Why 'Genocide?':

Defining the discourse is half the battle.  Obviously, if one person gets to use the connotations and interpretations they please, and the other side is stuck using the opponent's terms, connotations, and adjectives, to describe his own position, he's destined for defeat.  This is because humans aren't rational and language is highly emotional.  This is why it's so important to use terms that help your side connotatively, as well as denotatively.  A single bad connotation can self-destruct an entire article of well presented facts.  Likewise, a good connotative zinger is sometimes more rallying than an arsenal of analysis.

The battle over the word 'genocide' is in some ways the entire battle.  If white advocates could get people to believe the white race is being genocided off the face of the Earth, then people would almost have to agree that this is wrong and should be stopped.  Not many people have the guts to say, "That's right, we're genociding the whites, and we're fine with that, because they had it coming.  Let us crush the white serpent into the ground forever, and grind and grind until the last white woman and the last white child are buried deep into the ash heap of history."  Therefore, liberals are frantic to keep people away from the connotative description of genocide being attached to what is going on in the present world.  If the term ever 'sticks,' at the exact same time, people will rebel against it and the genocide of the white race will have to stop.

However, if you accuse someone of genocide falsely, that's also a grave charge which will immediately discredit you in the eyes of the listener if not supported by the facts.  Ruining someone's life by accusing them of a rape they haven't done is just as bad as ruining someone's life by raping them.  For the same reason, falsely accusing someone of genocide is almost as grave as genocide itself.  Think about it.  If a group A really were attempting to genocide group B, that would mean group B would have the right to retaliate against group A in self defense.  Therefore, accusing group A of genocide is also providing moral camouflage for group B to kill, conquer, or at least oppress group A in retaliation.  What if all this talk of genocide has nothing to do with self defense, but is in fact just a back-door attempt at aggression on the innocent accused?  Genocide certainly shouldn't be thrown around lightly, since it's about the worst crime imaginable, it justifies anything to be done as retaliation/self-defense/punishment for said crime.  Saying, "You're a bunch of genociders" is a declaration of war.  What else could it mean?  Genocide is serious business.  For a white advocate, certain things must be proven to a neutral audience so that they aren't made to look foolish or worse, malevolent.


Let's prove the first question, whether whites really are being eliminated as a physical group.  Just so you know, mass immigration is currently flooding every last white country in the world, from Australia to Ireland.  There is no escape anywhere.

To prove that whites are facing the physical destruction of their race, let's use a hypothetical scenario:  Let's say Iceland is being flooded with ten million Sri Lankan immigrants who feel that this land would make a nice new home for themselves.  If Iceland is not allowed to say, "No, this is our territory, open only to our descendants, ie, those genetically akin to ourselves, our biocultural tribe."  They will be eliminated.  Mass immigration immediately leads to the death of a bioculture and thus a genocide.  How does this happen?

Well, once Sri Lankans outnumber the Icelanders 1,000 to 1, a series of events start to happen.  First, political power transfers from the natives to the colonizers.  This allows Sri Lankans to do whatever they want to Icelanders unopposed, and renders Icelanders both politically and militarily helpless to stop abuses done politically or militarily against them.

Second, economic power transfers from the Icelanders to the Sri Lankans.  This happens for two different reasons -- 1) The Sri Lankan politics will favor themselves economically.  2)  The sheer weight of Sri Lankan numbers will drive out competition by filling all available niches.  If Sri Lankans gain access to all capital capable of supporting life -- farms, fish, building permits, college admissions -- then there will be no jobs available for Icelanders, or the jobs will offer such low wages due to all the Sri Lankan competition that it can't even support a family.

Third, cultural power shifts from the Icelanders to the Sri Lankans.  Instead of Sri Lankans being expected to assimilate to Icelandic culture, Icelanders are expected to assimilate with the Sri Lankan majority.  Icelanders will no longer be allowed to raise their children according to their own values and beliefs.  The media, the schools, the government, and all of their children's peers will be indoctrinating them in the new, Sri Lankan culture instead.  It is a losing battle to try and maintain your culture without a demographic majority.  To make matters worse, Icelanders will not only be taught that they should be Sri Lankans, they will be taught a new, alternate history that shows how Icelanders are evil, didn't deserve their land, and deserved to be conquered and annihilated by the Sri Lankans.  He who controls the present controls the past.  Icelanders will feel evil, guilty, or despairing once the Sri Lankan culture is through with them.  Their mental peace will be invaded and destroyed, which will in turn destroy their will to live on in this world.  The result will be drug use, alcohol, suicide, and above all low birth rates.

Fourth, demographic power shifts from the Icelanders to the Sri Lankans.  Previously, Icelanders had the ability to keep Iceland 100% Icelandic genetically.  But now they are outnumbered 1,000 to 1.  How does this 1 then get reduced down to 0?  Two methods -- below replacement fertility, and miscegenation.  Either way works for the Sri Lankans.  If an Icelander crossbreeds with a Sri Lankan, the unique qualities that made an Icelander an Icelander will be gone forever, never to return.  This is the principle of entropy.  It is impossible to un-mix a scrambled egg.  Even if we were to consider Icelandic genes 'living on' in their half-breeds, what happens when that half-breed marries another Sri Lankan, and their children marry more Sri Lankans, and so on?  Pretty soon you have a microscopic, completely irrelevant % of Icelandic blood.  People who are 99.99999% Sri Lankan are indistinguishable from 100% Sri Lankans.  .0000001% Icelanders have no relation to 100% Icelanders.  "Icelandism" is not preserved when diluted to this level.

If, alternatively, Icelanders never find someone they can marry, because there are not enough available Icelandic women to find a compatible match, because they are completely surrounded by Sri Lankans instead of other whites they could romantically pursue, birth rates are again depressed.  If the Icelanders stubbornly find each other in the sea of Sri Lankans, marry, and have kids, they will come across still more walls -->

1)  The Sri Lankan government is likely to frown on such 'racist' matches, and might outright forbid them, if not harass and penalize them.

2)  The Sri Lankan population will make it extremely difficult to get a job or make enough money to support one's family.

3)  The Icelandic children will be bullied in school and made to feel that they are unwanted, racist, and evil, and that their parents are unwanted, racist, and evil for having them.  They will come crying back to their parents and state that they hate their parents for having 'white' children, and insist that they should have had proper half breeds that could have better assimilated with their peers.  This will discourage Icelandic parents who observe this in others or even in their own kids from reproducing again.

4)  Those children will be targeted for miscegenation, making reproduction a losing game of russian roulette.  Even supposing one's genes survive the first round, that was already a minuscule percentage chance, and it must be repeated every 20 years.  No miracle can spare such a genetically doomed line forever.

Once a group is outnumbered 1,000 to 1, or even 10 to 1, the writing is on the wall.  No matter who the actors are or where the story is set, the result is the same.  Political power, followed by economic power, followed by cultural power, followed by the complete demographic destruction of the minority group.  In short, genocide.  Mass immigration is genocide.

The only defense against mass immigration is racial collectivism.  Basically, if you cannot say, "I inherited this land from my father, and my child will inherit it from me, you are not welcome here," your people are doomed to the final death.  If the floodgates are ever opened, you can kiss your country goodbye, because it's an irrevocable, inevitable series of events from there.

The Constitution helpfully starts with this line, "for ourselves and our posterity."  Back then, whites understood the concept of territory, of biocultural preservation, of inheritance.  Liberals want to destroy these concepts, and thus destroy our ability to enforce them, which, as they well know, would immediately result in mass immigration, which would immediately result in genocide.  Therefore, calls for the white 'social construct' to be destroyed are semantically equivalent with a call for white's physical existence to be destroyed.  Whites cannot physically exist in a world without the concept of whites, of white biocultural territory, of white birthright citizenship, of white nations.  Whites can only live in white nations for any extended amount of time.  If they live anywhere else they are doomed to die as a people, either absorbed or simply eliminated by the majority.  Liberals know this but they don't care, because they hate white people.

Even supposing the white race's bioculture is doomed to be destroyed in the face of mass immigration -- Let us define mass immigration as, "immigration that would, either immediately or due to disproportionate birth rates in the future, create a new majority in a country," and genocidal mass immigration as "immigration that would, either immediately or due to disproportionate birth rates in the future, make the native people a 10% or less minority in their own land, which would subsequently, through a series of events, result in their total annihilation and their reaching of 0% of the population." -- Even supposing this, genocide also has an emotional meaning.  Genocide implies that someone is the perpetrator, it isn't a natural event, or a 'suicidal decision,' but a choice by certain people to kill off another people.  Just establishing that your native population is doomed by mass immigration doesn't yet make it worthy of the connotatively loaded term 'genocide.'

However, white advocates have these bases covered too.  Just recently, a scatterplot graph was posted across the web: 


http://www.businessinsider.com/segregation-map-america-new-york-2010-9

It shows that whites, universally, do not wish to live among non-whites.  Whites have spoken with their feet.  If people really were celebrating the death of the white race, whites should be more willing to live as a minority around their colored neighbors.  Since whites choose to live as a majority in their personal lives, this also implies that they wish to live as a majority politically as well.  This is also supported by the polls.  The majority of whites, when polled, do not want to become a minority in their own native lands.  They also do not want to give illegal aliens amnesty, nor do they want to increase the number of legal immigrants.  When given a choice, most people think we should lower legal immigration as well.  Whites, consistently, for decades, in fact from the very beginning, made known and gave voice to their objection to mass immigration.  All of these voices were ignored and overridden by a few powerful elites.  The masses were told they were racist and evil, and therefore the government didn't have to listen to them or worry about their concerns.  Then the masses were, against their will, betrayed by the elites who merrily imported as many foreigners as they pleased.  In 1965 Ted Kennedy said that the 1965 immigration act would not change the demographic profile of America.  He lied.  America's demographic profile has been forever changed.  Since America's immigration policy is based on a lie, and a coup by the elite against the unwilling people, it cannot be called a 'suicide' or a 'celebration of diversity.'  Whites do not want this.  They show it in their intermarriage rates, in their segregated housing, in their segregated churches, and so on.  They have outright said it, over and over again, as they opposed both republicans and democrats who were attempting to give illegal aliens yet another amnesty.  Whites have done everything in their power short of armed rebellion to voice their disapproval of mass immigration.  Still they have been ignored.  When Arizona tries to pass its own laws to stop illegal immigration, the federal courts prevent them.  When 70% of Americans agree with SB 1070, the media describes the bill as 'nazi' and 'radical' and 'fringe,' and coaches the American people to feel dispirited, helpless, and ostracized simply because the elites refuse to agree with them.  Whites are not doing this to themselves.  They are being done in by others.

This is a vital point that switches the problem from 'suicide' to 'genocide.'  Suicide is a tragedy.  Genocide is a crime.  Suicide is basically unpreventable.  Genocide can be stopped and reversed, if we first out, then oust, the genociders.  It is important to realize that our people, whether we live in the Netherlands (who, when polled, say allowing Muslim immigrants into their country was their worst mistake in history), or America, who, when polled, support Arizona's illegal immigrant law, or Germany, who, when polled, make Thilo Sarrazhin's book into a best seller, have spoken and we are their champions.  White advocates are neither fringe nor radical.  We represent the nations among whom we live, we speak for them, and they agree with us.

There is a final problem with the loaded term of genocide:  Genocide implies violent death -- it carries in its wake pain, loss, terror, destruction, injustice.  If genocide occurs through peaceful, non-violent means, is it really a genocide?  Or is it some new phenomena, like, say, 'race-replacement?'

I would say yes, this is genocide.  Why?  Because the emotions felt during a violent, sudden genocide are no worse than the emotions people are suffering and will suffer through a non-violent, gradual genocide.  There are two reasons why something could have negative utility, the means could be painful or the ends could be destructive.  I have discussed a billion times why the destruction of the white race would have horrible consequences for the world, life, humanity, and the universe.  The ends are therefore established to be destructive.  However, one might argue that the means of abolishing the white race are not harmful, and that the ends I speak of are just predictions and cannot be verified, and thus can be easily ignored as fear-mongering.  In this case, it's important to establish that all the pain, loss, terror, destruction, and injustice is ongoing now, in the world of today, just as though a violent genocide were taking place.  If the ends aren't shocking, perhaps the means will shock people into recognition.

In the white world of today, people are unhappy.  Let's get this clear.  White people are not living the lives they intended to live or wanted to live.  Their lives have been radically distorted due to the genocidal policies of the elites.  Every day they suffer as a result of these policies.  Their suffering, protracted over the centuries it will take to start race replacement until its completion, is phenomenally high.  It would have been more merciful to simply kill us all violently and physically from the start.  Genocide would have been preferable to the process we are currently undergoing.

People are afraid to speak the truth.  They are afraid of social ostracism or losing their job when they oppose injustice.  They live in fear, so they live a lie, so they never really live.  This is painful.

There are myriad examples of when a white wishes he could speak up but can't:  A customer is complaining that you must be racist because you aren't treating him 'fairly,' when of course you are.  A black accuses a white girl of being 'racist' for turning down his romantic inclinations, when she objects to him as an individual.  A white is in a high crime neighborhood but cannot act spooked or cautious because then he would be a 'racist.'  Your white child is bullied in school by non-whites but when he defends himself he is called a 'racist.'  Whites get together to oppose high taxes or wasteful spending, and are called 'racist' because not enough blacks agree with their priorities.  White children are receiving sub-par education because too much money is being diverted to blacks to close the 'test score gap.'  Whites can't find a job because they suddenly have to be bi-lingual in both English and Spanish, because Hispanics won't learn the damn country's language and require we learn theirs instead.  Whites can't find a job because affirmative action disqualified them.  Whites can't find a job because that sector of the market was flooded with immigrants and now their skills are useless.  Whites are called 'whitey,' 'cracker,' 'devil,' but cannot reply or they are 'racist.'  Whites are taught in their own history classes that they are evil and everything they have ever done was evil.  If whites attempt to defend their ancestors, they are 'racist.'  If whites attempt to defend their race as, on the whole, more good than bad, they are 'racist.'  If whites attempt to defend their traditions or culture as worth remembering and honoring, they are told they 'have no culture' and besides, their culture is 'racist.'  Whites are told they don't even exist.  No other group is made into un-persons.  Every other group is allowed to organize around their ethnic and racial traits.  In commercials, whites are depicted as crooks or buffoons, the non-white is always cleverer and richer than they are.  The same in movies.  Whites are disproportionately the victims of black crime.  Black men are raping white women.  Muslims are raping the white women of Europe.  Whites are told they must observe and honor the strictures of alien religions -- like Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.  Suddenly whites are subject to the same taboos as these alien groups, because we can't 'offend' them in our multi-cultural society.  Whites have to put up with the anti-social behavior of sub-par non-whites, for instance their poverty, crime, littering, loud noise, rioting, unemployment, etc.  If whites speak up about any of this, they are 'racists.'

The tyranny of silence that stops us from voicing our complaints is painful.  Never being allowed to say what you feel in your heart, never being able to assert yourself, always having to cringe and accept your lashing and endure the injustices and slanders directed at you, is a fate worse than death.  To make matters worse, the people who have fully imbibed the white guilt meme also endlessly flagellate themselves, calling themselves racist oppressors, even when blacks are taking a temporary break.  They never get a second's peace in their life, because they feel so bad about being white.  Creating a world where you feel guilty for existing is a fate worse than death.  Not only that, but the pain only increases as whites become a smaller and smaller minority.  Watching your race die right in front of you is a fate worse than death.  Watching yourself become an ever weaker, ever less protected, ever more oppressed minority and knowing what is in store for your children and grandchildren, is a fate worse than death.  Knowing you are the last remaining white in the world, and that forty thousand years of evolution and culture die with you, that the beauty of the white aryan woman is gone forever from the earth, is a fate worse than death.  The loneliness of being surrounded by complete aliens who either don't understand you or actively despise you, unable to make real friends or real lovers, is a fate worse than death.

I am reminded of a song by Saga:



I can't bear to witness.  Those words are filled with horrible pain.  That pain is shared by hundreds of millions of whites around the world, the whites watching their countries they gave life to turn on and devour them from the inside out.  The fashionable French, the mighty Germans, the pious Russians, the romantic Italians, the hardy Americans, the fierce Norse, the indomitable English, everyone, everyone is dying.  We are all dying together.  We are all sitting here, watching, with a shocked despair, as we lose country after country, forever.  No one can't feel this pain.  Maybe they ignore it as they go about their daily lives, maybe they shunt it aside, but no one can avoid mourning the death of the country they were born and raised in.  The country they loved, and the country that loved them.  "I can't bear to witness," means "Death would be a release from this kind of pain.  This kind of pain is out of this world, it is a pain that should never touch the living, it is a pain beyond life's capacity."  This is pain comparable to the terror, bloodshed, and loss that comes from violent genocide.  If you aren't convinced, just put the song on repeat and listen until you 'get it.'  A slow, steady dwindling into nothingness hurts too.  No matter how peacefully, no matter how quietly, people will be mourning it in their hearts.  They will wish they had been born some other time, some more pristine age, when they never could have imagined something so horrible.  They will wish they had never been born.  And upon that wishing, prove that they suffered as much as being killed.

Indirectly, whites suffer from causes they can't even trace back to mass immigration, but are due to mass immigration.  One of these is overpopulation.  Another is crime.  A third is high taxes.  A fourth is unemployment.  A fifth is alienation (read Bowling Alone, scientific study by Putnam.)  Every time someone is unhappy due to these circumstances, he is unhappy due to the elite's decision to genocide us.  That pain is counted when weighed against the pain of outright killing us physically.

So let's put the parts together.  Why genocide?  Because mass immigration results in zero physical survivors of the native group, because slowly losing your race's population from a majority living in its own bioculture to a last survivor on Earth is just as painful as being swiftly murdered, and because this is being done by an alien elite against the objecting, non-consenting white population.  Due to these three factors, we have everything we need to qualify present-day events as white genocide.