Common Myths

Claim: Over time, humanity will homogenize into one race of mixed-race individuals due to globalization and intermixing.

Rebuttal:

Blending into one race assumes uniform mixing across all populations, which is unlikely due to societal, cultural, and geographical barriers.
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

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.

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.

Claim: Differences in IQ between groups are solely the result of environmental factors, dismissing any genetic contribution.

 Relevant Studies

• Rushton2005  

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. 

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.

Claim: Advocacy for Whites is rooted in hatred toward other races.  

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.  

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.

Claim: Whites demand that everyone assimilate into whiteness.  

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.  

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.

Claim: Intermixing happens voluntarily, not by force.  

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.  

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.

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.

Claim: America is uniquely a “nation of immigrants,” so mass migration today is natural.  

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.  

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.

Claim: Talking about race is what creates division.  

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.  

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.

Claim: Political conflict comes from identity politics, not immigration.  

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.  

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.

Claim: Restricting “hate speech” protects 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.  

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.

Claim: Genocide is exaggerated because a single non-White doesn’t constitute a threat.  

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.  

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.

Claim: Genocide only applies to physical mass killings.  

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.  

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.

Claim: Whites can still live separately if they choose.  

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.  

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.

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.

Claim: Whites are genetically damaged due to inbreeding.  

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.

Claim: Intermarriage is only about free choice and love.  

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.  

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.

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.

Claim: Whites in America should return to Europe.  

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.  

Claim: America’s founding documents establish universal equality.  

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.

Claim: Shared values, not shared ancestry, define civilization.  

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.

Claim: Whites are not disappearing, so genocide claims are exaggerated.  

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.

Claim: Discussing White survival inevitably leads to another Holocaust.  

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.