Skip to Content

Register
Log-in
Search
- The Free Speech / Pro White Wiki
- Page Index
- User Index
- Global
- What's New
- Wiki Index

0.0
1
2
3
4
5

0 Votes

Changes for page Common Arguments

Last modified by Ryan C on 2025/08/18 01:13

From 15.1 to 14.1 From 31.1 to 30.1

From version

edited by Ryan C
on 2025/08/18 00:20

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version

edited by Ryan C
on 2025/04/24 05:26

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
--{{success}}
--These drop down style arguments are done using the expandable macro. Simply edit the page and type /expandable (it will open a selection box)
--{{/success}}
++
  {{expandable summary="We will all become one uniform Mixed Race"}}
++# Myth 1: "We will all blend into one race of mixed-race individuals."
++
  Claim: Over time, humanity will homogenize into one race of mixed-race individuals due to globalization and intermixing.
  Rebuttal:
@@ -11,411 +11,176 @@
  Historical evidence shows that distinct ethnic groups have maintained separate identities for millennia despite some intermixing.
  High birth rates among certain populations mean some ethnic groups will likely persist as dominant demographics in specific regions.
  Explanation: The idea that humanity will blend into one homogenous race oversimplifies the reality of demographic trends. Different populations have maintained their distinct identities for centuries, even under conditions of migration and intermixing. For example, despite centuries of migration into Europe, distinct ethnicities like the Basques or Sami people still exist. Additionally, demographic trends show that fertility rates vary significantly across groups, meaning some populations grow faster than others. For instance, many African and Middle Eastern countries have much higher birth rates than Europe or East Asia, making a global "blending" implausible. Societies naturally form cultural and ethnic distinctions, even when migration occurs
--
--[[See also: White Genocide for statistics on this>>doc:Main Categories.Race.White Genocide.WebHome]]
  {{/expandable}}
--{{expandable summary="There is no discrimination against White people"}}
--**Claim:** DEI is necessary to address historical inequities and does not disadvantage white men.
--**Rebuttal:**
++----
--* DEI initiatives often include hiring quotas or preferences that explicitly exclude white men, creating new forms of systemic bias.
--* Surveys and anecdotal evidence show that many companies deprioritize white male candidates to meet diversity metrics.
--* Addressing historical inequities doesn’t justify creating new disparities, particularly when these policies fail to account for merit.
++{{expandable summary="Race doesn't exist"}}
++**Claim**: "White as a racial classification doesn't exist"
--**Explanation:** This defense of DEI initiatives ignores the tangible harm they cause to individuals. I point to real-world examples where DEI policies lead to explicit discrimination. Companies like Coca-Cola have implemented training programs encouraging employees to "be less white," and countless hiring managers admit they deprioritize white male candidates to meet diversity quotas. These policies often overlook merit and qualifications, instead prioritizing characteristics like race or gender. While addressing historical inequities seems a noble goal, creating new inequalities that disadvantage people today doesn’t solve past injustices—it only shifts the harm to a new group.
--{{/expandable}}
++**Rebuttal**: White is just short for of European Descent, it doesnt mean skin color
--{{expandable summary="IQ disparities across groups are entirely due to environment"}}
--**Claim:** Differences in IQ between groups are solely the result of environmental factors, dismissing any genetic contribution.
--
  ## Relevant Studies##
--* [[Rushton2005>>attach:Main Categories.Science & Research.Research at a Glance.Studies\: IQ.WebHome@rushton2005 OCR.pdf]]
++* [[Self Identification of race is over 99% effective|attach:GeneticStructureSelfIdentifiedRaceEthnicityAndConfoundingInCase-ControlAssociationStudies.pdf]] [Study](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1196372/)
--**Rebuttal:**
--
--* While environmental factors (e.g., nutrition, education) influence IQ, genetic factors also play a significant role in group differences.
--* The Flynn Effect demonstrates rising IQs over time due to environmental improvements, but it does not negate underlying genetic differences.
--* Studies consistently show both genetic and environmental contributions to IQ, and ignoring one oversimplifies the issue.
--
--**Explanation:** While environmental factors such as better nutrition and education do affect IQ, they don’t fully explain group differences. For instance, the Flynn Effect shows that average IQs have risen globally due to environmental improvements, but group differences remain consistent. Genetics play a significant role alongside the environment. Studies on twins, for example, demonstrate that IQ is highly heritable. Ignoring this fact in favor of a purely environmental explanation is intellectually dishonest. It’s not about dismissing environmental factors but about acknowledging the complex interplay of genetics and environment in shaping intelligence.
--
--
--{{/expandable}}
--
--{{expandable summary="Culture is what matters not race"}}
--**Claim**: Shared ancestry among Europeans is irrelevant to their cultural unity.
--
--**Rebuttal**:
--
--* Shared ancestry provides a foundation for common values, language development, and traditions.
--* Historical cooperation among European groups shows the importance of shared ancestry in forming alliances and cultural bonds.
--* Genetic studies reveal that Europeans share significant ancestry, reinforcing their cultural cohesion.
--
  **Explanation**:
--Shared ancestry isn’t just a biological fact but a cultural cornerstone. For instance, European nations have historically formed alliances based on shared ethnic and cultural identities. Language families like the Indo-European group stem from this common ancestry, creating linguistic and cultural links across nations. Ignoring this connection overlooks a key factor in how civilizations form cohesive identities over time. Shared ancestry provides the framework upon which shared values and traditions are built, making it integral to cultural unity.
--{{/expandable}}
++Who is white?
--{{expandable summary="You just hate people who don't look like you."}}
--**Claim:** Advocacy for Whites is rooted in hatred toward other races.
++What constitutes a White person?
--**Rebuttal:**
--* If hatred were the goal, it would involve destroying other races, not defending one’s own.
--* It is White people being targeted with demographic flooding, not others.
--* Preservation of one’s group is not equivalent to hate for others.
++"White" is synonymous with indigenous European. Race is not nationality. Race is genetic.
--**Explanation:**
--Saying “you just hate people who don’t look like you” is a strawman. White advocates are not asking for the destruction of others, but for the right of their own group to survive. True hatred would look like conquest or erasure of others. The reality is that anti-White policies are creating conditions that erase Whites, and pointing that out is survival, not hate.
--{{/expandable}}
++Arabs are not White. Persians are not White. Turkic are not White. Jews are not White. Huns/Mongolians are not White. Berbers are not White (but possible were before the invasion of the Arabs). Because these are the closest groups to us genetically, it is possible to be White and have a minority of these genetics. But race mixing is discouraged due to the harmful effects on the offspring and society.
--{{expandable summary="We don’t demand that the whole world be white."}}
--**Claim:** Whites demand that everyone assimilate into whiteness.
++We use "White" because it is common usage. Indigenous European is a much better term, which you should adopt.
--**Rebuttal:**
--* Whites are not demanding the elimination of other peoples.
--* It is anti-Whites who demand that every White nation becomes non-White.
--* The double standard exposes who is really forcing assimilation.
++But aren’t there no clear biological boundaries between races or ethnicities?
--**Explanation:**
--White advocacy is about preservation, not conquest. Anti-Whites constantly invert the accusation, pretending that Whites want the whole world to be White, when in reality Whites only ask for the right to maintain their own homelands and identity. The demand for a non-White world is entirely one-sided.
--{{/expandable}}
++This is known as the continuum fallacy.
--{{expandable summary="No one's forcing assimilation."}}
--**Claim:** Intermixing happens voluntarily, not by force.
++Like many others things in nature, there are no exact boundaries to this concept. Visit a sandy beach, and tell us where the ocean ends and land begins. View a photo of the Andromeda Galaxy, and point to where the galaxy ends, and intergalactic space begins. Where does the color red begin and when does it change to orange? All such boundaries must be arbitrary at some point.
--**Rebuttal:**
--* White communities are denied the freedom to remain White-only.
--* Legal, cultural, and economic pressure enforces forced integration.
--* UN law defines genocide as including coerced conditions of destruction.
++You devolve into utter nihilism if you try to argue we should not have taxonomy because of this arbitrariness. The human mind works, at a core level, with groupings. Being against categorization based on arbitrariness or social constructionism is to say you think we should not have almost any groupings, including rock formations. There would be few exceptions. Perhaps prime numbers.
--**Explanation:**
--The argument that “no one’s forcing” ignores the reality: every White nation is pressured through laws, policies, and propaganda to accept mass immigration and assimilation. Under UN Resolution 260, deliberately creating conditions that erase a people is genocide, regardless of whether it involves direct violence.
--{{/expandable}}
++Calling someone "white" or "black" is figurative language. Arguing that people aren't actually "white" like paper is like arguing that people cannot really have "smooth" skin, or could not possible have a "heart of gold," as gold is a metal and can't pump blood.
--{{expandable summary="Have more babies."}}
--**Claim:** Whites can solve the problem of replacement by reproducing more.
--
--**Rebuttal:**
--* Telling one group to “breed or die” while enforcing policies that erase them is genocidal.
--* Declining fertility does not justify importing tens of millions of non-Whites.
--* The argument itself admits that genocidal conditions are in place.
--
--**Explanation:**
--Birth rates fluctuate throughout history, but no other people is told their fertility justifies their eradication. Whites are uniquely targeted with policies that replace them under the excuse of “low birth rates.” This reveals genocidal intent.
++If you look white and identify as white, you are white. If you possess so much non white admixture as to feel the need to mention it, you probably aren't white. And if you tell us you aren't white we will believe you. People who self identify as any racial group have been shown to belong to that racial group over 99% of the time.
  {{/expandable}}
--{{expandable summary="America is a nation of immigrants."}}
--**Claim:** America is uniquely a “nation of immigrants,” so mass migration today is natural.
++# Myth 2: "You cant determine who is White because people can be mixed, who really is White??"
--**Rebuttal:**
--* Every nation has ancestors who came from elsewhere. That does not erase national identity.
--* Immigration is not unique to America and does not justify replacement of the founding stock.
--* The phrase is used selectively to push anti-White policies.
++**Claim**: "White as a racial classification doesn't exist"
--**Explanation:**
--Saying America is a “nation of immigrants” is rhetorical sleight of hand. It ignores that every people originated somewhere. What matters is who founded and built the country. Immigration today is not the same as nation-building, and it does not justify White genocide.
--{{/expandable}}
++**Rebuttal**: White is just short for of European Descent, it doesnt mean skin color
--{{expandable summary="Stop trying to divide us."}}
--**Claim:** Talking about race is what creates division.
++## Relevant Studies##
--**Rebuttal:**
--* Multiracial societies are inherently divided along racial lines.
--* Those who flood White countries with mass immigration are responsible for division.
--* The more diversity, the more racial politics dominates.
++* [[Self Identification of race is over 99% effective|attach:GeneticStructureSelfIdentifiedRaceEthnicityAndConfoundingInCase-ControlAssociationStudies.pdf]] [Study](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1196372/)
--**Explanation:**
--Blaming Whites for “division” reverses cause and effect. Division arises because diversity is imposed on Whites against their will. Every multiracial society demonstrates that racial conflict is inevitable when groups with competing interests are forced together.
--{{/expandable}}
++**Explanation**:
--{{expandable summary="Identity politics is the problem."}}
--**Claim:** Political conflict comes from identity politics, not immigration.
++Who is white?
--**Rebuttal:**
--* All politics in multiracial countries becomes identity politics.
--* Non-Whites are loyal to their groups; only Whites are told not to be.
--* Diversity is what drives identity politics.
++What constitutes a White person?
--**Explanation:**
--It is dishonest to blame identity politics itself, while ignoring the cause: forced diversity. When you mix peoples with different interests, politics becomes tribal. Whites are singled out as the only group forbidden to defend themselves while everyone else is encouraged to practice group loyalty.
--{{/expandable}}
++"White" is synonymous with indigenous European. Race is not nationality. Race is genetic.
--{{expandable summary="Hate speech is not free speech."}}
--**Claim:** Restricting “hate speech” protects society.
++Arabs are not White. Persians are not White. Turkic are not White. Jews are not White. Huns/Mongolians are not White. Berbers are not White (but possible were before the invasion of the Arabs). Because these are the closest groups to us genetically, it is possible to be White and have a minority of these genetics. But race mixing is discouraged due to the harmful effects on the offspring and society.
--**Rebuttal:**
--* Every tyranny justifies censorship by labeling dissent as dangerous.
--* The current anti-White system censors truth under the guise of “hate.”
--* Free speech protections were meant for unpopular opinions, not state-approved ones.
++We use "White" because it is common usage. Indigenous European is a much better term, which you should adopt.
--**Explanation:**
--Calling speech “hate” is a tool of repression. It is not about safety, but about silencing opposition to anti-White policies. Censorship is always framed as moral, but its effect is to protect the reigning power and punish dissent.
--{{/expandable}}
++But aren’t there no clear biological boundaries between races or ethnicities?
--{{expandable summary="One brown person down the street isn't genocide."}}
--**Claim:** Genocide is exaggerated because a single non-White doesn’t constitute a threat.
++This is known as the continuum fallacy.
--**Rebuttal:**
--* No one argues that one person equals genocide.
--* The issue is mass immigration plus forced assimilation in every White country.
--* Strawman arguments are used to distract from the real claim.
++Like many others things in nature, there are no exact boundaries to this concept. Visit a sandy beach, and tell us where the ocean ends and land begins. View a photo of the Andromeda Galaxy, and point to where the galaxy ends, and intergalactic space begins. Where does the color red begin and when does it change to orange? All such boundaries must be arbitrary at some point.
--**Explanation:**
--Anti-Whites misrepresent the position deliberately. The argument is not about individuals but about demographic replacement through policy. Under international law, coordinated replacement policies meet the definition of genocide. Pretending it’s about “one person” is dishonest deflection.
--{{/expandable}}
++You devolve into utter nihilism if you try to argue we should not have taxonomy because of this arbitrariness. The human mind works, at a core level, with groupings. Being against categorization based on arbitrariness or social constructionism is to say you think we should not have almost any groupings, including rock formations. There would be few exceptions. Perhaps prime numbers.
--{{expandable summary="Genocide means killing. Whites aren't being killed."}}
--**Claim:** Genocide only applies to physical mass killings.
++Calling someone "white" or "black" is figurative language. Arguing that people aren't actually "white" like paper is like arguing that people cannot really have "smooth" skin, or could not possible have a "heart of gold," as gold is a metal and can't pump blood.
--**Rebuttal:**
--* UN law defines genocide to include deliberate conditions of destruction, not just killing.
--* Forced assimilation and mass immigration fall under this definition.
--* Historical precedent (Raphael Lemkin’s definition) explicitly included non-lethal methods.
++If you look white and identify as white, you are white. If you possess so much non white admixture as to feel the need to mention it, you probably aren't white. And if you tell us you aren't white we will believe you. People who self identify as any racial group have been shown to belong to that racial group over 99% of the time.
--**Explanation:**
--Genocide is not limited to killing. UN Resolution 260 and Lemkin’s own words include sterilization, displacement, and policies designed to erase a group’s identity and existence. Anti-White policies meet this definition precisely.
--{{/expandable}}
++----
--{{expandable summary="No one's chasing you down."}}
--**Claim:** Whites can still live separately if they choose.
++# Myth 3: "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives don’t harm white men."
--**Rebuttal:**
--* Any attempt by Whites to form their own communities is targeted and dismantled.
--* Segregation laws and “anti-discrimination” policies prevent White-only spaces.
--* Whites uniquely are not allowed to escape enforced diversity.
++**Claim:** DEI is necessary to address historical inequities and does not disadvantage white men.
--**Explanation:**
--While other groups can live together, any White attempt to do the same is criminalized or attacked. From zoning restrictions to lawsuits, the message is clear: no escape from “diversity.” That is coercion.
--{{/expandable}}
--
--{{expandable summary="We all came from a common ancestor."}}
--**Claim:** Since all humans share a common ancestor, race is irrelevant.
--
  **Rebuttal:**
--* Shared origins do not justify present-day eradication.
--* By this logic, any genocide could be excused by tracing ancestry back far enough.
--* Distinctions between groups are real and present, regardless of ultimate origin.
--**Explanation:**
--Appealing to a “common ancestor” is not an argument against genocide. Every living creature has a distant common origin, but that does not negate the rights of distinct groups to exist today. Using this argument selectively against Whites is dishonest.
--{{/expandable}}
++* DEI initiatives often include hiring quotas or preferences that explicitly exclude white men, creating new forms of systemic bias.
++* Surveys and anecdotal evidence show that many companies deprioritize white male candidates to meet diversity metrics.
++* Addressing historical inequities doesn’t justify creating new disparities, particularly when these policies fail to account for merit.
--{{expandable summary="You're inbred."}}
--**Claim:** Whites are genetically damaged due to inbreeding.
++**Explanation:** This defense of DEI initiatives ignores the tangible harm they cause to individuals. I point to real-world examples where DEI policies lead to explicit discrimination. Companies like Coca-Cola have implemented training programs encouraging employees to "be less white," and countless hiring managers admit they deprioritize white male candidates to meet diversity quotas. These policies often overlook merit and qualifications, instead prioritizing characteristics like race or gender. While addressing historical inequities seems a noble goal, creating new inequalities that disadvantage people today doesn’t solve past injustices—it only shifts the harm to a new group.
--**Rebuttal:**
--* Every subspecies, breed, and race arises from mutations and selective in-group reproduction.
--* Inbreeding accusations are never used as a justification for eliminating other groups.
--* Whites number in the hundreds of millions — the idea they are “inbred” is absurd.
++----
--**Explanation:**
--“Inbred” is a smear, not a scientific argument. All populations display in-group reproduction at some stage. Yet only Whites are told this somehow justifies their elimination. The accusation is propaganda, not biology.
--{{/expandable}}
++# Myth 4: "IQ disparities across groups are purely environmental."
--{{expandable summary="You can't control who people love."}}
--**Claim:** Intermarriage is only about free choice and love.
++**Claim:** Differences in IQ between groups are solely the result of environmental factors, dismissing any genetic contribution.
--**Rebuttal:**
--* Mass immigration plus forced assimilation ensures intermarriage happens under engineered conditions.
--* Love is not an argument for demographic replacement programs.
--* Claiming “love” as justification ignores the coercive context of White erasure.
++## Relevant Studies##
--**Explanation:**
--If an individual cannot find a partner within their own billion-strong population, that is a personal issue, not a justification for policies that eliminate an entire race. To pretend the White genocide program is “just love” is absurd.
--{{/expandable}}
++* [[Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability|attach:Main.Studies.Rushton-Jensen30years\.pdf@Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf]]
++[[Study PDF|attach:Main.Studies.Rushton-Jensen30years\.pdf@Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf]]
--{{expandable summary="I can't be anti-White. I'm White."}}
--**Claim:** Whites cannot be anti-White.
--
  **Rebuttal:**
--* Betrayal is possible within any group — traitors have existed in every nation.
--* Being White does not exempt one from enacting anti-White policies.
--* Many Whites are incentivized to oppose their own group through social and financial pressure.
--**Explanation:**
--Claiming identity shields one from betrayal is nonsensical. A White person who works to dismantle White survival is still anti-White. By definition, that is treachery.
--{{/expandable}}
++* While environmental factors (e.g., nutrition, education) influence IQ, genetic factors also play a significant role in group differences.
++* The Flynn Effect demonstrates rising IQs over time due to environmental improvements, but it does not negate underlying genetic differences.
++* Studies consistently show both genetic and environmental contributions to IQ, and ignoring one oversimplifies the issue.
--{{expandable summary="Go back to Europe."}}
--**Claim:** Whites in America should return to Europe.
++**Explanation:** While environmental factors such as better nutrition and education do affect IQ, they don’t fully explain group differences. For instance, the Flynn Effect shows that average IQs have risen globally due to environmental improvements, but group differences remain consistent. Genetics play a significant role alongside the environment. Studies on twins, for example, demonstrate that IQ is highly heritable. Ignoring this fact in favor of a purely environmental explanation is intellectually dishonest. It’s not about dismissing environmental factors but about acknowledging the complex interplay of genetics and environment in shaping intelligence.- Study
--**Rebuttal:**
--* Europe is also being flooded with non-Whites.
--* Every nation was founded by conquest — if Whites must “go back,” then all other groups must as well.
--* Telling Whites to leave their own creation is hypocrisy.
++----
--**Explanation:**
--If hating Japanese doesn’t mean leaving Japan, and hating Blacks doesn’t mean leaving Africa, then hating Whites doesn’t mean they must leave America. Whites built these nations; they have as much right to remain as anyone.
--{{/expandable}}
++# Myth 5: "We’re all equally 'centered' on the map."
--{{expandable summary="America was founded on the proposition that all men are created equal."}}
--**Claim:** America’s founding documents establish universal equality.
++**Claim:** Maps are arbitrary, with no true center, and that concepts like "the West" are socially constructed.
  **Rebuttal:**
--* The Declaration of Independence was wartime propaganda aimed at Europe.
--* The U.S. Constitution — the actual founding law — makes no mention of equality.
--* The stated purpose of America is securing liberty for “ourselves and our posterity.”
--**Explanation:**
--America’s real foundation is not abstract equality but the preservation of its people. The Constitution’s preamble is explicit about posterity. Claiming universal equality as the founding purpose is revisionism.
--{{/expandable}}
++* Maps are tools reflecting cultural and historical perspectives. While arbitrary in design, they reflect real-world geopolitical and historical contexts.
++* Western civilization, as a concept, emerged from shared historical, cultural, and geographic ties among European nations, not purely from arbitrary map placement.
++* The idea of a "center" in geography often reflects dominance in culture or power rather than physical location.
--{{expandable summary="It's our values that matter."}}
--**Claim:** Shared values, not shared ancestry, define civilization.
++**Explanation:** While maps are technically arbitrary in their design, they reflect historical realities. I pointed out that the concept of "the West" isn’t about physical geography but shared cultural, historical, and ethnic ties among European nations. For instance, Europe appears at the center of many maps because European empires dominated global politics and trade for centuries. The geographic "center" reflects historical dominance, not an inherent truth. This is why maps vary based on cultural perspective—what’s arbitrary in design is grounded in historical reality.
--**Rebuttal:**
--* Values arise from the genetic and cultural foundations of a people.
--* Remove the people, and the values eventually collapse.
--* No people can outsource their civilization without destroying it.
++----
--**Explanation:**
--Civilization is a racial construct. White values come from the White gene pool. If White people vanish, so do their values. Pretending values float independently of people is naïve.
--{{/expandable}}
++# Myth 6: "Multicultural empires are models for modern society."
--{{expandable summary="It's 2018! The White population is growing so there can't be a White genocide."}}
--**Claim:** Whites are not disappearing, so genocide claims are exaggerated.
++**Claim:** Antiwhites point to historical empires (e.g., Ottoman Empire, Roman Empire, and even to the UAE and America today.) as examples of successful multiculturalism.
  **Rebuttal:**
--* Anti-Whites admit they push immigration because Whites “aren’t having enough children.”
--* Genocide is defined by the attempt, not just the final outcome.
--* Attempted genocide is still genocide under UN law.
--**Explanation:**
--Whites may not yet be fully eliminated, but the policies are in place and openly defended. Attempted genocide is still a crime, and demographic replacement shows clear intent.
--{{/expandable}}
++* Multicultural empires often succeeded by enforcing strict hierarchies and suppressing dissent, rather than promoting equality.
++* The Ottoman Empire relied on systems like the millet system to segregate communities, not integrate them.
++* The Roman Empire assimilated conquered peoples but maintained a dominant Roman identity, often through force and structural inequality.
--{{expandable summary="We know what your kind of talk led to in the 30's."}}
--**Claim:** Discussing White survival inevitably leads to another Holocaust.
++**Explanation:** The examples of multicultural empires like the Ottomans and Romans fail to support Aurenvale’s argument. These empires maintain stability through control and segregation rather than true integration. The Ottomans used the millet system to segregate religious groups and maintain hierarchy, while the Romans forcibly assimilated conquered peoples under the dominance of Roman identity. The UAE has a very strict system of governance that you can't partake in if you are a foreigner even. So while the UAE is one of the only examples of "successful" multiculturalism, it retains complete control over its nation by rigid ethnic separation of its people from the foreign people that make up the majority of the population. As for America, it can attribute its success to the homogeneity it maintained from its founding until the [hart celler act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965) These models don’t reflect modern ideals of equality—they relied on structural inequality to sustain their rule. Modern societies aiming for coexistence need entirely different approaches than those used by historical empires.
--**Rebuttal:**
--* No historical event justifies genocide against Whites today.
--* If past atrocities justified elimination, then Turks, Japanese, and countless others would also be targeted.
--* The argument is selective and hypocritical.
++----
--**Explanation:**
--Past crimes of some groups are never used to justify their eradication. Only Whites are told their history means they must die. That double standard exposes the anti-White agenda.
--{{/expandable}}
++# Myth 7: "Arab nations are part of Western civilization."
--{{expandable summary="I'm not anti-White. I'm pro-humanity."}}
--**Claim:** Advocating for humanity as a whole cannot be anti-White.
++**Claim**: Arab nations could be considered part of Western civilization because of shared practices like Christianity and trade.
--**Rebuttal:**
--* “Humanity” is an abstraction; real loyalty is to concrete groups.
--* Supporting policies that eliminate Whites while claiming to be “pro-humanity” is hypocrisy.
--* Other groups are never told loyalty to their own people is anti-human.
++**Rebuttal**:
--**Explanation:**
--Claiming to be “pro-humanity” while supporting White genocide is contradictory. Humanity is not loyal to you; groups are loyal to their kin. Denying Whites the same loyalty every other people practices is anti-White by definition.
--{{/expandable}}
++* Western civilization is defined by specific historical and cultural developments in Europe, not by shared religious practices alone.
++* While some Arab nations were historically Christian, they do not share the philosophical, legal, and cultural traditions that define the West.
++* Trade relations with the West don’t equate to cultural integration.
--{{expandable summary="It's a demographic shift."}}
--**Claim:** White replacement is just a natural demographic change.
++**Explanation**: Arab nations, while historically engaged with the West through trade and religion, do not form part of Western civilization. Western civilization is rooted in European history—the Enlightenment, Greco-Roman heritage, and unique cultural and legal systems. Even during periods of Christian dominance in certain Arab regions, their cultural and societal structures remained distinct from the West. Christianity alone doesn’t define Western identity, and trade interactions were just that—transactions, not cultural amalgamations.
--**Rebuttal:**
--* Deliberate government policy is driving this shift, not random chance.
--* Calling genocide a “shift” is a rhetorical trick to normalize it.
--* No one describes other genocides as mere “demographics.”
++# Myth 8: "Christianity is the sole unifier of Western civilization."
--**Explanation:**
--Labeling White genocide as “demographic change” hides intent. Forced immigration and assimilation are policies, not accidents. Euphemisms cannot erase the fact that deliberate engineering of population destruction is genocide.
--{{/expandable}}
++**Claim:** Christianity culturally united the West against the "non-West" and formed the foundation of Western identity.
--{{expandable summary="They just need to assimilate."}}
--**Claim:** Non-Whites can simply assimilate into White societies.
--
  **Rebuttal:**
--* Assimilation is often code for intermarriage, which eliminates Whites genetically.
--* “Acting White” is not the same as being White.
--* Large numbers of non-Whites inevitably bring their own group identities and behaviors.
--**Explanation:**
--The idea of assimilation is flawed. Cultural mimicry does not change biological identity, and mass assimilation into Whites means no Whites remain. This is erasure disguised as tolerance.
--{{/expandable}}
++* Christianity is one of many factors that shaped Western civilization, but it is not the sole unifier. Shared ancestry, cultural values, and historical cooperation among European groups also played a role.
++* Christianity itself originated in the Middle East and is practiced globally, including by non-Western cultures (e.g., Arab Christians).
++* Other elements of Western civilization, such as the Enlightenment, Greco-Roman heritage, and scientific development, are independent of Christianity.
--{{expandable summary="The brown future is inevitable."}}
--**Claim:** White replacement is unavoidable, so resistance is pointless.
++**Explanation:** While Christianity undeniably influenced Western civilization, it’s not the only or even primary unifying factor. I pointed out that shared ancestry among Europeans (e.g., Lithuanians and Spaniards) creates a deeper sense of unity than religion alone. Christianity, as a Middle Eastern-origin religion, is also practiced by Arabs, Ethiopians, and other non-European peoples, which contradicts the notion of it being unique to the West. Furthermore, Western civilization is just as deeply rooted in the secular achievements of the Enlightenment, Greek philosophy, and Roman governance, none of which rely on Christianity. Reducing Western unity to Christianity alone ignores these crucial cultural and historical pillars.
--**Rebuttal:**
--* Declaring inevitability is a psychological tactic to demoralize resistance.
--* History is full of “inevitable” predictions proven wrong (Communism, EU integration, etc.).
--* The claim admits openly that replacement is intentional.
++# Myth 9: "Common ancestry doesn’t matter for cultural unity."
--**Explanation:**
--Telling Whites their elimination is “inevitable” is both an admission and a propaganda tactic. Nothing in history is inevitable when people resist. Predictions of inevitability are political weapons, not truths.
--{{/expandable}}
++**Claim**: Shared ancestry among Europeans is irrelevant to their cultural unity.
--{{expandable summary="Diversity is our strength."}}
--**Claim:** Diversity inherently strengthens societies.
++**Rebuttal**:
--**Rebuttal:**
--* Diversity is only forced on White nations, never others.
--* Homogeneity produces the highest trust and cooperation levels.
--* Every example of diversity leads to fragmentation and conflict.
++* Shared ancestry provides a foundation for common values, language development, and traditions.
++* Historical cooperation among European groups shows the importance of shared ancestry in forming alliances and cultural bonds.
++* Genetic studies reveal that Europeans share significant ancestry, reinforcing their cultural cohesion.
--**Explanation:**
--The slogan “diversity is our strength” is propaganda. No evidence supports it; in fact, the opposite is true. High-trust societies are homogeneous, while diverse societies fracture. Diversity weakens unity, it does not strengthen it.
--{{/expandable}}
++**Explanation**:
--{{expandable summary="Race is a social construct."}}
--**Claim:** Race does not exist biologically, only socially.
--
--**Rebuttal:**
--* Genetics show clear, measurable differences between groups.
--* If race did not exist, accusations against Whites for slavery or colonialism would be meaningless.
--* Anti-Whites contradict themselves by saying race is fake but Whites are uniquely guilty.
--
--**Explanation:**
--Race denial is a contradiction. Biological differences are real and documented. The claim “race doesn’t exist” is selectively used to erase Whites, while still blaming them collectively for history. That hypocrisy exposes its true purpose.
--{{/expandable}}
--
--{{expandable summary="We all came from Africa."}}
--**Claim:** Common African origins make racial distinctions meaningless.
--
--**Rebuttal:**
--* Shared distant origins do not erase present distinctions.
--* This logic could excuse any genocide by saying “we’re all from the same place.”
--* Differences that matter now remain, regardless of ancient history.
--
--**Explanation:**
--Appealing to origins in Africa is another rhetorical trick. If all groups come from Africa, why is this only used against Whites? Distinctions exist today and define real peoples. Past migrations don’t erase present identities.
--{{/expandable}}
--
--{{expandable summary="Immigration is good for the economy."}}
--**Claim:** Immigration benefits the economy, so it must be positive.
--
--**Rebuttal:**
--* Economic benefit does not justify genocide.
--* If immigration were so beneficial, non-White countries would be wealthy.
--* Long-term costs (crime, welfare, division) outweigh temporary gains.
--
--**Explanation:**
--Reducing survival to economics is immoral. A people’s existence cannot be measured in GDP points. Even if immigration boosted some metrics, it would not justify policies that destroy a people.
--{{/expandable}}
--
--{{expandable summary="You're just a Nazi fascist racist bigot supremacist."}}
--**Claim:** Anyone defending Whites is simply hateful and extremist.
--
--**Rebuttal:**
--* These are slurs used to silence dissent.
--* None of these labels address the actual argument.
--* Name-calling replaces debate when anti-Whites have no evidence.
--
--**Explanation:**
--Slurs like “racist” and “Nazi” are used to shut down discussion, not to refute facts. They are emotional weapons of censorship. Their overuse shows weakness, not strength, in the anti-White position.
--{{/expandable}}
--
--{{expandable summary="You invaded America and Australia, now you complain about invasion?"}}
--**Claim:** Whites cannot oppose immigration because they colonized in the past.
--
--**Rebuttal:**
--* Every race has conquered land — not just Whites.
--* Past conquest does not justify genocide today.
--* By this logic, every people should be destroyed, which is absurd.
--
--**Explanation:**
--“Whites invaded” is not a valid justification for erasing Whites now. All races have expanded and conquered. Only Whites are uniquely told their past delegitimizes their present. This exposes the argument as anti-White propaganda, not principle.
--{{/expandable}}
--
++Shared ancestry isn’t just a biological fact but a cultural cornerstone. For instance, European nations have historically formed alliances based on shared ethnic and cultural identities. Language families like the Indo-European group stem from this common ancestry, creating linguistic and cultural links across nations. Ignoring this connection overlooks a key factor in how civilizations form cohesive identities over time. Shared ancestry provides the framework upon which shared values and traditions are built, making it integral to cultural unity.