Skip to Content
0 Votes

Changes for page Common Arguments

Last modified by Ryan C on 2025/08/18 01:13
From version 35.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/08/18 01:13
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 31.7
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/08/18 00:58
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -Common Arguments
1 +Common Myths
Content
... ... @@ -3,14 +3,13 @@
3 3  {{/success}}
4 4  
5 5  {{expandable summary="We will all become one uniform Mixed Race"}}
6 -**Claim: **Over time, humanity will homogenize into one race of mixed-race individuals due to globalization and intermixing.
6 +Claim: Over time, humanity will homogenize into one race of mixed-race individuals due to globalization and intermixing.
7 7  
8 -**Rebuttal:**
8 +Rebuttal:
9 9  
10 -* Blending into one race assumes uniform mixing across all populations, which is unlikely due to societal, cultural, and geographical barriers.
11 -* Historical evidence shows that distinct ethnic groups have maintained separate identities for millennia despite some intermixing.
12 -* High birth rates among certain populations mean some ethnic groups will likely persist as dominant demographics in specific regions.
13 -
10 +Blending into one race assumes uniform mixing across all populations, which is unlikely due to societal, cultural, and geographical barriers.
11 +Historical evidence shows that distinct ethnic groups have maintained separate identities for millennia despite some intermixing.
12 +High birth rates among certain populations mean some ethnic groups will likely persist as dominant demographics in specific regions.
14 14  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
15 15  
16 16  [[See also: White Genocide for statistics on this>>doc:Main Categories.Race.White Genocide.WebHome]]
... ... @@ -70,9 +70,22 @@
70 70  * Preservation of one’s group is not equivalent to hate for others. 
71 71  
72 72  **Explanation:**
73 -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. We don’t demand that the whole world be white. 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.
72 +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.
74 74  {{/expandable}}
75 75  
75 +{{expandable summary="We don’t demand that the whole world be white."}}
76 +**Claim:** Whites demand that everyone assimilate into whiteness. 
77 +
78 +**Rebuttal:**
79 +
80 +* Whites are not demanding the elimination of other peoples. 
81 +* It is anti-Whites who demand that every White nation becomes non-White. 
82 +* The double standard exposes who is really forcing assimilation. 
83 +
84 +**Explanation:**
85 +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.
86 +{{/expandable}}
87 +
76 76  {{expandable summary="No one's forcing assimilation."}}
77 77  **Claim:** Intermixing happens voluntarily, not by force. 
78 78  
... ... @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@
96 96  * The argument itself admits that genocidal conditions are in place. 
97 97  
98 98  **Explanation:**
99 -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.” If whites are forced into a breeding contest in their own homelands to survive you’re admitting that genocidal policies are in place. White birth rates don’t justify genocidal policies aimed at getting rid of one race, the white race.
111 +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.
100 100  {{/expandable}}
101 101  
102 102  {{expandable summary="America is a nation of immigrants."}}
... ... @@ -174,10 +174,7 @@
174 174  * Historical precedent (Raphael Lemkin’s definition) explicitly included non-lethal methods. 
175 175  
176 176  **Explanation:**
177 -
178 -Under international law, genocide is any attempt to eliminate a group by any means. Killing is not necessary. Mass sterilization and force blending are two methods of genocide which do not involve killing. Mass non-white immigration plus forced assimilation in ALL white countries undoubtedly meets the definition of genocide under UN Resolution 260 Article II(c) “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
179 -
180 -Raphael Lemkin, the man who invented the term “genocide” stated: “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.” //Axis Rule in Occupied Europe//
189 +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.
181 181  {{/expandable}}
182 182  
183 183  {{expandable summary="No one's chasing you down."}}
... ... @@ -466,12 +466,11 @@
466 466  {{expandable summary="We can't alienate potential non-white voters."}}
467 467  **Claim**: We must avoid alienating potential non-white voters.
468 468  **Rebuttal:**
478 +Appeasing non-white voters cannot come at the expense of White survival.
479 +Political strategies do not justify policies that enable or excuse White demographic replacement.
469 469  
470 -* Appeasing non-white voters cannot come at the expense of White survival.
471 -* Political strategies do not justify policies that enable or excuse White demographic replacement.
472 -* A policy that alienates Whites in their own countries is inherently illegitimate, regardless of electoral calculus.
473 -
474 -**Explanation:** Framing White survival as secondary to vote-getting assumes that demographics are expendable for politics. Survival is not negotiable; “votes” cannot justify population displacement or replacement.
481 +A policy that alienates Whites in their own countries is inherently illegitimate, regardless of electoral calculus.
482 +Explanation: Framing White survival as secondary to vote-getting assumes that demographics are expendable for politics. Survival is not negotiable; “votes” cannot justify population displacement or replacement.
475 475  {{/expandable}}
476 476  
477 477  {{expandable summary="Whites stole America."}}
... ... @@ -491,10 +491,9 @@
491 491  
492 492  * If land ownership is illegitimate, then no one can accuse Whites of stealing.
493 493  * If land can be stolen, then borders and ownership clearly exist, making conquest legitimate.
494 -* Anti-White rhetoric contradicts itself depending on which argument is convenient.
495 495  
496 -**Explanation:**
497 -This reveals the agenda: delegitimizing White presence regardless of logic. It is not a principled stance, but a targeted attack.
503 +Anti-White rhetoric contradicts itself depending on which argument is convenient.
504 +Explanation: This reveals the agenda: delegitimizing White presence regardless of logic. It is not a principled stance, but a targeted attack.
498 498  {{/expandable}}
499 499  
500 500  {{expandable summary="Conquest is universal, Whites have equal right."}}
... ... @@ -505,8 +505,7 @@
505 505  * Whites are singled out while non-White conquests (Turks in Constantinople, Bantus in southern Africa) are ignored.
506 506  * If conquest is universal, Whites’ claim is as legitimate as anyone else’s.
507 507  
508 -**Explanation: **
509 -History cannot be selectively weaponized only against Whites.
515 +**Explanation:**History cannot be selectively weaponized only against Whites.
510 510  {{/expandable}}
511 511  
512 512  {{expandable summary="Saying Whites stole America admits it is White."}}
... ... @@ -527,9 +527,9 @@
527 527  
528 528  * If occupation is illegitimate, the moral solution is to vacate stolen land.
529 529  * Those who denounce Whites while living here prove they do not believe their own claim.
530 -* Consistency would demand that anti-White activists leave America entirely.
531 531  
532 532  **Explanation:**
538 +Consistency would demand that anti-White activists leave America entirely.
533 533  Explanation: Hypocrisy shows their aim is not justice but targeting Whites.
534 534  {{/expandable}}
535 535  
... ... @@ -539,10 +539,9 @@
539 539  
540 540  * Welfare statistics do not justify demographic replacement.
541 541  * Whites paying into the system far exceed non-Whites, meaning redistribution favors others.
542 -* Poverty does not make a people disposable.
543 543  
544 -**Explanation:**
545 -Welfare arguments are red herrings; they distract from the core issue of survival.
549 +Poverty does not make a people disposable.
550 +Explanation: Welfare arguments are red herrings; they distract from the core issue of survival.
546 546  {{/expandable}}
547 547  
548 548  {{expandable summary="Whites have no culture."}}
... ... @@ -551,9 +551,9 @@
551 551  
552 552  * Western civilization is one of the richest cultural traditions in history.
553 553  * Claiming a people “doesn’t exist” is a known genocidal tactic.
554 -* Denying identity is a step toward justifying elimination.
555 555  
556 556  **Explanation:**
561 +Denying identity is a step toward justifying elimination.
557 557  Explanation: Delegitimizing culture is psychological warfare. It is proof of genocidal intent.
558 558  {{/expandable}}
559 559  
... ... @@ -563,9 +563,9 @@
563 563  
564 564  * Globalists are dangerous, but they target Whites specifically for elimination.
565 565  * White nations must first secure survival before joining broader struggles.
566 -* Concern trolling about “globalists” is used to divert attention from White genocide
567 567  
568 568  **Explanation:**
573 +Concern trolling about “globalists” is used to divert attention from White genocide.
569 569  Explanation: Global battles cannot be fought if Whites are erased. Survival comes before coalition.
570 570  {{/expandable}}
571 571