084. This now means that the top five immigrant groups in Ireland are all white. You can check out the data on the CSO website which is where I got the data for these two charts.

Race % of population (2016 Census)
White Irish 82.8%
Other White 9.5%
Asian 2.1%
Black 1.3%
Other 1.6%
Did not state 2.7%

 

Nationality Total Number (2016 Census)
Irish 4,082,513
Polish 122,515
British 103,113
Lithuanian 36,552
Romanian 29,186

TV Propaganda

There is incredibly little evidence for this supposed genocide, so the conspiracy theorists have to resort to picking up crumbs. One of these is the silly claim that the media is supposedly pushing anti-white propaganda, the only evidence for this is tv ads and shows that contain non-white characters. That’s right, the mere existence of non-white people is supposedly a form of propaganda. Only a deluded mind could look at an ad of black people dancing and see a sinister plot to exterminate white people.

But what about Japan?

A common technique is to ask why Western countries are becoming increasingly diverse but East Asian countries are not. Where is the outcry against homogenous Japan, they wail? The answer is simple, firstly, there are plenty of people who have criticised Japan’s immigration policies. Secondly, the reason more people don’t is because it would be completely useless. I have never written about Japan because I don’t speak a word of the language, know nothing about the history and culture and very few Japanese people read my blog. I’m not a Japanese citizen so I have no right to tell them how to run their country. So, if I wrote an article calling for Japan to take more immigrants, it would have exactly zero impact. That’s why I focus my discussion on Ireland, the country that I know best and of which I am a citizen and can therefore influence.

Integration is voluntary

The most ridiculous part of this ridiculous conspiracy theory, is the idea that integration is being forced on people. No one is forcing non-whites to move to Europe, they are free to stay at home. Even when they arrive there is no one forcing interracial marriage. If you want to marry a white person and have white children, you are free to do so. No one is forcing white women (it’s always helpless women they worry about, it’s as if they don’t think women are capable of making decisions) to marry Africans or Arabs. It’s a purely voluntary decision. In fact, in America whites have the lowest rate of interracial marriage with only 7% of white people marrying someone of another race. In most European countries, less than 10% of people marry someone born outside the country.

FT_15.06.12.Interracial

Likewise for birth rates. If white families decide to have less children, that’s a voluntary decision, not the result of an evil conspiracy. If you want to have six children, you’re free to do that, but so are the people who only want two children. There is no outside group that is forcing people to have less children, unless you want to blame individual choice. Sometimes Feminism is blamed for this and there is nostalgia for when women were treated like little more than baby factories.

Minority doesn’t mean persecution

Even as the white share of American population declines, this doesn’t mean it’s under attack or doomed. Unless of course they want to claim that being a minority in America is an unbearable nightmare. America has never been a solely white country, it has always been multiracial. In fact all whites are descended from immigrants and I’m sure that Native Americans find white fears of being a minority in their homeland very ironic. If Africa is for the Africans and Europe for the Europeans, will all Europeans on other continents be forced to return to Europe? In the dream of racial purity, where do the South Americans fit? If the alt-right is so opposed to ethnic mixing, how do they react to the fact that almost all White Americans have ethnically mixed heritages?

It is projected that by 2044, whites will no longer be the majority, but still the largest race by far. (These projections depend on how you define white and mixed race people). Whites will still exist and are not under attack. The change in relative side is not because whites are destroyed, it’s just because other races are growing faster. There is no sign that this will happen in other countries.

Imagine there are five white people in a room. Two Africans, two Asians and two Latinos walk into the room. The whites are no longer a majority, but this doesn’t mean they are the victims of genocide or that they will cease to exist. In fact, their position is unchanged, it’s just that the non-white share grew faster.

Conclusion

Does any of this matter? Is it worth debunking the conspiracy theories of a racist fringe or is it just a waste of time (that just gives them publicity)? The honest answer is I don’t know. I hope these people are just a handful of lunatics without any power or influence. However, it’s impossible to know how many people actually believe this nonsense. There is an alt-right subculture on the internet that is present on Reddit, Twitter and YouTube (the videos linked have a surprising number of views). There are attempts to infiltrate anti-immigrant groups like those that support Donald Trump to spread this conspiracy theory. I think there is value in debunking it and pointing out its numerous flaws and complete lack of connection to reality. This is useful as an excuse to laugh at crazy delusions, as an academic exercise and as a way to stomp out hatred before it grows.

Advertisements

43 thoughts on “The White Genocide Conspiracy Theory And Why It’s Nonsense”

  1. Facts, smacts. Nigeria may have 500 ethnicities but their all black, mate! (We only see what we want to see and disregard the rest, la la la …)

    A valiant effort. Now if we could only get the white supremacists to read it.

    1. You’re taking a Eurocentric view and associating ‘race’ with ‘colour’. Simply on the genetic level there is more diversity in Africa, the origin of mankind, than anywhere else on Earth. And that’s before cultural differences, which are really what matters to people, are taken into account.

    2. So are those black supermacists then, who kill white farmers at South-Africa? I suppose that doesn’t have anything to do with it why white people generally don’t want to move to countries where black people are majority, because they are afraid that they might be killed by black racists.

  2. And in the wider context, its part of a circular argument anyway. It’s supposed to provide a “reasonable” basis for racist views, but the colour of the skins of those who’ll be living on this or that patch of land in twenty, fifty, a hundred years time is only of concern if one already has racist views.

  3. @Steve Ruis

    Between the two of us we’ve managed both an its/it’s and a they’re/their in the first two comments. I’m assuming a mutual ceremonial suicide pact is the only option open to us at this point?

  4. In any case the USA is only a ‘white’ land because of the near or actual genocide of the native americans as colonisation proceeded. The same is largely true for Australia too. Maybe some hidden guilt is involved here?

  5. The conspiracy theory is certainly barmy. However, like all good conspiracy theories, some interesting facts and trends are pulled in to ‘support’ them. I think it’s interesting that birth rates among whites in both the US and (many, maybe most?) western/southern European countries are declining, especially relative to other ethnicities. I could be out in left-field here but I wonder if the drive to ‘conspiracize’ about this trend is coming from some ‘fear’ that whites are ‘dying out’, a fear that has at least some basis in reality? See here for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/opinion/why-are-white-death-rates-rising.html

    1. Birth dates among whites are declining because we are taking care of other people’s children, i.e. welfare. Basically we are going to be a minority race, because we are smart. We aren’t pushing out five kids in a bad economy. We understand that if you can’t take care a child on your own then you shouldn’t have them. While Muslim refugees come here and push out 10 kids, only to go in welfare, because they can’t take care of them

        1. Who you know personally and national statistics are two different things. White family size has been shrinking.

    2. I wonder if the drive to ‘conspiracize’ about this trend is coming from some ‘fear’ that whites are ‘dying out’, a fear that has at least some basis in reality?

      While the white race isn’t growing as fast as others, there’s no risk of it dying out.

  6. The displacement of white people from virtually nation their ancestors built isn’t a conspiracy theory. You can object to the use of the rather hyperbolic “genocide”, but the basic concept of white displacement is accurate. There are only two questions that need to be answered with “yes” for the idea to have merit:

    1. Are white people being displaced from their homelands by non-white people? The answer is obviously yes. Polish plumbers cleaning toilets in the UK has no relationship to this question. Ethnicity matters, but race matters more.

    2. Is this displacement of white people by non-white people bad for white people? The answer again is obviously yes. The mass importation of low IQ, low achievement, radically culturally disparate third worlders to Europe will create a sizable perpetual underclass (akin to American blacks) within 40 years. They will be a low IQ, low achievement, radically culturally disparate majority 60 years after that. So what if we stopped low IQ migration from Africa/Latin America/the Middle East and focused on high IQ migration largely from East and South Asia (with cherry picked right tailers from the rest of the world)? That’s arguably more dangerous – you’re creating a new elite with zero connection to the vast majority of the population. The definition of rootless cosmopolitans. An Indian investment banking VP at Credit Suisse isn’t going to give a damn about a laid off auto worker in Michigan. Why would he? They have nothing in common. In the United States whites have declined from ~85% of the population (around where they had been from 1776 up through 1980) to around ~60% of the population. Whites are still a sizable majority and an even bigger share of the electorate… and yet there has been a dramatic rise in anti-white rhetoric and anti-white ideology. Every university in America offers humanities and social sciences coursework which will blame all of the ills in the world on whites. Publications like Slate and Salon run anti-white hate articles on a weekly basis. Anti-white shows like “Dear White People” would have shocked people and made national news in the 90s. Today we just shrug. And mind you WE’RE STILL IN THE MAJORITY. Do you think those anti-white tendencies will grow or subside as the white% shrinks?

    Everything else is just rhetoric meant to convince people of the realities above. We don’t want our children and grandchildren to grow up as a hated minority in an increasingly third world nation. We could just watch netflix and play videogames and ignore the impending doom of Western civilizaiton if we wanted to. That’s what the boomers would have done. But we aren’t the boomers – we’re better. And we WILL secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.

    1. To respond more specifically on the “but it’s voluntary” thing… yes, we know. Of course it is. Africans and other third worlders want to move to white countries because white people tend to build fantastic countries. Northwest European white people especially. But why are we obligated to let them? How are we benefiting from mass <90 IQ immigration? Their countries are terrible because the people that live in them aren't cognitively capable of building wealthy, prosperous societies. Any nation that has them in majority is going to be garbage. We don't want them here because we don't want our countries to be garbage like the ones they're fleeing from.

    2. “Third world” is a cold war term for countries not aligned with either the USSR or the USA/NATO. It is not a term which implies any particular kind of culture, type of government, level of economic growth, or any other thing relevant to your argument.

      And that’s the least silly thing about your comment.

      1. Yes i’m very well aware of what it meant during the Cold War. The Cold War is over and it means something else now. If you have an argument responding to anything I said i’d like to hear it.

        1. Okay.

          Your assumption that IQ tests measure anything but the ability to perform IQ tests is quite probably false. Your assumption that such tests which have been done uniformly show non-whites to be of lower IQ is false. The further assumption that intelligence is either entirely or mostly genetic is false. Your descriptor “low achievement” is virtually meaningless and vague to the point of uselessness. Your complaint that an “Indian investment banking VP at Credit Suisse isn’t going to give a damn about a laid off auto worker in Michigan” is based on nothing but supposition about a hypothetical person. It also ignores the obvious fact that far too many white, native-born people in the same line of work don’t care a damn about manual workers either—so even your hypothetical comparison fails. Basically, if I were standing at the south end of a north facing bull, your comment is what I would be standing in.

          Need I go on?

          1. Some things that aren’t really controversial (at all) in the psychometric literature:

            1. IQ is a strong predictor for a wide range of life outcomes from educational attainment to career success to out of wedlock birth to criminal proclivity.

            2. IQ is heavily genetic. Usual estimates are somewhere between 45%-85%.

            3. There are sizable, persistent gaps between different racial groups. IQ is a normalized statistic with the average at 100 and standard deviation of 15. East Asians are usually measured at around 104 average, non-Hispanic whites at 100, Mestizos/Hispanics (murkier to classify) in the low 90s, and American blacks at around 85. Ashkenazi Jews are ~112 and Sub-Saharan Africans are typically in the 60s to 70s.

            The only real area of debate is whether you believe that the racial IQ gaps are 100% the result of environmental causes or whether you believe they’re partially genetic and partially environmental. Given the virtually universal acceptance of #1, #2, and #3 among psychometricians it should be easy to see why the Arthur Jensen/Charles Murray/Linda Gottfredson/James Watson view is popular among academics who study IQ. If you look at the Rindermann/Coyle/Becker 2013 survey of psychometricians <20% accept an "environment only" view. If you go back to the original Snyderman/Rothman survey from the 1980s the results are very similar.

            The gap between what psychometricians believe and what the public believes about IQ is similar to the gap between what climate scientists believe and what the public believes about climate change.

            1. When someone finally comes up with a definition of what intelligence is, it might be time to start looking at how to test it. Until then we have a half-arsed test which purports to accurately measure a quality which can’t even be properly defined, and which—due in part to staggering cultural biases in much of the early work—hasn’t even remained the same test for twenty years in a row (so there go any chances of spotting changes over time). And when it gets applied to race, it gets even sillier. One seriously argued and allegedly “well-evidenced” assertion based on these test results, for instance, is that Australian Aboriginals have an average IQ which, if the normal interpretation were to be followed, would leave them with the mental abilities of a nine-year-old; a claim clearly unsupported by actual observations of the population in question.

              Why am I not impressed?

                1. Yes, really.

                  There are multiple reports of a worryingly high incidence of mental health issues amongst Aboriginal people, but they are all issues which are caused by the immediate environment; stress, diet, and so on. There are no reports of abnormal numbers of occurrences of the kinds of issues one would expect to see in a population whose average IQ was as low as is claimed.

                  That’s the problem with virtually all these claims of drastically low intelligence amongst various non-white groups (or welfare claimants, or whatever group this week’s preferred target for demonisation is). A couple of points’ difference, given the fuzziness of the test and of the definition of the thing being tested, would be within the bounds of believability. But such believable claims wouldn’t have the desired effect; they wouldn’t be useful in the demonisation of non-whites as a burden on society. So claims are made of such ridiculously huge differences that they become easily debunked by anyone willing to look for reports of the obvious effects of such low intelligence amongst the group in question.

                  1. “A couple of points’ difference, given the fuzziness of the test and of the definition of the thing being tested, would be within the bounds of believability.”
                    No, it wouldn’t be. How else would one explain the vast gap between Blacks and Jews in percentage receiving PhDs, wealth, crime perpetration, belief in God, etc.? Even the very real 27-point average IQ gap between Blacks and Jews isn’t nearly enough to explain all of that. You try explaining it without any reference to IQ and biology; see how far you get.

    3. “The displacement of white people from virtually nation their ancestors built”
      Blacks have been here in the US as long as whites. And large portions of the country were developed by Hispanics. There’s no reason for considering the US an inherently white nation other than bigotry.

      1. When you blame people for “American History”, you aren’t expecting BLACKS, or LATINOS, or ASIANS to feel guilty, you blame the people that YOU see as TRUE AMERICANS

        Cut the crap please

    4. Are white people being displaced from their homelands by non-white people? The answer is obviously yes. Polish plumbers cleaning toilets in the UK has no relationship to this question.

      Actually the article clearly shows that this is not the case. Whites are still the overwhelmingly majority in all European countries. How can you claim people that represent 95% of the population are being displaced? Polish people are relevant because they are the largest immigrant population in Ireland and the UK. Last time I checked, Polish people are white.

      The mass importation of low IQ, low achievement,

      The 19th century called, they want their “scientific” racism back. Racial IQ tests have been completely discredited as accurate guides and are not used by any experts in any field. Only racists use them to feed their delusions of superiority.

      Every university in America offers humanities and social sciences coursework which will blame all of the ills in the world on whites.

      Only in your imagination.

      Publications like Slate and Salon run anti-white hate articles on a weekly basis.

      Have an proof for this? What is anti-white in your opinion?

      Anti-white shows like “Dear White People” would have shocked people and made national news in the 90s. Today we just shrug.

      There’s been plenty of hysteria about this show from the alt-right, which is ridiculous because none of them have seen it. Can you point out a single moment in the show that is anti-white? Or are you just reacting to the title? Did the politically incorrect title trigger you and now you need a safe space?

      And we WILL secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.

      No surprise you’re ending with a Nazi slogan. Thankfully no one with a brain listens to bigots like you.

    5. White Genocide is NOT hypberolic. A program which DELIBERATELY “displaces” a race and deliberately DENIES them self determination is a CLEAR CUT case of genocide as defined by international law.

      Nothing EXAGGERATED about it, it is legally defined as GENOCIDE.

  7. There is of course, absolutely no evidence for any of this and it’s all paranoid delusions.

    Nice handwave. You’re getting worse at this, not better.

    There was a time when the Irish and Slavs were not seen as white

    Not true.

    White people have the highest life expectancy in the world and access to the best medical care.

    -Uh, Japan?

    The record is actually held by the United Arab Emirates of whose population 83% are immigrants.

    The Arabs do things very differently than we do. Only a tiny portion of the UAE has citizenship. The human capital of immigrants to the UAE is generally far higher than that of the native population. Arabs are at no risk of losing power in the UAE. None of that is true for either Europe or the U.S.

    I find it sad you, a leading critic of irrelevant and poor-quality libertarian logic, are using it here to a hilarious extent.

    1. Nice handwave. You’re getting worse at this, not better.

      Your response is incredibly lazy and is mostly two word sentences. You can hardly complain. So do have any substantive points of complaint or are you just going to vaguely moan?

      Not true.

      Actually it is. I would recommend reading “How the Irish became white” or “History of White People”

      Uh, Japan?

      The Japanese are an athnicity, East Asian is their race

      The Arabs do things very differently than we do.

      That’s not much of a response and doesn’t counter my point.

      1. If the Irish weren’t considered White, why were they never prevented from becoming naturalized citizens in the U.S.?

        Check and mate.

        My responses are incredibly lazy because no more is necessary.

        If the Arabs didn’t do things very differently than we do, you might have a point in your use of their countries’ histories to dismiss claims of White genocide happening here.

        China’s life expectancy is only three years shorter than that in the U.S., so the East Asians are catching up, and will probably surpass Whites worldwide in life expectancy within a couple decades.

        I do not handwave away evidence.

        1. Just because the Irish became US citizens doesn’t mean they didn’t face prejudice and bigotry. Many considered them inferior.

          You must be the only person left who still unironically uses “checkmate” as an argument. I actually started laughing when I saw it.

          As usual, your other comments are irrelevant and don’t have a point.

          1. The book How the Irish Became White, referenced above, shows they were indeed considered scum. Much of Irish history in the US consisted of struggling to prove they were equal to Anglo-Saxon whites. Or at least better than black Americans.

          2. Just the fact you aren’t responding to my points doesn’t mean I don’t have them. And yes; look up “Naturalization Act of 1790”. The Irish were always officially considered White in the U.S.

  8. This article is Beyond ridiculous. This tool is just another in a long list people who are erasing history and rewriting history. His goal is 15 seconds in the Limelight he does not care about any kind of Truth or fact. Anyone can take numbers that are made up and twist them for whatever argument they want.

  9. For the last 30 years we’ve ALL heard the anti-white left OPENLY BRAG that their policies of FORCED mass immigration and FORCED assimilation are turning White kids into hated minorities in Europe/America.

    When whites use the legal term for this program, GENOCIDE, suddenly EVERYTHING these leftists openly bragged about is now a CONSPIRACY, and they have data to prove that leftists have just been lying about it ALL THIS TIME

    They told us they weren’t going to turn California non-White & that was a LIE, they told us they weren’t going to turn America non-White & that was a LIE, they told us the same about LONDON and PARIS, LIES LIES… now they say the same about Europe

    1. Using CAPITALS every now and AGAIN doesn’t make you look more CLEVER, in fact it just makes you look DYSLEXIC and makes your POST more ANNOYING to read

  10. If a Victorian Briton could jump into a time machine and travel to the Britain of today, he would not recognise it as in any way, shape or form, British. The customs, the foods, the politics, the social issues we treat as being of burning importance; none of it would reflect the values he thinks of as quintessentially British. And yet the people here in this time do think of themselves as British.

    If I could borrow that time machine and travel a century or so to the Britain of our future, I would think the same. None of the attributes I might espouse as marking “British” out as different from French, Japanese or whatever would be recognisable in the society I saw around me. Their values would be as alien to me as mine are to that Victorian, be us both the most progressive of progressives compared to others in our own times. And that’s okay. That’s how progress works; by progressing. But the people a hundred years hence will still think of themselves as British. They will belong to this land and it to them, and they will, though they may be as unable as I am to define the feeling, feel that something about their society is different—maybe not better or worse, but definitely, somehow, different—than societies inhabiting other patches of land.

    And frankly, I’ll be happy so long as they’re proud of their society, or if not proud then trying to change it into something to be proud of. The least important thing about them is what shade their skins happen to be.

    *drops mic*

  11. Actually all those facts don’t man there isn’t a conspiracy to exterminate white people. Maybe the conspirators are just doing a really, really lousy job?

    But seriously to those of you who believe this nonsense, WHY? Why do these conspirators want to get rid of white people for? What could they possibly gain from it? Especially since the plotters (I assume) must be white themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s